Its what the sun paper tells us though isn’t It?

It surprises me the a large part of the electorate fell for some not particularly clever word play to justify what happened.

brown was never elect by the populace, 2 small towns in scotland are the only places to ever vote for Gordon Brown to represent them

a Brown led party was never elected by the populace of the country he governs. Which is my point, he never had to pander to our ridiculous media to get himself elected, he never had to do the dance with the devil and compromise. He has nothing to lose, he could be revolutionary, he can be controversial, he can ignore petty party politics because he never got elected and never will. He could have done some real good but he chose not to. He chose to make minor changes to fiscal policy and erode some liberties we have had for hundreds of years.

My problem with him isnt what he has done, but what he hasnt. We have massive social problems in this country that arent even being addressed at all because people are being distracted by inconsequential arguments over what kind of scarf an Asian lady has on her head.

Gordon Brown wont be remebered as a bad Prime-minister, he wont be remembered at all

No Prime Minister has ever been elected - they are all 'invited to serve' by the reigning monarch.

As for Cameron, anyone who thinks there is nothing much to choose between him and a Labour PM has no understanding of history, and certainly hasn't had the misfortune to come across the arrogance of the public school elite he represents. I can't imagine anyone less in tune with the values of Rugby League supporters.

bit of an over reaction, I doubt this thread would be much different if he had told rhinos fans to go themselves, that he felt it worth mentioning is good for rugby league's profile

and there is nothing wrong with going to a good school!

And what have you learned about reading daily opinion papers ?

Given the way Brown has alienated alot of the population and the general web of lies and spin that Labour have become embroiled in has virtually handed the Tories the best chance in yrs of getting into government.
I know full well what a Tory government was like and have not forgotten the history of their reign but if you think that there's a massive gulf between them in terms of choice the current opinion polls say different and just to add both major parties have a hell of lot do between now and the election to win my vote.

Why don't you lot have a go at running the country? I'm sure you will have it sorted in no time.

Supporters club the new parliament?

I'd prefer the people the country elected doing the job right in the 1st place!!

Always been a Leeds RL supporter always will be.

Cameron can't be a Rhino. He's currently just the official "opposition".

Three losses on the trot in the big one has the Tories representing the Stains. Big on talk, found out on the night when it matters.

It seems pretty clear cut to me.

1979 - 'unelected' Labour PM leading a discredited government and presiding over a knackered economy
1979 - Tories elected to put it right, albeit the treatment was painful

2010 - 'unelected' Labour PM leading a discredited government and presiding over a knackered economy ....

Is there a box on the voting slip where you select the PM? I must have missed it all these years.

Ok, the PM was not the leader who led the ruling party to victory at the election. Not quite as snappy, I grant you.

What is all the unelected crap about? We have a parliamentary system, a party is elected to government not a president.

Lets have a look at Prime Ministers since the war and whether they came to power straight after a GE:

Brown - No
Blair - Yes
Major - No
Thatcher - Yes
Callaghan - No
Wilson - Yes (x2)
Heath - Yes
Douglas-Home - No
MacMillan - No
Eden - No
Churchill - Yes
Attlee - Yes

So - 50% did and 50% didn't.

Interesting stuff. Of course, we were led to believe that Blair would do the full term at the last election. I don't think that Brown will get the mandate that Major did.

I don't think any leader has gone into an election saying they wouldn't serve a full term (vote for me but I might resign in a couple of years).

Everyone will have a different opinion about how Brown has done the job and he is certainly less popular than Major was before the 1992 election. The point I'm making is judge PMs on their performance, not whether they assumed office at the beginning or middle of a Parliament.

You don't think the tories are trying to make this election about personalities do you?

Surely they would want to focus on policies rather than just about David Chameleon vs. Gordun Brun? That would be the sort of strategy Tony Bliar and his spin masters would concoct. The press won't fall for that surely?

Quote ="DHM"You don't think the tories are trying to make this election about personalities do you? Surely they would want to focus on policies rather than just about David Chameleon vs. Gordun Brun? That would be the sort of strategy Tony Bliar and his [uspin masters[/u would concoct. The press won't fall for that surely? '" Talking of spin masters, I think the Leeds marketing dept have their job done for them en.tackfilm.se/?id=1265986566684RA66

Quote ="DHM"You don't think the tories are trying to make this election about personalities do you? Surely they would want to focus on policies rather than just about David Chameleon vs. Gordun Brun? That would be the sort of strategy Tony Bliar and his [uspin masters[/u would concoct. The press won't fall for that surely? '" Talking of spin masters, I think the Leeds marketing dept have their job done for them en.tackfilm.se/?id=1265986566684RA66

FWIW I think that Brown's record as chancellor is poor, presiding over a boom built on easy credit and rising public sector spending. The public sector is bloated and needs to be tackled. For all his faults, Blair was a better PM and could have achieved much more if Brown had not been seeking to undermine him.

Mind you, I'm biased

Shotgun minister of transport.

I do indeed and I disagreed vehemently with that war.
But the tories would have done the same whilst licking Bush's arris even more ... I am merely highlighting where the differences are.

Apparently not.
I wonder if his special advisor at the time (David Chameleon) regrets it?

Judging by the speed he plans to cut the deficit by slashing public spending it looks like he still believes in unemployment being a price worth paying.

So, that's David Cameron and Jedward.

Who next? Fred West? Gary Glitter?