Will Gordon Brown Mount an Upset in Britain?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Macky-Mac, Mar 15, 2010.

  1. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #1
    for several years now it seems that the conventional wisdom has been that the Conservative Party under Cameron was surely going to sweep into power at the next election(still unscheduled but coming soon I gather). But this linked article suggests that Labour is now rising in the polls and a Conservative win is no longer such a sure thing?

    Is Labour really making a comeback?

     
  2. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #2
    If El Gordo does win, at least he will finally be elected!
     
  3. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #3
    I don't think Brown is "mounting an upset" (sounds like some sort of bestiality)
    it's more people are beginning to see what a gormless twat Cameron is.
     
  4. Jaffa Cake macrumors Core

    Jaffa Cake

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    The City of Culture, Englandshire
    #4
    Indeed, and realising the full horror of the prospect of the Tories being back in office.
     
  5. OllyW Moderator

    OllyW

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2005
    Location:
    The Black Country, England
    #5
    I don't think those horrible airbrushed posters of his shiny head are helping.

    david cameron 2.jpg
     
  6. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #6
    Comparisons to Dewey vs. Truman are not apt here. It has been incontrovertibly established that Dewey failed because he had a mustache. There is no other viable explanation. Quite simply, it is not possible to elect a president in the .us if he has facial hair, and the reason is clear: the American public demand to be told bald-faced lies.
     
  7. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #7
    Lincoln?
     
  8. 184550 Guest

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    #8
    That's interesting. Here's a story from The Guardian that suggests just the opposite- that Brown is dragging Labour down in the polls. Still seems like politics as usual to me.
     
  9. Sky Blue Guest

    Sky Blue

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    #9
    shhh, don't ruin it for him!

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  10. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #10
    The last American president to have facial hair was William Howard Taft. When Wilson defeated both Taft and Roosevelt in one go, whiskers made their exit. This probably had something to do with changing mores, but also to do with media and the rise of journalistic photography. By the time Dewey became a serious contender, Television was just starting to take hold. Hence, unlike the 19th and early 20th century presidents, appearance had become a notable concern.

    When you look at Taft and Theodore Roosevelt, they had some pretty impressive facial hair - Dewey, on the other hand, had this half-arsed sliver of hair across his lip, like some sort of French baker. Had he been more assertive in his facial grooming, perhaps he might have been more successful, instead he is just seen as mealy-mouthed.
     
  11. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #11
    Two of the four assassinated presidents had facial hair,maybe that's the reason for it's recent lack of popularity.
     
  12. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #12
    But the trend is toward the assasination of the clean-shaven. Seems odd that one never hears of British PMs being snuffed, but then, I am not up on British history. Perhaps you Brits are just more polite. Or you lack the personal ordnance. Or maybe get it all out of you collective system on 5 Nov.
     
  13. kernkraft macrumors 68020

    kernkraft

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    #13
    I don't think it helps that it's him and his party.
     
  14. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #14
    Spencer Perceval.

    For more signs of resistance Google "Peter the Painter".
     
  15. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #15
    OK, so the Guardian shows the Tories at about 40%, Labour around a 31%, the Liberal Democrats at about 20%, with 9 or 10% other. what kind of coalition would be likely in such a scenario? Would the Liberal Democrats line up with Labour to have a narrow majority? Or would one expect everyone else to gang up on labour because the public is in a snit?
     
  16. nick9191 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2008
    Location:
    Britain
    #16
    I'm voting Brown. Not because I want to, mind.

    It's election 1992 all over. Both candidates are universally hated, decide which one will **** up the least.
     
  17. Macky-Mac thread starter macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #17
    and how directly are the percentages of the vote apt to translate to seats in parliament? is there any sort of bias towards one party or the other as a result of district boundaries?
     
  18. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #18
    Good question. The figures come from a generic national survey of how a sampling of people feel about the makeup of Parliament - refer to the guardian article linked in post #8 above. So, ultimately, it tells us nothing about how the seat held by Pitt-the-Younger-Still will actually fare.

    (It all puts me in mind of a scene from Under Milk Wood where the postman says to his wife, "excuse me a moment, I have to go to the house of commons.")
     

Share This Page