Just what have you got to do to get rid of that squatter GB

[just john]

59 yr old GB squats in luxury pad[8-)]

[Swissie]

1951 was a great vintage year - I know!    Anyway, can you explain your predicament, it is a bit vague.

[Kitty]

If I were him, I wouldn't be brazenly coming in and out of the front door.

[powerdesal]

Having just read the article, plus some of the readers comments, I am amazed at the bizarre attitudes of some of the Sun readers. One really sticks in my mind, a Scot with the comment name of Tom1234 who believes that because Labour won an overwhelming victory in Scotland it means they are the rightful Govt for all UK, irrespective of the fact that they polled less seats than the Conservatives and certainly less total votes (even including Scotland).

What a very strange attitude !

[Swissie]

Aaah - got it- a bit slow on the uptake here

[mint]

I'm no fan of Brown's but, to be fair to the man, he is supposed to be there, holding the fort, as it were, until a new government with a new prime minister is in place.

As the "sitting" prime minister, this is one of his functions in the case of a hung parliament as we have now.

In fact, he has "first go", as the sitting PM.  Don't ask me why, I didn't write the English Consitution.  Actually, NOBODY did (ridiculous as it may seem!)

If he'd just left the house empty, he would have been slated for leaving the nation with no PM. 

Poor man, he just can't get anything right:  damned if he does and damned if he doesn't!

[AnOther]

[quote user="sweet 17"]I'm no fan of Brown's but, to be fair to the man, he is supposed to be there[/quote]Sweets I don't disagree with what you say but I would take issue with 'supposed' when 'happens' might be a more appropriate term [;-)]

[Edward Trunk]

No, supposed. No-one - Cameron or Brown - has yet demonstrated that they can command the confidence of the House of Commons. Until someone can, then the sitting tenant does just that - sits.

[mint]

I can't help wondering how long he can do this "sitting"?

I don't suppose there is any sort of a timescale beyond which something, someone has to happen to overcome the stalemate position?

[woolybanana]

I think he has two weeks, no more.

[just john]

''It is also clear that the government is not directly elected by the electorate and the incumbent Prime Minister does not have to resign until the confidence of the House of Commons has been explicitly withheld, for example by losing a vote on the Queen's Speech. It is now inconceivable that a Prime Minister would not resign as soon as it became apparent that an opposition party had gained an overall majority in the House . . .'' - House of Commons - Constitutional processes

 

[Russethouse]

 IMHO If GB was a gentleman, he'd offer to resign ....perhaps he has?

[woolybanana]

Surely not. He will have to be dragged out of Downing Street crying, screaming and stamping his little feet, I fear.

[just john]

more likely denying that he could have lost, since no-one else has won, and that intime he could save the world again . . .[:-))]

meanwhile to the rest of the world, he is piling ignominy on arrogance,its just not British, but then neither is he, history will reward him in its own special way[Www]

[Alan Zoff]

And there was me thinking that Gordon was doing exactly as he is supposed to do. He is Prime Minister until he has been replaced. The Tories did not secure an absolute majority and are trying to work something out with the Lib Dems to get a combined working majority. GB has said that is quite proper but he is willing to discuss an alternative with the Lib Dems if they cannot reach agreement with the Tories.

He can be criticised for many things (but probably no more than any of the others) but this time I really don't see where criticism is due.

 

[woolybanana]

Two or more papers are carrying reports of his rant against Clegg, suggesting that his mental state can be called into doubt.

[Alan Zoff]

Well if it was in the papers it must be true.

[Frederick]

I believe he has returned to his home in Scotland .....Time to dash round and change the locks !

[Russethouse]

 Too late now but what he did wrong was to go on without having an election for so long. If only he had held an election within a few months of inheriting the position from TB he'd have been stronger for it - as it is the electorate haven't given the Labour party  their support in big enough numbers, if he was to go Nick Clegg may find it easier to negotiate with Labour, although I don't expect for one moment it would be  a good situation with us forever being held to ransom by the minor Scottish and Welsh parties.

For the good of the country I suspect that Clegg has to thoroughly investigate whatever the Conservatives have on the table, the only sure numerical way with a chance of any stability would come from a Lib/Con 'deal'

[LEO]

[quote user="woolybanana"]I think he has two weeks, no more.[/quote]

To live?

[Alan Zoff]

I suspect GB's biggest mistake was to allow himself to be persuaded to listen to the style doctors. He may not have the popular charisma that sells, but at least a lot of people believed for a long time that he was trustworthy, if rather too serious. The manufactured cheesy grin simply makes him look ridiculous and insincere.

[Quillan]

[quote user="Alan Zoff"]I suspect GB's biggest mistake was to allow himself to be persuaded to listen to the style doctors. He may not have the popular charisma that sells, but at least a lot of people believed for a long time that he was trustworthy, if rather too serious. The manufactured cheesy grin simply makes him look ridiculous and insincere.[/quote]

I thought it made him look like 'The Joker' from Batman, rather apt I suppose. Perhaps the style/spin doctor was really working for the Tories.[;-)]

[mint]

[quote user="Alan Zoff"]

And there was me thinking that Gordon was doing exactly as he is supposed to do. He is Prime Minister until he has been replaced. The Tories did not secure an absolute majority and are trying to work something out with the Lib Dems to get a combined working majority. GB has said that is quite proper but he is willing to discuss an alternative with the Lib Dems if they cannot reach agreement with the Tories.

He can be criticised for many things (but probably no more than any of the others) but this time I really don't see where criticism is due.

 

[/quote]

AZ, that is more or less what I said in an earlier post.  He is doing exactly what his position demands of him in this instance.

So, just lay off until we see what emerges.  As AZ says, criticise as much as you like but don't condemn a man for doing what is no more than his duty.

I agree too about the grin, AZ, makes him look positively scary.  Only person I can think of who looks worse when he smiles than when he doesn't is Alfred Marks (remember him?)

[just john]

My take is that he did have options, he may not have to resign but he could have resigned as the government, and thereby put the onus on to another party to  get the Queens speech through parliament, however the chancers (not you Chancer[:)]), and strategists (read Mandelson) believe that despite their disenfranchisement that there may be an outside possibliity of clinging o. In my book this is morally bankrupt, without honour or in the best interest of the country. (What am I talking about[:-))] honour, best interest of the country!).
No smoke without fire, I believe the reported diatribe with the diminished Clegg, (torn between a voting system that is never going to give a third party power and a modicum of power with a party who is opposed; at least he had the cojones [Www] to stick to what he said and cut the uncertainty over which way he would jump after the results) which is yet more more proof if any were needed that Gorgon is a Scottish minister telling his congregation that only he knows the way forward) . . . I really don't care, really. 
I do care however about the take investors in Britain will have on the cost of this government and they could cause even more trauma over repayment plans, affecting all of us financially, (read devaluation) so far it is clear that there is not a willing handover and another election within the year now looms. What future for parity now.

[Alan Zoff]

Whether or not GB resigns, there is no party with an outright majority and we are left with two or more having to make some sort of cobble-up. That's just how it is, regardless of how keen people might be to see the back of Brown.

And if it's down to dislike of GB, he is only one figure in the government. I rather think it's correct to wait to see whether DC and NC can come up with something workable before the government abandons ship.

Immediate resignation in these circumstances would have been downright irresponsible and would have solved nothing as the markets would view Britain as a country not only facing uncertainty over whether or not a workable alliance can be produced but also one with no government at all in the short term. Brilliant! Daily Mail-led anarchy.