Listen and learn
| 17:07 UK time, Friday, 18 May 2007
So Gordon Brown wants to "Listen and Learn" and earn the country's trust before he gets the keys to Number 10. If he were to listen and learn from Radio 1 listeners and earn their trust he's got do one simple thing: call a general election.
The texts, emails and online comments from Newsbeat listeners over the past few days reflect a clear thread of opinion. Many don't like him because' he's "Scottish", "grumpy", "dull", "grey", "supports Raith Rovers", "mucked up pensions", "tried to be something he's not by talking about the Arctic Monkeys" - and yes, he comes from North of the Border ("why can't we have an Englishman in charge?" is a common refrain on our texts from listeners).
But the real problem is they don't think he's got a mandate to lead us. We've done plenty of explanation about our democratic system and why he doesn't have to call an election - they know - it's just that it's not washing.
Armed with this our political reporter Rajini Vaidyanathan - for my money now one of the sharpest (and smallest) operators on the Westminster scene - went along to ask Brown the key question. His answer: "It is not a presidential system," he explained. "People elect a government through electing their members of Parliament and out of that parliamentary party, whether it is Conservative, Labour or Liberal in the past" etc, etc. You may have heard this one before so I won't spoil the punch line.
Rajini jumped back in as eyelids sagged under the weight of the citizenship lecture... "Yes, sorry to interrupt. I think the thing is, they know that's the case, but they say if you want to be a credible prime minister, why not just go to the polls?". Cue for Prime Minister Elect to launch into what some there (link to Times article) felt to be a deeply patronising lecture about Asquith, Lloyd George and MacMillan - names not guaranteed to fire the imagination of many people outside the Westminster bubble. Answering the question with a good, accessible argument for Radio 1 listeners it wasn't. Perhaps he doesn't need their votes.
Anyway, the audience, judging by our interaction after our piece was broadcast, is not impressed by his arguments. Not so much "listen and learn" from Gordon Brown at the moment, though to be fair we'll keep asking and he can keep answering - he may win the argument, but at least we've got Rajini on our side.
Comments
to me it's sick that the leader of the nation can say i quit, and than without an election Gordon Brown can take over, i feel like you that unless he calls a general election, the people will never be happy
Gordon Brown needs to hold an election in his own party before he holds a general election.
HE WILL BE THE FIRST UNELECTED LEADER OF THE PARTY, and if the members have their way the last.
He is only becoming leader because Labour MPs voted for him.
Those MPs did not have to ask their constituencies how to vote even though they are there to represent those constituents. Some were bullied into voting for Brown some abstained. THE SUBSCRIPTION PAYING MEMBERSHIP GOT NOT SAY AT ALL.
The problem at present is not if he represents the people of the country , it is that he does not represent the people of his party who were deprived a vote.
Hi, Just wondering if you have a link to the Times article..... It's not in the post.
Cheers,
Steve
He knows he's in anyway and after 10 years of being so close to being PM, I'm not surprised he doesn't want to jeopardise his situation.
I fall within R1's target and I think that we should have more political parties at the forefront of British politics - the Tory-Labour choice we have at the moment doesn't serve the main interests of most people, especially younger voters.
Gordon Brown wants to listen and learn? What's he been doing up to now? It's a little late for that isn't it? By the time you get to #10, you should already have a fairly good idea of what people are thinking, what they want, what your program is, and how you are going about it. A self admitted uninformed amateur is hardly a promising candidate for running a nation. What is this, some naively conceived pretense at humility? What a fraud.
However small Rajini Vaidyanathan is on the Westminster scene, there are none smaller than Â鶹Éç no matter how many people they hire, no matter how much money they steal from their hapless feepayers. Election? What a joke, this is Britain, not America. If the British people want elections, want a president instead of a prime minister, want a congress instead of a parliament, then they should adopt a constitution which gives it to them. But can they? Is Britain really a democratic nation? With a Head of state being an unelected monarch chosen by heredity, with a state religion, with a recognized aristocracy, with an unelected upper house of lords which can veto whatever legislation the elected house passes, with no constitution, no separation of powers between executive and legislative branches, the answer is clearly that it isn't. Brits will take whatever is shoved down their throats whether they like it or not and now that means Gordon Brown, a man elected only by his own constituency.
If Rajini had really been smart he would have asked "Yes, but didn't Labour promise that Blair would remain PM until the next election? Why aren't you prepared to honour that? Is it because you think the country wouldn't want you, or is it just that Labour supporters have become so disillusioned with this govt that you can't afford to fight an election campaign?"
Â鶹Éç reporters always think well of themselves, and even more so each other, but often still pull punches against Labour politicians. I suspect that this is due, not to incompetence, but simply lack of imagination; you are inherently sympathetic to a left-wing govt, and so have difficulty understanding the arguments against it.
Before the 2005 election, Labour specifically stated that Tony Blair would step down before the end of the five-year term. It was also made abundantly clear that Gordon Brown would be his successor, and the Conservatives had the election campaign "Vote Blair, Get Brown". It was argued that this campaign did the Conservatives more harm than good, as no-one liked Blair, but Gordon Brown was respected for his work as Chancellor (though we can argue for ever how successful or unsuccessful - my view - he's been).
So for anyone to argue now - Labour, Liberal Democrat, or Conservative - that GB does not have the mandate to lead the country, is just plain silly.
I can understand either viewpoint as my country has a democratic system largely modeled after the British system, and the leadership here are polished masters in creating new political syntax before and after elections.
There were times I felt like Radio 1 listeners, but that was when I was a callow voter who was recently empowered by the progress of time. The very same march of time has seen considerable progress in my understanding of the nuances, needs, and the inherent flexibility of politics and its active practitioners, to be surprised anymore or to feel there are some moral-ethical tags that must be nagging away. British electorate is perhaps still untouched by frequently changing syntax.
In a sense, Radio 1 listeners are asking a fair question. Equally fair is Mr. Gordon Brown's assertions. It isn't wrong, yet it is in the eyes of many of the electorate.
Mr. Brown needs that year in office to project himself beyond the overwhelming and overshadowing presence of Mr. Blair over the past two terms and a bit more. Labor cannot appear fresh after governing the country for so long and a leader emerging from the labor begins with a serious handicap that the opposition party/parties do not have. They can easily conjure up an illusion of freshness, of a viable alternative. The one year or so in office could provide Mr.Brown that important little edge in visibility and education the electorate about himself before the inevitable elections. It is an important edge, for the man in the seat, and his skills, talents and philosophy, cannot remain anonymous.
There are negatives too; one one may suffer in comparison to the previous long regime. One may fail to excite the electorate in the same manner in the inevitable squaring up of experiences the voters will eventually do before casting their vote. Then there is the handicap of continuity of policies established...too little time remains to make meaningful amendments that might be necessary.
Another serious risk is turning away exactly the kind of supporters as the Radio 1 listeners who believe the ethics and morality were shortchanged. But the most serious handicap of it all is well illustrated by this phrase "left holding the baby" for those who enjoyed the longer term before him. He becomes the "stress-ball" to squeeze out frustrations with the previous regime on.
Such decisions to create and accept a new syntax should be well thought out ones and for the politically savvy. Certainly not for those who believe it is an easy passport to a regular term in office at the next elections.
Gordon Brown will never be my Leader until I have the democratic right to vote for him, or to accept the marjority vote - through a General Election - NOW!
this is not impartial...
Well I for one simply don't agree with this. I don't see that it's "deeply patronising" to point out that there have been Prime Ministers who've taken on the position with a General Election. You could add Churchill, Eden, Douglas-Home, Callaghan and Major as well. But the real answer is that voters *knew* what they were voting for in 2005 - Tony Blair had made it clear he was standing down. Not rocket science to work out who was coming next. As for wanting an English premier, when was the last time we had a Scotsman as PM? Answer: over forty years. So are we never meant to have one? In which case do we live in Britain, rather than England, any more?
"Listening" is fine. But if the arguments are bad, then you ignore them.
People can't say politics has got too presidential under Blair and then expect us to switch to presidential-style elections because the governing Party changes Leader/Prime Minister. What is happening now is no different to Wilson being replaced by Callaghan or Thatcher being replaced by Major. We didn't have snap elections then and there is no reason to start now.
Every politician pretends they will 'listen and learn'. None do. They are cynically after power, saying what sounds good and they think voters want to hear. Principaled politicians do not get anywhere.
If the system is not affected in a presidential way, why would Gorgon Brown have any ability to be different from Bliar? An honest Party would have the same aims, directions, and policies. Yet Gorgon wants to con us he is 'new' 'different'. Same old rotten Stalinist Labour party of the last 10 years. When Gorgon returns our protection of double jeopardy, deletes the DNA database, deletes the ID database and scraps the concept, puts back the old pre Bliar Lords that work for us more than any elected member ever did, un-banns all Bliar's bannings, put police detention times back pre Bliar, we might see some hope of decency rather than pure evil from the Labour party.
Labour is above all an anti freedom party, Gorgon is unlikely to change that. We all know we can not trust what he says from budget speeches, cheap populist headlines, then the nasty stuff is secretly hidden in the fine written detail released later. Besides Gorgon works for the Africans not the British. He loves to waste our money on their dictators.
Still, many people incredulously vote Labour, so their bread and circuses approach, throwing money ineffectively on the NHS and a desperately declining Education clearly cons many, not looking wider.
If Gordon Brown says we 'don't have a presidential system' then may i suggest the labout party stop ruling with presidential style politics. ie: refusal to debate prime ministerial decisions.
It is true to say its the way its always been and indeed Jon Major didn't call a general election either. So although my gut reaction is people should be angry with the system rather than the current government the presidential style of politics adopted by Tony Blair does mean the labour party are trying to have there cake and eat it.
The problem is not that he cant succeed Tony, but that he shouldnt as he wants to change the policies that Tony was elected on. Thats apart from the fact the man is a total incompetent. Could the fact that nobody wants to oppose him for the job be that they can see whats going to go wrong in the next two years, ie Economy in trouble , immigration, pensions time bomb, etc, and dont want to take the blame for it all?
I suspect some people outside the Westminster bubble might just recognise the name Lloyd George. Sure it's not just a case of dumbing down if Radio 1 listeners don't?
Rod,
Â鶹Éç reported the collapse of WTC7 23 minutes before it's collapse, yet the Â鶹Éç has not made public the JOURNALISTIC investigation into this, and all the other anomolies.
WHY??????????
I though you people had standards.... I guess I was wrong!
People don't like him because "he's Scottish"? Typical xenophobic Little Englanders. What next? Not liking someone because "he's black"? No, you wouldn't allow that, would you?
Never mind, maybe in time we can bring a little civilisation to our underachieving Southern chums.
I don't think anyone seriously believes Gordon Brown when he mentions he will "listen and learn".
It is just more Labour news speak. However, there are enough voters out there who will vote Labour no matter what that even if GB did call an election he would probably win.
The government hasn't listened to the public view on Road Pricing, House Buyers Packs, or the Freedom of Information act applying to MPs.
Why then would GB risk calling an election that would lose him the position he has wanted for over 10 years. Like most politicians he cares more for himself then for obeying the wishes of the public.
I find this article worrying. Gordon Brown makes a constitutionally accurate point - going into detail and encouraging thoughtful discourse and you criticise him for it - your colleague semmed to be only interested in dumbing down and not in serious political discourse - it is this kind of journalistic incompetence that so devalues political debate in this country and feeds the general revulsion form politics. This sort of attitude by journalists is at the heart of that problem.