EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Gordon Brown to Resign as Prime Minister as Labour and Lib Dems Prepare for Talks
Mr Brown said he had asked the Labour Party to begin preparations for a leadership contest in which he will "play no part".
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown addresses the media outside of 10 Downing Street in central London. Brown announced Monday he will stand down as Labour leader by September, and that his party is to hold formal talks on a power-sharing deal with the Liberal Democrats. (AFP)
His
announcement on the steps of Downing Street was an attempt to woo
the
Lib Dem leader Nick
Clegg by offering his own resignation as a key plank of any deal.
But Mr Brown also made it clear that he would expect to stay on as Prime Minister for a few more months in order to put in place his programme for economic recovery.
In the most dramatic twist since the election results were announced, Mr Brown admitted that Labour's defeat "is a judgment on me."
He said: "If it becomes clear that the national interest can be best served by forming a coalition between Labour and the Liberal Democrats then I believe I should discharge that duty to form that government which would in my view command a majority in Parliament in the Queen's Speech and any other confidence votes.
"But I have no desire to stay in my position longer than is needed to ensure the path to economic growth is assured and the path to economic reform we have agreed moves forward quickly.
"The reason we have a hung parliament is that no single party and no single leader was able to win the full support of the country.
"As the leader of my party I must accept that that is a judgment on me.
"I therefore intend the ask the Labour Party to set in train the processes needed for its own leadership election. I would hope it would be completed in time for the new leader to be in post by the time of the Labour Party conference.
"I will play no part in that contest, I will back no individual candidate."
Mr Brown piled pressure on the Conservative leader David Cameron by announcing that Nick Clegg "now also wishes to take forward formal discussions with the Labour Party".
Mr Clegg later defended offering to open formal talks with Labour and praised Mr Brown for his "important" announcement.
The Liberal Democrat leader said: "It must have been a very difficult thing for him to say personally. But I think he's taken it in the national interest and I think his announcement could be an important element in the smooth transition towards a stable government that people deserve - without prejudicing or predicting what the outcome of the talks will be between ourselves and the Labour party."
Mr Brown also re-iterated his commitment to electoral reform, which would also include "reform of the House of Lords".
If Mr Brown's plan came to fruition, it would mean the country being led by a second successive unelected Labour Prime Minister.
Lord Adonis, the Transport Secretary, said: "Labour and the Liberal Democrats are very close together. This will be a partnership of principle.
"We would go into these negotiations determined to succeed. Fifteen million people voted for Labour and the Liberal Democrats combined, only ten million voted for the Conservatives."
Alastair Campbell, the former Downing Street communications chief, rejected accusations that a second unelected Prime Minister would be undemocratic, saying: "It's a parliamentary democracy, not a presidential system. The Prime Minister is chosen by parliament."
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
17 Comments so far
Show AllHmmm...not sure what's happening here!?
Mr. Jones?
good riddance!
A note from Watford, Hertfordshire, England
The national debt as a proportion of GDP is nowhere near as high as when the
Liberals last controlled the country when it was 75%, indeed at around 52% it is little more than when Maggie Thatcher held power when for 10 years it was around 48%. Its high point was at the end of WW2 when it peaked at 240% and even then Labour managed to create the NHS, so the situation isn’t as bad as some would have us think. See: http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt_chart.html
The choice is simple; without a Labour Government waiting staff in Watford
restaurants would still be paid poverty wages of £2 an hour and others would still earn as little as £1 an hour; vulnerable pensioner would have frozen to death last
winter without a fuel allowance; parents with young families would be stuck in
the poverty trap with no tax credits, no child-care vouchers and no children's
trusts; without the investment in Doctor and Nurse training (cut by the Tories),
the NHS would be a complete shambles and worst of all waiting times for operations would be life threatening for all but the wealthy.
What are the alternatives? If you want a microcosm of Lib Dem economic
competence just walk round Watford Market whose Royal Charter is almost a thousand years old. Ten years ago, under a Labour Council it provided a surplus income of over £400,000 a year. Today, after 8 years of Lib Dem control losses are almost £200,000 a year - that's a deficit of over half a £million a year.
What would the Tories do? They’re the ones who put the “Rich” into the likes of
Tory MP for Watford Richard Harrington (whose company shares are all squirreled away off-shore in that well know tax haven Mauritius) and they will do it again by such strategies as removing death duties from the super-rich. And just how many of them live in Watford?
Currently we are all weathering an economic storm and we’re doing OK. Until this evening we had a choice, should we continue with a firm, experienced hand on the tiller; should we leave things in the hand of someone whose economic strategy was copied by all leading G20 countries. Sadly that's all out of the window now, but realistically, is now the time to try out one of the inexperienced apprentices?
The saddest thing is that Robin Cooke is not here to contest the leadership.
Also, bailing out the banks with taxpayers' money in not a "strategy" - it's robbery.
You are comparing the Lib-Dems fucking up a local council, with Labour fucking up the national economy? You are comparing the Lib-Dems running a deficit of 200k in a local council and saying that is bad, but then Labour's national deficit is fine?
This isn't a "note from Watford". This reads very much like some Labour campaign propaganda from Watford.
And not, no matter how much the Labour propagandists repeat it, Brown's strategy was not copied by all leading G20 countries. Not least because some of them did not run their economies ala Brown before the crash.
I love that picutre of Brown. It needs a caption...
"Dude, that was my last joint!" LMAO
Another scumball pol who won't be missed by the proletariat...
Well played, Gordy.
Though the details are a dogs supper,
shepherds prudence suggests it is indeed a
good time to 'get the flock out of here'.
Check in to rehab with the blokes at the pub.
Spend more time with lovely old whats'ername.
And keep the bleedin media from under your kilt.
Best wishes.
(Well, hell, I'm American. Can't expect me to speak English.)
The Labour Party in the UK is about as "useful" as the Democrat Party in the US. The Tories are one set of devils but they are nothing like the Republicans or Democrats in the US as far as most issues are concerned. The UK Liberal Democrats would be much better off working with the Tories and giving the Labour Party a TOUGH lesson for playing kissyface with Dubya on Iraq and pulling a DLC even on economic issues !
The Tories fully backed the Iraq invasion, which the LibDems did not.
However, all three "major" parties still think Afghanistan a good idea.
"However, all three "major" parties still think Afghanistan a good idea."
There is a lot of discontent among Europeans about their leaders sneaking up and sending people to Afghanistan. This is another reason I say that things are not all that rosy in Europe although not as bad as here in the US.
You really don't know what you are talking about.
Hint: the Tories supported the Iraq war too. Hint number 2: they support lots of massive cuts.
David Cameron has projected a less right wing message, more progressive image, that doesn't mean that most of the Tory party is behind him. They aren't.
And the most important point: the one thing that is VERY important to the Lib-Dems is electoral reform, preferably to some PR system, dumping FPTP plurality. This has always been their holy grail, ESPECIALLY among the rank and file supporters. The leadership might be willing to compromise, for power and positions, the rank and file will not, and will revolt successfully.
The Tories OTOH are pretty much opposite. They oppose electoral reform, ESPECIALLY the rank and file.
I already know that the Tories supported the Iraq war but so what? So too did the Labour Party and it was more than just Tony Blair. The Labour Party in the UK is just as dishonest as the Democratic Party here. Yes, Tories working with the Liberal Democratic Party in the UK would be like the Republicans working with the Greens but as of current, the Tories have kept their conservatism within moderation, something you don't see in either parties in the US. If you really believe that the Labour Party will do anything more than the Tories to cooperate with the Liberal Democratic Party on election reform, I suggest you take a trip to the UK in person or talk to a non-bias observer in the UK and see for yourself just what the Labour Party really is.
correction, friend: Jennifer is very savvy.
Brown resigning might usher back Old Labour, anti-nuke stance and all, but I doubt it. Most of us here realize that cuts need to be made in public - i.e. gummint - spending. What is needed is an international Anti-War Party; far too much of our treasure is wasted.
Gordon Brown is an economist.
He knows a losing proposition when it bites him in the ass.
But this smacks very much of the playground attitude "It's my ball. I'll take it and go home if you don't let me win."
He might be an economist, but before he became Prime Minister, he was in another government position that allowed him to foolishly sell-off tones of Gold at an incredibly low price, putting the British government in the poor house!
That was a losing proposition; but screwing the citizens of his country and keeping them in eternal debt by selling-off a massive gold reserve got him in the seat of "Prime Minister".
Bottom line: Most econonomists that we hear from in the mass media or the ones employed by governments are bought by their Federal Reserve, central banking systems. If not, they are nothing but a bunch of idiots!
hey gordon brown - what did you buy?
you let tony sell you some pie in the sky.
you signed all the checks that bought all the bombs.
gave my money away for nothing but tombs.