Gordon Brown sworn in as new British PM

[Mad_Michael]

Gordon Brown was sworn in as new British PM last week.

I'm just wondering if anyone here follows British politics at all and what people think about Brown's chances?

* * *

To me, the similarity of situation between Gordon Brown taking over as Labour party leader and PM of Britain, and Paul Martin taking over as Liberal party leader and PM of Canada is striking in so many parallels.

Indeed, the similarities are so many that I think we are quite likely going to see a replay of the same sad saga of Paul Martin played out across the pond.

In both cases, we have the long serving Finance Minister / Chancellor of the Exchequer, who came second to the previous party leader to become leader, taking over after a very long, mostly successful but controversial term of office by the outgoing party leader. In both cases, Martin and Brown, have been generally considered to be more intelligent, more competent, more capable and more experienced for the top job than their previous bosses. The both inherited strong majorities in Parliament, with existing electoral mandates, though not one of their own. Both were 'crowned' to the top job rather than elected in a leadership convention - both were well understood to be the 'heir' since day one.

Most significantly, in both cases, Martin and Brown have provided the successful financial and fiscal management that permitted their previous bosses (Chrétien and Blair) to spend lots of money in public works and still be popular with the Bay Street / London financial set (and world capital markets) with very good fiscal management - both of them contributing to significant improvements in the long-term fiscal/financial health of their respective national treasuries (Martin far more successful than Brown, but Brown has been more successful over the last 10 years than any other western government finance minister save perhaps some dude in Denmark with an unspellable name).

And in both cases, Martin and Brown, inherit a variety of scandals not of their own making. As in Canada with that silly sponsorship scandal (which basically was just some $50 million dollar political slush fund with really bad accounting practices - which is rather little more than a rounding error in federal government spending revenues) in Britain the 'honours for loans' scandal has been sloshing around the halls of Westminster for years now, tainting the Labour party's previous fundraisings with the brush of (potentially) illegal corruption. There are of course far more substantive political issues on the table such as Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention Blair's reforms of the NHS that are far more important (as was the case in Canada's last election), but ultimately, governments in Britain and Canada don't usually exchange places over particular policy disputes (or it is rather rare).

And it is also to be noted that (in both cases) the multi-term success of the previous party leader came at a time of divided opposition parties with weak leaders. And it is to be noted (in both cases) that the principal political competition (the Conservative party in both cases) managed to finally get its act together with a 'more attractive' leader just prior to the 'big handover' from the old administration to the new one. Just as Harper rescued the Conservative party from further fracture and brought it to successfully challenge the reigning Liberals, so has Cameron in Britain been able to unite the party behind him and press forward with a fresh face for the Conservative party in Britain (which had been mostly moribund since the day they murdered Thatcher - it actually looks alive again - much like the Canadian Conservative party).

So there you have it. One heck of a lot of deeply disturbing parallels between Paul Martin and Gordon Brown. Brown certainly lacks Blair's charisma and Britain is increasingly looking like it is restless for a change at Westminster. Just like Canada little more than a year or two ago. Martin wasn't the most exciting guy around, and Canadians were restless after so many years of Liberal government.

Anyway, I'll bet on Cameron beating Brown in House seats in the next British general election (technically speaking, this prediction does not require Cameron to win a majority).

[jbg]

It seems to be a common problem in Parliamentary countries, where parties, mid-mandate, switch to a leader who cannot renew the party.

1. Major after Thatcher;
   
2. Turner after Trudeau;
   
3. Campbell after Mulroney; and
   
4. Martin after Chretien
   

[Mad_Michael]

It seems to be a common problem in Parliamentary countries, where parties, mid-mandate, switch to a leader who cannot renew the party.

1. Major after Thatcher;
   
2. Turner after Trudeau;
   
3. Campbell after Mulroney; and
   
4. Martin after Chretien
   

Yes, this does seem rather common phenomena. I could add a dozen more examples drawn from Provincial politics or earlier decades.

That being said, do you think it is about to happen to Gordon Brown? I do.

[M.Dancer]

It seems to be a common problem in Parliamentary countries, where parties, mid-mandate, switch to a leader who cannot renew the party.

1. Major after Thatcher;
   
2. Turner after Trudeau;
   
3. Campbell after Mulroney; and
   
4. Martin after Chretien
   

The obverse though is:

Pearson to Trudeau

Borden to Meighan

Bowell to Tupper

and in the UK

Chamberlain to Churchill

Eden to MacMillian to Douglass Home...

On the other hand it seems in the US, while the leader does not step down, the continuation of the party rule is not a given. The last VP to be elected was Bush and before that? Truman?

[Mad_Michael]

The obverse though is:

Pearson to Trudeau

Borden to Meighan

Bowell to Tupper

and in the UK

Chamberlain to Churchill

Eden to MacMillian to Douglass Home...

The fact that you had to dig deeper beyond the contemporary timeframes of the others suggests this phenomena is a less common one.

On the other hand it seems in the US, while the leader does not step down, the continuation of the party rule is not a given. The last VP to be elected was Bush and before that? Truman?

Tricky Dick was VP under Eisenhower and he did become elected as President, though not sequentially.

[jbg]

It seems to be a common problem in Parliamentary countries, where parties, mid-mandate, switch to a leader who cannot renew the party.

1. Major after Thatcher;
   
2. Turner after Trudeau;
   
3. Campbell after Mulroney; and
   
4. Martin after Chretien
   

Yes, this does seem rather common phenomena. I could add a dozen more examples drawn from Provincial politics or earlier decades.

That being said, do you think it is about to happen to Gordon Brown? I do.

I agree that Brown will not be elected in his own right.

Provincially, Harris into Eves is the best example I can think of.

Edited July 11, 2007 by jbg

[jbg]

The obverse though is:

Pearson to Trudeau

Borden to Meighan

Bowell to Tupper

and in the UK

Chamberlain to Churchill

Eden to MacMillian to Douglass Home...

On the other hand it seems in the US, while the leader does not step down, the continuation of the party rule is not a given. The last VP to be elected was Bush and before that? Truman?

I thought Pearson to Trudeau was done during an election.

In the US, you missed Kennedy to Johnson and, with a stutter in between, Eisenhower to Nixon.

[M.Dancer]

The obverse though is:

Pearson to Trudeau

Borden to Meighan

Bowell to Tupper

and in the UK

Chamberlain to Churchill

Eden to MacMillian to Douglass Home...

On the other hand it seems in the US, while the leader does not step down, the continuation of the party rule is not a given. The last VP to be elected was Bush and before that? Truman?

I thought Pearson to Trudeau was done during an election.

In the US, you missed Kennedy to Johnson and, with a stutter in between, Eisenhower to Nixon.

Johnson if memory serves was never elected president. You could say he was America's John Turner.

[Mad_Michael]

Johnson if memory serves was never elected president. You could say he was America's John Turner.

Who won the 1964 and 1968 elections?

[M.Dancer]

Johnson if memory serves was never elected president. You could say he was America's John Turner.

Who won the 1964 and 1968 elections?

1964..........Kennedy's proxy?

1968..........Pinocchio's proxy!

[jbg]

Johnson if memory serves was never elected president. You could say he was America's John Turner.

Who won the 1964 and 1968 elections?

1964..........Kennedy's proxy?

1968..........Pinocchio's proxy!

Johnson by a landslide in 1964, Nixon in 1968. Gerald Ford was our "John Turner" or "Kim Campbell".

[White Doors]

Looks like he indeed IS a Martin...

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - The governing Labour party has lost a significant amount of support in Britain over the past few months, according to a poll by Communicate Research published in The Independent. 40 per cent of respondents would vote for the opposition Conservative party in the next election to the House of Commons, while 27 per cent would back Labour.

The Liberal Democrats are third with 18 per cent, and 15 per cent of respondents would vote for other parties. Support for the Tories increased by four points since August, while backing for Labour fell by nine points.