Should the Queen sack Gordon Brown?

1. 63

   JanTutorposted 14 years ago

   The Queen has certain legal rights which allow her to sack the prime minister. Given the controversy surrounding Gordon Brown's 'reign', should the Queen have him removed, or should she leave it to the electorate to make up their minds?

   replyreport
   1. 56

      Jenna May Swanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      My guess if she dared the UK electorate would take enough offence to get them voting in significant numbers again.  It might just reduce the high levels of apathy that mean Brits do not take part in the political system as much as we might.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      ryankettposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Of course not. Everybody knows that the royal family are given huge tax breaks and gain huge personal wealth through the treasury. Any interferance into the political system would see the house of commons move towards lobbying for the complete abolition of royalty and its associated powers. Are you confident that there are enough royalists left in the UK for a referendum victory in favour of retaining the Monarch? Besides, everyday people like you and me will lose a lot of money through a conservative victory - as you yourself would know if you read the Conservative and Labour manifestos and party material - is a Cameron victory what you would really want and if so why? Bearing in mind that they believe the rich should not be taxed more than the poor, and also bearing in mind that most of their party have close personal links and business links with the banking industry. Great idea, lets get the banks into parliament too

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ryankettposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         After having looked at your profile, I suspect that the huge Cameron led budget cuts for education would benefit your business of private education. It wouldnt benefit society though would it.

         replyreport
      2. 0

         EmpressFelicityposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I think that in effect, the banks already are in parliament, regardless of which party is in power.  They seem to have a very cosy relationship with our current government anyway.

         replyreport
2. 0

   AdviceDoctorposted 14 years ago

   I'm not sure, haven't heard much about him. I heard he used a terrorism law on some country when he shouldn't have done so.. Am I confusing this with something else?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      ryankettposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Perhaps you are confusing him with Gordon Brown and George Bush, with that country being Iraq. Crikey .

      replyreport
      1. 0

         AdviceDoctorposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         OH NO! YOU WERE WRONG! THIS IS THE FIRST TIME YOU'VE BEEN WRONG ON HERE, THAT I KNOW OF!
         
         THE COUNTRY WAS ICELAND, I FOUND IT SOMEWHERE ON HUFFINGTON POST!
         
         OH YEAH!

         replyreport
         1. 0

            ryankettposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Lol, fair enough 1-0 to you I have been wrong more than once on here, more like once a day! Well, I will give you the benefit of the doubt anyway!

            replyreport
3. 0

   Audreveaposted 14 years ago

   Happened in Australia in 1975 - Queen's representative (Governor General) sacked the Government.  But it's a BIG thing to do with major, long-term consequences

   replyreport
   1. 0

      ryankettposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      It didnt happen in Australia then did it? This is the polar opposite scenario....

      replyreport
4. 0

   Audreveaposted 14 years ago

   I'm not up on UK politics so I can't say if it's the same scenario.  Definitely there was a dismissal of the Government in 1975 by Governor General John Kerr. http://whitlamdismissal.com/overview/
   
   (just to be clear - link is just for further reading, I have no connection with the site).

   replyreport
5. 61

   bozzie123posted 14 years ago

   The queen rarely gets say in UK politics, apart from when a law is passed, it is run by her first by the PM, for her to interfere in anything else is unlikely, just wait for the general election, gordon brown wont be in that spot much longer.

   replyreport
6. 82

   CMHypnoposted 14 years ago

   Why should she bother sacking him?  He'll be out by June anyway. Any prime minister who is talking about giving away billions of pounds of taxpayers money for climate change when the country is financially on its knees, in debt up to it eyeballs and almost bankrupt is a disgrace.
   
   He needs to stop spending money the Treasury does not have and start re-balancing the books by reigning in the public sector and admitting that everyone will have to pay higher taxes to get us out of the mess he has put us in.  Gordon Brown has already hugely increased our personal tax liability by imposing stealth taxes and destroyed our pensions.  And he used to call himself the 'prudent' chancellor?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      EmpressFelicityposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      That's "prudent" as in "I sold half our gold reserves at rock bottom prices" :snort:

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Drwibbleposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         The worst thing was he announced that he was going to sell the gold first causing the price to go lower than the already low price.

         replyreport
   2. 60

      Drwibbleposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Definitely time to take our medicine of cut backs to balance the books. The trouble is will we have an economy left by the time he gets elected out and whether the next prime minister will take the right course of action.

      replyreport
      1. 82

         CMHypnoposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         I think that Gordon is definitely salting the fields and poisoning the wells for the incoming Tory government, however much that is hurting the country and our economy. It could actually be quite amusing if he did get back in and have to deal with the consequences of his actions himself!  I don't envy what David Cameron will have to go through to get this country back on its feet, the Unions are already promising trouble!

         replyreport
7. 63

   JanTutorposted 14 years ago

   I so pleased on this freezing afternoon (London) that you Hubbers are sufficiently motivated to respond. From what I have read the main consensus is leave the Queen out of politics (there are enough players stomping about in the political arena).
   
   Ryankett - you've made me laugh and nod agreement (in equal measure). Jenna May Swann - your point about apathy is SPOT ON! CMHypno - wow, wow, wow - you don't mince your words. Empress Felicity - a wickedly good retort.
   
   My take on Gordon Brown can probably be summed up in the following two sayings:
   1. "Be careful what you wish for" - Remember Gordon showed his hand that he badly wanted the Prime Ministership years before Blair's exit. Well he got what he wanted and what a baptism of fire!
   
   2. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" - I for one thing he is a well-meaning politician but time and time again he has got things badly wrong.
   
   I do wonder what would have happened if he'd been PM during the glory days when the economy was soaring?? DrWibble you're the economist ???

   replyreport
8. 60

   Drwibbleposted 14 years ago

   How dare you, I am not an economist   just a humble microelectronic research engineer. Nevertheless, economics is my hobby of mine, was accepted into LSE University from debating with one of the professor when I went to one of their open days but in the end preferred to go into engineering.
   
   A lot of this was building up before Gordon Brown became prime minister, there is this quote which sums it up nicely.
   
   “Everyone loves an early inflation. The effects at the beginning of inflation are all good. There is steepened money expansion, rising government spending, increased government budget deficits, booming stock markets, and spectacular general prosperity, all in the midst of temporarily stable prices. Everyone benefits, and no one pays. That is the early part of the cycle. In the later inflation, on the other hand, the effects are all bad. The government may steadily increase the money inflation in order to stave off the latter effects, but the latter effects patiently wait. In the terminal inflation, there is faltering prosperity, tightness of money, falling stock markets, rising taxes, still larger government deficits, and still roaring money expansion, now accompanied by soaring prices and an ineffectiveness of all traditional remedies. Everyone pays and no one benefits. That is the full cycle of every inflation”
   
   Don't forget, this was not just happening in the UK but in the US as well. However, that is not to excuse Gordon Brown as they are in power to provide leadership and in theory plan for the future even if it is unpopular at the time.
   
   The trouble is the UK economic trends does not look good at the moment, ageing population (population moves from producing wealth to more consumers of wealth), crazy house prices, massive debts both being run up by the government and UK population, North Sea oil and gas at their peak with a lot of nuclear power stations going to be decommissioned in the next few years.
   
   The thing is I don't see any strong leadership within the current lot of career politicians.
   
   But on the bright side, at least we might get snow on Christmas day.

   replyreport
9. 68

   waynetposted 14 years ago

   It's up to the Queen if she wants to suck him...oh wait a minute sack him...sorry I'll collect my brain fragments and leave this discussion behind!

   replyreport
   1. 63

      JanTutorposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      **TREASON** comes to mind - but please feel free to post more, before MI5 turn up to collect you :-) Actually I think you've just inspired another hub!

      replyreport
      1. 68

         waynetposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Infamy infamy they've all got it in for me!

         replyreport