Monday, January 15, 2007

Cameron on Brown

(Getty Images)
David Cameron's comments yesterday on Sunday AM (comparing Brown's possible succesion mid-term with Major and Macmillan):

"I think there's a difference this time in that Tony Blair uniquely said before the last election that 'I'm not going to fight another election but I'm going to do a full term'.
"People elected him for a full term, so we are in a different situation."

That argument would hold more water if we had a Presidential system similar to the United States, but in 2005 the British people primarily voted for the Labour Party to serve a third term in office, not any individual and that is what we shall do.


Buster George said...

Many peoplle will see Brown as the follow on act. I think that will not sit well with him, he may well want to prove not just to himself but to the party as a whole that the country wants him as PM.
His pride may ake him call an early election.

Given Labours current polularity that could be a rather large gamble.

Paul Burgin said...

Well if Brown chooses to do that that is fair enough, but what I am basically saying is that Cameron is being a bit silly constantly making calls for an early election, esp as the Conservative Party's finances are not exactly brilliant

Tom Freeman said...

“The fact is if you vote Labour you get Blair, you get Brown, you get extra spending, extra taxing, extra wasting, extra bureaucracy, more power to Brussels, more regional government - all the things that people don't want. So it doesn't matter whether you have Blair or Brown or Milburn, or whoever.”

David Cameron, March 2005.

Anonymous said...

What complete rubbish as usual from you Burgin,
People didnt just vote for the Labour Party in 2005, of course they voted for Blair too. For if not, why did Blair feel the need to say he would serve a full third in the first place.

Glass House said...

Didn't the Tories run (for a while) on the slogan "Vote Blair, get Brown"?

If they claim that the public were misled, aren't they admitting that they were part that?

Glass House said...

should be "part OF that"

Paul Burgin said...

When people vote for a Party in government, it's not often they vote purely on who happens to be leader. They vote for the Party and the policies they put forward, the ideal in British politics is that the leader represents the Party, not the other way around