retired_senegalg

pretty much only Docker actually thinks this is the case. i doubt GB will be particularly worried. </BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think it's deniable that it's been a very bad week for Brown. The effect will be negative, although how negative I would agree is debatable. </BLOCKQUOTE>

don't even think it's debatable. by the time the election does eventually come round, people will not give a flying f**k. </BLOCKQUOTE>

It's more about the consequences for his reputation, as I detailed on the last page, than people saying 'omfg, GB didn't call an election. VOTE TORY' obviously. It's about whether this is the beginning of him being tarred as a ditherer and a bottler as well as an opportunist. I think it will stick and damage his reputation severely.

retired_may0gan

these things only stick if they happen multiple times. people have crap memories, are thick and like pretty patterns.

if next week brown has to make decision dithers and does nothing and then in a month it happens again, then maybe it will stick. single decisions don't hurt unless the consequences do.

retired_senegalg

I agree but the reason I think it will stick is that I sense that this is all characteristic of Brown's decision-making. He's very reluctant to take any risks, although perhaps that's a good thing when leading a country? As I said, I rather like Brown tbh.

retired_senegalg

Oh and I would add that every time there is a decision to be taken, there is a far greater chance of him being declared to have 'bottled it' or 'dithered' after this than there was prior to this whole issue.

retired_janearific

Three months is hardly enough time when you are also running the country and reorganising your government etc. They clearly considered it because it was an option that was open to them, and as I said before he was well within his rights to do that before making any decision.

The key word you use in your post is "apparent" in that we don't actually know why he decided against it. The media love to speculate and obviously some will say he "bottled it" while others will say he took the sensible option to avoid a fight he had not had enough time to prepare for. It all depends on who you believe, and only GB will know the real reason.

Ventil

But this time it is the Press that have been the ones lead down the garden path.
They don't forget nor forgive quite as readily as the public.

He'll ride this out, but this is in no way next week's chip paper nor will he properly be free from the insinuations either.

retired_senegalg

Three months is hardly enough time when you are also running the country and reorganising your government etc. They clearly considered it because it was an option that was open to them, and as I said before he was well within his rights to do that before making any decision.

The key word you use in your post is "apparent" in that we don't actually know why he decided against it. The media love to speculate and obviously some will say he "bottled it" while others will say he took the sensible option to avoid a fight he had not had enough time to prepare for. It all depends on who you believe, and only GB will know the real reason. </BLOCKQUOTE>

The real reason really doesn't matter, the perception is vital. It's not like everyone in the Labour party is busy running hte country and there's nobody around to do anything else like organise the party. Also, if it was an option then they weren't completely unprepared, surely?

retired_janearific

I agree but the reason I think it will stick is that I sense that this is all characteristic of Brown's decision-making. He's very reluctant to take any risks, although perhaps that's a good thing when leading a country? As I said, I rather like Brown tbh. </BLOCKQUOTE>

On the other hand you can look at the positive aspects of his short tenure so far - the fact he cancelled a family holiday during the floods crisis and the way he handled other subsequent events at Glasgow/Northern Rock. He also seemed to handle the visit to America very well too and gained plenty of positive press from that in the UK.

retired_senegalg

I agree but the reason I think it will stick is that I sense that this is all characteristic of Brown's decision-making. He's very reluctant to take any risks, although perhaps that's a good thing when leading a country? As I said, I rather like Brown tbh. </BLOCKQUOTE>

On the other hand you can look at the positive aspects of his short tenure so far - the fact he cancelled a family holiday during the floods crisis and the way he handled other subsequent events at Glasgow/Northern Rock. He also seemed to handle the visit to America very well too and gained plenty of positive press from that in the UK. </BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah it's generally called a honeymoon period and is not particularly representative of the longer tenure of a PM.

retired_janearific

So negative press sticks and he will probably be forever labelled a "bottler", but all of the good work he has done so far counts for diddly squat because he is in his honeymoon period ??

If thats the reasoning the voters in this country use at the polls he did right not to call an early election.