Talk:Gordon Brown/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Accusations of Cannibalism

Surely the article should mention something about the recent accusations of cannibalism that have been levelled in some sections of the press against Brown? (see recent news item in the Guardian- do not have a link to it but it mentioned for instance how Brown was said to have sent out to have a local boy brought to him during his recent trip to visit the United States, and the smell of cooking human flesh was reported by eyewitness accounts to have been present "in the air around his private quarters at the time", and in addition to this the boy was never seen again). This may sound like a joke but as he is the prime minister of Great Britain I think it is important that we are able to clear up this matter once and for all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.177.170.112 (talk) 21:56:12, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

Playboy?

The 'Personal' section of the article says about Mrs. Brown, "The men's adult magazine Playboy has even reportedly tried to entice her to pose for their publication. She is unlikely to do so" and gives ref #48. That reference does not contain anything even close to that statement. Please re-check, and if necessary, remove the line in the article. Thanks. 128.46.190.247 22:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I wouldn't by a copy of Playboy if Sarah Brown was eau naturale on the cover. (Willieboyisaloser 14:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)) PLAYBOYS HAVE CHARISMA & ARE LIVELY. GORDON BROWN IS DEFINITELY NOT ONE.

Ha Ha

Something about this made me laugh. VarunRajendran 19:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Post-Chancellor Edits

This page has been subject to a very high number of edits over the few days before and since Brown became Prime Minister. It's understandable given the change of circumstances, but a lot of noteworthy biographical detail has been inexplicably lost in the process. I suggest over time some of it be re-integrated from the history. Beneficientor

Flag

I removed the flag from this article's info-box, as this is a needless and redundant feature, as well as being divisive. Brown is certainly a Scot, but he is also an avowed Unionist. Should he have the saltire or the Union Jack? My solution is neither. See WP:FLAG for an interesting essay on this subject. --Guinnog 17:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

As he is the PM of the United Kingdom, the official flag of the UK should be the one to include in the article, if any.  – AMK1211^talk! 15:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Gordon secures 308 nominations

BBC News 24 has just (19:55 BST) hello dave that Brown has secured 308 nominations for Labour Leader, and hence he does not have to go through the election process - he will be the UK's next Prime Minister. 86.136.194.102 19:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Prime Minister-elect

I put Prime Minister-elect information into the infobox (edit info) but this was swiftly reverted and a message was put at the top of the page saying that there is "no such title" in United Kingdom politics. This term is being used on the BBC, Sky News, ITV and by several MPs, Brown is clearly the Prime Minister-elect, why not call him what he clearly is? Hera1187 16:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not just that there's no such title. It's a misleading way of describing it, because the Prime Minister is not an elected office. PMs are selected by the Queen from Parliament. Sure, in modern times the Queen has only ever had one choice, but until quite recently there were times (in the 1950s and 60s) when it was not a clear cut decision - so the power is still there. It remains the technical truth that she makes the appointment. Maybe that's peculiar but WP must reflect it anyway! ¶ 21:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Correct, there is no constitutional position of Prime Minister-elect. Instead when I changed a part of the introduction, I put in "leader-designate" of the Labour Party, in which he is. Afterall he is the only canditate to secure enough nominations from Labour Party MPs. (Stephennarmstrong 16:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC))

I did notice that after a couple of days, the media stopped calling him Prime Minister-elect, perhaps someone told them. Burto88 00:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Taxation and Spending Policies

This section makes 2 serious omissions that makes the article biased. It says that Brown kept his pledge not to raise income tax. However it fails to mention that he DID raise National Insurance by 1%. National Insurance is a tax on income and is paid over to the Inland Revenue in the same way National Insurance is. The only differences between National Insurance and Income Tax are in the way they are calculated. Secondly in the 2007 budget Gordon Brown abolished the 10% Income Tax band. This means that from April 2008 those who paid Income Tax at 10% will now pay it at 20%, and even those who paid tax at the old 22% rate will find that if they earn less than about £17,000 p.a. they will pay more tax because of the loss of the 10% band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.105.96.154 (talk • contribs)

Why don't you add this stuff into the article? — Wackymacs 10:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Because the article is locked for new and unregistered members.

This will have to be dealt with carefully since these are politically contentious issues. The feeling in the country and among plenty of economists is that the tax burden rose significantly under Brown as a result of "Stealth Taxes" and other various machinations with the tax code that, aside from being complicated in the first place, may well have been specifically designed to confuse to a certain degree. I believe Brown recently said relatively explicitly that he had raised taxes overall; perhaps somebody could find the quote and include it in a relevant place if it isn't already in. Beneficientor

The discussion of fiscal drag does not seem totally unbiased. While it references fiscal drag, it should be qualified that it is real, not nominal. The Wiki definition of real fiscal drag, uses the example of wages rising faster than inflation while the tax thresholds rise in step with inflation, which it seems is the case with Gordon Brown's policy. In an environment of economic growth where wages rise faster than prices, this results in people taking home a smaller percentage of their income. However, their real purchasing power has risen because of the faster earnings growth. The example from the fiscal drag page can further illustrate this point. Given an initial threshold of $5000 above which you pay 20% tax and an initial salary of $20000, the effective tax in the first year is $15000*0.2=$3000 or 15% of income. This leaves that person with $17000. Suppose in year two, prices rise by 2% while earnings rise by 5%. Then the new wage is $21000 and the threshold rises to $5100. This means that the person will pay $3180 or 15.14% of income leaving them with $17820. However, if they spent their entire $17000 income on some basket of goods in year 1, that basket would cost $17000*1.02=$17340 in year 2 -- less than their new $17820 income. They are better off even with the "fiscal drag". In an atmosphere where wages rise more slowly than inflation, the result will be exactly opposite: people will pay a smaller proportion of taxes, but they will be worse off because their purchasing power has decreased. So even though this meshes with the definition (though it is not clear that this definition is wholly accurate), the term makes this policy sound somehow negative, though it may be positive or negative depending on the current economic environment. The root of the problem is that, in the example mentioned above, one is really comparing apples and oranges. In year 2 the person is 3% "richer" in terms of purchasing power than they were in year 1. If we compare that person to someone making $20600 in year 1 (3% more than $20000), then they are both paying the same proportion of taxes (15.14%). Dan McD 05:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Signature

Is it a good idea for Brown's signature to be available on this page? What do others think? Dewarw 11:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Every US President has the same and so does Blair, Major and Thatcher. I think it's alright, I don't think anyone's going to use Brown's signature to empty his bank account or sign a treaty into law. --Philip Stevens 09:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but if I were on Wikipedia, famous or not famous, I would not want my signature freely available! Dewarw 16:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't he use a different signature for things like his bank account? I thought what we have is more of an autograph--Ruddyell 18:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we conform that other UK PM's have the same? I agree that it would be the height of silliness to try to empty Brown's bank account as it wouldnt exactly fail to attract interest but all the same Dewarw may have a point re WP:BLP, SqueakBox 18:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Tony Blair, John Major and Margaret Thatcher all have signatures on their pages, as does every US President. --Philip Stevens 06:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Should, therefore, we remove signatures from all these pages? Dewarw 19:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we should keep it. There's plenty of stupid things in the infobox (like putting his age in brackets and alma mater)but this isn't one of them. Hundreds of people whove seen GB must go up to him and ask for his autograph (I know hes not a pop star)and he'll give it to them even if he's got no idea who they are.--Ruddyell 10:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Everyone famous has their signature known. Politicians in the USA even have machines that sign it for them on form letters, I assume the same is true in the UK. Just donate $10 to any politician and you will get back a form letter "signed" by them thanking you. So it isn't a problem. Fanra 14:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• These peoples signatures aren't a secret. As a Labour Party member I quite often receive letters "signed" by Tony Blair, and now, I presume, Gordon Brown, begging me to donate money to the party! -- Arwel (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Most Philipino presidents' pages have signatures on them to!--86.29.247.234 02:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal Life

I have enlarged this section on Gordon Brown's personal life. I felt the previous section was far too minimal for a politician of his stature and so have added a lot more detailed information about Gordon Brown the man as opposed to Gordon Brown the politician and the personal factors that make him tick. Ivankinsman 11:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Making History?

Will Brown be the UK's first PhD Prime Minister?

Lots of PMs have had doctorates but the majority have been honorary doctorates confirmed in recognition of their political work. Does anyone know of another PM who had a PhD/DPhil etc. obtained by writing a thesis? Helen-Eva 15:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure - Harold Wilson (an Oxford Don) would be my first guess but there's nothing on his page. Timrollpickering 17:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

its only a history phd though -- and one concerning the labour party itsself.

Margaret Thatcher had a degree in chemistry. I'm sure there've been others, not least owing to the very high percentage of Oxbridgers. Beneficientor

But Thatcher's wasn't a doctorate. PhDs are rare in the higher levels of British politics (and not just British - I think Woodrow Wilson was the only US President to hold one) and Brown may well be the first. Timrollpickering 10:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Wilson had DLitt or LLD presumably from Oxford where he was a Jesus College don Peter morrell 11:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

A bit more...Wilson "read Modern History at Jesus College, Oxford...changed to PPE...had two abortive attempts at an All Souls Fellowship...came under the eye of Sir Wm Beveridge, who from the Directorship of the LSE, had just become Master of University College, Oxford...took Wilson on as a research asst...Wilson taught Economics at Jesus College...from 1937..." Peter G Moore, Harold Wilson Obituary, Jnl Royal Statistical Soc, 159.1, 1996, Part 1, page 165 Taught until war broke out in 1939...MA 1934, he had been elected a Fellow of University College in 1938...which kind of implies he must have had a doctorate, probably gained c.1937.Peter morrell 12:11, 30 June 2007

Being an Oxford don (Fellow) certainly does not imply that Wilson had a PhD (or DPhil), there are plenty of Oxford dons who are not PhDs or DPhils.--ukexpat 15:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I did actually mean a research doctorate, rather than an honorary one. Like most other politicians with honorary doctorates, British PMs will, I suspect, have a DCL, or maybe an LHD. By the way, according to the talk page on the Harold Wilson article, he did not have a Ph.D.

Main picture

The main picture we are using is dated from 2000, and he's changed quite a bit since then.

is from 2004 and I think its more in line with pictures of other PMs, but every time I've put it up it's been replaced. There is another portrait on commons which is dodgily sourced, so would anyone agree the 2004 one is better?--Ruddyell 10:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

for further discussion about this, please see image section below

Brown in the media

I've butchered this section - it was really scrappy. I cut this bit:

Private Eye's "Born to be Queenie" portrays a satirical sexual relationship between Blair and Brown. However, Brown denied being homosexual when he appeared on BBC Radio 4's Desert Island Discs:

Gordon Brown was shadow chancellor when the presenter Sue Lawley asked: "People want to know whether you're gay or whether there's some flaw in your personality that you haven't made a relationship."

... because what's the point? The Eye ref is a random obscure joke, and the fact that he denied being gay (not even quoted anyway) seems pretty irrelevant given he later got married and has plenty of former girlfriends, etc. I then moved the Shilpa stuff to the Chancellor role, since they are things he has done and this section should be about how he is portrayed in the media. I also moved the George Martin fact, although frankly I think it's pretty irrelevant but then so is are quite a few bits of this article now. The result is that there's actually only one fact about Brown in the media, which seems a shame as this could be a good overview of how he has been praised, criticised and generally portrayed over the past 10 years... Hence moving it to the end, tweaking the title, and adding a stubmark. ¶ 12:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit request

Could a sysop add something to the first sentence? … is the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom since 2 June 1997 and the leader of the Labour Party since 24 June 2007. It currently looks like he's been Chancellor since 24 June 2007 as well. 82.212.57.119 16:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

er, didn't Gordy become chancellor on 2nd May (rather than June) 1997? Heir2blair 11:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Birthplace

According to a BBC Reporting Scotland news report tonight (25 June), Brown was born not in Giffnock but Govan; also see [1] and [2]. Keeno 17:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the Daily Mail (30th June 2007) Gordon Brown was born in the Orchard Maternity Nursing Home in Giffnock. It has often been inferred that the minister was born in Govan despite the fact that Govan had no hospital. Unless he was born at home, which no source has as yet implied. [3] Rathenn 17:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Britain?

"the Leader of the of the United Kingdom Labour Party and Prime Minister-designate of Britain."

This is pretty woeful. Can somebody fix this, please? --Pete 02:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit request

{{Editprotected}} Please change this to primeminister designate of the UK, Britian is only one constituant part of the country!

Already completed. Shadow1 (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, there's no such place as "Britian". Secondly, if you mean Britain, that is a valid synoynm for the UK. Great Britain is not, but Britain is.

Brown himself referred to the "people of Britain" during his speech outside No 10 yesterday, and he wasn't talking only about the island of Great Britain. Some Wikipedians have an obsession with hypercorrection, changing every mention of "Britain" to "the UK" on the mistaken and petty-minded belief that the former is incorrect.

The worst kind of pedantry is inaccurate pedantry. 64.236.80.62 12:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Also note that Britain is not a consituent country of the UK. There are four constituent nations - England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, of which the first three are situated on the island of Great Britain and the latter on the island of Ireland. These four nations make up the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The UK/United Kingdom/Britain are all acceptable titles to refer to the whole nation. Great Britain only refers to the three constituent nations on the Island of Great Britain, or the island itself - in either case it is not inclusive to Northern Ireland. Sorry for this little lesson for those of you who already know this.

Why is this page fully protected?

I know it's a current event and he becomes Prime Minister today, but would semi-protection not suffice?--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 08:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Reduction to semi-protection requested – Gurch 10:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I've unprotected it completely, would semi be better do you think? Ryan Postlethwaite 10:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, we'll soon see, won't we? – Gurch 12:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep it protected, Gordon (Gordie) Brown's reputation must not be smeared by his political opponents on the Wiki!--86.29.247.234 02:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism link

this page has been vandalised and needs fixing. note the church of scotland link in the right biography box links to alcoholic beverages.# 13:30 27-06-07 UTC Masterplan79th

Still Chancellor of the Exchequer (?)

The Prime Minister is listed in the infobox as a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, but has he actually resigned his position as Chancellor yet? There is nothing to prevent him holding both positions concurrently and, although it is probably only a matter of hours (minutes?) before he appoints a replacement to Number 11, I believe he is, technically, also still Chancellor. I love constitutional pedancy! Petecollier 13:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Or, on second thoughts, do all HMG positions lapse upon the resignation of the Prime Minister who appointed them? Who has the big red button right now, I wonder? HM and the Privy Council, presumably? Petecollier 13:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

He's giving it to Alistair Darling, though until he has chosen his cabinet no one holds the title (I think...). JoshHolloway 13:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The whole question of transitional arrangements is very confused. Ministers interviewed today have generally assumed the traditional view that their offices lapsed the moment Blair resigned. However I remember Merlyn Rees on the BBC's 1979 election coverage stating that this no longer applied and that he would still be empowered as Home Secretary until a new one had actually been appointed, as security matters would still need someone to deal with them. Of course John Reid has not assumed this today...

There has indeed been speculation about who holds the button between PMs. When Blair's spokesperson was asked yesterday the reply was "Don't be silly"!!! Timrollpickering 14:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ministeral appointments are appointments to the crown - as far as i know, they don't technically lapse even on the departure of a government until the "crown" makes a new appointment or dismisses anybody. Indeed, the Office of Prime Minister is technically just another ministry, and in law afaik, there are no laid out structures of management for government - afaik, the cabinet is held together by the Party Whips and the fact that HM takes the advice of the 'elected leader of the majority of the house of commons' and therefore he/she inherits his/her hiring and firing powers by the nature of that advice, not any law that hands this power over. Therefore, I believe he is still technically chancellor too at this stage. He's quite entitled to, to remain as both First & Second Lord of the Treasury should he be so inclined. KyleWilliamson

When Gordon went to see the Queen, she asked him to "form a NEW government" - the old government is gone, Blair's cabinet is resigned and all positions are vacant until Brown appoints/reappoints people. At the moment nobody is Chancellor of the Exchequer. Abc30 14:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the BBC, when the PM resigns he resigns for himself and his whole government. Therefore Gordon Brown is only Chancellor now if he has appointed himself. But apparently Ministers continue to carry out their old functions until the new guys are appointed even if they aren't formally in office. So in that sense yes, he's still Chancellor.Helen-Eva 14:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly correct. But let's be careful about our word usage here. The Blair government has "tendered its resignation." Thus, Brown has had his resignation from the appointment of Chancellor "tendered" for him by Blair. The question is whether in practice, this means that Balir's Cabinet ministers, including Brown, continue to exercise their resigned functions until new ministers are appointed by the Queen in Council. But this is the U.K., where the constitution is a series of traditional understandings, not legal determinations as in the U.S. In this particular case, it is important to recall that at its core, the British constitution boils down to eight words, "What the Queen-in-Parliament declares is law." Thus ministerial appointments are in theory exercised-- not "held"-- by the determination of a majority of parliament with the assent of the Queen. Because Commons is really "led" by Brown now, the determination as to who effectively "holds" the Chancellor job would be made by whomever Brown deignates in the unlikely case of a Treasury emergency, whether it be himself or someone else. But this is simply an understanding, not a legal determination.

So here it is: In practice, the Chancellor is Brown or his designate. This obviates the question of who is "legally" the Chancellor-- there is no legal answer. 66.208.57.254 21:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

See [4] and [5]. Brown seemingly remains Chancellor as of now.--JETM 20:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This one is interesting:

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/newsroom_and_speeches/press/2007/press_72_07.cfm

Seems Gordon Brown, as Chancellor, appointed Blair to the Chiltern Hundreds so that he was stripped of his seat. Not too sure when, but could that mean either i) Brown is still Chancellor or ii) Blair was briefly Prime Minister without being a member of the House of Commons or Lords, which is possible, I think...? Duke of Whitstable 00:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no formal requirement at all for a minister to be in any house and on a day when the sitting PM is resigning both from office and his seat it doesn't matter too much which takes effect first, once he's finished his duties in the house. I suspect Gordon Brown signed this off in the brief period between Prime Ministers' Questions and going to the palace himself. Timrollpickering 11:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

52nd Prime Minister?

I just heard that the BBC is quoting Gordon Brown as the "52nd PM of the UK". Is that correct? --Camptown 14:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"He is also currently the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Second Lord of the Treasury, although is likely to appoint a successor on June 27, 2007."

I believe this to be incorrect in that when a Prime Minister resigns the cabinet automatically does so as well. Loaf of bread 14:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC) I was just going to say that. I guess until some Cabinet Ministers are appointed, no-one is actually in office except Gordon Brown. Helen-Eva 14:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Loaf of bread you are correct. When Blair resigned, his government resigned, all cabinet and ministerial positions (except PM) are currently vacant until Brown appoints (or reappoints) new ministers. I have deleted the offending sentence. Abc30 14:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Will Mr. Brown be the 52nd PM? Camptown 14:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sort of. The key point first - there is NO tradition of numbering the UK Prime Ministers so please can we not get into edit wars on this.

Conventionally there are 52 individuals who held the position of Prime Minister. See List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. However this excludes William Pulteney, 1st Earl of Bath and James Waldegrave, 2nd Earl Waldegrave, the "Two Days Prime Minister" and "Four Days Prime Minister" respectively.

Also the position was not official at first (and only gradually became so with government statements, the Order of Precedence and legislation starting to use the title officially at different stages).

Numbering Prime Ministers just isn't a British convention - it is more useful to refer to, say, Neville Chamberlain being Prime Minister between 1937 & 1940 than to try to work out a number for him. The problems are (in rough chronological order):

The post wasn't official at first so do we start with Walpole or not until later?

On February 10 1746 George II dismissed Henry Pelham and asked the Earl of Bath to form a government. After two days, during which only one actual ministerial appointment was made, Bath came to the conclusion he was unable to. Pelham resume office. Now was Bath officially PM or was he trying to become so? Remember the kind of precision we're used to today wasn't used then.

By the same token did Pelham have one term (1743-1754) or two (1743-1746, 1746-1754)? Do Prime Ministers with more than one term - the next definitive is Pelham's brother the Duke of Newcastle-upon-Tyne (1754-1756 & 1757-1762) count once per term (as US Presidents do) or only once (as some other countries appear to do)?

Then there's the mess of April-July 1757 when the government collapsed slowly. William Pitt the Elder the Secretary of State for the Southern Department had been the real driving force in the government but resigned in April. In June George II tried to dismiss the Duke of Devonshire and replace him with the [[Earl Waldegrave, who gave up after a few days and Devonshire resumed office. In late June Pitt resume office as Secretary of State and was still in post between the resignation of Devonshire and the appointment in early July of Newcastle. Was Pitt "Prime Minister" for a few days? (Virtually no-one considers him to be so.)

Then there's the question of whether the numbers get reset with the Act of Union of 1800. And perhaps reset again when most of Ireland leaves the UK - but is that reset in 1922 (Irish Free State created) or 1927 (when the name of the UK was modified), with no less than four changes of PM inbetween. Generally British history assumes a continuous flow on this but this isn't hard and fast.

What about the times in 1832, 1839, 1845, 1851 and 1873 when the Prime Minister of the day offered his resignation to the Sovereign but the opposition party was unable to form a government and so the incumbent resumed office?

Or what about when in 1931 and 1945 the incumbent Prime Minister resigned and was then reappointed as head of a politically different administration (the first making a coalition, the second unmaking one). Do these count once or twice?

The result of all this is that it is very difficult to come up with any numbering without having to make a lot of decisions on matters where there isn't unanimity. And frankly it doesn't create any benefit. Timrollpickering 14:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Entirely agree, Walpole was not (and many after him were not) called Prime Minister except in satirical publications and the term was considered mildly insulting. 195.157.52.65 16:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

MP?

I'm not familiar with politics of the UK, but the infobox title still says he is a MP - member of parliament. Should this the changed to Prime Minister? --ST47Talk 14:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No, all Prime Ministers are also Members of parliament. If you are not familiar with british politics then don't change anything! Abc30 14:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Already answered and this will get long enough! Duke of Whitstable 14:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection

I'm unhappy at leaving this semi-protected for too long, would anyone have any problems removing the semi protection to see how we get on? Ryan Postlethwaite 14:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No problems with that. never saw any vandaism before the protection but was only here twice. Wardhog 23:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Name

Isn't his full, official name The Rt Hon Dr James Gordon Brown - which should at least appear in the info-box title, surely? Though it might not fit well, due to the length. Also, no-one has changed where he was born, mentioned above, which in the article appears to be wrong. The top section should be longer and give more of an overview of his career and acheivements. 195.137.30.238 14:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Generally "Dr" isn't included whether the person is often called "Dr" - see Jack Cunningham - or not - see John Redwood. However John Reid (politician) does have it, though I suspect this is a recent addition. Timrollpickering 14:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If he were to reference his doctorate, wouldn't he more likely do so as The Rt Hon Gordon Brown PhD (or whatever the appropriate postnominals are)? A 'Rt Hon' seems to displace the more "common" prenominal titles, e.g. Mr. Petecollier 23:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, the Tony Blair article writes out "Right Honourable" in full. should we do that here too? Bonus Onus 00:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's highly unusual to spell it out in full. Kevin Judson 11:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to write this as simply "The Rt Hon. Gordon Brown MP", without the links to either The Rt Hon. or MP articles – I think they're well known enough – and no mention of Dr. This is like most other articles I can find. I think these are the most applicable guidelines. Any thoughts? Kevin Judson 11:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

To satisfy everyone Brown's full title is located under the picture, this is the best place for it to be and it doesnt go against the wiki-policy. Its how I did it on the Goebbels article and it worked out. Oh, I have listed his full title as, The Rt. Hon Dr. James Gordon Brown MP, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, First Lord of the Treasuery and Minister of the Civil ServiceGavin Scott 08:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Place of birth

Gordon Brown was born in the City of Glasgow, in the Govan area, Not Giffnock. Otherwise the more crediblie than this website, the BBC's sources are incorrect.

I've no idea of the details of this but is it possible someone's confusing where his parents lived when he was born with the location of the maternity hospital where his mother gave birth? It is quite common for the two to get mixed up, especially as many people regard the location of maternity units as irrelevant to whether or not they are from a place "by birth". Timrollpickering 15:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Deputy Prime Minister

I assume he will soon appoint Alan Johnson as his deputy? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 14:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't need to appoint anyone as a deputy (see Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom). But what makes you think it will be Alan Johnson if he does? Marks87 14:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. He is under no obligation to appoint anyone as Deputy Prime Minister. Of course, Harriet Harman has been elected to the deputy-leadership of the Labour Party, but Brown may choose to not have a Deputy PM. Duke of Whitstable 14:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason why he wouldn't appoint one? Who gets to be Prime Minister if Gordon kicks the bucket? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 15:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Simply because he doesn't want one?

As for who would become PM, Harriet Harman would, under Labour Party rules, become leader of the Labour Party and so The Queen would most probably call upon her to form a Government. A leadership election would then be called, with the winner then forming a Government. Marks87 16:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's still the case - I recall reading that at some point in the 1990s an amendment to the Labour constitution et al renders the post of deputy leader incidental if the leadership becomes immediately vacant in office. Instead the Labour NEC and Cabinet would jointly appoint an interim caretaker whilst a leadership election was held (which the deputy could of course stand in). I suspect this may be to avoid the tricky situation of the elected deputy becoming PM and then asking the party to back them or sack them. Timrollpickering 16:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It would have been the late 90s then, because when John Smith died, Margaret Beckett was full leader (not just acting) before Tony Blair was elected. Anyway, this is moving away from the point slightly - there's been no indication that Gordon Brown will appoint a Deputy PM, let alone who it will be! Marks87 16:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If the rule was in place then it wouldn't have applied as the party was in opposition. However it does actually feel like an attempt to avoid situations such as 1994 where the party almost was deposing the sitting leader.

(Although it's often stated that the deputy becomes full leader, I'm not sure if they automatically relinquish the deputy leadership. Some of the political scientists at the time reckoned not and the only reason there was a deputy election in 1994 was because the incumbent was standing for leader and the party could not afford the cost of a separate follow on deputy election.)

But yes this is all a bit out of place, though as the list of ministers on the Downing Street website just listed Brown the last time I looked, there may be problems if the mythical Whitehall omnibus runs him over tonight! Timrollpickering 16:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Beckett was "full leader" of the Labour party, not of the country. 195.157.52.65 16:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio

Parts of this are a copyvio from [6]. I don't have time to fix it; can someone else do it? --Rory096 21:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Not withouit much more specific info, eg a sentence or phrase from the paper that is reproduced int he article, SqueakBox 21:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Did it myself. Nearly the entire article was copied. --Rory096 14:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

First Lady of the United Kingdom?

Sky News reports/speculates that Gordon Brown has demanded that his spouse Sarah Macaulay be called the First Lady of the UK. How would such a request be received in Britain? --Bondkaka 21:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The Queen is first lady. Someone or other complained a few years ago when somebodu described Cherie Blair as first lady. Richard75 22:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

From what I've seen and heard of Gordon Brown, it would seem unlikely. regards, Lynbarn 22:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems very unlikely he would have done any such thing! If he ever did I can imagine such self-aggrandisement would be met with a fair bit of scorn. AFAIK, the spouse of the Prime Minister has no specific place in the order of precedence, and certainly no title. The PM's spouse's only title is whichever one they are ordinarily entitled to, e.g. Sir Dennis Thatcher Bt, Cherie Booth QC, or in the latest instance, Mrs Brown. NB she changed her name to Brown upon marriage, per the usual practice in the UK - she didn't retain her maiden name as maybe more commonplace elsewhere - see the reference in her wiki entry. She is therefore just Mrs Sarah Brown or, in the strictest legal sense, Mrs Gordon Brown.

If reference was made to the "First Lady" I suspect most people in the UK would assume the conversation was about Laura Bush, as it is only in connection with the US President's wife that one regularly hears the expression. Petecollier 23:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not so unlikely, though. I understand that GB has broken with tradition before, and he has promised a new policy. His demand (if any) might just be another indication of who is the lord of the manor, and this might be a perfect oportunity to show a bit of distance to the unelected Queen.Bondkaka 09:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Brown has certainly never been regarded as an active monarchist (although that's true of most of the Blair cabinet ministers, though Defence Secretaries have tended to be exceptions). However this wouldn't really be a break in tradition because Cherie Blair has been trying to use the title "First Lady" a lot. And given how the "Presidential" style of the Blairs has contributed a lot to her unpopularity in the media, I wonder if Brown really wants his wife to be given such an obvious point for being attacked on. Timrollpickering 10:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No one in the British government would dare even consider crediting the PM's wife as the first lady. Not a chance. --Breadandcheese 11:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I distinctly recall a row about this early on in the Blair years as there definitely were people calling Cherie "First Lady" in statements - it even came up at Prime Ministers' Questions. But precisely because of this I doubt the Browns will want to attract the odium, regardless of whether GB is a fan of the Queen or not. Timrollpickering 13:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

and this might be a perfect oportunity to show a bit of distance to the unelected Queen. The entire point of a monarch is they aren't elected. Its a stop gap measure to ensure the poltical system remains democractic. As lets theoretically say a situtation arose in the UK as did in the USA when george bush took power, the queen could simply disolve parliament and re-hold the election if she felt it had been improperly conducted.WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 09:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sceptical that would happen though. Now without wanting to rehash all the arguments about the 2000 US Presidential election, which technically wasn't a single election but rather 51 individual elections for a body to select a President (a crucial point as to "what, if anything, should be rerun"), ultimately that election was certified by the process set out. For a monarch to step in and demand all the elections be rerun in spite of that is getting into very partisan territory. In the 1997 UK general election one individual result (Winchester) was so close that it ended up in the courts - here the monarch didn't need to get involved when it was rerun. (And I don't think the monarch has the power to overturn individual results.) In the 2001 election Fermanagh & South Tyrone was almost equally close and also ended up in the courts, this time with no rerun. The monarch stepping in to personally decide if elections were in order or not is hardly going to command acceptance across the board.

When Commonwealth governor generals exercised their power, either to refuse prime ministerial requests for dissolutions (on the grounds that the government was just seeking to avoid defeat in the Commons and another government might command support in the current House) or to dismiss prime ministers because the budget was blocked in the uppoer house it caused no end of controversy because the de facto head of state had effectively taken sides in partisan affairs (and neither was helped by politicians on all sides who played fast and loose with the rules). Whilst a Governor Genera;'s term is short and they can be replaced (and even sacked), a monarch can only be removed by their own death, abdication or the abolition of the monarchy. Support for the third option would only grow if the monarch waded into partisan politics. Timrollpickering 09:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Re dodgy Footnote 2

What about the other PMs who never went to university at all? e.g. Callaghan and Major; do they not count in this dubious claim about Brown being only one of four PMs not to have had Oxbridge degrees?Peter morrell 06:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Maybe the reference to PMs should say 'one of only a small number of PMs not trained at Oxbridge,' or maybe even state how many had no university training at all, etc; i.e. the statement could be better clarified. thank you Peter morrell 06:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the phrase "university education" is more appropriate than "university training". Oxbridge colleges do not offer vocational qualifications. 64.236.80.62 13:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The reference is normally to PMs who went to universities other than Oxbridge, or university educated PMs who didn't go to Oxbridge - and the two are not the same as some PMs went to Oxbridge and other institutions. Traditionally Russell and Chamberlain were the only PMs cited, although I suspect people forgot about non UK institutions.

There's some further confusion with a few who attended night classes, whilst the University of London in the 19th century was a very different beast from later on (and Ramsay MacDonald did not take the exams because of illness). See Talk:Neville Chamberlain#Non-Oxbridge PMs for further discussion on this.

Also I'm not sure the non-university educated PMs are a particularly small group and they include Disraeli, Lloyd George and Churchill - not an insignificant list in itself. Certainly being a university educated PM who didn't go to Oxbridge is notable in itself. Listing those who didn't go at all in a footnote here is excessive but maybe on a page itself - there is something similar for US Presidents. Timrollpickering 14:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's all good input on this topic...so, by way of summary, how do you suggest we change the text or the footnote to accomodate these nuances? thanks Peter morrell 15:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I agree with Timrollpickering - It seems too complex a matter to easily summarise in a footnote or without detracting from the main subject - perhaps the reference should be replaced with a wikilink to another page on Educational achievements of British Prime Ministers or some such. See List of United States Presidents by college education for the example Tim refers to. Regards, Lynbarn 15:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the footnote as it stands is that it conveys a subtle implication that 48 UK premiers have been educated at Oxbridge (which is untrue), because much hangs on the passive phrase 'university educated,' which many would miss on first reading. This ambiguity could be removed simply by changing the footnote to additionally state that "X number of UK PMs' were not university educated at all or only partially so, e.g. Disraeli, Lloyd George, Churchill, Chamberlain and Major." I therefore fail to see how such a very minor adjustment to the footnote would comprise a detraction from the main point of the article, excessive or confusing, or too complex a matter, as claimed. thank you Peter morrell 04:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Leave out numbers for non-university educated PMs because this may require some judgement calls. However something like "Many Prime Ministers have not gone to university at all, including the Duke of Wellington, Benjamin Disraeli, David Lloyd George, Winston Churchill, James Callaghan and John Major."? Timrollpickering 09:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks; yes, an unquantified change would do very nicely; feel free to make that change. thank you very much Peter morrell 10:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Bonar Law and University

Since Law has been added more then once to the footnote list I'll explain my reasons for reversion. (Also can I ask anyone changing anything on this subject to post here as the huge number of edits on the article makes it hard to follow the edit summaries.)

I have one of the most recent short biographies of Law here - Andrew Taylor Bonar Law in the series "The 20 British Prime Ministers of the 20th Century", (London; Haus Publishing, 2006). Page 4 has the following:

Law did not attend university... [H]e attended early-morning lectures at Gasgow University before work. His autodidacticisim was, like business, a means to an end: a political career.

Since it directly addresses his "attendance" at Glasgow I think it's clear that Law was a memer of the public taking advantage of the university's service to the community and not an enrolled/matriculated student. Timrollpickering 15:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Strange Title

Brothers and awards??? I think this should be split into two separate sections. They are totally unrelated items. Robinson weijman 06:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Done- I renamed "Married life" to "Family", incorporating the brother information and moved the honorary degrees to the university section. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 10:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Robinson weijman 10:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Image

The image seems to change every three hours or so. At this rate we're going to have heaps of images of Gordon Brown on Wikipedia, and some of them are ridiculous pictures anyway. Can't we all just decide right here on one picture to be used in the article? If you change it at least list a reason here why you are doing so first. - .:Alex:. 14:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the one currently in the article is the most recent one we have access to. I don't think it's very flattering though- these are better imo Image:Gordon Brown portrait.jpg, Image:Gordon Brown smiles.jpg. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 14:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it seems incredibly ironic but I uploaded a new image myself. But it's the most recent picture of him there is (yesterday in fact). If there is a problem with the image (or if you want me to crop it or whatever) then tell me here and I will REPLACE the image or delete it. - .:Alex:. 15:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we are allowed to use copyrighted images if we have public domain images? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 15:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I liked Image:Gordon Brown IMF-cropped.jpg (if it's possible to use it) and Image:Gordon Brown Photo.jpg. I know they're not the most recent, but the one used at the moment makes him look a little bit ridiculous - there are more representative photos available. (chgallen 16:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC))

I don't really like those either, the first is from an odd angle and he is a weird yellow colour and in the second he is all hunched up. I think we should use one of these Image:Gordon Brown portrait.jpg, Image:Gordon Brown smiles.jpg. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The more recent the better, we ideally want one of him as PM and a really old pic would be unacceptable, SqueakBox 18:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I like Image:Gordon Brown portrait.jpg best. I agree that one when he is PM would be best but hes only been in office a day, and all the other pics weren't taken when he was a nobody, he was chancellor of the exchequer and he's famous for that too--Ruddyell 20:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not a beauty contest and Image:Gordon Brown 2005 IMF close.jpg is actually quite a good picture of Gordon Brown in action. --Camptown 22:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

He looks like he's clunking his fist! Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The one taken yesterday has fair use issues so until we can get one of him as PM I am happy to stay with the IMF pic but the moment we can get a reasonable quality fair use image of him as PM we should use it, SqueakBox 22:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean free use, surely? I can't see Fair Use being justifiable with the deluge of free images available. His assumption of the office of Prime Minister hasn't altered his appearance that much compared to photographs taken two to three years ago. Of the ones available, Image:Gordon Brown 2005 IMF close.jpg would be my choice. Image:Gordon Brown portrait.jpg is a close second, but I'm not a fan of portraits staring off the right hand of the screen. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 14:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The current image is definitely not in the public domain. ALTON .ıl 06:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it twice, but the creator seems to feel the need to give it a go... --(Ptah, the El Daoud 07:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC))

I uploaded another image to commons Image:GordonBrown2004.JPG, I know we've got enough already but it's not got him staring off the right of the screen, and is a good picture of him "in action".--Ruddyell 10:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good one - maybe better if the bottom could be cropped slightly? Regards, Lynbarn 23:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

the picture should be changed. the picture used today gives a very negative vibe. the earlier changes may have been politically motivated. a neutral picture should be used. maybe an official photo??

I don't think it was politically motivated, different people have different tastes. I've added a new one because it is better to have a main photo than none at all. I picked it because all the other options have been tried and proved unpopular, so I thought i'd give that one a go--Ruddyell 23:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll crop it then when I have the time--Ruddyell 00:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to say that the current picture is terrible. -Amorwikipedia 18:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur. The current picture is terrible. Somebody do a screenshot during PM's questions or something? Doesn't have to be a glamorous portrait, but something more flattering? My sympathies. I do hope it's not politically motivated. Better bad picture than none, after all. Khirad 03:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

All this excitement over the image, and I find myself reverting some halfwit's upload of Emperor Palpatine... - The comment against the pic "editors please check image page before uploading" is a nonsense - it's either conforming to wikipedia rules or not - I thought that there might be some reason to keep Palpatine!... Stevingtonian 15:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there any possibility the main pic could be one of Brown since he has become PM?

What about this picture? http://www.britainusa.com/images/people/ministers/brownG/brownL.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.209.80 (talk) 23:16, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Wife's name

There's a discussion at Talk:Sarah Macaulay as to what the article should be titled as she doesn't use her maiden name but isn't the only well known Sarah Brown. Timrollpickering 18:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

MP suffix in infobox

Should the 'MP' suffix be included in his name in the infobox? Looking at the pages for other members of the new cabinet, some have the 'MP' included and some don't. I just added it to the Jacqui Smith article, but then realised that many other cabinet members have the 'The Rt Hon' but not the 'MP' (Alan Johnson, John Reid, etc). What is the wikipedia policy on this? Abc30 21:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Administration or Government?

Is the term administration, as in the Brown/Blair administration an appropriate term for a British government, (compare to Bush/Clinton administration for example) as I've noticed it written like that a few times on various pages? Burto88 01:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it's ok really. It's definitely an americanism and it's not used officially, but many users on here are american so the can use whatever words they want. Either way as long as it's clear what it means it's fine. Abc30 02:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Abc30 - 'Administration' is predeominantly AE usage, but it's readily understandable to a BE reader. I'd say the more typical BE expression would just be 'Government', as in 'the Blair Government, the Heath Government' etc. 'Administration' to me smacks of a presidential system - which some would argue was how the former PM was trying to to run things anyway! Petecollier 08:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The tendency is (or at least always used to be) towards "Blair ministry"... DBD 11:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Mrs Thatcher frequently used the word "administration", notably e.g. when she greeted the crowds (of reporters) after becoming PM in 1979.--Camptown 14:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Gordon Brown?

Why is there a picture of Hitler posing as Gordon Brown in 2002? lol...

RE Gordon Brown?

Forget it its gone...

That would have been vandalism.--NeoNerd 21:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I yanked it. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 22:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Rocking Horse

Why was my comment about the rumoured photo of Brown sitting astride a rocking horse wearing a diaper deleted? And also about him picking his nose and eating bogies in prime ministers question time? (which was reported).

Copyvio

The part Personal life is a copy of http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/09/nrgordon109.xml. Maximini1010 04:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I got most of it- now to find out who did it. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 12:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, it was User:Ivankinsman [7]. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 12:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Dodgy sketch

What's that sketch of GB "a day or two" after he became PM in the article for? It looks terrible!--Ruddyell 10:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I came here to say just that, very unencyclopedic, no matter how humorous :p 213.48.15.234 11:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I've justthis minute removed it! regards, Lynbarn 11:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The main image isn't much better- he looks like a fish! I think we should generally avoid images where he has his mouth open as they tend to be unflattering - this image imo is the best oneImage:Gordon Brown portrait.jpg. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

GB as Chancellor

Now that Gordo is PM, we should cut all the rambling stuff that accrued over his time as Chancellor. This article is very long already, and he hasn't even done anything yet! As a first step I've created a new article wherein all the rambling stuff has been dumped. And I call on all good Wikipedians to summarise Gordon Brown's ten years as the country's second-most powerful man into a couple of taut paragraphs, while perhaps even developing the Chancellor gubbins in its new home. ¶ 11:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Photo

Can we get one that doesn't make him look mildly drooling, dizzy, and confused?

Please! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I am going to replace it with this one Image:Gordon Brown portrait.jpg - every one where he has his mouth open he looks like he's about to swallow a fly. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Gordon Brown portrait.jpg is bad for two reasons. 1, it doesn't even look like him and 2, he looks quite disturbed/insecure. Image:Gordon Brown smiles.jpg has a better composition and I beleve it looks more like him (despite the fact that it is older than the current). MartinHagberg 10:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the current one is slightly the best, I don't see how he looks insecure, but he does seem to look different now which is why I liked Image:GordonBrown2004.JPG because it showed more grey hairs. Maybe that image was better before it was cropped though because the hand gesture made him look like he was making a point, instead of looking like he'd just seen a busty blonde--Ruddyell 13:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that Image:GordonBrown2004.JPG is the 'best' photo currently available, but it seems that the open mouth is disturbing to some people (which I don't really understand). A full size version of GordonBrown2004.JPG becomes unclear when it is minimized and most biography 'lead images' are cropped like that. MartinHagberg 13:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not use the one off www.number10.gov.uk?

Because it's copyrighted, probably. Abc30 16:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

A google image search has yeilded some possible pictures that are a little nicer. It doesn't help that Mr Brown doesnt seem to be very naturally photogenic, and so half of his photos look rather demonic, or he has his mouth open (although I can't personally see why this is a problem). Are we sure the number10.gov.uk is copyrighted? it might not be, it may be royalty free headshot. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 21:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of the images on number10.gov.uk are shown as copyright Reuters Regards, Lynbarn 21:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted a change to the page, which amongst other things, changed the image to Image:Gordon Brown 2005 IMF close.jpg (shown at the right, here). Is this another possibility — it's in the public domain, so copyright isn't a worry?

File:Gordon Brown 2005 IMF close.jpg

Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 19:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Structure

Currently the section on Brown as PM precedes that on his time as Chancellor in the article... surely this should be rearranged so that his history is chronological? -Kez 14:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Put a disimiguation for defence minister Des Browne incase some one got confused over which Mr Brown M.P. they wanted.--86.29.247.234 02:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Glass eye ref

Is the Newsround reference really good enough? There were rumours that Brown had a glass eye back to 1999 at least so it's possible that the mother wrote to Brown thinking he had a glass eye but Brown in fact doesn't but he wanted to give give the kid some confidence so he went along with it and pretended he did have a glass eye? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Have to say I wasn't totally happy with referencing a Newsround story. However, two points. Firstly, with it being the BBC, I think we can assume a fairly good level of reliablilty. Secondly, are you suggesting that a handwritten letter from Brown himself admitting the fact (and talking directly of its impact on his life) is insufficient proof? Short of a doctor's certificate, I can't see what better proof there could be. Kevin Judson 14:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, that IS possible, but the reference, as cited, is from a reliable source (The BBC), and unless and until your theory can be substantiated, I would say leave it as is. One also has to consider the likelihood of a leading British politician committing an untruth, however well meant, to the public domain, and in particular, in writing.(!!!) I have also found several 'circumstantial' references, rumours, and suggestions, but nothing definitive either way. Regards, Lynbarn 14:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be more of a white lie on Brown's part as he would obviously think by saying he did have a glass eye he would make the kid's life better. Probably only Brown's close family and doctor know whether he actually has a glass eye or not. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 15:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

As Lynbarn said, when there's no evidence to support a lie, we really have to presume he's telling the truth. If this was such a white lie, as you suggest it could be, it would be highly unusual and ill-advised (since when does a politian put in writing something they know to be untrue and probably verifiably so?). He's not going to invent a whole story about having a glass eye for one mother's letter. Kevin Judson 16:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Have to agree with Lynbarn and Kevin Judson there, but if you want to know if newsround tells white lies, find out their policy on santa claus--Ruddyell 22:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You must have a Brass eye to beleve Gordie has a glass eye- why is there no reference to his other prosthetic?.--86.29.247.234 02:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to update this item, I work for the wife of a labour back-bencher, who in conversation this morning did confirm that he does have a glass eye. I guess this counts as original research though! Lynbarn 11:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Section

Is it too early to start one? For the Labour Party to be taking on Digby Jones ex-director of the Bosses Federation the CBI seems to be a good place to start.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 14:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Lead not long enough

I removed the tag saying the lead is not long enough, because when you clicked on it, it just went to the talk page and hadn't been discussed beforehand. The lead does need to be longer now.--Gloriamarie 15:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violations in policies section

I removed the last two tenets of the policies section because they were cut and pastes from the first reference given, from the Times.--Gloriamarie 15:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

An those 'cut and past' guys realy brown me off!--86.29.247.234 02:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I came across one in an article where it had stayed for a year or more with a fair amount of work done on it. Other then the fact that it was taken from lawyers so was a very high risk for legal action, all that work came to naught because the section had to be removed Nil Einne 14:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Is Mr Brown a stubborn man?

Mr Brown is a unionist man that seems to think he is English and he should be barred from Scotland for being so uncaring of Scotland like the rest of the UK's government is. VOTE SNP

Oddly, they don't have a candidate in my constituency, what with me not living in Scotland. 64.236.80.62

Please only use this page to discuss improvements to the article; it is not a place to express general political opinions. Lfh 11:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracy on date of becoming Labour Party Leader

The opening sentence reads 'Dr. James Gordon Brown (born 20 February 1951) is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, the First Lord of the Treasury, the Minister for the Civil Service and the Leader of the Labour Party, and was first appointed to these duties on 27 June 2007' However, as stated later in the article, 'he formally became Leader of the Labour party at a special Party Conference held in Manchester on 24 June' - then assumed the Government offices 3 days later. Am I right about this? Surely we should get the opening sentence right?! Brianwilsonisgod 21:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You are, we should, and I have. -- Arwel (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of "Alleged Green Deception" Section

I have removed the section entitled Alleged Green Deception as it involves utterly trivial details about what car the PM drives, yet sounds like some national scandal.

Who removed this witout a discussion?I will add it without a controversial headingChendy 15:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Who on earth CARES about his choice of car???? It does not belong on a page like this. The guy is the Prime Minister FFS - there is plenty of other info to cover. This is nitpicking green nonsense. You devote a whole paragraph to something as stupid as this??? No way. It's out.

Please discuss issue - don't just delete because you don't care about the infomation. It IS relevent! Chendy 16:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Er... by the way, hate to tell you "Chendy" but the little abusive message you sent me (you really get abusive towards people who disagree with you on Wiki? Are there enough hours in the day?) was not quite as anonymous as you probably thought. Oh, and you spelled it wrong too - there should have been a "k" in it. Cheers anyway!  :-)

It reads like an advert for Toyota - "the greenest car in Britain". Other than that, it's complete trivia, and I'm going to keep removing it for that reason.

I think the idea of the PM driving a foreign car would be a bigger scandal than its eco value. Gavin Scott 15:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I was aware and it wan't actually me (it was a friend). i'm sorry about the petty behavior. Anyway now we are all friends: The issue; I feel that however trivial it may seem - highlights lying - saying one thing and doing another. its not meant to be a straight froward condemnation of car choice (Gavin Scott + Mr Mystery) but a condemnation of lying to manipulate image. A debate can rage about whats more important a prius "green" car or a british car but that misses the point. He didn't promise to get a britsh car - he promised to get a green car.Chendy 21:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have reworded it a little to make it less like an ad for toyotaChendy 21:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for the explanation Chendy, and the changes. I think in the grand scheme of things it's still pretty trivial, but I suppose in these early days it's worth a mention. Once Brown's honeymoon is over and his premiership starts sinking into the usual crises, scandals, betrayals and disasters, I daresay it will be edged out by events.

Perhaps we should create a controversy section? Im sure alot more things will creep up in time, and we could put the nuclear and car issue in there just now, since they are not really that major that they should have their own mini-sections. Gavin Scott 16:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Dr title

If anybody wonders why the title "Dr. Gordon Brown" is not being used here, please look at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Academic_titles. Thanks, Lfh 10:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

His PhD was in history surely, not in politics? so that needs changing...Peter morrell 10:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

According to citizendum it was politics, however I am not sure if this is correct. I don't think anyone will argue with this arrangement we now have. Gavin Scott 11:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

he has completed a doctorate in history in 1982, writing his PhD thesis on the Labour party. [8] seems pretty clear to me Peter morrell 11:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

And here are a few more refs that state he has a PhD in history [9] [10] [11] [12] Peter morrell 11:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Disability ?

Does being blind in one eye count as a disability ? If so, he could fit in the Politicians with physical disabilities category. Wedineinheck 11:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I think you'd have to check if partial blindness is counted as a disability or not, say can you get a disability parking card if you suffer from blindness in one eye, can you drive for that matter? Gavin Scott 13:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't drive does he? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, if he isnt allowed to drive because he's partially blind then I'd assume partial blindness is classed as a disability, in fact, im positive it is. Gavin Scott 13:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. :) Wedineinheck 16:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Protected?

If this page is protected and can only be altered by administrators how come the lines concerning his mother and father keep on changing - variously saying his father 'molested' him and his mother's nickname was 'Slutty'. Slightly childish no?

86.141.2.126 12:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Protection only means that editors without accounts or new members cant make changes to articles, some people have created accounts and so they can purposefully vandalise the project despite the protection. Gavin Scott 13:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

PMs not from Oxon or Cams

Henry Campbell-Bannerman was a graduate of Glasgow University, he should be added to the lsit of PMs not eucated at an Oxbridge College. DKBick —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.70.154.130 (talk) 14:37, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

See above - the key point is which university educated PMs didn't go to Obridge, not those who went to both one of them and another university. Timrollpickering 14:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Views on Israel

Why does this need a special section? Furthermore, surely any reference to jewish roots of his minsters belongs in their own biographies. Why would it have any relevance to a views on israel section?

dfutter —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 11:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• agreed, I don't see why it deserves separate distinction whatsoever, surely if it must be included it can be absorbed elsewhere. --Caiman 21:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Fashion

[13]

Anyone want to add something about this? Dannpm 12:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Golden Brown

I added "The gold sales have earned him the pejorative nickname Golden Brown, and there is also a satirical parody song by the same name." which was undone by TheologyJohn on the grounds that "rare nickname - never heard it, and I am a fair bit of a politics". Leaving aside our own TaxFreeGold website, may I cite a leading article in The Guardian Thursday March 11, 1999 [[14]]. Google shows over 11,000 entries for +"golden brown" +"gordon brown" [[15]]. I consider my addition to have been accurate, relevant, and as neutral as possible considering its subject matter. Lawrence Chard 09:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right, it was a valid edit that deserves to be there, and I've restored it. I don't want to apologise as such because I don't believe I was morally culpable for removing it, but I was certainly in factual error, and I am sorry if that in any way offended you or anything.

The reason I removed it without fact-checking first is simply the fact that, as I'm sure you'll understand, pages on important political figures tend to get filled of all sorts of random little insignificant factoids that support the political views of whoever edits the page.

While I'm not academically trained in politics and don't understand the subject to that level, I do spend upwards of 10-15 hours a week reading and learning about it, and cannot recall ever coming across that nickname - although I may of course misremember. Under those , I didn't see the point of doing research - if I did that on everything on those pages (or similarly initially suspect edits elsewhere), I would have significantly less time for other things on wikipedia - especially as I was operating entirely within the rules of wikipedia.

WP:Verify states:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.

and

Any edit lacking a source may be removed.

TJ 17:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The correct spelling of satire is without a "Y". I have added a "citation needed" tag to your amusing edit.Phase4 19:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The (presumably) American spell-checker on my PC tried to correct my satyrical to satirical, but our copy of The Oxford English Dictionary, second edition volume XIV, gives both spellings. The entry for satire states "also satyre".Lawrence Chard 21:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes but "satyre" is a different word. Just because "board" and "bored" are said the same, they are of course completely different words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crieff405 (talk • contribs) 08:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

When a different spelling is under the same definitionit means the same thing so its nothing like Board and Bored. Satyre is an older spelling. many words in English have multiple spellings because its based on west german languages and Norman French (A latin based language). Both are acceptable but Satire is better because it's more universally accepted.(Morcus (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC))

Brown stealing Tories ideas

Anyone think this deserves a mention? (Willieboyisaloser 14:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

Maybe, if it is properly sourced. I'm not sure that your user name is appropriate. Who is this "Willieboy"? Viewfinder 16:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, which Tory ideas does Willieboyisaloser have in mind?Phase4 19:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

As long as it's made clear that they are only accusations that don't actually hold up considering they have touched on inheritance tax and non domiciles before - and stopping non domiciles is pretty important to economic prosperity which Brown has frequently said he is aiming for. That part of this article is clearly written by some Tory prat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.144.237 (talk) 12:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Au contraire- knee jerk reaction by Brown to a strong performance by Cameron and a reflected bounce in the polls. It is essential to ensure that labour sycophants don't take over the editing of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob77 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Brown is not just a Tory but a Thatcherite just as Blair was before him. There is no substantial difference between him and Cameron.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 08:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Something wired is happening. I'm trying to revert recent vandalism, but my edit isn't taking. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Head of state in infobox

There's currently a disturbance at the current Canadian prime minister's article, Stephen Harper, regarding the inclusion of the head of state in the article's infobox, and, following that, on all previous Canadian prime ministers' articles; currently the Canadian series is the only one, as far as I can tell, where the relevant head of state is not listed in the infobox.

As this article, and all those for previous British prime ministers, list the head of state in the infobox, I'm wondering how the decision to do so was reached, and if this practice should or should not be the same for all PMs' articles. It seems odd to me that one series of PM articles would be different to all the rest.

Opinions are welcome; needed actually. The discussion is taking place at Talk:Stephen Harper#Infobox -- include GG and monarch?. --G2bambino 15:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why all PM's in all countries need the exact same infobox. The monarch technically appoints the Prime Minister and in the early days of the British premiership the monarch had considerable influence over who was appointed PM so I think it's an important part of the British PM infobox—British PMs still go to "kiss hands" at Buckingham Palace. Canadian and Australian PM infoboxes will differ because of the strong republican feeling in those countries and because when they started having PM's they were already constitutional monarchies with the monarch having no influence in the appointment.--Johnbull 17:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the succession to the Premiership of Alex Douglas Home, and the first General Election of 1974, I'd suggest the monarch still holds significant influence over who to appoint - if only in certain circumstances Whitstable (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Home was appointed before the Conservatives had formal leadership elections. And the monarch didn't appoint anyone in February 1974 - Heath did not resign his office (and constitutionally there was no requirement to - the Commons had not yet voted him out and it wasn't clear if he could or couldn't form a government). Remember Heath left Downing Street in less time after the election than many Prime Ministers do in clear cut results, both in the UK (e.g. Baldwin in 1929) or elsewhere in the world (right now John Howard is still the Australian PM, Kevin Rudd won't become so until later in the week). Timrollpickering (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Zimbabwe?

What is Gordon Brown's view on Zimbabwe?

– He thinks it's lovely, and would like to go there on holiday. He hears the exchange rate is rather good at the moment, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.189.169.182 (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews

There should be a link to http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Category:Gordon_Brown --81.105.245.251 23:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Signature

Can anyone confirm that the signature in the article is really Gordon Brown's signature? It doesn't really look like the kind of signature that an adult would use. UKWikiGuy (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be taken from this page at the Labour website. There's actually another (less messy-looking) signature at this page but it would probably need to be changed into a PNG or SVG to be used here (no idea how to do that myself, alas). Chwech 19:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I can well believe that it is Brown's signature. He lost much of his eyesight in an accident, and it is entirely plausible that that would have affected his handwriting in that kind of way. TJ (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think of that. I assumed that as the image was released under the GFDL it was self made. I think I will raise the issue of the image not being free on the image page UKWikiGuy (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

DOB

Can we get a date of birth on this page? Brown was born on 20 February 1951. 79.73.7.33 (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's in the infobox. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Monarch in infobox

A debate over the inclusion of the monarch in the infoboxes of Canadian prime ministers, similar to what is done here and at all other British PM articles, has re-emerged at Talk:Stephen Harper#Re-open discussion: Infobox -- include GG and monarch?. Opinions on the matter are welcome, if not necessary! --G2bambino (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Gorden Brown's signature

Is that really Brown's signature? It looks totally retarded, the way you would expect a five year old to sign their name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.158.114 (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• As mentioned previously, Gordon Brown has very bad eye sight (including a glass eye) due to a rugby accident in his late teens/ early twenties. Hence, his poor handwriting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.9.192 (talk) 21:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Not Elected

I think that it should be mentioned in the opening paragraph that Gordon Brown was not elected into his position and merely Tony Blair's successor. 82.41.15.93 (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

He was elected. We all knew he would succeed Blair. Gavin Scott (talk) 12:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

82.41: - by elected do you mean the voting public? We do not elect prime ministers - this is not the United States! Blair and Brown both met with the Queen if you actually watched the news. When exactly was John Major ever elected by the people when Thatcher left? --Revolt (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

In 1992, oh and thats a very inadequate answer to give. This may not be the US and we may not directly vote for the leaders of political parties but when your putting your ballot in the box you'll be thinking Brown, Cameron or some other leader- you won't be thinking about your local candidates too much. Gavin Scott (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Gavin Scott (talk) 16:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You should be, thats who your voting for. All PM's are unelected so it shouldn't be mentioned unless put into context eg. he's never lead his party in a general election.(Morcus (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC))

Regardless GS, no members of the public voted for Major to become PM in 1990 when Thatcher left. --Revolt (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the fact that we do not elect prime ministers the principal is that we hold a General election when a new prime minister comes to power. And the fact is when Gordon Brown came to power he didn't hold an election because he was scared he was going to lose...therefore he is Unelected.--Oisinh (talk) 11:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Gordon Brown was elected - he was elected into Parliament by the voters of his constituency and he was voted in to power as Labour Party Leader (and therefore Prime Minister) by the Labour Party. The voting public do not vote for the Prime Minister or even the ruling party, we only vote for our local MP. Blair and Thatcher were not voted in by the nation - only by the voters in their constituency. Following General Elections they then became (or resumed being) Prime Minister but that was because their party had a majority and they were the leader of their party. They were not directly voted into power by the public. Alienturnedhuman (talk) 10:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Political Positions of Gordon Brown

Is there a reason for this article not existing? David Cameron has this article, and they're normally very useful for quickly referring to political positions... --87.194.236.208 (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC) (whoops, should have signed as --CalPaterson (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC))

I'd imagine he's a bit too keen on keeping his job at the moment to have any political positions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.232.4.58 (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Driving licence

There is currently a statement in this article that Brown doesn't have a driving licence. How is the webpage cited in any way an authoritative source on the matter? What a joke of an encyclopaedia Wikipedia sometimes reveals itself to be in its acceptance of anything as a reliable source. You have a policy on this, why not stick to it? 79.68.246.120 (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced the citation with one to a 2001 Sunday Times article. Thank you for your input. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff, thanks! 79.68.246.120 (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The Telegraph has recently apologised for 'misinformation' about the issue of Gordon Brown's driving license. It appears that he does have one.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/politics/threelinewhip/march2008/brown-driving2.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nashienet (talk • contribs) 11:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Dispute whether details correct on Gold Sale

Gold sales: Between 1999 and 2002 Brown sold 60% of the UK's gold reserves at $275 an ounce.[37]

I'd raise a question about this source as when I click the link for [37] no page exists so the price of $275 per troy ounce can not be verified. I have the figure as being slightly lower at $250. It would be interesting to see what the figure really is as these Gold Sales were staged over a period of 2 years and sold on different dates it would be good to see an authoritive source detailing all the sale quantities, their dates, and the exchange rate on those dates so we can obtain a true average. John10001 (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI: ref 37 at www.archive.org. Mr Stephen (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Factors affecting Gordon Brown's career

Can someone please add the important note that Gordon Brown has an uncanny resemblence to Mr. Bean (a.k.a Rowan Atkinson) - this is seen by some as the main contributing factor to his successful career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.159.182 (talk) 05:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, as Vince Cable stated, Brown went from Stalin to Mr. Bean in just a week. Gavin Scott (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2008

Also, Gordon Brown looks like a paedophile(UTC)

Main picture

Perhaps fitting with the rest of the article, the current top image is out of date and just not very good. Does anyone think an image like this: [16] cc photo may be better? obviously it would need cropping --RedMe (talk) 12:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Zimbabwean Elections

Mugabe called Gordon Brown a "little tiny dot on the world" on Saturday 12th April 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.185.111 (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As much as i hate like Gordon Brown i hate arogant totalitarian dictators who pretend to be freedom fighters even more. Mugabe is basically saying that Britain no longer has any influence on the world stage. This is largely true, but we have a damn site more than Zimbabwe. If Gordon Brown is a "little tiny dot on the world" then Mugabe is a tiny little tiny dot on the world. (([User Willski72]))92.10.10.78 (talk) 15:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Driving licence

This section currently states Gordon Brown does not possess a driving licence. - According to this Telegraph blog post he does indeed possess one. Neither source seems more credible than the other (both political comment pieces in major national newspapers) but given the uncertainty shouldn't this claim be removed? Qwghlm (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this should have been included in the article to begin with. It just seems to be a small piece of unimportant trivia to me. Having said that, [17] and [18] both back up the claim however I still don't believe it's noteworthy enough to be on the page.137.222.215.52 (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I've not thought about it before, but I agree, it isn't relevent to the article, so it is now no more... regards, Lynbarn (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

British (Scottish)?

Can we rewrite this to simply "British", or will the Scotch nationalists cause a furore? I'm not being a pedant, it's just that any other politician who happens to be of English origin, is simply referred to as British. Case in point, Tony Blair, Tessa Jowell, David Milliband. 92.232.121.101 (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Tony Blair is scottish, but yes I agree with you. Gavin Scott (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, surely we have enough evidence of his Britishness: choosing to be an MP rather than an MSP; taking the role of PM; his pronouncements about what it means to be British, etc. Bluewave (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Gordon Brown

Resolved

80.42.233.163 (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)Gordon Brown's girlfriend mentioned in his Wikipedia entry was not Marion Calder, but Marion Caldwell, whom I remember as a secretary on the Sunday Post newspaper in Glasgow, but who subsequently trained as a lawyer. When last I heard of her she had become an Advocate Depute.

Willie Morrison, Inverness80.42.233.163 (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC) 80.42.233.163 (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - well spotted --h2g2bob (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Bias

This article seems to be written with a negative bias against the prime minister. Could it not be written in a more neutral tone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.75.13 (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Not at the moment! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon k phillips (talk • contribs) 17:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with the above comment. I can't see the section be written in a more neutral tone at the moment, because that is the truth. w_tanoto (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the article is fairly neutral. Many politicians have "controversies" in their articles. Also, Gordon Brown is very unpopular in Britain as of late.62.31.242.55 (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Controversy sections are discouraged as it splits articles into positive and negative sections. Unregistered users currently cannot edit the page (register here), but suggestions on what can be improved (on this page) will be welcome. If you have a specific change you want to make, suggest it here with the text {{editprotected}}. --h2g2bob (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This article couldn't be anymore neutral! It doesnt outline that Brown is pretty much hated by his country and that there is alot of pressure on him to step down! --Oisinh (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Iron Chancellor

Can someone add the fact that he has been called the Iron Chancellor on numerous occasions?

References: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3545669.stm http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=%22Iron+chancellor%22+%22gordon+brown%22&btnG=Search&meta= 81.149.182.210 (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Lack of respect shown to our American overlords?

"Brown made his first overseas trip as Prime Minister not to Washington, but to Berlin, and spoke to German Chancellor Angela Merkel." ScottAwesome (talk) 11:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Crewe by election

Brown has just turned a 17% labour majority into a 17% tory one.

I think the 17% related to the "swing", not specifically to the majority (it just so happens that the majority by which the winning candidate won at the by-election happens to be an almost "mirror reversal" of the majority at the last general election — Conservative candidate by about 8,000 votes at the 2008 by-election, Labour candidate by about 7,000 votes at the 2005 general election). Also, I don't think that one can fairly say that Brown "has just turned a ... Labour majority into a ... Tory one" — the responsibility for that change cannot be so simply pin-pointed! Ondewelle (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ondewelle. It does not fit to be added to this article. I don't think he is directly responsible. Also, regarding the majority, according to Crewe and Nantwich by-election, 2008 article, the majority is 18.9, while the swing is 17.6. w_tanoto (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This should be pointed out because it is an important moment in Brown's reign.--Oisinh (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Accent

The main article notes that "Gordon Brown was depicted in Season 12 of South Park sitting at a table of world leaders opposite Nicolas Sarkozy in the episode 'Canada on Strike'. He was accurately portrayed speaking in an English accent, having long abandoned his native Scottish accent." — That is as may be, but to many English people he still sounds Scottish (though I'll admit his accent is "muted"; it is not, however, an "English accent"). Also, do we know that he has actively chosen to "abandon" his Scottish accent? Might it not simply be that living (effectively) in England for some years and being surrounded largely by English people has meant that his accent has become muted? Ondewelle (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Controversies

There are two major controversies missing. The first is his raid on pensions. The second is his sale of Britain's gold reserves. They both get a mention under his acts as Chancellor but they are also major controversies. - Berks911 (talk) 07:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There's also a third - remember the labour party donations scandal that took place just after he took office? hmm... 62.176.111.68 (talk) 10:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Dictator rubbish

What is this dictator nonsense that we are introduced with on Gordon Brown? This should be edited immediately, as it lowers the stature of Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.120.235 (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"Unelected?" <<lost my ID card, so can't remember who I am.>> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.81.234 (talk) 11:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Tony Blair wasn't elected, his party was...did you elect the leader of the opposition?Gavin Scott (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course hes a dictator, he is unelected and recently all he seems to be doing is taking all the money he can get from the poor people (am I mistaken or was new labour founded on helping the poor people!!)--Oisinh (talk) 11:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No prime minister in the history of the UK has ever been elected, we are not a democracy, we are a representative democracy. Very different things.62.232.4.58 (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

What you are talking about is a presidential democracy like the US, we elect our representives to represnt us at national level. The Prime Minister in our system should have little real power it is his party, our MPs who hold real power. If you opened your eyes you would see that it is the unelected editors of the Mail, Express and Murdoch press who run this country. --86.151.22.16 (talk) 11:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Brown is not fit to be Britains PM. Ever sice he has beacme PM he has cocked up everything. I can't understand why he is basicaly handing Britain over to the EU. Does he have any idea what he is doing to Britain. He is handing away our freedom. If the EU takes over then it will not be called Great britain any more. Every single British thing would be deastroyed and utterly shit EU ideas would take there place. What an utter tosser. If he really thinks he is helping Britain then he should be shot. Piss off Brown. Your no good for this great country.

The thing he does with his mouth

Does it have a name? I can't follow what he says on the telly, I keep focussing on his mouth. 124.101.249.63 (talk) 00:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeterminacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.83.136 (talk) 00:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

'Dr' title?

As stated in the article, Gordon Brown holds a PhD - so should he not have the title 'Dr' at the beginning of the article? There is a Guardian comment piece at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/03/unconstitutionalrubbish that refers to him as such throughout. Brianwilsonisgod (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

But that's one of the only times I've seen "Dr Brown"... Which is interesting in itself, so do we think it should be noted? DBD 23:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought the same thing - we shoudl call him Dr Brown rather than Mr Brown. In cidentally, where is mention of his first degree? The article skips straight from his being accepted at Univeristy at the age of 16 to a Masters in 1972 when he would have been about 21. So presumably in about 1970 he git a first degree. (or have I missed something?) DavidFarmbrough (talk) 22:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

In Scottish University the first degree you go for is often a Masters done over four years. Gavin Scott (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The BBC frequently mentioned "Ms Clinton" and continues to mention "Mr Obama" when both hold JDs. Rarely are JDs called doctor, however. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Its a curious thing, I remember Dr. John Reid the former home secretary was very insistent that people use his doctoral title. I also recall the Prime Minister referring to Condoleezza Rice as Dr. Rice...Sometimes the media call him Dr. Brown other times Mr. Brown. It just depends. Gavin Scott (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've heard Rice called "Dr Rice" just as often as "Ms Rice". The simplest thing is just to put PhD after his name or make sure that it's mentioned in the article that he is a PhD. When just mentioning him, drop Mr and Dr, just use Brown. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Wiki convention is to put the fact that a person has a doctoral degree in the lead section but not begin the article with Dr. Name. There is a policy on that, I could find it if need be, anyway should there ever be a need in the article to call him Mr. Brown I would recommend using the correct Dr. Brown form, however that being said I don't think there would ever be such an instance, so thus Brown should suffice. Gavin Scott (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Perhaps you could do something similar to Churchill's page? Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you refer me to the part you mean? If its the fact that the article starts with Sir Winston Churchill, well that meets the WP:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Honorific_titles policy. Gavin Scott (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I mean at the very beginning with all of his post-nominal medal initials. Are you allowed to do the same with degrees? Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

According to the MoS...no. Gavin Scott (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I see. Then we just have to make sure it never gets deleted. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

POV

No mention of the numerous polls that prove that he is the least popular PM on record? Really? 124.101.249.63 (talk) 00:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with long term opinion poll comparisons is that polls are not created on that basis. The methodology is constantly monitored and adjusted, particularly the sampling and weighting (a poll of 1000 people that gives a 28.6% response for an option never means exactly 286 people responded that way). And of course different polling companies do things differently, hence the informal election competition between them to get the most accurate predictions.

Plus there's evidence the electorate is far more volatile today than in the past for a various reasons (one being the steady breaking of the links between class and voting behaviour, another a weakening of mass assertive identification with parties) and the record highs and lows, whether in polls or election swings, are just the same results as in the past but on a more volatile scale - "yesterday's 5% swing is today's 15% swing". So whilst it makes for easy to write newspaper stories it doesn't really say anything grand in the long term. (And of course opinion polling only began in about the 1930s so how does one measure previous PMs' unpopularity?) Timrollpickering (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You are never going to get a mathematical proof, are you? How about mentioning the approval ratings? Have a look at this. 124.102.43.240 (talk) 13:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Deputy

Is his deputy Harman (his deputy in the House of Commons), Darling (who seems to be the next most powerful cabinet minister), Martin (next in precedence for the gentlemen), Ashton (who has a fixed place in the men's precedence despite being a woman) or Straw (the man previously hought to have been given the positions of Deputy PM and/or First Secretary of State)? Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Gordon Brown does not have an official deputy. Whereas Tony Blair appointed John Prescott as Deputy Prime Minister, and Prescott stood in for Blair during his absence in the House, Gordon Brown has not made such an appointment. Harriet Harman was elected by the Labour Party to the position of Deputy Leader, as the party constitution requires there to be both a leader (Brown) and a deputy leader (currently Harman). The British Constitution requires the Monarch to appoint a new Prime Minister in the event of the incumbent's death or resignation, though in practice there would be an internal election or appointment within the party. Harman would not automatically become PM if Gordon Brown were no longer able to hold the post himself just because she is the deputy leader of the Labour Party. Indeed, even if Gordon Brown appointed her as Deputy Prime Minister, such a succession would not be automatic. Harman has been known to stand in for Brown at Prime Minister's Questions, but this role could feasibly be taken up by anyone with Brown's approval. Chithecynic (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This whole issue with putting Harman or anyone else as "Deputy" in the PM box comes about purely from misunderstanding the concept of "Deputy Prime Minister" — the purely honorific title is quite misleading — the DPM doesn't deputise for the PM very often, and has no necessary expectation to become Prime Minister! It's not even like the DPM is the second most important minister — that's mostly the Chancellor (being Second Lord of the Treasury while the PM technically leads the government as First Lord). I mean, in very recent memory the Chancellor succeeded as PM! I mean, no person can be expected to succeed as PM until they are the leader of the majority party in the Commons, and that's that. If Brown were to die suddenly, Harman might act as leader of said party, but she herself could hardly be deemed "capable of commanding a majority in the Commons", so the Monarch would probably appoint an interim acting PM from the cabinet (likely the Chancellor, Straw or the Leader of the Lords) while a leadership election takes place to produce a mandated leader... So, bottom line, Harriet Harman is not the Deputy Prime Minister DBD 19:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Just in case nobody believes either myself or the previous contributor, might I point interested parties in the direction of the following article that appeared in The Times today:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4393707.ece

In this article, it states that "[Harman], the deputy leader of the Labour Party...was conspicuously denied the title of deputy prime minister when elected". It also shows that when she was elected, Brown's aides briefed the media saying that Harman would not deputise for Brown at Prime Minister's Questions. Indeed, she was not even expected to deputise for him whilst on holiday, and the fact that she is now is a surprise. Chithecynic (talk) 09:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Harriet Harman is unquestionable the nearest thing to a deputy that's why she was chosen to run the country while Gordon Brown was away, Harriet may still be made DPM in the cabinet changes that are set to take place in October. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thealexweb (talk • contribs) 20:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting argument but factually incorrect. She was not chosen to run the country, as No. 10 went at great pains to emphasise that she was just "co-ordinating the government's work" for one week. The argument is further weakened when you consider that both Alistair Darling and Jack Straw were selected to carry out the same role in subsequent weeks.[19] Taking your argument to the logical conclusion it looks like we now have 3 deputies to choose from. ^_~ Road Wizard (talk) 21:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between a formal Deputy Prime Minister, a Cabinet member being given an alternate "senior" title (e.g. "First Secretary of State") and one or more ministers minding the shop when the PM is out of town (Harman hasn't been running things all the time - Alistair Darling had a go for a bit but with his ability to bring invisibility to whatever he does it was easy to miss). It's also the case that the Deputy title can very often backfire by making the politician vulnerable when things go wrong - John Prescott would have fared far better at the hands of the press in 2006-7 had he been titled "First Secretary of State & Secretary of State for Communities, Local Government and the Regions" or even just a shorter form. Harold Wilson was deliberate in not giving George Brown the DPM title as this would have made the latter's personal shortcomings even fairer game for the media. Brown has been trying to get away from the "Presidential" style of the Blair Administration and not having a formal deputy is one way of doing so. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No pictures of him when he was young.

Any reason why? Or can't anyone find a non copyrighted Pic? (88.109.100.65 (talk) 21:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC))

Quite simple: when he was young his unattractiveness put off any would be photographers from taking his photo. 87.113.95.177 (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Photo needs to be updated

Current picture looks outdated (photographed in 2004 when he was still Chancellor) so updated photo is greatly needed. Anyone object? Hopwas2007 (talk) 12:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

One thing to consider is that it is important to avoid copyright problems. As the current image is in the public domain you can only replace it with another image in the public domain or an image under an equivalent free licence (See Wikipedia:Non-free content). Road Wizard (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

A recent photo of Rowan Atkinson would suffice Helzagood (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Assassination plot

Should something be put about the PM's threatened attack or is that against what Wikipedia is? For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

IF it has credible 3rd party sources then be bold SGGH ^speak! 19:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Why the lack of positives?

I usually stay away from politics and voting as I personally don't believe we live in a true democracy. That said, I am astounded by the negativity on this page. Although not a perfect PM, Brown has had some positive moments; during the horrific floods last year he showed great drive and leadership and, although not perfect, has shown a good deal of purpose on environmental issues. I suggest this article shows more balance instead of just presenting the views of our nation's sensationalist media outlets. Commend Brown on at least something! There's no need to be so negative. It's just a thought- Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.110.42 (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

but, tbh, there are VERY few positives. he's now less popular than neville chamberlain after the german invasion of norway (and that's going some!) and has presided over turning labour from the dominant party in british politics to one 20 points down in the polls and that would lose by a landslide in an election tomorrow. i think on balance, the handling of a few minor floods is dwarfed by the calamitous decline, dithering and spending 30 billion bailing out a bank, robbing the poorest people in the country on the 10p rate,.. need i go on!Jw2034 (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I am a 'victim' of the 10p rate- big deal. The floods were not a minor issue either- you obviously need to do some research you opinionated fool. There is a world outside of the self imposed capital of everything (London). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.41.139 (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

actually, I live in Leeds.Jw2034 (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the point being made here is simply that despite Gordon Brown's handling of the floods, this does not significantly reduce the impact of the controversies and bunglings that have taken place on his watch. I do not dispute that the floods were a serious issue for many people living in the affected areas, but I am afraid that a great many other blunders that Brown has been involved in have affected many more, and on a national scale. Also, please do try to avoid vilifying everybody living in London - we're not all self-obsessed, you know. Chithecynic (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

For there to be any positive points in the article - there needs to be something positive worth writing abaout, which there isn't. Helzagood (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Even though I am a Labour supporter, I would be the first to admit that Brown has been an almost complete disaster as Prime Minister. If only there were a credible challenger he would not still be in office. (92.12.14.13 (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC))

Because it is Wikipedia! LizzieHarrison 17:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

His handling of the current finincal crisis is a very big positive, hopefully he will get the credit for that. --92.16.212.102 (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the eventual outcome. There is a school of thought that if he was so eager to claim responsibility for the out-of-control boom years then how can he avoid any responsibility for the bust? However, if he does manage to get control of the economy again then it could indeed be seen as an overall positive. I would suggest waiting for now and seeing how history judges him. Road Wizard (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

(hons) degrees?

Do we list such things in wikipedia? Gordon holds many honorary degrees, an example being (from the article Doctor of Letters) the higher doctorate, D.Litt from the university of Delhi--Liamstone (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Style

Does anyone know the reasons why Brown is called "Mr Brown" not "Dr Brown"? Is this his own choice? Anglicant (talk) 11:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It's rare in Britain to use the "Dr" form outside of an academic context, particularly in politics. There are a number of MPs with doctorates who never get called them - John Redwood is another - and indeed the ones who have insisted on being called "Dr" such as John Reid are sometimes mocked for it (though don't do so to Reid's face!). Something similar happens with medical doctors, though to a lesser extent and whether they hold a health portfolio can also play a factor (from recollection Liam Fox only really started to be called "Dr Fox" in the media when he was Shadow Secretary of State for Health). Timrollpickering (talk) 13:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't Wikipedia surely style him as Dr, even if he doesn't style himself in such a manner? Computerjoe's talk 18:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't make arbitrary decisions on whether or not to style someone in a certain way. We should always rely on sources. Doing a quick Google search for "Dr Gordon Brown" Prime Minister returns 351 results while "Gordon Brown" Prime Minister returns 3,870,000 results. What would be your justification for styling him in a way that is different to the vast majority of source material? Road Wizard (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

One would presume someone holding a doctorate would be correctly called 'doctor'. However, I guess the article on Doctor (title) says: 'It is widely accepted that those who hold a medical or research doctorate like the M.D., M.B.B.S., D.P.M, Ph.D., or Sc.D. are entitled to prefix their names "Dr"'. I guess emphasis is placed on entitled, and that Gordon Brown chooses not to style himself as such. I do ask if Wikipedia would always call someone who holds a knighthood or peerage by their style, even if they don't elect to use it. Computerjoe's talk 20:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Again it would depend on the weight of sources in each case. It is not whether the individual chooses to identify themselves with or without the title, but whether the weight of sources identify them with or without the title. Wikipedia is a reflection of secondary sources, so we should not be presenting information in a way that goes against the source material unless there is an extremely good reason to do so.

That a person holds a title is a matter of fact and can be mentioned in the article with reference to one or two reliable citations. Whether the title is in common usage is more subjective and will depend on the body of evidence as a whole rather than a few isolated sources. Road Wizard (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Donald Tsang is referred to as Sir Donald Tsang even though he, and the HK government, elect not to use that style. In this case, 2130 results are on Google with Sir but 168,000 without. So in this instance, what would be appropiate? Computerjoe's talk 22:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not know the details of that case so it is not really possible for me to comment. As I mentioned earlier, if a good case can be made to go against the weight of sources then that is what can be done. In the case of Gordon Brown, he appears to choose not to use his title, the vast majority of sources choose not to use his title and common practice in the UK is to refer to him without the title. Please provide some valid reason why you want Wikipedia to go against all these things. Road Wizard (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Taking a look at the Donald Tsang case for a moment, the use of Sir appears to have been the subject of heated discussion in the past, though both sides have presented sources to support their positions. Media references appear to have been used to counter an official government biography. As with all things on Wikipedia, it all boils down to sources. Road Wizard (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you point me to the policy regarding styles? Computerjoe's talk 18:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Changed circumstances

The lede needs to be updated - Brown is now more secure in his premiership than ever. The credit crunch has changed events - with labour now 10 points behind their rivals according to most polls (as apposed to 20 points when the lede was written). Browns bank bailout has been internationally hailed as a model; contributing to a far more secure and authoritative PM. Speculation regarding a challenge is non-existant, indeed - it is purely gossip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.11.195 (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the last sentence of the lead para to reflect this. MFlet1 (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

88.108.11.195 is obviously the IP of the New Labour HQ. financially, 10 years of financial largesse, government sanctioned irresponsible credit and inflation running at 5% would give reason to disagree that gordon brown is secure and responsible. it has been internationally sanctioned as model - since it is the exact one proposed in the US, the so-called 'bail out'. and if you call socialising the irresponsible lending of several banks a good model...

brown is only secure since no one would risk being accused of playing politics at this point; just wait until things settle down. a leadership contest is always a possibility with a leader in such a weakened position - the opinion poll is now back to 12 points and widening again http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/interactive/2008/jan/29/polls. Jw2034 (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Jw2034, It is very difficult to replace a sitting prime minister, as a poll today shows labour only 3 points behind the conservatives it is clear the crisis in the labour party is over and there will not be a challange to his leadership before the next election. If at the end of the year he is still closing the gap with the tories then there should be a section on labour and Browns turnaround in the polls, with more detail than the paragraph added by Mflet1 (which is good enough for now) BritishWatcher (talk) 09:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

see http://indefence.is - Gunnar Guðvarðarson (My Talk) 03:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Error on 42 Day Detention

The article states that the PM gained the votes of a number of Ulster Unionist MPs. There is only one UIster Unionist in the House of Commons and while she did vote with the government I believe that the article shold be referring to the nine Democratic Unionist Party MPs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.125.110 (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

ChangedCider86 (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Scottish and British

Perhaps someone who is familiar with this debate (which i am sure has been gone over on several occasions) could direct me to where such debates took place on how to deal with the nationality of British people in the person info box as i have been unable to find it. Some peoples article describe them as British, whilst others describe them as Scottish. Personally i would like to see Scottish and British included rather than just one or the other. I also notice that the info box does allow for the inclusion of "citizenship" which would be British and there for only need to describe his nationality as Scottish. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The application of the word British to the nationality of Scottish politicians who serve in the UK government seems to be consistent in Wikipedia; we should keep it that way unless or until there is consensus to do otherwose. Maybe there is a case for further discussion of this, as Scotland is a nation, albeit not a sovereign nation. Viewfinder (talk) 11:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom. The trouble is, there is no verifiable test of whether someone is Scottish or British - it is really a matter of how they see themselves. Certainly, the country of birth is not a valid test. If someone stands for the UK parliament, becomes the PM and presents themselves as the leader of Britain internationally, it is quite good evidence that they see themselves as British, rather than Scottish. Also, if they bang on about "Britshness" (as Brown has done), it gives further evidence. Brown may be ethnically Scots, but I would argue that there is plenty of evidence that his nationality is British.Bluewave (talk) 11:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence whatsoever for your "rather than Scottish" statement. Brown clearly considers himself to be both, and AFAIAA has said so repeatedly. Please note that Scottish implies British, however the reverse is not true. --Mais oui! (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

OK I was putting forward some evidence for Britishness but, if there is evidence for Scottishness too, that's fine. Bluewave (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that link Bluewave, thats what i was looking for and will read that all through later today. Mais, Brown considers himself to be both Scottish and British which is why i would prefer to see both stated as his nationality. I think mentioning both on all such cases would be the best policy as being British doesnt stop him from being just as Scottish as someone like Alex Salmond who i agree should just be labelled Scottish. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It is what is on his passport: British. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.219.39 (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

3G Auctions

I have reverted User:Robin48gx's edits to this subsection as I believe they substantially decrease its NPOVness.

Furthermore, the "point" cited from Victor Keegan is also irrelevant - it was written before the auctions had been completed and is necessarily speculative. Keegan says, "[i]t could all end in tears, as a similar auction in the US did last year when winners defaulted on their payments" (my emphasis). But it didn't: the UK 3G auction winners did not renege on their bids. Soobrickay (talk) 11:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it was unneccessary and pointless to revert them. The quoted reference implied that there were no such auctions in the USA. The fact was there were, and they were re-run to prevent causing economic damage in that sector. In fact the same auctions company that organised the original disastourous auctions in the USA was re-used by Gordon Brown (and paid around 1 Million pounds to do it).

I the could turned to would. It did all end in tears for telecoms development in the UK. 'Organised' by the same governemnt that did not know the difference between 'java' and 'javascript'.

I strongly dis-agree with the reversion of the page because '[But, as Paul Klemperer, one of the designers of the auctions, points out, "[t]he United States held no 3G auctions, yet telecoms companies lost just as much: in fact, they lost more."[45]' I would also ask for figures here with good citations. Also you are quoting from the people that designed the auctions deliberately offerring less licencenses than operators. The quote may be wrong or totally out of context, because this is factually incorrect. Damaging auctions were run in the USA. Its just the USA realised its mistake tried to revert and patch them up

Simply re-verting back to something factually wrong, is not good for wiki. Robin48gx (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Robin48gx,

Thanks for your reply. My response falls under two main headings:

1) The fact of the matter with respect to the 3G auctions

Indeed, I am quoting from one of the designers of the auctions deliberately, since Klemperer is an expert on auctions in general, and of course, an expert on the auction he helped to design. Yes, he is likely to think that the auction he designed was a good one; however, this does not mean his points are inadmissible. Most importantly, here, the idea that the UK 3G auctions "caused" UK telcos the trouble they faced in 2001 is unproven, and IMO, one that is an extremely convenient scapegoat for the executives of said telcos. As such, I believe an unqualified statement that the auctions caused the telco recession would fail NPOV---this is why I added the words "some allege that".

I am not sure which US auctions you are referring to. From the point of view of an economist---not to mention the US Treasury---the US spectrum auctions in the late '90s were poorly designed. They did not shield operators' bids from one another, thereby allowing collusion between the operators. Operators signalled which area codes they were bidding on using the last three digits of their bids. A parcel of adjacent area codes would naturally be much more valuable to a winning bidder, so it was in the interests of all operators not to compete and push the price up for area codes that they had limited use for. The end result was a significantly lower stream of revenue for the govt than would otherwise be expected. (See Cramton and Schwartz (1999) "Collusive Bidding in the FCC Spectrum Auctions" [20], for example.) And yet despite this, US telcos still suffered in the 2001 telecoms recession---suggesting that the UK 3G auctions might not be to blame for UK telcos' woes.

2) Whether this is a matter for this article

The above paragraph notwithstanding (don't I have anything better to do on a Sunday evening? :) ), I wonder whether this subsection should be in the Gordon Brown article at all. Whilst Brown clearly dealt with the incoming revenue stream, the auctions themselves were designed and run by the Radiocommunications Agency (which has been defunct since 29 December 2003: [21]). Hence, I don't really think the spectrum auctions were one of Brown's "Acts as chancellor". Provided you have no objections, perhaps the subsection should be removed entirely?

All the best, Soobrickay (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this should be removed because it was an act of the chancellor. It involved 22 billion of public money ; no small beer. It also had the effect of strangling the money supply from the telcos, and there was a resulting recession in that industry resulting in the loss of 30k jobs in the uk,100k EU. To remove this would be taking away an indicator of how the chancellors office dealt with a very large bloc of british industry.

Its also worth noting that the change for charging from administrating the spectrum allocations to effectively extracting large amounts of money from them lead to all these problems. This was a political act, and in effect a stealth tax. At the very best it would have increased prices for phone users and slowed implementation of new networks. At its worst throw alot of people out of work and severely delay implementation of 3g networks and supporting infrastructure. Which was what happened.

So I disagree, this should not be removed.

I am actually researching the problems 1988-90 flight sim industry (a similiar although less spectacular blunder by the tories, only about 15k jobs affected).

as an aside its very sad that all british politicians seem to understand so little about large engineering and i.t. projects. I think its only fair to point out where they go wrong; and where they cause damage.

Also Soobrickay the US use a different spectrum than 3g to run 3g services. So by saying there were no 3g auctons in the USA means the quote you are using is very mis-leading. It should not really be used in the article because its totally out of context. Two auctions were run for frequencies that carry 3g services in the USA. And the second one was run because the regulatory authority saw it was already causing damage. The stock market lost confidence, partly due to the concept that telecoms were similar to dot com (both were categorised as 'high technology' in the listings) and share prices tumbled. As they did so the ratio of debt to assets based on share price changed making the telephone operators effective credit rating look insecure.

So no, I dont think this should be removed at all, and the quote is mis leading. The USA auctions were for 3g spectrum space. see shannons law to understand this Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem

Robin48gx (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Intro

I thought it was standard not to include qualifications such as a PhD? In addition (although it is bad form to criticise the absence of content) why not "PC" as well? Ironholds (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Make that "I know it is standard not to include qualifications such as a PhD" according to the MoS. I'm going to remove it. Ironholds (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

8th Scottish Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

Currently at the bottom of the introduction it says... . "He is the eighth Scottish Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the ninth non-English Prime Minister of the United Kingdom". Now i do not know if that is an accurate statement or not but the source provided is http://www.scottishpolitics.org/westminster/primeministers.html which does not appear to show there were 8 (a look at the image selected for Tony blair right at the bottom hardly builds confidence). Brown is clearly one of just a few Scottish prime ministers of the United Kingdom, and thats an important fact to include but does anyone have a good source or know for certain the number? thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 00:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Plus if your read the caption to the Tony Blair picture it states "Tony Blur". It looks like the source is suggesting there have been five Scottish Prime Ministers before Brown, which would make him the sixth Scot and seventh non-Englishman, as David Lloyd George was Welsh. I've marked this statement as dubious for now. YeshuaDavid (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I have found a better source which lists eight Scottish Prime Ministers here, does anyone object to replacing the contentious source with this one? YeshuaDavid (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed the quote for the moment till we can make sure its accurate. That new link seems more reliable, but i see certain people are still disputed on there too as its hard to just define Scottish leaders, one being born in Canada but of Scottish decent. Blair could equally be classed as Scottish considering he was born and educated there. Would be helpful if we could find an official statement or info from government website on how many there have been. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Relations with the US

This should be updated to reflect that his views were more conguent with the current Obama adminstration and any reluctance appeared to have been with the Bush adminstration itself. --213.208.80.235 (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Cross-referencing mentions of Brown in Obama pages would be a sensible first step.--213.208.80.234 (talk) 09:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)