大象传媒

He is determined to change away from the Blair legacy. A fair and reasonable objective after the decade of spin and deceit - much of it from the Treasury

But without even the faintest shadow of a doubt, he has absolutely NO mandate.

We have a presidency but no checks and balances. We need them. Can you imagine Cameron and the Tories building on this legacy ?

Nick, pleae let's not fall for all this guff about a ministry of all the talents. Remember Blair giving Heseltine a role in relations with China and sitting on a platform with Clarke to set up a group on the future of Europe? Blair invented the non-political Tsar for drugs and other issues.
All PMs do it, and Blair did it the most. None of what Brown will do - Shirley on nuclear proliferation ? perlease ! - is going to be new in the slightest, so let's not fall for the spin, eh?

Nick,

Darling as 'low key'? He did seem to get ripped to pieces on the Today progamme this morning as he tried to present the new government's agenda as one of definite 'change' without either saying 'I will be the new chancellor' or announcing new policies...

How will a country weaned (however unwillingly) by Blair on celebrity leadership, advance leaks, soundbites and photo-ops get used to a new leadership who sound both diffident, slightly nervy and totally unwilling to give journalists the headlines, scandals, sparks, fire and controversy they crave? Is there just no going back to a spin-free politics?

(I do remember in 1998 tipping Darling as a future prime minister or Labour leader on the grounds that he was the most bboring person in the government and could therefore easily rise to the top, like Major, because he offended no-one)

Brown appears to have strong Cabinet options from the last few 'survivors' but perhaps his biggest challenge will come from within.

Many on the Left saw Brown as 'their man' but with all the change rhetoric and talk of new politics, I wonder how long it will be before the irritating rump of 'old' Labour that remains begins to get exercised?

Miliband as Foreign secretary? At 42? Will he PM at 50?

I like Darling, he's quietly efficient. Since he's been transport minister, trains have improved, but there was no shouting and arm-waiving. This is definitely a style I favour.

All choices you name so far are good choices. But where are the capable, quietly efficient Labour women

Adam wrote:
Miliband as Foreign secretary? At 42? Will he PM at 50?

Yes, probably, or opposition leader... I can't see a brighter spark in his age group to lead labour... these things can change of course.

Where are the women in this new cabinet?

" But where are the capable, quietly efficient Labour women"

women and the top of politics don't mix. see for reference Britain from 1979 to 1990

Brown has to call an election, not only for us but for his own piece of mind. For a man who has long craved this position surley it cannot satisfy him knowing he has no mandate from the British people.

A scottish executive lead by a minority government and now a prime minister with no political mandate - some democracy??

Gordon Brown's Cabinet can be summed up in 6 words: A Government Of All The Blokes.

First thoughts: foreign affairs - Miliband and Alexander taking over from Beckett and Benn - definitely less experience and,in Miliband at least,not yes men, but is Brown really going to give Miliband a free run to set himself up as the next PM?
Home affairs: who will be Home Secretary? Nick, you seem quiet, but I see Adam Boulton is suggesting Blears, Smith or Jowell - does Brown still see this as a "great office of state" especially with Straw at justice. In breaking things up, is this Adam Smith's division of labour or old fashioned divide and rule? Finally, (trying not to overstate myself) could this by the key question to Brown's style of government, and ultimately whole term?

Its exciting to see some changes in the cabinet, but I'd especially like to see the new generation coming through; it would be nice to see Ian Austin get a prominant role in the next year or so.

Nadine: I think that says everything about the man. You haven't even noticed that he's been Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for some time now.

I am disappointed about the lack of women so far being offered posts in the new government.

I dread a return to the male dominated, dark-suited, governments of old. I'd also like to see ethnic minority and gay appointments. P.C.? - yes, unreservedly so.

I thought Brown's treatment of Harriet Harman signalled a potential lack of awareness of how women feel about being excluded and this was particularly marked since HH stood on a feminist platform - and got elected most convincingly by ordinary party members, many of whom, like me, are women.

Watch out Gordon. We won't tolerate being shoved into the shadows.

Please ignore my political ignorance, but do any of these MP's specialise in certain areas? For instance somebody who is in charge of running and sorting out health in this country could quite easily be moved in charge of defense or education. Do these jobs not require any specialise skills? Is being in charge of one section the same as doing another? I presume they employ specialise advisors beneath them? Any help clarifying this would be greatly appreciated.

Brown does not need to call an election. When you go to the polls, you are supposed to be voting for your constituency MP, not the leader of their party. The party with the majority then has the right to choose who leads them and the country. This is how it has always worked.

We chose Labour in 1997, 2001 and 2005, so we got Labour. Stop bleating on about an election, it gets boring quickly.

If A.Darling is unveiled as chancellor, can he please dye either his hair black, or his eyebrows grey?

Some of the highest profile areas are largely outwith his control. Iraq and Afghanistan, for example. Others he is idealogically wedded to : high taxation, state control of public services.

Unless he can can show real change in these areas (not spin) then he is destined to deliver more of the same government in which he has been a pivotal player for ten years.

Please ignore my political ignorance, but do any of these MP's specialise in certain areas? For instance somebody who is in charge of running and sorting out health in this country could quite easily be moved in charge of defense or education. Do these jobs not require any specialise skills? Is being in charge of one section the same as doing another? I presume they employ specialise advisors beneath them? Any help clarifying this would be greatly appreciated.

The UK in 2007 is a million miles from the UK of 1997, we all remember that in 1997 we still had people dying while on NHS waiting lists (waiting years in many cases). Lets not also forget that crime has fallen by almost 40%, didn't the Tories manage to increase crime by over 100% (using either the recorded crime figures or the crime survey figures). Unemployment, interest rates, inflation, Northern Ireland to name a few more, so many things have improved under Labour over the last 10 years. I am sure that Brown will do as well if not better, so please all those Tory posters who want us to forget the 18 wasted Tory years (where did all that North Sea oil money go? Oh yes I remember it was on the 4 million unemployed) get a life and come up with some policies, or a leader (not a PR man), that will do better than Brown, if you can?

An election now would turn into a presidential race based solely on image and soundbites. Gordon should have a couple of years to show what he can do in Number 10, so the UK electorate is able to make a proper judgement. I would love to see him take on the tabloids - they are the ones responsible for the country's loss of trust in politicians, the immigration paranoia and rabid Europhobia and the widespread and completely illfounded belief that the NHS hasn't improved over the last 10 years.

this is the best time for both GB's (Great Britain and Gordon Brown) to act on global terroism by engage in a diolog with israel and arab nations to put a full and final reasonable settlement. this means tough decisions might have to be taken soon
with USSR (a bitter pill to get better)

Let us not forget that Gordon Brown is the man who has "stolen" billions from our pension funds, both company and individual, and increased taxes as though they were going out of fashion.

Although he may try to distance himself from the Blair years, remember he was at the heart of this government for the whole time. If he didn't like it, why not do something. Or was he too fond of retaining the power that comes with being Chancellor.

Are we looking at another "Blair" but in a different coat?

Let us not be fooled again!!!

It'll be interesting to see how Gordon Brown adjusts his reputed "command and control" style at the Treasury now that he's Prime Minister. If he fails to, it may represent the biggest difference between the two parties: Gordon Brown focusing on more control at the centre, (in other words with him), and David Cameron - if he can stick to it before he opts for another 'flavour of the month' - pushing for greater decentralisation. Time will tell.

People are used to 24 hour news,
so Brown's soft and quiet approach will not work, don't worry spin will be back!

I'm confused by this talk of mandate; we don't have a president, we elect a ruling party and they decide upon their leader, who in turn becomes Prime Minister. There are already rumours awry of Gordon calling an election, surely if he plans to do that he will implement the same changes in cabinet line up and policy now as he would should he receive this seemingly prerequisite mandate.

All these people who are complaining that Brown has no mandate need to shut up and think. We don't elect a prime minister in this country, all we do is vote in individual constituencies to elect individual MPs and it is the party that wins that determines who the Prime Minister is.

Further, anyone voting Labour at the last election knew full well that they were "voting Blair, getting Brown".

Whats all this about 'no mandate' & 'presidency'? Has everyone forgotten how a government is elected in this country or have we become so obsessed with America and personality that we think we are putting a cross on a ballot paper to elect a Prime Minister/President.
We go to the polls to elect a local MP and his party and their policies. The political parties decide who they want for a leader, not the electorate. Unfortunately we seem to prefer the TV persona of the Prime minister to his leadership qualities. Look where that got us with the outgoing PM. Lets hope it doesn't happen next time with David 'all preening & no policies' Cameron. We need strong honest men with skill and conviction in Government. Give Gordon Brown a chance, he might just prove you don't need to be a performer to be Prime Minister.

to those contributors who are remarking on the lack of women, just lets wait and see and remember we want people ( men and women alike) to get jobs because they can do them not just because of their sex.

GB will do things his way, yes it will different from Mr Blair and that for some will be a refreshing change

Max Beavis worries about the lack of specialist knowledge that new ministers may possess. 40 years in education have convinced me that lack of knowledge is seen as desirable as a Minister. If you get somebody who knows what the problems are, they might not be keen on the latest Government initiative.
Any criticism by teachers of a particular idea is seen as carping criticism motivated solely by self-interest.
I understand the same thing happens with Health.

Have we forgotton that averting catastrophic climate change and transitioning towards energy security - i.e. securing ourselves a long-term viable base on which 'education', 'foreign policy' rest, are the most critical issues for the new cabinet? Nick there was nothing in your rundown about the environment minister and it is very rare indeed that you hear Brown say anything vaguely convincing about the pivotal envrionmental issues we face. When are we going to wake up and get real?

Time for a change? From what to what? Tony Blair has already revamped Socialism and produced "New Labour". So which direction is Gordon Brown going to choose on his route to "change" - is he going to move further to the right, or back to the left?

Let's face it - Tony Blair is a born conservative, albeit of left-liberal hue, who went into politics before he had outgrown his socialist student phase, but who then quickly reverted to type. Marx would have labelled him a "reactionary". It is unthinkable that Gordon Brown would move yet further to the right - so we can guess what kind of "change" lies in store!!!

This looks like the Brits have elected a bulldog in lieu of a poodle. Let us all hope the new bulldog will lift a leg on the Bush and pull British boys out of Iraq-nam.

What is the point of a reshuffle? Sorry to sound naive, and I can absolutely understand that GB wants to ensure he has the best people in the best jobs right now.

I just don't understand frequent mid-term reshuffles. It wouldn't happen in business - you wouldn't get the HR Director suddenly becoming chief operating officer. Explain please Nick!

Let's bury once and for all this garbage about Brown having no mandate.

We live in a Parliamentary system. The People elect a Parliament, and the number of seats each party gets determines who is invited by the Sovereign to form a government.

Labour won the last election, and its mandate is for five years. Whoever leads the Labour Party is a matter for for the Labour Party.

It's that simple. If you don't like it, lobby for change.

And before we forget, Macmillan, Callaghan and Major all became PM on the same basis. Some people should learn some history and law.

Shockingly hypocritical of the Tories to call on Brown to seek a 'popular mandate' immediately. Have they forgotten about Major so fast? The UK elected Labour, not Blair.

What Labour does not want to have to make clear is that there needs to be real change - belts will be tightened, and not just the government's. The UK needs to stop living beyond its means and at the same time invest in education and infrastructure to meet the multiple challenges facing our economy - immigration, globalisation, security, climate change.

But if I was going to pick a man to deliver a sensible austerity programme for Britain without stopping growth, I'd pick Brown.
Let's just hope that he has learnt to LISTEN, and then he'll be a great leader, better than soundbite and legacy-drive Blair.

Gordon should have a couple of years to show what he can do in Number 10, so the UK electorate is able to make a proper judgement. I would love to see him take on the tabloids - they are the ones responsible for the country's loss of trust in politicians
------------------------------------
1. Should we also give David Cameron a couple of years as PM to show what he can do before making a decision?

2. I think we have lost trust in politicians because politicians keep doing things that lead us to lose trust in them.....

To Daphne and Chris: let's not encourage the government towards positive discrimination. There's a good reason why men are being chosen to run the cabinet; I'd be disappointed to see a woman there just for equality at the sake of losing a better candidate.

To Max: you're totally right - these jobs require special skills, and it probably comes as no surprise that politicians continuously fail to provide improvements, most likely due to their lack of knowledge within these fields.

What is all this talk about where are the women? Brown talked about talent and the cabinet women don't exact;ly seem to have covered themselves in glory. Margaret Beckett supervised the farm payments fiasco but got out of DEFRA just in time to avoid that flak but has not fared well at the FO either, Patricia Hewitt at Health has alienated everyone and managed to turn the NHS into a bad news story despite the extra billions being spent on it, Tessa Jowell does not even know about her own household finances but professes to be able to run a major department and Ruth Kelly has come unstuck over HIPs. There seems to be a lot of tipping of Helen Jackson but apart from her where are these women to come? There's even talk of having to go to the Lib Dems for Shirley Williams!

So we are to get a new set of priorities! If Brown changes direction now will yesterday's promises to delvier requried transformation in public services go by the book? Lets hope that he has the ability to see things through to a full and accountable conclusion - after all he is spending our money.

Brown does not need to call an election. When you go to the polls, you are supposed to be voting for your constituency MP, not the leader of their party. The party with the majority then has the right to choose who leads them and the country. This is how it has always worked
------------------------------------
That is true. However, over the last centure the focus has shifted from the local candidates to the central party, with many people voting for the party (and therefore their leader) rather than the individual person to represent them in parliament. To claim otherwise suggests that you are not taking into account the reality of modern day voting.

It seems to me that the whole changeover has been well choreographed by both Mr Blair and Mr Brown. Mr Blair has run his course and Mr Brown is taking the baton, able to bring a fresh approach to the many sound changes that have happened in the last 10 years. This is not a cynical comment but one of reality. If New Labour are to continue the positive social reform of this country then they need a new impitus provided by a new team.

Hmmm, so far Gordon doesn't seem to be endearing himself to the Women of the country.
First Harriet Harman's role is cleverly down-graded and then Patricia Hewitt's resignation & Margaret Beckett sacked...
I wonder who will be next - Tessa Jowell?

Let鈥檚 knock this "Gordon Brown has stolen billions from our pension funds" on the head, the tax system was changed and because of this change, and others, the amount in pension funds under Labour has increased by 100%. And those on state pensions have had much better increases, including raising the Tories 艁10 Christmas bonus (introduced by Labour almost 30 years ago) to around 艁400.

Your final sentence says it all, Nick!! Broadcasters and the media are not interested in getting the job done, only in wild speculation and cynical analysis (if that's what it is). Isn't it about time for a change in the media? Maybe we could have some factual reporting of events that have taken place instead of the endless speculation about things that haven't yet happened. Sorry to be such a cynic!

Comptence needs neither training nor experience. Milliband is a good example. A few politicians would be capable of any task or role because of what they are: calm, collected, reasoned and sensible. Unfortunately the tories are not as well endowed as Brown's lot!

Im glad someone sane is finally in power and although with him holding off the election till next year, he will have to do alot to get close to beating the Conservatives.

I think what he's trying to do is change the cabinet to show the country that he wants to change the way the country is ran, the prioritys he has and move away from the Blair decade.

With this said, he will still struggle to beat Cameron in the next election

Brown is certainly for changing things whether that involves altering course completely or merely slowing down on the current one, as you suggest.
The new PM's restlessness in waiting and unease with the Blair regime has been obvious to everyone, and it will be extremely interesting to see what he does differently.
I was impressed with his speech outside Downing Street yesterday and the absence of frills and soundbites in particular.
I hope the Brown administration is able to strip away the layers of camouflage his predecessor wrapped British Politics in and be more visible in it's endeavours.
I am not a natural Labour supporter but I wish Gordon Brown well. I will watch his progress with interest and that of Alistair Darling in dealing with the Treasury, blackhole or no blackhole.

We now have a Scottish Prime Minister and a Scottish Chancellor. With Scotland now being run by the SNP and the Welsh Nationalists forming a coalition with Welsh Labour what are the chances of Gordon Brown stopping the UK falling apart?

Changes promised yesterday are clearly visible now, after much chaos we can now breath fresh air in NHS, property market and transport. Let us not be harsh and give some time to Mr Brown to mend the disaster previous cabinet has created. Im sure he would be a good PM.

Just looked at the cabinet roles, what's the Dutchy of Lancaster do then? Keeper of the chambers privvy or some such guff?? What do they do, I've never heard of the previous keeper and probably won't have heard of the replacement...

Rich
Christchurch.

Who the hell is Jacqui Smith?

We have a Scot sitting for a Scottish constituency as PM, and it seems likely that another will be Chancellor and yet another heading a new department for the "Nations and Regions". When did the West Lothian Question become the West Lothian Stitchup? You couldn't make it up.

I have found it amusing listening to various members of the government trying to define what exactly the change will be. Andy Burnham on Newsnight and Alister Darling on Today both struggled.
I know he has to be different but can we expect real change for one of the architects of the last 10 years?

One of my sons is called Alasdair. Every time my wife says, "Alasdair, darling" my skin cralws slightly.

Hi Nick,

Whenever you have some free time, I wish if you could explain the parliamentary rules and regulations to some of the correspondents, regarding the change of leadership while in Govt.
Some of the comments by certain people are so naive when they suggest, that Brown has no mandate to govern, one would think that they are either envious of the calm and collected transition in the Labour Party, or maybe they are STUPID!

May I say to these people, STOP MOANING AND GRUMBLING AND MAKING FUN OF YOURSELVES and do something usefull in life that suits you!

The person who claims Brown does not have mandate is a good example of why Politics / Citizenship should be compulsory. We don鈥檛 vote for a Prime Minister (that would be a Presidency), we vote for a member of parliament. The leader of the party with the most members of parliament is called on to form a Government and become the PM. Brown has as much of a mandate as any other PM before him including Major when he took over from that woman

The thing that fascinates me is that Brown is in the Commons, not #10. He's doing all this behind closed doors, and it suggests that the leader of the commons will be far more important in this administration than it ever was under Blair.

Brown doesn't do theatre, but does seem to do Parliament. That, above all, would be a "change" and I think would answer the democratic mandate charges...

At 11:16 AM on 28 Jun 2007, Ian Hobbs wrote:
Let us not forget that Gordon Brown is the man who has "stolen" billions from our pension funds, both company and individual, and increased taxes as though they were going out of fashion.

Brown's change to the tax system was to remove a perverse incentive for firms to not retain earnings and invest. They were almost unanimously welcomed by tax and pensions experts at the time and, to be fair to the Tories, were merely a continuation of a move already made by them. In the long term, which is the relevant time-period when looking at pensions, they should boost the returns to pension funds as a result of the investment. The problems with pension funds have largely been caused by the stock market and by companies taking "holidays" from their payments in the boom years. Any money "stolen" has actually been invested in our public services, vastly improving health and education, as opposed to wasting it on 4m unemployed as the Tories did.

Brown does not need to call an election. When you go to the polls, you are supposed to be voting for your constituency MP, not the leader of their party. The party with the majority then has the right to choose who leads them and the country. This is how it has always worked
------------------------------------
That is true. However, over the last centure the focus has shifted from the local candidates to the central party, with many people voting for the party (and therefore their leader) rather than the individual person to represent them in parliament. To claim otherwise suggests that you are not taking into account the reality of modern day voting.

The focus in some people's eyes may have shifted, but the facts remain the same. When you vote you do so for your local candidate whoever you may like to think you are voting for.

The ideology behind a vote is not the same as the reality.

Alistair Darling has white hair and black eyebrows. Either he should dye his eyebrows white or his hair black, so that they match

Shut up about "where da womens at", would you? How about Home Secretary? How about Transport? How about Commons Leader? How about Deputy Leader? That enough for you?

A government of all the turn offs. Peter perma-tan, David 'android' (am I the only person genuinely terrified of this man?)Miliband, Harriet Harman (how in the name of sanity?), Geoff Hoon, Des Browne. And then therE's the 'exciting' new faces, Jacqui Smith, James (who?) Purnell. They hardly set the pulce racing. I assume that as four women had already 'resigned' (to spend more time with my parents,that's a new one!)this is how Ruth Kelly gets another job. Still, it is only transport, after all she can't make things any worse...can she?

Gordon has a difficult task in keeping the UK together. The SNP led Scottish Executive will be increasingly provocative in their dealings with Westminster, aiming to push the English electorate into a demand that Scotland should not have the financially advantageous share of public spending which it now enjoys - and so flagrantly flaunts - with free university tuition, free lifetime care for the elderly and the demand from Alex Salmond that the Executive be called the Scottish Government.
Salmond aims to provoke England into cutting Scotland off, as he has singularly failed in getting Scots to vote for independence.
As a Scottish MP, if Gordon moves to re-adjust the public spending share in Scotland. he risks the wrath of his electors in his Scottish constituency; if he doesn't, he risks the wrath of the English electorate.
I personally still do not understand why an Italian or a German student can have free University education in Scotland, but a student from Manchester or Birmingham cannot.I thought we were all members of the EU.Maybe someone will challenge the absurdity in the courts.

Let鈥檚 knock this "Gordon Brown has stolen billions from our pension funds" on the head, the tax system was changed and because of this change, and others, the amount in pension funds under Labour has increased by 100%.
Gary Gatter

Interesting theory Gary, you claim that as a result of Gordon Brown taking 艁10,000,000,000 out of pension funds, that they're worth more now than they would have been otherwise! Well if he can do that with Pensions, imagine what he can do with Bread & Fish, he could make Jesus' miricle look like a walk in the park!

Actually, I think you might find that Gordon Browns 艁10,000,000,000 raid on Pension Funds has seen them short to the tune of 艁10,000,000,000...funny that! And that is why the funds that haven't collapsed (taking the hard earned savings of working people with them) are either closed to new accounts or worth a fraction of what they should have been.
But never mind, state workers are uneffected, they'll still get their full wack, and those of us already fleeced once will be fleeced again to pay for them.
And you might find that, what with the trippling of council tax and the like pensioners are relatively poorer than they have ever been. (Except in Scotland ofcourse)

Nick. Alistair Darling said to John Humphrey this morning that the "new" government would not be shy of backing away from policies or initiatives that were proved not to be working. Will someone please tell them that Home Information Packs as proposed will not work. There is no need to implement them only to have to withdraw them when that is proved. There is not one "established鈥� stakeholder in the industry that believes they have an ounce of value. Leave the EPC in place and scrap the HIP proposal.

But it looks dangerous if 鈥淵vette鈥� is to start up a new post of 鈥渉ousing secretary鈥�

I don't get all this talk about mandate. We vote in MPs to represent our local consituency not the PM, the queen chooses the PM. The only mandate Brown (or any PM) can get is from his own constituency.

Given labour got got its 'mandate' at the last election why do we need another just because the PM changes, it not as if we didn't know Blair was going to go and Brown be the likely PM afterwards!

It seems odd that we now have a PM, elected to a Scottish seat, to lead England, Wales & N. Ireland. Whilst the very people who elected him, will be presided over by the Scottish Executive!

I think we can see one new area of Labour effort on this board. The apologists for Labour and Gordon Brown are spinning heavily in the posts above with some very creative comments on the New Labour record and what happened previously.

If these comments reflect what GB and Labour believe they are in denial and even deeper trouble than I previously though possible.

To whomever asked whether the MPs have specialisms - no.

Some certainly have more experience in specific areas of policy through their involvement in select committees, their previous employment or their activities outside parliament. But, often, none of this is connected to who receives a ministerial post. They are expected to lead, administer and take decisions - but the actual specific knowledge and expertise is supplied by top grade civil servants. Which, to make a politically contentious point, obviously gives them a modicum of power - along with the inertia of technocratic modes of operation which can hinder a minister's decisions. Civil Servants are usually able to retard individual policies - they find it far harder to check the advance of a global ideological strategy as presented to them in the 80's with the Thatcher administrations.

is response to Mat (who was responding to Nick).

I heard that major rose to the top in what was a carefuly constructed election of tory leadership post thatcher. the tory thinktank were concerned that the economy was slipping away and that to win the next election would see them in government at a time of depression. They realised that to suffer an election defeat in 92 would be far more beneficial in the long run as labour would not receover to gain a second term because the economy. They decided to elect major to the PMship because they thought he was compeltely unelectable. however, major somehow won and the rest is history.

conspiracy theory or not it's a great story!

Mr Brown seems to be a decent bloke with a fiscal black mark - pensions.

Mr Darling should be reminded of those company final salary pension schemes which have been wound up because of the abolition of the dividend tax credit in the last ten years. They have long memories and may choose to retaliate in a general election - and they're not all tory voters by any means.

We are to have a Secretary of State for Schools and Children. So what is to happen to Further and Higher Education. Either Brown's "passion" for Education will lead to two Cabinet level education jobs, or Further and Higher Education responsibility will be outside the Cabinet, implying that our new leader does not care about it.

Let us not overlook the essentials while speculating about the various talents, attributes and shortcomings of the new, inexperienced 'amateur' administrators being appointed by Mr Brown to manage the vital affairs of once-Great Britain.
It remains to be seen after all the deck-chair shuffling, whether Capt Brown can prevent S.S. Britain from foundering into a slave state, dependent on foreign governance.
The risk is real, great and terrifying now that the smarmy Blair has taken his ill-earned applause and left for more prosperous climes under the Franco/German dominance.
Wake up Britain, it is nearly too late.

Graves

So far no 'ETHNIC MINORITY' face(s) in the gov, terrible terrible thing for someone who's drumming on about change. To be honest I was happy to see a new PM, but if the reshuffle ends like this, I'll be EXTREMELY DISAPPOINTED.

I am sure there are some who'd say that it doesn't matter if there is or not ethnic minority figure in the government...but would not complain if there wasn't a woman in the Cabinet?

PC aside! Yes!...it does matter for the Cabinet to reflect - and indeed to represent - the whole society at large.

Please let Gordy know this before he put finishing touches to his reshuffle!.....

Regardless of your political persuasion, Blair was a world-class statesman. Everyone is so keen to see him go, without ever really thinking of a time when he is not ACTUALLY Prime Minister.

Brown may be sincere, he may have 'inherited' a moral compass, he might have had a hard and difficult upbringing, he may also be the most intellectual PM since Churchill. However, these things, as nice as they are - will not win him the election on his own. In 1992, we heard all about Major - his background, his struggle, etc - the electorate bought it (somehow) then, but quickly realised their mistake. Major was seen as boring - hence the Grey Man, ridiculed - and regardless of his policies - was decimated by a very quick-witted, younger and charismatic Tony Blair.

I can see the same happening here. Blair always came across well in press conferences, promotions, tours, the GMTV sofa - as a natural. He could talk about most things (including politics) and appear relaxed and not staged. That's why a lot of people voted Labour in 1997 and 2001 - the personality factor of Blair - as shown by sky high popularity ratings for most of his time in office.

Brown, I'm not so sure. I see too many parallels with Major, everyone in the Labour party might be cheering him now, but the end result may be very different. Politics has changed since 1997 - and Blair drove that change, I wonder if Brown will be able to keep up. 20-30 years ago, I'd have said yes, today with 24 hour news and even more intense press coverage, who knows? His proposed Cabinet doesn't inspire confidence...

Garry Gatter wrote:

a lot of Labour party propaganda.

I'm only 25 but apparantly I know more about politics from before my birth than you do.

Today the Labour party would not be in power had it not been for the changes started by John Smith. He would have been PM had he not died. He was the one who reinvented Labour after they finally realised that they were not electable under Neil Kinnock with the Labour party being the same as the one that demolished the country in the late 70s. Maggie Thatcher was lucky that she survived her first term but she did manage to get the country working again (literally after the strikes ended).

Gordon Brown should call an election for late 2008. It will be his best chance to stay in power for another term. Give the country a light to look for and hope people trust him to deliver it. It is what Major did and he managed it only for sleaze to undermine his next election campaign which delighted Labour and left them calling for a change.

Labour did not get in by having better policies (they just announced theirs first and left the conservatives sounding pathetic when they said "but that's OUR policy) they got in by saying that the Conservatives didn't deserve government any more and Rupert Murdoch agreed with them.

The new cabinet is very lightweight for a party that has been in office for ten years. I'm astonished to see Ruth Kelly and Des Brown still in it as they have been walking disasters.

It was not the change I was expecting. Labour has to have an eye on the future once Brown has gone and who will be the next generation to carry the party forward.

There is pool of up and coming MPs and junior ministers who should have been brought higher up the rank, such as Jim Murphy, Caroline Flint, Dawn Butler,Sadiq Khan, Angela Smith, Kim Howells and Chris Bryant.

This looks likes surface change and does not show perceived break form the old regime.

Hmm why does it matter what sex, colour, creed, etc. the cabinet members are? Surely you want the best person for the job, regardless of who or what they are?

Claiming a lack of women (or minorities) in the cabinet is just fuelling sexism (or any other ism applicable), not putting it right!

Or is that just not PC enough, despite the fact its the ideal state, beyond our current state of paranoia about inclusiveness?

Many comments along the lines of 'Where are all the women.'

Maybe it should begin to dawn on us all at long last that neither women nor men should be given any jobs just because they are women or men.

Perhaps the new PM doesn't have what he considers to be sufficient female talent.

End of.

The new cabinet is very lightweight for a party that has been in office for ten years. I'm astonished to see Ruth Kelly and Des Brown still in it as they have been walking disasters.

In response to Max Bevis - yes, politicians do have specialist advisors. They are called civil servants. Remember the sitcom Yes Minister? Or the current comedy The Thick Of It? The running gag in both is that politicians don't really run the country, civil servants do. In reality politicians are - or should be - experts in politics, the making and delivery of policy, and that's what they're there to do.

As Chancellor Gordon Brown was responsible for tearing the heart out of the pension system by taxing pension funds, a factor in part directly responsible for the burgeoning pension crisis.

Although in our system we do vote for our local MP, many people actually vote for the party leader. This is because they can identify with that leader through the media coverage. Strictly speaking Brown has every right to not call an election until the next one is due, but in reality the mandate of the governemnt was held by Blair and this has now been lost.

As for the wasting of North Sea oil on the 4m unemployed by the tories, some posters need to know their history. Thatcher took over a country where industry and industrial relations had been destroyed by the weakness of the labour government and the power of the unions. It was her strong but flawed tenure in number 10 and the continuation of many of her governments policies by Major that laid the basis for Brown to claim to be a successful Chancellor.

I would welcome any government minister who has the guts to scrap ID cards, and all of the costs and technology that goes with it. Only then will it be safe to judge the new Cabinet against the other key issues on the economy, defence, housing, etc.

So come on Mr Brown, say no to ID and begin your stint as PM with a plus mark.

Incidentally, to all those who think the tax on the pension funds was a bright idea, just imagine what you could do with all of the money that Gordon has soaked up from you so far to pay for failed IT schemes, professional scroungers and the like. Don't you think you know better than he as to what you would like your money spent on? If not, why not send off your entire salary to his government every month, and see what he can do with all that lovely extra cash? Perhaps you might even get a benefit cheque each month.

Why should Brown have women in the cabinet if they aren't up to it. I am absolutely disgusted that he has kept Jowell, Blears and Kelly. They have made a mess of everything they have done.

No incentive for me to think about voting Labour again.

Nick: Jack Straw is noted on the Downing Street website as the Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor - can he be Lord Chancellor and not be in the Lords??

The cynic in me thinks that Mr Brown is up to his old tricks again: simply saying he will lead "a government of all the talents" is very different from actually doing that. If is truly going to be a government of all the talents then it should no longer be called a Labour government, but a National government. Mr Brown could then be a latter-day Ramsay Macdonald perhaps!

His basic aim is to keep the Tories out of government, and to divide and rule. If the Lib Dems are offered anything, it will take the form of piddling, meaningless, out-of the-way appointments with minimal influence on how the government conducts its main business.

Mr Brown has only adopted this position of allegedly reaching out beyond 'narrow party politics' because: he is keenly aware that he is not new, and has been profoundly involved in practically every decision of the last ten years (Chief Purse-string Holder aka Chancellor and wannabe PM for the same time period); he knows that he governs without any popular mandate that he can truly call his own.

Having said all that, I wish him well because we all appreciate the privilege it would be to do his job!

I would like to see a Government - any party - that isn't afraid to make tough decisions and force through bills that will make a real difference instead of tinkering and half measures.
Fox hunting - a pointless diversion and unenforceable.
If we were to legislate that by 2015 all new cars had to run on bio fuels, the car companies would make the neccessary investment to meet the legislation. This would not be popular but would do the job.
The new road mileage tax is ridiculous - what is fuel tax if not an easily collectable, efficient method of taxing users who do the most miles?
Education policy changes every few years meaning that no single scheme is seen through. Healthcare the same - money is wasted in areas that the public should not be funding.
Defense - the SA80 is appalling by all accounts. You can't use it left-handed! Buy the tool to do the job or just the license to produce it and thus maintain our defense critical companies sustainably.
Crime - impose high sentences (and follow them through) for the crimes we are concerned about. 15 years for burglery strictly enforced would be a powerful deterrent. Then put more bobbies on the street to deal with other areas.
Immigration - a common EU policy would mean that GB was no more attractive to immigrants than anywhere else.

We all forget one thing when we say Brown does not have a mandate: how the British political system works. We are not voting for a PM in an election, but an MP, who represents us and their party in Parliament. The party with a majority forms the government and the leader of that party is PM. Currently Labour has a majority and that is the consitutional mandate. We are not electing a PM, if we did, that would be Presidential politics, wouldn't it?

Whatever happened to Nick Brown? I thought he was tipped for a ministry?

Gordon Brown's agenda will be domestic in order to win the next General Election, and it seems to me that David Miliband has been given the poisoned chalice of solving the Iraq problem.

Brown has positioned a female supporter as Home Secretary who will not be a challenge to him while he is in office, but who will challenge David Milband when the bid to be his successor comes along, with the bonus of being Labour芒鈧劉s first female Leader. It will add to the appeal to the country to have the first female Labour Prime Minister.

Many people here are being revealingly sensitive in jumping to GBs defence when it is suggested that he has no mandate. Spurious comments about our political system - voting for the party, not the personality are wholly disingenuous, to say the least.

To suggest that the electorate vote entirely for a party and are not concerned as to who is the leader of that party is absurd. The two are of course intrinsically linked.

Brown has no mandate. Its as simple as that. And I detect distinct undertones of worry from those commenters who would have us believe that its of no importance. He will always be vulnerable to attacks on his credibility as PM until he calls, and wins, a general election.

78% of the registered electorate did not vote for labour at the last election. Only 60% of the registered electorate bothered to vote.

One can understand why, when there are only marginal differences between the main parties.

The central ground is where the main parties believe the majority vote can be won. However there are issues which are driving people not to vote other than a lack of choice. Maybe the primary one is a lack of trust in politicians of any persuasion - and maybe this is the part of the electorate that Gordon Brown is banking on getting a winning majority from. I would characterise these voters as female and mothers. GB is casting himself as . . . the Man from the Prudential!

It is now very clear that Great Britain is just a page from Alice In Wonderland. People are queueing up to point out that we vote for a party, not an individual, ergo Gordon Brown, as leader of a party, has a mandate as PM. OK so far.

However, when an MP chooses to "cross the floor", ie defect to the opposite party, those same people argue that a by-election is not needed because we vote for the individual, not the party (even though the electors now have an MP supporting the opposite position to the one they voted for).

That raises the question (timely in view of the promise for a referendum on the EU treaty which looks like being jettisoned): What is the point of a maifesto if it doesn't mean what it says? The answer, of course, delivered with a straight face by every politician - "It means whatever I say that it means".

And they wonder why people are cynical about politics.

Big white blokes in suits. So what's new?

Gordon wants to reach out to have a government of all the talents. What about those in his own party who are not Brownites. Not too many of them in the new cabinet.

All this 'no mandate' nonsense, is cleary just the opposition wanting an early bite of the cherry in case Brown does a decent job. Simple fact is pretty much everyone who voted at the last General Election KNEW that the were voting to have Brown as their PM before long.

I mean, who is seriously claiming this is some sort of shock to the British public, or deceptive in the slightest? We knew this was coming at the election, we voted, Labour won, and here it is, arriving as expected.