Talk:Gordon Brown

Template:V0.5

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)

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)

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 [3] and [4]. 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 [5]. 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)

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?

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 [6]. 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)

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.

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. [7] 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 [8] [9] [10] [11] Peter morrell 11:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)