Talk:Gordon Brown

Harriet Harman succeeded Brown not Miliband

The infobox is wrong to state that Ed Miliband succeeded Brown as Labor Leader.

As it was Harriet Harman instead serving for an interim period pending the election of the new permanent leader which turned out to be Miliband.

Harman's interim leadership should count for something. 49.3.72.79 (talk) 13:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done This has now been corrected. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. 49.3.72.79 (talk) 13:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

It still says Ed Milliband at the bottom. 49.3.72.79 (talk) 13:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Also  Done. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: Actually let's put the breaks on that since consensus has yet to be established. This is, in fact, a common misconception which does not pay credence to article precedents nor internal party rules. This is reflected on Harman's page where it states that her role as Leader of the Opposition was ratified but her role as acting Labour leader was merely a pragmatic move due to her role as deputy. Ditto for Margaret Beckett's article. Alex (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the position of Leader of the Opposition as I just stated elsewhere on this page that Brown did not serve in that position after losing the election.49.3.72.79 (talk) 16:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Whether it is called pragmatic in regards to Harman the fact still remains is that Miliband wasn't leader in the immediate period after Brown's resignation, readers might be misled in thinking that Miliband succeeded Brown when the latter's resignation came into effect.49.3.72.79 (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

the fact still remains is that Miliband wasn't leader in the immediate period after Brown's resignation Correct but neither was Harman. I know it's quite confusing but my above reasons are why we have this precedent.

readers might be misled in thinking that Miliband succeeded Brown when the latter's resignation came into effect I think a main text clarification is what is needed to address that rather than making the infobox inaccurate. Alex (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

First defeated Prime Minister who did not serve as Leader of the Opposition

It should be stated in the article that Brown became the first defeated Prime Minister who did not then serve as Leader of the Opposition. 49.3.72.79 (talk) 13:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

We would need a WP:RS to make that claim. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

If you want reliable sources how about Wikipedia itself. I cross referenced this with the Leader of the Opposition (United Kingdom) and the UK election articles to find that all other Prime Ministers who were voted out then served as Leader of the Opposition. Brown however did not serve as Leader of the Opposition after losing the election, a fact of which is presented in this article itself.49.3.72.79 (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but thank you for trying to help. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Frankly this is no different than being asked to provide evidence to an answer for a simple math problem. It simply isn't needed. I asked that you don't quote me with anymore Wikipedia rules because I don't feel you understand what I am getting at by doing that. It seems to me there are one of two reasons why are a defeated Prime Minister would serve as Leader of the Opposition. The first is the belief that a former Prime Minister can reclaim the premiership. The other reason is to fill in the position for a stop-gap period until his party chooses his successor as leader. Whether it is for one of the two reasons I have just outlined, a former Prime Minister as Opposition Leader would use this position to defend against criticism from the current Government on what he did when he was Prime Minister. Brown evidently expressed no interest in reclaiming the premiership and chose not to wait for his party to choose his permanent successor hence not becoming Leader of the Opposition in the meantime. 49.3.72.79 (talk) 13:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Keeping Count

Gordon Brown is the 74th Prime Minister. To those of you saying "nobody keeps count", how can you argue with a government source? This website is based on verifiable evidence, well, there it is. DaleYorks (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

DaleYorks, that source only says here are 76, it doesn't say there are only 76 or give each an index number. It certainly doesn't support changing the office names of individual prime ministers by adding numbers to them. And WP:BRD says wait for a consensus if challenged. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the response. It's a bit of common sense to know when someone was first (and so forth). DaleYorks (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of whether he is 74th or 76th, the fact is that, in the United Kingdom, we do not "count" our prime ministers in the way that Americans count their presidents. To say that someone is the 76th or whatever prime minister looks a bit weird, and is not what most readers would expect. So my vote is to delete the count.

Mike Marchmont (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete Per UK style. Alex (talk) 11:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

References

AS

Why no mention? 86.147.59.195 (talk) 04:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

"First Secretary"

Why is "First Secretary"/ Mandelson in the summary box for Brown's term as Prime Minister? 146.199.63.69 (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

As a guess i'd say it's probably because the First Secretary is basically the PM's deputy. We have Deputy PMs listed in other PMs' info boxes too so I personally don't see any problems with Mandelson's inclusion as FS here either. ThatRandomGuy1 (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

gordon brown home office blocked investigations into sexual exploitation

Nazir Afzal, when he was chief crown prosecutor for North West England, told the BBC that, in 2008, the Home Office under Gordon Brown’s administration sent a circular email to all police forces calling on them not to investigate the sexual exploitation of young girls.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2023/04/05/grooming-gangs-scandal-labour-yvette-cooper-keir-starmer/ NotQualified (talk) 22:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

i am not sure what article to put this under to be quite frank NotQualified (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

i have placed it under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premiership_of_Gordon_Brown#Obfuscating_child_sex_abuse NotQualified (talk) 22:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Brown#Obfuscating_child_sex_abuse NotQualified (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

changed subheading to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Brown#Home_Office_obfuscating_child_sex_abuse NotQualified (talk) 23:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted the addition for the moment the Telegraph sources is an opinion piece, and there doesn't appear to be any evidence to back up Nazir Afzal's allegations. I thought of changing the content to only be that this is something that Afzal alleges happened, but fear it would be a BLP violation. I'll add at notification to WP:BLPN asking for advice. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

As I also stated on BLPN, this appears to be a highly partisan opinion piece, which is not going to be an adequate source for this kind of serious allegation against a living person. – notwally (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

There's similar allegations at the bottom of the Jacqui Smith#Home Secretary referenced to a deadlink YouTube video of the original interview with Afzal. It's better worded but I can't think any live source to beck this up. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

heres a non deadlink https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5GM3fkM_uk NotQualified (talk) 01:03, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

apparently it was in reference to this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vtFubxB0hQ NotQualified (talk) 01:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be something that Afzal was told about but never saw himself, as per his post on X [1]. And as the next post by Afzal makes clear he doesn't believe this even exists.[2] -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

thats not what he said, he said "if they exist", as in he isnt certain. NotQualified (talk) 01:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes he doesn't know whether the circular he alleges exists even exists. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

again i know this is entering conspiracy so obviously do not add it to the wikipedia page but do you not find it odd that a former prosecutor within the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) would go on national radio and make such a bold claim with certainty and then walk it back, why on earth would he even say that if he didnt believe it or see something or handle something. he has an active twitter so if anyone wants to tweet him and ask for clarification on what happened, that would be appreciated NotQualified (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

As per my reply at BLP I can't only assume he was told and being genuinely upset with the details (as anyone would be) mistakenly believed it on face value, without checking the details. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

right that seems plausible but has he said who said it to him NotQualified (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I've seen 'police officers' but I couldn't find anything directly quoting Afzal on the matter. This is definitely into WP:NOTFORUM territory though. We shouldn't use Wikipedia as a place to speculate on such things. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

right fair enough if no one knows where he got the claim. we can keep this talk page open for a few more weeks in case someone more knowledgeable knows. i say we go on afzals page and state he made a claim on bbc radio, provide it in verbatim in a quote block, and later say he suddenly rescinded said claim. thats all we seem to know for certain. again, if anyone wants to tweet at him on twitter go ahead NotQualified (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

> Afzal alleges happened, but fear it would be a BLP violation

this could be added then to Afzal's page and it wouldnt be a BLP violation, right? NotQualified (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

It would be the same where ever you added it, or at least I believe it would. Happy to be corrected by any more knowledgeable editors. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

well yeah i guess? as long as it wasnt written as an allegation i dont see how it's wrong to add in NotQualified (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how its presented, as the substance of the content is the issue. Without better sourcing, it would still be a BLP violation. – notwally (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

what? he objectively made a claim https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5GM3fkM_uk

it is not a BLP violation to go to Afzals page and put out, in verbatim, what he said:

“You may not know this, but back in 2008 the Home office sent a circular to all police forces in the country saying ‘as far as these young girls who are being exploited in towns and cities, we believe they have made an informed choice about their sexual behavior and therefore it is not for you police officers to get involved in.’”

it is OBJECTIVELY true he said that, we can clarify he walked what he said back though NotQualified (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nazir_Afzal#nazir_claim_that_brown_home_office_blocked_child_rape_investigations

i have now opened up a talk page in nazir afzal's wikipedia page. for now, i think it is the most appropriate page to put this and we can keep it out of the gordon brown pages NotQualified (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

A primary source YouTube video is not a reliable source for a contentious claim, regardless of which article. At a certain point, you are WP:BLUDGEONING. – notwally (talk) 19:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

the man himself literally said he said it on twitter, do you want me to go interview him myself? he went on a national radio station, said something, oh for crying out loud. i can source it under BBC Radio 4, where he said it NotQualified (talk) 23:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)