Gordon Brown as PM/Labour Leader - not right.
Discussion
It's likely that in the not too distant future Gordon will become labour leader and therefore PM.
Personally I don't see this as right. At the last election the country voted as to wether they wanted a labour govt under Blair, not wether they wanted one under Brown. My feeling is that a change of leader like this should automatically trigger a general election.
Personally I don't see this as right. At the last election the country voted as to wether they wanted a labour govt under Blair, not wether they wanted one under Brown. My feeling is that a change of leader like this should automatically trigger a general election.
In the UK the population vote for a governing party, not the PM. It has happened before that a PM resigns before the end of the parliament but it is rare.
However, at the very least, the Labour party members should be allowed some say in who leads them. I am very uncomfortable with this "annointment" of Brown as the next leader.
However, at the very least, the Labour party members should be allowed some say in who leads them. I am very uncomfortable with this "annointment" of Brown as the next leader.
Yugguy said:
At the last election the country voted as to wether they wanted a labour govt under Blair, not wether they wanted one under Brown.
I think you might find this is incorrect. IIRC you vote for a party in your consituancy and a local MP. If that MP leaves office then you have a right to a re-election. However, the party with the most number of seats elects a leader, not the individual voters.
Lets not confuse a Parliamentary Democracy, with a an electorial Democracy.
Agree with the sentiment though
Yugguy said:
It's likely that in the not too distant future Gordon will become labour leader and therefore PM.
Personally I don't see this as right. At the last election the country voted as to wether they wanted a labour govt under Blair, not wether they wanted one under Brown. My feeling is that a change of leader like this should automatically trigger a general election.
You'll find this icorrect for two reason, those stated above plus the fact that their pair of idiots said that it was going to happen in the run up to the election.
Yugguy said:
It's likely that in the not too distant future Gordon will become labour leader and therefore PM.
Personally I don't see this as right. At the last election the country voted as to wether they wanted a labour govt under Blair, not wether they wanted one under Brown. My feeling is that a change of leader like this should automatically trigger a general election.
Haven’t you noticed that Gordon Brown has been doing the rounds, Interviews in the newspapers, TV appearances, etc. All on subjects that our prime minister should be addressing. On the crucial ID card vote, he was strangely absent. His plane broke down in South Africa, and the British Prime Minister couldn't somehow get another one... He knew full well that the rebels in his party had been 'whipped' for that vote and that they would win it, guaranteeing Brown his first taste of sitting at the head of the table on a crucial parliamentary vote. The abuse that our democratic process has suffered at the hands of these Lawyers and Accountants will mean we will reap what they have sewn for years to come; and the vandalism is far from over yet. They don't need to circumvent the rules, they simply make them up or change them as they go along.
I believe Charles Clarke recently made the point in the press along the lines of "What gives Gordon and Tony the right to assume they can trade the leadership between themselves?"
Also, on Channel-4 news the other night some crusty old labour guy said that he's find it hard to believe that both the conservatives and liberal-democrats could have a leadership election, but labour just had a coup from a smoke-filled room.
Don't think Gordy and Tone will get away with it somehow.
Also, on Channel-4 news the other night some crusty old labour guy said that he's find it hard to believe that both the conservatives and liberal-democrats could have a leadership election, but labour just had a coup from a smoke-filled room.
Don't think Gordy and Tone will get away with it somehow.
sheepy said:
I believe Charles Clarke recently made the point in the press along the lines of "What gives Gordon and Tony the right to assume they can trade the leadership between themselves?"
Also, on Channel-4 news the other night some crusty old labour guy said that he's find it hard to believe that both the conservatives and liberal-democrats could have a leadership election, but labour just had a coup from a smoke-filled room.
Don't think Gordy and Tone will get away with it somehow.
Thatcher-Major-Hague-IDS-whoever it is now...
The only reason the Tories went to the members was because there was sufficient challenge internally. If the party determine that no one stands against him then it will be a done deal. Only when a suitable alternative is offered to the membership will there be any debate. Frankly, I cannot see that happening. The only way to deal with it is to make your feelings known at the next election, but as is a general theme, where is a viable alternative?
wits?police state said:
It's likely that in the not too distant future Gordon will become labour leader and therefore PM.
Personally I don't see this as right. At the last election the country voted as to wether they wanted a labour govt under Blair, not wether they wanted one under Brown. My feeling is that a change of leader like this should automatically trigger a general election.
Haven’t you noticed that Gordon Brown has been doing the rounds, Interviews in the newspapers, TV appearances, etc. All on subjects that our prime minister should be addressing. On the crucial ID card vote, he was strangely absent. His plane broke down in South Africa, and the British Prime Minister couldn't somehow get another one... He knew full well that the rebels in his party had been 'whipped' for that vote and that they would win it, guaranteeing Brown his first taste of sitting at the head of the table on a crucial parliamentary vote. The abuse that our democratic process has suffered at the hands of these Lawyers and Accountants will mean we will reap what they have sewn for years to come; and the vandalism is far from over yet. They don't need to circumvent the rules, they simply make them up or change them as they go along.
Maybe I am missing something, but should not the PM's place have been taken by his deputy?
Maybe I am missing something, but should not the PM's place have been taken by his deputy
Confusion agaiin between electing a party to make decisions for you (UK) or voting for individuals (US)
When we vote for a prty, we delgate authority to them to make decisions on our behalf. Only when they believe that they are on sticky ground (i.e. could lose their seat and rations) do they go to the house, Iraq a good example, very rarely do they go back to the people.
sheepy said:
Thatcher-Major-Hague-IDS-whoever it is now...
Response covered. Only because the party determined it was best practice. I stand to be corrected, but my memory of when I was involved in lobbying leads me to the belief that when we elect the party we give away the right to manage how they see fit. This applies to all parties.
We know they believe that as they have no creditable opposition their place is safe, so the actions they take will be less concerned with how you or I feel about process.
One of the least discussed, but most dangerous aspects of ineffective opposition.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff