Why do you all keep saying Brown is unelected?
Discussion
Much as I despise the party in power at present and especially it's ineffective, arrogant and disconnected leader. But I do have a small question regarding his qualification for the job.
I believed that it was up to the party in power at the time to elect it's leader not the public at large. When Bliar jumped to more lucrative scams he was replaced by a man who was elected by the ruling party. Granted this man did not have the balls to call an election as a vote of confidence, but then he only promised that (and you know how much weight our governments promises carry anyway!!).
But still people say he is unelected, please undestand I am not defending the t--t just curious.
I believed that it was up to the party in power at the time to elect it's leader not the public at large. When Bliar jumped to more lucrative scams he was replaced by a man who was elected by the ruling party. Granted this man did not have the balls to call an election as a vote of confidence, but then he only promised that (and you know how much weight our governments promises carry anyway!!).
But still people say he is unelected, please undestand I am not defending the t--t just curious.
Edited by andrewws on Sunday 3rd January 17:14
Rocky Balboa said:
He hasn't won a general election, so he is unelected by the public. How hard is it to understand? 
Actually, specifically HE has, in his local constituents. When we vote, we dont vote for the leader, only the party and the local representative.Its a specific point, but the OP explains it well.
Edited by J500ANT on Sunday 3rd January 17:21
andrewws said:
Much as I despise the party in power at present and especially it's ineffective, arrogant and disconnected leader. But I do have a small question regarding his qualification for the job.
I believed that it was up to the party in power at the time to elect it's leader not the public at large. When Bliar jumped to more lucrative scams he was replaced by a man who was elected by the ruling party. Granted this man did not have the balls to call an election as a vote of confidence, but then he only promised that (and you know how much weight our governments promises carry anyway!!).
But still people say he is unelected, please undestand I am not defending the t--t just curious.
This morning he was on the saying that he had had to fight for "every single thing he has in life".I believed that it was up to the party in power at the time to elect it's leader not the public at large. When Bliar jumped to more lucrative scams he was replaced by a man who was elected by the ruling party. Granted this man did not have the balls to call an election as a vote of confidence, but then he only promised that (and you know how much weight our governments promises carry anyway!!).
But still people say he is unelected, please undestand I am not defending the t--t just curious.
Edited by andrewws on Sunday 3rd January 17:14
I wouldn't imagine that the premiership was the smallest thing in his life, and yet someone else fought that for him. No?
Jovial Joe said:
andrewws said:
he was replaced by a man who was elected by the ruling party
There was no leadership election,he was unopposed,he believed the position to be his by right.andrewws said:
But still people say he is unelected
See above.andrewws said:
Much as I despise the party in power at present and especially it's ineffective, arrogant and disconnected leader. But I do have a small question regarding his qualification for the job.
I believed that it was up to the party in power at the time to elect it's leader not the public at large. When Bliar jumped to more lucrative scams he was replaced by a man who was elected by the ruling party. Granted this man did not have the balls to call an election as a vote of confidence, but then he only promised that (and you know how much weight our governments promises carry anyway!!).
But still people say he is unelected, please undestand I am not defending the t--t just curious.
With the obvious exception of tory b liar, not a single person in england has elected our leader. Tony b liar won he was voted for, winky just used his political muscle within the party to ensure there was no oposition, that to me is an act of a dictator.I believed that it was up to the party in power at the time to elect it's leader not the public at large. When Bliar jumped to more lucrative scams he was replaced by a man who was elected by the ruling party. Granted this man did not have the balls to call an election as a vote of confidence, but then he only promised that (and you know how much weight our governments promises carry anyway!!).
But still people say he is unelected, please undestand I am not defending the t--t just curious.
Edited by andrewws on Sunday 3rd January 17:14
I do realise the scots have put up with the english picking their leader for years and that too was wrong, but I am not ready for a handfull of scots electing my leader and we engliah have not had a single vote on the matter. He is unelected at least to us.
To the OP....I think that when people consider who they vote for that the leader of that party factors very heavily in that decision. This means that when the leader steps down and the new leader comes in it effectively acquires a very different methodology and ethos than the one they thought they were voting for. This in their minds is unfair and I agree.
How bloody dare they do a deal over dinner on something so utterly critical as the Premiership of our country.
How bloody dare they do a deal over dinner on something so utterly critical as the Premiership of our country.
Edited by Jim Shoulder on Sunday 3rd January 19:24
DieselGriff said:
You are quite right the PM is who ever the party that is elected chooses, however it is also true to say that the PM is unelected - this in reality is true of every PM but the public perception that the PM is unelected when they take over from an "elected" PM.
Point of Order.Is it not more accurate to say that the PM is the person invited / charged by Her Majesty to form a Government, which by convention tends to be the nominated leader of the party with most MPs.
The last ZNL election campaign had Tony Bliar invoking the power of ages to have us believe that he would serve a full term of government as PM. The country voted on that premise - and hence it voted for Winky not being anointed (as he had bullied all PLP opposition) as leader.
He was not elected as a constituency MP in the understanding that he would become leader and hence PM. As I understand it no member of the New Labour Party actually voted for him in a leadership vote - whilst he received a ruck of nomination, that is the equivalent of being seconded and the other chap did not even get enough to allow a vote. The little people who are actually members of the Party were not allowed a say.
So, was he elected?
Not in my view.
Oakey said:
Jovial Joe said:
andrewws said:
he was replaced by a man who was elected by the ruling party
There was no leadership election,he was unopposed,he believed the position to be his by right.andrewws said:
But still people say he is unelected
See above.Even if he was a snot gobbling Jock with a deepset hatred of the English
When it became clear that the Iraq war was a complete horlicks (to put it mildly) the rabid Left wanted Blair's head on a plate,unfortunately despite the misgivings of Middle England by this time,Blair was still an electoral asset.There was an attempt to oust Blair before the 2007 election but it's believed Brown refused to openly back it (despite the fact that it was probably instigated by Brown's acolytes),he did however insist that Blair would go within a year and instruct any of his supporters/heirs not to undermine Brown's authority and quest for the top job.Cue loads of happy smiling pics of the loving couple at that campaign and the Tories' warnings of "vote Blair get Brown" which of course came to be true.
Subsequently he has proved himself to be the country's most favoured and loved PM since time immemorial and most probably the greatest Chancellor we've ever had.
The last bit's just my little joke.
Skywalker said:
The last ZNL election campaign had Tony Bliar invoking the power of ages to have us believe that he would serve a full term of government as PM. The country voted on that premise - and hence it voted for Winky not being anointed (as he had bullied all PLP opposition) as leader.
He was not elected as a constituency MP in the understanding that he would become leader and hence PM. As I understand it no member of the New Labour Party actually voted for him in a leadership vote - whilst he received a ruck of nomination, that is the equivalent of being seconded and the other chap did not even get enough to allow a vote. The little people who are actually members of the Party were not allowed a say.
So, was he elected?
Not in my view.
Nicely putHe was not elected as a constituency MP in the understanding that he would become leader and hence PM. As I understand it no member of the New Labour Party actually voted for him in a leadership vote - whilst he received a ruck of nomination, that is the equivalent of being seconded and the other chap did not even get enough to allow a vote. The little people who are actually members of the Party were not allowed a say.
So, was he elected?
Not in my view.
Regards
He has a safe seat where a donkey with a Labour rosette would win, bullied his way to leadership of the Labour party, and chickened out of calling the general election which would have given him a mandate. About the only contest he has faced has been that to get selected in his own constituency.
When it comes down to it, the man is a coward who relies on backstabbing and mud-slinging to beat his opponents rather than his own merits. The first real electoral test he faces is going to be a real slap in the face for him. It can't come soon enough.
When it comes down to it, the man is a coward who relies on backstabbing and mud-slinging to beat his opponents rather than his own merits. The first real electoral test he faces is going to be a real slap in the face for him. It can't come soon enough.
J500ANT said:
Rocky Balboa said:
He hasn't won a general election, so he is unelected by the public. How hard is it to understand?
Actually, specifically HE has, in his local constituents. When we vote, we dont vote for the leader, only the party and the local representative.Its a specific point, but the OP explains it well.
Edited by J500ANT on Sunday 3rd January 17:21
I suppose that he is more elected than the most powerfull character in this shower that go's under the false heading of a government.
I suppose Brown has at least not been thrown out of government twice, and then handed a peerage to boot cos he sat in Brussels filling out his expences!!
I cannot even bring myself to type his/its name as the whole scenario makes me so angry. But I can understand how the populus can see that Brown was unelected as PM, I was just interested in perceptions.
Thanks...
I suppose Brown has at least not been thrown out of government twice, and then handed a peerage to boot cos he sat in Brussels filling out his expences!!
I cannot even bring myself to type his/its name as the whole scenario makes me so angry. But I can understand how the populus can see that Brown was unelected as PM, I was just interested in perceptions.
Thanks...
Edited by andrewws on Monday 4th January 06:24
There are quite a few cases of Prime MInisters taking up that position without having had to face the electorate. The most famous example being that of Winston Churchill in 1940.
Alex Douglas Hulme and James Callaghan also became PM when the previous PM resigned.
Every single one of the above lost the elections that followed - including Churchill.
Alex Douglas Hulme and James Callaghan also became PM when the previous PM resigned.
Every single one of the above lost the elections that followed - including Churchill.
Edited by Eric Mc on Monday 4th January 08:03
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff