h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Good lord he has played this one awfully hasn't he? I cannot understand why he let the election fevor get so intense. surely he never really intended election, he has been waiting for this toy for years and surely isn't about to give up being PM after waiting all this time.

He looks like a coward.

If Sunny D can run rings around him, what's he going to be like if he has to negotiate on Britain's behalf with a Sarkozy or a Merkel? Such a massive misjudgement surely casts doubt upon his ability to lead?

"Good lord he has played this one awfully hasn't he? I cannot understand why he let the election fevor get so intense. surely he never really intended election, he has been waiting for this toy for years and surely isn't about to give up being PM after waiting all this time.

He looks like a coward."

Have any of you considered that this "election fever" was cooked-up by the Conservatives and the media? Look at it this way: new Prime Minister who's only been in the job a few months suddenly finds himself beset by demands for a general election from the Conservatives which the media then pick up on. Suddenly Brown needs to "decide" whether there'll be an election or not. Already the media have committed him to making a choice on something he might well never have intended to do anyway. And as time goes by the spotlight gets warmer - why is Brown "delaying"? He needs to "make up his mind". Again, this is all something the media have cooked-up, spurred on by a Conservative Conference Speech. Eventually Brown says "no, there's not going to be a general election" and *bang* he's "bottled it" or "climbed down" even though HE MIGHT WELL HAVE NEVER INTENDED TO CALL AN ELECTION IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Does anyone here hate "spin"? This is a prime example of why we have it. The media can make a mountain out of a molehill and cook-up a crisis from nothing. The only way to fight against this is to employ propaganda teams to vet everything done and create their own counter-campaigns. It's all detrimental to what politicians and the media should really be focussing on: the issues and policies which affect the country on a day to day basis.

Incidentally, we've seen this before with the tiresome year or so we had of demands to know "when Blair intends to step down" which, again, was a mountain out of a molehill issue. Blair, to his credit, simply let them get on with it for ages and finally named a date at around the time he was probably going to anyway. Instead of proper discussion of domestic and foreign policy we had to endure the BBC/ITN/Sky and rest asking their correspondents "Any news on whether Blair has signalled when he intends to hand over power to Gordon Brown?" for the best part of a year.

I'm sorry Zagreb, I think you're calling it completely wrong on this.

A timeline of who said what in the run-up: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7032099.stm

It was Labour MPs who fuelled the speculation and we're repeatedly reminded how Brown likes to control all those around him. I find it to be stretching credulity to imagine that these MPs were not acting on instructions.

Tied in with this is the fact that staff needed to run a campaign were re-called, treasury announcements were brought forward and his spurious announcements in Iraq.

Even being generous, Brown has mishandled the whole affair. If he didn't want an election he had ample opportunity to say so and kill the speculation stone-dead, as he has in fact now done.

I'm not sure. The supposed hints from Labour Party people seem more like responses to questions about a possible election which seemed to have been created out of nothing. They're all along the lines of "yes, we are prepared for an election if Gordon declares one" which sounds more like a stock response to questioning about a possible election (Labour MPs can't deny anything, remember, only Gordon can do that). There were some figures who seemed to be giving what the BBC claims were hints but I think it's likely that these were stock "we are always ready!" responses or Labour figures going-along with the media spin (one claims an 80% chance of a autumn election. Does anyone really believe that was ever the case). Notably, Gordon Brown - the man who matters in this issue - never seemed to suggest anything but "no". Reading that, I get the impression that the Lib Dems hinted at the possibility, the media took it up, Brown shuffled his feet (maybe he *did* talk about the possibility in private, I don't know although it strikes me as extremely unlikely), some Labour figures thought it might be a good idea after all and made some noncommittal hints that it would be a good idea, Cameron took the opportunity to push Brown on the issue at the Conservative Party Conference and the media (who, it must be said, have sided with the tories over this, even the BBC) did their thing. Overall, though, I think it's something that's come from very little or nothing at all. Typical media manipulation.

"Even being generous, Brown has mishandled the whole affair. If he didn't want an election he had ample opportunity to say so and kill the speculation stone-dead, as he has in fact now done."

Oh, I agree. He handled this very badly by not flat-out denying things early on and letting speculation build-up but I'm far from convinced it was ever on the cards. Brown has waited a decade to be Prime Minister and the idea that he'd call an election within months of coming to power and without a chance to implement his policies securely strikes me as extremely unlikely. Lest we forget we had a general election a little over two years ago, it's far far too early for another especially with a recent change of Prime Minister.

I'd go along with that I suppose.

<>

And that is what annoys me. Nobody voted for him. Nobody voted for his policies. We voted for another guy and different policies.

Specifically we voted for a referendum on the EU constitution which has now been dumped.

This lot got in on false pretences. It's fraud.

>And that is what annoys me. Nobody voted for him. Nobody voted for his policies. We voted for another guy and different policies.

I don't really go-along with the notion that we vote for the Prime Minister. We don't - we vote for a candidate in our consistuency and the party with the most seats wins and decides on its own cabinet. If we had a presidential system, we'd specifically elected Blair and Brown had replaced him then there'd be a case for calling "foul" but that isn't how our system works and never has been.

This has happened before: Major replaced Thatcher two years before another general election and that wasn't a smooth handover of power, it was essentially a messy coup de tait by Tory moderates against the Thatcherites. Even then, there wasn't much in the way of calling "foul" at the time iirc. The nation had elected a Tory government in 1987 and they still had one.

>Specifically we voted for a referendum on the EU constitution which has now been dumped.

I'd agree with you on this if there was any serious likelihood of Brown pushing it through without a referendum (extremely unlikely, given that Brown is more Eurosceptic than Blair). Worst-case scenario is probably its being put-off until after the next election (assuming Labour win, of course).

Surely a case of Brown dodging the issue again - we all know they're trying to sneak the constitution through as a series of ammendments, but rather take the chance of the country saying "stick your constitution where the sun don't shine" Brown avoids the issue and closes his eyes to the consequences.

Hi Zagreb,

<< I don't really go-along with the notion that we vote for the Prime Minister. We don't - we vote for a candidate in our consistuency and the party with the most seats wins and decides on its own cabinet. If we had a presidential system, we'd specifically elected Blair and Brown had replaced him then there'd be a case for calling "foul" but that isn't how our system works and never has been.>>

A nice description but regrettably not what occurs. We don't vote for a candidate in our constituency, we vote for the party they represent. If we DID vote for the candidate because of THEIR ideas chimed with ours there is precious little liklihood of the Whips being unused to push a Part Line. Your description would be accurate if elected MP's always had a free vote, but they do not.

Novo

Dear me what a politburo defence Zabreb. The Son of the Manse hoist by his own Brownite petard. He's even had to field Blears and Straw to try and claw some crediblity back. Balls and Milleband were spinning a quick election like tops. What are they calling them, the Teenagers, and the Greybeards are having to clear up the mess.

Doesn't look like this Cabinet will last long no experience and Dave is going to rack them over the European treaty.

No, they didn't and no, it's not.

Someone has already pointed out that we elect MPs.
MPs elect PMs.
MPs are our representatives & PMs are their chosen 'firsts'. This one wasn't elected but was chosen, even if by default.

The affair is not illegal and, arguably, not even immoral, even though the whole thing is distasteful.

Aren't we said to get the government we deserve? Judging by some of the earlier posts, we indeed do.

Whoops, sorry folks - what happened to posts 48 - 51 between readings?

"A nice description but regrettably not what occurs. We don't vote for a candidate in our constituency, we vote for the party they represent."

Do you actually understand the British constitution Novo? You may well decide whom to vote for on the basis of their party but constitutionally you are voting for the individual standing to be the MP. THis is why for example there is nothing wrong constitutionally with MPs "crossing the floor" and taking the other sides whip.

Whether we like it or not if you have a Part based system, particularly one based on the First Pas the Post electing system whipping is inevitable and necessary for the government to be able to function.

Oh I do understand it FB, but thanks for the reminder. On the point of crossing the floor perhaps you will one day join the management side?

Novo

Nah... Too much of a trouble maker me. Though it is a fact that management often try and recruit us Union Reps, something about where you are in relation to the tent whilst urinating

It looks like Gordon might have played a blinder. Just enough honesty to say he had thought about an election, mixed with a little bit of pragmatic PR about why he decided against it. Despite all Dave's bluster about teating people as fools, I think most people will accept a certain inexperience by Gordon in PR stuff, and thus this could all actually work out in his favour in the long run. Providing he does a reasonable job as PM over the next year, year and half.

I don't think any of the electorate are so stupid to believe that a Tory PM wouldn't choose to call an election when they had the most chance of winning. And if they did they'd be mad given that it is the govermnment in power who has the choice as to when to call an election. 'Yfronts outside his trousers', Major, only took it to the wire because he knew he never had a snowball's in hell chance of winning, whenever he called the election.

You think so? I think he has been made to look silly, and I bet he really wishes Ed Balls had been more circumspect about what he had to say.

However I think Brillo pad had it right last Thursaday. If an election happens in May 2009 (As I suppose seems likely now) who amongst the general public is really going to remeber or care about this fiasco?

Fiasco? Yes precisely. The tories can't have it both ways. They seem to think on the one hand he is a genius of PR management and spin, and on the other a bumbling ditherer. He's shown himself to be all too human. And I think people will respect that. And in a year and a half, as you say, who will give a monkeys if he does an okay job.

The Daily Hate will no doubt remind us - in LARGE PRINT

Novo