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

....well on 2 May 1997 Labour were elected and Tony Blair became Prime Minister with their campaign song was D;Ream's 'Things can only get Better' well ten years later I know my hearing that song over and over at about 7 AM was a sham, things didn't get better for the vast majority.

Bringing in the unelected Gordon Brown to replace him, who most of his colleagues seems to realise has a dark side, yet most signed his nomination papers (is he the Charlie of the Big Westminster House) isn't going to impress me much. Especially has he has already shown his underhandedness by going behind a rival leaders back and word to seek to be cross-party in flavour.

A week is a long time in politics but 10 years is an Eon.

He has to do something about the flood situation, it's uncanny that he's inherited a country part-underwater. He could make a great deal of friends helping people with their clean-ups and reinforcing (in some places implementing) flood defences.

I think he'd just hired the Wizard's apprentice (M.I.C.K.E.Y. M.O.U.S.E.) to try and clean up the mess left in Sedgefield and Bristol (the flats) but he got carried away and missed the targets on both scores.

Ten years is too long under the same person! Especially a warmonger.

>Bringing in the unelected Gordon Brown to replace him

Last time I looked Gordon Brown was elected to his constituency and chosen by the majority of Labour Party MPs as their leader.

And we do not, and never have, elected our Prime Minister. We elect a party who choose one of their MPs as leader and therefore Prime Minister.

So the basis for complaining that Gordon Brown wasn't elected is... absolutely nothing.

Zagreb are you trying to lecture me on democracy????

Actually Brown was annointed by his Westminster colleagues without a contest, because he shored up people who had even said they weren't sure of Brown in hte past. Blair at least had to get the support of his colleague, the Trade Unions and the Party Members to become leader of the party.

Actually normally we elect a party who already has a leader. IN my life time only John Major and Jim Callaghan have not taken office as the result of being the leader of the largest party at an election when they first assumed the office of Prime Minister. Both of them however, did face an election against other potential candidates within their party structures at the time (both solely on a vote of MPs).

"Actually Brown was annointed by his Westminster colleagues without a contest, because he shored up people who had even said they weren't sure of Brown in hte past. Blair at least had to get the support of his colleague, the Trade Unions and the Party Members to become leader of the party."

And here's me thinking he was appointed without a contest because his opponents couldn't get any support at all and any "election" would just have been a formality anyway. The insinuation is that Brown was appointed leader of the Labour Party in some sort of dishonest way that doesn't reflect the wishes of the party and that is simply not true.

"Actually normally we elect a party who already has a leader. IN my life time only John Major and Jim Callaghan have not taken office as the result of being the leader of the largest party at an election when they first assumed the office of Prime Minister. Both of them however, did face an election against other potential candidates within their party structures at the time (both solely on a vote of MPs)."

I think you've missed my point. The Prime Minister is not, and never has been, "elected" by popular vote so the idea that Gordon Brown is somehow illegitimiate because he hasn't put his candidature up for popular vote is simply nonsense, despite the considerable LD harping about the issue. It's saying that Brown is somehow illegitimate for not having passed a voting test that does not, and has never, existed in this country. The only thing we vote for is a party, at the last general election Labour won that vote and the Labour party is still in power. Therefore, by the terms of our parliamentary (not presidential) system of democracy there is nothing wrong with what has happened whatsoever.

"Zagreb are you trying to lecture me on democracy????"

No, but I'm trying to explain why, under our current political system, there is nothing illegitmate or dishonest about Brown becoming leader.

Well I know of two disgruntled ex-Labour acolytes (as of last weekend) who sent off their vote for Deputy Prime Minister with the name Gordon Brown written in as a protest as they wanted to have a disscussion of the issues which a contest however one sided would have and direction of the party rather than a straight coronation. They liked the fact that both ourselves regualrly and the Conservatives recently have had a disscussion at party member level about such times when a new leader was required.

Thankfully they have now joined a more democratic party and will have a say in future elections at all sorts of levels.

So, just to be argumentative, does that mean we should only change leaders during a general election so we know who we are getting? What if they fall ill?

Suppose Lib Dems got in and then the leader had to be replaced? Would you really argue that we should all vote again?

Aye nice oar to stick in.

What I'm saying is that not everyone in the Labour party agreed that Brown was the only option to take over. Ok he's been the next Prime Minister for 10 years (probably some sort of record) but they wanted a similar thing to the Tories and what the Lib Dems get regularly a discussion at least for the party members about the direction the party should be taking. All this talk about change yesterday is currently unfounded as by in large nobody has had a discussion about what this change will be.


When Charles Kennedy stood down they was talk of us annoiting Menzies as his replacement, there was uproar that he would take a party of many ideas in one direction possibly different from the path it had taken previously. I wrote off to two potential candidates to ask if they were standing to ensure there was an election. One backed Ming the other stood and gained my support.