Sorry AFKA.
If the PM BrownTwat goes --push or whatever -----------do the Labour Party then say who is going to be our PM or do we get a General Election ? If its the Labour Party MPs then there is nothing stopping them all having a week each ? 5 years 300 MPs -----------------------sounds like their type of democracy !
0
Comments
you normally go into an election though knowing who is leader of the Party you are voting for and in a lot of cases people vote for a particular Party as they like the man whom the know will be PM. If another man was leader they may not vote for that Party. I think it is inherrently wrong that a Party is elected by voters who blieve that XX will be PM and then over the next few years can change that PM themselves willynilly.
Its the system we have though !
Well, thats the theory anyway.
If a voter doesnt understand how the constitution in this country works, is that really the fault of the Government, or the voter?
exactly but in reality you vote for the Labour man in your constituency not because you think he'll do a better job for you locally than the people standing for the other parties but because you love Tony Blair and want him to be PM.
If they change leader they will be under pressure to call an election - which they will promptly lose.
If they stick with Brown, they are doomed anyway.
Cameron must be wetting himself laughing...
what is of concern to me most is that my family in Ireland voted against the treaty last time but the mood has changed there since and somehow they are being asked again in october to vote on it again and they reckon the majority of the country will vote for it because they are being hit real hard in the credit crunch.
Is what Labour done illegal?,
If we dont have a general election before October and the Irish vote yes on the EU treaty will we lose the right to have a referendum ?
do any of the other Parties mean what they say about allowing us to vote on the issue or will they remove their word also?
Gordon Brown seems like a man with no plan he seems to be falling apart and his troops leaving him in droves is this because he is unable to sell himself the public due to his dour demeaner or because he is useless?
Under Blair you got the impression that Brown was a man of substance that he could do a good job but he was never managerial material and unable to lead his party
i am confused and angry at the helplessness i feel over the whole state of affairs
Unfortunately, he listened to the PR idiots in the Labour party, who persauded him to try and pretend to be something he's not (false smiles and manufactured cheerfulness). It's not difficult to see through this and the public now think he's a joke. If he had stuck to his dour image, he may have been OK. We will never know.
But he has hardly helped himself with his decision making, has he? He has seriously miscalculated on a number of occasions. The youtube decision was the nadir for Brown and made him look like a laughing stock. He now has no reputation to speak of whatsoever. A dead duck of a PM.
All we can do is sit back and watch whatever happens, happen. Jerry Springer made this point on the telly last night. He could not understand how the public has no say whatsoever in the future of the government in the next 12 months. He has a point. They said to him 'welcome to British democracy!'
Thats the joke, vote yes and they will never ask you again, vote no and they will ask over and over until the vote comes out yes.
The political system is broken, does not have public confidence or respect and we need constitutional reform to reconnect voters with the elected politicians. Changing one set of politicians for another won't change that fundmental truth. It's very unlikely that an incoming Tory government would deliver much in that respect unless forced to do so and at the least the main parties should have to set out their stall on constitutional change in a very specific way so there is no room for backsliding. Better to have a referendum on constitutional change in tandem with the General Election, but that will take time to set up.
In terms of changing PM between elections, there's nothing new about this. People who voted for the Tories in 1987 didn't expect to get John Major from 1990 to 1992, Harold Wilson was succeeded by Jim Callaghan from 1976-79 and the Tories did it regularly in the 1950s and early 60s, with Eden succeeding Churchill, Macmillan succeeding Eden and Douglas-Home succeeding Macmillan, all without a General Election. From recollection only Eden called one quickly (or even within the following year). Of course Churchill took over from Chamberlain without an election as well, but that was during the war.
Doesn't that remind you of 'insert any womans name'
How does "their" type of democracy differ, in your mind, from the other main party's? It was the same situation when Major replaced Thatcher. If you're going to bluster on about something you kind of need to back it up with a bit of rationale. If someone doesn't want to vote for "them" because they're not happy with the thought that their selection could get replaced, who would YOU suggest they vote for to prevent this??
Cameron cynically made a few Eurosceptic noises in the last week to try to con people into voting Tory but Clarke, Hesletine and Howe are all Europhiles and hold much power in the Parliamentary party even if their views are untypical of the Tory grassroots.
When the Irish vote "YES" Dave can duck his pledge to give us a referendum on the grounds of changed circumstances.
The abuse of democracy by the 3 major parties in this country stinks.
can someone please answer the questions i asked as i would really like to know the answers as the man of the house i believe i should know but i dont want to admit i dont ;-)
1. Not illegal but definitely immoral
2. The Tories only made their referendum promise to try and undermine UKIP. They will drop it if (when) the Irish vote YES
3. The only anti EU parties are UKIP and the BNP. Some English democrats claim to be anti EU but separating the UK is somewhat similar to EU regionalisation IMHO.
I thought sugar had more sense than to work with a slippery b*std like Mandelson
The way Brown's performing at his press conference it looks like he's on the verge of a breakdown (or a heart-attack).
There are very few rules on what the government has to do - that's the price we pay for not having a proper, legitimate written constitution.
Brown could be axed, someone else could be PM and they could, like Brown, have received no mandate from the British Public. No rules would have been broken.
No problem with an unwritten constitution until a bunch of immoral spivs abuse it.
It worked for a good few hundred years until this lot got in.
They all just think he is full of sh*t - and who can blame them.
There wasnt anything BELIEVABLE at Browns press conferance. On his official list given to the Jurnos Caroline Flint`s name was missing --------because AS HE WAS TALKING she quite !! and yes God help us Glynis Kinnock is taking her place. Last night Carline Flint said she was " a proud member of Browns Government" she was the minister fr Europe. O dear o dear she has now said "he treats women as window dressing"