'Manse Broon', he say 'nay'.

[InsaneApache]

So that's it then. Manse Broon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_brown) says no to an (cut and run) election this year.

Unelected by the voters, unelected by the party, reneging on his partys manifesto to hold a referendum and now turns yellow in the face of a certain defeat at the polls.

The man has enfeebled himself and, by extension, his party. He's spent the better part of a month electioneering, not running the country. He was facing the prospect of being, one of, if not, the shortest serving PM ever.

Now the honeymoon is over, especially after his cynical visit to Baghdad.

No doubt he will cling to power as long as he can.

Do others here think that he has irrevocably damaged himself, that he now has no chance at winning an election, whenever it is held?

[Pannonian]

So that's it then. Manse Broon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_brown) says no to an (cut and run) election this year.

Unelected by the voters
How was he any less elected than Tony Blair? Or, for that matter, Margaret Thatcher, Winston Churchill, etc.?

[InsaneApache]

How was he any less elected than Tony Blair? Or, for that matter, Margaret Thatcher, Winston Churchill, etc.?

Nice try. :wink:

[Pannonian]

Nice try. :wink:
Why don't you answer the question? How were the likes of Blair and Thatcher any more elected than Brown?

[InsaneApache]

I'll assume that this isn't a wind up but a serious question then.

IIRC they went to the polls as the head of their respective parties. They presented their manifestos and were judged on that and their leadership qualities.

Not only has Gordy not done that as leader but has chosen to ignore his own partys manifesto commitments.

[Pannonian]

I'll assume that this isn't a wind up but a serious question then.

IIRC they went to the polls as the head of their respective parties. They presented their manifestos and were judged on that and their leadership qualities.

Not only has Gordy not done that as leader but has chosen to ignore his own partys manifesto commitments.
The party with the largest number of seats is still in power, isn't it? However he was chosen as leader of his party (and Tory leaders weren't known for being popularly elected in the olden days), he is the head of the governing party, which makes him the de facto leader of the government. And he's been elected as an MP by his constituency, which makes him eligible to stand in the House of Commons as the leader of the governing party in the Commons. Isn't this how we do things in the UK? This ain't the US, where the head of the government is directly elected by the electorate. If you don't want Brown in power, get the people of Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath to throw him out.

[Tart]

But we don't vote for a leader, we vote for the MPs and the party. It's up to the party to choose their leader and that happens now to be Mr Brown.

Ah Pannonian has beaten me to it and with a much better explanation :o)

[InsaneApache]

Nice derailment about the UK constitution. I already know all that. The question I asked was is he now electable, standing as PM to the voters?

I say he's shot his bolt.

[Pannonian]

Nice derailment about the UK constitution. I already know all that. The question I asked was is he now electable, standing as PM to the voters?

I say he's shot his bolt.
By seeing how the next 2 years go? If the UK has a competent government in that time, doesn't mess up abroad, continues to have a decent economy, etc., why would we need a change in government? Dunno about you, but I'm not so besotted with the drama of politics as to value its ebb and flow over such mundane things as how the country is governed.

[InsaneApache]

By seeing how the next 2 years go? If the UK has a competent government in that time, doesn't mess up abroad, continues to have a decent economy, etc., why would we need a change in government? Dunno about you, but I'm not so besotted with the drama of politics as to value its ebb and flow over such mundane things as how the country is governed.

ID cards, detention without trial, unlimited immigration, the EU constitution amending treaty, early release of convicts, ('cos there aint no where to put 'em), fuel price escalator, West Lothian question.......ad infinitum.

I'm so mundane, I'm besotted with it. :dizzy2:

[Pannonian]

ID cards, detention without trial, unlimited immigration, the EU constitution amending treaty, early release of convicts, ('cos there aint no where to put 'em), fuel price escalator, West Lothian question.......ad infinitum.

I'm so mundane, I'm besotted with it. :dizzy2:
Do you vote on the basis of those issues? How does your preferred party stand on those issues?

[InsaneApache]

I don't have a preferred party.

[English assassin]

To answer your qu IA, he's done himself some damage. Form the inside I can tell you the Tories are certainly please he bottled it, as we would probably have lost. Perversely though it was probably the right decision for him, too since if he had gone it would only take a few columnists to start wondering what Brown knew about 2008-09 that we didn't, not to mention a bit of fall out from the trip to Iraq and the bogus troop pull out, and who knows.

His mistake wasn't not going, his mistake was allowing a bit of made up uncertainty designed to flush some policies out of the Tories to turn into a test of his nerve.

Ironically by not being bounced you could say he's actuially show he can keep his nerve, although obviously for public consumption the message has to be he's frit.

Personally I never thought he would go. If he wins, he gets 3 more years in power than he's got anyway. if he loses he's in the history books as the shortest serving PM of all time. This is a man who has schemed since he was a teenager to be PM. No way was he going to take that risk.

It does show we should go onto the American system of one election at a fixed time each four years though.

[Geoffrey S]

His mistake wasn't not going, his mistake was allowing a bit of made up uncertainty designed to flush some policies out of the Tories to turn into a test of his nerve.
Not that they really showed much in the way of actual policies beyond reactionary statements. As long as Cameron is (nominally) in charge and neither represents his party not has anything particularly productive to say they're not going to be able to win against Brown. Sure, Brown backed down here but is probably now more convinced than ever that the current Conservative Party is no major threat to his leadership.

[macsen rufus]

It does show we should go onto the American system of one election at a fixed time each four years though.


While I agree with most of your post, this bit frightened me - unless I misunderstood? If you mean fixed terms for what is basically the current system, then I think there is a good case for it, if you mean American system as in electing the 'leader' and parliament separately, please, please no!

Whether the current incumbents are my favoured party or not (and they haven't been for my entire life so far :laugh4: ) the fact that the leader represents the parliamentary majority is sensible. I really would not like to see the same situation as in the US where the administration and congress can be at total loggerheads. It's hard enough getting sense out of politicians already, and I can't see that system working to anyone's advantage here.

But to the substantive question - only time will tell. Whether Brown has been damaged or not by events will only show in the election, whenever it occurs. If there's another two years to go, there's more than enough scope for recent events to be totally eclipsed in significance.

Edit: dyslexic fnigres

[JAG]

IA, you are being completely idiotic and, to be frank, quite ignorant of how our system works. On top of that I think over the past years you have probably been the biggest 'ranter' on the fact that Blair is 'Presidential' and 'egotistical' and runs the country in the 'wrong way'....

Yet you have no concept of the fact that in the UK we DO NOT elect Prime Ministers at elections we elect PARTIES, meaning that simply the leader of the biggest party becomes the Prime Minister. The country never has a vote on who the Prime Minister should be, they simply have a vote on their local MP and who that should be. The only people who ever vote on Brown, Cameron and Campbell are their own constituents. We DO NOT have to worry about whether Brown himself has been the head of a party at an election because that is 100% completely IRRELEVANT. The Labour party won, he is the leader of the Labour party - not to mention it also DOES NOT matter how he became leader of the Labour party, election or no, because that is purely down to the Labour party - and thus he is the leader of the country.

It is pure stupidity by everyone in the country that thinks he needs to call a general election, whipped up by the media because they want to see one. He has in fact done the right thing in not calling an election, not because he would lose - quite the opposite he would wipe the floor with Cameron, after his bounce fell, we don't want a toff ruling us again - but because it would be stupidity to put the country through an election 2 years after the last and it would be without much precedent in the history of our country.


It does show we should go onto the American system of one election at a fixed time each four years though.

And EA, how the hell does it show this? We have a perfectly good system in terms of elections at the moment, no need to go to the lame duck US way.

[Pannonian]

Remember that the most celebrated Prime Minister of the 20th century wasn't elected as the leader of the majority party either. After Labour and many Tories lost confidence in Chamberlain, they cast around for another leader. Most Tories preferred Halifax, but Labour made it clear they wouldn't tolerate anyone other than Churchill. So behold, from the smoky rooms of Parliament came Britain's new Prime Minister, who wasn't the leader of any party when he was elected as the MP for Epping. Yet he was no less mandated than any other Prime Minister, having been elected by his constituents and thus eligible to stand in the Commons, and having the support of the majority of MPs in the Commons and thus able to carry the House.

[InsaneApache]

First of all, may I say welcome back JAG.

Also thankyou for edumacating me on how the party parliamentary system works. Silly me.

It (election fever) wasn't all stoked up by the media though, was it?

As for Pannonian comparing Broon to Churchill. :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :smash:

[Pannonian]

First of all, may I say welcome back JAG.

Also thankyou for edumacating me on how the party parliamentary system works. Silly me.

It (election fever) wasn't all stoked up by the media though, was it?

As for Pannonian comparing Broon to Churchill. :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :smash:
Are you saying that how Churchill was picked to be Prime Minister is an inappropriate comparison with how Brown was picked to be Prime Minister? If so, point out how the selection process for Churchill was more legitimate than that for Brown. Or, for that matter, John Major and all the others who stepped up when the retiring PM stepped down. Instead of snickering and avoiding the point, please enlighten me as to how the British political system works.

[InsaneApache]

Oh, I understand fully how it works. As the PM is not the head of state, just the leader (usually)of the party with the most seats in Parliament, he gets to kiss the royal glove.

However Broon is banging on about change, change and yet more change. Was this 'change' in the last manifesto? The manifesto that his party was elected on. So what's his mandate for all this change? When did the people have the opportunity to examine his case for change and vision? He thought he'd get away with winning an election because NuLab was in front of the polls, then, shock horror, the polls didn't look quite as nice anymore. Broon turned yellow and bottled it.

Nar then sithee lad, in 1940 the UK had a national government, so it was rather academic who was PM. Thank god they chose Winston and not Halifax.

If you don't stop it, I'll tell that joke about the little kid, his mum and missing teeth. :laugh4:

[HoreTore]

Oh, I understand fully how it works. As the PM is not the head of state, just the leader (usually)of the party with the most seats in Parliament, he gets to kiss the royal glove.

However Broon is banging on about change, change and yet more change. Was this 'change' in the last manifesto? The manifesto that his party was elected on. So what's his mandate for all this change? When did the people have the opportunity to examine his case for change and vision? He thought he'd get away with winning an election because NuLab was in front of the polls, then, shock horror, the polls didn't look quite as nice anymore. Broon turned yellow and bottled it.

In our system, Brown answers to the ruling organ of the labour party, not the people, first.

Or are you saying that politicians shouldn't be allowed to change course if they find out that what they've been doing for 2 years is idiotic? They should either be forced to give a new election or continue being idiots(well, more than usual...) for two more years?

[InsaneApache]

In our system, Brown answers to the ruling organ of the labour party, not the people, first.

Or are you saying that politicians shouldn't be allowed to change course if they find out that what they've been doing for 2 years is idiotic? They should either be forced to give a new election or continue being idiots(well, more than usual...) for two more years?

He's been PM for just over 100 days.

[Pannonian]

Oh, I understand fully how it works. As the PM is not the head of state, just the leader (usually)of the party with the most seats in Parliament, he gets to kiss the royal glove.

However Broon is banging on about change, change and yet more change. Was this 'change' in the last manifesto? The manifesto that his party was elected on. So what's his mandate for all this change? When did the people have the opportunity to examine his case for change and vision? He thought he'd get away with winning an election because NuLab was in front of the polls, then, shock horror, the polls didn't look quite as nice anymore. Broon turned yellow and bottled it.

Personally, I don't appreciate over-frequent elections, the various local campaigns being more than enough for me. So I didn't want the early election that was being hyped up, preferring instead that he should get on with the business of government until a reasonable period of time had passed. That's what representative democracy is all about - we elect some reps to deal with the tiresome business of government so we don't have to, then we tell them to bugger off and leave us alone.


If you don't stop it, I'll tell that joke about the little kid, his mum and missing teeth. :laugh4:
I got naughty points when I made my reply public in the Frontroom. I learnt from that, and my next trolling expedition took place in a laxer environment, carefully worded so I'd have a plausible defence (not that it helped with Beirut). Did you enjoy it?

[HoreTore]

He's been PM for just over 100 days.

Yes. Do you want him to be a good PM, or continue being the same idiot Blair was? ~;)

[English assassin]

And EA, how the hell does it show this? We have a perfectly good system in terms of elections at the moment, no need to go to the lame duck US way.

Welcome back.

It shows that a PM should not be allowed to call an election when he chooses, because he will choose for party political advantage. Brown certainly can't be trusted since to my amazement he's turned out to be an even bigger spinner than Blair. One general election every four years, like it or not, that's the way to go now.

BTW I believe the lame duck US way is actually quite common, and its the UK that is unusual (in this as so much else)

[Louis VI the Fat]

One general election every four years, like it or not, that's the way to go now.

BTW I believe the lame duck US way is actually quite common, and its the UK that is unusual (in this as so much else)I think it is more the general difference between a presidential and a parliamentary system.

In the former, the president (or indeed PM) is chosen directly and answers directly to his electorate, and can assume his mandate to last for the time for which he has been elected. In the latter, the PM answers to parliament, and his mandate can last only as long as parliament supports him. If it doesn't anymore, new elections are in order.

The drawback of the former is that a president can outlast his trust. Witness the long last two years of Chirac.* And there's the lame duck syndrome also.
The drawback of the latter is that it begs for abuse. Political opportunism will often decide on an election date. Then of course there are mixed systems, like in France, where the electorate has to endure both drawbacks.

Considering British political traditions and institutions, I do not think a president or a directly elected PM can be implemented easily. Nor do I think that there is much desire for such an overhaul of British traditions. But therefore there can be no set interval for elections either. That doesn't function in a parliamentary system. Daily interaction between the PM and parliament means that the country will become ungovernable once a PM loses the support of parliament. You can set a limit on the latest date for a new election, but you can't exclude elections before that date. That is a necessity in a parliamentary system.
Hence I think the British electorate had better focus on getting less opportunistic, less spinning and scheming politicians, than on any electoral reforms.


* De Gaulle left after a referendum, when he sensed that he no longer enjoyed the trust of his electorate. But this is exceptional.



Oh, I also think that IA has been rebuked too eagerly in this thread. Indeed, a PM isn't elected directly. But technical electoral specifics should not be confused with the reality of elections. Yes, voters elect a MP, not a party or PM. But, for most intents and purposes, voters will base their vote on a party, on national politics, and on a central figure, the leader of a national party. This is what is at stake during a national election, and this is understood as such by tradition, politicians and the electorate.

[English assassin]

Well, its easily solved: you have an election every four years, OR if Parliament passes a vote of no confidence.


Hence I think the British electorate had better focus on getting less opportunistic, less spinning and scheming politicians, than on any electoral reforms

Fixed it

[lars573]

So i take it that political parties in the UK don't elect a leader by a 2 round popular vote of the party membership then?

[English assassin]

So i take it that political parties in the UK don't elect a leader by a 2 round popular vote of the party membership then?

The Tories do it by the MPs voting on two candidates and then the members choosing between them.

Labour does it by appointing the person who's been in the biggest strop for the last 15 years.

Why?

[Pannonian]

The Tories do it by the MPs voting on two candidates and then the members choosing between them.

Labour does it by appointing the person who's been in the biggest strop for the last 15 years.

Why?
Because Labour is in government? My political knowledge of that time is a bit hazy, but how did the Tories choose their new leader the last time a Tory PM stepped down?

[lars573]

The Tories do it by the MPs voting on two candidates and then the members choosing between them.

Labour does it by appointing the person who's been in the biggest strop for the last 15 years.

Why?
Because for us the tradition is that all parties use a variant of what the UK Tories use. We call them leadership conventions. So that for me you saying that "Manse Broon" wasn't elected doesn't make sense. As, for me, if he's leader of a party it means he was elected such. That's all.

[InsaneApache]

He (Gordon the Moron) was elected alright. Then again he was the only candidate. Typical left wing 'election'.

IIRC the Major election involved five candidates. More democratic IMO.

I'll you lot decide.

[Pannonian]

He (Gordon the Moron) was elected alright. Then again he was the only candidate. Typical left wing 'election'.

IIRC the Major election involved five candidates. More democratic IMO.

I'll you lot decide.
I seem to recall a Tory leadership contest from not so long back which involved just the one candidate. IIRC it was Cameron's predecessor, Michael Howard. Was that a typical left wing 'election' as well?

[InsaneApache]

However, he's not our glorious leader. You asked about former PMs.

I do agree though with your sentiment.

[lars573]

He (Gordon the Moron) was elected alright. Then again he was the only candidate. Typical left wing 'election'.

IIRC the Major election involved five candidates. More democratic IMO.

I'll you lot decide.
Well then the Labour party leadership isn't all that bright. When we had a similar succession of the old leader (Jean Chretein) retiring and the groomed and handf picked new one (Paul Martin) being enthroned. The Libreals put on a good show of a leadership election. They got three stoogies (the at the time current and former deputy PM's and some other doof, each as bungling as they were moronic) for him to trounce in the leadership race. Everyone knew it was a shame but they did it anyway. They should really look into having shame leadership elections. :smash: After all appearances are everything.

[Pannonian]

Well then the Labour party leadership isn't all that bright. When we had a similar succession of the old leader (Jean Chretein) retiring and the groomed and handf picked new one (Paul Martin) being enthroned. The Libreals put on a good show of a leadership election. They got three stoogies (the at the time current and former deputy PM's and some other doof, each as bungling as they were moronic) for him to trounce in the leadership race. Everyone knew it was a shame but they did it anyway. They should really look into having shame leadership elections. :smash: After all appearances are everything.
The British electorate may be cynical, but we're not stupid. If there isn't gong to be a proper leadership election, then one might as well go for a handover with as little fuss as possible.


However, he's not our glorious leader. You asked about former PMs.

I do agree though with your sentiment.
Then perhaps the Churchill-Eden handover would be a closer comparison? A retiring PM with someone who has long been groomed as his successor. Dunno if you're old enough to remember the event (I'm certainly not), but was there a leadership election among the Tories when they retired Churchill?

[lars573]

The British electorate may be cynical, but we're not stupid. If there isn't gong to be a proper leadership election, then one might as well go for a handover with as little fuss as possible.
Well I believe that according to (Canadian) tradition you need to have a leadership convention to be officially crowned party leader. And that is the biggest reason they had it. To do otherwise wouldn't appear legitimate.