He doesn't seem particularly approachable or charismatic.

 

I think he should be given a chance though. He doesn't deserve to be hated for something he hasn't done yet.

Much as I'm glad to see Bliar go, I do have a huge problem with this. We now have an unelected Prime Minister.

 

I find it incredible that a nation like Britain is now in a position where BOTH the Head of State, and the Head of our government have not been chosen by the people. The two most powerful positions in the country.

Right now we are less of a democracry than most of the nations we've been condemning in the past few years. It's a joke.

A general election should have been held as soon as Bliar resigned.

Edited June 29, 200718 yr by Shoat

Much as I'm glad to see Bliar go, I do have a huge problem with this. We now have an unelected Prime Minister.

 

I find it incredible that a nation like Britain is now in a position where BOTH the Head of State, and the Head of our government have not been chosen by the people. The two most powerful positions in the country.

Right now we are less of a democracry than most of the nations we've been condemning in the past few years. It's a joke.

A general election should have been held as soon as Bliar resigned.

Not really so, at the general election you elect a party not a PM. The Labour party has made Gordon the PM. I don't really have an issue with that especially as it was known at the last election of Blair's intent to step down during the next term and his likely replacement with Gordon Brown.

Much as I'm glad to see Bliar go, I do have a huge problem with this. We now have an unelected Prime Minister.

 

I find it incredible that a nation like Britain is now in a position where BOTH the Head of State, and the Head of our government have not been chosen by the people. The two most powerful positions in the country.

Right now we are less of a democracry than most of the nations we've been condemning in the past few years. It's a joke.

A general election should have been held as soon as Bliar resigned.

 

As a Tory I hope there is an election real soon but as long as Brown sticks to the manifesto that Labour were elected with last time then I don't think he is doing anything wrong here.

Much as I'm glad to see Bliar go, I do have a huge problem with this. We now have an unelected Prime Minister.

 

I find it incredible that a nation like Britain is now in a position where BOTH the Head of State, and the Head of our government have not been chosen by the people. The two most powerful positions in the country.

Right now we are less of a democracry than most of the nations we've been condemning in the past few years. It's a joke.

A general election should have been held as soon as Bliar resigned.

 

Exactly the same thing happened in '91 when Thatcher stepped down as PM and Major took over.... But if memory serves I do believe there was at least some sort of actual leadership contest there, whereas here it just seems to have gone straight from Blair to Brown with absolutely NO ONE, not even Labour Party MPs or members even having a say.... It is completely undemocratic, I agree, there should absolutely be a General Election whenever something like this happens, I felt that way when it was Thatcher and I feel the same way now...

 

Mind you, you're kinda fooling yourself if you believe we do actually live in a Democratic country (when was the last time you actually felt 'empowered'..?)..... This is just more proof of the fact IMO....

 

it would have been wrong if no one else was allowed to opose brown, they did but dropped out as they just hadnt the backing. therefore the labour party were democratic in letting brown take over...

 

no problem.

it would have been wrong if no one else was allowed to opose brown, they did but dropped out as they just hadnt the backing. therefore the labour party were democratic in letting brown take over...

 

no problem.

 

Of course there's a problem, if a back-bench MP steps down or resigns from their constituency or post, they dont just pick some other Johnny to take over for a little while until whenever the next election might be, it triggers a bi-election in that constituency immediately... Surely a PM stepping down is a slightly bigger deal than some back-bench MP with no real influence or power in Govt.... This is not the same thing as a Cabinet reshuffle either... We, the PEOPLE should have a say in who runs the country whenever a PM steps down for whatever reason...

 

Of course there's a problem, if a back-bench MP steps down or resigns from their constituency or post, they dont just pick some other Johnny to take over for a little while until whenever the next election might be, it triggers a bi-election in that constituency immediately... Surely a PM stepping down is a slightly bigger deal than some back-bench MP with no real influence or power in Govt.... This is not the same thing as a Cabinet reshuffle either... We, the PEOPLE should have a say in who runs the country whenever a PM steps down for whatever reason...

 

I disagree because at an election we are voting for the Party (Administration) to become the Government via voting for local members of Parliament not voting for the Leader. This is Not America (thank God!).

 

Therefore, I don't have a problem with the principle.

 

However, I do have a problem with Gordon Brown but that is a separate issue.

 

I disagree because at an election we are voting for the Party (Administration) to become the Government via voting for local members of Parliament not voting for the Leader. This is Not America (thank God!).

 

Therefore, I don't have a problem with the principle.

 

However, I do have a problem with Gordon Brown but that is a separate issue.

 

TiP, that is a bit of a crock mate, and you know it... Who the leader of a Party is plays a very important factor in deciding a vote these days, like it or not...AND, the whole idea of "image over substance", "personality cult", and "spin" is something this "Labour" Govt (along with the media) actually propogated in the first place... If only it really WAS just about the policies and issues........

 

Not really so, at the general election you elect a party not a PM. The Labour party has made Gordon the PM. I don't really have an issue with that especially as it was known at the last election of Blair's intent to step down during the next term and his likely replacement with Gordon Brown.

 

I don't completely buy that argument. Technically we vote for the party, but I don't think it completely works like that in reality. I remember visiting Essex Uni a while ago, and one of the lecturers from the Politics department explained to us about a recent study that had been conducted, where it was concluded that the leader of any political party IS a huge contributing factor to a party's popularity, and voting patterns. I vaguely recall when Labour were voted in 1997, there was a lot of fuss made about the new, young dynamic leader... These days personality has almost as much weight as policy. I'd be surprised if every single person who voted for the Blair-led Labour Party would automatically switch to a Brown-led Party. Labour will have differences in their policies under Brown then they did under Blair, they're NOT strictly the same party they were at the time of the last election. Attitudes and people have changed.

And whilst many people thought it likely Brown would take over it was not 100% definite at the time of the last election.

 

And frankly, there are some decisions that are just too big NOT to be put to the public, and I see the choice of PM being one of them. Mind you, I would also say Iraq and the EU are similar issues, but the government has a different viewpoint there aswell...