As much as I dislike the man,
referring to Gordon Brown as an un-elected Prime Minister is incredibly annoying. If you think it's wrong that he's in power despite not being elected into the post, you have no idea how this country runs itself. Blair wasn't elected Prime Minister either, neither were Atlee, Churchill, Disraeli or Pitt the bloody Younger. Prime Ministers are not chosen by democratic election. If you're voting in order to put a Prime Minister into power, you're doing it wrong and need educating.

Even relatively reputable newspapers seem to comment on his "un-elected" status as if it's some sort of fucking scandal. It really boils my piss that even the people who bother to actually vote seem to have no idea what they're voting *for*.
( Kroney, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 12:44, 45 replies)

you are, of course, technically correct
however a large part of the party that you elect is who leads them. How you think they will react under pressure (admittedly hard to guess, given how throughly their media images are massaged these days) or even how you think that they will represent this country abroad. The world sees Gordon Brown as (one of) the international face(s) of Britain. Jesus, would you vote for that?

I know that it's not the biggest decider, and that you should consider the deputy as well (McCain/Palin? I was shitting bricks for a while over that one. Though a terrible sense of schadenfreude made me want to be in the room when Hillary Clinton found out).

So while you are correct, and I understand your anger when people who should know better misrepresent the facts, I also kind of agree with the spirit behind what is being said ie. he's unelected.
( kappynitty doubled your entendre on, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 12:54, closed)

Irrelevant
I don't care what the PM looks like, he's there to represent British interests, not win awards for being the most handsome national leader. If you think a large part of the party you elect is the leader, then you're doing it wrong. Party leaders change all the time. The PM is merely the party leader of the elected party, it's stupid to think he might not change, too.

You vote according to your interests and which party you think represents them best. Each party elects as leader the person they think represents their party best. That's it. It's not a popularity contest.
( Kroney, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 13:02, closed)

technically, you vote for an individual
as a party can change its leader, so an MP can change his party. Nothing to stop the Labour member for Shitwell defecting to the Tories, and giving them the seat.

Fairly uncommon, 'tis true... But has been known, and then people got the hump that 'they had voted X, and were now Y'; nonsense. They voted for a man, who changed his allegience.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 13:12, closed)

That's fair enough
but it does not apply to party leaders, who are not voted for by the public.
( Kroney, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 13:15, closed)

no, quite


you don't elect the leader. You don't even vote for a party. You vote for a man

EDIT: or, I suppose, a woman, since they're allowed to vote and whatnot now :/
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 13:17, closed)

the leader does matter
Leaders have to make decisions that have enormous bearing on the fate of their countries. For example, the Cuban missile crisis. That could have turned out any number of ways. What if Kruschev hadn't backed down? At what point, if at all would JFK have? To be fair, I have no idea how much power would rest with the PM alone in that kind of situation but it's naive to think that a leaders personality and convictions have no bearing on the decisions that they make.

The appearance thing isn't really that serious. I jsut can't stand watching Gordon Brown speak.
( kappynitty doubled your entendre on, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 13:16, closed)

Neither can I
what you have to remember, though, is that a PM is not a President, no matter how much Tony Blair wanted to be one. The PM is purely a mouthpiece. He's just the leader of the lucky party who had the most MPs voted into office. I know it must be difficult for more directly democratic countries to wrap their heads around, but he's not the leader of the country in the same way yours is.
( Kroney, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 13:25, closed)

sorry, I'm a Brit
and I don't think that the PM is just a mouthpiece. Day to day I agree that whilst maybe having a greater say than your average MP, the Pm isn't some kind of God amongst men. He is, and should be, a first among equals. However, a strong PM that has a cabinet that supports him, or at least doesn't obstruct him, having to make a quick decision? That's going to come down, by necessity, to the leader. It's not practical to convene the commons, and as far as I'm aware COBRA is advisory, not supervisionary.

I may be wrong, I've not looked into it, but surely if time is a factor (the missiles are in the air? Unlikely, I know) then the power and decisions rests with the PM
( kappynitty doubled your entendre on, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 13:44, closed)

Oh, for some reason
I thought you were an American.

I see your point, but that's a rather extreme example and in those situations, the PM usually just does what the American president tells him to do.

I don't doubt that the party will have some kind of mandate for behaviour in those situations, but I don't believe the PM has the power to make truly unilateral decisions.
( Kroney, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 13:53, closed)

to be fair i was talking about Cuban MC and McCain/Palin
and yes, it is an extreme situation. The fact I couldn't think of any other example does somewhat undermine my arguement about the importance of leaders personalities in case of having to make quick and necessarily unilateral decisions.

Bugger
( kappynitty doubled your entendre on, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 13:58, closed)

Do you mean COBR?

(thefuckestuppest cheapened this, on, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 16:37, closed)

It's Not Irelevant

The British PM has, in many ways, more power than the American president. He, and he alone, appoints the cabinet with no oversight from Parliament, or even his own party. Unlike America where every appointment has to be approved by Congress - even the VP.

So, most people vote for the leader they trust, effectively meaning that they vote in the Prime Minister they want. This did not happen in Brown's case. And, just for historical accuracy, can you tell me when a Prime Minister has stepped down while in office? Retiring dead doesn't count. As far as I recall (and I may be wrong) it's never happened except for Blair/Brown.

So the people, the electorate, never got the chance to say yay or nay to Brown. But they are being now and they're going to kick the lying, bullying, hypocritical twat out of the office he should never have had in the first place.

Of course, the downside is that we'll get a gurning Toryboy who'll be just as bad, if not worse.

But it'll be worth it just to see the look on Browns face as it dawns on him that the country fucking hate him.

Cheers
( Legless Mister Stabby - shanks for the memory, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 14:13, closed)

That just means the most people are doing it wrong.
It doesn't give them any more right to complain about an unelected PM as PMs aren't and never have been elected by the public. If you want to argue for reform, that's one thing, but that's not what I'm talking about, nor is it what these people are complaining about.
( Kroney, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 14:21, closed)

OK.
Technically, you're right. We don't vote for a Prime Minister. Technically, we don't even vote for a party. Technically, we vote for the person we want to represent us in parliament regardless of their political persuasion.

But though the above is technically correct, the reality is, it's bollocks.

The reality is people vote mainly for who they want to lead the country and, to do that, you have to vote in the person who represents that person's party in your constituency.

So technically you're right, in reality you're wrong.

I win.

Cheers
( Legless Mister Stabby - shanks for the memory, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 14:56, closed)

Nope
People vote for the party, not the leader. People do not say 'I'm voting for Brown/Cameron' - they say 'I'm voting for Labour/Conservatives'. It takes a remarkable character - either fantastic or odious - to change Joe Q Public's established voting pattern. People who have voted Labour/Tory/Monster Raving Loony all ther lives are not uncommon - and they've not carefully weighed up the relative merits of successive leaders.

The only reason they have to vote for a party at all is that independents tend to get fuck all done. So you pick the party whose ideals most closely resemble your own, and vote for it.

We do not have a president, and only a confirmed simpleton would cast their vote on this basis.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 15:09, closed)

Have You Seen
the readership figures for the Sun/Daily Fail/Mirror?

The country is filled with confirmed simpletons.

And yes, I accept that some people will vote their party affiliation - mainly members of that party - I still say that most people vote based on who's leading that party.

Cheers
( Legless Mister Stabby - shanks for the memory, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 15:14, closed)

No, I said that people who are voting for the party leader
are doing it wrong because they don't know how things actually work. I'm technically right because I *am* right. You're saying "yeah, but that's what people do, so you're wrong in reality".

Doesn't make sense.
( Kroney, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 15:12, closed)

So...

Do people vote for a party? Or do they vote for the name of a person on a ballot paper?

You can't elect "Labour" to be your member of parliament. But you can elect the person who represents the Labour Party.

Using your semantics, nobody can vote for which party they want to run the country.

In this, I'm technically right (which is the basis of you argument) but wrong in the way people use their vote.

Cheers
( Legless Mister Stabby - shanks for the memory, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 15:20, closed)

Actually, further down
I've already admitted this was the case as point out by Happy Phantom. The difference is that you're voting for the representative of the party in your area based on the party manifesto. It's still the case that it's the party, not the public that vote for party leaders.

Whether or not this needs to reformed is not what I'm arguing, I'm arguing that this is the way it is, which it is. Anybody who thinks otherwise is wrong, which they are.

By voting, by no interpretation, are you voting for the party leader.
( Kroney, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 15:26, closed)

See My Answer Below

( Legless Mister Stabby - shanks for the memory, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 15:28, closed)

Stepping down
Thatcher for Major - I know she'd lost the support of her party, but if she'd wanted to stay on, there was no law stopping her.

Wilson for Callaghan in 1976
(lolwhites, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 14:51, closed)

Give That Man A Coconut

You're right - at least about Wilson/Callaghan.

But I'd argue the toss about Thatcher. She didn't step down. She was ousted.

And yes, technically she could have said "Fuck you I'm staying" but that was never on the cards.

Cheers
( Legless Mister Stabby - shanks for the memory, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 15:00, closed)

Fair point
She jumped before she was pushed. Only Tory MPs could vote for leader, and I always wonder whether the ordinary members would have voted to keep her if they'd had the chance.
(lolwhites, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 15:16, closed)

I Think

That the ordinary Tory members would have voted to keep her. They worshipped her. Still do. Fuckwits.

Cheers
( Legless Mister Stabby - shanks for the memory, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 15:22, closed)

Stepped down, outsted, doesn't matter
her successor *was not elected*, and that's the point. The whys and wherefores of her removal are utterly irrelevent; the mechanism by which her successor came to take the position is what's at issue here, and he was conspicuously not selected by popular vote.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 16:04, closed)

Never Said He Was

Would this be a good time to point out that I've had several cans of beer and have now entered total bullshit mode?

It's after 1am here in Oz...

Cheers
( Legless Mister Stabby - shanks for the memory, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 16:20, closed)

Splendid
...best time for it ;)
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 16:40, closed)

Well, I'm a Labour party member...
...(yes, I know, it's more sentimental than anything else these days)...

...and I didn't get to vote for GB either. He hasn't been elected to be Labour leader, and - as you rightly point out - as largest single party (until May) Labour's leader is normally appointed as PM by Her Maj. The PM role is in the gift of Brenda, but the Labour leadership is in the gift of the party membership and we didn't get to vote on it because the rest of the Parliamentary party are spineless tossers who don't want to be associated with the likely loss of the 2010 General Election. Because us party members are all suddenly going to vote for Harriet Sodding Harman after we're down to less than 50 MPs, her having had nothing at all to do with the shameful incompetence and business brown-nosing that have characterised the last thirteen years.

*deep breaths*
( shinyshinyscalp less a man, more a way of life, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 14:15, closed)

Now this
I can understand. The Labour party should have had a say in their next leader. But it's still aparty decision, not a public one.
( Kroney, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 14:26, closed)

if you've been a member for a while then i suppose i can understand....
but the idea of being sentimental about anything that contains Peter Twunting Mandelson?

*Shudders*
( kappynitty doubled your entendre on, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 14:38, closed)

Yeah

I despise Gordon Brown but I *loathe* Mandy. If I had two bullets, a gun and was in a locked room with Mandy and Thatcher I think I'd shoot Mandy - twice.

Cheers
( Legless Mister Stabby - shanks for the memory, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 15:07, closed)

You know he'd just zap you with force lightning though.

( jim_bob can herd cats., Tue 13 Apr 2010, 15:31, closed)

Yeah
Sneaky fucker.

I think the best idea is to take off and nuke him from space. Only way to be sure.

Cheers
( Legless Mister Stabby - shanks for the memory, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 15:33, closed)

Or get your Dad to drop him down a very, very deep pit.

( jim_bob can herd cats., Tue 13 Apr 2010, 20:18, closed)

I think it's just frustration...
that we're stuck with this tedious, incompetent windbag at the helm and, because Jesus Blair handed over the banton mid-term, the public has had no say in it. Plus the New Labour process for ousting a leader is so complex and loaded in favour of the incumbent (and Browns' cabinet so intimidated by the Nokia-throwing lunatic anyway) that the only way we'll have the opportunity to be truly shot of him is via the election. Also the PM is the head of the party voted in, the foremost expression of its the culture, the individual with whom the baton stops and our primary figurehead overseas. It's a bit rich to say that people who focus their attention on the potential PM when voting are in need of education.
(Happybara The jungle came alive and took him, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 14:26, closed)

How would you describe
somebody who's taking an action whilst unaware of how the system actually works? I actually thought I was being relatively polite, when I could have used the word "ignorant".

It's not a bit rich to state the case as it is. You do not vote for the leader, you vote, as Phantom pointed out, for your local party representative. You vote for them because you agree for the party line. The leader is the man the *party* vote in as the man they believe is the best person to embody their manifesto. He's the mouthpiece for the party. The PM is the leader of the party in power.
( Kroney, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 14:33, closed)

Err

Wrong. You don't vote for the party representative. You vote for the name on the ballot paper (who happens to represent a particular party). If you voted for a party representative then, if that person died, the seat would be given to another representative of the same party.

You *do* know how the voting system works in Britain don't you?

Cheers
( Legless Mister Stabby - shanks for the memory, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 15:28, closed)

I really don't see what this has got to do with anything
Labour wants to get a seat in your hometown. Dave Jones stands as the Labour representative. Dave's name is on the ballot like this "Dave Jones (labour)".

You vote for him, because he represents the party you want to vote for. You're not voting for the party leader at any point in this pointless tangent.
( Kroney, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 15:39, closed)

*Rubs Hands*

So you accept that, technically, you can't *ever* vote Labour? You can vote for Davy Jones (Labour) but you can't vote for the Labour Party?

You have to. 'Cos it's true. If, after the election, Davy Jones says "Fuck you Labour - and constituents - I'm now a Tory" then there nothing anyone can do about it. Because, you voted the man, and not the party.

So, every single person in the country, who thinks they vote for a party in a general or by-election is wrong.

That's what your entire argument boils down to. Semantics.

You can't "Vote Labour" or "Vote Tory". - Yet the vast majority of people think that's what they're doing. Even all of the Party Political Broadcasts are wrong - by your definitions. Because you're guilty of what you accuse other people of. A narrow interpretation of perception of how and why people vote.

Until Gordon Brown, leading the Labour party , wins a general election then it's fair to say that he has no mandate from the people. He is, in effect, unelected.

It's all about perception and semantics.

Cheers
( Legless Mister Stabby - shanks for the memory, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 15:48, closed)

...
If you're saying that should Dave Jones suddenly decide to switch to the Conservatives then your hometown switches to a Tory seat, I will have to take your word for it. It's never happened to anywhere close to me that I've noticed. I will take it as read that you're right, because it doesn't really change what I was originally saying.

I'm arguing that this is the way it works, not whether it's right or wrong. Gordon Brown has as much right to be leading the Labour Party and, thus, the Government as Tony Blair did. Neither of them were elected by you or I to run the Labour party, just like any other PM in the history of PMs.

That's it.
( Kroney, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 15:54, closed)

Historically
dozens of members of parliament have "crossed the floor". Quite a few in recent memory.

But I'll leave that for another time.

I'm arguing that this is the way it works, not whether it's right or wrong. Gordon Brown has as much right to be leading the Labour Party and, thus, the Government as Tony Blair did. Neither of them were elected by you or I to run the Labour party, just like any other PM in the history of PMs

And of course, technically you're correct.

But Gordon Brown has never faced a General Election as leader of the Labour Party so, it's perfectly fair to describe him as un-elected. He has no mandate from the people to govern. The way our system works means he doesn't need that but it's still fair to say that he's never been given the peoples approval.

Of course, the other nonsense I was coming out with is also bullshit but also perfectly true. You can't vote for a party in this country. Technically. But the reality is that this is the way most people vote. They vote (normally) for the Party and not the man at the constituency level ( the simple fools! Don't they know the way that the system works?) which reflects which Party they want to govern them. And that decision is largely governed by who the leader is of that party and hence will be the new Prime Minister.

Making sense yet? You getting the difference between technically and in reality? So yes, all Prime Ministers are unelected. But by accepting that and arguing that, you have to accept that all political parties are unelected. So you can't say that the Labour Party is in power. It's manifestly true that they are, but that could change with the simple decision of a few MPs to change party.

Grand nonsense isn't it?

So until Gordon faces the people he's still has no mandate. He has the power and the trappings (which is what really matter) but not the peoples approval (which he doesn't need).


So I reiterate. Technically, you're right, in the public perception, you're wrong.


Cheers
( Legless Mister Stabby - shanks for the memory, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 16:16, closed)

....
"Until Gordon Brown, leading the Labour party , wins a general election then it's fair to say that he has no mandate from the people. He is, in effect, unelected."

This is utterly at odds with the rest of what you write, and has no logical connection to anything else you've said. You can't seek to establish that we vote only for an individual (true), not the party (true), and then use this to conclude that a party leader has no mandate until an apparently-unconnected series of individuals are simultaneously elected to office. A vote for J Bloggs (Labour) cannot, by your own reasoning, be extended to a vote for Gordon Brown. There is no logical connection here. One does not predicate the other.


This is not about perception and semantics. This is about the workings of a system - which is a matter of recorded, demonstrable fact. There is no requirement, anywhere, at all, for a PM to be elected by popular vote. There never has been, nor any hint that such might be necessary. Ergo, to refer to a PM as 'unelected' means nothing; you're accusing him of not having something that has never been required.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 16:13, closed)

Go Away
With your logic

I was having a fine time leading Kroney around in circles.

Cheers
( Legless Mister Stabby - shanks for the memory, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 16:18, closed)

How would I describe somebody taking an action [voting] whilst unaware of how the [political] system works? The latter is highly complex and ever-evolving (from Magna Carter through to de-tribalising of House of Lords); The former is usually someone who wants the best for themselves, their family and, hopefully, the country.
I certainly won't dispute that there are ignorant, unimaginative and/or hopelessly brainwashed voters out there but I'll give a pass to those who mistake the leader for the party - they're usually a pretty good indication of what lies beneath.
Didn't mean to offend but the whole "educate them!" thing sounded a bit North Korean...
(Happybara The jungle came alive and took him, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 16:40, closed)

Please Sir!

Can I be put in charge of Mandy's re-education?

Cheers
( Legless Mister Stabby - shanks for the memory, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 16:54, closed)