....
"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, 1 reply)

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)