Gordon Brown!!
The wall-eyed Scottish prat (apologies to our friends north of the border, but you have to take the blame for him).

I really, really dislike the man, considering that only a minority of people ever actually voted for him. And right now he's about as popular as testicular cancer.

Oh sure now he wants to introduce proportional representation, establishing a written constitution and finally abolishing the hereditary principle among many other populist measures designed to appease the intelligent classes but frankly it's too little, too late.

Given that he was elected by a small minority in what is effectively a different country (sorry Scotland), I consider this to be grossly undemocratic and from a certain point of view he can be seen as being unelected- much like his bumchum Darth Mandelson (which is an entirely different rant, which has already been covered).

Another point worth considering is that his style of government is becoming increasingly presidential, despite the fact the style of government he is supposed to follow is the primes inter pares approach, he clearly isn't doing this. If he styles himself as a president (which requires a completely different vote), and acts as one, then he should be elected as one. But he wasn't.

The system we have is grossly unfair and allows for massive swathes of the country to have their votes effectively ignored. And that really, really makes me hopping mad.
( jim_bob can herd cats., Thu 4 Feb 2010, 17:11, 12 replies)

reposted from the original location
FPTP is indeed a deeply flawed system.

It's not Gordon Brown's fault though. And FPTP does avoid continual coalition governments and normally gives a working majority to governments so that they can do their job.

And I have signed Charter 88. When I was 15. 15 years ago. But thanks for drawing my attention to it and not being in the least bit patronising.

Also, why does the fact that he's a Scottish MP make any difference? Westminster has power over Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England. The regional assemblies have some powers too, but Westminster is the central seat of power. Why on earth should the fact that an MP representing a constituent nation of the UK that isn't England is PM be held against him?

Only a minority of people ever voted for Tony Blair, John Major, Margaret Thatcher, Ted Heath, Jim Callaghan, Winston Churchill or any other Prime Minister. Just what is your point about Gordon Brown being Prime Minister?

Yes, FPTP does ignore a lot of votes. Mr Brown is proposing to change this if his party win a majority at the next General Election. You should be in his side in that if you hate FPTP so much.

Unless of course you're being personally biased against him. That would be pretty childish, wouldn't it?
(dozers, do fuck off ur a nob m8, Thu 4 Feb 2010, 17:47, closed)

And what's wrong with coalition goverments?

( Dr Preference AjcuiVd289, Thu 4 Feb 2010, 18:25, closed)

Historically they don't tend to get anything done
And the laws they do pass are very very much watered down. Strong Government requires working majorities. Just look at the Scottish Parliament- how many goes does it take to get the budget through?

And FPTP excludes fringe parties like UKIP and the BNP.
(dozers, do fuck off ur a nob m8, Thu 4 Feb 2010, 18:31, closed)

I would disagree with you on that one.
Oh very much so. Admittedly, coalition governments in the past have screwed up royally. All you have to do is look at the Weimar Republic if you need a quick history lesson. And the Italian government is about as stable as a Chinese block of flats, considering it's fallen apart roughly once a year since the end of WWII. And Berlusconi is a bit of a cunt as well, despite the fact I have a rather grudging admiration of the fact he is able to bed extremely nice looking women and he is three times my age. I'm a bloke- what do you expect?

Anyways- strong governments while useful in some cases, can also pass some very questionable legislation. RIPA, the Dangerous Dogs Act, the extreme porn laws, and other kneejerk legislation have the potential to seriously impinge on our civil rights, and in some cases have already done so. One guy has already been banned from the internet for his choice of wankfuel- which is in fact a breach of his human rights as he has been banned after being charged, but hasn't actually been found guilty of any crime yet. And no, he wasn't a nonce. And don't even get me started on the whole "Oh but think of the Children!" arguments because quite frankly they're a load of tosh and only being used to put through legislation that any normal and right-thinking person would be scratching their head over.

So, coalition governments then. Who said they were bad? I can think of plenty of examples that work fantastically well. Germany, Switzerland, well most of the EU in fact barring Spain, France and Portugal. Germany's government has for years been seen as a model of stable governance, and they seem to work fantastically well at keeping out the nutters. Also, you have to consider the fact that a coalition government does actually better reflect the political makeup of a given country, and keeps the lunatics very much in the minority, where they should be.

And as a final riposte- if for one minute I thought Gordon Brown would actually do all of those things, I actually would vote for him. But considering I trust Garry Glitter to run a creche more than Gordon Brown to run the country, I certainly fucking won't be.
( jim_bob can herd cats., Fri 5 Feb 2010, 7:55, closed)

woah, woah, woah, somethings wrong here.
NOBODY voted for him! This really grinds my gears when people say "only a minority voted for him". He's not elected! He was shoved into the job after Blair stood down, but he's never had his name on the ballot sheet!
(once_upon_a_time, Thu 4 Feb 2010, 18:57, closed)

Is that a joke?
His name was on the ballot sheet in his constituency. If you voted in Sedgefield, Tony Blair's name was on the ballot sheet. In York it's Hugh Bayley's name.

You don't elect a Prime Minister directly, you elect a local MP. The party with the most MPs forms the Government. The leader of that party becomes Prime Minister.

How many times?
(dozers, do fuck off ur a nob m8, Thu 4 Feb 2010, 19:22, closed)

I say this a lot
and I thought it was only me that thought this way, so thank you for confirming my thoughts!!

The amount of times I've said to friends, who I had considered fairly intelligent, that you vote for the person who you think will best represent your views and attend to your requirements locally, as your local MP, and should their party win more seats then the leader of this party may become Prime Minister.

Who's to say Gordon Brown or David Cameron will definitely win their seats again? It's not a cast iron 100% certainty, and anyone who bases their vote solely on a prospective PM should not be allowed to vote without an adult to help them hold the crayon!
(randomstupidname would really like this signature field to be bigge, Thu 4 Feb 2010, 20:35, closed)

Yes
Indeed, this is correct. It's those that don't understand how voting works that tend to shout the loudest about our undemocratic Prime Minister.
(dozers, do fuck off ur a nob m8, Thu 4 Feb 2010, 20:39, closed)

You seemed to have missed my point about primes inter pares.
Please address this.
( jim_bob can herd cats., Thu 4 Feb 2010, 23:35, closed)

What was your point?
That the Prime Minister is first among equals? That the PM effectively chairs the cabinet? There hasn't been proper cabinet led Government in the UK for a long time, Thatcher certainly didn't use a committee system, nor did Major or Blair. The PM leads the cabinet, sets the agenda and most likely leads the manifesto. What exactly is your point regarding primes inter pares?

So Brown appears to have an increasingly presidential attitude to the role of PM? I disagree, I would contend that Blair was much more presidential in outlook, Brown does appear to listen to his Cabinet.

Why does being a Scottish MP exclude him (in your view) from being Prime Minister of the UK? You haven't dealt with that point. Westminster governs the entirety of the UK, if it purely governed England then you might have a point, but at the moment you don't.
(dozers, do fuck off ur a nob m8, Fri 5 Feb 2010, 11:36, closed)

That is my point
That the PM should be first among equals. Hope you didn't have to look that up incidentally. As for Thatcher, she just filled her cabinet with yesmen, and look where that got us. But I won't rehash everything we all know here. The idea behind a cabinet lead government is that responsibility and culpability are all equal. If someone screws up, the whole cabinet screws up, rather than having one head rolling, which in my eyes leads to a scapegoating culture where blame is thrown around like some kind of shit-covered live grenade, perhaps people should just get down to it and get on with running the country instead of saying "I didn't screw up, you screwed up!"

From what I see of Brown, he's just trying to be Blair, and to quote Legless earlier, he should not have invited Thatcher to tea. That proves how he wants to be, and wants to act. By that action alone he wants to act presidentially, if he isn't doing it already. Much like his much-lampooned predecessor. And I'm damned sure he doesn't set the agenda, something tells me the toadying little snotrag couldn't string a paragraph together if he tried. Much more likely to be Mandelson, the slimy toad that he is.

Finally, being Scottish doesn't disbar him from being an MP. I never said he shouldn't be, that seems to be something you've picked up on. Yes, I am aware of your dress-wearing, haggis-munching, whiskey quaffing, Burns-praising heritage. The fact we pick up on his nationality is nothing to do with the fact, if he was Welsh, Irish, Cornish (or far more likely from the planet Zobb) we'd still use that as an epithet- which is precisely my point from earlier- it's just a turn of phrase. Like calling Hitler an Austrian shortarse, or GW Bush an American simpleton. Perhaps, you should read earlier posts before attempting to pick them to shreds.

I'll leave you with an XKCD cartoon:


( jim_bob can herd cats., Fri 5 Feb 2010, 12:43, closed)

You suggested that Brown being an MP from north of the border
Was shaky grounds for him as PM. Your words, refer back to your original post. And I didn't have to look up Primes Inter Pares, I have some Latin knowledge and have studied the UK & US systems of Government. Thanks for asking though.

Yes, collective responsibility at cabinet level is the ideal and of course should be aimed for. Things change however, and as there is no written constitution in the UK (which of course there should be) it's a fact of political life that the way in which the Government operates will change.

And as long as we have people decrying that they didn't vote for the Prime Minister it will be a fact that there will be presidential style election campaigns (see the current David Cameron billboards for example, he says he'll cut the deficit, not that a Conservative Government will cut it). Politicians are in it to win votes, if they can do this by relying on their looks and personality over actual policies then that is what will happen.

In my view, what the UK needs is perhaps for schools to teach the basics of the electoral system, not as part of a Government and Politics A Level or Higher, but as part of a general education. If more people understand that they vote for a local representative, not (in over six hundred cases) a party leader then maybe we'll see a move back to consensus rule over presidential. I've already seen someone on here comment that Gordon Brown was never elected and that his name's never appeared on a ballot paper. That made me sad when I read it.

So, yes, we are in agreement that the PM should be first among equals. Where we differ is that I think it's unfair, childish and mendacious to lay the blame for presidential style politics in the UK at the feet of Gordon Brown. He has many faults, but he is not the source of all evil. Neither is Mandelson.

Deeply unpopular guys, but I still trust them more than I do David Cameron. Never trust a Tory.
(dozers, do fuck off ur a nob m8, Fri 5 Feb 2010, 13:00, closed)