Gordon Brown for PM

[catgate]

Now this is the man we want as PM.

http://business.scotsman.com/economy.cfm?id=1216802006

What a track record he has, and what diverse skills. Magician, conjurer, illusionist, ventriloquist and plate spinner.

[Belatucadrus]

Don't post headings like that

Scared the */-€* out of me.

Gordon Brown is the only reason I want Tony Blair to stay as PM, the alternative is so much worse.

[Thos]

Labour party members will no doubt add up the pros and cons and vote for their choice of leader whenever a vote is called for. Then, at a general election, all voters can make their minds up over which party best suits their aims.

Thos.

[catgate]

Labour party members will no doubt add up the pros and cons and vote for their choice of leader whenever a vote is called for. Then, at a general election, all voters can make their minds up over which party best suits their aims.

Thos.

Presumably you mean the choice will be made "democratically"?

But you post illustrates perfectly how "fair" our democracy is.

Party membership is now fewer than 200,000, some 50,000 fewer than when he became leader in 1994.

I am not sure of the date of this statement (*) but the precise number is relatively unimportant. It was in the body of http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/cata...8609&ss=exc .

What it does show is that the considerably less than 200,000 tail is wagging the considerably more than 80,000,000 dog.

That to me is not democracy, though there are those who call it such.

* I suspect early 2000s. I feel I have seen lower figures in the last few months.

[andsome]

Brown or B'liar makes no difference as far as I am concerned, both are equally bad. B'liar is a petty dictator, ignoring the opinions of a good many in his own party. Brown is a total catastrophe, having already cost many people dearly from their savings. Look at some of the legislation he has been responsible for as well. the ill fated tax credit system for one, which has cost many poor families dearly. Added to this is the problem that he is Scottish. I have NOTHING whatsoever against Scots. It is the Lothian question that bothers me. Heaven preserve us from BOTH of these characters.

[Thos]

Labour party members will no doubt add up the pros and cons and vote for their choice of leader whenever a vote is called for. Then, at a general election, all voters can make their minds up over which party best suits their aims.

Thos.

Presumably you mean the choice will be made "democratically"?

But you post illustrates perfectly how "fair" our democracy is.

Party membership is now fewer than 200,000, some 50,000 fewer than when he became leader in 1994.

I am not sure of the date of this statement (*) but the precise number is relatively unimportant. It was in the body of http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/cata...8609&ss=exc .

What it does show is that the considerably less than 200,000 tail is wagging the considerably more than 80,000,000 dog.

That to me is not democracy, though there are those who call it such.

* I suspect early 2000s. I feel I have seen lower figures in the last few months.

There may be a difference between what you consider to be democratic, but the procedures for election of leaders are set down in a constitution.

I am afraid andsome's contribution is his usual rant against personalities.

Thos.

[catgate]

There may be a difference between what you consider to be democratic, but the procedures for election of leaders are set down in a constitution.

Thos.

"There may be a difference between what you consider to be democratic,"..and what?

I keep seeing and hearing references to this "constitution" but I have never seen it in print. Is there a copy available for the general public plebs, like me, to see? In this day and age, with all our little cherubs obsessions with IT, there must surely be a copy for viewing on the 'net?

[Belatucadrus]

Everybody knows who's taking over from Blair, it was a behind closed doors deal between the PM and his Chancellor. No written constitution was involved. When the time comes the party faithful will do what they're told and ratify it. Then the country will have Prime Minister Brown, the genius who created New Labour and now seeks to distance himself from it as it's not quite so right on any more. The man is more pro American than Blair, he just tries to pander to the anti American lobby by looking dour and dyspeptic at appropriate moments, he hasn't actually said anything serious on any contentious issues at all. The only plus to his getting the job is that I think he's unelectable come the general election, so shouldn't be around too long.t

[Thos]

"There may be a difference between what you consider to be democratic,"..and what?

I keep seeing and hearing references to this "constitution" but I have never seen it in print. Is there a copy available for the general public plebs, like me, to see? In this day and age, with all our little cherubs obsessions with IT, there must surely be a copy for viewing on the 'net?

Sorry. I meant to say what "you and others consider" etc.

The "constitution" refers to the labour party constitution or maybe they are called rules for electing a leader who would then become PM when the party is in power. Just as the other parties have their leadership rules.

Belatucadrus.

Are you not getting ahead of yourself a little bit? And don't the people who form the membership of the labour party have the right to decide who their leader will be, even if by default. The electorate will decide which party they wish to form the next government and will deserve whichever party is elected under our system, imperfect though it may be.

Thos.

[catgate]

The "constitution" refers to the labour party constitution or maybe they are called rules for electing a leader who would then become PM when the party is in power. Just as the other parties have their leadership rules.

Not being a member, or an affiliate of any party, I know nothing of any such rules, but I think , in a country which makes such a pretense of being democratic, these rules, and the rules/constitution of the governing of our country, should be freely available somewhere. Are they?

[Belatucadrus]

And don't the people who form the membership of the labour party have the right to decide who their leader will be, even if by default.

Don't think so, after all they could come up with the wrong answer and that would never do. They could even vote for, dare I say the word, a Socialist !!!

I mean look what happens to the Conservatives, they get to chose and they always get it wrong.

:P

[andsome]

YES, my contribution was a rant against personalities. I make NO apology for this. They are both equally bad for the country.

[Thos]

The "constitution" refers to the labour party constitution or maybe they are called rules for electing a leader who would then become PM when the party is in power. Just as the other parties have their leadership rules.

Not being a member, or an affiliate of any party, I know nothing of any such rules, but I think , in a country which makes such a pretense of being democratic, these rules, and the rules/constitution of the governing of our country, should be freely available somewhere. Are they?

The "rules" would not be a rule book for the governing of our country. As you no doubt are well aware, Britain is famous for not having a written constitution. The practice of government has been built up through precedents and Parliamentary approvals.

The political parties have rule books covering leadership elections and a vast number of other matters. They are, I guess, quite large volumes but I suppose a library might have a copy.

But then, catgate, you are astute enough to know all of this.

Thos.

And don't the people who form the membership of the labour party have the right to decide who their leader will be, even if by default.

Don't think so, after all they could come up with the wrong answer and that would never do. They could even vote for, dare I say the word, a Socialist !!!

I mean look what happens to the Conservatives, they get to chose and they always get it wrong.

:P

Who is to say whether an elected leader is "wrong" or "right"?. I would have thought Menzies Campbell was wrong but he was chosen by his party according to their rule book and they will have to change him within their rules if they wish.

Thos.

[catgate]

So our democracy consists of political parties, who have written rules, which were drawn up by only a handful of "illuminati", that govern by a series of precedents which may be have been created by a Whigg government trying to pull one over on a Tory government (or vice versa)150 years ago, but with no written rules........ No wonder the "Mother of Parliaments" is in such a "Mother and Father of a Mess" and is rapidly loosing any "standing" that it may at one time have had. No wonder it's representatives can stand up and say just whatever they like to try and extracate themselves from the latest hole that they have dug for themselves (and us). No wonder they feel able to lecture the world on good government.

[Thos]

You've got it!

Thos.

[catgate]

You've got it!

Thos.

Beam me up Scotty.

edit :- ........Does anyone else know this?