Never a frown with Gordon Brown

[Daniel]

So tomorrow Gordon Brown becomes PM without an election or anything. Thoughts?

[fandango]

Nice thread title. "From far away, stays for a day..." Wasn't it the same with Major?

[Drew]

'cos the boy's a clown.

I said somewhere else I thought of it like a dictatorship, as the leader won't be elected. Not that my opinion counts for much :\

It seems like it's going to be the same old same old.

[Rollo]

So tomorrow Gordon Brown becomes PM without an election or anything. Thoughts?

Gordon Brown IS an elected member of parliament, specifically the member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath and was elected in 2005. He is now leader of the party who has the majority in the House of Commons, therefore the party who has the ability to form government; therefore as leader of the party who forms the government, he becomes first minister to the Crown or better off known as the Prime Minister.

It is the party that forms government not a single person. Since every member of the House of Commons is an elected member, in theory, any one of them could become Prime Minister.

Your opening remark is a lie.

[Daniel]

*sigh* people voted for Labor because they wanted Tony Blair in power. People didn't vote for Gordon Brown. It's like getting Brie when you asked for cheese but really wanted Wensleydale. Same thing sort of but it's not what you asked for!

[BDunnell]

I don't see Brown as being in any sense an illegitimate PM because Labour hasn't been elected while he has been leader. This is our system, and it generally works fine. These situations have occurred often, and I don't feel that the UK is any less democratic as a result.

[Rollo]

The people of Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath DID vote for Gordon Brown. That's why he is their sitting member.

The only people who could have even voted for Tony Blair were the people of Sedefield; that's it. Not one single person outside his consituency either had the ability to vote him in or out. In fact only 24,421 in the UK actually voted for Tony Blair, not one person more.

If people voted for Labour because they wanted Tony Blair then that either shows the illiteracy of the general public or their shallowmindedness. In practice you only have the ability to vote for your local member. The changing of the leadership is one of the associated risks of a Westminster system of parliament.

[BDunnell]

The people of Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath DID vote for Gordon Brown. That's why he is their sitting member.

The only people who could have even voted for Tony Blair were the people of Sedefield; that's it. Not one single person outside his consituency either had the ability to vote him in or out. In fact only 24,421 in the UK actually voted for Tony Blair, not one person more.

If people voted for Labour because they wanted Tony Blair then that either shows the illiteracy of the general public or their shallowmindedness. In practice you only have the ability to vote for your local member. The changing of the leadership is one of the associated risks of a Westminster system of parliament.

Exactly. If there was a great move to change this, then we would see a huge national campaign in favour of a system of proportional representation, and this has never happened.

[Drew]

So, how many people would have voted for labour if say Gary Glitter was the leader and how many would vote for them if David Beckham was the leader?

[BDunnell]

So, how many people would have voted for labour if say Gary Glitter was the leader and how many would vote for them if David Beckham was the leader?

Of course the leader has an effect, but this is not how the electoral system works in reality, simple as that.

[Drew]

Of course the leader has an effect, but this is not how the electoral system works in reality, simple as that.

Sure, that's not how the system works, but that's how people vote in their heads.

[BDunnell]

Sure, that's not how the system works, but that's how people vote in their heads.

Not everyone. I certainly don't.

[Drew]

Sure, that's not how the system works, but that's how (alot of) people vote in their heads

:p :

[jarrambide]

Gordon Brown IS an elected member of parliament, specifically the member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath and was elected in 2005. He is now leader of the party who has the majority in the House of Commons, therefore the party who has the ability to form government; therefore as leader of the party who forms the government, he becomes first minister to the Crown or better off known as the Prime Minister.

It is the party that forms government not a single person. Since every member of the House of Commons is an elected member, in theory, any one of them could become Prime Minister.

Your opening remark is a lie.
MMM, well Rollo, that's one way to look at it, the other way is that technically no single PM has been elected by the British citizens, you vote for some guys and gals that in turn elect the PM, sounds to me that it works more or less like the way it used to work in the U.S.S.R., the party is the one that decides who will rule, with the big difference of course that you get the chance to elect the party, just kidding ;)

[Rollo]

I've only just thought of this but Gordon Brown already lives at Number 10 because Blair's family was too big and had to be accomodated across the street at Number 11.
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page7410.asp

This means no moving houses for Brown at all, but instead of crossing the street to go to work, he now goes downstairs.

[Daniel]

The people of Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath DID vote for Gordon Brown. That's why he is their sitting member.

The only people who could have even voted for Tony Blair were the people of Sedefield; that's it. Not one single person outside his consituency either had the ability to vote him in or out. In fact only 24,421 in the UK actually voted for Tony Blair, not one person more.

If people voted for Labour because they wanted Tony Blair then that either shows the illiteracy of the general public or their shallowmindedness. In practice you only have the ability to vote for your local member. The changing of the leadership is one of the associated risks of a Westminster system of parliament.

Yes but I would suggest a majority of people base their decision for which party they vote for on who the leader is unless their local member is something special or especially unspecial.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I'd just like to say that I'm not related to Gordon Brown. :dozey:

[janneppi]

I'd just like to say that I'm not related to Gordon Brown. :dozey:
Of course not, that would make him Gordon Brow, wouldn't it? :p :

[jim mcglinchey]

What do you think the chances are of Golden Brown charting again and The Stranglers getting back together with old Hugh " chickenlegs " Cornwell, (though the new guy is very good), just like The Police, but a million times better. I remember seeing them at The Ulster hall in Belfast way back in '81 and being totally hypnotised by the weird 4-4-2 waltz time of that song.

[edv]

jim, I think you're freebase associating again.

and what is the point of worrying about electing the PM when the monarch has the power to poopoo him (is this true? he did visit the Queen today, right?) Does the monarch have the power to 'turn down' a PM candidate?

[johnny shell]

so you don't pick your country's leader? you pick the parliment then the parliment picks the leader?

how long do they get to be leader for?

doesn't it kind of piss you off not getting to pick your own leader?

[BDunnell]

jim, I think you're freebase associating again.

and what is the point of worrying about electing the PM when the monarch has the power to poopoo him (is this true? he did visit the Queen today, right?) Does the monarch have the power to 'turn down' a PM candidate?

Yes. This is a good point. She has apparently been minded to on one occasion, but I forget the details.

[BDunnell]

so you don't pick your country's leader? you pick the parliment then the parliment picks the leader?

how long do they get to be leader for?

doesn't it kind of piss you off not getting to pick your own leader?

Right, put simply, what happens is that each constituency returns an MP; these are voted for by the electorate. The party that ends up with the most MPs is the party that wins power, and thus provides the Prime Minister — usually the leader of that party, though in fact it doesn't have to be (as has been the case since the weekend).

The Prime Minister is thus only elected in their own constituency. Some may see this as being undemocratic in some way, but I think it works perfectly well.

[Dave B]

It was common knowledge at the last General Election that Blair would be standing down during the following few years, and also common knowledge that Brown was the most likely to succeed him.

The Tories even had a short-lived "Vote Blair, Get Brown" campaign, until they realised that was probably helping Labour!

So while technically one might argue that Brown was never elected PM, nobody can say they weren't aware of the situation when they voted Labour last time out.

[edv]

doesn't it kind of piss you off not getting to pick your own leader?

As I understand it, you cannot pick your leader either. That is the task of the electoral college...a system which is not driven completely by popular vote.

[jim mcglinchey]

The electorate voted Labour in and Labour picked their leader..whats the problem?

For what its worth I dont think Gordy will last long... David Miliband is the man. If there hadnt been an agreement that made Brown the successor regardless, then Miliband was ideal.

[jarrambide]

so you don't pick your country's leader? you pick the parliment then the parliment picks the leader?

how long do they get to be leader for?

doesn't it kind of piss you off not getting to pick your own leader?

Technically the same happens in the U.S. when voting for president, you don´t technically vote for president, you are voting for the members that will constitute the "United States Electoral College", that´s why every state counts for a number of electoral votes instead of the direct vote system.

In many countries they use the direct vote system, the candidate with the most votes gets the job, with the "Electoral System" it doesn´t work that way, when you vote in the U.S. you are electing the members of your state that will constitute the "College" if you live in Texas for example, you are voting to elect 34 members (and obviously this means that you can loose even if you get more votes from the citizens, like in 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000, what counts are the electoral votes, you can loose Texas by only one vote and you still get the 34 "Electoral Votes")

What happens in reality is that the candidate that wins the state gets all the votes, except for Maine and Nebraska, they use a different method (34 for Texas, 55 for California, 3 for Alaska, and so on and so on), but technically the "Electoral College Members" are not obligated or bind to vote for their party candidate, they are free to vote for a candidate of a different party.

Even tough this almost never occurs and the last time was a long, long, long time ago it has happen a few times (that one or a couple of the "Electoral College" members decided to vote for the other candidate, but 1 or 2 votes didn;t change the outcome those times) .

So as you can see, the President i snot elected by the citizens, the "U.S. Electoral College" elects the president, the citizens elect the "Electoral College".

[inimitablestoo]

Essentially it's like Doctor Who. Blair regenerates into a Scotsman, who has chosen a new companion (Deputy PM) to accompany him in his time travelling adventures (plunging the country back into the days of industrial disputes and the three-day week, in all likelihood).

Of course, to follow that analogy, Billie Piper becomes John Prescott, which isn't a nice thought, and Dubya is presumably the metrosexual Captain Jack. Or possibly a Dalek. Mind you, Daleks are intelligible... :s

[Bezza]

Well here is Labour Disaster Part Two just beginning. Even worse its a Scotsman in charge of England, we know were his loyalties will lie

[Brown, Jon Brow]

Well here is Labour Disaster Part Two just beginning. Even worse its a Scotsman in charge of England, we know were his loyalties will lie

:up: Gordon Brown was elected by a Scottish constituency who themselves are governed by the Scottish parliament.

So in affect England's leader was chosen by the Scots :p

[johnny shell]

thanks for educating me! I just always thought Englad was just like the US only England had a ceremonial Queen and the leader was called a PM instead of The President.

I never knew you didn't actually get to choose the PM.

even though when we vote here we technically are voting for "electorals" or whatever, that's just cerimonial.

it sounds like the PM is PM for life? is that right?

[BDunnell]

:up: Gordon Brown was elected by a Scottish constituency who themselves are governed by the Scottish parliament.

So in affect England's leader was chosen by the Scots :p

This doesn't bother me in the slightest. I cannot imagine that I will notice any different living in England as a result.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

thanks for educating me! I just always thought Englad was just like the US only England had a ceremonial Queen and the leader was called a PM instead of The President.

I never knew you didn't actually get to choose the PM.

even though when we vote here we technically are voting for "electorals" or whatever, that's just cerimonial.

it sounds like the PM is PM for life? is that right?

As long as you keep electing them they are (I think) :confused:

But when most people vote, even though we are technically voting for an member of parliament representing the 'party' (labour, conservatives, Liberal Democrats etc.) in your constituency, we know who the 'leader' of the 'party' you are voting for is. So most people just vote for the party with the best leader, regardless of who their local constituency representative is.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

This doesn't bother me in the slightest. I cannot imagine that I will notice any different living in England as a result.

I just thought it was ironic.

Especially as the SNP want independence so they have more control over Scotland.

[Rollo]

Yes but I would suggest a majority of people base their decision for which party they vote for on who the leader is unless their local member is something special or especially unspecial.

This actually proves my assertation that the general public are politically illiterate. I think that you'll find that most people don't have a clue about who their local member actually is, and that their idea of "democracy" is rolling up to their local polling place and numbering a little slip every five years in the hope that they'll magically get more money somehow.

[jarrambide]

thanks for educating me! I just always thought Englad was just like the US only England had a ceremonial Queen and the leader was called a PM instead of The President.

I never knew you didn't actually get to choose the PM.

even though when we vote here we technically are voting for "electorals" or whatever, that's just cerimonial.

it sounds like the PM is PM for life? is that right?
It's not (sic) cerimonial, it's the law, 100 members could decide to vote for the other party candidate and no one could do anything about it, funny thing how the law "thingy" works.

And by the way, it's ceremonial not cerimonial, it's parliament not parliment, and electoral is an adjective, English adjectives don't have a plural form, so electorals is not a real word.

Dude, I wasn't born here and English is not my maternal language, you should be teaching me about proper grammar and the laws of your country, not the other way around.

And by the way, the United Kingdom uses the "Westminster System", in this system the position of Prime Minister is not for life, every 4 years they hold general elections (for some reason I don't know, there was a 5 year period between the 1992 and 1997 general elections, my British history is not as good as I would like it to be so I have no idea what happened there, and the the following elections will be hold on 2010, a 5 year period again, perhaps someone could explain why), if the opposition party wins, then you get a new PM (right now there are 2 major parties Conservatives[Tories sounds so much better] and Labour[yes, with a "u", British write certain words with a "u" like colour and labour and favour]), or if the political party in power changes its leader, then you also get a new PM, or if the PM gets a vote of no confidence, then you also get a new PM.

I think you got confuse between being for life and not having a restriction in number of terms they can serve like in the U.S. in which no one can be president for more than 2 terms.

[DonnieDarco]

This is completely irrelevant and I apologise in advance for it but..........has anyone else noticed the weird thing Gordon does with his mouth when speaking? He'll be talking and he'll sort of pause with his mouth open for a second, before carrying on - I haven't explained that at all well, you'll have to watch him make a speech :D

If you haven't noticed, its just me.

Anyhooo................that aside, I note he's already saying there will be no referendum on the new treaty for Europe. That worries me.

[Drew]

This is completely irrelevant and I apologise in advance for it but..........has anyone else noticed the weird thing Gordon does with his mouth when speaking? He'll be talking and he'll sort of pause with his mouth open for a second, before carrying on - I haven't explained that at all well, you'll have to watch him make a speech :D

If you haven't noticed, its just me.

Anyhooo................that aside, I note he's already saying there will be no referendum on the new treaty for Europe. That worries me.

I've noticed odd things about him when he speaks :p :

Didn't Tony Blair say that before?

[Dave B]

This actually proves my assertation that the general public are politically illiterate. I think that you'll find that most people don't have a clue about who their local member actually is, and that their idea of "democracy" is rolling up to their local polling place and numbering a little slip every five years in the hope that they'll magically get more money somehow.
A large chunk of the electrorate base their vote on what they read in their tabloid of choice. I wish there were figures for this, I suspect it would be frightening.

An even bigger chunk of the population don't vote at all, then spend the next five years whinging about the government.

[J4MIE]

Well here is Labour Disaster Part Two just beginning. Even worse its a Scotsman in charge of England, we know were his loyalties will lie

No, he's a Scotsman in charge of Britain.

And let's not forget, Tony Blair is Scottish too.

But again, I don't really thik it matters. Brown wants to be PM for years to come, and he won't be doing that if he forgets about England when he is in charge.

[BDunnell]

This actually proves my assertation that the general public are politically illiterate. I think that you'll find that most people don't have a clue about who their local member actually is, and that their idea of "democracy" is rolling up to their local polling place and numbering a little slip every five years in the hope that they'll magically get more money somehow.

I agree. This then causes even more of a problem, in that most of the people who then become MPs understandably have to try to appeal in some way to that large section of the electorate, which often leads to blandness.

[Daniel]

This actually proves my assertation that the general public are politically illiterate. I think that you'll find that most people don't have a clue about who their local member actually is, and that their idea of "democracy" is rolling up to their local polling place and numbering a little slip every five years in the hope that they'll magically get more money somehow.

I suggest you rethink that.

What is smarter?

Voting for a candidate who's a great person and so on but is part of a party lead by an absolute moron who is intent on screwing the country up with ineptitude.

Or vote for Mr Bland who is part of a party whose policies you agree with and who you want to see in government.

Politically illiterate or aware of how they can get what they want?

[BDunnell]

I suggest you rethink that.

What is smarter?

Voting for a candidate who's a great person and so on but is part of a party lead by an absolute moron who is intent on screwing the country up with ineptitude.

Or vote for Mr Bland who is part of a party whose policies you agree with and who you want to see in government.

Politically illiterate or aware of how they can get what they want?

Hardly anyone is presented with a choice that is perfect. We shouldn't expect to be, either, because no-one or no party can hope to be all things to all men. This, I feel, is one of the dangers of giving people so much 'choice' in every single aspect of their lives. We are now able to choose so much on a daily basis that when we are confronted with something where we don't have such a range of options, like taxation or Parliamentary candidates, a lot of people get irritated.

For my part, I vote for the person rather than the party at Parliamentary elections, because I know the person and he is excellent. The party I can take or leave, though they reflect my views better than the other main parties. This is as much as I ask. I don't expect to agree with every single one of their policies.

[Mark]

And by the way, the United Kingdom uses the "Westminster System", in this system the position of Prime Minister is not for life, every 4 years they hold general elections (for some reason I don't know, there was a 5 year period between the 1992 and 1997 general elections, my British history is not as good as I would like it to be so I have no idea what happened there, and the the following elections will be hold on 2010, a 5 year period again, perhaps someone could explain why),

The maximum term of a parliament is 5 years. Which is what happened between 1992 and 1997. However a Prime Minister may call a general election at any time they wish, they just go to the queen and ask for a dissolution of parliament which automatically triggers a general election.

Both times when Labour have sought reelection they did so after 4 years, mostly because they figured that the Tories aren't doing very well and now is a good time.



I think you got confuse between being for life and not having a restriction in number of terms they can serve like in the U.S. in which no one can be president for more than 2 terms.

Yes, a UK Prime Minister can theoretically serve indefinitely, as long as their party stays in power.

[johnny shell]

ohhhh.... ok. I get it now - you know who the head of each party is when you're voting for your local representitive.

so basically you've got two people to choose from & you pick one, just like here. the only difference is here, in the US, a primary election determine who the two people are (well, two not counting 3rd parties & independants), and there, in Britain, the parties choose who the two people will be.

how do you determine who represents each party in the local election?

and the reason Tony Blair was PM for so long was because his party was in power for so long and he is his party's leader?

and I'm guessing that if Tony Blair's local area in Scottland or whereever didn't re-elect him so many times, then he couldn't have been PM all those years, eh?

[BTCC Fan#1]

I'm not overly optimistic anything will change under a Brown government, even with his massive reshuffle. I see he's still kept the likes of Ruth Kelly and Hazel Blears, neither of whom I can stand, in the cabinet.
Still at least Brown appears to have a few ideas he wants to put into practice while PM, even if they're the wrong ones, puts him one step ahead of David 'Dave' Cameron who doesn't appear to believe in anything... :s

[BDunnell]

I'm not overly optimistic anything will change under a Brown government, even with his massive reshuffle. I see he's still kept the likes of Ruth Kelly and Hazel Blears, neither of whom I can stand, in the cabinet.

Me neither. It is such a shame that most of the women in the Labour cabinets since 1997 have been ghastly in some way — not much of an advert for female politicians, of which there are many good examples.

[Bezza]

This is completely irrelevant and I apologise in advance for it but..........has anyone else noticed the weird thing Gordon does with his mouth when speaking? He'll be talking and he'll sort of pause with his mouth open for a second, before carrying on - I haven't explained that at all well, you'll have to watch him make a speech :D

If you haven't noticed, its just me.

Anyhooo................that aside, I note he's already saying there will be no referendum on the new treaty for Europe. That worries me.

Yeah he has a weird facial twitch. When a person lies the biology of a person completely changes, and only a practised liar can hide it well. However, it still will come through, in subtle little movements...



No, he's a Scotsman in charge of Britain.



England is part of Britain. Therefore Brown is in charge of England. My statement was fact.

[BDunnell]

England is part of Britain. Therefore Brown is in charge of England. My statement was fact.

So is the statement that he is in charge of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Does this fact irritate you?

[Rollo]

I suggest you rethink that.

What is smarter?

Voting for a candidate who's a great person and so on but is part of a party lead by an absolute moron who is intent on screwing the country up with ineptitude.
Or vote for Mr Bland who is part of a party whose policies you agree with and who you want to see in government. Politically illiterate or aware of how they can get what they want?

I didn't say that there was anything necessarily inherantly wrong with the system, but if a voter is voting based on the leader then they have missed the way the process works.
Your local candidate is the member of a party who in fact should represent the electorate on a whole slew of policies. This is a statement of fact.

But complaining that you didn't vote for the leader of the party is like complaining about the weather. It's something which the public in fact doesn't control.
The government and policy is driven by a far bigger juggernaut than merely the first minister to the Crown.

And yes, I stand by my original statement that most of the public is politically illiterate. Most of them wouldn't be able to adequately explain how a bill gets through parliament at all.

[Drew]

And yes, I stand by my original statement that most of the public is politically illiterate. Most of them wouldn't be able to adequately explain how a bill gets through parliament at all.

I think I was told about this in year 11, but does it really matter? afterall it's not the public's job to put a bill through parliament after all.

[jim mcglinchey]

[quote="BDunnell"]most of the women in the Labour cabinets since 1997 have been ghastly in some way


...that's an awful way to speak of Mo Mowlam, God rest her soul....

[Dave B]

Well Brown's new cabinet get their first test today. Let's see how they manage events.

For anyone who hasn't heard, a potential car bomb has been defused in Haymarket, just off Piccadilly Circus in central London. :s

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6252276.stm

[inimitablestoo]

Essentially it's like Doctor Who. Blair regenerates into a Scotsman, who has chosen a new companion (Deputy PM) to accompany him in his time travelling adventures (plunging the country back into the days of industrial disputes and the three-day week, in all likelihood).

For anyone who hasn't heard, a potential car bomb has been defused in Haymarket, just off Piccadilly Circus in central London
I blame the Cybermen.

[Robinho]

ohhhh.... ok. I get it now - you know who the head of each party is when you're voting for your local representitive.

so basically you've got two people to choose from & you pick one, just like here. the only difference is here, in the US, a primary election determine who the two people are (well, two not counting 3rd parties & independants), and there, in Britain, the parties choose who the two people will be.

how do you determine who represents each party in the local election?

and the reason Tony Blair was PM for so long was because his party was in power for so long and he is his party's leader?

and I'm guessing that if Tony Blair's local area in Scottland or whereever didn't re-elect him so many times, then he couldn't have been PM all those years, eh?

Basically right, except you can have a number of people standing for election in your region, normally member of Labour, Conservative, Liberal democrats, Green Party, UKIP (Uk independence Party), BNP, an independent (not attahced to any major party), and potentially more.

these people become members of their chosen party, and the memebers choose who will stand in the area for that party. we, the public, then castour votes for one of the hopefuls and the winner then takes a seat in Parliament, for their party. the Party with the majority of seats in Parliament then form the government (not sure what the majority has to be, if it not enough then parties have to team up to form a coalition to get enough seats.

therefore the goverment in power will have the most seats in parliament, and any new laws or chanes that need parliamentary approval that the government want will usually go through as all (eg) Labour reps will vote in favour, unless its very contriversial in which case some members will rebel against their party to stop the bill.

the party chooses their leader, who has a very strong seat, and is therefore not likely to be challenged on their own door step, but if they lost their seat they could'nt retain the post of Prime Minister even if their party still won the election, but this does not happen.

In relaity, whilst we have a number of parties, Labour and Consevative are by far the most popular, although the Liberal Democrats have been in power before (in a previous guise) and do challenge the 2nd party from time to time, in fact if people didn't seem them as a wasted vote i think they would do a lot better, but most people seem to think that they should vote for one of the top 2


as for Brown, i don't trust him, i actualy had time for Blair, although i never voted Labour during his time and didn't agree with him all the time, i don't think he did a bad job

[DonnieDarco]

http://newsbiscuit.com/article/blair-found-face-down-in-leceister-square-after-end-of-term-bender-142

:D

[BDunnell]

...that's an awful way to speak of Mo Mowlam, God rest her soul....

I wasn't including her in my selection of 'most'.

[BDunnell]

And yes, I stand by my original statement that most of the public is politically illiterate. Most of them wouldn't be able to adequately explain how a bill gets through parliament at all.

I think this is understandable. The system is absurdly complex and inexplicable to even a lot of politically-aware members of the public. I worked in Parliament and I never fully understood all the ins and outs of a bill's progress.

[Bezza]

So is the statement that he is in charge of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Does this fact irritate you?

Not really.

[Daniel]

England is part of Britain. Therefore Brown is in charge of England. My statement was fact.

What does it matter? Is there something in the blood of an Englishman which genetically predisposes him towards being a better leader for England? Your statement is rubbish!

[Rollo]

I concur.
We shan't mention that HM Queen Elizabeth is legally Queen of Scotland before she's Queen of England and that this has actually been the case since the time of James VI shall we?

That'd be daft now, wouldne?

[Daniel]

OMFG burn her face down!

Charles is even worse! Prince of Wales. WTF business does he have possibly ruling England in the future!

Such mindless comments have no place on this forum do they now Rollo? :crazy:

[johnny shell]

hey robinho - thanks for the clearification on how English gov't works!

woops - I mean British gov't. see? I'm learin'......

[jim mcglinchey]

It would seem that Gordys cocky talk of a snap election has been taken up by the Tories. Do we think there'll be an election soon

[BDunnell]

It would seem that Gordys cocky talk of a snap election has been taken up by the Tories. Do we think there'll be an election soon

Yes.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

And you will win?

[inimitablestoo]

I can't help thinking that all of this endless speculation over a possible election means it won't really deserve the "snap" tag being applied to it...

Just as long as we don't have a strip poker election. Not given the people involved :eek:

[BDunnell]

I'd now like to change my answer above to 'no'...

[jim mcglinchey]

..and Gordy will be very bloody sorry that he mentioned a quick election. Chalk one up for the posh kid.

[Dave B]

Gordon's never really mentioned a snap election, it was an idea put about by the opposition and the media. That said, Brown should have diffused talk of a snap election a lot earlier than he did.

[jim mcglinchey]

On reflection, you're probably right Dave. That 'll be his best defence anyway.

[BDunnell]

Gordon's never really mentioned a snap election, it was an idea put about by the opposition and the media. That said, Brown should have diffused talk of a snap election a lot earlier than he did.

Right on all counts, in my view. I actually feel a bit sorry for him, because he's ended up being forced into a corner by the post-conference polls, which always behave this way.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

I think that it is quite sad that the top story on the news last night was that Gordon Brown will not call an election. I'm also not going to call an election, but that wasn't even mentioned :s

[BDunnell]

I think that it is quite sad that the top story on the news last night was that Gordon Brown will not call an election. I'm also not going to call an election, but that wasn't even mentioned :s

You think that's bad? I wasn't going to call one for eight weeks running; then I changed my mind on Friday, but did they report it? Did they b***ocks.