I know most people will say that the vote was for the Labour party, but he was the man in charge at the time, if he decides to retire from his post, then surely the vote for who takes over power, should be down to the people again
2006-09-07 00:39:04 · 15 answers · asked by Yokay Booboo 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Yes ,why should Brown just step in
2006-09-07 00:42:02 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Technically, people voted for their local MP (or for a different candidate), not Blair.
Blair made it known before the General Election that he would stand down during the current Parliament. Labour's election broadcasts made pretty clear that Brown was in line to become the next leader. So if Brown becomes Prime Minister it is difficult to say that people did not know of this possibility when they voted.
If you want a directly elected leader, this would be a fundamental change to the British constitution.
2006-09-07 00:56:24 · answer #2 · answered by Philosophical Fred 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
People didn't vote for Blair, they voted for their local candidate and by extention the Labour Party- Blair may have had an effect, but in reality that's what people voted for. Also, there will be a leadership election in the Labour Party, so it will not be guaranteed.
2006-09-07 00:45:32 · answer #3 · answered by Don't Panic 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You vote counts for the local MP not their political party, or the head of the political party.
It is only 15 months since the last election and everyone seems to think that the present government is awful...would people make a 'better' choice if being allowed to vote again or is it time to recognise that democracy is pretty daft when the majority of the votes are cast by idiots.
2006-09-07 00:46:03 · answer #4 · answered by All the answers 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes there should be without doubt. Would you have voted for someone to lead us to find someone else doing it. Brown is not the best person nor anyone who has served in Blairs cabinet. Its fine they move away from him now. Why not when in the Cabinet. Money and power that's why. Politics is a dirty game and Blair has been one of the dirtiest players. Brown was next door so forget him.
2006-09-07 04:08:12 · answer #5 · answered by deadly 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Before the general election last year, we were all aware that Tony Balir planned to step down after a year or two. It would be more of a con if he stayed to finish a third term... dear God no!
Besides, this isn't a presidency we voted for. In our first past the post system you vote for your local MP, not that many people are aware of that. Your local MP still has his seat in Parliament, and that's all we vote for really. We don't vote for who gets to be in the Cabinet and who gets to be Prime Minister.
2006-09-07 00:49:01 · answer #6 · answered by quierounvaquero 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
there will be a general election the year later then we can vote the tax party out
2006-09-07 00:45:56 · answer #7 · answered by bootlepete 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, John Major took over when Maggie Thach stood down.
2006-09-07 00:50:57 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes within 6 months of a changeover. We need the law to change to make that mandatory in these kind of cases.
2006-09-07 00:45:38 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
no because then we would be running on a presidential system, although it wouldnt surprise me. people vote for the party not tony blair
2006-09-07 00:45:34 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋