After all we voted for the party we wanted and the prime minister because we trusted, him and not the new one. The labour party has the right to pick thier leader but we pick the man or women we wish to lead us.
2007-02-07 20:20:00 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Yes please, unfortunately none of the others are any good!
2007-02-09 08:41:41 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
it is surprisingly complicated yet significant. The best Minister is rather in value of ways the rustic is administered. interior the united kingdom the present best Minister is Gordon Brown. The best Minister is the pinnacle of the cupboard that's created from twenty-two different Ministers chosen by the best Minister. jointly those human beings are the government of the united kingdom and run the rustic. Ministers are individuals of parliament (MPs) Parliament is created from 2 properties (the abode of lords and the abode of commons) - the abode of Commons is the main extreme of the two properties. the abode of commons has some thing like 650 MPs that are each elected by human beings interior of their constituency (that's sort of a interior of reach of the rustic such simply by fact city which you reside in) - so which you have gotten an MP that represents you in parliament (whether simply by final election it rather is bobbing up there are not any MPs suited now). practically consistently, MPs belong to a political social gathering such simply by fact the Labour social gathering or the Conservative social gathering (the Tories). each so often (not than 5 years) the best Minister might desire to call a well-known election. this promises human beings over the age of 18 interior the united kingdom the prospect to vote for who they opt to be their MP After the election, there will be a undeniable sort of MPs elected to parliament from distinctive events. The social gathering with the main seats has administration of parliament and the chief of the social gathering turns into the best Minister with the Queen asking for that the social gathering chief kinds a central authority. This guy or woman has then as much as 5 years to pass regulations and attempt and advance the rustic before yet another election is termed and individuals get to vote lower back on who they think of would be ultimate to represent them. suited now the Labour social gathering has the main seats in Parliament and it is chief, Gordon Brown, is the best Minister. this would possibly not be the case after the election and the Conservative social gathering might desire to be in potential wherein case David Cameron could be asked by the Queen to alter into best Minister.
2016-09-28 14:22:25 · answer #2 · answered by lieser 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I completely agree with you,as you say when labour was voted in it was because Tony Blair was considered the best at the time.
There should be a general election because not everyone wants Gordon Brown or indeed,any of the other candidates and it should be up to the voting public who we want as the next Prime Minister.
This again smacks as "jobs for the boys" and it is wrong.
2007-02-07 20:26:31 · answer #3 · answered by mentor 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hello,
What? oh dear, you can't go having an election mid-term, it would so interfere with the 'Jobs for the Boys' principle that I think exists in modern day politics. I kind of see where you are going in this query, and my real answer is that I don't feel I could trust Mr Blairs replacement either. and there has to be a better way of handing around the good jobs in politics. We have the vote to put these people into these jobs, so just remember, come the next Election, we can vote them straight out again, but go to all of your local M.P.s surgeries and tell them what you want, and don't stop asking them are they going to do it, if you get no confidence in their replies, make them know you will campaign hard enough for them to be voted out with a loss of their deposits, so we have no way of deciding who gets what job, The people who we voted in alone have that pleasure. and the prime minister is the man/woman who decides they are going to have a cabinet re-shuffle. which sometimes brings in new blood, I never knew a re-shuffle that made any government better than what we had before, but be sure someone is going to get rich at our expense, and it will never be a member of the electorate.So, I think the only way it can be changed is when we have the pencil in our hands in the polling booth, but again I say just a simple vote can complicate everything you believe in when you feel you are voting for the countrys good as well as your own. They tell us this is as fair as it gets, but at least we have a free vote, how we use it is, don't get conned out of it, I do so hope this answers your question....... Tony M
2007-02-07 20:57:04 · answer #4 · answered by tony m 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Technically we don't vote for the PM, we vote for a local MP. The Queen invites the leader of the largest party to form a Government, making that person the PM.
John Major became PM without leading his party in a General Election, so did Jim Callaghan, and so did Winston Churchill in 1940.
So constitutionally there is no need for a General election.
2007-02-07 21:30:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
As said before, Labour has to obligation to conduct the elections early, but they could in theory. They won't though because they are so unpopular at the moment.
But one advantage of waiting for the elections is that hopefully the parties will have sorted out their funding by then and will have put a limit on how much they are allowed to spend for their elections campaign. So hopefully we will have fewer "favours to be repaid" next time round! Or am I being too optimistic here...?
2007-02-07 20:45:56 · answer #6 · answered by Hipira 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
With our system, its not the prime minister you are voting for, but your local MP. As that has not changed, they will not call an election for change of leader.
It is probably actually for the best as if there was to be an election because Blair stands down, I doubt he would in the next 6 months, they would wait for another 2 years to secure another term.
So, although I agree it may seem like we are having to get an unelected leader, it's better than another 2 years of Blair!
2007-02-07 20:27:17 · answer #7 · answered by Marky 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Gordon Brown is I believe even more sneaky than Blair. He is hoping to get in by the back door because he must by now know that the public can see through the pair of them and the constant lies.
2007-02-08 05:26:00 · answer #8 · answered by Whistler R 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes we should as soon as he goes.We should decide if we still want a Labour PM.
2007-02-08 17:46:26 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
we should.but the labour grovernment was voted in to power
and they can pick who they want as a leader.
2007-02-07 20:49:16 · answer #10 · answered by peter o 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes.
2007-02-08 09:07:21 · answer #11 · answered by taxed till i die,and then some. 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋