If Gordon Brown takes over from the Prime Minister without a contest for the leadership - is it illegal? Should there then be a general election? - Lets face it, no-one likes him so why is he being allowed to be PM?
2007-02-28 21:29:48 · 14 answers · asked by Lord Onion 4 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Of course it isn't illegal. If the Labour Party elects him as their leader whilst Labour is in office the Queen is obliged to invite him to form a government. In the Post war years Eden, Macmillan, Home, Callaghan and Major all (first) became Prime Ministers in this way - there's nothing unusual about it.
2007-02-28 21:35:41 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
No, it's perfectly legal, there doesn't have to be a leadership contest - but there will be as there are at least two non-Brown candidates already.
One John Major did the same thing in the Conservative Party in 1992 to become PM and I don't remember people bleating about elections then.
2007-03-01 07:10:27 · answer #2 · answered by Huh? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Gordon Brown will not become the prime minister of England , that whould be breaking the law, because he is a Scottish M.P. he is not allowed by Law, BUT he will become the prime minister of the U.K. As with anything the powers to be change the laws to suit themselves. As any major thing that affects this country it should be up to the people of this country to vote on it , Brown , Car mileage tax , Europe , War , you name it we have to pay for it
2007-03-01 12:01:53 · answer #3 · answered by Stephen A 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no there is no restriction imposed on who is prime minister providing that person can demonstrate sufficient support in Parliament (effectively the House of Commons ie MP's). indeed I dont htink the PM even has to be an MP, although that may have changed, but hte UK has had at least one PM who wasnt an MP
however its arguable that Gordon Brown has broken the law on several occasions..
One being implemtneting a tax hike without the consent of Parliament...(I think it was the imposition of the most recent increase of taxes on flights ok its a technical breach as there is nothing stopping a rush enactment of suitable legisaltion throuh parliament
another is the very odd position that the UK has on duty on cigarettes and alcohol.. there is nothing int he EU legislation which allows a government to impose duties and and taxes on intra EU trade. There is absolutely no reason why if you come accross the channel with a 40 foooter piled high with booze & fags that the revenue duty paid that the revenu should have any rights to stop you.. yet they have a daft perception of wht they beleive is reasonable for personal use.
he has broken a centuries old tradiiton that you dont retorspectively change the law, its fine to change the law form no one, but not seek to change the law for times past.. this is waht has been doen on numerous occasions,
the smelly fingers of the treasury (propriator G.Brown) are all over the governemtn policies on refusing to accept some liabiltiy for the pensions debacle when the ombudsman & parliamentary reports indicate the revenue lied. you coudl expand this to include the lives of our armed forces whoi have been maimed or lost due to inadequate, ineeffective or missing equipment. the tank commander who dies because he was orded to hand over his body armour and subsequently was killed by shots whihc body armour would have protected him against.
in short Brown is going to become PM because BLiar is clapped out and exposed for the duplicit and deceitfull individual he is. Brown has always cherished the role of PM.. its an ego trip for him.
effectively its a labour party matter.. in exactly the same way the prescott was made deputy PM, his real role was to assuage the Labour Party, nothign what ever to do with goevrnement.. so we as taxpayers have contributed generously to Prescotts salary & pension & lifetstyle for the last 10 years for no beenfit, unless you are a Labour Party member
2007-02-28 21:49:38 · answer #4 · answered by Mark J 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Yeah it"s legal, but a bad move for the Labour Party.
They will have no chance of winning the next election with that miserable sod in charge.
2007-03-01 05:48:43 · answer #5 · answered by researcher 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i imagine you'll locate that maximum of those 'new' guidelines are in truth as a lot as date variations of previous ones. each and each receives counted as slightly of law. lots of the genuine new ones are imprecise employer and fiscal guidelines which will not at all have any direct result upon maximum individuals outdoors employer & finance circles (e.g. replacing guidelines about the way charities ought to safeguard their money adverse to fraud in effortless words impacts the treasurers and accountants of the bigger charities). The newshounds who write absurd memories about truly some new guidelines comprehend completely nicely that they are misrepresenting the info and do it out of political bias.
2016-12-05 02:26:25 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is perfectly legal, you do not vote for a Prime Minister in an election you vote for individual MP's and a party, the party picks their leader
2007-02-28 21:40:03 · answer #7 · answered by barn owl 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
It's up to the Labour Party to decide not Joe Public.
We only get to decide when a general election is called.
2007-02-28 21:42:08 · answer #8 · answered by Mark J 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
1. No. He would be acting in accordance with the British Constitution.
2. Don't generalise - you might not like him, but plenty do. After all, he has probably been our most successful Chancellor of the Exchequer of all times.
2007-02-28 23:14:08 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
he was in the right position at the right time.
2007-03-01 13:43:50 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋