Shortly Gordon Brown will become the Prime Minister of Britain. Although I agree it was New Labour people voted for not Blair. My question is that "should a leadership change automatically trigger a general election?".
I am leaning towards New Leader = New public vote at the moment.
2007-04-30 00:36:22 · 16 answers · asked by GMonkey 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
No Brown has totally different plans for England than what Blair did. We should therefore be able to vote on if we agree to his new visions for the country.
2007-04-30 00:38:52 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Why should the leader of the largest party not be Prime Minister?
Party leaders are appointed by party members as a whole.......nothing to do with the national electorate at large.
No, I do not believe that a leadership change should trigger a general election. Voters should cast their votes for a candidate they believe in.....part of the mess we're in is because people have always voted for the same party in some sort of historical way without really thinking through their policies.
2007-04-30 01:36:11 · answer #2 · answered by Pit Bull 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Gordon Brown has just as much right to become prime minister as John Major did after Thatcher resigned, or as Jim Callaghan did after Wilson resigned.
He should be given a fair crack of the whip, so that we can see how he does in the top job, before we rush into another election.
Also, do we really want another bout of political campaigning so soon after the current elections? If we did, there would be a serious danger of people losing interest through boredom I think.
2007-04-30 08:34:52 · answer #3 · answered by Spacephantom 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Funnily enough, the last time our national leadership changed hands without an election was at a time when our sons and daughters were gearing up for war in Iraq. Margaret Thatcher stood down in October 1990 to be replaced by John Major but there was no election until 1992 (which John Major's Conservative party won)
But as to my personal view, I think we will all be in the Brown stuff when Gordon gets in
2007-04-30 08:51:47 · answer #4 · answered by allan_wright2002 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No! We live in a Parliamentary Democracy not a Presedential Republic. Our cabinet is selected from the largest party in the House of Commons. We don't vote for our Prime Minister and a change in Prime Minister doesn't change the person you voted for in your consituency. I really don't mean to sound mean, but people really need to learn and understand the system we have in the UK. When you vote you shouldn't be voting for who'll be the Prime Minister. You vote for the best candidate for your consituency.
Traditionally our PM is the leader of the largest party, however he need not even be a politician. So, no there shouldn't be a vote as there is no need for one in our current system. If you disagree with the system that's a different matter. Talk to your MP about that.
Check out the page in the source section for an explanation of PM and of a parliamentary system.
2007-04-30 05:00:25 · answer #5 · answered by japanesewhispers_79 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I will hapily vote Mr Brown if he takes the troops out of Iraq and Afganistan. If he don't, then Labour can clear off into obscurity for all i care. Brown will probably prove to be as big a tittle-tattle as Mr Blair.
I am happy to say i have not voted in the last two elections. Pointless. One of Mr Blairs cronnies in is my hometown so would be a waste of my time.
2007-04-30 00:51:12 · answer #6 · answered by JOHN 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No - elections cost millions of pounds, and his differences with Blair have as much to do with ego as policy. What you propose would result in a creeping presidentialisation of our system, the notion that we are voting for an individual and not a party. People just voted two years ago and the low turnout then suggests they are not desperate for another vote so soon.
2007-04-30 00:46:59 · answer #7 · answered by Dunrobin 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The leadership issue is not the same as voting for your representative, when you vote in a general election you are voting for your MP not Bleh or Hug a Hoody or Broooon
2007-04-30 02:48:54 · answer #8 · answered by SunnyDays 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think Brown should become PM even with an election! Let's face it, he knows that too, that's why there won't be one!
He will simply waste what little money and resources that Blair hasn't yet squandered, then get thrown out when there is an election!
2007-04-30 01:55:26 · answer #9 · answered by gynmedic 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
really it is not going to make any difference Brown will not be P.M very long, why do you think no one else is going to contest the leadership? Its not cos brown is so popular amongst his fellow MP its because when Labour lose the Gen Elec he will have to resign and will be remember as the P.M who lost.Thats why the could be leaders are dropping out they will fight to be leader of the opposition quite happily but not to be a loosing P.M
2007-04-30 00:51:23 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋