NationStates Jolt Archive

Why are so many people demanding an election and calling this undemocratic? I doubt very much the same kinds of things were said about John Majors change over from Mrs Thatcher. It just seems perfectly fine. He serves half a term and then has an election. I don't see it as being undemocratic. Cabenits arn't elected anyway, there is no election for the PM, just the party. What is the big deal

They're probably pissed off because they want to vote out Labour but they have to wait to do it...

Why are so many people demanding an election and calling this undemocratic? I doubt very much the same kinds of things were said about John Majors change over from Mrs Thatcher. It just seems perfectly fine. He serves half a term and then has an election. I don't see it as being undemocratic. Cabenits arn't elected anyway, there is no election for the PM, just the party. What is the big deal

There was actually some muttering during the Thatcher>Major transition as I recall, but there just wasn't the same all-pervasive media coverage that modern politics attracts, so it just seemed quieter ;)

I'm one of those that's a little uncomfortable with it... I agree that people are supposed to vote in a party, with their vote supposedly based on party policies but I just can't help feeling that Blair's elections were won because a lot of people voted for him personally, rather than (New) Labour.

Add to this the fact that contemporary international relations are portrayed in much of the media (especially in the tabloid media) as being a function of personality rather than policy and you can see why some parts of the populace are uneasy about having this dour-faced economist taking charge.

That said, although I am as mentioned a little uncomfortable, I can live with it. Regardless of the fact that I disagree with many of his policies I am at least satisfied that he is a rational and intelligent guy. We could do worse. Besides, we can always have a shot at voting him out fairly shortly if needs be.

Why are so many people demanding an election and calling this undemocratic? I doubt very much the same kinds of things were said about John Majors change over from Mrs Thatcher. It just seems perfectly fine. He serves half a term and then has an election. I don't see it as being undemocratic. Cabenits arn't elected anyway, there is no election for the PM, just the party. What is the big deal

i agree. and don't forget the Queen requested Brown form her new government as per her constitutional role. its not as if Blair just gave over to Brown as the Queen could have called for an election.

Firstly, I doubt the OP is old enough to recall the Thatcher/Major transition with any clarity; I may be wrong, but I would imagine I am not.

The key problem with the transition from Blair to Brown is that one cannot doubt that a significant lurch to the left will ensue; a lurch that the British electorate, moronic as they are, have not voted for. Equally, I would imagine that a good majority of nationalists and patriots object to having a scot foisted upon them as Prime Minister, without having any influence upon the issue.

Moreover; Pure Metal, though the Queen does possess the powers to call an election, I would imagine it is one of the raft of powers she nominally possesses, but would unleash all hell is she actually used them.

Frankly, however, who cares? Blair is gone, Cameron portraying himself as the shameless demagogue he is, and Brown likely to be competitive in the next election if nothing else.

n.b. No, I'm still a paid up Conservative, I simply think that, if Brown wins in 2008/2009, the electorate will be so thoroughly sick of New Labour that the Tory party might be able to have a genuinely right wing candidate elected.

Firstly, I doubt the OP is old enough to recall the Thatcher/Major transition with any clarity; I may be wrong, but I would imagine I am not.

No, but I'm clever enough to research to find out and I don't see it


The key problem with the transition from Blair to Brown is that one cannot doubt that a significant lurch to the left will ensue; a lurch that the British electorate, moronic as they are, have not voted for.

Firstly, I don't think that would be undemocratic as cabenits change all the time and thus so do the ideologies of those who run it. Secondly, they didnt vote for a left leaning figure to be Chancellor but he was


Equally, I would imagine that a good majority of nationalists and patriots object to having a scot foisted upon them as Prime Minister, without having any influence upon the issue.

Indeed, silly people

I didn't realise there was much of a fuss about it. It's not as if we haven't seen it coming for years - we even knew at the time of the election that this was going to happen.

Who is complaining?

Remember vote blair, get brown


We should have an election since no-one knew that Brown was going to take-over

Politics, you've got to laugh really.:D

It was completely undemocratic. I'm a member of the Labour party and even I wasn't allowed to vote as to whether I wanted Brown as Labour leader. Brown's appointment as Labour leader was an exercise in top-down party leadership. This is not what the Labour party does. It was founded as a bottom-up-organised party.

But yeah, if I was the one that paid for my membership then I would have no intention of renewing my Labour membership.

I haven't heard any grumbling, just a girl who asked why we don't just have a PM (yes a Pure Metal) for life I tried to explain the stupidity but was rather flabbergasted

They're probably pissed off because they want to vote out Labour but they have to wait to do it...

pfft like we have any serious parties to vote for :p