The problem with the electoral system as it stands is that it was never built with any thought to having a lunatic in Downing Street.
I genuinely believe that Brown has lost the plot. He won't leave because of his messiah complex, nobody ever expected to have a Prime Minister who would refuse to go despite all convention and common sense.
He now talks of the constitutuional changes he plans to make, frankly that notion terrifies me. There can be nobody on the planet less fit to tinker with the constitution of this country.

It is not all that different from what has happened in the past. All parties have been guilty of 'stuffing' the Cabinet with people they want, not what the elctorate want.

Previously when a PM wanted a particular person he/she (but usually he) was put up in a really safe seat and then into the Cabinet. It was understood by all that the constituency would be 'looked after' by the party and not the incumbent who would concentrate on their Cabinet role.

All Bliar/Broon have done is shortened the time it takes to get someone into Cabinet. Not that I am supporting this, but is it so different?

What I would like to see is the system in place at the start of the last century where a person invited into the Cabinet by the PM was obliged to go back to his constituency in a by-election and ask his elctors if they minded him going into cabinet and therefore not have enough time to fully look after their issues. This happened to Churchill who lost his seat when he did this and the party had to find someone to stand down in a safe seat to get him back into Parliament.

You will note of course that we cannot 'fire' Lords in an election. One might say that's good drills on his part, until you realise that it matters not, as the Lords who are erm, 'backing' him will not be in a Conservative cabinet in the near future.

It's been said before - the only way that cnut is leaving No. 10 is in a white, unmarked van, with some very nice chaps in white suits wheeling the gurney.

It is because he is a Hoon of the highest order. Apart from that, did he not say he wanted the best people for the job (well it made me laugh) and i don't think there is anything written down to say that it has to be an elected person to take whatever office is available.

No, but it does say that whoever is a minister should be answerable to his/her peers (i.e. equals - peers in the wider sense). A minister who proposes legislation should have that legislation scrutinised in the commons and be available in the commons to be questioned.

The Lords cannot sit in the commons and so are not held to account for their actions. Democratic? I think not - Glenys Kinnock has never been an MP (nor, like her appalling husband, ever had a proper job) and has no experience - apart from milking the Brussels gravy train for all it's worth (like a good old socialist).

Now that Glenys is in Gubment, does that open the way for Cherie? What a dreadful thought.

No he's an envoy to the Middle East.

...and constantly occupies a whole floor of the American Colony Hotel at the tax-payers' expense, allegedly...

Great stuff.

Government of the talentless, managed by the non-elected, headed by the mentally challenged and unelectable.

Well he certainly wants to dictate what the minions say:

"If you have ever wondered how it is that all the broadcasters always seem to end up with on-message Labour talking-heads spouting exactly the same drivel after an election, here is why – Labour HQ emails everyone a briefing on “lines to take” before they go on air. The degree of control demanded by New Labour means ambitious MPs can’t be allowed to think up their own answers."

"Hence we end up with a series of robotic talking heads mouthing the party line. Backbenchers and cabinet ministers alike will all parrot the same form of words regardless of the question asked. If you were watching the news yesterday you will have heard the script. Guido is grateful to a “real socialist” co-conspirator for providing yesterday’s “lines to take”. If you want to see it, Guido has uploaded the dull script..."


docs.google.com/View?i...34dt4n2bf3



order-order.com/

You will of course note that there is no reference to the Labour candidate in St Ives having been beaten by Lord Toby Jugg, Monster Raving Looney Party

Iolis,

You are right that we elect MPs, not Prime Ministers. But we elect MPs on the basis that they have signed up to their party's manifesto, and with due regard for statements made about their party's policies and future actions.

So when Blair said "I will serve a full third term" as Labour leader, that is the basis that we elected (well, not me personally) Labour MPs on.

Ergo, to resign and crown Brown as the new Prime Minister, without a General Election, defies the electoral mandate given in 2005.

The difficulty with manifestos is that they are, in most respects so widely drafted as to mean all things to all people. They inevitably become nothing more than the vehicle by which a political party is propelled into power and key elements may be discarded once power is achieved. Much of the law that is enacted has little, if anything to do with a firm manifesto commitment. Moreover, as the case of Begby v Department of Edcuation illustrates, members of the public have no recourse to law where a firm manifesto commitment has been discarded.

The 'lines to take' system of control from Downing street illustates the totality of control exercised over Ministers and back-benchers. It also illustrates that unlike other developed democracies such as the United States, which has a clear separation of powers, there is no clear line which divides the executive from the legislature in the United Kingdom. Many, if not most Ministers and MPs are happy to go along with this system since it involves no intellectual effort, and the generous system of allowances and expenses pays handsomely for their loyalty to the party line. Thus the accusation of 'window-dressing' is not exclusively confined to female MPs - it applies to all of them.

Of course, the system is breaking down now, the Prime Minister does not have the strength or the will to shield MPs or protect their personal interestes. They have thus turned on him and hope to replace him with someone better able to pay the price for their unswerving loyalty.

It may therefore be said that since a Prime Minister serves the interests of MPs, tthey are happy for him to exercise dictatorial power as long as he produces the goods.

It is striking though that the Tories are the beneficiaries not of anything substantive they are able to bring to the table. They have very little to say by way of policy. They will eventually achieve power for the same reason Blair achieved it in 97' - because the country was sick to death of the government in office - thus the whole cycle starts all over again!

Five years from now, we will be having exactly the same conversation on ARRSE as we are now - only the names and the parties will have changed!

Eloquently, but depressingly, said.

i think britain is in the hands of a dick-taker!! god browns worse for this country than the last bush was for the states, why wont he just bite the bullet and give us our country back???

Brown just called, Omaha Beach , Obama beach, the soft cnut!!!

A thoroughly brilliant analysis.