Thread: Is Britain now in the hands of a dictator?

Originally Posted by uncle_vanya

Oh, don't worry.... 'This too shall pass'... and so will Pa Broone...... he will have a breakdown and will be trollied out of Number Ten on a gurney...... shouting at the sky and anyone to hear...."Your all twunts, you all twunts.... I AM the True and secret King of Scotland, England, Wales, Ireland, France... the World even.... you twunts...!"

Now that would be a sight to see.... but McRuin is far too stubborn even to do this..... He will leave like Mrs Thatcher did...with fat tears rolling down his chubby cheeks... and that chin all a quiver......

Nice comment on the BBC site "have your say":

The abiding memory of the press conference for me will be the "I'm not arrogant" mantra repeated over and over by Golem Brown. A mantra followed by...

...but I'm the only person in the whole world who recognised the global nature of the economic crisis.

...but Barack Obama came all the way to London to learn from me how to deal with the economic crisis.

Yes, no arrogance there, I suppose, but an awful lof of delusion from our mumbling, stumbling, bumbling premier.

And Caroline Flint's called him a sexist. Ouch.

Originally Posted by AlMiles

Originally Posted by Iolis

Our constitutional arrangements do not depend for their efficacy upon the mere parroted assertions of a myth invented by newspaper editors

This is not the United States. We do not elect our Prime Ministers. Nowhere on a ballot paper will you find a nomination for a British Prime Minister.

No, but party leaders are rarely appointed unopposed with no leadership election. And even when they are, if they are the ruling party then usually they have the decency to call a general election within weeks. Gordon the Golem looks like being the first PM to spend an entire period of office unelected by either his party or the public.

You may recall that no general election was called when John Major replaced Mrs Thatcher in the last Conservative Government. The potential opponents in Brown's case withdrew one by one from the leadership contest. He faced no serious challenge. There is no constitutional convention in existence that a newly-appointed leader should have to call an election.

Originally Posted by Iolis

Originally Posted by AlMiles

Originally Posted by Iolis

Our constitutional arrangements do not depend for their efficacy upon the mere parroted assertions of a myth invented by newspaper editors

This is not the United States. We do not elect our Prime Ministers. Nowhere on a ballot paper will you find a nomination for a British Prime Minister.

No, but party leaders are rarely appointed unopposed with no leadership election. And even when they are, if they are the ruling party then usually they have the decency to call a general election within weeks. Gordon the Golem looks like being the first PM to spend an entire period of office unelected by either his party or the public.

You may recall that no general election was called when John Major replaced Mrs Thatcher in the last Conservative Government. The potential opponents in Brown's case withdrew one by one from the leadership contest. He faced no serious challenge. There is no constitutional convention in existence that a newly-appointed leader should have to call an election.

Agreed, but I think this episode has shown that there should be. Brown's Government has shown itself to be an entirely different beast to Blair's.

Originally Posted by Iolis

This is not the United States. We do not elect our Prime Ministers. Nowhere on a ballot paper will you find a nomination for a British Prime Minister.

By Convention, the leader of a political party with a majority in the Commons is invited to form a government. If a leader surrenders his post, his party elect a new leader who steps into the shoes of the old. Hence we have Brown. He requires no democratic mandate whatsoever in our current constitutional framework.

I completely agree. But I further suggest that perhaps the steps to require a PM to be directly elected, rather than be simply the favoured choice of his party, should be incorporated into the next changes made to our political system.

Whilst a PM appointed by only his party is constitutionally sound, he hardly holds legitimacy or sway with the electorate, as ably demonstrated by the present incumbent. Perhaps the system should be changed so winning a GE is required to be PM, thus bringing constitutional matters more in line with winning personal legitimacy for what is a very personal office.

Originally Posted by jagman

We now have a Prime Minister without a mandate from the electorate.
In addition to that todays re-shuffle gives us 7 Peers as Ministers.
Please dis-regard the debate about wether Brown is elected ornot, its not central to this thread, it is about the overall amount of unelected bodies in the Cabinet

Personally I am unsure how this leaves the UK in democratic terms

This is the result of a weak PM seeking to draft in people who truly owe their position to him.

You are quite right, the powers of patronage are profoundly undemocratic. But as usual its Parliament who have let this shit go on for so long, just like the expenses thing.

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.

Originally Posted by alib

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..."


http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgcf77v2_134dt4n2bf3



http://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