05 June 2009

Talk Of An Early Election If We Remove Brown Is Bogus.

Somehow the media and those defending Gordon Brown have got it about that a general electon has to happen immediately if he is replaced. Why is it that unelected Brown is allowed to hang on till June 4th 2010 but not a leader properly elected in a party leadership campaign?

It seems the main thing worrying Labour MPs about the demise of Brown is an early election and the consequent loss of 8 or 9 months salary. Well it is good to see they have got their priorities right.

How did it come to this, that we end up with such unprincipled MPs that their hefty salaries come before the good of the party and country. What a sad state of affairs and what an indictment of the electoral system that put these clowns into power.

Anyway, this is all driven by the Tory media. Labour could have a new leader in place by the end of July. The leadership contest itself would distract from Tories desperate and opportunistic calls for an immediate general election. And once the new leader takes their place, both the public and media would want them to have time to outline their programme and also give them time to implement some of it before they were judged.

There are plenty of reasons why an election this year is a bad idea. The expenses scandal still needs to be digested and plenty of Tory MPs are far more guilty than Labour MPs. The Tories would like an early election to hide this fact. Whereas all the other parties could hit these Tories hard if given the time. Also Labour were elected for a five year term, they have the mandate to call the election at the last possible moment if they so wish. The British people elected the party not any individual - we do not have a presidential system much as it sometimes seems like it from the media coverage.

7 comments:

  1. Quite. An early election to give himself a mandate was an option for Brown and he passed on it. There is no constitutional precedent and May 2010 is hardly that far away anyway. This is a smokescreen being mounted by the Brownites. A GE before the Parliament Act mandates is only needed if the government is no longer able to command the confidence (i.e. a legislative majority) in the house of commons. Any Labour leader should expect that, particularly one who has actually won a contested election for the post!
    The status quo is that the election will be in May 2010. All a new leader needs to do is confirm that this remains his or her intention - on the grounds given by none other than GB 18 months ago (when he might have won).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Trooper Thompson6/6/09 2:19 am

    If Brown is replaced, an early election is definitely necessary - that's the whole point of doing it! You must take the lead, trumping the tories' we-are-change card. Who knows? You might even win.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think if a new leader comes in and catches the public mood with a radical agenda (including electoral reform) then an October election is possible. But, my they have one hell of a job.

    I think whoever comes in will have to reassure the spineless money grabbing MPs that May 2010 is indeed going to be the date.

    ReplyDelete
  4. On the precedent issue, the only one that springs to mind is Baldwin, Chamberlain, Churchill. By the time Chamberlain resigned following the Norway debate the nation was at war, fighting for very survival. A coalition government was forged shortly after, and the Parliament Act suspended for the duration.

    Do other precedents exist from the 19 century or earlier?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Trooper Thompson6/6/09 10:47 pm

    "I think if a new leader comes in and catches the public mood with a radical agenda..."

    Ain't gonna happen, the public mood is ugly and will stay that way. If you replace Brown and call an election straight away, chaos will rule throughout the body politic. It will be like a football match on a windswept, muddy field, giving Labour a chance - or are ya too yellow!

    ReplyDelete
  6. TT: It isn't about being yellow. If we are going to start saying governments have to call a general election just because the opposition wants one then we WILL have chaos. Did the Tories call an election in 1990? Or again in 1995 when Major was having an internal leadership contest and fighting off the 'bastards'. Did they hell, but there was just as much clamour for one from the opposition and public. We'll see how popular fixed terms are when we have an unpopular government with still a year or two left. The Tories have said they will give 'serious consideration' to them and the 'recall' idea. Like yeah, until they are in power when it will be quietly shelved. The Tories won't even make these small changes let alone the real change that is needed which is PR.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Trooper Thompson7/6/09 11:58 am

    Neil,

    I just think the only chance Labour has of avoiding absolute meltdown is to finally show some spunk and bring it on.

    The tories are calling for an election, but opposition always does. If there was a snap election now, they would be in as much of a flurry as Labour, but the longer the government clings on, the worse it will be.

    ReplyDelete