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.