The thought of David Miliband being leader chills me to the bone.

Spot on and exactly as I predicted; Labour needs a new leader (Tony Blair? No, please). I still think a Con/Lab/Lib Dem national unity government is needed.

JK2006 wrote:
I still think a Con/Lab/Lib Dem national unity government is needed.

I agree. Then an early election. A Lib-Lab coalition, however desirable to both of them, just won't work. The sight of Lord Adonis (!) trying to claim things like 'The British voters decided not to vote for a majority party' (eh? The vast majority had no such intention!) is just the start of some real humbug.

Prunella Minge wrote:
The thought of David Miliband being leader chills me to the bone.

Me too. I trust either Milliband not one inch. Or Balls, or Harman or any of that whole New Labour clique. On the other hand Gove, is equally terrifying, I can never see him without thinking he shoud be a character from Harry Enfield and Chums.

I think, on balance, that JK probably has a point. We should as a nation demand that every one of them should put aside their party identities and all work for the good of all. They're all keen on telling us what a mess it all is. Well they're the people who led us into it. And it should be them who are compelled - forced if necessary - to fucking well sort it out. I apologise for my language. It seems to be becoming more and more of a personal failing these days.

JK2006 wrote:
Spot on and exactly as I predicted; Labour needs a new leader (Tony Blair? No, please). I still think a Con/Lab/Lib Dem national unity government is needed.

and who would be Her Majesty's Opposition ?

No opposition Veritas; everyone working together for the good of the country. All the squabbling and compromise behind closed doors; the best of all 3 parties deciding together, to deadlines, what to do and when.

Prunella Minge wrote:
The thought of David Miliband being leader chills me to the bone.

Ditto

Never thought that Alan Johnson would look appealing.

JK2006 wrote:
No opposition Veritas; everyone working together for the good of the country.

Checks and balances, JK !

I keep harping on about 1931, but I do think the similarities are pertinent:

National Government

I think it's better that the voters know where everyone stands rather than have all the arguments and dealings behind closed doors. Unfortunately, "everyone working for the good of the country" is the stuff of idealistic dreams and has nothing to do with reality.

As for Alan Johnson looking appealing ... Who's going to line up for their ID cards if he gets into office, or to have the mark of the beast stamped on their forehead?

Now that Gordon Brown has resigned, and if the Conservatives and LibDems cannot come to an agreement, there has to be another general election. It's bad enough to suggest that a party which came in second can form a government but now that the leader those Labour voters backed to be PM has resigned it would be totally unacceptable. Two unelected Prime Ministers in a row? No thanks.

Emma Bee wrote:
Two unelected Prime Ministers in a row? No thanks.

It was said somewhere today, possibly Radio 4, can't remember, that up to a third of Prime Ministers last century came to power between general elections. I think it was a third, this makes me sound a bit flakey but basically the point was that this has happened far more often than we remember. The last one before Brown was of course John Major.

I think it's legitimate to change Prime Minister without calling a general election. After all, we don't have a Presidential system like in the US or a combined Presidential and Parliamentary system like France. In France the PM doesn't even need to be a member of parliament, he or she will be appointed or approved by the President from the majority or coalition government.

Why is it that there is so much talk of 'unelected leaders'? I believe it is because of a combination of factors- partly the increasing focus of the media on personalities. If you'd listened to the media you would have thought it was an election between Brown, Cameron and Clegg rather than Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat (and others). Secondly, Blair's very 'presidential' style of running the government.

Agree with Emma

A Second Election immediately is preferable to a LABOUR Government of "Proggressives" which basically means everyone but the TORIES ( er...who won the election.....cough )

A Second Unelected PM will lead to RIOTS on the streets in England because WE have had enough of all this - we might as well all join the EDL in order to get our rights back.

A Government of National Unity is not needed. Especially under Labour. CAMERON has won the election albeit without a majority. That should not be forgotten.

John Reid (much to my surprise) was good on BBC1 just now - refusing to hide behind all the humbug and just deal with the defeat. Politicians who seek to explain away morally compromising problems by saying 'it happened in the past' really anger me - David Steel did it (several times) today: 'People complain about an unelected Prime Minister, but John Major was unelected' - so what? Whatever happened to 'two wrongs don't make a right'? This citing of wrongs in the past to justify wrongs now is the kind of thing that many of us hate about politicians today. Interviewers shouldn't give them such an easy time. Don't let them just say 'The other party did it in the past'. Ask them if that means they're happy to go on the record as saying the principle is admirable.

David .. the difference between John Major (and most other's who came to power mid term) is twofold 1) John Major was elected to the position of party leader, not just appointed, b) He won the next general election and so was given approval by the voters.

I have no problem with someone taking over as Prime Minister mid term, but when the people fail to give their approval of him/her in a general election then it would be ridiculous for them to attempt to stay in office. Also, if the party fails to win the most seats or votes in an election then to think that a change of leader somehow qualifies them to take power is also nonsense. Some people, for reasons best known to themselves, voted Labour because they thought that Gordon Brown was a good PM. Another leader might not have their personal approval and so it is only right to go back to the people, in the case of a hung parliament, and let them decide again. Of course, it could also be that people did not vote Labour because they did not like Gordon Brown, so Labour could do better in a new election. There is only one way to find out.

Cameron has NOT won the election north of the Border. You can have him!

david wrote:

Why is it that there is so much talk of 'unelected leaders'?

David

Do you think it is acceptable to canvass someone to vote for your party - knowing that it would then make you PM - ONLY FOUR DAYS AGO - and then quit ?

BR wrote:
Agree with Emma

A Second Election immediately is preferable to a LABOUR Government of "Proggressives" which basically means everyone but the TORIES ( er...who won the election.....cough )

But they didn't "win the election". They won more seats than either of the other two main parties. But polled short of the overall majority that would constitute a "win". Once again you're talking out of the back of your neck. Cough all you like, you're only amusing yourself.

BR wrote:
A Second Unelected PM will lead to RIOTS on the streets in England because WE have had enough of all this - we might as well all join the EDL in order to get our rights back.

"RIOTS on the streets"??? More hysterical shrieking. There won't be riots. I'd add "and you know it" if I didn't genuinely believe that you wouldn't know a factual scenario if it came up to you in the streets and told you a joke.



BR wrote:
A Government of National Unity is not needed. Especially under Labour. CAMERON has won the election albeit without a majority. That should not be forgotten.

No, Cameron hasn't "won", see above. The most seats has never meant power without an overall majority.
What your latest posting {along with the vast majority of your other postings} boils down to is this. You predict disasters and you're always wrong. You predict alien "revelations" and you're always wrong. Only last week, following the fall of shares on Wall Street, you were assuring us of a "bloodbath" the next day. Guess what? It never happened. For whatever reason you appear to take a delight in predicting doomsday, a doomsday which is itself doomed to abject failure by having you heralding it. It seems that Armageddon could do with a new evangelist because you are doing a truly awful job of ushering it in. And you have cried "Wolf" so many times that even the wolf has stopped listening.

Emma Bee wrote:
David .. the difference between John Major (and most other's who came to power mid term) is twofold 1) John Major was elected to the position of party leader, not just appointed, b) He won the next general election and so was given approval by the voters.



Major was elected Prime Minister by the Conservative Party, not the public,in 1990. He did not face the public in a general election until 1992.

The next leader of the Labour Party will be elected by the Labour Party and may be Prime Minister.

I have no real problem with that.

I think (rather I hope) that we are entering the era of consensus politics, rather than having a party than wins power and as a result can do virtually everything it wants, which is not right by me.

But maybe we need to agree to disagree

One reason why the stats about unelected PMs last century are a bit misleading is that, until Heath's election in the mid-1960s, the Tories (ludicrously) lacked any constitutional procedure to replace an ailing leader between elections (and they had a hell of a lot of ailing leaders), so Royal Prerogative was used to bring in the likes of Eden, Macmillan and Home. But surely the point now is that it was undemocratic for elections NOT to have been held as soon as possible after those changes? It's just silly as well as dishonest for politicians who purport to be committed modernisers today to explain away the current reliance on an outdated and unjust convention by saying the convention has been used before. That really is an insult to the intelligence. What next - a Conservative saying the Liberals may as well stick with first past the post because Gladstone did well with it? If you're really a moderniser, then modernise and don't hide behind those outdated conventions just because they suit you pragmatically.