If Gordon Brown is removed, does that mean general election...?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Andrew B
  • Start date Start date
Vote for 9/11, vote for the death of Heath Ledger, vote for the oil industry (as if you have a choice.)
 
No, labour will just pick another idiot from the many in their ranks, and continue to destroy the country
 
I would say no because as labour are doing badly at the moment they will have the election at the latest point possilble. It is most likely to be in 2010 rather than next year. I also doubt whether they will actually have a leadership contest as most of the key figures in the party are united behind brown. You have to have a majority of 71 mp's to force a leadership contest and at the moment they only have about 12 backbenchers. And as i said, they key figures (Jack straw, prescott, jaquie smith, hazel blears) Are all behind Mr. Brown. And there is no law that they have to have an election at a new leadership, the only problem is when this happens the new leader usually has less authority because they have not been elected by the people that actually decide; The general public.

David camerons conservative party have the policies and i direction to act as a prelude to victory and they will win the next election what ever.
 
Who knows it's the British government - we didn't vote for John Major did we ?
 
technically there doesn't have to be a general election, however as there was such an uproar when Brown became PM (being that he was not leader of the party at the last election) then there would be massive pressure to have one. The other parties would try and force an election stating that this is the 2nd unelected PM.

If he does go then I am sure there would be an election before 2010
 
There's no constitutional reason why a general election should be held before May 2010 if Brown were to stand down from the Prime Ministership. However, as has been noted above, while there is nothing constitutionally wrong with a third PM within one parliament, it is unlikely that the government would be able to resist the pressure to call an early election regardless.

It is for this reason I do not believe that any attempt on Brown's position will be made before the future election. His successor in this scenario simply would not survive and would be managing to sinking ship. Any future Labour leader worth his salt would accept the Leadership of the Opposition and start from there, not become a PM to face a catastrophic defeat.
 
There would have to be - there is no precedent for changing your leader twice without one.
 
not neccessarily, labour would merey elect a new leader if anyone wanted it, however if they had enough support the opposition could call a vote of cofidence meaning that the whole house would vote, if it was "no" then there would be a gen elec. but that is unlikely and has only happened once, in 1979 with james callaghan who lost by one vote and gave way to thatcher. it is written in the constitution that a gen elec is held every 4-5 yrs so def one before 2010 or in 2010
 
not neccessarily, labour would merey elect a new leader if anyone wanted it, however if they had enough support the opposition could call a vote of cofidence meaning that the whole house would vote, if it was "no" then there would be a gen elec. but that is unlikely and has only happened once, in 1979 with james callaghan who lost by one vote and gave way to thatcher. it is written in the constitution that a gen elec is held every 4-5 yrs so def one before 2010 or in 2010
 
Not necessarily. Why don't people leave him alone and let him get on sorting out the present crisis. All the in-fighting is not helping anyone. As Mr. Brown has told you, it is a global recession and not just here in the UK. It will come good if everyone is patient.
 
No it does not. Labour always whinge foul when a tory PM chqanges without an elcttion but there is no need either morally or legally.We vote for our MP not foe a Prime Minister. The what should be or not be is a separate discussion
 
Back
Top