It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Regarding Gordon Brown as PM

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Okay, I have a question about Gordon Brown.

Was he voted on or not, as I understand he wasn't voted to be PM.
But some say he was in this manner:

Britain voted for Tony Blair 3 times. It has been known since before the first election that Blair planned to hand over the country to Brown. EVERYBODY KNEW. When Britain voted for Blair it voted for Blair and Brown. They voted for Blair to be succeeded by Brown.

Is the above true?
What is the truth exactly, because I hear so many conflicting answers on this. Someone please school me.




posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 01:24 PM
link   
No he was not elected the party is then they name the leader. Considering labor has no real competition U.K. essentially has a one party system and the PM is appointed by the party. There is an election in a few months but labour will win they always win. Here is Gordon Brown in all is NWO glory. He must say world order 10 times in this speech.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Whoaaaaaa
How come a thread wasn't dedicated to that video?????

He must have said NWO 12 times or something.

And I don't understand your answer.
The party names the leader, which party??
I thought brown is already PM, what election is in a few months?



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Its a parliament so the party is elected. Brown is of the Labour party. We have Labour and Conservative. Brown was appointed by Blair and will hold an election in a few months. The Election will be for what party the British want if they pick labour they get Brown.

I suppose some people will vote for the party because of the leader but generally its the parties agenda that gets elected like in the U.S. however in U.S. the president must be elected and cannot be appointed. I don't mean to simplify but that is the case essentially.

The Conservatives would be good for britain right now because the don't support joining eu they are less socialist. Thats neither here nor there.

I haven't nearly given the parliamentary system justice here but that is the down low as far as this election goes.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Was he voted on or not, as I understand he wasn't voted to be PM.
But some say he was in this manner:


In the political system that Britain has, the Prime Minister is not directly elected (unlike the US President). He or she must be able to command a majority of support in the House of Commons (which usually means the person who leads the largest party in the House of Commons, currently the Labour Party) and be elected as a Member of Parliament. In theory, a member of the House of Lords could be Prime Minister but this is almost definitely not going to happen in modern times because such an individual is not elected.

Brown was elected by Labour Party members (not appointed by Blair) as their new leader, and - as he became the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons - was subsequently appointed as Prime Minster by the Queen.

Since we vote for MPs and not the Prime Minister, the fact that Blair has been replaced despite being elected in 2005 is constitutionally irrelevant (John Major took over from Margaret Thatcher as PM in 1990 without a general election, Jim Callaghan became Prime Minister in 1976 after Harold Wilson resigned... it's happened about eight or nine times since 1900, I think). Though obviously some people think that a change in Prime Minister should require an election, the government is not legally obliged to do so (and I don't think anyone since 1900 has called a general election because the Prime Minister changed mid-term).

EDIT: This article and this article may be helpful.

[edit on 1/7/07 by Ste2652]



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beefcake
No he was not elected the party is then they name the leader. Considering labor has no real competition U.K. essentially has a one party system and the PM is appointed by the party. There is an election in a few months but labour will win they always win. Here is Gordon Brown in all is NWO glory. He must say world order 10 times in this speech.

www.youtube.com...


What are you on about?

Labour has very real competition from the Tories and to a lesser extent the Liberal democrats. The Tories actually lead Labour in the Polls.

To describe the Uk as a one party state when there are 3 major parties and a plethora of smaller parties is showing a willful ignorance of the political landscape in the UK.

Also, what "election" is taking place in a few months? There has been speculation Brown might call one in some papers, but that is it.

[edit on 1/7/07 by stumason]



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Just to fill in the gaps:

The Parliamentary term in the UK is not fixed but runs for a maximum of five years. A General Election is normally called by the PM but may be forced by the loss of a vote of no confidence in relatively rare circumstances. There is absolutely no reason for Gordon Brown to call an election within a few months, he can go to 2010 if he wants but a 2009 election is much more likely. It is possible he could call a snap election if he felt very comfortable about winning but don't hold your breath.

The UK has been a member of the EU since 1973 but has not yet adopted the Euro as its currency and is unlikely to do so within the next few years. Brown is unconvinced of the benefits and the Tories are strongly opposed to the idea.

The notion that the Tories would be good for the UK would be subject to some considerable debate!



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beefcake
I suppose some people will vote for the party because of the leader but generally its the parties agenda that gets elected like in the U.S. however in U.S. the president must be elected and cannot be appointed. I don't mean to simplify but that is the case essentially.


Comparisons between the Uk and US systems are difficult and not really worth it.

The US president is the equivalent of the Queen, as Head of State, but that is where the similarity ends.

In the US, the head of State holds the power, with the Legislative and Judicial branches providing checks and balances (in theory).

In the UK, the Head of State holds alot of power, but rarely, if ever, exercises any of it. She generally devolves power to the person who commands the largest majority in parliament, although it has been known for minority Governments to be formed in the past. In theory, however, the Monarch could exercise a greater degree of control over the country, but this has been rare since the early 19th Century.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join