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.

 

Gordon Brown could lose and still be Prime Minister

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Gordon Brown could lose and still be Prime Minister


www.telegraph.co.uk

Gordon Brown could continue as Prime Minister for weeks even if he loses the election, under Whitehall proposals to prevent a run on the pound in the event of a hung parliament.

Unprecedented contingency plans are being drawn up by the most senior civil servant to avoid any economic crisis if Labour or the Tories are unable to secure a majority.

Officials under the direction of Sir Gus O’Donnell, the Cabinet Secretary, are finalising details to ensure a coalition government can be agreed swiftly. For the first time, opposition parties will be able to call on civil servants to analyse
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 02:02 AM
link   
The question in my mind is why at this time, with the threat of war in the ME, is this legislation now being pushed?

The local radio announced this news this morning under the headline " Gordon Brown could still be prime minister even if he loses"

We live in very interesting times with both the US and UK now in the position where the man we ellected could remain in power whether they win an ellection or not.



www.telegraph.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 03:18 AM
link   
Thank you for posting this.

You're right about interesting times. I can not believe that we now have to worry about voting someone out, and them not leaving. Past generations sure as heck did not see this coming.

Just a little worrying that the UK is starting to draw up contingency plans that look just like the US's. They are just paving the way for someone to come along and USE said "contingency plans".

Don't wanna be around when that happens.





posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 04:30 AM
link   
reply to post by LostNemesis
 


In February last year, 2009, I gave my wife a sealed envelope that contained my musings, ideas and I suppose, prophesy`s regarding the coming times.

I listed " The elected representatives in the UK will be able to, through statute, Stay in power whether we want them or not".

I guess Im changing my name to "Nostradamus" !

Respects



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by captiva
 

Just to clarify things- this would not be new legislation. The possibility of this kind of arrangement, with parties coming together, has always been part of the Constitution. It's just that it doesn't happen much, nowadays, because elections normally give a clear result one way or the other.

The nearest recent parallel is 1974 when Ted Heath lost his overall majority, and started talking to the Liberal leader in hopes of keeping a majority that way. The Liberals would not play ball, and if they've got any sense their successors won't play ball with Gordon.


[edit on 31-3-2010 by DISRAELI]



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 05:17 AM
link   
Better than David 'I'm out of touch with reality' Cameron.

In fact if a small discarded sock got elected, i'd be much happier than if the tories ever got back in power.

As much as i never thought i'd hear this, i'd much rather Labour stay in power - as the thought of struggling under a Tory government is too much to bare.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 

A PS to my previous comment. The usual end-result of hung-parliament situations is that the leader of the largest single party either persuades at least one other party to form a coalition or is allowed by the other parties to form a minority government. Following that tradition, Cameron would have a good chance of taking over if he led the largest party, but much would depend on the negotiating skills of the various leaders.



[edit on 31-3-2010 by DISRAELI]

[edit on 31-3-2010 by DISRAELI]



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 06:24 AM
link   
Gordon Brown or David Cameron?
The prospect fills me full of dread and their presence as respective party leaders will, imo, ensure a hung parliament.

I am sure that some people would think that I, as someone who has previously advocated a coalition government, would welcome this.
Not now.
What this country needs is clear and decisive leadership and neither of those bumbling, spineless, visionless, bland buffoons can offer that.

Unpleasant and unpopular decisions are going to have to be made if this country is to get back on track.
This will require us, the electorate, getting rid of the self-serving, corrupt bunch of politicians we currently have, from all parties, and electing honest, pragmatic individuals who are free of political dogma and out dated party allegiances.
Unfortunately the archaic electoral system we have will not allow this and the vested interest of Labour /Tory party's will ensure the continuance of the status quo and subsequently the same old level of thinking etc that got us into this mess in the first place.

A hung parliament, Cameron or Brown?
I see no improvement until we have a radical overhaul of both electoral and parliamentary process that allows us to break free from the dogmatised party politcial system that is shackling us and dragging this country further and further down.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by captiva
The question in my mind is why at this time, with the threat of war in the ME, is this legislation now being pushed?


Surely this is being agreed precisely for that reason? If the UK plays in important role in said war (as I'm sure it will) then, from the rulers' point of view, a stable government would be crucial.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 06:58 AM
link   
The revolution is coming....

Plans are a foot....

Time to overturn these crooks



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by mr-lizard
Better than David 'I'm out of touch with reality' Cameron.

In fact if a small discarded sock got elected, i'd be much happier than if the tories ever got back in power.

As much as i never thought i'd hear this, i'd much rather Labour stay in power - as the thought of struggling under a Tory government is too much to bare.



Its true, Labour are really bad , but the Torries are realy realy bad. I'm thinking of biting the bullet and voting labour just to stop the Torries. I was going to vote Green, but may have to choose the lesser of two evils



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr

Originally posted by mr-lizard
Better than David 'I'm out of touch with reality' Cameron.

In fact if a small discarded sock got elected, i'd be much happier than if the tories ever got back in power.

As much as i never thought i'd hear this, i'd much rather Labour stay in power - as the thought of struggling under a Tory government is too much to bare.



Its true, Labour are really bad , but the Torries are realy realy bad. I'm thinking of biting the bullet and voting labour just to stop the Torries. I was going to vote Green, but may have to choose the lesser of two evils


And that my friend is the predicament we find ourselves in due to the inadequacies of the party politics system.

How can we justify voting in a party that has bankrupt this country, has lied to the population and to parliament, is morally corrupt and redundant, has tried to change the very fabric of society through social engineering and open door immigration, has failed in it's promises to improve education, the NHS etc, been complicit in murder and numerous other other broken promises and mis-doings yet is still seen as the most viable alternative as the other option is even more repugnant.

A damning judgement of our political system don't you think?



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 07:17 AM
link   
How can this be possible???????? This loon has never had a mandate to govern this country. I don't remember being given the opportunity to vote him in as PM after B Liar flounced off and now he will be able to remain as PM despite Labour not actually winning an election?????? Got to love our democracy.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Monkey Casino
How can this be possible???????? ...and now he will be able to remain as PM despite Labour not actually winning an election??????


Before we get too excited about this,we should remember that a hung parliament will only happen if the voters allow it to happen The choice is in our own hands. Vote decisively, one way or the other, and there will be no need for deals behind the scenes.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


Your, right, it's total mess. At a crucial time in this countries history, it seems things can only get worse. With a hung parliament likely, the economy is going to be under more strain. Don't really know what to say about it. I just can't see when people will ever take their politicians seriously again. the whole thing is rotten to the core.

It seems we are moving from a democracy to a Plutocracy.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Monkey Casino
 


For all the inadequacies of our electoral and parliamentary systems it is still better than some.

Contrary to what some people believe we do not vote for a Prime Minister in the same way the US electorate vote for a President.
We vote for constituency MP's who are aligned to certain parties.
These parties have their own ways of electing their leaders.
The party with most MP's becomes the government and the relevant party leader becomes Prime Minister.
It is perfectly legal and common for leaders of parties to change during a term in office and thus Prime Ministers change.

Gordon Brown is by no means unique in not being an 'elected' Prime Minister.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI

Originally posted by Monkey Casino
How can this be possible???????? ...and now he will be able to remain as PM despite Labour not actually winning an election??????


Before we get too excited about this,we should remember that a hung parliament will only happen if the voters allow it to happen The choice is in our own hands. Vote decisively, one way or the other, and there will be no need for deals behind the scenes.


Vote decisively, for a party riddled with PC do-gooders whose only concerns are personal advancement whose leader has bankrupt this country or a party whose only concern is to maintain the wealth of the well to do and the continuation of the statusquo and whose leader is an uper class twerp with no understanding of the realities of everyday life for the majority of British people.
Neither party is willing to put the cares and concerns of the British people first and merely wish to continue eating from the never emptying trough they have their faces in.

How can one be decisive when they are the only options.

My heart bleeds for this country!

We need radical reform NOW!



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


Maybe nit picking but yes, Plutocracy or Plutarchy, but all under the illusion of still living in a democracy.

Party Politics has failed this country.

As stated before on ATS, we need a modern day Cromwell, (minus his religous bigotry), to blow away the old and bring in a new, modern day form of government which put's the interest of the people first and foremost.


Oliver Cromwell Speech - Dissolution of the Long Parliament

Dissolution of the Long Parliament by Oliver Cromwell given to the House of Commons, 20 April 1653

"It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.

Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter'd your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?

Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil'd this sacred place, and turn'd the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd, are yourselves gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.

In the name of God, go!"



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 



As stated before on ATS, we need a modern day Cromwell, (minus his religous bigotry), to blow away the old and bring in a new, modern day form of government which put's the interest of the people first and foremost.



So, following the precedent, we look aroundfor an alternative, and end up with the Barebones Parliament, hmm?

Incidentally, I could not hope to better your clear and concise reply to Monkey Casino. I'm sure that won't be the last time we hear that argument in this election.



posted on Mar, 31 2010 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


Barebones Parliament?
Good grief, never I hope!

My allusion to Cromwell is merely that he had the balls to stand up to a corrupt Parliament that was out of touch with the zeitgeist of the day.

I don't have all the answers, but I would insist upon the increased use of referendum's and the use of current technolgy, the abolition of the party system and increased accountabilty of MP's to their constituents.

We need to start putting Britain first and forget all about social engineering and other PC nonsense which has done nothing positive whatsoever for the British people.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join