Tuesday, May 01, 2007

Political statement

I don't think it is democratic for there to be almost a year between the ruling party appointing a new leader and the electorate having a say.

I know we supposedly don't vote for the PM in the UK political system. We vote for MPs... but in a country where the leader behaves increasingly like a president, and personality politics mean we do vote for the PM by default its unacceptable for us to have a leader imposed upon us over the next few weeks. We will be stuck with him until next spring at the earliest.

To add insult to injury he is Scottish, at a time when the prospect of Scotland voting for independence is very real.

We need a general election in the autumn - as a matter of priority. Before that man can do too much damage.

In the meantime, how amusing would it be if Scotland declared independence and made him, a Scottish MP in London, redundant. Would that get rid of him?

2 comments:

Josh said...

Argh, I hate stupid internet explorer! I'll rewrite my comment now, shall I? Bastards.

Ahem. What I was going to say before I was so rudely interrupted, is that this is far from unprecedented. John Major got in this way, so did Churchill. It's true that if you didn't vote Labour in 2005 then it's exasperating to get a new PM in this way. But it's those who did that selected the current government, and they surely cannot have been under any illusions that Brown would become PM. It was sold as "vote Blair, get Brown" - so much so that many are complaining that it has taken this long to move to Brown! I don't think there is anything really dodgy about continuing without a general election.

cardinalsin said...

"Those who did that = those who voted Labour", in case it isn't clear.

Locations of visitors to this page