If you register for free, you will be able to post threads, vote on polls and lots more. If you have problems with the registration or logging in, please contact the administrator.
Originally posted by gamesrater:
even if this wasn't interweb gayness the only reason you want an election is to get rid of him. can't see how he could possibly resist.
heh yep
petitions ALWAYS work though?
10-12-2007, 01:53 PM
Petition the Prime Minister to Hold a general election in 2007 Post #22
Originally posted by Gregg Carter:
I don't want an election in 2007.
I'd rather Brown were given a chance to show us his vision for Britain rather than have the Tories in power. Does anybody seriously think Cameron would be a good leader?
All this stuff about how Brown doesn't have a madate to govern is utter balls as well. We don't elect a leader in this country, we elect a party.
The Labour party were given a madate to govern. It was well documented at the time that Tony Blair was highly doubtful of serving a full term and that Brown would almost certainly be the person to succeed him, so how people can turn around and argue against this suggests a complete lack of intelligence.
Even that's not strictly true really - a voter votes for an indivivdual! (not necessarily belonging to any party at that)
...and considering the Tories were harping on about "vote Blair, get Brown", it's some delicious gall to start bleating about the changeover.
10-12-2007, 01:54 PM
Petition the Prime Minister to Hold a general election in 2007 Post #24
Originally posted by Zaitsev:
<BLOCKQUOTE>Originally posted by Gregg Carter:
I don't want an election in 2007.
I'd rather Brown were given a chance to show us his vision for Britain rather than have the Tories in power. Does anybody seriously think Cameron would be a good leader?
All this stuff about how Brown doesn't have a madate to govern is utter balls as well. We don't elect a leader in this country, we elect a party.
The Labour party were given a madate to govern. It was well documented at the time that Tony Blair was highly doubtful of serving a full term and that Brown would almost certainly be the person to succeed him, so how people can turn around and argue against this suggests a complete lack of intelligence.
Even that's not strictly true really - a voter votes for an indivivdual! (not necessarily belonging to any party at that)
...and considering the Tories were harping on about "vote Blair, get Brown", it's some delicious gall to start bleating about the changeover. </BLOCKQUOTE>
Although we do vote for a person to represent us in government, the party that gets the most candidates is the party that is elected. Therefore, an election determines the party that will be in control.
10-12-2007, 02:00 PM
Petition the Prime Minister to Hold a general election in 2007 Post #28
hold on. of course he's going to try and pick the moment his party can be most successful. how the hell else do you expect him to be?
the 'fact' that he initially wanted an early election in itself was him "wanting the job" for longer... he thought if he could win an election early on then that would give him 'his' term in office.
so why the hell didn't you mind that decision, but suddenly hate it when he decides against it based on the way things panned out? it's just sense on his part.
But when you tell the press one thing and then do the opposite, especially in regards to something as important as calling an election, bells are going to start ringing.
10-12-2007, 02:02 PM
Petition the Prime Minister to Hold a general election in 2007 Post #29
Although we do vote for a person to represent us in government, the party that gets the most candidates is the party that is elected. Therefore, an election determines the party that will be in control.
However (I think was Zaitsev was alluding too?) one could for Person X - Labour. Labour win the election however a week later Person X joins the Conservatives and there would be no by-election.
Linear Mode
