Brown unopposed and WILL be next PM

[Tom_NUFC 0]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6660565.stm

 

Gordon Brown has secured the backing of enough MPs to ensure he will not face a contest to become the next Labour leader and prime minister.

Mr Brown has 308 nominations prompting his only rival, left-winger John McDonnell, to concede. He was 16 nominations short of the 45 required.

 

Mr McDonnell said he was disappointed on behalf of Labour Party members and it was a "blow to democracy".

 

Mr Brown now looks set to become leader unopposed when Tony Blair steps down.

 

Nominations close on Thursday, but there are not enough remaining MPs to allow Mr McDonnell to run.

 

'Mathematically impossible'

 

He said: "With Gordon Brown having gained 308 nominations from Labour MPs, it is now mathematically impossible for me to reach the nominations I require to stand. There will not now be an election."

 

He congratulated Mr Brown, but said it was a shame party members would be denied "an opportunity of participating in a democratic election for the leader of this party".

 

"I had hoped by standing I would have given them a voice in this crucial decision."

 

Mr Brown's campaign said they would await the formal voting figures announced by the party on Thursday before making any statement.

 

Labour MP for Cannock Chase, Dr Tony Wright, earlier told the BBC he had nominated Mr Brown as leader, but it had not yet been added to the Labour Party website.

 

This gives the chancellor more than the 308 nominations needed to avoid a contest.

 

Labour MP Andrew Mackinlay's office has reportedly said he would be nominating Mr Brown, although this has yet to be confirmed by the BBC.

 

A Labour spokesman said the party would not be commenting further on the nominations until they closed at 1230 BST on Thursday.

 

Remaining MPs

 

Of the other MPs yet to declare, the speaker cannot nominate and the deputy speaker, Sylvia Heal, has told the BBC she will not nominate anyone.

 

That leaves 15, including former home secretary Charles Clarke and former welfare reform minister and longstanding opponent of Mr Brown, Frank Field.

 

Earlier Mr McDonnell said he would "play until the whistle" to get sufficient support.

 

He told MPs: "Year in year out we rely on Labour Party members to deliver our leaflets, knock on doors, and fund the party with their small subscriptions and yet they will be excluded from participating in this election unless Labour MPs nominate me in the next 24 hours."

 

Candidates who get 45 or more nominations go to a ballot of party members, trade unionists and Labour MPs and European Parliament members.

 

Support pooled

 

In the deputy leadership contest, in which there are six candidates, only International Development Secretary Hilary Benn - with 42 nominations - has yet to get through to the national ballot.

 

Backbencher Jon Cruddas, Education Secretary Alan Johnson, Justice Minister Harriet Harman, Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Hain and Labour chairman Hazel Blears have all got through.

 

It is thought 38 Labour MPs have yet to nominate a deputy leadership contender.

 

Those candidates who make it on to either ballot paper will take part in 10 hustings around the country ahead of a special conference in Manchester on 24 June, when the new leader and deputy leader will be named.

 

Mr Blair and deputy Labour leader John Prescott will hand over on 27 June.

[Lazarus 0]

Absolute disgrace if this happens.

 

Should call a general election tbh.

[rikko 20]

This really is a poor show from the labour party. I was hoping some mps would back him just to give an option. Never ever expected anyone other then brown to win but was hopeful for at least a contest to raise issues...

 

As for calling a general election anyone who didn't see brown taking over is either very stupid or very naive.

[Lazarus 0]

This really is a poor show from the labour party. I was hoping some mps would back him just to give an option. Never ever expected anyone other then brown to win but was hopeful for at least a contest to raise issues...

 

As for calling a general election anyone who didn't see brown taking over is either very stupid or very naive.

 

Its been planned for years - but in a perfect world an election should be called.

 

 

And anyway - what sort of lunatics would put an accountant in charge of a country?

[Tom_NUFC 0]

Absolute disgrace if this happens.

 

Should call a general election tbh.

 

I think it's a shame on the part of Labour MPs that there isn't a contest to allow grassroots party members their say.

 

But I don't agree that there should be a general election, because there never has been in these situations before. When Callaghan succeded Wilson, and when Major followed Thatcher there wasn't general elections.

 

It must be remembered that we don't vote for a single person. We vote for a party to govern.

 

Even in situations around the world where a person is voted for, a change doesn't always mean an election.

Look at the USA. The US Presidential election is very much a 'personality election' but if a President is killed or impeached, the Vice President automatically takes over and remains as president for the rest of the Presidential term until the next scheduled Presidential elections.

 

I don't agree that there should be a general election.

[Craig 6703]

Whatever happened to democracy??

 

And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Labour berate the Tories when Howard was elected leader unopposed?

[luckyluke 2]

I don't see how this is a failure of democracy. MPs choosing to back Brown over other candidates is a democratic choice. And as Tom says, we vote for the party to govern, not the person. It's up to the party to choose its leader.

[Jimbo 175]

Absolute disgrace if this happens.

 

Should call a general election tbh.

 

 

Quite right, Gordon Brown doesn't have the mandate of the public, it should go to a general election.

 

Although I can't see any of them deserving of my vote.

[Steve 0]

In your recent elections, Labour won the most seats therefore they lead the government. Their leader, Tony Blair was therefore Prime Minister. Now that he's stepped down, the members of parliament that were voted for by the public have acted on their constituents behalves in nominating their preferred leader of their party.

 

Anyone calling this a breakdown of democracy is an idiot.

[Jimbo 175]

In your recent elections, Labour won the most seats therefore they lead the government. Their leader, Tony Blair was therefore Prime Minister. Now that he's stepped down, the members of parliament that were voted for by the public have acted on their constituents behalves in nominating their preferred leader of their party.

 

Anyone calling this a breakdown of democracy is an idiot.

 

 

Do you seriously think that despite the election of MP's in a general election that electorate vote on the basis of their local representative ? of course not, the overwhelming reason for voting is your favoured preference of the party as a whole and the leader of which that will lead the country.

[Steve 0]

In your recent elections, Labour won the most seats therefore they lead the government. Their leader, Tony Blair was therefore Prime Minister. Now that he's stepped down, the members of parliament that were voted for by the public have acted on their constituents behalves in nominating their preferred leader of their party.

 

Anyone calling this a breakdown of democracy is an idiot.

 

 

Do you seriously think that despite the election of MP's in a general election that electorate vote on the basis of their local representative ? of course not, the overwhelming reason for voting is your favoured preference of the party as a whole and the leader of which that will lead the country.

 

The thing is though, the way the system of government works is that you vote for your local representative. I don't know which way you voted but let's say you voted Labour. You didn't vote for Tony Blair directly, you voted for your local rep. What you just said has merit, but technically, in the way the whole system works, you voted for your local member of parliament. I acknowledge your argument, and I accept that's how some people vote, but the simple fact is that if your local rep is a Labour member, he or she put forward their choice of leader of the Labour party on their area's behalf. It's just the way it is. That's how democracy works in the system used here. It'd be the same for me at home.

[Jimbo 175]

In your recent elections, Labour won the most seats therefore they lead the government. Their leader, Tony Blair was therefore Prime Minister. Now that he's stepped down, the members of parliament that were voted for by the public have acted on their constituents behalves in nominating their preferred leader of their party.

 

Anyone calling this a breakdown of democracy is an idiot.

 

 

Do you seriously think that despite the election of MP's in a general election that electorate vote on the basis of their local representative ? of course not, the overwhelming reason for voting is your favoured preference of the party as a whole and the leader of which that will lead the country.

 

The thing is though, the way the system of government works is that you vote for your local representative. I don't know which way you voted but let's say you voted Labour. You didn't vote for Tony Blair directly, you voted for your local rep. What you just said has merit, but technically, in the way the whole system works, you voted for your local member of parliament. I acknowledge your argument, and I accept that's how some people vote, but the simple fact is that if your local rep is a Labour member, he or she put forward their choice of leader of the Labour party on their area's behalf. It's just the way it is. That's how democracy works in the system used here. It'd be the same for me at home.

 

 

Agreed, thats how it works in principle, but I seriously doubt many people's votes are decided on local issues or on which of the local representatives are a better spokesman for the area, its far more a national decision than a local one.

[ewerk 31667]

In your recent elections, Labour won the most seats therefore they lead the government. Their leader, Tony Blair was therefore Prime Minister. Now that he's stepped down, the members of parliament that were voted for by the public have acted on their constituents behalves in nominating their preferred leader of their party.

 

Anyone calling this a breakdown of democracy is an idiot.

 

 

Do you seriously think that despite the election of MP's in a general election that electorate vote on the basis of their local representative ? of course not, the overwhelming reason for voting is your favoured preference of the party as a whole and the leader of which that will lead the country.

 

Aye but tbf you'd have to be a complete fucking idiot to vote Labour in the last election and not realise that Brown was going to take over as leader. When you voted Labour you voted Brown, simple as that.

[luckyluke 2]

In your recent elections, Labour won the most seats therefore they lead the government. Their leader, Tony Blair was therefore Prime Minister. Now that he's stepped down, the members of parliament that were voted for by the public have acted on their constituents behalves in nominating their preferred leader of their party.

 

Anyone calling this a breakdown of democracy is an idiot.

 

 

Do you seriously think that despite the election of MP's in a general election that electorate vote on the basis of their local representative ? of course not, the overwhelming reason for voting is your favoured preference of the party as a whole and the leader of which that will lead the country.

 

The thing is though, the way the system of government works is that you vote for your local representative. I don't know which way you voted but let's say you voted Labour. You didn't vote for Tony Blair directly, you voted for your local rep. What you just said has merit, but technically, in the way the whole system works, you voted for your local member of parliament. I acknowledge your argument, and I accept that's how some people vote, but the simple fact is that if your local rep is a Labour member, he or she put forward their choice of leader of the Labour party on their area's behalf. It's just the way it is. That's how democracy works in the system used here. It'd be the same for me at home.

 

 

Agreed, thats how it works in principle, but I seriously doubt many people's votes are decided on local issues or on which of the local representatives are a better spokesman for the area, its far more a national decision than a local one.

 

It's the way that governement has always worked in this country - we don't vote for a person, we vote for a party. It's not like Labour have shifted the goalposts to let Brown in.

 

And as ewerk says, it was obvious at the last election this was going to happen. "Vote Blair get Brown" was their unoffical election slogan ffs!

[Guest alex]

Not all that different to when Major took over really. Except no one is standing against Brown. Still no General Election though.

[luckyluke 2]

Not all that different to when Major took over really. Except no one is standing against Brown. Still no General Election though.

 

Yeah I was going to post that. 17 years ago that.

[Craig 6703]

I don't see how this is a failure of democracy. MPs choosing to back Brown over other candidates is a democratic choice. And as Tom says, we vote for the party to govern, not the person. It's up to the party to choose its leader.

 

Which I think is fundamentally wrong and therefore a failure of democracy.

 

The sitting government was elected with Blair's policies in mind. It's inevitable that another leader is going to have differences in opinion and it's well known that Blair and Brown have clashed more than once on policy in the past.

 

In the same respect that I think a General Election should have been called when Thatcher quit, I think one should be called now.

 

No matter how much we may kid ourselves that a party is elected rather than a person, it's not. Labour lost in 1992 because the electorate didn't want Kinnock as PM without a shadow of a doubt.

[Craig 6703]

In your recent elections, Labour won the most seats therefore they lead the government. Their leader, Tony Blair was therefore Prime Minister. Now that he's stepped down, the members of parliament that were voted for by the public have acted on their constituents behalves in nominating their preferred leader of their party.

 

Anyone calling this a breakdown of democracy is an idiot.

 

 

Do you seriously think that despite the election of MP's in a general election that electorate vote on the basis of their local representative ? of course not, the overwhelming reason for voting is your favoured preference of the party as a whole and the leader of which that will lead the country.

 

Aye but tbf you'd have to be a complete fucking idiot to vote Labour in the last election and not realise that Brown was going to take over as leader. When you voted Labour you voted Brown, simple as that.

 

I thought you voted for a local MP, not a national Prime Minister....

 

Given your theory though, I am glad I didn't vote Labour 2 years ago.

[luckyluke 2]

I don't see how this is a failure of democracy. MPs choosing to back Brown over other candidates is a democratic choice. And as Tom says, we vote for the party to govern, not the person. It's up to the party to choose its leader.

 

Which I think is fundamentally wrong and therefore a failure of democracy.

 

The sitting government was elected with Blair's policies in mind. It's inevitable that another leader is going to have differences in opinion and it's well known that Blair and Brown have clashed more than once on policy in the past.

 

In the same respect that I think a General Election should have been called when Thatcher quit, I think one should be called now.

 

No matter how much we may kid ourselves that a party is elected rather than a person, it's not. Labour lost in 1992 because the electorate didn't want Kinnock as PM without a shadow of a doubt.

 

I think voting for a party to govern is more democratic than voting for a person (i.e. like the Presidential elections in America). Recently Congress voted to pull troops out of Iraq but Bush had the authority to vetoe it, I don't want a leader with that kind of power here.

[Guest alex]

Is a party having the majority of the seats in the Commons on the back of getting 36% of the popular vote more of a failure of democracy though?

[Lazarus 0]

New primeminister + new cabinet = new government.

 

 

yay for democracy.

 

 

 

also - heres some interesting reading http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2060108...&refer=home

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 4098]

If you don't like the system of govt in Britain then Vote Liberal Democrat it is the only party who will change it. Otherwise stop whining if you want change vote for it. As for new PM + New Cabinet + new govt. Yes your right however the government has always been formed by the party with the largest majority and that is Labour. Also the policies are made up by the whole party not just one person. It just so happens that the majority of the Labour executive were right up Blair's arse so acquiesced to all of his proposals. This is not a failure of a type of democracy (there is no such thing as a singular definition of Democracy) it is how our form of democracy works.

[Bazooka_From_Viduka 0]

If you don't like the system of govt in Britain then Vote Liberal Democrat it is the only party who will change it. Otherwise stop whining if you want change vote for it. As for new PM + New Cabinet + new govt. Yes your right however the government has always been formed by the party with the largest majority and that is Labour. Also the policies are made up by the whole party not just one person. It just so happens that the majority of the Labour executive were right up Blair's arse so acquiesced to all of his proposals. This is not a failure of a type of democracy (there is no such thing as a singular definition of Democracy) it is how our form of democracy works.

 

 

The Liberal Democrats are the perfect example of whats wrong with our version of democracy