There's no constitutional requirement for Labour to call a General Election if they replace Gordon Brown. We vote for MPs aligned (usually) to a political party, the largest of which then chooses a leader and Prime Minister.
When Labour decided it'd had enough of Tony Blair (General Elections won: 3) and summoned its king over the water, he was annointed without anything as troublesome as a General Election, or indeed an internal party election. He was simply foisted upon us, and we were expected to be grateful.
Some observe that a repeat of this exercise, even if garnished with a Labour leadership election, would again mean there'd be no need of a General Election. Technically this is correct. Morally? Take your pick. Practically? No chance.
In such an event, the most common refrain would surely be "look at what happened last time you lot inflicted someone on us without bothering to ask." Deposing the leader without then submitting themselves to the country may not lance the boil. If anything, it may make the eventual day of reckoning an even ghastlier as the country punishes the whole party for its arrogant refusal to consult the electorate - a heavy defeat could become near-obliteration.
Would the Parliamentary Labour Party really choose a course that could see them out of power until the 2020s, and would that be a good thing? The sensible part of me thinks that lengthy reigns by one party are inherently unhealthy for any democracy; but most of me wants the bastards out for as long as possible. Sometimes, sadistic pleasure is too just much to resist.
When Labour decided it'd had enough of Tony Blair (General Elections won: 3) and summoned its king over the water, he was annointed without anything as troublesome as a General Election, or indeed an internal party election. He was simply foisted upon us, and we were expected to be grateful.
Some observe that a repeat of this exercise, even if garnished with a Labour leadership election, would again mean there'd be no need of a General Election. Technically this is correct. Morally? Take your pick. Practically? No chance.
In such an event, the most common refrain would surely be "look at what happened last time you lot inflicted someone on us without bothering to ask." Deposing the leader without then submitting themselves to the country may not lance the boil. If anything, it may make the eventual day of reckoning an even ghastlier as the country punishes the whole party for its arrogant refusal to consult the electorate - a heavy defeat could become near-obliteration.
Would the Parliamentary Labour Party really choose a course that could see them out of power until the 2020s, and would that be a good thing? The sensible part of me thinks that lengthy reigns by one party are inherently unhealthy for any democracy; but most of me wants the bastards out for as long as possible. Sometimes, sadistic pleasure is too just much to resist.
2 comments:
It would have been semi-bearable had people believed that Gordon Brown would actually be any good, but he's painfully inadequate in all aspects of the job. A career politician of minimal charisma whose much-vaunted decade in charge of the nation's finances has been the biggest political con of recent times.
Then I look at the contenders and see that Harriet Harman is among them. Now, if ever a politican's ambition outweights their ability...
Tell me, are your dismayed exclamations going to be purely political, or will you be gassing off on any topic which riles you?
Welcome.
Politics is certainly to feature highly - as the moth seeks the flame, so do the terminally dense covet and coalesce around positions of power.
Post a Comment