callippo Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 I don't trust either of them but when you only have them to choose from then you don't have a choice apart from not voting at all that's not strictly true. As Harleyman will confirm, hundreds of people always run for president every four years. However only two ever have any real chance of winning. In 2008, 8 fringe party candiates were on the ballot in enough states so that they could have won the necessary 270 college votes and become president if enough people had voted for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drone Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 that's not strictly true. As Harleyman will confirm, hundreds of people always run for president every four years. However only two ever have any real chance of winning. In 2008, 8 fringe party candiates were on the ballot in enough states so that they could have won the necessary 270 college votes and become president if enough people had voted for them. I know what's true thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 I don't trust either of them but when you only have them to choose from then you don't have a choice apart from not voting at all Whereas under the Parliamentary system the winning party chooses the Prime Minister. What happens if you dont like the choice? Gordon Brown took over from Tony Blair but no one outside the party had a say in it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callippo Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Gordon Brown took over from Tony Blair but no one outside the party had a say in it no-one even inside the party had a say in it. He never actually ran as leader of the Labour Party. however in 2005 informed voters knew that it was Blair now, and probably Brown later and that Blair would resign before the next election which turned out to be in 2010 . It's just a different system. The Tories did make it a campaign issue. They did say, you're really voting for an old school Scottish socialist during the campaign. British PM is not the same kind of job, as a head of state American or French president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drone Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Whereas under the Parliamentary system the winning party chooses the Prime Minister. What happens if you dont like the choice? Gordon Brown took over from Tony Blair but no one outside the party had a say in it Yes Brown took over from Blair and wasent elected in but noone had a choice there too, he was a nightmare harley, constantly trying to undermine his cabinet, i remember jack straw once appearing on tv with a black eye, would love to know where he got that from Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callippo Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 if Brown was so bad, then why didn't Straw run up against him as leader then. He could have done it at any time or actively encouraged someone else to do it. Reflects badly on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drone Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 Because at the time it was hands on for brown to win so he didn't bother, you need to look at the history of labour and when tony and Gordon first took control of labour it was agreed between them that Blair would become the leader then eventually he would hand it to Gordon but as time went on, Gordon Brown regretted agreeing and was constantly trying to get Blair to quit so he could take over but after waiting for so long, he wasent up to the job Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callippo Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 I know plenty about the history of the Labour Party thanks. One of its features is that they don't get rid of crap leaders with enough alacrity. The Tories are far more ruthless. Brown was vulnerable to a properly organised coup of the type that did for Thatcher. The Labour Party either just didn't realise it, or else avoided it, and didn't want to know. Ultimately they don't seem to realise how brutal politics is. And it's cost them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drone Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 I know plenty about the history of the Labour Party thanks. One of its features is that they don't get rid of crap leaders with enough alacrity. The Tories are far more ruthless. Brown was vulnerable to a properly organised coup of the type that did for Thatcher. The Labour Party either just didn't realise it, or else avoided it, and didn't want to know. Ultimately they don't seem to realise how brutal politics is. And it's cost them. I was giving you the reason why straw didn't run against him, you asked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callippo Posted October 1, 2012 Share Posted October 1, 2012 the whole culture of the Labour Party means that leaders of the party who would be toast in other parties are allowed to stay as leader. They just didn't have enough bottle to mount a conspiracy to beat Brown. The Tories in 1990 didn't make the same mistake. They got rid of Thatcher despite her folk hero status, and who was if anything less of an electoral liability in 1990 than Brown was in 2009, and they won the next election as a result. Labour might have done the same. He who hesitates is lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.