Crosswords2 mins ago
Autumn Election
Did Brown bottle it due to the Conservatives narrowing the gap in the polls?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles /pollsanddebates/pollsanddebates.html?in_page_ id=2006
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles /pollsanddebates/pollsanddebates.html?in_page_ id=2006
Answers
1 to 7 of 7
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by 4GS. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Well I'm a Tory but I would not say "Bottled it" was the right term. From Brown's point of view he doesn't want to be the shortest serving PM in history so I guess he's being cautious and I don't blame him, the electorate are fickle why take chances when you don't have to? Also if I read it right Cameron's would have loved an election now so he has less time to screw up! I don't think we have the best leader at the moment, of course I would prefer any Tory to the New Labour rabble though!
I've been hoping someone will bring this subject up. I'm not a Brown supporter, but at long last some common sense has prevailed.
Brown is NOT A PRESIDENT - he does not need 'his own mandate'. He is leader of a government which at present commands a substantial majority in the House of Commons which has over half its legal term left to run.
If Brown had taken over say 3� or 4 years into a term then it would have been understandable to call an election.
All this election hysteria has been whipped up by (a) the press and broadcast media who are longing for the chance to get all their whizzy charts, polls and other stuff on the go, and (b) political apparatchiks who at last would have some justification for their jobs.
For Brown to call an election now would at best be irresponsible. If he came out of it with a majority smaller than he presently has, then he would risk his position. Even if he improved his position, he would have spent (and caused to have spent by others) a lot of money which would be better spent elsewhere.
The press, other media and all the other little political types need to have a cold shower.
Maybe the rules should be changed so that a PM can call an election (or rather, ask the Queen for a dissolution) only after at least 3� years of a term, unless there is a compelling reason such as a defeat in the Commons on a motion of confidence.
Brown is NOT A PRESIDENT - he does not need 'his own mandate'. He is leader of a government which at present commands a substantial majority in the House of Commons which has over half its legal term left to run.
If Brown had taken over say 3� or 4 years into a term then it would have been understandable to call an election.
All this election hysteria has been whipped up by (a) the press and broadcast media who are longing for the chance to get all their whizzy charts, polls and other stuff on the go, and (b) political apparatchiks who at last would have some justification for their jobs.
For Brown to call an election now would at best be irresponsible. If he came out of it with a majority smaller than he presently has, then he would risk his position. Even if he improved his position, he would have spent (and caused to have spent by others) a lot of money which would be better spent elsewhere.
The press, other media and all the other little political types need to have a cold shower.
Maybe the rules should be changed so that a PM can call an election (or rather, ask the Queen for a dissolution) only after at least 3� years of a term, unless there is a compelling reason such as a defeat in the Commons on a motion of confidence.
1 to 7 of 7
