There is a valid argument for any new Prime Minister to seek a valid mandate from the electorate for his office, but I do question the unnecessary expense when we are not even half way through the authority given in the June 2005 election.
This is another issue the media have created to replace the Maddie non-story. If the PM does want to ask the country for approval then he will let everyone know, it's a legal requirement. Why are the media inisisting that "shortening daylight hours" after October creates a barrier to an election later? BBC Breakfast this morning mentioned that this was a serious issue which lowers electorate turnout? Boll***s.
I happen to know we have progressed as far as streetlamps in Plymouth, and cars even have headlights so we can drive to polling stations. Presumably media people don't understand this. We don't just come out of our houses at sunrise and retreat to them at sunset. Are these people trying to be deliberatly patronising or are they so desperate for a new story that they have to whip up enthusiasm for another one which doesn't exist yet.
who don;t vote for people, but a party! I.e at the last election labour party won so there still have a mandate till June 2010: It doens;t matter who in control as it the party.
I don;t understand people who want an election as there voted for Party,
Your right we don't vote for the leader, in theory how our system works, you should vote for the candidate that will serve you and your community the best, although in most this seems to have long since forgotten!
The incomming leader of any party mid term will want to get a clear mandate if they feel they have a chance of winning, otherwise in the eyes of the media it will always come up! also and new leader will have a period where they are popular, and it makes sence if your way out in front to call the election during that time to give you a full term in office at least.
I agree with you about the longer nights argument, think that is more a historical argument, although there will be some wards in more rural areas which turn would possibly be lower due to less daylight, I know a lot of people where I used to live which was semi rural which would walk down to the polling station after dinner, who may decided not to bother. We have to face that generally our turn out at elections is falling not increasing, so to put anything which may discourage turnout is not good.
I would say that the reason it has to be october or next spring is because the they couldn't garantee the weather, and again more people vote when it's dry than when it's wet! or ofcourse if you had an election in jan / feb you run the risk that there could be snow in certain area's which would stop people voting, and then cause for the election to be redone, which would cause expence and confusion all round.
I somehow doubt Gordon will call and election this year, I think he will wait for probably a year to 18 months but that's just my gut instinct at the moment, think the labout party have been very good at dropping little clues to the media to get them talking about them, and an election while the conference season is on, which will ofcourse try to overshaddow the Tory conference next week. And ofcourse wrong foot the oposition.
I'd be surprised if Brown didn't call an election very soon, with the lead he's currently got in the polls. He's virtually guaranteed to win if he holds one now, but leaving it till next year or beyond seems far too risky for such a "prudent" man; things can go very wrong very quickly in politics.
It's weird to think that everyone under 50 has never voted in an autumn or winter general election before.
Yes true but things can change quickly during an election campaign too, will he want to put the possibilty of only being pm for a couple of months with a labour goverment! he could find himself having to lead up a coallition govenment if dave's torys turn out to be quite good at during the campaign.
He's a prudent man, but also quite a cautious one too, not sure he'd run the risk yet after waiting so long to be pm, without being garanted to be able to win!
Some of you are talking like being prime minister is Gordon Brown's birthright!
He's a politician who has spent the last decade taxing, taxing and taxing some more. I'm utterly sick of it. When the Conservatives dump Cameron and bring back Hague, I will vote for them again.
If there is a general election either next month or next summer, then I will not be voting for either Labour or Conservative. I'd rather give my vote to UKIP.
I have to agree with your admiration for William Hague. He is probably the only leader the Tories have had of late who I could imagine actually becoming Prime Minister, and also the only recent leader who still commands a lot of respect across the political spectrum. It was a shame that he stepped down when he did - if he'd have stuck it out, the Tories would probably be in a lot better shape now.
I've always swung towards Conservative, but I'm just getting bored of David Cameron. I can't see him inside Number 10. George Osborne would have been much better - whenever I see him interviewed, he always comes across well and seems to know his stuff. If the Tories end of getting shot of Cameron anytime soon (and to be honest, I can see it happening sooner than you may think) then I hope they go for Osborne. And get rid of that stupid tree logo.
I have to say I was very much against GB's "coronation" as presumed leader and annointed heir to Blair. However, I have been quite impressed by his rather low-key approach to dealing with what has been quite a turbulent summer and possibly a "baptism of fire" for him.
As he often states, he has been just "getting on with the job" and most notably without the spin and constant media hype that enveloped the Blair years. I thought "Dave" would be a new direction for the Conservatives; it has been, but unfortunately it's downwards.
I would probably be reluctant to vote in a General Election at the moment. I think we need a change but there isn't a reasonable alternative on offer. If ever in doubt between Labour and Conservative in the past I have gone for LibDem. But in all honesty I couldn't vote for the guy they let out of the retirement home to host press conferences every so often. I preferred the drunk they had before
StuartPlymouth wrote:I have to say I was very much against GB's "coronation" as presumed leader and annointed heir to Blair. However, I have been quite impressed by his rather low-key approach to dealing with what has been quite a turbulent summer and possibly a "baptism of fire" for him.
I must have spent the summer living on another planet, then. All that has happened this summer has been Maddening McCann and the Northern Rock fiasco. Hardly edge-of-the-seat stuff.
Jamez wrote:I must have spent the summer living on another planet, then. All that has happened this summer has been Maddening McCann and the Northern Rock fiasco. Hardly edge-of-the-seat stuff.
It possibly was quiet on Planet Jamez in deepest Wales.
I was thinking more of floods, foot & mouth, terrorist attacks and financial fiasco. I was leaving Maddening McCann out of the equation. Still hardly the quiet summer our politicians normally get.
