GreekChat.com Forums

GreekChat.com Forums (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/index.php)
-   News & Politics (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/forumdisplay.php?f=207)
-   -   UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown to step down (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/showthread.php?t=113488)

DaemonSeid 05-10-2010 02:37 PM
UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown to step down
 
London, England (CNN) -- British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Monday he will step down as leader of his party after it was defeated in parliamentary elections last week.

"As leader of my party I must accept that that is a judgment on me," he said.

He is asking his Labour Party to begin preparations for a new leadership contest in which he will not be a candidate, he said. That effectively means he is on his way out as prime minister.

He said he hoped a new leader would be in place by the next party conference, which is scheduled for September.

The move may clear the way for a deal to keep his party in power after elections last week left no party with an absolute majority in parliament.

Brown said a Labour-Liberal Democrat alliance made sense, given the results of Thursday's vote.


link

moe.ron 05-12-2010 03:14 AM
The Conservative Party joining up with the Liberal Democrat. That is going to be a very interesting coalition, since the two parties have little in common.

MysticCat 05-12-2010 08:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by moe.ron (Post 1927708)
The Conservative Party joining up with the Liberal Democrat. That is going to be a very interesting coalition, since the two parties have little in common.
Yep. But it seems to have a lot to do with Cameron and Nick Clegg being able to get along.

Psi U MC Vito 05-12-2010 10:40 AM
Hmm interesting. But it makes sense considering that even if Labour and the Liberal Democrats formed a coalition it still would have been a minority government.

Psi U MC Vito 05-14-2010 12:11 AM
Does nobody care about this?

RU OX Alum 05-14-2010 12:41 AM
I do. I find it very interesting. I like the idea of Liberal Democratic-Conservative coalition in the government. Probably get the best ideas from both put into action. Hopefully, anyway.

Drolefille 05-14-2010 12:50 AM
It's interesting but this is the part of the British government that I find i understand best through the Daily Show's explanations. That and I had no real opinion about Brown, and no true understanding of how a coalition government will be run or how long it will last since it seems like you can call for elections on an irregular schedule in Britain.

Psi U MC Vito 05-14-2010 12:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille (Post 1929058)
It's interesting but this is the part of the British government that I find i understand best through the Daily Show's explanations. That and I had no real opinion about Brown, and no true understanding of how a coalition government will be run or how long it will last since it seems like you can call for elections on an irregular schedule in Britain.
Well the PM can dissolve parliament whenever he wants to. However a parliament can only be in session for 5 years maximum. Very rarely does it run the full five years though since it can be dissolved earlier. With a minority or coalition government, there is also a possibility of a motion of no confidence.


RU OX http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...agreement.html

That is their official agreement. Now I wonder how much of it will come true.

RU OX Alum 05-14-2010 03:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito (Post 1929061)
Well the PM can dissolve parliament whenever he wants to. However a parliament can only be in session for 5 years maximum. Very rarely does it run the full five years though since it can be dissolved earlier. With a minority or coalition government, there is also a possibility of a motion of no confidence.


RU OX http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...agreement.html

That is their official agreement. Now I wonder how much of it will come true.
Thanks!

I think it will hold for a couple of years at least. I think the question of switching to euro anytime soon has been put to rest as Greece pretty much screwed that up.

A left/right coalition in the UK is really quite remarkable given the overall political sitiuation on the international level. I hope they take the good ideas from each party though, and not just nonsense parts.

Labor barely won any. Could the LDP be the new "other" party? That's what I find really interesting in this.

MysticCat 05-14-2010 08:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito (Post 1929061)
Well the PM can dissolve parliament whenever he wants to.
I just have to pick a nit here. :D

The Prime Minister can ask the Queen to dissolve Parliament and call for new elections whenever he wants to. But it's the Queen, not the PM, who can actually dissolve Parliament.

Psi U MC Vito 05-14-2010 10:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticCat (Post 1929101)
I just have to pick a nit here. :D

The Prime Minister can ask the Queen to dissolve Parliament and call for new elections whenever he wants to. But it's the Queen, not the PM, who can actually dissolve Parliament.
Good point MC. But in reality the Crown always dissolves Parliament when asked. The last time that he didn't was way back in 1923. If Elizabeth was asked to dissolve and she refused, it might cause a constitutional crisis.

I don't know RU OX how long this will last. As my friend said, it's a match made in hell. And some of the changes they want are huge, especially some of the political ones. I personally think that as soon as the Lib Dems get proportional representation, they are bailing. And Labour still did pretty well in the election, if not as well as the Conservatives. The Lib Dems are still the third party. If it wasn't for the fact that they still wouldn't have had a majority anyway, they would have joined with Labour instead.

MysticCat 05-14-2010 12:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito (Post 1929134)
Good point MC. But in reality the Queen always dissolves Parliament when asked. The last time that he didn't was way back in 1923. If Elizabeth was asked to dissolve and she refused, it might cause a constitutional crisis.
Very true, and I was just gigging you a little. Nevertheless, there are protocols that must be followed, and I think we Americans tend to not fully appreciate the role the Crown has in government (the Queen-in-Parliament). My son and I were hearing the story on NPR about Brown resigning and a "new government" in the UK. The "new government" caught his ear, as it sounded to him like a new system of government. We discussed what it means in the British context, including how Brown didn't just resign, he submitted his resignation to the Queen, who on accepting it invited David Cameron to form a new government.

The decision to dissolve Parliament is the government's; the power to dissolve Parliament is the Crown's.

Psi U MC Vito 05-14-2010 12:15 PM
Actually MC there is one thing I was wondering. Clegg was appointed as both Deputy PM and Lord President of the Council. I know DPM has no de jure powers, but he might have a decent amount of de facto power over the rest of the cabinet. But what I do wonder, is how much power does the Lord President of the Council have? I know he leads the Privy Council and that the Cabinet is part of the Privy Council. However that is the limit of my knowledge of the Privy Council.


ETA: Also surprised you didn't take opportunity to rib me for calling George VI a Queen lol.

MysticCat 05-14-2010 12:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito (Post 1929194)
ETA: Also surprised you didn't take opportunity to rib me for calling George VI a Queen lol.
I new what you meant. :D

The Privy Council does have some power, but I'll have to read up on the Lord President.

Drolefille 05-14-2010 07:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticCat (Post 1929101)
I just have to pick a nit here. :D

The Prime Minister can ask the Queen to dissolve Parliament and call for new elections whenever he wants to. But it's the Queen, not the PM, who can actually dissolve Parliament.
Either way, it's still weird. Crazy Brits! Perhaps they should actually write up one of these here constitutions so they can keep things straight!

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticCat (Post 1929200)
I new what you meant. :D

The Privy Council does have some power, but I'll have to read up on the Lord President.
I caught MysticCat in a typo!

In truth, I follow the stories but my brain just glosses over the details when it comes to UK politics. Mostly I just know I'd like to have Question Time here, heckling and all. I used to watch Blair do that on C-SPAN all the time.

Psi U MC Vito 05-14-2010 09:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille (Post 1929340)
Either way, it's still weird. Crazy Brits! Perhaps they should actually write up one of these here constitutions so they can keep things straight!
LOL. Yes I will agree that their way of running things is strange to us. But it has evolved over a thousand years or so. And while they might not have a constitution, they do have various legal documents that they hold to. Our bill of rights was based heavily on the Magna Carter for instance. And even not taking that into account, they take their traditions seriously. There are so many unwritten conventions that have the force of law now. Theoretically the Queen has enormous power. In reality she can't use most of it without causing a constitutional crisis. It is really interesting how things ended up the way they did.

Drolefille 05-14-2010 09:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito (Post 1929352)
LOL. Yes I will agree that their way of running things is strange to us. But it has evolved over a thousand years or so. And while they might not have a constitution, they do have various legal documents that they hold to. Our bill of rights was based heavily on the Magna Carter for instance. And even not taking that into account, they take their traditions seriously. There are so many unwritten conventions that have the force of law now. Theoretically the Queen has enormous power. In reality she can't use most of it without causing a constitutional crisis. It is really interesting how things ended up the way they did.
Oh believe me I know, I just can't help but enjoy that someone's political system seems crazier than ours. Although the short campaign period would be a great thing to copy.

Psi U MC Vito 05-14-2010 09:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille (Post 1929357)
Oh believe me I know, I just can't help but enjoy that someone's political system seems crazier than ours. Although the short campaign period would be a great thing to copy.
I honestly do like the fact that parliament can be dissolved anything and that elections are shortly after. However that is one of the things that the current Government wants to change. And honestly the PM generally speaking can get a lot more done then the president can, mostly because the PM by his nature has the majority of Commons behind them. While I love this country, I do think that the older British system has some good things going for it.

Drolefille 05-14-2010 09:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito (Post 1929360)
I honestly do like the fact that parliament can be dissolved anything and that elections are shortly after. However that is one of the things that the current Government wants to change. And honestly the PM generally speaking can get a lot more done then the president can, mostly because the PM by his nature has the majority of Commons behind them. While I love this country, I do think that the older British system has some good things going for it.
I agree, though like I said, I mostly want the Question Time for purely selfish purposes.

Psi U MC Vito 05-14-2010 09:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille (Post 1929363)
I agree, though like I said, I mostly want the Question Time for purely selfish purposes.
LOL. The heckling? Though I do think it is a good idea for purely political reasons.

Drolefille 05-14-2010 09:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito (Post 1929365)
LOL. The heckling? Though I do think it is a good idea for purely political reasons.
Yes the heckling. Plus I think it could be good for the political *cough* pwnage. I think Obama would be good at it too. ;)

But regardless I think it is worthwhile. Although that whole head of state thing means that the pres makes the trips abroad more than if he were just head of government.

Psi U MC Vito 05-15-2010 11:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille (Post 1929369)
Yes the heckling. Plus I think it could be good for the political *cough* pwnage. I think Obama would be good at it too. ;)

But regardless I think it is worthwhile. Although that whole head of state thing means that the pres makes the trips abroad more than if he were just head of government.
Not just abroad. I always thought combining head of state and government into one position was a bad idea. The President spends more time making various appearances, granting awards and doing a bunch of other ceremonious things instead of actually running the country.

Drolefille 05-15-2010 11:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito (Post 1929533)
Not just abroad. I always thought combining head of state and government into one position was a bad idea. The President spends more time making various appearances, granting awards and doing a bunch of other ceremonious things instead of actually running the country.
Indeed, although because he can't control Congress his level of being able to 'run' the country is lower. Our way has benefits but theirs does too.

RU OX Alum 05-16-2010 11:13 AM
Maybe there should be question time with the Speaker of the House?

Drolefille 05-16-2010 11:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RU OX Alum (Post 1929718)
Maybe there should be question time with the Speaker of the House?
Not quite the same thing though. I mean our pres. wouldn't quite be the same thing either, but if the President and the Speaker are of the same party, it makes more sense to have the President do it. If they're not, it doesn't make as much sense, but I'm not sure that the Speaker is more ideal than the Senate Majority Leader or the President.

RU OX Alum 05-16-2010 01:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille (Post 1929723)
Not quite the same thing though. I mean our pres. wouldn't quite be the same thing either, but if the President and the Speaker are of the same party, it makes more sense to have the President do it. If they're not, it doesn't make as much sense, but I'm not sure that the Speaker is more ideal than the Senate Majority Leader or the President.
It just seems to correlate more. And I don't really like that which party is involved having much to do with it. That's what totalitarianists do. Combine offices and such.

Drolefille 05-16-2010 01:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RU OX Alum (Post 1929747)
It just seems to correlate more. And I don't really like that which party is involved having much to do with it. That's what totalitarianists do. Combine offices and such.
Speaker is only in charge of one house, not of the government as a whole. President is nominally at least head of government but if he does not have a majority in the house/senate then he's not necessarily making policy either. Unlike the PM who is only the PM as long as his party is in the majority. So yes in some ways it works and some it doesn't. I just don't think it'd be as interesting to have Congress talking amongst themselves.

Psi U MC Vito 05-17-2010 09:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RU OX Alum (Post 1929747)
It just seems to correlate more. And I don't really like that which party is involved having much to do with it. That's what totalitarianists do. Combine offices and such.
Well the Westminster system is a pretty unique one. It evolved from an absolute monarchy, which would be a totalitarian regime, but with a democracy taking place over the centuries. Strictly speaking it is still an absolute monarchy in fact. Acts of Parliament can't pass without the approval of all three parts, including the Crown. And the cabinet are strictly speaking advisers to the Crown.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille (Post 1929749)
Speaker is only in charge of one house, not of the government as a whole. President is nominally at least head of government but if he does not have a majority in the house/senate then he's not necessarily making policy either. Unlike the PM who is only the PM as long as his party is in the majority. So yes in some ways it works and some it doesn't. I just don't think it'd be as interesting to have Congress talking amongst themselves.
Yeah Official Questions just would not work here. However maybe it would work if during the State of the Union address or another joint session questions were asked of the big 3. And to pick a nit, the PM is PM as long as he supports a majority, doesn't have to be just his party as the current situation shows. Also there is no legal requirement for that, as the Queen still has the right to appoint whoever she wishes.

MysticCat 05-17-2010 11:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille (Post 1929340)
I caught MysticCat in a typo!
Friday was definitely the day I didn't get enough caffeine. :D

Drolefille 05-17-2010 12:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito (Post 1929940)
Well the Westminster system is a pretty unique one. It evolved from an absolute monarchy, which would be a totalitarian regime, but with a democracy taking place over the centuries. Strictly speaking it is still an absolute monarchy in fact. Acts of Parliament can't pass without the approval of all three parts, including the Crown. And the cabinet are strictly speaking advisers to the Crown.

Yeah Official Questions just would not work here. However maybe it would work if during the State of the Union address or another joint session questions were asked of the big 3. And to pick a nit, the PM is PM as long as he supports a majority, doesn't have to be just his party as the current situation shows. Also there is no legal requirement for that, as the Queen still has the right to appoint whoever she wishes.
Ah yes that makes sense, it's just 'what is done' so to speak. I suspect that will continue until/if the Queen/King says "screw you I like Joe" (Though I'm sure it would be said very regally) and then they'll change things :p



Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticCat (Post 1929971)
Friday was definitely the day I didn't get enough caffeine. :D
Hee.

Psi U MC Vito 05-17-2010 01:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drolefille (Post 1929996)
Ah yes that makes sense, it's just 'what is done' so to speak. I suspect that will continue until/if the Queen/King says "screw you I like Joe" (Though I'm sure it would be said very regally) and then they'll change things :p
Well while she does have the right, doing so would violate decades if not centuries of tradition. So while legally she does have the ability, in reality she can't exercise it.

Psi U MC Vito 05-23-2010 04:08 PM
Well as an update the Speech from the Throne is this Tuesday. It should let us know how close to the agreement HM Government will actually attempt to stay.

RU OX Alum 05-23-2010 04:51 PM
I'm still hopeful.

MysticCat 05-26-2010 11:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito (Post 1933222)
Well as an update the Speech from the Throne is this Tuesday. It should let us know how close to the agreement HM Government will actually attempt to stay.
I actually DVRed the Queen's Speech yesterday, but I haven't had a chance to really watch it yet.

The BBC was noting that although the Lord President of the Council does have a role in the State Opening of Parliament, Nick Clegg chose to participate as a member of Commons, not as Lord President.

Just call me a politigeek. :o


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:25 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.