HE
I still want to know why as soon as someone becomes Prime Minister, the different media organisations suddenly stop showing their name in astons at all....
TV
The point is, precedent is not binding.
Whilst it would be highly likely that DC would fall to a vote of no confidence (and I note that this does not stop him becoming PM first, before having a vote of no confidence), would Jack Straw or David Milliband?
Obviously the Queen is GOING to choose Gordon Brown, but it is incorrect to aston him as if she is OBLIGED to do so.
Perhaps he could be astoned as
Gordon Brown
Sole Labour Leadership Contender
This is correct, and implies that he is likely to be the next PM.
StuartPlymouth posted:
By precedent the Queen
MUST
ask the leader or representative of the largest party in the Commons. If she chose David Cameron, he would simply be defeated by a vote of no confidence within days and a General Election would follow 28 days later.
Since GB has "in effect" been elected Labour Leader, she must call for him on 27 June. Anything else would be improper and set an new precedent. Even if GB stood down (or was run over by a bus) whoever was elected as Deputy Leader (assuming they weren't all crossing the road at the same time) would be called upon to be PM (as they would be Acting Labour Leader - as Margaret Beckett was when John Smith died)
There is no scope for a Constitutional Crisis, despite the absence of a written one. It is set by precedent, as is English Common Law.
Since GB has "in effect" been elected Labour Leader, she must call for him on 27 June. Anything else would be improper and set an new precedent. Even if GB stood down (or was run over by a bus) whoever was elected as Deputy Leader (assuming they weren't all crossing the road at the same time) would be called upon to be PM (as they would be Acting Labour Leader - as Margaret Beckett was when John Smith died)
There is no scope for a Constitutional Crisis, despite the absence of a written one. It is set by precedent, as is English Common Law.
The point is, precedent is not binding.
Whilst it would be highly likely that DC would fall to a vote of no confidence (and I note that this does not stop him becoming PM first, before having a vote of no confidence), would Jack Straw or David Milliband?
Obviously the Queen is GOING to choose Gordon Brown, but it is incorrect to aston him as if she is OBLIGED to do so.
Perhaps he could be astoned as
Gordon Brown
Sole Labour Leadership Contender
This is correct, and implies that he is likely to be the next PM.
:-(
A former member
Just "Gordon Brown" surely would suffice! It would get rid of this argument for the time being.
Some evil thoughts going on there Stuart?
One thing that really winds me up about all this though is Tory newspapers going on about "there should be a general election blah blah". Putting aside the unpleasantness that is GB's undemocratic "election" to be leader of the Labour Party (nothing actually wrong has happened here but it is rather cloak-and-dagger the way everyone has stepped aside), what Labour are doing with Brown is no different whatsoever to the Thatcher-Major handover, and I find the political opportunism of the Daily Mail quite sickening on this issue (not that that surprises me!!).
Quote:
(assuming they weren't all crossing the road at the same time)
Some evil thoughts going on there Stuart?
One thing that really winds me up about all this though is Tory newspapers going on about "there should be a general election blah blah". Putting aside the unpleasantness that is GB's undemocratic "election" to be leader of the Labour Party (nothing actually wrong has happened here but it is rather cloak-and-dagger the way everyone has stepped aside), what Labour are doing with Brown is no different whatsoever to the Thatcher-Major handover, and I find the political opportunism of the Daily Mail quite sickening on this issue (not that that surprises me!!).
RM
Or Macmillan/Douglas-Home, or even Wilson/Callaghan
The thing to bear in mind is that we vote parties into power in this country (via candidates representing the parties), rather than the Prime Minister directly.
I feel the annoying thing about the current situation, is that Tony Blair pledged to serve a full third term, and he has gone back on that. Many people will have voted for Labour on the understanding that he would serve a full term, therefore they are now angry-- although I suppose you could argue that sections of his party have turfed him out.
Why not aston Gordon Brown as "Chancellor of the Exchequer" still? As I said earlier that is what he still is, until Blair quits as PM at the end of June (he has only quit as party leader after all).
jason posted:
Just "Gordon Brown" surely would suffice! It would get rid of this argument for the time being.
Some evil thoughts going on there Stuart?
One thing that really winds me up about all this though is Tory newspapers going on about "there should be a general election blah blah". Putting aside the unpleasantness that is GB's undemocratic "election" to be leader of the Labour Party (nothing actually wrong has happened here but it is rather cloak-and-dagger the way everyone has stepped aside), what Labour are doing with Brown is no different whatsoever to the Thatcher-Major handover, and I find the political opportunism of the Daily Mail quite sickening on this issue (not that that surprises me!!).
Quote:
(assuming they weren't all crossing the road at the same time)
Some evil thoughts going on there Stuart?
One thing that really winds me up about all this though is Tory newspapers going on about "there should be a general election blah blah". Putting aside the unpleasantness that is GB's undemocratic "election" to be leader of the Labour Party (nothing actually wrong has happened here but it is rather cloak-and-dagger the way everyone has stepped aside), what Labour are doing with Brown is no different whatsoever to the Thatcher-Major handover, and I find the political opportunism of the Daily Mail quite sickening on this issue (not that that surprises me!!).
Or Macmillan/Douglas-Home, or even Wilson/Callaghan
The thing to bear in mind is that we vote parties into power in this country (via candidates representing the parties), rather than the Prime Minister directly.
I feel the annoying thing about the current situation, is that Tony Blair pledged to serve a full third term, and he has gone back on that. Many people will have voted for Labour on the understanding that he would serve a full term, therefore they are now angry-- although I suppose you could argue that sections of his party have turfed him out.
Why not aston Gordon Brown as "Chancellor of the Exchequer" still? As I said earlier that is what he still is, until Blair quits as PM at the end of June (he has only quit as party leader after all).
BS
I'm inclined to agree.
It's a bit like what someone said earlier in the thread about GB being labelled as "UK Finance Minister" on non-UK television, given that "Chancellor of the Exchequer" would mean sod-all to, say, Australians or whoever.
There's no point in an aston being "technically/officially" correct (in terms of a person's job title, etc), if it's not gonna be understood by the viewers. Astons are there to inform viewers, rather than to adhere to the "that's not his correct official precise job title" anoraks!
gilsta posted:
The problem with that, from a television presentation point of view, is it means the report then has to introduce him incase the viewer is unfamiliar with who he is and the fact he is expected to be PM. The fact he is Chancellor is not of much use to the viewer, particularly in context of the speeches he has been giving of late.
Surely the point of an aston is to provide some information that may benefit the viewer and make the everyone's life easier, giving GB's current job title is not as useful to the viewer as knowing that he SHOULD be the next Prime Minister.
Surely the point of an aston is to provide some information that may benefit the viewer and make the everyone's life easier, giving GB's current job title is not as useful to the viewer as knowing that he SHOULD be the next Prime Minister.
I'm inclined to agree.
It's a bit like what someone said earlier in the thread about GB being labelled as "UK Finance Minister" on non-UK television, given that "Chancellor of the Exchequer" would mean sod-all to, say, Australians or whoever.
There's no point in an aston being "technically/officially" correct (in terms of a person's job title, etc), if it's not gonna be understood by the viewers. Astons are there to inform viewers, rather than to adhere to the "that's not his correct official precise job title" anoraks!
NS
it's not just the Prime Minister ... Uk broadcasters don't name the US President or the Pope, or the Queen.
NickyS
Founding member
hertfordian posted:
I still want to know why as soon as someone becomes Prime Minister, the different media organisations suddenly stop showing their name in astons at all....
it's not just the Prime Minister ... Uk broadcasters don't name the US President or the Pope, or the Queen.
RM
I'm inclined to agree.
It's a bit like what someone said earlier in the thread about GB being labelled as "UK Finance Minister" on non-UK television, given that "Chancellor of the Exchequer" would mean sod-all to, say, Australians or whoever.
There's no point in an aston being "technically/officially" correct (in terms of a person's job title, etc), if it's not gonna be understood by the viewers. Astons are there to inform viewers, rather than to adhere to the "that's not his correct official precise job title" anoraks!
Well UK viewers known (or ought to know) who the Chancellor Exchequer, and he still is the Chancellor. I don't care about the speeches he has been making of late, he still isn't PM.
Tony Blair was in HoC todays performing his role of PM-- not Gordon Brown!
brotherton sands posted:
gilsta posted:
The problem with that, from a television presentation point of view, is it means the report then has to introduce him incase the viewer is unfamiliar with who he is and the fact he is expected to be PM. The fact he is Chancellor is not of much use to the viewer, particularly in context of the speeches he has been giving of late.
Surely the point of an aston is to provide some information that may benefit the viewer and make the everyone's life easier, giving GB's current job title is not as useful to the viewer as knowing that he SHOULD be the next Prime Minister.
Surely the point of an aston is to provide some information that may benefit the viewer and make the everyone's life easier, giving GB's current job title is not as useful to the viewer as knowing that he SHOULD be the next Prime Minister.
I'm inclined to agree.
It's a bit like what someone said earlier in the thread about GB being labelled as "UK Finance Minister" on non-UK television, given that "Chancellor of the Exchequer" would mean sod-all to, say, Australians or whoever.
There's no point in an aston being "technically/officially" correct (in terms of a person's job title, etc), if it's not gonna be understood by the viewers. Astons are there to inform viewers, rather than to adhere to the "that's not his correct official precise job title" anoraks!
Well UK viewers known (or ought to know) who the Chancellor Exchequer, and he still is the Chancellor. I don't care about the speeches he has been making of late, he still isn't PM.
Tony Blair was in HoC todays performing his role of PM-- not Gordon Brown!
DO
The thing to bear in mind is that we vote parties into power in this country (via candidates representing the parties), rather than the Prime Minister directly.
I feel the annoying thing about the current situation, is that Tony Blair pledged to serve a full third term, and he has gone back on that. Many people will have voted for Labour on the understanding that he would serve a full term, therefore they are now angry-- although I suppose you could argue that sections of his party have turfed him out.
Why not aston Gordon Brown as "Chancellor of the Exchequer" still? As I said earlier that is what he still is, until Blair quits as PM at the end of June (he has only quit as party leader after all).
I very much doubt anyone believed Blair when he said he would serve a full third term or that anyone is angry that he is not going to. His departure date was always most likely to be halfway through the current term, and so it has proved.
And sorry to be pedantic, but as far I can tell Blair is still Labour leader. I presume he formally resigns on the 24th June and will be immediately replaced by Gordon Brown.
I agree that we vote parties into Government, not Prime Ministers. Of the five PM's that came to power between elections since 1945, only one, Eden, called an immediate election, and that government had already served four years.
Roger Mellie posted:
The thing to bear in mind is that we vote parties into power in this country (via candidates representing the parties), rather than the Prime Minister directly.
I feel the annoying thing about the current situation, is that Tony Blair pledged to serve a full third term, and he has gone back on that. Many people will have voted for Labour on the understanding that he would serve a full term, therefore they are now angry-- although I suppose you could argue that sections of his party have turfed him out.
Why not aston Gordon Brown as "Chancellor of the Exchequer" still? As I said earlier that is what he still is, until Blair quits as PM at the end of June (he has only quit as party leader after all).
I very much doubt anyone believed Blair when he said he would serve a full third term or that anyone is angry that he is not going to. His departure date was always most likely to be halfway through the current term, and so it has proved.
And sorry to be pedantic, but as far I can tell Blair is still Labour leader. I presume he formally resigns on the 24th June and will be immediately replaced by Gordon Brown.
I agree that we vote parties into Government, not Prime Ministers. Of the five PM's that came to power between elections since 1945, only one, Eden, called an immediate election, and that government had already served four years.
MA
As he becomes Leader of the Labour Party today, What will he be referred on name captions?
1) Gordon Brown - Chancellor of the Exchequer
2) Gordon Brown - Leader of the Labour Party
3) Gordon Brown - Prime Minister Designate
On BBC News in the last few weeks it has being Gordon Brown - Chancellor of the Exchequer but today's Politics Show it was Gordon Brown - Prime Minister Designate.
1) Gordon Brown - Chancellor of the Exchequer
2) Gordon Brown - Leader of the Labour Party
3) Gordon Brown - Prime Minister Designate
On BBC News in the last few weeks it has being Gordon Brown - Chancellor of the Exchequer but today's Politics Show it was Gordon Brown - Prime Minister Designate.