The Transition
I understand that David Cameron has called for a snap election if Gordon Brown replaces Tony Blair as leader of the Labour and Prime Minister.

According to a Conservative Party press release, Cameron is quoted as saying "Tony Blair said at the last election he would serve a 'full term', so when he goes, no subsequent Labour prime minister can really in their heart claim to have a mandate. So it would be right actually to hold a general election as soon as is reasonably possible, because the British people thought they were electing Tony Blair. He's off. Someone new is coming. They need a mandate."



We might reflect on why Britain has never had a Prime Minister like Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush (two examples of individuals who, I believe, are not of the quality of any of our 20th or 21st century Prime Ministers). It is, I think, because while the leaders of our parties influence voters, they cannot reach that position without the support of members of parliament (a select and generally relatively informed group for whom biased and simplistic television advertising will not be an influence).

We should bear in mind that when we vote at a general election we are voting for an MP primarily and a party secondarily. It is questionable whether we are voting for a leader at all.

Consider this - there is nothing to prevent the leader of the winning party failing to be elected in his own constitnuency. If that happened then (whilst being theoretically constitutionally possible) it is unlikely they would become Prime Minister.

One of the points of a parliamentary democracy is that we elect MPs for a limited term. We assign to them delegated responsibility for decisions so that governments can progress policies without every decision being put to referendum. Is the decision as to who is the Prime Minister more important than most other decisions taken over a course of a parliament?

I feel Cameron is not being sensible. If we required an election every time a Prime Minister changed mid-term then it would probably reduce the inclination of certain MPs to take a decision to remove an incumbent Prime Minister because of fear of losing their seats.

In the past MPs have 'deposed' Margaret Thatcher and saved the country from a policy (the community charge / poll tax) that was generally unpopular. In a more dignified manner they have now 'deposed' Tony Blair by acting behind the scenes to make it aware to him as well that he is out of touch and cannot serve the full term that he intended.

So we have a safety valve. The electorate did not elect Gordon Brown as leader, but I cannot see that there is any need for an election - if in office he demonstrates he is not capable of the role then we have MPs who will replace him.

Perhaps if Gordon Brown stated that he wanted to move immediately in a radically different direction to that put forward by the Labour Party in their 2005 election manifesto then there would be a case for an election. However, I am not aware he has made any statements to that effect.

Along with most Green Party supporters, I am not a fan of Gordon Brown at present – his last budget was a disgrace from an environmental perspective – but I feel that is not relevant to this issue.

On that note, Brown is not the Prime Minister-elect anyway. The Labour party have yet to make that decision. Any Party should have more than one individual capable of being a good Prime Minister. The question is whether they will elect the right person, but I feel that Labour MPs (having had first-hand dealings with the individuals in the frame) are more likely to select the right person than members of the public. Even I, as someone who keeps abreast of current affairs, cannot really compare the merits of Gordon Brown with other competent Labour politicians based on what I read or hear second hand. If a government led by David Cameron is superior to any government put forward by the Labour Party puts forward then the Conservative Party can hardly cry foul - they could have put Cameron forward at the last election.