Disunity is the least of Liebour’s problems
Fatty Prescott has told the BBC “Today” programme that Liebour MPs should get behind their liability of a leader because “disunity kills”.
He didn’t call No Mandate Brown a liability of course, what he said was … you’ve guessed it … “the best man for the job”. Oh yes and he casually slipped in the fact that there is a global economic crisis, as has every other fucking Liebour stooge that’s managed to insinuate themselves onto the TV, radio or into a newspaper. 
Yes, we know there’s a global economic crisis and we also know that there is no pot of money to keep us solvent while the rest of the western world goes bankrupt because El Gordo pissed it all up the wall trying to buy votes with his prudent mis-management of the economy.
The simple fact is that El Gordo is a fucking liability. He’s a liability for Liebour and he’s a liability for the country. Liebour managed to ride out the storm when El Gordo was appointed supreme overlord of the People’s Republic of New Britain because it’s been done before – a Prime Minister resigns and some equally vacuous little shit gets his job without the inconvenience of convincing anyone to vote for him.
But two unelected Prime Ministers in one Parliament? That will be a bitter pill to swallow and I very much doubt that even in this modern age of politicians using the constitution to wipe their hairy arses with, Liebour will get away without calling a general election. This is why, despite most of the Liebour Party clearly having absolutely no faith in the ignorant jock, they are still trying to keep him in a job. They know there’s more chance of Chelsea fielding a full squad of Englishmen than there is of Liebour winning the next election and they want to cling on to power just that little bit longer to prime the ticking timebomb for the incoming Tory government.
Technorati Tags: Gordon Brown, Labour
This entry was posted
by wonkotsane on Thursday, September 18th, 2008 at 5:59 pm and is filed under General and is .
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
But surely, if we go for your system of 1 election, 1 PM, it will mean it is impossible to get rid of a useless PM?
How could he be voted out?
Would Gordo not be the equivalent of american Vice president?
Is your process not the final part of Blair plan to make the UK Pm the UK president?
would we not need a whole sale political reform and re design of parliment to allow this
September 18th, 2008 at 7:36 pmThe first reform needed is a separate election for Prime Minister. Why should someone be barred from running the country just because they don’t belong to one of the top 2 parties? Why can’t an independent lead the country? It might sound a bit Americanised to you but it would solve a lot of problems.
September 18th, 2008 at 7:53 pmA pedant writes:
Very harsh on Chelsea there, Arsenal would’ve been a more appropriate club to have picked on in that example
:-)
September 18th, 2008 at 9:08 pmbut under your system, how would a PM have any power?
Say for example Nick clegg won the prize as the prettiest plonker in parliment, how is he going to get anything done?
I suppose a good example wou;d be Ken livingstone, he was persona not grata at labour HQ, even though he was mayor
What about a system like the french?
Or what about like the germans, where the states keep most of their individual money, jerry, what are your thoughts?
September 18th, 2008 at 9:14 pmIcy, wasn’t it Chelsea that prompted the ruling on how many foreign players could play in a league match?
Axel, don’t you think the Prime Mentalist has too much power already? A coalition cabinet elected by proportional representation with a separately elected Prime Minister heading it up. Surely that’s got to be better?
September 18th, 2008 at 9:35 pmSo you think the primeminister wouldnt follow the agenda of any party but do what is right for the country?So why elect parties into parliament at all?And ofcourse the independent PM wouldnt be running for re-election in his party but surely still for his own re-election.I see your point about a PM not being reliant on a party and not trying to appeal to the people within the party by making stupid decisions but again why would you even elect parties into parliament if you dont want their agenda being used by the PM?
September 18th, 2008 at 10:39 pmAnd by the way the german state system isnt that great,they cant agree on anything for example bavaria decides they want only 12 years of school but every other state still has the 13 year system,it just turns into a huge mess especially if you then move from bavaria to another state.
A few months ago some of the states decided to ban smoking in one-room bars but others didnt,so if your a smoker and travelling through germany you might wanna check if you can actually smoke in that state or not!
And who implemented the system?You and the americans,AHH its driving me mad!As if taking waya poland wasnt enough.:)
We germans just love making fun of the polish,take a look at this if you got time:
September 18th, 2008 at 10:45 pmhttp://de.youtube.com/watch?v=Efd3tLi4KpU&feature=related
Jerry, I don’t like the party system anyway but I don’t see why independent elections for a PM wouldn’t work. Hold elections and allocate places in the cabinet by proportional representation. That way, everyone who voted stands a chance of getting their views represented.
Germany was regionalised way before we saved you from yourselves! You’ve not been reading this blog carefully enough because your two examples have already happened here. Children who started school in England this year will stay at school until they’re 17. The children who start in a couple of years time will stay until they’re 18. The school leaving age hasn’t changed in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland though. The smoking ban was introduced in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland way before it was introduced in England as well and the Scottish ban is tighter than the English ban.
September 19th, 2008 at 7:09 amJerry
I thought that system was a hangover from pre 1870 times when Germany was a geographical term instead of a country?
September 19th, 2008 at 9:02 amOfcourse the old system(lots of diffrent kingdoms and so on) played a role in the decision to create different states but this particular system was introduced by the allies so in the future it wouldn’t be so easy to take over the whole country.Back in the 19.century there were I think over 200 diffrent kingdoms in germany(geographical)until 1871 when the german empire was founded,all the kingdoms were united as one empire but the emperor had total control over all the kingdoms(by then regions).So I dont think you can say that the whole system originated from that time period.
September 19th, 2008 at 4:12 pmI’m not so sure about that, Karl gustav of sweden reduced the numbers in the 17th century, Freidrich the Great did his bit in 18th, Napoleon did his wee bit too, so by the time Bismark got Big Bill to Versaille in 1871, there were only the larger entities left but I did’nt know that Reich Law over rode royal law?
September 19th, 2008 at 4:40 pm