Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
The PM must be the leader of the Party that holds the majority of seats in Parliament.  The PM can resign the post, lose the post by losing their seat or by the party no longer holding a majority or by being ousted, no-confidenced or forced to resign by the party.

Alright - I think I knew this.  Perhaps I'm more ignorant of the political culture than the political system.  I've always considered the conventional wisdom to be that, of course there are disagreements, in-fighting, and power struggles with in the ranks and factions of all parties.  But everyone recognizes that there is power in numbers, so you do these things in private, and put on a show of unity to the people and the media.  Most people don't find that the rewards of losing or quitting their poltical position outweigh those of remaining in power in less than ideal circumstances.  And when party in-fighting becomes so serious and pervasive that it can no longer be glossed over, it is usually a sign of some fundamental, irreconcilable policy disagreements.  It's symptom of a public re-assessing its values.  

It's difficult for me to understand why a party would choose to cede power because of its disdain for one individual.  That's basically implying that your values, the issues you run on, are less important to you than the style or incompetence of one individual.  Am I mistaken, or does it seem to anyone else that Labour has decided it is better to have Tories running the place than Brown?  That's how the picture looks to me.  

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.

by poemless on Fri Jun 5th, 2009 at 04:13:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series