´óÏó´«Ã½

I wonder what the particular cabinet minister who said Brown as PM would be "an f-ing disaster" is thinking right now....?

What's going to happen to all those mugs Labour commissioned? So much for the fundraising opportunity and extra campaigning Labour were hoping to do.

Still, it's probably all for the best. The contest would have been a sham anyway - everyone knew Brown was going to win.

Brown and Putin have a lot in common then.

You see Nick, Labour is not the party of the past. I think you had predicted a small rebellion from the left, but not any more. Tony Blair has changed much much more then what the laymen can visualise. The fact that Labour MPs have behaved in such an unusual way and without the usual squabbles and infighting that go on behind the scenes, is a tribute to Tony Blair, cause he has actually changed the Labour party from the core. The fact that the lefties no longer have any say in the decisions have actually stopped them in their tracks. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown had understood this big problem that used to paralise the Labour Party and together they worked very hard to destroy the worm that gave us the horrible winters of the seventies, like Dennis Healey. And while on this subject, allow me to say that, unless the Conservatives make the same changes to their party, I see no future for them in office unless they start to make headway with fundumental changes, first of all to replace Cameron for a person that stays true blue and comes up with his/her own ideas and not copy or rearrange the wording or give a different colour to N.Labour's policies!

A stitch up...in the best Soviet tradition.

Das vidanya

Now that it is official, can we move on? Let's see what Brown has to offer and if he has something to offer. Politics is not about names, but about substance. Has he got what it takes to face the challenges in the Middle East? What can he do to avoid a rift between the European Union and Russia? What about the economy? I am one of those who believes that in two years time we could be talking about interest rates above ten percent.

Blair has resigned from the position of leader of the Labour Party, and will step down from the position of Prime Minister on 27 June, after serving a 'full term' as he said before the last election.

Why should Grabber Gordon assume the position of next Prime Minister? He has only been elected within the Labour Party to be their leader.

Because there will be no Prime Minister from 27 June, and the government has served a full term, we should now be allowed a general election to choose the next PM.

I'm surprised that you have not picked up on that point, or have I missed something?

Democracy does not appear to be this government's strongest suit.

This is a shame for the country and the party but mostly for Brown. No election means no Labor Party members (aside from MP's) get to register their opinion.
It would have been good for the Labour Party to debate the issues and show their satisfaction or otherwise for Brown. It would have been healthy for the Party as the vote was unlikely to be close and divisive. Instead it would have been informative and constructive.
I say it's bad for Brown because he won't explicitly know the feelings of the grassroots of "his" party. And we all know what happens to a party when they lose touch of the grassroots...

Can we have a break from it now then?

If Gordon Brown really did want a contest then he should have nominated John McDonnell himself.

Credit to Gordon for coming up with a plan and reading the atmosphere. I'll give him that. He's not the brightest, best, most tolerant, or affable of people but he seems to have some clue. Better he seizes the seat of power than some ignorant and disgraceful wannabe. It's a coup but better than a simpering sop to democracy that leads nowhere.

All hail the chief.

Now watch out for the civil war between factions.

GBs premiership is starting with a whimper as the left has been soundly thrashed. Or is it that many on the left see opportunities in the new GB reign and so wouldn't dare upset him this early?
But of course, after he has announced his first cabinet and sorted the minor posts out, some MPs who were behind him will have one eye on their electorate. That may mean trouble for GB as he tries to push through some of the less socialist policies Labour are now using.

I'd suggest Nick that the contest may be over, but the debate isn't. Labour is a funny party - endlessly toying with the joys of self-destruction even when in a position of power. Now, with a fresh new leader elected with a solid mandate from his party, I'd say that it is MORE likely, not less, that the comrades will break into recriminatory non-fraternal discussion. The old left (the Bennite left, as we used to call it) may not be the force it was for harm, but the insidious moaning of left-wingers about 'missed opportunities' will, I think, slowly sap the preception that the 'New Labour' project is still on. Mr Brown has an election to lose and some noisy backbenchers to help him lose it spectacularly.

A typical media blog designed to mislead. You know as well as I do that there as been a contest for the Labour Party leadership. Unfortunately for the media, Mr Brown scored a knockout blow in the first round.

So what will the media do now they cannot report that the Labour Party is split from top to bottom? All those column inches already compiled, all those videos already shot, what a waste, all for the bin.

I expect the media to stop reporting Mr Brown's tour of the country for two reasons:
If you cannot attack and distroy better to say nothing, and
One would look a fool to attack Mr Brown's policies one day only to find that Mr Cameron has adopted them the next, Grammer Schools are just the latest example.

And I think it's a huge shame. Not because I don't want Gordon Brown to be the PM (I do), but because this looks like a deliberate stifling of debate, and I'm always against that. It looks bad for him and for the party.

Millions of people would not have elected Labour if they thought for a moment that Tony Blair wasn't telling the truth about serving a full term.

I think there would have been a lot of people thinking "I'll vote for Labour this time but if Brown is the candidate I'll vote against him"

I don't know about you but I feel cheated.

As for Conservatives taking Labour policies I think you must have a very one sided and narrow view of politics. I'm no Tory fan but even I have to admit that the only popular policy decisions which Labour have made in the last 12 months are Tory policies which have been adopted to take the sting out of their election campaign. Good tactic and well played on Labours part but let's not be daft enough to try and claim them to be Labour's policies.

You can see how it is shaping up already.

The English are being truly punished for their total lack of interest in politics.

Now, we English are going to have yet another professional Scottish politician inflicted upon us.

Gordon Brown is so alien to English sensibilities that he might as well come from Mars.

English people need to think about how they are going to regain control of their country again, or are they going to let the SNP do it for them?

As I said previously it is a Coronation not an election,and looking at the posts on Have your say most of the population do not have a very high regard of him.Not only will he have to deal with Blairs errors,but also the Economy which he has been dealing with is also going pear shaped.With the SNP also after him as well it is going to be interesting time.

If only it was the case as #4 states.
Good old Gordon is still going to go to the hustings of the deputy leader campaign. To promote his policies. And there was I thinking that the Labour party policies for this term had been settled in the manifesto that they were elected on. Apparently not, Gordon is going to set out what he wants to do as if anyone has a chance of voting against. More a case of 'I wouldn't have done it like that, I'd have done it like this'

Shouldn't the statement be - Gordon is the next leader of the Labour party. He only gets to be prime minister if the Queen requests it?

I think, to be honest, that the idea that a PM must be chosen by democratic vote by the people each time (whilst it may be desirable for the future) is usually just something thrown around by oposition parties to see if they can smear a new PM before they start.

No British PM has ever been formally endorsed by a vote, as such - not a vote in the Commons, not a vote in the country. They can be voted out by the Commons in a no confidence motion(which is rare as hens' teeth), but I'm not aware that their successor has to be endorsed by a vote on coming into office. PMs are still, to be pedantic, technically appointees of the monarch, not elected by the people or their representatives.

Obviously a good few PMs have been appointed to the post off the back of a general election win for a party that endorsed their leadership - but that is still, really, such an indirect form of election as not be worth the name. And going back further, it wasn't automatic, even then.

So we ought to lay off Gordon. If his party doesn't want a fight for the leadership that's their issue. We have no legally established right to have a say in his taking office. Fact.

But then maybe once he's IN office we ought to lobby him for changes to the appointment process for PM in this new constitution he's rumoured to be so keen on...

So we're led to believe by Mr Brown that his Government will see an end to spin, and a reassertion of the need to focus on substance over appearance.

Within a week we're led to believe that the non-contest for Labour leader was just something that happened; that even if the Party had seen advantage in there being an election there still wouldn't have been one; and that there was nothing conscious about the moves made within the party to cause, or not to cause a leadership election.

Do they really think that we have not progressed intellectually further than a class of 8 year olds?

I am glad someone has already pointed tihs out, but can the ´óÏó´«Ã½ please be accurate on this. Gordon Brown has only been 'confirmed' as the next Labour leader. He will only be confirmed as Prime Minister in the event that the Queen invites him to form a government. Whilst is is highly unlikely that she will not do this, we cannot at this stage 'confirm' that he will be PM.

E Welshman is talking rubbish - Gordon Brown has every right to be Prime Minister now he is leader of the largest party in parliament.

FACT: Seven out of the last 12 Prime Ministers (i.e. most of them) became Prime Minister between elections: Chamberlain, Churchill, Eden, Macmillan, Home, Callaghan, Major. The only ones who became PM for the first time by winning an election are: Attlee, Wilson, Heath, Thatcher, Blair.

We don't vote for Prime Ministers, we vote for parties, that's just the way the system works.

Also, Nick, why do you keep saying there hasn't been a contest for the Labour leadership? There has been, there were two candidates and Gordon Brown won - McDonnell didn't even get enough votes to go through to the second round. The majority wins - that's democracy.

Why should England be run by a Scot? They have made it very clear that they don't wish to be run by England and yet we have to put up with a Labour party run by people who would not be elected into government if they only had to fight over England.

'Why should Grabber Gordon assume the position of next Prime Minister? He has only been elected within the Labour Party to be their leader.'

The leader of the largest party at Westminster becomes PM. That is how Westminster works.

If the largest party change leader, then the new leader becomes PM. We voted Labout in again so that is why we're getting Gordon Brown in charge, thts up to Labour.

i said all along that Gordon Brown is given the mandate to be PM unopposed and labour party has shown wisdom and maturity in electing their next leader as PM without wasting more time and resources.We can look forward to the 4th consecutive labour victory under Gordon Brown as visioned by none other than late Robin Cook.

I can not but wish the best to gordon brown, as a fellow brown and think that he will stop all the show-biz and give us a return to politics which is what we all want, real issues, real debate. The tories might think they have the beating of Gordon, but I feel he is a man like John Smith (the best leader of the labour Party and sadly missed) honest and trust worthy. So let's not knock before we know what we have. PS to those who claim that there should be an election to see who will be the next PM I didn't notice them shouting very loudly when thatcher was replaced by major....I wonder why?

Gordon Brown will be the next PM of the zombie political entity called UK/Britain.

Have you noticed, although it is a bit of a generalisation, that there are broadly only two groups of people that call themselves 'British' these days.

That is immigrants, especially recent immigrants, who are understandably looking for a new identity.

The other group are professional Scottish politicians working at Westminster.

I am English and I will only accept an English person as PM of England.

Nothing less will do, English people must shake off this political apathy and realise that this is one of those occasions where we have to take one step back to be able to move forward again.

Nigel R,

How many of those prime ministers leaving office did so after stating, before they were elected, that they would serve a 'full term' before they left?

What is the definition of 'full term' as stated by Blair?

My interpretation is that he meant that the government term would be completed when he finished in office.

Therefore we, the electorate, are entitled to choose the next Prime Minister.

This is the sixth time that we've changed Prime Ministers mid-term since the war (Churchill-Eden, Eden-Macmillan, Macmillan-Douglas-Home,Wilson-Callaghan, Thatcher-Major being the previous occasions), so it's not exactly as if it's new uncharted waters. I'm sorry, but the calls for a General Election from the opposition benches speak more of political opportunism then of a genuine commitment to increasing democracy.

Am I missing something? Isn't it only official when Her Majesty the Queen asks him to form a Government in her name. She could, in theory at least, refuse Tony's resignation, appoint someone different or disolve parliament altogether and let us have our say in a General Election.

In response to E Welshman's question back to me: the "full term" statement is a red herring. Prime Ministers don't serve "terms" like Presidents.

So, for that reason, no Prime Minister has ever before said "I promise to serve a full term". Thatcher, of course, notoriously said "I intend to go on, and on, and on". Well, she broke that promise didn't she? Not her choice, you may argue - well, it's not Blair's choice to be going right now, I suspect, his party has got rid of him as the Tories did Thatcher.

The point is, it's the party's right to do that, and so long as we have our current system of Monarch appointing Prime Minister there's nothing any of us can do about it.

If you want a direct say in who is PM in the future, join the political party of your choice and vote in their leadership election.

Nigel R,

Red herring or not, Blair said that he would serve a 'full term'.

We all suspected when he said it, he was going to stay in office until his 'Labour record' 10 years had elapsed.

He left at the time of his choosing - he was not hounded out in the same fashion as was Margaret Thatcher.

Therefore, he has served his 'full term' and the government should offer a general election to choose the next Prime Minister.

Hi Nick,
I'm no Tory, says Tony Platts, but the popular policies adopted by Labour are Tory policies.
Now let's see:
One year maternity leave, (soon paternal as well).
Baby Bonds.
Pensions linked to salaries (again)in 2 years.
Independent Bank of England.
Minimum Wage.
The Welsh Assembly.
The Scottish Parliament.
Academy Schools, etc, etc, etc!
The decision to go to war was a Tory foreign policy, cause they would have done into Iraq before 9/11, except that the British did not trust them to be at the helm of this great country.
So who has one sided view? And while on the subject of policies, who has just made another U-Turn in Education?
You're correct, Cameron, or is it the Tories, the headless copycats!
Some people are opting to have selective memories!