See when Brown came in he thought he could call a snap election and get a mandate but most of the country despised him for the way he treated Blair, so he baulked because he knew he'd lose.

Then of course everyone turned on him because he didn't call it, having originally promised to do so. So now as ever, an unelected government sits in power in the UK.

I wouldn't say that-he had a huge lead for 6 months and bulked because he was trying to get the conservatives to implode through pressure-a huge mistake IMO. All the polls showed he'd have won with a 50 seat majority had the dissolved parliment then... Constitutionally he's entirly correct BTW, he dosn't have to go to th country (Not to say he shouldn't have done so), Labour is the elected government in this country, whos in what minsterial position dosn't matter-the Prime Minister is the 'first amoung equals' if you have a vote when he changes you should technically have a vote whenever any ministerial position changes.

__________________
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. - Voltaire

There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare. - Art of War, Sun-Tzu, Chapter 2, Paragraph 6

"An eye for an eye makes everyone blind"-Gandi

What hyperbolic nonsense.

The worst in 60 years?

Let's take a look at the 70s: Britain had several years of double digit inflation, soaring interest rates, and a collapsing currency. Strikes crippled the nation. Productivity plummeted, as did living standards.

The situation was so bad that the IMF was called in to bring stability.

All of this happened while Germany, France, Italy and all of the medium sized economies on the European continent were still booming.

A statement like this is stupid and destructive.

__________________
"Our fears in Banquo
Stick deep; in his royalty of nature
Reigns that which would be fear'd: 'tis much he dares;
And, to that dauntless temper of his mind,
He hath a wisdom that doth guide his valour
To act in safety."

Macbeth 3:1

"Constitutionally"? You don't even have a constitution....

But yes he is entitled to under British Parliamentary proceedings, which is half the problem, its your political system that is screwed up.

And no he wouldn't have wom if he'd called a snap election...he would have lost. At this rate now though, there is likely to be a Torrie landslide, which is a 375 seat majority.

Actually we do, though its uncodified-it may not be a strong or simple as the US constituion but its certainly there. (Do you really want me to go into it though, its one of the most complex ones on the planet) but basically constitutionally he has to call an election every 5 years, and in an election people vote for a party not for the leader (actually they vote for there MP, who has to be part of a party, the person who leeds the most MP's becomes leader thus you can get coalition govs and split govs-like McDonalds in 1930)

Thats not what the polls are saying-and a 375 seat majority is virtually impossable and highly unlikley unless the Tories suddenly win all the inner cities and make major gains in Scotland. They'll win by 100-200 seats, not 300+. Even when Labour where under Foot in 1983 they didn't do that badly, dispite a split left vote with the SDP and the Falklands effect.

__________________
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. - Voltaire

There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare. - Art of War, Sun-Tzu, Chapter 2, Paragraph 6

"An eye for an eye makes everyone blind"-Gandi

Go on....

(I get all the other stuff you said but i wann see where its written in a constitution).

Thats the problem-the Constitution is 'uncodified'-it dosn't exist in a single document and large parts of it are unwritten. The British Constitution is far more all-encompasing than its American counterpart and is drawn from 4 main sources, though others can provide elements: Parlimentry Legislation, Royal Edicts, Common Law (Judge-Made Law) and Tradition/convention. To give you a simple example: The dissoloution of Parliment-you won't find exact instructions on how Parliment to be dissolved written in one document anywhere in the constitution but it is still a key part of it all: PArliment must dissolve every 5 years (1948 Parliment Act), Royal edicts and convention decree that only the Queen can dissolve Parliment (Magna Cater, Bill of Rights) and convention also disctates that she only does so when the PM asks her too.

Most of the PM's powers are via convention-the Royal Perogative-and thus arn't written down anywhere, indeed Lord Norton, Britians best constituional scholar, reckons that around 30% of the constitution is based on tradition and another 30% on Common Law. You won't find anywhere in British legislation that Theiving is a crime, for example, but it exists in Common Law. An example of this style of constituion changing in the Iraq War where there was a vote on it in Parliment, some theorists reckon that the PM has now handed his Royal Perogative to Parliment and will be forced to have a vote next time we go to war.

Another key idea is the sovreignty of Parlimnt-in the US the constitution is sovreign, in the UK PArliment is. That means every bill passed adds to the constituion, so the British constituion is of course huge-convention dictates that we ignore large parts of it. It is impossable to work out just how big and effctive it is and how much of it is 'waste' that could be cut from it: the last major survay was in 1848 by Dicey and it would take well over 30 years to do another one (and it would be futile as it changes in at least 150 diffrent ways every year).

__________________
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. - Voltaire

There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare. - Art of War, Sun-Tzu, Chapter 2, Paragraph 6

"An eye for an eye makes everyone blind"-Gandi