Gordon Brown and legitimacy

Posted on 5th June, 2009 by

Does anyone get sick of hearing the claim that Gordon Brown’s position as prime minister is illegitimate because he wasn’t directly elected? The story goes that because he never contested an election as prime minister, but took over in a “coronation” after the 2005 general election which wasn’t a “real” Labour leadership contest, he is somehow less of a leader than Tony Blair or John Major.

This is nonsense. In the 2005 election, the electorate knew that Tony Blair would stand down after a year or two, and that Gordon Brown was his likely successor. The only question was when Blair would stand down. As for the leadership contest, there was one; it is just that the “heavyweight” Labour MPs, who had aspirations for ministerial office in the likely event of Brown winning, did not stand against him. So, the Labour government was elected by an electorate with their eyes open. It is not as if they elected Blair, only for him to be deposed in some sort of palace coup, as Thatcher was in 1990.

I have long said that someone who craves a position of leadership, or feels entitled to one, is not fit for it, and this is my position with regard to Gordon Brown. However, the public knew he was going to be prime minister if they voted for Blair, and got him.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Possibly Related Posts:


FacebookTwitterIdenti.caDeliciousDiggStumbleUponWordPressShare
PoliticsPermalink
  • Thersites

    The electorate did not vote for Blair or Thatcher either: they voted for individual candidates in each constituency and Blair or Thatcher became P.M. as leader of the party with most seats in parliament. Brown in turn became P.M. after a party election. As you say, no-one stood against Brown because no-one was willing to- his victory was a walk-over and so you could argue it was more “legitimate”.

    “I have long said that someone who craves a position of leadership, or feels entitled to one, is not fit for it,” Satan uses much the same argument against god with equal validity.

  • http://www.blogistan.co.uk/blog/ Indigo Jo

    Yes, it’s true that people voted for MPs and not for a whole party. However, a vote for a Labour MP is tantamount to a vote for a Labour government, thus they knew it would lead to a Brown premiership. The bottom line is that he is no more or less legitimate than Blair or Thatcher, or John Major post-1992.

  • Old Pickler

    Quite. Brown is an appalling PM and I will be glad to see the back of him, but he is legitimate.

  • http://www.ablogwithmerodneyd.blogspot.com Rodney

    It seems to have been forgotten that in this country we elect governments rather than Prime Ministers.

    The argument that Browns leadership is not legitimate stems from the fact that the position of PM in this country is seen more in presidential terms.

    In saying this, if Labour we’re to remove Brown from Office I do believe there should be an election following the appointment of a new leader.