If Gordon Brown takes over from Tony Blair in the next few weeks, as expected, should he call an immediate general election?

In a YouGov poll 51 % of British people said 'yes' he should. If he does, is David Cameron prepared?

Actually we vote for a member of Parliment at a general election not a Prime Minister, but I agree with the sentiment about Gordon Brown.
But atleast we can kick him out at the next election, we have no say who rules us in Europe.
Mr Blairs next job I think ELpresidente Blair!!

Did anyone seem the Rory Bremner sketch where Blair tried to impersonate Brown in an attempt to stay in power. Dressing up in a wig and putting on a fake accent?

Whether it's Blair or Brown, it's still a Blairite government, with it's innate hypocrisies and inconsistencies. So if he calls an election now, tomorrow or a years time, the end result is the same. Dave will win, Gordon will lose.

Votedave, I think you are right, much to everyone's frustration there will be no election this year. Still, I have an old Panama you can have if we are wrong.

Brown is unelectable, but what do I know? I would never have elected Blair in the first place.

But lets face it. Remember the "Stalin" remarks from a couple of months ago.

Well the fact that 313 plus MPs nominated him is because they knew that Stalin is now in charge, brooks no opposition and has a long long memory.

The cowards!, the b*$&*&^ds!. This is a democracy. Blair knew as he endorsed Brown that it was a disastrous decision... as I said elsewhere it is the first time I have seen Blair diffident when lying maybe because it was actually a lie he did not really want to tell.

Ah but Jonjii, there is another reason for making Brown leader. With looming Scotish independance, having a scot in power in London is a very smart political move.

I don't have an answer to that. But if, as is fair and just, the Scot, Welsh and N Irish members of Westminister were denied the vote over English only matters (not affecting them) Brown would be in the invidious position of being denied a vote in his own House. (Oh what happiness that would bring)

tbh, I think that after two terms (i.e.4 years + 4 years), a leader must step down and a new general election called..
I think this is what happens in America, and to me seems the best way to solve problems like these..

The problem with that, Geddes, is that you have lame duck administrations in the second term. Tony admitted he made a mistake (yes, he did!) in announcing he was stepping down so soon after the 2005 election, for this reason.

Back to the original thread, I believe a change of Prime Minister should automatically trigger a General Election.

Can't see the Conservatives accepting that. They've been through leaders like kleenex in the last decade.

Perhaps jonjii it was not that it was because it was a lie but because it was because he did not believe it was the right thing to do. I do not like Blair but I do believe he did what he thought, correctly or otherwise, was right. I think Blair knows that putting Brown in charge was a betrayal of those who voted labour and the rest of the country alike.

That's even worse - that means that 'lame duck' Prime Ministers will stay in power as long as they can to avoid having to call a General Election. Essentially it would mean that standing down and calling an election are exactly the same thing - AND it gives the Prime Minister the power to say to the cabinet/ministers "do what I say, or I'll stand down and you guys will have to simultaneously choose a new leader AND prepare for a general election"...

Too many problems, I think