If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
World leaders no one voted for?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Just interested to know how many world leaders there are in power who are in that position but no one voted for them?
Gordon Brown of course tops my list, anyone else?
I think South Africa's leader is also someone no one voted for ..
Gordon Brown of course tops my list, anyone else?
I think South Africa's leader is also someone no one voted for ..
0
Comments
Yeah ... he is the Chinese leader. Plus you have Omar al-Bashir (Sudan), Kim Jong-il (North Korea), Than Shwe (Burma), Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe), Islam Karimov (Uzbekistan), King Abdullah (Saudi Arabia), Saparmurat Niyazov (Turkmenistan), Seyed Ali Khamane’i (Iran) and Teodoro Obiang Nguema (Equatorial Guinea) amongst others..
Every British Prime Minister ever? We don't vote for a leader, we vote for the political party. Prime Minister =/= President. He is simply the leader of the government which is elected by the people, but it's up to that political party to decide which MP they want as the leader.
I did start a thread saying maybe we should have a president as well, but it was met with mixed reactions.
Also, Israel? Benjamin Netanyahu's party Likud only got 21% of the vote yet he is the prime minister. Not sure if 1 in 5 people counts as an elective majority especially since Kadima got 22% of the vote.
Elected by the College of Cardinals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_conclave
Ok then, Jesus
But as others have said, we don't vote for a leader, we vote for a government which chooses it's own leader. Like I pointed out, the same system in many other countries (Israel, many European countries) where it's even worse because the prime minister might be someone from any of the coalition parties, so you could vote for one party and they 'win' but another party forms a coalition and you get a prime minister who only one in ten voted for their party.
A presidential system would be intesting and even good in the UK. But the pace of change of politics in the UK is far, far too slow for there to be anything other than the current system in the next 50 - 100 years.
Well as you say they were moaning this was going to happen before the General Election so its hardly a suprise they continued to moan when it happened. You could claim its hypocrisy as they did the same with Thatcher and Major, though its also hypocritical of Labour who wanted an election then (and just to be even handed the Lib Dems when they were in power as the Liberals didn't have an election when they got rid of Asquith and replaced him with LLoyd-George)
Uhh, he died in 2006.
I wouldn't say it's hypocritical, I would say it's just wrong. Labour were voted in with everyone knowing that Brown would become Prime Minister, so to say no-one voted for Brown is BS. Everyone who voted for Labour knowingly voted for Brown.
I would be all for a presidential system btw, something like France where they have a parliament and a president. Then you have the leader of the country, elected, and the representatives of the people, elected, rather than just electing the representatives and letting them choose their own leader.
But still elected.
So really what you are trying to say, if that we look back, every government we have had for a long while is illegitimate.
Hey its not my fault people cant be arsed to vote.
because the alternative then, as it is now is a Tory government.
As bad as you think Labour are, the Tories are worse, at least Labour are trying to provide for the people. You know as well as I that the Tories are all about themselves and big business but get in on the back of social reforms.
Labour don't provide for people, they only provide for themselves. Evidence? The gap between rich and poor has actually widened with New Labour in charge. If they wanted to provide a good education for people, they wouldn't pursue vicious and spiteful policies against private and grammar schools. More recently, there is the problem of serial liar and psychologically flawed Prime Mentalist Gordon Brown telling us the Tories would "do nothing" to help people through the recession. Most of the "help" offered by the government has turned out to be next to useless. They've been more than happy to help the likes of Royal Bank of Scotland and Fred Cuntwin, however. Shows you where their priorities are. Labour - they're the party of the rich, and never more so than today.
Not that I expect Tory muppets to do anything much different. They'll scrap ID cards, but there's little difference between them otherwise.
As for the recession, as badly hit as we've been, the damage has been nowhere near as bad as in other countries, especially the USA.
We might be losing tens of jobs here and hundreds of jobs there. In the USA its tens of thousands at a time. Why that is I don't know, I'm no economist. I think it speaks volumes about the state of the country though, we seem to be weathering it a lot better than most.