The PM's two term announcement.

  spider9 09:26 24 Mar 15
Locked
Answered

Was this a slip that leaves the Tories open to losing their concentration on the economy etc, and having 'leadership' contests at the same time? Boris for PM then?

And will voters see it as a touch arrogant to be talking about yet another five years before he's even been voted in for the next?

  john bunyan 09:34 24 Mar 15

He is dammed if he does and dammed if he doesn't. He did not stand up and make an announcement - it came out in an informal interview. When Mrs Thatcher said she would "go on and on", she was condemned. Although a Prime Minister is not a President, the US constitutionally stops the leader doing more than 2 four year terms.

The press have overblown the issue in my view. Anyway he may well not be the PM after May, anyway.

If, by any chance, Labour lose, I wonder if David will replace Ed (after getting a safe seat)?

  john bunyan 09:38 24 Mar 15

There are precedents for PM's to change during a Parliament, as did Mrs Thatcher and others....

  Belatucadrus 09:46 24 Mar 15

Not sure, not many PMs who made it to a third term made a success of it. Blair and Thatcher both hung on too long and made a complete horlicks of the last term and the transition. It's probably a good thing, but is it a sound electoral move at this point ? I doubt it.

  spider9 09:52 24 Mar 15

john bunyan " ...it came out in an informal interview."

It just struck me as very surprising that he couldn't have done the 'normal' thing and given it the body-swerve.

The Press will overblow anything they get, and this (at the start of an election campaign) does look like a generous gift! I don't think most Tory candidates will welcome now having to discuss this on the doorsteps.

I agree PMs can still change during their terms, but that's hardly comparable with announcing your departure before having been even elected??

  john bunyan 10:23 24 Mar 15

spider9

He only said he would go after the next term - if elected. Blair and Brown showed how damaging these things could be if left hanging. In the unlikely event that he is, indeed, PM next time, the Tories could elect (late in the Parliament) a "Leader in waiting" who would be the proposed PM at the election after the next one. What is wrong with that? The party manifesto can be carried on regardless if the incumbent PM allows Cabinet Ministers their true role (unlike Blair, who centralised decisions).

Again Presidents are different, but Americans know their tenure is limited to two terms.

The death knell , in my view, for the Tories, would be if Boris became the leader!

  spider9 11:29 24 Mar 15

john bunyan "The death knell , in my view, for the Tories, would be if Boris became the leader!"

Once more, complete agreement!!

"a "Leader in waiting". .....What is wrong with that?"

You really think the Party could have such a thing and still have day-to-day operations without political carnage? Far more faith than I would have, there would be internecine warfare - again the media would love it!

  john bunyan 12:54 24 Mar 15

spider9

there would be internecine warfare

Maybe, as there was between Blair and Brown, and Churchill and Eden to some extent. However that is for another day - they probably won't be in power in May !

  spider9 13:02 24 Mar 15

john bunyan

But the start of those previous 'warfares' was not announced at the beginning of an imminent election campaign - that was what I was amazed about.

  Forum Editor 18:18 24 Mar 15
Answer

It was a very silly mistake, and I am sure that David Cameron bitterly regrets the remark. He can't say as much, so his colleagues are desperately giving damage limitation interviews to anyone who will give them air-time.

  LastChip 21:37 25 Mar 15

I don't believe it was a silly mistake at all.

He gave a very straight answer to a straight question.

As is usual, the media blew it out of all proportion.

My gripe with politicians is they never answer a question. For me, it was totally refreshing to get a straight answer.

If he gains power again, everyone now knows the time-line for a leadership change. In any business, it would be considered prudent succession planning. What is so different in politics?

Perhaps if we had better business practices incorporated into the running of our country, we'd all be a lot better off.

The first politician to give straight answers to all questions, will get my vote. But I'm not holding my breath.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Best phone camera 2016/2017: Galaxy S7 vs iPhone 7 vs Google Pixel vs HTC 10 Evo vs OnePlus 3T vs…

1995-2015: How technology has changed the world in 20 years

Best Christmas Agency Projects of 2016

Super Mario Run preview | Hands-on first impressions of Super Mario Run: Mario's iPhone & iPad…