Democracy and the British Labour Party

For several years now we have been treated to numerous reports of Tony Blair moving over to make way for Gordon Brown to become prime minister. "Gordon Brown is crown prince", the world is constantly reminded. Only once - in The Guardian - have I ever seen any mention of the possibility of an election process to determine the identity of the future leader of the Labour party. After witnessing the recent Conservative leadership elections and the preparations for the upcoming Liberal Democrat leadership elections I am forced to ask what may be a rather obvious question: has the British Labour party become a dictatorship?

Now I am the first to admit that I am no expert on constitutional or party-political matters, but surely, if the prime minister resigns then the deputy prime minister would automatically take over - and not the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown - at least until the party had held elections to select the new leader? By what right or authority would Tony Blair or indeed the Labour party be able to designate Gordon Blair the new leader without an official leadership election? I mean, who is to say that there aren't more competent people in the party? Who is to say that others in the party might not want to have a shot at the job as well? Indeed, who is to say that people would want to see Gordon Brown as prime minister? Just look at the outcome of the Conservative elections - the much-heralded crown prince certainly did not win there. And why have the newspapers been doggedly insisting that Gordon Brown is the man, without mentioning the need for due democratic process? How must the deputy prime minister (second in command) and others in the party feel? How bewildered must members of the British electorate be?

Once again, newspapers do their readers a disservice by failing to ask critical questions.