A Political Thread pt. 2

[ncurd]

I know we don't have a Presidential system here but I have a massive problem with an elected party changing leader mid term and for the new leader to rip up the manifesto and start making new promises. The mandate they got in 2019 is obsolete IMO and there has to be a new GE after the new leader is in post in order to get a fresh mandate. I also have a problem with the fact that our new PM is hand picked by predominantly old rich white men who live in the south.

I prefer the idea that a leader can be ousted by their party if they are found incredibly wanting. We needed to remove Johnson and he didn't have a personal to stay on. Where the issue occurs is his manifesto is still what they were elected on so if they were to radically deviate from it without justification (honestly I have no idea what was in that manifesto the election was just get Brexit done) it should be calls for a new general election. Although that should happen even if the original leader was in charge.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Wonder if the tories are planning to do a new coke v old coke taste?

Push Truss on the people, make people who turned on johnson start going if only we had Johnson back. Then boom push Johnson for the next election in a couple years

 

[ncurd]

Wonder if the tories are planning to do a new coke v old coke taste?

Push Truss on the people, make people who turned on johnson start going if only we had Johnson back. Then boom push Johnson for the next election in a couple years

Isn't the main reason Johnson has been ousted is he'd dead electorally? The public ******* hate him and the only way that gets fixed is if Labour bring in someone they hate/fear more. A route back to Johnson shows just out of touch with the electorate they really are at this present time.

 

[General Melchett]

I prefer the idea that a leader can be ousted by their party if they are found incredibly wanting. We needed to remove Johnson and he didn't have a personal to stay on. Where the issue occurs is his manifesto is still what they were elected on so if they were to radically deviate from it without justification (honestly I have no idea what was in that manifesto the election was just get Brexit done) it should be calls for a new general election. Although that should happen even if the original leader was in charge.

I had no issue with Johnson (or any leader) being ousted based on his conduct and law breaking. That is not in question as my previous posts have made clear which I'm sure you were already aware of. It's the principle of a change in policy being driven by a change in leadership in the middle of a term. The public are no longer getting what they voted for and in my book the 2019 mandate is no longer valid.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Isn't the main reason Johnson has been ousted is he'd dead electorally? The public ******* hate him and the only way that gets fixed is if Labour bring in someone they hate/fear more. A route back to Johnson shows just out of touch with the electorate they really are at this present time.

I mean
1. They are out of touch
2. A couple years out and Liz Truss in might make some voters forget about the ****.

Really they are only aiming for the people who voted for Johnson last time and can you honestly tell me in a couple years as long as Johnson keeps his head down that those people wouldn't vote for him again?

 

[ncurd]

I had no issue with Johnson (or any leader) being ousted based on his conduct and law breaking. That is not in question as my previous posts have made clear which I'm sure you were already aware of. It's the principle of a change in policy being driven by a change in leadership in the middle of a term. The public are no longer getting what they voted for and in my book the 2019 mandate is no longer valid.

I wasn't questioning your position just positing that in a Presidential system we wouldn't be able to remove him as easily.

I mean
1. They are out of touch
2. A couple years out and Liz Truss in might make some voters forget about the ****.

Really they are only aiming for the people who voted for Johnson last time and can you honestly tell me in a couple years as long as Johnson keeps his head down that those people wouldn't vote for him again?

I think some will the question is will the soft tory vote from 2019 come back on thier droves for him? I'm less convinced especially how hard Labour would attack him and the entire party if they did it.

 

[ncurd]

Plus he has to be an MP and that's possibly unlikely if he's found to mislead the house, gets the appropriate ban and a recall petition is signed.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

I wasn't questioning your position just positing that in a Presidential system we wouldn't be able to remove him as easily.

I think some will the question is will the soft tory vote from 2019 come back on thier droves for him? I'm less convinced especially how hard Labour would attack him and the entire party if they did it.

I don't disagree but I just think it's certainly a option they are looking at

 

[Reiser99]

Also why stoke on Trent?

So they can still pretend they care about the north and ordinary people.

I know we don't have a Presidential system here but I have a massive problem with an elected party changing leader mid term and for the new leader to rip up the manifesto and start making new promises. The mandate they got in 2019 is obsolete IMO and there has to be a new GE after the new leader is in post in order to get a fresh mandate. I also have a problem with the fact that our new PM is hand picked by predominantly old rich white men who live in the south.

This leadership contest feels like a boxing match where the referee and judges are pals of one of the boxers.

I prefer the idea that a leader can be ousted by their party if they are found incredibly wanting. We needed to remove Johnson and he didn't have a personal to stay on. Where the issue occurs is his manifesto is still what they were elected on so if they were to radically deviate from it without justification (honestly I have no idea what was in that manifesto the election was just get Brexit done) it should be calls for a new general election. Although that should happen even if the original leader was in charge.

I had no issue with Johnson (or any leader) being ousted based on his conduct and law breaking. That is not in question as my previous posts have made clear which I'm sure you were already aware of. It's the principle of a change in policy being driven by a change in leadership in the middle of a term. The public are no longer getting what they voted for and in my book the 2019 mandate is no longer valid.

I wasn't questioning your position just positing that in a Presidential system we wouldn't be able to remove him as easily.

I'm happy to keep the current system as changing to a directly elected leader would require a bigger overhaul of the political system than changing FPTP. I agree though that the Tories shouldn't be able to change leader whenever it suits them. Like most issues its because our democracy works on convention, not a set of clearly written rules. We need to codify (see I can learn) our democracy so that our politicians can be better held to account, they can't just change rules they don't like and in this case if they choose to get rid of their leader they trigger a general election. That way it forces the ruling party to either seek a new mandate or stick with the incumbent even if they will lose in the future.

 

[Which Tyler]

So they can still pretend they care about the north and ordinary people.




I'm happy to keep the current system as changing to a directly elected leader would require a bigger overhaul of the political system than changing FPTP. I agree though that the Tories shouldn't be able to change leader whenever it suits them. Like most issues its because our democracy works on convention, not a set of clearly written rules. We need to codify (see I can learn) our democracy so that our politicians can be better held to account, they can't just change rules they don't like and in this case if they choose to get rid of their leader they trigger a general election. That way it forces the ruling party to either seek a new mandate or stick with the incumbent even if they will lose in the future.

Yep
New leader of the ruling party should automatically trigger a general election.

Equally, any MP found guilty of breaking the law (I'll accept minor traffic offences) should automatically trigger a by-election in their constituency.

Oh,and ethics committee recommendations should be rules, not recommendations that the PM can simply choose to ignore because they're inconvenient.

 

[WaterboySA]

New leader of the ruling party should automatically trigger a general election.

Wouldn't this make it less likely that an idiot like the one just ousted would actually get kicked? Not being a wise @ss, honestly asking. I would think that you actually want the ruling party be willing to oust people like Boris without the chance of them losing a General Election? Maybe I just don't understand your politics......

 

[Which Tyler]

Wouldn't this make it less likely that an idiot like the one just ousted would actually get kicked? Not being a wise @ss, honestly asking. I would think that you actually want the ruling party be willing to oust people like Boris without the chance of them losing a General Election? Maybe I just don't understand your politics......

Yes, it would.
But that's a price that really ought to be paid to have things more codified.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

New leader of the ruling party should automatically trigger a general election.

Completely agree with this, but I guess they get around it by saying technically we vote for our local MP and not the prime minister who is simply the leader of that party and therefore nothing to do with the GE (obviously not the case, but a nice get out of jail free card due to the way our systems are)

 

[Reiser99]

Wouldn't this make it less likely that an idiot like the one just ousted would actually get kicked? Not being a wise @ss, honestly asking. I would think that you actually want the ruling party be willing to oust people like Boris without the chance of them losing a General Election? Maybe I just don't understand your politics......

To add further to @Which Tyler while it may be harder to get rid of a leader it might also make parties choose them more carefully if they know they are stuck with them.

 

[Which Tyler]

Completely agree with this, but I guess they get around it by saying technically we vote for our local MP and not the prime minister who is simply the leader of that party and therefore nothing to do with the GE (obviously not the case, but a nice get out of jail free card due to the way our systems are)

Yeah, we know (presumably) the technical work-around; but really, that same excuse then neuters any new leader, as they're not allowed to actually lead the party until they've had a GE of their own, just continue with the previous incumbents' policies.
Obviously, that's not how it works in the real world.

The Blair-Brown hand-over is a mild exception here, in that IIRC it was publicly stated that 2005 was going to be Blair's last. Even then, I and many, many others felt that it should have triggered an automatic GE.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

So they can still pretend they care about the north and ordinary people.




I'm happy to keep the current system as changing to a directly elected leader would require a bigger overhaul of the political system than changing FPTP. I agree though that the Tories shouldn't be able to change leader whenever it suits them. Like most issues its because our democracy works on convention, not a set of clearly written rules. We need to codify (see I can learn) our democracy so that our politicians can be better held to account, they can't just change rules they don't like and in this case if they choose to get rid of their leader they trigger a general election. That way it forces the ruling party to either seek a new mandate or stick with the incumbent even if they will lose in the future.

The problem with codifying anything is the golden rule that no parliament can be bound, even by a predecessor. If a law was put in place requiring 67% of MPs to vote for something, eg like amending a codified constitution, a new government could simply vote to remove that rule. It makes any attempt to codify essentially worthless as a future government could just undo it

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

No party would change their leader if that triggered a GE they weren't 100% certain of winning. Self interest will come first, on either side of the house.

And given the choice between a couple more years of Johnson and the current situation I'd take the latter every day of the week.

Truss saying, correctly, that she's not the slickest communicator is a bit of an own goal though. Media and credibility with other leaders is a huge part of the job. Maybe too much, but that's the world we live in. Why Brown was out of his depth despite a greater sincerity of purpose than Blair. Similar for May and also a big part of the reason why Miliband was unelectable.

 

[General Melchett]

To add further to @Which Tyler while it may be harder to get rid of a leader it might also make parties choose them more carefully if they know they are stuck with them.

Yeah it would nice if parties actually picked a leader who they thought was best equipped to govern the country as opposed to picking their best bullsh1tter ahem I mean campaigner. MPs just want to win their seat and so will pick a leader who they think will win an election while party members tend to be concerned more about policy than campaigning skills.

 

[ncurd]

No party would change their leader if that triggered a GE they weren't 100% certain of winning. Self interest will come first, on either side of the house.

And given the choice between a couple more years of Johnson and the current situation I'd take the latter every day of the week.

Truss saying, correctly, that she's not the slickest communicator is a bit of an own goal though. Media and credibility with other leaders is a huge part of the job. Maybe too much, but that's the world we live in. Why Brown was out of his depth despite a greater sincerity of purpose than Blair. Similar for May and also a big part of the reason why Miliband was unelectable.

Brown/Blair was a weird one I don't think either was any less sincere in their goals just Blair was more willing compromise on his principals to "get stuff done" but they weren't that diametrically opposed. Brown had a reputation for being tough and doer and was actually a pretty good communicator on the stump. He just got utterly shafted by the American mortgage market and same governement fatigue.

Milliband has vastly improved he still has nasally voice which doesn't help it was just way too early for him as leader.

Maybot was a different matter however.

Either way they were all far far better than Truss, the only person less impressive would be Raab.

 

[Reiser99]

The problem with codifying anything is the golden rule that no parliament can be bound, even by a predecessor. If a law was put in place requiring 67% of MPs to vote for something, eg like amending a codified constitution, a new government could simply vote to remove that rule. It makes any attempt to codify essentially worthless as a future government could just undo it

And a government based on precedence that they can choose to ignore or be selective on precedence is better?

At least with them voting to change the rules they have to commit to it publicly. At the moment the rules, especially ones around behaviour of those in government change so often no one knows what they are anymore. I know it won't happen anytime soon, but at the moment our democracy us broken.