• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

A Political Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Who the **** is Iain Duncan Smith on the telly right now? Straight up lying about what Varadkar and Barnier have said about the backstop to try get a point across. So many shady ***** in British politics.
 
The Alpha Bro said:
Who the **** is Iain Duncan Smith on the telly right now? Straight up lying about what Varadkar and Barnier have said about the backstop to try get a point across. So many shady ***** in British politics.
Click to expand...
IDS is former incredibly failed leader of the Tory party.
 
The next PM will be elected by less than 50% (313/650) of the House of Commons and then members of the tory party. So much for sovereignty of Parliament.
 
The_Blindside said:
The next PM will be elected by less than 50% (313/650) of the House of Commons and then members of the tory party. So much for sovereignty of Parliament.
Click to expand...
Much as I lilo to point out the hypocrisy of politicians, parliament isn't supposed to play a role in who the pm is.
 
It's definitely wrong that a PM has the power to call a snap election just because things are looking rosy in the polls while an unelected PM with no mandate can be in charge for the guts of a term.
 
You look at Japan, which is also a Parliamentry democracy and the PM is elected by both houses.

The Prime Minister is designated by both houses of the Diet, before the conduct of any other business. For that purpose, each conducts a ballot under the run-off system. If the two houses choose different individuals, then a joint committee of both houses is appointed to agree on a common candidate. Ultimately, however, if the two houses do not agree within ten days, the decision of the House of Representatives is deemed to be that of the Diet. Therefore, the House of Representatives can theoretically ensure the appointment of any Prime Minister it wants.[5] The candidate is then presented with his or her commission, and formally appointed to office by the Emperor.[6]

In practice, the Prime Minister is almost always the leader of the majority party in the House of Representatives, or the leader of the senior partner in the governing coalition.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_Japan

At least parliament should have some say in who is PM, insteady of this closed shop process.
 
The Oggmonster said:
It's definitely wrong that a PM has the power to call a snap election just because things are looking rosy in the polls while an unelected PM with no mandate can be in charge for the guts of a term.
Click to expand...
Well they only have that power if they have a majority thanks to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act

Honestly parties electing their leaders and thus PM is actually one of least broken things about our politics. The problematic part is that leader isn't bound by the manifesto on which that government was elected.
 
ncurd said:
Well they only have that power if they have a majority thanks to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act

Honestly parties electing their leaders and thus PM is actually one of least broken things about our politics. The problematic part is that leader isn't bound by the manifesto on which that government was elected.
Click to expand...
Yup - parties chosing their own leadership is fine (in as much as party politics is fine - which it isn't)
However, a new leader of the governing party should have to call a GE within 3 months - Brown shoulda done, May shoulda done, Boris ought to.

And yes, yes, I know we don't elect a PM, and we're not a presidency; but the PM selects the cabinet and sets the tone for cabinet, which in term sets the tone for the government; it really is too big a role to be simply handed to somoene for free without a mandate IMO.
 
I think the major difference between Brown, possibly May and definitely Johnson. Is Blair was elected on the premise he would not serve a full term and that Brown carried on the work of that given manifesto.
 
Which Tyler said:
Yup - parties chosing their own leadership is fine (in as much as party politics is fine - which it isn't)
However, a new leader of the governing party should have to call a GE within 3 months - Brown shoulda done, May shoulda done, Boris ought to.

And yes, yes, I know we don't elect a PM, and we're not a presidency; but the PM selects the cabinet and sets the tone for cabinet, which in term sets the tone for the government; it really is too big a role to be simply handed to somoene for free without a mandate IMO.
Click to expand...

Yeah they tried that back in the 1800s and there was a new Government every 6 months. Hence why they brought in the fixed Parliaments act.
 
Tallshort said:
Yeah dont think thats a new thing in Leadership contests....
Click to expand...
I don't know....most parties rules don't have the Tory run off aspect. Therefor lending votes to remove oppenents is not a tactic that can be used. I'm also unsure how many times having a front runner with the votes to lend has happened.

Buying out opponent with jobs certainly.
 
Best comment I've seen on it yet is; "Like the power rangers, sometime soon they'll all combine into one super-muppet".
 
I didn't see all the debate last night, but Johnson just can't give a straight answer to a question, even the ones he asks himself and wants to answer. Amongst other things the Guardian just calls him an outright liar in some of the most unsubtle journalism I've ever seen.

Why is he so "popular"? Suspect it's part because the Tories think he's the best chance of avoiding electoral meltdown and part because he's almost certain to make a complete horlicks of Brexit which will cost him the job and they can be shot of him for good in short order. A Classics spouting sacrificial lamb.

It's also appalling that he's being kept on a leash for fear of saying something stupid. Irrespective of your leanings the country deserves better than that.
 
Last edited:
Old Hooker said:
I didn't see all the debate last night, but Johnson just can't give a straight answer to a question, even the ones he asks himself and wants to answer. Amongst other things the Guardian just calls him in an outright liar in some of the most unsubtle journalism I've ever seen.

Why is he so "popular"? Suspect it's part because the Tories think he's the best chance of electoral meltdown and part because he's almost certain to make a complete horlicks of Brexit which will cost him the job and they can be shot of him for good in short order. A Classics spouting sacrificial lamb.

It's also appalling that he's being kept on a leash for fear of saying something stupid. Irrespective of your leanings the country deserves better than that.
Click to expand...

I had Javid and Gove as joint winners last night followed by bland Hunt with Boris and Rory joint last.

It's a matter of time before some Tories turn on Boris. He won't be able to give them all jobs in Government and keep them all happy as we get closer to 31 October. He'll have a very short honeymoon period with plenty soundbites about uniting the party but it won't be long before before things descend into chaos.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Bada-Bing!
Antisocial, societal issues thread
7 8 9
Replies
162
Views
7K
pagliaccio_euforico
pagliaccio_euforico
Bada-Bing!
The Biking thread
3 4 5
Replies
81
Views
4K
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
Bada-Bing!
The Ukraine War thread
26 27 28
Replies
553
Views
22K
McTallshort
McTallshort
N
A Political Thread pt. 2
856 857 858
Replies
17K
Views
641K
Which Tyler
Which Tyler
T
Is anyone using a club management system for their local club?
Replies
0
Views
844
Try-Hard Tackler
T

Latest posts

Top