Spigzy wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 12:24 am

Doc67 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 07, 2022 9:11 pm

Spigzy wrote: ↑Tue Jun 07, 2022 3:38 pm

Jerry Atrick wrote: ↑Tue Jun 07, 2022 2:37 pm

Doc67 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 07, 2022 2:30 pm then he will become a hero once again to the PCP, the membership and acceptable to most people who voted for him last time.

He wasn't elected, was he?

He replaced the maybot by proxy

Maybot wasn't elected either, she replaced the pig f*cker Cameron. To be fair, the UK doesn't vote for the leader, just the party & their local MPs. It is then up to those elected MPs to choose who leads; often with dire consequences as the sycophancy reaches ludicrous levels. Typically the leader of the party that wins the election goes on to be appointed by the Queen as PM. She also has the right to remove a PM, but hasn't been exercised since 1834 (sadly..)

Erm... https://www.bbc.com/news/election/2017/results

Sure not disagreeing Doc, she won the election - but that was after she had replaced Cameron what, a year earlier? https://www.politico.eu/article/theresa ... -minister/

Point I was making was that the PM is not actually elected directly by the population; they are merely the party leader who is then confirmed by the Queen should they win a general election. For the non-POME/Limeys, etc. We don't get a say on the leader - so don'tvote for leaders, you vote based on the party mandate, etc. Which is a bit bizarre, imagine you're a long term Labour voter & think Keir Starmer could be a superb lead after winning an election - only for him to resign & the party puts DIanne Abbott in charge for the next five years ... bonkers.

Since Thatcher was deposed there has been the adoption of the system of changing the PM to allow a new one to get bedded in and thus can campaign at the next general election as an experienced incumbent rather than an untested opposition leader. It worked for Major (against all the odds), but not for Brown.

I think we need a law stating that when there is a change of party leader while in office, a general election must be called within 90 days of the new PM taking office. That will stop all these party shenanigans. That means Cameron would have been forced to deal with the shitshow he created by giving a EU referendum because it was politically expedient to do so to deal with UKIP. That means Brown would have had to go to the country in 2007 and would of almost certainly won - he bottled it and the the economic meltdown of 2008 screwed him. How different things would have been had we had Doc's Law!!

However, I must disagree with you thoughts on the leader not being 'directly' elected. You are correct that only their constituency directly elects them as an MP but the country must endorse them too. Whilst most people vote for the party. and whatever tosspot the party has chosen to wear the party rosette in their constituency, however, the leader of the party is the only MP that has to appeal to the nation. A duff leader with clear policies - perhaps Corbyn? - will generally lose to a charismatic leader, even one with no policies other than "get Brexit done". While we don't get a say in the party leaders (unless you are a part member) we do get to decide their fate.

This is why the conservatives are so torn; Boris is a proven election winner - two mayoral elections and a thumping majority in a general election - but is also a demonstrably bad leader in every office he has held (and jobs too). Jeremy Hunt or Michael Gove are proven to be very capable of leading a big department and would be very 'competent' Prime Ministers. But both are probably unelectable in a general election; Hunt is too dull and Gove is too nerdy.

Perhaps Boris will implode and force them to chose someone else, and live with the consequences.