Bluenose wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 11:13 am I agree with that. If there is a change in PM there should be a general election. We are so far from the manifesto that people voted for in 2019 that we need an election. I also think that if an MP leaves or is removed from their party there should be a by election.

It should be remembered that, strictly speaking, in the UK you don't vote for a PM, nor do you vote for which party should be in Government, you vote for who represents your constituency in parliament, your MP. So in theory unless your MP resigns/cannot serve etc then there is no reason for a new election. It should also be remembered that the PM is actually appointed by the monarch. Although convention dictates that the leader of the party with the most seats is appointed, that is not set in stone.

But yeah, things have changed so much since 2019 that it is probably about time for another go.
[/quote]

I agree with a general election after a change of PM.

If a PM resigns due to ill-health, death of spouse or some other life changing personal issue, the party can have 12 months to 'bed' someone in but then must seek a fresh mandate.

However, if the PM is ousted due to them being a liar, or an incompetent, or the party simply calculates their electoral chances will be improved thereby, a general election should be held in less than180 days.

You can't have elections in the depth of winter, Scotland can get very bad road-closing weather and they will really moan if they can't get to the polling stations. A set date of the second Thursday in April or October will do the trick.

This will stop all these shenanigans in their tracks. What are the chances of this being adopted? Absolutely ZERO!

Doc67 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 22, 2022 8:39 am

xandreu wrote: ↑Fri Oct 21, 2022 4:19 pm
As a side note - She didn't even win the parliamentary election. Sunak won that by quite a majority. She only won when it was put to Tory party members. The Tories have now decided that to ask people who don't actually work in politics, and therefore can't really be expected to make an informed decision, was a bad idea, and they should just leave it to the experts.

I guess they've learned at least one thing from Brexit then.

Truss only got into the final 2 because of Sunak and his parliamentary supporters. She was 3rd in every round with Mordaunt 2nd in every round. All the polling of the members suggested Mordaunt would win easily and Truss would also win, but by a much smaller majority. The strategy was to nobble Mordaunt and then try to beat Truss.

In the final ballot just enough of Sunak's supporters tactically voted for Truss, thus eliminating Mordaunt. Sunak must have known of the scheme. It almost worked and despite Truss' many idiotic U-turns (remember the regional pay boards which she disowned the very next day and pretended she never said it?) she still managed to scrape through but by a much smaller margin than the polling predicted. The plan nearly worked.

If Sunak's team hadn't engaged in this gerrymandering, he would have faced Mordaunt in the final and he would have lost too. We would then have had Mordaunt as PM and could have avoided this debacle altogether.

Sunak put Truss in the final two, knowing she was entirely unfit to hold that office. Sunak failed to beat her, despite her doing everything to help him. Sunak is not an electoral asset, especially in a general election with him as PM.

Hopefully the members remember this when voting.

So, you are saying, Sunak set-up Truss to win and fail immediately as the low road to succeed her? If this observation about Sunak's ulterior motives is insightful, then it could also mean the UK is going to set a world record for the year during which they have the greatest number of PMs with the shortest tenures... Sunak could be booted quickly, too.

An election right away might be a better way out. Of course, the conservatives are bound to lose, so maybe they will just keep on playing musical PMs?

I think the present miasma of British politics is all really David Cameron's fault, for haplessly bringing on Brexit with his moronic referendum way back when...

Had Brexit never happened, the UK would have gone forward instead of backwards... You all know they want to bring the old Imperial measures back, too. Silliness...

orichá wrote: ↑Mon Oct 24, 2022 5:39 pm

Doc67 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 22, 2022 8:39 am

xandreu wrote: ↑Fri Oct 21, 2022 4:19 pm
As a side note - She didn't even win the parliamentary election. Sunak won that by quite a majority. She only won when it was put to Tory party members. The Tories have now decided that to ask people who don't actually work in politics, and therefore can't really be expected to make an informed decision, was a bad idea, and they should just leave it to the experts.

I guess they've learned at least one thing from Brexit then.

Truss only got into the final 2 because of Sunak and his parliamentary supporters. She was 3rd in every round with Mordaunt 2nd in every round. All the polling of the members suggested Mordaunt would win easily and Truss would also win, but by a much smaller majority. The strategy was to nobble Mordaunt and then try to beat Truss.

In the final ballot just enough of Sunak's supporters tactically voted for Truss, thus eliminating Mordaunt. Sunak must have known of the scheme. It almost worked and despite Truss' many idiotic U-turns (remember the regional pay boards which she disowned the very next day and pretended she never said it?) she still managed to scrape through but by a much smaller margin than the polling predicted. The plan nearly worked.

If Sunak's team hadn't engaged in this gerrymandering, he would have faced Mordaunt in the final and he would have lost too. We would then have had Mordaunt as PM and could have avoided this debacle altogether.

Sunak put Truss in the final two, knowing she was entirely unfit to hold that office. Sunak failed to beat her, despite her doing everything to help him. Sunak is not an electoral asset, especially in a general election with him as PM.

Hopefully the members remember this when voting.

So, you are saying, Sunak set-up Truss to win and fail immediately as the low road to succeed her? If this observation about Sunak's ulterior motives is insightful, then it could also mean the UK is going to set a world record for the year during which they have the greatest number of PMs with the shortest tenures... Sunak could be booted quickly, too.

An election right away might be a better way out. Of course, the conservatives are bound to lose, so maybe they will just keep on playing musical PMs?

I think the present miasma of British politics is all really David Cameron's fault, for haplessly bringing on Brexit with his moronic referendum way back when...

Had Brexit never happened, the UK would have gone forward instead of backwards... You all know they want to bring the old Imperial measures back, too. Silliness...

So, you are saying, Sunak set-up Truss to win and fail immediately as the low road to succeed her?

Not quite. His supporters lent her votes so he faced her, not Mordaunt, in the run off with the members, of which the polling suggested he had a much better chance against. It failed, but only just.

I think the present miasma of British politics is all really David Cameron's fault, for haplessly bringing on Brexit with his moronic referendum way back when...

Yes, many blame him. He made a pledge to hold a referendum to kill the question for another generation. He did this because UKIP were polling high and getting more popular and this would kill two birds with one stone. Basically, he panicked, and the country has suffered as a result.

However, had there not been a referendum, UKIP would still be around and who knows what the shape of politics would be.

Anyway, it's all moot now, Sunak has been coronated and he has his work cut out.

That's a good un.