[Politics] Every other NEW PM since Heath was appointed without us voting

[*Gullsworth*]

It's to point out that anyone claiming it is undemocratic to appoint BJ as PM is missing the point that it is a very common precedent.

Added in futher posts that Boris himself regards this method of appointing a Prime Minister as undemocratic and a farce.

 

[Stato]

You vote for a party at a General Election

No you don't. You vote for an MP to represent your constituency. Your elected member would stay your elected member should they decide to leave their party. Tomorrow Teresa May goes to the queen and resigns. She suggests to the queen that she invite her successor to form a government. Johnson will accept the offer if he thinks he can sustain a majority in the house. Were MPs to vote him down, he may not be able to govern. It won't happen tomorrow, but it will only take a couple of defectors or lost by-elections for it to become a possibility. Given his proven talent for alienating people, I wouldn't be surprised to see him out before the end of the year.

 

[Nottseagull]

She suggests to the queen that she invite her successor to form a government.

I'm not sure that's entirely correct as a government is already in place, but I await Gwylan's opinion with interest.

 

[Dave the OAP]

Eden

Churchill!

 

[Triggaaar]

Sounds like a job for our resident pedant. [MENTION=4019]Triggaaar[/MENTION]!!

Thanks, but no thanks.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

I can understand people needing an explanation for the thread (I am inferring this.....) because, as I said, I wasn't aware that holws of outrage are the new thing. The fact that Corbyn is complaining pretty much validates it as right and proppper.

My god, though. Boris the liar as PM. I just heard Trump endorsing him (then spending even more time endorsing Nigel: "what a great team" FFS!)

I am a dyed in the wool socialist... but even I have had enough of Corbyn calling for a general election at every given opportunity!
Why the **** would the incumbent government do that... Particularly after the shambles of the last one.

The only way to force a general election is to unite your party and consistently vote down a split government.

This should have been easy, The tories are all over the place, but the absolute cockwomble has consistently blown every opportunity he has had.

****.

 

[Stato]

I'm not sure that's entirely correct as a government is already in place, but I await Gwylan's opinion with interest.

A government will not be in place for about an hour tomorrow when the PM has resigned and a new PM has not been appointed. The outgoing PM tells the queen who can command the confidence of the house. This happens every time. Even when the party changes. Major would have recommended that the queen call for Blair, Brown for Cameron etc. Once Johnson has accepted tomorrow, he will appoint the ministers who will make the new government.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I am a dyed in the wool socialist... but even I have had enough of Corbyn calling for a general election at every given opportunity!
Why the **** would the incumbent government do that... Particularly after the shambles of the last one.

The only way to force a general election is to unite your party and consistently vote down a split government.

This should have been easy, The tories are all over the place, but the absolute cockwomble has consistently blown every opportunity he has had.

****.

My thoughts entirely (although as I'm a scientist I could never call myself a socialist). I have nevertheless been angry ever since he was gifted those 50 votes from patronizing centre right labour MPs - the biggest political own goal in recent history.

The very fact he thinks he can win a general election now beggars belief. Boris bounce and all that. Is he a mentalist? At least wait until Boris the liar buggers up brexit (as he will) and himself call a panic general election later this year as a foil to deal with calls from his own ranks for his resignation.

I can but hope.

 

[Leekbrookgull]

Your question indicates that some people don't realise this, hence the need for the thread. Callaghan, Major and May all were, and Brown gained power unopposed.

so it,s 2-2 so please Labour don't talk democracy try hypocrisy. You are all the same,grubby just wanting power.

 

[Surrey Phil]

I am a dyed in the wool socialist... but even I have had enough of Corbyn calling for a general election at every given opportunity.

You’re so right. Firstly, it makes everyone realise the real reason Labour MP’s have voted against every Brexit deal put before them. Secondly, he is such a hypocrite calling for a GE, citing that BJ wasn’t voted in by the country. Guess what, neither was he & he didn’t get enough votes at the last GE!!

 

[Cheshire Cat]

And every Conservative PM after Heath has been destroyed by party splits over Europe.

 

[Nottseagull]

I am a dyed in the wool socialist... but even I have had enough of Corbyn calling for a general election at every given opportunity!
Why the **** would the incumbent government do that... Particularly after the shambles of the last one.

The only way to force a general election is to unite your party and consistently vote down a split government.

The ironic thing is that Corbyn, with eager help from Sturgeon, has scuppered what would have been a very realistic opportunity for your lot to gain power. They voted in 2017 for Parliament to override the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, which would otherwise have guaranteed a GE by the late Spring of next year.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

go back further than Heath and you find a Lord as PM in the 50s (Douglas-Home, hastily found a seat), Churchill, Chamberlin, chap bfore that and Lloyd-George all taking office without a popular vote.

face facts people we vote for parliament, not the Prime Minister. you'd have thought with all the stuff about sovereignty of parliament, votes of confidence, speaker blocking government business, we'd have understood this.

I would hardly describe for example Janice from Worcester the Tory elite?

Why not? Janice is really elitist

 

[Guy Fawkes]

I can see your point you are trying to highlight but the figure is 50% . In a democracy you would have thought a change in leader ship should trigger a GE within 3 months of the new leader taking power to let the voters have their say who they want to run the country. Don't give me this bull about you vote for a set of ideas and a party to run the country so it shouldn't matter who is in charge, it makes an enormous diference who is in charge to the electorate. Anyway it shouldn't matter because although Boris was voted in by the Tory elite I should imagine he has so many dissenters in his own party he will take less than 3 months to fall on his own sword. The Tories are terrified of Jeremy Corbyn and they have just elevated a man who could turn out to be far more unpopular to the general public than Jezza himself.

Do people vote in an election because person X, Y or Z is leader? or do they vote for the policies of that party, regardless of who is leader? (and regardless of political party they belong to) - people can vote for a party due to policies but dislike the current leader so it doesn't mean a vote in a GE is a vote on whether that parties leader is the person they want in power

In this case, this whole questioning the legitimacy of the leader by Labour is exactly what they did to May - and she fell for it, it's simply a ploy to try to get a General Election called, in the hope they can win it and seize power for themselves. It's not about who is in the top job in another political party and whether they should be or not

 

[Gwylan]

Do people vote in an election because person X, Y or Z is leader? or do they vote for the policies of that party, regardless of who is leader?

That's not an easy question to answer. In 1979, Callaghan was far more popular than Thatcher but the country decided that it needed a new set of policies and the Tories won easily. The classic example, of course, was 1945 when the nondescript Attlee beat the larger-than-life Churchill ... in a landslide.

It works in reverse: in 1997, Blair was seen as young, dynamic and a force for change compared to the rather grey and tired-looking Major. There was very little about policies and all about image.

I think that most other elections fall somewhere in-between: a bit about politics and a bit about the leader. It's a question of getting the balance right

 

[Bold Seagull]

Do people vote in an election because person X, Y or Z is leader? or do they vote for the policies of that party, regardless of who is leader? (and regardless of political party they belong to) - people can vote for a party due to policies but dislike the current leader so it doesn't mean a vote in a GE is a vote on whether that parties leader is the person they want in power

In this case, this whole questioning the legitimacy of the leader by Labour is exactly what they did to May - and she fell for it, it's simply a ploy to try to get a General Election called, in the hope they can win it and seize power for themselves. It's not about who is in the top job in another political party and whether they should be or not

If you consider the views of Corbyn on here, the decision is very much the person rather than the party. Labour’s 2017 manifesto was no more radical than Ed Milliband’s, although the way people carried on you’d be forgiven for thinking Lenin himself was behind it.

 

[Gwylan]

If you consider the views of Corbyn on here, the decision is very much the person rather than the party. Labour’s 2017 manifesto was no more radical than Ed Milliband’s, although the way people carried on you’d be forgiven for thinking Lenin himself was behind it.

Not sure that's true: Milliband's manifesto didn't have nationalisation of the railways or the abolition of student fees in it. Interestingly, Milliband himself susequently said he wished he'd trusted his instincts more and produced a manifesto like 2017's.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Not sure that's true: Milliband's manifesto didn't have nationalisation of the railways or the abolition of student fees in it. Interestingly, Milliband himself susequently said he wished he'd trusted his instincts more and produced a manifesto like 2017's.

I suppose it’s whether you consider tuition fees (a Liberal policy too?) and nationalisation of railways radical? I didn’t say they were identical, I said no more radical.

 

[Gwylan]

I suppose it’s whether you consider tuition fees (a Liberal policy too?) and nationalisation of railways radical? I didn’t say they were identical, I said no more radical.

No, I consider Miliband's views that the 2015 wasn't radical enough to be more of an indication that the 2017 was more radical

And the fact that many of Miliband's proposals were adopted by the Tories as a sign that the 2015 wasn't really that left wing

 

[Guy Fawkes]

That's not an easy question to answer. In 1979, Callaghan was far more popular than Thatcher but the country decided that it needed a new set of policies and the Tories won easily. The classic example, of course, was 1945 when the nondescript Attlee beat the larger-than-life Churchill ... in a landslide.

It works in reverse: in 1997, Blair was seen as young, dynamic and a force for change compared to the rather grey and tired-looking Major. There was very little about policies and all about image.

I think that most other elections fall somewhere in-between: a bit about politics and a bit about the leader. It's a question of getting the balance right

Has anyone ever been under the impression that when they vote for a party, if the leader were to leave their role (for any reason, including death) then a general election would be called after the party selects a new leader to replace them?

Do they vote for a party oblivious to the fact that the leader of that party could be replaced soon / straight after the general election (again for any reason) and may not serve out the full term between elections?

It's not the USA, they vote for a president, someone who can get elected and find that their political party is in the minority in Congress (in both the House of representatives and the Senate)

When we vote, do we have the leader of the Political party on the ballot, or the Political party and the local candidate's name? Aren't we voting for our local MP / party that matches our political views the closest (even though there may be plenty you disagree with)