[Politics] Liz Truss **RESIGNS 20/10/2022**

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

The last time King Charles dissolved Parliament it didn't end well.

Legal technicallity or not, and as unwelcome as it may be, it remains the law. They don't have to have a GE for what, another couple of years or so?

Edit: this is weird. I answered Beohthelm's post, posted it, then answered HWT's post separately - but this new system seems to have automatically lumped them together as a multiple reply.

That's because you're being monitored by the conservatives as a potential successor to the Trussterfuck. A collation error.

So.....how does it feel to be that close to having a grasp on power?

 

[Weststander]

That was the only point I was trying to make a few posts/pages back. Nice to get quickly to a point of agreement.

Sorry.

I hadn’t been an active participant throughout the day

However at election time we're constantly told that we mustn't vote for X to be leader, whether its Corbyn or Milliband or whoever, and clearly many many people base their vote on who are the leaders of the parties, so its not surprising that at times like these people say 'we didn't vote for this PM', because the Tories whole campaign was about keeping Corbyn out.

Or getting Brexit done?

 

[Brovion]

Quite.

The only conceivable time it happens is if people are on the streets baying for the Government to quit and they’re clinging on while unable to actually do anything to govern the country. We’re a very, very long way from that scenario.

Which is precisely why we need a president who has a constitutional mandate to act in such circumstances. Currently we have a useless, non-functioning government and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it until the next GE.

Anyway, I digress. This is about Liz Truss.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Just heard a R5 interview saying we need Rishi to 'get the economy back on track' completely ignoring the fact that he has been the person with primary responsibility for the last couple of years and has got the economy into the complete shitshow it is in now (albeit with a temporary boost Truss and Kwarteng)

 

[dazzer6666]

 

[Glawstergull]

Tres Vrai.

 

[Super Steve Earle]

Which is precisely why we need a president who has a constitutional mandate to act in such circumstances. Currently we have a useless, non-functioning government and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it until the next GE.

Anyway, I digress. This is about Liz Truss.

Indeed. But in answer to yours, it's exactly why we don't need a president. And I'd say the same whoever was f*****g up the country.

 

[dazzer6666]

Needs sound

 

[A1X]

 

[hart's shirt]

Jog on.

 

[Audax]

We (as in 'we, the great British public') did not n fact vote for Johnson, although many people think they did. We voted for our local MP, who belonged to a political party. The party with the most seats at Westminster then has the right to appoint a leader to form a Government. So legally, the mandate is with the Conservative Party, not with any individual.

The party then chooses the leader who forms a government. Not the answer you wanted , probably, but you did ask!

Legally, and constitutionally, you are 100% correct. We vote for MPs to represent various seats, and those MPs will then choose who the PM will be. Absolutely, 100%, the correct interpretation of the system as designed.

However.

Reality would like a word. The reality is that politicians group together in party's and those party's have leaders. And we as voters all know when a General Election happens who will be PM - it will be the leader of whichever party wins the most seats. And throughout history, the party that wins the most seats is the party that has the leader that the electorate believes would be the better PM.

The reality is that a very significant number of voters, when they walk in and mark their ballot paper, are voting for who they want to be PM (or in the case of tactical voting, voting against who they *don't* want to be PM). That is what is happening in their heads at the time they cast their vote. An also large group are voting for the party they want to hold power but aren't so concerned about who the leader is - this group tend to always vote for the same party and they are the voters who create the "Red Wall" and "Blue Wall". And when the Red Wall crumbled, it was because those voters shifted because Boris promised them what they wanted.

The voters out there who vote specifically for an individual named on their ballot paper to be their MP are very much in the minority.

 

[GT49er]

Legally, and constitutionally, you are 100% correct. We vote for MPs to represent various seats, and those MPs will then choose who the PM will be. Absolutely, 100%, the correct interpretation of the system as designed.

However.

Reality would like a word. The reality is that politicians group together in party's and those party's have leaders. And we as voters all know when a General Election happens who will be PM - it will be the leader of whichever party wins the most seats. And throughout history, the party that wins the most seats is the party that has the leader that the electorate believes would be the better PM.

The reality is that a very significant number of voters, when they walk in and mark their ballot paper, are voting for who they want to be PM (or in the case of tactical voting, voting against who they *don't* want to be PM). That is what is happening in their heads at the time they cast their vote. An also large group are voting for the party they want to hold power but aren't so concerned about who the leader is - this group tend to always vote for the same party and they are the voters who create the "Red Wall" and "Blue Wall". And when the Red Wall crumbled, it was because those voters shifted because Boris promised them what they wanted.

The voters out there who vote specifically for an individual named on their ballot paper to be their MP are very much in the minority.

The voters all vote for the person on the ballot paper (or the party he or she belongs to). That is fact - they have no option to vote for Boris (or Jeremy).

"We (as in 'we, the great British public') did not n fact vote for Johnson, although many people think they did." Also a fact.

 

[papachris]

Incredible Johnson has been on holiday, parliament has 22 weeks of recess. When you see people still support him, you can understand how Hitler rose to power

If you remember, once he was forced to resign although he was still prime minister while they held the selection process for his successor he basically went on holiday from that point. Stopped doing the job that he's paid for and downed tools.
Considering he is still under investigation it's quite incredible he could be considered for coming back for another go after such short time!

 

[chickens]

If you remember, once he was forced to resign although he was still prime minister while they held the selection process for his successor he basically went on holiday from that point. Stopped doing the job that he's paid for and downed tools.
Considering he is still under investigation it's quite incredible he could be considered for coming back for another go after such short time!

Absolutely, he completely showed his true character during those weeks. I’m astonished anyone thinks it’s a good idea to bring him back.

It’s like Corbyn for lefties, he plays well to the home crowd, but will repulse the swing voters.

 

[Audax]

The voters all vote for the person on the ballot paper (or the party he or she belongs to). That is fact - they have no option to vote for Boris (or Jeremy).

"We (as in 'we, the great British public') did not n fact vote for Johnson, although many people think they did." Also a fact.

It's called a proxy vote. We might not have Boris or Starmer or Truss etc on our specific ballot paper, and as I said you are absolutely correct in terms of the mechanics of the system. But that's irrelevant when it comes time for the voter to walk in and mark their ballot. When they do that, what matters is what's in the heads: and for the vast majority, they look at the ballot paper and they look to see which party each candidate represents. For an awful lot of them, that's as far as it goes: they see "ah, Joe Bloggs is in the Conservatives. I like Boris and I want Brexit, I'll vote for Joe Bloggs" - do they actually know who Joe Bloggs is, and what Joe Bloggs' politics are? For the majority - nope, they don't. They just vote for the name on the paper that will get them the result they want nationally.

Are you seriously trying to say that we all go to the ballot box and choose who we'll vote for without considering the bigger national picture. If so ... you're deluded. I have never, ever chosen who to vote for on my ballot paper because of the individual named. I have always voted on the basis of which party they represent - either because I want that party (and its leader) to win, or because that party has the biggest chance of defeating the party (and its leader) that I very much *don't* want.

I couldn't give a rats who the Labour or Lib Dem individual is on the ticket when I put my cross in the box. I'll put my cross in the box for whichever party looks most likely to be able to defeat the Tory in my area. End of.

There are some seats out there where voters do vote for an individual - but they are very much in the minority of seats.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

 

[beorhthelm]

I couldn't give a rats who the Labour or Lib Dem individual is on the ticket when I put my cross in the box. I'll put my cross in the box for whichever party looks most likely to be able to defeat the Tory in my area. End of.

There are some seats out there where voters do vote for an individual - but they are very much in the minority of seats.

you're projecting now, based on your behaviour. not a sound basis for changing the constitutional position. of course people vote for many reasons other than the candidate, but they are the only thing counted, based on a manifesto (few read). maybe we could have a GE everytime there's a significant change to policy.

 

[Audax]

you're projecting now, based on your behaviour. not a sound basis for changing the constitutional position.

I'm not trying to change the constitutional position. I'm arguing that there is a difference between what is constitutionally / legally the system in use vs how people *think* when they actually vote.

What matters at the end of the day is what people think. That's why political party's try to put in a leader who they think will appeal to the electorate. It's why they send the party leaders into marginal seats when campaigning. It's why polling companies track favourability for party leaders. etc etc.

The only way we'll ever get to a system that actually makes people vote for the local MP based on what they know about that MP would be if we removed the party logos from the ballot paper and banned candidates from declaring which party they stand for before an election and then ban the incumbent from ever standing again (because their affiliation is known). Never going to happen.

So constitutionally, we vote for local MPs.
And in reality, many vote for the national party / party leader.

You simply cannot ignore the national picture and it's influence on how voters make their decisions on who to vote for.

 

[Swansman]

This shows how short her tenure really was

 

[beorhthelm]

So constitutionally, we vote for local MPs.
And in reality, we vote for the national party / party leader.

You simply cannot ignore the national picture and it's influence on how voters make their decisions on who to vote for.

true. likewise you cant simply ignore the constitutional, legal basis of representitve democracy.

and removing party logos would a brilliant idea.