Fewer than 200,000

Obviously the Conservative Party members should decide who will be the next leader of their party, but not the next PM.
Surely there should then be a general election to decide the next PM. It just seems ludicrous to me.
 
Last edited:
Levi501 said:
Obviously the Conservative Party members should decide who will be the next leader of their party, but not the next PM.
Surely there should then be a general election to decide the next PM. It just seems ludicrous to me.
Click to expand...

Technically, they're not deciding who the next PM is. That's what the General Election is for. More precisely, voters never elect a PM, they only vote for MPs in their own constituencies. The parties decide who will represent them at local level and as leader for the next five years.
 
Lets be honest though in the last election people voted for Boris, because of his get Brexit done and his charismatic persona.
 
At least we pronounce it correctly, unlike most tv presenters and those down south, we say nasty, they say narsty, wonder why it isn’t spelt that way
 
tommytwojags said:
Party members are going to decide who is leader of their party. It would be a weird arrangement if Labour and SNP were allowed to choose who is the Tory leader. 🙄
Click to expand...
The point is, as well you know, that in the event of a change in leadership, (and in effect a complete change of Government policy) there should be a general election to confirm the mandate Johnson always banged on about.
 
It might be unfortunate that the tory party members choose the PM, but it is also the same system that allows us to dispose of shîtty prime ministers quickly.
So all in all I'd stick with what we have.
 
EPM46 said:
Less than 200,000 Nasty Party members will decide who our next PM will be!
How can that be right?
Click to expand...
And even they only get a choice between the final 2 after the party of liars has narrowed down the choice. So basically, it's just going to be a continuation of what went before but with a different face spouting the lies.
 
Its just simply another aspect of the broken political process. it doesnt matter if it was Gordon Brown, or may, or johnson or whichever muppet manages to squeeze in this time, and lets not forget John Major. Its been part of the process for a long time, a party is elected not an individual and a modern day weakness i think for UK democracy (whatever democracy might mean).

This constant change of leadership is reminiscent of many banana republics.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
Its just simply another aspect of the broken political process. it doesnt matter if it was Gordon Brown, or may, or johnson or whichever muppet manages to squeeze in this time, and lets not forget John Major. Its been part of the process for a long time, a party is elected not an individual and a modern day weakness i think for UK democracy (whatever democracy might mean).

This constant change of leadership is reminiscent of many banana republics.
Click to expand...
Can’t argue with that... change is long overdue... but to what... and there lies the problem.
 
Labour are so nasty they would financially ruin pensioners by ending the triple lock and do away with the free bus pass and raise taxes and VAT.Under no circumstances if you are an OAP or younger vote for them.
 
Last edited:
Wizaard said:
The point is, as well you know, that in the event of a change in leadership, (and in effect a complete change of Government policy) there should be a general election to confirm the mandate Johnson always banged on about.
Click to expand...
I agree but have you forgotten about 2007 as well? Or are you just ignoring it?
 
Newholland said:
Can’t argue with that... change is long overdue... but to what... and there lies the problem.
Click to expand...
well a lottery would probably have thrown up significantly better candidates than the last 6 or 7 incumbents and certainly better than the muppets currently pushing their way forward now.

and lotteries were the first form of democracy in greece.
 
Trammo said:
Labour are so nasty they would financially ruin pensioners by ending the triple lock and do away with the free bus pass and raise taxes and VAT.Under no circumstances if you are an OAP or younger vote for them.
Click to expand...
Yes be a killer for my parents they'd have to cut back from 5 to 4 holidays per year. The baby boomers with gold plated pensions and if you were unlucky you'd have to work till 60 to get it. In the 90s I saw a load of people retire from local govt in their 50s on a final salary pension. It wasn't the odd lucky one either. Yes i know there are a lot of pensioners who are struggling but let's accept that there are a lot of affluent ones as well.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
well a lottery would probably have thrown up significantly better candidates than the last 6 or 7 incumbents and certainly better than the muppets currently pushing their way forward now.

and lotteries were the first form of democracy in greece.
Click to expand...
Well that’s certainly not the measured response I was expecting!!!🤣
 
So the Tory system for selecting their new leader is a form of PR (STV) but the Tories also say that that system would be terrible for GEs and FPTP is the best system for GEs. A bit strange that.
 
Newholland said:
Well that’s certainly not the measured response I was expecting!!!🤣
Click to expand...
Its not as unmeasured as you might think. one of the ways i think elections become fairer is that ambivalence to the standing candidates is represented. If non votes and / or spoiled ballots are higher than any standing candidates then a lottery is drawn from a list of qualified candidates. How you qualify is an issue but relatively easy to overcome. About a quarter of MP's based on current voting would be selected by lottery. Party candidates would be excluded from the lottery list.

It doesnt work for the PM but i also think that Elections for PM should be disconnected from Parliament. In my mind a general election consists of one for the executive: PM, Dep PM and Chancellor. Another separate vote for constituency MP's: frst past the post but with the condition set out as before. MP's should not have cabinet positions, they are solely constituency representatives.

another vote for a new house of Lords using PR with the same criteria that ambivalence / spoiled ballots are represented.

theoretically it would be significantly more balanced than the predominently public school, oxbridge educated History, economic, law and political science graduates that currently populate politics.
 
Wizaard said:
The point is, as well you know, that in the event of a change in leadership, (and in effect a complete change of Government policy) there should be a general election to confirm the mandate Johnson always banged on about.
Click to expand...
Couldn’t agree more! The Buffoon’s mantra was that he had a mandate from 14 million people to carry out his policies. ( Not true of course)! The numpties in his cabinet went along and supported him leading to tax hikes, failed levelling up, vast sums of money wasted on PPE etc. These same people now want to reverse his monetary policies and cut taxes. No mention from any of them about levelling up.
So, NO mandate from the electorate for these revised policies.
There needs to be a General Election!
 
Wizaard said:
The point is, as well you know, that in the event of a change in leadership, (and in effect a complete change of Government policy) there should be a general election to confirm the mandate Johnson always banged on about.
Click to expand...

You sound like Nicola Sturgeon. We might have voted against independence but things have changed since then so we are entitled to another referendum. Or in the present case, the elected leader has changed so the Tory government is no longer entitled to run the country and we deserve another election. Not only is that outside the scope of the law but it makes no sense since in a general election people vote to elect an MP in their constituency not for someone to run the country. The only difference in 2019 was that the GE was effectively a single matter vote on Brexit and the voters chose Brexit.
 
Last edited:
Costero Poderoso said:
Its not as unmeasured as you might think. one of the ways i think elections become fairer is that ambivalence to the standing candidates is represented. If non votes and / or spoiled ballots are higher than any standing candidates then a lottery is drawn from a list of qualified candidates. How you qualify is an issue but relatively easy to overcome. About a quarter of MP's based on current voting would be selected by lottery. Party candidates would be excluded from the lottery list.

It doesnt work for the PM but i also think that Elections for PM should be disconnected from Parliament. In my mind a general election consists of one for the executive: PM, Dep PM and Chancellor. Another separate vote for constituency MP's: frst past the post but with the condition set out as before. MP's should not have cabinet positions, they are solely constituency representatives.

another vote for a new house of Lords using PR with the same criteria that ambivalence / spoiled ballots are represented.

theoretically it would be significantly more balanced than the predominently public school, oxbridge educated History, economic, law and political science graduates that currently populate politics.
Click to expand...
That has merit, way beyond my pay grade . What I will say... our system belongs to an era a couple of centuries back.
The multicultural/diverse population of 21st century UK needs to be engaged....the media need to report facts ... not influence their paymasters desires....and the vetting process for those intending to stand for election ( whatever system) needs a massive overhaul... my last point would be those chosen to run education/defence/transport/health etc etc must have some sort of qualifications or experience that area. Two party politics is dire!
 
1966_and_all_that said:
The post of Prime Minister is not an elected one. It is an appointment made by the Monarch based on the amount of support that candidate can garner in the House of Commons.
Click to expand...
Mates,

Whilst Iam constitutionally correct I can understand how a change of the most powerful person in the land without an election can ruffle feathers. Be that Boris to whoever Thatcher to Major or Blair to Brown.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
The post of Prime Minister is not an elected one. It is an appointment made by the Monarch based on the amount of support that candidate can garner in the House of Commons.
Click to expand...
Whichever way you care to dress it up, the two candidates remaining at the end of the ballots will go forward to be voted on by less than 200,000 Nasty Party members. The winner will become Prime Minister with NO mandate to govern!
 
EPM46 said:
Whichever way you care to dress it up, the two candidates remaining at the end of the ballots will go forward to be voted on by less than 200,000 Nasty Party members. The winner will become Prime Minister with NO mandate to govern!
Click to expand...
If it was Labour then party members and unions would decide, not the general public
 
EPM46 said:
Whichever way you care to dress it up, the two candidates remaining at the end of the ballots will go forward to be voted on by less than 200,000 Nasty Party members. The winner will become Prime Minister with NO mandate to govern!
Click to expand...
You wanted Johnson out and you're still not happy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top