Don't talk about her dating life like that!
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The UK votes to leave the European Union |OUT2| Mayday, Mayday, I've lost an ARM
- Thread starter Hasney
- Start date
- Status
Monty Mole
Member
We elected a Tory government, and the Tory government has elected its leader. She has a mandate, just not one that you agree with.
So, unless you want the rules changed, the only two ways a general election can be triggered are as follows:
- a motion of no confidence is passed in Her Majesty's Government by a simple majority and 14 days elapses without the House passing a confidence motion in any new Government formed
- a motion for a general election is agreed by two thirds of the total number of seats in the Commons including vacant seats (currently 434 out of 650)
http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections-and-voting/general/
For what?
We don't elect the Prime Minister in this country, the Conservatives had the EU referendum in their manifesto. She has as much mandate as she wants.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
She's proposing to take the UK out of the EU, only three weeks after 52% voted for exactly that. That's a bigger mandate than any government has had since probably ever.
Your views on democracy and whether this is democratic or not might vary - but this is not a new thing.
12 of the last 24 PMs have assumed office without an election.
We are not a presidential democracy, your votes are not for the PM, they are for your local MP.
If you have a problem with this then get electoral change - don't blame May, Brown or anyone. This has been happening for decades.
12 of the last 24 PMs have assumed office without an election.
We are not a presidential democracy, your votes are not for the PM, they are for your local MP.
If you have a problem with this then get electoral change - don't blame May, Brown or anyone. This has been happening for decades.
Huw_Dawson
Member
This will demonstrate just how solid Corbyn's (read, Momentum's) grip on Labour is. He's absolutely at his lowest ebb. If he can't be ousted here, then he's secure.
The point isn't to oust Corbyn - it's to form a clearly defined bloc of social democrats, who can then either fight onwards in Labour, defect as one or form a new party.
Napoleonthechimp
Member
I think the issue is that she didn't get into power using the typical route expected in our current system. She's PM simply because no one else wanted to be, which to me is lousy.
Tsipras had a double mandate and did the opposite anyway lol.
Jezbollah
Member
She is terrible.
May would be smart to support a motion for GE right now. The labour party is fighting and she hasn't had the opportunity to fuck up yet.
History tells us that the British public hold grudges against shoehorned in Prime Ministers.
chinner i just want britan for british
Probably not too badly. May was supported by the Mail, after all, and she's been a strong Eurosceptic for years. They will fall in line.
4 other people formally wanted to be PM and 3 were eliminated by vote.
Without Article 50 being enacted there's still the threat of bleeding votes to UKIP on one side, and Lib Dems on the other side pushing themselves as the Remain party.
Labour may be mid-implosion but that doesn't mean the Conservatives will increase, or even hold, their current majority.
I lol'd.
SymbiantXenos
Member
Some Brexit voters complaining on FB about getting an unelected PM for the next four years.
You reap what you voted for.
You reap what you voted for.
That's my fault. I don't have a good sense of who's reliable in British reporting.
Thanks for the correction. I still get the feeling that there's no clear reason why Corbyn would step down after losing an election, though. He has already passed a bunch of clear signals that would convince other leaders to step down. What's one more?
They probably thought this was a vote for Farage.
Huw_Dawson
Member
You say that, but the Tory electoral machine is the best in the country. They have no fear of losing marginals to Labour - so they're going to be hammering as many Tory/Lab marginals as they can. They also have a few LD/Con marginal seats in England to attack - Southport, and Carshalton and Wallington.
Then you look at the places the Tories stand to win -
City of Chester (Con until 2015, minimal majority for Lab)
Ealing Central and Acton (same as above)
Wirral West (same as above)
Halifax (Lab hold, >500 votes between)
Brenthford and Isleworth (Lab gain from Con, tiny majority)
Iliford North (Same as above)
Newcastle-Under-Lyme (Lab hold, tiny majority)
Those are all sub 700 votes, which broadly speaking is about one percent of each constituency if you assume an average size of 70k.
Currently the Tories are up about a percent. So a uniform swing of 1% is enough to flip 7 constituencies.
If Labour went into a GE now, I could see their vote dropping by one or two more percent. That's a few more constituencies. Then the Tories start their targeting strategy. Maybe UKIP falls off, or the Lib Dems resurge by a few points. A big chunk of lost LD votes went to Labour as anti-Clegg votes. A big chunk of gained UKIP votes were Con votes. If even a small chunk of them flip back, Labour stands to lose more seats.
So I see people talking about the whole "We don't elect the PM in this country" thing.
Maybe that should change? I mean everyone votes (well not everyone but a sizable majority of the voting populace) based off who the leader of the party is and thus who will become Prime Minister. Many people don't even know who their local MP is nor do they care.
Like I said, I know not everyone is like that but I'd wager a sizable majority are like that. Feels to me like it'd be better to change the system somehow so the PM is elected rather than the party who then elects the PM.
Not that any change will happen for a good few hundred+ years or anything...
Maybe that should change? I mean everyone votes (well not everyone but a sizable majority of the voting populace) based off who the leader of the party is and thus who will become Prime Minister. Many people don't even know who their local MP is nor do they care.
Like I said, I know not everyone is like that but I'd wager a sizable majority are like that. Feels to me like it'd be better to change the system somehow so the PM is elected rather than the party who then elects the PM.
Not that any change will happen for a good few hundred+ years or anything...
CyclopsRock
Member
It wouldn't be the first time for the Labour party. Kinnock lost in 88 and remained to fight in 92 (he lost both times, natch). I can't think of a time that's happened in recentish (by which I mean post-war) with the Tories, though the 70's get a bit confusing because we have an election every fortnight.
CyclopsRock
Member
That's... a big ask. Our entire system is based around the idea of constituencies sending off their own representative. The Prime Minister as we know it is a role that's only been around for a relatively short time, relative to the age of the parliament. There's no short-cut way I can think of that would mean we could have a directly elected Prime Minister - we'd need to utterly up root the entire structure of our legislature and executive. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing but, like I say, it's a big ask.
anonymous_abc
Member
And honestly what would be the point it wouldn't actually change anything....
I'm not British, but personally I strongly prefer the current method of choosing a Prime Minister. (It's the same here in NL as in the UK basically) The problem is that as much as elections are already about personality, you are only going to exacerbate that when you're no longer choosing a party to lead but a person.
Yeah, it's a big ask but would at least do away with these arguments over 'unelected' PMs and stuff. I mean even the parties themselves bring it up when it suits them ie Gordon Brown with the Tories calling for a general election because of it and the parties not in power doing the same thing now with May.
It would do away with all of that by forcing elections whenever someone leaves during their term.
Probably not but it would stop arguments over it. Unless someone can think of a system that would change things dramatically for the better but that's not going to happen for a long time I'm sure.
Aye that's true but I don't know. Just thinking it would do away with arguments over "We need a GE" when stuff like this happens.
Of course I don't know of a better system so I can't suggest anymore than that
.Btw, incase I missed anything, has she still said that the A50 trigger is still not happening until next year? Just curious since she's becoming PM earlier than anticipated. (due to the whole Leadsom dropping out)
QuicheFontaine
Member
I'm fine with it. May is definitely better than Leadsom.
JonnyDBrit
Member
It is a bit of an interesting question, and the oversight can be seen especially when an MP changes parties but is able to keep their seat because the system assumes their constituents voted for them as an individual, not as part of a party.
Part of the problem however is that the system was never actually built with the role of Prime Minister in mind - indeed for almost two centuries the very existence of such a notion was outright denied - so it would require outright redefining the assumed nature of governance in this country if we were to somehow distinguish the appointment of such from simply being a logical consequence of GE results. This is almost never going to be in the interest of either the government or the opposition, yet they are the most likely sources for such change to be implemented.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Owen Smith has decided to run for the Labour leadership.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/u...03/exclusive-owen-smith-run-labour-leadership
https://www.politicshome.com/news/u...03/exclusive-owen-smith-run-labour-leadership
This would basically be switching to a presidential democracy.
As a citizen of a presidential democracy, DON'T GO IN THERE.
Having the head of state also be the head of legislature is actually way more functional in terms of allowing the platform people vote for to actually become law.
Why are you guys so bad at politics
PJV3
Member
WhateverItTakes
Banned
It's certainly Madness right now alright. Though more of a kitten's den than a lions. And that kitty ain't pretty.
ultratruman
Banned
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Smith stands a *much* better chance than Eagle. I mean, he's not an election-winner, I don't think, but he's a Corbyn-beater at least.
Even the TV debates (which all potential PM candidates aka leaders of their party has taken part in at one point or another) act as if people are voting for PM rather than their local MP.
It's basically like you're voting for PM except you're not. The campaigns are basically presidential campaigns even if the system isn't.
The only time many even hear from their local MP is through campaign leaflets popped through the letterbox during campaign time.
Just seems very contradictory (the whole campaign that most every party runs vs the actual system)
Smith is fucking useless.
Even by Welsh standards he's a crap MP.
And we've had some crap MP's.....
Nah it's "I'm not Jeremy Corbyn and I don't mind being thrown out in 6 months time" but I can see how you'd be mistaken.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
He's from the right side of the party (the left side of the party?) to unseat Corbyn, though.
He'd be lucky to get 10%
Also, what happens if the grassroots vote Corbyn back in if they see this as a stitch up by the elites? Or if they just say fuck you and vote him back in anyway?
God damn it this is such a fucking mess...and to think that people in Australia were crying because the Electoral Commission took a few days to finalise the results of last week's federal election.
God damn it this is such a fucking mess...and to think that people in Australia were crying because the Electoral Commission took a few days to finalise the results of last week's federal election.
CyclopsRock
Member
I think you're looking at it a bit too black and white. Who the PM is - as head of government, the person who fills the cabinet, the person who unites their party and who represents the country on the national stage - who the PM is is important. That said, manifestos dictate what the actual policies that PM will be enacting, so that's important too. Right now we are "fortunate" in the way they come as a package - you only need to take a look at the US to see what happens when you have an executive from one party and a legislature from another. How much stock people put into each - PM vs Manifesto - is up to them.
Right now people argue over unelected PMs once a decade but basically who cares? Let them argue.
Monty Mole
Member
Completely disagree. The current system isn't perfect, but it does mean that our politics isn't all about one person in the run up to a vote - just compare and contrast to Clinton vs Trump in the states. Also, it means we have a coalition when a party doesn't win a sizeable majority - again not ideal, but a fairer system for a country divided. It's just a shame we can't have a Brexit coalition - one toe out, one toe in.. oh wait.. that's exactly what'll end up happening anyway
So the Dutch government (together with a PM) isn't validated by a vote in Parliament when appointed?
Actually I think there's a bit more nuance to it than that.
1. Separating out the executive and the legislature could have an effect of restricting the overreach of powers from the executive, it hasn't really led to authoritarianism in the Commonwealth countries, but there is an argument to say that separating the executive from the legislature is a prima facie good idea.
2. Given that the high ranks of the executive are members of parliament, there are salary implications to having to vote with the government, even against the wishes of their own constituency. In the US, at least traditionally, members of congress would frequently vote against their party, there was no such thing as a conscience vote. Whips hold far less power than in Westminster countries. Everyone in the HoR in the US is more or less equal.
3. On the flipside, having members appear in Parliament makes them accountable to representative members of the community. The PM is constantly under scrutiny from the Parliament, which makes him in some ways far more accountable for the executive than the President in the US. This kind of transparent open government is a good way to counteract argument 1.
4. The argument is more or less academic, both systems clearly work very well in various countries. I don't know which one I prefer....but I honestly think that the UK, along with Australia should make individual MPs more accountable to their constituents....maybe with things like recall or open primaries, which would be a good way to shake up representatives in incredibly safe seats from voting with impunity.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked