FabSwingers.com forum: If PMs get booted out, should that trigger an election?

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

I'm torn on this.

I think this clear indication a PM/party isn't working out is a reason the electorate should get to choose if they're happy with the new potential PM/direction.

On the other hand, an automatic election when a PM is booted out would likely mean parties hang onto any PM, no matter how bad they are.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *heshbifellaMan
over a year ago

Nantwich

No, it should not trigger an election. It didn't yesterday, or when Boris left or Gordon Brown left. Applies to all parties.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"No, it should not trigger an election. It didn't yesterday, or when Boris left or Gordon Brown left. Applies to all parties. "

Why not, in your view?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

"No, it should not trigger an election. It didn't yesterday, or when Boris left or Gordon Brown left. Applies to all parties.

Why not, in your view?"

I'm not him but the answer is obvious. We do not vote for who is PM.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"No, it should not trigger an election. It didn't yesterday, or when Boris left or Gordon Brown left. Applies to all parties.

Why not, in your view?

I'm not him but the answer is obvious. We do not vote for who is PM."

Nitpicking. We don't vote directly for a PM. But we kind of do. Many people who voted for the Tories under Johnson were really voting for him. Just like many really voted for Blair when they were voting for New Labour.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

"No, it should not trigger an election. It didn't yesterday, or when Boris left or Gordon Brown left. Applies to all parties.

Why not, in your view?

I'm not him but the answer is obvious. We do not vote for who is PM.

Nitpicking? That's the truth of it. We vote for our local MPs and have no say in who the leader of the ruling party is.

Like it or not.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"No, it should not trigger an election. It didn't yesterday, or when Boris left or Gordon Brown left. Applies to all parties.

Why not, in your view?

I'm not him but the answer is obvious. We do not vote for who is PM.

Nitpicking? That's the truth of it. We vote for our local MPs and have no say in who the leader of the ruling party is.

Like it or not."

I know how it works. But in reality many people vote for who will be PM. To pretend otherwise is a v odd hill to die on.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

I've seen the way you operate on here many times. Can we leave the thread to get back to the actual topic now?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

"No, it should not trigger an election. It didn't yesterday, or when Boris left or Gordon Brown left. Applies to all parties.

Why not, in your view?

I'm not him but the answer is obvious. We do not vote for who is PM.

Nitpicking? That's the truth of it. We vote for our local MPs and have no say in who the leader of the ruling party is.

Like it or not.

I know how it works. But in reality many people vote for who will be PM. To pretend otherwise is a v odd hill to die on."

I'm not dying, clearly I'm very much alive

The reality is we don't have a say in who the PM is. We may vote knowing who will be PM. We also know that can change at any time without our say so.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

"I've seen the way you operate on here many times. Can we leave the thread to get back to the actual topic now?"

The way I operate?

Why are you trying to personally attack me?

I'm very much on topic.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"I've seen the way you operate on here many times. Can we leave the thread to get back to the actual topic now?

The way I operate?

Why are you trying to personally attack me?

I'm very much on topic."

*sigh*

You've had your say. All is well. Moving on, please.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

"I've seen the way you operate on here many times. Can we leave the thread to get back to the actual topic now?

The way I operate?

Why are you trying to personally attack me?

I'm very much on topic.

*sigh*

You've had your say. All is well. Moving on, please."

First you tell me I'm nitpicking, then you tell me I'm dying, then you tell me you know how I operate.

At no point have I attacked you. I've stayed on topic apart from my response to you.

If you don't like debates, don't start threads. Pathetic.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"I've seen the way you operate on here many times. Can we leave the thread to get back to the actual topic now?

The way I operate?

Why are you trying to personally attack me?

I'm very much on topic.

*sigh*

You've had your say. All is well. Moving on, please.

First you tell me I'm nitpicking, then you tell me I'm dying, then you tell me you know how I operate.

At no point have I attacked you. I've stayed on topic apart from my response to you.

If you don't like debates, don't start threads. Pathetic."

OK let's try & get this over with.

You were nitpicking. It's what you do. I've seen you do it on many threads until the threads get hopelessly derailed. That's what I meant when I said I've seen how you operate. It's not an attack. It's simply an observation.

On to the hill to die on. It's a well known saying. It has nothing to do with actual dying in this context. I suspect you know that. It feels like you're snatching at any excuse to kick up a fuss right now. Maybe because you dislike me. Maybe because you're trying to get me banned. Who knows?

I'd like to hear comments on my question at the top of the thread. I asked it because I'm interested in answers. That's why I'd like to move past this if possible. You've had your say. OK.

Thank you.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

"I've seen the way you operate on here many times. Can we leave the thread to get back to the actual topic now?

The way I operate?

Why are you trying to personally attack me?

I'm very much on topic.

*sigh*

You've had your say. All is well. Moving on, please.

First you tell me I'm nitpicking, then you tell me I'm dying, then you tell me you know how I operate.

At no point have I attacked you. I've stayed on topic apart from my response to you.

If you don't like debates, don't start threads. Pathetic.

OK let's try & get this over with.

I'd like to hear comments on my question at the top of the thread. I asked it because I'm interested in answers. That's why I'd like to move past this if possible. You've had your say. OK.

Thank you.

I couldn't care less if you get banned or not.

As I've stated, I stayed on topic. You've asked for comments on your question and I provided answers. You may not like those answers but they are true answers. I'm sure you can acknowledge that.

If you'd like to discuss the actual thread without attacking someone just because you don't like what they have to say then feel free.

Until then, you can decide to ignore me but try to attack me personally and I'll always respond.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

I didn't attack you. But believe what you want. And I don't even know what your view on the topic at this point. That's the problem with this sort of pointless back & forth that goes on & on. Everything gets lost. It's why I'm trying to move things on.

Any topic replies?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

"I didn't attack you. But believe what you want. And I don't even know what your view on the topic at this point. That's the problem with this sort of pointless back & forth that goes on & on. Everything gets lost. It's why I'm trying to move things on.

Any topic replies?"

Topic replies? I was on topic. Go scroll back up and you'll see my views

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Any topic replies?

Topic replies? I was on topic. Go scroll back up and you'll see my views"

Can't be bothered anymore. That's the problem. Feel free to tell me here, though, if you stay on topic.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I'm torn on this.

I think this clear indication a PM/party isn't working out is a reason the electorate should get to choose if they're happy with the new potential PM/direction.

On the other hand, an automatic election when a PM is booted out would likely mean parties hang onto any PM, no matter how bad they are."

Maybe a new PM should only get a set term that ends before the 5 years set at the last GE

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

Any topic replies?

Topic replies? I was on topic. Go scroll back up and you'll see my views

Can't be bothered anymore. That's the problem. Feel free to tell me here, though, if you stay on topic."

It's simple

We do not vote for a PM. You may argue that we do indirectly. That could be true but we're well aware that it could change at anytime without our agreement.

Does that work for you? I hope so, because I can't be any clearer.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

"I'm torn on this.

I think this clear indication a PM/party isn't working out is a reason the electorate should get to choose if they're happy with the new potential PM/direction.

On the other hand, an automatic election when a PM is booted out would likely mean parties hang onto any PM, no matter how bad they are.

Maybe a new PM should only get a set term that ends before the 5 years set at the last GE "

It's not the worst idea.

Or maybe we could go down the US route and actually appoint a person rather than party? Don't see many agreeing to that, do you?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Any topic replies?

Topic replies? I was on topic. Go scroll back up and you'll see my views

Can't be bothered anymore. That's the problem. Feel free to tell me here, though, if you stay on topic.

It's simple

We do not vote for a PM. You may argue that we do indirectly. That could be true but we're well aware that it could change at anytime without our agreement.

Does that work for you? I hope so, because I can't be any clearer."

Thank you. So that implies you don't think we should get a vote if a party picks a new PM? I assume that's your view.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

Any topic replies?

Topic replies? I was on topic. Go scroll back up and you'll see my views

Can't be bothered anymore. That's the problem. Feel free to tell me here, though, if you stay on topic.

It's simple

We do not vote for a PM. You may argue that we do indirectly. That could be true but we're well aware that it could change at anytime without our agreement.

Does that work for you? I hope so, because I can't be any clearer.

Thank you. So that implies you don't think we should get a vote if a party picks a new PM? I assume that's your view."

No I don't think we should, due to the reasons stated.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Any topic replies?

Topic replies? I was on topic. Go scroll back up and you'll see my views

Can't be bothered anymore. That's the problem. Feel free to tell me here, though, if you stay on topic.

It's simple

We do not vote for a PM. You may argue that we do indirectly. That could be true but we're well aware that it could change at anytime without our agreement.

Does that work for you? I hope so, because I can't be any clearer.

Thank you. So that implies you don't think we should get a vote if a party picks a new PM? I assume that's your view.

No I don't think we should, due to the reasons stated."

Even if the new PM takes a drastically different direction to the previous 1?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *otMe66Man
over a year ago

Terra Firma

The party leader will influence votes in constituencies, by presenting the party manifesto and appealing to the general public to vote for the party. Local MP's will get into the detail on the doorstep to hoover up the undecideds.

The leader of the party may not stay the term as we have seen very recently, this in theory should not alter the election result as it is a question of leadership in the elected governing party who hold a majority.

Losing confidence or the majority of the house would certainly become a party issue and one that would trigger an election through a vote of no confidence in either the PM or the government.

I think the correct processes are in place and do not need to be changed.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

Any topic replies?

Topic replies? I was on topic. Go scroll back up and you'll see my views

Can't be bothered anymore. That's the problem. Feel free to tell me here, though, if you stay on topic.

It's simple

We do not vote for a PM. You may argue that we do indirectly. That could be true but we're well aware that it could change at anytime without our agreement.

Does that work for you? I hope so, because I can't be any clearer.

Thank you. So that implies you don't think we should get a vote if a party picks a new PM? I assume that's your view.

No I don't think we should, due to the reasons stated.

Even if the new PM takes a drastically different direction to the previous 1?"

Nope. We also don't decide the direction in which any government takes us.

We read PARTY manifestos and make a decision. And most manifestos never come to fruition anyway.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Any topic replies?

Topic replies? I was on topic. Go scroll back up and you'll see my views

Can't be bothered anymore. That's the problem. Feel free to tell me here, though, if you stay on topic.

It's simple

We do not vote for a PM. You may argue that we do indirectly. That could be true but we're well aware that it could change at anytime without our agreement.

Does that work for you? I hope so, because I can't be any clearer.

Thank you. So that implies you don't think we should get a vote if a party picks a new PM? I assume that's your view.

No I don't think we should, due to the reasons stated.

Even if the new PM takes a drastically different direction to the previous 1?

Nope. We also don't decide the direction in which any government takes us.

We read PARTY manifestos and make a decision. And most manifestos never come to fruition anyway."

Not sure why you shouted PARTY, but ok that's your view.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *astandFeistyCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouth

Any topic replies?

Topic replies? I was on topic. Go scroll back up and you'll see my views

Can't be bothered anymore. That's the problem. Feel free to tell me here, though, if you stay on topic.

It's simple

We do not vote for a PM. You may argue that we do indirectly. That could be true but we're well aware that it could change at anytime without our agreement.

Does that work for you? I hope so, because I can't be any clearer.

Thank you. So that implies you don't think we should get a vote if a party picks a new PM? I assume that's your view.

No I don't think we should, due to the reasons stated.

Even if the new PM takes a drastically different direction to the previous 1?

Nope. We also don't decide the direction in which any government takes us.

We read PARTY manifestos and make a decision. And most manifestos never come to fruition anyway.

Not sure why you shouted PARTY, but ok that's your view."

I shouted PARTY because I was empathising that we use party manifestos to help us with out decision when voting.

If a PM deviates from manifesto then we should get a vote to change? That's what I think you're saying when you say 'if a PM takes us in a different direction'

We'd constantly be stuck in a loop of GE seeing as most of them never come through with their manifesto pledges and change direction after elected.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago

milton keynes

"I'm torn on this.

I think this clear indication a PM/party isn't working out is a reason the electorate should get to choose if they're happy with the new potential PM/direction.

On the other hand, an automatic election when a PM is booted out would likely mean parties hang onto any PM, no matter how bad they are."

I think your last sentence is a reasonable reason why we should not have a GE if the PM changes. The rules on this are no secret and both main parties have used it. Even the SNP have, but not sure if they can call elections themselves. Personally I think stick as we are and let the voters give their opinion on the whole term

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I've seen the way you operate on here many times. Can we leave the thread to get back to the actual topic now?"

wow some people are nasty here. couple were totally on tracks. I agree with there comments, vote for party. It's party matter who they chose to lead it.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I'm torn on this.

I think this clear indication a PM/party isn't working out is a reason the electorate should get to choose if they're happy with the new potential PM/direction.

On the other hand, an automatic election when a PM is booted out would likely mean parties hang onto any PM, no matter how bad they are.

agree massively

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *hybloke67Man
over a year ago

ROMFORD

"I'm torn on this.

I think this clear indication a PM/party isn't working out is a reason the electorate should get to choose if they're happy with the new potential PM/direction.

On the other hand, an automatic election when a PM is booted out would likely mean parties hang onto any PM, no matter how bad they are."

Simple answer is no.

We the voters vote who will be our local MP not who will be PM.

To say otherwise means you either don't understand how politics works here or you're just trying to stir things up.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"I'm torn on this.

I think this clear indication a PM/party isn't working out is a reason the electorate should get to choose if they're happy with the new potential PM/direction.

On the other hand, an automatic election when a PM is booted out would likely mean parties hang onto any PM, no matter how bad they are.

Simple answer is no.

We the voters vote who will be our local MP not who will be PM.

To say otherwise means you either don't understand how politics works here or you're just trying to stir things up."

Asking a question is stirring things up? I thought the topic might be an interesting thing to discuss.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I'm torn on this.

I think this clear indication a PM/party isn't working out is a reason the electorate should get to choose if they're happy with the new potential PM/direction.

On the other hand, an automatic election when a PM is booted out would likely mean parties hang onto any PM, no matter how bad they are.

Simple answer is no.

We the voters vote who will be our local MP not who will be PM.

To say otherwise means you either don't understand how politics works here or you're just trying to stir things up.

Asking a question is stirring things up? I thought the topic might be an interesting thing to discuss."

it is

but you seen to get very angry when people start to discuss

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"I'm torn on this.

I think this clear indication a PM/party isn't working out is a reason the electorate should get to choose if they're happy with the new potential PM/direction.

On the other hand, an automatic election when a PM is booted out would likely mean parties hang onto any PM, no matter how bad they are.

Simple answer is no.

We the voters vote who will be our local MP not who will be PM.

To say otherwise means you either don't understand how politics works here or you're just trying to stir things up.

Asking a question is stirring things up? I thought the topic might be an interesting thing to discuss.

it is

but you seen to get very angry when people start to discuss

Really? How am I angry? I feel rather calm actually.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *elle and JamesCouple
over a year ago

Hornchurch

"No, it should not trigger an election. It didn't yesterday, or when Boris left or Gordon Brown left. Applies to all parties.

Why not, in your view?

I'm not him but the answer is obvious. We do not vote for who is PM.

Nitpicking? That's the truth of it. We vote for our local MPs and have no say in who the leader of the ruling party is.

Like it or not.

I know how it works. But in reality many people vote for who will be PM. To pretend otherwise is a v odd hill to die on."

They may well do, but it is impossible to discern that from the votes cast at an election. They may equally vote for a manifesto, because of local issues, local personality or a myriad of other reasons, none of which can be safely discerned either. That's the nature of representative democracy with single seat constituencies and fptp.

I don't see any hill dying, but if people don't recognise the mechanics of our system as it is rather than how they wish then there is a chance that what we accept now as democracy may well if not die, certainly take a turn for the worst.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *mateur100Man
over a year ago

nr faversham

"No, it should not trigger an election. It didn't yesterday, or when Boris left or Gordon Brown left. Applies to all parties.

Why not, in your view?

I'm not him but the answer is obvious. We do not vote for who is PM.

Nitpicking? That's the truth of it. We vote for our local MPs and have no say in who the leader of the ruling party is.

Like it or not.

I know how it works. But in reality many people vote for who will be PM. To pretend otherwise is a v odd hill to die on.

I think if an mo crossed the floor there's a strong cases for a by-election but not a change of pm. Happens with all parties throughout history

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *elle and JamesCouple
over a year ago

Hornchurch

"No, it should not trigger an election. It didn't yesterday, or when Boris left or Gordon Brown left. Applies to all parties.

Why not, in your view?

I'm not him but the answer is obvious. We do not vote for who is PM.

Nitpicking? That's the truth of it. We vote for our local MPs and have no say in who the leader of the ruling party is.

Like it or not.

I know how it works. But in reality many people vote for who will be PM. To pretend otherwise is a v odd hill to die on.

I think if an mo crossed the floor there's a strong cases for a by-election but not a change of pm. Happens with all parties throughout history "

Morally, possibly, but then you could argue that for every time an MP votes against what their manifesto was.

The party system is independent from the structure of our representation hence MPs can be independent or not. And if they can be independent then they can cross the floor.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *mateur100Man
over a year ago

nr faversham

"No, it should not trigger an election. It didn't yesterday, or when Boris left or Gordon Brown left. Applies to all parties.

Why not, in your view?

I'm not him but the answer is obvious. We do not vote for who is PM.

Nitpicking? That's the truth of it. We vote for our local MPs and have no say in who the leader of the ruling party is.

Like it or not.

I know how it works. But in reality many people vote for who will be PM. To pretend otherwise is a v odd hill to die on.

I think if an mo crossed the floor there's a strong cases for a by-election but not a change of pm. Happens with all parties throughout history

Morally, possibly, but then you could argue that for every time an MP votes against what their manifesto was.

The party system is independent from the structure of our representation hence MPs can be independent or not. And if they can be independent then they can cross the floor. "

Yes but if you vote for a Tory MP who crosses the floor, I think you should have the right to enforce a by-election. People vote in a GE for the party leader, not the monkey in a suit mp in my opinion. Local elections are different

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *hybloke67Man
over a year ago

ROMFORD

"I'm torn on this.

I think this clear indication a PM/party isn't working out is a reason the electorate should get to choose if they're happy with the new potential PM/direction.

On the other hand, an automatic election when a PM is booted out would likely mean parties hang onto any PM, no matter how bad they are.

Simple answer is no.

We the voters vote who will be our local MP not who will be PM.

To say otherwise means you either don't understand how politics works here or you're just trying to stir things up.

Asking a question is stirring things up? I thought the topic might be an interesting thing to discuss."

Using your logic then.

A sitting PM goes into a General Election. His party wins with a majority say 50. However the sitting PM actually loses his seat and is no longer an MP so can not continue to be PM..

With your logic does that mean we have to have another General Election straight after the one we have just had?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *elle and JamesCouple
over a year ago

Hornchurch

"No, it should not trigger an election. It didn't yesterday, or when Boris left or Gordon Brown left. Applies to all parties.

Why not, in your view?

I'm not him but the answer is obvious. We do not vote for who is PM.

Nitpicking? That's the truth of it. We vote for our local MPs and have no say in who the leader of the ruling party is.

Like it or not.

I know how it works. But in reality many people vote for who will be PM. To pretend otherwise is a v odd hill to die on.

I think if an mo crossed the floor there's a strong cases for a by-election but not a change of pm. Happens with all parties throughout history

Morally, possibly, but then you could argue that for every time an MP votes against what their manifesto was.

The party system is independent from the structure of our representation hence MPs can be independent or not. And if they can be independent then they can cross the floor.

But you can't prove that, there is no way we can ever understand what is in the voters mind when they enter the booth. I guess the closest analogy is that of a jury, only those twelve know why they returned the verdict they did. We can project all we like, and some of it is probably accurate or correct projection but we cannot 'know'. So we can't act.

All we know is that a majority of the electorate (however you wish to count it) voted for X and X is therefore the MP for that constituency.

If you wanted a by-election on the circumstances you describe you would need a ballot with anonymous candidates, just a list of their party affiliation or otherwise.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *mateur100Man
over a year ago

nr faversham

"No, it should not trigger an election. It didn't yesterday, or when Boris left or Gordon Brown left. Applies to all parties.

Why not, in your view?

I'm not him but the answer is obvious. We do not vote for who is PM.

Nitpicking? That's the truth of it. We vote for our local MPs and have no say in who the leader of the ruling party is.

Like it or not.

I know how it works. But in reality many people vote for who will be PM. To pretend otherwise is a v odd hill to die on.

I think if an mo crossed the floor there's a strong cases for a by-election but not a change of pm. Happens with all parties throughout history

Morally, possibly, but then you could argue that for every time an MP votes against what their manifesto was.

The party system is independent from the structure of our representation hence MPs can be independent or not. And if they can be independent then they can cross the floor.

All we know is that a majority of the electorate (however you wish to count it) voted for X and X is therefore the MP for that constituency.

If you wanted a by-election on the circumstances you describe you would need a ballot with anonymous candidates, just a list of their party affiliation or otherwise."

This isn't a personal attack. Just a statement of my experience. You want something done locally you go to your councillor, you want something done on a wider basis, your mp

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *elle and JamesCouple
over a year ago

Hornchurch

"No, it should not trigger an election. It didn't yesterday, or when Boris left or Gordon Brown left. Applies to all parties.

Why not, in your view?

I'm not him but the answer is obvious. We do not vote for who is PM.

Nitpicking? That's the truth of it. We vote for our local MPs and have no say in who the leader of the ruling party is.

Like it or not.

I know how it works. But in reality many people vote for who will be PM. To pretend otherwise is a v odd hill to die on.

I think if an mo crossed the floor there's a strong cases for a by-election but not a change of pm. Happens with all parties throughout history

Morally, possibly, but then you could argue that for every time an MP votes against what their manifesto was.

The party system is independent from the structure of our representation hence MPs can be independent or not. And if they can be independent then they can cross the floor.

All we know is that a majority of the electorate (however you wish to count it) voted for X and X is therefore the MP for that constituency.

If you wanted a by-election on the circumstances you describe you would need a ballot with anonymous candidates, just a list of their party affiliation or otherwise.

This isn't a personal attack. Just a statement of my experience. You want something done locally you go to your councillor, you want something done on a wider basis, your mp "

I didn't take it as one I promise. I'm just highlighting how our representative democracy works.

Almost correct, you go to the person who is a part of the body responsible for the thing you want doing.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *heshbifellaMan
over a year ago

Nantwich

"No, it should not trigger an election. It didn't yesterday, or when Boris left or Gordon Brown left. Applies to all parties.

Why not, in your view?"

For all the reasons given above!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"No, it should not trigger an election. It didn't yesterday, or when Boris left or Gordon Brown left. Applies to all parties.

Why not, in your view?

For all the reasons given above! "

I posted that right near the start of the thread. So your exclamation mark reaction at this point, after so many replies, is really odd.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *heshbifellaMan
over a year ago

Nantwich

[Removed by poster at 29/03/23 02:46:41]

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *heshbifellaMan
over a year ago

Nantwich

"No, it should not trigger an election. It didn't yesterday, or when Boris left or Gordon Brown left. Applies to all parties.

Why not, in your view?

For all the reasons given above!

I posted that right near the start of the thread. So your exclamation mark reaction at this point, after so many replies, is really odd."

Some of us have work to do, so I could not respond immediately.

The exclamation mark (!), known informally as a bang or a shriek, is used at the end of a sentence or a short phrase which expresses strong feeling. It's use was therefore entirely appropriate, rather than odd, as I'm happy with the current system, as expressed so well by fellow contributors during my working absence, and strongly feel it should not be changed.

What was in fact very odd was how quickly you became aggressive and angry with the couple from the South West, as noted by someone else, and how you, of all people, tried to pull me up on grammar and punctuation.

How depressing that, amongst other things, you don't appear to understand the various uses of the exclamation mark!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *orleymanMan
over a year ago

Leeds

I dont think any government is going to want to vote for this.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ob198XaMan
over a year ago

teleford

"No, it should not trigger an election. It didn't yesterday, or when Boris left or Gordon Brown left. Applies to all parties.

Why not, in your view?"

Because we don’t elect a government, we don’t even elect a party to govern. What we do is elect members of parliament to represent us for a four year term.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *idnight RamblerMan
over a year ago

Pershore

No it should not. Because if it did the incumbent party would resist changing an underperforming PM, and we'd be stuck with him/her for the full term. The present system allows for a PM to be ditched and replaced with a better candidate which benefits us all. The new PM is an elected MP and has a mandate already.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread