As much as I'd love a GE and to see Tory MPs swept from power en-masse, that's just not how a Parliamentary system works. Everyone in the UK voted for (whether they think it or not) an MP to elect them for five years. Those MPs get to choose who leads them.
I think there is a very high chance they will be unable to agree on a new leader and will therefor be unable to form a government. Even if they do elect a new leader, if that leader can barely control the party that would not a functioning government, and they should call an election.
At some point Tory MPs need to grow some, call an election, and except that it may mean loosing their job.
Yes it's confusing and it would be better to write down a constitution reflecting how things actually are, but that's how it is.
On one hand, the constitution where I come from (Portugal) is unnecessarily binding and causes a lot of issues the country suffers from. On the other hand in the UK you get this feeling that the PM can do almost anything, which in the hands of a decent person can heavily advance the country or in a period like now, can cause utter chaos.
Technically, whoever has the majority in the parliament can literally do anything, including introducing the laws that require photo ID for voting (in a country without a mandatory photo ID) [0], or that anyone who protested in past five years are required to wear an electronic tag [1]. Or, because why not, to get rid of the election process - completely or partially.
[0] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...
[1] https://twitter.com/TheDonsieLass/status/1582642029762207744
Reference? Or details for ducking ourselves?
here are some references, though not sure if this was what GP was refering to.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vette...
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/14/queen-immuni...
There are others, search for "royal consent" as apposed to "royal assent"
It's been settled via the civil war and the Glorious Revolution, power in the UK rest ultimately in the House of Commons not the monarchy.
So much for democracy.
They were later "de-arrested," but the intended message is pretty clear.
Or you can point to things like the Kerr Sacking (in Australia, but using (vice-)regal power) and say it's not quite done yet, though in decline for centuries...
[1] - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/08/queen-...
Can you expand on this? Is it just because he would be more popular if he dismissed parliament and another election was called?
The world is such a different place to 2019, there is no way they can argue that they are a continuation of the previous mandate.
They morally should put it back to the people as they've failed at it internally twice, but nobody seriously expects them to intentionally do it.
They could accidentally find themselves cornered into it if they can't pick a new leader
That doesn't seem to be the way current conservative parties operate though.
Some would suggest that has already happened and they would have got away with it if it wasnt for those pesky international financial markets trying to limit their exposure to the impacts.
From what I can tell, Sunak might actually do a pretty good job there; and for the time being that may be preferable over the delays and uncertainty of a general election. At least for now, considering the state of things.
We're not going to get that with the current incumbent party.
They made the mistake of putting up two incredibly unpopular candidates for PM to the party members in the most recent PM selection process. I'm not sure they will make the same mistake again.
At the same time, they did just have an election, so it's not like they are going to be interested in having another one. Labour-aligned folks are calling for one for obvious reasons.
This is pretty much the exact opposite of true – Truss had the support of the membership, and did not have the support of the "leadership" or the parliamentary party. Sunak was the other way round.
At the same time, they did just have an election, so it's not like they are going to be interested in having another one
There's not really another choice, though it's possible that only one candidate will stand, in which case an election is avoided.
Labour-aligned folks are calling for one for obvious reasons.
They're calling for a general election, not a Conservative leadership election.
Lots of people here and labor-aligned folks in the UK want another general election.
The current prime minister was voted into position by just 0.2% of the population (conservative party members only - unlike the USA, very few people are registered members of any party in the UK). That was not just a vote for a person, it was a vote for their radical change of policy direction as well, which they set out before the vote.
Yet another prime minister voted in by 0.2% of the population who are particularly unrepresentive, to enact policies diametrically opposed to the formal manifesto pledges at the last general election, is about as far as you can get from what the people appear to want.
It's easy to say "Tories bad, they got to go", but it's not that simple.
It's time for an early General Election. This lot need to go. Every trace of the Tories must be obliterated.
The hilarious part is, the way that polling stands right now, a General Election would result in a strong Labour majority with the Scottish National Party in opposition, the Lib Dems third, and the Conservatives a distant fourth :-D
We vote for MPs, not Parties. Of course, in practice, the vast majority of people vote for their Party not their local MP when they go to the polls during a general election. That isn't how the system is design to function though. Most people couldn't even name their local MP - the one who is actually meant to represent their personal interests - which is an utter travesty.
So yeah you don't vote for a PM ... but there's a clear, well-understood difference between being the leader when your party wins the general election and a winning an internal leadership battle when a few hundred thousand party members vote.
Sounds like completely unbiased opinion. /s
More seriously, I'm only interested in hearing the arguments for a general election from nominal conservative (Tory) supporters. All arguments from leftists are just "we want to win" in disguise so are completely untrustworthy.
From what I understand of UK politics, Johnson won the last election on policy (he was already PM) and lost his seat because of COVID shenanigans so presumably the Tories still have public mandate to continue the same policies (maybe not the Lizz agenda though).
Clearly unbiased opinion. /s
I think every single living member of every Tory cabinet present and past should be strung up in Parliament Square. I'm not in any sense unclear about my views on them.
We have had twelve years of disastrous Tory austerity that has comprehensively destroyed the UK's economy. What's the plan? Let them keep trying until they get something right? How long is it supposed to take for their austerity policies to work, to get the economy back to a sensible state?
https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPDPC@WEO/DEU/FRA/...
At what point is it okay to no longer be tolerant of them?
I'm not a labour supporter, but I'd like to see a general election as it's obvious that the conservatives can't agree internally on a policy platform or candidate to lead. They are split between an authoritarian group and a libertarian group who don't want the same things at all.
Johnson lost due to repeatedly lying to parliament, plus a large number of unforced errors where he ended up having to perform U-Turns after choosing badly and then being forced to change by events. Covid was part of that, but far from the only part of that.
Ideally the UK should have a system of proportional representation, so that the bits of the different parties that actually agree on policies could form their own parties (Labour has similar split problems to the conservatives, but along different axis)
The argument is that the party is being eviscerated in opinion polling, they’ve lost the support of the public and that since they're effectively doomed they're free to do what we know they love to do - attempt to secure themselves a role in the private sector for after the election. Given that this it the Conservative party, it's not exactly a secret that they'll try their best to gut the state in order to do so.
And the idea that Labour in 2022 is “leftist” is laughable.
Conservatives are all - without exception - junkies. Addicts. Criminal junkie addicts, who will steal all they can to sell off for a bit of cash for their fix, although in this case the fix is the cash.
I don't understand how you can argue for an unbiased situation and then disregard the entire left side of the political spectrum. How can election results represent anything other than the will of the public?
Election timing shouldn’t be gameable.
Back in the 60s, a Soviet diplomat ran into an American diplomat on the sidelines of some conference.
"I want to congratulate you Americans", says the Soviet diplomat, "your propaganda is amazing, it's much better than ours".
"What do you mean?", replies the American. "We don't have propaganda?"
"See what I mean!"
You can be polite, and still be insane or evil (see: Brexit and all of the politicking and --from what I can tell-- outright lies that were sold to people). That whole process was mostly civil and polite, but not necessarily healthy.
Also, I think Italy actually has a hybrid system.
[1] yes governments were weak and were replaced often, but that's a feature, not a problem.
As each member of parliament must necessarily represent the biggest groups in their constituencies.
So a decent size group scattered across many dozens of constituencies into relatively tiny groups would simply never get taken seriously without a strong executive.
For example, non-residents, tourists, diplomats, etc..
Because each group certainly has some real interests in common.
In Netherland we have elections for "waterschappen" ("water council"), apparently our oldest governmental body and responsible managing surface water, dikes, etc. So obviously very important in a country like this, but I have no idea what the actual issues involved are, and yet I have to vote for these people.
No offense but if the idea of finding 5 candidates you can feel comfortable voting for is too much work, you shouldn't be voting.
Even if you could do both of those, will it hold up when the populist candidate loses and starts railing about how they have so much support, the best support, and the election was stolen from them by the elite-chosen sample?
The Electoral Judges in Brazil, are censoring actual facts, because despite being facts, they consider it "misinformation", it go so bad that a former supreme court judge of ours got censored for explaining something technical... Despite the fact our constitution explicitly bans any form of censorship. (ironically, as defense against US... our constitution promotes free speech to prevent CIA from subverting the country again).
Lets revisit this observation in 2024 when the next US Presidential election is held. Many localities have been electing people to oversee their local election process who are 2020 deniers, and who supported overturning Biden's win in order to keep Trump in office. I think 2024 could be interesting.
Different in the sense that Trump remains extremely popular with Republican voters, independent of his actions. If Trump weren't so popular, his own party would have tossed him out long ago. They only grudgingly allowed him to become their leader in the first place because to oppose him meant almost certain defeat in their own next election.
I know that, in theory at least, people vote for the party, not the leader. The Blair-Brown transition wasn't unprecedented, but equally morally and ethically questionable. The difference here is that the Tories, who currently have a significant majority, are in complete disarray and are clinging to power that, if the latest polls are to be believed, would see them all but wiped out.
It's extremely common in British politics for the prime minister to change without calling a general election. In fact there were only two PMs in the entire 20th century (Heath and Attlee) who both entered and left the premiership as the result of an election.
Anyone who complains about "unelected PMs" needs to read more history.
At this point, a general election would be the obviously correct solution. It's clear that the conservative party don't have a platform and can't agree major policy points amongst themselves.
However that would require conservative MPs to vote for it, which is the turkeys voting for Christmas so unlikely to happen, so I'd expect we'll have to wait till 2024 for that election.
The best likely outcome is that a set of senior people in the party agree a policy platform and try to steady things for now.