• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

SpurMeUp said:
It is remarkable that our parliamentary democracy has functioned so well for so long without much update and evolution. And then Brexit broke it overnight. Some of this is on the process, rather the people. A process of sliding down through the middling to average to downright incompetent. But it is still a poisened chalice. Hunt will have to figure out what to do in April when businesses and households suffer energy costs. Doesn't matter who you are, you have a set of weak cards to play.

What I wanted to see is some clever fiscal policy to claw back some billions, give some to those in need, and invest in solar and renewables in a war-like government effort across the nation.

Your coget post really only needs one question in reply: was Truss chosen by the people?
Click to expand...
As much as I hate Brexit, I don't think it broke it.
It did two things:
I. It removed the stabilisers (the EU - a political system and union flexible enough to work in the world I'll set out in II.)
II. It exposed how unfit and exploitable the UK system on it's own is under neo-liberalism and free market economics.

It's set up for one nation conservatism.

Since Thatcher we've had the good sides (relative to the recent position. IE The bad under Thatcher was still better than the end of the 70s).
Big growth and prosperity in the 80s under Thatcher.
Same under Blair and Brown.

All build on speculation and 2009 brought that crashing down.
Since then the factions that were used to the boom and benefiting from the inequality (the real Brexit argument - not migrants) have been trying to regain it and realised the only way to do that is to minimise others. Luckily for them they saw a politically vulnerable system - and one that had become lazy and not suitable to govern on its own - that they could infiltrate and exploit.

Building upon that and to answer your question Was Liz Truss chosen by the people?.....that answer is easily a dissertation!
My conclusion would be - yes. She was elected as an MP in a system where an MP can become PM under the rules of the party's; rules that are known at the point of election.

However, there is a huge question about how influenced and manipulated the electorate and the political system have been.

Was she chosen by the people - yes.
Was it democratic - yes.
Does it match what we think democracy should be? - Not in my opinion.
Is it fair, just and representative? - Not in my opinion.

A broken system.

Oddly, one of my closed friends is a PhD student in Political History and voted Brexit.
His reasoning - anarchy. He voted Brexit because the EU is undemocratic and so is the UK and he wants to see it fall apart and be reformed.
That outcome is the only upon which I would support Brexit.
We might just be living through it.
I'm still not convinced it's for the best.
 
The problem we, and the US, have, is that the systems were built assuming good intent.

I watched some in the January 6th Capitol footage again this morning (there is a concise version doing the rounds on twitter), its scary how close they came to a coup.

I feel like we need a public mechanism for triggering a general election, we can't trust the ruling party to do the right thing or act in our interests.
 
monkeybarry said:
It needs the extra GE trigger too - so if MPs mess around for personal gain/similar a GE can be triggered. That will make them act responsibly.

Same with cross bench influence. They should try a say - a diluted one - to ensure the right candidate is chosen.

Anyone abusing the above will be ousted.
Click to expand...

I don’t agree with that though. The more you move to presidentialism, the more you move away from the idea of locally representative and accountable MPs.

Rather what I think is needed is more education on the principles of parliamentary democracy, and active efforts to diminish the role of the PM and personality politics.

We’re Spurs fans. We don’t expect to be able to vote on the manager (PM). When the owner (parliament) sacks a manager, we don’t then get to vote to remove the owner. But we can always stop buying tickets to games (polls, byelections).
 
SpurMeUp said:
It is remarkable that our parliamentary democracy has functioned so well for so long without much update and evolution. And then Brexit broke it overnight. Some of this is on the process, rather the people. A process of sliding down through the middling to average to downright incompetent. But it is still a poisened chalice. Hunt will have to figure out what to do in April when businesses and households suffer energy costs. Doesn't matter who you are, you have a set of weak cards to play.

What I wanted to see is some clever fiscal policy to claw back some billions, give some to those in need, and invest in solar and renewables in a war-like government effort across the nation.

Your coget post really only needs one question in reply: was Truss chosen by the people?
Click to expand...

In what way is it not working? In which other system would an extremist gone a bit rogue be removed from power in about a fortnight? America had no effective mechanism to remove Trump (impeachments attempts could all get blocked). Our system has managed to emasculated Truss within days.
 
Gutter Boy said:
I don’t agree with that though. The more you move to presidentialism, the more you move away from the idea of locally representative and accountable MPs.

Rather what I think is needed is more education on the principles of parliamentary democracy, and active efforts to diminish the role of the PM and personality politics.

We’re Spurs fans. We don’t expect to be able to vote on the manager (PM). When the owner (parliament) sacks a manager, we don’t then get to vote to remove the owner. But we can always stop buying tickets to games (polls, byelections).
Click to expand...
That isn't presidential in the slightest - did you quote the wrong post?
It hands power for who is prime minister to those that have been elected to represent their local communities. It's a focus very much on local politics.

The education is happening - we are living it.
 
Gutter Boy said:
I still don't get the logic. The PM is anyone who commands the confidence of a majority of parliament. Over the 5 years of a parliament that can be as many or as few people as you want. It could be from different parties, it doesn't matter. All that a GE decides is the constitution of the 650 MPs, who then select their leader(s).

The fixed term parliament act was repealed (in March 2022). Now there only needs to be 50% + 1 votes of no confidence for there to be a GE, not 2/3rds.

The current situation won't last. But it will be dealt with from within, rather than without. The check of electoral wipe out is a check on real extremism, like has successfully started happening over the last fortnight.
Click to expand...

The reality is that people now days don’t vote based on who they want as their local MP. They vote on what party leader they think should be prime minister. So if there’s a change in leadership there should be a general election. It’s only right that the general public always dictate who the prime minister is and it’s never left to a very small group of Tories, or to Labour members and trade unions.
 
Gutter Boy said:
I don’t agree with that though. The more you move to presidentialism, the more you move away from the idea of locally representative and accountable MPs.

Rather what I think is needed is more education on the principles of parliamentary democracy, and active efforts to diminish the role of the PM and personality politics.

We’re Spurs fans. We don’t expect to be able to vote on the manager (PM). When the owner (parliament) sacks a manager, we don’t then get to vote to remove the owner. But we can always stop buying tickets to games (polls, byelections).
Click to expand...

Firstly what’s being advocated isn’t presidential, but

why can’t you have a locally accountable MP if it was presidential ? In the US they have representatives and the senate. Not much different to how we have local councils and MPs.

I’ve lived in South Wales the past year and have no clue who my local MP is here. I don’t even care. All I know is if an election was called tomorrow I’d vote whoever the Labour candidate is regardless of what their name is or what they look like. No one cares about having a local MP who you can write to if you fancy getting fobbed off about whatever your concerns are in a brief reply.

You can’t diminish the role of PM because it’s a huge role and there’s always gonna have to be some kind of figurehead who makes the big calls.

I’m not sure comparing this to Spurs fans being unable to sack the manager makes much sense. This isn’t a football team it’s a democratic country. We have the right to vote for who we choose and the majority choose to vote for the party leader they like. When a leadership debate takes place people talk about what leader they’re gonna vote for. Who their local MP is an afterthought if it’s thought of at all.
 
monkeybarry said:
That isn't presidential in the slightest - did you quote the wrong post?
It hands power for who is prime minister to those that have been elected to represent their local communities. It's a focus very much on local politics.

The education is happening - we are living it.
Click to expand...

I meant the GE trigger. If that happens when MPs bring down a PM, you are inferring that the PM and not parliament is sovereign.
 
Craig_J said:
The reality is that people now days don’t vote based on who they want as their local MP. They vote on what party leader they think should be prime minister. So if there’s a change in leadership there should be a general election. It’s only right that the general public always dictate who the prime minister is and it’s never left to a very small group of Tories, or to Labour members and trade unions.
Click to expand...

That's never been the case though. We should be myth-busting, rather than pandering to an imported American understanding of politics.
 
Craig_J said:
Firstly what’s being advocated isn’t presidential, but

why can’t you have a locally accountable MP if it was presidential ? In the US they have representatives and the senate. Not much different to how we have local councils and MPs.

I’ve lived in South Wales the past year and have no clue who my local MP is here. I don’t even care. All I know is if an election was called tomorrow I’d vote whoever the Labour candidate is regardless of what their name is or what they look like. No one cares about having a local MP who you can write to if you fancy getting fobbed off about whatever your concerns are in a brief reply.

You can’t diminish the role of PM because it’s a huge role and there’s always gonna have to be some kind of figurehead who makes the big calls.

I’m not sure comparing this to Spurs fans being unable to sack the manager makes much sense. This isn’t a football team it’s a democratic country. We have the right to vote for who we choose and the majority choose to vote for the party leader they like. When a leadership debate takes place people talk about what leader they’re gonna vote for. Who their local MP is an afterthought if it’s thought of at all.
Click to expand...

It's only that way if you actively want to concentrate power in the hands of one person. The system is actually designed to limit that and make the institution of parliament sovereign. Just know what you will be getting if you are asking for it - an all-powerful PM and a mandate based on their cult of personality, rather than the traditional 'first among equals' figurehead.
 
YouGov have just released the polling for who Conservative members would most like to see replace Liz Truss.

Boris Johnson: 32%
Ben Wallace: 23%
Vladimir Putin: 18%
Laurence Fox: 9%
Jair Bolsonaro: 9%
Harold Shipman: 8%
Rishi Sunak: 1%
 
Gutter Boy said:
It's only that way if you actively want to concentrate power in the hands of one person. The system is actually designed to limit that and make the institution of parliament sovereign. Just know what you will be getting if you are asking for it - an all-powerful PM and a mandate based on their cult of personality, rather than the traditional 'first among equals' figurehead.
Click to expand...
But the PM and their cabinet still sets the agenda of government, so if a new PM comes in and totally changes from the agenda they set out in the manifesto, surely they need to go back to all of us to check we're still on board with that?

Whether people vote for their MP on local issues or not, I'd hope everyone considers what the party they represent is saying they're going to do on a national level.
 
Seedy Ron said:
But the PM and their cabinet still sets the agenda of government, so if a new PM comes in and totally changes from the agenda they set out in the manifesto, surely they need to go back to all of us to check we're still on board with that?

Whether people vote for their MP on local issues or not, I'd hope everyone considers what the party they represent is saying they're going to do on a national level.
Click to expand...

I'm fairly sure there's different expectations around voting for manifesto issues versus other bills.

So in your example, MPs would legitimately vote against the government - like was going to happen to counter Truss' financial legislation.
 
Seedy Ron said:
But the PM and their cabinet still sets the agenda of government, so if a new PM comes in and totally changes from the agenda they set out in the manifesto, surely they need to go back to all of us to check we're still on board with that?

Whether people vote for their MP on local issues or not, I'd hope everyone considers what the party they represent is saying they're going to do on a national level.
Click to expand...

they get whipped to follow the party line too, even when it hurts their local constituents
 
Gutter Boy said:
I meant the GE trigger. If that happens when MPs bring down a PM, you are inferring that the PM and not parliament is sovereign.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I did say that kind of mechanism would be very difficult to design.
But something is needed to stop a race to bottom too - something whereby if a majority party cannot effectively govern on a consistent basis (IE keeps changing PM, creating instability) then it goes back to the people to decide who the majority party should be.
It wouldn't make the PM Sovereign, but it would make Parliament responsible for the success and failure of a PMs actions rather than using them to push an agenda.
Similar to a vote of non confidence in the HoC.
 
Seedy Ron said:
But the PM and their cabinet still sets the agenda of government, so if a new PM comes in and totally changes from the agenda they set out in the manifesto, surely they need to go back to all of us to check we're still on board with that?

Whether people vote for their MP on local issues or not, I'd hope everyone considers what the party they represent is saying they're going to do on a national level.
Click to expand...

There is a really interesting conversation that needs having about closely adhered to manifestation are and the values that underpin them.
Some kind of non confidence mechanism around this would be good too. Probably for the second chamber scrutiny.
 
monkeybarry said:
Yeah, I did say that kind of mechanism would be very difficult to design.
But something is needed to stop a race to bottom too - something whereby if a majority party cannot effectively govern on a consistent basis (IE keeps changing PM, creating instability) then it goes back to the people to decide who the majority party should be.
It wouldn't make the PM Sovereign, but it would make Parliament responsible for the success and failure of a PMs actions rather than using them to push an agenda.
Similar to a vote of non confidence in the HoC.
Click to expand...

it might also make them put some effort into it, and not elect a complete fudging macaron
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back