Alexandole Boris de Pfeffel Johnson

blueinsa said:
Would it be any different with Labour in power and the membership deciding for them and the country?

I agree with you btw but it’s not a situation unique to the Tory party or any other for that matter.
Click to expand...

No it wouldn’t.

A change of leadership should trigger a GE IMO - that should be part of the process.

Had I been interested or eligible to vote in 2007, I’d have been saying the same.
 
Ban-jani said:
No it wouldn’t.

A change of leadership should trigger a GE IMO - that should be part of the process.

Had I been interested or eligible to vote in 2007, I’d have been saying the same.
Click to expand...

We don’t vote for a PM though at a GE so don’t think we should demand a GE every time one is changed mid term.

Choice of leader/PM is for the party to decide.
 
blueinsa said:
We don’t vote for a PM though at a GE so don’t think we should demand a GE every time one is changed mid term.

Choice of leader/PM is for the party to decide.
Click to expand...

I know we don’t currently, I think we should.

It wouldn’t leave us in positions like this.
 
Ban-jani said:
No it wouldn’t.

A change of leadership should trigger a GE IMO - that should be part of the process.

Had I been interested or eligible to vote in 2007, I’d have been saying the same.
Click to expand...
I don't agree, but the PM should be selected by elected representatives - i.e. the MPs. That gives a level of democracy that having a private members club election doesn't. Probably wouldn't have changed the outcome sadly.
 
west didsblue said:
I don't agree, but the PM should be selected by elected representatives - i.e. the MPs. That gives a level of democracy that having a private members club election doesn't. Probably wouldn't have changed the outcome sadly.
Click to expand...

I disagree, I’m more in favour of selecting an individual to be honest anyway, rather than a party and it’s an utter farce the future of this country is to be decided by so few people.
 
Ban-jani said:
I know we don’t currently, I think we should.

It wouldn’t leave us in positions like this.
Click to expand...

I have no issue with the system - it allows failing PMs to be removed, if that triggered a GE then it wouldn't happen. One thing I would like is a vote in the HoC to confirm a PM. We don't do that and that would be a big change - as it stands BJ can BS his way tghrough the process and MPs have to lump it. If he was subject to a confirmatory vote then he would have to keep his party MPs on side (or close to 100% of them at least). As it stands I think he might lose if that was the process now.
 
Ban-jani said:
No it wouldn’t.

A change of leadership should trigger a GE IMO - that should be part of the process.

Had I been interested or eligible to vote in 2007, I’d have been saying the same.
Click to expand...

Its been claimed that Wilson resigned because he knew his mind was failing. His inner circle tried to talk him out of it. Not really surprising, their influence over an ailing PM would be that much greater and they couldnt be sure that Callaghan would keep them on or be as malleable. Imagine if he knew that his resignation would trigger a general election? They'd have pursuaded him not to resign. He would have stayed on and Falkender & co would have run the country. I think that sometimes there needs to be get out where an ailing (physically or mentally) PM can take the decision to stand aside without having to trigger a general election.
 
cibaman said:
. I think that sometimes there needs to be get out where an ailing (physically or mentally) PM can take the decision to stand aside without having to trigger a general election.
Click to expand...

Then you could end up with something like that Guinness guy who got let out of prison early because he had Alzheimer's but then made a recovery.
 
cibaman said:
Its been claimed that Wilson resigned because he knew his mind was failing. His inner circle tried to talk him out of it. Not really surprising, their influence over an ailing PM would be that much greater and they couldnt be sure that Callaghan would keep them on or be as malleable. Imagine if he knew that his resignation would trigger a general election? They'd have pursuaded him not to resign. He would have stayed on and Falkender & co would have run the country. I think that sometimes there needs to be get out where an ailing (physically or mentally) PM can take the decision to stand aside without having to trigger a general election.
Click to expand...

It’s a good point I suppose but not one we’ll come across often.

Why can’t the deputy leader be the go to person in that scenario? Or any scenario?

Rather than the blonde vermin being able to manipulate his way through, the PM should appoint a vice who’s a natural successor, if the vice doesn’t want it, go to a GE.

This is just off the top of my head by the way, I don’t know the definitive answer, I just know the current situation is a total shit show.
 
Ban-jani said:
It’s a good point I suppose but not one we’ll come across often.

Why can’t the deputy leader be the go to person in that scenario? Or any scenario?

Rather than the blonde vermin being able to manipulate his way through, the PM should appoint a vice who’s a natural successor, if the vice doesn’t want it, go to a GE.

This is just off the top of my head by the way, I don’t know the definitive answer, I just know the current situation is a total shit show.
Click to expand...

That could work. I did think it outrageous that civil servants leaked to the press their concerns over Corbyn's mental and physical fitness for office. But at the same time I also think its scary that Wilson (and possibly Thatcher, and probably Reagan) had their fingers on the nuclear button whilst in the early stages of dementia. I do think that anyone who wants to lead their country should lose some rights for their medical condition to be subject to the normal rules on medical confidentiality. Some sort of annual independent check up. But that would only really work if there was a handover process in place that didn't create the outcome of a general election, otherwise the pressure on the doctor carrying out the check up would be too intense.
 
cibaman said:
That could work. I did think it outrageous that civil servants leaked to the press their concerns over Corbyn's mental and physical fitness for office. But at the same time I also think its scary that Wilson (and possibly Thatcher, and probably Reagan) had their fingers on the nuclear button whilst in the early stages of dementia. I do think that anyone who wants to lead their country should lose some rights for their medical condition to be subject to the normal rules on medical confidentiality. Some sort of annual independent check up. But that would only really work if there was a handover process in place that didn't create the outcome of a general election, otherwise the pressure on the doctor carrying out the check up would be too intense.
Click to expand...

Yes absolutely.

I watched the Thatcher documentary on the BBC recently, very good by the way, and it’s very apparent she had lost it towards the end.

Civil Servants shouldn’t be leaking that stuff but we definitely do need to make sure there’s measures in place, you’re right.
 
stonerblue said:
200,000 tory party members get to vote on this fucking chump, thus deciding the fate of brexit, the future of the 'special realtionship', the health service etc etc.
How the fuck is this democracy?
Click to expand...
Doubt it will make any difference - but that is the silver lining I hope for
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top