Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner v Miz-Trust and Coffey Mate

Newholland said:
As to your post... my opinion... if a new leader is put in place mid term and radically alters the course of government travel ... a GE should take place to give the “ new government” a mandate from the people.
Click to expand...

Just a thought, but can you think of any country where that actually happens?
 
Newholland said:
Further up this thread it has been pointed out, quite rightly, that AR should be judged on her abilities not her perceived class,appearance or education.
Is it therefore not equally wrong to judge those who have been born into a different class and education system on that alone, as plenty on here do?
As to your post... my opinion... if a new leader is put in place mid term and radically alters the course of government travel ... a GE should take place to give the “ new government” a mandate from the people.
Click to expand...
I agree with your last paragraph. I've spent time on here before stating that Prime Ministers are appointed, not elected. That is absolutely true. However, if a new PM takes a party significantly away from its elected manifesto then a GE is the only way a mandate can be obtained.
 
Lost Seasider said:
Just a thought, but can you think of any country where that actually happens?
Click to expand...
Are there many countries that have our bizarre first past the post and parliamentary representative system, with parliamentary parties?

The situation of a change of leader with a new government without an election can't happen in the vast majority of democracies.
 
Newholland said:
Further up this thread it has been pointed out, quite rightly, that AR should be judged on her abilities not her perceived class,appearance or education.
Is it therefore not equally wrong to judge those who have been born into a different class and education system on that alone, as plenty on here do?
As to your post... my opinion... if a new leader is put in place mid term and radically alters the course of government travel ... a GE should take place to give the “ new government” a mandate from the people.
Click to expand...
We've had 12 years of them and they've clearly demonstrated that they're self serving incompetents that are taking the country down to unparalleled depths. That's plenty long enough to judge.
 
Newholland said:
Further up this thread it has been pointed out, quite rightly, that AR should be judged on her abilities not her perceived class,appearance or education.
Is it therefore not equally wrong to judge those who have been born into a different class and education system on that alone, as plenty on here do?
As to your post... my opinion... if a new leader is put in place mid term and radically alters the course of government travel ... a GE should take place to give the “ new government” a mandate from the people.
Click to expand...
The old Etonians and public schoolboys with Daddy's money in government have been judged on their performance in government, name me one success?
 
Lytham_fy8 said:
The old Etonians and public schoolboys with Daddy's money in government have been judged on their performance in government, name me one success?
Click to expand...
In post 102 I agree with your judgment on performance.
By including the educational and class backgrounds in your post,of some of them, it’s no different to the unjust treatment of Angela Rayner, in my opinion.
 
Ollygon said:
No contest.

6.0 to the Reds.

Roll on 2024.
Click to expand...
They think its all over! It is now!
I always try to work out what these parasites are up to? I have come to the conclusion,after seeing the mini budget,Liz Truss has had a massive bet on Labour winning the next election.
 
tommytwojags said:
Even Labour MPs were embarrassed by Rayner's rant. And it's not as if it was a one off. She called Tory MP Chris Clarkson "scum" as he was giving a speech in Parliament. Let's face it, she doesn't possess the social graces required to be a cabinet minister.
Click to expand...
It's about time someone went off in parliament. All this my right honourable this and not calling liars liars because of parliamentary standards. The whole shit show needs a boot up the arse.
 
Foolweary said:
Are there many countries that have our bizarre first past the post and parliamentary representative system, with parliamentary parties?

The situation of a change of leader with a new government without an election can't happen in the vast majority of democracies.
Click to expand...

AFAIK it happens all the time.

The US has the 25th amendment, Italian governments since 1945 have lasted on average 14 months, France is on its 44th government since 1958, Belgium I think had 4 governments in 4 years from 2007-2011, and then managed to go a full year without one at all in 2019/20, and I think the majority of European PR systems results in an ever shifting patchwork of alliances that mean the governments can change regularly.
 
Lost Seasider said:
AFAIK it happens all the time.

The US has the 25th amendment, Italian governments since 1945 have lasted on average 14 months, France is on its 44th government since 1958, Belgium I think had 4 governments in 4 years from 2007-2011, and then managed to go a full year without one at all in 2019/20, and I think the majority of European PR systems results in an ever shifting patchwork of alliances that mean the governments can change regularly.
Click to expand...
The 25th amendment colloquially refers to if a President becomes literally unable to do their job due to death or extreme illness. It has never been invoked in this case, other than twice temporarily when a sitting President was undergoing surgery. In the act of a resignation the Vice President becomes President, but crucially he or she is a significant part of the electoral ticket and voters are fully aware who is next in line when they vote. It's not whoever is flavour of the month from the cabinet among a tiny fraction of voters.


This is quite clearly not the same as our system.
 
Does anyone have a practical defence of why the PM standing down shouldn't trigger an election, other than 'thats the way it is in a Parliamentary Democracy' or 'who else does that'?
 
foggy said:
The 25th amendment colloquially refers to if a President becomes literally unable to do their job due to death or extreme illness. It has never been invoked in this case, other than twice temporarily when a sitting President was undergoing surgery. In the act of a resignation the Vice President becomes President, but crucially he or she is a significant part of the electoral ticket and voters are fully aware who is next in line when they vote. It's not whoever is flavour of the month from the cabinet among a tiny fraction of voters.


This is quite clearly not the same as our system.
Click to expand...

One example among many, and a lot of the power rests with the senate and house anyway.
 
foggy said:
Does anyone have a practical defence of why the PM standing down shouldn't trigger an election, other than 'thats the way it is in a Parliamentary Democracy' or 'who else does that'?
Click to expand...
Yes, I'll have a bash.

All of the World's liberal democracies are built upon a fundamental principal: those who make the law ( the Legislature) are separated from those who implement and manage the laws (The Executive), and that both of those groups are separate from those who judge upon transgressors of the law, (The Judiciary). It is commonly referred to as the separation of powers. In the UK the Parliamentary system that underpins our democracy manages this separation in an incomplete manner. That is to say that the separation of the three powers is not absolute. At the very least they comes together under the Crown. However, only a part of one of those bodies is elected into power by the people. That is for membership of the House of Commons - the senior body of the three bodies comprising the Legislature; the other two being the House of Lords and the Monarch. The Commons is the senior body because it controls the purse strings. Both the Prime Minister (as First Lord of The Treasury) and the Chancellor of The Exchequer (his No. 2 in the Treasury) must be drawn from the House of Commons.

And this is where the imperfections in the separation of powers come into play. Members of The Executive are NOT elected into their posts, they are appointed. Firstly, the Prime Minister is appointed by the Monarch, then the remainder of the Executive (ie The Government) is appointed by the PM. However, whilst members of the Government are not elected into their posts, they must be serving members of Parliament: ie. members of the Legislature. This means that as members of the Legislature every member of the Executive counts just as much as the greenest, newest backbencher. Liz Truss only has one vote as a law-maker, just the same as every other MP.

Formally then, there is no reason to have an election because members of the Executive are changed every now and again.. We all know that membership of the Cabinet is in the gift of the Prime Minister. We do not have an election simply because the PM chooses to boot out the Home Secretary and replace them with someone else. Likewise, because the Monarch changes the Prime Minister - provided that the new candidate has the support of the majority of members of the House of Commons - then there is no need for an election. And there lies the key to the individual who becomes PM. They must have the support of the majority of the members of the House of Commons. If that cannot be secured then before an election is called, the Monarch will ask the Leader of the Opposition if they can secure sufficient support to form a Government. If they can (usually because a critical number of MPs from the Party in power have crossed the floor of the House), then they will do so. However, it would more than likely that the new PM would have to call an election because governing would be practically impossible.

As for the Judiciary, it used to be the case that whilst it is separate from Parliament, the senior judges were appointed by the Lord Chancellor, a Government Minister. Since 2006, this has been changed so that an independent commission chooses the best candidates and then puts them to the Lord Chancellor for installation.
 
Last edited:
Just when you think it's only the undeducated and culturally inept Angela Rayner who is making offensive rants against Tory MPs, another Labour MP comes out with racist abuse against the Chancellor. Rupa Huq has her whip suspended but still refuses to apologise. Is this another example of the racist and abusive behaviour of its MPs that Labour is trying to sweep under the carpet?

news.sky.com

Labour MP Rupa Huq suspended and apologises after calling Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng 'superficially' black

The Conservative Party chairman had earlier condemned Rupa Huq's "vile" comments and urged Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, to act.
news.sky.com news.sky.com
 
foggy said:
The 25th amendment colloquially refers to if a President becomes literally unable to do their job due to death or extreme illness. It has never been invoked in this case, other than twice temporarily when a sitting President was undergoing surgery. In the act of a resignation the Vice President becomes President, but crucially he or she is a significant part of the electoral ticket and voters are fully aware who is next in line when they vote. It's not whoever is flavour of the month from the cabinet among a tiny fraction of voters.


This is quite clearly not the same as our system.
Click to expand...
In the USA, only the President and VP are elected. All other Government officials are appointed by the President. They, therefore cannot be appointed President in the forced absence of the President and VP.
 
tommytwojags said:
Just when you think it's only the undeducated and culturally inept Angela Rayner who is making offensive rants against Tory MPs, another Labour MP comes out with racist abuse against the Chancellor. Rupa Huq has her whip suspended but still refuses to apologise. Is this another example of the racist and abusive behaviour of its MPs that Labour is trying to sweep under the carpet?

news.sky.com

Labour MP Rupa Huq suspended and apologises after calling Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng 'superficially' black

The Conservative Party chairman had earlier condemned Rupa Huq's "vile" comments and urged Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, to act.
news.sky.com news.sky.com
Click to expand...
Uneducated or undereducated - I can't tell which you meant - is used by you in a derogatory way. As for 'culturally inept,' that is condescending. Not a good look.
 
tommytwojags said:
Just when you think it's only the undeducated and culturally inept Angela Rayner who is making offensive rants against Tory MPs, another Labour MP comes out with racist abuse against the Chancellor. Rupa Huq has her whip suspended but still refuses to apologise. Is this another example of the racist and abusive behaviour of its MPs that Labour is trying to sweep under the carpet?

news.sky.com

Labour MP Rupa Huq suspended and apologises after calling Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng 'superficially' black

The Conservative Party chairman had earlier condemned Rupa Huq's "vile" comments and urged Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, to act.
news.sky.com news.sky.com
Click to expand...
Suspended from the party immediately. What exactly would you like them do?
 
foggy said:
Suspended from the party immediately. What exactly would you like them do?
Click to expand...
I was going to say they should give her the opportunity to apologise or expel her from the party, but I now hear that she has apologised.

The question is why do Labour MPs have to behave like this in the first place?
 
1966_and_all_that said:
Uneducated or undereducated - I can't tell which you meant - is used by you in a derogatory way. As for 'culturally inept,' that is condescending. Not a good look.
Click to expand...
Thank you for pointing out my typo. I did intend to say undereducated as I suspect there was an element of education in there somewhere. As for 'culturally inept' I don't think there is much doubt about her inability to speak in a manner befitting a high ranking (shadow) government minister. Good look or not, it's not a matter that requires a high standard of proof in her case. Her political career to date follows a clear pattern: abuse - apologise - abuse - apologise.
 
tommytwojags said:
The question is why do Labour MPs have to behave like this in the first place?
Click to expand...
That's very selective vision you are suffering from there. There are any number of sleaze balls in the current Conservative Parliamentary Party and I can't recall much condemnation of them from you.

We have a very big problem in this country in that our political class are inept, unprincipled and too many of them are borderline corrupt. It's not an issue you can make party political points about.
 
basilrobbie3 said:
That's very selective vision you are suffering from there. There are any number of sleaze balls in the current Conservative Parliamentary Party and I can't recall much condemnation of them from you.

We have a very big problem in this country in that our political class are inept, unprincipled and too many of them are borderline corrupt. It's not an issue you can make party political points about.
Click to expand...

But I'm not talking about sleazeballs. I'm referring to ignorant, racist, uncouth MPs. There is absolutely no reason for Parliament to tolerate that kind of behaviour. Yet some on here regard this as a good thing.
 
tommytwojags said:
Thank you for pointing out my typo. I did intend to say undereducated as I suspect there was an element of education in there somewhere. As for 'culturally inept' I don't think there is much doubt about her inability to speak in a manner befitting a high ranking (shadow) government minister. Good look or not, it's not a matter that requires a high standard of proof in her case. Her political career to date follows a clear pattern: abuse - apologise - abuse - apologise.
Click to expand...
An apology may or may not be accepted.....it's up to Kwasi.
 
Last edited:
basilrobbie3 said:
That's very selective vision you are suffering from there. There are any number of sleaze balls in the current Conservative Parliamentary Party and I can't recall much condemnation of them from you.

We have a very big problem in this country in that our political class are inept, unprincipled and too many of them are borderline corrupt. It's not an issue you can make party political points about.
Click to expand...
I will pull you back on that one. There are occasionally disreputable people in all political parties but the Conservatives have turned it into an industrial production line. Today, Keir Starmer spoke about the next Labour Government ruling with Integrity. I'm getting behind that message because the country needs to renew its belief in politics and its politicians.
 
I wonder if she will be sitting independently next to Corblimey on the naughty step?🧐
 
Last edited:
tommytwojags said:
I was going to say they should give her the opportunity to apologise or expel her from the party, but I now hear that she has apologised.

The question is why do Labour MPs have to behave like this in the first place?
Click to expand...
Whereas it's compulsory with the Tories😉
 
tommytwojags said:
Just when you think it's only the undeducated and culturally inept Angela Rayner who is making offensive rants against Tory MPs, another Labour MP comes out with racist abuse against the Chancellor. Rupa Huq has her whip suspended but still refuses to apologise. Is this another example of the racist and abusive behaviour of its MPs that Labour is trying to sweep under the carpet?

news.sky.com

Labour MP Rupa Huq suspended and apologises after calling Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng 'superficially' black

The Conservative Party chairman had earlier condemned Rupa Huq's "vile" comments and urged Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, to act.
news.sky.com news.sky.com
Click to expand...
Meanwhile Khasi Kwarteng and Truss do their best to destroy our economy and the country.
Huq not relevant, minor destraction , a pinprick.
But if you want to avoid whats going on by all means continue.
 
Worrying about Rayner and Connie Huq when we have 2 headcases running our economy. Not v relevant.
Labour have some strong people, Wes Streeting, Emily Thornberry, Rachel Reeves , Yvette Cooper and others . Starmer himself looking solid enough but carry on looking at side issues, minor scandal if you wish, as our Prime Minister vanishes.
 
Lost Seasider said:
AFAIK it happens all the time.

The US has the 25th amendment, Italian governments since 1945 have lasted on average 14 months, France is on its 44th government since 1958, Belgium I think had 4 governments in 4 years from 2007-2011, and then managed to go a full year without one at all in 2019/20, and I think the majority of European PR systems results in an ever shifting patchwork of alliances that mean the governments can change regularly.
Click to expand...
What a load of tosh.

When has the 25th amendment been used?

Italy gets a new government when they have an election, which is often. The complete opposite of our system.

PR systems are very unlikely to change the coalition arrangements midterm.

Just about everything you said was irrelevant or wrong.
 
Foolweary said:
What a load of tosh.

When has the 25th amendment been used?

Italy gets a new government when they have an election, which is often. The complete opposite of our system.

PR systems are very unlikely to change the coalition arrangements midterm.

Just about everything you said was irrelevant or wrong.
Click to expand...

I count 19 general elections and 66, or 69, or 70 governments (sources vary), I'll leave you to Google the rest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top