Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[Yew]

Diane Abbot's main problem was laziness imo,

And how exactly are you justifying said opinion?

 

[Thirteen]

Ousting a leader without a general election isn't exclusive to the UK. Australian politics has seen plenty of infighting and replacement PMs on both sides although there were elections along the way.

 

[BJames]

And how exactly are you justifying said opinion?

(Not OP) I have always thought Abbott to be quite incompetent (but in agreement with you, I'm not sure I can agree with lazy). She has had a number of car crash interviews, and half the time doesn't really appear to know what's going on. I've seen some exchanges between her and Kemi Badenoch just as an example, which Badenoch was clearly much more informed.

However, the days of competency meaning high office do seem to be a bit behind us, and Abbott's incompetency mirrors that of previous (and indeed, some current) members of the cabinet. The number of robotic, bizarre interviews Truss has done have hardly painted her in a much better light than the likes of Abbott.

I do think, despite there being underlying issues, that Sunak is far, far better equipped to take the government to a more successful (or at least stable) position than Johnson or Truss was. I would personally probably have preferred Penny, but ultimately Sunak does have experience at the top table as Chancellor and he's reasonably clued up on economic affairs.

 

[AlterEgo]

So why bother with general elections then, just let the King decide, He can’t do any worse than the last two chosen by the Tory party for him to appoint. Constitutionally he is not allowed to say no to who the party puts forward he is supposed to uphold the vote of the people in a general election not the current circus we are getting.

You’ve repeated my point in its entirety without understanding it. The King may appoint whomever he believes is capable of forming a working government, but is bound to act under the advice of his ministers and Privy Councillors. You do not vote for the Prime Minister, ever, although in normal times whoever will become the PM should be obvious as the leader of the largest party or head of a working coalition.

The King also appoints ministers, whom you also don’t get to choose in an election. Votes are for the constituency MP.

 

[cygnus44]

You’ve repeated my point in its entirety without understanding it. The King may appoint whomever he believes is capable of forming a working government, but is bound to act under the advice of his ministers and Privy Councillors. You do not vote for the Prime Minister, ever, although in normal times whoever will become the PM should be obvious as the leader of the largest party or head of a working coalition.

The King also appoints ministers, whom you also don’t get to choose in an election. Votes are for the constituency MP

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I liked Sunak’s speech. I voted for him in August, and I think he’ll make a good Prime Minister and restore trust in the party after Laughable Liz and Bumbling BoJo.

 

[cygnus44]

Yes the king makes the appointments by command of who is prime minister at the time he has no choice in the matter. The people vote for there MPs. The party with the most seats in parliament win the election, and the leader of that party becomes PM so it is the peoples vote at the general election which sets the whole thing in motion, is that clear enough.

 

[Scotrail12]

Sunak goes against basically any remotely Conservative belief that I would have which is small government with low intervention. He's not the libertarian type of leader plus with the likes of Suella de vil and idiots Coffey, Shapps & Badenoch in cabinet, I'm not optimistic.

That's before his overall smarmy personality which I can't take to. And of course, he was installed without a single vote from members this time around when he lost it last time, not exactly democracy.

 

[AlterEgo]

Yes the king makes the appointments by command of who is prime minister at the time he has no choice in the matter. The people vote for there MPs. The party with the most seats in parliament win the election, and the leader of that party becomes PM so it is the peoples vote at the general election which sets the whole thing in motion, is that clear enough.

Except the last two prime ministers didn't conform to that formula at all. Sunak was appointed by HM The King because he won a straw poll of his parliamentary party's MPs. Truss was appointed by HM The Queen because she won a popular vote of Conservative lay members. Johnson was appointed by HM The Queen by dint of having a large majority and a mandate and capability to pass a government agenda through the Commons.

At all times the monarch appoints the Prime Minister based solely on the basis they are able to command the confidence of the Commons. Sometimes that's because they won an election and have a majority. Sometimes it's because they demonstrate they have formed a workable coalition. Sometimes it's for other reasons, such as in the case of Sunak, Truss and others who did not lead a party into an election at all.

This:

he is supposed to uphold the vote of the people in a general election not the current circus we are getting

is confused. Nobody voted for Sunak or Truss to be the Prime Minister in a general election. It is a circus at the minute, but the King is acting entirely constitutionally by appointing his Prime Minister, as I said,

solely on the basis they are able to command the confidence of the Commons.

It is often very little to do with a general election.

 

[najaB]

The party with the most seats in parliament win the election, and the leader of that party becomes PM...

While that is usually the case, it's not the law. It is entirely possible for the leader of a party which didn't get the largest number of seats to be PM (that's what coalition negotiations are about), and it's not necessary to be party leader to be PM.

All that is necessary to be PM is that you are a member of the Commons and that the majority of the members support you.

Even the former didn't used to be necessary.

 

[XAM2175]

People who claim to speak for the 'average Tory party member' might disagree:

Sangita's patience there is admirable. Jerry's continued use of "England" in place of "Britain" or "the UK", on the other hand, is merely telling.

 

[birchesgreen]

Reappointing Cruella is an interesting one, not only highly dubious due to the nature of her resignation but she showed in the Commons she loses it in a laughable way. Cooper will have her wrapped around her little finger.

 

[43096]

And of course, he was installed without a single vote from members this time around when he lost it last time, not exactly democracy.

In terms of appointing the PM it is more democratic the way it has been done. The MPs who have collectively decided on Sunak are at least elected by the general population. Involving the members would have been far less representative, and it’s not like they got it right last time. Thank you to Tory members for generally screwing the country up and increasing the cost of living still further for everyone over the last seven weeks.

 

[SteveM70]

Obviously Braverman's return hasn't gone down very well here, but personally I'd far rather have her than Priti Patel as home secretary.

I wasn’t aware it was a binary choice

 

[Fragezeichnen]

The explanation offered by Jon Sopel for that is the Rwanda refugee deportation plan, though repugnant to many and most likely legally impossible to implement, is "talismanic" for much of the conservative membership; therefore in order to shore up his popularity with them he has to appoint someone who supports it and is prepared to be the face of it - so possibly it is a binary choice.

 

[nlogax]

Interesting to see that the Conservatives are beginning to shed members since Sunak was confirmed as PM. Membership sounds as divided as their own MPs.

 

[OuterDistant]

Nice to see a Prime Minister who gets his suits from the same tailor as Norman Wisdom.

 

[nw1]

No. To my mind, neither are OK. It's not OK to call someone 'Cruella' on a public internet forum - that's direct abuse. Think how you'd feel if someone referred to you by an equivalent name in public. Just because the person is a politician or you disagree with their views does NOT make personal abuse OK - any politician is still a human being. And the fact that other people do it also does not make it OK.

And likewise, her 'Tofu eating wokerati' comment was also not OK. It was insulting, wrong, and not at all the kind of language you'd expect of an MP or a cabinet minister.

But two wrongs don't make a right. By seriously referring to her using an abusive name, you've basically lowered yourself to the same level as her comment.

I'm not sure I agree with that I'm afraid. Is it wrong to use robust, non-profane language against politicians who one personally believes are morally suspect?

I have no time for forelock-tugging excessive respect of politicians, I am afraid. And remember, we are talking about an extremely powerful individual, not someone struggling, financially, mentally, or otherwise, in life.

The right often (unacceptably) bandy the word "snowflake" around when discussing vulnerable people who are easily upset. So they cannot complain when robust language is directed at them. Live by the sword, die by the sword and all that. Get upset with terms like "Cruella" and you potentially end up with a dictatorial state with no freedom of speech allowed.

 

[Yew]

Well, yes, that's the only reason I've heard of him, but as positive attributes go that's about as good as it gets in my book.

Doesn't necessarily mean he knows anything about transport, though

From what I can see on Twitter, he's a "Cost of Net Zero" sort of guy - I worry that means that investment in the railways will come through the fares boxes, rather than supported from the treasury to meet climate goals.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Nice to see a Prime Minister who gets his suits from the same tailor as Norman Wisdom.

The firm of W, Snape & Son to whom you refer had an address of Princes Square in Wolverhampton. Are they still trading?

Are you making the point that both of these men were/are of small stature?

 

[Yew]

Sunak goes against basically any remotely Conservative belief that I would have which is small government with low intervention. He's not the libertarian type of leader plus with the likes of Suella de vil and idiots Coffey, Shapps & Badenoch in cabinet, I'm not optimistic.

This whole, "Small state with low intervention" is very much a recent American import - you don't have to go back far in time to see the Conservatives presiding over publicly run industries and thinking they had a mandate to interfere in the private lives of many groups of people.

I'm not sure I agree with that I'm afraid. Is it wrong to use robust, non-profane language against politicians who one personally believes are morally suspect?

In general, I don't think any of us massive benefit, and often leads to personal jibes in the house and media - which I think are counterproductive and fuel cults of personality rather than critical evaluation of policies.

I policies matter to me, not a charismatic personality or catchy slogan - I'm looking for a prime minister, not a dinner guest.

(As an aside, I always liked Nixons slogan "You can't lick our dick" it reads very differently in modern times.)

 

[duncanp]

Interesting to see all the opposition politicians demanding an early general election, including Nicola Sturgeon.

She seems to have forgotten that she became First Minister of Scotland in 2014 after Alex Salmond resigned, but didn't immediately dissolve the Scottish parliament and have an election. And rightly so, because there was no legal or constitutional need to do so.

So Rishi Sunak is only following the the same principles as Ms Sturgeon, and yet this seems to be a problem for her.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

This whole, "Small state with low intervention" is very much a recent American import - you don't have to go back far in time to see the Conservatives presiding over publicly run industries and thinking they had a mandate to interfere in the private lives of many groups of people.

The state that made "intervention in the private lives of people" an art form was East Germany via the Stasi.

 

[dosxuk]

You could alternatively say that the other party leaders would be doing a disservice to their members and the general public if they weren't calling for a general election when the party in power is so deeply unpopular.

If sunak had taken over and the Tories were polling higher than under Boris, you can be pretty sure the other parties wouldn't be calling for an immediate election. Likewise, if Boris was still in charge and they were doing as badly as they are, the calls would still be coming in loud and clear.

 

[JGurney]

Interesting to see that the Conservatives are beginning to shed members since Sunak was confirmed as PM. Membership sounds as divided as their own MPs.

Similarly, the Labour party has lost a number of members since Jeremy Corbin left as leader.

I suspect in both cases we have gone from a situation where it is simply that most people don't join political parties to one where where more specifically most politically normal people don't. This creates a situation where any leader with strong appeal to party activists is unlikely to appeal to the average voter (as those who join parties and take an active role tend to be markedly different to the average voter). That in turn suggests a party with a large and active membership base is less likely to succeed in elections than one governed by a small politically astute elite who choose policies and a figurehead which will appeal to the average voter.

 

[nlogax]

Similarly, the Labour party has lost a number of members since Jeremy Corbin left as leader.

Of course the main differences here being the massive ramp-up in membership before and during Corbyn's leadership*, and that they were in opposition all the while. Labour membership numbers continue to dwarf other parties by a massive amount with Starmer as party leader.

That in turn suggests a party with a large and active membership base is less likely to succeed in elections than one governed by a small politically astute elite who choose policies and a figurehead which will appeal to the average voter.

Is there such a thing as the 'average voter' anymore? It's not as clear to me now as it used to be maybe ten - fifteen years ago.





*for the record that's still a mystery to me

 

[Lost property]

Reappointing Cruella is an interesting one, not only highly dubious due to the nature of her resignation but she showed in the Commons she loses it in a laughable way. Cooper will have her wrapped around her little finger.

Apparently, she can make Patel almost look like she has humanitarian instincts ....but, it's possibly "pure coincidence " she gave a possible Oscar nominee performance, and timing is everything here, had a few days off....and then, well back to the same office, desk and chair...as if nothing had happened !....but, a big welcome back for Gav...sacked not once, but twice, as a Minister, which takes a bit of doing, and now hopefully heading for his hat trick....alongside which, who else, apart from Dorries that is, can be employed for purely comic effect than Raab.

 

[takno]

Similarly, the Labour party has lost a number of members since Jeremy Corbin left as leader.

The Labour Party lost around 10% of its members, going from around 450k to 400k. They've gained 20k back in the last couple of months though, so swings and roundabouts.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Of course the main differences here being the massive ramp-up in membership before and during Corbyn's leadership*, and that they were in opposition all the while. Labour membership numbers continue to dwarf other parties by a massive amount with Starmer as party leader.

The drawback to this reasoning is that the whole of the electorate are not paid-up members of political parties.

 

[Typhoon]

This whole, "Small state with low intervention" is very much a recent American import - you don't have to go back far in time to see the Conservatives presiding over publicly run industries and thinking they had a mandate to interfere in the private lives of many groups of people.

Little of the Attlee government's 'state involvement' legislation was rowed back on in the subsequent decade. Indeed, one of the biggest extensions of public housing took place when MacMillan was Minister of Housing.