The next big leader?

User avatar
tillyoshea
Posts: 364
Joined: Sun 23 Nov, 2003 14.34
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne
Contact:

Neil DG wrote:
Because he Leader of the Opposition's mandate will be tested at the next General Election (as to whether they become PM or not)?
That's their mandate to be PM - What about their mandate to be Leader of the Opposition? Clearly, the Opposition can have a substantial impact on Government policy, and I don't see how you can deny the wider electorate a "say" if the logic is that party leaders set the direction and are the reason people vote the way they do.
wells
Posts: 747
Joined: Sun 31 Jul, 2005 14.52

tillyoshea wrote:Clearly, the Opposition can have a substantial impact on Government policy
Tell Jeremy Corbyn that.

Of course the difference is the leader of the opposition doesn't tend to be the party leader who lost the last election anyway, so you'd keep having elections under your proposed system. There is clearly a difference between the head of the government and premier of the nation to the person who's job it is to lead the arguments against the government. Although the opposition have influence, the bulk of the power is with the government.

I wouldn't get to hung up on this, the political system of this country simply doesn't make sense. But it's in too few of the big players interests to change that.
User avatar
WillPS
Posts: 2456
Joined: Tue 22 Apr, 2008 18.32
Location: Carlton
Contact:

Any opposing party would have a very difficult job justifying voting against a general election. It would not wash well.
Image
barcode
Posts: 1495
Joined: Wed 29 Aug, 2007 19.36

WillPS wrote:Any opposing party would have a very difficult job justifying voting against a general election. It would not wash well.
Yes there can, if there believe its NOT in the UK interest, Remember there only two ways to get it, 2/3 Maj for it, OR vote A vote no confidence, and that will look good on the voters, Even May had no confidence in her government. IF people who voted to leave believe there going to get screwed its anyone guess what will happen. I also believe the SNP could lose some of there Scottish seats.
User avatar
tillyoshea
Posts: 364
Joined: Sun 23 Nov, 2003 14.34
Location: Newcastle upon Tyne
Contact:

wells wrote:Of course the difference is the leader of the opposition doesn't tend to be the party leader who lost the last election anyway, so you'd keep having elections under your proposed system.
I'm not proposing a system, just pointing out a logical fallacy. If the argument is put that there must be a general election each time the Prime Minister changes on the basis that the electorate votes on the basis of party leader not a local candidate, then in a multiparty Parliamentary system it follows that the same is true for the Leader of the Opposition. Agree totally that this would be impractical.

Also worth noting that almost half of our Prime Ministers since 1900 have neither come to power in the immediate aftermath of a General Election, nor called an Election in the first twelve months of their term.
WillPS wrote:Any opposing party would have a very difficult job justifying voting against a general election. It would not wash well.
I agree. Note that if Labour (alone) decided to oppose, it would only take a handful of rebels to reach the required threshold anyway - and in the current atmosphere, it seems unlikely that all Labour MPs would toe the line!
User avatar
WillPS
Posts: 2456
Joined: Tue 22 Apr, 2008 18.32
Location: Carlton
Contact:

barcode wrote:
WillPS wrote:Any opposing party would have a very difficult job justifying voting against a general election. It would not wash well.
Yes there can, if there believe its NOT in the UK interest, Remember there only two ways to get it, 2/3 Maj for it, OR vote A vote no confidence, and that will look good on the voters, Even May had no confidence in her government. IF people who voted to leave believe there going to get screwed its anyone guess what will happen. I also believe the SNP could lose some of there Scottish seats.
"We don't believe it's in the national interest for us to take control", you reckon?
Image
Alexia
Posts: 2999
Joined: Sat 01 Oct, 2005 17.50

barcode wrote:I also believe the SNP could lose some of there Scottish seats.
In a FPTP election, SNP aren't in danger of losing seats - they gained 6 FPTP seats in Holyrood for example. Their poll numbers have gone up from 47% in May 2015 to over 51% now. Sturgeon, no matter what anyone thinks of her, has played a consistent, visible, on-message blinder.
all new Phil
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun 13 Feb, 2005 00.04
Location: Next door to Hell

barcode wrote:What did May say about Osborne?
She called him a cunt and told him to get to fuck.

By the way, "the next big leader" - I think we can comfortably remove Angela Eagle from that list :lol:
barcode
Posts: 1495
Joined: Wed 29 Aug, 2007 19.36

Alexia wrote:
barcode wrote:I also believe the SNP could lose some of there Scottish seats.
In a FPTP election, SNP aren't in danger of losing seats - they gained 6 FPTP seats in Holyrood for example. Their poll numbers have gone up from 47% in May 2015 to over 51% now. Sturgeon, no matter what anyone thinks of her, has played a consistent, visible, on-message blinder.
Its clear to most scots vote SNP = Tory government, there have to vote labour to get the tories out
Alexia
Posts: 2999
Joined: Sat 01 Oct, 2005 17.50

Labour are finished.
robschneider
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed 14 Aug, 2013 14.53

Alexia wrote:Labour are finished.
Not often I agree with you Alexia, but yeah. They are.

It's very rich of Labour to call for a snap election after the way Brown spectacularly bottled it in 2007.
Post Reply