New Party leaders

[Nearly Sane]

I see UKIP just introduced a rule saying you have to a member for 5 years to be leader. Otherwise known as the Fuck Carswell rule.

[wigginhall]

Take back control!
No, you take back control.
I am, I just knifed somebody in the back, that is taking back control.
I see that somebody just knifed you in the back, so they've taken back control.
No, they haven't, they've just resigned.
Well, I'm off for a spot of lunch, that is taking back control. 

[Hope]

Dear Floo and ProfDavey,

The Tory party gives me the creeps!!

Gonnagle.

In which way are the SNP or the Labour parties any better?

[Nearly Sane]

Theresa May has no democratic mandate according to Theresa May


http://conservativehome.blogs.com/columnists/2007/08/theresa-may-m-3.html

[Hope]

NS, a General Election gives a party a mandate, not an individual.  Whilst there will, no doubt, be those who vote for a party depending on who is the party leader, I'd suggest that - until the arrival of Corbynism - the majority of people from whatever party would cast their vote based on three things: party, manifesto, and their view on a party's candidate in their constituency.

[Nearly Sane]

NS, a General Election gives a party a mandate, not an individual.  Whilst there will, no doubt, be those who vote for a party depending on who is the party leader, I'd suggest that - until the arrival of Corbynism - the majority of people from whatever party would cast their vote based on three things: party, manifesto, and their view on a party's candidate in their constituency.

Take it up with Theresa May who thinks differently, or did.

[Hope]

Take it up with Theresa May who thinks differently, or did.

I've read the article you linked to, and I got the impression she was writing about the Labour Party, even though she uses the 'short-hand' Gordon Brown.  Remember that in both cases, the electorate knew ahead of the respective elections that the then leader would be standing down at some point in the following parliament were their party to win the election.

[Nearly Sane]

I've read the article you linked to, and I got the impression she was writing about the Labour Party, even though she uses the 'short-hand' Gordon Brown.  Remember that in both cases, the electorate knew ahead of the respective elections that the then leader would be standing down at some point in the following parliament were their party to win the election.

Again take it up with her, she thinks or thought that in such circumstances the PM doesn't , or didn't have a democratic mandate.

[jeremyp]

It struck me this morning that, in olden days when the leader of the incumbent party (and hence the prime minister) was selected by the MPs, the system was more democratic than it is now. Currently we have the situation that the PM is elected by a few hundred thousand people with no democratic mandate, whereas the MPs were at least elected by the general public.

[Harrowby Hall]

What Hope says is correct.

In this country what is elected is a Parliament not a President. There is no reason why there cannot be a new prime minister every year. The electorate - constitutionally - have no part in the decision as to who is the prime minister.

I suspect that people confuse "head of state" with "head of government". The prime minister is the head of government, the monarch is the head of state - who is also not elected.

[Harrowby Hall]

It struck me this morning that, in olden days when the leader of the incumbent party (and hence the prime minister) was selected by the MPs, the system was more democratic than it is now. Currently we have the situation that the PM is elected by a few hundred thousand people with no democratic mandate, whereas the MPs were at least elected by the general public.

It has nothing to do with "olden days" it is the British Constitution.

The people elect a Parliament. Parliament consists of MPs who commit to a particular programme as outlined in a manifesto. The monarch asks the leader of the party which has the largest number of MPs to form an administration. How that party appoint its own leader is its own affair.

Stop looking at what happens in countries such as France and the USA, which elect an executive president. Why not consider the situation in Germany, where there is a ceremonial president and where the process to appoint a chancellor is more like that in the UK?

[jeremyp]

It has nothing to do with "olden days" it is the British Constitution.

The people elect a Parliament. Parliament consists of MPs who commit to a particular programme as outlined in a manifesto. The monarch asks the leader of the party which has the largest number of MPs to form an administration. How that party appoint its own leader is its own affair.

Stop looking at what happens in countries such as France and the USA, which elect an executive president. Why not consider the situation in Germany, where there is a ceremonial president and where the process is more like that in the UK?

Yes we get it. But that isn't the point.

The various machinations of the constitution and party rules combine to give us a leader who is elected by members of their political party who have obtained the right to be involved by paying a membership fee.

In olden days before the political parties changed their selection rules, the various machinations of the constitution and party rules combined to give us a leader who was elected by the MPs from their party who had obtained the right to be involved by being elected to their post by their constituencies.

This is more democratic than the current systems.

[Harrowby Hall]

If you set up the Make JeremyP Dictator for Life Party you are entirely free to determine how that party's leader shall be appointed.

Political parties are independent and totally free organisations. They are at liberty to determine their own rules and their own constitutions. The state plays no part in that.

All parties enter the parliamentary electoral marketplace free to behave how they wish providing they do so legally. The electorate knows this.

Were you so concerned when Margaret Thatcher was forced out and replaced with John Major?

[Nearly Sane]

What Hope says is correct.

In this  country what is elected is a Parliament not a President. There is no reason why there cannot be a new prime minister every year. The electorate - constitutionally - have no part in the decision as to who is the prime minister.

I suspect that people confuse "head of state" with "head of government". The prime minister is the head of government, the monarch is the head of state - who is also not elected.

yep,i know, however why is it relevant to the point that in a similar situation, Brown becoming PM had no democratic mandate, but her not saying that now?

[Gordon]

The graphic at the bottom of this BBC page shows that TM will be the 12th PM in the last century to assume the office without there being a General Election.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36769898

[Harrowby Hall]

yep,i know, however why is it relevant to the point that in a similar situation, Brown becoming PM had no democratic mandate, but her not saying that now?

You are referring to something that was written in 2007 - nearly a decade ago.

[Nearly Sane]

You are referring to something that was written in 2007 - nearly a decade ago.

And? Surely this is a simple matter of principle? I agree people can change their minds. Do you think that is what happened to the PM to be?

[Udayana]

Whether we have a GE or not when a new PM is put forward by a party obviously depends on many factors, not a single constitutional point.

After 10 years of TB as PM and with the way the leadership was handed over it seemed reasonable to many that a GE should have been called. In the current situation, where May is taking over soon after an election and with the Brexit referendum providing a clear direction for the rest of the term it seems reasonable to continue without one. ie. She thinks that she has enough of mandate but thought GB did not.

Separately, it's not as if its likely that a GE would give us a different result.

[Nearly Sane]

Whether we have a GE or not when a new PM is put forward by a party obviously depends on many factors, not a single constitutional point.

After 10 years of TB as PM and with the way the leadership was handed over it seemed reasonable to many that a GE should have been called. In the current situation, where May is taking over soon after an election and with the Brexit referendum providing a clear direction for the rest of the term it seems reasonable to continue without one. ie. She thinks that she has enough of mandate but thought GB did not.

Separately, it's not as if its likely that a GE would give us a different result.

How does Brexit provide a clear objective given the there is no policy covering it in the manifeato, other than holding the referndum, as opposed to someone taking over and following the manifesto?

[Nearly Sane]

Just to note I don't think there should be a GE because of the new PM - but I think that political parties on both sides should stop with the meretricious 'do as we say not as we do'. There is a case to be made both for holding a GE soon, and a case agaisnt it - but none of either case gets much, if any, support from there being a new PM

[Gonnagle]

Dear Hope,

In which way are the SNP or the Labour parties any better?

Unsure about what the SNP are standing up for, right now all I hear about is Indyref2, regards the Labour party, I see a fight between Torylite/Blairite MP's and Jeremy Corbyns so called hard left politics.

I am at present trying to find out if here on this forum the accusation of hard left is justified, I am also trying to figure out why Corbyns detractors don't think he is capable of leading the Labour party.

In answer to your question why the Labour party ( Corbyn and his supporters, not the other lot ) do not give me the creeps, is I see Jeremy Corbyn standing up for the poor in our society.

So far I see no reason to brand Corbyn as hard left, to me that is old school speak, something that we should step away from.

Regarding his Leadership skills, it seems to me that his detractors are basing this on his conduct over the EU referendum, which I think he fought honestly, he was not a big fan of the EU but his mast was firmly affixed to the remain campaign "remain and reform".

I do think there is some mileage in what Vlad was chuntering on about, a BBC bias against Corbyn, I receive most of my info from the BBC web site and I had to dig deeply to find any reference to Corbyn during the EU debate, even though the man traveled the breadth of this country asking voters to remain.

Right now I am looking through Mr Corbyns official web site,

 http://jeremycorbyn.org.uk/

And so far all I can see is a man standing up to Tory austerity, standing up to a party that gave us brexit, standing up to a Tory party that cares not a jot about our NHS, standing up to a party that allows big companies to avoid tax and standing up to a party that looks like it is in a race to the bottom over corporation tax.

So to end old son, no the SNP do not give me the creeps, they are doing what is in their job description and the Labour party do not give me the creeps, they are fighting the most unbritish unChristian political party I have ever seen.

Gonnagle.

[jeremyp]

If you set up the Make JeremyP Dictator for Life Party you are entirely free to determine how that party's leader shall be appointed.

Political parties are independent and totally free organisations. They are at liberty to determine their own rules and their own constitutions. The state plays no part in that.

All parties enter the parliamentary electoral marketplace free to behave how they wish providing they do so legally. The electorate knows this.

Of course they are but some systems are more democratic than others.

Were you so concerned when Margaret Thatcher was forced out and replaced with John Major?

I'm sorry, where did I ever give the impression that I was concerned? I merely made an observation and I do note the irony that "reclaiming democracy" has resulted in a new PM appointed by Tory MPs, which is precisely the same way as the "unelected" EU leaders are appointed.

[ProfessorDavey]

And so far all I can see is a man standing up to Tory austerity, standing up to a party that gave us brexit, standing up to a Tory party that cares not a jot about our NHS, standing up to a party that allows big companies to avoid tax and standing up to a party that looks like it is in a race to the bottom over corporation tax.

So far so mainstream - what you have said about Corbyn could equally be said about Yvette Cooper or Chuka Unamma, or Liz Kendal on the centrist wing of the party.

The issue isn't these glib statements, but how effective he is at first holding the government to account and secondly creating a compelling alternative agenda that is deliverable and sufficiently compelling that people in enough numbers might vote for it in a general election so that Labour in power, not the tories. And in those important points he has been a disaster. He is completely unable to speak to the wider public beyond the narrow echo chamber of his fellow ideologists.

And no this isn't just about his appalling performance during the brexit campaign where he was simply absent - no that was, for some merely the straw that broke the camel's back, but just one of a catalogue of errors where he completely failed to do his job as an opposition leader, and that is, of course because he cannot lead.

And it isn't surprising because his is (despite his age) critically inexperienced and that speaks volumes. If you are in any way competent as a leader and you've been in front line politics for 40 years you will have been pulled in to lead initiatives left right and centre, whatever your political views. Yet in all that time prior to becoming leader of the party last year his most significant leadership roles have been Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Chagos Islands and a friend of mine who is a relative of Labour 'royalty' believes he was also briefly in charge of the planning department at  Haringey Council.

That lack of experience is excusable if you are 35 and have been in front line politics for 5 years, not if you are 66 and have been in front line politics for 40 years.

And that isn't actually just a reflection of his hard left views. Take someone else with similarly hard left views - also in front line politics for a similar length of time, Ken Livingston. He has been in countless leadership positions throughout his career - like or loath his politics, he is able to lead and to win elections, Corbyn isn't.

[Udayana]

How does Brexit provide a clear objective given the there is no policy covering it in the manifeato, other than holding the referndum, as opposed to someone taking over and following the manifesto?

The direction is to "leave" - we have to negotiate a Brexit deal. Possibly a choice on options, if any, will need to be put to a public vote through a GE or further referendum later (eg. if the government fails to carry their preferred option).

[Nearly Sane]

The direction is to "leave" - we have to negotiate a Brexit deal. Possibly a choice on options, if any, will need to be put to a public vote through a GE or further referendum later (eg. if the government fails to carry their preferred option).

And again how is that clear as what happens over the next three years, given that it is only one thing and no actions on it are based on a manifesto, as opposed to following a manifesto?