It actually happened in a similar way in London when Labour won the GLC election. A couple of years preparing getting activists to take over local constituency offices and winning the Council seats under the 'moderate' Andrew McIntosh and within 24 hours he was replaced by Ken Livingstone. The only way to stop this sort of thing is an automatic general election if a PM resigns or is removed...
The problem with that is the American one - the leader becomes powerless because he can't get his policies through and his party does not vote in the public interest to remove him because the likely consequence of their action is that the government loses the GE. By the way there is nothing wrong imo with the party members deciding who they want to lead them. They are the ones who care. As for the rest of us, it's our bloody fault for voting them into power in the first place.
Similar in that (to paraphrase Stroller) only a chosen few would hold the future of our Nation in their hands. Unbelievably, like you, I read the rest of the piece around the mechanics of leadership challenge and electoral system, but found it boring and irrelevant to the point Stroller was making. Bottom line is that any party in power can change PM through an election process restricted to its members; not just the preserve of the ****ing Tory bastards.
It's the ****ing Tory bastards that are doing it now. Feel free to comment if it happens under Labour. Whichever party it may be, a change of PM should require a General Election.
I wouldn’t have a problem if it happened under Labour whilst in power, Strolls. It happened with Callaghan taking over from Wilson, I think? I have no issue with the system as it stands. Where I do have an issue is with the Tory process whereby the MPs in the Westminster Village, few of whom I would suggest are proper small ‘c’ conservatives, whittling the choice of the wider membership down to these two. As I said on an earlier post, no real conservative is likely to get anywhere near the leadership. More fool the wider members of the party putting up with such a system.
Utterly ridiculous in my opinion that a change of PM should require a GE. Presumably it is your assumption that most people vote for a PM rather than a political party or local candidate? I know that’s not always the case because of how I’ve voted in the past, so would reasonably assume it’s the case for others. Forgetting it’s currently Raab, I’d rather the deputy took over and everybody knew that would be the case at the time of a GE. Let the party membership choose both, as Labour do, then it’s clear.
I’d like to see some evidence on what motivates people to vote at general elections - local candidate, party loyalty, policy preferences, party leader etc. Doubtless there won’t be a single dominant factor. I’m pretty sure that the party leader is much more influential, both positively and negatively, that’s he/she used to be. I’ll do a little searching.
Here's an example of the state of some parts of the NHS. My aunt had excruciating pain in her jaw. Goes to the doctor, referred to a consultant, and told she would be at the back of a long queue. My aunt used to work as a physiotherapist for the NHS, she does not like private care, even though she is more than able to pay for it. But in view of her awful predicament with the pain, she and my uncle agree she must go to to a private clinic. She does, and the clinic diagnoses face and neck cancer immediately. She is taken straight to St George's Hospital in Tooting under the NHS and has an operation the next day. What would have happened if she could not have afforded to get the private diagnosis? I feel we're increasingly heading for a two speed NHS. Big changes are needed in an organisation that is excellent in parts and really poor in others.
Jumping in on the 'mechanics' discussion - for me the issues all stem from the decline of mass party membership. In the days when both the Tories and Labour had million plus memberships and local associations were very busy, the large membership acted as a strong check and balance. They were (naturally due to the numbers) much more representative of the population as a whole and therefore MPs attempting to keep their local associations on side had to be more in touch with the population as a whole. The small numbers left in both major parties tend to the extreme edges of each party, which I don't think is healthy. I think it enables the likes of Boris and Corbyn, which I don't think could have happened with mass party membership*. It's why I believe so much in being a member of a political party and I wish everyone was - I which is was culturally normal / expected for people to pick the party closest to their views and to join. I'm a hypocrite at the moment because I couldn't bring myself to stay a Tory member while Boris was in charge. Time to mull over my hypocrisy. *Yes, I know Corbyn attracted a large surge in members to get him elected and keep him there, but that was leftist entryism, and had there been a much larger Lab membership *before* the election I don't think he'd have won.
Not really a post I feel able to 'like' as it's so sad, but a good example of the big challenges the NHS faces.
For some reason can’t find anything on the 2019 election. Local reasons seem very far or not on the list….. https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politic...eople-voted-labour-or-conservative-2017-gener
It's always been the way. It happened to me. The private sector makes a lot of money out of queue jumping for its clients ie the corporate sector by doing the routine minor procedures and providing services in the cosmetic vanity market but does not have the resources or the personnel to do serious life saving procedures. The patients are then shunted back to the NHS. Perhaps a system could be introduced that the private provider could be forced to stump up to the NHS the cost of expensive procedures and drugs. It will raise the cost of private medicine but there's more than enough money left for them and any increase in premiums is likely to be more affordable to the companies that purchase it for their staff than for the individuals who need medical care.
I think we can all make an educated guess at the reasons for voting in the last GE and I'm sure we'd all be close unless there are some Tories out there who believe seriously that people voted because they believed in their policies. Last time around as well as the negative reason - to keep others away from power (not a policy) and tax cuts the only additional policy was to get Brexit done.
I'm pretty sure that, every general election, I've voted for the PARTY I thought would deliver what I wanted the most. The only exception being the last election, when I unashamedly voted for Boris to free up the undemocratic stalling of Brexit. As things stand, I can't see me voting for anyone at the next election.
I’m pleased your aunt was able to get the treatment whatever the route and, assuming this is a recent event, wish her a speedy recovery.
In my humble opinion policies, always voted for this party, anti-other party, to keep other party leader from Downing Street and pro this party’s leader are all pretty much the same thing to most voters. There are Tory votes in my mother’s town that would vote for cow pat swarming with flies if you stuck a blue rosette on it*. (*I suspect this description applies to much of the current government in the eyes of some on here)
