|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On October 20 2022 22:32 Simberto wrote:
But where would that competent government come from? Do they actually have parties that could do that?
I mean, sure, it is really hard to do worse than the tories. But isn't labour also partially broken atm? And other parties basically don't exist due to FPTP?
Labour is ok right now but exists as a kind of centrist party.
They would have a massive mandate from the public were an election to be held right now.
|
Is there an easy way to explain how the other party in the UK is so bad that even after 3 resignations, the Boris party is still the one everyone agrees is better?
|
Northern Ireland24445 Posts
On October 20 2022 23:05 Mohdoo wrote:
Is there an easy way to explain how the other party in the UK is so bad that even after 3 resignations, the Boris party is still the one everyone agrees is better?
Timing plays a part. Brexit also threw a hand grenade into the mix, there were times where Labour could conceivably have pulled it off under more ‘regular’ politics.
Likewise the Pandemic, I mean Labour played it quite safe despite some Tory disasters, I think they, and to a degree the populace preferred solidarity over too much infighting. This did change a bit down the line.
Timing does count for a lot in politics, I feel it’s a rather underrated facet.
I mean if there were to be an imminent election, Labour wouldn’t just win it would be a nigh-unprecedented trouncing. But they could sleepwalk on for another 2 years, rebuild a little and there’s some Labour catastrophe and they get in again.
The American cycle has a more regular schedule and midterms and whatnot, you get a more regular snapshot of where the country is at for better or for worse.
|
So how will this improve them in the polls? Others will think this was just an interal coup and getting rid of rebels... all at the cost of the citizenry.
|
United States42263 Posts
That feel when yesterday’s vomit is offered as today’s dinner.
|
On October 20 2022 23:05 Mohdoo wrote:
Is there an easy way to explain how the other party in the UK is so bad that even after 3 resignations, the Boris party is still the one everyone agrees is better? Its not? They would lose almost all their seats according to the polls if there was an election tomorrow.
|
You also have to remember that Labour had Jeremy Corbyn for years, which was frankly a gift from the heavens to the tories. Probably a good man but a blundering idiot when it comes to actually win elections. The guy didn’t even campaign against Brexit because he hates the EU, and spent all his political capital screwing up everything he could, from accusations of antisemitism, to trident, and so on and so forth without ever taking advantage of how blatantly awful the tories were.
|
Meanwhile who would have thought that taking your economics understanding from Hayek was not a great way to inspire confidence. Truss genuinely seemed to think that: “give a lot of money to the richest people and biggest corporation = growth = trickle down = prosperity” was all there were to economics and that there were nothing more subtle to it than that.
|
Boris, Sunak, Hunt, Braverman, Mordaunt, Javid, anyone else that comes to mind being a terrible, yet very plausible a winning candidate? There isn't anyone credible and fresh that I'm forgetting about, is there?
Also happy cakes WombaT, Liz delivered a big present!
|
On October 20 2022 23:43 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2022 23:05 Mohdoo wrote:
Is there an easy way to explain how the other party in the UK is so bad that even after 3 resignations, the Boris party is still the one everyone agrees is better? Its not? They would lose almost all their seats according to the polls if there was an election tomorrow.
But this all started with Boris...
|
Northern Ireland24445 Posts
On October 21 2022 02:06 Oukka wrote:
Boris, Sunak, Hunt, Braverman, Mordaunt, Javid, anyone else that comes to mind being a terrible, yet very plausible a winning candidate? There isn't anyone credible and fresh that I'm forgetting about, is there?
Also happy cakes WombaT, Liz delivered a big present!
Merci, I feel truly blessed
|
I am once again wondering publically if Charles the third will dissolve parliment. Things are twisting into outright chaos and the conservatives look like they have every reason to not want a general election.
Instead if dissolving parliment with a decrelation can he refuse to see the new tory candidate?
|
Can't Parliament tell him to piss off? Could see that being a quick way to getting rid of the Monarchy.
|
Northern Ireland24445 Posts
On October 21 2022 06:13 Sermokala wrote:
I am once again wondering publically if Charles the third will dissolve parliment. Things are twisting into outright chaos and the conservatives look like they have every reason to not want a general election.
Instead if dissolving parliment with a decrelation can he refuse to see the new tory candidate?
Theoretically possible, realistically impossible. I’m sure there are equivalents in American political structures but I can’t think of any to mind. There must be some but I can’t think of any off the top of my head.
In terms of any involvement of actual matters of governance, the monarchy only exist as a ceremonial ratifying institution, it was that restriction that brought them back, making us quite quirky in dispensing rather brutally of monarchs and then bringing them back for, some reason.
It’s been semi-controversial for the then Prince Charles to even publicly comment with (usually very mild) opinions on climate change, one of his pet causes. Too much interference/criticism in government/Parliamentary business.
For Charles to intervene in basically any way, and break that convention/historic delineation there would almost have to be something so egregious that somebody, or some other body would have done so prior to him crossing that Rubicon.
If we’re crossing scenarios across the Atlantic, I think you’d need to see something akin to a more successful ‘Stop the steal’ to have Charles withdraw Royal assent’. But you’d more likely see the army step in to prevent a coup before you’d see the King get involved.
|
Interesting. No in America the president is really a dictator that leaves when his term is up because Washington did that and it stuck. Andrew Jackson famously violated the constitution and showed it was worth the paper its written on by ignoring the supreme court already and Truman seized the steel industry during the Korean war with no repercussions.
That was what I was looking for thank you.
|
United States42263 Posts
There’s a point where Parliament would say that it’s improper but not worth declaring a republic over. Charles wouldn’t be declaring personal rule, he’d be putting the question to the people. He invites a MP to become the PM and form a government in his name. They rule until they lose the confidence of the house and then he invites another to. We’re rapidly running out of MPs with any confidence left. Parliamentary rule out of this particular parliament has already failed, Charles wouldn’t be undermining democracy, he’d be restoring it.
It’d never happen either way though.
|
On October 21 2022 13:56 KwarK wrote:
There’s a point where Parliament would say that it’s improper but not worth declaring a republic over. Charles wouldn’t be declaring personal rule, he’d be putting the question to the people. He invites a MP to become the PM and form a government in his name. They rule until they lose the confidence of the house and then he invites another to. We’re rapidly running out of MPs with any confidence left. Parliamentary rule out of this particular parliament has already failed, Charles wouldn’t be undermining democracy, he’d be restoring it.
It’d never happen either way though.
You see the issue is, anyone who was able to get confidence was already going to be Prime Minister.
|
On October 21 2022 06:13 Sermokala wrote:
I am once again wondering publically if Charles the third will dissolve parliment. Things are twisting into outright chaos and the conservatives look like they have every reason to not want a general election.
Instead if dissolving parliment with a decrelation can he refuse to see the new tory candidate?
That’s one way to make sure you have a nice thick Wikipedia entry
|
On October 21 2022 23:44 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2022 06:13 Sermokala wrote:
I am once again wondering publically if Charles the third will dissolve parliment. Things are twisting into outright chaos and the conservatives look like they have every reason to not want a general election.
Instead if dissolving parliment with a decrelation can he refuse to see the new tory candidate? That’s one way to make sure you have a nice thick Wikipedia entry
The other way would be to re-elect Boris.
Its a real possibility right now.
Can you imagine? It would only take one look at a history book with 3 names and the dates they ruled to know that this tory government is the most morally bankrupt, stupidly incompetent government the UK has ever had.
|
the ostensible audacity of Johnson to request his competitors to drop out for his benefit is staggering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
