By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
I guess you can find contradictions like this from ALL politicians, particularly in the social media age.
And I guess they'll be wheeled out in the tiresome, cynical, negative, bulk propaganda manner that seeks to undermine or cover up everything these days.
Good work by Philogene...... GREAT WORK BY PHILOGENE!!!
There is always a tweet on 20:41 - Jun 22 by J2BLUE
This is where he will put on that same tone they all use and say it's not what the people want and we just want to see him get to work.
By Christmas everyone will see he is as self serving and party first as any of them.
I remember a very opinionated poster on here saying that changing leader plus another party leading in the polls meant that the government had lost its mandate and should call an election.
Don't cry because it's over; smile because it happened.
There is always a tweet on 20:48 - Jun 22 by GlasgowBlue
I remember a very opinionated poster on here saying that changing leader plus another party leading in the polls meant that the government had lost its mandate and should call an election.
Are you calling out other posters trying to start arguments again?
I thought you didn't like people doing that yet you seem to do it very regularly.
SB
Avatar - M101 - Pinwheel Galaxy
-1
There is always a tweet on 22:20 - Jun 22 with 1262 views
There is always a tweet on 20:48 - Jun 22 by GlasgowBlue
I remember a very opinionated poster on here saying that changing leader plus another party leading in the polls meant that the government had lost its mandate and should call an election.
I believe that there should be a general election within six months if a party changes leader.
Burnham should try and rush through three key things to benefit normal people and then call an election.
There is always a tweet on 22:25 - Jun 22 by SitfcB
Recalling a comment isn’t ‘calling out other posters trying to start arguments’ ffs.
Come on Sitters, if you can't see what he's trying to do then it's not my fault.
Absolutely no need to mention other posters in the context of this thread but then if I said the sky was blue you'd have an issue with it so you carry on.
SB
Avatar - M101 - Pinwheel Galaxy
2
There is always a tweet on 22:30 - Jun 22 with 1145 views
There is always a tweet on 22:28 - Jun 22 by StokieBlue
Come on Sitters, if you can't see what he's trying to do then it's not my fault.
Absolutely no need to mention other posters in the context of this thread but then if I said the sky was blue you'd have an issue with it so you carry on.
SB
If he was calling someone out he’d name them, I have no idea who he’s referring to.
This leads into the other discussion about why we get through so many PM's now, within seconds of anyone getting anywhere near power they are being forensically analysed by the media to find a gotcha and start picking away at all these inconsistencies and minor hypocrisies.
And also why certain parties or politicians get away with it by just constantly smearing their waste products all over the walls and saying everyone is the same.
It's all part of the same cycle, gleeful tear downs then shrugging at the state of politics and why reform are doing so well. I don't know the answer, but as pointed out, there will always be a tweet, so how do we cut slack without letting the scumbags off too?
2
There is always a tweet on 22:37 - Jun 22 with 1069 views
There is always a tweet on 20:48 - Jun 22 by GlasgowBlue
I remember a very opinionated poster on here saying that changing leader plus another party leading in the polls meant that the government had lost its mandate and should call an election.
I wouldn't be surprised if he does in fairly short order, they would win too but likely not get my vote...poor them!!
"They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches."
It's funny how the Tory government changes their leaders more times than I change my underpants and certain posters and sections of the media say nothing, but when Labour do it ONCE all hell breaks loose.
It's also funny how certain posters say you shouldn't dig up a post from a few weeks ago... but have themselves consistently dug up posts from years ago when it suits.
There is always a tweet on 20:48 - Jun 22 by GlasgowBlue
I remember a very opinionated poster on here saying that changing leader plus another party leading in the polls meant that the government had lost its mandate and should call an election.
They "should". But they don't have to. It's one of the consequences of our ridiculous "Unwritten Constitution", which largely relies on precedent. And the precedent has been established and reaffirmed several times, quite recently.
I'd be all for a written Constitution, Electoral Reform, and an elected Second Chamber, as I believe that is theoretically the best set of democratic safeguards.
And then I look across the Atlantic...
Every system has vulnerabilities, and vigilance in safeguarding democracy is paramount. We (collectively as a nation) have let this one slide in recent years, and it does erode trust, or at the very least leave an open wound that can be jabbed when the initial "bounce" and hype dies down.
0
There is always a tweet on 08:23 - Jun 23 with 645 views
There is always a tweet on 08:16 - Jun 23 by ArnoldMoorhen
They "should". But they don't have to. It's one of the consequences of our ridiculous "Unwritten Constitution", which largely relies on precedent. And the precedent has been established and reaffirmed several times, quite recently.
I'd be all for a written Constitution, Electoral Reform, and an elected Second Chamber, as I believe that is theoretically the best set of democratic safeguards.
And then I look across the Atlantic...
Every system has vulnerabilities, and vigilance in safeguarding democracy is paramount. We (collectively as a nation) have let this one slide in recent years, and it does erode trust, or at the very least leave an open wound that can be jabbed when the initial "bounce" and hype dies down.
We elect a local MP who then plays their part (or not) in forming a government.
We don't elect a Prime Minister.
There has never been a precedent for a General Election when the party chooses to change leader even when that leader is PM.
It should also be no surprise that opposition parties would want a General Election an any grounds they could claim one.
There is always a tweet on 08:23 - Jun 23 by Nthsuffolkblue
We elect a local MP who then plays their part (or not) in forming a government.
We don't elect a Prime Minister.
There has never been a precedent for a General Election when the party chooses to change leader even when that leader is PM.
It should also be no surprise that opposition parties would want a General Election an any grounds they could claim one.
Yes, and No.
Yes, because we do, and you are right.
No, because the General Election was completely framed as a choice between different candidates to be Prime Minister, including Presidential style TV debates, and all the media coverage sells that. Nobody was saying "Vote for your local Labour candidate for MP, so that they can be part of a Parliamentary Party who may or may not overthrow their Leader within two years." It was very much "Vote Labour to get Sunak out and Starmer in".
The Executive has powers quite distinct and separate from Parliament. The Home Secretary has powers which would shock most people. The Northern Ireland Secretary has the power to suspend Stormont.
When we have a General Election it is completely framed as "Electing a Prime Minister". That Prime Minister then has powers to appoint people to Executive Office with powers of their own.
All of this is a combination of precedent and Legislation. Some of it is well known, other bits are very murky.
But the British Public go into a General Election with all the media messaging and party campaigning focused on electing a party leader to be Prime Minister, even though they are actually putting a cross in a box alongside the name of a local candidate for MP.
0
There is always a tweet on 08:49 - Jun 23 with 553 views
There is always a tweet on 08:44 - Jun 23 by ArnoldMoorhen
Yes, and No.
Yes, because we do, and you are right.
No, because the General Election was completely framed as a choice between different candidates to be Prime Minister, including Presidential style TV debates, and all the media coverage sells that. Nobody was saying "Vote for your local Labour candidate for MP, so that they can be part of a Parliamentary Party who may or may not overthrow their Leader within two years." It was very much "Vote Labour to get Sunak out and Starmer in".
The Executive has powers quite distinct and separate from Parliament. The Home Secretary has powers which would shock most people. The Northern Ireland Secretary has the power to suspend Stormont.
When we have a General Election it is completely framed as "Electing a Prime Minister". That Prime Minister then has powers to appoint people to Executive Office with powers of their own.
All of this is a combination of precedent and Legislation. Some of it is well known, other bits are very murky.
But the British Public go into a General Election with all the media messaging and party campaigning focused on electing a party leader to be Prime Minister, even though they are actually putting a cross in a box alongside the name of a local candidate for MP.
The fact the media and the campaigning parties behave in that way does not change the political system we have.
A better political system would use a different form of voting and elect local representatives (on a single transferable vote system) and have a chamber that was elected by proportional representation and led to a PM.
There is always a tweet on 08:16 - Jun 23 by ArnoldMoorhen
They "should". But they don't have to. It's one of the consequences of our ridiculous "Unwritten Constitution", which largely relies on precedent. And the precedent has been established and reaffirmed several times, quite recently.
I'd be all for a written Constitution, Electoral Reform, and an elected Second Chamber, as I believe that is theoretically the best set of democratic safeguards.
And then I look across the Atlantic...
Every system has vulnerabilities, and vigilance in safeguarding democracy is paramount. We (collectively as a nation) have let this one slide in recent years, and it does erode trust, or at the very least leave an open wound that can be jabbed when the initial "bounce" and hype dies down.
Which is what I said in 2022.
Don't cry because it's over; smile because it happened.
There is always a tweet on 08:49 - Jun 23 by Nthsuffolkblue
The fact the media and the campaigning parties behave in that way does not change the political system we have.
A better political system would use a different form of voting and elect local representatives (on a single transferable vote system) and have a chamber that was elected by proportional representation and led to a PM.
We don't have that system, though.
The system we currently have theoretically requires Burnham to be elected leader of the Labour Party as a result of a "One Member, One Vote" National Leadership Election.
But, in reality, he will become de facto leader of the Parliamentary Labour Party, will command the confidence of the majority of MPs in Parliament, and will be asked by the King to form a Government. The National Labour Leader Election will follow as a matter of housekeeping.
I personally think it would have been more democratic for Johnson, Truss, Sunak and Burnham to have fought and won General Elections in order to become Prime Minister (not least because it would focus the minds of MPs more before taking the step of deposing a Prime Minister who had won a General Election).
But that's not the system. If Burnham commands the majority of MPs then the King asks him to become Prime Minister, no matter what anyone has tweeted in the past.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
