To think if Keir Starmer is ousted there should be a general election

@SerendipityJane The electoral college is as direct as most elections get, although you are correct with reference to the faithless electors. There was a SCOTUS judgment in about 2020, I can’t remember the case name, that basically said they had to vote as directed.
The US constitution does allow the riff raff a say as the House of Representatives is elected every 2 years, meaning it is very responsive to the whims of the public. However, the check on this is the Senate with its 6 year election cycle.

The role of the president is still defined by the constitution it’s just that Congress has given up its checks. The Founding fathers never imagined one branch would voluntarily - even enthusiastically - cede its power to a King like president. And yes they were all men although Adam’s wife, Abigail, is credited with significant political influence and advice.

Absolutely this 👆 they definitely want Reform in now before they have time to mess up their respective councils and have more racist scandalous SM revealed.

And to be fair to Boris the moment he became Tory leader, he wanted an election. However that was denied him by Corbyn and the FTPA.

And another credit to Boris - which the history books will remember him for. He scrapped the FTPA.

And I am happy to say that I was a fierce supporter of the FTPA, and I could not have been more wrong. The reason I am happy to say that is because admitting you have been wrong is a sign of not being dim. Quite happy to debate it may be the defining quality (no Brexiteers need apply).

@unsync How radical is a radical change? Define it. What happens if there is a world crisis, COVID or a war, this radically changed government policy. Should we have an election then? It very easy to say and massively difficult to apply as a policy.

No. Very convenient that some people want a GE now.

The role of US President used to be strictly defined in the constitution. This means the issue of succession needs to be covered.

And despite it all being written down, no one had a clue what to do when Harrison died. They could easily have legislated for another election - and indeed were discussing it. However Tyler sort of moved into the Whitehouse and just "did Presidency" which sort of settled the issue.

It's possible to do an entire doctorate on the weeks that followed Harrisons death. And sometimes I wish I didn't know how I knew 😎

By contrast what there is of the UK constitution (which of course makes the monarch, not the PM the head of state) only "requires" that the monarchs "prime" minister is able to secure a majority in parliament.

That's it.

Just to hypothesize (or catastrophsise) if Nigel Farage (or Angela Rayner) could get a simple majority of MPs to support them, they would become PM.

By the same token, if a PM cannot secure the support of parliament .... well that is that. Bye Bye. Meet the new boss.

YABU. We don't vote for our prime minister any more than we vote for a president. We vote for our local MP and the PM is whoever has the confidence of the majority of MPs. If Starmer loses that confidence and Burnham gains it, no General Election is needed, we have still got the MP we voted for and all further decisions are delegated to them.

If Burnham did a bait and switch and revealed a whole bunch of new policies that are directly in conflict with manifesto pledges then he would not retain the confidence of MPs that were elected on the basis of that menifesto. The MPs we elected in 2024 will continue to do their job until the next GE in 2029 selecting whoever among their number is best placed to lead them. That may or may not be Burnham but the power is in the hands of the elected MPs, not the PM figurehead.

There was a general election in December 2019

so whilst I haven’t a nice word to say about BJ he did at least take his ‘plan’ to the country (obviously because he needed a bigger majority!!)

So it isn't direct then. Which is, of course, by design. The Founding Fathers (a word that they would not have highlighted) made sure it was crafted to ensure the riff raff never got a look in.

Has the matter of faithless electors been fixed ?

Politics is always personality led. Or has been since 1945. Attlee was an unassuming, quiet person, it’s entirely possible he wouldn’t have been kicked out of office in 1950 if he’d had a bigger personality. God knows he had a hell of a record of achievement. Churchill, Thatcher, Blair, Clinton, Obama, Trump and even Farage are testimony to the force of personality.

We didn’t have a GE every time the Tories changed who they fancied being in charge.

We vote for a party not a PM, so no we shouldn't. And yes, YABU unless you called for a GE when we got Brown, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak.

yabu. British politics is supposed to be policy-led not personality-led.
Elections cost huge amounts of money, that alone makes me loathe.

He isn’t though. He’s being very careful in what he says.

Democracy.

Lots of people hate that Reform are now governing local councils (and making a right mess of things).

We are not America OP.

if you remember, the Tories had

Boris Johnson: 24 July 2019 to 6 September 2022

Liz Truss: 6 September 2022 to 25 October 2022

Rishi Sunak: 25 October 2022 to 5 July 2024

If he's going to radically change the manifesto on which Labour ran the GE campaign, then yes, the electorate should be able to go to the polls.

@hallenbad I think the post below is a bit hard on you as you are engaging and are just trying to explain what the OP was saying. Sorry about that. The general point about the population wanting politics to be nice and simple remains.

@hallenbadPolitics, is complicated and requires engagement. It’s about running a country, healthcare, people’s lives, the economy etc. People want it to be easy and it’s been dumbed down. In the twenties it was mass participation, people went and listened to political speeches and read books like The Ragged Trousered Philanthropist. Genuinely working class people engaged at this level. We can do this, we can understand the rules but people don’t want to because it’s hard.
You absolutely can find out what your MP believes, listen to speeches, go to hustings, research on websites, voting records if they are an MP.
You say posts pointing out that people have a very basic and often incorrect understanding of our parliamentary system are ‘facile’ when people are trying to educate and explain - the issue is you don’t want to listen, engage or understand.
You suggest the OP wants a GE before a change in direction. Think that through. Before any change there has to be an election, how is that enforced, what type of change of direction? A world event occurs and the economy changes - at that point is there a GE? It doesn’t make sense, it’s impractical and would lead to global instability. The rules matter. We need to educate the population to understand, at the very least, basic rules of governance. That is a long, long way from facile.

Do you see this as a significant change?

How different do you see Andy Burnham to where you would expect the Labour Party to be?
(In my view, he's a bit closer to their values than Starmer)

Or even just the way the system works!

Your post perfectly illustrates why anyone wanting to vote should first have to demonstrate a basic knowledge of the issues.

https://www.ft.com/content/3c059192-9a75-485e-b7cd-541ba2fae729?syn-25a6b1a6=1
Reform UK ran a council for a year. Things went badly
In Staffordshire, Nigel Farage’s party has been hit by resignations, racism allegations and the need to put up taxes

You can look at the voting record of your MP.

I agree with you OP. All these facile “no that’s not how the system works” posts are pointless. The way I interpret the OP, she is saying we should have a GE before a significant change of direction of a government and it sounds sensible to me.

as for voting for the “politics” of your local MP, how am I meant to know what that might be? I can only get an indication based on the manifesto, which certainly didn’t include any of the stuff being floated around.