To think Liz Truss MUST call a general election to make “unpopular” and “difficult” decisions that deviate from the last GE manifesto?

[CurseOfBigness]

I get that Liz Truss is a keen new prime minister full of beans and ideas. I just don’t think she has the mandate to push through decisions that are “unpopular” and “difficult” if it deviates from the last general election’s manifesto.

Liz Truss plans radical shift in economic policy: New UK prime minister readies tax-cutting mini-Budget and says she is prepared to be unpopular.

This new prime minister has not gained her position by winning a general election. If she wants to radically change things and be “unpopular” then she needs to put the vote to the people.

Truss talked the talk about promoting “freedom” and not being dictated by “instructions”. But Freedom is not for free. The rule of law applies as “instructions” to help keep society civilised. Checks and balances.

Removing the cap on bankers’ bonuses is a poor PR move. Trickle down economics is problematic and already being criticised as ineffective.

Truss thinks she can do what she wants because she’s party leader and by default became prime minister. But Truss can’t afford to be “unpopular” because she needs to win a general election in her own right first.

AIBU to think Liz Truss must call a general election to make “unpopular” and “difficult” decisions that deviate from the last GE manifesto? Isn’t that how democracy works?!

In fairness, with Truss’ ability to change her mind on important issues like weather, it is that she’ll seek to re-join the EU.

I don’t share your pessimism. They’ve lost every by-election since 2019 and that was before Truss moved into Downing Street. Majorities of over 20,000 overturned.

Macron is in the EU club so he is backed by a large trading bloc. His ability to repay borrowing debt is mitigated by this. He essentially has a guarantor.

The UK does not. UK is on its own. Any lender knows that means higher risk.

Major difference in terms of borrowing liabilities.

Pound tumbles below $1.09 after Kwarteng’s £45bn tax cut package Kwarteng axes top rate of income tax and reduces basic rate but gilt yields surge on government borrowing fears (Financial Times)

Apparently they’re allowed to switch leaders. And people don’t see the issue that it’s misleading to some voters. But not enough people care.

So if the conservatives got Boris back as the front man their chances of winning again might improve.

People have short memories. They’ll forget partygate and all the other things.

Boris could carve out a role to be a professional election winner. Only to hand over after the win and go back on holiday.

Boris could carve out a role to be a professional election winner.

Not if the last few by-elections are anything to go by.

I don’t think I can face the prospect of another bloody uninspiring general election. 2015, 2017, 2019… and then fucking covid and now all this cost of living stuff. I’m just fed up and I don’t want to have to look at another ballot paper and think: what’s the point? They’re all shit!

I’m not in any way what you’d imagine when you think of the ‘politically apathetic’. But the last decade of utterly dreadful politics (with no option that looks vaguely ok) has just made me want to hide under a blanket and watch bake off instead.

Yes, it’s shit isn’t it.

Looking back at the 2017 Labour Manifesto (ignoring the but Corbyn crowd) makes it even more depressing.

Under the Customs Union, VAT would be charged by the retailer's country with nothing due at the other end. Now that the UK is not in the CU, the product is being exported so no VAT is due at the retailer's country, but it must be paid in the purchaser's country. There were some teething troubles to begin with as people ended up wrongly being charged VAT at both ends because sellers hadn't appreciated the change. All seems fine now - the last time I imported anything from the continent, the seller paid the UK VAT, rather than that in his own country.

I just looked at the first one listed - CPIH.

Starmer hasn't yet been seen making a mess of a bacon sandwich, it's true.

You are correct when you say that it will hinge on the economy. The next few months will be make or break for Truss. There is a strong possibility that wholesale gas prices will fall (or at least won't continue to increase). Nordstream 1 has been shut off yet the markets quickly recovered from the shock. China is in economic difficulties thanks to its zero covid policy and so is selling off surplus LNG. Japan is recommissioning its nuclear power stations. India and others are switching generation to coal. Closer to home, European countries are looking to cut gas consumption by 15%. Storage across Europe is around 95% full now. This should reduce the cost of gas. If the government manages to untangle the price of electricity from the price of gas, we can take advantage of the cheaper price of renewables.

So if energy prices do drop (and I think that it pretty likely: Goldman Sachs reckon that gas prices will be down to €100 by December, from their late-August peak of €350, they're already down to €173, LNG has also halved since August 28th), not only will consumers not be hit quite as hard as feared but also the cost of the government's energy package will be much less than feared (it's worth noting too that the package would have a deflationary effect which will reduce index-linked rises in pensions, benefits etc., that will also mitigate the cost to the Exchequer).

If we all come out in March fairly unscathed, then the outlook for Truss will have much improved.

Here’s hoping an unprecedented catastrophe doesn’t erupt. Anything, literally anything, can happen.

The pandemic took the world by surprise and it’s possible something else could too. Pandemic shouldn’t have surprised before because scientists had predicted it for some time. But it was treated as fanciful until the shit actually hit the fan… and it hasn’t been the same since.

Do you like Jacob Rees-Mogg?

He is on record that in his view, “A change of leader requires a general election"

Most sensible comment I’ve ever heard him say. Something we actually agree on… it makes sense and is fair.

Yet… he’s happy to work under a change of leader without requesting a general election. Sell out.

I’m not alone in this view. And after the batshit crazy mini-budget (that has little confidence in the markets because it involves higher borrowing plus higher cost of borrowing) then Truss needs to account for her actions. Accountability is important to prevent corruption, remember.

Prime Ministers are officially appointed by the Queen

Truss was appointed by the Queen, yes. We also now know that HM was sadly close to death when she appointed Truss.

What kind of omen is that?!

As expected, a whole lot of rhetoric and zilch that actually relates to UK Constitutional Law!

No wonder you look for wee comments and so on to confirm your bias it's undemocratic to have an unelected PM.

I give you evidence and facts from FullFact and you give me......that?!

The Constitution is clear and we are a representative democracy. Its not undemocratic.

And it's the job of the Official Opposition plus Leader Of The Official Opposition to hold the Governing Party to account in the Commons backed by Parliament where/when necessary.

Oh come on. The government is fucking hopeless. Just ideologues.

It’s awful.

I am almost impressed that it’s become so shit that I’m actually weighing up Liz Truss as prime minister and any idea of another general election and feeling like anything would be preferable to an election where the only possible outcomes are shit.

I remember the 1997 election and the sense of optimism and possibilities there was. Now it’s just same shit in different packaging.

Did you know human written laws can be wrong and therefore can be corrected?
Humans make mistakes and grow through learning from errors… Truss’ governance will become a historical error imo. And everyone will learn a painful lesson.

You give me evidence that can be updated and changed… this is how progress happens throughout history. Laws change all the time (the UK Constitutional Law isn’t like the neatly defined US Constitution, from what I understand). Why not update this one if it helps create a better democracy?

I have a reasonable view that a new leader comes with a general election.
This view isn’t unique to me. I’m allowed to have views - I just pointed out that I’m not alone. I gave you an example of another (in Truss’ own government) who agrees with my view in principle. So, I’m not alone.

Quite frankly, it’s obvious that a new leader should come with a general election.

What you’re saying is you don’t want Truss to have a general election because you know she’ll lose the majority that Boris won. I say, but that’s a just outcome; Truss doesn’t deserve the majority she enjoys because it’s not hers, it was won by Boris (and what was going on in 2019). You don’t like that so you’re showing me why you think Truss getting in by the back door is democratic.

I’m telling you that it is still wrong in principle. Truss is in effect an unelected PM in her own right. Even Jacob Rees-Mogg knows that…

And the opposition can milk Truss entering by the back door for all its worth. Yes, Blair did it with Brown - and Brown lost credibility as PM for it. Same goes with Truss.

Both Truss and Starmer have not been tested in a general election. From
a voter’s viewpoint, they’re both in the same boat. Except one of the two claims to be prime minister, having not won a general election in their own right and is now making life-changing decisions for everyone. Truss’ position as PM is fragile.

From a voter’s viewpoint, starmer and truss aren’t in the same boat.

one is the leader of the governing party. The other is the leader of the opposition. Most of us had absolutely fuck all to do with either of them being elected at all.

my constituency is ridiculously safe labour. It makes fuck all difference who I vote for. Whoever the Labour Party selects for me seat will be representing me. And the prime minister that would go along with labour winning nationally is never going to be the candidate I’m able to vote for.

Truss leads because she leads the Conservative party. They won more seats. So they conservative Leader gets voted to lead the government by the parliament they dominate.

Boris won more seats. Not Truss.

As such, Boris (having earned the majority and victory at the last general election) understood where his majority win came from and his responsibility to those voters. As did David Cameron who had also experienced the general election process as leader.

Truss is making unpopular decisions having inherited the majority won by Boris. It’s like someone spending money they haven’t earned themselves; she’s more likely to be reckless because she doesn’t value to graft that went into earning it in the first place.

“Mr Cameron adds that a lot of people had put their trust in the Conservatives for the first time and Boris Johnson was right to say the job now was to cement that trust and govern for the whole country.” - www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/election-2019-50755004/page/7

Both Starmer and Truss have not been tested at a general election. So they do have something in common - and Starmer ought to remind her of it too.

Again, a whole lot of rhetoric and nothing much of substance.

Your original assertion was that Truss must call a GE and the Constitution says otherwise. Sure, it's usually preferable for a new Prime Minister* *to call for a new GE.

But there is absolutely no requirement they do so in constitutional law.

As for this Strawman Argument Fallacy of yours - "What you’re saying is you don’t want Truss to have a general election because you know she’ll lose the majority that Boris won" - quite an error in logic here.

What I'm saying will stand under Constitutional Law irrespective of whether the PM is from Conservative, Labour or the Monster Raving Loony Party!

I suggest you stick to what someone actually says and argues for instead of inventing Strawman Argument Fallacies. Same goes for the chunk of your post attempting to claim I'm saying X when I've only said A.

Boris didn't win a majority even if he erroneously claims so. The Conservative Party won the majority. You do know we don't elect Prime Ministers, right? We simply elect parties to government.

We've had more unelected PMs than elected ones. I showed the figures of these who went on to win a GE, usually within 50 days of being appointed.

And this is democratic as per Constitutional Law.

Since we've not amended the constitution in Parliament via an Act Of Parliament, this is how it works and that's the Constitution itself. You would have a point had we amended it and Truss was acting in contrary to it.

We haven't and you don't.

Correct.

And we're a representative democracy where those elected to Parliament make the decisions for the people.

Not the other way round. The people have Sovereignty at the ballot box and the representatives have it inbetween this.

sterling is tanking like never before as a direct result of the latest budget 'bonanza'. this is absolutely devastating for the UK economy, perilous in fact. luckily my property and investments are in euro as I could see that sterling would be in permanent decline since Brexit was pushed through.

@DownNative ”And we're a representative democracy where those elected to Parliament make the decisions for the people.”

What happens when Parliament makes a reckless and irresponsible decision for the people?

No accountability.

Sounds like Parliamentary policy needs modernisation. When was Parliament’s Sovereignty declared? When they beheaded King Charles 1st?!

What a turn of events if Parliamentary Sovereignty is brought into question during the reign of the 3rd King Charles.

We go back to the Glorious Revolution of 1689 which is where the Doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty was settled.

Had William of Orange not prevailed, James II would've been an Absolute Monarch and Parliament would have been subordinate to him. Now that would have been a shitshow.

As it was, Parliament emerged Supreme and everything since has asserted the Doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty. Including the Supreme Court.

You know Parliament consists of the Commons and Lords, right? The Government and Leadership of the Opposition?

What you're proposing is vanishingly unlikely. Hence, the UK has not experienced a revolution like that of France.

But nothing is above the will of Parliament. Not the people and certainly not the courts whose job is to interpret existing law in contrast to Parliament's power to make, amend and enact law.

IMHO what the last thing the economy needs is yet more instability caused by another change of leadership right now. Give it a year or two!

Also IMHO what it really needs is a proper modern, single document constitution, but that appears unlikley.

Given that the first Miller case basically found that conventions were not enforceable in law. So by extending parliamentary sovereignty to the political arena, the already weakened separation of powers (generally constitutionally protected in other countries) is weakened further.

The only jurisdiction that judges have over the British constitution is whether legislation has been correctly implemented. That is the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. The Supreme Court has gone beyond this by actively changing the constitution to permit its decision, without authority from the people to do so.

But where is the oversight of parliamentary sovereignty?

Are you saying that we have a similar democratic process that allowed Hitler to come to power in the last century?

Germany 1933: From democracy to dictatorship

How democracy produced a monster

Because that needs to change. Modernisation is needed. Much has changed since 1689.

Didn’t Germany modernise their democracy in response to Hitler and WW2 to safeguard against it happening again?

But nothing is above the will of Parliament. Not the people and certainly not the courts whose job is to interpret existing law in contrast to Parliament's power to make, amend and enact law.

Neither the monarch (who appoints the prime minister)? Nor the Crown?

Actually… what about the Crown’s sovereignty?

Are you saying the Crown (a symbol for God) is not above the will of parliament?

Strange. I thought Parliamentary members were subject to oaths…