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

[Viviennemary]

I think the set-up should be changed and if the PM is voted out by his party then there needs to be a general election. I didn't vote for very left wing policies which will happen if Andy Burnham replaces the PM. And neither would have I ever voted for the dreadful Liz Truss who must be the absolute worst PM we've ever had.

@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.

@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.

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.

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

Democracy.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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 ?

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!!)

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.

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.

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

@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.

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).

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.

@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.

Yes fixed elections have been a definite disadvantage in the US, elongating campaigns and now the election tail wags the dog of governance. Too many elections can be very bad for governing a democracy, instability, no long term planning. One of the reasons I find the calls for GE every time there is a change very frustrating.

It's mildly amusing how many US presidents looked at the British system and felt it was better.

Not really sure how you can have direct indirect voting ? I mean neither did the original tax rebels, so no harm no foul.

And in 2020 SCOTUS said that there is no need for any state to require electors to actually deliver the votes they said they would. Merely that if a state did have a law that required it, then that law has to be followed.

Of course not all states have laws that require the electors do as directed. And indeed there are 12 that do not.

I have to admit that I completely reject my previous view. Despite ignoring all the warnings at the time that it could lead to a zombie parliament. In hindsight the only surprising thing is how quickly it happened.

The UK system is far from perfect. But frustratingly it wouldn't take too much to fix it up for another century or so. PR for the commons, and a proper elected upper house and you'd be set. Much easier than fixing the dumpster fire of the US (which may not be possible).

I used to think the US constitution was so much better with its checks and balances and separation of powers. I was wrong. It’s the people elected not the system that matter. Despite, the howls of protest the UK system (systems) seems to be working a lot better than the US. Who’d have thought that?

I thought that too and then we can see that the checks and balances are irrelevant if some psychotic toddler chooses not to abide by them