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.

That isn't true. The cheques and balances would keep an individual from going rogue.

They won't prevent an organisation being bought by the wealthy and corrupted into a tool of the elite. Mainly because it was designed to protect the wealthy and elite.

Now the French revolution (which careful students will notice the US did very little to assist in) ... that was a different matter. You can bet your bottom dollar a lot of wealthy elite newly minted US citizens looked to France and inwardly thanked God their revolt maintained the status quo.

@SerendipityJane I wouldn’t be as wholly cynical as that. C&B were designed to make sure one body could not override the other, also there was suffrage for all men(white men that is) which was advanced for the time.
I would agree that its money that has brought the US constitution low, particularly money in elections (for those of you who are interested look up Citizens United vs FEC), the inability to control money in politics is the main reason Trump has been allowed to go rogue - in my opinion.
The UK does seem to have managed to keep that evil genie in the bottle….so far.

Even the race to choose a candidate to run for senate can be more expensive than the whole UK GE

I've never felt overly held back by my cynicism.

there was suffrage for all men(white men that is) which was advanced for the time.

Not federally. We can't all come from Kentucky can we ?

The UK does seem to have managed to keep that evil genie in the bottle….so far.

I think the UK being completely honest about it's Imperial status and ambitions probably helped. The US has had to spend a quarter of a millennium pretending it hates empires whilst simultaneously ensuring it became one. (An attempt at a conjuring trick that fooled no one who wasn't American, by the way).

The trouble with the US is there is always a state law somewhere that proves a point one way of the other my point was the US was closer to being a democracy (apart from women, slaves, indentured servants etc) than most of Europe. It was more advanced than most of the world.
The US has also spent a lot of time hating dictators and kings and that’s not looking too good for them either at the moment.

States rights !

As in the right to suck on the federal teat whilst simultaneously prating on about sovereignty and eschewing all those nasty liberal laws.

Sound familiar ?