Blade Posted July 7, 2016 Posted July 7, 2016 And the FTPA doesn't need to be repealed, there are ways to call an early general election. No it doesn't have to be repealed. You can just follow the procedure under the Act.
Blade Posted July 7, 2016 Posted July 7, 2016 And the FTPA doesn't need to be repealed, there are ways to call an early general election. No it doesn't have to be repealed. You can just follow the procedure under the Act.
Pestneb Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 I can't say I'm thrilled about the prospect of Theresa May as our next PM. (Not like we had a choice LOL - what was that about unelected officials?) I'm glad that Gove (the twatfuck) isn't going to be PM. But...all of the options are pretty shit. If you want you can still join the conservative party to cast your vote In fairness, all the PM candidates ARE democratically elected. The choice of which MP is selected as PM was largely done by democratically elected MP's, and next the final choice will be democratically chosen by conservative party members. The candidates weren't chosen by unelected individuals in the first round, and anyone CAN still vote for the final candidate, should they successfully join the Conservative party by tomorrow. Main thing for me is that Gove is out of the picture. Makes me chuckle that people speak of the "towering intellect" of a man who can't even count
Pestneb Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 I can't say I'm thrilled about the prospect of Theresa May as our next PM. (Not like we had a choice LOL - what was that about unelected officials?) I'm glad that Gove (the twatfuck) isn't going to be PM. But...all of the options are pretty shit. If you want you can still join the conservative party to cast your vote In fairness, all the PM candidates ARE democratically elected. The choice of which MP is selected as PM was largely done by democratically elected MP's, and next the final choice will be democratically chosen by conservative party members. The candidates weren't chosen by unelected individuals in the first round, and anyone CAN still vote for the final candidate, should they successfully join the Conservative party by tomorrow. Main thing for me is that Gove is out of the picture. Makes me chuckle that people speak of the "towering intellect" of a man who can't even count
Eenuh Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 If you want you can still join the conservative party to cast your vote Except you can't. You have to have been a member since before the 'call for nominations' was opened to MPs on June 29. AND you have to have been a member for three months by the time voting ends - so, more or less since the beginning of June. So hard luck. If you're not a member already, and didn't join before the last weeks of the EU referendum campaign, you're stuck with whoever wins. Source. So much hypocrisy in this referendum. Take back control my ass.
Eenuh Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 If you want you can still join the conservative party to cast your vote Except you can't. You have to have been a member since before the 'call for nominations' was opened to MPs on June 29. AND you have to have been a member for three months by the time voting ends - so, more or less since the beginning of June. So hard luck. If you're not a member already, and didn't join before the last weeks of the EU referendum campaign, you're stuck with whoever wins. Source. So much hypocrisy in this referendum. Take back control my ass.
Ashley Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 It becomes a real problem when they start doing what they want and wasn't in the election mandate. By the sounds of it Leadsom plans to do whatever the fuck she wants and that is not what the Tories were voted in for. If they steered the course it would be passable, but if they aren't elected and then start doing things that weren't in the mandate we're in that "unelected officials" part.
Ashley Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 It becomes a real problem when they start doing what they want and wasn't in the election mandate. By the sounds of it Leadsom plans to do whatever the fuck she wants and that is not what the Tories were voted in for. If they steered the course it would be passable, but if they aren't elected and then start doing things that weren't in the mandate we're in that "unelected officials" part.
Mr_Odwin Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 When the candidates were first announced I did some hardcore research on each of them (read their pages on wikipedia). All of the candidates had something awful about them, but in my opinion May is the best of a bad bunch.
Mr_Odwin Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 When the candidates were first announced I did some hardcore research on each of them (read their pages on wikipedia). All of the candidates had something awful about them, but in my opinion May is the best of a bad bunch.
Pestneb Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 It becomes a real problem when they start doing what they want and wasn't in the election mandate. By the sounds of it Leadsom plans to do whatever the fuck she wants and that is not what the Tories were voted in for. If they steered the course it would be passable, but if they aren't elected and then start doing things that weren't in the mandate we're in that "unelected officials" part. It becomes a real problem when she declares elections aren't necessary any more, that martial law is in place, and that she is the Goddess mother of the UK. Some people seem to be confused here... 1)She can't do what the hell she likes. She has to have backing from the majority of MP's to get legislation through. Even then it can be blocked by the Lords (who are there as a stabilising force to moderate the influence should a extremist find themselves in number 10) 2) Like it or not, she is democratically elected. We never have a choice over who is chosen as PM. If the Tories had won the general election but Cameron had lost his seat, he wouldn't have been PM. simple. 3) EEnuh... ok, interesting, guess we have no influence over the final choice.. but really I don't think anyone seriously cares that much that they would have wanted to join just for the vote. But the control thing is taking it from the EU and bringing more power to the UK government. At the end of the day they are still politicians and they still will make mistakes. I'm actually quite pro setting up two regional governments for England, one for the North and one for the South, and giving them both the same powers as the scottish parliament. Retain Westminster pretty much just for international matters, where each mp from the regional governments have the same powers as they currently have.
Pestneb Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 It becomes a real problem when they start doing what they want and wasn't in the election mandate. By the sounds of it Leadsom plans to do whatever the fuck she wants and that is not what the Tories were voted in for. If they steered the course it would be passable, but if they aren't elected and then start doing things that weren't in the mandate we're in that "unelected officials" part. It becomes a real problem when she declares elections aren't necessary any more, that martial law is in place, and that she is the Goddess mother of the UK. Some people seem to be confused here... 1)She can't do what the hell she likes. She has to have backing from the majority of MP's to get legislation through. Even then it can be blocked by the Lords (who are there as a stabilising force to moderate the influence should a extremist find themselves in number 10) 2) Like it or not, she is democratically elected. We never have a choice over who is chosen as PM. If the Tories had won the general election but Cameron had lost his seat, he wouldn't have been PM. simple. 3) EEnuh... ok, interesting, guess we have no influence over the final choice.. but really I don't think anyone seriously cares that much that they would have wanted to join just for the vote. But the control thing is taking it from the EU and bringing more power to the UK government. At the end of the day they are still politicians and they still will make mistakes. I'm actually quite pro setting up two regional governments for England, one for the North and one for the South, and giving them both the same powers as the scottish parliament. Retain Westminster pretty much just for international matters, where each mp from the regional governments have the same powers as they currently have.
Ashley Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 (edited) The government was elected on a mandate. People voted for that (ideologically anyway, reality is messier). If she starts trying to push through her own regressive policies, even if they can be voted down, she is ignoring the mandate that the British public elected the party on. I think it's also technically possible for a PM to not have to win their election if the party wins but they don't providing they can lead the party. Bit of a grey area as it's never happened, but I don't think there is any legislation that they have to (and they would likely be replaced if it really did, but don't believe it's a necessity). Edited July 8, 2016 by Ashley
Ashley Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 (edited) The government was elected on a mandate. People voted for that (ideologically anyway, reality is messier). If she starts trying to push through her own regressive policies, even if they can be voted down, she is ignoring the mandate that the British public elected the party on. I think it's also technically possible for a PM to not have to win their election if the party wins but they don't providing they can lead the party. Bit of a grey area as it's never happened, but I don't think there is any legislation that they have to (and they would likely be replaced if it really did, but don't believe it's a necessity). Edited July 8, 2016 by Ashley
Pestneb Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 So I looked into it, it seems in the pasts Lords have taken the position of Prime minister, but not in my living memory :P If an unelected individual took the role, I would understand the uproar... As it stands the issue is the popularity of the individual candidates, which is fine, but far better to just state what makes you uneasy about them. To be honest of the two candidates, I feel uneasy about both of them. I hope the most competent one ends up with the job, but we'll never really know. What regressive policies are you speaking about specifically?
Pestneb Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 So I looked into it, it seems in the pasts Lords have taken the position of Prime minister, but not in my living memory :P If an unelected individual took the role, I would understand the uproar... As it stands the issue is the popularity of the individual candidates, which is fine, but far better to just state what makes you uneasy about them. To be honest of the two candidates, I feel uneasy about both of them. I hope the most competent one ends up with the job, but we'll never really know. What regressive policies are you speaking about specifically?
Ashley Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 So I looked into it, it seems in the pasts Lords have taken the position of Prime minister, but not in my living memory :P If an unelected individual took the role, I would understand the uproar... As it stands the issue is the popularity of the individual candidates, which is fine, but far better to just state what makes you uneasy about them. To be honest of the two candidates, I feel uneasy about both of them. I hope the most competent one ends up with the job, but we'll never really know. What regressive policies are you speaking about specifically? It's the hypocrisy. Neither of them will have been in a public election whereby they stood as PM. I don't really care about that aspect, it's just the hypocrisy. Wanting fox hunting back is the only one she's really said, but her views are regressive (gay cures, they shouldn't be allowed to adopt, shouldn't be allowed to marry , single parents are bad for children etc). It paints a troubling picture. Ironically she also wrote years ago if we lost our AAA credit it would be a disaster that would take years to resolve .
Ashley Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 So I looked into it, it seems in the pasts Lords have taken the position of Prime minister, but not in my living memory :P If an unelected individual took the role, I would understand the uproar... As it stands the issue is the popularity of the individual candidates, which is fine, but far better to just state what makes you uneasy about them. To be honest of the two candidates, I feel uneasy about both of them. I hope the most competent one ends up with the job, but we'll never really know. What regressive policies are you speaking about specifically? It's the hypocrisy. Neither of them will have been in a public election whereby they stood as PM. I don't really care about that aspect, it's just the hypocrisy. Wanting fox hunting back is the only one she's really said, but her views are regressive (gay cures, they shouldn't be allowed to adopt, shouldn't be allowed to marry , single parents are bad for children etc). It paints a troubling picture. Ironically she also wrote years ago if we lost our AAA credit it would be a disaster that would take years to resolve .
pratty Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 can't see that outside of the UK :/ Mostly working class folk speaking, including the father of an Indian family who voted because of immigration. Immigration was mentioned a lot, nobody said they didn't like foreigners, it was mostly about the the volume of immigration being too much for the country's infrastructure to handle, and cheap labour undercutting Brits and taking jobs. Others said this was the first time they felt their vote really made a political difference, and another was talking about the British identity; he said EU immigrants were coming here for the job/economic opportunities rather than participating in the british culture and community. A business owner with 20 immigrant employees voted to leave because of EU red tape effecting his business. Overall on immigration people weren't anti foreigner, they just wanted to reduce immigration. Some remain voters were also interviewed, they said that opportunities for the young had been taken away and that leaving wouldn't fix the concerns leavers had.
Recommended Posts