Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

The way I read this thread, you all sound like 'Torys' complaining about your 'choices' during the 'election' of your 'party leader (president)'.

How many 'elections' can a 'party' undertake before a 'choice' goes out to 'the public'? For answers to this, look to 'The Blair Years of Government'!

IMHO when a Prime Minister 'resigns' because their 'Cabinet Ministers' can't support them, a 'majour fault' exists in the 'ethos' between the 'party leader' and 'the party'. Again, IMHO where this scenario exists, the 'governing party' can no longer form an effective 'Government' simply because either, 'the party' is 'at odds' with the manifesto that their, 'leader got them elected by', or the 'Prime Minister (and/or their objectives altered)' has 'strayed' from the 'party objective'. Whatever!!!

These 'issues' should be put to 'the people' and not just decided within the 'party politic' of the 'Walls of Westminster'!

It's late and perhaps I drank too much. Think about my comment.

Kindest regards, Ray Dart (AKA suricat).

S

Don't worry about it. All opinions are welcome   



I like cats   

Thanks for the 'invite' velvet donkey.

Guys! The problem here is, IMHO, 'the democraic mandate'! 'First past the post' was a 'reasonable system' to select a 'Governing Party' whilst there were only 'two parties' up for a 'General Election' (Whigs and Tories), however, 'more than two parties' up for a General Election statisticaly reduces the 'probabillity' of a 'mandate' from 'the people' taking part in a General Election. I'll 'elucidate/expand' on this statistic if requested.

IMHO, now that we have several 'parties' involved in a UK General Election we need a form of 'PR' (Proportional Representation) to 'employ a governing body' that can 'accurately' be representive of 'the people' that they 'represent'.

If 'The Blear Years' didn't 'hobble' the call for a General Election to a 'five year period', or 'when the Ruling Party' decided to call 'a General Election', we'd have already had a General Election immediately after Boris Johnson got us out of Europe. Let's face it, 'Boris' had the 'charisma' to 'expidite', but lacked the 'direction' to achieve this for the 'majority'. Nuf said!

Kindest regards, Ray Dart (AKA, suricat).

S
@suricat posted:

Thanks for the 'invite' velvet donkey.

Guys! The problem here is, IMHO, 'the democraic mandate'! 'First past the post' was a 'reasonable system' to select a 'Governing Party' whilst there were only 'two parties' up for a 'General Election' (Whigs and Tories), however, 'more than two parties' up for a General Election statisticaly reduces the 'probabillity' of a 'mandate' from 'the people' taking part in a General Election. I'll 'elucidate/expand' on this statistic if requested.

IMHO, now that we have several 'parties' involved in a UK General Election we need a form of 'PR' (Proportional Representation) to 'employ a governing body' that can 'accurately' be representive of 'the people' that they 'represent'.

If 'The Blear Years' didn't 'hobble' the call for a General Election to a 'five year period', or 'when the Ruling Party' decided to call 'a General Election', we'd have already had a General Election immediately after Boris Johnson got us out of Europe. Let's face it, 'Boris' had the 'charisma' to 'expidite', but lacked the 'direction' to achieve this for the 'majority'. Nuf said!

Kindest regards, Ray Dart (AKA, suricat).

I agree about the fact that we need a new voting system â€Ķ.and  I think we also need reform to stop a new prime minister foisted on us without a general election .

Baz
@Baz posted:

I agree about the fact that we need a new voting system â€Ķ.and  I think we also need reform to stop a new prime minister foisted on us without a general election .

Thanks for your support Baz, but I think we need to get back to the primary subject of this thread and not the 'digression' that I took it to.

Whilst I 'digressed', I also aluded to the 'true desire' of 'the people' (now I sound like a 'communist' [this is untrue]). However, the needs of the people are 'paramount' to the responsabillities of 'any governing body' (the 'governing body' is 'required' to 'care' for the electorate that 'elected' them)!

But we didn't 'elect' Liz Trust. She just 'appeared' in our 'BBC News updates' and gave us Kwasi Kwartang as a 'treasury securaty'' within our government

S
@suricat posted:

Thanks for your support Baz, but I think we need to get back to the primary subject of this thread and not the 'digression' that I took it to.

Whilst I 'digressed', I also aluded to the 'true desire' of 'the people' (now I sound like a 'communist' [this is untrue]). However, the needs of the people are 'paramount' to the responsabillities of 'any governing body' (the 'governing body' is 'required' to 'care' for the electorate that 'elected' them)!

But we didn't 'elect' Liz Trust. She just 'appeared' in our 'BBC News updates' and gave us Kwasi Kwartang as a 'treasury securaty'' within our government

Baz

But as such, Suricat, we don't DIRECTLY elect  the Prime Minister. We elect a political party and the party elects a leader who then becomes PM. Yes, we generally know who the leader of each party is before the election, but we are usually electing the party on their manifesto and hoping/expecting THEIR elected leader to do a decent job.

Extremely Fluffy Fluffy Thing

Apparently, he backed Rishi for PM, so maybe he'll take some 'chancelloring' lessons from Rishi, who didn't do too awful a job as chancellor - I think.

@Baz posted:

Yes , Rishi did a reasonable job â€Ķ.at least you felt like he knew what he was doing .

Or maybe he'll do a Rishi and stab the PM in the back in the hope of taking up the mantle
Wouldn't trust any of them as far as I could throw them

slimfern
Last edited by slimfern

But as such, Suricat, we don't DIRECTLY elect  the Prime Minister. We elect a political party and the party elects a leader who then becomes PM. Yes, we generally know who the leader of each party is before the election, but we are usually electing the party on their manifesto and hoping/expecting THEIR elected leader to do a decent job.

Er, I tnink you have this a bit 'back to front' EFFT.

'A party' elects 'a leader' to 'promote a/the party' into a 'general election'. The 'electorate' then decides 'which party' has the 'power' to implement/enforce their 'mandate'!

Without the/that 'mandate' of 'the electorate' the 'party in power' can't 'democraticaly officiate any "change" in/to its policies'! Any changes in 'policy' following a/the 'party's election' of a 'new party leader' is just UNDEMOCRATIC without the 'mandate' of 'the population' in a 'general election'!

In 'hindesight', the 'Blear Years' probably restricted 'democracy' by imposing the 'same party' within the 'five year survival' of/for any 'elected party'.

Let's face it. Boris couldn't contain the 'discontent' within 'his party', thus, 'the party' wasn't 'content' with their leader and the 'mandate' that 'the party' was 'elected upon' is in not only in question by the electorate, its also questioned by the electoral commision.

Just now, I'm half asleep. Please let me know if my post makes any sense.

Kind regards, Ray Dart (AKA susicat)

S

Feck sake I'm going to have to say it.



There's nothing worse than pedantic. The clock is ticking and we're all on countdown. I'll defend Fluffs anyday.



Don't educate us suricat - we're probably pretty well clued up.

I wouldn't presume to 'educate' you @velvet donkey, I just tried to add to the invitation that you offered for my inclusion in this thread.

If you want, I'll leave.

S
@suricat posted:

I wouldn't presume to 'educate' you @velvet donkey, I just tried to add to the invitation that you offered for my inclusion in this thread.

If you want, I'll leave.

Don’t go Suricat â€Ķ.all views are welcome here .



You couldn’t make up what’s happening today , could you ? Never in all my 50 plus years watching politics  have I seen the like . If Truss has a shred of  conscience  she would resign immediately , and call a bliddy election!

Baz
@Moonie posted:

I’ve just seen some of the Hunt speech ðŸ˜ąðŸ˜ąðŸ˜ąðŸ˜ąðŸ˜ą

Prime Minister in waiting imoâ€Ķ

ðŸĪĢðŸĪĢðŸĪĢI watched it live â€Ķ.and though I’m not keen on him ,  he certainly couldn’t be any worse than Truss ! But then we said that about Boris going , soâ€Ķ..ðŸĪĢðŸĪĢ

Baz
@Baz posted:

Don’t go Suricat â€Ķ.all views are welcome here .



You couldn’t make up what’s happening today , could you ? Never in all my 50 plus years watching politics  have I seen the like . If Truss has a shred of  conscience  she would resign immediately , and call a bliddy election!

Thanks for your invitation to stay Baz, but the 'thread originator' seems to be 'up for an argument' whilst I'm NOT!

Whilst deleting 'spam' from my mailbox I discovered a 'link' to your post here and 'yes'! Current political activity is (IMHO) 'unprecedented' in the history of UK politics due to the 'lack of any public mandate' caused by Tony Blair's desire to hand over 'power' to Gorden Brown. The 5 year period for a 'political party' to 'maintain the Governing Power' within 'our Parliament' invokes 'a problem'! When 'a political party' elects a 'leader', this 'leader' becomes the nation's Prime Minister. However, this 'leader' doesn't enjoy the sanction of the 'public electorate', only 'the party's electorate' (I could go on, but I won't)!

IMHO any governing body needs to take itself to a 'General Election' when their 'leader' can't form a 'viable Government'!

BTW, I've a couple of decades on you, but thanks for your continued outreach for our continued discourse.

Kind regards, Ray Dart (AKA suricat).

S
@slimfern posted:

Blimey! that would make you over 100 years old!

There are plenty of other threads you can join in on Suricat, if you wish to

There's No intended malice here...

Yes, it sure would



But I think it was my fault for not making clear that it was my *political * years I was talking about â€Ķnot my actual age â€Ķ.but I second Slimferns  assertion that you are very welcome in any of the threads Suricat â€Ķwhatever the subject .

Baz
@suricat posted:

Thanks for your invitation to stay Baz, but the 'thread originator' seems to be 'up for an argument' whilst I'm NOT!

Whilst deleting 'spam' from my mailbox I discovered a 'link' to your post here and 'yes'! Current political activity is (IMHO) 'unprecedented' in the history of UK politics due to the 'lack of any public mandate' caused by Tony Blair's desire to hand over 'power' to Gorden Brown. The 5 year period for a 'political party' to 'maintain the Governing Power' within 'our Parliament' invokes 'a problem'! When 'a political party' elects a 'leader', this 'leader' becomes the nation's Prime Minister. However, this 'leader' doesn't enjoy the sanction of the 'public electorate', only 'the party's electorate' (I could go on, but I won't)!

IMHO any governing body needs to take itself to a 'General Election' when their 'leader' can't form a 'viable Government'!

BTW, I've a couple of decades on you, but thanks for your continued outreach for our continued discourse.

Kind regards, Ray Dart (AKA suricat).

I totally agree Suricat  , and let’s face it the current PM didn’t even come to power with a mandate from her own party â€Ķ.even before the mini budget debacle â€Ķ.!

Baz

Just to add accuracy and reduce speculation as to my age guys. I was born on the first of June in 1951, which makes me 71 years of age as I write. Yes, I’m an ‘old fart’ waiting for god (but I’m not as old as some of you speculate)! There should be an ‘emoji’ here, but I’m just not conversant with this style of comms.



Baz.

I also concur Baz. When any ‘elected party’ that formed a ‘government’ from any ‘general election’ can no longer ‘hold it’s party together’ to expedite it’s ‘general electoral mandate’, the ‘party’ must call a ‘general election’ to refresh the ‘public mandate’ for the party’s ‘political direction’!



A ‘party election’ for their leader just doesn’t ‘cut it’ with ‘the country’s electorate’ when the/any ‘party’ alters the ‘mandate’ that the ‘country’s general/public electorate’ elected it for the public ‘mandate’ insists this upon this by the ‘democratic constitution’. What differences are there between the original ‘mandate’ and current ‘mandate’ ! Affordability.



This is a subject that I really don’t want to get into here, but we could take this elsewhere (if we can find a ‘place’).



Kind regards, Ray Dart (AKA suricat)

S
@suricat posted:

Just to add accuracy and reduce speculation as to my age guys. I was born on the first of June in 1951, which makes me 71 years of age as I write. Yes, I’m an ‘old fart’ waiting for god (but I’m not as old as some of you speculate)! There should be an ‘emoji’ here, but I’m just not conversant with this style of comms.



Baz.

I also concur Baz. When any ‘elected party’ that formed a ‘government’ from any ‘general election’ can no longer ‘hold it’s party together’ to expedite it’s ‘general electoral mandate’, the ‘party’ must call a ‘general election’ to refresh the ‘public mandate’ for the party’s ‘political direction’!



A ‘party election’ for their leader just doesn’t ‘cut it’ with ‘the country’s electorate’ when the/any ‘party’ alters the ‘mandate’ that the ‘country’s general/public electorate’ elected it for the public ‘mandate’ insists this upon this by the ‘democratic constitution’. What differences are there between the original ‘mandate’ and current ‘mandate’ ! Affordability.



This is a subject that I really don’t want to get into here, but we could take this elsewhere (if we can find a ‘place’).



Kind regards, Ray Dart (AKA suricat)

I still beat you Suricat â€ĶI’m 75.



Well after last nights omnishambles. I’m hoping that we are going to get an election very soon ! I think a lot of conservatives themselves just want out now !

Baz

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×