@anotherposter - So are you / are you not, advocating that we have a general election?
Spelly.
I am saying we do not need to have a general election, the position of Prime Minister is not one that is voted upon by the public, it never has been.
it is an appointed position by the reigning monarch and only they have the power to appoint a PM
If Burnham wins the leadership contest then his "party" has the majority in the commons and he will therefore probably be asked by the King to form a Government
In the last 15 years the conservatives have twice Governed with a minority, first in a coalition and then with an agreement with the DUP, I dont recall anyone saying that Cameron or May should not be PM because they were not elected and then we have Johnson, Truss and Sunak on top of that, Sunak was elected by just 194 people
The politicians and press calling for an election know how things work in this country, they are just making mischief and playing ignorant hoping to whip up the public by omitting the constitution from their narrative
@anotherposter - So are you / are you not, advocating that we have a general election?
Spelly.
I am saying we do not need to have a general election, the position of Prime Minister is not one that is voted upon by the public, it never has been.
it is an appointed position by the reigning monarch and only they have the power to appoint a PM
If Burnham wins the leadership contest then his "party" has the majority in the commons and he will therefore probably be asked by the King to form a Government
In the last 15 years the conservatives have twice Governed with a minority, first in a coalition and then with an agreement with the DUP, I dont recall anyone saying that Cameron or May should not be PM because they were not elected and then we have Johnson, Truss and Sunak on top of that, Sunak was elected by just 194 people
The politicians and press calling for an election know how things work in this country, they are just making mischief and playing ignorant hoping to whip up the public by omitting the constitution from their na
Amen to that mate!
Incidentally, did anyone on here watch "Question Time" on Friday? Zia Yusuf was on the panel, and at times, when the others were speaking, he didn't even have the courtesy to look at 'em! More than once, the camera panned on to him, and he was looking elsewhere!
I ask again "Have Reform peaked?"
Spelly.
@spelly Question time is garbage nowadays, and despite her claim Bruce & the BBC are very much not impartial.
They have hand picked people in the audience who have been coached by certain groups (Especially the illegal migrant who was talking about all sorts, incl. the N.I. protocol I think).
One change I would definitely make in politics is that you should be living near your constituency to stand in an election there. Maybe not in it, but bloody close. How can you represent your constituents if you're never there. It should be X number of miles from any boundary edge (10/15 maybe?). I'd add in that if boundaries change that shouldn't count, but there should be no parachuting into a safe seat IMO.
In terms of have they peaked that will be very much down to how Burnham performs. People are fed up and have never felt poorer/more unfairly treated. If that changes people will be happy, if not they'll look for a change in the status quo. Rightly or wrongly Reform go up/down based on others performances. Whenever the next G.E is though, I think it will be the biggest split of MP's by a long, long way (Could have 4 parties with circa 100 seats) with huge differences in policies, making the next government the hardest to actually govern in my lifetime.
@spelly 1) Question time is garbage nowadays, and despite her claim Bruce & the BBC are very much not impartial.
They have hand picked people in the audience who have been coached by certain groups (Especially the illegal migrant who was talking about all sorts, incl. the N.I. protocol I think).
2) One change I would definitely make in politics is that you should be living near your constituency to stand in an election there. Maybe not in it, but bloody close. How can you represent your constituents if you're never there. It should be X number of miles from any boundary edge (10/15 maybe?). I'd add in that if boundaries change that shouldn't count, but there should be no parachuting into a safe seat IMO.
3) In terms of have they peaked that will be very much down to how Burnham performs. People are fed up and have never felt poorer/more unfairly treated. If that changes people will be happy, if not they'll look for a change in the status quo. Rightly or wrongly Reform go up/down based on others performances. Whenever the next G.E is though, 4) I think it will be the biggest split of MP's by a long, long way (Could have 4 parties with circa 100 seats) with huge differences in policies, making the next government the hardest to actually govern in my lifetime.
1) I don't normally watch it, but tuned in for the Makerfield pre by-election one, and last Friday. Both times (and maybe I'm biased) I thought the Reform guests came up well short.
2) It's a good idea, but I've no idea how many actually cover the criteria you suggest. I'm not even sure where my MP calls home.
3) Burnham slowed the flow considerably in Makerfield, which was effectively an anti-Starmer v Farage straight fight. That's a good start for people with similar political persuasions as yours truly, but there's a long way to yet, especially as he's (not yet) got the keys to number ten.
I would like to think that Reform have peaked, and I say again, there's more chance of me buying a Pinks' season ticket, than there is of me voting for 'em, but they will remain a force of some sort for a long time yet.
4) A four way split following the next GE? Would the UK then be (even more) ungovernable than it is now? Frightening!
Spelly.