UK General Election 2029 - Trading ONLY thread

[firlandsfarm]

I'm sure it's not just me who's thinking of this, but if we're going to stop this ever-continuing procession of prime ministers, maybe we should inject some moral hazard. Why not make it mandatory that if you get rid of your leader, you have to call a general election?

Agreed in principle but maybe not needed if they stick to the manifesto they won the last GE on. The Westminster Act is not available to a Government to force through new legislation that was not in their manifesto so that may be an easy way to do it ... Dear New PM, follow your party's last manifesto or go to the country with a new one.

[firlandsfarm]

The Tories never had to call a general election so why should Labour?

You are quite right but Labour called for a GE at every Conservative change of PM but now claim today's circumstances are 'different' ... of course they are, the Conservatives replaced the PM with a MP elected at the previous GE directly under the party's manifesto, they did not construct a by-election to shoehorn someone into the post who was never elected under the party's manifesto (yes, yes, the manifesto validly existed but how many times did Burnham and his crew mention it in their electioneering?).

[sniffer66]

That's all well and good , and I can see the argument, but I'm sure you guys are aware we don't vote for a party in a GE (even though most voters do in principle). We vote for a local MP, and the party with the most MP's returned to the House , typically, but not always, is asked to form a govt by the monarch.

It's down to the party to decide who their leader is. There is no law or precedent requiring a forced GE on a change of leader or even a change of manifesto.

That doesn't stop every party blowing in the wind on every leader change - Tory, Reform or Labour. Mainly because they know a large part of the electorate doesn't understand the above and it scores them points...

[firlandsfarm]

That's all well and good , and I can see the argument, but I'm sure you guys are aware we don't vote for a party in a GE (even though most voters do in principle). We vote for a local MP, and the party with the most MP's returned to the House , typically, but not always, is asked to form a govt by the monarch.

It's down to the party to decide who their leader is. There is no law or precedent requiring a forced GE on a change of leader or even a change of manifesto.

That doesn't stop every party blowing in the wind on every leader change - Tory, Reform or Labour. Mainly because they know a large part of the electorate doesn't understand the above and it scores them points...

I'm sorry sniffer but I cannot agree in any way. You are reading the rule book rather than interpreting how people behave. (Just like modern day top flight football!) Constitutionally you are of course correct but that's not how it happens, people vote for the leader, the party, the top table team (maybe in that order of priority). Who their local candidate is does not affect their vote unless completely inappropriate.

I never said there is a constitutional requirement for a GE but if the new PM acts outside the party manifesto there is no mandate for such and to claim another party should hold a GE is to me dishonest if they don't do so themselves. My claim was based on the two faced behaviour not the need for a GE (other than to remain within the manifesto which should apply, regardless of whether the PM has changed, with regard to arising emergencies).

[sniffer66]

Will be interesting to see how Burnham handles immigration which is one of the main issues with vast number of the voting public.

Whilst we are still tied to the ECHR every government has the issue that they have to accept, by law, anyone claiming asylum. Once in our waters, you can't turn them back or sink them.

For me, we need to do what the Aussies do. Beef up the teams that handle asylum claims and process them in days, not years. Stop all the spurious claims by teams of immigrations lawyers (who are making a fortune) and turn them around and back out immediately , if economic migrants and not genuine asylum.

The Tories ran down those teams to the bare bones and they are unable to handle the vast number of claims coming in. Which is why we ended up with the hotel situation.

Legal migrants, who are a benefit to society - doctors, nurses and skilled workers aren't the issue here - I don't believe many people have an issue with them - we need them to survive long term.

[sniffer66]

That's all well and good , and I can see the argument, but I'm sure you guys are aware we don't vote for a party in a GE (even though most voters do in principle). We vote for a local MP, and the party with the most MP's returned to the House , typically, but not always, is asked to form a govt by the monarch.

It's down to the party to decide who their leader is. There is no law or precedent requiring a forced GE on a change of leader or even a change of manifesto.

That doesn't stop every party blowing in the wind on every leader change - Tory, Reform or Labour. Mainly because they know a large part of the electorate doesn't understand the above and it scores them points...

I'm sorry sniffer but I cannot agree in any way. You are reading the rule book rather than interpreting how people behave. (Just like modern day top flight football!) Constitutionally you are of course correct but that's not how it happens, people vote for the leader, the party, the top table team (maybe in that order of priority). Who their local candidate is does not affect their vote unless completely inappropriate.

I never said there is a constitutional requirement for a GE but if the new PM acts outside the party manifesto there is no mandate for such and to claim another party should hold a GE is to me dishonest if they don't do so themselves. My claim was based on the two faced behaviour not the need for a GE (other than to remain within the manifesto which should apply, regardless of whether the PM has changed, with regard to arising emergencies).

Yes, my argument was a constitutional one. Just because people believe it should happen doesn't mean it should. That's the system we have and bleating about it doesnt change that. Unless the constitution itself is changed.

Yes, people believe they are voting for a PM, but just because they believe that doesn't make it so

I did agree that every party will try and score points from the argument though, and that is two faced. They all know it's just mouthing off