May as Prime Minister ?

ICBM

I actually don't think it would be a bad idea to automatically have a vote of confidence in Parliament whenever a sitting PM is replaced, purely as a technicality - given that the governing party has a majority then it should win. At that point we could forget about any question of legitimacy and move on.

Nitefly

octatonic said:

I extracted the audio from his resignation speak where he is humming a happy tune.

I expect many people will be using this as a ringtone.

http://www.jamesrichmond.com/moved/cameron/Cameron_do_do.mp3

That's the secret code that opens the door - they'll have to kill him now.

And change the code.

ToneControl

RocknRollDave said:

Hertz32 said:

The lib dems need Clegg back. Seriously.

If Clegg hadn't got in bed with the Tories (something which was NEVER going to work out well for the LibDems in the long term), the LibDems would be in a prime position right now as as a viable alternative to the Big Two. On the back of a General Election where they were decimated, Farron is in nowhere near as strong a position.

Shame, as for a moment back there the LibDems were looking very strong.

I was gobsmacked when Clegg went with the tories
His idiotic line that the public would want him to join with the biggest party was completely illogical
It was obvious from the start that lib voters would desert them: they'd spent the last 50+ years effectively making a vote saying "I don't want  to endorse either of these 2", and therefore not needing to feel guilty about any actions their MPs took, and suddenly they were having to  feel ashamed  for the  actions of the tories, backed by their Lib MPs

thomasw88

monquixote said:

I'm absolutely baffled by people saying that it's undemocratic that the PM changed without a general election as not only is it something that can happen within any government at any time, but in this case the PM explicitly told everyone that he would not serve out a full term so this change would have happened within a couple of years even without the referendum. 

Pig shagger also on a number of occasions swore that he would not stand down after the referendum and would lead the country through the aftermath. in fact pigshagger has made a whole series of promises and commitments to the country over the last 6 years which he hasn't kept.

Myranda

Cirrus said:

digitalscream said:

tampadragon said:

I'm obviously mistaken as to how elections work, as I thought the General Election was to elect the party you want to run the country, each party has a party leader and figure head, but it's the party you elect. Therefore when the current PM steps down someone within the party takes his place and carries on running the country! Please tell me if i'm wrong!

Exactly. It's ironic that all the people bleating about how "democracy" has been ruined by this whole episode have absolutely no idea how it works.

I don't really get that attitude. I mean, anyone voting with half a brain is going to realise that whichever MP their constituency elects to parliament, they're most likely going to be following the party line on any national issue (unless they're a rebel of course!) that might concern the voter. Therefore, they're going to look to the party leadership - the PM being the most visible single person - that will be effectively determining how their elected MP will vote in the commons.

On top of that, the PM becomes an important international figurehead in a way your commons MP won't. And in this era of globalisation where many have interests abroad, that matters too.

Basically, yes, the potential PM does influence the decisions of many voters in general elections, as well it should, and if that voting reality doesn't fit in with the textbook understanding of what voters are supposed to be doing in a general election - voting for a local representative - then that's more a reflection on the failings of the current FPTP/ commons system at actually representing the people's wishes and concerns. Just because we invented democracy version 1.0, it doesn't mean we got it right first time.

In case it isn't clear, I'd be all for a PR chamber, an elected PM, and a total overhaul of the way local areas are represented in parliament since the current system doesn't really make any sense outside of a feudal/ landowner/ strictly class based society.

Anyways... 

But I don't want the people who vote for a faith healing type to have representation... I've spoken to the Peace Party rep... My local Green Party rep... These are people who positively should not be in government... PR puts the morons voted in by morons in the driving seat of the country... Under PR the UKIP party would have nearly as much power as the SNP in the last election. 

As for doing it all twice... One for the government and one for pm... No thanks. The country is largely apathetic about voting once in general elections... I'd not trust us as a country to bother twice 

octatonic

ToneControl said:

RocknRollDave said:

Hertz32 said:

The lib dems need Clegg back. Seriously.

If Clegg hadn't got in bed with the Tories (something which was NEVER going to work out well for the LibDems in the long term), the LibDems would be in a prime position right now as as a viable alternative to the Big Two. On the back of a General Election where they were decimated, Farron is in nowhere near as strong a position.

Shame, as for a moment back there the LibDems were looking very strong.

I was gobsmacked when Clegg went with the tories
His idiotic line that the public would want him to join with the biggest party was completely illogical
It was obvious from the start that lib voters would desert them: they'd spent the last 50+ years effectively making a vote saying "I don't want  to endorse either of these 2", and therefore not needing to feel guilty about any actions their MPs took, and suddenly they were having to  feel ashamed  for the  actions of the tories, backed by their Lib MPs

That might be your interpretation of the situation but it isn't how the party membership views it and I don't agree with your assessment either.
There is a plurality of views but on the whole the consensus within the party (or at least my perception of it- I clearly don't speak for the party) is that aligning with the Tories was necessary, because they had more seats than Labour and first and foremost the country needed a stable government.
If the Lib Dems and Labour were to have formed a government in 2010 it would have been inherently unstable and we were, at the time, just coming out of a period of global downturn.
This was a choice made for stability.

There were mistakes made, sure- but on the whole the Lib Dem's restrained the Tories from going further than they did.
We took a massive hit in the 2015 election and this was expected, although not as severe as what happened.
People blamed the LD's for what the Tories did- which strikes me as a little unfair- and reminds me of that 'people's front of Judea' scene in Life of Brian.
Blame the Tories.

None of this would have happened if the LD's were the majority party in the coalition, but we weren't.

mgaw

CabbageCat said:

mgaw said:

well I for one am looking forward to having a MILF in no 10

She is not a MILF. Read the news.

that was my point

Cirrus

Myranda said:

But I don't want the people who vote for a faith healing type to have representation... I've spoken to the Peace Party rep... My local Green Party rep... These are people who positively should not be in government... PR puts the morons voted in by morons in the driving seat of the country... Under PR the UKIP party would have nearly as much power as the SNP in the last election. 

As for doing it all twice... One for the government and one for pm... No thanks. The country is largely apathetic about voting once in general elections... I'd not trust us as a country to bother twice 

So you don't believe in democracy? Or you do believe in democracy, as long as people who hold marginal views are disproportionately marginalised?

I don't like the implications for increased UKIP power if we had PR either, but if a certain percentage of the country want UKIP to represent them, then the makeup of parliament should represent those people.

However!

In practice, if we had PR and UKIP had got many more seats in parliament, they'd still be in the minority. And if they'd been part of a governing coalition, what's the worst that could have happened? A vote to leave the EU? lol!

If we had proper PR, the need for a protest vote in the first place would be reduced, and nobody would feel disenchanted from the current system, or that their vote didn't matter if they live in safe seats. Tactical voting would be less of an issue. I think PR would increase interest and engagement with the process across the board, as every vote would actually count equally. And I think that in time that would reduce the sway of UKIP, so that particular threat would reduce.

What we'd have instead is a parliamentary body who's makeup actually adequately represented the country, and most likely coalition governments that would overall represent more than 50% of the voters.

As for that list bit of your post about holding two elections, I think you've gone and read a lot more into my vague suggestion than you should have in order to find something to disagree with. I didn't make any proposal as to how it'd work in practice! If you want specifics, give me a few years to study law and politics so I can draft a comprehensive and unassailable proposal for a total overhaul of the UK's governing institutions.

Myranda

Cirrus said:

Myranda said:

But I don't want the people who vote for a faith healing type to have representation... I've spoken to the Peace Party rep... My local Green Party rep... These are people who positively should not be in government... PR puts the morons voted in by morons in the driving seat of the country... Under PR the UKIP party would have nearly as much power as the SNP in the last election. 

As for doing it all twice... One for the government and one for pm... No thanks. The country is largely apathetic about voting once in general elections... I'd not trust us as a country to bother twice 

So you don't believe in democracy? Or you do believe in democracy, as long as people who hold marginal views are disproportionately marginalised?

I don't like the implications for increased UKIP power if we had PR either, but if a certain percentage of the country want UKIP to represent them, then the makeup of parliament should represent those people.

However!

In practice, if we had PR and UKIP had got many more seats in parliament, they'd still be in the minority. And if they'd been part of a governing coalition, what's the worst that could have happened? A vote to leave the EU? lol!

If we had proper PR, the need for a protest vote in the first place would be reduced, and nobody would feel disenchanted from the current system, or that their vote didn't matter if they live in safe seats. Tactical voting would be less of an issue. I think PR would increase interest and engagement with the process across the board, as every vote would actually count equally. And I think that in time that would reduce the sway of UKIP, so that particular threat would reduce.

What we'd have instead is a parliamentary body who's makeup actually adequately represented the country, and most likely coalition governments that would overall represent more than 50% of the voters.

As for that list bit of your post about holding two elections, I think you've gone and read a lot more into my vague suggestion than you should have in order to find something to disagree with. I didn't make any proposal as to how it'd work in practice! If you want specifics, give me a few years to study law and politics so I can draft a comprehensive and unassailable proposal for a total overhaul of the UK's governing institutions.

Of course I don't believe in democracy. 

The stupid cunts who vote EDL because they don't like Muslamic laws,  who can barely read have the same amount of say in who governs as someone who understands our constitution, who reads the election pledges of their local candidate and compares them to those of the political party they are part of. 

Democracy would be fine if the majority werent too lazy or too dumb (or both) to actually take time to understand what and who they were voting for. 

EDL, UKIP, BNP etc supporters get as much say in PR system as rational human beings who don't hate Sanjai down the street just because he's brown. Why should I believe in democracy when there are flat earthers out there? Or anti-vaxxers? Holocaust deniers? Neonazis? 

Democracy can only truly work if the people voting vote for the greater good and understand what that is... Rather than self interest especially when bigotry is so easy for people 

Cirrus

See, to me it reads more like you have a problem with uninformed idiots than democracy.

The world would be a better place all round if there were less idiots. I suggest that's a question of decent education, a fundamentally decent society, and better parenting choices.

I admit we're unlikely to get any of that, because we're just a bunch of animals running round.

ICBM

Myranda said:

Of course I don't believe in democracy. 

The stupid cunts who vote EDL because they don't like Muslamic laws,  who can barely read have the same amount of say in who governs as someone who understands our constitution, who reads the election pledges of their local candidate and compares them to those of the political party they are part of. 

Democracy would be fine if the majority werent too lazy or too dumb (or both) to actually take time to understand what and who they were voting for. 

EDL, UKIP, BNP etc supporters get as much say in PR system as rational human beings who don't hate Sanjai down the street just because he's brown. Why should I believe in democracy when there are flat earthers out there? Or anti-vaxxers? Holocaust deniers? Neonazis?

Because they are human beings and they are all entitled to have a say, however wrong you or I think their opinions are. It's up to the more educated to try to persuade them to make better choices.

That said I am not in favour of pure PR for the main legislative government, partly for that reason and partly because it's very difficult to make it work properly with constituency representation, which I think is important.

bingefeller

I'm interested to know what she will do about the British-Irish Common Travel Area.  I read there may be border checks again, but hopefully this wont come about.

Myranda

Cirrus said:

See, to me it reads more like you have a problem with uninformed idiots than democracy.

The world would be a better place all round if there were less idiots. I suggest that's a question of decent education, a fundamentally decent society, and better parenting choices.

I admit we're unlikely to get any of that, because we're just a bunch of animals running round.

But uninformed idiots still get a vote... And it's counted as equal to the vote of the informed... 

Now. A moron cull would be nice, but even the morons would not vote for the Cull-The-Moron party... So we're left with a system that allows morons to vote. 

The press don't help... Freedom ofof the press should stop at opinion pieces being presented as fact. 

There should be an entrance exam to vote - nothing like higher level maths... But the ability to recognise the policies you're voting for and against. Get a good enough score and you're allowed to vote, otherwise you're told try again next year.

We live in an information age where facts are at our finger tips... There's no excuse any more  

Chalky

@Myranda said "Democracy can only truly work if the people voting vote for the greater good and understand what that is".

Wow! So much stupidity in one sentence!

Er, who defines the greater good? 

digitalscream

Chalky said:

@Myranda said "Democracy can only truly work if the people voting vote for the greater good and understand what that is".

Wow! So much stupidity in one sentence!

Er, who defines the greater good? 

I think it's probably better-phrased, "Democracy can only truly work if the people voting understand exactly what they're voting for". As such, "the greater good" can be defined by every individual if they have all the information. Most of the time, a huge portion of the voting electorate aren't voting with a full complement of information, they're voting on single issues with no concern about the consequences; with PR, that could be an absolute disaster. A total win for democracy, but a complete shitfest for the country as a whole.

Myranda

Chalky said:

@Myranda said "Democracy can only truly work if the people voting vote for the greater good and understand what that is".

Wow! So much stupidity in one sentence!

Er, who defines the greater good? 

Wow. 

It's what's best for the most people... And as individuals we can't fully appreciate it... Which is why democracy can never be fixed. Though your instant jump to name calling hardly presents you as the ideal candidate to show that democracy can be saved after all... 

Bogwhoppit

octatonic said:

ToneControl said:

RocknRollDave said:

Hertz32 said:

The lib dems need Clegg back. Seriously.

If Clegg hadn't got in bed with the Tories (something which was NEVER going to work out well for the LibDems in the long term), the LibDems would be in a prime position right now as as a viable alternative to the Big Two. On the back of a General Election where they were decimated, Farron is in nowhere near as strong a position.

Shame, as for a moment back there the LibDems were looking very strong.

I was gobsmacked when Clegg went with the tories
His idiotic line that the public would want him to join with the biggest party was completely illogical
It was obvious from the start that lib voters would desert them: they'd spent the last 50+ years effectively making a vote saying "I don't want  to endorse either of these 2", and therefore not needing to feel guilty about any actions their MPs took, and suddenly they were having to  feel ashamed  for the  actions of the tories, backed by their Lib MPs

That might be your interpretation of the situation but it isn't how the party membership views it and I don't agree with your assessment either.
There is a plurality of views but on the whole the consensus within the party (or at least my perception of it- I clearly don't speak for the party) is that aligning with the Tories was necessary, because they had more seats than Labour and first and foremost the country needed a stable government.
If the Lib Dems and Labour were to have formed a government in 2010 it would have been inherently unstable and we were, at the time, just coming out of a period of global downturn.
This was a choice made for stability.

There were mistakes made, sure- but on the whole the Lib Dem's restrained the Tories from going further than they did.
We took a massive hit in the 2015 election and this was expected, although not as severe as what happened.
People blamed the LD's for what the Tories did- which strikes me as a little unfair- and reminds me of that 'people's front of Judea' scene in Life of Brian.
Blame the Tories.

None of this would have happened if the LD's were the majority party in the coalition, but we weren't.

The point is, a significant amount of the electorate vote and react to perceptions, not facts or events.  Whilst the LD's may have had good intentions, they should also have been aware that any perception they had screwed up was going to cause them problems in the future. Ergo, they should have remained true to their principles and avoided any coalition with a large yellow bargepole.

TheMarlin

I hear she'll united the Conservatives.............against the poor 

professorben

Snap said:

ICBM said:

Brize said:

It seems as though May is determined to respect the referendum result and press ahead with Brexit. Might be a good time to buy shares in companies that make incontinence sheets because there'll be an awful lot of Remainers wetting themselves when Article 50 is triggered.

Or Leavers when they discover that leaving the EU means staying in the EEA or the EFTA - basically the same as we have now but with no power to change anything (some would say that's exactly what we have now) - but technically out of the EU and therefore respecting the referendum result. And out of the EHCR too, which she wanted anyway.

Be careful what you wish for…

If we can also negotiate good trade agreement with the US, CHina, India (insert any other significant economy), then this would IMO be a very good thing, and better.

And I voted Remain.

Surely they are going to be too busy getting good trade agreement with each other and the EU to bother with a little island like us? 

professorben

What bothers me is that people might investigate, research, learn about all the available options about what will benefit the country, the people and the economy, AND STILL NOT AGREE WITH MY VEIWS!!!!!! WTF???!!!!!