|
|
Post by Vinny on Jun 22, 2023 13:16:30 GMT
Is there a better system for a political party to get rid of a badly performing leader than the method the Tories have?
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jun 22, 2023 13:30:23 GMT
Is there a better system for a political party to get rid of a badly performing leader than the method the Tories have? In my opinion, back benchers, the 1922 committee, should not have the power to remove a leader/prime minister who was elected to office by the electorate. There should be four ways to remove/change a democratically elected prime minister: 1. General election. 2. Death of the incumbent. 3. Criminal prosecution. 4. Resignation. I know that doesn't fully answer your question Vin, but I thought I'd mention it anyway.  |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jun 22, 2023 14:11:54 GMT
Can’t remember the last time the 1922 committee got rid of a Tory leader?
Johnson, who I presume this thread is about, resigned when it became clear as minister after minister resigned that he was unable to form a functioning government.
Had he not done so, he would likely have lost a vote of confidence. In the HoC.
Eventually the queen would have intervened and either asked someone else that she considered did command majority support in parliament to form a government or dissolved parliament and forced a general election.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Jun 22, 2023 16:52:44 GMT
Is there a better system for a political party to get rid of a badly performing leader than the method the Tories have? In my opinion, back benchers, the 1922 committee, should not have the power to remove a leader/prime minister who was elected to office by the electorate. There should be four ways to remove/change a democratically elected prime minister: 1. General election. 2. Death of the incumbent. 3. Criminal prosecution. 4. Resignation. I know that doesn't fully answer your question Vin, but I thought I'd mention it anyway. Whilst I acknowledge your point, and agree that a change of leadership should be followed by a general election, as has been pointed out on similar threads, we do not, of course, vote for our PM. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jun 22, 2023 17:13:24 GMT
In my opinion, back benchers, the 1922 committee, should not have the power to remove a leader/prime minister who was elected to office by the electorate. There should be four ways to remove/change a democratically elected prime minister: 1. General election. 2. Death of the incumbent. 3. Criminal prosecution. 4. Resignation. I know that doesn't fully answer your question Vin, but I thought I'd mention it anyway. Whilst I acknowledge your point, and agree that a change of leadership should be followed by a general election, as has been pointed out on similar threads, we do not, of course, vote for our PM. Indeed, there are no names on ballot papers, perhaps there should be. However, when a party wins a general election and is voted into government, the electorate know the leader of that party will become prime minister, in other words the electorate put him/her into number 10 and in my opinion back benchers should not have the power to remove him/her. In the case of an appointed prime minster, Sunak for instance, then perhaps there may be a case for backbenchers through the 1922 committee to have some say on his future if the situation requires it. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jun 22, 2023 17:43:24 GMT
Can’t remember the last time the 1922 committee got rid of a Tory leader? Johnson, who I presume this thread is about, resigned when it became clear as minister after minister resigned that he was unable to form a functioning government. Had he not done so, he would likely have lost a vote of confidence. In the HoC. Eventually the queen would have intervened and either asked someone else that she considered did command majority support in parliament to form a government or dissolved parliament and forced a general election. First and foremost, Pillock. I'm talking about rules, not personalities. If 15% of MP's submit letters of no confidence in the prime minister the chairman of the 1922 Committee calls a confidence vote in the prime minister. MP's then vote. If more than 50% of MP's vote against the prime minister his resignation is required. This in my opinion is wrong. If the leader became prime minister by winning a general election he was put into office by the electorate, and only the electorate should have the power to remove him. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Jun 22, 2023 17:53:27 GMT
You seem to have mixed up voting for leader of the Conservative Party and the Government.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jun 22, 2023 18:03:21 GMT
And to my knowledge the Conservatives have never not supported their prime minister in such a party vote of confidence - Johnson, May and Thatcher all won theirs.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jun 22, 2023 18:03:40 GMT
And to my knowledge the Conservatives have never not supported their prime minister in such a party vote of confidence - Johnson, May and Thatcher all won theirs.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jun 22, 2023 18:04:22 GMT
Such a good point in my view that it warranted repetition….
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jun 22, 2023 18:50:45 GMT
Interesting snippet of political history. Not since 2001 has a PM chosen to lead a single party government survived a whole parliament.
Blair was superseded by Brown
Cameron by May
May by Johnson
Johnson by Truss and Sunak
Only the coalition provided the strong and stable government Red seems to desire. A fact to remember perhaps when the merits of PR and FPTP are discussed
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jun 22, 2023 18:53:36 GMT
You seem to have mixed up voting for leader of the Conservative Party and the Government. Given the thread title I assumed it was given who we were talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jun 22, 2023 18:58:21 GMT
Such a good point in my view that it warranted repetition…. The delete button Dappy is the cog icon top right, next to 'add attachment'. You may wish to make frequent use of it. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Jun 22, 2023 19:00:04 GMT
So you are specifically talking about Conservative MPs having a VONC in the leader of the Conservative Party, not (all) MPs having a VONC in the Prime Minister?
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jun 22, 2023 19:00:42 GMT
And to my knowledge the Conservatives have never not supported their prime minister in such a party vote of confidence - Johnson, May and Thatcher all won theirs. Regarding the point in question, irrelevant. The point is, back benchers have the power to remove a prime minister. For the reasons I have previously given this, in my opinion, is wrong. |
|
