Exploring #10’s revolving door and the case for a General Election, and the disingenuous line that we “vote for the person (MP)”.
I’ll leave aside the backhand and devious (Fabian) way Andy Burnham got back into government to (soon) become the next PM – or the fact this is an admission by Labour that despite having over 400 seats in the House of Commons, they don’t have a single MP or Minister they trust or believe in enough to promote to leader. NOT ONE.
Not one out of over 400 people running the government think either they themselves nor anyone else in their party is good enough to do the job. So they outsource and hope for the best!
I’ll also leave aside the question (and a possible scandal) over what Makerfield MP Josh Simmons was presumably offered in return for surrendering his seat for Andy Burnham.
One person – rightly I believe – left this comment:
If a prime minister leaves office for whatever reason I believe it’s we the voters that get to choose the replacement and that means an automatic general election. Yes the existing party gets a caretaker in for a few weeks whilst the general election is organised but during this time no new laws, no major policy decisions, etc. etc.
We are a democracy at the end of the day.
I also, after Starmer’s reign, believe governments must only do what their manifestos say, if they haven’t told us their intentions then they don’t get to deviate. i.e. No trying to get back in the EU through back door negotiations, etc.
CT Taylor, a troll with a questionable Facebook account leapt in to comment…
We are a Parliamentary democracy. You vote for your local MP and the party chooses the leader. Compredi?
*glances at the guy’s Facebook profile*
No information, no followers, and only four old posts (pictures and no text): one’s a bloody big picture of the EU flag, and the other’s a random photo of a house used in his profile pic. So fake as hell, eh.
My reply is below:
Yes, but we don’t, do we. Comprende? (fyi compredi isn’t a word).
You cover a lie with – at best – a questionable half-truth.
Look at ANY ballot paper in the country.
Does it say:
Aaran Adams [ ]
…
Zak Zuckerberg [ ]
OR, does it say:
Aaran Adams, LABOUR {logo} [ ]
…
Zak Zuckerberg, Flying Spaghetti party {logo} [ ]
OBVIOUSLY, It’s number two because people, in the VAST majority of cases, don’t vote for a name, they vote for the party and the party mandate and leaning – and whether they like its leader or not.
It is notable that the party logo is given the most real estate on the form and is far more prominent that the candidate’s name. BY DESIGN. For instance, as below.
Labour didn’t boot Starmer out because everyone said he was a wanker, they booted him out because he made the party – and thus them, the MP – unelectable.
MPS understand – MPs KNOW – that voters would take one look at the ballot paper, see Labour, think “HELL NO!” and [tick anyone but the Labour candidates, WotsHisName]
QED: If you change the leader – the country did not vote for this – We need an general election!
Argument
If the party knew that changing their leader meant a General Election would put THEIR seat at risk, they’d choose better leaders and be a lot less inclined to swap them on a whim.
With apologies to whomever generated the AI image of workers installing a revolving door on #10 – because of the near yearly churn of sub-standard self-styled “world leaders” we’ve had.
