Keir Starmer's United Kingdom

[UtakataNoAnnex]

Well what I mean is that we're starting to see the momentum build towards removing Starmer just like it slowly did last fall for Trudeau.. when it was Johnson or Truss it was a lot faster. Ans above his disapproval at 79% us on par with the Trudeau numbers a year ago, if not worse.

Fair enough!

 

[afransen]

That jumped to my mind, but it also feels very Australia.
Australia has had six different PM's in the past 15 years (Trudeau was PM for nine years), and multiple times it changed not because of an election but because of a party insurrection.
Their government has the backbenchers backstab their leaders all the time, and then they in-turn do it again to the new leader they supported to take over.

That's because their MPs are not nobodies. I think it's healthier than overwhelmingly powerful party leaders who use MPs as meat puppets to parrot the message of the leader's office.

 

[PL1]

That's because their MPs are not nobodies. I think it's healthier than overwhelmingly powerful party leaders who use MPs as meat puppets to parrot the message of the leader's office.

More democratic, within the limitation of FPTP in a multi-party system. I think the parties in Canada are addicted to the cash infusion of leadership conventions. The conventions themselves are (IMO) no longer necessary with technology and remote voting

 

[Northern Light]

That's because their MPs are not nobodies. I think it's healthier than overwhelmingly powerful party leaders who use MPs as meat puppets to parrot the message of the leader's office.

A key principle behind the concept of Prime Minister is 'First among equals"

The intent in that term of phrase is to suggest he/she is just one vote in the House, and just one vote in Cabinet, but is the de facto chair of cabinet, the tie-breaking vote, and Cabinet (and government's) chief spokesperson.

I'm of the view that there ought to be a way to change PMs (as there is to change any other Minister) between elections; but I am equally of the view that the Brit/Aussies recent habits of frequent and often ill-considered change are a poor use of said process.

I'm not sure how one threads that needle. But there should be space between dictator for 4-5 years at a time (longer if you win consecutive elections to government) and endless machinations by the power-hungry that interrupt any ability to get stuff done.

****

Lets add here that Starmer has not found a wall he won't walk into, and random pile of trash he will not light on fire. His has been an extraordinary failure of leadership and judgement and he should be ousted.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

I suppose this dispels the notion that the bigot vote is coming from the young...

Owen Jones (@owenjones.bsky.social)

The Greens are winning the support of around half of 18 to 24 year olds. Reform are on 5%. So much for young people's turn to the right! And the Young Greens now have 40,000 members - the biggest youth and students wing in British politics

bsky.app

 

[thettctransitfanatic]

 

[Richard White]

View attachment 705667

Never going to happen.

Britain has stellar food quality and they are proud of their food being sourced in the UK.

I highly doubt they will be ok with lowering their standards to appease Trump.

 

[kEiThZ]

That's because their MPs are not nobodies.

Actually, it's literally because their MPs are nobodies. It's harder to get a cabinet post in the UK. This means there's a lot more MPs with nothing to lose. You would see the same dynamic if our Parliament was double the size but cabinet stayed the size it is today.

 

[Northern Light]

Actually, it's literally because their MPs are nobodies. It's harder to get a cabinet post in the UK. This means there's a lot more MPs with nothing to lose. You would see the same dynamic if our Parliament was double the size but cabinet stayed the size it is today.

Though this is the British politics thread, the example being discussed in the quote above was Australia.

The Austrlian federal legislature has a 150 seat House and 76 seat senate, and as such is actually meanignfully smaller than Canada's.

Britain does have about twice the caucus size of Canada federally; but I would suggest that the Aussie/Brit similarities are suggestive of something other than a large legislature.

In the UK, if 15% of MPs (from a given party) sign a petition, then a leadership vote is triggered. The process is secret ballot vote by caucus.

Australia is a bit different, but functionally, caucus can generally trigger a leadership over throw. (without waiting for a prescribed review).

The exact rules around that vary by party.

 

[afransen]

Actually, it's literally because their MPs are nobodies. It's harder to get a cabinet post in the UK. This means there's a lot more MPs with nothing to lose. You would see the same dynamic if our Parliament was double the size but cabinet stayed the size it is today.

Their MPs are willing to exercise some independence partly because many will likely never make it to cabinet but they are not as utterly beholden to the leader for their nomination.

In both Australia and the UK, MPs can unseat the leader fairly readily, while this is not common practice in Canada (yet). Most parties don't adopt the Reform Act measure empowering caucus in this way, and the thresholds are higher. As I recall, it hasn't been used in Canada yet.

 

[kEiThZ]

We've unfortunately adopted American practices of leadership contests by members. Instead of letting the caucus choose the leader. That contributes to centralization at the top. Even if it seems more democratic to the membership.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

I am not sure either system is helpful in accountability...one leads to a dysfunctional system where one sitting party ends up with several leaders over it's tenure in a laughingstock fashion, versus one that sticks by it's leadership even if it's becomes an obvious dumpster fire to everyone else. I don't have a real solution to fix either here...other than to point out one system is not really better than the other.