▲ 515 ▼ 70% of UK doesn't want Rishi Sunak to be PM any longer, poll shows (www.hindustantimes.com) submitted 2 years ago by YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world 129 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago (1 child) How long has it been since the last election? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheOgreChef@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago (1 child) Last election was in 2019, and they’re usually every 5 years. The next one has to be set for no later than January 2025, but could be earlier than that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Ummm.... Why the variable timeline? I don't really understand US politics, and I'm an American. I've no hope of really understanding the UK system... Still, how do you not just vote in a new government/PM/MPs on a set schedule? That's the most not British thing I've ever heard of. I thought you guys love routines. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TassieTosser@aussie.zone 14 points 2 years ago (1 child) We have the same system in Australia. Constitution sets a maximum govt term but a parliamentary majority can call an election at any time before then. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (4 children) Ok, but why does the same party stay in power if a vote happens early? Seems like the conservatives have had control of England for the last 40-50 years, basically since Thatcher. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Guntrigger@feddit.ch 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) You're right but only because New Labour was basically Conservative. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* So the same thing as the "Neo-Liberals" in the US, gotcha. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Dendie@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Think back to the time George W. Bush was around and we had Tony Blair and Gordon Brown - both from the Labour Party permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) Blair I remember, Brown I don't. I thought Blair was a Tory. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Dendie@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago New Labour, so pretty close permalink fedilink source parent [–] Guntrigger@feddit.ch 3 points 2 years ago "New Labour" as it was branded under Blair, was basically a more right leaning Labour. Brown was Chancellor to Blair and took over after his resignation, much like everyone since Cameron (who himself was initially elected as leader of a coalition to a hung parliament). permalink fedilink source parent [–] Z3k3@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago The UK. Not just England permalink fedilink source parent [–] Finerney@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 years ago* (2 children) So, voters elect Members of Parliament during general elections not a prime minister, the political party that wins the most seats in the House of Commons usually forms the government. Since we don’t elect the PM the king ‘invites’ the leader of the majority party to form a government since they’ll likely have the support of the majority portion of MPs, that person becomes the prime minister. This leads to the slightly unusual situation where the incumbent party can essentially decide to replace the prime minister at will, this is usually accomplished by either an internal party process (1922 committee for the Conservative Party) or if the prime minister decides to ‘resign’. The incumbent party can then elect a party leader using whatever process they like iirc, once they have chosen a leader the king asks that person to become prime minister. tl;dr the uk electorate don’t choose the prime minister directly, you elect a local MP, and the party leader of the majority party becomes PM so replacing the party leader replaces the prime minister. ETA: the government can call a general election early and have done in the past but it’s not always in their best interest if they think they’re going to lose permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Thanks for the explanation. I assume this is the compromise that England arrived at sometime around the signing of The Magna Carta? permalink fedilink source parent [–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks [B] 1 point 2 years ago Here is an alternative Piped link(s): resign Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube. I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TheOgreChef@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago (1 child) Last election was in 2019, and they’re usually every 5 years. The next one has to be set for no later than January 2025, but could be earlier than that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Ummm.... Why the variable timeline? I don't really understand US politics, and I'm an American. I've no hope of really understanding the UK system... Still, how do you not just vote in a new government/PM/MPs on a set schedule? That's the most not British thing I've ever heard of. I thought you guys love routines. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TassieTosser@aussie.zone 14 points 2 years ago (1 child) We have the same system in Australia. Constitution sets a maximum govt term but a parliamentary majority can call an election at any time before then. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (4 children) Ok, but why does the same party stay in power if a vote happens early? Seems like the conservatives have had control of England for the last 40-50 years, basically since Thatcher. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Guntrigger@feddit.ch 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) You're right but only because New Labour was basically Conservative. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* So the same thing as the "Neo-Liberals" in the US, gotcha. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Dendie@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Think back to the time George W. Bush was around and we had Tony Blair and Gordon Brown - both from the Labour Party permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) Blair I remember, Brown I don't. I thought Blair was a Tory. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Dendie@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago New Labour, so pretty close permalink fedilink source parent [–] Guntrigger@feddit.ch 3 points 2 years ago "New Labour" as it was branded under Blair, was basically a more right leaning Labour. Brown was Chancellor to Blair and took over after his resignation, much like everyone since Cameron (who himself was initially elected as leader of a coalition to a hung parliament). permalink fedilink source parent [–] Z3k3@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago The UK. Not just England permalink fedilink source parent [–] Finerney@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 years ago* (2 children) So, voters elect Members of Parliament during general elections not a prime minister, the political party that wins the most seats in the House of Commons usually forms the government. Since we don’t elect the PM the king ‘invites’ the leader of the majority party to form a government since they’ll likely have the support of the majority portion of MPs, that person becomes the prime minister. This leads to the slightly unusual situation where the incumbent party can essentially decide to replace the prime minister at will, this is usually accomplished by either an internal party process (1922 committee for the Conservative Party) or if the prime minister decides to ‘resign’. The incumbent party can then elect a party leader using whatever process they like iirc, once they have chosen a leader the king asks that person to become prime minister. tl;dr the uk electorate don’t choose the prime minister directly, you elect a local MP, and the party leader of the majority party becomes PM so replacing the party leader replaces the prime minister. ETA: the government can call a general election early and have done in the past but it’s not always in their best interest if they think they’re going to lose permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Thanks for the explanation. I assume this is the compromise that England arrived at sometime around the signing of The Magna Carta? permalink fedilink source parent [–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks [B] 1 point 2 years ago Here is an alternative Piped link(s): resign Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube. I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Ummm.... Why the variable timeline? I don't really understand US politics, and I'm an American. I've no hope of really understanding the UK system... Still, how do you not just vote in a new government/PM/MPs on a set schedule? That's the most not British thing I've ever heard of. I thought you guys love routines. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TassieTosser@aussie.zone 14 points 2 years ago (1 child) We have the same system in Australia. Constitution sets a maximum govt term but a parliamentary majority can call an election at any time before then. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (4 children) Ok, but why does the same party stay in power if a vote happens early? Seems like the conservatives have had control of England for the last 40-50 years, basically since Thatcher. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Guntrigger@feddit.ch 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) You're right but only because New Labour was basically Conservative. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* So the same thing as the "Neo-Liberals" in the US, gotcha. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Dendie@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Think back to the time George W. Bush was around and we had Tony Blair and Gordon Brown - both from the Labour Party permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) Blair I remember, Brown I don't. I thought Blair was a Tory. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Dendie@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago New Labour, so pretty close permalink fedilink source parent [–] Guntrigger@feddit.ch 3 points 2 years ago "New Labour" as it was branded under Blair, was basically a more right leaning Labour. Brown was Chancellor to Blair and took over after his resignation, much like everyone since Cameron (who himself was initially elected as leader of a coalition to a hung parliament). permalink fedilink source parent [–] Z3k3@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago The UK. Not just England permalink fedilink source parent [–] Finerney@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 years ago* (2 children) So, voters elect Members of Parliament during general elections not a prime minister, the political party that wins the most seats in the House of Commons usually forms the government. Since we don’t elect the PM the king ‘invites’ the leader of the majority party to form a government since they’ll likely have the support of the majority portion of MPs, that person becomes the prime minister. This leads to the slightly unusual situation where the incumbent party can essentially decide to replace the prime minister at will, this is usually accomplished by either an internal party process (1922 committee for the Conservative Party) or if the prime minister decides to ‘resign’. The incumbent party can then elect a party leader using whatever process they like iirc, once they have chosen a leader the king asks that person to become prime minister. tl;dr the uk electorate don’t choose the prime minister directly, you elect a local MP, and the party leader of the majority party becomes PM so replacing the party leader replaces the prime minister. ETA: the government can call a general election early and have done in the past but it’s not always in their best interest if they think they’re going to lose permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Thanks for the explanation. I assume this is the compromise that England arrived at sometime around the signing of The Magna Carta? permalink fedilink source parent [–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks [B] 1 point 2 years ago Here is an alternative Piped link(s): resign Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube. I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TassieTosser@aussie.zone 14 points 2 years ago (1 child) We have the same system in Australia. Constitution sets a maximum govt term but a parliamentary majority can call an election at any time before then. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (4 children) Ok, but why does the same party stay in power if a vote happens early? Seems like the conservatives have had control of England for the last 40-50 years, basically since Thatcher. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Guntrigger@feddit.ch 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) You're right but only because New Labour was basically Conservative. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* So the same thing as the "Neo-Liberals" in the US, gotcha. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Dendie@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Think back to the time George W. Bush was around and we had Tony Blair and Gordon Brown - both from the Labour Party permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) Blair I remember, Brown I don't. I thought Blair was a Tory. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Dendie@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago New Labour, so pretty close permalink fedilink source parent [–] Guntrigger@feddit.ch 3 points 2 years ago "New Labour" as it was branded under Blair, was basically a more right leaning Labour. Brown was Chancellor to Blair and took over after his resignation, much like everyone since Cameron (who himself was initially elected as leader of a coalition to a hung parliament). permalink fedilink source parent [–] Z3k3@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago The UK. Not just England permalink fedilink source parent [–] Finerney@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 years ago* (2 children) So, voters elect Members of Parliament during general elections not a prime minister, the political party that wins the most seats in the House of Commons usually forms the government. Since we don’t elect the PM the king ‘invites’ the leader of the majority party to form a government since they’ll likely have the support of the majority portion of MPs, that person becomes the prime minister. This leads to the slightly unusual situation where the incumbent party can essentially decide to replace the prime minister at will, this is usually accomplished by either an internal party process (1922 committee for the Conservative Party) or if the prime minister decides to ‘resign’. The incumbent party can then elect a party leader using whatever process they like iirc, once they have chosen a leader the king asks that person to become prime minister. tl;dr the uk electorate don’t choose the prime minister directly, you elect a local MP, and the party leader of the majority party becomes PM so replacing the party leader replaces the prime minister. ETA: the government can call a general election early and have done in the past but it’s not always in their best interest if they think they’re going to lose permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Thanks for the explanation. I assume this is the compromise that England arrived at sometime around the signing of The Magna Carta? permalink fedilink source parent [–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks [B] 1 point 2 years ago Here is an alternative Piped link(s): resign Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube. I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (4 children) Ok, but why does the same party stay in power if a vote happens early? Seems like the conservatives have had control of England for the last 40-50 years, basically since Thatcher. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Guntrigger@feddit.ch 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) You're right but only because New Labour was basically Conservative. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* So the same thing as the "Neo-Liberals" in the US, gotcha. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Dendie@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Think back to the time George W. Bush was around and we had Tony Blair and Gordon Brown - both from the Labour Party permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) Blair I remember, Brown I don't. I thought Blair was a Tory. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Dendie@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago New Labour, so pretty close permalink fedilink source parent [–] Guntrigger@feddit.ch 3 points 2 years ago "New Labour" as it was branded under Blair, was basically a more right leaning Labour. Brown was Chancellor to Blair and took over after his resignation, much like everyone since Cameron (who himself was initially elected as leader of a coalition to a hung parliament). permalink fedilink source parent [–] Z3k3@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago The UK. Not just England permalink fedilink source parent [–] Finerney@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 years ago* (2 children) So, voters elect Members of Parliament during general elections not a prime minister, the political party that wins the most seats in the House of Commons usually forms the government. Since we don’t elect the PM the king ‘invites’ the leader of the majority party to form a government since they’ll likely have the support of the majority portion of MPs, that person becomes the prime minister. This leads to the slightly unusual situation where the incumbent party can essentially decide to replace the prime minister at will, this is usually accomplished by either an internal party process (1922 committee for the Conservative Party) or if the prime minister decides to ‘resign’. The incumbent party can then elect a party leader using whatever process they like iirc, once they have chosen a leader the king asks that person to become prime minister. tl;dr the uk electorate don’t choose the prime minister directly, you elect a local MP, and the party leader of the majority party becomes PM so replacing the party leader replaces the prime minister. ETA: the government can call a general election early and have done in the past but it’s not always in their best interest if they think they’re going to lose permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Thanks for the explanation. I assume this is the compromise that England arrived at sometime around the signing of The Magna Carta? permalink fedilink source parent [–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks [B] 1 point 2 years ago Here is an alternative Piped link(s): resign Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube. I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Guntrigger@feddit.ch 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) You're right but only because New Labour was basically Conservative. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* So the same thing as the "Neo-Liberals" in the US, gotcha. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* So the same thing as the "Neo-Liberals" in the US, gotcha. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Dendie@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Think back to the time George W. Bush was around and we had Tony Blair and Gordon Brown - both from the Labour Party permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) Blair I remember, Brown I don't. I thought Blair was a Tory. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Dendie@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago New Labour, so pretty close permalink fedilink source parent [–] Guntrigger@feddit.ch 3 points 2 years ago "New Labour" as it was branded under Blair, was basically a more right leaning Labour. Brown was Chancellor to Blair and took over after his resignation, much like everyone since Cameron (who himself was initially elected as leader of a coalition to a hung parliament). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (2 children) Blair I remember, Brown I don't. I thought Blair was a Tory. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Dendie@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago New Labour, so pretty close permalink fedilink source parent [–] Guntrigger@feddit.ch 3 points 2 years ago "New Labour" as it was branded under Blair, was basically a more right leaning Labour. Brown was Chancellor to Blair and took over after his resignation, much like everyone since Cameron (who himself was initially elected as leader of a coalition to a hung parliament). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Dendie@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago New Labour, so pretty close permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Guntrigger@feddit.ch 3 points 2 years ago "New Labour" as it was branded under Blair, was basically a more right leaning Labour. Brown was Chancellor to Blair and took over after his resignation, much like everyone since Cameron (who himself was initially elected as leader of a coalition to a hung parliament). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Finerney@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 years ago* (2 children) So, voters elect Members of Parliament during general elections not a prime minister, the political party that wins the most seats in the House of Commons usually forms the government. Since we don’t elect the PM the king ‘invites’ the leader of the majority party to form a government since they’ll likely have the support of the majority portion of MPs, that person becomes the prime minister. This leads to the slightly unusual situation where the incumbent party can essentially decide to replace the prime minister at will, this is usually accomplished by either an internal party process (1922 committee for the Conservative Party) or if the prime minister decides to ‘resign’. The incumbent party can then elect a party leader using whatever process they like iirc, once they have chosen a leader the king asks that person to become prime minister. tl;dr the uk electorate don’t choose the prime minister directly, you elect a local MP, and the party leader of the majority party becomes PM so replacing the party leader replaces the prime minister. ETA: the government can call a general election early and have done in the past but it’s not always in their best interest if they think they’re going to lose permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Thanks for the explanation. I assume this is the compromise that England arrived at sometime around the signing of The Magna Carta? permalink fedilink source parent [–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks [B] 1 point 2 years ago Here is an alternative Piped link(s): resign Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube. I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Thanks for the explanation. I assume this is the compromise that England arrived at sometime around the signing of The Magna Carta? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks [B] 1 point 2 years ago Here is an alternative Piped link(s): resign Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube. I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub. permalink fedilink source parent