Rishi versus Liz

[medsec222]

I was more impressed with Liz than Rishi during the debate last night. I thought Rishi came across as over-excited and bullying towards Liz. To her credit she remained quite calm and swatted him off.

[cruiser2]

Why is it necessary to have these debates. Surely when the two candidates were selected, the voting papers should have been sent out within two weeks.

I find it amazing that to elect a new Prime Minister, there are under 200,000 voters from a total population of about fifty million.

[medsec222]

It is American-style Cruiser. Personally I could do without them. I was listening to a conversation recently regarding these head to head confrontational debates and it was suggested that half hour separate questionings to each of the candidates by the various television channels would be more than adequate in getting their message out.

[Suff]

They are not electing a new PM. They are electing a new leader of the party and that is no business of anyone but the 200,000 or so who paid to be members of the party.

If the rest of the 50m want a vote on who the Tory party leader is going to be, then they should join the party. When it looked obvious that the Conservatives were going to have a new leader, back in 2019, that is exactly what I did.

As for the debates and the rest of it? My take? The party will vote against the wishes of the MP's. For the second time in 3 years. There is a message there somewhere. I don't think the party have, yet, forgiven their MP's for the way they carried on with May and Brexit. So the debates are a waste as far as I'm concerned. If the party members don't know what Truss and Sunak stand for by now, no TV debate is going to convince them further. They may not all be political activists but they are all aware of their responsibility as a voter and therefore are paying attention.

There is a hint there though. Tories like things to be fair and they honour those who are faithful. Their members are 93% white British, which is a demographic that put "fairness" and personal virtue very high up the ladder. Now consider how they compare the actions of "ready for Rishi" and Truss; who eventually stepped into the competition almost at the end. Given that everything she is saying falls under "core" Tory values, I'm going to be interested to see the end result.

Personally, given the actions of Sunak as Chancellor and as Boris Evictor, I cannot see any way he can appeal to those voters. Add high taxation and increased taxation on businesses and I'm struggling to find 30% of the votes for him.

[Workingman]

The rules of the game are that the leader of the largest party in government becomes the PM, so something like 200,000 monocle wearers and blue rinse Little Englanders are effectively electing our PM, the rest of us in the UK have no say.

And what a dismal choice they have - Lizzie's Truss or Risky Sunhat.

Ah well, at least it will only be for two years or so. Let's hope that whoever wins doesn't do too much damage.

TV debates or even questioning have no meaning for some 68 million of us except to let us know just how bad the choices are. Pointless exercises if ever there were any.

[medsec222]

Maybe a general election should be mandatory if there is a change of Prime Minister mid-term. I don't know if that would work any better. However it might hone the minds of any would be plotters if they themselves could be out of a job, as well as the departing Prime Minister.

[cromwell]

The coup against Johnson has been an unedifying spectacle and the leadership contest little better.
I think that people who aren't interested in politics are generally happier for it.
Certainly the politicians of today don't exactly lift the heart.

[Suff]

The rules of the game are that the leader of the largest party in government becomes the PM, so something like 200,000 monocle wearers and blue rinse Little Englanders are effectively electing our PM, the rest of us in the UK have no say.

The rules of the game say that the Electorate elect a party and the leader of that party becomes the PM. Should the leader change then the PM changes. To reiterate, the electorate did not and never does, elect a PM. They elect a party. They may like the leader and want to vote for the party because they like the leader. But they do not elect a PM. Just a party. No presidents here. The party could, if it so wanted, change the rules and change the PM the day after the election. Not a thing the Electorate could do about it until the next GE.

The press have had endless, "effort free", so called news attacking Johnson, now culminating with his resignation. Now they have endless "effort free" so called news on the election of a new leader where they can rile people up and make statements which are basically unsound and untrue but can be said so long as they put in "should have" somewhere.

I like Meds change. Make a GE mandatory on change of PM. This shower of backstabbers would have zipped it pronto and stonewalled the press if they thought they were going to have to face an election by bringing Johnson down. Showing them up for exactly who they are.

Truss will not be so foolish as May and go for a GE. What could she possibly gain? Apart from losing a bunch of MP's she could well do without on both front and back benches. She would, however, lose the election. A zero sum game if ever there was one. As for Sunak, should he win? I have no idea what he is thinking on that, but I suspect that he would not dare to go for an election immediately.

[Workingman]

Meds' idea sounds good, in theory. However, in practice no party, of whatever colour, would ever bring down or change leader to voluntarily bring on a GE, no matter how weak, poor or ineffective s/he was, unless it was in their favour. Being in power is the name of the game - it is all that matters for many MPs.

The country would just stumble on until a natural GE was called. We the people and the country are of no importance - never were and never will be. Being in power means everything to some MPs, we are irrelevant.

[Suff]

Can't disagree with that.