4 ms·

About 25000 people voted for Boris Johnson in that election.

simonh 5y ago
I look forward to your similarly vitriolic complaints when a politician you support wins the premiership (not the football one). The fact that prime ministers are answerable to parliament, and that parliament is sovereign, is IMHO the single best and most important feature of the British political system. Contrast that with presidential systems, particularly that in the US in which the president fulfils the constitutional role of an elected George III circa 1790. Which for some reason Americans seem to think is somehow modern over 200 years later. If one of them goes off the rails you're stuck with them for years. Our leader of government serves at the discretion of our elected representatives and can be turfed out at any moment, which actually happens and isn't just a theoretical mechanism. An excellent arrangement.
- chalst 5y ago
  Parliamentary sovereignty as a principle was fundamentally weakened in the tussle over the Brexit leave date: the government lost the battle but won the war. This parliament has been very ineffective in providing oversight of government. I'm not seeing the advantage of the UK system of oversight over the US one right now. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_(Withdrawal)_(No._2)_Act_2019 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_(Withdrawal)_...
  - simonh 5y ago
    Well, as a confirmed remainer and someone who will never forgive Johnson for stabbing us in the back, eh. The act required him to send a letter, which he did. Frankly, it's a silly and spurious requirement. It didn't require him to want an extension, or bar him for saying he didn't think it was a good idea. Parliament can't directly negotiate treaties with foreign powers. It's just not possible, that's a function of the executive. Parliament can approve or disapprove of such treaties but can't determine what the executive wants to do. The same goes for the referendum and is why it was a stupid idea. No referendum can require parliament or the government to want to do something, or specify exactly and unambiguously how they should go about doing something they don't want to do.
    - chalst 5y ago
      The purpose of the extension was to reduce the risk of a no deal Brexit, which Johnson didn't want but was at risk of stumbling into in his efforts to please ultras. Parliament succeeded in its goal, which did not require any of the things you claim. With the benefit of hindsight, it all worked out well for Johnson: he cowed the party, could renegotiate without much fear of the ultras, and could choose the circumstance of the next election to his best advantage. The methods he chose to achieve this, though, greatly weakened parliamentary sovereignty.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- EliRivers 5y ago
  I look forward to your similarly vitriolic complaints when a politician you support wins the premiership (not the football one). Well of course I will. The system won't have changed, will it? I think you're actually accusing me of complaining just because I don't like Bojo. That's a really underhanded thing to do, and if you're going to say that, just say it straight like an adult. The rest of your comments are thoughtful and considered and part of an adult conversation; this passive-aggressive childishness really works against that.
carnitine 5y ago
No, you’re confusing the Conservative party leadership election with the later general election which he won comfortably.
- simonh 5y ago
  He's talking about the voters in BJ's constituency and is quite right. I voted in that election, but didn't get to vote for any of the party leaders, just my local MP as we all do. Prime Ministers are chosen by Parliament, not the electorate, which as I explain in a parallel comment is a feature not a bug.
  - carnitine 5y ago
    Do you not think a great many people go to the polls and vote along party lines so that the party leader becomes PM?
    - simonh 5y ago
      I suppose a lot do, but really more along party lines than because of a specific prime minister. You could be right in that the personality and politics of a particular leader might have a disproportionate effect on swing voters. Personally I think the characteristics of the local MP you actually vote for is not taken into sufficient consideration by most voters. That's the person that actually represents you, and actually gets to help chose the actual prime minister. Who they are as a person and their values does actually matter very much, yet most people who actually vote can't even name their local MP.
    - EliRivers 5y ago
      I voted in the last general election and I couldn't tell you then or now who was the party leader of the party, that the candidate I voted for, represented. I am somewhat in the minority on this, though.
  - EliRivers 5y ago
    I think it was a strong feature when the PM was actually first amongst equals. When the PM was effectively a chair for a cabinet. That does not appear to be what we have now. BoJo clearly sees himself as some kind of Presidential figure, chosen by the British population.

I look forward to your similarly vitriolic complaints when a politician you support wins the premiership (not the football one). The fact that prime ministers are answerable to parliament, and that parliament is sovereign, is IMHO the single best and most important feature of the British political system. Contrast that with presidential systems, particularly that in the US in which the president fulfils the constitutional role of an elected George III circa 1790. Which for some reason Americans seem to think is somehow modern over 200 years later. If one of them goes off the rails you're stuck with them for years. Our leader of government serves at the discretion of our elected representatives and can be turfed out at any moment, which actually happens and isn't just a theoretical mechanism. An excellent arrangement.

chalst 5y ago
Parliamentary sovereignty as a principle was fundamentally weakened in the tussle over the Brexit leave date: the government lost the battle but won the war. This parliament has been very ineffective in providing oversight of government. I'm not seeing the advantage of the UK system of oversight over the US one right now. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_(Withdrawal)_(No._2)_Act_2019 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_(Withdrawal)_...
- simonh 5y ago
  Well, as a confirmed remainer and someone who will never forgive Johnson for stabbing us in the back, eh. The act required him to send a letter, which he did. Frankly, it's a silly and spurious requirement. It didn't require him to want an extension, or bar him for saying he didn't think it was a good idea. Parliament can't directly negotiate treaties with foreign powers. It's just not possible, that's a function of the executive. Parliament can approve or disapprove of such treaties but can't determine what the executive wants to do. The same goes for the referendum and is why it was a stupid idea. No referendum can require parliament or the government to want to do something, or specify exactly and unambiguously how they should go about doing something they don't want to do.
  - chalst 5y ago
    The purpose of the extension was to reduce the risk of a no deal Brexit, which Johnson didn't want but was at risk of stumbling into in his efforts to please ultras. Parliament succeeded in its goal, which did not require any of the things you claim. With the benefit of hindsight, it all worked out well for Johnson: he cowed the party, could renegotiate without much fear of the ultras, and could choose the circumstance of the next election to his best advantage. The methods he chose to achieve this, though, greatly weakened parliamentary sovereignty.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
EliRivers 5y ago
I look forward to your similarly vitriolic complaints when a politician you support wins the premiership (not the football one). Well of course I will. The system won't have changed, will it? I think you're actually accusing me of complaining just because I don't like Bojo. That's a really underhanded thing to do, and if you're going to say that, just say it straight like an adult. The rest of your comments are thoughtful and considered and part of an adult conversation; this passive-aggressive childishness really works against that.

carnitine 5y ago

No, you’re confusing the Conservative party leadership election with the later general election which he won comfortably.

simonh 5y ago
He's talking about the voters in BJ's constituency and is quite right. I voted in that election, but didn't get to vote for any of the party leaders, just my local MP as we all do. Prime Ministers are chosen by Parliament, not the electorate, which as I explain in a parallel comment is a feature not a bug.
- carnitine 5y ago
  Do you not think a great many people go to the polls and vote along party lines so that the party leader becomes PM?
  - simonh 5y ago
    I suppose a lot do, but really more along party lines than because of a specific prime minister. You could be right in that the personality and politics of a particular leader might have a disproportionate effect on swing voters. Personally I think the characteristics of the local MP you actually vote for is not taken into sufficient consideration by most voters. That's the person that actually represents you, and actually gets to help chose the actual prime minister. Who they are as a person and their values does actually matter very much, yet most people who actually vote can't even name their local MP.
  - EliRivers 5y ago
    I voted in the last general election and I couldn't tell you then or now who was the party leader of the party, that the candidate I voted for, represented. I am somewhat in the minority on this, though.
- EliRivers 5y ago
  I think it was a strong feature when the PM was actually first amongst equals. When the PM was effectively a chair for a cabinet. That does not appear to be what we have now. BoJo clearly sees himself as some kind of Presidential figure, chosen by the British population.