12 ms·

What happens next will be interesting. At this point, a general election would be the obviously correct solution. It's clear that the conservative party don't

What happens next will be interesting. At this point, a general election would be the obviously correct solution. It's clear that the conservative party don't have a platform and can't agree major policy points amongst themselves. However that would require conservative MPs to vote for it, which is the turkeys voting for Christmas so unlikely to happen, so I'd expect we'll have to wait till 2024 for that election. The best likely outcome is that a set of senior people in the party agree a policy platform and try to steady things for now.

bsenftner 4y ago
Every time I think the USA is completely ruined, I remember how much worse the citizens of the UK have it. I remote worked for a London based CTO for years, with a science Phd, and to hear him discuss UK politics gave me an insight how effective propaganda and being immersed in a culture impacts one's judgement.
- mannykannot 4y ago
  From here in the US, I'm holding off from any attempt to rank the two for at least three weeks.
- jlangenauer 4y ago
  Reminds me of an old joke. Back in the 60s, a Soviet diplomat ran into an American diplomat on the sidelines of some conference. "I want to congratulate you Americans", says the Soviet diplomat, "your propaganda is amazing, it's much better than ours". "What do you mean?", replies the American. "We don't have propaganda?" "See what I mean!"
  - hnfong 4y ago
    Still true today.
- truculent 4y ago
  Funnily enough, in the U.K. you’ll hear the inverse refrain!
- sebzim4500 4y ago
  To be fair, I imagine that guy thought the same of you.
- mcv 4y ago
  Both countries suffer from winner-takes-all district systems, and would probably be much improved by a system of proportional representation.
  - 1980phipsi 4y ago
    Because Italy and Israel benefit so much from their proportional representation systems...
    - mcv 4y ago
      It's obviously not a silver bullet that will magically fix everything, but a lot of countries are doing very well with proportional representation. Also, I think Italy actually has a hybrid system.
    - gpderetta 4y ago
      Italy certainly did [1]. In fact Italian politics became much worse since the proportional system was weakened. [1] yes governments were weak and were replaced often, but that's a feature, not a problem.
      - MichaelZuo 4y ago
        What makes you believe that is desirable?
        gpderetta 4y ago
        the belief that wider representation in the government, less polarization, a strong parliament and a weak executive is more desirable.
        MichaelZuo 4y ago
        A weak executive would seem to reduce representation in government though? As each member of parliament must necessarily represent the biggest groups in their constituencies. So a decent size group scattered across many dozens of constituencies into relatively tiny groups would simply never get taken seriously without a strong executive.
- rapsey 4y ago
  The US has the most effective propaganda machine ever devised.
- gadders 4y ago
- Beltalowda 4y ago
  The UK and US systems share a lot of similarities, which is not surprising considering the history, but UK politics seems better (or rather, less bad) to me? Both Boris and Truss were forced to resign by their own party, whereas the GOP's relationship with Trump is... well, different. Plus in spite of the first-past-the-post system there are actually candidates of alternative parties being voted in, even if we ignore the regional parties like SNP, DUP, etc. The Lib-Dems have a chequered history, but it's better than nothing.
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    > Boris and Truss were forced to resign by their own party, whereas the GOP's relationship with Trump is... well, different Different in the sense that Trump remains extremely popular with Republican voters, independent of his actions. If Trump weren't so popular, his own party would have tossed him out long ago. They only grudgingly allowed him to become their leader in the first place because to oppose him meant almost certain defeat in their own next election.
- martopix 4y ago
  Uhm, what? I think UK politics is pretty sane actually. It has a lot of problems, but definitely not this almost civil-war-like type of language that you have in the USA. And although the UK is getting worse and worse, there are European countries that still have a worse political environment.
  - bsenftner 4y ago
    Well, leaving the EU strikes me as only good for the 1%'ers, so...
  - Loughla 4y ago
    I'm not sure that just the force of rhetoric used is a good measure for how sane politics is. You can be polite, and still be insane or evil (see: Brexit and all of the politicking and --from what I can tell-- outright lies that were sold to people). That whole process was mostly civil and polite, but not necessarily healthy.
- speeder 4y ago
  I am from Brazil, at least you don't have "Electoral Judges" that will happily fuck with the elections and ignore constitution to make sure their preferred candidate win. The Electoral Judges in Brazil, are censoring actual facts, because despite being facts, they consider it "misinformation", it go so bad that a former supreme court judge of ours got censored for explaining something technical... Despite the fact our constitution explicitly bans any form of censorship. (ironically, as defense against US... our constitution promotes free speech to prevent CIA from subverting the country again).
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    > at least you don't have "Electoral Judges" that will happily fuck with the elections and ignore constitution to make sure their preferred candidate win Lets revisit this observation in 2024 when the next US Presidential election is held. Many localities have been electing people to oversee their local election process who are 2020 deniers, and who supported overturning Biden's win in order to keep Trump in office. I think 2024 could be interesting.
samwillis 4y ago
I think whoever is elected as the next Conservative leader needs to call a general election immediately. There is no mandate for a government formed by yet another Tory leader. The world is such a different place to 2019, there is no way they can argue that they are a continuation of the previous mandate.
- coldpie 4y ago
  Do I understand correctly that you're saying the people who control the gov't right now should choose to call an early election that they're almost certainly going to lose? That seems unlikely.
  - Macha 4y ago
    Morally correct and politically intelligent are directly opposed here. They morally should put it back to the people as they've failed at it internally twice, but nobody seriously expects them to intentionally do it. They could accidentally find themselves cornered into it if they can't pick a new leader
  - jjk166 4y ago
    Will they? No. But when the current government would surely lose an election is exactly when an election ought to be held, assuming the government is meant to reflect the will of the people.
  - stormbrew 4y ago
    Historically in Westminster systems that hasn't actually been that unusual when the majority party has lost as much public trust as this one seems to have. At a certain point, presiding over an unpopular rump can be more damaging in the long term than letting go and regrouping. That doesn't seem to be the way current conservative parties operate though.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    Yep, looting the country for private gain as much as possible before they get kicked out seems a more logical course of action. Some would suggest that has already happened and they would have got away with it if it wasnt for those pesky international financial markets trying to limit their exposure to the impacts.
gadders 4y ago
There was no general election when Gordon Brown took over from Tony Blair.
- sbuk 4y ago
  There wasn't 3 separate leaders after Brown though. He lost a GE to a coalition that he wasn't prepared to form.
  - imdsm 4y ago
    People don't vote for PMs though. I see this discussion elsewhere, didn't really expect it on HN where folks are generally well educated.
    - frereubu 4y ago
      That's a pretty patronising comment. Also, I think in practical terms that a lot of people do vote for the Prime Minister rather than their consituency MPs now, whatever the niceties of the UK poltical system are supposed to be.
    - sbuk 4y ago
      I thought that people on HN didn't resort to ad hominem when they're being so visibly sanctimonious. I know that, in theory at least, people vote for the party, not the leader. The Blair-Brown transition wasn't unprecedented, but equally morally and ethically questionable. The difference here is that the Tories, who currently have a significant majority, are in complete disarray and are clinging to power that, if the latest polls are to be believed, would see them all but wiped out.
- desas 4y ago
  There's a difference between the running mate - the defacto deputy taking over in a foreseeable move and the nth choice person taking over after the two previous incumbents have been forced out.
- Beltalowda 4y ago
  And that was also a point of criticism at the time.
ranko 4y ago
Calling an election is now back in the hands of the government (not parliament) since the repeal of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act; a PM can ask the monarch to call an election without having to get the agreement of parliament. Neither the current nor next PM (whoever they end up being) is likely to do this if the polling numbers are anything to go by, of course. I think the only other way an election can be called is if the government loses a vote of no confidence.
- evgen 4y ago
  Technically speaking, King Charles III does not actually need to PM to ask in order to dismiss parliament and force a new election. Given that Charles I and Charles II both dismissed parliament maybe Charles III will grow a pair and do the same. It is somewhat ironic that while dismissing parliament caused the downfall of the monarchy for Charles I is it likely to buy a significant amount of time for the monarchy if Charles III does the same.
  - frereubu 4y ago
    I think the idea that the king would buy time for the monarchy by doing that is highly speculative. I very much doubt anyone knows what would happen given that the atmosphere is so febrile and it hasn't happened in centuries.
  - voisin 4y ago
    > it likely to buy a significant amount of time for the monarchy if Charles III does the same. Can you expand on this? Is it just because he would be more popular if he dismissed parliament and another election was called?
    - llampx 4y ago
      The average Brit seems to want a general election more than the Tories do.
      - petesergeant 4y ago
sbuk 4y ago
The country needs a general election or a general strike until we get a general election.
Beltalowda 4y ago
On one hand I'd love a general election, but on the other hand I feel what's most needed now is a kind of stability and level-headedness that has been lacking with the last two PMs. From what I can tell, Sunak might actually do a pretty good job there; and for the time being that may be preferable over the delays and uncertainty of a general election. At least for now, considering the state of things.
- cjrp 4y ago
  The trouble is he doesn’t have the support of much of the party, and that inherently leads to instability.
  - Beltalowda 4y ago
    He didn't do badly in the last election. He doesn't have the full support of the party, but neither had Truss, and who really does in the first place, especially when things are not going so well?
    - sbuk 4y ago
      Do you expect a different outcome?
      - Beltalowda 4y ago
        With Sunak as PM? Yes. He pretty much called Truss's plans stupid in so many words, and predicted the effects during the last leadership election. This is not really an especially high bar to clear as many people said so. The question isn't whether Sunak is the best possible PM, but what the best possible option is right now given the circumstances: a somewhat stable and "normal" person as PM vs. a general election? It's easy to say "Tories bad, they got to go", but it's not that simple.
        sbuk 4y ago
        The big question is whether he can unify the Tories, or at least gain the majority backing him, which I doubt as the current members seem hell bent on their own power gains and increasing their own wealth no matter the cost to our economy. The real danger in another indeterminate period of this farce.
Gordonjcp 4y ago
This will be the fourth unelected PM in six years (okay, Boris Johnson did actually win a GE after being foisted upon us, if you think that counts). It's time for an early General Election. This lot need to go. Every trace of the Tories must be obliterated. The hilarious part is, the way that polling stands right now, a General Election would result in a strong Labour majority with the Scottish National Party in opposition, the Lib Dems third, and the Conservatives a distant fourth :-D
- tomp 4y ago
  > It's time for an early General Election. Every trace of the Tories must be obliterated. Sounds like completely unbiased opinion. /s More seriously, I'm only interested in hearing the arguments for a general election from nominal conservative (Tory) supporters. All arguments from leftists are just "we want to win" in disguise so are completely untrustworthy. From what I understand of UK politics, Johnson won the last election on policy (he was already PM) and lost his seat because of COVID shenanigans so presumably the Tories still have public mandate to continue the same policies (maybe not the Lizz agenda though).
  - __bjoernd 4y ago
    > All arguments from leftists… Clearly unbiased opinion. /s
  - Gordonjcp 4y ago
    It's an extremely biased opinion, and I make no apologies. I think every single living member of every Tory cabinet present and past should be strung up in Parliament Square. I'm not in any sense unclear about my views on them. We have had twelve years of disastrous Tory austerity that has comprehensively destroyed the UK's economy. What's the plan? Let them keep trying until they get something right? How long is it supposed to take for their austerity policies to work, to get the economy back to a sensible state?
    - tomp 4y ago
      This viewpoint is both evil (literally wanting to kill people... like the "best" politicians of the 20th century! /s) and delusional (UK had approximately 0 GDP growth since 2010, like other main European countries - so I doubt it was Brexit or Tories) https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPDPC@WEO/DEU/FRA/SWE/CHE/GBR https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPDPC@WEO/DEU/FRA/...
lordnacho 4y ago
Cynical but I think it's worth considering that the last couple of PMs to leave might have been offered a comfortable retirement by people around the party in order to not call an election. Not in the "here's a bag of money" sense but pretty close, as in "listen I'll make sure you'll always be on the after dinner circuit".
- petesergeant 4y ago
  I think generally a seat in the Lords is the going rate
petesergeant 4y ago
> a general election would be the obviously correct solution As much as I'd love a GE and to see Tory MPs swept from power en-masse, that's just not how a Parliamentary system works. Everyone in the UK voted for (whether they think it or not) an MP to elect them for five years. Those MPs get to choose who leads them.
- mikro2nd 4y ago
  Do you in the UK have any means to recall an MP and force a by-election? (for whatever reason -- gone rogue, gone awol, gone loony, etc.)
  - petesergeant 4y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recall_of_MPs_Act_2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recall_of_MPs_Act_2015
  - samwillis 4y ago
    No, however I think there are some rules about them breaking the law and being sacked.
- samwillis 4y ago
  Technically yes, but if they can’t form a government the King can and will call an election. I think there is a very high chance they will be unable to agree on a new leader and will therefor be unable to form a government. Even if they do elect a new leader, if that leader can barely control the party that would not a functioning government, and they should call an election. At some point Tory MPs need to grow some, call an election, and except that it may mean loosing their job.
  - wbl 4y ago
    The UK is not the continent where the monarch decides who will be sent to shepard the negotiations over the government.

bsenftner 4y ago

Every time I think the USA is completely ruined, I remember how much worse the citizens of the UK have it. I remote worked for a London based CTO for years, with a science Phd, and to hear him discuss UK politics gave me an insight how effective propaganda and being immersed in a culture impacts one's judgement.

mannykannot 4y ago
From here in the US, I'm holding off from any attempt to rank the two for at least three weeks.
jlangenauer 4y ago
Reminds me of an old joke. Back in the 60s, a Soviet diplomat ran into an American diplomat on the sidelines of some conference. "I want to congratulate you Americans", says the Soviet diplomat, "your propaganda is amazing, it's much better than ours". "What do you mean?", replies the American. "We don't have propaganda?" "See what I mean!"
- hnfong 4y ago
  Still true today.
truculent 4y ago
Funnily enough, in the U.K. you’ll hear the inverse refrain!
sebzim4500 4y ago
To be fair, I imagine that guy thought the same of you.
mcv 4y ago
Both countries suffer from winner-takes-all district systems, and would probably be much improved by a system of proportional representation.
- 1980phipsi 4y ago
  Because Italy and Israel benefit so much from their proportional representation systems...
  - mcv 4y ago
    It's obviously not a silver bullet that will magically fix everything, but a lot of countries are doing very well with proportional representation. Also, I think Italy actually has a hybrid system.
  - gpderetta 4y ago
    Italy certainly did [1]. In fact Italian politics became much worse since the proportional system was weakened. [1] yes governments were weak and were replaced often, but that's a feature, not a problem.
    - MichaelZuo 4y ago
      What makes you believe that is desirable?
      - gpderetta 4y ago
        the belief that wider representation in the government, less polarization, a strong parliament and a weak executive is more desirable.
        MichaelZuo 4y ago
        A weak executive would seem to reduce representation in government though? As each member of parliament must necessarily represent the biggest groups in their constituencies. So a decent size group scattered across many dozens of constituencies into relatively tiny groups would simply never get taken seriously without a strong executive.
rapsey 4y ago
The US has the most effective propaganda machine ever devised.
gadders 4y ago
Beltalowda 4y ago
The UK and US systems share a lot of similarities, which is not surprising considering the history, but UK politics seems better (or rather, less bad) to me? Both Boris and Truss were forced to resign by their own party, whereas the GOP's relationship with Trump is... well, different. Plus in spite of the first-past-the-post system there are actually candidates of alternative parties being voted in, even if we ignore the regional parties like SNP, DUP, etc. The Lib-Dems have a chequered history, but it's better than nothing.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  > Boris and Truss were forced to resign by their own party, whereas the GOP's relationship with Trump is... well, different Different in the sense that Trump remains extremely popular with Republican voters, independent of his actions. If Trump weren't so popular, his own party would have tossed him out long ago. They only grudgingly allowed him to become their leader in the first place because to oppose him meant almost certain defeat in their own next election.
martopix 4y ago
Uhm, what? I think UK politics is pretty sane actually. It has a lot of problems, but definitely not this almost civil-war-like type of language that you have in the USA. And although the UK is getting worse and worse, there are European countries that still have a worse political environment.
- bsenftner 4y ago
  Well, leaving the EU strikes me as only good for the 1%'ers, so...
- Loughla 4y ago
  I'm not sure that just the force of rhetoric used is a good measure for how sane politics is. You can be polite, and still be insane or evil (see: Brexit and all of the politicking and --from what I can tell-- outright lies that were sold to people). That whole process was mostly civil and polite, but not necessarily healthy.
speeder 4y ago
I am from Brazil, at least you don't have "Electoral Judges" that will happily fuck with the elections and ignore constitution to make sure their preferred candidate win. The Electoral Judges in Brazil, are censoring actual facts, because despite being facts, they consider it "misinformation", it go so bad that a former supreme court judge of ours got censored for explaining something technical... Despite the fact our constitution explicitly bans any form of censorship. (ironically, as defense against US... our constitution promotes free speech to prevent CIA from subverting the country again).
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  > at least you don't have "Electoral Judges" that will happily fuck with the elections and ignore constitution to make sure their preferred candidate win Lets revisit this observation in 2024 when the next US Presidential election is held. Many localities have been electing people to oversee their local election process who are 2020 deniers, and who supported overturning Biden's win in order to keep Trump in office. I think 2024 could be interesting.

samwillis 4y ago

I think whoever is elected as the next Conservative leader needs to call a general election immediately. There is no mandate for a government formed by yet another Tory leader. The world is such a different place to 2019, there is no way they can argue that they are a continuation of the previous mandate.

coldpie 4y ago
Do I understand correctly that you're saying the people who control the gov't right now should choose to call an early election that they're almost certainly going to lose? That seems unlikely.
- Macha 4y ago
  Morally correct and politically intelligent are directly opposed here. They morally should put it back to the people as they've failed at it internally twice, but nobody seriously expects them to intentionally do it. They could accidentally find themselves cornered into it if they can't pick a new leader
- jjk166 4y ago
  Will they? No. But when the current government would surely lose an election is exactly when an election ought to be held, assuming the government is meant to reflect the will of the people.
- stormbrew 4y ago
  Historically in Westminster systems that hasn't actually been that unusual when the majority party has lost as much public trust as this one seems to have. At a certain point, presiding over an unpopular rump can be more damaging in the long term than letting go and regrouping. That doesn't seem to be the way current conservative parties operate though.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  Yep, looting the country for private gain as much as possible before they get kicked out seems a more logical course of action. Some would suggest that has already happened and they would have got away with it if it wasnt for those pesky international financial markets trying to limit their exposure to the impacts.

gadders 4y ago

There was no general election when Gordon Brown took over from Tony Blair.

sbuk 4y ago
There wasn't 3 separate leaders after Brown though. He lost a GE to a coalition that he wasn't prepared to form.
- imdsm 4y ago
  People don't vote for PMs though. I see this discussion elsewhere, didn't really expect it on HN where folks are generally well educated.
  - frereubu 4y ago
    That's a pretty patronising comment. Also, I think in practical terms that a lot of people do vote for the Prime Minister rather than their consituency MPs now, whatever the niceties of the UK poltical system are supposed to be.
  - sbuk 4y ago
    I thought that people on HN didn't resort to ad hominem when they're being so visibly sanctimonious. I know that, in theory at least, people vote for the party, not the leader. The Blair-Brown transition wasn't unprecedented, but equally morally and ethically questionable. The difference here is that the Tories, who currently have a significant majority, are in complete disarray and are clinging to power that, if the latest polls are to be believed, would see them all but wiped out.
desas 4y ago
There's a difference between the running mate - the defacto deputy taking over in a foreseeable move and the nth choice person taking over after the two previous incumbents have been forced out.
Beltalowda 4y ago
And that was also a point of criticism at the time.

ranko 4y ago

Calling an election is now back in the hands of the government (not parliament) since the repeal of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act; a PM can ask the monarch to call an election without having to get the agreement of parliament. Neither the current nor next PM (whoever they end up being) is likely to do this if the polling numbers are anything to go by, of course. I think the only other way an election can be called is if the government loses a vote of no confidence.

evgen 4y ago
Technically speaking, King Charles III does not actually need to PM to ask in order to dismiss parliament and force a new election. Given that Charles I and Charles II both dismissed parliament maybe Charles III will grow a pair and do the same. It is somewhat ironic that while dismissing parliament caused the downfall of the monarchy for Charles I is it likely to buy a significant amount of time for the monarchy if Charles III does the same.
- frereubu 4y ago
  I think the idea that the king would buy time for the monarchy by doing that is highly speculative. I very much doubt anyone knows what would happen given that the atmosphere is so febrile and it hasn't happened in centuries.
- voisin 4y ago
  > it likely to buy a significant amount of time for the monarchy if Charles III does the same. Can you expand on this? Is it just because he would be more popular if he dismissed parliament and another election was called?
  - llampx 4y ago
    The average Brit seems to want a general election more than the Tories do.
    - petesergeant 4y ago

sbuk 4y ago

The country needs a general election or a general strike until we get a general election.

Beltalowda 4y ago

On one hand I'd love a general election, but on the other hand I feel what's most needed now is a kind of stability and level-headedness that has been lacking with the last two PMs. From what I can tell, Sunak might actually do a pretty good job there; and for the time being that may be preferable over the delays and uncertainty of a general election. At least for now, considering the state of things.

cjrp 4y ago
The trouble is he doesn’t have the support of much of the party, and that inherently leads to instability.
- Beltalowda 4y ago
  He didn't do badly in the last election. He doesn't have the full support of the party, but neither had Truss, and who really does in the first place, especially when things are not going so well?
  - sbuk 4y ago
    Do you expect a different outcome?
    - Beltalowda 4y ago
      With Sunak as PM? Yes. He pretty much called Truss's plans stupid in so many words, and predicted the effects during the last leadership election. This is not really an especially high bar to clear as many people said so. The question isn't whether Sunak is the best possible PM, but what the best possible option is right now given the circumstances: a somewhat stable and "normal" person as PM vs. a general election? It's easy to say "Tories bad, they got to go", but it's not that simple.
      - sbuk 4y ago
        The big question is whether he can unify the Tories, or at least gain the majority backing him, which I doubt as the current members seem hell bent on their own power gains and increasing their own wealth no matter the cost to our economy. The real danger in another indeterminate period of this farce.

Gordonjcp 4y ago

This will be the fourth unelected PM in six years (okay, Boris Johnson did actually win a GE after being foisted upon us, if you think that counts). It's time for an early General Election. This lot need to go. Every trace of the Tories must be obliterated. The hilarious part is, the way that polling stands right now, a General Election would result in a strong Labour majority with the Scottish National Party in opposition, the Lib Dems third, and the Conservatives a distant fourth :-D

tomp 4y ago
> It's time for an early General Election. Every trace of the Tories must be obliterated. Sounds like completely unbiased opinion. /s More seriously, I'm only interested in hearing the arguments for a general election from nominal conservative (Tory) supporters. All arguments from leftists are just "we want to win" in disguise so are completely untrustworthy. From what I understand of UK politics, Johnson won the last election on policy (he was already PM) and lost his seat because of COVID shenanigans so presumably the Tories still have public mandate to continue the same policies (maybe not the Lizz agenda though).
- __bjoernd 4y ago
  > All arguments from leftists… Clearly unbiased opinion. /s
- Gordonjcp 4y ago
  It's an extremely biased opinion, and I make no apologies. I think every single living member of every Tory cabinet present and past should be strung up in Parliament Square. I'm not in any sense unclear about my views on them. We have had twelve years of disastrous Tory austerity that has comprehensively destroyed the UK's economy. What's the plan? Let them keep trying until they get something right? How long is it supposed to take for their austerity policies to work, to get the economy back to a sensible state?
  - tomp 4y ago
    This viewpoint is both evil (literally wanting to kill people... like the "best" politicians of the 20th century! /s) and delusional (UK had approximately 0 GDP growth since 2010, like other main European countries - so I doubt it was Brexit or Tories) https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPDPC@WEO/DEU/FRA/SWE/CHE/GBR https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPDPC@WEO/DEU/FRA/...

lordnacho 4y ago

Cynical but I think it's worth considering that the last couple of PMs to leave might have been offered a comfortable retirement by people around the party in order to not call an election. Not in the "here's a bag of money" sense but pretty close, as in "listen I'll make sure you'll always be on the after dinner circuit".

petesergeant 4y ago
I think generally a seat in the Lords is the going rate

petesergeant 4y ago

> a general election would be the obviously correct solution As much as I'd love a GE and to see Tory MPs swept from power en-masse, that's just not how a Parliamentary system works. Everyone in the UK voted for (whether they think it or not) an MP to elect them for five years. Those MPs get to choose who leads them.

mikro2nd 4y ago
Do you in the UK have any means to recall an MP and force a by-election? (for whatever reason -- gone rogue, gone awol, gone loony, etc.)
- petesergeant 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recall_of_MPs_Act_2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recall_of_MPs_Act_2015
- samwillis 4y ago
  No, however I think there are some rules about them breaking the law and being sacked.
samwillis 4y ago
Technically yes, but if they can’t form a government the King can and will call an election. I think there is a very high chance they will be unable to agree on a new leader and will therefor be unable to form a government. Even if they do elect a new leader, if that leader can barely control the party that would not a functioning government, and they should call an election. At some point Tory MPs need to grow some, call an election, and except that it may mean loosing their job.
- wbl 4y ago
  The UK is not the continent where the monarch decides who will be sent to shepard the negotiations over the government.