GE to be called...surely?

Smog On The Medway said:
he lost out to Boris every time.
Click to expand...
In what alternate reality did this happen? Starmer exposed Johnson's lies at every PMQs sadly the Speaker is very much a Tory Man and never held Johnson to account for his frequent lies. Against such complicity and negligence there was little that Starmer could do. The brass neck of Johnson and his ineffable belief in himself backed by braying benches allowed him to ride roughshod over the conventions of parliament.

If you think that is a "win" there is little hope of trying to explain it further.
 
Smog On The Medway said:
That’s through the Tories ineptitude, it’s not Starmer stepping up.
Click to expand...
Politics is about perception.

At the moment the public perceive Labour would be a safer and more sensible bet than the Tories.

Starmer and his team must have forged that perception somehow.

Hence Jeremy Hunt wheeled in to represent the sensible side of the Tory Party.

People like sensible politicians who say and do sensible things.
 
HolgateCorner said:
Politics is about perception.

At the moment the public perceive Labour would be a safer and more sensible bet than the Tories.

Starmer and his team must have forged that perception somehow.

Hence Jeremy Hunt wheeled in to represent the sensible side of the Tory Party.

People like sensible politicians who say and do sensible things.
Click to expand...
Where I live Tory ineptitude is not enough, Labour have to give them a reason to change. Starmer needs to speak up.
 
It's true that people don't know what starmer stands for and that doesn't help his public image, but, put yourself in his shoes. If he puts himself about in the press right now, as the tories are imploding, there's a danger he could be viewed as part of the problem, a piece of what's causing the madness. I would not put forward ideas for the economy, as the tories would just steal them. Wait for PMQs and rip her apart. Only put forward a manifesto when called upon.... and I pray he has some answers for the economy 😬
 
Chris_Boro said:
This is incorrect, the Fixed Term Parliament Act was repealed. An amendment can be tabled and voted on to allow for a simple majority to trigger a GE if enough Tories are in favour.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that and apologies, I hadn't realised the repeal was in effect. However it seems there's now no role for the HOC in calling an election, it's down to the govt / PM. The Act's explanatory notes confirm that its effect is to “enable Governments, within the life of a Parliament, to call a general election at the time of their choosing”. It does not envisage a role for Parliament in deciding when general elections are held.

From the Institute of Government https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/elections

The major concern is that the government is taking away from the Commons the right to decide when parliament should be dissolved and instead giving the prime minister unconstrained power over elections. The criticism of this is that a parliamentary role protects against an abusive dissolution, for instance, an attempt by a prime minister to dissolve parliament again following an election in which he or she did not get an overall majority. There is also an argument that a system in which parliament calls elections is more democratic, not least because parliament is being dissolved. Research has found that, on average, a prime minister gets a vote share bonus of 6% and a seat share bonus of 12% when they pick the election date, increasing the chances that they stay in office. 


The new Act also raises concerns relating to the role of the monarch. A prime minister ‘requests’ a dissolution, implying that the monarch can refuse that request. The circumstances in which that request might be refused are, however, ambiguous. The government has published ‘dissolution principles’. This mirrors advice from the 1950s which set out how a monarch might refuse a request if a parliament remained “vital, viable, and capable of doing its job”, if an election would be detrimental to the national economy or if the monarch can find another prime minister who could “govern for a reasonable period with a working majority in the House of Commons”. 
 
Smog On The Medway said:
Where I live Tory ineptitude is not enough, Labour have to give them a reason to change. Starmer needs to speak up.
Click to expand...
Some places will always find an excuse to vote Tory, same as some places will always vote Labour. That’s life.

Tories are just wanting Labour to prematurely show their hand so they can either attack it or borrow it like Johnson borrowed levelling up from Corbyn.
 
kuepper said:
Thanks for that and apologies, I hadn't realised the repeal was in effect. However it seems there's now no role for the HOC in calling an election, it's down to the govt / PM. The Act's explanatory notes confirm that its effect is to “enable Governments, within the life of a Parliament, to call a general election at the time of their choosing”. It does not envisage a role for Parliament in deciding when general elections are held.

From the Institute of Government https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/elections

The major concern is that the government is taking away from the Commons the right to decide when parliament should be dissolved and instead giving the prime minister unconstrained power over elections. The criticism of this is that a parliamentary role protects against an abusive dissolution, for instance, an attempt by a prime minister to dissolve parliament again following an election in which he or she did not get an overall majority. There is also an argument that a system in which parliament calls elections is more democratic, not least because parliament is being dissolved. Research has found that, on average, a prime minister gets a vote share bonus of 6% and a seat share bonus of 12% when they pick the election date, increasing the chances that they stay in office. 


The new Act also raises concerns relating to the role of the monarch. A prime minister ‘requests’ a dissolution, implying that the monarch can refuse that request. The circumstances in which that request might be refused are, however, ambiguous. The government has published ‘dissolution principles’. This mirrors advice from the 1950s which set out how a monarch might refuse a request if a parliament remained “vital, viable, and capable of doing its job”, if an election would be detrimental to the national economy or if the monarch can find another prime minister who could “govern for a reasonable period with a working majority in the House of Commons”. 
Click to expand...

This is true but an amendment could be tabled in the same way they got round the FTPA in 2019, this issue with this would be the HOL Tories putting in wrecking ammendments.
 
Smog On The Medway said:
He has no history of doing that so far. He’s had plenty of opportunity to slaughter Boris in the past, he lost out to Boris every time.

It should be like shooting fish in a barrel for Labour right now.
Click to expand...
But Johnson has gone and Starmer is still there and absolutely miles clear in every opinion poll going. Starmer didn’t have to do anything to get rid of Johnson, he did that himself, as is Truss now, which is my point.
 
MolteniArcore said:
Why?
Click to expand...
Because Labour has to show some leadership and intent. Just sitting there hoping it will all fall into Keir Starmer's lap isn't enough.

Keir Starmer is doing well. He knows he has to highlight Tory ineptitude and present enough - not too many - solutions. He listens to advice from within the Labour MPs and from influential people outside Westminster.

I think he's found his feet.
 
Soutra said:
Because Labour has to show some leadership and intent. Just sitting there hoping it will all fall into Keir Starmer's lap isn't enough.
Click to expand...

He did at conference. They launched their flagship policy for growth and he got plaudits from the media about how well it went.

if you look how the Labour Party internally has changed since Corbyn he has shown great leadership to make it electable. Despite the Tories doing so badly for the polls to shift how far they have people have got to think Starmer is PM material or they would vote for the status quo.

He's done a fantastic job so far.
 
Tory media trying to blame Brown for this week’s pension fiasco, Starmer needs to get that answered before all the pensioners scuttle off and vote Tory, they only need one slight excuse….
 
HolgateCorner said:
Tory media trying to blame Brown for this week’s pension fiasco, Starmer needs to get that answered before all the pensioners scuttle off and vote Tory, they only need one slight excuse….
Click to expand...
They also blamed the queen too. I am not sue anyone is listening to the tories anymore. Truss isn't very believeable nor trustworthy.

There is a core vote, that don't watch the news, are not polictically engaged and follow the tories like a football team. It would take a siesmic shift to move those voters. However, elections are decided by about 500k swing voters, not tory, nor labour die hards.
 
Laughing said:
They also blamed the queen too. I am not sue anyone is listening to the tories anymore. Truss isn't very believeable nor trustworthy.

There is a core vote, that don't watch the news, are not polictically engaged and follow the tories like a football team. It would take a siesmic shift to move those voters. However, elections are decided by about 500k swing voters, not tory, nor labour die hards.
Click to expand...
I agree that a lot of people no longer listen to the Tories or their media outlets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top