Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Lootcifer- t1_itl47hs wrote

Jesus fuck just start new elections or something

45

space-ish t1_itl7e2p wrote

I'm confused, their next leader is not elected by the people?

9

Tugays_Tabs t1_itl81dw wrote

Nope. Anointed by the ruling party. Opinion polls show that a huge majority of the country want to remove them but we will likely have to wait until 2024.

What we need right now is not a billionaire PM.

44

space-ish t1_itl8r9b wrote

Thank you for clarifying! It's nuts that in-party politics is messing it up for the common folk. Yes, billionaires are out of touch with the problems of the majority.

5

gonzo5622 t1_itljhbt wrote

Can the King force new elections?

2

Tugays_Tabs t1_itll17x wrote

It’s technically possible I believe due to the way our laws were made up on centuries worth of “back of the cigarette packets”.

But it would lead to a bit of a constitutional crisis and no matter how much I hate the Tories, I’m not sure I want to set the precedent for a hereditary dictatorship who can decide to dissolve the sitting government at will.

21

CrappyTire69 t1_itlpx7d wrote

Happened here in Canada with the King-Byng Thing. William Lyon McKenzie King had a few rapid-fire elections in a short period of time due to unstable government, so the third or fourth time he asked GG Byng to dissolve parliament, he said no. Under Canadian law, if the GG says no, the PM has to step down (read: is fired). Led to a huge constitutional crisis in Canada and massive republican sentiment in Canada. It'd cause a constitutional crisis for sure. What wound up happening is the opposition was offered the opportunity to form parliament but lost in a confidence vote and King won a majority in the next election.

4

leelougirl89 t1_itmsa72 wrote

If anyone is curious, GG stands for Governal General. The GG is a stand in for the King or Queen in a British Colony (like Canada) since the King can’t physically be in all of his colonies at once.

Just like British Kings/Queens, the Governer General:

-doesn’t usually get involved unless it’s super duper crisis time and the Prime Minister needs help. -is mostly known for giving out awards. -is not elected by the people. (The colony’s Prime Minister picks one and gets final approval from the Queen/King).

Our last one was a super accomplished astronaut... who was apparently SUCH an extremely nasty and cruel boss to her staff that there was an entire legal investigation done by an outside lawfirm. They confirmed she was a b-word. Yeah she was fired. Or she quit. That was quite the drama.

I didn’t know the GG had the power to call an election.

Cool :)

5

PoeHeller3476 t1_itozqkh wrote

There was also the Dismissal in Australia, where Gough Whitlam’s Labor government lost it’s majority in the Senate due to a Whitlam ally dying in office and being deliberately replaced with a member of the Labor Party opposed to Whitlam (the Premiers of the Australian States fill senate vacancies; in this case, it was infamous National Premier and dictator of Queensland Joh Bjelke-Pieterson). This caused the Leader of the Opposition Malcolm Fraser to get the Liberal-National Coalition to block supply in the Senate (supply is the funding for the government to operate; without supply, the government falls and an election is called).

Fraser repeatedly urged the GG Sir John Kerr (a friend of Whitlam’s who Whitlam had appointed the year before the crisis) to call a fresh election for the House of Representatives. Whitlam sought advice from Kerr, and Kerr showed no indication that he would dismiss Whitlam, while Kerr worked out a deal with Fraser.

Then, when Whitlam came to meet the GG to request a half-Senate election, the GG instead dismissed Whitlam, forcing the government from power. He then appointed Fraser as PM, the Coalition passed supply, and a double dissolution election was called. The Coalition and Fraser then won the snap election with a massive majority.

The whole issue with the Dismissal was the fact that the GG wasn’t direct with Whitlam and basically blindsided him, and that the GG forced a sitting government out of office. It essentially forced Kerr to resigned a few years later and live out his years away from Australia.

2

vipros42 t1_itlki94 wrote

Technically he could probably deny Sunak the chance to form a government. But that won't happen.

2

infidel11990 t1_itnmfsz wrote

The moment he does that, monarchy will be instantly abolished.

It's a ceremonial role with no real power. And that's by design. The monarchy can't actually be held accountable. But the government can be.

1

thisvideoiswrong t1_itlb05a wrote

In all parliamentary systems, the Prime Minister is elected by the members of the legislature. It's like the Speaker of the House or the Senate Majority Leader in the US, but that position is given executive power. This frequently leads to coalition governments, with parties allying to form a majority that can elect a Prime Minister, which can allow for greater diversity than the US system where one person has to win the majority of votes from the whole country. And realistically a US Republican President wouldn't have resigned under these circumstances in the first place. In both cases you have to wait for the next scheduled election before the people get a vote.

9

space-ish t1_itlcmfy wrote

Good point. I was thinking along the lines that people vote for the govt knowing the person who will lead/represent them. In this case it's not the person they originally voted for to lead them?

1

Merzendi t1_itlm4nr wrote

Correct. The public as a whole voted for Boris Johnson’s Conservative Party, and after Boris resigned, it’s the Conservatives alone who get to pick who replaces him.

While one could argue it would be ethically appropriate for a the new leader to call a general election, there’s no legal obligation to, and the likelihood of victory is very low. It probably shouldn’t come as a surprise that they aren’t going to.

5

woopdedoodah t1_itlp2fl wrote

Parliamentary systems are basically electoral colleges that meet regularly. You elect an elector (an MP). They vote for a leader... the PM, the new head of government. The PM lasts as long as he has the support of the parliament. While PM he/she basically gets to pass whatever legislation they want by introducing it into parliament, and getting his party / coalition to vote for it.

2

nsci2ece t1_itle2gp wrote

In parliamentary systems, the people vote for MPs and never get directly involved in the election of the party leader.

If the leader changes before the party's term is up, that is also out of the hands of the masses.

In practice, it's not really that much different from directly voting for the leader. Ultimately the buck stops with the leader and many voters choose their MP because of who the party leader is, without paying much attention to the MP's actual campaign.

3