Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Liz Truss resigns as UK prime minister

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 651 posts

Re: Liz Truss resigns as UK prime minister

#141

Post by aamoscodes »

HelloNurse wrote: post #102
hairofadog wrote: post #90

I know this topic is important in substance and the thing I'm about to say is an aesthetic issue, but as an American watching this unfold I have admired the Brits for the sense of heart that still seems to be present in their politics. I'm referring to the parliamentary sessions in which, even though they're savagely roasting each other, they're doing in a way that feels somehow good-hearted and doesn't lay bare the…

> a way that feels somehow good-hearted and doesn't lay bare the naked resentment and hatred that seems to be all we have left in the USA. Do you think it is real hatred or kayfabe?

I think it started as the latter, but the ideology kind’ve got away from itself and slowly manifested into reality as voters demanded more and more extreme positions from politicians to consider them “authentic.”

Re: Liz Truss resigns as UK prime minister

#142

Post by llampx »

voisin wrote: post #131
evgen wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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?

The average Brit seems to want a general election more than the Tories do.

Re: Liz Truss resigns as UK prime minister

#143

Post by frereubu »

evgen wrote: post #114
ranko wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

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…

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.

Re: Liz Truss resigns as UK prime minister

#144

Post by jjk166 »

coldpie wrote: post #121
samwillis wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Re: Liz Truss resigns as UK prime minister

#145

Post by caf »

makomk wrote: post #106
imdsm wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not surprising though, who would really want to go into politics, in a country where no matter what you do, you'll have almost half the populace hating you? Anyone who has the skills to do well in politics could do well in business and lead a better, more private, more rewarded life. And I think that's exactly what happens.

More than half the population, probably. Also, for the last few years the UK media have been doing something obnoxious where they take decisions where all options have some downside and present only the downsides of whatever the government has chosen, making it sound like the obvious wrong choice and something only a complete incompetent would pick - which is particularly obvious when the government does a u-turn and…

Well, one might reasonably assume that the government has the means and motive to put forward their side of the case. Selling policy is kind of the main job of a politician, after all, and the government has a considerably large megaphone to do it with.

Re: Liz Truss resigns as UK prime minister

#147

Post by uniqueuid »

iLoveOncall wrote: post #105
uniqueuid wrote: post #10

Now if only there was an instrument to create legitimacy for leaders, something where the entire population could make their own choice heard in a binding way. We could call it election.

The entire population was able to vote to elect the party, and the party then elected her as PM. Her position was 100% legitimate, whether you like it or not.

Although legally fine, there certainly is some lack of legitimacy when PMs are elected by party members after the predecessor is axed, because the voters never had a chance to assess the person they end up with (in this role).

The larger issue is that the new Tories' procedure for producing candidates leads to a winner that has a large majority of parliament against her.

There is now a problematic mixture of parliamentary and Tory voter legitimization. That would be resolved by a true general election.

Re: Liz Truss resigns as UK prime minister

#148

Post by frereubu »

imdsm wrote: post #109
sbuk wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There wasn't 3 separate leaders after Brown though. He lost a GE to a coalition that he wasn't prepared to form.

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.

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.

Re: Liz Truss resigns as UK prime minister

#149

Post by sbuk »

imdsm wrote: post #109
sbuk wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There wasn't 3 separate leaders after Brown though. He lost a GE to a coalition that he wasn't prepared to form.

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.

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.

Re: Liz Truss resigns as UK prime minister

#150

Post by Nextgrid »

iLoveOncall wrote: post #105
uniqueuid wrote: post #10

Now if only there was an instrument to create legitimacy for leaders, something where the entire population could make their own choice heard in a binding way. We could call it election.

The entire population was able to vote to elect the party, and the party then elected her as PM. Her position was 100% legitimate, whether you like it or not.

Being considered legitimate according to a flawed system doesn't mean the system isn't flawed.
Post reply on HN