Why exactly must a Tory leadership change necessitate an immediate second election?

[Qetesuesi]

Everything I read seems to take this completely for granted, but I'd just like to ask why this should be so (a) constitutionally or (b) politically?

[Bossybabe]

Only b. Political rivals are apt to accuse the ruling party of being elected with a different leader. They usually contend that the electorate voted for the party with the old leader, not the new. 

[Will!]

Reverse your question and you'll understand.

[Qetesuesi]

35 minutes ago, Will! said:

Reverse your question and you'll understand.

You mean ask about the politics before the constitutionals?  You're being a bit opaque there.  Are you saying that a party changing a leader right after a GE but failing to hold an immediate election to confirm them, would be bound to sink in the polls anyway so the best they can do is to hold an immediate new one?

So doesn't apply to Major in 1991, Brown in 1997 or even May herself in 2016 just a year after the previous election when Cameron had always said he'd stay on regardless of the referendum result, only to chuck it in right away to many people's surprise?

[geezer466]

It's why May is still there and likely to be until either the Tory party's fortunes drastically improve or the electorate come to their senses......   

[Qetesuesi]

6 minutes ago, geezer466 said:

It's why May is still there and likely to be until either the Tory party's fortunes drastically improve or the electorate come to their senses......   

"It" being the supposed necessity.  I'm asking WHY it's deemed a necessity?

[geezer466]

Just now, Qetesuesi said:

"It" being the supposed necessity.  I'm asking WHY it's deemed a necessity?

Following the election, a fortnight ago May failed to gain a majority so does not have a mandate to rule but does so as her party got the most seats.

We have a Parliamentary system, not a presidential one. A new leader would always like a mandate but there is nothing in the law to say it must happen.

If the Torys changed the leader now cries for a fresh election would follow. Notwithstanding the fixed terms Parliaments act, the Government at the moment have form for crumbling to the baying crowd.

[Qetesuesi]

1 minute ago, geezer466 said:

Following the election, a fortnight ago May failed to gain a majority so does not have a mandate to rule but does so as her party got the most seats.

We have a Parliamentary system, not a presidential one. A new leader would always like a mandate but there is nothing in the law to say it must happen.

If the Torys changed the leader now cries for a fresh election would follow. Notwithstanding the fixed terms Parliaments act, the Government at the moment have form for crumbling to the baying crowd.

There are cries for a fresh election already, and have been ever since it became clear the Tories had lost their majority.  Those cries were sort of augmented by Grenfell too.  Have to say, I can't think of a precedent for such a rapid removal of a PM after an election where they still led the largest Commons party.

Meanwhile the FTPA is starting to look a bit pointless.  If an opposition party 20 points behind in the polls is still prepared to override the FTPA to give the PM licence to call an election when (s)he pleases, when will the FTPA ever actually operate to block the PM?

[geezer466]

4 minutes ago, Qetesuesi said:

There are cries for a fresh election already, and have been ever since it became clear the Tories had lost their majority.  Those cries were sort of augmented by Grenfell too.  Have to say, I can't think of a precedent for such a rapid removal of a PM after an election where they still led the largest Commons party.

Meanwhile the FTPA is starting to look a bit pointless.  If an opposition party 20 points behind in the polls is still prepared to override the FTPA to give the PM licence to call an election when (s)he pleases, when will the FTPA ever actually operate to block the PM?

 

The PM doesn't have the freedom to call an election as and when she chooses, she still needs two thirds of ALL MP's to pass the Fixed Terms Act.

If May was to say she wanted another election many of her own MP's would vote against the idea not to mention the SNP probably would as well as they want to keep their seats on the gravy train.

If May was replaced by someone who wanted another election, morally the MP's would have to vote for the motion on the basis a fresh mandate was being sought. The SNP might still vote against but the Tory's would probably fall in line.

FPTP may not be ideal but it is still a far better prospect for delivering strong government when a healthy majority is achieved.

If we went down the PR route look at places like Belguim or Italy as to the type of weak government they get.

In any event we were asked the question 5 or so years ago in a referendum and it was soundly rejected not to mention the fact that neither of the two main parties supports the idea for obvious reasons.

[Qetesuesi]

1 minute ago, geezer466 said:

The PM doesn't have the freedom to call an election as and when she chooses, she still needs two thirds of ALL MP's to pass the Fixed Terms Act.

If May was to say she wanted another election many of her own MP's would vote against the idea not to mention the SNP probably would as well as they want to keep their seats on the gravy train.

If May was replaced by someone who wanted another election, morally the MP's would have to vote for the motion on the basis a fresh mandate was being sought. The SNP might still vote against but the Tory's would probably fall in line.

FPTP may not be ideal but it is still a far better prospect for delivering strong government when a healthy majority is achieved.

If we went down the PR route look at places like Belguim or Italy as to the type of weak government they get.

In any event we were asked the question 5 or so years ago in a referendum and it was soundly rejected not to mention the fact that neither of the two main parties supports the idea for obvious reasons.

Not sure who you're preaching to here?  Never mentioned PR and all that.

You haven't actually considered the possibility of May being replaced by someone who didn't want an immediate election.  What then?  Does the FTPA allow for an election to be held even against the will of the extant PM, simply on the basis that 2/3 of the MPs vote for it?  Can e.g. the leader of the opposition call for such an election in principle?

As things stand, you can't really think that Tory MPs would want another election even if their own new PM called for it.  Obviously the voted for it in April because they were so far ahead in the polls.  The real mystery is why Labour also voted for it when they were so far behind.  Was it whipped?  How many Labour MPs voted against it?

For weeks into the campaign, the general mood among those MPs was morose - like many were resigned to losing their seats.  Why did Turkeys seemingly vote for Christmas?

[Snafu]

The concept of "strong government" is not straight forward. Strong what, and how, and what are the effects? Having two polarizing parties is in my view polarizing "hey we won and screw you" - is that good? - policies and their implementation swing like a pendulum too far every few years which leads to disenfranchisement and "I can't be bothered to vote" from a voter's perspective. 

If I remember my political science studies right - the most stable form of government is not formed by FPTP or two-party setups, but rather proportional representation with government made up of different parties. 

[knock out johnny]

5 hours ago, Snafu said:

The concept of "strong government" is not straight forward. Strong what, and how, and what are the effects? Having two polarizing parties is in my view polarizing "hey we won and screw you" - is that good? - policies and their implementation swing like a pendulum too far every few years which leads to disenfranchisement and "I can't be bothered to vote" from a voter's perspective. 

If I remember my political science studies right - the most stable form of government is not formed by FPTP or two-party setups, but rather proportional representation with government made up of different parties. 

tell that to Italy and the 40 odd different post war coalition governments before, of all people,   Berlusconi unbelievably brought a period of prolonged stability

[Parkwell]

7 hours ago, Snafu said:

The concept of "strong government" is not straight forward. Strong what, and how, and what are the effects? Having two polarizing parties is in my view polarizing "hey we won and screw you" - is that good? - policies and their implementation swing like a pendulum too far every few years which leads to disenfranchisement and "I can't be bothered to vote" from a voter's perspective. 

If I remember my political science studies right - the most stable form of government is not formed by FPTP or two-party setups, but rather proportional representation with government made up of different parties. 

I personally believe it would be better still if all candidates were Independents and government reformed around that concept.

 

[Snafu]

58 minutes ago, Parkwell said:

I personally believe it would be better still if all candidates were Independents and government reformed around that concept.

 

Indeed. Which is why the American form of government and the constitution it was based on has an electoral college of "enlightened men" to avoid political parties (and women, plebs etc). Didn't work well in the end from a political party view but hey ho, agreed. Political parties suck when they become the voice by itself and not representing the voters.

 

[Austin Allegro]

I suspect it is because people get confused with the American system and think that they are voting for a party, or even for a Prime Minister, when all they are doing is voting for their local MP.  For this reason also I think people got very angry with the Lib Dems in 2010 because they didn't understand the concept of a coalition government (understandable since there hadn't been one since WW2) and thought the Libs were 'joining' the Tories. 

We need the Rees-Mogg to come on our screens and carefully explain all this in simple terms!

[oracle]

On 6/21/2017 at 11:04 AM, Austin Allegro said:

I suspect it is because people get confused with the American system and think that they are voting for a party, or even for a Prime Minister, when all they are doing is voting for their local MP.  For this reason also I think people got very angry with the Lib Dems in 2010 because they didn't understand the concept of a coalition government (understandable since there hadn't been one since WW2) and thought the Libs were 'joining' the Tories. 

We need the Rees-Mogg to come on our screens and carefully explain all this in simple terms!

people got very angry with the lib dems over tuition fees,plain and simple....and they never recovered.Was a false promise/double cross as far as the electorate were concerned(especially the youngsters).

this might get interesting for corbyn....he promised free sunshine and sweeties for the students.If he doesn't deliver he is toast.The last debacle over student debt is still very fresh in peoples minds,including those who were at uni at the time,and are now settling down and having kids of their own...I think there is still rancour there as to just how shafted they were last time.