The UK General Election 2015

[pjknibbs]

Boris is probably aiming to be next Conservative party leader or something--he knows Cameron has already ruled out a third term as Prime Minister, and we've already seen what happens to party leaders who lose elections, so chances are there'll be a Conservative leadership contest either shortly before or shortly after the next election.

[imperium3]

Boris is probably aiming to be next Conservative party leader or something--he knows Cameron has already ruled out a third term as Prime Minister, and we've already seen what happens to party leaders who lose elections, so chances are there'll be a Conservative leadership contest either shortly before or shortly after the next election.

Assuming Cameron doesn't change his mind, I think the leadership contest would have to come just before the election. Promising to resign the leadership immediately after the election would be electoral suicide because it makes the Conservative manifesto worthless (yes, even more than usual!).

So I'd suggest: leadership contest six months before the election while Dave continues as PM, and the new leader uses the time to lay out his/her policies. After all I don't see any reason why the party leader and the PM have to be the same person.

[brucewarren]

Er.

I'm not sure I see the logic of that last bit.

How would it work then? According to this web page, being an MP while the leader of the party with the most seats is what makes you candidate for the post of PM.

Of course that page might not be infallible. I guess in theory the Queen could turn round and say "I don't like you. I'm making someone else PM" but it wouldn't go down well with Joe Public methinks.

I agree that stepping down early or even mid-term is a bad idea. It did not sit well with the electorate when Gordon Brown took over from Tony Blair mid term. A lot of people complained that it was undemocratic IIRC. It might have been in accordance with "da constitution" but that didn't mean we had to like it.

[imperium3]

Er.

I'm not sure I see the logic of that last bit.

How would it work then? According to this web page, being an MP while the leader of the party with the most seats is what makes you candidate for the post of PM.

That is a simplification. Technically any Member of Parliament can be PM, if the Queen is willing to appoint them and the House does not vote them down in a no-confidence vote. There are several cases in the past where the leader of the smaller party of a coalition became PM. In the coalitions led by Lloyd-George (Liberal) and Ramsay MacDonald (Labour) the Tories actually had a large majority, yet their leader was not PM (I have entertained the idea that Clegg should have gone for the same thing in 2010, but I doubt it would have sat well with public expectations or many Tory MPs).

I cannot think of a modern precedent for the leader of the sole governing party not being PM, but there is certainly no rule against it. My logic for it is that if David Cameron continues as party leader until the election, then the Tory leadership contest would run straight into the election and the new leader would have to go straight into that election with a hastily put-together team and manifesto, and the arguments of his defeated opponents still in the press.

On the other hand, if Cameron steps down as PM some time before the election, then he faces, firstly, the same arguments that Brown faced about an unelected PM taking over. Secondly, the new PM would have very little standing on account of being newly elected and with a strong chance of losing their office in six months or so (this depends of course on the fortunes of the opposition parties by then).

Having Cameron as PM but not leader ensures continuity of government while the new leader puts a team and a manifesto together for the election. The only problem I could think of is if the new leader and Cameron do not like each other and so negative comments keep cropping up in the press (as a diehard opponent of the Tories I don't mind that though ).

I should probably add that I don't really believe Cameron's "two-term promise" and unless things are going catastrophically he would change his mind and run for a third term. If things really are going catastrophically then the party might not let him leave, as nobody would want to take the poisoned chalice...

[Golden_Gonads]

"I'm a man of my word" he says... Farage is not quitting as leader of UKIP, as they won't let him. Presumably they've chained him to the gates of their headquarters or something.

[Chips]

Hooliganism plays right into the government's hands - especially those of Theresa "I'm not really going to spy on you all, honest!" May.

They'd just love to be able to use it as an excuse to clamp down and make protesting illegal. That way they could do whatever they liked and no one would be allowed to say a blamed thing.

I think it should be pointed out that it isn't the Government Ministers who cook up ideas of what communications to tap and listen into and the access.

It's civil servants who ask - that's the Police and Security services. An inconvenient detail people ignore when getting on the hate-train

[pjknibbs]

"I'm a man of my word" he says... Farage is not quitting as leader of UKIP, as they won't let him.

Well, he was never exactly fully on board with the whole "standing down as leader" thing anyway, or he wouldn't have been saying that he would put his name forward for re-election in the resulting leadership contest. Thus, this is not a surprise.

[Alee Enn]

"I'm a man of my word" he says... Farage is not quitting as leader of UKIP, as they won't let him.

Well, he was never exactly fully on board with the whole "standing down as leader" thing anyway, or he wouldn't have been saying that he would put his name forward for re-election in the resulting leadership contest. Thus, this is not a surprise.

But he did keep his word, he tendered his resignation ... his word wasn't "I'll resign and not put my name forward again for leadership". There is nothing stopping Milliband and Clegg putting their names forward for leadership of their parties (and considering the Lib Dem's only have 8 MPs, there isn't much to choose from)

[Sparky Sparkycorp]

BBC was funny about the numbers of LibDem MPs left for a contest.

The presenter was like, "There are eight Liberal Democrat MPs and in order to stand for leader of the party, one would need to secure the support of 10% of their MPs....which is, er, less than one person [slightly awkward smile]."

hahaha

[Tracker001]

Kinda like voting for a Pirate King . Yet being ~ 5 % undecided about voting for one's self .

[pjknibbs]

But he did keep his word, he tendered his resignation ... his word wasn't "I'll resign and not put my name forward again for leadership".

Yeah, I'm going to file that under "political sophistry", personally. His intent was pretty clear when he said he would stand down as leader, and what he's doing now is simply back-pedalling on that. I would be seriously surprised if either Clegg or Miliband chose to stand in their respective party leadership contests--they'd lose whatever shred of respect the voting public still has for them if they did that.

[Alee Enn]

I would be seriously surprised if either Clegg or Miliband chose to stand in their respective party leadership contests--they'd lose whatever shred of respect the voting public still has for them if they did that.

I agree with you. The difference with Farage is he tendered his resignation, which he said he would do, and thus kept his word. The party then rejected his resignation and asked him to remain as leader. What surprises me most about this is that people are criticising him for it.

If it was you, a leader of group where you work, and you decided to stand down as leader, and then were asked to remain as leader ... are you honestly telling me you wouldn't be flattered and refuse?

As one UKIP member put it ... "leaders stand down when the campaign has been a failure. Our campaign was not a failure, four million people more than the last election voted UKIP "

This smear campaign ... which people are buying into ... needs to stop, it only makes the media and political parties ... and the people who buy into it ... look bad.

[Chips]

Alien, perhaps it's time to take a less biased view and understand where people are coming from?

What matters is the integrity and honesty of the person. There's no such thing as "rejecting a resignation". They're entitled to say "We really want you to stay" but they cannot force him to keep the job against his wishes.

Which means that by keeping said job, after going on record to say he would leave if he failed to become an MP, I now question his honesty and integrity.

Am I buying into a smear campaign? No. Not even read about it - so this is assuming he IS now the leader of UKIP of course.

Do I look "bad" because I have a different opinion as to his course of action (assuming it's true) and it's impact upon how I view his integrity and honesty? Not my concern. Really isn't - but thanks

If this had been Alex Salmond (or name any other politician you dislike) who'd said they'd finally be gone - and then appeared they didn't - would you not be saying "Wait, hang on a second..."?

[Alee Enn]

Alien, perhaps it's time to take a less biased view and understand where people are coming from?

I'm not the one being biased. I accept he stood down, and kept his word, and thus his honour and integrity. It's comments like "I question his honour and integrity", while an opinion, suggest to me a possible biased point of view. Why is this such a big issue for you and the media? The only possible reason is to attempt to slander the man, something I am not trying to do.

If this had been Alex Salmond (or name any other politician you dislike) who'd said they'd finally be gone - and then appeared they didn't - would you not be saying "Wait, hang on a second..."?

No, actually I wouldn't. Politics is a corrupt place as it is, but to get worked up over it will do me no good. If another party leader had stood down, and their resignation had been rejected and they decided to continue leading their party, which would be the will of the party, I would not have a problem with that.

Nigel Farage lost Thanet South, and tendered his resignation, as he said he would. The UKIP party rejected his resignation and asked him to remain leader of the party. He accepted and remained leader. I fail to see why this is a problem.

Not commenting on this again ... feel free to drag a man down you don't know and have never spoken to, because as we all know, you're (generalisation, not anyone specifically) right and everyone else is wrong.

[brucewarren]

It seems that not all are happy in House UKIP.

According to The Times, there's a certain amount of anger in some quarters about his decision to stay on.

[Avis]

I quite like Farage, but I have to say he should have stood down and stood again for re-election as he originally hinted.

O'Flynn has since done some serious back peddling but ultimately this all could have been avoided if Farage had insisted on being re-elected by the party instead of withdrawing his resignation which does come across as a bit cheap.

[Skism]

Alien, perhaps it's time to take a less biased view and understand where people are coming from?

I'm not the one being biased. I accept he stood down, and kept his word, and thus his honour and integrity. It's comments like "I question his honour and integrity", while an opinion, suggest to me a possible biased point of view. Why is this such a big issue for you and the media? The only possible reason is to attempt to slander the man, something I am not trying to do.

If this had been Alex Salmond (or name any other politician you dislike) who'd said they'd finally be gone - and then appeared they didn't - would you not be saying "Wait, hang on a second..."?

No, actually I wouldn't. Politics is a corrupt place as it is, but to get worked up over it will do me no good. If another party leader had stood down, and their resignation had been rejected and they decided to continue leading their party, which would be the will of the party, I would not have a problem with that.

Nigel Farage lost Thanet South, and tendered his resignation, as he said he would. The UKIP party rejected his resignation and asked him to remain leader of the party. He accepted and remained leader. I fail to see why this is a problem.

Not commenting on this again ... feel free to drag a man down you don't know and have never spoken to, because as we all know, you're (generalisation, not anyone specifically) right and everyone else is wrong.

I don't see a problem ether, He kept his word.

Though my Chess club made fun of it (and a Captain) at our AGM when asking the C team captain if he wanted to continue they said "if you don't want to we will make you do a Farage" Meaning that he was to important to lose.

[Chips]

Alien, perhaps it's time to take a less biased view and understand where people are coming from?

I'm not the one being biased. I accept he stood down, and kept his word, and thus his honour and integrity. It's comments like "I question his honour and integrity", while an opinion, suggest to me a possible biased point of view.

Why does it indicate I'm biased? Because if a person says they'll do something as important and significant as standing down for failing to win a seat - then why should I trust anything else? Couple it with the lie of "refusing resignation"... that's a lie, plain and simple.

Why?

Today - honestly - i've resigned from my job. The company cannot, repeat cannot refuse my resignation. They simply are not allowed to say "tough, you must stay and work for us!".

[Sparky Sparkycorp]

"We don't accept your resignation." is not the same as, or mutually exclusive with, "You have to keep doing your job.". An employer is entitled to make the gesture of saying they don't accept a particular resignation if they want that person to stay, even though the employee is entitled and ignore it and still walk out.

[Chips]

Which is why I question his integrity - as he says "Okay, i'll keep going" rather than saying "No, I said I would resign and therefore I will stand by what I said and resign".

As it is - he's probably the best UKIP can do in order to maintain (or increase) their electorate share.