70% of UK doesn't want Rishi Sunak to be PM any longer, poll shows
Rishi Sunak: This means that Rishi Sunak's net favourability rating is at minus 49 - down by 10 points from late November.
You're viewing a single thread.
I think there's something fundamentally wrong with British culture. How do they keep electing such garbage politicians? It's like every decision they make looks awful to everyone but Brits only realize it after the fact.
While you are not wrong it's worth noting he was not elected by the public and even worse before he was basically handed the job he ran (internaly) on a platform of fixing the economy he fucked as chancellor of the exchequer
Well someone keeps voting in the fucking tories. If they didn't, he wouldn't be PM right now.
While true, the Tory party that won the last election looks a bit different to the gobshites that are in government now.
Don't get me wrong, I thought the last lot were assholes as well, but while technically legal, swapping out basically all of the government several times seems like a bit of a bait and switch.
Yeah same can be said for republicans. Seems like conservative parties around the western world are going batshit crazy lately
Oh really?
Unfamiliar with the uprising of right leaning politicians going around I see. Perhaps you should peek in at the Netherlands.
I'm not sure you read my comment correctly
Yea unfortunately fascists are taking hold worldwide.
Just wait until their dimwitted voters find out that they don't give two fucks about them, and will eat their faces to seize more power.
That doesn’t really help the situation but it’s better than nothing I guess
I've actually lived in both The Netherlands and the UK and the situation is not at all comparable.
In the UK, which has a First Past The Post parliamentary seat allocation system, a party with 41% of the votes like these guys has 60% of parliamentary seats, more than enough to change any law they feel like because there is no written Constitution (hence no laws require passing the 75% threshold needed to change the Constitution, so a simple 50% + 1 majority is enough). Also and as a side effect of FPTP there are de facto only 3 parties that might ever be part of government, and one of them - the LibDems - maybe once every half a century in average. Winning the most votes in Britain almost invariably means getting near absolute power because a simple parliamentary majority requires only about 37% of votes cast (and remember, in systems rigged so that votes for smaller parties are usually wasted, votes concentrate on large parties), which without a Constitution means very few limits on which laws they can make or change.
Meanwhile in The Netherlands they have Proportional Vote so their Parliament - the Tweede Kamer - represents quite closely the votes cast and every government is in practice a coalition because nobody gets 50% of the votes (and here you see the very opposite effect you see in FPTP systems - people vote for their favorite option, not for "electable" "lesser evil" options, so voting is naturally very fragmented), plus there is a written Constitution (the Grondwet). Winning the most votes in The Netherlands guarantees nothing in terms of power: it's pretty much impossible to form government without other parties so if you're basically "the assholes' party" you're not going to get any power at all. Even if you do manage to somehow find enough parties to form a government cohalition (usually it requires 3+ parties), you will still not have enough seats to push through the kind of deep changes to people's rights that require a change to the Grondwet.
Unsurprisingly, the Far Right in Britain already took over power, during the Leave Referendum when UKIP supporters became members of the Tory Party (one of the two parties of the de facto power duopoly there) to internally vote in that party's leadership context so that it was the politicians who those far right people saw as representing them - far right populists who claimed to want to "Free Britain From the EUSSR dictatorship" - who took power in the Tory part, hence took over Government and one of the only 2 trully electable parties over there. Only a few tens of thousands of people were required to, through their vote in the internal Tory Party leadership elections, shift the UK government from Conservative to Far Right Populist.
Meanwhile in The Netherlands the Far Right have 37 seats (of 150) in the Tweede Kamer and can't find supporting parties with the needed 39 seats to form a coalition government - they're about as likely to get power as a chicken to grow teeth and, due to the Grondwet even less likely to be able to pass the kind of changes to the Law that impact the most basic of rights at the Tory Government has been doing in Britain.
Very knowledgeable and spot-on comment, at least as far as the Dutch situation is concerned (can't really judge for the English). This is the kind of stuff I come to Lemmy for, thank you!
No it's the same gobshites. Boris was leader at the last election, Sunak and co are part of the same group. The anti-conservatives conservative party. All the conservatives were culled from the party. The people in the party causing trouble for Rishi are those further to the right and people who believe Boris can turn it all around again.
A minority voted for them, and not even a large one.
Who did the majority vote for?
Other parties; the votes are always split between lots of parties, which themselves have lots of factions.
All I can say is it wisny me
I hate this excuse, everyone knows how parliaments work. You vote for representatives that form a government. Everyone votes for their own constituency only but not everyone ends up with dickheads so consistently.
Sure, but Sunak wasnt even the second choice for the Tories during the last election. He's in the Gerald Ford grey zone where no one feels like they voted for him, making him seem illegitimate. The British public voted for the Tories in 2019 (because they are morons) with the expectation that Boris Johnson would be in charge. Now the head of the party has resigned twice since then. In theory it'sall standard procedure for Parliament, but it's a clearly unstable government and viewed as a farce at this point.
with the expectation that Boris Johnson would be in charge
I'm not sure this make it any better. It's not like Boris Johnson hid the fact that he was a Tory. At a certain point I'm just going to stop saying "I told you so" and start calling you an idiot.
It's still possible to be unfair to idiots, though.
If an idiot believes he can face down a speeding freight train, but only if it's yellow then, in his eyes, it's just not cricket if the one that turns him into jam is in fact blue.
In what way was Johnson better than Sunak?
He wasn't better, he just had more legitimatacy since he was the party leader during the last election. Hell, Sunak resigned from said government before Johnson resigned. That's why there were calls for a new election after Truss resigned, but the Tories refused because they knew they would get clobbered at the polls.
Silly hair funny.
everyone knows how parliments work.
I think you vastly over estimate the knowledge of your average love island watching, down the pub every night after work, get their entire worldview from Facebook, British person.
It's not an excuse. While you correct in that's the mechanics of how it works here very few could even tell you the name of the representative they are voting for they just base their vote on the team and or team leader.
Hell. I remember my mum discussing how she couldn't vote for kinnock because she can't stand him. In her Scottish constituency
The guy that was elected by the public was Boris Johnson, who is arguably even worse.
I agree but sadly that gave him more legitimacy than this bell end
He lost the only party member leadership vote he took part in. He lost to someone completely detached from reality, that immediately sought to destroy the value of most people pensions that only benefitted a few hedge funds looking to profit from the UKs demise.
Your preaching to the choir. If it were up to me the whole party wouldn't get a wiff of power from the first time I was old enough to vote.
Instead "I got my way" once with these asshats running this shithole even further into the ground ever since
Britain elects parties who then choose the leader. Thats how weve had so many different PMs. Its not like for example where the people elect an individual for four years.
We had a PM who lasted less time than a lettuce. All chosen by the conservative party
USA doesn't really elect our leaders either. It's basically the same, we have a bunch of people that are expected to vote the way their local population votes but they don't have to, they can vote anyway they want. Popular vote means nothing. Only difference is once elected they get the whole 4 years.
Happy to be wrong since Im not American, but I thought for the presidency it was a ballot that literally had people on them (which are from certain parties / independents)
I'm a different person than you replied to. You are both correct.
When we, Americans, vote for president we vote for an individual by their name on the ballot. Technically, we're voting for electors who have been chosen by our candidate. Those electors get to vote for the actual presidency and can technically change their vote (relative to the popular vote), but in many places they would be penalized for doing so. To my knowledge there have been few, possibly no, legal cases which have tested these laws or systems. So in practicality it doesn't matter.
So in practicality it doesn’t matter.
The Republicans are working on changing that.
Appreciate the clarification! thanks
You are wrong, sadly. While the ballot does have candidates for president, technically what you’re doing is a district election for your presidential delegate, who then casts a vote for the president however they want. Usually this means they vote whatever way the popular vote goes in their district, but sometimes you get a “faithless elector” who legally overrides democracy and votes for a different candidate.
It’s supremely fucked up.
Edit: not false elector, it’s faithless elector
Ah right the electoral college and that sort of thing. Thanks!
but sometimes you get a “false elector” who legally overrides democracy and votes for a different candidate.
Genuine questions - how often does that happen? It can't be a lot, and it can't make the deciding vote, right, otherwise the whole system would have been ripped apart by the media long ago...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithlesselector
As of the 2020 election, there have been a total of 165 instances of faithlessness, 90 of which were for president, while 75 were for vice president. They have never swung an election, and nearly all have voted for third party candidates or non-candidates, as opposed to switching their support to a major opposing candidate.
It happens frequently enough there’s a Wikipedia page:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector
Looks like it happened in 2000, 2004, and 2016.
USA doesn’t really elect our leaders either. It’s basically the same...
It was supposed to be basically the same, back when Electors were chosen by state legislators instead of by popular vote (a choice deliberately made to dilute the power of the public/prevent what the founding fathers saw as 'mob rule'). Now it's just a fucked up half-measure midway between a parliamentary system and direct democracy that flat-out doesn't work right.
Look who is voting and who isn't.
Another commenter said this but the last two prime ministers were only chosen by the conservative party membership, not by general election. So about 30,000 people have decided the ruler of the country for the past couple of years. You can argue about PMs before then but First Past the Post voting also has a lot to answer for.
From an American: We have no idea!
(Tongue in cheek)
We didn't vote for him, and i did not vote for his party at the last election. Now i get to take it in the butt by his policies.
It bugs me when they say that they are doing this and that “for the will of the people” when the majority of the people didn’t vote for them. And even if they did, it might have been for a different reason than the thing that they are talking about at the time.
Idealistically, you'd hope that the leader of the country would be looking out for their people and doing things that help the people primarily.
Usually when they say that though it's when they're quietly handing out huge contracts to their friends and family to do the thing they're talking about, for example Sunak corruptly giving his wife's company allocations from the national budget.
We only get to elect our local member of Parliament, who represents a party. They elect the actual prime-minister, and when one is kicked out before election time, they get to pick another one.
That's how we've had so many without having multiple elections, cause we didn't pick them.
Also, for some reason loads of young people just don't vote, meaning the old fogies who do vote the Tories in over and over, who (in theory) benefit them but fuck everybody else...
In actuality they fuck everybody except the rich, but as long as they say and do some racist/xenophobic things now and again, the old fogies run to the polls to vote them in over and over.
Something is wrong with British culture? https://youtu.be/N_oIys5KS4A?si=mrsIxQ2hypNxAUa8
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/mQisg26oJdE?si=0t0Ux5c1XfIjx8lQ
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/N_oIys5KS4A?si=mrsIxQ2hypNxAUa8
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.