Board 8 > Liz Truss resigns as UK prime minister, becomes shortest serving PM ever

(+) Yeah! (+)

hahahahah

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63332037

Whoever replaces her will be just as bad but it's funny to watch them implode

Amazing

... so is the new leadership campaign just going to be the also-rans from last time w/ Rishi Sunak on inside track, new entrants who are gluttons for punishment, or are we heading towards a "BRING BACK BOJO" movement, hmmm...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/5/0/AANyLIAADzAW.jpg

Worth noting that the previous record holder for shortest tenure died in office. And Truss had a free two weeks off because of Lizzy 2. Remarkably impressive in its own way!

MartinFF7 posted...

... so is the new leadership campaign just going to be the also-rans from last time w/ Rishi Sunak on inside track, new entrants who are gluttons for punishment, or are we heading towards a "BRING BACK BOJO" movement, hmmm...

I find it hard to see how we won't wind up with an election soon, the Tories are too fractured right now. Johnson will definitely try to return if he thinks he can get back in.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/19/world/europe/liz-truss-lettuce-stream.html

The lettuce won.

https://twitter.com/Scaramucci/status/1583077679439695872?t=9AHzabXmi6ZaFCa0nCAzLw&s=19

First of all, lol.

Second of all, they seriously need to call an election when the new PM comes in for everybodys sake frankly including their own.

Third of all, lol.

Not sure if the Conservatives can find someone who can unite them, but if they call an election it looks unlikely they would win.

The other thing to consider is if no one has the confidence of the house then it's up to Charles to dissolve parliament and force an election, but I'm not sure if he wants to take the media hit for doing that. Especially if a vote of confidence isn't held

That may not be a hit at the moment, at all.

charmander6000 posted...

The other thing to consider is if no one has the confidence of the house then it's up to Charles to dissolve parliament and force an election, but I'm not sure if he wants to take the media hit for doing that. Especially if a vote of confidence isn't held

Why would that be a hit against him?

redrocket posted...

Why would that be a hit against him?

"The monarchy is controlling the government" cries they will no doubt get.

Even if this is a legitimate use of his power.

Poor woman. Couldn't catch a break.

charmander6000 posted...

"The monarchy is controlling the government" cries they will no doubt get.

Even if this is a legitimate use of his power.

But will the people actually buy that? Do they blindly follow the media when being fed obvious shit like that?

I dunno, it seems to me that if the UK wants to insist on keeping the institution of the monarchy around, they ought to be grateful when their sovereign gets a chance to actually do something useful with his power like, once a generation.

charmander6000 posted...

"The monarchy is controlling the government" cries they will no doubt get.

Even if this is a legitimate use of his power.

Counterpoint: Charles being Charles is specifically the reason he could manage it though. What's going to happen, he becomes less liked? That ship sailed decades ago.

She (maybe) killed the queen, then engineered a way out. Her mission was successful.

This greatly amuses me for whatever reason.

What's the shortest time ANY legitimate world leader was in charge? In the US, it was William Henry Harrison, who was President for only a month before succumbing to pneumonia, so that's like two weeks less than this. But she resigned, so that's quite the embarrassment.

Please explain how exactly "calling an election" works in the UK. You can't do that here in the US since terms are a fixed length and there's an election in three weeks on a fixed day (the Tuesday after November 1st, so the 8th). When your term is up, you gotta run to seek another.

BlueCrystalTear posted...

What's the shortest time ANY legitimate world leader was in charge?

Louis XIX was king of France for 20 minutes.

MacArrowny posted...

Louis XIX was king of France for 20 minutes.

He said "legitimate" so that rules out kings tbh

BlueCrystalTear posted...

Please explain how exactly "calling an election" works in the UK. You can't do that here in the US since terms are a fixed length and there's an election in three weeks on a fixed day (the Tuesday after November 1st, so the 8th). When your term is up, you gotta run to seek another.

In Canada and the UK (and maybe rest of the commonwealth?) there's a maximum number of years your party can be in power after winning an election, pretty sure 5, but you can also call an election anytime you want (subject to monarchy approval I believe, Governor General for Canada). That's called a snap election.

So yeah, you can call elections if you feel it's politically advantageous to you and it "resets the clock" on your max length, but it can blow up in your face. I think that happened with Theresa May maybe? Conversely Boris called a snap election and won big so there's still 2 years left in that term. I think Canada enacted a fixed election date law but there's still the power to call snap elections so not sure how that works either...

In any case, of course there's no reason for Liz's replacement to call an election since they'd undoubtedly lose seats if not all power. If I'm right that they have a 5 year term, next election wouldnt need to be until December 2024.

Yeah, voting for a general election right now would require significant support among Tory MPs to reach the threshold (which I think is two thirds of all MPs), and given current polling that would be tantamount to turkeys voting for Christmas. They're incompetent but they aren't idiots.

Common sense and preservation of dignity would both be valid reasons for the Tories to support an election, but given they cast both of those aside long ago they'd rather just save their skins and sit in a job for another two years whilst claiming an election would represent further instability.

Diginity in politics... insert "we are laughing" gif from Anchorman here.

Oh yeah I forgot UK requires the 2/3 MP support threshold. In Canada it's solely at the discretion of the PM with Governor General approval (ditto for provinces w/ Premier and Lieutenant Governor)

Not mentioned yet is elections getting triggered by losing votes of no confidence, which I guess more closely aligns with recall elections in the U.S. except that's solely under parliament's purview rather than a recall's direct democracy.

The fact that the first 5 years of their power, which was destructive and brutal and traitorous and every inch as horrendous as you would expect from a usual Tory government, now looks fine by comparison is a testament to how bad the 7 years after that have been.

XIII_Rocks posted...

The fact that the first 5 years of their power, which was destructive and brutal and traitorous and every inch as horrendous as you would expect from a usual Tory government, now looks fine by comparison is a testament to how bad the 7 years after that have been.

When Trump is President and you think back to the days of George Dubya

I appreciate the civics lesson - that's quite interesting, and very different than the structured things in the US. Thanks for all that info, Martin and Hades!

Honestly, it'd be much better if elections could be called just a month out, instead of having to deal with a year-plus of attack ads. I am sick and tired of those and I've been seeing them since January. That's too long and exhausting, and it's caused me to stop watching some shows legitimately because it's just too much. (Thank goodness CBS is rationing them so they don't overwhelm what they're airing.) What's even worse is that people in the House of Representatives take their seat and two months later have to start dealing with polls and such for their next term since it's only two years. Like... can we give them time to do their jobs, please?

But back on subject, Truss quitting so soon - I'll call it "Trussing out" - is not a good look, so if the Tories have two years to repair their image before they have to face the music, they better do it right. It sounds like a real disaster, much like the US has been.

https://twitter.com/joshuapotash/status/1583145053366939649

redrocket posted...

When Trump is President and you think back to the days of George Dubya

The rehabilitation of Bush is honestly one of the single worst things that came out of the Trump presidency

Trump was partly a response to Bush, so I'd say Bush was more destructive in the long term anyway.

wat

Alanna82 posted...

Poor woman. Couldn't catch a break.

lmao i hope this is a joke. she's not a poor woman she's an evil leech who was dead set on selling out this country and its future and is only worth of scorn and derision and maybe the firing squad.

shes just a little lady who got in over her head ;_; dont be mean

the shortest prime ministry was the First Earl of Bath, who only lasted 2 days

Didn't think we could ever sink lower than Bojo but here we are. Least she is gone now but there is no saving the conservative party. They are done. That being said members of the British public are gullible fools who would easily vote them in again if they somehow do decently over the next 2 years without a scandal and being complete morons.

Whichever party steps into the Tories' shoes and is lumbered with the job of trying to piece Britain back together over the next couple of years, is going to be blamed by an amnesiac electorate who'll have forgotten just who was in power when the downward spiral started.

Vampire_Chicken posted...

Whichever party steps into the Tories' shoes and is lumbered with the job of trying to piece Britain back together over the next couple of years, is going to be blamed by an amnesiac electorate who'll have forgotten just who was in power when the downward spiral started.

The human species is cursed to repeat this loop for eternity.

Another wrinkle: this particular Tory leadership contest will require the support of 100 MPs (by Monday), and Johnson might not have that much support left within the commons. And there's also the chance that nobody reaches 100 MP support, in which case... idk what happens. Of course the Tories will try to avoid a General Election regardless what happens next week, but it might be unavoidable if the party is too splintered to govern with a workable majority. I can't believe I'm saying that given they have a majority of 80 lol.

If there is an election any time soon Labour will likely win handily. I wish I could be excited for that but Starmer and his team have made it clear they have no intention of governing from the left. He has spent the past couple of years adopting much of the nationalistic right's rhetoric (specifically with immigration), purging the party of leftists, and walking back all of his prior commitments to those who voted him leader. Of course any Lab government will still be leagues above the current bunch, and I will enjoy the Conservatives' downfall should it come to pass.

And yes Truss is a total monster, as is Johnson, May, Cameron, and whoever comes next. I wouldn't shed a tear for any of them.

DeepsPraw posted...

the shortest prime ministry was the First Earl of Bath, who only lasted 2 days

Nah, he never formed a government and never actually took the role. Similarly the Duke of Wellington was caretaker PM for 23 days but that was always intended to be temporary. Those dont count. It is generally considered that Canning was the shortest serving as he was actually trying to do the job, and now Truss has broken that record by quite a bit too.

XIII_Rocks posted...

The fact that the first 5 years of their power, which was destructive and brutal and traitorous and every inch as horrendous as you would expect from a usual Tory government, now looks fine by comparison is a testament to how bad the 7 years after that have been.

Honestly, as bad as the coalition was Ive become convinced that it was the Lib Dems really running things. Whenever you see people try to list good things that happened since the Tories took power (eg same sex marriage, tax-free allowance) they always give you a list of Lib Dem policies. Then when the Tories became the only governing party it was years of brexit chaos followed by immediate destruction when they had to actually try to govern.

I just learned the term Glass Cliff

What I don't get is why UK politicians actually resign. Why not just double down, ride out their term, use your power etc. Nixon was the last to resign in the US and he probably regretted it.

If Nixon had lived to see what Trump pulled off he would have kicked himself. Impeached twice, rode it out, wasn't that far from being reelected anyway. All Nixon really needed to do was go on TV and constantly repeat that Watergate was just a Democratic party scam/hoax/witch hunt for the rest of his term and he would have made it through.

ChichiriMuyo posted...

If Nixon had lived to see what Trump pulled off he would have kicked himself. Impeached twice, rode it out, wasn't that far from being reelected anyway. All Nixon really needed to do was go on TV and constantly repeat that Watergate was just a Democratic party scam/hoax/witch hunt for the rest of his term and he would have made it through.

he didn't have fox news at the time though, which is why it works for trump.

andylt posted...

If there is an election any time soon Labour will likely win handily. I wish I could be excited for that but Starmer and his team have made it clear they have no intention of governing from the left. He has spent the past couple of years adopting much of the nationalistic right's rhetoric (specifically with immigration), purging the party of leftists, and walking back all of his prior commitments to those who voted him leader. Of course any Lab government will still be leagues above the current bunch, and I will enjoy the Conservatives' downfall should it come to pass.

this is the most depressing part of the whole extremely awful situation

For what its worth I dont think thats accurate about Starmer any more. He has started proposing leftist policies again and gone back to the pledges. Just yesterday he was talking about repealing anti-union laws and improving workers rights as well as all the stuff at conference like the publicly owned energy company or rail renationalisation. If he has to wrap it in a flag to get it done so be it. Also while some leftist candidates not getting selected is unfortunate therell still be a lot more leftist MPs than there are now so thats a good thing.

foolm0r0n posted...

What I don't get is why UK politicians actually resign. Why not just double down, ride out their term, use your power etc. Nixon was the last to resign in the US and he probably regretted it.

Because the UK system is entirely different from the US system which is basically unique in the world. In the UK, a PM can either be removed by their own party or a simple vote in parliament. If a government cannot win a confidence vote in the house of commons there will either be a change of government or a general election. If it looks like a PM will lose any of those they resign. In the US the president is nearly unassailable because the threshold to remove is so high and they are elected directly.

Right, the US president is elected directly. To use the words of the founding fathers who debated this issue, he does not serve at the pleasure of Congress. Practically, the threshold to remove him (50%+1 of the lower house and 2/3 of the upper house) is higher than to remove a UK prime minister also (50%+1 of the lower house which really becomes 50%+1 of the MPs in the PM's own party).

I did always think it odd that countries with parliamentary systems insist on having a working majority in parliament at all. Like, why can't they just go on with their term if no one can command a majority of the lower house? The US is in this state more often than not and we tend to do better when we are in that state than when a president actually does command a majority in Congress - that is when we tend to embark on really bad ideas like the Iraq War, Obamacare, etc.

Like I would consider the 4 Israeli elections quite decisive - the voters clearly are split just about exactly 50/50 between being pro-Netanyahu and anti-Netanyahu. Why do you need to reach a majority where just about half the electorate will have no power and the other half will hold all the power? That seems much less fair than just carrying on with the 60/60 split.

Hbthebattle posted...

he didn't have fox news at the time though, which is why it works for trump.

Nixon was the reason that conservatives wanted to make fox news to begin with

I wish I had the technical skills to create a meme from the Seinfeld clip where George and Jerry are aruging over who the bigger idiot is and then they say "But, suddenly, a new contender has emerged," but with them arguing over political stability instead:

George/Jerry: Italy and Israel
U.K.: "You're all winners" lady

What a laughingstock. If only the U.S. system were more like the U.K. system and Trump resigned

barreldragon88 posted...

What a laughingstock. If only the U.S. system were more like the U.K. system and Trump resigned

Trump would never resign. He would have waited for the monarch to fire him.

HeroicCrono posted...

Trump would never resign. He would have waited for the monarch to fire him.

To be clear, she was absolutely 100% fired. She had a meeting with the 1922 comittee in which she was informed that she would be resigning.

The monarch can't really fire a PM, although the pretense that they can is considered important enough that it sort of acts as a check on Prime Ministerial overreach.

barreldragon88 posted...

What a laughingstock. If only the U.S. system were more like the U.K. system and Trump resigned

Trump is almost certainly going to get elected again if he doesn't die.

andylt posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/3/5/0/AANyLIAADzAW.jpg

Haha Bonar Law