Forum Topic

What a way to run a country !

June 1987 Margaret Thatcher wins a General Election with a 102 seat majority. The Conservative Party ousted her in November 1990 and the next election was held in April 1992. May 2005 Tony Blair wins a General Election with a 66 seat majority. The Labour Party ousted him in June 2007 and the next election was held in May 2010.  May 2015 David Cameron wins a General Election with a 10 seat majority. He resigned in June 2016 following the Brexit referendum and the next election was held a year later.June 2017 Theresa May wins a General Election without an overall majority. She was pushed out by the Conservative Party in July 2019 and the next election was held five months later.December 2019 Boris Johnson wins a General Election with an 80 seat majority. He was ousted by the Conservative Party in July 2022 and the next election was held two years (and two Prime Ministers) later. July 2024 Keir Starmer wins a General Election with a 174 seat majority. He was ousted by the Labour Party in June 2026. I heard someone say on TV over the weekend that the last PM to stand down of his own accord in mid-term was Harold Wilson in 1976. He was also the first PM after losing to remain party leader to fight the next election since Winston Churchill. Since then, James Callaghan, Gordon Brown and Rishi Sunak were defeated in General Elections the first time they faced the electorate, John Major lost his second General Election as leader, and Liz Truss never faced a General Election. Both Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair had already won two General Elections before their third and final wins. We used to regard the constant turnover of Prime Ministers in Italy with a degree of contempt, but now they have Giorgia Meloni who has been in charge since October 2022 and looks set to provide an example of political stability by comparison to the UK. It was also notable how she hit back at Dumbass Donald over the weekend, showing a lot more fighting spirit after his foolish remarks than Starmer managed in similar circumstances. I'm not a fan of Keir Starmer but, like those I listed above, he won a General Election and ought to have been given the chance to serve a full term. Previously I accepted that it was legitimate to change PMs in mid-term without a General Election, but I am beginning to think that in circumstances where the ousted PM remained in good health and was attempting to carry out the policies outlined in the party manifesto (and did not have any legal or financial shenanigans coming to light) then if the party's MPs want a change of leader, the new leader should be required to set out their policies in front of the electorate and call a General Election to legitimise the new regime. IMHO the quality of our PMs has shown a marked decline since the 1960s, and I'm afraid that I can't see Andy Burnham bucking that trend. About the only thing be might do right would be to keep Nigel Farage away from Downing Street. But to do so he would have to do a lot better in the next three years than Starmer has in the last two. Could Kemi Badenoch or Penny Mordaunt become a British version of Giorgia Meloni ? We can but hope !

Richard Greenhough ● 11d78 Comments

And I made the difference between the proposals even clearer Denis.So are you suggesting that the UK Supreme Court are a bunch of left wingers?The same UK Supreme Court that decided the following:Equality and Transgender Rights: In April 2025 (For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers), the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the terms "man," "woman," and "sex" within the Equality Act 2010 refer strictly to biological sex, not a person's gender identity. The decision concluded that trans women, even if holding a Gender Recognition Certificate, are legally male for the purposes of the Equality Act, a ruling that overturned previous Scottish Government guidance and drew heavy criticism from progressive and trans rights groups,National Security and Citizenship: In 2021 (R v Secretary of State for the Home Department v Shamima Begum), the Court ruled in favour of the Home Secretary's decision to strip Shamima Begum of her British citizenship. The Court held that the government's assessment of national security took precedence and that Begum was not unlawfully denied leave to enter the UK to fight her appeal, a decision heavily criticised by civil liberties advocates and left-leaning human rights lawyers.Legacy and Troubles Justice: In May 2026, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Government's legacy legislation regarding "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland, allowing conditional immunity and the Secretary of State's powers to balance sensitive disclosures against national security. The ruling went against the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal and disappointed human rights and victims' groups who argued it enabled impunity.What a bunch of left wingers!

Andrew Jones ● 5d

"Yes, all sensible people thought the Rwanda Scheme was the best scheme dreamed up by any government for decades"What, better than the Health Act that has improved public exposure to smoking? The Health Act 2006 is the landmark legislation that made virtually all enclosed public places, workplaces, and work vehicles in England and Wales legally smoke-free. It legally prohibits smoking tobacco or any other substance inside these environments."With the Rwanda scheme every one of those illegal immigrants would have been shipped immediately to the safe haven, Rwanda for professional processing whilst being housed and fed" - really? That's where I think the flaw with your unrestrained enthusiasm for the Rwanda scheme as being the cure all for all our immigration woes can be found. The Rwanda scheme didn't have the capacity to allow this to have happened."There was no cap on how many people the UK could have relocated to Rwanda. However, the then Conservative government had not been clear about how many removals could realistically have been expected. News reports said that the numbers sent to Rwanda would initially be low, with Rwanda suggesting it would take 1,000 asylum seekers in the five-year trial period. Small numbers were consistent with the recent capacity of Rwanda’s asylum system to process claims. The Conservative government’s May 2022 review of Rwanda’s asylum system shows that in 2020, the country made 228 decisions on asylum claims. In the same year, the UK made around 19,000 asylum decisions. However, the December 2023 treaty expanded the deal so that people who do not apply for asylum or are not recognised as refugees will still get permanent residence in Rwanda. If people relocated there do not apply for asylum, this would lessen the burden on Rwanda’s asylum system.""Small boat arrivals made up 41% of all people applying for asylum in the UK in 2025, a similar share to the preceding four years. The total number of people claiming asylum in the UK has increased sharply since 2020, reaching 101,000 in 2025, close to the record level of 2024 (Figure 2). Only part of this growth is explained by people crossing the Channel by small boat. Data show that a large proportion of asylum seekers – 39% of those applying in 2025 – travelled to the UK legally on a work, study, visitor, or other visa."The chances of ending up in Rwanda would have been pretty low. Indeed, given there was a proposal to pay people to agree to go to Rwanda, some people might think that paying a grand or two to get to the UK in a boat, with a potential offer of a financial return of many times your initial outlay would be worth the risk.

Andrew Jones ● 5d