Liz Truss resigns as British PM

[Pohjolas Daughter]

Funnily enough, none of us knew about it until it "came out"!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61044847

Anyone who is not "domiciled" in a particular tax 'environment' needn't pay taxes in that environment, even if their habitation is there; they pay taxes where they're domiciled. Note that 'domiciled' doesn't mean 'where you live': it's where you say you heart is, and where you're likely to live, and where you habitually live (and usually it just magically happens that where you are domiciled normally has much lower taxes than where you actually spend your days!) I'm being cynical, but Sunak's wife had (may still have for all I know) non-domiciled status as far as paying UK taxes on her income earned overseas:  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61045825

She has apparently "volunteered" to pay taxes on that income now, but she went years without doing so -and I don't imagine she's volunteering to make up the difference!

Thank you for the additional info.  I'll read your links....after some morning coffee. 

PD

[Mandryka]

I see your edit is "lots". Good move because I would take great exception of you calling me that.

+1.

+2. I would have great exception to me calling me that, whether it's true or not is not for me to say obviously. But really, it's not the point, the point is that racism is significant in this country, I'd say very.

[Florestan]

+2. I would have great exception to me calling me that, whether it's true or not is not for me to say obviously. But really, it's not the point, the point is that racism is significant in this country, I'd say very.

I see it as poetic justice that an Indian, albeit a UK-born one, should become UK's prime-minister.

[Mandryka]

I see it as poetic justice that an Indian, albeit a UK-born one, should become UK's prime-minister.

I agree that from a postcolonial point of view it's poetic, as you say.

The point I keep trying to make is just this: he has not been elected PM. And, if and when he does face the people, so many tories may look at him and think racist things that the party will lose out big time. I hope that happens, because I think the conservative party are bad for the country. But the real problem is that the party may see it coming and create hurdles for him. I think that'll be good, the more they tear each other apart and implode, the more likely it is that we'll all finally be shot of them.

[Todd]

I think that'll be good, the more they tear each other apart and implode, the more likely it is that we'll all finally be shot of them.

As I understand it, the next general election will take place in January 2025 unless Sunak calls an election or loses a confidence vote.  What are the odds of the last two items occurring before January 2025?  I don't follow UK politics, but it seems unlikely that the Tories can recover from the last few months in a short period of time, unless an economic miracle happens.  And such miracles don't happen.

[Florestan]

The point I keep trying to make is just this: he has not been elected PM.

Errmmm, remind me: who was the last elected British PM?

[Mandryka]

Errmmm, remind me: who was the last elected British PM?

In Britain, Great Britain, the people elect a party, and the party's leader is Prime Minister. In 2019 the Great British people elected The Conservative Party, who was led by Boris Johnson. When he resigned, the Conservative Members of Parliament chose two contenders to replace him, and the paid up members of the conservative party chose Liz Truss (I think there are about 180K paid up members.) When Liz Truss resigned Rishi Sunak got the job by default -- no-one else stood, because (probably) no-one else had enough supporters to stand.

[71 dB]

And what is the story about his wife not needing to pay taxes?

PD

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/apr/07/rishi-sunaks-wife-says-its-not-relevant-to-say-where-she-pays-tax-overseas

[Mandryka]

Oh dear. We are not Washington. No-one, ever, has ever elected a PM.
Either you understand and subscribe to the Westminster system, or you don't. But you don't get to bleat about "electing a PM" without demonstrating a profound misunderstanding between electing a legislature and electing an executive.

I have never bleated in my entire life.

[Florestan]

In Britain, Great Britain, the people elect a party, and the party's leader is Prime Minister. In 2019 the Great British people elected The Conservative Party, who was led by Boris Johnson. When he resigned, the Conservative Members of Parliament chose two contenders to replace him, and the paid up members of the conservative party chose Liz Truss (I think there are about 180K paid up members.) When Liz Truss resigned Rishi Sunak got the job by default -- no-one else stood, because (probably) no-one else had enough supporters to stand.

So, the last elected (so to speak) PM was BoJo. Interesting. 

[Karl Henning]

I see it as poetic justice that an Indian, albeit a UK-born one, should become UK's prime-minister.

Indeed.

[Mandryka]

You just did.

Never mentione "electing a PM". We don't do that in the UK, and never have.

This is silly. I said he has not been elected PM!  But there's nothing to be argued about.

[Pohjolas Daughter]

In Britain, Great Britain, the people elect a party, and the party's leader is Prime Minister. In 2019 the Great British people elected The Conservative Party, who was led by Boris Johnson. When he resigned, the Conservative Members of Parliament chose two contenders to replace him, and the paid up members of the conservative party chose Liz Truss (I think there are about 180K paid up members.) When Liz Truss resigned Rishi Sunak got the job by default -- no-one else stood, because (probably) no-one else had enough supporters to stand.

Pardon, but now I'm confused...so who gets to choose the next PM?  I had thought (by what I read re voting and needing a certain number that it was only MPs who could vote and that it was by the party in power)?

PD

[Mandryka]

Pardon, but now I'm confused...so who gets to choose the next PM?  I had thought (by what I read re voting and needing a certain number that it was only MPs who could vote and that it was by the party in power)?

PD

If the next PM is chosen after the Conservatives call a general election, the electorate will have the opportunity to vote for a party to represent their region in the House of Commons - an MP. We have a first past the post system here, so the leader of the party with the most MPs will be PM.

If the next PM is chosen because something happens to Sunak or because he resigns - then the tories will have to chose another leader, who will be PM until parliament eventually dissolves. They may use the system which resulted in Sunak's election or they may change it. How they chose their leader is their business.

[Pohjolas Daughter]

Pardon, but now I'm confused...so who gets to choose the next PM?  I had thought (by what I read re voting and needing a certain number that it was only MPs who could vote and that it was by the party in power)?

PD

It was your earlier comment about "the paid up members" that confused me.  I do understand about general elections.

PD

[Mandryka]

It was your earlier comment about "the paid up members" that confused me.  I do understand about general elections.

PD

Oh, when they choose a leader they define their own process. In the case of Liz Truss, the paid up members decided, after the MPs whittled down the candidates to two.

[Spotted Horses]

Oh, when they choose a leader they define their own process. In the case of Liz Truss, the paid up members decided, after the MPs whittled down the candidates to two.

And what is a paid up member?

[Mandryka]

And what is a paid up member?

A paid up member is someone who has paid the Tory party an annual fee to demonstrate their support. Here's the application website.

https://www.conservatives.com/join

[Florestan]

General elections are where people get to vote for their local MP. End of story.
True enough: MPs are (usually) members of a party, and parties elect (by whatever mechanism they decide to construct) their leaders, and the leader of the party with the largest number of MPs (usually) becomes PM. (Not always: see Lloyd George).
But it is a very indirect process, and deliberately so.

It's not that indirect, actually. People do know in advance who is the leader of the party they vote for and that, should that party win the elections, he or she will become PM, so their vote results not only in an MP being elected for their constituency but also in the leader of the party becoming PM.

[Spotted Horses]

It is exactly that indirect. And no, people don't necessarily know who the leader of the party will be the day after election night.

Now, having just won a thumping election victory, it is of course incredibly unlikely that a party would vote out the guy/gal who led them on election night: he or she would have a convincing air of authority about them that winning elections always bestows. But there is absolutely nothing to stop them doing so -and, the more important point, there is no constitutional impropriety in them doing so.

Anyone who votes for party X because it's currently led by Mr. Y, expecting Mr. Y to become PM if his party gains a majority is, once again, quite simply misunderstanding how the Westminster system works. It s fundamental underpinning is the understanding that you're voting for your local MP, not for a government nor for a Prime Minister, and that has been the case for centuries.

You are just assuming that people can't think one step ahead.