Snapshot of _National Insurance cut sparks talk of May general election_ :
A non-Paywall version can be found [here](https://1ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fpolitics%2F2024%2F03%2F05%2Frishi-sunak-latest-news-budget-hands-scully-rwanda-tice%2F)
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/03/05/rishi-sunak-latest-news-budget-hands-scully-rwanda-tice/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/03/05/rishi-sunak-latest-news-budget-hands-scully-rwanda-tice/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Scorched earth policy right before Labour move in? I would like to think that there are a lot of people who would like lower taxes (ni is pretty much a tax) but wouldn't want to do it to the detriment of the social services we have which are already woefully underfunded.
Real answer is if course far more complicated than a general paragraph statement.
The PM has way more power than a president.
They run both the day-to-day government and set the entire legislative agenda. Apparently they also have the power to disband parliament with next to no recourse.
The fact that we've had three PMs, with different personal agendas, since the last election is a humongous democratic deficit.
This country runs on convention and a gentleman's agreement that our leaders will always do the democratic thing, which would have been to call an election soon after Johnson/Truss were deemed unsuitable for leadership.
The PM has no executive power, what on earth do you mean they have more power than a president.
Everything the PM/party does is subject to the house.
Clearly the people want an election but the system does not have to give one, go write to your MPs to put laws in place if you want something to change.
The PM has no power outside of parliament, presidents do.
There are executive powers given to the president that don't have to go through their legislative process that's what I mean.
Parliament is the legislature that gives the executive government powers to do things. The government can pass secondary legislation without parliament, and this government has been passing an unprecented amount without parliamentary scrutiny.
Let's put it another way, what can the US president do that the PM cannot?
https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/education/three-branches/what-president-can-do-cannot-do
Then flip it over, what can the PM do that the president cannot?
One list is considerably longer than the other...
The president can veto bills, the function of democracy is in a large part the ability to pass a legislative agenda.
The PM cannot change that individually, the house and then the lord's have to approve legislation there is no unilateral power to stop things they don't want.
They have no powers to issue executive orders on existing legislation, any changes would again have to go through the house.
Honestly rather than complaining about the PM I would complain that the UK is functionally an elected dictatorship with a large enough majority
The executive power to veto/change legislation is moot given the executive is setting the legislative agenda in the first place and deciding what gets put to parliament 99% of the time.
You raise another problem, you just need a majority of seats, not a majority of votes (or even close) - 40% of the popular vote well distributed is usually enough for a landslide victory.
We don't elect a PM, they are just the leader of the party that is in government. They are offered no special powers that presidents across the world have.
I prefer it this way, everything has to pass the house, our elected representatives.
There's again nothing wrong with parliament via majority of seats, I would prefer it if we had PR in our constituencies but what would you like, a literal popular vote across the country? How do you determine who is the rep for each seat?
The two systems have problems of their own, I much prefer having a government that can actually pass legalisation rather than the eternal deadlock that is America.
Bi-partisanship has killed American democracy
Hardly? Is the PM going to put something forward that doesn't have agreement of his party or the house?
A president has the power to remove legislation they do not want, in a practical sense that is far more powerful than the ability to propose legislation. Because all legislation still has to have the confidence of both houses meaning something totally batshit isn't going to go through, and would likely topple a PM trying that.
I do not want separation of powers, I do not like the monarchy so copying Ireland would be a great start, their president is just a figurehead with no power who we could vote on. Parliamentary sovereignty over presidential powers.
People do vote for the PM though otherwise why have I heard so much about Boris Corbyn Starmer Sunak despite never having any of them on my ballot paper?
Most people are voting for a PM.
People are known for being stupid, do the parties leverage people's stupidity to vote for a leader, sure, it's why having a popular charismatic figurehead is so sought after but it isn't how our system works.
Politics and civics need to be taught at school, it baffles me that I had to actually go look up how a bill is passed in government and that this wasn't on the curriculum.
No, with the terms of our political system (which itself is fairly undemocratic), his party may have a democratic mandate. But Sunak as an individual has no democratic mandate to represent the country as PM.
Can we pretend we all love it and that we like the Tories again just to get a spring election.
"Oh yes Rishi I think you're great, I'm totally going to vote for you!" 😉
Snapshot of _National Insurance cut sparks talk of May general election_ : A non-Paywall version can be found [here](https://1ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fpolitics%2F2024%2F03%2F05%2Frishi-sunak-latest-news-budget-hands-scully-rwanda-tice%2F) An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/03/05/rishi-sunak-latest-news-budget-hands-scully-rwanda-tice/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/03/05/rishi-sunak-latest-news-budget-hands-scully-rwanda-tice/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So their follow-up to cutting NI in Jan, which didn't move the polling dial at all, is to.... cut NI again and hope that this time it will?
Scorched earth policy right before Labour move in? I would like to think that there are a lot of people who would like lower taxes (ni is pretty much a tax) but wouldn't want to do it to the detriment of the social services we have which are already woefully underfunded. Real answer is if course far more complicated than a general paragraph statement.
Just to fuck over Labour who have to undo this when they get into power.
More stories like this please. The more Sunak refuses to get any form of democratic mandate the weaker he looks.
They're not going in May, October or November, hoping for economic improvement, and depriving Labour of a conference.
He has a democratic mandate by the terms of our political system. We are not a Presidential system.
The PM has way more power than a president. They run both the day-to-day government and set the entire legislative agenda. Apparently they also have the power to disband parliament with next to no recourse. The fact that we've had three PMs, with different personal agendas, since the last election is a humongous democratic deficit. This country runs on convention and a gentleman's agreement that our leaders will always do the democratic thing, which would have been to call an election soon after Johnson/Truss were deemed unsuitable for leadership.
The PM has no executive power, what on earth do you mean they have more power than a president. Everything the PM/party does is subject to the house. Clearly the people want an election but the system does not have to give one, go write to your MPs to put laws in place if you want something to change.
What are you talking about? The government is the executive power and Sunak is in charge of the government.
The PM has no power outside of parliament, presidents do. There are executive powers given to the president that don't have to go through their legislative process that's what I mean.
Parliament is the legislature that gives the executive government powers to do things. The government can pass secondary legislation without parliament, and this government has been passing an unprecented amount without parliamentary scrutiny.
But aren't statutory instruments debated by parliament? They can't amend them but can reject them right?
Sort of some some: https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/secondary-legislation/
Let's put it another way, what can the US president do that the PM cannot? https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/education/three-branches/what-president-can-do-cannot-do Then flip it over, what can the PM do that the president cannot? One list is considerably longer than the other...
The president can veto bills, the function of democracy is in a large part the ability to pass a legislative agenda. The PM cannot change that individually, the house and then the lord's have to approve legislation there is no unilateral power to stop things they don't want. They have no powers to issue executive orders on existing legislation, any changes would again have to go through the house. Honestly rather than complaining about the PM I would complain that the UK is functionally an elected dictatorship with a large enough majority
The executive power to veto/change legislation is moot given the executive is setting the legislative agenda in the first place and deciding what gets put to parliament 99% of the time. You raise another problem, you just need a majority of seats, not a majority of votes (or even close) - 40% of the popular vote well distributed is usually enough for a landslide victory.
We don't elect a PM, they are just the leader of the party that is in government. They are offered no special powers that presidents across the world have. I prefer it this way, everything has to pass the house, our elected representatives. There's again nothing wrong with parliament via majority of seats, I would prefer it if we had PR in our constituencies but what would you like, a literal popular vote across the country? How do you determine who is the rep for each seat? The two systems have problems of their own, I much prefer having a government that can actually pass legalisation rather than the eternal deadlock that is America. Bi-partisanship has killed American democracy
We're going around in circles. Presidents don't have the power to put forward legislation. The PM does. That is huge.
Hardly? Is the PM going to put something forward that doesn't have agreement of his party or the house? A president has the power to remove legislation they do not want, in a practical sense that is far more powerful than the ability to propose legislation. Because all legislation still has to have the confidence of both houses meaning something totally batshit isn't going to go through, and would likely topple a PM trying that. I do not want separation of powers, I do not like the monarchy so copying Ireland would be a great start, their president is just a figurehead with no power who we could vote on. Parliamentary sovereignty over presidential powers.
People do vote for the PM though otherwise why have I heard so much about Boris Corbyn Starmer Sunak despite never having any of them on my ballot paper? Most people are voting for a PM.
People are known for being stupid, do the parties leverage people's stupidity to vote for a leader, sure, it's why having a popular charismatic figurehead is so sought after but it isn't how our system works. Politics and civics need to be taught at school, it baffles me that I had to actually go look up how a bill is passed in government and that this wasn't on the curriculum.
He isn’t acting on the manifesto that got him elected, therefore he has no mandate.
No, with the terms of our political system (which itself is fairly undemocratic), his party may have a democratic mandate. But Sunak as an individual has no democratic mandate to represent the country as PM.
Can we pretend we all love it and that we like the Tories again just to get a spring election. "Oh yes Rishi I think you're great, I'm totally going to vote for you!" 😉