A Vote of No Confidence
It can feel as if the Starmer regime is defiantly flipping us all the bird with its implacable refusal to change any of the deeply unpopular and damaging policies - none of which were presented before the July election. Yet there continues to be a fatalistic acceptance that Britain is lumbered with a Labour government for five years from July 4th 2024. WRONG!
(08feb25 v2.1 - started 10DEC24 Version 1.1 - and for those who assume this picture must be AI mischief, you may be amused to learn that it is not. Full marks to Maryam Moshiri who explained she was having a bit of fun with the crew during a transition countdown - may she be the next DG... or Nigel Farage's press spokesperson...
Anyway, back to the theme, according to GROK:
"The options to potentially force the Starmer government out of office before the scheduled 2029 general election involve a mix of political, constitutional, and public actions. Here's an overview based on current discussions and analysis:
Vote of No Confidence in Parliament:
Under the UK's parliamentary system, if a government loses a vote of no confidence, it must either resign or call for a new election. However, this scenario is unlikely with Labour's current sizable parliamentary majority, as Labour MPs are not expected to vote against their own government unless something extraordinary happens. Posts on X suggest that the only feasible way this could occur is if Labour MPs themselves decide to act against their leadership, which seems improbable given the party discipline and the desire to maintain power.
Petitions and Public Pressure:
Public petitions, like those on platforms such as Change.org, can create significant public pressure and potentially force parliamentary discussion, although they do not have legal power to directly remove a government. A notable petition was started to express no confidence in Keir Starmer, aiming for a public vote or his resignation. However, such initiatives typically serve more as a gauge of public sentiment rather than a mechanism for change.
General Strike or Civil Unrest:
There's historical precedence for general strikes in the UK, like the one in 1926, which could theoretically lead to significant political upheaval. However, this would require massive public support and organization, and there's no immediate indication of such a movement at this scale. Some posts on X have suggested civil action, including strikes, as a means to pressure the government, but these remain speculative and would need widespread societal backing to have any effect.
Intervention by the Monarch:
The King could theoretically dissolve Parliament and call for early elections, but this action would be highly unusual and would require significant political justification. The monarchy typically acts on the advice of the Prime Minister, so this scenario would likely only occur if there were a dramatic breakdown in governance or political stability.
Internal Party Pressure or Leadership Resignation:
If there were enough internal dissent within the Labour Party, leading to Starmer's resignation or a leadership challenge, this could indirectly lead to a change in government or prompt an early election. However, this would depend on the dynamics within the Labour Party, which currently seems cohesive under Starmer's leadership.
Political Scandal or Crisis:
A major scandal or crisis involving Starmer or key members of his government might lead to a loss of public confidence or internal party pressure, potentially forcing a change in leadership or an early election, though this is speculative and depends on the nature and severity of the crisis.
Each of these scenarios has varying degrees of practicality and likelihood. The current political landscape suggests that without significant unforeseen events, the Starmer government is likely to serve its full term. However, the political environment can change, and public sentiment, internal party dynamics, or unexpected crises could alter this trajectory. Or the opposition parties could find a charismatic and credible leader.
MPs that want to avoid being held jointly and severally criminally responsible for the malfeasance of the government could be organising a vote of no confidence to stop wastage on some pretty absurd and spending on unproven climate hypotheses and undermining the rule of law.
Otherwise all MPs should be charged with criminal negligence for allowing the Labour government to wreck the country economically and socially, by failing to stop invasion-level illegal immigration and curtail two-tier justice that fails to apprehend the majority of offenders involve with shoplifting in "no-go" areas where police have abandoned their erstwhile responsibilities.
Somewhat more onerous than nicking a 6-pack from the off liccence, is the UK government committment to spending £11.6 billion on overseas climate aid, as part of its international climate finance commitments. And £12.8b to Ukraine.
Government MPs have been repeatedly warned of the damage being done, and evidence presented. So to continue in such circumstances and fail to mitigate the damage is negligent when MPs could be organising a vote of no confidence to stop the nonsense that defiantly insults the 80% of the electorate that didn't vote for them.
Once Starmer has gone, we can install a new electoral system so that it will no longer be possible to game the system, and arrange for a party with 30% of the national vote to contrive to "win" a majority of seats in the house of Ccommons. A morally sustainable and sane electoral system that delivers the Will Of The Electorate can attract the grown-ups back to politics. We need quality candidated who have been reluctant to step up while UK politics has been fundamentally dysfunctional, after Blair broke everything in 1997 which has enabled tragically unsuitable candidates like David Lammy, Rachel Reeeves and Ed Miliband to be elected, thanks to tribal prejudice, dogma - and a morally corrupt electoral system.
The idea that we must replace this bogus administration long before 2029 is gaining credibility all the time. The idea the electorate can hustle this catastrophically illegitimate government out of office for lying, cheating and incompetence is not an impossible dream. It just requires some effort.
Sending missiles to Ukraine poke the Russian bear in the eye could get us into a war overnight. Putin will already have looked at the petition result and realised that if he could drive through Dover in a tank chances are he would be welcomed as a liberator. He certainly has no fear of being overwhelmed by a well armed and trained civil defence force.
And then there is the very real possibility that senior Labour politicians (including Lords) will be found to be involved in illegal activities and conspiracies to conceal awkward facts from their activist pasts and associates. The Labour government is already at the tipping point, and will not require much more of a nudge to csacade into the gutter.
More awkward revelations involving compromised senior civil servants; love children, super injunctions... there are many ways for an apparently immovable government to become so utterly bogged down in sleaze and corruption that the stench of hypocrisy and decay is so pervasive - that it becomes a pariah that cannot survive.
Starmer already used up his allocation of complimentary "honeymoon period" hypocrisy by insisting "HIS GOVERNMENT" would contrast with the previous government and be paragon of probity and virtue - but he immediately ran into the Lord Alli freebies, the Rayner housing awks; the Louise Haigh resignation, the disgraced Jacqui Smith Lords appointment, and the Rachel from Accounts' CV fiasco.
So I asked Grok...
How can the British labour MPs be made financially responsible for allowing mad Ed Milliband to wreck the country through his insane net zero policies
And GROK says...
"The question of holding British Labour MPs financially responsible for the outcomes of policies they support, particularly those related to net zero emissions under Ed Miliband's [leadership], involves complex legal, political, and ethical considerations. Here's an analysis based on the available information and context:
Legal Accountability:
Personal Liability: Generally, MPs are not held personally financially liable for the policy decisions they support or enact unless there's evidence of gross negligence, corruption, or illegal actions. (And even then I can't think of any precedent - the devil takes care of his own). The democratic process allows for policy implementation by elected representatives, with the assumption that these policies serve the public interest, even if they are controversial.
Fiscal Responsibility: While the government can be held accountable by the electorate through elections for policy outcomes, the financial implications of those policies are managed through budgetary controls and are not typically directed at individual MPs. Policy failures might lead to political consequences, like losing an election or facing voter backlash, but not direct financial responsibility unless specific legal breaches occur.
Political Accountability:
Electoral Consequences: MPs are held accountable by voters in elections. If the public perceives Labour's net zero policies, championed by Ed Miliband, as detrimental, they can vote against Labour MPs in subsequent elections. This is the primary mechanism for political accountability in a democratic system.
Public and Media Scrutiny: Media, public campaigns, and think tanks can increase scrutiny on MPs and their policies. For instance, articles from sources like The Times and The Telegraph have discussed the potential negative impacts of net zero policies on energy security and costs, which can influence public opinion and political pressure.
Policy Critique and Debate:
Policy Review: There's ongoing debate about the feasibility and economic impact of net zero policies. Critics argue that these policies could lead to higher energy costs or job losses in traditional industries, while proponents highlight long-term benefits like energy independence and environmental health. The discourse around these policies includes voices from both sides, with some expressing concerns over the rapid transition's economic implications, while others see it as necessary for future sustainability.
Economic Impact:
It's argued that the transition to net zero could strain the UK's economy if not managed carefully, with critics like Howard Cox from Reform UK suggesting that these policies might not align with the UK's global emission impact and could economically disadvantage the country.
Conclusion:
While there's no straightforward mechanism to make Labour MPs financially responsible for policy outcomes in the manner implied by the question, they are subject to:
Political accountability through elections - Public scrutiny which can influence policy direction or lead to changes in government.]
Legal accountability only if there are breaches of law, not merely based on policy outcomes.
The debate around net zero policies is significant, involving economic, environmental, and social considerations, with no immediate legal avenue for direct financial accountability for MPs except in extreme circumstances. [Bankrupting the entire country in pursuite of an unproven hypothesis is extreme enought for me!] The effectiveness and impact of these policies will continue to be debated and judged by the electorate in future elections..."
It's clearly not an open and shut case - the Palace of Westminster would have become the Prison of Westminster a while ago, to save the trouble of transporting the inmates to another location. So we have to work on the points raised, and I think there is an arguable and straightforward case for negligence in face of endless warnings, and also around the bribery act when votes were conned out of the electorate on promises of cheaper energy. Yes there will a lot of wailing "you cannot possibly do that" but aren't we ready to change the rules and expectations after the failure of 30 years of Blair and his heirs?
Many good people have looked at politics and concluded that they could not bring themselves down to the level of mendacity and deceit required to be a player in the Westminster game. Ben Habib and Tim Montogomery have both recently been prodded by conscience to re-evaluate their positions in the Tory party. Labour defectors seeking to dissociate themselves from the distastrous consequences of govenment profligacy will take off when the first test case of an MP's potential for their 1/411th share of the many £billions being flagrantly wasted by Miliband, gets to court.... 🤔
Meantime, reported on January 2, 2025 - Broxtowe Borough Council: A significant number of Labour councillors, including the council leader Milan Radulovic, have left the Labour Party to become independents. This was due to dissatisfaction with Keir Starmer's leadership and policies.
It was Keir Starmer that set the "nasty" intimidatory tone of this government with a vicious burst of lawfare to scare the people into submission to his police state and "bang-em-up" judges - now shall we concentrate minds and investigate and catalogue the assets of every Labour MP who will be liable for their share of the costs of the accumulating fraud in which they are prima facie complicit? Those who decide to do the decent thing and participate in a vote of no confidence in the government in order to respect the will of the people's petition may be granted leniency.
A defenestration of the Starmer "illegitimocracy" is all the more likely if there is an obvious replacement government in waiting with a leader and credible policies. But there is not one at present, and Rupert Lowe needs to find some more Reform performers with the balls to look the government in the eye to tell it that it needs to prepare to be out of office by next summer. But the announcement that billionaire Nick Candy is on the Reform team will further alarm Labour.
Also remember that Dominic Cummings is still on the loose with scores to settle and he always seems ready to implicate our rogue civil servants in all government failure and malfeasance; speaking of which I have not once alluded to what Trump and Musk might have up the MAGA sleeve... there is much to hope for if you want a fairly and democratically elected government within months, not years.
But keep in mind when we do get close to disposing of Starmer and his #illegitimocracy, the Tory party may well pretend it can't be done - since it is just as disturbed by the almost inevitable prospect of any sort of PR electoral system - as will Labour and Lib dems - who will be huge losers in a fairer voting solution. The Electoral Commission is supposed to be a neutral and objective guardian of democracy in charge of the rules - such as they are, when the system has allowed the despotic Keir Starmer was able to claim (with a straight face) a mandate for fundamental change with just 30% of the vote.
There are numerous models for PR - ask GROK to explain and illustrate them - and filter the obviously vexatious and implausible propositions. A workable balance needs to be struck - with an electorate of 48m there will not be 48m political parties - although technology advances could easily cope with the logistics of managing thousands of national political parties, the vast majority of the electorate just wants a simple life with one competent government keeping the lights on, maintaining law and order, maintaining national security and borders to keep undesireables of all types out of the country, providing a competent health and welfare service (ideally for the UK citizens that have paid into the National Insurance scheme), keeping food on the table, educating the kids, and fixing the potholes. Plus maintaining an environment in which UK businesses can employ the people, innovate and trade. Once we have established the terminology and parameters of the issues, then monitoring panels tracking satisfaction on these topics by sampling ongoing opinion can be produced...
It's basic stuff; and only when that it is sorted to everyone's satisfaction would we have the luxury of the scope to pander to crank ideologies.
The electorate doesn't want to have work too hard at keeping a recalcitrant government on the rails. And it doesn't like unpleasant surprises; business especially does not like surprises. But it seems fair to propose that everyone would prefer a voting system that represented the will of the electors, so that decisions were taken with the positive engagement of >50% of the electorate - a simple majority is going to be fairer.
But with a handful of exceptions, that national government has been made up from members of a single party for most of the last 100 years; the UK does not easily accommodate coalition solutions. It's a different story in local government where local factors can make big differences - but without major national significance . The "big politics" will continue to determine the elements of "the national budget"
Are we put off by the prospect of several "leading" parties being required to do deals to form governments? Well, we are happily at a point in time where there is consensus that the government could hardly be any worse across almost every one of its responsibilities - which reduces the risk for innovation - since nothing is likely to be as bad as the Starmer Government's omniclustershamblesfuck with its student common room politics. So let's try and be grown up and take into account all the new tech and innovations that can change the relationship of electorates and elected.
Our present systems were devised in the dark ages of carrier pigeons and rotten boroughs, and if we stick to the wote pledge principles, then what can possibly go wrong if electors are encouraged to be involved, consulted and empowered - and MPs are sanctioned for breaking their promises and abandoning their reponsibilities to their electors.