The George Galloway 'conspiracy'

[The Tick]

I won't have right to remove Keir Starmer after the next election, so what's new.

You just wait until the election after that.

[Zambo]

Any aperson who is put into a leadership position in Government, should be voted in by the public. All I need to say is Truss, Johnson and Sunak for the reasons for that.

[The Tick]

Any aperson who is put into a leadership position in Government, should be voted in by the public. All I need to say is Truss, Johnson and Sunak for the reasons for that.

There is an argument for compulsory calling of a general election mid term if an incumbent prime minister is ousted as leader of their own party.

Other than that, the introduction of proportional representation as a voting system, and the full democratisation of the house of Lords is a priority.

[lambrini]

So you say it's not a political appointment

The Mayor should be appointed. Really. By whom? That would be a politician. But you would have removed the right for several million people to remove someone who they don't rate. And the chance to say what sort of city they want.

So there's a mayor you don't like.Tell you what let's stop the public having a say in who it is, because they might choose the wrong one. Many people thought the one before was a wanker but I don't recall them arguing for an end to democracy to fix it.

Great plan.

The Mayor of London is an obsolete appointment. End of story.

[The Tick]

So you say it's not a political appointment

The Mayor should be appointed. Really. By whom? That would be a politician. But you would have removed the right for several million people to remove someone who they don't rate. And the chance to say what sort of city they want.

So there's a mayor you don't like.Tell you what let's stop the public having a say in who it is, because they might choose the wrong one. Many people thought the one before was a wanker but I don't recall them arguing for an end to democracy to fix it.

Great plan.

The Mayor of London is an obsolete appointment. End of story.

Far from it. It's an exercise in devolved governance and democratic representation. You'll have to live with that.

[subsub]

I think Khan is a status symbol for many voters.

Khan is a cunt and that's his right. The role of 'Mayor of London' should not be a political appointment, it should be a commercial decision based on the person's exerience running a massive fucking city. Everytime I hear Khan he's trying to get a dig into The Tories, same with Andy Burnham. Just focus on running the fucking city you pricks. Hiring a mayor should be like hiring someone to run a business, party politic shouldn't come into it. Rant over.

Who should choose the mayor, then? The head of state?
Can see that going down well.

[lambrini]

So you say it's not a political appointment

The Mayor should be appointed. Really. By whom? That would be a politician. But you would have removed the right for several million people to remove someone who they don't rate. And the chance to say what sort of city they want.

So there's a mayor you don't like.Tell you what let's stop the public having a say in who it is, because they might choose the wrong one. Many people thought the one before was a wanker but I don't recall them arguing for an end to democracy to fix it.

Great plan.

The Mayor of London is an obsolete appointment. End of story.

Far from it. It's an exercise in devolved governance and democratic representation. You'll have to live with that.

A weak excuse: You favour Sadiq Khan, so of course you'll say that. "Demographic representation" doesn’t justify the role's existence. I believe the appointment was also irrelevant during Boris and Ken's time. Politics aside, for the most part, it's always been a vanity project.

[birdie]

So you say it's not a political appointment

The Mayor should be appointed. Really. By whom? That would be a politician. But you would have removed the right for several million people to remove someone who they don't rate. And the chance to say what sort of city they want.

So there's a mayor you don't like.Tell you what let's stop the public having a say in who it is, because they might choose the wrong one. Many people thought the one before was a wanker but I don't recall them arguing for an end to democracy to fix it.

Great plan.

The Mayor of London is an obsolete appointment. End of story.

Obsolete? Bloody hell Lambers, the office was only invented, for want of a better description, in 2000.
You aren't confusing it with The Lord Mayor of London are you,? That office has been going since about 1180 odd, and refers to the City of London, or, more commonly called 'the square mile'.

[birdie]

So you say it's not a political appointment

The Mayor should be appointed. Really. By whom? That would be a politician. But you would have removed the right for several million people to remove someone who they don't rate. And the chance to say what sort of city they want.

So there's a mayor you don't like.Tell you what let's stop the public having a say in who it is, because they might choose the wrong one. Many people thought the one before was a wanker but I don't recall them arguing for an end to democracy to fix it.

Great plan.

The Mayor of London is an obsolete appointment. End of story.

Far from it. It's an exercise in devolved governance and democratic representation. You'll have to live with that.

A weak excuse: You favour Sadiq Khan, so of course you'll say that. "Demographic representation" doesn’t justify the role's existence. I believe the appointment was also irrelevant during Boris and Ken's time. Politics aside, for the most part, it's always been a vanity project.

I cant disagree with that, the appointment should have been titled 'Chief Executive Officer', but that wouldn't be grand enough for some, especially the first one in office.

[The Tick]

So you say it's not a political appointment

The Mayor should be appointed. Really. By whom? That would be a politician. But you would have removed the right for several million people to remove someone who they don't rate. And the chance to say what sort of city they want.

So there's a mayor you don't like.Tell you what let's stop the public having a say in who it is, because they might choose the wrong one. Many people thought the one before was a wanker but I don't recall them arguing for an end to democracy to fix it.

Great plan.

The Mayor of London is an obsolete appointment. End of story.

Far from it. It's an exercise in devolved governance and democratic representation. You'll have to live with that.

A weak excuse: You favour Sadiq Khan, so of course you'll say that. "Demographic representation" doesn’t justify the role's existence. I believe the appointment was also irrelevant during Boris and Ken's time. Politics aside, for the most part, it's always been a vanity project.

No it's a real office which has an impact on London. One which has been denied more responsibilities than it should've been given. It's a system which works. It'll be around for some time to come.

[paolo]

Any aperson who is put into a leadership position in Government, should be voted in by the public. All I need to say is Truss, Johnson and Sunak for the reasons for that.

There is an argument for compulsory calling of a general election mid term if an incumbent prime minister is ousted as leader of their own party.

Other than that, the introduction of proportional representation as a voting system, and the full democratisation of the house of Lords is a priority.

As we both know

flood the country with p words and n words....marginalise the g words

introduce pr

control governments in perpetuity

[The Tick]

Any aperson who is put into a leadership position in Government, should be voted in by the public. All I need to say is Truss, Johnson and Sunak for the reasons for that.

There is an argument for compulsory calling of a general election mid term if an incumbent prime minister is ousted as leader of their own party.

Other than that, the introduction of proportional representation as a voting system, and the full democratisation of the house of Lords is a priority.

As we both know

flood the country with p words and n words....marginalise the g words

introduce pr

control governments in perpetuity

As we both know.

Provide devolved governance for London. Have people elected into the relevant offices. Internet nutjobs cry into their keyboards.

[paolo]

Any aperson who is put into a leadership position in Government, should be voted in by the public. All I need to say is Truss, Johnson and Sunak for the reasons for that.

There is an argument for compulsory calling of a general election mid term if an incumbent prime minister is ousted as leader of their own party.

Other than that, the introduction of proportional representation as a voting system, and the full democratisation of the house of Lords is a priority.

As we both know

flood the country with p words and n words....marginalise the g words

introduce pr

control governments in perpetuity

As we both know.

Provide devolved governance for London. Have people elected into the relevant offices. Internet nutjobs cry into their keyboards.

Remember, you won many, many years ago

you should put more effort into cementing the destruction of our once great country

[The Tick]

you should put more effort into cementing the destruction of our once great country

"Once great country".

[paolo]

you should put more effort into cementing the destruction of our once great country

"Once great country".

So you and your ilk have improved it?