Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I'm talking about party members. Not members of parliament.
The 2024 UK General Election - news, speculation and updates
- Thread starter chilango
- Start date
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
I think the argument here is that the Tory members went and chose Liz Truss when the MPs had marginally gone for Sunak.
Because if Sunak had got into power that would definitely have worked much better.
cupid_stunt
Chief seagull hater & farmerbarleymow's nemesis.
Party members could still decide who their candidate is, and without interference from party HQ, if they become an MP they are representing far more people than just party members, and should chose their leader, as they will not only know the potential leaders better, but would also have to work with them.
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Voting exists in the hands of the electorate, not the selectorate. I want representatives of the people to decide leaders and the people to decide who runs the government not party members.
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I'd also like an elected House of Lords, and PR (which would help decide the former)...
Why on earth shouldn't they?
If you're a member of an organisation, getting to vote for who leads that organisation is pretty standard surely? Have you never been a member of a sports club or a union or some other membership organisation?
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
And referendums should only follow sortition and be on single issue topics not constitutional issues like Brexit.
Zapp Brannigan
Built like a steakhouse, handles like a bistro
And when the parliamentary party has been stacked to the rafters with sycophants and bootlickers parachuted into safe seats on the strength of their service to and friendships with the core power group, instead of representatives of the people as picked by their their local constituency party?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
I know you are, that was the reason for my post. Even you must realise we dont elect the Prime Minister.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
yeah, voters are far too dumb to be able to decide on things like that. Best leave it to our betters.
Scratch a bloody liberal....
cupid_stunt
Chief seagull hater & farmerbarleymow's nemesis.
Why on earth shouldn't they?
If you're a member of an organisation, getting to vote for who leads that organisation is pretty standard surely? Have you never been a member of a sports club or a union or some other membership organisation?
But sports clubs and unions are only there for their members, MPs represent the wider electorate.
Silas Loom
Advanced. Forthright. Signifficant.
Why on earth shouldn't they?
If you're a member of an organisation, getting to vote for who leads that organisation is pretty standard surely? Have you never been a member of a sports club or a union or some other membership organisation?
Perhaps the leader of the party should not automatically be the prime minister, then.
tim
EXPLODED TIM! (Help me!!!)
And, fortunately, Norman Scott is 84 years old.
if you want a directly elected president go ahead and say that.
but trying to turn the position of prime minister appointed by parliament into a quasi-president doesn't lend itself to a functional system. nobody's ever come up with a good idea for squaring that circle.
chosen by a tiny selectorate which skews to niche wierdos? you've got problems.
opening that up to more of the public who've spent £3 to register or whatever? different problems.
forget half measures and go for a poll of the whole adult citizenship for a directly elected president.
and leave parliament to do their job and vote for the prime minister themselves.
but trying to turn the position of prime minister appointed by parliament into a quasi-president doesn't lend itself to a functional system. nobody's ever come up with a good idea for squaring that circle.
chosen by a tiny selectorate which skews to niche wierdos? you've got problems.
opening that up to more of the public who've spent £3 to register or whatever? different problems.
forget half measures and go for a poll of the whole adult citizenship for a directly elected president.
and leave parliament to do their job and vote for the prime minister themselves.
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Sigh...this isn't the point here. Everyone who pays attention to how the structure of parties work and how the public view leadership knows that a change in leader for a party in power is a hugely significant thing. It isn't a constitutional fudge to suggest my idea. The fact is people vote for party and that's defined largely by the media which focus on leader.
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Brexit proves the point. We have a representative democracy for a reason. Issues like abortion are far more straight for the population to vote on than something as complex of membership of a union like Europe. This would give us the best of both worlds, deeper political engagement, reduce party member influence, safe guard against ruinous decision.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
I didnt suggest it was a constitutional fuse, I suggested it was bollocks. And now you justifying it with 'defined by the media' - well double bollocks to that.
So it's better to have a smaller number of people (MPs) determine who's leader rather than the wider membership who voted for/helped those MPs get elected? I disagree.
Silas Loom
Advanced. Forthright. Signifficant.
Hang about, why have referendums on matters as complex as abortion or, god forbid, capital punishment? Why ever go beyond representative democracy?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
No votes for the Scorts or Welsh on independence then. I can see that going down well.
tim
EXPLODED TIM! (Help me!!!)
What is the reason for us having this "representative democracy"? And who took the decision to impose it upon us?
cupid_stunt
Chief seagull hater & farmerbarleymow's nemesis.
they're not. but it's a strong convention.
in an alternate timeline when 2010 results meant Labour + Lib Dem could've had the numbers to form a coalition, one negating point from the LD side was that they'd only vote for someone else as PM. still from Labour as the larger party obviously.
now whether Brown would've stayed on as leader of the party after that, probably not long term.
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Indeed.
Silas Loom
Advanced. Forthright. Signifficant.
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
History and context on this thread? My word you are a radical!
And you think MPs would vote for their party leader based on the wishes of their constituents..? If so, you have a much more benevolent view of politicians than I do!
And members typically vote for who leads their party.
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
Why on earth shouldn't they?
If you're a member of an organisation, getting to vote for who leads that organisation is pretty standard surely? Have you never been a member of a sports club or a union or some other membership organisation?
Yeah, but no one else gives a shit who runs the local tennis club, or has a stake in it.
Personally, as an LP member, I do not believe that a) I should have more say over who is PM than my neighbour who isn't, and b) that I'm as qualified as my MP to decide who can both lead, and build a team that will deliver (broadly) a manifesto, given that that they know all the candidates, and I don't.
The job of the PM is to both lead, and serve, Parliament, with MP's as the representatives of their constituencies and electorates - not, and I include myself in this - the 60-odd weirdos out of 80,000 voters who turn up to Friday night constituency meetings.
For me, for Parliamentary democracy to work, MP's should be affiliated to a party - or not - but not owned by them, or controlled by them. They are there to represent all their constituents, not just the ones who voted for them, and certainly not just the miniscule number who happen to be members of the same political party.
By all means look at divorcing the roles of party leader and PM, with the party leader role being very much the one controlled by the membership - but the PM's role is very different, responsible to a far wider electorate, requiring a different skill set and having infinitely more serious responsibilities.
tim
EXPLODED TIM! (Help me!!!)
Who chose that slightly more accountable system for us?
PR1Berske
Alligator in chains by the park gates.
When people who aren't engaged in politics realise that the only people who vote for, say, Kier Starmer are those who live in Holborn and St Pancras, there can be some confusion and frustration. The alternative would either be some kind of presidential system, or a wider electoral arrangement where parties cede full responsibility, and neither feels plausible.
Look to the US for possibly the worst option, where political parties are not exactly headed by any single person.
Look to the US for possibly the worst option, where political parties are not exactly headed by any single person.
Similar threads
- Poll
