The 2024 UK General Election - news, speculation and updates

[Kid_Eternity]

you really dont understand how parliamentary democracy is supposed to work, do you? The clue is in the name.

I'm talking about party members. Not members of parliament.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

Have they? Even if we put aside questions of democracy and accountability, I think you need to demonstrate this rather than simply assert it.

So let's have some specific examples of when Labour party members have proven themselves ill equipped to choose a new leader when the party is in power.

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]

God forbid the members would get a say!

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]

You're absolutely right. We must remove all voting power from the people, before they ruin democracy completely.

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]

I'd also like an elected House of Lords, and PR (which would help decide the former)...

 

[Sue]

Why on earth should they?

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]

And referendums should only follow sortition and be on single issue topics not constitutional issues like Brexit.

 

[Zapp Brannigan]

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.

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]

I'm talking about party members. Not members of parliament.

I know you are, that was the reason for my post. Even you must realise we dont elect the Prime Minister.

 

[belboid]

And referendums should only follow sortition and be on single issue topics not constitutional issues like Brexit.

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]

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]

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]

For younger readers, this reference is 49 years old.

And, fortunately, Norman Scott is 84 years old.

 

[Cerv]

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.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

I know you are, that was the reason for my post. Even you must realise we dont elect the Prime Minister.

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]

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....

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]

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.

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.

 

[Sue]

But sports clubs and unions are only there for their members, MPs represent the wider electorate.

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]

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.

Hang about, why have referendums on matters as complex as abortion or, god forbid, capital punishment? Why ever go beyond representative democracy?

 

[belboid]

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.

No votes for the Scorts or Welsh on independence then. I can see that going down well.

 

[tim]

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.

What is the reason for us having this "representative democracy"? And who took the decision to impose it upon us?

 

[cupid_stunt]

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.

Yes, MPs represent millions of voters, not a handful of party members.

We vote for MPs, not PMs.

 

[Cerv]

Perhaps the leader of the party should not automatically be the prime minister, then.

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]

No votes for the Scorts or Welsh on independence then. I can see that going down well.

Indeed.

 

[Silas Loom]

What is the reason for us having this "representative democracy"? And who took the decision to impose it upon us?

We didn’t start off with no government then suddenly have one foisted on us. We moved from charismatic or despotic or hereditary leadership to a rather more accountable system.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

We didn’t start off with no government then suddenly have one foisted on us. We moved from charismatic or despotic or hereditary leadership to a rather more accountable system.

History and context on this thread? My word you are a radical!

 

[Sue]

Yes, MPs represent millions of voters, not a handful of party members.

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!

We vote for MPs, not PMs.

And members typically vote for who leads their party.

 

[kebabking]

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]

We didn’t start off with no government then suddenly have one foisted on us. We moved from charismatic or despotic or hereditary leadership to a rather more accountable system.

Who chose that slightly more accountable system for us?

 

[PR1Berske]

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.