Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Perhaps someone should tell them that we don't vote for a Prime Minister?
when John Major went eighteen months as an unelected PM.
rather than be all Daily Mail and be outraged by a headline.
No matter how the media and the parties might focus campaigns around THE LEADER, we do not elect a Prime Minister, we elect our local MP and, at best and in a broader sense, a party to run the country. Gordon Brown is as "elected" as a PM as Tony Blair was. It's not even as if they're proposing we have a directly-elected head of state; just that we hodge podge a system that we currently have in a way that doesn't make any real sense. An entire general election just because a party changed their leader? ridic.
that its clearly just an attempt to knock Brown. dimwits have been calling him "unelected" for years now, and constitutional change should not be done for reasons as flimsy as this.
it's very daft to think they have no bearing on who people vote for locally.
we have a directly elected head of state.
Why not start a party on that point? You can have my vote.
Much like I don't see the need for this.
I just think if you're going to campaign on this point it should be done in a proper way. Want an elected head of government? Have one, have some balls, go all the way.
I still won't vote for any of them though.
Teh Toriezz r baddd
Vote Labour (but, swear blind you don't actually support them. Try and make out you're 'undecided', considering the Lib Dems, effectively disenfranchised, an anarcho-syndicalist or not voting at all as you're just too much of a rugged individualist for any organisation ever to represent you on any level.
Then trot off to the polling station and vote Labour.
WE HATE THEM
WE CAN'T WIN
you got me good there, with your keen insight.
But, still we keep coming back.
It's just that what with us being 13 years into a Labour government, the economy in ruins and and Labour polling lower support than they had even under Michael Foot it might make a bit of a change for you to direct your ire at the people who are actually running the show.
I don't particularly care about Labour or poll numbers because I'm not a tedious party politics hawk on this subject like you seem to be.
i mean, isn't it more just that you hold a lot of idiotic opinions? that isn't really anyone's fault but your own. get smarter, plz.
don't think i'm an anarcho syndicate though because i don't know what it is.
I don't know what it is either though.
to post about how they could never vote Tory cos' Maggie Thatcher stole THEIR milk, before they were even born!!!!!!!
MPs policies are all dictated by their party. In an ideal world, you'd vote for an MP on the strength of his own "manifesto", which reflects the needs of their electorate. It doesn't really make political (their career) sense to go against, for example, the conservative leadership.
So yeah, we do kind of vote for a prime minister because MPs are mostly careerist automatons. Maybe one day we'll have a non-partisan system, but it wont be soon. I don't really see how its possible to combine local government with massive national organisations bankrolled by people like Ashcroft. Its all a big rotten egg.
A major benefit of the way our electoral system is currently set up is that local branches of parties still have a lot of power and a say in who they stand as a candidate. This is why people like Jeremy Corbyn or Tony Benn continue(d) to sit in Parliament despite being wildly at odds with the leadership and the direction of the party.
but at one point they did, and the centrist reformers would've been on the outside. swings and roundabouts.
politics has got a lot more careerist though, but then i think thats just part of the massive changes Britain has undergone in the past 30 years.