Time for the public to directly elect the British PM?

[Ayahuasca]

How would British politics be changed if the public were able to decide who were to be PM in a presidential-type system?

[Ayahuasca]

Well Aya, what an interesting question. I think a presidential style election would strengthen the link between the public and the executive branch of government, which has to be a good thing. More importantly it would ensure that no ugly people like Winky or Harman are ever elected.

[Rusty Arches]

I think the less we copy America the better.

[dreamz]

see i think we should be able to elect a prime minister seperate and our mp's seperate

i voted labour as my local mp is really good for the area - however i didnt want winky to take the lead again

no necessarily a presidential system - just a two tier voting system.

[cazzer]

President Jordan anyone?

[OnTheOverrun]

dreamz said:

see i think we should be able to elect a prime minister seperate and our mp's seperate

i voted labour as my local mp is really good for the area - however i didnt want winky to take the lead again

no necessarily a presidential system - just a two tier voting system.

And who do you propose has the final say when the cabinet and PM are from different parties and disagree?

[i'm no superhero]

Education for the public is what is more important.

I saw an MP explain that some electorates complained after there were do options for "Gordon Brown" or "David Cameron" on the ballot paper. People sometimes don't realise they're electing their local MP; they think they're electing a PM.

Education, education, education.

[Jasandjules]

Ayahuasca said:

Well Aya, what an interesting question. I think a presidential style election would strengthen the link between the public and the executive branch of government, which has to be a good thing.

Why? Being realistic, we pretty much know who will be PM when we vote (unless of course they don't get voted in which I was practically praying would happen to Gordon Brown - what a kick in the teeth that would have been) for the parties do we not?.

[AJS-]

And create someone even more self important than a Prime Minister? No.

[Dracoro]

How will it change anything.

General Election, how many people are going to put down PM from a different party than they are voting for?Hardly any so it's a waste of time. What happens if the party with the most seats/votes has to be led by a PM from a different party, it would just be a mess.

The only debate to be had is when a PM changes mid-term. Again, taking 2 years ago as an example, you have the same issue whereby Labour are in power but with a Tory PM. Stupidity.

The only thing to to is to have a general election if the PM cannot carry on (steps down, ill health/dies etc.).

[scorp]

Dracoro said:

The only thing to to is to have a general election if the PM cannot carry on (steps down, ill health/dies etc.).

This would dissuade MPs of the current govt from challenging their leadership, not sure if that's a good thing or not.

editted for spelling,etc

Edited by scorp on Monday 17th May 09:29

[Devil2575]

Rusty Arches said:

I think the less we copy America the better.

+1

[Don]

Devil2575 said:

Rusty Arches said:

I think the less we copy America the better.

+1

I agree. We have a parliamentary democracy. Whilst the leader of the party one votes for is important and will influence one's vote one actually votes for one's MP and, by association, a party.

[Tuna]

Terrible idea. You're meant to vote for the people who best represent you. That comes down to your local MP, and the party with the manifesto that you most believe in.

Voting for a President PM would just encourage the half-wits and epsilon semi-morons to vote for the bloke/girl with the most convincing smarm. Jordan wouldn't get in, but Cheryl Cole would stand a reasonable chance in a fight against Simon Cowell.

Right now we need leaders who can make the tough decisions and sort out the deficit, not some gurning fool who gives voters a warm fuzzy feeling.... oh, hold on.

[Halb]

Ayahuasca said:

How would British politics be changed if the public were able to decide who were to be PM in a presidential-type system?

Would they have the same powers? Would it be a PMship still? Blair was effectively a presidential style PM thanks to his large majority. The US Prez is Head of State and head of government. Would the new directly elected PM have to choose from only elected officials as his government? The question is too vague.
Copying the USA in some regards to their constitution might be good. A very decent system was set up when USA was created. It isn't perfect for today, but then the world does not stand still.

[Ayahuasca]

But we don't really vote for our local MP do we? We vote for the party, the nation-wide policies, or the leader we prefer. We just put a cross next to the name of the local MP.