Do you think the UK PM should be limited to 2 terms in Office.?

Question

The reason I ask this is that after a while I believe all/most leaders lose touch with their electorate and the real world. Blair has always courted the rich and famous and as we know there has been the odd allegation of corruption. Do you think it would be a good idea to take on the USA system where their President can only serve two terms in office. I don't mean follow the US system of elections just copy the maximum of two terms for the PM

Big Ste or whatever, I don't need to report an abuse violation re your answer to a reasonable question.
You have let yourself down mate and shown yourself for what you are, I don't need to do it for you!!!!
The fact of who the Tory's did or did not court was a point for you or anyone else to put over, that's what the question has been asked for. .
The fact that it is Blair in office does not matter as I'm sure I would have asked the same question with a Tory PM..

Answer 1

In this case one is too many!!!

Answer 2

It's probably a good idea.Margaret Thatcher and now Tony Blair have hung too long to power in a rather unhealthy and undemocratic way. Having said that, turkey's don't vote for Xmas so it may be a hard one to introduce. Personally I'd wish it was easier for the electorate to have a say when political leaders start doing things that were not in their manifesto (such as committing to war being one of the more serious examples and pushing through ID cards being another).
It seems wrong that when leaders loose touch it's only their party that can force them out.Obviously there's the usual elections but how do you vote if you want the party but not the leader?

Answer 3

Not really. Under the current system the PM has to pay at least some attention to what the electorate wants, as it is possible to oust him or her at any time if enough of the ruling party's MPs rebel. If we adopted the US system the PM, once into his second term, would be almost unmovable, would not have to worry about standing for election again and could [1] do almost anything they wanted if they retained support or [2] be a totally ineffectual lame duck without it.

Answer 4

No, if a half-decent leader of the country should ever appear on the scene then it would be a shame for them to be forced to go while they were still doing a good job -
but either the maximum parliamentary period should be reduced or else we should have mid-term elections so that we can kick them out when they don't behave themselves.
While we're at it, there should be no question of the prime minister simply handing the job over to someone else without an election.

Answer 5

It's a good question and deserves sensible answers - so forget the ramblings of the person whom the questioner, rightly, took to task.

Too long in power breeds a feeling of omnipotence, we saw it emerge with Maggie Thatcher and we are now witnessing the same with Tony Blair. Claire Short put it very cogently recently when she described our present PM as suffering from delusions. It happens because of the job and, consequently, a two-term limit makes good sense.

Answer 6

We have term limits for a prime minister, we call them "elections" and we do just fine at getting rid of prime ministers who have lost touch. Americans need term limits as the president holds office completely independently of congress, but the UKPM is far more accountable than the President, who can only be removed for "high crimes": At any time and for absolutely any reason the PM can be removed by the House of Commons (vote of no-confidence), or by his/her own party's MPs (internal party leadership election). There's also plenty of evidence that americans feel loyal to the president as head of state (commander-in-chief) and are reluctant to vote to oust him. That certainly doesn't apply to our Prime Minister as the ceremonial/national loyalty side of things is vested in the queen, and people don't feel so reluctant to replace the PM.

Answer 7

No not at all,if we had a man as prime minister who had been doing a good job,if that party is re-elected for a third term its seems nonsensical to replace him/her with some one who may not be half as good.Bill Clinton is a good example,and look who replaced him.If the electorate don`t like the candidate,they wont elect them.TURN UP AND VOTE..only way

Answer 8

Terms used by elected state official is very important. "Absolute power corrupts absoluely". Thus, limiting state officials terms of service is very important.

The post of UK PM needs to be adjusted / limited to two terms only afterall nobody is an Island of state control.

What really matters is their respective positive achievemnt within Britain in particular and outside world in general.

Answer 9

I do think that there should be a limit, for all the reasons you mention plus the fact that they seem to become very apathetic after a while.
also might help people vote for a party and it's policies, instead of the personality fronting it!

Answer 10

Yes

Answer 11

see you later as they are elected because the solar newspaper tells anybody to vote for them, they could function many words as they prefer. notwithstanding, simply by encroaching insanity, they are frequently kicked out by using their own social gathering after 8 to 10 years