I can understand that a party selects who it wants as there leader, but should the public have any say in who there next PM will be?
I realise that in voting in an election, majority seats rule - but that doesn't extend to a choice of PM.
2007-03-02 04:53:36 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
We're not allowed to choose our Monarch either.
2007-03-02 04:57:47 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
This isn't just the case in the UK - many countries do not subject the office of the country's executive to a public vote.
In the UK we elect an MP for our constituency and trust they will support a prime ministerial candidate they feel is best suited to the job. Of course, with a 2 or 3 party system this makes it very predictable. It was quite different in the most recent German federal election when no party had a clear majority and a grand coalition was eventually formed behind Angela Merkel.
The founding fathers of the USA didn't believe the public could be trusted to elect the President and installed an electoral college so as to 'vet' the public's choice. This was also the case for senators until the last century.
The UK is not uncommon in not allowing the electorate to vote directly on the prime minister. However, in the current 'retail politics' environment often voters will vote for a party because of its leader rather than the local candidate. Many more people at the last election believed they voted for Tony Balir or Michael Howard rather than for their local candidate.
2007-03-04 08:17:48 · answer #2 · answered by James 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because, we the voting public, are not best placed to make that decision. It is better that the party/politicians make that choice, because they now the candidates better, know their abilities and have to work with them. You can have too much democracy.
I am not certain I understand your subtext regarding leader and Prime minister. Let me rehearse the process. Following an election victory, the leader, previously chosen by the party, automatically becomes PM, but, if for any reason, that PM needs to be replaced mid term, then again, the party makes that choice.
At the time of the next election, the PM reverts back to party leader, and, whichever party is elected, the leader becomes the PM. As I say, I don't think the public are best placed to make that choice. I may have misunderstood you, but, at the time of the election, the electorate vote for their respective parties, and, if the leader didn't automatically become PM, how/when could the voters separately elect a PM who would presumably have to be a member of the successful party. Or, perhaps,are you trying to separate the role of PM from party politics?, So that the all voters would have a vote for PM even if your favoured political party didn't win. The PM effectively becoming apolitical.
2007-03-02 09:46:48 · answer #3 · answered by Veritas 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Under the Parliamentary system the ruling party or a coalition choses the Prime Minister. The philosophy behind this is that the ruling party has a mandate from the People and is therefore given the authority to appoint the Prime Minister. Certainly not the best system of governance. That is what made the American system so unique. Of course that system isn't perfect either.
2007-03-02 20:21:28 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well when you vote, the winner forms the government and their leader becomes the Prime Minister.
If you are a member of the non-parliamentary Labour junta you have no choice. If you are a member of the Conservatives you get to choose between the two most popular. I believe it is the same for the Liberal democrats.
However, when Tony B.liar steps down we will have an unelected Prime Minister.
2007-03-04 03:40:23 · answer #5 · answered by DanRSN 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
UK has a parliamentary system of government, which means voters must vote for a party of choice. You may decide who the next PM will be by this simple method. If you want a Labour PM vote for the Labour candidate in your constituency etc.
2007-03-03 02:57:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is a very good question. I can only presume that the voting public wouldn't have to blame themselves for electing an idiot into power when something goes wrong. There will always be a "patsy" in the government.
2007-03-02 05:07:57 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because Brits only play at Freedom and Representitive Democracy. It's a good thing too, because else your country would go down the tubes faster than it already is. Just listen to your betters and be satisfied you have someone to explain why you should escape the gibbet. Little good shall it avail ye in the end however.
2007-03-02 05:42:13 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The Monarch chooses the Prime Minister to 'Lead her Government'. The question should be "Why, in a democracy, to we have a Monarch?"
2007-03-03 02:09:52 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
well dickie we actually did get a chance to choose our primeminister at the last election.
it was the worst kept seceret of all time that brown was gonna take over from blair after a certain amount of time.
could you really say in your heart of hearts that you would have chosen john major as prime minister when the dreaded maggie thatcher was de capitated?
2007-03-02 05:08:06 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. Put simply.
The tory voter - and people who want labour to fail - will simply vote for the biggest wally as it's leader.
2007-03-02 21:13:59 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋