Electing The Next Prime Minister

[ichkeria]

The next Prime Minister of the U.K. will be elected by members of the Tory Party. Is it worth non members of that party, including supporters of other parties, joining the Tories at least temporarily so that they can have their say in this?

[mikey4444]

Gromit...as far as I am aware, when we go to the Polls every few years, we are not electing a Government, but our local MP. The Government is formed from the party with the largest number of MPs.

So, at no point in the proceedings, is anybody electing a PM.

[Old_Geezer]

Waste of time. Farage isn't going to join the Tories.

[ichkeria]

I wasn't suggesting people join the Tory party for any other reason than to have a say in who the next prime minster is (and let's face it, whoever it is, they are likely to be there until 2015)

I don't actually agree that a general election is necessary every time there is a new prime minister, although that would depend on the extent to which a new PM signalled a new direction or set of policies

[ichkeria]

2025 (gasp!)

[Gromit]

// So, at no point in the proceedings, is anybody electing a PM. //

They are not. My point is, the elected MPs should do it, and it may be a different person than the Party leader who is elected by the whole party.

[mikey4444]

As far as I am aware, we don't elect a PM when we step into the Polling booth, nor even a Government. We elect a local MP, and the Party that has the most elected MPs, goes on to form a Government. Who the PM turns out to be is not really within our gift.

My memory tells me that we have even had a PM that governed from the House of Lords, so any PM doesn't even have to be elected by anybody.

[mikey4444]

Sorry...ignore my last post !

[mrblear]

I could not disagree with you more, Mikey, people vote on party lines, not on individual preferences and they know that the leader of that party will be prime minister if they form a government.

[Jackdaw33]

The last one was Lord Salisbury, resigned 1902. We've even had a PM who was not a member of either house. When Lord Home became PM in 1963 he immediately disclaimed his peerage to seek a seat in the Commons. For three weeks until the by-election he was PM without any seat.

[bhg481]

So, mrblear, you believe that people voting Green party (or Monster Raving Looney etc) really believe that their party will form the government and that one of their MPs will become Prime Minister? I think not. For a start thy don't usually contest enough seats to form a government.

[mrblear]

Don't be daft,bhg, you know exactly what I mean.

[youngmafbog]

I dont know what you mean.

You appear to be talking out of your backside.

[mrblear]

Then, ymf, you must be even more thick today than usual

[New Judge]

I know what you mean Mr. Blear. And it is one of the biggest shortcomings of Party Politics.

People should elect an individual whom they think will best represent their interests in Westminster. Those representatives should then be free to vote how they feel (bearing in mind their constituents’ needs and wishes) on individual issues. This presents difficulties, not least in the formation of a government and the appointment of Ministers. But the link between the voter and his MP has been lost. 99% of voters vote for a party, not an individual. Each party offers a package of measures which almost certainly give everybody what nobody in particular wants. So (for arguments sake and just for demonstration of the point) if you want a better health service you must vote Labour but that means you vote for the party that wants to give up Trident, which may not suit you.

Under a non-party system my MP may canvass his constituents and discover that most of them want a better health service but most of them also want to keep Trident. He should be free to vote appropriately on each issue.

[mikey4444]

JJ...if we adopted what you have suggested, the MP would be wearing a groove in the tarmac between Westminster and the Constituency, as he/she would need to "refer to voters" 10 times a day !

[New Judge]

I'm not saying it would be easy, Mikey. I'm also not suggesting that an MP should consult his consituents on every issue. But he should be able to consult on the major issues (in the same way that party manifestos concentrate on major issues). The point is that MPs are in Westminster to serve their constituents. Most of them believe they are there to serve their party and keep it in power. This was reinforced by a certain Mr Blair who said, within a short time of first taking office (and I paraphrase a bit as I cannot remember verbatim) "we must dispel the notion that MPs are in Parliament to represent the people. They are not. They are there to ensure the government's policies are enacted". (A joke from that time: What is the difference between a New Labour MP and a shopping trolley? A shopping trolley has a mind of its own.’ )

[Canary42]

This party/constituency dilemma takes on a new dimension with the EU referendum canvassing. Do Cameron's constituents want to stay in? Do Johnson's constituents want to come out?

Answers on a postcard please to N Farage;-)

[mikey4444]

NJ....I am sure that some MPs consult, some of the time.They have regular surgeries, so they should be fairly in touch with local feelings on major issues at least.

[anotheoldgit]

mikey4444

/// I believe him to be an honourable man and I can see no indication that he will go back on his word. ///

Was that typed in sarcastic mode? because I am sure we have witnessed many "Cameron takes another 'U' turn" threads from you.

[bhg481]

I would like to believe that that's why David Cameron gave his MPs the freedom to canvas according to their own beliefs or, preferably, what they think would be best for their constituents on the EU referendum.