Ah yes, the old ‘he has not been chosen…to be the leader of the country after an election campaign’ argument. Except of course, he has. Everyone knew at the 2005 election that you were ‘voting blair to get brown’. It was made abundently clear (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/apr/06/election2005.labour for example).

Funny how quickly people forget/change history to suit their current thoughts egh?

“Democracy, such a funny thing” indeed.

Such is the evolution of politics. If I understand the arguments correctly, the age of “Parliamentary Sovereignty” would mean that we elect 650 or so MPs, who between them decide who goes into the cabinet and who will subsequently hold those cabinet ministers to account on behalf of their constituents. The role of Prime Minister would devolve back into First Lord of the Treasury, and the prime ministerial influence would not be felt by other cabinet members. The direction the country would take would be determined by those 650 MPs, who would hold the power to replace cabinet members who didn’t do as the Parliamentary Majority directed.

“Presidentialism” would be one MP elected to the office of Prime Minister, by the people, who would then select their cabinet that would go in the direction set by the PM. The supreme power would be held by the PM, but also any change of PM would require popular consent by the people.

What we currently have is a sort of mixture situation. The PM holds the supreme power, appoints the cabinet, sets the direction (as a president), but is selected by the 650 MPs (which he would be if the house held a vote – the Labour MPs vote would all be for Brown as the leader selected by the Labour party’s internal method). At a general election this is essentially a presidential election, as the people cast their votes for a party with a known leader (so in 2005 people voted for Labour knowing a Labour victory would mean Blair in the presidential PM role). Between elections however, it means a PM wouldn’t have an electoral mandate from the people yet he holds all the presidential powers.

In my view it’s a weakness of the system – but I wouldn’t know which way I would prefer to go should we choose to go wholly presidential or wholly parliamentary.

We need a presidential system in this country, pure and simple. Separation of powers. Parliament does the laws, president does the executive stuff. No more PM whipping a majority in the House to pass the laws he/she likes.The President would appoint his cabinet, and any MP selected to join the cabinet would have to give up their parliamentary seat – no more lobbying MPs who simply will never vote against their government.

What John Booth said

You serious, cjcjc? I never thought I’d say something Tories would agree to!

Unless of course I said “ban immigration, the bus is full” etc etc

“Everyone knew at the 2005 election that you were ‘voting blair to get brown’. It was made abundently clear (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/apr/06/election2005.labour for example).”

Perhaps that’s a reason why so few voted.

BBC pol ed Nick Robinson went on to say

“If they succeed a man or woman who has not been elected by the public would replace a man who has himself not been elected by the public. This is without precedent – in this country at least“.

And that is factually incorrect, most obviously in the cases of the changes of PM in 1937 & 1940, though also those 1902 and Dec 1905, though that was followed by the 1906 election.

http://www.nextleft.org/2010/01/putsch-pendantry.html

Parliament does the laws, president does the executive stuff

The US experience would suggest that is a seriously bad idea. People forget that the US used to be a pretty prosperous and liberal country, until it’s political system gradually and incrementally dragged it down to where it is now: a President who can unilaterally have anyone in the world killed by a missile strike, but can’t possibly ever sign any kind of binding peace agreement or trade deal.

Paul Sagar, original post: “And it’s the conventional wisdom that if he were decapitated, whoever takes over the Labour reigns will have to hold a snap election.”

I’m not sure about that at all. A new PM would wish to signal that s/he is different from Blair and Brown. That means a new cabinet and a review of bills that are currently in progress. There’d be a desire to pass a few pet measures, to ditch some uncomfortable baggage and leave a few markers on the legislative timetable to indicate what a further New Labour government might enact. My presumption, therefore, is that any new PM would be pretty busy right up to the time that s/he has to forfeit office.

As a republican, I want a president. Somebody as anonymous as the German president, who looks down from on high and only gets involved in politics when politics is broken. I don’t want a prime ministerial president.

I think that I like the idea that the PM is effectively appointed by MPs. With the exception of a few lobby correspondents, not many people have sufficient knowledge of the character of those who put themselves forward as potential PM to judge the contest. Recent USA presidential elections have delivered one idiot in post (on two occasions) and proffered one nutball who would have been a heart beat from office. The election campaigns in which those candidates participated went on for 12+ months.

It isn’t that I distrust “the people”; my distrust is with political campaigners and fake persona intended to mislead voters. I thus have a possibly naive trust that MPs will reject the nutter; for selfish reasons (eg re-election) as well as common sense. And I accept that the current system does not guarantee a sane or responsible PM; but when Harold Wilson as PM became mentally ill, the system delivered a dignified transition to a new PM.

Personally, I want separation of powers, so that all the Ministers are out of the legislature, except for the PM. I think the PM should be the one who has the most confidence of the House (of Commons), as a slight check/balance on executive power, as the Presidential system (like in the US) is too populist for my liking.

I think that I like the idea that the PM is effectively appointed by MPs.

You might have some trouble persuading the nation at large that it would be a smart idea to give any further powers to chiselling crooks who fiddle their expenses.

That said, ain’t it the case that the Prime Minister is already ‘effectively’ appointed by MPs in that he can remain only so long as no confidence motion goes against him.

I’m with John Booth…but see were you’re coming from Soru….

I’d like to see a President who oversees things but isn’t the be and end all.

What Blair did was illegal by going to war OR did all the MP’s agree with him? Either way, a situation when a huge percentage of the country are against, go on a HUGE march AND have to pay for it, only to be ignored is not on. Something needs to change in the constitution.

But that doesn’t mean that people can protest and get their own way willy nilly if they are doing this against equal rights for all that would do nothing to their purse strings, a la the gay marriage issue in the US.