Tree Slayers Case Moved To The Crown...
News1 min ago
Cameron
Is Cameron the first ever Leader of a Coalition Government? also has he ever been a Prime Minister of a Conservative government?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Farriercm. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
“Tora Tora you vote for the party, via your local candidates. The party chooses its leader“
Not correct, alexanderd. In UK General Elections and by-elections voters vote for an individual (who may or may not be a member of a political party) to represent them as their Member of Parliament at Westminster. When these members have been elected they choose a person to be Prime Minister (who is usually the leader of the party gaining the most seats). The Queen then asks this Prime Minister to choose ministers to form her government.
It suits political parties to perpetuate the myth that voters choose a party when voting and it is one of the great drawbacks of the parliamentary party system.
Not correct, alexanderd. In UK General Elections and by-elections voters vote for an individual (who may or may not be a member of a political party) to represent them as their Member of Parliament at Westminster. When these members have been elected they choose a person to be Prime Minister (who is usually the leader of the party gaining the most seats). The Queen then asks this Prime Minister to choose ministers to form her government.
It suits political parties to perpetuate the myth that voters choose a party when voting and it is one of the great drawbacks of the parliamentary party system.
NJ, you know as well as I do that multitudes of voters DO - in effect - vote for the particular person they want to be Prime Minister and/or the party they wish to hold power. Many of them wouldn't even recognise the local representative of that party if they found him/her in their soup and, even if they do know them, they might even detest them!
Nevertheless, they do probably know the name and they certainly will recognise the relevant code...Lab, Con etc...and mark it appropriately.
They know that it is only by voting specifically 'for' John Doe - a young and inexperienced candidate they know virtually nothing about - that they will get the supposed Superman/Wonderwoman they want to see in No 10! They know precisely for whom they are REALLY voting.
Nevertheless, they do probably know the name and they certainly will recognise the relevant code...Lab, Con etc...and mark it appropriately.
They know that it is only by voting specifically 'for' John Doe - a young and inexperienced candidate they know virtually nothing about - that they will get the supposed Superman/Wonderwoman they want to see in No 10! They know precisely for whom they are REALLY voting.
Yes I do accept that, QM. In fact I would estimate that well over 99% of voters choose how to cast their vote in that way. But I was explaining what people really are voting for as it is quite clear from this post alone that many do not. Alexanderd’s contention that “you vote for a party via your local candidates” is simply incorrect if for no other reason it would eliminate the possibility of a candidate standing independently.
As I also said it suits parties to perpetuate this misunderstanding because their candidates receive votes not because of who they are or what they might do for their constituents but simply because of the party to which they belong. Prospective MPs should stand on a platform of measures which they intend to pursue for their own constituents and they should be free to vote on measures according to their constituents’ wishes and requirements. I accept there would be difficulties with this (mainly for the parties and for Ministers) but then voters would not be faced with a choice of (realistically) just two packages of policies, neither of which might suit them or help them.
A radical idea, I know, and one which is never likely to bear fruit, but that’s what the original intention of Parliament was before it was hijacked by political parties.
As I also said it suits parties to perpetuate this misunderstanding because their candidates receive votes not because of who they are or what they might do for their constituents but simply because of the party to which they belong. Prospective MPs should stand on a platform of measures which they intend to pursue for their own constituents and they should be free to vote on measures according to their constituents’ wishes and requirements. I accept there would be difficulties with this (mainly for the parties and for Ministers) but then voters would not be faced with a choice of (realistically) just two packages of policies, neither of which might suit them or help them.
A radical idea, I know, and one which is never likely to bear fruit, but that’s what the original intention of Parliament was before it was hijacked by political parties.
Radical indeed, NJ, and almost identical to what Nigel Farage said recently about a bye-election. He claimed that it had all happened too quickly and that electors had no opportunity to study party policies and decide on which were truly closest to their own hearts.
The point, however, is - as you say yourself - virtually no one actually does this and consequently they just WILL vote for the local candidate whose success increases the chances of the Big Beast they want to see in No 10. In other words they do vote, albeit 'by proxy' as it were, for the Prime Minister.
The point, however, is - as you say yourself - virtually no one actually does this and consequently they just WILL vote for the local candidate whose success increases the chances of the Big Beast they want to see in No 10. In other words they do vote, albeit 'by proxy' as it were, for the Prime Minister.
