Irrelevant
I don't care what the PM looks like, he's there to represent British interests, not win awards for being the most handsome national leader. If you think a large part of the party you elect is the leader, then you're doing it wrong. Party leaders change all the time. The PM is merely the party leader of the elected party, it's stupid to think he might not change, too.

You vote according to your interests and which party you think represents them best. Each party elects as leader the person they think represents their party best. That's it. It's not a popularity contest.
( Kroney, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 13:02, 3 replies)

technically, you vote for an individual
as a party can change its leader, so an MP can change his party. Nothing to stop the Labour member for Shitwell defecting to the Tories, and giving them the seat.

Fairly uncommon, 'tis true... But has been known, and then people got the hump that 'they had voted X, and were now Y'; nonsense. They voted for a man, who changed his allegience.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 13:12, closed)

That's fair enough
but it does not apply to party leaders, who are not voted for by the public.
( Kroney, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 13:15, closed)

no, quite


you don't elect the leader. You don't even vote for a party. You vote for a man

EDIT: or, I suppose, a woman, since they're allowed to vote and whatnot now :/
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 13:17, closed)

the leader does matter
Leaders have to make decisions that have enormous bearing on the fate of their countries. For example, the Cuban missile crisis. That could have turned out any number of ways. What if Kruschev hadn't backed down? At what point, if at all would JFK have? To be fair, I have no idea how much power would rest with the PM alone in that kind of situation but it's naive to think that a leaders personality and convictions have no bearing on the decisions that they make.

The appearance thing isn't really that serious. I jsut can't stand watching Gordon Brown speak.
( kappynitty doubled your entendre on, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 13:16, closed)

Neither can I
what you have to remember, though, is that a PM is not a President, no matter how much Tony Blair wanted to be one. The PM is purely a mouthpiece. He's just the leader of the lucky party who had the most MPs voted into office. I know it must be difficult for more directly democratic countries to wrap their heads around, but he's not the leader of the country in the same way yours is.
( Kroney, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 13:25, closed)

sorry, I'm a Brit
and I don't think that the PM is just a mouthpiece. Day to day I agree that whilst maybe having a greater say than your average MP, the Pm isn't some kind of God amongst men. He is, and should be, a first among equals. However, a strong PM that has a cabinet that supports him, or at least doesn't obstruct him, having to make a quick decision? That's going to come down, by necessity, to the leader. It's not practical to convene the commons, and as far as I'm aware COBRA is advisory, not supervisionary.

I may be wrong, I've not looked into it, but surely if time is a factor (the missiles are in the air? Unlikely, I know) then the power and decisions rests with the PM
( kappynitty doubled your entendre on, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 13:44, closed)

Oh, for some reason
I thought you were an American.

I see your point, but that's a rather extreme example and in those situations, the PM usually just does what the American president tells him to do.

I don't doubt that the party will have some kind of mandate for behaviour in those situations, but I don't believe the PM has the power to make truly unilateral decisions.
( Kroney, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 13:53, closed)

to be fair i was talking about Cuban MC and McCain/Palin
and yes, it is an extreme situation. The fact I couldn't think of any other example does somewhat undermine my arguement about the importance of leaders personalities in case of having to make quick and necessarily unilateral decisions.

Bugger
( kappynitty doubled your entendre on, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 13:58, closed)

Do you mean COBR?

(thefuckestuppest cheapened this, on, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 16:37, closed)

It's Not Irelevant

The British PM has, in many ways, more power than the American president. He, and he alone, appoints the cabinet with no oversight from Parliament, or even his own party. Unlike America where every appointment has to be approved by Congress - even the VP.

So, most people vote for the leader they trust, effectively meaning that they vote in the Prime Minister they want. This did not happen in Brown's case. And, just for historical accuracy, can you tell me when a Prime Minister has stepped down while in office? Retiring dead doesn't count. As far as I recall (and I may be wrong) it's never happened except for Blair/Brown.

So the people, the electorate, never got the chance to say yay or nay to Brown. But they are being now and they're going to kick the lying, bullying, hypocritical twat out of the office he should never have had in the first place.

Of course, the downside is that we'll get a gurning Toryboy who'll be just as bad, if not worse.

But it'll be worth it just to see the look on Browns face as it dawns on him that the country fucking hate him.

Cheers
( Legless Mister Stabby - shanks for the memory, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 14:13, closed)

That just means the most people are doing it wrong.
It doesn't give them any more right to complain about an unelected PM as PMs aren't and never have been elected by the public. If you want to argue for reform, that's one thing, but that's not what I'm talking about, nor is it what these people are complaining about.
( Kroney, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 14:21, closed)

OK.
Technically, you're right. We don't vote for a Prime Minister. Technically, we don't even vote for a party. Technically, we vote for the person we want to represent us in parliament regardless of their political persuasion.

But though the above is technically correct, the reality is, it's bollocks.

The reality is people vote mainly for who they want to lead the country and, to do that, you have to vote in the person who represents that person's party in your constituency.

So technically you're right, in reality you're wrong.

I win.

Cheers
( Legless Mister Stabby - shanks for the memory, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 14:56, closed)

Nope
People vote for the party, not the leader. People do not say 'I'm voting for Brown/Cameron' - they say 'I'm voting for Labour/Conservatives'. It takes a remarkable character - either fantastic or odious - to change Joe Q Public's established voting pattern. People who have voted Labour/Tory/Monster Raving Loony all ther lives are not uncommon - and they've not carefully weighed up the relative merits of successive leaders.

The only reason they have to vote for a party at all is that independents tend to get fuck all done. So you pick the party whose ideals most closely resemble your own, and vote for it.

We do not have a president, and only a confirmed simpleton would cast their vote on this basis.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 15:09, closed)

Have You Seen
the readership figures for the Sun/Daily Fail/Mirror?

The country is filled with confirmed simpletons.

And yes, I accept that some people will vote their party affiliation - mainly members of that party - I still say that most people vote based on who's leading that party.

Cheers
( Legless Mister Stabby - shanks for the memory, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 15:14, closed)

No, I said that people who are voting for the party leader
are doing it wrong because they don't know how things actually work. I'm technically right because I *am* right. You're saying "yeah, but that's what people do, so you're wrong in reality".

Doesn't make sense.
( Kroney, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 15:12, closed)

So...

Do people vote for a party? Or do they vote for the name of a person on a ballot paper?

You can't elect "Labour" to be your member of parliament. But you can elect the person who represents the Labour Party.

Using your semantics, nobody can vote for which party they want to run the country.

In this, I'm technically right (which is the basis of you argument) but wrong in the way people use their vote.

Cheers
( Legless Mister Stabby - shanks for the memory, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 15:20, closed)

Actually, further down
I've already admitted this was the case as point out by Happy Phantom. The difference is that you're voting for the representative of the party in your area based on the party manifesto. It's still the case that it's the party, not the public that vote for party leaders.

Whether or not this needs to reformed is not what I'm arguing, I'm arguing that this is the way it is, which it is. Anybody who thinks otherwise is wrong, which they are.

By voting, by no interpretation, are you voting for the party leader.
( Kroney, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 15:26, closed)

See My Answer Below

( Legless Mister Stabby - shanks for the memory, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 15:28, closed)

Stepping down
Thatcher for Major - I know she'd lost the support of her party, but if she'd wanted to stay on, there was no law stopping her.

Wilson for Callaghan in 1976
(lolwhites, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 14:51, closed)

Give That Man A Coconut

You're right - at least about Wilson/Callaghan.

But I'd argue the toss about Thatcher. She didn't step down. She was ousted.

And yes, technically she could have said "Fuck you I'm staying" but that was never on the cards.

Cheers
( Legless Mister Stabby - shanks for the memory, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 15:00, closed)

Fair point
She jumped before she was pushed. Only Tory MPs could vote for leader, and I always wonder whether the ordinary members would have voted to keep her if they'd had the chance.
(lolwhites, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 15:16, closed)

I Think

That the ordinary Tory members would have voted to keep her. They worshipped her. Still do. Fuckwits.

Cheers
( Legless Mister Stabby - shanks for the memory, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 15:22, closed)

Stepped down, outsted, doesn't matter
her successor *was not elected*, and that's the point. The whys and wherefores of her removal are utterly irrelevent; the mechanism by which her successor came to take the position is what's at issue here, and he was conspicuously not selected by popular vote.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 16:04, closed)

Never Said He Was

Would this be a good time to point out that I've had several cans of beer and have now entered total bullshit mode?

It's after 1am here in Oz...

Cheers
( Legless Mister Stabby - shanks for the memory, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 16:20, closed)

Splendid
...best time for it ;)
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 16:40, closed)