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, 2 replies)

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)