How would you describe
somebody who's taking an action whilst unaware of how the system actually works? I actually thought I was being relatively polite, when I could have used the word "ignorant".

It's not a bit rich to state the case as it is. You do not vote for the leader, you vote, as Phantom pointed out, for your local party representative. You vote for them because you agree for the party line. The leader is the man the *party* vote in as the man they believe is the best person to embody their manifesto. He's the mouthpiece for the party. The PM is the leader of the party in power.
( Kroney, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 14:33, 2 replies)

Err

Wrong. You don't vote for the party representative. You vote for the name on the ballot paper (who happens to represent a particular party). If you voted for a party representative then, if that person died, the seat would be given to another representative of the same party.

You *do* know how the voting system works in Britain don't you?

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

I really don't see what this has got to do with anything
Labour wants to get a seat in your hometown. Dave Jones stands as the Labour representative. Dave's name is on the ballot like this "Dave Jones (labour)".

You vote for him, because he represents the party you want to vote for. You're not voting for the party leader at any point in this pointless tangent.
( Kroney, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 15:39, closed)

*Rubs Hands*

So you accept that, technically, you can't *ever* vote Labour? You can vote for Davy Jones (Labour) but you can't vote for the Labour Party?

You have to. 'Cos it's true. If, after the election, Davy Jones says "Fuck you Labour - and constituents - I'm now a Tory" then there nothing anyone can do about it. Because, you voted the man, and not the party.

So, every single person in the country, who thinks they vote for a party in a general or by-election is wrong.

That's what your entire argument boils down to. Semantics.

You can't "Vote Labour" or "Vote Tory". - Yet the vast majority of people think that's what they're doing. Even all of the Party Political Broadcasts are wrong - by your definitions. Because you're guilty of what you accuse other people of. A narrow interpretation of perception of how and why people vote.

Until Gordon Brown, leading the Labour party , wins a general election then it's fair to say that he has no mandate from the people. He is, in effect, unelected.

It's all about perception and semantics.

Cheers
( Legless Mister Stabby - shanks for the memory, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 15:48, closed)

...
If you're saying that should Dave Jones suddenly decide to switch to the Conservatives then your hometown switches to a Tory seat, I will have to take your word for it. It's never happened to anywhere close to me that I've noticed. I will take it as read that you're right, because it doesn't really change what I was originally saying.

I'm arguing that this is the way it works, not whether it's right or wrong. Gordon Brown has as much right to be leading the Labour Party and, thus, the Government as Tony Blair did. Neither of them were elected by you or I to run the Labour party, just like any other PM in the history of PMs.

That's it.
( Kroney, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 15:54, closed)

Historically
dozens of members of parliament have "crossed the floor". Quite a few in recent memory.

But I'll leave that for another time.

I'm arguing that this is the way it works, not whether it's right or wrong. Gordon Brown has as much right to be leading the Labour Party and, thus, the Government as Tony Blair did. Neither of them were elected by you or I to run the Labour party, just like any other PM in the history of PMs

And of course, technically you're correct.

But Gordon Brown has never faced a General Election as leader of the Labour Party so, it's perfectly fair to describe him as un-elected. He has no mandate from the people to govern. The way our system works means he doesn't need that but it's still fair to say that he's never been given the peoples approval.

Of course, the other nonsense I was coming out with is also bullshit but also perfectly true. You can't vote for a party in this country. Technically. But the reality is that this is the way most people vote. They vote (normally) for the Party and not the man at the constituency level ( the simple fools! Don't they know the way that the system works?) which reflects which Party they want to govern them. And that decision is largely governed by who the leader is of that party and hence will be the new Prime Minister.

Making sense yet? You getting the difference between technically and in reality? So yes, all Prime Ministers are unelected. But by accepting that and arguing that, you have to accept that all political parties are unelected. So you can't say that the Labour Party is in power. It's manifestly true that they are, but that could change with the simple decision of a few MPs to change party.

Grand nonsense isn't it?

So until Gordon faces the people he's still has no mandate. He has the power and the trappings (which is what really matter) but not the peoples approval (which he doesn't need).


So I reiterate. Technically, you're right, in the public perception, you're wrong.


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

....
"Until Gordon Brown, leading the Labour party , wins a general election then it's fair to say that he has no mandate from the people. He is, in effect, unelected."

This is utterly at odds with the rest of what you write, and has no logical connection to anything else you've said. You can't seek to establish that we vote only for an individual (true), not the party (true), and then use this to conclude that a party leader has no mandate until an apparently-unconnected series of individuals are simultaneously elected to office. A vote for J Bloggs (Labour) cannot, by your own reasoning, be extended to a vote for Gordon Brown. There is no logical connection here. One does not predicate the other.


This is not about perception and semantics. This is about the workings of a system - which is a matter of recorded, demonstrable fact. There is no requirement, anywhere, at all, for a PM to be elected by popular vote. There never has been, nor any hint that such might be necessary. Ergo, to refer to a PM as 'unelected' means nothing; you're accusing him of not having something that has never been required.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 16:13, closed)

Go Away
With your logic

I was having a fine time leading Kroney around in circles.

Cheers
( Legless Mister Stabby - shanks for the memory, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 16:18, closed)

How would I describe somebody taking an action [voting] whilst unaware of how the [political] system works? The latter is highly complex and ever-evolving (from Magna Carter through to de-tribalising of House of Lords); The former is usually someone who wants the best for themselves, their family and, hopefully, the country.
I certainly won't dispute that there are ignorant, unimaginative and/or hopelessly brainwashed voters out there but I'll give a pass to those who mistake the leader for the party - they're usually a pretty good indication of what lies beneath.
Didn't mean to offend but the whole "educate them!" thing sounded a bit North Korean...
(Happybara The jungle came alive and took him, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 16:40, closed)

Please Sir!

Can I be put in charge of Mandy's re-education?

Cheers
( Legless Mister Stabby - shanks for the memory, Tue 13 Apr 2010, 16:54, closed)