Comments on: The Case For Open Leadership Elections.

By: David Jones

David Jones — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 05:21:34 +0000

Many thanks for the kind mention.

By: Tizzy

Tizzy — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:21:11 +0000

You’re right, I misunderstood your post. Mucho apologies.

But that’s not the equivalent of US primaries – very few states allow independents to vote. However, I get your gist but would add a major rider.

The plain fact is that very few of the electorate know who their own MP is, or can name government ministers. I have a problem with this before we attempt changing the meaning of our vote. What we could get is Beckham advocating ??, not so different to Oprah and erm, Barack.

Therefore, the major rider would be everyone takes the equivalent of the Citizenship Test before they are allowed to vote. While I’m at it, I would also like enshrined in law that candidates are required to answer (in plain English/Welsh, whatever) how they would vote on key issues.

By: Stu

Stu — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 19:45:41 +0000

I don’t think that’s a whole, I think that’s a technicality. While what you say is true, it is still true that the party system means that a select few decide which minister will stand above them all and represent Britain on the international stage. In fact, I think by your first two paragraphs hat you misunderstood me. I’m not talking about forcing a general election after a change in leadership, I’m advocating an equivalent of the American open primaries. Nothing more than a leadership contest where votes are not restricted to party members. This could be achieved just by altering the party’s rules on electing leaders.

Naturally, pure localism would be better, but our party system was formed in a time when there was no Prime Minister, when ministers made decisions without an overall leader, and before the first lord of the treasury became so powerful as he is now. High time for change.

By: Tizzy

Tizzy — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 19:29:29 +0000

A bit of a hole in your argument to deal with first: officially, we elect MPs, not parties. The party with the largest number of MPs is asked to form a government, yadayadayada. Thus, we have the situation, as now, where the leader of the majority party is automatically the PM, and the election of the leader is nowt to do with the national electorate. Cute.

Given that, I contend it would need an Act to force a General Election if there was a change in the leadership of the government. God knows, I’ve asked several times on Lords Of The Blog how we can legally overturn an elected gvt. Never did get a reply – dangerous stuff, y’know.

There are so few registered members of parties nowadays (Reasons? Let me count the ways…) and this causes me to worry about the election of leaders, especially in the Labour party saddled with the union block votes.

The Gordon Brown anointment was perverse and the unions are making hay. Nobody wants him: just how low does he want to see his personal ratings go before he is forcibly sectioned? Seriously.

The bar to trigger a Labour leadership contest has been set high, yet I suspect this will happen before the autumn conference. Meanwhile, I am suffering, and I’m not alone.

To return to your idea, there is more than a hint of presidential over party aspirations within. It has merit, though, while the electorate insist on purveying the entire parliament based on the PM. Personally, I would prefer the entire electorate to purvey their MP, thereby giving more power to the MP and his/her constituents.