Nonsense! Nobody voted for a PM in the election, they voted for MPs. If you thought you were voting for a PM you have some reading to do.
Wrong and wrong. No-one votes for a Prime Minister apart from Party members, when they realise how crap the previous incumbent was.
Why are you accusing me of being a bigoted racist? Bit weird considering all my grandparents were immigrants to this country after the war. Worse than that. He was a West Ham fan and as a Spurs supporter I find that comparison deeply offensive.
It is correct of course. I think the problem is that generally voters look at the leader of a party and look at their views and manifesto, then if you agree with this you look at your candidate for local MP. If your local candidate is supportive of their leaders view then most would base their vote in support on this. The problem seems to be that if there is a change of PM midterm and the new PM changes the manifesto then your local MP who may not agree with the new manifesto generally has to toe the party line or be consigned to the wilderness. This, I think is where the current rules are wrong. You may have voted for an MP who then changes his views simply because he/she is being forced to in order to protect his/ her self interests.Is this stretching the meaning of democracy?
You're all missing the point. It was said they couldn't find anyone worse than bozo. So they just went out to prove everyone wrong.
As I'm fond of pointing out, it's a parliamentary democracy (with an entrenched party system), not a real one. Our only choice is which bunch of bandits do we want stealing from us to fund their political dreams. Not that I'm a cynic.
Your mate Jacob Reese Mugg had £40 million in shares in a Russian bank which he cashed in just before the Ukrainian trouble started.( According to private eye) ,That was just after our good friend Boris was given 150k to build a tree house in the garden at his country residence.
Technically you do. The parties will all have leaders who will, should that party be elected, become PM, so you have the option not to vote for that party if you think the party leader is a plank. Or a greased piglet, or Thatcher reincarnate. What you don't vote for is any subsequent replacement of PM during the term of a reigning government.
Psychologically you might, but technically no you definitely do not. Smoke and mirrors. There is nothing to stop a winning party ditching the party leader (for that is all they are until after the election) the next day. So, yes, you might be voting for a party lead by a particular character on the fair assumption that they would become the PM.
That's exactly what I said, you do have a choice at a general election if you don't like the prospect of the leader becoming PM, what you don't get a vote for is any subsequent change in PM for the remainder of the siting governments term. So its not physycological, it is a technical fact.
Rubbish, if you vote for the party that wins a general election, you have voted for their leader becoming PM, you have the choice not to vote for them if you don't like them. I say again, what you don't get to vote for is any subsequent replacements. It would be pretty stupid/bloody minded to vote for a party with a leader you don't like.
Let's say you vote labour in. That's a party run by committee where the PM is a spokesperson for policy formed at their conference. Within the bounds of that policy the PM and cabinet weasel away to direct things as they see fit, but their hands are tied by overall labour party policy. So you get an anti-EU leader supporting the EU. This more democratic system sees to be a big turn off for the electorate. The equivalent is the Tories internal "democracy" that forms their policy is fuelled by party donors. It's a mess isn't it. No, you're still harping on about assumed consequences, not the technical legal situation. Now you might be disappointed by a mid-term change of party leader/PM but it's totally OK in reality. Could be politically difficult though if only voters had longer memories!
There's no assumptions at all, it is a fact that, barring some unfortunate/catastrophic event, the leaders of parties standing for election will become PM should their party win a General Election. By voting for a party that wins you have voted for that leader becoming PM. What cant you understand about that?
They actually vote for leaders, that's why replacing them is done via the 1922 committee as a leadership challenge. The final vote for the party leader is taken by the respective party members. It so happens that a party who is in government at the time can replace their party leader and the replacement will become PM by default.
