FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Politics

Should the people decide who the prime minister should be?

Jump to newest
 

By *hagTonight OP   Man
over a year ago

From the land of haribos.

With this I mean, should the people beable to evaluate and hold a vote wether the prime minister is doing a good job after few years in power and then if not they are beable to choose another one? I think that would be fear cos you could have one that doesnt do good and could sit there for decades

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *or Fox SakeCouple
over a year ago

Thornaby


"With this I mean, should the people beable to evaluate and hold a vote wether the prime minister is doing a good job after few years in power and then if not they are beable to choose another one? I think that would be fear cos you could have one that doesnt do good and could sit there for decades "

An interesting idea. How would we elect this person, what powers would they have?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hagTonight OP   Man
over a year ago

From the land of haribos.


"With this I mean, should the people beable to evaluate and hold a vote wether the prime minister is doing a good job after few years in power and then if not they are beable to choose another one? I think that would be fear cos you could have one that doesnt do good and could sit there for decades

An interesting idea. How would we elect this person, what powers would they have?"
I think that the party should put forward all the available ones for the people to choose, then with the most votes would get it, how does that sound?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ostafunMan
over a year ago

near ipswich


"With this I mean, should the people beable to evaluate and hold a vote wether the prime minister is doing a good job after few years in power and then if not they are beable to choose another one? I think that would be fear cos you could have one that doesnt do good and could sit there for decades "
Isnt this exactly why we have an election every 5 years?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *or Fox SakeCouple
over a year ago

Thornaby


"With this I mean, should the people beable to evaluate and hold a vote wether the prime minister is doing a good job after few years in power and then if not they are beable to choose another one? I think that would be fear cos you could have one that doesnt do good and could sit there for decades

An interesting idea. How would we elect this person, what powers would they have?I think that the party should put forward all the available ones for the people to choose, then with the most votes would get it, how does that sound? "

Which party, just one or all of them,if all the parties put one forward, it means you may get a PM with only a minority of support?

What happens if party A is in government, but party B wins the PM?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hagTonight OP   Man
over a year ago

From the land of haribos.


"With this I mean, should the people beable to evaluate and hold a vote wether the prime minister is doing a good job after few years in power and then if not they are beable to choose another one? I think that would be fear cos you could have one that doesnt do good and could sit there for decades Isnt this exactly why we have an election every 5 years? "
Yes, but isnt it those in the party that decides who it will be?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hagTonight OP   Man
over a year ago

From the land of haribos.


"With this I mean, should the people beable to evaluate and hold a vote wether the prime minister is doing a good job after few years in power and then if not they are beable to choose another one? I think that would be fear cos you could have one that doesnt do good and could sit there for decades

An interesting idea. How would we elect this person, what powers would they have?I think that the party should put forward all the available ones for the people to choose, then with the most votes would get it, how does that sound?

Which party, just one or all of them,if all the parties put one forward, it means you may get a PM with only a minority of support?

What happens if party A is in government, but party B wins the PM?"
Yes, that is also a good point, maibe all of the partys should put one forward for the public to choose, yes that scenario if B wins would be complicated, maibe then it should be a coalition situation?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ercuryMan
over a year ago

Grantham

No need to tinker with something that isn't broken!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ostafunMan
over a year ago

near ipswich


"With this I mean, should the people beable to evaluate and hold a vote wether the prime minister is doing a good job after few years in power and then if not they are beable to choose another one? I think that would be fear cos you could have one that doesnt do good and could sit there for decades

An interesting idea. How would we elect this person, what powers would they have?I think that the party should put forward all the available ones for the people to choose, then with the most votes would get it, how does that sound?

Which party, just one or all of them,if all the parties put one forward, it means you may get a PM with only a minority of support?

What happens if party A is in government, but party B wins the PM?Yes, that is also a good point, maibe all of the partys should put one forward for the public to choose, yes that scenario if B wins would be complicated, maibe then it should be a coalition situation? "
Maybe we should just scrap your stupid idea shag eh?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ssexbloke72Man
over a year ago

Poplar


"With this I mean, should the people beable to evaluate and hold a vote wether the prime minister is doing a good job after few years in power and then if not they are beable to choose another one? I think that would be fear cos you could have one that doesnt do good and could sit there for decades "

One of the most stupid ideas I've seen on here to date.!

Question for you.

Do you vote here in the UK?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"With this I mean, should the people beable to evaluate and hold a vote wether the prime minister is doing a good job after few years in power and then if not they are beable to choose another one? I think that would be fear cos you could have one that doesnt do good and could sit there for decades Isnt this exactly why we have an election every 5 years? Yes, but isnt it those in the party that decides who it will be?"

You know who the leader of the party is before the general election. So you're already voting for party you want to be in government, and the person you want to be PM.

If you want a say in who the leader of the party is, prior to the election, join their party and you'll be eligible to vote for who the leader is.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uliaChrisCouple
over a year ago

westerham

[Removed by poster at 24/02/21 09:41:48]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uliaChrisCouple
over a year ago

westerham


"With this I mean, should the people beable to evaluate and hold a vote wether the prime minister is doing a good job after few years in power and then if not they are beable to choose another one? I think that would be fear cos you could have one that doesnt do good and could sit there for decades

An interesting idea. How would we elect this person, what powers would they have?I think that the party should put forward all the available ones for the people to choose, then with the most votes would get it, how does that sound?

Which party, just one or all of them,if all the parties put one forward, it means you may get a PM with only a minority of support?

What happens if party A is in government, but party B wins the PM?Yes, that is also a good point, maibe all of the partys should put one forward for the public to choose, yes that scenario if B wins would be complicated, maibe then it should be a coalition situation? Maybe we should just scrap your stupid idea shag eh? "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here


"With this I mean, should the people beable to evaluate and hold a vote wether the prime minister is doing a good job after few years in power and then if not they are beable to choose another one? I think that would be fear cos you could have one that doesnt do good and could sit there for decades Isnt this exactly why we have an election every 5 years? Yes, but isnt it those in the party that decides who it will be?

You know who the leader of the party is before the general election. So you're already voting for party you want to be in government, and the person you want to be PM.

If you want a say in who the leader of the party is, prior to the election, join their party and you'll be eligible to vote for who the leader is. "

As per the surge in memberships to the Labour Party after the GE of 2015.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atEvolutionCouple
over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION


"With this I mean, should the people beable to evaluate and hold a vote wether the prime minister is doing a good job after few years in power and then if not they are beable to choose another one? I think that would be fear cos you could have one that doesnt do good and could sit there for decades "

That would be a Republic.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ethnmelvCouple
over a year ago

Cardiff

I’d rather we had proportional representation to be honest. I mean the Conservatives only got 43.6% of the vote but with our first past the post system they get an 80 seat majority! In essence 56% of the population are not represented...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *irtylittletramp100TV/TS
over a year ago

Notts

you dont vote the tory leader into power you vote the tories into power, if the tories then decide their leader is shit they can oust them. But the voters can oust the entire party! So its in their interests to make sure they have a good leader.

Anyone can become a member of the tory party,(i dont mean you need to be an mp) you just join like any other organisation which then allows you to raise issue and if enough agree the motion would go forward. So everything is already in place.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *irtylittletramp100TV/TS
over a year ago

Notts


"I’d rather we had proportional representation to be honest. I mean the Conservatives only got 43.6% of the vote but with our first past the post system they get an 80 seat majority! In essence 56% of the population are not represented..."

same happened with ukip, had as many votes as snp but only got one seat! so it might not work out how you think?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ethnmelvCouple
over a year ago

Cardiff


"I’d rather we had proportional representation to be honest. I mean the Conservatives only got 43.6% of the vote but with our first past the post system they get an 80 seat majority! In essence 56% of the population are not represented...

same happened with ukip, had as many votes as snp but only got one seat! so it might not work out how you think? "

Sadly the Conservatives are ‘UKIP by another name’ I accept that protestparties will exist on both sidesof the political divide, but being rulesfor 5 years by a party with aminority of the votes doesn’t sit well. Yes, they are the biggest minority, but it still leaves 56.4% of the voters without a say. It has never felt entirely democratic and leaves us with wild swings between governments.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hagTonight OP   Man
over a year ago

From the land of haribos.


"

Do you vote here in the UK?"
Yes. I do, just in the local ones

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hagTonight OP   Man
over a year ago

From the land of haribos.


"I’d rather we had proportional representation to be honest. I mean the Conservatives only got 43.6% of the vote but with our first past the post system they get an 80 seat majority! In essence 56% of the population are not represented..."
Yes. I think that a coalition style of government is the best too

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *renzMan
over a year ago

Between Chichester and Havant

If you had a general election every five years with an election for a PM, from within the government, say mid term? I think the problem then would be, if the current PM is voted out and someone else takes over, you would then have the upheaval of the cabinet as well, which many might like that change. That would then impact on policy. So in reality no different to a general election whether the current government remains in power. Just think you either have a general election or leave it as it is.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *irtylittletramp100TV/TS
over a year ago

Notts


"I’d rather we had proportional representation to be honest. I mean the Conservatives only got 43.6% of the vote but with our first past the post system they get an 80 seat majority! In essence 56% of the population are not represented...

same happened with ukip, had as many votes as snp but only got one seat! so it might not work out how you think?

Sadly the Conservatives are ‘UKIP by another name’ I accept that protestparties will exist on both sidesof the political divide, but being rulesfor 5 years by a party with aminority of the votes doesn’t sit well. Yes, they are the biggest minority, but it still leaves 56.4% of the voters without a say. It has never felt entirely democratic and leaves us with wild swings between governments."

you do realize that would mean the big cities would run the countryside as huge areas would still not equal london votes

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *obka3Couple
over a year ago

bournemouth


"I’d rather we had proportional representation to be honest. I mean the Conservatives only got 43.6% of the vote but with our first past the post system they get an 80 seat majority! In essence 56% of the population are not represented...

same happened with ukip, had as many votes as snp but only got one seat! so it might not work out how you think?

Sadly the Conservatives are ‘UKIP by another name’ I accept that protestparties will exist on both sidesof the political divide, but being rulesfor 5 years by a party with aminority of the votes doesn’t sit well. Yes, they are the biggest minority, but it still leaves 56.4% of the voters without a say. It has never felt entirely democratic and leaves us with wild swings between governments."

Perhaps your party needs to produce a better argument to the voters and then they might win.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ssexbloke72Man
over a year ago

Poplar


"I’d rather we had proportional representation to be honest. I mean the Conservatives only got 43.6% of the vote but with our first past the post system they get an 80 seat majority! In essence 56% of the population are not represented...Yes. I think that a coalition style of government is the best too "

The UK had a coalition government from 2010 to 2015.

However there are certain posters on here who like to ignor that fact.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *irtylittletramp100TV/TS
over a year ago

Notts

theres posters on here that ignore the facts, dont know the facts and have no interest in facts lol yeah but no but..... and what if..lol

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hagTonight OP   Man
over a year ago

From the land of haribos.


"I’d rather we had proportional representation to be honest. I mean the Conservatives only got 43.6% of the vote but with our first past the post system they get an 80 seat majority! In essence 56% of the population are not represented...Yes. I think that a coalition style of government is the best too

The UK had a coalition government from 2010 to 2015.

However there are certain posters on here who like to ignor that fact."
Yes the uk had that and I have also noticed some ignores it too. I think it is the best solution as there are more ideas than just some for one party.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ethnmelvCouple
over a year ago

Cardiff


"I’d rather we had proportional representation to be honest. I mean the Conservatives only got 43.6% of the vote but with our first past the post system they get an 80 seat majority! In essence 56% of the population are not represented...

same happened with ukip, had as many votes as snp but only got one seat! so it might not work out how you think?

Sadly the Conservatives are ‘UKIP by another name’ I accept that protestparties will exist on both sidesof the political divide, but being rulesfor 5 years by a party with aminority of the votes doesn’t sit well. Yes, they are the biggest minority, but it still leaves 56.4% of the voters without a say. It has never felt entirely democratic and leaves us with wild swings between governments.

you do realize that would mean the big cities would run the countryside as huge areas would still not equal london votes "

More likely the opposite. London already dominates & too few votes do not count in a first past the post. It also mean that boundary changes can’t be used to create safe seats!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *irtylittletramp100TV/TS
over a year ago

Notts


"I’d rather we had proportional representation to be honest. I mean the Conservatives only got 43.6% of the vote but with our first past the post system they get an 80 seat majority! In essence 56% of the population are not represented...

same happened with ukip, had as many votes as snp but only got one seat! so it might not work out how you think?

Sadly the Conservatives are ‘UKIP by another name’ I accept that protestparties will exist on both sidesof the political divide, but being rulesfor 5 years by a party with aminority of the votes doesn’t sit well. Yes, they are the biggest minority, but it still leaves 56.4% of the voters without a say. It has never felt entirely democratic and leaves us with wild swings between governments.

you do realize that would mean the big cities would run the countryside as huge areas would still not equal london votes

More likely the opposite. London already dominates & too few votes do not count in a first past the post. It also mean that boundary changes can’t be used to create safe seats! "

That doesn't make sense, I don't think you actually know what your on about, please explain fully how with proportional voting the countryside communities will have more voters than London areas for example

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago

Manchester


"I’d rather we had proportional representation to be honest. I mean the Conservatives only got 43.6% of the vote but with our first past the post system they get an 80 seat majority! In essence 56% of the population are not represented..."

I agree with this .

First past the list isn’t serving us well and isn’t very democratic.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago

Manchester


"I’d rather we had proportional representation to be honest. I mean the Conservatives only got 43.6% of the vote but with our first past the post system they get an 80 seat majority! In essence 56% of the population are not represented...

same happened with ukip, had as many votes as snp but only got one seat! so it might not work out how you think? "

It would reflect the vote more accurately though. Isn’t that what Democrat should be?

Yes we will have UKIP MPs but also more greens and it should lessen the parachute brigade of the big two!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago

Manchester


"I’d rather we had proportional representation to be honest. I mean the Conservatives only got 43.6% of the vote but with our first past the post system they get an 80 seat majority! In essence 56% of the population are not represented...

I agree with this .

First past the list isn’t serving us well and isn’t very democratic. "

Correction - first past the post

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *irtylittletramp100TV/TS
over a year ago

Notts


"I’d rather we had proportional representation to be honest. I mean the Conservatives only got 43.6% of the vote but with our first past the post system they get an 80 seat majority! In essence 56% of the population are not represented...

same happened with ukip, had as many votes as snp but only got one seat! so it might not work out how you think?

It would reflect the vote more accurately though. Isn’t that what Democrat should be?

Yes we will have UKIP MPs but also more greens and it should lessen the parachute brigade of the big two!

"

Agree, im not knocking it, just pointing out that areas of high population will get more say, over farming areas for example, would that be good? It's those divisions that split America

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago

upton wirral


"I’d rather we had proportional representation to be honest. I mean the Conservatives only got 43.6% of the vote but with our first past the post system they get an 80 seat majority! In essence 56% of the population are not represented...

I agree with this .

First past the list isn’t serving us well and isn’t very democratic. "
The largest party stil vontrols the government and the country becomes unstable very often.

PR is good in theory but not in practice I feel.

No system is perfect

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ust some cock suckerMan
over a year ago

Preston


"With this I mean, should the people beable to evaluate and hold a vote wether the prime minister is doing a good job after few years in power and then if not they are beable to choose another one? I think that would be fear cos you could have one that doesnt do good and could sit there for decades

Isnt this exactly why we have an election every 5 years? "

No.

We can't choose our PM.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *e CapCouple
over a year ago

Basingstoke

The idea itself is not bad. But for UK that can be a very dangerous situation. It will be nearly a presidential republic. If people can vote for whoever they want imagine that they may vote for a normal person, someone who didn’t go to Eaton or even worse, a biped who went to a public school. That person might not like the House of Lords, Organise a referendum and bang , all the MAFIA gone, sorry, I meant those honourable gentlemen with honest investments in Cayman Islands. That would be a tragedy. UK must stay a stubborn democracy where people are free to vote for whatever party they want, and don’t worry, the party knows who to put in charge.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ethnmelvCouple
over a year ago

Cardiff


"I’d rather we had proportional representation to be honest. I mean the Conservatives only got 43.6% of the vote but with our first past the post system they get an 80 seat majority! In essence 56% of the population are not represented...

same happened with ukip, had as many votes as snp but only got one seat! so it might not work out how you think?

Sadly the Conservatives are ‘UKIP by another name’ I accept that protestparties will exist on both sidesof the political divide, but being rulesfor 5 years by a party with aminority of the votes doesn’t sit well. Yes, they are the biggest minority, but it still leaves 56.4% of the voters without a say. It has never felt entirely democratic and leaves us with wild swings between governments.

you do realize that would mean the big cities would run the countryside as huge areas would still not equal london votes

More likely the opposite. London already dominates & too few votes do not count in a first past the post. It also mean that boundary changes can’t be used to create safe seats!

That doesn't make sense, I don't think you actually know what your on about, please explain fully how with proportional voting the countryside communities will have more voters than London areas for example "

What do you mean by a countryside community? Is it anyone living outside a town, or a large conurbation? Surely people in the countryside also deserve to have their votes counted (PR) & probably don’t all vote the same way?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hagTonight OP   Man
over a year ago

From the land of haribos.


"With this I mean, should the people beable to evaluate and hold a vote wether the prime minister is doing a good job after few years in power and then if not they are beable to choose another one? I think that would be fear cos you could have one that doesnt do good and could sit there for decades

Isnt this exactly why we have an election every 5 years?

No.

We can't choose our PM. "
I also thought so too, that we couldnt choose them.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *irtylittletramp100TV/TS
over a year ago

Notts


"you dont vote the tory leader into power you vote the tories into power, if the tories then decide their leader is shit they can oust them. But the voters can oust the entire party! So its in their interests to make sure they have a good leader.

Anyone can become a member of the tory party,(i dont mean you need to be an mp) you just join like any other organisation which then allows you to raise issue and if enough agree the motion would go forward. So everything is already in place. "

for those that only read last post, so it is possible to get a vote on leader, via party membership

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top