If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Seperate parliament and president in UK?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Hey all.
You know how in many countries they have a separate parliament and presidency, in that parliament must vote on changes like laws, bills, and so on - but the president has executive power. Do you think we should have mixed elections here in the UK? Or some alternative system, as this whole thing with Gordon Brown is really coming to a head.
Look at it this way, you can judge the public's opinion of two things:
- Gordon Brown as a prime minister and effective head of state (ignoring the queen)
- The labour party as the incumbent government
Now, for all the flaming it will get me, and despite the media controversy, I think the labour party has done a great job. There are plenty of areas that are 'less than perfect' that would take me all day to list, but I don't think anyone will find a government they agree with 100% of the time.
But I think the opinion of Gordon Brown is much more mixed. As such maybe there isn't a marrying of the political leader, and the political party? So one might be inclined, for example, to vote for David Cameron as he is very likeable and you would put your money on him being able to do a good job - but then again one may not agree with the policies of the conservative party?
There's probably a good reason it is the way it is, but nevertheless I think people shouldn't be confused about their vote which obviously they are. Do you vote for the party you believe in? Well, no, because that's usually a wasted vote. You have to vote politically. If you're a student, who lives at home and at uni, you would vote wherever your vote had the most potential impact. Again, if you are voting for the party to rule the country, do you vote for an odious MP who lives somewhere else, but is in the party you support - or do you vote for the MP you know loves the area and will do a good job but actually stands for some party completely opposite to your views.
So when it comes to the big question - who should run this country - do we decide based on the head of the party and therefore the person who will have executive power, or the party at large and whether it's general policies and aims are what we agree with? Maybe because there is such a potential for conflicts in that respect, there should be two votes? The party you want enacting laws and voting on bills, and the leader of the state.
Not that anything will change though, this is the UK and we are still deeply, deeply conservative (when was the last reform? industrial revolution?).
You know how in many countries they have a separate parliament and presidency, in that parliament must vote on changes like laws, bills, and so on - but the president has executive power. Do you think we should have mixed elections here in the UK? Or some alternative system, as this whole thing with Gordon Brown is really coming to a head.
Look at it this way, you can judge the public's opinion of two things:
- Gordon Brown as a prime minister and effective head of state (ignoring the queen)
- The labour party as the incumbent government
Now, for all the flaming it will get me, and despite the media controversy, I think the labour party has done a great job. There are plenty of areas that are 'less than perfect' that would take me all day to list, but I don't think anyone will find a government they agree with 100% of the time.
But I think the opinion of Gordon Brown is much more mixed. As such maybe there isn't a marrying of the political leader, and the political party? So one might be inclined, for example, to vote for David Cameron as he is very likeable and you would put your money on him being able to do a good job - but then again one may not agree with the policies of the conservative party?
There's probably a good reason it is the way it is, but nevertheless I think people shouldn't be confused about their vote which obviously they are. Do you vote for the party you believe in? Well, no, because that's usually a wasted vote. You have to vote politically. If you're a student, who lives at home and at uni, you would vote wherever your vote had the most potential impact. Again, if you are voting for the party to rule the country, do you vote for an odious MP who lives somewhere else, but is in the party you support - or do you vote for the MP you know loves the area and will do a good job but actually stands for some party completely opposite to your views.
So when it comes to the big question - who should run this country - do we decide based on the head of the party and therefore the person who will have executive power, or the party at large and whether it's general policies and aims are what we agree with? Maybe because there is such a potential for conflicts in that respect, there should be two votes? The party you want enacting laws and voting on bills, and the leader of the state.
Not that anything will change though, this is the UK and we are still deeply, deeply conservative (when was the last reform? industrial revolution?).
0
Comments
When Blair was in trouble with MPs in 2004, he threw them a meaty morsel in the form of a bill to outlaw fox hunting. Brown is using much the same technique here. After what was probably the most pathetic coup in the history of coups, he just about remains PM. Large swathes of them are baying for his blood - so he just aims for the base instinct of Labour MPs once more. He knows sections of the Labour Party are sympathetic to the republican movement, and this is nothing more than Brown playing their tune. I happen to believe that's an utterly shameful thing for him to do, you may think differently, I don't know. None of this will actually happen in the end.
My personal view is that we should now be moving towards a drastically scaled down version of the monarchy. It has many benefits to our country which often go unrecognised, and is far better than the alternative of our country being represented by a Preisdent Chirac style figure. Although being represented on the world stage by a useless tosspot who managed to fuck up a speech last week by talking about Obama Beach is pretty embarrassing, I must admit.
Er come again? :eek2:
Agreed. WTF?