Democracy: Who should vote for leaders, who should vote on mandates?

The mandate/manifesto is not a legally binding agreement.

Not sure if it would be possible to make it so, as no Governments have access to a functioning crystal ball they cannot foretell what outside influences will come to play and prevent/hinder them from carrying out their manifesto promises

As has been the case with the Covid pandemic and Russia invading Ukraine.

I’m with you on that one, but I guess that circumstances change, Covid, war in the Ukraine, that affects everything for the whole of Europe not just us, so tweaks have to be made. On the other hand at the end of their term how many promises are fulfilled? Whether they are Tory or Labour.

But I think whoever the PM is should go back to their other MPs and get agreement to the changes before foisting disastrous decisions on us all.

And tell me why, with such a large pool of MPs are they allowed to select old friends (who have no idea about the subject they are handed to deal with) to serve on their Cabinet.

Doesn't it seem nonsensical for the election of a leader to be delegated to the party membership when they vote for someone who was always unlikely to get anything through Parliament?

The latest fiasco shows the current system is nuts. Amongst other things.

With universal internet access you would get up in a true democracy and there would be a list of issues you could vote on - much as you pick your shopping in Tesco. Politicos as they now exist would be redundant.

And tell me why, with such a large pool of MPs are they allowed to select old friends (who have no idea about the subject they are handed to deal with) to serve on their Cabinet

They will pick colleagues who are loyal to them and support their ideas.
As for not knowing their subject, very few would be experts in their Ministerial field, that's why we have civil servants supposedly to advise and, more and more, they rely on their own SPADS who wield a lot of power. However, Truss had the reputation of refusing to listen to advice and we are reaping the consequences.

GrannyGravy13

The mandate/manifesto is not a legally binding agreement.

Not sure if it would be possible to make it so, as no Governments have access to a functioning crystal ball they cannot foretell what outside influences will come to play and prevent/hinder them from carrying out their manifesto promises

As has been the case with the Covid pandemic and Russia invading Ukraine.

Good point GrannyGravy.

So, the mandate they stand on at an election is "subject to change". I can easily agree with change like Covid or Ukraine.

However, would there be any way of stopping a change because a different faction has taken over and moves the political dial a long way from what is voted for.

Sorry GrannyGravy, I'm not expecting you to have an answer, just throwing it in the pot

But I think whoever the PM is should go back to their other MPs and get agreement to the changes before foisting disastrous decisions on us all.

That would/could help Oopsadaisy1. It's a bit of a minefield isn't it.

biglouis

With universal internet access you would get up in a true democracy and there would be a list of issues you could vote on - much as you pick your shopping in Tesco. Politicos as they now exist would be redundant.

How close do you think we are to such a system. I do think we could us technology more, but security will always be a problem.

Callistemon21

^And tell me why, with such a large pool of MPs are they allowed to select old friends (who have no idea about the subject they are handed to deal with) to serve on their Cabinet^

They will pick colleagues who are loyal to them and support their ideas.
As for not knowing their subject, very few would be experts in their Ministerial field, that's why we have civil servants supposedly to advise and, more and more, they rely on their own SPADS who wield a lot of power. However, Truss had the reputation of refusing to listen to advice and we are reaping the consequences.

I think they now mainly rely on advice for PR. Some seem to do little else although they may not be the majority.

Some (Johnson) are only there on the basis of popularity, and they work at maintaining that. There are few, if any, big brains in the current, so called, Conservative Party. They all join early, as bag carriers and "learn" to be a politician, while learning little about life.

you cannot mandate a manifesto because future events cannot be predicted. Since 2019: COVID, Ukrainian War, to mention just 2.

However a party should be expected to keep the mandate it is elected on always in mind and not just chuck it out the window and introduce a completely new set of policies as Liz Truss did.

Time for a return to a proper monarchy. Come on Charles dissolve parliament and do a bit of ruling. Can’t be worse than this shower.

I was listening to an economist this morning and she was talking about how Truss had deviated entirely from the 2019 manifesto, however she (the economist) also suggested that listening to Hunt and his (Sunak) threat of austerity etc , that the Tory party were swinging too far the other way and thus did not represent the 2019 manifesto either.

I do not see how a manifesto can possibly be kept to, given all that has happened in the last two years.Whichever party was in power.
Whoever is the next PM will have learned a lesson on how not to run the economy and must come up with sensible policies.

The economist then went on to say that the government must find a middle way, because if they don’t the Tories will be lose and be punished by the electorate, possibly never to recover.

Prentice

I do not see how a manifesto can possibly be kept to, given all that has happened in the last two years.Whichever party was in power.
Whoever is the next PM will have learned a lesson on how not to run the economy and must come up with sensible policies.

I think being subject to disasters, etc., is one thing. However, Truss's economic plan was nothing to do with that. It was just what the far-right Tuffton Street lot believe. Nothing like it was in the manifesto and it was not driven by disaster (except the disaster of still having the so-called Conservatives in power).

Manifesto promises get special treatment in parliament. They should at least try to stay on track where it is completely possible to do so.

biglouis Good idea but, what happens if the vote goes to bring back hanging, castrating rapists and torturing paedophiles to death?

We do not have a democratic system:

- first past the post is undemocratic
- ditching mandates as a matter of course is undemocratic
- party in power deciding who our Prime Minister should be is undemocratic.

But that is the system we have.

party in power deciding who our Prime Minister should be is undemocratic.

No it isn't. We vote for the MPs and which ever party is in power chooses its own leader from among its members. We vote for individuals and as it is a representative democracy we give them the right to make decisions on our behalf, including choosing their own leader.

Winston Churchill said: “democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.”

There can never be such a thing s a perfect democracy, but what we have is probably the best we can get. Not in detailed specifics but in the ability, if enough people want it, to change things.

We need to be clear, just because we and a lot of people we share political views with think alike on a subject, it doesn't follow that that is what everyone wants or even a majority.

DaisyAnne

biglouis

With universal internet access you would get up in a true democracy and there would be a list of issues you could vote on - much as you pick your shopping in Tesco. Politicos as they now exist would be redundant.

How close do you think we are to such a system. I do think we could us technology more, but security will always be a problem.

Do you really what the power to vote on every little issue? I don't. I would rather get on with my life and let my elected representative get on with the job they were elected to do.

Ok it isn't working very well now but the system has worked well in the past and there's no reason to suppose it won't work well again.

In normal times the leader of a political party has a big influence on voters, more than your local candidate, who often has no local connections ( ours hasn’t). That leader should be selected by MPs, NOT party members who are likely to be activists at the extreme wing of the party, we have seen this with Labour, probably with Truss.

biglouis It wouldn't work like that. people would get bored and cease to vote, or only vote if they had an interest in the subject. This would mean that how we are governmed would be in the hands of the activists and extremeist in parties - and we would be backed to being governed as we have been recently, with a choice between extreme left and extreme right - and how would you appoint ministers and a government when our policies on any subject can swing constantlyfrom one end of the spectrum to another?

One day we are spporting UKraine and giving them arms, then a story reports that Ukrainians have committed a war crime, and popular opinon says we shoukd support the Russians, then reports of even worse atrocities by the Russians changes the policy again. That is not government it is mob rule.

There may never be a perfect democracy but the most essential requirement of a representative democracy is that legislators who form a government should be elected by a majority, certainly not by a minority as happens under FPTP.

Proportional representation is essential in a true democracy.

Decisions are delegated by the voters to the democratically elected representatives who should be properly informed and exercise judgement in law making.

They may, for instance, vote against capital punishment even though a referendum could result in a majority in favour. Referendums are rarely helpful as it encourages ill informed voters to give a simple answer to what is often a very complicated question. Democratically elected legislators should be able to better weigh up the pros and cons of complicated issues.

When it comes to electing a party leader it is fair to allow party members to vote but if the party is in office, it is surely better that the MPs of that party make the decision as they will be far better able to assess the candidates.

M0nica

biglouis Good idea but, what happens if the vote goes to bring back hanging, castrating rapists and torturing paedophiles to death?

We can never have total democracy for this very reason. I think it would be highly likely that the population would vote for capital punishment to be reinstated if they were given a vote on it. Since I absolutely hate the idea of anything so barbaric I hope it will never be put to the vote. Therefore I think we are probably stuck with the imperfect situation as it is.

Blinko

Doesn't it seem nonsensical for the election of a leader to be delegated to the party membership when they vote for someone who was always unlikely to get anything through Parliament?

The latest fiasco shows the current system is nuts. Amongst other things.

The latest fiasco shows that our politicians do not believe in democracy.