U.K. Tory leader unveils 'elected PM' plan

BBC: David Cameron outlines plans for a new rule that anyone taking over as PM between elections must call one within six months.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8641552.stm

Does David Cameron really want to change the law in this way and if so is it a good idea?

Or is this a ploy so that Gordon Brown's lack of an election win as Prime Minister becomes an issue even though the Tories will never, ever enact such a rule?

if they do never, ever enact such a rule then you can call them on it.

What do the Tories hope to accomplish with such a rule? Isn't it a good thing that one votes for a set of ideals and policies instead of a face?

They'd maybe have a point if the people actually elected the prime minister, but we don't.

Cameron wants to make Brown less credible but I do not think his suggestion has credibility for many reasons. For instance: what if the PM dies or become too ill to continue - does that enforce an election with its resulting costs and disruption? Or more interesting, imagine a hung parliament resulted in shifting alliances within the term of the parliament and more than one change of executive. What would trigger the new election? And if, following this enforced new election, the next parliament was again a hung parliament, just how long would we be allowed between elections under Cameron's rule? I see lots of ways this suggested rule would be a real pain for everyone.

This is typical - a policy pronouncement without serious thought for its consequences and without reference to any authentic principles.

Originally posted by FMF
.......Does David Cameron really want to change the law in this way and if so is it a good idea?

Smoke, mirrors and sleight of hand. Its what you do when you want the mantle of agent of change. Its the dance of seduction to win the hearts and mind of an electorate that has reservations about the Old Etonian network you and preparing to wrap around the corridors of power at 10 Downing St.

The odious stench of Thatcherism is still a major obstacle. Whereas Thatcher the grocer's daughter toadied to power, Cameron in every aspect represents the embodiment of power. Most people realise how that politics plays on their hip pocket.

The 6 month rule only further demonstrates the cavalier attitude his class has to spending the public's money. What a profligate waste of funds such an exercise would represent, to call another election so soon. And to what end?

So that he can try Brown in the tabloid press as being chicken? If his disdain for the process is such that he would raid the public purse to devolve the system even further into a personality contest, then all those who say aye, are welcome to the blame and shame sideshow he will resurrect. Maggie must be smiling.....

The big con trick is to say people want change. Well, Labour activists have been wanting change since Blair revealed his true colours. But this election is not about change - it is about making a choice between rival parties

Much as it sometimes irritates me to death, I am planning to vote based on what is available to me.

It is obvious that Cameron is a PR trick to cover the return of the very Tories who ruined this country, despite swimming in North Sea Oil in its best years. Why are these mad people even in public life any more? Cameron's half baked notions about the new society are as relevant as an old edition of the Archers. They are just a sugar coated description of the small state (that means a big state if you want bombs of course, or banks, but a small state if you need support).

The Lib Dems have the single merit of offering to consider maybe being open to the possibility that they might, after reflection, consider scrapping Trident but probably won't after all when they team up with the Tories. They have too many de-merits to make that enough.

New Labour seems to have persisted with many Tory polices and, to the degree they have sought to reduce inequality, that has been timid and apologetic and incidental. Besides they are obnoxious at times. But within Labour I can hope there are still enough people willing to push for some socialist measures to tackle the inequalities.

If I did not vote - why would anyone try to design policies to suit me? I just have to make the best of what is on offer.

The OP was spot on: this 'policy announcement' has, I suspect, less to do with any policy the Tories would (want to) introduce, and is more of a 'dog-whistle' gesture. That's not to say they wouldn't follow through, just that I think they would do so only because they said they would, and not because it is important to them. Simply put, it points out, to those few who may have forgotten with all the hullabaloo around the election, that Brown 'wasn't elected Prime Minister'.

It's been pointed out in the thread already that on constitutional grounds the suggestion is based on a nonsense, but one thing - the (also constitutionally dubious) 'Prime Ministerial Debates' - has meant that Cameron can't be called out on it. Since the debates, which all three leaders signed up to, already give the false impression that we in any way elect a Prime Minister, all three parties are complicit in fostering that notion, and so none of the three parties can point out the strangeness of the suggestion from Cameron.

It's also already been pointed out that the proposal is an attempt to portray the Tories as the 'party of change' - although from my perspective it was misjudged. It seems opportunistic, as well as seeming to be policy created on the basis of the Gordon Brown experience rather than any deeper principle and, ultimately, seems rather timid - as does much of the Conservatives' 'change agenda'. The final point is thrown in to sharp relief by the meteoric rise of Nick Clegg (contrary to popular opinion, the surge appears to have been underway before the first debate). Not that there's altogether all that much real change in their agenda, but the some of the changes they are proposing (particularly constitutionally) have a more genuine air to them - that those changes would be change, and not just a rhetoric of change.

Any predictions for the result?

Originally posted by DrKF


Any predictions for the result?

First I predict a decent turnout just because it will seem more likely that a vote makes a difference - in so far as there is less certainty about a result. More people don't bother if they think it's a foregone conclusion.

Second, because a higher turnout gives a better statistical sample, I predict it will not be that far from what the opinion polls predict IF they are done in a neutral way and reported properly (not all, maybe not most). A smaller turnout is more likely to give an unexpected result.

Third, I predict Labour will do better than 30% because there is a lot to be anxious about and the Tories are not achieving the big swing they hoped so maybe more people will opt for staying as is. In this voting system that may mean Labour are the largest party and that will hopefully irritate Rupert Murdoch and the rest of the press.

But I do not think there is enough to give anyone a clear majority - maybe a small one, which in turn may mean a really horrible few years ahead for Parliament.

Originally posted by FMF
BBC: David Cameron outlines plans for a new rule that anyone taking over as PM between elections must call one within six months.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/politics/election_2010/8641552.stm

Does David Cameron really want to change the law in this way and if so is it a good idea?

Or is this a ploy so that Gordon Brown's lack of an election wi ...[text shortened]... Prime Minister[/i] becomes an issue even though the Tories will never, ever enact such a rule?

Don't you need to change the constitution to approve something like this?

Doesn't the Sovereign have the power to dissolve parliament? In the UK people vote for parties, not directly on the person of the Prime Minister, so I don't think that there's an absolute need to call elections. There might be a valid reason if the new executive has a starkly different direction than the one campaigned for, but then the Sovereign can call elections if this is the case. In Portugal something similar happened and our President (which has similar roles with respect to the parliament as the Sovereign in England) called for elections as the new Prime Minister's politics were very different from the previous one.

I don't know what you are all wining about, the games afoot and the political landscape everywhere is changing people....sit up and wise up.

Most people don't seem to realise that we ARE living in a tightly controlled (I hate using the term) "police state" already... direct action is all that is really left to make a difference now.

Forget elections and politics as you know it.

Originally posted by skipper2666
I don't know what you are all wining about, the games afoot and the political landscape everywhere is changing people....sit up and wise up.

Most people don't seem to realise that we ARE living in a tightly controlled (I hate using the term) "police state" already... direct action is all that is really left to make a difference now.

Forget elections and politics as you know it.

Lasciate ogni speranza?

It's absurd.
You elect a candidate in Britain and the candidates decide who the leader is.

It's the political party which wins an election, not the prime minister.

Originally posted by Palynka
Lasciate ogni speranza?

I bow before Socrates final words.....how ironic a quote at this time!!!!