Pestneb Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 It becomes a real problem when they start doing what they want and wasn't in the election mandate. By the sounds of it Leadsom plans to do whatever the fuck she wants and that is not what the Tories were voted in for. If they steered the course it would be passable, but if they aren't elected and then start doing things that weren't in the mandate we're in that "unelected officials" part. It becomes a real problem when she declares elections aren't necessary any more, that martial law is in place, and that she is the Goddess mother of the UK. Some people seem to be confused here... 1)She can't do what the hell she likes. She has to have backing from the majority of MP's to get legislation through. Even then it can be blocked by the Lords (who are there as a stabilising force to moderate the influence should a extremist find themselves in number 10) 2) Like it or not, she is democratically elected. We never have a choice over who is chosen as PM. If the Tories had won the general election but Cameron had lost his seat, he wouldn't have been PM. simple. 3) EEnuh... ok, interesting, guess we have no influence over the final choice.. but really I don't think anyone seriously cares that much that they would have wanted to join just for the vote. But the control thing is taking it from the EU and bringing more power to the UK government. At the end of the day they are still politicians and they still will make mistakes. I'm actually quite pro setting up two regional governments for England, one for the North and one for the South, and giving them both the same powers as the scottish parliament. Retain Westminster pretty much just for international matters, where each mp from the regional governments have the same powers as they currently have.
Pestneb Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 It becomes a real problem when they start doing what they want and wasn't in the election mandate. By the sounds of it Leadsom plans to do whatever the fuck she wants and that is not what the Tories were voted in for. If they steered the course it would be passable, but if they aren't elected and then start doing things that weren't in the mandate we're in that "unelected officials" part. It becomes a real problem when she declares elections aren't necessary any more, that martial law is in place, and that she is the Goddess mother of the UK. Some people seem to be confused here... 1)She can't do what the hell she likes. She has to have backing from the majority of MP's to get legislation through. Even then it can be blocked by the Lords (who are there as a stabilising force to moderate the influence should a extremist find themselves in number 10) 2) Like it or not, she is democratically elected. We never have a choice over who is chosen as PM. If the Tories had won the general election but Cameron had lost his seat, he wouldn't have been PM. simple. 3) EEnuh... ok, interesting, guess we have no influence over the final choice.. but really I don't think anyone seriously cares that much that they would have wanted to join just for the vote. But the control thing is taking it from the EU and bringing more power to the UK government. At the end of the day they are still politicians and they still will make mistakes. I'm actually quite pro setting up two regional governments for England, one for the North and one for the South, and giving them both the same powers as the scottish parliament. Retain Westminster pretty much just for international matters, where each mp from the regional governments have the same powers as they currently have.
Ashley Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 (edited) The government was elected on a mandate. People voted for that (ideologically anyway, reality is messier). If she starts trying to push through her own regressive policies, even if they can be voted down, she is ignoring the mandate that the British public elected the party on. I think it's also technically possible for a PM to not have to win their election if the party wins but they don't providing they can lead the party. Bit of a grey area as it's never happened, but I don't think there is any legislation that they have to (and they would likely be replaced if it really did, but don't believe it's a necessity). Edited July 8, 2016 by Ashley
Ashley Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 (edited) The government was elected on a mandate. People voted for that (ideologically anyway, reality is messier). If she starts trying to push through her own regressive policies, even if they can be voted down, she is ignoring the mandate that the British public elected the party on. I think it's also technically possible for a PM to not have to win their election if the party wins but they don't providing they can lead the party. Bit of a grey area as it's never happened, but I don't think there is any legislation that they have to (and they would likely be replaced if it really did, but don't believe it's a necessity). Edited July 8, 2016 by Ashley
Pestneb Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 So I looked into it, it seems in the pasts Lords have taken the position of Prime minister, but not in my living memory :P If an unelected individual took the role, I would understand the uproar... As it stands the issue is the popularity of the individual candidates, which is fine, but far better to just state what makes you uneasy about them. To be honest of the two candidates, I feel uneasy about both of them. I hope the most competent one ends up with the job, but we'll never really know. What regressive policies are you speaking about specifically?
Pestneb Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 So I looked into it, it seems in the pasts Lords have taken the position of Prime minister, but not in my living memory :P If an unelected individual took the role, I would understand the uproar... As it stands the issue is the popularity of the individual candidates, which is fine, but far better to just state what makes you uneasy about them. To be honest of the two candidates, I feel uneasy about both of them. I hope the most competent one ends up with the job, but we'll never really know. What regressive policies are you speaking about specifically?
Ashley Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 So I looked into it, it seems in the pasts Lords have taken the position of Prime minister, but not in my living memory :P If an unelected individual took the role, I would understand the uproar... As it stands the issue is the popularity of the individual candidates, which is fine, but far better to just state what makes you uneasy about them. To be honest of the two candidates, I feel uneasy about both of them. I hope the most competent one ends up with the job, but we'll never really know. What regressive policies are you speaking about specifically? It's the hypocrisy. Neither of them will have been in a public election whereby they stood as PM. I don't really care about that aspect, it's just the hypocrisy. Wanting fox hunting back is the only one she's really said, but her views are regressive (gay cures, they shouldn't be allowed to adopt, shouldn't be allowed to marry , single parents are bad for children etc). It paints a troubling picture. Ironically she also wrote years ago if we lost our AAA credit it would be a disaster that would take years to resolve .
Ashley Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 So I looked into it, it seems in the pasts Lords have taken the position of Prime minister, but not in my living memory :P If an unelected individual took the role, I would understand the uproar... As it stands the issue is the popularity of the individual candidates, which is fine, but far better to just state what makes you uneasy about them. To be honest of the two candidates, I feel uneasy about both of them. I hope the most competent one ends up with the job, but we'll never really know. What regressive policies are you speaking about specifically? It's the hypocrisy. Neither of them will have been in a public election whereby they stood as PM. I don't really care about that aspect, it's just the hypocrisy. Wanting fox hunting back is the only one she's really said, but her views are regressive (gay cures, they shouldn't be allowed to adopt, shouldn't be allowed to marry , single parents are bad for children etc). It paints a troubling picture. Ironically she also wrote years ago if we lost our AAA credit it would be a disaster that would take years to resolve .
pratty Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 can't see that outside of the UK :/ Mostly working class folk speaking, including the father of an Indian family who voted because of immigration. Immigration was mentioned a lot, nobody said they didn't like foreigners, it was mostly about the the volume of immigration being too much for the country's infrastructure to handle, and cheap labour undercutting Brits and taking jobs. Others said this was the first time they felt their vote really made a political difference, and another was talking about the British identity; he said EU immigrants were coming here for the job/economic opportunities rather than participating in the british culture and community. A business owner with 20 immigrant employees voted to leave because of EU red tape effecting his business. Overall on immigration people weren't anti foreigner, they just wanted to reduce immigration. Some remain voters were also interviewed, they said that opportunities for the young had been taken away and that leaving wouldn't fix the concerns leavers had.
pratty Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 can't see that outside of the UK :/ Mostly working class folk speaking, including the father of an Indian family who voted because of immigration. Immigration was mentioned a lot, nobody said they didn't like foreigners, it was mostly about the the volume of immigration being too much for the country's infrastructure to handle, and cheap labour undercutting Brits and taking jobs. Others said this was the first time they felt their vote really made a political difference, and another was talking about the British identity; he said EU immigrants were coming here for the job/economic opportunities rather than participating in the british culture and community. A business owner with 20 immigrant employees voted to leave because of EU red tape effecting his business. Overall on immigration people weren't anti foreigner, they just wanted to reduce immigration. Some remain voters were also interviewed, they said that opportunities for the young had been taken away and that leaving wouldn't fix the concerns leavers had.
Pestneb Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 It's the hypocrisy. Neither of them will have been in a public election whereby they stood as PM. I don't really care about that aspect, it's just the hypocrisy. Wanting fox hunting back is the only one she's really said, but her views are regressive (gay cures, they shouldn't be allowed to adopt, shouldn't be allowed to marry , single parents are bad for children etc). It paints a troubling picture. Ironically she also wrote years ago if we lost our AAA credit it would be a disaster that would take years to resolve . hypocrisy? Sorry but where is the hypocrisy? (genuine question, I'm tired so my comprehension skills are near 0 right now...) I don't think their constituents would have thought "oh.. she'll be the prime minister of the country... hmm.. better vote for this other candidate instead". They would have still been elected in their constituency. And do people really vote based on the prime minister??? I never realised that was a thing until a while back people suggested it on here... I've always looked at my local candidate and voted according to what I feel they will bring to the table and how well they will represent my views in parliament. The PM has always been a side issue for me... but fair enough if people try to vote for the PM and not the mp they are actually putting into parliament... As for leadsom (sp?) I'm sure she'll be conformed to the system quickly enough, and advised to inaction long enough for her conformation to be completed. I wouldn't be too worried if I was a fox.
Pestneb Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 It's the hypocrisy. Neither of them will have been in a public election whereby they stood as PM. I don't really care about that aspect, it's just the hypocrisy. Wanting fox hunting back is the only one she's really said, but her views are regressive (gay cures, they shouldn't be allowed to adopt, shouldn't be allowed to marry , single parents are bad for children etc). It paints a troubling picture. Ironically she also wrote years ago if we lost our AAA credit it would be a disaster that would take years to resolve . hypocrisy? Sorry but where is the hypocrisy? (genuine question, I'm tired so my comprehension skills are near 0 right now...) I don't think their constituents would have thought "oh.. she'll be the prime minister of the country... hmm.. better vote for this other candidate instead". They would have still been elected in their constituency. And do people really vote based on the prime minister??? I never realised that was a thing until a while back people suggested it on here... I've always looked at my local candidate and voted according to what I feel they will bring to the table and how well they will represent my views in parliament. The PM has always been a side issue for me... but fair enough if people try to vote for the PM and not the mp they are actually putting into parliament... As for leadsom (sp?) I'm sure she'll be conformed to the system quickly enough, and advised to inaction long enough for her conformation to be completed. I wouldn't be too worried if I was a fox.
Ashley Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 Part of the leave campaign, which she was a significant part of but that's by the by, complained about unelected officials in Europe and said we need to break away from that kind of practice. And now look where we are.
Ashley Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 Part of the leave campaign, which she was a significant part of but that's by the by, complained about unelected officials in Europe and said we need to break away from that kind of practice. And now look where we are.
Pestneb Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 (edited) Part of the leave campaign, which she was a significant part of but that's by the by, complained about unelected officials in Europe and said we need to break away from that kind of practice. And now look where we are. both May and Leadsom were elected though... No one elected David Cameron as PM.. nor Tony Blair, nor Major, nor Thatcher. They were all elected though. So I really don't see the hypocrisy. ok, so I don't know that much about the EU but a quick google : The European Council comprises the heads of state of the 28 nations of the European Union, the President of the European Council, the President of the European Commission, and the High Representative for Foreign Affairs & Security Policy. Poland's Donald Tusk is the current President of the European Council, and was elected by the heads of the 28 member states of the European Union. The council decides on the EU's overall direction and priorities, but does not pass laws. As I understand it, Donald tusk was not elected by the european people. The head of states are chosen by the european people. DT isn't a head of the polish state is he? It would be much like if Blair was the president.. he's not an elected official, I think he shouldn't be there. Same with Tusk (correct me if I am wrong - I know tusk WAS elected by Polish people, but afaik he is only elected by 20 odd elected individuals... The President of the European Commission Europe's political parties put forward a candidate for the presidency of the European Commission. The European Council then votes on a nominee for the post of president — the Lisbon Treaty stipulates that the Council must take into account the European elections — who becomes the Commission's new president after obtaining approval in the new Parliament. The most recent campaign for the presidency in 2014 saw Luxembourg's Jean-Claude Juncker come to power after his European People's Party (EPP) won a majority of votes in the European elections. Those running against him were Martin Schulz for the Socialists and Democrats, Guy Verhofstadt for ALDE, Ska Keller for the Greens, and Alexis Tsipras for the European Left. The campaign involves debates and televised appearances. Again, the President of the EC is elected by elected officials... if there was a requirement for him to be elected within his country of origin in order to qualify for the position fine, it would be much like our PM position, but it just puts a layer of separation with the electorate. We elect politicians to make decisions, not to elect other politicians. Choosing an elected politician to fill a position is vastly different to electing a politician to a position. Now it could be argued that the house of lords is a similar situation.. in fact it is very similar, and the way it is set up I think probably begs for reform. But there is a difference. The house of Lords works as a stabilising force. While it may hold up certain "progressive" reforms it is also able to work just as effectively against "regressive" reforms. The house of commons is more susceptible to the whims of the day, while the lords is constructed, hopefully carefully and wisely, by successive administrations to provide a counter balance. How effective the house of lords is does depend on the intelligence and wisdom of the Lords and therefore also of the people selecting who should enter the house of lords. A single prime minister won't be able to swing the HoL completely in their favour in one term, and as new Lords are added over time they will become more progressive. Having too large a swing in the social climate can lead to unrest and tensions between the old and the new, and while the media have a huge influence on that, the Lords is able to keep society in equilibrium. A change that is too progressive may be countered by the Lords, leading to it being watered down. This paves the way for the change to take place a few years later, when either views have softened or opponents have largely passed away. Young people are often impatient and fail to see the value of respecting those who have built the country before them, but say a the BNP had come to power due to numpties protest voting. The house of Lords would have been invaluable in stopping abhorrent policies coming through. Imagine how you would feel about them in that situation, and that is how many people ought to feel about them now. Back to Europe... the unelected people in Europe don't really hold this balancing role, they are in a temporary position that is better held by an elected official, as is done in the US. I don't see any value in their being elected by proxy, as this will only accentuate any peaks in extremism. President of the European Parliament Martin Schulz, a German MEP, was re-elected as the President of the European Parliament in 2014 for a second two-and-a-half-year term, the first time a president of the European Parliament has ever been re-elected. MEPs vote for a president in the beginning and the middle of each parliamentary term. They elect a president, 14 vice-presidents, and five quaestors who all form the Parliament's bureau. That seems fair enough.. much like our PM situation. So there are elements that are quite democratic, but there are still elements that are too removed from the democratic process in my view. I don't see hypocrisy here as leadsom was an elected official, elected directly by the people of her constituency (at least those who bothered to vote). Edited July 9, 2016 by Pestneb
Pestneb Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 (edited) Part of the leave campaign, which she was a significant part of but that's by the by, complained about unelected officials in Europe and said we need to break away from that kind of practice. And now look where we are. both May and Leadsom were elected though... No one elected David Cameron as PM.. nor Tony Blair, nor Major, nor Thatcher. They were all elected though. So I really don't see the hypocrisy. ok, so I don't know that much about the EU but a quick google : The European Council comprises the heads of state of the 28 nations of the European Union, the President of the European Council, the President of the European Commission, and the High Representative for Foreign Affairs & Security Policy. Poland's Donald Tusk is the current President of the European Council, and was elected by the heads of the 28 member states of the European Union. The council decides on the EU's overall direction and priorities, but does not pass laws. As I understand it, Donald tusk was not elected by the european people. The head of states are chosen by the european people. DT isn't a head of the polish state is he? It would be much like if Blair was the president.. he's not an elected official, I think he shouldn't be there. Same with Tusk (correct me if I am wrong - I know tusk WAS elected by Polish people, but afaik he is only elected by 20 odd elected individuals... The President of the European Commission Europe's political parties put forward a candidate for the presidency of the European Commission. The European Council then votes on a nominee for the post of president — the Lisbon Treaty stipulates that the Council must take into account the European elections — who becomes the Commission's new president after obtaining approval in the new Parliament. The most recent campaign for the presidency in 2014 saw Luxembourg's Jean-Claude Juncker come to power after his European People's Party (EPP) won a majority of votes in the European elections. Those running against him were Martin Schulz for the Socialists and Democrats, Guy Verhofstadt for ALDE, Ska Keller for the Greens, and Alexis Tsipras for the European Left. The campaign involves debates and televised appearances. Again, the President of the EC is elected by elected officials... if there was a requirement for him to be elected within his country of origin in order to qualify for the position fine, it would be much like our PM position, but it just puts a layer of separation with the electorate. We elect politicians to make decisions, not to elect other politicians. Choosing an elected politician to fill a position is vastly different to electing a politician to a position. Now it could be argued that the house of lords is a similar situation.. in fact it is very similar, and the way it is set up I think probably begs for reform. But there is a difference. The house of Lords works as a stabilising force. While it may hold up certain "progressive" reforms it is also able to work just as effectively against "regressive" reforms. The house of commons is more susceptible to the whims of the day, while the lords is constructed, hopefully carefully and wisely, by successive administrations to provide a counter balance. How effective the house of lords is does depend on the intelligence and wisdom of the Lords and therefore also of the people selecting who should enter the house of lords. A single prime minister won't be able to swing the HoL completely in their favour in one term, and as new Lords are added over time they will become more progressive. Having too large a swing in the social climate can lead to unrest and tensions between the old and the new, and while the media have a huge influence on that, the Lords is able to keep society in equilibrium. A change that is too progressive may be countered by the Lords, leading to it being watered down. This paves the way for the change to take place a few years later, when either views have softened or opponents have largely passed away. Young people are often impatient and fail to see the value of respecting those who have built the country before them, but say a the BNP had come to power due to numpties protest voting. The house of Lords would have been invaluable in stopping abhorrent policies coming through. Imagine how you would feel about them in that situation, and that is how many people ought to feel about them now. Back to Europe... the unelected people in Europe don't really hold this balancing role, they are in a temporary position that is better held by an elected official, as is done in the US. I don't see any value in their being elected by proxy, as this will only accentuate any peaks in extremism. President of the European Parliament Martin Schulz, a German MEP, was re-elected as the President of the European Parliament in 2014 for a second two-and-a-half-year term, the first time a president of the European Parliament has ever been re-elected. MEPs vote for a president in the beginning and the middle of each parliamentary term. They elect a president, 14 vice-presidents, and five quaestors who all form the Parliament's bureau. That seems fair enough.. much like our PM situation. So there are elements that are quite democratic, but there are still elements that are too removed from the democratic process in my view. I don't see hypocrisy here as leadsom was an elected official, elected directly by the people of her constituency (at least those who bothered to vote). Edited July 9, 2016 by Pestneb
Ashley Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 When the elections took place they were running as PM. You knew if that party won, that person was going to be PM. Yes you never elected that specific PM, but you did by proxy. Which is akin to how the EU works (with differences, obviously, but nothing fundamentally different to be able to say they have unelected officials and we don't - it comes with all democracies).
Ashley Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 When the elections took place they were running as PM. You knew if that party won, that person was going to be PM. Yes you never elected that specific PM, but you did by proxy. Which is akin to how the EU works (with differences, obviously, but nothing fundamentally different to be able to say they have unelected officials and we don't - it comes with all democracies).
Pestneb Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 When the elections took place they were running as PM. You knew if that party won, that person was going to be PM. Yes you never elected that specific PM, but you did by proxy. Are you saying that if people realised for example that Leadsom could become PM they would think something along the lines of: "oh.. I love this MP, they do a great job, but we can't have Leadsom as a PM... let's vote for this shitty MP I never heard of/hate the policies they support"? Crazy. Which is akin to how the EU works (with differences, obviously, but nothing fundamentally different to be able to say they have unelected officials and we don't - it comes with all democracies). As I understand it, if I got enough of the elected officials to agree, I could become president of the European Commission or council, without any other european ever having heard my name. Obviously that is pretty much impossible, I would need to work hard to get that kind of influence, but what I would not need would be to be approved by the general public, I would only need to gain influence with the right politicians. That is undemocratic in my view. Yes we have unelected officials, but an unelected president? As it stands the EU commission and council don't have THAT much power, but the direction of the EU is moving towards greater power - especially with this ever closer union ideology. As the power of the EU increases, so would the power of these presidents. It does need to be addressed imo. Unelected officials should be to aide elected officials, not to preside over them.
Pestneb Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 When the elections took place they were running as PM. You knew if that party won, that person was going to be PM. Yes you never elected that specific PM, but you did by proxy. Are you saying that if people realised for example that Leadsom could become PM they would think something along the lines of: "oh.. I love this MP, they do a great job, but we can't have Leadsom as a PM... let's vote for this shitty MP I never heard of/hate the policies they support"? Crazy. Which is akin to how the EU works (with differences, obviously, but nothing fundamentally different to be able to say they have unelected officials and we don't - it comes with all democracies). As I understand it, if I got enough of the elected officials to agree, I could become president of the European Commission or council, without any other european ever having heard my name. Obviously that is pretty much impossible, I would need to work hard to get that kind of influence, but what I would not need would be to be approved by the general public, I would only need to gain influence with the right politicians. That is undemocratic in my view. Yes we have unelected officials, but an unelected president? As it stands the EU commission and council don't have THAT much power, but the direction of the EU is moving towards greater power - especially with this ever closer union ideology. As the power of the EU increases, so would the power of these presidents. It does need to be addressed imo. Unelected officials should be to aide elected officials, not to preside over them.
Ashley Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 Are you saying that if people realised for example that Leadsom could become PM they would think something along the lines of: "oh.. I love this MP, they do a great job, but we can't have Leadsom as a PM... let's vote for this shitty MP I never heard of/hate the policies they support"? Crazy. I'm just saying what was voted for in 2015 is not what we're going to have. I'm not saying it's a particularly strong argument, but nor was the "unelected officials bad, get rid!" that was bounded around. As I understand it, if I got enough of the elected officials to agree, I could become president of the European Commission or council, without any other european ever having heard my name. Obviously that is pretty much impossible, I would need to work hard to get that kind of influence, but what I would not need would be to be approved by the general public, I would only need to gain influence with the right politicians. That is undemocratic in my view. Yes we have unelected officials, but an unelected president? As it stands the EU commission and council don't have THAT much power, but the direction of the EU is moving towards greater power - especially with this ever closer union ideology. As the power of the EU increases, so would the power of these presidents. It does need to be addressed imo. Unelected officials should be to aide elected officials, not to preside over them. You get a bunch of elected officials to agree that you should be in charge. Isn't this what May and Leadsom are doing at the moment? Yes they also have the party membership, but it's such a small subset of the population it's not like there's a significant representation of the British public having their say here. Juncker was an elected official at the point he became President of the EU in the same way May and Leadsom are elected officials and are looking to lead the Tory party. He was elected by the people of Luxembourg, May/Leadsom were elected by their constituents. Large swathes of the population (Europe and UK respectively) did not have any say in them being elected, but they ended up (/will end up) in charge of their respective political bodies because of people that were elected decided (/will decide) that is best. We have an unelected head of state don't forget (even though she does sod all in reality I know)
Recommended Posts