,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
An interesting counter to my argument that party members should not pick the Prime Minister, from the excellent Marc Mulholland. I'm chasing a deadline, but a few quick responses...
1. Marc give examples of "the old system" not working. But I'm not suggesting a return to the aristocratic "clan politics" of the 19th century, nor the system by which leaders "emerged". In any case, there's little reason to believe members would have produced better outcomes.
2. For example: it seems unlikely that a ballot of party members (could we imagine such a system) would have installed Disraeli as leader before 1868, or that party members would have removed either Gladstone or Churchill from office in their later years.
3. I'm not advocating primaries, unless we move to a full presidential system. But I do think we need to choose: should prime ministers have direct personal mandates (which must involve the whole electorate) or does power come from the ability to command confidence in Parliament?
4. In a democracy, the authority to govern must come from the people. It can come directly, through presidential election, or indirectly, through representatives in Parliament. But I cannot see a democratic case for that authority coming from unelected & unaccountable activists.
5. The case agst members appointing the PM has three dimensions: it is undemocratic, handing power to people we cannot hold to account; it is unrepresentative; & it creates constitutional gridlock, by separating the "mandate" from the "ability" to govern in a parliamentary system
6. I'm conscious of being in a minority on this - & that matters. If the public accepts this system, that gives it a certain legitimacy. But we should think carefully about its implications - so it's good to have the case *for* it put clearly, too. Thanks to @katheder for that!
