,
10 tweets,
6 min read
Read on Twitter
@Dannythefink Thanks for the question. I agree with @OborneTweets: I would return the power to choose the leader to Members of Parliament. Allowing party members to appoint the PM seems to me undemocratic, irresponsible & liable to gridlock our parliamentary institutions. Here's why...
@Dannythefink @OborneTweets (1) Democracy. This leadership contest is resetting the direction of govt. Policy on tax, spending, borrowing & Brexit is being remade to suit the views of 160,000 people. Their verdict could decide whether Parlt is suspended, whether we go to No Deal in Oct or seek an extension.
@Dannythefink @OborneTweets Choosing a prime minister is not an internal party matter: it's an intervention in the government of the country, which will determine who wields the formidable executive powers of the British Constitution. So the decision must be democratically accountable.
@Dannythefink @OborneTweets In a democracy, the authority to govern must come from the people. It can come directly, through a presidential election, or indirectly, through our elected representatives. The current system does neither: it vests power in a tiny group accountable to no-one but themselves.
@Dannythefink @OborneTweets (2) Gridlock. The contest is happening because May was unable to pass her Brexit deal. Yet her successor may be even more adrift from parliamentary opinion. Letting members choose the PM institutionalises gridlock, as it separates the mandate to govern from the power to legislate
@Dannythefink @OborneTweets That makes intimidation a necessary part of govt. If the members elected, say, Dominic Raab, he would claim a mandate for No Deal. But he could only achieve it by bullying the legislature into submission, either by suspending it or by unleashing the members on recalcitrant MPs.
@Dannythefink @OborneTweets (3) Responsibility: unlike the members, MPs are a "responsible" electorate. I mean that in the literal sense: the rest of us can hold them "responsible" for the consequences of their decision. If they pick badly, we can vote them out. That exerts a useful pressure on their choice
@Dannythefink @OborneTweets Unlike others on here, I don't think requiring an election solves the problem. On the contrary, it erects a barrier against removing leaders who are sick, corrupt or incapable or who've lost the confidence of MPs. And it's not necessary if the authority to govern comes from Parlt
@Dannythefink @OborneTweets If we must have leaders with personal mandates that bypass Parliament, we should do it properly through a presidential system for which we can all vote. If we don't want that, we should continue to make our Prime Ministers as we make our laws: through the votes of elected MPs.
@Dannythefink @OborneTweets (Sorry, that turned into a longer reply than intended. But I have great respect for you and wanted to give a full response. Thanks again for the question!)
