,
23 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
A lot of people apart from @NickCohen4 are saying this. But there are difficulties here. (Thread)
None of our parties now lets its MPs choose its leader (the Tories permit MPs to narrow the field to two, Labour still requires a certain number of nominations from MPs but that’s it). The choice is made by members.
If the party is in Government on its own, that means that (unless a sufficient number of the party’s MPs are so opposed to the new leader that they support a vote of no confidence in the HoC) the elected leader will be PM with no election.
Is this objectionable?
A starting point is, I think, that there are reasons why parties have moved from MP only selection. Activists and supporters want a say, not just to watch. And (wider phenomenon) trust in MPs is low. I can’t see this trend being reversed.
For a party in opposition, few object to this. The new leader won’t get to be PM without an election.
The problem is if the party is in government on its own: absent enough MPs effectively walking out of the party, its new leader becomes PM.
The theory of course is that at an election we choose parties (or rather a candidate of a party for our MP) rather than a PM. But in a personalised political world that looks unrealistic.
And (as is the case today) a change in PM can be a real change in policy not just a change in personnel.
So it looks undemocratic: a new PM with a new policy in effect chosen by a (by definition) unrepresentative group of activists. What could be done? After all, the office of PM can become vacant mid term for all sorts of reasons (illness/scandal).
In many Parliamentary systems a new PM has to win a positive vote of confidence in Parliament before taking office. Not our rule. But it probably wouldn’t make much difference (after all, Labour would be putting down a vote of no confidence if it thought it would win one).
You could require parties to open selection up to supporters not just members (like Labour: the Tories require a large membership fee and restrict voting to members of 3 months standing).
But that doesn’t really deal with the problem. It makes entryism easier. And the voters will still be wholly unrepresentative if the people as a whole (and probably of the party’s own voters, unless you get millions to take part).
You could have a rule that there had to be a general election as soon as a new PM took office. That’s a possible rule. But that might not be right in some cases. And (I think) no other parliamentary system has that rule.
You could require a party to let its MPs choose a leader on their own when it’s in government. But I’m not sure that that is acceptable now: see above.
In the end, we are I think stuck with this system.
But note that the problems it causes would be reduced in a PR system - where majority one party government is unusual.
In a PR system, the new PM would have to be acceptable to other parties in government or supporting the government.
Further, members of the party would know that their new leader has to be capable of working with other parties - or with sufficiently broad appeal to get over 50% of the vote (which no PM has done for decades).
PR therefore imposes a discipline on party members not to choose someone too extreme or divisive, even if s/he says what they want to hear.
The ultimate problem here is, therefore, not selection by members but our lamentable FPTP electoral system.
In FPTP party members can rationally choose a candidate saying exactly what they want but with no hope of working with other parties or getting 50% of the vote but who can, they hope, get into or stay in power on ~35%.
That is the real democratic scandal.
