If You Were Given The Ability......

[banker_frank]

to reform how UK leaders are chosen, and how they serve, what would you change?

[spathiphyllum]

I think local communities should put forth candidates based solely on reputation. It's evident not a lot of skill or knowledge is needed to be a politician. Honesty and the actual desire to do good for others, instead of your own reputation and pocket is more critical i think, than being overly political aware.

You can always learn on the job

You can't just suddenly not be a ***

[banker_frank]

Anyone can stand to be an MP. I am referring to Leaders of Political parties

[steg]

Everyone’s name should go into a big hat and get a monkey to pull a name from said hat then that person would be pm for set period... I know, but it’s the best way to get someone decent..

[spathiphyllum]

Aye, that's the problem. I think local communities should put forth candidates based solely on reputation.

[THECORBYLOON]

What is your suggestion?

[banker_frank]

Proportional Representation would be a start. Then a free vote for the whole country on who should lead the Parties.

[THECORBYLOON]

Why should non-party members be given a say on who should lead that party? Would they not just vote for a numpty?

[Peter Pedant]

oh you have noticed that 0.045% of the population / ellectorate are gonna elect the next PM

I did a few weeks ago ( notice)

not everyone can elect a leader of a party
well that is leader of the parliamentary party

age 10 we had - what is a PLP ( public leaning post ) and then you leant against the hapless pupil !
and someone pointed out the PLP was the Parliamentary Labour Party and we all went
errr Sir ! we know the Labour Party but what is the Parliamentary Labour Party

now we know t - - -- the parliamentary party elects the leader no nonsense about that and then the country is invited to confirm it

the current method dates only from 1963
before that it was the smoke filled rooms
and when Alec Douglas Home popped out
the people ( yup 1963) hollered: who asked US ?
no really
and it was changed

[Peter Pedant]

we have had 1962 before

https://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/ChatterBank/Question1658587.html

including the bit where the queen is told by her attorney general she MUST do something and she hires private lawyers to ask a prof of constiutional law in Cambridgde if that were really the case

she is told that if Mr X commands a majority in the House of COmmons she probably should

you will note at present - the majority bit is NOT the case ......

[banker_frank]

Do you think the Queen should or should not have any input as to the suitability of the Prime Minister?

[Zacs-Master]

Not without constitutional changes.

[New Judge]

//oh you have noticed that 0.045% of the population / ellectorate are gonna elect the next PM

I did a few weeks ago ( notice)//

You noticed incorrectly, Peter. You're adrift by a factor of about 6. Conservative Party membership represents about 0.27% of the electorate. And as I often point out, the electorate does not elect a Prime Minister, either at a General Election or at any other time. He or she is chosen by the party best placed to command a majority in the Commons. So it is on this occasion.

[THECORBYLOON]

If there's 160,000 Tory members, they're 0.35% of the electorate.

[New Judge]

//If there's 160,000 Tory members, they're 0.35% of the electorate.//

Agreed. But I worked on a membership of 124,000. Perhaps it's somewhere in between, including those who have two votes each! :-)

[Old_Geezer]

Oh, just remove royalty from the system, and get a proper written constitution. No one should lead because of claimed birthright.