[Kizzy]

Natalie Bennet and Nigel Farage are not MPs, so how have they become leader of a party, is it not undemocratic to have undemocratically elected people at such a high level?
If Farage loses south Thanet then he said he'll resign... what of all those who vote UKIP on the strength of him as leader, are all their votes not completely wasted?

[smudgie]

Hmmmm tricky one that Kizzy.
Bit like the chicken and the egg..which comes first.
You have to form a party and then stand for election, if there are a fair few in the party then it only seems right to have a leader.

[MTVN]

Well until a year or so ago Ukip didn't have any MPs so it wasn't an option really, and the same for the majority of parties who have little hope of ever winning a Commons seat

[joeysteele]

My view is and always has been and sadly it gets lots often in discussions but that we are of the mind that we elect parties to govt; not just a person as PM, the party is the one who really chooses and elects the PM.
Only the voters of Witney, Sheffield Hallam and Doncaster can elect Cameron, Clegg and Milband.
If all those 3 lost their seats we would still have either a Labour or Conservative led govt; and then the MPs and party members woould then have to elect a leader and the subsequent Prime Minister.

I can only vote for a 'party' candidate or sitting MP to govt; unless I live in those constituencies where the elader of a party is standing..

To the point in question, I agree with MTVN,UKIP were a European parliament force with no MPs but who had Farage as their leader, and with no defections they would still as yet have no MPs, so since Nigel Farage won their leadership he is entitled to status as leader of the party until they change it.
Which,if he doesn't get elected may happen and them too then have to choose from whatever number of MPs they have a new leader,

The Greens surprsed me however, Caroline Lucas was both a good MP and leader and I doubt Natalie bennett would get elected by voters so that is an odd one.
Since they had an MP in Caroline Lucas, I think they'd have been better keeping her, and I also think she would have had more credibility in the debates too.

Again however, it is parties we elect to govt;
Nigel Farage is just one of those in UKIP trying to get elected,if he fails but UKIP win other seats then I think he should resign and a new leader be elected by UKIP in his place from the sitting MPs they then have.

I really do think if Nigel Farage fails to get elected,there will in that event be very few,if any, indeed UKIP MPs elected anyway and maybe even not the 2 they currently have.
Interesting point of discussion Kizzy, for me however, I do not see it as electing an individual to govt; I vote for a party to govt;.
Unless the candidates are 'independents'.
I want a Labour govt; so I am voting Labour and I would be doing that if I liked Miliband or couldn't stand him,I am voting for their policies.

So I personally don't think UKIP voters should feel cheated if Farage gets beaten in the seat he is contesting,if they agree with UKIP's policies and elect others, that should be all that matters to them.

[JoshBB]

Natalie Bennett probably will not be an MP after the election either. She only got 2.7% there last time. Should have stood somewhere the greens are getting 10%+.

[Kizzy]

I'm not saying Farage can't be a spokesperson but he is not elected by the people, cannot sit in the commons and be part of the parliamentary process which I would have thought was a given for a party leader?
If, by some disastrous twist of fate UKIP won lots of seats ( except Thanet south) and entered into a coalition wouldn't they have to elect a new leader for debates?

[arista]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Natalie Bennet and Nigel Farage are not MPs, so how have they become leader of a party, is it not undemocratic to have undemocratically elected people at such a high level?
If Farage loses south Thanet then he said he'll resign... what of all those who vote UKIP on the strength of him as leader, are all their votes not completely wasted?

For Farage
he is OK
as if not MP
he will go.


The Green Women - No Way

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

My view is and always has been and sadly it gets lots often in discussions but that we are of the mind that we elect parties to govt; not just a person as PM, the party is the one who really chooses and elects the PM.
Only the voters of Witney, Sheffield Hallam and Doncaster can elect Cameron, Clegg and Milband.
If all those 3 lost their seats we would still have either a Labour or Conservative led govt; and then the MPs and party members woould then have to elect a leader and the subsequent Prime Minister.

I can only vote for a 'party' candidate or sitting MP to govt; unless I live in those constituencies where the elader of a party is standing..

To the point in question, I agree with MTVN,UKIP were a European parliament force with no MPs but who had Farage as their leader, and with no defections they would still as yet have no MPs, so since Nigel Farage won their leadership he is entitled to status as leader of the party until they change it.
Which,if he doesn't get elected may happen and them too then have to choose from whatever number of MPs they have a new leader,

The Greens surprsed me however, Caroline Lucas was both a good MP and leader and I doubt Natalie bennett would get elected by voters so that is an odd one.
Since they had an MP in Caroline Lucas, I think they'd have been better keeping her, and I also think she would have had more credibility in the debates too.

Again however, it is parties we elect to govt;
Nigel Farage is just one of those in UKIP trying to get elected,if he fails but UKIP win other seats then I think he should resign and a new leader be elected by UKIP in his place from the sitting MPs they then have.

I really do think if Nigel Farage fails to get elected,there will in that event be very few,if any, indeed UKIP MPs elected anyway and maybe even not the 2 they currently have.
Interesting point of discussion Kizzy, for me however, I do not see it as electing an individual to govt; I vote for a party to govt;.
Unless the candidates are 'independents'.
I want a Labour govt; so I am voting Labour and I would be doing that if I liked Miliband or couldn't stand him,I am voting for their policies.

So I personally don't think UKIP voters should feel cheated if Farage gets beaten in the seat he is contesting,if they agree with UKIP's policies and elect others, that should be all that matters to them.

Common sense.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I'm not saying Farage can't be a spokesperson but he is not elected by the people, cannot sit in the commons and be part of the parliamentary process which I would have thought was a given for a party leader?
If, by some disastrous twist of fate UKIP won lots of seats ( except Thanet south) and entered into a coalition wouldn't they have to elect a new leader for debates?

As Joey says, they would have to elect a new leader from among whichever MP's they did have.

[Kizzy]

Then why all the crying about Ed Millibands leadership qualities? if the only 'leader' that UKIP would have is the aptly named 'Mr Reckless' at this point, he can't even decide where his loyalties lie never mind aid the poor electorate.

[Nedusa]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Well until a year or so ago Ukip didn't have any MPs so it wasn't an option really, and the same for the majority of parties who have little hope of ever winning a Commons seat

I agree, so this brings us back to the idea of proportional representation. At least that way some of the minor parties may get some MP's

PR was debated a few years ago but ultimately people prefer the first past the post system as it ensures the same parties will always get into power and once in power there is no great desire to change this ultimately unfair system.

[Livia]

Farage is hardly unelected, he is a Member of the European Parliament and has been for years.

[bots]

I'm stretching my memory here, but I think at one point the SNP leader didn't have a seat at Westminster, but was still leader of the party. They had what they called their parliamentary leader and then their "proper" leader.

Although Ed and David are currently MP's there is no guarantee that they will be after the next election. If they lost their seats, they would still be leader of their parties until the democratic process for changing leader had been held. With labour, that could be a loooooooong time. In the meantime someone would have to stand in as the leader in parliament.

Nothing undemocratic, just part and parcel of the process. Its not like America where you are voting for a president. We vote for an MP that represents a political party.

[JoshBB]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

I agree, so this brings us back to the idea of proportional representation. At least that way some of the minor parties may get some MP's

PR was debated a few years ago but ultimately people prefer the first past the post system as it ensures the same parties will always get into power and once in power there is no great desire to change this ultimately unfair system.

This definitely. The german system may work (Mixed-member proportional representation)

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Nedusa

I agree, so this brings us back to the idea of proportional representation. At least that way some of the minor parties may get some MP's

PR was debated a few years ago but ultimately people prefer the first past the post system as it ensures the same parties will always get into power and once in power there is no great desire to change this ultimately unfair system.

Nick Clegg should have at the very least in 2010,insisted AV was introduced without a referendum, that would not have been a big change but it would have moved the process on a little.
After all the Lib Dem manifesto wanted pr put in place, so they could have insited for theri support in coalition, that AV was implemented.

The Conservatives did a clever trick, they brought forward some horrendous extreme policies that the Lib Dems had agreed to support and then left Nick Clegg to present and campaign for AV in the referendum.

By then Nick Clegg had gone back on his tuition fees pledge and the voters, I think, just refused to back him on AV in the end, they may have succeeded with it in different circumstances.

Had Nick Clegg gone with Labour and took a chance on a smaller majority,relying too on the nationalist parties,he could have had AV probably implemented without referendum and then asked for a referendum to be set for the next parliament as to more pr.
All the Nationalist parties and N.Irish parties support a form of pr.

Nick Clegg realy made a mssive mess of all Lib Dem prinicples and hopes by his acceptance of the Conservative conditions for the coalition.

I agree with you pr would be fairer.
The one thing you will never ever get from the Conservative party is any form of pr, despite allowing Clegg to have that referendum on AV, David Cameron and the Conservatives camaigned strongly against it and had him put it forward at a time when Clegg's popularity had nosedived.
They in fact used the Lib Dems, who stupidly followed them and Clegg their leader like sheep.

[bots]

Both Labour and Conservative strongly oppose proportional representation. The first past the post system has its faults but it has allowed governments with a majority to go ahead and implement their policies as set out in their manifestos. PR puts way to much power into small potentially extremist groups. Its not pretty. It also lets in people by default rather than them being truly elected. If they are first in the list and a party gets so many votes, then they get a seat - not exactly democratic in my opinion.

With PR, we would have representatives from such wonderful parties as the Monster raving lunatics .. is this really what we want in this country? I hope not.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Both Labour and Conservative strongly oppose proportional representation. The first past the post system has its faults but it has allowed governments with a majority to go ahead and implement their policies as set out in their manifestos. PR puts way to much power into small potentially extremist groups. Its not pretty. It also lets in people by default rather than them being truly elected. If they are first in the list and a party gets so many votes, then they get a seat - not exactly democratic in my opinion.

With PR, we would have representatives from such wonderful parties as the Monster raving lunatics .. is this really what we want in this country? I hope not.

Agree, FPTP is far from perfect but it is the most sensible system imo

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Both Labour and Conservative strongly oppose proportional representation. The first past the post system has its faults but it has allowed governments with a majority to go ahead and implement their policies as set out in their manifestos. PR puts way to much power into small potentially extremist groups. Its not pretty. It also lets in people by default rather than them being truly elected. If they are first in the list and a party gets so many votes, then they get a seat - not exactly democratic in my opinion.

With PR, we would have representatives from such wonderful parties as the Monster raving lunatics .. is this really what we want in this country? I hope not.

Both do oppose it but Labour had in their 2010 manifesto the commitment to hold a referendum as to AV which would have been a start,whereas the Conservatives have never even considered it.
Had the Lib Dems and Labour tried to govern after the 2010 election, Labour even tentatively offered to the Lib Dems to implement AV without a referendum.

It could have been done then and even a referendum in that scenario may have brought a different result because Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems may have been held in higherregard at that time.

Of the 2 major parties, the one most likely in the end to seriously consider some form of PR will be the Labour party, never in my view will the Conservatives.

As to your analysis of pr,I agree totally with you, for me they are the strongest arguments against pr that you outline there.

[Kizzy]

Him being an MEP is a bit of a misnomer as he hates Europe... Why does he want to be an MP so bad because he loves the UK?...

If he loses Thanet south he's off and leaving it in the hands of... another MEP,who if she has similar views to Nige is not keen on remaining in the EU either.
They are both unelected here it's this parliament in discussion, there are many elected members of other parliaments but I'm discussion Westminster specifically.

When speaking in the commons they have to have been elected via due process, my view is if a party has representation in the commons then it is those who should be called upon to be the party leader as they have the democratically elected right to speak on behalf of the electorate.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Agree, FPTP is far from perfect but it is the most sensible system imo

I agree. Not perfect but the most sensible.

[Livia]

Further to Farage being an elected MEP, no one is an MP at the moment because parliament has been dissolved and every seat is now vacant.

[Kizzy]

An MEP is not an MP that is the bottom line, the fact that parliament is dissolved is irrelevant.

[Livia]

You asked, "is it not undemocratic to have undemocratically elected people at such a high level"?

Nigel Farage is not "undemocratically elected". He was elected a Member of the European Parliament in an election covered by British Election Law and he was elected by votes from the British public. That's the bottom line.

[Kizzy]

I'll reiterate, not as an MP in Westminster he isn't.

[MTVN]

Well how about Sturgeon? She isn't even competing for a Westminster seat yet leads the party who could well be the king makers of government