2 ms·

>>Both the big parties in the UK have some degree of internal democracy for choosing their next leaders. It is also my understanding that it's purely because t

>>Both the big parties in the UK have some degree of internal democracy for choosing their next leaders. It is also my understanding that it's purely because they chose to do that. They only need to name a prime minister, how they decide on one isn't defined by law. >>He had to win a vote by the Conservative party membership (anyone can become a member). Again, the point is that the PM is chosen not by the general populace, they are selected within the winning party. >>but it's not comparable to the Commission where the commissioners haven't won any votes ever The commission is comparable to the House of Lords at best, where the people aren't elected either - both of them only advise the parliment though, neither the EC nor the house of lords can pass any laws by themselves. That's why it's "allowed" - the Comission has no real power because it relies on Parliment(which is democratically elected) to make the final decisions.

6LLvveMx2koXfwn 4y ago
>> Again, the point is that the PM is chosen not by the general populace, they are selected within the winning party. This is sort of true but misleading, the PM is the leader of the winning party, and the leader is always chosen before an election, so the electorate know exactly who will be PM when they vote.
- ben_w 4y ago
  Except when the leader gets kicked out (or resigns) part way though their term, as happened to Thatcher, Blair[0], Cameron, and May. [0] although I’ll accept he doesn’t really count because both he and the Conservative party explicitly said prior to that election that if you vote for Blair you’ll get Brown soon after.
mike_hearn 4y ago
"It is also my understanding that it's purely because they chose to do that. They only need to name a prime minister, how they decide on one isn't defined by law." No, but that's not relevant to the original point. The two big parties are big and old because they are stable yet also able to change to reflect the changing electorate. They probably wouldn't have survived so long if they weren't internally democratic. The same is true in the US, the two big parties remain big because they're more like loose coalitions with a lot of internal democracy, hence why party elites are constantly getting upset about 'takeovers' by outsiders like Sanders, Trump, the tea party etc. "The commission is comparable to the House of Lords at best ... the Comission has no real power because it relies on Parliment(which is democratically elected) to make the final decisions." You've got it backwards. The EU Parliament is like the House of Lords. Both can propose amendments to legislation and slow things down, but they can't actually propose new law changes. In the UK only Parliament can initiate the process of changing the law, and in the EU only the Commission can. They call this the "right of initiation". The power to amend is also a lot less useful than it looks, because if the EU Parliament amends something in a way the Commission doesn't like, they can just revoke the law change completely and try again. The Commission is never required to accept an amendment. In practice the EU Parliament usually amends laws to give the EU even more power than it was already writing in for itself. Because the EU Parliament isn't really a parliament, the sort of people who run for election are the sort of people who are content to either cheer or boo from the sidelines. That's why none of the EU level parties have any distinguishable policies beyond "support the EU in whatever it already wants to do" and "leave the EU/slow it down". Most of them are cheerleaders.

6LLvveMx2koXfwn 4y ago

>> Again, the point is that the PM is chosen not by the general populace, they are selected within the winning party. This is sort of true but misleading, the PM is the leader of the winning party, and the leader is always chosen before an election, so the electorate know exactly who will be PM when they vote.

ben_w 4y ago
Except when the leader gets kicked out (or resigns) part way though their term, as happened to Thatcher, Blair[0], Cameron, and May. [0] although I’ll accept he doesn’t really count because both he and the Conservative party explicitly said prior to that election that if you vote for Blair you’ll get Brown soon after.

mike_hearn 4y ago

"It is also my understanding that it's purely because they chose to do that. They only need to name a prime minister, how they decide on one isn't defined by law." No, but that's not relevant to the original point. The two big parties are big and old because they are stable yet also able to change to reflect the changing electorate. They probably wouldn't have survived so long if they weren't internally democratic. The same is true in the US, the two big parties remain big because they're more like loose coalitions with a lot of internal democracy, hence why party elites are constantly getting upset about 'takeovers' by outsiders like Sanders, Trump, the tea party etc. "The commission is comparable to the House of Lords at best ... the Comission has no real power because it relies on Parliment(which is democratically elected) to make the final decisions." You've got it backwards. The EU Parliament is like the House of Lords. Both can propose amendments to legislation and slow things down, but they can't actually propose new law changes. In the UK only Parliament can initiate the process of changing the law, and in the EU only the Commission can. They call this the "right of initiation". The power to amend is also a lot less useful than it looks, because if the EU Parliament amends something in a way the Commission doesn't like, they can just revoke the law change completely and try again. The Commission is never required to accept an amendment. In practice the EU Parliament usually amends laws to give the EU even more power than it was already writing in for itself. Because the EU Parliament isn't really a parliament, the sort of people who run for election are the sort of people who are content to either cheer or boo from the sidelines. That's why none of the EU level parties have any distinguishable policies beyond "support the EU in whatever it already wants to do" and "leave the EU/slow it down". Most of them are cheerleaders.