The paradox is that the side with the best-rated arguments lost: Yes carried the vote by a twelve-point margin, while No supplied the room’s most respected case and most of its contributions. The verdict was less a rejection of parliamentary government than a refusal to leave a mid-term change of government entirely to the parliamentary party.
Yes voters made the democratic case in direct, almost accusatory terms: “Downing Street change hands through backroom coronations” and “the mandate is broken”. Another Yes voice put the practical point more plainly: “most people vote for the MP based on the Leader of the party”, so a new leader can mean a new political proposition.
No argued from the constitution as it exists, not the legitimacy voters may feel it ought to have. The floor’s highest-rated No case said, “we have a parliamentary system and elections happen for reasons”, while another insisted: “Constituents elect an MP, MPs elect their leader in parliament.” That was the central argument the winning side never quite displaced: people may judge governments through their leaders, but the system formally chooses MPs and parties.
The two camps therefore talked past each other over whether political reality or constitutional machinery should prevail. No’s cleanest proposed distinction was, “A change of manifesto should mean an automatic general election. A change of leader should not require a change of manifesto”; Yes answered with the revealing concession, “Technically no, but practically yes.”
This was a constitutional vote decided by the gap between what voters are told they elect and what they feel they are actually choosing.
33 Opinions
There are times when we all think this should happen, but we have a parliamentary system and elections happen for reasons. There is no genuine case for mandating this as a reason
Downing Street change hands through backroom coronations without the public having a say treats the electorate with utter contempt. When a Prime Minister resigns because their project has failed, the mandate is broken. True democratic accountability means going back to the country
When you vote, you vote for a party and their policies, or you should do, not a personality. A change in leader shouldn't make a difference unless it leads to a change in what was promised in a manifest. It is changes to the manifesto that was voted on that should trigger an election, and that's not just if there's a change of leader. A new leader may well want to alter policy, otherwise why change leader, in which case that is what should trigger an election.
We do not have a Presidential system though Blair tried hard. The democratic deficit occurs where parties substitute PMs without even asking their own supporters let alone the electorate. Of more of an issue is controversial policies being introduced that governments did not dare put in front of the voters & I don’t mean policies which arise just through day to day governing. Like Chagos, the persecution of our troops the obvious & active facilitation of a 3rd World invasion.
In the UK we vote for a local representative, not directly for a Prime Minister. It is however difficult to stomach the fact the current PM did not stand at the last general election and so has little claim to legitimacy. That speaks more about the quality of the other 400odd Labour MPs than a broken system.
We elect an MP to represent the constituency in which we live. We don't elect PM. The party who form the government provide the PM from within their number. We would have needed 3 GE's in a few months in the time of the Johnson/Truss/Sunak farce! Meanwhile, government is in limbo & the HoC ceases to sit or function at all! Since the end of WW2 Churchill, Eden. Macmillan, Wilson, Thatcher, Blair, Cameron, Johnson, Truss & Starmer have all been replaced without a GE!
Constituents elect an MP, MPs elect their leader in parliament. There is no direct election of prime minister, so no need for a new election if one resigns.
The "new Prime Minister " has not been decided upon by the public. They should not get a free ride, take Gordon Brown as an example. He wasn't voted in, Tony Blair gave him the job. Nobody wanted him and when he finally announced an Election he was decimated.
Theoretically, you vote for a party not a person so it should not make any difference. In reality we know that is not true. So if parties are not keeping their election promises this will give voters a mid-term chance to get rid of the lying so-and-so's!
Technically no, but practically yes. Most voters voting for party including party's leader. Change of leader usually means "new direction" or at least significant changes to party manifesto. We should have say.