Speaker question

[Drewster]

........one of the less satisfactory results of having the Executive consisting of people elected to the Legislature which I could go on about at length but which would not interest anyone else.

Oh go on........ Do it in bite sized bits though.....

A bit like NF "Tales from the Bench".......

[Gonzo]

Oh go on........ Do it in bite sized bits though.....

A bit like NF "Tales from the Bench".......

I don't think so. University students could write their dissertations on the topic and I am not going to do it for them.

The question surrounds the fact that when you elect your Member of Parliament you are selecting two distinct things:

1. Who represents your local interests in the bit of government that makes the law
2. Who you want to run the country on a day to day basis

Are these two completely compatible with the one vote?

There is a succinct explanation from the Philippines linky of what the question is, the only major difference is that their Head of State is a President not a Monarch.

[Doggy Styles]

Isn't that a bit crap for the poor constituents who don't get a normal selection of parties to vote for?

Those poor constituents are nearly as blue as you can get.

An independent stood against Bercow on some sort of "democracy" ticket, and said he'd take all the Labour and LibDem votes. He got them, but still finished with less than half of Bercow's.

It's been going on for hundreds of years and nobody is much bothered about it. If they are a half-decent constituency MP, that is what matters.

[The Wikir Man]

Why does the speaker have to be an elected MP anyway?

Under proportional representation, (s)he won't be