Check out the new IsItNormal Forum! It's a new place to hang out and discuss anything you'd like.
Are You Normal?
Curious how others might perceive your situation? Submit your story and find out.
1. Read 2. Vote 3. Repeat
What do you think?
Why Britain needs a president
The year is 2012. It's election season. Voters of the small village of Mountsorrel in Leicestershire are gathering in their church hall to hear a speech by some candidates. Only around 100 locals are present - a moderate turn-out given the weather (chilly) and the location (even chillier). Yet there are almost the same number of journalists, TV presenters and camera crews on the premises. In fact, the place is packed. There is live footage being beamed to News 24 and Sky. Throughout the country millions are tuning in. There has never been anything like it in Mountsorrel's otherwise utterly uneventful existence.Why the hullabaloo? Why the hysteria? Simple. It's the first official 'primary' in the race to become the first ever British President. History is being made in that tiny church hall, as the great and the good from across the land are put on the spot by ordinary, unassuming citizens with ordinary, unassuming concerns. Look, there's Richard Branson, being held to account by a postal worker. There's Esther Rantzen, the tables turned, being grilled by a teaching assistant. And there's Trisha Goddard, getting a hard time from a care worker.
Does this story fit one of these flags? If so, click it!
[Best Of] [Funny] [Interesting] [Weird] [Repetitive] [Lame] [Vulgar] [F*cked Up] [Fake] [Off Topic] [Innapropriate] [Adult]
Check out these other stories:
Strangest thing you've stuck yourself wi...
ass poking
Am I Gay?
My Best Friend Gone
Am i or am i not
A dangerous fantasy? Hardly. An elected president is just what this country needs. Not just because it would mean we had more say over precisely whom, rather than simply which party, rules the nation. Not just because it would mean an end to the power wielded by our unelected monarchy. And not just because it would open up British politics to people from outside the Westminster gravy train, resulting in a dazzling electoral clash of all the talents.
No, the main reason why we should have an elected president is because of the way they'd be elected. The nuts and bolts of the campaign. The actual business of getting from village hall to the Houses of Parliament.
Imagine if the scenario above actually came true. Imagine if the people who wanted to become our first president had to do so via a campaign that went from shire to shire, seeking the mandate of people at the most face-to-face level possible. That the results of that Leicestershire primary would, as in the United States, go on to shape the nature of the ultimate race for power. That real grass roots politics became, well, real again.
Sure, some would think it horrific. A whole year spent on one election campaign? It's bad enough our present general election campaigns seem to go on for months. And all those celebrities?! They know nothing about politics. Let them loose on Britain and we'd be off to hell in a star-encrusted handcart.
Well, we already live in an age of permanent electioneering. What's Prime Minister's Questions if it isn't a shameless vote-winning exercise? At least a full-blown presidential campaign would formalise things so we all knew exactly when an election would be happening. Fixed terms could also be introduced, like in all other presidential-based countries.
As for personalities, well, who says it's necessarily a bad thing? Surely it's an absence of personality that is so discolouring and destroying the British politics of today? If someone has charisma, the inclination and the insight, what's not to let them have a shot at president?
Think also of how, by having separate elections for the Commons and the Lords, we could have much less of a one-party state and, say, balance a Labour president with a Tory Commons. Again, it works wonders in America. Think of those famous 'checks and balances' written into the constitution, which most recently brought Democrats the majority in Congress while a Republican remains in the White House.
Fair enough, you might say, but how about this: a President Blair? A President Thatcher? The mere thought turns the stomach. I can't deny that does sound rather chilling. But then, who says they would ever have become president in the first place? And anyway, rather than serving for 10 and 11 years respectively, they'd have been out after a mere eight (again, following the US model). Besides, it's highly likely that, had we had one vote for Blair and another for our local MP in the general election of 2005, the result would have been very, very different.
So let's take inspiration from the fiery, unpredictable, thrilling race for power that's currently going on in America. Let's sweep out the grim, grey phoney rituals of British politics. And let's think seriously about the one thing that really would, in the words of Brown, Cameron et al, 'return decision making to local people': the first UK president.
Lets face it. First Thatcher, then Blair both ACTED like they were. Surely it is but a small step to actually accepting a President of the UK and ellecting on that basis!
I hate how the elcetoral college is in place, so if you think about it, the popular vote doesn't count as much as you think. You can have less votes than the other candidate and still win the national election.