Is it good to have a president?

[ErikViking]

There has been talk here about voting for a person instead of a party. So far it hasn't been tested. But if I like a party but not the partys leader I am sort of stuck, the leader of this party can be PM again and again. This is bad, all he/she does year after year is "looking for votes" for a new term in power.

On the other hand it seems that if you have a president he knows he can't be elected a third time. Thereby (for good and bad) he doesn't have to care as much for his voters the second term. Generally and if you can try to leave out left/right stuff, does it seem to be better or worse leadership the second term? I guess you'll have to look back to see the effects of unpopular descitions made the second term.

 

[Said1]

The PM still has to keep the confidence of the legislature. There are no leadership guarantees. Coalitions have been formed forcing the disolution of government, despite election outcomes.

 

[ErikViking]

The PM still has to keep the confidence of the legislature. There are no leadership guarantees. Coalitions have been formed forcing the disolution of government, despite election outcomes.

Yes, but he has to screw up really, really bad for such a thing to happen. (Happend once here that I know of). As long as it just rolls along, nothing really changes. This year, we have an upcoming election, and already everything is just so.. you know, promises and stuff. Nothing is for real and everyone knows it. Each party picks some "key issues" and then lie a little bit extra about those.

Do you have any reflections about second term desictions made in the past?

 

[Said1]

Yes, but he has to screw up really, really bad for such a thing to happen. (Happend once here that I know of). As long as it just rolls along, nothing really changes. This year, we have an upcoming election, and already everything is just so.. you know, promises and stuff. Nothing is for real and everyone knows it. Each party picks some "key issues" and then lie a little bit extra about those.

Do you have any reflections about second term desictions made in the past?

But, a certain amount of pandering must be done to keep the opposition happy, just because it isn't done often, doesn't mean that it wasn't close or prevented.

Second term executives tend to start unravelling around the middle of their second term. How many make it to a third where you're from?

 

[ErikViking]

But, a certain amount of pandering must be done to keep the opposition happy, just because it isn't done often, doesn't mean that it wasn't close or prevented.

Second term executives tend to start unravelling around the middle of their second term. How many make it to a third where you're from?

Well I agree on that. Coalitions sometimes do form or are threated with. (Also another troublesome effect arises when a small supporting party gets way too much power because of its necessary support to achieve majority).

Four since WWII. No one has made a fourth.

 

[Said1]

Well I agree on that. Coalitions sometimes do form or are threated with. (Also another troublesome effect arises when a small supporting party gets way too much power because of its necessary support to achieve majority).

Four since WWII. No one has made a fourth.

I can't think of any off hand who've made to a third here in Canada. I should look it up!

 

[Diuretic]

Trudeau?

 

[Said1]

Trudeau?

Yes, I think he was. His last term came about from the last non-confidence vote ousting Clark's conservatives in less than a year.

 

[Diuretic]

Ah, yes, poor Joe Who. Fascinating man Trudeau.

Oops sorry, thread drift.

 

[Said1]

Ah, yes, poor Joe Who. Fascinating man Trudeau.

Oops sorry, thread drift.

Trudeau was a communist. He probably would have carried a card if was politically acceptable.

But yes, off topic.

 

[ErikViking]

So I have looked around a bit but it is hard to find anything substantial about second term decisions. And everything I do find seems to be regardning the current administration.
If this isn't a relevant question (If no one actually has an opinion) I guess there hasn't been such an effect in reality.

 

[HopeandGlory]

There has been talk here about voting for a person instead of a party. So far it hasn't been tested. But if I like a party but not the partys leader I am sort of stuck, the leader of this party can be PM again and again. This is bad, all he/she does year after year is "looking for votes" for a new term in power.

.

David Lloyd George did it for Britain during WWI. He was leader of the Liberal Party but such a popular, politically effective man, that he lead a Liberal/Tory coalition throughout nearly all of the War.

 

[ErikViking]

David Lloyd George did it for Britain during WWI. He was leader of the Liberal Party but such a popular, politically effective man, that he lead a Liberal/Tory coalition throughout nearly all of the War.

I see. Iron Lady sat a couple of years too, didn't she? She was kind of hard then, has memory of her "softened" yet? "Good old Maggie" or something? She looked... like my teacher in school.

 

[HopeandGlory]

I see. Iron Lady sat a couple of years too, didn't she? She was kind of hard then, has memory of her "softened" yet? "Good old Maggie" or something? She looked... like my teacher in school.

LOL - You'd be amazed - or not - to discover she apparantly featured in a lot of men's fantasies!

Maggie is a controversial woman in the UK. Some people still think she was pretty formidable - many others hate what she did for the country. I think she did much for Britain on the international stage but many of her homeland policies were controversial.

As for her getting voted in on the back of her own charisma rather than her partie's policies - maybe that's true. She was very much a woman of her time/era. She summed up the eighties pretty well.

 

[ErikViking]

LOL - You'd be amazed - or not - to discover she apparantly featured in a lot of men's fantasies!

I am amazed!