Why can't we vote for Secretary of States?

Dangerous idea. If SoS A is elected on policy X, and SoS B is elected on policy Y, and those two policies are mutually contradictory (for example, increased expenditure on education vs cutting taxes), which policy wins out?

The majority we elect in Parliament chooses the Prime Minister, as that person knits all the perceived needs of the country into coherent policy. What you propose is ten different contradictory policies.

Also, it won't do jot for allowing more people with real life knowledge into power. They have systems like this for city elections and some state matters in the US, and the incumbents are just as much politicians as the rest of the lot.

Perhaps I am mistaken in their roles. The Chancellor of the Exchequer decides on expenditure alone. The others manage change in policy and where the money (given to their department) is allocated.
I'm not saying it will make vast changes to their competency but it might make a difference.

Perhaps I am mistaken in their roles. The Chancellor of the Exchequer decides on expenditure alone. The others manage change in policy and where the money (given to their department) is allocated.
I'm not saying it will make vast changes to their competency but it might make a difference.

Labour SoS for Work and Pensions
Tory Chancellor

Can you not see how that might be a mess? (ir the Work and Pensions SoS wouldn't get agreement for the money they need to do what they want)

Or UKIP Foriegn Secretary (take us out of Europe), Tory business Secretary (tries to build trade with Europe), Labour Home Secretary (open boarder)

The offices of state don't work independently of one another...

Whats even without going into the detail collective responsibility...

Not to mention, how much bloody voting is that?

You're at the voting booth anyway, how much effort is a few more ticks.

It would raise the chances of MP's with real life experience winning the elections for the individual positions, rather than the prime minister just putting his close friends/supporters in random roles.

Don't see the problem, there is disagreement now with SoS of individual departments and the Chancellor about where cuts should fall. Each one doesn't want to bear the cuts so they have more room to meet their objectives. It would be no different except in the implementation of the cuts.

Again no problem, although their may have to be chances to responsibilities and powers. I'm unclear on their actual powers. Can the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs actually remove us without vote in parliament? Even if we pull out of Europe we still need to make trade deals with Europe and change our border policy.

I'm not saying the transition is easy and their aren't teething problems. I haven't studied politics so its more a question of what the public should be able to vote for.

You're at the voting booth anyway, how much effort is a few more ticks.

Don't see the problem, there is disagreement now with SoS of individual departments and the Chancellor about where cuts should fall. Each one doesn't want to bear the cuts so they have more room to meet their objectives. It would be no different except in the implementation of the cuts.

Again no problem, although their may have to be chances to responsibilities and powers. I'm unclear on their actual powers. Can the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs actually remove us without vote in parliament? Even if we pull out of Europe we still need to make trade deals with Europe and change our border policy.

I'm not saying the transition is easy and their aren't teething problems. I haven't studied politics so its more a question of what the public should be able to vote for.

Hang on. Having to vote on that many candidates for different things is a lot more onerous than you're saying. For it to be meaningful you'd need a clear understanding of what each candidate proposes in each field, and weighing that against what you think is likely to happen. It would be exhaustive and time-consuming.

You've seen the queues and the enormous voting papers that Americans have to deal with, haven't you?

Have you heard of something called voter fatigue?

The present system is best, has stood the test of time and is universally working worldwide. But your ideas are to be encouraged - it's always good to pause for thought and make sure the situation doesn't behoove a change

At present the final decider is the Prime Minister who provides leadership in the Cabinet. Your proposal would mean there's no leader or final arbiter who offers compromises or makes a final decision. As both these people, in your system, are democratically equal, they have nothing to gain from backing down.

Ministers have extensive order-making powers so they can actually carry out a huge number of actions by decree, subject to approval from Parliament. But there are so many of these that it's difficult for Parliament to scrutinise them all.



The present system is best, has stood the test of time and is universally working worldwide. But your ideas are to be encouraged - it's always good to pause for thought and make sure the situation doesn't behoove a change

Labour SoS for Work and Pensions
Tory Chancellor

Can you not see how that might be a mess? (ir the Work and Pensions SoS wouldn't get agreement for the money they need to do what they want)

Or UKIP Foriegn Secretary (take us out of Europe), Tory business Secretary (tries to build trade with Europe), Labour Home Secretary (opens boarder), UKIP Trasport Secretary (closes all transport links with Europe)

The offices of state don't work independently of one another...

Thats even without going into the detail of collective responsibility...

Perhaps I am mistaken in their roles. The Chancellor of the Exchequer decides on expenditure alone. The others manage change in policy and where the money (given to their department) is allocated.
I'm not saying it will make vast changes to their competency but it might make a difference.