With regards to finance, perhaps separate elections would motivate (or rather, compel) candidates to raise money locally, as well as engage and recruit more volunteers at a local level. We wouldn’t know until it happened.

I agree that PR (not necessarily STV) should be implemented rather sooner than a separation of powers – but some versions of it do give more power to the central party. Under the present system, it is largely the local party which picks their candidate.

Another factor, which I didn’t put in my original post, was that administrating and legislating are distinct functions – being good at one does not necessarily mean you are good at another. To take the example of the US, as Liberty Cat does, of the five Presidents elected in the last 30 years, four of them were elected from governorships*. The US people seem to recognise that the skills needed to run a country are not those needed in their congress.

* George Bush Jr being elected from the vice-presidency.

I’ve been strongly opposed to separation of powers for ages, the more I read about it, the more I look at countries that use it fully, the more I think it’s a bad idea.

Gavin’s right about Parliament now failing to do the job. The solution is to implement our longstanding policy of STV for the HoC, and then, as in other countries, MPs will find it in their interest to hold the Exec to account, and one-party rule will cease to be. If the opinion of Parliament matters, and MPs stop buying into the ‘party loyalty got me my job’ schtick that keeps getting bandied about by all sides, then maybe Parliament could get somewhere. As it is, it remains supine.

It has teeth, but it has no incentive to use them. STV would give that incentive. If it doesn’t work, then think about a change to the fundamentals of parliamentary democracy and Govt. But try the needed fix first?

It’s worth bearing in mind that the position of “Prime Minister” arguably doesn’t exist. It was just a nickname until about a century ago.

You won’t find a single statute that refers to the Prime Minister, although hundreds explicitly refer to the Lord Chancellor and practically every modern statute refers to the office of Secretary of State.

The Prime Minister’s role is given shape by a number of conventions.

There may be a strong argument for enshrining the powers and duties of the head of government in clear legislation.

A seperately elected government might not, however, create the greater independence of parliamentarians that we might hope.

It would depend to an extent on how important, for re-election and other purposes, remain the central party organisations and who controls those central organisations.

I’ll give you two examples. Firstly, the fact is that very many voters back parliamentary candidates based on which leader-figure they support. In 1918 pro-Asquith Liberals lost huge numbers of seats. Lloyd George Liberals did much better because of Lloyd George’s far greater popularity in the country. Likewise, in 2009? people who previosuly voted for their Labour parliamentary candidate may abandon the very same candidate because she is now associated with a less popular leader-figure.

Seperate elections wouldn’t massively change that. Winning parliamentary candidates will still often be those who say “As MP I will back the agenda of [Insert Popular Leader Figure]“.

Secondly, is the issue of money. The fact is that central parties currently raise much more money than local parties or parliamentary candidates. Few parliamentary candidates (especially challengers but also incumbent MPs) can win without finance from their central party. That gives central parties an obvious leverage of legislators.

A radical change worth considering would be to limit donations to central parties and say that donations must be to local parties or to individual candidates.