# FILE NAME: 00002311.soc
# TITLE: Should there be a limit to the number of consecutive terms a prime minister can serve? [c51bc3d0cd4c4d7a9703b83515956079]
# DESCRIPTION: 
# DATA TYPE: soc
# MODIFICATION TYPE: original
# RELATES TO: 
# RELATED FILES: 
# PUBLICATION DATE: 2025-10-12
# MODIFICATION DATE: 2025-10-12
# NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4
# NUMBER VOTERS: 5
# NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, there should be a limit to the number of consecutive terms a prime minister can serve. This is to prevent complacency, and the danger of a prime minister amassing too much power and moving the country away from democracy. It is also to allow for the regular injection of new ideas and policies, and to allow for a change in direction if the country is moving in the wrong direction. However, if the party in power is continually winning elections, and the party continues to have confidence in the prime minister, then it would be undemocratic to force him out simply due to him serving too many consecutive terms. The Head of State (the King) provides oversight, and is capable of stepping in if the PM amasses too much power. New ideas can be brought in by reshuffling the cabinet at regular intervals.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of a limit to the number of consecutive terms a prime minister can serve. The general view was that it would be undemocratic to allow one person to stay in power for too long. The group also felt that it would be good to have fresh ideas and perspectives brought into government. The group felt that the current system of democracy in the UK is good and should be maintained. The group also felt that the current system of having the monarch as head of state was good, as it meant that the monarch could step in and dissolve parliament if it was felt that the prime minister was abusing his/her power. The group felt that it would be good to have regular elections to keep the government in check and to allow for fresh ideas to be brought into government. The group also felt that there was a risk that a party could win a series of elections and effectively become a dictatorship, and that this could be avoided by having a limit to the number of consecutive terms a prime minister can serve.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of limiting the number of consecutive terms a prime minister can serve. The main argument for this was that it is important to have regular change and fresh ideas in government. This is especially true in the current political climate, where the government has been in power for a long time and is arguably becoming complacent and out of touch with the electorate. It was also argued that a limit on the number of consecutive terms a prime minister can serve would help to prevent a situation where one person can be in power effectively indefinitely. This could lead to serious complacency and the risk of the country moving away from democracy into an affective dictatorship.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of term limits for the Prime Minister. The group felt that this would allow for a greater diversity of ideas and opinions to be brought into government, and would prevent the country from becoming stuck in a rut. The group felt that the current system of FPTP made it difficult for new parties to enter the House of Commons and therefore made it difficult for new ideas to be brought into government. The group felt that this was an important aspect of democracy and that the government should reflect the views of the people. The group felt that there should be a limit of two terms, after which a new Prime Minister should be elected. The group felt that this would allow for the best of both worlds, in that the country would benefit from the experience of a long-term Prime Minister, while also allowing for a fresh perspective to be brought into government. The group felt that this would allow for a greater diversity of ideas and opinions to be brought into government, and would prevent the country from becoming stuck in a rut.
2: 4,3,2,1
1: 1,4,3,2
1: 3,4,2,1
1: 4,1,2,3