[GreenMan]

Two headlines from the British press:

THE NEVERENDING TORY

KEEP CAM and CARRY ON

[kenberg]

This coould be an opportunity to learn a bit about the actual mechanics of the parliamentary system.I will pose specific questions..

1. Suppose now that the Conservatives find that they don't actually like being led by Cameron. Never mind what Cameron wants his party doesn't want him. I gather there can be votes of confidence or no confidence but I am not sure who has the power to demand such a vote.
Anyway, is it possible that Parliament, in some manner, could replace Cameron without having to call a new election? I am thinking that the answer is no, at least not after Cameron has gone to the Queen. At the least, I imagine the Queen could say "No, I appointed [ok make that We appointed] Cameron, he stays".

2. In a similar vein, suppose a PM dies in office. We have had Presidents die in office, so I suppose the UK has had PMs die in office.Does a new election have to be called? Or, assuming that the party of the PM still holds a clear majority, can they (and again the question would be who they are) just get together and elect their new leader?

I think that to some extent I can see an answer in the resignation of Macmillan after the Profumo scandal in the early 1960s I font the following at Mac

Quote

Resignation
The Profumo affair may have exacerbated Macmillan's ill-health. He was taken ill on the eve of the Conservative Party conference, and diagnosed incorrectly with inoperable prostate cancer. Consequently, he resigned on 18 October 1963. He felt privately that he was being hounded from office by a backbench minority:

Some few will be content with the success they have had in the assassination of their leader and will not care very much who the successor is.... They are a band that in the end does not amount to more than 15 or 20 at the most.^[88]

Succession
Macmillan was succeeded by Foreign Secretary Alec Douglas-Home in a controversial move; it was alleged that Macmillan had pulled strings and utilised the party's grandees, nicknamed 'The Magic Circle', who had slanted their "soundings" of opinion amongst MPs and Cabinet Ministers to ensure that Butler was not chosen.

Macmillan initially refused a peerage and retired from politics in September 1964, a month before the 1964 election, which the Conservatives narrowly lost to Labour, now led by Harold Wilson.^[89]

What I get out of this is that there is some process, maybe not all that well defined, for addressing the situation when a PM for some reason is gone. But I can't say I have a good grasp of just how it goes. In the Macmillan case the replacement seemed to understand that this was a temporary job and an election would be called.

Short version of the question: If party X controls Parliament by a majority, not just a coalition, and if they get tired of being led by PM Y, can they, the MPs of party X, simply replace Y by Z?

[StevenG]

In the U.K. we elect Members of Parliament. The Prime Minister is that person who can form a Government, and get that Government's policies enacted as legislation. The party system is, in a sense, something extra to the basic constitution, and, although, modern practice now recognises it, it is not embedded in the way we work. When I was young, parliamentary candidates did not have the name of their political party on the ballot paper, but that has now changed.

In practice, of course, the Prime Minister is going to be the leader of the party that can form a government. If that party wishes to change its leader, it can. It is a purely internal party matter. In 1990, Margaret Thatcher's pronouncements were becoming increasingly bizarre. Party grandees told her she had lost the confidence of her party; as a result she was effectively forced to resign. After a leadership election, the Conservatives replaced her with John Major who became Prime Minister. No election was needed or even seriously suggested. In 2007, Tony Blair resigned and Gordon Brown took over as Labour leader without a party contest. Again he became Prime Minister, but this time, with the British public now taking a more presidential view, there were rumblings about his legitimacy. Brown, who had been obsessed with being Prime Minister for many years, was unwilling to risk his status, so carried on until the election. Perversely, had he called an election in 2007, he would almost certainly had won, whereas the crash of 2008 exposed the disastrous policies he had pursued as Chancellor, and he lost the 2010 election.

The situation has changed recently, however. The Conservative/Liberal Democrat goverment changed the law so we now have fixed-term 5 year parliaments. A Prime Minister cannot now call a snap election at a time of his own choosing. We are in uncharted waters, and how it will work out next time we have a government without a working majority is unclear.

[kenberg]

Thanks. That answers my questions very thoroughly.

[mike777]

1) I predict Scotland will leave the UK within 20 years
2) the labour party lost Scotland and its power base and will be out of power for many decades.
3) military will continue to shrink in capability.
4) the population will age and the Holy NHS will continue to grow its share of the budget.
------------
The situation has changed recently, however. The Conservative/Liberal Democrat goverment changed the law so we now have fixed-term 5 year parliaments. A Prime Minister cannot now call a snap election at a time of his own choosing. We are in uncharted waters, and how it will work out next time we have a government without a working majority is unclear

I assume it takes a simple majority vote to change the law again.

[blackshoe]

What will England do when the NHS consumes 110% of the budget?

[PassedOut]

blackshoe, on 2015-May-09, 12:06, said:

What will England do when the NHS consumes 110% of the budget?

What should they do?

[helene_t]

blackshoe, on 2015-May-09, 12:06, said:

What will England do when the NHS consumes 110% of the budget?

Increase the budget obviously. Maybe do some creative accounting so that taxpayers pay directly to NHS rather than through taxes. Makes no difference except that you can increase the NHS budget without technically increasing taxes.

[Cyberyeti]

Unless they screw up badly, the Conservatives are likely to be in power for a while. Why ? Well Labour gerrymandered the 2010 election so they couldn't lose, then were so bad they did. Reverse the Con/Lab shares of the popular vote and Labour would have had a substantial (3 figure IIRC) majority, the Tories didn't have any majority. The Libdems voted down the Tory attempt to fix this as a tit-for-tat over one of their policies the Tories couldn't get through their right wing, so it wasn't fixed for this election. Rest assured it will be for the next.

Labour's problem was that the only people who really wanted Ed as leader were the unions, some of which are very left wing and cause the labour party the same problem as the rabid wing of the Republicans cause them. Anybody they elect as leader finds it very difficult to get enough votes from more centrist voters to get elected.

[akwoo]

I think the most likely result on the EU referendum is that a small majority will vote in favor of staying in the EU, but most Conservative constituencies (and perhaps even England as a whole) will vote for leaving.

If that result happens, I don't see how the Conservative party survives as a party.

[Vampyr]

akwoo, on 2015-May-09, 16:37, said:

I think the most likely result on the EU referendum is that a small majority will vote in favor of staying in the EU, but most Conservative constituencies (and perhaps even England as a whole) will vote for leaving.

If that result happens, I don't see how the Conservative party survives as a party.

Why?

[mike777]

Cyberyeti, on 2015-May-09, 15:38, said:

Unless they screw up badly, the Conservatives are likely to be in power for a while. Why ? Well Labour gerrymandered the 2010 election so they couldn't lose, then were so bad they did. Reverse the Con/Lab shares of the popular vote and Labour would have had a substantial (3 figure IIRC) majority, the Tories didn't have any majority. The Libdems voted down the Tory attempt to fix this as a tit-for-tat over one of their policies the Tories couldn't get through their right wing, so it wasn't fixed for this election. Rest assured it will be for the next.

Labour's problem was that the only people who really wanted Ed as leader were the unions, some of which are very left wing and cause the labour party the same problem as the rabid wing of the Republicans cause them. Anybody they elect as leader finds it very difficult to get enough votes from more centrist voters to get elected.

As far as I can tell the labor union chiefs run the labour party. In other words you need their blessing and full backing to head the party. Makes sense given the name of the party.

Perhaps once Scotland leaves the UK and Parliament the unions can regain their power with the Scottish party out of it.

btw in the UK are teachers and other public employees unionized in the UK? Here in the USA they are a growing power and voting block.

[akwoo]

Vampyr, on 2015-May-09, 17:55, said:

Why?

If the leadership takes a pro-EU line, a lot of MPs will then defect to the UKIP, and even if they don't, all those anti-EU constituencies will vote UKIP in the next election. A lot of folks voted Conservative rather than UKIP because they were afraid of splitting the vote and giving the seat to the LibDems or Labour, and the local Conservative candidate might very well be personally for leaving the EU. Once it's clear the constituency is 60% for leaving the EU, those concerns go away.

If the leadership takes an anti-EU line, either the pro-EU MPs will split off into a new party, or the LibDems capture the pro-EU suburban middle class vote.

Basically, once a referendum happens and people know just how pro/anti-EU their constituency is, it becomes impossible for a party to sit on both sides of the fence.

Losing a referendum was very good for the SNP, and losing an EU referendum will be similarly good for anti-EU forces. The only question is which party will represent them.

[mike777]

again I put forth the issue of public/govt unions.


I(f they( govt unions) can combine with tHe Holy HHS....ok


You must understand the UK has close to zero military outside of that can be sustained
YOu must understand the worldwide ignores.

ZI totally agree there is the myth

[Vampyr]

mike777, on 2015-May-09, 19:19, said:

As far as I can tell the labor union chiefs run the labour party. In other words you need their blessing and full backing to head the party. Makes sense given the name of the party.

Perhaps once Scotland leaves the UK and Parliament the unions can regain their power with the Scottish party out of it.

Well maybe but I don't know how Labour can survive without Scotland.

[mike777]

Vampyr, on 2015-May-10, 04:41, said:

Well maybe but I don't know how Labour can survive without Scotland.

Unions

If allowed in the UK...public unions.
TEACHERS, GOVT EMP...ALL PUBLIC EMPLOYEES.....EVEN HOLY GRAIL OF HEALTH CARE
BTW SOME COUNTRIES MILITARY IS UNION.

iN ANY EVENT... think of a job..any job and make it a union.
pro bridge players

[PassedOut]

mike777, on 2015-May-10, 04:53, said:

Unions

If allowed in the UK...public unions.
TEACHERS, GOVT EMP...ALL PUBLIC EMPLOYEES.....EVEN HOLY GRAIL OF HEALTH CARE
BTW SOME COUNTRIES MILITARY IS UNION.

iN ANY EVENT... think of a job..any job and make it a union.
pro bridge players

Not sure what your point is here. Maybe that unions have "skin in the game?"

[kenberg]

Despite the risks in trying to find parallels in different events, I got to thinking about the Scottish move toward separation and the promised attempts at renegotiation and perhaps withdrawal of the UK from the EU. In a column this morning, Anne Applebaum suggested that Americans could think of the threatened Scottish withdrawl in terms of Texas withdrawing form the US. An imperfect analogy but yes, maybe useful.

I guess that I don't take Texas secession as a serious possibility but when it comes up I have an inclination to say "So if you want to go, go." I haven't seen this reaction much discussed but surely there must be some in London who feel that way toward the Scots, and some in Europe who feel that way toward the UK. Cameron has promised to re-negotiate the terms of EU membership and then put it to a vote. This can sound a lot like "Here is a list of things that you can do for us, and if you agree to do them then maybe we will stick around, and maybe we won't".

I like stability. Partly I think a core of stability is a necessity for effective change, but also I just like it regardless of arguments for it or against it. Of course, stability does not trump everything. So I am sincere in wishing everyone involved the best of luck in working this out, but I think that there comes a point after which Humpty-Dumpty cannot be put together again.

Best wishes from over here.

[Vampyr]

mike777, on 2015-May-10, 04:53, said:

Unions

If allowed in the UK...public unions.
TEACHERS, GOVT EMP...ALL PUBLIC EMPLOYEES.....EVEN HOLY GRAIL OF HEALTH CARE
BTW SOME COUNTRIES MILITARY IS UNION.

iN ANY EVENT... think of a job..any job and make it a union.
pro bridge players

All the unions are already part of the Labour Party. And pretty much all the jobs that can be unionised already are. So there is no scope for improvement there.

[Vampyr]

kenberg, on 2015-May-11, 06:19, said:

<stuff about leaving the EU>

I am pretty sure is is going to happen, and I wouldn't be surprised if it is earlier than 2017. The UK has been told that it must take tens of thousands of migrants crossing the Mediterranean, and presumably cannot simply take them and then send them home. For many British this will be the last straw.