A Mandate to Govern
In the 2005 general election, Tony Blair was elected to serve a full third term as Prime Minister. He has been given a clear mandate by the electorate and it is right and proper that he honour the commitment he made to them only last year.
So say Mr Blair’s supporters. Blair himself has again made this point today at his monthly press conference. Pedantically, it isn’t even slightly true, of course. In the United Kingdom, we don’t elect the executive; we elect MPs to the legislature. The party with the largest representation in parliament then supplies the executive according to their own rules. In the case of the Labour Party, the last leadership election was held twelve years ago. As an exercise in democracy, it’s hardly inspiring.
This is not to say that many people who voted for a Labour MP last May would not have voted for Tony Blair to be Prime Minister given the choice; I’m sure many would have done exactly that. How many, it’s impossible to tell.
That’s the problem with Blair’s current claim. Our electoral system just does not provide any meaningful answer as to who the electorate believes should be Prime Minister. Once every four or five years, we’re allowed to place a cross in a box. There are a myriad of issues to consider when we make the decision as who we should vote for ranging from local constituency issues to national policies to the personal qualities and the integrity of the leaders of the parties. Perhaps there are too many issues at stake to be able to adequately express them with one cross.
The question is then, should we introduce elections for the executive and give voters a real independent choice on this matter? Should we constitutionally separate the powers of the executive from those of the legislature and hold entirely separate democratic elections to decide their makeup?
A democratically elected Prime Minister would genuinely be able to state that they personally, rather than their party, had been given a mandate to govern by the electorate. Pundits and commentators would find it more difficult to legitimately call for the resignation of such an elected executive and this might make it more secure over the course of their term in office.
This obviously has pitfalls as well as advantages. There is the possibility that an elected Prime Minister, precisely because of their democratic mandate, would be able to exert even more power than is currently available. This might be countered by ensuring that the powers held by the executive are clearly expressed and defined constitutionally. The executive would obviously be elected under FPTP. The legislature, elected through a representative voting system such as STV (at a separate time perhaps), could then hold the executive to account in a way which is representative of the full range of public opinion.
Currently, the party of the prime minister will almost always have a clear majority in parliament. His powers of patronage, as well as issues of loyalty to the party, make it very difficult for members of his own party to oppose any proposals he puts forward. This has given rise, as we know, to the feeling that the executive can act essentially as an elective dictatorship; it can make law without proper scrutiny and consideration being given to the proposals it puts forward as long as it can convince (some might say bribe and bully) its own MPs not to oppose them.
And, because of the inbuilt majority enjoyed by the executive, it need not concern itself in any way with the opinions of the opposition parties. These parties currently represent more than 60% of those who voted at the last election.
This curious form of democracy is, I’d argue, essentially flawed. An elected executive, obligated to seek the approval of a separately elected and representative legislature, might go some way towards addressing these concerns.
There is one solution to the uncertainty surrounding Blair’s mandate, of course. The Queen could simply ask him to step down and appoint his successor.
I couldn’t swear to it, but I’m reasonably sure our constitution would allow such a move.
Nosemonkey should be able to answer that one…
I’d guess that’s true, Jonn, but given the shitstorm created when Sir John Kerr sacked Gough Whitlam in Australia (using the same powers), it’s probably not advisable.
To be fair, it wasn’t a serious proposal – but I do think that the constitutional powers exercised by the Crown are the key to the problem. At present, the government exercises many of its powers in the name of the Crown – which, because the Crown would never do anything to stop a democratically elected government, means that the government can do pretty much what it likes.
I don’t think we need a Republic of Britain to correct this mess – but I do think we need a new constitutional settlement that makes clear that power rests with the electorate, not the Crown and its government, and that the monarch’s role as head of state is mostly as a figurehead.
Do they not have something like this in America?
Her Maj could sack Blair in theory, but as no monarch has unilaterally got rid of a PM since 1834 (George IV and Lord Melbourne), a new convention has arguably been set that the monarch has lost this power through disuse (something Bagehot was already effectively arguing 30 years later).
The 19th century does suggest a few other ways to get rid of PMs though:
After the House of Commons convened a Select Committee to look into the mismanagement of the Crimean War in 1855 – following a series of leaks to The Times – Lord Aberdeen resigned, taking it as a vote of no confidence in him and his government. A handy precedent in current circumstances…
Gladstone was also forced to resign over military matters – the death of General Gordon in 1885 – because public opinion deemed he’d not done enough to support the military. Shades of lack of foam suppressants, but beyond that unlikely to be of use, as it was Gladstone’s own choice to quit. Can’t see Tony doing that no matter how unpopular he gets…
Likewise Lord Rosebury’s resignation in 1895 is unlikely to be of use as a precedent – he quit after a fairly minor defeat in the Commons. Blair’s already had his defeat, and he’s still there.
But Rosebury’s selection as PM might have been cause for hope – Queen Victoria supposedly picked him because she couldn’t stand any of the other leading Liberals. So our current dear Queen could have used that as a precedent to not accept Tony Blair as PM after the last General Election (or the previous two, come to that). Sadly, she didn’t – and by all accounts, though she dislikes Blair, she hated Thatcher more, yet still allowed her to carry on returning to power…
I’d forgotten/overlooked the fact that the Queen actually appoints the PM. It makes my head hurt just to think about it.
I hope Charles isn’t looking to the King of Nepal for guidance on the best way to exercise his royal constitutional powers (if he ever gets them).
TC, they do indeed have something similar but they do an awful lot of their politics very differently so I’m not sure a direct comparison would be particularly useful.
My comment was tongue in cheek but it’s difficult to get inflection across in a post. Apologies.
I told you Nosemonkey would have all the answers…
*sucks up to Nosemonkey nauseatingly*
Nosemonkey:
After the House of Commons convened a Select Committee to look into the mismanagement of the Crimean War in 1855 – following a series of leaks to The Times – Lord Aberdeen resigned, taking it as a vote of no confidence in him and his government. A handy precedent in current circumstances…
I think we know by now that Blair isn’t going to go due to any simple embarrassment. It’d have to be a case of either riots in the street, Thai style; or a clear vote of no confidence from the Labour benches.
I suppose a third option would be truly overwhelming conference votes – getting booed off stage, that kind of thing – but even then I think he’d just put it down to Old Labour wreckers.
Basically… unless Brown gets the nerve up, which I’m assuming he’d only do with a few Cabinet heavyweights behind him, I don’t see it happening. And who is there who could/would back Brown? Only Straw really has any gravitas (even in his new role) and remains undamaged – backing from Clark or Prescott’s hardly going to do it, is it.
There is good reason to believe that an elected PM (or better yet, elected Cabinet) would not wield more power than they do now: Firstly they have almost complete power now anyway, based on their majority of disciplined Parliamentary drones; secondly once Parliametary and Cabinet elections were separated, MPs would not longer be depending on the PM to deliver them their
sinecureseat, and would have to find some other way to mark themselves out. This might actually put Parliament at the throat of the Crown, which was always the basis under which Britain was able to remain largely free.“the monarch has lost this power through disuse”
That is actually quite frightening – as if that is how the British ‘constitution’ operates then it is in the interests of those holding power to use it for the purpose of demonstration, and thus maintainance.
Think that’s bad? Royal assent for an Act of Parliament hasn’t been withheld since 1708 – even if Blair actually did get an Abolition of Parliament Act through both houses, that means there’s practically no way Her Maj could legally justify using the royal veto, even for the preservation of democracy. (Although there remains the convention that the monarch can’t be called as a witness in legal proceedings, which would make prosecuting her through the courts fairly tricky…)
Perhaps we need a benevolent dictator along the King Juan Carlos c.1975-77 model to put the country back on track?
Although in that case, surely they could quote the precedent of her breaking with convention by withholding assent in order to break the convention of her immunity to appearing as a witness (which in turn would imply that convention-breaking is OK and therefore cut against their prosecution…) Aaargh!
Constitutionally, the nature of the sovereign is not the person of the monarch, but “the crown in parliament”. The historical precedent is that, after an election, the monarch invites the leader of the largest party in the Commons to form a government as his/her Prime Minister and it is up to the invited leader to make the arrangements work. I am old enough to remember the days of minority governments in the 70s and there is no reason that we would not see minority governments again; we have just gotten out of the habit of them.
If we were to adopt fairer electoral systems for the first chamber in our bicameral parliament (i.e. STV not PR), then we could expect to see more minority administrations in the future. There is a democratic advantage in minority administrations, but an executive disadvantage; in terms of the practicality of government, my instinct is that we benefit from majority administrations, but the assemblage by Blair of the toolkit of tyranny over the last several years does make me doubt that instinct.
It’s not actually necessary for the PM to be the leader of the largest party, although that has usually been the case (1974, for example – after the March General Election, the Tories had a greater share of the national vote, but 4 fewer MPs – yet Heath was the first to be asked to form a government anyway).
It’s also not really necessary for him/her to be the leader of a party full-stop (just as the PM hasn’t always, although has usually been First Lord of the Treasury).
The assumption, on the monarch’s part (or, technically, as Patrick notes, the Crown in Parliament’s part), is that the leader of the largest party is the person most likely to be able to manage the Commons* and get legislation through. Should Blair hold on to office as his party disintegrates around him, however, it could be Her Maj’s solemn duty to dismiss him and appoint someone better capable of keeping Parliament in check – which was originally (and to some extent still is) the Prime Minister’s prime duty, after all…
(* and also, to a lesser extent, the Lords – but since the 1911 Parliament Act the Lords hasn’t been so much of an issue, hence no further PM peers since Salisbury’s third term ended in 1902)
“Perhaps we need a benevolent dictator along the King Juan Carlos c.1975-77 model to put the country back on track?”
Oh, go on then, I can get started in about a week…
Sorry. Yes. Separation of powers. Good Thing. STV. Good Thing. Etc…
Number of ways to go about this, easiest probably have legislature elected via STV, then dump another little box on for whichever party you want to lead the merry bunch of pimps in the ritual dance over our liberties.
Minority govt pretty much assured, but with a bit more stock than your standard minority govt. Assuming they didn’t get too huffy about having to come up with decent bills to actually get stuff through, all would be well… (cunningly forgetting that it is always in the interests of opposition not to let decent stuff through, so as to become the exec next time round…)
Alternatively, switch Commons to STV, somehow persuade/force MPs/exec to know their limits, keep ‘big’ politics to a minimum and leave the complicated stuff to the Lords, but as that’s never going to happen, I suggest we all move somewhere where the weather’s nice enough so as not to have to be concerned with such constitutional gallimaufry…
Alternatively, switch Commons to STV, somehow persuade/force MPs/exec to know their limits, keep ‘big’ politics to a minimum and leave the complicated stuff to the Lords, but as that’s never going to happen, I suggest we all move somewhere where the weather’s nice enough so as not to have to be concerned with such constitutional gallimaufry…
…Italy?
I was thinking Brazil, but each to their own, of course :)
Directly elected PM on a mixed model a la France and (briefly) Israel?
No. No no no. Parliamentary systems work, Executive and Mixed systems don’t. Really. The problem is not how we select the executive from within the legislative, it’s that power has switched to the Executive from the Legislative.
Give power back to the legislature (and STV would do a very good job at that immediately, enforce even party MPs to pay attention to their voters as they know they can be voted out in favour of challengers who will do the job). Don’t even consider giving more power and legitimacy tot he executive, imagine if Blair had won last time, he’d be insufferable, and the 100+ backbenchers plotting to get him currently wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.
Parliamentary democracy works. Executive systems don’t. Anyone want me to list examples?