Comments on: A Mandate to Govern

By: MatGB

MatGB — Wed, 10 May 2006 22:38:27 +0000

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?

By: Paul Davies

Paul Davies — Tue, 09 May 2006 12:58:41 +0000

I was thinking Brazil, but each to their own, of course :)

By: Jonn

Jonn — Tue, 09 May 2006 10:06:09 +0000

Alternatively, switch Commons to STV, somehow persuade/force MPs/exec to know their limits, keep Ã¢â‚¬ËœbigÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ politics to a minimum and leave the complicated stuff to the Lords, but as thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s never going to happen, I suggest we all move somewhere where the weatherÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s nice enough so as not to have to be concerned with such constitutional gallimaufryÃ¢â‚¬Â¦

…Italy?

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 09 May 2006 10:00:02 +0000

“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…

By: Nosemonkey

Nosemonkey — Tue, 09 May 2006 09:14:44 +0000

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)

By: Patrick

Patrick — Tue, 09 May 2006 05:18:25 +0000

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.

By: Simstim

Simstim — Mon, 08 May 2006 23:43:09 +0000

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!

By: Nosemonkey

Nosemonkey — Mon, 08 May 2006 23:11:26 +0000

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?

By: Andrew Bartlett

Andrew Bartlett — Mon, 08 May 2006 22:40:25 +0000

“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.

By: Marcin Tustin

Marcin Tustin — Mon, 08 May 2006 21:02:17 +0000

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 ~~sinecure~~seat, 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.