May 2015 UK General Election Campaign.

[Zanza]

The American system involves more quid pro quo.

That's what happens within parties in a parliamentarian system. Cameron announcing that he'll resign makes him a lame duck because the Tories will lose all discipline. They've been an unruly bunch over the last years, but now there is really no reason for his inner-party foes to follow him on anything anymore. 

[Sheilbh]

The American system involves more quid pro quo.

That's what happens within parties in a parliamentarian system. Cameron announcing that he'll resign makes him a lame duck because the Tories will lose all discipline. They've been an unruly bunch over the last years, but now there is really no reason for his inner-party foes to follow him on anything anymore.

Yep. He's even named the front-runners

[Admiral Yi]

That's what happens within parties in a parliamentarian system. Cameron announcing that he'll resign makes him a lame duck because the Tories will lose all discipline. They've been an unruly bunch over the last years, but now there is really no reason for his inner-party foes to follow him on anything anymore.

Can you think of any historical examples?

I thought it was rather unusual for a sitting PM to pre-announce his resignation.

[Sheilbh]

Blair's the only example I can think of and then we had Gordon Brown, like Hillary, killing off his opponents in the invisible primary.

But there's plenty of examples of governments being crippled by constant speculation about the leadership - John Major for example.

[Admiral Yi]

These are examples of backbenchers ignoring party discipline and voting down legislation?

They sound more like leadership fights.

[Sheilbh]

These are examples of backbenchers ignoring party discipline and voting down legislation?

They sound more like leadership fights.

I don't quite get the distinction your making here or how it relates to lame duckness.

[crazy canuck]

These are examples of backbenchers ignoring party discipline and voting down legislation?

They sound more like leadership fights.

By definition a strong leader is able to get the votes they need.  With a weak leader it becomes much more difficult to get the kind of discipline needed to pass all but the most uncontroversial bills.  The best way to see the effect in the types of Bills that are being introduced and then die on the order paper.  Only confidence motions are more certain unless there is some element within the majority party who might benefit from the government falling.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't quite get the distinction your making here or how it relates to lame duckness.

A lame duck is considered lame because he is unable to make any long term promises, and therefore has ability to move his agenda forward.  That is different than another person vying for his position, which is what you seem to be talking about.

[Zanza]

I don't quite get the distinction your making here or how it relates to lame duckness.

A lame duck is considered lame because he is unable to make any long term promises, and therefore has ability to move his agenda forward.  That is different than another person vying for his position, which is what you seem to be talking about.

A prime minister that has announced his resignation is unable to make any long term promises either. I don't see the difference...

[Sheilbh]

I think he's lame because he's unable to move his agenda forward.

You interpret that as it's because he can't make long-term promises (though quite how a PM who, at best, will serve one more term can make long-term promises is beyond me). My interpretation, of the American system too, is that they get starved of political oxygen and capital (which is closer to yours).

[crazy canuck]

I don't quite get the distinction your making here or how it relates to lame duckness.

A lame duck is considered lame because he is unable to make any long term promises, and therefore has ability to move his agenda forward.  That is different than another person vying for his position, which is what you seem to be talking about.

What long term promises (or even short term promises) do you think a PM who has announced their resignation can make?

[Admiral Yi]

A prime minister that has announced his resignation is unable to make any long term promises either. I don't see the difference...

A PM doesn't generally have to persuade the members of his own party to vote for his agenda.

[crazy canuck]

I think he's lame because he's unable to move his agenda forward.

That assumes a PM must have an agenda beyond that of simply remaining PM.  Arguably Chretien's only agenda was to remain PM.  So much so he actually ran on the promise that if he was elected one more time he wouldn't run again. 

[crazy canuck]

A prime minister that has announced his resignation is unable to make any long term promises either. I don't see the difference...

A PM doesn't generally have to persuade the members of his own party to vote for his agenda.

What country are you thinking about?

[Sheilbh]

A PM doesn't generally have to persuade the members of his own party to vote for his agenda.

Of course he does