Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[The Larch]

when it's down to the final two there'll be twelve debates/hustings across the country for the membership

 

There's no real sense of urgency to quickly elect a new PM, I see. It's not as if we're not currently involved in some of the most dramatic crises of recent times, after all.

[The Brain]

It's the Tories. Everything has to be timed with the peasant shoots.

[Sheilbh]

There's no real sense of urgency to quickly elect a new PM, I see. It's not as if we're not currently involved in some of the most dramatic crises of recent times, after all.

They'll be elected by 5 September - so it'll be pretty quick from resignation at end of June. Plus parliament's in recess for summer anyway. Plus Johnson basically can only continue existing policies - nothing big or new.

[The Larch]

There's no real sense of urgency to quickly elect a new PM, I see. It's not as if we're not currently involved in some of the most dramatic crises of recent times, after all.

They'll be elected by 5 September - so it'll be pretty quick from resignation at end of June. Plus parliament's in recess for summer anyway. Plus Johnson basically can only continue existing policies - nothing big or new.

The war in Ukraine is not going to take a summer recess, nor will the cost of living crisis. What does it matter that parliament is on holidays for government business? One would assume that the incoming PM would want to be on the job as early as possible in order to do what's necessary.

[Sheilbh]

Johnson is still PM. Policies continue, the cabinet still meets and if there's an emergency/need for a shift then they can still take decisions (likely in consultation with the leadership candidates). Also worth noting energy prices in the UK are capped by the regulator every six months - the next cap is set in October so that will be the big decision (my preference - keep the current cap and either let companies that go down be re-assigned as normal, or nationalised).

The government doesn't stop because there's a leadership election. It's a bit like a more informal/less strict version of the purdah period in an election.

And ultimately this leadership change isn't about policy but Johnson, and they're all from the same party and were elected on the same manifesto so it's not like they're ready for a major shift (though I imagine they'll have a few planned).

[The Brain]

Johnson is still PM.

Hence the urgency.

[Tamas]

I mean wasn't it that neither Johnson nor Sunak could be bothered to show up at the extreme heat Cobra meeting? The claim that we have a functioning government is a bit of a stretch.

Larchb is right to point out that this is a particularly bad time to pause everything for two months while the bottom-scrapes of the Tory party fight it out to see which one gets to rule us.

[mongers]

There's no real sense of urgency to quickly elect a new PM, I see. It's not as if we're not currently involved in some of the most dramatic crises of recent times, after all.

They'll be elected by 5 September - so it'll be pretty quick from resignation at end of June. Plus parliament's in recess for summer anyway. Plus Johnson basically can only continue existing policies - nothing big or new.

In 1940 that period covered a large chunk of the Battle of Britain.

[Sheilbh]

That's the consequence of removing a PM in a parliamentary system. It was right to remove Johnson but that means there's a leadership election. There's no vice-PM to step in. Historically it's true that the MPs would just pick a new leader in a few weeks but both parties have moved to a system that includes a members' vote.

Sunak isn't in the cabinet any more so wouldn't attend. And Johnson is lazy - but ultimately is the cabinet and it's for them to make decisions in all the sub-committees. It's a caretaker government.

And everything isn't paused. Everything just carries on. The government just can't do any new or big policies. But they can carry on existing policies and respond to emergencies. It's just like during an election.

[Sheilbh]

In 1940 that period covered the majority of the Battle of Britain.

Sure and if we were in an existential war with a threat of invasion, I imagine the system would be expedited.

But on cost of living the big decision is in October, on Ukraine the UK will just keep going on supplying and help train Ukrainian fighters. I don't see that there's any particular urgency from either of those that mean we should short circuit the process of the majority choosing a new leader because there are essential decisions in August that require a new PM in office.

I get the complaint from the constitutional conservatives who think any membership stage at all is inconsistent with parliamentary democracy - but I think they're wrong and I'm not a constitutional conservative.

[Josquius]

I do wonder since we are increasingly moving towards a presidential style system in appearance with TV debates, people voting for PM rather than local MP, etc.... whether there's something that could be changed in the rules to stop this kind of thing happening. If the PM loses confidence then there must be an election.
Impossible in practice I'd imagine of course, would lead to the tories grinning and bearing Johnson for 2 more years if that was their only other choice.
Bring back ballots that just say candidate name and nought about parties I say.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah but our system works because parties and parliament can remove a PM really easily. That's the control for someone doing a bad job/overstaying their welcome.

We have a political constitution. Johnson was a bad PM which was impacting Tory popularity so, two and a half years after an election victory, they got rid of him in the hope of replacing him with a better PM who would restore their popularity. If that means there's an automatic election it incentivises parties to keep PMs who are failing (or worse) - or maybe find some pseudo-legalist route to get them gone like impeachment - to avoid an early election. I don't know - my view is that it's broadly better to make replacing a PM easy. Despite what Nadine Dorries might think, Johnson has no personal mandate which is why he can be easily fired.

It's also pretty normal - Johnson, May, Brown, Major, Callaghan, MacMillan etc all came into power mid-term in one way or another. Some call a snap election, some don't. Generally I don't think moving to an even more presidentialised system is a good idea (although, I am generally anti-presidential systems).

I'm also always slightly dubious about claims that people vote for the leader more now than they did in the past. I think a lot of what people bemoan as increased presidentialism in our system is more or less just a function of changes in society - like mass media etc. Plus I instinctively hate golden age nostalgia

[viper37]

I do wonder since we are increasingly moving towards a presidential style system in appearance with TV debates, people voting for PM rather than local MP,

hasn't this been the case for a while now, even before tv?

[crazy canuck]

I do wonder since we are increasingly moving towards a presidential style system in appearance with TV debates, people voting for PM rather than local MP,

hasn't this been the case for a while now, even before tv?

I do wonder since we are increasingly moving towards a presidential style system in appearance with TV debates, people voting for PM rather than local MP,

hasn't this been the case for a while now, even before tv?

Depends on the quality/community engagement of the local candidates.

[Sheilbh]

There's been studies that show we all like the idea of a good local independent MP, but it doesn't make much difference at an election (obviously it can have a big impact when they're doing the job of an MP). The key is more often than not national swing, which is about the national campaign and often the leadership.

It's why whenever there's a landslide it's often very good MPs who lose their seat because when you're in a marginal you work really hard in the hope it'll make a difference. But statistically, it won't.