10 Downing Street rejects calls for formal line of succession for Prime Minister

[jimmy olsen]

 Holding on to tradition even in the face of common sense, that's the British way!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16283292

MP urges 'line of succession' rules for prime minister

21 December 2011 Last updated at 11:00 GMT

A Conservative MP has questioned who would take over from prime minister David Cameron in the event of him dying suddenly or being incapacitated.

Peter Bone said current rules did not make this clear and has called for a "line of succession" similar to the US.

The public and the military needed to know who would be in charge in an emergency, he told the BBC.

The Cabinet Office said "appropriate arrangements would be in place to ensure smooth running of government".

Mr Bone has been pressing officials and senior politicians for some time to confirm what would happen in such a scenario.

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that he wanted David Cameron to continue in office for a long time, but he had been "brought up to hope for the best and prepare for the worst" and the issue needed to be addressed.
'Clarity needed'

He claimed there was uncertainty over who would take over as "acting prime minister" in such a scenario, pending a likely leadership election for a permanent successor. This was a "disastrous state of affairs" for the country, he claimed.

"The important thing is if there is a terrorist attack the military must know immediately who is in charge, the country must know immediately who is in charge.

"If the prime minister has been killed in that attack and there is a requirement to take an instant decision, someone needs to be in charge. To say we can wait and get the cabinet together and sit down to decide who is in charge, in this day and age, is patently absurd."

Mr Bone said he was "absolutely certain" that deputy prime minister and Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg should not take over in such a situation as he was not a member of the majority party in the coalition government.

"It does need to be clear," he added. "At the moment, what would happen?

"Would the defence secretary be in charge, would it be the Cabinet Office, would it be William Hague or Nick Clegg. Who knows?"

The Conservative MP said he would support a similar approach to the US, where a "line of succession" to the president is written into law. Mr Bone said he believed this could be done even though the UK does not have a written constitution.
'Hypothetical situation'

At the moment, Nick Clegg deputises for Mr Cameron at prime minister's questions and on overseas trips while Foreign Secretary William Hague has the additional title of First Secretary of State, denoting seniority within government.

A document published earlier this year - setting out the role and powers of the sovereign, the executive, ministers and Parliament - stressed that even if there is a deputy prime minister this "does not constrain the sovereign's power to appoint a successor to a prime minister".

A prime minister has not died in office for nearly 150 years.

In recent years, prime ministers who have resigned while in office have remained in their post until their successors have been elected as the leader of the majority party in Parliament. They have then taken office on the basis of being able to command the confidence of the House of Commons.

Since the 2010 election, no single party has a majority in Parliament and the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have governed as a coalition, the first since 1945.

In response to Mr Bone's question, the Cabinet Office said it was "not going to discuss a hypothetical situation".

It added: "Suffice to say, the appropriate arrangements would be in place to ensure the smooth running of government."

[Valmy]

Holding on to tradition even in the face of common sense, that's the British way!

And it has served them well for many centuries :burke:

[Josquius]

wonderful topic to be raised about your boss this close to xmas

[mongers]

Holding on to tradition even in the face of common sense, that's the British way!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16283292

MP urges 'line of succession' rules for prime minister

...
Peter Bone said current rules did not make this clear and has called for a "line of succession" similar to the US.
...

"

He's an idiot and if you think it's common sense, then maybe it isn't ?   

[Razgovory]

I didn't think the Prime Minister was really that similar to a US President.  I thought he/she had much less power.  For instance, he's not CiC of the Defense forces.

[OttoVonBismarck]

On paper yeah the Prime Minister has no real power. In practice, within the UK they are almost an "elected dictator" and have far greater domestic power than a U.S. President. Mind they are the effective executive with control of the armed forces and the executive offices of government, as well as the head of the ruling party in the legislature and thus masters of legislation in a manner totally unlike that of an American President.

Since there is no true third branch in Britain (like our judiciary, in the UK the judiciary is no longer totally under the thumb of Parliament as it was traditionally and is semi-autonomous, but isn't a constitutional review court like the SCOTUS) this makes the Prime Minister extremely powerful.

There are some things that also come with it, though. Prime Ministers are afforded little of the "ceremonial respect" of the Presidency, and are slammed constantly and publicly to a degree that would be unseemly for an American President (which means it's really pretty unseemly, since American Presidents are continuously shit on.) If you've ever watched a session of Prime Minister's question & answer sessions before the rest of Parliament on C-SPAN it is pretty brutal, our President never has to put up with anything like that. Additionally the PM doesn't get all the ceremonial cool stuff our President does (doesn't have as fancy a residence, or as fancy a fleet of planes and etc to travel.)

[Monoriu]

I know nothing about British politics, but I think the line of succession question is most unsuitable for a coalition government to tackle.  In drafting the line of succession, the most obvious question is whether the deputy prime minister should head the list.  If the answer is yes, then they will have a situation where the junior partner will control the government.  If no, then it is an insult to the junior partner.  The question is really an attempt to break the unity of the coalition.  The government should therefore refuse to give an explicit answer, since to answer is to fall into the trap. 

[Sheilbh]

I didn't think the Prime Minister was really that similar to a US President.  I thought he/she had much less power.  For instance, he's not CiC of the Defense forces.

Basically what Otto said is right.  The PM has no institutional respect - they don't even have a cook - but is probably the most powerful elected office in the world.  In addition to the description Otto gave there's also prerogative powers such as using the armed forces, going to war, ratifying treaties all of which the PM can do without Parliament.

As Otto says they're an 'elected dictator' (Lord Hailsham, former Lord Chancellor's phrase) and their position is defined by them having control of Parliament.  Which makes Bone's point a bit ridiculous.  At the moment we've a Deputy Prime Minister (Clegg, Lib Dem) and a First Secretary of State (Hague, Tory), which is rare, as the two offices normally coincide.  But there's no need in our system to have either.  It's clear that Hague would be far more likely to have the backing of Parliament than Clegg given that he's from the larger party in the coalition.

Also unlike a Vice President no one would expect either Hague or Clegg (or in the past Prescott or Heseltine) to become PM for the remainder of the time in office.  They'd be Prime Minister while the governing party had an internal election to decide party leader.  Assasinations and the like are rare in British politics, but the Tories have a tradition of deposing sitting PMs when they need to and in each case the new PM is the new leader of the party after a short interregnum.  The idea that you'd have a DPM as someone to take over as anything but a stop-gap measure is very peculiar and entirely alien.

Having said all that from what I know Bone's a pretty hard-right Tory headbanger, and, more offensively, big on homeopathy

[Sheilbh]

Additionally the PM doesn't get all the ceremonial cool stuff our President does (doesn't have as fancy a residence, or as fancy a fleet of planes and etc to travel.)

Yeah the PM's motorcade is shit.  I was in Rome when the Pope's funeral was happening and the American President's motorcade was almost ridiculous.  I was waiting to cross the road and it drove into the Vatican (it may have been larger because I think it had both Bushes and Clinton, if not all living Presidents).  We were stood there for about five minutes, by the end people were laughing it was so absurd.

[Valmy]

Yeah the PM's motorcade is shit.  I was in Rome when the Pope's funeral was happening and the American President's motorcade was almost ridiculous.  I was waiting to cross the road and it drove into the Vatican (it may have been larger because I think it had both Bushes and Clinton, if not all living Presidents).  We were stood there for about five minutes, by the end people were laughing it was so absurd.

Yeah the days of Thomas Jefferson meeting people in his house slippers is long gone (though frankly that was a bit of political theatre).  Few Emperors ever moved around with the pomp of our President.

[Monoriu]

Yeah the days of Thomas Jefferson meeting people in his house slippers is long gone (though frankly that was a bit of political theatre).  Few Emperors ever moved around with the pomp of our President.

Reminds me of this well-known story from ancient China -

In 230 BC, the state of Qin had defeated the state of Han. A Han aristocrat named Zhang Liang swore revenge on the Qin emperor. He sold all his valuables and in 218 BC, he hired a strongman assassin and built him a heavy metal cone weighing 120 jin (roughly 160 lb or 97 kg).[19] The two men hid among the bushes along the emperor's route over a mountain. At a signal, the muscular assassin hurled the cone at the first carriage and shattered it. However, the emperor was actually in the second carriage, as he was traveling with two identical carriages for this very reason. Thus the attempt failed.[33] Both men were able to escape in spite of a huge manhunt.

The Chinese president also have a huge motorcade.  I've seen it myself.  It is huge purely for security reason.  There are so many cars that you don't know which one to hit.  The cars also form effective barriers against suicide bombers.  You just can't get through that many cars. 

[The Brain]

I can see all kinds of problems with having a defined succession. And the PM getting killed is only a problem in an emergency. Surely existing war/emergency plans will be in place/kick in in such a situation, and presumably these deal with what happens if the PM is killed or isolated and unable to communicate.

[Razgovory]

On paper yeah the Prime Minister has no real power. In practice, within the UK they are almost an "elected dictator" and have far greater domestic power than a U.S. President. Mind they are the effective executive with control of the armed forces and the executive offices of government, as well as the head of the ruling party in the legislature and thus masters of legislation in a manner totally unlike that of an American President.

Since there is no true third branch in Britain (like our judiciary, in the UK the judiciary is no longer totally under the thumb of Parliament as it was traditionally and is semi-autonomous, but isn't a constitutional review court like the SCOTUS) this makes the Prime Minister extremely powerful.

There are some things that also come with it, though. Prime Ministers are afforded little of the "ceremonial respect" of the Presidency, and are slammed constantly and publicly to a degree that would be unseemly for an American President (which means it's really pretty unseemly, since American Presidents are continuously shit on.) If you've ever watched a session of Prime Minister's question & answer sessions before the rest of Parliament on C-SPAN it is pretty brutal, our President never has to put up with anything like that. Additionally the PM doesn't get all the ceremonial cool stuff our President does (doesn't have as fancy a residence, or as fancy a fleet of planes and etc to travel.)

Okay, didn't know that.  Thank you.

[Sheilbh]

Since there is no true third branch in Britain (like our judiciary, in the UK the judiciary is no longer totally under the thumb of Parliament as it was traditionally and is semi-autonomous, but isn't a constitutional review court like the SCOTUS) this makes the Prime Minister extremely powerful.

Just noticed this bit.  The judiciary's always been entirely independent.  But Parliament is still theoretically supreme and with certain EU exceptions they can't do anything against an Act of Parliament.  Obviously there's no codified constitution that would enable them to review legislation as the Supreme Court does.

[The Brain]

more offensively, big on homeopathy

Does this mean he has a very weak interest in homeopathy?