Holding on to tradition even in the face of common sense, that's the British way! :bowler:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16283292
QuoteMP 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."
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 21, 2011, 11:15:37 PM
Holding on to tradition even in the face of common sense, that's the British way! :bowler:
And it has served them well for many centuries :burke:
wonderful topic to be raised about your boss this close to xmas :D
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 21, 2011, 11:15:37 PM
Holding on to tradition even in the face of common sense, that's the British way! :bowler:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16283292
QuoteMP 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 ? :P
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.
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.)
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 22, 2011, 12:05:30 AM
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 :bleeding:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 22, 2011, 12:25:03 AMAdditionally 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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 22, 2011, 01:07:32 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on December 22, 2011, 01:23:13 AM
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 -
QuoteIn 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.
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.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 22, 2011, 12:25:03 AM
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.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 22, 2011, 12:25:03 AM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 22, 2011, 01:04:58 AM
more offensively, big on homeopathy :bleeding:
Does this mean he has a very weak interest in homeopathy?
Quote from: The Brain on December 22, 2011, 02:28:54 AM
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.
I know that such plans certainly existed in the 1970s, the potential emergency being nuclear war with the Soviet Union, under those circumstances it would be difficult for Parliament to meet.
In more mundane circumstances, such as the PM getting assassinated, the new PM will simply be the person who can form a new government.
Otto is correct in what he says. Some pond wars in the earlier days of the internet were caused by British disrespect for the US president. I recall criticising Bush back in the day and an American poster getting quite cross and being rude about Blair to get even :lol: . By about 2002 I realised that any criticism of the US president had to be circumspect, it was difficult for a foreigner to criticise the officeholder without also criticising the US. I suppose many people would like to both, but speaking personally I believe that both the UK and the USA are great countries that have been rather let down by their political elites in recent years.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 22, 2011, 12:25:03 AM
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.
You are as usual talking out of your ass here. The ability to review constitutionality of the acts of the legislative is not the same as the independence of the judiciary.
To this day, most democratic countries have a separate constitutional tribunal for reviewing the constitutionality of the acts of the legislative - common courts (including a supreme court) being able to do so is more unique than you think.
As to your claim about the power of the Prime Minister, it has nothing to do with the judiciary not being independent (in fact it is independent in the UK) but the fact that there is in fact no independent (or semi-independent) executive in the UK - the Prime Minister gets his power directly from the legislative and he has no independent executive mandate (the way e.g. US or French Presidents do). So the imbalance of power in the UK comes from the legislative having the executive, not the judiciary, under its thumb.
Of course the royal succession is carefully defined and, if times were really bad, then whoever was King/Queen could appoint the PM as necessary :hmm:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 22, 2011, 12:25:03 AM
In practice, within the UK they are almost an "elected dictator" and have far greater domestic power than a U.S. President.
Elected dictator? I thought this description applied to the President of the French Republic. :P
Hailsham never used the term "elective dictator" to describe the power of the PM. He was talking about the power of the Government in Parliament - e.g. the amount of time it had to push through Bills and called it an "elective dictatorship".
When he was talking (mid 1970s) the PM had considerably less power than he does now. The PM was still very much primus inter pares in a cabinet government. Thatcher and then Blair increased the number of sub-commitees and political advisers to make the PM more powerful at the expense of the cabinet.
Quote from: Gups on December 22, 2011, 04:57:01 AM
When he was talking (mid 1970s) the PM had considerably less power than he does now. The PM was still very much primus inter pares in a cabinet government. Thatcher and then Blair increased the number of sub-commitees and political advisers to make the PM more powerful at the expense of the cabinet.
The subcommitees I can see, but how does having more political advisers make the PM more powerful?
I shoudl have said special advisers rather than political advisors. They are temporary civil cervants appointed by the PM.
They act as effective supervisors of some cabinet ministers. Some advisors (e.g. Alistair Campbell) become powerful in their own right. It is not formal power but it is power.
Quote from: Martinus on December 22, 2011, 02:52:43 AM
As to your claim about the power of the Prime Minister, it has nothing to do with the judiciary not being independent (in fact it is independent in the UK) but the fact that there is in fact no independent (or semi-independent) executive in the UK - the Prime Minister gets his power directly from the legislative and he has no independent executive mandate (the way e.g. US or French Presidents do). So the imbalance of power in the UK comes from the legislative having the executive, not the judiciary, under its thumb.
The judiciary is also under their thumb because of the supremacy of Parliament. There is no law that Parliament can't pass. From a day-to-day standpoint, that really doesn't matter, but the fact is that the legislative branch is all-powerful.
At any rate, this idiot needs his head examined for wanting to Americanify his political system. Everything about their system is bad, and even Blair is going to reside in a special circle of hell (with Pierre Trudeau)for moving in that direction.
Quote from: Gups on December 22, 2011, 04:57:01 AM
When he was talking (mid 1970s) the PM had considerably less power than he does now. The PM was still very much primus inter pares in a cabinet government. Thatcher and then Blair increased the number of sub-commitees and political advisers to make the PM more powerful at the expense of the cabinet.
And the media overload in which we live has really helped with that. The PM has become the face of the party to a much greater degree than was once the case. Instead of having blocks of MPs who owed their election at least in part to forceful personalities that usually found themselves in Cabinet (or shadow cabinet), everyone is elected on the coattails of the PM now.
Strikes me that the reason for the differnce between the UK and US is the presence of a living sovereign - who could, in an emergency, appoint a PM.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 22, 2011, 01:07:32 AMYeah 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.
If you live or work in the D.C. area you develop an abject hatred for Presidential motorcades. It's the traffic equivalent of a 50-car pileup in a snowstorm.
I don't know about his international travel but the massive impact on local travel is one reason Presidential motorcades are actually much less common than they used to be. People sort of make fun of the President because he'll use Marine One (his $12bn helicopter fleet) to travel from a city's airport to a location nearby where he is speaking to avoid using a motorcade. This isn't done because the President is trying to avoid the "hassle" of riding in a car but because they're trying to limit the disruption to local traffic patterns.
Of course some locations you can't get a helicopter into safely so the motorcade comes out, but they try to use it as little as possible because of its ridiculousness.
In the U.S. it isn't just the size of the motorcade, but the fact that they literally shut down traffic along its entire route and clear the roadway. This happens
hours before the motorcade comes through. If the President is going to ride in a car down the street then not only is that street closed to regular traffic, the Secret Service literally walks the entire route checking for any possible bombs or other devices which might have been placed on the route. They even make sure all the manholes are totally sealed so no one would be able to come out of one during the ride.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 22, 2011, 02:41:48 AMJust 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.
I may have given the wrong impression by using the word "independent." I was just referring to how traditionally the closest thing the Brits had to the U.S. Supreme Court were the Law Lords, who were technically part of Parliament (since they were sitting members of the House of Lords); but that changed when the Supreme Court of the U.K. was created.
I didn't mean it to imply that judges were controlled by parliament in terms of how they oversaw cases and such, but the structure and powers of the court system are defined solely by the Parliament (unless I'm mistaken.) That's a contrast to the U.S. where Article III gives the Federal judiciary a certain foundation that even congress cannot undermine through any legislation.
I'm trying to recall when the British PM started using motorcades. I recall some anger at Blair having 6 cars and motorbike outriders in his, but can't recall previous PMs using them (excluding ceremonial and state occasions).
When did this annoying practice start :hmm: ?
Quote from: Martinus on December 22, 2011, 02:52:43 AMYou are as usual talking out of your ass here. The ability to review constitutionality of the acts of the legislative is not the same as the independence of the judiciary.
When I used the term "independence" I was not implying that judges were not independent decision makers. I was referring to the fact that every court in the UK, to my knowledge at least, is a creation of Parliamentary statute and exists at the pleasure of Parliament. Parliament can restructure the court system "at will." I certainly wasn't saying individual judges were not independent decision makers, I think the UK has had that since its inception in the Act of Union and at least in England the tradition of judges with independent decision making ability is an ancient one.
Mind I was explaining to Raz (an American) why he was wrong to think the PM was lacking in power. To an American the best way to understand the power of the PM is to think of what kind of power the President would have if he was also the head of Congress and the SCOTUS did not have any ability to strike down laws he passed, in addition to all of his current powers.
That's an important note for an American observer, because if the President
was the Head of Congress, in our system the SCOTUS could still undermine the President by declaring his laws unconstitutional.
Note that I'm not criticizing the British system at all, I actually quite like the British form of government. Especially in comparison to the garbage political systems of continental Europe.
QuoteAs to your claim about the power of the Prime Minister, it has nothing to do with the judiciary not being independent (in fact it is independent in the UK) but the fact that there is in fact no independent (or semi-independent) executive in the UK - the Prime Minister gets his power directly from the legislative and he has no independent executive mandate (the way e.g. US or French Presidents do). So the imbalance of power in the UK comes from the legislative having the executive, not the judiciary, under its thumb.
I noted this in my first post to Raz.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 22, 2011, 11:03:33 AM
I may have given the wrong impression by using the word "independent." I was just referring to how traditionally the closest thing the Brits had to the U.S. Supreme Court were the Law Lords, who were technically part of Parliament (since they were sitting members of the House of Lords); but that changed when the Supreme Court of the U.K. was created.
The Law Lords were members of the House of Lords but didn't as legislators. I think in theory they could have but by convention did not.
Interesting (to me) factoid - the sole case I've ever had that got as far as the Lords was the penultimate case they heard.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 22, 2011, 11:00:57 AM
In the U.S. it isn't just the size of the motorcade, but the fact that they literally shut down traffic along its entire route and clear the roadway. This happens hours before the motorcade comes through. If the President is going to ride in a car down the street then not only is that street closed to regular traffic, the Secret Service literally walks the entire route checking for any possible bombs or other devices which might have been placed on the route. They even make sure all the manholes are totally sealed so no one would be able to come out of one during the ride.
I used to work two blocks from the White House and this is a gross exaggeration. Normal motorcade is 3 or 4 black SUVs, DC motorcycle cop blocks the intersection maybe 10-20 minutes before they drive through.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 22, 2011, 12:03:23 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 22, 2011, 11:00:57 AM
In the U.S. it isn't just the size of the motorcade, but the fact that they literally shut down traffic along its entire route and clear the roadway. This happens hours before the motorcade comes through. If the President is going to ride in a car down the street then not only is that street closed to regular traffic, the Secret Service literally walks the entire route checking for any possible bombs or other devices which might have been placed on the route. They even make sure all the manholes are totally sealed so no one would be able to come out of one during the ride.
I used to work two blocks from the White House and this is a gross exaggeration. Normal motorcade is 3 or 4 black SUVs, DC motorcycle cop blocks the intersection maybe 10-20 minutes before they drive through.
How long ago was this? I thought you've lived out in flyover country for a long time. Motorcades are dramatically bigger now than they have ever been in the past. Clinton's motorcade was nothing compared to Bush II's after 9/11 or Obama's.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on December 22, 2011, 12:23:06 PM
How long ago was this? I thought you've lived out in flyover country for a long time. Motorcades are dramatically bigger now than they have ever been in the past. Clinton's motorcade was nothing compared to Bush II's after 9/11 or Obama's.
I've lost count. I was around for the start of GW II.
I think this configuration is present in all motorcades now:
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/podcasts/motorcade-1200px.jpg (http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/podcasts/motorcade-1200px.jpg)
And those are just the baseline, some of those cars have duplicates and it doesn't count all the motorcycle cops. It also doesn't count all the vans for the rest of the staff and press, which is a huge motorcade in its own right (but not part of the "secure package".)
A defined succession only is needed (and makes sense) when the head of government is elected to a fixed term.