Site menu:

Site search

Get Updates

Enter your email address to hear about new posts. (You can view my privacy policy here.)


 

RSS Recent Posts

Archives (month)

Topics

DC taking a leaf out of DC?

The morning after the Newsnight before, everyone is asking why did he do it? And how will it work? Find the answer the second question and I think you have the answer to the first.

The UK constitution has always created difficulties for a party in power that wants to change leader. The incumbent leader – the Prime Minister – can resign easily enough. But problems lie in wait for his or her successor. The newly elected leader is swept off to meet the Queen and then straight into Downing Street to form a new government, working with the people that they have just spent weeks competing with for the post. Any planning discussions have been restricted to conversations with their own supporters, not with other senior ministers.

Once a new leader is identified it would be unprecedented for Cameron to stay on in No 10 – an unseemly clinging to power?

If that wasn’t tough enough, the press and the opposition will be asking whether the new prime minister will call an immediate election. Constitutionally, there is no need, but it creates an additional distraction for the incoming prime minister, finding their feet at barely a moment’s notice whilst fending off criticisms that they have no mandate from the people. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 provides a fig leaf for the incoming prime minister to hide behind, but it is not a bar to an early general election.

Across the pond, we see an American system in which the party in control of the White House not only elects its successor candidate whilst the incumbent is in place, it also allows the president-elect some 10 weeks of transition before he (or, one day, she) takes power – and nearly as long for members of Congress. Many a British prime minister – outgoing and incoming – may have eyed that arrangement jealously.

David Cameron appears to be angling for a version of that. He wants a full second term. Step 1 is to be re-elected in 44 days’ time. By no means an easy step given the current state of the polls. But without it, Steps 2 and 3 fall away. So let’s hypothesise that he manages the first step and address the “How?” question that seems to be taxing so many political watchers.

See also:  Constitution nil, Clegg & Coase won

Step 2 will be to resign as leader of the Conservative Party at some point late on in the next parliament – late enough not to jeopardise his political programme, but early enough to allow time for a leadership election within the party – and time after that for the newly elected leader to prepare for a general parliamentary election.

Now we hit the problem. Once the Conservative Party has identified a new leader, in say late-2019, there would undoubtedly be clamours for Cameron to go immediately and not wait out the period until the next election. It would be unprecedented for Cameron to stay on in No 10. An unseemly “clinging to power”, many would say. Historians and constitutionalists would be trotted out to say it was unconstitutional: he should seek an audience with the Queen and recommend her to invite the new Conservative leader to form a government. The clamour would almost certainly be irresistible. Unless … Unless … Unless he had a mandate from the people.

But how to get that without calling a general election: the very thing this whole process is designed to avoid? If only David Cameron had told the voters back in 2015 that his plan, if elected, was to remain as prime minister for the full five years, but no longer than that.

Job done.

Sign up for updates by Email, Twitter or RSS Feed.

Related articles on this website
“You were the future once …” When David Cameron famously made that remark on his first encounter with Tony Blair across the despatch box, he employed a very effective communication device. ...
Read the complete article
A couple of matters caught my attention this morning, from the world of journalism and coffee shops. Part 1 ... Friday the fifteenth The Daily Mail wants us to believe that an ...
Read the complete article
It seems that, when it comes to Brexit, we can’t trust anyone to get their facts right. Not even lawyers. At least, not Lawyers for a People’s Vote (LfaPV). I don’t ...
Read the complete article
I’m not sure quite how to say this. So I’ll say it twice:Yesterday, a young graduate won her claim against the government’s back-to-work scheme. She argued that the regulations and ...
Read the complete article
Much has been written about the Government’s appeal to the Supreme Court in the Brexit case. Political commentators tell us that the appeal is very likely to fail. Many lawyers ...
Read the complete article
On a day when I am learning it may be OK to eat red meat after all, I’m also having to re-think my attitude to the BBC. I am delighted that ...
Read the complete article
I keep hearing that last Friday's agreement between the UK and the EU 27 means that a hard Brexit is off the table. Well, I'm looking at the table and ...
Read the complete article
Guidance on Reporting Actuarial Information[This page is now obsolete. I have kept it online in case anyone wishes to access the information out of historical interest.]In 2012, I developed a ...
Read the complete article
Who’s optimistic now?
Friday fiascos
Lawyers for Alternative Facts?
Journalists in a tiz at Supreme Court’s win-win decision
Brexit: supreme logic required
I’m partial to a bit of Beeb
Hard Brexit is dead. Long live … hard Brexit
TAS R etc