The political journalists of this country seem to be making a common error. I stress, common in the sense that they are all making it. They are assuming that the next leader of the Conservative Party will be the next prime minister. I suggest that may not be true.
I think it true that the person who assumes this dubious office (dubious based on the records of those who have held it, at least in recent decades) will be invited by the Queen to form a government. But, and it's a very big but, the assumption that they will be able to do so is a very big one.
May lied to the Queen on this issue. She said the DUP Deal was done. It wasn't. That cost £1bn. I am not at all sure that the Queen will be so readily fooled again. Next time she will require assurance that the new Tory leader can really command a majority in the Commons.
Will the DUP sign up? Who knows what the price will be?
Will enough Tories sign up? I doubt it. And this time, not newly elected as they were last time, they are likely to say so.
And so, whoever might be Tory leader may not be able to form a government.
Will Corbyn be able to do so? I doubt he would want to try.
May might, then, continue in office for much longer than we now expect, until a general election can be called.
This saga might have much longer to run as yet.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
But Harold Wilson governed for some months with no majority. PM has to avoid losing a Confidence Vote, not the same as having a majority. So for example, I cannot see Change group being in a hurry for an election in which they would all lose their seats.
I accept Change UK May keep the Tories on office
But without a confidence and supply, will that be enough?
It would take a special type of brass neck to call yourselves Change UK and then the first thing you did was to keep this rabble of a Tory party in power.
@ Gelachus
I fear there are two things wrong with your analysis.
The first is that, though Labour under Harold Wilson polled fewer votes than the Conservatives under Edward Heath, Labour actually gained more seats. Edward Heath eventually accepted the reality of this, after failing to stitch up a DUP-style lash-up with the Liberals, and so resigned, allowing the Queen to summon Harold Wilson to the Palace and ask him to form a Government.
(Sweet revenge, IMO, for the 1951 reverse, when Clem Attlee won more votes, but fewer seats than Churchill, allowing Churchill back into No. 10. Others will disagree with me, but IMO, it would have been better for the country if Attlee HAD won in 1951, and handed over soon after to Gaitskell or Bevan (Clem’s preferred successor), and equally if Heath had stayed in -reduced – power, and had to deal with the mess he’d made of the economy. Am ducking to avoid the missiles I expect to be coming my way!)
May’s position therefore, when the results of the 2017 General Election was the same as Heath’s in February 1974 (despite the fact that May, unlike Heath, was Leader of the Party with the largest number of seats), in that the electorate had clearly rejected her request she be returned to power (shades of fantasies of a 150 seat majority!!) and she should therefore have followed Heath’s precedent, resigned, and advised the Queen to invite Corbyn to try to form a Government.
However, by contrast, May lied to the Queen about DUP support, and then compounded her lie by a post-lie bribe.
Accordingly, though the post-2017 Administration possessed de facto power (“hands on the levers of power”) it entirely lacked de jure and constitutional validity. In a word, it was a “bastard” Administration!
In consequence, ANY Tory successor to May – a successor voted on by a mere 100,000 +/- Tory Party members (alleged to be mainly over 65, also alleged to be mainly rabid Brexiteers, again allegedly nostalgic for the resurrection of the British Empire, and similar unicorn fantasies – and whether true or not, definitely constituting around 0.2% of the UK population, so a small enough number to be insufficient, even were they all of Einsteinian sagacity!!) – any such successor would be the Leader of a “bastard-squared” Administration, and one light-years away from Harold Wilson’s February to October 1974 Government.
The second crucial difference is that Harold Wilson led an Administration under the OLD “No Confidence” rules and precedents, and knew that he was always in danger of losing such a No Confidence vote by a single vote, so he would have to resign – as did Jim Callaghan in 1979, when he lost a No Confidence vote by a single vote, and properly resigned.
Now, however, the iniquitous “Fixed Term Parliament Act” rules – an Act I say should be called the ANCVA, or The Abolition of the No Confidence Vote Act, since under its terms a Government that loses a No Confidence Vote has 14 days in which to try to put together a new coalition of interests (AKA “stitch-up), and can then put that stitch-up to a Vote of Confidence, the winning of which would allow that Administration to retain power.
Please note the important difference between appearances and substance – the Fixed Term Parliament Act has the APPEARANCE of reducing Prime Ministerial power, by removing from a PM the sole power to call a General Election “at will”, apparently lodging that power with Parliament, a 66% majority of whom must vote for a dissolution.
Now, it’s true that the power of a PM to call an election “at will”, has been removed, and vested in Parliament, but in return for that dubious power (when Parliament is ready for an Election, a 66% vote will be almost automatic, while a PM who didn’t feel s/he had 66% on his/her side probably wouldn’t go for it) Parliament’s substantive power via the “No Confidence” mechanism has been effectively neutered.
For just consider, under the FTPA, Jim Callaghan might have managed to stitch up a new coalition, to include SNP and Plaid Cymru, as well as Liberals, in a full coalition, granting Cabinet posts to the other Parties – an arrangement I would have welcomed, frankly, given the disaster for the UK that Thatcher was, IMO.
Equally, in 1974, had the FTPA been operative, Harold Wilson might not have needed to call a second Election in October, 1974, relying instead on surviving successive 14-day reprieves – a device I fear any May-replacement might have recourse to.
In a word, I believe the Queen should refuse to accept May’s resignation, and instead compel May to stay in office until her successor is chosen (after all, and incidentally, if “the Queen’s Government must carry on”, as there is no Deputy PM, and as May is still Tory Party Leader, who should the Queen ask to take over from May, once May goes?), on the understanding that that successor will ONLY be asked to form a Government that will IMMEDIATELY go to the country – ONLY a PM with a PROPER democratic mandate can meet the current need.
Thanks Andrew
I like bastard squared….
May has said she will resign as Tory Party leader on 7 June and as PM as and when a new leader is elected. In accordance with the Cabinet Manual (see my post below) her successor will then be invited by the Queen to form a government and, in the process, be made PM. All crystal clear, nothing to see here.
So you say
But that is not how things work in the UK
Excellent history.
I would clarify that Wilson had his monority govt put back to the people in 63/64 or there abouts. And Heath in the 70’s.
Also the FTPA (which was only put into place for the LibDems to ditch their promises to their electorate) is a red herring. If it weren’t, our last election in 2017 would not have happened until next year!
That’s the twist of our non constitution. We do make it up as we go along.
Thanks for sharing that Richard. It is exactly what had occurred to me as an outside observer (who no longer has a vote in the UK and will be voting here in France tomorrow) watching all these shenanigans with much concern about the future of the land of my birth in particular and for Europe & the world as a whole.
I returned home last night from two weeks in the beautiful Welsh countryside near my father’s home town of Oswestry after watching Mrs May make her speech on the steps of n° 10. As someone noted in the Guardian, it was most telling that she saved her tears for herself, having consistently failed to show any signs of real emotion over the state of the country she says she loves so much. I myself feel torn between love, anger, despair and fear.
Enjoy the holiday!
Oswestry is indeed a beautiful part of the country, anrigaut, which is why I live here with my shop in the town centre. It’s interesting to hear different people’s comments about the May saga, being such a mix of traditional and conservative farming people and a large ‘alternative’ section of the community.
We are blessed with Owen Patterson as our MP, who has one of the largest Tory majorities in the country. What is quite clear is how duped people are by this who sad saga of the EU exit (I hate the B word), and those who are look on in amazement and despair at people’s stupidity. The polarity is breathtaking. The Tory base has definitely crumbled over this, and it will be very interesting to see the outcome.
Thanks Mike
I know Oswestry. I like it
“May might, then, continue in office for much longer than we now expect”
I don’t follow that reasoning. Surely she can not remain in office as PM when she is no longer Party leader ?
I don’t entirely understand the arcane nature of our ‘constitution’, but I would have expected that once a new Tory is elected party leader, he or she would face the prospect of a confidence vote in parliament. Does the new leader require the blessing of the Queen in order to assume the position of PM ?
Yes, to the last question
They have to be able to form a government
The PM is appointed by the Queen as Richard says. A PM can either resign, be removed by a vote in Parliament or be dismissed by the Queen. What the position of the PM in the Party is isn’t relevant. Indeed I think you could in theory have the PM resign from the party but carry on as PM and thus force Parliament or the Queen to dismiss them. Unlike the US I also don’t think we have any procedure if a PM were to go mad, get alzheimers, or whatever. It is unlikely the Queen would dismiss a PM, but it happened to Gough Whitlam in Australia in 1976. That was very controversial so I suspect Mrs Windsor would not want to try it here.
She can remain until the Queen appoints another…..
Oh dear, Richard, you have just used an upper case M on may! Are we never going to get rid of her?
My iPad now autocorrects to it….
If it is Boris, then he can quickly get the DUP onside by promising to scrap the backstop – though that would probably lead to a no deal departure which I doubt he really wants (too much work to manage and too many snags). He also needs to move to the left to get the remaining Tory Remainers to accept his new deal, which can’t be substantially different from the current one – but then he risks losing his swivel-eyed, cliff-diving supporters. Fortunately Corbyn and even the Labour Brexiteers won’t touch him with a bargepole, so no support there. Can’t see him lasting beyond the October deadline.
There was a gallows humour sayng amongst the Germans as the allies closed in on the remains of the Third Reich in 1945. It went “enjoy the war, the peace is going to be terrible.”
That seems to me to have some resonance as regards the Tory leadership contest…
This is assuming Johnson would be backed by enough MPs or Tory members, whoever ends up deciding, to become the next leader.
In the present political climate, anything can happen, but there are so many uncertain parameters that it is difficult to see one step ahead, let alone as far as Johnson in Number 10….my hand is seizing up as I type this.
If he does manage that…Europe and the world will have its diagnosis on Britain’s collective mental state confirmed, and will look at us with either hilarity or pity.
How can one do any sort of dealings with a country run by a nincompoop, well, we can look across the pond for guidance 🙁
It appears that what the people of this country want is an idiot
There are many on offer
Bread and circuses. People want entertainment (such as from a clown) while there is bread, but things will get ugly when the bread starts to run out.
I’d have thought a lazy liar would not get elected but perhaps I am wrong.
Realistically, I don’t see anyone other than the next leader of the Conservative party being likely to be able to form a government that has the confidence of the House of Commons, and perhaps not even them. That suggests we will have a general election later this year. God help us all. The country is still split right down the middle. When the centre-right and centre-left parties are unable to find a basis for governing, people are driven to the extremes, as we will find then the Euro election results come out tonight. I can’t see things ending well.
You share my gloom
Just one quick question which may or may not be of relevance but isn’t the Right Honourable Jeremy *unt related to Her Maj? Would she not be tempted to appoint him as next PM? Nepotism and all that?
Oh come on…..
Roy
Read R. M . Douglas’ ‘Orderly & Humane: The Expulsion of the Germans after the Second World War’ (2012).
The Germans were right.
PSR
They certainly were, and the point I was trying to make is that I suspect May’s successor is likely to be ten times worse than she has been (which if you think about it, would be some “achievement”!), so we may end up feeling nostalgic for her – and the irony of that comment certainly isn’t lost on me.
Nor me
And I think it possible
This is more than an idiot…!
https://www.indy100.com/article/boris-johnson-video-conservative-leader-prime-minister-bbc-eddie-mair-8930221?fbclid=IwAR04wMHldf6Zc4Pq9jy-ljnrwwrUO0ezgz00jzmNiGut0WV2rl_7YmkTwO0
Agreed that the leader could avoid being PM, but I think its the ”Crown’ that has the power to reject (and who they?) not the little ol lady HM?
The DUP agreement was signed by the ex-high flying spider man
Gavin. So probably needs a new signature.
It was probably setup by some unelected rulers of us, like Murdoch. As will the next tory leader.
If they were forced to offer Labour a chance to form a government – that would most likely be what would happen.
What better way to call a sooner GE than from No 10? A more certain way than the likes of Hunt/Gove and the running pack hanging on for a few more years.
The alternative is a unelected coalition of the neocon/lib MP’s depriving us of a vote on new manifestos and continuing with their privatisation/deregulation fest under the guise of national emergency. A coup in all but name. ABC.
We don’t have a method (or presumably a need) to get rid of a Prime Minister who has lost his or her marbles. In the fifties, Churchill was reportedly incapable after his stroke, but his doctor (Moran) helped to conceal this and he went on for three years. Of course, we can also do without a Lord Chief Justice; Lord Widgery was senile from the late eighties and this was concealed for at least two years. It was said that no-one dared remove him because he knew where the bodies were buried after Bloody Sunday and could, in a moment of lucidity, spill the beans.
As far as the Queen’s choice, she seems to have a predilection for aristocratic sounding Scots. Her three prime-minister choices were Eden’s replacement MacMillan, MacMillan’s replacement Hume and Whitlam’s replacement Fraser. As the financial people say, past behaviour is no guide to future outcomes.
There are not too many of them around now
Although doesn’t Gove claim to be Scottish?
Gove can claim to be Scottish as much as he wants, but my guess is that most Scots have long since disowned him.
You should hear what teenagers have to say about him
To be fair, Gove only claims to be Scottish because he is.
Born in Edinburgh, grew up in Aberdeen.
We Scots can’t just claim the good people… we’ve given the world many good things, but we also produced Malcolm Rifkind. Gotta own that.
OK….
It is the cabinet manual that determines this. It says:
“Where a Prime Minister chooses to resign from his or her individual position at a time when his or her administration has an overall majority in the House of Commons, it is for the party or parties in government to identify who can be chosen as the successor”
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/60641/cabinet-manual.pdf para 2.18
Teresa May’s government has not been defeated in a confidence motion so, in the terms of this manual, it does command a majority. The Tories must find a replacement and, when this is done, the Queen must ask that individual to form a government and that means appointing him or her as PM. If they can’t can’t get a Queen’s Speech through, it will probably be a short-lived appointment, but it must be made.
That manual is a flexible document
May did nit and her successor might not have a mandate for legislation
And may not try a Queen’s Speech
I think the situation will be more flexible than you suggest
Nothing about flexibility in the forward to the manual, it declares itself to a statement of fact, it is signed by a PM and, as far as I know, accepted by all involved parties. The idea that the Palace would compound the existing constitutional crisis by vetoing the only plausible candidate for PM, in contradiction of the nearest thing we have to a written constitution, is inconceivable. That is why, as you say, the political journalists of this country are assuming that the next leader of the Conservative Party will be the next prime minister, and, as you do not say, they are 100% correct.
I am not alone in holding my opinion
And I think you overstate your case
It is unprecedented to have the current situation
I think no one will be asked if there is no chance they can command a majority
Whilst I am neither a fan of Mrs May nor an admirer of her honesty, I am not sure how you know she lied to HM the Queen about the DUP or that she needed to do so. May was already Prime Minister when she lost her majority in the Commons at the 2017 General Election. In the circumstances, she would remain PM until she resigned (which she did not, because no-one else had a majority) or until she lost a vote of confidence in the House. There was no need for the Queen to ask her to form a government (or whether she could so) as May was already in post.
All that said, I agree that a successor to the leadership of the Tories may not be able to command a majority in the Commons and that we live in dangerous and troubling times.
It was widely reported she told the Queen she had a deal with the DUP when she had not
Richard – do you have any reports, documentation etc to support this very serious claim that the PM of the day lied to the Queen?
I’m no fan of May but I think you should perhaps provide some evidence to back up your claim
Just follow the timeline and reports of the period
It was days after the government was formed that the DUP finally signed up
[…] Of course any Tory Party leader would also have to have the confidence of the house which they might…. Even spreadsheet Philip Hammond has so far refused to guarantee he would vote for a Tory government in a confidence motion taking Britain to a no deal exit. But they might just play for time as Parliament will be in recess for a lengthy period after any leader is likely to be elected. Labour would have to act quickly and decisively to organise a no-confidence vote and I hope they are already getting their no-confidence alliance in place now! […]