• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Our next unelected PM?

Vixen said:
Technically, she can refuse to accept Boris'government when he turns up today.

This is how the UK is protected from totalitarianism attempts.
Click to expand...

Then what? Parliament outranks the queen. They just carry on.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Then what? Parliament outranks the queen. They just carry on.
Click to expand...

Don't all bills require royal assent to become law ?

According to Wikipedia (obviously not a perfect source):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_assent#United_Kingdom

Royal assent is the final step required for a parliamentary bill to become law. Once a bill is presented to the sovereign or the sovereign's representative, he or she has the following formal options:

  1. the sovereign may grant royal assent, thereby making the bill an Act of Parliament.
  2. the sovereign may delay the bill's assent through the use of his or her reserve powers, thereby vetoing the bill.
  3. the sovereign may refuse royal assent on the advice of his or her ministers.
Click to expand...

However.....

Under modern constitutional conventions, the sovereign generally acts on, and in accordance with, the advice of his or her ministers
However, there is some disagreement among scholars as to whether the monarch should withhold royal assent to a bill if advised to do so by her ministers. Since these ministers most often enjoy the support of parliament and obtain the passage of bills, it is improbable that they would advise the sovereign to withhold assent. Hence, in modern practice, the issue has never arisen, and royal assent has not been withheld.


The sovereign is generally believed not to legally have the power to withhold assent from a bill against the advice of ministers.
Click to expand...

So although the monarch may theoretically be able to refuse assent, practically they cannot refuse - or at least this is the general belief.

Then again a few months ago, many constitutional scholars would have pooh-poohed the idea of proroguing Parliament in order to force a no-deal Brexit through as being anachronistic nonsense - we're in recently uncharted waters at the moment.
 
As an American totally ignorant of UK politics, I'm curious to see how your parliamentary system deals with such a executive compared to our constitutional system.

The UK parliamentary system seems to be much more responsive to changes in political sentiment, with the ability to hold elections and depose the PM at any time. Seems that a PM has to perform or get the boot.

For example, the US often has the case where one party holds the presidency and the other one or both houses of legislature, often resulting in government grinding to a halt. The 2018 election was a sharp rebuke to Trump's party, but since Trump wasn't on the ballot, his position is secure. We have to wait until 2020 to see if Trump is still politically viable or if his time has passed. Politics occurs in fixed intervals here, often with long periods of lost time due to partisan gridlocking of power.

One could imagine a parliamentary system would have resulted in Trump's removal in such an election.

I am watching UK's politics with some curiosity.
 
Last edited:
ceptimus said:
You're being disingenuous. Although, in theory, the Scottish Parliament could choose any member as their leader, in practice it is always the leader of the largest party that is rubber-stamped as First Minister. It's the same system (with the same results) that operates at Westminster - in theory Westminster could choose any MP as Prime Minister, but they only ever choose the leader of the largest party.

By your reasoning, Boris will be elected to the post of Prime Minister by members of the House of Commons in a contest against Jeremy Corbyn.
Click to expand...

That's not true. Because the system in Scotland is designed to not deliver a majority in the house. So the First Minister is the person the majority of the house decides to elect.

It so happened on one occasion the SNP were so popular that they broke the system and so it was pretty much a fait accompli that Sturgeon would become FM but she still had to go through a vote in the Parliament.

She has of course also since had a Scottish election and two UK elections where her party won all three hands down.

In terms of legitimacy of leadership nobody can lay a finger on her.
 
Please provide a list of all those occasions when the Scottish Parliament has elected a First Minister who did not happen to also be the leader of the largest party.
 
Last edited:
ceptimus said:
Please provide a list of all those occasions when the Scottish Parliament has elected a First Minister who did not happen to also be the leader of the largest party.
Click to expand...

Jim Wallace of the Lib Dems was FM on three separate occasions.

ETA With regards your earlier post the PM is appointed by the Queen, not Parliament.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Jim Wallace of the Lib Dems was FM on three separate occasions.

ETA With regards your earlier post the PM is appointed by the Queen, not Parliament.
Click to expand...
You're being disingenuous again. At the time, the Lib Dems were in coalition with the largest Party (Labour). Jim Wallace became ACTING First Minister, on each occasion just for a few weeks, firstly on the illness and then death of the leader of the largest party, Donald Dewar, and again (briefly) following the resignation of Henry McLeish.

It's the same situation Nick Clegg (deputy Prime Minister) would have been in, had Cameron died. He would have been stopgap PM for a short while, till the Tories elected a new leader to replace him.

Sturgeon was also officially appointed by the Queen after being recommended by the parliament. Exactly the same system as Westminster as you should know - assuming you don't already know and are just pretending you don't.
 
Last edited:
Johnson says we should look at the opportunities.

Let’s get going on things like free ports, he says.

He call for more UK satellites.

He calls for tax breaks for innovation.

And let’s do something for animal welfare.
Click to expand...

Free ports, satellites, innovation and animal welfare. This how all the old moldering fishing towns will be reborn and the forgotten coal workers will have their communities renewed´.
 
Arcade22 said:
Free ports, satellites, innovation and animal welfare. This how all the old moldering fishing towns will be reborn and the forgotten coal workers will have their communities renewed´.
Click to expand...

And any or all of those would have equally possible, or far easier if the UK was still a member of the EU:
 
ceptimus said:
You're being disingenuous again.
Click to expand...

Facts are disingenuous to you apparently

At the time, the Lib Dems were in coalition with the largest Party (Labour). Jim Wallace became ACTING First Minister, on each occasion just for a few weeks, firstly on the illness and then death of the leader of the largest party, Donald Dewar, and again (briefly) following the resignation of Henry McLeish.
Click to expand...

Yep, and he wasn't the leader of the largest party.

It's the same situation Nick Clegg (deputy Prime Minister) would have been in, had Cameron died. He would have been stopgap PM for a short while, till the Tories elected a new leader to replace him.
Click to expand...

Nope, DPM doesn't assume the PM's powers in case of the absence of the PM.

Sturgeon was also officially appointed by the Queen after being recommended by the parliament. Exactly the same system as Westminster as you should know - assuming you don't already know and are just pretending you don't.
Click to expand...

What was the result of the vote to appoint BJ as PM in Parliament and who stood against him?

I'll not hold my breath waiting for an answer to that.
 
Boris and chums are already more full of fluff than a pillow factory.

Can someone start a ne thread if any one of them actually says anything of substance please?
 
A bit of a bloodbath in the cabinet today, apparently the largest turnover outside of an election in which the government was defeated. Evidently aimed at those who either backed Hunt or were confirmed remainers.

And Priti Patel just now confirmed as Home Secretary. Roll on the Bloody Code 2.0 I guess.
 
KDLarsen said:
A bit of a bloodbath in the cabinet today, apparently the largest turnover outside of an election in which the government was defeated. Evidently aimed at those who either backed Hunt or were confirmed remainers.

And Priti Patel just now confirmed as Home Secretary. Roll on the Bloody Code 2.0 I guess.
Click to expand...

It is going to be interesting to see what Labor does.
I hope they go totally hard ball and simply make Governence impossible. It will be painful, but better to being on the inevitable crisis now.
I also wonder if the non Boris supporting TOries will roll over and play dead like their GOP colleague sin the US.
One good think the UK has which the US does not:The Judicirary seems to be a lot more independent and not supectible to political power.
 
Last edited:
Arcade22 said:
Free ports, satellites, innovation and animal welfare. This how all the old moldering fishing towns will be reborn and the forgotten coal workers will have their communities renewed´.
Click to expand...

And how would you revive industries which have outlived their economic usefulness? Help the people retrain for new jobs and relocate., but don't try to revive dead outmoded industries. That is just throwing money down the drain.
And keeping industries that have outlived their usefulness alive just to keep people employed just does more damage in the long run.
I can't stand Boris, but don't see anything wrong with his suggestions here. unless you are a Luddite.
Of course I think he talking the piss and will not deliver....
And I think a Labor PM would probably make similar suggestions.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom