• 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?

Darat said:
(There is a chance I suppose that the next Tory leader won't be able to continue the S&C deal with the DUP so an election may be forced on them. But I'm not expecting that to happen.)
Click to expand...
An election is more likely if a couple more conservative MPs quit the party. Strictly there is no majority even with the DUP now it's merely a de-facto one.

(I can't believe it's not even a little bit tempting to Sinn Fein. What about swearing allegiance to Bessie, bringing down the government and then un-swearing allegiance?)
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
I too am confused by the "unelected" language.

Darat, can you translate for those of us across the pond? What does "unelected" mean in this context?

My understanding of the British system of government is that PMs are in fact elected according to the way these things are commonly expressed.
Click to expand...

It means she came to power via the resignation of the former PM and not as the already recognized leader of the party that won a general election.
 
GlennB said:
In which case all PMs are 'elected', either at a GE or by the party. I'm with lionking on this - either way, there is no such thing as an unelected PM.
Click to expand...
Common use of language as far as I am concerned, it was applied to the likes of John Major and Gordon Brown as well.
 
lionking said:
Not at all. It’s entirely possible to have an election completed and the presumed PM found to have committed a serious crime, maybe treason, rape, massive fraud. The party room would drop him or her like a sack of spuds and go for someone else.



Yes, highly unlikely, but you see my point.
Click to expand...
This is silly semantic quibling. If you want to be "techmically" accurate, only one person in the UK decides who is to be the PM since the PM is appointed by the monarch.

In the UK we've always used the term "unelected PM" to mean a PM that has not gone to the electorate as the leader of their party.
 
lionking said:
All the election does is makes you a local member of parliament. It does not accord you ministerial nor prime ministerial status. Those roles are voted by the elected party. This is pretty basic really, and if you don’t see this obvious point that is your problem.
Click to expand...

You are getting yourself rather confused. Ministerial roles are not "voted by the elected party". And if you want to be technically accurate who is voted by a party to be their leader does not determine who will be the PM.
 
theprestige said:
Why is this distinction important?

And what is the process by which one becomes the "recognized leader" of a party?

And why is *that* distinction important?
Click to expand...

Oh FFS.

She was 'elected' (thanks to a deal with the DUP) on the basis of a set of policies that may well be being changed by the incoming leader (since they all seem to be saying they want something significantly different)

That's important.

Why is your semantic nit-picking important? Or are you just being one of those 'skeptics'?
 
theprestige said:
Why is this distinction important?
Click to expand...
Some may have voted a party into power because of Leader A. If Leader A is ousted and replaced by Leader B, some of those people may not have cast their vote for that party.

theprestige said:
And what is the process by which one becomes the "recognized leader" of a party?
Click to expand...
Pretty much anyone may put themselves forward as a candidate for the leadership. Those candidates are whittled down to two by the Elected MPs. All of the party membership vote on the final two. This process is happening right now.

theprestige said:
And why is *that* distinction important?
Click to expand...
Don't know. I suppose one could argue that at least some voters voted for the party because they agreed with Leader A's ideology, but disagree with the new Leader B's ideology.
 
I have a suspicion that ThePrestige does not yet have the mechanics of Westminster style government in hand. Because it is unlike the US method of elected office in many ways. Would that be fair? If so, it would be simple enough to explain it. Because it also applies to Australian, New Zealand and Canadian governments, which mirror the UK model fairly closely. And this may go to explain the various odd changes of Prime Ministerships "mid term" and their relationships with the election processes.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Oh FFS.



She was 'elected' (thanks to a deal with the DUP) on the basis of a set of policies that may well be being changed by the incoming leader (since they all seem to be saying they want something significantly different)



That's important.



Why is your semantic nit-picking important? Or are you just being one of those 'skeptics'?
Click to expand...

No. I simply don't know what "unelected" means in the context of British PMs, nor why it's important.
 
theprestige said:
No. I simply don't know what "unelected" means in the context of British PMs, nor why it's important.
Click to expand...
Here's how the process of election works for the UK (and most other Commonwealth countries). Forgive me if I am going over ground you know.

1) Members of Parliament (MPs) are elected by the people in much the same way as congresspeople in the USA. They win a "seat" in parliament in an election.

2) In the lower house of parliament, called Congress in the USA and The Members in UK parliament, the party that commands the majority of members gets to be "the Queen's government". This majority may require forming a partnership with another smaller party to get the numbers. The non-government members become The Loyal Opposition.

3) On the government side, various members are chosen to manage various businesses of government - Treasury, state affairs, foreign affairs, etc. They are called Ministers (of the Crown - QE2 will take their oath of office) and they are equivalent to US Secretaries. The method of choosing is up to the party in government, not directly by the people. It may be a internal party election, favours for the boys, or even WWE Royal Rumble style. Whatever.

4) On the government side, one of the members is chosen to be their notional leader - the Prime Minister (PM). In some Commonwealth countries this is called First Minister. Again, the method of choosing a PM is up to the party in government, not the people. Thus the PM is not directly elected by the people. The PM is charged with leading the government side and thus the parliament, and therefore the country. The PM usually gets to choose Ministries and Ministers to run them.

5) During a government's term, the terms of all ministers including the PM are subject to the whims of the governing party (or alliance). The PM and indeed any Minister may be tossed out of the position by party politics or other factors. They will be replaced by someone the party now likes more. In that sense, the replacement PM is still not elected by the people. They get to like or lump what the government chooses.


This PM replacement process has happened a few times recently. In Australia, we are making it a regular thing for both sides of politics. Mrs May in the UK has just resigned as PM (because her government has become so rambunctious about Brexit that they have no idea what they are doing...but they don't want her). She will revert to being just an MP, and some other MP will be chosen to replace her. This all without reference to the people directly.

That's a vastly simplified description, because like cricket there are many more subtleties involved. But hopefully that helps.
 
abaddon said:
Please provide any example of anyone ever who has not been elected by the public being appointed PM.
Click to expand...

Plenty of them. Debatably, the most recent could be Alec Douglas-Home, who, for a brief period was PM whilst neither a member of Lords (he had renounced his peerage days after his appointment) nor Commons (until he won a by-election just under three weeks later).

Prior to that, there was the Marquess of Salisbury, the last peer to lead the government from the Lords (though you might discount him on his having been elected to the Commons several decades previously).

Salisbury's predecessor, Lord Rosebery, could have been a member of the Commons, up until his grandfather died, but he was not aligned to any particular party at that point. Rosebery inherited a title elevating him to the Lords, so can truly be called the most recent Prime Minister never to have been elected.
 
Last edited:
Norman Alexander said:
Here's how the process of election works for the UK (and most other Commonwealth countries). Forgive me if I am going over ground you know.

1) Members of Parliament (MPs) are elected by the people in much the same way as congresspeople in the USA. They win a "seat" in parliament in an election.

2) In the lower house of parliament, called Congress in the USA and The Members in UK parliament, the party that commands the majority of members gets to be "the Queen's government". This majority may require forming a partnership with another smaller party to get the numbers. The non-government members become The Loyal Opposition.

3) On the government side, various members are chosen to manage various businesses of government - Treasury, state affairs, foreign affairs, etc. They are called Ministers (of the Crown - QE2 will take their oath of office) and they are equivalent to US Secretaries. The method of choosing is up to the party in government, not directly by the people. It may be a internal party election, favours for the boys, or even WWE Royal Rumble style. Whatever.

4) On the government side, one of the members is chosen to be their notional leader - the Prime Minister (PM). In some Commonwealth countries this is called First Minister. Again, the method of choosing a PM is up to the party in government, not the people. Thus the PM is not directly elected by the people. The PM is charged with leading the government side and thus the parliament, and therefore the country. The PM usually gets to choose Ministries and Ministers to run them.

5) During a government's term, the terms of all ministers including the PM are subject to the whims of the governing party (or alliance). The PM and indeed any Minister may be tossed out of the position by party politics or other factors. They will be replaced by someone the party now likes more. In that sense, the replacement PM is still not elected by the people. They get to like or lump what the government chooses.


This PM replacement process has happened a few times recently. In Australia, we are making it a regular thing for both sides of politics. Mrs May in the UK has just resigned as PM (because her government has become so rambunctious about Brexit that they have no idea what they are doing...but they don't want her). She will revert to being just an MP, and some other MP will be chosen to replace her. This all without reference to the people directly.

That's a vastly simplified description, because like cricket there are many more subtleties involved. But hopefully that helps.
Click to expand...
Just re-read this and spotted an error. The lower house in the UK is called The Commons. Proof-read fail! :blush:
 
Norman Alexander said:
Here's how the process of election works for the UK (and most other Commonwealth countries). Forgive me if I am going over ground you know.

1) Members of Parliament (MPs) are elected by the people in much the same way as congresspeople in the USA. They win a "seat" in parliament in an election.

2) In the lower house of parliament, called Congress in the USA and The Members in UK parliament, the party that commands the majority of members gets to be "the Queen's government". This majority may require forming a partnership with another smaller party to get the numbers. The non-government members become The Loyal Opposition.

3) On the government side, various members are chosen to manage various businesses of government - Treasury, state affairs, foreign affairs, etc. They are called Ministers (of the Crown - QE2 will take their oath of office) and they are equivalent to US Secretaries. The method of choosing is up to the party in government, not directly by the people. It may be a internal party election, favours for the boys, or even WWE Royal Rumble style. Whatever.

4) On the government side, one of the members is chosen to be their notional leader - the Prime Minister (PM). In some Commonwealth countries this is called First Minister. Again, the method of choosing a PM is up to the party in government, not the people. Thus the PM is not directly elected by the people. The PM is charged with leading the government side and thus the parliament, and therefore the country. The PM usually gets to choose Ministries and Ministers to run them.

5) During a government's term, the terms of all ministers including the PM are subject to the whims of the governing party (or alliance). The PM and indeed any Minister may be tossed out of the position by party politics or other factors. They will be replaced by someone the party now likes more. In that sense, the replacement PM is still not elected by the people. They get to like or lump what the government chooses.


This PM replacement process has happened a few times recently. In Australia, we are making it a regular thing for both sides of politics. Mrs May in the UK has just resigned as PM (because her government has become so rambunctious about Brexit that they have no idea what they are doing...but they don't want her). She will revert to being just an MP, and some other MP will be chosen to replace her. This all without reference to the people directly.

That's a vastly simplified description, because like cricket there are many more subtleties involved. But hopefully that helps.
Click to expand...
Thanks. This covers mostly stuff I already knew. Unfortunately, it doesn't explain what "unelected" means in this context. The way you describe it (and the way I understand it) all PMs are unelected (or elected, if you prefer). What I still don't see in this is how some PMs get to be "elected", and others get to be "unelected". Darat is clearly trying to communicate information that he finds significant, but I'm still lacking the context to understand what is significant.
 
theprestige said:
Thanks. This covers mostly stuff I already knew. Unfortunately, it doesn't explain what "unelected" means in this context. The way you describe it (and the way I understand it) all PMs are unelected (or elected, if you prefer). What I still don't see in this is how some PMs get to be "elected", and others get to be "unelected". Darat is clearly trying to communicate information that he finds significant, but I'm still lacking the context to understand what is significant.
Click to expand...
OK.

A PM is elected by the people as an MP. That's the end of the people's say in this process of obtaining a PM. What electors usually forget is that they are voting for the party they want, not the PM they want.

An MP may become a PM by means of an election inside the ruling party if that is their process. That election may be party-wide (all members) or just among the MPs themselves - depends on their party rules. So in the sense that an election process was used, s/he would be an "elected" PM.

An MP may become a PM by some other means. For example, the current PM may resign or be sacked or die, and the deputy PM is designated to take the role. Or the party meets and everyone decides that Brother Brutus is bigger and scarier than everyone else so he can have the job if he wants it. Or the opposite: The party knows they are electoral poison so Brother Milquetoast can carry the target for the electors' ire. That is an "unelected" PM.

ETA: As mentioned above, it is possible for a non-MP to become the PM. There are instances of party members who sit in the House of Lords (upper house) being PM.

The significance of the difference depends on what your views are on the process and participants. Like in the USA, some UK citizens don't like the idea that their leader got to be leader even though nobody directly voted for them. They voted for a party expecting Person X whom they like to be leader. Whereas Person Y whom they loathe got to be leader instead and they had no say in it.
 
Last edited:
Norman Alexander said:
OK.

A PM is elected by the people as an MP. That's the end of the people's say in this process of obtaining a PM. What electors usually forget is that they are voting for the party they want, not the PM they want.

An MP may become a PM by means of an election inside the ruling party if that is their process. That election may be party-wide (all members) or just among the MPs themselves - depends on their party rules. So in the sense that an election process was used, s/he would be an "elected" PM.

An MP may become a PM by some other means. For example, the current PM may resign or be sacked or die, and the deputy PM is designated to take the role. Or the party meets and everyone decides that Brother Brutus is bigger and scarier than everyone else so he can have the job if he wants it. Or the opposite: The party knows they are electoral poison so Brother Milquetoast can carry the target for the electors' ire. That is an "unelected" PM.

ETA: As mentioned above, it is possible for a non-MP to become the PM. There are instances of party members who sit in the House of Lords (upper house) being PM.

The significance of the difference depends on what your views are on the process and participants. Like in the USA, some UK citizens don't like the idea that their leader got to be leader even though nobody directly voted for them. They voted for a party expecting Person X whom they like to be leader. Whereas Person Y whom they loathe got to be leader instead and they had no say in it.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Is Darat saying that all PMs are unelected?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom