Our next unelected PM?

[arthwollipot]

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.

In essence it means that someone becomes the leader of the party that forms government without having led that party in a general election.

Tony Abbott was the leader of the Australian Liberal Party at the time of the 2013 election. The Liberal Party formed government and he therefore became the "elected" Prime Minister. The electorate put the party in power while he was leader. Later, he was ousted as leader and Malcolm Turnbull became the leader, and thus the PM. He became PM without leading the party during an election - he was therefore "unelected".

Later still, Turnbull led the party during the 2016 election. The Liberal Party again formed government and he became the "elected" Prime Minister, because he led the party during the general election. He was then ousted in favour of Scott Morrison, who became the "unelected" Prime Minister. Morrrison then led the party during the 2019 election and became the "elected" Prime Minister.

Is this clearer? Someone who leads the party during a general election becomes an "elected" Prime Minister, while someone who becomes Prime Minister without having led the party during a general election is "unelected".

It should be noted that "elected" and "unelected" are informal terms only. Formally and legally, there is just the Prime Minister and it doesn't matter whether they were "elected" or not.

 

[Puppycow]

I have no special insight. But I think the chances of a No Deal Brexit probably went up a lot.

 

[theprestige]

In essence it means that someone becomes the leader of the party that forms government without having led that party in a general election.

Tony Abbott was the leader of the Australian Liberal Party at the time of the 2013 election. The Liberal Party formed government and he therefore became the "elected" Prime Minister. The electorate put the party in power while he was leader. Later, he was ousted as leader and Malcolm Turnbull became the leader, and thus the PM. He became PM without leading the party during an election - he was therefore "unelected".

Later still, Turnbull led the party during the 2016 election. The Liberal Party again formed government and he became the "elected" Prime Minister, because he led the party during the general election. He was then ousted in favour of Scott Morrison, who became the "unelected" Prime Minister. Morrrison then led the party during the 2019 election and became the "elected" Prime Minister.

Is this clearer? Someone who leads the party during a general election becomes an "elected" Prime Minister, while someone who becomes Prime Minister without having led the party during a general election is "unelected".

It should be noted that "elected" and "unelected" are informal terms only. Formally and legally, there is just the Prime Minister and it doesn't matter whether they were "elected" or not.

Gotcha, thanks. That's the nuance that was escaping me.

 

[arthwollipot]

Gotcha, thanks. That's the nuance that was escaping me.

Glad to be able to help.

 

[The Don]

I have no special insight. But I think the chances of a No Deal Brexit probably went up a lot.

IMO it hasn't changed one bit

The only possible outcomes IMO are no deal and no Brexit. The latter, though almost certainly the least damaging economically is apparently impossible politically despite the fact that most MPs are against no-deal. OTOH no-deal is not only politically acceptable (at least until the economic chickens come home to roost but at that point in time others will be blamed), it's also the default outcome so IMO it is now, and has always been, a near-certainty.

[PrivateFrazer]We're doooooooooooooomed !!!111!!!1!!![/PrivateFrazer]

 

[Puppycow]

IMO it hasn't changed one bit
The only possible outcomes IMO are no deal and no Brexit. The latter, though almost certainly the least damaging economically is apparently impossible politically despite the fact that most MPs are against no-deal. OTOH no-deal is not only politically acceptable (at least until the economic chickens come home to roost but at that point in time others will be blamed), it's also the default outcome so IMO it is now, and has always been, a near-certainty.

[PrivateFrazer]We're doooooooooooooomed !!!111!!!1!!![/PrivateFrazer]

I was thinking of another referendum. Which ultimately could lead to either of those, but it would be a way for the people to confirm whether Brexit is still what they want. The problem is, as I see it, that while a majority did vote for Brexit, what kind of Brexit was left to decide later. I doubt that all of the people who voted for Brexit believed that they were voting for a No Deal Brexit. I think they deserve to be asked a second time, with exactly what Brexit means spelled out, and not left to work out later.

But, if the next PM is a determined Brexiteer, they may just opt for a no-deal Brexit. I don't think any "new and improved deal" significantly different from May's deal is available.

 

[Ambrosia]

IMO it hasn't changed one bit

The only possible outcomes IMO are no deal and no Brexit.
[ no-deal is] also the default outcome so IMO it is now, and has always been, a near-certainty.

I'm still fairly optmistic that there won't be any major decisions on no-deal or no brexit until there has been a 2nd referendum, or "confirmatory vote" or whatever they want to call it.

While yes the new tory PM is likely to be an ardent Brexiteer, the numbers haven't changed in the HoC and about the only thing parliament agreed on was no deal was unacceptable. The tories still have a razor thin majority that they need the DUP for, both Tories and Labour were eviscerated in the recent EU elections and the vote split roughly 40% for Brexit 40% against Brexit and 20% "other"

Within both the main parties MPs and party members are split roughly 50/50 on Brexit so there's no clear majority for anything.

There's no way in hell the new PM will call a snap GE (mores the pity) but I don't think they will be able to avoid calls for a 2nd referendum.

I'd hope that once the tories candidates are down to the final 2 one will be a remainer and one will be a Brexiteer, but that might be a little too optimistic.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm still fairly optmistic that there won't be any major decisions on no-deal or no brexit until there has been a 2nd referendum, or "confirmatory vote" or whatever they want to call it.

While yes the new tory PM is likely to be an ardent Brexiteer, the numbers haven't changed in the HoC and about the only thing parliament agreed on was no deal was unacceptable. The tories still have a razor thin majority that they need the DUP for, both Tories and Labour were eviscerated in the recent EU elections and the vote split roughly 40% for Brexit 40% against Brexit and 20% "other"

But it is easier to sink negotiations and not worry about legislation and get no deal that way. It is after all the thing that needs to be prevented rather than something that needs to win any kind of vote. So unless an acceptable alternative appears it does seem inevitable.

 

[ponderingturtle]

What seems to be the biggest difference between america and Britain is that the executive and legislative are not as separate. So the head of a government agency is also an MP and the PM is in a lot of ways chosen more like out Speaker of the House than our president.

 

[The Don]

I'm still fairly optmistic that there won't be any major decisions on no-deal or no brexit until there has been a 2nd referendum, or "confirmatory vote" or whatever they want to call it.

While yes the new tory PM is likely to be an ardent Brexiteer, the numbers haven't changed in the HoC and about the only thing parliament agreed on was no deal was unacceptable. The tories still have a razor thin majority that they need the DUP for, both Tories and Labour were eviscerated in the recent EU elections and the vote split roughly 40% for Brexit 40% against Brexit and 20% "other"

Within both the main parties MPs and party members are split roughly 50/50 on Brexit so there's no clear majority for anything.

There's no way in hell the new PM will call a snap GE (mores the pity) but I don't think they will be able to avoid calls for a 2nd referendum.

I'd hope that once the tories candidates are down to the final 2 one will be a remainer and one will be a Brexiteer, but that might be a little too optimistic.

Regarding the highlighted, they may average out at 50/50 but Labour splits 70/30 Remain and the Conservatives are 70/30 Leave.

 

[Francesca R]

The only possible outcomes IMO are no deal and no Brexit.

Other possibilities are 1) a deal 2) a delay again 3) a general election and 4) another referendum

Regarding 1), a demand from next PM (let's assume Boris for now but it doesn't matter) for concessions from the EU is more likely to elicit them than another demand from Theresa May would have been. A brexiteer PM who is credibly more tolerant of no deal has more leverage with the EU and no deal is still highly unpalatable to the EU because of a) no financial settlement and b) it would probably fall to the EU to put up a customs border in Ireland. I don't think this increased leverage over the EU will be enough, but I think it has risen from the May days.

2) The possibility of delay arises from any of the EU and UK mutually balking at a no deal ultimatum, and from 3) and 4)

3) I understand that it would take 7 Tory MPs to quit the party to deprive Tory/DUP of its de-facto majority. That seems like a long shot and it is although 3 quit already to ultimately join Change UK. I don't think it really matters that Change UK backfired significantly as a party, resigning MPs would know that the reason they would do this now would be to bring down the government and that that would succeed if they have the numbers. (It would of course take less than 7 if Sinn Fein opted even temporarily to take their seats and help bring down the government. I have seen nothing to suggest this, though it must be awfully tempting and it could certainly be seen as acting in Irish republican interests)

4) The likelihood of this without 3) seems vanishingly small.

All in all I think the probability of no deal on 31/10/19 has risen to almost 50% but remains below that.

 

[Francesca R]

the numbers haven't changed in the HoC and about the only thing parliament agreed on was no deal was unacceptable.

It only just agreed on that (by three votes IIRC), and HM Government does not have to take any notice. One PM's "ignoring the will of the house" may be another's "refusing to wimpishly relinquish control/authority to MPs"

 

[The Don]

Other possibilities are 1) a deal 2) a delay again 3) a general election and 4) another referendum

Yes, those are other possibilities regarding each of those in turn....

1. A Deal

Both of the two main parties have red lines in place which prevents either EEA membership or Customs Union membership and there appears to be no movement on those. Parliament has repeatedly rejected Theresa May's deal and refused anything softer.

2. A Delay Again

This isn't an outcome IMO - it's delaying an outcome. At the end of all the delays there will be an outcome and IMO there are only two alternatives no-deal or no-Brexit

3. A General Election

This only comes into play if the general election occurs before the end of the delay period.

If the Conservatives win the election, they will press ahead with a no-deal. If the Brexit Party wins the election, they will press ahead with a no-deal. If the LibDems win the election they will cancel Brexit. If Labour wins then it's unclear what may happen but the inability to get a deal through and Labour's adherence to Brexit means that we're back at no-deal or no-Brexit as the outcomes.

4. Another referendum

The leaderships of the two largest parties do not want a referendum because it might imperil their Brexit aims. Parliament has been repeatedly asked and has rejected the idea.

Labour would apparently want a referendum if we were heading towards a no deal - which leaves us with the same pair of outcomes, no-deal or no-Brexit.


IMO we still ultimately end up with no-deal, no-Brexit or a choice between the two.

 

[Francesca R]

1. A Deal

My thinking is that greater concession from the EU (pretty much over the backstop) would be sufficiently more likely to pass the house that it stands a decent chance of succeeding where May x 3 failed

3. A General Election

This only comes into play if the general election occurs before the end of the delay period.

Oh absolutely. Tory MPs have to defect quite soon after the leadership election. Even then the 31/10 deadline does not officially change, but I think it would lapse, and a few different bets than no deal are back on.

 

[Tolls]

What would be changed over the backstop that wouldn't result in it being a pointless thing?

 

[ponderingturtle]

What would be changed over the backstop that wouldn't result in it being a pointless thing?

An actual plan to resolve the Irish border. This is totally impossible so really the only thing that can be done is tearing up the good Friday agreement. And that is sure to help long term British negotiating power.

 

[dudalb]

Hey, an "Unlected" PM is what you get when you have a Parlimentary form of government.
Don't know hat Darat meant by that;I know the last few elections have not gone the way Darat wanted but still, short of moving to something closer to the American System the PM will contiuet to be "unelected".

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Sajid Javid and Esther McVey think it's within their powers to deny self-determination to a nation of the UK. That will go down well with the Engnats that they are pandering to.

 

[The Don]

Sajid Javid and Esther McVey think it's within their powers to deny self-determination to a nation of the UK. That will go down well with the Engnats that they are pandering to.

For a unionist party, the Conservatives have been going about it completely the wrong way.....

Scotland and Norn Iron have got the message. For some reason the Welsh seem wedded to Brexit

 

[The Don]

Hey, an "Unlected" PM is what you get when you have a Parlimentary form of government.
Don't know hat Darat meant by that;I know the last few elections have not gone the way Darat wanted but still, short of moving to something closer to the American System the PM will contiuet to be "unelected".

Typically, a party leader who is successfully elected to PM will see out their term. It tends to be when they lose an election that the party leadership changes.