UK General Discussion:The Rt. Hon Alex Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, Populist Hero

[Hnv1]

So, a brief summary of the constitutional situation.

Raab appears to be have been designated as an emergency stand-in (without the formal title of Deputy PM) but this has no constitutional significance. Neither does the Deputy PM title. If Johnson were to die or be rendered so ill that it is not realistic for him to remain in post, then it is likely that there would be an emergency meeting of the Cabinet and quite probably a vote, or at least an earnest discussion with the same function. The 'winner' would then be nominated to the Queen and there would be some form of virtual kissing of hands.* There is no such thing as an interim PM under British constitutional law; the 'winner' would be PM. At some point there would then be a Conservative leadership election, but it would not be possible to hold one for a while. The 'interim' PM would then resign and be replaced by the winner of the leadership poll, unless that person was the same person.

_{*They do not, actually, kiss the hand of the sovereign anyway. It's just a thing that's said.}

The UK didn't have to deal with a dying Prime Minister since Palmerston.

There were however two interesting cases in Australia, dealing with an interim appointment when the Prime Minister died in office. First in 1945, when the Governor General appointed Labor's Deputy Leader, Frank Forde, as Prime Minister. He served for mere seven days, until Labor held a leadership vote, which he lost to Ben Chifley. If such a scenario were to be implemented then we have a little pickle, as Tories doesn't have a "Deputy Leader" position.

The second example from Australia occurred after Harold Holt's disappearance in 1967. The Governor General appointed John McEwen as Prime Minister. McEwen was the leader of the Country Party, a junior coalition partner to Holt's Liberals, and served under the understanding it'll last only until Liberals picked the new leader. It wouldn't apply either, as BoJo has a majority.

It'd be an interesting situation if it comes to the worst, and the country would be constitutionally leaderless between the Prime Minister's death and the cabinet picking an interim successor.

I assume a meeting will occur within an hour of his death. It’s not like a president, there can be a void in time when there is no PM and we all just pretend the monarch heads the government for an hour.

[Hnv1]

So, a brief summary of the constitutional situation.

Raab appears to be have been designated as an emergency stand-in (without the formal title of Deputy PM) but this has no constitutional significance. Neither does the Deputy PM title. If Johnson were to die or be rendered so ill that it is not realistic for him to remain in post, then it is likely that there would be an emergency meeting of the Cabinet and quite probably a vote, or at least an earnest discussion with the same function. The 'winner' would then be nominated to the Queen and there would be some form of virtual kissing of hands.* There is no such thing as an interim PM under British constitutional law; the 'winner' would be PM. At some point there would then be a Conservative leadership election, but it would not be possible to hold one for a while. The 'interim' PM would then resign and be replaced by the winner of the leadership poll, unless that person was the same person.

_{*They do not, actually, kiss the hand of the sovereign anyway. It's just a thing that's said.}

The UK didn't have to deal with a dying Prime Minister since Palmerston.

There were however two interesting cases in Australia, dealing with an interim appointment when the Prime Minister died in office. First in 1945, when the Governor General appointed Labor's Deputy Leader, Frank Forde, as Prime Minister. He served for mere seven days, until Labor held a leadership vote, which he lost to Ben Chifley. If such a scenario were to be implemented then we have a little pickle, as Tories doesn't have a "Deputy Leader" position.

The second example from Australia occurred after Harold Holt's disappearance in 1967. The Governor General appointed John McEwen as Prime Minister. McEwen was the leader of the Country Party, a junior coalition partner to Holt's Liberals, and served under the understanding it'll last only until Liberals picked the new leader. It wouldn't apply either, as BoJo has a majority.

It'd be an interesting situation if it comes to the worst, and the country would be constitutionally leaderless between the Prime Minister's death and the cabinet picking an interim successor.

I assume a meeting will occur within an hour of his death. It’s not like a president, there can be a void in time when there is no PM and we all just pretend the monarch heads the government for an hour.

Well. technically the monarch never ceased to be the head of the governnment

Exactly, hence there isn’t really a void. If needed the monarch can name Raab/someone for an hour until cabinet choose a temp, but this is really unnecessary, it’s not a nuclear war here you need a strong PM.

I would go to the radical experiment of just breaking down collective responsibility and have the different ministries account to parliament on their own like in the 18th century with Raab only chairing the covid cabinet. A strong PM was not always a requirement

[Hnv1]

In true british fashion this whole fiasco has emerged because Gordon Brown had a feud with Harriet Harman & didn't want to make her deputy prime minister- and then wanted to make Mandelson deputy prime minister without the title so made him 'First Secretary of State'

I'm not a constitional historian/scholar or expert but we really should have some sort of codified succession; I never understand why the position of Deputy Prime Minister was not made virtually obligtatory & beefed up with the explicit understanding that they can take over the reins.

The latest rumour is that the Cabinet Office has a 'document' which deals with the national security implications of a succession or lack of in some sort of similar event; of course most of these probably date from the Cold War or from post 9/11 plans.

I assume to avoid the scenario where the second in line always undermines the PM knowing he gets the job automatically

[Hnv1]

In true british fashion this whole fiasco has emerged because Gordon Brown had a feud with Harriet Harman & didn't want to make her deputy prime minister- and then wanted to make Mandelson deputy prime minister without the title so made him 'First Secretary of State'

I'm not a constitional historian/scholar or expert but we really should have some sort of codified succession; I never understand why the position of Deputy Prime Minister was not made virtually obligtatory & beefed up with the explicit understanding that they can take over the reins.

The latest rumour is that the Cabinet Office has a 'document' which deals with the national security implications of a succession or lack of in some sort of similar event; of course most of these probably date from the Cold War or from post 9/11 plans.

Good points. The positions of Deputy Prime Minister and/or¹ First Secretary of State are legally nothing more than honorary titles, denoting honorary precedence over other cabinet members. The UK clearly needs a proper legislation to have someone who's clearly second in the chain of command and who can fully take over in the time of emergency. Right now all you have is the PM saying "this guy will deputize for me", which is both vague and lacking a firm legal basis.

I mean, let's imagine the Prime Minister died and before the cabinet agrees on an interim appointment to take over until a leadership election something big happens that would require the Prime Minister to make an instant decision. Who's going to make that decision? The cabinet at large or will they go to the Queen and ask her to do it in a violation of the constitutional convention?

¹ It becomes even "funnier" when you have two diffrent people serving as Deputy PM and First Secretary at the same time.

The PM office was only acknowledged by the fixed term parliament act, till then it was a complete fiction of the first lord of the treasury

[Hnv1]

The household visit ban seems questionable if you can meet up with someone at a pub or restaurant. The actual distances involved wouldn't change. You might well be further apart in a house or garden.

We have those now. Unenforceable ban

[Hnv1]

Ironically he was getting praised at the dispatch box last week as the 'sensible' metro Mayor...

He’s not the metro mayor, he’s the mayor of Liverpool, there’s a (new)mayor for the Liverpool metro.

Part for Burnham. None of the new mayors make any noise whatsoever

[Hnv1]

With schools and universities now shut for the foreseeable future, it’s difficult to see how the restrictions can practically be made stricter, short of ‘well if we self-nuked the country then that would prevent anymore COVID-related deaths’.

Our first lock-down had us stay within 500 meters of our home, no visits to others even if they live next door, and closing any nonessential business with more than 10 employees.

[Hnv1]

With schools and universities now shut for the foreseeable future, it’s difficult to see how the restrictions can practically be made stricter, short of ‘well if we self-nuked the country then that would prevent anymore COVID-related deaths’.

Our first lock-down had us stay within 500 meters of our home, no visits to others even if they live next door, and closing any nonessential business with more than 10 employees.

My understanding (correct me if I’m wrong) is that your lockdown was partly enforced by the Israeli Defence Force? That would not be acceptable in this country, and even if it were the British Army doesn’t have the men to enforce it nationwide.

no, it wasn't. some home front soldiers were attached to the blue police unit to help with various things, but enforcement remained in police hands. The MI helped the health ministry conduct epidemiological investigations, and some military technological measures were used to track quarantine breakers. But always the final call was in civilian hands.

The first lockdown saw a really high level of compliance regardless of enforcement, the second saw mass rebellion that even martial law wouldn't have solved.

[Hnv1]

With schools and universities now shut for the foreseeable future, it’s difficult to see how the restrictions can practically be made stricter, short of ‘well if we self-nuked the country then that would prevent anymore COVID-related deaths’.

Our first lock-down had us stay within 500 meters of our home, no visits to others even if they live next door, and closing any nonessential business with more than 10 employees.

My understanding (correct me if I’m wrong) is that your lockdown was partly enforced by the Israeli Defence Force? That would not be acceptable in this country, and even if it were the British Army doesn’t have the men to enforce it nationwide.

no, it wasn't. some home front soldiers were attached to the blue police unit to help with various things, but enforcement remained in police hands. The MI helped the health ministry conduct epidemiological investigations, and some military technological measures were used to track quarantine breakers. But always the final call was in civilian hands.

The first lockdown saw a really high level of compliance regardless of enforcement, the second saw mass rebellion that even martial law wouldn't have solved.

Ah okay, thanks for the clarification. Yes, compliance was also much higher in our first lockdown than in the second, although the second was far less stringent so the lines between what was and wasn’t illegal were a bit blurry. Rereading your first comment, as far as I’m aware all nonessential businesses have been ordered to close this time around, whilst a 500m rule would not be enforceable because a lot of people don’t have access to a supermarket/chemist within that distance.

You could leave the 500m to shop for essentials as long as you stayed within your municipality. But again it boils down to the good faith of the citizens, it's nearly impossible to enforce a full lockdown by force.

Our second lockdown fell apart as orthodox jews decided to openly defy it to keep their educational institutions closed and the government just did nothing

[Hnv1]

Can we expect a England beats Germany boost for Boris?

I wonder if Wilson’s government became more popular in polls after 66