What if scenarios are always enjoyable, so let's start the day with this one...
Scenario: Five Cabinet Ministers visit Gordon Brown to tell him he no longer enjoys the support of the Cabinet. He realises the game is up and agrees he will step down but makes clear that he will go immediately and not stay in office until a successor is elected - something that would take at least two months.
Question: what happens then?
Would the Queen be duty bound to call upon Harriet Harman, as deputy leader, to take over in the interim?
I only ask, because if that is the case, then this could be the very thing that saves Gordon Brown's skin. Labour MPs would be horrified. Whatever they think of Brown personally, or as a leader, few of them believe Harriet Harman would be the person to guide the country through two months of economic turmoil. At least in that they would be in tune with most of the country.
On a related note, Brown's defensive position seeems to be that he was a hugely successful chancellor and is therefore best qualified to see us through this economic turmoil. Some private polling I have been told about would suggest that is not quite how the Great British Public sees it. Nine months ago a huge majority of people thought he had been a very successful chancellor. The same question was put a few weeks ago and the figure had dropped to fewer than one on five.
40 comments:
Only politicians and media idiots who have no clue about finanace have ever thought brown was any good as chancellor.
anyone with a passing knowledge of economics KNOWS he was a disaster in No 11
Under Labour party rules the cabinet and NEC would come up with a new temporary leader. The deputy leader does not automatically step up when Labour are in power.
No, Brown would most likely stay on until a new party leader had been found, which would give al-Beeb six weeks to extoll the virues of the Glorious Leader.
I don't think that it would go to her as a result of her being deputy leader of the Labour Party, as that is not a Government position. However, am I right in thinking that Leader of the House is the second in the order of precedence in the Cabinet... therefore the Queen might have to appoint her on that basis.
"Would the Queen be duty bound to call upon Harriet Harman, as deputy leader, to take over in the interim?"
no
Choosing Harriet as a PM would be rather like the US nationalising AIG - the lesser of two evils. It would also increase Call-me-Dave's majority to levels that only King Croesus could have dreamed of.
"Nine months ago a huge majority of people thought he had been a very successful chancellor. The same question was put a few weeks ago and the figure had dropped to fewer than one on five."
The very thing that is now killing him. It was nothing but a sleight of hand to borrow like crazy from our unborn descendants. A pity it's taken 'til the last nine months for the GBP to wake up to the fraud.
Perhaps the Queen will ask Lloyds TSB to mount a 'rescue takeover' of the Government, with Eric Daniels as pro-tem Prime Minister !!
If the PM is First Lord of the Treasury, is Second Lord of the Treasury (the Chancellor) not 2nd in line?
Even Polly Toynbee is now writing that Gordon was a useless Chancellor and is responsible for the mess we are now in.
Anonymous 10.05 has correctly reported the provisions under the Labour Party rules. These, however, have never been tested in terms of the constitutional position. The Queen would likely invite the temporary leader to form an interim government, creating a precedent.
The position of party deputy leader does not mean that the holder of the office succeeds the leader in the event of a vacancy. The same applies to the position of Deputy Prime Minister. If a minister is appointed to that office, the position is the same as any other Cabinet minister.
The Palace would (and is probably already) taking soundings from the Labour Party on would happen if Iain's theory plays out. Harman would not take the PM's position as of right because her title is not a constitutional one. It is far more likely that Straw as Lord Chancellor would be closely consulted over the course of action.
The more likely outcome would be the the Palace would put great pressure on Brown to remain until a successor is chosen, as happen when Wilson stood down in 1976.
In theory of course the Queen can call whom ever she chooses when a PM resigns, so long as that person commends a majority in the HoC. It is this point that probably precludes Harman in this circumstance.
The Queen would ask around, including the Labour Chief Whip, and make up her own mind about who had a chance of commanding a majority in the House of Commons.
Presumably she would be told by whoever she asked, and by the Chief Whip, that Harriet Harman couldn't do it.
The Queen would then call on her choice and ask her/him to try.
Let's remember the Queen is paid the big bucks for her skill in just such a circumstance. By all accounts she's up to it.
Tony
I am sure that HH would be a lot worse that GB I agree with that. I am sure what is holding many rebels back is the fact that the outcry from the media and people (Let alone the Queen's experienced opinion) will be so great that a second unelected leader will have to call for a general election immediately and the result could easily be total melt down of the labour party ... Rule Britannia. Unfortunately GB and his bunch of losers will hold on to their salaries etc until the bitter end, regardless of the damage to the UK they have done or will do.
Roll on next week - such fun watching them squabble
As to your related note. GB as chancellor inherited a very good economic position. History will show us that he spent it all and then borrowed and so the next conservative Govt will have a big problem getting things back in shape.
Still as many as one in five! You surprise me.
I suspect history will be savage about Brown's record as chancellor, in terms of
- how much money was raised through tax, borrowing and assets sales,
- how that money was raised,
- how that money was spent,
- his over-regulation of most of the private sector
- accompanied by an incompetent lack of regulation of the banking sector that resulted in banks encouraging individuals to be every bit as reckless as the Government when it comes to borrowing and spending.
The only miraculous thing is that Brown got away with it for so long as Chancellor.
Anonymous 10.24
"Even Polly Toynbee is now writing that Gordon was a useless Chancellor and is responsible for the mess we are now in."
My, isn't hindsight a wonderful thing...duh!
Socialist and good economic manager is a oxymoron. If a socialist knew how to manage an economy they would be a conservative.
If we assume that Brown is too stubborn to resign, but sees the writing on the wall, could he not "throw his toys out of the pram" and call an election to ensure that he doesn't have a Labour Prime Minister above him. He could then not stand as an MP and get a job in finance due to his pre-eminence(ironic laughter) in this field.
Fear of HH as default leader is an interesting theory; it would also explain why John Prescott was the deputy PM for so long ;-)
Who knows - if the Labour party went to HM again so soon, she might exercise her power to dissolve Parliament and let us choose...
Surely what is saving him is the knwoledge that Labour would have to go to the Polls.
Her Majesty should feel duty bound to note that her government no longer has the support of the electorate and that Parliament should be immediately dissolved.
What if .... all those journalists and commentators who told us what a brilliant Chancellor GB was now apologised?
I'll not bother holding my breath.
Every time I hear a minister say how good a chancellor Gordon Brown was, I wish an interviewer would respond by asking whether Brown might not have been better staying at the Treasury then. Being PM requires a far wider skill set--including being able to communicate effectively, to lead and manage colleagues, to take responsibility for errors in a way that clarified future directions--than being Chancellor (and, indeed, there was ample evidence from 1997-2007, to leave one wondering whether Brown had those skills).
Howard is right, the deputy pm has no constitutional status. HM is only obliged to pick someone who can command a majority in the Commons - could even be you Iain
The Labour party Rule Book says that when in office and the leader who is ex officio prime minister becomes, for whatever reason, permanently unavailable , the Cabinet chooses a new Leader.
Whether the Head of State would feel bound to call on the Cabinet-chosen new Leader is unknown. After all, the Queen isn't in a constitutional relationship with the Labour party Rule Book. Even the Labour party has just demonstrated that it isn't either.
As the Cabinet is a committee of the Privy Council, it is likely wider consultations within the Privy Council would take place, including consulting members of the other parties. As this government is coming to the end of the five-year term, it might be felt best to call a general election. The cabinet-chosen Leader would then take Labour into the election unless Labour could organize a quick Party election. Unless Labour chose to ignore its Rule Book again; they often do.
The posts at 10.32 and 10.33 are correct. In such circs, the Queen chooses who to ask. Her principal source of advice would in fact be the outgoing PM, who would probably want to suggest someone who had assured him that he/she would not a candidate for the permanent position and then get all the other big guns in the cabinet to agree it. If Jack Straw wasn't going to stand he would be a shoe-in.
But I agree that GB would stay until the process were completed, unless he was incapacitated from carrying on, i.e. effectively had had a break-down. I have a fairly low opinion of GB but not so low as to think that he would not realise that he had a duty to the Monarch and the country to do that.
If it was done on the basis of order of precedence, the Lord Chancellor outranks all other Cabinet members.
Until very recently, the holder of the post of Lord Chancellor would not have come into the equation in a caretaker PM scenario as they would invariably have been in the Lords rather than the Commons.
As the current Lord Chancellor is however is both first in order of precedence and a member of the Commons, there is no question in my mind that the Queen would call on Jack Straw in the event of such a vacancy.
Harman is about the only Labour character who could actually do worse than Brown.
But then Brown wouldn't appoint her as Deputy PM. Presumably Brown could resign as Party Leader whilst staying on as PM as long as his party wanted him to.
People seem to have forgotten - talented or not, Harriet Harman is the only person ever to have won a contested Labour Party election under the current rules. She has huge support within the party. God help us all if she does become PM, but don't bet against her.
No, the Cabinet would nominate a temporary successor.
Labour Party Rule Book, Chapter 4, Article B, Section 2 (E) (i) states: “When the party is in government and the party leader is prime minister and the party leader, for whatever reason, becomes permanently unavailable, the Cabinet shall, in consultation with the NEC, appoint one of its members to serve as party leader until a ballot under these rules can be carried out.”
Trouble is, the scenario presented by Iain assumes that five cabinet ministers have a backbone - very unlikely. Nor is the Labour rule book route a very likely definistration process.
So what is a likely?
Resolutely ignored by most of the commentariat, there is Parliament itself.
Gordon's majority is only 61. That means only 31 MPs need to vote against the Government on a confidence vote and more than this number have already called on him to go. This very nearly happened over the Budget (with the 10p issue) and explains why Gordon had no choice but to cave in.
If he had lost that vote he would have ceased to be PM immediately. His only option, if he thought he had the support of the electorate, would have been to ask the Queen for a dissolution of Parliament, which she would be obliged to consider but not necessarily to grant. My bet is that this is how Gordon's end will come, probably over the pre-budget report.
No.
As with Blair, Thatcher and Wilson, they would announce an intention to resign when a replacement had been chosen by the party.
The interesting question which has not been tested since all the parties intorduced leadership elections is what would happen if a PM died in office. The US has a clear priority to deal with this and it is something we should probably replicate here. I am sure that in this case Broon would have to stay on until the result of an election for his replacement. Not sure, though, whether that would not be even more of a disaster than HH in charge...
Deputy leader of the party does not mean deputy PM. The cabinet would have to elect a de facto temporary leader - and I suspect their thoughts would be 'anybody but Harman'.
Given Browns Macavity tendencies I think your suggested scenario has some traction, but the likely beneficiary would be Straw.
Perhaps not. IIRC, Margaret Beckett was interim leader after John Smith's death on 1994 was she not?
She did nothing of import and if Harperson could be persuaded to do the same, it might actually do some good.
At least it would stop the Jonah infecting anybody else. (He opened Bank of Scotland's offices aswell!)
No point speculating. GB is both at the same too arrogant and too dense to go, even if pressured. It's going to take something really cataclysmic to winkle the b*****d out. And when that happens there will just have to be a general election. We'll be PM-less in the interregnum.
...and it's just struck me that the cataclysm will be probably be financial. This will blow open the whole tax 'n spend nonsense and the agenda for the hustings will be on austerity, tax cuts, public spending cuts etc. Or we'll nationalise everything, stoke up the Stasification and become the peoples republic. Take your pick.
Harriet Harman. Ugh.
Last year at the Labour party conference Harman got absolutely plastered on beer that cost £7 a pint (paid for by the taxpayer of course) and had to be literally carried to her room, and all this the night before her keynote speech. Not the sort of person I'd like to have in charge...
but then again, as someone who hates Labour, perhaps we should wish for her to be in charge?
Its always been amazing that people should see the man a a good, let alone a fantastic, chancellor - the wonder is that more people could not see that his actions from pensions theft, through giving away our gold, incessant tax rises etc etc was only heading for disaster. - It has, and boy what a disaster!
John Moss 2.18pm writes: "IIRC, Margaret Beckett was interim leader after John Smith's death on 1994 was she not? She did nothing of import
Apart from lead the Labour Party to a thumping triumph in the 1994euro-election campaign, that is.
Post a Comment