Not talking about the politics or business of governance, but more the logistics and ceremonies. I know y’all don’t go in for the huge inaugurations that Presidents get - I assume because your Prime Minsters are heads of government, rather than heads of state - but is there any sort of swearing-in or transition of power ceremony? Or does the old PM simply meet the new one on the steps of 10 Downing and say, “Right, here are the keys. Trash comes on Tuesdays, recycling on Thursday, and mind the loo on the second floor - door sticks in warm weather”?
I’m not British, but the Parliament website describes out the process; basically the monarch “invites the winning party’s leader to form a government.”
Pretty much that, no real ceremony other than a visit to the monarch to get it symbolically “rubber stamped”. There’s a photo-op for that but not much else.
After that it’s on with the business of the day, some degree of cabinet re-shuffle and off we go.
It’s all pretty low-key. Bear in mind that it usually happens at the end of an election campaign. Traditionally, the removal lorries are parked outside No 10 and if the current party loses, the outgoing PM moves out immediately and the new one takes over.
Ceremony is minimal and pretty much restricted to a short chat with the King and maybe a brief (and insincere) speech in front of the famous door. The new PM has a busy time in front of them, appointing people to the key cabinet jobs and consulting with the senior Civil Servants who actually run things, so they will want to get stuck in without delay.
Whatever that means.
“Government” in this case being synonymous with what we in America would call “the administration”.
In the Westminster system the executive is taken from members of the house of parliament and (varying by country) upper house / house of lords. This contrasts with the US where the executive is made up of people who are not members of the elected houses.
The monarch invites a member of the house of parliament to form the executive to govern the country. That member who can assure the monarch that they have the confidence of the parliament is appointed the prime minister, the others are the other ministers as nominated by the prime minister, including chancellor of the exchequer (head of treasury) and foreign secretary.
So control of government is a lot more fluid.
The prime minister advises the monarch as to who will fill the ministerial roles, and the monarch, takes that advice and appoints them. There is no other oversight on appointments. Indeed it is generally considered to the the PM’s sole call. However all PMs are mindful of the factional forces at play, and ministries are usually allocated in such a manner as to keep the various power brokers happy - although overt support or opposition for the the PM leading up to their becoming party leader is going to have a significant part to play on who gets what. A PM can sack a minister, and can perform a reshuffle of the ministries at whim. The changes are presented as advice to the monarch who effects the actual changes.
In the face of a leadership change it all just rolls around again, just like after elections it usually takes a day or so to get the PM installed, and the week after the ministers are all announced and (re)appointed. Actual changing of PM during a term of office is historically not a common thing. Recent times have somewhat overturned this.
In Canada coverage would consist of maybe 10 minutes on the 24 hour news channels and a front page picture in the paper the next day.
The process is not just documented in encyclopedias but in numerous pretty darn recent news reports. There have been TWO changes of Prime Minister this year in the United Kingdom. Granted, all three PMs were from the same party and no actual election campaign was involved.
Here’s the “Reservoir Dogs” photo from Pierre Trudeau’s swearing-n in 1968, walking up the driveway to Rideau Hall:
And the colour version of Justin Trudeau’s walk up the same driveway in 2015:
There is a swearing-in ceremony where the PM has to take an oath of office as First Lord of the Treasury, but it happens in private at a Privy Council meeting a few days or weeks after the PM is actually appointed. For Liz Truss, this ended up happening closer to the end of her term than the beginning. (She was supposed to do it the day after her appointment, but the Queen had to cancel the video meeting on the advice of her doctors, which portended even bigger news the next day.)
Once it’s clear who’s won the [general or party leadership] election, the Palace and No.10 officials set up an appointment for the winner to go to the Palace for the formalities, which don’t make much of a ceremony. It’s all arranged so that the new PM can get down to work straight away (it’s customary to hold general elections on a Thursday, which usually - assuming there’s a clear result - allows a new PM and government to get up and running on the Monday).
AFAIK, the monarch isn’t much involved in the formalities of appointing other senior ministers (certainly not the practicalities - the PM sees the individuals, tells them they’re in or out, and their new department’s officials take it from there so that they’re in office and down to work a.s.a.p. ). There may be legalities requiring either parliamentary or Privy Council approval, but that’s treated as everyday business that most of us don’t notice.
Incidentally, an outgoing PM isn’t just turfed out into the street. While it might be embarrassing for them to stay living over their successor’s shop, there have been cases where the new PM has allowed them to stay at Chequers, the official country residence.
Is it fair to say that a change in the Prime Minster is much like when the Speaker of the House changes in the United States? There will certainly be some news coverage, and they’ll have a little ceremony when Nancy Pelosi hands over the gavel to… I don’t think we know for sure yet who. But because the Republicans got in only by a wafer thin margin, and the Senate and presidency are still held by the Democrats, it’s not going to mean anyone expects a radical shift in national policy, unlike what happened in 1994, 2010, and 2018 when the opposition took the House of Representatives by wide margins.
Its the King who has to power to:
-
invite the majority leader in the House of commons after the election to form a government
-
confer the Prime Ministership,
so it all happens at the King’s place. In Australia it is in Government House, with the Governor-General [the King’s rep] doing the honours.
There’s official photos but not much room to have a cheesy string quartet, let alone a tank parade.
In Australia the Ministers are also sworn in by the GG, and last time [incoming Labor government] there was a very nice crowd of partners and young kids in attendance and running into shot at odd moments. Is this same in UK?
No. The Prime Minister has essentially all the power of the POTUS, and in fact slightly more. Since they are the leader of the majority party of the house, the PM is directly involved in making law. PM is essentially the commander of the armed forces (although the formal head varies depending on country.)
Changing PM is tantamount to the party sacking the POTUS and appointing another one. Since there is no equivalent of PM in the US system, nor POTUS in the Westminster system it is hard to provide an exact equivalent. But it is that big a deal.
I think a fitting way to compare the offices is to say the Prime Ministry is “Imagine if the President’s job was to do whatever the Speaker of the House told them to do”, and the Presidency as “Imagine if the King actually got to make his own decisions”.
Here is a dramatisation of when the Queen invited Tony Blair to form a government as a new Prime Minister after having won a General Election. Classy acting from Helen Mirren.
Very formal and short. In this scene the Queen marks Blair’s card. He is just the latest PM in a long line of predecessors that come and go.
‘15 minutes! Good, one does not want to appear rude’.
Executive presidencies in republics tend to adopt the authority and haughty demeanour of a monarch and they are tempted to outstay their welcome. Parliamentary systems recycle their leading politicians much more easily by keeping the political executive and the head of state quite separate.
Yes and no.
Yes, in that the selection procedure and general lack of pomp and ceremony are pretty similar. It’s an intra-party, or at least intra-coalition sort of thing, and the PM is chosen from among the MPs of the party/coalition in power.
No, in that the PM is fundamentally a different position. “Forming a government”, as best as I can tell, means basically all the political appointments that come along with a new presidential administration in the US, and the underlying bureaucracy stays the same for continuity’s sake. So when Rishi Sunak came into power, he appointed his own Cabinet ministers, just like a President would.
And the PM wields a lot more power than the Speaker of the House does.
Isn’t it also routine for anyone who’s likely to take over as Prime Minister to already have all of their picks for the major ministries already chosen, and for that “shadow government” to be getting on-the-job training, as it were, from the current office-holders? That would make the transitions a lot quicker and smoother than they are in the US, where a President’s future cabinet usually isn’t known as of the election, and sometimes not even as of the inauguration.
And as an aside, it still feels surreal to speak of the “King’s” role in all of this.
Why try to use analogies at all?
The two systems are fundamentally different and trying to analogise to the US system is fundamentally inaccurate and confusing.