British Dopers: What happens when you have a new Prime Minister?

Factual Questions
41

Yes, in Australia some people got quite peeved (or pretended to be) in the nineties when the governing progressive party decided to change leaders. Let’s name names, if that’s permissible – I refer to the caucus of the Rudd Labor Government, which decided to call a spill of leadership positions. After this Julia Gillard replaced Kevin Rudd as party leader, and therefore Prime Minister.

The Opposition Leader at the time, Tony Abbott, made a great fuss about how the Australian people had been unable to vote directly for whomever they would like as PM. Abbott claimed that Kevin Rudd deserved to be treated with more respect, not just cast aside, etc. Abbott knew well, however, that PMs are not directly elected. As has been explained much better than I can: after a general election, the party (or several parties in coalition) who can command a working majority of the House of Representatives get/s to form the government. The head of this party or coalition thus becomes the PM. (Of course this person also has a seat in the House of Reps.)

My point being – people only get to vote directly for their local member of parliament. They don’t get to vote directly for the PM. (OK, they get to vote for the representatives of their state in the Senate as well, but we won’t go there.) This fact illustrates one of the main differences between a parliamentary and a presidential system. Of course Abbott, as an experienced parliamentarian, would have been well aware of this. Some would dismiss his protests therefore as hypocritical mischief-making. As the line from ‘House of Cards’ goes, “You might very well think that, but I couldn’t possibly comment”.

42

My bad, I should have said 2010 or so. Mea culpa.

43

Wow! That is quite the West Wing knock-off, isn’t it.

One of the small joys of parliamentary democracy is the door-stopping and grilling of MPs by journos when they turn up for the day at parliament. Being asked about some drama or other, often while they are in their cycling gear, or looking very slept in, and have not even digested the news and having to say something, always seemed to me the opposite of this confected media stage-management.

44

Sort of yes, in that the formal government opposition party in Parliament (currently Kier Starmer’s Labour Party) appoint a shadow cabinet of ministers to hold their opposition number to account, in the famously adversarial court of the House of Commons. Although the ‘on the job’ training likely comes more from civil servants than opposition politicians.

The system is also greatly helped by permanent civil servants in each government department who do most of the actual work of government, and keep the ship afloat and teach the new comers the ropes during any transition.

45

Ministers [and shadow ministers or spokespeople] are rarely technically expert in their portfolio or more than one part of it, so they rely a lot on their staffers. These may be drawn from civil servants but are usually careerist policy advisers, often with an industry / lobbyist background. At least in Australia there is poor oversight of their role and how they interact with private interests.

There are, or should be, clear lines of separation between them and civil service staff. Its part of the subtext of The Thick of It, where there is a constant encroachment into the public sector domain by political staffers.

46

Yes, the significance of “special advisers” (‘spads"), PR people and ministers’ personal office staff, as distinct from the professional civil servants, has been a persistently grumbling issue in the UK for decades.

But there is a clear divide between the political posts in a ministry and the professional. AIUI, in the period between formally calling a general election and the results, government goes into what’s known as “purdah” - only the most routine and anodyne of business goes through to publication - nothing that could look like ministers using the civil service for election campaigning. However, there will be a small unit at senior level in each department working out how the parties’ manifestoes might be made to work (and quietly asking the relevant party spokespeople about priorities, etc), and incorporating that into their briefings for the post-election ministers. And whoever those may be will never be told what might have been worked up for The Other Lot.

47

We’re about six weeks from entering the caretaker period before our next state election. From then, until the new government is formed government departments are only supposed to undertake non-political functions, and no decisions made that lock in a future government.

Each department produces a forward program based on the two main parties’ platforms [in our case incumbent Liberal, and Labor], and analysis of how to deliver their campaign promises. Being dutiful public servants we serve the government of the day offering frank and fearless advice.

48

When Prime Minister Macmillan resigned suddenly in 1963, on the eve of the Party Conference, ostensibly on grounds of ill-health, it was doubtful who the obvious successor would be. It is widely thought that he timed it to ensure his great rival, R.A. ‘Rab’ Butler, would not get the job. Two possible candidates, Lord Hailsham and Lord Home, were seen as disqualified by their membership of the House of Lords - both quickly moved to disclaim their peerages for life, thanks to an opportune law recently promoted by Anthony Wedgwood-Benn, for his own reasons. Macmillan ‘advised’ the Queen to send for Home - just how much the Queen’s own judgement was involved in this has not yet emerged.

49

This is what I find interesting. Doing the math - in Canada, a majority is, say, about 170 MPs. say 50 in cabinet and similar posts, another 50 in assorted assistant cabinet positions, heads of committees, etc. And many of the rest are behaving themselves hoping to move up. Only a few accept they will never be anything more than backbenchers.

Contrast that with Britain, where if you do the same math - over 300 in a majority, 100 positions, maybe up to 100 hoping to move up. That still leaves 100 or more backbenchers who know they have no hope of moving up and less willing to knuckle under to the party whip if they are offended by their government’s direction, and more capable of forming dissenting blocs. The bigger the majority, the more malcontents. IMHO this is why you see more turmoil in Britain than in Canada’s parliament.

On certain bills (esp. budget bills), if the government loses, they must call an election. So a dissenting bunch in the ruling party can threaten the “nuclear option” if they hold enough votes to defeat a bill.

Also, while Canadian ridings have nomination meetings to choose their candidate for the party, the top brass have been known to twist arms and also to refuse to accept nominations. So unless someone is well loved and runs as an independent (or does so to commit political suicide) you need the support of the leader to run in the next election. This is another limit on free thinking backbenchers.

Contrast that with the USA where anyone can vote any way on anything and the executive is still there. Local nominations - by primary - are fairly immune to the DNC or RNC interference.

Indeed, when Pierre Trudeau was aware of his unpopularity and almost ran out the clock in 1979, there was speculation that the rules said the parliament could only sit for 5 years before their terms expired, but there was no rule about having to call an election within that time - speculation is he could wait any length of time longer. (Shades of Cromwell…) However, he did not wait. I gather the party realistically saw that delay was never improving their polls.

Yes… not new. (Pierre) Trudeau was infamous for his arrogance back in the 1970’s, and there were complaints that the Privy Council and PMO (Prime Minster’s Office) basically a cabal of insiders, many not elected, made decisions and party discipline pretty much forced the backbenchers and the rest to go along. it hasn’t gotten much better since then.

50

Career civil servants doing most of the work of actually doing what the government does are also a feature of the US system. And, I suspect, the system of every other country in the world, as well.

51

Except the concept of career civil servant goes much higher in the parliamentary systems than in the US system: to the Deputy Ministers (Canada) or Permanent Under-Secretaries (UK). Those don’t change automatically with a change of government, and if a change is desired, it doesn’t need parliamentary approval.

Contrast to the US system, where there are approximately 1,200 positions which need Senate approval, going down two or three levels into the administration of a department. Those are political appointments, not public service.

And nearly two years in, Biden still hasn’t got all of his nominees in place, according to the Washington Post:

There’s no parallel to that level of politics in the civil service in Westminster type parliamentary systems, to the best of my knowledge.

52

Joe Clark was Prime Minister of Canada for 9 months before he lost the next election in 1980 in a minority government situation. He was gone from the party leadership within a few years. While sniping from Brian Mulroney may have been a part of why, snide comments were that much of the party discontent was that he had 9 months and failed to replace the Liberal appointees with Conservative ones. Canada has a plethora of government appointees above and beyond the civil service ranks - members of boards, citizenship and other judges, parole boards, crown corporation boards, management committees, etc. Some require a certain level of expertise, some are just spots to be filled. One estimate I heard put the number in the tens of thousands of plumb positions - which Clark failed to fill in time with loyal Conservatives awaiting their turn at the trough. Some of these are term positions, but many serve “at the pleasure of her majesty”. (now, “his majesty”)

I assume Britain is not much different. The only point would be, if it’s a simple turnover of leadership but the same party in power, odds are unlikely too many f the lesser positions are changed wholesale. The last thing a new leader needs to do is stir up animosity from party faithful.

I should also point out - not sure how relevant this is in Britain, but Canada is large. Population wise, it’s basically a huge strip along the US border. Like the USA, it has significant regional variations with different interests. when a new prime minister picks new cabinet ministers, another consideration is balancing representation form the various regions - the Maritimes, Quebec, Ontario, the prairie provinces, BC; all will want a senior minister to speak up on regional issues - so matching members of parliament to experience and areas of expertise also has to take into account where each MP comes from. Some regions may not have elected many people from that party and pickin’s may be slim. If you have two members to choose from, one will definitely feel slighted. An MP with a solid background in a particular area of expertise may be overlooked because - already have too many ministers from Ontario/Quebec/Saskatchewan.

53

I certainly understand this part, and that the political ramifications of the change can be far reaching, but one gets the impression that, when a PM is replaced by his or her own party, it’s like another day at the office. “Oh, did you hear? Smith got sacked and they’re appointing Jones to replace him…”. And life goes on. But then I’m looking at it from a foreign country where the media are rather parochial when it comes to covering politics outside our borders, so I know enough to ask questions.

54

Not really, each new PM brings their own agenda, and wholesale changes the cabinet. Just look at what Liz Truss managed to do, and she was only there for 5 minutes. What’s more, whilst the electorate doesn’t directly elect the PM (unless you happen to live in their constituency), you can be damn sure the electorate has the party leader in mind when they’re in the voting booth. It’s one of the core reasons the Tories did so well at the last election - the electorate liked Boris (and believed his complete bullshit), and hated Jeremy Corbyn (Labour leader). It’s why opposition parties have been clamouring for a general election - the argument is that the latest PM does not have the electoral mandate to govern.

55

Not when it is a local change. Locally it is about as big as say impeachment in the media.

Different, especially in that the powers at play are very different, but the life cycle of a leadership spill presents lots of opportunities for speculation, commentary and gossip. It is a generally drawn out affair. Something like this:

  1. Party is doing really badly in the polls and the media gets the scent (or invents it) that there is discontent in the ranks.

  2. Leader firm that he is the right man for the job. Party members affirm strong support. Including those that are eyeing up the job.

  3. Media smell weakness. They ratchet it up a notch. Articles appear ranking other contenders.

  4. Contenders affirm support for leader, meanwhile feeling out for support in the party for their bid.

  5. Top contenders leak to tame members of the press about how weak the leader is and how he must go for the good of the party.

  6. Media publishes articles describing party discontent. Start speculating about how long the leader has.

  7. Contenders start crunching the numbers in earnest. Deals are done. Assurances are given to the leader. Leading contender emerges having the backing of a goodly number of the party. He won’t know exactly how many. Nor will the leader.

  8. Leader announces leadership spill to settle this “once and for all”. Media goes into a feeding frenzy.

  9. Election within party for leader called. Leader gets voted back in with 55% of the party vote. Media label him mortally wounded.

  10. Contender loses whatever position he had in cabinet. Those that supported the usurper may lose ministerial positions in a reshuffle.

  11. Media smell blood. Articles opine the party cannot win government again with wounded leader at the helm.

  12. Backbenched contender continues to give press conferences. Potential votes and deals needed crunched in earnest by the party numbers men. The fix is in.

  13. Party revolt. Leader forced to call for another spill.

  14. Media goes into overdrive. Dear leader is for the chop.

  15. Spill occurs. Backs are stabbed and promises broken. Leader loses. Tears held back as last press conference given.

  16. Ex-leader moves to backbench. New leader moves in. Ministerial reshuffle, payback and reward for all players. Ex-leader announces that they won’t seek re-election.

  17. Reset clock, rinse and repeat as required.

The Westminster system doesn’t have quite the pageantry as the US, and it lacks some of the clockwork regularity, but it makes up for it in sheer theatre.

56

Same in Britain. By tradition, there’s a strong element of supposedly independent (or at least diffuse and decentralised) advice and consensus about candidates for these sorts of jobs, but increasingly (or so it seems to my biased view) the Tories have been stuffing these “jobs for the boys” (and girls) with their own partisans, with mixed results. How to unstitch the consequences is a (currently) unspoken issue for Labour.

57

Steps 1 - 3 can drag out over years, but in step 4, if you utter the magic words in their correct form, i.e. ‘The PM is doing a fine job and they have my total support. This is simply a media beat-up.’ , then it opens the gates of leadership hell, and we hear nothing of policy and strategic government for the next 4-6 months until we get to step 17.

58

And does he want the top job?

While one does not seek the office, one has pledged oneself to the service of one’s country. And if one’s friends were to persuade one that that was the best way one could serve, one might reluctantly have to accept the responsibility, whatever one’s own private wishes might be.

59

I should point out that it’s rare that the party dumps a leader while in power. More often than not, those steps play out after an election when the party has demonstrably been shown by the electorate that the leader needs to go. (Politicians are like diapers, need to be replaced regularly and for the same reason).

Step #1 usually results in the leader recognizing the writing on the wall, and deciding that he/she has neglected their family and should spend more time with them. The drama comes if they are willfully blind to the chances for turning polls around.

Another common occurrence is a leader who wins another term for their party, then decides they need to retire and does so with enough time for a new leader to be chosen, and establish their credentials with the voters.

There is a very special drama if the leader messes up so badly they immediately lose the Truss …er, trust… of the voters ad hence the party. A leader needs the support of the members of parliament as much as the members need to follow the leader.

Also, depends… In Canada, the leader cannot be removed except by a vote of the full party at a convention. If the leader steps down early, the party brass appoints a caretaker until a vote can be held. By tradition, the replacement, for impartiality, is a senior person who does not intend to run for the job at the next convention. The UK is unique AFAIK in that the MP’s can dump the leader, but now the full party picks the replacement. For Canadians, it’s a matter of whether the leader will see reality or their own fantasies, whether they will step down or let the convention vote to nail the coffin shut while they are still kicking and screaming. (A fun feature of parliamentary politics is the leader who will call a leadership convention but then run, hoping to win and shut up his critics for the next few years.)

However, usually as I mentioned, these dramas play out in opposition, when a leader has demonstrated their failure by losing the last election. Most parties have a rule that after losing an election, the next convention will have a review ballot on whether to have a leadership convention. Thus a leader that does not see reality will get a double rebuke - a vote to make them run for the job or not, then likely a vote on who gets to be leader.

60

Hence the pointed remark by one UK opposition party leader: “I’ve nothing against X’s family, but shouldn’t he now be spending more time with them”