This morning David Cameron resigned as British Prime Minister over the results of the Brexit referendum. Of course when prime ministers resign it is a no confidence vote in Parliament/party rebellion (such as Thatcher in 1990)/personal decision. Has there been another case in the Westminster where a PM resigned due to a referendum vote or other event while he still had the support of Parliament? For that matter, do most in the UK think Cameron resigned because he took Brexit as a de facto vote of confidence or another reason?
Neville Chamberlain resigned in 1940 when the Conservative Party split over his handling of the war. He still had a mjority in Parliament but the Labour Party indicated they’d be more willing to cooperate with a different Conservative (namely, Churchill.)
Clement Atlee still technically had the support of Parliament when he called an early election in 1951, hoping to firm up the Labour Party’s majority. While Labour got more popular votes, the Conservatives ended up winning more seats.
He has resigned as leader of the Conservative Party, but will keep the job until a successor is appointed. This is very different from a no confidence vote which would usually trigger a general election.
We do not elect a Prime Minister - we elect MPs and the leader of the party with a sufficient majority becomes PM.
Harold Wilson resigned in 1976 while he still held a (bare) majority. Although there was much speculation at the time, and subsequently, the generally accepted explanation now is that Wilson was exhausted after 13 years leading his party, 8 of them as Premier, and decided to go as he felt his mental powers declining.
That’s not technically correct. The PM is whomever the monarch believes who has the best support in Parliament and considering what just happened it may not be the Conservative leader.
The Queen should have slapped him silly and made him go live in Texas or Arkansas or some other hell hole. To allow a vote over something so complicated. What a knuckle head.You know the moron types always win things like this that they’re incapable of understanding.
I’m not sure what you mean by the bolded portion.
A successful motion of no confidence in the *government *is perishingly rare. It has only happened twice in the past 100 years. In one case the government resigned and a minority government was formed: no general election was held. In the other case parliament was dissolved and a general election resulted. For the past 5 years, there have been new laws governing what happens, but all it really means is that if parliament can’t sort the mess out within a fortnight, an election will be called. AFAIK it would have had no effect on the other no confidence events in the past century, which were sorted out within a fortnight anyway. A no confidence motion has never passed under the new legislation.
So saying that a no confidence vote will “usually” have any predictable result is a real stretch. It’s just too rare, the results are too variable and the legal framework too new to proclaim anything to be *usual *about the event.
A successful vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister is even rarer, and even less likely to result in a general election. More often the PM just resigns. However it’s only practically possible under a minority government, which itself is rare and not what exists ATM. If a non-Minority government wants a new leader, they just appoint one and that leader becomes PM. There’s no need for a no-confidence motion, which would be incredibly damaging to the governing party(s) when a quiet backroom knifing would suffice.
In 1969 French President Charles de Gaulle resigned his after the public voted against a series of constitutional reforms he proposed. Unlike David Cameron he didn’t dillydally.
Wow. Care to belittle or offend anyone else without even pretending to answer the OP? You should have inserted “Trump” into your rant, too.
Tony Blair resigned as PM in 2007, when he still had a solid majority. It was his time, really.
Anthony Eden is the next most recent PM to resign due to massive fuck-up, rather than for electoral purposes, I think.
Moderator Note
Alex from CB, let’s refrain from political jabs in General Questions. No warning issued, but please keep your comments factual.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Nm
That’s a typical British fiction. Yes the monarch appoints the PM but it’s not as if a few of them turn up for interviews. The MPs decide (and it is in recent times always the leader of the largest party) who to present to the monarch and the monarch will always accept their choice. Since the Conservatives have a majority in the house, they get to decide. Do you really think that there will be a load of rebels who are willing to fall on their swords?