Prime Minister Boris Johnson tries to lead the UK but has resigned on July 7, 2022

Great Debates
202

Sure, but even with a minority government, the test was that the minority PM could “command a majority in the House” i.e. the PM could reliably get the major pieces of legislation through the House. Formerly, if a government lost major votes that were part of its basic policy or election manifesto, that meant that the government either resigned or called an election.

The Cameron-Clegg “reforms” have changed that. PM May could not get the most important piece of legislation in her government’s agenda through the House. It got defeated three times. Before Cameron-Clegg, that first vote would have been a confidence measure, the government would have been defeated, and May would have had to resign or call an election. Instead, she stayed in power - a minority government that could not command a majority on the most important issue of the day.

And now, PM Boris has just been defeated in the Commons by the passage of the “Delay Brexit” bill or resolution (not sure exactly what form it took). A significant number of his own party deserted him, including heavyweights in the party and despite a heavy whip. He does not command a majority in the Commons, and under the traditional rules, he should resign or call an election.

But being defeated on the centrepiece of his government’s policy towards the most pressing issue of the day doesn’t trigger a resignation or an election, under Cameron-Clegg. The Opposition now controls confidence votes and whether an election will occur, thanks to the Fixed Terms Parliament Act. They can defeat with impunity, and the PM’s own party can turn on him, yet he stays PM…That is a fundamental change in the British Constitution.

Another potential example is that Britain could now experience the failure to pass budgets and a government shutdown, just like in the US. We used to say that was impossible in a Westminster parliamentary system, because if the government was defeated on its budget, it either resigned or went to the polls (Wilson in 1976; Clark in Canada in 1980). But now, the Opposition can defeat the budget and it won’t be a confidence measure. And the government in that situation won’t be able to call an election, even if it wanted to, because if the Opposition has the votes to defeat the budget without calling it a confidence measure, the Opposition also has the votes votes to deny the election. The PM and government can be defeated on a budget, but can’t call an election to let the people decide, and it doesn’t have to resign.

The Cameron-Clegg reforms have fundamentally altered the British constitution. Frankly, I don’t think theWestminster Parliament is still an example of the Westminster parliamentary system. It is fundamentally different.

203

“Commanding a majority” is the same thing as “not being openly voted against by a majority”. If the majority in the Commons votes against the government, the government does not command a majority. It does not have the confidence of the House.

204

Well said, and I have to agree.

A sentiment behind which many of us can enthusiastically get.

205

I cannot speak to the specific MPs but threatening to end an MP’s career by kicking them out of the party also has little effect if voting with their party would lead that MP losing in the next election anyway. I would suspect that a lot of MPs would be on the chopping block after a No Deal Brexit.

206

Not quite - it’s theoretically possible for a minority government to survive if there’s a fractured opposition, if one part of the opposition supports it half of the time, and the other half the rest. That could potentially happen if the Lib Dems ever form a minority government.

As for whether the constitution has been altered by the FTPA, again I’d say not quite. Whilst it takes 67% to trigger an election under it, it would only take a simple majority to repeal the law, and replace it with anything at all. The problem at the moment is not that act, it’s that the opposition despite having the votes is refusing to hold a vote of no confidence. This refusal on Corbyn’s part is a deriliction of duty, much like most of what’s happened in Parliament recently.

207

Oh, I agree with your first point - it doesn’t have to be the same majority all the time. In a multi-party House, the government might be able to count on different small parties to support it on different aspects of its platform. The phrase “command a majority” usually connotes a minority government that can get its programme through the House, but the majority doesn’t always have to be identically constituted for all votes. A multi-party House can be quite fluid in the voting patterns.

With respect to the change to the constitution, I’d say it is a change. The fact that it can be altered by a statute can be said of every part of the British Constitution. Under the 2011 Act, the rules have fundamentally changed, even if Parliament could decide to change them again.

The reason I say it is a fundamental change is that before, a vote against the government on a key measure was a confidence matter. The Opposition (and government MPs) knew that if they voted against a measure, that would trigger a defeat of the government or an election. That’s no longer the case. Corbin and Tory MPs can vote against the government on key issues, without triggering an election.

Corbin is exercising the powers given to him by the new constitutional arrangement. You can call it “dereliction of duty” if you want, but he is acting consistently with the law, using a discretion he now has. He now can defeat the government’s programme without triggering an election.

That is a fundamental change to Parliament, whether you like it or not. American style gridlock is now built into the British Parliament.

208

I agree. Point of the FTPA was to put parliament, not the executive, in control of the decision to hold an early election. Opposition MPs (and backbench government MPs) have a position in parliament in a way that (obviously) they do not in the executive, so a consequence of this shift of control is to give opposition and backbench MPs a greater degree of influence over the calling of an early election than they previously had. It is not unconstitutional, or a dereliction of duty, for them to exercise that influence.

209

CNN just likened the current situation in Parliament to Monty Python.

210

Monty Python was well scripted.

211

A good common-sense article, in the Spectator (of all places) about the effects of no-deal:

Ivan Rogers: the realities of a no-deal Brexit

The whole article is worth reading.

212

The Daily Beasthas a beautifully written summary of what just happened:

213

Honestly? I’ll believe that when I see it. If Johnson’s still PM on October 31st, we will leave without a deal, and he will blame Corbyn and others for obstructing his chances of getting a deal - and plenty of people will believe him.

Even if Johnson follows the bill to the letter, and asks for an extension, that doesn’t mean it will be granted, and really the only reason the EU would have to grant it is if there’s a significant change - such as a new party in power that will call another referendum.

214

I said he can do it, under the new arrangements. No idea if he will do it, or just keep dithering.

215

Professional comedy is the very careful, methodical process of appearing to be stupid and chaotic.

Brexit is the stupid, chaotic process of appearing to be careful. And they’re failing.

216

Ruth Davidson, leader of the Scottish Conservatives for the past eight years until standing down this week:

The Conservative Party is no longer the conservative party, and is now the Brexit Party, although that name has already been taken.

217

And I’m saying that he can’t prevent a no deal Brexit unless he’s PM himself, as only the PM can do so. Parliament can pass all the laws it wants, but it can’t bind the EU, and the current bill does nothing more in practice than tell Johnson to ask the EU nicely, and sets out no consequences if he does not.

Yes, Parliament is supreme - but it has to exercise that supremacy. And currently it, and specifically the Labour party, doesn’t appear to have the balls to do so. Had Parliament wanted to, Johnson could have been removed by now, Article 50 rescinded and preparations for a new referendum could have been started.

218

Because this is where we are now as a nation, this story is making the rounds of the media:

So…yeah.

219

Along similar lines, here is the Conservative Leader of the House of Commons yesterday during parliamentary debate.

Latest news: MPs vote by 329 to 300 to back a bill aimed at blocking a no-deal Brexit.

220

It looks like Dominic Cummings is rapidly going off the rails.

Yesterday Johnson made a last-ditch attempt to persuade rebel Tory MPs before the vote. According to Paul Waugh from Huffpost UK, as the rebel MPs were waiting outside Johnson’s office, Cummings arrived and started shouting at them and denouncing them for ‘an extended period of time’. Not quite the best way to persuade people to support you.

Later, shortly before the the vote, Peter Walker from the Guardian tweeted, “I just bumped into Dominic Cummings, who was clutching a glass of red wine and wandering along the parliamentary press corridor, lost and looking for a particular newspaper office. This is not a usual occurrence.”

After the vote, Cummings started shouting at Jeremy Corbyn to support an election as he was getting into his car. Corbyn ignored him. Labour MP Cat Smith tweeted, “As one of several shadow cabinet members stood right next to Jeremy (who was on the phone at the time) I just thought there was some loud bloke who stunk of booze yelling at us.”

I have a feeling Cummings is not going to last much longer.

221

Johnson now wants an election.

The British government is an absolute train wreck. Tire fire. Clown car. It’s all three, really, a train carrying a troupe of clowns crashing into a pile of burning tires.