# What if Blair had lost his constituency? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 6, 2005, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-blair-had-lost-his-constituency/302666 "2005-05-06T08:27:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-blair-had-lost-his-constituency/302666/21 "2005-05-06T16:26:54Z")
> [@garius](#): > > Not necessarily. Its just as likely that a Labour MP in a safe seat who did win would resign so that the Party Leader could then stand in that seat and be returned to parliament. I’m confused. Does this mean that you can vote for one guy, but someone else might receive his seat? You could never get away with that in the US. ---
**Author:** ![Bookkeeper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bookkeeper/32/281_2.png) [@Bookkeeper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bookkeeper)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-blair-had-lost-his-constituency/302666/22 "2005-05-06T18:25:12Z")
> [@Diceman](#): > > I’m confused. Does this mean that you can vote for one guy, but someone else might receive his seat? You could never get away with that in the US. No, the originally elected MP would resign, and a by-election would then be held to fill the seat, in which the party leader would run (and presumably be elected). As a side question, is it the tradition in Britain that the opposition doesn’t contest by-elections held for this purpose? Also, are British MPs still not permitted to resign and have to do the “Chiltern Hundreds” thing to get dismissed? ---
**Author:** ![Mk\_VII](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-blair-had-lost-his-constituency/302666/23 "2005-05-06T19:16:14Z")
You cannot, strictly speaking, resign a Commons seat, a rule which reflects the fact that H of C service was, at one time, arduous and not a little dangerous. If you accept an Office of Profit under the Crown you become ineligible, a rule which at one time required newly appointed Ministers to get themselves re-elected all over again in their constituency. Two empty offices, the Bailliff of the Chiltern Hundreds and the Steward of the Manor of Northstead, which carry neither duties or rewards, have been retained for this purpose. See [http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary\_publications\_and\_archives/factsheets/p11.cfm](http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_publications_and_archives/factsheets/p11.cfm) It’s by no means certain that the voters will co-operate in being made a convenience of in this way. Patrick Gordon Walker had to make several attempts to secure a seat after being turned out at the 1964 election. There’s no constitutional reason why the PM shouldn’t lead the Government from the Lords; in practice it hasn’t happened since Lord Salisbury (1902) ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-blair-had-lost-his-constituency/302666/24 "2005-05-06T19:57:21Z")
> [@Rayne Man](#): > > The Monster Raving Loonies have not been the same since Lord Sutch died. They need a new leader. Perhaps they could choose Kilroy-Silk , he’s mad as a hatter. Their obvious leader should be Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-lim-bin- bim-bin-bim bus stop F’tang F’tang Olé Biscuitbarrel. ---
**Author:** ![brianmelendez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/65b543/32.png) [@brianmelendez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brianmelendez)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-blair-had-lost-his-constituency/302666/25 "2005-05-06T20:57:41Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > And isn’t it too a convention that the leader of said party must be a MP? Yes, a convention, not a requirement. Likewise, the Speaker of the US House of Representatives (granted, not an exactly analogous post, but close enough for government work) need not be a representative. But every speaker has been. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-blair-had-lost-his-constituency/302666/26 "2005-05-06T23:52:24Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > So is it correct to say that the answer to the OP’s question is – > > If Blair had lost his seat in his constituency election, things would be put on hold until another safe-Labour seat came open (perhaps by the resignation of a sitting Labour M.P.) and Blair won that seat in a bye-election. Blair would then be elected party leader by the Labour members of the House of Commons and his name would be presented to the queen in the usual way. > > Is that it? Not quite. If Blair had the support of his party to have a stalwart resign and have Blair run in the resulting by-election, there’d be no need for things to be “put on hold.” There’s no term to the prime ministership, unlike the fixed term of the U.S. President. Blair is Prime Minister until he resigns, dies, or is dismissed by the Queen. So even though in this hypothetical he personally doesn’t have a seat for a while, he is still the Prime Minister and can command a majority in the Commons, so he would just carry on at # 10. He wouldn’t have to be re-appointed PM. As well, his leadership of the Labour Party is completely independent of needing a seat in the Commons, so he wouldn’t have to be re-elected leader. The key points here are that there is no fixed term to the Prime Ministership (unlike the U.S. presidency), and there is no legally binding requirment that the PM hold a seat. Instead, the two issues are whether the PM still has control of the party, and the party still has control of the Commons. If both of those conditions are met, Blair would be safe to run again in a by-election in a safe seat. Of course, if Blair ran in a safe seat and lost the by-election, his position would be getting pretty dicey. The party might conclude that his failure to win two seats in a row indicated that he was damaged goods and an electoral liability, leading to the possibility of an internal party decision to dump him and select a new leader. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2005, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-blair-had-lost-his-constituency/302666/27 "2005-05-06T23:55:23Z")
> [@brianmelendez](#): > > Yes, a convention, not a requirement. Likewise, the Speaker of the US House of Representatives (granted, not an exactly analogous post, but close enough for government work) need not be a representative. But every speaker has been. OK. But how strong is this convention? Is it as unthinkable for a non-MP to be prime minister than for the queen to decide she will rule all by herself, or is it actually possible that, due to whatever circumstances, the majority party would choose a non MP as leader/ prime minister, and nobody would beat an eye except for noting that it’s the first time since XXXX that a non-PM has been picked as prime minister? To use another recent example : customarily the pope is a cardinal (but it’s not even required that he should be a priest) and customarily he doesn’t resign. However, though nobody expected a layman to be elected as pope, the resignation of JPII was envisionned by many people. Customs/conventions might be more or less constraining. (Speaking from a country where the prime minister, or any minister for that matter _can’t_ be a MP, by the way) ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2005, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-blair-had-lost-his-constituency/302666/28 "2005-05-07T00:15:12Z")
I would say that the requirement that the PM hold a seat in the Commons is one of the strongest possible conventions - the leader of the government has to be in the Commons, elected by the people of a constituency, and answerable to the Opposition every day Parliament is sitting - that’s what responsible government is all about. Some leeway would be granted for him to find a seat, but he would have to do so quickly. ---
**Author:** ![Mk\_VII](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2005, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-blair-had-lost-his-constituency/302666/29 "2005-05-07T12:00:16Z")
we should note that Gordon Brown’s supporters in the party would probably urge that, since he hadn’t even managed to retain the support of his own electors, Blair should stand aside and let Gordon come into his inheritance. He’s been itching for the job for years, and, rightly or wrongly, believes that Blair had promised to handover during his second term, and then ratted on his promise. _“Your opponents are on the benches opposite, your enemies sit behind you.”_ ---
**Author:** ![Futile\_Gesture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f05b48/32.png) [@Futile\_Gesture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Futile_Gesture)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2005, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-blair-had-lost-his-constituency/302666/30 "2005-05-07T12:31:45Z")
If Blair had lost his constituency in this election the Labour Party would not sit about waiting for a by-election (whether arranged by a fellow MP’s self-sacrifice or otherwise) just so that Blair can waltz back into Parliament at a later date. This scenario would involve a temporary stand-in PM who would either be a weak and fatally compromised head of government, or someone with ambitions of their own other than being Blair’s baby-sitter. The former case is bad news for the country and the Labour Party, the latter is bad news for Blair. The idea that a non-elected leader could be PM, while constitutionally possible, is a non-starter. The people of the UK wouldn’t stand for it, the media wouldn’t stand for it, Labour MPs themselves wouldn’t stand for it, and Blair himself would know it’s not possible. You can’t run government if you’re not even allowed into the debating chamber. What would happen is that Blair would stand-down and the Labour Party would elect another leader with due haste and Blair would be history. Then they’d have a post-mortem to discover how they managed to place their party leader in such a dangerous position. All in all, the question demonstrates that while there may not be a written set of rules, or constitution, about these things, it does mean that common-sense gets applied when things happen according to the circumstances and precedence. It some ways that’s better than an inflexible law that may not result in the fairest outcome and can be manipulated by those who know how to wield it. ---
**Author:** ![APB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2005, 9:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-blair-had-lost-his-constituency/302666/31 "2005-05-09T09:20:44Z")
It needs to be remembered that Blair hasn’t been an MP for the past month and won’t become one again for another eight days. A by-election could be held just fifteen days after the new Parliament met for the first time and it would even be possible to prorogue the session in the meantime. The spin would be that the constituents of the PM’s former constituency had ungratefully deprieved the rest of the country of the PM they had wanted. Moreover, his party might well hestitate to replace him, as leaders chosen between elections can seem to lack a mandate (an arguments which the Blairite loyalists will doubtless be currently using against the Brownites). As he might well return to the House at the first suitable by-election anyway, moving against him too quickly might not turn out to be the smartest of moves. Of course, if it was Blair, they would just appoint Brown. But that’s only because he’s playing the endgame already and he has a designated successor without obvious rivals. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2005, 10:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-blair-had-lost-his-constituency/302666/32 "2005-05-09T10:49:52Z")
> [@APB](#): > > A by-election could be held just fifteen days after the new Parliament met for the first time One is in fact taking place in a few weeks: the Lib Dem candidate in South Staffs died during the campaign, so their election has been postponed [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-blair-had-lost-his-constituency/302666.md?page=1)