26th January 2022
While we wait for the Sue Gray report, here is something said by the Leader of the House of Commons Jacob Rees-Mogg:
Jacob Rees-Mogg says on @BBCNewsnight that "a change of leader requires a general election".
Says UK is now effectively a "presidential system" and "the mandate is personal rather than entirely party"— Paul Waugh (@paulwaugh) January 25, 2022
Rees-Mogg, of course, is the government minister who gave the Queen the unlawful advice on prorogation.
You would think that him now promoting a presidential system would be a further discourtesy to the Queen in her platinum jubilee year.
But even on the substance of the contention, it is historically and constitutionally illiterate.
In the last fifty years only Heath (1974), Callaghan (1979), Major (1997) and Brown (2010) have ceased to be Prime Minister by reason of a general election.
In contrast: Wilson (1976), Thatcher (1990), Blair (2007), Cameron (2016) and May (2019) were all replaced as Prime Minister without any general election.
This is because we have a parliamentary system and, given our uncodified constitution, there are many ways by which a Prime Minister can be replaced without a general election.
Going further back, one can also look at the stark examples of Asquith (1916), Chamberlain (1940) and Eden (1957) – who all were replaced after their respective military misadventures without any immediate general elections.
Rees-Mogg is correct that, in terms of political-media culture, Boris Johnson projects a presidential style.
But this should not be confused with the constitutional position.
There is nothing to prevent there being a new Prime Minister without a general election.
And, indeed, until and unless the Fixed-term Parliaments Act is repealed, any more immediate general election would in any case require a majority in the House of Commons to support it.
The most concerning thing about this, of course, is the authoritarian implications of Rees-Mogg’s contention – for it undermines parliamentary democracy.
And this authoritarianism, and subversion of parliamentary democracy, is part of a worrying trend.
Brace, brace.
******
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.
This pattern of behaviour in which the Prime Minister behaves in a presidential style, is a figment of Johnson’s imagination, even though he practises it. There have been repeated objections of policy announcements being made via the press rather than first to the HoC, which support the Presidential approach. The problem is that the Speaker does not appear to have any real tools with which to counter the current abuse of Parliament. We need to find ways to reinforce the primacy of Parliament here.
I think you hit the nail on the head here. Yes – Rees-Mogg is clearly wrong on a historic and constitutional basis, but in the practice of current politics, the checks and balances that should in theory prevent a PM from acting in a presidential manner seem to be somewhat inadequate (to be polite).
The Speaker seems to have {the will to use?} no effective power to do anything but give yet another stern telling off, to be ignored like all the others.
The current Speaker is as weak as water and seems in thrall to the administration. For all his manifold faults, Speaker Bercow would have used whatever powers the Speaker has and was stalwart it his defence of the rights of back-benchers. Admonition is not enough. There are remedies, including exclusion from the Commons. No MP or Minister is exempt from the rules as far as I know.
I once observed JRM at a meeting of probably the Planning and Development Committee at Westminster City Council. He had nothing to contribute and was deeply in love with the sound of his own voice. He was probably in his early 30’s. Nothing has changed, neither the knowledge nor the voice.
It might be of interest that the province of Newfoundland and Labrador does have a law requiring a general election within a year if the premier has been replaced since the previous general election. In fact, the last general election was the result of that law.
That should imply that the Westminster model has no such general rule/usage/custom requiring a general election under such circumstances. In fact, no other Canadian province or territory has such a law.
Rees-Mogg has made up this rule to suit his purposes just like his advice on prorogation. Perhaps, we should rename him Jacob Rees-Mogg-Synthesizer.
You are verry kind to JRM, what i understand with my rather limited understanding of the english language, is not that he promotes a presidential system, to me it sounds like he declares the uk a presidential system. Maybe to scare the tory electorate to close ranks or maybe because Liss Truss does not like him???
I dont know. But as i said my understanding of the english language is not really that good. I just dont belive that JRM is asking for a GE at the moment because that would be suicidal for the torys imho.
Sadly there are plenty of examples in recent history – Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair, for example – who behaved as though they *were* Presidents.
But more interesting in this example is not the fallacy of the claim itself, but the sheer arrogance that it would be made at all. As this article so eloquently states, the facts of the case are entirely public and not in any (serious) dispute. So why would Jacob Rees-Mogg even *think* he could simply trumpet out lies like this.
I fear that he is taking a leaf from the Donald Trump playbook – the notion that if a lies is repeated often enough, it will be believed. Or perhaps that if he can come up with something even more outrageous than the latest revelations of cabinet office misconduct, attention can be drawn from the forthcoming report and criminal probe.
This takes us to a much more significant problem: dishonesty in office. If a government minister is willing to lie so Brazenly and openly about this, what else are they willing to lie about when it becomes that much harder to catch them in the act.
The British People have a right to expect much more in the way of candour, integrity, professionalism and productivity than we get from our governments (at least, I would say this is broadly true of most of the administrations since the turn of the millennium.
What we need is not more yah-boo politics of PMQs, but, rather, a restrained and sober response that reminds the electorate that we have a right to expect humility, candour, diligence and a professional work ethic from incredibly well-paid minsters and MPs.
We pay for this. Literally millions of us pay for this through taxes levied on us by these clowns. We are buying a service and paying for Silver Service at a multi-Michelin Star restaurant. We are getting a cold, out-of-date burger from a health code violating greasy spoon.
We pay for this.
We deserve better.
Thatcher behaved like a Queen on occasion and in doing so slighted the real Queen with the most egregious example being the grand parade of victory after the retaking of the Falklands. I remember troops and bands marching past a great stand the great and the good and there in the front and center was Thatcher waving regally with no HM in sight.
Maybe poor Prince Andrew had a fever and HM was wiping the sweat onto his brow?
Rees Mogg was, of course, attempting to intimidate backbenchers from voting to remove Johnson by implying an election would quickly ensue, while the current polls look very unfavourable. In the event that Johnson is removed, Rees Mogg will be staunchly supporting the party’s right to choose a new leader and continue to govern. He is most economic with his ethics.
So ironic that Rees-Mogg, the great British patriot and traditionalist, takes up a position which is inimical to both descriptions. Par for the course for populist politicians anywhere though – they’re generally the least-patriotic people in the room, hence why they trumpet their patriotism at every opportunity. What Dr. Johnson (obviously no relative) said about last refuges and scoundrels.
One of the disadvantages of having an unwritten constitution is that senior politicians can have a go at changing it unilaterally. If he wasn’t so malign who knows what he might get away with?
All my increasingly lengthy adult life commentators have been making the point about PMs becoming more presidential. Surely Churchill in his first term of office was presidential.
Why shouldn’t a country have a monarch and a president, or a monarch and a presidential PM. One of the advantages of an unwritten constitution is surely its infinite flexibility.
Yours irksomely and idly waiting for Godot Gray.
For the past forty years I’ve been suppressing my irritation when people said they were voting for Maggie, or Tony Blair, or Boris (or, indeed, Jeremy) when they don’t vote in their constituency.
‘Boris’ is a brand and, in a way, we’re sleepwalking into a presidential system where the voters in one constituency are the only people outside Parliament who have any say in how we choose the president.
It’s democracy on life support.
I’m not optimistic for its survival.
Yeah but people have always used their vote as a proxy vote to protest against or support the actions their chosen party in Westminster. Look at what happens in the local elections, which tend to come in the middle of the parliamentary term and typically used to protest what Westminster is doing, despite actually having almost nothing to do with the Westminster party.
As to voting for your constituency representative, what’s the point of thinking about it like that, when almost all MPs always follow the party whip, even when it’s against the interests of their own constituents. You are in effect voting for that whip.
I agree with you that it is irritating, though.
I’ve always thought that but I’m noticing a bit of a change – and I don’t know if that is a change in behaviour or people being more honest with me.
I’ve had a handful of conversations – and, to be fair, only a handful – with people who’ve admitted voting for a candidate in a party they don’t support (and I don’t mean tactical voting). My favourite example is the friend who was part of a campaign team for one candidate but voted for another.
I know it will never happen, but my favoured option would to remove all reference to party affiliation on the voting paper (and, ideally, any election material).
Make the ******** work for my vote.
That would be great. Alternatively each candidate should produce a manifesto, listing their stance on each issue. Sadly most would just parrot the party line.
But personally, living in a safe Tory seat, my vote counts for bugger all. The combination of first past the post, slavish adherence to the Party whip and threat of deselection by a tiny minority (Party members) neuters most democracy in all but a few swing seats.
Agreed, and if DAG will forgive me for wandering a bit further from the subject (there are no rules these days), I would add:
– MPs only allowed to vote when they have attended the WHOLE of the debate (in person or virtually);
– when MPs vote against what they said in their manifesto, they have to hold a public meeting to explain their decision and take questions.
(I know there would be problems with interpretation – and maybe debates would need comfort breaks – so it wouldn’t be as simple as I say, but that doesn’t stop me liking the idea.)
It would appear that the sovereignty so craved for by the ERG and like minded advocates of Brexit was not to bestow on the world a more independent United Kingdom but a more dictatorial control over the people of this nation now bereft of the rights and protections under EU citizenship.
Well said.
Rees-Mogg’s comments are nonsense but, they may give clues to the direction of travel intended behind some of the words on pages 47 and 48 of the Conservatives’ 2019 manifesto. Clues are desperately needed because the work of the ‘Constitution, Democracy and Rights Commission’ seems actually to be being done behind closed doors. Whatever its conclusions, this Government will no doubt claim a mandate to do as it wishes by virtue of the manifesto it was elected on!
Parliament seems content to be abused: there is no move to hold the liar in contempt, nor take any other action apart from moaning, and he clearly enjoys the attention from the moaning.
This is the latest salvo in operation Save Big Dog. It comes on the back of Boris refusing to countenance resigning over party-gate and therefore leaving the party with a situation where a vote of confidence would be required to get him to resign. The party ”squirearchy” know that a confidence vote would tear the party to pieces – so does Johnson which is why he won’t resign. A vote of confidence would be a last-ish resort because of the resulting internecine war within the party. It is also a last resort because assuming that the required number of letters were to be received by the Chairman of the 1922 committee and assuming that there was a vote of confidence in the PM, there is absolutely no guarantee he would lose it. The party are then stuck with Big Dog for a further year, less than two years away from a general election. The idea that if they remove Johnson it will require a GE is merely a way of trying to scare blue wall Tory MP’s, all of whom would be looking for new jobs in less than 6 months time and is perhaps a way of reminding the ungrateful that they wouldn’t have the job they’ve got were it not for Big Dog. It’s just another week in British politics, which as Harold Wilson once famously said, was a long time. The coming week is going to seem interminably long for Big Dog. I for one am quietly pleased about that, he deserves it!
Every time Jacob Rees-Mogg offers an opinion the world dies a little.
Jacob Rees Mogg is a menace to democracy and constutionality, yet he poses as the defender of both. The only reason he would want an election now is the possibility it would keep his party in power for another five years. He certainly wouldn’t have been talking up the benefits of a Presidential PM during the Blair era.
With our unwritten constitution a presidential PM would be a massive step towards unfettered authoritarianism.
I think the real reason Rees-Mogg said this was to frighten some backbenchers off the idea of deposing him, because a general election at this stage might very well get them all kicked out too. But there would be zero chance of an election being called by anyone who replaced Johnson for that very reason, and Rees-Mogg must know that perfectly well. He’s just being devious, as usual.
I heard him make this comment, along with many other ridiculous statements, and my first thought was “when did we agree to that?!” But, thinking about it, if it were true then person rather than party renders the concept of constituency based representation redundant (the fawning, unthinking, uncritical, blind loyalty to leader over voter has already done a good job in that regard). This in turn cuts the ground out from under any opposition to PR which seems to be the only constitutional fix for the almighty mess into which we have been sleepwalking for most of my adult life.
Moggsy always sounds amazingly articulate, with never an “um” or “ah”. But my respect for his intellect and political abilities took a knock the other day when during a TV interview he casually and arrogantly dissed some Scottish Tory MP. “Lightweight” I think was the word used.
Whether or not the criticism was well-founded, it seemed incredibly foolish and misguided. Among other things, who but a tiny handful of political anoraks would care about his opinion of this person? So Rees-Mogg has doubtless caused division and enmity, which is especially unwelcome between English and Scottish Tories I imagine, or should be, and gained nothing, at least nothing of benefit to the country at large.
I thought Jacob Rees-Mogg did a disservice to the now fun loving Palace that N0.10 has become. I felt that he held back and rather we now have the Court of Versailles in Westminster.
We must all keep chipping away at this Government. Every time we speak up, Blog or Tweet holding the UK Government to account it’s a record of public opposition against Johnsonism. This is our Democracy and we mustn’t let it go without a fight. I don’t want Historians poring over our time thinking Democracy became unrecognisable without a fight. I hope we come out of this stronger, a bit crusty around the edges but wiser.
As ever your Blogs raise many questions simultaneously and l always read them, even if l don’t comment. Keep going please.
I was going to post a pedantic comment saying ‘what about Wilson in 1970?’ but realised you’d said in the last fifty years and that was fifty years ago.
I then looked up the date of the 1970 election and it was slightly less than fifty years ago, and realised I have become one of THOSE people.
Thank you for your thoughtful blog, and please forgive your wannabe point-scoring non-pornbot readers.
I am 50, and am 51 this year
I know that 1970 is more than 50 years ago
50 years ago would now be 1972
Mind you, given the events we are living through, losing track of time is probably the least consequence of the sustained assaults on our intellects.
The keys to JRM are first that he sounds posh and intellectually sound in the manner of people on The Brains Trust in the 1950s.; second that he is currently slavishly loyal to Big Dog, and third that he is inherently contemptuous of the lower orders – which is anyone else in parliament or elsewhere, including the Queen. As is remarked elsewhere, all he is doing its trying to scare Tory MPs into keeping Johnson. What we actually need is for them to do just that, but for the government to limp along, credibility spent, until the FTPA is spent itself and we can elect a different set of political entertainers.
This asinine claim may come back to bite him. It has been glossed as a threat to Red Wall Tory MPs not to rock the boat, lest they (by extension) lose their seats. However, if Johnson goes, Rees-Mogg has handed Labour a stick with which to beat the Conservatives, since Labour will presumably argue for an early election, if only to see R-M squirm.
Most of Johnson’s cabinet have track records of breath-taking incompetence and Rees Mogg is no different.
Bar very few, Johnson continues to provide their ministerial meal ticket and likewise the ever more ridiculous coterie of backbench MPs who continue to recklessly air their views on the PMs “not proven” status viz cake ambushes, not a bank robber references and the like.
The Tory party has had a reputation over many years for sound governance which the brexit mob with generous help from a self-interested Johnson have fatally undermined and all but destroyed. At this stage, it should not come a surprise to anyone that Johnson’s instincts for self-preservation, like Covid, have infected everyone around him.
When the ship that was eventually launched in September 1967 by Queen Elizabeth II with the name “Queen Elizabeth the Second” (apparently a misreading by her of “Queen Elizabeth 2”) and thereafter referred to as “QE2” was still on the stocks as project Q4, there was some discussion about what would be a suitable name. Preferably, in view of its intended purpose of plying the Ocean between Southampton and New York, it should be a name that would be equally meaningful to Britons and Americans alike. Some wag suggested “President Wilson”.
The idea that a British Prime Minister may get ideas above his station is not new.
Anthony Seldon demonstrates in his 2021 book “The Impossible Office?” that the office of prime minister has become increasingly presidential in nature, and more worryingly, the sheer lack of codification of the limits of the prime minister’s powers means he can do whatever he likes. JRM combines that observation with the presumption that anything that is not prohibited is permissible, to claim that precedent makes any bad habit (of the Tories) into a virtue.
Speaking as an American who is very happy with our Presidential system (though not necessarily with every President)… No he friggin’ isn’t. Especially if he means the “strong Presidency” as in the US. No, the PM is not that. A horse is not a cow, and a cow is not a horse.
A President is separately elected, per national law and constitution. A President answers to the voters, apart from the Legislature.
A President holds executive power, apart from the Legislature entirely. This makes a PM redundant; you not only don’t need both, you can’t have both exercising most of the same roles and powers.
Unless he means a President in the Parliamentary Republic model, eg Eire: An elected fill-in for the absence of a monarch, with the same limited and mostly ceremonial role. Or in the Commonwealth, often a Governor-General – who is effectively a Parliamentary President “in the name of the Queen.” I don’t think he means that the PM is ceremonial.
“A President holds executive power, apart from the Legislature entirely. This makes a PM redundant; you not only don’t need both, you can’t have both exercising most of the same roles and powers.”
Well… I think I understand the point you’re trying to make… but I’d have to observe that in one respect, facts say otherwise. France – a Republic – has a President (Emmanuel Macron) and a Prime Minister (Jean Castex).
I make no claim or warranty as to fitness for purpose, just observe that the model does exist in at least one relatively stable western democracy.
To me, this is part of the worrying trend where the US republican model of Constitution has been influencing the Westminster model.
Part of the problem with a presidential system, where the president is directly elected and then has a mandate for a fixed period of time, is that it allows that individual enormous power. While a Prime Minister under the Westminster model is not limited by a separation of powers, the fact that they can be removed at any time either by the sitting MPs (as in the UK) or by the party (Canada—unless the caucus has agreed after election to certain provisions of the Parliament of Canada Act)—means that they tend to be less extreme.
By making it more difficult to remove the leader, for example by having the leader of a party directly elected by party members, additional power is given to the leader and that tends to move the position to something similar to a republican model. Still, the fact that a number of PMs in the UK have been removed without an election is a great thing. Imagine what the US would have been like, over the past few decades, if that power had existed.
One should not expect any better from R-M who has never shown a grasp of how things work. Even Boris understands this which is why he has never given him a real job.
That said he has inadvertently hit on a lamentable trend in UK government, the emergence of a presidential premiership and the decline of cabinet rule. This is not Boris – relentlessly demonizing him isn’t always insightful. It is a trend that goes back to Blair at least. No10 has grown into a version of the White House complete with stagings for PR. No 10 monitors, restricts and undermines ministers in a way unimaginable under say Wilson. Even the Chancellor is vulnerable – look at Javid. The habit of frequent reshuffles undermines Cabinet by reducing the experience and independence of ministers and making it easier to replace dissenters while party MPs stay mute in the hope of office. The opposition or loss of an important minister was a real threat to a PM. Not anymore: did Foreign Secretary Cook’s resignation create even a minor tremor? One rarely hears of Cabinet decisions or rejections: it is the PM. May took this to extremes, ruling almost entirely by herself with her voices and her husband as counsel.
David Owen in Cabinet’s Finest Hour details how Churchill worked in cabinet to reject Halifax’s peace plan and put Britain on a total war footing. For all his charisma and speech making, Churchill had to bring his cabinet onside. He laments the loss of cabinet government in the last 20-30 years.
The rise of a presidential PM is in some ways worse than having a presidential system. Parliamentary government depends on accountability and consent. Cabinet is a critical part of that. When cabinet is reduced to a rubber stamp, party MPs are left with few options to hold the PM to account beyond the ultimate sanction of a leadership vote. It is notable in the current crisis that it is the backbenchers who are looked to to remove him while the cabinet stays silent.
If anything, Johnson’s cabinet has been quite limited with reshuffles compared to previous Tory administrations. Resignations were rare because ministers were too keen to keep their noses in the trough. Sackings almost never happened because “we’ve moved on.”
Johnson’s recent loss of authority has restored cabinet government because he can’t now just demand agreement.
Missed the point completely. He had one within a year, unheard of 50-60 years ago. Not much evidence of the Cabinet playing greater role even now. Just sitting waiting to see if the letters get to the 1922 reach the required 50.
You missed my point. I’m no Johnson supporter. The rebellion about moving to Plan B showed the cabinet were split and no longer simply doing as they were told, as they had been before he lost authority. Cabinet support is no longer a given, as it had been.