21st July 2022
One job of a commentator is to separate out what is normal and what is not.
It is only by separating this out that you can reckon what is significant and what that signifies.
So over at Al Jazeera I have had a go at separating out what is (constitutionally) normal and what is not about the current political drama.
Please click and read here.
As you will see: that there is a change of Prime Minister between general elections is quite normal – and as this blog has noted many times, every single Prime Minister since 1974 has gained or lost office between general elections (or, for May and Johnson, both).
And it is also normal for the mid-term successor to be either a current or recent holder of one of the so-called ‘great offices of state’.
Since the Second World War, the incoming mid-term Prime Ministers have been: 1955 – Foreign Secretary; 1957 – Chancellor; 1963 – Foreign Secretary; 1976 – Foreign Secretary; 1990 – Chancellor; 2007 – Chancellor; 2016 – Home Secretary; 2019 – (very recent) Foreign Secretary.
So far, so normal.
A Prime Minister is going mid-term and will be replaced by either the Foreign Secretary or a (very recent) Chancellor.
Framed like this, the current political drama is normal, ordinary.
But it is not normal or ordinary, is it?
The current political situation is abnormal and extraordinary.
In the last few weeks we have had mass ministerial resignations and ministers openly attacking their government’s policy on television.
A Prime Minister who only in December 2019 won a mandate and a sizeable majority has been spat out because he was repugnant to the body politic.
And one measure of just how unusual the current political situation is just how close we came to the next Prime Minister not even being in the cabinet – or even a current or recent minister.
Such inexperience in an incoming Prime Minister can happen at general elections – neither Blair nor Cameron had been ministers before becoming Prime Minister – but it would be unusual midway during a parliamentary term.
Given the combustible politics of the current governing party – and the ongoing challenges posed by Brexit and other matters – one can only wonder what usual political events will happen before we get finally – and hopefully safely – to the next general election and – which our political system badly needs – a change in the governing party.
***
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.
The thought of Johnson being re-elected in 20199 is horrifying. One of those “curse of the mummy’s tomb” moments.
I believe it says a lot about our political system in the UK, that after a decade or so in power we “badly need… …a change in the governing party.”
Twas ever thus.
Which makes me wonder if simply a change in governing party is sufficient.
Perhaps it’s a consequence of the parlous state of accountability in UK politics under the outgoing Prime Minister, that I (and many others) are looking for a more significant overhaul of the engine of parliamentary democracy than a mere oil change.
Whilst I do agree with you, I think the hurdle’s we face in order to get there are significant.
Chief among them is the extent of Parliamentary Sovereignty in the UK. Given the effectively absolute power it has to self-govern; given the effectively absolute power granted to the cabinet of the majority party; given the effectively absolute power granted to the Prime Minister to select their own cabinet officials, the problem that we as citizens face is that the one governmental entity that we need to support the wishes of ordinary citizens to change the checks and balances of our democracy is… the entity that most flagrantly ignores or abuses the checks and balances of our democracy: parliament.
And that’s our problem, right there.
If we’re willing to concede that anyone frequenting and commenting on this web site is part of a relatively small “echo chamber” [our views may not be widely held or popular], then I think it not unreasonable to suggest that most of us would support a strengthening of checks and balances, changes that would wrest the “regulation of parliamentary activities” away from parliament to a completely separate body, that sort of thing.
But by what possible means could we reasonably expect to see this sort of change introduced? I posit that there are none likely. Not because this idea is somehow radical or dangerous, but because we would be stripping protections from the last bastion of rampant lawlessness in the UK: parliament.
The inhabitants of the Westminster village would look upon such a proposal as they might a venomous snake: as something with no purpose in life but to do them harm.
The mere fact that most elected MPs would reject the idea of independent, more rigorous and more transparently executed oversight and regulation of their antics as abhorrent should tell us all we need to know about the completely inadequate state of affairs that remains in place today.
Reading this I wonder if we’re not heading back to an eighteenth-century style politics of faction, rather than monolithic parties. Just a thought.
Unless forced, I rather doubt it.
No special insights here, just the observation of basic mathematics. A single political entity with 3-400 seats in the house is always going to be able to drive more policy than a dozen or more entities with 25-30 seats each.
The problem isn’t with the monolithic/factionalised approach to politics, the problem lies with the fact that we continue to cling to a representative democracy when the model is well beyond it’s “use by” date.
With modern communications and an ecouragement towards greater individual participation (voting by smart phone, ATM Card, even pre-printed coupons designed to be read by lottery terminals) and so on. But I’m pretty sure this thought would terrify most MPs because it wouldn’t take us long to realise that we really don’t need so many of them in Westminster…
I had myself been encouraged that DAG thought we could put off Johnson’s re-election until 20199. Too optimistic?
I don’t think it’s unusual or surprising, or special to the UK system, that after 10 years we need a change of governing party. The single serious essential change has to be in the voting arrangements — ditch FPTP. I would like Labour, Lib Dems, Greens and SNP to agree a move to a proportional representation system if they are in a majority next time. It hardly matters which. Something to generate movement.
Only if it’s the right kind of proportional representation (e.g. Single Transferrable Vote with multi-member constituencies). The wrong kind (e.g. party list systems) would make things worse.
But, in line with Sproggit above, neither Labour nor the Tories will ever agree to this.
I agree.
Seems Lord Cruddas writing in the Mail (and tweeted by Dan Hodges) has taken it into his head that the Conservative membership can reject Johnson’s resignation as it was a ‘coup’ and he will be resinstated.
Bonkers (I assume), but worrying that this is being said by a conservative peer (and former party treasurer).
Johnson has indicated his intention to resign as party leader and as prime minister (although I don’t think he has publicly said “I will resign” – perhaps I am wrong and someone can point to it).
He has not actually resigned yet and remains in both offices for the time being.
I doubt it is likely to happen, but he could withdraw his resignation or decline to go through with his intention. If the Conservatives had already elected a new leader, there would be a crisis, and I expect the Conservative MPs would move to kick Johnson out reasonably quickly. But I expect he would only do such a thing if he thought he could get away with it. Given how much he gets away with, and expects to get away with, perhaps it is not entirely fanciful.
Perhaps more likely is that the new Conservative leader makes such a horlicks of things that in desperation the Conservative party might turn back to Johnson, either before or perhaps after the next general election, just as Trump seems to be in position to stand as Republican presidential nominee again. More fool them if they try it again.