6th September 2022
We have today a new Prime Minister.
You may have Very Strong Opinions about them as a person and as a politician.
But let us put those Very Strong Opinions to one side, and let us look at the appointment from a constitutionalist perspective.
Constitutions are about, among other things, parameters of political action – constitutions provide what certain political and other actors can and cannot do, and when.
So the first point to make is that the new Prime Minister only has a short period so as to make any political impression before the next general election.
It is now September 2022 – and the next general election has to be called by December 2024, in just over two years’ time.
The last possible date for an election, once called, is January 2025.
This means that any controversial legislation – especially if it outside the scope of the Conservatives’ 2019 manifesto – is unlikely to get through the House of Lords in time.
And the new Prime Minister may even want to call a general election sooner, which they can do because the Fixed-term Parliaments Act is now repealed.
The second point to make is how weak the new Prime Minister is, despite the governing party’s majority in the House of Commons.
Only 50 of the new Prime Minister’s colleagues supported them on the first vote, out of 358.
The new Prime Minister did not even have a majority support of their parliamentary party at the final round before it went to the party membership vote.
This means that there seems to be little positive support in the Conservative parliamentary party for the new Prime Minister.
Indeed, both the departing Prime Minister and the defeated leadership contender will probably have as much substantial support in the parliamentary party as the new Prime Minister.
The new Prime Minister, in their first appointments, seems to be rewarding their supporters rather than building a party-wide coalition.
As any Prime Minister only has so much autonomous power, the lack of a natural and positive parliamentary majority will be a problem.
The governing party is currently prone to rebellion and revolt, and there is nothing about the appointment of the new Prime Minister and their first cabinet appointments that looks as if this propensity to rebellion and revolt will change.
So, not only is there a looming general election and the practical inability to force contentious measures through the upper chamber, there is the possibility that the new Prime Minister may not even be able to get legislation through the lower chamber.
Within the United Kingdom more widely, the matter of the Northern Irish Protocol is no nearer resolution, and the Scottish government is pressing for a further referendum.
Serious questions about the future of the Union are being posed at a time where the new Prime Minister is not in a strong position.
And all this – all of this – is in addition to the pressing political problems of the cost-of-living crisis and the escalating energy crisis, as well as war in Europe.
Any one of these would be a challenge to a Prime Minister in a strong position.
It is difficult to see how the new Prime Minister, who is in a weak position, is going to be able to address, let alone resolve, these issues.
As this blog has said before: do not underestimate any politician who clambers to the top of what Benjamin Disraeli called the “the greasy pole”.
And this blog will give the new Prime Minister a clean slate.
But.
Given the circumstances of the appointment, the outlook for the new Prime Minister Elizabeth Truss is not looking good.
It is difficult to be optimistic – even if one supports her politically.
Brace, brace, as they say.
***
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 comments policy is here.
Is there anything constitutionally that would stop the government from extending beyond 2025?
I think it would take a war breaking out to do that. Truss has form in terms of increasing the threat level against Russia.
The Parliament Act 1911 remains in force and sets the maximum duration of a Parliament to 5 years. Nonetheless, with Opposition support, the Tories passed an Act to enable the 2019 early election, leaving the FTPA in place before the Johnson government repealed it, so in theory if Truss could get support from Labour because of specific circumstances at the time, legislation to amend 1911 PA one-time could do it. Unlikely the Lords would intervene on a matter concerning the running of the Commons, if they could see consensus in the lower chamber. As DAG has reminded us nothing is ‘enshrined in law’ if we can pass a new one. Hard to see those circumstances in which the Opposition parties would support it, though?
The Parliament Acts limit the life of a Parliament to five years. After that the Parliament is automatically dissolved. In practice all Parliaments have been dissolved on ministerial advice before that deadline, even ones that went up to the wire like Major’s 1997 dissolution.
The Government *could* try to legislate away this time limit in a law extending the life of the present Parliament, like what Churchill did annually in WW2, but that requires the consent of the House of Lords, and see Mr Green’s point in the post above.
The five year limit is now in section 4 of the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022.
Section 7 of the Parliament Act 1911 was abolished by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, which also did away with the Septennial Act 1715.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/1-2/13/section/7
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/apgb/Geo1St2/1/38/contents
But I was drawn today towards considering whether the Demise of the Crown (whenever that might occur) might dissolve Parliament, and found the Demise of the Crown Act 1901 and then section 57 of the Representation of the People Act 1867 (the Second Reform Act) which makes it clear that the answer is “no”.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/30-31/102/section/51
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Edw7/1/5
Indeed, not since the Succession to the Crown Act 1707.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/apgb/Ann/6/41/section/IV
Our constitution is extraordinary: these simple questions take us back over 300 years to Queen Anne and George I.
Well, there is section 4 of the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022, which provides;
Oh dear – my blockquote markup did not work there, did it! It was meant to end after the second paragraph. Oh well.
There is little on her slate to wipe clean, so it’s more of a blank slate. However with excrement flooding our rivers and beaches her slashing of the Environment Agency’s budget may come back to haunt her.
She has, as they say, risen without trace but I expect her demise will be rather more noticeable.
I have a question re the NI Protocol and the status of NI citizens. NI citizens with Irish passports are citizens of the EU. That is without question. What I wonder is this: as EU citizens why are they not represented in the EU Parliament? A person with a Swedish passport as a citizen of the EU may live in their home country or any other EU member state. They are represented and that representation is geographical. A NI/EU citizen who lives in NI does not live in a constituency electing members of the EU Parliament. You may say they are virtually represented by EU parliamentarians elected in the Irish Republic. Virtual representation is the very issue that led to the American Revolution (as well as the defence of slavery). No taxation without representation was answered by the Brits you are virtually represented in Parliament.
As well, as EU citizens living in NI, why are EU programs not available to them at home.
Has not the Good Friday Agreement not turned NI into an Eire/UK/EU condominium?
Since Brexit, NI is no longer part of the EU. Therefore NI no longer has representation in the EU Parliament. NI citizens (with or without Irish passports) get to vote in NI and UK elections and are thus fully represented democratically in the place they are resident.
Not in the least. NI remains part of the UK. The GFA imposes treaty-like conditions on the UK with respect to NI laws, notably on human rights. The EU has no jurisdiction over NI, neither does the Irish Government. The NI Protocol means that NI remains part of the EU Customs Union and Single Market. This satisfies the GFA requirement for an open border with no customs controls between NI and Ireland.
None of this was a problem before Brexit. The GFA is not the cause of the problems, Brexit is.
“…The EU has no jurisdiction over NI, neither does the Irish Government. The NI Protocol means that NI remains part of the EU Customs Union and Single Market. ..”
This is an oxymoron – by virtue of NI being in the SM & EU CU the EU has significant jurisdiction over NI, with over 300+ law’s/directives impacting NI in 2021 alone – further we all know (or forget) that all matters
relating to the SM & CU is adjudicated by theCJEU/ECJ.
The reality is that the NI has no effective say in the SM or CU ie it describes perfectly the ‘democratic deficit’, rules/taxes/tariffs paid with no current say – it’s one of the paradoxes of the NIP & causes so much angst among some of the democratically elected members of the Northern Irish Assembly.
It’s not that hard to understand why the NIP is very much unfinished business with the UK & the EU.
All those laws and regulations, mostly of a technical nature relating to trading standards and fair competition (the level playing field) are already in place. Just as they still are in GB. The EU can’t enforce them. It relies, as it always has, on the UK to do that. The EU cannot pass new legislation and impose it on NI because Brexit has broken the linkage that did that.
The ECJ would resolve any disputes arising, though the UK opposes that mechanism, but if such disputes do not arise the ECJ cannot intervene in national affairs. There are no EU investigators to check on the application of rules.
Thus the EU has no effective control over NI. The UK won’t even allow it to have observers to monitor imports from GB. No jurisdiction in effect.
Businesses in NI seem very happy to continue with trading on this basis. NI has free and frictionless trade with the EU. That’s good for NI economically. It’s only the DUP which opposes it, along with the Brexit purists in Westminster.
The NIP is only a theoretical problem if you take it to extremes. In practice very little of importance is affected and these issues could easily be resolved sitting round a table and talking about it rather than using a megaphone to hurl insults. I can only assume the UK government doesn’t want to resolve things amicably and wants a dispute over it for political reasons.
Thanks for answering this. Most helpful. Brexit indeed is. I cannot thing of anything more in opposition to the British Constitution than a referendum.
Much as I enjoy and admire David’s writing and in particular the clarity he brings to complex issues, I find myself unpersuaded by the argument that “Liz Truss, Prime Minister” is entitled to a (completely) clean slate.
Conscious that this may appear (controversial/argumentative) [delete as applicable] I offer the following for consideration.
1. The Model of Government Affords Limited Scope
Because the resignation of Boris Johnson triggered only a leadership contest in the Conservative Party and not a General Election; because the argument on that topic was based on the principle that the Electorate voted for the Party not the Leader, everything about the current government (with the exception of PM and Ministerial appointments) remains in force.
The only [honourable] way that Liz Truss could legitimately change direction would be to adjust the party manifesto at the next conference, take that manifesto to the nation, win a majority and then implement it.
Now, at a pinch, the new PM and her Cabinet may elect to take any remaining legislation mentioned in the Queen’s Speech but not enacted and “kick that in to the long grass”, but to attempt more – for example by bringing forward major, policy changing legislation without a GE… would fly in the face of having a democracy in the first place.
2. Collective Cabinet Responsibility
Liz Truss acquired her first portfolio in government on 4th September 2012 when she became the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Childcare and Education. Bit of a mouthful of a job title and one suspects that the main reason for having so many under-secretary-this and over-secretary-that is to find some way of increasing the remuneration offered to as many majority-party MPs as possible.
But what that appointment also tells us is that Ms. Truss has had government responsibilities for the last 10 years, and a Cabinet Minister since July 15, 2014, when she became the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
In other words, for the last 8 years, Ms. Truss has held, by virtue of her office, part of the “collective cabinet responsibility” for the governance of the nation.
If David hard argued here for “the benefit of the doubt”, then I would be inclined to extend mine. But he didn’t; and, moreover, he goes to extraordinary lengths to teach us that words matter.
So whilst I can understand, empathise with and perhaps even be willing to contemplate the *spirit* of giving Ms. Truss the benefit of the doubt… I’m not sure that we should – or indeed could – extend that as far as a blank slate.
I could not agree more Sproggit – well said, and well argued.
Words do indeed matter; but if we accept the adage that actions speak louder, Truss’ actions over the past several years have completely used up any goodwill I might otherwise have been able to muster.
In the same way that respect has to be earned, so does the benefit of the doubt, and it would be to dismiss recent history completely to argue that Truss deserves a chance.
It’s a new job for her, but it’s the same old Truss.
Totally agree and with Sproggit. I’m not sure, David, why you give her a clean slate. Her slate is particularly smeared by the grease that got her up the pole. She and her cabinet are just another round on the tired, tawdry, self-seeking merry-go-round of recent years.
Because…
…confirmation and similar biases are to be avoided.
It is hard enough to commentate usefully as it is, without making it harder by letting previously held views affect me.
If Truss is useless as PM then that will become apparent soon enough without needing to refer to her previous record; and if Truss actually does something well then I may miss that because I am blind-sided by preconceptions.
Point taken. However, I think those of us who follow your blog are capable of appreciating when a silly person makes a sensible point (or vice versa), and I doubt you are ever blind-sided by preconceptions. It is the “clean slate” idea that throws me. Liz Truss may literally have a clean slate as PM but her record is not good (and she has only scaled the heights of the tiny number of UK Tory members so no great achievement there).
“…confirmation and similar biases are to be avoided.”
I don’t think that taking account of – and giving due weight to – her past actions is a bias to be avoided, David.
Even the simplest of animals have a capacity for avoidance learning – it’s a basic survival instinct – and we’d be denying it to ourselves by not learning from what has gone before where Truss is concerned.
Additionally, there is already ample current evidence of her intended direction of travel, and it does nothing to support the case for giving her a chance.
The point is such bias is to be avoided if you are a commentator like David. Let her performance as PM stand by what she says and does from now on. Not what she did in the past or said in the leadership campaign.
“If Truss is useless as PM then that will become apparent soon enough…”
That doesn’t change whether or not we start from a position of expecting the worst of her, David – they’re not mutually exclusive positions.
But as a coping mechanism, expecting the worst and hoping for the best (with the strong emphasis on the former) has a lot to recommend it.
I agree: as Trump did, so she has before her an opportunity to ramp up, prove us all wrong, and create a legacy…
Barely a day has passed, and she has stumbled badly with her appalling Cabinet appointments. Rees-Mogg’s is simply purposefully cruel. Brace, indeed
“The point is such bias is to be avoided if you are a commentator like David.”
It still doesn’t follow, Kevin.
David is under absolutely no obligation whatsoever to overtly demonstrate a contrived “fairness” in his dealings with Truss.
I would actually argue that there is an intellectual integrity in beginning from a position of “I know what you’ve done and said so far – now prove that I’m not right to judge you on that basis…”
I just don’t see any compelling rationale behind the idea that Truss should get a “clean slate” second chance, just because she’s new at the job.
I assume you were replying to my agreement with DAG? Needless to say I still disagree with you. I’m not suggesting forgetting Truss’s past, but putting it aside and judging her performance in the new role of PM on its merits, not in the light of her checkered political past.
“And all this – all of this – is in addition to the pressing political problems of the cost-of-living crisis and the escalating energy crisis, as well as war in Europe.”
Polite request to add: ‘and the threats to us due to the effects of climate change.’
A party’s election manifesto seems to be regarded on all sides as a binding contract. That cannot sit easily alongside the royal prerogative and what Quintin Hogg (quoting) called an elective dictatorship. As Paul Samuelson (not John Maynard Keynes) averred, “When the facts change I change my mind; what do you do?”
Once the leader who delivered the election manifesto is replaced, the new leader must surely be allowed freedom to change direction? Anyway there is no formal contract to break. A manifesto is a statement of intent.
“Anyway there is no formal contract to break”
Lawrence – pointedly, I imagine – used the phrase “seems to be regarded on all sides as a binding contract”, with no suggestion that it is an actual binding, formal contract.
It is indeed a statement of intent, but one that carries special weight, which is why the Lords rarely if ever obstruct policies that derive from manifesto commitments – they are seen to carry the specific mandate of the electorate, being (in theory) what the government was voted in to do.
Yes, manifesto commitments are special but I don’t believe that means a succeeding Prime Minister is tightly bound by them, though they will presumably still wish to carry them out. Even the PM elected on that manifesto may need to deviate from it if circumstances change.
When Macmillan became Prime Minister on 10 January 1957, he entertained the Chief Whip (Ted Heath) to a supper of oysters and champagne at White’s.
Macmillan had become PM following a ballot of cabinet ministers – each was asked by the Lord Chancellor (Kilmuir) and Lord Salisbury “Which is it to be? Hawold or Wab?”
He then proceeded to sack those cabinet ministers who had backed Rab Butler – no doubt having any question over who they were answered by Heath. Rab became Home Secretary
Macmillan went on to survive the resignations of Salisbury (who apparently was rather surprised when Macmillan accepted his resignation) and Thorneycroft and the entire Treasury team.
In October 1959, he led the Conservatives to a third successive victory with an increased majority.
Hello David, I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on the manner in which we, the UK electorate, have found ourselves with yet another unelected prime minister because the party in power chose to jettison the sitting leader as a perceived threat to its future chances of retaining power. I can understand the need to change the prime minister if he/she dies or becomes unwell but what we have just gone through (and may shortly witness again, if some pundits are to be believed) leaves a significant majority of the electorate essentially disenfranchised.
“we, the UK electorate, have found ourselves with yet another unelected prime minister”
We have always, only, had unelected Prime Ministers.
The Prime Minister is whoever leads the party that wins the general election, and we have no say in who that might be.
We choose the party, the party chooses the PM.
Just a simple point to note, that the FM of Scotland is elected by the Holyrood Parliament. The whole Parliament.
I consider this to be a more democratic way of choosing a head of government.
It may be appropriate to factor into the challenges the new PM faces the impact of the vacancy levels across the whole of the NHS and social care. These impact directly on service delivery and thus have a direct effect on the perception of the government’s effectiveness by almost every household in the land. Surely that will also have an impact of re-election prospects?
Lets not forget that many of the challenges the new PM faces – like this one – were explicitly and directly caused by the very government she has been an active and senior part of, for a number of years.
Newfoundland and Labrador made a change in the Westminster model. If a new premier assumes office without a general election, there must be general election within a year no matter how early in the life of that parliament (legislature). BTW, NL’s house puts the opposition and government on reverse sides Mr. Speaker. Why, that’s where the fireplace used to be in the old building.
I am curious as to why the new prime minister is referred to by they/them pronouns in the article when she is referred to by she/her pronouns by everyone in the comments and more widely. I hope this isn’t an attempt to erase the presence of women in public life.
The most undemocratic concern for me is that she could rack up 100s of billions of debt in our name in a very short time, as Boris did, lining the pockets of her wealthy chums, then depart leaving us with the bill, and constraining any efforts for fairer social distribution for the long term future.