Bliar to stay as PM with Broon as Labour leader - MoS

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by MrPVRd, Apr 10, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. According to the Mail, Bliar is planning to stay as PM whilst Broon assumes the mantle of party leader and remains Chancellor.

    There is nothing in the (unwritten) constitution to prohibit this, but I cannot see it happening for a couple of reasons:

    1. HM may say "no".
    2. Parliament may say "no".
    3. The Labour party may say "no".

    In the unlikely event that this does happen (no hung parliament, no instant Bliar departure after a electoral kicking etc) then clearly something will need to happen - some sort of campaign.

    I'd suggest a mass letter writing campaign to Buck House along the following lines:

    "Your Majesty

    I have the honour to humbly request that the office of First Lord of the Treasury and Prime Minister is assumed, as has been traditional, by the leader of the majority party in your House of Commons.

    The retention of this office in your government by Mr Blair is contrary to centuries of parliamentary tradition and undermines the fundamental principle of an accountable government.

    If Mr Blair does not rescind this office, it would be with the deepest regret that I would regard the government of the United Kingdom as unconstitutional. All instructions, bills and edicts issued by such a government would therefore be invalid.

    I have the honour to remain etc..."

    Protests in Trafalgar Square etc. until the scrote is either removed from office or strung from a lamp-post with the wide mouthed frog one down.... :twisted:
  2. Hells teeth!! :evil: Talk about republicanism by the back door!
    Is there anything to back this claim up MrPVRd?
  3. There was a suggestion that Thatcher might have done this in 1990 - resign as party leader and stay on.

    There were various reasons why this was dismissed, the most obvious one being that there was no guarantee that she would be able to form a government to serve under her. Even if she did, the argument went, a no confidence vote against her (as PM rather than her government) would have been pretty much guaranteed, and her position untenable, even if she won, albeit with Labour & Lib-Dem [or were they the SLD, then???] tactical voting to keep the unpopular PM in place...

    Unless the Labour majority was particularly small, the Brownites along with the other discontented elements of the Labour back-bench would almost certainly be in a position to leave Blair facing a no confidence vote. He might win it with the support of the Tories and Lib Dems (trying to keep their best electoral asset in place), but it could be said that even that would make his position untenable as he'd not command the support of the majority of his party. He's arrogant enough to think he could get away with this in theory, but the level of discontent he'd cause in his own party would, I suspect, be sufficient to dissuade him from persuing the course of action.