Constitutional position of PrimeMandy?

#1
Having already 'run' the country as an unelected caretaker PM; what is the constitutional position if Mandy were to be put in charge again?
 
#3
oldcolt said:
Having already 'run' the country as an unelected caretaker PM;
You mean, just like Cyclops?

what is the constitutional position if Mandy were to be put in charge again?
Constitutionally, it would be fine, us not having a written one that says he can't be. It is a convention that the PM should be in the commons, I believe, rather than a rule.
 
#4
Idrach said:
oldcolt said:
Having already 'run' the country as an unelected caretaker PM;
You mean, just like Cyclops?

what is the constitutional position if Mandy were to be put in charge again?
Constitutionally, it would be fine, us not having a written one that says he can't be. It is a convention that the PM should be in the commons, I believe, rather than a rule.
Totally ignorant on this subject but intrigued by the idea. Whilst Cyclops is unelected as PM at least he can claim to have been elected to parliament (for all the goods thats done us :x ) but I am/ would be suprised if a prime minister could hold that office if they were unelected at all/ appointed. Does this mean they have to be a lord or can anyone just rock up and say, right ho' I'm in charge now? If so, it makes for an interesting potential plot line for a book....or something FAR more helpful to this country! :twisted: :wink:
 
#5
Unlike heredetary peers, life peer, cannot give up their peerage. I believe that the law on this will be changed this autumn to permit Mandy to stand as an MP and assume the throne.
 

CountryGal

MIA
Book Reviewer
#6
The PM also has to be sitting as an MP at the time of promotion to the position, so someone who isnt currently a MP cannot be PM
 
#7
rockpile said:
Unlike heredetary peers, life peer, cannot give up their peerage. I believe that the law on this will be changed this autumn to permit Mandy to stand as an MP and assume the throne.
Mandy is going to make a choice between leading a demoralised rump Labour party which may not even be the opposition and being an unsackable Lord, entitled to all the trappings and monies which go with the position until he dies?

No I didn't think so either.
 
#8
I stll think that there will be a change in Law. Whether Mandy avails himself of it is something time will tell. Alot will depend upon how much improvement in the ecomomy and employment there is between now and the election. I suspect that we keep being told that we are out of the recession for a reason. Gordon has saved us again. Let's keep him.
 
#9
CountryGal said:
The PM also has to be sitting as an MP at the time of promotion to the position, so someone who isnt currently a MP cannot be PM
Are we sure of this? "Has to"? I know the current protocol is that the PM must be sitting in the Commons but is there actually law that says that they can't be in the Lords?

rockpile said:
Unlike heredetary peers, life peer, cannot give up their peerage. I believe that the law on this will be changed this autumn to permit Mandy to stand as an MP and assume the throne.
They've already trialed this with the "The European Parliament (House of Lords Disqualification) Regulations 2008" which I think I remember deriding as the practice for the "Peter Mandelson Appointment as Prime Minister (House of Lords Disqualification) Regulations 2010" - or something even less witty - in an earlier thread.

rockpile said:
I suspect that we keep being told that we are out of the recession for a reason. Gordon has saved us again. Let's keep him.
He's a little large for a Figure 11. What were you suggesting we keep him as? Hardly suitable as a family pet!
 
#10
I'm not suggesting that we keep Gordon 'saviour of the Wolrd' Brown. I was suggesting that if we are made to think that things are improving the the Labour line may be to keep an experienced team in place. If some voters are fooled by this and with the permanent vote from the scroungers and those employed because of the government's diverse eccentris policies, they just might win. Well, they'll hope that. After all I expect that they will put forward some reason to vote for them, however thin.
 

CountryGal

MIA
Book Reviewer
#12
Idrach said:
CountryGal said:
The PM also has to be sitting as an MP at the time of promotion to the position, so someone who isnt currently a MP cannot be PM
Are we sure of this? "Has to"? I know the current protocol is that the PM must be sitting in the Commons but is there actually law that says that they can't be in the Lords?

rockpile said:
Unlike heredetary peers, life peer, cannot give up their peerage. I believe that the law on this will be changed this autumn to permit Mandy to stand as an MP and assume the throne.
They've already trialed this with the "The European Parliament (House of Lords Disqualification) Regulations 2008" which I think I remember deriding as the practice for the "Peter Mandelson Appointment as Prime Minister (House of Lords Disqualification) Regulations 2010" - or something even less witty - in an earlier thread.

rockpile said:
I suspect that we keep being told that we are out of the recession for a reason. Gordon has saved us again. Let's keep him.
He's a little large for a Figure 11. What were you suggesting we keep him as? Hardly suitable as a family pet!
The Parliament Act of 1911 that marginalised the Lords' role in the legislative process and to the convention that a Prime Minister cannot sit in the House of Lords.

The same act has been amended to also state that the PM has to be a sitting PM.

However bear in mind that this can be amended, with an act of parliament so all to play for for Maddy really ;o)


If youre interested http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1069329 lists the parliment act, incorporating the 1949? changes ;o)
 
#13
Thanks Country young Lady for the clarification. I knew that there was some impediment to Mandy's Rule but I expect to see it changed in the next session of Parliament. I think that there is a short one before Christmas.
 
#14
But wouldn't changing two rules be a little far out, even for this bunch of dimwits? It would mean changing the rules so Mandy could resign his life peerage THEN changing the rules so he could become PM if he wasn't voted in as an MP. (Yes, I realise that there are some dummies out there who would vote for Mandy and then they wouldn't have to change the last bit, although I can't for the life of me think who would be so stupid enough to select him, let alone vote him in).
Oh, and I still don't get it about Mandy.
 

CountryGal

MIA
Book Reviewer
#15
exbleep said:
But wouldn't changing two rules be a little far out, even for this bunch of dimwits? It would mean changing the rules so Mandy could resign his life peerage THEN changing the rules so he could become PM if he wasn't voted in as an MP. (Yes, I realise that there are some dummies out there who would vote for Mandy and then they wouldn't have to change the last bit, although I can't for the life of me think who would be so stupid enough to select him, let alone vote him in).
Oh, and I still don't get it about Mandy.
Not too long ago he was MP of hartlpool, wouldnt take much to get him into a safe seat
 
#16
exbleep said:
But wouldn't changing two rules be a little far out, even for this bunch of dimwits? It would mean changing the rules so Mandy could resign his life peerage THEN changing the rules so he could become PM if he wasn't voted in as an MP.
He doesn't need to resign his peerage - as per the EU example, he just needs to be banned from snoozing in the Upper House while elected to the chimp cage. And even for this egregious bunch of faux-socialists, there will be safe seats.

CountryGal said:
The Parliament Act of 1911 that marginalised the Lords' role in the legislative process and to the convention that a Prime Minister cannot sit in the House of Lords.

The same act has been amended to also state that the PM has to be a sitting PM.
Thanks but ... Checked the 1911 and 1949 Acts - don't see anything that refers to the PM needing to be an MP. Sorry, but I'm still convinced this is protocol rather than law (whilst agreeing that changing the law is trivial for the chimps in charge). I may be being utterly stupid and missing something obvious (it wouldn't be the first time)!
 

CountryGal

MIA
Book Reviewer
#17
Idrach said:
exbleep said:
But wouldn't changing two rules be a little far out, even for this bunch of dimwits? It would mean changing the rules so Mandy could resign his life peerage THEN changing the rules so he could become PM if he wasn't voted in as an MP.
He doesn't need to resign his peerage - as per the EU example, he just needs to be banned from snoozing in the Upper House while elected to the chimp cage. And even for this egregious bunch of faux-socialists, there will be safe seats.

CountryGal said:
The Parliament Act of 1911 that marginalised the Lords' role in the legislative process and to the convention that a Prime Minister cannot sit in the House of Lords.

The same act has been amended to also state that the PM has to be a sitting PM.
Thanks but ... Checked the 1911 and 1949 Acts - don't see anything that refers to the PM needing to be an MP. Sorry, but I'm still convinced this is protocol rather than law (whilst agreeing that changing the law is trivial for the chimps in charge). I may be being utterly stupid and missing something obvious (it wouldn't be the first time)!

There is no law on statue that made/created the position of PM
Its come about through amendments to the heirachy of goverment and created a place underneath the monarch of the next most important person in the country and only became a legally recognised title in the early 1900's.
The act of settlement in 1701 confirmed the movement of power away from the soverign to parliament
fast forward a hundred years or so and the Great Reform act of 183? came about which meant the PM was elected rather than chosen by the soverign.
Fast forward some more and teh Parliament Act of 1911 passed the legislative statue that a Prime Minister cannot sit in the House of Lords.

A heredrity lord can rescind his title and it passes to his heir, a life peer cannot rescind his title its his till he/she dies, or the soverign removes it from him if he commits a serious crime like treason.

Therefore Maddy cannot as it stands become PM.

I think my dates are right, I studied this for bt 4 years - But look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_the_United_Kingdom for exact details and dates if you want a late nite read ;o)
 

TheIronDuke

On ROPS
On ROPs
Book Reviewer
#18
oldcolt said:
in charge
Two salient words.

He's in charge.

Now settle down and think yourselves lucky that Peter Benjamin Mandelson; Baron Mandelson; First Secretary of State; Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills; President of the Board of Trade and Lord President of the Council is watching out for you.

Things could be worse. You could have that horrible shallow Scotch cunt Cameron watching out for you.
 
#19
Forgive me for directly contradicting some assertions made here, but -

The PM does not have to be a sitting member of the House of Commons. Indeed, Alec Douglas-Home (as he'd become after renouncing his hereditary peerage) was PM for a short while in 1963 without being a member of either house of parliament, since he was given the job before winning the by-election that put him into the Commons. That's an extreme example, of course (since the PM has to be in parliament to get legislation through and be accountable [if only theoretically...] to that body), but illustrates that the notion that the law says that the PM must be a sitting MP is inaccurate.

The PM is not elected - the 1832 Reform Act (nor the Second and Third Reform Acts, for that matter) did not remove the sovereign's discretion to appoint whoever he/she damn well pleased (if it had done so, William IV wouldn't have been able to sack the PM in 1834, for instance), and nor has anything subsequently.

HMQ's right to remove the PM from office remains, although it is the nuclear option, and goes hand-in-hand with her right to choose the PM.

The Prime Minister is invited to form a government by the monarch, and that invitation is not - at least in theory - dependent upon whether or not that person is the elected party leader. There was a brief panic in 1990 amongst Hestletine supporters when someone pointed out that he might unseat Thatcher as party leader only for her to say she was staying on as PM, since she held that post at the behest of the sovereign, not her party...

What has happened in practice, is that a convention has emerged which holds that:

1. The sovereign will appoint the leader of the largest party in parliament as PM

2. That person will be a member of the Commons, although there is nothing explicit to exclude the PM being a member of the Lords

3. If there is a hung parliament, the sovereign will (perhaps after taking advice from a vareity of sources, such as the Privy Council) invite the person who appears most likely to be able to command a majority in the Commons to see if they can form a government.

The convention that the PM should come from the elected chamber only really came to the fore when George V chose to invite Baldwin, rather than Lord Curzon to become PM after Bonar Law resigned through ill health; also, in 1940, the question of whether Lord Halifax or Churchill should be the PM came to the fore; had there been any situation in law preventing a Lord from becoming PM, then Halifax's name couldn't have entered the picture.

Mandleson could, in theory, be asked to become PM. If HMQ decides he's the man for the job because he's most likely to be able to get legislation through the House of Commons (clearly with the Leader of the Commons taking on the task of getting legislation through the lower house), then HMQ is entirely within her rights to invite him to become PM. She could sack Brown tomorrow and ask Mandy to lead the government if there were sufficient evidence that he could get enough votes to put Bills through parliament (most importantly the financial Bills).

And there's nothing anyone can do to stop her (with the exception, one suspects of the Duke of Edinburgh armed with a 12-bore 'Sorry, Lillibet - you know what one does with the Corgis when they go bonkers....').

There are a variety of reasons I think that it is most unlikely that he will be asked (certainly while he's Lord Mandelson, and probably even if he reverts to plain old Mr Mandleson after he's given the right to renounce), but it is quite wrong to say that the monarch can't appoint who she likes because it is the law. It is convention which governs this, and nothing else.

HMQ could, in theory, enoble Sir Terry Wogan and send him to No.10 if she wanted to and he felt up to the challenge...

Anyone wanting to look into this further could do far worse than looking at Peter Hennessey's book The Prime Ministers which lays this out in some detail, as does work by Vernon Bogdanor.
 
#20
I've been transported back to being sat on the stairs listening to the grown-ups talk late at night..... I wish I'd paid more attention at school :x . This is facinating :)
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top