Should There Be A G E If A Sitting P M Resigns As Party Leader?

[ToraToraTora]

Lets say that if a sitting PM resigns then parliament is dissolved and there must be a GE in say 8 weeks. I think that would be the fairest way to do it. Discuss.

[Gromit]

Jno,
He blew £53Million on the Garden Bridge which was never built.
I didn’t say he was perfect ;-)

[jno]

ah yes, that too. And it looked so nice in the renderings.

[FatticusInch]

Like all his previous records in employment, contentious.

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/12/was-boris-johnson-as-successful-as-london-mayor-as-he-claims

[tomus42]

I used to think so, but I don't now.

The PM is not the government. The electorate selects the govt and the govt has a leader that can be changed within the lifetime of the govt.

[davebro]

Not read it all but no - that would be akin to a Presidential system which is not the way we do things. The way the parties pick their leader however may need some reconsideration.

[Gromit]

The replacing of the Prime Minister happens quite regularly, that there ought to be a better method of transition possible.
Eden to MacMillan
MacMillan to Home
Wilson to Callaghan.
Thatcher to Major.
Blair to Brown.
Cameron to May
May to Johnson.
And now Johnson to Truss.

Interesting to note, that the successor rarely lives up to the predecessor.
Maybe it is my old age, or the desperation of the situation, but the present change of leadership feels eternally long and drawn out.

[tomus42]

It is taking too long, that's for sure.

[youngmafbog]

Current system is fine, as pointed out above we elect the Party to Government we dont vote the PM (although I accept some do vote based on the PM).

I also agree the current is far too long, although timing is everything, and currently we are in a Parliamentary recess so could it actually be any quicker.

I see no point in a Vice PM. Just more paperwork and bureaucracy to achieve very little. Speed the process up and that goes away anyway.

[New Judge]

And a "Vice PM" will not take any significant decisions. "Best wait until the new PM is chosen" will be the cry (the same as now).

[Gromit]

Ymb,
Not sure the recess is the contributing factor in the process taking so long. Conservative MPs picked the final 2 on 20th July, before the recess on 21 July. So the recess actually sped things up initially, setting a real deadline to conclude the parliamentary MPs voting.

Still another 3 weeks of this no contest to go before we know the result. It could have been worse, they were initially talking about dragging it out to the party conference in October.

Taking a football analogy, sometimes a 10-0 win is boring and a 1-0 the best game you have ever seen. Because there is no doubt that Truss will win by a wide margin, the game is futile and pointless.

[Gromit]

Wilson and Blair had both served as PM for a long time, winning 3 General elections each*, and it was their decision to retire.
The Conservatives have a habit of knocking their PMs off their perch prematurely.

* first 74 election technically not a win.

[weecalf]

Why did Dominic not step in have I missed summit ?

[Peter Pedant]

Is a PM too old to be PM - well CHurchill 1955 was ga-ga but his ministry wasnt that successful

oh - - a Gee-Ee ! If someone is defeated in parliament and the defeat means a dissolution,
then should er what - one party run as headless?
yeah good one - Heath and whoever didnt, but went soon after

so crazy I cant even think how one wd draft a bill for this

[Peter Pedant]

Why did Dominic not step in have I missed summit ?

yes, a vestige of common sense in all this

DOnt we have somethinng real to discuss? inflation, Brexit ( surely not done with THAT?) Ukraine

[ichkeria]

I don't agree that there should be a law about it, but I can see the arguments in favour.
I strongly believe that a new PM should NOT be decided by unelected members of a political party though.

[youngmafbog]

//Because there is no doubt that Truss will win by a wide margin, the game is futile and pointless.//

You must be basing that on polls - as there is no other way of knowing. Polls are notoriously wrong on many occasions.

Having said that, in this case I suspect you are correct but its not over until the fat lady sings.

I also have a problem with one horse races. There should always be a choice or the selection process becomes open to dishonest moves.

[Gromit]

Sunak will be humiliated in this poll. It won’t be close.
He will not seek re-election in 2024, and will relocate to California.

[Peter Pedant]

I strongly believe that a new PM should NOT be decided
yeah but no but
it means ( and this occurs in other councils with directly elected officials) that you have a leader, and councillar body that er doesnt like him and would have chosen someone else

[Untitled]

in general yes, it is harmful to the legitimacy of the new government not to do so… brown chose not to call one in 2007 and lived to regret it. Perhaps if he had we might not have been doomed to 12 years of tories.

on the other hand i have never liked that our system allows the government to choose the timing for an election as that tends to give the ruling party (whoever it is) a huge advantage… for that reason I actually quite liked the idea of the FTPA but it’s gone now and even before that Theresa May completely undermined it in 2017

[Gromit]

Changing the party leader should not trigger a general election. The public do not appoint the leader, the party does. Johnson’s constituents elected him in 2019, the rest of us didn’t.
Brown becoming PM was a succession and everyone knew he would take over when Blair went. There was no contest or months of deliberation. The PMs seat was still warm when Brown sat in it.
Perhaps something like that is the way forward. The day after a general election win, the new Prime Minister should name his/her successor in the event that they do not complete their term in office.
These lengthy periods of the government having no leader are harmful to the country.