Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hola my Breeeteeesh Chooms.

Can anyone tell me what would happen if, during a General Election, the leader of the winning party is not reelected to Parliament, instead losing their seat to the opposition. I know this is unlikely given safe seats and that, but it is possible.

Anyone? No? Bueller? Dust? No? Dust? Anyone? No? Bueller?

Yeh your right it's not likely.

Technically they would still be allowed to run the party, however it is ultimately the queens decision to appoint the prime minister and its most likely she (or the people behind her) wont allow it.

However in that situation the party would most probably put the PM up for a by election and ask the other mp to stand down.

But you can only be a Member of Parliament, let alone Prime Minister by election. Having not been elected, surely he'd have to quit his post.

Thing is, who would take over in the meantime? Is this when a Deputy PM finally kicks in?

There are a few parties at the moment with seats where the party leader isnt an MP. bnp for example. But as I say, in this scenario the queen wouldn't allow it.

In the mean time the deputy prime minister would take charge I would imagine. The party are the ones who have been elected, they've got the say in who they put forward to lead it.

In strict legal terms I don't believe the Prime Minister actually has to be an MP at all, he is merely te person the monarch "invites" to form a cabinet/government.

In practical terms though if a person is unable to form a working majority in the House of Commons then the government will fall or be untenable. To the best of my failing memory I think Peel was the last person this happened to over 100+ years ago.

Realistically if such a thing did happen-- I think there was talk of a scare for Major one year towards the end perhaps ?-- the cabinet would divided into battle lines and a new PM would be decided upon. Bit like how Major got the role in the first place I suppose.

Thinking about it you can actually have cabinet ministers from the house of lords, so maybe the prime minister could be put there until a commons seat can be secured. I'm not sure about that however, just theorising.

You know, I think I'm going to explore this one further. Just strikes me as an imporant thing to know!!

I believe as other posters pointed out it is not necessary for the PM to be an MP or a member of the Commons. There have certainly been Lords who were prime minister though not for a century so the constitution may have changed.

Definitely a question worth investigating in depth.

whatwhat wrote:Thinking about it you can actually have cabinet ministers from the house of lords, so maybe the prime minister could be put there until a commons seat can be secured. I'm not sure about that however, just theorising.

Again, I don't think you have to be an MP to be in the cabinet either.

Yeh im just wondering if you could appoint yourself to the house of lords being a prime minister with no seat in the commons.

The Queen appoints people to the Lords on the advice of her loyal ministers.

Unless you are jammy enough to be hereditary.

Not that we have many of them left, thankfully. Hardly democratic now, is it?

I don't think you could appoint yourself as such.

From memory Wellington and perhaps 1 or 2 others were PM whilst sitting in the House of Lords, I don't recall it being done this century, and I'm dubious that this would be accepted by the HOuse anymore at all. I believe the restrictions about who can enter what House, at least with regards to the seats/voting lobby anyway, are enforced quite strongly now.

k. I don't really get the house of lords if im honest

Kilkrazy wrote:The Queen appoints people to the Lords on the advice of her loyal ministers.

i think you made a typo there, advice>order.

whatwhat wrote:k. I don't really get the house of lords if im honest

Kilkrazy wrote:The Queen appoints people to the Lords on the advice of her loyal ministers.

i think you made a typo there, advice>order.

Neither do most British people.

In my opinion the House of Lords should be converted to a second elected chamber like the Commons, but elected on a different schedule and system. The US idea of electing half the Senate seats every two years is quite a good one. We could combine that with proportional representation.

I would also like to reduce the number of MPs in the Commons by making constituencies larger.

To answer your question. An MP can stand down in favour of another candidate. So if a party leader loses his seat he takes the seat of another MP who won. This is quite legal but I dont see it being used, no it does not trigger a by-election as the elected MP transfers his seat, he does not take it up and relinquish it. However no leader ould use this system, it would not be politically survivable.



As for the House of Lords; it worked better as it was.

People have the wrong impression of it. Hereditaries did not have much power but by and large with a handful of exceptions they did the job as a civic duty. Frankly this is more reliable than most forms of democracy as in the ratrace it is the rat who comes out first. The Lords because of having some unacountable members actually works better as a body. Hereditaries dont have to suck up to get a position, nor do they need to backstab their way to the top, pull the ladder up after them or lie or cheat to get their positions. please dont benaive enough to think those who attain rank by other means usually do so by being mr nice or mr selfless. Simply put hereditaries raised the moral quality bar of the House of Lords by and large.

It was the hereditaries that blocked Thatcher when she went too far, and other leaders besides. When Blair got blocked, he wanted rid of them. New Labour leadership doesnt tolerate power sharing. Hereditaries have been accused of being 'all tories', while the majority of them possibly are they dio not toe any party line and vote by conscience.

Blair appointed more peers than any PM in history, and many many of them for the wrong reasons, yet people still blame hereditaries for the imbalance, how far that is from the truth. Still when a new peer is elevated to the Lords the first thing they are told, often by surviving hereditaries is their real job. The House of Lords is there to keep the Commons in check. It is a much needed role. By and large this works out well. When Blair removed the hereditaries he elevated large numbers of persons who he thought he could count on, many from ethnic backgrounds. the aim was transparentl;y to make the House of Lords a body that mirroed his asctions and policies. Actually what happened is that Lords, once elevated cannot really be touched, and so no longer had any loyalties to those that elevated them. From what I heard this enfuriated Blair, who quote "had a Charles I complex" anyway.
Consequently the House of Lords still thinks for itself, but for the wrong motives, out of cynical rung climbers rather than idealists who are dying out and not being replaced.

Yes some hereditaries were not really fit for office, others were insufferable snobs but they are few and far between. In fact if you want to find a true insufferable snobs find a recent peer who bought his peerage with a political donation, chances are you will have your man.


The UK political system is by and large lowbrow, the electorate is less aware compared to that on the continent, something the current government is quite happy with. Two elected houses is the last thing this country needs. Ignorance and democracy is a very dangerous combination. Hitler taught us that.

Nicely put, Orlanth

Too many people in the UK have no idea what the role of the upper house is - namely to stop the government from doing anything it likes. It has to be impartial and not affiliated with political parties in order to do this effectively.



Note for our american friends here...

The House of Lords (save for the few remaining hereditary members) is an appointed body whose members serve for life. It acts as both the UK's highest court and also as a brake against government policies that could be harmful to the rights of UK citizens. In this respect it is directly analogous to the US Supreme Court.

The House of Commons is the legislative branch of the government, with the Prime Minister (generally) being the leader of the party with the most seats - a sort of combination House/Senate with the PM being a combination of House Leader and Senate pro tem

HM the Queen is Head of State and commander-in-chief of our armed forces. She has the right to declare war (unlike the US president) and technically invites a member of the legislative branch to form a government. She can choose anyone in theory but in practice the leader of the party with the most MP's in the House of Commons is always asked to do so. The Prime Minister then appoints a cabinet to run the various government departments. In this way the powers held by a US president are shared between the Queen and the PM.

Hope that helps in understanding our wierd system...

You forgot the Bishops.

Nobody ****s with the Bishops.

Kilkrazy wrote:

whatwhat wrote:k. I don't really get the house of lords if im honest

Neither do most British people.

When I say I don't get it I don't mean I don't understand it.

The house of lords has meant near enough ef all since Oliver Cromwell and the civil war. As for them actually being able to block the commons actions, a number of acts in the last century have practically stripped the lords of being able to defeat any legislation.

Peerage for cash and hereditary qualification are enough alone to make me think a better idea is to have a body separate entirely from the commons. What good is a court of appeal if the people casing the appeal are in league with the people who saw the issue first time round.

The main act that blocks the Lords's block of Commons legislation was passed in about 1916 (?) and refers to budgets.

While the Commons can technically ram through any legislation they want, it would cause a terrible stink to use that act to push through legislation other than budgets.

For example, the Lords recently sent the 42 day detention without trial bill back to the Commons.

This is a typically British compromise or "fudge".

Actually i was talking about the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949. Didn't remember them off hand.

+ that doesn't really effect my point that the second body should be separate from the house of commons. Like there's still labour, tory etc. in the lords as well, what good is that. Ideally id say the court of apeal should be set up like a jury is, and I know that's socialism but hey, i'm a socialist.

There has been a suggestion that the House of Lords should contain "lay members" drawn from the general public.

They could be chosen at random from the electoral roll, like jury members. They would certainly need to be paid and accommodated properly -- we already do this for MPs anyway so it would not be hard.

The hard bit would be constantly reshuffling them which is kind of key to the idea.

The pool for juries gets reshuffled all the time. If called up you must attend the court for two weeks, during which time you may try several small cases, or none, or get assigned to a big trial that could potentially last months. People don't like going on the big trials because it is very disruptive of your normal life.

I don't suggest the term of service as a People's Lord should be only two weeks. A year or two sounds more realistic.

Kilkrazy wrote:

I don't suggest the term of service as a People's Lord should be only two weeks. A year or two sounds more realistic.

Basically a stochatocracy.

The very idea of 'Peoples Lords' makes me cringe, it sounds full of the dogma of the last eleven years of 'equality and diversitry' that does anything but make the nation more fair. Also 2D questions of why cant we have this why is there that regarding the state, which was set up a long time ago by peoople who knew what they were doing.
Peoples ignorance of how the Uk political system works has alloweed the current government to make many improvements that sounds very good on paper but actually undermine much of the political fabric and greatly increase corruption.

Anyway back to your randomly selected peers.

1. If it done on the same level of jury service it is not random. But random from select categories. There is a big difference. If people are offered a chance to be in governemnt they will want a fair chance. I see discord from this.

2. As it is likely not a completely open random selection who decides if someone is worthy. I see options for corruption right here.

3. How would the draw be held. Frankly any application of this would very likely demean the House and the nation by extension. 'Cool Britannia' was a bad idea from the start. we have/had a deep and internationally respected culture, please do not prostitute it further.

4. If some people are excluded, they will react badly. If the general populace is included they will want full inclusion. Lotto representatives means you might get some decent members, but you will get a lot of Michael Carrolls too.

5. As someone has no education or experience for the role required the BHouse will become increasingly lowbrow or otgher members would look down transpaerently on the temporary members. There will also be a tendency to members to want to make their mark, especially those unfamiliar with how a parliament is run. I.e. nearly all of them. This will lead to a grossly unthinking barstool politics.

I see where you want to lead, having some neutral members of parliament. However we have them, only just clinging on. The hereditaries provided this role, besides they were raised for it and are aware of what to do. What people dont reaslise about the Britiah aristocracy is that by and large it is not a self serving group. as far as a political elite in a nation is concerned it is very uncommon. Just an example of this the aristocracy had the highest percentage loss of any class or culture from the world wars of any in the British Isles. A british lord does not sit at the back and milk the nation, they die in the trenches with their men. No they were also not respeonsible for the strategic debacles either, general does not equal lord, unless you are made one at the highest rank.
In most countries the landed elite get college deferals, in the UK the landed elite leads from the front. The Germans and to a lesser extent the French are similar but this is otherwise very rare. The US ruling class, yes there is one, didnt go to Vietnam or Korea, but the British ruling class did serve in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. Just a point here, Prince Harry insisting on active service in Iraq, even better Prince Andrew insisting on flying missile decoy missions in the Falklands, though in his case he was refused over his objections. The idea of the second in line to the throne being an expendable decoy for exocet missiles not fitting too well with the Admiralty.

The idea of hereditary lord = privileged, self serving out of touch right wing biased snob, is some nasty propoganda to encourage people to think that the 1999 'reforms' are fair, even after such scandals as Cash for Peerages proving that fairness is the last thing on the minds of New labour.

Just an example.
In case you havent heard you cannot become a bishop without the government approval. Lay investiture has long been the case, bishops in the Church of England are presumably elevated by the Monarch. However no bishop has been elevated since 1997 who did no fit in with New Labour thinking, not a single one. Before this level of gerrymandering was unthinkable. No previous PM would interfere in this way. Blair just thought, bishop = voter in House of Lords, and ensured that the bishops therefore belonged to him. Thier spiritual beliefs became a very distant second, in fact it is questionable if many are actually Christian.
Priests in general are vetted too, presumably to weed out child molesters (understandable, but not a problem in the CoE, though big problem in the Catholic church) my sources tell me its actually to weed out thoase who are not New Labour. I remember being told by a vicar it is impossible to by a Christian and not be a socialist, this sort of BS is growing.

The average joe in the street is not aware of how much damage the 'fairness' agenda has caused and the backdoor one-party shaping of the nations infrastructure.

Wow, you aint from a working class background are you. From my experience in the army as a civ and with family members in the army, the sandhurst lot differ greatly from this lead from the front image your giving them. Honestly from what I've seen and heard I'd wouldn't take a thousand of them over some of the foreign ghurkas i've met, who are usually made to do the worst jobs. I'm not saying they're useless cause there have been some great examples, however Harry and Andrew are about the worst two you could have possibly given.

In actual fact most of these lord types live on their 300 acre estates doing not much more than watch their vintage culture rotting while seemingly sitting obliviously comfortably in it.

We trust all kinds of people to sit on juries. I don't see why we couldn't trust them to sit in the House of Lords.

A lot of "ordinary people" have a way of rising to a challenge when the responsibility is put on them. There are always a few bad hats of course, but we get the same in the Commons by electing them anyway.

whatwhat wrote:Wow, you aint from a working class background are you.

Very astute but I am part of the clkass I am espousing, so self interest isnt my handle here. Besides you seem to be of the opinion that the working class and the lords are opposed. Its the urbnan middles and the lords who are opposed, the working lcass have their own roots and by and large get on with the local nobs. However this again is mostly a country/town thing.

whatwhat wrote:From my experience in the army as a civ and with family members in the army, the sandhurst lot differ greatly from this lead from the front image your giving them.

Similar experiences to me, but sadly likely far more recent. Officer quality has deteriorated at least, but then recruiting standards have fallen, and in New Labour Britain most new officers have to swallow the dogma fed them. They also come from more middle class nimby backgrounds, and frewuently dont care. Chaplains worst of all. Go a generation back and you will see real officers. Such officers are still there but are actively being passed over.
You miss the essential truth, currently any form of government positi0on, church armed forces civil serivce comes with the policy, not New Labour, not welcome.
Remember the young officers who capitulated like scared schoolgirls when Iranians in powerboasts came towards them. This shocked the Admiralty who wondered why the Royal Mariens were so weak, the answer is the additin of PC dogma training and the new Britain officer caste. The Iranians tried the same trick with the Aussies and had to back off, Oz doesnt dumb down its officer class with PC bull and party poltical dogma.

Dont criticise the source for the rot added to it. It is just like the calls for Lords disbandment because it is broken, when it was the current government who broke it.

whatwhat wrote:Honestly from what I've seen and heard I'd wouldn't take a thousand of them over some of the foreign ghurkas i've met, who are usually made to do the worst jobs.

Little compares to the Gurkhas to be fair. I too have heard well sources stories.
Still under New Labour dogma the traditional Gurkha officer families, the ones the Gurkhas themselves prefer to follow. However they are no longer welcome. One young Cadet whose family served with Gurkhas for over a century was eventually told that the government no longer wanted any white officers in the Gurkhas as it was 'demeaning'. This is just PG dogma all over again. It ignored the culture of the regiment and what makes it elite. Actually the Gurkhas are slipping as a unit - though not as individual Gurkhas - because of this policy.
What the doctrinarians dont realise is that Gurkhas dont just follow anyone, not anyone can join to lead them. The families that lead and the Gurkhas have a relationshipand are largely co-dependent. Regimental honour means nothing to the current government, but PC which is opposed to it has no place in War, the most unPC environment of all. Only hard reality matters, and PC dogma and reality dont mix.

whatwhat wrote:I'm not saying they're useless cause there have been some great examples, however Harry and Andrew are about the worst two you could have possibly given.

How so. Prince Harry explodes the myth that the Royal Family are self serving toffs. Over-rich, out of touch and freeloading; none of those sterotypes are true.
Prince Andrew has his faults, but he served on the line.

If you are shallowly criticising the private lives remember they are real people, not living saints. Under press scrutiny all the time and unforgivewn for things you and I would say or do without recourse. Frankly it is a curse.
Have you forgotten Diana, the cant-do-wrong hallowed memory Peoples Princess. The same press had nothing nice to say about her when she was alive.

Give them a break.

whatwhat wrote:In actual fact most of these lord types live on their 300 acre estates doing not much more than watch their vintage culture rotting while seemingly sitting obliviously comfortably in it.

Interesting, do you know of any? You seem to be another voter who has swallowed the dogmas. If you negative stereotyped anyone else this way it would be racism.

Kilkrazy wrote:We trust all kinds of people to sit on juries. I don't see why we couldn't trust them to sit in the House of Lords.

A lot of "ordinary people" have a way of rising to a challenge when the responsibility is put on them. There are always a few bad hats of course, but we get the same in the Commons by electing them anyway.

Sure but we allow lay people to become magistrates, but you dont go to the local job centre and ask to become a judge.

Still it is a process, it takes a while to cut in a LOrd or MP. In the MP's case they have to stand for selection, campaign and win a seat, parachutes and fixed lists allowing you need a modicum of experience just to get in.
Hereditaries are raised to the job, life peers normally earn it (though the methods of earning are deteriorating rapidly). Lotto peers, no thankyou.

Do you understand juries for that matter. Everything is explained to them in laymans terms, that is the point of a trial, because the jury are public, as are the witnesses of the process of justice. From time to time some deep legal point is made and normally the council is called to bench, where judge, prosecuter and defence barrister speak lawyer to lawyer, once particulars are ironed out , whicxh are always procedural not topical the trial continues.

What is happening in parliament is anything but laymans terms. Its the reality of politics. And if you say politicis aghould be more accessiblethen the place to start is to eliminate the new doublespeak from the Commons, and leave the Lords alone. Then you might have best practice, equality and diversity in a level playing field, whatever those actually mean. Hint its not what they imply.