An elected Head of State? We all know who wins elections in Britain. And we all know who does not.
In 1995, Harold Wilson's obituaries said that he had been an unimaginable Prime Minister until he had taken office, after which it had been his predecessors who were unimaginable. Well, his three immediate predecessors went to the same school as two of the three Prime Ministers of the last 10 years, so who is unimaginable now?
On any criterion other than being male or white, a Prime Minister who was remotely like Wilson has become inconceivable. That is the choice of the voters, and above all it is the choice of the electorally decisive voters of the working class, mostly in the North of England, in the Midlands, in North Wales, and in parts of Scotland. The public schools have a long history of ethnic diversity, so they will at least deliver that to the Premiership, perhaps even before the end of this Parliament.
Boris Johnson had already been born when Wilson became the first ever state educated Prime Minister, so we did not last two generations. And in the six decades since that General Election of 1964, Britain has behaved as one of those countries which abolished their monarchies but then brought them back. 20 years ago, the idea that the monarchy might die with the Queen was mainstream opinion. But by the 2017 Election, even Jeremy Corbyn was ruling that out.
Corbyn wanted to be Prime Minister. Just as the monarchy does not maintain traditional Christian values in anything beyond the Queen's private life, and just as the idea that the monarchy guarantees stability is hilarious when set against the history of Britain since 1952, so it is the opposite of the truth to suggest that the monarchy occupies a space that a politician therefore cannot.
Wresting and then holding the office of Prime Minister effectively makes you an absolute monarch. You can even send Parliament home indefinitely and rule by decree through Orders in Council, which are primary legislation unless they are superseded by the Acts of Parliament that Parliament would have to sit in order to enact, and Parliament can be summoned only by the monarch, which in practice means the Prime Minister. It is Parliament, and not the Crown, that is fundamentally and ultimately ceremonial and decorative.
If you are serious about your political philosophy and programme, then you have to be serious about wanting power. And if you were serious about wanting power, then why would you want to change any of this? Corbyn was profoundly serious about his political philosophy and programme, so he wanted to be Prime Minister. But he never got it. We all know who wins elections in Britain. We all know who would win an election for Head of State. And we all know who would not.
so it is the opposite of the truth to suggest that the monarchy occupies a space that a politician therefore cannot.
ReplyDeleteThe Monarch occupies an enormous square that politicians would desperately love to occupy-that of Head of State and Commander-in-Chief and symbol of the nation. As Tony Blair showed by constantly trying to get pictures with the Armed Forces (which serve the Crown, not him).
He'd have loved to replace Royal Yacht Britannia with a British Air Force One.
"You can even send Parliament home indefinitely"
No you can't, you constitutional illiterate. Parliament cannot be indefinitely prorogued because of the need for taxation and defence. Any Prime Minister who did so would also lose the support of Parliament which would then remove and replace him as Prime Minister by voting for an election or a caretaker PM.
Why write such drivel?
Any Prime Minister who did so would also lose the support of Parliament which would then remove and replace him as Prime Minister by voting for an election or a caretaker PM.
DeleteThere is no such provision. Parliament cannot even sit unless the monarch, meaning the Prime Minister, summons it. And the Bank of England could issue the Treasury with all the money that it needed. That is what it does now, in fact. There is no economic, rather than political, need for taxation at all.
For all practical purposes, the Prime Minister has been the Commander-in-Chief since the nineteenth century. And when it comes to guards of honour and what have you, them the Prime Minister has been the "symbol of the nation" at least since 1979. A symbol that we have richly deserved, alas. Although mercifully not one that makes any difference to anything that matters.
The Prime Minister is of course not an "absolute Monarch". For a start, a Government cannot govern without the continuing support of the House of Commons, which can remove the Prime Minister at any time.
ReplyDeleteProrogation for an unreasonable period would be impossible since the government would lose the support of Parliament and also requires Parliament to pass legislation to tax and spend (which cannot be done through Orders in Council).
Parliamentary sovereignty in any case does not require Parliament to be in continual session. It simply requires Acts of Parliament (“statutes”) to be treated as law and forbids any institution or Prime Minister from invalidating or defying statute.
a Government cannot govern without the continuing support of the House of Commons, which can remove the Prime Minister at any time.
DeleteNo, it can't. It can only remove the entire Government. And it cannot sit unless summoned by the monarch, meaning the Prime Minister.
the government would lose the support of Parliament
See above.
to pass legislation to tax and spend
The Bank of England could issue the Treasury with all the money that it needed. That is what it does now, in fact. There is no economic, rather than political, need for taxation at all.
forbids any institution or Prime Minister from invalidating or defying statute.
Bless.
Historically and constitutionally illiterate. As Charles I, (the last despot who tried it) found out to his cost, Parliament cannot be indefinitely prorogued due to the Petition of Right-which means taxes can’t be levied without Parliamentary consent. Hence permanent or prolonged prorogation is impossible and has never been attempted. Parliament can also pass legislation to prevent it being prorogued or remove the Government, thereby preventing it.
ReplyDeleteThe Head of State is the symbol of the nation; the Golden Jubilee celebrating the majesty of monarchy is much better than the Soviet Mayday Parades celebrating the power of the state.
We have been through all of this. Several times. As I have said of your obvious demigod in the past, he writes what he wants to be true, whether or not it is.
DeleteParliament can’t be indefinitely prorogued as the levying of taxes has required Parliamentary consent ever since the Petition of Right.
ReplyDeleteParliament can also pass legislation to prevent it, or can remove the Government before it is prorogued.
It had the chance to remove Boris Johnson and prevent its prorogation in 2019 but Corbyn wimped out of an election and Parliament couldn’t find a majority for any caretaker PM (remember the “unity candidate” Yvette Cooper? haha).
Again and again with this. There do not have to be taxes at all. The State can just issue itself with currency, as in fact it does all the time. If Parliament is prorogued, then it is prorogued on the spot.
DeleteAnd Parliament does not elect or even confirm the Prime Minister. Whatever gave you that idea? What were the figures for that vote on Boris Johnson in July 2019? Well, there you are, then.
Parliament can remove any PM at any time by voting for an election or an alternative PM (as you know). The running of the country of course requires the levying og taxes. Do you know of a single nation state that manages to exist without levying taxes?
ReplyDeleteThe Petition of Right is an absolute guarantee against arbitrary power.
Parliament can remove any PM at any time by voting for an election or an alternative PM (as you know).
DeleteAbsolute rubbish.
The running of the country of course requires the levying of taxes.
Not, it doesn't. Not economically, anyway.
The Petition of Right is an absolute guarantee against arbitrary power.
Not a legal document at all. And even if it were, we do not have a written Constitution. Thankfully.