In the Commons yesterday, during Topical Questions to the Deputy PM, Peter Bone returned to a question he has pursued before. Who is in charge if the PM dies? I have previously written on the problem of who succeeds if a Prime Minister dies in office. The last one to do so was Palmerston, but two Prime Ministers resigned shortly before dying (Campbell-Bannerman and Bonar Law) and two Labour Leaders of the Opposition have died in office (Gaitskell and Smith). The constitution has not kept pace with changes in party practice, the election of a leader by the party membership taking time, indeed often some weeks.
There is the question of process, in terms of who does the Queen summon to assume the seals of office or to run the government in the interim? Peter Bone’s question was somewhat different in terms of whose finger is on the button in the absence of the PM. Interviewed on the Today programme this morning, John Humphreys seemed to think it would require a written (i.e. codified) constitution. It wouldn’t. The royal succession is determined by statute and who would be in charge (not necessarily who would be PM) on the demise of the PM could similarly be determined by statute. However, there is still the question of the procedure for determining what the Palace does in terms of the appointment of a Prime Minister or an interim holder of the office. When questioned by the Constitution Committee, former Cabinet Secretaries agreed there needed to be some rules or protocol in place. What so far is missing is agreement on those rules.
Should that be Gaitskell and Smith who died in office. George Brown assumed the role on Gaitskell’s death.
Surely the succession is less important than, say, in the United States, as we don’t have a chief executive Prime Miniater, but rather the chairman of a Cabinet government. The idea of a button that immediately launches nuclear weapons when the PM presses it is, after all, a myth.
Jonathan: Well spotted! Correction made…
On your substantive point, it may be that existing responsibilities of those such as the Defence Secretary and Home Secretary are sufficient in dealing with an emergency, but my concern is who runs the Government until a new leader is elected.
Jonathan,
Indeed you have the royal institutions, rule from inside the legislature, axiomatic juncture with party leadership and many factors which make your remarks pertinent. I acknowledge them However there is no button here either.
Allowing for my long distance from any current loop. A process brings Defcon to a place where nuclear war can be undertaken and the President leads that process if he wishes. Then the Defense Condition allows the football or the Doomsday mobile to be activated or the panel in a superbunker. In any of those cases an impartial expert in identities establishes that three officials including the President are who they say they are and then calls on the to give a consent code (once actual keys). This makes the whole system operational. Then the President gives another code directly to Strategic Commanders under review of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Some flexibility of command from there is possible. There are ways to contract the whole process to about ten minutes but still not quite a button in among the cufflinks on the Prez’s dresser top.
What if a PM dies?
=========
The usual course to take is a funeral, and then cremation or a burial.
Lord Blagger,
May I suggest he or she be laid on a wood pallet and and struck in the forehead with a silver mallet three times by the Lord Privy Seal and asked in Gaelic, Welsh or Old English “Are you dead?”. Then you could be sure.
Good idea. I suggest every Wednesday morning, repeating until they are dead.
Lord Blagger,
Now,now… I was only trying to bring you up to the practice of the Throne of St. Peter to which I just sense you personally must be very devoted. Instead you have a certain hostility to your government that my subtle mind is able to detect in your remarks…
Blagger is as usual quite correct on these important constitutional issues.
I seem to recall that Maggie Thatcher left the post for dead, and look what happened!
Twm O’r Nant,
I know a Welshman, popular idealist and folk romantic like yourself cannot harbor any resentment towards conservative PMs and therefore I must be missing some fine point.
“Twm O’r Nant,
I know a Welshman, popular idealist and folk romantic like yourself cannot harbor any resentment towards conservative PMs and therefore I must be missing some fine point.”
He would have been a fierce Plaid Cymru man and like Daffydd Ifan not averse to making a bob or two from a song… or two, so resentment of a Conservative PM would have abounded!
Does it therefore mean you are not missing a fine point at all Franc?!!
Twm O’r Nant changed his name from Tom Edwards, for Welsh blessings.
Peter Principle,
To remove all obfuscation and ambivalence let me answer unambiguously: “perhaps!”.
Lord Norton,
I assume you mean Gaitskell and Smith as the Labour Leaders of the Opposition who died in office? George Brown survived his one month period as acting leader after Gaitskell’s death.
According to *cough* Wikipedia, one could also consider including Hastings Lees-Smith on the list, although he was only acting Leader of the Opposition while Attlee was serving in the wartime national government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leader_of_the_Opposition_%28United_Kingdom%29
Merry Christmas,
Matt Korris
Hansard Society
Matt Korris: Good point about Lees-Smith. I may save that for a Christmas quiz!
Lord Norton,
Is it right to be going on about future quizzes when you have not commented on the last one yet?
Said comment is probably stuck in the Christmas post somewhere.
Dave H.,
A happy Christmas to you as we are not posting eachother any cards this year. I think the Baron of Louth has his reasons to be sure…
Frank W. Summers III: I have a sneaking suspicion as to why you are keen to know the results of last week’s quiz….
Lord Norton,
Suspicion is such a dangerous state of mind. I recommend the enshrinement of sweetly innocent, naive indifference to all my associates most of the time. Those times when I need them predict something that will actually happen are the times when I allow for a bit of suspicion.
Not wishing to be unduly pedantic, but I know you like to be precise, so just to point out that the presenter of the Today Programme is John Humphrys.
Bedd Gelert: Well done, you win the prize for being the first to spot the deliberate error…
“…my concern is who runs the Government until a new leader is elected.”
Ordinarily, the death of an MP would trigger no more than a by-election. Regardless of time issues and just about everything else, no-one can think that the replacement MP should assume the office of PM. This inter alia suggests that the matter should be left to the governing party (or senior party in the case of a coalition). From this, should party structures be statutorily defined?
If hanging around for voters and party arrangements are out then next up is to address the vacancy of the office. Would it be helpful to to distinguish the office from ‘who runs the gvt’ although, for all normal purposes, be indistinguishable? Then the hierarchy could run from the Sovereign to, say, the First Lord of the Treasury, with the Second Lord of the Treasury filling any immediate vacancy.
If the circumstances surrounding the death of a PM were such that an immediate ‘nuclear’ decision was required would serving Privy Counsellors be an appropriate group to ask for a collegiate decision?
There are other issues, mainly falling into the ‘what if’ category, such as:
incidents in which a PM was either a) incapacitated without a known outcome (eg Senator Giffords) or b) left in a persistent vegetative state (eg Ariel Sharon);
whether decisions would or should be affected by the time of death relative to the past or next election;
a complete or near wipe-out of parliament.
Happy Christmas!
a complete or near wipe-out of parliament.
========
If only, …
I don’t understand the need for an official protocol. The selection of party leaders, even interim ones, would seem to be a matter for the parties. I’m not sure if the Conservatives have a rule, but Labour does:
“When the party is in government and the party leader is prime minister and the party leader, for whatever reason, becomes permanently unavailable, the Cabinet shall, in consultation with the NEC, appoint one of its members to serve as party leader until a ballot under these rules can be carried out.”
After that meeting took place (by telephone, if necessary), the Cabinet Secretary could liaise with the Queen’s Private Secretary, and a new PM could be in post rather quickly. Am I missing something?
I rather feel the same Rich. There are I fear a few too many people who seem deeply unsettled by a lack of a piece of paper telling them what to do in any occurrence – however unlikely.
I don’t believe it is complex at all. If the PM fell under a bus (better not be one of Boris’s new ones or the conspiracy theorists will have a field day!) Hague would take over temporarily as Tory ‘deputy leader’ and FSoS. I can’t see the remotest chance of the Tory party objecting or the Cabinet. Major stayed PM while he contested the party leadership so I see no issue even if Hague wanted to take the job permanently – on which LN probably has more of an idea how likely that is than I do. I regard the idea the Clegg has any claim as the DPM as a joke. The title was never and is not a Deputy as in the US or elsewhere deriving a right to succeed. It is and has been used as a burble meaning little and granting no powers or rights.
Croft: I have had this discussion with others. There is not always a William Hague around, which is why we have run into difficulties in the past. The post of Deputy Prime Minister is, as you say, of no relevance in this context. The Deputy Prime Minister deputises for the PM when the PM designates him to do so, in the same way as he can with any Cabinet minister.
Do you really feel in the scenario we are considering that with or without a Hague that the Cabinet couldn’t quickly come to an agreement on someone? Even if they all wanted the poisoned chalice permanently I fancy they could agree on Sir George Younger or someone ‘neutral’ in any following contest if they had to agree to recommend someone to the Queen in extremis.
Considering the shambles that have occurred in the past over succession in countries with rules – most obviously the US – I’m not sure writing it down is much guarantee of smoothness
Croft: I can well envisage a position where they could not agree. There may be a case for saying that there should normally be a First Secretary of State and that whoever holds that office should take the helm until a new leader is elected. Failing that, one could provide that it should be the Leader of the House of Lords. I can see objections to the latter, though the Lord Chancellor used to keep things running during election campaigns in pre-Constitutional Reform Act days.
Rich: It doesn’t deal with Peter Bone’s point. On my point, Labour’s rules, as you say, provide for an Acting Leader. There is the issue of whether there could be an Acting Prime Minister as distinct from a minister who kept the wheels of government running until a Prime Minister was appointed.
Would the Lords consider putting through legislation allowing a public holiday so many members of the public can celebrate when Cameron or Thatcher dies?
There are other issues, mainly falling into the ‘what if’ category,
No! No! Lady Tizzy makes a more important point even than Lord Blagger .
WHATIF!???
Gilbert and Sullivan have been informed.
The statement needing to be ‘nailed’ to more than one such Table as this “Who does the PM job if a sitting PM dies ?” is:
“The constitution has not kept pace – ”
With what-all else has the constitution not kept pace ?
Vis a vis a PM ‘losing her/his marbles’ (incapacitated ? unfit-for-purpose ? sectionable ?) who does the Job ?
Who & who (else) have to have the necessary marbles to do-the-job of choosing and appointing such replacement ? – how well has the constitution kept pace with such ‘purpose-parameter fixing’ and ‘fit-for-purpose’ selection and empowerment/enablement/supervision & surveillance ?
————–
Lay it open for Public Input:
“In what matters other than party practice is the constitution not keeping pace with Britain’s/Britons’ real-life Needs & Hows ?”
then sit back and pray that rainforest-logging for newsprint will keep pace with public demand for written answers without demanding extra-pay and price-rises !
————–
Wishing you all the seasons presence
milesjsd: Your opening comment is spot on. See my response to Rich above. It may be that a minister is designated to do the job without holding the office.
Her Majesty the Queen is the State Leader.
In case of HER PM’s Death, She could dissolve parliament until a new leader was duly elected.
That way the leadership (HM Queen) is not affected.
Kelly: Not quite sure this deals with who runs the Government in the interim!
I imply that HM The Queen would continue to run the country, as figurehead, and as the person who gives Royal Accent to UK Law.
Who runs the country while there is no
Parliament?
The Government does not resign when Parliament is dissolved; essential business must carry on and government ministers remain in charge of their departments until after the result of the election is known. Only then will the Queen ask the leader of the majority party to form a new administration.
During the period between dissolution and polling day, however, the Government suspends any advertising campaigns and refrains from major policy decisions or announcements. This was known as ‘purdah’ but is now usually called the pre-election period.
The House of Lords is presently unelected so do not dissolve when parliament does. There are plans attempting to alter this.
The death of a serving Prime Minister would necessitate a State Funeral.
Kelly: Ministers do indeed continue in office, regardless of an election, until they give up their seals of office. Labour ministers thus remained formally in office for some days after the last election.
Electors may not be too happy during an election campaign not to know who would become Prime Minister in the event of particular party being returned to office!
As all this has been addressed previously, I can’t pretend mine will add anything.
What I have gleaned is, the Deputy Prime Minister is an honorary post which carries no responsibilities of right to succession. (Good news I’d say)
In the death of a Prime Minister the majority party would have to elect a new leader, then present him/her for approval to the Monarch.
The Queen, following ministerial advice, through a Privy Council meeting would then decide which of their suggestions to follow.
The Privy Council, of around 500, are appointed for life. However, only members of the government play any part in policy work.
After that, the info goes dead. So, who acts as PM in the interim, whilst the Queen and her people go over the CV’s of those in the loop, is completely unclear.
I cannot imagine we would be left in limbo without a man at the helm.
Surely though, whoever takes the lead, would have to go to the country within a short period of time? Yes/No?
And if not, why not?
maude elwes: If not, why not? Because of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act! See my earlier post on an earlier election. The PM’s hands are now largely tied when it comes to holding an election.
@LN:
Ah, but I thought it had been established that the ‘Act’ is only adhered to as a matter of choice. And although in practice this situation may be held to, that can be countered should the feelings of Parliament change on the matter.
maude elwes: Er, no, no choice is involved. The only ‘choice’ would be that of Parliament either in exercising the powers under the Act (vote of no confidence, or a two-thirds mnajority for an early election) or in passing an Act of repeal.
“Twm O’r Nant,
I know a Welshman, popular idealist and folk romantic ”
Frank Summers is right. Talk to Bedd Gelert and he’ll give you classes.
“Frank W. Summers III: I have a sneaking suspicion as to why you are keen to know the results of last week’s quiz….”
Princeps Senatorex, Bound to be.
“Lord Norton,
Suspicion is such a dangerous state of mind”
(FS3)
I shall campaign for revelation of this very official secret.
I know! He lost the questions on the underground!
========================
It would be fantastic to run a country on “whatifs”. Endless, endless work for everybody. PWE (protestant work ethic) of constant work. Constitutional niceties ad infinitum! Argghh!
Madame Butterfly,
I am so very un-Protestant and so take my thought with a grain of salt. However, being prepared for varied eventualities can at times make things easier in the long run.