Post by MMPost by Andy WalkerPost by MMIt's not becoming leader I have a problem with, it's becoming *Prime
Minister* without any election *by the people*.
But there was an election "by the people"; that's how the HoC
was chosen.
Not until December, though. That's a long time to wait for democracy
to kick in.
Not that election. The relevant GE was that of June 2017.
The resulting HoC had full power to support or to chuck out firstly
Mrs May and later Mr Johnson, in exactly the same way that the
Bundestag could have supported or chucked out Dr Merkel. It chose
to support both of them, even though it was a "hung" Parliament and
a coalition of other parties would have had a majority.
Post by MMPost by Andy WalkerI don't see any /relevant/ way in which that's different
from the German system.
You must be blind, then. The German chancellor is not elected by his
or party, but *by the Bundestag*. [...]
Mrs May was not elected PM by the Conservatives, but by her
ability to form a government, for which she needed a majority in the
HoC. As Conservative MPs were in the minority, it was in the gift
of the HoC to maintain her, and later Mr Johnson, in post or not, no
matter what the Conservative party did.
Post by MMThe difference is so stark, I'm surprised you can't see it.
No matter how stark you think the difference, it's not a
/relevant/ difference. Dr Merkel is kept in office by commanding
a majority in the Bundestag, Mr Johnson [and before him Mrs May]
by a majority in the HoC. That's a majority of /MPs/, not a
majority of /Conservative/ MP, in cases where there's a difference
[as there was in 2010-2015 and in 2017-2019].
Post by MMPost by Andy WalkerMr Johnson, in particular, became PM not
merely because he was the new leader of the Conservative party but
because he was able to form a government. Most new leaders of parties
do not become PM.
However he became leader by winning his own membership's vote, the
*people* didn't get to have a say.
How does that differ from Dr Merkel becoming leader of her
party without "the people" having a say? It is perfectly normal
for party leaders to become leaders by whatever process that party
has agreed, no matter what the rest of us think.
Post by MMOnly months later and moreover at
Boris Johnson's whim was a general election held.
But it wasn't at Mr Johnson's whim, not by a long chalk. You
have perhaps forgotten the FTPA, and that the opposition refused to
support the calling of an election for some time after Mr Johnson
made it clear that he wanted one. Whether the opposition should have
had that power is a moot point; as so often, a law which solved one
problem created another, perhaps worse. But that's democracy.
Post by MMMaybe we *should* have a "second-class" PM, i.e. a caretaker PM until
the next general election. In the role of "caretaker" the "acting"
PM's powers would be severely curtailed, just as Dominic Raab's were
when Boris Johnson fell ill. By having a "caretaker" this would pretty
much guarantee an early election, since any acting PM would wish to
become definitive PM PDQ.
FTPA, again. To call an early election he would have needed to
lose a VoNC [and not reverse it quickly] or to secure the support of
over 400 MPs, many more than his own party. Mr Johnson, you may have
forgotten, did indeed win a VoNC, despite all the concerns/shenanigans
over Brexit, but did not have the necessary support of the opposition
to call a GE until late in 2019.
Post by MMI don't see the December election some five
months after the Tory party membership elected him to be particularly
early.
Possibly not. But he managed to retain majority support in
the HoC, which is what you were claiming [mutatis mutandis] is the
requirement in Germany too.
Post by MMPost by Andy WalkerYou will recall that Mr Brown remained PM for
some time after the 2010 GE;
In Brown's case the "antidemocracy" was even worse.
From Brown's page on Wikipedia: [...]
"...no election any time soon...
I rest my case m'lud.
In 2007 he had a substantial majority in the HoC, so whatever
he decided was, short of a revolt within his party, decisive. My
point was about 2010, when he could not form a government, despite
being PM at the time, and therefore had to resign.
[...]
Post by MMPost by Andy WalkerYes, after he gave assurances that he was able to do so. That
was based on the belief that he had enough support in the HoC that he
would survive a VoNC. It was up to Labour to test that if they thought
the belief was wrong. Again, I don't see any /relevant/ difference
between that state of affairs and holding an election among all MPs;
... except that an election among *all* MPs would have been the
democratic way.
A VoNC does take place among all MPs. There is no /relevant/
difference between Dr Merkel securing the support of a majority in
the Bundestag and Mr Johnson doing the same in the HoC. Whether that
vote takes the form of a no-confidence motion or a confidence motion
is irrelevant; the result depends on securing an absolute majority.
Post by MMPost by Andy Walkereither Mr Johnson would have secured a majority in any VoNC or else
he would have had to resign. It doesn't matter whether there is an
actual VoNC, or the opposition parties "bottle it" in the belief that
they would lose; you can be sure that the party whips had a pretty
definite notion of how a vote would go.
So it's the party whips who hold the whip hand, not the electorate?
No, it's the MPs as a whole who hold "the whip hand", as Mr
Johnson found through a large part of 2019. The whips would simply
have been advising [in this case] Mr Corbyn that Mr Johnson would
win a VoNC.
[...]
Post by MMPost by Andy WalkerIt happened because Mr Johnson had enough support in the HoC
to survive a VoNC. Mr Brown, earlier, had that too when he took over
from Mr Blair, but not in the aftermath of the 2010 election.
This act of "taking over" you apparently see as upholding democracy.
Not in my book. Our system stinks.
It's the same "democracy" that you espouse in the case of
Germany. Mr Blair resigned as PM and as Labour leader. Someone had
to take over as leader of the party. Because -- and only because --
Labour had an absolute majority, that leader also became PM. When
Mrs May resigned and Mr Johnson took over a party leader, the HoC
was well within its rights to refuse to support him and to elect
Mr Corbyn or any other MP as PM -- the other parties in the HoC had
an absolute majority between them. But, as above, no-one overtly
stood against him; on the contrary, he won a VoNC. Had this been
Germany, he would equally have won a majority in the Bundestag given
the same party representations and alliances.
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.