Interesting and relevant post from David Allen Green [1] about the historical origins of the title 'Prime Minister'.
> It was a title that was used just to describe the most dominant minister of the day, the one who controlled the cabinet and had the confidence of parliament – usually the First Lord of the Treasury but sometimes not.
> And if today one asked an alien looking down from space who was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, that alien would assume it was Jeremy Hunt.
Just so people realise how stupid the UK is right now - this was after she skipped parliament and Penny Mordaunt (Leader of the House of Commons) clarified that she was not hiding under a desk.
From a democratic point of view the only thing that makes sense to me now is a snap election.
The Tories have now had one PM resign in disgrace and then seemingly failed to set up an acceptable new cabinet. I see no reason why they should keep their mandate without renewed voter support.
I suppose the king could instruct Labour to try to form a minority cabinet, but that's beyond my understanding of the procedures of British parliamentary practice.
> I suppose the king could instruct Labour to try to form a minority cabinet
If you'd like to know more about the complex details of the role that the monarch could play in deciding the next PM (without an election), I recommend reading about the Lascelles Principles.[0]
You should particularly note one line from that article: "The convention was in abeyance from 2011 to 2022, ... these principles are thought to have been revived." (emphasis mine).
Basically, the UK's creaky, uncodified, thousand-year old constitution doesn't actually allow legal experts (much less the public) to know for sure whether these hugely consequential principles even exist any more.
Without an election Labour dont have enough seats to be an effective minority government. They would need either lots of support from other parties.
Best option right now is an election, its really our only path to stability. But the Tories will hang on for as long as they can as they are expecting to be wiped out if they held an election right now.
It would be nice if there was a way for the people to request an election anytime.
For example... Anyone can gather 100 signatures asking for an election. Then the electoral commission will select 1000 people at random from the electoral register and ask them "Should the UK hold an immediate election?". And then if the majority of those responding say yes, then an election happens.
A method similar to that should certainly be introduced for triggering recall elections of individual MPs (possibly with a condition that the expense of the by-election be covered by crowd-funding).
To your point, though, there is "a way for the people to request an election anytime", and it has been used already, to little effect:
> By what process do you think there would be one?
To give an extreme answer: a general strike.[0]
The government has already shown that it will remove senior ministers in response to market turmoil, so this sets the precedent that something like a general strike (which would be hugely damaging to the economy) could be enough to remove Truss.
In the short term that might only lead to a new "caretaker" PM who will attempt to run things for the next couple of years, but it might also embolden those who organised the general strike to try again, and again, until an election was called.
Yeah, that's the unfortunate reality when the Tories hold a majority alone.
A single party majority is not a healthy state of affairs because it basically bypasses parliamentarism. Good luck ever having even the possibility of a minority cabinet, and good luck triggering an election when the majority party misbehaves.
Someone pointed out that Hunts run for leader got nowhere so it can't really be him that's in charge. It must be others (Tory Politburo) who told Truss to appoint Hunt.
As well as the disastrous mini-budget and replacement of the chancellor?
One of the procedures by which she can be replaced involves 'letters of no confidence' being sent to the '1922 committee'. There are a bunch of newspaper articles saying that committee has been having discreet meetings and talking to Truss yesterday.
Which is the political equivalent of getting invited to a same-day meeting with your boss and HR entitled 'private meeting'.
The new Chancellor of the Exchequer is not under Truss's control, he's under the control of men in grey suits. If Truss doesn't control cabinet ministers, she isn't the Prime Minister.
We have no government; we need a General Election immediately. This is a very dangerous situation.
It's not dangerous. Other countries have managed with their parliamentary system out of action for extended amounts of time. That's the point of having strong institutions and a civil service. The Tories haven't totally destroyed that yet, despite their efforts.
If you want things like the UK's National Health Service to exist, it is pretty dangerous to have someone like Jeremy Hunt wielding this kind of power. The situation might not wreck or bankrupt the country outright, but it opens the door for all manner of public services to be gutted
But it's not just the parliamentary system that's out of action; it's the government. The nominal head of the government is obviously a dead duck. The tune the chancellor is playing is being called by the Bank of England (and others unnamed), none of whom was elected, and none of whose policy preferences have been presented to the public, let alone approved.
This would be a fantastic moment to stage a coup. And there are generals in-post who evidently favour something like that. But who knows - maybe it's already happened.
I still don't understand why you think it's dangerous. Government sets policy. Even when they make changes it takes time for policy decisions to actually take effect. The civil service and bureaucracy will continue with the previous policies until the government gets its act together. There's no problem until budget time. Quite frankly it's probably less dangerous if the Tories stop doing any governing for a little while.
> The tune the chancellor is playing is being called by the Bank of England (and others unnamed), none of whom was elected, and none of whose policy preferences have been presented to the public, let alone approved.
As is always the case. That's a deeper issue and not anything to do with the current crisis, you've just seen the covers pulled back for 5 minutes.
Only dangerous if you think she’s going to go rogue with one of her Prerogative powers, which is unlikely given it appears she’s under close supervision by the Parliamentary Conservative Party.
> she’s under close supervision by the Parliamentary Conservative Party.
Interesting. Only 20% of the PCP voted for her, yet she's nominally PM. Reportedly many conservative MPs are considering crossing the floor. Others are trying to figure out how to get her to hand-over to someone else (who?) without another leadership election, and especially without letting the party members have any say.
How are the PCP supposed to keep her "under close supervision"?
> It was a title that was used just to describe the most dominant minister of the day, the one who controlled the cabinet and had the confidence of parliament – usually the First Lord of the Treasury but sometimes not.
> And if today one asked an alien looking down from space who was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, that alien would assume it was Jeremy Hunt.
[1] https://davidallengreen.com/2022/10/a-prime-minister-in-name...