The politics of resignation: Explaining Blair’s resignation

After the 2005 General Election, Tony Blair declared his intention to stand down as Prime Minister before the end of the present Parliament. On 10 May, he formally announced 27 June as the date on which he will tender his resignation to the Queen, and hand over his seals of office. There is undeniably something satisfying about seeing a prime minister approach the end of his ministry, but, in Tony Blair’s case, it is in a constitutional sense, a curious affair: few prime ministers in recent or past times have resigned with such a large majority and under circumstances of such relative control and volition over the matter. In spite of present criticisms, Tony Blair has been the most successful Labour Prime Minister in the party’s history. And compared to many of his predecessors, he has been able to serve in a very benign economic climate with large majorities in all parliaments, a generally healthy economy, and no major foreign policy headaches.

Tony Blair first entered parliament in 1983, for the constituency of Sedgefield in Northeast England (for which he still sits, and has stated an intention to continue to do so for the foreseeable future). He rose quickly through the ranks, entering the Shadow Cabinet by 1988, and acquitting himself well in his various posts. By 1987, he was increasingly positioning himself on the reforming right of the party, being one of the key forces behind the creation of New Labour. After the sudden death of the Labour Party Leader John Smith in 1994 (leader since Neil Kinnock’s resignation after the disastrous 1992 election), Tony Blair was elected Leader of the Labour Party, and three years later, led the reformed party to a record landslide victory in the 1997 General Election, winning two more large majorities the General Elections of 2001 and 2005. Why then has he chosen to resign?

When he stood for the Labour leadership in 1994, Mr Blair's close friend and rival Gordon Brown (currently Chancellor of the Exchequer and certain successor to the Labour Party Leadership) agreed to stand aside to give him a clear run, in return for a promise that power would be handed over at a future date. In 2004 Tony Blair broke with convention in being the first serving prime minister to pre-announce his retirement. Although he had intended to serve a full third term in office but then stand down rather than fight a fourth election, he came under increasing pressure from restless Labour MPs forcing his hand on the matter. Below we look at the constitutional context of this process.

How prime ministerial terms work
In the UK system, Prime Ministers do not have a limit on the number of terms they can serve. The only statutory constraint on their tenures is the five-year limit on the length of a parliament. Even then, a Prime Minister does not automatically cease to be the Principal Minister of the Crown if his or her party loses an election, because it isn’t necessarily a given that they will cease to have the support of the Commons even though their party does not have an absolute majority. For a prime minister to leave the office, they must send their resignation to the Queen. Only then does the incumbent cease to be the Queen’s Prime Minister.

But for most intents and purposes, convention firmly dictates that a Prime Minister is obliged to resign if his or her party loses its majority by a clear margin. This is both a matter of democratic virtue, and, practically speaking, an acknowledgement that it is unlikely that the losing party will get enough support to pass the Queen’s Speech, which is effectively the rubber stamp needed for the entire proposed program of legislation of a new government. Until and unless it is so likely that they will not have the confidence of the House of Commons and/or their party, leaving office is not something that a British Prime Minister has to think about very often. This curious mix of factors makes the UK premiership a fairly fluid position. Indeed, a cursory look at the ‘line of succession’ of Prime Ministers shows a great unevenness in the lengths of their terms, ranging from just a few months for those like Sir Alec Douglas-Home, to over two decades in total as was the case with William Pitt ‘The Younger’.

Main reasons why a Prime Minister resigns
Being Prime Minister is essentially a job, not a ‘title’ like that of President. Their chief purpose is to form a government for the Monarch, and so their terms are not actually dependent on any legal limitations as such. The Prime Minister is simply the head, the manager, of a government, and for that reason it is not always necessary for a general election to be called to legitimize his successor, unless Parliament is dissolved at the same time (John Major and James Callaghan both succeeded their predecessors without general elections being called).

The constitutional justification for this is that we elect governments – made possible usually by a party’s majority – not prime ministers. Governments are elected on the basis of their manifesto rather than the national popularity of the individual who leads the governing party at that time. In that case, when Tony Blair resigns, his successor does not need to call an election, nor is it necessarily even desirable when we remember that he would in fact be continuing an agenda that was democratically legitimized by the 2005 general election, and that the new leader has the confidence of the house. These being the only two significant reasons why an election would be necessary, it would indeed be contrary to precedent to call one under these particular circumstances.

Theory aside, usually prime ministers resign for three reasons: a lack of support from their own party, lack of support from the House of Commons in general, lack of a clear majority and thus a mandate to govern. The convention of collective responsibility requires the entire cabinet and government to resign with the Prime Minister when he steps down, so Tony Blair’s successor will in fact be forming a new government altogether, not simply replacing the Prime Minister. Let us look at each of these factors in turn

Party support: The Achilles’ heel of any prime minister is the need to retain party support. The people elect the party, and the party elects the leader, and the majority party’s leader is usually appointed Prime Minister. Unlike a president, who is elected by the people, the UK Prime Minister is essentially elected by his or her party. A backbench coup is a prime minister’s worst nightmare. Recent audacious rebellions in the Labour backbenches will have been a warning to Blair. Just the first session of the current Parliament saw 95 rebellions in total, involving 114 Labour MPs, and more second reading defeats than any government with a majority of 60+ has managed in any session since the war. Backbenchers are ambitious and are aware that their chances of promotion are damaged by an unpopular leader, and exceedingly lengthy spells under the same leadership. Margaret Thatcher learnt this the hard way when she was forced to resign after a coup within her party, in the autumn of1990.

Support of the House of Commons: The Westminster system draws the executive from Parliament; the former needs the support of the latter to exist not only because Parliament gives a government legitimacy but also because parliament controls Supply – the money available to a government. Loss of Supply has not happened in the UK since the 1909 ‘people’s budget’. The first test for Parliament’s confidence in the government is the vote on the Speech from the Throne, in which the government’s legislative programme for that session is affirmed or rejected by the House of Commons (chiefly) as a whole. Where the Speech from the Throne is rejected, the Prime Minister has no choice but to resign. Neville Chamberlain’s resignation in 1940 was slightly unusual in that, in spite of having won a crucial debate on the war’s handling, he felt compelled to resign due to the fact that so much of his party had rebelled or abstained on the vote, that he did not feel he had the authority to sustain a viable government under those circumstances.

No majority: In the post-war era, this has generally been the sticky issue determining who can form a government. Before the war, prime ministers often tried to form a government anyway, even if they had no clear majority, only resigning if they were defeated on the Queen’s Speech. In unusual cases like the February election of 1974, where no party has an overall majority, some discretion is used over who should form the next government; resignation is not automatically prescribed. But since 1945, virtually every general election has returned a clear majority, compelling the leader of the ousted party to resign without further ado.

How the next Prime Minister is chosen
The Prime Minister is appointed by the Queen, therefore only she can accept his resignation. When a prime minister resigns before a parliament’s full term, for reasons other than those stated above (as was the case with Harold Wilson in 1976), he must also separately resign from the party leadership, and preparations be made for a new party leader to be elected. Once she has accepted the incumbent’s resignation, the Queen will, under those circumstances, invite the new party leader to form a government, and he will at that time receive the seals of office, making him Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. This ceremony is known as the Kissing of Hands (one does not actually kiss the Queen’s hand, and the name of the convention has been cause for great embarrassment and confusion to many a Prime Minister!) This is how the process will play out in summary:

Monday 14 May-Thursday 17 May - Potential candidates for the leadership and deputy leadership have until 1230 BST on Thursday 17 May to submit their nominations. Nominees must have signatures from at least 45 Labour MPs (as it is, Gordon Brown, has secured 308 signatures from a potential 356 – well above the minimum quorum of 45. This has meant it is now ‘mathematically impossible’ to challenge him in the leadership. However, because the deputy leader John Prescott will also be resigning, the race for the deputy leadership is still on)

Sunday 20 May - The first in a series of 10 official hustings across the UK takes place in Coventry.

Monday 28 May - All candidates in the contest must supply a photo and a statement supporting their candidacy of up to 250 words to the party. This will be sent out to people later, along with their ballot papers.

Friday 1 June - Deadline for anyone to join the Labour Party in time to be able to vote in the contests.

Wednesday 6 June - Ballot papers sent out to 380 Labour MPs and MEPs as well as 200,000 party members and 3.2m members of affiliated trade unions who pay a political levy. The voting system being used is a preference system, so people will rank candidates in their preferred order.

Friday 22 June - The ballot closes for the various parts of the electoral college. The electoral college refers to the fact that those voting are split into three sections each accounting for 33% of the final result - MPs and Euro MPs, Labour Party members, and affiliated unions.

Sunday June 24 - The results of the leadership and deputy leadership ballots announced at a specially convened leadership conference in Manchester.

Sunday 24 June - Wednesday 27 June - Gordon Brown, or one of his rivals, becomes Labour leader but Tony Blair remains prime minister for three more days.

Wednesday 27 June - Tony Blair sees the Queen and resigns as prime minister, handing over his seals of office. His successor as Labour Leader will then go to the Palace to be invited by the Queen to form a government and receive the seals of office.

(The timetable above is supplied courtesy of the BBC)

...[Read more]

The Westminster political calendar

Britain’s politics are in many ways quite predictable, if only at least because of the traditions that guide so much political practice in our system. Much of the heavy politics of the UK takes place in a few square miles of Central London including within its radius, Downing Street, the Palace of Westminster (in which the Houses of Parliament and the Lord Chancellor’s official residence are housed), Whitehall, and the central offices of the main parties. In this ‘village’ of Westminster, the political year starts in September when the long summer recess ends, and parliament returns to begin the business of the new session.

- Business starts in earnest in October, when legislation in its various stages of completeness from the last session is speedily concluded to clear the table for the new session.
- The State Opening of Parliament occurs in Early November amid great pomp and pageantry and on that occasion the Queen’s Speech (‘the Speech from the Throne’) is read outlining the government’s agenda for the session.
- In mid-November, the pre-Budget report is made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, making forecasts for the budget and assessing the success of the last year’s budget.
- In December, Private members’ bills are announced. Historically, Autumn and early Winter tends to be the most exciting time in UK politics (not necessarily by design, I’m sure!) and the goings on in the Westminster Village during this time are a welcome relief from the inane summer news stories during the government’s slumber of the long recess.
- January is when the New Years Honours list is announced and official records are released under the thirty year rule.
- The Treasury begins preparing the Budget for the next financial year in February, a process that requires consultation and negotiation wit several public and private bodies.
- In mid or late March the Chancellor delivers the budget speech. In April the Spring Conference season commences, each of the major parties having their conference over successive weeks.
- May is once more an exciting time because it is then the election season. Local and General Elections (only held every four or five years) are held at this time, as well as elections for the Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland’s Stormont, as well as the Welsh Assembly are held.
- Early to mid summer (June to mid-July) sees a dash to push through the session’s remaining legislation in time for the summer recess of late July when Westminster sleeps (in the absence of the odd scandal) for a while, until it all starts again in late September.

...[Read more]

Why the British system is so tricky

Though arguably all political systems are unique in some aspects, Britain’s political system is distinctive for reasons that result uniquely from Britain’s history. Traditionally, Britain has always had a culture of liberty rooted in Common Law even before formal democratic institutions were created. One of the influences that most shape Britain’s political system is the fact that due in part to the fact that we our revolution had come and gone by 1690, before the industrial revolution, Britain has never experienced a foundational reconstruction to its political system, instead reforming our democracy evolutionally rather than by revolution. This is one reason why many of our political processes seem so arcane and dated: in essence they are. Politics in the UK is built around certain constitutional conventions (to be discussed in greater detail elsewhere) which have at their centre three key principles: the sovereignty of the Parliament, collective responsibility of the Cabinet, and understanding that the Monarch is the fount of all power (in theory all the business of government is conducted not in the name of “the state” but of the Queen, and by her authority).

Institutions may look the same but in reality power within them shifts elsewhere periodically. One thing to be aware of in the political processes of the UK is the difference between reality and theory. In theory, the British system is unchanged from a 300 year old constitutional settlement which has the ‘Crown-in-Parliament’ at its centre, but, in practice there are two forces in motion in the British syste: what the constitutional essayist Walter Bagehot called the efficient, and the dignified parts. The Monarchy, although still a formal part of the political process has virtually no political power and is one of those ‘dignified’ parts. Parliament too is fast becoming the same. Where power moved from the monarch to parliament throughout the 19th century, it has over the last century been determinedly seeping towards the Executive, with compliments of the Party Whip System. The Executive-in-Party, no longer the Crown-in-Parliament, would be a more accurate picture of the situation today.

...[Read more]

Sources of the Prime Minister's Powers

The holder of the of the office of Prime Minister, does not possess any powers ex officio, but from royal patronage, and his ability to control parliament through a majority. The result, as the statesman John Morley (1838-1923) observed, is an official who can at times appear little less than a popular dictator, and one “whose powers find their only limit in the House of Commons” (a questionable restraint when there is a large and disciplined majority). There is also a large degree of individual influence arising from his ability, through the royal prerogative, to appoint and dismiss ministers.

Powers:
- Appoint and dismiss ministers, ambassadors and advise on the appointment of certain high crown appointments
- The power to sign treaties with foreign states
- The sole power to decide the use of the nation’s nuclear arsenal
- To set an agenda for parliament
- Patronage controlling appointment to various prestigious offices within the party, the civil service, and various QUANGOs; the dispensation of honours, and access to influence
- Establish the order of precedence
- Set an agenda for the cabinet
- Organise the civil service
*unlike most presidents, the prime minister does no have the power of veto over legislation.

Sources of Power
Certain of the Royal Prerogatives form the basis of the prime minister’s constitutional power (it must be noted that, unlike the secretaries of state and the ministers, the Prime Minister’s powers do no derive from statute, which at once makes him legally less powerful in theory, and in practice, more powerful than his ministerial colleagues). He has no statutory powers. He also derives some constitutional power from his concomitant position of First Lord of the Treasury, which allows him to control economic policy. It is in this capacity that he lives at Downing Street, and indeed, this is the title written on the door. The position dates from the 17th century, when the Crown Treasury was entrusted to a commission, who where numbered in order of seniority. The prime minister is always – at least in modern times – First Lord of the Treasury

Non-constitutional sources include a good media image. Unpopular prime ministers will find their mandate undermined when public support may be crucial to the success of their policies. Margaret Thatcher found this out too late. Command of a Commons majority is crucial to a prime minister’s effective power. Without the confidence of the House, it is virtually impossible for a ministry to survive. The non-constitutional source of power is a united party and this to some extent depends on the individual prime minister’s leadership style.

...[Read more]

How Britian's constitution works

Contrary to common lore (no pun intended), there is a Constitution in Britain. It’s just not all in one place. Having scoured the internet for a single composite resource for the British Constitution, and failing to find one, I have resolved to remedy this situation by creating a modest, but workable one. There are plenty explaining the US political system, but few, if any equivalents for the English one. This resource will be especially useful to sixth form and first year students of British Politics and of Law. It will be equally useful for those with a general interest in legal and political matters. I hope this website will give you a greater insight into how this strange old system works.

A constitution is typically a document or number of documents which together provide a basic framework for a country’s system of government, defining the relationship between the state and its citizens, and between the institutions of state themselves. It is effectively the highest source of law – the law behind the law if you will – and is known as substantive law; law that create rights. Most countries have their constitution in a single document broadly describing the nature of the political system, acting as a kind of identity for the state. Britain’s constitution is rather more complex. The key features are
- The legislative supremacy of parliament
- The fact that Britain is a unitary state - Flexibility of change and adaptability
- The political supremacy of the executive
- Conventions which are uncodified but are nonetheless considered central to the political process - No entrenched rights, but a concept of “residual rights”, which is to say, anything which is not legislatively forbidden, is permitted.
- The monarch is the supreme head of state and the source of all power in the land

Because of its diffuse nature, there are some aspects of it that are impossible to settle with finality. The UK constitution has evolved over several hundred years as opposed to being brought forth from any single major social or political event. But the period around and after the Glorious Revolution (1689) is the starting point of the more recognisable aspects of the constitutional settlement we see today.

One of the tricks of the British system is that it changes its form while skilfully remaining draped in the same old cloak of continuity that clothed its previous forms. Indeed, Britain’s major political institutions appear from the outside, scarcely changed for three hundred years. Of course this is not so in reality.

In Britain there is no single definitive document containing the constitution. Rather, our constitutional principles have been gleaned from numerous sources. We do have rules, statutory, legal and conventional, that settle the various matters that a “normal” constitution would. But they are not all written down, and certainly not in one place, and this is why our constitution is called “uncodified” as opposed to “unwritten”.

The single most important aspect of the British Constitution is the sovereignty of parliament: there is no law that parliament is legally forbidden to make. It could for instance make a law which said night was day and day was night (indeed, daylight saving time seems to exemplify this!), or that 2 + 2 = 5, or even one that abolished the right to vote, or abolished future parliaments. All that really prevents such arbitrary use of this power is the presence of cultural and political restraints (not least the fact that the Queen is personally head of the armed forces, and could in extremis intervene to “defend out laws”, as the National Anthem bids her do).

But it is this very flexibility that makes the British system so effective: vast changes can be made to the architecture of the state and the economy relatively smoothly. So it is ironic that the chief criticisms made against British constitution’s strengths are at once its greatest weakness, namely, that it is at once too simple to alter, and too unresponsive to change. Yet a codified constitution presents interpretive difficulties. The Second Amendment to the US Constitution is a case in point. It states among other things, that “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed”. Sweeping declaratory statements such as that cause no end of headaches to judges and politicians, and are an infinite source of fuel for legal scholars in their debates.

In Britain, that particular difficulty is less pronounced. In general any law that parliament enacts that is not so unreasonable or arcane that it was clearly drafted in error, is good law, and the courts will always uphold it (indeed, supporters of firearm rights in the UK have tried to quote sections of the Bill of Rights 1688 to prove the “unconstitutionality” of government legislation on firearms. They hadn’t reckoned with parliamentary sovereignty in their labours, and so such fancy arguments are typically futile in English Law!) It is time to examine all these concepts in more detail now.

...[Read more]