Blair To Leave Office?

[mushroom25]

Much talk about the date of Blair's leaving, and that "the process of handover to Brown is well advanced".

But hang on a minute - does the PM not have to be leader of the Labour Party? And does the leader of the Labour Party not have to be elected to that post? How can everyone assume Brown's accession is a done deal?

Or am I missing something?

[LazyGun]

They will be holding a leadership contest when Blair leaves as I understand it.

[Pippa68]

I thought the same, mushroom ~ what about all those people who voted for Labour simply because Blair was the leader? surely if he leaves we ought to be having another general election ;o)

[oldwoman]

Has he asked Cheri if he can leave

[jenstar]

The Queen can appoint whoever she wants as Prime Minister. So in theory Blair *could* resign as Prime Minister before resigning as leader of the Labour Party - though he's unlikely to actually do so.

[Dizzieblonde]

Good question Mushroom - surely it's the crux of a democratic government that the electorate chooses it's leader?

[Lonnie]

I think there has to be an election only for Prime Minister, held within the party, there doesn't have to be a General Election, this particular vote, has nothing to do with the electorate, if, Dizzie, you mean by eletorate, the public.

[Loosehead]

Ok here's what happens, Blair resigns as leader of the Labour party but not as prime minister. The party then holds it's process for determining a new leader, once decided Blair will resign as PM and the new leader will take up the reins. The Queen will invite the new leader to form a government in line with protocol. No General election is necessary.

Brown is not pre ordained to be sucessor, he is strong candidate but there will be others, it is by no means a "Done deal".

The public do not elect a prime minister the public elect a party via the constituency system. By tradition the leader of that party becomes the PM. Of course in an election the leader plays a big part of the attraction or otherwise of the parties but they are not voting for him/her directly, except of course in the Leader's own constituency, in this case Sedgefield.

[bernardo]

The PM doesn't have to be the leader of a party - but he/she usually is.

In 1995 John Major resigned as leader of the Conservative Party, but stayed as prime minister during the time when a leadership election was held (and he was re-elected as party leader).

Neville Chamberlain was forced to resign as PM in May 1940 because his government was strongly criticised during a debate in the House of Commons, and Churchill became PM. But Chamberlain continued as leader of the Conservative Party until October 1940, and resigned from the position only just before he died.

Originally, Tony Blair said that he would serve a full third term as PM but not fight a fourth general election. It is conceivable (but unlikely) that he would resign as party leader, allow the new leader to be elected, and stay as PM for a few months before a general election before resigning as PM.

Constitutionally, the convention is that the Queen should invite to become prime minister whoever is most likely to be the leader of a majority in the House of Commons. In some other countries, such as Italy or France or Japan, it is very common for a prime minister to be appointed who is not necessarily a party leader; such a thing could happen in the UK, particularly if there was a hung parliament and a need to find a prime minister who is acceptable to other parties.

[ianess]

Am I not correct in thinking that eons ago the late Lord Hume of the Hirsel, [ later to become Sir Alec Douglas-Home] was the leader of the Conservative Party and therefore Prime Minister at one point before he even became an MP?
Something about having to revert to being a commoner before he could sit in the House of Commons.

[anotheoldgit]

If Prime Minister and Leader of the Party are two separate jobs, do they each carry their own separate salarys? If so Blair must be quids in, if you include Mrs Blair's contribution, plus family allowance, free holidays, and other perks. LABOUR PARTY = THE WORKING MAN.

[bernardo]

Lord Hume of the Hirsel: yes he was

Two separate jobs: yes, but the job of being the leader of a party is (as far as I know) not paid.

[rugeleyboy]

mushroom....i came on to the news section to ask the same thing? i think it's all a bit strange myself? surely it should be up the public to vote who lead's our country?

[LazyGun]

why rugely? In a general election, you vote for an MP to represent your constituency.... typically, one from the party whose manifesto best represents your own views. In other words, the general election is all about voting for a party... there is no space on the ballot form for PM.

[rugeleyboy]

yes fair comment but if there was a total IDIOT in charge of the party then you would think twice?

or in this case......yes you voted for blair and so many years later he gave up office to let john major run it???

what say do we have in that??

(i made this up with any old name before anyone jumps on me!"!)

[LazyGun]

I understand where you are coming from rugeley, but the way the system works is based around voting for parties. The rules do mean a leadership challenge, which the party votes on. You get your chance to register your disapproval at the next general election :)

This is hardly a new phenomenon either, not least with MT being forced out of office and the eventual appointment of John Major.

As for the first part of your post regarding an idiot running the party... well, that would colour anyones judgement when it came to voting for the local MP, hence the agitation for TBs stepping down from all the labour MPs in marginals :)