When Blair steps down!!

[katie21179]

If Tony Blair steps down as Prime Minister,does Gordon Brown just automatically take over as Prime Minister,or is there a general election?

thanks

[bernardo]

When a Prime Minister wants to resign or retire, he/she goes to Buckingham Palace and resigns. He/she then "advises" the Queen to appoint a specific other person as Prime Minister. The Queen will automatically agree to appoint the person suggested, unless it is a ridiculous one in the circumstances. The PM would usually only do this when it is clear who the next prime minister is going to be. If Blair retires some time before the next general election, it is likely that he will resign as leader of the Labour Party first, and then wait for the new party leader to be elected by the Labour Party according to its own rules. It is only when this process is completed that Blair will go to the Queen and advise her to appoint as PM whoever it is that has been elected as Labour Party leader.

For example, when Mrs Thatcher decided to resign on 22nd November 1990, it took a few days for the Conservative MPs to organise the election of the new leader. Mrs T stayed on as party leader until 28th November, which is when John Major was elected as party leader. The next morning (29th Nov) Mrs T went to BP and advised the Queen to appoint John Major as PM.

When John Major's government was defeated in 1997, he went to the Palace the day after the election and advised the Queen to appoint Blair as PM. This was because Blair was the leader of the winning party. It is possible that John Major might have tried to advise the Queen to appoint someone else as PM instead of Blair, but the Queen would have been justified in refusing the suggestion. The Queen would be justified in using her own judgement in appointing a new PM if the outgoing PM was trying to be unreasonable. If a Prime Minister tried to stay as PM after his party had been defeated in a General Election, then the Queen would be justified in sacking him.

[katie21179]

Thanks very much

[shammydodger]

Bernado is correct in principle, but if the monarch ever stepped in these days it might well spell the end of the monarchy as we know it. The monarch's role is very much ceremonial and they would interfere in the workings of Parliament at their peril.

[Big Al1st]

Shammy hi. What you say is correct upto a point but surely having a monarchy is having a buffer between democracy and dictatorship. As the armed forces swear allegiance to the queen then they could easily fight for her against against the government or leader of the day.

Just recently I read that the Armed Forces were thinking of rising up against Wilson's Government with Earl Mountbatten being the leader. In this case, if it were to happen would the queen beware before hand and would she agree to it.

I do not agree with alot of things that the Monarchy and family does but I think that I would be happier with them around than without them.

[Grunty]

I agree with Bernardo on the point that is disputed by shammydodger. The Queen does take a close interest in events, although she never reveals her personal views. She would not 'rubber stamp' ridiculous advice. Otherwise any outgoing PM could have fun as a parting gesture. Probably the best recent example of the Queen's Prerogative is the dismissal of the Australian Prime Minister in 1975 by the Governor General who carries out the Queen's functions in her name.

[smudge]

Brilliant answer bernardo!

[bernardo]

To clarify re shammydodger's point: what I meant was the the Queen reserves the right to intervene in such things if her prime minister tries to do something outrageous. Constitutional experts tend to agree that the two main reserve powers which the Queen still has are to appoint a prime minister and to dissolve parliament. One example would be if the PM were to die suddenly. If Tony Blair died suddenly in the middle of the summer holidays, the Queen would use her judgement to summon someone and invite them to become PM. This is because the Labour Party would not have eneough time to elect a new leader in the meantime. Either she would ask Gordon Brown (because most people are expecting it to be him anyway) or John Prescott (as a caretaker prime minister) because he has the title of "deputy PM". If it is not clear who should be the next PM, it is possible that the Queen would ask advice from a former PM (eg John Major) or a Speaker of the House of Commons in order to protect herself from accusations of political interference.

[quefacops]

The purpose of a general election is for citizens to elect someone to represent their constituency in Westminster, not to elect a leader or even (although most people think to the contrary) to put a specific party in power. So, the Prime Minister stepping down does not mean a general election.

When Tony Blair decides to step down, he will do so first as leader of the Labour Party. The party will then elect a new leader; it will be party members who will decide who this will be. When the party has a new leader, Tony Blair will then resign as Prime Minister.

In theory, the monarch can ask any MP or Lord to be Prime Minister. In practice, she will ask the leader of the party (if an MP) that can command the biggest support from MPs. Although, this might not be the party with the greatest number of MPs, given the majority it has, it will be the Labour Party in this case (unless there are a lot of bye-elections in which Labour loses MPs between now and then ).