Note: This post is by means of clarification for a forum.
With the resignation of Boris Johnson as Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury of the United Kingdom, members of the Conservative and Unionist Party have elected Liz Truss as leader of the party and then by default as the person suggested to the monarch, to be selected as the next Prime Minister.
As Liz Truss has not been the leader of the party during a general election, there are sections of both the Twitterati and the Commentariat who have vociferously made their opinions know that she should not have a mandate to govern and that a general election should be held as quickly as possible. When I said "no" I was immediately accused of either being a tory apologist or not understanding how the system works; when that answer doesn't even remotely resemble truth.
Yes, I am Australian. Yes, I do not live in the United Kingdom. Be that as it may, I live in New South Wales which has a Westminster style parliament and in the Commonwealth of Australia which also has a Westminster style parliament. The difference between our Westminster style parliaments and the Westminster style parliament as Westminster is that the Upper Houses (the Legislative Council and the Senate) actually do have the power to block supply; where as the House of Lords does not because of the provisions of the Parliament Act 1911. Very clearly if I live in two jurisdictions with Westminster style parliaments, then I have at least some inkling of their mechanics; so let's set those objections to rest.
In general (and I use even that term advisedly), government is formed from the majority of members on the floor of the lower house because that is usually where Appropriation Bills upon the treasury, Money Bills which have to do with both spending and taxation, and legislation generally originates. The very short punchline is that whoever controls the purse of the nation, controls government.
Notice how I haven't said the word "party" in that explanation. The whole idea that there might be formal parties as opposed to mere factions of MPs who might come together and fly apart all the time, is a relatively recent invention. We can generally credit the invention of formal political parties with the great winds of reform in the early 19th century. Political parties start to become useful only after the franchise was expanded to include people who were not male landowners.
The Prime Minister/Premier in all Westminster style parliaments is selected by the Monarch/Governor-General/Governor because they are either the formal leader of the majority of members or the leader of a useful and likely to be stable majority of members who can control the public purse. In a party system, that almost is always the leader of the largest political party; which itself could very well be in coalition with other parties and members.
Even then, the leader of that party might not actually be in the lower house but in the upper house. There have been Premiers and Prime Ministers in the past who have come from upper houses, including the House of Lords.
The situation as it stands is that the Conservative and Unionist Party have a majority of members on the floor of the House of Commons. As the House of Lords has no power to knock back Appropriation Bills, then then Conservatives are the party who is invited to form government. As Liz Truss has now been elected as the leader of the Conservatives, it is her name which has been put forward as the suggestion to the Queen as to whom should be the Prime Minister. As the Queen has now accepted that suggestion and formally invited Liz Truss to be the Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury of the United Kingdom, she has taken up the offer.
I absolutely and always reject the notion that any kind of mandate to do anything either does or does not exist. I also reject the notion that there should be a general election just because the leadership of a political party changes.
At precisely no point at all, did the Conservative majority ever look like it was going to fall apart. Even during the darkest days of the Johnsonian shenaninganry, when motions of no confidence were levelled, was it ever the case that the Conservatives would concede or relinquish the power of the public purse. Liz Truss was always a Member of Parliament and a sitting member of the stable majority of members who can control the public purse she has just as much right to be the Prime Minister as any of them.
What does change is the hotness of the tempers of the public, who quite rightly are fed up to the back teeth with being fed indigestible right-wing formula and want to spit it out. That is the overlay of politics at work; which the impartial Westminster style parliament doesn't even need to care about. The Parliament at Westminster has been in its current state since 1660. It cares not for the hotness of the tempers of the public or for the nobility or knavery of the members who walk within its walls. To be perfectly honest, it doesn't care who the Prime Minister is or even if there needs to be one. The only thing that matters is who controls the public purse and that person is Liz Truss at the moment; and for that reason, she has the job of trying to lead the business of the parliament.
I hope she does well as indeed I hope that all who lead governments do well. The public needs them to.
No comments:
Post a Comment