Interesting Bill presented in parliament: Who takes over from the PM?

[Jeneral2885]

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/hansard/commons/todays-commons-debates/read/unknown/496/

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2013-2014/0059/14059.pdf PDF of Bill

Unlike the US where there's a massive line of succession if POTUS is sick, impeached, dead or whatever, there's no clear line of succession who takes over from the Britsh PM if he/she is unable to function.

Seems like there's now a Bill to clarify this issue.

[enlightenment]

1. I love these debates -

and I love how the Honorable Member from Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) opened the door for the Honorable Member from NE. Somerset (Mr. Jacob Rees-Mogg) to hand the Honorable Member from Wallingborough his arse.

[Jeneral2885]

2. usual parliamentary swipe

but back to the matter, does the queen really make the right choice in choosing her new PM should the current PM be unable to function?

[enlightenment]

3. In all seriousness

(and the interplay always amuses me) - those opposed made a good point. Why is it such an issue? If the queen (or king, because these rules don't just go away) makes a poor choice, it can be easily remedied by the body of the Commons - the past proves that point. Common sense goes a very long way in all this - and that list, with its bizarre order that seems to have more to do with who is currently holding a post than any sense of what would be best for the nation - is ridiculous.

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. I think Bone is trying to drum up a bit of fear

He kept emphasising how this was about an emergency when terrorists had killed the PM - possibly plus loads more politicians, since he extends the list way down. He seems to be saying there'd be no time for the monarch to consider who to appoint - we'd need someone to order an attack immediately. I think, in practice (and maybe this is what Rees-Mogg is saying, much as it pains me to seem to agree with him), each cabinet minister would look after their own ministry - Home for police and other civil matters, Defence for the military, Foreign for the relations with other countries, and so on. I don't think in that situation that it would be vital for one person to have the final say - whatever cabinet members can meet should decide collectively on any non-obvious new policy, such as attacking anyone.

And I personally don't think in that situation that being a member of a junior party in the coalition should make a difference - when you've just had the PM killed, party politics would be put aside, by the opposition as well. And within a few hours, you can talk to the palace and invite someone who can be temporary PM until a new party election - and in an emergency like that, I think you'd get pretty much everyone supporting them for that period of time.

[enlightenment]

5. Absolutely agree, muriel.

Bone did a very (unfortunately and not uniquely) American thing - and it backfired. I'm no fan of the Conservatives, but in this case they were making valid points.

And Rees-Mogg's comments made me laugh out loud.

[LeftishBrit]

7. I agree

And honestly, nobody was preoccupied with this sort of thing in the mid-80s - when there really had been a recent attempt by terrorists to kill the PM and Cabinet - so why is it suddenly an issue now?

[LeftishBrit]

6. Sounds like an inappropriate attempt to imitate the American system

The British (or any) parliamentary system is so different from the American system that I don't see the need for this sort of elaborate list. The PM is not, after all, the Head of State.

I thought at first that it might reflect an attempt by the RW Tories to make sure that Clegg does not get to be PM - which he wouldn't in any case, even if something happened to Cameron. The Deputy PM is not the same as the American Vice President, and is not automatic heir apparent. E.g. Blair's deputy PM was Prescott but his obvious heir apparent from the beginning was Brown. (And most Prime Ministers do not have an heir apparent, which is probably a good thing overall!)

ETA: But having now checked the list carefully, it seems that it would make Clegg the immediate heir, which makes the whole thing even more bizarre. Are these individuals cutting their noses off to spite their faces, or is the ultimate aim to get Clegg sacked as Deputy PM? Or are they just trying to look clever and get attention?

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. It has the specific 'if a member of the junior coalition party, they are passed over' rule

so it would work to keep Clegg, or any Lib Dem in this government, out of it. I think part of it is to say they don't trust the Lib Dems at all - even in an emergency. As you say - to get attention (from hard line Tory supporters, I think).

[LeftishBrit]

9. OK. Very elaborate, very confusing, and very silly.

As one would expect of that particular group of MPs, I suppose.

[Jeneral2885]

10. I thought Hague was the de facto heir apparent

He controlled most of the COBRA meetings when the PM was away and a crisis hit--if I recall correctly.