Unelected Prime Ministers: the political and constitutional importance

I was delighted to meet the Times columnist Peter Riddell recently at the tutor2u Politics Teacher Conference. He is unarguably the journalist with his finger most closely on the Westminster pulse. Today he turns his focus to the political and constitutional status of unelected Prime Ministers.

What’s more he writes in such a succinct and precise fashion that his short articles are always a pleasure to read - especially since this blog writer often struggles to express via the written word what he means to say, only to find Riddell has put it in a much better fashion in one of his articles.

Riddell points out that should Labour select a new leader they would move into unchartered territory since no party in government has changed its leader twice in a single session of a normal Parliament.

But he also underlines the fact that we are not a presidential system and constitutionally it is conventionally accepted that the Prime Minister is the person who commands a majority of the House, irrespective of whether they led the party at the preceding general election.

On precedent for Brown’s position as PM he writes:

‘When a party in government replaces its leader, there is no need for the new prime minister to call an early general election. Macmillan waited 2¾ years, and Callaghan three years until he was forced to hold one by a Commons vote of no confidence. Douglas Home waited a year, and John Major 15 months, but they were near the five-year limit before an election has to be called. Eden called an election almost immediately after taking office, but the parliament was more than 3½ years old. After succeeding the dying Bonar Law in May 1923, Baldwin went to the polls within six months on the issue of tariff reform, only a year into the Parliament, but lost – an unhappy precedent.’

So for David Cameron and his ilk to call for an election after Brown had succeeded Blair has no constitutional basis. But if replacing one leader was unwise, then to do it again would be folly. As Riddell says:

‘The real question is political. You can call it either a mandate or an emotional contract (in the words of the marketing men in No 10). That was the case for an election last autumn, and would be even more so if Labour changed its leader this year. Prime ministers who have not won an election lack the personal authority of those who have.

That is why David Cameron’s call yesterday for an immediate election if Mr Brown steps down has such force. It sounds reasonable. A new prime minister would have to give some indication of when an election would be held, even a vague “next year”. That prospect may help Mr Brown, since no Labour MP wants an election with the party so low in the polls and the economy still on the slide. Nothing concentrates MPs’ minds more than the risk of losing their seats.’

I would encourage blog readers to read the article in full, and also to make it a habit to check his column on a regular basis.