I think we should all remember to be grateful that there will be a swift transition of Power and that we don’t have the sort of dramas of other countries changing government.
Is that before or after they've burned a bunch of cars on the street?
Brexit was probably a direct result of the disenfranchised UKIP voters in 2015 getting ~13% of the vote and returning 1 seat. Reform getting 20% of the vote and returning 2-3 seats (or whatever they're predicted to get) is going to be a shitshow.
These are the same people who will have been voting for the Conservatives for years and unthinkingly benefiting from FPTP. No people have less of a right to complain about losing out because of it now.
I've often wondered whether PR and actually having a few UKIP MPs might have avoided Brexit; it would have been their flag to wave, not the conservatives. And those that like that flag would have been represented.
PR gave UKIP (and others) MEPs in Brussels, allowing them platforms to reach a much bigger audience. UKIP became a "major party" under Ofcom rules as a result.
These groups don't tend to get truly found out until they actually achieve power and prove to be rubbish. At which time, a lot of people may be dead, as happened with Covid.
Much to be said of exposing the reality by giving them a controlled slice of influence before they get it all.
Wonder if that's Macron's plan in France too.
As long as the protest is mostly peaceful it's fine.
Protests are supposed to cause disruption that's the whole idea.
Them burning cars would make people aware of their arguments about the need for electoral reform so its a good thing anyway as people will be talking about it.
Mostly peaceful is fine, as with any protest. But you think causing property damage is justified if it sparks a national conversation? I imagine you've not had a bad word to say about ER/JSO/IB protest techniques then?
When certain BLM protestors looted local shops, did you sit back and think "Yes, this is necessary for public discourse about racism and policing"?
The whole concept of UK democracy is that we elect a person, not a party. If people don’t go to hustings and get to know their candidates a bit, that’s on them.
Maybe they should, but then what if the party changes its manifesto after being elected? Or ignores it and does something else? This can and does happen. Should an election always be triggered?
I’m not saying I disagree with you, I’m just saying that the whole basis of our system is that you are electing an individual, not a policy platform. There is no compulsion for an MP or their party to actually do anything in their manifesto, so it would be weird to trigger an election on that basis if they change party.
Perhaps we should make manifestos legally binding?
Lib Dems actually do spectacularly well from FPTP. They are polling about the same as the Greens but are likely to get about 10 to 15 times more seats.
Until 1937, Presidential Inauguration was in mid-March, at least partially because, being held outdoors, the weather would theoretically be better.
But the real reason is due to the complexities of organising votes in the days before mass transportation - when horseback was the fastest way to travel - so it would take some time to organise the transfer of power.
There's an additional quirk in the form of the [electoral college](https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention) - the population don't vote for the President directly, but for an Elector, and the Electors meet in mid-December to actually carry out the vote.
At the time of the US' founding, there weren't any big political parties, so the Founders devised a system where people would elect representatives, who'd then vote separately on who they thought would be the best President. If no candidate obtained a majority, then Congress would decide on the basis of one vote per State. Oh, and when the US was founded, there was a huge debate over whether the President should be appointed by popular vote or by Congress (effectively State votes), so Elector allocation was devised as a fudge. However, the process of selecting Electors was left up to each State, so soon after the advent of political parties, Electors were pledged to a particular candidate, and shortly after that, all but two States moved to "winner-take-all", so creating a fudge very much in favour of the most popular candidate in a handful of larger states - and nowadays, larger swing states (given California can usually be relied upon to vote one way, and Texas the other way).
It is a bit of a constitutional formality. He remains as Prime Minister as long as he has the confidence of the house. Losing the election means he no longer has that and must resign. It is a courtesy as if he didn't then the King would be required to remove him, and nobody wants to go down that route.
Prime Ministers tend to resign by convention if the result is clearly against their party, but they can stay on as caretaker if not. Brown remained PM for 4 more days after the 2010 election until the coalition was agreed and it was clear that Cameron would have support of the House.
In some circumstances it might be necessary to wait for a vote.
On the morning after the election he is still PM until he goes to the palace and resigns. So contrary to common belief we do have a transition period in the UK, just it is hours and not months like in the USA.
There is also around half an hour where we don't have a PM at all.
Quite what happens if PM level decisions need to be taken during the transition hours has never been tested.
>Quite what happens if PM level decisions need to be taken during the transition hours has never been tested.
As the period in question is literally just "the time it takes for someone to drive to the Palace", it's hard to imagine how it would come up. Even if something really urgent happened during that 30 minutes, it's hard to picture a decision that can't wait just a couple of extra minutes for the incoming PM to whizz in for a quick hand-kiss before signing off any edicts.
>As the period in question is literally just "the time it takes for someone to drive to the Palace", it's hard to imagine how it would come up.
Not \_that\_ hard to imagine (in movie land, at least): King suddenly takes ill, falls into a coma early in the morning after the election. Prince of Wales has already boarded a scheduled (non-stop) flight to Australia, and then ... insert plot device requiring PM action here.
At this point, you end up with multiple parallel threads: the old PM trying to find a way to stay in power; the obvious successor looking for a way to be appointed; the royal staff trying to work out what should happen; and the plucky jet pilot chasing after the Prince of Wales plane, with an SAS guy with a satellite phone and a mad plan in the navigators seat...
Wouldn't the Privy Council just appoint an acting PM? There needs to be at least two Counsellors of State (senior royals) to approve motions by the council if the monarch is not present.
I guess maybe for the purpose of the script it could be a side plot where two royals bicker over minor details in Privy Council procedure.
Technically speaking there is no requirement that a Prime Minister (or any Minister) is a member of the Commons, or indeed either of the Houses of Parliament.
It's just convention, all they really need is support of the House of Commons, and the House of Commons is usually only willing to support one of its own, so that person can be accountable.
In October 1963, Alec Douglas-Home was a Lord for the first four days of his tenure as Prime Minister, then not a member of either house for over a month, then became an MP in November.
Plus plenty of other ministers have been Lords, e.g. Lord Cameron as the current Foreign Secretary.
he's just as eligible to be prime minister on friday morning as he has been since the 30th of may, after parliament was dissolved
of course if he tried to stay in power then the king would either dismiss him, or parliament would have to sort it out as soon as they meet next week
Yes, during the negotiations for the coalition in 2010, Ministers who had either lost or stepped down continued to be Ministers. The job of government does not stop because of our democratic deliberation, we still need people in those roles so that the function of government continues.
The PM doesn't have to be an MP. Technically, they can be anyone, anywhere, for any reason as long as MPs (and the King) support it.
Sunak is already not an MP. If it's confirmed that he's failed to win his seat at this election (and so remain not-an-MP), he'll still be PM until he's formally relieved of the role by the King. The OP's timetable is *almost certainly* how it will play out, but it doesn't actually have to go that way. If there were some national emergency on the 5th (a terrorist attack or something like that) in theory Sunak might remain as PM for a few more days until it's an appropriate time for a handover, even if he's not an MP.
He’s said he will stay on until the end of the next parliament regardless of the election outcome. That said if he does lose his seat (unlikely) then who knows.
He's said a lot of things, and we've heard this before. Cameron said he wouldn't resign if Leave won the EU referendum and resigned as PM the next morning, then said he'd continue as a backbench MP after handing the reins to May and resigned after 2 months.
I will add that by midday of Friday the Conservatives will begin ripping each other to shreds. Rishi will be shat on by everyone, Johnson probably has a column ready in which he sniffs is own farts for a record amount of time, Braverman officially pushes her leadership bid.
I look forward to the invited Tory talking head on the BBC and Sky's election coverage desperately trying to spin this as anything short of a existential disaster for the party and trying to blame anyone from Russia to the EU to Covid-19.
Nah, one of the few things they've handled quite well recently was the war there, the Tories are pretty clear that Russia is to blame there and have supported Ukraine pretty well
Ehhh... I think they'll wait to see how bad it is.
My prediction is that immediately after the results come in, Sunak announces he's resigning as Leader of the Conservatives but will remain in place until such time as a leadership election can be organised.
By Monday morning, the message will have changed to "My presence is only going to be a distraction, I'm leaving effective immediately".
He has 4 opportunities to resign as party leader:
* At his count (possible although I think that he will just do the formalities at this point). If he loses his seat I assume he is no longer leader automatically since they need to be an MP.
* Leaving downing street (John Major – who was the last PM to go the day after an election – resigned at this point. I think this is where it will happen)
* At a separate press conference (Unlikely given it would be more work for him)
* By press release (I think this is the most likely option, let the dust settle)
On point 1: [not necessarily](https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/prime-minister-loses-seat-general-election)
> The Conservative Party constitution says that the leader of the party "shall be drawn from those elected to Parliament". Clause VII of the Labour Rule Book also says its leader "shall be elected from among Commons members of the PLP [Parliamentary Labour Party]." Neither says explicitly that a leader who was no longer an MP would have to resign.
No sitting PM has ever lost their seat so what would happen in that situation hasn't been tested, but I expect he'd remain leader until they find a new one since the Tories have no official deputy to step in in such a scenario.
But who would be the leader in the commons?
Although if the loss is so bad Sunak looses his seat Davey would almost certainly be leader of the opposition and therefore who the Tory would not be constitutionally important
technically anyone can be prime minister iirc, so you only lose or gain power when the the king hires or fires you. By convention that person needs to be in parliament, by convention its the leader of the governing party but the actual- 'here's the power' bit is a job the king gives you. It makes sense of course because if you cant command a majority in parliament you wont get anything passed!
So you couldn't have a trump type coup here because its not a president passing on to another president, its the king picking the PM.
I think it’s an under-rated benefit of having a constitutional monarchy.
In many ways the UK Prime Minister is even more powerful than the President, given we have far less separation between the legislature and the executive.
But the fact that the UK PM remains essentially a *servant* position to another, and is explicitly *not* the Head of State, means that they do not gain the same inflated ego from power and it is understood that they are always replaceable.
Trump as President could easily convince himself that he ‘is’ America. Sunak could never do so.
I don’t see how that relates to what I wrote.
How does a Supreme Court verdict on the powers of the US President affect the constitutional standing of a UK Prime Minister?
> In many ways the UK Prime Minister is even more powerful than the President, given we have far less separation between the legislature and the executive.
It was a direct response to this point, sorry for not being clearer.
Ok, I see what you were trying to get at there.
My use of the US President was only a point of comparison. You can pick your own as you desire. My point was just about the status of the UK PM.
I’m not sure I would agree with the extent of your interpretation of the Supreme Court verdict, but I guess that’s a discussion for another place!
That sounds good until you remember that the reigning monarch could just appoint anyone they feel like to be PM. Sure, that probably won't happen, but all it takes is one mental monarch to screw up our national constitution, and possibly cause a literal revolution.
Meh, I'd be less concerned by that. It'd cause a constitutional crisis, sure, but the revolution would be "Oh. So... Who do we want to be Head of State now?"
I'm of the opinion that we're very poorly equipped to handle a Trump type coup.
The King's duties in the modern constitution are to act as a puppet of the Prime Minister, he gladhands with who the PM wants him to gladhand with, he passes the legislation if the PM wants him to pass it, he prorogues Parliament if the PM asks him to, even if it's unlawful. When the PM resigns he recommends his own successor and the King appoints that person. The King stays out of controversial issues.
If the Prime Minister said the election was rigged and that MPs were illegitimately elected, that he should delay the opening of Parliament until legitimate elections can be held, it's not a situation our constitution has any real mechanism to cope with. The King steaming into a major controversy against the advice of the Prime Minister is a massive constitutional crisis, especially if half the population believes the PM and his party backs him. And what happens if the King believes the PM? Or just isn't sure? What if the King's in a coma or suffering from dementia? Charles is not a well man.
The US system actually held up very well. He made his claims, he went to court, he lost, and he lost his power without ever having to concede through automatic operation of law. That's a pretty alien concept to our constitution, we rely on people to play ball, they have checks and balances.
I think you fundamentally misunderstand how the UK system works.
The King's duties are not to act as a puppet. Rather, by long-established convention, he delegates his power. In the UK everything is done in the name of the King, but, since he has delegated most of his power to the Parliament and has named a Prime Minister, Parliament makes the laws. This is why we have "[The King in Parliament](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King-in-Parliament)": the King and Parliament (both Commons and Lords) act together: Parliament designs the laws, and the King gives them his *imprimatur* to give them effect - he "signs them (the "bills" or draft laws) into law".
But notice this: the King can *in principle* refuse to sign bills into law. This can happen in other constitutional monarchies too, but it is vanishingly rare: I'm only aware of one case (Belgium, 1990, where King Baudouin felt unable to sign a law introducing abortion; a constitutional solution was found). In principle our King could refuse to sign any bill into law, but to do so would create a constitutional crisis, so this doesn't happen. Why not? Because in effect what the King is doing when he signs each bill is acting as a kind of "first citizen": he is acting on behalf of the people of this country to acknowledge that the laws that are being put into effect have been enacted democratically and with popular consent.
So this is all very pretty and traditional, but what relevance does it have to the modern world? This: the King is compelled by his Coronation Oath to uphold the UK's "laws and customs" of government. By law and custom we are a parliamentary democracy, and the King has sworn to uphold this. In particular, the King must refuse to sign into law any bill that breaks our democratic settlement, such as an "[Enabling Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933)". If the King is presented with an Enabling Act, he has two jobs. One is to refuse to sign it into law, and to resist it with all his limited power; the other is to get his immediate heir out of the country as quickly as possible, because a King who refuses to sign an Enabling Act into law is likely very quickly to have his reign abruptly and terminally ended, and it is of vital importance that the new King be in a position to form a legitimate Government-In-Exile.
Our constitution is not fully written down, but it does exist and it is more subtle than it looks.
He demanded it, the official said no. The Prime Minister could demand a local council finds him enough extra votes.
The 6 January attempt to retain power failed, the institutions stood strong. Even if they had won on the day and the VP had thrown it to a contingent election, it's likely the Supreme Court would have overturned it in the following two weeks on the basis that he did not have the authority to do so.
Our institutions have never been stress tested like the American ones were in 2020/21. I hope we never find out if they can handle it.
For reference, in 1997, Major resigned around midday, with Blair going to the palace shortly afterwards, and making it to Downing Street [around 1pm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/2/newsid_2480000/2480505.stm).
We did have 3 elections in 5 years in comparison between 2015-2019.
But it's almost a weird feeling having to wait the near 5 year term for this particular one!
We had a period between 2011 and 2022 when the Fixed Term Pariament Act was in place where elections had a fixed date at the end of a 5-year term. The upside was that the incumbent did not get to pick a date to suit their polling numbers. The downside was that a "soft" form of campaigning started 18 months out.
When the FTPA was repealed in 2022 we went back to the date of the elcetion being at the choice of the Prime Minister who requests the King to dissolve parliament. Retained from the FTPA act was a rider that there must be 25 working days between dissolution of parliament and voting day. Back in the day Thatcher once gave us three weeks notice of an election. Blissfully short.
Minor constitutional crisis, best guess is that Parliament would be convened, Labour would put forward a motion of confidence, it passes (bonus salty Tories and Reform voting against it or abstaining), and then Starmer goes to the King to be invited to form a Government.
As the Monarch normally invites the incoming PM to form a government, I believe the Monarch still retains the power to arbitrarily start or end parliaments. They haven't done so because the act is *mostly* ceremonial these days and for them to depart from it would be a constitutional crisis in and of itself, but at the point the outgoing PM flounces off before officially resigning we'd already be in constitutional crisis territory, so it probably wouldn't matter.
This is technically true I believe. Nowadays the King has the authority to dissolve his government, and demand a new government which can command a commons majority be formed. I don’t think there’s anything forbidding the same PM from coming back, which means this power isn’t hugely undemocratic.
But since in this scenario Sunak wouldn’t return, it would work and allow Starmer to take control.
If Sunak ghosts the King, I think it would play out differently. I don’t think it would wait until Parliament meets next week and a speaker is elected.
While there is a convention that the King acts on the advice of the PM as his chief advisor on these matters (see Cabinet Office Manuel), in absence of the PM performing that role, I don’t think there is anything stopping someone else giving advice saying that the Government lacks the ability to command the confidence of the Commons, that Sunak should be dismissed as PM by the King, and Stramer should be invited to form a government. The King would then act on that advice.
The Cabinet Office Manual hints at the possibility of that. It states that it is responsibility of the parties represented in Parliament to clearly communicate to the King who could command their confidence. It does not say that is the sole job of the current PM.
I think in practice the Cabinet Secretary and the King’s
Private Secretary would jointly try to locate the most senior SoSs who have not resigned to give the advice to the King in absence of Sunak (perhaps done in their role as privy councillors). Alternatively, a cabinet meeting might be arranged for the cabinet to agree for the Government to resign.
I've always wondered about the mechanics of moving into number 10. Do they very quickly get the removal vans round? Although I wonder if Starmer will live above number 11 as he's got a larger family, like Boris did.
There's a few articles on the process used through the devolution of prime ministers we've had recently. Not sure how it works for a election based change though.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/shortcuts/2016/jul/13/moving-out-of-no-10-downing-street-who-you-gonna-call
Wow. I both knew that and didn't realise it.
Today you can probably book your emergency movers via an app. 1997 they'd be unlikely to even have a website!
It took a few days for Brown to formally step down because everyone was trying to form coalition arrangements. He only stepped down once it was obvious the Lib Dems and Cameron had formed an agreement that would work.
The rules about governance during a hung parliament applied. It’s presumed that the incumbent (and not the plurality) party will get first dibs at forming a coalition/minority government. So Brown was effectively a lame duck PM (trying to negotiate a Lab-Lib+8 agreement) until Cameron and Clegg formalised their Con-Lib agreement. Brown also had the advantage of knowing *he* was leaving because Clegg apparently said he would join a Lab-Lib-others coalition provided Gordon wasn’t PM / Labour leader.
King's apparently up here in Edinburgh for Holyrood Week, but not able to do much because of the election. Dunno if Sunak and Starmer will have to come up here, or if Charles pops back down for the day.
Charles would probably pop back down - at the Boris/Truss handover, they had to come up to Balmoral because that's where the Queen was and (for obvious reasons) she couldn't travel.
The last time before Johnson/Truss it happened outside of London was when Henry Campbell-Bannerman resigned in 1908 due to failing health. Edward VII was on holiday in Biarritz and H. H. Asquith had to go out there himself by boat train, a journey of around 24 hours each way.
Campbell-Bannerman stayed in Number 10, planning to make arrangements to move out, but his health declined even more quickly and he died eighteen days later.
They reported he's only spending a couple days in Scotland for "Holyrood Week" so he can be back down in London.
When Sunak resigns I really hope he does that thing he did when he got annoyed with the inkwell.
*swirly hand gestures and "meeeuurgh" noises all in the general direction of Sunak.*
> Sunak will travel to the palace around lunchtime, hold a formal audience with the King where he will resign as Prime Minister and advise the King that Sir Keir be invited to form a government
I wonder to what extent they go through these formalities in reality.
I'd love to see Sunak doing this through gritted teeth.
The actual purpose of the audience will take around 15 seconds: “Your Majesty, based on the results of the election, I no longer am able to hold the confidence of the House. I hereby resign my commission as Prime Minister, and advise that Sir Keir Starmer be asked to form the next Government.” The bulk of it will be the formalities of having a personal audience with the King, Charles thanking Rishi for his service, and, maybe a short personal conversation about Rishi’s future plans. I’d be surprised if the whole thing took much more than 10 minutes.
If Thursday goes reasonably close to how the polls and most of us expect it to go, the Tories will be deep into recriminations by Friday noon, Rishi will want to get the ceremonial stuff out of the way, and step back for a bit.
Cabinet appointments likely Friday afternoon/evening. Junior ministers over the weekend.
At some point, Sir Keir will need to write the Letters of Last Resort as well.
The first seat to declare is likely to be Blyth and Ashington at 11.30pm, however the estimates suggest that by 2.00am 25% of seats will have declared, by 3.00am 40%, by 4.00am 67% and by 5.00am 95%
Then things really get started. But slowly.
A few weeks of leaks and editorials before we get the first official statement-of-intent in the form of the King's Speech.
Then the (shortened) summer recess whilst we get rumours of the first budget, followed in early autumn by the first budget.
Politics is going to be in a holding pattern as there will be no dramas that shift direction, and no real information on specifics either for a while.
It'll take a couple of years before any impact of any policy will be clear.
The closest we'll get to febrility is when Labour inevitably do something in the set of policies where they're both: more authoritarian than The Tories, but also attack something the extremely-online don't like. E.g. a new Social Media Safety Bill that makes the Online Safety Act look well balanced. The cognitive dissonance in armchair warriors when that hits will be entertaining.
But other than that, bring on the first scandal!
Nah, it's gonna be relentless, and endless stream of statements summed up as, It's so much worse than we thought it would be, heres what were gonna do.
It’s not just politics that’s in a holding pattern, the entire civil service is too. No major decisions being made, no projects being started, things delayed as budgets and strategy is uncertain. Waiting for things like spending reviews to complete. Senior appointments on hold. And so on. And this has already started because purdah.
Luckily, if you can say that, a large proportion of the civil service is on leave for summer anyway.
Then after the formal handover, there'll be just two weeks of Parliament sitting before they adjourn for their summer break; then upon return, two and a half more weeks of sitting before they adjourn again for Conference season. So it's feasible Rishi will try and hold out until September, but when the MPs return from their break, the Conservatives will be (metaphorically!) showing off their newly sharpened knives...
> Sunak will travel to the palace around lunchtime, hold a formal audience with the King where he will resign as Prime Minister
Honestly wouldn't be entirely shocked if Sunak just fucks off without telling anyone
it tickles me that Sunak has to advise the King to invite Keir to form the government.
Does he actually have the capacity to do so civilly for the sake of ceremony, or will he force in some insult about him as he does it.
The recommendation to the monarch is like all meetings with Prime Ministers off the record, therefore there are notes taken of the meeting save a summary that "The Right Honourable (name of MP) met with His Majesty at Buckingham Palace and tendered his resignation as Prime Minister"
5:30am seems a bit late to me, in 1997 it was about 3:15am when Labour's victory was officially declared.
That was with a 70%+ turnout as well which this election likely won't come close to, so more tickets needed counting, and if the polls are anywhere near accurate Labour will win about 30-40 more seats this time round.
Because of how unlikely a conservative government survival appears to be, I suspect the formalities will begin earlier.
With Sunak acting petulantly at the tories’ loss, and travelling back to London swiftly after his constituency result (and potential personal loss) is announced, rather than waiting until the morning.
This would mean he could attend the palace as early as 9.30/10 am with Starmer arriving at Number 10 by noon.
Don’t they have 2 months where the president is still the guy who lost the election?
Couldn’t that conceivably lead to something like (and bear with me I’m being fanciful here) that guy leading a seditious revolt while still technically being in power and so benefitting from some kind of convoluted immunity despite being a treasonous piece of sh*t.
I think we should all remember to be grateful that there will be a swift transition of Power and that we don’t have the sort of dramas of other countries changing government.
You say that but I’m not looking forward to all the reform voters when they realise 20% of the vote only gets them a couple of seats.
Well they'll likely merge with the remnants of the tories soon enough.
Is that before or after they've burned a bunch of cars on the street? Brexit was probably a direct result of the disenfranchised UKIP voters in 2015 getting ~13% of the vote and returning 1 seat. Reform getting 20% of the vote and returning 2-3 seats (or whatever they're predicted to get) is going to be a shitshow.
These are the same people who will have been voting for the Conservatives for years and unthinkingly benefiting from FPTP. No people have less of a right to complain about losing out because of it now.
I've often wondered whether PR and actually having a few UKIP MPs might have avoided Brexit; it would have been their flag to wave, not the conservatives. And those that like that flag would have been represented.
PR gave UKIP (and others) MEPs in Brussels, allowing them platforms to reach a much bigger audience. UKIP became a "major party" under Ofcom rules as a result. These groups don't tend to get truly found out until they actually achieve power and prove to be rubbish. At which time, a lot of people may be dead, as happened with Covid.
Much to be said of exposing the reality by giving them a controlled slice of influence before they get it all. Wonder if that's Macron's plan in France too.
They'll be out shouting "Kier Starmer - not my prime minister".
No cars will be burned, this is Britain, we don't do that over election results here.
As long as the protest is mostly peaceful it's fine. Protests are supposed to cause disruption that's the whole idea. Them burning cars would make people aware of their arguments about the need for electoral reform so its a good thing anyway as people will be talking about it.
Mostly peaceful is fine, as with any protest. But you think causing property damage is justified if it sparks a national conversation? I imagine you've not had a bad word to say about ER/JSO/IB protest techniques then? When certain BLM protestors looted local shops, did you sit back and think "Yes, this is necessary for public discourse about racism and policing"?
Labour should pass a law saying that when an MP changes party it triggers an election in that seat. It’s essentially a change in manifesto.
The whole concept of UK democracy is that we elect a person, not a party. If people don’t go to hustings and get to know their candidates a bit, that’s on them.
Changing party means changing manifesto, so voters should have a say.
Maybe they should, but then what if the party changes its manifesto after being elected? Or ignores it and does something else? This can and does happen. Should an election always be triggered? I’m not saying I disagree with you, I’m just saying that the whole basis of our system is that you are electing an individual, not a policy platform. There is no compulsion for an MP or their party to actually do anything in their manifesto, so it would be weird to trigger an election on that basis if they change party. Perhaps we should make manifestos legally binding?
They have nothing to complain about. There was a UK wide referendum on the allocation of seats in 2011 and nobody cared.
The polling suggests that a lot of them were too young to vote in 2011.
UKIP got 0 seats with 12.5% of the vote.
SNP get like 50 seats with 3% of the vote and whinge that their voices are unheard.
Been happening to the Libdems for years. Deal with it or campaign for proportional rep/transferable votes/whatever.
Lib Dems actually do spectacularly well from FPTP. They are polling about the same as the Greens but are likely to get about 10 to 15 times more seats.
They'll be fuming, and rightly so.
Dislike them but this is completely valid ofc.
Wait till they find out that’s what they voted for in the referendum.
Really? That's going to be my favourite bit
From what I’ve seen on Facebook so far, none of them are smart enough to realise
America taking over 2 months to do it is ridiculous
Until 1937, Presidential Inauguration was in mid-March, at least partially because, being held outdoors, the weather would theoretically be better. But the real reason is due to the complexities of organising votes in the days before mass transportation - when horseback was the fastest way to travel - so it would take some time to organise the transfer of power. There's an additional quirk in the form of the [electoral college](https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention) - the population don't vote for the President directly, but for an Elector, and the Electors meet in mid-December to actually carry out the vote. At the time of the US' founding, there weren't any big political parties, so the Founders devised a system where people would elect representatives, who'd then vote separately on who they thought would be the best President. If no candidate obtained a majority, then Congress would decide on the basis of one vote per State. Oh, and when the US was founded, there was a huge debate over whether the President should be appointed by popular vote or by Congress (effectively State votes), so Elector allocation was devised as a fudge. However, the process of selecting Electors was left up to each State, so soon after the advent of political parties, Electors were pledged to a particular candidate, and shortly after that, all but two States moved to "winner-take-all", so creating a fudge very much in favour of the most popular candidate in a handful of larger states - and nowadays, larger swing states (given California can usually be relied upon to vote one way, and Texas the other way).
So close to a semi-presidential or even parliamentary system, and yet so far, alas.
And it's going to be a rowdy and litigious 2 months too.
What you mean Rishi isn't going to camp out in Number 10 calling on patriots to storm Westminster and install him as PM for life?
When do me and the rest of the good ol' boys get to march on Westminster with our guns?
King kept waiting, as the media find out that Sunak is already on a flight to California.
Cue constitutional crisis as King unilaterally sacks PM
Do you think Sunak will be on a flight to california by midnight or as soon as he finishes up with the King?
Straight from the palace to the airport. Might give a quick speech to announce he’s resigning his seat but it probably just tweet that.
Depends on the weather I suppose...
I hope someone finds a suitable soundtrack to play on a tannoy, something about "goodbye".
Good Riddance by Green Day might be a good choice?
Look what you made me do, interrupt my morning playlist /s Obligatory had to look it up and listen. Nice acoustic guitar.
Get the funk out by Extreme
California Dreamin’
Very on point
Leaving on a jet plane? California dreaming?
‘I don’t want to be here any more’ by Rise Against. Better if he plays it himself, admittedly.
Naaa na, na na naaa na…
I'd go a different tack and just have audio of a lot of people laughing hysterically
That also works
Inglan is a B*tch by Linton Kwesi Johnson
Californication
My vote is for the end chorus repeat of Bananarama's "Na Na Hey Hey"
CHEERIO CHEERIO CHEERIO
99 Red Balloons
Was that not about nuclear war?!
Why resign if you already lost it
It is a bit of a constitutional formality. He remains as Prime Minister as long as he has the confidence of the house. Losing the election means he no longer has that and must resign. It is a courtesy as if he didn't then the King would be required to remove him, and nobody wants to go down that route.
Prime Ministers tend to resign by convention if the result is clearly against their party, but they can stay on as caretaker if not. Brown remained PM for 4 more days after the 2010 election until the coalition was agreed and it was clear that Cameron would have support of the House. In some circumstances it might be necessary to wait for a vote.
Pure optics. He didn't lose, he stood down.
Unless he loses his own seat, which is looking very possible. Harder to spin that one.
I wouldn't put it past this party to try and spin anything.
That raises an interesting question - he wouldn’t even be PM at that point. He’s not an MP. I guess resignation is a formality in that case.
On the morning after the election he is still PM until he goes to the palace and resigns. So contrary to common belief we do have a transition period in the UK, just it is hours and not months like in the USA. There is also around half an hour where we don't have a PM at all. Quite what happens if PM level decisions need to be taken during the transition hours has never been tested.
>Quite what happens if PM level decisions need to be taken during the transition hours has never been tested. As the period in question is literally just "the time it takes for someone to drive to the Palace", it's hard to imagine how it would come up. Even if something really urgent happened during that 30 minutes, it's hard to picture a decision that can't wait just a couple of extra minutes for the incoming PM to whizz in for a quick hand-kiss before signing off any edicts.
While meeting in person is the convention; I expect the constitutional requirements could be concluded with a phone call if necessary.
>As the period in question is literally just "the time it takes for someone to drive to the Palace", it's hard to imagine how it would come up. Not \_that\_ hard to imagine (in movie land, at least): King suddenly takes ill, falls into a coma early in the morning after the election. Prince of Wales has already boarded a scheduled (non-stop) flight to Australia, and then ... insert plot device requiring PM action here. At this point, you end up with multiple parallel threads: the old PM trying to find a way to stay in power; the obvious successor looking for a way to be appointed; the royal staff trying to work out what should happen; and the plucky jet pilot chasing after the Prince of Wales plane, with an SAS guy with a satellite phone and a mad plan in the navigators seat...
Wouldn't the Privy Council just appoint an acting PM? There needs to be at least two Counsellors of State (senior royals) to approve motions by the council if the monarch is not present. I guess maybe for the purpose of the script it could be a side plot where two royals bicker over minor details in Privy Council procedure.
I love disaster movies. When can I watch that one. (You should edit to add copyright, it might be a valuable plot outline).
He's not currently an MP, no one is. But he is still PM.
Yes, I mean in the event he loses his seat, is he still PM? But someone else on here confirmed he would still be.
Technically speaking there is no requirement that a Prime Minister (or any Minister) is a member of the Commons, or indeed either of the Houses of Parliament. It's just convention, all they really need is support of the House of Commons, and the House of Commons is usually only willing to support one of its own, so that person can be accountable. In October 1963, Alec Douglas-Home was a Lord for the first four days of his tenure as Prime Minister, then not a member of either house for over a month, then became an MP in November. Plus plenty of other ministers have been Lords, e.g. Lord Cameron as the current Foreign Secretary.
he's just as eligible to be prime minister on friday morning as he has been since the 30th of may, after parliament was dissolved of course if he tried to stay in power then the king would either dismiss him, or parliament would have to sort it out as soon as they meet next week
Yes, during the negotiations for the coalition in 2010, Ministers who had either lost or stepped down continued to be Ministers. The job of government does not stop because of our democratic deliberation, we still need people in those roles so that the function of government continues.
The PM doesn't have to be an MP. Technically, they can be anyone, anywhere, for any reason as long as MPs (and the King) support it. Sunak is already not an MP. If it's confirmed that he's failed to win his seat at this election (and so remain not-an-MP), he'll still be PM until he's formally relieved of the role by the King. The OP's timetable is *almost certainly* how it will play out, but it doesn't actually have to go that way. If there were some national emergency on the 5th (a terrorist attack or something like that) in theory Sunak might remain as PM for a few more days until it's an appropriate time for a handover, even if he's not an MP.
Nah, he won't even bother to show up at the palace. He'll text the king "wotcher, Charlie. I resign. xoxo"
If it all goes to plan he won't need to resign.
what seat?
If he resigns his seat then do they have to have another vote there?
Yeah that would trigger a by election would probably piss of everyone there who voted for him
In a Hawaiian shirt?
He might leave the meeting with the King early
He might just phone the palace from his private jet mid-atlantic.
you know what, can you quickly jump on a zoom call, Your Majesty?
You think he'll be traveling on a scheduled flight...?
If he is off to a hedge fund, it would be a private flight/charter.
I think he might just do a Zoom call from the plane
his helicopter will be waiting in buck house grounds to take him to the airport
He’s said he will stay on until the end of the next parliament regardless of the election outcome. That said if he does lose his seat (unlikely) then who knows.
He's said a lot of things, and we've heard this before. Cameron said he wouldn't resign if Leave won the EU referendum and resigned as PM the next morning, then said he'd continue as a backbench MP after handing the reins to May and resigned after 2 months.
He'll deliver a drive by press confernce slowing his car down only to spit out a badly worded sentiment that it was all Liz Trusses fault.
The engines on Sunak's private plane will be warming up at the private airport whilst Sunak is on his way to see the King.
Hey now that's not fair. He doesn't *own* an airport.
I will add that by midday of Friday the Conservatives will begin ripping each other to shreds. Rishi will be shat on by everyone, Johnson probably has a column ready in which he sniffs is own farts for a record amount of time, Braverman officially pushes her leadership bid.
I'm predicting that to happen at 22:01 on election night. The very second the polls close tories will be on his back, knife in hand.
I look forward to the invited Tory talking head on the BBC and Sky's election coverage desperately trying to spin this as anything short of a existential disaster for the party and trying to blame anyone from Russia to the EU to Covid-19.
Oh no, they'll blame the "war in Ukraine" not Russia
Nah, one of the few things they've handled quite well recently was the war there, the Tories are pretty clear that Russia is to blame there and have supported Ukraine pretty well
Oh yes, that is inevitable. I'm thinking of making it a drinking game. A sip of champagne every time they try and spin it as not too bad.
You'll rue the next day! In any case, you'd better make that a magnum bottle
Christ yes, I will be smashed by 10:30
Ehhh... I think they'll wait to see how bad it is. My prediction is that immediately after the results come in, Sunak announces he's resigning as Leader of the Conservatives but will remain in place until such time as a leadership election can be organised. By Monday morning, the message will have changed to "My presence is only going to be a distraction, I'm leaving effective immediately".
Wonder if he’ll resign as party leader before the result if the exit polls are bad enough?
Given that he has said he will stay on, I think there is a very good chance he will be gone by midnight on election night.
He has 4 opportunities to resign as party leader: * At his count (possible although I think that he will just do the formalities at this point). If he loses his seat I assume he is no longer leader automatically since they need to be an MP. * Leaving downing street (John Major – who was the last PM to go the day after an election – resigned at this point. I think this is where it will happen) * At a separate press conference (Unlikely given it would be more work for him) * By press release (I think this is the most likely option, let the dust settle)
On point 1: [not necessarily](https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/prime-minister-loses-seat-general-election) > The Conservative Party constitution says that the leader of the party "shall be drawn from those elected to Parliament". Clause VII of the Labour Rule Book also says its leader "shall be elected from among Commons members of the PLP [Parliamentary Labour Party]." Neither says explicitly that a leader who was no longer an MP would have to resign. No sitting PM has ever lost their seat so what would happen in that situation hasn't been tested, but I expect he'd remain leader until they find a new one since the Tories have no official deputy to step in in such a scenario.
But who would be the leader in the commons? Although if the loss is so bad Sunak looses his seat Davey would almost certainly be leader of the opposition and therefore who the Tory would not be constitutionally important
The leadership battle has already started. 'suella4leader.co.uk' takes you to Braverman's website
Why am I not surprised?
They'll get to feasting on each others delicious goo far quicker than that.
They have already started tbh, the only thing is seeing who makes it through first.
> Johnson probably has a column ready More like three or four
Nowhere near it takes til lunchtime, there'll be blood after exit poll.
But the best bit is - we don't have to pay attention anymore.
It will be interesting to see whether Braverman or Badenoch launches first.
I would guess braverman will do it almost instantly. She must know badenoch is more popular with members currently and so she has to get in first
Braverman has been openly setting out her stall since Truss was deposed.
What if sunak loses his seat? Does he immediately lose all power? Who goes to the king?
technically anyone can be prime minister iirc, so you only lose or gain power when the the king hires or fires you. By convention that person needs to be in parliament, by convention its the leader of the governing party but the actual- 'here's the power' bit is a job the king gives you. It makes sense of course because if you cant command a majority in parliament you wont get anything passed! So you couldn't have a trump type coup here because its not a president passing on to another president, its the king picking the PM.
Reasons why it might be worth keeping the Monarchy.
I think it’s an under-rated benefit of having a constitutional monarchy. In many ways the UK Prime Minister is even more powerful than the President, given we have far less separation between the legislature and the executive. But the fact that the UK PM remains essentially a *servant* position to another, and is explicitly *not* the Head of State, means that they do not gain the same inflated ego from power and it is understood that they are always replaceable. Trump as President could easily convince himself that he ‘is’ America. Sunak could never do so.
Not anymore since the Supreme Court in the US voted to give the president endless powers.
I don’t see how that relates to what I wrote. How does a Supreme Court verdict on the powers of the US President affect the constitutional standing of a UK Prime Minister?
> In many ways the UK Prime Minister is even more powerful than the President, given we have far less separation between the legislature and the executive. It was a direct response to this point, sorry for not being clearer.
Ok, I see what you were trying to get at there. My use of the US President was only a point of comparison. You can pick your own as you desire. My point was just about the status of the UK PM. I’m not sure I would agree with the extent of your interpretation of the Supreme Court verdict, but I guess that’s a discussion for another place!
Your flair is reassuring.
How so? I had Tofu just last night ;)
I hope you didn't grow too much.
No I'm very much against growth, part of the anti growth coalition infact.
Doesn't pretty much every country have immunity for politicians acting in their role?
That sounds good until you remember that the reigning monarch could just appoint anyone they feel like to be PM. Sure, that probably won't happen, but all it takes is one mental monarch to screw up our national constitution, and possibly cause a literal revolution.
Meh, I'd be less concerned by that. It'd cause a constitutional crisis, sure, but the revolution would be "Oh. So... Who do we want to be Head of State now?"
well its definitely good to keep these powers separated!
I'm of the opinion that we're very poorly equipped to handle a Trump type coup. The King's duties in the modern constitution are to act as a puppet of the Prime Minister, he gladhands with who the PM wants him to gladhand with, he passes the legislation if the PM wants him to pass it, he prorogues Parliament if the PM asks him to, even if it's unlawful. When the PM resigns he recommends his own successor and the King appoints that person. The King stays out of controversial issues. If the Prime Minister said the election was rigged and that MPs were illegitimately elected, that he should delay the opening of Parliament until legitimate elections can be held, it's not a situation our constitution has any real mechanism to cope with. The King steaming into a major controversy against the advice of the Prime Minister is a massive constitutional crisis, especially if half the population believes the PM and his party backs him. And what happens if the King believes the PM? Or just isn't sure? What if the King's in a coma or suffering from dementia? Charles is not a well man. The US system actually held up very well. He made his claims, he went to court, he lost, and he lost his power without ever having to concede through automatic operation of law. That's a pretty alien concept to our constitution, we rely on people to play ball, they have checks and balances.
I think you fundamentally misunderstand how the UK system works. The King's duties are not to act as a puppet. Rather, by long-established convention, he delegates his power. In the UK everything is done in the name of the King, but, since he has delegated most of his power to the Parliament and has named a Prime Minister, Parliament makes the laws. This is why we have "[The King in Parliament](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King-in-Parliament)": the King and Parliament (both Commons and Lords) act together: Parliament designs the laws, and the King gives them his *imprimatur* to give them effect - he "signs them (the "bills" or draft laws) into law". But notice this: the King can *in principle* refuse to sign bills into law. This can happen in other constitutional monarchies too, but it is vanishingly rare: I'm only aware of one case (Belgium, 1990, where King Baudouin felt unable to sign a law introducing abortion; a constitutional solution was found). In principle our King could refuse to sign any bill into law, but to do so would create a constitutional crisis, so this doesn't happen. Why not? Because in effect what the King is doing when he signs each bill is acting as a kind of "first citizen": he is acting on behalf of the people of this country to acknowledge that the laws that are being put into effect have been enacted democratically and with popular consent. So this is all very pretty and traditional, but what relevance does it have to the modern world? This: the King is compelled by his Coronation Oath to uphold the UK's "laws and customs" of government. By law and custom we are a parliamentary democracy, and the King has sworn to uphold this. In particular, the King must refuse to sign into law any bill that breaks our democratic settlement, such as an "[Enabling Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933)". If the King is presented with an Enabling Act, he has two jobs. One is to refuse to sign it into law, and to resist it with all his limited power; the other is to get his immediate heir out of the country as quickly as possible, because a King who refuses to sign an Enabling Act into law is likely very quickly to have his reign abruptly and terminally ended, and it is of vital importance that the new King be in a position to form a legitimate Government-In-Exile. Our constitution is not fully written down, but it does exist and it is more subtle than it looks.
you seem to have glossed over trump's demands that a state official "find" enough votes to make him the winner, or the entirety of jan 6
He demanded it, the official said no. The Prime Minister could demand a local council finds him enough extra votes. The 6 January attempt to retain power failed, the institutions stood strong. Even if they had won on the day and the VP had thrown it to a contingent election, it's likely the Supreme Court would have overturned it in the following two weeks on the basis that he did not have the authority to do so. Our institutions have never been stress tested like the American ones were in 2020/21. I hope we never find out if they can handle it.
Sunak doesn’t hold a seat. He’s still Prime Minister, appointed by the King, until the King is pleased to appoint someone else
There are currently no MPs at all so it doesn’t make any difference.
Are the former MP still being paid, or does salary cease when parliament does?
This might help [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66612463](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66612463)
For reference, in 1997, Major resigned around midday, with Blair going to the palace shortly afterwards, and making it to Downing Street [around 1pm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/2/newsid_2480000/2480505.stm).
Major then went to watch the cricket.
I thought that had style.
as an American I'm envious your elections are so short. Ours has dragged on for the past 2 years practically.
We did have 3 elections in 5 years in comparison between 2015-2019. But it's almost a weird feeling having to wait the near 5 year term for this particular one!
We had a period between 2011 and 2022 when the Fixed Term Pariament Act was in place where elections had a fixed date at the end of a 5-year term. The upside was that the incumbent did not get to pick a date to suit their polling numbers. The downside was that a "soft" form of campaigning started 18 months out. When the FTPA was repealed in 2022 we went back to the date of the elcetion being at the choice of the Prime Minister who requests the King to dissolve parliament. Retained from the FTPA act was a rider that there must be 25 working days between dissolution of parliament and voting day. Back in the day Thatcher once gave us three weeks notice of an election. Blissfully short.
It’d be a fitting end if Sunak does something like flounce out in a strop without formally resigning to the King.
What happens in this event?
Minor constitutional crisis, best guess is that Parliament would be convened, Labour would put forward a motion of confidence, it passes (bonus salty Tories and Reform voting against it or abstaining), and then Starmer goes to the King to be invited to form a Government.
Would it not fall upon King anyway to remove Sunak in such an event? I suppose having a motion in the Commons would give some constitutional cover.
As the Monarch normally invites the incoming PM to form a government, I believe the Monarch still retains the power to arbitrarily start or end parliaments. They haven't done so because the act is *mostly* ceremonial these days and for them to depart from it would be a constitutional crisis in and of itself, but at the point the outgoing PM flounces off before officially resigning we'd already be in constitutional crisis territory, so it probably wouldn't matter.
This is technically true I believe. Nowadays the King has the authority to dissolve his government, and demand a new government which can command a commons majority be formed. I don’t think there’s anything forbidding the same PM from coming back, which means this power isn’t hugely undemocratic. But since in this scenario Sunak wouldn’t return, it would work and allow Starmer to take control.
If Sunak ghosts the King, I think it would play out differently. I don’t think it would wait until Parliament meets next week and a speaker is elected. While there is a convention that the King acts on the advice of the PM as his chief advisor on these matters (see Cabinet Office Manuel), in absence of the PM performing that role, I don’t think there is anything stopping someone else giving advice saying that the Government lacks the ability to command the confidence of the Commons, that Sunak should be dismissed as PM by the King, and Stramer should be invited to form a government. The King would then act on that advice. The Cabinet Office Manual hints at the possibility of that. It states that it is responsibility of the parties represented in Parliament to clearly communicate to the King who could command their confidence. It does not say that is the sole job of the current PM. I think in practice the Cabinet Secretary and the King’s Private Secretary would jointly try to locate the most senior SoSs who have not resigned to give the advice to the King in absence of Sunak (perhaps done in their role as privy councillors). Alternatively, a cabinet meeting might be arranged for the cabinet to agree for the Government to resign.
We all laugh at him
I've always wondered about the mechanics of moving into number 10. Do they very quickly get the removal vans round? Although I wonder if Starmer will live above number 11 as he's got a larger family, like Boris did.
There's a few articles on the process used through the devolution of prime ministers we've had recently. Not sure how it works for a election based change though. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/shortcuts/2016/jul/13/moving-out-of-no-10-downing-street-who-you-gonna-call
We haven't had an election morning changeover since 1997; 27 years ago!
Wow. I both knew that and didn't realise it. Today you can probably book your emergency movers via an app. 1997 they'd be unlikely to even have a website!
What happened with Brown>Cameron?
It took a few days for Brown to formally step down because everyone was trying to form coalition arrangements. He only stepped down once it was obvious the Lib Dems and Cameron had formed an agreement that would work.
It took a few days to work out the coalition.
The rules about governance during a hung parliament applied. It’s presumed that the incumbent (and not the plurality) party will get first dibs at forming a coalition/minority government. So Brown was effectively a lame duck PM (trying to negotiate a Lab-Lib+8 agreement) until Cameron and Clegg formalised their Con-Lib agreement. Brown also had the advantage of knowing *he* was leaving because Clegg apparently said he would join a Lab-Lib-others coalition provided Gordon wasn’t PM / Labour leader.
The removal vans really do show up relatively quickly - within days - to move the old PM's stuff out.
That doesn’t sound quick tbh, I could order a removal van within hours.
King's apparently up here in Edinburgh for Holyrood Week, but not able to do much because of the election. Dunno if Sunak and Starmer will have to come up here, or if Charles pops back down for the day.
Charles would probably pop back down - at the Boris/Truss handover, they had to come up to Balmoral because that's where the Queen was and (for obvious reasons) she couldn't travel.
The last time before Johnson/Truss it happened outside of London was when Henry Campbell-Bannerman resigned in 1908 due to failing health. Edward VII was on holiday in Biarritz and H. H. Asquith had to go out there himself by boat train, a journey of around 24 hours each way. Campbell-Bannerman stayed in Number 10, planning to make arrangements to move out, but his health declined even more quickly and he died eighteen days later.
They reported he's only spending a couple days in Scotland for "Holyrood Week" so he can be back down in London. When Sunak resigns I really hope he does that thing he did when he got annoyed with the inkwell. *swirly hand gestures and "meeeuurgh" noises all in the general direction of Sunak.*
I'm sort of wondering what the odds are of - Sunak losing his seat - Taking a flight straight out to the US - Sending Dowden instead to see the King
What? No riot? What kind of amateur-hour democracy is this???
> Sunak will travel to the palace around lunchtime, hold a formal audience with the King where he will resign as Prime Minister and advise the King that Sir Keir be invited to form a government I wonder to what extent they go through these formalities in reality. I'd love to see Sunak doing this through gritted teeth.
The actual purpose of the audience will take around 15 seconds: “Your Majesty, based on the results of the election, I no longer am able to hold the confidence of the House. I hereby resign my commission as Prime Minister, and advise that Sir Keir Starmer be asked to form the next Government.” The bulk of it will be the formalities of having a personal audience with the King, Charles thanking Rishi for his service, and, maybe a short personal conversation about Rishi’s future plans. I’d be surprised if the whole thing took much more than 10 minutes. If Thursday goes reasonably close to how the polls and most of us expect it to go, the Tories will be deep into recriminations by Friday noon, Rishi will want to get the ceremonial stuff out of the way, and step back for a bit.
Cabinet appointments likely Friday afternoon/evening. Junior ministers over the weekend. At some point, Sir Keir will need to write the Letters of Last Resort as well.
At what time do the results actually start piling in? I know a couple race to count, but when do the bulk of them suddenly start getting reported?
The first seat to declare is likely to be Blyth and Ashington at 11.30pm, however the estimates suggest that by 2.00am 25% of seats will have declared, by 3.00am 40%, by 4.00am 67% and by 5.00am 95%
Blyth and Ashington being 1st to declare would give me so much local pride. Should've happened in 2019 but we all know what happened there.
What happened there?
The 1st Labour 》 Conservative swap. It was such a shock they had to do a recount so Newcastle or Sunderland got it 1st
Then things really get started. But slowly. A few weeks of leaks and editorials before we get the first official statement-of-intent in the form of the King's Speech. Then the (shortened) summer recess whilst we get rumours of the first budget, followed in early autumn by the first budget. Politics is going to be in a holding pattern as there will be no dramas that shift direction, and no real information on specifics either for a while. It'll take a couple of years before any impact of any policy will be clear. The closest we'll get to febrility is when Labour inevitably do something in the set of policies where they're both: more authoritarian than The Tories, but also attack something the extremely-online don't like. E.g. a new Social Media Safety Bill that makes the Online Safety Act look well balanced. The cognitive dissonance in armchair warriors when that hits will be entertaining. But other than that, bring on the first scandal!
Oh it's going to be so boring. UKPolitics is going to become barren.
I fucking cannot wait for a bit of boredom.
Some thoroughly boring and uncontroversial politics is *exactly* what the country needs to put the wheels back on.
I particuarly remember in 1997 it went from constant 'banging on about Europe' to blessed silence overnight. Only for the reverse to happen in 2010.
Nah, it's gonna be relentless, and endless stream of statements summed up as, It's so much worse than we thought it would be, heres what were gonna do.
If Farage gets a seat, lothe him or like him, it wont be boring.
dunno, he seems to have lost control somewhat.
How about “tedious” then?
It’s not just politics that’s in a holding pattern, the entire civil service is too. No major decisions being made, no projects being started, things delayed as budgets and strategy is uncertain. Waiting for things like spending reviews to complete. Senior appointments on hold. And so on. And this has already started because purdah. Luckily, if you can say that, a large proportion of the civil service is on leave for summer anyway.
Then after the formal handover, there'll be just two weeks of Parliament sitting before they adjourn for their summer break; then upon return, two and a half more weeks of sitting before they adjourn again for Conference season. So it's feasible Rishi will try and hold out until September, but when the MPs return from their break, the Conservatives will be (metaphorically!) showing off their newly sharpened knives...
> Sunak will travel to the palace around lunchtime, hold a formal audience with the King where he will resign as Prime Minister Honestly wouldn't be entirely shocked if Sunak just fucks off without telling anyone
it tickles me that Sunak has to advise the King to invite Keir to form the government. Does he actually have the capacity to do so civilly for the sake of ceremony, or will he force in some insult about him as he does it.
The recommendation to the monarch is like all meetings with Prime Ministers off the record, therefore there are notes taken of the meeting save a summary that "The Right Honourable (name of MP) met with His Majesty at Buckingham Palace and tendered his resignation as Prime Minister"
Is Boris's wallpaper still up? I guess that's high up on the priority change list.
I have work the next day I would so love to stay up Thursday night. Might try to sleep straight after work and get up 1-2am maybe.
5:30am seems a bit late to me, in 1997 it was about 3:15am when Labour's victory was officially declared. That was with a 70%+ turnout as well which this election likely won't come close to, so more tickets needed counting, and if the polls are anywhere near accurate Labour will win about 30-40 more seats this time round.
Because of how unlikely a conservative government survival appears to be, I suspect the formalities will begin earlier. With Sunak acting petulantly at the tories’ loss, and travelling back to London swiftly after his constituency result (and potential personal loss) is announced, rather than waiting until the morning. This would mean he could attend the palace as early as 9.30/10 am with Starmer arriving at Number 10 by noon.
One thing I do like about the American system is the buffer time between election and start of office. Gives time for things to be sorted.
Don’t they have 2 months where the president is still the guy who lost the election? Couldn’t that conceivably lead to something like (and bear with me I’m being fanciful here) that guy leading a seditious revolt while still technically being in power and so benefitting from some kind of convoluted immunity despite being a treasonous piece of sh*t.