| The UK doesn't have a presidential system on 08:58 - Apr 8 with 263 views | Guthrum |
The PM is primus inter pares (first among equals), the chairman of the board, not the sole progenitor of policy, or even policy direction.
All this screaming about a 'power vacuum' is rubbish. Raab becomes temporary PM and everything else carries on as normal. Ministers are still responsible for their departments. If Johnson is more permanently incapacitated, then there will be leadership contest and he will be replaced.
As a system it worked before Walpole and it has functioned whether the leadership has been feeble or dynamic. Johnson being in bed is not going to break anything. |  |
|  |
| The UK doesn't have a presidential system on 09:12 - Apr 8 with 258 views | Steve_M |
| The UK doesn't have a presidential system on 08:58 - Apr 8 by Guthrum |
The PM is primus inter pares (first among equals), the chairman of the board, not the sole progenitor of policy, or even policy direction.
All this screaming about a 'power vacuum' is rubbish. Raab becomes temporary PM and everything else carries on as normal. Ministers are still responsible for their departments. If Johnson is more permanently incapacitated, then there will be leadership contest and he will be replaced.
As a system it worked before Walpole and it has functioned whether the leadership has been feeble or dynamic. Johnson being in bed is not going to break anything. |
Although that remains technically correct , I think Saunders is right here that the nature of the PM has changed over recent decades.
|  |
| |
| The UK doesn't have a presidential system on 09:28 - Apr 8 with 239 views | Guthrum |
| The UK doesn't have a presidential system on 09:12 - Apr 8 by Steve_M |
Although that remains technically correct , I think Saunders is right here that the nature of the PM has changed over recent decades.
|
I don't really agree with him. While some PMs have attempted to centralise decisionmaking, that has often backfired in rebellion (c.f. the fall of Thatcher). Blair came closest to success for longest, but even he was not able to entirley stamp out rival power centres or sideline the Cabinet.
Given we still don't vote for a specific PM, then the constitutional distinction between Johnson and Raab sitting (at least metaphorically) in the chair in No.10 is so fine as to be meaningless. The latter has the former's full freedom of action, should he need it - but still subject to cabinet approval.
I think a lot of these questions are being raised less because of any genuine constitutional crisis than due to the fact people don't like Raab's positions or personality. There's be much less fuss if it were Gove, Hancock or someone like Hammond. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
