11 thoughts on “Boris”

  2. Quite a few in the British press have explained to Americans that their system isn’t clear about who takes over when a Prime Minister falls ill. It’s all informal and ad hoc. Now that they’ve seen the wisdom of how we handle it, perhaps they’ll be open to the idea of simply having Mike Pence run Britain until Johnson recovers.

    2. And during Mike Pence’s absence, would Nancy Pelosi advance to first in the presidential line of succession? Talk about “ways to make people’s heads explode!”

      More seriously, if Mr. Pence himself were to succumb, how quickly do you think a new VP would be nominated and approved?

      1. The replacement would be approved on 12 December (give or take) when the Electoral College would vote, but wouldn’t be in office until 6 weeks later*. It would be wonderful (and a great campaign issue) to see the excuses the Progressives would give to turn down a 25th Amendment successor.

        * If the GOP wins, the Progressive Left wouldn’t even entertain having the winner take office earlier. Resistance!

        1. Hrmmm. Normally, as happened when Nixon’s VP, Agnew, resigned, the House chooses a replacement VP (Ford, in that case). I suspect, though, that were the VP office to become vacant now, the Democrats would not allow a Republican VP replacement, especially as absent a VP, the Speaker of the House is next in line.

          I agree that the most likely scenario is that the office would remain vacant, with a new VP being chosen (assuming a GOP victory) by the electoral college vote on Dec 12th. The House could, of course, install the new VP early, but I doubt they would – and even if the GOP takes the House, we’ll still have a Democrat House until January.

          If a Democrat wins in November, though, I’d bet the House installs the new VP early.

          This is part of why I get furious whenever (in recent weeks) I see Trump and Pence together. They should not be in the same room, ever, right now – the risk to the country of them both being incapacitated at the same time is just too grave.

  3. They tried, quite a while back, to figure out what it would take to remove the monarchy from the government. They failed.

    The problem is, Britain is based on a thousand years of practices, traditions, and “common knowledge”, rather than a precise legal framework (which was one of the Founders’ great ideas after the Articles framework collapsed)–and some of those traditions are loosely descended from Roman times, or even before. The monarch, even if he or she all but swears to remain neutral in all matters, is simply too central to their government, too connected to centuries of compromises and unwritten agreements to be removed–it would take a clean-sheet constitution to fix the problem, and nobody has *ever* agreed on what such a constitution would look like.

    As much as I despise the concept of nobility, especially by birth, I have always admired QE2 for her sheer classiness. I really hope that she makes it through this mess.

  5. IIRC if there is a Deputy Prime Minister or a First Secretary of State [neither office has to exist, they don’t always, and although often both exist held by the same person, they don’t have to be linked either] they have no rights of succession or takeover, but the PM can name that person to do so and have that be considered advice to the Crown for the duration of his absence. So yeah, informal, but within the constitutional norm in which the PM advises things and the monarch takes the advice.

    The other thing is that the Cabinet is a collective body, as a working committee of the Privy Council, and it typically commands the support of a majority in the Commons, even if by coalition. In this case, a thumping big majority.

    So if Boris were to die, the cabinet ministers would hash it out quickly in the short term and be confident that their named person would get appointed and command a majority. They would feel obliged to hold a leadership convention or a party election for a permanent leader at some point, but not immediately.

    But the constitutional requirement- royal appointment and command of a Commons majority, would both be met. And, of course, if the new pm had such poor support in the Commons from his own party, which would require cabinet to pull a huge unforced error to happen, it could always be tested with Confidence at any time.

    It all worked pretty well even when the parties had no fixed leaders and no fixed procedures, although once they went to caucus votes and latterly party elections for leaders, it got a little more formal and less discretionary.

    Canada no longer works exactly the same way, but similar enough. Ditto Australia and New Zealand. The Aussies have tossed out multiple PMs in the past decade by simple caucus votes. Classic. Keeps them on their toes at all times. We in Canada should have that back.

  6. Australia actually has a system where a Deputy PM is in the job designated as such. If the PM is unable to perform his duties or is out of the country the Deputy takes the role.
    When a party terminates a PM the Deputy doesn’t necessarily get the job. There is a Parliamentary party vote on the replacement.
    I’m surprised the Poms don’t have a similar arrangement.

Comments are closed.