3 ms·

> elective dictatorship where the Prime Minister of the day effectively exercises all the powers of the sovereign, without any real accountability or separation

> elective dictatorship where the Prime Minister of the day effectively exercises all the powers of the sovereign, without any real accountability or separation of powers (As an American) this is a more pessimistic view of how it appears to me. Maybe I'm being naive but the voice of the people does appear to provide accountability. The idea that David Cameron felt the need to resign after the Brexit vote because he no longer had the support of the public seems like a big deal to me. We're not really big on admitting defeat over here.

pmyteh 4y ago
It's complex. There's nothing really to stop a British prime minister going full dictator if they want, as long as they can get Parliament to pass an Enabling Act. And that's not an entirely fanciful proposition: they have the support of a majority of the House of Commons pretty much by definition and the Lords have very little power in practice. Our constitution is built on the so-called 'good chap theory of governance', which is that power is in the hands of people 'like us', and therefore reasonable. If the PM loses a vote of no confidence he's obliged to resign. What makes him? Nothing. But that's the convention and it's been followed until now. It's also a constitutional convention to resign from ministerial office if caught lying to Parliament. (Yes, really!) That one, though, looks defunct: Boris Johnson is a serial liar, and has managed to get himself referred to the Privileges Committee of the Commons for lying over his lockdown breaches despite his majority in the Commons. Will he resign? Will he hell. He doesn't want to, and all the Commons can do is bring the whole government down (and even then only if he is prepared to resign then). He's made it clear he doesn't care, and the Conservative Party in the Commons has made clear they're not willing to face an election over it, so that's that. A similar thing happened over the Prorogation of the House just before Brexit. That was fairly straightforwardly a contempt of Parliament, and the advice to prorogue was found to be unlawful by the Supreme Court. But nothing of consequence happened to those in charge as a result. I'm grateful our political culture isn't quite as buggered as that of the US at this point, but I'd be grateful for slightly stronger guardrails against misconduct than simply hoping it doesn't happen.
- PeterisP 4y ago
  "as long as they can get Parliament to pass an Enabling Act" is a huge qualifier - if the elected representatives are agreeing to it, that's not a dictatorship, and in UK no act of parliament can't bind itself or a future parliament from changing its mind at any point of time, so that dictatorship would last from an Enabling Act until a Disabling Act.
  - pmyteh 4y ago
    It is a big qualifier, but not entirely that big. Yes, it would mean that the decision to start the dictatorship was democratic, but you could definitely arrange it so there is no Disabling Act. Don't forget that to pass such an Act would need the Royal Assent, which the government is now in a position to refuse. Yes, that's a breach of constitutional convention, but we'd be well past that point. So the plan goes something like this: pass the Statute of Proclamations[0], optionally repeal by proclamation section 4 of the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022[1] to keep your complaisant Parliament in place indefinitely, optionally make a proclamation preventing them from meeting, definitely refuse Royal Assent to a Disabling Act, and then govern by decree as you please. Obviously this isn't failsafe in any way. Dictatorships aren't stable just because they've got legal cover, and the politics would need to be carefully managed. But there's nothing in our constitution that would prevent it. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_by_the_Crown_Act_1539 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_by_the_Crown_Ac... [1]: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/11/enacted https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/11/enacted

pmyteh 4y ago

It's complex. There's nothing really to stop a British prime minister going full dictator if they want, as long as they can get Parliament to pass an Enabling Act. And that's not an entirely fanciful proposition: they have the support of a majority of the House of Commons pretty much by definition and the Lords have very little power in practice. Our constitution is built on the so-called 'good chap theory of governance', which is that power is in the hands of people 'like us', and therefore reasonable. If the PM loses a vote of no confidence he's obliged to resign. What makes him? Nothing. But that's the convention and it's been followed until now. It's also a constitutional convention to resign from ministerial office if caught lying to Parliament. (Yes, really!) That one, though, looks defunct: Boris Johnson is a serial liar, and has managed to get himself referred to the Privileges Committee of the Commons for lying over his lockdown breaches despite his majority in the Commons. Will he resign? Will he hell. He doesn't want to, and all the Commons can do is bring the whole government down (and even then only if he is prepared to resign then). He's made it clear he doesn't care, and the Conservative Party in the Commons has made clear they're not willing to face an election over it, so that's that. A similar thing happened over the Prorogation of the House just before Brexit. That was fairly straightforwardly a contempt of Parliament, and the advice to prorogue was found to be unlawful by the Supreme Court. But nothing of consequence happened to those in charge as a result. I'm grateful our political culture isn't quite as buggered as that of the US at this point, but I'd be grateful for slightly stronger guardrails against misconduct than simply hoping it doesn't happen.

PeterisP 4y ago
"as long as they can get Parliament to pass an Enabling Act" is a huge qualifier - if the elected representatives are agreeing to it, that's not a dictatorship, and in UK no act of parliament can't bind itself or a future parliament from changing its mind at any point of time, so that dictatorship would last from an Enabling Act until a Disabling Act.
- pmyteh 4y ago
  It is a big qualifier, but not entirely that big. Yes, it would mean that the decision to start the dictatorship was democratic, but you could definitely arrange it so there is no Disabling Act. Don't forget that to pass such an Act would need the Royal Assent, which the government is now in a position to refuse. Yes, that's a breach of constitutional convention, but we'd be well past that point. So the plan goes something like this: pass the Statute of Proclamations[0], optionally repeal by proclamation section 4 of the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022[1] to keep your complaisant Parliament in place indefinitely, optionally make a proclamation preventing them from meeting, definitely refuse Royal Assent to a Disabling Act, and then govern by decree as you please. Obviously this isn't failsafe in any way. Dictatorships aren't stable just because they've got legal cover, and the politics would need to be carefully managed. But there's nothing in our constitution that would prevent it. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_by_the_Crown_Act_1539 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_by_the_Crown_Ac... [1]: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/11/enacted https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/11/enacted