The Labour party Rule Book (what is usually called a constitution) is an ill-drafted and often silent document, whose difficulty of interpretation is, I suspect, a political tool.
It states:
Leader and deputy leader
(a) There shall be a leader and deputy leader of the party who shall, ex-officio, be leader and deputy leader of the PLP.
(b) The leader and deputy leader of the party shall be elected or re-elected from among Commons members of the PLP in accordance with procedural rule 4B.2, at a party conference convened in accordance with clause VI of these rules.
In respect to the election of the leader and deputy leader, the standing orders of the PLP shall always automatically be brought into line with these rules.
...
i) When the party is in government and the party leader is prime minister and the party leader, for whatever reason, becomes permanently unavailable,
the Cabinet shall, in consultation with the NEC, appoint one of its members to serve as party leader until a ballot under these rules can be carried out.
ii) When the party is in government and the deputy leader becomes party leader under (i) of this rule, the Cabinet may, in consultation with the NEC, appoint one of its members to serve as deputy leader until the next party conference. The Cabinet may alternatively, in consultation with the NEC, leave the post vacant until the next party conference.
If Blair resigns as Party leader this week, but does not go to the head of state to resign the office of prime minister then the question ‘why not?’ receives no satisfactory reply from the claim that time is needed to organize the election to the Labour party leadership of his successor before the head of state can call on the new Labour leader to form an administration.
The Rule Book ‘s provision for an immediate substitution of a ‘permanently unavailable’ Party leader ‘When the party is in government and the party leader is prime minister ‘ is clearly designed to deal with precisely the contingency of a resigning (or arrested, or dead) Party leader. (It is noteworthy that the Rule book seems to envisage a situation where the Party leader might not be prime minister, although the Party is in government).
Why does Blair not resign from leadership and prime ministerial office, the cabinet appoint Brown leader until there is a confirmatory ballot, and Brown go to the palace to accept the invitation to form an administration? What is the purpose of the hiatus; or have the media misunderstood the process that will occur?
A prime minister has two great powers, to recommend his successor, and to recommend a dissolution. His advice on either of these has not been disregarded for over a century. What is Blair trading for those weeks in which the Labour party acts out an unnecessary electoral process that all know to have an inevitable outcome?
Tuesday 8 May 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
well he has gone today. I think they want to play this game in a desperate hope all the air play will increase brown's popularity.
of course, the more you see of the man the more you hate him, so hopefully this will back-fire.
City, Perhaps they are avoiding the unseemly bundling out of 10 and 11 Downing Street that has taken place before; but what is Blair doing in the weeks between now and 27 June? Who is running the country? It's not as if the head of state steps in as in France or Germany or Italy.
What if something really bad happens, who is in charge?
There are very good reasons for the instantaneous passing of power from one prime minister to the next, but yet again, all and any rules and practices are being ignored for private agendas and arrangements.
Brown is 'beyond good and evil'.
There's something coming... not sure what - the EU Constitution?
There seems to be no reason for the Cabinet not to appoint Brown and then have it "ratified" later?
Or does Blair just want a few weeks of gladhanding foreign leaders without having to worry about PMQs? Will he be doing PMQs for the next seven weeks?
Why would foreign leaders want to gladhand Blair though? If all is as it appears he'll be a sort of political tourist won't he? Or is he still carrying bits of executive power?
The EU constitution seems the best bet. It's been signed by all the states, ratified by 18 or so, perhaps more now, and France has Sarkozy who said long ago there will be no more referendums (as has been said here) the constitution will be ratified by the French parliament. And Blair's off to see Sarkozy tomorrow? He's just back from Poland. If he pops over to Holland then we'll all know.
Has he swapped the prime ministership for an EU constitution and immunity from Yates?
The Foreign Office is responsible for the ratification of treaties procedures; they just can be laid before the House for a set number of days and if no-one causes a fuss they go through (more or less).
Post a Comment