Prime Minister's Questions - question from an American

[jonatha]

I'm watching the UK Prime Minister's Questions for July 3rd (yesterday).

When May gets up to talk, several MPs also briefly stand. The same thing happens (different MPs) when Corbyn gets up.

What's up with that?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I'm watching the UK Prime Minister's Questions for July 3rd (yesterday).

When May gets up to talk, several MPs also briefly stand. The same thing happens (different MPs) when Corbyn gets up.

What's up with that?

Dunno. Maybe its like when a judge stands/sits in court? You all have to stand then too.

 

[bilby]

I'm watching the UK Prime Minister's Questions for July 3rd (yesterday).

When May gets up to talk, several MPs also briefly stand. The same thing happens (different MPs) when Corbyn gets up.

What's up with that?

They are looking for permission to speak. The speaker rarely allows it for anyone other than the PM or leader of the opposition in response to PMs questions on notice; But in principle he gives the floor to whoever first catches his eye.

The more vocal or self important MPs will even choose to sit in places where they are closer to the speaker's line of sight. Dennis Skinner, who has represented the seat of Bolsover since 1970, and is the longest serving MP in the commons, is a master of this art, and can almost always be found sitting on the gangway about halfway down the chamber, where the gap in the benches provides a direct line of sight to the speaker's chair even if many other MPs have risen from their seats.

The speaker is in charge of the commons chamber, and has a lot of power to decide who gets to speak, and what subjects to allow.

PMs Qs are very formalised - MPs submit questions in advance, and are then allowed one follow-up question that must be relevant to the initial question and to the PMs response. To get around this and try to catch the PM out, it's typical for most if not all of the questions to be a simple query about the PMs plans for the day - then you can ask 'Will the PM make time in her day to address the question of <insert any issue here>'.

By convention, the PM first answers with a brief summary of her meetings and appointments; Then answers subsequently with "I refer the

honourable (gentleman/lady) to the answer I gave some moments ago" (Privy councillors are addressed as 'Right honourable', and MPs not on the Privy Council are merely 'Honourable').

Rising from ones seat to catch the speaker's eye is common practice in all commons debate, not just at question time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/guides/newsid_81000/81937.stm​

 

[jonatha]

More questions about parliamentary systems

1) I gather the Prime Minister must be a Member of Parliament (as indeed must be all heads of the executive departments). How is this rule enforced in the absence of a written Constitution?

2) Opposition parties have a "shadow cabinet". If the opposition takes power, is there anything beyond custom to ensure that, say, the Shadow Chancellor becomes the Chancellor?

 

[bilby]

1) I gather the Prime Minister must be a Member of Parliament (as indeed must be all heads of the executive departments). How is this rule enforced in the absence of a written Constitution?

The PM is appointed by the Queen (or King); Tradition dictates that she first offers the job to the leader of the party with the largest number of seats in the Commons; If that leader declines, or if two parties have an equal number of seats, she is expected to offer the role to whomever she believes is most likely to be able to command the confidence of the house. But in law, she may appoint anyone she wishes.

It's one of those quaint little arrangements that has existed since the Civil Wars of the 1640s: The monarch agrees to appoint as PM the person most able to gain the support of parliament, and in return parliament agrees not to have the monarch beheaded in Whitehall.

If her appointed PM loses a vote of no confidence in the Commons, then they are expected to step down, and a general election is called.

2) Opposition parties have a "shadow cabinet". If the opposition takes power, is there anything beyond custom to ensure that, say, the Shadow Chancellor becomes the Chancellor?

No. The new PM has the right to choose any cabinet members he wants to head each of the departments, and to change this cabinet at any time.

Of course, the leader of the opposition can also change his shadow cabinet at any time, so it would be strange to sack a shadow chancellor during the transition to government - although it might be necessary if the shadow chancellor had lost his seat during the election that led to the change in government.

Cabinet ministers need not be elected MPs from the commons - They can also be appointed from the unelected House of Lords.

The last PM who governed from the Lords was Robert Cecil, Marquess of Salisbury, who retired in 1902; However when Harold Macmillan resigned as PM in October 1963, the new leader of the Conservative Party, Sir Alec, 14th Earl of Home, became the new PM. As parliament wasn't in session, he did not lead the government from the Lords; Instead he resigned his peerage on 23 October, in order to be eligible to run for a Commons seat in the 7th of November by-election for the seat of Kinross and West Perthshire (which he won).

Sir Alec Douglas-Home was, as a result, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for two weeks, while not a member of either the Lords or the Commons.

 

[jonatha]

If the Queen can appoint whomever she wishes why did Sir Alec need to do anything? And why do any of the ministers need to be MPs?

(I suspect the answer amounts to "because that's how we've always done it".)

 

[Metaphor]

I don't have any questions. I just want to say an unelected upper house is absolutely fucked up.

 

[bilby]

If the Queen can appoint whomever she wishes why did Sir Alec need to do anything? And why do any of the ministers need to be MPs?

(I suspect the answer amounts to "because that's how we've always done it".)

The position of the Conservative Party in 1963 was very precarious, after the Profumo Affair; Indeed they went on to lose power at the 1964 General Election. They were keen to distance themselves from their aristocratic roots, as the national mood was strongly opposed to the anti-democratic Lords - it was felt that having a PM from the Lords rather than the Commons was no longer acceptable to the voters. So it was essentially a political decision.

Sir Alec was justifiably confident that the voters of Perthshire would see his aristocratic background as a positive; While correctly assessing that this attitude would not be shared by the nationwide electorate. So the whole business was an attempt to shore up support for his government at the 1964 election. As it turned out, it wasn't enough.

The reason why ministers are usually from either the Commons or the Lords, is as you say - because that's how it's (almost) always been done. But it's not particularly unusual for ministers to be appointed who are not sitting in either house - it's nominally acceptable for the manarch to appoint anyone she chooses, and while in practice she always accepts the recommendations of the Prime Minister, he can recommend anyone he likes. Indeed two ministers in Harold Wilson's cabinet in 1964 were appointed from outside parliament, though as is typical of such appointments, they were almost immediately raised to the peerage.