Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,922 
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Apr 26, 2022 6:29:12 GMT
Whilst having some downtime in the elections, I have decided to watch the episodes of the Crown on Netflix relating to general elections and change of Prime Ministers and in the episode relating to the resignation of Lady Thatcher in 1990, I was rather taken by this conversation between the Queen and the Prime Minister
Thatcher: President Bush called to tell me he thought it was barbaric, Chancellor Kohl said it was inhumane, Mikhail Gorbachev reminded me that ten years ago it was Britain holding democratic elections whilst Russia staged cabinet coups. Now its the other way round. What they all agree on is that getting rid of me is an act of national self-harm which is why I have come to you, ma'am
Queen: How might I help?
Thatcher: By dissolving Parliament!
Did Lady Thatcher really request a dissolution of Parliament in November 1990 and if so, why did the Queen not accept that request (as she had done at every request prior to that)? And if she had accept that request, would Kinnock have led the UK into the Gulf War of 1991?
|
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Apr 26, 2022 6:47:35 GMT
There appears to be no evidence that such a meeting happened. It seems most unlikely. However the reference in the Crown is consistent with the desire to both present the monarchy as of greater significance than it actually is and to demonstrate, for US audiences, how wedded to monarchy and status we remain as a people.
|
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Apr 26, 2022 8:17:35 GMT
There appears to be no evidence that such a meeting happened. It seems most unlikely. However the reference in the Crown is consistent with the desire to both present the monarchy as of greater significance than it actually is and to demonstrate, for US audiences, how wedded to monarchy and status we remain as a people. Why the need for America to present this? Because even though we still have the superficial trappings of a status wedded society, we are now actually less of a status wedded society than the Americans themselves are. |
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Apr 26, 2022 8:50:43 GMT
There appears to be no evidence that such a meeting happened. It seems most unlikely. However the reference in the Crown is consistent with the desire to both present the monarchy as of greater significance than it actually is and to demonstrate, for US audiences, how wedded to monarchy and status we remain as a people. Why the need for America to present this? Because even though we still have the superficial trappings of a status wedded society, we are now actually less of a status wedded society than the Americans themselves are. You’ve noted US obsessions with the Windsors? To justify that nonsense they should be shown as reasonably significant and with Brits deferring to them. |
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Apr 26, 2022 8:55:58 GMT
Why the need for America to present this? Because even though we still have the superficial trappings of a status wedded society, we are now actually less of a status wedded society than the Americans themselves are. You’ve noted US obsessions with the Windsors? To justify that nonsense they should be shown as reasonably significant and with Brits deferring to them. Not just that. Americans use of the word sir. Reporting everything the President says and does. Hailing valedictorians at graduation. Veneration of the military. Saluting the Flag. America is fixated on and worships status, we just put up with the jerks. (I mean those of status, not Americans, here.) |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,772
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Apr 26, 2022 9:29:30 GMT
You’ve noted US obsessions with the Windsors? To justify that nonsense they should be shown as reasonably significant and with Brits deferring to them. Not just that. Americans use of the word sir. Reporting everything the President says and does. Hailing valedictorians at graduation. Veneration of the military. Saluting the Flag. America is fixated on and worships status, we just put up with the jerks. (I mean those of status, not Americans, here.) Something I occasionally say: They're nobody important, they're only the Royal Family. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Apr 26, 2022 10:39:48 GMT
But to answer the question at the end of the OP, there is every chance the Tories would have lost an election in those circumstances.
And the same would be very likely were the present PM to try to pull off such a trick to avoid being ousted now (he almost certainly won't, though)
|
|
|
|
Post by swanarcadian on Apr 26, 2022 11:16:26 GMT
Mrs Thatcher was constitutionally entitled to remain Prime Minister for the rest of the 1987 Parliament whether she was Tory leader or not. The outrage would have been wonderful to behold.
When Kinnock pressed her for a general election at her last PMQs, she reminded him that there was no general election when Callaghan replaced Wilson in 1976.
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Apr 26, 2022 11:28:53 GMT
Mrs Thatcher was constitutionally entitled to remain Prime Minister for the rest of the 1987 Parliament whether she was Tory leader or not. The outrage would have been wonderful to behold. When Kinnock pressed her for a general election at her last PMQs, she reminded him that there was no general election when Callaghan replaced Wilson in 1976. I wonder if anyone demanded an election in 1976?  |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Apr 26, 2022 12:34:05 GMT
Almost certainly, I would have thought. Though it would be good to have actual confirmation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Wilkinson on Apr 26, 2022 13:26:18 GMT
Mrs Thatcher was constitutionally entitled to remain Prime Minister for the rest of the 1987 Parliament whether she was Tory leader or not. Mrs Thatcher was constitutionally entitled to remain Prime Minister for the rest of the 1987 Parliament so long as her government had the confidence of the 1987 Parliament whether she was Tory leader or not. If Mrs Thatcher had refused to resign as Prime Minister after Mr Major had been elected as Tory leader, it would presumably have been open to him as leader of what was still putatively the majority party in Parliament to move a motion of no confidence in her government, and of confidence in one to be led by himself. It would, of course, have been up to individual Tory MPs to decide which way they would then vote. If either part of that motion had failed, then Mrs Thatcher would indeed still have been Prime Minister though no longer Tory leader - either still with the confidence of the Commons or in the absence of an agreed Prime Minister to replace her - and, depending on circumstances, either continue to govern with the 1987 Parliament or constitutionally to advise her Majesty to call a general election. If the entire motion had passed, then the expectation would be that (as happened in our own alternate universe) she would have then advised her Majesty that Mr Major had the confidence of Parliament and should be invited to become her Prime Minister. I suppose that Mrs Thatcher might still instead have advised her Majesty to call a general election, but I do not see that it would have been constitutional for her to do so or that, in those circumstances, her Majesty would have been constitutionally obliged to take her advice. And in any general election subsequent to the above events (in any form), Mr Major would still (assuming no relevant intervening internal Tory party events) have been Tory leader in that election - and if Mrs Thatcher had chosen to stand in that election, then it would have had to be either in support of Mr Major or not as an official Tory candidate. |
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Apr 26, 2022 21:03:19 GMT
Mrs Thatcher was constitutionally entitled to remain Prime Minister for the rest of the 1987 Parliament whether she was Tory leader or not. The outrage would have been wonderful to behold. When Kinnock pressed her for a general election at her last PMQs, she reminded him that there was no general election when Callaghan replaced Wilson in 1976. As I've noted before, it's par for the course that when a governing party changes leader mid-parliament, the main opposition demands an election, cheerfully forgetting that when the roles were reversed, they refused an election in identical circumstances. I was too young for Callaghan, but remember it in the cases of Major, Brown, May and Johnson. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Jun 22, 2022 12:51:33 GMT
A lot of this speculation is not dissimilar to the downfall of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen in Queensland almost exactly three years earlier. He too was facing a cabinet revolt and tried to call an election to avoid a challenge but the state Governor refused the request. Joh refused to call a party room meeting but one was held anyway and it elected a new leader. Joh refused to recognise this or resign as Premier and tried to get support from other parties. The Governor was reluctant to sack the Premier without an adverse vote in the (unicameral) state parliament and for a few days a farce persisted until Joh caved in and resigned.
The Lascelles Principles state that a dissolution request can be denied if the existing parliament is still capable of functioning and an alternative leader can be found who can govern with a majority. A Prime Minister or Premier who is facing being replaced is pretty much THE classic circumstance for rejecting a request per Hertzog in South Africa in 1939.
|
|
