is it technically possible for a UK population to vote out an existing parliament

darcym

For the people who have a real interest in politics, is it technically possible for the UK to actually remove a sitting government while they are in power legally.

I can't find anything in the history books of this ever happening or trying to be happen beyond violence, but is there actually a process or in our political charter to do a "vote of no confidence" type situation.

Just a curiosity really.

Chalky

The people can't. But they can cause a stink that can lead to the party in power changing the leader then calling an election (Thatcher).
Cross party majority in parliament can vote through a motion of no confidence in the government. The Queen has some emergency powers but can't see those being invoked outside wartime.

quarky

The problem is, what happened is scary to a lot of people on both sides (much like a indyref victory for Salmond would have been), but it was the voice (and that is all, because it isn't binding) of the people.

To throw out the Government for a stupid referendum is OK (although to be fair they said they were going to be it before they were elected), but to want to throw out the government because you don't like the what the majority of responses were is undemocractic, and morally reprehensible.

I think a general election because they are incompetent morons who have demonstrated how out of touch with reality they are is fair enough though.

What worries me, is that of course leaving the EU is scary, and it takes courage. If the question was asked again, I think most people would say "remain" but is that because they suddenly changed their mind and think it is the right decision, or because they are scared? Hence why "the people" should be asked, but policy on something like this should always be decided by the Government. Leave referendums for things like flags, or bans on fox hunting etc.

darcym

quarky said:

The problem is, what happened is scary to a lot of people on both sides (much like a indyref victory for Salmond would have been), but it was the voice (and that is all, because it isn't binding) of the people.

To throw out the Government for a stupid referendum is OK (although to be fair they said they were going to be it before they were elected), but to want to throw out the government because you don't like the what the majority of responses were is undemocractic, and morally reprehensible.

I think a general election because they are incompetent morons who have demonstrated how out of touch with reality they are is fair enough though.

What worries me, is that of course leaving the EU is scary, and it takes courage. If the question was asked again, I think most people would say "remain" but is that because they suddenly changed their mind and think it is the right decision, or because they are scared? Hence why "the people" should be asked, but policy on something like this should always be decided by the Government. Leave referendums for things like flags, or bans on fox hunting etc.

this is nothing to do with the EU vote - so please discount that, it's just a general interest question based on some of the political research I've been doing recently.

quarky

Ah OK. I guess the closest would be if enough people petition their MP to support a motion of no-confidence in the Government.

ICBM

The people don't have the power because we don't elect a government, we elect a parliament who then form a government from the largest party or whoever can command a majority of the MPs. Parliament can dismiss the government or the prime minister via a vote of no confidence.

The monarch can dismiss the government and appoint a new prime minister to form a new one, without an election. But as Chalky says this is never going to be used outside wartime or some other existential crisis such as an elected PM trying to turn themselves into a dictator by refusing to call an election, or something similar.

Even as pretty much a republican I do actually agree with that, and I feel safer that the armed forces are loyal to the crown and not the government. In countries where the president is also the head of state there is no such protection - eg, what happens in Russia if Putin decides not to bother with any more elections?

darcym

interesting, the critical difference as you say, is you elect a a parliament not the government.

Fretwired

Yes they can through non-violent affirmative action. If millions of people took to the streets, didn't turn up for work and posted their displeasure on social media a government would collapse. It's happened in other countries and could happen here ..

Most Britons are sheep though so don't really care much about politics ..

Fretwired

darcym said:

interesting, the critical difference as you say, is you elect a a parliament not the government.

In ye olde days (Cromwell's time) MPs were elected - there were no parties. A government was formed from the MPs who were then held to account by their peers. No party politics ...

Nitefly

Bah -where are the Whigs when we need them?

ICBM

After thinking about this while listening to another round of shadow cabinet ministers resigning this morning, I begin to wonder… could this actually be serious enough for the Queen to step in?

This is almost certainly the worst crisis this country has faced since WWII - it's easily worse than Suez, or the Falklands.

The Prime Minister has resigned, we have almost no effective government, no effective opposition at all, and no clear democratic way forward. We have a non-binding but non-ignorable referendum result. The economy is unstable, the far right is emboldened, the apparently settled Scottish question has been re-opened, and in the worst case the future of the entire continent is potentially threatened.

Should the Queen now appoint a new Prime Minister to oversee a government of national unity until the next election? She has the power to do so. I also think it may have popular support given the utter shower we have currently to choose from.

Suggestions on a postcard please, to: Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, London.

slacker

Dear HRM help.

TTony

ICBM said:

After thinking about this while listening to another round of shadow cabinet ministers resigning this morning, I begin to wonder… could this actually be serious enough for the Queen to step in?

I seriously wish that someone would.

I doubt that HRH would, based on her reluctance to "interfere" with political matters.  But this does seem to be getting serious enough that it's no longer about politics (despite what 650-odd people in Westminster seem to think).

Does anyone know where Winston* is?  I can't really think of anyone with the gravitas and general respect, who is untainted by all the BS politics of the last 20 years, who'd be (a) able to do it, and (b) mad enough to.

(*Churchill, not Smith).

CabbageCat

Nitefly said:

Bah -where are the Whigs when we need them?

They are the Lib Dems now.

ICBM

I can think of one candidate.

He's someone with a long history of government experience at the highest level, including Home Secretary, Justice Secretary and Chancellor, and was quite successful and not hugely controversial at all those. (Although a bit more so at a couple of earlier jobs.) I don't think his competence is in doubt.

He's from the political centre ground so could command cross-party support, and is strongly pro-European which I think would give him a better chance of negotiating a good deal with Europe than someone who is - rightly or wrongly - seen as a Little Englander. He's also in the current ruling party so the democratic result of the last election wouldn't be affected.

He's old enough that he would only ever be there until the next election, and he's a fairly likeable man from an ordinary background who likes a beer and a cigar, if that matters...

Kenneth Clarke.

And I'm no Tory, either.

english_bob

TTony said:

Does anyone know where Winston* is?  

Yep. Bladon, Oxon, c/o St. Martin's Church.

It is all getting a bit bloody ridiculous now, isn't it?

paulmapp8306

ICBM said:

I can think of one candidate.

He's someone with a long history of government experience at the highest level, including Home Secretary, Justice Secretary and Chancellor, and was quite successful and not hugely controversial at all those. (Although a bit more so at a couple of earlier jobs.) I don't think his competence is in doubt.

He's from the political centre ground so could command cross-party support, and is strongly pro-European which I think would give him a better chance of negotiating a good deal with Europe than someone who is - rightly or wrongly - seen as a Little Englander. He's also in the current ruling party so the democratic result of the last election wouldn't be affected.

He's old enough that he would only ever be there until the next election, and he's a fairly likeable man from an ordinary background who likes a beer and a cigar, if that matters...

Kenneth Clarke.

And I'm no Tory, either.

Really good shout that.  

stickyfiddle

Can't help feeling if Labour had picked the other Milliband none of this would've happened...

lloyd

K. Clarke always seemed like a decent chap through all the sleaze of the 90's Tories.

There's no real heavyweights in politics any more are there? Where have they all gone?

Sporky

Can't we get Paddy Pantsdown back? I liked him.

ICBM

Sporky said:

Can't we get Paddy Pantsdown back? I liked him.

Last seen choking on a hat, I believe.