Reply #7: As with most questions about the British constitution - we don't know [View All]

The traditional position is that all members of the executive are drawn from and answerable to the legislative - however there is now a precedent for a minister who is not, albeit for a short time.

I believe that when Lord Falconer (currently Lord Chancellor) was fist made a government minister his only qualification was a long friendship with poodle-boy. He was later appointed to the House of Lords, and this was announced at the same time as his ministerial appointment - but he was only ennobled at a later date.

Clearly the position of Prime Minister would be more difficult to reconcile than some minor ministerial position (as Lord F. then held), and as it would be impossible for a P.M. to sit in the Lords one could not state that it was a short-term measure.

Can remember the precise events when Alec Douglas-Home became P.M.? I know that he sat in the Lords on an hereditary peerage which he renounced to contest a by-election and having won the election sat in the Commons. I can't remember at what exact point he was appointed P.M.

Most of all, if Blair lost his constituency (which I would love to see) his personal situation would be very bad and it would be difficult for him to claim any right to remain as P.M.

If Labour won the election, but Blair lost his seat - I think that the most likely outcome would be that John Prescott (whom I love dearly) would be appointed Prime Minister, that some M.P. in a safe-seat would be 'encouraged' to resign with the intention that Blair win it. There would probably be a fairly immediate leadership election within the Labour Party, with the winner replacing Prescott as P.M.