A dumb question about the British election

If Blair loses in his home district, can he still be Prime Minister?

I think it's rather good. I don't know, but I hope someone tells us.

The Prime Minister is selected from the Members of Parliament elected for the new term. As such, he/she must be an elected member. That said, one does not need to be a resident of the district in which one runs, so you can be certain that Blair runs uin a parfectly safe area.

That sounds strange....

I'm not British btw, but it has to do with the idea that each representative is representing a slice of the country as a whole, not his or her district (although they do try to be good to their districts since they want to be reelected).

India does the same thing. And it was this that the British used to justify not giving the Americans representation in parliament before the American Revolution - the idea was that all the representatives in the House of Commons collectively represented the entire British realm.

British MPs are expected to represent their constituencies and do casework within them, no matter how important their "national" role. Most MPs maintain a home in their constituency as well as a base in London.

Candidates are, in theory, chosen by party committees in each constituency although, these days, the Parties' Central Offices have a greater and greater say in the selection processes to avoid "maverick" candidates who won't toe the party line.

The Skin

I was always taught that the reason there's no geographic representation is because they are seen as representing a slice of entire nation and party. I was taught they have a role with their constituents but they also represent the country and b/c of that they aren't required to live in their districts.

... who didn't have a home in his/her constituency.

Even candidates who are parachuted into a constituency with little hope of winning (like Conservatives where I live) like to have an "accomodation address" locally.

The Skin

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.

However, were the Labour party to win a majority in any case they would still form the majority government.

That said, I don't think anyone can see Blair being voted out in Sedgefield.

You don't have to be elected to the House of Commons to be Prime Minister, but you do have to be either esconced there on in the House of Lords. So considering he would not be an MP or a Lord he could no longer be PM.

In truth, the Prime Minister can be anyone from either of the two Houses. Constitutionally, the Queen (or the King) can invite anyone to form the Government but latterly it's always been the leader of the majority party.

It would be an interesting scenario but I suspect the Queen would just ask the Labour party (assuming they have an overall majority) to choose a new leader quickly. I do have some opinions of my own about what she should do in the event do but I'll keep them to myself.

Nope.

And by the way, if the Labour vote drops a lot (even if Labour still scrape thru), he probably can't be Prime Minister either! Because his colleagues in the Labour Party will remove him.

Nice to 'see' another British DUer around the place.

I was going to post in a BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) forum, just before 9 pm. Signed up, got a little bit excited about posting under my new name.

There were discussion forums for every region in the country ... except London! Strange, they must have forgotten about our capital city. Maybe I should cheat, and post a message in the Essex forum.

But when I tried to do this, it said: "Bulletin board closed". Seems like every board stops at 9, election or no election.

Nighty-night, sleep tight...