Content deleted Content added
Verbcatcher (talk | contribs) →Falklands and Gulf Wars: +signature |
m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 2 WikiProject templates. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 1 same rating as {{WPBS}} in {{WP UK Politics}}. Remove 6 deprecated parameters: b1, b2, b3, b4, b5, b6. Tag: |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{talkheader}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|
{{WikiProject Military history|class=C
<!-- B-Class 5-criteria checklist -->
Line 8 ⟶ 9:
|b5 <!-- Supporting materials --> =y
|ANZSP=y|British=y|US=y|WWI=y|WWII=y}}
{{
<!-- B-Class 5-criteria checklist -->
}}
}}
==Untitled==
Line 52 ⟶ 49:
In the autumn, after devaluation and the 1931 election, normal Cabinet government was resumed.[[User:Paulturtle|Paulturtle]] ([[User talk:Paulturtle|talk]]) 19:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
== Parliamentary Control over PM Appointment ==
Have removed some confused content about this.
1782 (Rockingham replacing North) wasn't the first time a ministry was ousted by a vote of confidence in the Commons. The first was, I think, Walpole in 1742. Nor did the King's power to appoint a PM of his choice suddenly end. In 1783 George III put Pitt the Younger in without a majority, and he won a majority at the general election the following year. The last time this was tried was in 1834 when William IV dismissed Melbourne and put Peel in; Peel failed to win the election the following year, not least as the number of pocket and rotten boroughs under Royal control had dropped sharply since the Great Reform Act, and Melbourne was restored as PM. Since then, the Monarch has not been able to impose a ministry on Parliament without a majority, although Monarchs retained a lot of discretion over the appointment of PMs well into the twentieth century - at least as late as 1923, if not 1931.
To this day, the PM is appointed by the Monarch not by Parliament. She appoints the person best placed to command a majority, and since 1963 she has not got directly involved in the process. When a coalition has to be negotiated, as in 2010 (Heath-Thorpe 1974 and May-Foster 2017 were a bit different as in those cases a sitting PM was trying to shore up a government which had just lost its majority), the politicians are told to sort it out and give the Palace a bell when they've decided. Nonetheless, it is an autonomous process (in a vernacular English "a bit of a grey area"), and Prime Ministers are most certainly not appointed by the House of Commons.
It's also far from clear that a PM who has just lost a vote of no confidence is nowadays under any obligation to resign. If anything, a convention was evolving in the twentieth century (MacDonald in 1924, Callaghan in 1979) that a no-confidenced PM could have an election so the voting public got to decide on the matter. There was a fair bit of discussion of this during the Addled Parliament of 2017-19, with the commentator's opinion on the matter usually being fairly obviously dependent on where he stood on the Brexit debate.
None of this, as far as I can see, is of any direct relevance to the evolution of Cabinet Government (the Cabinet as we would recognise it existed by early nineteenth century, and certainly by the mid nineteenth century when Bagehot was writing).[[User:Paulturtle|Paulturtle]] ([[User talk:Paulturtle|talk]]) 04:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
| |||