EXECUTIVE

▪Monarch ▪Government X cabinet ▪ Cabinet ministers and their deputies ▪ Ministers outside cabinet and their deputies ▪ Secretaries of the ministries ▪ Whips ▪ Other important persons (i.e. academia)

▪ Growing complexity of state administration ▪ → council (curia regis) ▪ Major minister (Lord ) ▪ 1200s – the top royal officer and chief of the royal court ▪ Executive, judicial and advisory role ▪ 1500s – 1600s – Privy Council ▪ Specialization, about 50 members James I, Charles I and favorites in the Privy Council consultations with a small group of the council Charles II (1625-85) secret character of meetings

→Cabinet Council or Cabinet ▪ Originally – King selected ministers ▪ Government ≠ collective body ▪ ▪ First PM Robert Walpole (1721–42) ▪ the First Lord of the Treasury ▪ Chancellor of the ▪ George I (1714-27) ▪ Little knowledge of England, law and constitution ▪ → King‘s deputy necessary ▪ → CC: King no access to cabinet meetings ▪ 1784 George III – attempt at revival of monarch‘s power 1. Cabinet – from MPs → end of incompatibility of minister and MP 2. Cabinet rests on HC‘s support ▪ If it fails to get it, cabinet resigns 3. „Modern“ departure from politics 4. Downing street 10 ▪ Residence since 1730 ▪ George II ▪Cabinet members selected by the King ▪Cabinet responsible to the King ▪ and Whigs – loose groups ▪Ministers – responsible only for their resorts ▪PM‘s resignation ≠ resignation of ministers ▪ Industrial revolution (rise of capitalism) ▪ Rise of new classes, calling for political rights ▪ Electoral and parliamentary reform ▪ Rise of parties ▪ → consequences of cabinet: ▪ cabinet – much closer link to parties ▪ Ministers accepted collective responsibility ▪ Higher discipline of parties ▪ Evidence/analyses/expertise – based decision-making ▪Powers derived not from King, but from the people ▪Real power rested on ▪ Party support ▪ King‘s support ▪ + Personal charisma ▪1834 „Tamworth manifesto“ ▪ Conservative principles ▪„Prime Minister“ – unofficial title until 1905 ▪1917 „Prime Minister“ first formal usage ▪ The Chequers Estate Act ▪1937 constitutionalization ▪ Ministers of the Crown Act ▪PM originally from HL ▪1800s: HL or HC ▪ 1902 lord Salisbury ▪1900s: HC ▪ Break 1923 George V: lord Curzon vs. ▪1940 Winston Churchill vs. lord Halifax ▪Lord Beaverbrook: "Chamberlain wanted Halifax. Labour wanted Halifax. Sinclair wanted Halifax. The Lords wanted Halifax. The King wanted Halifax. And Halifax wanted Halifax." ▪19.10. PM ▪23.10. disclaimed his earldom ▪2.11 – by election ▪ Kinross and West Perthshire ▪ After 1688 - ministers selected increasingly from HC ▪ King needed parliamentary support ▪ Today about 1/5 government members from HL ▪ Exceptionally - minister ≠ MP ▪ Consequences ▪ a small pool of potential ministers ▪ increased legitimacy of government ▪ First Lord of the Treasury ▪ First above unequals ▪ Premier-dominated model ▪ Leader of the largest parliamentary party ▪ De facto took over most of monarch‘s powers (CC) ▪ Mediator between government and monarch ▪The Night of the Long Knives ▪ 1962 ▪ 1989 NIGHT OF THE LONG KNIVES ▪1963 Richard Crossman – shift from cabinet government to prime ministerial government ▪ „if we mean by presidential government, government by an elective first maigstrate then we in England have a president as truly as the Americans“ „SOFA GOVERNMENT“ Policy made by PM and his special advisers rather than career civil servants

Now Later Originally ▪ Countersignature ▪ Originally a mere formal act ▪ Later material responsibility too ▪ James III ▪ → 1216 principle „King can do no wrong“ ▪ Gradual shift of responsibility from the King to the council ▪ Originally – King the only decision maker ▪ However: sacrosanct ▪ → dispute between the King and parliament hard to solve ▪ Parliamentary dissolution ▪ Toppling the King (= anarchy) ▪ Solution: transfer of responsibility to the King‘s executive ▪ Judicial responsibility ▪ →impeachment + attainder ▪ since 1340 „audits“ of King‘s officials ▪ Edward IV (1461 – 70) ▪ Political responsibility ▪ Government appointed in line with the parliamentary majority ▪ Resignation of PM and government ▪ No-confidence vote ▪ Originally – the only way to control and punish executive ▪ Stuart Kings tried to rule more informally ▪ through cabinet, junta ▪ Parliament responded by reviving the power of impeachment ▪ king can do no wrong ▪ »» any wrongfulness attributed to the „evil counsel“ of his ministers ▪Major problem ▪ To ensure control over King‘s executive ▪The only tool: ▪ Impeachment (ex post) ▪ 1626 Charles I dissolved the parliament ▪ Controversial steps in raising money ▪ Parliament‘s reaction ▪ Petition of rights (1628) ▪ Grand Remonstrance (1641) ▪ purge of officials ▪ Expulsion of bishops ▪ a right of veto over Crown appointments ▪ 1688 dispute over composition of the cabinet solved in principle ▪ King still in charge of cabinet appointment ▪ Increasing power of parliament ▪ Impeachment replaced with a simple majority vote ▪ Less formal than impeachment but more efficient ▪ Gradual way to confidence principle 1. Government resignation 2. No confidence vote ▪ Resignation of PM ≠ resignation of government ▪ after 1742 resignation, if lost confidence of the HC ▪ after 1841 resignation, if HC rejects budget ▪ after 1868 resignation, if lost elections ▪ Legally NCV is not binding ▪ 1742 Robert Walpole ▪ 1782 lord North ▪ Whigs introduced a motion to end the war in America (234x215) ▪ = George III quit support for war ▪ = loss of confidence in the cabinet ▪ »»» North‘s resignation (+ all his ministers) ▪ 1783 George III appointed the government by James Fox+ Frederick North ▪ Dec. 1783 George recalled the government ▪ Defeated in the HL ▪ → new PM: William Pitt ▪ Pitt weak support in the HC → protest J.Fox + F. North ▪ 1784 HC motion: ▪ „…the Continuance of the present Ministers in their Offices is an Obstacle to the Formation of such an Administration as may enjoy the Confidence of this House…“ ▪ Pitt rejected to resign ▪ Supported by the King, HL, public ▪ Fragile opposition ▪ »» Pitt asked the King to dissolve the HC ▪ »»» repeatedly ignored ▪ 1800s: principle of guilt ▪ Wellington vs. Melbourne 1832 ▪ Derby vs. Russell 1852 ▪ Disraeli vs. Gladstone 1873 ▪ However: 1832-67 often no clear majority ▪ →difficult to apply ▪ 1841 cabinet Melbourne ▪ HC rejected its budget ▪ →Robert Peel proposal: ▪ If HC rejects budget, government has to resign ▪ »»» proposal accepted by 1 vote margin ▪ = consolidating no-confidence vote rules ▪ Only towards PM and cabinet as a whole ▪ Simple majority ▪ Voting takes priority over other motions ▪ Announced at least 1 day earlier ▪ A single MP may propose that No-confidence vote Confidence vote

▪ Initiated by opposition ▪ Initiated by the cabinet ▪ Goal: ▪ Goals: 1. topple the cabinet 1. Defense against „rebels“ 2. Early elections 2. Consolidation of government camp ▪ 1945-99 – 27 unsuccessful opposition initiatives 3. Boosting cabinet legitimacy ▪ After 1945: only 1 successful ▪ 1945-1999 - only 3x motion ▪ Negative parliamentarism ▪Different understandings 1. Government responsible to public 2. Government responsible to parliament 3. Government responsible for its policies ▪ most relevant from a constitutional perspective ▪ Individual responsibility ▪ Collective responsibility ▪ → if government loses support (no confidence vote, defeat of an important bill), government expected to resign 1. Minister must reply to MPs‘ questions 2. HC may force the minister to resign ▪ Minister resigns due to a serious mistake ▪ 1954 Thomas Dugdale (Crichel Down affair) ▪ 1982 lord Carrington (Falkland war) ▪ Resignation following a failure is rare ▪ E.g. 2003 Iraq (chemical weapons) ▪ Resignation following private scandals ▪ 1963 Profumo affair ▪ 1992 David Mellor ▪ 1994 Tim Yeo ▪ Constitutional theory ▪ Ministers must answer publicly for all decision in their department ▪ Political practice ▪ Ministries – large structures ▪ Multiple delegation of responsibility ▪ Fuzzy borders of responsibility (quangos) ▪ Quick and frequent reshuffles ▪ Party discipline (parties support ministers) ▪ American war of independence ▪ HC x lord North 1778-9 1. Secrecy – decision-making takes place in private 2. Unanimity – once the decision was taken, all ministers are obliged to support it 3. Confidence – cabinet must retain support of the HC ▪ Political practice ▪ Occasionally PMs undermine collective responsibility ▪ 1975 Harold Wilson : EC ▪ 2016 David Cameron: Brexit

1. FPTP: Westminster, local elections England and Wales

2. AMS: Wales, Scotland, London assembly

3. STV: Northern Ireland Assembly, deputy Speakers HC, local elections in Scotland, Northern Ireland and EP elections in Northern Ireland

4. Alternative Vote (AV) – Speaker (HC) and chairs of HC committees, by-elections for hereditary peers

5. Supplementary vote – mayors in London, England and Scotland

6. PR – EP outside Northern Ireland ▪ Elections = de facto „referendum“ on future PM ▪ Single chain of delegation of power ▪ Elections – parliament – government - administration ▪ Hailsham (1976): „elective dictatorship“ ▪ Parliament = only directly elected body ▪ Parliamentary sovereignty 1. One round 2. Each party: one candidate 3. Single-member districts 4. „winner-takes-all principle“ ❑ Favours largest parties ❑ Extreme parties penalized ❑ Small parties penalized ▪ Except for small parties with local bastions ❑ Clear choice between two government alternatives ❑ Conducive to bipartism ❑ Conducive to one-party majority governmetns ❑ Large share of „wasted“ votes ❑ Stronger links between MPs and voters in districts ❑ Women MPs disadvantaged ▪ The most successful party (highest number of VOTES) may not be the winner (highest number of SEATS) ◦ 1929 ⚫Cons – 260 seats with 38,1% votes ⚫Lab – 287 seats with 27,1% votes ◦ 1951 ⚫Lab 295 seats with 48,8% votes ⚫Cons 302 seats with 44,3% votes ◦ 1974 ⚫Cons 297 seats with 37,9% votes ⚫Lab 301 seats with 37,2% votes Votes shares (%) strany A B C district 1 40 55 5 Example district 2 42 43 15 district 3 70 20 10 district 4 83 15 2 ● Districts: 10 district 5 11 51 38 ● Seats: 10 district 6 35 36 29 ● District = 100 voters district 7 23 53 24 ● Parties: 3 district 8 30 22 48 district 9 35 38 27 district 10 61 11 28 Total votes 430 344 226 Total seats 3 6 1 Seats share (%) 30 60 10

Fair (proportional) share (%) 43,0 34,4 22,6 ▪ FPTP leads to bipartism if: 1. „strong“ structured party systems ▪ Voters vote parties, not persons ▪ Nation-wide political parties

2. Geographical distribution of voters ▪ „incoercible minorities“ are dispersed ▪ 10 districts ▪ 30 red X 70 green voters

Picture 1: dispersion No seats for the red 0:1 0:1 0:1 0:1 0:1 0:1 0:1 0:1 0:1 0:1

Picture 2.: concentration

3 seats for the 0:1 1:0 0:1 1:0 0:1 0:1 0:1 0:1 0:1 1:0 red SNP UKIP Votes 1 450 000 3 800 000

Votes % 4,7 12,6

Seats 56 1

Candidates 59 624 ▪ Single-member districts ▪ One round ▪ Absolute majority needed ▪ Preferential voting ▪ Gradual elimination of candidates with fewest votes ▪ Usage: ▪ Majority of chairs of select committees in the HC ▪ Election of the Lord Speaker ▪ By-elections for hereditary peers First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Final Candidate count count count count count count count Gibbs (Australian Democrats) 4346 4380 4420 4504 4683 eliminated eliminated 34664 Newell ELECT (Australian Labor Party) 18423 18467 18484 18544 18683 20238 ED Baillie (Independent) 187 eliminated eliminated eliminated eliminated eliminated eliminated Sims (Call to Australia Party) 1032 1053 1059 1116 eliminated eliminated eliminated Paterson (Independent) 445 480 530 eliminated eliminated eliminated eliminated Leggett (Independent) 279 294 eliminated eliminated eliminated eliminated eliminated Blunt (National Party) 28257 28274 28303 28416 28978 29778 33980 Caldicott (Independent) 16072 16091 16237 16438 16658 18903 eliminated Absolute majority: 34 520 votes ▪ the Mayor of London and other elected mayors in England and Wales ▪ Principles of AV, FPTP and TRS ▪ voters limited to 1st and 2nd preference choice ▪ Absolute majority ▪ If no candidate receives absolute majority, all but the most successful two eliminated ▪ Winner – determined by 2nd preferences of eliminated candidates ▪ Welsh Assembly (60) and Scottish National Parliament (129) ▪ Combination ▪ FPTP ▪ PR ▪ » mixed electoral system ▪ Each voter: 2 votes ▪ 2 votes ▪ 1. vote: to elect 73 MPs in 73 single- member disctrics ▪ FPTP ▪ 2. vote: to elect 56 (additional) MPs ▪ 8 multi-member disctricts (M = 7) ▪ party lists ▪ Direct mandates in line with FPTP ▪ 73 Scotland ▪ 40 Wales ▪ Allocation of additional seats on the basis of PR ▪ Multi-member districts (8 Scotland and 5 Wales) ▪ No legal threshold (London: 5 %) ▪ D‘Hondt method ▪ Region: Lothians ▪ 9 direct mandates (FPTP) ▪ 7 additional mandates (party lists) Con Lab LD SNP Others

Votes 73 363 175 354 56 957 70 353 5 719

Share 19,2 45,9 14,9 18,4 1,5

Seats 0 8 1 0 0 Con Lab LD SNP Elected

Total votes 73,363 175,354 56,957 70,353

Constituency 0 8 1 0 seats won

1st divisor 0 + 1 =1 8 + 1 =9 1 + 1 = 2 0 + 1 = 1 1st total 73,363 19,484 28,479 70,353 Con

2nd divisor 1 + 1 =2 8 + 1 =9 1 + 1 = 2 0 + 1 = 1

2nd total 36,862 19,484 28,479 70,353 SNP

3nd divisor 1 + 1 = 2 8 + 1 =9 1 + 1 = 2 1 + 1 = 2

3rd total 36,862 19,484 28,479 35,177 Con 4th divisor 2 + 1 =3 8 + 1 =9 1 + 1 = 2 1 + 1 = 2 4th total 24,454 19,484 28,479 35,177 SNP 5th divisor 2 + 1 =3 8 + 1 =9 1 + 1 = 2 2 + 1 = 3 5th total 24,454 19,484 28,479 23,451 LD 6th divisor 2 + 1 =3 8 + 1 =9 2 + 1 = 3 2 + 1 = 3 6th total 24,454 19,484 18,986 23,451 Con 7th divisor 3 + 1 =4 8 + 1 =9 2 + 1 = 3 2 + 1 = 3 7th total 18,341 19,484 18,986 23,451 SNP ▪ Cons…………….3 seats ▪ Lab………………8 seats ▪ LD……………….2 seats ▪ SNP……………..3 seats

Cons Lab LD SNP % votes 19,2 45,9 14,9 18,4 % seats 18,8 50,0 12,5 18,8 ▪ EP elections (except. N. Ireland): 70 MEP ▪ 11 multi-member districts ▪ England: 9 districts (M= 60) ▪ Scotland: 1 district (M=6) ▪ Wales: 1 district (M= 4) ▪ Voting for party candidates („cross“) 1. Northern Ireland Assembly 2. Local elections in Northern Ireland 3. EP elections in Northern Ireland 4. Local elections in Scotland 5. Election of the Deputy Speakers in the HC ▪ Proportional system ▪ Small multi-member districts ▪ Highly personalized ▪ voters rank candidates in order of preference by marking 1, 2, 3 ▪ voters can rank as many or as few candidates as they like or just vote for one candidate ▪ Elimination of wasted votes ▪ Candidates listed in an alphabetical order ▪Each candidate needs a minimum number of votes to be elected ▪» Droop quota 1.Transfer of votes „from below“ (no reach of the quota) 2.Transfer of votes „from above“ (surplus votes over the quota) V Q = + 1 S+1 ▪ 3-seat district ▪ 20 votes ▪ Quota: 20/(3+1)+1 = 6