Opinion: Why the UK will have another prime minister not chosen by the people

The UK Conservative Party, which has resisted the resignation of two prime ministers since December 2019, cannot remain in government for another two years without calling a general election. Well, technically, they could. But that doesn’t mean they should.

Under British law, as long as a party has a parliamentary majority, it can remain in power for up to five years before calling an election.

And the Conservative Party, despite having suffered a string of recent election defeats, still holds a parliamentary majority of 71, meaning the next British general election could not take place until January 2025.

Meanwhile, a new prime minister was appointed on Monday (24). Former British finance minister Rishi Sunak was elected.

Since the announcement of Liz Truss’s resignation on Thursday, Conservative lawmakers have cited the law to defend the party’s apparent determination to remain in power, despite insistence from opposition parties and even some Conservatives that a general election is now a moral issue.

But, as any three-year-old knows, there are two meanings to “You can’t do that!” which on the one hand means, “You can’t do that because it’s really impossible.” But there’s also: “You can’t do it because it’s inconceivable.” When one of my kids hits the other on the head and I yell, “You can’t do this!” both boys understand what I mean.

Changing leaders twice during a parliamentary term without consulting the British electorate is the political equivalent of beating up your brother just because he annoyed you. You just can’t do that and expect to get away with it. This is especially true when, as in the current political moment, there have been dramatic setbacks in partisan politics since the previous general election.

The UK is facing inflation, rising borrowing costs and large-scale projected deficits, which are likely to require significant tax increases, spending cuts or both.

Policy decisions taken in the coming months will have implications for years to come. There is a political imperative for Britons to have a say in how their leaders should tackle the current crisis.

By ignoring this imperative, the Conservative Party risks further eroding faith in the UK’s democratic process, at a time when democracy is under significant threat across the world.

There is a political imperative for Britons to have a say in how their leaders should tackle the current crisis.

Laura Beers

In the current situation, it is untenable to argue that the mandate the public gave Boris Johnson and the Conservative 2019 election manifesto still hold. This is true despite the fact that Sunak served under Boris Johnson.

Would it be true even if Johnson returned to prime minister – an incredible political reincarnation that Johnson seriously considered trying before announcing on Sunday that he would not run for president, despite the “very good chance of succeeding in the election with members of the Conservative Party”.

Even before Truss announced his resignation, opposition parties were calling for a general election following his disastrous “mini-budget”, the series of policy changes that followed and his decision to dismiss their newly appointed chancellor, Kwasi Kwarteng.

Following Truss’s resignation announcement, Labor leader Keir Starmer reiterated these appeals, stressing that the British people had a say in the question of who should lead the country.

“Conservatives cannot respond to their latest messes by simply snapping their fingers and dragging people to the top without the consent of the British people. They have no mandate to put the country through yet another experiment; Britain is not your personal fiefdom to rule as you wish,” Starmer said.

Similarly, Nicola Sturgeon, leader of the Scottish National Party, asserted that there was now a “democratic imperative” to hold general elections, and Liberal Party leader Ed Davey insisted that Conservatives had a “patriotic duty” to “give voice to the people” about the future direction of the country.

That Britain’s opposition parties are clamoring for an election is not surprising. The latest opinion poll shows the Labor Party with more than 30 points over the Conservatives, the highest party poll lead in history.

If an election were called in the next few months, Labor would almost certainly win a comfortable majority, regardless of Sunak.

But the conviction that “the British public deserves a proper opinion on the future of the country” goes beyond the ranks of the opposition. A YouGov poll conducted on Thursday found that nearly two-thirds of Britons believed that Truss’ replacement should call an early general election.

In asserting the imperative of an early general election after two leadership changes, opposition parties have history on their side. British political parties often make a single change of prime minister without calling an early election.

Gordon Brown replaced Tony Blair in June 2007 and has not held an election for nearly three years. John Major replaced Margaret Thatcher in November 1990 and did not call for an election for another year and a half. Similar to Brown, Jim Callaghan, who succeeded Harold Wilson, lasted nearly three years without elections.

But in each of these cases, the men who took office were long-standing, high-ranking members of the administrations of their predecessors and (with the exception of the highly unpopular abandonment of Major fees) largely continued the policy program on which his predecessor had been elected.

In that sense, his rise to the post of prime minister was more akin to the rise of a vice president following the death of a president in the United States – a significant change in government, but accepted as being within the bounds of democratic legitimacy.

In contrast, the only modern-era prime minister to govern without seeking a new electoral term after two leadership changes was Winston Churchill, whose wartime coalition government enjoyed the united support of all parties in the House of Commons and the clear support from the British public.

Before Churchill, we need to look back to 1828, when the Duke of Wellington succeeded Viscount Goderich, who in turn succeeded George Canning (who died after 119 in office and who held the title of shorter prime minister for nearly two hundred years, until Liz Truss take the title for her).

Conservative Wellington remained in office for a year and a half without calling a general election. But Britain in 1828 was not a true democracy.

Less than 10% of adult men could vote, and several deputies represented areas that were effectively controlled by a handful of wealthy families. The notion of democratic accountability simply did not exist the way it does now.

Today, in the 21st century, with universal adult suffrage, Starmer is right that conservatives cannot treat Britain as their personal manor. After everything that has happened since Boris Johnson’s resignation in July, they must seek a new term to stay in power.

After all the chaos and dysfunction, the British people deserve an opinion on who should rule the country.

*Editor’s Note: Laura Beers is a professor of history at American University. She is the author of “Your Britain: Media and the Making of the Labor Party” and “Red Ellen: The Life of Ellen Wilkinson, Socialist, Feminist, Internationalist” (“Red Ellen: The Life of Ellen Wilkinson, Socialist, Feminist, Internationalist”). The opinions expressed are hers alone. Read more opinion on CNN.