In the wake of the Iraqi torture scandal, and in the face of steadily decaying public support for his role in the Iraq war, Tony Blair is now facing calls from within the Labour Party to resign.
Whether or not he does, it seems unlikely that the Labour Party’s two main rivals–the Tories and the Liberal Democrats–will be able to find make much hay from Blair’s troubles, unless they can find a viable alternative to present to the public. Such an alternative candidate for Prime Minister would have to be charismatic and witty. He would have to be a seasoned politician, as comfortable making backroom deals as winning the hearts of the hoi polloi. He would need a keen mind to grapple with domestic policy, and enough gravitas to provide international credibility.
It sounds like a tall order–but such a man does exist, and fortunately for the Lib Dems, he is both a Democrat and a liberal. His name is William Jefferson Clinton, and ever since he stopped being president of the United States, he’s had plenty of time on his hands.
A minor objection is that fact that Bill Clinton is not a citizen of Great Britain. On the other hand, neither was Hillary a citizen of the great state of New York when she began to cast her eyes on its Senate seat. With his Irish ancestry and his stint at Oxford, Bill has a closer connection to the Sceptered Isles than Hillary ever had to the Empire State. If the former President were to, say, settle down in a bedsit in Brixton, and announce his desire to become a citizen of the United Kingdom, surely the Government wouldn’t be so ungracious as to insist on the usual 5-year term of residency.
If they did so insist, Bill would still have an alternative route. Membership in Commons is open not just to British citizens but to citizens of Commonwealth states. While the US has never formally joined the Commonwealth, it is a former UK colony that has committed itself to the Commonwealth values of democracy, rule of law, and good governance–present presidency excepted, of course. In the absence of a formal written Commonwealth constitution, who is to say that the United States of America isn’t just as much a member as Canada or Australia? Sure, it’s all based on a technicality–but if there’s anybody who knows how to work a technicality, it’s William Jefferson Clinton.
About the only thing standing in his way is that nobody convicted of treason can take a seat in the House of Commons. As a former Commander-in-Chief of the very same armed forces that defeated His Majesty’s noble soldiers back in 1776, Clinton might conceivably be guilty of treason by inheritance. Fortunately for the 41st President, unless somebody figures out a way to get testimony from the ghost of George III, he is unlikely to be convicted.
In short, there’s absolutely no legal reason why Bill can’t supplement the rapidly deflating dollars of his Presidential pension with a Prime Ministerial salary paid in good, reliable pound sterling. The only question is: could he win the election? The answer is almost certainly “Yes.” Given Blair’s success with a Clinton-inspired campaign, it seems a given that Britons would respond to a taste of the real thing. Indeed, the one lack the British public seems to feel most keenly in Tony Blair is a willingness to publicly criticize George W. Bush–and Mr. Clinton would no doubt be happy to oblige. After all, if you want a Prime Minister who will stand up to the United States, why not select one who knows the country’s nuclear launch codes?
So it’s a given that the next Prime Minister of Great Britain will be Bill Clinton. But where does that leave Tony Blair? Fortunately for him, there happens to be a country where his popularity is at an all time high, and where the citizens are desperately in need of a sensible, articulate leader. And so when Bill Clinton starts his campaign for Prime Minister, Tony Blair would be well advised to run for President of the United States. Currently, there is a pesky consitutional requirement that all presidents be native-born Americans, but there has been serious talk about removing that requirement. The Republicans think the ultimate constitution of allowing the foreign born to be Commander in Chief would be a President Schwarzenegger. Imagine the delicious surprise it will give them when America’s first foreign-born president turns out to be its first Labour Party president as well.
Really, the only flaw in this grand plan is that Bill Clinton may have no desire to be Prime Minister. Perhaps he’d prefer a less stressful job, where his public pronouncements would be widely disseminated and treated with the greatest respect, but where his actual duties would be so minimal as to be non-existent. In that case, he certainly wouldn’t want to take over for Tony Blair. But given that he’s a distant grand-nephew of King Henry III, maybe he’d like to take over for Prince Charles…
Technically, I don’t think you need to be a member of Parliament to be Prime Minister, so long as you’re recommended to the Queen by the ‘usual channels’. But they could always make Bill a life peer (or a Duke – why spoil the ship for a ha’porth of tar?) – until the last century it was quite common for PMs to be Lords rather than members of the Commons. I don’t think there are any nationality restrictions – pretty well anyone can be made a Lord. Come to think of it, Jacob, are you sure you don’t want to throw your own hat into the ring?
I suspect Bill Clinton wouldn’t want to be PM or king, though – I think he’s keeping his powder dry for something bigger. John Paul is not as fit as he used to be, you know…
Now, now. President Clinton is no doubt looking to get his old job back. I know you’re thinking “two-term” limit, but that is two terms as elected President.
Watch Kerry pick Clinton as his running mate and step down after a suitable waiting period.
Don’t scoff. The American people will buy it. They’ve seen stranger things happen.
But, Blair does have a future in the USA. There is a place for someone who is a “sensible, articulate leader.” We are in dire need of a new commissioner for Major League Baseball. Blair doesn’t need to understand the game — the present commissioner has proved that.
Peter, I am intrigued by your notion of going the Lords route. According to Parliament’s own website, one must be “a British citizen, or a citizen of another Commonwealth country or the Irish Republic… aged 21 or over and… not disqualified in any way” to run for Parliament. I assumed that a similar requirement was in place to be Prime Minister, but I don’t know where to look to document it.
That’s the problem with not having a formal constitution–it works fine for you Brits, but we outsiders don’t know where to look to figure this stuff out.
Any suggestions on how to find out this stuff? If Blair resigns, I want to be ready to throw my hat into the ring.
Wait–I just looked a bit more, and Parliament’s website says “The Prime Minister is the leader of the Government and has a home and offices at 10 Downing Street. S/He must be a member of either the House of Commons or the House of Lords.” I’m going to take their word for it for now, but if you can prove they’re wrong, I’ll appoint you to the cabinet position of your choice.
Bagehot (http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/%7Eecon/ugcm/3ll3/bagehot/constitution.pdf) ought to be the man to tell us, but I don’t think he’s much help. And although he’s regarded as the authority, in the final analysis he’s just a bloke who wrote a book. Even he could be wrong (hey, maybe even I could have the odd nuance incorrectly stressed).
But see the Life Peerages Act at http://home.freeuk.net/don-aitken/peer58.htm – nothing about nationality in there. I’ve always understood that descendants of hereditary peers retained their privileges irrespective of nationality. Of course you do have to be a UK citizen to run as a member of the Commons.
Appointment of the Prime Minister is one of the Queen’s prerogative powers, I don’t think there are any published rules about these – until recently the Government wouldn’t even say clearly what the powers were (http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0%2C3858%2C4778828-103573%2C00.html). The Prime Minister is effectively the leader of Parliament, and has always in practice been a member of either the Lords or the Commons. But if the Queen were advised that some non-member was the person all MPs wanted, I see no barrier. Of course, it would never happen in practice, because even if that contingency came about, the person in question would probably be ennobled or found a safe Commons seat immediately.
So if you ask me, all you really need to do is persuade a majority of members of Parliament that you are their natural leader. That surely shouldn’t be too difficult for a man of your charm, learning, and quiet natural gravitas. Of course, you’d have to swear an oath of loyalty to the Queen, which is usually something you rebellious colonials are reluctant to do…
Ah, Peter, with one hand, you give hope; with the other, you take it away.
You have persuaded me that I could indeed be Prime Minister. But now that you point out that I’d have to swear loyalty to the Queen, I’m not sure I want the job. I would gladly swear to uphold the laws and traditions of Great Britain–but the very thought of pledging loyalty to a monarch makes me want to go out and start tossing tea into a harbor. (Notice that I didn’t say “harbour.” Take that! Another blow stuck for American liberty!)
I don’t know exactly what oath the PM must swear, but I was able to Google up the oath for MPs, which is as follows:
“I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and her successors, according to law, so help me God.”
I suppose I could square this with my conscience by noting the phrase “according to law,” which implies that I need only obey the Queen insofar as I am commanded to do so by your country’s legislature. Given the democratic nature of the House of Commons (and the limited authority of the House of Lords), even an unruly colonial like me will gladly recognize the authority of Parliament (as long as it’s not led by the hated Lord North, of course.) If Parliament wants to delegate its authority to somebody–whether she be a functionary in the local Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, or the Queen herself–I will certainly play along.
But no matter how carefully thought out that rationalization may be, it just doesn’t sit right with me. There aren’t many activities that could genuinely be labeled “un-American,” but swearing fealty to the British monarchy has got to be among them.
Therefore, I’ll have to inaugurate my run for office by warning the British public that I would not take an oath to royalty if elected. Given that I’ll already be using my powers of persuasion to convince a majority of MPs to present me to the Queen as their choice of Prime Minister, how hard can it be to get them remove the oath of allegiance while I’m at it?
Really, who’d have imagined that handing over supreme political power to a foreign national would be so complicated?
Chuck, I don’t want to be so seduced by the possibility of becoming Prime Minister myself that I ignore your excellent comments on the future of Messrs. Blair and Clinton. I will only add that, before running for governor of Texas, George W. Bush apparently looked into being commissioner of baseball, and was turned down. If he had been offered the job, the last four years might have been very different indeed…
I have to agree on you with Clinton. It’s been hell with the first Bush and now this one. Clinton was a great man. We could live a normal life. 12 years of Regan and Bush just about killed us. People forgot, now we have George W. I don’t and haven’t felt like we’ve had a president since Clinton.
I live in Massachusetts. I agree with the gay weddings. It’s their right and none of my business what they do behind closed doors. I just don’t want Massachusetts to turn into Las Vegas in, we need to have people live here that get married or all state have to change their laws.