Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

If the UK had a PM who was becoming seemingly increasingly mentally unwell, what would happen?

81 replies

UKPres · 21/10/2026 13:35

I'm nit private to President Trumps medical info, but it seems to me, and lots of others, that his mental health is declining. He's always been controversial and said stupid things to shock, but it's getting worse?

So, if the UK elected a maverick PM, who later seemed to be unwell, are we just stuck with it until the next GE or are there protections in place to stop that happening and remove him?

OP posts:
Octavia64 · 21/10/2026 13:37

We’ve had plenty of unwell PMs.

not a new situation. Usually the doctors keep them going.

Churchill had strokes

Newname26 · 21/10/2026 13:40

Their party would give them a vote of no confidence and oust them.

MargoLivebetter · 21/10/2026 13:43

You don't have to be ill in this country to be ousted as PM!!!! We have had 7 PMs in the last 10 years, most of whom have been removed by their own party - not a general election.

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about this subject:

parietal · 21/10/2026 13:44

some news paper would start a countdown against a lettuce. then they would be doomed.

UKPres · 21/10/2026 13:46

MargoLivebetter · 21/10/2026 13:43

You don't have to be ill in this country to be ousted as PM!!!! We have had 7 PMs in the last 10 years, most of whom have been removed by their own party - not a general election.

Yes, I was thinking about those situations and the way that probably, the party would arrange the departure of anyone who was (thought to be) becoming a liability, but in the US, there seem to be a lot of people with power with a vested interest in him remaining. Does/could that happen here?

OP posts:
MargoLivebetter · 21/10/2026 13:49

UKPres · 21/10/2026 13:46

Yes, I was thinking about those situations and the way that probably, the party would arrange the departure of anyone who was (thought to be) becoming a liability, but in the US, there seem to be a lot of people with power with a vested interest in him remaining. Does/could that happen here?

I'm not American or a US constitution expert but I believe that a US president can only be removed by congressional impeachment and conviction or using the 25th Amendment.

SmolBlackKitten · 21/10/2026 13:51

He'll never die.
In fact, he'll bury us all.

Newname26 · 21/10/2026 13:54

UKPres · 21/10/2026 13:46

Yes, I was thinking about those situations and the way that probably, the party would arrange the departure of anyone who was (thought to be) becoming a liability, but in the US, there seem to be a lot of people with power with a vested interest in him remaining. Does/could that happen here?

I doubt it would happen here.

MPs all know their seat, job, income is only guaranteed for 5 years, they want the best chance of being voted back in.
So they know they need a strong leader well certainly at Westminster wish I could say the same about Holyrood

MargoLivebetter · 21/10/2026 13:58

But @Newname26 it has happened here multiple times in the last 10 years. What do you think happened to Keir Starmer, Liz Truss, Boris Johnson and Theresa May?

theemmadilemma · 21/10/2026 14:00

I looked into what legal routes they had to get rid of Trump. I don't think the same would happen here due to the different rules/laws.

There are only a handful of lawful routes for getting rid of Trump:
Impeachment and conviction
The House of Representatives can impeach Trump by a simple majority for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” But impeachment is only the formal accusation. Removal then requires two-thirds of senators present to convict. US Constitution, Article II
As of August 2026:

  • House: 218 Republicans, 212 Democrats, one independent and four vacancies.
  • Senate: 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats and two independents.

So even if every Democrat and independent supported conviction, approximately 20 Republican senators would also have to vote against him. Current House breakdown and current Senate breakdown
That is the fundamental blockage. Republicans currently control both chambers, and most Republican politicians have concluded that opposing Trump is more dangerous to their careers than supporting him. He has also already demonstrated—twice—that impeachment without Senate conviction does not remove him.
The Twenty-Fifth Amendment
Vice-President JD Vance and a majority of Trump’s Cabinet could declare him “unable to discharge the powers and duties” of the presidency. Vance would immediately become acting president.
But Trump could challenge that declaration. Keeping him sidelined would then require two-thirds of both the House and Senate—an even tougher threshold than impeachment. Twenty-Fifth Amendment
It was principally designed for severe physical or mental incapacity, not as a way for Cabinet members to remove a president because he is authoritarian, criminal, reckless or grotesquely unsuitable. And crucially, it cannot happen unless Vance participates. There is presently no realistic indication that he would.
Resignation
Trump could resign voluntarily, perhaps in return for political or legal protection, as Nixon did when conviction became inevitable. But that only becomes plausible if his own party deserts him and tells him removal is unavoidable.
At present, that is extremely unlikely. His political identity is constructed around never conceding defeat or wrongdoing.
The courts and criminal cases
Courts can block unlawful executive orders, invalidate government actions and potentially hold officials in contempt. Criminal investigations might produce convictions.
But even a criminal conviction does not automatically remove a president. The Constitution leaves removal to impeachment, incapacity, resignation, death or expiration of the term. Courts constrain presidential power; they do not normally replace the president.
The Fourteenth Amendment’s insurrection disqualification provision has also been drastically limited as a practical route: the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. Anderson that individual states could not exclude Trump from the presidential ballot under that provision and placed federal enforcement responsibility with Congress.
Elections
The 2026 midterms cannot remove Trump directly, but they could give Democrats control of the House, enabling investigations, subpoenas, funding restrictions and another impeachment. Winning the Senate would help, but producing the 67 senators required for conviction remains extraordinarily unlikely.
Otherwise, his term ends on 20 January 2029. The Twenty-Second Amendment prevents someone from being elected president more than twice, so under the Constitution as presently understood, Trump cannot simply win another normal presidential term in 2028.

So the brutally realistic answer is: before January 2029, he is only likely to be removed if a major event causes a substantial Republican collapse around him—something so serious that Vance and the Cabinet invoke the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, or enough Republican senators decide conviction is necessary.
Mass protests, awful polling, court judgments, damaging revelations and public outrage can create the political pressure that produces that collapse. But none of those things, by itself, presses an eject button.

And even then, removing Trump would make JD Vance president. It would remove the man, but not automatically the administration, personnel, ideology or damage.

SiegfriedSassoon · 21/10/2026 14:01

Nothing would happen. Look at the situation with Biden where everybody pretending not to see. You couldn't really get a more extreme case than that, his mind was completely gone.

Anarchy99 · 21/10/2026 14:10

Given how many PMs we have had over the last few years surely that is obvious?

We have a completely different system from the US - we don’t elect our prime minister.

ThreeNewWords · 21/10/2026 14:11

UKPres · 21/10/2026 13:46

Yes, I was thinking about those situations and the way that probably, the party would arrange the departure of anyone who was (thought to be) becoming a liability, but in the US, there seem to be a lot of people with power with a vested interest in him remaining. Does/could that happen here?

There's no formal protocol to force the removal of a PM who is unfir for office, so you are right that if there were enough people with a vested interest to ensure a parliamentary majority for him/her, then there is no means of removal (except the - hopefully purely nominal - power of the monarch to give and remove office).

But, equally, there is no formal right for the PM to stay in office for any fixed period - unlike the situation in the US, where President Crazy has his own personal four-year term.

Without a legally secured term of office, the PM has continually to convince a parliamentary majority that he is fit for office. So I don't at all think the issue of an unfit PM has the same problematic character here as in the US.

I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say that we had exactly the situation you envisage in the last months of Thatcher's PMship. She was becoming unwell with dementia. She wouldn't see this. Her colleagues had to work hard on her to get her to accept that she either resigned or, ultimately, would lose a confidence vote.

SerendipityJane · 21/10/2026 14:13

Harold Wilson resigned when he was aware how bad his dementia was getting.

Sublina · 21/10/2026 14:15

No we have a completely different system. Their president is basically a term limited king, who has enormous and wide ranging powers including as you see going to war on a whim.

Our PM is simply the leader of the group with the most votes in parliament. If they lose the votes they are extremely limited in powers. That's why Brexit was so hard to get through parliament and took so long -- no side had enough votes until BJ got that big majority in 2019.

JeffLebowski · 21/10/2026 14:15

SiegfriedSassoon · 21/10/2026 14:01

Nothing would happen. Look at the situation with Biden where everybody pretending not to see. You couldn't really get a more extreme case than that, his mind was completely gone.

Reagan was way worse by the end

ImADogsDog · 21/10/2026 14:17

I listen to Epistemic Crisis on Instagram as he has a great insight to Trump

Newname26 · 21/10/2026 14:18

MargoLivebetter · 21/10/2026 13:58

But @Newname26 it has happened here multiple times in the last 10 years. What do you think happened to Keir Starmer, Liz Truss, Boris Johnson and Theresa May?

Thats what i mean I doubt the uk would get to a situation where the PMs mental health is being questioned internationally.

Now if the King was lossing it, I'm not sure how they'd oust him or would the next in line just delegate? Keeping in mind its him to meets other international heads.

MargoLivebetter · 21/10/2026 14:19

@Newname26 - got it! Sorry!

Newname26 · 21/10/2026 14:19

MargoLivebetter · 21/10/2026 14:19

@Newname26 - got it! Sorry!

No worries 👍

Anarchy99 · 21/10/2026 14:22

SiegfriedSassoon · 21/10/2026 14:01

Nothing would happen. Look at the situation with Biden where everybody pretending not to see. You couldn't really get a more extreme case than that, his mind was completely gone.

Compared to Trump he was completely compus mentis.Trump just rants, and is a self confessed sex pest who admitted he would shag his own daughter if she wasnt his daughter. And let’s not forget the tantrums he threw about not getting the peace prize.

SerendipityJane · 21/10/2026 14:23

Their president is basically a term limited king, who has enormous and wide ranging powers including as you see going to war on a whim.

Whilst true in practice. you can really rile Americans up if you say it out loud.

And the President only has "enormous and wide ranging powers" if Congress allow him to.

SerendipityJane · 21/10/2026 14:24

Now if the King was lossing it, I'm not sure how they'd oust him or would the next in line just delegate?

Do they not teach history anymore ?

ElectoralControversy · 21/10/2026 14:25

SerendipityJane · 21/10/2026 14:24

Now if the King was lossing it, I'm not sure how they'd oust him or would the next in line just delegate?

Do they not teach history anymore ?

I feel like some of the historical solutions to unpopular kings would be considered a bit harsh nowadays...

SerendipityJane · 21/10/2026 14:29

ElectoralControversy · 21/10/2026 14:25

I feel like some of the historical solutions to unpopular kings would be considered a bit harsh nowadays...

I would be less confident there. I am old enough to remember when Nicolae Ceausescu (and his wife) were put against a wall and machine gunned.

1991, for people who think murderous revolutions (a) don't happen anymore, or (b) don't happen in Europe anymore.