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

[UKPres]

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?

Well i can't imagine it would be "off with his head" in 2026!

In a world where an execution was going to be livestreamed ?

I really would not be so sure. I have very little faith in how deep the veneer of "civilisation" runs. Or is it a different country where people are calling for concentration camps and ordering our navy to murder unarmed civilians ?

There's a slight difference between him and KC or KW, neither are dictators who insists every woman has a minimum of 4 children, many of whom ended up malnourished in orphanages with no mental stimulation.

And god only knows what else he did

Bit of scope creep here .... the thread started off talking about PMs, and has morphed into Monarchs. And as is well known, the British Monarch has not constitutional power.

Read via google a few months ago:-
“Donald Trump’s niece, Mary Trump, and nephew, Fred C. Trump III, have stated that the family has a history of Alzheimer’s disease and dementia, noting that Donald Trump is showing similar signs of cognitive decline.”
Obvs DT says it’s not true…. buuuut, of course, that in itself is a sign of dementia, they don’t think there’s anything wrong with themselves!

So in the States & Russia there are demented old men at top of tree, firmly held there by a bunch of males waiting to grab the top spot!

Yes it was a bit of a scope creep.

KC has no constitutional powers but its still him who is host on international state visits, who was here the other day King of Oman?
Its him who wines and dines Trump etc.

He is the one who rubber stamps laws, and welcomes the new PM (hence HMQs last public duty was meet Liz Trust)

I don’t think that can happen here because our PM has to do PMQs every week. US presidents aren’t challenged in the same way. They don’t have to do live on their feet stuff like PMQs which would show up a cognitive deficit very quickly

Mary Trump is the interviewer on this week’s TRIP Leading - it’s well worth listening to.

We have a completely different kind of democracy here. We don't elect the PM, we elect our local representative and the PM is whoever has the confidence of the majority of the House of Commons, so it wouldn't be possible to have a maverick doolally PM - as soon as they started being batshit you would just need a relatively small number of their own party to recognise that there was a problem, and the HoC could call a vote of no confidence which would trigger a GE. Or if enough of their own party could see the problem, they could avoid the GE by just ousting them and selecting a new PM. PMs do not need a GE to be legitimate, they are simply whoever is selected by the HoC as the person who has the most support to lead them. The HoC has a lot more power, and the PM a lot less power, than in the US system.

In the USA a totally dolally president might be persuaded to step aside voluntarily, or can be involuntarily removed if the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet declare the president unable to fulfil his functions. They submit a written declaration to congressional leaders, and the Vice President steps in as Acting President right away. The president can dispute the claim by sending a counter-declaration if he considers he is capable. To keep the Vice President in power, Congress must vote within 21 days; a two-thirds majority in both houses is required to rule that the president is unfit, otherwise the president resumes office. There isn't a new election - the Vice President (or if also incapacitated, whoever is next in the order of succession) serves out the remainder of the term until the next election is due.

The order of succession is Vice President, Speaker of the House of Representatives, President pro tempore of the Senate, Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of Defense, Attorney General, Secretary of the Interior - and on and on for 18 positions

The most frightening thing I've ever read on this website!

This. There is no comparison with Biden.

KC has no constitutional powers but its still him who is host on international state visits, who was here the other day King of Oman?

To be blunt, King Charles will do whatever he is told to do. If he doesn't ... well I am sure there are plenty of people just aching to sneak his head off. Especially now we know he is a muslimic.

the HoC could call a vote of no confidence which would trigger a GE.

Not automatically. Only if no one who can command the confidence of the house can be found.

(One for pedants corner)

Having read the report on the Independent.Co.Uk today about how he spoke to one of their reporters - you would have to wonder how the people around him are not deeply ashamed to be associated with him.

Is he making them money ?
Is he allowing their sense of self to be inflated ?

Re our monarch - this was discussed innumerable times during the last few years of the late Queen's life. Posters kept asking why she didn't retire. Answer: it's not possible to retire from a hereditary position, especially if you believe you've been anointed by God. At the very end of her life, when she was very frail, she handed over more and more duties to Charles and (to some extent) William, which was no bad thing anyway, so they could start to get ready for their new roles, but she was still Queen to the very last.

The instant the Queen did take her last breath Charles became King. He remains King for the rest of his life unless he abdicates. The Queen was never going to do that because she lived through the abdication of her uncle, Edward VIII, and knew what it had done to her beloved father, who had to take over as George VI. I doubt very much whether Charles ever will either, but if his health were to fail we'd probably see William doing more and more in his place.

When George III was unable to carry out any of his kingly duties because of his illness/madness, Parliament appointed his eldest son and heir as Regent. This has never been considered necessary since, but the powers are presumably still there.

Remember that Adolf Hitler was voted into power and no one managed to get rid of him until after war broke out. Although there were a few attempts on his life.

Sobering thoughts.

He wasn't voted into power. He was appointed Chancellor by President Hindenburg at a time when the Nazis didn't even hold a majority in the German parliament. It was a unspeakably huge error of judgement by the old guard, who thought they could control Hitler and the Nazis. Following a "communist" incident, Hilter convinced President Hindenburg to declare an emergency decree suspending many civil liberties throughout Germany, including freedom of the press, freedom of expression, and the right to hold public assemblies. Shortly afterwards he began dismantling Germany’s democratic institutions and imprisoning or murdering his chief opponents. When Hindenburg died in 1934, Hitler took the titles of führer, chancellor, and commander in chief of the army. He and the Nazis then basically ruled as absolute dictators.

Horrific. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-the-independent-reporter-oval-office-andrew-feinberg-b3070310.html?reloaded=1

It was a unspeakably huge error of judgement by the GOP , who thought they could control Trumop and MAGA. ....

I think there's two reasons this has happened in the US but couldn't in the UK.

1st, theres no expectation in the UK that a prime minister will serve out a full parliamentary term. In the US, it's almost guaranteed. The only way to lose the job in the US is to either die, either by natural causes or assasination, be impeached (which has never once worked), or resign (Nixon). Otherwise you go once you reach the end of your alloted two terms or you lose an election.

In the UK, generally you go because you've been pushed by the party, because your position becomes untenable. The prime minister who quits just because he's had enough is very rare.

The second reason is the people doing the pushing. In the US, there's a line of succession. The president goes, the vice president gets the job. In the UK, the job is then up for grabs. You plot against the prime minister, then maybe you get the job, or you at least get to influence who gets the job.

In the US, if you impeach your party's president, then the entire party is going to treat you like a pariah. In the UK, well it's just how things are done. Maybe you get your guy in and you get a nice cushy cabinet position as thanks.

There's no incentive for the republicans to turn on Trump. There's always an incentive for British politicians to turn on their leader.

Unlike the USA, there is no tradition of respecting the Head of Government in the UK.
Head of State - yes. Head of the "Executive Branch" (as it would be in the US) no.
The sharks around the cabinet table (or for the Tories the 1922 Committee) would boot them out PDQ.
One of the odd ironies of history is that the Founding Fathers gave the US President powers that the British had for years fought (literally) to take away from the Monarch.

Plenty?

One of the odd ironies of history is that the Founding Fathers gave the US President powers that the British had for years fought (literally) to take away from the Monarch.

And not by accident. They agonised over how to keep the riff raff out. Eventually they devised the electoral college.

A prime minister is just an ordinary citizen and ordinary MP, they can be arrested, committed, are subject to the whim of their constituents (eg a recall election), can be deselected by their local party, can be stripped of their leadership position by their own party or the house.

A US president, particularly under Trump, is pretty much a God-Emperor. They are immune from the law, can grant indulgences to whoever they wish and have unbridled powers that Louis XIV could only dream of. They are technically subject to the courts, but as they appoint those who are responsible for enforcing court decisions, that is moot.