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?

Trump is erratic & detached from reality, but his supporters don’t care. Biden was senile, but his supporters covered it up. Their system is completely dysfunctional.

Britain, however, isn’t America. We recently had a Prime Minister whose behaviour caused serious concerns about her mental stability. Our political system removed Liz Truss from office quickly & efficiently before she could do any more damage. Sometimes, having a Prime Minister who leads the country only for as long as they retain the ‘confidence of the house of commons’ and doesn’t have a directly elected personal democratic mandate has its advantages.

This. It's the safety net built in to a party system.

We recently had a Prime Minister whose behaviour caused serious concerns about her mental stability.

We also had a Prime Minister who lied to the Queen and illegally -prorogued parliament (for which he was never punished).

Swings and roundabouts spring to mind.

Thank-you that sounds a bit more civilised then the "off with his head" of the middle ages.

I find it kind of comforting that the party can get rid of a leader if they choose. They know they are answerable to the electorate ultimately so they have a vested interest in it.

I think people need to understand that we don’t elect a PM though - this always comes up when there’s a change.

Harold Wilson would probably be our best example and he stepped down very suddenrly… I think our system works better for getting rid of PMs

There isn't really a job "PM" which helps. It's by convention that the Monarch appoints the First Lord of the Treasury (i.e the prima inter pares in their cabinet). And that convention has derived from selecting the person who could secure a majority in the House.

Our American chums - who become obsessed with being as ubBritish as possible - had all grown up thinking that the ancient world was the bees knees. In particular a rather creepy worship of Cicero. Inspired by the virtues of "the Republic", they consciously aped it. Unfortunately, in a cunning (but very long term) piece of sabotage, the English printers that supplied the colonies with their books deliberately withheld the second part of the history. You know - the bit where a power mad politician seizes control of the masses and subjugates the senate to the single will of an Emperor.

"That'll learn 'em tax rebels" muttered printer Pete, as he dropped the crate of books into the Solent .......

Yes Ceausescu was horrific, barbaric and evil, he deserved every bullet. In fact some would say he got away lightly with a summary quick execution, given what he had had done to others.

Well we have a totally different democratic set up. In the UK parliament is sovereign. In the US a lot of that power is in the President so it's harder to remove them.

In the UK they'd just oust them easy peasy. We don't vote for a prime minister, we vote for a party.

Not a massive fan of the death penalty myself.

I think the difference is, under the UK system, it is much harder for someone like Trump to become PM in the first place. He would have to selected by the local party to run as an MP, be elected, then be part of a parliamentary party in government, then be selected for various positions in the government that give him prominence and standing within the parliamentary party, then stand for leader of the party and command enough support from fellow MPs to be elected leader.

The assisted rise of Andy Burnham to PM looks swift, but obviously he had a long history of trust and support within the Labour party, held a high profile elected as a Labour party politician for the last few years and had been a minister in previous Labour governments. He wasn't some random populist that came out of nowhere.

Americans elect a President, we elect a party. If we have a PM not acting rationally, it's very easy to remove them and replace them with a new leader. In the US it would be very difficult as it's overruling the democratic process.

Americans elect a President,

Not quite .... the Founding Fathers didn't trust the riff raff to always vote the right way, so cobbled together a way to prevent populism (See election of John Quincy Adams over Andrew Jackson). This is why you can become POTUS with a smaller vote share than the loser.

Summary.

When Americans vote in a presidential election, they cast their ballots for a slate of electors pledged to a specific candidate, as explained by the U.S. National Archives.

How the Process Works

• Popular Vote: On Election Day, citizens vote for a presidential and vice-presidential ticket, which effectively selects the slate of electors chosen by that party in each state.
• The Electoral College: There are 538 total electors in the Electoral College, and a candidate needs 270 electoral votes to win the presidency.
• Casting Votes: In December, the winning electors meet in their respective state capitals to cast official separate votes for President and Vice President.
• Congressional Count: In January, Congress counts the electoral votes in a joint session to finalize the election.

Pledges and Faithless Electors

• State Rules: Most states legally require electors to vote for the candidate they are pledged to support.
• Supreme Court Ruling: In Chiafalo v. Washington, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states can penalize or replace "faithless electors"—electors who try to vote against their pledged candidate.
• Historical Precedent: Over 99% of electors historically vote as pledged, and faithless electors have never changed the outcome of a U.S. presidential election.

We have the Regency act 1937 to cover for Charles going mad. Then William takes over.

Brief view on Dozin' Donald being a security risk

Thanks

Well it's a theme there isn't it ? Look at biden ?

I can't believe our political servants don't need to pass all sorts of tests for office esp pm ?

But why? They are elected leader of their party. They can be kicked out easily as they aren’t voted for (except as an MP by their own constituency) so if they are crap they are out.

Biden wasn’t perfect but I don’t remember him having a temper tantrum for not winning the Nobel peace prize due to crippling jealousy of Obama,

Do you remember the Spitting Image skits- The President’s Brain is Missing?

@SerendipityJane
December 1989, might have been Christmas Day or close enough. I know coz I watched it live on TV as a 9 year old, with my family.
well deserved,

Omg he was clearly extremely unwell

They should all undergo proper competency testing and so on.

Yes but that isn’t what happens.

If it did, then great as Trump would have had his arse kicked out and be in jail by now. He is so clearly absolutely batshit,

in the Uk we can ousf any leader at any time.

Don’t, I thought I had cancer a few months back, one thing that really pissed me off was that Trump could outlive me!

Boris Johnson suffered from “missing brain syndrome”, yet it seemed incredibly difficult to get rid of him.

Other than just not agreeing with him (I didn’t either tbf), was there evidence that he had a mental health issue?

In any case, he was kicked out before the election so it proved the system works