The resilience of the British government still astonishes me. London is probably the place with the most executive experience. No need for a council to create a strong head-of-state there - it seems at first.
I notice nevertheless that the overhanging trust the government enjoys through its monopolar organisation, makes it react too late too often forcing it to ignore the diversity and federalism of the country. The Scottish would stay in a United Kingdom governed by a council. They'd knew they would get a say in one of the most powerful governments in return. The populations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland represent a sixth of the UK's population. So power trading for a council of seven seems possible to me.
For example the Scottish could be promised a permanent seat while the other two countries could switch between terms. Whereby one has to keep in mind that the citizens of Wales can be represented in the executive - to a certain degree I guess - by a councilor from Liverpool. Northern Ireland's interests are overlapping with the Scottish ones. Important as well, there is no majority in England that could control the whole council of seven and refuse the other countries the participation in prime-ministerial decision making.
The relationship between the executive and the rest of society, including all the other political institutions, doesn't change when switching from a monopolar leadership to a directorial government. Four years for the change for example, the population wouldn't even notice, as little is the tweak of the constitution. The only obvious difference perceivable for the population, the parliament and businesses, is that with seven representatives around, they would start seeing their government more regularly. An effect that would give instant support for the new governing form.
Four years for the prime minister to re-organise the central administration in seven departments, transfer powers to six other ministers while always keeping the agenda and Downing Street in his or her hands, up to the first vote of the seven. To the outside, for the population, nothing would change. A council is still one office controlling the whole central administration. To the inside, for the political actors, nothing would change neither. It still would be politics as usual.
Almost and not at all. Who is the junior partner in a governing coalition right now? Do they have enough powers or are there just there to make pretty? A Prime-Ministerial Council of the United Kingdom would look just like a coalition government, with the substantial difference that the ministers would have decision making powers.
Journals, parties, foreign governments, judges, everybody would have time to adapt to the new reality. The power trading would be different for sure. In subsequent elections the part of the electorate that feels underrepresented today would vote differently, I would guess more federal and moderate. The others the same way, the overhanging trust would not disappear instantly, but slowly and steadily.
The division of legislative-judicative-executive is necessary and yet not enough anymore in times where information is transmitted with the speed of light. Modern technology tips the balance of power to the executive. Either parliaments and judges receive more powers, which could freeze the whole political system. Or one is pragmatic : the Swiss Federal Councilors can't be impeached. Not needed (touch wood).
...
...
march 2o12
