34

The British PM traditionally meets the Queen every week to discuss government matters. However this seems like a pointless exercise given that the British monarch lacks any direct influence.

So why does the PM bother meeting the monarch at this point? Is it a mere formality or perhaps there's a law forcing the PM to do so?

JonathanReez
  • 50,757
  • 35
  • 237
  • 435

2 Answers2

67

It is a constitutional rather than a statutory requirement:

Prime Ministers have a constitutional responsibility to tell the Queen what is happening (John Major)

The Queen remains the Head of State, and the Prime Minister is required (by tradition and precedent) to keep the Queen apprised of government business. The Queen lacks direct power, but she retains influence.

The meetings are confidential and no minutes are taken, but they appear not to be formalities. The PM really goes and talks directly about the issues of the week, and the Queen questions and discusses. It seems that she is careful not to tell the PM her opinions. Tony Blair said that even after 10 years of meetings, he did not know her personal opinions on political matters. The Queen has influence, but chooses not to exercise it by direct advice.

Some Prime Ministers have said that they found it useful to explain and discuss with an intelligent but non-political person. It helped them to gain perspective away from the adversarial arena of the Commons. David Cameron described the meetings as "one of the most valuable hours of the week" as it helped him sort out the problems in his own head.

If a PM chose to, they could abolish the meeting. The Queen must act on the advice of her ministers. But this would signal a marked shift in the UK constitution towards a Republic. However even Prime Ministers who regarded the audience as a duty (Margaret Thatcher is said to have called the Autumn visit to Balmoral "purgatory") have never tried to get rid of it.

The Queen also receives a daily "red box" from the other ministers advising her of their department's business.

James K
  • 120,320
  • 22
  • 366
  • 478
  • 3
    "The Queen has influence, but chooses not to exercise it by direct advice." I wonder how she exercises her influence then if she doesn't say what she is thinking directly? – NoDataDumpNoContribution Jul 10 '18 at 08:45
  • 2
    @Trilarion disclaimer: I'm not sure how it works in the UK. In Belgium we have an even less influential head of state in that our king is officially a pure figurehead. Still: during formation of the governments, he's supposed to be a stabilizing factor because he has seen multiple formations during his time by informing the people responsible how their predecessors went through the process. I assume that in the UK, a similar system can take place where the Queen does not have to give her opinions, but can offer some insights the PM's predecessors had? – DonFusili Jul 10 '18 at 09:02
  • Of course, this leaves the question how she filters what insights to pass on. – DonFusili Jul 10 '18 at 09:02
  • 28
    “Some Prime Ministers have said that they found it useful to explain and discuss with an intelligent but non-political person.” Also one who’s been on the throne since 1952, has probably met more world leaders than anyone else alive, and has an unimaginable wealth of experience to draw on. I’m basically a UK Republican, but it would be a dream to sit in on one of those meetings. – Paul D. Waite Jul 10 '18 at 09:14
  • 19
    @DonFusili Pretty much. My understanding is that because the Queen has been involved in high level diplomacy and government function in the United Kingdom for 66 years, far more than almost anybody alive, she can offer great insight into previous events and occurrences and how they were dealt with. It wouldn't surprise me if she simply asked knowing questions. – SGR Jul 10 '18 at 09:16
  • 19
    @Trilarion There's lots of ways to exercise influence without giving direct advice, "What options other than invasion have you considered?", "Have you even considered options other than invasion?" and "So invasion is the best option?" are all just questions asking very similar things but certainly imply different things. And you can get much more direct while still not giving any direct or even indirect advice. Just by guiding the conversation. – DRF Jul 10 '18 at 10:18
  • 2
    @DRF If Blair still didn't know the opinion of the Queen after 10 years of visits in a period including the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, surely her part of the conversation must have been a lot more subtle than that. – gerrit Jul 10 '18 at 11:15
  • 1
    @gerrit Of course. It was just the thing that popped up in my mind given that Blair was mentioned in the answer. Even though I hold (most of) the unpopular opinions regarding that episode. – DRF Jul 10 '18 at 11:18
  • @DRF "What options other than invasion have you considered?", "Have you even considered options other than invasion?" and "So invasion is the best option?" That sounds very generic to me, more like a computer program than the Queen. I actually hope that someone else in the government already asks all these questions before any decision is taken. Or do you mean this might be her indirect way of expressing her opinion where a question is basically converted to a statement? "Have you considered...?" meaning "I disagree with...". – NoDataDumpNoContribution Jul 10 '18 at 14:27
  • 19
    Maybe the queen just acts as a rubber duck? – Pharap Jul 10 '18 at 14:39
  • 15
    @Pharap Not really, because she is intelligent. What it actually gives the PM is an opportunity for peer review. Everyone else he/she has contact with is tainted by their own commitments to their political parties and their careers, which are their primary concerns. The House of Lords does provide some long-term consistency, but party politics makes that unreliable too. The Queen is the only person the PM has professional contact with whose primary commitment is to the continued wellbeing of the UK as a whole, which allows her a longer-term viewpoint than any politician. – Graham Jul 10 '18 at 15:39
  • 3
    @Graham That is good point, and along with some of these other comments, should be a new answer, not hidden away in a comment on someone else's answer. – IMSoP Jul 10 '18 at 15:45
  • 7
    @Graham Some of my best rubber ducks are intelligent humans. They ask me to explain something I didn't explain very well and I come to realise that part of the issue is what's causing me the problem. An inanimate duck wouldn't be capable of asking me to clarify a point, I would have to be aware of which part of my explanation isn't clear to spot the issue. And sometimes other people can spot the logical holes that a person wrapped up in said issue can't spot. – Pharap Jul 10 '18 at 15:53
  • Most of what I consider my contributions to projects are simply asking the gurus questions about their tasks and problems. – CramerTV Jul 10 '18 at 21:58
  • 1
    @Trilarion That would be a problem if the Queen were required to refrain from influencing the PM by some rule, but the Queen holds back because she doesn't want to influence the PM. – Omegastick Jul 11 '18 at 07:26
  • @Graham "The Queen is the only person the PM has professional contact with whose primary commitment is to the continued wellbeing of the UK as a whole, which allows her a longer-term viewpoint than any politician." I doubt that the Queen is the only such person. What about the personal driver of the PM, bodyguards, his/her partner, the cook, the gardener, the priest, the doctor, some random other acquaintance? Almost anyone could play the role of a confidential, political rubber duck. – NoDataDumpNoContribution Jul 11 '18 at 07:49
  • @Trilarion None of them qualify. Everyone on that list who the PM would have contact with on a professional level is an employee. The others are not people who he/she interacts with professionally. – Graham Jul 11 '18 at 08:30
  • 1
    @Pharap That's the difference between a rubber duck and a peer review, though. A rubber duck (by definition) just forces you to clarify your concept by having to explain it. A peer review adds the extra step of someone spotting errors in your concept. – Graham Jul 11 '18 at 08:32
  • @Graham But a code reviewer actually tells you where you've gone wrong and what you could improve, which is not part of what I am suggesting. I am suggeting listening passively and only asking questions for clarification - no hint of whether an approach is good or bad. – Pharap Jul 11 '18 at 10:52
  • It's also possible to actively give advice without giving personal opinions, rather than just passively rubberducking. For example: "This is how I expect so-and-so to react to this." It may be her opinion on how someone (or a group) may react, but it's not her belief as to whether or not it's a thing worth doing. – Bobson Jul 11 '18 at 16:16
-1

It is easy for a politician to get wrapped up in a "bubble" of their supporters, mostly meeting with lots of similar-thinking people.

If it goes too far, this can be dangerous.

Successful democracies often seem to have some kind of limitation or "check" on this tendency for people at the highest levels. The form of this check varies wildly. For example, in the Roman Republic, government proceedings against a Plebeian had to stop if a Tribune was present and shouted "I Object!" In the US, the Supreme Court and Congress are limitations on the President. In the UK, Parliament is one such limitation, but it may be filled with supporters of the PM, so the meeting with the Queen is another, in a different form. It forces the PM to talk with someone who may be thinking differently. That's useful in and of itself.

The Monarch is also watching out for the good of the country as a whole. He or she tends to stay a bit on the sidelines, out of the daily battles, but will get involved at critical times -- for example, if something really bad is happening, and the PM is not paying sufficient attention, or if it is becoming obvious that the PM needs to step down. If political opponents think the PM is a disaster, that may be easy to ignore. But if your Queen hints at that, the PM may be more likely to sit up and pay attention.

For all these reasons, the tradition is useful. Hence it survives.

William Jockusch
  • 3,959
  • 1
  • 12
  • 22
  • The media also provides a check on the government, and provides advice (far too much of it). It is common for politicians to meet with newspaper editors and other senior figures. Whether that's more or less useful than the Queen is something that'll require further study. – Stuart F Jun 14 '22 at 12:37
  • "He or she tends to stay a bit on the sidelines, out of the daily battles, but will get involved at critical times -- for example, if something really bad is happening, and the PM is not paying sufficient attention, or if it is becoming obvious that the PM needs to step down. "

    Can you cite some examples of this?

     – deep64blue Jun 14 '22 at 16:50
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway_Debate. Clearly the King was paying attention. Equally clearly, he had real power, and it mattered. When Chamberlain stepped down, he advised the King to send for Churchill as his successor. It is possible, even likely, that without a King, the country would still have settled on Churchill. But the fact that the King could "suggest" a successor, whom the Commons could then vote up or down, surely made the process cleaner and faster. – William Jockusch Jun 16 '22 at 20:54