Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Hung Parliament

Recalling the 2010 debacle when Brown did not immediately resign and was accused of being a squatter, I tried to look up what the procedure is. I had a vague idea but wasn't clear.

I was amazed to learn that our constitution does not have any written rules. (There are some civil service guidelines so government functions during and after the election.) The role of Prime Minister is not defined. It is the leader of the party that commands a majority in Parliament and has been invited to form the Sovereign's government (it's her government, we only vote for our representatives). So Nigel Farage could be Prime Minister if Liz thought he could command a majority in Parliament. So those who think they've voted for a Prime Minister are under an illusion.

Party winning election means nothing technically. So the loser can wait until Parliament is convened and carry on until they can't command a majority, which is why a vote of confidence is so a big deal. I always wondered why not being "confident" was such an issue.

Some probably already knew this, but I found it enlightening and likely to crop up in conversation in a few months time.
«13

Comments

  • is there an election soon then?
  • Just to (hopefully) enlighten you further none of our constitution is "written down" so to speak. We have what's called an uncodified constitution as opposed to the American constitution which is written down.
  • is there an election soon then?

    Don't think so. Nothing on the radio or TV about.
  • In 2010/2011 in Belgium they took 535 days to form a government after a hung parliament.
  • This time round I reckon the largest party whoever it is will be short of a majority! That much is fairly obvious after the last five years I doubt a coalition will be formed! but we will have the largest party invited by the queen to form a minority government and there will be deals with other parties to support that government on certain issues! Eg if the tories are the largest party then UKIP will do a deal with them to support them in votes on certain issues as long as there is a referendum on Europe.. This may not be as stable as a coalition but after the beating Lib dems took no one is going to be that party!

    My predictions
    Conservative largest party but short of a majority
    labour lose out a lot in Scotland as referendum backlash
    snp gain in Scotland
    UKIP pick up between 5 and fifteen seats with a lot of seconds and thirds
    lib dem drop back to the bare minimum
  • MrOneLung said:

    In 2010/2011 in Belgium they took 535 days to form a government after a hung parliament.

    And in that time GDP went up and unemployment went down if I'm not mistaken*.

    *Now that I've thought about it I may be mistaken but can't be bothered to check if true.
  • Worse case scenario; Labour 'win' and form a minority gov. backed up by the SNP.
    Scotland will truly be running the (dis)UK then. England will be even further sidelined.
  • MrOneLung said:

    In 2010/2011 in Belgium they took 535 days to form a government after a hung parliament.

    And in that time GDP went up and unemployment went down if I'm not mistaken*.

    *Now that I've thought about it I may be mistaken but can't be bothered to check if true.
    As Will Self said on Question Time last night - the really surprising thing is that politicians believe they make a difference (or something like that).
  • bobmunro said:

    MrOneLung said:

    In 2010/2011 in Belgium they took 535 days to form a government after a hung parliament.

    And in that time GDP went up and unemployment went down if I'm not mistaken*.

    *Now that I've thought about it I may be mistaken but can't be bothered to check if true.
    As Will Self said on Question Time last night - the really surprising thing is that politicians believe they make a difference (or something like that).
    I thought he came across badly last night - awful
  • Sponsored links:


  • PL54 said:

    bobmunro said:

    MrOneLung said:

    In 2010/2011 in Belgium they took 535 days to form a government after a hung parliament.

    And in that time GDP went up and unemployment went down if I'm not mistaken*.

    *Now that I've thought about it I may be mistaken but can't be bothered to check if true.
    As Will Self said on Question Time last night - the really surprising thing is that politicians believe they make a difference (or something like that).
    I thought he came across badly last night - awful
    I can't stand him if I'm honest - but I liked that quote.
  • bobmunro said:

    MrOneLung said:

    In 2010/2011 in Belgium they took 535 days to form a government after a hung parliament.

    And in that time GDP went up and unemployment went down if I'm not mistaken*.

    *Now that I've thought about it I may be mistaken but can't be bothered to check if true.
    As Will Self said on Question Time last night - the really surprising thing is that politicians believe they make a difference (or something like that).
    Does anyone know any politicians or Councillors? I've often wanted to ask them why they choose to run for government? Do they set out to serve a civic duty, what's the main driver for such a role?
  • cabbles said:

    bobmunro said:

    MrOneLung said:

    In 2010/2011 in Belgium they took 535 days to form a government after a hung parliament.

    And in that time GDP went up and unemployment went down if I'm not mistaken*.

    *Now that I've thought about it I may be mistaken but can't be bothered to check if true.
    As Will Self said on Question Time last night - the really surprising thing is that politicians believe they make a difference (or something like that).
    Does anyone know any politicians or Councillors? I've often wanted to ask them why they choose to run for government? Do they set out to serve a civic duty, what's the main driver for such a role?
    A friend of mine is a Councillor. I won't say for what party or where to avoid any snide comments, but he genuinely does it because he believes he is making his borough a better place. He does it alongside a full time job (albeit for his local MP) and spends most of his evenings either in council meetings or surgery's. Despite only being in his mid 20s he has not interest to become an MP, he says there are far to many people in the Westminster bubble that have followed the University > Parliamentary Aide > Councillor > MP career path, he's not what this country needs but may consider it after he's done a "proper job" in the "real world" as he put it to me.
  • cabbles said:

    bobmunro said:

    MrOneLung said:

    In 2010/2011 in Belgium they took 535 days to form a government after a hung parliament.

    And in that time GDP went up and unemployment went down if I'm not mistaken*.

    *Now that I've thought about it I may be mistaken but can't be bothered to check if true.
    As Will Self said on Question Time last night - the really surprising thing is that politicians believe they make a difference (or something like that).
    Does anyone know any politicians or Councillors? I've often wanted to ask them why they choose to run for government? Do they set out to serve a civic duty, what's the main driver for such a role?
    A friend of mine is a Councillor. I won't say for what party or where to avoid any snide comments, but he genuinely does it because he believes he is making his borough a better place. He does it alongside a full time job (albeit for his local MP) and spends most of his evenings either in council meetings or surgery's. Despite only being in his mid 20s he has not interest to become an MP, he says there are far to many people in the Westminster bubble that have followed the University > Parliamentary Aide > Councillor > MP career path, he's not what this country needs but may consider it after he's done a "proper job" in the "real world" as he put it to me.
    So at a local level they see that is where they can make a difference I guess. I'm not generalising all. I genuinely think some must do it thinking they can make a difference. I just think when they get in the system, party politics etc, ideals just don't hold up.
  • There are so many possible scenarios. Not only is the "result" of the election impossible to predict with confidence, so is the result of the result! Here are a few possible ways in which it could play out:

    1. Conservatives remain the largest party, but with no over-all majority. Would the LibDems throw their hands in with the Tories again? Possibly not. Or, not without eliciting some major, left-of-centre concessions. And probably a demand for more seats in the cabinet this time, instead of the current five.

    2. Labour become the largest party, but without over-all majority. If they could form a rainbow coalition (Greens. Plaid Cymru, others) without the SNP, they would do. But, if they had to make a pact with SNP, there's only one thing on the table as far as the Nats are concerned: another referendum on the Scottish independence. (From my point of view, I wanted Scotland to stay part of the UK. But if they get granted another referendum so soon after voting "no", I'd be all for a "yes" this time round. Otherwise, we'd just be in for referendum after referendum until they say "yes").

    3. Labour running a minority government. This is where Labout is the biggest party, but cannot form a majority and go ahead without a formal agreement. Thanks to Cameron's stupid fixed-term Act, we could potentially have a minority government, with Miliband as PM, yet every vote would be down to whatever concessions the SNP, Plaid Cymru, Greens and others could squeeze out of the government.

    4. Conservatives become the second-largest party, but without Labour being able to form either a minority government. In this case, Cameron could go it alone, as the incumbent PM. He would write the Queen's Speech. After she's delivered it, if his Government wins the vote that follows it, he's in. We'd have a Conservative Government with fewer MPs than the Labour Party. And we'd be stuck with it, so long as he can secure more than 33% of the vote in a vote of no confidence. Utter madness!

    5. Then there's the nuclear scenario. The Conservatives pitch in with Farage's mob to form a Kipper-con coalition. In which case, whoever's last out of the country, can you please turn the lights off? Thanks!
  • And Labour and SNP would be better would it?
  • E-cafc said:

    And Labour and SNP would be better would it?

    That wasn't one of the options, but it's a possibility. And of course it would be better. As far as I am concerned, *anything* would be better than having Farage in Government.
  • Hung parliament? Hang the lot of them..... ;-)
  • Daggs said:

    Worse case scenario; Labour 'win' and form a minority gov. backed up by the SNP.
    Scotland will truly be running the (dis)UK then. England will be even further sidelined.

    That might be the best case scenario - taking a long-term view. The English get totally hacked off by 5 years of being dictated to by the SNP and their lickspittle friends in the Labour Party. Labour become totally unelectable ever again, becoming a modern day version of the old Liberal Party by disappearing up its own bottom. (In 1906 the Liberals won 397 of the 670 seats available.)
    We riot and demand hiving off Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as a prerequisite to getting our vote. RumpUK then gradually stews, slowly in its own insolvent, unsubsidised juice.

    Utopia beckons - we just have 5 years of pain before the gain! (Right I'm back to the booze now, it's clearly working!)
  • Sponsored links:


  • Agree 100%.
  • E-cafc said:

    Agree 100%.

    Thanks!

  • Not with you though lol
  • cabbles said:

    bobmunro said:

    MrOneLung said:

    In 2010/2011 in Belgium they took 535 days to form a government after a hung parliament.

    And in that time GDP went up and unemployment went down if I'm not mistaken*.

    *Now that I've thought about it I may be mistaken but can't be bothered to check if true.
    As Will Self said on Question Time last night - the really surprising thing is that politicians believe they make a difference (or something like that).
    Does anyone know any politicians or Councillors? I've often wanted to ask them why they choose to run for government? Do they set out to serve a civic duty, what's the main driver for such a role?
    A friend of mine is a Councillor. I won't say for what party or where to avoid any snide comments, but he genuinely does it because he believes he is making his borough a better place. He does it alongside a full time job (albeit for his local MP) and spends most of his evenings either in council meetings or surgery's. Despite only being in his mid 20s he has not interest to become an MP, he says there are far to many people in the Westminster bubble that have followed the University > Parliamentary Aide > Councillor > MP career path, he's not what this country needs but may consider it after he's done a "proper job" in the "real world" as he put it to me.

    Howard Stoat - A GP in Bexleyheath was an MP but has stood down from one or other of the jobs.
  • edited March 2015
    To us, it matters not who the leader is, nor even which party is in power. They're all the same. All just shuffling their minor policies around until they get the result they want: more money for their sponsors, donors and mates with all the money already.

    Perhaps the only party who say they are marginally different are UKIP although let's be honest, they're frozen out ex-Tories in purple ties.

    I'm not voting for them either.

    So I'm left without anyone to vote for. Sad and uninspiring situation for the younger generation.
  • How about Monster Raving Loony for you Callum?
  • seth plum said:

    How about Monster Raving Loony for you Callum?

    If I wanted to vote for a joke party, I'd consider voting for the Greens under Natalie Bennett first. ;-)
  • Really the Conservatives and Labour are not that far apart that they couldn't both compromise to make a grand coalition thus marginalising all the marginal parties and not giving them influence that their share of the vote does not warrant. It would make sense so can't see it ever happening. But coalitions like that are sometimes made to work on the continent. We'd have less austerity than the Tories want but less borrowing than Labour want. Why not?
  • Really the Conservatives and Labour are not that far apart that they couldn't both compromise to make a grand coalition thus marginalising all the marginal parties and not giving them influence that their share of the vote does not warrant. It would make sense so can't see it ever happening. But coalitions like that are sometimes made to work on the continent. We'd have less austerity than the Tories want but less borrowing than Labour want. Why not?

    Totally agree. It seems odd, to say the least, that the party that could be argued to have had the best "result" at the last election, actually came third! The LibDems polled fewer seats than either the incumbent Labour Party or the Tories, yet they still found themselves in Government.

    Surely the onus should be on the two biggest parties to attempt to find enough common ground in order to govern?

Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!