Sure. Changing the prime minister candidate a few days before a new election is a grand recipe for winning. That's why everyone keeps doing it. =)
Yes, as I predicted, we have a hung parliment
not only that though, it may be SO hung that neither concervatives or a liberal-labour coalition will have enough votes to form a government
On the news they are even talking about The Queen's "Reserve Powers" being activated to call another election!
I am totally unfamiliar with what the Queen's reserve powers are. Could you please explain, does it mean she will actually be able to exercise governing power instead of being a figurehead? I thought that the monarches of GB were devoid of any governing power except ceremonial.
I am totally unfamiliar with what the Queen's reserve powers are. Could you please explain, does it mean she will actually be able to exercise governing power instead of being a figurehead? I thought that the monarches of GB were devoid of any governing power except ceremonial.
This American recalls a few things from Comparative Government, which may be completely wrong and/or shockingly out of date.
In theory the queen is pretty much an absolute monarch. She owns the nation, its governing apparatus, etc. She can do whatever she likes. But ordinarily she never does so and exercises the powers she retains only at the instruction of HM (told you she owned it) Government.
Back in the early 1800s, the king ordered a PM without a majority to form a government. He did so but found it impossible to govern and thus resigned, declaring that he lacked the confidence of the parliament. This more or less set the convention that the monarch would no longer do this kind of thing and would instead accept the choice of the Commons. That's where the monarch being a figurehead comes from.
In the absence of a true majority, which is what it looks like the Tories will have, the queen could presumably refuse to bless the forming of a government on the grounds that all the available petitioners lack confidence of the house. In other constitutional monarchies, such situations have been handled by the Head of State demanding a grand coalition or something similar form a caretaker government and have it hang around for a few months before calling new elections.
But that's very unlikely. More likely is either a fragile Tory coalition or a fairly short-lived minority government that falls as soon as Labour and the LibDems smell enough blood in the water to want to run another election. Maybe the LibDems will have enough pull to get a promise of electoral reform into the manifesto and that would really shake things up, potentially turning the Tories into the third party due to the way LibDem support is spread around.
|
I am totally unfamiliar with what the Queen's reserve powers are. Could you please explain, does it mean she will actually be able to exercise governing power instead of being a figurehead? I thought that the monarches of GB were devoid of any governing power except ceremonial.This American recalls a few things from Comparative Government, which may be completely wrong and/or shockingly out of date.
In theory the queen is pretty much an absolute monarch. She owns the nation, its governing apparatus, etc. She can do whatever she likes. But ordinarily she never does so and exercises the powers she retains only at the instruction of HM (told you she owned it) Government.
Back in the early 1800s, the king ordered a PM without a majority to form a government. He did so but found it impossible to govern and thus resigned, declaring that he lacked the confidence of the parliament. This more or less set the convention that the monarch would no longer do this kind of thing and would instead accept the choice of the Commons. That's where the monarch being a figurehead comes from.
In the absence of a true majority, which is what it looks like the Tories will have, the queen could presumably refuse to bless the forming of a government on the grounds that all the available petitioners lack confidence of the house. In other constitutional monarchies, such situations have been handled by the Head of State demanding a grand coalition or something similar form a caretaker government and have it hang around for a few months before calling new elections.
But that's very unlikely. More likely is either a fragile Tory coalition or a fairly short-lived minority government that falls as soon as Labour and the LibDems smell enough blood in the water to want to run another election. Maybe the LibDems will have enough pull to get a promise of electoral reform into the manifesto and that would really shake things up, potentially turning the Tories into the third party due to the way LibDem support is spread around.
Just to correct you but the Libdems would still be third, just not as far in third. Conservatives are predicted to get 35% of the vote, Labout 28% and LibDems 25%. So still third party but with about a hundred more seats than they have now.
I meant in a general scenario, not necessarily this last election playing out all over again. But I'll take the correction.
Don't blame me... I voted Saxon.
I voted for Harriet Jones!
- I thought Saxon was a police officer in the 70's - he associated with that corrupt Gene Hunt.
|
paraphrased from the news:
As a head of state, Queen Elizabeth has numerous traditional roles when it comes to elections and government, yet these are usually no more than ceremonial.
The queen is the embodiment of Britain's constitutional monarchy and everything is done in her name. No laws can be passed nor parliaments opened or dissolved without her approval.
Such strict protocols bind all stages of the process to install a new prime minister -- often with a pomp and grandeur far removed from the boisterous world of British politics.
Typically, although it is her role to anoint prime ministers, the queen does not get involved in the political process, remaining above the fray.
But, in the unlikely event that no decision can be reached among the parties over who should become prime minister the queen does have powers to intervene.
She can, in theory, call a fresh election or stop a new election being called if she thinks there is another solution.
The queen has faced election hiccups before. The last was in 1974 when after days of party negotiations, she invited Labour to form a minority government. That administration lasted less than a year before Britain was back at the polls.
Thanks for the clarification about the situation. Now i'm intrested about monarchies so I'l think I'll do some research this week,after gameing of course.
Sounds like the canadian government for the last 6 years.
Yup. Actually in 04 Paul Martin got a minority parliament so if this were a perfect analogy, it would be Canadian government 4 years ago. Makes me think that Cameron may have a few extra discussions with Stephen Harper at the G8 and G20 summits this June in Huntsville (G8) and Toronto (G20) to learn to make the minority situation work.
I am still in charge..the Cameronian-Cleggite tendency will not secure a defeat for the comrades..I the Supreme Leader have spoken
of course, the best outcome will be in the Queen goes to the Tower of London, gets out her Vorpal Flaming-Burst Bastard Sword +5, Helm Of Briliance, Cloak of Charisma +6 and Shining Mithril Brestplate +5, goes to Number 10, and gives everyone a good smiting
She's the Queen, she HAS to have some magic items!
It's probably because I'm loopy because it's 4 AM and I'm still awake, but this is the funniest post I've seen anywhere all day.
Ok Cameron need 326 for an overall majority..but the 5 Sinn Fein MPs refuse to sit so he really only needs 323 for a working majority of 1
Tories 306
Democratic Unionists(who take the Tory whip) 8
Leaving 9 seats short..
If he can't get a deal with Clegg..Cameron might have to deal with the devil and approach the Scottish and Welsh Nationalists.
The 3 SDLP and 1 Alliance MP's take the Labour whip..so a Labour/LD Coalition would need to find 4 votes for a working majority, which still means they need at least one of the Nationalist parties on board.
The one Independant MP was a Tory but now refuses to accept the whip
and who knows which way the Green Party MP will go.
In addition we still have one seat still to vote as a candidate died during the election and voting was delayed till May 27th
Strange days Petunia..strange days
...and people make fun of the Electoral College!
a Tory minority government will be doomed if Dave risks it - mainly because even though labour might not be able to assemble a majority coalition, the left-of-centre MP's outnumber the right-of-centre MP's - in essence, parliment will be parylised. first Queen Speach of budget, the parties could all band together and, in essence, force the Tory's out of office. by then Labour would have a new leader, and as the local elections have shown, it seems that Labour is popular, but brown isn't - so, as soon as they haVE that new leader, there would be a bounce, and the Tory's would have the shortest government EVER
So the opposition blocks supply (denies funds to run the government by blocking legislation), paralysing the government. The Queen then sacks the government and forces an election.
HRH (Through her representative the Governor General) has done it before, so there is precedent. 1975 Australian constitutional crisis .
For our American friends the Queen of England is also the Queen of Australia and her powers extend here and she has exercised them here before.
So the story that the monarchy does not interfere with one of her democratically elected governments is a untruth particularity in Elizabeth II's case.
|
|
HRH (Through her representative the Governor General) has done it before, so there is precedent. 1975 Australian constitutional crisis .
For our American friends the Queen of England is also the Queen of Australia and her powers extend here and she has exercised them here before.
So the story that the monarchy does not interfere with one of her democratically elected governments is a untruth particularity in Elizabeth II's case.
I read the linked article as stating that Kerr took action to dismiss the PM without direction to do so from the Queen, and the Queen later explicitly stated that she would not become involved in matters that were clearly under the remit of the Governor General. Is there backstory to this about HRH interfering that isn't present in the linked article?
a Tory minority government will be doomed if Dave risks it - mainly because even though labour might not be able to assemble a majority coalition, the left-of-centre MP's outnumber the right-of-centre MP's - in essence, parliment will be parylised. first Queen Speach of budget, the parties could all band together and, in essence, force the Tory's out of office. by then Labour would have a new leader, and as the local elections have shown, it seems that Labour is popular, but brown isn't - so, as soon as they haVE that new leader, there would be a bounce, and the Tory's would have the shortest government EVERSo the opposition blocks supply (denies funds to run the government by blocking legislation), paralysing the government. The Queen then sacks the government and forces an election.
HRH (Through her representative the Governor General) has done it before, so there is precedent. 1975 Australian constitutional crisis .
For our American friends the Queen of England is also the Queen of Australia and her powers extend here and she has exercised them here before.
So the story that the monarchy does not interfere with one of her democratically elected governments is a untruth particularity in Elizabeth II's case.
I don't see the Queen actually doing anything here this is the actions of Her Governor General which is a different thing altogether IMO as the job description for Governor Generals in the Westminster style governments is to break parliamentary deadlocks and make the system run when it has stopped doing so.
Obviously the exception is the UK itself where she rules directly and not through a Governor General as is the case of Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
...so another general election in the near future and the Pound potentially taking a beating on the financial markets as investors pull out of the country, scared by not having a government with a majority they can rely on seems likely...
Possibly but Canada has gone through three minority parliaments in 6 years and the Canadian Dollar has never been stronger. Its doubtful the Pound will do more then warble a bit in regards to parliament, its value is much more tied to the fundamentals of the UK economy as a whole then it is to a shaky parliament.
Weak parliaments often make investors happy as they have a hard time passing sweeping legislation that effects the way business is actually run. Hence, in some sense, a weak parliament means economic stability as no one has the power to change anything really controversial.
Sounds like the canadian government for the last 6 years.Yup. Actually in 04 Paul Martin got a minority parliament so if this were a perfect analogy, it would be Canadian government 4 years ago. Makes me think that Cameron may have a few extra discussions with Stephen Harper at the G8 and G20 summits this June in Huntsville (G8) and Toronto (G20) to learn to make the minority situation work.
Maybe...but I doubt the information really applies. Harper can run the Canadian government as if he had a majority (almost) simply because the electorate are tired of elections so he makes everything a confidence vote and dares the opposition to oppose the bill knowing that they can't because they don't want to be seen as bringing down the government and therefore suffer the public's ire at going to yet another election.
The Brits are still in the stage where the parties all think that if they could just have another go at this thing they could really do better. If they run it a couple of more times and come back with roughly the same result then the advice will apply because the Brits will be sick of elections and demanding that their politicians STFU and actually do their job of running the country instead of wasting the taxpayers money by constantly having elections.
Don't blame me... I voted Saxon.I voted for Harriet Jones!
- I thought Saxon was a police officer in the 70's - he associated with that corrupt Gene Hunt.
So, I'm the only one that immediately thought about 1066 instead of someone in recent times?
|
...so another general election in the near future and the Pound potentially taking a beating on the financial markets as investors pull out of the country, scared by not having a government with a majority they can rely on seems likely...
Possibly but Canada has gone through three minority parliaments in 6 years and the Canadian Dollar has never been stronger. Its doubtful the Pound will do more then warble a bit in regards to parliament, its value is much more tied to the fundamentals of the UK economy as a whole then it is to a shaky parliament.
Weak parliaments often make investors happy as they have a hard time passing sweeping legislation that effects the way business is actually run. Hence, in some sense, a weak parliament means economic stability as no one has the power to change anything really controversial.
Have any of those Canadian governments run up the huge debts (relative to national finances) which the recent UK Labour government has done though? If they have done so and the financial markets still considered the Canadian dollar worth investing in, you have a reassuring point.
I think canadas national debt is like 523 billion or something ridiculous like that.
|
|
So, I'm the only one that immediately thought about 1066 instead of someone in recent times?Don't blame me... I voted Saxon.I voted for Harriet Jones!
- I thought Saxon was a police officer in the 70's - he associated with that corrupt Gene Hunt.
The 'Saxon' reference is from the recent series of Dr Who. Link in the spoiler
Edit: Oh, and doesn't Brown look tired?
Have any of those Canadian governments run up the huge debts (relative to national finances) which the recent UK Labour government has done though? If they have done so and the financial markets still considered the Canadian dollar worth investing in, you have a reassuring point.
If the fundamentals of the British economy where bad to begin with then the Pound is in for a beating but its not the weak parliament thats the cause.
I suppose one could be in a situation where there was dire need for a major change in how the government brought in money to service debt - i.e. the government either had to cut programs or raise taxes, and there was no party strong enough to choose which could lead to the Pound taking a beating because investors believed that the weakness in the fundamentals won't be resolved.
Hopefully thats not the situation.
I read the linked article as stating that Kerr took action to dismiss the PM without direction to do so from the Queen, and the Queen later explicitly stated that she would not become involved in matters that were clearly under the remit of the Governor General. Is there backstory to this about HRH interfering that isn't present in the linked article?
The GG is the direct representative of HRH - he exercises her powers and is the instrument of the monarchy. The GG is not appointed by the people for the people but is a vestigial feudal overlord who's authority is that of the Head of State, Not the elected Prime Minister but Queen Elizabeth II.
In sacking an elected government Kerr was wielding Liz 2's power it doesn't matter that if she knew what he was up to or not. She had given him the authority to act in the manner he saw fit. The responsibility lay with the captain of the ship.
I know its a bit harsh on the Queen to lay blame at her feet, a sizable portion must go to Whitlam (even though he is one of my heroes)as he appointed Kerr and he was moving way to fast with his reforms.
Kerr on the other hand was an easily manipulated opportunist and Malcolm Fraser was a cunning bastard.
In saying that this does set a precedent should the UK government become paralysed and the Queen can force new elections should it become necessary.
|
|
In saying that this does set a precedent should the UK government become paralysed and the Queen can force new elections should it become necessary.
It's certainly an interesting parallel.
I'm of the opinion that an unelected higher body is a useful moderator of the political process. Historically, our hereditary House of Lords has been more of a force for the rights of the common man than our elected House of Commons.
Personally, I wish that the Crown would go further if the Commons became paralysed. Beyond forcing new elections, I'd like a ceremony in the Commons where each sitting MP had to pick a stone from a jar (10% black, 90% white). Pick a black stone and you are barred from standing in the new election as punishment for your part in bringing the country to a grinding halt.
|
|
In saying that this does set a precedent should the UK government become paralysed and the Queen can force new elections should it become necessary.
It's certainly an interesting parallel.
I'm of the opinion that an unelected higher body is a useful moderator of the political process. Historically, our hereditary House of Lords has been more of a force for the rights of the common man than our elected House of Commons.
Personally, I wish that the Crown would go further if the Commons became paralysed. Beyond forcing new elections, I'd like a ceremony in the Commons where each sitting MP had to pick a stone from a jar (10% black, 90% white). Pick a black stone and you are barred from standing in the new election as punishment for your part in bringing the country to a grinding halt.
Would you apply that to the voters as well? We voted for the current situation, after all.
|
|
Would you apply that to the voters as well? We voted for the current situation, after all.
Personally, I wish that the Crown would go further if the Commons became paralysed. Beyond forcing new elections, I'd like a ceremony in the Commons where each sitting MP had to pick a stone from a jar (10% black, 90% white). Pick a black stone and you are barred from standing in the new election as punishment for your part in bringing the country to a grinding halt.
Actually, we voted for far more Lib Dem MPs, but that's a limitation of first past the post.
It's possible for the MPs to negotiate and form a workable government out of this. If they choose not to, only then should the Queen use her power to intervene and (preferably) teach the squabbling brats a lesson by preventing 10% of them from standing again. I think it would prove a useful deterrent against stubbornness.
Umm, wasn't it the other unionist party Cameron made the deal with - the one which won 0 seats?
:-?I'm fairly sure that the Scottish nationalists' leader said he wouldn't support a conservative government in Westminster, because he feels that the conservatives do not speak for the people of Scotland (and that their shortage of seats in Scotland proves that).
Charles..if we saw a way to get major concessions from Westminster we'd deal with Asmodeus himself...so I guess Alex will be phoning Peter Mandelsson shortly;}
As for the Irish AFAIK the Unionists all take the Tory whip no matter what party they belong to..mainly because the nationalists all take the Labour one.
|
|
Umm, wasn't it the other unionist party Cameron made the deal with - the one which won 0 seats?
:-?I'm fairly sure that the Scottish nationalists' leader said he wouldn't support a conservative government in Westminster, because he feels that the conservatives do not speak for the people of Scotland (and that their shortage of seats in Scotland proves that).
Charles..if we saw a way to get major concessions from Westminster we'd deal with Asmodeus himself...so I guess Alex will be phoning Peter Mandelsson shortly;}
As for the Irish AFAIK the Unionists all take the Tory whip no matter what party they belong to..mainly because the nationalists all take the Labour one.
Oi, don't go libelling Asmodeus like that!
|
In saying that this does set a precedent should the UK government become paralysed and the Queen can force new elections should it become necessary.
A precedent set in the Australia is not the same as a precedent set in the United Kingdom, and that works both ways. I do not believe there is much crossover nowadays, that when something happens in Britain it can be justified in law or politics in Australia, and again that works both ways.
The problem in the United Kingdom is different to the one that Whitlam faced in 1975. I believe one of the issue is mainly about reforming the antiquated voting process in Britain to ensure hung parliaments are more commonly avoided.
Ironically if it wasn't for Scotlands overwhelming number of Labour MPs Cameron would have his majority..
So Scotland kept Labour in power last time and might keep the Tories out this time.
Please understand I'm playing Devils advocate here in no way would I sentence the English to eternal Tory rule
|
|
In saying that this does set a precedent should the UK government become paralysed and the Queen can force new elections should it become necessary.
A precedent set in the Australia is not the same as a precedent set in the United Kingdom, and that works both ways. I do not believe there is much crossover nowadays, that when something happens in Britain it can be justified in law or politics in Australia, and again that works both ways.
The problem in the United Kingdom is different to the one that Whitlam faced in 1975. I believe one of the issue is mainly about reforming the antiquated voting process in Britain to ensure hung parliaments are more commonly avoided.
Actually, hung parliaments are pretty uncommon under the current system. They'd be far more common (to the tune of pretty much always) under the PR system that most proponents of elctoral reform seem to want, but it would result in a result more refelctive of the way votes were cast across the country.
|
|
Personally I'd be relaxed about perpetual Tory rule. One of the things Cameron wants to do is make all constituencies the same size so that the socialist spongers north of the Border, whining on about how the English screw them while taking more in public spending per head than anyone else - ahem, so that the Scots don't have an excessive say in who governs Britain due to the relatively small size (in terms of population) of Scottish paliamentary constituencies.
On proportinal representation, I'm personally against it as small parties who nobody much has voted for often hold the balance of power. That seems unfair. In addition, coalition politics seems to involve stitch-ups between politicians rather than accountability for individual parties. And while the Lib-Dems bang on about fairness, is it really fair to have perpetual Lib-Dem rule because they would hold the balance of power all the time? That said, I do think that AV (but not AV+) would be perfectly acceptable, so that an MP in a constuency needs to get 50% or more of the vote, and that votes for minority parties are less wasted.