UK Election aftermath

[Darth_Pugwash]

What if a small as party decides to forma minority government. Does it get a shot at having a queen's speech?

If the Queen invites them to form a government then yes, as far as I know, but they would need to be at the head of the biggest voting bloc in the parliament, I think.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

There is a big question as to whether the backbench Conservatives will support a CON-LIB agreement that includes real election reform.

They would be adamantly opposed to it, but they can hardly vote against their own Queen's Speech, and I don't think they'd be stupid enough to bring down their own government weeks into its term in office by voting against the legislation. This would actually be a dream anti-Tory scenario, which is why Cameron will probably brave a second election rather than give his backbenchers the opportunity to jump of that cliff.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

If the Queen invites them to form a government then yes, as far as I know, but they would need to be at the head of the biggest voting bloc in the parliament, I think.

They need to have some realistic chance of passing a Queen's speech though, otherwise the Queen should in theory call for fresh elections.

 

[Camikaze]

Whatever will ensure some decent electoral reform is probably for the best. I lean towards Conservative minority being best, because a coalition would be doomed to quick failure, and a Conservative government now is probably bad for the Tories in the long run.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Especially since the Tories already seem divided on whether it was a good campaign/should they be talking to the LibDems etc.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

Labour could decide to put a Queen's speech through with no support, if it wanted to commit political suicide. The Queen wouldn't let them either, I think.

Then the parties can have a crack in order of number of seats held (so that means the Tories).

Tories only feasible minority government candidate.

The poll options are basically all that could possibly happen.

I was getting this wrong before. Gordon Brown wouldn't be allowed to put forward a Queen's Speech unless he could go to the Queen with a reasonable chance of getting one through. If the Queen asks him if he has the votes (which she will have to do fairly soon) and he says no (one presumes he will not be permitted to lie) then he will be forced to resign, and the Queen will pop the same question to David Cameron. If Clegg has turned him down and Cameron asks for the chance to put forward his Queen's Speech anyway, the Queen will probably feel forced to give him a go, and the Lib Dems will probably not dare vote it down. Without a proper deal with the Lib Dems though, and considering the bad blood that this brinkmanship will cause, Cameron would still be looking at fresh elections pretty soon, and his term would be purely political theatre aimed at securing a majority second time around. Basically everything that happens between now and our next elections will be posturing and blame gaming, and the second campaign will be an endless succession of party leaders protesting that it's not their fault.

 

[Newbunkle]

Protestors handed Nick Clegg a petition for PR with 20,000 signatures. Nick apparently told them to "carry their message to every street in the country."

There are a lot of people counting on the Lib Dems to push for this. If they do abstain that'll be just as bad as picking a side. Lib Dems: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

 

[lithium30]

The big problem with having a second election so soon is that The Lib Dems just don't have the money for such a campaign.

Labour would also struggle to come up with the amount of money that would be required to fight against the nearly bottomless deep pockets of the Conservative backers.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

Protestors handed Nick Clegg a petition for PR with 20,000 signatures. Nick apparently told them to "carry their message to every street in the country."

There are a lot of people counting on the Lib Dems to push for this. If they do abstain that'll be just as bad as picking a side. Lib Dems: Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

They are in a really tough bind. Whatever they do, they have little chance of really securing PR, and a significant chance of being used as scapegoats in round 2. I'm beginning to think that a coalition with Labour, despite all the hostility it will inspire, might be the least dangerous option. At least they'd probably get a referrendum, although winning it would be more tough than it should be. Still easier than winning a non-existant referrendum under the Tories.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

I was getting this wrong before. Gordon Brown wouldn't be allowed to put forward a Queen's Speech unless he could go to the Queen with a reasonable chance of getting one through. If the Queen asks him if he has the votes (which she will have to do fairly soon) and he says no (one presumes he will not be permitted to lie) then he will be forced to resign, and the Queen will pop the same question to David Cameron. If Clegg has turned him down and Cameron asks for the chance to put forward his Queen's Speech anyway, the Queen will probably feel forced to give him a go, and the Lib Dems will probably not dare vote it down. Without a proper deal with the Lib Dems though, and considering the bad blood that this brinkmanship will cause, Cameron would still be looking at fresh elections pretty soon, and his term would be purely political theatre aimed at securing a majority second time around. Basically everything that happens between now and our next elections will be posturing and blame gaming, and the second campaign will be an endless succession of party leaders protesting that it's not their fault.

This seems like a pretty good analysis of the situation to me. I can't see a Con - Lib coalition happening. If Clegg sticks by his claim that the party with the most seats should get first dibs on forming a government, then the outcome will be Cameron as a flimsy PM, and probably a second election.

My preference, I guess, would be for a 'rainbow coalition' with Labour and the Lib Dems coming together and delivering a referendum on a new electoral system. Certainly that would be more ideologically reflective of the votes overall, but of course it would mean Clegg going back on his word.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I can't speak for America as a whole. But as for me, I don't even like Washington telling Missouri what to do, so I cannot imagine how insulting it would be to my beloved Mother Country to have some hick from Missouri telling their Parliament what to do!

(that said, those CCTV things....tsk tsk )

I agree with you here.

Well, of course there do need to be some laws, but, when possible, the state should handle it mostly.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Nope, Clegg just said the party with most votes & seats should get first dibs.

It's going to be very flimsy though a Lab/LibDem/Others coalition, but all it needs to do is convince the public about electoral reform and then have a new election with new rules.

It's a huge risk though.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I agree with you here.

Well, of course there do need to be some laws, but, when possible, the state should handle it mostly.

You do realise we don't have states here in the UK?

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

Nope, Clegg just said the party with most votes & seats should get first dibs.

It's going to be very flimsy though a Lab/LibDem/Others coalition, but all it needs to do is convince the public about electoral reform and then have a new election with new rules.

It's a huge risk though.

Ah, I misread Clegg's comments. I think I'm clear now.

It is a risk, but it's the best opportunity in a long time for the Libs to really push on PR, it'd be silly for them not to go for it.

 

[spryllino]

How strong is party discipline in the UK? Its a scandal here if even a single MP crosses the floor for anything. I would be interested to see a situation like what Mises suggested developing where the party rank and file vote against the leadership. Wouldn't that make coalition governments simply unviable?

To answer this, party discipline is very varied. On each bill, the whips tell the parties how imperative it is that they toe the party line. However, there are lots of bills - there was some abortion bill recently - where there is no whip at all and a very large proportion of the MPs cross the floor. Then there are one-line, two-line, and three-line whips, and, on a three-lined whip, a rebelling frontbencher can expect to lose their position. Recently, there was a vote on a referendum on the EU constitution (I think) and the Lib Dems had a three-line whip to abstain. Half the front bench was sacked.

On the other hand, backbenchers often cross the floor on lesser whips and controversial issues, and the 90-day detention bill was lost due to Labour rebels. Frank Field is iconic for very little except being a Labour rebel.


On the main point, I hope for a Labour coalition, but I expect a Tory minority government. Such a minority government would fall only if it alienated the Lib Dems. The Lib Dems cannot afford to let themselves be alienated unless the people are on their side, and so a Tory minority government would not fall unless they made a few decent gaffes.

 

[stormbind]

New election because of the chaos and thousands of uncounted votes! Heads must roll at the election commission.

Other than that, I think Labour can lead with a minority government (or coalition) because its policies will appeal to most of the smaller parties anyway. I do not want a conservative government because they lack empathy.

 

[Traitorfish]

do not want a conservative government because they lack empathy.

Also, souls.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I dunno I can name a few decent Tories.

Ken Clarke, that guy who didn't beat Cameron (David Davis? Although he had a faux pas recently IIRC). Hague isn't too bad. Portillo mellowed a lot when he got voted out. Geoffrey Howe when he made his resignation speech toppled Thatcher, respect

 

[Traitorfish]

I dunno I can name a few decent Tories.

Oh, I didn't say that they were bad people. Just that they have no feelings, souls or eyelashes. I'm not sure why the last one, but it's true. Presumably something to do with limitations on their technology of their artificial skins? I'm not sure.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Oh, they're bad people. Those were the only ones I could name who aren't 100% bad