Which is a stone cold fact. If they can't form a majority (with or without help) to gain confidence then they can't be a government. What is so hard to understand about this?
You don't need a majority to form a government - it might be unstable, it might not last - but it can be done and is perfectly acceptable - indeed both Labour and the Conservatives have operated as minority governments in the past (Callaghan for Labour and Major for the Conservatives).
However how do you think the voters would take it is the 2nd/3rd Parties ganged up when they were (by definition) less popular than the 1st, to form a government or even use wrecking practices to ensure that a minority government fell. It is for this reason we can have another election, even under fixed term governments should the government fall after a vote of no confidence.
But if the Conservatives have a majority of English seats (which is very possible) does that mean that have a right to govern England?
This is a UK election, not an English election.
Even English-only laws can have a knock-on effect in the rest of the UK. Which is why "English Votes for English Laws" has always struggled to get off the ground.
Either way, it's going to be a very unstable parliament and quite possibly a short lived one.
Fix term parliament act or not I wouldn't bet against there being another election within a year.
That has crossed my mind too.
But there are two reasons why we might just go the full five years:
Welsh assembly / Scottish parliament elections in 2016 - (as you mentioned) - Plaid Cymru and SNP will not want to be seen as the villains of the peace in Westminster.
I can't help feeling that the SNP are trying to put people off voting for Labour by saying things like this, so that the Tories get a majority. The SNP could then say that Scotland didn't vote any Tories in so they aren't being represented and should be independent.
I can't help feeling that the SNP are trying to put people off voting for Labour by saying things like this, so that the Tories get a majority. The SNP could then say that Scotland didn't vote any Tories in so they aren't being represented and should be independent.
Well they could say same about Labour as Scotland will have barely voted any Labour MPs in either this time.
You don't need a majority to form a government - it might be unstable, it might not last - but it can be done and is perfectly acceptable - indeed both Labour and the Conservatives have operated as minority governments in the past (Callaghan for Labour and Major for the Conservatives).
However how do you think the voters would take it is the 2nd/3rd Parties ganged up when they were (by definition) less popular than the 1st, to form a government or even use wrecking practices to ensure that a minority government fell. It is for this reason we can have another election, even under fixed term governments should the government fall after a vote of no confidence.
Because across the UK, more people will have voted for parties that reject Tory policy. I wouldn't be particularly pleased about the DUP being involved in government but if it comes to pass due to Cameron using them to get over the line, then that's how it is. If that was the case more people will have rejected Labour policY and then they have the right to govern.
Even English-only laws can have a knock-on effect in the rest of the UK. Which is why "English Votes for English Laws" has always struggled to get off the ground.
EVEL has "struggled to get off the ground" because Labour won't support it. They know that without their Scottish and Welsh MPs it is hard for them to get a majority of English seats.
However if the next Parliament sees policies forced onto England that the majority of English MPs oppose then there will be a predictable backlash and support for EVEL or an English Parliament would surely grow.
A government governs if it has the parliamentary backing to do so.
What would be the point of a government, if everytime they tried to introduce new laws or finance bills, the other parties voted them down ?
At the risk of repetition: there is no "right" to govern. Governments govern if they have enough support in the House of Commons. Use the word "support" not "right".
The Conservatives think that Labour is most likely to be running the country soon, alongside the SNP.
The idea is now to undermine that government, so perhaps to allow the Conservatives to return as soon as possible.
I really don't buy this argument, even of current projections from people the CON's are not far short at all from being able to form a coalition/minority government with LD+DUP, they wont give up until the exit poll shows they have reason too (which I don't think it will).
EVEL has "struggled to get off the ground" because Labour won't support it. They know that without their Scottish and Welsh MPs it is hard for them to get a majority of English seats.
However if the next Parliament sees policies forced onto England that the majority of English MPs oppose then there will be a predictable backlash and support for EVEL or an English Parliament would surely grow.
EVEL has struggled to get off the ground because the current plans are a knee-jerk reaction to the fall-out from the scottish referendum and its too significant a change to be done in a haphazard way imo
Whatever Sturgeon 'is up to' or trying to influence there is one thing for sure. It is not in the best interests of the UK as a whole. We all know what the SNP 'number' is and Sturgeon / Salmond will pursue their goal until they achieve it.
So she is saying on one hand The Tories can't be a government without a majority but Labour can
So it is fine for Labour not to win a majority and govern but not for the Tories?
How is this justified?
Unfortunately as a Conservative voter even I have to accept this is how the house works, if people are voting SNP they are obviously voting anti Tory, if there's more anti tory than tory (so if snp + Lab = more than LD + CON + DUP) then theyd have the right to govern
but if labour are in power with the SNP's support then the SNP cant argue that scotland is not being represented
That would depend. If Labour get through via SNP voting down the Queens Speech then ignore them, which is what Labour are saying they will do, they could argue they are not being represented. There is very little the SNP have to lose.
Whatever Sturgeon 'is up to' or trying to influence there is one thing for sure. It is not in the best interests of the UK as a whole. We all know what the SNP 'number' is and Sturgeon / Salmond will pursue their goal until they achieve it.
Yes but she has cast a spell over a lot of people who don't look inside and see what the SNP really want which is independence they are bedazzled by this strong woman with a message and a voice.
They forget what the SNP have stood for and campaigned for over many many years and that is quite dangerous, trusting an MP can be a dangerous thing to do as politics is about power and winning not necessarily about the good of the people.
Whatever Sturgeon 'is up to' or trying to influence there is one thing for sure. It is not in the best interests of the UK as a whole. We all know what the SNP 'number' is and Sturgeon / Salmond will pursue their goal until they achieve it.
It's odd that the SNP has been fighting battles with Labour for decades but all of a sudden they are part of an "anti-Tory majority" and are wooing Miliband to please let them be in government of a country they don't want to be part of.
Remember there is an "anti-Labour" majority in England.
That would depend. If Labour get through via SNP voting down the Queens Speech then ignore them, which is what Labour are saying they will do, they could argue they are not being represented. There is very little the SNP have to lose.
i agree to a point , but still think that given it is looking unlikely that any party will get an overall majority that labour will end up doing some sort of deal with the SNP
he cant come out and say that atm as that would almost be admitting defeat
same way the tories will say the wont do a deal with UKIP but if the handful of seats UKIP might get will make the difference i would be fairly sure they will
There is another way to look at this people in Scotland say no to Labour by voting SNP, people in England say no to Labour by giving Tories more seats and yet SNP are prepared to back a Labour.
So only Wales gets a Labour government it voted for and they are barely mentioned in all these scenarios.
Comments
She told the BBC's Newsnight that "if [the Conservatives] can't command a majority, they can't be a government".
In other words they have no right to govern.
They will have no mandate to govern. 'In other words', is an interpretation and not a fact.
To keep it simple, if Tories = 324 and Labour+SNP = 326 with the SNP are prepared to support Labour, Labour command a majority.
But if the Conservatives have a majority of English seats (which is very possible) does that mean that have a right to govern England?
Hmmmm. That's what was thinking.
You don't need a majority to form a government - it might be unstable, it might not last - but it can be done and is perfectly acceptable - indeed both Labour and the Conservatives have operated as minority governments in the past (Callaghan for Labour and Major for the Conservatives).
However how do you think the voters would take it is the 2nd/3rd Parties ganged up when they were (by definition) less popular than the 1st, to form a government or even use wrecking practices to ensure that a minority government fell. It is for this reason we can have another election, even under fixed term governments should the government fall after a vote of no confidence.
Even English-only laws can have a knock-on effect in the rest of the UK. Which is why "English Votes for English Laws" has always struggled to get off the ground.
if it was an election for an english parliament yes , however afaik it is a UK general election
That has crossed my mind too.
But there are two reasons why we might just go the full five years:
Welsh assembly / Scottish parliament elections in 2016 - (as you mentioned) - Plaid Cymru and SNP will not want to be seen as the villains of the peace in Westminster.
SNP will remember the events of 28 March 1979. And not repeat them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_vote_of_no_confidence_in_the_government_of_James_Callaghan
Well they could say same about Labour as Scotland will have barely voted any Labour MPs in either this time.
Because across the UK, more people will have voted for parties that reject Tory policy. I wouldn't be particularly pleased about the DUP being involved in government but if it comes to pass due to Cameron using them to get over the line, then that's how it is. If that was the case more people will have rejected Labour policY and then they have the right to govern.
EVEL has "struggled to get off the ground" because Labour won't support it. They know that without their Scottish and Welsh MPs it is hard for them to get a majority of English seats.
However if the next Parliament sees policies forced onto England that the majority of English MPs oppose then there will be a predictable backlash and support for EVEL or an English Parliament would surely grow.
but if labour are in power with the SNP's support then the SNP cant argue that scotland is not being represented
There is no "right to govern".
A government governs if it has the parliamentary backing to do so.
What would be the point of a government, if everytime they tried to introduce new laws or finance bills, the other parties voted them down ?
At the risk of repetition: there is no "right" to govern. Governments govern if they have enough support in the House of Commons. Use the word "support" not "right".
I really don't buy this argument, even of current projections from people the CON's are not far short at all from being able to form a coalition/minority government with LD+DUP, they wont give up until the exit poll shows they have reason too (which I don't think it will).
EVEL has struggled to get off the ground because the current plans are a knee-jerk reaction to the fall-out from the scottish referendum and its too significant a change to be done in a haphazard way imo
Unfortunately as a Conservative voter even I have to accept this is how the house works, if people are voting SNP they are obviously voting anti Tory, if there's more anti tory than tory (so if snp + Lab = more than LD + CON + DUP) then theyd have the right to govern
That would depend. If Labour get through via SNP voting down the Queens Speech then ignore them, which is what Labour are saying they will do, they could argue they are not being represented. There is very little the SNP have to lose.
Yes but she has cast a spell over a lot of people who don't look inside and see what the SNP really want which is independence they are bedazzled by this strong woman with a message and a voice.
They forget what the SNP have stood for and campaigned for over many many years and that is quite dangerous, trusting an MP can be a dangerous thing to do as politics is about power and winning not necessarily about the good of the people.
It's odd that the SNP has been fighting battles with Labour for decades but all of a sudden they are part of an "anti-Tory majority" and are wooing Miliband to please let them be in government of a country they don't want to be part of.
Remember there is an "anti-Labour" majority in England.
i agree to a point , but still think that given it is looking unlikely that any party will get an overall majority that labour will end up doing some sort of deal with the SNP
he cant come out and say that atm as that would almost be admitting defeat
same way the tories will say the wont do a deal with UKIP but if the handful of seats UKIP might get will make the difference i would be fairly sure they will
Thats what I was saying a hour ago , people can be a bit slow on her
So only Wales gets a Labour government it voted for and they are barely mentioned in all these scenarios.