h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Not quite. If there is no overall majority, the incumbent is first invited to form a government by the monarch. Brown could have accepted and tried to govern with a minority government. He chose (after some behind-the-scenes strongarming, it is alleged) not to do so. After that, the Queen asked David Cameron, as the leader of the party with the most seats, if he could form a government.

RF

Yes I would agree. But Taff is saying that constitutionally the Queen could have invited Brown to form a government as the incumbant. The thing is the Queen is only constitutionally Head of State but in reality powerless. It is *reality* that determines what happens..not any rules. And reality is the will of the people.

And somehow we still trust our politicians to accept that without stuff written down.

Long may it continue...it's about doing the honourable thing.

Okay, I'm still trying to get this straight. Here, if there is no overall majority, the party with the most seats is asked to form the government. Incumbency is irrelevant, not considered, never even imagined as something of importance.

A number of years ago we had an election in which the incumbent governing party was reduced to something like two seats. Are you suggesting that in such a situation, if no other party had an outright majority (a definite possibility here, with four major parties, five at the time of which I speak) the incumbent party, although only having two seats, would have been asked to form the Government?

sorry, got it arse about face

>Incumbency is irrelevant, not considered, never even imagined as something of importance.

Others may differ. But here, my understanding is that incumbency is only technically relevant. That's the beauty of our system IMO.

So, *technically* over there, if a governing party were reduced to two seats in a general election and no other party had an outright majority, the incumbent two members (who, of course, might have just one their first election) would be offered the Government?







If true, that's mad, even as a technicality.

NO. Technically means context.

Providing those in power don't abuse the lack of hard and fast rules..and operate in a reasonable and honourable way, it works fine.

Jesus..it's nearly half past three..

*waves* to Taff.

Goodnight all.

Couple of points here: the Tories didn't win a majority of seats in Parliament, they won a plurality. If they'd have won a majority they'd be in government alone.

>>But here, my understanding is that incumbency is only technically relevant<<

No it isn't, it's practically relevant. The Queen couldn't invite Cameron to form a government until Brown (the incumbent) had formally thrown in the towel and admitted he couldn't.

Lest anyone accuse me of pedantry, it's an important distinction in both cases. One of the reasons anhaga may have seen panic is because there was confusion over the rules and standing in such a situation - it's only happened 5 times in the history of Parliament - and mere technicalities suddenly become very, very important.

""the Tories didn't win a majority of seats in Parliament, they won a plurality. If they'd have won a majority they'd be in government alone.""

thats why i used the term, overall majority

they won the most seats(a majority) but not more than half, which is the figure required for an overall majority

I think it will be found that most members of the House of Commons also hold secret membership of the esteemed Raving Loony party.

>> So, *technically* over there, if a governing party were reduced to two seats in a general election and no other party had an outright majority, the incumbent two members (who, of course, might have just one their first election) would be offered the Government?

If true, that's mad, even as a technicality. <<

Technically, this is correct. Of course, as a working proposition, it's unlikely to succeed, and it was Brown's inability to form a workable coalition with any other group of parties that scuppered his ability to form a government. He could have gone ahead anyway, but it is likely that the first contentious piece of legislation that he attempted to pass would have resulted in a vote of no confidence, which generally triggers a new general election (although, as Effers points out, none of this is written down, so nobody *has* to).

RF

What it all boiled down to was money. Thinking through the consequences of a minority government, and another general election within a year after a vote of no confidence in the government, would have subjected the Labour party to huge costs in a worsening economic environment. They decided that they simply couldn't afford to stay in power for what would probaby have amounted to 6 months, at most a year, before facing another expensive general election campaign during a recession.

RF

Coalition of the willing/NATO actions help regime change ambitions of rebels - rebels on the move: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12869658

Coalition of the willing/NATO friendly fire regretable lead to civilian deaths in afghanistan, but caused by dastardly underhand Taliban activity in civilian areas: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12870106

Evil Baboon sentenced to death in South Africa. Officials say that the evil Baboon named Fred will be ethically euthanized:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12869928

>The Queen couldn't invite Cameron to form a government until Brown (the incumbent) had formally thrown in the towel and admitted he couldn't.

Ah so where is that written? I thought that was purely 'protocol' so only technically relavent.

>>Ah so where is that written?<<

http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/royal-prerogative.pdf

Section 6 - Annex, page 34.

Also look at the constitutional crisis in Canada last year when, at the request of Harper, QE2 prorogued Parliament and the whole Whitlam/Fraser debacle in Australia in 1975 where the sovereign's prerogative powers have been used.

Funny thing about politics grads Effers: we know a lot about politics.

and nothing else

Yes 'the Royal prerogative' not set out as a written constitution.

From page 3

'At that time the Government was not persuaded, however, that replacing prerogative powers with a statutory framework would improve the present situation..'

Not a 'statuary framework'

You seem to be arguing my case for me.

Anyone have a News story that has caught their attention today? Some topics warrent a seperate thread to thrash out

This one did. Qatar wants to build flying "artificial clouds" to help keep people in the football stadium from overheating.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/9435035.stm

I guess putting a roof on the stadium is just not enough of a challenge.