The great TP election thread

Steve Smith said:
And if it was the other way round with Labour winning the most seats, but Conservatives taking power with a number of other parties, would you still question the validity of the government?


Steve.
Click to expand...

As I pointed out happened in 1955...
 
The relevant part of the Cabinet Manual on the event of "Parliaments with no overall majority in the House of Commons "

Where an election does not result in an overall majority for a single party, the incumbent government remains in office unless and until the Prime Minister tenders his or her resignation and the Government’s resignation to the Sovereign. An incumbent government is entitled to wait until the new Parliament has met to see if it can command the confidence of the House of Commons, but is expected to resign if it becomes clear that it is unlikely to be able to command that confidence and there is a clear alternative.

Where a range of different administrations could potentially be formed, political parties may wish to hold discussions to establish who is best able to commandthe confidence of the House of Commons and should form the next government. The Sovereign would not expect to become involved in any negotiations, although there are responsibilities on those involved in the process to keep the Palace informed. This could be done by political parties or the Cabinet Secretary. The Principal Private Secretary to the Prime Minister may also have a role, for example, in communicating with the Palace.
Click to expand...
 
tarric said:
It's great the way Scotland is an important and integral part of the United Kingdom right up until they decide that they may? democratically elect a large number of SNP MP's and then it's just








nice to be loved and wanted.
Click to expand...
If you are a Scot then you are. But the rest of the UK gets a raw deal compared to you lot and if the SNP get in that will get a lot worse. If we didn't love you we wouldn't have fought so hard to keep you ;)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Raptor Mike said:
If you are a Scot then you are. But the rest of the UK gets a raw deal compared to you lot and if the SNP get in that will get a lot worse.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, I think that parts of England would would benefit from a bit of SNP influence in government. The North East, for example might eventually see some real progress on transport routes in the region, something the current bunch has pretended to consider on a number of occasions, held a press conference and then disappeared southwards at a rate of knots with no real improvements made. Like the proposed dualling of the A1 which has been announced a number of times since around 1992.
 
Dave1 said:
Not necessarily, I think that parts of England would would benefit from a bit of SNP influence in government. The North East, for example might eventually see some real progress on transport routes in the region, something the current bunch has pretended to consider on a number of occasions, held a press conference and then disappeared southwards at a rate of knots with no real improvements made. Like the proposed dualling of the A1 which has been announced a number of times since around 1992.
Click to expand...
I live in the South West. IMHO the north has loads of transport routes. Check out ours. But I get your point.
 
My problem with multiple parties forming a government is the sheer amount of interparty bitch fighting concentrating more on what's good for their own agendas at the expense of what's good for the country.
 
Raptor Mike said:
I live in the South West. IMHO the north has loads of transport routes. Check out ours. But I get your point.
Click to expand...

South West? Yes, you have similar issues, outside the Tory heartland around the South East there has been a chronic dearth of transport infrastructure programs.

A less London/Home Counties-centric government would be a good thing (at least IMO, at for my region).

Just to add, you mention the North, in Tory terms "the north" is the Manchester/Liverpool conurbation. The North East is simply some post industrial grim wasteland, worthy of only the bare minimum to keep things functioning.
 
Last edited:
Dave1 said:
The North East is simply some post industrial grim wasteland, worthy of only the bare minimum to keep things functioning.
Click to expand...

And your point is? ;) :LOL:
 
viv1969 said:
My problem with multiple parties forming a government is the sheer amount of interparty bitch fighting concentrating more on what's good for their own agendas at the expense of what's good for the country.
Click to expand...

I think, for me at least, one of the reasons the Lib Dems appeal much less than they did, apart from broken promises, is the selling out to keep himself `in power`.
Good old Nick has said he'll be happy to work alongside whoever wins.

+ why was it needed to actually promote him to deputy prime minister after the last election? Vanity springs to mind.

The Cons & Libs can't slag each other off enough at present, yet they led us to believe they had a fairly good partnership.
 
Last edited:
OldCarlos said:
I think, for me at least, one of the reasons the Lib Dems appeal much less than they did, apart from broken promises, is the selling out to keep himself `in power`.
Good old Nick has said he'll be happy to work alongside whoever wins.
Click to expand...

You could almost say the Lib Dems are the prostitutes of UK politics. They will get into bed with anyone if the price is right, morals be damned.
 
Llamaman said:
And? They've still got not got a majority, so cannot pass any bills.

If one party got 40% of the seats, and two other parties each got 30%, the 40% party should form a minority government and be unable to pass any bills for 5 years? As opposed to having a coalition representing 60% of the electorate? How does that make any sense to you? We're electing a government, not choosing goal of the month.
Click to expand...
A ballot paper gives you one vote, not pick two or three. If one party has a majority by just 1 seat over the next then they should be allowed to govern on their own, not be over turned by two other parties that by rights never made it, because they didn't win enough seats on their own.
 
Dave1 said:
You could almost say the Lib Dems are the prostitutes of UK politics. They will get into bed with anyone if the price is right, morals be damned.
Click to expand...

Ha. Suppose that's a fair description!
(mind you there will no doubt be other `parties of the night` by Friday :rolleyes: )
 
OldCarlos said:
The Cons & Libs can't slag each other off enough at present, yet they led us to believe they had a fairly good partnership.
Click to expand...

That's the thing the Lib Dems don't seem to be able to admit to themselves, everyone saw them working with the Tories for five years, giving up their 'principles' for a chance at power. They're going to take a beating in this election, not just in Scotland but UK wide because of it. They may recover in time but for now they have less credibility than the Monster Raving Loony Party.
 
Steep said:
That's the thing the Lib Dems don't seem to be able to admit to themselves, everyone saw them working with the Tories for five years, giving up their 'principles' for a chance at power. They're going to take a beating in this election, not just in Scotland but UK wide because of it. They may recover in time but for now they have less credibility than the Monster Raving Loony Party.
Click to expand...

Agree with that 100% (& I'm not so sure they'll recover in my life time)

Before the whole side show started 6 weeks ago, I reckoned they'd be well beaten into 4th place.
 
nilagin said:
A ballot paper gives you one vote, not pick two or three. If one party has a majority by just 1 seat over the next then they should be allowed to govern on their own, not be over turned by two other parties that by rights never made it, because they didn't win enough seats on their own.
Click to expand...

Except those 2 parties with slightly less seats individually between them represent more of the population than the single party with 1 more seat.

If the 2 parties have a similar outlook in general, it can lead to a fair coalition (arguably like Labour and the SNP if you leave out Scottish independence and Trident).
 
OldCarlos said:
I think, for me at least, one of the reasons the Lib Dems appeal much less than they did, apart from broken promises, is the selling out to keep himself `in power`.
Good old Nick has said he'll be happy to work alongside whoever wins.

+ why was it needed to actually promote him to deputy prime minister after the last election? Vanity springs to mind.

The Cons & Libs can't slag each other off enough at present, yet they led us to believe they had a fairly good partnership.
Click to expand...

Depends how you look at, it and I am playing devil's advocate a bit, but in coalition they actually have a real chance of affecting some change - they of course have to compromise if they do this, but maybe that is better than being on the sidelines influence nothing at all.
 
Last edited:
Dave1 said:
South West? Yes, you have similar issues, outside the Tory heartland around the South East there has been a chronic dearth of transport infrastructure programs.

A less London/Home Counties-centric government would be a good thing (at least IMO, at for my region).

Just to add, you mention the North, in Tory terms "the north" is the Manchester/Liverpool conurbation. The North East is simply some post industrial grim wasteland, worthy of only the bare minimum to keep things functioning.
Click to expand...
A map of the current seats held. London looks somewhat Labour orientated to me whilst Tory seats are spread over quite a bit of the UK. If you feel your area isn't represented and afforded a fair deal perhaps you should have voted Tory. ;)
 
Don't necessarily disagree with that AI, but did Nick HAVE to be promoted to deputy. They could have voted for or against proposals anyway. I just think they are too much in it for themselves (as are most of the others too) especially when he said the other day, they'll work with whoever wins. They'll be up the ar5es of the SNP & Greens next week. :LOL:
 
nilagin said:
If you feel your area isn't represented and afforded a fair deal perhaps you should have voted Tory. ;)
Click to expand...

The only political party that might win the seat from Labour in my constituency would be if Vladimir Putin came to town and ran the election his 'special' way ;).
 
Dave1 said:
Except those 2 parties with slightly less seats individually between them represent more of the population than the single party with 1 more seat.
Click to expand...
Shouldn't matter, the population only gets one vote each for an individual party. A winner should be allowed to be a winner and the losers remain losers.
 
nilagin said:
Shouldn't matter, the population only gets one vote each for an individual party. A winner should be allowed to be a winner and the losers remain losers.
Click to expand...

Strictly FPTP agrees with you, but in the present UK situation we might end up with Party A getting 34%, Party B getting 33% and Party C getting 18%.

Why should Party A be entitled to rule when B+C (who have similar policies and agree a coalition) have 51% of the vote?

Just from a common sense perspective?
 
Last edited:
Llamaman said:
I'm increasingly coming round to the idea of a federalised UK, with regional governments not just for Wales, Scotland and NI, but also for England - perhaps divided into NE,NW, Midlands & Anglia, SW, SE, and London.
Click to expand...
Just one teensy weensy problem with that, which is that in most parts of the country there's very little appetite for regional governments...
 
nilagin said:
Shouldn't matter, the population only gets one vote each for an individual party. A winner should be allowed to be a winner and the losers remain losers.
Click to expand...
And how would that work out at first division bell? Oh right, it wouldn't.
 
StewartR said:
Just one teensy weensy problem with that, which is that in most parts of the country there's very little appetite for regional governments...
Click to expand...
Really? I hear nothing but moaning about how London-centric parliament is.
 
nilagin said:
A ballot paper gives you one vote, not pick two or three. If one party has a majority by just 1 seat over the next then they should be allowed to govern on their own, not be over turned by two other parties that by rights never made it, because they didn't win enough seats on their own.
Click to expand...

Thing is it's not about winning a medal or a bag of sweets, it's about governing the nation and fptp doesn't give the majority of voters the government they voted for when there's more than two parties.
 
Dave1 said:
South West? Yes, you have similar issues, outside the Tory heartland around the South East there has been a chronic dearth of transport infrastructure programs.
Click to expand...

It's outside the Labour heartland too. It was actually the Blair government that cancelled the planned widening of the M5 south of the M4 in 1997 and a decade or so later realised "oh bum, it's a bit of disaster around there, why hasn't anyone done anything about it?" and re-instated the work they had cancelled. I used the M5 around there every day at the time, I well remember all that work being cancelled. I just had to look out the window on a Saturday morning to see the disaster that the southbound traffic was. But they knew better and the work wasn't needed. Except it was. Finally in the last couple of years the section aroud Bristol has become "managed motorway" which has done quite a lot to improve traffic flow at busy periods.

Go futher south and the north coast of Devon. The A39, a really fun road to drive in a nice car, but single carriageway and not set up for any volume of traffic. Further still and the A30 still has a single carriageway bottlenck approaching Bodmin. etc. etc.
 
Last edited:
I'm no expert at the south west transport network, but it sounds like up here, the A1 has had an announcement just before every election since 1992, Cameron was up here earlier this year making that promise again.

My original point was that with SNP influence in Westminster we might just see some actual work in the region rather than just empty promises.
 
Steep said:
Thing is it's not about winning a medal or a bag of sweets, it's about governing the nation and fptp doesn't give the majority of voters the government they voted for when there's more than two parties.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter. A winner is a winner. A second place and an also ran doesn't make a winner. If the parties want to join up before the vote and their votes count as one, fair enough. Just because the majority of the country votes for two other parties, it doesn't follow that if those two parties take control, the majority of the voting population got what they voted for because each person only voted for one party not two.
Each constituency is won by a single party, not two losers joining up afterwards, why should the final outcome be any different.
 
Why should a party who got fewer than 50% of the votes get to be in government? They would not be representative of the population.

The days of it being a contest between two main parties are over. We are on our way towards proportional representation.


Steve.
 
nilagin said:
Doesn't matter. A winner is a winner. A second place and an also ran doesn't make a winner. If the parties want to join up before the vote and their votes count as one, fair enough. Just because the majority of the country votes for two other parties, it doesn't follow that if those two parties take control, the majority of the voting population got what they voted for because each person only voted for one party not two.
Each constituency is won by a single party, not two losers joining up afterwards, why should the final outcome be any different.
Click to expand...
You haven't thought this through, have you? How would a minority government pass any bills?

A coalition representing 60% of votes cast is more representative of the ballot than a single party of 40%.
 
nilagin said:
A ballot paper gives you one vote, not pick two or three. If one party has a majority by just 1 seat over the next then they should be allowed to govern on their own, not be over turned by two other parties that by rights never made it, because they didn't win enough seats on their own.
Click to expand...


Then they don't have a majority in that situation
 
Llamaman said:
You haven't thought this through, have you? How would a minority government pass any bills?

A coalition representing 60% of votes cast is more representative of the ballot than a single party of 40%.
Click to expand...

The spin in the papers is working and already convincing people that a majority coalition is invalid.

Nilagin, let's show why your reasoning doesn't work. Let's say there are 15 parties with a roughly equal split. The party with the most votes gets 10% of the votes. The other 14 parties openly say they will work together as they have similar policies. Your reasoning means that the party with 10% of the vote gets to govern. Clearly nonsense.
 
Ignore what I wrote here. I'm a muppet.
 
Last edited:
Steep said:
That's the thing the Lib Dems don't seem to be able to admit to themselves, everyone saw them working with the Tories for five years, giving up their 'principles' for a chance at power.
Click to expand...
I don't see it that way. The only workable coalition was Con+Lib. So they faced two choices - form a government or let a minority Tory one struggle on for 6 months before dragging us back to the polls to have another go. Given the state the global economy was in at the time, I think they did the right thing - having a stable coalition locked in for 5 years will have helped stabilised the markets and prevented the UK's credit rating taking a nosedive. They've also succeeded in getting some of their policies implemented, which is more than they could have achieved carping from the opposition benches.
 
nilagin said:
Doesn't matter. A winner is a winner. A second place and an also ran doesn't make a winner. If the parties want to join up before the vote and their votes count as one, fair enough. Just because the majority of the country votes for two other parties, it doesn't follow that if those two parties take control, the majority of the voting population got what they voted for because each person only voted for one party not two.
Each constituency is won by a single party, not two losers joining up afterwards, why should the final outcome be any different.
Click to expand...

And in case our arguments don't convince, here it is in black and white from

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections-and-voting/general/hung-parliament/http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/elections-and-voting/general/hung-parliament/
What happens in a hung Parliament?
The previous government might remain in position whilst there is a period of negotiation to build a coalition, or they might decide to try and govern with a minority of Members of Parliament.

If the incumbent government is unable to command a majority and decides to resign, the leader of the largest opposition party may be invited to form a government and may do so either as a minority or in coalition with another party or parties.

Does the party with the most seats form a Government?
In order to form a Government, a party must be able to command a majority in the House of Commons on votes of confidence and supply. This majority can include support from other political parties, whether or not there is a formal coalition arrangement.

In a situation of no overall control the Government in power before the General Election gets the first chance at creating a government. If they cannot do so, the Prime Minister will resign.

Does the Prime Minister have to resign?
The Prime Minister only has to resign if it is clear that they cannot command a majority of the House of Commons on votes of confidence or supply. This would be the case if the incumbent government fails to make a deal with one or more of the other parties, or if they lose a confidence motion in the House of Commons. The first parliamentary test would be the vote on any amendment to the Queen’s Speech
Click to expand...
 
Llamaman said:
If Con+Lib can get over the line (seems unlikely, but there is always a swing to the incumbent on polling day), then that's what we'll get - even if Lab+SNP would have a bigger majority. To me, that seems wrong, but that's how the system works.
Click to expand...
No, it's not how the system works. If Con+Lib can get over the line, then by definition Lab+SNP wouldn't have a bigger majority.
 
StewartR said:
No, it's not how the system works. If Con+Lib can get over the line, then by definition Lab+SNP wouldn't have a bigger majority.
Click to expand...
You're quite right. I had a 'brain fade' moment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top