DonnyTJS Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 Actually isn;t the real constitutional issue going to be if the Tories are the largest party but can't get a government together (not sure how likely that is), and Labour could only get a majority with the help of (say) SNP, Plaid and SDLP, and then Labour would be under pressure to not try to form a government? They have already ruled out deals with SNP and already spread the assertion that it's the biggest party that forms the government. They have never answered the question of what they'd do in that scenario. Isnt that the nightmare scenario for our beloved unwritten constitution? The right wing press would have a field day. They are already making out that any arrangement with a 'nationalist' party would be toxic and illegitimate. Labour are backing themselves into a corner, because by ruling out a deal with SNP, they are in effect agreeing. Although we'd expect them to backtrack if they are the largest party (for stable govt for the good of the country) it's hard to see how they could do that if Tories were the largest party. I'm not following any of this, but from a constitutional point of view there's nothing stopping a minority government going from vote to vote without any official pacts. If the Tories are the largest (minority) party, and Labour can't form a majority coalition, then the Tories would probably be first up to attempt minority rule. It would be up to the other parties to work in concert to bring them down, if they so wished. I don't know what the details are of the 5-year fixed-term parliament law that was brought in, but I'd assume another 1974 situation where you had a minority Labour government with Liberal support (but not a coalition) holding power from February until calling another election in October when they managed a small majority. A few months of stumbling from vote to vote and then another election wouldn't surprise me. But as I say, I've not been following what any of them are saying (and they're all politicians, so none of it's worth a fat lot), I'm just going on precedent and a poor memory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally Bongo Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 I'm not following any of this, but from a constitutional point of view there's nothing stopping a minority government going from vote to vote without any official pacts. If the Tories are the largest (minority) party, and Labour can't form a majority coalition, then the Tories would probably be first up to attempt minority rule. It would be up to the other parties to work in concert to bring them down, if they so wished. I don't know what the details are of the 5-year fixed-term parliament law that was brought in, but I'd assume another 1974 situation where you had a minority Labour government with Liberal support (but not a coalition) holding power from February until calling another election in October when they managed a small majority. A few months of stumbling from vote to vote and then another election wouldn't surprise me. But as I say, I've not been following what any of them are saying (and they're all politicians, so none of it's worth a fat lot), I'm just going on precedent and a poor memory. A source today stated that Buckingham Palace have made it clear that nobody should even attempt going to see the Queen for permission to form a Government unless they have support of Parliament That to me suggest no minority Government will be allowed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumnio Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 I thought 2007 was the protest vote, them it was 2011, now it's 2015, that's one long feckin protest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonnyTJS Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 A source today stated that Buckingham Palace have made it clear that nobody should even attempt going to see the Queen for permission to form a Government unless they have support of Parliament That to me suggest no minority Government will be allowed To be honest, I'm not sure she can do that - see Feb '74. And it might be possible to get 'parliamentary support' without forming an official coalition. I don't know - whatever the case, an early follow up election would seem the most likely outcome if both main parties rule out any form of agreement with the SNP (assuming the SNP hold a significant balance). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonnyTJS Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 I thought 2007 was the protest vote, them it was 2011, now it's 2015, that's one long feckin protest. Interspersed by May 2010 and, they'd no doubt say, Sept 2014. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 A source today stated that Buckingham Palace have made it clear that nobody should even attempt going to see the Queen for permission to form a Government unless they have support of Parliament That to me suggest no minority Government will be allowed The palace ignoring the (unwritten) constitution? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 A source today stated that Buckingham Palace have made it clear that nobody should even attempt going to see the Queen for permission to form a Government unless they have support of Parliament That to me suggest no minority Government will be allowed Buck Palace and queenie will dae whit they are telt. She can't stop any party forming a minority government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 Buck Palace and queenie will dae whit they are telt. She can't stop any party forming a minority government. Correct! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonnyTJS Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 (edited) Buck Palace and queenie will dae whit they are telt. She can't stop any party forming a minority government. Provided they have some kind of understanding with sufficient other parties that parliament will let them have a crack at it. I'm thinking back to May (2010) when, for a few hours, Brown was hanging on and rumours were rife that he was considering ploughing on with a minority administration even though Cameron and Clegg had leapt into bed. It would've been the palace that told Brown to give it up. Edited April 26, 2015 by DonnyTJS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 (edited) Provided they have some kind of understanding with sufficient other parties that parliament will let them have a crack at it. I'm thinking back to May (2010) when, for a few hours, Brown was hanging on and rumours were rife that he was considering ploughing on with a minority administration even though Cameron and Clegg had leapt into bed. It would've been the palace that told Brown to give it up. That was never on the cards though. What Labour did contemplate for a few milliseconds was to try to strike their own deal with the Lib Dems which would have given them 315 seats between them. That would probably have been enough as SDLP, Plaid,Green and mibee even SNP would probably have voted with them on most things. For some reason they decided that it would be better to have a Tory government than to seriously try to cobble together a deal with other parties. Gordon Brown effectively put Cameron in No. 10. I agree Labour probably couldn't have formed a government on their own but nobody (not even the HRH) could know that for sure until they had a confidence vote in the Commons. Edited April 26, 2015 by Orraloon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stocky Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 Gordon Brown effectively put Cameron in No. 10. True they could have carried on under a 'rainbow' alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonnyTJS Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 That was never on the cards though. What Labour did contemplate for a few milliseconds was to try to strike their own deal with the Lib Dems which would have given them 315 seats between them. That would probably have been enough as SDLP, Plaid,Green and mibee even SNP would probably have voted with them on most things. For some reason they decided that it would be better to have a Tory government than to seriously try to cobble together a deal with other parties. Gordon Brown effectively put Cameron in No. 10. I agree Labour probably couldn't have formed a government on their own but nobody (not even the HRH) could know that for sure until they had a confidence vote in the Commons. Yeah. I think my memory of it has gone a bit skew-whiff. I think they were serious about a Lib-Dem deal though - didn't Brown resign as leader of the party so that the deal had a chance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exile Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 That was never on the cards though. What Labour did contemplate for a few milliseconds was to try to strike their own deal with the Lib Dems which would have given them 315 seats between them. That would probably have been enough as SDLP, Plaid,Green and mibee even SNP would probably have voted with them on most things. For some reason they decided that it would be better to have a Tory government than to seriously try to cobble together a deal with other parties. Gordon Brown effectively put Cameron in No. 10. I think the difference was that the momentum was with the Tories. Lab+LibDem+others would have been seen as a 'coalition of the losers' Remembering also that many in England felt that GB had never earned his premiership in the first place - gaining it more by stabbing Tony in the back, than putting himself before the Great British Electorate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonnyTJS Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 I think the difference was that the momentum was with the Tories. Lab+LibDem+others would have been seen as a 'coalition of the losers' Remembering also that many in England felt that GB had never earned his premiership in the first place - gaining it more by stabbing Tony in the back, than putting himself before the Great British Electorate. I agree with your first paragraph but not your second. Blair had - finally - been seen in England for the fvcker he was before Brown finally ousted him. Labour got twatted in England because of their war-mongering and economic incompetence (which is why Brown was no help as leader). And yet their vote actually increased in Scotland ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irnbruman Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 I still cant see Miliband forming a minority government or forging a pact with SNP. It is so toxic/sour down here in Englandshire. Miliband will ignore SNP , give up on Scotland with Labour and let it become an English party . Tory Lib Dem coalition once again - with SNP left out in cold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dillinger Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 (edited) Have it on good authority that Jack McConnell was pro SNP (and independence, I think) as a teenager/young man! Edited April 26, 2015 by Dillinger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flora MaDonald Posted April 26, 2015 Share Posted April 26, 2015 McConnell quoted in the Sunday Post say that that SNP surge is nothing but a 'protest movement' and an SNP victory would be a 'tragedy'. Do these people never learn? You would have thought they would have been more careful in treating the Scottish electorate with utter contempt. An absolute dinosaur. I walked by your hoose the day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.