"Forming a government" in a parliamentary system

[Northern_Piper]

@penultima_thule

No, they have just won an election. The elected party members will caucus post election and reconfirm their Leadership team, usually by acclamation.

I think Chessic Sense was referring to my post 24, when I outlined when the current party leaders in the Canadian federal Parliament were elected leader.

I think this may be a difference between the party systems in Canada and Australia. The elected members of party seem to have a much stronger role in the selection and tenure of the leader in Australia, than is the case in Canada. Here, the elected members can’t remove a leader as easily as the “spill” system seems to allow in Australia.

I’ve never heard of the caucus voting to reconfirm the leader after an election. That’s a function for the party membership at the next convention.

[penultima_thule]

@Saint_Cad

So the House of Commons puts forth James Johnson as their PM candidate.

No. You have the context wrong.

We are talking post election, Parliament has been prorogued.
It will not sit until the incoming government as been determined. After all if not you don’t know that who sits on which side of the House, who nominates the Speaker who calls the House to order to begin business et al.

So the leader of the “We just won a majority party” gets an invitation from HoS to form a government. If that person isn’t obvious, or the Monarch asks Amelia Abernathy and Amelia gives assurance to the Monarch she holds the confidence of the House then she’s commissioned as PM until her authority is tested on the floor of the Parliament.

[Northern_Piper]

Prorogued or dissolved? Canadian usage is that Parliament is dissolved for an election and cannot be recalled unti after the election. Prorogation does not end the Parliament, just formally closes the session. A prorogued a Parliament can be recalled.

[penultima_thule]

Concur that “Dissolved” is the correct term I should have used.
Note that if a sitting Parliament were to pass a motion “That the HoS appoint XXXX YYYYYY as PM with immediate effect” (which demonstrates an explicit vote of confidence, but I can’t recall any specific instance of this occurring, maybe in the case of dire emergency e.g. war and forming a government of national unity?) then the HoS appoints XXXX YYYYYY. Elsewise there will be a new monarch.

[Chessic_Sense]

I thought I understood it, but now I’m confused again.

@penultima_thule

No. Not anybody. HoS offer the commission to anybody who can demonstrate that they can control a majority votes in parliament on matters of major policy and supply.

But how do they demonstrate that, if not through a vote?

No, they have just won an election. The elected party members will caucus post election and reconfirm their Leadership team, usually by acclamation.

But I learned from earlier posts that the majority leader is presumed to be the PM because they were already elected leader of the party and they haven’t been usurped by someone else. Now you’re saying there is indeed a party election after the national election to choose the leader.

No. If the incoming PM could not form a majority government before Parliament is reconvened, they would tender their resignation. HoS could then ask them to form a minority government, or ask somebody else.

This right here is why I started this thread. I don’t know what it means to form a majority government, so it’s meaningless to me to say “if X can’t do it.” I don’t know how they go about it nor how they know when they’ve done it.

No. The guy who selected them has a majority in parliament. q.e.d.

When did that happen? At what point did the Chess Party consent to the other party being in charge? When did they agree to be a part of this majority?

[Baron_Greenback]

This always happens when talking about parliamentary systems: a) people from various Commonwealth countries describe their own pretty similar but not necessarily deep down in the detail systems and, b) an American gets confused.

[penultima_thule]

@Chessic_Sense

When did that happen? At what point did the Chess Party consent to the other party being in charge?

When the leader of the Chess Party conceded the election.

[Baron_Greenback]

@Baron_Greenback

This always happens when talking about parliamentary systems: a) people from various Commonwealth countries describe their own pretty similar but not necessarily deep down in the detail systems and, b) an American gets confused.

Understandably confused, I hasten to add.

[penultima_thule]

@Chessic_Sense

But how do they demonstrate that, if not through a vote?

They advise the HoS that in the say 500 seat executive House of parliament that they have won say 300 seats and have a working majority and the previous Prime Minister or Opposition Leader conceding defeat in the election.

[Northern_Piper]

@Chessic_Sense

I thought I understood it, but now I’m confused again.
…
But how do they demonstrate that, if not through a vote?

Party discipline is much stronger in parliamentary systems than it is in the US system. If you stand for election for the Blue Party, and get elected, it’s pretty much guaranteed that you will support the Blue leader in the Commons.

So if on election night the Blues win a majority in the Commons, then the leader of the Blues will be the PM. There’s no need for a vote in the Commons. The leaders of the Red Party and the Chess Party will concede on election night, and the leader of the Blues will start forming a government : i.e., will decide which Blue Party MPs will be in Cabinet.

But I learned from earlier posts that the majority leader is presumed to be the PM because they were already elected leader of the party and they haven’t been usurped by someone else. Now you’re saying there is indeed a party election after the national election to choose the leader.

I don’t get that either. That doesn’t happen in Canada. It may be something unique to Australia.

This right here is why I started this thread. I don’t know what it means to form a majority government, so it’s meaningless to me to say “if X can’t do it.” I don’t know how they go about it nor how they know when they’ve done it.

On election night, if the Blues win a majority in the Commons, defeating the Reds, then the leader of the Reds will concede, because he knows he doesn’t have a majority and can’t form a government. The leader of the Blues will put together his cabinet list and the Crown will approve it, formally creating the new government.

When did that happen? At what point did the Chess Party consent to the other party being in charge? When did they agree to be a part of this majority?

If the Blues win a majority in the election, the leaders of the Reds and the Chess Party will concede on election night and the leader of the Blues will form a government, composed solely of Blue MPs.

If no party wins a majority, then it’s deal-making time. Suppose the Blues and the Reds have roughly the same number of seats in the Commons, and the Chess Party came in third.

The Chess Party holds the balance of power and probably right away on election night, the Blue leader and the Red leader will start making overtures to the leader of the Chess Party to see if they can reach a deal.

There are no specific constitutional or legal rules that govern that political deal-making. Both the big parties are trying to get Chess to support them on confidence and budget matters, while Chess is trying to get either of the big parties to implement some of the policies that are most important to the Chess Party.

Sooner or later, one of the two big parties will be able to reach a deal with Chess and will announce it. They may need to win a confidence vote in the House to be able to form the government, or it may be that the other big party will just concede.

[Banksiaman]

@penultima_thule

They advise the HoS that in the say 500 seat executive House of parliament that they have won say 300 seats and have a working majority and the previous Prime Minister or Opposition Leader conceding defeat in the election.

Even if the Democratic Chess Party were the majority party with 300 members before the election and Charlie Chess was Prime Minister, once the election is over, it is common that all party positions and ministerial portfolios are vacated and re-filled.

If Charlie Chess did well, and the party gained votes or didn’t lose many he may be re-elected unopposed with the party leader position unopposed. But, if it was a drubbing Charlie Chess may be seem as an electoral liability and fight off a challenge from the right-wing favourite Peter Potato. That is a party matter only, and nothing to do with the parliament. If it was a total bath then Charlie Chess would need to fall on his sword voluntarily, rather than have disgruntled Potato faction members calling for his resignation.

If Democratic Chess Party got 240 votes, ie not a simple majority then newly elected party leader Potato, along with the main opposition party, the Socialist Jenga Alliance with 230 seats would both be going all out to woo minor parties. If I was the leader of the tiny Green party, with 21 members, I be in a good position because my support in a coalition or agreement would give either party a majority. Even peter Potato , who previously called the Greens ‘Satan’s communistic bastard children’ would promise to be their new special best friend.

After a feverish few weeks, with Peter Potato serenading the Greens, he [they] go to the Head of State and say ‘we’ve got a workable majority government, and here’s some letters to provide it’. Head of State says okay, you can be prime minister, but the first test as to whether the coalition holds will be when parliament resumes. Then the Chess-Green Coalition has to demonstrate it has the party discipline to vote as a bloc [this seems to be also something baffling and alien to US voters].

I’ll stop now - I’m having far too much fun making up silly names, but hopefully it clarifies the idea of how a majority is created.

[TokyoBayer]

@Saint_Cad

But this is why we always talk in circles on this. Americans talk about what the monarch legally can do and the Brits talk about what the monarch politically can do as if they’re the same thing.

My bolding. It’s not just the “Brits” of course. ** Northern Piper** is Canadian and there are many posters from other countries also contributing to this. I’m American, but lived in Japan for 25 years.

Chessic Sense gave the following analogy

For instance, in the US, a person might win the electoral votes necessary for the presidency, but then lose in the electoral college. It’s won’t happen, but it could happen, and if it did, the election results would be irrelevant. That dark horse candidate would be the POTUS, no arguments about it. So the official way a person becomes POTUS is to win in the Electoral College and be sworn into office, presumably by the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS.

It’s simply not going to happen, but it’s possible. I think that one reason people don’t like the frequent hijacks in threads about constitutional monarchies is that it would get really tiresome if someone continued to insert that hypothetical in every single discussion about elections.

There are billions of hypotheticals which are theoretically possible. What if we had a presidential election in the United States, and only one person voted in only one state? OK, what about two people? Three? Four?

What if the Chief Justice of SCOTUS refused to swear in the new president? What if all of the justices also refused? What if every single judge in the nation refused? Who would be the president then? Well?

Some people may get really excited about discussing that, but most people really don’t care about such unlikely events, and really, to some degree it doesn’t matter. It would be annoying if someone kept inserting gottas into other threads.

[TokyoBayer]

@Northern_Piper

So if on election night the Blues win a majority in the Commons, then the leader of the Blues will be the PM. There’s no need for a vote in the Commons. The leaders of the Red Party and the Chess Party will concede on election night, and the leader of the Blues will start forming a government : i.e., will decide which Blue Party MPs will be in Cabinet.

As a legacy of WWII, Japan does not allow the Emperor to have any possibility of say in the matter, so constitutionally, the selection of PM is done by formal vote in the Diet. There are two houses, and they each vote. If they cannot agree one one candidate the one elected by the House of Representatives become PM.

[Saint_Cad]

@TokyoBayer

Some people may get really excited about discussing that, but most people really don’t care about such unlikely events, and really, to some degree it doesn’t matter. It would be annoying if someone kept inserting gottas into other threads.

In all fairness, if action A is legal but highly unlikely, that does not make action A illegal. THAT is why we go around on these things. If you notice Malden Capell gave the answer that would have nipped this discussion in the bud.

Here’s an example that is more US-centered. Suppose someone asks how the Speaker of the House is elected and a lot is made about how the House majority-party votes on elected Representatives from their party until one gets a majority.
I point out that legally it doesn’t have to be an elected Representative, the House member can vote for anybody.
The responses similar to the ones we see here is that it is implicitly NOT legal because it would never happen because the House member would be committing political suicide.

Today I read an interesting article from University College London. A lot will read it and say, “See it’s exactly what we said.” but there is one point the paper makes that is the perfect answer to the question, “Can the Monarch legally use their reserve powers?”

The Queen might still have to exercise discretion in very exceptional circumstances: for example, if the Prime Minister suddenly dies. So the monarch remains the ultimate constitutional longstop.

[penultima_thule]

@Banksiaman

I’ll stop now - I’m having far too much fun making up silly names.

But doing a bloody good job of the main task while you’re at it!

[PatrickLondon]

@Saint_Cad

Really? Not doubting you but I thought there was a statutory minimum time between elections and if there was no majority/coalition then as Tim Gunn would say, “Make it work.”

The Fixed Term Parliaments Act provides for early general elections if there is a two-thirds majority in the Commons for an early general election, or a vote of no confidence in the government (which in the case you posit would be the outgoing government, which continues in office until a new one is formed), and if there is no positive vote of confidence on any alternative government within 14 days.

If there is a complete logjam in negotiations, then “Make it work” has to mean either letting the outgoing government hobble on, or forming some other sort of spatchcocked government, or agreeing to early elections.

[PatrickLondon]

@Saint_Cad

** And we are all agreed that 99.99999% of the time it would be political suicide and may result in the removal of the Monarch but let’s take the Lord Halifax/Winston Churchill in 1940 scenario remembering Halifax was a believer in appeasement. Assume Edward VIII was still king. I don’t think that it is outside the realm of possibility given Edward VIII’s personality that he would have offered the commission to Halifax even if Churchill was the candidate put forward by the HOC.

Given the processes involved and what actually happened (the Chief Whip got Halifax and Churchill together and asked them what they thought; Churchill said nothing, and eventually, to break the silence, Halifax said he thought it would be difficult to have a Prime Minister in the House of Lords, and that was that), unlikely that Edward would have been in a position to do any such thing without completely overstepping the conventional boundaries. More likely that he would have overstepped the mark more than once beforehand in the run-up to the war, in making inept attempts to intervene in foreign policy.

But that’s a footnote to a footnote.

[Northern_Piper]

@penultima_thule

Being an American your fixation and intractable logic is: “If it is not against the law, then it is legal”.

This is the nub of the point. It is not possible to discuss the constitutional role of Her Majesty by focussing solely on the law. Constitutional conventions are a crucial part of the constitutions of the UK, Canada and Australia. The constitutional conventions place constitutional restrictions on Her Majesty’s exercise of her legal powers, and it is a fundamental mistake to discuss her role while ignoring the constitutional conventions.

This key aspect of our system was set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Patriation Reference, when it held that a proposed action by the federal government would be legal, but unconstitutional.

[PatrickLondon]

One more footnote: the concept of “conceding defeat” in an election isn’t particularly relevant in the UK (although more recently, the media seem to be trying to make a stage-managed drama about it). In each constituency, the ballot boxes are collected to a central counting place, and the results are finalised usually between midnight and 2am; some rural and sparsely-populated constituencies delay the count until the next morning. Once or twice in my lifetime, those delayed counts, or recounts in marginal constituencies, have made the difference , but usually enough results have been announced overnight for the overall result to be clear before breakfast time. There’s no need to “concede” defeat. Either the government is turfed out, or it isn’t - or if there’s no clear majority, there are negotiations after everyone’s caught up with their sleep.

[UDS]

@PatrickLondon

One more footnote: the concept of “conceding defeat” in an election isn’t particularly relevant in the UK (although more recently, the media seem to be trying to make a stage-managed drama about it). In each constituency, the ballot boxes are collected to a central counting place, and the results are finalised usually between midnight and 2am; some rural and sparsely-populated constituencies delay the count until the next morning. Once or twice in my lifetime, those delayed counts, or recounts in marginal constituencies, have made the difference , but usually enough results have been announced overnight for the overall result to be clear before breakfast time. There’s no need to “concede” defeat. Either the government is turfed out, or it isn’t - or if there’s no clear majority, there are negotiations after everyone’s caught up with their sleep.

There’s no need to “concede defeat” in a press conference, but in the UK the outgoing Prime Minister, if defeated, does need to recognise the fact by tendering his resignation to the monarch and advising her to send for the leader of the (now-victorious) opposition.

If the election outcome is uncertain and the outgoing PM believes he can form a government by making a deal to secure the support of one or more minor parties then he doesn’t offer his resignation to the monarch.