I’m an American so we run things differently. But my understanding is that in a Parliamentary government, the current government (the majority party) stays in power until there’s a regularly scheduled election or when they feel they can call an early election because they think they’ll win it or when they lose a vote of no-confidence and are forced to call an early election.
Now I can see the first two but how does the third option work? The reason the current government is in power is because it had the majority of seats. So how can it lose a vote of no confidence unless members of its own party votes against it? And even if they’re not enthused with the current Prime Minister, it seems unlikely there would be very many MP’s of the PM’s party who would be willing to vote against him. They wouldn’t just be throwing out the PM - they’re also going to lose their party’s support, have to face a general election which the other party most likely will win, and run a strong risk of losing their own seat.
Because there sometimes IS no majority party, for one scenario. If the government is made up of a coalition, and the minority party of the coalition is finding itself seriously irked by the majority party’s PM, they could pull out of the coalition and initiate a vote of no-confidence. Also, if a PM is of a Nixonian nature, his own party could very well want him gone, preferring to get rid of the black hole of corruption and risk a new election rather than continue clinging to him and almost guarantee their defeat in the next election.
The reason they are in power isn’t because they have a majority of seats. It is just that having an absolute majority means they can be assured of never losing a vote of no confidence.
After an election the leader of a party will approach the Monach, or equivalent, and assutre them that they have the confidence of the parliament. If the Monarch feels that this is the case, they will invite this person to form a government. If at any time it is demonstrated that the party in government no longer has the confidence of the parliament, the Monarch is required to review things. At the moment at least Australia and The UK are governed by parties that do not have a majority. They were invited to form a government, and retain government, because they have demonstrated that they will not lose a vote of no confidence. In the UK, the Conservatives rule with the support of the Liberals, in Australia the Labour party rule with the support of a number of independents plus the Greens. In Oz, the independents and the Greens have undertaken that they will not support a vote of no confidence that they themselves have not proposed. Thus it is very unlikely that the incumbent government will fail. Unlikely at least for now.
There is not really a need for the Monarch to call an early election if a vote of no confidence passes. They have the option of asking the opposition party whether they can form a government that has the confidence of the parliament. Simple political reality would usually suggest that the opposition will not be able to do so and that the only option the Monarch has in order to be able to form a government is to call an election. However there are interesting middle grounds in here.
In 1975 the Governer General dismissed the incumbent Labour government, and called elections. However there is still a need for a government with executive powers, so there is a caretaker mode for the government before the election is finished. Usually the incumbent government stays in power, but has specifically restrained powers during this time. In 1975 the opposition party - which did not have a majority in the lower house was appointed into the caretaker role.
A member of the governing party would be signing their own death warrant to vote for a no confidence motion. But the critical thing about the Westminser system is that it has a role for independent and minor parties. Indeed historically this has been the case more than now. For US residents it seems a bit odd, as the system has been so fully dominated by a two party machine that it is hard to imagine more than two sides.
Exactly, in many(most even?) countries there are more than two parties(here in Sweden we currently got eight) in the parliament, for one party to have a majority is pretty rare and governments are usually formed through coalitions or when one of the larger parties can convince some of the smaller ones to support it.
The thing about the Westminster system is that this doesn’t matter. If they have a Nixon in charge they simply sack him. John Major replaced Maggie Thatcher whilst she was PM. Paul Keating replaced Bob Hawke whilst he was PM, and Juila Gillard replaced Kevin Rudd whilst he was the PM. Being PM is a position appointed by the members of the party in the parliament. It isn’t an elected position. Most importantly, history shows that each time the new PM led their party to victory in the next election.
Not every government holds a majority of seats. The breakdown of seats might be 42%, 27%, 18%, and 13% for four parties. The party with the most seats gets the first crack at forming the government, which in this case would be a minority government. When the ruling party then proposes legislation, they need to get at least one of the other parties to support them, which usually happens (though they may have to compromise a bit to get this support). The other three parties have a total of more votes than the ruling party, so they can pass a vote of non-confidence if they have good reason to, even if the ruling party votes against it.
Actually I suspect I should say something a little more precise. PM isn’t an elected position. PM is the person invited to form a government. When one of the incumbent PM’s was rolled by their party, they found themselves in the position where they, indeed, didn’t have the confidence of the parliament. Their own party had withdrawn confidence. This doesn’t require a formal motion. What then happens is that the newly elected leader of the party in the parliament goes to the Monarch and puts their case - that the previous PM no longer has the confidence, and that they do. So they get appointed PM. In a more robust multi-party parliament a realignment of a number minor parties could result in the leader of a different party becoming the agreed person, and they would then form a government that might contain a different mix of parties, which may or may not include the party of the previous PM.
One hears the idea that a two party system “ensures stability” from members of the two major parties. I have a feeling that the pendulum is swinging back, and people in many historically two party countries are realising that the only stability that came was assured jobs for long term politicians.
It’s pretty rare for a government to lose a confidence vote in the Westminster system,
(1) Because party loyalty is pretty strong, especially compared to the U.S. congressional system, and
(2) Because the PM (and his/her number counters, e.g., the party whips) sees it coming, and does something to avert it, e.g., concede on an issue, resign as party leader (and hence as PM), or call a general election.
One case where a confidence vote was lost in the lower house was in the Australian House of Representatives. Arthur Fadden was PM of Australia for about 40 days in 1941, as the leader of the minority party in a coalition, with the support of 2 independent members. His tenure ended when he lost the support of the independents, and hence lost a confidence vote in the house.
(Normally you’d have a general election at that point, but Australia was at war with Germany, so the leader of the opposition, John Curtin, with the support of the independents was commissioned as PM.)
There can also be cases where a single party has a majority of seats, but the truth is that the party itself is made of of several factions who aren’t united today as much as they used to be, and the party falls apart and loses confidence in itself.
Yes and no. There’s a maximum length of time that a government can serve, and then there has to be an election, but the government in power can end the parliamentary session and call a new election at any time if they think there’s political advantage (like transforming a minority government into a majority). This is more or less what happened in the last Canadian federal election: the Conservative minority government was dissolved, there was an election, and the Conservatives now have a majority.
ETA: the advantage of not having regularly-scheduled elections is that it reduces permanent pre-planned election campaigning. If you don’t know when the next election is, you may actually need to settle down and do parliamentary work…
Kind of. There has to be one every so often (Canada is 5 years and I think that’s usual) if there hasn’t been one for any other reason. There isn’t a set date, though, and typically the PM asks for one when he thinks he can win.
Note also that some bills are implicitly motions of no-confidence if they don’t pass. Like any bill that taxes or spends (e.g the budget). It doesn’t necessarily have to be some member proposing specifically a no-confidence motion.
Sometimes also a government will declare a non-money bill to be a motion of confidence, which can help a bill to pass if some members don’t like it, but are nonetheless unwilling to force an election over it.
When an election is coming due it becomes quite a sport predicting exactly when it will be called. There can often be a set of constraints that limit choice. Not good to have an election run over Christmas/New Year, very bad to conflict with an election running in one of the constituent states, tends not to go down well calling early elections, generally not a good idea to call an election in winter. But in the end the choice is made by one person only - the PM. And again, the trick is that they attend upon the Monarch, or equivalent, and recommend the election be called. This system has the huge advantage of making for short election campaigns. If the opposition party starts to overtly campaign when the election has not been called, the PM can make life miserable for them by simply delaying the election, and neutering their efforts. So typically both parties are in a great state of readiness, primed for the call, but until the moment the election is on, you see little real electioneering. Most of us are very thankful for this.
There is specifically the issue of bills of supply. The 1975 dismissal was over supply. The senate refused to pass the bill providing for money for the government to operate. This implicitly prevents the government from operating, and was the trigger for the dismissal. Here in Oz the deal is that there is a specific trigger for an election if the senate twice rejects a bill. At this point the PM may call an election, and not just any election, but an election where all seats in the senate, as opposed to just half (as is usual) are up for reelection. This is a double dissolution. The idea is that this is a big deal, and there is significant risk that the blocking party will not fare well in the upcoming election. Curiously use also works against the major parties. And is reason why it is actually a bad risk for a PM call one. The independents and minor parties have a roughly double chance of gaining a seat in a double dissolution than a normal election. If there ten seats up, you need 10% of the vote to gain a seat, but if there are 20 seats, you only need 5% of the vote to get in. Thus the major parties find themselves with an increased chance that the balance of power is held by a motley crowd of minors and independents, and they do so hate that.
In the U.K. the PM is the person who can command a majority (of the votes) in the House of Commons. This is not necessarily the leader of the party at the time of the election. If the PM loses a vote of No Confidence, the PM clearly no longer commands a majority. This does not necessarily lead to another election. The Monarch can invite someone else to try to form a government.
I guess the important take-away to contrast with the American system is that under the Westminster system, the people do not elect the prime minister, they only elect their own representative in parliament. Parliament then decides who the PM is from among it’s members, theoretically using any process it thinks is best, but as a practical matter it’s a along-party-lines vote.
It’s only political parties that make it seem like you’re voting for the PM. I.e. by voting for A as MP, I’m implicitly voting for A’s party’s leader as PM. In a world where there were no political parties, people could vote for their own MP and then later be completely surprise by who the PM turned out to be.
Israel experimented with the American system for a short while, having a specific vote for PM that was not tied to the MP vote. This was done in 1996, 1999, and 2001, and then they went back to standard procedure.
At the moment, Mr. Cameron is PM, but the confidence of the Commons rests on two things: his ability to keep his own party content with his leadership, and his need to keep Mr. Clegg’s Liberal Democrats content as well. Losing the support of either, or even a sizeable portion of either, means he could be voted out by a confidence issue.
It’s worth remembering that Neville Chamberlain was the acknowledged head of the Conservative Party, with an absolute majority of 200 votes in Commons, in May 1940 – but enough members, dismayed at his misconduct of the war, voted against him or abstained that he saw himself as having lost the confidence of Commons, and resigned, paving the way for Churchill.
Up until the recent Canadian election, Mr. Harper had a minority government – the only thing sustaining him in office was thaqt he headed the largest single party, and no issue brought together the Liberals, the New Democrats, and the Bloc Quebecois strongly enough to vote him out.
Also remember that it is the choice of the head of state – Queen or GG – who is named PM. This is not just formal – the PM who has lost a vote of confidence and been granted a dissolution remains in office to face the new Commons, unless he chooses to resign, because while his ability to govern comes from his majority, his authority comes from the Crown. In the event where there is no one person commanding such a majority, the influence of the Crown can be brought to bear behind the scenes to forge a government which will command a majority. This has happened on occasion – the Queen in 1957 and 1963 chose Macmillan and Hume respectively when the Tories held a majority but had no clear-cut leader in place. A combination of her ascertaining their popularity and her own influence in choosing them gave them majority support.
That was at a time when the Tories had no formal internal process to elect a leader. Apparently. a leader just emerged – and sometimes the monarch had to be part of the process to help one emerge. That has changed now.