By difficult I meant politically so. Even in 1974 there was a six month gap. Also ant potential administration could avoid a vote of confidence for a considerable time- this is the normal practice in countries where coalition is the norm. Sometimes making a government takes time and changes in demands from potential allies.
It is more likely that such a interim government would limp along maintaining previous fiscal policies while the situation was sorted.
No party save the SNP would be likely to have sufficient funds to fight a second election. Additionally the public might punish the party seen as causing the election.
All things considered, I would expect some short term to medium term government to rile from a large number of months or maybe even years. There are additionally now strict limits on how a new election can be called.
Cameron would remain prime minister only until losing a vote of confidence. Then Miliband would be asked to form a government. Cameron could not call an election before that was allowed.
What, you mean like a Unionist party entering into a coalition or confidence and supply agreement with a party whose explicit aim is to dismantle the United Kingdom?
What are you talking about? The Labour and Conservative parties rake in more money in one month of donations than the SNP do in a couple of years.
It takes Labour and Conservatives a whole parliament to get their fighting funds together for a general election to fight 600constituencies. The SNP is currently funded by a couple who won the Euromillions lottery and only have to fight 60constituencies.
That’s not correct. Cameron would remain Prime Minister until someone else can command a majority in the House of Commons. Just like Brown in 2010, who remained PM until the coalition agreement was made.
He might be PM in name but would have lost the right to ask for a further dissolution. The Queen would first ask others to try to form an administration. The decision to call a further election would be out of his hands.
Not necessarily. The last time a government lost a vote of confidence in the House, 1979, the Prime Minister asked the Queen for a dissolution, and got one.
It depends on whether it’s viable that the existing House could support an alternative administration. In 1979, the House was four years old, and generally two-party. There’s no way a non-Labour government would have worked.
If, say, in 2015, the Tories lost a vote of confidence in a fresh, young House, and the membership of the House is a mix, then there may be an opportunity for an alternative government by another party or a different Prime Minister at least. That’s the Queen’s call.
But they do need to advertise in every advertising region rather than just one and within that single region over ninety percent of the population is in ten per cent of the area.
The large parties do really fear a second election. The SNP much less so.
That is different. You need to read the rules. A prime minister who loses a vote of confidence following an election and without successfully forming a government cannot successfully advise the monarch to dissolve parliament again but can only resign and allow her to seek an alternative PM.
“a defeated Prime Minister cannot ask for a second attempt at winning a majority. If an incumbent Prime Minister fails to form an administration or loses the vote on the Queen’s speech, the party or parties likely to be able to form an administration are asked to do so. Only once they have shown they can command the confidence of the House could they properly seek and be granted a general election.”
It’s not different: it’s the fuller and more accurate explanation of what your were saying. Callaghan lost the confidence vote, but there was no question that he remained Prime Minister and did not resign until he lost the ensuing election.
I agree with you if this were to be repeated early in a Parliament, though. Otherwise the matter depends on the context.
It is different. A PM who has lost an election cannot advise a dissolution, but only tender his resignation. A PM who has only lost a vote of confidence can force an election (except where contradicted by the five year Parliament act).
So, thoughts on the Rochester and Strood by-election? The resignation of Emily Thornberry was just atrocious. Labour could have used the defeat to attack Cameron, but instead it’s focused everything on Westminster and Labour elitism. Farage couldn’t have a better outcome.
On the other hand, Reckless’ majority from the last election went down considerably. So there’s a possibility he could be at risk in the next election.