The article appears to say the exact opposite, saying that “SNP voters are the most rock-solid, at 85% certain.” What are you referring to?
Also, everything I’ve seen from the SNP supporters attempts to underplay the significance of the polls. What are you seeing that suggests they would be at all disappointed with fewer seats than the polls suggest?
Has the princess’s birth pushed politics off the front pages, or is the campaign still roaring along?
In 2010 the Conservatives agreed a coalition with the LibDems to maintain stability and avoid financial meltdown
It now looks possible that we will be in a position where we will have a Parliament not only with no majority party, but no possible coalition with a majority.
My question is " How justified would Cameron be in staying in post for six weeks and introducing a Queen’s Speech knowing that there was a majority against them and that it was obvious that Miliband would be asked to form a government, thus giving us three months of political uncertainty."
Would that be seen as illegitimate use of office?
It would at least be hypocritical as the Conservatives in 2010 put great pressure on Brown to resign.
No (inside page human interest story, of varying significance depending on the newspaper and its perception of its readership).
Limping with a gasp and a sob towards the finishing line, might be a fairer way to put it.
How justified depends on your point of view, but we have no real rules, beyond the principle that someone has to be there to pay the bills and keep the government machine ticking over.
Whether it would be seen as illegimitate is an open question. On the one hand, there is the Thorpe principle (“We may not know who’s won, but we know who’s lost” - so if the Tories have lost votes and seats, they’re in trouble, or Cameron is, with his own backbenchers and rivals, as much as with anyone else), on the other hand, there is the principle that either the existing officeholder or the largest party gets the first go.
I don’t the Palace would be amused at HMQ being asked to go through the whole rigmarole of the State Opening and Queen’s Speech only to have to go over it all again with another one some time later.
Someone might need miraculously to discover a new constitutional practice of inviting the House of Commons to decide between alternative draft Queen’s Speeches (or similar), then it would give herself a clear decision as to who and what the House of Commons will support, at least for the first session. The ritual can then be adapted so she can just come down and say the equivalent of “You’ve all done very well” so she can get back to the racing on the telly and not have to read the whole excruciatingly boring speech herself.
I was referring to the first article he linked not the twitter picture of a graph.
Time for the subliminal messages: “Conservative. If it’s good enough for Prince William when choosing a name for his daughter, it’s good enough for the country when choosing a Prime Minister. Of course, if you’d rather live in the land of Princess Cersei…”
Isn’t the Queen’s Speech supposed to cover just what the Government expects to get passed? In this case, what would she say?
And does he risk having the Queen’s Speech voted down in the Commons?
“My Government desperately hopes to limp along for six months or so, perhaps even a year, not doing anything of substance but simply hanging onto power and staving off an awful day of reckoning…”
Speaking of Twitter, I was just rewarding some manga artist when I saw Mr. Richard Littlejohn had twittered in his blaring fashion ( Mr. Littlejohn is the less attractive, more right-wing, more oafish inferior British version of Rush Limbaugh ):
“Trust Labour ? I’d rather trust Jimmy Savile to babysit.”
I would refer to my post above, and the photograph therein:
‘Maggie and Jimmy. Together again at last!’
Hypocritical sure, not illegitimate though. It was standard fare in the 19th Century for governments not to resign until the Commons formally rejected them either in a motion of confidence or at the Gracious Address. I think it would be interesting!
And honestly, the country seems to be ticking along fine with no parliament. Perhaps a period of caretaker government would do everybody some good.
CNN’s Anthony King on who really governs Britain: http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/01/opinions/uk-election-governs-king/index.html
The existing Prime Minister (and other officers) stays in office until there’s a new PM (absent resignation, death, etc). If someone else can form a majority, then they become PM. Just like Brown & Cameron. If no one can form a government then at some point someone has to force the issue.
Did they? Cite, please? In point of fact, Brown didn’t resign until the Tories had agreed a coalition
The Tories claimed that they had first chance to form a government as they were the largest minority party, Labour claimed (with some precedent, but ultimately unsuccessfully) that as incumbents they should get that chance.
If Labour get more seats than the Tories, and look like being able to form a coalition, there would be hypocrisy. In the event of both sides wishing to attempt minority government, not so much. There’s no need for Cameron to resign if Labour simply claim they have a confidence and supply arrangement, there would need to be an actual vote of no confidence. He could choose to do so anyway, of course, but it would be a very different scenario to 5 years ago.
Yes, but that’s not what Pjen is arguing.
No there wouldn’t. Miliband (or whoever) would have to actually form such a coalition and that would be that.
As I understand it, the current PM (Cameron at the moment) stays until someone else can plausibly state that they can form a majority. Then whoever that is becomes PM. They remain PM until someone else can command a majority, they resign, etc.
Here’s a fun thought: if neither Cameron nor Miliband can form a coalition, then Clegg might, with both Labour and the Tories as a Grand Unionist Coalition. Cameron would never accept Miliband as PM in such a coalition, nor Miliband Cameron, but both might well accept Clegg as PM. The coalition would exist only to enact the previously-delayed constituency reform and electoral reform and we’d have another election later this year, but for several months, Clegg would be PM.
Brown resigned when it became clear that he could not command a majority in the Commons, leaving the way clear for Cameron, who could. It’ll be interesting to see if something similar happens this time.
Wow. I really doubt it, but I suppose it could happen.
Yes, but he only resigned after Cameron had formed that coalition.
£10 at Ladbrokes today would probably get you a very nice payout on that scenario.
Brown resigned on the 11th May, the coalition was formed on the 12th.