Not unless you make voting compulsory (as it is in Australia).
Personally, I think anyone who’s too stupid or lazy to weigh up the issues and come to a rational decision shouldn’t be encouraged to participate in democracy.
Because you’re not going to see a Labour-Conservative coalition under any circumstances, and the support of the LibDems can be bought by agreeing to their demands on specific issues without having to buy into their entire manifesto. PR is going to be the sticking point, guaranteed.
It’s a bit late now.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Conservatives end up in a minority government; the current situation is a poisoned chalice no matter who ends up in power. And while I recognise that a hung parliament means that getting anything done is a nightmare, I’m currently enjoying the schadenfreude of watching all the parties working their asses off to try and get a workable majority. We’re making you work for that duckpond, boys.
Do you have a cite for that? When Speaker Milliken voted in favour of the Government in the Canadian House of Commons a few years ago, as referred to by Hypnogogic Jerk, he referred to British precedents which stated that the Speaker’s duty of neutrality meant he should vote to continue the debate, on a second reading vote.
However, those same precedents indicated that his duty of neutrality meant he should not vote in favour of the government on third and final reading - the Government needs to have the support to make the final decision on its own, without relying on the Speaker.
Hmm. The Parliament website says:
*Tied votes
If the vote is tied - which is very unusual - in the Commons the Speaker has the casting vote. The Speaker casts his vote according to what was done in similar circumstances in the past. Where possible the issue should remain open for further discussion and no final decision should be made by a casting vote.
In the Lords, the Lord Speaker does not have a casting vote. Instead, the tied vote is resolved according to established rules (called the Standing Orders).*
http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/business/divisions/
I seem to remember the Callaghan government surviving a confidence vote only on the Speaker’s casting vote.
That’s the principle that Speaker Milliken cited - he voted in favour of the government’s budget on second reading, to allow the House to continue debate on the budget in committee.
However, since his neutrality meant that he should not be the one who makes the final decision, the implication was that if the house tied on the final vote in third reading, it would be his duty to vote against the government, which would have triggered an election.
Something I realized last night may not be clear to Americans and others not familiar with the Westminster system:
We’ve made reference to the “Speech from the Throne” or “Queen’s Speech” as triggering a confidence vote early in the life of a new Parliament. What happens is, when the Queen formally and ceremonially opens a new sitting of Parliament, she reads a speech, written for her by the leadership of the Government, that is essentially the same thing as a State of the Union address. (In fact, the idea that the President should give one was a direct copy of the Throne Speech.) In it, she outlines the major problems facing the country and what her Government proposes to do about them. It’s understood that she’s speaking, not as herself but as “the Crown” – the ceremonial head of the full body of government (American sense) that the Government (Westminster sense) is the political leadership of. Parliament then debates these proposals more or less as a policy statement, the goals that will be addressed by individual bills later in the session. And the Government has to survive a vote on that debate, as a confidence measure, by custom.
And if I remember right, the Queen reads the speech in a basically emotionless tone, without putting any special emphasis or lack thereof on anything in it, exactly in order not to personalise the speech as “hers” but to make it clear that it’s her government’s.
The debate that follows is on the formal motion “That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty thanking her for the Gracious Speech from the throne”
As I recall one of the Queens Speech’s in the Blair administration required the Queen to use the expression “up front” - not the sort of thing we expect Her Maj to say at all.
Yes, here it is at HC Deb 26 November 2003 vol 415 cc4-6
later, on December 15th, in a Lords debate on ‘English Grammar and Punctuation’ (HL Deb 15 December 2003 vol 655 cc941-4) the following exchange seems to allud to it:
Brought it down by rule or in practical political terms? I know I’m asking for a primer on British government 101, but I don’t understand that statement. I don’t understand how new elections are triggered and at what point a vote of no confidence can be called. I’m led to understand that there are confidence votes when the Throne Speech is made and when the budget is proposed. I think one can just be called by getting a much smaller number to agree to call one, correct?
As for actually forming a minority government, I don’t think an attempt has been made to explain the process to someone who very often has never heard of “tonight’s Star in a Reasonably Priced Car.” Could someone kindly take the time to use twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy photographs with circles
and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining the process? I know it seems obvious to you in the UK, but over here, I’m seen as being very well informed by knowing there WAS an election. I know I really should, but without using Google, I can’t name Canada’s current PM.
One of the Opposition parties can table a formal motion “That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government”. If they lose that they must resign.
Flagship Bills are treated as equivalent to a confidence vote, as is failure to grant supply (the House of Lords cannot refuse supply).
Nonetheless one party may be asked to form a government without the necessary numbers to outvote all the other parties combined against them, and, in effect, dare the other parties to outvote them. If they do, then the government resigns and says, ‘ok, someone else see if they can do better’. If no one can do better then the only thing left is fresh elections, which some parties may not want at that point.
So if the Con-Lib cooperation can’t be hashed out, and almost certainly Labour can’t build something workable, Cameron will ask for a confidence vote, which the Lib-Dems will probably sit out instead of angering the public at creating a new election so soon? Would other parties also abstain, leaving just Labour to vote against? This would then leave Cameron with more votes for than against, and he could go to the Queen? Am I within a mile of the situation?
That requires Brown to cling on to office. He can’t just try to go on with the number of MPs he has, and without even an informal alliance with someone who has got the numbers. He would be defeated on the Queens Speech. He wouldn’t cling on that long, it would be pointless and he would end up looking like a sore loser.
A government that loses a vote of no confidence then by convention (UK, Australia etc) or by constitution (Germany?) must either resign in favour of a leader who could command a majority, or dissolve the current parliament and seek an election.
The opposition could propose a formal vote of no confidence at virtually any time Parliament is sitting. But if it doesn’t have the numbers the government would simply amend the motion to be a vote of ringing confidence in the government or a derisive vote of no confidence in the opposition.
From a practical perspective, due to stronger party discipline in the Westminister system, this would only occur after by-election results had changed the composition of parliament or events had caused a block of government MPs or party in a coalition government to resign from government.
Around the time you wrote this Gordon Brown announced he would indeed be resigning. The timing seems to have been designed to influence the Lib Dem-Conservative talks, and almost immediately the Tories announced a major concession on electoral reform.
Not quite in that order.
He needs the Queen to appoint him PM before he can test his majority.
As indicated, first off Brown needs to resign his commission. (apparently this has just occurred)
Cameron might then be asked whether he could form a government. If he believes he can in coalition with anybody then we’re off to the races.
If he can’t the Queen could either give him more time (Brown remaining as caretaker PM) to negotiate, or ask Brown or Clegg if he could form a government (presumably with Labour support) or commission Cameron to lead a minority government etc. All those questions are still unresoved
Then whomever is PM convenes his government, recalls parliament and tests the confidence of the house. Of course there will have been intensive discussion to get magority support for the Throne Speech, or at least minority opposition.
Incorrect. He’s announced that he’s stepping down as party leader, not as Prime Minister. BBC article.
Stepping down as party leader surely implies that he’s stepping down as prime minister.
Not necessarily. John Major did the same, to fight a party leadership election and try (unsuccessfully) to squash grumbling about his leadership.
Total ingnoramus re UK politics here…
Where do the LD and Labour parties fit on the political spectrum?
Assuming both are way left of the Tories and relatively close to each other, why isn’t a coalition between the two a no-brainer?
I ask this with an emphasis on ideologies and do note the issue of illigitemacy mentioned above.