Of course 1st past the post is the government, but if they made laws and such by themselves that the also rans didn't like,the opposition are entitled to get together (labour + Libdem + other Mps elected)and thus having more votes, vote against them and stop any bills being passed. I would say winning is when you have a majority that the opposition can't beat.
Of course 1st past the post is the government, but if they made laws and such by themselves that the also rans didn't like,the opposition are entitled to get together (labour + Libdem + other Mps elected)and thus having more votes, vote against them and stop any bills being passed. I would say winning is when you have a majority that the opposition can't beat.
The question was I did ask you a while back but you failed to respond. Given the results of the 2010 election, where the Tories received the most votes and therefore beat all other rivals (That must be winning!!) Who would you suggest should have formed the government? _________________________
I've no arguement with those gaining the most seats (although a few times the most seats haven't had the most votes) being the elected government. I'm just saying it's not a convincing win if you don't have more seats than the opposition can muster. Although I don't believe it - I read online something about Gordon Brown being the leader of the government in power at the time of the election could have had first chance of forming a coalition but gave it away to the Tories as they won the most seats (there must have been back room dealings that didn't work out for him I bet)
Strictly speaking, no party is elected; an individual candidate in each constituency is elected to parliament. Those people almost always have declared an allegiance to a particular party. Nevertheless, it's individuals who are elected. After the election, the Queen asks one member, usually the leader of the party with the most members (although, as Derek pointed out, not necessarily the most votes) to form a government. That party may not command the majority of seats and so, as at present, alliances have to be formed. If, as has been suggested earlier, the members of a party in the alliance choose to cease supporting their coalition partners, that doesn't mean that the government falls; that only happens when the other party to the coalition fails to survive a vote of "no confidence". In that case, the government resigns, because it can no longer carry out its plans, and a general election is called.
Strikes me that Labour is still looking pretty solid in the polls and that the Blairites are extremely nervous about having 50 or so Unite-sponsored oiks showing up in Westminster to lower the tone.
So nervous that for all practical purposes they're colluding with the Tories to try to prevent it from happening by attacking the remaining connections between Labour and the unions.
From their point of view, they'd be much happier being dependent on Lord Sainsbury and his mates and having the Labour party merely represent a slightly different bunch of rich guys to the Tories.
