Time to go, Gordon

stephen says:

11:03am | 11/05/10

Could be a legal challenge to these results as many could not vote, in which case, a new voting round is likely.

Randal says:

12:27pm | 11/05/10

That comment shows a very poor understanding of the Westminster system and the constitution of Britain, whilst not contained in a single document, is very effectively dealt with in such documents as the Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, Acts of Parliament and judicial precedent.

What will occur now under this constitution is that either the Labour Party or the Conservatives will attempt to form some kind of Coalition government, the Queen will invite the parties with the best chance to succeed, should Labour succeed in cobelling together a majority coalition then they will govern unless a ‘no confidence’ motion is passed against them.

Should this occur, the Queen will either invite the Conservatives to form a minority government, or if her advice makes it clear that such a government would have no chance of succeeding, dissolve the Parliament and call fresh elections.

This is a very clear political process, and one that occurred in February 1974 when Heath attempted to form a minority government, upon the first ‘no confidence’ vote, the PM resigned and the Queen asked the Labor leader Wilson to form a minority government, which he did until he requested Parliament to be dissolved in September of 1974 which resulted in a 3 seat parliamentary majority for Wilson’s Labour party.

In fact the UK ‘constitutional monarchy’ is one of the most dynamic constitutions as it allows it to constantly alter and change through Acts of Parliament, ensuring a modern constitution without the frustrations as other nations face when viewing what are in general archaic and inflexible documents.

iansand says:

01:34pm | 11/05/10

Hey Randal - in which act of Parliament or judicial precedent is that process set out?  It looks like it was made up in 1974.

Randal says:

02:30pm | 11/05/10

This process is set out under the ‘Royal Prerogative’ which has been constantly limited in law since the signing of the Magna Carta in the 13th century and is the process that is followed in the event that Parliament cannot function.

Yes, without doubt, from an outside view the British constitution appears piecemeal, however it has served the nation well for centuries and it is also important to note that ‘hung parliaments’ are not uncommon through the history of the British Parliament and occurred frequently through 19th century - there also was a hung parliament in 1929 and the ‘unwritten’ constitution as it is known has been able to deal with this situation quite adequately - as it will do on this occasion.

Whilst I am limited here in my explanation, the issue of securing assurances of support of ‘confidence’ by any minority government is critical as should the government loose the ‘confidence’ of the ‘House of Commons’ then ‘Royal Prerogative’ will be initiated.
There is talk of binding the ‘unwritten’ constitution into a document, and as always academics are split on the need for this, perhaps not dissimilar to the feelings around the Republic in Australia and this is a policy of the Liberal Democrats as part of their reform agenda, however this process would require complete bi-partisan support which is currently lacking, and in my view sterilise what to me is the most vibrant and current constitution in the world.

marley says:

03:03pm | 11/05/10

Well, when the British government fell in 1974, there was plenty of precedent for what came next from its fellow Westminster democracy in Canada.  At that point Canada was on it’s fifth or sixth minority government in less than 20 years.  (There’ve been another 4 since, including the current one).  No coalitions - all plain minority governments.

Each governed in Canada with the tacit support of minor parties until it fell on a confidence motion or itself called an election.  If the government fell on a confidence vote, it resigned, leaving the GG with the choice of trying to get the opposition to form a government, or calling an election (or, in one case, asking the original governing party to try again.)

Now it’s quite true that Canada has a written constitution, but given that it has the same roots as the unwritten British one, I’m not surprised that in 1974 the UK took the same approach the Canadians had become so practiced in. 

By the way, the best governments Canada ever had were the two minority governments of LB Pearson back in the 60s.  They pushed through more major social legislation than any majority government has managed in the 50 years since.  They also gave Canada its flag.  Just goes to show you don’t have to have a whacking great majority to get things done.

iansand says:

04:21pm | 11/05/10

Hey Randal - When did they pass this Royal Prerogative?  Is it written down somewhere?  This “confidence” thing sounds pretty important too.  That must be written down somewhere where everyone can find it.

marley says:

05:10pm | 11/05/10

I’ve always understood that, in the Westminster system, a government can fall when it loses either an actual “no confidence” vote , or any vote involving the budget in Parliament.  I suppose you’d have to go back to the days of Robert Peel to trace the written origins of the convention - but a convention it most certainly is.

Randal says:

05:35pm | 11/05/10

Thank you for your contribution @marley and such conventions have been enshrined under British Common Law for centuries and can be traced back to the Magna Carta, the Civil War, The Restoration, The Act of the Union, Bill of Rights etc…etc…

Essentially in Britain the monarch initially held all power through ‘Royal Perogative’ which has been wound back through the centuries, by events and Acts of Parliament, through to Common Law.

This is how the entire British system of justice and parliament was enacted, through development of time, and the ‘unwritten’ constituton as some would put it has come into being.

Some who are fixated on the needs for a rigid document cannot understand it, but all involved know their parts and if there is dispute between the Parliament and the monarchy then the courts will resolve it.