23 Nov 2009
A new opinion poll over the weekend shows Labour closing the Tory lead down to 6%, a figure that could rob Cameron of an outright majority or even place Labour as the single largest party after the next election, leaving us with a hung parliament. Such an outcome could once again bring the Queen onto the political centre stage.
Many monarchists believe it is fantasy to believe the Queen has any real power, but this is a dangerous myth that could be exposed in the aftermath of the 2010 general election.
As an Observer report points out, a hung parliament could very well be the result. In such discussions most commentators turn to the question of who the Lib Dems will support. But if the Lib Dems have neither the numbers nor inclination to put Tories or Labour into power the real question becomes: who does the Queen ask to try and form the next government?
In the period of just two weeks I’ve heard two educated and knowledgeable individuals state two contradictory positions: one said there is a clear convention, the Queen chooses the person with the most seats; the other said there is a clear convention, the Queen allows the incumbent first attempt at forming a new government.
In the medium to long term of course the politicians will work something out, but the decision of the Queen in the days immediately following the election can be crucial to the final outcome. She can do one of three things: She can ask the PM (Brown) to remain in post and try to carry on without a majority; she can ask ‘her’ Leader of the Opposition to try to form a government; she can call a fresh election.
Assuming a fresh election would be a last resort she instead has to choose from the two leaders. If Cameron wins 20 more seats than Brown and 10% more votes then it would seem a clear choice, Cameron ‘won’ the election and should be given the chance to form a minority or coaltion government. But it might not be so simple.
Imagine this scenario: Brown wins 10 more seats than Cameron but the Tories beat Labour in the popular vote by a wide margin. The difference could be accounted for by a large Labour majority in Scotland and the distortions caused by First Past The Post elections. Who should the Queen call now?
She could decide to allow Brown to remain in post as incumbent, and technically the PM should be the person who can command a majority in the Commons, not the nation, so he should be given the chance to win or lose a Commons vote. She could also take the view that he has the most seats and therefore should be considered the ‘winner’. In this day and age, with faith in the political system at an all time low, I’m not sure the people would accept that verdict.
Alternatively the Queen could decide that Cameron ‘won’ the election in terms of vote and so should at least be given the chance to form a minority or coalition government. Put him in office and see what happens.
But what if Brown pulls off a clear majority in votes cast but the Conservatives win 5 more seats than Labour? Brown is the incumbent with a popular mandate, but Cameron has the seats. Who to choose then?
The Queen has a decision to make. Within hours of the election result she must choose to either sit on her hands and do nothing (ie. let Brown remain in post to decide whether to resign or fight on) or call on Cameron to form a government (immediately dismissing Brown and putting Cameron in Downing Street).
It’s a decision that could happen in a republic, no doubt about that. But it’s a crucial decision that could shape the future of British politics. Whomever the Queen chooses will gain an enormous political advantage. It’s a decision that should be in the hands of someone who is accountable for it, someone who can be removed if they get it wrong. It’s not a decision for an unaccountable, hereditary monarch.
This entry was posted on Monday, November 23rd, 2009 at 1:14 pm and is filed under British constitution, Monarchy myths, Politicians. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Comments are now closed.
Facebook
Twitter
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:03 pm
It also goes to show how desperately we need PR. FPTP does not necessarily result in strong governments (as can be seen now and may be evident next year). Having a “strong” government which can effectively do what it likes anyway, even if it only has a mandate from 20% of the population, as is currently the case, is not really an argument in favour of a system!
PR would make the result of the election clear. Of course, it is highly likely that it would result in no party having an outright majority but working together and coming to a consensus is what is supposed to happen in democracy, anyway! As for weak coalition governments I don’t believe the government should be selected from Parliament.
I don’t know whether I believe it would be a good thing to have a hung parliament next year to expose the role of Mrs Windsor or whether I would find such power being exercised too much to stomach.
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:05 pm
I don’t think we need panic. Rupert Murdoch has already decided that he has the final say on who should form the next government.
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Well i think the key sentence is…
Anyway the chances of a hung parliament are still slim. Nick Clegg has said he will back the party with the most seats and that is how our system works. The conservative party are the strongest opponents to electoral reforms to change our first past the post system, If they win the popular vote by a large margin but not enough seats then they will have to accept it and perhaps change their policy on our system the next time they come to power. The Queen must ask the leader of the largest party (based on the number of seats) to form the next government. If each party has the same number of seats maybe then it goes to the party with the largest popular vote.
Anyway as they say, we shall cross that bridge when we come to it.
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Liam,
Sorry but weak coalition governments are not what the people of this country want and PR always helps secure them. We must not change our first past the post system, even if that means labour wins. It will be rather strange if Labour manage to win the next election because of FPTP yet intend to hold a referendum on introducing some new system which everyone appears to hate.
If such a problem did arise it would not be the Queen’s position that would be highlighted and which may be controversial, it will simply be our electoral system which can be reformed without doing away with the monarchy.
I can assure you the thought of Nick Clegg and the liberal Democrats being able to veto policy dictating what the next government can and cant do in parliament is enough to make me sick to the stomach as well. Lets hope neither of us have to suffer.
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Simon, if you think that’s the key sentence I suggest you re-read the post and get back to us when you’ve understood it.
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:10 pm
@ Simon
Oh, don’t worry, my friend, I completely realise that you are opposed to proper democracy in Britain. What do you care about “what the people of this country want” when you refuse to give them the opportunity to express that, either in terms of a democratic system of parliamentary elections or in the sense of electing their head of state.
“Well i think the key sentence is…
It’s a decision that could happen in a republic, no doubt about that.”
Yeh but the really key thing is that the person involved in deciding who the PM would be would have the democratic legitimacy with which to make such a decision. Mrs Windsor’s legitimacy dervies from who her parents were. Rather different things.
“I can assure you the thought of Nick Clegg and the liberal Democrats being able to veto policy dictating what the next government can and cant do in parliament is enough to make me sick to the stomach as well. Lets hope neither of us have to suffer.”
I find the thought of Gordon Brown and Labour or David Cameron and the Tories or even the Lib Dems to an extent being in power uncomfortable but the difference is that I believe that people other than myself should have an equal say in this you. You, quite clearly, do not.
To say PR always helps to secure weak coalition governments is nonsense, just as much as saying FPTP delivers strong government. I have stated quite clearly that half the problem would be solved by separating the executive from the legislative. But even still, I find it to be typically arrogant of many British people to pontificate to everybody saying FPTP is the only system that works well when PR seems to function quite nicely in all of the European countries (don’t even bother resorting to Italy or Weimar Germany – the issue is far deeper than just an electoral system).
If forty per cent of the population vote Tory, thirty per cent vote Labour and thirty per cent vote Lib Dem then the parties should get the number of seats which correlates to that. Yes, some bills may be harder to get through, but that is why we have debates in Parliament. Make concessions, reach consensus. It’s democracy, Simon, something you appear to be allergic to.
I challenge you to defend to me a system which allows a party to win the votes of just one in five people yet obtain a majority of over one hundred seats. I challenge you to defend to me a system which makes some people’s votes (in the swing seats) of greater value than those of people in safe seats. I challenge you to defend to me a system which allows a party to win more votes than any other in British electoral history yet lose the election.
I also wish you’d accept our challenge to defend the monarchy point-by-point, but, alas, you simply refuse to do so.
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:10 pm
@ Graham
lmao
November 24th, 2009 at 9:23 am
“In the period of just two weeks I’ve heard two educated and knowledgeable individuals state two contradictory positions: one said there is a clear convention, the Queen chooses the person with the most seats; the other said there is a clear convention, the Queen allows the incumbent first attempt at forming a new government.”
As it is obviously not so clear and could well influence how people vote, I think we should have a clear answer to what would happen in this situation.
November 24th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Ash, we don’t know what would happen, that’s the problem.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
@ Graham
I Agree.
People looking to cast their vote may look at who they want to become “HM’s” loyal opposition as well. Clear guidelines are needed.
November 24th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
“Guidelines” are not needed. People should just be able to vote and have their votes treated properly, instead of some of them counting, others not. Why bring out an instruction manual on a broken typewriter when we could have a brand new word processor?
November 24th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
In my view the head of state should only have a role to play if MPs can’t sort things out.
After an election the PM should remain in post unless it is clear he no longer commands a majority, or that someone else has a stronger claim to the post.
If that’s uncertain then they should wait until parliament is convened and support can be tested in a vote. If the Commons had to formally elect the PM after every election this would make things clearer too.
Only if the elected PM cannot maintain a stable government, or the Commons cannot elect a PM, should the president then step in and act as arbitrator.
November 24th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
@ Liam
It goes without saying I would like Britain to finally pluck up the courage and do away with the illusion of Monarchy.
It would be nice though if it was made clear What would happen in the event of a hung Parliament, not to fix the old system, merely to demonstrate how stupid the myth is that Mrs Windsor’s role is an Apolitical one.
I Apologise for not making that clear before
November 24th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
Don’t get me wrong, I wasn’t having a go at you, Ash, I was saying how such a requirement underlines how ridiculous and indefensible our system is!
November 24th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
@Graham
The head of state is usually the only one elected by all the people. S/he is usually the only one with a popular mandate of all. As far as a written constitution enumerates his powers and role, the people will pick who they want to exercise such powers. Life is not neutral. Life is not apolitical. The truth, when it comes to progressive or conservative, is not impartial. One ideology is usually better than the other, depending on the times. The people should choose a President that is proactive and not docile. A President or head of state that is not reactionary. In my view, as long as there are checks and balances to the office of the Presidency, the legislators, and the judiciary, the President should be allowed to fulfill the roles layed out in the constitution. This view must be clear, and should differ from the role of a Queen/King, else it will confuse the people. And they may say, oh if we should go through all these changes to end up with a ceremonial President, we might as well retain the monarchy. And they may further say, who can outdo the queen and her family when it comes to ceremonies? The word ceremonial is a MAJOR problem to this campaign if you don’t do away with it. Just like the word Republican conjours images of the Northern Ireland question, Ceremonial brings in the fete of the royals…
November 24th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
-Continued from 15-
What is a prime minister? a prime minister is simply the first minister among equals. The prime minister was not chosen by all. The prime minister should not be the one making most of the decision, and where he could not reach a decision, then, comes the President, the peoples choice? That is unfair. In a republic, the current facade now in action, where by the prime minister writes the agenda and hands to the Queen to read, should be made real, where the President actually writes the agenda and hands it to the prime minister. Prime Minister is nothing but an ordinary member of Parlaiment elected by a few precincts and consequently selected by the party to be their leader. The president should preside, and the prime minister be primus in Parliament.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
@Graham
Oooops, I missed what you were discussing, you are right. Treat my posts 15 and 16 as free standing comments! You were talking about selection of PM in the commons. And I agree with you.
The points in 15 and 16 should be considered by Republic, and that is to do away with the idea of Ceremonial Head of State.
November 25th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
‘How to Stop the Queen picking the next PM’ – article by Daniel Finkelstein in today (25/11) ’s Times. He is slightly melodramatic -’a hung parliament is certainly possible… I worry that with only the tiniest bit of bad luck it could rock the throne’!!!!! Perhaps it is time to push it off balance altogether then. He uses the Canadian constitutional crisis of a year ago as an example but is worried that the Queen could be dragged into politics here! ‘It would be a disaster for the monarchy if the Queen were to have to make political judgements or even if she were THOUGHT to be making them’. So? He quotes Prof. Robert Hazell stating the obvious, the relevant rules ‘are shrouded in mystery’. New Zealand has codified its rules ‘to protect the throne from controversy’! Here politicans don’t want to make a hung Parliament more likely. Sounds like a good time to point out that this is the problem with a non democratic, unwritten system calling on an arbitrary elderly woman to have the future of the country in her grasp. Time to have a proper, written democratic constitution.