So What If The Next Pm Did Not Win The Most Seats?

[youngmafbog]

Britain's next Prime Minister might not be the leader of the party which wins the most seats at the General Election, Britain's former top civil servant has told Sky News.

As this could happen either way I thought it might be good to debate before any mud slinging starts.

Does sound odd, but it's the way things are, however could it put the public off politics even more?

[anotheoldgit]

http://news.sky.com/story/1402051/election-winner-may-not-get-keys-to-no-10

[ToraToraTora]

It will be the one with the most seats in the group that get into bed together, hence the small parties will have bargaining chips, I think the SNP could well be the party that comes 3rd.

[Old_Geezer]

As I understand it, her maj can ask anyone she likes. But would need a good reason not to select the party leaders whose party had most seats. Or a coalition that achieved the same situation between them.

I don't see this is anything new.

[Gromit]

It is quite a common situation if you live anywhere else in the UK other than England. The Conservatives have 1 seat in Scotland and yet Scotland have a Conservative Prime Minister ruling them.

In theory, Brown could have formed a rainbow coalition in 2010 of everyone but the Tories. That was stymied by Clegg teaming up with Cameron.

[mikey4444]

I too, can't see anything terribly new in this. As OG has said, Betty would need a very good reason indeed NOT to choose the current Leader of the Party who has most seats at Westminster. I can't remember a previous occasion where the sovereign has gone against the will of the people, at least not in modern times.

There is even the chance that we could have a "national unity" Government, of Labour and the Tories. After all, it happened during WW2 and we seemed to have managed quite well back then.

But to be realistic about matters, it is either going to be Ed or dave in Number Ten later this summer, and we all know that .....don't we ?

[ToraToraTora]

"There is even the chance that we could have a "national unity" Government, of Labour and the Tories. After all, it happened during WW2 and we seemed to have managed quite well back then." - yes mikey but they did have teenzy weenzy problem to focus on. Even the Labour party was not quite as anti British as the germans at the time! - almost impossible in peace time.

[youngmafbog]

Thanks AG.

Yes Mickey it is.

But let me put it a bit more bluntly, what if Dave was in there having got less seats than Ed, say being propped up by liberals and UKIp for arguments sake?

Would you all be so blase about it then?

[Gromit]

// Betty would need a very good reason indeed NOT to choose the current Leader of the Party who has most seats at Westminster. //

If the winner does not have a working majority then it would be very foolhardy of her Majesty to ask that party to form a Government. It could be outvoted on everything it tried to do.

If the winning party does not have the required majority, but the second placed party and another do, then the sensible thing would be to to ask the leader of the coalition parties to form the Government.

[Zacs-Master]

Is this not the result of voters apathy brought about by New Labour becoming a slightly more left wing version of the Conservatives?

[mikey4444]

Gromit...I agree and this is what Betty will be advised to do, if the situation should arise.

[Gromit]

// Is this not the result of voters apathy brought about by New Labour becoming a slightly more left wing version of the Conservatives? //

No. Being a more left wing version would be a differentiation. The reason for the apathy is that the public does not see much difference between the 3 main parties. That is not an accident, all 3 parties have pitched themselves in the middle ground territory.

[Zacs-Master]

Isn't that the same thing?

[Gromit]

Possibly, but I am doubting Labour are detectably left wing.

[Old_Geezer]

Very debatable ever since Blair took over.

[Gromit]

Perhaps the next Prime Minister could be decided by a drinking contest. Last man standing.

[jno]

Churchill won in 1951 despite the Tories getting fewer votes than Labour. Wilson did the same in 1974. The country survived. In fact the leader whose party gained the highest number of votes ever was... Major.

So I think we just have to accept Westminster democracy isn't perfect.

[ludwig]

I'm not particularly looking forward to the next government. It sounds like it's going to be a complete shambles, whoever ends up being in it or in charge of it.

[New Judge]

The Conservatives have 1 seat in Scotland and yet Scotland have a Conservative Prime Minister ruling them.

The Prime Minister is that of the United Kingdom, not of Scotland (or Wales or Northern Ireland). For thirteen yeas from 1997-2010 most of southern England outside London (with a far greater population than that of Scotland) had a Labour Prime Minister with very few Labour MPs representing them. That's what living in the Uk often leads to.

There needs to be a move away from the idea that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should be treated differently to England.

[New Judge]

And in fact we may be better off if they cannot decide, for some time, who should form a government. Belgium recently managed with no government for about 13 months and it did not cause them any great harm.

[DTCwordfan]

And what percentage of the Belgian economy is thought to be black or illegal? No wonder they could survive.