MPs are assembled in the House of Commons to form a Government. The Speaker calls for nominations for the position of Prime Minister. Each nomination must have a proposer and, say, ten"seconders". If only one nomination is received then that person is deemed to have been elected unanimously. If there are only two nominations then the person who receives the most votes is the winner. At this point I suggest that if three or more nominations are received a different method to the simple "first past the post" may have been preferred, and legislated for, if that was the case then it would be applied. ( NB I think that long and careful deliberation would be needed, to evolve a fair method of arriving at a winner, when three or more nominations for a position are received).
When the Prime Minister has been elected The Speaker calls for nominations for the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer and the same method is used. The process is repeated for other positions of Minister and when that phase is completed Deputies for all Ministers are elected.
Safe in the knowledge that she or he, and the Government, enjoys the confidence of the the House of Commons the Prime Minister can seek an audience with the Queen to complete the established ritual.
This method of selecting a government could apply to to a Commons full of independent MPs or for a hung Parliament. There is nothing to stop it being used in the situation where a party holds an overall majority, in fact I feel that it should be written into a Constitution as being the way that has to be used to select a new government. The Prime Minister of the previous Government acts in a caretaker basis until a Prime Minister is elected. In the case of a party holding a majority the method I have suggested may ascertain several things, it would cement the authority of the persons elected as well as establishing the popularity of members of the "opposition" who were nominated for a position. Even though they knew that they would not win that position they could carry the title, with honour, of, for example, Leader of the Opposition or Shadow Chancellor etc. It is possible that the method could be cleverly exploited by members who wished to chip away at a supposed difference of opinion among the majority party members as to who should fill a particular office.
My next blogs will continue upholding my contention that for true democracy Party Politics should be consigned to the dustbin of history. In addition I will indulge in another flight of fantasy and suggest a few ideas in relation to a written constitution for the UK, thank you
Frederick W Gilling Friday 23 April 2010
Thursday 22 April 2010
Wednesday 21 April 2010
Problems Associated With Hung Parliaments. Part Two
For three years or so I have, via several channels, been advocating Party Free Politics, as my ideal scenario would yield a Parliament full of independent MPs I came up with the following suggested method of establishing an acceptable government. As I mulled it over the thought surfaced that, not only could the method be also used in the case of a hung Parliament it HAS MUCH TO RECOMMEND ITS USE WHENEVER A NEW GOVERNMENT HAS TO BE FORMED.
As was to be expected the word PARTY figures in the discussions and literature as to how a particular person can be deemed to be worthy of the title Prime Minister. That infers, with justification, that party politics are dominant and that the leader of the party that holds the most seats is in pole position, however in a hung Parliament that does not guarantee the race will be won. To guarantee that the leader of a party will become the Prime Minister a party must hold more than fifty percent of the seats, in which case, of course, Parliament is not "hung".
"PARTIES" have become so woven into the very fabric of politics in the UK, and many other democracies, that the word PARTY is used on the assumption, justified at the moment, that they will exist. As a start to rectifying the use of the word Party in legislation, or in "case law" situations, I suggest that the initials MPs could, also with justification, be used in place of the word PARTY.
So, without further ado, let us assume that following an election MPs are gathered in the House of Commons, duly sworn in and under the control of The Speaker. Their first duty, under my proposed new legislation, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER PARLIAMENT IS "HUNG" OR NOT, is to elect a Prime Minister, then other Ministers that are deemed necessary as well as the associated Deputies. This, as far as I am aware, is a drastic departure from the established procedure where the person designated as Prime Minister chooses the Chancellor and Ministers from his own party, the pros and cons for my suggested way of establishing a GOVERNMENT will be advanced below.
All MPs should be familiar with the gist of the following sentence that I quote from the material mentioned above [In Part One]. "A crucial aspect of the British system of government is that the government of the day must enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons". The procedure outlined in my next blog WILL ENSURE THAT ASPECT IS MET and will be totally transparent. (Though in some cases it may well be the result of previous non- transparent negotiations.)
My next blog will be Part Three of Problems Associated With Hung Parliaments,
thank you
Frederick W Gilling Thursday 22 April 2010
As was to be expected the word PARTY figures in the discussions and literature as to how a particular person can be deemed to be worthy of the title Prime Minister. That infers, with justification, that party politics are dominant and that the leader of the party that holds the most seats is in pole position, however in a hung Parliament that does not guarantee the race will be won. To guarantee that the leader of a party will become the Prime Minister a party must hold more than fifty percent of the seats, in which case, of course, Parliament is not "hung".
"PARTIES" have become so woven into the very fabric of politics in the UK, and many other democracies, that the word PARTY is used on the assumption, justified at the moment, that they will exist. As a start to rectifying the use of the word Party in legislation, or in "case law" situations, I suggest that the initials MPs could, also with justification, be used in place of the word PARTY.
So, without further ado, let us assume that following an election MPs are gathered in the House of Commons, duly sworn in and under the control of The Speaker. Their first duty, under my proposed new legislation, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER PARLIAMENT IS "HUNG" OR NOT, is to elect a Prime Minister, then other Ministers that are deemed necessary as well as the associated Deputies. This, as far as I am aware, is a drastic departure from the established procedure where the person designated as Prime Minister chooses the Chancellor and Ministers from his own party, the pros and cons for my suggested way of establishing a GOVERNMENT will be advanced below.
All MPs should be familiar with the gist of the following sentence that I quote from the material mentioned above [In Part One]. "A crucial aspect of the British system of government is that the government of the day must enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons". The procedure outlined in my next blog WILL ENSURE THAT ASPECT IS MET and will be totally transparent. (Though in some cases it may well be the result of previous non- transparent negotiations.)
My next blog will be Part Three of Problems Associated With Hung Parliaments,
thank you
Frederick W Gilling Thursday 22 April 2010
Tuesday 20 April 2010
Problems Associated With Hung Parliaments. Part One
The possibility of a "Hung Parliament" resulting from the general election in the UK on the sixth of May seems to have increased greatly. The website for Parliament can be searched for information in regard to hung parliaments. Standard note SN/PC/04951 under Library House of Commons, written by Lucinda Maer yields examples from 1900 to date. The Cabinet Office has published a Draft Chapter of the Cabinet Manual that covers aspects related to the formation of Government, this includes that of a Hung Parliament.
After about two hours of searching through and reading different solutions to the problem of Hung Parliaments I came to the firm conclusion that all that I had read provided pretty conclusive proof that we need to at least make a start on a written constitution. At the moment we seem to be relying on, in effect, "case law". To the best of my knowledge very little is chiselled in stone and quite a lot is cobbled [pun there] up to suit the situation at the time.
One method of dealing with the problem is for the leader of the party with the largest number of seats to form a "Minority Government". A great deal of discussion probably takes place, behind different closed doors, prior to the gathering in the House that ends with one MP having sufficient backing to meet the Queen and gain her approval to form a government. Such a minority government may last a long time due to various reasons, one being by avoiding matters that are likely to cut across any major beliefs of a majority of the opposition. Another is that many of the MPs, or a particular party, do not want to trigger another election until they consider their chances of being elected again are maximised.
Another way of overcoming a hung parliament is to form a coalition government. One could argue that as that coalition could represent a majority of voters it satisfies an underlying principle of democracy. As an over simplified example, if party A wins 40% of the seats and parties B and C 30% each then a coalition of B and C means that 20% more of the voters are represented in government, it could even ensure that the coalition government runs a full term.
My next blog will be Part Two of Problems Associated With Hung Parliaments, thank you
Frederick W Gilling Wednesday 21 April 2010
After about two hours of searching through and reading different solutions to the problem of Hung Parliaments I came to the firm conclusion that all that I had read provided pretty conclusive proof that we need to at least make a start on a written constitution. At the moment we seem to be relying on, in effect, "case law". To the best of my knowledge very little is chiselled in stone and quite a lot is cobbled [pun there] up to suit the situation at the time.
One method of dealing with the problem is for the leader of the party with the largest number of seats to form a "Minority Government". A great deal of discussion probably takes place, behind different closed doors, prior to the gathering in the House that ends with one MP having sufficient backing to meet the Queen and gain her approval to form a government. Such a minority government may last a long time due to various reasons, one being by avoiding matters that are likely to cut across any major beliefs of a majority of the opposition. Another is that many of the MPs, or a particular party, do not want to trigger another election until they consider their chances of being elected again are maximised.
Another way of overcoming a hung parliament is to form a coalition government. One could argue that as that coalition could represent a majority of voters it satisfies an underlying principle of democracy. As an over simplified example, if party A wins 40% of the seats and parties B and C 30% each then a coalition of B and C means that 20% more of the voters are represented in government, it could even ensure that the coalition government runs a full term.
My next blog will be Part Two of Problems Associated With Hung Parliaments, thank you
Frederick W Gilling Wednesday 21 April 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)