I've been reading recently that Tony Blair's majority has been reduced to one. Could someone please explain what the papers mean by this?
To me, it means that the Tories and Liberal Democrats combined have one fewer seat than Labour in the House and Labour are vulnerable to a defeat on any given bill which would lead to an election.
Recently in Canada we had a situation where the a single MP crossed the floor to another party (with a minority govt) and prevented its defeat on the same sex marriage bill.
df2inaus
Share This Page:
Blair's majority reduced to one?????
Blair's majority reduced to one?????
"Poor Ike, it won't be a bit like the Army. He'll find it very frustrating. He'll sit here and he'll say, 'Do this! Do that!' And nothing will happen."
Harry Truman
Harry Truman
It means that on this vote, the government had one more vote on this motion than the opposition.
This happened because a number of Lbour MPs voted against their own party and others abstained from casting their vote for the motion.
Of course, there were several MPs on various parties who weren't around to vote at all!
Labour still have a majority number of seats (over 200?), but the motion was so hated that a number of MPs couldn't bring themselves to vote for it.
There's speculation that if it hadn't already been a "bad day for the government" with David Blunkett resigning, more Labour MPs would have voted against it instead of abstaining and the bill (this measure, anyway) would have been defeated.
This happened because a number of Lbour MPs voted against their own party and others abstained from casting their vote for the motion.
Of course, there were several MPs on various parties who weren't around to vote at all!
Labour still have a majority number of seats (over 200?), but the motion was so hated that a number of MPs couldn't bring themselves to vote for it.
There's speculation that if it hadn't already been a "bad day for the government" with David Blunkett resigning, more Labour MPs would have voted against it instead of abstaining and the bill (this measure, anyway) would have been defeated.
Blair's majority
Ruth,
Thanks for being so concise, makes sense now. So, had Blair lost that vote, would it have been no-confidence and an election called?
df2inaus
Thanks for being so concise, makes sense now. So, had Blair lost that vote, would it have been no-confidence and an election called?
df2inaus
"Poor Ike, it won't be a bit like the Army. He'll find it very frustrating. He'll sit here and he'll say, 'Do this! Do that!' And nothing will happen."
Harry Truman
Harry Truman
Probably not, because I don't think this part of the bill was a heavily whipped vote and it wasn't a main part of the bill. They were "defeated" (well, a majority of one was as good as a defeat!) on the part to ban "glorifying terrorism".
However, the fact that they government on won by only a single vote was enough to make then pull the vote on the detention for 90 days without trial measure as they would likely have suffered an even bigger rebellion on that proposal.
If the vote had been lost outright, the whole bill would have probably been up for a rethink as this is the first time in 35 years a government has tried to enact anti-terrorism legislation without an all-party consensus, and it would have been extremly damaging for Blair and Clarke, but they would likely both have stayed in post. Clarke might have got an earlier reshuffle and Blair might have handed over the leadership a bit sooner, but the government wouldn't have fallen on it.
No confidence votes are much rarer in the UK as the "first past the post" system makes minority govenments extremely rare and formal coalitions only occur in times of "national emergency", like WW2. Occasionally a no confidence vote might get called if you have a government with a very small overall majority, like John Major's last government, but even then you still have to have MPs voting for "no confidence" in their own party for them to be passed.
It will be worth watching what happens when the health and education bills come in over the next few months, though. If Blair suffers significant rebellions on these, things could get very interesting!
Ruth
However, the fact that they government on won by only a single vote was enough to make then pull the vote on the detention for 90 days without trial measure as they would likely have suffered an even bigger rebellion on that proposal.
If the vote had been lost outright, the whole bill would have probably been up for a rethink as this is the first time in 35 years a government has tried to enact anti-terrorism legislation without an all-party consensus, and it would have been extremly damaging for Blair and Clarke, but they would likely both have stayed in post. Clarke might have got an earlier reshuffle and Blair might have handed over the leadership a bit sooner, but the government wouldn't have fallen on it.
No confidence votes are much rarer in the UK as the "first past the post" system makes minority govenments extremely rare and formal coalitions only occur in times of "national emergency", like WW2. Occasionally a no confidence vote might get called if you have a government with a very small overall majority, like John Major's last government, but even then you still have to have MPs voting for "no confidence" in their own party for them to be passed.
It will be worth watching what happens when the health and education bills come in over the next few months, though. If Blair suffers significant rebellions on these, things could get very interesting!
Ruth
Well, Blair's majority overturned! A voting majority of 66 turned into a defeat of 31 votes. This was on the "detention for 90 days without charge" bit. They're voting on a 28 day compromise at the moment.
As the government were behaving more and more as if this was a confidence issue (Brown and Straw recalled from abroad), this will make things quite interesting...
As the government were behaving more and more as if this was a confidence issue (Brown and Straw recalled from abroad), this will make things quite interesting...
-
Wholley
- Guest
Frank.
I'm afraid your right.
The man has no shame.
But on this particular issue he was probably right.
I understand that senior Plod and the Secrets are not well pleased.
We have the same shite arguement going on here.
The New York Times has discovered"Black"Prisons run by the CIA.
Now "Torture","Civil Rights"And all the old Left Wing Mantra's are being bandied about.
How can we be so nasty to people who are trying to kill us En Masse?
According to the ACLU it's their right to kill us even if their in this Country Illegaly.
Won't be suprised when the NAACP get involved.
After all some of these murderers are from Africa.
Christ on a camel when the fark are these PC w@#k going to get it.
Rant over.
Soap Box.By Numbers!!!
Diiiisssss.....Mount.
Three Four.
I'm afraid your right.
The man has no shame.
But on this particular issue he was probably right.
I understand that senior Plod and the Secrets are not well pleased.
We have the same shite arguement going on here.
The New York Times has discovered"Black"Prisons run by the CIA.
Now "Torture","Civil Rights"And all the old Left Wing Mantra's are being bandied about.
How can we be so nasty to people who are trying to kill us En Masse?
According to the ACLU it's their right to kill us even if their in this Country Illegaly.
Won't be suprised when the NAACP get involved.
After all some of these murderers are from Africa.
Christ on a camel when the fark are these PC w@#k going to get it.
Rant over.
Soap Box.By Numbers!!!
Diiiisssss.....Mount.
Three Four.
-
Wholley
- Guest
-
harry hackedoff
- Member
- Posts: 14415
- Joined: Tue 19 Feb, 2002 12:00 am
What`s the diff between The Cult and Bubba Clinton?
I`d shag Clinton
Not his wife though
Cherry Blair, top Tenna Lady model, for sure.
You may not be aware of just how often the delicious Ms Blair is down here on "lecture tours"
Of course she wouldn`t be making shedloads of dosh now would she.
I`d shag Clinton
Not his wife though
Cherry Blair, top Tenna Lady model, for sure.
You may not be aware of just how often the delicious Ms Blair is down here on "lecture tours"
Of course she wouldn`t be making shedloads of dosh now would she.
[url=http://www.militaryforums.co.uk/forums/groupcp.php?g=397][img]http://www.militaryforums.co.uk/forums/images/usergroups/listener.gif[/img][/url]
Oh, her "lecture tours" have had quite a bit of airtime. There's even been talk of amending the "standards & privileges in public life" stuff.
Didn't she nearly clean out a shop when invited to have a few bits for the kids?
No chance of her being a High Court judge, now. Still, at least she has taken her other half on over a few legal issues.
Didn't she nearly clean out a shop when invited to have a few bits for the kids?
No chance of her being a High Court judge, now. Still, at least she has taken her other half on over a few legal issues.
-
flighty
- Guest
