So who would form the minority government? Labour as they're incumbent and largest party, or the Alliance as the two parties together is larger still?
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
Well fortunately for you the Communist Party aren't doing too well right now!
Laboor, Coomunists? Sam jobby
If the Liberals joined the Conservatives and National Liberals, would they rejoin the National Liberals and form a grand Liberal party, since the National Liberals were, after all, just pro-Tory Liberals, unless I'm mistaken?
Regardless of numbers Labour as incumbent get first dibs, if they can't form a workable coalition (as happened in 2010), the PM will tell the Queen (or rather King in '49) his government is untenable and the monarch will then call for the next possible PM, which will be the Churchill and the Alliance who once more must organise a coalition.
Basically British government does not literally demand a majority. Due to the lack of a real constitution, the incumbent could technically hold out for as long they liked regardless of ability to run Parliament. However tradition, the possibility of a crisis (if the Monarch actually uses their power to appoint a new PM without the old one resigning) and the fact they'd suffer at the next election for being twats mean the above is the norm.
EDIT: I mean really if no one called a new election you could technically see numerous shifting coalitions form governments in a single (5 year) Parliament.
All of this is of course ignoring the Communists and SDLP as possible Labour allies. Actually as an AI party, could Labour use the SDLP as allies? The Social Democratic and Labour Party although technically Irish Nationalists were obvious colleagues of the British Labour Party and were more concerned with ending sectarianism than reunification.
That was the origin of the split - but, as you can see from the debates between Enewald and Liberals like Densley, there now exists a very large ideological cleavage between the two Liberal parties - neither of whom consider the other truly 'Liberal'. Both have more in common with the Conservatives than they do with each other. So they won't be reuniting anytime soon.
They wouldn't automatically do that, but it would probably get the ball rolling on merger discussions. How those would turn out depends entirely on Tommy: the merger could be amicable, negotiations could fall apart, or there could be a second split within the Liberal Party between those who want to merge and those who do not.
IIRC this is prior to the founding of the Sdlp, regardless I've listed the Nationalist MPs as only 'Irish Nationalist' to count any party that could fit in that category. I'd consider hem potential Labour allies - but with just 2 MPs they're numbers won't make a big difference whilst the 10 pro-Tory UUP MPs are rather more useful
Enewald, Densely an' Ah in th' sam ceilidh?
(Enewald, Densely and I in the same party?)
HAHAHA
IIRC the leader of the National Liberals is Ernest Brown, not Enewald. I fail to see why the policy of an entire party should be radically adjusted according to the whims of only one or two of its voters.
The same can be said for dadarian. He voted for the Tories before, and opposing the Labour doesn't really make sense, considering the Liberals were in a coalition with it for the last four years.
Judging from the agendas posted by Tommy, I think the liberals couldn't join a government that would include the Communists or the Nat-Libs. The most likely option is that they'll support whichever party comes out on top, until a crisis occurs.
Judging from the agendas posted by Tommy, I think the liberals couldn't join a government that would include the Communists or the Nat-Libs. The most likely option is that they'll support whichever party comes out on top, until a crisis occurs.
Of course. But dadarian's policies aren't exactly sticking to the official party line, outlined by Tommy
Of course. But dadarian's policies aren't exactly sticking to the official party line, outlined by Tommy
Look, I for one am 100% alright with that. You get guys like the late Tony Benn who like to do their own thing in every parliament and its okay that readers should reflect radicals like that.. I just don't understand why the party line should automatically and unquestionably be determined by the radicals just because they shout loud and often, irrespective of the actual manifesto Tommy has posted.
I actually agree with You on that, although I know I've been the same loudly shouting radical quite often. Individuals should not be able to change things, but a certain number of voters maybe should and by certain number I mean like par exemple 5 or 6 in a 13-voter party. Maybe another "faction" thingymajig or something, as factions don't break the party if understood things correctly.
Last edited:
Of course. But dadarian's policies aren't exactly sticking to the official party line, outlined by Tommy
Heh, bludy teetotaler
- Status