Why you should vote.

I assume we'd keep the current government or a coalition would be formed. I can't see us being alllowed to be government-less. Is there any inhabited country without some form of government? It would be interesting to see if they function better than a country with a government. A completely zero turnout would be very unlikely as the extremists would always vote, so it's likely we'd have an extreme government. Also, does anyone know if MPs can vote?

Summer. xx.

 

From a constitutional point of view, the likely outcome would be that the queen would recall the last parliament, and invite the previous prime minister to form a government. In such an extreme situation, she'd be likely to insist that he included all parties in his cabinet. As the constitutional head of state, she'd also be likely to insist that he address the problem of zero turnour by looking at alternatives such as proportional representation. Once satisfied that the British people would be likely to vote, she'd disolve parliament, call an election, and take it from there. Remember, the queen has ultimate authority in this country. Prime ministers are prime ministers not because they're elected, but because the queen appoints them. Prime ministers are also unable to disolve parliament - they can only request that the queen do so. Also, no law can be passed without the queen signing it. And that's just skimming the surface of royal power.

 

But I learnt that if the Queen was to refuse to sign for a law to be passed, there would be an absolute uproar and possibly a situation where the government have the queen, king or the royal family as a whole abdicated or something, as has happened in many other countries.

 

That's a very unpredictable situation. If, in some unlikely circumstance, the queen refused to sign off a new law, then of course there'd be an uproar (or a 'constitutional crisis' as it's called). However, nobody can force the queen to abdicate. She is legally the head of state. The armed forces swear allegiance to the queen, not the government.

But anyway.... we were talking about a situation where there was zero turn-out for a general election. If a government was formed at the queen's invitation under these circumstances, I doubt there's be much uproar over her refusing to sign legislation submitted by a government with no electoral mandate!

It's also worth remembering that the queen exercises much more influence than you might think. The prime minister has regualr meetings with the queen, and the queen's office gets to see any proposed legislation long before she's expected to sign it.

Also, it's not so far-fetched to imagine the queen exercising her constitutional powers. When the tory party booted Thatcher out as leader, this did not in iteslf remove her from office as prime minister. The prime minister is appointed by the queen. For a short period, there was speculation that Thatcher might refuse to stand down. If this had happened, it's almost certain that the queen would've stripped her of office.

 

I think you're over-estimating the real power of the monarchy, Dok. The Queen technically does have all the powers you described, but as Merlin rightly said, if she ever tried to actually exercise any of them, she would be outruled and overthrown pretty damn quickly. That's why the monarchy has never tried any such thing in recent history.

Even in the case of appointing an interim government after a zero turnout, all she would be doing is rubber-stamping a decision made by the government which was standing before the abortive election (or a decision made by the attorney-general, same thing).

I don't think there's any real case for saying that the monarchy has any influence whatsoever over policy. Even the weekly Prime-Ministerial meetings are pretty much entirely for show. If the Queen had tried to stop Tony Blair from imposing a minimum wage or going to war or whatever, Parliament would declare Britain a republic faster than you can say "elitist parasite".

 

On the contrary. I think you're seriously under-estimating it. Just because the sleeping dragon hasn't stretched its wings for a while, it doesn't mean that it can no longer breath fire.

If the monarchy was an isolated entity all on its own, I'd be inclined to agree with you. What you forget though is that the royal family is deeply entwined with the rest of Britain's upper class.... and democracy or no democracy, it's them that run the country. Ever stopped to listen to the accent of every single senior military figure you've ever heard talk? All upper class to a man. Most of the tory party.... upper class. Most of the house of lords..... upper class. And let's not forget who owns most of Britain's big business.

I agree the monarchy is not likely to indulge in any overt displays of power anytime soon. As I said, that provokes a constitutional crisis under normal circumstances. However, any crisis of parliament, and I suspect you will see the monarchy impose its will pretty damn fast. After all, that's what it's there for.

I also think you under-estimate the power the direct influence that the royal household has over policy. All bills are submitted to the queen's office for inspection long before they become law. We can only speculate on how much influence is exerted at this stage.

While most of the royal muscle may be flexed in private, details do occasionally leak out. Ponder, if you will, this recent report:

​

​

 

I don't think there's any suggestion that the monarchy is able to make changes to the text of a bill, is there? The precise text of any law is shaped, amended and voted on by the Lords and the Commons, it's far-fetched to think that it comes back from the Palace with bits scribbled out! Royal assent for laws is just ceremonial. Apparently Queen Anne was the last monarch to refuse to give royal assent in 1707!

 

Yup. Royal assent hasn't been witheld for centuries. These days, royal influence is considerably more subtle. I've seen a lot of anecdotal evidence over the years that strongly suggests that the monarchy exert a direct influence over the content of legislation. This is ultimately impossible to prove, because it's in the best interest of all involved to keep their mouths shut about it, but I wouldn't find it that surprising. My understanding is that if the royal household disagrees strongly with draft legislation, their opinions are 'made known'. I've also heard it suggested that this is why it's taking so long to see a ban on fox hunting. Really, this would explain an awful lot. Why would a Labour government not introduce an outright ban? They have a massive majority in the commons, they have an electoral mandate (manifesto pledge), they have cross-party support, the majority of the public are opposed to fox hunting, they have an ideological hatred of the upper class....... so where's the ban?

 

I thought you were in favour of PR? The Euro elections are our only chance to actually cast a vote using PR....

 

How exactly do you expect anything to change? If everybody opposed to Labour decided not to vote, then the would become the outright rulers of the country with no opposition. As I stated in the original post, here in Northern Ireland we are standing a candidate not with the view of winning a seat, but with the intention of getting noticed so that next time we might win a seat. But we need people to vote for us, or else we'll just be shrugged off as a wasted vote by all those good people who are fooled into thinking that things can't change.

 

I refer you to Argentina last year. There was a period where there was, esentially, anarchy. What happened? The politicians organised an election. The winning party were overthrown, so they organised another election. The people voted in the same old way, and one of the old parties got in. Here was a chance to either maintain anarchy, or to establish a revolutionary party, or even just something akin to Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, but everything went back to how it was.

 

You should study anthropology. During the colonial era there were many studies carried out in anarchic societies. Of course all were subject to the coersion of the colonial rulers, but primarily left to their own devices. There are many and varied forms of governement, and law, and arguments as to whether some of these societies had governement or law, but all functioned, otherwise they would have ceased to be a society. A particularly good example (which I own but haven't actually read yet) is 'The Nuer' by E. E. Evans-Pritchard.

 

But the European elections use a 'closed list' form of proportional representation, which means seats won't be determined by a simple majority vote. This has already led to UK Green party representation in the European parliament.

 

This thread has passed its sell-by date ... perhaps it should now be did you vote?

 

There are always more elections to come. Now we have more time and less urgency.

 

Don't be weak, Sar!

 

You don't need it. You just turn up and give them your name and address. Secure, huh?