David Cameron a bit presumptious - already electing himself the winner.

[bythestairs]

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11584649/David-Cameron-to-declare-victory-on-Friday-without-a-coalition-deal.html

Do you not understand how politics works? As the largest party he has a democratic imperative to form the next Govt and a legitimacy that the party who some second don't have.
And I woudl say the same if Ed came first

If he can't command a majority in the house of commons it means fuck all that he's got the highest number of seats. He still couldn't get a Queen's speech through. No imperative for him to form government whatsoever, no matter what he would like you to believe.

He can attempt to form a government but there's every possibility that his Queens Speech will be voted down.

Oh look, Ed's doing the same...

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3069395/Boasts-Ed-ll-grab-power-lose-Labour-leader-admits-not-win-sets-condition-coalition.html

Erudite doesn't seem to understand how politics work (dare I say that this doesn't surprise me having coming across his/her previous posts).

There is no constitutional reason why the second largest party cannot form a government assuming it can command the confidence of the House of Commons via the support of other parties - nor does the largest party have any God-given right to rule if it doesn't have a majority.

The conservatives are being really silly about this, constitutionally they don't have a leg to stand on.

The point being made is that whoever gains the most seats has a first go at forming a Govt. Obviously they may not be able to but they have first dibs, as it were. Whoever that may be.

Erudite - that is simply wrong. Cameron does gave the right to form the government, ut as incumbent, not leader of the largest party. If Labour has more seats, but in the minority, Cameron still gets first shot. It's only where the former opposition has a majority that they can make the first stab.

The same as last time basically.

You're forgetting national confidence and legitimacy, Misti. ( and if we are going to debate you might want to leave personal remarks out of it, yes?)

I think you serisouly underestimate the British people having confidence in a party coming second propped up by a NatSocialist party with only 4% of the votes. As Nick Clegg himself says - that is not democracy.

Went too quickly...

However, the Tories must be able to demonstrate they have the confidence of the House. Lots here:
britgovcon.wordpress.com/2015/05/04/a-fixed-term-hung-parliament/

All the party leaders have said whoever gets the most seats should be allowed the chance to form a government first. All have them have said it, so while anyone can....they all seem to feel whoever gets the most seats should have first go.

There is a good explanation of the procedure here: www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/research/research-archive/FAQs

As the incumbent, Cameron gets first try at forming a government. It has nothing to do with whether his party has the most seats.

It sounds to me as if the Tories are really throwing their toys out of the pram on this issue. Those bullingdon boys really do think they were born to rule :-/

Those bullingdon boys really do think they were born to rule :-/

And there we have it - intelligent debate spoilt.

I'll leave you to your insults, that is seemngly the only way you can debate.

What gets me more than anything else is how desperate the Conservatives seem - ready to tear apart anything constitutionally, promise anything in order to get back in.
AND not talk about what they plan to do - what a lovely surprise there for us all - farewell statutory maternity pay.

I see Labour and SNP just as desparate.

Can you link me to where they will abolish Mat pay?

The SNP are likely to increase their number of MPs by about 50. What's so desperate about that? I think they are doing rather well.

In scotland and even with 59 MP's they still only have the vote of 4% of the electorate. That may be democratic in Scotland but not so in the rest of the UK.

I genuinely don't understand the Tory rationale for whipping up these faux constitutional issues (that can be debunked by 30 seconds on Google).

The most likely outcome tomorrow is that no single party will command a majority, and that the only two-party grouping that has any chance of producing a majority is LAB-SNP. So another coalition is a given. If the Tories can put together another coalition that can command the support of the HoC all well and good. But attempting to stay in power without a majority surely is the worst possible result all round - it certainly wouldn't be "legitimate" or good for "national confidence", and even the prospect of the chaos that would ensue must be bad for business confidence etc.

In scotland and even with 59 MP's they still only have the vote of 4% of the electorate

So? It's hardly their fault that the population in Scotland is small wrt the rest of the UK. The DUP will get less than 1% of the vote and are a shower of bastards but are seen as perfectly fine to shore up a minority Con government. The Lib Dems are only 10% of the vote and are behaving like King makers.

Just because someone is voted for by a Scottish person doesn't mean they should be locked out of Westminster, or is it only OK to have Scottish MPs if they are Lab/Con/LibDem?

Let's all remember that both conservatives and labour campaigned for Scotland to stay in the union. They got their wish. Scotland is, therefore, still part of the UK and entitled to participate in government.

Seen from the Scottish perspective, it no doubt looks rather unfair that they have been ruled for the last 5 years by a party that has only one Scottish MP. But that's the way that the UK parliamentary system works - it's neither fair nor unfair. Anyone who wanted a change had the opportunity to vote in the PR referendum a few years back. Most didn't bother.