So What If The Next Pm Did Not Win The Most Seats?

[youngmafbog]

Britain's next Prime Minister might not be the leader of the party which wins the most seats at the General Election, Britain's former top civil servant has told Sky News.

As this could happen either way I thought it might be good to debate before any mud slinging starts.

Does sound odd, but it's the way things are, however could it put the public off politics even more?

[DaisyNonna]

There is nothing left to put me more off politics.

[DTCwordfan]

16% is the answer, the highest in the northern EU and almost rivalling their southern bretheren. Corruption is rife.

http://www.atkearney.com/financial-institutions/featured-article/-/asset_publisher/j8IucAqMqEhB/content/the-shadow-economy-in-europe-2013/10192

[Gromit]

// For thirteen yeas from 1997-2010 most of southern England outside London had a Labour Prime Minister with very few Labour MPs representing them. //

But during that time, England had a majority of Labour MPs.

2005, Blair's worst result, there were 91 more English MPs than Conservative ones. There were even more during Blair's landslide wins.

[New Judge]

But southern England didn't and that area has a far greater proportion of the UK population than Scotland does. If the Scots can complain about being governed by a party they did not elect then southern Englanders have a far stronger case. But in fact neither of them has any case at all. The government is that of the UK, not any particular area of it. Scotland is not an independent nation state and devolution has provided the Scots with delusions of grandeur.

[SirOracle]

New Judge your comparison of SE England is not really valid,as what you seem to forget is that prior to the Union of the Crowns,Scotland was a separate country.

This is the whole point of the growing increase in the Scots wanting to revert back to this position. This movement for Independence will continue into the future,the speed dependent on how quickly Westminster carries through with its pre- referendum promises.

I agree with TTT that the SNP will likely be the 3rd largest party after May 2015.

[Gromit]

New Judge,
yes, the south was awash with Conservative voting constituencies under Blair. The North was awah with Labour voting constituencies during the Thatcher Governments. Cherry pucking one bit of England to prove a point about Scotland doesn't work.

[New Judge]

It's no different to cherry picking any other area of the UK (e.g. Scotland).Neither area has a case. Scotland is a component part of the UK, as is southern England (albeit far more populous). As I said, the government is that of the UK, not of England or Scotland.

Yes, SirO, prior to the Union Scotland was indeed an independent nation. But it isn't now and has not been for 300 years. Furthermore the people of Scotland rejected independence just three months ago. I was profoundy disappointed with the result as the situation at present, with the Scots being granted privileges not afforded to the English is, far from being a uniting force, just a recipe for the creation of more division and rancour. The Scots, having decided to remain in the Union, should do just that. Embrace it, accept that they are just a small part of the UK, stop whinging on about how hard done by they are and start counting the cash they receive from south of the border.

[ludwig]

The judge is right. Liverpool's probably never elected a Tory MP, and Surrey's never elected a Labour one, but as far as I know neither region is using that as a reason to become independent from the UK.

I do hope it happens one day though - Scotland that is, not Liverpool or Surrey.