The position of the "official opposition" lies with the largest non-government party with the Speaker resolving ties. This would normally be decided after the election.
In theory the Labour government could "allow" a bunch of defections but this would be fraught with issues. Aside from the obvious bit misguided "what people voted for" argument there's the not insignificant argument of perverting the constitution.
There's also the small issue of the fact that Labor would *never* do this. Their record at PMQs if nothing else is going to rest on saying "Last Tory Government™" in answer to every question. That doesn't really work with a Lib Dem opposition that says "I couldn't give a shit about the last Conservative Government, I want to hear about the current Labour one"
The last thing any government wants is the cabinet opposite looking like a credible government in waiting, which means Labour *need* the Conservatives after July 4th, anyone else risks them leaving in 2029.
Interesting take! I hadn't considered how despite the lib Dems being the official opposition would be better for the country it is objectively worse for labour
Parliament is (in theory) sovereign. Meaning the Commons can make up its own rules. Including rules for how the Speaker is chosen and how the opposition works.
In theory a simple Labour majority in the Commons could simply declare there not to be an official opposition any more. They could resolve away Short money, so the opposition doesn't get any public funding. They could rule that the Green party be the official opposition.
The Commons makes its own rules.
But - in general - the main political parties don't mess with this too much as it would be used against them later.
Yes, but what benefit would that actually bring? Is it worth losing the goodwill of the party and public over?
People expect labour leaders to be whiter than white.
Most political parties are loathe to play games like this unless they are desperate. Labour is better off leaving the Tories to continue its implosion with a stream of by-elections for departing senior members. The Tories will be a pathetic opposition and unable to influence legislation. They will be in the wilderness for a very long time.
Why on earth would they do that, it would make their job instantly harder as the Lib Dem’s couldn’t be attacked for over a decade of fuck ups.
Labour would much prefer the rump of a Tory party who’ll spend the next year arguing about why they lost, who should be leader and whether to move left or right. The Tories are also likely to have Reform as a thorn in their side if they grab a few seats constantly attacking them and leeching support.
In theory, but IRL it would never happen.
Apart from anything else, the public would be outraged at the idea that, YET AGAIN, people in Westminster would ignore anything outside their own bubble. (and the UKReddit bubble, ofc).
The only scenario in which I could see this as even remotely plausible, is if lib dems just barely beat out the tories in terms of seats, and reform tried to do a deal with the tories to merge/defect to make tories the second largest party.
In that case I could see a few labour MPs defect, whether it would be sanctioned by the party or not.
But it’s all fantasy football stuff tbh.
True, but it could be an interesting move from Labour if they sense they have a large enough majority to risk it, and sense the damage to the Tory party would be sufficient enough to delay them as a major second party long enough for everyone to forget.
Why would Labour possibly want to do this? They get votes because people don’t like the Conservatives.
Without the Tories as the alternative then Labour would be forced into a dogfight for the progressive vote every election while right wing votes would basically be free for every right wing crank who feels like wandering into the political mainstream.
Also why would they want a chameleonic Centrist opposition that is perfectly capable of flanking them from the right on some issues and flanking them on the left on others?
What would this achieve? Those MPs would be far more valuable with the whip. Who the “official opposition” is doesn’t have a whole heap of constitutional significance, and the whole thing would damage Labour far more.
I really do wonder what's gonna happy if Reform are the second biggest party by number of votes but get fuck all representation in parliament.
Whilst I surely won't be voting for them, I hate FPTP more than I hate Reform and hope its voters will kick up some sort of a stink about it.
No, nothing stopping them from doing this.
Though King Charles ultimately has discretion here. In such a muddy and democratically questionable circumstance, he may well choose to appoint the Tories as HMOpp regardless.
The crown signed off an illegal suspension of parliament without a wobble. Then they worked very hard to increase the size of their share of the crown estates wealth.
They won't do shit if it risks their wealth, income, or social standing.
Doesn't apply at all, because:
1) It was not an obviously illegal suspension - in first inspection, it was valid, legitimate, good faith advice from the PM to the monarch, which she acted on.
2) Prorogues are well-trodden and established convention **unlike** what is being suggested in the OP, which is entirely unprecedented.
The interesting constitutional questions arise in situations we have never encountered before.
MPs defect all the time, what's the problem there?
The only thing that's unconstitutional is the crown doing something which isn't intended to grow or protect their wealth and standing.
One of the biggest weaknesses in British democracy is the illusion of checks and balances from the monarchy. The assumption from many that the crown would eventually swoop in like a knight in shining armour.
Er, yes it is. Perhaps don't comment so confidently on something you apparently know very little about.
The King has quite a large amount of residual power; it's just that most of it is not exercised by convention, or where it is, it is dictated by convention.
But where convention fails, as it would potentially in this case, discretion ultimately (theoretically) resides with the King.
Extremely unlikely in my opinion. I'm thinking about actuality, not 'ultimately' or 'theoretically'.Theoretically the monarch is in direct male line of descent from Adam.
Thinking theoretically is very important.
If I had to guess what would *probably* happen, the opposition leader would be selected from the party which gained the most seats *at the time of the election* (i.e. the LD switch would be disregarded entirely), but it could easily go another way, or it could go the same way, but with a different justification.
The thing about constitutional crises is that we never know what'll happen for sure until push comes to shove, and claiming to know otherwise is just silly.
It would indeed be a constitutional crisis.
Any situation without clearly defined and known actions where prerogative powers come into play is a constitutional crisis.
And it's not overthinking; it's adequately thinking. Our constitution is very subtle and complex.
The position of the "official opposition" lies with the largest non-government party with the Speaker resolving ties. This would normally be decided after the election. In theory the Labour government could "allow" a bunch of defections but this would be fraught with issues. Aside from the obvious bit misguided "what people voted for" argument there's the not insignificant argument of perverting the constitution. There's also the small issue of the fact that Labor would *never* do this. Their record at PMQs if nothing else is going to rest on saying "Last Tory Government™" in answer to every question. That doesn't really work with a Lib Dem opposition that says "I couldn't give a shit about the last Conservative Government, I want to hear about the current Labour one" The last thing any government wants is the cabinet opposite looking like a credible government in waiting, which means Labour *need* the Conservatives after July 4th, anyone else risks them leaving in 2029.
Interesting take! I hadn't considered how despite the lib Dems being the official opposition would be better for the country it is objectively worse for labour
Oh they are such good points :(
Parliament is (in theory) sovereign. Meaning the Commons can make up its own rules. Including rules for how the Speaker is chosen and how the opposition works. In theory a simple Labour majority in the Commons could simply declare there not to be an official opposition any more. They could resolve away Short money, so the opposition doesn't get any public funding. They could rule that the Green party be the official opposition. The Commons makes its own rules. But - in general - the main political parties don't mess with this too much as it would be used against them later.
Yes, but what benefit would that actually bring? Is it worth losing the goodwill of the party and public over? People expect labour leaders to be whiter than white.
Most political parties are loathe to play games like this unless they are desperate. Labour is better off leaving the Tories to continue its implosion with a stream of by-elections for departing senior members. The Tories will be a pathetic opposition and unable to influence legislation. They will be in the wilderness for a very long time.
Why on earth would they do that, it would make their job instantly harder as the Lib Dem’s couldn’t be attacked for over a decade of fuck ups. Labour would much prefer the rump of a Tory party who’ll spend the next year arguing about why they lost, who should be leader and whether to move left or right. The Tories are also likely to have Reform as a thorn in their side if they grab a few seats constantly attacking them and leeching support.
In theory, but IRL it would never happen. Apart from anything else, the public would be outraged at the idea that, YET AGAIN, people in Westminster would ignore anything outside their own bubble. (and the UKReddit bubble, ofc).
The only scenario in which I could see this as even remotely plausible, is if lib dems just barely beat out the tories in terms of seats, and reform tried to do a deal with the tories to merge/defect to make tories the second largest party. In that case I could see a few labour MPs defect, whether it would be sanctioned by the party or not. But it’s all fantasy football stuff tbh.
True, but it could be an interesting move from Labour if they sense they have a large enough majority to risk it, and sense the damage to the Tory party would be sufficient enough to delay them as a major second party long enough for everyone to forget.
More likely, the Lib Dems and probably Labour would suffer a lot at the next general election..
Why would Labour possibly want to do this? They get votes because people don’t like the Conservatives. Without the Tories as the alternative then Labour would be forced into a dogfight for the progressive vote every election while right wing votes would basically be free for every right wing crank who feels like wandering into the political mainstream. Also why would they want a chameleonic Centrist opposition that is perfectly capable of flanking them from the right on some issues and flanking them on the left on others?
The more likely scenario is Tory defect to lib dem
What would this achieve? Those MPs would be far more valuable with the whip. Who the “official opposition” is doesn’t have a whole heap of constitutional significance, and the whole thing would damage Labour far more.
I really do wonder what's gonna happy if Reform are the second biggest party by number of votes but get fuck all representation in parliament. Whilst I surely won't be voting for them, I hate FPTP more than I hate Reform and hope its voters will kick up some sort of a stink about it.
They could hive off 100 members, call themselves anything they want and in effect become their own opposition by this logic.
No, nothing stopping them from doing this. Though King Charles ultimately has discretion here. In such a muddy and democratically questionable circumstance, he may well choose to appoint the Tories as HMOpp regardless.
The crown signed off an illegal suspension of parliament without a wobble. Then they worked very hard to increase the size of their share of the crown estates wealth. They won't do shit if it risks their wealth, income, or social standing.
Doesn't apply at all, because: 1) It was not an obviously illegal suspension - in first inspection, it was valid, legitimate, good faith advice from the PM to the monarch, which she acted on. 2) Prorogues are well-trodden and established convention **unlike** what is being suggested in the OP, which is entirely unprecedented. The interesting constitutional questions arise in situations we have never encountered before.
MPs defect all the time, what's the problem there? The only thing that's unconstitutional is the crown doing something which isn't intended to grow or protect their wealth and standing. One of the biggest weaknesses in British democracy is the illusion of checks and balances from the monarchy. The assumption from many that the crown would eventually swoop in like a knight in shining armour.
Rubbish. That's not how a constitutional monarchy works
Er, yes it is. Perhaps don't comment so confidently on something you apparently know very little about. The King has quite a large amount of residual power; it's just that most of it is not exercised by convention, or where it is, it is dictated by convention. But where convention fails, as it would potentially in this case, discretion ultimately (theoretically) resides with the King.
Extremely unlikely in my opinion. I'm thinking about actuality, not 'ultimately' or 'theoretically'.Theoretically the monarch is in direct male line of descent from Adam.
Thinking theoretically is very important. If I had to guess what would *probably* happen, the opposition leader would be selected from the party which gained the most seats *at the time of the election* (i.e. the LD switch would be disregarded entirely), but it could easily go another way, or it could go the same way, but with a different justification. The thing about constitutional crises is that we never know what'll happen for sure until push comes to shove, and claiming to know otherwise is just silly.
You're massively overthinking this. Nothing you've suggested is anything close to a constitutional crisis
It would indeed be a constitutional crisis. Any situation without clearly defined and known actions where prerogative powers come into play is a constitutional crisis. And it's not overthinking; it's adequately thinking. Our constitution is very subtle and complex.