Difficult law quetion?On the constitutional issues? See below.....?

Question

Assume the Conservative Party has just won a vote of no confidence in the Government following a debate in the House of Commons. The Conservative Party “won” because a large number of Labour MPs were unable to attend the House of Commons because of the chaotic state of the railways.

Mr Blair refuses to resign. His argument is that Labour has a big majority in the House of Commons and if their members had been able to get to Westminster, Labour would not have been defeated in the vote of confidence. Mr Cameron, the leader of the Conservative Party, argues that this is nonsense and that Mr Blair and his government should resign.

Advise the Queen on the constitutional issues involved and Mr Cameron as to whether he may take legal action to force Mr Blair and his government to resign and as to his chances of success.

Answer 1

AFAIK there's no actual legal requirement for the prime minister to resign after losing a vote of confidence - as with so much in the British constitution, it's a matter of custom. The vote is really to demonstrate whether or not the PM can command a majority in the Commons.

Probably the best course of action for Blair in this scenario would be to wait a few days until the railways calm down and then call another vote, which he would easily win.

It should be clear to Cameron - and the Queen - that with the current balance of MPs in the Commons there's no way that he could command a majority. Even if he did force Blair to resign, and took his place, he would be unable to pass any legislation, and it wouldn't be long before another vote of confidence was passed letting Labour (presumably led by Brown by then) back into power.

To be honest, the Queen would be very unlikely to appoint Cameron in any case because of this inability to command a majority.

Answer 2

A motion of no confidence, also called a censure motion is a parliamentary motion traditionally passed or rejected by means of a parliamentary vote (a vote of no confidence). In the British Parliament it generally appears as an early day motion.

If the Conservative party won a vote of no confidence, then the Labour party would undoubtedly respond by proposing a motion of confidence which, according to parliamentary procedure in the Westminster system, takes precedence and so replaces the motion of no confidence (if Tony Blair won the vote).

If Labour had a large majority then party discipline; a so called " 3 line whip" would probably be sufficient to defeat a motion of no confidence, because Labour would have the Commons majority to replace it with a vote of confidence. Motions of no confidence are more likely to be seen in parties with slim majorities or co-alition governments, and is rarely seen in a two party democracy, especially one with a large majority.

The only exception to this is possibly the defeat of a supply (spendng money) bill which automatically requires the resignation of government or the disolution of Parliament. A supply bill has not been defeated in the Commons since the 17th Century, when the clash between Parliament and the Crown (who wished to raise additonal money) resulted in the civil war.

Answer 3

obama thinks that the form ought to be 'interpreted' for those people who're too stupid to be attentive to what the founding fathers particularly meant to assert. he even stated: " Obama stated right here relating to the fashion of individual he could hire to fill David Souter's seat on the SCOTUS: "I view that high quality of empathy, of information and figuring out with people's hopes and struggles as a needed element for arriving at in simple terms judgements and consequences," he stated. "i visit hunt for somebody who's dedicated to the rule of thumb of regulation, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial technique and the suitable limits of the judicial place." the dazzling element approximately this fact is that the two aspects of it are thoroughly contradictory. Judges could in particular no longer evaluate whether or no longer they "perceive with people's hopes and struggles" whilst they make a criminal ruling." as standard, obama speaks out of the two aspects of his mouth.

Answer 4

Pick your fights, ones you know you can win in a court of law. Ones that you know are impeachable and take it all the way to the top...Supreme Court or whatever they call it there.