|← Law of the United States||Terrorist Attack →|
According to the constitution of the UK, the prime minister is appointed from the party with the majority of seats in the House of Commons having the most part of votes in the election. For the most part of the UK history, the government has been composed of the ministers from one party, which has the majority of seats in the House. However, coalitions are an acceptable occurrence in the House of Commons. In some cases, the minority of governments has also ruled the UK. One of the most relevant precedents of the government is that the House of Commons has to be confident in its ability to run the country. In this case, the Red party has a majority in the House compared to other individual parties. However, since the Blue party and the Yellow party have been in the coalition and together have more seats in the Parliament than the Red party, the Red party cannot enforce its will on the Queen. According to the constitution, a party of the majority is not the only necessity in the formation of government. It is required that the other parties in the opposition cannot combine to form the majority against the majority party. This makes the demands of the Red party inappropriate because the Yellow-Blue coalition forms a majority against the Red party.
The incumbent prime minister acts as a leader of the government during the general election period in a caretaker capacity. The incumbent also has a priority in getting the chance to form an administration after the election. This means that the incumbent has the chance to form the government before the exploration of other options. In this case, the incumbent prime minister, from the Blue-Yellow parties’ coalition has the chance to form the government. Given that the coalition still has a majority of seats in the House, the parliament has the confidence in the ability of the incumbent to form the administration. In the light of these constitutional issues, her Majesty, the Queen, should not do as the Red party asks to. She should allow the Blue-Yellow Prime Minister to form the government since this will ensure its stability and the legislative success to maintain the success of the government. By inviting the Red party to form the government, it would be difficult for the party to strike any deals with other parties, thus. It will be unable to form the majority in the House resulting to the loss of confidence in the government by parliament.Therefore, it would be in the interest of stability and success of the government to allow the Blue-Yellow Prime Minister to form the administration.
If the Queen failed to dismiss the Blue-Yellow Prime Minister, any legal action taken by the Reds would not be successful in forcing the Prime Minister to resign. The courts would not have a basis for ruling against the Prime Minister. The courts are also bound by the constitution and they would have to consider the required procedures in the formation of an administration after the general election. The rules of the majority of seats in the House of Commons would have to be considered by courts. Forcing the Blue-Yellow Prime Minister to resign would result into the minority government forming the Red party. Although the formation of the minority government in the UK is acceptable, the incumbent Prime Minister has the priority of forming the government after the general election. Although the Queen appoints the Prime Minister, the constitution and other conventions ensure that the proper rules are followed for this appointment.
The courts do not have the power to change provisions made by the Parliament concerning the formation of the government and the appointment of the prime minister; the provisions made by the Parliament concerning the majority ruling and the importance of appointing the incumbent Blue-Yellow prime minister to form the government bind them in this case. This means that the decision made by the Queen in allowing the incumbent to form the government cannot be challenged by any courts. This is because it ensures that the Blue-Yellow coalition, which has the highest number of seats in the House of Commons, produces the prime minister, thus, forming the government. These issues point to the fact that any legal action taken by the Red party against the prime minister would be a complete failure. This is because the constitutional law in the UK dictates that this should be the right cause of action. Unless the Red party can rally the parliament for any vote of no confidence in the Blue-Yellow government, the incumbent Prime Minister should continue. This is the only reason that may force the prime minister to resign; in this case, the Red party would be called upon to form the government since it would be the leader of the official opposition. On the matter of forcing the Queen to dismiss the prime minister, any legal action taken by the Red party would also not be successful. This is because the actions of the Queen are constitutional and bound by legislation of the parliament, thus, cannot be overturned by the courts.
Losing the House of Commons’ vote, in this case, presents a considerable failure in the part of the government due to the effect of the decision of the government finances. However, this should not be the reason for the prime minister to resign or call for general elections. This is because the government feels that it has an alternative that can enable the budget to be balanced despite losing this crucial vote. This means that the government should use all available alternatives to balance the government budget before exploring the resignation option. The perception that the government has top resign upon losing the crucial votes in the House of Commons has been proven to be wrong in many occasions. In the twentieth century, the British government suffered many losses of the crucial votes and bills.Only in three of these occasions did the government consider the resignation or to request the dissolution from the Queen.
The significance of increasing the students’ tuition fees to government finances leads to a situation that makes the losses central to the government policy. Since this item is central to functioning of the government, it would be essential for the government to seek the confidence vote from the House of Commons. The government would have to lobby to the members of parliament to express their confidence in it, instead of assuming that the confidence would be denied. This means that the house will not resign until the vote of confidence has been taken. The government can use the alternative budget cuts to overcome the budget deficit and ensure that the finances are in order to gain the confidence of the members. Based on the outcome of the confidence vote, the government would continue if the house expresses its confidence or it would have to resign if the vote shows that the members have no confidence in the government.
One of the most critical steps that can be taken in this case is ensuring the prosecutor to appeal to this case immediately. The case has to be taken back to the court to ensure that the rioter gets the punishment that befits the crime committed. This will aid in cooling the large public outcry concerning the matter. After having the case appealed in the court, a different judge should try to suspect and ensure that the sentence given to the rioter is appropriate in accordance with the crime. The judge should also ensure that the comments made by the previous judge are not taken seriously. This will be accomplished by telling the criminal that his actions are disruptive and will not be tolerated. The matter should then be presented to the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice through the judicial complaints’ office. This office should gather all the facts relating to the case, as well as the complaints presented by the public about the judge. The Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice should then listen to the judge’s explanation while considering the evidence provided by the complaints’ office.
The main issue about this case is that it does not involve any personal misconduct by the judge, but it is a likely case of the poor judgment. It is, therefore, adequate for the judge to get some formal advice on how to deal with such matters, as well as a formal warning to prevent any repetition of this. Although this case may be categorized as a complaint concerning the judicial decision, any comments made by the judge before sentencing the rioter become a matter of judicial conduct. Therefore, the complaints will have to be considered by the nominated judge recommending the actions taken against the judge.Since the comment has been made by the judge and the subsequent sentence given to the rioter are likely to promote the lawlessness in the country, it would be appropriate for the judge to get reprimanded for his actions and give an additional training on how to handle the riot cases in future. This will be crucial in enabling the judge to understand the gravity of the riot problems and the way to deal with them adequately.