Sentences with phrase «labour majority government»

Do I want: A labour majority government led by JC.

Caroline Flint: «We plan to make sure that we will focus on the issues and win a Labour majority government» (Andrew Marr Show, 8 March 2015).

He went on to lead the Labour Party to an unexpected landslide victory at the 1945 general election; forming the first Labour majority government, and a mandate to implement its postwar reforms.

However, only 28 per cent say their preferred outcome in 2015 would be another Lib - Con coalition — just one point more than the number who want a Labour majority government.

«We are focused on winning a Labour majority government and let me say this - we do not want, we do not need and we do not plan to have any coalition with the SNP, we plan to make sure that we focus on the issues and win a Labour majority government.»

You allude to the apparent paradox of class / nationalism when you say «To get a Labour majority government, given the political weight of liberalised conservatism in southern England, you need the English north, the industrial Midlands, most of Wales and most of Scotland».

To get a Labour majority government, given the political weight of liberalised conservatism in southern England, you need the English north, the industrial Midlands, most of Wales and most of Scotland.

#BESFactCheck data suggests that most voters do not support a coalition — 56 % of voters would prefer to see either a Conservative or Labour majority government to either of them being involved in another coalition.

Not exact matches

And because the majority of Eritrean youths were now conscripted in the National Service, any business requiring their labour had to effectively rent them from the government.

It comes with the Government under pressure after losing its House of Commons majority in the general election as Jeremy Corbyn's anti-austerity Labour outperformed expectations.

«If it becomes clear that the national interest which is stable and principled government can be best served by forming a coalition between the Labour party and the Liberal democrats, then I believe I should discharge that duty to form that government which would in my view command a majority in the House of Commons in the Queen's Speech and any other confidence votes.

A large number of Labour MPs were very keen to use the party's majority to ban hunting, but the government remained formally neutral.

The Labour Party can form a government if they can get a working majority either through forming a coalition or through a «confidence and supply» deal.

... Delight in smooth - sounding platitudes, refusal to face unpleasant facts, desire for popularity and electoral success irrespective of the vital interests of the State, genuine love of peace and pathetic belief that love can be its sole foundation, obvious lack of intellectual vigour in both leaders of the British Coalition Government, marked ignorance of Europe and aversion from its problems in Mr. Baldwin, the strong and violent pacifism which at this time dominated the Labour - Socialist Party, the utter devotion of the Liberals to sentiment apart from reality, the failure and worse than failure of Mr. Lloyd George, the erstwhile great war - time leader, to address himself to the continuity of his work, the whole supported by overwhelming majorities in both Houses of Parliament: all these constituted a picture of British fatuity and fecklessness which, though devoid of guile, was not devoid of guilt, and, though free from wickedness or evil design, played a definite part in the unleashing upon the world of horrors and miseries which, even so far as they have unfolded, are already beyond comparison in human experience.

Unless and until Labour achieves some sort of coherence, it is a peculiarity of this parliament that opposition to a government with a truly precarious majority, arises in the oddest places: powerful individual performers, such as Keir Starmer and Angela Eagle, or dynamic parliamentary committees, such as the Women's Committee, chaired by Maria Miller.

Raising the electoral mountain Labour would need to climb to form a Government, exercising minority or coalition rule let alone governing with a majority, is an unexpected gift for the fifth largest force in UK politics: Momentum.

The Labour leader said: «I welcome the prime minister's decision to give the British people the chance to vote for a government that will put the interests of the majority first.»

With neither Labour nor the Conservatives likely to be capable of forming a majority government and given the SNP's fragmented unionist opponents north of the border, Britain's first - past - the - post electoral system could allow Nicola Sturgeon's party to exact a high price for support of a government in the Commons.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn responded by saying that his party wanted the election, calling it a chance to get a government that puts «the majority first».

The point for all sensible democrats to hang on to is that if the centre - left (Labour plus LibDems and perhaps Greens and some of the nationalists) together command a majority of Commons seats, that entitles them to form a government led by the leader of the largest centre - left party.

It's been over 20 years since they won a majority, nine years since Cameron became leader and four years since they failed to win an election against a hugely unpopular Labour government.

If the forecasters and betting markets are right in their central forecasts then Con + LD+DUP combined will be short of a majority and so a Labour led government should form if they can secure the support of the SNP and probably others, including the Liberal Democrats, will be needed too: a potentially messy and unstable situation but also one where there is sufficient similarity in ideological perspective for policy agreement on plenty of issues.

He predicts that a Labour government dependent on Scottish MPs for its majority is «one of the most likely outcomes of the election».

The background to Mrs May's decision to call a snap election is the government's small majority of 17 and the abiding weakness of the Labour Party under Mr. Corbyn.

The most important thing is that analysing past elections & predicting future elections is ridiculous, since electoral reform will hopefully change the political parties and the political process anyway, to make them more responsive to the genuine majority view, instead of the tribal attitude we see when Paul suggests that we should keep FPTP as the best way of electing a Labour government.

An abstention by Labour would have prevented the PM from reaching a majority of two - thirds of all MPs, forcing her into the awkward position of taking the second path to an early election envisaged by the Act — a parliamentary vote of no confidence in her government.

Beginning with the Labour governments of Tony Blair, which introduced 374 new peers into the house in order to balance the Conservative majority that had developed under the previous Conservative governments, the size of the house has grown substantially.

The upshot, though, is the same: any future Labour leader — even some Frankenstein fusion of Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson and Blair himself — will be hard - pushed to win even the barest Labour plurality in the May 2020 general election, let alone a majority government.

Instead, Labour either do a deal with the Lib Dems to get a working majority, or they work as a minority government.

The nub of the question is this: Does Labour think of political success in terms of the return of another majority Labour government?

Though a majority of Joiners said in the poll that they thought Labour had learned the right lessons from its time in government, much of this is wishful thinking: in discussion, they struggle to think of any evidence that Labour has changed or learned, often insisting simply that «they must have done».

Politically, the move has been questioned by opposition MPs who see it as an attempt to shore up the government's majority in the Commons and to cause havoc for any future Labour government.

This was particularly important in the context of the failure of the majority of Labour's new women MPs to represent women's interests — and the divisive use to which this was put by the government.

And influential think - tanks such as the Resolution Foundation and the Social Market Foundation are now giving credence to the idea that the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party may have more credible post-2015 deficit reduction strategies than a majority Conservative government.

Much of the discussion of the party's future still seems to assume that the goal is the return of a majority Labour government, a way of thinking that is really quite at odds with the reforms, e.g., proportional representation, which are necessary for genuine and fundamental democratic renewal.

The Tories and Lib Dems would be well short of a majority and Labour would surely lead any government even though their clear lead on seats would not necessarily be accompanied by any lead at all on votes.

The fact is that the New Labour governments were well to the right of the vast majority of Labour supporters, and clearly needed correction, but let that pass.

If either a majority Labour or Conservative government is to emerge after May 7, they'd need to make a healthy number of net gains here.

Labour's Angela Eagle described the plan as a cynical attempt by a government with an overall majority of just 12 to use procedural trickery to manufacture a very much larger one by knocking the SNP out of select votes.

Britain was not heading for a minority Labour government but towards a Tory majority and we were all making the same mistake in believing the polls.

It is thought that as many as 100 Labour MPs could now back the Government's plans to bomb Isil targets in Syria - enough to give David Cameron a comfortable majority.

The Conservatives formed a majority government, and a Labour (predicted) lead of 1.9 % actually became a Conservative lead of 7.5 %.

So, no one apart from seemingly the Labour or Tory leaderships thinks there's going to be a majority government after May 7?

We also know that you and other forecasters give Labour a near zero chance of forming a majority government — in reality, without the backing of the SNP.

It sounds close to Labour's idea, but isn't really at all: in a scenario where a Labour government with a small majority relies on Scottish MPs to get its business through the Commons, the Tory proposal would be crippling for a Labour prime minister.

It is of course possible that the Scottish Parliament elected in May 2016 will yield a majority for Labour or for a Labour / Liberal Democrat coalition, a government composed of parties opposed to independence.

Since Ed Miliband would probably have to step down as Prime Minister at the moment of independence (in my scenario of no Labour majority in rump UK), the Scottish government would find itself negotiating with someone whose job depended on the negotiations» failing for as long as possible.

Perhaps the era of strong governments — as represented so recently by New Labour's 100 + majorities — is at an end.

Although there are more Conservative peers than Labour ones, the Government is well short of having a majority in the Upper House, leaving it vulnerable to defeat when more Brexit legislation comes before parliament.

More than three quarters of all voters, including a clear majority of those who intend to vote Labour on Thursday, think the last Labour government «must accept a large part of the blame» for Britain's economic problems; Mr Miliband is unlikely to succeed in his campaign to persuade the electorate that this idea is a «big lie» put about by the coalition.