Yet in terms of policy payoffs, evidence suggests that the more proportional dispersal of parliamentary seats in the Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales has created the conditions for non-government parties to exert influence, particularly in
times of minority government.
Not exact matches
And if we wanted to spend some
time on the suject, we could probably find numerous other examples
of census data being historically (and, if you believe the New York
Times - that agent
of the Harper
government - presently) misused by
governments, often to the significant prejudice
of minority members
of those societies.
As the chart above illustrates, there is an interesting correlation between the seat - advantage a
minority government holds over the official Opposition, and the length
of time between general elections when the
minority is in power.
Should Stephen Harper's Conservatives remain in power until that
time, they will become the country's longest - lasting
minority government, surpassing by about a month that
of Mackenzie King's 1921 - 1925 administration.
Canadians whose politics are to the left
of centre won't like to hear this: Stephen Harper and his Conservative -
minority government probably are going to be in power a long, long
time.
It seems evident that
minority governments with a comparatively narrow seat - advantage over the official Opposition usually stay in power for relatively brief periods
of time.
Tyee's McMartin crunches the votes and concludes: «Canadians whose politics are to the left
of centre won't like to hear this: Stephen Harper and his Conservative -
minority government probably are going to be in power a long, long
time.
Public opinion polling during the summer
of 2008 placed the Conservatives and Liberals in a virtual dead heat, leading most to speculate at the
time that if an election were held there would be a third
minority government.
So as a member
of the most oppressed
minority group in the history
of time, religion is the cause
of 95 %
of the evil in this world and I don't need it in my
government.
Tranter began working at Friends
of the Parks in 1980, around the
time that the federal
government sued the Chicago Park District for spending an unfair amount
of tax dollars in powerful, white neighborhoods instead
of minority communities, she said.
At issue were comments O'Luck made on the
Times» City Room blog in February 2009, in which he said that if
government programs that benefit businesses owned by women and
minorities weren't around «white men and the connected would have access to nearly 100 %
of all city, state, and federal
government dollars spent.»
Polls at the
time mistakenly suggested the election was on a knife edge, with Ed Miliband standing a good chance
of becoming prime minister
of a
minority, or coalition
government.
«Mindful» that as a
minority government «alliances» would be necessary to pass the next Budget, she said the
time was right to «open a discussion about how responsible and progressive use
of our tax powers could help build the kind
of country we want to be».
If we had PR,
of course, over
time there would be centre - right and centre - left coalitions: that seems to me pretty much inevitable, unless we developed a regular pattern
of preferring
minority governments, on the Scottish model.
Political platforms are essentially invalid with a
minority government either because they don't have the support to fulfill those promises, no
time to complete them (being defeated before passing anything they've promised) or fulfilling part
of their promises with some alterations proposed by opposition parties.
This option could play out a number
of ways — formal coalition, or a Cameron
minority government given limited tacit support to pass a budget, but looking to call a general election that would perhaps give them an overall majority some
time later in 2010, or in early 2011.
The 2015 General Election saw a Conservative majority
government returned (al biet on a
minority of the vote) for the first
time since 1992.
Green groups have held weight for quite some
time now,
of course, and to a large
minority of conscientious voters their pronouncements about the
government's behaviour have been a cause to vote, or not vote, as the case may be.
At the
time of the start
of Brexit negotiations, the UK
government is already formed as a
minority government which is a legitimate
government.
In 1974, Labour supporters protested at Heath's attempt to hang on when he had not won the largest number
of seats but Harold Wilson bided his
time before forming a
minority government.
I find that a violation
of one
of our most basic rights, as did justice William Douglas in a 1973 Supreme Court
minority dissent, to wit: «It is no concern
of government what an employee does with his or her spare
time.»
The Editorial Board treads familiar, almost entirely mythological, ground with their defense
of annual testing
of all students: Once upon a
time, the federal
government «kept doling out education money to the states no matter how abysmally their school systems performed,» and the requirement for mass standardized testing was «to make sure that students in all districts were making progress and that poor and
minority students were being educated.»
Historically, the country has muddled through its share
of minority governments, but none in recent
times.
At the
time of writing, the Gillard
Government was returned to office as a minority g
Government was returned to office as a
minority governmentgovernment.