Talk:Official Opposition (UK): Difference between revisions
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz (→Excellent topic, and more: new section) |
imported>Ro Thorpe |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Is the phrase "second largest party" strictly correct? Would it be more correct to say something like "largest party not in Government"? For example, suppose that in the Commons as currently constituted, Labour and Liberals had formed a coalition government. The opposition would then be the Conservatives, who are the ''largest'' party in the Commons, not the second-largest. Or, if Labour and Conservatives had formed a Grand Coalition, then the opposition would have been the Liberals, the ''third''-largest party. (Or is it correct to consider the coalition as a single "party", in which case "second-largest" would be correct?) [[User:Bruce M. Tindall|Bruce M. Tindall]] 17:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC) | Is the phrase "second largest party" strictly correct? Would it be more correct to say something like "largest party not in Government"? For example, suppose that in the Commons as currently constituted, Labour and Liberals had formed a coalition government. The opposition would then be the Conservatives, who are the ''largest'' party in the Commons, not the second-largest. Or, if Labour and Conservatives had formed a Grand Coalition, then the opposition would have been the Liberals, the ''third''-largest party. (Or is it correct to consider the coalition as a single "party", in which case "second-largest" would be correct?) [[User:Bruce M. Tindall|Bruce M. Tindall]] 17:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC) | ||
:Yes, 'largest party or grouping of parties not in government' would be correct. And, no, a coalition cannot be called a party. [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 23:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
== Excellent topic, and more == | == Excellent topic, and more == | ||
I'd be delighted to see something about the general role of oppositions in parliamentary systems. As I remember, in the last Knesset election, Kadima had the largest number of seats but not enough for control. Likud, I believe, was second, and chose to form a coalition with Lieberman's YB rather than a centrist one with Kadima. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 21:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC) | I'd be delighted to see something about the general role of oppositions in parliamentary systems. As I remember, in the last Knesset election, Kadima had the largest number of seats but not enough for control. Likud, I believe, was second, and chose to form a coalition with Lieberman's YB rather than a centrist one with Kadima. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 21:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 18:48, 25 September 2010
"Second largest party"
Is the phrase "second largest party" strictly correct? Would it be more correct to say something like "largest party not in Government"? For example, suppose that in the Commons as currently constituted, Labour and Liberals had formed a coalition government. The opposition would then be the Conservatives, who are the largest party in the Commons, not the second-largest. Or, if Labour and Conservatives had formed a Grand Coalition, then the opposition would have been the Liberals, the third-largest party. (Or is it correct to consider the coalition as a single "party", in which case "second-largest" would be correct?) Bruce M. Tindall 17:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, 'largest party or grouping of parties not in government' would be correct. And, no, a coalition cannot be called a party. Ro Thorpe 23:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Excellent topic, and more
I'd be delighted to see something about the general role of oppositions in parliamentary systems. As I remember, in the last Knesset election, Kadima had the largest number of seats but not enough for control. Likud, I believe, was second, and chose to form a coalition with Lieberman's YB rather than a centrist one with Kadima. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)