Talk:Official Opposition (UK): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>John Stephenson (New page: {{subpages}}) |
imported>Bruce M. Tindall (→"Second largest party": new section) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
== "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?) [[User:Bruce M. Tindall|Bruce M. Tindall]] 17:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:49, 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)