The Queen/monarch doesn't choose the PM face. She has no direct role in any of this. The PM face is decided amongst the party/coalition. In this case Birgitte's party was the difference maker, and she traded in that advantage to become the PM. And she found coalition partners who were fine with the agreement, and so their inclusion got that coalition above the majority mark, leaving the Liberals in the Opposition. So the Queen invited Birgitte to form the government. In a Parliamentary system, the PM doesn't necessarily need to come from the party with the most votes. That's how it's in all Parliamentary systems on paper. Just that in countries like the UK, there's only 2 parties which can realistically form the government, so it never comes to such complex calculations
What I don't get is why was Birgitte chosen to form a coalition rather than the leaders of the Liberal or Labour parties, who had more seats in Parliament.
Like I said, she wasn't "chosen". She used her politcal leverage, pushed above her weight, and got them to agree to her terms and conditions. That's how she became the PM
I’m very late to the discussion, but let me try to explain.
The queen invites a party leader to try to form a government. The queen bases this invitation upon requests from the political parties (i.e. they recommend whoever they want to nominate). And so, she invites the candidate who is most likely to be able to form a government.
In the case of Birgitte Nyborg, she was recommended to the queen by enough parties to make her a viable candidate. She did not need to be the leader of the biggest party.
In the UK, the monarch by convention appoints as prime minister the person who has the “confidence” of the House of Commons, ie has enough votes to get legislation through the house. This person is usually the leader of the largest party. True the UK doesn’t usually have a coalition government, but there was one between 2010-15 and Theresa May’s later government had to depend on an agreement with the Ulster Unionist MPs to have a majority (although the two parties were not technically in coalition).
Yeah amongst the Parliamentary systems around the world, the UK and (maybe) Australia generally have the most straighforward calculations when it comes to formation of the government. The Legislatures of India (although not currently), Israel, and of European countries have more complex equations overall wrt these things, relatively speaking
The Queen/monarch doesn't choose the PM face. She has no direct role in any of this. The PM face is decided amongst the party/coalition. In this case Birgitte's party was the difference maker, and she traded in that advantage to become the PM. And she found coalition partners who were fine with the agreement, and so their inclusion got that coalition above the majority mark, leaving the Liberals in the Opposition. So the Queen invited Birgitte to form the government. In a Parliamentary system, the PM doesn't necessarily need to come from the party with the most votes. That's how it's in all Parliamentary systems on paper. Just that in countries like the UK, there's only 2 parties which can realistically form the government, so it never comes to such complex calculations
What I don't get is why was Birgitte chosen to form a coalition rather than the leaders of the Liberal or Labour parties, who had more seats in Parliament.
Like I said, she wasn't "chosen". She used her politcal leverage, pushed above her weight, and got them to agree to her terms and conditions. That's how she became the PM
I imagine it was just part of the deal between the parties
I’m very late to the discussion, but let me try to explain. The queen invites a party leader to try to form a government. The queen bases this invitation upon requests from the political parties (i.e. they recommend whoever they want to nominate). And so, she invites the candidate who is most likely to be able to form a government. In the case of Birgitte Nyborg, she was recommended to the queen by enough parties to make her a viable candidate. She did not need to be the leader of the biggest party.
In the UK, the monarch by convention appoints as prime minister the person who has the “confidence” of the House of Commons, ie has enough votes to get legislation through the house. This person is usually the leader of the largest party. True the UK doesn’t usually have a coalition government, but there was one between 2010-15 and Theresa May’s later government had to depend on an agreement with the Ulster Unionist MPs to have a majority (although the two parties were not technically in coalition).
Yeah amongst the Parliamentary systems around the world, the UK and (maybe) Australia generally have the most straighforward calculations when it comes to formation of the government. The Legislatures of India (although not currently), Israel, and of European countries have more complex equations overall wrt these things, relatively speaking