General Election 2015 - chat, predictions, results and post election discussion

[brogdale]

Well, it wasn't me who wrote the article. The point is that under the present rules we might not have a workable government after the second election. It doesn't need to be spelled out that this would be a disaster. So we need extra rules to break the cycle.

Can you quote where Bogdanor says these things that you claim he has.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

Delia Smith yesterday. Justine Miliband today. Labour's celebrity endorsement email campaign has worked its way down to the underside of the barrel.

 

[andysays]

Well, it wasn't me who wrote the article. The point is that under the present rules we might not have a workable government after the second election. It doesn't need to be spelled out that this would be a disaster. So we need extra rules to break the cycle.

I don't think the article was making the point about rules you originally suggested, but let's focus on this new point about outcomes here.

There is nothing to guarantee that we would have a workable government after a second election, except the desires of various parties to form one if they can. The biggest obstacle to a workable government of some sort being formed after Thursday's election seems to me to be the various statements party leaders have made saying that they won't do deals or even speak to anyone else.

If we do get to the stage of another election being necessary, I suspect we will see a far greater willingness among at least some of them to actually talk to each other and do some sort of deal, even if that deal doesn't involve a formal coalition which commands a majority.

New rules may be drawn up after that to operate in future, but the next government will have to be formed under the rules we have ATM.

Edited slightly for clarity...

 

[David Clapson]

The article says "there is no reason to believe that a second election would yield a notably different outcome." And it's not about what the parties may or may not try to do - it's about the need for rules to avoid the country having no government for a dangerously long period.

 

[JTG]

Mind I was chatting to an old bloke after swimming today and mentioned watching FGR which got on to Dave Drew (he's on the board) and the old bloke says lovely fellow and I admitted I actually registered to vote so I could vote for him (Carmichael out really) and it was all going swimmingly (so to speak) then he actually says "Enoch Powell was right.." which I thought only happened in satire.

You hate foreigners up there anyway. Look at how you tried to exclude honest hard-working Bristolians from the area last week. Disgraceful

 

[andysays]

The article says "there is no reason to believe that a second election would yield a notably different outcome." And it's not about what the parties may or may not try to do - it's about the need for rules to avoid the country having no government for a dangerously long period.

The different outcome refers to numbers of MPs each party will get, not what happens after that when forming a government.

Before making jibes about other people's reading, you really should make sure you have correctly read, understood and are using the article to support whatever point it is you're making...

 

[JimW]

You hate foreigners up there anyway. Look at how you tried to exclude honest hard-working Bristolians from the area last week. Disgraceful

It's our well known opposition to the slave trade, we even have a big arch proclaiming the fact. And we generously refused to play anything resembling football against you once you did arrive.

 

[Brixton Hatter]

All the wooliest vaguest people on my facebook are posting links to things saying how voting is sooooo important (doesn't matter who for apparently) and following up by asking whether they should vote Labour, Green, Lib Dem or 'ooooh, I just don't know!'

Ffs

I had a bit of a row with an old mate the other day when I said I was probably gonna vote for the spunking cock party. "But Hatter, people died for the vote, you of all people should be voting, you have to vote!" Who should I vote for? "Anyone! Just use your vote!"

I pointed out that I also had the right not to vote and that forcing me to vote for someone I didn't agree with sounded like the worst kind of fascism (which millions had also died fighting) but he didn't seem to understand. Clever guy, but doesn't get it.

 

[JTG]

It's our well known opposition to the slave trade, we even have a big arch proclaiming the fact. And we generously refused to play anything resembling football against you once you did arrive.

I must have missed your big arch. Never mind, I'm seeing a bigger one a week on Sunday

 

[JimW]

I must have missed your big arch. Never mind, I'm seeing a bigger one a week on Sunday

You can have a look (it's up by Archway School, big surprise) when you come back again next year with your tails between your legs

 

[David Clapson]

The different outcome refers to numbers of MPs each party will get, not what happens after that when forming a government.

Before making jibes about other people's reading, you really should make sure you have correctly read, understood and are using the article to support whatever point it is you're making...

Sorry, we'll have to agree to differ.

 

[brogdale]

The article says "there is no reason to believe that a second election would yield a notably different outcome." And it's not about what the parties may or may not try to do - it's about the need for rules to avoid the country having no government for a dangerously long period.

But David, even if the parties all won exactly the same numbers of MPs as in the previous election, there is no reason not to suppose that they might behave differently to produce an administration that might command the confidence of the house.

 

[butchersapron]

Who died for my right to vote?

The newport chartists? The petrloo chartists? What else did they demand that you chest-prodders want but are a wee bit quiet on?

 

[andysays]

Sorry, we'll have to agree to differ.

I'm happy to agree to differ, but I'm still unclear on exactly what point you're seeking to make and why you think Bogdanor's article supports that point.

 

[Brixton Hatter]

I must have missed your big arch.

It's outside my old school

 

[David Clapson]

But David, even if the parties all won exactly the same numbers of MPs as in the previous election, there is no reason not to suppose that they might behave differently to produce an administration that might command the confidence of the house.

It's about constitutional rules, which need to cater for all the different things the parties may or may not do.

 

[Brixton Hatter]

Who died for my right to vote?

The newport chartists? The petrloo chartists? What else did they demand that you chest-prodders want but are a wee bit quiet on?

I thought he might have been on about Emily Davison, but he really doesn't have a clue so I wouldn't be surprised if he was just parroting stuff from the BBC or the Lib dem website or something.

 

[David Clapson]

I'm happy to agree to differ, but I'm still unclear on exactly what point you're seeking to make and why you think Bogdanor's article supports that point.

Bogdanor explained it, you didn't get it, so I explained what he was getting at. I wasn't making a separate point of my own.

 

[butchersapron]

It's about constitutional rules, which need to cater for all the different things the parties may or may not do.

Existing rules?

 

[David Clapson]

The limitations of existing rules, hence the need for new ones.

 

[Quartz]

Bogdanor explained it, you didn't get it, so I explained what he was getting at. I wasn't making a separate point of my own.

You know, we could just be sensible and only deal with that problem if it arises...

 

[butchersapron]

The limitations of existing rules, hence the need for new ones.

So the existing rules for any short-medium-term elections - and a potential change of rules after a govt is elected under the existing rules (after all, who else could change the existing rules?).

 

[brogdale]

It's about constitutional rules, which need to cater for all the different things the parties may or may not do.

Aside from musing about the longevity of our majoritarian electoral system, Bogdanor does not explicitly refer to any constitutional changes. He does, however, speculate that repeated fractured parliaments deriving from a transition to a genuine multi-party system, may necessitate a re-write of the cabinet manual.

 

[David Clapson]

You know, we could just be sensible and only deal with that problem if it arises...

We certainly could! There's no compulsion to read the article or comment on it. I find it interesting, but most people are focused on Thursday, not Christmas.

 

[JTG]

You can have a look (it's up by Archway School, big surprise) when you come back again next year with your tails between your legs

 

[brogdale]

We certainly could! There's no compulsion to read the article or comment on it. I find it interesting, but most people are focused on Thursday, not Christmas.

Oh, that's it...you've fallen for Clegg's tactical line!

 

[andysays]

Bogdanor explained it, you didn't get it, so I explained what he was getting at. I wasn't making a separate point of my own.

First you claimed that Bogdanor said there were no rules for forming a govt after a second election, then you changed that to say there are rules, but they are inadequete and must be changed because there is a possibility that we won't get a workable government, and then you qualfied that by saying that the possible delay in forming a government would be dangerous, claiming all the while that the article you quoted backed all of this up.

I hope Vernon Bogdanor isn't reading this, because he'll be pretty pissed off at seeing his authority used to defend a series of shifting and bogus claims.

 

[David Clapson]

So the existing rules for any short-medium-term elections - and a potential change of rules after a govt is elected under the existing rules (after all, who else could change the existing rules?).

I have no idea. Dunno what he envisages, apart from the potential for chaos. Clegg was trying to capitalise on it today, trying to make himself relevant by saying that no coalition can survive past Christmas without his help.

 

[Brixton Hatter]

"chaos"

 

[David Clapson]

First you claimed that Bogdanor said there were no rules for forming a govt after a second election, then you changed that to say there are rules, but they are inadequete and must be changed because there is a possibility that we won't get a workable government, and then you qualfied that by saying that the possible delay in forming a government would be dangerous, claiming all the while that the article you quoted backed all of this up.

I hope Vernon Bogdanor isn't reading this, because he'll be pretty pissed off at seeing his authority used to defend a series of shifting and bogus claims.

No, what I did was assume that everyone would twig the bit that Bogdanor thought too obvious to spell out. Why not go to the FT comments and express how confused you are?