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

[Sue]

Thought this might be of interest...

'One ex-MP said: "I'm now set to Defcon f****d. I'm expecting to leave and never come back. It doesn't matter how good you are or how weak your (SNP) opponent is; it's over."

Another former Labour MP admitted: "The polls are right. I hear it on the doorstep; my people hear it. We have thousands of conversations and the polls are bang on." He added: "I'll be looking for another career after May."

A third said: "It is like a tsunami; there's nothing you can do about it. It doesn't matter if you're the best swimmer in the world."'

http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobil...scribes-snp-surge-as-like-a-tsunami.122462674

 

[danny la rouge]

Sorry Nicola, it doesn't work like that. There won't be any "locking David Cameron out of Downing Street". As PM he remains PM after the election, unless the Queen chooses to appoint a new PM who can command the confidence of the Commons. What this means is that Cameron gets first dibs at trying to form a government. Cameron needs to be turfed out, not locked out.

To all intents and purposes, it does.

Cameron does remain PM until somebody can go to the Queen with a majority, but what Sturgeon is saying is: "If he tries to govern with a minority government [ie if he can't command the confidence of Parliament with an absolute majority, a coalition, a pact, a confidence-and-supply arrangement or some other way of gaining a majority to see his Queen's speech through], then will you join us in voting down his Queen's Speech?"

This becomes a de facto no confidence vote, and the minority government falls.

The non Tory parties could have done this in 2010 had the Lib Dems not gone into coalition.

Miliband can't say yes to Sturgeon, because that would be like saying to Scottish voters "you don't need to vote Labour to get a Labour-led government". (Many already think that, but he can't say it).

The interesting thing is that Scottish Labour are going further than not saying yes to Sturgeon. They're re-writing constitutional history: they're saying the largest party forms the government, whether or not they have a majority.

This would mean, were it true, that smaller parties could only negotiate with the largest party to form a coalition. And, furthermore, it would put an end to what you correctly say about the incumbent remaining unless and until someone else can go to the Queen with a majority. This would only therefore happen if the incumbent led the largest party. (Something Brown clearly didn't believe when he negotiated with the Lib Dems in 2010).

Labour's latest tweet on the matter. ("Jim for Scotland" is Murphy).

Scottish Labour at least is saying Labour will not participate in trying to vote down a minority Tory government's Queen's Speech, even if they think there's an anti-Tory majority willing to do so. Scottish Labour is saying that it will allow a minority Tory government to govern, even without a coalition.

 

[brogdale]

Could have gone in any number of threads...but here'll do...

Conservatives accused of breathtaking hypocrisy by...

Spoiler: ?

Danny Alexander

Actual, real Guardian headline.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

To all intents and purposes, it does.

Cameron does remain PM until somebody can go to the Queen with a majority, but what Sturgeon is saying is: "If he tries to govern with a minority government [ie if he can't command the confidence of Parliament with an absolute majority, a coalition, a pact, a confidence-and-supply arrangement or some other way of gaining a majority to see his Queen's speech through], then will you join us in voting down his Queen's Speech?"

This becomes a de facto no confidence vote, and the minority government falls.

The non Tory parties could have done this in 2010 had the Lib Dems not gone into coalition.

Miliband can't say yes to Sturgeon, because that would be like saying to Scottish voters "you don't need to vote Labour to get a Labour-led government". (Many already think that, but he can't say it).

The interesting thing is that Scottish Labour are going further than not saying yes to Sturgeon. They're re-writing constitutional history: they're saying the largest party forms the government, whether or not they have a majority.

This would mean, were it true, that smaller parties could only negotiate with the largest party to form a coalition. And, furthermore, it would put an end to what you correctly say about the incumbent remaining unless and until someone else can go to the Queen with a majority. This would only therefore happen if the incumbent led the largest party. (Something Brown clearly didn't believe when he negotiated with the Lib Dems in 2010).

Labour's latest tweet on the matter. ("Jim for Scotland" is Murphy).

Scottish Labour at least is saying Labour will not participate in trying to vote down a minority Tory government's Queen's Speech, even if they think there's an anti-Tory majority willing to do so. Scottish Labour is saying that it will allow a minority Tory government to govern, even without a coalition.

I think strategically it could be sensible for Labour to allow a weak Tory minority government rather than have a weak Labour government propped up by Nats+ - given that austerity will continue - a minority Tory government would give a lot of opportunities for populist opposition on the harshest of cuts, and give Labour a chance to regroup. A weak Labour government could be seriously damaged by noisier and stronger opposition to austerity lite - sometimes if the tent is shit it's better to be pissing in, instead of out.

It's a gamble and things could go badly wrong for Labour on either count, but I can understand the strategy.

 

[danny la rouge]

I think strategically it could be sensible for Labour to allow a weak Tory minority government rather than have a weak Labour government propped up by Nats+ - given that austerity will continue - a minority Tory government would give a lot of opportunities for populist opposition on the harshest of cuts, and give Labour a chance to regroup. A weak Labour government could be seriously damaged by noisier and stronger opposition to austerity lite - sometimes if the tent is shit it's better to be pissing in, instead of out.

It's a gamble and things could go badly wrong for Labour on either count, but I can understand the strategy.

I'm not sure I can.

I can understand that you talk like a winner until the votes are counted. I get that. But to re-write constitutional history is mad. "The largest party forms the government". There's no need to say that.

 

[danny la rouge]

Could have gone in any number of threads...but here'll do...

Spoiler: ?

Danny Alexander

Actual, real Guardian headline.

Indeed. Hypocrite accuses boss of hypocrisy.

 

[bemused]

I think strategically it could be sensible for Labour to allow a weak Tory minority government rather than have a weak Labour government propped up by Nats+ [...]

So desperate for power I can't see them not forming a Government if they can. What will be interesting is to see is how the SNP act, given what happened to the LibDems when they got in bed with another party I don't expect them to be as friendly towards the Labour Party as the media are making out.

 

[danny la rouge]

I can't see them not forming a Government if they can.

Nor can I.

Even if some party boffins are saying "it'd be better for the party to wait this out", Miliband isn't going to agree. And he appoints the negotiating teams.

 

[killer b]

What do you think of this articles? Seems relevant to the current discussion...

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourki...coup-and-labour-is-doing-nothing-to-stop-them

 

[danny la rouge]

What do you think of this articles? Seems relevant to the current discussion...

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourki...coup-and-labour-is-doing-nothing-to-stop-them

Useful article, thanks.

This is correct:

"someone votes for an SNP MP in this election, or a Green MP, or a Plaid Cymru MP, then they can reasonably expect that that MP is going to vote to sack David Cameron and replace him with Ed Miliband — because that’s what they have said they are likely to do. If that is true for the majority of MPs, then the democratic outcome is for Ed Miliband to be Prime Minister, even if Labour on its own has a slightly smaller parliamentary group than the Tories. The precedent for who gets to govern if Parliament is hung is complex, as outlined here, but ultimately boils down to who can pass budgets and win votes of confidence, which has nothing intrinsically to do with being the biggest single party."

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

yes, yes this is all true - but the Libdems have been quite successful at promoting the idea that it's not only the largest party but the popular vote size has an element as well - this suits the Labour leadership quite well

 

[danny la rouge]

yes, yes this is all true - but the Libdems have been quite successful at promoting the idea that it's not only the largest party but the popular vote size has an element as well - this suits the Labour leadership quite well

But we all know that popular vote has nothing whatever to do with who forms a government, it's number of seats. (And as the article correctly says, those seats don't all have to be for the same party).

If it was popular vote, Thatcher would never have been prime minister.

The salient part of the article is the role of the Tory press and Scottish Labour in moving the goalposts:


"However, this is not how the Tory press will interpret the election. If they can possibly get away with it, they will find any way they can to declare Cameron the winner, even if it’s going to be almost impossible for him to command a parliamentary majority. In doing so, they will seek to make it impossible for Miliband to govern. This circumstance would in effect be a coup by newspaper proprietors against the people of the country. Because our constitution is written not in statute, but headlines, this is perfectly possible.

It's important to read this story in the Daily Mail today in that context. By saying that the SNP have vowed to "prop up Ed Miliband in Downing Street — even if he loses the election", they have redefined what it is to win an election in a parliamentary system — changing the goalposts from a functioning majority to biggest single party. In reality, if Labour and the parties to their left have a parliamentary majority, then no Tory government can survive long. But it doesn’t need to. If Cameron can stay even briefly as PM, then he can call a second election and use his party’s superior wealth to secure a better position against a Labour party already financially crippled by this vote.

In this context, Labour should be doing everything they can to ensure the goalposts stay where they are — who can command a parliamentary majority — and are not shifted to which one party is the biggest. Unfortunately for Ed Miliband, Jim Murphy and other Scottish Labour MPs are selfish enough to be more concerned about saving their own seats than they are about getting Cameron out of Downing Street. Because of this, they have repeatedly been saying, sometimes repeated by the UK party, that the biggest party gets to be the government. If we do end up with the circumstance outlined above — as seems reasonably likely, we can assume that these comments will be pulled from the shelf and repeated at Labour on loop. To put it bluntly, Murphy is making a Tory government more likely."

 

[newbie]

If Cameron can stay even briefly as PM, then he can call a second election and use his party’s superior wealth to secure a better position against a Labour party already financially crippled by this vote.

no, that's plain wrong.
FTPA
3)The polling day for each subsequent parliamentary general election is to be the first Thursday in May in the fifth calendar year following that in which the polling day for the previous parliamentary general election fell.

 

[danny la rouge]

no, that's plain wrong.
FTPA
3)The polling day for each subsequent parliamentary general election is to be the first Thursday in May in the fifth calendar year following that in which the polling day for the previous parliamentary general election fell.

No; even under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, parliament can be dissolved following a vote of no confidence if no alternative government is formed in 14 days. (Or indeed if a two-thirds majority of all MPs votes to dissolve parliament). Those are two circumstances in which the fixed term is not served. In the scenario you quote, the first circumstance has occurred.

 

[newbie]

No; even under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, parliament can be dissolved following a vote of no confidence if no alternative government is formed in 14 days. (Or indeed if a two-thirds majority of all MPs votes to dissolve parliament). Those are two circumstances in which the fixed term is not served. In the scenario you quote, the first circumstance has occurred.

I agree, but that's not the point made "If Cameron can stay even briefly as PM, then he can call a second election". It's not his to call. The opposition must first propose and then win a vote of no confidence and then to fail to form an administration that can command confidence. The ball is very much in their court, Cameron cannot make the old style decision for a snap GE.

 

[danny la rouge]

I agree, but that's not the point made "If Cameron can stay even briefly as PM, then he can call a second election". It's not his to call. The opposition must first propose and then win a vote of no confidence and then to fail to form an administration that can command confidence. The ball is very much in their court, Cameron cannot make the old style decision for a snap GE.

I see what you mean. The writer was sloppy there. But in the sense that a second election would be called, who formally does the calling is immaterial to the point being made.

 

[newbie]

I see what you mean. The writer was sloppy there. But in the sense that a second election would be called, who formally does the calling is immaterial to the point being made.

the timing is very material.

The act has removed from the PM a massively important power and handed it to the opposition, for use only in split parliaments. If the arithmetic can be made to work, the opposition parties collectively decide the timing, based perhaps on their judgement of peak government unpopularity. When they choose to move there's legally nothing the PM can do to stop them, other than winning the VoNC.

 

[danny la rouge]

the timing is very material.

The act has removed from the PM a massively important power and handed it to the opposition, for use only in split parliaments. If the arithmetic can be made to work, the opposition parties collectively decide the timing, based perhaps on their judgement of peak government unpopularity. When they choose to move there's legally nothing the PM can do to stop them, other than winning the VoNC.

You should read the article. You've misunderstood the writer's point.

(And on reflection, I was wrong in what I said in post 166: the formal situation is that the incumbent Prime Minister calls the election, no matter how the dissolution was occasioned. The incumbent furthermore asks the Queen to summon the new Parliament to meet on a given date following the election).

 

[newbie]

Not sure when this note was added.

Note: A few people have argued that the above is negated by the Fixed Term Parliament Act of 2011. It isn't. The Act states that an election shall take place if "if a motion of no confidence is passed and no alternative government is confirmed by the Commons within 14 days". The scenario I am outlining requires Labour to refuse to do a deal with the SNP because of perceptions of long term political damage, and so refusing to form a government within the required 14 days, becuase they feel, in effect, that it is politically impossible to do so.

in which case a VoNC will only be tabled if one or other of the parties thinks it will pass and wishes to try to precipitate a GE. It's their decision, not the PMs. A PM who can't expect to win a VoNC is weak, a prisoner in Downing St until the opposition strategists decide the time is right. Whichever way up you put it the PM of the day cannot call a GE at a timing to suit themselves.

unless you're proposing that the word 'call' was used in a narrow formal sense rather than using the obvious meaning, then fine the ball is yours to take home.

 

[magneze]

That's a really interesting article. It's going to be a mess unless someone can get a majority isn't it. Potentially much more than last time it sounds.

 

[Santino]

Presumably a Prime Minister might be in a position to dissolve his/her government, knowing that the other main party won't be able to form one either, even with the support of another party.

 

[DotCommunist]

That's a really interesting article. It's going to be a mess unless someone can get a majority isn't it. Potentially much more than last time it sounds.

last time the libs were in a position to play kingmaker and they squandered it for a time in the sun. The SNP, should they come to be in that position, are not going to make the same mistake of coalition with anyone, least of all the vermin. imho obvs

 

[danny la rouge]

Not sure when this note was added.

in which case a VoNC will only be tabled if one or other of the parties thinks it will pass and wishes to try to precipitate a GE. It's their decision, not the PMs. A PM who can't expect to win a VoNC is weak, a prisoner in Downing St until the opposition strategists decide the time is right. Whichever way up you put it the PM of the day cannot call a GE at a timing to suit themselves.

unless you're proposing that the word 'call' was used in a narrow formal sense rather than using the obvious meaning, then fine the ball is yours to take home.

I don't want the ball. You're circling the head of a pin, and I can't see what you're trying to do or say.

For clarity, I'm not Adam Ramsay, nor did I post the link to his piece.

But, my reading of what Ramsay is saying is very close to what I've been saying in this thread. If you have any comments to make on my arguments, feel free to make them.

My posts:

Here.

Here.

Here.

Ramsay adds points about the Tory press that I didn't raise here. I agree with him that they are attempting to re-write the constitution. He also says he thinks the Tories are in a better position to be able to win a snap second election, in large part due to their funding. I'm not so sure about that. It would depend on a number of other factors. But he's right that the press will be one of those factors.

 

[newbie]

I don't want the ball. You're circling the head of a pin, and I can't see what you're trying to do or say.

For clarity, I'm not Adam Ramsay, nor did I post the link to his piece.

But, my reading of what Ramsay is saying is very close to what I've been saying in this thread. If you have any comments to make on my arguments, feel free to make them.

My posts:

Here.

Here.

Here.

Ramsay adds points about the Tory press that I didn't raise here. I agree with him that they are attempting to re-write the constitution. He also says he thinks the Tories are in a better position to be able to win a snap second election, in large part due to their funding. I'm not so sure about that. It would depend on a number of other factors. But he's right that the press will be one of those factors.

I've no quibble with any of your posts. You quoted something I took issue with it, not with you.

 

[danny la rouge]

I've no quibble with any of your posts. You quoted something I took issue with it, not with you.

I don't know what issue you are taking when you attempted to widen the point beyond Ramsay's sloppy wording.

 

[newbie]

I don't know what issue you are taking when you attempted to widen the point beyond Ramsay's sloppy wording.

if neither of us knows what the other is talking about it's probably best to just stop now.

 

[magneze]

last time the libs were in a position to play kingmaker and they squandered it for a time in the sun. The SNP, should they come to be in that position, are not going to make the same mistake of coalition with anyone, least of all the vermin. imho obvs

That's what's so interesting about it. It's potentially more of a mess than last time because a hung parliament is now the expected outcome, so all the trading is starting now. It was mentioned on the radio this morning that it's also had an effect on the manifestos as parties now can't put in stuff that they would have drop if they ended up in coalition lest they end up like the LibDems.

 

[brogdale]

That's what's so interesting about it. It's potentially more of a mess than last time because a hung parliament is now the expected outcome, so all the trading is starting now. It was mentioned on the radio this morning that it's also had an effect on the manifestos as parties now can't put in stuff that they would have drop if they ended up in coalition lest they end up like the LibDems.

Yes, a fractured, hung parliament is, potentially, a very fluid entity. Some recent electoral predictions have shown it may well take 4 parties to form some sort of alignment to form the basis of an administration.

 

[gosub]

I agree, but that's not the point made "If Cameron can stay even briefly as PM, then he can call a second election". It's not his to call. The opposition must first propose and then win a vote of no confidence and then to fail to form an administration that can command confidence. The ball is very much in their court, Cameron cannot make the old style decision for a snap GE.

He needs 433 MP's votes to end the fixed term Parliament and call an election, Tories may be budgeting for a second election-the other parties aren't.

 

[tbtommyb]

I don't know what issue you are taking when you attempted to widen the point beyond Ramsay's sloppy wording.

it's a key point that the PM can't decide when to call the election, so the Tories would be unable to use their greater financial clout to beat labour in a second election. The note that the author added on FTPA confirms that it would be the opposition who can effectively decide when to call a new election.