In the pub tonight most people said they favoured Nicola Sturgeon. What a pity this is S E UK..

[danny la rouge]

I like Sturgeon but it is pretty odd that she is not standing and yet has such a prominent role in this general election.

Is there precedent for that?

Is there a precedent for the leader of a party to be its leader? Yes, that's almost always the case.

You do realise that she has a seat in Holyrood, and is an MSP? You're going to have to get used to the devolved nature of politics in these islands - it's going to have a bigger effect from now on.

 

[redsquirrel]

If Miliband only has, say, 270 MPs, and no one has agreed to join him in a formal coalition, will he necessarily get invited to form a govt/present his own QS?

Well I guess the Queen could refuse to invite him to form a gov but it would cause a fucking shitstorm.

 

[brogdale]

So let's imagine that happens.

Cameron, as the incumbant, gets first chance to forn a govt, but his QS gets voted down.

If Miliband only has, say, 270 MPs, and no one has agreed to join him in a formal coalition, will he necessarily get invited to form a govt/present his own QS?

I don't understand the constitutional provisions well enough to express an opinion, but I reckon there is enough uncertainty for the Tories and their friends in the media etc to make an argument that with only 270 MPs, he doesn't provide a clear alternative govt and shouldn't be given the chance to try to form one.

Is there any historical precident for this?

Yes, it does all seem a bit constitutionally murky, but the cabinet manual has provision/obligation on the 'opposition' parties to keep monarch informed of their intentions. Milband/Sturgeon would obviously make it clear that they would jointly pass a new QS.

 

[Diamond]

Is there a precedent for the leader of a party to be its leader? Yes, that's almost always the case.

You do realise that she has a seat in Holyrood, and is an MSP? You're going to have to get used to the devolved nature of politics in these islands - it's going to have a bigger effect from now on.

I don't doubt that but it is categorically odd for people who are not standing for election to have such a prominent say on that same election.

 

[brogdale]

I don't doubt that but it is categorically odd for people who are not standing for election to have such a prominent say on that same election.

Perhaps you ought to ring up the papers and let them know of this thing you've discovered?

 

[butchersapron]

I don't doubt that but it is categorically odd for people who are not standing for election to have such a prominent say on that same election.

Oh yes, categorically so:

 

[danny la rouge]

I don't doubt that but it is categorically odd for people who are not standing for election to have such a prominent say on that same election.

She leads a party that all predictions suggest will be sending a large proportion of Scotland's MPs to Westminster. Those MPs may be the difference between a minority Labour government getting a Queen's Speech passed and not.

There is therefore interest in her party and her attitude.

 

[andysays]

Yes, it does all seem a bit constitutionally murky, but the cabinet manual has provision/obligation on the 'opposition' parties to keep monarch informed of their intentions. Milband/Sturgeon would obviously make it clear that they would jointly pass a new QS.

Yeah, that bit might be enough to swing it, but I can still see the Tories trying to block it however they can (this would also explain why they've been so keen to push Miliband into ruling out any form of deal with the SNP)

 

[Diamond]

Oh yes, categorically so:

That is a poor argument.

Were the editors of the various major newspapers invited to take the stage alongside Cameron et al?

 

[danny la rouge]

I don't understand the constitutional provisions well enough to express an opinion

If you read this you'll know as much as anyone, and more than many of the journalists who express an opinion: http://constitution-unit.com/2015/0...her-hung-parliament-9-key-questions-answered/

 

[danny la rouge]

That is a poor argument.

Were the editors of the various major newspapers invited to take the stage alongside Cameron et al?

In effect, yes, very much so.

 

[butchersapron]

That is a poor argument.

Were the editors of the various major newspapers invited to take the stage alongside Cameron et al?

Can you demonstrate why it's a poor argument please? Can you do it categorically as well.

The editors of the major newspaper gave 'Cameron et al' the stage and told them where to sit. Are you really this naive?

 

[Diamond]

Can you demonstrate why it's a poor argument please? Can you do it categorically as well.

The editors of the major newspaper gave 'Cameron et al' the stage and told them where to sit. Are you really this naive?

It is a poor argument because you are trying to equate newspaper editors with the leaders of political parties, which is absurd.

 

[andysays]

If you read this you'll know as much as anyone, and more than many of the journalists who express an opinion: http://constitution-unit.com/2015/0...her-hung-parliament-9-key-questions-answered/

That's useful. Assuming this is correct

2. Does the Queen play a formative role?

No. The political parties must establish between themselves who can command confidence in the new House of Commons. The Queen will be kept informed, and will appoint that person as Prime Minister when the result of the negotiations becomes clear.

then a declared agreement by the SNP to support a Labour QS should be enough (assuming those two have a majority between them) without a formal coalition.

I still reckon the Tories will kick up about though.

 

[danny la rouge]

That's useful. Assuming this is correct



then a declared agreement by the SNP to support a Labour QS should be enough (assuming those two have a majority between them) without a formal coalition.

I still reckon the Tories will kick up about though.

The Tories may or may not kick up a fuss (Cameron is looking tired, they may want a spell in opposition to regroup). But the Tory press will certainly kick up a fuss.

 

[butchersapron]

It is a poor argument because you are trying to equate newspaper editors with the leaders of political parties, which is absurd.

No i'm not. I'm trying to interrogate your mad ideas about influence and why you think it's outrageous that someone not standing for westminster should have any. And what's wrong with your right eye?

A whole lot of equating is not being done by you though.

 

[Diamond]

No i'm not. I'm trying to interrogate your mad ideas about influence and why you think it's outrageous that someone not standing for westminster should have any.

A whole lot of equating is not being done by you though.

You are. That is plain. If you want to try and row back with posts like this, fine, that's up to you but it makes you look unreliable and shifty.

 

[butchersapron]

You are. That is plain. If you want to try and row back with posts like this, fine, that's up to you but it makes you look unreliable and shifty.

Amazing stuff diamond You're quickly becoming one of my fav posters. A guaranteed win every time.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I don't doubt that but it is categorically odd for people who are not standing for election to have such a prominent say on that same election.

Just so that I'm clear, would you say that the editor of the Sun (a daily mass circulation newspaper) has a more or less prominent voice in the general election than the leader of a relatively minor political party?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[Diamond]

Just so that I'm clear, would you say that the editor of the Sun (a daily mass circulation newspaper) has a more or less prominent voice in the general election than the leader of a relatively minor political party?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

As far as I am aware no newspaper editor was invited to the main debate and none are standing for election, however some of the leaders are not standing but were invited - there's a bit of a disconnect there.

 

[butchersapron]

See?

 

[brogdale]

The Tories may or may not kick up a fuss (Cameron is looking tired, they may want a spell in opposition to regroup). But the Tory press will certainly kick up a fuss.

I'm not entirely convinced that the vermin will be in much of a position to make any choices. Let's assume they end up with around 280 seats, (although that figure could be affected by growing evidence of 'shy-UKIP' voter under recognition by phone pollsters).

That 280/90 would need another 30 to 40 seats to offer any chance of getting a QS through, and much hinges on the LDs...obviously. But what is not so obvious is what sort of LD party will be left after their culling. What will happen to the orange-book/Beveridge balance of factions? And who might lead the rump with Clegg decapitated. It is possible that they'd end up a more socially progressive/pro EU party that would not help push through a QS with the central tenet of the swivel-eyed EU ref.

 

[danny la rouge]

As far as I am aware no newspaper editor was invited to the main debate and none are standing for election, however some of the leaders are not standing but were invited - there's a bit of a disconnect there.

Here's one for you, on Thursday Cameron, Miliband and Clegg will be on a BBC special debate without the SNP or others, yet Clegg looks like having fewer MPs than SNP and may not be an elected politician at all by a week on Friday.

 

[andysays]

Here's one for you, on Thursday Cameron, Miliband and Clegg will be on a BBC special debate without the SNP or others, yet Clegg looks like having fewer MPs than SNP and may not be an elected politician at all by a week on Friday.

 

[Diamond]

Here's one for you, on Thursday Cameron, Miliband and Clegg will be on a BBC special debate without the SNP or others, yet Clegg looks like having fewer MPs than SNP and may not be an elected politician at all by a week on Friday.

I'm not sure how that's relevant to your newspaper editor argument.

Should Paul Birch, the leader of the Cannabis is Safer than Alcohol (CISTA) party, which is putting forwards 32 candidates, be invited to the leaders debates and if not, why?

http://cista.org/candidates/18

 

[butchersapron]

Oh yes, now we're rolling.

 

[danny la rouge]

I'm not sure how that's relevant to your newspaper editor argument.

Should Paul Birch, the leader of the Cannabis is Safer than Alcohol (CISTA) party, which is putting forwards 32 candidates, be invited to the leaders debates and if not, why?

http://cista.org/candidates/18

My newspaper editor argument? Nope.

My argument is that the devolved nature of the UK is at last figuring in a General Election, and will play a role in the next parliament. In the debates for the first time it was actually flagged up when devolved issues were being discussed. Usually the media goes ahead happily discussing "education", "the NHS", "housing" and so on (for most of us among the most important issues), as if these applied uniformly across the UK. They don't. Now it'll be important to pay attention to that.

 

[maomao]

Before 1902 there would have been party leaders in the house of lords who would have taken part in election campaigning (though obviously not televised debates) so not without precedent at all.

 

[danny la rouge]

Before 1902 there would have been party leaders in the house of lords who would have taken part in election campaigning (though obviously not televised debates) so not without precedent at all.

Indeed, and in the past, before devolution, it was possible for the SNP to have had a leader who was not an MP (or, obviously, MSP) but an unelected person.

 

[Dogsauce]

But what is not so obvious is what sort of LD party will be left after their culling. What will happen to the orange-book/Beveridge balance of factions? And who might lead the rump with Clegg decapitated. It is possible that they'd end up a more socially progressive/pro EU party that would not help push through a QS with the central tenet of the swivel-eyed EU ref.

I'd wondered about this too - if Clegg goes it will probably make a link-up with the tories less likely since he's been at the front of this pair-up. There are more progressive elements in the party (although few have taken principled stands on legislation in this parliament) and it might be easier for them to do a deal with Labour without Clegg there to lose face about it, it might be seen as an opportunity to undo some of the damage they've done to themselves.

A year or two back I'd sort of expected that by this point of the electoral cycle the lib dems would be sticking in the knife and sharing all the dirt on their coalition partners in an attempt to redeem themselves with the electorate in the face of a likely Labour overall majority. Labour's drop in expected seats (largely due to issues in Scotland) has given them a glimmer of hope that the current arrangement could continue, so they're doing nothing to damage their only chance of remaining relevant, even reaching out to tory voters in marginal seats to 'keep Labour out'.

If Clegg goes and by some unlikely circumstance the numbers add up so that a Labour + Lib coalition is possible it'd be funny to see them betray tactical tory voters too and get into bed with Miliband. Imagine the wailing!