Political polling

[belboid]

In the event of a very close Parliament, I wonder if the Deputy Speakers will be chosen from the very minor parties? Say the SDLP and the Greens and UKIP?

An anti-Tory LibScum might accept, or maybe an Irish bod. Can't see anyone else doing so.

 

[brogdale]

is this link as useless as the last one? the one which didnt even mention deputies despite you claiming it did?

Look, you cant count. You thought you'd discovered something clever, but you hadn't, and you can't now admit that you were wrong. Sad, but true. Nothing anyone can say will convince you you are wrong, despite you obviously being so. Hey ho.

Well...if you were prepared to offer some numbers supporting what you claim, I might be able to see the error of my ways. I've shown you very clearly how 321 is arrived at. Why don't you show me in what way I can't count?

 

[brogdale]

This link in no way supports the argument you were making.

Which argument? Exactly.

 

[Teaboy]

An anti-Tory LibScum might accept, or maybe an Irish bod. Can't see anyone else doing so.

Why not? The position is considered a great honour, no? It would also give whichever party the person comes from a bit of influence at the top table and there is probably a decent wage with it as well.

 

[belboid]

Well...if you were prepared to offer some numbers supporting what you claim, I might be able to see the error of my ways. I've shown you very clearly how 321 is arrived at. Why don't you show me in what way I can't count?

i have done. Stop being so dishonest.

 

[belboid]

Which argument? Exactly.

have you forgotten already? That might explain a lot.

your link has some relevance into numbers required if SNP (or whoever) decide they wont vote for a Labour policy, but will vote against tory ones. It has no relevance as to whether a party requires 323 or 321 MP's to be elected. If you want to follow the argument inherent in that article, then both 323 AND 321 are wrong.

 

[brogdale]

have you forgotten already? That might explain a lot.

your link has some relevance into numbers required if SNP (or whoever) decide they wont vote for a Labour policy, but will vote against tory ones. It has no relevance as to whether a party requires 323 or 321 MP's to be elected. If you want to follow the argument inherent in that article, then both 323 AND 321 are wrong.

The link explained the protocols governing how the post-election negotiations might proceed. I'd posted that for you because you'd claimed that in order to form an administration a party leader would require 323 seats on the 8th May. That was, and remains incorrect.

 

[brogdale]

i have done. Stop being so dishonest.

I really don't think you have.

For clarity, what exactly do you disagree with here?

650 minus 5(SF) = 645
645 minus 4 (Speakers) = 641
641 divided by 2 = 321 & 320

 

[belboid]

The link explained the protocols governing how the post-election negotiations might proceed. I'd posted that for you because you'd claimed that in order to form an administration a party leader would require 323 seats on the 8th May. That was, and remains incorrect.

Go back and reread what I wrote you dishonest child.

On Friday May 8th, the key figure is 323. None of this other stuff kicks in until a government has been agreed. Once parliament is up and running, the figure is probably 321, but not until then.

because that is when people are elected. It's pretty straight forward.

In order to govern, the ruling party/parties will need at least 323 MP's to be elected. Yes or no?

No.

 

[killer b]

jesus. put your dick away belboid.

 

[brogdale]

Go back and reread what I wrote you dishonest child.

But belboid what you've quoted of my post is correct.

As I keep on explaining, in the case of a hung parliament the number of seats gained on May 8th by the "ruling" party will not matter; as incumbent Cameron will remain in office and be entitled to see if his administration can command the confidence of the house on his QS. At the precise moment of that vote, if the opposition can muster a total of 321 votes they would be in a position to vote down the QS.

The only significance of 326, 323 or 321 on May 8th relate to the performance of an opposition party. If they win an outright majority, (however that is defined*), then the incumbent PM and government would immediately resign and the Queen would summon the leader of the majoritarian victor party.

* tbh that is the crucial thing. I can't yet see how that number is defined. I'm sure that the vermin will insist on it being the higher figure to trigger resignation?

 

[andysays]

...this is quite good...

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourki...rms-uk-government-in-event-of-hung-parliament

Yes, it is.

I think the question of Deputy Speakers and if 323 or 321 is needed for an effective majority is less important that some are making it, because there is no need for a party or parties to command a majority in order to form a government.

But this bit is interesting

When no party achieves an overall majority, this principle cannot apply so that alternative conventions must be invoked. Cabinet Manual refers political actors in this situation to the continuation rule, which was appealed to by Heath and Wilson in 1974. This principle stipulates that the “incumbent government is entitled to wait until the new Parliament has met to see if it can command the confidence of the House of Commons” (ibid. § 2.12). Only when it emerges that the incumbent is “unlikely” to command the confidence of parliament, and there is a clear alternative, is the government expected to resign.

Given that the SNP have explicitly ruled out a formal coalition with Labour, I can see the possibility of Cameron (no doubt with widespread support in the media) claiming that there isn't a clear alternative to the incumbent government and that he should be given first chance at forming a government, especially if, as still seems likely, the combined Con & LD MPs are more than Lab.

 

[brogdale]

.

 

[Quartz]

So how long can a government go on without a vote of confidence?

 

[brogdale]

So how long can a government go on without a vote of confidence?

5 years

 

[rioted]

The vote on the Queens speech is a vote of confidence

 

[magneze]

Anyway, it's interesting that many of the polls posted have the SNP in the "Other" category. What percentage of the national vote are they polling at? It feels like they should be broken out of "Other" to me ...

 

[JTG]

Anyway, it's interesting that many of the polls posted have the SNP in the "Other" category. What percentage of the national vote are they polling at? It feels like they should be broken out of "Other" to me ...

4%ish

 

[weepiper]

Anyway, it's interesting that many of the polls posted have the SNP in the "Other" category. What percentage of the national vote are they polling at? It feels like they should be broken out of "Other" to me ...

I think it's been between 4-6% nationally

 

[magneze]

Thanks, so quite a decent percentage then. Interesting how it's not split out in many polls.

 

[brogdale]

 

[brogdale]

Lab -4, LD +3

 

[Quartz]

Those poll results are all within the margins of error, aren't they?

 

[brogdale]

Those poll results are all within the margins of error, aren't they?

they are

 

[brogdale]

 

[butchersapron]

This is the 'interesting' survation poll everyone was on about:

New South Thanet p
UKIP - 39%
CON - 30%
LAB - 26%
GRN - 2%
LDEM - 2%

 

[butchersapron]

UKIP polled+across the board this week - including another 17%.

 

[redsquirrel]

Those BNP voters turning out

 

[butchersapron]

Those BNP voters turning out

All important.

 

[brogdale]

This is the 'interesting' survation poll everyone was on about:

New South Thanet p
UKIP - 39%
CON - 30%
LAB - 26%
GRN - 2%
LDEM - 2%

Presumably this had named candidate methodology?