The next coalition government

[danny la rouge]

This is quite funny....with the dawning prospects of a fragmented, hung parliament, Lab have been 'snuggling up' to the NI Unionists. It appears from Dodds' comments that he actually believes what they've been telling him.

Any such coalition would require Lab on, at least, 314 seats.

What's interesting about that is that whether it's Dodds flying kites or Labour building in deniability by getting backbenchers to put out feelers, if the story circulates in the West of Scotland, it'll do real damage to the Labour vote, perhaps negating their "vote SNP get Tory" stance. "Vote Labour get DUP" isn't going to play well in Labour's once traditional constituency, the West of Scotland Catholic working class vote.

It's sights like the Orange Order marching for a No vote, and the Labour MPs like Graeme Morrice (PPS to Harriet Harman) cosying up to the Orange Order in the name of the Union during the referendum that contributed to the Glasgow Yes vote and the collapse of Labour in the polls.




(Morrice on the right).

There were already jibes that Labour was the "political wing of the Orange Order".

 

[SpookyFrank]

I for one am furious about these implications that the world's leading child abuse organisation is somehow unfit to run schools.

 

[danny la rouge]

Staggers:

http://may2015.com/featured/snp-wes...i-am-thinking-about-is-confidence-and-supply/

SNP's Angua Robertson says;

“The most likely outcome that we are looking for and preparing for is confidence & supply. Frankly, it is the only one I am spending any time thinking about.”

“History teaches you”, he suggests, “that minor coalition partners tend to suffer the brunt at election time”.

He is unequivocal. “The Lib Dems threw away any sense of bargaining strength”. They were dragged into taking unpopular and bad decisions when they could have exercised more influence. They “deserve the wrath of the electorate”.

"I think there are a lot of advantages to confidence and supply."

“Because no party is likely to have the detail of its full legislative programme worked out, it makes sense to be able to reserve your position on different proposals until you actually see the detail of what those positions are.

“There are lots of examples – not least in Scotland, but in other countries too – where that’s worked.”

 

[redsquirrel]

“History teaches you”, he suggests, “that minor coalition partners tend to suffer the brunt at election time”.

He is unequivocal. “The Lib Dems threw away any sense of bargaining strength”. They were dragged into taking unpopular and bad decisions when they could have exercised more influence. They “deserve the wrath of the electorate”.

He's right on that score. And it shows that they knew exactly what they were doing when they made scrapping Trident the supposed price of a coalition.

 

[danny la rouge]

He's right on that score. And it shows that they knew exactly what they were doing when they made scrapping Trident the supposed price of a coalition.

Indeed.

 

[brogdale]

This week's projections from the various modellers..(from Anthony @YG's blog)...

Projections

The latest forecasts from Election Forecast, May 2015 and Elections Etc are below. The long promised seat model from the Polling Observatory team (Rob Ford, Will Jennings, Chris Wlezien and Mark Pickup) finally made its debut this week too. I don’t think it’s up on a website yet, but they put it out at the NCRM’s conference on election forecasting and tweeted it, so I’ve included it below.

Elections Etc – Hung Parliament, CON 281(-1), LAB 281(+2), LD 23(nc), SNP 41(nc), UKIP 3(nc)
Election Forecast – Hung Parliament, CON 280(-2), LAB 283(nc), LD 27(+3), SNP 37(nc), UKIP 2(nc)
May 2015 – Hung Parliament, CON 269(-1), LAB 274(+2), LD 24(-1), SNP 56(nc), UKIP 4(nc)
Polling Observatory – Hung Parliament, CON 269, LAB 293, LD 21, SNP 37, UKIP 1

Interesting to note that only the 'new boys', "Polling Observatory", give any combination of a possible two-party 'coalition' or pact. ("May 2015" do technically as well, but on the basis of a 56 seat haul for the nationlists...seems a little unlikely?)

 

[Wilf]

What is gratifying in all these polls is that, despite all their huffing and puffing, nationalism, racism and assorted shite, ukip get little more than the square root of fuck all. One of the best arguments for first past the post I know (indeed just about the only one).

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

The best argument for first past the post is that it elects the candidate who can get the most support in an area, it's democratic.

 

[Wilf]

The best argument for first past the post is that it elects the candidate who can get the most support in an area, it's democratic.

Well, I'm not into Westminster politics, so I don't really have a dog in the fight. But for those who do I'd have thought FPTP starts to lose its legitimacy the more you move towards a multi-party system. Depends how important you see the 'bond' between an individual MP and their constituency as being, but FPTP begins to look worse and worse in terms of the votes vs seats pattern at the national level.

 

[danny la rouge]

Useful link for some who have posted on this thread. It explains who gets to form the government.

I think the Labour Party should also read it; they seem to have forgotten the rules since 2010. ( Or are lying about what they think the rules are).

http://constitution-unit.com/2015/0...her-hung-parliament-9-key-questions-answered/

 

[danny la rouge]

Well, I'm not into Westminster politics, so I don't really have a dog in the fight. But for those who do I'd have thought FPTP starts to lose its legitimacy the more you move towards a multi-party system. Depends how important you see the 'bond' between an individual MP and their constituency as being, but FPTP begins to look worse and worse in terms of the votes vs seats pattern at the national level.

Yup. In a two candidate election, FPTP is perfectly satisfactory as a way of measuring support. If, however, you want the parliament to reflect the way votes are distributed nationally, then it's no good if you have more than two parties.

 

[andysays]

Useful link for some who have posted on this thread. It explains who gets to form the government.

I think the Labour Party should also read it; they seem to have forgotten the rules since 2010. ( Or are lying about what they think the rules are).

http://constitution-unit.com/2015/0...her-hung-parliament-9-key-questions-answered/

That seems pretty straightforward. Which bit have Labour party peeps forgotten or lying about?

 

[danny la rouge]

That seems pretty straightforward. Which bit have Labour party peeps forgotten or lying about?

They're saying the largest party, even if it's a minority, gets to form the government.

 

[andysays]

They're saying the largest party, even if it's a minority, gets to form the government.

Well even I can see that's nonsense, so I don't think they're likely to get away with it.

Have you got a link so I can read in more detail?

 

[danny la rouge]

Well even I can see that's nonsense, so I don't think they're likely to get away with it.

Have you got a link so I can read in more detail?

This tweet:



And emails going out in Scotland.

 

[redsquirrel]

Pretty weak. Desperate to get some of those people that have moved to the SNP back, and it's so obviously desperate that I can't see many people buying it. What do you reckon Danny?

 

[andysays]

This tweet:

View attachment 67726

And emails going out in Scotland.

Ah, OK, Scottish Labour.

When you said the Labour Party, I assumed you meant someone who was actually relevant to the process of forming the next Westminster govt.

(It's not simply because they're Scottish that they won't, but because Scottish Labour is in the process of being wiped out as far as Westminster MPs goes)

 

[danny la rouge]

Pretty weak. Desperate to get some of those people that have moved to the SNP back, and it's so obviously desperate that I can't see many people buying it. What do you reckon Danny?

Yes. It's desperation, and I think will be seen as such.

It's like Andysays says; it's their fear of irrelevance.

(Although, there's no legally constituted "Scottish Labour Party" - it's just the Labour Party).

 

[brogdale]

They're saying the largest party, even if it's a minority, gets to form the government.

Yes, they are wrong in this assumption. Though, if we were to see, for instance, Dave sit put with fewer seats than Lab and attempt to build a coalition, this would represent such a distinct departure from public expectation that issues of legitimacy would obviously be a challenge. Though this hypothetical appears an unlikely prospect with the present predicted numbers; Con/Lib falling short of 326 and the SNP pledged never to support a tory administration.

That said, I bet 'Beaker' loves reading point number 8.

 

[danny la rouge]

Yes, they are wrong in this assumption. Though, if we were to see, for instance, Dave sit put with fewer seats than Lab and attempt to build a coalition, this would represent such a distinct departure from public expectation that issues of legitimacy would obviously be a challenge. Though this hypothetical appears an unlikely prospect with the present predicted numbers; Con/Lib falling short of 326 and the SNP pledged never to support a tory administration.

That said, I bet 'Beaker' loves reading point number 8.

Sure, but I'd argue that it's only a recent expectation: one, I'd contest, that was created in 2010 by the Lib Dems.

And, like much emanating from the Lib Dems, although it has the surface appearance of democratic rectitude, in fact it doesn't withstand much scrutiny in theory or in practise, historically or in terms of what a public mandate means in a parliament such as ours.

 

[brogdale]

Meanwhile...the vermin are saying that they are planning for minority government...

George Osborne held a dinner with Conservative whips on Monday night to discuss tactics for the days after the vote on May 7.

Two senior MPs revealed that Tory high command is preparing to argue that Cameron has won a “moral victory” if he secures more votes than Ed Miliband — even if he has fewer seats.

In the event of a fragile Labour-led coalition taking power, they would argue that there could be a second general election within months and it would be better to stick with Cameron than hold a bloody leadership contest.

Ministers close to Downing Street say even if Cameron wins the most seats, he is drawing up plans to run a minority government rather than seek another coalition.

Senior figures believe he could keep his MPs onside because going it alone would free up 23 ministerial posts held by Liberal Democrats.

One minister close to Cameron said: “If there is an opportunity to govern without going into coalition, we would seize it.”

(behind Murdoch's £wall)

 

[andysays]

Meanwhile...the vermin are saying that they are planning for minority government...

For them to announce all that sounds like they're getting rattled.

One minister close to Cameron said: “If there is an opportunity to govern without going into coalition, we would seize it.”

I'm sure they would if they thought they could get away with it, but the idea that they could have significantly fewer seats than last time (about 30 seems to be current projection) and form a minority government, when last time it was necessary to go into coalition strikes me as all-out fantasy.

Is there some sort of between-the-lines message this is meant to convey, rather than the nonsense it appears if we take it at face value?

 

[brogdale]

Is there some sort of between-the-lines message this is meant to convey, rather than the nonsense it appears if we take it at face value?

Yes, there is.

 

[andysays]

Yes, there is.

Care to expand on that?

 

[brogdale]

Care to expand on that?

Quite a tricky amount of spin, positioning and expectation management wrapped up in that Murdoch puff piece. The messages appear to be for external consumption (electorate) and internal (parliamentary and wider party).
On the one hand the story reminds the electorate and wider party of the constitutional fact that, following an indecisive election outcome, the prerogative to seek to form an administration, lies with the incumbent PM...Dave. I suppose one thing that party workers/members are supposed to take from that is 'don't give up' just because the polls remain disappointing for them. they may well win the plurality of popular votes.

Internally, the first two words of the piece appear significant; along with Gove, it is Gideon that is placed centre stage...possibly showing where Murdoch's support will lie when Dave goes.

 

[brogdale]

From Anthony's weekly review of the predictions...

Projections

The latest forecasts from Election Forecast, May 2015 and Elections Etc are below, along with the Guardian’s new election projection (note that May2015 have got a problem with their site, so the figures below are the corrected ones they should be showing). As usual, everyone is projecting a hung Parliament, though all four are now projecting the Conservatives to have the most seats.

Elections Etc – Hung Parliament, CON 286(+7), LAB 278(-5), LD 22(-1), SNP 40(nc), UKIP 3(nc)
Election Forecast – Hung Parliament, CON 286(+1), LAB 280(+4), LD 24(-3), SNP 38(-1), UKIP 1(nc)
May 2015 – Hung Parliament, CON 276(+6), LAB 271(nc), LD 23(-3), SNP 55(-1), UKIP 3(-1)
Guardian – Hung Parliament, CON 275(nc), LAB 271(nc), LD 26(-1), SNP 52(+1), UKIP 4(nc)

FWIW, after his latest batch of constituency polling, Ashcroft was saying Con 272 and lab 272.

 

[brogdale]

A Tory-Labour coalition government should be formed in the event of a hung parliament to stop Scottish Nationalist MPs provoking a constitutional crisis, a former Conservative chairman argues today.

The proposal by Lord Baker of Dorking – formerly Kenneth Baker, Margaret Thatcher’s Education Secretary – to create the first national government since the Second World War, reflects growing alarm in Tory and Labour ranks over the prospect of dozens of seats falling to the SNP, leading to paralysis at Westminster.

'Left-field' mischief making from a ghost of fatcherism...they use their oldsters almost like the political equivalent of military chaff.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

All the national poll changes for months now have been shown the differences between the big two being within the margin of error.

I suspect we're going to see either a Tory/Libdem minority coalition propped up by confidence and supply from the SNP (whatever their promises), or a Labour/Libdem minority coalition propped up by the SNP.

My suspicion is that English lefties should not expect an automatic anti-Tory arrangement.

 

[danny la rouge]

I suspect we're going to see either a Tory/Libdem minority coalition propped up by confidence and supply from the SNP (whatever their promises).

What makes you think that's s possibility?

Two reasons it won't happen:

One, that they'd lose the 2016 Holyrood elections if they did that.

Two, a huge tranche of their pro independence case is that independence banishes Tory government.

It'd be a strategic disaster.

 

[Corax]

I'm definitely voting UKIP, because Nigel likes a pint and a fag. And he'd kick out all the immigrants that prop up the NHS and contribute more in tax than our indigenous population.