Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If the coalition collapsed then the LDs are NOT going to ke
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If the coalition collapsed then the LDs are NOT going to keep the Tories in power with a supply and confidence arrangement
The main story in the Times this morning is a report that preparatory work is going on in Downing Street to deal with the consequences of a break-up of the coalition.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
As for preparatory work: it makes sense. Any business should try and be prepared for as many possible contingencies as possible, and that can involve thinking through or wargaming scenarios.
I'd be amazed if the Lib Dems and Labour were not also thinking through the scenarios.
The problem occurs when, as here, such thinking becomes public.
Cons: Men -10; Women -7
Here are some statements that different people make about different political parties. In each case, which party do you think it applies to most - the Conservatives, Labour or the Liberal
Democrats?
The kind of society it wants is broadly the kind
of society I want. Applies most to the:
Conservatives 27(0)
Labour: 25 (-5)
LibDems 11(-1)
None of the: 24(+4)
DK: 13(+2)
It is led by people of real ability:
Cons: 18(-2)
Labour: 15(-2)
LibDems: 4(+1)
None of them: 47(+4)
DK 16(-1)
Its leaders are prepared to take tough and
unpopular decisions
Cons: 41(-6)
Labour: 11(-1)
LibDems:5(+1)
None of them: 29(+5)
DK: 14(+1)
It seems to chop and change all the time: you
can never be quite sure what it stands for
Cons: 27(+4)
Labour: 22(-4)
LibDem: 28(-1)
None: 9(+1)
DK: 15(+1)
The report seems to be based on wishful thinking that it would be the LDs who would want to close it down not the Tories.",
Or, as is far more likely, in the face of the continuing Europe chaos in the tory party from disgruntled backbenchers, Cammie is trying to appease them by trying to stop banging on about Europe for five minutes and blame the lib dems for his inability to manage his party.
Posturing is what he has always done and to be fair it's always worked. He's still leader and they are still unlikely to change that. They are suckers for empty posturing as has been proved so many times before, particularly on Europe.
The argument about fearing going to the polls works both ways. Much as the lib dems would be in severe trouble so would the tories. Going to electorate when the kippers are riding their protest wave might not seem that great idea to quite a few tory MPs in marginal seats.
We've seem this before after Lords reform was killed and then boundary changes dumped.
There is an optimal time for disentanglement and decoupling and it sure ain't this far out from the GE, for either party.
The only way this gets to a catastrophic game of no-confidence 'chicken' is if the tory backbenchers lose their minds completely over Europe and pull the trigger. While it can never be ruled out completely (it's not exactly unprecedented) it's still very unlikely.
It looks more like they are carefully avoiding planning anything that might possibly upset the Unions, the Guardian or European overlords, hoping to scrape a win with the lowest mathematically possible vote share
With the Tories seemingly bent on mass Sepuku it would seem foolish not to do some contingency planning.
And the Lib Dems are nothing if not opportunists. At the moment they're going down to certain defeat drowning in the trenches with their ill fitting partners but if only they could find something sufficiently 'principled'* and left wing they might see a way out....... It's a long shot but if they could bring down the Tories with it they might just get back their voters who have moved to Labour. Europe might just be just the thing....
(I know the words "principled" and 'Lib Dem' struggle in the same sentence which is why I put it in parenthesis)
The fact of the matter is that were there to be an early election, for whatever reason, no amount of contingency planning would prepare the parties for the likely chaos and confusion that would then ensue. Abruptly shifting gears from governance or opposition to full blown election mode cannot be done lightly or cost free. It doesn't mean it's an impossibility but it does mean that any party that pulled the trigger would be taking a massive risk even regardless of polling.
Given that the practical number of seats to have a majority is 322 (Half of 650- 6 (SF+ Speaker), Lab + LD on 315, plus Alliance, SDLP and Lady Hermon making 320 is closer than Cons + DUP (312)
And for there to be a General Election before 2015, doesn't there have to be a 65% vote in the House?
What would Milliband take? A guaranteed stay in No 10 now or a possible one in two years time?
Firstly, this has happened in Scotland when the SNP turned a "we can't do anything cos we're a minority government" into a whacking majority "we can't do anything cos we're not independent" at the next election.
This is, of course, high risk. The opposition could just sit back and enjoy watching the Tories tearing themselves to pieces or the Tories could come to their senses and play the "we can't do anything cos we ain't got a majority" game. They would be praying that circumstances will save them before the 7th of May, 2015 and that the voters don't rumble them in the meantime.
Mind you, 16 to 1 looks pretty good to me.
For what it's worth about the most reasonable things you can predict is it's going to shake out to an SNP labour split with the tories doing badly and the lib dems in for a world of pain under Clegg. 2011, the polling and locals here show as much. It's how you allocate that SNP labour split that becomes hardest to predict. Fear of a tory majority is the reason labour will give you for saying they think they would get the lions share of that split but their heartlands are not what they were and little Ed in a GE campaign is not something they may find to their liking.
Still shackled to the corpse of Gordo's economic catastrophe. No policies. Anti-democratic.
Is the 'act' they have together the 3 Stooges?
We saw similar splits under Labour post-2005 on any number of issues. The larger the number of MPs, the harder it is to exercise central control. And perhaps that's a good thing: should MPs be following central diktat from their parties, or doing what they think is best for their constituents?
The biggest problem for the LibDems is that collapsing the coalition leaves them facing an election with an unpopular leader, and having shredded any credibility as a coalition party in a future govt of any stripe. Tory and LibDems will still be sitting together on the opposition benches.
All calls for electoral reform hinge on the people wanting permenant coalition governments. A bitter end to this one is hardly going to enthuse the voters with the idea of LibDems as permanent junior members of govt.
Of course just because something is stupid and self defeating doesn't mean that it will not happen. Maybe the turkeys will vote for early Christmas.
No major public arguments, though. No significant briefing against each other.
MP's doing what they think is best for their constituents? Individually, sometimes, maybe! As a pack, busy tearing themselves apart?
Er! 16/1 is still pretty good odds don't you think?
Triggering an election by bringing down a minority administration is also no trifling matter. The electorate likely won't be kind if they feel they are being dragged to the polls by cheap party machinations. So it then becomes a blame game and that would get ugly.
Why? Well, self-preservation for a start. There may be a great deal of griping about what the government is/is not doing on various issues but the backbench pressure is with a twofold objective: partly to edge the government in the direction of the pressure (or, if you prefer, to apply counter-pressure to that from the Lib Dems), but the main one is a PR job: to put forth openly a manifesto for majority government. It's not about bringing the government down now.
The Tories are also accustomed to government and know that another two years is both necessary to carry forward plans started three years ago - and so enable the recovery in the polls - and to keep Labour's mitts off the levers of power for as long as possible. By contrast, what's the Lib Dem plan for government? Ideas like the Mansion Tax are just random outpourings aimed at Focus leaflets.
There's also the question of mechanism. The 1922 Committee's own name does indicate one possibility but the backbenchers will only move to disassociate if they realistically feel that the chances favour going it alone and all sorts of perils lie in that direction, from the public opprobrium that comes with both foisting unwanted elections on the people and appearing to put party above country, to the obvious fact that Labour and UKIP are both doing better than the Tories would like in the polls.
By contrast, the Lib Dem party conference has real power and has proven awkward in the past. With an ever growing number of ex-councillors and a final batch of pre-government councillors up for election next year, I'd make the Yellows the more likely to break up the coalition. There may also be a belief among some that the LDs could align with Labour following a break-up and so re-establish equidistance. I'd rate that belief naïve but that doesn't mean it won't exist.
The timetable is another issue. It's probably too late now to have an election before October. There's no imminent crisis and unless one blows up in the next fortnight or so, the possible election dates start running into the summer holidays, and were that the timing for the election, it would go down with everyone from politicians to media to public very poorly. After that is the recess, when nothing serious will happen. It's only the conference season and the month thereafter which offers an opportunity for such a crisis, and then it's the Lib Dems, with their conference first and way below their 2010 poll, who'd have to do it. I'll pass.
The seats they will hold on to will be down to incumbency, local graft etc and that applies as much now as in 2 years time.
Getting out now would be the best way of nobbling the europhobes
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/coming-soon-europes-biggest-economy-will-be-uk-2013-05-15?link=home_carousel
That will change the In / Out dynamics pretty powerfully just as a BOO Tory leader leader is elected to sweep away the wreckage of Redward's premiership.
I can't see this happening. It's worth considering that there's not a binary Together or Part choice. Just as a married couple doesn't have to be Infatuated or Divorced, the Coalition could decide to be in a grumpy marriage of convenience for a couple of years.
Mr. Patrick, isn't Germany about 20m people larger than the UK? I'd be surprised if we became a larger economy than them.
Agreed, but the SNP had the appearance of competence as well as a sense of being in opposition to the other parties to maintain solidarity.
Different circumstances here.
Although I'm not sure this would happen - surely if there was a failure to form a government then parliament would have to be dissolved and a general election called. Alternatively a 50% majority in parliament would be sufficient to amend the 65% to 50%, which would then allow a vote to trigger an election. So in reality I cannot see any situation in which we'd have to wait until 2015 for an election if the coalition failed. And quite rightly too.
It's possible. Germany is having a demographic collapse - they ain't breeding and are in dire need of immigrants. They're getting some but not enough. We have wide open doors and seem to be reproducing - so the relative population sizes will narrow over time (more them down than us up).
Plus - and this is the key point in the article, the Euro is going to fail. It is not sustainable as is. The PIIGS and France will stay in depression for as long as they are unable to devalue. Their only allowed mechanism to become externally competitive is through internal cost / wage / GDP reduction. Many (esp France) have no apparent desire to become competitive. Their debt / GDP dynamics are going to pop - the debts will rise as deficits worsen and GDP falls. Germany shares a currency with that lot and contingent liabilities via the ECB will morph into real cash liabilities. A wholesale Eurozone banking collapse is coming along. 2008 will look like a party in comparison. We'll get some of that - but they'll get it worse. In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king. We look set to become the one eyed man of Europe.
I do agree the euro is unsustainable, and the longer the festering corpse plods along, like a zombie currency, the worse the eventual zombie apocalypse will be. Better to just shoot it now, before it can bite anyone else.
That said I imagine a 2013 GE would be More attractive to the Tories than Spring 2014, coincident with the Euros.
What would be mischievous, would be an Autumn GE coinicident with the Independence vote.
Doesn't mean an early election next year is guaranteed either but if things keep deteriorating then it just becomes more and more likely. The coalition is still being held together by Cameron and Clegg. Fear of an early election is keeping things from getting beyond the point of no return but that fear could eventually be overwhelmed by panic and mutual loathing. Stoking up talk of disharmony and mutual recriminations between the coalition partners comes at a cost. Backbenchers have already proved they are willing to do far more than just posture and push things to a vote if they can. Lords reform and boundary changes are dead because that posturing was taken at face value.
However, I agree with your main point. Now is not the time. Next autumn, only six probably not very productive months from the scheduled date, might be a very different matter.
David Herdson's comments seem unusually tribal to me; Prof Tim Bale is on the money for me http://t.co/GmN38BSmiM in saying that the Lib Dems keeping their heads is helping the Tories lose theirs.
Interestingly a 2014 election could lance the UKIP boil as it would be held on the same day as the Euros. 'Vote for them in the Euro Parliament if you must, but stick with us for Westminster' is a message all three parties could make work
Cameron would be bonkers trying to govern as a minority relying on "The odds and sods" like the Nationalists and Irishmen.
I agree with Mike there's fat chance of it happening, although he did use stronger language last night when I sent him the Times' pieces.
But the article did raise an interesting point
Senior Lib Dems said that Mr Clegg needed to act to prevent the Lib Dems “drifting into a four-party situation with us as the fourth party”.
One said that, in terms of the coalition’s future “the plates are shifting”.
What does happen if the Lib Dems do become the fourth party, such as losing a parliamentary seat to UKIP.
You are right that there is alot of unease about the scale and speed of immigration. But immigration will still happen. I'm not sure what can or should be done to stop the UK population expanding. We will become a bigger, more densely populated, richer, more diverse country.
Many Eurozone countries will become thinner, emptier, poorer, shabbier has-beens. Mass emigration destroys countries. What does a young Spaniard have to look forward to in Spain? Go to London!
Don't be surprised at another coalition - of course whether that's with Lab or Cons is the interesting point but I think the LDs will come to see this coalition as having been a huge success. And with Nick Clegg in charge.
As for the Cons if the backbenchers are indeed setting out their stall for the next election that's fine but I can't quite believe they are so masterfully guided.
And all this in the context of a vastly improved economic climate and forecast.
I would be quietly confident of a Cons overall majority with LDs polling better than expected such as to deny Lab.
I hadn't realised that YouGov doesn't apply a certainty to vote adjustment, which seems surprising. Is there a rule of thumb adjustment that you can use that you help give (what I think) would be a more realistic view of where opinion is?
Thank you for the link to MarketWatch, but I do not feel that the timing of his conclusions are correct.
Germany, with its low unemployment (5.4%), could well see a surge of immigrants from not only Southern Europe but also from France and the Eastern European states. That is more likely to happen before the UK grows its GDP. Thus its population will rise - especially those of working age.
Also if the EU continues with its plans to tax financial transactions of all varieties, then that could increase the likelihood of the UK leaving the EU.
As the economies of the PIIGS+ France are not likely to improve rapidly, I do not see the German electorate being willing to underpin their debts for many more years and this could lead to a break-up of the EZ, perhaps some of the PIIGS leaving the EZ and a small northern Europe EZ zone being retained.
Of course any break up of the EZ puts into question both the enlargement of the EU and also the future purposes of the EU and would strike a blow at the heart of its bureaucracy.
Even if a northern EZ was retained, it would be difficult for Brussels to continue with their economic and political integration plan, which is so dear to their heart.
Timing is difficult to predict, but if the same or worse economic conditions of the EZ countries prevail, then I do not see Germany acting as banker for the EZ past 2020.
Yes. The Euro is going to break. That means the whole 'project' has a question mark against it. If it all falls apart and we revert to the EU being a club rather than a Frankenstein's monster superstate then all conclusions are to be revised.
On the polling they probably are but in a general election campaign this would make very little difference at all. Such a campaign might give the tories some cover against UKIP but I frankly doubt it because there are other, more important, drivers of their current strength and there are a lot more important issues for the British people. The growth story is still too new and fragile to be a clear winner and Labour would win. It takes some really complicated thinking to work out how that advances the Euro-sceptic cause but they are capable of it.
Would the myopia of Europe lead to such a catastrophic miscalculation? It is possible but not likely. 16/1 seems about right.
But Clegg's strategy hasn't changed. It's always been to show they can govern well for 3 years (hmm) and then differentiate. I'd think that he'd want a period where the LibDems were quite openly preventing all kinds of Tory schemes, until the point when the Tories got fed up and pulled the plug. The Tory interest is less clear. A stronger LD vote recovered from Labour would be a good thing for the Conservatives. A period of chaotic government like now would not. And does more time mean that UKIP's bubble will burst, or that it will give them the chance to prepare, with the Euros as the next stage in their rocket? That's what we're working on. However, recently candidate selection has been speeded up, in case it proves necessary. I expect us to have candidates in most of the winnable seats by the autumn.
If we look at the recent IpsosMori poll:
The VI for all respondents was:
Cons: 31; LAB 38; LD 10; UKIP 11
When only 100% certain to vote was taken into consideration, the VI changed to:
Cons: 31; LAB 34; LD 10; UKIP 13.
Also it should be noted that on many polls LAB gets more support from the youngest age group, but they are least likely to vote.
The lib dem base, activists, members and MPs remaining after 2015? I somehow doubt it. Power at any cost is a dangerous thing to advocate as almost the sole measure of success.
The quirk of electoral math which gave us the coalition is also not going to the arbiter of success or failure.
It will indeed be the lib dems as well as the electorate who will count the cost and pass judgement which will manifest itself in what the lib dems choose to do for 2015 and beyond.
Should they stick with Clegg, both for the election and afterwards, then that would be a vindication of the success you consider them to have had. Should they move to a distinctly post Clegg era which firmly but politely distances itself from Clegg's leadership then I would suggest that may indicate a less favourable judgement.
Politicians who wait for history to look kindly on them are doing so because the judgement of the present is not to their liking.
The problem here is that it's the Tories, not the LDs, who are losing discipline. All those laughable articles in The Telegraph about the LDs not being nature enough for government were about the wrong party...
We know that none of the potential challengers to Brown decided to take their chances, and I tend to believe Cameron was sincere when he said that the deficit was his number one priority. Collapsing the coalition would put the public finances at risk of coming under the sway of Ed Balls nearly a couple of years earlier. What could be worth that risk?
If a minority Conservative government could survive a confidence vote then one option open to it would be to bring forward an EU referendum bill and hope to attract Labour rebels to push it through. It is probably the best chance for an EU referendum this decade. I don't think Cameron sees it as his destiny to take Britain out of the EU, so I don't think he'll take that option.
As an aside, it is worth noting that one of the key reasons he expects the UK's economy to exceed Germany's (by 2050) in size is population. Specifically, it mentions immigration - and Britain's attractiveness to immigrants - as a reason why Britain will overtake Germany.
Clearly the Lib Dems are going to lose about 5-7 with retirements etc. But are Labour really going to remain in the 40s or could your SNP get into the teens or twenties and reduce SLAB's overall total?
Both ways point to YouGov overstating Labour's share.
1) the name
2) adultery isn't a ground of divorce for civil partnerships (gay infidelity would be "unreasonable behaviour")
3) civil partnerships can't be carried out in church
4) a highly technical pensions difference that is a requirement of EU law
5) civil partnerships can be dissolved after one year
Number one is the important one.
Will the words now read: Civil partnership is a great institution, but who wants to live in an institution?
Thanks. So the whole argument is a giant storm in a teacup! FFS.
Dave should move on and spend time on something substantive.
Jesus had two dads, he turned out alright.
If politics is a game, to get the value of the game they will choose to maximise their power and influence rather than cast themselves out again and that means sticking with it. Power at any cost seems a great sin but look at the ridiculous pre-election pledges on matching incumbents’ spending. Power is necessary to “do what you really want to do”. If I were a libdem (!) I would be happy with what the party has achieved and would see no reason, unless I was a fanatical “anyone but Tories” Lab => LD switcher, to change my vote. Of course it is precisely how many of those Lab=>LD switchers there are that will determine the next election.
I still see UKIP as likely to melt away.
seems to me the best idea would be to call all unions between two people that take place outside of hutch 'civil partnerships' and only those hat take place on a church between two churchgoers that have the approval of the vicar 'marriages'
Sexuality not an issue
The argument for marriage is that it provides a single, uniform and non-discriminatory method of recognising partners who commit to a 'lifelong' partnership.
In the words of Peter Tatchell, a two-tier system is a form of "apartheid".
a) Five minutes.
b) 12 hours.
c) 24 hours.
d) Never.
The two that appear to be valid concerns are:
Civil partnerships don't have the same pension rights as marriage.
"Civil partners do not have the same pension rights as married couples. If one civil partner dies, the pension share that the surviving partner receives is often lower and lasts for less time than with married couples.
The reason for this is the pension a surviving partner is entitled to is measured differently depending on whether they have been civil partnered or married.
For civil partners, public sector schemes are dated back to 1988. For private sector schemes, it need only be backdated to the Civil Partnership Act 2004.
But for married couples, a surviving partner is entitled to a pension based on the number of years their spouse paid into the pension fund."
Travel/living abroad
Travel restrictions apply to civil partners but not married couples.
Countries like Sweden, Argentina and Portugal, where same-sex marriage is legal, do not see civil partnerships as marriage.
This means UK civil partners living abroad do not enjoy the same rights as same-sex married couples in the 11 countries where equal marriage is legal.
In addition, the marriages of foreign gay couples who travel to the UK are not legally viewed as marriages.
a) Five minutes.
b) 12 hours.
c) 24 hours.
d) Never
Give him time.
@ChrisMasonBBC: Nigel Farage hangs up on @BBCRadioScot during interview for Good Morning Scotland: http://bbc.in/14vIZi1
And according to this history book by Dan Brown I read, Jesus knocked up a prostitute.
In which case the activity should be to upgrade the rights / practical effects of civil partnership so there is no real world difference and leave the name issue well alone.
You are muddling posters, acorns and ground nuts again.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100217404/reports-of-the-coalitions-death-are-exaggerated/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Classic. Farage gets confronted with the facts, blusters and runs off in the huff yet again.
Poor old Nigel appears to have forgotten that the current PM called his party "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists". Nor can he find any of this union jack burning he was foaming at the mouth about. I expect he'll find them when he finds those millions of Bulgarians he thinks are coming to invade England. Bless.
They'll do what RBS are doing with their 316 Branches they have to sell
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/feb/28/williams-glyns-bank-resurrected
Edit: I think Lloyds are bringing back TSB as a standalone.
Do you think this will nonsense will have a positive or negative effect on UKIP in England?
Took me less than 5 seconds on google.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/union-flag-burning-group-expelled-from-salmond-rally.18893616
@Nigel_Farage enjoys a spot of good old fashioned Scottish hospitality; a pub lock-in, a taxi refusing to pick up & a police escort home!
If the #Farage protests were anti-English, wouldn't Cameron, Osborne & Clegg get the same treatment every time they came to Scotland?
This means that I, as a Lloyds customer in both business and personal banking (plus mortgage) for 20 years, for whom the online banking system they use is essential, was told last year that my business account was being kept with Lloyds but my personal account was being sold off.
So my integrated banking system was to be completely ruined. I have had to appeal to the ombudsman to get them to finally agree to move my account to a new Lloyds branch because they point blank refused to do it for me.
Interesting that Nige thinks that dissing the Union flag is anti-English; like so many he seems very confused about his identity, poor lad.
It is not GDP growrh that matters to voters it is whether their standard of living is increasing, one measure being GDP per capita.
When you subtract the effect of population growth from the figures for GDP growth we see why voters are so unhappy with their personal stagnation economically, a problem stretching back a decade or more.
Reduced to the same smear tactics Cammie used against him. The irony is most amusing.
No wonder he ran off in the huff again from the interviewer, poor chap. If that's the best he can muster it's a blessing for UKIP that he won't be in the debates.