politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Antifrank guest slot: How the monarchy might suffer in the post-election scramble
It is fast becoming received wisdom that the general election in May will produce an inconclusive result, and all the parties are setting out their stalls in advance, marking their red lines.
The Queen has already been exiled from the Westminster Abbey VE celebration on the 8th as it will be full of politicians, so I think they are alert to the risks.
If the politicians cannot agree among themselves who will form a government, I don't think they have good grounds for complaint if the Queen chooses the party with the most seats.
I think that would be the constitutionally correct thing to do.
So lets get this right... If the politicians cannot agree (thats 'the politicians') then its the monarchy that gets the blame? Ultimately since its the voters that would have got us there then I fail to see why its so difficult to put the blame if any where it belongs.
I believe Farage's point was that Cameron's continual interference in foreign countries inevitably ends up blowing up in their face. Of course neo cons like to hide this valid criticism of their policies by claiming he said something else, blowback though has had terrible consequences for this country and put us at genuine risk.
If the latest view from Jack's ARSE is correct, Her Maj will have little to worry about as Con will be easily capable of forming a minority government and might even inch over the line to a tiny majority.
This is just another positive effect of the likely outcome. The more damage the monarchy suffers the sooner we can get rid of the ridiculous institution.
Unusually I think the great antifrank has got this wrong. It won't be a case of Her Majesty deciding who is to be Prime Minister. It will be a case of palace officials and civil servants sounding out the various political parties to try to find who could survive a confidence vote. It will still, ultimately, be elected MPs who make the decision, which the Queen will then rubber-stamp.
Of course it may still be an unholy mess, but I don't see the monarchy getting the blame for that.
So lets get this right... If the politicians cannot agree (thats 'the politicians') then its the monarchy that gets the blame? Ultimately since its the voters that would have got us there then I fail to see why its so difficult to put the blame if any where it belongs.
In the circumstances where the Queen has to choose, that decision is going to be hugely controversial, whatever she decides. If she selects the leader of the party with the most seats, which in circumstances where the politicians cannot reach agreement is likely to be the Conservatives, the outrage from the left if Labour plus SNP plus Lib Dems is greater than 326 is going to be enormous.
If Lab+SNP+LD have over 326 votes then on the first day they put down a Motion of Confidence in the government and have the votes to pull it down. If they can't agree amongst themselves to pull it down then they don't have a right to form the government.
This is just another positive effect of the likely outcome. The more damage the monarchy suffers the sooner we can get rid of the ridiculous institution.
With a dashing young king about to take the throne, in your republican dreams, the monarchy will be safe for another 40 years when that happens.
Unusually I think the great antifrank has got this wrong. It won't be a case of Her Majesty deciding who is to be Prime Minister. It will be a case of palace officials and civil servants sounding out the various political parties to try to find who could survive a confidence vote. It will still, ultimately, be elected MPs who make the decision, which the Queen will then rubber-stamp.
Of course it may still be an unholy mess, but I don't see the monarchy getting the blame for that.
Do you think there is a good possibility the Lib Dems might abstein... or even Labour... ?
I think the SNP least likely of the lot to abstein of the leftish parties personally. Though I wouldn't 100% rule it out.
If the politicians cannot agree among themselves who will form a government, I don't think they have good grounds for complaint if the Queen chooses the party with the most seats.
I think that would be the constitutionally correct thing to do.
The Queen acts on the recommendation of her Ministers - and her First Minister is David Cameron until he either tells her otherwise or he loses the confidence of the house. Then Cameron will advise her who to ask - which can only be Miliband - if he then loses a vote of confidence, the FTPA steps in....
This is just another positive effect of the likely outcome. The more damage the monarchy suffers the sooner we can get rid of the ridiculous institution.
Thanks for that comment. I'm sure its cleared up a lot of things for most people.
If the latest view from Jack's ARSE is correct, Her Maj will have little to worry about as Con will be easily capable of forming a minority government and might even inch over the line to a tiny majority.
Unfortunately for the rest of us, we will then have to endure said tiny majority wibbling on ad nauseam about Europe while the country goes to the proverbials.
Then we'll have the much-vaunted referendum, the result of which is likely to please one side much more than the other and we'll either have a lame-duck PM with his credibility and reputation in tatters or a PM having to govern a fractious Party.
Great prospect, eh ? Makes the idea of Ed M and Balls look passably attractive.
Unusually I think the great antifrank has got this wrong. It won't be a case of Her Majesty deciding who is to be Prime Minister. It will be a case of palace officials and civil servants sounding out the various political parties to try to find who could survive a confidence vote. It will still, ultimately, be elected MPs who make the decision, which the Queen will then rubber-stamp.
Of course it may still be an unholy mess, but I don't see the monarchy getting the blame for that.
Of course the Queen isn't going to be having cups of tea with the eminences grises to find out whether Blue Buggins or Red Buggins is best placed to hold the reins of power. It won't stop the decision being made in her name or the role of the monarchy coming under intense scrutiny.
Do you think there is a good possibility the Lib Dems might abstein... or even Labour... ?
I think the SNP least likely of the lot to abstein of the leftish parties personally. Though I wouldn't 100% rule it out.
I think any of them might abstain. All parties will be wanting to try to bring about another election at the time which they calculate is best for them, which may not be immediately. The SNP in particular will be focusing on the next prize, which is Holyrood 2016.
Any party which isn't yet ready to pull the plug can always dress it up with some cant about stability.
If the latest view from Jack's ARSE is correct, Her Maj will have little to worry about as Con will be easily capable of forming a minority government and might even inch over the line to a tiny majority.
Unfortunately for the rest of us, we will then have to endure said tiny majority wibbling on ad nauseam about Europe while the country goes to the proverbials.
Then we'll have the much-vaunted referendum, the result of which is likely to please one side much more than the other and we'll either have a lame-duck PM with his credibility and reputation in tatters or a PM having to govern a fractious Party.
Great prospect, eh ? Makes the idea of Ed M and Balls look passably attractive.
Much better to follow the LD view and decide that there is no point in asking the electorate about the EU, after all it costs so little and does so much good they can't possibly want to leave, and if they do it must be delusions or false conciousness.
Much better to follow the LD view and decide that there is no point in asking the electorate about the EU, after all it costs so little and does so much good they can't possibly want to leave, and if they do it must be delusions or false conciousness.
Whereas paradise, utopia and nirvana await them if they vote to leave...yeah, right.
Do you think there is a good possibility the Lib Dems might abstein... or even Labour... ?
I think the SNP least likely of the lot to abstein of the leftish parties personally. Though I wouldn't 100% rule it out.
I think any of them might abstain. All parties will be wanting to try to bring about another election at the time which they calculate is best for them, which may not be immediately. The SNP in particular will be focusing on the next prize, which is Holyrood 2016.
Any party which isn't yet ready to pull the plug can always dress it up with some cant about stability.
Indeed. Most of the parties (probably not the SNP with all their recent recruits) will be broke as well and will want some time to raise some cash for the next election.
More to the point the Kippers probably will have just for 100 or so second places in northern Labour seats, the sitting MPs there are not going to be in a hurry to call a new election and risk losing the seat they just won.
Do you think there is a good possibility the Lib Dems might abstein... or even Labour... ?
I think the SNP least likely of the lot to abstein of the leftish parties personally. Though I wouldn't 100% rule it out.
I think any of them might abstain. All parties will be wanting to try to bring about another election at the time which they calculate is best for them, which may not be immediately. The SNP in particular will be focusing on the next prize, which is Holyrood 2016.
Any party which isn't yet ready to pull the plug can always dress it up with some cant about stability.
Indeed. Most of the parties (probably not the SNP with all their recent recruits) will be broke as well and will want some time to raise some cash for the next election.
More to the point the Kippers probably will have just for 100 or so second places in northern Labour seats, the sitting MPs there are not going to be in a hurry to call a new election and risk losing the seat they just won.
Yes I think Labour may well be the ones to abstain. If there was a market up the SNP would probably be a false favourite I reckon.
Much better to follow the LD view and decide that there is no point in asking the electorate about the EU, after all it costs so little and does so much good they can't possibly want to leave, and if they do it must be delusions or false conciousness.
Whereas paradise, utopia and nirvana await them if they vote to leave...yeah, right.
Who knows, we live in a democracy. I am not afraid of asking the people, are you ?
Of course the Queen isn't going to be having cups of tea with the eminences grises to find out whether Blue Buggins or Red Buggins is best placed to hold the reins of power. It won't stop the decision being made in her name or the role of the monarchy coming under intense scrutiny.
There won't be a decision made in her name, there will be an announcement that assurances have been given that X commands a majority in the House, and a vote of confidence to demonstrate that (or not) very soon afterwards.
In the meantime, David Cameron remains Prime Minister.
Do you think there is a good possibility the Lib Dems might abstein... or even Labour... ?
I think the SNP least likely of the lot to abstein of the leftish parties personally. Though I wouldn't 100% rule it out.
I think any of them might abstain. All parties will be wanting to try to bring about another election at the time which they calculate is best for them, which may not be immediately. The SNP in particular will be focusing on the next prize, which is Holyrood 2016.
Any party which isn't yet ready to pull the plug can always dress it up with some cant about stability.
Indeed. Most of the parties (probably not the SNP with all their recent recruits) will be broke as well and will want some time to raise some cash for the next election.
More to the point the Kippers probably will have just for 100 or so second places in northern Labour seats, the sitting MPs there are not going to be in a hurry to call a new election and risk losing the seat they just won.
Yes I think Labour may well be the ones to abstain. If there was a market up the SNP would probably be a false favourite I reckon.
It's a basic rule of hung Parliaments that it's rarely in the interest of a majority to have a general election straight away.
Of course the Queen isn't going to be having cups of tea with the eminences grises to find out whether Blue Buggins or Red Buggins is best placed to hold the reins of power. It won't stop the decision being made in her name or the role of the monarchy coming under intense scrutiny.
There won't be a decision made in her name, there will be an announcement that assurances have been given that X commands a majority in the House, and a vote of confidence to demonstrate that (or not) very soon afterwards.
In the meantime, David Cameron remains Prime Minister.
The onus would be on David Cameron to suggest who commands a majority.
Do you think there is a good possibility the Lib Dems might abstein... or even Labour... ?
I think the SNP least likely of the lot to abstein of the leftish parties personally. Though I wouldn't 100% rule it out.
I think any of them might abstain. All parties will be wanting to try to bring about another election at the time which they calculate is best for them, which may not be immediately. The SNP in particular will be focusing on the next prize, which is Holyrood 2016.
Any party which isn't yet ready to pull the plug can always dress it up with some cant about stability.
The beauty of Labour's position is that those 100 northern MPs may well not want another election, but if Labour does abstain from a CM then the SNP can paint it (With good justification) as "Labour propping up the Tories" and absolubtely romp home at Holyrood.
Labour is completely screwed no matter how you view the post parliament arithmetic in many many scenarios and many, many ways.
Much better to follow the LD view and decide that there is no point in asking the electorate about the EU, after all it costs so little and does so much good they can't possibly want to leave, and if they do it must be delusions or false conciousness.
Whereas paradise, utopia and nirvana await them if they vote to leave...yeah, right.
Who knows, we live in a democracy. I am not afraid of asking the people, are you ?
If we must have another EU vote to satisfy Tory right wingers and UKIP little Englanders, then I guess we'll have to. Once we've voted to stay in again, will you shut up about it? Or will you just continue like the SNP?
Do you think there is a good possibility the Lib Dems might abstein... or even Labour... ?
I think the SNP least likely of the lot to abstein of the leftish parties personally. Though I wouldn't 100% rule it out.
I think any of them might abstain. All parties will be wanting to try to bring about another election at the time which they calculate is best for them, which may not be immediately. The SNP in particular will be focusing on the next prize, which is Holyrood 2016.
Any party which isn't yet ready to pull the plug can always dress it up with some cant about stability.
I am buying shares in "cant". Could be an absolute vintage year for it.
Of course the Queen isn't going to be having cups of tea with the eminences grises to find out whether Blue Buggins or Red Buggins is best placed to hold the reins of power. It won't stop the decision being made in her name or the role of the monarchy coming under intense scrutiny.
There won't be a decision made in her name, there will be an announcement that assurances have been given that X commands a majority in the House, and a vote of confidence to demonstrate that (or not) very soon afterwards.
In the meantime, David Cameron remains Prime Minister.
I don't think it will necessarily be anything like as clear cut as that. If the Lib Dems stick by their "coalition or nothing" approach and the SNP and Labour can't find a modus vivendi, the Queen (and her advisers) may have the problem detailed in the link above:
"But what happens if the politicians simply cannot decide who has the strongest claim to become prime minister?"
The BBC article nonchalantly states:
"The fervent wish within Buckingham Palace will be that the political leaders can determine amongst themselves who is in the best position to command the support of the House of Commons.
It may take some days, and the Palace will not seek unduly to hasten the process.
There are other, to some extent intangible, factors which should help the party leaders to come to an agreement amongst themselves.
They are all familiar with the principles upon which the British constitution rests. They are aware of the high importance of having a House of Commons which is independent from the Crown.
Equally, they will be aware of the high public regard for the way in which this particular monarch has carried out her public responsibilities from a time before virtually all of them were born. None of them, I suspect, would wish to place such a widely respected constitutional monarch in a difficult position. "
Except this time round, at least one of them will be quite keen to put the widely respected constitutional monarch in a difficult position. Indeed, that might be the SNP's main objective of this particular hung Parliament.
Do you think there is a good possibility the Lib Dems might abstein... or even Labour... ?
I think the SNP least likely of the lot to abstein of the leftish parties personally. Though I wouldn't 100% rule it out.
I think any of them might abstain. All parties will be wanting to try to bring about another election at the time which they calculate is best for them, which may not be immediately. The SNP in particular will be focusing on the next prize, which is Holyrood 2016.
Any party which isn't yet ready to pull the plug can always dress it up with some cant about stability.
I am buying shares in "cant". Could be an absolute vintage year for it.
Is that a wise thing to do when the market is likely to suffer from a glut?
Unusually I think the great antifrank has got this wrong. It won't be a case of Her Majesty deciding who is to be Prime Minister. It will be a case of palace officials and civil servants sounding out the various political parties to try to find who could survive a confidence vote. It will still, ultimately, be elected MPs who make the decision, which the Queen will then rubber-stamp.
Of course it may still be an unholy mess, but I don't see the monarchy getting the blame for that.
Of course the Queen isn't going to be having cups of tea with the eminences grises to find out whether Blue Buggins or Red Buggins is best placed to hold the reins of power. It won't stop the decision being made in her name or the role of the monarchy coming under intense scrutiny.
To avoid this, the Queen could issue a statement prior to the election to help steer the electorate.
"Although I serve the interests of all citizens of the United Kingdom, I cannot forget that I was crowned under a Conservative government."
Unusually I think the great antifrank has got this wrong. It won't be a case of Her Majesty deciding who is to be Prime Minister. It will be a case of palace officials and civil servants sounding out the various political parties to try to find who could survive a confidence vote. It will still, ultimately, be elected MPs who make the decision, which the Queen will then rubber-stamp.
Of course it may still be an unholy mess, but I don't see the monarchy getting the blame for that.
Do you think there is a good possibility the Lib Dems might abstein... or even Labour... ?
I think the SNP least likely of the lot to abstein of the leftish parties personally. Though I wouldn't 100% rule it out.
Of course the Queen isn't going to be having cups of tea with the eminences grises to find out whether Blue Buggins or Red Buggins is best placed to hold the reins of power. It won't stop the decision being made in her name or the role of the monarchy coming under intense scrutiny.
There won't be a decision made in her name, there will be an announcement that assurances have been given that X commands a majority in the House, and a vote of confidence to demonstrate that (or not) very soon afterwards.
In the meantime, David Cameron remains Prime Minister.
The onus would be on David Cameron to suggest who commands a majority.
And until the house decides it isn't him he doesn't have to do anything if matters are unclear.
Except this time round, at least one of them will be quite keen to put the widely respected constitutional monarch in a difficult position. Indeed, that might be the SNP's main objective of this particular hung Parliament.
True in part, but I'd expect that the SNP's main objective is not going to be damaging the monarchy, but grinding Scottish Labour even further into the dust.
I believe Farage's point was that Cameron's continual interference in foreign countries inevitably ends up blowing up in their face. Of course neo cons like to hide this valid criticism of their policies by claiming he said something else, blowback though has had terrible consequences for this country and put us at genuine risk.
AAMOI, when was the last time a successful British military intervention in a country that had not been invaded produced a beneficial result for that country?
Unusually I think the great antifrank has got this wrong. It won't be a case of Her Majesty deciding who is to be Prime Minister. It will be a case of palace officials and civil servants sounding out the various political parties to try to find who could survive a confidence vote. It will still, ultimately, be elected MPs who make the decision, which the Queen will then rubber-stamp.
Of course it may still be an unholy mess, but I don't see the monarchy getting the blame for that.
Do you think there is a good possibility the Lib Dems might abstein... or even Labour... ?
I think the SNP least likely of the lot to abstein of the leftish parties personally. Though I wouldn't 100% rule it out.
Do you think there is a good possibility the Lib Dems might abstein... or even Labour... ?
I think the SNP least likely of the lot to abstein of the leftish parties personally. Though I wouldn't 100% rule it out.
I think any of them might abstain. All parties will be wanting to try to bring about another election at the time which they calculate is best for them, which may not be immediately. The SNP in particular will be focusing on the next prize, which is Holyrood 2016.
Any party which isn't yet ready to pull the plug can always dress it up with some cant about stability.
I am buying shares in "cant". Could be an absolute vintage year for it.
Is that a wise thing to do when the market is likely to suffer from a glut?
Lol. But where are they going to buy their cant from?
If the latest view from Jack's ARSE is correct, Her Maj will have little to worry about as Con will be easily capable of forming a minority government and might even inch over the line to a tiny majority.
Unfortunately for the rest of us, we will then have to endure said tiny majority wibbling on ad nauseam about Europe while the country goes to the proverbials.
Then we'll have the much-vaunted referendum, the result of which is likely to please one side much more than the other and we'll either have a lame-duck PM with his credibility and reputation in tatters or a PM having to govern a fractious Party.
Great prospect, eh ? Makes the idea of Ed M and Balls look passably attractive.
The country is not going to the proverbials though is it? Its proceeding along well enough. The next issue is renegotiating with the EU and then a referendum. This too offers no great problem. It will depend on the outcome of the negotiations, but either we stay in on the new terms or joint the EEA like Norway. Even of the terms for staying in were quite plausible but still rejected there is no great issue with joining (or remaining in??) the EEA. It should maintain our broad status quo which is one of being outside a political and monetary EU.
Much better to follow the LD view and decide that there is no point in asking the electorate about the EU, after all it costs so little and does so much good they can't possibly want to leave, and if they do it must be delusions or false conciousness.
Whereas paradise, utopia and nirvana await them if they vote to leave...yeah, right.
Who knows, we live in a democracy. I am not afraid of asking the people, are you ?
If we must have another EU vote to satisfy Tory right wingers and UKIP little Englanders, then I guess we'll have to. Once we've voted to stay in again, will you shut up about it? Or will you just continue like the SNP?
Just as much chance of you shutting up about it if they vote for out, lets be honest.
If the latest view from Jack's ARSE is correct, Her Maj will have little to worry about as Con will be easily capable of forming a minority government and might even inch over the line to a tiny majority.
Unfortunately for the rest of us, we will then have to endure said tiny majority wibbling on ad nauseam about Europe while the country goes to the proverbials.
Then we'll have the much-vaunted referendum, the result of which is likely to please one side much more than the other and we'll either have a lame-duck PM with his credibility and reputation in tatters or a PM having to govern a fractious Party.
Great prospect, eh ? Makes the idea of Ed M and Balls look passably attractive.
Goodness me, Stodge, you're becoming all mega-brittle these days.
Much better to follow the LD view and decide that there is no point in asking the electorate about the EU, after all it costs so little and does so much good they can't possibly want to leave, and if they do it must be delusions or false conciousness.
Whereas paradise, utopia and nirvana await them if they vote to leave...yeah, right.
Who knows, we live in a democracy. I am not afraid of asking the people, are you ?
No and never have been.
Of course, the IndyRef showed the degree to which one side will create a sense of irrational fear and panic to make people vote their way. I'm sure the anti-EU side will make all sorts of wild threats about the future of the country if we stay within the EU.
The pro-EU side will of course do exactly the same claiming the world will end if we leave.
That's not to deride democracy or the referendum process - just we all know what's going to happen so how do we conduct a free and fair process without both sides resorting to threat, innuendo and intimidation to make their point ?
Except this time round, at least one of them will be quite keen to put the widely respected constitutional monarch in a difficult position. Indeed, that might be the SNP's main objective of this particular hung Parliament.
True in part, but I'd expect that the SNP's main objective is not going to be damaging the monarchy, but grinding Scottish Labour even further into the dust.
SNP 1979 Lib Dems coalition agreement Labour "Better Together"
All have a toxifying theme of (effectively) working with a certain party...
This is why I think the SNP least likely to abstain from a Conservative confidence motion. Labour will probably vote against, and pray the Lib Dems abstain
Of course the Queen isn't going to be having cups of tea with the eminences grises to find out whether Blue Buggins or Red Buggins is best placed to hold the reins of power. It won't stop the decision being made in her name or the role of the monarchy coming under intense scrutiny.
There won't be a decision made in her name, there will be an announcement that assurances have been given that X commands a majority in the House, and a vote of confidence to demonstrate that (or not) very soon afterwards.
In the meantime, David Cameron remains Prime Minister.
The onus would be on David Cameron to suggest who commands a majority.
And until the house decides it isn't him he doesn't have to do anything if matters are unclear.
But that's not how politics works and not how it worked in February 1974 for example. IF Cameron cannot (and he will know that soon enough) form a majority or get enough abstentions to ensure the passage of urgent legislation, he will walk - he won't wait for a vote of No Confidence.
He will walk and advise the Queen to ask the leader of the second largest Party to form an administration.
Brown waited in 2010 because there was a chance that IF negotiations between the Conservatives and the LDs failed, a Labour-LD minority Government (which had more votes in the Commons than the Conservatives) could be formed and he perhaps thought he could continue as Prime Minister.
It was only when it became apparent that negotiations were proceeding and an agreement was going to be reached that he resigned.
Unless Cameron is able to reach out to the SNP, DUP or whoever and tries to form a Government on that basis, he won't prolong the uncertainty but give Ed M a chance to form his own Government.
That's not to deride democracy or the referendum process - just we all know what's going to happen so how do we conduct a free and fair process without both sides resorting to threat, innuendo and intimidation to make their point ?
That bit is easy. Hold the referendum tomorrow (metaphorically speaking) gives less time for the kippers to wibble about dangers and less time for europhiles to ra-ra the benefits. The people just vote.
The problem is without at least some semblance of a renegotiation we will never be able to demonstrate how un-reformable the EU is in practise. If Dave goes to Brussels and is basically told to piss off, or given some obvious bit of flim-flam which is called out by the sceptics for being such, its obvious that the EU is what it is and we have to decide it we want to be part of it.
If we don't ask the question the europhiles will whine for ever more that we could have stayed in because we would have got concessions if we had asked for them (in the face of all experience and evidence!).
Much better to follow the LD view and decide that there is no point in asking the electorate about the EU, after all it costs so little and does so much good they can't possibly want to leave, and if they do it must be delusions or false conciousness.
Whereas paradise, utopia and nirvana await them if they vote to leave...yeah, right.
Who knows, we live in a democracy. I am not afraid of asking the people, are you ?
Of course, the IndyRef showed the degree to which one side will create a sense of irrational fear and panic to make people vote their way.
Yes, the SNP shroud waving over the devolved NHS in the last weeks was disgraceful and dishonest......
Of course the Queen isn't going to be having cups of tea with the eminences grises to find out whether Blue Buggins or Red Buggins is best placed to hold the reins of power. It won't stop the decision being made in her name or the role of the monarchy coming under intense scrutiny.
There won't be a decision made in her name, there will be an announcement that assurances have been given that X commands a majority in the House, and a vote of confidence to demonstrate that (or not) very soon afterwards.
In the meantime, David Cameron remains Prime Minister.
The onus would be on David Cameron to suggest who commands a majority.
And until the house decides it isn't him he doesn't have to do anything if matters are unclear.
He will walk and advise the Queen to ask the leader of the second largest Party to form an administration.
So the queen will be acting on the advice of her Ministers...my point.....
If it comes to this (and I don't think it will, for the reasons Jonathan outlines) then I really hope it is The Queen and not Charles doing the choosing.
He might actually want to get involved in the coalition negotiations Himself.
That's not to deride democracy or the referendum process - just we all know what's going to happen so how do we conduct a free and fair process without both sides resorting to threat, innuendo and intimidation to make their point ?
That bit is easy. Hold the referendum tomorrow (metaphorically speaking) gives less time for the kippers to wibble about dangers and less time for europhiles to ra-ra the benefits. The people just vote.
The problem is without at least some semblance of a renegotiation we will never be able to demonstrate how un-reformable the EU is in practise. If Dave goes to Brussels and is basically told to piss off, or given some obvious bit of flim-flam which is called out by the sceptics for being such, its obvious that the EU is what it is and we have to decide it we want to be part of it.
If we don't ask the question the europhiles will whine for ever more that we could have stayed in because we would have got concessions if we had asked for them (in the face of all experience and evidence!).
If most MPs are opposed to a referendum on EU membership, then it won't go through, even if the Conservatives form a minority government. Cameron must be hoping for that outcome.
If it comes to this (and I don't think it will, for the reasons Jonathan outlines) then I really hope it is The Queen and not Charles doing the choosing.
He might actually want to get involved in the coalition negotiations Himself.
He'd probably want to make Caroline Lucas Prime Minister.
Much better to follow the LD view and decide that there is no point in asking the electorate about the EU, after all it costs so little and does so much good they can't possibly want to leave, and if they do it must be delusions or false conciousness.
Whereas paradise, utopia and nirvana await them if they vote to leave...yeah, right.
Who knows, we live in a democracy. I am not afraid of asking the people, are you ?
If we must have another EU vote to satisfy Tory right wingers and UKIP little Englanders, then I guess we'll have to. Once we've voted to stay in again, will you shut up about it? Or will you just continue like the SNP?
Just to correct you on one point. The 'Little Englanders' are the pro EU rabble who believe that the country is incapable of surviving without clinging to the skirt tales of the backward undemocratic and dying EU.
It really is sad to see a bunch of people so insecure that they believe the only way the country can thrive is to be subjugated to a bloated power bloc rather than standing on our own two feet.
That's not to deride democracy or the referendum process - just we all know what's going to happen so how do we conduct a free and fair process without both sides resorting to threat, innuendo and intimidation to make their point ?
That bit is easy. Hold the referendum tomorrow (metaphorically speaking) gives less time for the kippers to wibble about dangers and less time for europhiles to ra-ra the benefits. The people just vote.
The problem is without at least some semblance of a renegotiation we will never be able to demonstrate how un-reformable the EU is in practise. If Dave goes to Brussels and is basically told to piss off, or given some obvious bit of flim-flam which is called out by the sceptics for being such, its obvious that the EU is what it is and we have to decide it we want to be part of it.
If we don't ask the question the europhiles will whine for ever more that we could have stayed in because we would have got concessions if we had asked for them (in the face of all experience and evidence!).
If most MPs are opposed to a referendum on EU membership, then it won't go through, even if the Conservatives form a minority government. Cameron must be hoping for that outcome.
He's made it a promise that is he's leader there will be one.
I can't remember if it's a cast iron or a copper bottomed or a "No ifs, no buts" one though.
If most MPs are opposed to a referendum on EU membership, then it won't go through, even if the Conservatives form a minority government. Cameron must be hoping for that outcome.
The uncharitable might think that Cameron would prefer another coalition because he vastly prefers throwing bits of yellow meat to the LDs compared to throwing blue meat to the natural conservatives on his right.
If it comes to this (and I don't think it will, for the reasons Jonathan outlines) then I really hope it is The Queen and not Charles doing the choosing.
He might actually want to get involved in the coalition negotiations Himself.
He'd probably want to make Caroline Lucas Prime Minister.
That's not to deride democracy or the referendum process - just we all know what's going to happen so how do we conduct a free and fair process without both sides resorting to threat, innuendo and intimidation to make their point ?
That bit is easy. Hold the referendum tomorrow (metaphorically speaking) gives less time for the kippers to wibble about dangers and less time for europhiles to ra-ra the benefits. The people just vote.
The problem is without at least some semblance of a renegotiation we will never be able to demonstrate how un-reformable the EU is in practise. If Dave goes to Brussels and is basically told to piss off, or given some obvious bit of flim-flam which is called out by the sceptics for being such, its obvious that the EU is what it is and we have to decide it we want to be part of it.
If we don't ask the question the europhiles will whine for ever more that we could have stayed in because we would have got concessions if we had asked for them (in the face of all experience and evidence!).
If most MPs are opposed to a referendum on EU membership, then it won't go through, even if the Conservatives form a minority government. Cameron must be hoping for that outcome.
He's made it a promise that is he's leader there will be one.
I can't remember if it's a cast iron or a copper bottomed or a "No ifs, no buts" one though.
I think there is a great chance of a referendum because the prospect of "Out" mounting a serious and credible challenge look very very small.
That's not to deride democracy or the referendum process - just we all know what's going to happen so how do we conduct a free and fair process without both sides resorting to threat, innuendo and intimidation to make their point ?
That bit is easy. Hold the referendum tomorrow (metaphorically speaking) gives less time for the kippers to wibble about dangers and less time for europhiles to ra-ra the benefits. The people just vote.
The problem is without at least some semblance of a renegotiation we will never be able to demonstrate how un-reformable the EU is in practise. If Dave goes to Brussels and is basically told to piss off, or given some obvious bit of flim-flam which is called out by the sceptics for being such, its obvious that the EU is what it is and we have to decide it we want to be part of it.
If we don't ask the question the europhiles will whine for ever more that we could have stayed in because we would have got concessions if we had asked for them (in the face of all experience and evidence!).
If most MPs are opposed to a referendum on EU membership, then it won't go through, even if the Conservatives form a minority government. Cameron must be hoping for that outcome.
He's made it a promise that is he's leader there will be one.
I can't remember if it's a cast iron or a copper bottomed or a "No ifs, no buts" one though.
Don't forget: "I will get what Britain needs."
It is interesting how his firmest commitments have been on europe and immigration. Never in the field of UK politics have so many promises been made to so many by a Prime Minister who's delivered so few.
Doesn't the February 1974 election effectively cover this with provisos in regard to the Fixed term Parlaiment Act. What happened then?
Heath did not resign immediately as Prime Minister. Assuming that Northern Ireland's Unionist MPs could be persuaded to support a Conservative government on confidence matters over one led by Wilson, he entered into negotiations with Thorpe to form a coalition government. Thorpe, never enthusiastic about supporting the Conservatives, demanded major electoral reforms in exchange for such an agreement. Unwilling to accept such terms, Heath resigned and Wilson returned for his second spell as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
The Liberals did not have enough seats to combine with another party to achieve an overall majority. This made the formation of a stable government in this parliament a practical impossibility. Wilson called another election in October of the same year.
In any case a minority government would only continue if it maintained the confidence of the House. Once that is gone then the Queen with the guidance Prime Minister would name the date of the next election. The big difference thanks to the Fixed Term Parliament Act is that the Government could no longer do what Wilson did in 1974 and call a second election. It would be solely up to opposition parties as to when an election would take place by passing a motion of no confidence and therefore likely to be when the Government least wants it.
Of course the government theoretically might be able to do a deal at some point with opposition parties for a vote of no confidence if it proved advantageous for all of them to stitch up the main opposition party. Perhaps the one thing that might unite the Tories and SNP is a vote of no confidence against a Tory Government that harms the Labour Party?
This is likely to be a good election to lose and definitely 'interesting times'.......
Given all the uncertainty over hung parliament, I thought I'd have a quick dip into the Cabinet Manual.
Interestingly, Parliament will not meet for 12 days after the GE polling date, if the manual is to be believed.
The PM stays in office until they resign, even if a hung parliament and they are entitled to wait until the new parliament first meets to be sure whether they can command the confidence.
Also, the convention is that a PM should not resign until they are in a position where there is "a situation in which clear advice could be given to the Sovereign on who should be asked to form a government."
So, to my reading, if it is hung, then Cameron could remain PM for at least 12 days while negotiations are undertaken.
If most MPs are opposed to a referendum on EU membership, then it won't go through, even if the Conservatives form a minority government. Cameron must be hoping for that outcome.
The uncharitable might think that Cameron would prefer another coalition because he vastly prefers throwing bits of yellow meat to the LDs compared to throwing blue meat to the natural conservatives on his right.
Cameron would probably be a Cleggite Lib Dem had he gone to a slightly less posh school. His politics is social, not political.
In the circumstances where the Queen has to choose, that decision is going to be hugely controversial, whatever she decides. If she selects the leader of the party with the most seats, which in circumstances where the politicians cannot reach agreement is likely to be the Conservatives, the outrage from the left if Labour plus SNP plus Lib Dems is greater than 326 is going to be enormous.
If Lab+SNP+LD have over 326 votes then on the first day they put down a Motion of Confidence in the government and have the votes to pull it down. If they can't agree amongst themselves to pull it down then they don't have a right to form the government.
This is just another positive effect of the likely outcome. The more damage the monarchy suffers the sooner we can get rid of the ridiculous institution.
With a dashing young king about to take the throne, in your republican dreams, the monarchy will be safe for another 40 years when that happens.
If most MPs are opposed to a referendum on EU membership, then it won't go through, even if the Conservatives form a minority government. Cameron must be hoping for that outcome.
The uncharitable might think that Cameron would prefer another coalition because he vastly prefers throwing bits of yellow meat to the LDs compared to throwing blue meat to the natural conservatives on his right.
Cameron would probably be a Cleggite Lib Dem had he gone to a slightly less posh school. His politics is social, not political.
Matthew D'Ancona says as much in his book.
I'm not convinced he's got much political conviction at all.
If Cameron's PM now [which he is] and his party has most seats (and likely most votes by a margin too) and no other coalition is cobbled together, it's common sense for him to be PM.
Much better to follow the LD view and decide that there is no point in asking the electorate about the EU, after all it costs so little and does so much good they can't possibly want to leave, and if they do it must be delusions or false conciousness.
Whereas paradise, utopia and nirvana await them if they vote to leave...yeah, right.
Who knows, we live in a democracy. I am not afraid of asking the people, are you ?
Of course, the IndyRef showed the degree to which one side will create a sense of irrational fear and panic to make people vote their way.
Yes, the SNP shroud waving over the devolved NHS in the last weeks was disgraceful and dishonest......
I'm starting to wonder whether this is all so bad. Would a minority government struggling through bit by bit really be such a bad thing? We've even got rid of the ridiculous situation whereby a PM just calls a general election whenever he feels like it. All this faff about the SNP propping up Miliband hardly seems worth worrying about. The fact they've rued out any dal with the Tories means they've got little leverage over Miliband, he can dare them to vote him down and also he's hardly going to want to alienate the English when that's where his own power base will be. Neither would he have many Scottish Labour MPs to worry about.
Now that the Nats have set their expectation bar so high at the level they will dictate the shots, if Cameron does scrape through will the howls of anguish be louder than the lost referendum ?
Much better to follow the LD view and decide that there is no point in asking the electorate about the EU, after all it costs so little and does so much good they can't possibly want to leave, and if they do it must be delusions or false conciousness.
Whereas paradise, utopia and nirvana await them if they vote to leave...yeah, right.
Who knows, we live in a democracy. I am not afraid of asking the people, are you ?
If we must have another EU vote to satisfy Tory right wingers and UKIP little Englanders, then I guess we'll have to. Once we've voted to stay in again, will you shut up about it? Or will you just continue like the SNP?
When the EU and many of our politicians has such malevolent plans (ever closer Union) for us in the future which polling suggest less than 15% agree with, only a fool would accept the sort of finality you are proposing. Our membership of the EU should be barely more final than our choice of government
As for Eurosceptics the desire for freedom from something once entrenched rarely goes away and given the circumstances it will likely just grow (in terms of numbers) and get louder the more we are suffocated by the despotism of Brussels (and its abusive supporters).
In the scenario where neither party can put together anything resembling a stable government I think both the Conservatives and Labour would settle for the Conservatives continuing as a minority government until a second election.
For the Conservatives they can continue to look and act as the ruling party, Cameron would further enhance his status as PM and they can try and convince voters to give them the full reigns next time.
For Labour, they would need time to rebuild under a new leader, as well as getting the funds together for a second election. It'd be easier to do this in opposition and they could engineer the timing of the second election when it best suited them.
If it comes to this (and I don't think it will, for the reasons Jonathan outlines) then I really hope it is The Queen and not Charles doing the choosing.
He might actually want to get involved in the coalition negotiations Himself.
He'd probably want to make Caroline Lucas Prime Minister.
Lol!
Nice thought, but it would categorically be the Queen who acts on advice of out-going PM and not other members of royals.
Much better to follow the LD view and decide that there is no point in asking the electorate about the EU, after all it costs so little and does so much good they can't possibly want to leave, and if they do it must be delusions or false conciousness.
Whereas paradise, utopia and nirvana await them if they vote to leave...yeah, right.
Who knows, we live in a democracy. I am not afraid of asking the people, are you ?
Of course, the IndyRef showed the degree to which one side will create a sense of irrational fear and panic to make people vote their way.
Yes, the SNP shroud waving over the devolved NHS in the last weeks was disgraceful and dishonest......
Not near your constant whining about the SNP.
So how are Scottish NHS A&E numbers doing? :|InnocentFace|:
If most MPs are opposed to a referendum on EU membership, then it won't go through, even if the Conservatives form a minority government. Cameron must be hoping for that outcome.
The uncharitable might think that Cameron would prefer another coalition because he vastly prefers throwing bits of yellow meat to the LDs compared to throwing blue meat to the natural conservatives on his right.
Cameron would probably be a Cleggite Lib Dem had he gone to a slightly less posh school. His politics is social, not political.
Matthew D'Ancona says as much in his book.
O/T
Casino - your reply to John O on the previous thread is the best news I've heard all day!
Now that the Nats have set their expectation bar so high at the level they will dictate the shots, if Cameron does scrape through will the howls of anguish be louder than the lost referendum ?
Alan, double whammy , Tory minority government and horde of SNP MP's, it will be cheering to the rafters time.
Now that the Nats have set their expectation bar so high at the level they will dictate the shots, if Cameron does scrape through will the howls of anguish be louder than the lost referendum ?
I'm starting to wonder whether this is all so bad. Would a minority government struggling through bit by bit really be such a bad thing? We've even got rid of the ridiculous situation whereby a PM just calls a general election whenever he feels like it. All this faff about the SNP propping up Miliband hardly seems worth worrying about. The fact they've rued out any dal with the Tories means they've got little leverage over Miliband, he can dare them to vote him down and also he's hardly going to want to alienate the English when that's where his own power base will be. Neither would he have many Scottish Labour MPs to worry about.
On the subject of having 'many' SLAB MPs to contend with, there is some evidence that elements in SLAB are preparing to cut loose from London anyway, if things go badly for them: whether unionist (like the Murdo Fraser vision for a Scottish conservative policy decontaminated from its Thatcherite contagion [in public perception, you understand]; or full-on pro-indy. The evidence is the registration of the Scottish Labour Party name by others than Labour Supreme HQ in London. See Eric Joyce's comments on the news.
If the Cons have anywhere north of 300 seats they will just sit and wait for anyone to try and challenge them and cobble together a coalition of Lab/Nats/ex-IRA scum/PC for government. Labour would be betraying the union by going into a coalition with any of these separatist groups. I still don't understand why Ed hasn't ruled out a coalition with them to ensure that wavering SLAB supporters at least go and vote. If a coalition between Lab and SNP seems like a foregone conclusion lazy SLAB voters just won't bother to go and vote.
Comments
I think that would be the constitutionally correct thing to do.
JEZKI.
"STJOHN"s Cheltenham daily special.
Broken, sleazy Labour on the slide?
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/574994996128014336
Ultimately since its the voters that would have got us there then I fail to see why its so difficult to put the blame if any where it belongs.
Until a new PM is appointed the existing PM stays on.
Lab 260
LD 30
SNP 50
Appeals to my anarchist tendencies
Of course it may still be an unholy mess, but I don't see the monarchy getting the blame for that.
I think the SNP least likely of the lot to abstein of the leftish parties personally. Though I wouldn't 100% rule it out.
Then we'll have the much-vaunted referendum, the result of which is likely to please one side much more than the other and we'll either have a lame-duck PM with his credibility and reputation in tatters or a PM having to govern a fractious Party.
Great prospect, eh ? Makes the idea of Ed M and Balls look passably attractive.
Any party which isn't yet ready to pull the plug can always dress it up with some cant about stability.
More to the point the Kippers probably will have just for 100 or so second places in northern Labour seats, the sitting MPs there are not going to be in a hurry to call a new election and risk losing the seat they just won.
In the meantime, David Cameron remains Prime Minister.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11461163/Britain-may-broadcast-Putins-financial-secrets-to-Russian-people.html
Labour is completely screwed no matter how you view the post parliament arithmetic in many many scenarios and many, many ways.
"But what happens if the politicians simply cannot decide who has the strongest claim to become prime minister?"
The BBC article nonchalantly states:
"The fervent wish within Buckingham Palace will be that the political leaders can determine amongst themselves who is in the best position to command the support of the House of Commons.
It may take some days, and the Palace will not seek unduly to hasten the process.
There are other, to some extent intangible, factors which should help the party leaders to come to an agreement amongst themselves.
They are all familiar with the principles upon which the British constitution rests. They are aware of the high importance of having a House of Commons which is independent from the Crown.
Equally, they will be aware of the high public regard for the way in which this particular monarch has carried out her public responsibilities from a time before virtually all of them were born. None of them, I suspect, would wish to place such a widely respected constitutional monarch in a difficult position. "
Except this time round, at least one of them will be quite keen to put the widely respected constitutional monarch in a difficult position. Indeed, that might be the SNP's main objective of this particular hung Parliament.
Con 33.6
Lab 31.7
UKIP 14.3
LD 7.9
Green 6.2
LabCon lead 1.9%!We've been here before sort of, but this is by far the biggest "early in the week" Tory lead in ELBOW!
"Although I serve the interests of all citizens of the United Kingdom, I cannot forget that I was crowned under a Conservative government."
What do you think about my proposition though.
Of course, the IndyRef showed the degree to which one side will create a sense of irrational fear and panic to make people vote their way. I'm sure the anti-EU side will make all sorts of wild threats about the future of the country if we stay within the EU.
The pro-EU side will of course do exactly the same claiming the world will end if we leave.
That's not to deride democracy or the referendum process - just we all know what's going to happen so how do we conduct a free and fair process without both sides resorting to threat, innuendo and intimidation to make their point ?
Lib Dems coalition agreement
Labour "Better Together"
All have a toxifying theme of (effectively) working with a certain party...
This is why I think the SNP least likely to abstain from a Conservative confidence motion. Labour will probably vote against, and pray the Lib Dems abstain
He will walk and advise the Queen to ask the leader of the second largest Party to form an administration.
Brown waited in 2010 because there was a chance that IF negotiations between the Conservatives and the LDs failed, a Labour-LD minority Government (which had more votes in the Commons than the Conservatives) could be formed and he perhaps thought he could continue as Prime Minister.
It was only when it became apparent that negotiations were proceeding and an agreement was going to be reached that he resigned.
Unless Cameron is able to reach out to the SNP, DUP or whoever and tries to form a Government on that basis, he won't prolong the uncertainty but give Ed M a chance to form his own Government.
The problem is without at least some semblance of a renegotiation we will never be able to demonstrate how un-reformable the EU is in practise. If Dave goes to Brussels and is basically told to piss off, or given some obvious bit of flim-flam which is called out by the sceptics for being such, its obvious that the EU is what it is and we have to decide it we want to be part of it.
If we don't ask the question the europhiles will whine for ever more that we could have stayed in because we would have got concessions if we had asked for them (in the face of all experience and evidence!).
He might actually want to get involved in the coalition negotiations Himself.
It really is sad to see a bunch of people so insecure that they believe the only way the country can thrive is to be subjugated to a bloated power bloc rather than standing on our own two feet.
I can't remember if it's a cast iron or a copper bottomed or a "No ifs, no buts" one though.
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3539/A-third-of-young-people-think-social-media-will-influence-their-vote.aspx
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/kings-social-media-2015-charts.pdf
*(apart from the guest thread contributor that is)
It is interesting how his firmest commitments have been on europe and immigration. Never in the field of UK politics have so many promises been made to so many by a Prime Minister who's delivered so few.
Of the 7 YG polls published this month, the LD2010 VI show that the LD retention on 4 of those polls is greater than their loss to Labour.
Heath did not resign immediately as Prime Minister. Assuming that Northern Ireland's Unionist MPs could be persuaded to support a Conservative government on confidence matters over one led by Wilson, he entered into negotiations with Thorpe to form a coalition government. Thorpe, never enthusiastic about supporting the Conservatives, demanded major electoral reforms in exchange for such an agreement. Unwilling to accept such terms, Heath resigned and Wilson returned for his second spell as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
The Liberals did not have enough seats to combine with another party to achieve an overall majority. This made the formation of a stable government in this parliament a practical impossibility. Wilson called another election in October of the same year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_February_1974
In any case a minority government would only continue if it maintained the confidence of the House. Once that is gone then the Queen with the guidance Prime Minister would name the date of the next election. The big difference thanks to the Fixed Term Parliament Act is that the Government could no longer do what Wilson did in 1974 and call a second election. It would be solely up to opposition parties as to when an election would take place by passing a motion of no confidence and therefore likely to be when the Government least wants it.
Of course the government theoretically might be able to do a deal at some point with opposition parties for a vote of no confidence if it proved advantageous for all of them to stitch up the main opposition party. Perhaps the one thing that might unite the Tories and SNP is a vote of no confidence against a Tory Government that harms the Labour Party?
This is likely to be a good election to lose and definitely 'interesting times'.......
FPTA
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/14/section/2/enacted
Interestingly, Parliament will not meet for 12 days after the GE polling date, if the manual is to be believed.
The PM stays in office until they resign, even if a hung parliament and they are entitled to wait until the new parliament first meets to be sure whether they can command the confidence.
Also, the convention is that a PM should not resign until they are in a position where there is "a situation in which clear advice could be given to the Sovereign on who should be asked
to form a government."
So, to my reading, if it is hung, then Cameron could remain PM for at least 12 days while negotiations are undertaken.
A big week coming up!
Matthew D'Ancona says as much in his book.
If Cameron's PM now [which he is] and his party has most seats (and likely most votes by a margin too) and no other coalition is cobbled together, it's common sense for him to be PM.
As for Eurosceptics the desire for freedom from something once entrenched rarely goes away and given the circumstances it will likely just grow (in terms of numbers) and get louder the more we are suffocated by the despotism of Brussels (and its abusive supporters).
For the Conservatives they can continue to look and act as the ruling party, Cameron would further enhance his status as PM and they can try and convince voters to give them the full reigns next time.
For Labour, they would need time to rebuild under a new leader, as well as getting the funds together for a second election. It'd be easier to do this in opposition and they could engineer the timing of the second election when it best suited them.
Casino - your reply to John O on the previous thread is the best news I've heard all day!
Its a Victory for Eck Nicola!
http://ericjoyce.co.uk/2015/03/a-real-scottish-labour-party/