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 ?
They have been terribly naive in their dealings so far - by ruling out a coalition with various parties, including the one most likely to be the largest party, they have shown themselves to be unsuitable for coalition government and hence their constituents will miss out on the chance to shape policy.
Won't stop their whining after the event mind you.
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|:
Not too bad from what I've seen recently (which isn't saying much, admittedly, given the UK standards prevailing). The polling about which parties people trust with the SHS is a very strong indicator that the SLAB pushing of this [edit: story] is not working and may even be counterproductive - it does not look good to see senior SLAB pols filmed in front of hospitals that have long been closed and alleging poor service in them.
If the Tories are indeed set to win the May GE and David Cameron is thereby set to retire at some stage in the next 5 year Parliament, we need to look at the betting opportunities as regards who might succeed him. Leaving aside the two favourites, i.e. Boris and Mrs. May, neither of whom I believe will do so, then there are some pretty attractive odds around for the other possible candidates. But could it possibly be someone who is currently virtually unknown?
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|:
why last week they were better than England.....LOL
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).
That's what I thought. UKIP and the SNP need to be thoroughly beaten down or we'll spend all our time voting in referenda to break up the UK and Europe.
"Once someone takes a line on something it is v rare to see a complete and honest admission that they were wrong. Labour have promoted the multiculturalism that fostered the division between factions of society and resulted in British jihad. I agree with you that try are wrong, but an honest admission is too much to ask, it's v rare in human nature to do that"
Well, I am a Catholic - and what with confession and all that - I do rather think it a good thing for people to reflect on what they have done and admit when they are wrong. And I admire people who do that. It speaks really well of them because it takes maturity and self-knowledge and courage to admit a mistake. And we could do with more of those qualities in public and professional life.
Or to take the secularist, Keynesian view: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
This weekend's Sunday Times reported Trevor Phillips as saying that he had completely changed his mind on the whole issue of not saying bad things about groups of people in case they felt offended. I don't have the link but if anyone has access beyond the paywall it's worth reading what he had to say.
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 ?
They have been terribly naive in their dealings so far - by ruling out a coalition with various parties, including the one most likely to be the largest party, they have shown themselves to be unsuitable for coalition government and hence their constituents will miss out on the chance to shape policy.
Won't stop their whining after the event mind you.
Harry, you obviously have not been in Scotland since the sixties I take it. Only a blind fool would think ruling out any deal with the Tories as being naive from a Scottish party.
May 8th, Angus Robertson goes to David Cameron and offers this. A joint bill on EV4EL under Hagues proposal combined with Full Fiscal Autonomy for Scotland including the right to hold Refedenda. No other legislation to be supported until this passes.
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).
That's what I thought. UKIP and the SNP need to be thoroughly beaten down or we'll spend all our time voting in referenda to break up the UK and Europe.
If Sporting are to continue advertising immediately above the posting box (good position that), then they might at least make the effort to ensure that their spread prices are kept up to date. They are showing Labour as being 272-278, whereas their actual price has been 270 - 276 all day.
.if you are bored without another poll in thew offing. looks like over on timtwitter that timmy ls really losing his marbles.. same old smears same old lies from 2010/11/12, just being repeated to anyone who will listen.. its rather sad really.
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!
You're very kind, Peter. Happy if I make you happy!
Uncharacteristic total silence from PtP on this the first day of the Cheltenham Festival.
I do hope all's well with him.
Fear not, he is at the course. Probably counting his winnings at this point
Supreme Novices
Hard to look beyond first two in market. Not a favorites’ race so difficult to take 7/4 Douvain. Lami Serge 4/1 probably ok ew bet, but likely to drift and be bigger on the day. ‘Fun’ outsiders include Seedling 20/1 Qewy 16/1 and Jollyallen 9/1. Qewy especially interesting.
If there is a hint prior to the GE that the LDs might get into bed with Lab and the SNP in order to form the next government they could face a potential backlash from their residual centrist voters (most of their left of centre support having already defected to Lab or Greens). If I recall correctly Nick Harvey MP has recently commented on this issue.
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.
May 8th, Angus Robertson goes to David Cameron and offers this. A joint bill on EV4EL under Hagues proposal combined with Full Fiscal Autonomy for Scotland including the right to hold Refedenda. No other legislation to be supported until this passes.
Hmmm ... one response to that gambit is for Mr C to propose a coalition with Labour. If Mr M accepts, that's the Labour Party permanently split in England and joining PC in Wales: a fine result for the Tories who become the majority partners in a unionist coalition. If Mr M declines, he's refused to 'save the nation' and can be blamed for all that then ensues.
AR and DC then get on with things as before ... am I missing anything?
May 8th, Angus Robertson goes to David Cameron and offers this. A joint bill on EV4EL under Hagues proposal combined with Full Fiscal Autonomy for Scotland including the right to hold Refedenda. No other legislation to be supported until this passes.
If SNP=50 there may well be a majority for EV4EL without the SNP.
May 8th, Angus Robertson goes to David Cameron and offers this. A joint bill on EV4EL under Hagues proposal combined with Full Fiscal Autonomy for Scotland including the right to hold Refedenda. No other legislation to be supported until this passes.
If SNP=50 there may well be a majority for EV4EL without the SNP.
There's a reason I specifically said "under Hague's proposal". As I said, it's a Game. Follow it through.
May 8th, Angus Robertson goes to David Cameron and offers this. A joint bill on EV4EL under Hagues proposal combined with Full Fiscal Autonomy for Scotland including the right to hold Refedenda. No other legislation to be supported until this passes.
Hmmm ... one response to that gambit is for Mr C to propose a coalition with Labour. If Mr M accepts, that's the Labour Party permanently split in England and joining PC in Wales: a fine result for the Tories who become the majority partners in a unionist coalition. If Mr M declines, he's refused to 'save the nation' and can be blamed for all that then ensues.
AR and DC then get on with things as before ... am I missing anything?
If there is a hint prior to the GE that the LDs might get into bed with Lab and the SNP in order to form the next government they could face a potential backlash from their residual centrist voters (most of their left of centre support having already defected to Lab or Greens). If I recall correctly Nick Harvey MP has recently commented on this issue.
Norman Lamb certainly sounded very anti-SNP on Question Time.
Unknown to most in the UK, a significant event is taking place in Berlin - and has been for several months. It looks as if it will continue for several weeks yet. If it escalates and is given prominence in the MSM then there could be a real twist to this election campaign. Many people are spotting its effects.
I thought the SNP were in favour of keeping the monarchy, even after independence. Has that policy changed?
If not, why would they want to do something to damage the Queen? Wouldn't they try and do whatever advanced the independence cause?
SNP policy is to retain the Monarchy through Independence. How many SNP members and parliamentarians would continue to support the Monarchy afterwards.... well that's the question making Royalists squirm.
May 8th, Angus Robertson goes to David Cameron and offers this. A joint bill on EV4EL under Hagues proposal combined with Full Fiscal Autonomy for Scotland including the right to hold Refedenda. No other legislation to be supported until this passes.
The big obstacle to EV4EL was the success of the Lib Dems and Labour in Scotland.
Once they're nigh on obliterated, it starts to come down to how we'd like EV4EL to look, rather than whether it will exist or not.
Unknown to most in the UK, a significant event is taking place in Berlin - and has been for several months. It looks as if it will continue for several weeks yet. If it escalates and is given prominence in the MSM then there could be a real twist to this election campaign. Many people are spotting its effects.
I don't see that the Queen is that involved. Cameron is the incumbent Prime Minister. He will remain the Prime Minister in the event of a Hung Parliament, unless Ed Miliband can put together a Coalition that will vote him down in the House.
If Cameron comes to the conclusion that the game is up and he will lose a vote of confidence, or indeed has lost a vote of confidence because he decided to put it to the test, then he will tender his resignation to the Queen and as his final duty as her Prime Minister will inform her who he believes has the confidence of the House to replace him.
The Queen does not at any point have to exercise the choice herself.
I don't see that the Queen is that involved. Cameron is the incumbent Prime Minister. He will remain the Prime Minister in the event of a Hung Parliament, unless Ed Miliband can put together a Coalition that will vote him down in the House.
If Cameron comes to the conclusion that the game is up and he will lose a vote of confidence, or indeed has lost a vote of confidence because he decided to put it to the test, then he will tender his resignation to the Queen and as his final duty as her Prime Minister will inform her who he believes has the confidence of the House to replace him.
The Queen does not at any point have to exercise the choice herself.
Or do I have this wrong?
It might go wrong if Mr Cameron tried to drag HM into it, as he did with Indyref ('think very carefully' and 'purring'). One would have thought he had more sense, but that prior example does not bode well.
On the contrary. He is a towering statesman whose ex cathedra pronouncements on the UK's constitutional position must be taken very seriously and used as the basis for binding covenants with the voters.
I think the danger is the other way round. Politicians who try to drag the Queen into these sordid party political squabbles are likely to lose a great deal of public support. HM and her advisors have never been anything but scrupulously above the party fray. They can always commission a couple of senior ‘inactive’ politicians like Major and Blunkett to see if a coalition can be put together which could command support in the Commons.
I thought the SNP were in favour of keeping the monarchy, even after independence. Has that policy changed?
If not, why would they want to do something to damage the Queen? Wouldn't they try and do whatever advanced the independence cause?
SNP policy is to retain the Monarchy through Independence. How many SNP members and parliamentarians would continue to support the Monarchy afterwards.... well that's the question making Royalists squirm.
Surely that is a question that lies with the electorate of Scotland, not with SNP members or Parliamentarians.
And a significant number of Pro-Independence Scots are also pro- retention of the Royal family so I would think it would rather be a question to make the SNP republicans squirm.
Unknown to most in the UK, a significant event is taking place in Berlin - and has been for several months. It looks as if it will continue for several weeks yet. If it escalates and is given prominence in the MSM then there could be a real twist to this election campaign. Many people are spotting its effects.
Mr. Carnyx, whilst a legitimate criticism of clowns in Westminster, I've been nothing if not consistent in my view of Brown (or the Vow, for that matter).
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?
Mr. Carnyx, whilst a legitimate criticism of clowns in Westminster, I've been nothing if not consistent in my view of Brown (or the Vow, for that matter).
Good afternoon, Mr D. Indeed you do, and of the Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy too as I recall. Wouldn't wish to impute otherwise.
If there is a hint prior to the GE that the LDs might get into bed with Lab and the SNP in order to form the next government they could face a potential backlash from their residual centrist voters (most of their left of centre support having already defected to Lab or Greens). If I recall correctly Nick Harvey MP has recently commented on this issue.
Norman Lamb certainly sounded very anti-SNP on Question Time.
I can't see the LibDems wanting to be in any coalition with the SNP. Or vice versa actually.
The ponies have always completely eluded me when it comes to betting, I've always felt like I know nothing, everyone else knows more and to gather the data would take way too much effort.
@FrancisUrquhart We had a report, the papers didn't like it's recommendation, and Cam wanted them on side. The result was partial implementation, and the papers carrying on making up stories, and twisting facts.
May 8th, Angus Robertson goes to David Cameron and offers this. A joint bill on EV4EL under Hagues proposal combined with Full Fiscal Autonomy for Scotland including the right to hold Refedenda. No other legislation to be supported until this passes.
If SNP=50 there may well be a majority for EV4EL without the SNP.
It's fun playing numbers games, but why would the LibDems vote to give the SNP the power to call referenda (in effect you can have independence), or the tories come to that. Grand coalition - that's the answer!
I would think that Budget 2015 would be in with a shout as a follow-up to the Ed Balls speech of yesterday. Something along the lines of: "Will the Prime Minister tell the House how many babies will be eaten as a result of the Chancellor's soon to be delivered Budget?"
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).
That's what I thought. UKIP and the SNP need to be thoroughly beaten down or we'll spend all our time voting in referenda to break up the UK and Europe.
Between races, I've read the Daily Mail piece covering Sir Jeremy Haywood's comments and there's absolutely nothing controversial about them at all.
The process of putting together a new Govenrment COULD take several days - I very much doubt it could take weeks - and the country needs to be governed so the previous administration in a caretaker capacity looks perfectly reasonable.
In 2010, we had this sense of illogical panic especially with everything that was happening in Greece but I think everyone has realised the world won't end if the politicians are given time and allowed to catch up on their sleep before having to meet.
It may or may not be clear by Friday lunchtime what permutations are still on the table - probably only two or three - and one party could be talking to both Conservative and Labour at the same time (no problem with that either) so it's all very reasonable and civilised.
Sorry if this has already been said but after the last election I thought it was said that unless someone could obtain a majority then the incumbent retained control until he lost a confidence vote or resigned. Hence why Gordon Brown remained in Downing Street until the Conservative/Lib-Dem majority was made official. Brown could try and stay in power even with fewer seats than the Conservatives as he was the incumbent Prime Minister.
In the circumstances antifrank made clear, especially if the Conservatives have most votes and a plurality of seats even without a majority ... surely ipso facto the incumbent Conservative Prime Minister could by himself simply continue to attempt to lead Parliament unless or until he lost a confidence vote or another majority was reached? The Queen would not need to make any decision.
Furthermore since the Queen just needs to chose one person to lead the Commons not the entire government, whether the Lib Dems continue or not will surely be redundant to the incumbency of Cameron in Number 10.
I don't see that the Queen is that involved. Cameron is the incumbent Prime Minister. He will remain the Prime Minister in the event of a Hung Parliament, unless Ed Miliband can put together a Coalition that will vote him down in the House.
If Cameron comes to the conclusion that the game is up and he will lose a vote of confidence, or indeed has lost a vote of confidence because he decided to put it to the test, then he will tender his resignation to the Queen and as his final duty as her Prime Minister will inform her who he believes has the confidence of the House to replace him.
The Queen does not at any point have to exercise the choice herself.
Or do I have this wrong?
You have it right. The Queen does not choose in any executive sense. If no one can form a government she would accept the incumbent PM's advice to dissolve parliament and hold a General Election.
Sorry if this has already been said but after the last election I thought it was said that unless someone could obtain a majority then the incumbent retained control until he lost a confidence vote or resigned. Hence why Gordon Brown remained in Downing Street until the Conservative/Lib-Dem majority was made official. Brown could try and stay in power even with fewer seats than the Conservatives as he was the incumbent Prime Minister.
In the circumstances antifrank made clear, especially if the Conservatives have most votes and a plurality of seats even without a majority ... surely ipso facto the incumbent Conservative Prime Minister could by himself simply continue to attempt to lead Parliament unless or until he lost a confidence vote or another majority was reached? The Queen would not need to make any decision.
Furthermore since the Queen just needs to chose one person to lead the Commons not the entire government, whether the Lib Dems continue or not will surely be redundant to the incumbency of Cameron in Number 10.
Philip, as I said earlier to Carlotta, that's not how it worked in February 1974 or how it would work now either. It's not a question of a "majority" either - it's enough votes to get past key legislation and if that means abstentions from minor parties, so be it.
Cameron will know by Friday lunchtime what his options are - he can either try to cut a deal with somebody or anybody or sit back and do nothing. The latter is fine but it's not a question of him going to Parliament with a Confidence motion - if it becomes clear Labour has sufficient votes to govern (ie: get its key legislation through the House and that doesn't imply a majority) Cameron will be advised to go to the Palace and ask the Queen to send for Mr Miliband.
The idea of a dramatic finale with Cameron falling to a Confidence vote may be attractive to some but it simply wouldn't happen.
The only thing clear about this is that anti frank shares the paranoid obsessions of most PB posters on the role of the SNP. Yesterday's Ashcroft showed 70 per cent want them in Government in Scotland - Labour would be foolish to rule it out in defiance of that wish. The SNP may not want a full coalition but have sensibly not ruled it out and would certainly want any arrangement to be a success.
Oh and if the SNP gets ~40-50 seats then I think they'll be the last party to want an early election. As it stands at the moment they have a lot to gain but after winning a virtually clean slate they'll have all to lose. An early election could lead to a massive swing back to Scottish Labour in Westminster under what will have become a "who governs the country" forced choice election.
Between races, I've read the Daily Mail piece covering Sir Jeremy Haywood's comments and there's absolutely nothing controversial about them at all.
The process of putting together a new Govenrment COULD take several days - I very much doubt it could take weeks - and the country needs to be governed so the previous administration in a caretaker capacity looks perfectly reasonable.
In 2010, we had this sense of illogical panic especially with everything that was happening in Greece but I think everyone has realised the world won't end if the politicians are given time and allowed to catch up on their sleep before having to meet.
It may or may not be clear by Friday lunchtime what permutations are still on the table - probably only two or three - and one party could be talking to both Conservative and Labour at the same time (no problem with that either) so it's all very reasonable and civilised.
Under UK constitution, there can't not be a "Her Majesty's Government", apart perhaps for the 15 mins while the new PM drives to Palace to kiss hands or whatever.
I think the danger is the other way round. Politicians who try to drag the Queen into these sordid party political squabbles are likely to lose a great deal of public support. HM and her advisors have never been anything but scrupulously above the party fray. They can always commission a couple of senior ‘inactive’ politicians like Major and Blunkett to see if a coalition can be put together which could command support in the Commons.
Well, I hope some of you followed my suggestion this morning and backed THE DRUID'S NEPHEW. I got on at 12s yesterday so it'll be steak for Mrs Stodge tonight rather than scrag end.
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.
The prospect of having to go through the motions of renegotiating with other EU leaders who want to give nothing away, and then having the Conservative Party split during a referendum, can't be at all appealing. If the Commons were to vote down the necessary legislation, then he'd be off the hook.
Philip, as I said earlier to Carlotta, that's not how it worked in February 1974 or how it would work now either. It's not a question of a "majority" either - it's enough votes to get past key legislation and if that means abstentions from minor parties, so be it.
Cameron will know by Friday lunchtime what his options are - he can either try to cut a deal with somebody or anybody or sit back and do nothing. The latter is fine but it's not a question of him going to Parliament with a Confidence motion - if it becomes clear Labour has sufficient votes to govern (ie: get its key legislation through the House and that doesn't imply a majority) Cameron will be advised to go to the Palace and ask the Queen to send for Mr Miliband.
The idea of a dramatic finale with Cameron falling to a Confidence vote may be attractive to some but it simply wouldn't happen.
I'm not suggesting that Cameron would cling on til death by a Confidence motion, I'm saying that if nobody can arrange the votes they need then by default the incumbent continues until either he resigns or he loses a confidence motion.
The idea that the left would be outraged at the Queen choosing Cameron is wrong. The Queen doesn't need to "send for Cameron" since he is already the PM and the election hasn't changed that yet, so if Cameron continued then he'd be doing so as the incumbent not by the Queen's decision.
After the election we have three plausible scenarios: 1: The Conservatives (and any allies) have sufficient votes. The Prime Minister continues in his role. 2: Labour (and any allies) have sufficient votes. The Prime Minister resigns, Miliband becomes PM. 3: Nobody clearly has sufficient votes. The Prime Minister has the option on whether to muddle on through or resign. If he tries to continue, Parliament has the option to reject him.
At no stage does the Queen become involved, except by formalities. We are not in the position in this country where the government is dissolved when Parliament is, the government continues until a new one is appointed.
Sorry if this has already been said but after the last election I thought it was said that unless someone could obtain a majority then the incumbent retained control until he lost a confidence vote or resigned. Hence why Gordon Brown remained in Downing Street until the Conservative/Lib-Dem majority was made official. Brown could try and stay in power even with fewer seats than the Conservatives as he was the incumbent Prime Minister.
In the circumstances antifrank made clear, especially if the Conservatives have most votes and a plurality of seats even without a majority ... surely ipso facto the incumbent Conservative Prime Minister could by himself simply continue to attempt to lead Parliament unless or until he lost a confidence vote or another majority was reached? The Queen would not need to make any decision.
Furthermore since the Queen just needs to chose one person to lead the Commons not the entire government, whether the Lib Dems continue or not will surely be redundant to the incumbency of Cameron in Number 10.
Philip, as I said earlier to Carlotta, that's not how it worked in February 1974 or how it would work now either. It's not a question of a "majority" either - it's enough votes to get past key legislation and if that means abstentions from minor parties, so be it.
Cameron will know by Friday lunchtime what his options are - he can either try to cut a deal with somebody or anybody or sit back and do nothing. The latter is fine but it's not a question of him going to Parliament with a Confidence motion - if it becomes clear Labour has sufficient votes to govern (ie: get its key legislation through the House and that doesn't imply a majority) Cameron will be advised to go to the Palace and ask the Queen to send for Mr Miliband.
The idea of a dramatic finale with Cameron falling to a Confidence vote may be attractive to some but it simply wouldn't happen.
If Cameron is ahead on votes and seats I think he stays. Yes, a coalition of the losers could in theory take power but I doubt the saner elements of Labour would want to take office with questionable authority and mandate and being dependent on the SNP. This could be politically disastrous for them, especially in England where they have far more to lose than in Scotland.
Sorry if this has already been said but after the last election I thought it was said that unless someone could obtain a majority then the incumbent retained control until he lost a confidence vote or resigned. Hence why Gordon Brown remained in Downing Street until the Conservative/Lib-Dem majority was made official. Brown could try and stay in power even with fewer seats than the Conservatives as he was the incumbent Prime Minister.
In the circumstances antifrank made clear, especially if the Conservatives have most votes and a plurality of seats even without a majority ... surely ipso facto the incumbent Conservative Prime Minister could by himself simply continue to attempt to lead Parliament unless or until he lost a confidence vote or another majority was reached? The Queen would not need to make any decision.
Furthermore since the Queen just needs to chose one person to lead the Commons not the entire government, whether the Lib Dems continue or not will surely be redundant to the incumbency of Cameron in Number 10.
Philip, as I said earlier to Carlotta, that's not how it worked in February 1974 or how it would work now either. It's not a question of a "majority" either - it's enough votes to get past key legislation and if that means abstentions from minor parties, so be it.
Cameron will know by Friday lunchtime what his options are - he can either try to cut a deal with somebody or anybody or sit back and do nothing. The latter is fine but it's not a question of him going to Parliament with a Confidence motion - if it becomes clear Labour has sufficient votes to govern (ie: get its key legislation through the House and that doesn't imply a majority) Cameron will be advised to go to the Palace and ask the Queen to send for Mr Miliband.
The idea of a dramatic finale with Cameron falling to a Confidence vote may be attractive to some but it simply wouldn't happen.
If Cameron is ahead on votes and seats I think he stays. Yes, a coalition of the losers could in theory take power but I doubt the saner elements of Labour would want to take office with questionable authority and mandate and being dependent on the SNP. This could be politically disastrous for them, especially in England where they have far more to lose than in Scotland.
I agree with antifrank that 295 is the tipping point. If the Conservatives get fewer seats. then an anti-Conservative coalition is viable. Above that, and it really isn't.
I thought the SNP were in favour of keeping the monarchy, even after independence. Has that policy changed?
If not, why would they want to do something to damage the Queen? Wouldn't they try and do whatever advanced the independence cause?
SNP policy is to retain the Monarchy through Independence. How many SNP members and parliamentarians would continue to support the Monarchy afterwards.... well that's the question making Royalists squirm.
Surely that is a question that lies with the electorate of Scotland, not with SNP members or Parliamentarians.
And a significant number of Pro-Independence Scots are also pro- retention of the Royal family so I would think it would rather be a question to make the SNP republicans squirm.
Lizzie is a descendant of James I - or VI if you prefer
Under UK constitution, there can't not be a "Her Majesty's Government", apart perhaps for the 15 mins while the new PM drives to Palace to kiss hands or whatever.
Indeed, there is a brief interregnum (possibly a poor choice of word) though in effect the outgoing Prime Minister is the last to leave and his or her Cabinet colleagues will have already departed their offices and said their goodbyes.
The theatrical "arrival" of the new team into Downing Street is mirrored in other Departments for those incoming Ministers (the big three) who know where they will be going. The lower positions are then filled by the incoming PM on the Friday evening and into the Saturday so by the Saturday evening most of the new Government is in place.
There are presumably other "handovers" which we don't see relating to nuclear command codes and I suspect there is a private meeting between the outgoing and incoming Prime Ministers where more sensitive issues are discussed.
There is an interesting article in Lib Dem Voice by Tony Greaves on this matter. He suggests that both the Conservative and Labour parties are looking at the prospect of a 5 year minority government. This would require the 'Government' to seek support across the House for the passage of legislation. This will need a considerable cultural change but would have important benefits such a strengthening the power of the legislature against the executive, emphasising the importance of Select Committees, and even making the role of the House of Lords more significant.
There are presumably other "handovers" which we don't see relating to nuclear command codes and I suspect there is a private meeting between the outgoing and incoming Prime Ministers where more sensitive issues are discussed.
Is that not what Sir Humphrey/GOD/Sir Jeremy Heywood does?
If Cameron is ahead on votes and seats I think he stays. Yes, a coalition of the losers could in theory take power but I doubt the saner elements of Labour would want to take office with questionable authority and mandate and being dependent on the SNP. This could be politically disastrous for them, especially in England where they have far more to lose than in Scotland.
Not sure I entirely agree, my friend. "Votes" mean nothing in this context though I do strongly agree they carry a legitimacy on their own. However, the fact is Labour polled more votes than the Conservatives in 1951 and the Tories won the election so if it was very close (within 1-2%) it would carry much less weight than the margin last time.
On seats, again, a significant gap is one thing but if the gap was less than five, it would be meaningless. Back to Feb 1974 and as I recall the Conservatives got four seats more than Labour but it was Wilson who finished up as Prime Minister.
It's really quite simple - unless Nicola Sturgeon is leading us all up the garden path and is willing to cut some sort of deal with Cameron, the Conservatives' only hope is to take enough seats off the LDs and prevent enough Labour gains to either form a majority or block any other minority.
Ed M's "get out of jail" free card is the chance he has to cut a deal with the SNP - I believe the LDs will do nothing and support no one which leaves the DUP but if they are that close to the line the Conservatives won't need them.
He's probably still hoping for an EU job once people have forgotten about him wrecking the economy remembers him saving the world from a banking crash.
Some interesting ranting going on at the Select Committee hearing...it seems it is every bodies else fault again.
"Solicitor for the families Tasnime Akunjee tells MPs it is possible that receipt of the police letter could have triggered the girls' plan to go. He says they might have reacted badly to an official letter, headed Metropolitan Police, that was effectively asking them to "rat out" their friend. Sahima Begum says it's impossible to know what was in the girls' minds."
Just had a letter from the police, apparently somebody has been caught speeding in my car, asking me who was driving on the given date. I am now going to go and drive up and down the motorway at 150mph.
If Cameron is ahead on votes and seats I think he stays. Yes, a coalition of the losers could in theory take power but I doubt the saner elements of Labour would want to take office with questionable authority and mandate and being dependent on the SNP. This could be politically disastrous for them, especially in England where they have far more to lose than in Scotland.
The Conservatives finished four behind Labour in February 1974.
For a Labour/SNP deal to work, they'd need an overall majority between them.
The Conservatives finished four behind Labour in February 1974.
For a Labour/SNP deal to work, they'd need an overall majority between them.
Apologies and well spotted, Sean though I'm pretty sure the Conservatives polled fractionally more votes in that election.
Why do you think Lab/SNP would need an overall majority - as long as they were ahead of CON +LD that would be enough given the absence of SF and the fractured nature of Ulster politics.
Stunning performance by FAUGHEEN in the Champion Hurdle but did Walsh win it at the start by nicking that lead ? It probably made no difference - he quickened so well off the home turn horses who could get back on heavy ground had no chance on the faster surface today.
On that evidence, FAUGHEEN could win the next couple of years as well.
The Conservatives finished four behind Labour in February 1974.
For a Labour/SNP deal to work, they'd need an overall majority between them.
Apologies and well spotted, Sean though I'm pretty sure the Conservatives polled fractionally more votes in that election.
Why do you think Lab/SNP would need an overall majority - as long as they were ahead of CON +LD that would be enough given the absence of SF and the fractured nature of Ulster politics.
The SNP would be very wayward allies for Labour, and the two parties hate each other. Such a government would suffer repeated defeats in the Commons, if it didn't have a majority.
I have loads so say on this - all with betting implications, but my head is so stuck in cheltenham bets that I can barely take in what antifrank has written.
But to summarise, I'm preparing my betting positions for a clusterf*ck after the election, where lots of things that are supposed to be impossible, suddenly become at first conceivable, a few will become likely, and one or two may even actually happen.
It's a case of trying to figure out what the known unknowns are and putting probabilities on them.
All through the haze of a highly partisan election campaign...
The Evening Standard has picked up on an aside by Speaker John Bercow in work and pensions questions yesterday. Frustrated by the length of employment minister Esther McVey's answers, he said: "I am reminded of the feeling when one thinks the washing machine will stop - but it does not!"
What an odious man he is...I miss the days of old Betty.
There is an interesting article in Lib Dem Voice by Tony Greaves on this matter. He suggests that both the Conservative and Labour parties are looking at the prospect of a 5 year minority government. This would require the 'Government' to seek support across the House for the passage of legislation. This will need a considerable cultural change but would have important benefits such a strengthening the power of the legislature against the executive, emphasising the importance of Select Committees, and even making the role of the House of Lords more significant.
Interesting, but wouldn't 5 years of minority government mean that the 'ruling' party could not get anything controversial through. That might not be a bad thing from the country's point of view. However wouldn't the Tories and Labour rather have an agreed programme where each gets some of what they want and allow the 'least bad' policies of their opponents through? I think I'll look at the grand coalition odds again.
The Evening Standard has picked up on an aside by Speaker John Bercow in work and pensions questions yesterday. Frustrated by the length of employment minister Esther McVey's answers, he said: "I am reminded of the feeling when one thinks the washing machine will stop - but it does not!"
What an odious man he is...I miss the days of old Betty.
The "Evening Standard" is wrong on this.
I was watching at the time Bercow was IIRC refering to the fact that he had hoped to move onto other business but felt obliged to call further MP's and he did so.
He also complimented McVey on her pithy and concise answers to questions and allowed her to respond to a point of order at the end of questions.
The Evening Standard has picked up on an aside by Speaker John Bercow in work and pensions questions yesterday. Frustrated by the length of employment minister Esther McVey's answers, he said: "I am reminded of the feeling when one thinks the washing machine will stop - but it does not!"
What an odious man he is...I miss the days of old Betty.
Regardless, the other parties need to ignore convention and put up a decent alternative in Buckingham. He's been a dreadful Speaker.
Cameron would continue as PM if the Tories win most seats, as he is unlikely to advise The Queen he cannot continue. With the fixed parliament act and the vote of no confidence requiring 67% to vote in favour, unless Tories decide they cannot continue, they would not vote for it to trigger another election. The Tories would try to get their budget passed first, which would presumably require less spending cuts, but more taxes to be applied. This is when Cameron would face a massive crisis within the Tory party, as his backbenchers would be furious. Then there is the issue of not being able to offer the EU referendum in 2017.
The Evening Standard has picked up on an aside by Speaker John Bercow in work and pensions questions yesterday. Frustrated by the length of employment minister Esther McVey's answers, he said: "I am reminded of the feeling when one thinks the washing machine will stop - but it does not!"
What an odious man he is...I miss the days of old Betty.
Regardless, the other parties need to ignore convention and put up a decent alternative in Buckingham. He's been a dreadful Speaker.
The "convention" such as it was has been disregarded for decades and in any case Bercow would romp home in Buckingham where he is well regarded.
The Conservatives finished four behind Labour in February 1974.
For a Labour/SNP deal to work, they'd need an overall majority between them.
Apologies and well spotted, Sean though I'm pretty sure the Conservatives polled fractionally more votes in that election.
Why do you think Lab/SNP would need an overall majority - as long as they were ahead of CON +LD that would be enough given the absence of SF and the fractured nature of Ulster politics.
The SNP would be very wayward allies for Labour, and the two parties hate each other.
To be more precise, SLab loathe, hate & detest the SNP, the SNP in a reciprocal manner have grown to despise & dislike SLab, the new influx of 45ers (many former SLab) joining and/or supporting the SNP loathe, hate & detest SLab with a vengeance, London Labour taking a lead from their Jocks dislike and fear the SNP (though are slightly mystified by them), the SNP aren't keen on London Labour but see them as a party they could do (some) business with.
The Evening Standard has picked up on an aside by Speaker John Bercow in work and pensions questions yesterday. Frustrated by the length of employment minister Esther McVey's answers, he said: "I am reminded of the feeling when one thinks the washing machine will stop - but it does not!"
What an odious man he is...I miss the days of old Betty.
Regardless, the other parties need to ignore convention and put up a decent alternative in Buckingham. He's been a dreadful Speaker.
The "convention" such as it was has been disregarded for decades and in any case Bercow would romp home in Buckingham where he is well regarded.
Out of interest does he do any constituency work? If not, how are is his constituents represented if he's too occupied by the second job?
Comments
Won't stop their whining after the event mind you.
UKIP and the SNP need to be thoroughly beaten down or we'll spend all our time voting in referenda to break up the UK and Europe.
I do hope all's well with him.
"Once someone takes a line on something it is v rare to see a complete and honest admission that they were wrong. Labour have promoted the multiculturalism that fostered the division between factions of society and resulted in British jihad. I agree with you that try are wrong, but an honest admission is too much to ask, it's v rare in human nature to do that"
Well, I am a Catholic - and what with confession and all that - I do rather think it a good thing for people to reflect on what they have done and admit when they are wrong. And I admire people who do that. It speaks really well of them because it takes maturity and self-knowledge and courage to admit a mistake. And we could do with more of those qualities in public and professional life.
Or to take the secularist, Keynesian view: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
This weekend's Sunday Times reported Trevor Phillips as saying that he had completely changed his mind on the whole issue of not saying bad things about groups of people in case they felt offended. I don't have the link but if anyone has access beyond the paywall it's worth reading what he had to say.
Tory 290
Liberal 20
SNP 50
May 8th, Angus Robertson goes to David Cameron and offers this. A joint bill on EV4EL under Hagues proposal combined with Full Fiscal Autonomy for Scotland including the right to hold Refedenda. No other legislation to be supported until this passes.
They are showing Labour as being 272-278, whereas their actual price has been 270 - 276 all day.
https://twitter.com/BetfairPredicts/status/575290786327191552
Supreme Novices
Hard to look beyond first two in market. Not a favorites’ race so difficult to take 7/4 Douvain. Lami Serge 4/1 probably ok ew bet, but likely to drift and be bigger on the day. ‘Fun’ outsiders include Seedling 20/1 Qewy 16/1 and Jollyallen 9/1. Qewy especially interesting.
AR and DC then get on with things as before ... am I missing anything?
Oh right…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2986818/Falling-hurdle-Tweed-mini-skirts-fur-hats-reign-supreme-Cheltenham-Festival-gets-underway.html
If not, why would they want to do something to damage the Queen? Wouldn't they try and do whatever advanced the independence cause?
Once they're nigh on obliterated, it starts to come down to how we'd like EV4EL to look, rather than whether it will exist or not.
SNP MPs 50 The Rest 600, mostly English.
If Cameron comes to the conclusion that the game is up and he will lose a vote of confidence, or indeed has lost a vote of confidence because he decided to put it to the test, then he will tender his resignation to the Queen and as his final duty as her Prime Minister will inform her who he believes has the confidence of the House to replace him.
The Queen does not at any point have to exercise the choice herself.
Or do I have this wrong?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31813268
HM and her advisors have never been anything but scrupulously above the party fray. They can always commission a couple of senior ‘inactive’ politicians like Major and Blunkett to see if a coalition can be put together which could command support in the Commons.
And a significant number of Pro-Independence Scots are also pro- retention of the Royal family so I would think it would rather be a question to make the SNP republicans squirm.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31817720
So Piers...
Off to some work now ...
I will stick to rugby.
We had a report, the papers didn't like it's recommendation, and Cam wanted them on side.
The result was partial implementation, and the papers carrying on making up stories, and twisting facts.
Grand coalition - that's the answer!
Between races, I've read the Daily Mail piece covering Sir Jeremy Haywood's comments and there's absolutely nothing controversial about them at all.
The process of putting together a new Govenrment COULD take several days - I very much doubt it could take weeks - and the country needs to be governed so the previous administration in a caretaker capacity looks perfectly reasonable.
In 2010, we had this sense of illogical panic especially with everything that was happening in Greece but I think everyone has realised the world won't end if the politicians are given time and allowed to catch up on their sleep before having to meet.
It may or may not be clear by Friday lunchtime what permutations are still on the table - probably only two or three - and one party could be talking to both Conservative and Labour at the same time (no problem with that either) so it's all very reasonable and civilised.
In the circumstances antifrank made clear, especially if the Conservatives have most votes and a plurality of seats even without a majority ... surely ipso facto the incumbent Conservative Prime Minister could by himself simply continue to attempt to lead Parliament unless or until he lost a confidence vote or another majority was reached? The Queen would not need to make any decision.
Furthermore since the Queen just needs to chose one person to lead the Commons not the entire government, whether the Lib Dems continue or not will surely be redundant to the incumbency of Cameron in Number 10.
Cameron will know by Friday lunchtime what his options are - he can either try to cut a deal with somebody or anybody or sit back and do nothing. The latter is fine but it's not a question of him going to Parliament with a Confidence motion - if it becomes clear Labour has sufficient votes to govern (ie: get its key legislation through the House and that doesn't imply a majority) Cameron will be advised to go to the Palace and ask the Queen to send for Mr Miliband.
The idea of a dramatic finale with Cameron falling to a Confidence vote may be attractive to some but it simply wouldn't happen.
The idea that the left would be outraged at the Queen choosing Cameron is wrong. The Queen doesn't need to "send for Cameron" since he is already the PM and the election hasn't changed that yet, so if Cameron continued then he'd be doing so as the incumbent not by the Queen's decision.
After the election we have three plausible scenarios:
1: The Conservatives (and any allies) have sufficient votes. The Prime Minister continues in his role.
2: Labour (and any allies) have sufficient votes. The Prime Minister resigns, Miliband becomes PM.
3: Nobody clearly has sufficient votes. The Prime Minister has the option on whether to muddle on through or resign. If he tries to continue, Parliament has the option to reject him.
At no stage does the Queen become involved, except by formalities. We are not in the position in this country where the government is dissolved when Parliament is, the government continues until a new one is appointed.
The theatrical "arrival" of the new team into Downing Street is mirrored in other Departments for those incoming Ministers (the big three) who know where they will be going. The lower positions are then filled by the incoming PM on the Friday evening and into the Saturday so by the Saturday evening most of the new Government is in place.
There are presumably other "handovers" which we don't see relating to nuclear command codes and I suspect there is a private meeting between the outgoing and incoming Prime Ministers where more sensitive issues are discussed.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2987781/MP-Eric-Joyce-racks-13-000-debt-Commons-expenses-chiefs-months-standing-forcing-DOCK-wages.html
This guy really needs help sorting his life out.
On seats, again, a significant gap is one thing but if the gap was less than five, it would be meaningless. Back to Feb 1974 and as I recall the Conservatives got four seats more than Labour but it was Wilson who finished up as Prime Minister.
It's really quite simple - unless Nicola Sturgeon is leading us all up the garden path and is willing to cut some sort of deal with Cameron, the Conservatives' only hope is to take enough seats off the LDs and prevent enough Labour gains to either form a majority or block any other minority.
Ed M's "get out of jail" free card is the chance he has to cut a deal with the SNP - I believe the LDs will do nothing and support no one which leaves the DUP but if they are that close to the line the Conservatives won't need them.
"Solicitor for the families Tasnime Akunjee tells MPs it is possible that receipt of the police letter could have triggered the girls' plan to go. He says they might have reacted badly to an official letter, headed Metropolitan Police, that was effectively asking them to "rat out" their friend. Sahima Begum says it's impossible to know what was in the girls' minds."
Just had a letter from the police, apparently somebody has been caught speeding in my car, asking me who was driving on the given date. I am now going to go and drive up and down the motorway at 150mph.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scots-concerns-over-immigration-similar-to-those-uk-wide-1-3714620
LIES LIES, Unionist plot etc.
Why do you think Lab/SNP would need an overall majority - as long as they were ahead of CON +LD that would be enough given the absence of SF and the fractured nature of Ulster politics.
On that evidence, FAUGHEEN could win the next couple of years as well.
I have loads so say on this - all with betting implications, but my head is so stuck in cheltenham bets that I can barely take in what antifrank has written.
But to summarise, I'm preparing my betting positions for a clusterf*ck after the election, where lots of things that are supposed to be impossible, suddenly become at first conceivable, a few will become likely, and one or two may even actually happen.
It's a case of trying to figure out what the known unknowns are and putting probabilities on them.
All through the haze of a highly partisan election campaign...
Hard, intellectual slog
What an odious man he is...I miss the days of old Betty.
However wouldn't the Tories and Labour rather have an agreed programme where each gets some of what they want and allow the 'least bad' policies of their opponents through? I think I'll look at the grand coalition odds again.
I was watching at the time Bercow was IIRC refering to the fact that he had hoped to move onto other business but felt obliged to call further MP's and he did so.
He also complimented McVey on her pithy and concise answers to questions and allowed her to respond to a point of order at the end of questions.
Deafening silence from Miliband.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31817720
Lots of ways that maelstrom could pan out.