politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Is 2015 the year the UK becomes Belgium?

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Is 2015 the year the UK becomes Belgium?

Whilst fans of Poirot, TinTin, and the D’Hondt electoral voting system might seem some advantages of the UK becoming more like Belgium, I’m coming to the conclusion that we might not have a viable government possible, particularly if the SNP surge translates into the seat numbers the recent Scottish polling implies.

Read the full story here

Gadfly

First!

Moving average chart of the 100 most recent YouGov polls. Click to enlarge...

Edin_Rokz

Er! Can't see a Grand Coalition government under present party leaderships. Both parties know that such an arrangement would open the allegiances, of their respective grass root members, to question.

Too many minor parties would then be more acceptable.

If you thought the possibilities of the May election being a mess, the resulting GE after a Grand Coalition would be amazing.

It would take another couple of GE's to get a stable Government. I don't think any of the following governments would last the 5 years before collapsing under the pressures.

asjohnstone

Government is over rated, Belgium got by just fine

Sandpit

Good article TSE.

The Grand coalition as a possible outcome has been my thinking for a couple of months now, as if neither main party go want to deal with the SNP then no majority will be possible.

Maybe a six-month Parliament with a limited agenda based around the delayed boundary reform and more devolution for Scotland (with appropriate reduction in Scottish MPs or their powers to vote on English matters), before going back to the country in the autumn with a clear choice between Red and Blue teams.

I could see Cameron agreeing to lead this coalition while resigning his party leadership, allowing the selection of a new face to fight the Autumn election.

OldKingCole

I can’t see either Cameron or Milliband holding their parties together if there was a GC.

edmundintokyo

I don't doubt the Labservatives would do a Grand Coalition if it was in their interests to do it, but IIUC a lot of this is wrong.

First, there's no procedural problem having a new election under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. If anything it makes it clearer and easier: Nobody even has to do anything - just wait two weeks without approving anybody's Queen's Speech and Bob's Your Uncle.

Second, a lack of a majority doesn't leave you without a government. Parliament has already been dissolved, but ministers are still ministers. They can keep ministering along quite merrily until a second election.

I think the Grand Coalition would be a much easier sell if they'd had a second election and come out with the same result, so in the circumstances where a minority government wasn't possible I'd have thought Lab-Con would prefer to do that first.

Life_ina_market_town

The effect of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 should not be exaggerated. There is nothing whatever to stop the Prime Minister of a minority government proposing the motion "[t]hat this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government", ordering his party to vote for it and waiting fourteen days, whereupon the Crown has the power by Royal Proclamation to appoint a new polling day and dissolve Parliament. The only things which could prevent this contrivance are (1) the opposition parties choosing to vote against a motion of no-confidence, or (2) the Crown unilaterally sacking its Government. Neither seem particularly likely.

It is worth remembering that to achieve an early general election via the other method set out in the Act is much more difficult. A motion that "[t]hat there shall be an early parliamentary general election" must pass, either nemine dissentiente, or on division with the support of 434 MPs.

ThomasNashe

In short we need PR.

chestnut

http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/2yocxdsyuu/InternalResults_150417_voting_Website.pdf

Includes a 'Wisdom Index' question.

36-28 Tory

Life_ina_market_town

edmundintokyo said:

First, there's no procedural problem having a new election under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. If anything it makes it clearer and easier: Nobody even has to do anything - just wait two weeks without approving anybody's Queen's Speech and Bob's Your Uncle.

Second, a lack of a majority doesn't leave you without a government. Parliament has already been dissolved, but ministers are still ministers. They can keep ministering along quite merrily until a second election.

That is not what the Act provides. Although a loss of confidence is a necessary condition for an early general election, it is not a sufficient one. The motion must be in the form set out in section 2(4) of the Act. The vote on the Queen's Speech is on an humble Address to the Crown, thanking Her Majesty for the Speech from the Throne. An address is always passed as a matter of courtesy to the Crown. It is the opposition's amendment(s) which are treated as votes of confidence. Whether an amendment of the form "but regrets that that this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government" would fall within section 2(4) is by no means clear. If the Prime Minister attempted to dissolve Parliament without the statutory formalities being met, the purported dissolution would be void and quashed by the courts.

Likewise, a rejection of a Finance, Appropriation or Consolidated Fund Bill would not trigger an early election under 2011 Act.

ydoethur

I've been saying for a while that there was value in the Grand Coalition bet, simply because of the mathematics. That said, I'm gradually coming to the view that actually, no matter what the mathematics, it won't happen. I think the Conservative membership would swallow it, reluctantly, as the price for staying in power. However, I think the Labour leadership, who are about to be given an extremely vivid demonstration by both the Liberal Democrats and the SNP of what happens when you work with a party large chunks of your voters view as somewhere below paedophiles, Satanists and officials of News International, simply will not dare.

Of course, whoever is leading the largest party always has the Salmond option of governing in a minority and seeking approval for measures on a vote by vote basis (bearing in mind that actually 90% of the work of the government does not require the support of the commons). As long as there was an understanding that no attempt would be made to turf them out by a confidence vote (that IS something I think Labour would be willing to do for a Cameron government, simply for financial reasons - Labour are flat broke and can't afford an election) they could carry on for quite a while.

ydoethur

By the way - if there are any fans of the d'Hondt system out there, may I recommend a good psychiatrist? Worst system of electing politicians ever (and that includes FPTP, AV and duelling with knives). It's the reason why Labour have stitched up the Welsh assembly to the extent they are almost unable to dip below 25 seats even if only three blokes in Merthyr and a sheep near Llandod vote for them.

OldKingCole

Mr Ydoethur, I would agree that, as you say, "the Labour leadership, who are about to be given an extremely vivid demonstration by both the Liberal Democrats of what happens when you work with a party large chunks of your voters (regard) as somewhere below paedophiles, Satanists and officials of News International, simply will not dare," but why did you include the SNP?

There’s also “race memory” of “desertion” by Labour leaders backing a cross-party coalition in peace-time.

Incidentally, where’s Vince Cable?

ydoethur

Agree I could have been clearer, OKC. My point was that the Liberal Democrats are going to be eviscerated for joining the Tories, and the SNP are about to eviscerate Labour because Labour allied with the Tories over the referendum. Same message therefore, said two different ways.

Hope that clears it up.

trublue

Dave now out to 11/10 to be PM after the GE on Betfair.

JackW

Thread Headline - "Is 2015 the year the UK becomes Belgium?"

Send for Tin Tin, Hercule Poirot and Jean-Claude Van Damme - Plucky Belgium heroes save the day.

logical_song

Edin_Rokz said:

Er! Can't see a Grand Coalition government under present party leaderships. Both parties know that such an arrangement would open the allegiances, of their respective grass root members, to question.

Too many minor parties would then be more acceptable.

If you thought the possibilities of the May election being a mess, the resulting GE after a Grand Coalition would be amazing.

It would take another couple of GE's to get a stable Government. I don't think any of the following governments would last the 5 years before collapsing under the pressures.

OK, how about different party leaders?
And if not a Grand Coalition then what?
And if not at this GE, then what about after the next which produced a similar result?
There doesn't seem to be an easy way out - except how about:
1. Agreement between the parties to introduce STV in multi-member constituencies.
2. Another General Election once that is in place.
3. Result of election gives SNP 30 seats instead of 55
4. UKIP get 30 instead of 3
5. LibDems get 50 instead of 25
6. Greens get 15 instead of 1.
6. People don't need to vote tactically so much.
7. MPs defect to the party they really support rather than the one they think will let them win.
8. More options and likelihood for a stable coalition

ydoethur

@logical_song under those circumstances probably a minimum of 3 parties would be needed for a government, which would be less stable, not more stable.

TheWatcher

asjohnstone said:

Government is over rated, Belgium got by just fine

No Government sounds ideal.

Anything that reduces the odds of thick MPs passing laws about things that they don't understand, can only be a good thing.

PeterC

Public opinion and fear of a backlash would be crucial. I suspect that the public would be very hostile to the prospect of a second election. Market reaction, which would be gruesome, would also influence politicians into ensuring that a government was formed without another election.

Monksfield

I can't help but agree that we are winding our way towards stalemate, and that some sort of PR solution is both desirable and inevitable.

Jonathan

Stronger beer and better puddings?

Innocent_Abroad

A motion in the next HoC: "the Fixed Term Parliament Act is hereby suspended sine die. Or something. Where there's a will there's a way.

logical_song

ydoethur said:

@logical_song under those circumstances probably a minimum of 3 parties would be needed for a government, which would be less stable, not more stable.

So what's your solution?
In any case the two largest parties could always form a Grand Coalition.

edmundintokyo

PeterC said:

Public opinion and fear of a backlash would be crucial. I suspect that the public would be very hostile to the prospect of a second election. Market reaction, which would be gruesome, would also influence politicians into ensuring that a government was formed without another election.

I don't see why the public would be hostile to a second election. They probably don't expect a Grand Coalition to be a thing, and if the SNP were obviously being uncooperative then English and Welsh voters probably wouldn't be mad keen on getting dicked around and buying them off with pork.

A bigger opponent would be backbench MPs, especially ones in marginal seats, who had just gone to a whole load of trouble getting reelected.

RobD

Innocent_Abroad said:

A motion in the next HoC: "the Fixed Term Parliament Act is hereby suspended sine die. Or something. Where there's a will there's a way.

There is then the tricky question of what that would actually mean. Have prerogative powers been restored to HM temporarily? If not, there wouldn't be any legal method to dissolve the Parliament. Expect a long court case on that one.

Freggles

Great thread header. Acropolis Now!
You're a little vague on why LAB SNP would break down though. Lab could always bring in a federal solution if the cowardly custard yellows were on board

Roger

I have just flicked through the last thread. Two points. The reason the audience at the last leader's debate appeared disproportionately left wing had nothing to do with how it was chosen but the human response to compassion.

The compassionate line will always get a bigger cheer than the mean spirited one however much we might think the mean spirited one is in our interest.

Thus 'I don't want foreigners bringing diseases into this country' will not get the same applause as 'Shame on you! How could you turn away sick children who through no fault of their own...." So suing the BBC is just a Farage/Dessmond fantasy.

Second point for Tyson.

The meaning of 'A PBHodge''.

Stems from the old PBian saying 'PBBurleys'. Coined by Tim to ridicule those who like Burley found the Olympic opening ceremony embassing and left wing only to discover it was universally considered the most creative and relevant of all time.

.....A PBHodge is someone who believes something is bad news for Ed/Labour when all available evidence proves the contrary.

Leading to another 'Timism' 'BPTories always wrong never learn'

logical_song

RobD said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

A motion in the next HoC: "the Fixed Term Parliament Act is hereby suspended sine die. Or something. Where there's a will there's a way.

There is then the tricky question of what that would actually mean. Have prerogative powers been restored to HM temporarily? If not, there wouldn't be any legal method to dissolve the Parliament. Expect a long court case on that one.

In some countries the military would step in 'for a limited period'.

Indigo

logical_song said:

ydoethur said:

@logical_song under those circumstances probably a minimum of 3 parties would be needed for a government, which would be less stable, not more stable.

So what's your solution?
In any case the two largest parties could always form a Grand Coalition.

I think it many ways it would be more stable, at least in the medium term. There would be a realignment on the basis of shared values rather than electoral necessity for one thing. Its what we have spoken about before. The Tory Right would merge with a more Carswellite kipper party and become the Libertarian Party, the nasty end of the kippers would reform some sort of National Front type of party along with the real far right that couldn't stand UKIP as being too wishy washy. The Orange bookers and the Cameroons would merge into a CDU type of party, the sandalistas in Labour, LDs and Greens would form the Hand Wringing Party, core Labour would continue as it is, and the hard left would reform a new communist party. Government would vary between coalitions of the CDU/Libertarians or Labour/Handwringers depending on the economy and the usual factors

Life_ina_market_town

RobD said:

There is then the tricky question of what that would actually mean. Have prerogative powers been restored to HM temporarily? If not, there wouldn't be any legal method to dissolve the Parliament. Expect a long court case on that one.

Expect a short court case. A resolution of the House of Commons is not an Act of Parliament, and unless and until the 2011 Act is repealed by a subsequent Act of Parliament, Parliament may not be dissolved save in accordance with the provisions of that Act. Any attempt by the executive to do so would be wholly void.

No one would be mad enough to try to attempt to suspend the operation of the Act, even by primary legislation, without either providing for an alternative method by which dissolution could be effected, or explicitly reviving the royal prerogative restricted by the 2011 Act.

TGOHF

Are May2015NS still discounting ICM as "an outlier"?

Innocent_Abroad

RobD said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

A motion in the next HoC: "the Fixed Term Parliament Act is hereby suspended sine die. Or something. Where there's a will there's a way.

There is then the tricky question of what that would actually mean. Have prerogative powers been restored to HM temporarily? If not, there wouldn't be any legal method to dissolve the Parliament. Expect a long court case on that one.

Why? Who would be spending good money to demand that the FTPA be enforced? The Lib Dems? UKIP?

I should've thought UDI by the SNP more likely.

Indigo

Life_ina_market_town said:

RobD said:

There is then the tricky question of what that would actually mean. Have prerogative powers been restored to HM temporarily? If not, there wouldn't be any legal method to dissolve the Parliament. Expect a long court case on that one.

Expect a short court case. A resolution of the House of Commons is not an Act of Parliament, and unless and until the 2011 Act is repealed by a subsequent Act of Parliament, Parliament may not be dissolved save in accordance with the provisions of that Act. Any attempt by the executive to do so would be wholly void.

No one would be mad enough to try to attempt to suspend the operation of the Act, even by primary legislation, without either providing for an alternative method by which dissolution could be effected, or explicitly reviving the royal prerogative restricted by the 2011 Act.

Or the government unable to govern declares a State of Emergency and makes Orders in Council to temporarily amend the 2011 Act using provisions of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.

Life_ina_market_town

Innocent_Abroad said:

Why? Who would be spending good money to demand that the FTPA be enforced? The Lib Dems? UKIP?

I should've thought UDI by the SNP more likely.

Any person with a sufficient interest in the matter, i.e any voter, could apply for an interim injunction against the Lord Chancellor restraining him from issuing the writs for the election. It would be granted within five minutes. The effect of constitutional legislation of this kind cannot be ignored by agreement of the political parties.

ydoethur

Indigo said:

There would be a realignment on the basis of shared values rather than electoral necessity for one thing...The Tory Right would merge with a more Carswellite kipper party and become the Libertarian Party, the nasty end of the kippers would reform some sort of National Front type of party along with the real far right that couldn't stand UKIP as being too wishy washy. The Orange bookers and the Cameroons would merge into a CDU type of party, the sandalistas in Labour, LDs and Greens would form the Hand Wringing Party, core Labour would continue as it is, and the hard left would reform a new communist party. Government would vary between coalitions of the CDU/Libertarians or Labour/Handwringers depending on the economy and the usual factors

That's not what happens under PR though. Under PR the parties fragment because they can appeal directly to a niche vote that way, and they have no need to merge with others to appeal to that vote or to win seats. To be sure, you may still get broad 'coalitions' appearing under nominal alliances, but generally you get more horse-trading and less likelihood of stitching enough MPs together for a workable majority. That means you generally get more instability, not less.

Britain has survived multi-party politics before, in the 19th century, but in the end it started moving away from multi-member constituencies and multiple voting (a crude form of PR) precisely because it discouraged stability. The reform acts of 1867 and 1885 were designed to make it easier for one party to win an outright majority. It might have worked but for the Irish Nationalists, who always had a large enough block of MPs to turf out a government when they wished (with the exceptions of 1900 and 1906).

Freggles

Since the SNP are here in force the only patriotic thing to do is vote Labour, to avoid the chaos

Innocent_Abroad

Indigo said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

RobD said:

There is then the tricky question of what that would actually mean. Have prerogative powers been restored to HM temporarily? If not, there wouldn't be any legal method to dissolve the Parliament. Expect a long court case on that one.

Expect a short court case. A resolution of the House of Commons is not an Act of Parliament, and unless and until the 2011 Act is repealed by a subsequent Act of Parliament, Parliament may not be dissolved save in accordance with the provisions of that Act. Any attempt by the executive to do so would be wholly void.

No one would be mad enough to try to attempt to suspend the operation of the Act, even by primary legislation, without either providing for an alternative method by which dissolution could be effected, or explicitly reviving the royal prerogative restricted by the 2011 Act.

Or the government unable to govern declares a State of Emergency and makes Orders in Council to temporarily amend the 2011 Act using provisions of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.

Thank you. I take it the relevant provisions of the CCA 2004 are substantially re-enactments of earlier legislation.

Quite what Life In A Market Town is getting at escapes me completely.

Indigo

ydoethur said:

Indigo said:

There would be a realignment on the basis of shared values rather than electoral necessity for one thing...The Tory Right would merge with a more Carswellite kipper party and become the Libertarian Party, the nasty end of the kippers would reform some sort of National Front type of party along with the real far right that couldn't stand UKIP as being too wishy washy. The Orange bookers and the Cameroons would merge into a CDU type of party, the sandalistas in Labour, LDs and Greens would form the Hand Wringing Party, core Labour would continue as it is, and the hard left would reform a new communist party. Government would vary between coalitions of the CDU/Libertarians or Labour/Handwringers depending on the economy and the usual factors

That's not what happens under PR though. Under PR the parties fragment because they can appeal directly to a niche vote that way, and they have no need to merge with others to appeal to that vote or to win seats. To be sure, you may still get broad 'coalitions' appearing under nominal alliances, but generally you get more horse-trading and less likelihood of stitching enough MPs together for a workable majority. That means you generally get more instability, not less.

Britain has survived multi-party politics before, in the 19th century, but in the end it started moving away from multi-member constituencies and multiple voting (a crude form of PR) precisely because it discouraged stability. The reform acts of 1867 and 1885 were designed to make it easier for one party to win an outright majority. It might have worked but for the Irish Nationalists, who always had a large enough block of MPs to turf out a government when they wished (with the exceptions of 1900 and 1906).

German has a mixed member PR system, and yet the Bundestag is effectively controlled by five parties currently with 33,23,15,11 and 10% of the vote, doesn't sound that different to here.

Jonathan

Has there ever been a more backward looking election campaign devoid of new ideas?

The Tories are rehashing Thatcher's greatest hits, like a second rate tribute band.
UKIP, the On the Buses party, want a return to life before Ted Heath
Meanwhile Labour still keep talking about 1945 and 1997.

Worst of all the SNP want a return to the 17th century

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Very much looking forward to the race today. It's intriguingly poised.

My pre-race rambling, including a couple of tips, and a few thoughts in the comments by Mr. M [who has a considerably better record than me so far this season] is here:
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/bahrain-pre-race.html

Mr. Doethur, spot on. PR takes power from the people and gives it to parties.

Life_ina_market_town

Indigo said:

Or the government unable to govern declares a State of Emergency and makes Orders in Council to temporarily amend the 2011 Act using provisions of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.

A fantastical suggestion which would never see the light of day.

malcolmg

Freggles said:

Great thread header. Acropolis Now!
You're a little vague on why LAB SNP would break down though. Lab could always bring in a federal solution if the cowardly custard yellows were on board

His personal bias causes him to think that.

foxinsoxuk

On Grexit causing our GDP to collapse 10%; who has said that? It seems really quite implausible to me. I cannot see it affecting anyone but the Greeks themselves to that degree.

I forecast a minority govt, getting by on a vote by vote basis. It worked quite well for Scotland with the SCUP even voting with Salmond at times.

malcolmg

Freggles said:

Since the SNP are here in force the only patriotic thing to do is vote Labour, to avoid the chaos

How very unionist, anything but democracy.

JohnLilburne

asjohnstone said:

Government is over rated, Belgium got by just fine

Belgium is a federal state. Most government functions are carried out by the regions of Flanders, Wallonia and Brussels or the Dutch, French or German language communities. There was a caretaker government in existence that, presumably, kept remaining national government functions ticking along. In similar circumstances here England would be ungoverned and we have no tradition of caretaker governments.

Indigo

Life_ina_market_town said:

Indigo said:

Or the government unable to govern declares a State of Emergency and makes Orders in Council to temporarily amend the 2011 Act using provisions of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.

A fantastical suggestion which would never see the light of day.

Possibly, although I am suspicious of including clauses like

22.2.(k) protecting or restoring activities of Parliament, of the Scottish Parliament, of the Northern Ireland Assembly or of the National Assembly for Wales, or

without having the expectation of needing them

Dair

Itwasrigged said:

MikeL said:

MP_SE said:

isam said:

MP_SE said:

UKIP has had enough of the BBC's bias and has called in the lawyers.

Front page of tomorrow's Express:

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/589529561412546561

I'm not sure about this argument... From what I can work out, if the audience were to be reflective of the participants it should have been overwhelmingly left wing shouldn't it? And it was

I think the issue is with Dimbleby's statement that “This is an audience that has been carefully chosen not by the BBC, but by an independent polling organisation to represent the balance between all parties.”

It subsequently came to light that the left wing political parties were overrepresented with a ratio of 2:1.

No. The ratio was:

Con 5
Lab 5
LD 4
UKIP 3
SNP 2
Green 2
PC 1

The accusation arose from someone deciding to define the LDs as left-wing. It's not for anyone to define the LDs as anything - they are a party entitled to be represented appropriately whatever wing people think they are.

The ratio was entirely reasonable given the last GE, polls and Ofcom ruling.

So that is 17 to 5 in favour of right wing Parties

Yes, it s farcical how biased the audience was against Nicola but she still managed to persuade people of her cause. Absolutely phenomenal politics. If you watched the post-debate show, you would have seen that even a Kipper was persuaded by Nicola.

The objection from UKIP isn't that there wasn't enough right wing supporters - as clearly there was a 17:5 ratio of right wing supporters. Their complaint is that there wasn't enough race hate fascists, which clearly is a problem for them.

If you watch the audience cuts of the debate, you see that when there is applause for a point it is not universal. Farage problem was that he couldn't get a response from even his own supporters, such was the weak and insipid level of his arguments.

TheScreamingEagles

Freggles said:

Great thread header. Acropolis Now!
You're a little vague on why LAB SNP would break down though. Lab could always bring in a federal solution if the cowardly custard yellows were on board

1) If it is perceived that the Government is favouring Scotland over England & Wales, I'd expect Labour MPs to be revolting

2) Secondly, I had read somewhere that one of the SNP demands for a coalition would be the power to call and managed any future Indyrefs would be devolved to Edinburgh. Labour would be silly agree to that (and wouldn't agree to that)

malcolmg

foxinsoxuk said:

On Grexit causing our GDP to collapse 10%; who has said that? It seems really quite implausible to me. I cannot see it affecting anyone but the Greeks themselves to that degree.

I forecast a minority govt, getting by on a vote by vote basis. It worked quite well for Scotland with the SCUP even voting with Salmond at times.

good result for your team yesterday Fox, and a good tip I should have listened to it.

JohnLilburne

Indigo said:

ydoethur said:

Indigo said:

There would be a realignment on the basis of shared values rather than electoral necessity for one thing...The Tory Right would merge with a more Carswellite kipper party and become the Libertarian Party, the nasty end of the kippers would reform some sort of National Front type of party along with the real far right that couldn't stand UKIP as being too wishy washy. The Orange bookers and the Cameroons would merge into a CDU type of party, the sandalistas in Labour, LDs and Greens would form the Hand Wringing Party, core Labour would continue as it is, and the hard left would reform a new communist party. Government would vary between coalitions of the CDU/Libertarians or Labour/Handwringers depending on the economy and the usual factors

That's not what happens under PR though. Under PR the parties fragment because they can appeal directly to a niche vote that way, and they have no need to merge with others to appeal to that vote or to win seats. To be sure, you may still get broad 'coalitions' appearing under nominal alliances, but generally you get more horse-trading and less likelihood of stitching enough MPs together for a workable majority. That means you generally get more instability, not less.

Britain has survived multi-party politics before, in the 19th century, but in the end it started moving away from multi-member constituencies and multiple voting (a crude form of PR) precisely because it discouraged stability. The reform acts of 1867 and 1885 were designed to make it easier for one party to win an outright majority. It might have worked but for the Irish Nationalists, who always had a large enough block of MPs to turf out a government when they wished (with the exceptions of 1900 and 1906).

German has a mixed member PR system, and yet the Bundestag is effectively controlled by five parties currently with 33,23,15,11 and 10% of the vote, doesn't sound that different to here.

Ireland has PR with the electoral system that is proposed here, parties haven't fragmented there either.

malcolmg

TheScreamingEagles said:

Freggles said:

Great thread header. Acropolis Now!
You're a little vague on why LAB SNP would break down though. Lab could always bring in a federal solution if the cowardly custard yellows were on board

1) If it is perceived that the Government is favouring Scotland over England & Wales, I'd expect Labour MPs to be revolting

2) Secondly, I had read somewhere that one of the SNP demands for a coalition would be the power to call and managed any future Indyrefs would be devolved to Edinburgh. Labour would be silly agree to that (and wouldn't agree to that)

It is coming with or without Labour, the people will not be scared a second time.

Indigo

Dair said:

If you watch the audience cuts of the debate, you see that when there is applause for a point it is not universal. Farage problem was that he couldn't get a response from even his own supporters, such was the weak and insipid level of his arguments.

His problem is it was an almost entirely metropolitan audience, and kipperism doesn't sell well in the big cities. There would have been no suburban WWC to speak of there, no one from council estates affected by RTB, no one from the shires, no one from northern suburbs, and no one from heavy industry. The lefties that were there will have been the sort of lefties that apply for tickets to political events, that is guardianistas and media types.

edmundintokyo

JohnLilburne said:

Indigo said:

ydoethur said:

Indigo said:

There would be a realignment on the basis of shared values rather than electoral necessity for one thing...The Tory Right would merge with a more Carswellite kipper party and become the Libertarian Party, the nasty end of the kippers would reform some sort of National Front type of party along with the real far right that couldn't stand UKIP as being too wishy washy. The Orange bookers and the Cameroons would merge into a CDU type of party, the sandalistas in Labour, LDs and Greens would form the Hand Wringing Party, core Labour would continue as it is, and the hard left would reform a new communist party. Government would vary between coalitions of the CDU/Libertarians or Labour/Handwringers depending on the economy and the usual factors

That's not what happens under PR though. Under PR the parties fragment because they can appeal directly to a niche vote that way, and they have no need to merge with others to appeal to that vote or to win seats. To be sure, you may still get broad 'coalitions' appearing under nominal alliances, but generally you get more horse-trading and less likelihood of stitching enough MPs together for a workable majority. That means you generally get more instability, not less.

Britain has survived multi-party politics before, in the 19th century, but in the end it started moving away from multi-member constituencies and multiple voting (a crude form of PR) precisely because it discouraged stability. The reform acts of 1867 and 1885 were designed to make it easier for one party to win an outright majority. It might have worked but for the Irish Nationalists, who always had a large enough block of MPs to turf out a government when they wished (with the exceptions of 1900 and 1906).

German has a mixed member PR system, and yet the Bundestag is effectively controlled by five parties currently with 33,23,15,11 and 10% of the vote, doesn't sound that different to here.

Ireland has PR with the electoral system that is proposed here, parties haven't fragmented there either.

I doubt Lab and Con will want to drastic constitutional changes in a hurry. The responsible thing would be to introduce PR for Westminster elections but only for Scotland, then see how they got on. If that seemed to be working well, they could extend it to Northern Ireland...

Alanbrooke

Jonathan said:

Has there ever been a more backward looking election campaign devoid of new ideas?

The Tories are rehashing Thatcher's greatest hits, like a second rate tribute band.
UKIP, the On the Buses party, want a return to life before Ted Heath
Meanwhile Labour still keep talking about 1945 and 1997.

Worst of all the SNP want a return to the 17th century

Have to agree with that Jonathan, this has to be one of the most dire campaigns in living memory.

All the policiy initiatives are at the margins peanuts as they are all scared of making a mistake. Name calling and scare mongering is the daily fare and nobody knows what any of the parties intend to do.

This is what politcs looks like when there are no convictions behind it.

TGOHF

malcolmg said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Freggles said:

Great thread header. Acropolis Now!
You're a little vague on why LAB SNP would break down though. Lab could always bring in a federal solution if the cowardly custard yellows were on board

1) If it is perceived that the Government is favouring Scotland over England & Wales, I'd expect Labour MPs to be revolting

2) Secondly, I had read somewhere that one of the SNP demands for a coalition would be the power to call and managed any future Indyrefs would be devolved to Edinburgh. Labour would be silly agree to that (and wouldn't agree to that)

It is coming with or without Labour, the people will not be scared a second time.

Talking down the Scottish voters malc ? Scared ? Lol.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Eagles, worth recalling Miliband's psychological position. Given his claiming the leadership ended his brother's political career and appears to have caused lasting damage to their relationship, he'll be desperate [even more so than a man would usually be] to be PM, because otherwise he caused all that heartache only to fail.

I also believe Miliband's a naive leftwing fool, which won't help him.

JohnLilburne

Itwasrigged said:

MikeL said:

MP_SE said:

isam said:

MP_SE said:

UKIP has had enough of the BBC's bias and has called in the lawyers.

Front page of tomorrow's Express:

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/589529561412546561

I'm not sure about this argument... From what I can work out, if the audience were to be reflective of the participants it should have been overwhelmingly left wing shouldn't it? And it was

I think the issue is with Dimbleby's statement that “This is an audience that has been carefully chosen not by the BBC, but by an independent polling organisation to represent the balance between all parties.”

It subsequently came to light that the left wing political parties were overrepresented with a ratio of 2:1.

No. The ratio was:

Con 5
Lab 5
LD 4
UKIP 3
SNP 2
Green 2
PC 1

The accusation arose from someone deciding to define the LDs as left-wing. It's not for anyone to define the LDs as anything - they are a party entitled to be represented appropriately whatever wing people think they are.

The ratio was entirely reasonable given the last GE, polls and Ofcom ruling.

So that is 17 to 5 in favour of right wing Parties

SNP, PC, Greens clearly over-represented, they don't have 25% of the vote between them.

Innocent_Abroad

Life_ina_market_town said:

Indigo said:

Or the government unable to govern declares a State of Emergency and makes Orders in Council to temporarily amend the 2011 Act using provisions of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.

A fantastical suggestion which would never see the light of day.

I repeat: what are you aiming at? Do you see yourself as some kind of latter-day McWhirter twin?

I take it you wholeheartedly reject the notion that the law was made for man, not man for the law.

Indigo

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, worth recalling Miliband's psychological position. Given his claiming the leadership ended his brother's political career and appears to have caused lasting damage to their relationship, he'll be desperate [even more so than a man would usually be] to be PM, because otherwise he caused all that heartache only to fail.

I also believe Miliband's a naive leftwing fool, which won't help him.

Interesting that his desperation to get into No10 might land him with a place in posterity as the man that buried the union, rendered his party unelectable for a generation and even managed the spectacular and scarcely believable feat of being a worse PM than Gordon Brown.

Alanbrooke

malcolmg said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Freggles said:

Great thread header. Acropolis Now!
You're a little vague on why LAB SNP would break down though. Lab could always bring in a federal solution if the cowardly custard yellows were on board

1) If it is perceived that the Government is favouring Scotland over England & Wales, I'd expect Labour MPs to be revolting

2) Secondly, I had read somewhere that one of the SNP demands for a coalition would be the power to call and managed any future Indyrefs would be devolved to Edinburgh. Labour would be silly agree to that (and wouldn't agree to that)

It is coming with or without Labour, the people will not be scared a second time.

I don't think the Scots will be scared into Indy as much as bored shitless by Sturgeon. Will it be a 17 year referendum campaign next time ?

Moses_

PeterC said:

Public opinion and fear of a backlash would be crucial. I suspect that the public would be very hostile to the prospect of a second election. Market reaction, which would be gruesome, would also influence politicians into ensuring that a government was formed without another election.

Lots of if's here but if Tories formed a minority government having most seats and were constantly scuppered by Labour and SNP then they would go for second election in Autumn. The parties that caused this would be punished at the polls. So if Tories bring forward legislation they know will be rejected it forces the position.

Of course Tories could simply say at the start they cannot form a government and either force a second election they know Labour cannot afford or simply get punished by the electorate for doing so.

If they form grand alliances then to all intents and propose this would be PR so we might as well have it. The SNP will never work with Tories and I suspect a large number of Labour would not either. I doubt strong enough alliances could be formed.

Alternatively remove the royal family , declare a republic, recall Napoleon and say all is forgiven and wait for UKIP to win a landslide the following year after a re-enactment of the battle of Waterloo.

It's going to be a quagmire whatever happens now.

TheScreamingEagles

foxinsoxuk said:

On Grexit causing our GDP to collapse 10%; who has said that? It seems really quite implausible to me. I cannot see it affecting anyone but the Greeks themselves to that degree.

I forecast a minority govt, getting by on a vote by vote basis. It worked quite well for Scotland with the SCUP even voting with Salmond at times.

I'll try and dig it out, I think it was a 3% immediate fall, and then if it was a particularly disorderly exit, the contagion would spread to the Eurozone, and given our trade with the Eurozone countries, we'd experience a secondary hit.

malcolmg

TGOHF said:

malcolmg said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Freggles said:

Great thread header. Acropolis Now!
You're a little vague on why LAB SNP would break down though. Lab could always bring in a federal solution if the cowardly custard yellows were on board

1) If it is perceived that the Government is favouring Scotland over England & Wales, I'd expect Labour MPs to be revolting

2) Secondly, I had read somewhere that one of the SNP demands for a coalition would be the power to call and managed any future Indyrefs would be devolved to Edinburgh. Labour would be silly agree to that (and wouldn't agree to that)

It is coming with or without Labour, the people will not be scared a second time.

Talking down the Scottish voters malc ? Scared ? Lol.

Harry, even the fearties will get enough backbone to vote YES next time.

TheScreamingEagles

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, worth recalling Miliband's psychological position. Given his claiming the leadership ended his brother's political career and appears to have caused lasting damage to their relationship, he'll be desperate [even more so than a man would usually be] to be PM, because otherwise he caused all that heartache only to fail.

I also believe Miliband's a naive leftwing fool, which won't help him.

Maybe, I hope you appreciated the Honorius reference.

DavidL

The key steps in the next Parliament are EVEL and boundary reform. If the Tories can get the first through we could easily have a UK minority government able to legislate on most things that affect more than 85% of the population.

If we get the second then a new election on "fair" boundaries becomes a lot more tempting and a minority Tory government will find ways to contrive that.

Labour of course won't want either of these things so if they have the plurality we will have a Labour SNP understanding which will probably operate as effectively as Labour governments usually do.

ukelect

ydoethur said:

By the way - if there are any fans of the d'Hondt system out there, may I recommend a good psychiatrist? Worst system of electing politicians ever (and that includes FPTP, AV and duelling with knives). It's the reason why Labour have stitched up the Welsh assembly to the extent they are almost unable to dip below 25 seats even if only three blokes in Merthyr and a sheep near Llandod vote for them.

Not sure that I'm a fan of d'Hondt - it certainly does have its oddities, and the exact vote calculations can somewhat favour larger parties - but without a system like it Scotland (and Wales) would be very different places politically now.

As for Labour stitching up the Welsh Assembly because of d'Hondt, under FPTP they would generally have a huge majority. My latest Welsh Assembly forecast is here UK-Elect Welsh Assembly Forecast which shows Labour failing to achieve a majority.

Indigo

TheScreamingEagles said:

foxinsoxuk said:

On Grexit causing our GDP to collapse 10%; who has said that? It seems really quite implausible to me. I cannot see it affecting anyone but the Greeks themselves to that degree.

I forecast a minority govt, getting by on a vote by vote basis. It worked quite well for Scotland with the SCUP even voting with Salmond at times.

I'll try and dig it out, I think it was a 3% immediate fall, and then if it was a particularly disorderly exit, the contagion would spread to the Eurozone, and given our trade with the Eurozone countries, we'd experience a secondary hit.

Target2 is not our friend, its going to hit for Germans for ridiculous amounts if GrExit happens.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/11421500/ECB-risks-crippling-political-damage-if-Greece-forced-to-default.html

Hans-Werner Sinn, from Munich's IFO Institute, has become a cult figure in the German press with Gothic warnings that Target2 is a "secret bailout" for the debtor countries, leaving the Bundesbank and German taxpayers on the hook for staggering sums. Great efforts have made to discredit him. His vindication would be doubly powerful.

An identical debate is raging in Holland and Finland. Yet the figures for Germany dwarf the rest. The Target2 claims of the Bundesbank on the ECB system have jumped from €443bn in July to €515bn as of January 31. Most of this is due to capital outflows from Greek banks into German banks, either through direct transfers or indirectly through Switzerland, Cyprus and Britain.

Grexit would detonate the system. "The risks would suddenly become a reality and create a political storm in Germany," said Eric Dor, from the IESEG business school in Lille. "That is the moment when the Bundestag would start to question the whole project of the euro. The risks are huge," he said.

Tabman

logical_song said:

Edin_Rokz said:

Er! Can't see a Grand Coalition government under present party leaderships. Both parties know that such an arrangement would open the allegiances, of their respective grass root members, to question.

Too many minor parties would then be more acceptable.

If you thought the possibilities of the May election being a mess, the resulting GE after a Grand Coalition would be amazing.

It would take another couple of GE's to get a stable Government. I don't think any of the following governments would last the 5 years before collapsing under the pressures.

OK, how about different party leaders?
And if not a Grand Coalition then what?
And if not at this GE, then what about after the next which produced a similar result?
There doesn't seem to be an easy way out - except how about:
1. Agreement between the parties to introduce STV in multi-member constituencies.
2. Another General Election once that is in place.
3. Result of election gives SNP 30 seats instead of 55
4. UKIP get 30 instead of 3
5. LibDems get 50 instead of 25
6. Greens get 15 instead of 1.
6. People don't need to vote tactically so much.
7. MPs defect to the party they really support rather than the one they think will let them win.
8. More options and likelihood for a stable coalition

I'd vote for that.

Freggles

malcolmg said:

Freggles said:

Since the SNP are here in force the only patriotic thing to do is vote Labour, to avoid the chaos

How very unionist, anything but democracy.

Happy for you to go your own way but having Scottish MPs voting on English matters will quickly become untenable. Better a balanced federal solution than a Tory half measure

Sandpit

Alanbrooke said:

This is what politics looks like when there are no convictions behind it.

Except for fiddling their own expenses!

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Eagles, I missed it. [I'm incredibly sleepy. Slept horrendously].

It's a very nice reference. Under that scenario, the Coalition/Cameron must be Stilicho.

Tabman

JohnLilburne said:

Indigo said:

ydoethur said:

Indigo said:

There would be a realignment on the basis of shared values rather than electoral necessity for one thing...The Tory Right would merge with a more Carswellite kipper party and become the Libertarian Party, the nasty end of the kippers would reform some sort of National Front type of party along with the real far right that couldn't stand UKIP as being too wishy washy. The Orange bookers and the Cameroons would merge into a CDU type of party, the sandalistas in Labour, LDs and Greens would form the Hand Wringing Party, core Labour would continue as it is, and the hard left would reform a new communist party. Government would vary between coalitions of the CDU/Libertarians or Labour/Handwringers depending on the economy and the usual factors

That's not what happens under PR though. Under PR the parties fragment because they can appeal directly to a niche vote that way, and they have no need to merge with others to appeal to that vote or to win seats. To be sure, you may still get broad 'coalitions' appearing under nominal alliances, but generally you get more horse-trading and less likelihood of stitching enough MPs together for a workable majority. That means you generally get more instability, not less.

Britain has survived multi-party politics before, in the 19th century, but in the end it started moving away from multi-member constituencies and multiple voting (a crude form of PR) precisely because it discouraged stability. The reform acts of 1867 and 1885 were designed to make it easier for one party to win an outright majority. It might have worked but for the Irish Nationalists, who always had a large enough block of MPs to turf out a government when they wished (with the exceptions of 1900 and 1906).

German has a mixed member PR system, and yet the Bundestag is effectively controlled by five parties currently with 33,23,15,11 and 10% of the vote, doesn't sound that different to here.

Ireland has PR with the electoral system that is proposed here, parties haven't fragmented there either.

How many members per constituency in Ireland?

Alanbrooke

DavidL said:

The key steps in the next Parliament are EVEL and boundary reform. If the Tories can get the first through we could easily have a UK minority government able to legislate on most things that affect more than 85% of the population.

If we get the second then a new election on "fair" boundaries becomes a lot more tempting and a minority Tory government will find ways to contrive that.

Labour of course won't want either of these things so if they have the plurality we will have a Labour SNP understanding which will probably operate as effectively as Labour governments usually do.

Labour need to keep the electoral system in its gerrymandered form, but this gets harder as time progresses and the population shifts in to blue voting areas.

JohnLilburne

Tabman said:

JohnLilburne said:

Indigo said:

ydoethur said:

Indigo said:

There would be a realignment on the basis of shared values rather than electoral necessity for one thing...The Tory Right would merge with a more Carswellite kipper party and become the Libertarian Party, the nasty end of the kippers would reform some sort of National Front type of party along with the real far right that couldn't stand UKIP as being too wishy washy. The Orange bookers and the Cameroons would merge into a CDU type of party, the sandalistas in Labour, LDs and Greens would form the Hand Wringing Party, core Labour would continue as it is, and the hard left would reform a new communist party. Government would vary between coalitions of the CDU/Libertarians or Labour/Handwringers depending on the economy and the usual factors

That's not what happens under PR though. Under PR the parties fragment because they can appeal directly to a niche vote that way, and they have no need to merge with others to appeal to that vote or to win seats. To be sure, you may still get broad 'coalitions' appearing under nominal alliances, but generally you get more horse-trading and less likelihood of stitching enough MPs together for a workable majority. That means you generally get more instability, not less.

Britain has survived multi-party politics before, in the 19th century, but in the end it started moving away from multi-member constituencies and multiple voting (a crude form of PR) precisely because it discouraged stability. The reform acts of 1867 and 1885 were designed to make it easier for one party to win an outright majority. It might have worked but for the Irish Nationalists, who always had a large enough block of MPs to turf out a government when they wished (with the exceptions of 1900 and 1906).

German has a mixed member PR system, and yet the Bundestag is effectively controlled by five parties currently with 33,23,15,11 and 10% of the vote, doesn't sound that different to here.

Ireland has PR with the electoral system that is proposed here, parties haven't fragmented there either.

How many members per constituency in Ireland?

Three to five, I think

Dair

Becoming Belgium would be utterly terrible.

Nasty, Inedible chocolate is not the way forward.

Moses_

DavidL said:

The key steps in the next Parliament are EVEL and boundary reform. If the Tories can get the first through we could easily have a UK minority government able to legislate on most things that affect more than 85% of the population.

If we get the second then a new election on "fair" boundaries becomes a lot more tempting and a minority Tory government will find ways to contrive that.

Labour of course won't want either of these things so if they have the plurality we will have a Labour SNP understanding which will probably operate as effectively as Labour governments usually do.

Haven't Labour resurrected their regional assemblies idea again just recently? With SNP support to pass this that could throw another issue into the mix? Would they still need to go to the public for a vote on acceptance though given last time they did and it was rejected.

logical_song

Tabman said:

JohnLilburne said:

Indigo said:

ydoethur said:

Indigo said:

There would be a realignment on the basis of shared values rather than electoral necessity for one thing...The Tory Right would merge with a more Carswellite kipper party and become the Libertarian Party, the nasty end of the kippers would reform some sort of National Front type of party along with the real far right that couldn't stand UKIP as being too wishy washy. The Orange bookers and the Cameroons would merge into a CDU type of party, the sandalistas in Labour, LDs and Greens would form the Hand Wringing Party, core Labour would continue as it is, and the hard left would reform a new communist party. Government would vary between coalitions of the CDU/Libertarians or Labour/Handwringers depending on the economy and the usual factors

That's not what happens under PR though. Under PR the parties fragment because they can appeal directly to a niche vote that way, and they have no need to merge with others to appeal to that vote or to win seats. To be sure, you may still get broad 'coalitions' appearing under nominal alliances, but generally you get more horse-trading and less likelihood of stitching enough MPs together for a workable majority. That means you generally get more instability, not less.

Britain has survived multi-party politics before, in the 19th century, but in the end it started moving away from multi-member constituencies and multiple voting (a crude form of PR) precisely because it discouraged stability. The reform acts of 1867 and 1885 were designed to make it easier for one party to win an outright majority. It might have worked but for the Irish Nationalists, who always had a large enough block of MPs to turf out a government when they wished (with the exceptions of 1900 and 1906).

German has a mixed member PR system, and yet the Bundestag is effectively controlled by five parties currently with 33,23,15,11 and 10% of the vote, doesn't sound that different to here.

Ireland has PR with the electoral system that is proposed here, parties haven't fragmented there either.

How many members per constituency in Ireland?

Good question. I looked it up and it seems that they vary, from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_general_election,_2011
" The general election took place in 43 parliamentary constituencies throughout the state for 165 of the 166 Dáil Éireann seats".
It looks like an average just under 4.

IOS

Given that the main parties are going to refuse to give Scotland another vote because the issue has been "settled for a generation." I would be amazed if they voted through a change to the voting system only 5 years later!

In fact if Ed does become PM and can in anyway govern I expect him to try and keep hold of FPTP so he can - in theory - say in power by re routing the SNP in 2019.

TGOHF

malcolmg said:

TGOHF said:

malcolmg said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Freggles said:

Great thread header. Acropolis Now!
You're a little vague on why LAB SNP would break down though. Lab could always bring in a federal solution if the cowardly custard yellows were on board

1) If it is perceived that the Government is favouring Scotland over England & Wales, I'd expect Labour MPs to be revolting

2) Secondly, I had read somewhere that one of the SNP demands for a coalition would be the power to call and managed any future Indyrefs would be devolved to Edinburgh. Labour would be silly agree to that (and wouldn't agree to that)

It is coming with or without Labour, the people will not be scared a second time.

Talking down the Scottish voters malc ? Scared ? Lol.

Harry, even the fearties will get enough backbone to vote YES next time.

Why would they vote for rising unemployment and more Puritan fiddling ?

logical_song

DavidL said:

The key steps in the next Parliament are EVEL and boundary reform. If the Tories can get the first through we could easily have a UK minority government able to legislate on most things that affect more than 85% of the population.

If we get the second then a new election on "fair" boundaries becomes a lot more tempting and a minority Tory government will find ways to contrive that.

Labour of course won't want either of these things so if they have the plurality we will have a Labour SNP understanding which will probably operate as effectively as Labour governments usually do.

How likely is that in a 'well hung' parliament?

foxinsoxuk

malcolmg said:

foxinsoxuk said:

On Grexit causing our GDP to collapse 10%; who has said that? It seems really quite implausible to me. I cannot see it affecting anyone but the Greeks themselves to that degree.

I forecast a minority govt, getting by on a vote by vote basis. It worked quite well for Scotland with the SCUP even voting with Salmond at times.

good result for your team yesterday Fox, and a good tip I should have listened to it.

It was a great match. More commitment than skill from Leicester (we missed several sitters) but the desire is there. It is going to be a real six pointer next week at Burnley. They need to win, not just for the three points but also to keep us in it. A draw would probably be OK for us but doom them. Sorry Mike!

I did tip Swansea though! I am going for the rogerdamus crown...

malcolmg

Alanbrooke said:

malcolmg said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Freggles said:

Great thread header. Acropolis Now!
You're a little vague on why LAB SNP would break down though. Lab could always bring in a federal solution if the cowardly custard yellows were on board

1) If it is perceived that the Government is favouring Scotland over England & Wales, I'd expect Labour MPs to be revolting

2) Secondly, I had read somewhere that one of the SNP demands for a coalition would be the power to call and managed any future Indyrefs would be devolved to Edinburgh. Labour would be silly agree to that (and wouldn't agree to that)

It is coming with or without Labour, the people will not be scared a second time.

I don't think the Scots will be scared into Indy as much as bored shitless by Sturgeon. Will it be a 17 year referendum campaign next time ?

Need to be shorter than that for me Alan, I want to see it happen.

surbiton

TheScreamingEagles said:

foxinsoxuk said:

On Grexit causing our GDP to collapse 10%; who has said that? It seems really quite implausible to me. I cannot see it affecting anyone but the Greeks themselves to that degree.

I forecast a minority govt, getting by on a vote by vote basis. It worked quite well for Scotland with the SCUP even voting with Salmond at times.

I'll try and dig it out, I think it was a 3% immediate fall, and then if it was a particularly disorderly exit, the contagion would spread to the Eurozone, and given our trade with the Eurozone countries, we'd experience a secondary hit.

Greek GDP is about 1% of EU GDP. Yes, the banks would need to be shored up - again !

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Dair, chocolate truffles are delightful, and they have an excellent F1 circuit.

Mr. Moses, carving up England and imposing ****ing regional assemblies which had been rejected by the English electorate, and doing so with support from an entirely Scottish party with the avowed aim of ending the United Kingdom, would be bloody despicable.

Would Labour try it? We'll see how the numbers stack up.

malcolmg

TGOHF said:

malcolmg said:

TGOHF said:

malcolmg said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Freggles said:

Great thread header. Acropolis Now!
You're a little vague on why LAB SNP would break down though. Lab could always bring in a federal solution if the cowardly custard yellows were on board

1) If it is perceived that the Government is favouring Scotland over England & Wales, I'd expect Labour MPs to be revolting

2) Secondly, I had read somewhere that one of the SNP demands for a coalition would be the power to call and managed any future Indyrefs would be devolved to Edinburgh. Labour would be silly agree to that (and wouldn't agree to that)

It is coming with or without Labour, the people will not be scared a second time.

Talking down the Scottish voters malc ? Scared ? Lol.

Harry, even the fearties will get enough backbone to vote YES next time.

Why would they vote for rising unemployment and more Puritan fiddling ?

I do not believe they are campaigning to make everyone unemployed, also fiddling is a Westminster predeliction.
When you can make decisions that suit local conditions rather than London then you are likely to see different results.

notme

Indigo said:

Dair said:

If you watch the audience cuts of the debate, you see that when there is applause for a point it is not universal. Farage problem was that he couldn't get a response from even his own supporters, such was the weak and insipid level of his arguments.

His problem is it was an almost entirely metropolitan audience, and kipperism doesn't sell well in the big cities. There would have been no suburban WWC to speak of there, no one from council estates affected by RTB, no one from the shires, no one from northern suburbs, and no one from heavy industry. The lefties that were there will have been the sort of lefties that apply for tickets to political events, that is guardianistas and media types.

Its a self reinforcing position, which ironically the kind of thing they have, in the name of equality and diversity preached to avoid.

I was listening to a conversation on radio 5 the other day, it had some people who were responsible for political posters in the past. One of them was talking about a conversation that took place with Michael Foot, who right up to the election was convinced he was going to win. How, he couldnt understand how he would lose, everyone at the labour club in his constituency was in agreement with him, and at the rallies he goes to people are always very supportive.

Oliver

People are way too fixed on majorities. A minority Conservative government is surely the most likely outcome, a grand coalition one of the least likely.

I believe a minority of Conservatives could pass a (moderate) budget given Labour 's desire to be seen as a responsible party. The same goes for the Queen's speech.

Plus MPs don't vote for elections any more than turkeys vote for Christmas.

malcolmg

Dair said:

Becoming Belgium would be utterly terrible.

Nasty, Inedible chocolate is not the way forward.

good chips though

RochdalePioneers

There is no possibility of us being left without a government. If there is no alternative obvious then regardless of deals being or not being done the current government continues.

But I don't think it will come to that. There will be a left block and a right block in the Commons. The left block won't fragment to bring in the right block (so Sturgeon has no effective veto to threaten Milliband with) so we will have stability even if its a rainbow coalition.

As for legitimacy its very simple. If that's what the electorate vote for, its legitimate.

malcolmg

Freggles said:

malcolmg said:

Freggles said:

Since the SNP are here in force the only patriotic thing to do is vote Labour, to avoid the chaos

How very unionist, anything but democracy.

Happy for you to go your own way but having Scottish MPs voting on English matters will quickly become untenable. Better a balanced federal solution than a Tory half measure

I agree , but chances of the London parties implementing a real federal solution are NIL They would rather break up the UK.

Dair

JohnLilburne said:

Itwasrigged said:

MikeL said:

MP_SE said:

isam said:

MP_SE said:

UKIP has had enough of the BBC's bias and has called in the lawyers.

Front page of tomorrow's Express:

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/589529561412546561

I'm not sure about this argument... From what I can work out, if the audience were to be reflective of the participants it should have been overwhelmingly left wing shouldn't it? And it was

I think the issue is with Dimbleby's statement that “This is an audience that has been carefully chosen not by the BBC, but by an independent polling organisation to represent the balance between all parties.”

It subsequently came to light that the left wing political parties were overrepresented with a ratio of 2:1.

No. The ratio was:

Con 5
Lab 5
LD 4
UKIP 3
SNP 2
Green 2
PC 1

The accusation arose from someone deciding to define the LDs as left-wing. It's not for anyone to define the LDs as anything - they are a party entitled to be represented appropriately whatever wing people think they are.

The ratio was entirely reasonable given the last GE, polls and Ofcom ruling.

So that is 17 to 5 in favour of right wing Parties

SNP, PC, Greens clearly over-represented, they don't have 25% of the vote between them.

The SNP have 50% of the vote. There was a clear selection bias against them.

Freggles

It will be great watching Tory MPs having to justify themselves voting down Labour legislation that most people support, mansion tax, energy price freeze, etc

Dair

Lol. On Andrew Marr, it looks like Isabel Hardman didn't get home last night.

surbiton

"Early elections can be held only:
 if a motion for an early general election is agreed either by at least two-thirds of the whole House or without division; or
 if a motion of no confidence is passed and no alternative government is confirmed by the Commons within 14 days."

The above is from the text in the FTPA 2011.

What does "confirmed" mean ? Successful passage of a Queen's speech. Otherwise, even George Galloway could form a government !

foxinsoxuk

Dair said:

Becoming Belgium would be utterly terrible.

Nasty, Inedible chocolate is not the way forward.

French fries with mayonaisse are surprisingly good. And the beer is wonderful.

My brother and I once went on a two week motorcycle tour of Belgium, almost as a bit of a joke (who goes on holiday there?) with a battlefields theme. We took in Waterloo, Bastogne, Ypres, Wiltz, Eben Emael, and popped over the border to take in Sedan and Dunkirk.

Lovely rolling scenery south of the Meuse and interesting Flemish towns. We had a great time.

Indigo

Freggles said:

It will be great watching Tory MPs having to justify themselves voting down Labour legislation that most people support, mansion tax, energy price freeze, etc

And when the economy crashes into the wall as a result of those policies, the people will blame Labour as the party of government. The Tories will point to their voting record and say "see, told you it was a bad idea", and "see, Labour governments doing what Labour governments do"

Tissue_Price

Oliver said:

People are way too fixed on majorities. A minority Conservative government is surely the most likely outcome, a grand coalition one of the least likely.

I believe a minority of Conservatives could pass a (moderate) budget given Labour 's desire to be seen as a responsible party. The same goes for the Queen's speech.

Plus MPs don't vote for elections any more than turkeys vote for Christmas.

Welcome, Oliver. A profoundly sensible first post. Con Min is still available at 4.6 and it is by far my biggest green on that market.

NickPalmer

Lots of interesting secondaries in the YG, and important to note that the sample doesn't loook biased - the questions on Government doing a good job, economic optimism etc. aren't different from usual.

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/vojtflusz6/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-180415.pdf

Edin_Rokz said:

Er! Can't see a Grand Coalition government under present party leaderships. Both parties know that such an arrangement would open the allegiances, of their respective grass root members, to question.

Too many minor parties would then be more acceptable.

If you thought the possibilities of the May election being a mess, the resulting GE after a Grand Coalition would be amazing.

It would take another couple of GE's to get a stable Government. I don't think any of the following governments would last the 5 years before collapsing under the pressures.

That's right. On current polling, I reckon the outcome is going to be a Lab-LD coalition or CS agreement reasonably close to a majority, getting votes from others as required from issue to issue. I would not support a Grand Coalition on the basis of the election campaigns to date (which have given no hint whatever of such a possibility) and I'm not a particularly radical chap.

I don't detect any electoral desire to stuff the Scots - given that 45% of them recently wanted to leave us, there is clearly something amiss and we should be willing to discuss how to address that. There is certainly a desire not to have the SNP blackmail the government successfully, but the SNP aversion to helping a Tory government weakens their negotiating position - "Do what I say! Or I'll...er..."

In any case I think the Tories need a period to sort themselves out. If they did squeak back with a majority of 3 or something, with a bit of Ulster help, the following years of wrestling with their backbenchers over Europe would be really painful to watch, even for those of us who are not fans.

Plato

Yummy.

JackW said:

Thread Headline - "Is 2015 the year the UK becomes Belgium?"

Send for Tin Tin, Hercule Poirot and Jean-Claude Van Damme - Plucky Belgium heroes save the day.