Which in turn means the 3 possible realistic outcomes are:
Con Most Seats + Cameron PM = 42% Con Most Seats + Miliband PM = 29% Lab Most Seats + Miliband PM = 29%
Quite interesting that the "Central forecast" of Con Most Seats + Miliband PM only has a 29% chance - I guess reflecting that it only represents quite a narrow range - ie a Con seat lead of less than approx 30.
No amount, although the value of a sausage roll could conceivably form the basis of an imminent test case...
We're not talking about money though in the "Smithson Case." Merely two intelligent people, during political discourse, agreeing jointly to do what appears to be in their best interests. Just like any other two voters, Husband/Wife etc, quite possibly...
Chance of their agreement being both successful and the determining factor?
Close to 0.000000
Bribing just one voter in a safe seat is an offence notwithstanding that it will likely have no effect on the result. As soon as you accept that all forms of money bribe are unacceptable, it follows benefits in kind and other inducements are as well. How would you feel about an agreement between ten voters in a safe seat and one voter in a marginal seat? Or if a wife "freely" made a declaration of trust over her vote in favour of her husband? Parliament has conferred the franchise on individuals. It is not property to be bought and sold, whether in exchange for someone else's franchise or anything else.
But it's free agents agreeing, after discussion, "Yep, we should vote... that way. I will if you will."
The only solution would seem to be to ban all poltical discourse. Ban Trade Unions? Ban Political Parties themselves?
Of course, all of this begs the question. "Why do we have such a crazy system, where suchlike as the Smithson pact are even considered necessary?"
But it's free agents agreeing, after discussion, "Yep, we should vote... that way. I will if you will."
The only solution would seem to be to ban all poltical discourse. Ban Trade Unions? Ban Political Parties themselves?
Of course, all of this begs the question. "Why do we have such a crazy system, where suchlike as the Smithson pact are even considered necessary?"
If you dislike the voting system, the answer is to elect a Parliament prepared to change it, not to enter into vote selling schemes. There is nothing objectionable about either trade unions or political parties. Inherent in neither is the principle of individuals' exchanging their parliamentary franchise qua commodity.
But if this whole system of vote swapping is a good idea, why shouldn't such an agreement be specifically enforceable?
In sum, it seemed to me the Conservatives' Sturgeon strategy was likely to shore up its core vote without necessarily attracting support from elsewhere.
If so, in a seat like Stockton South that could be a big help for the incumbent - weaning back Tory waverers tempted by UKIP, and making Labour's job significantly harder.
Comments
Con Most Seats = 71%
Miliband PM = 58%
Which in turn means the 3 possible realistic outcomes are:
Con Most Seats + Cameron PM = 42%
Con Most Seats + Miliband PM = 29%
Lab Most Seats + Miliband PM = 29%
Quite interesting that the "Central forecast" of Con Most Seats + Miliband PM only has a 29% chance - I guess reflecting that it only represents quite a narrow range - ie a Con seat lead of less than approx 30.
The only solution would seem to be to ban all poltical discourse. Ban Trade Unions? Ban Political Parties themselves?
Of course, all of this begs the question. "Why do we have such a crazy system, where suchlike as the Smithson pact are even considered necessary?"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/background/pastelec/ge97.shtml
But if this whole system of vote swapping is a good idea, why shouldn't such an agreement be specifically enforceable?
http://news.sky.com/story/1470403/tories-attack-labour-deal-with-snp-in-stockton
In sum, it seemed to me the Conservatives' Sturgeon strategy was likely to shore up its core vote without necessarily attracting support from elsewhere.
If so, in a seat like Stockton South that could be a big help for the incumbent - weaning back Tory waverers tempted by UKIP, and making Labour's job significantly harder.
http://web.archive.org/web/20000816224830/http://www.bbc.co.uk/election97/framedir/candframe.htm