I keep coming back to last night's Atul Hatwal piece in Labour Uncut. "Revealed: Ed's night-time dash to casa Brand driven by postal vote panic"
It shouldn't be right. The disturbing premise behind the information contained in the article is that there have been multiple breaches of election law, as people not only see the votes as they are opened - which they shouldn't - but are then feeding them to a central Labour Party source - which they shouldn't.
And yet....why write the piece at all if it is just bollocks? It MIGHT be that Atul Hatwal was, like many, utterly bemused by Ed's filmed meeting with Brand. It MIGHT be that he was trying to rationalise this as actually being part of a planned campaign, rather than a bit of impromptu what-the-fuck?ery. It MIGHT be that he had heard gossip of isolated cases of sneaky-peeks at postal votes, far short of any reliable wider picture. It might be that at Labour Uncut, 2+2=7. It MIGHT be that any attempt to poison Ed is an attempt to look like he had the story of Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister first - knowing all will be forgotten if Ed strolls into Downing Street.
But it also just MIGHT be close to the truth. In which case, things are going badly adrift for Labour from the narrative the polls have been providing through this campaign. And some here might be turning up at the burns unit on Friday morning....
Did you know who Atul Hatwal was day before yesterday ?
Does that really matter? Mark just listed a few possibilities of why he may have penned it.
Just to set the record straight, any opening of postal votes would be confined to the outer envelope. The inner envelope containing voting intention is opened at the count. It is all nonsense!
I thought the way information could be gleaned was by working out WHERE the postal votes were coming from.
For instance in NE Derbyshire if they're from Brampton rather than from Killamarsh, we have a fair idea that Rowley might be in for a good night.
I keep coming back to last night's Atul Hatwal piece in Labour Uncut. "Revealed: Ed's night-time dash to casa Brand driven by postal vote panic"
It shouldn't be right. The disturbing premise behind the information contained in the article is that there have been multiple breaches of election law, as people not only see the votes as they are opened - which they shouldn't - but are then feeding them to a central Labour Party source - which they shouldn't.
And yet....why write the piece at all if it is just bollocks? It MIGHT be that Atul Hatwal was, like many, utterly bemused by Ed's filmed meeting with Brand. It MIGHT be that he was trying to rationalise this as actually being part of a planned campaign, rather than a bit of impromptu what-the-fuck?ery. It MIGHT be that he had heard gossip of isolated cases of sneaky-peeks at postal votes, far short of any reliable wider picture. It might be that at Labour Uncut, 2+2=7. It MIGHT be that any attempt to poison Ed is an attempt to look like he had the story of Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister first - knowing all will be forgotten if Ed strolls into Downing Street.
But it also just MIGHT be close to the truth. In which case, things are going badly adrift for Labour from the narrative the polls have been providing through this campaign. And some here might be turning up at the burns unit on Friday morning....
Did you know who Atul Hatwal was day before yesterday ?
Does that really matter? Mark just listed a few possibilities of why he may have penned it.
But I just don't see it that way. This is the United Kingdom. SNP MPs have as much legitimacy as any other MPs and have the right to form a majority in the UK Parliament with other parties. The rules of the game are simple: do you have a majority in the House of Commons?
Ed Miliband is an idiot and has said some idiotic things but that does not change the rules. A "minority" Labour government which has a majority with the support of the SNP has the right to govern and will govern if the numbers support it. Cameron has the right to ask the House the question but once he gets a negative answer he has to leave.
Of course I am deeply disappointed that Scotland is going to elect so many SNP MPs. But an underlying mindset which suggests that they do not have as much right to determine the government as MPs from any other part of this United Kingdom is not a mindset that this Unionist can support.
Well said, apart from your unnecessary attack on my leader !
I keep coming back to last night's Atul Hatwal piece in Labour Uncut. "Revealed: Ed's night-time dash to casa Brand driven by postal vote panic"
It shouldn't be right. The disturbing premise behind the information contained in the article is that there have been multiple breaches of election law, as people not only see the votes as they are opened - which they shouldn't - but are then feeding them to a central Labour Party source - which they shouldn't.
And yet....why write the piece at all if it is just bollocks? It MIGHT be that Atul Hatwal was, like many, utterly bemused by Ed's filmed meeting with Brand. It MIGHT be that he was trying to rationalise this as actually being part of a planned campaign, rather than a bit of impromptu what-the-fuck?ery. It MIGHT be that he had heard gossip of isolated cases of sneaky-peeks at postal votes, far short of any reliable wider picture. It might be that at Labour Uncut, 2+2=7. It MIGHT be that any attempt to poison Ed is an attempt to look like he had the story of Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister first - knowing all will be forgotten if Ed strolls into Downing Street.
But it also just MIGHT be close to the truth. In which case, things are going badly adrift for Labour from the narrative the polls have been providing through this campaign. And some here might be turning up at the burns unit on Friday morning....
Did you know who Atul Hatwal was day before yesterday ?
Does that really matter? Mark just listed a few possibilities of why he may have penned it.
A "minority" Labour government which has a majority with the support of the SNP has the right to govern and will govern if the numbers support it.
That's where you run into trouble.
A minority Government has the right to govern, unless it's Conservative...
A minority Government doesn't have a majority with the support of the SNP unless there is a formal deal. Otherwise it's just a minority Government, like the Conservatives.
despite having the support of the House of Commons
He won't have the support of the House of Commons, unless he "does a deal" with the Nationalists.
Which he would do, having said he wouldn't.
... then he would show himself to be weak and unfit for office, and the public would regard him as such. In the case of some, it would confirm their existing beliefs and prejudices.
despite having the support of the House of Commons
He won't have the support of the House of Commons, unless he "does a deal" with the Nationalists.
Which he would do, having said he wouldn't.
... then he would show himself to be weak and unfit for office, and the public would regard him as such. In the case of some, it would confirm their existing beliefs and prejudices.
When did you become a constitutional expert ?
The scenario will be as follows:
If Cameron holds the highest number of MPs, he continues as normal;
He then brings his QS. He is voted down.
The Queen will call for Ed simply because he is the leader of the party with next highest number of MPs.
He does not have to take with him a spreadsheet.
In fact, the exact term used will be: "the Queen has invited Mr Miliband to form a government".
Miliband then, in due course, presents his QS. Let's see if it passes or not ?
Actually, doesn't Cameron advise HM on who she should call?
Technically yes, but there's convention and precedent about who he's supposed to suggest, he can't just say Jeremy Clarkson.
"Farage has commented. What does Cameron think? What does Miliband think? I want to know."
A ludicrous story from Guido. Exactly the same arrangement as happens at any orthodox Jewish gathereing. Even more so at ultra orthodox ones where they would be separated by a curtain. Hasn't Cameron spoken at such venues? Incidentally I thought Staines was Jewish? Odd that he wouldn't know this.
Just to set the record straight, any opening of postal votes would be confined to the outer envelope. The inner envelope containing voting intention is opened at the count. It is all nonsense!
I thought the way information could be gleaned was by working out WHERE the postal votes were coming from.
For instance in NE Derbyshire if they're from Brampton rather than from Killamarsh, we have a fair idea that Rowley might be in for a good night.
But I just don't see it that way. This is the United Kingdom. SNP MPs have as much legitimacy as any other MPs and have the right to form a majority in the UK Parliament with other parties. The rules of the game are simple: do you have a majority in the House of Commons?
Ed Miliband is an idiot and has said some idiotic things but that does not change the rules. A "minority" Labour government which has a majority with the support of the SNP has the right to govern and will govern if the numbers support it. Cameron has the right to ask the House the question but once he gets a negative answer he has to leave.
Of course I am deeply disappointed that Scotland is going to elect so many SNP MPs. But an underlying mindset which suggests that they do not have as much right to determine the government as MPs from any other part of this United Kingdom is not a mindset that this Unionist can support.
Of course.
But can't we enjoy the Synthetic OUTRAGE!!! bus leaving its habitual left hand lane to drive on the right for a bit...?
Going back to the OP the question to ask is this. Will the Tories let Cameron take them to a guaranteed defeat in a Queens Speech debate? Largest party doesn't mean working majority and there are far more routes to majority for Labour.
As I said its entirely legitimate for the government to put its authority to the Commons. But if its an exercise in futility? Will the anti-Cameron pro-Boris factiion meekly support Dave to a principled defeat?
Just to set the record straight, any opening of postal votes would be confined to the outer envelope. The inner envelope containing voting intention is opened at the count. It is all nonsense!
I thought the way information could be gleaned was by working out WHERE the postal votes were coming from.
For instance in NE Derbyshire if they're from Brampton rather than from Killamarsh, we have a fair idea that Rowley might be in for a good night.
Isn't that correct ?
Yes, that's it. It is tabulated only.
I'm calling Hocus on it all then, since you discern ZERO information about Scotland right now from this process due to the monumental implied switching in the polls.
If we have no coalition or C and S in a hung parliament, with first a Con QS being voted down then a Lab QS being voted down then we may have no government and a second election.
2 questions: What outcome would the bookies pay out on and on what basis?
And would not we have evolved to French style 2 part election?
An SNP Tory coalition looks like the natural partnership. They have so much in common. Above all they are unified by a hatred of labour and the fact when one of them does well, the other prospers.
They could have a whale of a time for five years peddling their various flavours of nationalism, whilst mucking around with their preferred referenda.
The SNP and the Tories, a marriage made in heaven.
You okay hun?
Surely the tweet of this campaign (not a very high bar admittedly). Davidson is a breath of fresh air.
Just to set the record straight, any opening of postal votes would be confined to the outer envelope. The inner envelope containing voting intention is opened at the count. It is all nonsense!
I thought the way information could be gleaned was by working out WHERE the postal votes were coming from.
For instance in NE Derbyshire if they're from Brampton rather than from Killamarsh, we have a fair idea that Rowley might be in for a good night.
Isn't that correct ?
Not correct..they do a sample from different wards each day at the council offices. You can see the back of the papers that are transparent so good spotters can tell where the crosses are. That's where the information comes from.
But I just don't see it that way. This is the United Kingdom. SNP MPs have as much legitimacy as any other MPs and have the right to form a majority in the UK Parliament with other parties. The rules of the game are simple: do you have a majority in the House of Commons?
Ed Miliband is an idiot and has said some idiotic things but that does not change the rules. A "minority" Labour government which has a majority with the support of the SNP has the right to govern and will govern if the numbers support it. Cameron has the right to ask the House the question but once he gets a negative answer he has to leave.
Of course I am deeply disappointed that Scotland is going to elect so many SNP MPs. But an underlying mindset which suggests that they do not have as much right to determine the government as MPs from any other part of this United Kingdom is not a mindset that this Unionist can support.
Jesus Christ! Are you on the right site. A sensible post.....watch out for the blue pitchforks!
despite having the support of the House of Commons
He won't have the support of the House of Commons, unless he "does a deal" with the Nationalists.
Which he would do, having said he wouldn't.
... then he would show himself to be weak and unfit for office, and the public would regard him as such. In the case of some, it would confirm their existing beliefs and prejudices.
despite having the support of the House of Commons
He won't have the support of the House of Commons, unless he "does a deal" with the Nationalists.
Which he would do, having said he wouldn't.
... then he would show himself to be weak and unfit for office, and the public would regard him as such. In the case of some, it would confirm their existing beliefs and prejudices.
When did you become a constitutional expert ?
The scenario will be as follows:
If Cameron holds the highest number of MPs, he continues as normal;
He then brings his QS. He is voted down.
The Queen will call for Ed simply because he is the leader of the party with next highest number of MPs.
He does not have to take with him a spreadsheet.
In fact, the exact term used will be: "the Queen has invited Mr Miliband to form a government".
Miliband then, in due course, presents his QS. Let's see if it passes or not ?
Actually, doesn't Cameron advise HM on who she should call?
Yes, but that is only a courtesy. He will actually advise Her Maj to call Miliband. Remember, the advice is not binding on the Queen.
If Miliband's QS also gets defeated, then we are, as they say, in real brown stuff.
I really don't know what happens then. It could even be an All Party government until October.
Very much off topic but was interested to see on my way back from Portugal that Scottish pounds were being sold for €1.455 at the Lisbon airport bureau de change; proper pounds cost€1.497
A "minority" Labour government which has a majority with the support of the SNP has the right to govern and will govern if the numbers support it.
That's where you run into trouble.
A minority Government has the right to govern, unless it's Conservative...
A minority Government doesn't have a majority with the support of the SNP unless there is a formal deal. Otherwise it's just a minority Government, like the Conservatives.
Not so. A minority government that the HoC is willing to support has the right to govern. It really does not matter how Ed and Nicola dance around the handbags. At the end of the day there is a vote and the answer is yes or no.
At the moment it looks like the answer will be no for Cameron and yes for Miliband. Thems the rules.
But I just don't see it that way. This is the United Kingdom. SNP MPs have as much legitimacy as any other MPs and have the right to form a majority in the UK Parliament with other parties. The rules of the game are simple: do you have a majority in the House of Commons?
Ed Miliband is an idiot and has said some idiotic things but that does not change the rules. A "minority" Labour government which has a majority with the support of the SNP has the right to govern and will govern if the numbers support it. Cameron has the right to ask the House the question but once he gets a negative answer he has to leave.
Of course I am deeply disappointed that Scotland is going to elect so many SNP MPs. But an underlying mindset which suggests that they do not have as much right to determine the government as MPs from any other part of this United Kingdom is not a mindset that this Unionist can support.
Jesus Christ! Are you on the right site. A sensible post.....watch out for the blue pitchforks!
In fairness I have made nearly 6.5K posts. It had to happen sometime.
If Miliband loses in England, is crushed in Scotland and leads a party second by some margin to the Conservatives but hooks up with a party that has a vested interest in creating ructions for the UK to facilitate its separatist agenda, then the question is only how significant the outcry will be.
Seems like a good strategy from a Conservative perspective.
There's always the chance that we get a Conservative Queen's Speech voted down, but the same thing happens to a Labour one because of red backbenchers fearful of losing their seats when their constituents finally get a chance to kick them in the ballot box.
Surely some of these people should have learned from Nick Clegg’s disaster last time; don’t make solemn promises that you might well not be able to keep!"
Going back to the OP the question to ask is this. Will the Tories let Cameron take them to a guaranteed defeat in a Queens Speech debate? Largest party doesn't mean working majority and there are far more routes to majority for Labour.
As I said its entirely legitimate for the government to put its authority to the Commons. But if its an exercise in futility? Will the anti-Cameron pro-Boris factiion meekly support Dave to a principled defeat?
I don't think Cameron would do that. As I said earlier if Con + LibDem + UKIP + DUP >=323 then Cameron is home and dry. Otherwise he would leave.
Very much off topic but was interested to see on my way back from Portugal that Scottish pounds were being sold for €1.455 at the Lisbon airport bureau de change; proper pounds cost€1.497
I think they will explain that away as a "handling charge" since the turnover / churn of a "Scottish" note will be less and they would have to hold them for longer.
But I just don't see it that way. This is the United Kingdom. SNP MPs have as much legitimacy as any other MPs and have the right to form a majority in the UK Parliament with other parties. The rules of the game are simple: do you have a majority in the House of Commons?
Ed Miliband is an idiot and has said some idiotic things but that does not change the rules. A "minority" Labour government which has a majority with the support of the SNP has the right to govern and will govern if the numbers support it. Cameron has the right to ask the House the question but once he gets a negative answer he has to leave.
Of course I am deeply disappointed that Scotland is going to elect so many SNP MPs. But an underlying mindset which suggests that they do not have as much right to determine the government as MPs from any other part of this United Kingdom is not a mindset that this Unionist can support.
Jesus Christ! Are you on the right site. A sensible post.....watch out for the blue pitchforks!
In fairness I have made nearly 6.5K posts. It had to happen sometime.
Very much off topic but was interested to see on my way back from Portugal that Scottish pounds were being sold for €1.455 at the Lisbon airport bureau de change; proper pounds cost€1.497
Buying Scottish pounds with Greek identifiable Euros would be the smart play there.
"Farage has commented. What does Cameron think? What does Miliband think? I want to know."
A ludicrous story from Guido. Exactly the same arrangement as happens at any orthodox Jewish gathereing. Even more so at ultra orthodox ones where they would be separated by a curtain. Hasn't Cameron spoken at such venues? Incidentally I thought Staines was Jewish? Odd that he wouldn't know this.
I thought Paul Staines was Mixed Irish/Indian heritage.
The rainbow coalition is a real circus act. Islamic traditionalists do not combine well with feminists and gay priders. I know which side the progressives are on and it is not the apologists for Lutfer Rahman.
Surely some of these people should have learned from Nick Clegg’s disaster last time; don’t make solemn promises that you might well not be able to keep!"
and certainly don't get them engraved on an 8 foot stone
I keep coming back to last night's Atul Hatwal piece in Labour Uncut. "Revealed: Ed's night-time dash to casa Brand driven by postal vote panic"
It shouldn't be right. The disturbing premise behind the information contained in the article is that there have been multiple breaches of election law, as people not only see the votes as they are opened - which they shouldn't - but are then feeding them to a central Labour Party source - which they shouldn't.
And yet....why write the piece at all if it is just bollocks? It MIGHT be that Atul Hatwal was, like many, utterly bemused by Ed's filmed meeting with Brand. It MIGHT be that he was trying to rationalise this as actually being part of a planned campaign, rather than a bit of impromptu what-the-fuck?ery. It MIGHT be that he had heard gossip of isolated cases of sneaky-peeks at postal votes, far short of any reliable wider picture. It might be that at Labour Uncut, 2+2=7. It MIGHT be that any attempt to poison Ed is an attempt to look like he had the story of Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister first - knowing all will be forgotten if Ed strolls into Downing Street.
But it also just MIGHT be close to the truth. In which case, things are going badly adrift for Labour from the narrative the polls have been providing through this campaign. And some here might be turning up at the burns unit on Friday morning....
Or it might be that Atul Hatwal - the man who makes Dan Hodges look like the chairman of the Ed Miliband fan club - is just making stuff up.
Given he'd checked with the electoral commission it was ok to write the piece, it hardly suggests someone banging one out in a frenzy of imagination...
But I just don't see it that way. This is the United Kingdom. SNP MPs have as much legitimacy as any other MPs and have the right to form a majority in the UK Parliament with other parties. The rules of the game are simple: do you have a majority in the House of Commons?
Ed Miliband is an idiot and has said some idiotic things but that does not change the rules. A "minority" Labour government which has a majority with the support of the SNP has the right to govern and will govern if the numbers support it. Cameron has the right to ask the House the question but once he gets a negative answer he has to leave.
Of course I am deeply disappointed that Scotland is going to elect so many SNP MPs. But an underlying mindset which suggests that they do not have as much right to determine the government as MPs from any other part of this United Kingdom is not a mindset that this Unionist can support.
Jesus Christ! Are you on the right site. A sensible post.....watch out for the blue pitchforks!
In fairness I have made nearly 6.5K posts. It had to happen sometime.
Edited extra bit: also worth mentioning that lots of people have banged on about the failure of Westminster to ask, let alone answer, the West Lothian Question. Which is now coming back to bite it.
An SNP Tory coalition looks like the natural partnership. They have so much in common. Above all they are unified by a hatred of labour and the fact when one of them does well, the other prospers.
They could have a whale of a time for five years peddling their various flavours of nationalism, whilst mucking around with their preferred referenda.
The SNP and the Tories, a marriage made in heaven.
You okay hun?
Surely the tweet of this campaign (not a very high bar admittedly). Davidson is a breath of fresh air.
Probably more crushing for Murphy than all the cyber abuse, which he appears to feed off.
despite having the support of the House of Commons
He won't have the support of the House of Commons, unless he "does a deal" with the Nationalists.
Which he would do, having said he wouldn't.
... then he would show himself to be weak and unfit for office, and the public would regard him as such. In the case of some, it would confirm their existing beliefs and prejudices.
despite having the support of the House of Commons
He won't have the support of the House of Commons, unless he "does a deal" with the Nationalists.
Which he would do, having said he wouldn't.
... then he would show himself to be weak and unfit for office, and the public would regard him as such. In the case of some, it would confirm their existing beliefs and prejudices.
When did you become a constitutional expert ?
The scenario will be as follows:
If Cameron holds the highest number of MPs, he continues as normal;
He then brings his QS. He is voted down.
The Queen will call for Ed simply because he is the leader of the party with next highest number of MPs.
He does not have to take with him a spreadsheet.
In fact, the exact term used will be: "the Queen has invited Mr Miliband to form a government".
Miliband then, in due course, presents his QS. Let's see if it passes or not ?
Actually, doesn't Cameron advise HM on who she should call?
Technically yes, but there's convention and precedent about who he's supposed to suggest, he can't just say Jeremy Clarkson.
PS. This makes the idea of the Tories trying to act outraged _after_ Miliband had become PM even weirder, because he hasn't just been asked to try to form a government by The Queen, he's been asked to try to form a government by The Queen after David Cameron advised her to ask him.
If Miliband loses in England, is crushed in Scotland and leads a party second by some margin to the Conservatives but hooks up with a party that has a vested interest in creating ructions for the UK to facilitate its separatist agenda, then the question is only how significant the outcry will be.
Seems like a good strategy from a Conservative perspective.
There's always the chance that we get a Conservative Queen's Speech voted down, but the same thing happens to a Labour one because of red backbenchers fearful of losing their seats when their constituents finally get a chance to kick them in the ballot box.
You are talking about tactics and how the country will see it. The plain fact is if Miliband gets the chance to present a QS, he will include / exclude whatever he has to get a majority.
By cancelling the bedroom tax he could even get the DUP to abstain, maybe.
I keep coming back to last night's Atul Hatwal piece in Labour Uncut. "Revealed: Ed's night-time dash to casa Brand driven by postal vote panic"
It shouldn't be right. The disturbing premise behind the information contained in the article is that there have been multiple breaches of election law, as people not only see the votes as they are opened - which they shouldn't - but are then feeding them to a central Labour Party source - which they shouldn't.
And yet....why write the piece at all if it is just bollocks? It MIGHT be that Atul Hatwal was, like many, utterly bemused by Ed's filmed meeting with Brand. It MIGHT be that he was trying to rationalise this as actually being part of a planned campaign, rather than a bit of impromptu what-the-fuck?ery. It MIGHT be that he had heard gossip of isolated cases of sneaky-peeks at postal votes, far short of any reliable wider picture. It might be that at Labour Uncut, 2+2=7. It MIGHT be that any attempt to poison Ed is an attempt to look like he had the story of Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister first - knowing all will be forgotten if Ed strolls into Downing Street.
But it also just MIGHT be close to the truth. In which case, things are going badly adrift for Labour from the narrative the polls have been providing through this campaign. And some here might be turning up at the burns unit on Friday morning....
Did you know who Atul Hatwal was day before yesterday ?
But I just don't see it that way. This is the United Kingdom. SNP MPs have as much legitimacy as any other MPs and have the right to form a majority in the UK Parliament with other parties. The rules of the game are simple: do you have a majority in the House of Commons?
Ed Miliband is an idiot and has said some idiotic things but that does not change the rules. A "minority" Labour government which has a majority with the support of the SNP has the right to govern and will govern if the numbers support it. Cameron has the right to ask the House the question but once he gets a negative answer he has to leave.
Of course I am deeply disappointed that Scotland is going to elect so many SNP MPs. But an underlying mindset which suggests that they do not have as much right to determine the government as MPs from any other part of this United Kingdom is not a mindset that this Unionist can support.
I doubt that anyone thinks the SNP isn't legitimate, David. It's just that a government would be better not to be dependent on their votes.
A "minority" Labour government which has a majority with the support of the SNP has the right to govern and will govern if the numbers support it.
That's where you run into trouble.
A minority Government has the right to govern, unless it's Conservative...
A minority Government doesn't have a majority with the support of the SNP unless there is a formal deal. Otherwise it's just a minority Government, like the Conservatives.
Not so. A minority government that the HoC is willing to support has the right to govern. It really does not matter how Ed and Nicola dance around the handbags. At the end of the day there is a vote and the answer is yes or no.
At the moment it looks like the answer will be no for Cameron and yes for Miliband. Thems the rules.
The constitutional position is pretty straight forward.
The political position is very 'interesting'.
Miliband and Sturgeon run the risk of having a second election having voted down popular measures - or confirming Tory accusations of 'back room deals' - which may add England to Labour's casualty fatality list....Having seen the slaughter in Scotland - how 'brave' will Labour backbenchers be?
Very much off topic but was interested to see on my way back from Portugal that Scottish pounds were being sold for €1.455 at the Lisbon airport bureau de change; proper pounds cost€1.497
How big is his spread? Can you sell English pounds and buy Scottish ones at a profit?
If Labour are going to pay for a monumental mason, they might instead like to pay for a memorial to those in the NHS who died on their watch 1997-2010........
Labour and SNP have every right to form a government if they have the seats. If they govern for the whole of the UK, there can be no complaints. If they support left wing policies, so be it. But no one believes that will be the totality. That there will be favourable policies aimed at the Scots is the default assumption.
And how can it be otherwise? What would SNP gain by being only Labour's faithful poodle? Why would anyone vote SNP instead of Labour next time?
Very much off topic but was interested to see on my way back from Portugal that Scottish pounds were being sold for €1.455 at the Lisbon airport bureau de change; proper pounds cost€1.497
How big is his spread? Can you sell English pounds and buy Scottish ones at a profit?
I keep coming back to last night's Atul Hatwal piece in Labour Uncut. "Revealed: Ed's night-time dash to casa Brand driven by postal vote panic"
It shouldn't be right. The disturbing premise behind the information contained in the article is that there have been multiple breaches of election law, as people not only see the votes as they are opened - which they shouldn't - but are then feeding them to a central Labour Party source - which they shouldn't.
And yet....why write the piece at all if it is just bollocks? It MIGHT be that Atul Hatwal was, like many, utterly bemused by Ed's filmed meeting with Brand. It MIGHT be that he was trying to rationalise this as actually being part of a planned campaign, rather than a bit of impromptu what-the-fuck?ery. It MIGHT be that he had heard gossip of isolated cases of sneaky-peeks at postal votes, far short of any reliable wider picture. It might be that at Labour Uncut, 2+2=7. It MIGHT be that any attempt to poison Ed is an attempt to look like he had the story of Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister first - knowing all will be forgotten if Ed strolls into Downing Street.
But it also just MIGHT be close to the truth. In which case, things are going badly adrift for Labour from the narrative the polls have been providing through this campaign. And some here might be turning up at the burns unit on Friday morning....
Or it might be that Atul Hatwal - the man who makes Dan Hodges look like the chairman of the Ed Miliband fan club - is just making stuff up.
Given he'd checked with the electoral commission it was ok to write the piece, it hardly suggests someone banging one out in a frenzy of imagination...
If you could tell from looking at the outside of the envelope what's inside, then why bother counting the stuff ?
Envelope B cannot be opened until 10:00 pm , if I am correct ?
Labour and SNP have every right to form a government if they have the seats. If they govern for the whole of the UK, there can be no complaints. If they support left wing policies, so be it. But no one believes that will be the totality. That there will be favourable policies aimed at the Scots is the default assumption.
And how can it be otherwise? What would SNP gain by being only Labour's faithful poodle? Why would anyone vote SNP instead of Labour next time?
The biggest opposition to a Labour/SNP understanding/deal/cohabitation or whatever word they come up with will not come from squealing Tories but from SLAB. Because it is indeed their death sentence.
Just to set the record straight, any opening of postal votes would be confined to the outer envelope. The inner envelope containing voting intention is opened at the count. It is all nonsense!
Hmmm, who to believe you or the electoral commission? Tricky.
I keep coming back to last night's Atul Hatwal piece in Labour Uncut. "Revealed: Ed's night-time dash to casa Brand driven by postal vote panic"
It shouldn't be right. The disturbing premise behind the information contained in the article is that there have been multiple breaches of election law, as people not only see the votes as they are opened - which they shouldn't - but are then feeding them to a central Labour Party source - which they shouldn't.
And yet....why write the piece at all if it is just bollocks? It MIGHT be that Atul Hatwal was, like many, utterly bemused by Ed's filmed meeting with Brand. It MIGHT be that he was trying to rationalise this as actually being part of a planned campaign, rather than a bit of impromptu what-the-fuck?ery. It MIGHT be that he had heard gossip of isolated cases of sneaky-peeks at postal votes, far short of any reliable wider picture. It might be that at Labour Uncut, 2+2=7. It MIGHT be that any attempt to poison Ed is an attempt to look like he had the story of Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister first - knowing all will be forgotten if Ed strolls into Downing Street.
But it also just MIGHT be close to the truth. In which case, things are going badly adrift for Labour from the narrative the polls have been providing through this campaign. And some here might be turning up at the burns unit on Friday morning....
Or it might be that Atul Hatwal - the man who makes Dan Hodges look like the chairman of the Ed Miliband fan club - is just making stuff up.
Given he'd checked with the electoral commission it was ok to write the piece, it hardly suggests someone banging one out in a frenzy of imagination...
If you could tell from looking at the outside of the envelope what's inside, then why bother counting the stuff ?
Envelope B cannot be opened until 10:00 pm , if I am correct ?
That's correct. I think they were talking about over-zealous people trying to see what the vote was by looking through the envelope (e.g. by holding it up to the light). Perhaps they should use the security envelopes, which you can't see through?
"Farage has commented. What does Cameron think? What does Miliband think? I want to know."
A ludicrous story from Guido. Exactly the same arrangement as happens at any orthodox Jewish gathereing. Even more so at ultra orthodox ones where they would be separated by a curtain. Hasn't Cameron spoken at such venues? Incidentally I thought Staines was Jewish? Odd that he wouldn't know this.
I thought Paul Staines was Mixed Irish/Indian heritage.
The rainbow coalition is a real circus act. Islamic traditionalists do not combine well with feminists and gay priders. I know which side the progressives are on and it is not the apologists for Lutfer Rahman.
One of the allegations against Lutfur Rahman that he is an Islamist is plain wrong. In fact, the judge wrote in his verdict that there was not a "shred of evidence". He maybe many things and some of the intimidation etc. is indeed correct, but don't start saying he is some Jihadi.
Very much off topic but was interested to see on my way back from Portugal that Scottish pounds were being sold for €1.455 at the Lisbon airport bureau de change; proper pounds cost€1.497
How big is his spread? Can you sell English pounds and buy Scottish ones at a profit?
Not even close. They buy both at €1.301
Shame. The thought of arbing an ill-informed money changer would bring a smile to many a face on a Sunday morning!
It's one way to remember. Can't help feeling a post-it would be more cost-effective, though.
To return to post-vote chaos: the opposition get legislation days, right?
If the Conservatives have, say, 290 seats and propose English votes for English laws, what does Labour do? If they decline and rely on the SNP to block it... that will not necessarily endear them to England. If they go ahead with it, Cameron effectively gains a veto over swathes of legislation.
However, I'd expect Labour to add Scottish window-dressing to every England bill to avoid many England-only votes. Of course, then we might be getting into the territory of the Speaker deciding what's England-only...
I think this is essentially a numbers game. The following are the numbers to watch:
323 - If either main party reaches this number, they have an effective overall majority. I'm not expecting that. If either main party plus the Lib Dems reach this number, they have an effective overall majority. I'm not expecting that either.
300 - If either main party reaches this number, they will lead a minority government. I'm not expecting this but we're starting to get into the realms of serious possibilities.
1 - Whichever party has a lead in seats, no matter how few, it will get first go. If that is the Conservatives, they will need a lead of more than one in practice, given that the rest of Parliament dresses to the left.
20 - If the Conservative lead over Labour is 20 or more, Labour will have difficulty persuading the public that they have any authority to lead a government unless they can also enlist Lib Dem support to bridge the gap. Constitutional rules are not going to be enough nowadays to get that authority. The problem will be particularly acute if Labour is well behind the Conservatives on seat count in England alone. If they forced the issue without reference to public opinion, Labour could find itself in office but with no power and with epic unpopularity.
258 - If Labour don't reach this number, how could Labour claim a mandate to form a government when it had gone backwards?
PS I hear Peter from Putney thought the Broxtowe meet was only for Labourites - not at all, the idea was that it'd be fun to have a cross-party meet so close to an electin in a marginal. I recommend coming a bit early and having a wander round to sniff the atmosphere (the Labour office is on City Road, the Tory club on Station Road, both nearby).
Are we talking the Victoria Hotel here near Beeston Station? Or is there a pub?
I would like to be there. Probably voting tactically this time Contra Gloria.
It's got lots of different areas but we're meeting in the saloon bar. I might be a bit late if something comes up - you'll understand that the campaign comes first - but should be there by 840 at the latest. If you're not sure you'll recognise anyone, you can find a pic of me here: http://bramcotetoday.org.uk/2015/04/26/nick-palmer-mediterranean-crisis-proposal-hustings-video-where-is-the-economy-going/ . The site is also a good place to look at contributions from all parties if you want to get a feeling for the constituency, though the comments on the contributions are not a reliable guide to anything (a few partisans on all sides).
A "minority" Labour government which has a majority with the support of the SNP has the right to govern and will govern if the numbers support it.
That's where you run into trouble.
A minority Government has the right to govern, unless it's Conservative...
A minority Government doesn't have a majority with the support of the SNP unless there is a formal deal. Otherwise it's just a minority Government, like the Conservatives.
Not so. A minority government that the HoC is willing to support has the right to govern. It really does not matter how Ed and Nicola dance around the handbags. At the end of the day there is a vote and the answer is yes or no.
At the moment it looks like the answer will be no for Cameron and yes for Miliband. Thems the rules.
The constitutional position is pretty straight forward.
The political position is very 'interesting'.
Miliband and Sturgeon run the risk of having a second election having voted down popular measures - or confirming Tory accusations of 'back room deals' - which may add England to Labour's casualty fatality list....Having seen the slaughter in Scotland - how 'brave' will Labour backbenchers be?
That's a perfectly valid question.
But all this talk of illegitimacy is bullsh!t. Any government [ minority or otherwise ] which commands the confidence of the House of Commons is legitimate. Period.
But I just don't see it that way. This is the United Kingdom. SNP MPs have as much legitimacy as any other MPs and have the right to form a majority in the UK Parliament with other parties. The rules of the game are simple: do you have a majority in the House of Commons?
Ed Miliband is an idiot and has said some idiotic things but that does not change the rules. A "minority" Labour government which has a majority with the support of the SNP has the right to govern and will govern if the numbers support it. Cameron has the right to ask the House the question but once he gets a negative answer he has to leave.
Of course I am deeply disappointed that Scotland is going to elect so many SNP MPs. But an underlying mindset which suggests that they do not have as much right to determine the government as MPs from any other part of this United Kingdom is not a mindset that this Unionist can support.
There are issues such as the West Lothian Question and Barnett. The SNP has stated it will vote for public spending increases in England so it can cream off its share for Scotland, and for issues in England for which there will not be a majority, but which in Scotland are devolved. Had it stuck to its policy of not voting on England-only issues, and was prepared to ditch Barnett for full fiscal autonomy, I would have said the SNP would be a perfectly legitimate coalition partner.
Interesting how many on here have joined SeanT in deliberately misunderstanding Miliband for their own benefit. When the SNP ran a minority administration with Tory support was that a deal, and if so how can that criticise Labour for working with the nationalists?
"Farage has commented. What does Cameron think? What does Miliband think? I want to know."
A ludicrous story from Guido. Exactly the same arrangement as happens at any orthodox Jewish gathereing. Even more so at ultra orthodox ones where they would be separated by a curtain. Hasn't Cameron spoken at such venues? Incidentally I thought Staines was Jewish? Odd that he wouldn't know this.
I thought Paul Staines was Mixed Irish/Indian heritage.
The rainbow coalition is a real circus act. Islamic traditionalists do not combine well with feminists and gay priders. I know which side the progressives are on and it is not the apologists for Lutfer Rahman.
One of the allegations against Lutfur Rahman that he is an Islamist is plain wrong. In fact, the judge wrote in his verdict that there was not a "shred of evidence". He maybe many things and some of the intimidation etc. is indeed correct, but don't start saying he is some Jihadi.
I didn't say Rahman was an Islamist. I said Islamic traditionalist, opposed to equality for women and gays.
I think this is essentially a numbers game. The following are the numbers to watch:
323 - If either main party reaches this number, they have an effective overall majority. I'm not expecting that. If either main party plus the Lib Dems reach this number, they have an effective overall majority. I'm not expecting that either.
300 - If either main party reaches this number, they will lead a minority government. I'm not expecting this but we're starting to get into the realms of serious possibilities.
1 - Whichever party has a lead in seats, no matter how few, it will get first go. If that is the Conservatives, they will need a lead of more than one in practice, given that the rest of Parliament dresses to the left.
20 - If the Conservative lead over Labour is 20 or more, Labour will have difficulty persuading the public that they have any authority to lead a government unless they can also enlist Lib Dem support to bridge the gap. Constitutional rules are not going to be enough nowadays to get that authority. The problem will be particularly acute if Labour is well behind the Conservatives on seat count in England alone. If they forced the issue without reference to public opinion, Labour could find itself in office but with no power and with epic unpopularity.
258 - If Labour don't reach this number, how could Labour claim a mandate to form a government when it had gone backwards?
It would be interesting to have two further numbers -- the minimum each leader needs to survive.
For Ed, I’d say at least 268 -- that is, 10 more than Brown, plus he needs a strategy to deflect all the blame for Scotland onto someone else (Murphy ?).
For Dave, I’d say at least 290 -- modest losses, but still clearly ahead.
"Farage has commented. What does Cameron think? What does Miliband think? I want to know."
A ludicrous story from Guido. Exactly the same arrangement as happens at any orthodox Jewish gathereing. Even more so at ultra orthodox ones where they would be separated by a curtain. Hasn't Cameron spoken at such venues? Incidentally I thought Staines was Jewish? Odd that he wouldn't know this.
I thought Paul Staines was Mixed Irish/Indian heritage.
The rainbow coalition is a real circus act. Islamic traditionalists do not combine well with feminists and gay priders. I know which side the progressives are on and it is not the apologists for Lutfer Rahman.
One of the allegations against Lutfur Rahman that he is an Islamist is plain wrong. In fact, the judge wrote in his verdict that there was not a "shred of evidence". He maybe many things and some of the intimidation etc. is indeed correct, but don't start saying he is some Jihadi.
I'd look up the meanings of Islamist and jihadist if I was you. They're probably not what you think they are.
Interesting how many on here have joined SeanT in deliberately misunderstanding Miliband for their own benefit. When the SNP ran a minority administration with Tory support was that a deal, and if so how can that criticise Labour for working with the nationalists?
It was a deal. The difference is that in Holyrood the SNP didn't just come from one area, and weren't only interested in looking after/breaking up one part of Scotland!
1 - Whichever party has a lead in seats, no matter how few, it will get first go. If that is the Conservatives, they will need a lead of more than one in practice, given that the rest of Parliament dresses to the left.
That's how it works if the parties are all getting together and openly cutting deals, but if we get into "Make a Queen's Speech and dare the other guys to vote it down" territory we end up falling back on the constitution, which says that Cameron gets the first shot even if he gets fewer seats. He probably can't do anything without a lead in seats because the SNP have too much to lose from supporting him, but you never know.
Mr. Tokyo, I believe there's an option for Cameron to recommend no-one.
Citation needed.
Harold Wilson confirmed this in The Governance Of Britain:
"Contrary to the views of some text-book writers, a retiring Prime Minister does not advise the Queen who should be sent for, still less is there any truth in one proclaimed view... that if the Queen asks for advice she must accept it."
1 - Whichever party has a lead in seats, no matter how few, it will get first go. If that is the Conservatives, they will need a lead of more than one in practice, given that the rest of Parliament dresses to the left.
That's how it works if the parties are all getting together and openly cutting deals, but if we get into "Make a Queen's Speech and dare the other guys to vote it down" territory we end up falling back on the constitution, which says that Cameron gets the first shot even if he gets fewer seats. He probably can't do anything without a lead in seats because the SNP have too much to lose from supporting him, but you never know.
I don't think David Cameron will try to stay in power if he has fewer seats.
Another Tory ploy would be to put 'The Vow' and then some, in the queens speech, then have the SNP vote against it.......That could be hung round their necks for decades like the 1979 vote....'But you voted against FFA in 2015.....'
Tories desperately clinging to any feeble excuse to retain power is not an edifying sight, have none of these losers got any morals or principals. Given they are against a useless loser it is even more sick inducing , no wonder the country is in such a state.
I keep coming back to last night's Atul Hatwal piece in Labour Uncut. "Revealed: Ed's night-time dash to casa Brand driven by postal vote panic"
It shouldn't be right. The disturbing premise behind the information contained in the article is that there have been multiple breaches of election law, as people not only see the votes as they are opened - which they shouldn't - but are then feeding them to a central Labour Party source - which they shouldn't.
And yet....why write the piece at all if it is just bollocks? It MIGHT be that Atul Hatwal was, like many, utterly bemused by Ed's filmed meeting with Brand. It MIGHT be that he was trying to rationalise this as actually being part of a planned campaign, rather than a bit of impromptu what-the-fuck?ery. It MIGHT be that he had heard gossip of isolated cases of sneaky-peeks at postal votes, far short of any reliable wider picture. It might be that at Labour Uncut, 2+2=7. It MIGHT be that any attempt to poison Ed is an attempt to look like he had the story of Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister first - knowing all will be forgotten if Ed strolls into Downing Street.
But it also just MIGHT be close to the truth. In which case, things are going badly adrift for Labour from the narrative the polls have been providing through this campaign. And some here might be turning up at the burns unit on Friday morning....
I don't think they need to break any law - just match canvass returns of postal voters. Have you voted by post as usual Mrs X ? Yes but for UKIP/ no I've ripped it up/ yes for Moses Miliband.
Mr. Tokyo, I believe there's an option for Cameron to recommend no-one.
Citation needed.
Harold Wilson confirmed this in The Governance Of Britain:
"Contrary to the views of some text-book writers, a retiring Prime Minister does not advise the Queen who should be sent for, still less is there any truth in one proclaimed view... that if the Queen asks for advice she must accept it."
Just to set the record straight, any opening of postal votes would be confined to the outer envelope. The inner envelope containing voting intention is opened at the count. It is all nonsense!
Hmmm, who to believe you or the electoral commission? Tricky.
It doesn't say when this is done. Remember, as long as your postal ballot reaches the Returning Officer by 10:00 pm on election day , it will be accepted.
So sealing the postal ballots before does not make sense.
That looks flat, at best, for Labour based on constituency question
I predict that PC will do better than YG predcit day before election. Wood is the new Sturgeon. But, who will it affect? Labour seats in cities?
The elections in Wales blog gave an overview of Plaid's best prospects last year.
"...Ynys Môn looks the obvious Plaid target. Yet this requires a swing from Labour to Plaid in an election where Labour will generally be looking to advance rather than lose ground. Beyond that, Ceredigion may just be a possible: it requires a big (11%) swing, but a stronger Plaid candidate than in 2010 and a softening of Liberal Democrat support among the large student vote might just put it into play.
After that, Plaid’s remaining priority would seem to be to put in place some advance ground work for seats that will be targets in 2016: such as Llanelli, Aberconwy and Carmarthen West & South Pembrokeshire."
A "minority" Labour government which has a majority with the support of the SNP has the right to govern and will govern if the numbers support it.
That's where you run into trouble.
A minority Government has the right to govern, unless it's Conservative...
A minority Government doesn't have a majority with the support of the SNP unless there is a formal deal. Otherwise it's just a minority Government, like the Conservatives.
Not so. A minority government that the HoC is willing to support has the right to govern. It really does not matter how Ed and Nicola dance around the handbags. At the end of the day there is a vote and the answer is yes or no.
At the moment it looks like the answer will be no for Cameron and yes for Miliband. Thems the rules.
The constitutional position is pretty straight forward.
The political position is very 'interesting'.
Miliband and Sturgeon run the risk of having a second election having voted down popular measures - or confirming Tory accusations of 'back room deals' - which may add England to Labour's casualty fatality list....Having seen the slaughter in Scotland - how 'brave' will Labour backbenchers be?
That's a perfectly valid question.
But all this talk of illegitimacy is bullsh!t. Any government [ minority or otherwise ] which commands the confidence of the House of Commons is legitimate. Period.
Yes, everyone on here know that whoever can command a majority should be the Government. However vast swathes of the population and media won't see it that way. They'll see Wallace (who is ~20 seats behind DC) making an illegitimate deal with Salmond & Sturgeon, which he had explicitly ruled out!
Ed Miliband has said some pretty stupid things if he intends to try to govern from second place in seats and votes (and I expect he does, if he has to). The public won't take kindly to logic-chopping.
I read that stuff as directed at setting the parameters of the not-at-all-a-deal-oh-no he intends to cut with the SNP. The idea is to set up the choice as "Will the SNP support Labour's program or will you get the Tories?" rather than "How much is it reasonable for Labour to offer Scotland?". The reason he needs to avoid the latter is that there's no possible answer to it that's going to satisfy Scottish and English voters simultaneously.
The public aren't going to deconstruct his words like lawyers. They're going to see him seeking to become Prime Minister with SNP support - exactly what he said he wouldn't do.
Everybody expects these creatures to lie , him doing a LibDem straight after the vote will be what sensible people expect to happen. Any sniff of power and their principles go out the window.
Interesting how many on here have joined SeanT in deliberately misunderstanding Miliband for their own benefit. When the SNP ran a minority administration with Tory support was that a deal, and if so how can that criticise Labour for working with the nationalists?
It was a deal. The difference is that in Holyrood the SNP didn't just come from one area, and weren't only interested in looking after/breaking up one part of Scotland!
There was no deal but there were deals. In other words there was no overarching understanding but there were agreements on individual matters. That is the way I think the SNP intend to play it at Westminster.
1 - Whichever party has a lead in seats, no matter how few, it will get first go. If that is the Conservatives, they will need a lead of more than one in practice, given that the rest of Parliament dresses to the left.
That's how it works if the parties are all getting together and openly cutting deals, but if we get into "Make a Queen's Speech and dare the other guys to vote it down" territory we end up falling back on the constitution, which says that Cameron gets the first shot even if he gets fewer seats. He probably can't do anything without a lead in seats because the SNP have too much to lose from supporting him, but you never know.
I don't think David Cameron will try to stay in power if he has fewer seats.
I think that's true, but I also don't think he'll try to stay in power if he has more seats but no route to pass a Queen's Speech either. Hypothetically, suppose UKIP+Con had a majority between them but one or both had sworn against a formal deal, I could see Cameron staying on and trying his luck at passing a Queen's Speech, even if Con had fewer seats than Lab.
Mr. Freggles, because the SNP will be voting on matters which do not affect their constituents and which do affect people to whom the SNP are not accountable.
In the Scottish Parliament, every member was voting on matters for which they were responsible to their constituents.
I keep coming back to last night's Atul Hatwal piece in Labour Uncut. "Revealed: Ed's night-time dash to casa Brand driven by postal vote panic"
It shouldn't be right. The disturbing premise behind the information contained in the article is that there have been multiple breaches of election law, as people not only see the votes as they are opened - which they shouldn't - but are then feeding them to a central Labour Party source - which they shouldn't.
And yet....why write the piece at all if it is just bollocks? It MIGHT be that Atul Hatwal was, like many, utterly bemused by Ed's filmed meeting with Brand. It MIGHT be that he was trying to rationalise this as actually being part of a planned campaign, rather than a bit of impromptu what-the-fuck?ery. It MIGHT be that he had heard gossip of isolated cases of sneaky-peeks at postal votes, far short of any reliable wider picture. It might be that at Labour Uncut, 2+2=7. It MIGHT be that any attempt to poison Ed is an attempt to look like he had the story of Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister first - knowing all will be forgotten if Ed strolls into Downing Street.
But it also just MIGHT be close to the truth. In which case, things are going badly adrift for Labour from the narrative the polls have been providing through this campaign. And some here might be turning up at the burns unit on Friday morning....
I don't think they need to break any law - just match canvass returns of postal voters. Have you voted by post as usual Mrs X ? Yes but for UKIP/ no I've ripped it up/ yes for Moses Miliband.
Compare with 2010 and you have a picture.
Firstly, Apparently the Labour Party have already commissioned this monstrosity so hey let's not bother with that tiresome election stuff as Milliband is already measuring up the rose garden for his stone. Hell Yes! alwrrrrigggghttt!!
Secondly "Moses Milliband" ??
bugger ! I am now probably going to have to change my name and avatar.
Ed Miliband has said some pretty stupid things if he intends to try to govern from second place in seats and votes (and I expect he does, if he has to). The public won't take kindly to logic-chopping.
I read that stuff as directed at setting the parameters of the not-at-all-a-deal-oh-no he intends to cut with the SNP. The idea is to set up the choice as "Will the SNP support Labour's program or will you get the Tories?" rather than "How much is it reasonable for Labour to offer Scotland?". The reason he needs to avoid the latter is that there's no possible answer to it that's going to satisfy Scottish and English voters simultaneously.
The public aren't going to deconstruct his words like lawyers. They're going to see him seeking to become Prime Minister with SNP support - exactly what he said he wouldn't do.
If they think he said that then they also think he's lying, so better to let the press hyperventilate for a fortnight about how Ed Miliband is going to give Nicola Sturgeon Cumbria, vote down a Tory (boo, hiss) government then say. "No deals, new election" and surprise them with his integrity.
A "minority" Labour government which has a majority with the support of the SNP has the right to govern and will govern if the numbers support it.
That's where you run into trouble.
A minority Government has the right to govern, unless it's Conservative...
A minority Government doesn't have a majority with the support of the SNP unless there is a formal deal. Otherwise it's just a minority Government, like the Conservatives.
Not so. A minority government that the HoC is willing to support has the right to govern. It really does not matter how Ed and Nicola dance around the handbags. At the end of the day there is a vote and the answer is yes or no.
At the moment it looks like the answer will be no for Cameron and yes for Miliband. Thems the rules.
The constitutional position is pretty straight forward.
The political position is very 'interesting'.
Miliband and Sturgeon run the risk of having a second election having voted down popular measures - or confirming Tory accusations of 'back room deals' - which may add England to Labour's casualty fatality list....Having seen the slaughter in Scotland - how 'brave' will Labour backbenchers be?
That's a perfectly valid question.
But all this talk of illegitimacy is bullsh!t. Any government [ minority or otherwise ] which commands the confidence of the House of Commons is legitimate. Period.
Except, we may be heading into uniquely weird territory where NO combination commands the confidence of the House.
Am I the only one who thinks that the voters are evil six year-old boys who are treating all politicians like a spider, pulling off a leg at a time to see how it will crazily crawl about?
Mr. Tokyo, I believe there's an option for Cameron to recommend no-one.
Citation needed.
Harold Wilson confirmed this in The Governance Of Britain:
"Contrary to the views of some text-book writers, a retiring Prime Minister does not advise the Queen who should be sent for, still less is there any truth in one proclaimed view... that if the Queen asks for advice she must accept it."
Another illustration that Her Maj has so much more experience and perspective on this than any of her many PMs.
The SNP vote against a Conservative Queen speech, whatever is in it. If Dave stays in power due to the DUP/LDs/Ed bottling it or w/e, then I'm sure they'll be able to talk when it comes to matters of mutual interest.
Interesting to note that of the front pages, the Observer, Mirror and Indy have politics on the front page, yet all the more right-leaning papers have nothing but "Woman had Baby Girl". https://www.politicshome.com/front-pages
Comments
'Labour voted against lower taxes for you & your family
The SNP voted against FFA.....'
For instance in NE Derbyshire if they're from Brampton rather than from Killamarsh, we have a fair idea that Rowley might be in for a good night.
Isn't that correct ?
48 hours 48 minutes 48 seconds
A minority Government has the right to govern, unless it's Conservative...
A minority Government doesn't have a majority with the support of the SNP unless there is a formal deal. Otherwise it's just a minority Government, like the Conservatives.
"Farage has commented. What does Cameron think? What does Miliband think? I want to know."
A ludicrous story from Guido. Exactly the same arrangement as happens at any orthodox Jewish gathereing. Even more so at ultra orthodox ones where they would be separated by a curtain. Hasn't Cameron spoken at such venues? Incidentally I thought Staines was Jewish? Odd that he wouldn't know this.
But can't we enjoy the Synthetic OUTRAGE!!! bus leaving its habitual left hand lane to drive on the right for a bit...?
As I said its entirely legitimate for the government to put its authority to the Commons. But if its an exercise in futility? Will the anti-Cameron pro-Boris factiion meekly support Dave to a principled defeat?
2 questions: What outcome would the bookies pay out on and on what basis?
And would not we have evolved to French style 2 part election?
You can see the back of the papers that are transparent so good spotters can tell where the crosses are.
That's where the information comes from.
If Miliband's QS also gets defeated, then we are, as they say, in real brown stuff.
I really don't know what happens then. It could even be an All Party government until October.
At the moment it looks like the answer will be no for Cameron and yes for Miliband. Thems the rules.
If Miliband loses in England, is crushed in Scotland and leads a party second by some margin to the Conservatives but hooks up with a party that has a vested interest in creating ructions for the UK to facilitate its separatist agenda, then the question is only how significant the outcry will be.
Seems like a good strategy from a Conservative perspective.
There's always the chance that we get a Conservative Queen's Speech voted down, but the same thing happens to a Labour one because of red backbenchers fearful of losing their seats when their constituents finally get a chance to kick them in the ballot box.
The rainbow coalition is a real circus act. Islamic traditionalists do not combine well with feminists and gay priders. I know which side the progressives are on and it is not the apologists for Lutfer Rahman.
Edited extra bit: also worth mentioning that lots of people have banged on about the failure of Westminster to ask, let alone answer, the West Lothian Question. Which is now coming back to bite it.
@TSEofPB: FerFuxSake
Ed Miliband to set his promises in stone (literally!!!!)
http://t.co/cw5C1PYzuA
By cancelling the bedroom tax he could even get the DUP to abstain, maybe.
Your point?
The political position is very 'interesting'.
Miliband and Sturgeon run the risk of having a second election having voted down popular measures - or confirming Tory accusations of 'back room deals' - which may add England to Labour's casualty fatality list....Having seen the slaughter in Scotland - how 'brave' will Labour backbenchers be?
Labour and SNP have every right to form a government if they have the seats. If they govern for the whole of the UK, there can be no complaints. If they support left wing policies, so be it.
But no one believes that will be the totality. That there will be favourable policies aimed at the Scots is the default assumption.
And how can it be otherwise? What would SNP gain by being only Labour's faithful poodle? Why would anyone vote SNP instead of Labour next time?
"Anyone still want to claim Ed isn't weird ?"
Envelope B cannot be opened until 10:00 pm , if I am correct ?
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/live-experience/cps/512/amz/vivo/live/images/2015/5/3/004741fa-a7d3-4353-be77-109b1be19bcf.jpg
Looks like it has already been built, so at least they paid for it out of pocket (so indirectly by us, or the unions!)
People really expect a high turnout for this goon ? Really ? The jocks have him rumbled.
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/109098/Postal-vote-opening-process-combined-Final.pdf
It's one way to remember. Can't help feeling a post-it would be more cost-effective, though.
To return to post-vote chaos: the opposition get legislation days, right?
If the Conservatives have, say, 290 seats and propose English votes for English laws, what does Labour do? If they decline and rely on the SNP to block it... that will not necessarily endear them to England. If they go ahead with it, Cameron effectively gains a veto over swathes of legislation.
However, I'd expect Labour to add Scottish window-dressing to every England bill to avoid many England-only votes. Of course, then we might be getting into the territory of the Speaker deciding what's England-only...
323 - If either main party reaches this number, they have an effective overall majority. I'm not expecting that. If either main party plus the Lib Dems reach this number, they have an effective overall majority. I'm not expecting that either.
300 - If either main party reaches this number, they will lead a minority government. I'm not expecting this but we're starting to get into the realms of serious possibilities.
1 - Whichever party has a lead in seats, no matter how few, it will get first go. If that is the Conservatives, they will need a lead of more than one in practice, given that the rest of Parliament dresses to the left.
20 - If the Conservative lead over Labour is 20 or more, Labour will have difficulty persuading the public that they have any authority to lead a government unless they can also enlist Lib Dem support to bridge the gap. Constitutional rules are not going to be enough nowadays to get that authority. The problem will be particularly acute if Labour is well behind the Conservatives on seat count in England alone. If they forced the issue without reference to public opinion, Labour could find itself in office but with no power and with epic unpopularity.
258 - If Labour don't reach this number, how could Labour claim a mandate to form a government when it had gone backwards?
It's got lots of different areas but we're meeting in the saloon bar. I might be a bit late if something comes up - you'll understand that the campaign comes first - but should be there by 840 at the latest. If you're not sure you'll recognise anyone, you can find a pic of me here: http://bramcotetoday.org.uk/2015/04/26/nick-palmer-mediterranean-crisis-proposal-hustings-video-where-is-the-economy-going/ . The site is also a good place to look at contributions from all parties if you want to get a feeling for the constituency, though the comments on the contributions are not a reliable guide to anything (a few partisans on all sides).
But all this talk of illegitimacy is bullsh!t. Any government [ minority or otherwise ] which commands the confidence of the House of Commons is legitimate. Period.
When the SNP ran a minority administration with Tory support was that a deal, and if so how can that criticise Labour for working with the nationalists?
For Ed, I’d say at least 268 -- that is, 10 more than Brown, plus he needs a strategy to deflect all the blame for Scotland onto someone else (Murphy ?).
For Dave, I’d say at least 290 -- modest losses, but still clearly ahead.
"Contrary to the views of some text-book writers, a retiring Prime Minister does not advise the Queen who should be sent for, still less is there any truth in one proclaimed view... that if the Queen asks for advice she must accept it."
edifying sight, have none of these losers got any morals or principals. Given they are against a useless loser it is even more sick inducing , no wonder the country is in such a state.
Compare with 2010 and you have a picture.
So sealing the postal ballots before does not make sense.
"...Ynys Môn looks the obvious Plaid target. Yet this requires a swing from Labour to Plaid in an election where Labour will generally be looking to advance rather than lose ground. Beyond that, Ceredigion may just be a possible: it requires a big (11%) swing, but a stronger Plaid candidate than in 2010 and a softening of Liberal Democrat support among the large student vote might just put it into play.
After that, Plaid’s remaining priority would seem to be to put in place some advance ground work for seats that will be targets in 2016: such as Llanelli, Aberconwy and Carmarthen West & South Pembrokeshire."
http://blogs.cardiff.ac.uk/electionsinwales/2014/09/08/the-electoral-state-of-the-parties-3-plaid-cymru-2/
The SNP's recent polling surge was foreshadowed by the 2011 Scottish Parliament result.
In 2011 Plaid got 19% in the Welsh Assembly election, but they're not polling anything like that for Westminster.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Assembly_for_Wales_election,_2011
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2015_United_Kingdom_general_election#Wales
Yes, everyone on here know that whoever can command a majority should be the Government. However vast swathes of the population and media won't see it that way. They'll see Wallace (who is ~20 seats behind DC) making an illegitimate deal with Salmond & Sturgeon, which he had explicitly ruled out!
Have either Cammo or EMWNBPM ruled out a Grand coialition? Thought not.
But it won't happen This is 1992 all over again, at least in terms of the Tories.
In the Scottish Parliament, every member was voting on matters for which they were responsible to their constituents.
Secondly "Moses Milliband" ??
bugger ! I am now probably going to have to change my name and avatar.
Am I the only one who thinks that the voters are evil six year-old boys who are treating all politicians like a spider, pulling off a leg at a time to see how it will crazily crawl about?
This stuff isn't rocket science.
However, some may have believed it. And, even if not, doing a 180 on something stated so explicitly will damage him immediately and permanently.
If only some of us had warned of the West Lothian Question...
https://www.politicshome.com/front-pages
Yo Russ mate grea idea..innit..