@Dair People will have known that there would be some form of protest well before the event, it remains a non story until it kicks off. Though several reporters and politico's could make a reasonable assumption that something probably would. My credulity is "unstretched".
There would also be the possibility of passing an EU Referendum Bill even if the Lib Dems were opposed to it. 295 Conservatives (minus 1 Deputy Speaker), 3 UKIP + 10 Northern Ireland Unionists = 307. Such a Bill could pass with the support of 14 Labour rebels.
Caroline Lucas would vote for it too.
Galloway might back it as well. Assuming Cameron remains PM after the election, it appears he would have to resign or seek a dissolution if he did not get an EU Referendum Bill through Parliament in the first session. The number of pro-referendum MPs in the Commons after the election may therefore appear be of significance should, as is self-evidently possible, the Conservatives fail to win a majority.
All these people would rather give Cameron a black eye than vote for his bill. That's politics.
There are at least four registered active political parties that support Independence. In addition there are dozens and dozens of active interest groups that support Independence. The membership of these groups is often discrete and in many cases there is very little of crossover (for example, virtually no RIC members will be SNP members).
The burden of proof that any activity of independence supporters or anti-SLAB activists are related to the SNP rests 100% with those making the claims.
I have provided evidence that today's activity in St Enoch Square was an orchestrated John McTernan stunt.
Here is an example of a John McTernan campaign doing exactly this - sending invites to known opponents not directly related to political opponents but with the intent to "tar with the same brush".
And as I posted a not far above here, we have the time stamp on tweets from a senior SLAB activists who appears to have known in advance of what was going to happen.
It is not "beyond a shadow of doubt proof" but it is some evidence for my claim. Where's yours that Clerkin has any involvement with the SNP.
I'm not making a claim either way, but your 'proof' was at the least as nonsense as things you have derided. The lack of self awareness of that is what prompted my comment. You have provided assertions you present as incontrovertible evidence while you mock assertions others provide as evidence. I do not know the political terrain enough to judge who is correct, but the strength of your argument was nowhere near as strong as you claimed. Now you pull it back as though you did not make a statement presenting it as fact, that it was not beyond a shadow of doubt, but you initially had no such ambiguity present.
I habitually and probably too often even qualify my assumptions as things are rarely so certain. Adding it in later doesn't work
I've not claimed it's incontrovertible.
I actually say it is not "beyond a shadow of doubt proof" just merely some indicative evidence. McTernan is 55 years old. 55 year old spinners don't suddenly come up with new techniques, they use the same ones.
He was caught doing it in Australia. And we have the statement from Clerkin that he was invited directly by East Renfrewshire CLP. The 100 Towns tour wasn't very dissimilar although without the specific invite to opponents. It was a deliberately provocative effort to engender a reaction. It would appear to be a core McTernan campaign tactic.
There would also be the possibility of passing an EU Referendum Bill even if the Lib Dems were opposed to it. 295 Conservatives (minus 1 Deputy Speaker), 3 UKIP + 10 Northern Ireland Unionists = 307. Such a Bill could pass with the support of 14 Labour rebels.
Caroline Lucas would vote for it too.
Galloway might back it as well. Assuming Cameron remains PM after the election, it appears he would have to resign or seek a dissolution if he did not get an EU Referendum Bill through Parliament in the first session. The number of pro-referendum MPs in the Commons after the election may therefore be of significance should, as is self-evidently possible, the Conservatives fail to win a majority.
Will every Tory MP vote for it ? Are you saying that there is not a single Kenneth Clarke's anymore .
All these people would rather give Cameron a black eye than vote for his bill. That's politics.
That's pure assertion. It is DUP and UKIP policy to support a referendum, and there are several backbench Labour MPs who have consistently defied the whip on Europe, and who would presumably vote for a referendum bill. For example, 28 Labour MPs voted for an amendment to the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008, which would have provided for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty (HC Deb 5 Mar 2008, col. 1864).
It's seriously more likely that Conservative rebels would incite chaos on a Europe bill, either to oppose Euroscepticism or to bring down David Cameron as prime minister, than that Labour rebels or Caroline Lucas would go along with the bill and help prop him up. They would not necessarily have to vote against the bill, but could introduce or support unfriendly amendments that Labour and the Lib Dems would agree on.
All these people would rather give Cameron a black eye than vote for his bill. That's politics.
That's pure assertion. It is DUP and UKIP policy to support a referendum, and there are several backbench Labour MPs who have consistently defied the whip on Europe, and who would presumably vote for a referendum bill. For example, 28 Labour MPs voted for an amendment to the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008, which would have provided for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty (HC Deb 5 Mar 2008, col. 1864).
I do not mean the DUP or Ukip. Yeah, Ukip will support an EU membership referendum. I mean the Greens, and even the most eurosceptic Labour MP, will not pass up an opportunity to defeat the Conservative Party on practically its only election pledge of substance.
Will every Tory MP vote for it ? Are you saying that there is not a single Kenneth Clarke's anymore .
Three Conservative MPs voted against a referendum on Lisbon. Two, David Curry and Lord Deben, have retired. Only Clarke remains, and he abstained on the European Union (Referendum) Bill in this Parliament. No Conservative MPs voted against it.
This is why the SNP leadership considers that they can prop up a Labour-led government whilst, at the same time, defeating that government on its budget until it introduces a budget that accords with the SNP’s wishes. However, the SNP leadership is mistaken.
All these people would rather give Cameron a black eye than vote for his bill. That's politics.
That's pure assertion. It is DUP and UKIP policy to support a referendum, and there are several backbench Labour MPs who have consistently defied the whip on Europe, and who would presumably vote for a referendum bill. For example, 28 Labour MPs voted for an amendment to the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008, which would have provided for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty (HC Deb 5 Mar 2008, col. 1864).
OTOH that was cost-free for them because it was clearly going to: 1) Pass the Commons. 2) Die in the Lords.
It's probably not safe to assume they'd all vote the same way if it was going to make the leadership really cross.
Edit: Thinking of something else, ignore. Not sure whether that vote was meaningful or not.
It's seriously more likely that Conservative rebels would incite chaos on a Europe bill, either to oppose Euroscepticism or to bring down David Cameron as prime minister, than that Labour rebels or Caroline Lucas would go along with the bill and help prop him up. They would not necessarily have to vote against the bill, but could introduce or support unfriendly amendments that Labour and the Lib Dems would agree on.
That's much easier to do with a Bill on a substantive treaty, such as the European Communities Act 1972 itself, the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, or the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008. It is much harder to do in respect of Bills providing for advisory referendums. Consider the brevity of the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Act 1997, for example. There are only so many amendments that are possible.
Time to come off the fence. Here are my predictions:
Turnout 68%
Con 36% Lab 32% LD 11% UKIP 10% Green 4% SNP 4% Other (inc Plaid) 3%
Seats:
Con 295 Lab 258 LD 22 SNP 48 UKIP 3 PC 3 Respect 1 Green 1 NI 18 Speaker 1
Next government: Chaotic and weak Con minority, which won't last long.
Interesting. You appear by necessary implication to be predicting a confidence and supply arrangement between the Tories and the LibDems, with UKIP and Northern Ireland Unionists abstaining at the very least on such votes. There would also be the possibility of passing an EU Referendum Bill even if the Lib Dems were opposed to it. 295 Conservatives (minus 1 Deputy Speaker), 3 UKIP + 10 Northern Ireland Unionists = 307. Such a Bill could pass with the support of 14 Labour rebels.
I actually suspect that the LibDems (or the bulk of them) would end up backing a referendum bill. Not because they want a referendum, mind, but because they will not want to go against the prevailing political wind.
Time to come off the fence. Here are my predictions:
Turnout 68%
Con 36% Lab 32% LD 11% UKIP 10% Green 4% SNP 4% Other (inc Plaid) 3%
Seats:
Con 295 Lab 258 LD 22 SNP 48 UKIP 3 PC 3 Respect 1 Green 1 NI 18 Speaker 1
Next government: Chaotic and weak Con minority, which won't last long.
Interesting. You appear by necessary implication to be predicting a confidence and supply arrangement between the Tories and the LibDems, with UKIP and Northern Ireland Unionists abstaining at the very least on such votes. There would also be the possibility of passing an EU Referendum Bill even if the Lib Dems were opposed to it. 295 Conservatives (minus 1 Deputy Speaker), 3 UKIP + 10 Northern Ireland Unionists = 307. Such a Bill could pass with the support of 14 Labour rebels.
I actually suspect that the LibDems (or the bulk of them) would end up backing a referendum bill. Not because they want a referendum, mind, but because they will not want to go against the prevailing political wind.
(This is assuming there was a C&S or coalition between the Conservative Party and the LibDems.)
Which is in the North East while Clerkin is from Nitshill/Darnley, opposite ends of the city. As usual we have unfounded claims with absolutely not one shred of evidence.
If Clerkin had any formal link with the SNP, especially standing as a councillor, proof would have been posted long before now.
This is why the SNP leadership considers that they can prop up a Labour-led government whilst, at the same time, defeating that government on its budget until it introduces a budget that accords with the SNP’s wishes. However, the SNP leadership is mistaken.
Tomkins is partly right, but unfortunately follows Lord Norton of Louth into grave error:
It is clear under the [2011] Act that only a motion using the words “that this House has no confidence in her Majesty’s Government” is a vote of confidence. No other vote, no matter how important, is a vote of confidence, unless it includes these words.
For a respected public law academic, this is hopeless reasoning, and ignores basic principles of statutory construction. The 2011 Act merely provides for the circumstances in which Parliament may be dissolved before the end of the five year term. It makes no express provision as to what is to constitute a vote of confidence, and no such provision can be necessarily implied from its express provisions. As a matter of law, therefore, the 2011 Act does not alter the circumstances in which the House of Commons can express or withdraw confidence in the government. On Tomkins' argument, the motion on the address in 1924 would not have constituted a vote of no confidence in Baldwin's government. It included the words:
But it is our duty respectfully to submit to your Majesty that Your Majesty's present advisers have not the confidence of this House.
The Porfessor has overlooked a simple matter. What incentive is there for a Labour Prime Minister to resign when he loses a Budget vote - no more than Salmond did when he lost a Budget vote in the Scottish Parliament.
The NATS are right on this one. Only a motion of no confidence brings down a Government. Beyond that the polticians will just have to get on with it for five years.
It's seriously more likely that Conservative rebels would incite chaos on a Europe bill, either to oppose Euroscepticism or to bring down David Cameron as prime minister, than that Labour rebels or Caroline Lucas would go along with the bill and help prop him up. They would not necessarily have to vote against the bill, but could introduce or support unfriendly amendments that Labour and the Lib Dems would agree on.
That's much easier to do with a Bill on a substantive treaty, such as the European Communities Act 1972 itself, the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, or the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008. It is much harder to do in respect of Bills providing for advisory referendums. Consider the brevity of the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Act 1997, for example. There are only so many amendments that are possible.
It is not easy, but it is much more likely than Labour eurosceptics or the Greens propping up a Conservative minority government. Since it is such an important election pledge, the outcome would be the resignation of the government and its replacement with the Leader of the Opposition or, perhaps more likely, a massive bargain with the Liberal Democrats to pass the bill. Either way, it would be strongly in the interests of a Labour eurosceptic to manifest opposition to the bill.
Clerkin afaik is a very hard left socialist, Old Labour. The only source I can see for that Clerkin = SNP quote is from a George Foulkes tweet ........ since deleted.
Quick google shows he stood as a SSP (Scottish Socialist Party) by-election candidate a while back, and possibly for the SDP in the 80s ("S Clerkin").
I can envisage a few Labour MPs going along with any bill on an in/out referendum if they're spooked by large UKIP vote shares in their constituencies.
The Porfessor has overlooked a simple matter. What incentive is there for a Labour Prime Minister to resign when he loses a Budget vote - no more than Salmond did when he lost a Budget vote in the Scottish Parliament.
The NATS are right on this one. Only a motion of no confidence brings down a Government. Beyond that the polticians will just have to get on with it for five years.
The motivation is obvious. By making the budget vote a confidence motion the Labour Prime Minister would hope to strong arm the SNP to vote in favour with the minimum of concessions, because the alternative would be an election.
Which is in the North East while Clerkin is from Nitshill/Darnley, opposite ends of the city. As usual we have unfounded claims with absolutely not one shred of evidence.
If Clerkin had any formal link with the SNP, especially standing as a councillor, proof would have been posted long before now.
Actually it turns out Clerkin was SNP candidate for Queenslie in 2003. Only google result is an article in the Herald which frustratingly won't load. Seems it also reveals the root of his Anti-SLAB activism - he was sacked from a council job by the Labour led council.
Queenslie would be a paper candidate, suspect SNP doesn't do much due diligence for paper candidates in council elections. Although I'm not sure even due diligence would have predicted he would turn out to be the nutter he is.
I can envisage a few Labour MPs going along with any bill on an in/out referendum if they're spooked by large UKIP vote shares in their constituencies.
On the other hand, Ukip will be portrayed as keeping Tories in power/cuts/austerity. It is a gamble as to whether Europe will be a more salient election topic next time than living standards and the economy. Judging by the current election, I suspect the answer is no, and Labour MPs can safely smear their Ukip challengers as Conservatives on holiday.
The NATS are right on this one. Only a motion of no confidence brings down a Government. Beyond that the polticians will just have to get on with it for five years.
So a government which fails to secure supply to the Crown can remain in office? Consider some dicta in Jackson v AG [2006] 1 AC 262, HL: Per Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead at 289: "A government cannot govern without the supply of money"; per Baroness Hale of Richmond at 315: " A government which is denied the resources needed even to carry on running the country has no alternative but to resign or to procure the dissolution of Parliament". There is nothing to suggest the 2011 Act has changed these basic constitutional principles.
The NATS are right on this one. Only a motion of no confidence brings down a Government. Beyond that the polticians will just have to get on with it for five years.
So a government which fails to secure supply to the Crown can remain in office? Consider some dicta in Jackson v AG [2006] 1 AC 262, HL: Per Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead at 289: "A government cannot govern without the supply of money"; per Baroness Hale of Richmond at 315: " A government which is denied the resources needed even to carry on running the country has no alternative but to resign or to procure the dissolution of Parliament". There is nothing to suggest the 2011 Act has changed these basic constitutional principles.
It is against all common sense. There is no sense in which a government without a budget can continue in office. And there is nothing in the law which forbids a prime minister from resigning after the loss of supply, nor could it refrain from resignation credibly in the eyes of the public. The propagation of that meme makes no sense to me.
There are at least five constituencies on @surbiton's list I'd expect the LibDems to lose. And probably five others is expect them to hold. I think his 19 is probably about right, but I think he misses conservative voters voting tactically for LibDems.
Hornsey and Wood Green and Birmingham Yardley could well be holds. Bristol West is long gone and I don't believe the effect of the name "David Ward" is big enough in Bradford East. I think if a Respect candidate had run there he'd have a really big chance.
Labour hot favourites in Horny & Woody. Rightly so I hear.
I don't actually think a referendum on europe is that important to cameron. All that matters is that he can tell his eurosceptic party members that he tried his best to get one.
I don't actually think a referendum on europe is that important to cameron. All that matters is that he can tell his eurosceptic party members that he tried his best to get one.
Right, it'd be a massive pain in the arse for him. If he could get away with not having one that would be much better for him.
The NATS are right on this one. Only a motion of no confidence brings down a Government. Beyond that the polticians will just have to get on with it for five years.
No. Only a motion of confidence can force a government to resign - but Miliband might calculate that if the Tories had no chance of forming a government, (having already tried but failed, for example) he'd be better forcing an election than see Labour haemorrhage more support in England if he was seen to 'buy off' the Scots.
It isn't always a 'Victory for Eck!' you know.....and Holyrood 2007 is not necessarily a model for Westminster 2015.....
I can envisage a few Labour MPs going along with any bill on an in/out referendum if they're spooked by large UKIP vote shares in their constituencies.
On the other hand, Ukip will be portrayed as keeping Tories in power/cuts/austerity. It is a gamble as to whether Europe will be a more salient election topic next time than living standards and the economy. Judging by the current election, I suspect the answer is no, and Labour MPs can safely smear their Ukip challengers as Conservatives on holiday.
Stickiness of immigration as a major issue means the EU will, rightly or wrongly, remain salient. I do agree that getting one over on the Tories will remain the priority for those northern Labour MPs, but if that comes at an even slightly significant risk to their jobs/image, then I can foresee a few defecting and voting with the Tories.
All conjecture of the most speculative kind, however
I don't actually think a referendum on europe is that important to cameron. All that matters is that he can tell his eurosceptic party members that he tried his best to get one.
Agreed and to be honest this is not in dispute. Ultimately I believe many of the UKIP memes surrounding Cameron to be true - he does not particularly care about the effects on immigration on the working classes and, rightly in my opinion, does not want his legacy to be as the man who facilitated the UK's succession from the EU - he knows the fallout on those most tangible of economic indicators will be disastrous.
The NATS are right on this one. Only a motion of no confidence brings down a Government. Beyond that the polticians will just have to get on with it for five years.
So a government which fails to secure supply to the Crown can remain in office? Consider some dicta in Jackson v AG [2006] 1 AC 262, HL: Per Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead at 289: "A government cannot govern without the supply of money"; per Baroness Hale of Richmond at 315: " A government which is denied the resources needed even to carry on running the country has no alternative but to resign or to procure the dissolution of Parliament". There is nothing to suggest the 2011 Act has changed these basic constitutional principles.
It is against all common sense. There is no sense in which a government without a budget can continue in office. And there is nothing in the law which forbids a prime minister from resigning after the loss of supply, nor could it refrain from resignation credibly in the eyes of the public. The propagation of that meme makes no sense to me.
It seems to me that there is nothing in the FTPA which precludes a government from resigning at any time which, in the normal course of events, would lead to the Leader of the Opposition being appointed as PM.
So, a government could make it known that a defeat on a Queen's Speech or Budget would be considered a resigning matter.
Comments
People will have known that there would be some form of protest well before the event, it remains a non story until it kicks off.
Though several reporters and politico's could make a reasonable assumption that something probably would.
My credulity is "unstretched".
I actually say it is not "beyond a shadow of doubt proof" just merely some indicative evidence. McTernan is 55 years old. 55 year old spinners don't suddenly come up with new techniques, they use the same ones.
He was caught doing it in Australia. And we have the statement from Clerkin that he was invited directly by East Renfrewshire CLP. The 100 Towns tour wasn't very dissimilar although without the specific invite to opponents. It was a deliberately provocative effort to engender a reaction. It would appear to be a core McTernan campaign tactic.
This is why the SNP leadership considers that they can prop up a Labour-led government whilst, at the same time, defeating that government on its budget until it introduces a budget that accords with the SNP’s wishes. However, the SNP leadership is mistaken.
https://britgovcon.wordpress.com/2015/05/04/a-fixed-term-hung-parliament/
1) Pass the Commons.
2) Die in the Lords.
It's probably not safe to assume they'd all vote the same way if it was going to make the leadership really cross.
Edit: Thinking of something else, ignore. Not sure whether that vote was meaningful or not.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_City_Council#Previous_single-member_ward_system
If Clerkin had any formal link with the SNP, especially standing as a councillor, proof would have been posted long before now.
The Porfessor has overlooked a simple matter. What incentive is there for a Labour Prime Minister to resign when he loses a Budget vote - no more than Salmond did when he lost a Budget vote in the Scottish Parliament.
The NATS are right on this one. Only a motion of no confidence brings down a Government. Beyond that the polticians will just have to get on with it for five years.
Quick google shows he stood as a SSP (Scottish Socialist Party) by-election candidate a while back, and possibly for the SDP in the 80s ("S Clerkin").
Oh ... found it. There's a Sean ClArkin (note different surname spelling), who stood in Queenslie for the SNP in Queenslie 2003:
http://www.andrewteale.me.uk/2003/document058.html
Queenslie would be a paper candidate, suspect SNP doesn't do much due diligence for paper candidates in council elections. Although I'm not sure even due diligence would have predicted he would turn out to be the nutter he is.
I'll probably vote to stay in even though I don't like the EU at all, and even though that sounds daft, there's lots of people the same.
If Out was EFTA/EEA, then I think it would gain significant support from business, and would be able to say "We want to be like Norway/Switzerland".
It isn't always a 'Victory for Eck!' you know.....and Holyrood 2007 is not necessarily a model for Westminster 2015.....
'Clerkin was never part of the SNP'
'He stood for them in Queenslie'
'Queenslie doesn't exist'
Yes it does.
'Its at the other end of the city'
'Here are the results...'
'OK, Clerkin did stand for the SNP, in a ward which does exist, but he was only a 'paper candidate'......
All conjecture of the most speculative kind, however
So, a government could make it known that a defeat on a Queen's Speech or Budget would be considered a resigning matter.