Con 281 Lab 266 SNP 52 LD 26 UKIP 1 Green 1 Oths 23
Ungovernable.
IMO another election before Christmas would be fun. Turnout would drop by at least 10% though probably.
At least. It would be October presumably. And hopefully a much shorter campaign. They couldn't have a third one if there was still no clearcut result, could they?
Andrew Neil (@afneil) 05/05/2015 23:21 Tomorrow's front pages show British press at partisan worst. All pretence of separation between news and opinion gone, even in "qualities".
Con 281 Lab 266 SNP 52 LD 26 UKIP 1 Green 1 Oths 23
Ungovernable.
IMO another election before Christmas would be fun. Turnout would drop by at least 10% though probably.
At least. It would be October presumably. And hopefully a much shorter campaign. They couldn't have a third one if there was still no clearcut result, could they?
Oh god just imagine it...a GE every 6 months...what are we becoming...Belgium?
Indeed - it's fresher, fewer people will have seen it, it's ridiculous, and you can add stuff to make it personally attacking him as well as policy attack him. Seems more versatile.
For what's it's worth (nothing), for the first time in ages someone actually did mention to me they didn't think Ed looked like a PM, so maybe these Sun style attacks are bringing back that image issue, who knows.
I don't think the Sun Front Page is that good, because everybody has seen the image, its a done joke.
You have to have something that will make people stop and look, but its a bit like seeing a Mirror headline with Tories Baby Eating Scum or Mail banging on about immigrants.
I think these stupid personal attacks add nothing to our democracy or our media. They are not even funny.
Monkey Ballots today or Spitting Image in the past are/were clever and incisive. They were both funny and able to make a serious point even if one didn't agree with the point they were making.
The Sun front pages are just sad and bitter. I am not even sure they will change a single vote (at least I hope they won't even though I can't stand Miliband).
People call the Sun a comic. Personally I think that is an insult to comics.
Kinnock in a lightbulb defined the 1992 election - iconic.
A lot of faux snobbery about.
Different era. And it wasn't playing on a personal trait or unfortunate photo. It was a clever way of expressing the fears many people were holding.
Trying to defend the Sun's front page in this case is just a daft position to take.
Is a single one of those companies still solvent, which I have been led to believe have alleged links to Craig Whyte. The wash has still to come out on this. Phil Three Names must be waiting for his knock at the door.
He's just a gullible stooge. Mike Ashley's door getting a chap is big news - hope his share price isn't affected , heart of stone etc..
It's not believable. Charles Green, yeah believable. Phil Three Names, yeah believable, most of the agents destroying the Gers, yeah believable. But Ashley? Seriously. AIUI he's already a billionaire with the ownership of a Premiership team with a devoted following.
Needing Rangers THAT much doesn't make sense. That Rangers didn't buy an Englsih non-league team (which they should have done) and move it up hte leagues says Ashley isn't part of the conspiracy.
Don't understand all the activity in Hampstead & Kilburn - the Tories haven't got a chance in a month of Sundays there surely?!
I think a lot of the Tory optimism is about how in 2010 no-one expected them to take the seat and yet they nearly did. Since then, the area has gentrified a lot around the W Hampstead / Kilburn bit.
As a probably useless anecdote, my neighbour said he had been approached by Keir Starmer in Highgate - very nice apparently, but my neighbour gave him an earful over the mansion tax. Starmer apparently then said he has been hearing that a lot. If it is being said in Holborn and St Pancras, I can imagine it is even more so in H&K
Thanks for the info. Still doesn't make sense to me whatsoever! I'll be damned if that's a Tory gain on Friday morning!
Agreed but I don't think you can write it off - the Mansion Tax is the number one issue in London.
I also think Holborn and SP could be interesting in future elections - the north of the constituency around Kentish Town has gentrified massively in the last five years and KX is now going the same way...!
The following is a list of constituencies which Labour has lost because of metropolitan gentrification during the last 25 years:
I would suggest Hammersmith and Fulham in 2005. Back in the 70s the old Fulham seat was Labour. At the last review this constituency was split up and Fulham put in with Hammersmith, which hasn't helped the Tories.
Battersea this year if the Ashcroft poll is right.
@another_richard "Putney went Conservative in 1979 (as did Fulham)..."
If Charlie Kennedy or Tom Clarke or Simon Hughes lose their seats, you would have to go back to Fulham 1979, to find a longer-serving incumbent defeated (Michael Stewart who had sat for Fulham since 1945)
I have got a feeling the Tories will gain Eastleigh
Don't see it myself. Don't forget that the lib dems have nearly 40 of the 45 local councils in that seat. Their gotv operation is better there plus enough ukip vote to dent the tories there as well.
Long and interesting, though this close to the finish line I'm not convinced into changing my views by it. It still seems to rely a lot on assuming that the named polling a la Clegg is both correct and would be repeated across the board, and a lot of assumptions about how Labour must be set to do worse that the polls predict because their strategy has been bad etc, what I would term the 'Labour should be doing worse because of X, and so they must be even if they polls don't pick it up' approach. It might be true, but just because there are sound reasons people perhaps should be more wary, doesn't mean they will be.
Although the piece does suggest this is a good election for Labour to lose, much as some others have been consoling themselves that its good for the Tories to lose too. Which again, might be true for both, but they'd rather take the hit now than assume it would be worse for them in the long run if they got in.
I'd have gone with an Edstone image. The utter poverty of ambition of those ghasty 'pledges' is actually a politically serious point. They've chosen to go with a more visceral approach that this deeply unfortunate looking man must never be Prime Minister.
I'm pretty sure the Sun will have Ed's tombstones on the front page on Thursday...
Andrew Neil (@afneil) 05/05/2015 23:21 Tomorrow's front pages show British press at partisan worst. All pretence of separation between news and opinion gone, even in "qualities".
Wow you posted something of value.
Well done.
If you'd followed the betting tips I have put on here you'd have seen a lot of value, and earned yourself a nice few quid...but you just carry on with your useless predictions that you have no confidence in, it's only a betting site after all you mug
Lot's of polls today and only glacial movement between the big two. So all to play for. My forecast for tomorrow: Lot's more smears on UKIP with the MSM trying to make us disappear on the one hand and giving a big kicking on the other.
However, this evening spent in watching the last 4 episodes of season 4 of GOT. A bit different from the books in many respects, but great because of the story and the acting.
I'm honing my big Valyrian sword for Thursday; it should be ready then.
Don't understand all the activity in Hampstead & Kilburn - the Tories haven't got a chance in a month of Sundays there surely?!
I think a lot of the Tory optimism is about how in 2010 no-one expected them to take the seat and yet they nearly did. Since then, the area has gentrified a lot around the W Hampstead / Kilburn bit.
As a probably useless anecdote, my neighbour said he had been approached by Keir Starmer in Highgate - very nice apparently, but my neighbour gave him an earful over the mansion tax. Starmer apparently then said he has been hearing that a lot. If it is being said in Holborn and St Pancras, I can imagine it is even more so in H&K
Thanks for the info. Still doesn't make sense to me whatsoever! I'll be damned if that's a Tory gain on Friday morning!
Agreed but I don't think you can write it off - the Mansion Tax is the number one issue in London.
I also think Holborn and SP could be interesting in future elections - the north of the constituency around Kentish Town has gentrified massively in the last five years and KX is now going the same way...!
The following is a list of constituencies which Labour has lost because of metropolitan gentrification during the last 25 years:
I would suggest Hammersmith and Fulham in 2005. Back in the 70s the old Fulham seat was Labour. At the last review this constituency was split up and Fulham put in with Hammersmith, which hasn't helped the Tories.
Battersea this year if the Ashcroft poll is right.
The big political changes in Fulham and Battersea took place in the 1970s and 1980s.
For all the talk of gentrification turning Labour seats blue it hasn't happened since then.
And so, a prediction I generally hold to the pollsters’ maxim of snapshot not prediction, so I avoid predictions like the plague for most of the Parliament as the polls may yet change. In 2010 I waited until after the final polls were done before getting off the fence, but it gave me very little time to actually write anything, so this year I’ve done it up front. Obviously if Wednesday’s final polls do show the Conservatives eeking out a small lead I’ll reconsider and make my prediction more Conservative – when the facts change, I changed my mind. As it is though, my personal best guess is Conservatives around 277 seats, Labour around 267, the Lib Dems around 29 and the SNP around 52. I’ll revisit those once we have the final polls.
Enjoyable mini-pbmeet in Broxtowe - Tyson, Roger, Tissue Price, Pulpstar, TSE, FoxinSox - 3 Lab, 2 Con, 1 LibDem - we only needed a ScotNat and a Kipper to make it a plausible poll panel. Tyson has been canvassing and is staying on to help in the final days. We agreed to make all comments non-attributable...
Impressed that you've finished series 4 of GoT, MikeK - is that from Virgin Atlantic, or a boxed set, or qwhat?
I subscribe to all three of Labour, Tory and Lib Dem email lists for a laugh. I probably confuse the hell out of their analytics.
For some reason, "Samantha Cameron" then "Justine Miliband" emailed me today to get out the Tory/Labour vote!
In terms of email communication, from most-to-least effective is Labour, Conservatives and Lib Dems.
Part of that might be my left-wing bias but Labour have been very effective at using it throughout the year, using a variety of approaches. I imagine email has been a great fundraising tool for them.
I find the Conservative emails to been very negative and repetitive ("we can save Britain from the chaos of Ed Miliband, propped up by the SNP" ad nauseum) but then that might be effective amongst their supporters. I also find the Tory emails to be far less polished and engaging than Labour's.
Today, the Liberal Democrats decided to email about "Operating Manatee", where they target voters with Facebook ads using analytics data, which is just kind of weird and creepy, I am a little sceptical of social media ad effectiveness and I find it a bit weird to email supporters, rather than campaigners, about it. I've always felt that the Lib Dems lag behind a bit on online campaigning and that's a bit strange, as it's probably one of the most direct and cost-effective ways to campaign and counter a negative media narrative.
Enjoyable mini-pbmeet in Broxtowe - Tyson, Roger, Tissue Price, Pulpstar, TSE, FoxinSox - 3 Lab, 2 Con, 1 LibDem - we only needed a ScotNat and a Kipper to make it a plausible poll panel. Tyson has been canvassing and is staying on to help in the final days. We agreed to make all comments non-attributable...
Impressed that you've finished series 4 of GoT, MikeK - is that from Virgin Atlantic, or a boxed set, or qwhat?
Hi Nick, will you be able to keep us updated on election night on how things are progressing in Broxtowe?
Enjoyable mini-pbmeet in Broxtowe - Tyson, Roger, Tissue Price, Pulpstar, TSE, FoxinSox - 3 Lab, 2 Con, 1 LibDem - we only needed a ScotNat and a Kipper to make it a plausible poll panel. Tyson has been canvassing and is staying on to help in the final days. We agreed to make all comments non-attributable...
Impressed that you've finished series 4 of GoT, MikeK - is that from Virgin Atlantic, or a boxed set, or qwhat?
It was an interesting evening. Great to put faces to names, would recommend it. A few good tips too, including the legendary rogerdamus prediction, which shall remain secret!
LOL....I think the Ballot Monkey people read PB...they just did a gag about SeanT's favourite red mug...I mean in terms of the election campaign that really was niche of niche.
Con 281 Lab 266 SNP 52 LD 26 UKIP 1 Green 1 Oths 23
Ungovernable.
IMO another election before Christmas would be fun. Turnout would drop by at least 10% though probably.
At least. It would be October presumably. And hopefully a much shorter campaign. They couldn't have a third one if there was still no clearcut result, could they?
Oh god just imagine it...a GE every 6 months...what are we becoming...Belgium?
My ELBOW will be extremely sore after all that exertion
Hi Nick, will you be able to keep us updated on election night on how things are progressing in Broxtowe?
Doubtful - haven't fully got the hang of my new iPhone from Vodafone on a monthly sub, which sometimes gives me internet access and sometimes grumbles that I'm not subscribed to a mobile service - well, duh, isn't Vodafone a mobile service? No doubt a settings issue but it's weird that it comes and goes.
And probably as the count is being televised by all the major channels, I'll need to be bright and alert - the exciting face of a fresh new Labour MP, innit - rather than preoccupied with my phone like a lovelorn teenager. But I'll tweet something if I get the chance. I could probably text somebody anyway (that always works) if someone who will be online wants to give me their phone number.
Hi Nick, will you be able to keep us updated on election night on how things are progressing in Broxtowe?
Doubtful - haven't fully got the hang of my new iPhone from Vodafone on a monthly sub, which sometimes gives me internet access and sometimes grumbles that I'm not subscribed to a mobile service - well, duh, isn't Vodafone a mobile service? No doubt a settings issue but it's weird that it comes and goes.
And probably as the count is being televised by all the major channels, I'll need to be bright and alert - the exciting face of a fresh new Labour MP, innit - rather than preoccupied with my phone like a lovelorn teenager. But I'll tweet something if I get the chance. I could probably text somebody anyway (that always works) if someone who will be online wants to give me their phone number.
iPhone? You sell out to the cult of Jobs....
On a totally unrelated note. That Assad bloke in Syria is in some serious difficulty.
Hi Nick, will you be able to keep us updated on election night on how things are progressing in Broxtowe?
Doubtful - haven't fully got the hang of my new iPhone from Vodafone on a monthly sub, which sometimes gives me internet access and sometimes grumbles that I'm not subscribed to a mobile service - well, duh, isn't Vodafone a mobile service? No doubt a settings issue but it's weird that it comes and goes.
And probably as the count is being televised by all the major channels, I'll need to be bright and alert - the exciting face of a fresh new Labour MP, innit - rather than preoccupied with my phone like a lovelorn teenager. But I'll tweet something if I get the chance. I could probably text somebody anyway (that always works) if someone who will be online wants to give me their phone number.
iPhone? You sell out to the cult of Jobs....
On a totally unrelated note. That Assad bloke in Syria is in some serious difficulty.
Hi Nick, will you be able to keep us updated on election night on how things are progressing in Broxtowe?
Doubtful - haven't fully got the hang of my new iPhone from Vodafone on a monthly sub, which sometimes gives me internet access and sometimes grumbles that I'm not subscribed to a mobile service - well, duh, isn't Vodafone a mobile service? No doubt a settings issue but it's weird that it comes and goes.
And probably as the count is being televised by all the major channels, I'll need to be bright and alert - the exciting face of a fresh new Labour MP, innit - rather than preoccupied with my phone like a lovelorn teenager. But I'll tweet something if I get the chance. I could probably text somebody anyway (that always works) if someone who will be online wants to give me their phone number.
iPhone? You sell out to the cult of Jobs....
On a totally unrelated note. That Assad bloke in Syria is in some serious difficulty.
Have ISIS reached him ?
He is losing resources that he can no longer replace one for one.
I wonder what The Sun has planned tomorrow night. Today's front page is good, I'm hoping for something spectacular tomorrow night. They need to make sure any of their readers who is still thinking of voting red definitely votes blue.
No Conservative reads the Mirror so they just preaching to the choir. Their "Major" bombshell will change not a single vote.
I wonder what The Sun has planned tomorrow night. Today's front page is good, I'm hoping for something spectacular tomorrow night. They need to make sure any of their readers who is still thinking of voting red definitely votes blue.
No Conservative reads the Mirror so they just preaching to the choir. Their "Major" bombshell will change not a single vote.
Actually both papers (and the Mail) have significant minorities of readers who dissent from the editorial line - presumably they read them for the sport or something (the Daily Worker used to have a good racing tipster who brought in lots of readers with zilch interest in the people's struggle). But neither paper really has much reach nowadays - in my patch, a recent survey showed that only 5% get their news from ANy print newspaper.
I wonder what The Sun has planned tomorrow night. Today's front page is good, I'm hoping for something spectacular tomorrow night. They need to make sure any of their readers who is still thinking of voting red definitely votes blue.
No Conservative reads the Mirror so they just preaching to the choir. Their "Major" bombshell will change not a single vote.
Actually both papers (and the Mail) have significant minorities of readers who dissent from the editorial line - presumably they read them for the sport or something (the Daily Worker used to have a good racing tipster who brought in lots of readers with zilch interest in the people's struggle). But neither paper really has much reach nowadays - in my patch, a recent survey showed that only 5% get their news from ANy print newspaper.
Actually I believe it is particularly the Mail that has a much more diverse readership (politically) than one would imagine, plus the their website is hugely popular.
I would guess that Mail manages to attract a lot more readers / viewers for the celeb tittle tattle than the people reading for that would like to admit, while ignoring the right wing politics megaphone.
I think the Sun does get readers for the footy. I personally know somebody who is a Labour voter and was life long Mirror reader, but swapped to the Sun because in his words the sport coverage has become total shit since Piers Morgan left.
There is strong opposition in England and Wales to the SNP enjoying huge influence in a hung parliament, the survey of more than 2,000 people by ORB suggests....
Only 29 per cent agree that the SNP should enjoy a veto over government policies even if they do not affect Scotland, while 71 per cent disagree. A majority of people in every part of Great Britain except Scotland oppose a veto.
But in Scotland people back the idea of the SNP enjoying such influence by 63 per cent to 37 per cent.
Not sure why Allister Heath thinks punters betting with their hearts is good news for the Tories:
Good news, of sorts, for the Conservative Party and David Cameron. Over the past few days, punters and City types have been putting a lot more money on the Tories being able to continue in office, at least in some shape or form.
Okay, I've just read that the Fixed Term Parliament Act means that the Queen's Speech is no-longer a vote of confidence. What a mess. That piece of legislation utterly screws up the constitution and should have got vastly more criticism at the time.
No wonder the Tories are going with "stability or chaos" as they've created a system that screws up the constitution to inevitably create chaos in this situation.
Okay, I've just read that the Fixed Term Parliament Act means that the Queen's Speech is no-longer a vote of confidence. What a mess. That piece of legislation utterly screws up the constitution and should have got vastly more criticism at the time.
No wonder the Tories are going with "stability or chaos" as they've created a system that screws up the constitution to inevitably create chaos in this situation.
What's the specific chaos you're worried about?
PS Don't believe everything you read about this - some commentators seem to be quite confused about it, particularly the difference between bringing down a government and dissolving parliament.
Okay, I've just read that the Fixed Term Parliament Act means that the Queen's Speech is no-longer a vote of confidence. What a mess. That piece of legislation utterly screws up the constitution and should have got vastly more criticism at the time.
No wonder the Tories are going with "stability or chaos" as they've created a system that screws up the constitution to inevitably create chaos in this situation.
What's the specific chaos you're worried about?
PS Don't believe everything you read about this - some commentators seem to be quite confused about it, particularly the difference between bringing down a government and dissolving parliament.
Multiple commentators (e.g. Professor Colin Talbot) seem to be under the impression that under the FTPA, The Queen's Speech no-longer acts as a vote of confidence, meaning there's potential for a limbo government that can't command support of the House, instead requiring a 2/3rds majority for a vote of no-confidence.
Which is a self-evidently ridiculous situation that creates obvious constitutional issues.
Okay, I've just read that the Fixed Term Parliament Act means that the Queen's Speech is no-longer a vote of confidence. What a mess. That piece of legislation utterly screws up the constitution and should have got vastly more criticism at the time.
No wonder the Tories are going with "stability or chaos" as they've created a system that screws up the constitution to inevitably create chaos in this situation.
What's the specific chaos you're worried about?
PS Don't believe everything you read about this - some commentators seem to be quite confused about it, particularly the difference between bringing down a government and dissolving parliament.
Multiple commentators (e.g. Professor Colin Talbot) seem to be under the impression that under the FTPA, The Queen's Speech no-longer acts as a vote of confidence, meaning there's potential for a limbo government that can't command support of the House, instead requiring a 2/3rds majority for a vote of no-confidence.
Which is a self-evidently ridiculous situation that creates obvious constitutional issues.
If Parliament votes down a queen's speech, how long before it votes through a motion 'that this house has no confidence in Her Majesty's government'?
PM then resigns & HM asks the other chap to have a go...
Politicians are acutely aware of the price the electorate exact on being asked the same question again
Okay, I've just read that the Fixed Term Parliament Act means that the Queen's Speech is no-longer a vote of confidence. What a mess. That piece of legislation utterly screws up the constitution and should have got vastly more criticism at the time.
No wonder the Tories are going with "stability or chaos" as they've created a system that screws up the constitution to inevitably create chaos in this situation.
Not so. A government can resign at any time, leading ordinarily to the Leader of the Opposition being asked to form a government.
So, irrespective of the FTPA, the government could make any vote, including the Queen's Speech, a vote of confidence.
All that has changed is the right of a PM to request (but not demand) unilaterally a dissolution has been removed.
Not so. A government can resign at any time, leading ordinarily to the Leader of the Opposition being asked to form a government.
So, irrespective of the FTPA, the government could make any vote, including the Queen's Speech, a vote of confidence.
And what if the government doesn't resign, claiming it has a "mandate" because it got most votes/most seats, and doesn't allow the opposition to form government despite its inability to pass a Queen's Speech? Electoral limbo.
And that seems what is likely to happen. And that's ridiculous. The old rules made perfect sense - if you can't command support of the House then you're out of government. Fine.
Okay, I've just read that the Fixed Term Parliament Act means that the Queen's Speech is no-longer a vote of confidence. What a mess. That piece of legislation utterly screws up the constitution and should have got vastly more criticism at the time.
No wonder the Tories are going with "stability or chaos" as they've created a system that screws up the constitution to inevitably create chaos in this situation.
What's the specific chaos you're worried about?
PS Don't believe everything you read about this - some commentators seem to be quite confused about it, particularly the difference between bringing down a government and dissolving parliament.
instead requiring a 2/3rds majority for a vote of no-confidence.
No. A Vote of Confidence requires a simple majority. One vote will do it.
And what if the government doesn't resign, claiming it has a "mandate" because it got most votes/most seats, and doesn't allow the opposition to form despite its inability to pass a Queen's Speech? Electoral limbo.
And that seems what is likely to happen. And that's ridiculous.
The only vote which requires a two thirds majority is "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election" (FTPA 2011, ss. 2(1)(b) & (2)).
Not so. A government can resign at any time, leading ordinarily to the Leader of the Opposition being asked to form a government.
So, irrespective of the FTPA, the government could make any vote, including the Queen's Speech, a vote of confidence.
And what if the government doesn't resign, claiming it has a "mandate" because it got most votes/most seats, and doesn't allow the opposition to form government despite its inability to pass a Queen's Speech? Electoral limbo.
And that seems what is likely to happen. And that's ridiculous. The old rules made perfect sense - if you can't command support of the House then you're out of government. Fine.
From the Talbot article you posted:
Under the FTPA the only circumstances in which a Government falls would be if (a) they resigned – unlikely but not impossible or (b) the following is passed by a majority in the House of Commons
“That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government”.
Okay, I've just read that the Fixed Term Parliament Act means that the Queen's Speech is no-longer a vote of confidence. What a mess. That piece of legislation utterly screws up the constitution and should have got vastly more criticism at the time.
No wonder the Tories are going with "stability or chaos" as they've created a system that screws up the constitution to inevitably create chaos in this situation.
What's the specific chaos you're worried about?
PS Don't believe everything you read about this - some commentators seem to be quite confused about it, particularly the difference between bringing down a government and dissolving parliament.
instead requiring a 2/3rds majority for a vote of no-confidence.
No. A Vote of Confidence requires a simple majority. One vote will do it.
And what if the government doesn't resign, claiming it has a "mandate" because it got most votes/most seats, and doesn't allow the opposition to form despite its inability to pass a Queen's Speech? Electoral limbo.
And that seems what is likely to happen. And that's ridiculous.
The only vote which requires a two thirds majority is "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election" (FTPA 2011, ss. 2(1)(b) & (2)).
...wait, so it's possible that no-one can form government but there will be no general election because it requires 2/3rds of the House to support it? That... doesn't seem sensible and could easily cause problems.
Not so. A government can resign at any time, leading ordinarily to the Leader of the Opposition being asked to form a government.
So, irrespective of the FTPA, the government could make any vote, including the Queen's Speech, a vote of confidence.
And what if the government doesn't resign, claiming it has a "mandate" because it got most votes/most seats, and doesn't allow the opposition to form government despite its inability to pass a Queen's Speech? Electoral limbo.
And that seems what is likely to happen. And that's ridiculous. The old rules made perfect sense - if you can't command support of the House then you're out of government. Fine.
If a government doesn't make a Queen's Speech a vote-of-confidence, and resign as a consequence of losing it, the forces capable of defeating it on that motion would surely have the votes to defeat it on a formal VoC within the meaning of the FTPA, within minutes or hours, no doubt.
Okay, I've just read that the Fixed Term Parliament Act means that the Queen's Speech is no-longer a vote of confidence. What a mess. That piece of legislation utterly screws up the constitution and should have got vastly more criticism at the time.
No wonder the Tories are going with "stability or chaos" as they've created a system that screws up the constitution to inevitably create chaos in this situation.
What's the specific chaos you're worried about?
PS Don't believe everything you read about this - some commentators seem to be quite confused about it, particularly the difference between bringing down a government and dissolving parliament.
Multiple commentators (e.g. Professor Colin Talbot) seem to be under the impression that under the FTPA, The Queen's Speech no-longer acts as a vote of confidence, meaning there's potential for a limbo government that can't command support of the House, instead requiring a 2/3rds majority for a vote of no-confidence.
Which is a self-evidently ridiculous situation that creates obvious constitutional issues.
No, you'd still only need 50%+1 for a vote of no-confidence, not a 2/3 super-majority. The point is just that parliament has to actually vote for a no-confidence motion, not something else where a lack of confidence is pretty much the general vibe.
Okay, I've just read that the Fixed Term Parliament Act means that the Queen's Speech is no-longer a vote of confidence. What a mess. That piece of legislation utterly screws up the constitution and should have got vastly more criticism at the time.
No wonder the Tories are going with "stability or chaos" as they've created a system that screws up the constitution to inevitably create chaos in this situation.
What's the specific chaos you're worried about?
PS Don't believe everything you read about this - some commentators seem to be quite confused about it, particularly the difference between bringing down a government and dissolving parliament.
instead requiring a 2/3rds majority for a vote of no-confidence.
No. A Vote of Confidence requires a simple majority. One vote will do it.
And what if the government doesn't resign, claiming it has a "mandate" because it got most votes/most seats, and doesn't allow the opposition to form despite its inability to pass a Queen's Speech? Electoral limbo.
And that seems what is likely to happen. And that's ridiculous.
The only vote which requires a two thirds majority is "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election" (FTPA 2011, ss. 2(1)(b) & (2)).
...wait, so it's possible that no-one can form government but there will be no general election because it requires 2/3rds of the House to support it? That... doesn't seem sensible and could easily cause problems.
No, if there's no government after two weeks you get an election.
Okay, I've just read that the Fixed Term Parliament Act means that the Queen's Speech is no-longer a vote of confidence. What a mess. That piece of legislation utterly screws up the constitution and should have got vastly more criticism at the time.
No wonder the Tories are going with "stability or chaos" as they've created a system that screws up the constitution to inevitably create chaos in this situation.
What's the specific chaos you're worried about?
PS Don't believe everything you read about this - some commentators seem to be quite confused about it, particularly the difference between bringing down a government and dissolving parliament.
instead requiring a 2/3rds majority for a vote of no-confidence.
No. A Vote of Confidence requires a simple majority. One vote will do it.
And what if the government doesn't resign, claiming it has a "mandate" because it got most votes/most seats, and doesn't allow the opposition to form despite its inability to pass a Queen's Speech? Electoral limbo.
And that seems what is likely to happen. And that's ridiculous.
The only vote which requires a two thirds majority is "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election" (FTPA 2011, ss. 2(1)(b) & (2)).
...wait, so it's possible that no-one can form government but there will be no general election because it requires 2/3rds of the House to support it? That... doesn't seem sensible and could easily cause problems.
No there are two ways to trigger an early election.
1 is vote for it (two thirds) 2 is no confidence old government (simple majority). If no new government can be found within 14 days this triggers a new election.
If no government can be found then a new election can be triggered by either of those methods.
...wait, so it's possible that no-one can form government but there will be no general election because it requires 2/3rds of the House to support it? That... doesn't seem sensible and could easily cause problems.
Can I suggest you read the 2011 Act, rather than engaging in wild speculation as to its effect? The best account on the internet by a considerable margin is by Dr Mark Elliot of St Catharine's College which I understand is affiliated to the technical school on the Cam.
Section 2 provides two methods by which a Parliament can be dissolved before the expiration of the five year term. (1) A motion in the from "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election" is passed nemine dissentiente or with the support of 434 MPs (s. 2(1)-(2)). (2) A motion in the form "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government" is passed, and fourteen days elapse without the passage of a motion in the form "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government" (s. 2(3)-(5)). If either (1) or (2) occur, Her Majesty has the power by proclamation to dissolve Parliament and appoint a new polling day (s. 2(7)).
Following up on the thing about budgets, Colin Talbot says:
A lot of what British government spends and taxes does not require fresh annual authorization – if a Budget’s spending ad tax plans were voted down government would largely carry on ‘as is’. Government borrowing, paying for debt, etc is not subject to authorization by Parliament – unlike in the USA – so it can carry on. British government can therefore carry on for quite a long period without passing a Budget, again, unlike the US Federal Government.
Following up on the thing about budgets, Colin Talbot says:
A lot of what British government spends and taxes does not require fresh annual authorization – if a Budget’s spending ad tax plans were voted down government would largely carry on ‘as is’. Government borrowing, paying for debt, etc is not subject to authorization by Parliament – unlike in the USA – so it can carry on. British government can therefore carry on for quite a long period without passing a Budget, again, unlike the US Federal Government.
Does anybody know what if any taxing or spending does require fresh authorization? From memory income tax needs annual authorisation, as it was initially a temporary tax to pay for war efforts. This is what dictates the timing of the Budget in March, before the start of the tax year in April.
Does anybody know what if any taxing or spending does require fresh authorization?
This is pure madness. Certain taxes, such as income and corporation tax, which includes the bank levy, require annual authorisation known as the charge (eg Finance Act 2015, ss. 1 & 6). Unless a Finance Act is passed in each session authorising the charge to tax, the taxes cannot be collected. There is a very limited exception to this principle under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968, but this merely gives temporary statutory effect to certain tax resolutions of the House of Commons usually passed on Budget Day. Some taxes, such as Value Added Tax are charged by permanent statutory authority (see VATA 1994, s. 1). As for spending, the House of Commons must approve the main estimates, on which Supply and Appropriation Bills are introduced, which must be passed annually. Without the authority of the Supply and Appropriation Bills, the Treasury lacks authority to issue monies out of the consolidated fund.
It it true that some spending and taxation can occur without annual authorisation, but it is accepted that a government which cannot secure supply to the Crown must resign.
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · 3m3 minutes ago Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week (ELBOW) % scores since August - online polls only (as of 1st May) - Labour ahead
Does anybody know what if any taxing or spending does require fresh authorization?
I should add that where a government relies on the 1968 Act to collect taxes provisionally, but fails to secure statutory authority for the provisional resolutions, it is obliged to repay for the tax collected under the authority of the 1968 Act (see section 2(1)(a)-(b)). That would generate the greatest volume of restitutionary litigation since the interest rate swaps fiasco...
Thing’s must be rather too close to call; can’t remember back in GE2010 the front pages of every newspaper being quite as barmy as they are today. – Nor do I recall them publishing a step-by-step guide to tactical voting! – Perhaps I just blanked it out.
Thing’s must be rather too close to call; can’t remember back in GE2010 the front pages of every newspaper being quite as barmy as they are today. – Nor do I recall them publishing a step-by-step guide to tactical voting! – Perhaps I just blanked it out.
Thing’s must be rather too close to call; can’t remember back in GE2010 the front pages of every newspaper being quite as barmy as they are today. – Nor do I recall them publishing a step-by-step guide to tactical voting! – Perhaps I just blanked it out.
Based on the last three opinion polls in England, Wales and Scotland and carrying out separate UNS* calculations, the following are the results:
Seats: Lab 291, Con 261, SNP 54, LD 18, PC 3, UKIP 3, GRN 1, SPK 1. Total = 632
Sources:
Survation 04/05 May Sample size 1276 England only Lab 34, Con 35, LD 9, UKIP 17, Grn 4
Seats: Lab 259, Con 253, LD 16, UKIP* 3, Grn 1, Spk 1 Total = 533
Yougov 29Apr/1 May Sample size 1162 Scotland only SNP 49, Lab 26, Con 15, LD 7, UKIP 2, Grn 1
Seats: Lab 4, Con 0, LD 1, SNP 54 Total = 59
Yougov 28/30 Apr Sample size 1146 Wales only PC 13, Lab 39, Con 26, LD 6, UKIP 12, Grn 3
Seats: Lab 28, Con 8, LD 1, PC 3, Total = 40
Apart from the 3 UKIP adjustments no manual adjustments were done. No "feeling" , "gut instinct".
It is possible that
the opinion polls are wrong;
the UNS is not suitable. Whilst I would agree with Scotland and Wales due small numbers involved, in England with 533 seats, the law of averages should work out roughly.
* 3 UKIP seats were manually adjusted. Clacton, Thanet S and Thurrock. 2 were taken from the Tories and 1 from Labour.
Enjoyable mini-pbmeet in Broxtowe - Tyson, Roger, Tissue Price, Pulpstar, TSE, FoxinSox - 3 Lab, 2 Con, 1 LibDem - we only needed a ScotNat and a Kipper to make it a plausible poll panel. Tyson has been canvassing and is staying on to help in the final days. We agreed to make all comments non-attributable...
Impressed that you've finished series 4 of GoT, MikeK - is that from Virgin Atlantic, or a boxed set, or qwhat?
It's a boxed set, Nick. Worth every penny and a solace for those that don't make it tomorrow.
Thing’s must be rather too close to call; can’t remember back in GE2010 the front pages of every newspaper being quite as barmy as they are today. – Nor do I recall them publishing a step-by-step guide to tactical voting! – Perhaps I just blanked it out.
If Parliament votes down a queen's speech, how long before it votes through a motion 'that this house has no confidence in Her Majesty's government'?
Except one requires half and the other requires two thirds. So it could be a while if there's deadlock, as seems likely. The two-third rule is shocking and indefensible. The old rules made perfect sense.
Not so. A government can resign at any time, leading ordinarily to the Leader of the Opposition being asked to form a government. So, irrespective of the FTPA, the government could make any vote, including the Queen's Speech, a vote of confidence.
And what if the government doesn't resign, claiming it has a "mandate" because it got most votes/most seats, and doesn't allow the opposition to form government despite its inability to pass a Queen's Speech? Electoral limbo. And that seems what is likely to happen. And that's ridiculous. The old rules made perfect sense - if you can't command support of the House then you're out of government. Fine.
The new rules were at the insistence of the Lib Dems and were their idea of saving themselves from an election...
Comments
For what's it's worth (nothing), for the first time in ages someone actually did mention to me they didn't think Ed looked like a PM, so maybe these Sun style attacks are bringing back that image issue, who knows.
Trying to defend the Sun's front page in this case is just a daft position to take.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/shaun-lawson/polls-and-most-of-forecasts-are-wrong-ed-miliband-will-not-be-next-prime-min
Needing Rangers THAT much doesn't make sense. That Rangers didn't buy an Englsih non-league team (which they should have done) and move it up hte leagues says Ashley isn't part of the conspiracy.
You really think that there will be anything other than a NAT landslide.
Most people think that the Glasgow shouting match is a matter of Murphy. Where ever he is, whatever he does Mr Angry is not far away.
Battersea this year if the Ashcroft poll is right.
"Putney went Conservative in 1979 (as did Fulham)..."
If Charlie Kennedy or Tom Clarke or Simon Hughes lose their seats, you would have to go back to Fulham 1979, to find a longer-serving incumbent defeated (Michael Stewart who had sat for Fulham since 1945)
'Weird things in Islington South...weird given it'll be a Labour landslide anyway
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/05/flyer-voters-oust-labour-us-style-dirty-tricks-campaign-key-seat'
Must be white van men getting together to get rid of this vile woman.
Although the piece does suggest this is a good election for Labour to lose, much as some others have been consoling themselves that its good for the Tories to lose too. Which again, might be true for both, but they'd rather take the hit now than assume it would be worse for them in the long run if they got in.
My forecast for tomorrow: Lot's more smears on UKIP with the MSM trying to make us disappear on the one hand and giving a big kicking on the other.
However, this evening spent in watching the last 4 episodes of season 4 of GOT. A bit different from the books in many respects, but great because of the story and the acting.
I'm honing my big Valyrian sword for Thursday; it should be ready then.
Good night all.
For all the talk of gentrification turning Labour seats blue it hasn't happened since then.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9377
And so, a prediction
I generally hold to the pollsters’ maxim of snapshot not prediction, so I avoid predictions like the plague for most of the Parliament as the polls may yet change. In 2010 I waited until after the final polls were done before getting off the fence, but it gave me very little time to actually write anything, so this year I’ve done it up front. Obviously if Wednesday’s final polls do show the Conservatives eeking out a small lead I’ll reconsider and make my prediction more Conservative – when the facts change, I changed my mind. As it is though, my personal best guess is Conservatives around 277 seats, Labour around 267, the Lib Dems around 29 and the SNP around 52. I’ll revisit those once we have the final polls.
Impressed that you've finished series 4 of GoT, MikeK - is that from Virgin Atlantic, or a boxed set, or qwhat?
For some reason, "Samantha Cameron" then "Justine Miliband" emailed me today to get out the Tory/Labour vote!
In terms of email communication, from most-to-least effective is Labour, Conservatives and Lib Dems.
Part of that might be my left-wing bias but Labour have been very effective at using it throughout the year, using a variety of approaches. I imagine email has been a great fundraising tool for them.
I find the Conservative emails to been very negative and repetitive ("we can save Britain from the chaos of Ed Miliband, propped up by the SNP" ad nauseum) but then that might be effective amongst their supporters. I also find the Tory emails to be far less polished and engaging than Labour's.
Today, the Liberal Democrats decided to email about "Operating Manatee", where they target voters with Facebook ads using analytics data, which is just kind of weird and creepy, I am a little sceptical of social media ad effectiveness and I find it a bit weird to email supporters, rather than campaigners, about it. I've always felt that the Lib Dems lag behind a bit on online campaigning and that's a bit strange, as it's probably one of the most direct and cost-effective ways to campaign and counter a negative media narrative.
[suddenly he clutches his head screaming as his Tebbit Chip kicks in] Aaaaarrrgh!!
[before a more servile expression crosses his face] Must be loyal to Britain... must be loyal...
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xw2z0uQQJQpvXEIOn2kujhZfVgcuSBiViLlaUwlJGQw/edit#gid=0
You can see the declaration times for all seats in 2010 on the Press Association's election night live page. Time is on the bottom right:
http://election.pressassociation.com/Constituencies/live_results.html
And probably as the count is being televised by all the major channels, I'll need to be bright and alert - the exciting face of a fresh new Labour MP, innit - rather than preoccupied with my phone like a lovelorn teenager. But I'll tweet something if I get the chance. I could probably text somebody anyway (that always works) if someone who will be online wants to give me their phone number.
iPhone? You sell out to the cult of Jobs....
On a totally unrelated note. That Assad bloke in Syria is in some serious difficulty.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/595696755347427331/photo/1
No Conservative reads the Mirror so they just preaching to the choir. Their "Major" bombshell will change not a single vote.
I would guess that Mail manages to attract a lot more readers / viewers for the celeb tittle tattle than the people reading for that would like to admit, while ignoring the right wing politics megaphone.
I think the Sun does get readers for the footy. I personally know somebody who is a Labour voter and was life long Mirror reader, but swapped to the Sun because in his words the sport coverage has become total shit since Piers Morgan left.
Only 29 per cent agree that the SNP should enjoy a veto over government policies even if they do not affect Scotland, while 71 per cent disagree. A majority of people in every part of Great Britain except Scotland oppose a veto.
But in Scotland people back the idea of the SNP enjoying such influence by 63 per cent to 37 per cent.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/general-election-2015-postelection-shambles-looms-as-70-per-cent-of-voters-say-snp-should-not-be-able-to-veto-uk-government-policies-10227199.html
Good news, of sorts, for the Conservative Party and David Cameron. Over the past few days, punters and City types have been putting a lot more money on the Tories being able to continue in office, at least in some shape or form.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11584537/Britains-business-leaders-have-misjudged-the-risks-surrounding-the-general-election.html
No wonder the Tories are going with "stability or chaos" as they've created a system that screws up the constitution to inevitably create chaos in this situation.
PS Don't believe everything you read about this - some commentators seem to be quite confused about it, particularly the difference between bringing down a government and dissolving parliament.
Lab lead = 0.2% inc. all polls
YouGovs only (4 polls) = CON lead 0.2% (a bit of a turn around there!)
Non-YouGovs only (7 polls) = Lab lead 0.5%
Phone polls only (Ashcroft, ComRes) = CON lead 2.3%
Online polls only (9 polls) = Lab lead 0.5%
Which is a self-evidently ridiculous situation that creates obvious constitutional issues.
PM then resigns & HM asks the other chap to have a go...
Politicians are acutely aware of the price the electorate exact on being asked the same question again
So, irrespective of the FTPA, the government could make any vote, including the Queen's Speech, a vote of confidence.
All that has changed is the right of a PM to request (but not demand) unilaterally a dissolution has been removed.
The two-third rule is shocking and indefensible. The old rules made perfect sense. And what if the government doesn't resign, claiming it has a "mandate" because it got most votes/most seats, and doesn't allow the opposition to form government despite its inability to pass a Queen's Speech? Electoral limbo.
And that seems what is likely to happen. And that's ridiculous. The old rules made perfect sense - if you can't command support of the House then you're out of government. Fine.
Under the FTPA the only circumstances in which a Government falls would be if (a) they resigned – unlikely but not impossible or (b) the following is passed by a majority in the House of Commons
“That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government”.
*gets off high horse* ...wait, so it's possible that no-one can form government but there will be no general election because it requires 2/3rds of the House to support it? That... doesn't seem sensible and could easily cause problems.
PS Following this up, this was interesting on being able to carry on governing without passing a budget:
http://blog.policy.manchester.ac.uk/posts/2015/04/could-the-snp-block-a-labour-budget-no/
1 is vote for it (two thirds)
2 is no confidence old government (simple majority). If no new government can be found within 14 days this triggers a new election.
If no government can be found then a new election can be triggered by either of those methods.
Section 2 provides two methods by which a Parliament can be dissolved before the expiration of the five year term. (1) A motion in the from "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election" is passed nemine dissentiente or with the support of 434 MPs (s. 2(1)-(2)). (2) A motion in the form "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government" is passed, and fourteen days elapse without the passage of a motion in the form "That this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government" (s. 2(3)-(5)). If either (1) or (2) occur, Her Majesty has the power by proclamation to dissolve Parliament and appoint a new polling day (s. 2(7)).
From memory income tax needs annual authorisation, as it was initially a temporary tax to pay for war efforts. This is what dictates the timing of the Budget in March, before the start of the tax year in April.
It it true that some spending and taxation can occur without annual authorisation, but it is accepted that a government which cannot secure supply to the Crown must resign.
Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week (ELBOW) % scores since August - online polls only (as of 1st May) - Labour ahead
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/595771155123953664
Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week (ELBOW) % scores since August - phone polls only (as of 1st May) - Tories ahead
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/595771486457167872
Thing’s must be rather too close to call; can’t remember back in GE2010 the front pages of every newspaper being quite as barmy as they are today. – Nor do I recall them publishing a step-by-step guide to tactical voting! – Perhaps I just blanked it out.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3069464/How-vote-tactically-Red-Ed-Constituency-constituency-guide-50-key-seats-help-Labour-Number-10.html
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03292/060515-MATT-web_3292799a.jpg
Based on the last three opinion polls in England, Wales and Scotland and carrying out separate UNS* calculations, the following are the results:
Seats:
Lab 291, Con 261, SNP 54, LD 18, PC 3, UKIP 3, GRN 1, SPK 1. Total = 632
Sources:
Survation 04/05 May Sample size 1276 England only
Lab 34, Con 35, LD 9, UKIP 17, Grn 4
Seats:
Lab 259, Con 253, LD 16, UKIP* 3, Grn 1, Spk 1 Total = 533
Yougov 29Apr/1 May Sample size 1162 Scotland only
SNP 49, Lab 26, Con 15, LD 7, UKIP 2, Grn 1
Seats:
Lab 4, Con 0, LD 1, SNP 54 Total = 59
Yougov 28/30 Apr Sample size 1146 Wales only
PC 13, Lab 39, Con 26, LD 6, UKIP 12, Grn 3
Seats:
Lab 28, Con 8, LD 1, PC 3, Total = 40
Apart from the 3 UKIP adjustments no manual adjustments were done. No "feeling" , "gut instinct".
It is possible that
the opinion polls are wrong;
the UNS is not suitable. Whilst I would agree with Scotland and Wales due small numbers involved, in England with 533 seats, the law of averages should work out roughly.
* 3 UKIP seats were manually adjusted. Clacton, Thanet S and Thurrock. 2 were taken from the Tories and 1 from Labour.