politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Cameron and the post election narrative
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Cameron and the post election narrative
Last night, the Tory strategy for Friday morning emerged, David Cameron will declare victory on Friday if he has most votes and seats and cast a Labour led government as illegitimate, The Tories will say
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
HC Deb 21 January 1924 vol 169 cc532-685 532
[FIFTH DAY.]
Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment [17th January] to Question [15th January].
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:—
Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—[Mr. Banks.]
Which Amendment was, at the end of the Question, to add 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:"—[Mr. Clynes.]
Question again proposed, "That those words be there added."
[Debate ensued]
Mr. MacDONALD rose in, his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, "That those words be there added."
The House divided: Ayes, 328; Noes, 256.
Words there added.
Main Question, as amended, proposed.
Several hon. Members having risen to speak,
Mr. MacDONALD rose in his place and claimed the Main Question, as amended.
[Several Points of Order]
Main Question, as amended, put accordingly.
The House divided: Ayes, 328; Noes, 251.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1924/jan/21/debate-on-the-address
Resolved,
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:—
Most Gracious Sovereign, We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament. But it is our duty respectfully to submit to your Majesty that Your Majesty's present advisers have not the confidence of this House."
To be presented by Privy Councillors or members of His Majesty's Household.
HC Deb 22 January 1924 vol 169 c687 687
THE VICE CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Captain Douglas Hacking) reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address as followeth: "I thank you for your loyal and dutiful Address, and will at once give it my careful consideration."
[Later that day, Baldwin resigned and the King summoned MacDonald].
Thats all
A thread to light the blue touch paper, but not what is going to happen I suspect.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/02/weeks-political-paralysis-vote-uk-general-election
http://www.sunnation.co.uk/exclusive-ruth-davidson-is-not-your-average-conservative-leader/
The headline is ironic, given Ms Davidson makes the point that a 'lower middle class/working class' back ground would fit 6 out of the last 7 Tory leaders......
At that point you've got the ball, and you have the option of either doing a deal with the SNP (Sorry, let's rephrase that, erm, proposing a program of government and inviting the House of Commons to vote for it) or principledly saying you're not doing it and calling a new election. Which of those to go with is a tricky tactical call, but at least at that point you're in control of the process.
Suits Sturgeon 100%, Ed not so much......
I'm not sure Salmond would have painted himself into that corner.
Only one in four British people (26%) feel that the leader of the biggest group of MPs – even if it doesn’t include the largest party – has the mandate to move into Number Ten. Nearly twice as many (48%) believe the leader of the party with the most seats has the more credible claim, even if he or she cannot command a majority
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/05/02/leader-most-seats-has-biggest-mandate/
Didn't Archie Norman do thatvtvASDA for Permanently Lower Prices.
Pound Shop Pork Barrel indeed.
20% of the YouGov panel (say they) did.
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/kkkacqmodz/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-020515.pdf
Good article TSE, it will be interesting to watch the next couple of weeks as it all unfolds, surely the most tumultuous time in government since the first 1974 election?
Not sure if getting up in the middle of the night to watch the fight was worth it, all played out pretty much as expected. Rematch in September, for another half a Billion(!) dollars?
Such a move drags Her Majesty into retail politics, my read of the man is that he'd never take such an action.
It will look very much like the 2010 Labour idea of a "Coalition of the Losers".
Manny wasn't good enough. Mayweather makes his opponents look poor because they can't land anything. That's very demoralising.
One presumes then the same view will prevail from the left should a Labour government, propped up by a nationalist party from Scotland, does the same.
No...... Thought not ......
suddenly and based on the recent threads it will be quite legitimate for a far left leader to do just that. Now just Wait for the " it's not the same situation" arguments.
Election night guide: the vital signs to look out for as the counts roll in
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/03/election-night-guide-vital-signs-as-counts-roll-in
Who else would he fight, he says he's only got one fight left in him, so surely he'd take the most lucrative one? Money by name...
The Opposition are known colloquially as "the Government-in-waiting", but that is not mere platitude - it's a reality under our constitution.
If the government resigns at any time, for any reason the Leader of the Opposition is ordinarily called to form a government, however improbable its survival may seem at first glance. It happened exactly that way in 1905, and in 1885, without an election or a vote of confidence. The government simply resigned, and the Leader of the Opposition was simply called and became PM with all the powers of the office, including (then) the right to request a dissolution.
It could be further argued that an Opposition which actively brings about the demise of the Government, by voting against it in a Vote of Confidence (or by winning an election!) should not be surprised to be called to step up to the plate, and assume the burdens of office.
It is accepted (including by the Monarch) that an immediate second election is to be avoided in all but the most exceptional circumstances, if another government may be found from within the present parliament. [George V took pains to emphasize this in both Sept 1924 and in August 1931]
It follows that the parties should behave honourably and sincerely in a finely-balanced situation, and not play games for tactical advantage, or engineer an election merely for the sake of it.
YouGov's methology changed at data point number 75 and took 5 days to fully impact upon the moving average.
If the SNP have just voted against Dave's Speech, and voting against Ed's would trigger a second election, then Ed could reasonably argue that the Nats are not interested in being co-operative, merely disruptive. This would have the advantage of making Ed look strong in both England and Scotland, whereas anything that looks like a "deal" with the SNP can be brought down at a moment of the Nats' choosing and make Ed look incredibly weak to the English electorate.
That's a very different prospect. Would the tories claim Her Majesty was wrong to call Ed ?
Oh, Kell Brook. Yes, he would be the obvious sporting opponent if he wins his upcoming fight, would unify all the belts at that division and be great to see a British boxer fight at that level.
Manny II would be more lucrative though! Let's see what happens.
Who do you want to rule the country:
The Bullingdon Boys who have enriched fellow Bullindon Boys while soup kitchens proliferated. Ed Miliband whose previous efforts involved bankrupting the banks. The Greens who want to give everyone a salary for being alive and ban the Grand Natinal. UKIP who want to reintroduce the florin and the grote. Or SNP and Plaid who want to bugger off and run some other country?
Poor Lib Dems: too undistinguished even to be insulted.
"Poor Lib Dems: too undistinguished even to be insulted."
It's early but if ever evidence was needed how low they've sunk!
An excellent article, with which I agree.
Any attempt by the 2nd largest party (whoever that is) to cobble together a grouping for a VoC would not go down well, as it would offend the British sense of fair play and would be perceived as “illegitimate”, even if technically permissible. If EM has any sense, he should refrain from attempting to take power if Lab has fewer seats than Con; DC is likely to resign if Con have fewer seats. EM could still live to fight another day if Lab are within a few seats of Con, particularly if this is due to a wipe out in Scotland and Lab have gained at least 40 seats from Con in England.
And many thanks TSE for a very interesting read. As stated here on PB many times over the past year, GE2015 is turning out to be every bit as unpredictable as imagined.
1) Labour votes against a Tory government. (Answer: No, they expect it.)
2) When asked by The Queen to form a government, Labour doesn't say, "Sorry, it wouldn't feel right, please call Dave back in." (Answer: No, that would be weird.)
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/i5pzkkverr/PlaidCymruResults_150430_VI_W.pdf
Wales (Constituency Question)
Lab 37 Con 25 PC 15 UKIP 12 LD 7 GRN 2
Wales (Headline)
Lab 39 Con 26 PC 13 UKIP 12 LD 6 GRN 3
That looks flat, at best, for Labour based on constituency question
That said, I think TSE is right: Labour would be better off letting the Tories struggle on. I hope that's what happens, but I imagine Ed won't see it like that.
I still think that Labour will lose 2% because of individual voter registration - people just don't know they are not able to vote - and 2% just can't vote for Miliband. One bloke I canvassed yesterday called him a clown...A labour voter. So, I think Labour will get about 30% of the vote. As we know, it all depends on the English marginals; nothing else matters. Wales/Scotland/N. Ire are set is aspic, only minor changes. Labour and Tories have about 175 very safe seats in England. It will be the marginals what won it. There's little momentum for Ed. But, I've been wrong before!
Labour and allies could vote out all thie excesses such as anything proposed by IDS.
They could ensure the parasitic Lib Dems returned to working for a living
They could prize Clegg's bum off the heated rear seat of his deputy prime ministerial Jag.
And they could ensure that government was taken out of the hands of big business.
Do you think these things aren't weighted by previous voting history ?
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.
On paper Sturgeon is a poor negotiator. Having determined she will always vote against the Tories there is no need for a deal with Labour and one will not be offered. If the SNP really wipe us out in Scotland it would be a move of Cleggian stupidity by Milliband to offer her anything as a reward. Which is whynje is so unambiguous about deals - there is no need for one. The SNP either back Labour or bring in the Tories.
Which is where Cameron has his final card to play. Offer Sturgeon a deal she cannot refuse. If the SNP have won the majority of seats, declare that Scotland has spoken, we must listen, so if she works with him he will support independence in this parliament. Sturgeon would quickly get over her anti-Tory position when offered the big prize.
Come one come all ....
Independence requires a referendum, there's no support for one and it'd be lost.
Supporting a tory administration regardless of what was offered is suicide for Holyrood 2016.
.....then yours is the earth and everything that’s in it,
and—which is more—you’ll be a Tory my son!
Equally, if Labour oppose the Queen's speech it implies they are willing to take government from second place, deep in minority territory,as they will not "deal" with SNP.
As both propositions are patently risible I cannot believe that the forbidden words "grand" and "coalition" will not be heard together.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3065710/Labour-lead-voters-prefer-Dave-Ed-Result-knife-edge-polls-conflicting-messages.html
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 killing that off has harmed the prospects for a more sensible PR system in the long run
@rorybremner: This Second Past the Post electoral system is looking very interesting.
The Tories would never sacrifice a realistic chance of power,even if they were well behind in seats or the popular vote.
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.
Cameron has never said he won't go into coalition with SNP...he just warns we don't want a Lab/SNP coalition.
"I note with interest that Prof John Curtice's forecast is trending toward my ARSE ..."
In a close election giving Labour 20 more seats than your ARSE and the Tories 15 less doesn't at first sight look like he's cosying up........What's more I thought the Lib Dems wouldn't join a coalition with UKIP?
'Professor John Curtice expects the Conservatives to win 291 seats, with Labour on just 265 seats. If correct, it means David Cameron could link up with the Liberal Democrats, the Unionists and Ukip to squeak past the 322 seats necessary to pass a Queen’s Speech.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3065710/Labour-lead-voters-prefer-Dave-Ed-Result-knife-edge-polls-conflicting-messages.html#ixzz3Z3XY2ech
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook'
This is why postal votes should not be counted until the day of the election. The bookies would prefer it too.
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 ?
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?
http://order-order.com/2015/05/02/everydaysexualsegregation/#_@/P5zxk4w2JjE0tw
I can't see how we can have hours of coverage about Labour's pink bus and nothing about Labour's sexual segregation in the name of religion. Surely the BBC has to cover it?
Farage has commented. What does Cameron think? What does Miliband think? I want to know.
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.