OT Hung Parliment!

tailwindhome

Rick Chasey wrote:

People talk about Lib-Lab. To be accurate, it should really be the rainbow coalition, given the number of 'other' parties that would need to be onboard.

They don't need to be onboard, just not against

There is no way in this world that SNP, PC, SDLP and Green will vote with the Conservatives and open the door to a Conservative government.

They don't need to be offered anything new.

sarajoy

Stevo 666 wrote:

I can see a Lib-Lab pact happening now Brown is on the way out.

I have written a song inspired by Gordy. I hope you like it:


Gordon Brown, texture like sun
Laid Blair down, with the job he'd run
Throughout the years
No need for tears
Never a frown, with Gordon Brown

Finally, election is called
About time, the good times had stalled
Works on his style
Flashes a smile
Never a frown, with Gordon Brown

Gordon Brown, chancellor fair
Through the ages he's behind Blair

He's on his way
Called it a day
Never a frown, with Gordon Brown

Never a frown
With Gordon Brown
Never a frown
With Gordon Brown

greg66_tri_v2.0

sarajoy wrote:

Gordon Brown, chancellor fair
Through the ages he's behind Blair

As the old saying goes, you've got to be behind someone if you're to stab them in the back. Brown was always right behind Blair, and yesterday, Mandy was right behind Brown.

DonDaddyD

Always Tyred wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

It's all a bit like Braveheart, where the Irish teamed up with the Scottish to fight the English....

Serious though Labour's attempt at trying to cling to power just seems desperate. They've no leader and would need to conjure some multiparty patchwork Government to lead...

It seems right that the Consevatives have a go at least, what with the largest number of votes. Should they fail then hold another election surely?

Can't you people count?

About 210 of labour's seats are English.

About 54 lib dem seats are in England.

Are you really so self involved down there in the olympic city that being represented by 50 mp's from somewhere that isn't in England irks you?

Jesus. How is that consistent with all of your clamour for PR?

Come again?

Dude my jovial Braveheart reference only extends as far as the notion of a coalition and not a direct comparison right down to the nations...

Sheesh.

will3

I don't really get all this bleating about scotland not being represented by the conservatives. So what? You have your own parliament FFS.
My area would not be represented by a labour government.

Them's the breaks.

tailwindhome

will3 wrote:

Them's the breaks.

Election 2010 summed up in 3 words

always_tyred

will3 wrote:

I don't really get all this bleating about scotland not being represented by the conservatives. So what? You have your own parliament FFS.
My area would not be represented by a labour government.

Them's the breaks.

I was pointing out that the good and the great in England are now bleeting about the unfairness of a proposed coalition of 260+ English MP's and 50ish from N. Ireland, Scotland and Wales (and not only DDD).

London has its own parliament as well, lead by a golden haired knight of fairness and foppishness. You ARE special, you really are.

Academic anyway, the left leaning coalition will not happen.

Porgy

this has been the most interesting few days in politics i can remember since dear old Thatch departed. I am riveted.

Now it's clear that people feel that none of the major parties can be trusted in government - i mean cameron with all that money, the support of Murdoch and after 13 years of a terrible New Labour government - and he still can't win.

And it says a lot for Clegg that the Lib Dems actually lost seats to Labour - about 10 wasn't it?

Definetely - time for big changes.

Agent57

TailWindHome wrote:

Agent57 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

It more difficult as people tell pollsters anything

see

No, not really.

From the poll you quote

49% would vote Lib Dem if they thought they stood a chance but only 29% would be 'delighted' to see Nick Clegg form a government

Do you think people may have been swayed a tad by the wording of the question?

I see what you're getting at, and yes I agree that it's possible to influence responses through the wording of the question.

But you can also compare the 29% who would be delighted to see Clegg as PM to only 25% who'd be delighted at Cameron (and 18% delighted at Brown). Again, looking at those figures it suggests Lib Dem support is potentially greater than that of the other parties; or at least not as far behind as the earlier "23% of the popular vote" figure suggests.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Porgy wrote:

Now it's clear that people feel that none of the major parties can be trusted in government - i mean cameron with all that money, the support of Murdoch and after 13 years of a terrible New Labour government - and he still can't win.

You forgot the slanted constituency boundaries.

But I take your broad point. He should have polled 38-40% of the votes, which would have sealed it. Fricking UKIP.

What I am interested in is this, though: if we were to have a second election in, say, a fortnight, what would be the outcome? I would bet a reasonable sum that a lot of voters who liked the idea of a hung Pt in the abstract are not happy with this state of affairs. I reckon voters would polarise; the LDs vote would drop back to the mid-teens; Con would get in with a maj of seats.

I've now resigned myself to a Lib/Lab coalition forming a Govt. I just hope it all collapses in 6 months, as I suspect the polarisation would still be there. And Lab and the Libs don't have the cash to fight another election. What is perhaps more likely is a rushed change to the voting system in that time frame to ensure the Cons never have a chance of governing again.

One final further factoid (in itals) I didn't know. 650 MPs. 5 from Sinn Fein, who won't take their seats. 1 speaker and 3 deputy speakers, who all remain impartial in party politics. So a working majority is 321 seats.

Con + DUP will be 315. Lib + Lab+SDLP +Alliance = 319. Alex Salmond's 6 seats, and Plaid Cmyru's 3 seats look pretty important now.

Gordon Brown. The new Andrew McIntosh. But who will be his Ken Livingstone...?

always_tyred

Clegg stating that formal Labour talks are underway was intended to achieve and has achieved two things:

(1) Its rattled David Cameron and he now has an acceptable (ie as good as its going to get) offer from the Tories on the AV. Not what they want, but better than nothing.

(2) Its rattled Gordon Brown to admit that he may consider stepping down without the assistance of the SAS and tear gas. This will have been good news for the markets.

Job done. Expect to see a Lib/Con agreement, but not a coalition, very shortly.

For those suggesting that a rainbow coalition would collapse in 6 months.... how long to do you think a Lib.Con one would last? How about a minority government?

I think we will have another election within 2 years in any event.

EDIT - terrible spelling....

greg66_tri_v2.0

Always Tyred wrote:

For those suggesting that a rainbow coalition would collapse in 6 months.... how long to do you think a Lib.Con one would last? How about a minority government?

I think we will have another election within 2 years in any event.

I understood one of the negotiating points between Lib and Con was the duration of their pact - aiming for 4 years, I thought. How long it would last in practice, well, yes, that is a different point. But it should be easier to herd two cats than four or five.

What rules will the next election be run under though?

always_tyred

Greg66 wrote:

What rules will the next election be run under though?

Effective Tory majority..... Tory press.... generally dim and easily lead electorate?

Mmmm, let me think.....

tailwindhome

Greg66 wrote:

One final further factoid (in itals) I didn't know. 650 MPs. 5 from Sinn Fein, who won't take their seats. 1 speaker and 3 deputy speakers, who all remain impartial in party politics. So a working majority is 321 seats.

Con + DUP will be 315. Lib + Lab+SDLP +Alliance = 319. Alex Salmond's 6 seats, and Plaid Cmyru's 3 seats look pretty important now.

Gordon Brown. The new Andrew McIntosh. But who will be his Ken Livingstone...?

Are the speaker and deputy speakers included in either parties 'seat total'?

What happens if a vote is tied, does the speaker have a role?

As I've said before I think the minor parties wil be abstainers, ie the Conservative will not be able to round up enough anti government votes

DUP deputy leader Nigel Dodds said that his party was not ideologically opposed to a deal between Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

"We would only be prepared to look at things on a case by case basis," he said.

"We have always said that we would only do so on the basis of Northern Ireland's interests being protected in terms of the block grant, the economy and so forth."

Labours big problem could be dissenters from within. A lot of Labour chickens are coming home to roost.

greg66_tri_v2.0

TailWindHome wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

One final further factoid (in itals) I didn't know. 650 MPs. 5 from Sinn Fein, who won't take their seats. 1 speaker and 3 deputy speakers, who all remain impartial in party politics. So a working majority is 321 seats.

Con + DUP will be 315. Lib + Lab+SDLP +Alliance = 319. Alex Salmond's 6 seats, and Plaid Cmyru's 3 seats look pretty important now.

Gordon Brown. The new Andrew McIntosh. But who will be his Ken Livingstone...?

Are the speaker and deputy speakers included in either parties 'seat total'?

What happens if a vote is tied, does the speaker have a role?

As I've said before I think the minor parties wil be abstainers, ie the Conservative will not be able to round up enough anti government votes

Ok, scratch my previous maths. A closer reading of wiki discloses that the deputy speakers only assume the same role as the speaker when sitting as speaker. Otherwise, it looks like they are common or garden MPs.

I think they are included in the current seat totals. Their offices are currently listed as vacant (because Pt is dissolved). Once a new Pt forms, a new speaker will be appointed. I'd assume Bercow will get the nod again, taking one off the Tory seat total.

If not, there could be an unseemly rush to avoid being Speaker...

As for the Speaker himself (from wiki):

The Speaker does not vote in the division, except when the Ayes and Noes are tied, in which case he or she must use the casting vote. In exercising the casting vote, the Speaker may theoretically vote as he or she pleases, but, in practice, always votes in accordance with certain unwritten conventions, such as Speaker Denison's Rule. Firstly, the Speaker votes to give the House further opportunity to debate a bill or motion before reaching a final decision. (For example, the Speaker would be obliged to vote against a closure motion.) Secondly, any final decision should be approved by the majority. (Thus, for instance, the Speaker would vote against the final passage of a bill.) Finally, the Speaker should vote to leave a bill or motion in its existing form; in other words, the Speaker would vote against an amendment.

Since the House of Commons is a very large body Speakers are rarely called upon to use the casting vote. Since 1801, there have been only 49 instances of tied divisions.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Always Tyred wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

What rules will the next election be run under though?

Effective Tory majority..... Tory press.... generally dim and easily lead electorate?

Mmmm, let me think.....

Well, you say that, but Lab are offering the Libs the carrot of a bill on AV, with no prior referendum. So what's to say they wouldn't rush that through as urgent first business?

greg66_tri_v2.0

Just found this at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8674662.stm



Haven't retouched it a bit.

Quite fitting.

UndercoverElephant

Looking into the stats a tad shows what a huge gamble even AV is for the major parties. Some interesting facts:

Number of Conservative seats won by an outright majority: 125
Number of Labour seats won by an outright majority: 76
Number of seats where Liberal Democrats came second: 242

Now, if we assume that Labour supporters are unlikely to vote Tory second, and vice-versa, there could be a large number of seats which go by default to the Lib Dems.

DonDaddyD

Greg66 wrote:

Just found this at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8674662.stm



Haven't retouched it a bit.

Quite fitting.

You really are a Tory boy?

On a serious note why don't you go into politics Greg? They're all Lawyers....

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD wrote:

On a serious note why don't you go into politics Greg? They're all Lawyers....

There's a quote crying out to be 'fixed'

Lawyer is a euphemism isn't it?

tailwindhome

Rifkind wrote:

The idea that the two parties that suffered most in this election, that were rejected by the electorate, should put together an illegitimate government - this is Robert Mugabe-style politics. That's exactly what Mugabe did. He lost the election and scrabbled to hang on to power in the most illegitimate way.

Yes that's exactlty the same as Mugabe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mugabe

The Washington Post asserts that the campaign of violence was bringing results to the ruling party, by crushing the opposition party MDC and coercion of its supporters. By 20 June 2008, the Zimbabwe Association of Doctors for Human Rights had "recorded 85 deaths in political violence since the first round of voting".[71] News organizations report that, by the date of the second-round election, more than 80 opposition supporters had been killed, hundreds more were missing, in addition to thousands injured, and hundreds of thousands driven from their homes

God how I despise these people!

always_tyred

Greg66 wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

What rules will the next election be run under though?

Effective Tory majority..... Tory press.... generally dim and easily lead electorate?

Mmmm, let me think.....

Well, you say that, but Lab are offering the Libs the carrot of a bill on AV, with no prior referendum. So what's to say they wouldn't rush that through as urgent first business?

Not quite - Labour are offering a bill, followed by a referendum prior to ratification, the Tories the other way around. On the face of it, a minor distinction.

Some have pointed out that this would enable Cameron to promise to have a referendum during this parliament, call an election before it happened and kick them in to touch when he wins a majority the next time.

tailwindhome

Always Tyred wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Always Tyred wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

What rules will the next election be run under though?

Effective Tory majority..... Tory press.... generally dim and easily lead electorate?

Mmmm, let me think.....

Well, you say that, but Lab are offering the Libs the carrot of a bill on AV, with no prior referendum. So what's to say they wouldn't rush that through as urgent first business?

Not quite - Labour are offering a bill, followed by a referendum prior to ratification, the Tories the other way around. On the face of it, a minor distinction.

Some have pointed out that this would enable Cameron to promise to have a referendum during this parliament, call an election before it happened and kick them in to touch when he wins a majority the next time.

Neither seems to have pledged their support to the campaign for a yes vote on the eventual referendum.

always_tyred

TailWindHome wrote:

Neither seems to have pledged their support to the campaign for a yes vote on the eventual referendum.

Well, its in the Labour manifesto and if the Conservatives leadership have entered into an agreement on the basis of there being a referendum, the parliamentary motion necessary to undertake a referendum would likely be a formality, as both sets of whips would be beating furiously at the behinds of disobedient back benchers. That's democracy in action, you see.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Always Tyred wrote:

Not quite - Labour are offering a bill, followed by a referendum prior to ratification, the Tories the other way around. On the face of it, a minor distinction.

That's not quite how I understood it:

BBC News wrote:

Labour say if the Lib Dems back them they will put the Alternative Vote system into law and then hold a referendum asking voters if they want a proportional representation voting system - a key issue for the Lib Dems.

'Shambles'

But some senior Labour figures have warned a coalition could be damaging and oppose PR. Former home secretary David Blunkett told the BBC any deal with Labour would be "a coalition of the defeated" and said the developments showed why full proportional representation was a bad idea.

"I think we can wear AV... What we can't have is this shambles every time we have an election. "

My understanding of this is (a) a bill is presented implementing AV; which is carried into law; (b) a referendum is then held on whether we move from AV to full blown PR.

Labour's manifesto promise was a referendum on AV by Oct 2011; the LD was to implement STV. If the promise is a referendum on AV with a bill in the background, it's not offering a lot. A offer of certain change plus a referendum on further change makes more sense (to me, at least) as an offer.

TBH, decoding what is really going on through the miasma of news reports isn't ideal.

tailwindhome

Always Tyred wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Neither seems to have pledged their support to the campaign for a yes vote on the eventual referendum.

Well, its in the Labour manifesto and if the Conservatives leadership have entered into an agreement on the basis of there being a referendum, the parliamentary motion necessary to undertake a referendum would likely be a formality, as both sets of whips would be beating furiously at the behinds of disobedient back benchers. That's democracy in action, you see.

Sorry I meant when the eventual referendum was put to the public vote.

Would the two main parties support a 'yes' vote?

I confess I haven't read into the detail of the positions on PR or the different methods under discussion. CJCP posted a link several pages back but was too hungover on Sunday to comprehend any of it

greg66_tri_v2.0

A woman scorned...

No 10 now recognises there will be no deal with the LDs, and is working out how to announce that their side of the negotiations is over (I'd've thought that statement was enough, but there you are).

So, I reckon Mandy has said to make this announcement, leave the LDs negotiating with the Cons without a co-offer from Lab. See whether that damages the LDs in their negotiations and thereby weaken a Con-LD deal.

Spiteful and partisan to the last. Now to see whether Labour goes into traditional opposition meltdown, fighting between neo-Blairites and the traditional left wing.

always_tyred

Greg66 wrote:

Spiteful and partisan to the last. Now to see whether Labour goes into traditional opposition meltdown, fighting between neo-Blairites and the traditional left wing.

Have you heard the invective coming from the likes of Rifkind and Hesiltine today? (Yeah, I know, he really IS still alive).

At least Mandibles is entertaining.

Speaking of which, I strongly encourage everyone to try to listen to playback of John Prescott being interviewed on 5Live this lunchtime. I think someone put vallium in his tea.

greg66_tri_v2.0

I heard Rifkind. That was shameful stuff. It would be nice if the last surviving Scottish Tory could put on a less offensive show than that, I admit. Didn't hear Hezza or Prezza.

I can't listen to Mandy's "soothing" tones without being prompted to physical violence these days.

cjcp

Greg66 wrote:

Spiteful and partisan to the last. Now to see whether Labour goes into traditional opposition meltdown, fighting between neo-Blairites and the traditional left wing.

There's a chance, if they find the right leader, Labour could win back some of the votes they lost in this GE. The crux of the next Tory campgain would then, presumably, be "Ok, we've had a few months to look at the books and you really, really did fcuk the finances up, didn't you?"

@TWH - was this the one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_ ... ew_Zealand