General Election 2015

[eFestivals]

I'll leave the green party to the middle class folk who talk a good game but who are detached from reality.

from what Ashcroft has said about Bristol West, over half of those who intend to vote Green here voted LibDem last time.

So you're probably right.

[kaosmark2]

Also, something worth reading:

http://www.headoflegal.com/2015/04/19/ed-can-enter-no-10-without-nicolas-keys/

[eFestivals]

Also, something worth reading:

http://www.headoflegal.com/2015/04/19/ed-can-enter-no-10-without-nicolas-keys/

Really interesting, thanks.

The only doubts I have about what's that saying is when it talks about how it would be convention for Chicken Dave to resign if he doesn't have a majority.

I suspect, if the tories are the biggest party but without a majority, that Chicken Dave will try to claim that convention is out of the window because of the Fixed Term Parliament Act, and that gives the rules for a new convention.

And while I don't like that idea, depending what that Act says in its detail, he might have a valid point.

As it is, I've already been thinking that much of the stuff Chicken Dave has been saying lately is designed to effect things after the election, by suggesting how things should work in particular circumstances.

Do I think he's capable of attempting that sort of constitutional coup? Yep, I do - tho I don't think it's what he'd attempt in all circumstances. It would depend on what sorts of lines he could spin out of the actual result, and we can only make wild guesses at how that might be at the mo.

[eFestivals]

This seems to contradict that article, and suggests Dave can used the FPA to stay put.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/dec/14/civil-service-rewrites-rules-prime-minister-resign

[zahidf]

Really interesting, thanks.

The only doubts I have about what's that saying is when it talks about how it would be convention for Chicken Dave to resign if he doesn't have a majority.

I suspect, if the tories are the biggest party but without a majority, that Chicken Dave will try to claim that convention is out of the window because of the Fixed Term Parliament Act, and that gives the rules for a new convention.

And while I don't like that idea, depending what that Act says in its detail, he might have a valid point.

As it is, I've already been thinking that much of the stuff Chicken Dave has been saying lately is designed to effect things after the election, by suggesting how things should work in particular circumstances.

Do I think he's capable of attempting that sort of constitutional coup? Yep, I do - tho I don't think it's what he'd attempt in all circumstances. It would depend on what sorts of lines he could spin out of the actual result, and we can only make wild guesses at how that might be at the mo.

I think 'Call me Dave' will resign tbh. His heart doesn't seem in it. He will then leave it for the next leader (Boris or May) to go for a vote of no confidence and try to win the next election.

[eFestivals]

I think 'Call me Dave' will resign tbh. His heart doesn't seem in it. He will then leave it for the next leader (Boris or May) to go for a vote of no confidence and try to win the next election.

Hmmm. He doesn't strike me as the sort of man who faces up to his own failings very easily.

If there's some way he's able to imagine himself as the winner, I can see him at least testing the water with it, to see if enough people might suck it up for him to remain in office.

As I've said a few times, what's really going to decide whether any minority or coalition govt is legitimate are 'the people' and not the cabinet manual or any conventions (tho laws will be accepted). Given that the people will be looking at the data in all sorts of different ways and subject to their own prejudices, it's impossible to call how that's going to work until we see the numbers (both seats gained and % of the vote) from the vote - so I very much doubt even Dave or Ed know how they're going to really play it right now.

[WS_Jack_III]

Done the blind voting thing and came out 70% Green and 30% Liberal Democrats.

Probably vote Labour though because of how general elections work.

[LJS]

Hmmm. He doesn't strike me as the sort of man who faces up to his own failings very easily.

If there's some way he's able to imagine himself as the winner, I can see him at least testing the water with it, to see if enough people might suck it up for him to remain in office.

As I've said a few times, what's really going to decide whether any minority or coalition govt is legitimate are 'the people' and not the cabinet manual or any conventions (tho laws will be accepted). Given that the people will be looking at the data in all sorts of different ways and subject to their own prejudices, it's impossible to call how that's going to work until we see the numbers (both seats gained and % of the vote) from the vote - so I very much doubt even Dave or Ed know how they're going to really play it right now.

I think you overstate the power of the electorate. We have power for 15 hours - or at least those of us lucky to live somewhere where our vote might make a difference.

After that,if we the people don't like whatever emerges in the days after May 7th, we are powerless to do anything about it. I don't imagine you are anticipating riots, revolution or a coup.

Such a government would, of course, be massively unpopular, but governments have been massively unpopular before & survived. Some have even recovered to win a second term (although the most obvious example did have to concoct a war to do so!)

[eFestivals]

I think you overstate the power of the electorate. We have power for 15 hours - or at least those of us lucky to live somewhere where our vote might make a difference.

did you read that piece kaos linked to?

It gives the timespans for a number of different weak govts. It's not just the MPs which make those stand up for a while, it's 'the people' views on how the MPs are acting which causes those MPs how to act.

After that,if we the people don't like whatever emerges in the days after May 7th, we are powerless to do anything about it. I don't imagine you are anticipating riots, revolution or a coup.

do you think we all meekly go back into our boxes to not be heard from again for the next 5 years?

Politicians have to court public opinion, and give at least a nod towards it. If they don't, then yes - expect riots!

Don't be thinking I'm saying that they will act *exactly* to public opinion, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying they can't ignore public opinion. Whatever they do has to stand up in some manner, in a way that can convince enough of the public.

Such a government would, of course, be massively unpopular, but governments have been massively unpopular before & survived. Some have even recovered to win a second term (although the most obvious example did have to concoct a war to do so!)

Govts have been unpopular, but they don't get to be both unpopular and illegitimate. They fall before then.

[LJS]

We're likely to be in uncharted territory, I think those who proclaim with certainty how things will turn out are terribly brave.

[micawber]

I think that a weak minority government would be great for the country. It will stop those idiot politicians from fiddling with things just for the sake of it. Regardless, I believe that this election would be a good one to lose. The losing party is the one likely to bounce back at the following election and for 2 or 3 terms at least.

[kaosmark2]

Is everyone forgetting that we had riots a mere 3-5 years ago? London, Manchester, Tory headquarters, various tax-dodging high-street shops.

They're not that remarkable.

[LJS]

Is everyone forgetting that we had riots a mere 3-5 years ago? London, Manchester, Tory headquarters, various tax-dodging high-street shops.

They're not that remarkable.

I don't think people have rioted because they don't like the government. Or at least, not for a long time. They may have rioted because they dislike a particular policy or you might argue that government policies have created conditions conducive to rioting.

Of course some of the language used by the Tories & the right wing press is close to incitement to riot, if the Snp are somehow involved in government.

[eFestivals]

We're likely to be in uncharted territory, I think those who proclaim with certainty how things will turn out are terribly brave.

Like the SNP and their supporters, you mean?

Who have been stating with absolute certainty that they'll screw the Labour Party into doing everything they say?

[LJS]

Like the SNP and their supporters, you mean?

Who have been stating with absolute certainty that they'll screw the Labour Party into doing everything they say?

From what I have heard they have been deliberately non specific about their demands. You have clearly heard differently.

The whole position changes once the polls close & the party leaders' priority shifts from winning votes to winning power.

[gary1979666]

From what I have heard they have been deliberately non specific about their demands. You have clearly heard differently.

The whole position changes once the polls close & the party leaders' priority shifts from winning votes to winning power.

But very specific that there will be demands. She's too shrewd to show her hand before the votes are cast.

[eFestivals]

From what I have heard they have been deliberately non specific about their demands. You have clearly heard differently.

The whole position changes once the polls close & the party leaders' priority shifts from winning votes to winning power.

If you notice, I said both the SNP and snippers.

The snippers claim with absolutely certainty that Labour will be their bitch. Exactly as you've been doing.

The SNP claim that too, but without stating how much their bitch Labour will be - which is the same game they played in the referendum. Let the snippers make their claims for them which everyone believes, without the SNP ever stamping down even the most laughable of those claims.

If you've read that piece that kaos linked to, you'll see that Labour win power simply because Chicken Dave fails to hold onto power. SNP support isn't required for Ed to become PM.

SNP support is, tho, required for Ed to remain as PM, via the SNP supporting his Queen's speech.

Will the SNP vote down Ed's speech, and by doing so show they don't wish to play any constructive part in UK govt even tho their manifesto is 95% the same as Labour's? Make up your own mind.

I'm sure you'll say they will, because you like where you think it leads ... but this is a GE and you're not voting for indie, right?

Edited April 29, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

But very specific that there will be demands. She's too shrewd to show her hand before the votes are cast.

There will definitely be demands.

Just as in the 70s, it'll be demands they know Labour can't meet to ensure they bring it all tumbling down.

To be followed by the tory govt the SNP are working to create.

[kaosmark2]

I don't think people have rioted because they don't like the government. Or at least, not for a long time. They may have rioted because they dislike a particular policy or you might argue that government policies have created conditions conducive to rioting.

Of course some of the language used by the Tories & the right wing press is close to incitement to riot, if the Snp are somehow involved in government.

Then why was the Tory hq targeted?

Regardless of the reasoning though, riots happen when the government is unpopular or doing unpopular things. Usually both. They don't happen when everyone is happy.

[eFestivals]

Of course some of the language used by the Tories & the right wing press is close to incitement to riot, if the Snp are somehow involved in government.

And there's nothing similar from snippers if the SNP aren't somehow involved in Govt?

[eFestivals]

riots .. don't happen when everyone is happy.

True, but there's also another factor, that's been seen in all riots anywhere in the world, ever.

People don't riot when when things are at their lowest.

Rather surprisingly, riots happen when things are on an up from that lowest.

There's a number of different theories for why that is, and I go with the idea that it's done as a 'punishment' of the leaders for allowing things to go that low.

And strangely enough, I'd say it's this 'riot' scenario that has Scotland voting as it looks like doing. It's finally woken up to the fact that pre-80 society isn't coming back to Scotland; Thatcherism has finally hit Scotland and been embraced, and so it's now all about "me" - which is why what politicians are *actually* saying (including the SNP) isn't being listened to, and instead the narrative is mostly being claimed as a self-invention.

And yet it's not that self-invention, despite what individuals say for how they reached there. It's exceedingly clear that there's a lead narrative dictated by cybernats which the other snippers are taking up - which is why I'm often seeing new lines being trotted out here by snippers around a week after those cybernats have taken the lead with the latest mass-myth to be chanted like a mantra by so many Scots.

Edited April 29, 2015 by eFestivals

[gary1979666]

If you notice, I said both the SNP and snippers.

The snippers claim with absolutely certainty that Labour will be their bitch. Exactly as you've been doing.

The SNP claim that too, but without stating how much their bitch Labour will be - which is the same game they played in the referendum. Let the snippers make their claims for them which everyone believes, without the SNP ever stamping down even the most laughable of those claims.

If you've read that piece that kaos linked to, you'll see that Labour win power simply because Chicken Dave fails to hold onto power. SNP support isn't required for Ed to become PM.

SNP support is, tho, required for Ed to remain as PM, via the SNP supporting his Queen's speech.

Will the SNP vote down Ed's speech, and by doing so show they don't wish to play any constructive part in UK govt even tho their manifesto is 95% the same as Labour's? Make up your own mind.

I'm sure you'll say they will, because you like where you think it leads ... but this is a GE and you're not voting for indie, right?

If the SNP are asking for concessions on austerity, then voting down the queen's speech could be seen as them supporting the people. Milliband refuses to budge, then he ends up looking like mean Labour vs the nice SNP. Cue another vote, Tory win, happy SNP with probably a couple more seats.

[neil999]

not sure on this brand interview, thoughts? surely it will only play into torys hands? not sure miliband has much to gain from it?

[eFestivals]

If the SNP are asking for concessions on austerity, then voting down the queen's speech could be seen as them supporting the people. Milliband refuses to budge, then he ends up looking like mean Labour vs the nice SNP. Cue another vote, Tory win, happy SNP with probably a couple more seats.

The SNP intend to spend exactly the same as Labour do.

So the SNP can only win that argument if no none is actually listening to the arguments.

So sadly, there's a decent chance that the SNP would win that argument, which will only how the stupidity of the electorate and not the SNP's great policies.

[eFestivals]

not sure on this brand interview, thoughts? surely it will only play into torys hands? not sure miliband has much to gain from it?

I don't see how it can play into the tories hands. The only people who'll be impressed by their spin on it will both those already committed to the tories.

I'd say there's probably a few votes in it for Ed, tho not many. Anyone taking much interest in what Brand has to say doesn't actually have much interest in politics.