The United Kingdom Elections 2010

[Banquo's Ghost]

Can two leaders both petition the queen to be PM? What happens then?

The constitutional position is that whilst Parliament is dissolved, ministers stay appointed. That includes the Prime Minister. Regardless of the result of the election, he continues in office until replaced by the will of Parliament or dismissed by Her Majesty.

Convention dictates that a Prime Minister whose party has lost an election decisively, and therefore will be definitively voted out once Parliament sits, stands down immediately. Not to do so would cause a constitutional crisis resolved only by the Queen dismissing him. However, if a sitting Prime Minister thinks he can form a government from whatever has been presented as a Parliament, he has the right to try. The monarch may, on advice, invite him to try or ask him to stand down because the mandate of the people clearly indicates a different desire. She would be unlikely to do the latter, but may give him only a few days, even hours (since if the will of the electorate were that clear, one assumes it would have expressed through the ballot box).

If he fails, Her Majesty would invite another leader to try and form a government. This not by petition - it is the monarch's prerogative, though convention dictates that she would choose the leader of the biggest (but in this scenario, still minority) party. If that leader then fails to form a government (remember, this is a government that will not be brought down by the first vote in the newly constituted Parliament) she may invite some one else, but in this case, the sitting Prime Minister (yes, he's still there unless dismissed) would either wait till Parliament voted him out on the first day, or call another election.

[InsaneApache]

One would assume that they stay in place because they are ministers of the crown, rather than ministers for the Labour party as they are usually.

I mean, they have a political mastermind of Vince Cable behind them as well

Do a bit of research. The guy flip flops more than a landed flounder.

[Idaho]

Gordon would ally with Satan to keep his claws on power.

They all would Rory. That's what they are in it for.

I heartily recommend Paxman's book - The Political Animal for a cruel eye on what motivates them.

[Beskar]

Do a bit of research. The guy flip flops more than a landed flounder.

You mean Cameron? Yes, he is the mastermind of flounce.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Is it just me, or have the Lib Dems tacked towards the center under Clegg, even taking up some center right issues? I remember Campbell being an intolerable pinko. I believe that the Lib dems will strip moderate votes from Labour, spurring the Torries on to victory while the LD's and Labour spar in the mud for a while. Could the old party be on its way back to the top? This is inconcievable to me.

[tibilicus]

Is it just me, or have the Lib Dems tacked towards the center under Clegg, even taking up some center right issues? I remember Campbell being an intolerable pinko. I believe that the Lib dems will strip moderate votes from Labour, spurring the Torries on to victory while the LD's and Labour spar in the mud for a while. Could the old party be on its way back to the top? This is inconcievable to me.

I personally believe the opposite. I think a Lib Dem boost will actually hurt the Conservatives. As it stands the Conservatives have to win by a solid 10% to get a majority government and the electoral system is stacked so high in Labours favour that they can afford to drop to 30%, perhaps even lower and still receive a decent number of seats. The people who might consider voting for Clegg now are not so much disillusioned Labour voters but more voters who were drifting towards the Conservatives because they saw them as the alternative to Labour which has traditionally been the case. Some of those floating voters might now see Clegg as a credible alternative and side with him instead. Also there was a good analysis on the BBC news earlier. Going off the "battleground constituencies", in terms of the ease in taking seats, the Lib Dems have a much easier time taking marginal Conservative seats. It suggested that a 3% swing to the lib dems would only result in a handful of new seats but that tiny number began to grown significantly once the projections showed what would happen if the lib dems received a extra 10% swing (unlikely). if this 10% swing did occur then it would seriously damage the Conservatives. Whilst it would also damage Labour, due to their greater number of safe seats, the damage would defiantly be felt more by the Conservatives.

I also have to note that a surge in support for Clegg certainly wont see the death of New labour. In 1983 Labour polled a pathetic 27%, only 2% more than the SDP-Liberal Alliance. yet Labour enjoyed a generous 209 seats whilst the Alliance gained only 23. Even if we see Labour drop bellow 30% (which may or may not see a hung parliament) I'm sure it wont be the last of them. They'll either hang on in a coalition government or retreat back to their safe seats and conjure up a new cycle of regeneration.

[Furunculus]

Is it just me, or have the Lib Dems tacked towards the center under Clegg, even taking up some center right issues? I remember Campbell being an intolerable pinko. I believe that the Lib dems will strip moderate votes from Labour, spurring the Torries on to victory while the LD's and Labour spar in the mud for a while. Could the old party be on its way back to the top? This is inconcievable to me.

what you have missed is where the lib-dem support exists. :)

the lib-dem strongholds and battlegrounds are in the south of england, the same places that the tories do well, so a strong lib-dem showing is much worse for the tories rather than labour, in addition to the good points made by tbilicus.

the joy of the lib-dems in a plurality electoral system is that they are always there waiting in the wings to dislodge an incumbent party if it strays so far from the electorate that it becomes irrelevant. this forces the incumbent parties to be representative, because unlike the yank system there is a realistic alternative to the big two, and it is this fact that cause the libs to be so bi-polar and inconstsistent; becaue they are hungry for power and willing to be utterly opportunistic to get it.

a very healthy situation IMO.

[Myrddraal]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...10/8626256.stm
If you can stand Jeremy Vine's mannerisms, this 'swingometer' is a neat illustration of the fact that, despite any success in debates, the Lib Dems need to gain a significant number of votes before they start winning any significant numbers of seats. It looks as if (on average), a 6 percent increase in Lib dems taken from the conservatives would lead to an increase of 22 seats won from the torys. Likewise, taking an extra 6 percent of votes from Labour would result in 16 Labour seats won by the Lib Dems. Considering there are 650 odd seats, the Lib Dems need to overcome this initial 6 percent if they want a significant increase in voting power in the commons.

[Beskar]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...me/8589691.stm

Interesting speech here on the exclusion of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland from the debates.

[Beskar]

Also this article is an interesting read and on how the bigwigs behind the bonds were making bets on bonds actually failing, then fraudently selling these bonds on to unwitting customers and banks.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereport...sh_taxpay.html

The SEC says that Goldman also failed to disclose to those who invested in the CDO that it had been created with advice from Paulson and that Paulson wanted to bet on the bond falling in value.

The $1bn bet

It believes that investors in the CDO, like IKB, and those that insured the CDO against default - which ultimately turned out to be Royal Bank - wouldn't have done so, if they had known that it had been constructed to enable Paulson to take a giant bet at their potential expense.

Paulson certainly won that bet (and this firm, founded by John Paulson, has won many such big bets over the past three years, making its founder a billionaire several times over).

and Furuculus said I lived on another planet when I suggested these scams were going on.

[InsaneApache]

You mean Cameron? Yes, he is the mastermind of flounce.

No, I meant St. Vince of the Cable. If the SDP lib dems are going to up their game, then they should be held to the same rigour as the other two lot. The only reason the 'holy one' gets away with it, is because a lot of what he said over the last couple of years or so has gone under the radar. Like I said, do a bit of research, it's all out there.

I voted SDP once, I might do it again. Around here there are hundreds of little yellow triangles and I havn't seen one red rose yet. (Although with this being Yorkshire, that's prolly a good thing!) The other upside is that my MP is one of El Gordos ministers, (so Gordon thinks anyroad) and kicking him into touch seems a delicious idea. He's been a crap MP. Too long in the job.

[Furunculus]

Also this article is an interesting read and on how the bigwigs behind the bonds were making bets on bonds actually failing, then fraudently selling these bonds on to unwitting customers and banks.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereport...sh_taxpay.html



and Furuculus said I lived on another planet when I suggested these scams were going on.

Beskar, i have never claimed the financial services industry to be free of fraud, but the global financial crisis is a damn site bigger than a few dodgy CDO's.

[tibilicus]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programme...me/8589691.stm

Interesting speech here on the exclusion of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland from the debates.

I really loath Alex Salmond for a variety of reasons but I'll just focus on this video for now. His claims in the media that "the voice of Scotland and Wales" has been excluded is truly laughable. The SNP may be the biggest party at a devolved level but the UK elections are different. If we are to take 2005 into account then Scottish Labour is the voice of Scotland, not the SNP, they have four seats. Plaids claim is even worse. I'm pretty certain they don't even control the welsh executive and as for Westminster they have what, two seats, I haven't even bothered to count.

[Furunculus]

a dutch op-ed thinks we should get proportional representation, and conform with the enlightened standards of the continent:
http://www.nrc.nl/international/opin...eeds_an_update

my reply is; PR is an electoral system for, politicians that don't trust their electorate not to install demagogues, and an electorate that doesn't trust the politicians not to become tyrants, no thanks.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I agree it is an exceptionally bland article. “Ooh, look, Brits finally discovered televised election debates 50 years after the rest of the world did” and not much else. But the idea that Britain could benefit from PR is not exactly unique to Continental Revolutionaries. Remember “Dunny-on-the-Wold”?

EDIT: PR as we know it here, is you vote for the MP you want in parliament. The idea being that there are local elections with local politicians for your local political fix; and national equivalents for things that supposedly do matter on a national scale. Which means that there is no need to be limited to your local politicians if you vote in national elections.

[Subotan]

Interesting series of articles from American journalists on the debates. If you relied on them for your news, you would think that Britain is the land of the Amish, where television is viewed as evil Yankee sorcery.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/rich...ion-nick-clegg

[Beskar]

a dutch op-ed thinks we should get proportional representation, and conform with the enlightened standards of the continent:
http://www.nrc.nl/international/opin...eeds_an_update

my reply is; PR is an electoral system for, politicians that don't trust their electorate not to install demagogues, and an electorate that doesn't trust the politicians not to become tyrants, no thanks.

PR is a system which gives power to political parties, therefore it is a very bad idea.

Interesting series of articles from American journalists on the debates. If you relied on them for your news, you would think that Britain is the land of the Amish, where television is viewed as evil Yankee sorcery.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/rich...ion-nick-clegg

They all think Nick Clegg was the best. I really hope this get translated into a Lib Dem victory, then perhaps we could have some real change, compared to another Labservative administration.

[Boohugh]

I really hope this get translated into a Lib Dem victory, then perhaps we could have some real change

Absolutely, lets vote for the sort of change which will:

- Dismantle our ultimate defence against attack. Remind me what the first priority of the State is again?

- Increase an already heavy tax burden, especially for those who work hard to earn more. Not every rich person is a banker and even then many of them work silly long hours for their money, creating a disincentive to try and do well. And no, that doesn't mean poor people don't work hard for their rather meagre pay packet, but there does seem to be an assumption that rich people generally don't and don't deserve their money.

- Will eventually hand over the keys of the nation to unelected officials in Europe, quite possibly without even consulting the electorate about it just to check.

Good plan

[Subotan]

PR is a system which gives power to political parties, therefore it is a very bad idea.

I totally agree. If, say, I voted for the Lib Dems and they ended up in a coalition with the Tories I'd be pissed off.

They all think Nick Clegg was the best. I really hope this get translated into a Lib Dem victory, then perhaps we could have some real change, compared to another Labservative administration.

I can't hope but notice a worrying amount of glee that the UK is finally getting some "presidential zing"

- Dismantle our ultimate defence against attack. Remind me what the first priority of the State is again?

Attack from who? Cameron seems to think it's the Chinese.

- Increase an already heavy tax burden, especially for those who work hard to earn more. Not every rich person is a banker and even then many of them work silly long hours for their money, creating a disincentive to try and do well. And no, that doesn't mean poor people don't work hard for their rather meagre pay packet, but there does seem to be an assumption that rich people generally don't and don't deserve their money.

The more money you get, the less marginal utility it is worth. £1,000 isn't really anything to a high flying estate agent, but it obviously is to a hospital porter. This the main justification for progressive taxation, as decreasing taxes for the wealthy does not necessarily result in them producing more wealth for the collective whole.

- Will eventually hand over the keys of the nation to unelected officials in Europe, quite possibly without even consulting the electorate about it just to check.

Good plan

The Tories are far more likely to do this, having locked themselves into Tokugawa style isolation from mainstream European politics. I would rather have a political party represent me in Europe that is committed to strengthening European institutions, making them more accountable to the public and ultimately improve the British interest by working within the European system rather than an angry one yelling from sidelines.

[Boohugh]

Attack from who? Cameron seems to think it's the Chinese.

Or North Korea or Iran or anyone else who is trying to aquire nuclear weapons and may do so in the future. Just because it doesn't seem a likely threat in the next 10 years, does not mean it won't be in the next 20 or 30 years. If we give up nuclear weapons it will be far far more difficult and expensive if we need them again in the future. As for Clegg's nuclear deterrent lite that he seems to think possible, I believe that just demonstrates he is living somewhat in la la land. A sea-based nuclear deterrent is the most cost-effective option whilst still actually maintaining an effective deterrent, other methods just aren't as reliable or are open to pre-emptive attack, which is why we ended up with a sea-based nuclear deterrent in the first place.

The Tories are far more likely to do this, having locked themselves into Tokugawa style isolation from mainstream European politics.

Apart from the fact one of Cameron's manifesto pledges is to hold a referendum if any further power is to be handed over to Brussels.

I would rather have a political party represent me in Europe that is committed to strengthening European institutions, making them more accountable to the public and ultimately improve the British interest by working within the European system rather than an angry one yelling from sidelines.

That very much depends on what you define as "strengthening European institutions". This really boils down to a fundamental question of whether the EU will inexorably continue to integrate into a completely federal institution or if it is possible to stop and not have deeper integration. Personally I feel too much power has already transferred to the EU and that governments (of both parties) should have made a stand earlier and put a block on deeper integration. Unfortunately there are a number of EU nations that do push for ongoing deeper integration and they seem to have prevailed.

The above may seem slightly offtopic but it leads to a very important: the Liberal Democrats do support much deeper integration regardless, whilst the Conservatives and, to a much lesser extent, Labour are willing to at least pause before going headlong into it without really thinking about whether it is really in the national interest to continue.

[Tellos Athenaios]

The vast majority of Nuclear weapons will be well past sell-by-date after those next 30 years, though.

[Furunculus]

The vast majority of Nuclear weapons will be well past sell-by-date after those next 30 years, though.

we can only presume that the new UK system, to be acquired in the 2020's in tandem with the most advanced nation in the world, will not be part of that 'vast majority' of obsolescent nukes, eh?

[Furunculus]

Attack from who? Cameron seems to think it's the Chinese.

The more money you get, the less marginal utility it is worth. £1,000 isn't really anything to a high flying estate agent, but it obviously is to a hospital porter. This the main justification for progressive taxation, as decreasing taxes for the wealthy does not necessarily result in them producing more wealth for the collective whole.

The Tories are far more likely to do this, having locked themselves into Tokugawa style isolation from mainstream European politics. I would rather have a political party represent me in Europe that is committed to strengthening European institutions, making them more accountable to the public and ultimately improve the British interest by working within the European system rather than an angry one yelling from sidelines.

it is absolute insurance against conventional warfare being visited on the british isles, cheap insurance at only £2b/year for the next forty years i'd say.

or just tax less based on the principle that consuming forty plus percent of the wealth of the nation is both immoral and an excellent way to retard growth in the coming decades.

a referendum lock combined with the euro train-wreck puts the whip firmly in Camerons hand, he'll do a much better job of keeping britain in the slow-lane of euro-integration than either of the other two parties.

[InsaneApache]

What great post @ Boohugh 920.

[Subotan]

Or North Korea or Iran or anyone else who is trying to aquire nuclear weapons and may do so in the future. Just because it doesn't seem a likely threat in the next 10 years, does not mean it won't be in the next 20 or 30 years. If we give up nuclear weapons it will be far far more difficult and expensive if we need them again in the future. As for Clegg's nuclear deterrent lite that he seems to think possible, I believe that just demonstrates he is living somewhat in la la land. A sea-based nuclear deterrent is the most cost-effective option whilst still actually maintaining an effective deterrent, other methods just aren't as reliable or are open to pre-emptive attack, which is why we ended up with a sea-based nuclear deterrent in the first place.

North Korea has neither the technology nor the will to nuke Great Britain, and if Iran was mad enough to actually use the weapons it's trying to get, it would rather have the "Zionist State" burn in flames along with Iran than the "Little Satan". Of course, then there's Russia and China, but an attack from both in the medium term seems very unlikely.

That said, it would be stupid to permanently discard our ability to do our bit into turning the Fallout series a reality. A replacement for Trident should be looked at when we have the resources to fund it.

Apart from the fact one of Cameron's manifesto pledges is to hold a referendum if any further power is to be handed over to Brussels.

Did that happen in the formation of any Federal state? If the USA had been subject to such conditions, then America as we know it wouldn't exist. Neither would Germany. Or India. Direct Democracy like that is dangerous and potentially illegal, as EU Law has supremacy over British law.

That very much depends on what you define as "strengthening European institutions". This really boils down to a fundamental question of whether the EU will inexorably continue to integrate into a completely federal institution or if it is possible to stop and not have deeper integration. Personally I feel too much power has already transferred to the EU and that governments (of both parties) should have made a stand earlier and put a block on deeper integration. Unfortunately there are a number of EU nations that do push for ongoing deeper integration and they seem to have prevailed.

I would feel uncomfortable with further integration if certain EU institutions did not undergo radical reform. However, the ability of the EU to undergo that reform is lacking, as it is not strong enough to overcome the objections from single member countries. It's a real catch-22 situation.

For example, I would burn the Strasbourg Parliament to the ground, consolidate the four separate Presidencies of the EU into a single one, draw up a constitution that has a maximum length of 30 pages, make the President directly elected, synchronise national elections with European ones etc. These would all strengthen the European Union, but they would lead to a vast increase in both accountability and efficiency.

Working within the EU system is the only way those goals can be achieved, and regardless of the aims of the Tory Party, they simply cannot affect the debate from their position. It's like the USA refusing to join the League of Nations.

or just tax less based on the principle that consuming forty plus percent of the wealth of the nation is both immoral and an excellent way to retard growth in the coming decades.

A banker being taxed less for his capital gains than a cleaner is for her income is far more immoral than the state spending (Not consuming; that's what the private sector wants the people to do). And progressive taxes don't retard growth, as they encourage consumption by the public.

a referendum lock combined with the euro train-wreck puts the whip firmly in Camerons hand, he'll do a much better job of keeping britain in the slow-lane of euro-integration than either of the other two parties.

A referendum lock can easily be screwed up into a ball and chucked into wastepaper basket of Euroscepticism when a non-Tory government gets into power, thanks to the British uncodified constitution, and the Tory's policy of refusing to codify it. Sure, the likes of Heffer and Hannan would huff and puff and get mighty cross, but then they wouldn't vote for anyone but the Tories anyway, so the point is moot.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Did that happen in the formation of any Federal state? If the USA had been subject to such conditions, then America as we know it wouldn't exist. Neither would Germany. Or India. Direct Democracy like that is dangerous and potentially illegal, as EU Law has supremacy over British law.

All states formed with violence and extreme bloodshed. This assumes that: A) The formation of the USE is inevitable and B) a Good Idea.

Not convinced on either point. The last time Europe was unified was under the Roman Catholic Church, and that was about as ineffectual and chaotic as the EU. I don't believe the EU can work, ever.

[Myrddraal]

consuming forty plus percent of the wealth of the nation

Let's just start by saying that taxation certainly doesn't "consume" wealth, let alone the fact that income is not equivalent to wealth. I explained this in a little more depth relatively recently.

[tibilicus]

New polls suggest a massive surge in lib dem support. Whether this is a shot term phenomenon based on Thursdays debate or the start of an actual shift of people genuinely wanting to vote liberal democrat remains to be seen but still, looks like this election is about to get interesting.

YouGov’s daily poll tonight has toplines of CON 33%(nc), LAB 30%(+2), LDEM 29%(-1). Labour are back into second place, but there isn’t really any significant change from yesterday, it’s just random sample error between the polls and while the parties remain this close we should expect to see some with the Lib Dems last, some with them first.

There is a BPIX poll in tomorrow’s Mail on Sunday which has topline figures of CON 31%(-7), LAB 28%(-3), LDEM 32%(+12). That’s the biggest drop for Conservatives so far, and the biggest surge for the Lib Dems – and it puts the Liberal Democrats up in first place. The Lib Dems were in equal first place in a poll back in 2003, but I think you need to go back to around 1982 to find polls with them (or their predecessor parties) consistently in first place (Update – Tom in the comments has flagged up one poll from 1985 that had the Alliance ahead)

Undoubtedly this surge has seriously affected the Conservatives. I expect Tory HQ is panicking right now due to the fact Tory support appears to be evaporating fast. Funny how a couple of months ago Cameron was seen as a PM in waiting and only in the past few weeks jokes and jibes were being made about how the lib dems had never and most likely never will win anything. A two horse race no more perhaps?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

New polls suggest a massive surge in lib dem support. Whether this is a shot term phenomenon based on Thursdays debate or the start of an actual shift of people genuinely wanting to vote liberal democrat remains to be seen but still, looks like this election is about to get interesting.





Undoubtedly this surge has seriously affected the Conservatives. I expect Tory HQ is panicking right now due to the fact Tory support appears to be evaporating fast. Funny how a couple of months ago Cameron was seen as a PM in waiting and only in the past few weeks jokes and jibes were being made about how the lib dems had never and most likely never will win anything. A two horse race no more perhaps?

I doubt it will make a huge difference to the final result in this election, but it may mark a longer term swing id the Lib Dems do well enough to get 80+ seats. That will make them a serious voting block again, especially if the other two parties are weakened.

[tibilicus]

I doubt it will make a huge difference to the final result in this election, but it may mark a longer term swing id the Lib Dems do well enough to get 80+ seats. That will make them a serious voting block again, especially if the other two parties are weakened.

Agreed.

According to the bbc "swingometer", even a 32% backing for the lib dems would only give them around 100 seats. Still, it makes a hung parliament seem even more certain.