The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[1966efc]

The Times has decided that Miliband won't have the right to govern if he wins 15 fewer seats than the Tories. A grateful nation thanks them for their unbiased, rational opinion.

If he does end up in that position, it will mean that the Tories have even less of a mandate than they "won" last time. It will also mean that the popular vote will show a clear swerve to the left.

What the rest of the country needs to understand, however, is that votes won in the South East of England are worth twice the votes cast in any other region / country of the union.

 

[Eggs]

The Times has decided that Miliband won't have the right to govern if he wins 15 fewer seats than the Tories. A grateful nation thanks them for their unbiased, rational opinion.

If he does end up in that position, it will mean that the Tories have even less of a mandate than they "won" last time. It will also mean that the popular vote will show a clear swerve to the left.

What the rest of the country needs to understand, however, is that votes won in the South East of England are worth twice the votes cast in any other region / country of the union.

....all the indications are that Labour will win fewer seats and 15 could be the margin. Nobody will have a mandate but I fear the Tory's will probably cobble something together to enable them to govern. More than anything I fear for the vast majority of youngsters in a country where the government looks after it's own.

 

[1966efc]

....all the indications are that Labour will win fewer seats and 15 could be the margin. Nobody will have a mandate but I fear the Tory's will probably cobble something together to enable them to govern. More than anything I fear for the vast majority of youngsters in a country where the government looks after it's own.

In my opinion (and I don't pretend to have any insight), it will be far more difficult for Cameron to keep his own members in line whilst doing what you say. My suspicion is that more than a few of them would sooner lose power than have their ambitions thwarted by the Lib Dems again.

I do think Ken Clarke is right to say that a second, early election will do little to change things.

 

[Eggs]

In my opinion (and I don't pretend to have any insight), it will be far more difficult for Cameron to keep his own members in line whilst doing what you say. My suspicion is that more than a few of them would sooner lose power than have their ambitions thwarted by the Lib Dems again.

I do think Ken Clarke is right to say that a second, early election will do little to change things.

....the indication is that if Labour are 10-15 seats behind the party grandees will advise Milliband that he hasn't got the justification to try and negotiate a majority. I suspect this will be key to the outcome, 10 seats or more behind and it's 5 more years; 9 or less behind and it will be interesting.

 

[1966efc]

....the indication is that if Labour are 10-15 seats behind the party grandees will advise Milliband that he hasn't got the justification to try and negotiate a majority. I suspect this will be key to the outcome, 10 seats or more behind and it's 5 more years; 9 or less behind and it will be interesting.

Yeah, I see what you mean.

My problem is threefold: there are no Labour grandees - it's a term (as you'll know) that comes from the Tory organisation of the past. Those who have attained some sort of seniority are by and large not in favour with the current management. If Charles Clark or Alan Milburn pipes up, the immediate reation would be to tell them to keep quiet.

Secondly, there isn't an "expert" out there who has the first idea of what the numbers will be - they can't: to 'know' as opposed to have an idea would involve, this time, a reasonably in depth knowledge of local situations in about 130 seats. Not even Ashcroft's constituency polls are recent enough in sufficient seats to provide the evidence to base an assumption of the result on.

Lastly, the notion that it's a straight Labour / Tory question is a construct of a panicky Tory media. God help us, they can't even get the number of seats required for an overall majority correct. The media are beginning to propagate the idea of of validity because they have come to the conclusion that the Tories have no hope of securing an overall majority. Validity in a multi party situation has yet to be defined and accepted by the people.

I have an idea of the result. My uneducated opinion, in this very particular election, has as much value as any panel of column writing hacks paid by Murdoch and Rothermere.

 

[Clint Planet]

Quite simply because the new system is better for the poorest students and graduates. If you're from a poorer background you can receive government grants to cover tuition fees up to £3,400. Any University which wants to charge £9,000 will also have to offer another bursary to the poorest students.

If for example, your household income is less than £25,000, you will receive £3,400 per year from the government towards your tuition. The University of Liverpool, as an example, will then pay you a further £2,000 towards your tuition fees.

That means the total you owe for tuition will be £3,600 per year.

But that's not all. The new system also means you don't pay back your student loan until you're earning £21,000, rather than the old entry of £15,000. That means not only is there great support for those with the poorest parents, but graduates who don't start out on a great salary upon leaving University will also have an easier time of it.

The new system is more of a graduate tax than a traditional loan, and unless you're from a relatively high income family and then go on to earn an above average salary you'll actually notice very little difference from the current system, and may well be better off.

The only reason kids from poor backgrounds would be put off by the new system is from a lack of information and education on the subject. Anybody who takes ten minutes to look at the facts (not the spin), will see that.

Fair comment. Thanks for the info!

 

[Mrk]

The Times has decided that Miliband won't have the right to govern if he wins 15 fewer seats than the Tories. A grateful nation thanks them for their unbiased, rational opinion.

If he does end up in that position, it will mean that the Tories have even less of a mandate than they "won" last time. It will also mean that the popular vote will show a clear swerve to the left.

What the rest of the country needs to understand, however, is that votes won in the South East of England are worth twice the votes cast in any other region / country of the union.

Surely if Miliband comes in with 15 fewer seats than the Tories, he'll have a smaller share of the public vote?

So if Cameron can't form a government in that scenario, Ed will get a chance to try, but it won't be the strongest mandate ever given to a political party to say the least...

 

[Clint Planet]

I do think Ken Clarke is right to say that a second, early election will do little to change things.

I think that depends on whether Miliband has been running the cuontry and how much that has affected people's views of him. Obviously, it's harder to make a positive impression if the Tories cling on to Downing St.



[edit: Apparently, Ed has just done well in R4's Today programme with John Humphrys. ]

 

[The Esk]

....the indication is that if Labour are 10-15 seats behind the party grandees will advise Milliband that he hasn't got the justification to try and negotiate a majority. I suspect this will be key to the outcome, 10 seats or more behind and it's 5 more years; 9 or less behind and it will be interesting.

I don't know how this conclusion can be reached though Eggs.

We live in a parliamentary democracy which allows parliament to determine who governs the country. We, the electorate can determine through our votes who we elect to represent us at constituency level in the House of Commons, no more. When we vote we are not voting for a party to govern, we are voting for an individual to represent the constituency we reside in.

It is very clear from the processes within the Cabinet Manual what should happen in the event of a single party not having an overall majority.

Firstly the continuation rule is applied, i.e. the previous incumbent is entitled to see if he/she can command the confidence of the house.

In the event of that not being possible the incumbent resigns and the Queen will "invite the person who appears most likely to be able to command the confidence of the House to serve as Prime Minister and to form a government”. This is the gravitational principle, according to which the person mostly likely to succeed at the task is entrusted with forming the government.

Nowhere does it state that this person must have the largest number of seats in the House (the plurality principle), only that he/she can command the confidence of the House.

This principle has been in force since the mid 19th century

There is an alternative principle that was last used in 1924 when removing Baldwin's Government. This is when the party deemed responsible for stopping the previous incumbents from regaining power is asked to form a Government and is known as the fault principle. Following the Fixed Term Parliamentary Act of 2011 this may well be used in asking Labour to form a minority Government with the confidence of the House.

 

[1966efc]

I don't know how this conclusion can be reached though Eggs.

We live in a parliamentary democracy which allows parliament to determine who governs the country. We, the electorate can determine through our votes who we elect to represent us at constituency level in the House of Commons, no more. When we vote we are not voting for a party to govern, we are voting for an individual to represent the constituency we reside in.

It is very clear from the processes within the Cabinet Manual what should happen in the event of a single party not having an overall majority.

Firstly the continuation rule is applied, i.e. the previous incumbent is entitled to see if he/she can command the confidence of the house.

In the event of that not being possible the incumbent resigns and the Queen will "invite the person who appears most likely to be able to command the confidence of the House to serve as Prime Minister and to form a government”. This is the gravitational principle, according to which the person mostly likely to succeed at the task is entrusted with forming the government.

Nowhere does it state that this person must have the largest number of seats in the House (the plurality principle), only that he/she can command the confidence of the House.

This principle has been in force since the mid 19th century

There is an alternative principle that was last used in 1924 when removing Baldwin's Government. This is when the party deemed responsible for stopping the previous incumbents from regaining power is asked to form a Government and is known as the fault principle. Following the Fixed Term Parliamentary Act of 2011 this may well be used in asking Labour to form a minority Government with the confidence of the House.

There is a further principle: the cold, dead hand principle which comes into play when a politician is asked to relinquish power.

 

[The Esk]

There is a further principle: the cold, dead hand principle which comes into play when a politician is asked to relinquish power.

True, but ultimately Cameron has to abide by the conventions laid down in the Cabinet Manual and most importantly the will of the House. There is no likely alliance of centre, centre/right parties that will command a majority as the polls currently stand.

Clegg will come out with all sorts of rubbish like he did in 2010, he afterall was responsible for using the plurality principle which gave Cameron the chance to form a coalition. Clegg should never be forgotten or forgiven for that.

 

[daylightrobber]

There has been a on going campaign to sow seeds of legitimacy and entitlement in the minds of the general public from the off. The right wing and their supporting press are most culpable, but the LDs have been just as bad.

The rules appear to be being rewritten in front of our eyes. The SNP are just about to be given the most resounding mandate from the people of Scotland and yet there is an hysteria around this which has detracted from many of the real issues. Go democracy.

 

[chewee]

The so called Labour grandees mentioned are Blairites - Ed Miliband was a well known Brownite. It's a split in the party which still casts a shadow, Ed has done well to put on a United front during the campaign. The same grandees mentioned don't forget last November launched a desperate coup attempt to oust Ed.

Regardless of the seat numbers for Labour if the left block have enough seats they'll cobble a deal together. In 2010 Labour were 49 seats down on the Tories but still pushed for a coalition. Take what you read with a pinch of salt, the next few days will see the media do their best to make any potential Labour minority government appear illigitimate.

 

[daylightrobber]

I think that depends on whether Miliband has been running the cuontry and how much that has affected people's views of him. Obviously, it's harder to make a positive impression if the Tories cling on to Downing St.



[edit: Apparently, Ed has just done well in R4's Today programme with John Humphrys. ]

One standout in there. The removal of the 50p rate of income tax has reduced the tax payable by the richest in our society by approx £43k/year. A figure that more than most will earn in a year will be given by all of us paying tax, to the wealthy few. Remember that when casting your vote people.

 

[1966efc]

The so called Labour grandees mentioned are Blairites - Ed Miliband was a well known Brownite. It's a split in the party which still casts a shadow, Ed has done well to put on a United front during the campaign. The same grandees mentioned don't forget last November launched a desperate coup attempt to oust Ed.

Regardless of the seat numbers for Labour if the left block have enough seats they'll cobble a deal together. I'm 2010 Labour were 49 seats down on the Tories but still pushed for a coalition. Take what you read with a pinch of salt, the next few days will see the media do their best to make any potential Labour minority government appear illigitimate.

Precisely.

True, but ultimately Cameron has to abide by the conventions laid down in the Cabinet Manual and most importantly the will of the House. There is no likely alliance of centre, centre/right parties that will command a majority as the polls currently stand.

Clegg will come out with all sorts of rubbish like he did in 2010, he afterall was responsible for using the plurality principle which gave Cameron the chance to form a coalition. Clegg should never be forgotten or forgiven for that.

I agree up to the point about the polls.

The problem underneath all of this is that the system is constructed for a binary electoral situation. With a multiparty jamboree, the system doesn't work.