Poll: General election voting round 4

[FishFluff]

Hopefully the mess that this election is going to cause will make parties rethink the FPTP system. Oh wait, never mind, that would actually mean a fairer system where everybody's vote matters so it's probably out of the question.

 

[ubersonic]

Wow, damning series of blog posts about the economic policies of this government from that Oxford professor I linked in the last thread.

UK mediamacro myths: an introduction
Mediamacro myth 1: 2010 Britain faced a financial crisis
Mediamacro myth 2: Labour profligacy
Mediamacro myth 3: the 2007 boom

I haven't read them all yet (and I think there might be more on the way).

For a summary check out the article in the New Statesman:

The economic consequences of George Osborne: covering up the austerity mistake
How did the coalition government manage to transform the media debate on macroeconomics so comprehensively - and what will happen now they have?

Essential reading IMO, presumably on the dangers of media/popular/pub economics...

Not buying it sorry, that's one persons opinion, it's also different to what the IMF, the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies and many world leaders think on the matter.

Generally speaking when other countries chancellors and international agencies are saying the UK is doing a good job you can take it with a lot more faith than what somebody who lives/works here says. Especially when our recovery has been not just one of the best in the EU, but better than many countries who were less affected than us in the first place, hell Germany hasn't done that much better and their economy was/is stronger than ours.

 

[Sunbed]

So labour are 'ruling out' a formal coalition with the SNP because they think it will dissuade english voters? When in all likelihood that's exactly what they are going to end up doing...

Great.

 

[do_ron_ron]

Excellent read, frankly.

Unfortunately no one really cares, unfortunately personal research is fleeting in the majority.

Yes it is a bit like the current furore about the SNP controlling Labour.

We have just had a coalition for five years. Was Cameron a puppet of Clegg?
Why do some people assume the English Labour MPs are suddenly going to roll over for backwards for a minority party?
Minor parties are more dependant on major parties in a coalition for any influence they can exert. We have only witnessed this over the past five years.

As the saying goes " .. you can fool some of the people all of the time ..."

 

[ubersonic]

So labour are 'ruling out' a formal coalition with the SNP because they think it will dissuade english voters? When in all likelihood that's exactly what they are going to end up doing...

Great.

Nah the most likely outcome is a formal coalition with the LibDems, plus an agreement with the SNP that the NP will back them up if the Tories try and veto anything (though this agreement wouldn't be needed as the SNP would do that anyway to spite the Tories).

 

[elmarko]

So labour are 'ruling out' a formal coalition with the SNP because they think it will dissuade english voters? When in all likelihood that's exactly what they are going to end up doing...

Great.

They can have an informal agreement without forming a formal coalition.

The SNP will hold no positions of power in government (no SPN ministers) but they will support a number of Labour votes to enable them to effectively govern.

On a site note, I wonder how much opposition the right of England would have on the matter if SNP were also right-wing.....

 

[Schlong&Stable]

I'm sorry but this is just completely unrealistic. If Labour/SNP have enough MPs to form the government, they will. Standing aside would be not only a tactical disaster but an affront to our democratic process. There is no way that would happen.

No.

The largest party has the mandate to form a government and they can choose to form a minority government. This would usually be undesirable, because the opposition can call for a no confidence vote and in theory trigger another election. But Labour would not, in the usual course of events, be able to block that minority government happening in the short term.

MY point is that if this were to happen, it would NOT be in Labours interest to oppose them. It would give them a chance to replace their unpopular leader, ready themselves for an election at the time of their choosing (triggered by no confidence vote) and weaken the Tories who will probably be unable to do much as a government.

If you don't think this will happen, you ought to consider why Labour failed to cooperate with the Lib Dems on coalition talks following the last election. They KNEW winning would be a poison chalice and so happily gave way to the Tories.

 

[joeyjojo]

Not buying it sorry, that's one persons opinion, it's also different to what the IMF, the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies and many world leaders think on the matter.

Did you at least read the New Statesman piece, or just the headline? Because if you can't be bothered to read a very thoughtfully and logically set out article from an expert because you think George is a "good chap" then there was really no point in responding. Seriously, follow it step by step and share your critique.

 

[scorza]

No.

The largest party has the mandate to form a government and they can choose to form a minority government. This would usually be undesirable, because the opposition can call for a no confidence vote and in theory trigger another election. But Labour would not, in the usual course of events, be able to block that minority government happening in the short term.

They have to get enough support to pass the Queen's Speech through parliament. They aren't going to decide to have a minority government and risk it on the day, they'll have to negotiate with other parties to get their support for the QS. What concessions they have to make to those parties and what form their support takes is down to the negotiations. If no parties can get enough support for a Queen's Speech then there's another general election.

 

[AGD]

The party with the largest number of seats gets to try to form the next government first. By majority, coalition or minority government.

If they cannot succeed, the party with the next largest number can.

If nobody can form a stable government, Roll on the next election.

That is the FPTP system.

Yes. But that is not the point I was replying to. It was suggested that Labour/SNP would sit back and allow a Tory queen speech for tactical reasons (even if they had the numbers to vote it down).

 

[Zethor]

Not buying it sorry, that's one persons opinion, it's also different to what the IMF, the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies and many world leaders think on the matter.

Generally speaking when other countries chancellors and international agencies are saying the UK is doing a good job you can take it with a lot more faith than what somebody who lives/works here says. Especially when our recovery has been not just one of the best in the EU, but better than many countries who were less affected than us in the first place, hell Germany hasn't done that much better and their economy was/is stronger than ours.

Even the IMF admitted austerity was a mistake.

The UK started growing only when the austerity measures were rolled back, it would still be at zero or negative growth had that not happened. And, generally speaking, you should listen to what experts say, not politicians.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...a-from-the-imfs-chief-economist-on-austerity/

 

[D.P.]

Let's say the Tories win 290 seats, Labour win 275 seats, the SNP 50 seats and the Lib Dems 30 seats. Some would say that, as the largest party, the Tories have the right to form a government. That 'right' has no basis in the constitution though. Labour and the SNP could block the Tories from forming a government and form one themselves. While they don't have to justify it, it's easily justified by pointing out that the majority of seats fall 'left', ergo the will of the British people isn't to have a centre-right party in government.

I was going to say the same thing, some people are spreading misinformation that the largest party gets the first go at forming a government.

There is now legal constitutional basis for that.
Hung parliaments are extremely rare, and the expected outcome has not been seen in recent history, e.g. the 2 main parties unable to make a majority even under a coalition with a second party, so looking at past elections is mostly irrelevant.


The party with the most seats have a first attempt is pureply from the logical standpoint that they are most likely to be able to form a stable majority. E.g., If The Tories have 300 seats, Lib Dems 50 and Labour 275, then obviously a Tories+LibDem will easily make a majority with seats to spare so they would be more likely to form a coaliton. However, nothign at all prevents Labour + lIb Dems also forming a majoirty and approaching the Queen.


moreover in the predicted situation where both Labour and Conservatives have around 270 seats each it makes absolutely no difference if one of the two happen to have a couple of extra seats, if the Conservatives have 273 and Labour 271 then there is no constitutional basis that says the Conservatives have any more rights to form a coalition first, thee is no priority given to them. Under the expected election results they likely can't form an absolute majority and cant get any kind of 'supply and confidence' deal form the SNP. Labour is the only party that would pass a vote of confidence if some deal was arranged with SNP.



Some 4-way coalition with the Tories at the helm and some how UKIP and lib dems together will not work in a million years. The Lib dems don't have much to loose from having a - so they will happily tell the Conservative no way if UKIP are anywhere to be seen, conversely the SNP have a lot to loose if there is a new election because that could easily see the Tories in power which is exactly why Labour will be able to get some deal even without a coalition.

 

[D.P.]

Even the IMF admitted austerity was a mistake.

The UK started growing only when the austerity measures were rolled back, it would still be at zero or negative growth had that not happened. And, generally speaking, you should listen to what experts say, not politicians.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...a-from-the-imfs-chief-economist-on-austerity/

shh, you are not allowed to post facts and evidence based reasoning in here Your link must be wrong because my primary school understanding of economics means if you spend less money you must have more left over, just plain logical right. No way is the economy of a country any different to my own personal finances!!!!!

 

[D.P.]

No.

The largest party has the mandate to form a government and they can choose to form a minority government. This would usually be undesirable, because the opposition can call for a no confidence vote and in theory trigger another election. But Labour would not, in the usual course of events, be able to block that minority government happening in the short term.

MY point is that if this were to happen, it would NOT be in Labours interest to oppose them. It would give them a chance to replace their unpopular leader, ready themselves for an election at the time of their choosing (triggered by no confidence vote) and weaken the Tories who will probably be unable to do much as a government.

If you don't think this will happen, you ought to consider why Labour failed to cooperate with the Lib Dems on coalition talks following the last election. They KNEW winning would be a poison chalice and so happily gave way to the Tories.

No, because as Scorza says, if they don't hold an absolute majority then they wont pass the vote at the Queens speech so wont get into power in the first place. If Labour and the SNP make a deal to block the Tories then the Tories wont even have any attempt, they wont go forwards just to get outvoted and humiliated in front of the Queen when they knew that would be the outcome. Thus letting Labour go forwards and passing the confidence vote and getting the Queen' blessing.

 

[D.P.]

A useful overview:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ent-dont-panic-democracy-will-take-its-course

There are many misconceptions. For example, plenty of voters believe the leader of the largest party automatically gets to be prime minister, according to the Institute for Government. In fact, the new head of government could just as easily be the leader of the second-largest party – be it Ed Miliband or David Cameron – if they can garner sufficient minor party support. That is how the first Labour government was formed in 1924.
...
In Britain, however, the Cabinet Manual states merely that if there is no outright majority, the parliamentary parties should “seek to determine and communicate clearly to the sovereign … who is best placed to be able to command the confidence of the House of Commons”. That person will then be invited by the Queen – who plays no other role in the process and is, indeed, expected to spend the duration of the negotiations at Windsor Castle – to become prime minister, and form the new government.

 

[ubersonic]

generally speaking, you should listen to what experts say

It's one guy, and he's at odds with the other experts as well as the politicians, the media, the independent financial organisations, etc. Just because he's one of the economics professors at Oxford doesn't make him right and everyone else wrong.

 

[elmarko]

It's one guy, and he's at odds with the other experts as well as the politicians, the media, the independent financial organisations, etc. Just because he's one of the economics professors at Oxford doesn't make him right and everyone else wrong.

Two thirds of economists say Coalition austerity harmed the economy

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...on-austerity-harmed-the-economy-10149410.html

Only 15 per cent agreed the Coalition’s policies had been responsible for helping to boost GDP and employment and none agreed strongly with the proposition.

The IMF has also consistently warned against austerity, as have many other independent bodies.

The only people who do think it worked are the right-wing media (who can hardly be considered to be impartial) & a minority of economists/bodies - along with the government responsible for the economic mismanagement.

The current plan of austerity is pure ideologically based policy.

 

[D.P.]

It's one guy, and he's at odds with the other experts as well as the politicians, the media, the independent financial organisations, etc. Just because he's one of the economics professors at Oxford doesn't make him right and everyone else wrong.

It is not one guy, a majority of experts don't think austerity worked!

 

[ubersonic]

It is not one guy, a majority of experts don't think austerity worked!

They are talking about a series of articles written by one guy and a summary he wrote for the new statesman. Neither of which tally with the majority opinion.

 

[D.P.]

They are talking about a series of articles written by one guy and a summary he wrote for the new statesman. Neither of which tally with the majority opinion.

no, as Elmakro points out, two thirds of economists believe the austerity measures failed and had a negative impact on the UK economy, many oof the other don't necessarily believe it had a positive effect (e..g either no effect at all or unanswerable).


http://books.google.com/books?hl=en...eVUajTVKY32bNSzAd3m5ZjIg0#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)60102-6/abstract

http://www.clinmed.rcpjournal.org/content/12/4/346.short