UK General Election - May 7th 2015 (The Official Campaign Thread)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Just for reference (again!) the constitutional Convention that orders government formation is very simple, but is quite different to how such things are done in foreign parts (and to how the media seems to assume it is done). There is no requirement for a would-be Prime Minister to establish that he has a majority before he kisses hands, there is no formal vote in the Commons on the appointment of the Prime Minister. The Crown simply appoints the person who is most likely to be able to form a government as Prime Minister. When it is not certain who this is, the Palace waits the situation out until it is clear. If there is a Hung Parliament then a defeated Prime Minister can technically hang on until he is formally defeated in the Commons, but this is archaic and is unlikely to happen (although of all recent Prime Ministers, Cameron seems unusually disposed to maybe considering this). In practice (and all that ever really matters with the British Constitution is practice) incumbency gives no advantage.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

(And also remember that even if you trust the sampling, there's still a margin of error, as conventionally defined, of about 6 percentage points for the lead.)

Indeed. If accurate (usual speech here) then Battersea is beyond us, but we already knew that. The Croydon poll looks a bit disappointing, but otherwise its a fairly encouraging picture. Stourbridge being basically on the line fits, anyway.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Grand coalition?

Impossible.

[Simfan34]

This seems to give the Palace a fair amount of agency in this situation, no?

How else will it become clear, though? If Cameron hangs on until his Queen's speech is defeated, and the Queen appoints Miliband, but his speech is defeated, what happens? Another election?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Tender, the BNP are running in less seats than the obligatory 'legalise weed 420' party. they probably won't get even close to their previous result.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but what are the main differences between the UUP and the DUP...

Ian Paisley founded the hardline and fundamentalist Protestant Unionist Party in 1966 in order to oppose the liberal polices of the well meaning but ineffectual Terence O'Neill at the ballot box. The party was renamed as the Democratic Unionist Party in 1971 when Paisley joined forces with Desmond Boal - a populist politician based in the Loyalist Shankill district and who had been associated with Paisley in the early 60s - in order to extend his political reach beyond the small towns of rural Antrim and into the Loyalist districts of Belfast. The new party adopted a platform that combined opposition to any and all concessions to the Catholic minority with fierce social conservatism and (this motivated largely by an admittedly brilliant but entirely cynical calculation) a broadly socialist attitude towards the economy. The aim was to create an electoral alliance of rural fundamentalists and working class Loyalists. By the late 1970s this package had won over the support of a large minority of the Unionist electorate. After the Good Friday Agreement (which the party opposed) the DUP was able to supplant the UUP as the Unionist party, largely because the ramshackle UUP was unable to find its arse with both hands and proved entirely incapable of dealing with actual political responsibility. When given the opportunity of real political power, the DUP dropped its opposition to political compromise at an amusingly rapid pace. Unlike the UUP (which started life as the Ulster wing of the Conservative Party, even if it used to have some members of a more leftish stamp as well) the DUP has never felt any loyalty (residual or otherwise) to any of the mainland parties, and its main priority at Westminster these days is to demand more money often and loudly.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This seems to give the Palace a fair amount of agency in this situation, no?

No, the Palace has no agency in such a situation. Firstly, because it is also the Convention that the political leaders should establish amongst themselves who is the most likely person to be able to command a majority (which does not mean that there must be an agreement: after the February 1974 election Wilson was appointed simply because he had the most seats to command), and secondly because the Palace understands that its longterm future rests on not being political and therefore does whatever Whitehall tells it to do suggests that it does. Which, yes, does mean that the Cabinet Secretary has a fair amount of agency in such a situation...

[Ebsy]

Constitutional convention, anyone? ^.^

[Filuwaúrdjan]

As always seems to happen, yet more candidates who weren't going to win anyway have found themselves in trouble for doing/saying stupid things.

Labour candidate in Wellingborough disendorsed for defrauding a railway company, UKIP candidate in West Lancs. disendorsed for being an appalling bigot on the internet, with one 'highlight' being this:

[Diouf]

Mori: Con 35, Lab 30, UKIP 10, Lib Dems 8, Greens 8

Not good for Labour, but also not the first poll in which we have seen a weirdly high Green share.

Oh yeah, and "Others" are on 9...

Please don't be wrong!

The parliament in this case would be truly hung though, no? Neither Con-Lib or Lab-SNP could muster a majority. What would happen then?

When you assign all the minor parties and independents to either "bloc", and Sinn Fein abstain from 5 seats and the speaker is not counted, then you only have one scenario, a 322-322 draw, where there is not a majority for either Miliband or Cameron. In that scenario, I guess that the Lib Dems and/or DUP would cross and support Miliband in the name of stability instead of supporting Cameron which is probably both parties' preferred option.

[Phony Moderate]

YouGov: Lab 34, Con 33, UKIP 14, Lib Dems 8, Greens 5

[Silent Hunter]

Grand coalition?

Impossible.

If that happened, I would cut up my Labour membership card on the spot.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

In that scenario, I guess that the Lib Dems and/or DUP would cross and support Miliband in the name of stability instead of supporting Cameron which is probably both parties' preferred option.

The DUP's preferred option is whoever offers Stormont the most money. But parties are free to abstain on Confidence votes.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Grand coalition?

Impossible.

If that happened, I would cut up my Labour membership card on the spot.

Can you imagine someone trying to get a Grand Coalition through a Special Conference? LOL

[Hash]

In that scenario, I guess that the Lib Dems and/or DUP would cross and support Miliband in the name of stability instead of supporting Cameron which is probably both parties' preferred option.

The DUP's preferred option is whoever offers Stormont the most money. But parties are free to abstain on Confidence votes.

The DUP is Mona-Lisa Saperstein, basically:

[Joe Republic]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQ5wPhauCSc

[bobloblaw]

Im hoping Cameron loses. He is used as an example of what the GOP should become. Wishy washy standing for nothing and splitting his party in 2.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If, and I realize that this is a highly improbable if, no party proves capable of forming a government, is there anyone Elizabeth could call on to form an apolitical caretaker government pending a new election? I not interested at the moment on whether she would do that, but only if there is anyone she could call on, such as perhaps a crossbench Lord.

[MaxQue]

If, and I realize that this is a highly improbable if, no party proves capable of forming a government, is there anyone Elizabeth could call on to form an apolitical caretaker government pending a new election? I not interested at the moment on whether she would do that, but only if there is anyone she could call on, such as perhaps a crossbench Lord.

No. Cameron would again carry on as a careholder. He is in power until replaced.

[ag]

If, and I realize that this is a highly improbable if, no party proves capable of forming a government, is there anyone Elizabeth could call on to form an apolitical caretaker government pending a new election? I not interested at the moment on whether she would do that, but only if there is anyone she could call on, such as perhaps a crossbench Lord.

No. Cameron would again carry on as a careholder. He is in power until replaced.

Is there anything in the British law that would prevent something like this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis

[Vega]

If, and I realize that this is a highly improbable if, no party proves capable of forming a government, is there anyone Elizabeth could call on to form an apolitical caretaker government pending a new election? I not interested at the moment on whether she would do that, but only if there is anyone she could call on, such as perhaps a crossbench Lord.

No. Cameron would again carry on as a careholder. He is in power until replaced.

Is there anything in the British law that would prevent something like this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis

Considering about half of that couldn't take place due to the House of Lords not being like the Australian Senate, no, there isn't.

[ag]

If, and I realize that this is a highly improbable if, no party proves capable of forming a government, is there anyone Elizabeth could call on to form an apolitical caretaker government pending a new election? I not interested at the moment on whether she would do that, but only if there is anyone she could call on, such as perhaps a crossbench Lord.

No. Cameron would again carry on as a careholder. He is in power until replaced.

Is there anything in the British law that would prevent something like this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis

Considering about half of that couldn't take place due to the House of Lords not being like the Australian Senate, no, there isn't.

Well, obviously, I was not asking about that half

And, BTW, a minority might not be able to get the supply

[Vega]

If, and I realize that this is a highly improbable if, no party proves capable of forming a government, is there anyone Elizabeth could call on to form an apolitical caretaker government pending a new election? I not interested at the moment on whether she would do that, but only if there is anyone she could call on, such as perhaps a crossbench Lord.

No. Cameron would again carry on as a careholder. He is in power until replaced.

Is there anything in the British law that would prevent something like this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis

Considering about half of that couldn't take place due to the House of Lords not being like the Australian Senate, no, there isn't.

Well, obviously, I was not asking about that half

And, BTW, a minority might not be able to get the supply

Well then, no, there isn't, at least not one that I'm aware of.

[ag]

Anyway, I do not expect HM to do any of that, unless something truly dramatic happens. Nor would I expect Cameron to refuse to call for a new election if neither he nor anybody else can form the government within reasonable time. But they could, couldn´t they?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If, and I realize that this is a highly improbable if, no party proves capable of forming a government, is there anyone Elizabeth could call on to form an apolitical caretaker government pending a new election? I not interested at the moment on whether she would do that, but only if there is anyone she could call on, such as perhaps a crossbench Lord.

No. Cameron would again carry on as a careholder. He is in power until replaced.

But if Cameron couldn't get even the British equivalent of a continuing budget resolution to pass what then?  A neutral figure might be able to accomplish what Cameron couldn't.  I already stipulated that I considered the scenario highly improbable. Hence my question was is there anyone the Queen could call on in the unlikely event it proved necessary.