The Election Section: Get Your Crystal Balls Out...

antrobus

kinger101 wrote: »

We'll never have free university education if we insist on sending half the population there. I'm not sure Labour were offering anything more affordable. ....

It was Labour that introduced fees in the first place.....

kinger101 wrote: »

...What's wrong with sending the best say 20% of the population, and paying for out of general taxation. University isn't the best education for everyone, and shouldn't be treated as a right of passage

What's 'wrong' about it, is that more than the "best say 20% of the population" might want some kind of further education, even if it might be a little more vocational than academic.

It would be more logical to tell the best 20% to go fend for themselves, and spend the money on training up some electricians, brickplayers, radiographers, whatever.

BobQ

Generali wrote: »

The bit that everyone seems to be missing is that the vote doesn't have to be Aye or Nay.

Absolutely.

You can simply pass through both lobbies which is the Parliamentary equivalent (these days) of abstaining. Alternatively you could just leave the Chamber before the division bell is rung.

True you can

It would be quite reasonable for the smaller party of Lab or Cons to say, "We don't support this Queen's Speech but we support a functioning Government for the United Kingdom. Therefore we refuse to support or reject the speech but will instead work with [despised other lot] in order to facilitate the smooth continuance of Government in this country".

You'd keep the current budget and then probably mostly just move spending along with inflation/GDP growth. Get the deficit down a little bit perhaps by increasing spending closer to CPI than GDP growth. There'd be plenty of political posturing for the cameras but it could be made to work well enough.

It would be possible but the question is will "they" abstain. A lot will depend on what is in the QS of course and what the associated commentary is. Does Cameron do humility I wonder?

So if the Conservatives as the largest party presented a QS that said what is in their manifesto I cannot see Labour or SNP abstaining any more than I can see the Conservatives abstaining it if the situation were reversed.

If Cameron presented a QS that was less controversial, say they proposed slower austerity programme as I think you are suggesting above, then maybe abstention would be feasible.

The problem is that at present we have a press and media that is unwilling to await the outcome and is obsessed with debating the aftermath. This has created entrenched positions.

I hope I am wrong but I think the Tories are obsessed with austerity-max and are incapable of accepting anything less, their right has been champing at the bit to be free of the Lib Dem harness. Labour's plan is austerity lite but has a chance of taking the SNP with it even if the anti-Tory grouping would be seen as less legitimate.

Lots of things are possible, it will have to await the outcome and the arithmetic.










Hell, Belgium went without a Government for over a year. If they can with their racial divisions, I'm sure that Lab and Cons can.[/QUOTE]

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Miliband saying he won't walk through the doors of No 10 if it means support from the SNP/Plaid. Very loudly and on national tv. And if Cameron gets more seats/bigger share of the vote. Whether Miliband meant it 'quite that way' is a different matter. He's now reiterated it several times, and Jim Murphy with his months of 'biggest party gets to from the government' to Scots voters. Both will be played on loop to the UK public for the next few weeks if Miliband gets less in the way of seats than Cameron.

. . . . . .

A second election has already been planned for by the Tories. They've been keeping donations back in preparation, it was reported in the press a month or so ago. .

I don't think Miliband said that at all. Don't forget that he has spoken at length about a minority Labour Government, ignoring all attempts by the SNP to influence Labour Policy... not that I believe him, but that is what he said. You must know it too, so why spin it differently?

Regarding the stockpiling for the next election, it has also been reported that the SNP has wildly underspent, clearly feathering their own war chest at the expense of Scottish potholes, the NHS, and the like. Inefficiency or political corruption? Both I suspect.

kinger101

antrobus wrote: »

It was Labour that introduced fees in the first place.....



What's 'wrong' about it, is that more than the "best say 20% of the population" might want some kind of further education, even if it might be a little more vocational than academic.

It would be more logical to tell the best 20% to go fend for themselves, and spend the money on training up some electricians, brickplayers, radiographers, whatever.

I'm not saying some form of further education shouldn't be available to all. Just that university isn't right for most people. The technical education you outline is far more appropriate, and could probably be delivered much more cost effectively (I doubt more the half the £9,000 is actually spent on teaching - secondary education is much more intensive and delivered at a fraction of the cost).

My worry with fees (as opposed to funding out of general taxation) is that there are many people who use their qualification for the public good who end up paying the same as someone who goes on to work in the City. Of course, others will end up in non-graduate jobs and will be lucky if they can pay it back at all.

CLAPTON

kinger101 wrote: »

My worry with fees (as opposed to funding out of general taxation) is that there are many people who use their qualification for the public good who end up paying the same as someone who goes on to work in the City. Of course, others will end up in non-graduate jobs and will be lucky if they can pay it back at all.

in what way is making a profit NOT for the public good?
If companies didn't make profits how would we import our food or oil or gas (you KNOW we are not self sufficient in these essentials).

Do you really believe not having enough food, heating and electricity is OK?

People only repay their student loans if they earn over 21,000.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

I don't think Miliband said that at all. Don't forget that he has spoken at length about a minority Labour Government, ignoring all attempts by the SNP to influence Labour Policy... not that I believe him, but that is what he said. You must know it too, so why spin it differently?

Take the SNP bad blinkers off dear. I was talking about the press/media spin and possibilities of what Tim Shipman's tweets ( and others) possibly mean re Labour and Tories immediately after the election. I think it's pretty obvious which way the Tories are hoping to play having the largest seat numbers. And Ed Miliband has rather painted himself into a bit of a corner hasn't he.. hmmmm ?

Tim Shipman @ShippersUnbound · 19 hrs 19 hours ago Senior Tories tell Sunday Times Cameron will declare victory on Friday if he has most votes and seats.

Tim Shipman @ShippersUnbound · 9 hrs 9 hours ago The coming battle: sense of entitlement v lack of legitimacy

Tim Shipman @ShippersUnbound · 19 hrs 19 hours ago Senior Tory: “We will get into the legitimacy argument pretty quickly." Public won't "put up with Labour doing deals to win from behind.”

Tim Shipman @ShippersUnbound · 19 hrs 19 hours ago
Tory cabinet minister: “It’s a race to be the largest party. We will say: ‘We’re legitimate, we’re the largest party, we should carry on',"

Tim Shipman ‏@ShippersUnbound
Cameron allies say he'll try for a coalition if he falls short but if can't get coalition he'll dare others to vote him down

Regarding the stockpiling for the next election, it has also been reported that the SNP has wildly underspent, clearly feathering their own war chest at the expense of Scottish potholes, the NHS, and the like. Inefficiency or political corruption? Both I suspect.

Try the other thread. This one's about an election in 4 days. Not a run-down of devolved Scottish politics.

BobQ

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Miliband saying he won't walk through the doors of No 10 if it means support from the SNP/Plaid. Very loudly and on national tv. And if Cameron gets more seats/bigger share of the vote. Whether Miliband meant it 'quite that way' is a different matter. He's now reiterated it several times, and Jim Murphy with his months of 'biggest party gets to from the government' to Scots voters. Both will be played on loop to the UK public for the next few weeks if Miliband gets less in the way of seats than Cameron.

All Miliband has said is that he will not have a formal arrangement with SNP if he is asked to form a government

In practice Parliamentary business can proceed in such a manner. A minority government continues, it can lose specific votes but unless it loses a vote of confidence it really does not matter.In practice all sorts of informal discussions take place between parties under what is often called the usual channels. A minority government would speak to other parties on a day to day basis and the 80% or so of normal business would be passed.

Whether it is viewed as legitimate by the right is another matt

Miliband has completely delegitimised any government that relies on SNP votes to gain power, especially if it has less in the way of seats. So if Tories get more seats. They'll remain in power until a Queens speech 27th May. The SNP will vote against a Tory one as stated. Labour may prefer to ditch Miliband and risk another election in October rather than pass their own Queens Speech with SNP/Plaid/Greens support...( the media will be going into overdrive about how Labour shouldn't take power as they 'didn't win' and the SNP shouldn't be allowed blah blah ).. So if Labour and Tories both vote and pass a specific 'no confidence vote in the house' there will be another election.

All true, but unless both of them want to dissolve Parliament it will not happen. Labour will have a decision to make I agree.

You say Labour has de-legitimised a Government that relies on SNP, but fail to recognise that the Conservatives could not govern either without Labour support or abstention.

The attempt to undermine the legitimate choice of Scotland as to who is to represent their constituencies in their UK Parliament is playing with fire in a hayloft in my view. Why is the vote of the member for Glasgow Central any less legitimate than that of the member for Worthing in a vote on UK matters?

A second election has already been planned for by the Tories. They've been keeping donations back in preparation, it was reported in the press a month or so ago. And Nick Clegg was talking this morning about 'more radical devolution' to Scotland, Wales and NI and 'grown up coversations'. He's backing the Tories 100% with the 'who gets most seats' line and has been for weeks also. It's all been planned, hence all the 'SNP not legitimate' stuff being hammered so hard recently. Though am not sure how the 6 SNP's who've been at Westminster for the last five years representing their constituents feel about suddenly becoming illegitimate MP's.

That depends on the arithmetic. They still need 2/3 support to do it and will not do it if the polls are favourable to Labour. If they support the Tories why would Labour vote for this? All they need to do is abstain on the vote of confidence.

Nick Clegg is an irrelevance and is now changing party policy on the EU Referendum to attract UKIP voters in his constituency. He may not even be an MP. The Lib Dems may not support the Tories at all and certainly there are divisions in their ranks.

Miliband, in effect, in being so emphatic over no deals with the SNP ( without stating he meant coalition or confidence and supply ) may have just gifted the Tories No 10 through another election in October with Boris in charge. Stitched up good and proper. That's why the Tories are planning a 'George Bush' on Friday if they get more seats ( claiming victory while things are uncertain in order to make things even more difficult for Labour ).

I am sure they will, I have read the Mail as well! The fact remains that if Conservatives do not have the numbers they may have no choice but to continue for 5 years of minority Government or step aside willingly or unwillingly and let a minority Labour one try.

I agree that Miliband has boxed himself to a degree but he is fighting to win votes in Scotland and saying he would form a coalition with SNP would simply be a signal to vote SNP to make that happen. Saying it will never happen may make some people re-think voting SNP to make Labour the largest party.

If things go well for Cameron he may lose the Union and the EU in one Parliament since I am not convinced that he would win a referendum to stay in the EU.

kinger101

CLAPTON wrote: »

in what way is making a profit NOT for the public good?
If companies didn't make profits how would we import our food or oil or gas (you KNOW we are not self sufficient in these essentials).

Do you really believe not having enough food, heating and electricity is OK?

People only repay their student loans if they earn over 21,000.

Casino banking didn't turn out to be for the public good did it? Neither did some of the dodgy auditing practices of the major accounting firms who forgot they were reporting to the shareholders and not the directors.

Enough straw men. You know what I meant. I'm just highlighting that some people do jobs which are less well remunerated than others.

CLAPTON

kinger101 wrote: »

Casino banking didn't turn out to be for the public good did it? Neither did some of the dodgy auditing practices of the major accounting firms who forgot they were reporting to the shareholders and not the directors.

Enough straw men. You know what I meant. I'm just highlighting that some people do jobs which are less well remunerated than others.

Are you saying that private sector employment is as valued as public sector employment, excepting casino banking and poor auditing?

Shakethedisease

BobQ wrote: »

All Miliband has said is that he will not have a formal arrangement with SNP if he is asked to form a government

No he said on national tv, straight to camera that he'd rather lose than form a government which relied on any deals with the SNP.

Tories are now touting this round the media that this includes vote by vote.

In practice Parliamentary business can proceed in such a manner. A minority government continues, it can lose specific votes but unless it loses a vote of confidence it really does not matter.In practice all sorts of informal discussions take place between parties under what is often called the usual channels. A minority government would speak to other parties on a day to day basis and the 80% or so of normal business would be passed.

Whether it is viewed as legitimate by the right is another matt

Yes, that's correct. And it's how strongly it's 'viewed' by the British public that is the problem.

All true, but unless both of them want to dissolve Parliament it will not happen. Labour will have a decision to make I agree.

You say Labour has de-legitimised a Government that relies on SNP, but fail to recognise that the Conservatives could not govern either without Labour support or abstention.

The attempt to undermine the legitimate choice of Scotland as to who is to represent their constituencies in their UK Parliament is playing with fire in a hayloft in my view. Why is the vote of the member for Glasgow Central any less legitimate than that of the member for Worthing in a vote on UK matters?

That depends on the arithmetic. They still need 2/3 support to do it and will not do it if the polls are favourable to Labour. If they support the Tories why would Labour vote for this? All they need to do is abstain on the vote of confidence.

Nick Clegg is an irrelevance and is now changing party policy on the EU Referendum to attract UKIP voters in his constituency. He may not even be an MP. The Lib Dems may not support the Tories at all and certainly there are divisions in their ranks.

I am sure they will, I have read the Mail as well! The fact remains that if Conservatives do not have the numbers they may have no choice but to continue for 5 years of minority Government or step aside willingly or unwillingly and let a minority Labour one try.

I agree that Miliband has boxed himself to a degree but he is fighting to win votes in Scotland and saying he would form a coalition with SNP would simply be a signal to vote SNP to make that happen. Saying it will never happen may make some people re-think voting SNP to make Labour the largest party.

If things go well for Cameron he may lose the Union and the EU in one Parliament since I am not convinced that he would win a referendum to stay in the EU.

No, reading further myself we've been assuming government is formed in the first place in order to be dissolved. The FTPA will only kick in after government is formed. Even if Cameron can't get a Queens Speech through first... Miliband will have to go to the Crown and inform her that he absolutely 100% has the confidence of the house. However, he's ruled out much of his 'support' already, himself. On Question time, and several times since. ( Plaid as well ). So in order to have 'confidence of the house' ? Well, he'll have to openly make a disasterous u-turn with the whole country watching. No back room deals or meetings in smoky rooms.

If he thinks that this might be political suicide and no government is formed within the 14 days. Then another election will be called.

His only hope is to gain more seats than the Tories. I don't think you've realised just how much a mistake he's made by trying to dampen down,and playing along with media hysterics re the 'legitimacy' of the SNP ( and Plaid come to that ). He's fallen in to quite the trap there. The Tories if they have the largest number of seats on Friday. Will probably trumpet victory anyway. The media will do the rest for a few weeks ( with Jim Murphy and Question Time clips ).

Labour is in for a tough time I think, trying to form government, even if they are only a few seats shy of the Tories... It'll depend on how much damage they think it will do to Labour long term.

Note: A few people have argued that the above is negated by the Fixed Term Parliament Act of 2011. It isn't. The Act states that an election shall take place if "if a motion of no confidence is passed and no alternative government is confirmed by the Commons within 14 days". The scenario I am outlining requires Labour to refuse to do a deal with the SNP because of perceptions of long term political damage, and so refusing to form a government within the required 14 days, because they feel, in effect, that it is politically impossible to do so.

* again this is only my view.