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

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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.

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

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.

* again this is only my view.

All the agonising and complexity is unnecessary

If Cameron can't form a government then ED will.

If the SNP fail to support him then they will be seen to cause a general election

It's as simple as that.

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

All the agonising and complexity is unnecessary

If Cameron can't form a government then ED will.

If the SNP fail to support him then they will be seen to cause a general election

It's as simple as that.

Yes, it is. But that's not what your newspapers will be telling you on Friday morning if the Tories secure the greatest number of seats.

Pointing out the pitfalls ahead is complex. But IS pre-planned by the looks of it ( in my view ) to ensure a second general election. If Ed Miliband has bend over so far backwards to 'reassure' English voters that he won't do any 'deals' with the SNP in order to secure votes. Then can you imagine what the press will do to him, if he comes second to the Tories in numbers, and then does have to work with the SNP ? And I mean 'work' as in only takes power with their votes. On the other thread there are a few posters there who have pointed out strongly that 'English voters won't be happy'.

I said he'll have a tough time, and has shot himself in the foot. I didn't say he wouldn't go for it regardless. But reports of senior Labour figures looking at a second election today seems to equate to the fact that they also have reservations of how things will go.

Still, not long to go now. ( thankfully ).

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Yes, it is. But that's not what your newspapers will be telling you on Friday morning if the Tories secure the greatest number of seats.

Pointing out the pitfalls ahead is complex. But IS pre-planned by the looks of it ( in my view ) to ensure a second general election. If Ed Miliband has bend over so far backwards to 'reassure' English voters that he won't do any 'deals' with the SNP in order to secure votes. Then can you imagine what the press will do to him, if he comes second to the Tories in numbers, and then does have to work with the SNP ? And I mean 'work' as in only takes power with their votes. On the other thread there are a few posters there who have pointed out strongly that 'English voters won't be happy'.

I said he'll have a tough time, and has shot himself in the foot. I didn't say he wouldn't go for it regardless. But reports of senior Labour figures looking at a second election today seems to equate to the fact that they also have reservations of how things will go.

Still, not long to go now. ( thankfully ).

He won't need to do a deal with the SNP.

He won't want to be seen as causing another general election when the SNP can do that for him.

Of course if the SNP do work with him informally, he will be able to give the Scots lots of (unfair) goodies except of cause another referendum.

.string.

Shakey wrote:

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

Hey wakey wakey Shakey! I was responding directly to what you wrote in this thread about the Tories working on an election war chest when I wrote:

string wrote:

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

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

He won't need to do a deal with the SNP.

He won't want to be scene as causing another general election when the SNP can do that for him.

Of course if the SNP do work with him informally, he will be able to give the Scots lots of (unfair) goodies except of cause another referendum.

The SNP can't 'cause' a General election if they vote for the Labour's Queens speech. But one has to assume there will be one in the first place given that Miliband needs to be assured of 'the confidence of the house' before proposing one to the Crown.. a week or two after telling most of his support to do one.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

Hey wakey wakey Shakey! I was responding directly to what you wrote in this thread about the Tories working on an election war chest when I wrote:

The Tories have a warchest for a second election. And you bring up something from ages ago about an SNP underspent, which the SNP dispute as it happens. We were talking about the election, and I was talking about possible Tory/Labour strategies based on seat numbers and the FTPA etc. I'm afraid I have no idea what point you're trying to make. Am pretty sure both Labour and the SNP would rather not have to go through all this again in a few months time.

BobQ

Shakethedisease wrote: »

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.

We are both correct all he has said is that he will not do a deal with the SNP. Milliband has never said that vote by vote discussions will not take place, nor has he said he will not discuss day to day parliamentary business with other parties.

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

The Tories are spinning all sorts of things. Your comments indicate that you are believing them.

No, reading further myself we've been assuming government is formed in the first place in order to be dissolved.

I have not.

The FTPA will only kick in after government is formed.

I do not see the relevance either Cameron as the resident PM forms a Government or he tells the Queen he cannot, in which case the next party leader will be asked.

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.

The act says nothing of the kind as far as I can see. If Cameron cannot get a QS through, he either asks the Q to invite someone else to form a government or he keeps trying until someone passes a vote of no confidence in his government. There is no requirement for another party leader to assure the Q of anything. The test is whether that leader can pass a vote of confidence. If there is then there will be no election.

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 ).

This would make it easier but it is not constitutionally necessary apart from in the right wing media.

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.

I think you are right but Labour already gets castigated by a biased right wing media that manipulates public opinion. Fortunately the press are becoming increasingly establishment and irrelevant.

You are correct that Labour has a choice if it is the second party, either it will offer no opposition to the Tories or it will put down a motion of no confidence if it thinks it can win it. Cameron will be challenging it to do this.

What happens next if the motion is won, is that the Tories and SNP will need to decide whether to vote against a motion of confidence in the Labour minority government Miliband forms (which could also be a Labour LibDem coalition).

You can call that illegitimate if you want but that is the implication of the FTPA.

CLAPTON

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The SNP can't 'cause' a General election if they vote for the Labour's Queens speech. But one has to assume there will be one in the first place given that Miliband needs to be assured of 'the confidence of the house' before proposing one to the Crown.. a week or two after telling most of his support to do one.

Ed doesn't NEED to be 'assured' of anything if Dave can't form a government whatever the usual 'form' is.

He can try and if the SNP cause him to fail then so be it and it won't be Ed's fault.

Shakethedisease

CLAPTON wrote: »

Ed doesn't NEED to be 'assured' of anything if Dave can't form a government whatever the usual 'form' is.

He can try and if the SNP cause him to fail then so be it and it won't be Ed's fault.

It won't be the SNP that'll cause him to fail. It'll be the Tories calling victory.

Andrew Neil @afneil · 29 mins 29 minutes ago

Bizarre p1 @FT splash tomorrow about new Cameron-Clegg Coalition when FT's own projections show Tories + LDs 23 short of majority

Neil Henderson ‏@hendopolis 4 mins4 minutes ago TIMES: Win right to govern, by @SamCoatesTimes and @laurapitel #tomorrowspaperstoday
"Ed Miliband will not have the right to govern if he wins 15 fewer seats..senior Labour party figures have warned..

There's definitely something a bit weird going on..

Shakethedisease

BobQ wrote: »

We are both correct all he has said is that he will not do a deal with the SNP. Milliband has never said that vote by vote discussions will not take place, nor has he said he will not discuss day to day parliamentary business with other parties.



The Tories are spinning all sorts of things. Your comments indicate that you are believing them.



I have not.



I do not see the relevance either Cameron as the resident PM forms a Government or he tells the Queen he cannot, in which case the next party leader will be asked.



The act says nothing of the kind as far as I can see. If Cameron cannot get a QS through, he either asks the Q to invite someone else to form a government or he keeps trying until someone passes a vote of no confidence in his government. There is no requirement for another party leader to assure the Q of anything. The test is whether that leader can pass a vote of confidence. If there is then there will be no election.






I think you are right but Labour already gets castigated by a biased right wing media that manipulates public opinion. Fortunately the press are becoming increasingly establishment and irrelevant.

You are correct that Labour has a choice if it is the second party, either it will offer no opposition to the Tories or it will put down a motion of no confidence if it thinks it can win it. Cameron will be challenging it to do this.

What happens next if the motion is won, is that the Tories and SNP will need to decide whether to vote against a motion of confidence in the Labour minority government Miliband forms (which could also be a Labour LibDem coalition).

You can call that illegitimate if you want but that is the implication of the FTPA.

See above and below. Tories, Lib Dems and 'senior Labour figures' quotes. We're all being 'softened up' for something that doesn't quite follow the rules I think. Is definitely not 'normal' for FT front page splashes to be talking about an election that hasn't been won yet. And senior Labour figures, including members of the shadow cabinet ( ? ) seemingly already throwing in the towel.. You don't think it's all a bit strange ? But def second election on the cards imo.