A Labour/Lib coalition wouldn't have a mandate to "govern to extremes", but that hasn't stopped the current coalition.
I suppose a precedent is set, any chumps in power by any means = that'll be the government.
Upon "winning" in 2015 I look forward to Labour extending the period of a parliament to seven years. Then declaring Ed Miliband supreme ruler of the Martian Empire on pay of £27million/year, nationalisation of Tesco and forced adoption of new-born white male Tories by gay Pandas.
But Labour's supporters have been telling us since 2010 that the Tories did not win the election because they did not get a majority. Now my definition of winning an election is the person who gets the most seats or votes - which the Conservatives most certainly did.
You cannot have it both ways either the election is won by the person with the most seats or the person with the majority of the seats - so which is it going to be in 2015 - because the way things stand Labour will not have a majority of the seats even with the cards stacked in their favour.
as was mandleson on election night. i remember his pathetic little comments when being interviewed. he was like a spoilt child.
and mandlesons definition. that fine upstart of new labour.
...as was mandleson on election night. i remember his pathetic little comments when being interviewed. he was like a spoilt child.
Still not as funny as the interview with a squirming Lord Ashcroft as it dawned on the Tories that they had blown an election they thought was going to be a cakewalk.
But Labour's supporters have been telling us since 2010 that the Tories did not win the election because they did not get a majority. Now my definition of winning an election is the person who gets the most seats or votes - which the Conservatives most certainly did.
You cannot have it both ways either the election is won by the person with the most seats or the person with the majority of the seats - so which is it going to be in 2015 - because the way things stand Labour will not have a majority of the seats even with the cards stacked in their favour.
Actually "winning" under our system is defined as securing 326 seats or more for an overall majority. The result of the 2010 election was a hung parliament as no party achieved that number. As with 1974 when Ted Heath remained in office for 4 days after the election even though Labour won more seats, the incumbent PM remains in office until such time its clear he can no longer secure a majority.
In 2010 that point was effectively reached when the Lib Dem's walked out coalition talks with Labour and signed on the line with the Tories.
In pure numbers terms of course the Tories won more seats than Labour, although even then it was hardly emphatic given the fact Labour polled a worse share of the vote than 1987.
And Alistair Campbell's ludicrous claim that Labour hadn't lost the right to govern, despite the fact they'd had their worst defeat in 80 years.
The Tories didn't win a majority, thus Brown was well within his rights to see if he could form a working coalition majority. I might remind you that in 1974 Ted Heath spent four days trying to do the same thing even though Harold Wilson won more seats.
Unlike today's modern Tory supporters, Wilson and the Labour party had the good grace to remain quiet and allow Heath the time to hold coalition talks.
The Tories didn't win a majority, thus Brown was well within his rights to see if he could form a working coalition majority. I might remind you that in 1974 Ted Heath spent four days trying to do the same thing even though Harold Wilson won more seats.
Unlike today's modern Tory supporters, Wilson and the Labour party had the good grace to remain quiet and allow Heath the time to hold coalition talks.
I understand it is the constitutional right of the PM to try and form a government, but you don't seriously believe Gordon Brown could have formed a government in 2010? Of course, no party won outright, but Labour clearly lost. Their worst defeat since 1931, a total rejection by the electorate. It would have been nothing short of scandalous had Brown remained in government after 2010.
If Labour are the largest party but without a majority does that mean they did not win the election.
If Labour win the most seats, but the Tories win the popular vote, who has won? For a party which supports PR - who should the Libdems side with in a coalition?
Labour clearly lost. Their worst defeat since 1931, a total rejection by the electorate. It would have been nothing short of scandalous had Brown remained in government after 2010.
I do not disagree, but to put things in perspective here Labour lost fewer than a million votes in 2010 over 2005. That is 2% of the electorate who made the switch from voting Labour, to not voting Labour.
2% of the electorate, is the difference between overall majority and a "total rejection". Says a lot about the electoral system, really.
For once JOL is correct according to Electoral Calculus given the following share of the vote
Conservative 34%
Labour 32%
Liberal 9%
Seats allocated would be as follows
Conservative - 294
Labour - 310
Liberal 18
Which I would not be surprised if that led to a Lab/Lib coalition.
.
With that result, I would expect that David Cameron would try and form a minority government, given that even with the Libdems, a lib-lab coalition would only have a 6 seat majority - hardly sufficient to be effective. With the current parliament - the coalition has a majority of 80-odd, enough to accept a few rebels. Moreover, the Labour party might expect Clegg to resign as a price for coalition - so Clegg will side with the Tories - or at least give a supply and demand support.
But Labour's supporters have been telling us since 2010 that the Tories did not win the election because they did not get a majority. Now my definition of winning an election is the person who gets the most seats or votes - which the Conservatives most certainly did.
You cannot have it both ways either the election is won by the person with the most seats or the person with the majority of the seats - so which is it going to be in 2015 - because the way things stand Labour will not have a majority of the seats even with the cards stacked in their favour.
Well MY definition of "winning an election" is winning enough seats to form a single party effective government as THAT is the system we use in the UK,
But here's the thing, I can only speak for myself of course, and don't claim to speak for all Labour supporters, indeed IF I MUST give myself a label I prefer "Tory opposer" as it's a far more accurate description of my stance, as the last time I voted for Labour was 1997.... oh, hang on, this is no longer true, I voted quite recently for a Labour MEP, So the last time I voted Labour in a general election was 1997,
I was certainly among those, who you would no doubt claim to have been saying that the Tories didn't win the last election,
even though in my case I always tried/try to make the point of saying that they failed to win with a working majority which is absolutely true,
not only did they fail to win with a working majority but they failed to achieve a working majority after what we are STILL told was 13 years of the most unpopular Labour government in living memory with the most unpopular PM ever!!
if ever the expression "they missed an open goal" was more appropriate I can't think of one off hand,
Hell even I was resigned to a Tory landslide victory, so I was very pleasantly surprised indeed when one totally failed to emerge,
Most of my anger was actually (and still is) aimed towards the sell outs, after all, I had always had a great deal of respect for the yellows, what with them being left of centre, I always thought of them as a party of integrity and great principle, I even voted for the (insert expletive) in 2010, thinking I was 'doing my bit' to help prevent a Tory government,
I'm NOT angry with the Tories, why would I be? they are just Tories being Tories, we know/knew what to expect and they certainly lived down to expectations, nature of the beasts n all that,
The yellows on the other hand, disgust me, they can bleat all they like about "we did what we thought was best for the nation" and the other bleat "it's good we are there to hold them back imagine what they would have been like without us" I can imagine what they would have been like, out of office is what they would've been like, within 2 years of trying to run as a minority 'lame duck government'
Before the coalition was formed and the yellows went through the motion of holding talks with Labour I swear I was totally opposed to any coalition government,
bloody hell the howls from the Tory ranks would still be echoing if there had been a lib/lab coalition, and I honestly thought that there wasn't a cat in hells chance of a Con/Dem coalition, for me the best result would have been a Tory minority government with another election within a year or two,
Fast forward to 2015, and IF the only way to get Cameron and his cronies out of government is for Labour to form a coalition with the political equivalent of the 'ladies of the night' and it's the only deal going, HELL YEAH I'll take it,
I won't LIKE it, and certainly wouldn't brag about it, or feel comfortable having to go with them,...... but it would do,
Who would make the best Prime Minister?
Cameron - 38%
Miliband - 19%
Clegg - 4%
(Poor Clegg! )
92% of Conservative voters think Cameron would make best PM.
51% of Labour voters think Miliband would
Poor Miliband, not got much support even among the Labour faithful. The trouble with Miliband he doesn't look like a statesman, he does not even sound like a statesman, he just has a poor image.
Despite my loathing for the man Blair did have it, so did Wilson, Callaghan and John Smith. Listen to Miliband at PMQs he is clearly out of his depth, more often than not opening his mouth and inserting his foot, looking a fool. He tries to make a joke and be clever and gets it smacked right back making the great Ed the butt of the joke.
Even a headmaster/mistress in a school has to have a good leadership quality, if they look like a failure from the start, pupils and teachers alike will have little respect for them and they will be treated as a joke. Then we have the CEO of a company he has to look the part too.
I do not know what part Miliband looks but together with Ed Balls neither of them have leadership qualities of note.
I understand it is the constitutional right of the PM to try and form a government, but you don't seriously believe Gordon Brown could have formed a government in 2010? Of course, no party won outright, but Labour clearly lost. Their worst defeat since 1931, a total rejection by the electorate. It would have been nothing short of scandalous had Brown remained in government after 2010.
It wasn't their worst defeat since 1931, they won a bigger vote share than 1983 and more seats than 1987. In fact it was closer to a 1979 or 1992 sized defeat. Again, if the negotiations had worked in his favour its entirely possible he could have formed at least a workable Government in the short term. It wouldn't be the first time the party that came second formed the Government, and we've even in the past had the spectre of a Labour PM, Ramsay McDonald seeking Tory support to form a Government in 1929, he continued to lead a Tory backed Government even after the 1931 election.
It wasn't their worst defeat since 1931, they won a bigger vote share than 1983 and more seats than 1987. In fact it was closer to a 1979 or 1992 sized defeat. Again, if the negotiations had worked in his favour its entirely possible he could have formed at least a workable Government in the short term. It wouldn't be the first time the party that came second formed the Government, and we've even in the past had the spectre of a Labour PM, Ramsay McDonald seeking Tory support to form a Government in 1929, he continued to lead a Tory backed Government even after the 1931 election.
In terms of the seats they lost it was Labour's worst defeat in 80 years; a loss of almost 100 seats seems like a clear rejection to me. Of course, in the past the 'losing' party has remained in government (1931 as you mentioned; very unusual circumstances there however) but there is no plausible way Labour could have justified staying in government after losing that many seats. Indeed, even a Lib/Lab coalition wouldn't have commanded a majority in the HoC, it would've been unstable and probably wouldn't have lasted very long. The Tories were 20-odd seats short of a majority; some kind of Tory government (either minority or coalition) seemed the most sensible and stable option at the time.
In terms of the seats they lost it was Labour's worst defeat in 80 years; a loss of almost 100 seats seems like a clear rejection to me. Of course, in the past the 'losing' party has remained in government (1931 as you mentioned; very unusual circumstances there however) but there is no plausible way Labour could have justified staying in government after losing that many seats. Indeed, even a Lib/Lab coalition wouldn't have commanded a majority in the HoC, it would've been unstable and probably wouldn't have lasted very long. The Tories were 20-odd seats short of a majority; some kind of Tory government (either minority or coalition) seemed the most sensible and stable option at the time.
In 1974 the Tories lost about 40 seats and suffered a 9% drop in their national vote share. Yet Ted Heath was still given 4 days to try and form a working majority. The role of the electorate at a General Election is to elect an MP for their constituency. The job of forming a Government is down to those MPs and the parties they represent. That's how our system works.
It's fair to say that there is a difference between what is suppose to happen in theory with a hung government and what will happen in practice.
In theory the numbers are king; all a PM requires to keep his job is that more MPs vote for their first budget than against it. It doesn't matter what happened to your vote in the election or whether you're the biggest party or whether the Daily Mail says you won or not - if you get the votes you stay in government.
In practice I don't think a governing party can ignore the general climate that exists after an election. Technically Labour and Lib Dems could have formed a coalition after 2010 and would have probably got a budget through, however I doubt that even Labour and Lib Dem voters would have supported a coalition government in such circumstance. When you win 50 less seats than your opponent in an election you have to have a very good reason for trying to deny them government. I dont' think Labour had one in 2010 and the Tories would struggle to have one in 2015.
Comments
I suppose a precedent is set, any chumps in power by any means = that'll be the government.
Upon "winning" in 2015 I look forward to Labour extending the period of a parliament to seven years. Then declaring Ed Miliband supreme ruler of the Martian Empire on pay of £27million/year, nationalisation of Tesco and forced adoption of new-born white male Tories by gay Pandas.
and mandlesons definition. that fine upstart of new labour.
as was mandleson on election night. i remember his pathetic little comments when being interviewed. he was like a spoilt child.
Still not as funny as the interview with a squirming Lord Ashcroft as it dawned on the Tories that they had blown an election they thought was going to be a cakewalk.
http://youtu.be/qc8U_9MLj5I
And Alistair Campbell's ludicrous claim that Labour hadn't lost the right to govern, despite the fact they'd had their worst defeat in 80 years.
Actually "winning" under our system is defined as securing 326 seats or more for an overall majority. The result of the 2010 election was a hung parliament as no party achieved that number. As with 1974 when Ted Heath remained in office for 4 days after the election even though Labour won more seats, the incumbent PM remains in office until such time its clear he can no longer secure a majority.
In 2010 that point was effectively reached when the Lib Dem's walked out coalition talks with Labour and signed on the line with the Tories.
In pure numbers terms of course the Tories won more seats than Labour, although even then it was hardly emphatic given the fact Labour polled a worse share of the vote than 1987.
The Tories didn't win a majority, thus Brown was well within his rights to see if he could form a working coalition majority. I might remind you that in 1974 Ted Heath spent four days trying to do the same thing even though Harold Wilson won more seats.
Unlike today's modern Tory supporters, Wilson and the Labour party had the good grace to remain quiet and allow Heath the time to hold coalition talks.
I understand it is the constitutional right of the PM to try and form a government, but you don't seriously believe Gordon Brown could have formed a government in 2010? Of course, no party won outright, but Labour clearly lost. Their worst defeat since 1931, a total rejection by the electorate. It would have been nothing short of scandalous had Brown remained in government after 2010.
If Labour win the most seats, but the Tories win the popular vote, who has won? For a party which supports PR - who should the Libdems side with in a coalition?
I do not disagree, but to put things in perspective here Labour lost fewer than a million votes in 2010 over 2005. That is 2% of the electorate who made the switch from voting Labour, to not voting Labour.
2% of the electorate, is the difference between overall majority and a "total rejection". Says a lot about the electoral system, really.
With that result, I would expect that David Cameron would try and form a minority government, given that even with the Libdems, a lib-lab coalition would only have a 6 seat majority - hardly sufficient to be effective. With the current parliament - the coalition has a majority of 80-odd, enough to accept a few rebels. Moreover, the Labour party might expect Clegg to resign as a price for coalition - so Clegg will side with the Tories - or at least give a supply and demand support.
Well MY definition of "winning an election" is winning enough seats to form a single party effective government as THAT is the system we use in the UK,
But here's the thing, I can only speak for myself of course, and don't claim to speak for all Labour supporters, indeed IF I MUST give myself a label I prefer "Tory opposer" as it's a far more accurate description of my stance, as the last time I voted for Labour was 1997.... oh, hang on, this is no longer true, I voted quite recently for a Labour MEP, So the last time I voted Labour in a general election was 1997,
I was certainly among those, who you would no doubt claim to have been saying that the Tories didn't win the last election,
even though in my case I always tried/try to make the point of saying that they failed to win with a working majority which is absolutely true,
not only did they fail to win with a working majority but they failed to achieve a working majority after what we are STILL told was 13 years of the most unpopular Labour government in living memory with the most unpopular PM ever!!
if ever the expression "they missed an open goal" was more appropriate I can't think of one off hand,
Hell even I was resigned to a Tory landslide victory, so I was very pleasantly surprised indeed when one totally failed to emerge,
Most of my anger was actually (and still is) aimed towards the sell outs, after all, I had always had a great deal of respect for the yellows, what with them being left of centre, I always thought of them as a party of integrity and great principle, I even voted for the (insert expletive) in 2010, thinking I was 'doing my bit' to help prevent a Tory government,
I'm NOT angry with the Tories, why would I be? they are just Tories being Tories, we know/knew what to expect and they certainly lived down to expectations, nature of the beasts n all that,
The yellows on the other hand, disgust me, they can bleat all they like about "we did what we thought was best for the nation" and the other bleat "it's good we are there to hold them back imagine what they would have been like without us"
I can imagine what they would have been like, out of office is what they would've been like, within 2 years of trying to run as a minority 'lame duck government'
Before the coalition was formed and the yellows went through the motion of holding talks with Labour I swear I was totally opposed to any coalition government,
bloody hell the howls from the Tory ranks would still be echoing if there had been a lib/lab coalition, and I honestly thought that there wasn't a cat in hells chance of a Con/Dem coalition, for me the best result would have been a Tory minority government with another election within a year or two,
Fast forward to 2015, and IF the only way to get Cameron and his cronies out of government is for Labour to form a coalition with the political equivalent of the 'ladies of the night' and it's the only deal going, HELL YEAH I'll take it,
I won't LIKE it, and certainly wouldn't brag about it, or feel comfortable having to go with them,...... but it would do,
Tonight's YouGov/Sun Poll has Labour leading by 2.
CON: 35%
LAB: 37%
LD: 8%
UKIP: 12%
Just the UK will do for now.
Who would make the best Prime Minister?
Cameron - 38%
Miliband - 19%
Clegg - 4%
(Poor Clegg!
92% of Conservative voters think Cameron would make best PM.
51% of Labour voters think Miliband would.
Poor Miliband, not got much support even among the Labour faithful. The trouble with Miliband he doesn't look like a statesman, he does not even sound like a statesman, he just has a poor image.
Despite my loathing for the man Blair did have it, so did Wilson, Callaghan and John Smith. Listen to Miliband at PMQs he is clearly out of his depth, more often than not opening his mouth and inserting his foot, looking a fool. He tries to make a joke and be clever and gets it smacked right back making the great Ed the butt of the joke.
Even a headmaster/mistress in a school has to have a good leadership quality, if they look like a failure from the start, pupils and teachers alike will have little respect for them and they will be treated as a joke. Then we have the CEO of a company he has to look the part too.
I do not know what part Miliband looks but together with Ed Balls neither of them have leadership qualities of note.
Which means that if proven right, even a 15% swing wouldn't be enough to unseat Clegg.
CON: 35%
LAB: 36%
LD: 8%
UKIP: 12%
Labour lead at 1.
CON: 34%
LAB: 35%
LD: 9%
UKIP: 14%
Labour lead by 1.
It wasn't their worst defeat since 1931, they won a bigger vote share than 1983 and more seats than 1987. In fact it was closer to a 1979 or 1992 sized defeat. Again, if the negotiations had worked in his favour its entirely possible he could have formed at least a workable Government in the short term. It wouldn't be the first time the party that came second formed the Government, and we've even in the past had the spectre of a Labour PM, Ramsay McDonald seeking Tory support to form a Government in 1929, he continued to lead a Tory backed Government even after the 1931 election.
In terms of the seats they lost it was Labour's worst defeat in 80 years; a loss of almost 100 seats seems like a clear rejection to me. Of course, in the past the 'losing' party has remained in government (1931 as you mentioned; very unusual circumstances there however) but there is no plausible way Labour could have justified staying in government after losing that many seats. Indeed, even a Lib/Lab coalition wouldn't have commanded a majority in the HoC, it would've been unstable and probably wouldn't have lasted very long. The Tories were 20-odd seats short of a majority; some kind of Tory government (either minority or coalition) seemed the most sensible and stable option at the time.
In 1974 the Tories lost about 40 seats and suffered a 9% drop in their national vote share. Yet Ted Heath was still given 4 days to try and form a working majority. The role of the electorate at a General Election is to elect an MP for their constituency. The job of forming a Government is down to those MPs and the parties they represent. That's how our system works.
In theory the numbers are king; all a PM requires to keep his job is that more MPs vote for their first budget than against it. It doesn't matter what happened to your vote in the election or whether you're the biggest party or whether the Daily Mail says you won or not - if you get the votes you stay in government.
In practice I don't think a governing party can ignore the general climate that exists after an election. Technically Labour and Lib Dems could have formed a coalition after 2010 and would have probably got a budget through, however I doubt that even Labour and Lib Dem voters would have supported a coalition government in such circumstance. When you win 50 less seats than your opponent in an election you have to have a very good reason for trying to deny them government. I dont' think Labour had one in 2010 and the Tories would struggle to have one in 2015.
We've already seen it in some polls.