The Official UK Election Thread! 6th May it is!

[zooterkin]

He did take the billions from the pensions though. I remember when he did it. My Tory colleague was damning and blasting him and saying Labour would never win an election again after that. I pointed out that most people wouldn't notice in time for it to make the slightest difference to the voting while any of the then cabinet were still politically active.

I remember the same colleague, even earlier, saying the Labour manifesto in 1992 had lost them the election, this was about five minutes after it was published. I think he was right about that. I remain to be convinced that enough people realised what Brown did to their pensions though.

Well, some people will notice before they actually come to draw their pension. Partly as a result of the changes that Labour made, I now pay 12% of my salary towards what was originally a non-contributory pension. (The company itself is also partly to blame, since it chose to reduce its contributions when times were good, leading to underfunding when things went bad.) Not that that will entice to me to vote Conservative, but just pointing out that some effects are more immediate than you may have realised.

 

[funk de fino]

Accusing Labour of the most negative campaign "in modern history", David Cameron said his "very simple message" was only his party could bring change.

By promising to never get rid of the pound.

 

[Rolfe]

There's a YouGov Scotland poll out giving

Labour 37
SNP 25
LibDem 22
Conservative 14

Don't know how representative that is, but it's not bad after the squeezing from the TV debates and the Clegg surge.

Rolfe.

 

[jimbob]

http://mydavidcameron.com/posters/estate1

 

[commandlinegamer]

There's a YouGov Scotland poll out giving

..
Conservative 14

Finally, an excuse to use this:

 

[dudalb]

So that's....all Tories?

I think ALL political parties have problems seeing their own weaknesses.
I don't think the Tories are worse then usual in this regard.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The one piece on Fox News yesterday: Simon Cowell supports Cameron .

 

[geni]

So en masse, voting to change the outcome of an election is rational. But individually, it's not. And yet, to get the mass effect, individuals are required to make their (irrational) vote.

My brain hurts.

Poor phrasing. If you ignore the issue of why vote at all then conventional tactical voting is rational if you only take the single election cycle into account.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

So what happens if both the Tories and Labour tie on seats but refuse to join into a coalition, wishing to go it alone as a minority government?

I know the old constitutional answer is the approval of the Queen, but does she really make any decisions on a matter of such importance?

 

[geni]

So what happens if both the Tories and Labour tie on seats but refuse to join into a coalition, wishing to go it alone as a minority government?

I know the old constitutional answer is the approval of the Queen, but does she really make any decisions on a matter of such importance?

Under such a situation Brown would carry on as prime minister untill removed by a vote of no confidence. Cameron would then either have a go until the same thing happened to him or a general election might be called straight away.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Ah, and a vote of no confidence can pass only if there is a 326 votes in favour? Is that right? Thus the fragility of minority governments?

Why can Brown continue if it is a tie in seats?

 

[Debaser]

C4 News just had a discussion of this. Since GB is the incumbent he gets first go at forming any new government.

 

[geni]

Ah, and a vote of no confidence can pass only if there is a 326 votes in favour? Is that right? Thus the fragility of minority governments?

Why can Brown continue if it is a tie in seats?

Brown is a minister of the crown and remains so until he resigns or it is shown he is unable to form a working majority in the commons. A vote of no confidence is the accepted method of forcing the issue.

 

[Rolfe]

C4 News just had a discussion of this. Since GB is the incumbent he gets first go at forming any new government.

I wonder if these rules are similar to those for the Scottish parliament? Three years ago the SNP ended up with only one seat more than Labour. The previous government was a Labour/LibDem coalition, and together these parties could again have formed a coalition with far more seats than the SNP had.

It's reported that at first Labour and the LibDems (especially Labour) thought everything could go on as it had been before. There was an attempt to get all the other parties together to stop Alex Salmond becoming First Minister. However, in the end it was realised that the largest party had to be allowed to try to form a government, otherwise the will of the electorate was being flouted. (I'm not quite sure how this came about without dredging newspaper archives, but I have a feeling the Tories wouldn't play ball.)

The SNP thought it could woo the LibDems into coalition, but the LibDems refused even to discuss the matter. So the SNP decided to give minority government a go. It hasn't worked too badly, but they've been unable to get some key manifesto pledges through because the other parties voted them down.

Rolfe.

 

[Debaser]

Well the civil servant/constitutionalist stated that it was essentially the prerogative of the incumbent to form a working government.

However, as you describe, he suggested that if Cameron got a majority of seats he would start a press campaign to influence public opinion that he should be allowed to try to form a government. Totally against the rules (which for once seem to be written down) but that's what happens when no-one in this country can really remember how hung parliaments are supposed to work.

 

[Fiona]

If he got a majority of seats he would have won the election, Debaser: do you mean if the tories got more seats than any other party but not a majority of the total?

 

[andyandy]

can people just clarify what will happen if tomorrow the Tories get the most seats, but less than lib dem and lab combined?

Is it first up to GB to see if he can get a working coalition with the lib dems? Or does Cameron get to be PM regardless of any coalition?

 

[Debaser]

Yes, sorry. If Labour came in second in number of seats, and the Tories didn't get the straight majority they need, then GB still gets first go to try to form some sort of working coalition.

As the man said, we elect parliaments, not governments.

 

[Dragon]

Yes, sorry. If Labour came in second in number of seats, and the Tories didn't get the straight majority they need, then GB still gets first go to try to form some sort of working coalition.

As the man said, we elect parliaments, not governments.

This BBC flowchart tries to simplify the issue but still leaves some questions unanswered IMO ...

 

[Fiona]

can people just clarify what will happen if tomorrow the Tories get the most seats, but less than lib dem and lab combined?

Is it first up to GB to see if he can get a working coalition with the lib dems? Or does Cameron get to be PM regardless of any coalition?

According to the bbc if there is no overall majority the incumbent continues while he tries to form a government. If he can get a coalition they govern till it falls apart. Otherwise I think anyone who can form a coalition which is a majority of the seats gets to form a government. Till it falls apart