General Election 2017

[PompeyVillan]

4 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Corbyn will never hold a majority. 

We'll see about that.

Edited June 10, 2017 by PompeyVillan

[snowychap]

A couple of pieces from the Institute for Government regarding hung parliaments and the FTPA.

From the day before the election:

Quote

What happens if the election does produce a hung parliament

The recent and dramatic shift in the polls makes a hung Parliament a plausible, if still unlikely, outcome on Thursday. Westminster has little recent experience of inconclusive elections – just two since the war, in 1974 and 2010. A second hung parliament in seven years would make things interesting, but it would be no crisis.

The sky won’t fall in

A hung parliament might produce a period of uncertainty about the composition of the new administration. The UK is accustomed to a government being formed immediately, but the sky will not fall in if it takes a little longer for the situation to resolve itself. In 2010, it took five days before the handover from Gordon Brown to David Cameron.

The UK is very odd in its haste to form a new government within 24 hours of the polls closing. Fellow Westminster systems like Canada and Australia wait over a week before swearing in the Prime Minister, even when he or she has won a clear majority.

With Brexit talks due to start on 19 June, weeks of coalition negotiations – as in Germany, for example – would be unhelpful. But that is highly unlikely. If it takes a few days to clarify who is best placed to form a stable administration, then that time should be taken. And if the media can restrain itself from hyperbole about political or constitutional crisis, then all the better.

We have argued for greater clarity about the government formation process, but there are some established principles. So long as it is unclear who is to be Prime Minister, the existing government remains in office, subject to similar constraints as in the pre-election ‘purdah’ period. It is the duty of an outgoing prime minister to hold on until unequivocal advice can be given to the Queen about who should be the next guest for tea at the palace.

The rules of the game

In some countries – the Netherlands, for instance – there are formal rules determining who should make the first attempt to form a government. With up to a dozen parties vying for power, the Dutch have need of such rules. We do not.

Westminster has what the academics call an “unordered government formation process”. This means neither the largest party nor the incumbent has any special right to go first. Consequently, as in 2010, there could be parallel negotiations under way between different sets of parties, which the civil service could be called upon to support.

Negotiations could be to form a 2010-style coalition, but that appears unlikely this time round. None of the smaller parties are natural bedfellows of the Conservatives or Labour. And having watched the Liberal Democrat collapse of 2015, they are likely to prefer to keep their distance in any case.

An alternative would be a looser cooperation arrangement, in which smaller parties commit to support a minority government on key votes, as in the ‘confidence and supply’ deals found in New Zealand and Ireland. If the Conservatives are a handful of seats short of a majority, for example, they could look to entice the Democratic Unionist Party into such a deal.

Confidence is all that matters

Ultimately, who forms a government is determined by who is best placed to command the confidence of the House of Commons. This does not mean a prime minister needs a majority of MPs to vote actively in their favour, but only that a majority does not vote against them. If all the smaller parties were to abstain, the largest party could therefore form a minority government without doing a deal with anyone else. Minority government can be surprisingly effective and stable.

If the parliamentary arithmetic is particularly tight, then Theresa May would in theory be entitled to remain in office until Parliament meets to test her standing. In December 1923, Conservative Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin lost his majority but the Tories remained the largest party. Baldwin did not resign until six weeks later when Labour and Liberals combined to defeat his King’s Speech. Baldwin wanted to demonstrate that the Liberals had chosen to put a socialist in power.

The Cabinet Manual suggests that a government “should resign if it becomes clear that it is unlikely to be able to command that confidence and there is a clear alternative.” This is just guidance, however, with no binding force. Theresa May could therefore opt for the Baldwin gambit, for instance, to force Labour and the SNP to vote down her administration.

However, much would turn on political legitimacy as much as constitutional convention. The campaign has focused to a great extent on leadership and who the country wants as Prime Minister. But we do not have a presidential system – only the voters of Maidenhead and Islington North can actually vote for May or Corbyn respectively. This means there is no constitutional requirement that either of these two leaders heads the next government.

So, if the Conservatives were to lose their working majority on Thursday, the Prime Minister could potentially step (or be pushed) aside to allow an alternative Conservative prime minister to emerge, just as May replaced Cameron in 2016 without the need for an election. Likewise, Labour moderates might make yet another effort to elbow Corbyn aside and install one of their own in Downing Street. Again, all that matters is who has the numbers in the Commons.

From back in 2015:

Quote

The (Not So) Fixed-term Parliaments Act

On 24 March, the SNP’s Alex Salmond told New Statesman that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act (FTPA) could give his party great power in the next Parliament, pointing out that “nobody seems to have read” this 2011 law. Whether his first point is correct will, of course, depend on how many seats his party wins; but on the second point, he’s on to something. For as we enter a first full Parliament under this new piece of law, only two things are absolutely clear: that the Act substantially changes the rules of politics; and that nobody can yet tell exactly how these new rules will change the game.

For many decades, prime ministers have used Royal Prerogative to call an election at a time of their choosing; and the collapse of an administration has led promptly to a general election. But the FTPA changes some of the basic principles of how governments can be defeated in Parliament, and how a change of government occurs if that happens. As we face the likelihood of another hung parliament, it’s becoming clear that crucial aspects of the Act have not been thought through and may raise big constitutional questions in the midst of a major political drama.

Under the FTPA, Parliament’s fixed five-year term can only be truncated in two ways. First, if more than two thirds of the House of Commons vote to call an election – and that means 434 of the 650 MPs, not just two thirds of those in the chamber. The second is more complicated. If a motion of no confidence is passed or there is a failed vote of confidence, there is a 14-day period in which to pass an act of confidence in a new government. If no such vote is passed, a new election must be held, probably a mere 17 working days later.

So far, so clear. But from there we start to get into uncharted territory on two fronts. One is that some of the crucial mechanisms are not set out; the other is how the operation of the Act could affect political dynamics and party bargaining.

Let’s start with the mechanisms. The 14-day period only begins if the government loses a vote of confidence; and under the Act, this has been defined narrowly to exclude budgets and Queen’s Speeches – two key votes that have long been considered an effective vote of confidence. The Commons must now pass a motion using very specific wording to trigger FTPA.

A government that lost a Queen’s Speech vote could forestall that vote of confidence by resigning and recommending that the Queen offer the PM’s role to the Opposition – in which case a new government could be formed, and attempt to govern for the remainder of the five-year term.

There is an alternative: in the past, governments which have lost major votes have sometimes used the procedures of the House to delay a vote of confidence. In 1977, this allowed Labour to forge a new pact with the Liberals, regaining a majority and continuing in government. However, following a Queen’s Speech defeat this would be highly questionable, raising big questions of legitimacy. Constitutional authorities, and the parties, have different opinions on whether a PM should resign after losing a Queen’s Speech vote.

Let’s assume the government loses a vote of confidence, triggering the 14-day grace period. Here we hit a big ambiguity at the heart of the legislation: who governs during the next 14 days? Previously, an incumbent Prime Minister losing a vote of confidence would either resign immediately, handing power to a successor; or stay in as a sort of caretaker government while a second election was held – James Callaghan did the latter when we last saw a defeat on confidence in 1979. However, the 14-day clock only stops when a new government is approved by the House – and this requires a new government to already be in place: the wording specifically says that the motion must be “confidence in Her Majesty’s Government”. And at the point when the previous government has lost a vote of confidence, it may not be obvious that their opponents could themselves win one. So must the outgoing PM immediately resign and pass the reins to the leader of the Opposition, even if their chances of assembling a parliamentary majority look slender? Or should they hang on and await the outcome of negotiations, despite having lost a vote of confidence? Both solutions would be ugly and controversial.

A PM put in this position might be tempted to make it difficult for their rival to hold a new vote of confidence, and thus to form a government. And such blocking tactics would not be without precedent: in 2008, Canadian premier Stephen Harper secured a prorogation (suspension) of Parliament in order to forestall a vote of confidence. However, prorogation would require the Sovereign to exercise this remaining Royal Prerogative in support of a government which had clearly lost confidence. This drags the Queen into political manoeuvring in a way that Buckingham Palace has been keen to avoid.

Assuming our hard-pressed PM dismisses this option, they would have one further way out. Because under our constitution the powers of government are vested in the Prime Minister, they could simply hand over the leadership to a party colleague – creating a new government that could have another go at winning a vote of confidence. This would technically meet the Act’s requirements; and our political history is full of different PMs of the same party forming new governments of slightly different composition. Ultimately, it would be up to the House to decide by voting their confidence. But again, the Sovereign would be put in a difficult position, as the Queen would have to appoint the new PM before they could put forward a new confidence motion.

Of course, all of this depends on whether party leaders use the Act in these ways. The Act has been understood as a means to allow for a new government to be formed and replace the incumbent, and there would be massive political pressures in anyone being seen to abuse its provisions. If used as intended, it would bring in a government led by the former Opposition. Yet even this would be challenging in our political culture: how many changes of government could we see without an election?

If the incumbent government does resign, FTPA could mean, to take one possible scenario, a Tory minority government is replaced by a Labour-led administration with the ambition and potential to govern right through till 2020. And this second government could itself be displaced without an election if a further vote of no confidence is won. There is nothing in the Act that restricts the number of times we go through the merry-go-round of a government falling and a further government being formed.

This would mean successive administrations without recourse to the polls, and much turmoil in government. Our political culture would find this a shock, as would the money markets. Since the Second World War the UK has had plenty of examples of the governing party changing the Prime Minister whilst in power, but we’re not used to the party of government changing without the need for a general election. In the 18th and 19th century it was more common for governments to fall and a new party or combination of parties take over; but most sought a new mandate – if only to improve their power in Parliament. So in this situation the pressure for a new election would be massive, and an opposition party might decide not to form a government in the 14 days – precipitating a new election.

The FTPA might, of course, be repealed by the next government. But here there are also difficulties. If the big parties do indeed lack a majority, would the smaller parties – who will not benefit from the substantial political advantage of choosing when to call an election – want to hand back that power? Labour and the Conservative could unite to force the change through. But, the FTPA took away a Royal Prerogative, continuing a centuries-long flow of powers from the monarch to the legislature. Reversing this flow, or asking Parliament to put that power in the executive’s hands, might be possible in legal terms, yet would be a tricky argument to make. It is not something the UK’s constitution has had to attempt. It might be easier to amend the current Act, moving to a simple majority, rather than the two-thirds, in order to call an early election.

Those planning for any post-election hung parliament negotiations will have to think hard about the FTPA’s significance. Gavin Kelly, a former Number 10 Deputy Chief of Staff, called it a “game-changer” at a recent Institute for Government event. Whilst MPs might be less enamoured with the idea of another coalition, he argued that minority governments are now rather more risky – for if they fell after a year or so, the prospect would not necessarily be of another election, but of handing power straight to their main rivals. This, said Kelly, creates a new incentive for people to build solid coalitions.

For smaller parties, too, the levers and risks look different now. Before FTPA, if the Lib Dems or SNP brought down a minority government, they’d have to explain themselves to the voters in an election; nowadays, they might end up kingmakers to a new government of a different hue, postponing that difficult conversation until they have a chance to deliver something for their supporters. Alex Salmond is already attempting such risky cat and mouse games.

Governments can and do navigate minority quite successfully, and for some it is preferable to coalition. Any minority government only dies by the ability of the other parties to form an opposition majority – something that’s not as easy as it sounds. But the FTPA still has big implications for our parliamentarians and party leaderships; and we’ll only learn their exact nature as the Act is tested in anger. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act was introduced to level the political playing field and strengthen the chances that the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition would survive for a full term. But its significance for British politics could go much, much further than that.

 

[HanoiVillan]

30 minutes ago, darrenm said:

No offence. But you were completely and utterly wrong about how the election was going all the way along. I've resisted smugly quoting many posts deriding me for how I saw it going. You were also very sure with your predictions before. Don't you think your radar may be a bit off?

I'm with you on this one. As far as I can remember, out of everyone on the site, your final prediction was the closest to reality (even though derided at the time) so I'm happy to give credit where it's deserved. 

On the point you were addressing, I completely agree that it's silly to say things like 'Corbyn can never get enough seats to form a majority government', when we don't even know whether the next election will be in three months or five years. It's just making hostages to fortune. 

[snowychap]

 

[jon_c]

10 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

On the point you were addressing, I completely agree that it's silly to say things like 'Corbyn can never get enough seats to form a majority government', when we don't even know whether the next election will be in three months or five years. It's just making hostages to fortune. 

You can't say never in current world politics, but he'd have to gain 40 more seats. That's the current gain doubled plus ten. And people are high fiving about how amazing the current gain was. 

Realistically, if he can't do something about his lack of popularity in Scotland, it won't happen. 

[HanoiVillan]

22 minutes ago, Chindie said:

No offence, but 'it's happening' didn't happen either. They missed a majority by 60 odd seats. So I wouldn't be too smug.

Yeah I, like just about everyone, got it wrong. I was hopeful I would be wrong. And I'm happy to be wrong. 

Corbyn will never hold a majority. I'll happy send £20 to any charity of your choice if he does. It's not happening. He did spectacularly well and still came massively short. He's not going to get there.

You are a poster I like and respect, and I place a high value on your opinion, so if this comes across as a bit harsh please know it isn't personal: I can't believe you're doubling-down on this argument, and I think it's more than a bit silly. 

In the last seven years, this country has had three general elections, two hung parliaments and one small majority. It has voted to leave the EU (would you have predicted that in 2011?) and Scotland nearly became independent. It is absolutely clear that British politics is more unsettled and more unpredictable than at any time since the Second World War, and really since the rise of Labour and the end of Home Rule approximately 100 years ago. 

We don't know when the next election will be - it could be anywhere between a couple of months and five years. We may have gone through a massive recession, we might have crashed out of the EU (or it might not even happen at all!) or it could all be in just a few weeks' time and nothing has changed except a new Tory leader. Against this hugely unpredictable backdrop, an election happened 48 hours ago which you (and I) called (very) incorrectly. 

To pretend you 'know' what's going to happen in the next electionn (when? after what?) is just silly. You don't, and I don't, and nobody else here does either. 

[mjmooney]

3 minutes ago, jon_c said:

You can't say never in current world politics, but he'd have to gain 40 more seats. That's the current gain doubled plus ten. And people are high fiving about how amazing the current gain was. 

Realistically, if he can't do something about his lack of popularity in Scotland, it won't happen. 

I believe he can. You're right that Scotland is key. 

[snowychap]

 

 

Apparently, there were 12 seats with a majority of less than 1% in 2015 according to his other tweet.

Edited June 10, 2017 by snowychap

[Chindie]

19 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I'm with you on this one. As far as I can remember, out of everyone on the site, your final prediction was the closest to reality (even though derided at the time) so I'm happy to give credit where it's deserved. 

On the point you were addressing, I completely agree that it's silly to say things like 'Corbyn can never get enough seats to form a majority government', when we don't even know whether the next election will be in three months or five years. It's just making hostages to fortune. 

I know Darren wants his moment in the sun, and credit to him for getting closer then anyone else, I just can't fool myself into thinking Corbyn is going to turn things further to a majority. Don't get me wrong, I'd much sooner have a Corbyn led Labour in power than more or less anyone else. I'd be quite happy to see him in No.10.

But I just don't believe it'll happen. I think we're in a period of hung parliaments now, because of the division in the country. I'm not that against coalitions (provided they aren't the horror show we're about to get) as compromise isn't a bad thing in politics IMO. The Tories have been burned by austerity, a lack of talent, and horrible manifesto. but have their traditional and sizable support to fall back on and their catchphrases and memes that carried them through coalition are burned into the public psyche - hence Labour still poll badly on the economy. Even in light of disaster, which Brexit will almost certainly be, and recession, which is coming, that support will not wane enough IMO. Traditionally in times of crisis, things go right. They are unlikely to turn left.

Labour aren't trusted on Brexit either and are tarred with the 'failings of immigration'. They've lost support from the working class Leave voter. They've gained the higher education vote, and they've managed to mobilise the youth, to Corbyn's credit. But they need an absolutely colossal shift. They need to crush the SNP and Scottish Tories, when the Scottish Labour party is a complete mess, and make regional gains in England. That's a huge ask, even with the SNP stumble.

I suspect there well be another election in the 15 months, I suspect there will be a new Tory leader and they will be very, very careful about their campaign, and I suspect we'll get another hung parliament. Could Corbyn be PM? Perhaps. As a Labour majority? It's too but an ask IMO. Even against a backdrop of upheaval.

But. I hope I'm wrong. I'm quite happy with a Corbyn led government, coalition or not, especially against the alternatives.

[Chindie]

14 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

You are a poster I like and respect, and I place a high value on your opinion, so if this comes across as a bit harsh please know it isn't personal: I can't believe you're doubling-down on this argument, and I think it's more than a bit silly. 

In the last seven years, this country has had three general elections, two hung parliaments and one small majority. It has voted to leave the EU (would you have predicted that in 2011?) and Scotland nearly became independent. It is absolutely clear that British politics is more unsettled and more unpredictable than at any time since the Second World War, and really since the rise of Labour and the end of Home Rule approximately 100 years ago. 

We don't know when the next election will be - it could be anywhere between a couple of months and five years. We may have gone through a massive recession, we might have crashed out of the EU (or it might not even happen at all!) or it could all be in just a few weeks' time and nothing has changed except a new Tory leader. Against this hugely unpredictable backdrop, an election happened 48 hours ago which you (and I) called (very) incorrectly. 

To pretend you 'know' what's going to happen in the next electionn (when? after what?) is just silly. You don't, and I don't, and nobody else here does either. 

I think this is harsh. I don't claim to know. I'm making a prediction. One I hope is wrong for that matter. Darren decided to have a pop, I'm biting back. He went out on a limb for Corbyn, there was a reason that was a minority view. Credit he was right. As I've laid out above I wouldn't predict a Corbyn win so I wouldn't be too smug. And I don't think my thinking is too illogical.

[Brumstopdogs]

Labour did well in the election and no doubt the Conservatives under-performed. However, to flip some of the positive comments on their side.

The conservatives could be in power now until 2022 at which point JC will be turning 73 in that year.

Regardless of how Labour did they did not win the election although it has made the Conservatives strength and position weaker.

By the time of the next election we may have different leaders of the Conservatives and Labour with different polices therefore any momentum Labour obtained from this election could be lost. Maybe this is the peak for Labour.

Even with a poor leader the Conservatives still pulled in more support/got more votes than Labour did. 

This is certainly a wake up call though and it will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

[HanoiVillan]

29 minutes ago, Chindie said:

I think this is harsh. I don't claim to know. I'm making a prediction. One I hope is wrong for that matter. Darren decided to have a pop, I'm biting back. He went out on a limb for Corbyn, there was a reason that was a minority view. Credit he was right. As I've laid out above I wouldn't predict a Corbyn win so I wouldn't be too smug. And I don't think my thinking is too illogical.

Well, as I said, you're a poster whose opinion I value, so I hope you don't take it personally. And if you'd couched your response to Darren in the terms of the post above this one, I would perhaps not be pulling you up on it. But what you said initially was: 'Corbyn will never hold a majority. I'll happy send £20 to any charity of your choice if he does. It's not happening. He did spectacularly well and still came massively short. He's not going to get there.' That's pretty definitive for a prediction. I'm not seeing a lot of doubt in there. 

I'm not saying your argument is illogical. I can follow the logic clearly, especially in the post above this one. But I don't think we should be in the business of making future election predictions at all, at least for a while. Things are moving way too quickly and unpredictably. And since none of us predicted that Labour would be wiped out in Scotland, that Scotland would nearly leave the UK, or that the UK would vote to leave the EU, I just don't think it's serious for any of us to say 'never' to clearly plausible possibilities of the trivial nature of 'Labour gain 40 seats off the Tories at some point'. And I do think that we (and I say 'we' deliberately, because I absolutely include myself in this) need to accept that our predictions will be considered in light of the fact that we got this election very wrong as well. That doesn't mean that everything we say is wrong or that everything Darren says is right, it just means that the UK political environment is very difficult to call correctly at the moment, because it's very unpredictable. 

Edited June 10, 2017 by HanoiVillan
added missing words 'is very difficult'

[wazzap24]

Further predictions of any kind are futile. 

We don't know if/when there will be another GE 

We don't know who the leader of the blue team will be or what new 'slogan' they'll have (surely the next spinmeister won't allow anything linked to 'stability' after the last two jokers). 

We don't know what influence new and existing external factors will have (Brexit, economic shifts, terrorism, media coverage etc) 

We don't know how either party is going refine its strategy over the coming weeks/months/year. 

We don't really know what the **** is going on amongst the electorate in general. People are all over the show with their voting. 

Either of the main parties could look at the next 12 months thinking with confidence, or worried about a bloodbath. 

One thing I would predict is that traditional thinking is going out the window for a lot of people and how the parties react to that will determine their success or failure. 

[Brumstopdogs]

43 minutes ago, snowychap said:

 

 

Apparently, there were 12 seats with a majority of less than 1% in 2015 according to his other tweet.

 

That second table shows more than 40% of the seats won by a majortity of 0.5% or lower were won by Labour. Very close and could easily have gone the other way.

 

[Villan_of_oz]

I'd love to hear @Grasshopper's view on the election.....

[HanoiVillan]

3 minutes ago, Brumstopdogs said:

That second table shows more than 40% of the seats won by a majortity of 0.5% or lower were won by Labour. Very close and could easily have gone the other way.

 

Yes that's true. Of course, there are also many of those constituencies where it was Labour who finished 2nd by a tiny margin as well. I guess we shouldn't be too surprised that an election that finished with a circa 2.5% difference in the popular vote contained many tight races. It does show how easily the situation could change completely next time. 

[Chindie]

4 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Well, as I said, you're a poster whose opinion I value, so I hope you don't take it personally. And if you'd couched your response to Darren in the terms of the post above this one, I would perhaps not be pulling you up on it. But what you said initially was: 'Corbyn will never hold a majority. I'll happy send £20 to any charity of your choice if he does. It's not happening. He did spectacularly well and still came massively short. He's not going to get there.' That's pretty definitive for a prediction. I'm not seeing a lot of doubt in there. 

I'm not saying your argument is illogical. I can follow the logic clearly, especially in the post above this one. But I don't think we should be in the business of making future election predictions at all, at least for a while. Things are moving way too quickly and unpredictably. And since none of us predicted that Labour would be wiped out in Scotland, that Scotland would nearly leave the UK, or that the UK would vote to leave the EU, I just don't think it's serious for any of us to say 'never' to clearly plausible possibilities of the trivial nature of 'Labour gain 40 seats off the Tories at some point'. And I do think that we (and I say 'we' deliberately, because I absolutely include myself in this) need to accept that our predictions will be considered in light of the fact that we got this election very wrong as well. That doesn't mean that everything we say is wrong or that everything Darren says is right, it just means that the UK political environment to call correctly at the moment, because it's very unpredictable. 

Of course it's a prediction, I'm not psychic. It's a prediction in the same way I could say 'Villa will get promoted next year', 'Justice League will be a bit of a mess of a movie' and 'Valve will never make Half Life 3'. Those are predictions, they could be wrong. I don't need to express doubt for them to be predictions.

I'd stand by prediction on Corbyn. If things change, I'll happily admit to being wrong. Perhaps things change exceedingly unexpectedly. I'd be wrong and £20 worse off. I'd be delighted to be wrong. I just don't think I will be. Humble enough to accept if I am wrong and I don't think I'd have a pop at anyone if I turn out right.

I don't see much problem making a prediction. Yes things are unusual right now but what does it change? Nothing. It's speculating on the future, shooting the shit. Adding to the conversation.

It's an interesting time.

[HanoiVillan]

3 minutes ago, Villan_of_oz said:

I'd love to hear @Grasshopper's view on the election.....

Obviously, it would be BRUCE OUT!

[Stevo985]

6 minutes ago, Villan_of_oz said:

I'd love to hear @Grasshopper's view on the election.....

Oh please no.

Give us one thread at least!

[Brumstopdogs]

7 minutes ago, Villan_of_oz said:

I'd love to hear @Grasshopper's view on the election.....

Just had a word with him - he is on his way