Dave or Ed? The 2015 UK General Election
April 25, 2015 8:18 AM   Subscribe

In just 12 days, the 2015 general election for the UK (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) takes place. On the surface, the math is simple: there are 650 seats, so winning 326 gives you a simple majority. In the previous parliament, governance was through a coalition of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties. But this time, predicting who will be Prime Minister, or have the most seats, or what form the government will take, is ... complicated.

Breakdown of the 650 seats:

533 England
59 Scotland
40 Wales
18 Northern Ireland

Why so complicated this time? Reasons include:

- In a post-referendum Scotland, Labour, who held most of the 59 UK seats there, could lose nearly all of them to the SNP. This is making people consider extreme forms of coalition to lock out the SNP.
- UKIP, the anti-Europe and anti-immigration party who continue to deny they are racist, attract voters from other parties.
- The Liberal Democrats may lose most of their seats due to governing with the Conservatives and a broken promise over tuition fees, for which Nick was very sorry.
- The Green party, with (for the UK) some alternative policies, may win many votes but because of the electoral system win very few seats.
- Politicians remain unpopular while their expenses remain questionable.

Seats at dissolution of parliament:

302 Conservative Party
256 Labour Party
56 Liberal Democrats
8 Democratic Unionist Party (DUP)
6 Scottish National Party (SNP)
5 Independent MPs
5 Sinn Féin (practicing abstentionism)
3 Plaid Cymru
3 Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP)
2 UK Independence Party (UKIP)
1 Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
1 Green Party
1 Respect Party
1 The Speaker (non-partisan)

More detail: House of Commons FAQs and Wired on how election maps reveal the strange politics of geography.

Some recent analysis and predictions:

New Statesman: Election 2015 polls: This is how Ed Miliband gets to 323 seats and becomes Prime Minister.
The Week: Election 2015: who will win the UK general election?.
Business Insider: Britain's General Election is a 'poisoned chalice' and the winner will be tested to breaking point.
London Evening Standard: Who will form a coalition after the general election?
Slate: Britain’s Season of Despair.
FiveThirtyEight coverage.

Related on MetaFilter:

- Why are you still here?
- Mr. Farage and the Cabaret of Diversity.
- A British moon on a British stick!

Finally: will there be a second UK general election in 2015? It's technically possible; the rules.
posted by Wordshore (110 comments total) 36 users marked this as a favorite
 
I feel like all the parties have a vested interest in making the result seem uncertain and complex - when actually it is pretty simple. Labour will be the next party of government with support from the SNP on a confidence and supply basis. (Maybe with a few minor parties given sops if absolutely necessary but probably not). The maths for any other kind of government does not work out. If labour did fantastically well it might be able to form a minority government with the libdems but this seems highly unlikely. The maths for any other coalition is almost impossible to add up to a majority without a huge change in the polling
posted by Another Fine Product From The Nonsense Factory at 8:47 AM on April 25, 2015 [3 favorites]


The Greens have some interesting policies with respect to IP, which are not listed in the link above. They may have shot themselves in the foot (feet?) amongst the creatives.
posted by lawrencium at 8:47 AM on April 25, 2015 [2 favorites]


Vague and possibly inaccurate predictions (but seeming very likely, at present): Ukip only take one or two seats, not more than three; Labour mostly wiped out in Scotland, and ending up near dead level with the Tories on seats; what we might think of as the "anti-Tory parties" holding more seats, Cameron left unable to form a government with a majority even with the Lib Dems, Ukip, and DUP. Most likely outcome: Labour minority government and a confidence and supply agreement with SNP (and the grim, albeit amusing, prospect of the inexplicably popular Boris as Tory leader once his term as mayor of London is up).
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 8:56 AM on April 25, 2015 [3 favorites]


when actually it is pretty simple.

No - otherwise there would be one clear favorite across the betting markets. Out of the various realistic options on said markets - where people who put their money where their mouths are point to several - I would like to see:

Labour minority government and a confidence and supply agreement with SNP

But, based on grim history, the Conservatives usually doing better in the last few days as they and their media advantage turn it full on, and Labour fading at the same time, I'm expecting the result to be a Conservative minority government in a confidence and supply agreement with the Liberal Democrats. Clegg seems to be coming to that position, cosying back to the Tories and there's also (related) the significant advantage that the incumbent has in being the person who has first go at trying to form a government. Kinda feel Dave and Nick will be having a phone conversation the day after voting.

I could be wrong. And I hope I am.
posted by Wordshore at 9:07 AM on April 25, 2015 [1 favorite]


For a nominally unionist party, the Tories are sure acting like they don't give two shits about breaking up the Union if it wins them another term in government. Even leaving aside the unlikely possibility of a Lab/Con grand coalition to lock the SNP out - which doesn't seem like it could have any possible endgame except an independent Scotland - the extent to which the Tory press are painting the Scots as threatening foreign pinkos is beyond irresponsible. It's hard to remember that the Telegraph used to be a real newspaper instead of the Daily Mail but with words of more than two syllables.
posted by strangely stunted trees at 9:09 AM on April 25, 2015 [7 favorites]


Yeah, this one is a weird one. Fundamentally:

In terms of popular vote, Labour and Tory are running neck and neck, basically, with 33%, UKIP at 14%, LibDem at 8% and Green at 5%. But you don't win seats on PV, you win by PV in constituency, so what seats you get is very different, and while UKIP may poll a stupidly high 14%, they'll be lucky to get 5 sears, and while the LibDems are going to get their asses handed to them, they're almost certain still going to have at least 20 seats.

And SNP? That's the the real kicker. In most the UK, SNP -- The Scottish National Party -- isn't going to get a single vote. So, in total PV, they're a non factor. But there's a very real chance that they're going to take every single seat in Scotland, and they'll almost certainly take 55 of them (one may hold Lib Dem, three border seats might hold Conservative.)

This is turning what would have been a win for Labour into a hung parliament. The Tories are looking at losing 35 seats, the Lib Dems 31. Add most of those to Labour's current 256 and you're around 320, and a Labour/LibDem coalition is in play. However, as they're doing so, they're getting their own ass kicked by the SNP, turning the formerly Labour bastion of Scotland into an SNP bastion in one election. Now, it's looking like both Labour and Conservative are going to come in with about 270 seats.

So, how do you form a government?

Easier to say ways that you can't.

Tory/SNP isn't happening. If that was tried, I think SNP MPs would, quite literally, be hanging from trees if they ever dared set foot back in Scotland. After Thatcher, the one thing that truly unites the Scots is hatred for all things Tory.

LibDem/UKIP is a real problem, because LibDem is a very Euro centric party, and UKIP *hates* Europe (and, of course, are a bunch of racist bastards.) This is a bit of a thorny issue for the Torys, because Tory/UKIP is possible, and Tory/LibDem is current, so, Tory/LibDem/UKIP is the core of Cameron's hope of remaining as PM, but LibDem and UKIP *hate* each other.

UKIP/Labour, UKIP/SNP are non starters.

SNP may not want to form a formal government with anybody, but may be willing to form a "confidence and supply" agreement, where, in exchange for certainly legislation, they'll vote with another party on votes of confidence and budget bills, but not otherwise. They've currently announced that they have no intentions of forming a coalition, but strategically, they had to do that anyway.

And, of course, when you have two big parties starting that far back from a majority, suddenly, all the bit players become a big deal -- and you even start to see Machiavellian plans like "We need one vote. Let's get the speaker to resign, make a guy from the other side the Speaker...."

But when you're right at the line, you don't have a stable government. All you need is one person mad at you and the other side knowing it and a no confidence motion is going to drop.

So, really, SNP in Supply and Confidence with Labour gives you roughly 55+270=325, and all you need is one more, and there are a lot more sources for Labour to get one more there than there are for the Conservatives to come up with everything else to stop them.
posted by eriko at 9:09 AM on April 25, 2015 [18 favorites]


The Greens have some interesting policies with respect to IP

They've also got quite a lot of anti-science stuff in their manifesto, which puts me right off. I also found the manifesto postscript - One fine day in April 2019 - almost surreal in its twee utopianism. I do wish they'd sort themselves out and expunge some of this silly stuff as I'd like to see a serious environmentalist voice in parliament.

Regardless of all that Natalie Bennett has had a shocking campaign, and they're unlikely to do more than hang on to their current single MP.
posted by sobarel at 9:13 AM on April 25, 2015 [3 favorites]


They've also got quite a lot of anti-science stuff in their manifesto, which puts me right off.

This is true, and it's what has also stopped them getting my vote now and in the past[1], which is a shame for the environmentalist reasons and quite a few of their other policies. Still, at least with their manifesto you know for sure you're getting scientific illiteracy rather than the other parties where you assume you're getting scientific illiteracy.

[1] Not that it would make a bit of difference in the South Cambridgeshire seat where my vote is counted, a Conservative stronghold since the 1950s.
posted by lawrencium at 9:22 AM on April 25, 2015


Can someone explain to a dumb American why the SNP is set to sweep Scotland? It seems counterintuitive in the wake of the referendum.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 9:30 AM on April 25, 2015


Goodbye Clegg. The blood of the most vulnerable members of society who committed suicide as you drove them further and further into poverty in the name of bogus austerity will be forever on your hands and it will never wash off.

You should hope there is no God because come your judgement there will be no mercy. Everyone expects a Tory to be a right cunt because they can't help it. They didn't expect a liberal democrat to choose to become one too.
posted by Talez at 9:31 AM on April 25, 2015 [9 favorites]


Another complicating point is that you don't absolutely need (650/2)+1=326 seats, as the speaker does nae vote, and Sinn Féin don't turn up. So that takes it down to 323 for a majority. Even if whatever arrangement you made came to just below that, you'd still get stuff through the House of Commons unless everyone else voted against.
posted by Wordshore at 9:31 AM on April 25, 2015


and Sinn Féin don't turn up.

Just for devilment, this should be the one Parliament when they actually take their seats. If you're one of those diehard unionists quivering over SNP influence it'll be enough to put you in the grave.
posted by Thing at 9:39 AM on April 25, 2015 [11 favorites]


"Never mind the SNP. The real danger is if the DUP are in government"... the grauniad's Owen Jones

[Link added]
posted by Mister Bijou at 9:40 AM on April 25, 2015 [2 favorites]


Horace Rumpole: it's first past the post. If everyone who voted Yes votes for the SNP (45%), they will win a great many seats more than usual, given that the remaining 55% can be expected to be split between the Unionist parties. Not that everyone who voted yes will vote for the SNP: I suspect there will be nothing like a 1:1 ratio. People who voted no because of the risk of independence may be voting SNP to give the Westminster establishment a kicking and to get some form of full fiscal autonomy; others who voted yes may not like the SNP but do want independence.
posted by YouRebelScum at 9:44 AM on April 25, 2015


Tory/SNP isn't happening. If that was tried, I think SNP MPs would, quite literally, be hanging from trees if they ever dared set foot back in Scotland. After Thatcher, the one thing that truly unites the Scots is hatred for all things Tory.

The SNP governed quite happily with the Tories in informal coalition during their first minority administration at Holyrood from 2007 to 11. And the Tories are still polling around 18-19% in Scotland - so hardly united.
posted by sobarel at 9:51 AM on April 25, 2015 [2 favorites]


I'm expecting the result to be a Conservative minority government in a confidence and supply agreement with the Liberal Democrats.

If the scale of the Lib Dems' wipeout is as large as predicted (from 57 seats down to 26-30) then that won't happen because it won't be possible, mathematically. How many people do you think would have voted Lib Dem in 2010 if they'd known they'd be getting a Tory government out of it? A lot fewer. (A lot of those being disaffected Labour voters who felt betrayed by Blair over Iraq and wouldn't vote for a Tory on a bet who'll be voting Labour, or SNP, or Plaid, this time.)
posted by Pseudonymous Cognomen at 9:53 AM on April 25, 2015 [2 favorites]


538's prediction, as of today:
  • Tories 286 (-16)
  • Labour 267 (+11)
  • SNP 48 (+42)
  • Lib Dems 24 (-32)
  • Everybody else in single digits; UKIP with 1
Labour would still need some partner(s) outside of Scotland in this scenario. On the other side, there aren't enough Lib Dems to prop up the Tories anymore.

I hope you guys enjoy voting, because you might get to do it again. Your election season will still wind up shorter than the US presidential primary season, though.
posted by Huffy Puffy at 9:58 AM on April 25, 2015


I think a Labour minority government is most likely. I'm cautiously optimistic that it won't be as fragile and chaotic as the minority governments of the Seventies though. If it happens, Labour will be in the centre, with the SNP to the left, the Tories to the right and the Lib Dems... somewhere. In theory Miliband could get right-friendly stuff passed with Tory votes and left-friendly stuff with the SNP. It could still get hairy if they both decide to block everything, but he has more options than his Seventies predecessors who were always chasing the same tiny blocs of nationalists.

If Cameron tries, he'll find it harder as he'll be trying to rule from the right, with all the leftier parties able to combine against him while keeping their bases happy. I think that's why he seems so unenthusiastic about winning: he's grimly anticipating five gruelling years of battling the opposition and his own rebel backbenchers, with the Fixed Term Parliament act making a graceful exit even harder.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 9:59 AM on April 25, 2015 [1 favorite]


go greens! but yea, they'll be lucky to get 5% of the PV, but that's still way better than the 0.9% last time around :P

They've also got quite a lot of anti-science stuff in their manifesto, which puts me right off.

except for the anti-GMO bias, how are they anti-science? from ch.3 pg.18:
  • Ensure that adequate government funding goes to research on major environmental issues such as climate change, pollution and biodiversity loss, and less is spent on military research.
  • Ensure that basic research is adequately funded and is not controlled by large corporations, and gradually increase public spending on scientific research from 0.5% to 1.0% of GDP over the next ten years.
  • Ensure that scientific research is conducted ethically, with regard in particular to human and animal welfare.
  • Publish freely the results of all publicly funded research.
  • Prevent the patenting of genes and living organisms.
posted by kliuless at 10:05 AM on April 25, 2015 [6 favorites]


Your election season will still wind up shorter than the US presidential primary season, though.

And let us thank the lemon-scented deity for it. Even these few weeks have been enough to make me want to dig a ditch in the yard to throw myself into.
posted by sobarel at 10:07 AM on April 25, 2015


As it happens I ran into my local Labour MP in a bar last night. She's been in a relatively safe seat for the last few elections but seemed genuinely concerned about the potential of the UKIP factor in her constituency. It's curious how a very right-wing party like the "loonies, fruitcakes and closet racists" of UKIP seem to be draining support away from traditional Labour areas as much as disaffected Tories...
posted by Rufus T. Firefly at 10:08 AM on April 25, 2015


I think many people do not see what they want fitting with any of the three big parties. They were fed up with labour in 2010 so went libdem, that has been a big disappointment but where is there to go? Some back to Labour but a lot won't do that so what are the options? Some to the greens but many see them as too weird or not realistic. Some to UKIP since the media increasingly normalised them as an option, and there has always been a significant part of grass roots Labour with concerns over immigration. I think a lot of people just want some alternative with any relevance to then and there is not much available. The Scot's have the best option with the SNP, I am sure plenty of ex-Labour outside Scotland would vote for them if they could.
posted by biffa at 10:26 AM on April 25, 2015 [3 favorites]


It's curious how a very right-wing party like the "loonies, fruitcakes and closet racists" of UKIP seem to be draining support away from traditional Labour areas as much as disaffected Tories...

Voting UKIP is hedging your bets on whether it's a corporate fat cat or a cheap Pole/Romanian/Hungarian causing you to lose your job.
posted by Talez at 10:33 AM on April 25, 2015 [2 favorites]


No love for the Whigs then?
posted by wilko at 10:42 AM on April 25, 2015


As others have pointed out, the most likely outcome is Labour + SNP on confidence and supply. What's surprising for me is how many of my friends (none of whom are as into electoral politics as I am) think that this is completely unlikely, and that we'll get a Conservative + LD + others coalition again. Once I explain the numbers, they get it, but the question is why they were misinformed in the first place.

Part of this is due to the all parties deliberately fostering this belief (as mentioned above). But I'd say it's largely down to mass media - the papers, BBC - creating a false narrative of Miliband being a drooling incompetent, etc, and then the idea that SNP success equals Labour failure (sort of, but not really). If there's one thing we can say about the polls, it's that they've barely changed for weeks or months, despite this belief in 'gamechangers' and 'crossover' and the Conservatives somehow having a secret weapon they haven't used yet.

We barely have 11 days left until the election, and only 8 working days. Many people, including myself, have already voted by post. We might not be able to predict the precise allocation of seats - and yes, I get that that matters a lot given how close things are - but we do know that no-one is getting a majority, and that Lab + SNP is the most likely outcome. And yet there's so little serious discussion about this. Sigh.
posted by adrianhon at 11:21 AM on April 25, 2015 [6 favorites]


creating a false narrative of Miliband being a drooling incompetent

But he's also a ruthless political operator who's weak and effeminate! And an inveterate ladies man who's unworldly and nerdy!

Lynton Crosby earning the big bucks with his totally coherent, non-contradictory and effective smear campaign there.
posted by sobarel at 11:33 AM on April 25, 2015 [3 favorites]


It still surprises me that the media coverage of the SNP in this election focusses so much on Sturgeon because she isn't standing and won't have direct influence in Westminster. The person who is standing and who, I would guess, has aspirations to lead the SNP at Westminster, is Alex Salmond. Now there is someone who is keeping an uncharacteristically low profile.
posted by epo at 11:43 AM on April 25, 2015 [4 favorites]


So in like Canada, it's historically been anathema for any party to work with separatists, or even hint at the possibility of hypothetically working with separatists — is it the same deal in the UK, or is this Lab/SNP confidence-and-supply arrangement not going to cause Labour further problems in England? Are they talking it down because not talking it down might lose them votes?

As a total, total outsider, Lab/SNP seems like absolutely the best result that could possibly happen, with the SNP forcing Labour to do worthwhile left things, sort of like how the NDP in Canada forced the Liberals to implement worthwhile policies when they held the balance of power after the 1972 elections.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 11:45 AM on April 25, 2015


What's surprising for me is how many of my friends (none of whom are as into electoral politics as I am) think that this is completely unlikely

Perhaps some of them remember 1992. Or, for that matter, 2010. Things can happen at the tail-end of a UK election, often to the detriment of the lefties and especially with a predominately right-wing media.
posted by Wordshore at 11:46 AM on April 25, 2015


epo: Well, Natalie Bennett is leader of the Greens, and she isn't standing either, so I don't think it's too weird.

Wordshore: I certainly wouldn't rule it out; a natural disaster or similar would change things a lot. I gather than 1992 was really unusual although I've heard some think that was down to inaccurate polling, which has now improved. As for the 'bigoted women' thing, Labour had been consistently trailing in the polls well before that point, so it's not clear whether it made a significant difference.
posted by adrianhon at 11:51 AM on April 25, 2015


I think that Labour being influenced by SNP will be good for their base, as some left-ish policies will play well. Moreover, I think all the three main parties overguess how unionist people are. Most folk will kneejerk into wanting the UK to keep whole as it is, but there's a growing body who are English 'nationalists' in the sense that they see their community as England before UK (rather than being openly ethnic or even political nationalist).

After voting Liberal Democrat in every general election, I'm really quite relaxed about voting for Labour in 2015 and maybe getting a bit of SNP.
posted by Thing at 11:58 AM on April 25, 2015 [1 favorite]


I certainly wouldn't rule it out; a natural disaster or similar would change things a lot.

Argentina choosing May 7th to have another go at retaking the Falkland Islands / Malvinas would also be interesting.
posted by Wordshore at 12:05 PM on April 25, 2015


So in like Canada, it's historically been anathema for any party to work with separatists, or even hint at the possibility of hypothetically working with separatists — is it the same deal in the UK, or is this Lab/SNP confidence-and-supply arrangement not going to cause Labour further problems in England? Are they talking it down because not talking it down might lose them votes?

It's not happened before, so no-one knows what the deal is. Also it's pretty much obligatory for politicians at this stage of the game to trot out the "we're aiming for a majority" and "it's for the people to decide" soundbites rather than get into the horsetrading that will inevitably start once the polls close.

It's particularly tricky for Labour though, because the SNP are on the one hand saying "we'll work with you to keep the Tories out" but on the other telling English voters to vote Green and Welsh voters to vote Plaid which can only increase the chances of a Tory majority. And in Scotland the two parties hate each other.

And then you have the issue that the SNP have spent years telling Scottish voters that Westminster is irrelevant to their interests, and beyond reforming. It's so irredeemably awful that secession is the only answer. How could Labour expect that suddenly the SNP will cut their own argument out from under themselves by being constructive and helpful at Westminster? If a Labour / SNP government worked swimmingly it would cripple the case for independence and that is, above all other things, the raison d'être of the SNP.

Lab/SNP seems like absolutely the best result that could possibly happen, with the SNP forcing Labour to do worthwhile left things

Like what though? Maybe Trident, but the SNP are the same or slightly right of Labour on every significant issue. They've only recently come into line with Labour on issues like increasing the top rate of tax or limiting zero hours contracts. In power the SNP have put less priority on health and education spending than the Tories, for crying out loud. The idea that they can put pressure on Labour to move left just seems like a fantasy to me.
posted by sobarel at 12:14 PM on April 25, 2015 [6 favorites]


Natalie Bennett is leader of the Greens, and she isn't standing either,

She's standing in the Holborn and St Pancras constituency.
posted by biffa at 12:25 PM on April 25, 2015


i'm going to put all my markers on a Labour/UKIP government. Sure it's unlikely but, after Iraq, how else could Milliband show he can outdo Blair?
posted by ennui.bz at 12:26 PM on April 25, 2015 [2 favorites]


Unlikely would be putting it mildly.
posted by sobarel at 12:31 PM on April 25, 2015


It's worth pointing out that another reason that election coverage is so lacklustre in this country Is that there is so little money in it. Political Parties are limited to spending what a competitive US congress seat would cost for their entire campaign. And TV coverage is govered by strict "balance" rules. With that little money and that environment the parties simply can't afford or attract to recruit much market research, PR or campaigning experience outside of a small team of people mostly selected on belief rather than ability for the central office. The central campaign weapon of the UK campaign is still leaflets - how quaint is that? Combine that with a press that is forced to be relentlessly partisan just to distinguish itself from the BBC and you don't have much room or opportunity for interesting electoral debate.
posted by Another Fine Product From The Nonsense Factory at 12:41 PM on April 25, 2015 [1 favorite]


Like what though? Maybe Trident, but the SNP are the same or slightly right of Labour on every significant issue. They've only recently come into line with Labour on issues like increasing the top rate of tax or limiting zero hours contracts. In power the SNP have put less priority on health and education spending than the Tories, for crying out loud. The idea that they can put pressure on Labour to move left just seems like a fantasy to me.

Ah, that was my total outsider ignorance speaking; for some reason I was under the delusion that the SNP was a leftish party that just happened to be separatist, rather than a straightforwardly separatist party. I suppose the door I'm looking for is the very, very, very small one labeled "SSP."

seriously though guys how come you don't have any left parties at all? I know why the United States doesn't have any left parties, but you guys have a relatively recent history of full-throated socialists in opposition, at least. At this point I'm starting to think that what Blair did to Labour is almost as bad as what Thatcher did to the UK as a whole.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 12:46 PM on April 25, 2015


biffa: My bad on Bennett - didn't do my homework. I think we can agree she isn't going to win, although that might be the case with other party leaders as well (Clegg, Farage).
posted by adrianhon at 12:47 PM on April 25, 2015


Another Fine...: I've always been surprised that there aren't more donations to, and spending by, the parties outside of the campaign period. Sure, there are strict limits in the few weeks leading up to an election, but couldn't you spend seven, eight, even nine figures on building up parties, doing research, etc., before then?
posted by adrianhon at 12:49 PM on April 25, 2015


Yeah, it would be an impressive (miraculous even) swing for it to go Green. It might make for an interesting one to watch though. Historically solid labour with a big name MP, Frank Dobson, standing down in 2015. His replacement will be the former head of the CPS, who I can imagine could lose a few votes if his opposition attack him on some of the more controversial decisions. Bennett only polled 2.7% in 2010 but has a much higher profile now which should be good for an improved performance. Second place went to a LD though so probably not in a position to challenge.

If anyone is interested in some of the weird stuff going on at constituency level then I recommend the Lord Ashcroft constituency polls, he has been following the marginals particularly and some of the potential swings look likely to be substantial, with neighbouring constituencies going in different directions, its quite bizarre.
posted by biffa at 1:04 PM on April 25, 2015


> If anyone is interested in some of the weird stuff going on at constituency level then I recommend the Lord Ashcroft constituency polls.

It's interesting to see how much traction UKIP have made since the last election. When i say "interesting" i mean in the very British colloquial sense, i.e. fucking appalling.
posted by lawrencium at 1:12 PM on April 25, 2015 [3 favorites]


I appreciate this post and the accompanying comments, but all I can muster up for now is the observation that I'm so glad we don't have any form of PR for Westminster otherwise we'd be facing all sorts of uncertainty and horse-trading, putting disproportionate power in the hands of smaller parties.

I'll be voting not-Tory for what it's worth, as soon as I figure out the best way to do so.
posted by comealongpole at 1:47 PM on April 25, 2015


comealongpole: Pro tip, it's not UKIP.

I keep having to explain to my little one that no, we will no longer go out to dinner at Jamie's. I mean okay kid you were born here, but fer krissakes your mum and I are immigrants in this country.

But this time, we have a vote.

In a Labour safe seat.

Flashbacks to voting from California, really.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 1:56 PM on April 25, 2015 [5 favorites]


comealongpole: Ironically enough, Ashcroft's site might help there. For example, this time I'm voting Labour for the first time in over twenty-five years.
posted by Grangousier at 2:00 PM on April 25, 2015


(While, yes, LibDem is technically Not Tory, it seems they're not quite Not Tory enough.)
posted by Grangousier at 2:01 PM on April 25, 2015 [1 favorite]


You say that as if we aren't facing it right now, comealongpole. At least with PR we would know the horse traders were a closer representation of real divisions among voters. As it is, almost every seat in Scotland is about to go to a party with well under 50% support, thanks to first-past-the-post and a split in the non-Tory vote. (I was going to write "the vote on the left", but I share sobarel's skepticism on that score.)

Britain blew its best chance of taming these quirks of FPTP when it voted against AV. Here's what it voted for.
posted by rory at 2:10 PM on April 25, 2015 [1 favorite]


That was surely sarcasm, no?

In any case, it's interesting to see that in the past the Lib Dems were always assumed to be on Labours side in any coalition. They were generally drawn on the left of these sorts of electoral calculus graphs. But this election they are being represented as basically Tories, just Tories that won't admit it. (Which, yeah, give their behaviour over the last 5 years it's clear why), nontheless their actual policies are quite popular, of course no one actually cares what their policies are because no one trusts them to stand by them.

What's more galling is that they stood by their manifesto more than the Tories did last time.
I'm astonished that more political capital isn't being made of the phrase "No top down reorganisation of the NHS"
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 2:17 PM on April 25, 2015


Horace Rumpole: Can someone explain to a dumb American why the SNP is set to sweep Scotland? It seems counterintuitive in the wake of the referendum.

I'm no expert in Scottish politics, but I'll have a go at answering this as no-one else has:
SNP are already dominant in the Scottish Parliament, holding 69 of the 129 seats since 2011. This is one of the things that allowed them to push for the referendum to happen.
However in the UK parliament ('House of Commons'), at the last election the SNP only held 6 of the available 59 Scottish seats.
Sounds like they are projected to win a lot more UK parliament seats this time -maybe 50?
Overall I'd say there's a lot of support for the SNP in Scotland, even though the referendum didn't succeed. This is not really a contradiction, you can vote for a party that sticks up for your area without wanting that area to gain total independence.
posted by memebake at 3:28 PM on April 25, 2015


SNP in Scotland thing from the other day.
posted by rhizome at 3:53 PM on April 25, 2015 [1 favorite]


memebake: well actually it even makes more sense. The voters' priorities could simply have been "we don't want an Independent Scotland if we can reasonably get better representation in Westminster".
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 12:19 AM on April 26, 2015


I think a lot of it is the response to the referendum. Seeing Labour standing with the Tories on anything upset a lot of Scottish voters, regardless of their position on independence.

Nicola Sturgeons oft repeated line about never doing a deal with the Tories isn't just election talk. It would be seen as completely illegitimate. They'd be run out of Scotland.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 1:27 AM on April 26, 2015


Can someone explain to a dumb American why the SNP is set to sweep Scotland? It seems counterintuitive in the wake of the referendum.

Labour is committed to continue on the Tory road of "austerity' policies, which promises even more misery? The SNP recognizes the world needs accountants but rejects the "there are no alternatives" to more misery?
posted by Mister Bijou at 1:56 AM on April 26, 2015


Interesting German view of the election:
I watch Ed Miliband on Newsnight and I cringe for him. Miliband’s desperately trying to get back to the security of his soundbites, and Evan Davis won’t let him. That’s another thing that’s different from Germany. In Britain, journalists actually ask awkward questions. Watching Davis demolish Miliband may be painful for a Labour supporter, but for a journalist, no matter what your stance, it’s exhilarating.

If Davis tried that in Germany, though, he’d be out of a job. The parties sit on the boards of state-owned broadcasters and they don’t want that kind of thing happening to any member of the political class. As a print journalist, if I interview a politician, I have to hand in the finished interview to be “authorised”, meaning censored and sanitised, by his or her spin people. It’s not the law, but we all do this, and we’d be fired if we didn’t, because no politician would be willing to speak to us.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 2:40 AM on April 26, 2015 [1 favorite]


Can someone explain to a dumb American why the SNP is set to sweep Scotland? It seems counterintuitive in the wake of the referendum.

It's not dumb at all. I lived in Scotland 1999-2009 and since being in England am staggered at the ignorance and misinformation down here about Scotland. Though to a large extent it's not the fault of the English; the media coverage of things Scotland - on the TV, in the newspapers - more often than not presents a impression that's somewhere between twee, stereotypical and straight-out inaccurate. Even open-minded, smart, liberal English friends have some bizarrely wrong - and often entrenched - ideas about Scotland and the Scottish.

(reads comments) The answers you've got on here are actually pretty good - far better than you'd get in an English pub. I'd add to them - as there's several reasons - the manner of Johann Lamont's resignation of leader of the Scottish Labour Party, coupled with the eventual election of Jim Murphy to that position, was and is nauseating to a lot of both hardcore and casual Scottish Labour voters. Many will either sit out the elections, or vote for another party, until he's replaced with someone with at least some sincerity.

(That latter link, above, is really worth a read. Still holds true, several months on.)
posted by Wordshore at 2:45 AM on April 26, 2015 [3 favorites]


But you don't win seats on PV, you win by PV in constituency
[...]
And SNP? That's the the real kicker. In most the UK, SNP -- The Scottish National Party -- isn't going to get a single vote. So, in total PV, they're a non factor.


Well, you don't win seats by any form of PV at all - it's first past the post in every constituency. And the reason the SNP won't get any votes outside of Scotland is that they aren't fielding any candidates in constituencies outside of Scotland, so it won't be possible to vote for them. Framing that as 'they won't get any votes outside Scotland' gives a rather different impression of the situation.
posted by Dysk at 3:25 AM on April 26, 2015 [1 favorite]


Overall I'd say there's a lot of support for the SNP in Scotland, even though the referendum didn't succeed. This is not really a contradiction, you can vote for a party that sticks up for your area without wanting that area to gain total independence.

Also, althoygh the referendum didn't succeed, 45% of the vote is a _lot_ of people, who are now engaged with the political process. One thing the referendum did was engage Scottish voters.

Another thing it did was enrage Scottish voters - because Westminster pulled out all the stops on a huge charm offensive, during which all sorts of promises were made for greater autonomy, and as soon as the vote came in it went back to business as usual. Former Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown in particular made a passionate and psephologically significant speech in which he detailed a series of resolutions he had agreed with the Coalition, which were then promptly ignored.

So, that's one thing. Also, once a Labour/SNP coalition started looking possible, the establishment press in the UK went after Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP with the same passion they were lovebombing Scotland before the referendum. To try to prevent this coalition, the press are trying to push Milliband into ruling it out preemptively, as are the Conservatives. In the process, they are pushing Scotland further away from the Union as a concept, by depicting Scots voters as at best useful idiots and at worst hard-left thralls of the sinister Sturgeon.
posted by running order squabble fest at 3:38 AM on April 26, 2015 [2 favorites]


Surely there's the real prospect of constitutional mayhem?

The "tradition" is that the collection of MP's who can form a majority in Parliament becomes the government. But, because there is no written constitution, the rules can be made up.

Which is exactly what is happening, namely, that the right-wing press, anticipating the prospect of a Tory party having most seats yet not being able to form a government, are saying instead, that what matter is the "party" with the most seats.

So, you can face the prospect of Labour not having as many seats as the Tories, but being able to stitch together some kind of coalition, yet being faced with a constant never-ending barrage of press complaining that they've won unfairly. Result? Months, and months of relentless pressure to have another election (which, incidentally, the Tories are preparing for with their millions of hedge fund money).

I do also wonder whether you could literally have a race to the Palace.

Constitutional experts will no doubt show me how feeble my understanding of our byzantine constitution is.
posted by rolandroland at 3:40 AM on April 26, 2015


Well, some of those rules are written now, in the Cabinet Manual (PDF) which was based on the New Zealand model (which serves us well, even if sometimes politicians try to claim it's a general guide rather than a set of rules).

So in theory it's actually pretty simple: the Queen has to ask someone to try to form a government. If the incumbent party has obviously won, it'll be them. If the opposition has obviously won, then them. If it's uncertain, then Cameron stays as PM until Parliament sits, and then faces a vote of confidence. There won't be a race to the Palace or anything like that [see paras 2.7 onwards in the Cabinet Manual].

That said, I agree with you about the likely press reaction if Labour were to win fewer seats than the Conservatives but still form a government. (We see this a fair bit in New Zealand, the assumption that the party with the most seats has won, even if they don't have a majority. We're mostly getting round it by a developing convention that (a) we know that our left-wing parties will always attempt to form a government with Labour, and the same on the right; (b) we know that our smaller centrist parties will always negotiate first with whoever won the most seats, but won't guarantee to form a coalition with them)
posted by Pink Frost at 4:01 AM on April 26, 2015 [1 favorite]


Horace Rumpole: Can someone explain to a dumb American why the SNP is set to sweep Scotland? It seems counterintuitive in the wake of the referendum.

During the referendum the "Better Together" alliance, comprising the Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dims - made the case for the union. During the two years of the campaign support for "Yes" grew from somewhere in the 30% to a point, a few weeks short of the polls, where it looked to have passed 50%. The BT response was a rather panicked combination of "we love you" and "we'll hurt you if you go". The final response was 45% yes/55% no: if Scotland's electorate were 20 people then we would have 9 disagreeing with 11. The FPP voting system in the UK tends to allocate proportionally more power when vote levels go beyond a certain threshold. Immediately after the referendum the SNP's membership figures started to grow (to levels where they are much higher than any other party per capita). If we simply assume that the vast majority of Yes voters will now go for SNP candidates then that is enough to push the results very much in that party's favour.

The outcome of the referendum was particularly disastrous for the Labour party in Scotland - who were seen to have treacherously collaborated with their traditional rivals (the Conservatives held only 1 seat in Scotland so their losses would always be minimal). Labour in Scotland is also in something of a political straight-jacket: unlike the SNP they do not have the freedom to set a separate manifesto that relates to the demands of Scottish voters - if cornered they will side with the larger slice of their voters who reside down south. Yes voters have tended to be more more vociferous in talking to others and much more connected to the social media that is taking a heavy role in spreading political discussion within Scotland (examples include Wings Over Scotland and Bella Caledonia). My guess is that they are gradually winning over colleagues and family members.

The SNP have also lucked out with their leadership IMHO. Both Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon appear to be adept political strategists - moves such as ruling out any alliance with the Conservatives and reaching out to voters in the rest of the UK to help push for progressive policies have also helped.

Finally the SNP's opponents have been a great boost to the party. Whether this is via Jim Murphy (please watch!) or the nation's press: Sturgeon has, in the past 10 days, been likened to the frog stinging scorpion in Aesop, to the child slaughtering King Herod, and to the king slaughtering Lady Macbeth. We have been told she is the most dangerous woman in the world. We have been warned that the Thames will flow with blood were she to be elected. And now we have the final Armageddon known as Doll Gate. People love to oppose a pantomime villain - particularly a bullying one comes over as scared.


Epo: It still surprises me that the media coverage of the SNP in this election focusses so much on Sturgeon because she isn't standing and won't have direct influence in Westminster.


Agree about "not standing". Disagree about "won't have a direct influence". We do have a pretty strange and proxy based electoral system in this country at present.
posted by rongorongo at 5:50 AM on April 26, 2015 [2 favorites]


Guardian, 24th April: To keep Scotland, Britain must embrace the separatists.
posted by Wordshore at 5:58 AM on April 26, 2015


Graph of polling averages during 2015 from UK Polling Report (one of the better polling blogs, although the comments have become rather febrile lately).

tl;dr: not much has changed other than the gap between Lab and Cons narrowing slightly, and UKIP/Greens share drifting down by 1-2 points.
posted by adrianhon at 7:02 AM on April 26, 2015


Agree about "not standing". Disagree about "won't have a direct influence". We do have a pretty strange and proxy based electoral system in this country at present.
Perhaps I was careless in my post, the point I was trying to make is that Salmond is likely to be both the MP and the fly in HMG's ointment. Sturgeon will not have a direct influence in Westminster but will have indirect influence via him (assuming she, not he, is in charge of the parliamentary SNP).
posted by epo at 7:40 AM on April 26, 2015




Also, althoygh the referendum didn't succeed, 45% of the vote is a _lot_ of people, who are now engaged with the political process. One thing the referendum did was engage Scottish voters.

In ways that should have scared the hell out of everyone in Westminster. What was the turnout? 85-90%? IIRC, the numbers ended up that somewhere in the 35% to 40% range *of all voting age Scots* went on record as wanting independence.

Note: Not those voting, of *all* Scots.

And they all remember the Devo-Max promise. I think one reason SNP is doing so well is that it's a combination of those who voted yes wanting their voice in Westminster and those voting No wanting someone to make sure whomever the heck ends up in Number 10 Downing St. keep the Devo-Max promise that the distinctly weird Lab/Lib Dem/Tory coalition that fought the "No, thank you" campaign* campaign.

And I think rongorongo also has a point that a lot of Scot Labour supporters were distinctly put off by Labour working with the Conservatives on this. But really, what were they going to do? Labour couldn't afford to lose Scotland. The Conservatives have always been UK first, they'd never voluntarily say OK to disunion, and the Lib Dems, who really want Euro-Union, would look at Scottish Independence as a step backwards.

Of course, much like the Lib Dems taking the best they could from the last election, and still getting hammered for it,** Labour did what they thought they had to do to save Scotland, and the forty odd Labour seats that they had there...and then promptly lost them to SNP. But, at least, it's not out of Westminster together. Yet.

Indeed, I think one reason that UKIP in particular and the Greens and SNP in some ways are doing better is that Lib Dem was the "Plague on Both Your Houses" party, a lot of people voted for them last time, and the result was....a Tory MP and five years of Austerity. This has made Lib Dem basically Tory this election, and they're getting punished as such, and the "Plague on all your houses" status has moved in various and sundry ways.

Part of me think that UKIP is the Tories who were too pissed off at the Tories for even talking to those offing LibDems, part of me thinks it's Murdoch running the Tea Party script in the UK, part of me think, well, 15-20% of any population is idiots and asshole anyway, but mostly, I don't know what to think. The Green party has their usual problem of attracting 5% of everybody carefully smoothed over the entire country, which means they get basically nothing at the end.

The one thing that's going to be important in the week after the election is going to be the exact details of whatever coalition or supply/confidence agreements are made, because if those are broken, that's a fast parliament ender -- esp. if you're dealing with a 4-5 party agreement that just gets you into the majority.



* A particular well thought out slogan, that -- "No, we're not criticizing you in any way for asking the question, and we appreciate the though, but we think we're better off together." The

** It didn't help that they were *spectacularly* fucked over on the AV vote, and they gave up tuition fees in the coalition agreement. They're going to getting hammered this election, and they deserve it. The fact that they haven't fired Nick Clegg probably cost them 10 seats alone.
posted by eriko at 9:00 AM on April 26, 2015 [1 favorite]


Metafilter: Well, 15-20% of any population is idiots and asshole anyway
posted by ominous_paws at 9:32 AM on April 26, 2015


Another interpretation, from a legal and constitutional point of view, of what may happen post election.

Spoiler: It's (still) complicated.
posted by Wordshore at 9:56 AM on April 26, 2015 [4 favorites]


As it happens I ran into my local Labour MP in a bar last night.

My gods, as an American, I can't imagine running into my representative in a local bar. (Forget about a Senator. I don't understand why we can't have more than 435 members of the House in this huge country. I know that we can't have too many, but the 650 the Brits have would be better.
posted by JKevinKing at 10:34 AM on April 26, 2015 [1 favorite]


Another interpretation, from a legal and constitutional point of view, of what may happen post election.

My heart sank when reading this, Wordshore. I neither expect most people to be familiar with the 1923 General Election nor the media to dutifully inform them. I foresee that they will bleat and bark about whatsoever they dislike, ignoring what the truth may be. I despair.
posted by Thing at 12:09 PM on April 26, 2015


Party leader in human moment shock.
posted by Wordshore at 1:50 PM on April 26, 2015


Thanks for that Jim Murphy video rongorongo, it really is excellent. I second the (please watch!). It's very very good.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 2:05 PM on April 26, 2015


> I can't imagine running into my representative in a local bar

At this point George Galloway is as sick of the sight of me as I am of him. We're a few weeks in and the chance encounters are approaching double figures.
posted by vbfg at 2:07 PM on April 26, 2015 [3 favorites]


Another interpretation, from a legal and constitutional point of view, of what may happen post election.

As a Yank who gives zero shits about electoral politics in his own country, this was a fascinating read.
posted by cthuljew at 3:31 PM on April 26, 2015


eriko: Part of me think that UKIP is the Tories who were too pissed off at the Tories for even talking to those offing LibDems, part of me thinks it's Murdoch running the Tea Party script in the UK, part of me think, well, 15-20% of any population is idiots and asshole anyway, but mostly, I don't know what to think.

I'm not so sure about the first point - the LibDems didn't get much out of the deal, and anyone sane would realise that the Tories had to do a deal with them in order to take power. I think you're seeing a mix of (a) "foreigners are ruining the country" (abstract, often from people in areas with few immigrants); (b) "I can't get a job because of the foreigners" (from people in areas that are doing badly economically - a lot of working-class Labour voters here); (c) "the main parties are dominated by elitists who don't care about my area" (links a lot with b); (d) "I don't like the influence Europe has in the UK" (often with ignorance/confusion about what the EU does versus the European Court of Justice, for example).

And then no-one is making the case that some of these arguments are wrong, e.g. you're not losing your job because of immigrants, we have evidence - it's just the bad economy; or "even if we leave the EU, the ECJ rulings will still apply. Plus if we want to trade with the EU we'll have to follow their rules in a lot of cases anyway. But we won't get a vote on them". Possibly because point (c) is somewhat true...
posted by Pink Frost at 3:40 PM on April 26, 2015


Wordshore: Another interpretation, from a legal and constitutional point of view, of what may happen post election.

Interesting points there. It's hard to see how a minority government could continue for very long without a confidence and supply agreement though. Labour would need the SNP to support its budget*, or be forced to resign. So at that point you've got the SNP providing confidence and supply - so if they know that they're going to do that on budget day in March 2016, they might as well make a formal agreement after the election, and obtain some concessions from Labour in exchange. It probably wouldn't be great tactically for them to bring down the government in March 2016 and force a new election.

[Note that I'm not talking about a coalition - the parties would be free to agree or disagree on other issues, but the SNP would agree to support Labour's budgets and Labour would offer some policy concessions in return - presumably greater devolution of powers to Scotland. For the benefit of Americans, voting on budgets is usually strictly on party lines, so if a party/parties has a majority of MPs they know they can pass their budget].

*Maybe they could agree to abstain, and Labour would still be able to pass the budget without an overall majority of MPs. This wouldn't work in the New Zealand system, but might do in the UK, I don't know.
posted by Pink Frost at 4:03 PM on April 26, 2015


It probably wouldn't be great tactically for them to bring down the government in March 2016 and force a new election.

SNP can do whatever it wants knowing "fuck you Westminster" is a valid election strategy.

Lib Dems couldn't send the Tories to the polls because they know they'd be finished the moment after Clegg signed in blood on the dotted line and Cameron started laughing maniacally.
posted by Talez at 4:16 PM on April 26, 2015


SNP can do whatever it wants knowing "fuck you Westminster" is a valid election strategy.

Fair point, yeah. They're in quite a unique situation in that regard. (Though maybe they're getting some soft support that's hoping for greater devolution but wouldn't like to see the government brought down...).
posted by Pink Frost at 4:26 PM on April 26, 2015




SNP can do whatever it wants knowing "fuck you Westminster" is a valid election strategy.

They're in a strong position but not an invincible one. They have to worry about some things.

The energy they've harnessed could start to fade, especially if they start getting seen as just another grubby political party. Having gained power on a surge of idealism they'll be constrained by not wanting to look too cynical too son.

The Barnett formula isn't enshrined in law, it's just something the executive branch choose to do. If Miliband becomes PM without a majority as per Wordshore's fascinating link, he could choke off the money supply to the devolved SNP Scottish government via the Treasury. If he does it subtly enough, the SNP might be forced to put up Scottish taxes, but still not harness the rage enough for an outright Scottish secession.

Miliband could try for a grand coalition with the Conservatives to pass a budget, or make a deal with Tory backbenchers. If the markets start acting up, they'll be pressure on the supposedly economically "responsible", "sensible" Conservatives to put some kind of deficit reduction budget in place. If the stock market's tanking, the pound collapsing, bond yields soaring: it will be difficult for the Conservative leader to spend too long with his/her arms folded calling for another election which might just result in the same chaos again.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 9:53 PM on April 26, 2015


It probably wouldn't be great tactically for them to bring down the government in March 2016 and force a new election.

The 2011 Fixed Terms Parliament act, according to Alex Salmond at least, offers the SNP a greater ability to selectively vote against the PM's party without risking the counter-threat from the PM of calling another election at a time suitable for him. The act means that non-scheduled elections can only be called by a vote of no confidence or by a 2/3 overall vote of all MPs - neither of which are under the direct control of the PM.
posted by rongorongo at 12:24 AM on April 27, 2015


Miliband could try for a grand coalition with the Conservatives...

I guess he could, but it would likely leave Labour with significantly worse prospects than the LibDems have currently at the next election, nevermind the fight - no, full on bloody war - he'd have to have with a lot of Labour backbenchers as a result.
posted by Dysk at 1:01 AM on April 27, 2015


The 2011 Fixed Terms Parliament act, according to Alex Salmond at least, offers the SNP a greater ability to selectively vote against the PM's party without risking the counter-threat from the PM of calling another election at a time suitable for him

Shockingly, that appears to be correct. I had assumed that, even under the FTPA, Parliament would dissolve if the government failed to pass a budget - historically this has always been seen as a vote of no confidence that forces the government to resign. But according to this article, merely voting against a budget doesn't count as a vote of no confidence. So SNP could join with the Tories to vote down the budget, but then support the government on a confidence vote. Meaning stalemate. A government with no money, that can't resign in favour of a more functional one.

That is incredibly bad drafting. Just incredible.
posted by Pink Frost at 1:24 AM on April 27, 2015 [8 favorites]


Pink Frost: But just think of the tax savings!
posted by cthuljew at 1:34 AM on April 27, 2015


That is incredibly bad drafting. Just incredible.
Salmond told the New Statesman, re the FTPA, that "nobody appears to have read the law". It would be hard to disagree with him.
posted by rongorongo at 2:37 AM on April 27, 2015 [3 favorites]


That is incredibly bad drafting. Just incredible.

It sure is. Can it be repealed with a simple majority, or have they written some higher threshold into it? (Is that even possible under the unwritten UK constitution?) Dumb idea anyway to sign up to the interminable unofficial election campaigns that result from knowing the date years in advance.

The SNP would still be shooting themselves in the foot if they blocked a budget to the point of crisis; all that lovely money pays for the Scottish government as well as the UK's. And you have to wonder how long they could maintain a party-of-the-left reputation among their new voters if they effectively blocked thousands of Scots' pension and benefit payments.

On another election talking-point: "Since early 2012, British support for the EU has strengthened continuously ... [and] it’s not that the apathetic are being mobilised — instead, one-time “No” voters are changing their minds."

The Guardian projects only three seats for UKIP, which makes them an irrelevance to any possible coalition: "even with support from the DUP and Ukip, the current coalition could not form a government". Only ten more days of desperate screaming from Murdoch, the Mail and the Telegraph to endure.
posted by rory at 3:08 AM on April 27, 2015 [2 favorites]


It's only seven sections long! There's a good criticism of it in the Telegraph (Tory point of view, obviously, but I think it has the political and constitutional problems correct).

Another interesting article: Nick Clegg’s rules on coalition-building are ‘absurd’, says constitutional expert
posted by Pink Frost at 3:10 AM on April 27, 2015 [1 favorite]


[previous post a reply to rongorongo].

It sure is. Can it be repealed with a simple majority, or have they written some higher threshold into it? (Is that even possible under the unwritten UK constitution?)

Pretty sure it's simple majority - I don't see anything to say it isn't. Some quick Googling suggests that entrenchment [laws that require more than a majority to repeal] is rarely or never used in the UK, but I'm no expert [I know it's very rare in New Zealand, but does happen].

So an easy solution might be to repeal it.
posted by Pink Frost at 3:16 AM on April 27, 2015


On repeal - this is what the article Pink Frost and I linked to says:
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.

posted by rongorongo at 3:35 AM on April 27, 2015


Pretty sure it's simple majority - I don't see anything to say it isn't. Some quick Googling suggests that entrenchment [laws that require more than a majority to repeal] is rarely or never used in the UK, but I'm no expert [I know it's very rare in New Zealand, but does happen].

A key part of the Westminster parliamentary tradition/constitution is that parliaments cannot bind their successors.

That's parliament as a whole though, commons and lords together. Parliament can and does bind one or more of its houses such as by the rules that allow the commons to pass certain things without the lords.
posted by atrazine at 5:25 AM on April 27, 2015


A key part of the Westminster parliamentary tradition/constitution is that parliaments cannot bind their successors.

True - I just wondered whether, as they were tinkering with other key parts of the unwritten constitution, they had chanced their arm at that one as well.

I've read the Act now. They really didn't leave much latitude in section 2, did they? It's as if they thought they'd be the ones in power forever, and would have nothing to fear. Delusional, on both sides of the coalition.
posted by rory at 7:37 AM on April 27, 2015


One thing that I've missed is apparently there's much more anger in Scotland at Labour about working with the Tories on the No-to-Independence vote, so much so that the phrase "Red Tories" (Red being Labour's traditional color...err...colour) is a thing now.

Which explains even more why SNP is making such traditional gains. MeFi's Own cstross posted posted this on twitter with the lovely pull quote of 'A sitting Scottish Labour MP recently described the state of the party as "now set to defcon fucked".'
posted by eriko at 9:02 AM on April 27, 2015 [1 favorite]


Pretty sure it's simple majority - I don't see anything to say it isn't. Some quick Googling suggests that entrenchment [laws that require more than a majority to repeal] is rarely or never used in the UK, but I'm no expert [I know it's very rare in New Zealand, but does happen].

The only thing entrenched is that the only way the Parliament can currently end itself normally before five years has passed is by a 2/3rds vote. A failed confidence vote will also end it, provided a confidence vote doesn't occur within 14 days afterwards, but those are both normal majority votes.

Note that while, yes, normally a budget bill failing is considered a loss of confidence, if a budget bill fails now, a no confidence motion is going to drop as a matter of course. The fundamental test of the ability of a government to govern in the UK is supply. If you cannot get supply to pass, you're going to either have to resign and hope something forms fast that can get supply, or you're going to eat a no confidence vote and go to elections.

The reason for this act, actually, is quite sensible in an era where coalitions are required to sustain a government. They keep the majority partner honest! Otherwise, the larger partner would just wait until the poll numbers looked very good for them, then suddenly drop the writ, grab a clean majority, and that's the end of the minority's power in the coalition.

Of course, if a single party got a simple majority of seats again, it would be trivial for them to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, but as long as you are looking at the possibility of a coalition government, you can bet it is the minority partner/partners in the coalition who are going to be insisting on such legislation. This wasn't written for the Conservatives -- this was written for the Liberal Democrats.
posted by eriko at 9:18 AM on April 27, 2015 [1 favorite]


Eriko: One thing that I've missed is apparently there's much more anger in Scotland at Labour about working with the Tories on the No-to-Independence vote, so much so that the phrase "Red Tories" (Red being Labour's traditional color...err...colour) is a thing now.

The independent Political Compass' results which are based on the various manifestos, are interesting. They show the SNP as the only party with significant political traction that lies outside the "right wing, authoritarian" quadrant which was once considered the domain of the Conservatives. Since 2010 the SNP has tracked slightly to the left while the Lib Dems have joined Labour and the Conservatives. So there those the "Red Tory" label is has been earned through policy, and through having the SNP as a comparison point, as well as voter anger over Better Together.

posted by rongorongo at 10:06 AM on April 27, 2015


Epo: It still surprises me that the media coverage of the SNP in this election focusses so much on Sturgeon because she isn't standing and won't have direct influence in Westminster. The person who is standing and who, I would guess, has aspirations to lead the SNP at Westminster, is Alex Salmond. Now there is someone who is keeping an uncharacteristically low profile.

Indeed. Moreover the current SNP leader at Westminster is Angus Robertson - who Salmond has vowed not to oust from that role if elected. So he looks likely to be simply a back-bencher. I guess, however there is a possibility that the SNP may look for a deal to put him in charge of the Scotland Office in London. The Scotland Office, which was the source of the recent "French ambassador" smear on Nicola Sturgeon, is a sort of colonial governing post that has recently been run by Scottish MPs from the Westminster cabinet: Labour and Lib Dems mostly. It could conceivably be quite hard to find non-SNP MPs to continue to fulfil this role after the election.
posted by rongorongo at 11:15 AM on April 27, 2015


Alex Salmond was the face of the Independence movement. I think rongorongo's dead on when he states that if he's part of the government, it'll be part of The Scotland Office, and it won't be a leading role. I also don't think he'll be a parliamentary leader in any way other than possibly being a whip for SNP, but far more likely he'll just be a back-bencher.

He will return to the fore if-and-only-if the Independence movement gains real traction again. I think there's exactly one government role he wants, and it's not at Westminster, it would be at Holyrood, and that office would be the Prime Minister of Scotland.

Until the possibility of that office exists again, he's best off staying in the background. Salmond had his day in the sun, did a lot better than many thought, and came a lot closer than many wagered. His being in front now wouldn't help anything, and would probably hurt the SNP cause more than it would help.
posted by eriko at 11:36 AM on April 27, 2015


"who Salmond has vowed not to oust from that role if elected", that quote is a bit short on attribution. I am reminded of Lenin who is once supposed to have said that he would support Kerensky like a noose supports a hanged man.

Salmond as a back bencher with a minor Scotland Office role? I don't believe that for a second.
posted by epo at 12:12 PM on April 27, 2015


It is hilarious that, with a few days to go, it's only dawning on the country that the rules set in place five years ago may lead to a completely shambolic situation.
posted by Wordshore at 2:41 PM on April 27, 2015 [1 favorite]


Horace Rumpole: Can someone explain to a dumb American why the SNP is set to sweep Scotland? It seems counterintuitive in the wake of the referendum.

Blogger Lallands Peat Warrior published an article today called "Harnessing the 55%". This looks especially at the beliefs of those who voted No in the referendum. Research on this group has indicated that only about 30% were motivated by British patriotism; far more were motivated by more tractable feelings and fears relating to economic risks or general uncertainty.

The implication is that it is not at all safe to assume that because somebody voted "no" in the referendum that they would rule out any backing for the SNP at a Westminster election.
posted by rongorongo at 12:28 AM on April 28, 2015 [1 favorite]


With but four days to go, we have ... #EdStone
posted by Wordshore at 3:33 PM on May 3, 2015


Owen Jones writing in The New Statesman: If the Tories get more seats than Labour, get ready for a Very British Coup
posted by popcassady at 3:15 PM on May 5, 2015 [2 favorites]


Planning a coo. Planning a coup.
(chunkymark is not a taxi driver in the tradition of Parker)
posted by rongorongo at 4:02 AM on May 6, 2015


This electoral fracas is currently way more interesting than whatever's going on at Sasquan or in Alberta.
posted by infinitewindow at 9:55 AM on May 6, 2015


Maybe my sarcasm detector is off, but the Alberta result is one of the great electoral upsets of all time.
posted by Chrysostom at 10:42 AM on May 6, 2015 [1 favorite]




Heh, I commented before I heard the news about Alberta.
posted by infinitewindow at 11:30 AM on May 6, 2015


omg election day
posted by Quilford at 9:57 PM on May 6, 2015


Wow, I didn't realise results started coming in so late! That's excellent, makes it easier to follow along here (:
posted by Quilford at 10:10 PM on May 6, 2015


I've spiked my usual moderate apathy by sticking two hundred on plaid cymru to best ukip for seats, so let's see how that goes...
posted by ominous_paws at 10:23 PM on May 6, 2015




New UK election thread.
posted by Chrysostom at 6:57 AM on May 7, 2015


« Older What sound does a coyote make when he takes a...   |   10 Minute Dosage of Engrossing Web Design Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments