Apologies for tedious point of clarification: I am not arguing that Labour cannot be in the government, e.g. in a coalition, after the election if there is a hung parliament – I’m saying it can’t ‘be’ the government, that is, govern by itself in this situation. The change in the post’s title from the original post at Next Left slightly obscures this distinction.

Excellent piece Stuart – except that I diagree with your conclusion.

As a Tory I can happily say that if I can’t have my favoured result of a small Conservative majority (still possible, but now unlikely), then this would be a close second. In fact, if anything this might be the best outcome of all, come to think of it.

Labour hold on and have to start to be honest about the scale of the cuts that they will implement (to be clear, all parties are pissing around at the margins at the moment – no one has really told it as it is) – thereby shooting their ‘look at the nasty cuts the Tories are going to make, we offer jam today and jam tomorrow’ line.

Lib Dems have to reject the Queen’s speech – even if laden with Lid Dem goodies – if they want to maintain their ‘new politics’ positioning. I don’t believe that the electorate would take well to them saying that they supported the 3rd placed party just to get a(n) (inferior) form of PR through.

Tories can sit back and do very little, save saying at regular intervals that they did warn us (NB this is dependent on the party behaving in a distinctly non-Tory manner and refraining from knifing Cameron within days of the GE. I think they would be united in their anger at Labour for holding on, distracting them from their natural inclination for blood letting).

Resulting election sees Labour reap the whirlwind of voter anger, Tories get a majority and Lib Dems become HM’s Loyal Opposition (seats and vote share).

* For the record, I think the Tories will be the largest party, but some way short of a majority(290-300 seats?). I’m sceptical as to whether this leads to a formal coalition, or whether the Lib Dems support us on an issue by issue basis.Personally I’d give them a referendum on STV (which I’d support as FPTP is dead if they get 27-28% of the vote) in return for their support in education and deficit reduction. Simples!

Jesus, that article was just the stuff of fantasy.

I realise that some people want to hang on to powere regardless but this just makes the destruction of the party much more likely. What world do these people live in?

Agreed. I’ve been amazed by the outrage, fake in my eyes, of Labour PPC’s and hardcore support that felt that Clegg, by saying that Labour couldn’t hold the power of No 10 if they came third, had somehow crossed a line that wasn’t his to cross.

They forget, clearly, that if Clegg is crossing that line it is only because there is much public distress at the mere notion of Brown remaining the PM if he and his party land third in the popular vote, or even just second in terms of seats.

It’s a presumptuous arrogance that is dangerous for Labour to hold, as it only gives the appearance that Labour feel entitled by constitutional process more than what the people have gone out and said by voting.

as for 2. I think you underestimate the skepticism people have over the Tories. No more people than 2005 are giving them their support, this is a party stagnating, seen clearly not as change but as part of the problem.

No more people than 2005 are giving them their support

Turnout…

On the polls as they currently stand, no greater a proportion of people are giving them their support. But 2005 saw the lowest turnout since the universal franchise. I’d be willing to bet that the Tories will get a lot more votes this time round.

Lee @ 5

I suspect that our support will nudge north of 35% (not much north, mind) on polling day. Which isn’t great given how unpopular Labour are, but it’s the way it is.

I assume from your post that you’re a Lib Dem – so many congratulations on your current polling. The thing is that I don’t think that there is a great deal of positive voting going on at all – there’s scepticism about all parties, and you’ve become a recepticle for some of those disenchanted voters. This will/ should dissipate if you actually get close to power – and ceratinly if you prop up Labour. Certainly my (entirely anecdotal) experience out on the doorstep is that, for instance, you’re ‘new politics’ message goes down quite well, but people are far less fussed about electoral reform (please see above re. my views on electoral systems in a world of genuine three party politics).

So, with that in mind – and with the electorate more ticked off with Labour than with us – I think that a second election in short order, in which we are operating as the opposition would see us get home pretty comfortably. Which is not the same as being universally loved.

Hi Stuart,

Good demolition – but I’d like to see a similar analysis of the costs and benefits of your preferred option of Labour forming a coalition with the Lib Dems.

Jesus H, I hope this isn’t mainstream Labour opinion. It shows the same “right to rule” arrogance that the Tories did in the dying days of the Major administration, something that they’re yet to get over on the most part.

“I suspect that our support will nudge north of 35% (not much north, mind) on polling day. Which isn’t great given how unpopular Labour are, but it’s the way it is.”

We’ll see, personally I don’t see it going any higher than it is currently given the direction the media is taking (economy and cuts) and that Tories will ultimately be disadvantaged by that being a) weakest on their description of cuts and b) at odds to a Brown attack on where the money the tory NI stance would come from.

Tim J: bad vocabulary by me. I was talking purely about share.

The writer of that piece is living in a dream world. If Labour come 3rd in the vote Brown is finished. Kaput.

If he tries to stay on the Labour party should get rid straight away. The best thing he can do is resign, and let the Labour party choose a new leader and a new direction. They will have plenty of time to do so because if Call me Dave has not won the election the tories will be in civil war.

Oh and those politicians who think we will have to have another election in 3-4 months are crazy. The public will be really pissed off if they have to go through all this again, on top of the expenses scam. The turn out will be lucky to get 50%

The only time we’ve re-run an election in the last 110 years is because there were only 2 seats between the two leading parties. After it was re-run the gap reduced to 1 seat.

We have to learn lessons, quick re-runs don’t produce different results in most constituencies, and they favour the richer parties.

Lee

Fair enough – you say tomato, I say tomato (that doesn’t work quite so well written down!).

Appreciate that this isn’t a forum where this view is likely to gain majority support, but with reference to your points:

a) all of the parties are within a few billion of each other, when in fact we need to find about £75billion (between tax rises and spending cuts, however you achieve it). All of their manifestos are barely touching on the true extent of what we’re going to go through over the next 5-10years.
b) this goes way over the electorate’s heads – and in so far as it has any traction the Conservatives probably win by virtue of having ‘independent’ business men backing their approach. And Brown’s line that taking £6 billion out of the economy risks the recovery is palpable nonsense.

Lee

Sorry, just seen your other post re. re-run elections.

If no party can get a Queen’s Speech through (this is pre-supposing LD’s refuse to support 3rd place Labour or Conservatives) then there will pretty much have to be another election. If they can’t get a budget through that becomes 100% (while Cameron goes too far on the threat of a hung parliament, the markets would go nuts if we don’t get a serious – as opposed to March’s effort – budget through sharpish).

In those circumstances, I believe that the anti-politics mood would a) lead to lower turn out as suggested by Sally and b) turn on the party/ies responsible. That, plus the fact that the Tories have got the biggest war chest would stand them in very good stead.

“If no party can get a Queen’s Speech through (this is pre-supposing LD’s refuse to support 3rd place Labour or Conservatives) then there will pretty much have to be another election.”

I don’t see that this will be the case. My general view is this, if Tories have the most seats/votes as is likely then Lib Dems will negotiate with them. If they don’t give them all 4 pillars of the Lib Dem platform the Lib Dems will turn to Labour with an offer of Labour proping up a Lib Dem government. Labour would be *insane* to deny that option. Tories will portray this as “no change after all” but Lib Dems will fight it as Lib Dems having the power and the mandate to change things in a way the Tories never would. They would probably also promise an election as soon as reform is complete to allow the public to ratify the legitimacy of the new parliament and hope that they aren’t punished for using Labour to achieve that reform.

That’s my view, it may be wrong, but I don’t see us being in a situation where a queens speech can’t be achieved by one of the parties. The only thing I’m certain of is that if polls are like they are now, that speech will not be done by Labour.

“Appreciate that this isn’t a forum where this view is likely to gain majority support, but with reference to your points:”

It’s nice to have a Tory supporter around, there are so few, that can just have a meaningful discussion. Especially during an election, so don’t worry about it.

I definitely understand what you’re saying…they are all as bad as each other, roughly. But that’s pretty much the reason I can’t see a Tory rise in votes. They’re meant to be the change, and if they can’t rise out of attacks by the other two on lack of detail, while Lib Dem’s can at least point to some costings, they’re not going to get any further trust. At least that’s the way I see it.

*Blushes*

Aw, it’s all got cosy and consensual between a Tory and a Lib Dem. Be afraid Labourites; be very afraid.

Anyways, we seem have to reached a natural denouement on this one (for now!); classic agree to disagree stuff.

Now, as for your policies on Trident/ EU/ tax reform/ insert your own particular bugbear in here….

the fact that the Tories have got the biggest war chest would stand them in very good stead

Sorry to burst your Ashcroft-inflated bubble, but having the “biggest war chest” hasn’t made a blind bit of difference in this election, and I don’t see that changing if there is another.

Blanco @ 18

Now, now Mr/ Mrs Blanco – no need to be like that.

I was merely agreeing the point made up thread that the some parties (ahem, Labour) would not be in a good state to fight another election (I believe that in the last week Tories raised £2.2m, Lab raises £1.2m and Lib Dems £0.12m).

However, in a second election in the forseeable future the reports about Labour finances suggest that they would probably struggle to make deposits, let alone fight a campaign

Also, I’d contend that we should wait until after the election to work out how Ashcroft’s campaign in the marginals has gone. Oh, and give over, he hasn’t even donated that much money in this electoral cycle (saved the party in the early 2000′s though).

Finally, I’d like to clarify that I have not had sexual relations with that Lord.

Blanco’s right. The LDs have a tiny war chest, that’s very carefully targetted, the Tories have a massive war chest that’s very targetted, and Labour, well, Labour have some money, but it seems to be poured into their “hold at all costs” seats, not the most vulnerable ones. Which makes sense.

Now, one point of Brian’s analysis that I don’t get at all; a 2nd GE would see the LDs get wiped out and forced back.

How does he see that?

At the moment, the biggest problem the LDs have is knowing where to expand their campaigning to; a lot of constituencies have ahd boundary changes, it’s been 5 years, demographic shifts, party infrastructure changes, PPC effectiveness on all parties, tactical shifts, local issues like the council, etc.

All of these have massive effects that can’t be predicted or controlled.

With a tiny amount of money, and not enough experienced activists to spread out, the LDs are at a disadvantage because their campaigning style requires solid work over time.

Hold another election in the autumn? The LD war chest can be brought back up to an effective level quickly. The new marginals will be clearly identified. Inexperienced activists (or even first time campaign organisers like me) will have had their baptism of fire. Voters and supporters will have been identified both before and after the election, new activists recruited; especially if the result is very close but the seat is lost, it’ll annoy people into wanting to do more.

Whereas the other two parties? Disproportionately reliant on money based campaigning.

Of the three, the Tories do worst with a 2nd election, Labour will have internal conflicts that can be papered over, but a new leadership and possibly therefore re-enthused activists.

But the LDs benefit most from a new election, I cannot see how Brian’s logic holds.

I don’t want another election, at all. But if the parties can’t come to a sane platform post-election?

Bring it on…

@18 Blanco: “Sorry to burst your Ashcroft-inflated bubble, but having the “biggest war chest” hasn’t made a blind bit of difference in this election, and I don’t see that changing if there is another.”

I agree somewhat. This election has been very different — and change started before the three party leader debates — but the Ashcroft money in Conservative target seats (invested months ago) will still make it a little bit more difficult for the other parties.

If 2010 is like 1974 and the UK has another general election in six months, I doubt whether the parties will have learned much in the interim. So again, having a big war chest would make little difference. That money would be much better spent in 2014/2015 and Ashcroft knows that. When the parties have had time to reflect on how to tweak their campaigning alongside TV debates, money will matter again.

I appreciate that the following questions have little relevance. But why does Michael Ashcroft spend money on UK domestic politics? If he has a political philosophy, why can’t I find it?

Even if Labour came third in the popular vote – indeed, if I understand him, even if Labour also has fewer seats than the Conservatives – Barder argues that Labour can and should assume the role of government under Gordon Brown. It should proceed to present a Queen’s Speech and test the nerve of the other parties – in particular the Lib Dems – to vote it down.

But surely it can’t do that – the Queen would have to invite one of the parties to try to form a minority government (and she would surely make that offer to the party with most seats). No party can just “assume the role of government”.

Andrew, welcome to the wonderful world of democracy, UK style. Precedent is, if the PM thinks he can carry on, the PM gets a chance to carry on. She gave Heath that chance, then pretty much sacked him very soon afterwards as Thorpe didn’t back him.

So yes, under the UK system, Labour can just assume the role of government and carry on; needs a defeat in the house on a substantive motion to remove them.

Comes from the days in the 19thC when most Govts were minority, as a large number of MPs were independent.

This is, of course, one of the many reasons why I’m a fully signed up “can we write the constitutiona down somewhere please” campaigner.

MatGB. Thanks for the clarification – consider me signed up to your campaign.

For those interested in how someone becomes (or stays) PM, this podcast with CharonQC and HeadofLegal is worth a listen (24mins in).

So yes, under the UK system, Labour can just assume the role of government and carry on; needs a defeat in the house on a substantive motion to remove them.

I’ve said before that the election people ought to be looking at is 1923. That’s precisely what happened there. Baldwin lost/won the election (ie: the Tories were by far the largest party with 280 seats, but lost their majority). He stayed on and was voted down at the King’s Speech (nearly wrote Queen’s Speech there…). King sent for Ramsay MacDonald as the leader of the next largest party, and he formed a Government.

Tories won a landslide the following year.

This is, of course, one of the many reasons why I’m a fully signed up “can we write the constitutiona down somewhere please” campaigner.

But it is written down – in an anonymous letter to the Times in 1950. Honestly, what more could you want?

Tim; it’s close to what happened in ’74 as well, Heath stayed on and tried to form a Govt, failed and was booted.

But I’d like to get everything down on paper somewhere so that you can point people to it and say “this is how it works”. Obviously, once you start writing it down, the daft bits get a little bit more obvious.

I actually like the Scottish/Welsh/NI idea; the Parliament has to re-elect a PM as one of its first actions once they assemble.

27 – Ah, but there were only 14 Liberal MPs in 1974 – it was a straight shootout between Tories and Labour. In 1923 there was a three-way split – 280/190/160, which might not be a million miles away from where we are next week – certainly closer than 296/300/14.

But I’d like to get everything down on paper somewhere so that you can point people to it and say “this is how it works”. Obviously, once you start writing it down, the daft bits get a little bit more obvious.

I’d be very much in favour of codifying our constituion as it stands – the worry I have is that if there was a campaign for a written constitution, it would end up looking far more like the European one than the US one.

the worry I have is that if there was a campaign for a written constitution, it would end up looking far more like the European one than the US one.

quite.

Thing is, codifying the constitution as is wouldn’t be that much work; the foreign office has a sample document that they used to “donate” to commonwealth countries anyway.

I’d rather not have the US constitution with its status quo entrenchment and daft seperation of hte executive from the legislature.

But yes, difference between now and 74 is palpable, LDs have learnt to concentrate their votes well. Doesn’t change the precedent, does increase the possible outcomes.

Don @ 8: I agree its also important to ask what the costs and benefits are of Labour entering a coalition with the Lib Dems.

While I think such a coalition is massively in the interests of the country, if we focus just on what is in Labour’s interests there are at least two arguments for saying Labour should just quit the government and let the Lib Dems do a deal with the Conservatives (assuming a hung parliament where the Lib Dems hold the balance of power).

The cynical argument is that the next government will have to introduce substantial cuts in public spending and/or tax rises. Why not just let the Tories and Lib Dems take the strain and unpopularity of that?

The more reasonable argument is that Labour needs some time out of government altogether to reflect and renew.

I’m not sure the first argument is actually that strong. I think the Tory-Lib Dem coalition could quite plausibly turn the criticism around: ‘You, Labour, got us into this mess, and we are being responsible politicians in getting us out of it.’ (This might not be fair, but it could be effective.)

I think the second argument is very strong.

But on balance I want a Lib Dem – Labour coalition for the good of the country not Labour: I think its crucial that Labour help shape the ‘austerity’ package – I don’t think a Tory or Tory – Lib Dem government will be as sensitive to the interests of the most vulnerable.

I’d rather not have the US constitution with its status quo entrenchment and daft seperation of hte executive from the legislature.

Oh agreed, and I’m not sure it’s practically even possible for the UK to become a US style democracy. What I meant was that the US Constitution is a pretty bare-bones document, concentrating on a philosophical outline of the source and scope of the state’s (and the states’) power. Whereas the European Constitution includes passages on the management of coal mines in accession countries.

My favourite metaphor for the difference between the two is the opening statement. The US goes for “We the people” – the ultimate symbol of where power in a democracy should lie. The first line of the European Constitution (and the Lisbon Treaty) is “His Majesty, the King of the Belgians…”.