Alf Bentley Posted 3 April 2015 Posted 3 April 2015 I believe the governement that won the most seats would rule as a minority government. But this used to mean a 2nd GE soon after but I don't think they can call for another one anymore meaning they would have to wait 5 years, I can't see that working so a Coalition will happen. I disagree. I can't see a coalition happening unless the Tories are only just short of a majority and the Lib Dems go in with them again (but they might well prefer a looser relationship next time - and it's mainly their more Tory-friendly MPs, including Clegg himself, who risk losing their seats). Why would any of the smaller parties enter a coalition when they could exert influence without responsibility by extracting concessions for supporting a minority govt - and avoid the blame for unpopular policies? If there's no majority, I reckon we'll end up with a minority government, kept afloat by a deal with one or more parties - maybe a "confidence & supply agreement" (smaller parties agree to support government in votes of confidence and to supply the funds to run the country....but not necessarily to support all other legislation). The chances of such a deal lasting 5 years would be slim. It might only last a few months - and all the parties would be looking for the opportune moment to collapse the government if they thought they'd improve their position by having another election. Even under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, it would be easy enough to trigger another election. A "no confidence" vote would be enough, if no other combination of parties was able to form a sustainable government - or a 2/3 majority voting for another election: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term_Parliaments_Act_2011 The figures at the moment are fascinating. Here's the latest arithmetic in the FT: http://elections.ft.com/uk/2015/projections I reckon they're under-estimating UKIP, saying they'll only get 1 seat, but otherwise those figures seem pretty accurate - and would mean that neither Con/LD nor Lab/SNP would command a majority (323, due to Sinn Fein MPs boycotting). As the SNP will never support the Tories, about the only viable combination would be Lab/SNP + LD or DUP. Slight changes in the arithmetic could bring other combinations into play, though. If the Tories and/or Lib Dems do a bit better, they could command a majority (with or without DUP). If Labour do a bit better, Lab/SNP could form a majority without anyone else (though they could probably rely on the SDLP, Labour's N. Irish sister party, anyway). Unless UKIP have a real surge in the next 4 weeks, they're unlikely to have enough MPs to exert an influence. If the Tories end up just short of a majority, would they do a deal with UKIP? A lot of their right-wingers might prefer the latter, but that would risk splitting their own party. If the Tories had done that well, Cameron would still be in charge and would prefer a deal with the Lib Dems or DUP, surely? On Question Time yesterday, Burnham again ruled out a Lab/SNP coalition - but not a less formal, "confidence & supply" type arrangement. Gove took a similar approach to the potential for a Con/UKIP deal....but the former looks a lot more likely than the latter. I reckon the 3 main runners are: (1) Lab/SNP (and/or LD) deal without coalition; (2) Con/LD deal with or without coalition; (3) a short-lived, unstable govt with an early 2nd election.
BlueSi13 Posted 3 April 2015 Posted 3 April 2015 So then, this could be the first election whereby the party with the largest number of seats and the largest number of votes is prevented from forming a government? Surely the political ramifications of this would be huge?
Guest Posted 3 April 2015 Posted 3 April 2015 So then, this could be the first election whereby the party with the largest number of seats and the largest number of votes is prevented from forming a government? Surely the political ramifications of this would be huge? It could also be an election where the party forming the govt get less than 15% of the adult population voting for them. The political ramifications of that should be huger.
johnny the fox Posted 3 April 2015 Posted 3 April 2015 Leaders debate: Ex-Leicester City striker Gary Lineker calls Ukip's Nigel Farage 'a d***' By Leicester Mercury | Posted: April 03, 2015 Gary Lineker called Ukip's Nigel Farage 'a d***' ITV The leaders debate was viewed by 7 million Former Leicester City striker Gary Lineker waded into the Twitter debate on the political party leaders debate last night by calling Ukip leader Nigel Farage "a d***". The Match Of The Day presenter tweeted: "Always reluctant to offer a political view, but Farage is a d***!" Gary Lineker ✔ @GaryLineker Follow Always reluctant to offer a political view, but Farage is a dick! However, the Leicester-born 54-year-old was not the only footballer to offer their opinion on the debate. QPR midfielder Joey Barton tweeted: No point Nick Clegg being there, Jimmy Savile would get more votes than him... There were 1.5 million tweets last night about the debate which averages at 8,657 posts-per-minute. The political debate on ITV was watched by 7 million people last night and featured David Cameron (Conservative), Ed Miliband (Labour), Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrats), Nigel Farage (Ukip), Natalie Bennett (Green), Nicola Sturgeon (SNP) and Leanne Wood (Plaid Cymru). A number of polls released immediately after the programme showed that there was no clear winner in the debate. Guardian / ICM pollMiliband – 25%; Cameron – 24%; Farage – 19%; Sturgeon – 17%; Clegg – 9%; Bennett – 3%; Wood –2%.YouGovSturgeon – 28%; Farage – 20%; Cameron – 18%; Miliband – 15%; Clegg – 10%; Bennett – 5%; Wood –4%.ComResCameron – 21%; Farage – 21%; Miliband 21%; Sturgeon – 20%; Clegg – 9%; Bennett – 5%; Wood – 2%. Read more: http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Leaders-debate-Ex-Leicester-City-striker-Gary/story-26277179-detail/story.html#ixzz3WFlmSYMl Follow us: @Leicester_Merc on Twitter | leicestermercury on Facebook abuse is not an intelligent reply...stick to footy gary..
Guest Posted 3 April 2015 Posted 3 April 2015 abuse is not an intelligent reply...stick to footy gary.. Yeah, the truth can get you a one day ban.
Guest MattP Posted 3 April 2015 Posted 3 April 2015 Farage was right with his comments regarding HIV. Well over 50% of those being treated are from Africa and it costs the British taxpayer over a billion a year. Keep trying to slander to silence - it won't work when it can be backed up with facts. http://order-order.com/2015/04/03/nigel-farage-is-right-about-health-tourism/#_@/UnWfr8Xp2w-2Uw
Mark_w Posted 3 April 2015 Posted 3 April 2015 Farage was right with his comments regarding HIV. Well over 50% of those being treated are from Africa and it costs the British taxpayer over a billion a year. Haven't heard what Farage said, but if that's the case shouldn't we be patting ourselves on the back for spending British money on combating HIV then? That seems like a pretty reasonable way to spend British tax payers money, certainly in comparison to some of the shit the government spend money on. People are more important than money Matt, whether they're from Africa or Aldershot.
MooseBreath Posted 3 April 2015 Posted 3 April 2015 Haven't heard what Farage said, but if that's the case shouldn't we be patting ourselves on the back for spending British money on combating HIV then? That seems like a pretty reasonable way to spend British tax payers money, certainly in comparison to some of the shit the government spend money on. People are more important than money Matt, whether they're from Africa or Aldershot. We could quite easily spend our entire gdp on people in need. Obviously there needs to be a balance between the needs of British citizens and those outside the country. You have an Internet connection and some kind of device that you use to post on here which costs money that you could have given to a charity for HIV sufferers, but you didn't, so evidently you also believe in putting yourself ahead of people in need to some extent.
Buce Posted 3 April 2015 Posted 3 April 2015 Surely if you've any confidence in your views you'd relish the opportunity to be proven right about why such an arrangement would be bad for the country? That's how I will feel if labour/snp happens. Seems a bit cowardly to opt out of the debate on judgement day, like you're afraid of being proved wrong? Says he who claims he'd leave the country if Labour/SNP formed a government..
MooseBreath Posted 3 April 2015 Posted 3 April 2015 Says he who claims he'd leave the country if Labour/SNP formed a government.. If you can't see the difference I can't be bothered to explain
Mark_w Posted 3 April 2015 Posted 3 April 2015 We could quite easily spend our entire gdp on people in need. Obviously there needs to be a balance between the needs of British citizens and those outside the country. You have an Internet connection and some kind of device that you use to post on here which costs money that you could have given to a charity for HIV sufferers, but you didn't, so evidently you also believe in putting yourself ahead of people in need to some extent. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a balance. But I don't see what the big deal here is, it's a very small proportion of the money the British government spends a year going to people in genuine need of aid. That is a much better use of British tax payers money than the nine+ times that spent on one Olympic Games for example. I think it's pretty obvious that I'm no economics expert, but this doesn't seem like it's going to break the bank and it appears to be going towards tackling an issue that I personally want the British Government to help tackle. Why should we have a problem with it?
Strokes Posted 3 April 2015 Posted 3 April 2015 I'm not saying there shouldn't be a balance. But I don't see what the big deal here is, it's a very small proportion of the money the British government spends a year going to people in genuine need of aid. That is a much better use of British tax payers money than the nine+ times that spent on one Olympic Games for example. I think it's pretty obvious that I'm no economics expert, but this doesn't seem like it's going to break the bank and it appears to be going towards tackling an issue that I personally want the British Government to help tackle. Why should we have a problem with it?Its nice that you think like that mark and I respect that you are happy about were the balance is drawn. I cant say it bothers me that much either but I'm not apalled by the suggestion that its too much either.
MooseBreath Posted 3 April 2015 Posted 3 April 2015 I'm not saying there shouldn't be a balance. But I don't see what the big deal here is, it's a very small proportion of the money the British government spends a year going to people in genuine need of aid. That is a much better use of British tax payers money than the nine+ times that spent on one Olympic Games for example. I think it's pretty obvious that I'm no economics expert, but this doesn't seem like it's going to break the bank and it appears to be going towards tackling an issue that I personally want the British Government to help tackle. Why should we have a problem with it? You don't have to have a problem with it if you don't want to. Everybody is entitled to their opinion about what the priorities for British tax money should be, including those who think that HIV sufferers in other countries shouldn't be prioritised to the extent that they currently are ahead of issues in our own country.
Mark_w Posted 3 April 2015 Posted 3 April 2015 You don't have to have a problem with it if you don't want to. Everybody is entitled to their opinion about what the priorities for British tax money should be, including those who think that HIV sufferers in other countries shouldn't be prioritised to the extent that it currently is ahead of issues in our own country. I know very little about this, but it's about people who are in our country is it not? They're not from our country, but as far as I can tell it's about people in Britain from Africa, people who are therefore no less entitled to British health care than Nigel Farage's wife. Am I missing something, this is an issue 'in our own country' isn't it?
Webbo Posted 3 April 2015 Posted 3 April 2015 I know very little about this, but it's about people who are in our country is it not? They're not from our country, but as far as I can tell it's about people in Britain from Africa, people who are therefore no less entitled to British health care than Nigel Farage's wife. Am I missing something, this is an issue 'in our own country' isn't it? If these people had HIV before they came here and came with the intention of getting free treatment without ever have paid a penny in do you still think it's a good thing?
MooseBreath Posted 3 April 2015 Posted 3 April 2015 I know very little about this, but it's about people who are in our country is it not? They're not from our country, but as far as I can tell it's about people in Britain from Africa, people who are therefore no less entitled to British health care than Nigel Farage's wife. Am I missing something, this is an issue 'in our own country' isn't it? I assume he was implying that people travelled specifically to the UK to take advantage of treatment from a system that they haven't contributed to, so yes I suppose if you want to look at it as a problem in our own country then you can. The argument is still fundamentally the same. Should British tax money be spent on helping foreign nationals to recover from a disease they contracted in a foreign country? Personally I think that makes it an easier argument, as I don't think the NHS should be a global charity, only British citizens and those who work and pay tax in the UK should be allowed to use it for free. But the main point to this is that Farage's comments were seen by some as off limits for some reason, when it's a perfectly reasonable point of debate.
Buce Posted 3 April 2015 Posted 3 April 2015 If these people had HIV before they came here and came with the intention of getting free treatment without ever have paid a penny in do you still think it's a good thing? Unless I'm missing something, we don't have health-screening for visitors to this country, so how would we distinguish between those who became infected abroad and those who became infected here?
Mark_w Posted 3 April 2015 Posted 3 April 2015 If these people had HIV before they came here and came with the intention of getting free treatment without ever have paid a penny in do you still think it's a good thing? Yes, I want to see as much as we can afford to spend on foreign aid spent as possible if it's going to helping people effected by disease, poverty, war etc. I could understand why Matt, Mr. Farage, Moose etc. would have more of an issue with that, I'm a lot less patriotic/nationalist than most, but Matt's figures were just about Africans with HIV in Britain regardless of their circumstances so I'm not sure his evidence works particularly well with that argument.
Webbo Posted 3 April 2015 Posted 3 April 2015 Yes, I want to see as much as we can afford to spend on foreign aid spent as possible if it's going to helping people effected by disease, poverty, war etc. I could understand why Matt, Mr. Farage, Moose etc. would have more of an issue with that, I'm a lot less patriotic/nationalist than most, but Matt's figures were just about Africans with HIV in Britain regardless of their circumstances so I'm not sure his evidence works particularly well with that argument. We already spend 0.7% of GDP , around £12 billion on foreign aid,more than most countries. Treating people in this country comes out of money earmarked for UK citizens. Do you think anyone from wherever in the world who turns up sick should be entitled to free treatment at our expense?
Buce Posted 3 April 2015 Posted 3 April 2015 Farage is making it clear that he's talking about foreigners diagnosed here; he clearly states that of the 7,000 newly diagnosed each year, 60% are foreigners: http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32176826 ' He defended his view on Friday, telling the BBC more than 60% of the 7,000 patients diagnosed annually were not British'
Mark_w Posted 3 April 2015 Posted 3 April 2015 We already spend 0.7% of GDP , around £12 billion on foreign aid,more than most countries. Treating people in this country comes out of money earmarked for UK citizens. Do you think anyone from wherever in the world who turns up sick should be entitled to free treatment at our expense? I think that's sort of missing the point I was making, there has been no evidence provided about how many people are coming to Britain with HIV and claiming free treatment, absolutely no evidence. So Matt's point about being able to 'back it up with evidence' is useless if this is the issue. In response to your question as I say, I'm no economic expert, I want as much as possible to be spent on foreign aid so long as it's going to people in genuine need of it, if it's possible for that 0.7% percentage to be increased, say with cuts to the amount spent on the military, nuclear weapons, increasing taxes on the obscenely rich, then yeah I'm all for it. I probably need to read up on how plausible and sensible that is, but on the face of it it seems quite reasonable to me. I'm fairly young, I don't know a great deal about it and if you think you can convince me that 0.7% is enough or too much then go for it.
Webbo Posted 3 April 2015 Posted 3 April 2015 Unless I'm missing something, we don't have health-screening for visitors to this country, so how would we distinguish between those who became infected abroad and those who became infected here? I don't know and I'm not planning to vote UKIP. I don't think it was an outrageous thing to say though.
Webbo Posted 3 April 2015 Posted 3 April 2015 I think that's sort of missing the point I was making, there has been no evidence provided about how many people are coming to Britain with HIV and claiming free treatment, absolutely no evidence. So Matt's point about being able to 'back it up with evidence' is useless if this is the issue. In response to your question as I say, I'm no economic expert, I want as much as possible to be spent on foreign aid so long as it's going to people in genuine need of it, if it's possible for that 0.7% percentage to be increased, say with cuts to the amount spent on the military, nuclear weapons, increasing taxes on the obscenely rich, then yeah I'm all for it. I probably need to read up on how plausible and sensible that is, but on the face of it it seems quite reasonable to me. I'm fairly young, I don't know a great deal about it and if you think you can convince me that 0.7% is enough or too much then go for it. Can you find anyone denying the facts?
Strokes Posted 3 April 2015 Posted 3 April 2015 I think that's sort of missing the point I was making, there has been no evidence provided about how many people are coming to Britain with HIV and claiming free treatment, absolutely no evidence. So Matt's point about being able to 'back it up with evidence' is useless if this is the issue. In response to your question as I say, I'm no economic expert, I want as much as possible to be spent on foreign aid so long as it's going to people in genuine need of it, if it's possible for that 0.7% percentage to be increased, say with cuts to the amount spent on the military, nuclear weapons, increasing taxes on the obscenely rich, then yeah I'm all for it. I probably need to read up on how plausible and sensible that is, but on the face of it it seems quite reasonable to me. I'm fairly young, I don't know a great deal about it and if you think you can convince me that 0.7% is enough or too much then go for it.The fact that its disproportionate to the population tells you they are coming here, unless you think foreigners are more likely to contract it?
Buce Posted 3 April 2015 Posted 3 April 2015 The fact that its disproportionate to the population tells you they are coming here, unless you think foreigners are more likely to contract it?That depends where they are coming from: sub-saharan Africa, for example, has a much higher incidence of infection than here.Edit: Sorry, Strokes, I misunderstood your point, I think.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.