[B0ycey]

It's 2% and there's no reason to believe that the discrepancy between EU election polls and results will be replicated in a general election, although I'm fine with Remainers being very confident about it.

My confidence is more in amazement that the Lib Dems polled 20% from a predicted 15%. Clearly they have momentum. Although really if the electorate are faced with crashing out of the EU, you have to question where they are realistically going to cast their vote in a general election whilst Corbyn is ambiguous?

Also I have no doubt that a significant percentage of leave voters did so on the promise there would be a deal (only an assumption of course). That being the case, if the Brexit Party offers only "No Deal", I can imagine the Lib Dems getting even some Brexiteer voter on their side come October - just in time for a Tory rebeliation if there is ever going to be one.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

@ingliz, you're listing arguments that say the Fixed Term Parliaments Act is not the only thing controlling a change of government, not that it gives a mechanism for the opposition taking over without an election, which is what you had claimed. The argument from Howarth is untested; no one knows what advisers to the monarch would make of it. Howarth himself said "but perhaps..." before making it, and followed your quote with lots of hedging, with "if"s and an admission it would be controversial.

In the present circumstances, the chances of all the opposition parties uniting to form a new government and pass a vote of confidence in themselves is tiny (especially within 14 days). You'd need some DUP or Tory MPs to abstain at the very least on such a vote - which would get them chucked out of their parties. For a change of government to happen that way, you realistically need a minority party that had previously supported the government to switch sides.

My confidence is more in amazement that the Lib Dems polled 20% from a predicted 15%. Clearly they have momentum

That was momentum for the EU vote, though. Translating that to a sustained general election momentum will be a hard task.

[B0ycey]

That was momentum for the EU vote, though. Translating that to a sustained general election momentum will be a hard task.

Sure, but the EU election result seems to translate into a general election poll. Although really you have to look into the future from trends in the past to understand potential trends that are likely. If the Tories are to rebel, they will only do so to prevent a No Deal Brexit. Under such times, is it really a question that the Lib Dems will benefit from that fear whilst Corbyn still questions everything?

[ingliz]

you're listing arguments that say...

You argued that it was not possible in law, not that it was not practicable.

And that is not the case.

[Nonsense]

Excuse my ignorance of Gritish politics, but how big of a deal is this really?

I'd imagine the winner will over blow the significant, and the losers will down play it.

Nonsense-

It was more symbolic than a real deal.

Of course the BREXIT Party didn't win the seat, but you know what, how Labour reacted,reveals just how contemptious of the electorate they are, by treating them as delinquent infants, they really are unbelievable.
They 'gained' just a handful of votes compared to before in the constituency, then trumpet it as a, 'victory', a rather pyrrhic one at that.

Compare that to the referendum result,by their anti-democratic behaviour in parliament, through their politicking the passage of Brexit, into a political cul-de-sac & anyone that thinks that party is democratic needs their head examined.

Looked at dispassionately, the Brexit Party won the high ground in that local election & I think that those voters have made a rod for their own backs by 'rewarding' Labour for being anti-democratic.

But, the next general election is the third event in the trilogy of aftershocks of the post referendum political tremours to hit the U.K, that event will be the real shock to the Peterborough voters & Labour.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

You argued that it was not possible in law, not that it was not practicable.

And that is not the case.

No, I never argued it was not possible in law. I just pointed out you were wrong in saying it was part of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. We'll review all we've both said on the subject:

Labour as the next biggest party will be asked to form a government, a rainbow coalition given the parliamentary arithmetic, as per Fixed-Term Parliament Act (2011).

I can't see anything in the act saying Labour would be asked to form a government; "Her Majesty's Government" gets 14 days to get a motion of confidence passed, and if they can't, then it's a general election.

Article 3(b) is what you are looking for.

3)An early parliamentary general election is also to take place if—
(a)the House of Commons passes a motion in the form set out in subsection (4), and
(b)the period of 14 days after the day on which that motion is passed ends without the House passing a motion in the form set out in subsection (5).
(4)The form of motion for the purposes of subsection (3)(a) is—
“That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”

(5)The form of motion for the purposes of subsection (3)(b) is—
“That this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.”

You appear to be unacquainted with the niceties of the Fixed-Term Parliament Act and its implications for British parliamentary practice. There is nothing to stop a Tory minority government being replaced by a Labour-led administration.

Notice that up until now, you've claimed there is something explicit in the Act that says Labour would be asked to form a government, even claiming a specific section. At this moment, you've backtracked, saying "there is nothing to stop...".

Indeed, this second government could itself be replaced without an election.

Nothing in the Act restricts the number of times you could go through the merry-go-round of governments falling and being replaced. The Act now constitutes the only way in which the House of Commons can declare its lack of confidence in the government, so that all the previous conventions about governments having to resign if defeated in a vote of confidence worded in a variety of ways or just declared by the participants to be a motion of confidence no longer apply.

"Her Majesty's Government" gets 14 days to get a motion of confidence passed, and if they can't, then it's a general election.

No.

You're now denying the FTPA says what it says. I've already quoted it, and you're just pretending it doesn't exist.

Example: How an opposition party might form a government without there being a general election if the 'government' refuses to allow an Opposition motion.

"A motion could be moved on an opposition or back-bench day in the form ‘That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to dismiss her current ministers and to appoint X as Prime Minister’. If such a motion passed, the monarch could be confident not only that the current government had lost the confidence of the House but also that a specific person (presumably the Leader of the Opposition, but another person could be proposed) already commanded that confidence. In effect, we would find ourselves with the sensible rule in Article 67 of the German Basic Law that the Bundestag can only declare no confidence in one Chancellor by declaring confidence in another Chancellor."

That's a quote from David Howarth on what might be possible, in ways other than what the FTPA says, though you removed his words before and after to try and make it look more certain that it is.

@ingliz, you're listing arguments that say the Fixed Term Parliaments Act is not the only thing controlling a change of government, not that it gives a mechanism for the opposition taking over without an election, which is what you had claimed. The argument from Howarth is untested; no one knows what advisers to the monarch would make of it. Howarth himself said "but perhaps..." before making it, and followed your quote with lots of hedging, with "if"s and an admission it would be controversial.

Notice that I never " argued that it was not possible in law", I pointed out that it's not in the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. And we both know it isn't, but that was what you started off claiming. You know, when you wrote "Labour as the next biggest party will be asked to form a government, a rainbow coalition given the parliamentary arithmetic, as per Fixed-Term Parliament Act (2011)". No "perhaps", conditions or anything, just a bald assertion of "will be asked to form a government", and a claim this is specified in the FTPA. In reality, we both know that's wrong. And also that the chances of Labour getting to try and form a government as soon as the Tory leader is chosen, without an election, by invoking any other law are also incredibly small, given the parliamentary arithmetic.

[ingliz]

Labour would be asked to form a government

The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 provides legal certainty only about certain matters. It is silent on what might occur during the 14-day period following a statutory vote of no confidence under Section 2(3). This is to some extent inevitable because what occurs during this period will depend on the circumstances that led to the vote of no confidence. What occurs during the 14-day period is matter of politics and not procedure.

The 14-day period allows time for confidence in Her Majesty’s Government to be re-established. Whether this is done through a change in personnel, policy or party is entirely a matter for the political process.

It is also clear that in the event that it becomes apparent that another person could command the confidence of the House the Prime Minister would be expected to resign. Not to resign in such a circumstance would risk drawing the Sovereign in to the political process, something the Cabinet Manual is very clear should not occur.

[Beren]

Nonetheless Corbyn capitalised not on his success but Mays stupidity in the last general election. She tried to pay for Brexit with what can only be described as the worse manifesto in living history and got punished for it.

But you say yourself he can't capitalise on the Tory clusterfuck, so I wonder if he could capitalise on a Tory manifesto so much, even though it might have helped him. Corbyn capitalises on his ground army of activists actually, which is the largest one in Europe. That's what helped him in the last general election and Peterborough as well, and it's always surprising and unexpected somehow. He doesn't lead a party only, he leads a movement as Farage does, although Farage is a con man like Trump. However, in my opinion Farage's success will only last until the Conservatives elect their new leader, BoJo most likely, and get themselves together. In Hungary we call it Pentecostal kingdom when success goes as quickly as it came, which is very timely in this case.

[Rugoz]

FPTP sucks.

Besides, how can a single-issue party win so many votes? UK politics seems crazy at this point.

[B0ycey]

The fact he hasn't capitalised on the Tory clusterfuck is enough evidence I need to know he should change position or move aside @Beren. Although I don't believe in coincidence and am aware of how badly the Tory manifesto was received and the reaction the public gave it at the time and the swing that occur straight after. I am not naive to believe a campaign trail would ever create a swing that turned a Labour slaughter into a score draw when the manifesto clearly had a bigger impact.

[Beren]

The fact he hasn't capitalised on the Tory clusterfuck is enough evidence I need to know he should change position or move aside @Beren. Although I don't believe in coincidence and am aware of how badly the Tory manifesto was received and the reaction the public gave it at the time and the swing that occur straight after. I am not naive to believe a campaign trail would ever create a swing that turned a Labour slaughter into a score draw when the manifesto clearly had a bigger impact.

The manifesto could have had a big sudden impact and given momentum to Labour, but momentum always has to be kept and it wouldn't have been enough for such a surprising election result. And what do you think turned a Labour defeat into victory in Peterborough?

[B0ycey]

The manifesto could have had a big sudden impact and given momentum to Labour, but momentum always has to be kept and it wouldn't have been enough for such a surprising election result. And what do you think turned a Labour slaughter into victory in Peterborough?

Labour wasn't expecting to get slaughtered by Farage. Although I suspect The Brexit party actually have better poll results than they should have solely down to the fact Brexiteers aren't shy at declaring their colours. Couple that with Remainers voting for anything but Farage and perhaps a narrow victory isn't so surprising after all.

As for Corbyn, let him be ambiguous. His failures are Lib Dems blessings and Labour would have to be part of the rainbow coalition anyway. The UK will have a leader that isn't BoJo or Corbyn and a Remainer to boot as I am sure the Lib Dems will outnumber Labour if the election was tomorrow, let alone in the future, due to his failures.

[Beren]

Labour wasn't expecting to get slaughtered by Farage. Although I suspect The Brexit party actually have better poll results than they should have solely down to the fact Brexiteers aren't shy at declaring their colours. Couple that with Remainers voting for anything but Farage and perhaps a narrow victory isn't so surprising after all.

I've edited my post and changed slaughter to defeat, however, if Labour had been defeated, it could have been like slaughter to them as much as a victory could have catapulted the Brexit party into new dimensions. However, there's always a Lib Dem party for Remainers to vote for, so they never have to vote for Corbyn's Labour, after the EP-election especially. As a matter of fact a large well-organised and properly executed ground attack launched by activists in the very final phase in an election campaign can exactly have such an impact on the results. The victory is not surprising so much only if we assume Labour defeated the Brexit party on the ground in the final week or days or so, which is definitely possible, and that's exactly what Corbyn has so much faith in when he calls for a general election.

[Nonsense]

FPTP sucks.

Besides, how can a single-issue party win so many votes? UK politics seems crazy at this point.

Nonsense-

It's called, democracy.

The formulation for the current political tremours in our so-called 'democracy' were conjured up at Westminster.

One party (Labour) lost 17 points compared to the last general election, so much for the 'success' of their 'remain' strategy in parliament.

The Tories(rightly)ended up in the gutter & the BREXIT Party(although 'losing' to Labour)came up smelling of roses.

They say that a week is a long time in politics, if political 'remainers' think that the public will have 'forgotten' their Brexit shenanigans by 2022, they had better think again & prepare for an alternative 'career'.

Personally, I think they are all performing liabilities, I would not give a single MP a job if they begged for one at the rate of one penny a week, because they would cost me more than I would be paying them.

As for FPTP, it was a device dreamt up between CLEGG-CAMERON with their 'Coalition', to stop either side opting-out during a parliament, between them, they felt they had the right to change how parliament acts.

In the terms of what was intended, the thing totally failed, as theresa MAY demonstrated, a P.M could simply call an early general election, as once installed as P.M following the leadership contest in the Tory Party, who could oppose her doing so in the party?

Had Labour opposed her in the Commons, they would perhaps have lost by a bigger margin.

Even on a lost 'no-confidence' vote in the Commons by a two-thirds majority, the P.M could simply ignore it by not calling an election, it is after all, still the perogative of the P.M to call an election-not-parliament, even if it meant, as now, that no further Bills were debated & passed in parliament.

It's that 'you can take a horse to the water, but you can't make it drink' thing, the Queen can no longer excercise the Royal Perogative to dissolve parliament, she can only appoint a 'new' government.

The Act is up for a 'review' in the middle of 2020,but, because of the quagmire the Tories are in, the new P.M will simply retain the FPTP Act to avoid mthe Damoclean Sword of of political castration before 2022, but, for which they cannot hide & neither can the 'remain' MP's in the other parties.

[B0ycey]

The Tories(rightly)ended up in the gutter & the BREXIT Party(although 'losing' to Labour)came up smelling of roses.

They say that a week is a long time in politics, if political 'remainers' think that the public will have 'forgotten' their Brexit shenanigans by 2022, they had better think again & prepare for an alternative 'career'.

Personally, I think they are all performing liabilities, I would not give a single MP a job if they begged for one at the rate of one penny a week, because they would cost me more than I would be paying them.

And yet The Brexit Party couldn't win a seat in a strong leave area. And in a marginal area too I might add. What to make of Farage in strong Labour heartlands? I guess a spanking.

Nonetheless the Tories will be punished for being in power during the clusterfuck which is Brexit and Labour for sitting on the fence. Should BoJo get in power he and he alone might take some of the votes away from Farage and at least give the Tories some seats in the next electiom. As for Labour, they will take the north and the Lib Dems the south. The Brexit Party a few seats either side. You keep on forgetting that if we use the EU elections as a guide, leavers have 3rd of the vote, remain 40% and around 25% of the vote is marginal and I would say unlikely to back Farage at any cost as he is a one issue party. I want a general election now as I see true coalition democracy occuring and a political earthquake that may well stop Brexit all together and return faith to UK democracy and more importantly stop you thinking that the UK public actually want Brexit when the numbers and opinion polls say otherwise.

[Nonsense]

And yet The Brexit Party couldn't win a seat in a strong leave area. And in a marginal area too I might add. What to make of Farage in strong Labour heartlands? I guess a spanking.

Nonetheless the Tories will be punished for being in power during the clusterfuck which is Brexit and Labour for sitting on the fence. Should BoJo get in power he and he alone might take some of the votes away from Farage and at least give the Tories some seats in the next electiom. As for Labour, they will take the north and the Lib Dems the south. The Brexit Party a few seats either side. You keep on forgetting that if we use the EU elections as a guide, leavers have 3rd of the vote, remain 40% and around 25% of the vote is marginal and I would say unlikely to back Farage at any cost as he is a one issue party. I want a general election now as I see true coalition democracy occuring and a political earthquake that may well stop Brexit all together and return faith to UK democracy and more importantly stop you thinking that the UK public actually want Brexit when the numbers and opinion polls say otherwise.

Nonsense-

The Tories are screwed, no doubt about that, plus, other issues come into play at the next election,but my opinion on Labour is different, I see them losing as well, because they have played the people who voted for them at the last election as fools, by actively pursuing a remain political game in Westminster post 2016 referendum, for which their MP's will pay a heavy price.

They have lost public support in the north for many a year through their pro-immigration, of which BREXIT is but a part, they will lose heavily elsewhere too, because of the loss of public trust in them.

We have had enough of 'Coalition democracy', we need a clear working majority government that can deliver an agenda that is as promised in a manifesto & neither Labour or Tory can deliver that because they are proven liars.

[Beren]

The Tories are screwed, no doubt about that, plus, other issues come into play at the next election,but my opinion on Labour is different, I see them losing as well

The Tories are screwed and Labour is going to lose as well, although they still could prevent the one-issue Nonsense party from taking a seat in a strongly Leave constituency.

Also, how is your opinion on Labour supposed to be different if you see them losing while the Tories are screwed?

[B0ycey]

We have had enough of 'Coalition democracy', we need a clear working majority government that can deliver an agenda that is as promised in a manifesto & neither Labour or Tory can deliver that because they are proven liars.

Whether you or the UK as a whole have had enough of coalition democracy is irrelevant. The next general election will not even closely provide a majority government for any party if the polls are to believed. And the polls have twice over estimated The Brexit Party support I might add.

[Rich]

Farage is a loser!

He's been in the political game a long while and in all that time his parties have failed to gain a single seat in a Westminster Election. Three times he has held a seat, that he gained through Conservatives defecting, but he has never gained a seat in a Westminster Election. Since his whole spiel is to give back to Westminster, his failure to gain seats or even to hold both the seats in 2015 is a humiliating rejection by the British electorate.

There are a lot of people who might be willing to vote for UKIP / Brexit party in a by-election, who would not be at all comfortable seeing Farage leading the largest party in Westminster. Peterborough is a strong leave constituency, the previous Labour candidate was disgraced. If Farage couldn't win in Peterborough, then where? Maybe there will be another by-election and he'll win it, but remember it was the inability of UKIP to gain parliamentary seats that staunched their insurgency and led to their eventually collapse and implosion.

Clearly we are in an unstable (systemically) chaotic situation. Chance events could have disproportionate effect on outcomes. Now I just don't know, but its possible that failure to deliver Brexit may fall disproportionately on the Tories, if the Brexit party continue to fail to win seats. Labour were never the Brexit party, only idiots voted for Labour who did not know they were endangering Brexit. A vote for Labour had always been a rejection of Brexit, or a statement that the voter didn't really care about Brexit.

[Beren]

Farage is a loser!

He lost this battle for sure and I wonder if the war is lost as well and his party's already reached its apex and downwards is the trend for it from now for a while. I considered it a one-issue one-election party once and still do so. Farage has been leading a blitzkrieg basically and his momentum got broken, but even then it was a spectacular campaign resulting in serious consequences for the country and British politics, the Conservatives especially.