Under no circumstances will either Major party not be able
to lead without possibly derailing within the next 5 years. Under our new ‘fandangled’
Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2012 it will be virtually impossible for such a
fractious commons, that is if the polls are right, to bring down any government,
be that one of majority or minority.
To do so would require a two thirds vote in the house of
commons, a whopping 434 MP’s. The most modest estimate from pollsters at Election
Forecast suggests that the Conservatives will achieve 253 seats and this is
more than a third of the house. I cannot envisage a situation, supposing The Tories
were in the position of being in minority government, some kind of confidence
and supply arrangement or if they did manage to scramble together enough votes
to establish majority, that MP’s from their own party would vote down the
government. Can you?
Similarly if Labour took away more seats than ‘The Blues’
after May 7th, the Tories would find themselves in a very similar
situation. Labour are set to bring home less; still enough to prevent an
electoral groundhog day. Thanks Fixed Term Parliament Act.
There are constitutional concerns I will concede but they
are not regarding the lasting stability of any prospective government. What
concerns me and most voters on a constitutional level, strikes at the heart of
fair mindedness. Waking up on May 8th it may well be the case that barely
a cigarette paper separates two main parties in terms of votes. In situations
such as these the cabinet handbook comes out to play. What is the cabinet
handbook you ask? Good question, well suffice to say it is of no constitutional
significance and states within its pages that it is no legal authority on
anything. I would think that most of the general public fail to understand how
something with no legal authority is used to guide those in highest office in
situations similar to those that ‘Call me Dave’ and ‘Ed #milionemanband’ are about
to find themselves in on Friday. Now, I may be overstating the public’s
interest in constitutional etiquette but the public must see this is an
inadequate method in producing the right results.
Something that has influenced voting intention, at least in
England this election, has been the rise of nationalism and the SNP in
Scotland. Getting back to being fair minded, and English. Research for The Independent
released today suggested that 7 out of 10 people believed that the SNP should
not be able to veto any UK government policies. These numbers would suggest a
stance alongside that of Unionism and a dislike of the idea that Scots, who already
have devolved powers which are soon to be more extensive, get to determine the
direction of policy areas for which they have no concern. The so called ‘West Lothian
question,’ I might add is one that Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP refutes is one
that requires discussion at all. She states that SNP MP’s in Westminster would
vote on matters which will have a knock on, or direct effect. Any matters that are
‘English only matters,’ the SNP would not vote on, says Sturgeon. Questions
surrounding the union would not be at issue for voters in England under a PR
system. Under PR the SNP wound not be the so called ‘king makers,’ of this
election. Scotland would return a more representative mixture of voices to Westminster.
This would change the way many intend to vote as many of those of the centrist persuasion
have been drawn away from Labour this election, freightened by the prospect of
a rise in Scottish nationalism and the breaking of the Union.
All of these concerns as to legitimacy are legitimate but
once you peel away the bullshit it is clear; It ain’t Russell Brand that’s a
joke as our political elite likes to say, it’s our constitution. By statute whatever
we get will last. Reform anyone?