Wow... The Conservative UK Telegraph Is Wondering If The PM/Government Is Going To Go Down !!!

[WillyT]

Sir Paul Stephenson resigns: this is grave news for David Cameron
By Damian Thompson - TheTelegraph
Last updated: July 17th, 2011

<snip>

The resignation of Sir Paul Stephenson, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, is a shocking blow to David Cameron’s credibility as Prime Minister. There’s a sense now of a tidal wave of scandal surrounding the entire British establishment. The flood waters are slowly rising and it doesn’t seem there’s a damn thing anyone can do about it. Here’s blogger Ian Dale putting into words what many people are thinking:

I can’t believe I am even writing this, but it is no longer an impossibility to imagine this scandal bringing down the Prime Minister or even the government. OK, some of you reading this may think that last sentence is a deranged ranting, and you may be right. Indeed, I hope you are. But Sir Paul Stephenson launched a thinly veiled attack on David Cameron in his resignation statement and the Prime Minister is already on the ropes about the propriety of his relationship with Andy Coulson.

James Forsyth of the Spectator, meanwhile, notes that Stephenson has “kicked Cameron on the way out”, and that Yvette Cooper is already doing the rounds of television studios making effective use of this detail.

<snip>

Link: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100097264/sir-paul-stephenson-resigns-this-is-grave-news-for-david-cameron/

:wow:

:kick:

[murphyj87]

1. Britain has...

Britain has a Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government. If the coalition fractures, the government may fall.

[AsahinaKimi]

2. Just curious but...if that did happen...

What would that look like? What would happen?

[starroute]

3. I suppose it would be like what happened in 1979

The pattern seems to be that if the government fails a vote of no confidence, this leads to either an immediate turnover of power or a general election perhaps a month later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_vote_of_no_confidence_against_the_government_of_James_Callaghan

The 1979 vote of no confidence in the government of James Callaghan was a vote of no confidence in the British Labour Government of James Callaghan which occurred on the 28 March 1979. The vote was brought by opposition leader Margaret Thatcher and was lost by the Labour Government by one vote — 311 votes to 310 — forcing a General Election which led to the election of Margaret Thatcher. . . .

In 1977 the Labour Government and the Liberal Party contracted the Lib-Lab pact by which the Liberals agreed to support the Government in return for pre-legislative consultation. The pact lasted for a year before lapsing in July 1978; thereafter the Liberal Party declared that they supported a general election as soon as possible and would therefore support any no confidence motions. Callaghan could have called an election in September 1978 but decided against, hoping that the Labour Party would fare better in a year's time once the economy had improved. However the winter saw a prolonged period of industrial unrest known as the Winter of Discontent which severely damaged Labour's popularity. . . .

The motion moved by Margaret Thatcher MP was "That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty's Government". . . . The vote was lost by the Government by one vote. . . .

The vote of no confidence prompted Callaghan to call a General Election, stating "We shall take our case to the country." His other option was to resign and accept Mrs Thatcher would be appointed PM. The resulting General Election was won by the Conservative Party and led to 18 years of Conservative rule.

[AsahinaKimi]

5. Wow, interesting, thank you!

eom.

[BlueDemKev]

7. A no confidence vote means....

...that the parliament is immediately dissolved and a general election is held so the people can elect a new one. Like what happened in '79 and almost happened in '93 (when John Major was unable to unite his Conservative Party to support the Maastricht Treaty, which failed by a 316-324 vote. Major immediately stood up and demanded a vote of confidence in the government's handling of the Maastricht Treaty (essentially telling his party members to either vote with me on this treaty or this parliament will be dissolved). With Conservatives trailing badly in opinion polls at the time, there was no way the party members would have wanted an election right then!

[murphyj87]

9. Likely ......

Likely there would be an election, as occurs in a Parliamentary democracy anytime the government falls, whether by being defeated in a finance bill or a vote of non-confidence. In both Britain and Canada, it is common for the fall if the government to force an election. It is inherent in our system.

[postulater]

4. Many people throughout the world have been

hoping for that since about the 1500s at least.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Let's just say it would not shock me

and it is not deranged. The conservative paper going there... well then.

I actually wondered how long a couple days ago? This means there are rumors of this....

If the PM wants to "save it," he should tend his resignation. (And hope the no confidence vote does not happen, and there are no fractures that lead to a vote of no confidence)

[Spider Jerusalem]

8. I don't really see that happening

for one thing I don't especially think that Cameron has a credible successor as Tory leader just at the moment; who would take over? William Hague? Iain Duncan Smith? Both have been Tory leader before now and both led their party to a general election defeat. The most popular successor to Cameron among the Tory rank and file, at least according to recent polling, is Boris Johnson...who is mayor of London and doesn't currently have a seat in the Commons, so is ineligible.

The only way this brings down the government is if the Lib Dems decide to pull out of the coalition; that would force an election--theoretically Labour would benefit, Miliband has been rising in public perception with his handling of the hacking scandal BUT Labour's lead over the Tories is marginal and the Lib Dems are damaged goods electorally; the net result might be the return of a Tory government with a proper majority. And the Lib Dems probably won't pull out because right now they enjoy a position of SOME power (were a general election called now, the Lib Dems would lose seats), and with Cameron looking somewhat damaged from this are probably more in a position to push for a less Tory agenda.

[malaise]

10. Well we need to understand the implications of a Prime Minister

hiring the editor of a newspaper that was hacking people's phones. Coulsen resigned and the Conservative Party hired him, then once they won he was hired by the Prime Minister as his Media Adviser.

Cameron knows he's up shit creek without a paddle.

Yesterday they realised the storm is still gathering pace. It could last for years. No one knows where it will end, least of all Mr Cameron.

Cameron calls for MPs' emergency meeting
(He) wants to make statement to Commons updating them on progress setting up an inquiry into phone hacking, on Wednesday

[LeftishBrit]

11. Just to note...

that Cameron is not in fact popular with the Torygraph in general, or Damian Thompson in particular. Cameron is seen by them as too *left* wing especially on social issues; has allowed those evil left-wing LibDems into coalition with him; is too soft on Europe and immigration; and according to Damian Thompson didn't even show enough worshipfulnness toward St Ronnie:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100095134/why-david-cameron-is-no-ronald-reagan/

Also the Torygraph are not terribly pro-Murdoch, whom they obviously regard as a rival. (Though he was also a rival to the Daily Mail, and they still constantly defend him.)

It is, however, true that the scandal is embarrassing to Cameron. Not sure that it is likely to bring him down, however - at any rate in the immediate future.

[Kablooie]

12. Hmmm. If the UK government goes down and the US decides to default on it's obligations... hmmm.

[murphyj87]

14. There is no corelation at all.....

In Parliamentary democracies, governments fall all the time, and it doesn't even raise an eyebrow. The US defaulting on it's obligations is something very different and unique.

Under Canadian law, an election is held a minimum of 36 days after it is called, and the longest election campaign was 74 days (1926), the average is around 60 days. In Britain, an election must be held 17 working days after it is called. This is not a two year presidential campaign we're talking about here.

[amborin]

13. Cameron is Murdoch's marionette