[Closed] Election Campaign

I think they've calculated that being in govt probably with less seats than the tories and relying on SNP support would be a poisoned chalice. Better to let the tories form a lame-duck govt then vote it down at a time of their choosing when the political climate is kinder.

I feel I should forbear from comment - I wouldn't want to intrude on your Milligrief...

Miliband's stance makes perfect sense to me

Both parties are now desperately trying to outdo each other in how much they want to disenfranchise Scots.

Bo****ks - neither party has a problem with Scots, they have a problem with a political party that is ideologically opposed to the union and wants to ignore the democratic will of the people by forcing through their agenda by other means.

Edit - of course, without being trapped by the west Lothian question with so many of their own Mps there, Labour will now have no substantive reason to deny EVEL, so the likely first move by a minority leadership of either red or blue will be to kill SNPs influence in parliament by limiting Scottish MPs ability to vote on English issues.

Happy Labour Day. Unusual arrangement of the Red Flag by Bill Bragg. I like it.

Another separate post me 😉

They can still be in government without formal support of the SNP with less MPs than the Tories, they are daring the SNP to vote against them, difficult for SNP to do when they have said let's lock the Tories out of power. Smart electorally, whether it will survive the reality of government is another matter.

Bo****ks - neither party has a problem with Scots, they have a problem with a political party that is ideologically opposed to the union and wants to ignore the democratic will of the people by forcing through their agenda by other means.

wants to ignore the democratic will of the people by forcing through their agenda by other means.

You seem to be arguing that winning an election is undemocratic 😕

Well played Jamby with the second post 😆

Miliband saying that he is “not going to have a Labour government if it means deals or coalitions with the SNP” convinces me even more that Labour isn't fit to govern.

Labour has mostly promised if elected to govern like the Tories, the few vaguely different policies to the Tories are pitiful. Now Miliband has made it clear that these few pitiful policies are so unimportant, and have so little value, that he would rather not bother trying to implement them if this required any sort of deal with the SNP.

And Miliband obviously believes that there is no chance that Labour would sack him and replace him with someone who was prepared to do deals if this allowed Labour to implement some of these "vital" policies. He knows that the Leader's grip on power is total.

All of which couldn't spell more clearly today's Labour Party's priorities, and the number one priority is not the people.

Miliband might be telling the Scottish people that unless they play by his rules he won't be playing at all but I hope they give him the response he deserves and tell him to go and get stuffed. I'm sure they will.

If you vote for a party that is standing in less than 8% of the seats, there is a very strong likelihood they are not going to be able to form a majority government.

[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/miliband-rules-out-forming-a-government-2015031796342 ]http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/miliband-rules-out-forming-a-government-2015031796342[/url]

The trouble is, right now we have a Labour party that's unwilling to form a stable government and a Tory party that can't. That's not good for the country either way. And no obvious exit from this situation. either.

The only people who're happy about Miliband's announcement seem to be
a) People who assume he's lying.
b) Rabid SNP haters
c) Delusional Labour voters who think it'll win them back 50 seats
d) Tories.

ninfan - Member

wants to ignore the democratic will of the people by forcing through their agenda by other means.

By running in an election and getting loads of seats then working with other elected parties in the UK parliament?

Miliband saying that he is “not going to have a Labour government if it means deals or coalitions with the SNP” convinces me even more that Labour isn't fit to govern.

Indeed. When I saw him come out with that last night, I thought given the present situation, its possibly the most ridiculously shoot-yourself-in-the-foot statement I'd ever heard. The man is a buffoon!

Labour have been put in a box by a pincer from the Tories and SNP, so his only option IMO was to come out and say to possible labour voters 'if you want us you have to vote for us'. His problem is nothing he says is forceful or sincere so no one believes him. Labour deserve to lose for picking such a lame leader who is constantly outmaneuvered.

Second, the SNP are very unpopular South of the border.

Unpopular with Tory voters, maybe.

[url= http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/wider-political-news/poll-shows-sturgeon-is-now-the-most-popular-politician-across-britain.124601616 ]Poll shows Sturgeon is now the most popular politician across Britain[/url]

The poll, conducted during the middle of this month, shows that across Britain Ms Sturgeon has the highest net approval rating of +33; a record for TNS. She is followed by Ukip's Nigel Farage on +12, Conservative leader David Cameron on +7, Labour leader Ed Miliband on -8 and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg on -22.

Among men, she has the highest net rating of +32 and among women of +35. Similarly, she tops ratings across every different age group from +17 among 18 to 24-year-olds to +43 among over 65s.

In every part of Britain,the First Minister is also top of the polling from +30 in north-east England to +38 in Wales and the West Country and +33 in Greater London.

In Scotland, she is the only leader to have a positive rating; +55. Mr Miliband polled -2, Mr Cameron - 7, Mr Farage - 15 and Mr Clegg - 34.

I have a postal vote arranged. I'm in a secure Tory seat, the only possible protest would be to vote Labour. Ed would rather have Tories in power than co-operate with the SNP, who to my mind are close to True Labour. The first of the unions has broken ranks to say so.

I just shredded the postal vote. Forty years of voting, and today I think it's pointless. Will no-one stab the creep in the back: [i]Et tu, Bruv[/i]?

@ben: I wonder how many party members SNP have in England.

His problem is nothing he says is forceful or sincere so no one believes him.

Well that's nonsense. Much as I dislike Miliband he is far and away the most honest and believable of all the major party leaders imo.

He and Ed Balls have been extremely careful not to make anything more than a handful of promises, they clearly have no intention in saying things which they know they can't deliver.

I believe Miliband in pretty much everything he says, the only serious doubt I've had so far is his repeated claim that he would never come to any sort of arrangement with the SNP.

In contrast Cameron and Clegg come across as totally insincere and prepared to say anything to get reelected, Cameron's mysterious extra £8 billion which he claims he will magically find for the NHS being a good example.

Also despite my support for the SNP position on Scotland I actually think that Labour's criticism of the SNP policy is valid - you have to put your money where your rhetoric is, and the SNP hasn't.

I think Miliband/Labour have been extraordinarily honest and sincere, listen carefully to what they are saying.

Loving the outrage here ....

How dare Ed stick to his principles !

He should be more like the others and insist that the electorate vote tactically like Rupert Murdoch told them to

Bo****ks - neither party has a problem with Scots, they have a problem with a political party that is ideologically opposed to the union and wants to ignore the democratic will of the people by forcing through their agenda by other means.

Can you expand on this please? Scotland will only become independent when the majority of people of voting age who live in Scotland vote for it - how is that not democratic?

[i]Miliband saying that he is “not going to have a Labour government if it means deals or coalitions with the SNP” convinces me even more that Labour isn't fit to govern.[/i]

Did you really need convincing Ernie? Hasn't it been obvious for the past five years?

I've said it before and I'll say it again...its far from perfect but CMD has done enough in the past five years to be allowed to have another five.

Ben you shouldn't confuse NS popularity with popularity for SNP. Clegg had similar high approval ratings in 2010 and still lost seats. I'm not suggesting that SNP will lose seats, but just to show leader approval ratings doesn't necessarily link to votes.

Unpopular with Tory voters, maybe.

Thanks for that link bencooper. I tried to find a link to challenge jambalaya's astonishing claim which I knew wasn't true but gave up after a couple of attempts.

Mind you it surprised even me that the SNP's leader support should be so great in England, and more in London than the north.

It just goes to show that standing up to Tory policies get receive support throughout the UK.

Stolen from elsewhere...

[i]If the SNP do really well and hold the balance of power,
1/ one or more of the London parties will have to co operate with them
OR
2/ All the London parties will have to co operate to freeze out Scotlands democratically elected representatives.
OR
3/They can tell the queen a government can’t be formed and she will call a new election or maybe just chop their heads off for being so nasty to her people from Scotland.[/i]

... a comments on 'wingsover_'.

Freezing out the Scots voters and their elected representatives will make the call for a referendum appeal to more.

Clegg had similar high approval ratings in 2010 and still lost seats.

In 2010 LibDem support went up slightly. Since then it has plummeted as a direct result of the LibDems jumping into bed with the Tories.

Opposition to the Tories is popular, acting like a Tory-lite isn't.

The Tories haven't won a majority for over 20 years, and they won't be winning one next week. That really says a lot.

The "To get Labour, vote Labour" line won't wash with many Scots. Scotland voted predominantly Labour last time and got Tories. Many feel let down by Labour who did next to nothing in Scotland for the last five years, hence the rise of the SNP. If it's not careful, Labour may be burning it's bridges with Scots for many years to come.
If it's not working, change it.

Opposition to the Tories is popular, acting like a Tory-lite isn't.

Tony/NL seemed to do quite well out of it

Scotland voted predominantly Labour last time and got Tories

Imagine how happy they're going to be this time if as a direct result of voting SNP they get Tories 😆

If the SNP will not vote a Labour government out, Labour don't need to consult the SNP to govern as they know they won't vote again them. They are saying to the Scottish people you can't have the best of both worlds. If you want a Labour government vote for it, otherwise expect us to ignore you. Very ballsy but a logical way to play it based on how SNP have played it.

The problem the Lib Dems had is that they then had to appeal to the same swing voters in Somerset as the other main parties - it's hard to be different when you're all appealing to the same swing voters.

The SNP aren't interested in appealing to swing voters in marginal constituencies they aren't standing in.

Basically, FPTP is a rubbish system. No matter what you think of UKIP, it's unfair that twice as many people will vote UKIP than SNP, but they'll end up with maybe 1/10th the number of MPs. No-one cared that FPTP was rubbish as long as it kept returning Labour or Tory governments, but now that it'll return lots of SNP MPs everyone's bleating that it's unfair.

The solution is to grow up, realise that FPTP is rubbish and replace it with a better system, and for parties to get used to working in coalition with others instead of being so tribal.

Or the other solution is for Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems to concentrate entirely on England*, drive Scots into the Arms of the SNP, break up the UK, and then everyone will be happy. Apart from everyone who isn't. That seems to be what they're trying now.

If the SNP will not vote a Labour government out, Labour don't need to consult the SNP to govern as they know they won't vote again them.

They will if they want to get anything done. The only way a minority Labour government can be brought down by the SNP is if the SNP votes against them in a confidence motion, or if the SNP join with the Tories to call an early election*.

Otherwise, the SNP could vote against every thing that Labour want to do, without bringing down the government. I doubt they would, they'd want to negotiate on a case-by-case basis and bring in their own amendments.

However it's simply not true under the Fixed Term Parliament Act that the SNP would have to vote with Labour all the time or risk bringing down the government.

*Even then, depends on the numbers - a call for an early election requires a 2/3rds majority.

"Opposition to the Tories is popular, acting like a Tory-lite isn't".

Tony/NL seemed to do quite well out of it

Well bring back Tony then - and Labour will win another landslide, it's a certainty !

You crack me up sometimes Z-11, the way you deliberately miss the point 🙂

*Even then, depends on the numbers - a call for an early election requires a 2/3rds majority.

No it doesn't, a normal majority confidence vote will also do the same if no government can be created within 14 days.

To vote down anything Labour do, the SNP will have to vote with the Tories, that is not a good look. It is a game of chicken, Labour are taking it to the end game. I am pretty impressed and I am not supporter of Miliband.

Ernie, I bet you a tenner that if they did Labour would do better than they do next week 🙂

No matter what you think of UKIP, it's unfair that twice as many people will vote UKIP than SNP, but they'll end up with maybe 1/10th the number of MPs.

It's completely fair and as long as we have constituency based representation there is absolutely no reason why UKIP should have more than one MP if there is only one constituency which they are the largest party, or the majority of electors want them to represent them.

Proportional representation won't give them extra votes, you appear to be assuming that UKIP would win more seats on the basis of second choice. For UKIP to have twice as many votes as the SNP, which you appear to suggest would be fairer, would require them to have MPs in constituencies where people wouldn't want them.

No it doesn't, a normal majority confidence vote will also do the same if no government can be created within 14 days.

So day after the election: Cameron resigns, Miliband forms a government, the Tories put forward a confidence motion, the SNP support Labour, so the government holds. All sorted.

After that, it'd take the SNP voting against the government in a confidence motion to bring down the Labour government. All the SNP has to do to let the Labour government run the full 5 years is to support it in confidence motions, and not join with the Tories to call an early election.

For UKIP to have twice as many votes as the SNP, which you appear to suggest would be fairer, would require them to have MPs in constituencies where people wouldn't want them.

This is just illustrating the problem with the current system. Currently, we can have entire governments (not just single MPs) which most people didn't vote for.

After that, it'd take the SNP voting against the government in a confidence motion to bring down the Labour government. All the SNP has to do to let the Labour government run the full 5 years is to support it in confidence motions, and not join with the Tories to call an early election.

So Labour needn't worry about SNP voting down bills because they know they can blame it on the SNP, are the SNP really going to vote down things they agree with? The only way the SNP have power is if they are willing to vote with the Tories. The Tories have the same problem with Trident, they won't vote against it.

are the SNP really going to vote down things they agree with?

No, of course not, and this is the whole point. The SNP will be able to pick and choose, voting for things they like, not for things they don't like, offering amendments to let things through that some agreement can be reached with. They can do that safely without bringing down the government, as long as they support the government in confidence and supply votes.

Well bring back Tony then - and Labour will win another landslide, it's a certainty !

So - Milliband is no good, but Tony Blair was because he won elections for the Labour Pains.

And their policies, which took us into a pointless war and ruined the economy, were better than what Millibana offers because, why exactly?

Just asking.

No argument with the overall outcome, rules is rules after all. At least the SNP wont ignore or take for granted the people who put them there. Working towards another referendum? I bloody hope so. It's the reason they exist, ain't it.

The SNP will be able to pick and choose, voting for things they like, not for things they don't like

Assuming Labour don't vote against the amendments, which is always in their power with no downside. You have downside when you vote against them because you are voting with the Tories. Labour's ability to pick and choose is far more powerful than the SNP's.

Just asking.

I was taking the piss Woppit. 22% of people think Tony Blair should be put on trial for war crimes, despite Z-11 wanting to put a tenner on Tony Blair winning a landslide for Labour next week it's clear that Blair is toxic for Labour. I assume that Z-11 is loaded and is perfectly happy to lose a tenner.

And Miliband obviously believes that there is no chance that Labour would sack him and replace him with someone who was prepared to do deals if this allowed Labour to implement some of these "vital" policies. He knows that the Leader's grip on power is total.

If I'm right in that labour prefer not to try to form a minority govt with SNP support with an eye on the long game, then this is the main remaining question. Unless he's completely selfless and is putting the party before his own ambitions (which would probably be a first), he must be pretty confident of still remaining leader after the election even if he loses. I can see the sense in this, labour can sit back, continue in opposition and watch the tories tear themselves apart in the aftermath of another failure to win.

[i]The only way the SNP have power is if they are willing to vote with the Tories.[/i]

Or they offer to pull a sickie on the day: it's called abstaining. Equally the SNP could call for a vote critical of the Tories. Which way do Labour vote?

Ernie, I think that the fact that labour was re-elected with Blair as leader despite Iraq proves you are wrong

You said Tory lite was not popular

Tony's 'Tory lite' approach was not just popular, it was stinkingly and overwhelmingly landslide election winning popular

It was only when new labour went on the retreat and good-old-bad-old-old labour came out again that it all went wrong for them

If 'opposition to the Tories' really was popular, then Labour should be romping home now, it isn't enough on its own now, nor was it in 79, 83, 87, 92 or 2010 - the lesson is that Labour only actually win when they commit 100% to Tory-lite, as new labour did.

Equally the SNP could call for a vote critical of the Tories

How? They don't run government business and don't have opposition day.

To vote down anything Labour do, the SNP will have to vote with the Tories, that is not a good look

Not necessarily as currently polling is indicating that the Tories may have more seats than Labour - which might mean that all the SNP have to do is abstain (depending on how the minor parties then vote).

Ernie, I think that the fact that labour was re-elected with Blair as leader despite Iraq proves you are wrong

I think it proves just how unpopular the Tories were.

Where traditional Labour voters feel there is a credible alternative to Tory-lite Labour, such as in Scotland, then they desert Tory-lite Labour.

The extent of the SNPs landslide victory in Scotland will have nothing to do with independence, it will be directly linked to anti-Tory and anti-Tory-lite widespread popular sentiment.

The Tories haven't won a majority for over 20 years, they won't win one next week. Tory policies are not very popular.

Not necessarily as currently polling is indicating that the Tories may have more seats than Labour - which might mean that all the SNP have to do is abstain (depending on how the minor parties then vote).

Then Labour give the LibDems a concession and get their votes, should be sufficient, if it isn't Labour won't be in government.

Look at it strategically, if Labour are going to recover in Scotland they have to defeat "Vote SNP and get the best of both worlds". How do they do that? By making the SNP irrelevant in Westminster by not pandering to them.

mefty - Private Member's (giggles) Bill? If fifty of them call for the same thing, what will the Speaker do? Especially if it's still Mr B.

So which Party Leader has impressed you the most?

For me its been Ruth Davidson and Leanne Woods (Scots Tory & Plaid Cymru). Not that I agree with Ms Davidsons policies but she comes across as sane, personable and someone I could sit down with. The tories could do a lot worse than elect her national party leader - not that it will happen of course.

It's quite amusing to think that come next Friday there might be the interesting scenario of the tories not being able to form a government, and the labour party not wanting to. So what happens then?

mefty - Private Member's (giggles) Bill? If fifty of them call for the same thing, what will the Speaker do? Especially if it's still Mr B.

They have to win the ballot and it can be talked out and to be frank to what purpose, we know they are not big fans of the Tories.

Scots Tories; it's a shame that Murdo Fraser didn't get the job of leader. I think his heart was in the right place when he identified that they really needed to make a fundamental change and break away from Westminster control ( he was even considering a name change). Ruth Davidson is still in react mode. What happened to her famous "line in the sand" over devolution?

I'm hoping we end up like Belgium did a few years back, where there was electoral stalemate, and nobody can form a government. That'd be lovely.

It's quite amusing to think that come next Friday there might be the interesting scenario of the tories not being able to form a government, and the labour party not wanting to. So what happens then?

It seems to me that the power vacuum would provide the perfect opportunity for armed insurrection.

[img] [/img]

t's quite amusing to think that come next Friday there might be the interesting scenario of the tories not being able to form a government, and the labour party not wanting to. So what happens then?

That'd be lovely.

The thought of senior civil servants having free reign to line the pockets of themselves and their mates doesn't fill me with much confidence. Not that politicians stop that from happening anyway, but it would be even more open season in the brown-envelope-have-a-non-exec-directorship stakes.

Wouldn't the queen just takeover? Imagine that!

Ed would rather have Tories in power than co-operate with the SNP, who to my mind are close to True Labour. The first of the unions has broken ranks to say so.

The SNP are free to increase taxes in Scotland, let's see whether they introduce a 50p tax band. Let's see how successful or not their stamp duty changes are. They are free to rebalance their budget to increase spending on the NHS and welfare too.

The SNP are free to increase taxes in Scotland

Unless there was a change in the law while I was asleep I don't think they are.

@ernie - yes they have control over personal taxation they just can't change the personal allowance (from recollection). They have had these powers for a while (since 1998 I just read) plus they will have more powers as a result of the "vow"

I believe that Dave gets to remain in charge until a new government can be formed.

Not to introduce a 50p tax band. It's beyond the powers of the variable rate.

@ernie under the "vow" they can is my understanding and right now they could make the top rate 48 (45+3) which plus the 2p NI makes 50 vs current 47 (45+2)

They won't do this not change the basic rates as jobs will move South of the border or companies will change the way they pay people. Which is a microcosm of what happens if the wider UK rates are changed.

Variation of income tax

The Scottish Parliament will have more powers to vary rates of income tax. Currently Scotland has power over 3%. The Scotland Act extends this to 10%.

No Scottish government has varied the income tax rate. The Parliament can only increase all the rates simultaneously or reduce all the rates simultaneously. This provides very little flexibility since the number of rates, the banding of them, and eligibility remain wholly UK responsibilities. Scotland also has no control over the tax thresholds.

For instance: the basic rate of income tax is 20%. The higher rate is 40%. The additional rate is 45%.

When the Scotland Act comes into effect in 2016, a Holyrood Government could choose to reduce the rates to 10%, 30% and 35%, or they could increase them to 30%, 50% and 55%. All three rates would have to move in tandem.

The Personal Allowance defines how much income you can earn before paying income tax. The tax threshold is £9,440 for 2013-14. This will still be controlled by Westminster.

Labour's Debate Me! Debate Me! One to One! Hell Yes! is going to be the next PM after being pushed to become a hypocrite by party members because they all want to be in power.

The red army will march in and you lot will now truly be probed in uranus.

Then I shall have my "I told you so ..." but as usual the die hard red army will insist on being right and keep marching the nation to their doom.

The Union will be split under the Labour and with their usual hypocritical stance they insist that the world has changed and they are merely part of the change.

Then we have centuries of Labour in power, red army playing their tricks, and we all die after that.

There will erect a Neil Kinnock statue in place of Winston Churchill and Debate Me! will insist on having a statue of himself in all counties.

The End.

😆

You really are very tiresome.

Lifer - Member

You really are very tiresome.

You have agreed then?

Does that mean that I am right that Ed Milliband and Labour will be in power?

😆

You really are very tiresome.

.

D Tel now says that Ed will work with the SNP.

What will tomorrow bring?

slowoldgit - Member

What will tomorrow bring?

Saturday.

slowoldgit - Member

D Tel now says that Ed will work with the SNP.

Oooohh ... See! See! 😯

What will tomorrow bring?

The beginning of the countdown clock to the impending red army march.

😯

At 33/1 on paddy power for a labour/Tory coalition im starting to wonder if its worth putting a tenner on it.....

[i]At 33/1 on paddy power for a labour/Tory coalition im starting to wonder if its worth putting a tenner on it.....[/i]

Do they also give odds on Hell freezing over?

At 33/1 on paddy power for a labour/Tory coalition im starting to wonder if its worth putting a tenner on it....

Two words: Ed Balls.

Pigs will fly before he will ever get into bed with the tories.

Could you imagine how quickly Scotland would claim independence if that were to happen.

Do they also give odds on Hell freezing over?

The Union will be split under the Labour and with their usual hypocritical stance they insist that the world has changed and they are merely part of the change.

Because no other political party is ever hypocritical. Ever.

It'd be like denouncing Europe, denouncing European workers and then marrying and employing a German. It would just be daft. 😛

dazh - Member

At 33/1 on paddy power for a labour/Tory coalition im starting to wonder if its worth putting a tenner on it....

Two words: Ed Balls.

Pigs will fly before he will ever get into bed with the tories.

He will do anything in exchange for power and a taste of the sweet smell of top govt position. He is will definitely conjure something for that.

Pimpmaster Jazz - Member
Because no other political party is ever hypocritical. Ever.

At this moment the fishy smell comes from the red army ...

It'd be like denouncing Europe, denouncing European workers and then marrying and employing a German. It would just be daft.

What is it with the red that always wanted to emulate the centralised Politburo administration with open free for all mega state?

He married a German so what? Is marrying someone an issue now?

He will do anything in exchange for power and a taste of the sweet smell of top govt position.

Well considering that it's well reported that he was the person who torpedoed talks between labour and the libdems last time round the facts would suggest otherwise.