- Print Topic - Archive

I know there's an election predictions thread but this is slightly different.

The Ed Miller Band has come out and said he won't have a coalition with the SNP and the Tories are claiming a Labour government will still be propped up by Scots Nats anyway*. Am I the only one to be thinking that the Tories could just as easily be relying on SNP votes to get in power as Labour. As well as the prospect of them having to rely on UKIP!

So to support a Cameron government we could end up exiting both the EU and our 300+ year union with Scotland. Or is Cameron immune from doing deals with minority parties?

* I think this was a very smart move by the Geek - apart from refuting Tory Boy's claims - it sends a powerful message to Scots: Vote Sturgeon get Cameron.

I don't think there is any way in the world that the SNP (one of the properly left-wing parties remaining in the UK) would ever, ever, EVER go into government with the Tories.

The only possible way I could imagine something being agreed between the two parties is if the SNP were somehow promised another referendum quick sharp but I think this would mark the death knell of that particular Conservative government.

I agree that Ed said the right thing in his statement but I think Cameron will get away with his bluster as usual with the media reporting so far stacked in his benefit that they will fail to push the obvious question about which parties (UKIP) the Tories would enter into coalition with.

All being well, UKIP will only win a handful of seats in any case so they won't have any relevance in parliament.

I can not see any major party going into partnership with SNP who want to break up the union.

If no overall majority can be made with other parties,

Whoever has the most seats will try and go alone,

Then have another election soon unless the rules has changed,

Is it a fixed 5 year parliament now ?

It wouldn't have to be a formal coalition. It would be a confidence and supply arrangement:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/16/politics-what-is-confidence-and-supply

I think that previous governments have operated with such agreements in the past though I'm not too sure how long they lasted!

The 5 year parliament is fixed in law but a vote of no confidence which passes in the house or a two-thirds vote in agreement is still enough to bring about a general election before the 5 years are up.

Personally, I'd expect to see the largest party form a minority government, backed up by confidence and supply but I would also then be surprised to see it last the full 5 year term.

God help us if the Tories get back in. The country will be left a shell if they are given another 5 years to continue to hack away at goverment and sell stuff off.

I think we are finally seeing that Ed is a better politician than Cameron and the points that Maringer was highlighting in the other political debate are being proven.

Even though it is early doors, Cameron is becoming his own worst enemy and has been found wanting on several key issues.

I don't get the Ed Miller Band strategy. They have plenty to attack the Tories on but have seemingly been a bit reluctant. Perhaps they have been biding their time and have some spicy photos of Cameron in a gimp suit.

I think if dodgy Dave gets another 5 years to wreak havoc, then it will be time to start looking at property abroad. :-/

The most amazing thing about yesterday's budget for me is that the plans state another 4 years of swingeing cuts followed by a sudden rollercoaster bump of spending of £28.5 billion in the final year of the parliament. This is just absolutely nuts - it is clear that this is just a gimmick so Labour can't claim (using certain statistics) that he plans government spending cuts to the level of the 1930s. If the Tories get into power, the chances of seeing this sudden surge in spending actually occurring in 4 years time are pretty much negligible, I'd have thought. In the interim, they are going to be cutting billions from welfare (but not from the pensioners, of course) which will cause untold misery. Number of children in poverty set to increase by another 700,000 over the next parliament according to the IFS. In the 6th wealthiest country in the world. And they've still not given any indication exactly where these Welfare cuts will be made in any case.

The front-loading of austerity measures we've already seen have undoubtedly cost us a huge amount of growth (there are estimates between 5 and 10% in total) over the past parliament and I wonder how much these proposed cuts would blunt the recovery we are seeing, such as it is.

Quoted from KingstonMariner

* I think this was a very smart move by the Geek - apart from refuting Tory Boy's claims - it sends a powerful message to Scots: Vote Sturgeon get Cameron.

Not at all. I actually think it's a shame and possibly a real error to rule out a coalition with the SNP. As someone above said, the SNP are one of the only left-wing parties left, alongside the Greens and Plaid Cymru, but with much more seats than the latter two. For me the ideal outcome would be a Labour/SNP/Green/Plaid Cymru coalition: a Labour government that would be forced to shed some of it's hideous New Labour Tory-esque (or worse in some cases) policies on foreign wars, Trident renewal, civil liberties infringements, one-up-manship on supporting austerity... I don't think a coalition would necessarily have any implications for Scottish independence: they will have another vote at some point, but not in the next government, so soon after a loss.

In fact, it could even push for the regional devolution we were promised: if Scotland of just under 5 million people have self-determination, why can't the NUTS group of Yorkshire and Humber, which is over 6 million strong, or the North-West, which is 7 million strong? I'm sure none of us are too happy with the inequitable focus, both politically and financially, on the South East ([url=http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/aug/07/london-gets-24-times-as-much-infrastructure-north-east-england]for example London gets 24 times as much spent on infrastructure than the North East, yet we pay into the same tax pot[/url])

I honestly don't know why we think a coalition is intrinsically a bad thing: it happens across Europe, as a result of more proportionate voting systems... and yes, sometimes two ideologically different parties have to work together, so I don't know why there is this forced attack on a potential coalition between Labour and SNP... IMO Labour should have said "if the electorate votes for no majority, for the benefit or running a stable government, we will be willing to work with other, similar parties the electorate has chosen, whilst maintaining our core principles as a party".

I'm not against coalitions MarinerWY. Especially when they involve left wing parties. The point I was trying to make was that Milliband was being smart by unequivocally ruling out an SNP-Labour coalition. He was telling disaffected voters in Scotland that if they vote SNP they won't be helping the cause at all. Fewer seats for Labour in Scotland would mean a better outlook for the Tories in Westminster. By not countenancing a formal coalition with the SNP Milliband was saying Scots couldn't have their cake and eat it - SNP MPs sitting in a left wing government.

To me the SNP, although they have socialist policies, would actually threaten the socialist cause in Britain. If they got their way they'd be off on their own leaving England to the tender mercies of Gideon and chums.

Quoted from Maringer

I don't think there is any way in the world that the SNP (one of the properly left-wing parties remaining in the UK) would ever, ever, EVER go into government with the Tories.

The only possible way I could imagine something being agreed between the two parties is if the SNP were somehow promised another referendum quick sharp but I think this would mark the death knell of that particular Conservative government.

I agree that Ed said the right thing in his statement but I think Cameron will get away with his bluster as usual with the media reporting so far stacked in his benefit that they will fail to push the obvious question about which parties (UKIP) the Tories would enter into coalition with.

All being well, UKIP will only win a handful of seats in any case so they won't have any relevance in parliament.

I think the temptation would be too great for both parties (Cons and SNP) not to come to some understanding if the electoral arithmetic meant that the SNP could swing a vote of no confidence in a Tory government. The Nats would sell England (and Wales) down the river if it meant getting more of what they want. The Tories are always selling England down the river anyway so it won't be any skin off their noses too.

Socialists? Maybe. Nationalists. Definitely. Does that make them National Socialists ;)

Quoted from Maringer

The most amazing thing about yesterday's budget for me is that the plans state another 4 years of swingeing cuts followed by a sudden rollercoaster bump of spending of £28.5 billion in the final year of the parliament. This is just absolutely nuts - it is clear that this is just a gimmick so Labour can't claim (using certain statistics) that he plans government spending cuts to the level of the 1930s. If the Tories get into power, the chances of seeing this sudden surge in spending actually occurring in 4 years time are pretty much negligible, I'd have thought. In the interim, they are going to be cutting billions from welfare (but not from the pensioners, of course) which will cause untold misery. Number of children in poverty set to increase by another 700,000 over the next parliament according to the IFS. In the 6th wealthiest country in the world. And they've still not given any indication exactly where these Welfare cuts will be made in any case.

The front-loading of austerity measures we've already seen have undoubtedly cost us a huge amount of growth (there are estimates between 5 and 10% in total) over the past parliament and I wonder how much these proposed cuts would blunt the recovery we are seeing, such as it is.

More doled out to pensioners. And they blether on about not mortgaging our grandchildren's future!

More public spending to further inflate the housing market as well in addition to the other help to buy nonsense.

Care to guess what wealthy pensioners are going to spend much of their money on when they are able to cash out their pensions shortly? Hmmm. Let's see, what's considered the best investment around in our current society - property, perhaps?

I reckon that the broken housing market is going to become even more broken before too long as prices are further ramped up because pensioners are trying to become landlords under the theory they will get a better return than with their pension.

Osborne certainly hasn't got the balls to do something serious to sort out the housing market in this country (and his every policy seems targeted at making things worse). Wasted a huge chance to kick-start the economy over the last parliament with serious investment in a house-building programme because it would leave many of his voters in the south worse off due to a balancing in the market.

The question is, would Balls have the balls to do something about it should they get into government?

Something has got to give in the housing market and whether it will be a collapse in due course (as seems probable) or a gradual correction could decide whether or not we're going to suffer another serious recession over the next decade or so.

Miliband hasn't been clever with his statement about bot forging coalitions, he's been plain stupid.

Regardless of the politics involved he's been seen to let Cameron tell him what to do, and he's done it. The ordinary voter in Scotland will also see this, and coming on the back of the Better Together campaign when Labour got into bed with the Tories up here, he's probably put the last nail in the Labour coffin up here by his actions.

Would a vote for the SNP mean a Tory government? Of course not, it's ridiculous for the Labour Party to make out that it is so. The scare tactics used by Better Together last year are now being dusted down again, but with the "Vow" conveniently forgotten, folk who voted to retain the Union are now themselves pretty much p1ssed off with both major parties, and the consensus is that the 45% who voted for independence are probably now at 55%. That's the strength of feeling up here at the moment, and it's why Labour are facing serious losses - but it doesn't mean an automatic Tory government. If Labour were to win all 59 seats in Scotland they'd probably be the largest party, and maybe able to form government. There's only one Tory up here though, and the SNP votes won't let any others in, so the maths are as follows:- Labour without SNP and all 59 seats in Scotland - Tories not able to make government, and Labour and SNP with large amount of seats in Scotland would mean exactly the same - Tories not able to make government.

Why are the scare tactics being so rigorously enforced by both Tories and Labour towards the SNP? Because of contempt. They don't want Scots, but they want Scotland.

The SNP are quite clearly showing that progressive Social Democracy is an attractive option, and Salmond's remark that they would vote down any Tory minority government must surely resonate with English Labour voters? It shows the SNP have a bit of gumption about them and they're not afraid to take the Tories on. Compare that with Miliband, and his platitudes and it's perhaps easy to understand exactly why the SNP are riding high at the moment.

PS I'm not a Nationalist!

Miliband really had little choice but to publicly state that Labour wouldn't go into coalition with the SNP.

Failing to do so would leave him looking weak to the English electorate (where the majority of seats are to be won) and he had to do all he could to hold on to as many votes in Scotland as possible. If any voters are wavering between Labour and the SNP, the thought that more SNP MPs would lead to a Labour government in any case would undoubtedly cost Labour votes and possibly seats north of the border.

I think the path chosen was probably the one with fewest downsides though obviously it won't read well for everyone.

As for politics in general today, it's pleasing to see that the Tory attempt to sneakily change parliamentary rules get rid of Bercow as speaker has failed, thanks in part to a number of Conservative MPs who actually have a bit of backbone. When you've got devious little shits like Gove and his compatriots trying to railroad a motion through parliament in this manner, it is particularly satisfying to see them fail.

I find it particularly amusing that by promoting this motion, Hague has completely destroyed his reputation as his last act in parliament. I tend to doubt he'll worry about this too much when he's raking in (more) millions in the future from cushy directorships here and there, but this grubby act does somewhat put an end to this 'elder statesman' guff they have been attempting to promote about him.

Quoted from Maringer

Miliband really had little choice but to publicly state that Labour wouldn't go into coalition with the SNP.

Failing to do so would leave him looking weak to the English electorate (where the majority of seats are to be won) and he had to do all he could to hold on to as many votes in Scotland as possible. If any voters are wavering between Labour and the SNP, the thought that more SNP MPs would lead to a Labour government in any case would undoubtedly cost Labour votes and possibly seats north of the border.

I think the path chosen was probably the one with fewest downsides though obviously it won't read well for everyone.

As for politics in general today, it's pleasing to see that the Tory attempt to sneakily change parliamentary rules get rid of Bercow as speaker has failed, thanks in part to a number of Conservative MPs who actually have a bit of backbone. When you've got devious little shits like Gove and his compatriots trying to railroad a motion through parliament in this manner, it is particularly satisfying to see them fail.

I find it particularly amusing that by promoting this motion, Hague has completely destroyed his reputation as his last act in parliament. I tend to doubt he'll worry about this too much when he's raking in (more) millions in the future from cushy directorships here and there, but this grubby act does somewhat put an end to this 'elder statesman' guff they have been attempting to promote about him.

I disagree. All he had to do was to tell Cameron that the Tories don't dictate to him and the Party about anything. He could point out as well, of course, that the Tories track record of coalition has hardly been a roaring success and they should be the last people to offer such advice.

The reality is, it's backfired massively up here, make no doubt about it. I have never thought the SNP will run away with the election as the polls tend to show, but a significant rump of 30 to 35 SNP MP's has the potential to use their leverage on Labour to make them find a pair of the proverbial balls that they could so do with.

I think the polls have been indicating a SNP sweep of many of the seats for some months now? Whether or not any voters will be drifting back towards Labour or not, I don't know. I understand that much of the problem is that the Scottish Labour party has been shambolic in recent years and their new leader is no more popular than the outgoing bunch. Added to that the ill-feeling following the independence referendum last year and I really don't think Labour were likely to be too strong in the election.

I don't think you may be underestimating the power of the right-wing media in England with about 85% of the newspaper readership being fed Conservative propaganda every day. When you add to this the clearly right-leaning Sky News, ITV following whatever the papers say and the supposedly left-wing BBC being operated by a bunch of Tories at present (no chance of fair or impartial coverage from the likes of Nick Robinson), I think we'd never have heard the end of it if Miliband had refused to make a statement about a potential coalition with the SNP.

Like these wee debates.

Full concur about the right wing press in England, and Labour can really have no argument about how they're being portrayed - we said that this was bound to happen come the General Election - after they used the press in Scotland to do exactly the same thing during the Referendum campaign. Let's not forget that Tony Blair is godfather to Rupert Murdochs child, and that Gordon Brown had Rebekka Brooks at the christening of his child. You get into bed with the devil and you reap the results. They also wooed the Daily Mail during their last term of office and many policies were floated within it's pages before they ever got anywhere near conference.

The ascent of the social media will eventually do away with the press, and it's mainly the older generation who read the press nowadays, and I think folk like myself who subscribe to the Guardian aren't going to change their minds, ditto Telegraph, Mail and Express readers. Future elections will be won and lost online once political parties of all persuasions fully understand how to use it.

Ask yourself this question though, just where is Labour going wrong? Against the most obnoxious right wing ideological government we've ever had in this country they're trailing the Tories. You can see the effect wider spread social democratic politics is having in Scotland, and why Labour see fit to attack those who are carrying out the kind of policies Labour should themselves be doing. Then look at the Greens, and they will also take votes off Labour for exactly the same reason. UKIP will also take votes because Labour has completely forgotten how to relate to the working class vote - they dare not even mutter the term working class nowadays, preferring instead to mealy mouthed platitudes like "hard working families" and the "squeezed middle" Until the time comes when Labour does grow a pair of balls and addresses these issues then they will continue their inexorable slide into the gutter of neo con politics trying to be Tory lite.

Just bringing the debate a little closer to home,

Living in Suffolk , I am not up to date with how things are going in Grimsby,

Will UKIP snatch it from Labour, ?

I see Nigel ( I like a pint ) is visiting Grimsby to help his candidate.

Plus if Ukip do win, what will that mean to the Grimsby folk.?

Quoted from jock dock tower

Like these wee debates.

Full concur about the right wing press in England, and Labour can really have no argument about how they're being portrayed - we said that this was bound to happen come the General Election - after they used the press in Scotland to do exactly the same thing during the Referendum campaign. Let's not forget that Tony Blair is godfather to Rupert Murdochs child, and that Gordon Brown had Rebekka Brooks at the christening of his child. You get into bed with the devil and you reap the results. They also wooed the Daily Mail during their last term of office and many policies were floated within it's pages before they ever got anywhere near conference.

The ascent of the social media will eventually do away with the press, and it's mainly the older generation who read the press nowadays, and I think folk like myself who subscribe to the Guardian aren't going to change their minds, ditto Telegraph, Mail and Express readers. Future elections will be won and lost online once political parties of all persuasions fully understand how to use it.

Ask yourself this question though, just where is Labour going wrong? Against the most obnoxious right wing ideological government we've ever had in this country they're trailing the Tories. You can see the effect wider spread social democratic politics is having in Scotland, and why Labour see fit to attack those who are carrying out the kind of policies Labour should themselves be doing. Then look at the Greens, and they will also take votes off Labour for exactly the same reason. UKIP will also take votes because Labour has completely forgotten how to relate to the working class vote - they dare not even mutter the term working class nowadays, preferring instead to mealy mouthed platitudes like "hard working families" and the "squeezed middle" Until the time comes when Labour does grow a pair of balls and addresses these issues then they will continue their inexorable slide into the gutter of neo con politics trying to be Tory lite.

I genuinely think it is because of the party leader. Like it or not most people see him as a joke due to his awkwardness and funny voice. I must admit I don't think he is credible on the world stage to represent us. Appearance etc is hugely important.

Agree with PSG. The toughness question from Paxman was the killer for me last night. I'm not convinced.

Just about to head off down to London for the weekend so won't be responding on the messageboard much for a few days.

I agree with Jock on many points and think that it will be some time until Labour can drag itself away from the New Labour legacy. I think Ed Miliband is more to the left than David was and, if nothing else, EM at least kept us out of Syria whereas his brother would have almost certainly voted in favour of action.

For me, the biggest issue is that the two Eds have allowed the Tories (and the massed ranks of their mates in the media) to pass off the recession as somehow the fault of the previous Labour government. In actuality, nobody saw the financial crisis coming (all sides were equally culpable), and judging by the comments from Osborne & Co at the time, the response of a Conservative government would have made things much, much worse than they actually became.

Osborne is surely the most dishonest and political chancellor there has ever been yet his incompetence has somehow been ignored and he's thought of as a capable chancellor. Bizarre.

Not sure about UKIP in Grimsby. Melanie Onn seems like a very good Labour candidate but a lot of people have inexplicable faith in Farage and Co. They look like a bunch of incompetent jokers to me, but others seem to see something different.