Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » When computing most seats remember that every LAB gain from

SystemSystem Posts: 12,215
edited March 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » When computing most seats remember that every LAB gain from CON is worth double every LAB loss to the SNP

So if LAB lost all 41 of its Scottish seats it would need a further 21 gains from CON to offset them in the race to see which party has most MPs. Quite simply a LAB gain from CON increase the red total by and decreases the blue one. A loss to the SNP simply reduces the LAB overall number.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • currystarcurrystar Posts: 1,171
    First?
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    currystar said:

    First?

    That too is a question of simple mathematics.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Of course the prospect of the "Scary SNP" dictating to Ed will have no impact South of the border.......
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382

    Of course the prospect of the "Scary SNP" dictating to Ed will have no impact South of the border.......

    Probably not.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @daily_politics: 'Miliband has lost the plot entirely' claims @StewartHosieMP in #bbcdp interview over possible post #GE2015 deals http://t.co/LXGIZECT0Q
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    Of course the prospect of the "Scary SNP" dictating to Ed will have no impact South of the border.......

    It depends how it is spun. It might be hard for CCHQ to claim Labour would be more influenced by the SNP, than the Conservatives were by a party they were actually in coalition with for five years. The Tories would also want to avoid giving too many hostages to fortune in case they need a confidence and supply agreement after May.

    Perhaps a twitter campaign for plausible deniability.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,680
    Latest Scottish poll with SNP down to 43% from 47% on my model gives Labour one seat instead of none - namely Glasgow NE. LibDems retain two (Ross and Orkney)

    Lab 282, Con 261 LibDem 28
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited March 2015
    Except its more complicated than that where the notion of English Laws are concerned.

    We're facing a potential constitutional nightmare scenario whereby England elects a plurality/majority of Tory seats, the UK as a whole elects a plurality of Tory seats but the government could be Labour+SNP.

    Whereas Labour's rejection of English Votes for English Laws when devolution was enacted meant a Labour majority could over-rule an English opposition majority (as has happened once in the introduction of University Top Up Fees), its much more complex if the SNP are in power. If the SNP abstain over English-only laws, the Tories could have control of the Parliament for English issues - who rules the country then?

    We could be in for an almighty constitutional reckoning.
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,759
    Scott_P said:

    @daily_politics: 'Miliband has lost the plot entirely' claims @StewartHosieMP in #bbcdp interview over possible post #GE2015 deals http://t.co/LXGIZECT0Q

    Brilliant!

    It can only help Miliband in England to have the nationalists attack him.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    Of course the prospect of the "Scary SNP" dictating to Ed will have no impact South of the border.......

    Probably not.

    And from which Opinion polls do you draw that conclusion.......?
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Afternoon all.

    Would the potential loss of 41 Labour seats to SNP have a marked effect on Labour’s campaign strategy, effectively tying up both vital capital and man power north of the border where in the past, they could take large numbers of returning MPs for granted?

    It strikes me that Ed’s problem is that he is now fighting a battle on two fronts and Ed is no Wellington.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,779

    If the SNP abstain over English-only laws, the Tories could have control of the Parliament for English issues - who rules the country then?

    We could be in for an almighty constitutional reckoning.

    The SNP have said they aren't going to abstain over English only laws.
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,759
    And with polls showing a swing to 5% from Con to Lab since 2010,it is likely to be larger in England Wales since in Scotland the swing is to the Conservatives.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042
    Barnesian said:

    Latest Scottish poll with SNP down to 43% from 47% on my model gives Labour one seat instead of none - namely Glasgow NE. LibDems retain two (Ross and Orkney)

    Lab 282, Con 261 LibDem 28

    I don't know the details of your model, but it does strike me as odd that it has the Lib Dems with 2 MPs off of ~5% whilst Labour have fewer on ~25%. I know the Lib Dems have great incumbency, but there must be at least a couple of Labour MPs who are popular too? And with 4 to 5 times the national vote share to play with...

    I will admit I don't have a detailed Scottish model myself, but my finger in the air doesn't like the idea of LD > Lab.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834
    SMukesh said:

    MaxPB said:

    SMukesh said:

    SMukesh said:

    Roger said:

    Just flicked through this thread.....

    It's just wall to wall eulogising of of Nicola and Alex...... It's like trudging through a swamp of genuflecting midges. It's embarrassing

    Hasn`t Miliband just cut Samlond to size as `just bluster and bluff` who `is just trying to plug his book`.
    No one beleives what Milliband says, or that he'll be strong enough post election.
    You probably don`t understand but I bet Salmond does.

    It means Salmond will just be a bit-player after the election.

    He can vote down the Labour minority government and forever be hated by the Scots.

    Or he can shut his mouth and vote for a Labour minority budget.
    Hated by Scots for voting down English Labour's budget? Proving yourself to be as clueless as ever.
    And possibly put the hated Tories back in power.I know you aren't an idiot because I have met you,so can you stop sounding like one.
    Voting down a budget does not necessarily mean voting out a government; it can simply require the government to come up with a new budget. Of course, if Labour chooses to resign then that's a different matter but that would then be their choice.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411

    If the SNP abstain over English-only laws, the Tories could have control of the Parliament for English issues - who rules the country then?

    We could be in for an almighty constitutional reckoning.

    The SNP have said they aren't going to abstain over English only laws.
    Can you point me to that ?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,195
    If Nicola has turned the Tartan Tories into the Tartan Trots, does having the Blairite Murphy leading SLAB turn them into the Tartan Tonys?

    Anyway, if the SNP surge results in more losses from the LibDems to the "Progressive Alliance" of Lab, SNP, PC and Green this damages the coalition's prospects of maitaining a majority. I call that a good thing.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    If the SNP abstain over English-only laws, the Tories could have control of the Parliament for English issues - who rules the country then?

    We could be in for an almighty constitutional reckoning.

    The SNP have said they aren't going to abstain over English only laws.

    Indeed why would they abstain?

    It would be in their interest to provoke a constitutional crisis, as independence then comes back on the agenda.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    Quincel said:

    Barnesian said:

    Latest Scottish poll with SNP down to 43% from 47% on my model gives Labour one seat instead of none - namely Glasgow NE. LibDems retain two (Ross and Orkney)

    Lab 282, Con 261 LibDem 28

    I don't know the details of your model, but it does strike me as odd that it has the Lib Dems with 2 MPs off of ~5% whilst Labour have fewer on ~25%. I know the Lib Dems have great incumbency, but there must be at least a couple of Labour MPs who are popular too? And with 4 to 5 times the national vote share to play with...

    I will admit I don't have a detailed Scottish model myself, but my finger in the air doesn't like the idea of LD > Lab.
    Well it helps vote efficiency when you get down to on man and his dog in Motherwell rather than racking up useless 35%s in alot of seats.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    The SNP won't be able to vote down anything. At most there will be 50 odd of them among a parliament of 650.
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,759

    SMukesh said:

    MaxPB said:

    SMukesh said:

    SMukesh said:

    Roger said:

    Just flicked through this thread.....

    It's just wall to wall eulogising of of Nicola and Alex...... It's like trudging through a swamp of genuflecting midges. It's embarrassing

    Hasn`t Miliband just cut Samlond to size as `just bluster and bluff` who `is just trying to plug his book`.
    No one beleives what Milliband says, or that he'll be strong enough post election.
    You probably don`t understand but I bet Salmond does.

    It means Salmond will just be a bit-player after the election.

    He can vote down the Labour minority government and forever be hated by the Scots.

    Or he can shut his mouth and vote for a Labour minority budget.
    Hated by Scots for voting down English Labour's budget? Proving yourself to be as clueless as ever.
    And possibly put the hated Tories back in power.I know you aren't an idiot because I have met you,so can you stop sounding like one.
    Voting down a budget does not necessarily mean voting out a government; it can simply require the government to come up with a new budget. Of course, if Labour chooses to resign then that's a different matter but that would then be their choice.
    Is there a precedent of a government losing a budget vote and carrying on?
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Pulpstar said:

    If the SNP abstain over English-only laws, the Tories could have control of the Parliament for English issues - who rules the country then?

    We could be in for an almighty constitutional reckoning.

    The SNP have said they aren't going to abstain over English only laws.
    Can you point me to that ?
    Scottish MPs will vote on English issues, insists first minister Nicola Sturgeon

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/08/scottish-mps-vote-english-laws-nicola-sturgeon
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,568
    Are we expecting an Ashcroft national poll to entertain us today?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,963
    edited March 2015
    After Simon Danczuk's contribution today I'm less worried about Lab to Con seat losses

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03/exclusive-labour-mp-says-public-think-ed-miliband-aloof-and-more-toff-cameron
  • Oh and this

    @JasonGroves1: Labour says it will take no action against MP Simon Danczuk for calling Miliband a 'f***ing knob', after he makes a partial retraction
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    Are we expecting an Ashcroft national poll to entertain us today?

    Yes according to the Guardian live blog
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411

    Pulpstar said:

    If the SNP abstain over English-only laws, the Tories could have control of the Parliament for English issues - who rules the country then?

    We could be in for an almighty constitutional reckoning.

    The SNP have said they aren't going to abstain over English only laws.
    Can you point me to that ?
    Scottish MPs will vote on English issues, insists first minister Nicola Sturgeon

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/08/scottish-mps-vote-english-laws-nicola-sturgeon
    "When it affects Scotland's interests" ;)

  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834

    Afternoon all.

    Would the potential loss of 41 Labour seats to SNP have a marked effect on Labour’s campaign strategy, effectively tying up both vital capital and man power north of the border where in the past, they could take large numbers of returning MPs for granted?

    It strikes me that Ed’s problem is that he is now fighting a battle on two fronts and Ed is no Wellington.

    It won't tie up any manpower. Scottish activists would stay in Scotland either way. It may divert some money if SLab have a massive fight on their hands rather than last time's 'no change all round'.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664

    Oh and this

    @JasonGroves1: Labour says it will take no action against MP Simon Danczuk for calling Miliband a 'f***ing knob', after he makes a partial retraction

    LOL. Smack of firm leadership there.
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,759
    Apparently there`s a chancellors debate(interview) on Sky today?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Off topic, but vitally important: whoever redesigned the BBC News website needs to be taken out and horsewhipped.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    SMukesh said:

    Apparently there`s a chancellors debate(interview) on Sky today?

    Starting now
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    If the polling is largely correct and SLAB are about to be wiped out - it'd make the notion of Labour being the Party In Permanent Power post devolution immensely amusing as an unintended consequence.

    Whilst I don't want to break up the Union - Labour/Tony et al appear to have managed it all by themselves!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411

    After Simon Danczuk's contribution today I'm less worried about Lab to Con seat losses

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03/exclusive-labour-mp-says-public-think-ed-miliband-aloof-and-more-toff-cameron

    Judging by that latest Itchen poll, so is everyone else.
  • rogerhrogerh Posts: 282
    To minimize Con seat gains Labour also needs to consider what to do in Lib/Con marginals.on current You Gov ,with UNS,the Lib Dems would lose 19 seats to the Cons most by small margins.Tactical voting by Labour supporters for the could wrench another 10 seats away from the Cons.Of course they can't say this directly but a minimum effort approach in these seats could help.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited March 2015
    antifrank said:

    Off topic, but vitally important: whoever redesigned the BBC News website needs to be taken out and horsewhipped.


    It is a bit rubbish - appears to have become a red-top tabloid..!
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,759
    Scott_P said:

    SMukesh said:

    Apparently there`s a chancellors debate(interview) on Sky today?

    Starting now
    What an odd time to have a debate when everyone is at work and only pensioners at home and they usually watch the BBC.
  • The SNP problem will dominate throughout the election and will make it much harder for labour to focus on the NHS. I cannot see any merit in Ed Miliband being in the 'Opposition' debate being attacked from the left and by UKIP on the right
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    edited March 2015
    I have to say I am extremely impressed by the way the SNP are handling this. They are playing a superb game, carefully manoeuvering Miliband into a position where, if a Labour minority government can't be formed because the SNP won't do a deal, it will be Miliband's fault. Stewart Hosie pretending a sort of regretful disbelief that Labour might not play to the SNP's rules is just brilliant:

    Stewart Hosie claimed "Ed Miliband has lost the plot entirely" for comments about an unholy alliance between the nationalists and Conservatives, and he would be "very foolish" to rule out a deal that could block a future Tory government.

    Mr Hosie said the SNP wanted to see "a real end to austerity", more powers for Scotland, and no renewal of Trident weapons.


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32020556?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=daily_politics&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central

    It's all there, as plain as a pikestaff: a masterly Morton's fork, all neatly set up so that the SNP can't lose either way.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,041
    SMukesh said:

    Scott_P said:

    SMukesh said:

    Apparently there`s a chancellors debate(interview) on Sky today?

    Starting now
    What an odd time to have a debate when everyone is at work and only pensioners at home and they usually watch the BBC.
    There is something called the internet, and youtube. Perhaps you've heard of it? ;)
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300

    Oh and this

    @JasonGroves1: Labour says it will take no action against MP Simon Danczuk for calling Miliband a 'f***ing knob', after he makes a partial retraction

    There are procedures to deal with that problem.

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    antifrank said:

    Off topic, but vitally important: whoever redesigned the BBC News website needs to be taken out and horsewhipped.

    Agreed entirely. I'm not one to complain every time a website is redesigned, it has to be done to keep up with the times. But this design is horrendous, far too bright.

    I like how one of the top stories is about the redesign with a message about how they had so much feedback about it being far too bright ... but this redesign is better because they trialled it. Its only better if you listen to what the trial says and fix it! After getting such consistent feedback on the trial they should have fixed the redesign before implementing it. Silly, silly, silly.
  • DanSmithDanSmith Posts: 1,215
    chestnut said:

    The SNP won't be able to vote down anything. At most there will be 50 odd of them among a parliament of 650.

    It all depends on the numbers. If one party has a huge majority, the SNP have no influence (similar to the Libdems prior to 2010). If one party has a narrow majority, they don't have much influence but they become crucial if the ruling party starts to struggle with backbench rebellions. If a party wants to give minority government a go, then the SNP becomes crucial in terms of getting legislation passed smoothly. To deny that they would be influential is bizarre.
  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 2,083

    Oh and this

    @JasonGroves1: Labour says it will take no action against MP Simon Danczuk for calling Miliband a 'f***ing knob', after he makes a partial retraction

    Did he agree to replace the "ing" with "ed"?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834
    SMukesh said:

    SMukesh said:

    MaxPB said:

    SMukesh said:

    SMukesh said:

    Roger said:

    Just flicked through this thread.....

    It's just wall to wall eulogising of of Nicola and Alex...... It's like trudging through a swamp of genuflecting midges. It's embarrassing

    Hasn`t Miliband just cut Samlond to size as `just bluster and bluff` who `is just trying to plug his book`.
    No one beleives what Milliband says, or that he'll be strong enough post election.
    You probably don`t understand but I bet Salmond does.

    It means Salmond will just be a bit-player after the election.

    He can vote down the Labour minority government and forever be hated by the Scots.

    Or he can shut his mouth and vote for a Labour minority budget.
    Hated by Scots for voting down English Labour's budget? Proving yourself to be as clueless as ever.
    And possibly put the hated Tories back in power.I know you aren't an idiot because I have met you,so can you stop sounding like one.
    Voting down a budget does not necessarily mean voting out a government; it can simply require the government to come up with a new budget. Of course, if Labour chooses to resign then that's a different matter but that would then be their choice.
    Is there a precedent of a government losing a budget vote and carrying on?
    Not that I'm aware of but then since the end of WWI, the only times there've been hung parliaments for about thirteen years, of which the last five have really been a majority coalition rather than a minority government, and the Callaghan and Major governments were so close to majorities that they always had sufficient allies to see them through.

    In addition, the FTPA changes the dynamics. A PM cannot simply nip down to the Palace and expect a dissolution on asking. An opposition party with enough MPs today can therefore use leverage to say 'we will not vote for a budget that includes X / does not include Y' while keeping the question of the composition of the government separate.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,963
    Count yourselves lucky the BBC redesign isn't as bad as the official F1 site's.
  • rogerhrogerh Posts: 282
    Barnesian said:

    Latest Scottish poll with SNP down to 43% from 47% on my model gives Labour one seat instead of none - namely Glasgow NE. LibDems retain two (Ross and Orkney)

    Lab 282, Con 261 LibDem 28

    What are the figures for all parties in the latest Scottish Poll?

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    antifrank said:

    Off topic, but vitally important: whoever redesigned the BBC News website needs to be taken out and horsewhipped.

    Apparently it has been designed exclusively for mobile devices. They turned off the desktop specific site
  • SMukeshSMukesh Posts: 1,759

    SMukesh said:

    SMukesh said:

    MaxPB said:

    SMukesh said:

    SMukesh said:

    Roger said:

    Just flicked through this thread.....

    It's just wall to wall eulogising of of Nicola and Alex...... It's like trudging through a swamp of genuflecting midges. It's embarrassing

    Hasn`t Miliband just cut Samlond to size as `just bluster and bluff` who `is just trying to plug his book`.
    No one beleives what Milliband says, or that he'll be strong enough post election.
    You probably don`t understand but I bet Salmond does.

    It means Salmond will just be a bit-player after the election.

    He can vote down the Labour minority government and forever be hated by the Scots.

    Or he can shut his mouth and vote for a Labour minority budget.
    Hated by Scots for voting down English Labour's budget? Proving yourself to be as clueless as ever.
    And possibly put the hated Tories back in power.I know you aren't an idiot because I have met you,so can you stop sounding like one.
    Voting down a budget does not necessarily mean voting out a government; it can simply require the government to come up with a new budget. Of course, if Labour chooses to resign then that's a different matter but that would then be their choice.
    Is there a precedent of a government losing a budget vote and carrying on?
    Not that I'm aware of but then since the end of WWI, the only times there've been hung parliaments for about thirteen years, of which the last five have really been a majority coalition rather than a minority government, and the Callaghan and Major governments were so close to majorities that they always had sufficient allies to see them through.

    In addition, the FTPA changes the dynamics. A PM cannot simply nip down to the Palace and expect a dissolution on asking. An opposition party with enough MPs today can therefore use leverage to say 'we will not vote for a budget that includes X / does not include Y' while keeping the question of the composition of the government separate.
    Conventional wisdom is if a government loses a budget vote,it loses it`s legitimacy and should go.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,041
    Scott_P said:

    antifrank said:

    Off topic, but vitally important: whoever redesigned the BBC News website needs to be taken out and horsewhipped.

    Apparently it has been designed exclusively for mobile devices. They turned off the desktop specific site
    Huh? It looks different on my phone than my laptop.
  • Count yourselves lucky the BBC redesign isn't as bad as the official F1 site's.

    ...or Guido's...
  • weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820

    SMukesh said:

    MaxPB said:

    SMukesh said:

    SMukesh said:

    Roger said:

    Just flicked through this thread.....

    It's just wall to wall eulogising of of Nicola and Alex...... It's like trudging through a swamp of genuflecting midges. It's embarrassing

    Hasn`t Miliband just cut Samlond to size as `just bluster and bluff` who `is just trying to plug his book`.
    No one beleives what Milliband says, or that he'll be strong enough post election.
    You probably don`t understand but I bet Salmond does.

    It means Salmond will just be a bit-player after the election.

    He can vote down the Labour minority government and forever be hated by the Scots.

    Or he can shut his mouth and vote for a Labour minority budget.
    Hated by Scots for voting down English Labour's budget? Proving yourself to be as clueless as ever.
    And possibly put the hated Tories back in power.I know you aren't an idiot because I have met you,so can you stop sounding like one.
    Voting down a budget does not necessarily mean voting out a government; it can simply require the government to come up with a new budget. Of course, if Labour chooses to resign then that's a different matter but that would then be their choice.
    Weren't the tories defeated in one aspect of a budget and had to come back with a different set of proposals? (It might have been VAT on fuel, but was a long time ago).
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538
    Polruan said:

    Oh and this

    @JasonGroves1: Labour says it will take no action against MP Simon Danczuk for calling Miliband a 'f***ing knob', after he makes a partial retraction

    Did he agree to replace the "ing" with "ed"?
    What was the context of describing him in such terms?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    Scott_P said:


    Apparently it has been designed exclusively for mobile devices. They turned off the desktop specific site

    Not quite:

    The new site adapts its layout depending on what type of device it is being used on, be it a desktop PC, tablet or mobile.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-31966686
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    weejonnie said:

    Weren't the tories defeated in one aspect of a budget and had to come back with a different set of proposals? (It might have been VAT on fuel, but was a long time ago).

    Yes, you are right - Ken Clarke.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    I see the Telegraph is urging Scottish Conservatives to go out and vote Labour, I'm going to take a leap of faith here and reckon the Scottish Tory vote will remain steadfastly resolute come May 7th.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834

    SMukesh said:

    SMukesh said:

    MaxPB said:

    SMukesh said:

    SMukesh said:

    Roger said:

    Just flicked through this thread.....

    It's just wall to wall eulogising of of Nicola and Alex...... It's like trudging through a swamp of genuflecting midges. It's embarrassing

    Hasn`t Miliband just cut Samlond to size as `just bluster and bluff` who `is just trying to plug his book`.
    No one beleives what Milliband says, or that he'll be strong enough post election.
    You probably don`t understand but I bet Salmond does.

    It means Salmond will just be a bit-player after the election.

    He can vote down the Labour minority government and forever be hated by the Scots.

    Or he can shut his mouth and vote for a Labour minority budget.
    Hated by Scots for voting down English Labour's budget? Proving yourself to be as clueless as ever.
    And possibly put the hated Tories back in power.I know you aren't an idiot because I have met you,so can you stop sounding like one.
    Voting down a budget does not necessarily mean voting out a government; it can simply require the government to come up with a new budget. Of course, if Labour chooses to resign then that's a different matter but that would then be their choice.
    Is there a precedent of a government losing a budget vote and carrying on?
    Not that I'm aware of but then since the end of WWI, the only times there've been hung parliaments for about thirteen years, of which the last five have really been a majority coalition rather than a minority government, and the Callaghan and Major governments were so close to majorities that they always had sufficient allies to see them through.

    In addition, the FTPA changes the dynamics. A PM cannot simply nip down to the Palace and expect a dissolution on asking. An opposition party with enough MPs today can therefore use leverage to say 'we will not vote for a budget that includes X / does not include Y' while keeping the question of the composition of the government separate.
    To answer the original question, Lloyd George's budget in 1909 is probably the most recent example.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    By the way has anyone seen Electionsetc latest forecast - 42% chance of the DUP having critical influence, 24% of this being on the LABOUR side.

    I'd laugh my socks off if Miliband has to keep both Salmond and Dodds buttered up.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Pulpstar said:

    I see the Telegraph is urging Scottish Conservatives to go out and vote Labour, I'm going to take a leap of faith here and reckon the Scottish Tory vote will remain steadfastly resolute come May 7th.

    Will Labour voters in eg Perth be returning the favour ? Don't think so. Daft stuff.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834
    edited March 2015
    weejonnie said:

    SMukesh said:

    MaxPB said:

    SMukesh said:

    SMukesh said:

    Roger said:

    Just flicked through this thread.....

    It's just wall to wall eulogising of of Nicola and Alex...... It's like trudging through a swamp of genuflecting midges. It's embarrassing

    Hasn`t Miliband just cut Samlond to size as `just bluster and bluff` who `is just trying to plug his book`.
    No one beleives what Milliband says, or that he'll be strong enough post election.
    You probably don`t understand but I bet Salmond does.

    It means Salmond will just be a bit-player after the election.

    He can vote down the Labour minority government and forever be hated by the Scots.

    Or he can shut his mouth and vote for a Labour minority budget.
    Hated by Scots for voting down English Labour's budget? Proving yourself to be as clueless as ever.
    And possibly put the hated Tories back in power.I know you aren't an idiot because I have met you,so can you stop sounding like one.
    Voting down a budget does not necessarily mean voting out a government; it can simply require the government to come up with a new budget. Of course, if Labour chooses to resign then that's a different matter but that would then be their choice.
    Weren't the tories defeated in one aspect of a budget and had to come back with a different set of proposals? (It might have been VAT on fuel, but was a long time ago).
    Yes - that's precisely what it was.

    Over the last 50 years, there've been more than a dozen votes lost by the government on its Finance Bill of the day, some quite serious (the Tories forced a cut in the basic rate of Income Tax on Callaghan's government). The Budgets themselves carried the House though.

    Wikipedia has a page of government defeats: "List of Government defeats in the House of Commons (1945–present)"
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited March 2015
    Sean_F said:

    Polruan said:

    Oh and this

    @JasonGroves1: Labour says it will take no action against MP Simon Danczuk for calling Miliband a 'f***ing knob', after he makes a partial retraction

    Did he agree to replace the "ing" with "ed"?
    What was the context of describing him in such terms?
    The full article is here Mr_F, last two paragraphs are relevant.

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03/exclusive-labour-mp-says-public-think-ed-miliband-aloof-and-more-toff-cameron
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538

    Sean_F said:

    Polruan said:

    Oh and this

    @JasonGroves1: Labour says it will take no action against MP Simon Danczuk for calling Miliband a 'f***ing knob', after he makes a partial retraction

    Did he agree to replace the "ing" with "ed"?
    What was the context of describing him in such terms?
    The full article is here Mr_F, last two paragraphs are relevant.

    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03/exclusive-labour-mp-says-public-think-ed-miliband-aloof-and-more-toff-cameron
    Hard to disagree, really,
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366
    The retraction by Simon Danczuk seems to be more of a slight apology for spilling the beans.

    He was upset, and understandably so, after meeting Labour voters who wouldn't vote Labour while Ed is leader.

    I suppose Northern towns beginning with 'R' are similar to Scottish towns pre-Indy ref. Useful for votes but that's all.

    If the Kipper tide doesn't recede, there may well be a lot of second places for them in the North. Perhaps Simon is worried about the election after next?
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118

    I have to say I am extremely impressed by the way the SNP are handling this. They are playing a superb game, carefully manoeuvering Miliband into a position where, if a Labour minority government can't be formed because the SNP won't do a deal, it will be Miliband's fault. Stewart Hosie pretending a sort of regretful disbelief that Labour might not play to the SNP's rules is just brilliant:

    Stewart Hosie claimed "Ed Miliband has lost the plot entirely" for comments about an unholy alliance between the nationalists and Conservatives, and he would be "very foolish" to rule out a deal that could block a future Tory government.

    Mr Hosie said the SNP wanted to see "a real end to austerity", more powers for Scotland, and no renewal of Trident weapons.


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32020556?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=daily_politics&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central

    It's all there, as plain as a pikestaff: a masterly Morton's fork, all neatly set up so that the SNP can't lose either way.

    If we have to have a union with Scotland then it's only fair they are represented in govt, and if they want the SNP to be the representatives then fair enough, who can complain?
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    edited March 2015

    Scott_P said:


    Apparently it has been designed exclusively for mobile devices. They turned off the desktop specific site

    Not quite:

    The new site adapts its layout depending on what type of device it is being used on, be it a desktop PC, tablet or mobile.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-31966686

    All web sites are going this way - I'm having to redesign mine.

    Basically there are style sheets behind the scenes that change the layout based on how wide the device screen is.

    For a mobile this means stacking down the screen and collapsing menus.

    Then on larger devices the menus appear properly and the sections spread across the screen.

    Realistically it's the only way to cope with the plethora of different devices out there.

  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Hard to disagree, really,

    Let's face it. The polls are the only thing keeping the ed show on the road.

    Make of that what you will.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    edited March 2015
    DanSmith said:


    It all depends on the numbers.

    Precisely.

    59 Scottish MPs, 591 English and Welsh and NI ones.

    The SNP cannot do anything unless Labour or the Tories come to their aid.

    It's entirely conceivable that the SNP would like a situation where the Tories and Labour act as one.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,041
    isam said:

    I have to say I am extremely impressed by the way the SNP are handling this. They are playing a superb game, carefully manoeuvering Miliband into a position where, if a Labour minority government can't be formed because the SNP won't do a deal, it will be Miliband's fault. Stewart Hosie pretending a sort of regretful disbelief that Labour might not play to the SNP's rules is just brilliant:

    Stewart Hosie claimed "Ed Miliband has lost the plot entirely" for comments about an unholy alliance between the nationalists and Conservatives, and he would be "very foolish" to rule out a deal that could block a future Tory government.

    Mr Hosie said the SNP wanted to see "a real end to austerity", more powers for Scotland, and no renewal of Trident weapons.


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32020556?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=daily_politics&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central

    It's all there, as plain as a pikestaff: a masterly Morton's fork, all neatly set up so that the SNP can't lose either way.

    If we have to have a union with Scotland then it's only fair they are represented in govt, and if they want the SNP to be the representatives then fair enough, who can complain?
    I suppose it is a question of undue influence. If they can dictate all policy, that doesn't seem proportional to their share of population.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,834
    SMukesh said:

    SMukesh said:

    SMukesh said:

    MaxPB said:

    SMukesh said:

    No one beleives what Milliband says, or that he'll be strong enough post election.

    You probably don`t understand but I bet Salmond does.

    It means Salmond will just be a bit-player after the election.

    He can vote down the Labour minority government and forever be hated by the Scots.

    Or he can shut his mouth and vote for a Labour minority budget.
    Hated by Scots for voting down English Labour's budget? Proving yourself to be as clueless as ever.
    And possibly put the hated Tories back in power.I know you aren't an idiot because I have met you,so can you stop sounding like one.
    Voting down a budget does not necessarily mean voting out a government; it can simply require the government to come up with a new budget. Of course, if Labour chooses to resign then that's a different matter but that would then be their choice.
    Is there a precedent of a government losing a budget vote and carrying on?
    Not that I'm aware of but then since the end of WWI, the only times there've been hung parliaments for about thirteen years, of which the last five have really been a majority coalition rather than a minority government, and the Callaghan and Major governments were so close to majorities that they always had sufficient allies to see them through.

    In addition, the FTPA changes the dynamics. A PM cannot simply nip down to the Palace and expect a dissolution on asking. An opposition party with enough MPs today can therefore use leverage to say 'we will not vote for a budget that includes X / does not include Y' while keeping the question of the composition of the government separate.
    Conventional wisdom is if a government loses a budget vote,it loses it`s legitimacy and should go.
    Conventions are always context-specific. In this case, if the government lost on a specific issue but still appeared to have the general confidence of the House, there's no reason why it shouldn't continue. At the least, an opposition could put down a specific vote of no confidence.

    To give another example, it's always been suggested that if a government loses a VoNC, the Queen should call the LotO to form a government. In 2003, however, it's entirely plausible that Tony Blair might have lost a vote of confidence on Iraq had, say, Ken Clarke been leader of the Tories. But the obvious call would have been to call Gordon Brown rather than Clarke to the Palace.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    isam said:

    If we have to have a union with Scotland then it's only fair they are represented in govt, and if they want the SNP to be the representatives then fair enough, who can complain?

    Those who think we should have PR?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,363

    If the SNP abstain over English-only laws, the Tories could have control of the Parliament for English issues - who rules the country then?

    We could be in for an almighty constitutional reckoning.

    The SNP have said they aren't going to abstain over English only laws.

    Pulpstar said:

    If the SNP abstain over English-only laws, the Tories could have control of the Parliament for English issues - who rules the country then?

    We could be in for an almighty constitutional reckoning.

    The SNP have said they aren't going to abstain over English only laws.
    Can you point me to that ?
    Scottish MPs will vote on English issues, insists first minister Nicola Sturgeon

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/08/scottish-mps-vote-english-laws-nicola-sturgeon
    The critical bit is "budgetary changes nominally focused on England if ... there would be an impact in Scotland" - e.g. through Barnett or through other factors such as TTIP. No impact, no problem: impact, becomes entirely legitimate.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    edited March 2015

    Scott_P said:


    Apparently it has been designed exclusively for mobile devices. They turned off the desktop specific site

    Not quite:

    The new site adapts its layout depending on what type of device it is being used on, be it a desktop PC, tablet or mobile.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-31966686

    All web sites are going this way - I'm having to resign mine.

    Basically there are style sheets behind the scenes that change the layout based on how wide the device screen is.

    For a mobile this means stacking down the screen and collapsing menus.

    Then on larger devices the menus appear properly and the sections spread across the screen.

    Realistically it's the only way to cope with plethora of different devices out there.

    But why take the opportunity to halve the number of stock markets reported on the front page? just for instance.

    edit to add: at least I don't have a telly so I get this stuff free. I'd really be spitting feathers otherwise.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    Carnyx said:

    The critical bit is "budgetary changes nominally focused on England if ... there would be an impact in Scotland" - e.g. through Barnett or through other factors such as TTIP. No impact, no problem: impact, becomes entirely legitimate.

    ... which is an impressive piece of sophistry and cant, given that they can plausibly find some minor impact on Scotland in anything at all, as indeed they do already.
  • ArtistArtist Posts: 1,893
    edited March 2015
    The 21 seat target shows how comfortable it would have been for Labour to have been the largest party before the SNP surge in Scotland. Ed would have had one foot in Downing Street at this stage.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Perhaps Simon is worried about the election after next?

    Would he and his ilk be happy to sit back and watch Ed and Nicola stitch up England?

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411

    isam said:

    If we have to have a union with Scotland then it's only fair they are represented in govt, and if they want the SNP to be the representatives then fair enough, who can complain?

    Those who think we should have PR?
    Like the Israeli system ?

    Would you advocate it to be regionalised or just have blanket wide UK PR ? I'd have thought the Euro election districts could be useful (East Mids, London, Scotland) etc.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Scott_P said:


    Apparently it has been designed exclusively for mobile devices. They turned off the desktop specific site

    Not quite:

    The new site adapts its layout depending on what type of device it is being used on, be it a desktop PC, tablet or mobile.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-31966686

    All web sites are going this way - I'm having to redesign mine.

    Basically there are style sheets behind the scenes that change the layout based on how wide the device screen is.

    For a mobile this means stacking down the screen and collapsing menus.

    Then on larger devices the menus appear properly and the sections spread across the screen.

    Realistically it's the only way to cope with the plethora of different devices out there.

    That's not the problem, many websites have done that quite nicely. The problem is the BBC's specifically has major design flaws that were caught in its public beta but they proceeded ignoring the feedback anyway. Any games publisher who acted in such an aloof manner would be rightly pilloried.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,363

    Carnyx said:

    The critical bit is "budgetary changes nominally focused on England if ... there would be an impact in Scotland" - e.g. through Barnett or through other factors such as TTIP. No impact, no problem: impact, becomes entirely legitimate.

    ... which is an impressive piece of sophistry and cant, given that they can plausibly find some minor impact on Scotland in anything at all, as indeed they do already.
    The question is what actually happens in the event. You shouldn't believe all the DM and DT horror stories.
  • Listening to the Chancellors debate this pm would you believe Sky cut off coverage for ads. Unbelievable
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited March 2015
    Reading Danczuk's remarks in context, wasn't he actually calling Harriet Harman a "f**king knob"?
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860
    Still 4/1 at Paddy's for >1 general election in 2015. Anyone else see value in that, or am I hopelessly naïve? All parties seem to be gradually reducing the number of options available to them in a hung parliament.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    Pulpstar said:

    isam said:

    If we have to have a union with Scotland then it's only fair they are represented in govt, and if they want the SNP to be the representatives then fair enough, who can complain?

    Those who think we should have PR?
    Like the Israeli system ?

    Would you advocate it to be regionalised or just have blanket wide UK PR ? I'd have thought the Euro election districts could be useful (East Mids, London, Scotland) etc.
    I wouldn't advocate it at all, but, if we were going to have it on the basis that it is only 'fair' that the total number of MPs should be proportional to the total number of votes cast for a given party, why would you gerrymander it by imposing a regional split?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,064
    Pulpstar said:

    I see the Telegraph is urging Scottish Conservatives to go out and vote Labour, I'm going to take a leap of faith here and reckon the Scottish Tory vote will remain steadfastly resolute come May 7th.

    Indeed. That 18% of the vote seems immovable. They are voting Tory come what may, poll tax, devolution, whatever happens they will turn out and vote Tory.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    chestnut said:

    DanSmith said:


    It all depends on the numbers.

    Precisely.

    59 Scottish MPs, 591 English and Welsh and NI ones.

    The SNP cannot do anything unless Labour or the Tories come to their aid.

    It's entirely conceivable that the SNP would like a situation where the Tories and Labour act as one.
    A Grand coalition would be all their Christmases come at once.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,989
    Afternoon all :)

    Not sure I wholly support the premise behind the header - the inbuilt assumption that the SNP will deal with Labour is of course untested. It seems to take credibility and give it a good kicking (or "shellacking" or "pounding like a dockside hooker" to borrow a couple of TSE's catchphrases) to see Nicoila Sturgeon aiding David Cameron but there's something about adversity making strange bedfellows.

    Labour's route to power (assuming it gets help from the SNP) looks plausible. The Conservatives, who seem to have ruled out Coalition 2.0 under any circumstances, have the DUP and perhaps/maybe UKIP so they are going to need to be somewhere close to the 307 they won last time.

    31% today with Populus wouldn't be the bloodbath it was in 1997 or 2001 but it's a long way from Government at this stage but with so many people apparently still to decide it would be a fool who calls this today. One thing's for sure - the next 44 days are not going to be devoid of interest.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Pulpstar said:

    chestnut said:

    DanSmith said:


    It all depends on the numbers.

    Precisely.

    59 Scottish MPs, 591 English and Welsh and NI ones.

    The SNP cannot do anything unless Labour or the Tories come to their aid.

    It's entirely conceivable that the SNP would like a situation where the Tories and Labour act as one.
    A Grand coalition would be all their Christmases come at once.
    A grand coalition would never happen. Not unless one or both parties change dramatically from here.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    Scott_P said:


    Apparently it has been designed exclusively for mobile devices. They turned off the desktop specific site

    Not quite:

    The new site adapts its layout depending on what type of device it is being used on, be it a desktop PC, tablet or mobile.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-31966686

    All web sites are going this way - I'm having to redesign mine.

    Basically there are style sheets behind the scenes that change the layout based on how wide the device screen is.

    For a mobile this means stacking down the screen and collapsing menus.

    Then on larger devices the menus appear properly and the sections spread across the screen.

    Realistically it's the only way to cope with the plethora of different devices out there.

    That's not the problem, many websites have done that quite nicely. The problem is the BBC's specifically has major design flaws that were caught in its public beta but they proceeded ignoring the feedback anyway. Any games publisher who acted in such an aloof manner would be rightly pilloried.

    Probably something to do with the unique way the BBC are funded...

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,363
    Pulpstar said:

    chestnut said:

    DanSmith said:


    It all depends on the numbers.

    Precisely.

    59 Scottish MPs, 591 English and Welsh and NI ones.

    The SNP cannot do anything unless Labour or the Tories come to their aid.

    It's entirely conceivable that the SNP would like a situation where the Tories and Labour act as one.
    A Grand coalition would be all their Christmases come at once.
    With the SNP occupying the Opposition front bench. PMQs would be interesting!
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Reading Danczuk's remarks in context, wasn't he actually calling Harriet Harman a "f**king knob"?

    If you are heading for power, even shared power, why are you saying this about any senior member of your party?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    Ghedebrav said:

    Still 4/1 at Paddy's for >1 general election in 2015. Anyone else see value in that, or am I hopelessly naïve? All parties seem to be gradually reducing the number of options available to them in a hung parliament.

    Push will meet shove come May and some sort of deal will be worked out - it may well be a very simple lib Dem-Con arrangement still.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    taffys said:

    Reading Danczuk's remarks in context, wasn't he actually calling Harriet Harman a "f**king knob"?

    If you are heading for power, even shared power, why are you saying this about any senior member of your party?

    To be fair some were saying this about Tony et al while they were in power. Every party has its awkward squad.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited March 2015

    Carnyx said:

    The critical bit is "budgetary changes nominally focused on England if ... there would be an impact in Scotland" - e.g. through Barnett or through other factors such as TTIP. No impact, no problem: impact, becomes entirely legitimate.

    ... which is an impressive piece of sophistry and cant, given that they can plausibly find some minor impact on Scotland in anything at all, as indeed they do already.
    Indeed. If the Department on Education spends more of teabags, then a proportion of that needs to be sent north of border, anything at all can be defended as "having an impact on Scotland".

    Hell even the changes to tuition fees which had no impact in Scotland were counted as addition taxation, so more money got sent to Scotland even though they don't have any tuition fees.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,363

    Carnyx said:

    The critical bit is "budgetary changes nominally focused on England if ... there would be an impact in Scotland" - e.g. through Barnett or through other factors such as TTIP. No impact, no problem: impact, becomes entirely legitimate.

    ... which is an impressive piece of sophistry and cant, given that they can plausibly find some minor impact on Scotland in anything at all, as indeed they do already.
    I should have been clearer and said, I think the SNP will be far more selective than any blanket support for Mr Miliband & co. But note that they have already shown themselves to be so in practice.

  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,860

    isam said:

    If we have to have a union with Scotland then it's only fair they are represented in govt, and if they want the SNP to be the representatives then fair enough, who can complain?

    Those who think we should have PR?
    If we do get the vaunted SNP near-clean-sweep it will be devastatingly anti-democratic. I'm generally a fan of FPTT and the constituency link, but having 90-95% of a country's representation coming from 40-50% of national vote share brings it into sharp relief.

  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    Danny565 said:

    Reading Danczuk's remarks in context, wasn't he actually calling Harriet Harman a "f**king knob"?

    You are correct. How very illuminating that everyone just assumed he was talking about ed.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    taffys said:

    Reading Danczuk's remarks in context, wasn't he actually calling Harriet Harman a "f**king knob"?

    If you are heading for power, even shared power, why are you saying this about any senior member of your party?

    Because it's fair comment ? ;)
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    edited March 2015
    Ghedebrav said:

    Still 4/1 at Paddy's for >1 general election in 2015. Anyone else see value in that, or am I hopelessly naïve? All parties seem to be gradually reducing the number of options available to them in a hung parliament.

    A second election requires a majority of MPs to agree to vote for one (strictly speaking, to vote to bring the government down, and for no other government to survive a vote of confidence within 14 days). Even in the most unstable outcomes, therefore, it's by no means obvious that there would be a second election this year, since not all the opposition parties would necessarily agree that it's in their interests to hold an early replay.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,363
    Indigo said:

    Carnyx said:

    The critical bit is "budgetary changes nominally focused on England if ... there would be an impact in Scotland" - e.g. through Barnett or through other factors such as TTIP. No impact, no problem: impact, becomes entirely legitimate.

    ... which is an impressive piece of sophistry and cant, given that they can plausibly find some minor impact on Scotland in anything at all, as indeed they do already.
    Indeed. If the Department on Education spends more of teabags, then a proportion of that needs to be sent north of border, anything at all can be defended as "having an impact on Scotland".

    Hell even the changes to tuition fees which had no impact in Scotland were counted as addition taxation, so more money got sent to Scotland even though they don't have any tuition fees.
    IN practice, as I should have been clearer, it is evident that the SNP will be selective - as it historically has been in contrast to SLAB and the LDs.

    Tuition fees - other way round surely: the grants to universities to pay them were cut so the unis had to replace them by getting the fees off the students.

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Ghedebrav said:

    isam said:

    If we have to have a union with Scotland then it's only fair they are represented in govt, and if they want the SNP to be the representatives then fair enough, who can complain?

    Those who think we should have PR?
    If we do get the vaunted SNP near-clean-sweep it will be devastatingly anti-democratic. I'm generally a fan of FPTT and the constituency link, but having 90-95% of a country's representation coming from 40-50% of national vote share brings it into sharp relief.

    Except that in Westminster the country is the UK, Scottish MPs are a subset of it. There are many subsets you could draw already where that happens.

    Furthermore the purpose of FPTP isn't to get equal representation, its to get a Parliament of Representatives, each representing local areas. If a whole region decides they want almost all of their representatives to be from the same party - well that was their choice. I don't see why we need to mollycoddle the losers.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    The critical bit is "budgetary changes nominally focused on England if ... there would be an impact in Scotland" - e.g. through Barnett or through other factors such as TTIP. No impact, no problem: impact, becomes entirely legitimate.

    ... which is an impressive piece of sophistry and cant, given that they can plausibly find some minor impact on Scotland in anything at all, as indeed they do already.
    I should have been clearer and said, I think the SNP will be far more selective than any blanket support for Mr Miliband & co. But note that they have already shown themselves to be so in practice.

    Absolutely, I agree with that.
This discussion has been closed.