Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » When computing most seats remember that every LAB gain from
politicalbetting.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.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Perhaps a twitter campaign for plausible deniability.
Lab 282, Con 261 LibDem 28
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.
It can only help Miliband in England to have the nationalists attack him.
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.
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.
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.
Indeed why would they abstain?
It would be in their interest to provoke a constitutional crisis, as independence then comes back on the agenda.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/08/scottish-mps-vote-english-laws-nicola-sturgeon
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03/exclusive-labour-mp-says-public-think-ed-miliband-aloof-and-more-toff-cameron
@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
Whilst I don't want to break up the Union - Labour/Tony et al appear to have managed it all by themselves!
It is a bit rubbish - appears to have become a red-top tabloid..!
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.
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.
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.
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
I'd laugh my socks off if Miliband has to keep both Salmond and Dodds buttered up.
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)"
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03/exclusive-labour-mp-says-public-think-ed-miliband-aloof-and-more-toff-cameron
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?
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.
Let's face it. The polls are the only thing keeping the ed show on the road.
Make of that what you will.
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.
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.
edit to add: at least I don't have a telly so I get this stuff free. I'd really be spitting feathers otherwise.
Would he and his ilk be happy to sit back and watch Ed and Nicola stitch up England?
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.
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.
Probably something to do with the unique way the BBC are funded...
If you are heading for power, even shared power, why are you saying this about any senior member of your party?
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.
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.
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.