I think this is essentially a numbers game. The following are the numbers to watch:
323 - If either main party reaches this number, they have an effective overall majority. I'm not expecting that. If either main party plus the Lib Dems reach this number, they have an effective overall majority. I'm not expecting that either.
300 - If either main party reaches this number, they will lead a minority government. I'm not expecting this but we're starting to get into the realms of serious possibilities.
1 - Whichever party has a lead in seats, no matter how few, it will get first go. If that is the Conservatives, they will need a lead of more than one in practice, given that the rest of Parliament dresses to the left.
20 - If the Conservative lead over Labour is 20 or more, Labour will have difficulty persuading the public that they have any authority to lead a government unless they can also enlist Lib Dem support to bridge the gap. Constitutional rules are not going to be enough nowadays to get that authority. The problem will be particularly acute if Labour is well behind the Conservatives on seat count in England alone. If they forced the issue without reference to public opinion, Labour could find itself in office but with no power and with epic unpopularity.
258 - If Labour don't reach this number, how could Labour claim a mandate to form a government when it had gone backwards?
For Dave, I’d say at least 290 -- modest losses, but still clearly ahead.
The Grauniad had a story a few days back saying the Tories were working off 286......
"Farage has commented. What does Cameron think? What does Miliband think? I want to know."
A ludicrous story from Guido. Exactly the same arrangement as happens at any orthodox Jewish gathereing. Even more so at ultra orthodox ones where they would be separated by a curtain. Hasn't Cameron spoken at such venues? Incidentally I thought Staines was Jewish? Odd that he wouldn't know this.
Roger, I don't think it is ludicrous. Watson and Dromey weren't giving a sermon: they were holding a political meeting. This was segregation at a non-religious, political event, as evidenced by the Labour posters.
It suggests that Labour thinks discrimination on grounds of sex is less important than on grounds of religious ideology. And it's all the more pertinent given Harman's championing of women's rights, Miliband's proposals re 'islamophobia', Harman and Jack being husband and wife and Jack being shadow police minister.
Lots of voters would be interested in this. There are mosques and 'Islamic religious centres' springing up all over the country and their effect on local cultural norms has been in the news recently, not all of it entirely positive.
If these politicians are going to be running things, and giving a lead to the use of police resources, then we need to know how they view these matters.
Ed Miliband has said some pretty stupid things if he intends to try to govern from second place in seats and votes (and I expect he does, if he has to). The public won't take kindly to logic-chopping.
I read that stuff as directed at setting the parameters of the not-at-all-a-deal-oh-no he intends to cut with the SNP. The idea is to set up the choice as "Will the SNP support Labour's program or will you get the Tories?" rather than "How much is it reasonable for Labour to offer Scotland?". The reason he needs to avoid the latter is that there's no possible answer to it that's going to satisfy Scottish and English voters simultaneously.
The public aren't going to deconstruct his words like lawyers. They're going to see him seeking to become Prime Minister with SNP support - exactly what he said he wouldn't do.
If they think he said that then they also think he's lying, so better to let the press hyperventilate for a fortnight about how Ed Miliband is going to give Nicola Sturgeon Cumbria, vote down a Tory (boo, hiss) government then say. "No deals, new election" and surprise them with his integrity.
LOL, not a hope
I agree, I think they'll cut a deal (explicit or implicit). The point I'm making is that even if Ed Miliband were to be too scared of the wrath of English voters to cut a deal with the SNP, the move would be to kill the Tory government first and then say "no deal", rather than doing what's suggested in TSE's post and keeping David Cameron in office hoping he subsequently bollocksed things up.
A "minority" Labour government which has a majority with the support of the SNP has the right to govern and will govern if the numbers support it.
That's where you run into trouble.
A minority Government has the right to govern, unless it's Conservative...
A minority Government doesn't have a majority with the support of the SNP unless there is a formal deal. Otherwise it's just a minority Government, like the Conservatives.
Not so. A minority government that the HoC is willing to support has the right to govern. It really does not matter how Ed and Nicola dance around the handbags. At the end of the day there is a vote and the answer is yes or no.
At the moment it looks like the answer will be no for Cameron and yes for Miliband. Thems the rules.
The constitutional position is pretty straight forward.
The political position is very 'interesting'.
Miliband and Sturgeon run the risk of having a second election having voted down popular measures - or confirming Tory accusations of 'back room deals' - which may add England to Labour's casualty fatality list....Having seen the slaughter in Scotland - how 'brave' will Labour backbenchers be?
That's a perfectly valid question.
But all this talk of illegitimacy is bullsh!t. Any government [ minority or otherwise ] which commands the confidence of the House of Commons is legitimate. Period.
Except, we may be heading into uniquely weird territory where NO combination commands the confidence of the House.
Am I the only one who thinks that the voters are evil six year-old boys who are treating all politicians like a spider, pulling off a leg at a time to see how it will crazily crawl about?
To repeat my earlier question. In these circumstances what would the bookies pay out on?
A "minority" Labour government which has a majority with the support of the SNP has the right to govern and will govern if the numbers support it.
That's where you run into trouble.
A minority Government has the right to govern, unless it's Conservative...
A minority Government doesn't have a majority with the support of the SNP unless there is a formal deal. Otherwise it's just a minority Government, like the Conservatives.
Not so. A minority government that the HoC is willing to support has the right to govern. It really does not matter how Ed and Nicola dance around the handbags. At the end of the day there is a vote and the answer is yes or no.
At the moment it looks like the answer will be no for Cameron and yes for Miliband. Thems the rules.
The constitutional position is pretty straight forward.
The political position is very 'interesting'.
Miliband and Sturgeon run the risk of having a second election having voted down popular measures - or confirming Tory accusations of 'back room deals' - which may add England to Labour's casualty fatality list....Having seen the slaughter in Scotland - how 'brave' will Labour backbenchers be?
That's a perfectly valid question.
But all this talk of illegitimacy is bullsh!t. Any government [ minority or otherwise ] which commands the confidence of the House of Commons is legitimate. Period.
Except, we may be heading into uniquely weird territory where NO combination commands the confidence of the House.
Am I the only one who thinks that the voters are evil six year-old boys who are treating all politicians like a spider, pulling off a leg at a time to see how it will crazily crawl about?
No, you are not the only one.
But politicians have largely lost any trust the electorate may have had in them. And when they (politicians) clearly are afraid of telling the truth because voters don't like hearing that money does not grow of trees, who can blame them for not telling the truth?
And that reinforces the message about politicians..
I think this is essentially a numbers game. The following are the numbers to watch:
323 - If either main party reaches this number, they have an effective overall majority. I'm not expecting that. If either main party plus the Lib Dems reach this number, they have an effective overall majority. I'm not expecting that either.
300 - If either main party reaches this number, they will lead a minority government. I'm not expecting this but we're starting to get into the realms of serious possibilities.
1 - Whichever party has a lead in seats, no matter how few, it will get first go. If that is the Conservatives, they will need a lead of more than one in practice, given that the rest of Parliament dresses to the left.
20 - If the Conservative lead over Labour is 20 or more, Labour will have difficulty persuading the public that they have any authority to lead a government unless they can also enlist Lib Dem support to bridge the gap. Constitutional rules are not going to be enough nowadays to get that authority. The problem will be particularly acute if Labour is well behind the Conservatives on seat count in England alone. If they forced the issue without reference to public opinion, Labour could find itself in office but with no power and with epic unpopularity.
258 - If Labour don't reach this number, how could Labour claim a mandate to form a government when it had gone backwards?
For Dave, I’d say at least 290 -- modest losses, but still clearly ahead.
The Grauniad had a story a few days back saying the Tories were working off 286......
I keep coming back to last night's Atul Hatwal piece in Labour Uncut. "Revealed: Ed's night-time dash to casa Brand driven by postal vote panic"
It shouldn't be right. The disturbing premise behind the information contained in the article is that there have been multiple breaches of election law, as people not only see the votes as they are opened - which they shouldn't - but are then feeding them to a central Labour Party source - which they shouldn't.
And yet....why write the piece at all if it is just bollocks? It MIGHT be that Atul Hatwal was, like many, utterly bemused by Ed's filmed meeting with Brand. It MIGHT be that he was trying to rationalise this as actually being part of a planned campaign, rather than a bit of impromptu what-the-fuck?ery. It MIGHT be that he had heard gossip of isolated cases of sneaky-peeks at postal votes, far short of any reliable wider picture. It might be that at Labour Uncut, 2+2=7. It MIGHT be that any attempt to poison Ed is an attempt to look like he had the story of Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister first - knowing all will be forgotten if Ed strolls into Downing Street.
But it also just MIGHT be close to the truth. In which case, things are going badly adrift for Labour from the narrative the polls have been providing through this campaign. And some here might be turning up at the burns unit on Friday morning....
Or it might be that Atul Hatwal - the man who makes Dan Hodges look like the chairman of the Ed Miliband fan club - is just making stuff up.
Given he'd checked with the electoral commission it was ok to write the piece, it hardly suggests someone banging one out in a frenzy of imagination...
If you could tell from looking at the outside of the envelope what's inside, then why bother counting the stuff ?
Envelope B cannot be opened until 10:00 pm , if I am correct ?
That is wrong. I know because I was at a verification and sample count on Friday..
A "minority" Labour government which has a majority with the support of the SNP has the right to govern and will govern if the numbers support it.
That's where you run into trouble.
A minority Government has the right to govern, unless it's Conservative...
A minority Government doesn't have a majority with the support of the SNP unless there is a formal deal. Otherwise it's just a minority Government, like the Conservatives.
Not so. A minority government that the HoC is willing to support has the right to govern. It really does not matter how Ed and Nicola dance around the handbags. At the end of the day there is a vote and the answer is yes or no.
At the moment it looks like the answer will be no for Cameron and yes for Miliband. Thems the rules.
The constitutional position is pretty straight forward.
The political position is very 'interesting'.
Miliband and Sturgeon run the risk of having a second election having voted down popular measures - or confirming Tory accusations of 'back room deals' - which may add England to Labour's casualty fatality list....Having seen the slaughter in Scotland - how 'brave' will Labour backbenchers be?
That's a perfectly valid question.
But all this talk of illegitimacy is bullsh!t. Any government [ minority or otherwise ] which commands the confidence of the House of Commons is legitimate. Period.
Except, we may be heading into uniquely weird territory where NO combination commands the confidence of the House.
Am I the only one who thinks that the voters are evil six year-old boys who are treating all politicians like a spider, pulling off a leg at a time to see how it will crazily crawl about?
No, you are not the only one.
But politicians have largely lost any trust the electorate may have had in them. And when they (politicians) clearly are afraid of telling the truth because voters don't like hearing that money does not grow of trees, who can blame them for not telling the truth?
And that reinforces the message about politicians..
Voters get the politicians they deserve.
I expect a LOW turnout. Whom that may favour?
I am on low turnout too. Nailed on in thermsof numbers, but individual registration may boost the percentage by reducing the denominator.
despite having the support of the House of Commons
He won't have the support of the House of Commons, unless he "does a deal" with the Nationalists.
Which he would do, having said he wouldn't.
... then he would show himself to be weak and unfit for office, and the public would regard him as such. In the case of some, it would confirm their existing beliefs and prejudices.
A "minority" Labour government which has a majority with the support of the SNP has the right to govern and will govern if the numbers support it.
That's where you run into trouble.
A minority Government has the right to govern, unless it's Conservative...
A minority Government doesn't have a majority with the support of the SNP unless there is a formal deal. Otherwise it's just a minority Government, like the Conservatives.
Not so. A minority government that the HoC is willing to support has the right to govern. It really does not matter how Ed and Nicola dance around the handbags. At the end of the day there is a vote and the answer is yes or no.
At the moment it looks like the answer will be no for Cameron and yes for Miliband. Thems the rules.
The constitutional position is pretty straight forward.
The political position is very 'interesting'.
Miliband and Sturgeon run the risk of having a second election having voted down popular measures - or confirming Tory accusations of 'back room deals' - which may add England to Labour's casualty fatality list....Having seen the slaughter in Scotland - how 'brave' will Labour backbenchers be?
That's a perfectly valid question.
But all this talk of illegitimacy is bullsh!t. Any government [ minority or otherwise ] which commands the confidence of the House of Commons is legitimate. Period.
Except, we may be heading into uniquely weird territory where NO combination commands the confidence of the House.
Am I the only one who thinks that the voters are evil six year-old boys who are treating all politicians like a spider, pulling off a leg at a time to see how it will crazily crawl about?
No, you are not the only one.
But politicians have largely lost any trust the electorate may have had in them. And when they (politicians) clearly are afraid of telling the truth because voters don't like hearing that money does not grow of trees, who can blame them for not telling the truth?
And that reinforces the message about politicians..
Voters get the politicians they deserve.
I expect a LOW turnout. Whom that may favour?
Low turnout should favour Con; the older voters are more Tory-leaning and more likely to vote, the Tory voters also seem to be more fired up to stop the jockalypse.
The SNP clearly won that election (although they didn’t get a majority). The largest party provided the first minister, and received C&S form the third largest.
The narrative of who has won is important, especially if there is a clear winner in terms of seats and votes.
Some (many ?) in Labour would be unhappy with a deal with the SNP (see e.g., Hopi Sen’s blog), but they are probably -- and wisely --- staying quiet for now out of party loyalty.
Anyway, no delivering/doorstepping for me today - off for a (hopefully!) lovely lunch with the Good Lady Wifi to celebrate our wedding anniversary. Politics is off the menu!
David Cameron stays in office until he resigns or until his government is defeated on a vote of confidence. If the Conservatives are the largest party, it appears that he will exercise his right to test whether he has the confidence of the House.
Everyone agrees with that much, the question is then whether the voters will be iredeemably narked off if subsequently: 1) Labour votes against a Tory government. (Answer: No, they expect it.) 2) When asked by The Queen to form a government, Labour doesn't say, "Sorry, it wouldn't feel right, please call Dave back in." (Answer: No, that would be weird.)
Quite. All we need is a bit of patience. Cameron wants to try to pass a Queen's Speech? Fine, good luck with that, we'll vote against. No rush, May 27 is soon enough if Cameron wants to play games. It's interesting that the Tories are already leaking info on their strategy if they lose, though. Must be a double-bluff after their wonderful PV returns, eh?
BTW, I couldn't legally give any info if I'd got a leak from the PV (and Dixie, with respect, is an occasional poster who popped up in 2010 with wildly Tory-leaning enthusiasm). But I can truthfully say that the electoral services office in my patch was particularly careful with the opening so we have zero information from the PV opening. Out of curiosity, I've enquired whether the story is valid from other constituencies. I'm told it isn't.
A "minority" Labour government which has a majority with the support of the SNP has the right to govern and will govern if the numbers support it.
That's where you run into trouble.
A minority Government has the right to govern, unless it's Conservative...
A minority Government doesn't have a majority with the support of the SNP unless there is a formal deal. Otherwise it's just a minority Government, like the Conservatives.
Not so. A minority government that the HoC is willing to support has the right to govern. It really does not matter how Ed and Nicola dance around the handbags. At the end of the day there is a vote and the answer is yes or no.
At the moment it looks like the answer will be no for Cameron and yes for Miliband. Thems the rules.
The constitutional position is pretty straight forward.
The political position is very 'interesting'.
Miliband and Sturgeon run the risk of having a second election having voted down popular measures - or confirming Tory accusations of 'back room deals' - which may add England to Labour's casualty fatality list....Having seen the slaughter in Scotland - how 'brave' will Labour backbenchers be?
That's a perfectly valid question.
But all this talk of illegitimacy is bullsh!t. Any government [ minority or otherwise ] which commands the confidence of the House of Commons is legitimate. Period.
Yes, everyone on here know that whoever can command a majority should be the Government. However vast swathes of the population and media won't see it that way. They'll see Wallace (who is ~20 seats behind DC) making an illegitimate deal with Salmond & Sturgeon, which he had explicitly ruled out!
That's what polling says:
Voters tend to believe the leader of the largest party has the better claim to be Prime Minister, not the leader of whichever group of parties can command a majority
Only one in four British people (26%) feel that the leader of the biggest group of MPs – even if it doesn’t include the largest party – has the mandate to move into Number Ten. Nearly twice as many (48%) believe the leader of the party with the most seats has the more credible claim, even if he or she cannot command a majority.
Anyway, no delivering/doorstepping for me today - off for a (hopefully!) lovely lunch with the Good Lady Wifi to celebrate our wedding anniversary. Politics is off the menu!
I keep coming back to last night's Atul Hatwal piece in Labour Uncut. "Revealed: Ed's night-time dash to casa Brand driven by postal vote panic"
It shouldn't be right. The disturbing premise behind the information contained in the article is that there have been multiple breaches of election law, as people not only see the votes as they are opened - which they shouldn't - but are then feeding them to a central Labour Party source - which they shouldn't.
And yet....why write the piece at all if it is just bollocks? It MIGHT be that Atul Hatwal was, like many, utterly bemused by Ed's filmed meeting with Brand. It MIGHT be that he was trying to rationalise this as actually being part of a planned campaign, rather than a bit of impromptu what-the-fuck?ery. It MIGHT be that he had heard gossip of isolated cases of sneaky-peeks at postal votes, far short of any reliable wider picture. It might be that at Labour Uncut, 2+2=7. It MIGHT be that any attempt to poison Ed is an attempt to look like he had the story of Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister first - knowing all will be forgotten if Ed strolls into Downing Street.
But it also just MIGHT be close to the truth. In which case, things are going badly adrift for Labour from the narrative the polls have been providing through this campaign. And some here might be turning up at the burns unit on Friday morning....
Or it might be that Atul Hatwal - the man who makes Dan Hodges look like the chairman of the Ed Miliband fan club - is just making stuff up.
Given he'd checked with the electoral commission it was ok to write the piece, it hardly suggests someone banging one out in a frenzy of imagination...
If you could tell from looking at the outside of the envelope what's inside, then why bother counting the stuff ?
Envelope B cannot be opened until 10:00 pm , if I am correct ?
That is wrong. I know because I was at a verification and sample count on Friday..
Obviously without giving away any specifics, was it possible to determine the general pattern of votes being cast, would you say?
I keep coming back to last night's Atul Hatwal piece in Labour Uncut. "Revealed: Ed's night-time dash to casa Brand driven by postal vote panic"
It shouldn't be right. The disturbing premise behind the information contained in the article is that there have been multiple breaches of election law, as people not only see the votes as they are opened - which they shouldn't - but are then feeding them to a central Labour Party source - which they shouldn't.
And yet....why write the piece at all if it is just bollocks? It MIGHT be that Atul Hatwal was, like many, utterly bemused by Ed's filmed meeting with Brand. It MIGHT be that he was trying to rationalise this as actually being part of a planned campaign, rather than a bit of impromptu what-the-fuck?ery. It MIGHT be that he had heard gossip of isolated cases of sneaky-peeks at postal votes, far short of any reliable wider picture. It might be that at Labour Uncut, 2+2=7. It MIGHT be that any attempt to poison Ed is an attempt to look like he had the story of Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister first - knowing all will be forgotten if Ed strolls into Downing Street.
But it also just MIGHT be close to the truth. In which case, things are going badly adrift for Labour from the narrative the polls have been providing through this campaign. And some here might be turning up at the burns unit on Friday morning....
Or it might be that Atul Hatwal - the man who makes Dan Hodges look like the chairman of the Ed Miliband fan club - is just making stuff up.
Given he'd checked with the electoral commission it was ok to write the piece, it hardly suggests someone banging one out in a frenzy of imagination...
If you could tell from looking at the outside of the envelope what's inside, then why bother counting the stuff ?
Envelope B cannot be opened until 10:00 pm , if I am correct ?
That is wrong. I know because I was at a verification and sample count on Friday..
Obviously without giving away any specifics, was it possible to determine the general pattern of votes being cast, would you say?
If you knew what you were looking for yes...
A good spotter will know where their candidate is on the ballot paper and where the main threat is on the ballot paper Obviously a lot easier if they are top and bottom of paper which in this case they were.
- 58 per cent prefer Tory/LD deal to Labour/SNP - Kellner says
Conservatives 283 Labour 261 SNP 50 Lib Dem 32 Ukip 2
- Curtice says
Conservatives 291 Labour 265 SNP 44 Lib Dem 24 Ukip 3
Three and eight gains for Ed respectively. However those SNP figures may be a bit low. If they are right and the Cons are between 22 and 26 ahead it's hard to see Eddy's Govt. getting any legitimacy and Labour not getting hammered at the next GE.
But I just don't see it that way. This is the United Kingdom. SNP MPs have as much legitimacy as any other MPs and have the right to form a majority in the UK Parliament with other parties. The rules of the game are simple: do you have a majority in the House of Commons?
Ed Miliband is an idiot and has said some idiotic things but that does not change the rules. A "minority" Labour government which has a majority with the support of the SNP has the right to govern and will govern if the numbers support it. Cameron has the right to ask the House the question but once he gets a negative answer he has to leave.
Of course I am deeply disappointed that Scotland is going to elect so many SNP MPs. But an underlying mindset which suggests that they do not have as much right to determine the government as MPs from any other part of this United Kingdom is not a mindset that this Unionist can support.
I doubt that anyone thinks the SNP isn't legitimate, David. It's just that a government would be better not to be dependent on their votes.
Yes, we don't want democracy taking hold , bad for the troughers.
I keep coming back to last night's Atul Hatwal piece in Labour Uncut. "Revealed: Ed's night-time dash to casa Brand driven by postal vote panic"
It shouldn't be right. The disturbing premise behind the information contained in the article is that there have been multiple breaches of election law, as people not only see the votes as they are opened - which they shouldn't - but are then feeding them to a central Labour Party source - which they shouldn't.
And yet....why write the piece at all if it is just bollocks? It MIGHT be that Atul Hatwal was, like many, utterly bemused by Ed's filmed meeting with Brand. It MIGHT be that he was trying to rationalise this as actually being part of a planned campaign, rather than a bit of impromptu what-the-fuck?ery. It MIGHT be that he had heard gossip of isolated cases of sneaky-peeks at postal votes, far short of any reliable wider picture. It might be that at Labour Uncut, 2+2=7. It MIGHT be that any attempt to poison Ed is an attempt to look like he had the story of Ed Miliband Will Never Be Prime Minister first - knowing all will be forgotten if Ed strolls into Downing Street.
But it also just MIGHT be close to the truth. In which case, things are going badly adrift for Labour from the narrative the polls have been providing through this campaign. And some here might be turning up at the burns unit on Friday morning....
Or it might be that Atul Hatwal - the man who makes Dan Hodges look like the chairman of the Ed Miliband fan club - is just making stuff up.
Given he'd checked with the electoral commission it was ok to write the piece, it hardly suggests someone banging one out in a frenzy of imagination...
If you could tell from looking at the outside of the envelope what's inside, then why bother counting the stuff ?
Envelope B cannot be opened until 10:00 pm , if I am correct ?
That is wrong. I know because I was at a verification and sample count on Friday..
Obviously without giving away any specifics, was it possible to determine the general pattern of votes being cast, would you say?
Also you are looking at the number of postals returned from specific wards. Good canvassers will know how manus postals their party has in a ward so at the verification/sample you are looking for signs that you have managed to get your postal pledges back.
At what point is there a prime minister and government and the bookies pay out on those results? Does the queens speech have to be passed? Or if cameron puts a QS to the house and its rejected was he deemed to have been minority pm if only for a few days?
A "minority" Labour government which has a majority with the support of the SNP has the right to govern and will govern if the numbers support it.
That's where you run into trouble.
A minority Government has the right to govern, unless it's Conservative...
A minority Government doesn't have a majority with the support of the SNP unless there is a formal deal. Otherwise it's just a minority Government, like the Conservatives.
Not so. A minority government that the HoC is willing to support has the right to govern. It really does not matter how Ed and Nicola dance around the handbags. At the end of the day there is a vote and the answer is yes or no.
At the moment it looks like the answer will be no for Cameron and yes for Miliband. Thems the rules.
The constitutional position is pretty straight forward.
The political position is very 'interesting'.
Miliband and Sturgeon run the risk of having a second election having voted down popular measures - or confirming Tory accusations of 'back room deals' - which may add England to Labour's casualty fatality list....Having seen the slaughter in Scotland - how 'brave' will Labour backbenchers be?
That's a perfectly valid question.
But all this talk of illegitimacy is bullsh!t. Any government [ minority or otherwise ] which commands the confidence of the House of Commons is legitimate. Period.
Yes, everyone on here know that whoever can command a majority should be the Government. However vast swathes of the population and media won't see it that way. They'll see Wallace (who is ~20 seats behind DC) making an illegitimate deal with Salmond & Sturgeon, which he had explicitly ruled out!
Yes. If Dave has a lead over Ed of 20 seats or so, he will want to bring the Queen's Speech to the House and have it voted down.
However Ed's "No Deal with the SNP" is discussed before the election, if both parties then both vote in the same way against Dave and for Ed, it will look like a deal, smell like a deal and talk like a deal - to the English. I could almost imagine Ed and Alex taking to the same stage to tortuously try and explain the lack of a deal between them, it would be fun to watch that's for sure!
Labour and SNP have every right to form a government if they have the seats. If they govern for the whole of the UK, there can be no complaints. If they support left wing policies, so be it. But no one believes that will be the totality. That there will be favourable policies aimed at the Scots is the default assumption.
And how can it be otherwise? What would SNP gain by being only Labour's faithful poodle? Why would anyone vote SNP instead of Labour next time?
Typical whining Little Englander, inferiority complex always to the fore, greed getting the better of them. They would be happy just to get the Tories out.
David Cameron stays in office until he resigns or until his government is defeated on a vote of confidence. If the Conservatives are the largest party, it appears that he will exercise his right to test whether he has the confidence of the House.
Everyone agrees with that much, the question is then whether the voters will be iredeemably narked off if subsequently: 1) Labour votes against a Tory government. (Answer: No, they expect it.) 2) When asked by The Queen to form a government, Labour doesn't say, "Sorry, it wouldn't feel right, please call Dave back in." (Answer: No, that would be weird.)
Quite. All we need is a bit of patience. Cameron wants to try to pass a Queen's Speech? Fine, good luck with that, we'll vote against. No rush, May 27 is soon enough if Cameron wants to play games. It's interesting that the Tories are already leaking info on their strategy if they lose, though. Must be a double-bluff after their wonderful PV returns, eh?
BTW, I couldn't legally give any info if I'd got a leak from the PV (and Dixie, with respect, is an occasional poster who popped up in 2010 with wildly Tory-leaning enthusiasm). But I can truthfully say that the electoral services office in my patch was particularly careful with the opening so we have zero information from the PV opening. Out of curiosity, I've enquired whether the story is valid from other constituencies. I'm told it isn't.
A foul day for canvassing here in the East Midlands, to match Derby fans disappointment yesterday.
What a pity that this thread casually repeats as if fact the nonsence about SNP candidates that appears in the deadwood press. Amost universally the ones who have been on the TV and radio have come across as top quality for an articulate prersentation of their viewpoint.
A "minority" Labour government which has a majority with the support of the SNP has the right to govern and will govern if the numbers support it.
That's where you run into trouble.
A minority Government has the right to govern, unless it's Conservative...
A minority Government doesn't have a majority with the support of the SNP unless there is a formal deal. Otherwise it's just a minority Government, like the Conservatives.
Not so. A minority government that the HoC is willing to support has the right to govern. It really does not matter how Ed and Nicola dance around the handbags. At the end of the day there is a vote and the answer is yes or no.
At the moment it looks like the answer will be no for Cameron and yes for Miliband. Thems the rules.
The constitutional position is pretty straight forward.
The political position is very 'interesting'.
Miliband and Sturgeon run the risk of having a second election having voted down popular measures - or confirming Tory accusations of 'back room deals' - which may add England to Labour's casualty fatality list....Having seen the slaughter in Scotland - how 'brave' will Labour backbenchers be?
That's a perfectly valid question.
But all this talk of illegitimacy is bullsh!t. Any government [ minority or otherwise ] which commands the confidence of the House of Commons is legitimate. Period.
Yes, everyone on here know that whoever can command a majority should be the Government. However vast swathes of the population and media won't see it that way. They'll see Wallace (who is ~20 seats behind DC) making an illegitimate deal with Salmond & Sturgeon, which he had explicitly ruled out!
Yes. If Dave has a lead over Ed of 20 seats or so, he will want to bring the Queen's Speech to the House and have it voted down.
However Ed's "No Deal with the SNP" is discussed before the election, if both parties then both vote in the same way against Dave and for Ed, it will look like a deal, smell like a deal and talk like a deal - to the English. I could almost imagine Ed and Alex taking to the same stage to tortuously try and explain the lack of a deal between them, it would be fun to watch that's for sure!
Why is it in Alex’s interest to say there was no deal ?
The reverse is the case.
The main tie binding the Union is probably now the Labour Party. Alex needs to see it destroyed.
I can even imagine Alex winking to the camera and smiling as he says, “Sure, no deal!”. Giggle.
These apparently close polls and talk of touch and go between Labour and Conservatives is only going to get more voters out on Thursday. My guess would be more people (from Ukip and elsewhere) will go Tory as a result, but time will tell
What a pity that this thread casually repeats as if fact the nonsence about SNP candidates that appears in the deadwood press. Amost universally the ones who have been on the TV and radio have come across as top quality for an articulate prersentation of their viewpoint.
The problem is the ones who have not been on TV and radio. There's probably a reason they've been kept away. The SNP would not want them calling No voters Quisling and teaitors, or telling OAPs they'll do soon and then Scotland will be "free".
Anyway, no delivering/doorstepping for me today - off for a (hopefully!) lovely lunch with the Good Lady Wifi to celebrate our wedding anniversary. Politics is off the menu!
Not if this is on the menu :
Fish Course - Sturgeon or Salmon(d) or Kippers
Meat Course - Dead Duck a La Orange - Nick Clegg
Vegetables - Ed Miliband & Ed Balls
Dessert - Coalition Cabinet Pudding .. A Selection of UKIP Fruitcakes .. Eton Mess
SPIN is currently predicting a tory seat lead of 25. Was it by 20 it over estimated the Tories the last time?
I still see the Tories getting the most votes but for it to be touch and go who has the most seats. Given the remaining contents of the HoC this seems to me to make a Labour government of some description almost inevitable.
- 58 per cent prefer Tory/LD deal to Labour/SNP - Kellner says
Conservatives 283 Labour 261 SNP 50 Lib Dem 32 Ukip 2
- Curtice says
Conservatives 291 Labour 265 SNP 44 Lib Dem 24 Ukip 3
Somewhere between those two I would suggest.
Interesting that Kellner has Lab+SNP past the line if the LDs abstain, whereas Curtis has Con+LD past the line if UKIP and DUP (8?) abstain. A couple of seats either way will make a huge difference to the outcome.
But I just don't see it that way. This is the United Kingdom. SNP MPs have as much legitimacy as any other MPs and have the right to form a majority in the UK Parliament with other parties. The rules of the game are simple: do you have a majority in the House of Commons?
Ed Miliband is an idiot and has said some idiotic things but that does not change the rules. A "minority" Labour government which has a majority with the support of the SNP has the right to govern and will govern if the numbers support it. Cameron has the right to ask the House the question but once he gets a negative answer he has to leave.
Of course I am deeply disappointed that Scotland is going to elect so many SNP MPs. But an underlying mindset which suggests that they do not have as much right to determine the government as MPs from any other part of this United Kingdom is not a mindset that this Unionist can support.
I doubt that anyone thinks the SNP isn't legitimate, David. It's just that a government would be better not to be dependent on their votes.
Yes, we don't want democracy taking hold , bad for the troughers.
So the Scots are allowed to complain about 'getting a government they didn't vote for', but the English aren't?
You're all confused because the OUTRAGE!!! bus has switched lanes......
Mr. Freggles, because the SNP will be voting on matters which do not affect their constituents and which do affect people to whom the SNP are not accountable.
In the Scottish Parliament, every member was voting on matters for which they were responsible to their constituents.
MD, you still don't get it , there are few if any "English only" votes. It is a UK parliament voting on UK policy and in almost 100% of votes it affects Scotland. England has had its cake and ate it for 300 years but it is still not enough. Some day we will see democracy in this union.
- 58 per cent prefer Tory/LD deal to Labour/SNP - Kellner says
Conservatives 283 Labour 261 SNP 50 Lib Dem 32 Ukip 2
- Curtice says
Conservatives 291 Labour 265 SNP 44 Lib Dem 24 Ukip 3
Three and eight gains for Ed respectively. However those SNP figures may be a bit low. If they are right and the Cons are between 22 and 26 ahead it's hard to see Eddy's Govt. getting any legitimacy and Labour not getting hammered at the next GE.
Ed is Crap has to be no more than 20 seats behind IMO in order for EICIPM to happen
A "minority" Labour government which has a majority with the support of the SNP has the right to govern and will govern if the numbers support it.
That's where you run into trouble.
A minority Government has the right to govern, unless it's Conservative...
A minority Government doesn't have a majority with the support of the SNP unless there is a formal deal. Otherwise it's just a minority Government, like the Conservatives.
Not so. A minority government that the HoC is willing to support has the right to govern. It really does not matter how Ed and Nicola dance around the handbags. At the end of the day there is a vote and the answer is yes or no.
At the moment it looks like the answer will be no for Cameron and yes for Miliband. Thems the rules.
The constitutional position is pretty straight forward.
The political position is very 'interesting'.
Miliband and Sturgeon run the risk of having a second election having voted down popular measures - or confirming Tory accusations of 'back room deals' - which may add England to Labour's casualty fatality list....Having seen the slaughter in Scotland - how 'brave' will Labour backbenchers be?
That's a perfectly valid question.
But all this talk of illegitimacy is bullsh!t. Any government [ minority or otherwise ] which commands the confidence of the House of Commons is legitimate. Period.
Yes, everyone on here know that whoever can command a majority should be the Government. However vast swathes of the population and media won't see it that way. They'll see Wallace (who is ~20 seats behind DC) making an illegitimate deal with Salmond & Sturgeon, which he had explicitly ruled out!
Yes. If Dave has a lead over Ed of 20 seats or so, he will want to bring the Queen's Speech to the House and have it voted down.
However Ed's "No Deal with the SNP" is discussed before the election, if both parties then both vote in the same way against Dave and for Ed, it will look like a deal, smell like a deal and talk like a deal - to the English. I could almost imagine Ed and Alex taking to the same stage to tortuously try and explain the lack of a deal between them, it would be fun to watch that's for sure!
I can even imagine Alex winking to the camera and smiling as he says, “Sure, no deal!”. Giggle.
That's exactly what I was thinking. Ed tied in knots by Alex.
A lot of bravado on here from tribal supporters. Nobody knows I guess and those that do are biased and difficult to believe. May have a lie down until 10pm on Thursday.
Mr. G, the English won't see it that way, when MSPs are setting Scotland's income tax rate and SNP MPs then vote to increase it in England as well [top rate].
What a pity that this thread casually repeats as if fact the nonsence about SNP candidates that appears in the deadwood press. Amost universally the ones who have been on the TV and radio have come across as top quality for an articulate prersentation of their viewpoint.
So because some SNP candidates are high quality you cannot criticise any of them? The failure of Nicola to keep discipline of her troops is a problem.
Another trouble that Ed would face on an alliance with SNP is the EVEL question.
As I said the other day, the problem for Miliband will be his own ambition. It'll be his only ever shot at becoming PM and - understandably - he'll do all he can to grab the Holy Grail.
If he does come behind on votes and seats (I think he will on votes, it remains to be seen on seats) then he'd be best-advised to stay clear of the SNP. The word 'Nationalism' is a bit of a giveaway. Labour is a proud party and should have no truck with nationalists.
The SNP want to break up Britain and masquerade as left-of-centre redistributionists only because it suits their current needs. In reality they are just a party of tribalist thugs who hate Britain, hate England, hate being ruled from London and hate anyone who disagrees with them. The manner of the Cybernats alone should be enough to put any sensible mainstream politician off. The SNP are just fortunate to have had charismatic leadership this past ten years.
Whether or not Miliband is resolute enough to put common-sense before ambition is soon to be discovered.
@ShippersUnbound: Interesting that Yvette Cooper reacting rather more calmly to prospect of Cameron presenting a Queen's speech than many of the Twitter left
That assumes Clegg remains leader, and he doesn't welch with the DUP. If the LDs do too badly <25 seats then it might be hard to sell coalition and I'd expect a time-limited C&S deal.
I think the LDs will want STV for local elections as a downpayment on a future national PR referendum, and will trade with the Tories for it under Clegg.
Mr. G, the English won't see it that way, when MSPs are setting Scotland's income tax rate and SNP MPs then vote to increase it in England as well [top rate].
Increasing the top rate of tax would be very popular in England. It's delusional to think otherwise. That is not to say there won't be problems though particularly if the Smith proposals are delivered.
PS I hear Peter from Putney thought the Broxtowe meet was only for Labourites - not at all, the idea was that it'd be fun to have a cross-party meet so close to an electin in a marginal. I recommend coming a bit early and having a wander round to sniff the atmosphere (the Labour office is on City Road, the Tory club on Station Road, both nearby).
Are we talking the Victoria Hotel here near Beeston Station? Or is there a pub?
I would like to be there. Probably voting tactically this time Contra Gloria.
It's got lots of different areas but we're meeting in the saloon bar. I might be a bit late if something comes up - you'll understand that the campaign comes first - but should be there by 840 at the latest. If you're not sure you'll recognise anyone, you can find a pic of me here: http://bramcotetoday.org.uk/2015/04/26/nick-palmer-mediterranean-crisis-proposal-hustings-video-where-is-the-economy-going/ . The site is also a good place to look at contributions from all parties if you want to get a feeling for the constituency, though the comments on the contributions are not a reliable guide to anything (a few partisans on all sides).
Thanks.
I won't argue semantics, though I've known it as "Hotel" since 1984 :-D .
But I just don't see it that way. This is the United Kingdom. SNP MPs have as much legitimacy as any other MPs and have the right to form a majority in the UK Parliament with other parties. The rules of the game are simple: do you have a majority in the House of Commons?
Ed Miliband is an idiot and has said some idiotic things but that does not change the rules. A "minority" Labour government which has a majority with the support of the SNP has the right to govern and will govern if the numbers support it. Cameron has the right to ask the House the question but once he gets a negative answer he has to leave.
Of course I am deeply disappointed that Scotland is going to elect so many SNP MPs. But an underlying mindset which suggests that they do not have as much right to determine the government as MPs from any other part of this United Kingdom is not a mindset that this Unionist can support.
I doubt that anyone thinks the SNP isn't legitimate, David. It's just that a government would be better not to be dependent on their votes.
Yes, we don't want democracy taking hold , bad for the troughers.
So the Scots are allowed to complain about 'getting a government they didn't vote for', but the English aren't?
You're all confused because the OUTRAGE!!! bus has switched lanes......
You are confused as ever, it is impossible for the English to not get the government they voted for, they have nearly all of the seats. Get a grip on reality for goodness sake.
Around the same time, the SNP will find out whether it has defeated the Lib Dems in their fortress of Orkney & Shetland, a seat that has returned Liberal MPs in every election but one since 1837. If the nationalists win there, only the hugely popular Charles Kennedy, whose Ross, Skye & Lochaber seat reports at 7am, will stand in the way of a total SNP victory.
Ahahah If O&S goes, you can put every penny you've got on Kennedy going.
Mr. G, the English won't see it that way, when MSPs are setting Scotland's income tax rate and SNP MPs then vote to increase it in England as well [top rate].
MD, may let them see what we have had for 300 years then and wake them up
That looks flat, at best, for Labour based on constituency question
I predict that PC will do better than YG predcit day before election. Wood is the new Sturgeon. But, who will it affect? Labour seats in cities?
The elections in Wales blog gave an overview of Plaid's best prospects last year.
"...Ynys Môn looks the obvious Plaid target. Yet this requires a swing from Labour to Plaid in an election where Labour will generally be looking to advance rather than lose ground. Beyond that, Ceredigion may just be a possible: it requires a big (11%) swing, but a stronger Plaid candidate than in 2010 and a softening of Liberal Democrat support among the large student vote might just put it into play.
After that, Plaid’s remaining priority would seem to be to put in place some advance ground work for seats that will be targets in 2016: such as Llanelli, Aberconwy and Carmarthen West & South Pembrokeshire."
But I just don't see it that way. This is the United Kingdom. SNP MPs have as much legitimacy as any other MPs and have the right to form a majority in the UK Parliament with other parties. The rules of the game are simple: do you have a majority in the House of Commons?
Ed Miliband is an idiot and has said some idiotic things but that does not change the rules. A "minority" Labour government which has a majority with the support of the SNP has the right to govern and will govern if the numbers support it. Cameron has the right to ask the House the question but once he gets a negative answer he has to leave.
Of course I am deeply disappointed that Scotland is going to elect so many SNP MPs. But an underlying mindset which suggests that they do not have as much right to determine the government as MPs from any other part of this United Kingdom is not a mindset that this Unionist can support.
I doubt that anyone thinks the SNP isn't legitimate, David. It's just that a government would be better not to be dependent on their votes.
Yes, we don't want democracy taking hold , bad for the troughers.
So the Scots are allowed to complain about 'getting a government they didn't vote for', but the English aren't?
You're all confused because the OUTRAGE!!! bus has switched lanes......
You are confused as ever, it is impossible for the English to not get the government they voted for, they have nearly all of the seats. Get a grip on reality for goodness sake.
England votes majority votes & seats Tory, ends up with Lab+SNP government. Doesn't that fit the bill?
Kelner seats forecast is all over the place and seems to have been written before last nights polls IMO
It's based on Yougov, as far as I can tell.
He says Yougov indicates that the Conservatives are outperforming in Con/Lab marginals, and the Lib Dems are outperforming in the seats they hold. Ashcroft seat polls seem to back this up.
- 58 per cent prefer Tory/LD deal to Labour/SNP - Kellner says
Conservatives 283 Labour 261 SNP 50 Lib Dem 32 Ukip 2
- Curtice says
Conservatives 291 Labour 265 SNP 44 Lib Dem 24 Ukip 3
Three and eight gains for Ed respectively. However those SNP figures may be a bit low. If they are right and the Cons are between 22 and 26 ahead it's hard to see Eddy's Govt. getting any legitimacy and Labour not getting hammered at the next GE.
Ed is Crap has to be no more than 20 seats behind IMO in order for EICIPM to happen
I look at it this way:
2005 Lab 35% C 33% Lab maj 55. Lab = 353
Take away 40. , i.e. Lab = 313
Reduce Lab to make it 33%, Con 34%.
So Labour suddenly becomes 260 ?
If anything Labour is doing better in England than in 2005.
As I said the other day, the problem for Miliband will be his own ambition. It'll be his only ever shot at becoming PM and - understandably - he'll do all he can to grab the Holy Grail.
If he does come behind on votes and seats (I think he will on votes, it remains to be seen on seats) then he'd be best-advised to stay clear of the SNP. The word 'Nationalism' is a bit of a giveaway. Labour is a proud party and should have no truck with nationalists.
The SNP want to break up Britain and masquerade as left-of-centre redistributionists only because it suits their current needs. In reality they are just a party of tribalist thugs who hate Britain, hate England, hate being ruled from London and hate anyone who disagrees with them. The manner of the Cybernats alone should be enough to put any sensible mainstream politician off. The SNP are just fortunate to have had charismatic leadership this past ten years.
Whether or not Miliband is resolute enough to put common-sense before ambition is soon to be discovered.
LOL, I bet you were humming "Rule Brittania" as you posted that mawkish drivel.
David Cameron stays in office until he resigns or until his government is defeated on a vote of confidence. If the Conservatives are the largest party, it appears that he will exercise his right to test whether he has the confidence of the House.
Everyone agrees with that much, the question is then whether the voters will be iredeemably narked off if subsequently: 1) Labour votes against a Tory government. (Answer: No, they expect it.) 2) When asked by The Queen to form a government, Labour doesn't say, "Sorry, it wouldn't feel right, please call Dave back in." (Answer: No, that would be weird.)
Quite. All we need is a bit of patience. Cameron wants to try to pass a Queen's Speech? Fine, good luck with that, we'll vote against. No rush, May 27 is soon enough if Cameron wants to play games. It's interesting that the Tories are already leaking info on their strategy if they lose, though. Must be a double-bluff after their wonderful PV returns, eh?
BTW, I couldn't legally give any info if I'd got a leak from the PV (and Dixie, with respect, is an occasional poster who popped up in 2010 with wildly Tory-leaning enthusiasm). But I can truthfully say that the electoral services office in my patch was particularly careful with the opening so we have zero information from the PV opening. Out of curiosity, I've enquired whether the story is valid from other constituencies. I'm told it isn't.
Seedy politicians cooking up squalid deals, before the majority have even had their say on Thursday.
You could at least go through with a pretence that the electorate matter. Or does my vote count for nothing?
But I just don't see it that way. This is the United Kingdom. SNP MPs have as much legitimacy as any other MPs and have the right to form a majority in the UK Parliament with other parties. The rules of the game are simple: do you have a majority in the House of Commons?
Ed Miliband is an idiot and has said some idiotic things but that does not change the rules. A "minority" Labour government which has a majority with the support of the SNP has the right to govern and will govern if the numbers support it. Cameron has the right to ask the House the question but once he gets a negative answer he has to leave.
Of course I am deeply disappointed that Scotland is going to elect so many SNP MPs. But an underlying mindset which suggests that they do not have as much right to determine the government as MPs from any other part of this United Kingdom is not a mindset that this Unionist can support.
I doubt that anyone thinks the SNP isn't legitimate, David. It's just that a government would be better not to be dependent on their votes.
Yes, we don't want democracy taking hold , bad for the troughers.
So the Scots are allowed to complain about 'getting a government they didn't vote for', but the English aren't?
You're all confused because the OUTRAGE!!! bus has switched lanes......
You are confused as ever, it is impossible for the English to not get the government they voted for, they have nearly all of the seats. Get a grip on reality for goodness sake.
The English don't vote as a block and neither do the Scots. I have voted Lib Dem most of my life and never had a Lib Dem government. There would be a problem if Glaswegians voted the council tax rate for Edinburgh so why can the Scots vote on business rates in England.
As I said the other day, the problem for Miliband will be his own ambition. It'll be his only ever shot at becoming PM and - understandably - he'll do all he can to grab the Holy Grail.
If he does come behind on votes and seats (I think he will on votes, it remains to be seen on seats) then he'd be best-advised to stay clear of the SNP. The word 'Nationalism' is a bit of a giveaway. Labour is a proud party and should have no truck with nationalists.
The SNP want to break up Britain and masquerade as left-of-centre redistributionists only because it suits their current needs. In reality they are just a party of tribalist thugs who hate Britain, hate England, hate being ruled from London and hate anyone who disagrees with them. The manner of the Cybernats alone should be enough to put any sensible mainstream politician off. The SNP are just fortunate to have had charismatic leadership this past ten years.
Whether or not Miliband is resolute enough to put common-sense before ambition is soon to be discovered.
LOL, I bet you were humming "Rule Brittania" as you posted that mawkish drivel.
You are the perfect example of why labour should steer clear of the SNP. How could a London-based party ever do a deal with a party supported by somebody like you? You will never be happy with anything until you achieve independence.
I want Scotland to be independent. So I can laugh at you afterwards. Unfortunately for you, the Labour party doesn't want independence for Scotland.
But I just don't see it that way. This is the United Kingdom. SNP MPs have as much legitimacy as any other MPs and have the right to form a majority in the UK Parliament with other parties. The rules of the game are simple: do you have a majority in the House of Commons?
Ed Miliband is an idiot and has said some idiotic things but that does not change the rules. A "minority" Labour government which has a majority with the support of the SNP has the right to govern and will govern if the numbers support it. Cameron has the right to ask the House the question but once he gets a negative answer he has to leave.
Of course I am deeply disappointed that Scotland is going to elect so many SNP MPs. But an underlying mindset which suggests that they do not have as much right to determine the government as MPs from any other part of this United Kingdom is not a mindset that this Unionist can support.
I doubt that anyone thinks the SNP isn't legitimate, David. It's just that a government would be better not to be dependent on their votes.
Yes, we don't want democracy taking hold , bad for the troughers.
So the Scots are allowed to complain about 'getting a government they didn't vote for', but the English aren't?
You're all confused because the OUTRAGE!!! bus has switched lanes......
You are confused as ever, it is impossible for the English to not get the government they voted for, they have nearly all of the seats. Get a grip on reality for goodness sake.
England votes majority votes & seats Tory, ends up with Lab+SNP government. Doesn't that fit the bill?
You mean exactly what Scotland got in 1992 - 1997 ?
But I just don't see it that way. This is the United Kingdom. SNP MPs have as much legitimacy as any other MPs and have the right to form a majority in the UK Parliament with other parties. The rules of the game are simple: do you have a majority in the House of Commons?
Ed Miliband is an idiot and has said some idiotic things but that does not change the rules. A "minority" Labour government which has a majority with the support of the SNP has the right to govern and will govern if the numbers support it. Cameron has the right to ask the House the question but once he gets a negative answer he has to leave.
Of course I am deeply disappointed that Scotland is going to elect so many SNP MPs. But an underlying mindset which suggests that they do not have as much right to determine the government as MPs from any other part of this United Kingdom is not a mindset that this Unionist can support.
I doubt that anyone thinks the SNP isn't legitimate, David. It's just that a government would be better not to be dependent on their votes.
Yes, we don't want democracy taking hold , bad for the troughers.
So the Scots are allowed to complain about 'getting a government they didn't vote for', but the English aren't?
You're all confused because the OUTRAGE!!! bus has switched lanes......
You are confused as ever, it is impossible for the English to not get the government they voted for, they have nearly all of the seats. Get a grip on reality for goodness sake.
England votes majority votes & seats Tory, ends up with Lab+SNP government. Doesn't that fit the bill?
You mean exactly what Scotland got in 1992 - 1997 ?
Its an OUTRAGE!!! in Scotland, but not in England, apparently.......
But I just don't see it that way. This is the United Kingdom. SNP MPs have as much legitimacy as any other MPs and have the right to form a majority in the UK Parliament with other parties. The rules of the game are simple: do you have a majority in the House of Commons?
Ed Miliband is an idiot and has said some idiotic things but that does not change the rules. A "minority" Labour government which has a majority with the support of the SNP has the right to govern and will govern if the numbers support it. Cameron has the right to ask the House the question but once he gets a negative answer he has to leave.
Of course I am deeply disappointed that Scotland is going to elect so many SNP MPs. But an underlying mindset which suggests that they do not have as much right to determine the government as MPs from any other part of this United Kingdom is not a mindset that this Unionist can support.
I doubt that anyone thinks the SNP isn't legitimate, David. It's just that a government would be better not to be dependent on their votes.
Yes, we don't want democracy taking hold , bad for the troughers.
So the Scots are allowed to complain about 'getting a government they didn't vote for', but the English aren't?
You're all confused because the OUTRAGE!!! bus has switched lanes......
You are confused as ever, it is impossible for the English to not get the government they voted for, they have nearly all of the seats. Get a grip on reality for goodness sake.
England votes majority votes & seats Tory, ends up with Lab+SNP government. Doesn't that fit the bill?
You mean exactly what Scotland got in 1992 - 1997 ?
That looks flat, at best, for Labour based on constituency question
I predict that PC will do better than YG predcit day before election. Wood is the new Sturgeon. But, who will it affect? Labour seats in cities?
The elections in Wales blog gave an overview of Plaid's best prospects last year.
"...Ynys Môn looks the obvious Plaid target. Yet this requires a swing from Labour to Plaid in an election where Labour will generally be looking to advance rather than lose ground. Beyond that, Ceredigion may just be a possible: it requires a big (11%) swing, but a stronger Plaid candidate than in 2010 and a softening of Liberal Democrat support among the large student vote might just put it into play.
After that, Plaid’s remaining priority would seem to be to put in place some advance ground work for seats that will be targets in 2016: such as Llanelli, Aberconwy and Carmarthen West & South Pembrokeshire."
But I just don't see it that way. This is the United Kingdom. SNP MPs have as much legitimacy as any other MPs and have the right to form a majority in the UK Parliament with other parties. The rules of the game are simple: do you have a majority in the House of Commons?
Ed Miliband is an idiot and has said some idiotic things but that does not change the rules. A "minority" Labour government which has a majority with the support of the SNP has the right to govern and will govern if the numbers support it. Cameron has the right to ask the House the question but once he gets a negative answer he has to leave.
Of course I am deeply disappointed that Scotland is going to elect so many SNP MPs. But an underlying mindset which suggests that they do not have as much right to determine the government as MPs from any other part of this United Kingdom is not a mindset that this Unionist can support.
I doubt that anyone thinks the SNP isn't legitimate, David. It's just that a government would be better not to be dependent on their votes.
Yes, we don't want democracy taking hold , bad for the troughers.
So the Scots are allowed to complain about 'getting a government they didn't vote for', but the English aren't?
You're all confused because the OUTRAGE!!! bus has switched lanes......
You are confused as ever, it is impossible for the English to not get the government they voted for, they have nearly all of the seats. Get a grip on reality for goodness sake.
England votes majority votes & seats Tory, ends up with Lab+SNP government. Doesn't that fit the bill?
In that event would Cameron not go with minority government or coalition with his LibDem poodles and possibly other assorted riff raff.
Kelner seats forecast is all over the place and seems to have been written before last nights polls IMO
It's based on Yougov, as far as I can tell.
He says Yougov indicates that the Conservatives are outperforming in Con/Lab marginals, and the Lib Dems are outperforming in the seats they hold. Ashcroft seat polls seem to back this up.
Really cant see Kelners numbers on any YG poll in the past few weeks. Even less so on latest comres phone polls To say nothing of the MASSIVE Survation. Equally where the hell did he get his previous Lab seats forecast from too.
Around the same time, the SNP will find out whether it has defeated the Lib Dems in their fortress of Orkney & Shetland, a seat that has returned Liberal MPs in every election but one since 1837. If the nationalists win there, only the hugely popular Charles Kennedy, whose Ross, Skye & Lochaber seat reports at 7am, will stand in the way of a total SNP victory.
Ahahah If O&S goes, you can put every penny you've got on Kennedy going.
As I understand it O&S isn’t any more keen on being ruled by Edinburgh than it is by London. Given the opporftunioty older inhabitants at any rate would probably prefer Oslo or Copenhagen!
As I said the other day, the problem for Miliband will be his own ambition. It'll be his only ever shot at becoming PM and - understandably - he'll do all he can to grab the Holy Grail.
If he does come behind on votes and seats (I think he will on votes, it remains to be seen on seats) then he'd be best-advised to stay clear of the SNP. The word 'Nationalism' is a bit of a giveaway. Labour is a proud party and should have no truck with nationalists.
The SNP want to break up Britain and masquerade as left-of-centre redistributionists only because it suits their current needs. In reality they are just a party of tribalist thugs who hate Britain, hate England, hate being ruled from London and hate anyone who disagrees with them. The manner of the Cybernats alone should be enough to put any sensible mainstream politician off. The SNP are just fortunate to have had charismatic leadership this past ten years.
Whether or not Miliband is resolute enough to put common-sense before ambition is soon to be discovered.
LOL, I bet you were humming "Rule Brittania" as you posted that mawkish drivel.
You are the perfect example of why labour should steer clear of the SNP. How could a London-based party ever do a deal with a party supported by somebody like you? You will never be happy with anything until you achieve independence.
I want Scotland to be independent. So I can laugh at you afterwards. Unfortunately for you, the Labour party doesn't want independence for Scotland.
You said it correctly , London party, there is only one Scottish party and surprise surprise they are popular.
Ed Miliband has said some pretty stupid things if he intends to try to govern from second place in seats and votes (and I expect he does, if he has to). The public won't take kindly to logic-chopping.
I read that stuff as directed at setting the parameters of the not-at-all-a-deal-oh-no he intends to cut with the SNP. The idea is to set up the choice as "Will the SNP support Labour's program or will you get the Tories?" rather than "How much is it reasonable for Labour to offer Scotland?". The reason he needs to avoid the latter is that there's no possible answer to it that's going to satisfy Scottish and English voters simultaneously.
It doesn't matter what was actually said or intended, it matters how it gets portrayed by your opponents and the press. A case in point being cast iron Dave. Nobody ever used the full quote, just the damaging abridged version which is now all that people remember.
I think there's a difference here in that with the referendum promise a lot of people who cared about the issue really, really wanted the extended version (what was spun to the press) to be true and genuinely believed it. In the case of Ed Miliband's claims about working with the SNP hardly any of the voters ever believed the literal version of what he said, let alone the stretched version.
''You will never be happy with anything until you achieve independence.''
In a discussion Malcolm never makes a point without attaching a personal insult to the person he is addressing.
What an unpleasant individual he is.
Given some of the reports emerging of the conduct of the SNP and its supporters, Malcolm's attitude is hardly surprising.
I'm Welsh, and perfectly understand the patriotic (mainly sport-related) anti-Englishness. But there is a stark difference between patriotism and nationalism. As history proves.
- 58 per cent prefer Tory/LD deal to Labour/SNP - Kellner says
Conservatives 283 Labour 261 SNP 50 Lib Dem 32 Ukip 2
- Curtice says
Conservatives 291 Labour 265 SNP 44 Lib Dem 24 Ukip 3
Three and eight gains for Ed respectively. However those SNP figures may be a bit low. If they are right and the Cons are between 22 and 26 ahead it's hard to see Eddy's Govt. getting any legitimacy and Labour not getting hammered at the next GE.
Ed is Crap has to be no more than 20 seats behind IMO in order for EICIPM to happen
I look at it this way:
2005 Lab 35% C 33% Lab maj 55. Lab = 353
Take away 40. , i.e. Lab = 313
Reduce Lab to make it 33%, Con 34%.
So Labour suddenly becomes 260 ?
If anything Labour is doing better in England than in 2005.
The Conservatives also look as though they'll do better than 2005. There was a boundary review in 2010; the Conservatives did a bit better than UNS that year; and Conservative MP's elected that year have the chance to build up a personal vote. There are seats that Labour won in 2005 that look completely out of reach now.
Then of course, there's Scotland. A fall in Labour's vote share of 1% (in GB wide terms) can cost them 5% of the seats in the Commons.
But I just don't see it that way. This is the United Kingdom. SNP MPs have as much legitimacy as any other MPs and have the right to form a majority in the UK Parliament with other parties. The rules of the game are simple: do you have a majority in the House of Commons?
Ed Miliband is an idiot and has said some idiotic things but that does not change the rules. A "minority" Labour government which has a majority with the support of the SNP has the right to govern and will govern if the numbers support it. Cameron has the right to ask the House the question but once he gets a negative answer he has to leave.
Of course I am deeply disappointed that Scotland is going to elect so many SNP MPs. But an underlying mindset which suggests that they do not have as much right to determine the government as MPs from any other part of this United Kingdom is not a mindset that this Unionist can support.
I doubt that anyone thinks the SNP isn't legitimate, David. It's just that a government would be better not to be dependent on their votes.
Yes, we don't want democracy taking hold , bad for the troughers.
So the Scots are allowed to complain about 'getting a government they didn't vote for', but the English aren't?
You're all confused because the OUTRAGE!!! bus has switched lanes......
You are confused as ever, it is impossible for the English to not get the government they voted for, they have nearly all of the seats. Get a grip on reality for goodness sake.
it's entirely possible. Look at present situation.
The word 'Nationalism' is a bit of a giveaway. Labour is a proud party and should have no truck with nationalists.
The SNP want to break up Britain and masquerade as left-of-centre redistributionists only because it suits their current needs. In reality they are just a party of tribalist thugs who hate Britain, hate England, hate being ruled from London and hate anyone who disagrees with them. The manner of the Cybernats alone should be enough to put any sensible mainstream politician off.
Comments
It suggests that Labour thinks discrimination on grounds of sex is less important than on grounds of religious ideology. And it's all the more pertinent given Harman's championing of women's rights, Miliband's proposals re 'islamophobia', Harman and Jack being husband and wife and Jack being shadow police minister.
Lots of voters would be interested in this. There are mosques and 'Islamic religious centres' springing up all over the country and their effect on local cultural norms has been in the news recently, not all of it entirely positive.
If these politicians are going to be running things, and giving a lead to the use of police resources, then we need to know how they view these matters.
But politicians have largely lost any trust the electorate may have had in them.
And when they (politicians) clearly are afraid of telling the truth because voters don't like hearing that money does not grow of trees, who can blame them for not telling the truth?
And that reinforces the message about politicians..
Voters get the politicians they deserve.
I expect a LOW turnout. Whom that may favour?
"Everybody expects these creatures to lie."
Sad, but true.
The Conservatives are on course to be the largest party, but it is touch and go whether David Cameron will be able to remain Prime Minister
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/05/03/zone-uncertainty/
- 58 per cent prefer Tory/LD deal to Labour/SNP
- Kellner says
Conservatives 283
Labour 261
SNP 50
Lib Dem 32
Ukip 2
- Curtice says
Conservatives 291
Labour 265
SNP 44
Lib Dem 24
Ukip 3
The SNP clearly won that election (although they didn’t get a majority). The largest party provided the first minister, and received C&S form the third largest.
The narrative of who has won is important, especially if there is a clear winner in terms of seats and votes.
Some (many ?) in Labour would be unhappy with a deal with the SNP (see e.g., Hopi Sen’s blog), but they are probably -- and wisely --- staying quiet for now out of party loyalty.
I don’t expect them to be quiet after Thursday.
BTW, I couldn't legally give any info if I'd got a leak from the PV (and Dixie, with respect, is an occasional poster who popped up in 2010 with wildly Tory-leaning enthusiasm). But I can truthfully say that the electoral services office in my patch was particularly careful with the opening so we have zero information from the PV opening. Out of curiosity, I've enquired whether the story is valid from other constituencies. I'm told it isn't.
Voters tend to believe the leader of the largest party has the better claim to be Prime Minister, not the leader of whichever group of parties can command a majority
Only one in four British people (26%) feel that the leader of the biggest group of MPs – even if it doesn’t include the largest party – has the mandate to move into Number Ten. Nearly twice as many (48%) believe the leader of the party with the most seats has the more credible claim, even if he or she cannot command a majority.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/05/02/leader-most-seats-has-biggest-mandate/
A good spotter will know where their candidate is on the ballot paper and where the main threat is on the ballot paper
Obviously a lot easier if they are top and bottom of paper which in this case they were.
LOL ....
However Ed's "No Deal with the SNP" is discussed before the election, if both parties then both vote in the same way against Dave and for Ed, it will look like a deal, smell like a deal and talk like a deal - to the English. I could almost imagine Ed and Alex taking to the same stage to tortuously try and explain the lack of a deal between them, it would be fun to watch that's for sure!
Don't catch pneumonia.
Here lies The Labour Party 1900-2015. RIP.
The reverse is the case.
The main tie binding the Union is probably now the Labour Party. Alex needs to see it destroyed.
I can even imagine Alex winking to the camera and smiling as he says, “Sure, no deal!”. Giggle.
Fish Course - Sturgeon or Salmon(d) or Kippers
Meat Course - Dead Duck a La Orange - Nick Clegg
Vegetables - Ed Miliband & Ed Balls
Dessert - Coalition Cabinet Pudding .. A Selection of UKIP Fruitcakes .. Eton Mess
How the f8ck are we going to make a story out of this??
I still see the Tories getting the most votes but for it to be touch and go who has the most seats. Given the remaining contents of the HoC this seems to me to make a Labour government of some description almost inevitable.
We are heading for interesting times.
Interesting that Kellner has Lab+SNP past the line if the LDs abstain, whereas Curtis has Con+LD past the line if UKIP and DUP (8?) abstain. A couple of seats either way will make a huge difference to the outcome.
You're all confused because the OUTRAGE!!! bus has switched lanes......
Locus Prediction: C 34.5 L 30.5 Ukip 13 LD 10 G 4
Seats: C 294 L 263 Ukip 2 LD 19 G 1 SNP 50
Another trouble that Ed would face on an alliance with SNP is the EVEL question.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrqG6CbmZjw
As I said the other day, the problem for Miliband will be his own ambition. It'll be his only ever shot at becoming PM and - understandably - he'll do all he can to grab the Holy Grail.
If he does come behind on votes and seats (I think he will on votes, it remains to be seen on seats) then he'd be best-advised to stay clear of the SNP. The word 'Nationalism' is a bit of a giveaway. Labour is a proud party and should have no truck with nationalists.
The SNP want to break up Britain and masquerade as left-of-centre redistributionists only because it suits their current needs. In reality they are just a party of tribalist thugs who hate Britain, hate England, hate being ruled from London and hate anyone who disagrees with them. The manner of the Cybernats alone should be enough to put any sensible mainstream politician off. The SNP are just fortunate to have had charismatic leadership this past ten years.
Whether or not Miliband is resolute enough to put common-sense before ambition is soon to be discovered.
That assumes Clegg remains leader, and he doesn't welch with the DUP. If the LDs do too badly <25 seats then it might be hard to sell coalition and I'd expect a time-limited C&S deal.
I think the LDs will want STV for local elections as a downpayment on a future national PR referendum, and will trade with the Tories for it under Clegg.
I won't argue semantics, though I've known it as "Hotel" since 1984 :-D .
Ahahah If O&S goes, you can put every penny you've got on Kennedy going.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11579451/Lily-Savage-star-Paul-OGrady-to-leave-Britain-if-Conservatives-wins-election.html
We get a few of these every time.
The next government should legislate to ensure that these threats/ promises are rigorously complied with. No welshing.
He says Yougov indicates that the Conservatives are outperforming in Con/Lab marginals, and the Lib Dems are outperforming in the seats they hold. Ashcroft seat polls seem to back this up.
2005 Lab 35% C 33% Lab maj 55. Lab = 353
Take away 40. , i.e. Lab = 313
Reduce Lab to make it 33%, Con 34%.
So Labour suddenly becomes 260 ?
If anything Labour is doing better in England than in 2005.
Nige wants to scrap Strictly Come Dancing. So forget my first comment.
Could we get O'Grady's promise in writing?
You could at least go through with a pretence that the electorate matter. Or does my vote count for nothing?
I want Scotland to be independent. So I can laugh at you afterwards. Unfortunately for you, the Labour party doesn't want independence for Scotland.
Miliband will shovel more powers to Holyrood, if he's PM, and that'll only worsen the West Lothian Question.
has anyone mentioned the poll in the Sun on Sunday?
Shows Labour on 35 Tories 34
No? Thought not.
In a discussion Malcolm rarely makes a point without attaching a personal insult to the person he is addressing.
What an unpleasant individual he is.
TSE?
I'm Welsh, and perfectly understand the patriotic (mainly sport-related) anti-Englishness. But there is a stark difference between patriotism and nationalism. As history proves.
Then of course, there's Scotland. A fall in Labour's vote share of 1% (in GB wide terms) can cost them 5% of the seats in the Commons.
it's entirely possible. Look at present situation.
Mainstream 'One Nation' Labour..