Miliband: I'd Rather Lose Than Do SNP Deal

[arista]

Thats Fine with me Ed.

[Ed Miliband has said if being prime minister meant
a deal with the SNP then there would be no Labour government.
It is the furthest the Labour leader has gone on ruling out any
agreement with the Scottish National Party,
leaving little wriggle room for post 7 May negotiations.]


http://news.sky.com/story/1475500/miliband-id-rather-lose-than-do-snp-deal

[Kizzy]

I hope he can.

[MB.]

Congratulations David.

[arista]

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2015/4/30/388704/default/v1/tele-1-720x960.jpg

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2015/4/30/388708/default/v2/the-times-01-05-15-pg-1-1-720x960.jpg

http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2015/4/30/388715/default/v2/indie-1-720x960.jpg


http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2015/4/30/388716/default/v1/i-1-720x960.jpg

[the truth]

hes just given away any remote chance he had.....without snp labour cannot win
theyre predicted to see 283 tories, 270 labour, 48 snp, 24 liberals 1 or 2 ukip, 1 or 2 plaed, a handful of greens

so he has to go with snp or lose?

nice one dave???????

[smudgie]

I am afraid he is talking out of his bottom.

If there are deals to be done, they will be done.
Just not A deal.

[reece(:]

Extremely asinine thing to say.

[Firewire]

not miss nicola being shunned

[the truth]

it would though be the biggest lie in british electoral history to state categorically again and again that he wont form a government with the snp....they form a government with the snp

[smudgie]

it would though be the biggest lie in british electoral history to state categorically again and again that he wont form a government with the snp....they form a government with the snp

Indeed it will....but he will turn it to stretching the truth.
In the same way he keeps insisting non doms don't pay tax.

[the truth]

im actually a labour voter at heart....I like income redistribution...I want to see the industries reborn....I like to see the jobs spread across the uk and the investments..were way too London centric..i want strong workers rights good healthcare for all etc

but new labour are pure evil

cmaeron and the tories have done a better job for the nhs uk than welsh labour....though I understand welsh labour have a more limited budget....they should have made more welfare reforms and middle management reforms but they cant as theyre enslaved to those unions

[Crimson Dynamo]

i just dont get his strategy

[Nedusa]

I get the feeling that when push comes to shove Mr Miliband will do a deal with the Devil himself if it means he can become PM.

He desperately wants to form the next Govt as PM and will do a deal with anybody and everybody, he certainly won't let the wishes of the electorate stand in his way. And words like honour, truth, sincerity etc.... Well they just that... words

[Northern Monkey]

It will look very bad if he goes back on it.I would say that i would lose all respect for him but....

[joeysteele]

He doesn't need to do any deal at all, really the SNP have said clearly loads of times, they will not allow a Conservative govt; to be in power if they have the numbers to prevent that.
Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon know,if they did anything that brought that about,then they too would pay a heavy price for that with Scots voters afterwards.

If after May 8th,it is clear the Conservatives have not got the support from other parties in parliament to get a Queen's speech passed, then it will be up to Ed Miliband to put forward a Queen's speech.
Which he can easily do as a then minority Labour govt:

The SNP then have to decide with no talking to Labour at all,whether they will support that Queen's speech or vote aginst,which would then open the door to David Cameron trying to get one passed,which the SNP could never ever support,
That would then open the door to a new general election.

The SNP have the Holyrood elections next year,no way would they want another general election, finances will be stretched to the limit.

Ed Miliband, then only needs to call the bluff of the SNP as to the Queen's speech vote,without any deals whatsoever and last night he indicated clearly,he would rather not take office than do a formal deal with the SNP.
So a likely new general election would be the outcome if the SNP have the numbers to prevent both parties governing.
He rarely ever changes his mind on things once he rules them out.
He has now ruled out coalition and confidence and supply too.

Would the SNP really not support a Labour Queen's speech over a Conservative one,I think not and once they have supported it then they couldn't really in the future vote against the major contents of it.

I see nothing wrong with Labour doing a deal with the SNP, if the Scottish part of the UK elects large umbers of them to Westminster.
I would welcome a deal, however he has stated, it would be a minority Labour govt; he would lead.

It is then for the other parties to decide, do they allow him to govern or bring him down and allow the Conservatives into power,or force another geeral election.

For the SNP, that really could be political suicide if they brought that about.
It is in fact in the scenario above, Ed Miliband who has the upper hand as to the SNP no matter what occurs in Scotland on My 7th..

[Crimson Dynamo]

He is happy to lead a minority govt as the SNP have done with success in Scotland

Kinnocks son said so on LBC earlier today

[joeysteele]

I get the feeling that when push comes to shove Mr Miliband will do a deal with the Devil himself if it means he can become PM.

He desperately wants to form the next Govt as PM and will do a deal with anybody and everybody, he certainly won't let the wishes of the electorate stand in his way. And words like honour, truth, sincerity etc.... Well they just that... words

I think you are wrong on that one Nedusa,he could have promised and EU referendum and even had UKIP on board with him nore than they would for the Conservatives.
However he has stuck firm to his word on that,he doesn't change his mind, I really belive he would rather have another general election than now do any formal deals with the SNP.

They will have to decide what road they want to take the UK down,a minority Labour govt; or a Conservative led govt; or a new general election.
If they brought about the latter 2, the SNP would,I am sure, be slated heavily in Scotland by Scots voters.

As yet Ed Miliband has not broken his word as leader on anything to be fair to him or altered his thinking once making his mind up on issues.

[MTVN]

Think I'd actually rather a Labour-SNP coalition than a situation where a Labour minority has to painstakingly win the support of the Nats on every single issue constantly having to offer concessions to push through any legislation at all

[joeysteele]

Think I'd actually rather a Labour-SNP coalition than a situation where a Labour minority has to painstakingly win the support of the Nats on every single issue constantly having to offer concessions to push through any legislation at all

It can be easy though MTVN, the SNP have operated a minority situation for 4 years in Scotland before 2011,they know the importance of stability.

A minority govt; can be a stable one if most of the parliamenary MPs elected, are happy for it to govern and really hate the alternative.

The SNP will know the important votes and all they need to do is be there for them to ensure that stability of govt; which they will be,they cannot just hang around Scotland.

He will also have the Greens, Plaid Cymru and the SDLP in Northen Ireland against the Conservatives too.
his could be,if it is the case, one fo the stronger govts; the UK has had, as it would command more parties supporting it in the Commons.

The current predictions are Labour 274 seats, the Conservatives 281,the SNP 55.
If that was the case, no way could the Conservatives ever govern without support from the SNP,so stability can be assured even likely with no deal whatsoever that could either compromise Labour or in fact the SNP too.

Me, myself agree, I'd rather a Labour/SNP coalition but both have ruled that out so the SNP are not seeking ministerial posts or even a formal agreement either.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Nicola Sturgeon tonight warned Ed Miliband he will not be able to pass a Labour Budget unless he agrees to SNP demands - despite the Labour leader's claim that he would not do any deals.


The Scottish First Minister talked up her chances of being Westminster's king-maker following next week's election, with polls still pointing to another hung parliament


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3063294/Surging-Sturgeon-slaps-Miliband-SNP-leader-vows-block-Labour-budget-Miliband-does-not-make-deal-her.html#ixzz3YsYMvRtd
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[MTVN]

It can be easy thugh MTVN, the SNP have operated a minority situation for 4 years in Scotland before 2011,they know the importance of stability.

A minority govt; can be a stable one if most of the parliamenary MPs elected, are happy for it to govern and really hate the alternative.

The SNP will know the important votes and all they need to do is be there for them to ensure that stability of govt; which they will be,they cannot just hang around Scotland.

He will also have the Greens, Plaid Cymru and the SDLP in Northen Ireland against the Conservatives too.
his could be,if it is the case, one fo the stronger govts; the UK has had, as it would command more parties supporting it in the Commons.

The current predictions are Labour 274 seats, the Conservatives 281,the SNP 55.
If that was the case, no way could the Conservatives ever govern without support from the SNP,so stability can be assured even likely with no deal whatsoever that could either compromise Labour or in fact the SNP too.

Me, myself agree, I'd rather a Labour/SNP coalition but both have ruled that out so the SNP are not seeking ministerial posts or even a formal agreement either.

It's far from ideal though, I believe the SNP once had their budget defeated as a minority government in Scotland. I think we'd be likely to see 5 years of stand offs: The SNP will not want to be seen doing anything to help the Tories but they will also not want to be seen giving unqualified support for a Labour minority. They will want to extract some key concessions and would probably be justified in predicating their support for Labour on gaining those, Labour's position will be constantly insecure if the main opposition party has more seats than the government.

[joeysteele]

It's far from ideal though, I believe the SNP once had their budget defeated as a minority government in Scotland. I think we'd be likely to see 5 years of stand offs: The SNP will not want to be seen doing anything to help the Tories but they will also not want to be seen giving unqualified support for a Labour minority. They will want to extract some key concessions and would probably be justified in predicating their support for Labour on gaining those, Labour's position will be constantly insecure if the main opposition party has more seats than the government.

If things stay as they are,I really can see Miliband digging his heels in and preferring another election that the SNP will have then forced.
He may even see that,rightly or wrongly, as his way back in Scotland.

The SNP would be slated and their finances rocked if even that came about,they have had the referendum vote last year, this general election, possibly another in a month or 2 if they brought Labour down,then the Holyrood elections next year.
The Scots would be fed up.
He may see this as putting the SNP on the spot totally, having said that, I do believe the SNP would support Labour legislation in order to never risk even just another election.

I have to head out again now,more canvassing, great to have chatted with you MTVN on this one.

[Kazanne]

This will prove whether he is a man of his word or not!

[joeysteele]

This will prove whether he is a man of his word or not!

It will indeed,he has however ruled out 'coalition' and 'confidence and supply'.
(He has never budged for even his own party as to an EU referendum,many Labour MPs hoped he would offer one too, he hasn't budged one inch on that all through,even though it would have made this campaign far easier for him).

This means as a minority govt;,he puts his plans forward,if the SNP support it and don't bring him down, that does not count as a deal.
His wording is careful he has ruled out those formal deals.

It will be down to the SNP,either accepting his policies ad supporting them to keep the Conservatives out,or them forcing him down and then having to force down the Conservatives too.
Setting of another likely election.

He knows that could massively damage the SNP if they followed that course and they would be the ones seen as the wreckers.
I believe he will stick to his guns but disagree with his stance, I think he should be open to a firmer deal, not a coalition..

This could be a really strange set up as to the House of Commons after this election, unless something really happens now that sees one of main 2 parties finishing just short of an overall majority.

It could yet still come about that the Conservatives get nearer 300 seats and depending on how many the Lib Dems hang onto,that this coalition could probably then carry on.
As it stands at the minute however,it does look more like that neither main party could survive as a govt; without the SNP votes.
It will be an exciting evening as the results flood in for sure if things stay as they seem to be at present.

Do you watch the election on the night Kazanne?

[JoshBB]

Idiot. I wish he would stop pandering to the right. As a left-wing english person, I would much prefer that he did a deal with the SNP than to allow the tories back into power.

[Jack_]

This was the one thing he's said this entire campaign that's disappointed me, because as much as the Tories tactics have been to scare people into a Labour/SNP coalition or 'propping up', I'd actually be very excited about that prospect because the further left they'd push Labour the better for me.

Having said that, he has in effect called the SNP's bluff as Joey's explained. Vote down their Queen's speech and allow the Tories a pathway into power. The ball's in their court now.

[joeysteele]

This was the one thing he's said this entire campaign that's disappointed me, because as much as the Tories tactics have been to scare people into a Labour/SNP coalition or 'propping up', I'd actually be very excited about that prospect because the further left they'd push Labour the better for me.

Having said that, he has in effect called the SNP's bluff as Joey's explained. Vote down their Queen's speech and allow the Tories a pathway into power. The ball's in their court now.

Me too, Jack. I would love to see a Labour/SNP coalition too.
I feel,if it was successful, it could even mean a more unified UK and a long, long spell of the fairer more compassionate policies being enacted for a good few elections to come too.
A really appropriate re-alignment of the left that has been craved for,even by many in the Labour party, for ages now.

[Livia]

I'm glad to see he's come to terms with it early.

The prospect of the SNP representing fewer people than live in Birmingham, in a coalition to lead the whole UK is something surely no English person would vote for.

[joeysteele]

I'm glad to see he's come to terms with it early.

The prospect of the SNP representing fewer people than live in Birmingham, in a coalition to lead the whole UK is something surely no English person would vote for.

That isn't the point with full respect,in my view anyway.
We are a democracy and votes are not the issue, we operate a first past the post system to elect an MP, and MPs can be elected with a tiny proportion of votes in seats as voting is at present.,
Any MP elected to Westminster has the same equal right to be there as all the others.

If there is the 50+ MPs democratically elected from Scotland then they have every right to make their voice heard and influence govt; anyway they can.

Every MP in the country elected could win their seat by 1 vote but they would be no less an MP.

If Scotland is part of the UK and we hold UK elections,their democratically elected MPs are no less relevant than any other from anywhere else in the UK.

It could yet still be this coalition carries on,with the Conservatives winning 34% of the vote and the Lib Dems taking 10%.
No majority of votes there possibly either.

The boundary commission lays out the boundaries for constituencies across the UK,Scotlands seats have fallen from over 70 to 59.

Valid constituencies, a valid election, democratically voted for MPs for said constituencies, not being elected for window dressing, or to make up the numbers for the elite at Westminster but to fully represent their voters and constiuents, just like any other MP elected from anywhere in the whole of the UK.

All equal MPs,until we change the voting sytem to pr,the only qualification for being an equal in Westminster is to be democratically elected in the UK.

If David Cameron for instance,was 6 seats short of an overall majority and the DUP had say 9, they would a say in the running of govt; even with those much smaller numbers if it was possible.

I personally see not a thing wrong with the SNP sharing power at Westminster,in fact it may give Westminster the kick it so badly needs and wake the main parties up to treat the other Nations of the UK with more respect.

[Livia]

Yes Joey, every MP has the right to be there. But if the SNP forms a coalition, and they're all down here merrily making laws for England... but the English aren't allowed to do the same for Scotland because they have their own parliament, I'm not sure that's going to sit well, and that's how the average voter's going to view it. We'll see. I honestly don't think it would happen. But if it does, there will be a backlash, that is my prediction. I don't share your faith in the SNP. Why you should think they are the ones to give Westminster a kick up the backside is beyond me. They have the interests of Scotland at heart, and only that.

[joeysteele]

Yes Joey, every MP has the right to be there. But if the SNP forms a coalition, and they're all down here merrily making laws for England... but the English aren't allowed to do the same for Scotland because they have their own parliament, I'm not sure that's going to sit well, and that's how the average voter's going to view it. We'll see. I honestly don't think it would happen. But if it does, there will be a backlash, that is my prediction. I don't share your faith in the SNP. Why you should think they are the ones to give Westminster a kick up the backside is beyond me. They have the interests of Scotland at heart, and only that.

I do like the SNP, if they were standing in England I would likely vote for them and certainly would if I lived in Scotland.
I think there would be a backlash no matter who may be involved in govt; as to whether it is UKIP, or the DUP or the SNP.

Well that is good,in my view, if they have the interests of Scotland at heart,that shows integrity and dedication.
The Westminster govt; is supposed to be the UK govt; not just the English govt; like the last 2 govts; have appeared to think they are, by often showing scant regard for the other Countries that make up the UK.

I believe in concensus politics and I do now believe until something drastic happens that shatters the 2 party system as to see saw govt:
Then concensus politicians from all parties all over the UK,will never get their more moderate voices heard.

[Livia]

It is a government for the UK yes, but as there is no English Parliament it's flawed in my opinion. Anyway joey, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

[user104658]

Yes Joey, every MP has the right to be there. But if the SNP forms a coalition, and they're all down here merrily making laws for England... but the English aren't allowed to do the same for Scotland because they have their own parliament.

This is a slight misrepresentation of the process though, isn't it? Scotland does not have devo-max and to say that we have been unaffected by Tory policies over the last 5 years is false. Resoundingly false. And Scotland simply as a rule of thumb does not vote Tory. Effectively making the conservatives an "English party" or, if we're being honest, a SOUTH of England party, which has merrily been making horrendous decisions for Scotland for the last 5 years, and even moreso in the 80's.

If we are a United Kingdom and Scotland votes for 50+ SNP MP's in the general election then, surely, that's that. You can't have it any other way without saying that Scottish votes don't count in the total at all, no matter which party they're for, surely.

[bots]

This is a slight misrepresentation of the process though, isn't it? Scotland does not have devo-max and to say that we have been unaffected by Tory policies over the last 5 years is false. Resoundingly false. And Scotland simply as a rule of thumb does not vote Tory. Effectively making the conservatives an "English party" or, if we're being honest, a SOUTH of England party, which has merrily been making horrendous decisions for Scotland for the last 5 years, and even moreso in the 80's.

If we are a United Kingdom and Scotland votes for 50+ SNP MP's in the general election then, surely, that's that. You can't have it any other way without saying that Scottish votes don't count in the total at all, no matter which party they're for, surely.

That's exactly right, there wouldn't be any complaints from the tories or the labour party if all those seats were going in their direction rather than to the SNP. It is either a union or it isn't, last time I checked, it was a union, so all seats are of equal value in the UK parliament

[joeysteele]

This is a slight misrepresentation of the process though, isn't it? Scotland does not have devo-max and to say that we have been unaffected by Tory policies over the last 5 years is false. Resoundingly false. And Scotland simply as a rule of thumb does not vote Tory. Effectively making the conservatives an "English party" or, if we're being honest, a SOUTH of England party, which has merrily been making horrendous decisions for Scotland for the last 5 years, and even moreso in the 80's.

If we are a United Kingdom and Scotland votes for 50+ SNP MP's in the general election then, surely, that's that. You can't have it any other way without saying that Scottish votes don't count in the total at all, no matter which party they're for, surely.

I agree with all that Toy Soldier.

[Kizzy]

Then England must make a govt, they can't hijack the UK parliament.

[MTVN]

I still think though that the issue of a second referendum is not cleared up. Sturgeon keeps saying that its for the Scottish people to decide when a next referendum is, well how do they decide? Do they have a referendum on a referendum? It seems more likely that if the SNP win a clean sweep in Scotland this year, and if they also greatly improve on their seats in the Holyrood elections, then that will be taken as a mandate to argue for another vote. I can't see how there can be a better way of the Scottish people 'deciding' they want a second referendum than the majority of them voting for the Nats in consecutive elections. I'm not saying this to belittle the SNP because I actually think it would be fair for them to argue for another referendum given how Scottish politics seems to have developed in the last twelve months, I'm just genuinely curious about what Sturgeon means when she says that a referendum will be whenever the people decide in favour of one.

[bots]

I still think though that the issue of a second referendum is not cleared up. Sturgeon keeps saying that its for the Scottish people to decide when a next referendum is, well how do they decide? Do they have a referendum on a referendum? It seems more likely that if the SNP win a clean sweep in Scotland this year, and if they also greatly improve on their seats in the Holyrood elections, then that will be taken as a mandate to argue for another vote. I can't see how there can be a better way of the Scottish people 'deciding' they want a second referendum than the majority of them voting for the Nats in consecutive elections. I'm not saying this to belittle the SNP because I actually think it would be fair for them to argue for another referendum given how Scottish politics seems to have developed in the last twelve months, I'm just genuinely curious about what Sturgeon means when she says that a referendum will be whenever the people decide in favour of one.

I'm convinced that Salmond stood down because he gave a personal undertaking that there would be no further calls for independence in a generation. Sturgeon has no need to hold to that commitment. I think Sturgeon will pick her timing well. If the SNP end up with more than 50% of the available Scottish seats, I take that as an automatic mandate to hold a referendum, it then falls to when she thinks it has the greatest likelihood of success. Call me cynical, but I think her agenda is best served by a conservative government, so while she will be making noises about get the tories out and we want to work with labour, if her ultimate aim is independence, then she will be doing all in her power to get the tories in.

[MTVN]

I'm convinced that Salmond stood down because he gave a personal undertaking that there would be no further calls for independence in a generation. Sturgeon has no need to hold to that commitment. I think Sturgeon will pick her timing well. If the SNP end up with more than 50% of the available Scottish seats, I take that as an automatic mandate to hold a referendum, it then falls to when she thinks it has the greatest likelihood of success. Call me cynical, but I think her agenda is best served by a conservative government, so while she will be making noises about get the tories out and we want to work with labour, if her ultimate aim is independence, then she will be doing all in her power to get the tories in.

I think you might be right. I may also be being cynical but I can envisage a situation where the SNP undermine a Labour government and boost the Tories in order to aid their referendum hopes. Not because they're foaming at the mouth Anglophobes but because it may actually make sense for them to do so. There could be a short-term political loss in undermining Labour but that would be balanced against long-term hopes of independence. And even that loss could be softened if they said they were opposing a Labour government based on principled stances like anti-austerity. Labour seems to be banking on the SNP not having the nerve to ever oppose them, but the SNP could say that the fault lies with Labour if they put forward legislation that is not progressive enough. And as a Labour minority got more and more insecure, the more that the SNP could extract from them and the stronger their hand becomes. If that culminates in a request for a second referendum then I won't be that surprised because they would actually have a mandate to argue for that based on their representation in Scotland.

I would not be so cynical of the SNP's intentions if they were upfront about a second referendum, but, as much as they say this election is not about that, the very fact they are refusing to be clear and making vague statements like "it's for the Scottish to decide" makes me think they have a greater plan in store than merely locking the Tories out of Westminster

[arista]

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/05/01/20/28360D2900000578-3064615-image-a-13_1430510205610.jpg
Scottish independence protesters demonstrated in front of Labour supporters today and played The Muppets theme tune

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3064615/Ugly-scenes-outside-Ed-Miliband-speech-Glasgow-pro-independence-crowd-shout-traitors-brandish-banners-declaring-Red-Tory-scum.html#ixzz3Ywg6dTc9

[the truth]

Yes Joey, every MP has the right to be there. But if the SNP forms a coalition, and they're all down here merrily making laws for England... but the English aren't allowed to do the same for Scotland because they have their own parliament, I'm not sure that's going to sit well, and that's how the average voter's going to view it. We'll see. I honestly don't think it would happen. But if it does, there will be a backlash, that is my prediction. I don't share your faith in the SNP. Why you should think they are the ones to give Westminster a kick up the backside is beyond me. They have the interests of Scotland at heart, and only that.

the welsh are in the same boat too

[joeysteele]

I still think though that the issue of a second referendum is not cleared up. Sturgeon keeps saying that its for the Scottish people to decide when a next referendum is, well how do they decide? Do they have a referendum on a referendum? It seems more likely that if the SNP win a clean sweep in Scotland this year, and if they also greatly improve on their seats in the Holyrood elections, then that will be taken as a mandate to argue for another vote. I can't see how there can be a better way of the Scottish people 'deciding' they want a second referendum than the majority of them voting for the Nats in consecutive elections. I'm not saying this to belittle the SNP because I actually think it would be fair for them to argue for another referendum given how Scottish politics seems to have developed in the last twelve months, I'm just genuinely curious about what Sturgeon means when she says that a referendum will be whenever the people decide in favour of one.

She will need to get a mandate from the Scottish people to ask for one and get the proposal through the Scottish parliament first again too.

The earliest she could try that,which may be unwise to, is in the Holyrood elections next year,she could put in the SNP manifesto for that election the desire to seek another referendum.
Were she then to get an overall majority in the Scottish parliament, she could then demand same from the UK govt; who again however would have to approve such a referendum.

She couldn't just demand one now without a further mandate from the Scottish electorate.
Which is why no referendum is mentioned in the current SNP manifesto for this UK general election.

I think she will get one eventually in the future, she is there as leader for the next 10 years at least I would say.
With a lot of uncertainty about now however, I cannot see her looking for a referendum until after the next UK general election.
I could see an independence proposal being in the SNP manifesto for Holyrood elections in 2021 but not next year 2016.

[Pete.]

What a mess

[Kizzy]

I all seems like paranoia to me, based on current predictions if the SNP were to join a coalition, would they have enough MPs to get any proposals passed?

[joeysteele]

I all seems like paranoia to me, based on current predictions if the SNP were to join a coalition, would they have enough MPs to get any proposals passed?

They don't want a coalition and Labour would never have one with them either.
The current predictions have Conservatives 280 - 285,Labour 273 -280,depending on where you look,the SNP are estimated to get 50 -55 seats.
Joined with Labour,they and Labour alone would have the majority in parliament,and also have in addition the support of Plaid Cymru,Greens and the SDLP in Northern Ireland too.
bearing in mind too, Sinn Fein do not take their seats in Westminster.

That would only leave the Conservatives with the DUP,(possibly as the DUP have not been impressed with Cameron's rhetoric as to the SNP),the Lib Dems and UKIP.
On those figures above, no way could the Conservatives command a parliamentary majority in any shape or form unless the Lib Dems hold more than 35 of their seats with the Conservatives nearer the upper end of their 'possible' tally of 285.

What all SNP MPs do have however,after being fully democratically elected in a 'UK' general election, not an English only one

Is the full and absolute right to support whatever party it thinks is best to govern the whole UK and then to fight like anything to get the best deal for the constituents of every SNP MP too,that is totally understandable and natural..
Just as those elected in England, Northern Ireland and Wales have the right to vote how they wish in the UK parliament,not needing to be told how they should by any other party.

It is only paranoia on David Cameron's part because the SNP have said they will in all terms,tell him where to go.
Were the SNP open to working with a Conservative or Labour led govt; he would not be saying what he is now with the same extreme rhetoric.

[Kizzy]

I would be happy with a Labour/ SNP alliance don't get me wrong, what I'm saying is it's all whipping up mass hysteria that even if there were these 50+ SNP members in the UK parliament it wouldn't be catastrophic... anything that is proposed by anyone is voted on they aren't going to get anything passed on 50 votes are they?
It's all just tory scaremongering as they are terrified of having to relinquish their stranglehold.

[bots]

Correct me if I am wrong, but given that labour have turned down the opportunity of any formal alliance with the snp, the snp numbers cannot be used when it comes to deciding who forms a new government. So labour are going to have to win more seats than the tories outright, or hope that the lib dems dont get wiped out and do a coalition with them.

[Kizzy]

It's a hypothetical question, nobody knows what will happen after the election so all the tory squalling about what ifs is equally as irrelevant by that token.

[bots]

It's a hypothetical question, nobody knows what will happen after the election so all the tory squalling about what ifs is equally as irrelevant by that token.

Its not hypothetical though is it, unless labour are going to renege on Ed's declaration the other night.

[Kizzy]

Anything could happen, we will have to see. My hypothetical is still relevant however as it's a nod to the fear created by the tories, when all anyone need to be frightened of ultimately is them.

[bots]

Well, that's not true is it. The SNP will not form any alliance with either labour or the tories. The tories will not form a coalition with anyone that doesnt support an EU referendum vote which means UKIP is their option, so unless we bring in the very minor parties, the only real option for labour is the lib dems.

[Kizzy]

You can't predict what anyone will do, it's all based on presumption isn't it?

[arista]

I would be happy with a Labour/ SNP alliance don't get me wrong, what I'm saying is it's all whipping up mass hysteria that even if there were these 50+ SNP members in the UK parliament it wouldn't be catastrophic... anything that is proposed by anyone is voted on they aren't going to get anything passed on 50 votes are they?
It's all just tory scaremongering as they are terrified of having to relinquish their stranglehold.


But Your Ed will not
He is the fecking big Scaremonger
your Own Leader

[arista]

You can't predict what anyone will do, it's all based on presumption isn't it?


Yes

But your Ed has said Locked Door
to the SNP.

So Every news and radio
Debates Your Mess

[MTVN]

Correct me if I am wrong, but given that labour have turned down the opportunity of any formal alliance with the snp, the snp numbers cannot be used when it comes to deciding who forms a new government. So labour are going to have to win more seats than the tories outright, or hope that the lib dems dont get wiped out and do a coalition with them.

But the Conservatives probably won't be able to get a Queen's speech through parliament even if it had the support of the Lib Dems so they couldn't form a government either. I actually don't know what happens after that, would there be another election or can Miliband then put forward a Queen's speech even if Labour do not have the most seats in the Commons?

She will need to get a mandate from the Scottish people to ask for one and get the proposal through the Scottish parliament first again too.

The earliest she could try that,which may be unwise to, is in the Holyrood elections next year,she could put in the SNP manifesto for that election the desire to seek another referendum.
Were she then to get an overall majority in the Scottish parliament, she could then demand same from the UK govt; who again however would have to approve such a referendum.

She couldn't just demand one now without a further mandate from the Scottish electorate.
Which is why no referendum is mentioned in the current SNP manifesto for this UK general election.

I think she will get one eventually in the future, she is there as leader for the next 10 years at least I would say.
With a lot of uncertainty about now however, I cannot see her looking for a referendum until after the next UK general election.
I could see an independence proposal being in the SNP manifesto for Holyrood elections in 2021 but not next year 2016.

See I think their showing next week will embolden them to put something in their manifesto saying something like "we will continue fighting for Scottish independence" or just straight up "we will seek a second referendum" and they will take the risk that their popularity has soared so much that, even if that puts some people off, they will still gain a majority quite comfortably

[Kizzy]

'Alex Salmond today pledged there would not be a second Scottish independence referendum for another generation even if he loses Thursday’s contest by a single vote.
The First Minister indicated there would not be another referendum for at least another 18 years, dismissing concerns the separatists would pursue a “never-endum” strategy by calling for another vote as soon as possible.'

I would say this was agreed as a proviso of the 1st referendum.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11095188/Alex-Salmond-pledges-no-second-Scottish-referendum.html

[bots]

But the Conservatives probably won't be able to get a Queen's speech through parliament even if it had the support of the Lib Dems so they couldn't form a government either. I actually don't know what happens after that, would there be another election or can Miliband then put forward a Queen's speech even if Labour do not have the most seats in the Commons?


I'm not sure what happens either. I'm guessing that it then goes back to coalition building, and if no-one can get a majority together then it goes back to an election.

Of course if the tories had a minority government and wanted to push through a queens speech they may just leave out a wad of legislation for the first speech and hope to get more support later on. Then it descends into ineffectual government that can't do anything.

[Kizzy]

What was included in the queens speech last time that actually had any baring on policies implemented?

[MTVN]

'Alex Salmond today pledged there would not be a second Scottish independence referendum for another generation even if he loses Thursday’s contest by a single vote.
The First Minister indicated there would not be another referendum for at least another 18 years, dismissing concerns the separatists would pursue a “never-endum” strategy by calling for another vote as soon as possible.'

I would say this was agreed as a proviso of the 1st referendum.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11095188/Alex-Salmond-pledges-no-second-Scottish-referendum.html

Sure he said that, but now the political face of Scotland is set to change massively, Salmond is no longer leader and Sturgeon is refusing to rule anything out and now says vague things like 'when the Scottish people decide' which she says could happen in ten years or in fifty. I suspect she hopes they will 'decide' next year. And here's what Salmond's ex-number two said the other day:

The SNP will propose another independence referendum in its Scottish election manifesto, the former deputy leader has said amid fears over the party's influence on Ed Miliband after the election.

Jim Sillars told The Telegraph party members will demand a promise to hold another vote on independence is the “first line” of the SNP’s 2016 Holyrood manifesto.

He said any other move would be “astonishing” and likely trigger a backlash from the tens of thousands of new members who joined after Scots voted to stay in the Union last September.

Reacting to the comments, Nicola Sturgeon indicated the SNP could pledge a second referendum in principle in a future manifesto but said it would not necessarily trigger an immediate vote.

The SNP leader also repeatedly failed to rule out putting a pledge in next year’s manifesto after being grilled on Mr Sillars’s comments during First Minister’s Questions.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/11563422/SNP-will-propose-new-independence-vote-next-year-former-deputy-leader-says.html

[Kizzy]

She may put a pledge in to placate voters, it does not follow she'll deliver and states as such. She can't because the agreement was and is there cannot be one within a generation.

[bots]

She may put a pledge in to placate voters, it does not follow she'll deliver and states as such. She can't because the agreement was and is there cannot be one within a generation.

That was Salmond's pledge, he stepped down, so its meaningless.

[Kizzy]

No, there's no way he could have agreed to a generation initially if that entailed him being leader for the duration... That would be impossible :/

[joeysteele]

It's a hypothetical question, nobody knows what will happen after the election so all the tory squalling about what ifs is equally as irrelevant by that token.

The Conservatives,well some of their Ministers,(not the whole party,some are even dismayed Cameron is spending so much time fuelling this Scottish/English divisive talk),are furious that the SNP have said they will do all they can to lock the Conservatives out of power if they have the numbers to after the election.

What Ed Miliband has said is he will have no 'formal' deals with the SNP.
He has said if he gets the chance to, he will present a minority Labour govts; Queen's speech to parliament.

IT will then be up to all the other parties to either vote for that Queen's speech,vote against it or abstain, no deals done at all.

If the SNP back that Labour Queen's speech since they have said they will never pave the way for a Conservative led govt;
Then Labour governs as a minority Labour govt: still no deals done.

The SNP get no concessions or deals at all except they don't inflict on Scotland a Conservative led govt; which they have promised the Scots they will never let happen.

Miliband has ruled out, a coalition or confidence and supply,however that doesn't mean he cannot have the support of the SNP, if they decide to vote for his proposals, to keep the Conservatives out.
The SNP can still support a min.Labour govt; in order to ensure the Conservatives are out and stay out of power.

Even in the instance of Labour not being the largest party,if Labour MPs and SNP MPs make up a majority of votes in parliament,then the Conservatives can not govern at all,as they would not be able to reach overall majority status,even if they were the largest party.
David Cameron would have the right to put forward a Queen's speech first but once defeated then the chance would pass to Ed Miliband.
If Cameron is sure he couldn't win a Queen's speech vote, then he could resign right off as PM and allow Ed Miliband to put one forward.

Say the Conservatives had 284 seats,Labour had 275,seats, the SNP 53 seats.
Labour and the SNP combined would be 328 seats.

That would leave only 322 MPs left for all other parties, Sinn Feinn are likely to have at least 4 seats,they don't take their seats at the Westminster parliament,so that reduces further the 322 opposing number to at least 318.

Labour in that scenario could govern fine and would also be able to probably rely on votes too from Plaid Cymru, Greens and the SDLP from Northern Ireland.
Making their position even that bit stronger.

The worst scenario that could come about, would be that the SNP choose to vote down both the Labour Queen's speech and also a Conservative Queen's speech.
In that case, there would have to be another general election.

That is what Ed Miliband is happy to take a chance on happening,as he knows the SNP would have to explain that to their voters in Scotland.
So he seems to be prepared to call their bluff as to that.

[bots]

No, there's no way he could have agreed to a generation initially if that entailed him being leader for the duration... That would be impossible :/

It was one mans informal undertaking, nothing written in stone. Lets see, my view is that the SNP will want to strike while they have momentum, and they have that now, leave it too long, and their chance will be gone for a generation

[Kizzy]

I think he's paying a very canny game Joey, thanks for that :) It is annoying that it gives the torys something else to harp on about in the hope of deflecting their misdemeanors though, but hopefully voters will get sick of them and insist on some real input over the next couple of days.

[Kizzy]

It was one mans informal undertaking, nothing written in stone. Lets see, my view is that the SNP will want to strike while they have momentum, and they have that now, leave it too long, and their chance will be gone for a generation

Personally I think it is written, they won't get enough support in the UK parliament for another in/out anyway, even if the public do want one.

[joeysteele]

Personally I think it is written, they won't get enough support in the UK parliament for another in/out anyway, even if the public do want one.

You are right, and she also needs to get it through the Scottish parliament again first too.
Before presenting it to the UK govt:

She could possibly lose the overall status she has there if in the manifesto for Holyrood elections next year, she includes seeking a new referendum again.

[billy123]

The Conservatives,well some of their Ministers,(not the whole party,some are even dismayed Cameron is spending so much time fuelling this Scottish/English divisive talk),are furious that the SNP have said they will do all they can to lock the Conservatives out of power if they have the numbers to after the election.

What Ed Miliband has said is he will have no 'formal' deals with the SNP.
He has said if he gets the chance to, he will present a minority Labour govts; Queen's speech to parliament.

IT will then be up to all the other parties to either vote for that Queen's speech,vote against it or abstain, no deals done at all.

If the SNP back that Labour Queen's speech since they have said they will never pave the way for a Conservative led govt;
Then Labour governs as a minority Labour govt: still no deals done.

The SNP get no concessions or deals at all except they don't inflict on Scotland a Conservative led govt; which they have promised the Scots they will never let happen.

Miliband has ruled out, a coalition or confidence and supply,however that doesn't mean he cannot have the support of the SNP, if they decide to vote for his proposals, to keep the Conservatives out.
The SNP can still support a min.Labour govt; in order to ensure the Conservatives are out and stay out of power.

Even in the instance of Labour not being the largest party,if Labour MPs and SNP MPs make up a majority of votes in parliament,then the Conservatives can not govern at all,as they would not be able to reach overall majority status,even if they were the largest party.
David Cameron would have the right to put forward a Queen's speech first but once defeated then the chance would pass to Ed Miliband.
If Cameron is sure he couldn't win a Queen's speech vote, then he could resign right off as PM and allow Ed Miliband to put one forward.

Say the Conservatives had 284 seats,Labour had 275,seats, the SNP 53 seats.
Labour and the SNP combined would be 328 seats.

That would leave only 322 MPs left for all other parties, Sinn Feinn are likely to have at least 4 seats,they don't take their seats at the Westminster parliament,so that reduces further the 322 opposing number to at least 318.

Labour in that scenario could govern fine and would also be able to probably rely on votes too from Plaid Cymru, Greens and the SDLP from Northern Ireland.
Making their position even that bit stronger.

The worst scenario that could come about, would be that the SNP choose to vote down both the Labour Queen's speech and also a Conservative Queen's speech.
In that case, there would have to be another general election.

That is what Ed Miliband is happy to take a chance on happening,as he knows the SNP would have to explain that to their voters in Scotland.
So he seems to be prepared to call their bluff as to that.Thanks for that post Joey that makes things a lot clearer. :thumbs:

[joeysteele]

The only other issue to take into account, is the 'fixed term parliament act' brought in by this coalition.

It has many clouded waters to its content and conditions that doesn't specify how many times govts; have to lose votes of confidence before a new general election comes about.

It could be David Cameron tries to get a Queen's speech through,is beaten, so then Ed Miliband gets a shot at it, if he gets beaten,there is a time frame for a new attempt to be made to form a govt:.
Cameron or Miliband could resign as leaders,then allow another leader to present their said or new Queen's speeches.

If one wins,they can govern, if in time they lose a vote of confidence, then it could be still that the then opposition gets another go at forming a govt;
It was an act that left a lot of questions and little as to what was needed to resolve the issues too.

Of course,one thing Labour and The Conservatives could agree on, could be to repeal the act.
To hand back to the PM of the day the ability and right to call an election anytime.

To just call for a new election however,under the fixed term parliament act in place now,would however need two thirds of elected MPs to vote for same.
This would require then, 434 MPs to call for a new election.
Not a two thirds of MPs present at the time but the actual votes of 434 MPs.

If both major parties concede however,that even with possible new leaders neither could get a Queen's speech passed in parliament,and are then in deadlock, then that vote for a new election would likely come about, with Labour and Conservative agreement,thanks to the number of MPs they have between them obviously.

[bots]

We could easily be beginning a new era of completely ineffectual government. Maybe as the population has such a lack of trust in any of the political parties, that is the proper outcome, until they get their act together and restore trust.