[Crimson Dynamo]

George Galloway predicted a miliband win today of DP show but cautioned that he has to do a deal with SNP or it will be political suicide

[Jack_]

Galloway was great earlier as usual and that's a disappointing stance from the Independent tbh

[Kizzy]

Stop trying to make lib dem happen....it's not going to happen (again)

[Jack_]

If you're into tactical voting, here you go:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...ote-tactically

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Stop trying to make lib dem happen....it's not going to happen (again)

Cleggy is going to prove all the doubters wrong and earn the publics gratitude in the next parliament, you'll see


Well either that or he'll lose his seat and be completely humiliated

[arista]

Originally Posted by MTVN

I agree with much of the editorial tbh. Really its more an endorsement of the Lib Dems for their moderating impact on the Conservatives and for offering the best hope of a stable coalition which would ideally be a lot more liberal the second time around. It might not prove very wise by them though given its struggles with readership anyway and most those who do buy it tend to be left of centre with a lot of Labour voters amongst them

You Are Most Wise MTVN

[Crimson Dynamo]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...closest-to-you

Scottish Green was my highest, SNP my lowest

[Jack_]

Green - 93%
Labour - 66%
Lib Dems - 60%

Sounds about right

Found this great little website thanks to that though:

http://democraticdashboard.com

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Galloway was great earlier as usual and that's a disappointing stance from the Independent tbh

I totally agree Jack_
I think they have made a massive mistake, had they suggested a Labour and Lib Dem coalition format, it would have made more sense.

It seems they have only made this choice because of the SNP possibly having influence.

It annoys me when newpapers scream on about free speech and democratic rights,then when it appears the free choices and democratic rights as to voting in Scotland for the SNP, reaches what is seen as new heights, then democracy goes out the window.

The SNP is felt by the Conservatives,Lib Dems,(yes Lib Dems, those so called defenders of rights and democracy),UKIP and most of the press, that they should have the right to go to Westminster if elected but in effect say and do little, and never ever dare be involved in any governmental activity.
Utter hypocrisy.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Jack_

Green - 93%
Labour - 66%
Lib Dems - 60%

Sounds about right

Found this great little website thanks to that though:

http://democraticdashboard.com

wow that is a good site

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

I totally agree Jack_
I think they have made a massive mistake, had they suggested a Labour and Lib Dem coalition format, it would have made more sense.

It seems they have only made this choice because of the SNP possibly having influence.

It annoys me when newpapers scream on about free speech and democratic rights,then when it appears the free choices and democratic rights as to voting in Scotland for the SNP, reaches what is seen as new heights, then democracy goes out the window.

The SNP is felt by the Conservatives,Lib Dems,(yes Lib Dems, those so called defenders of rights and democracy),UKIP and most of the press, that they should have the right to go to Westminster if elected but in effect say and do little, and never ever dare be involved in any governmental activity.
Utter hypocrisy.

Surely this is the Labour stance as well? Everyone knows that the SNP are likely to hold the balance of power yet Labour are ruling out any sort of agreement at every turn and it seems like their attitude is basically going to be; "support our policies or it's on you if the Tories benefit from their defeat".

This article explains well why the SNP are not the great progressive force they are being made out to be and why their rabid nationalism is at odds with the interest of the UK as a whole:

The argument for steering clear of the SNP isn’t that Labour has a monopoly of progressive virtue. It clearly doesn’t. The real reason for being a Nat-sceptic is that, aside from nationalism, the SNP has no ideological core of its own and simply instrumentalises progressive ideas to advance the regressive goal of separatism. For the non-Scottish left there can be no question of a principled and trusting relationship with the SNP because you can’t build a common project for social change with someone whose first and only purpose is to smash up the political community to which you both belong. The left in England and Wales may want the UK to work differently, but they definitely want it to work. Nicola Sturgeon and her party want it to fail.

The SNP could have proved otherwise by refocusing its priorities on areas of shared interest with the rest of Britain when it lost the referendum, but it spurned the opportunity. Like true vanguardists, the self-styled ‘45’ decided to set democracy and majority opinion aside and behave as if they were real voice of Scotland. Their pledge that the referendum would be a “once in a generation” event was immediately ditched in a frenzy of debate about how soon a rerun could be engineered and what ruses would be needed to secure a different outcome. Everything the SNP does is now framed with that solitary objective in mind.

The effect has been to foster a dominant attitude that is highly sectarian and trending towards totalitarian. There is only one truth and one way to be authentically Scottish – the nationalist way. Anyone who disagrees with this is, as one SNP parliamentary candidate put it, the moral equivalent of a Nazi collaborator. There is no space for pluralism and honest compromise with a movement in this state of mind. The normal rules of democratic conduct don’t apply because it answers to destiny alone. When Nicola Sturgeon says that she wants to help the Labour Party, she does so in the same spirit that Lenin once advised his British followers support the Labour Party of Arthur Henderson: “as the rope supports a hanged man”.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...ce-think-again

Nationalism is always dangerous imo, however much the SNP dress themselves up as 'civic nationalists' or progressives. Let's be frank that none of the main parties want to have anything to do with the SNP - and with good reason

[Josy]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Nationalism is always dangerous imo, however much the SNP dress themselves up as 'civic nationalists' or progressives. Let's be frank that none of the main parties want to have anything to do with the SNP - and with good reason

Great post. I completely agree.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

I totally agree Jack_
I think they have made a massive mistake, had they suggested a Labour and Lib Dem coalition format, it would have made more sense.

It seems they have only made this choice because of the SNP possibly having influence.

It annoys me when newpapers scream on about free speech and democratic rights,then when it appears the free choices and democratic rights as to voting in Scotland for the SNP, reaches what is seen as new heights, then democracy goes out the window.

The SNP is felt by the Conservatives,Lib Dems,(yes Lib Dems, those so called defenders of rights and democracy),UKIP and most of the press, that they should have the right to go to Westminster if elected but in effect say and do little, and never ever dare be involved in any governmental activity.
Utter hypocrisy.

I completely agree and I'm getting really sick of reading about the SNP's so called 'illegitimacy' to play a role in supporting a Labour minority government. If I hear the sentence 'a Labour government propped up by the SNP' one more time I think I'm going to throw up. I switched the TV on earlier and it was muted and I'm pretty sure it was a Tory party election broadcast with Cameron speaking, and the first thing I lip read was that very sentence and I just laughed to myself.

It just goes to show how up themselves the English really are to be honest. If the entirety of Scotland's constituencies wishes to back a nationalist party, they are perfectly entitled to do so and more importantly if they have enough MPs to support a larger party of their choice they're also entitled to do that, there is nothing 'illegitimate' about it at all. The Scottish electorate are represented in Westminster and that's that. What is most pathetic about all of it is during the referendum campaign those on the side of the union promised that the Scot's voices would be heard and that more power would be given to them in the future, and yet you fast forward eight months and there's talk from the very same people of how Scotland effectively shouldn't be allowed to have themselves represented in the Commons if that's how they choose to vote and that it would be 'illegitimate' and 'unfair' to the rest of the UK. Well I call bull**** on that, if you're going to plead with them to remain as part of the union and then when they do so tell them that their wishes come the general election may mean nothing then why didn't you just join the independence campaign in the first place, they'd have had nothing to worry about then would they? It really is laughable, and you wonder why there's people in the other nations of the UK that want independence when they're treated as the younger, irrelevant siblings of the bully bigger brother.

Unfortunately this kind of discussion is only going to amplify from Friday onwards, along with how a left-of-centre majority in the HoC forming a government would also be 'illegitimate' if the Tories are the party with the most seats. Well I'm sorry but that's not how our parliamentary system works, it doesn't matter whether Nick Clegg himself or anyone else thinks that the party with the most seats has some kind of moral right to form a government first, because quite frankly they don't. It's the party who can put together a working majority first, it's that simple. And all of this is summed up in this article much more articulately than me by Owen Jones:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...y-british-coup

If Scotland wish to elect a load of SNP MPs, they will all have just as much right as anyone else to make alliances with others in the Commons to create a workable majority. If hypothetically an English nationalist party were to gain as many as 50 seats in a parliamentary election, I don't think the English electorate or media would be claiming there's some sort of foul play in those MPs supporting another party. If that's what some sections of the electorate want - and Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish people make up that electorate as well, then that is what they are entitled to. It's called democracy. Supposedly.

[bots]

I don't think the SNP will come anywhere close to achieving the seats they are projected to get. A climate of fear was created up till the vote for independence where pro unionist supporters were frightened to voice their opinion. Its no different now. Come election day, labour will loose a few seats, but that's all. If the SNP don't make significant ground at this election, they will be a spent force for a generation

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Jack_

I completely agree and I'm getting really sick of reading about the SNP's so called 'illegitimacy' to play a role in supporting a Labour minority government. If I hear the sentence 'a Labour government propped up by the SNP' one more time I think I'm going to throw up. I switched the TV on earlier and it was muted and I'm pretty sure it was a Tory party election broadcast with Cameron speaking, and the first thing I lip read was that very sentence and I just laughed to myself.

It just goes to show how up themselves the English really are to be honest. If the entirety of Scotland's constituencies wishes to back a nationalist party, they are perfectly entitled to do so and more importantly if they have enough MPs to support a larger party of their choice they're also entitled to do that, there is nothing 'illegitimate' about it at all. The Scottish electorate are represented in Westminster and that's that. What is most pathetic about all of it is during the referendum campaign those on the side of the union promised that the Scot's voices would be heard and that more power would be given to them in the future, and yet you fast forward eight months and there's talk from the very same people of how Scotland effectively shouldn't be allowed to have themselves represented in the Commons if that's how they choose to vote and that it would be 'illegitimate' and 'unfair' to the rest of the UK. Well I call bull**** on that, if you're going to plead with them to remain as part of the union and then when they do so tell them that their wishes come the general election may mean nothing then why didn't you just join the independence campaign in the first place, they'd have had nothing to worry about then would they? It really is laughable, and you wonder why there's people in the other nations of the UK that want independence when they're treated as the younger, irrelevant siblings of the bully bigger brother.

Unfortunately this kind of discussion is only going to amplify from Friday onwards, along with how a left-of-centre majority in the HoC forming a government would also be 'illegitimate' if the Tories are the party with the most seats. Well I'm sorry but that's not how our parliamentary system works, it doesn't matter whether Nick Clegg himself or anyone else thinks that the party with the most seats has some kind of moral right to form a government first, because quite frankly they don't. It's the party who can put together a working majority first, it's that simple. And all of this is summed up in this article much more articulately than me by Owen Jones:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...y-british-coup

If Scotland wish to elect a load of SNP MPs, they will all have just as much right as anyone else to make alliances with others in the Commons to create a workable majority. If hypothetically an English nationalist party were to gain as many as 50 seats in a parliamentary election, I don't think the English electorate or media would be claiming there's some sort of foul play in those MPs supporting another party. If that's what some sections of the electorate want - and Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish people make up that electorate as well, then that is what they are entitled to. It's called democracy. Supposedly.

I don't deny the SNP's right to sit, but I do find the prospect of a Prime Minister whose party has less seats than the opposition faintly ridiculous. It might be a different matter if there was a coalition who could boast the largest bloc of MPs. It might even be a different matter if there was any sort of agreement at all between two parties who could outvote the largest one. But there won't be if we're to believe Miliband. He has explicitly said several times now that there will not be any coalition and there won't be any type of formal deal at all. Therefore Jones' argument that:

If there is a left-of-centre, anti-Tory majority in parliament then the Tories must fall, however many seats they have won. Left-wing parties will have won the election and a left-of-centre government led by Labour must take office

is a bit dumb considering those left-wing parties will not be in any sort of coalition or operating as a united front. The "left-wing parties" will be anything but a homogeneous entity so there is no real reason why the Tories should bow down to two parties refusing to work with each other if the Conservatives have more seats than either of them.

[Jack_]

But they won't be refusing to work with each other per se, it's just Miliband has called the SNP's bluff and effectively challenged them to vote down a Labour Queen's Speech and risk the Tories getting back in. If the smaller parties on the left align and agree amongst themselves to vote down a Tory budget and vote up a Labour one (which I hope the SNP will do if they have any sense, and what I think Ed is counting on) then that's not any kind of formal or informal deal, just an anti-Tory sentiment among the majority of MPs in the Commons and that they will do anything to prevent them getting back in. And if that's the way it works out, I see nothing illegitimate about that. I think that was Owen's point

[bots]

I'm not sure on the legalities, but without a formal arrangement of cooperation, I don't think it would be possible for Ed to form a government, if he had less seats than the tories, he simply would not be given the opportunity.

And Nicola herself happily stated in the Scottish leaders debate that she would vote against a labour queens speech if it supported austerity and/or trident. So, I don't think they will have anything close to an easy ride without a formal arrangement.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Jack_

But they won't be refusing to work with each other per se, it's just Miliband has called the SNP's bluff and effectively challenged them to vote down a Labour Queen's Speech and risk the Tories getting back in. If the smaller parties on the left align and agree amongst themselves to vote down a Tory budget and vote up a Labour one (which I hope the SNP will do if they have any sense, and what I think Ed is counting on) then that's not any kind of formal or informal deal, just an anti-Tory sentiment among the majority of MPs in the Commons and that they will do anything to prevent them getting back in. And if that's the way it works out, I see nothing illegitimate about that. I think that was Owen's point

But that presumably still gives the Tories the first chance at creating a government? I don't see how, with no formal deal or coalition, Miliband could put forward a Queen's Speech before Cameron does if its the Conservatives with the most seats. If that Queen's Speech then gets voted down that'll be a different matter. I suppose it probably would but there's no guarantee depending on how the seats do end up, what sweeteners might be included, what behind-the-scenes discussions may be had, and how much traction the worry of the alternative might raise. I also don't think the SNP and Labour could work as harmoniously as a lot of people think. Any sort of issue-by-issue alliance could prove very uneasy and could be at risk of imploding if they find themselves at stand-off enough times, and both Miliband and Sturgeon seem quite prepared for stand-off, Ed banking that the SNP won't risk anything that could help the Tories but Sturgeon has also said the SNP would be prepared to vote down a Labour budget if necessary.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

I'm not sure on the legalities, but without a formal arrangement of cooperation, I don't think it would be possible for Ed to form a government, if he had less seats than the tories, he simply would not be given the opportunity.

And Nicola herself happily stated in the Scottish leaders debate that she would vote against a labour queens speech if it supported austerity and/or trident. So, I don't think they will have anything close to an easy ride without a formal arrangement.

It doesn't quite work like that, here's a couple of handy articles I came across the other day to explain:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32475098

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32235317

Nicola also said she'd do anything to keep the Tories out, and if she has any sense she would do just that regardless, or else she faces the wrath of a lot of the Scottish electorate who want rid of them also. If a second election were called and she had at some point given the Tories an opportunity to govern, I think whatever seats they're going to win this time around would probably be halved. If that's a risk she's willing to take so be it, but let's hope not.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by MTVN

But that presumably still gives the Tories the first chance at creating a government? I don't see how, with no formal deal or coalition, Miliband could put forward a Queen's Speech before Cameron does if its the Conservatives with the most seats. If that Queen's Speech then gets voted down that'll be a different matter. I suppose it probably would but there's no guarantee depending on how the seats do end up, what sweeteners might be included, what behind-the-scenes discussions may be had, and how much traction the worry of the alternative might raise. I also don't think the SNP and Labour could work as harmoniously as a lot of people think. Any sort of issue-by-issue alliance could prove very uneasy and could be at risk of imploding if they find themselves at stand-off enough times, and both Miliband and Sturgeon seem quite prepared for stand-off, Ed banking that the SNP won't risk anything that could help the Tories but Sturgeon has also said the SNP would be prepared to vote down a Labour budget if necessary.

From what I've gathered over all the reading I've done on this over the last week or so, the incumbent PM remains in office until if and when they decide that they aren't going to have a working majority. So Cameron may well decide to give his Queen's Speech a go and then if it's voted down it'll be Ed's turn, but if he thinks that will happen anyway he may well step down and invite the Queen to call Miliband to the palace. It's difficult because it's not a 'right' to have a go first per se, just that the PM remains in place until they step down themselves or it becomes clear the opposition leader has a workable majority.

[Ross.]

Not long till voting

[bots]

Originally Posted by Jack_

It doesn't quite work like that, here's a couple of handy articles I came across the other day to explain:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32475098

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32235317

Nicola also said she'd do anything to keep the Tories out, and if she has any sense she would do just that regardless, or else she faces the wrath of a lot of the Scottish electorate who want rid of them also. If a second election were called and she had at some point given the Tories an opportunity to govern, I think whatever seats they're going to win this time around would probably be halved. If that's a risk she's willing to take so be it, but let's hope not.

I think what I said holds true, Ed cannot guarantee the confidence of the house unless they have the majority of seats either on their own or with a formal arrangement. Without that, he has no confidence on which to put himself forward as a government. If the tories have more seats than labour, they have the confidence to go as a minority ... its pretty straightforward really. I should add that having confidence and successfully negotiating a queens speech are not necessarily the same thing, although in most circumstances they should be.

Nicola will not retract her anti austerity and trident policies, she made that clear on Sunday. A lot have made very firm statements within the last couple of weeks, if they go back on them on Friday, the public will not forget.

[Jack_]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

I think what I said holds true, Ed cannot guarantee the confidence of the house unless they have the majority of seats either on their own or with a formal arrangement. Without that, he has no confidence on which to put himself forward as a government. If the tories have more seats than labour, they have the confidence to go as a minority ... its pretty straightforward really.

Nicola will not retract her anti austerity and trident policies, she made that clear on Sunday. A lot have made very firm statements within the last couple of weeks, if they go back on them on Friday, the public will not forget.

But even if they have more seats and try to go it alone as a minority, they will still need the support of other smaller parties to pass their Queen's Speech, and if the majority of the minor parties are left-of-centre and anti-Tory, they will (if they have any sense and stick to what they've said) vote down any Tory government and vote up the next Labour one

This election will ride on what the political persuasions of the non Labour and Conservative MPs are, and based on the polls they will mostly all be to the left. So unless UKIP, the DUP and maybe the Lib Dems have enough to back a Tory minority, Ed may not have the most seats, but he will have the most support in the Commons

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Jack_

I completely agree and I'm getting really sick of reading about the SNP's so called 'illegitimacy' to play a role in supporting a Labour minority government. If I hear the sentence 'a Labour government propped up by the SNP' one more time I think I'm going to throw up. I switched the TV on earlier and it was muted and I'm pretty sure it was a Tory party election broadcast with Cameron speaking, and the first thing I lip read was that very sentence and I just laughed to myself.

It just goes to show how up themselves the English really are to be honest. If the entirety of Scotland's constituencies wishes to back a nationalist party, they are perfectly entitled to do so and more importantly if they have enough MPs to support a larger party of their choice they're also entitled to do that, there is nothing 'illegitimate' about it at all. The Scottish electorate are represented in Westminster and that's that. What is most pathetic about all of it is during the referendum campaign those on the side of the union promised that the Scot's voices would be heard and that more power would be given to them in the future, and yet you fast forward eight months and there's talk from the very same people of how Scotland effectively shouldn't be allowed to have themselves represented in the Commons if that's how they choose to vote and that it would be 'illegitimate' and 'unfair' to the rest of the UK. Well I call bull**** on that, if you're going to plead with them to remain as part of the union and then when they do so tell them that their wishes come the general election may mean nothing then why didn't you just join the independence campaign in the first place, they'd have had nothing to worry about then would they? It really is laughable, and you wonder why there's people in the other nations of the UK that want independence when they're treated as the younger, irrelevant siblings of the bully bigger brother.

Unfortunately this kind of discussion is only going to amplify from Friday onwards, along with how a left-of-centre majority in the HoC forming a government would also be 'illegitimate' if the Tories are the party with the most seats. Well I'm sorry but that's not how our parliamentary system works, it doesn't matter whether Nick Clegg himself or anyone else thinks that the party with the most seats has some kind of moral right to form a government first, because quite frankly they don't. It's the party who can put together a working majority first, it's that simple. And all of this is summed up in this article much more articulately than me by Owen Jones:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...y-british-coup

If Scotland wish to elect a load of SNP MPs, they will all have just as much right as anyone else to make alliances with others in the Commons to create a workable majority. If hypothetically an English nationalist party were to gain as many as 50 seats in a parliamentary election, I don't think the English electorate or media would be claiming there's some sort of foul play in those MPs supporting another party. If that's what some sections of the electorate want - and Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish people make up that electorate as well, then that is what they are entitled to. It's called democracy. Supposedly.

Excellent post Jack_, the only thing legitimate as to taking power,with the electoral system we operate is who can command the support of the 'most' MPs in parliament.

Not who has the most seats or votes, no govt; of one party has sat with power with anything like the majority of votes fro instance, except for this one, with the Conservatives and Lib Dems combined.

It is all down to MPs only,that is the battle structure.
An MP who wins his seat by 1 vote, is no less legitimate then one who wins their seat by 10,000.
So were Labour or the Conservatives in 2nd place but one of them can get the overall support of the MPs elected to parliament, then that is all that matters,no matter where those MPs come from, as long as they have been legitimately elected in a democratic general election.

Well said Jack_.
We would be hearing none of this if the SNP had indicated they could work with either party,it is only because they have promised Scotland they will not support in any way whatsoever a Conservative govt; that has the Conservatives up in arms.

After all none of the MPs elected for the SNP to westminster,(and Scotland under UK rules has to send 59 MPs to westminster), can vote in the holyrood assembly.
They have to be able to vote how they wish somewhere and once elected as Westminster MPs,that is the place they should unrestricted as to how and for who they wish.

I don't agree with the SNP and independence but I see no reason at all why, while Scotland is still part of the UK and taking part in general elections to westminster,why they should have to accept being treated as second class MPs.

[bots]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

Excellent post Jack_, the only thing legitimate as to taking power,with the electoral system we operate is who can command the support of the 'most' MPs in parliament.

Not who has the most seats or votes, no govt; of one party has sat with power with anything like the majority of votes fro instance, except for this one, with the Conservatives and Lib Dems combined.

It is all down to MPs only,that is the battle structure.
An MP who wins his seat by 1 vote, is no less legitimate then one who wins their seat by 10,000.
So were Labour or the Conservatives in 2nd place but one of them can get the overall support of the MPs elected to parliament, then that is all that matters,no matter where those MPs come from, as long as they have been legitimately elected in a democratic general election.

Well said Jack_.
We would be hearing none of this if the SNP had indicated they could work with either party,it is only because they have promised Scotland they will not support in any way whatsoever a Conservative govt; that has the Conservatives up in arms.

After all none of the MPs elected for the SNP to westminster,(and Scotland under UK rules has to send 59 MPs to westminster), can vote in the holyrood assembly.
They have to be able to vote how they wish somewhere and once elected as Westminster MPs,that is the place they should unrestricted as to how and for who they wish.

I don't agree with the SNP and independence but I see no reason at all why, while Scotland is still part of the UK and taking part in general elections to westminster,why they should have to accept being treated as second class MPs.

I think its pretty lonely voices that are saying that SNP mps do not have a valid voice, almost the complete majority are saying the Scottish MP's are valid. My point of contention is purely around the lack of a formal agreement. I just don't see that as workable or realistic.

We are sitting here arguing the toss, and the reality may still yet be that labour or conservative get enough votes to go it alone. There is enough margin for error in these polls for that to easily be the case, and the more these intricate details are discussed, the more i think they will become completely irrelevant when the votes are counted