Guest MattP Posted 10 February 2015 Posted 10 February 2015 If we have a Labour/SNP coalition government I am seriously leaving the country because it will be heading to shit. I wont be the only one either - I have no interest in paying more tax, especially to those idiots. Fingers crossed people wake up to the prospect in time and we continue as we are. I think we'll see the biggest surge of 'retirement' to the South coast of Spain in history, similar numbers to the Polish immigration numbers to here in 2004. People waking up unfortunately isn't going to happen, Brown had about half the country on his payroll, virtually every government has ran at massive deficits to continue to plough people with cash we never had to keep them happy and vote for them, it's going to take generations to change the entitlement the population now has. People don't even bat an eyelid now when the unemployed openly talking about 'deserving' beer, fags, xboxes and mobile phones from the taxpayer if they can't afford them themselves, in fact the vitriol is often reserved for the ones complaining about it. Although it gets no sympathy from me, I guess their response would be it's no different to the Tories having a say over Scotland (when you look at how few seats they have). They have managed to devolve virtually everything they want though and even had the chance to end this just a few months ago. England is also held to ransom though on that logic, we can't devolve anything though, how many times would Labour have achieved an overall maj in England without the help of Scotland and Wales? Very few.
Webbo Posted 10 February 2015 Posted 10 February 2015 Which is about as powerful as a plastic lightsaber. It's a bit more than that; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20314150 And it's about to get a load of new powers as well. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-30915457
Guest Kopfkino Posted 10 February 2015 Posted 10 February 2015 Although it gets no sympathy from me, I guess their response would be it's no different to the Tories having a say over Scotland (when you look at how few seats they have). I read an article the other week that made the point that the SNP might actually prefer a majority Tory government meaning the EU referendum goes ahead. If England then votes to come out but Scotland doesn't, then it makes their own independence bid easier
Webbo Posted 10 February 2015 Posted 10 February 2015 I read an article the other week that made the point that the SNP might actually prefer a majority Tory government meaning the EU referendum goes ahead. If England then votes to come out but Scotland doesn't, then it makes their own independence bid easier It'd suit the SNP to stir up resentment in england, it'd make independence more likely.
Guest MattP Posted 10 February 2015 Posted 10 February 2015 I read an article the other week that made the point that the SNP might actually prefer a majority Tory government meaning the EU referendum goes ahead. If England then votes to come out but Scotland doesn't, then it makes their own independence bid easier Us coming out of Europe whilst the Jocks leaving us to get their junkie fix off Brussels a couple of years later? I need to reach for the tissues here just thinking about it.
Strokes Posted 10 February 2015 Posted 10 February 2015 Us coming out of Europe whilst the Jocks leaving us to get their junkie fix off Brussels a couple of years later? I need to reach for the tissues here just thinking about it. Aka utopia.
Monk Posted 10 February 2015 Posted 10 February 2015 Labour are going to lose a lot of seats in Scotland. SNP very popular here after the referendum. Lib Dem are also going to lose a lot of seats so I'm not convinced a lib coalition will have legs. its going to be messy but I reckon Cameron will stay in power unfortunately.
leicsmac Posted 11 February 2015 Posted 11 February 2015 I wonder if Labour and the SNP would be able to get enough seats to form a coalition in the first place? The SNP are going to be taking a lot of Labours seats up north, so the overall number of seats between them probably won't shift much. As an aside (and with my tinfoil hat on), isn't it possible that regarding Scots independence the Tories really wanted it to happen but simply didn't want to deal with the fallout on their watch?
Alf Bentley Posted 11 February 2015 Posted 11 February 2015 Yes, I can't see past a hung parliament, possibly a very hung parliament (neither main party able to command a majority without the support of TWO smaller parties). Nerd that I am, last night I drew up some figures for seats changing hands, based on current polling: Con->Lab 30; Lab->Con 1; LD->Con 10; Con->UKIP 5..................................... Overall Con 307->283 Con->Lab 30; Lab->Con 1; LD->Lab 10; Lab->SNP 12 22; Lab-> UKIP 2..... Overall Lab 258->283 273 LD->Con 10; LD->Lab 10; LD->SNP 6 9 .............................................................. Overall LD 57->31 28 Lab->SNP 12 22; LD->SNP 6 9................................................................................ Overall SNP 6->24 37 Con->UKIP 5; Lab-> UKIP 2 ............................................................................ Overall UKIP 0->7 (I've assumed that Plaid Cymru stick on 3, Greens on 1, with 18 seats in N. Ireland) Due to Sinn Fein boycotting Westminster, 323 seats are needed for a majority - or less if one or more parties abstain on confidence votes (e.g. 309 seats for a majority if the Lib Dems abstained). Here are Labour's target seats: http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/labourtargets/ Unless something unexpected happens in the next 5 months, I can't see the Tories holding many of the first 30 on that list....but I can't see Labour taking many from No. 40 onward, apart from Lib Dem seats. For the politics nerds, I've adjusted my election seat guesstimates to account for the likelihood that the SNP will do better than I was anticipating (see above). I don't see any reason to adjust figures for the other parties at this stage. Interesting stuff, though the picture could change quite a lot depending on precise numbers of seats (or events before May). Some potential scenarios: Scenario 1: My figures prove accurate (approximately) As sitting PM, having the most seats and the most votes (probably), Cameron will try to form another govt. He could probably do a deal with the Ulster Unionists (cash & anti-Sinn Fein measures) and with UKIP (EU referendum & immigration crackdown), but I doubt that the Lib Dems would prop him up again (even by abstaining), unless he seriously watered down Tory austerity policies....which would split his party. As the SNP will surely never do a deal with the Tories, I can't see Cameron commanding a majority on these figures (Con 283 + DUP 9 + UKIP 7 = 299)....and struggle to see an alternative Tory leader who could do so, even if the Tories knife Cameron. So, Red Ed gets a go at building a majority. He'd probably be able to do a deal with the SNP (more devolution, less austerity): Lab 273 + SNP 37 = 310. They could probably also rope in Plaid (3), SDLP (3) & any Greens (1?), but would 317 be enough for a stable majority? Probably only if he could also do a deal with the Lib Dems (for them to abstain on confidence & supply votes, at least). Scenario 2: The Tories do better than my figures suggest They'll take seats from the Lib Dems in the South/rural areas, anyway, while they might benefit from Labour and/or UKIP losing support. So, if they fall short of a majority but get 300 seats, they could form a govt (probably "confidence and supply", not a coalition) with the support of the DUP and UKIP (300 + 9 + 7 = 316), but would probably still need the Lib Dems to abstain, at least....unless they got 310 seats, in which case an early EU referendum and a few bribes to the Ulster Unionists could effectively herald a right-wing Tory government without any Lib Dem stabilisers. Scenario 3: Labour do better than my figures suggest If Labour are short of a majority but get more seats than the Tories, that would put Cameron under pressure to either achieve a majority quickly or let Miliband try (even if the Tories had more votes). It would matter, though, whether Labour had done better at the expense of the Tories or the SNP: e.g. Lab 285 + SNP 25 (= 310) v. Con 283 is a very different scenario from Lab 285 + SNP 37 (= 310) v. Con 265 (with more seats for Lib Dems, UKIP or whoever). Under the latter scenario, Cameron would surely have to go and we'd be looking at a Labour-led govt, probably dragged leftwards by the SNP (but not too far to alienate the Lib Dems). Unless there's a decisive shift in the polls in the next 2-3 months, the precise maths are going to be crucial. They could determine whether there'll be a constitutional crisis dragging the Queen into it, a political impasse (potentially generating more support for UKIP and/or Greens), public demand for constitutional & electoral reform, an EU referendum, 2 elections within a year (possibly with up to 3 new party leaders), 2 elections within a couple of years.... If there's no decisive shift, the SNP and the Lib Dems will be big players: - For the SNP, another Tory govt makes things simple: fan Scottish hostility to "Tory English austerity" and call another referendum in a few years time. However, they can't demand another referendum too soon. So, if Labour forms the govt, they'll surely have to do a deal with them, at least for a couple of years....then engineer a conflict (e.g. over austerity or Trident) to justify another referendum? - I'm not sure where the Lib Dems' interests will take them strategically. Will Clegg be knifed even if they're still in a position to influence or join the next govt? Their membership surely wouldn't tolerate support for the sort of govt that the Tories want to run, if they've just lost half their seats? But surely the dominant Tory right wouldn't tolerate the Lib Dems' moderating influence, either? Supporting an anti-austerity Labour/SNP govt after 5 years in a Tory coalition would make them a laughing stock... Acting as the "moderating influence" on a Labour minority govt might be their only logical option, if the maths allow that. Interesting times politically...and this could just be the start of much greater turbulence. Enough nerdishness!
Rincewind Posted 11 February 2015 Posted 11 February 2015 It would be less opposition for them. If anyone wants to know what work their MP does there is a link here. I have an email alert for mine.In this he mentions Leicester. Use search for your MP http://www.theyworkforyou.com/search/?s=speaker%3A25120+section:debate&o=d
Monk Posted 11 February 2015 Posted 11 February 2015 Just think - a few months ago the scots were campaigning to be able to run their own parliament and complaining of lack of representation in westminster. Come end of May they could actually be in power for the UK as a whole in a coalition. Hilarious. If Labour were to do a deal with the SNP it would raise an interesting paradox on the West Lothian question - English votes for english laws. If the SNP MPs cannot vote on English laws then the coalition would limp along without getting much done. Will be interesting to see how it plays out. On the other hand, Nicola Sturgeon is just about the only UK party leader right now who affords any kind of public popularity, so maybe it will play into Ed's hands.
Guest Kopfkino Posted 11 February 2015 Posted 11 February 2015 For the politics nerds, I've adjusted my election seat guesstimates to account for the likelihood that the SNP will do better than I was anticipating (see above). I don't see any reason to adjust figures for the other parties at this stage. Interesting stuff, though the picture could change quite a lot depending on precise numbers of seats (or events before May). Some potential scenarios: Scenario 1: My figures prove accurate (approximately) As sitting PM, having the most seats and the most votes (probably), Cameron will try to form another govt. He could probably do a deal with the Ulster Unionists (cash & anti-Sinn Fein measures) and with UKIP (EU referendum & immigration crackdown), but I doubt that the Lib Dems would prop him up again (even by abstaining), unless he seriously watered down Tory austerity policies....which would split his party. As the SNP will surely never do a deal with the Tories, I can't see Cameron commanding a majority on these figures (Con 283 + DUP 9 + UKIP 7 = 299)....and struggle to see an alternative Tory leader who could do so, even if the Tories knife Cameron. So, Red Ed gets a go at building a majority. He'd probably be able to do a deal with the SNP (more devolution, less austerity): Lab 273 + SNP 37 = 310. They could probably also rope in Plaid (3), SDLP (3) & any Greens (1?), but would 317 be enough for a stable majority? Probably only if he could also do a deal with the Lib Dems (for them to abstain on confidence & supply votes, at least). Scenario 2: The Tories do better than my figures suggest They'll take seats from the Lib Dems in the South/rural areas, anyway, while they might benefit from Labour and/or UKIP losing support. So, if they fall short of a majority but get 300 seats, they could form a govt (probably "confidence and supply", not a coalition) with the support of the DUP and UKIP (300 + 9 + 7 = 316), but would probably still need the Lib Dems to abstain, at least....unless they got 310 seats, in which case an early EU referendum and a few bribes to the Ulster Unionists could effectively herald a right-wing Tory government without any Lib Dem stabilisers. Scenario 3: Labour do better than my figures suggest If Labour are short of a majority but get more seats than the Tories, that would put Cameron under pressure to either achieve a majority quickly or let Miliband try (even if the Tories had more votes). It would matter, though, whether Labour had done better at the expense of the Tories or the SNP: e.g. Lab 285 + SNP 25 (= 310) v. Con 283 is a very different scenario from Lab 285 + SNP 37 (= 310) v. Con 265 (with more seats for Lib Dems, UKIP or whoever). Under the latter scenario, Cameron would surely have to go and we'd be looking at a Labour-led govt, probably dragged leftwards by the SNP (but not too far to alienate the Lib Dems). Unless there's a decisive shift in the polls in the next 2-3 months, the precise maths are going to be crucial. They could determine whether there'll be a constitutional crisis dragging the Queen into it, a political impasse (potentially generating more support for UKIP and/or Greens), public demand for constitutional & electoral reform, an EU referendum, 2 elections within a year (possibly with up to 3 new party leaders), 2 elections within a couple of years.... If there's no decisive shift, the SNP and the Lib Dems will be big players: - For the SNP, another Tory govt makes things simple: fan Scottish hostility to "Tory English austerity" and call another referendum in a few years time. However, they can't demand another referendum too soon. So, if Labour forms the govt, they'll surely have to do a deal with them, at least for a couple of years....then engineer a conflict (e.g. over austerity or Trident) to justify another referendum? - I'm not sure where the Lib Dems' interests will take them strategically. Will Clegg be knifed even if they're still in a position to influence or join the next govt? Their membership surely wouldn't tolerate support for the sort of govt that the Tories want to run, if they've just lost half their seats? But surely the dominant Tory right wouldn't tolerate the Lib Dems' moderating influence, either? Supporting an anti-austerity Labour/SNP govt after 5 years in a Tory coalition would make them a laughing stock... Acting as the "moderating influence" on a Labour minority govt might be their only logical option, if the maths allow that. Interesting times politically...and this could just be the start of much greater turbulence. Enough nerdishness! The nerdishness is very much appreciated, well it is from me anyway Alf. I think scenario 2 is your best bet personally The Tories relly need to drill home the prospect of the SNP being in government after the next election as a reason to vote Conservative and not Labour. There is a resentment towards the scots because of they keep demanding more and more whilst the English get nothing. The prospect of the SNP holding Labour to ransom could be enough to persuade a fair few swing voters to go blue and it will especially strike a chord with the 2 Lib Dem seats in Cornwall and others in the South West. I think it could also work on seats like Edgbaston or Dudley North where they maybe want more devolved powers for cities and regions. The Conservatives are turning this into more of a presidential election and that will work for them. Miliband would probably be decent as a high ranking member of the shadow cabinet, certainly better than Balls but he simply isn't a leader and that will go against him more and more the closer the election gets. Cameron doesn't actually do too bad image wise with the public and if he does the debates and goes head to head with Miliband this will come through. You only have to watch PMQs every week to see it, Cameron doesn't even have to be very good every week to have the upper hand. The promise of an EU referendum should be enough to hold off UKIP in the East of England cos any rational UKIP supporter would vote Conservative if that's what they want although the level of intelligence in UKIP voters may put pay to that. Admittedly the Conservatives need the polls to start showing something more favourable for them because otherwise they won't be big enough to form any kind of coalition and Labour supported by the SNP will be the outcome. Lynton Crosby seems confident though. The though of Ed and Ed with Alex is too scary, I'll move to Switzerland after uni I think
Monk Posted 11 February 2015 Posted 11 February 2015 Alex Salmond in the cabinet. That'll be the day hell freezes over!
Alf Bentley Posted 11 February 2015 Posted 11 February 2015 I struggle to imagine any of the smaller parties (smaller at UK level) being in a coalition after May. I suspect we're in for a minority government (Tory or Labour) propped up on a "confidence and supply" basis by one or more of those smaller parties. In other words, depending on the electoral arithmetic re. seats, a deal will be done whereby one or more smaller parties vote with the minority government on important issues, like votes of confidence and budgetary measures. How long such an arrangement lasts (a few months, a couple of years or, less likely, a full term) will depend on the arithmetic, on events and on the strategies and opportunism of the different parties. SNP: They only stand to have their reputation tarnished in Scotland by taking responsibility for potentially unpopular UK govt decisions. Instead, they can either demand maximum concessions from a Labour minority government, without taking any responsibility, and can then bring down the government at a time of their choosing so as to call another referendum....or, if the Tories are the biggest party, they can build Scottish opposition to "English Tory austerity", ready for another referendum. Lib Dems: They're likely to lose a lot of seats through having been in this coalition. If the Tories are again the biggest party in a hung parliament, their support base - 2/3 of whom are centre-left, not centre-right - will go apeshit if they sign up to another Tory-led coalition, particularly one as right-wing as is on the cards. However, they'd invite ridicule by jumping into a coalition with Miliband. I reckon they'll seek to brand themselves as a "responsible, middle-ground moderating influence" on whoever's in Downing Street....moderating from a distance. UKIP: Will just want an early EU referendum (maybe with a few anti-immigrant measures thrown in)...and the opportunity to build their popularity....which they won't do if they accept the responsibility of govt; they'll win more support by opposing from the sidelines as Miliband or Cameron take unpopular decisions. Greens: Unlikely to have more than 1-2 seats, so unlikely to be an issue, unless Miliband seeks to include a Green to establish a broad coalition - and, again, like the SNP & UKIP, they have more to lose than to gain by accepting responsibility during difficult economic and political times. They'd be better off building their support as Labour and/or Tories lose popularity. Ulster Unionists: Would probably go into coalition with the Tories (or even Labour) if enough cash and favours were on offer, but surely even the Tories wouldn't jeopardise peace in N. Ireland (& potentially on the mainland) by risking an upsurge of sectarianism? ....Unless, of course, one of the 2 big parties insists on a coalition rather than "confidence and supply" as a price for concessions. That could be a good move strategically, tying a smaller rival to all govt decisions, including unpopular ones, but all the parties have the lesson of the Lib Dems staring them in the face: take responsibility during hard times and you pay a hard price in terms of popularity.
Jon the Hat Posted 11 February 2015 Author Posted 11 February 2015 Don't most politicians have a way of avoiding answering questions? As I keep seeing your post when I open the thread I will answer. All good politicians, especially front bench ones, have to be able to duck a question. This is because, there are in the politics of this country (and others) questions where whatever answer you give, you either alienate a large portion of the voters, or you open yourself up to ridiculous criticism from the opposing party. Take for example anyone who dares suggest that the NHS could be more efficient, or that in fact quite a lot of Doctors and nurses are in fact shit, lazy and give terrible service. This is tantamount to career suicide, even though it might in fact be true, and is at least a valid viewpoint from which to improve things. So when a voter, or a member of the question time audience or indeed a journalist or opposing MP asks you if you think Doctors and nurses work hard, you come out with a non answer like "that hardworking Doctors and Nurses of the NHS deserve our backing, blah blah. You cant blame politicians, because is they want to be successful in achieving anything at all, they need to avoid these pitfalls. This means you don't get many genuine open and honest answers from politicians, and no doubt puts off a lot of people who don't want to talk shit all the time from going into politics.
Rincewind Posted 12 February 2015 Posted 12 February 2015 I am not disputing any of that Jon and can understand why they avoid answering which is why its not for me. My question was in response to a post that seemed to imply it was just certain MP's did it because of the party they belonged to and I was saying all parties follow the trend. Cameron is very good at getting his supporters believe every word he speaks is the gospel. I am little more skeptical of what all MP's say in general.
Jimothy Posted 12 February 2015 Posted 12 February 2015 UKIP's Suzzanne Evans doesn't think Ukraine is part of Europe. Unbelievably ignorant, where the **** does she think it is?!?
Strokes Posted 12 February 2015 Posted 12 February 2015 UKIP's Suzzanne Evans doesn't think Ukraine is part of Europe. Unbelievably ignorant, where the **** does she think it is?!?Who gives a shit really? UKIP aren't getting measured on geography are they, does this really matter?
Rincewind Posted 12 February 2015 Posted 12 February 2015 I think the Ukranians here will if they are given tickets to the the wrong place when she sends them home.
Strokes Posted 12 February 2015 Posted 12 February 2015 I think the Ukranians here will if they are given tickets to the the wrong place when she sends them home.That literally makes no sense to me.
Jimothy Posted 12 February 2015 Posted 12 February 2015 Who gives a shit really? UKIP aren't getting measured on geography are they, does this really matter? I'd like to think a party who's has one of their main policies as Europe, or at least whether the UK should be in it or not, and the make up and workings of the European Union, they'd know which countries make up the continent they so desperately want to walk away from.
Strokes Posted 12 February 2015 Posted 12 February 2015 I'd like to think a party who's has one of their main policies as Europe, or at least whether the UK should be in it or not, and the make up and workings of the European Union, they'd know which countries make up the continent they so desperately want to walk away from.Would you really? I'm quite certain nobody that has any intention of voting for them will be even slightly upset. So you can rest assured.
Jimothy Posted 12 February 2015 Posted 12 February 2015 Would you really? I'm quite certain nobody that has any intention of voting for them will be even slightly upset. So you can rest assured. No of course they won't, because they can do no wrong in people like yours eyes. People criticise politicians all the time for being out of touch, but to be quite honest I couldn't give a **** if Cameron has to lie about his favourite band in a bid to sound cool, but I do expect people who hope to hold some power and influence, (and have some say on foreign policy) to have basic general knowledge, including geography. And knowing Ukraine is in Europe is basic geography
Rincewind Posted 13 February 2015 Posted 13 February 2015 That literally makes no sense to me. 1 UKIP in power (ha ha) 2 brings in policy to deport foreigners back to their home country 3 gives ukranian ticket to Moscow 4 Ukranian not happy.and gives a shit. 6 Do not take every one of my posts so serious.
Guest Kopfkino Posted 13 February 2015 Posted 13 February 2015 No of course they won't, because they can do no wrong in people like yours eyes. People criticise politicians all the time for being out of touch, but to be quite honest I couldn't give a **** if Cameron has to lie about his favourite band in a bid to sound cool, but I do expect people who hope to hold some power and influence, (and have some say on foreign policy) to have basic general knowledge, including geography. And knowing Ukraine is in Europe is basic geography Being thick shows she's in touch with half their voters. On the Daily Politics the other day, there was a guy selling the big issue saying everyone should vote UKIP
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.