Coalition Scenarios

[ParisInAKilt]

I don't think Labours decimation is being reflected in support for independence... Yet.

Not yet but I think it will if and when there's another referendum, as in who will campaign for the no side?

Edited March 22, 2015 by ParisInAKilt

[Scunnered]

Not yet but I think it will if and when there's another referendum, as in who will campaign for the no side?

The No campaign was so disjointed and laughable that I doubt the result would have changed if they had no campaign at all.

[Haggis_trap]

Don't get why one coalition is more undemocratic than another. Care to explain?

Fair point.

If a "grand coalition" of Lab and Con was formed specifically to keep Scottish SNP MPs out of power at Westminster then arguably there is a democratic deficit for the people of Scotland ? In this scenario their voices would be not be heard at Westminster. However the argument depends if you think Scotland is a "nation" that should be represented at Westminster ?

[giblet]

Labour are losing momentum, Tories will win an outright majority or a coalition with the Ulster Unionists. Meanwhile Labour in Scotland will blame the fact we all voted SNP to losing the chance to win the election. Cue Tartan Tories etc etc. Reality is Milliband is very, very poor. Does anyone actually see him as Prime Minister?

[ParisInAKilt]

The No campaign was so disjointed and laughable that I doubt the result would have changed if they had no campaign at all.

Absolutely but people like Brown were still respected by a lot of Scottish voters and as kick as it pains me to say his intervention probably had an impact.

[Orraloon]

Not yet but I think it will if and when there's another referendum, as in who will campaign for the no side?

Well, the BBC for one. There is no doubt in my mind that the BBC were the most important element of the NO campaign.

[exile]

Very interesting read. Something I hadn't thought about before just clicked. If we assume (big assumption) that the polls are correct for the rest of the UK, then it doesn't seem to matter too much if the number of SNP seats has been exaggerated. If SNP don't win all those seats it will be mainly because Labour have held onto them. So, the overall numbers are the same. As long as SNP get a block of about 20 seats (much more realistic IMO) they could have just as much influence as if they got 40.

The figures for the younger voters were striking - the difference between Scotland and England

[exile]

Don't get why one coalition is more undemocratic than another. Care to explain?

Although I wouldn't call a Lab-Con coalition undemocratic, it has been raised by some (Kenneth Baker?) in an atmosphere of urging constitutional change to stop SNP getting power, or (as some might say) to stop Scottish voters' preferences having a decisive say in affairs at Westminster

"Yes, your English Tory will talk the unionist talk, but press him on it — I am belatedly realising — and you will discover that the only Union they’re really interested in is one that has no impact upon them whatsoever. Remember all those decades when there was a Tory PM and almost no Scottish Tory MPs? Remember the way they’d shrug and explain that this was just how a Union works, and that the reverse could as easily be true? Call me a mug, but I actually thought they meant it. They don’t want a partner, these people, but a pet."

- Hugo Rifkind

Edited March 22, 2015 by exile

[andymac]

Fair point.

If a "grand coalition" of Lab and Con was formed specifically to keep Scottish SNP MPs out of power at Westminster then arguably there is a democratic deficit for the people of Scotland ? In this scenario their voices would be not be heard at Westminster. However the argument depends if you think Scotland is a "nation" that should be represented at Westminster ?

It is a Westminster election for the governance of the United Kingdon.

If a majority of MPs choose to band together for what they see is the betterment of the UK then that is fair enough. Most of the criticism I have heard of including the SNP is about their view of the UK deficit and spending intentions.

.

If two parties feel that they are closer to each other rather than the SNP that is fair enough, no?

Although I wouldn't call a Lab-Con coalition undemocratic, it has been raised by some (Kenneth Baker?) in an atmosphere of urging constitutional change to stop SNP getting power, or (as some might say) to stop Scottish voters' preferences having a decisive say in affairs at Westminster

"Yes, your English Tory will talk the unionist talk, but press him on it — I am belatedly realising — and you will discover that the only Union they’re really interested in is one that has no impact upon them whatsoever. Remember all those decades when there was a Tory PM and almost no Scottish Tory MPs? Remember the way they’d shrug and explain that this was just how a Union works, and that the reverse could as easily be true? Call me a mug, but I actually thought they meant it. They don’t want a partner, these people, but a pet."

- Hugo Rifkind

See my answer above. We elect representatives to Westminster not delegates. If 60 MPs had an undue influence on government policy that would be undemocratic.

Having said all that, I think FPTP is pish.

[exile]

The DUP leader said his MPs would not support any administration that relied on the SNP or Plaid Cymru so long as these parties were advancing policies to break up the union.

“If a government was being propped up by a separatist party that was using its position in order to extract levers of separation then clearly we could not support that,” Robinson said.

He qualified his warning however by stating that “if the ask of any party that forms such a support group for a government party is for purely regional issues, then that is a very different matter indeed.”

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/apr/01/election-2015-100-business-leaders-letter-back-conservatives#block-551c25b4e4b0e961ee18557c

[exile]

The newspapers are preparing for a coup, and Labour is doing nothing to stop them

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/adam-ramsay/newspapers-are-preparing-for-coup-and-labour-is-doing-nothing-to-stop-them

[stocky]

The newspapers are preparing for a coup, and Labour is doing nothing to stop them

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/adam-ramsay/newspapers-are-preparing-for-coup-and-labour-is-doing-nothing-to-stop-them

i wasnt aware that in 1955 Labour were the biggest party... Makes Murphy an even bigger lier now

[stocky]

Very interesting read. Something I hadn't thought about before just clicked. If we assume (big assumption) that the polls are correct for the rest of the UK, then it doesn't seem to matter too much if the number of SNP seats has been exaggerated. If SNP don't win all those seats it will be mainly because Labour have held onto them. So, the overall numbers are the same. As long as SNP get a block of about 20 seats (much more realistic IMO) they could have just as much influence as if they got 40.

At westminster level you are 100% correct, but the difference in Scotland of the SNP having the most MPs will make a massive difference.. absolutely huge

The Scottish establishment still dont consider Holyrude to be important and always view westminster as king..

Am MP is considered much more important than an msp.....

If the SNP are biggest party here , it will change perceptions

it will be massive if SNP are the biggest in Scotland, they need 30 for that, well for a majority.........26 to be biggest methinx..

Edited April 7, 2015 by stocky

[exile]

FT article has predicted probabilities for different coalition scenarios

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3cd216c8-ef3c-11e4-87dc-00144feab7de.html#axzz3YzHL4O8Q

It has a chart with 12 scenarios running from most likely (obviously assuming they parties wanted to...)

1. Labour / SNP 27.8%

2. Con / LibDem / DUP 17.9%

3. Labour / SNP / Plaid Cymru / SDLP / Green 15.1%

:

:

11. Conservative majority 0.5%

12. Labour majority 0.02%

The only one involving UKIP is 0.6%

but as for the LibDems

"the probability of them participating in government after the election is still higher than 50 per cent"

Edited May 2, 2015 by exile

[exile]

...so according to Populus, the third likeliest outcome is a rainbow scenario involving all four parts of UK in government. Could Miliband - the vow-maker - really reject such an arrangement that would be the most tangible expression of the union of 'nations' working?

And.... 41% of scenarios involves Labour supported by the SDLP. But of course the SDLP also wish the break up of the UK. Will Labour work with them? Yes, apparently, according to MrTernan.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/one-nation-labour/#more-70698

And Chuka Umunna said this morning on R5, (something like) Labour would be representing all parts of the country - would that include NI?

Maybe Jim Murphy can tell us what he'd like people in NI to do - vote for a party who'd 'break up Britain'[sic] or vote Unionist?

[Orraloon]

If the polls are correct and the result turns out to be as close as they say then I am surprised that NI hasn't been mentioned more than it has. The results in NI could be crucial. If it is really close the Sinn Fein guys might even take their seats to get some major concessions.

[Return of Yermaw]

I can't believe Miliband has not been challenged more on this. I have seen The Guardian run with it and Neil gave the Labour guy a bit of a grilling on it but I've not seen anything direct and simply put directed at Miliband:

"So, on the basis of your statements, and so your voters are in no doubt, you would rather see Cameron and the Tories in Government than make any type of deal or slight concession with any progressive party? That is what you are saying to Labour voters - you would rather Cameron became PM?"

Edited May 3, 2015 by Return of Yermaw

[exile]

If the polls are correct and the result turns out to be as close as they say then I am surprised that NI hasn't been mentioned more than it has. The results in NI could be crucial. If it is really close the Sinn Fein guys might even take their seats to get some major concessions.

I heard SF guy on radio yesterday who was adamant they wouldn't take up seats. The only conceivable scenario I could imagine would be if it meant they could use it once, to vote to end Westminster rule in NI. Difficult to imagine a UK party offering those terms.

But I wonder if SDLP could squeeze the SF vote, if people saw the chance of SDLP in some sort of power deal. but Miliband probably has little to offer them, that they wouldn't get anyway under a Labour led administration. I don;t really know - there's not much in the news about it.

The lack of attention to NI in the UK media could be an indication that the UK media is just default ignorant and uncaring rather than actively in a unionist conspiracy. For example if the BBC really wished to be proactive cheerleaders for the Union it would be celebrating the diversity of parties, manufacturing a sense of occasion as 'all 4 'nations' go into election fever' and ensuring all NI parties had proper airtime on UK-wide TV.

[Jaggy Jim]

I can't believe Miliband has not been challenged more on this. I have seen The Guardian run with it and Neil gave the Labour guy a bit of a grilling on it but I've not seen anything direct and simply put directed at Miliband:

"So, on the basis of your statements, and so your voters are in no doubt, you would rather see Cameron and the Tories in Government than make any type of deal or slight concession with any progressive party? That is what you are saying to Labour voters - you would rather Cameron became PM?"

He wouldn't answer the question. On the opposition leaders debate he was asked the question about possible post election deals. Dimbleby prompted him to actually answer the question rather than go on about how he'd be working for a Labour majority because that goes without saying. What did Miliband do? Ignored the question and Dimbleby and just banged on about campaigning for a majority. Dimbleby should just have cut him off straight away and told him if he wasn't going to answer the question he'd be forfeiting his time to speak.

It's the same every time someone from Labour is on either TV or radio just now. Chuka Umanna was on Radio 5 this morning and it was the same old party line. There won't be a coalition or any deals with the SNP, but we're working for a majority anyway. He was called out on it for not answering the questions by someone else that was on and accused of treating the electorate with contempt. Umunna said he would answer the question by telling us 2 things. Guess what they were! Yep, exactly what he'd said already. They're shameless.

Given that the polls have remained virtually unchanged for 6 months it's almost certain that neither Labour or the Tories will have a majority, so for them to continue to not answer questions about possible post election scenarios is treating the voters with contempt. It's going to hurt Miliband because the only way he can become PM is to rely on the SNP for some sort of support. It probably will be vote by vote as Sturgeon has suggested but it will still be seen as betrayal by a lot of English voters.

[Flora MaDonald]

How and when did it come to pass that the SDLP is a sister party of Labour?

[Orraloon]

How and when did it come to pass that the SDLP is a sister party of Labour?

I don't think it has ever been anything else. Could be wrong though, it's hard to make any sense of NI politics sometimes.

[Orraloon]

He wouldn't answer the question. On the opposition leaders debate he was asked the question about possible post election deals. Dimbleby prompted him to actually answer the question rather than go on about how he'd be working for a Labour majority because that goes without saying. What did Miliband do? Ignored the question and Dimbleby and just banged on about campaigning for a majority. Dimbleby should just have cut him off straight away and told him if he wasn't going to answer the question he'd be forfeiting his time to speak.

It's the same every time someone from Labour is on either TV or radio just now. Chuka Umanna was on Radio 5 this morning and it was the same old party line. There won't be a coalition or any deals with the SNP, but we're working for a majority anyway. He was called out on it for not answering the questions by someone else that was on and accused of treating the electorate with contempt. Umunna said he would answer the question by telling us 2 things. Guess what they were! Yep, exactly what he'd said already. They're shameless.

Given that the polls have remained virtually unchanged for 6 months it's almost certain that neither Labour or the Tories will have a majority, so for them to continue to not answer questions about possible post election scenarios is treating the voters with contempt. It's going to hurt Miliband because the only way he can become PM is to rely on the SNP for some sort of support. It probably will be vote by vote as Sturgeon has suggested but it will still be seen as betrayal by a lot of English voters.

The polls might still be pointing to hung parliament but it would appear that real postal votes might be indicating otherwise. Labour seem to be shiting themselves because the Tories are winning in the key marginals.

https://archive.is/2uETy

[exile]

Cameron prepared to ‘move quickly’ to form coalition with Lib Dems

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c1b121e6-f184-11e4-98c5-00144feab7de.html#axzz3Z4dlig3D

That should concentrate minds

Edited May 4, 2015 by exile

[Armchair Bob]

Looks like the Tories 'vote Labour, get SNP' is getting through to voters in England. Turning the Conservatives even more firmly into an English National Party. (Labour are now the only true British national party left, except that name is already taken.)

[Flora MaDonald]

Looks like the Tories 'vote Labour, get SNP' is getting through to voters in England. Turning the Conservatives even more firmly into an English National Party. (Labour are now the only true British national party left, except that name is already taken.)

Only because Labour require Scottish votes (which, is thankfully falling on its arse).