UK - Election 2015

[Giz]

Right wingers are overwhelmingly Unionist. As I have pointed out, the areas that voted Yes in the referendum were not SNP heartlands, but Labour ones. The general correlation between Left wing views and support for independence is striking, except for the (usually older) Labour Leftists I have already mentioned.

Probably due to the perceived bias of the larger entity. I.e. In scotland, the uk as a whole is seen as politically to the right of Scotland and therefore righties are sympathetic to the union. In the uk, the eu is seen as politically to the left of the uk and therefore lefties are sympathetic to the eu union.

A lot of it is about how to get more of the "correct" form of government.

 

[Ambrosia]

A general observation -

As a Brit watching from the wings, I can honestly say that I've never seen so many knee-jerk, random bilge, vacuous promises made by so many idiot politicians in such a short space of time.

As UK election campaigns go, this has to be the pits. And soooo much time to go ... *groan*

It could be worse. In some countries they seem to start election campaigns 2 years in advance of the actual election. At least we only have to put up with a month or so of it all.

 

[Craig B]

Oh dear me! The pre-referendum Scottish "Devo max" vow is looking less secure.

Campaigning in the North West of England, David Cameron will say a future Conservative government would introduce a new "mechanism" to ensure England, Wales and Northern Ireland were not disadvantaged as a result of the granting of new financial powers to the Scottish Parliament - a vow made by all the Westminster parties in the days running up to September's independence referendum.
Mr Cameron will insist that a Conservative government would honour the devolution pledge to Scotland but will say that the changes - such as handing over responsibility for air passenger duty to Holyrood - could have a knock-on effect on the rest of the UK.

 

[MikeG]

Oh dear me! The pre-referendum Scottish "Devo max" vow is looking less secure.

What twisted way are you reading that?

All he is saying is that he wishes to make sure that the rest of the UK isn't disadvantaged by Scotland's economic decisions. In other words......this is about our responses to Scotland's actions under the new freedoms you'll be granted. He reiterates, time and again, that he will stick by the promises made to Scotland pre-referendum. The mindset where every single thing a British PM says about Scotland is some or other attack on something or other Scottish is just getting old. Grow up you lot.

 

[Craig B]

What twisted way are you reading that?

All he is saying is that he wishes to make sure that the rest of the UK isn't disadvantaged by Scotland's economic decisions. In other words......this is about our responses to Scotland's actions under the new freedoms you'll be granted. He reiterates, time and again, that he will stick by the promises made to Scotland pre-referendum. The mindset where every single thing a British PM says about Scotland is some or other attack on something or other Scottish is just getting old. Grow up you lot.

We have grown up. That's the Unionists' problem.

 

[anglolawyer]

We have grown up. That's the Unionists' problem.

The Scots weren't grown up before, you mean? What a strange place you guys have got to (inside your heads). It will be interesting to see where it leads.

 

[MikeG]

We have grown up. That's the Unionists' problem.

So, no comment on the substance of my riposte, just some nya nya ne nya nya sniping. How about "yep, sorry, I misread the article and jumped to a silly conclusion"?

 

[Rum]

You're probably right, Glenn. The thing that puzzles me is that the entire campaign so far hasn't produced any movement in the polls whatsoever.......and that despite a large number of "undecideds".

The results always depend on the people who 'swing' on the day I read. I assume the logic is that the more you outbid the opposition the more goodies you are going to be grateful for and cast your vote in that direction.

I'm not so sure myself. I am a lifetime Labour voter and was until not long ago a member of the party. I have watched it ditch its socialist values and now see someone in charge of the party that would I think be a disaster as a PM. But I won't vote Tory that is for sure. I suspect I am one of many in that position. An 'undecided' after a lifetime of supporting one side.

 

[Craig B]

So, no comment on the substance of my riposte, just some nya nya ne nya nya sniping. How about "yep, sorry, I misread the article and jumped to a silly conclusion"?

No, because I admit no such thing. And if you want to deal with "sniping", start with this.

The mindset where every single thing a British PM says about Scotland is some or other attack on something or other Scottish is just getting old. Grow up you lot.

 

[The Don]

His greyness Sir John Major claims that a Labour government supported by the SNP would be a "recipe for mayhem"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32390121

because....

...a future Labour government would be subjected to a "daily dose of blackmail" from the nationalists.

and

... in practice, Mr Miliband would be forced to agree to the nationalists' demands or face the collapse of his government

Yet somehow a Conservative minority government or coalition would be fine

I was surprised at how solid the current coalition has been. I believe a lot of it is down to the willingness of the LibDems to play second fiddle and be the fall guys but IMO it demonstrates that a coalition can work in this country.

Of course whether Labour and the SNP could find an accommodation is a completely different matter.

 

[malicus]

I was surprised at how solid the current coalition has been. I believe a lot of it is down to the willingness of the LibDems to play second fiddle and be the fall guys but IMO it demonstrates that a coalition can work in this country.

Well.....roll over and play dead. To be fair, they did have to grab their position in power while on offer, but the only reason the coalition has worked is they were invited to the party but kept in the kitchen. I remember being surprised that Clegg was made deputy PM, that being an important position and all that. Then I remembered Prescott and the penny dropped.

Of course whether Labour and the SNP could find an accommodation is a completely different matter.

I struggle to imagine that. I return to the central SNP plank of Trident. The SNP have no wriggle room on that as far as I can see, and for Ed to compromise would provide devastating ammo to opponents, albeit as previously linked 'future Labour' are majority against renewal.

Confidence and supply, with the SNP chipping away at them. Contrary to popular media belief there will be no ransoms or massive boat rocking - they will likely run with the current 'we come in peace' post-Salmond era.

 

[Craig B]

I struggle to imagine that. I return to the central SNP plank of Trident. The SNP have no wriggle room on that as far as I can see, and for Ed to compromise would provide devastating ammo to opponents, albeit as previously linked 'future Labour' are majority against renewal.

Confidence and supply, with the SNP chipping away at them. Contrary to popular media belief there will be no ransoms or massive boat rocking - they will likely run with the current 'we come in peace' post-Salmond era.

Yes, very probable. In the case of a con and supp agreement, they don't need to pretend to like the government they are sustaining, merely to dislike the possible alternative government more.

And if Labour proposes something the SNP don't like, they can simply refuse support for that particular proposal. The thing to bear in mind is that the SNP doesn't aspire to form or participate in a UK government so they are not "coalition partners" in the submissive or self abnegating Lib Dem mould.

 

[The Don]

I struggle to imagine that. I return to the central SNP plank of Trident. The SNP have no wriggle room on that as far as I can see, and for Ed to compromise would provide devastating ammo to opponents, albeit as previously linked 'future Labour' are majority against renewal.

Confidence and supply, with the SNP chipping away at them. Contrary to popular media belief there will be no ransoms or massive boat rocking - they will likely run with the current 'we come in peace' post-Salmond era.

I agree that a formal coalition is almost impossible without one side or another having to execute a politically painful u-turn (or unless Trident and comparable matters are ruled a free vote) but as you point out a confidence and supply arrangement may be possible.

If Labour and the SNP do manage to reach some kind of arrangement I don't see this as a recipe for mayhem any more than an arrangement between the Conservatives and one or more parties may be.

 

[MikeG]

........If Labour and the SNP do manage to reach some kind of arrangement I don't see this as a recipe for mayhem any more than an arrangement between the Conservatives and one or more parties may be.

Really? You don't see a constitutional crisis occurring when the Scots Nats interfere in England-only legislation, for instance?

 

[Craig B]

Really? You don't see a constitutional crisis occurring when the Scots Nats interfere in England-only legislation, for instance?

I hope that doesn't happen. Where matters are not devolved, and there are for example finance issues relating to England but which affect the UK budget as a whole, there will be differences of interpretation of what "England-only" means.

But why should there be a constitutional crisis? After all, Scotland has its own laws, but Acts affecting Scotland only were passed by the UK Parliament even though Scottish MPs formed only a small fraction of the total number. We lived with that for about 290 years.

 

[ddt]

Really? You don't see a constitutional crisis occurring when the Scots Nats interfere in England-only legislation, for instance?

Under a confidence and supply agreement, they wouldn't have to interfere, would they? Even if that means that a Labour proposal is voted down with only English PMs voting, that would not mean the end of government.

(and when it's about the West-Lothian question: that's about the principle of Scottish PMs voting on English matters, not just SNP PMs. It also applies to the, now predicted, 3 Labour and 1 Tory PM from Scotland that will still be there after the elections.)

 

[The Don]

Really? You don't see a constitutional crisis occurring when the Scots Nats interfere in England-only legislation, for instance?

Not really, the Scottish Nationalists (and other natonalist parties) have been able to vote on England only legislation if they choose to do so.

 

[Craig B]

Not really, the Scottish Nationalists (and other natonalist parties) have been able to vote on England only legislation if they choose to do so.

Absolutely. If the SNP don't win in Scotland, Labour will. If Scottish Labour MPs vote as part of a Lab minority government on England only issues, where will the institutional crisis come from? There will be none. In the old days Ulster Unionists used to vote on England only issues I'm sure, alongside the Tories. What constitutional crisis did that cause? None.

I invite those who want to stop Scottish MPs of any party voting on England only issues, to demand a parliamentary Bill to that effect. As an anti-Unionist I would welcome that, for reasons which will be obvious to anyone who gives the issue a moment's serious thought.

 

[anglolawyer]

Absolutely. If the SNP don't win in Scotland, Labour will. If Scottish Labour MPs vote as part of a Lab minority government on England only issues, where will the institutional crisis come from? There will be none. In the old days Ulster Unionists used to vote on England only issues I'm sure, alongside the Tories. What constitutional crisis did that cause? None.

I invite those who want to stop Scottish MPs of any party voting on England only issues, to demand a parliamentary Bill to that effect. As an anti-Unionist I would welcome that, for reasons which will be obvious to anyone who gives the issue a moment's serious thought.

Won't there be a difference this time, with the Scot Nats being able to veto England-only legislation? If I recall, the nationalist parties last enjoyed influence in the days of the Lib-Lab pact in the 70s but they were very small then and I can't recollect any problems. This will be different because the SNP will be able to claim to 'speak for Scotland' in the UK context, which will be a first.

I am prompted to look up the result of the October 1974 election. The SNP held the balance of power then, too (Labour 319 + SNP 11 = 330) but, unfortunately, so did several other parties (Lib 13 alone or Plaid Cymru and other assortments acting together). This time, we could have something like this (say):

Lab 290
SNP 50
Con 250
Lib 40
Others 20

And this would be quite new.

 

[Francesca R]

The Economist reckons that the SNP manifesto is scarcely distinguishable from Labour (ex Trident), and that the party would have been better off positioning to the left or the right. It concludes that the SNP outside a coalition will have rather little distinguishing impact on UK policy however well it does.

Ms Sturgeon is known on Fleet Street for admiring Michael Foot, who presided over Labour's hard-left, "longest suicide note in history" manifesto in 1983. Yet her first manifesto as leader of the SNP more closely resembles the path that Labour would have taken under John Smith, the utterly moderate, European social democrat who assumed the party's leadership a decade after Foot's resignation and whose death precipitated Tony Blair's more centrist approach. Indeed, such is the path to which the party has returned under Mr Miliband. By clinging so closely to the agenda of a party that she wants to put out of business, Ms Sturgeon has published the second "longest suicide note in history" (at about 16,000 words, it is about a quarter shorter than Labour's self-destructive programme in 1983). But it is much to the right of the first. And eventually, if Labour leads the next government, it will put her own party out of business.