Poll: General election voting round 4

[delta0]

Got my postal vote. Going off tomorrow.

 

[McPhee]

Does the SNP have any choice but to vote with labour? If they don't vote in a Labour Queen's speech or budget their effectively siding with the Tories by proxy.

I don't follow your logic? To stay in power, the government simply has to command the confidence of the House. The SNP would undoubtedly support Labour in this. Outside of that, it's open season. The SNP are very likely to stick to their election promises, voting against the government (or abstaining) where necessary. So long as Labour still command the confidence of the house, this doesn't matter. It's merely a negotiation tool.

 

[peige]

So this story has me worried.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32442151

So, if Labour's seats plus the SNP's seats add up to a majority, a deal can be done. But what Nicola Sturgeon's remarks throw up is an issue that could, within a fortnight, prove the biggest of all: Legitimacy.
If the Tories were to win "10, 20, 30, 40 seats" more than Labour, would a Labour and SNP arrangement to form a government be legitimate in the eyes of the electorate?
Some would say the answer to that was no. But, the SNP argues all that matters is what Ms Sturgeon calls the "basic rule of how governments are formed."

Even if the Tories win a majority by quite a few seats can Labour/snp still rule? I'm confused about the system now, does this mean any rag tag bunch with enough numbers can get together and rule by majority even if the electorate have voted by numbers for a different government?

 

[robgmun]

No, if the Tories have an outright majority the SNP can bleat on all they like, nothing can be done

 

[Freakbro]

Neither Labour nor Tories have ruled out a deal: they've said they won't enter a coalition. That's not the same thing.

Actually Milliband on Radio 2 the other day when pushed did rule out a 'deal' with the SNP as well as a coalition.

True

But i don't believe a word that comes out any Labour politicians mouth and it wouldn't shock me that they would enter a coalition with the SNP, lying is in their DNA

You do make yourself look silly with such partisan rants, Conservatives lie, Labour lie, UKIP lies, Lib Dems lie....as House says "Everybody lies"....just even more so when they are politicians.

I would not be surprised 1 iota if it was the case that Labour would fudge a coalition or some sort of deal with the SNP, just as I wouldn't be surprised if the Tories raise VAT again, after they promised not to again.

 

[semi-pro waster]

The SNPophobia in the press is no surprise given they support a right of centre narrative

Not to pick on you but it's always interesting how differently people view the politics of the media - if you support a nominally left wing party then the media is typically portrayed as being right of centre, if you support a nominally right wing party then the media is typically portrayed as being left of centre.

There's rarely an appreciation that the media is not a homogenous entity and it depends what you take as your sources.

Let me be clear, I don't believe all or even most 'socially progressive' persons are in favour of paedophilia. I believe its a very minor group who currently advocate for their rights. But, I could easily see it being a cause picked up by the broader progressive movement down the line. I imagine they'd argue for softer sentencing, lower age of consent and that paedophilia eroticism (art, stories etc) is entirely harmless. That at least is where it would start.

We've already seen groups like PIE receiving government funding in the 80's. What I am suggesting is not outside the realms of possibility.

I think you're way off base with that one and attempts to link paedophilia with homosexuals, transgender, minority ethnic etc are absurd.

Incidentally do you have any proof that PIE did receive government funding as an organisation? I don't believe it was ever proved but maybe you know better.

So this story has me worried.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32442151


Even if the Tories win a majority by quite a few seats can Labour/snp still rule? I'm confused about the system now, does this mean any rag tag bunch with enough numbers can get together and rule by majority even if the electorate have voted by numbers for a different government?

The party with the biggest number of seats by convention has the right to try and form a government, that may mean in coalition if they don't have enough for a majority on their own. If they can't then other parties may seek to form a coalition and if they hold a majority that would be enough. However it's only a convention as I understand it so someone else may want to chime in and confirm that.

 

[sityeuropa]

Did anyone catch the interview between Evan Davis and Nigel Farage last night? Disgraceful conduct by the BBC – A clear last-ditch before the election attack against the man at the head of the party with the only credibly costed manifesto. I never realised quite how much of a *** Evan was.

I can't stand Evan Davies. He tries to get away with snide little subliminal digs. Farage picked him up on it.

Just shows how left wing the BBC is.

 

[Judgeneo]

Probably going to view conservative now, as I'm in a con/libdem marginal where UKIP is no where, with a useless candidate, and although I think both their policies appeal to me about the same, I think a conservative majority is the best bet.

I hate FPTP.

 

[[TW]Fox]

No, if the Tories have an outright majority the SNP can bleat on all they like, nothing can be done

But of course the Tories won't get an outright majority because there are now too many random parties like UKIP who stand 0 chance of winning the election but split the vote up such that an overall majority is all but impossible.

So it seems that the net result of all this UKIP!111!!! stuff is that we get probably the absolute worst case scenario, a minority Labour government propped up by the SNP.

Great.

 

[delta0]

The largest party has the advantage as they are more able to form a viable government and also the current PM/government (I.e Conservatives) has an extra advantage in that they get the first opportunity to form a government. If that fails then another party will try.

Generally the smaller parties will follow tradition and side with the largest party.

 

[scorza]

I see David Cameron is promising us an "English-only" income tax now, although it may also apply in Wales and Northern Ireland. I didn't see any guarantee that it'd be less than the presumably Scottish-only income tax would be.

 

[ubersonic]

Even if the Tories win a majority by quite a few seats can Labour/snp still rule? I'm confused about the system now, does this mean any rag tag bunch with enough numbers can get together and rule by majority even if the electorate have voted by numbers for a different government?

No because if he Tories won a majority then Labour+SNP would have less seats than them. What the article is describing is if the Tories won more seats than anyone else, but Labour+SNP won more, in which case yes they could rule.

This is similar to 2010 when the Tories won the most seats but not the majority so required a coalition. A Lab/Lib coalition could have ruled instead despite the Tories winning the most seats (Labour was actually Cleggs first port of call for a coalition but the refused to play ball).

 

[scorza]

(Labour was actually Cleggs first port of call for a coalition but the refused to play ball).

Again my memory differs slightly from yours. Labour and the LibDems did indeed hold talks about forming a coalition - Clegg actually got Gordon Brown to agree to resign as he said he wouldn't work with Brown. All this was slightly irrelevant though as the all the serious negotiations had been taken place with the Conservatives, the LDs were just using Labour to get a better deal from the Tories, and Labour were happy to oblige. I just can't see how Clegg could ever have formed a coalition government with the party that finished in second place - it would have seriously undermined his arguments for more coalition.

 

[ubersonic]

The largest party has the advantage as they are more able to form a viable government and also the current PM/government (I.e Conservatives) has an extra advantage in that they get the first opportunity to form a government. If that fails then another party will try.

Camerons chances are effectively 0 at this point thanks to UKIP, this morning the Tories are polling at 34% and the Libs at 9%, going off that if they get 43% of seats it won't be enough for a government as Labour/SNP would veto everything they did.

By comparison Labour only have 33% so a LabLib coalition would only have 42%, however that would be enough as the SNP would either vote with them or abstain in order to spite the Tories (the only exception would be Trident which would have the backing of the Tories anyway so the SNP couldn't block it).

Of course the is still the wildcard that votes don't equal seats, I.E UKIP are projected to get 13% of the vote but <1% of the seats.

 

[delta0]

No because if he Tories won a majority then Labour+SNP would have less seats than them. What the article is describing is if the Tories won more seats than anyone else, but Labour+SNP won more, in which case yes they could rule.

This is similar to 2010 when the Tories won the most seats but not the majority so required a coalition. A Lab/Lib coalition could have ruled instead despite the Tories winning the most seats (Labour was actually Cleggs first port of call for a coalition but the refused to play ball).

Clegg followed tradition and supported the largest party. In 2010 Labour were not the largest party but they had the first opportunity to form a government. Conservatives will have an advantage because they will be the largest party and also have the first opportunity to form a government.

 

[elmarko]

So this story has me worried.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32442151

Even if the Tories win a majority by quite a few seats can Labour/snp still rule? I'm confused about the system now, does this mean any rag tag bunch with enough numbers can get together and rule by majority even if the electorate have voted by numbers for a different government?

The group with the majority who agree to work together can rule, that's how it is - that's how it's always been for some time.

Just because a portion of the electorate like to pretend that the Scottish referendum actually went through & they are no longer part of the UK, it doesn't make it so. To be honest, this rhetoric is going to make the next referendum a certainty - the attitude of many English who seem to think the through of Scottish people wielding any power in the UK is a horrible idea.

The irony is, I can't imagine them being happy if the voters all switched back to Labour either, as the only likely alternative to the SNP is a Labour majority.

 

[ubersonic]

Again my memory differs slightly from yours. Labour and the LibDems did indeed hold talks about forming a coalition - Clegg actually got Gordon Brown to agree to resign as he said he wouldn't work with Brown. All this was slightly irrelevant though as the all the serious negotiations had been taken place with the Conservatives, the LDs were just using Labour to get a better deal from the Tories, and Labour were happy to oblige. I just can't see how Clegg could ever have formed a coalition government with the party that finished in second place - it would have seriously undermined his arguments for more coalition.

Clegg spoke with with Labour first but their demands for a coalition were unworkable, the Tories were much more accommodating. Reading between the lines from snippets he's said in interviews it seems Labour made him an offer he could only refuse (they were not interested in staying in power as they knew how much public hatred doing so would create, but didn't want to look uninterested).

 

[ubersonic]

Conservatives will have an advantage because they will be the largest party and also have the first opportunity to form a government.

Sadly going first isn't an advantage when your only possible move is forfeit

 

[delta0]

Camerons chances are effectively 0 at this point thanks to UKIP, this morning the Tories are polling at 34% and the Libs at 9%, going off that if they get 43% of seats it won't be enough for a government as Labour/SNP would veto everything they did.

By comparison Labour only have 33% so a LabLib coalition would only have 42%, however that would be enough as the SNP would either vote with them or abstain in order to spite the Tories (the only exception would be Trident which would have the backing of the Tories anyway so the SNP couldn't block it).

Of course the is still the wildcard that votes don't equal seats, I.E UKIP are projected to get 13% of the vote but <1% of the seats.

That isn't correct. Lib would follow conservative in this scenario. UKIP will only get a few seats. UKIP is equally effecting Labour seats, unfortunately for Labour they have been crippled in Scotland.

 

[peige]

Which poll do we currently believe? I've heard so many and they all seem to show a different position.