Salmond and Sturgeon Want the English Fish for More Fat Subsidies

.string.

On the LibDem thing.

I'm no way a LibDem supporter but I do think they were unfairly treated when they went into Coalition.

It's axiomatic that when a Party is in Coalition with another then it no longer follow every policy which it would have liked to follow had it been in power all by itself. Negotiating for the combined priorities of a new Government is by definition a compromise and the LibDems, being the smaller party, could not possibly hope to carry out all of their sacred cows. They had to prioritise and they chose, for example, election by (sort of) Proportional Representation over other cherished policies. It is ironic, is it not, given their low standing in the Polls, that the LibDems survival now probably depends on the first-past-the-post system rather than the PP system they proposed but which was voted down by the voters.

Anyway, the vitriol they got on the education issue was not really earned by them except in as much as they should have put more weasel-words with all of their policy statements prior to the election. In fact stating any Red Lines is a bit daft unless it is an easily agreed motherhood policy. Most of the criticism was really competitor parties trying to feed off the carcass with the press goading them on.

.string.

I don't think that the outcome of the GE is a win win situation for the SNP. But let them think so.

CLAPTON

.string. wrote: »

On the LibDem thing.

I'm no way a LibDem supporter but I do think they were unfairly treated when they went into Coalition.

It's axiomatic that when a Party is in Coalition with another then it no longer follow every policy which it would have liked to follow had it been in power all by itself. Negotiating for the combined priorities of a new Government is by definition a compromise and the LibDems, being the smaller party, could not possibly hope to carry out all of their sacred cows. They had to prioritise and they chose, for example, election by (sort of) Proportional Representation over other cherished policies. It is ironic, is it not, given their low standing in the Polls, that the LibDems survival now probably depends on the first-past-the-post system rather than the PP system they proposed but which was voted down by the voters.

Anyway, the vitriol they got on the education issue was not really earned by them except in as much as they should have put more weasel-words with all of their policy statements prior to the election. In fact stating any Red Lines is a bit daft unless it is an easily agreed motherhood policy. Most of the criticism was really competitor parties trying to feed off the carcass with the press goading them on.

It doesn't really matter whether they were 'fairly' treated: what matters is what the electorate thinks about them.

In my view they they deserved the bad vipes as they were always a ridiculous party with daft polices, 'safe' in the knowledge they would never actually have to implement them.
They didn't claim that they couldn't implement their policies because of the Tories but actually claimed a conversation :
so Nick now actually believes that high Uni fees is 'fairer' than abolishing them
and the ridiculous Vince accepted being Business secretary even though he was arguing that it should be scrapped
plus of course Nick sulked after the PR referendum was rejected by the electorate and refused to implement reform of the electoral boundaries

The SNP are in a different situation
for bizarre reasons the Scottish electorate seem uninterested in Scottish issues like their own health service or what a 'fairer' society means or what step they propose to make a 'more progressive' society or what steps they propose to make Scotland a 'more equal ' society
but are content to sit back and blame all their troubles on Westminster and the English NHS.

.string.

CLAPTON wrote: »

It doesn't really matter whether they were 'fairly' treated: what matters is what the electorate thinks about them.

In my view they they deserved the bad vipes as they were always a ridiculous party with daft polices, 'safe' in the knowledge they would never actually have to implement them.
They didn't claim that they couldn't implement their policies because of the Tories but actually claimed a conversation :
so Nick now actually believes that high Uni fees is 'fairer' than abolishing them
and the ridiculous Vince accepted being Business secretary even though he was arguing that it should be scrapped
plus of course Nick sulked after the PR referendum was rejected by the electorate and refused to implement reform of the electoral boundaries

The SNP are in a different situation
for bizarre reasons the Scottish electorate seem uninterested in Scottish issues like their own health service or what a 'fairer' society means or what step they propose to make a 'more progressive' society or what steps they propose to make Scotland a 'more equal ' society
but are content to sit back and blame all their troubles on Westminster and the English NHS.

Remarks on your post

On the bold bit, in electoral terms you are right, but my arguments ere more moral based.

Italics

I agree with that, the LibDems did bring it on themselves and you've written pretty well what I would have written except that I would in addition probably used the word "fluffy".

On the blue
I think the Scottish electorate who support the SNP have probably been caught up with the thrill of going to Disneyland Natland with all the misrepresentations they've been fed. The SNP has a soft underbelly on this.

Shakethedisease

wotsthat wrote: »

Well yes, we've ascertained some time ago that just about every possible scenario is brilliant for the SNP (including an outright Tory majority).

You've not mentioned the people voting SNP. Are they really going to be happy with a Tory majority - you're testing credulity if you think the answer's yes. Maybe they lack the chiselled strategic mindset required to see just how great it'll be to have David Cameron as PM for another 5 years.

I don't think anyone really cares much to be completely honest. It's why Scottish Labour's constant 'Vote SNP, Get Tory' has failed to budge the polls, as it did say in 2010. 41 Labour MP's have been there since 2010 supposedly representing Scottish interests. In actual fact when you look back at voting records. they've kind of just been used as 'lobby fodder' more than anything much else. The perception seems to be that this has been the state of play for a very long time now.

The SNP's narrative of vote for us for a 'stronger voice' in Westminster seems to be a bit less negative all round. Plus the polls show Cameron is more popular that Milliband in Scotland. Both are in negative territory in approval ratings, but Milliband is faring worse.

So, in answer to you, no, I don't think the thought of Tories in for another five years is particularly troubling to those thinking of voting SNP. Otherwise those ( Scottish ) Labour polls would be just ratcheting up the % points right about now wouldn't they ? They're not.

I've just nominated that for the MSE irony award of 2015.

. We'll all just have to get on with it.

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

I don't think that the outcome of the GE is a win win situation for the SNP. But let them think so.

Well then, why don't you tell us which scenario you see as lose-lose for the SNP. You're happy to tell us it's not all rosy. I'd be interested in your own thoughts on what areas won't be or aren't.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Even you string. Will just have to get on with it.

?? don't follow you - even I what?
back

Shakethedisease

.string. wrote: »

?? don't follow you - even I what?
back

I mixed up my quotes. Apologies and edited.

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

I mixed up my quotes. Apologies and edited.

Thanks, but it's nice to think I am in your thoughts.

You asked (which I thought you might) which scenario might not be all good news for the SNP. Well I won't divulge the tricks you might have to face (why should I forewarn anyone in the SNP), but If the Tories win through to Government, I think that will not be so easy as you might imagine.

In fact I now hope they win since Labour are repeatedly showing themselves in a bad light, but that's by the way.

So back to the point - once the SNP put their head above the parapet, and are no longer making "noises away from Westminster cognizance" they will find that any slip is pounced upon, any inconsistency is trumpeted and any obstruction will be declared loudly as such, and in a way designed to register with Scottish Voters. It's the tactics of how that will be done which we will no doubt all be happily debating after May.

Should Labour "win" and have to rely on the SNP they will not have the same freedom to fall out with their partners/part-time partners - whatever the relationship is. But the Tories will have few such compunctions and none if they win outright as the rumours about an SNP/Labour detente may well bring about. The SNP can expect a very rough ride.

In that scenario one should also realise that the voters who Labour (and particularly the individual MPs) will then increasingly want to impress most will be the English voters and they are getting progressively more !!!!ed off with the SNP, and this will increase as the SNP play funny games at Westminster.

As for the tactics - well you will have to wait and see.

.string.

PS - that was funny, I originally wrote in there somewhere p**sed off, then thought better of it during my review of the post and went back to that line but it had changed all by itself to !!!!ed.

Aren't Grannies clever!