Who will win the UK election ?

michaels

Do the SNP matter?

Polls suggest about 285 seats for labour, 280 for the tories and 25 for the lib dems and 50 for the SNP

In theory Labour plus SNP could form a coalition. However the way I see it as long as Labour have the highest share of the popular vote the lib dems will form a coalition with them (from a position of weakness, 9% of the vote down from 23% and only 25 MPs from 57) with Labour largely in charge.

The SNP will then have the choice of abstaining or supporting this minority govt or voting them down. A formal deal is not really in the interests of either the SNP (they don't want to be seen as part of the Westminster 'problem') nor Labour who would rather not have such a strong partner but neither would the SNP want to see another election as they would be seen as the instigators for more electioneering and from a high point in Scotland they could only really go down.

I half wondered if there was a deal to be done between the tories and SNP with 'independence in all but name' in return for C&S but I can't see it as with independence in all but name, evel and a tory minority in rUK I don't see how the Tories could claim a realistic mandate. Plus I am not sure if the tories would split the union to hang on to power in the way Ed would in order to claim it if he had to.

So the big question is will labour best the tories by enough for the LDs to fell justified in forming an alliance with them and for this pairing to be stable with SP abstaining.

TheBlueHorse

who won last night's debate? I missed it.

N1AK

michaels wrote: »

Do the SNP matter?

Polls suggest about 285 seats for labour, 280 for the tories and 25 for the lib dems and 50 for the SNP...

They matter hugely, but primarily because those seats will stop the Conservatives forming a government based on current projections. If Labour + SNP have over ~320 seats between them then the Conservatives can't form a viable government.

N1AK

TheBlueHorse wrote: »

who won last night's debate? I missed it.

I don't think anyone can honestly say who won it. Some polls taken straight after said the Ed, Nicola and Nigel did best (in that order). Personally I think it was a bit of a wash with everyone getting roughly what they wanted. I'm inclined to think UKIP were the losers, but that might be my bias against them. In my opinion nothing Nigel said was likely to draw in voters who weren't already inclined towards them, and he came across as hostile and divisive.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

Had a nice chat with the Labour chappie on my doorstep last night; after informing him I'd never voted Labour in my life and was not going to start now.

To be fair, I have no complaints at all about my Labour-run council, which has always dealt quickly with anything I've reported (fly tipping, malfunctioning street lights) and our library is open til 19.00 every weekday, which I think is great. And at least the local MP is born and bred.

I wish there were more strong independent candidates.

antrobus

michaels wrote: »

Do the SNP matter?

Polls suggest about 285 seats for labour, 280 for the tories and 25 for the lib dems and 50 for the SNP...

That does appear to be the kind of place we are heading.

michaels wrote: »

...In theory Labour plus SNP could form a coalition. However the way I see it as long as Labour have the highest share of the popular vote the lib dems will form a coalition with them (from a position of weakness, 9% of the vote down from 23% and only 25 MPs from 57) with Labour largely in charge....

Depend on the exact arithmetic. 285+25 still does not equal a majority. I am inclined to think that the LibDems will not wish to endure the pain of government without a majority.

michaels wrote: »

..The SNP will then have the choice of abstaining or supporting this minority govt or voting them down. A formal deal is not really in the interests of either the SNP (they don't want to be seen as part of the Westminster 'problem') nor Labour who would rather not have such a strong partner but neither would the SNP want to see another election as they would be seen as the instigators for more electioneering and from a high point in Scotland they could only really go down.....

Agreed. The SNP will not enter a coalition.

michaels wrote: »

...I half wondered if there was a deal to be done between the tories and SNP with 'independence in all but name' in return for C&S but I can't see it as with independence in all but name, evel and a tory minority in rUK I don't see how the Tories could claim a realistic mandate. Plus I am not sure if the tories would split the union to hang on to power in the way Ed would in order to claim it if he had to....

I believe that the SNP would happily do a deal if the price was right. I do not believe that the Conservatives would be willing to pay.

michaels wrote: »

..So the big question is will labour best the tories by enough for the LDs to fell justified in forming an alliance with them and for this pairing to be stable with SP abstaining.

The most likely outcome is a Labour minority government reliant on SNP and LD votes.

antrobus

N1AK wrote: »

They matter hugely, but primarily because those seats will stop the Conservatives forming a government based on current projections. If Labour + SNP have over ~320 seats between them then the Conservatives can't form a viable government.

Yes, but the SNP will be gaining seats at the expense of Labour and the LibDems. The only thing that the SNP are doing is making it harder for Labour to get a majority.

michaels

antrobus wrote: »

The most likely outcome is a Labour minority government reliant on SNP and LD votes.

Thanks for your thoughts.

I still think a coalition with the lib dems works better for labour if this give them a majority excluding the SNP and Sein Fein rather than having to call on them on a vote by vote basis.

michaels

Personally I find it all hard to fathom, the coalition has been economically and socially hugely more successful than could possibly have been expected, the French experience and the current Greek situation demonstrate exactly what awaits any country that tries to impose equality of outcome via taxation or ignore the need to raise money to fund burrowing and yet it is the parties the champion these approaches (Labour and the SNP) that are the most popular adn the ones that suggest fiscal responsibility via tax increases or spending cuts (LDs and Tories) who having demonstrated that this works will lose most support.

Two approaches, recent evidence shows that one works and the other doesn't and yet the voters will choose the one that doesn't.

For me, does not compute.

Cyberman60

N1AK wrote: »

They matter hugely, but primarily because those seats will stop the Conservatives forming a government based on current projections. If Labour + SNP have over ~320 seats between them then the Conservatives can't form a viable government.

No government that is in denial over the deficit and National Debt is viable. Get ready for the economic disaster and chaos that I've seen so many times under Liebore.

Thankfully I'm retired so do not have to worry about having a job, high interest rates and civil disturbance as I'll disappear abroad. You won't need to go abroad to see 'Greece' or 'Argentina'. :eek: