Who will win the UK election ?

antrobus

michaels wrote: »

My suggestion is that Sinn Fein won't take their seats and the SNP won't vote to bring down a labour minority govt and trigger another election so a workable coalition for Labour would be 310 seats rather than 325/323.

Given the remarks recently made by Ms Sturgeon - Ed Miliband has clashed with Nicola Sturgeon after she said she would only back him as PM if he rejected austerity and was "better than the Tories" - it might become a question of whether the SNP will vote to bring down a Conservative minority government.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32328664

antrobus

N1AK wrote: »

True, and that doesn't change anything that I said. SNP seats won't automatically stop Labour forming a minority government, whereas they will stop the conservatives from doing so if they can't get more seats than Labour + SNP combined....

Logically, the SNP winning Labour seats in Scotland has no effect whatsover on the Conservative's ability to form a government. That depends on how many seats they win or loose in England.

Castle

antrobus wrote: »

Logically, the SNP winning Labour seats in Scotland has no effect whatsover on the Conservative's ability to form a government. That depends on how many seats they win or loose in England.

But it may decide which party, (if any), the Libs support.

Shakethedisease

antrobus wrote: »

Given the remarks recently made by Ms Sturgeon - Ed Miliband has clashed with Nicola Sturgeon after she said she would only back him as PM if he rejected austerity and was "better than the Tories" - it might become a question of whether the SNP will vote to bring down a Conservative minority government.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32328664

They'll vote against a Tory minority govt no matter what Labour do, have been saying so openly for months. The Fixed term parliament Act makes it much more difficult for another election to be held. Which is when Labour may find themselves having no choice but to 'work with' them in order to gain power.

The only 'deal' to be done ( if that's how the numbers/seat go ) is if Labour go either confidence and supply, or on a vote by vote basis re the SNP. A coalition agreement has been ruled out by both sides. It seems the newspapers/media haven't quite grasped this idea yet though.

What Nicola Sturgeon was trying to put Miliband on the spot about, was, if both he and Cameron find themselves short of a majority.. Would Miliband really refuse the chance of being PM, if it's SNP seats that would make up the difference and put him and Labour in No 10 ? Would he do you think ?

Generali

Shakethedisease wrote: »

They'll vote against a Tory minority govt no matter what Labour do, have been saying so openly for months. The Fixed term parliament Act makes it much more difficult for another election to be held. Which is when Labour may find themselves having no choice but to 'work with' them in order to gain power.

Of course if the SNP make the UK ungovernable the Unionist parties who will have a massive majority over the Nationalists can simply vote to overturn fixed term Parliaments.

The 40-50 SNP MPs don't have the UK over a barrel as the 600+ Unionists aren't stupid enough to allow it.

antrobus

Shakethedisease wrote: »

They'll vote against a Tory minority govt no matter what Labour do, have been saying so openly for months. ....

What Sturgeon said openly last night was that she would only back Labour if they "rejected austerity" and were "better than the Tories". I only mention it, because it gives rise to the possibility that the SNP won't back anybody i.e. abstain on confidence motion.

Don't blame me if Ms Sturgeon is less than consistent.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

...The Fixed term parliament Act makes it much more difficult for another election to be held. Which is when Labour may find themselves having no choice but to 'work with' them in order to gain power....

Not really. The Act states that if the government loses a confidence vote, then the opposition have 14 days to form an alternative. Then there's an election.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

...The only 'deal' to be done ( if that's how the numbers/seat go ) is if Labour go either confidence and supply, or on a vote by vote basis re the SNP. A coalition agreement has been ruled out by both sides. It seems the newspapers/media haven't quite grasped this idea yet though. ...

I have already ruled out a Labour-SNP coalition.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

...What Nicola Sturgeon was trying to put Miliband on the spot about, was, if both he and Cameron find themselves short of a majority.. Would Miliband really refuse the chance of being PM, if it's SNP seats that would make up the difference and put him and Labour in No 10 ? Would he do you think ?

Depends. Given that Sturgeon has already followed what appears to be the SNP practice of giving away your negotiating position before the negotiations even start, the Milibean may not need to do anything, given that he knows that the SNP won't back diddy Dave.

antrobus

Castle wrote: »

But it may decide which party, (if any), the Libs support.

That's true.

The Lib Dems are most likely to do a deal with the largest party. The more Labour seats that the SNP take in Scotland, the less likely it is that Labour will be the largest party.

It's also true that the more Lib Dem seats that the SNP take in Scotland, the less likely it is that the Lib Dems will have enough seats to make it worthwhile doing a deal in the first place.

Shakethedisease

antrobus wrote: »

What Sturgeon said openly last night was that she would only back Labour if they "rejected austerity" and were "better than the Tories". I only mention it, because it gives rise to the possibility that the SNP won't back anybody i.e. abstain on confidence motion.

Don't blame me if Ms Sturgeon is less than consistent.

Not really. The Act states that if the government loses a confidence vote, then the opposition have 14 days to form an alternative. Then there's an election.

I have already ruled out a Labour-SNP coalition.

Depends. Given that Sturgeon has already followed what appears to be the SNP practice of giving away your negotiating position before the negotiations even start, the Milibean may not need to do anything, given that he knows that the SNP won't back diddy Dave.

No what she said was

Sturgeon actually asked Ed if he would "work with us [the SNP] to vote to keep the tories out"

Nothing else. Miliband answered using the fact he was ruling a coalition, that had already been ruled out, out.

Those were the facts of what was said last night. She didn't say she wouldn't work with him. However, a deal based on Confidence and Supply is out for the SNP as long as Trident renewal is on the agenda for Labour.

The SNP, on a vote by vote basis, will vote against a Tory minority government after May 7th, leaving Labour to decide if they will too. If Labour also vote against a Tory minority govt, ( again if the numbers are there after May 7th am not assuming anything just to be clear ) ... then Ed will be PM, supported by the SNP, Greens, Plaid, on a vote by vote basis. No-one knows yet how the Lib Dems will jump.

It's once that government is formed that the Fixed Term Parliament Act then makes things very complicated. Because it means that the smaller parties can vote for or against or abstain on anything they like, without risk of causing another election. This would make life difficult for Labour if Tories have more seats in passing legislation for the next 5 years. <--- This is where the power lies.

Under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, one of the worst laws passed by the last parliament, the SNP can vote against anything it likes without forcing another election.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/labour-manifesto-the-important-thing-wasnt-happening-in-manchester-at-all-it-was-happening-in-scotland-10173763.html

In fact we could end up in a ridiculous situation of a government desperate to vote itself out of office, but unable to because 2 thirds of parliament won't do so.

“A general election takes place every 5 years on the first Thursday in May. An early election is only possible if (a) the House of Commons passes (by a simple majority) the motion ‘That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government’ and, within 14 days, a new or reconstituted government has not achieved passage of the motion ‘That this House has confidence in Her Majesty’s Government’; or (b) the House, by unanimity or, on a division, by a two-thirds majority of all MPs (not simply two-thirds of those voting) passes the motion ‘That there shall be an early general election’.”

Either scenario makes things difficult. Either you have to engineer a vote of no confidence in your own government and then hand your opponents a two week opportunity to form a new government (tricky then risky) or you have to secure the agreement of a large chunk of your opponents to hold an election (tricky and unlikely, if you want an election at a good time for you).

http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2015/03/the-fixed-term-parliament-act-threatens-years-more-political-deadlock.html

N1AK

antrobus wrote: »

Logically, the SNP winning Labour seats in Scotland has no effect whatsover on the Conservative's ability to form a government. That depends on how many seats they win or loose in England.

True, and yet you're still not saying anything that remotely contradicts my posts. Obviously the seats would still be a barrier to a conservative government if they went to Labour instead.

michaels

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It's once that government is formed that the Fixed Term Parliament Act then makes things very complicated. Because it means that the smaller parties can vote for or against or abstain on anything they like, without risk of causing another election. This would make life difficult for Labour if Tories have more seats in passing legislation for the next 5 years. <--- This is where the power lies.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/labour-manifesto-the-important-thing-wasnt-happening-in-manchester-at-all-it-was-happening-in-scotland-10173763.html

In fact we could end up in a ridiculous situation of a government desperate to vote itself out of office, but unable to because 2 thirds of parliament won't do so.

http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2015/03/the-fixed-term-parliament-act-threatens-years-more-political-deadlock.html

Fixed term parliaments are a problem? How do the huge number of countries around the world with the same thing cope?