The Election Section: Get Your Crystal Balls Out...

Castle

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

In the 2010 Scottish elections, the SNP had just one more seat than Labour, but were the largest party.

A Labour/Lib Dem pact would have seen the SNP outvoted every time, and a different government.

I thought it was the 2007 Scottish Elections, not 2010!

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Castle wrote: »

I thought it was the 2007 Scottish Elections, not 2010!

Ha! You're right, now corrected.

scott_lithgows

My guess,tories first but gettin S&c from lib dems .labour in 3rd but spending more time fighting with the snp in the run up to the Hollyrood election than fighting the tories.
Lots of shy tories and shy labour will change the results to their favour in their heartlands.
Euro referendum will come with 8 year time bar which will be extended to any future UK referendum in line with Anglo Irish agreement.

Moby

antrobus wrote: »

Clearly not. But that does not mean to say that it is not a valid argument.

Half of all Britons say it would not be legitimate for the SNP to help Labour form a government, even if the Conservatives won the most MPs (50%). However, over a third (36%) say this would be legitimate.

http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/daily-mail-itv-news-political-poll-29-april/



Firstly, Labour want to keep FPTP as well. Secondly, the argument isn't about the relative 'efficiency' of the Labour v Conservative vote, it's about Labour coming second in both seats and votes, and the hypothetical 'legitimacy' of any Labour government being formed on the basis of a deal with the SNP.

And it is a hypothetical question, because it's not going to happen is it? Ed Miliband has already said that "there will be no Labour government if it involves a coalition or a deal with SNP". I hope you are not suggesting that Two Kitchens was lying when he said that.:)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32542765



The South-West is a region with a population of 5.34 million, which makes it slighly bigger than Scotland. I'd say that it was the failure to see that, that was leading us to where we are regarding the Union.

I see you ignored my differentiation between a country and region. That is the problem in a nutshell. Actually Labour is split on PR and your point above is saying the same thing in a different way. I'm saying the tories lose out in seats re. their percentage vote because their vote is less efficiently distributed than Labours. They pile up majorities in certain areas. The legitimacy question is an anti Labour red herring from the right wing media thrown out as a challenge to a Labour Queens speech. The rule is not seats and votes but who can command a majority in the Commons.

Moby

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

In the 2007 Scottish elections, the SNP had just one more seat than Labour, but were the largest party.

A Labour/Lib Dem pact would have seen the SNP outvoted every time, and a different government.

However the Labour First Minister at the time refused to do a deal, as he felt the electorate would expect the largest party to form the government, so the SNP got in.

There is form on this matter....

Here's what Alex Salmond had to say on the point in 2007.



The leading party in this case will almost certainly be the Tories.

So how will they get their programme through then without a majority or coalition? Cameron is reported to have told Clegg he knows he won't get a majority. Are you saying Labour & SNP will not vote him down?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Moby wrote: »

The legitimacy question is an anti Labour red herring .

Except of course that even senior Labour MP's are being quoted as saying a Labour minority government would not be acceptable to the British public if they don't also win the most seats.

Labour chose not to form a minority government as the second largest party in Scotland for that very reason.... Despite having enough votes to do so if they formed a pact with the Lib Dems.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Moby wrote: »

So how will they get their programme through then without a majority or coalition?

They won't.

Belgium functioned with no government at all for 18 months.

I'd imagine we can do the same... But a second election is likelier.

Labour are already dead in Scotland for the next electoral cycle, they can't afford to suffer the same fate in England, which they certainly would if seen as being propped up by the SNP to steal government from the largest party.

The opinion polls on this point are quite clear. The majority expect the largest party to form a government. Anything other than that outcome would not go down at all well with most voters. It's political suicide to try....

Generali

The opinion polls on this point are quite clear. The majority expect the largest party to form a government. Anything other than that outcome would not go down at all well with most voters. It's political suicide to try....

TBH, I suspect that if there were a couple of seats in it, Labour could legitimately declare a 'coalition of the left'. More than 10 say and I think they'd be on very dodgy ground.

If Labour lose Scotland they'll struggle to form a Government. If Labour lose England they'll never form a Government.

michaels

I think the tories are playing a dangerous game with this 'not legitimate unless have most seats' as it opens the door for Labour to form a minority govt with the tacit support (=abstain not vote against) of the SNP if they get the most seats, a scenario I think is about 3/2 on at the moment.

chewmylegoff

michaels wrote: »

I think the tories are playing a dangerous game with this 'not legitimate unless have most seats' as it opens the door for Labour to form a minority govt with the tacit support (=abstain not vote against) of the SNP if they get the most seats, a scenario I think is about 3/2 on at the moment.

Not the end of the world for the Tories as it would mean 5 years of weak and ineffective labour govt and probably a landslide Tory victory in 2020 (or whenever the labour govt collapsed).