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

Moby

I still don't understand how it was 'legitimate' for the tories to govern with the Lib Dems but not legitimate for Labour to govern with the SNP? The hypocrisy of the establishment is breathtaking! I know some say it is different because the purpose of the SNP is to break up the union but in answer to that we are where we are because for years Scotland has been ruled by a Govmt that has no legitimacy in Scotland.....I mean how many tory seats are there in Scotland again?

Moby

Shakethedisease wrote: »

It won't be the SNP that'll cause him to fail. It'll be the Tories calling victory.





There's definitely something a bit weird going on..

It's called the Establishment backing their man;)
Ultimately it comes down to arithmetic....i.e when does a second party (Labour) become illegitimate. How many seats behind the tories will make Labour illegitimate? 10? 20?...who decides? The Times ex Bullingdon Boy's tweets or US!

By the way Ed's just been on Today Radio 4. Very good he was too!

CLAPTON

Moby wrote: »

I still don't understand how it was 'legitimate' for the tories to govern with the Lib Dems but not legitimate for Labour to govern with the SNP? The hypocrisy of the establishment is breathtaking! I know some say it is different because the purpose of the SNP is to break up the union but in answer to that we are where we are because for years Scotland has been ruled by a Govmt that has no legitimacy in Scotland.....I mean how many tory seats are there in Scotland again?

I believe it to be true that some Scots voted Tory and still will : they they not real people in your view ?

It's the nature of government (except in countries with 100% of people voting for the government) that particular areas vote for parties that don't win : why is that bad, it's called democracy and
not having a one party state.

Why do you say that the government has no legitimacy because the majority of MPs from a geographic are don't win the national picture?
Only in a one party state can that be true for all regions.

Have you studied other parts of the UK to see whether those regions have always voted for the winner e.g. Yorkshire, London, Devon & Cornwall or do the Scots have a special privileged place in the UK: maybe because they whine so much.

When labour was in power did you post up how some parts of the UK voted Tory so the Labour government had no legitimacy ?

antrobus

Moby wrote: »

I still don't understand how it was 'legitimate' for the tories to govern with the Lib Dems ....

Because 36% plus 23% equals 59%?

Moby wrote: »

...but not legitimate for Labour to govern with the SNP? ...

Because 34% plus 4% only equals 38%?

Moby wrote: »

...The hypocrisy of the establishment is breathtaking! ....

Or perhaps they can do simple arithmetic?

Moby wrote: »

..I know some say it is different because the purpose of the SNP is to break up the union but in answer to that we are where we are because for years Scotland has been ruled by a Govmt that has no legitimacy in Scotland.....I mean how many tory seats are there in Scotland again?

Just one. But there were 11 Lib Dem seats. Together the coalition parties got 36% of the vote in Scotland, which is, for example, more of a mandate than Labour got in South-West England in 2005. Nobody seems to have gone around saying that the last Labour government had no legitimacy in South-West England.:)

.string.

Shakethedisease wrote: »

The Tories have a warchest for a second election. And you bring up something from ages ago about an SNP underspent, which the SNP dispute as it happens. We were talking about the election, and I was talking about possible Tory/Labour strategies based on seat numbers and the FTPA etc. I'm afraid I have no idea what point you're trying to make. Am pretty sure both Labour and the SNP would rather not have to go through all this again in a few months time.

The link was relevant but it comes as no surprise that the SNP dispute the underspend of 440£m; they always deny everything so denials are by now not credible anymore.

The point I am making is that, as was the case for the funding of the "White Paper", the SNP have a track record of misusing Scottish Government money for their their own political ends, so that they have a war chest almost by definition.

I wonder where the 440£m went - particularly now that you state it's existence is denied. It would be nice to believe all is above board but as I said SNP credibility has to be improved a bit, so the Jury is out on that one.

Moby

antrobus wrote: »

Because 36% plus 23% equals 59%?



Because 34% plus 4% only equals 38%?



Or perhaps they can do simple arithmetic?



Just one. But there were 11 Lib Dem seats. Together the coalition parties got 36% of the vote in Scotland, which is, for example, more of a mandate than Labour got in South-West England in 2005. Nobody seems to have gone around saying that the last Labour government had no legitimacy in South-West England.:)

Sorry to me the percentage differences you quote are not an argument to justify a legitimacy argument. After all the tories want to keep FPTP, so if their vote is therefore, less efficient ie their vote percentage is not reflected in seat numbers they need to be arguing PR not calling foul. By the way the South West is a region not a country with a national identity. A failure to see this has led us to where we are re. the Union. The establishment are too arrogant to accept this and the union is in danger of being lost as a result.

Generali

Moby wrote: »

I still don't understand how it was 'legitimate' for the tories to govern with the Lib Dems but not legitimate for Labour to govern with the SNP? The hypocrisy of the establishment is breathtaking! I know some say it is different because the purpose of the SNP is to break up the union but in answer to that we are where we are because for years Scotland has been ruled by a Govmt that has no legitimacy in Scotland.....I mean how many tory seats are there in Scotland again?

Because in the example given, the Tories have won many more seats than Labour but Labour form a Government anyway.

.string.

Moby wrote: »

Sorry to me the percentage differences you quote are not an argument to justify a legitimacy argument. After all the tories want to keep FPTP, so if their vote is therefore, less efficient ie their vote percentage is not reflected in seat numbers they need to be arguing PR not calling foul. By the way the South West is a region not a country with a national identity. A failure to see this has led us to where we are re. the Union. The establishment are too arrogant to accept this and the union is in danger of being lost as a result.

You need to get it into your head that a Party will only get into any sort of coalition or agreement with another party if that other party wants it.

There is a right of any MP to vote but no right whatsoever to enter a coalition with an unwilling partner.

antrobus

Moby wrote: »

Sorry to me the percentage differences you quote are not an argument to justify a legitimacy argument....

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/

Moby wrote: »

... After all the tories want to keep FPTP, so if their vote is therefore, less efficient ie their vote percentage is not reflected in seat numbers they need to be arguing PR not calling foul. .....

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

Moby wrote: »

...By the way the South West is a region not a country with a national identity. A failure to see this has led us to where we are re. the Union. The establishment are too arrogant to accept this and the union is in danger of being lost as a result.

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.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Moby wrote: »

I still don't understand how it was 'legitimate' for the tories to govern with the Lib Dems but not legitimate for Labour to govern with the SNP?

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 people having taken part in a democratic ballot will expect the leading party to form a government"

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