General Election 2015

[gary1979666]

If the SNP had an agreement with Labour and got few concessions along the way (like Lib dems getting the AV vote, pupil premium, etc) and were seen to have some influence, but not so much it damages Labour, then would that not show them to be a responsible party and give further credibility with the Scottish electorate? Maybe, as long as they didn't have a 'tuition fee moment', they could come out looking good and show they are capable of (helping to) run the country and boost SNP share next time round? More a devil's avocado arguement, but worth considering.

Also, I doubt SNP or Labour have any appetite (money) for another election, so why would the turkeys vote for Xmas?

[eFestivals]

If the SNP had an agreement with Labour and got few concessions along the way (like Lib dems getting the AV vote, pupil premium, etc) and were seen to have some influence, but not so much it damages Labour, then would that not show them to be a responsible party and give further credibility with the Scottish electorate? Maybe, as long as they didn't have a 'tuition fee moment', they could come out looking good and show they are capable of (helping to) run the country and boost SNP share next time round? More a devil's avocado arguement, but worth considering.

a formal agreement like that would require the SNP to facilitate Trident renewal and other hated things, which are the claimed reasons why people are supporting them - so merely having a formal agreement with Labour gives them their 'tuition fees moment'.

So that ain't happening, is it?

Also, I doubt SNP or Labour have any appetite (money) for another election, so why would the turkeys vote for Xmas?

The SNP won't give a shit. The less governable the UK is, the better it is for them. And a tory govt is their dreams come true.

Labour will be less keen, but their options are limited by the reality of what certain actions by them will cause to their future. Any people at the top of the party won't be particularly vulnerable to losing their seats (any of that will happen in May) and those that will will be the 'new intake' who will have little influence. The leadership will be weighing up what's worse for them: five years of power followed by nothing, or a life on the gravy-train. I know which of those will win out even if you don't.

Edited April 16, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

If the SNP had an agreement with Labour and got few concessions along the way (like Lib dems getting the AV vote, pupil premium, etc) and were seen to have some influence, but not so much it damages Labour, then would that not show them to be a responsible party and give further credibility with the Scottish electorate? Maybe, as long as they didn't have a 'tuition fee moment', they could come out looking good and show they are capable of (helping to) run the country and boost SNP share next time round? More a devil's avocado arguement, but worth considering.

Also, I doubt SNP or Labour have any appetite (money) for another election, so why would the turkeys vote for Xmas?

I was going to reply to Neil & Russy but Gary has pretty much nailed it.

I'll simply add a couple of points.

We have recently been ruled by a party with 35% of the vote & we have been ruled by a party with no MP's in Scotland, so sorry guys, I don't see the problem.

And, Russy it's one thing playing the "look we've got an undemocratic Tory government" quite another when you are responsible for bringing the last one down. I believe that would lose them more votes than they would gain (including mine)

There were plenty of voices claiming the 2010 coalition would be dead within months. They were wrong.

[LJS]

a formal agreement like that would require the SNP to facilitate Trident renewal and other hated things ....

Ah, a squirrel!

No one is suggesting there will any formal arrangement. The smart money appears to be on minority government with support on a vote by vote basis. The Tories will support Labour on trident.

[gary1979666]

We have recently been ruled by a party with 35% of the vote & we have been ruled by a party with no MP's in Scotland, so sorry guys, I don't see the problem.

?? Who had no MPs in Scotland? Tories have 1 (for now). I guess the Tories/Libs had 35% of the Scotish vote, so although not a majority is a decent mandate to govern, given that's what a Labour minority government might have.

[eFestivals]

We have recently been ruled by a party with 35% of the vote & we have been ruled by a party with no MP's in Scotland, so sorry guys, I don't see the problem.

The current govt has nearly 60% of the vote.

And when a party has won a majority with 35% of the vote - just once (Blair in 2005) in 40 years (all others have had 40%+) - that's precisely what a FPTP system is meant to achieve, so it's legitimised by the system we use.

That's not the case for a coalition. FPTP isn't meant to cause coalitions, so coalitions are immediately veering towards illegitimate by that fact, which can be made legitimate again via the share of the vote - which Labour / SNP won't have.

Just because you're all in favour of a Labour/SNP weak outcome doesn't get to mean that all others have the same view. If you care to read public opinion rather than the official cybernat line you'll find your views are a tiny minority.

[gary1979666]

Ah, a squirrel!

No one is suggesting there will any formal arrangement. The smart money appears to be on minority government with support on a vote by vote basis. The Tories will support Labour on trident.

There would have to be some agreement, as will need to be some give and take, as there was in the coalition. And even though this wouldn't be a coalition, there needs to be something in it for the SNP, otherwise why bother - they'd just be seen as Labour's Poodle if they voted all bar trident through.

My point about was that as long as the quid pro quo wasn't a deal breaker then the SNP could come out looking better.

[eFestivals]

?? Who had no MPs in Scotland? Tories have 1 (for now). I guess the Tories/Libs had 35% of the Scotish vote, so although not a majority is a decent mandate to govern, given that's what a Labour minority government might have.

yep - just because the snippers can twist the facts to suit the cybernat line they want to present doesn't get to mean the rest of us are swallowing that line, or going to swallow it.

[eFestivals]

Ah, a squirrel!

No one is suggesting there will any formal arrangement. The smart money appears to be on minority government with support on a vote by vote basis. The Tories will support Labour on trident.

I see you need lessons in squirrel identification.

You're right, no one is suggesting there will be any formal agreement - except snippers like you and the SNP themselves of course.

What you really mean is no one is suggesting a formal coalition, where the SNP take responsibility for the things they advocate - and especially the SNP with that. The very last thing the SNP want is to take any responsibility for what they cause to happen at Westminster.

And with my comment there I was simply pointing out what the consequences are for the SNP taking responsibility within govt - the death of the SNP.

[LJS]

?? Who had no MPs in Scotland? Tories have 1 (for now). I guess the Tories/Libs had 35% of the Scotish vote, so although not a majority is a decent mandate to govern, given that's what a Labour minority government might have.

apologies, the time when we had no Tories was under a Labour government - you are right there is one Tory presently.

Neil correctly spotted 2005 as the time we had a Government with 35% of the vote.

[eFestivals]

There would have to be some agreement, as will need to be some give and take, as there was in the coalition. And even though this wouldn't be a coalition, there needs to be something in it for the SNP, otherwise why bother - they'd just be seen as Labour's Poodle if they voted all bar trident through.

My point about was that as long as the quid pro quo wasn't a deal breaker then the SNP could come out looking better.

The SNP certainly say there will be an agreement, tho less of a formal one than the tories/LibDems had, as the last thing the SNP want is any responsibility for what they do.

The SNP *need* to sell it like that to Scotland, else the SNP become pointless.

Meanwhile, there's a Labour side to this. The SNP have said they'll try to bring down a tory govt, so that gives Labour the support of the SNP for free, unless the SNP want to usher-in a tory govt (again).

And if Labour do sell-out the UK to Scotland, Labour are fucked forever - so they'll be no deal. The SNP will have to suck it up or bring Labour down.

[eFestivals]

Neil correctly spotted 2005 as the time we had a Government with 35% of the vote.

a single-party govt with a decent majority gained under FPTP.

The full context of that 35% is vitally important for legitimising any govt.

If you think the percentage means anything just by itself, you don't get how it works and how it's designed to work.

Edited April 16, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

The current govt has nearly 60% of the vote.

And when a party has won a majority with 35% of the vote - just once (Blair in 2005) in 40 years (all others have had 40%+) - that's precisely what a FPTP system is meant to achieve, so it's legitimised by the system we use.

That's not the case for a coalition. FPTP isn't meant to cause coalitions, so coalitions are immediately veering towards illegitimate by that fact, which can be made legitimate again via the share of the vote - which Labour / SNP won't have.

Just because you're all in favour of a Labour/SNP weak outcome doesn't get to mean that all others have the same view. If you care to read public opinion rather than the official cybernat line you'll find your views are a tiny minority.

I love all this bullshit like "FPTP isn't meant to cause coalitions" as if some committee had sat down & designed FPTP & maybe made the rules for it is , ooh what would you call it, a written constitution. FPTP just happened because there was no need for any other system when it was Whigs against the Tories. Unlike just about every other sensible democracy, we have decided to stick with this nonsensical system. The people responsible for this are the Tories and large parts of the Labour Party.

Well I'll tell you what: if lots of people (like you & me Neil) tell you something is unfair & undemocratic but you decide to ignore us & you get a result that you perceive as unfair & undemocratic, that's tough luck.

I would rather we had a fair voting system which would probably mean about 25 SNP MP's or thereabouts & 50 or 60 Libdems, but we don't. For Labour & the Tories to bleat about it being unfair takes their hypocrisy to new depths

Likewise If the electors who were offered a chance to change the voting systems think its unfair & undemocratic, they should maybe have thought about that when they had the chance.

The choice the Labour Party will have is whether to make a serious attempt to win support in Parliament for the Programme they believe in. They will not be able to do that without talking to other parties including the SNP.

The choice for the SNP is whether to play a constructive role in that process. Their willingness to do so has been a central plank of their campaign. To be seen as deliberately destabilising a Labour Government would be electorally disastrous for them.

[LJS]

The SNP certainly say there will be an agreement, tho less of a formal one than the tories/LibDems had, as the last thing the SNP want is any responsibility for what they do.

The SNP *need* to sell it like that to Scotland, else the SNP become pointless.

Meanwhile, there's a Labour side to this. The SNP have said they'll try to bring down a tory govt, so that gives Labour the support of the SNP for free, unless the SNP want to usher-in a tory govt (again).

And if Labour do sell-out the UK to Scotland, Labour are fucked forever - so they'll be no deal. The SNP will have to suck it up or bring Labour down.

You continue to ignore the impact of the fixed term parliament Act, which makes it far harder for governments to be brought down. I have made this point before. You have ignored it before.

The SNP governed for 5 years in Holyrood as a minority administration. They were defeated on a number of significant pieces of legislation but carried on & indeed went on to win a majority in the next election. Perhaps labour might learn form that?

[eFestivals]

You continue to ignore the impact of the fixed term parliament Act, which makes it far harder for governments to be brought down. I have made this point before. You have ignored it before.

and you're ignoring the fact that Labour can simply pass a 'new election bill' which essentially kills FPA. They don't even need to revoke the FPA.

In the case of two conflicting laws, the more recent wins, so a 'new election bill' would be a breeze to get thru.

The SNP governed for 5 years in Holyrood by cosying up with the tories

corrected for you.

They were defeated on a number of significant pieces of legislation but carried on & indeed went on to win a majority in the next election. Perhaps labour might learn form that?

Is that you now advocating "vote SNP get marginalised"? It definitely looks like it.

It's what you insisted wouldn't be what happened.

And it's certainly not what the SNP are saying. They've talked about 'deals' and 'red lines'.

[eFestivals]

I love all this bullshit like "FPTP isn't meant to cause coalitions" as if some committee had sat down & designed FPTP & maybe made the rules for it is , ooh what would you call it, a written constitution. FPTP just happened because there was no need for any other system when it was Whigs against the Tories. Unlike just about every other sensible democracy, we have decided to stick with this nonsensical system. The people responsible for this are the Tories and large parts of the Labour Party.

yeah, because no UK politician has ever justified the flaws of FPTP against the fact that it brings about strong govt that legitimises its continued use, right?

Well I'll tell you what: if lots of people (like you & me Neil) tell you something is unfair & undemocratic but you decide to ignore us & you get a result that you perceive as unfair & undemocratic, that's tough luck.

What are you missing LJS, that you're advocating something undemocratic as democratic?

You reject FPTP on principle, but are trying to claim that the principle of FPTP must stand when it produces a result that few are happy with, where the result cannot be shown as democractic under any principle, and are trying claiming that's democratic.

As I keep pointing out, it's not going to be the rules of FPTP that legitimises a result via FPTP when the result that FPTP produces is not the result that FPTP is meant to produce ('a strong govt').

About the only legitimate (in the eyes of 'the people') pieces of legislation such a result could pass would be a new election law of PR, and then another election.

I would rather we had a fair voting system which would probably mean about 25 SNP MP's or thereabouts & 50 or 60 Libdems, but we don't. For Labour & the Tories to bleat about it being unfair takes their hypocrisy to new depths

When have I said it would be the parties complaining?

It will be 'the people'. You know, the very people who will be subject to that govt which isn't legitimate under FPTP or vote-share.

Likewise If the electors who were offered a chance to change the voting systems think its unfair & undemocratic, they should maybe have thought about that when they had the chance.

I'll remind you that wonderful better-than-england Scotland rejected AV at around the same rate as everyone else.

And i'll remind you we'd be welcoming a majority tory govt into office in May if it had been accepted.

The choice the Labour Party will have is whether to make a serious attempt to win support in Parliament for the Programme they believe in. They will not be able to do that without talking to other parties including the SNP.

But how can they? The programme they believe in is in their manifesto, and the SNP have said they will not support much of it.

And if the support came from the tories, you'll scream and shout and stamp your feet and say it's not fair because Scotland is excluded from it.

So there's not actually any satifactory answer for your Scottish view, apart from to fuck things up so nothing about anything works. You know, the SNP wrecking game.

And where we end up from that is wrecked. If the SNP plan works out fully, the Labour Party is destroyed in England too, there's then no united opposition to the tories and the tories rule supreme, and Scotland walks away.

And then you cheer, not giving a fuck for what you've caused.

The choice for the SNP is whether to play a constructive role in that process. Their willingness to do so has been a central plank of their campaign. To be seen as deliberately destabilising a Labour Government would be electorally disastrous for them.

You're right that they've been claiming they'll play a constructive role, but they also claimed that iScotland could be gloriously wealthy - so much so it could give away money to the richest - only to claim 6 months later that it's up the shit big time (anti-austerity) while also claiming that a £7.6Bn black hole would have the Scottish govt on a spending spree.

So only a fool would place faith in their claims against the UK.

But please do tell me how deliberately destabilising a Labour govt to cause a tory govt would be disastrous for their campaign for indy, this I've got to hear

Edited April 16, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

I think this is where i give up for today.

Neil has his own bizarre world view which includes a minority government solving the problem of not having a majority by passing legislation (no indication where the majority is somehow coming from to do that) to allow them to dissolve Parliament & fight another election which Neil has already told us they are bound to lose. Apparently they would prefer this to trying to get their programme through Parliament.

Meanwhile Neil randomly supports FPTP when he likes the outcome & opposes it when he doesn't, whilst continuing to make up the policies motivations & future actions of the SNP.

The sun is shining in the Kingdom of Fife. I'm off to the seaside.... or maybe I'm just imagining it.

[eFestivals]

Neil has his own bizarre world view which includes a minority government solving the problem of not having a majority by passing legislation (no indication where the majority is somehow coming from to do that) to allow them to dissolve Parliament & fight another election which Neil has already told us they are bound to lose. Apparently they would prefer this to trying to get their programme through Parliament.

The minority-in-votes but majority-in-seats govt I'm talking about is the govt you're hoping for, you muppet.

Given that it would have a minority of votes and no party of FPTP majority, care to tell me what would give that govt its legitimacy in the eyes of the people (that's all people, not just snippers), rather than just in the eyes of yourself?

As I just said, the only legitimacy it would really have is to reconstitute a govt in a legitimate form via taking note of how people voted - which would be a govt formed via a new PR-system election.

Given they'll have just lost an election, having another that they'll also lose is nothing different.

The only difference will be with the ability to implement their programme - but they wouldn't have that ability anyway, because the SNP will try to stop them implementing their programme, *exactly* as the SNP have promised you they will.

So they'd be giving away little in exchange for securing their party a future rather than no future, because there is no future for Labour if they become the SNP's sock-puppet. That will kill Labour in England as effectively as the SNP are currently killing them in Scotland (killing them by myth mostly, but that's your lark and mine to laugh at people for).

Meanwhile Neil randomly supports FPTP when he likes the outcome & opposes it when he doesn't, whilst continuing to make up the policies motivations & future actions of the SNP.

You're really running out of good arguments, aren't you, when you're inventing this sort of bullshit.

What don't you understand about FPTP being the system we have, that's supported by the majority of people against the alternative we were offered? If that doesn't legitimise it, nothing legitimises any voting system.

So it's the system we HAVE TO work by, but that doesn't mean that people accept any and all results it might create, especially when the result in practice can be cooked up in a secret backroom deal that might have little to do with how people voted (just think of the reaction to what the LibDems did, and then think about how people would have accepted it if them and the tories had got a minority of votes).

Just because you're voting for a SNP/Labour tie-up with your SNP vote, it doesn't get to mean that Labour voters are voting for an SNP/Labour tie-up too. I certainly won't be if I decide to vote Labour.

From where I'm sat, the SNP are about as good for my country as the tories are. Policies that fuck up the country and don't achieve anything of the desired result is what the tories do no differently to what the SNP want to do.

... in the Kingdom of Fife.

Splitter!

You're splitting from the splitters already, you lot never change. But what will Alex say? He'll have you strung up, the SNP don't believe in self-determination.

[eFestivals]

that's the sort of visionaries we want. Look around, test the water, see what the punters might feel inclined to vote for, then tell them that's what they'll do

as I've already said, elections are not about changing anyone's minds, apart from the party they'll vote in support of. Elections are about attracting people whose opinions are already formed to the policy programme you offer, in preference to the other offerings.

It's possible within that to present something totally new to change people's minds about something they've not really thought about too much, but it's not the occasion that ideas which are already strongly fixed in people's heads are going to be changed.

You yourself are the proof that minds cannot be changed about specific ideas at this point in the election cycle.. why do you expect from others what you won't do?

treat people like idiots, and that's how they'll behave. Treat them with some respect, and maybe that's what they'll get. It seems worth a shot!?!

Hmm, are you sure?

The Greens treating people like idiots has got your vote, cos only an idiot would vote for a policy programme that's unfunded by around £300Bn (that's nearly an extra 50% onto govt spending, for those who are a bit slow).

If anything, this is the election where treating people like idiots because they are idiots will have the greatest impact into the result.

Edited April 16, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I wasn't counting your inability to accept that other people have different opinions

PMSL

We got here after I pointed out the opinions of 85% of people, FFS, that YOU don't wish to accept!!!

I'm the one accepting that they do have different opinions, and pointing out those different opinions count as much as your own (more in fact, because on this issue they have the majority!).

You're the one saying that if everyone had you explain things to them, they'd all think the same as you.

FFS!!

Talk about riding a high horse while wearing the badges of self-righteousness and lack-of-self-awareness. That's you that is.

Edited April 16, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

but my mind has been changed. It's your opinion that elections aren't for people to change their minds. If that was the reality, there would be no point in any elections after the first one. Maybe we could register who we support at our 18th birthday, and that's it, for ever. The only people who can vote are those who have just turned 18 since the last election...?

on what and how has your mind been changed during this election process?

Remember, you need to present something that you thought the polar opposite about just (say) 3 months ago.

This'll be interesting.

[eFestivals]

If people don't change their minds, why isn't the result the same everytime?

- so you haven't had your mind changed by the election process after all, and you were bullshitting.

Now we've got that bullshit out the way, i refer you back to my other posts to you today, where I've already addressed this question. Nowhere have I said that people cannot change their minds.

[eFestivals]

I changed my mind a few years ago, and had no reason yet to change it again.

was that due to an election appeal via snippets of policy chucked at you via the media, or was it via a longer process of deeper engagement?

I guarantee it was the 2nd, which only proves the point I made.

If people can change their minds, then I'd expect some level of vision, apart from "well, that's what they want, so I'll give it to them".

If you actually took the time to read the Labour manifesto rather than reject it via the ignorant prejudices you're working to, you'll find that the world is not as your prejudices say.

But you won't do that because you prefer your prejudices, and you're only proving yourself wrong over everything you're saying here.

[eFestivals]

I'm not sure if it's re-assuring or a little bit scary that you know so much more about me than I do

you could have dropped the slimeball act and just admitted that I'm correct about this - as I obviously am as you didn't deny it - but that wouldn't be you, would it?

I've read enough of it. They don't care much about the planet, or the environment in general, is my conclusion. Sorry if my priorities are different to yours.

And yet there's more commitment in there than there ever has been by any major party. So yes, they do care.

It might not be enough for you, but that's a different thing.

Meanwhile, we have a population which majority-objects to the minuscule green measures that we have in place at the moment - funnily enough, bigger measures had been put in place previously by the very person who you say doesn't care when he has a record that proves otherwise - and as that majority-objecting population are the one who will have to majority-cough-up for anything that does get put in place there's no point aiming for the moon no matter how theoretically-sensible it might be. That will only result in failure, worse than what is being done right now.

Edited April 16, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

slimeball act...? me..?

yeah, let's have an argument tony, anything for you to avoid having to concede that I've pointed out some pertinent and relevant points that you can't counter.

Edited April 16, 2015 by eFestivals