General Election 2015

[Torres]

There's a massive overestimation of the SNP's potential power. Even with every single Scottish seat they won't stop Trident and if they vote down a first Labour Queen's speech then the government collapses and the Tories will either walk a second election, or form their own new administration. Well done Alex and Nicola.

 

They really won't have as much sway as they and others are making out.

 

And I think they'll have more than you believe. Salmond has already promised to vote against any Tory minority government QS and Labour will be made aware that they'll do the same to them without necessary concessions. The idea that the SNP will sit benignly on the sidelines and watch events unfold without seeking any influence to the benefit of Scotland is preposterous.

[aintforever]

For all the scare-mongering about a Labour/SNP coalition would a Tory government and a Scotland run by SNP be actually worse?

 

Both seem to be at war with each other, would the UK even survive under another Tory government?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

There's a massive overestimation of the SNP's potential power. Even with every single Scottish seat they won't stop Trident and if they vote down a first Labour Queen's speech then the government collapses and the Tories will either walk a second election, or form their own new administration. Well done Alex and Nicola.

 

They really won't have as much sway as they and others are making out.

 

The reason it's being over-stated is it helps the Tories, that's all, which is why the right wing press are really pushing it. As you say, Trident will happen whatever, there is cross party support from bith the Labour and Tory party to get that through, as I'm sure there will be for any future terrorism laws.

[shurlock]

And I think they'll have more than you believe. Salmond has already promised to vote against any Tory minority government QS and Labour will be made aware that they'll do the same to them without necessary concessions. The idea that the SNP will sit benignly on the sidelines and watch events unfold without seeking any influence to the benefit of Scotland is preposterous.

 

 

 

Can't you see the fundamental difference, though. Unlike the Tories, Labour knows that SNP would have to curb its behaviour. Excessively instability would almost certainly lead to a Tory cakewalk in any future election which would be the ultimate act of cutting one's nose to spite one's face. Never mind that the SNP has every incentive to avoid a reputation for opportunism and irresponsibility which would only confirm the fears of those who voted no in referendum and reflect poorly in the eyes of outside investors in Scotland. But, hey, keep believing in those monsters under the bed.

[Torres]

Can't you see the fundamental difference, though. Unlike the Tories, Labour knows that SNP would have to curb its behaviour. Excessively instability would almost certainly lead to a Tory cakewalk in any future election which would be the ultimate act of cutting one's nose to spite one's face. Never mind that the SNP has every incentive to avoid a reputation for opportunism and irresponsibility which would only confirm the fears of those who voted no in referendum and reflect poorly in the eyes of outside investors in Scotland. But, hey, keep believing in those monsters under the bed.

 

Of course I can see the difference. My point, which I can only believe that you are deliberately avoiding, is that a Labour government would, in highly likely event of not having a majority, be beholden to the SNP and would have no choice but to make concessions to a party that is committed to the break up of the United Kingdom and is committed to putting the interests of Scotland before those of the wider UK. That's not really a good thing for any of us, except those who reside in Scotland - and even then it's debatable.

 

BTW, the SNPs reputation in the eyes of investors outside of Scotland couldn't get any lower, following their threats to walk away from their share of UK debt during the referendum campaign. They've bugger all to lose on that front.

Edited 24 April, 2015 by Torres

[Lord Duckhunter]

I can't believe that many scots will vote for the SNP given their policy on increasing the deficit, they surely are not that dumb as to think the debt doesn't matter?

 

Its not just Scotland , huge numbers across the whole of the UK seem to think debt doesn't matter. Did you see Portillio on " This Week" last night? He claimed that many many people drowning in personal debt believe they're victims, that its somebody else's fault they've overspent . He said trying to sell the message of debt reduction in the modern UK is a thankless task. I don't normally agree with that lovey , but he's right. There has been a shift in attitudes towards debt, both personal & national , between my fathers generation and mine.

[hypochondriac]

Can't you see the fundamental difference, though. Unlike the Tories, Labour knows that SNP would have to curb its behaviour. Excessively instability would almost certainly lead to a Tory cakewalk in any future election which would be the ultimate act of cutting one's nose to spite one's face. Never mind that the SNP has every incentive to avoid a reputation for opportunism and irresponsibility which would only confirm the fears of those who voted no in referendum and reflect poorly in the eyes of outside investors in Scotland. But, hey, keep believing in those monsters under the bed.

 

You could argue that a Tory landslide victory in a future election would be playing into the hands of the snp and will hasten calls for independence. If they can hold the cards in the next government whilst outwardly not being the ones in power, they can take a hard line with labour safe in the knowledge that they will be blameless for any fallout.

[Johnny Bognor]

 

BTW, the SNPs reputation in the eyes of investors outside of Scotland couldn't get any lower, following their threats to walk away from their share of UK debt during the referendum campaign. They've bugger all to lose on that front.

 

maybe that is their master plan. Increase spending, run up debt and then **** off leaving us in the crap.

[Batman]

Don't know if this is true (was on 5live)

The proposed 'Tory cuts' for the next 3 years was only voted AGAINST by 5 Labour MPs. Just 5.

 

How are Labour any more fair if they are basically agreeing with the Conservatives.?

 

Anyway, Just voted. Conservative for me

Edited 24 April, 2015 by Batman

[hypochondriac]

I'll be voting for Jeremy Moulton. He came across well wheb I went to see him yesterday.

[CB Fry]

And I think they'll have more than you believe. Salmond has already promised to vote against any Tory minority government QS and Labour will be made aware that they'll do the same to them without necessary concessions. The idea that the SNP will sit benignly on the sidelines and watch events unfold without seeking any influence to the benefit of Scotland is preposterous.

I don't think you understood what I said.

[Torres]

I missed this yesterday:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11559549/Open-letter-to-Ed-Miliband-Leader-of-the-Labour-party-from-Lord-Jones-of-Birmingham.html

 

He makes an awful lot of good points, but his remarks re: wealth creation are particularly damning.

[aintforever]

I missed this yesterday:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11559549/Open-letter-to-Ed-Miliband-Leader-of-the-Labour-party-from-Lord-Jones-of-Birmingham.html

 

He makes an awful lot of good points, but his remarks re: wealth creation are particularly damning.

 

Oh dear.

 

Does any actually bother reading newspapers around election time? I don't get the point in reading something that is so obviously biased, surely the point in reading a paper is for news not to have someone else's political viewpoint rammed down your throat?

[Ex Lion Tamer]

Its not just Scotland , huge numbers across the whole of the UK seem to think debt doesn't matter. Did you see Portillio on " This Week" last night? He claimed that many many people drowning in personal debt believe they're victims, that its somebody else's fault they've overspent . He said trying to sell the message of debt reduction in the modern UK is a thankless task. I don't normally agree with that lovey , but he's right. There has been a shift in attitudes towards debt, both personal & national , between my fathers generation and mine.

 

But national debt and personal debt are completely different things. That is your blind spot.

[CB Fry]

Of course I can see the difference. My point, which I can only believe that you are deliberately avoiding, is that a Labour government would, in highly likely event of not having a majority, be beholden to the SNP and would have no choice but to make concessions to a party that is committed to the break up of the United Kingdom and is committed to putting the interests of Scotland before those of the wider UK. That's not really a good thing for any of us, except those who reside in Scotland - and even then it's debatable.

 

BTW, the SNPs reputation in the eyes of investors outside of Scotland couldn't get any lower, following their threats to walk away from their share of UK debt during the referendum campaign. They've bugger all to lose on that front.

They would have to make some concessions but not many because, as has been said, the entire house will be on a knife edge. They won't get anywhere near the deal the Lib Dems got out of the Tories, not least because they haven't got much to actually ask for (ie control of government departments).

 

Just to confirm: the SNP won't achieve breaking up the UK on the back of this election. They'll either be utterly powerless backbenchers whining about the Tories. Or broadly silent partners in a Labour government slightly more left ish than it might otherwise have been, but not much more.

 

As soon as Sturgeon said she would never under any circumstances do any deal with the Tories she pi ss ed away any negotiating position she had.

[badgerx16]

I missed this yesterday:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11559549/Open-letter-to-Ed-Miliband-Leader-of-the-Labour-party-from-Lord-Jones-of-Birmingham.html

 

He makes an awful lot of good points, but his remarks re: wealth creation are particularly damning.

 

How many of the Torygraph's readership are likely to have been swayed away from voting Labour after reading that ?

[Torres]

Oh dear.

 

Does any actually bother reading newspapers around election time? I don't get the point in reading something that is so obviously biased, surely the point in reading a paper is for news not to have someone else's political viewpoint rammed down your throat?

Digby Jones is a former Labour minister, son of a shopkeeper and very well respected former DG of the CBI. His views are worth listening to and you do yourself no favours in writing them off just because his letter was published in a newspaper that you don't like.

[Torres]

But national debt and personal debt are completely different things. That is your blind spot.

It's not his blind spot at all. Of course they are different, but if people don't care that they are personally in debt, why should they care about the state of the public finances? They are perfectly happy for governments to borrow, borrow, borrow and spend, spend, spend.

 

That's just not sustainable.

[Torres]

How many of the Torygraph's readership are likely to have been swayed away from voting Labour after reading that ?

Irrelevant.

[Batman]

Don't know if this is true (was on 5live)

The proposed 'Tory cuts' for the next 3 years was only voted AGAINST by 5 Labour MPs. Just 5.

 

anyone know if this is right?

[Jonnyboy]

I'll be voting for Jeremy Moulton. He came across well wheb I went to see him yesterday.

 

Not that one who looks like the albino monk out of the Da Vinci Code?

 

Think the new Labour hottie is getting my vote. Royston is a good man for local politics but not as an MP.

[Torres]

They would have to make some concessions but not many because, as has been said, the entire house will be on a knife edge. They won't get anywhere near the deal the Lib Dems got out of the Tories, not least because they haven't got much to actually ask for (ie control of government departments).

 

Just to confirm: the SNP won't achieve breaking up the UK on the back of this election. They'll either be utterly powerless backbenchers whining about the Tories. Or broadly silent partners in a Labour government slightly more left ish than it might otherwise have been, but not much more.

 

As soon as Sturgeon said she would never under any circumstances do any deal with the Tories she pi ss ed away any negotiating position she had.

They were never going to deal with the Tories anyway, so her announcement was irrelevant. Any such deal would be electoral suicide in Scotland - they would be wiped out for a generation and would then never achieve any of their aims. Besides, there's almost no common ground between the two parties and no scope for any bargaining.

 

The SNP aren't scared of bringing a minority Labour government down and triggering a new election as they have nothing to lose from that. North of the border they portray it as doing the right thing for Scotland as the nasty Westminster government wouldn't listen to them and they don't give a shiny **** what anyone else thinks.

 

What happens at that next election? The SNP don't lose any seats, and even if the Tories get a majority, they have positioned themselves as the Champions of the English vote (check out what Cameron said today) which draws a deeper divide between England and Scotland.

 

The SNP have literally nothing to lose. That's where your analysis is wrong and that's what makes them dangerous to anyone outside Scotland.

[Torres]

Not that one who looks like the albino monk out of the Da Vinci Code?

 

Think the new Labour hottie is getting my vote. Royston is a good man for local politics but not as an MP.

Rule One.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

It's not his blind spot at all. Of course they are different, but if people don't care that they are personally in debt, why should they care about the state of the public finances? They are perfectly happy for governments to borrow, borrow, borrow and spend, spend, spend.

 

That's just not sustainable.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/01/14/why-public-debt-is-not-like-credit-card-debt/

[Torres]

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/01/14/why-public-debt-is-not-like-credit-card-debt/

You're still missing the point. It's not that public and private debt is the same, it's that people erroneously believe it is - and if people don't care about their own debt, why would they care about public debt?

[View From The Top]

They were never going to deal with the Tories anyway, so her announcement was irrelevant. Any such deal would be electoral suicide in Scotland - they would be wiped out for a generation and would then never achieve any of their aims. Besides, there's almost no common ground between the two parties and no scope for any bargaining.

 

The SNP aren't scared of bringing a minority Labour government down and triggering a new election as they have nothing to lose from that. North of the border they portray it as doing the right thing for Scotland as the nasty Westminster government wouldn't listen to them and they don't give a shiny **** what anyone else thinks.

 

What happens at that next election? The SNP don't lose any seats, and even if the Tories get a majority, they have positioned themselves as the Champions of the English vote (check out what Cameron said today) which draws a deeper divide between England and Scotland.

 

The SNP have literally nothing to lose. That's where your analysis is wrong and that's what makes them dangerous to anyone outside Scotland.

 

Not as wrong as yours. The SNP knows very well it has a chance to bury Labour in Scotland and to become "the natural party of government" up there. It has sweet FA to do with national politics.

[Lord Duckhunter]

It's not his blind spot at all. Of course they are different, but if people don't care that they are personally in debt, why should they care about the state of the public finances? They are perfectly happy for governments to borrow, borrow, borrow and spend, spend, spend.

 

That's just not sustainable.

 

Exactly . Of course personal debt is different than sovereign debt , but the point Portillio was making is that when debtors feel that they are victims . when their personal debt is blamed on others in the form of , government , pay day lenders , banks, shops , rather than personal responsibility ( and before lefties start jumping up and down I know there are some people who can't help it ) it is a difficult climate to try and promote government cutting back on spending .

[Ex Lion Tamer]

You're still missing the point. It's not that public and private debt is the same, it's that people erroneously believe it is - and if people don't care about their own debt, why would they care about public debt?

 

OK I see what you mean. I agree that private debt is bad and should be discouraged, although I have some sympathy for people who don't have wealth like Mr Portillo and who make bad decisions in moments of weakness. Plus with house prices nowadays we don't really have much option but to get in loads of debt.

 

So what is your solution to the private debt problem? How can we change the culture?

[Torres]

Not as wrong as yours. The SNP knows very well it has a chance to bury Labour in Scotland and to become "the natural party of government" up there. It has sweet FA to do with national politics.

That's of no relevance. Work with Labour at Westminster or bring them down, they still don't lose in Scotland.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

Exactly . Of course personal debt is different than sovereign debt , but the point Portillio was making is that when debtors feel that they are victims . when their personal debt is blamed on others in the form of , government , pay day lenders , banks, shops , rather than personal responsibility ( and before lefties start jumping up and down I know there are some people who can't help it ) it is a difficult climate to try and promote government cutting back on spending .

 

Yet for some reason the public is behind public spending cuts, that's why the tories have a lead on the economy and Labour had to include a 'fiscal responsibility' statement in its manifesto?

[View From The Top]

Exactly . Of course personal debt is different than sovereign debt , but the point Portillio was making is that when debtors feel that they are victims . when their personal debt is blamed on others in the form of , government , pay day lenders , banks, shops , rather than personal responsibility ( and before lefties start jumping up and down I know there are some people who can't help it ) it is a difficult climate to try and promote government cutting back on spending .

 

Governments and businesses encouraged the cheap credit/big debt society; all have a degree of responsibility in creating the culture that prevails today.

 

How we change that mindset I just don't know as I'm from the school of "tight bas_tard" so it's an anathema to me.

[Torres]

OK I see what you mean. I agree that private debt is bad and should be discouraged, although I have some sympathy for people who don't have wealth like Mr Portillo and who make bad decisions in moments of weakness. Plus with house prices nowadays we don't really have much option but to get in loads of debt.

 

So what is your solution to the private debt problem? How can we change the culture?

I don't know, tbf. It's not something I've given a huge amount of thought to.

[Lord Duckhunter]

OK I see what you mean. I agree that private debt is bad and should be discouraged, although I have some sympathy for people who don't have wealth like Mr Portillo and who make bad decisions in moments of weakness. Plus with house prices nowadays we don't really have much option but to get in loads of debt.

 

So what is your solution to the private debt problem? How can we change the culture?

 

People have always made decisions in moments of weakness . You seem to be missing the point . The point he made was that they see themselves as victims , they take no responsibility for there weakness . His implication was that past generations would take the line , " oh ****, I've ****ed up " whereas now it's the lenders fault or even worse the government fault

[View From The Top]

That's of no relevance. Work with Labour at Westminster or bring them down, they still don't lose in Scotland.

 

It's of total relevance it just doesn't fit your agenda.

 

SNP are playing a longer game here and it's all about Scotland.

[shurlock]

Exactly . Of course personal debt is different than sovereign debt , but the point Portillio was making is that when debtors feel that they are victims . when their personal debt is blamed on others in the form of , government , pay day lenders , banks, shops , rather than personal responsibility ( and before lefties start jumping up and down I know there are some people who can't help it ) it is a difficult climate to try and promote government cutting back on spending .

 

To be fair, Michael Denzil Xavier Portillo is talking out of his a**e and missing the big picture.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

People have always made decisions in moments of weakness . You seem to be missing the point . The point he made was that they see themselves as victims , they take no responsibility for there weakness . His implication was that past generations would take the line , " oh ****, I've ****ed up " whereas now it's the lenders fault or even worse the government fault

 

It does feel though like a bit of a generalisation to suggest that everyone in debt considers themselves a victim, and I do personally feel that the government has a responsibility to protect people from themselves (including myself).

 

It's also better for the economy as a whole if we keep people out of debt

Edited 24 April, 2015 by Ex Lion Tamer

[Lord Duckhunter]

To be fair, Michael Denzil Xavier Portillo is talking out of his a**e and missing the big picture.

 

So in a culture of spending before earning , it's easy to persuade people that the country needs to spend less?

[Lord Duckhunter]

It does feel though like a bit of a generalisation to suggest that everyone in debt considers themselves a victim, and I do personally feel that the government has a responsibility to protect people from themselves (including myself)

 

FFS , what do you want , all commercial loans to go via Whitehall . I need protecting from drinking too much , can I blame the government for that . Perhaps you can get civil servant to tuck the nations children into bed

[Torres]

It's of total relevance it just doesn't fit your agenda.

 

SNP are playing a longer game here and it's all about Scotland.

It's really not. They've made their way in Scotland by "standing up for Scotland" in the face of the "failed Westminster parties". Soon they might have a chance to have some real influence at Westminster. Then, they either work with Labour and extract some hefty concessions for Scotland, which makes them more popular in Scotland, or they try to win concessions for Scotland, are met with an immovable Westminster party who doesn't care for Scotland and doesn't look after the interests of Scotland and so the SNP bring the government down.

 

Either way, it's an SNP win.

 

I don't like the loonies one bit (their manifesto for an independent Scotland was mixture of lies and fantasy) but they've played a series of absolute blinders over the last decade or so and have consistently out-maneuvered both Labour and the Conservatives.

 

By the way, my "agenda" here is that I don't want the SNP anywhere near having a sniff of power or influence at Westminster. If it takes a huge Labour majority to achieve that, I'm all for it.

Edited 24 April, 2015 by Torres

[CB Fry]

They were never going to deal with the Tories anyway, so her announcement was irrelevant. Any such deal would be electoral suicide in Scotland - they would be wiped out for a generation and would then never achieve any of their aims. Besides, there's almost no common ground between the two parties and no scope for any bargaining.

 

The SNP aren't scared of bringing a minority Labour government down and triggering a new election as they have nothing to lose from that. North of the border they portray it as doing the right thing for Scotland as the nasty Westminster government wouldn't listen to them and they don't give a shiny **** what anyone else thinks.

 

What happens at that next election? The SNP don't lose any seats, and even if the Tories get a majority, they have positioned themselves as the Champions of the English vote (check out what Cameron said today) which draws a deeper divide between England and Scotland.

 

The SNP have literally nothing to lose. That's where your analysis is wrong and that's what makes them dangerous to anyone outside Scotland.

Deary me.

 

The scaremongering has definitely got to you, hasn't it?

[CB Fry]

It's really not. They've made their way in Scotland by "standing up for Scotland" in the face of the "failed Westminster parties". Soon they might have a chance to have some real influence at Westminster. Then, they either work with Labour and extract some hefty concessions for Scotland, which makes them more popular in Scotland, or they try to win concessions for Scotland, are met with an immovable Westminster party who doesn't care for Scotland and doesn't look after the interests of Scotland and so the SNP bring the government down.

 

Either way, it's an SNP win.

 

I don't like the loonies one bit (their manifesto for an independent Scotland was mixture of lies and fantasy) but they've played a series of absolute blinders over the last decade or so and have consistently out-maneuvered both Labour and the Conservatives.

This has all the flat-pack neatly packaged hallmarks of a well tuned conspiracy theory. Real life is more complicated than that.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

FFS , what do you want , all commercial loans to go via Whitehall . I need protecting from drinking too much , can I blame the government for that . Perhaps you can get civil servant to tuck the nations children into bed

 

Well the coalition has made a good start in cracking down on payday loan companies, next we need to bring down house prices in London and the south East

[View From The Top]

It's really not. They've made their way in Scotland by "standing up for Scotland" in the face of the "failed Westminster parties". Soon they might have a chance to have some real influence at Westminster. Then, they either work with Labour and extract some hefty concessions for Scotland, which makes them more popular in Scotland, or they try to win concessions for Scotland, are met with an immovable Westminster party who doesn't care for Scotland and doesn't look after the interests of Scotland and so the SNP bring the government down.

 

Either way, it's an SNP win.

 

I don't like the loonies one bit (their manifesto for an independent Scotland was mixture of lies and fantasy) but they've played a series of absolute blinders over the last decade or so and have consistently out-maneuvered both Labour and the Conservatives.

 

By the way, my "agenda" here is that I don't want the SNP anywhere near having a sniff of power or influence at Westminster. If it takes a huge Labour majority to achieve that, I'm all for it.

 

I never had you down as someone who would be suckered on by political propaganda. Just goes to show how wrong I was.

[Torres]

Thanks for your input CB Fry. As incisive, erudite and informative as ever.

[Hockey_saint]

A good showing from William Hague on Question Time last night and I'm delighted at his announcement that the Tories will finally do something about the infamous West Lothian question if elected. I think that this policy will be a vote winner and they have caught the other parties on the hop with it. Harman labelled it back of a fag packet stuff, but it isn't as if the parties haven't had 38 years to consider it and in any event the basis for it is simple, that English matters be only voted on by elected English MPs. As the possibility of the SNP propping up a Labour administration looms ahead, it is timely for this to be brought out into the open now and each party given time to disclose their position on it.

 

Must have been watching another QT from me as he came across as the usual tory boy heartless buffoon.

[Torres]

I never had you down as someone who would be suckered on by political propaganda. Just goes to show how wrong I was.

I never had you down as someone who would be quite so patronising.

 

I have a bit of a personal interest in Scottish politics so have followed it with half an eye for a long time.

 

I'd be interested in where you think I'm wrong and how the SNP would work in the Greater interest of the whole of the UK rather than just Scotland. What on earth do they have to gain by keeping voters in Devon, Sussex or Yorkshire happy?

Edited 24 April, 2015 by Torres

[CB Fry]

Thanks for your input CB Fry. As incisive, erudite and informative as ever.

It was. You just don't want to listen.

 

The SNP will need to succeed in Westminster if they get the chance to form a government.

 

With 40 odd seats they really won't have that much power.

 

There will be no independence referendum for at least a decade (at least) so they are going to have to get on with it.

 

You think they can let a Labour government collapse within a year, usher in a Tory administration where they would be powerless and that action would have no impact whatsoever on their credibility?

 

Not even on the (at least) 50% of the population who didn't vote for them in the first place?

 

Not on the 30% chunk who didn't vote SNP in 2010 but are now (you seem to think) locked-in SNP loyalists for life?

 

You dont think those thousands of floating voters wouldn't feel a wee bit short changed by the SNP's "new politics" of, err, welch on their number one pledge and let the Tories in immediately by utterly fu cking up an agreement when they had an unprecedented number of seats they might never get again?

 

Decisions and actions have consequences.

 

Just because you have nightmares that the SNP are some unstoppable infallible political machine doesn't make it true.

 

They'll fu ck up just as much as any other party.

Edited 24 April, 2015 by CB Fry

[Lord Duckhunter]

It was. You just don't want to listen.

 

The SNP will need to succeed in Westminster if they get the chance to form a government.

 

With 40 odd seats they really won't have that much power.

 

There will be no independence referendum for at least a decade (at least) so they are going to have to get on with it.

 

You think they can let a Labour government collapse within a year, usher in a Tory administration where they would be powerless and that action would have no impact whatsoever on their credibility?

 

Not even on the (at least) 50% of the population who didn't vote for them in the first place?

 

Not on the 30% chunk who didn't vote SNP in 2010 but are now (you seem to think) locked-in SNP loyalists for life?

 

You dont think those thousands of floating voters wouldn't feel a wee bit short changed by the SNP's "new politics" of, err, welch on their number pledge and let the Tories in immediately by utterly fu cking up an agreement when they had an unprecedented number of seats they might never get again?

 

Decisions and actions have consequences.

 

Just because you have nightmares that the SNP are some unstoppable infallible political machine doesn't make it true.

 

They'll fu ck up just as much as any other party.

 

I hate to say it but I agree with Fry . Ideal situation for them is Tory Government and uk voting to leave EU because that's the only set of circumstances that would legitimise another referendum . Don't forget sturgeon was booed in Scottish debate when talking about another one . Therefore if labour get in , they ain't going to get a referendum . What they'll want to do is show the sweatys they are efficient , statesmen like and looking after their interests in Westminster . The quickest way to lose their new found labourites is to bring down a labour government . Don't forget they only got a similar number of votes as the Tories last election , it was only FPTP that ensured the panda " joke". Their new found bloc is soft at the moment , they are not going to jeopardise that support .

[Batman]

Don't know if this is true (was on 5live)

The proposed 'Tory cuts' for the next 3 years was only voted AGAINST by 5 Labour MPs. Just 5.

 

 

Guessing this must have been true as it was on 5live and no one else has suggested it is a load of bollix

 

Just shows that labour can make the same amount of cuts and it is deemed more acceptable

[CB Fry]

I hate to say it but I agree with Fry . Ideal situation for them is Tory Government and uk voting to leave EU because that's the only set of circumstances that would legitimise another referendum . Don't forget sturgeon was booed in Scottish debate when talking about another one . Therefore if labour get in , they ain't going to get a referendum . What they'll want to do is show the sweatys they are efficient , statesmen like and looking after their interests in Westminster . The quickest way to lose their new found labourites is to bring down a labour government . Don't forget they only got a similar number of votes as the Tories last election , it was only FPTP that ensured the panda " joke". Their new found bloc is soft at the moment , they are not going to jeopardise that support .

Appreciate that.

 

Personally I think they will get that scenario - Cameron in No 10 - anyway because I don't Ed will do enough anyway.

 

Allows 40 odd SNP backbenchers to pointlessly snipe away for five years and 30% of Scotland wonder "why did we vote for them again?".