Not really. That sort of thing would immediately trigger a vote of no confidence, another election and the probability of the parties responsible losing more of their share of the vote.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
General Election 2015
- Thread starter Herr Tubthumper
- Start date
Not really. That sort of thing would immediately trigger a vote of no confidence, another election and the probability of the parties responsible losing more of their share of the vote.
- Nov 11, 2009
- 11,382
Well that's that then get through a queens speech and all is averted.
There are só many reasons why it would be chaos. It would be far better to have Labour on its own than propped up as a puppet of Sturgeon and salmond.
For one the SNP, who by the way have a 7 billion black hole in Scotlands budget, want to borrow massively, and do nothing to plug the deficit, we will spend more than we earn and every man woman and child will be saddled with that debt.. The economic recovery has been painful for many with hard choices and now this country is better placed than any in Europe, record.jobs, low inflation, low mortgage rates, and finally now wage growth, France with similar ideas in high tax high borrowing is still where we were back in 2010 and that's where the Lab/SNP pact will take the economy. Independent economists, business and the IMF agree.
Now if the SNP was the lib dems or the Greens, they may wreck the economy also but at least they would in their own way seek to govern in the interests of the whole UK. The SNP aren't interested one jot in governing in the UK national interest, they are only interested in Scotland, there decisions won't be for the best interests of English, Welsh or NI voters, they will be for Scotland. They are hell bent on destroying the UK, Not governing in its best interest.
For the SNP this a massive political opportunity to hold the rest of the UK to ransom to get what they want at the expense of all others. And as their one and only threat in Scotland, their powerbase, is Labour they will not support them, it's politics, they will.undermine them, they will get what they want they try and crush them/bring them down to further solidify their vote north of the border...
Who cares of the consequence to English tax payers, we want out of the UK not to govern.it responsibly, they will blackmail Ed, and at no point will the calculus "is this in the best interests of the whole UK" cross their lips. At a time of their choosing, that gives them maximum advantage, having got maximum concessions, they will discard Labour. And the government will fall.
How many English, Welsh and NI Mps can vote on.Scotland only matterms? 0
How many Scottish Mps will be able to vote on English, Welsh only matters? 50
It may sound like scaremongering but it really be chaotic, I'll have any bet you like the Lab/SNP pact doesn't hold till 2020, because only of those 2 will act in the UK interest.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #4,863
True. But if the "common view" which got them into power in the first place breaks down sufficiently or proves unworkable it triggers a vote of no-confidence.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
The Scottish set to get meaningful representation in the UK parliament for the first time in 300 years and the English shit themselves...
- Thread starter
- #4,865
I understand what you're saying but I'm sitting here typing this in a country which has had a "grand" coalition for the past two years, a nation which has had numerous multicoloured coalitions over the past 4-5 decades. None have resulted in chaos. In fact there is a good argument to suggest it's been beneficial.
There is absolutely no foundation to your argument that a Labour/SNP will be chaos. None at all. The "ransom" comment is ludicrous. At best they can extract a few items but little more or they'll be voted out via no-confidence if they start pissing about. They're bullish but not stupid. Your argument is at best guess work, at worse scaremongering.
- Thread starter
- #4,866
The Scottish set to get meaningful representation in the UK parliament for the first time in 300 years and the English shit themselves...
This. I thought it was England the Brave. Seems Shitter Cameron's feebleness is contagious.
Speaking to a returning officer I know they are already planning for an October election as they believe this one will collapse very quickly.
- Thread starter
- #4,868
I find this very hard to believe. If this was the case it would be all over the papers by now. I'm sure one of the 650 RO's would have blabbed.
Dick Knights Mumm
Take me Home Falmer Road
Hardly big news is it though ? I would hope they are making plans like this. Sounds like they are doing their jobs.
More believable than some of the tripe you post.
As he remarked they have had a number of meetings and I'd thought it proactive to be prepared wouldn't you?
I also wonder about this. Why should a result in October be so radically different from one in May? There's too little time for a government to do anything positive or negative
- Nov 11, 2009
- 11,382
That could the case in seats alone, but that reflects the perverseness of FPTP and not having PR (the only truly fair system where Every vote Counts) and doesn't often reflect national view.
It also doesn't assume that the 65-70% who didn't vote labour are not anti labour.
Because of boundaries labour can win more seats with less of the national vote, we could for instance get 34% labour, 36% Tory, 14% ukip, 4% SNP. Where 38% only voted for more debt, 62% didn't and where the right got 50% but not half the seats.
FWIW I don't like Ukip's primitive politics and I have always hated the injustice of the electoral system. 5% of this country vote green but they get 1 Mp, every green vote outside Brighton pavilion means you have no say whatsoever.
Yes, in this loaded deck where MP seats and not voters wishes count. You can have and anti tory majority with the second and 6th party getting 38% even if the first and third get 50%
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #4,873
Is it? Gwylan makes a good point. And to expand on his point why October? Proactive yes, but specifically pinpointing a moment in time seems daft. What if the government only survives until September? Or lasts longer?
Kuipers Supporters Club
Well-known member
That is the answer.
Kuipers Supporters Club
Well-known member
1974 - Labour gained 18 seats in under eight months.
Another interesting one published today...
TNS-BMRB Poll (23-27 Apr):
CON - 34% (+2)
LAB - 33% (-1)
UKIP - 15% (-)
LDEM - 7% (-1)
GRN - 5% (-)
TNS-BMRB Poll (23-27 Apr):
CON - 34% (+2)
LAB - 33% (-1)
UKIP - 15% (-)
LDEM - 7% (-1)
GRN - 5% (-)
I wholeheartedly agree with your commentary on the general injustice of the the current system. It is dreadful but is perpetuated by successive Tory and Labour governments who both fail to act on it because it's not in their interests to do so.
Even the tired old argument that FPTP creates a "strong" government (i.e. one where a minority gets to impose it's will on the majority) has proven to be false now, as this is going to be the second successive term where a coalition will need to be cobbled together. Last time out, the junior partner was massively under represented (as usual, the Lib Dems won far fewer seats than the popular vote warranted), but this time it could be even worse, as the junior partner might well get far more influence than it's popular vote deserves.
All of this nonsense could be avoided if the electoral system was dragged into the modern world: a more representative system where anyone winning can take their seats solely by swearing allegiance to the people of the country and nobody else (the unelected head of state or God)
Curious Orange
Punxsatawney Phil
The Scottish set to get meaningful representation in the UK parliament for the first time in 300 years and the English shit themselves...
Except that from 1998 until 2010 the top two jobs in Government, that of Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer were both held by... Scots. The English seemed reasonably happy with that arrangement for a while.
Probably depends on your definition of representation I guess.
They're all interesting. Not just the ones you post (i.e. the ones with the Tories in front).
Yes, but that was in a two party system (the Liberals had just a handful of seats), a small swing would have made a big difference. That wouldn't be the case when there are four, five or six parties