Outrageous.... or not?
the SNP are nothing if not clever - by making their demands so unpalletable they put themselves in a win-win situation:
if a UK party were to accept their conditions in return for a coalition it would provoke massive anti-Scottish feeling in the rest of the UK, making a break-up far more likely, while if the SNP were told to **** off and the UK parties formed whatever unholy coalition was required to form a UK government without them, they could return to Scotland and say 'look how they treat the people you elect - they'll do anything to avoid listening to you' making a break-up more likely...
personally i think the chances of a SNP coalition are vanishingly small - simply because to agree to their demands on austerity for England - spending for Scotland, not to even go near the issue of Trident, would be political suicide for an party that primarily relied on English constituancies for its MP's.
if a UK party were to accept their conditions in return for a coalition it would provoke massive anti-Scottish feeling in the rest of the UK, making a break-up far more likely, while if the SNP were told to **** off and the UK parties formed whatever unholy coalition was required to form a UK government without them, they could return to Scotland and say 'look how they treat the people you elect - they'll do anything to avoid listening to you' making a break-up more likely...
personally i think the chances of a SNP coalition are vanishingly small - simply because to agree to their demands on austerity for England - spending for Scotland, not to even go near the issue of Trident, would be political suicide for an party that primarily relied on English constituancies for its MP's.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They're certainly street-wise. The fact we're even discussing the chances of their will being forced on the British public on the strength of the support of just over 1 (yes, one) per-cent of the UK electorate tells us that.
"Political suicide..." I hope you're right there -but I wouldn't bet on it. It's only four years since Gordon Brown's determined bid to ally with lib-dems in order to cling to power despite having been convincingly rejected at the ballot box.
"Political suicide..." I hope you're right there -but I wouldn't bet on it. It's only four years since Gordon Brown's determined bid to ally with lib-dems in order to cling to power despite having been convincingly rejected at the ballot box.
SO - i see it the other way around: Brown might have wanted a coalition deal with the LD's, but the LD's wouldn't touch him with a barge pole because of his political toxicity, despite Labour being, probably, more comfortable bedfellows than the Conservatives.
i'd see the SNP being similar - can you imagine the damage to Labour in the North if they imposed swinging cuts on services in England but exempted Scotland from such pleasantries?
i'd see the SNP being similar - can you imagine the damage to Labour in the North if they imposed swinging cuts on services in England but exempted Scotland from such pleasantries?
Thread Starter
Where is Archimedes when you need him?
Archimedes,
In response to your posts 8 and 13 on this thread, back in December 2014 I wrote the following:
Archimedes,
Fine - and I'm glad I didn't hack you off - I'll try and remember to come back to this thread in May 2015 and point out that your psephology was wrong in this case (in terms of predicting the number SNP MPs elected).
So here I am, to point out that, as I predicted, your psephology was wrong in terms of predicting the number of seats the SNP would win - but then first hand experience of the situation seems to count for nothing!!
In response to your posts 8 and 13 on this thread, back in December 2014 I wrote the following:
Archimedes,
Fine - and I'm glad I didn't hack you off - I'll try and remember to come back to this thread in May 2015 and point out that your psephology was wrong in this case (in terms of predicting the number SNP MPs elected).
So here I am, to point out that, as I predicted, your psephology was wrong in terms of predicting the number of seats the SNP would win - but then first hand experience of the situation seems to count for nothing!!
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: cardboard box in't middle of t'road
Posts: 745
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
After tonight's result, should the title of the thread be changed to "Irrelevant.... or not?"
The maths are quite simple, Labour + SNP = Not enough.
The maths are quite simple, Labour + SNP = Not enough.
Archimedes,
In response to your posts 8 and 13 on this thread, back in December 2014 I wrote the following:
Archimedes,
Fine - and I'm glad I didn't hack you off - I'll try and remember to come back to this thread in May 2015 and point out that your psephology was wrong in this case (in terms of predicting the number SNP MPs elected).
So here I am, to point out that, as I predicted, your psephology was wrong in terms of predicting the number of seats the SNP would win - but then first hand experience of the situation seems to count for nothing!!
In response to your posts 8 and 13 on this thread, back in December 2014 I wrote the following:
Archimedes,
Fine - and I'm glad I didn't hack you off - I'll try and remember to come back to this thread in May 2015 and point out that your psephology was wrong in this case (in terms of predicting the number SNP MPs elected).
So here I am, to point out that, as I predicted, your psephology was wrong in terms of predicting the number of seats the SNP would win - but then first hand experience of the situation seems to count for nothing!!
Trying to find where this thread was, that's where!
I did, in my defence include (emphasis in original) the view
It's not a case of saying that the SNP won't be a significant factor, merely that historical trends in elections suggest that their chances are not as great as some suggest assuming that the current polling figures remain the same.
I also refer you to the following:
(It can be wrong, but needs politicians to make sure that it is, rather than apparently sitting back and believing the raw poll data.)
You got here first, though.