General Election 2015

[Simster]

Er ... or not

To reiterate, no Labour MP has defected to UKIP, let alone another

"While hardly a senior figure inside the Labour party, his defection may rattle some who fear working class voters could abandon Ed Miliband’s party in May



So far, UKIP has two defected MPs, both from the Tories. There is nothing to suggest they will make any inroads into traditional Labour vote. Cunning Fergus makes a compelling case as to why it should, but I guess most working class labour voters look at the UKIP leader, his pompous city-boy mannerisms and think "what a complete nob". Along with that, you can probably discount the majority of any Labour-supporting 2nd or 3rd generation immigrants from switching to UKIP too.

 

[beorhthelm]

IMO, it would be more about assurances of Scottish jobs and Scottish parliamentary power than jettisoning significant Labour policy. That's why such a coalition is so likely.

theres alot of common ground but several key areas of conflict. i dont recall them all, except the biggy: Trident. Labour itself is quietly split on the matter but its current policy is to support a replacement. if they dont commit in their manifesto that would cause problems for the pro-group within the party and be seen to potentially damage the party (who knows if it really will, dont really want to get into the matter itself). if they do commit, then they either back track on that day one or the SNP have to backtrack on the issue. great start to coalition talks.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

of course they would. the question is, how long would it last and what policies are going to be jettisoned to get SNP on board.

Of course they would. The electorate have voted in a SNP majority in Scotland but that didn't stop them consequently voting No to independence by a comfortable margin.

I suppose my point, admittedly hardly made, is that surely a key demand of the SNP and a red line would be the running of another referendum during the lifetime of the parliament. Something I can't see Labour agreeing to.

 

[Gwylan]

I suppose my point, admittedly hardly made, is that surely a key demand of the SNP and a red line would be the running of another referendum during the lifetime of the parliament. Something I can't see Labour agreeing to.

Can't see that. As I said earlier about PR, can't see another referendum so soon after the first. There's more chance of a Scottish one as the vote was closer but we don't really do referenda in this country and I think that's dead for the next decade

 

[Simster]

I suppose my point, admittedly hardly made, is that surely a key demand of the SNP and a red line would be the running of another referendum during the lifetime of the parliament. Something I can't see Labour agreeing to.

beorthelm is likely to be closer to the mark with trident, but it's not an issue that can't be negotiated. There is little chance the SNP will ask for another referendum - they will wait at least a decade I should think.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Would Labour really form a coalition with the SNP ? It seems hard to believe given Labour were anti-Scottish independence and that Gordon Brown was seen as the person that rescued the No campaign.

I'm pretty certain they will if it delivers Ed to number 10. The SNP have all but said they'll do this and Salmon is positioning himself as I type.

A Cameron and Clegg duo was highly unrealistic 5 years ago.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

IMO, it would be more about assurances of Scottish jobs and Scottish parliamentary power than jettisoning significant Labour policy. That's why such a coalition is so likely.

This.

 

[mwrpoole]

I suppose my point, admittedly hardly made, is that surely a key demand of the SNP and a red line would be the running of another referendum during the lifetime of the parliament. Something I can't see Labour agreeing to.

I suspect their demands will likely be passing of more & more power to Scotland, so that a referendum is not needed. And of course Alex Salmond as Deputy PM.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Can't see that. As I said earlier about PR, can't see another referendum so soon after the first. There's more chance of a Scottish one as the vote was closer but we don't really do referenda in this country and I think that's dead for the next decade

If we carry on with multi-party politics and more coalitions there will be another PR referendum within around 10 years I think. I am certain of this.

 

[Vegas Seagull]

If we carry on with multi-party politics and more coalitions there will be another PR referendum within around 10 years I think. I am certain of this.

Any hung parliament will see Bonking Boris promoted & the Electorate will call a landslide, 12/1 next PM @ £50 (now 8s)... Get it ready

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

As I said earlier, the figures don't bear this out. Caroline Lucas is on course to increase her majority massively and the Greens nationally are, according to opinion polls, on two or three times the vote last time round. How is that embarrassing?

The embarrassment will come about when the national media go into frenzy mode over meat-free Mondays , residents giving up on recycling , bin strikes leaving litter piling up on the streets for weeks on end , attempts to raise council tax by three times the rate of inflation , etc etc. The media have been **** stirring over anything to do with UKIP and I don't see the Greens getting away with it either.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

I suspect their demands will likely be passing of more & more power to Scotland, so that a referendum is not needed. And of course Alex Salmond as Deputy PM.

Any particular reason why Nicola Sturgeon wouldn't be Deputy PM in a Lab-SNP coalition ?

 

[Gwylan]

Any particular reason why Nicola Sturgeon wouldn't be Deputy PM in a Lab-SNP coalition ?

It must be decades since we've had a cabinet minister who wasn't a member of the House of Lords or Commons. I can't see any reason to change now - and I certainly couldn't imagine a deputy PM outside the cabinet

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

It must be decades since we've had a cabinet minister who wasn't a member of the House of Lords or Commons. I can't see any reason to change now - and I certainly couldn't imagine a deputy PM outside the cabinet

Perhaps some "outside of the box" thinking on who should represent the SNP in a Lab-SNP coalition might be the answer if Alex Salmond is seen as the unacceptable face of the SNP ?

 

[pauli cee]

BE GREEN VOTE GREEN. If that helps...

 

[beorhthelm]

Perhaps some "outside of the box" thinking ohttps://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/search.php?do=getnew&contenttype=vBForum_Postn who should represent the SNP in a Lab-SNP coalition might be the answer if Alex Salmond is seen as the unacceptable face of the SNP ?

lol, you dont become leader of a politcal party to then let someone else take the top job when it becomes available. it would just about be credible to say the leader of the Scottish parliament is that job for the SNP, allowing Salmond to take on a DPM role, but i rather expect we'd be seeing alot of Baroness Sturgeon.

 

[Hampster Gull]

Blair OUT, monster raving looney party IN

 

[Dandyman]

An unbelievably frightening thought.

The SNP lost the Referendum, yet Salmond could well hold the balance of power at Westminster.

If Labour got into bed with the SNP, what would the implications be?

Yet more devolved powers to Scotland, and what about Trident?

Scrapping a redundant weapon which the Generals admit has no military use would save billions. The reason it won't be scrapped is because it provides political viagra for otherwise flaccid politicians.

 

[Stato]

To pick up the thread again.........and letting bygones be bygones, our initial exchange arose from the implications of the Labour Party's politcal decision to facilitate the free movement of people from within the EU (including accessation countries) and generally take a more relaxed atittude to border control. The naturalisation of millions of immigrants in the last 10-15 years is just one consequence of this political decision. These are undeniable facts.

As someone who is openly supporting Labour (and stating on this thread that it is necessary to vote for them), why should I not point out to you that Labour's policy is now to control migration. This is a full u-turn from their previous position when in Government; and which is evidently a position they want to distance themselves from.

Labour (and taking Yvette Coopers Press Release as an example) are not pointing to their record on migration whilst in Govt and saying it benefitted GDP (like you want to do) and the reason they are not doing that is because the broad implications for the British working class concerning that policy decision has been disasterous.

The fact that you still support their previous policy, and justify it on the back of GDP means you support a free labour market and let the devil take the hindmost.

This ideology is not consistent with the Labour Party I remember...............free markets of any kind stink of toryism....................hence reference to your Tory arse.

In the meantime you have not sought to vaildate the question I asked of why a return to Labour's policy of uncontrolled labour market would benefit the British working class, instead you went stright to the G. Brown manual for dealing with immigration matters....................I have merely been your own personal Gillian Duffy (a Labour member hersel I seem to remember).

I've been in meetings all day and planned to write you a response tonight, but after getting back from the game, I'm too happy to talk politics. I'll let you have my views on internationalism vs protectionism when I'm back in a bitter and twisted mood.

 

[warmleyseagull]

Any particular reason why Nicola Sturgeon wouldn't be Deputy PM in a Lab-SNP coalition ?

Well yes, she isn't an MP!