CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

Do we need a GE2015 thread?

(619 posts)

No tags yet.

  1. chdot

    Even if 'vote SNP get Tory' (Gov) is 'true' it seems very clear that, for various reasons, (Nelly's anecdote is hardy unusual), voters in Scotland 'want' to vote SNP next month - and a vast number will do so on the day.

    It seems MOST unlikely that the SNP will get more than 40 seats.

    BUT: around Christmas projections of 20 seats (and more) seemed 'silly' - 'post Ref euphoria, - will dissipate' etc.

    I'm told there is all sorts of agonising on FB about whether people 'should' vote for Mark Lazarowicz rather than Deidre Brock.

    I'm sure this is happening in quite a few seats and there will be 'surprises'.

    People standing on a Labour ticket will get more scrutiny than ever before - 'do I want to vote for that person rather than that party'.

    I think that is healthy.

    Saying people shouldn't vote in a particular way 'because of the consequences' is actually undemocratic.

    Some people will vote for the SNP, some will vote against Labour (and vice versa), it's always been like that - this time it's more noticeable!

    I'm sure that there will be all sorts of unexpected consequences (some unattractive) after this election.

    A significant tranche of 'the London media' will be very upset (quite a few of them Scots too!). There may or may not be 'dirty tricks' by the 'British State/Establishment'. There won't be a military coup or civil war.

    I have no idea what will happen to the Labour Party (in Scotland) I just hope that there will be some humility - not just hand-wringing. No more talk of "our voters" and (I genuinely hope) the emergence of a group of credible people who can see beyond 'hating the SNP'.

    The SNP will have a year with the distraction of dealing with things at Westminster - the Leader will be in Holyrood - and be devising a manifesto to accommodate the interests of all its new members (and voters).

    V interesting times.

    At some stage it may be noticed that the world is not entirely under the control of Holyrood or Westminster or even Brussels...

    Posted 6 years ago #
  2. sallyhinch

    I was never much of a believer in PR but I have changed my mind completely now. All this 'vote x to get y if you think person z will be voting w' - and they wonder why people don't vote...

    Posted 6 years ago #
  3. wee folding bike

    It's the mice. The mice have been controlling the whole thing. They always did.

    The personal leaflet I got from Ms Nash, sitting Labour MP, yesterday still has the line about the party with the most seats forming the government. I asked her rep about that last week and she qualified with "usually". She did persist for a considerable time before giving it up as a bad job and walking away.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  4. chdot

    "and they wonder why people don't vote"

    It will be very interesting to see the turnout in individual seats and across Scotland - and how much (if at all) there is a higher turnout here than south of the Border.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  5. wee folding bike

    There have been stories of people falling off the register because the system has been changed.

    I can see why they changed it. There was little logic in the management making sure I was registered. I'm over 21 and can deal with this kind of paperwork myself.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  6. PS

    @SRD Ruth Davidson is an impressive and capable politician. I just happen to disagree with all her policies.
    What? *All* of them? ;-) Can't say I've seen her policies set out but there must be a few you agree with. She seemed pretty sensible on equality, gay marriage etc.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  7. Min

  8. PS

    @wfb I don't know what would happen in England where there isn't an alternative for people who don't want to vote for Labour or LibDems anymore.

    Some of those votes will be going to UKIP. I know of a couple of sensible, rational types (one in Wales, one in England) who have talked about voting for UKIP as a protest vote.

    I can also see a few LibDems being re-elected on their standing as local MPs who do a good job, which TBH is right and proper.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  9. wee folding bike

    I think I'd rather write in "None of the above" or "Free tights for men". The second one was the slogan for a Glasgow council candidate a few years ago.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  10. kaputnik

    We ("Edinburgh East") have had a newsletter from the Edinburgh Greens, a postcard from the SNP candiate and 4 separate glossy, fold-out mailshots from Jim Murphy himself (i.e. central Labour party, not the local candidate). Tories, Lib Dems and UKIP haven't been round yet (in fact the latter 2 don't even have a candidate registered yet it would seem). Not sure it would be worth their bother, it's realistically a 2-horse race between Sheila Gilmore and Tommy Sheppard.

    I passed a temporary office on Easter Road for the Mark Lazarowicz campaign (North & Leith) at the weekend, it looked a bit like a champagne reception at first glance but more likely it was fizzy ALDI asti or even Grapletise.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  11. kaputnik

    Even if 'vote SNP get Tory' (Gov) is 'true'

    Remind the next Labour type who tells you this that Scotland "voted Labour, got Tory" in 2010. And '92. And '87, '83, '79. And 1970. And 1959.

    Voting Labour does not neccessarily mean get Labour.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  12. wingpig

    Political mailshots are usually in the recycling pile by the time I get home, so I only see the odd word/photo here and there when accessing the breadbin. So far I haven't been able to sit down and seriously poke through candidates/polls/previous results without getting sidetracked by the whole reduction-to-rosette-support-structure thing and thence schemes for improving representation through reorganisation of the system. I haven't had to disconnect any electronic associates yet (did a couple during the indyref) but there are a couple of people I'm glad I'm not likely to physically re-encounter at any time soon who I keep glancing at out of morbid curiosity, for an insight into their opinion structures.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  13. chdot

  14. gembo

    That tiny dog losing a leg is a salutary tale. £300-£400 from the Largs lottery people might help with the owner's insurance excess. Always shut the gate.

    Coalitions clearly a possibility. Still going with my view SNP would prefer a Tory govt. No one yet disagreeing or agreeing with that? I will change my vote SNP get Tory as this possibility which I am not spinning just pointing out the arithmetic is not a possibility people seem to want to consider? Not sure why it is clearly a possibility. Tories get overall majority or Tories get a coalition with DUP? Just possibilities I am not trying to make a party political point. So my change is If you do not want the Tories for another five years vote Labour. Granted, you might still get them but looking at the spread betting, this is less likely than if you don't vote Labour. I float this to lib dems and SNP. I overheard some Tories the other day saying they were thinking of voting labour. Quite mental.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  15. wee folding bike

    I think you might find that Ms Sturgeon was quite forthright about not preferring a Tory government.

    Labour candidates have been telling people to vote Tory in some marginals. There is a graphic which shows the best vote to keep out the SNP.

    If you check the numbers in previous UK elections you find that high SNP votes correlate with UK Labour governments rather than Tory. I'm not convinced there is anything more than a correlation. Link if you really want one:

    Tactical voting graphic:

    Bigger image in the story from the day before:

    Labour members really aren't supposed to do that.

    I can't see how voting SNP in Scotland makes a Tory UK government more likely. How does the arithmetic work?

    Posted 6 years ago #
  16. slowcoach

    wfb - can you name the Labour candidates you referring to? The story you've linked is about a LP member (not a candidate then or now), and 'a source close to Mr McNeill told the Courier: “He regrets what he did: he was not endorsing the content of the tweet but was instead aiming to highlight it.'

    Posted 6 years ago #
  17. gembo

    @wfb Is it 650 seats in Uk and 59 in Scotland? That is my assumption.

    One prediction has SNP winning 53. Poor old labour, not in UK power for five years, not in power in Scotland since 2007? And still must be given another doing. so be it.

    So that leaves 597

    326 is the target for overall majority?

    299 to be the largest party with first dibs on a coalition? Or to soldier on for a few weeks as a minority govt? Assuming SNP gain 53 scottish seats?

    How many seats will Labour win in England and Wales? if The SNP take 53 Scottish seats, it is only 53 lost to labour of course, not a swing of 106 as not lost to Tories (is that the point you are making?). But in various scenarios I can see why labour would point out that voting SNP increases chances of tories getting elected (caveat as one possible outcome) Though I will change this slightly to voting anything but labour in Scotland increases these chances? Am I in your bear trap?

    @wfb you like Wings guy despite his ageist remarks? I prefer bella caledonia if I wish to read opinion. Facts of course harder for us all to find. In the interests of fairness I will see if he has stopped being a bit ranty by clicking on your links.

    Clicked on the bar graph one. Seems to be votes cast rather than seats won? Would be helpful if he did this again with seats won? As that is going to have a big jump from around ten to around fifty, if polls to be believed?

    Posted 6 years ago #
  18. wee folding bike

    Oppps, probably my bad then. I'd not read it for a while and thought it had been a candidate. Looks like they're not quite as daft as saying it themselves.

    Michael Gove on the other hand… looks like Pob and did comment on tactical voting last week.

    I have friends who say they will vote for the Tory candidate and would prefer a Tory government to a Labour one with SNP support. I don't understand why but we move on to other things like dogs and how pale our legs are at this time of year.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  19. wee folding bike

    I still don't see how a certain number of SNP + Labour > Tory means that the Tories are more likely to be in power.

    Ms Sturgeon has said she will support Labour. She really can't not do that we're still getting stories of the 11 MPs in '79.

    I've been known to make ageist remarks and no matter what he may or may not have said in the past it doesn't change the number of votes or the outcomes of previous elections.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  20. wee folding bike


    He wasn't exactly just a supporter though, was he?

    "Robert James McNeill is the vice chairman of the East Lothian Constituency Labour Party and chair of the Tranent Local Labour Party. He’s also a member of the Scottish Labour Party Policy Forum, which develops the Scottish Labour manifesto."

    So more than just a passing acquaintance.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  21. gembo

    @ wee folding bike you say candidate at top of your post but member at the bottom.

    My tory was the wife of an ex-tory councillor but she wasn't saying she was voting labour. She was saying her friends who were Tories were voting labour.

    I am not sure how realistic that is? I cannot see any scottish labour voters voting tory?

    Thatcher in 1979 presumably picked up some Voters in England who had previously voted labour??

    @wfb - you think labour with less seats than Tories but with a very loose coalition with SNP would be asked by Queenie to form a government? Or you think labour and SNP will form a coalition post election? Fair enough, these are also possibilities but in my view less likely than the Tories being invited to do so say with DUP and UKIP. Poor lib dems also must get a doing same as Scottish labour for going into a coalition.

    Any of the above better than an overall tory majority I guess..

    Wings guy often seems to me to not be talking about the same thing he says he is talking about, hence my seats won analysis preference over votes cast in his bar graph.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  22. wee folding bike

    Already apologised but the guy wasn't just a supporter.

    Tactical voting in this organised way is interesting from a selfish genetics point of view. It could work but only if you trust the other guy… or in the words of Robert Kilroy Silk, "Shaft or share". If one group cheats then it's too late to redress the balance for another 5 years.

    I suspect Mrs T picked up a lot of voters who had previously voted Labour. That's how elections work.

    In the case of Tories < (Labour + SNP) then the Tory's Queen's speech can be voted down and Brenda can ask Mr Miliband if he can form a government. It might not get that far as Call Me Dave might not want to subject Brenda to that.

    I don't think there will be a Labour/SNP coalition. Both Ms Sturgeon and Mr Miliband have said it will not happen and Ms Sturgeon has seen how coalition played out for the LibDems last time round.

    The DUP and UKIP change the numbers slightly so you might be left with (Tory + DUP+UKIP) vs (Labour+SNP+Green) and who knows what the LibDems do. It doesn't change the requirement to pass the Queen's speech. It just changes what bums are on what seat.

    Gordon Brown could have formed a rainbow coalition 5 years ago but chose not to. Some reports say this is because Nick Clegg insisted that his price was Gordon standing down, some say he just couldn't face the partners he would have had to take on. In my cynical moments I suspect that it was just easier to take 5 years on the other benches. The pay for MPs is just the same as are the expenses and you can get a few bob by charing committees. Mr Brown hasn't been very evident in the house these last 5 years.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  23. gembo

    Yes, saw your apology, I was not having another critique, I was saying you were 0nly 50 per cent wrong. Indeed less if you add the positions he held in labour echelons to his membership card.

    I think queen goes to largest party first to see if they can form a govt? Though obviously there must be a lot of jockeying before she goes to anyone. Civil servants, clandestine meetings etc.

    Not sure if the next option is minority govt or coalition of second and third largest parties.???

    Brown may well have thought he could do this with the lib dems but was presumable advised not to and listened to the advice?

    Posted 6 years ago #
  24. The Boy


    small point of order, but working majority will be 323 seats.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  25. gembo

    Thanks The Boy.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  26. chdot

    "I cannot see any scottish labour voters voting tory?"

    Vote early, vote often.

    But seriously -

    There is no such thing as a labour (other parties are available) voter.

    There are people. There are people who choose to vote. There are people who have only ever voted for one party. There are people who may well never vote for a different party. There are also people who, at various times, for various reasons, have voted for more than one party.

    In addition there are people (probably many) who have voted for different parties at the same time. The Holyrood system with the top-up list means you can vote twice for the same party, (the main parties prefer that idea), but voters seem to like the opportunity of choice.

    In addition there have been many people who have very openly voted for one party at Holyrood (notably SNP) and a different one for Westminster (particularly Labour).

    THAT seems to be about to change for this election. Some people who were 'part-time Labour voters' seem to have changed (for now at least) their habits.

    It has to be assumed that this is as a result of the IndyRef and its aftermath. Whether this is because of what any particular party (and/or key personnel) did before/during/after will vary from person/voter to person/voter.

    Some 'Labour people' clearly don't want to admit to understanding any of that. They have benefitted from a 'culture' of 'I've always voted Labour' and 'my parents voted Labour, so so do I'. That's not unique to the Labour Party of course, but somehow it's come to expect/rely on it. Some people are feeling 'taken for granted' others just 'exercising their rights' under consumer capitalism!

    It would be quite odd for the Labour Party (in Scotland) to 'disappear' - especially if Labour is running Westminster. BUT, after this election, (unless the polls turn out to be completely wrong) 'the Labour Party' will have to work out what it's for, what its principles are, whether it wants to be genuinely independent of London/rUK etc. It could (unlikely) decide to be in favour of Independence and/or not renewing Trident.

    Perhaps Scotland has moved past simple left/right divisions, but if not, the LP(in S) will have to decide whether it really is more 'left wing' than the SNP or whether it's more or less the same apart from (not) wanting Independence.

    I doubt if "the people of Scotland" are ready for 'Independence - even if we are worse off' but Jim Murphy's 'alternative' of taxing London and the South East to pay for services here, doesn't seem to be convincing enough people to want to vote for 'his' party (even if they 'always have' done before).

    Posted 6 years ago #
  27. wee folding bike

    If it's not clear, as it wasn't the last time, the incumbent gets first go.

    Jim Murphy said this 5 years ago but it appears to have slipped his mind.

    WATO did a piece on it a week or so back but I've not found it.

    Cabinet manual ( ) says this in chapter 2:

    Parliaments with no overall majority in the House of Commons
    2.12 Where an election does not result in
    an overall majority for a single party,
    the incumbent government remains in office unless and until the Prime Minister tenders his or her resignation and the Government’s resignation to the Sovereign. An incumbent government is entitled to wait until the new Parliament has met to see if it can command the confidence of the House of Commons, but is expected to resign if it becomes clear that it is unlikely to be able to command that confidence
    and there is a clear alternative.

    2.13 Where a range of different administrations could potentially be formed, political
    parties may wish to hold discussions to establish who is best able to command
    the confidence of the House of Commons and should form the next government. The Sovereign would not expect to become involved in any negotiations, although there are responsibilities on those involved in
    the process to keep the Palace informed. This could be done by political parties or the Cabinet Secretary. The Principal Private Secretary to the Prime Minister may also have a role, for example, in communicating with the Palace.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  28. PS

    TBF, I'm sure I said a lot of things 5 years ago that have slipped my mind. :-) 5 days ago too.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  29. wingpig

    "...a 'culture' of 'I've always voted Labour' and 'my parents voted Labour, so so do I'."

    Fortunately there's also the party-non-specific "keep left", which allows more flexibility.
    I always feel sorry for my parents around election-time: stuck in central Lincolnshire, which stayed blue even in 1997 and now even has two UKIP MEPs, after one defected, restocking the abolished Kilroy. At least this time they get a green candidate for the first time since 1997, and no BNP.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  30. wee folding bike

    Spent 5 mins trying to find something good about Lincolnshire.

    Mrs T came from there but… so did Nicholas Parsons. I think he makes up for it in at least some measure.

    Posted 6 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.

Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin