Does anyone worry about the effect a raise in the vote for the SNP in Scotland would have for Labou continuing on from the referendum debate?

 

I think it is more likely that the Lib Dems will be almost wiped out in Scotland for collaborating with the Tories. Their Euro election polling was around 7% in Scotland earlier this year!

Does anyone worry about the effect a raise in the vote for the SNP in Scotland would have for Labou continuing on from the referendum debate?

I genuinely don't think it will have that much affect on Labour. A couple of seats here and there at the most, simply because of the margins they're having to deal with.

 

I wouldn't be surprised to see a few Lib Dem seats go SNP wholesale though.

I really don't see what's wrong with Ed at all tbh! I am finding it really hard to figure out why people want to re-elect a government where I've personally had to help people who are in danger of starving to f***ing death! Nothing is getting better at all but yet people would rather keep these idiots just because their leader is a better speaker. The reason I like Ed is BECAUSE he's not a Blair or a Cameron. At least Labour have actually explained where the money from all their policies is actually coming from.

 

I am genuinely really scared now

 

EDIT: Populas has a 6 point Labour lead hmmm...

 

People don't really want it. Despite their poll leads, the Conservatives are still polling a little below their mediocre 2010 performance. The problem is that Labour have let so many votes slip to the Greens (up to 7% in some polls, almost all of it people who were saying they'd vote Labour til recently), the SNP and UKIP. Get even half of those lost votes back and Labour would probably win without the Tories losing a single one of their current votes.

Edited October 7, 201410 yr by Danny

Let's happily ignore a mansion tax, a clampdown on tax avoidance, a big increase in the minimum wage (regardless of whether you think it should've been bigger)

 

out of context, sorry about that, and edited but these are all Libdem 2010 policies. If anyone cares to read it (or re-read it) you don't get to the chestnut tuition fees until page 39, a minor footnote amongst a lot of important policies either achieved or now being pushed for by the other parties. As Suedehead said long before Clegg's confirming interview on newsnight, they was stitched up on that and also on the (supposed) Labour-supporting Prop Rep votes.

 

Re other general comments:

 

Feel free to call it bias, feel free to go through and compare with Labour and Tory and do some quoting. I know which I consider the fairest and more left-wing...

 

Yes popular perception is going to be the undoing of the Libdems at the next election, but just look at what the alternatives look likely to be and quake in your boots....on the plus side, as labour are borrowing so many policies a coalition (in theory) should be a piece of cake if it comes down to that or a choice of Tory/UKip as the next government - despite animated claims it will never happen - providing Labour and Libdems don't finish 2nd and 4th. In which case it's a no-hoper. Ed won't last 5 minutes in a minority Labour government, it would be like dropping a lamb amongst a pack of wolves.

If the Lib Dems are the most left wing of the three I'd like to hear how that fits with their line of insisting that Labour will spend the country into oblivion again. At least in 2010 Clegg kept up the pretense by saying they'd match our spending plans.

 

The "nightmare scenario" that people have mentioned is that Labour and the Lib Dems will come 2nd and 4th in the popular vote but get the most and third most seats, enabling a coalition which seemingly no one will want. You might think Miliband wouldn't last very long in that case, but that's assuming that the Tories haven't ripped themselves apart again otherwise Labour could probably win a second election in the autumn.

 

It would also surely mean the end for FPTP (just as it comes to the Lib Dems' rescue, what a shame).

If the Lib Dems are the most left wing of the three I'd like to hear how that fits with their line of insisting that Labour will spend the country into oblivion again. At least in 2010 Clegg kept up the pretense by saying they'd match our spending plans.

 

The "nightmare scenario" that people have mentioned is that Labour and the Lib Dems will come 2nd and 4th in the popular vote but get the most and third most seats, enabling a coalition which seemingly no one will want. You might think Miliband wouldn't last very long in that case, but that's assuming that the Tories haven't ripped themselves apart again otherwise Labour could probably win a second election in the autumn.

 

It would also surely mean the end for FPTP (just as it comes to the Lib Dems' rescue, what a shame).

If that happens then here is a piece of free advice for Labour. A lot of Tories have regularly banged on about how they won five times as many seats as the Lib Dems (actually the real figure is four-and-a-half but facts never were a strong point for the Tories) to justify their dominance of the coalition. They completely ignored that fact they one won around one-and-a-half times as many votes. For them suddenly to concentrate more on votes than seats would be gross hypocrisy even by their standards.

If the Lib Dems are the most left wing of the three I'd like to hear how that fits with their line of insisting that Labour will spend the country into oblivion again. At least in 2010 Clegg kept up the pretense by saying they'd match our spending plans.

 

The "nightmare scenario" that people have mentioned is that Labour and the Lib Dems will come 2nd and 4th in the popular vote but get the most and third most seats, enabling a coalition which seemingly no one will want. You might think Miliband wouldn't last very long in that case, but that's assuming that the Tories haven't ripped themselves apart again otherwise Labour could probably win a second election in the autumn.

 

It would also surely mean the end for FPTP (just as it comes to the Lib Dems' rescue, what a shame).

Oh, and another point. If the Lib Dems only get, say 10% of the vote next May, they will fall well short of 10% of the seats so they will still suffer from FPTP.

If the Lib Dems are the most left wing of the three I'd like to hear how that fits with their line of insisting that Labour will spend the country into oblivion again. At least in 2010 Clegg kept up the pretense by saying they'd match our spending plans.

 

The "nightmare scenario" that people have mentioned is that Labour and the Lib Dems will come 2nd and 4th in the popular vote but get the most and third most seats, enabling a coalition which seemingly no one will want. You might think Miliband wouldn't last very long in that case, but that's assuming that the Tories haven't ripped themselves apart again otherwise Labour could probably win a second election in the autumn.

 

It would also surely mean the end for FPTP (just as it comes to the Lib Dems' rescue, what a shame).

 

In 2010 the country was in crisis and there was general agreement about cuts. Labour spending the country into oblivion? They haven't a good record from 1997 to 2010 and they haven't done much to convince anyone that Ed is significantly different in ideas on how to not make things worse than they already are. If I were to advise Labour, I'd say they need a massive push on justifying higher taxes for the greater good until the debt mountain is less steep and borrowing has become a thing of the past (bar one-off infrastructure projects that pay for themselves in the end). Trouble is that's a vote-loser, people hate tax....

In 2010 the country was in crisis and there was general agreement about cuts. Labour spending the country into oblivion? They haven't a good record from 1997 to 2010 and they haven't done much to convince anyone that Ed is significantly different in ideas on how to not make things worse than they already are. If I were to advise Labour, I'd say they need a massive push on justifying higher taxes for the greater good until the debt mountain is less steep and borrowing has become a thing of the past (bar one-off infrastructure projects that pay for themselves in the end). Trouble is that's a vote-loser, people hate tax....

The simple matter is that you can generally draw two arguments from critics of New Labour's economic policy - one saying that they spent too much money and that public spending should have been reined in, and one saying that the income streams were wrong and they were too lenient on big business and the banking sector. The former seems to be the one that Clegg is going for, and it puts him fundamentally to the right of Miliband economically.

Remember folks, if it's close with Labour having most seats but no majority, Cameron will still have first stab at trying to form a Coalition with the LD as Brown did last time. The incumbent PM always does. Should be a very interesting election night indeed. Hope you're all booking the Friday off work so you can stay up!

Edited October 9, 201410 yr by Common Sense

In 2010 the Lib Dems managed 22% of the national vote, they are currently polling at an average of 7 or 8%

 

I very much doubt there will be any coalition of whatever kind with the Lib Dems considering they won't even get 10% of the national vote, but I do like the misguided and deluded optimism from Clegg. To have them continue in government after losing half of their vote share would not read right at all, I mean are we destined to have them CONSTANTLY in government no matter what?

In 2010 the Lib Dems managed 22% of the national vote, they are currently polling at an average of 7 or 8%

 

I very much doubt there will be any coalition of whatever kind with the Lib Dems considering they won't even get 10% of the national vote, but I do like the misguided and deluded optimism from Clegg. To have them continue in government after losing half of their vote share would not read right at all, I mean are we destined to have them CONSTANTLY in government no matter what?

They could conceivably hold maybe half their seats as they retreat back towards their heartlands, so they'd still be potential kingmakers although Labour would insist that Clegg stepped down if he hadn't already.

 

As for having them constantly in government, it depends on two things. Firstly, if either major party builds up a large enough coalition of support then majority governments could still happen quite easily since FPTP favours it. All it takes is for Labour to get to 35% (slightly more for the Tories until boundary changes come in, unless constituencies start being decided by how many people live there rather than how many voters since that'll push it up again) which is far from inconceivable. Secondly, another smaller party could step into that breach if Lib Dem support falls any further. UKIP are starting to localise their efforts a bit more now, although I still think they'll implode before they get anywhere near the number of seats the Lib Dems have had for the last 20 years.

I'm guessing that SNP will gain the most votes in Scotland in the next election which will affect Labour and their hopes of going into power tbh.

Vote SNP. Get Conservative rule in Scotland again. Yeah, I can see that going down well north of the border!

I very much doubt there will be any coalition of whatever kind with the Lib Dems considering they won't even get 10% of the national vote, but I do like the misguided and deluded optimism from Clegg. To have them continue in government after losing half of their vote share would not read right at all, I mean are we destined to have them CONSTANTLY in government no matter what?

 

If there continues to be a hung parliament then maybe yes. What alternatives are there? They'll surely be the third largest party even if they lose half their seats. Can't see Labour and The Tories ever getting in to bed together.

I'm guessing that SNP will gain the most votes in Scotland in the next election which will affect Labour and their hopes of going into power tbh.

It depends how many translate into seats (and even then I consider it unlikely). They definitely won't be getting the most seats in Scotland.

For once on our politics, I sort of agree with Tyron. I don't have any doubt about them taking the highest number of votes, but I don't think they'll quite win on seats. They will probably have a record number of seats.

 

After all, those LibDem seats have got to go somewhere and Labour isn't where they will be going. I know previously the SNP haven't done so well because people don't see the point but with the complete betrayal of the Liberal Democrats and the fact that the devolution issue is so prominent the SNP have a great chance to build up a vote to unprecedented levels on a platform of 'keeping westminster in check and ensuring they keep their promise to Scotland' and rhetoric along the lines of more SNP MPs ensures that a vote will pass on more powers to Scotland etc.

errr, blah blah blah, Libdem traitors, they're doomed, coalitions forever horror (after two in 100 years!) Libdems spawn of satan....

 

General election Name Share of votes Seats Share of seats

1983 SDP–Liberal Alliance 25% 23 / 650 3.5% [108]

1987 SDP–Liberal Alliance 23% 22 / 650 3.4% [108]

1992 Liberal Democrats 18% 20 / 651 3% [48]

1997 Liberal Democrats 17% 46 / 659 7% [48]

2001 Liberal Democrats 18% 52 / 659 8% [54]

2005 Liberal Democrats 22% 62 / 646 10% [60]

2010 Liberal Democrats 23% 57 / 650 9% [12]

 

Nothing is forever in politics, going back to 10-20 seats is recent-historically more normal and it's not the end of the world for them if it happens.

 

As there appears to be a limited amount of assessing of the other 4 parties..

 

Labour's main problem is they dropped their core working class group of supporters (in favour of middle class floaters) in 1997 and they have long memories - who feel betrayed, as much as any students do the libdems. Oh and they buggered the economy sucking up to bankers. May self-implode in an idealogical left vs New labour strop if it doesn't go well in 2015.

 

Tories main problem is they pander to rich people and rich corporations, and always have, but some people put up with that as long as they get a bit of the action too. Not been a lot of action amongst most people lately though. may self-destruct in a horrible european strop whatever happens in 2015.

 

Libdems main problem is they are widely regarded as traitorous for one minor policy failure, and for doing what the electorate voted for. Policy-wise, the other parties seem to quite like their policies, which is why they avoid talking about them at all, just quietly nick them. Not much danger of self-imploding, won't be that many to implode.

 

UKIP's main problem is they are right-wing reactionists with no real political experience and far more likely (as mentioned above) to self-destruct in bitter personal slagging-off. The main danger is they shove Tories further to the right.

 

Greens main problem is they have the world's interest at heart, and most voters have their own interest as a priority, and the two don't really cross-over a lot so they will be doomed to minority status it seems. Might ally with labour/libdems if they ever have an unlikely breakthrough.

 

Both main parties made all sorts of ridiculous utopian claims and none came to be. So handy having someone else to divert attention away from that and the lack of any real inspirational ideas of how resolve the situation. The current bubble isn't going to last, soon as interest rates rise people on the edge who've borrowed too much will start to default and there's going to be ongoing problems related to that, the eurozone and China's massive property bubble which is bound to burst.

 

Still, gotta laugh eh? Altogether now ..."Always look on the bright side of life.." cue whistling...

 

 

Going back to 10-20 seats might be normal, but you've very effectively demonstrated that going to 5-10% of the vote certainly isn't.

PRE-EMPTIVE SIDEBAR: I DON'T WANT TO HEAR IT DANNY