They've built their campaign on an end to Austerity politics. They did the same at the last Holyrood election and then again during the referendum. For them to vote for more cuts, especially given the level of rhetoric right now that is slating Labour for voting for any form of cut right now, would be on the level of the Tuition Fees debacle for the LibDems and the SNP won't repeat that mistake. They were punished for propping up a Tory government before and it took them decades and a devolved parliament to recover from that.

True, but I just find it hard to understand how so many Scottish Labour people could still truly believe that the SNP are more right-wing than Labour given their respective stances on austerity.

On the Political Compass thing, the last time I checked, the SNP were slightly left of Centre. (iirc) Labour were as far right as the Tories. Anyone thinking the SNP are right-wing, or more right-wing than Labour is delusional.

 

At some points I think they are more pro-business. There was talk of Corporation Tax cuts, I believe to encourage companies to move to Scotland bringing jobs and thus growing the economy, among a few other things that could be considered more capitalist. That's outweighed by the determination to keep the NHS publicly owned, the vitriol they spat at the ConDems for privatising Royal Mail, free education and generally sitting more in line with the Nordic Nations than rUK.

The irony is that Sturgeon and the SNP only regard themselves as mildly left-of-centre or social democrats, whereas Ed Miliband still seriously seems to think of himself as a "socialist" even while he's proposing massive spending cuts when public services are already down to the bone, being "tough" on welfare claimants and immigrants, and saying he applauds people getting filthy rich :rofl:

Edited March 16, 201510 yr by Danny

On the Political Compass thing, the last time I checked, the SNP were slightly left of Centre. (iirc) Labour were as far right as the Tories. Anyone thinking the SNP are right-wing, or more right-wing than Labour is delusional.

 

At some points I think they are more pro-business. There was talk of Corporation Tax cuts, I believe to encourage companies to move to Scotland bringing jobs and thus growing the economy, among a few other things that could be considered more capitalist. That's outweighed by the determination to keep the NHS publicly owned, the vitriol they spat at the ConDems for privatising Royal Mail, free education and generally sitting more in line with the Nordic Nations than rUK.

Ignoring the Political Compass because it's seriously flawed, but the SNP have the same stance as Labour on the NHS and the Royal Mail. And seem to be perfectly happy to charge non-Scottish students whatever the going rate at Westminster is.

 

The irony is that Sturgeon and the SNP only regard themselves as mildly left-of-centre or social democrats, whereas Ed Miliband still seriously seems to think of himself as a "socialist" even while he's proposing massive spending cuts when public services are already down to the bone, being "tough" on welfare claimants and immigrants, and saying he applauds people getting filthy rich :rofl:

Fair point on immigration, but I'm going to need a quote for that last one.

rUK fees are set individually by the 15 institutions and not by the Scottish Government. Under the previous fee regime I believe that rUK students were charged the Standard Scottish rate of £1,800 and this was moved up in line with the new fees to protect against a sudden flood of students trying to study north of the border to save on fees.

 

The Scottish Government is providing free education to the citizen's it serves (and EU citizens because of EU law) and why should it spend it's allocation of funds on providing free education to rUK students because Westminster isn't as progressive as Holyrood? That's up to the respective governments of rUK to decide. The point I was actually making is that free education is seen as a socialist policy and one that the SNP advocates as opposed to Labour who do not support free tuition thus people who think the SNP are further right than Labour are morons.

Ignoring the Political Compass because it's seriously flawed, but the SNP have the same stance as Labour on the NHS and the Royal Mail. And seem to be perfectly happy to charge non-Scottish students whatever the going rate at Westminster is.

Fair point on immigration, but I'm going to need a quote for that last one.

 

ED Miliband will today say he applauds wealthy business people and entrepreneurs, as he seeks to cast off his “Red Ed” tag and appeal to the Blairite wing of the Labour party.

 

Miliband will pay homage to Lord Mandelson, who famously said New Labour was “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”.

 

“I’m not only relaxed about them getting rich,” Miliband is expected to say. “I applaud it”.

 

http://www.cityam.com/article/ed-miliband-...ich-and-wealthy

Edited March 17, 201510 yr by Danny

I can't see Ed Miliband becoming PM. For that to happen Labour would at least need to have the most seats and most polls point to the Tories having around 290 or more and Labour only 260-270. Remember the incumbent gets first chance to form a government. I think Cameron will stay as PM with either a minority Tory government or another Lb-Dem coalition.

I can't see Ed Miliband becoming PM. For that to happen Labour would at least need to have the most seats and most polls point to the Tories having around 290 or more and Labour only 260-270. Remember the incumbent gets first chance to form a government. I think Cameron will stay as PM with either a minority Tory government or another Lb-Dem coalition.

No they don't. The average of various projections shows the Tories winning 283 seats to Labour's 270. That still gives Cameron the chance to try to form a government, but he couldn't get close to a majority without the SNP.

That's up to the respective governments of rUK to decide. The point I was actually making is that free education is seen as a socialist policy and one that the SNP advocates as opposed to Labour who do not support free tuition thus people who think the SNP are further right than Labour are morons.

Yep, because giving a subsidy to middle-class graduates is the definition of socialism.

I can't see Ed Miliband becoming PM. For that to happen Labour would at least need to have the most seats and most polls point to the Tories having around 290 or more and Labour only 260-270. Remember the incumbent gets first chance to form a government. I think Cameron will stay as PM with either a minority Tory government or another Lb-Dem coalition.

There's nothing to say that the incumbent gets the first chance to form a government - Brown didn't.

ED Miliband will today say he applauds wealthy business people and entrepreneurs, as he seeks to cast off his “Red Ed” tag and appeal to the Blairite wing of the Labour party.

 

Miliband will pay homage to Lord Mandelson, who famously said New Labour was “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich”.

 

“I’m not only relaxed about them getting rich,” Miliband is expected to say. “I applaud it”.

 

http://www.cityam.com/article/ed-miliband-...ich-and-wealthy

What's wrong with people getting rich, so long as they pay their taxes and don't screw over others in the bargain? Because that fits totally with the 'producers vs predators' speech he did three months later.

There's nothing to say that the incumbent gets the first chance to form a government - Brown didn't.

 

 

That's because he couldn't though as they couldn't work out a deal with the Lib Dems. If they'd been able to he'd have had the chance of Coalition before Cameron. I believe the Lib Dems had talks with Lab our first.

 

Suedy, can you answer me a question please as you seem very clued up. If the tories have most seats and Cameron wants to go with a minority government then, as incumbent, rather than Coalition again, is that accepted first by The Queen's advisors? What if Labour, with less seats, could form a Coalition with 2 or 3 parties? Doesn't a chance of a majority govt. come before a possible minority one? This confuses me.

Edited March 17, 201510 yr by Common Sense

As with parliamentary elections, we need a change in the electoral system. When I was a councillor, I saw good councillors of all three parties lose their seats simply because the tide turned against their party.

 

We also need a substantial devolution of powers to local councils. At the moment, people can use the local elections to vote against the governing party(ies), safe in the knowledge that it will make very little difference to the way their council operates. The UK has a more centralised system than any other European democracy.

 

all sadly true...

That's because he couldn't though as they couldn't work out a deal with the Lib Dems. If they'd been able to he'd have had the chance of Coalition before Cameron. I believe the Lib Dems had talks with Lab our first.

No, whether or not he could work out a deal with the Lib Dems is irrelevant to a statement on 'the incumbent gets the first chance to form a government' - the first negotiations were between the Conservatives and the Lib Dems. It was only after the first set of talks with the Conservatives that the Lib Dems opened talks with Labour. There isn't an established precedent for who gets the first chance to form a government.

 

 

Suedy, can you answer me a question please as you seem very clued up. If the tories have most seats and Cameron wants to go with a minority government then, as incumbent, rather than Coalition again, is that accepted first by The Queen's advisors? What if Labour, with less seats, could form a Coalition with 2 or 3 parties? Doesn't a chance of a majority govt. come before a possible minority one? This confuses me.

 

There isn't an established precedent. Or rather, there is, but it's one that will cause immediate outrage if it comes to pass in an even contest - it's down to the Queen to decide which government she has more confidence in.

There isn't an established precedent. Or rather, there is, but it's one that will cause immediate outrage if it comes to pass in an even contest - it's down to the Queen to decide which government she has more confidence in.

That's one of the consequences of not having a written constitution. Clearly, the queen's advisors would do everything possible to avoid getting her directly involved. In the circumstances Chris outlined, they would presumably try to persuade Cameron that the game was up.

Well, we do have a written constitution, it just isn't a specific document and the proscriptions aren't at all relevant to 21st century democratic multiparty politics.

That's because he couldn't though as they couldn't work out a deal with the Lib Dems. If they'd been able to he'd have had the chance of Coalition before Cameron. I believe the Lib Dems had talks with Lab our first.

 

Suedy, can you answer me a question please as you seem very clued up. If the tories have most seats and Cameron wants to go with a minority government then, as incumbent, rather than Coalition again, is that accepted first by The Queen's advisors? What if Labour, with less seats, could form a Coalition with 2 or 3 parties? Doesn't a chance of a majority govt. come before a possible minority one? This confuses me.

Cameron remains PM until he is unable to form a government. In the same way that Gordon Brown remained in No. 10 until the coalition was formed, Cameron would be entitled (duty-bound even) to remain in place until a government is formed. If he is at the head of that government, there is no need for him to see the queen. In theory, he could try to rule but, as I said above, I suspect he will be advised against that. If Miliband then forms a government and that administration falls, Cameron (or his successor) could still be given a chance to form a government without an election.

What's wrong with people getting rich, so long as they pay their taxes and don't screw over others in the bargain? Because that fits totally with the 'producers vs predators' speech he did three months later.

 

Because, frankly, it's close to impossible for someone to earn millions a year without screwing over their employees or their customers unethically in the process. There are very few people in the world who have that level of "God-given" talent or work ethic to make that level of money solely on their own.

 

I'm not saying there should be some kind of legal cap on salaries, because that would be impractical as anything, but any vaguely progressive politician (let alone a socialist) should atleast be trying to make it socially unacceptable to claim squillions a year in salary with scant regard paid to their employees or the wider society that have put those people in position to make that kind of money in the first place.

Edited March 17, 201510 yr by Danny

I'm not saying there should be some kind of legal cap on salaries, because that would be impractical as anything, but any vaguely progressive politician (let alone a socialist) should atleast be trying to make it socially unacceptable to claim squillions a year in salary with scant regard paid to their employees or the wider society that have put those people in position to make that kind of money in the first place.

What do you think the producers vs predators speech was about? Or, hell, half of Ed Miliband's leadership? He can't really have been said to not have been trying to make it socially unacceptable to get rich without paying regard to employees or wider society - the Sportsdirect and Boots attacks would never have happened had he not been trying to do that.