To not understand the scaremongering about Labour and the SNP?

[Kampeki]

I am genuinely struggling to understand.

If there is a minority Labour government, the SNP will presumably vote with that government in a lot of the more "left-wing" votes, with or without any deal. Raising the top rate of tax, for example, or introducing a mansion tax. It is my understanding that they support these policies anyway.

The SNP will presumably vote against the government on issues like the renewal of Trident. However, unless they choose to play a very dodgy political game, the Tories will surely vote with the government on such issues, so the SNP will be irrelevant.

What issues would fail to attract support from either side of the house, thereby forcing the Labour Party to enter into a potentially damaging deal with the SNP?

As someone said above, the idea of a Conservative government propped up by UKIP scares me more than a Labour government propped up by the SNP.

I guess concerns arise due to the fact that until 19 September (and beyond), the SNP was pushing as hard as it possibly could for Scotland to leave the UK and some elements of the party and its supporters were blaming the people of England for Scotland's ills. So it's clearly of concern that those elements could have a say in the affairs of England. (I'm not sure what the SNP thinks about Wales (under the English yoke?) and Northern Ireland (I've no clue so won't comment)). That said, if the SNP MPs want policies that will benefit the people of Scotland, it is likely that those policies will benefit the people in the rest of the UK as well. I don't think they'll make it a condition of coalition that there's another referendum for example.

As for Trident, Labour doesn't need the SNP vote as the Tories would vote in favour of it. Until recently I would have said that we didn't need it anymore but given Putin's recent antics, I don't know.

And if Labour tried to form a minority government they probably could garner enough support for much of it to get it through. The main issue is whether Ed Milliband is a strong enough leader to run a minority government. My gut says no, but I could be wrong. Labour might have enough seats to form a government with the Libdems in which case they wouldn't need the SNP anyway.

But: my gut is that we'll have more of the same - Tory/Libdem coalition - with a few more Tories and a few less Libdems. But who knows?

It will be a lot easier to run a minority government at Westminster now, since the fixed term parliaments act than it was in the 70s.

It seems labour are likely to win most seats so will be forming that minority government.

They will put their budgets and policies to the whole parliament who will vote for or against the, usually along the party whip.

Imo it will be a lot more democratic a system than the landslide governments esp of Blair & thatcher who could push through whatever they wanted to hell with the rest of parliament. We are meant to have parliamentary supremacy not government supremacy.

I don't understand how the Conservatives could be propped up by UKIP when they are only predicted to get 2 MPs at most or have I missed something?

The UKIP surge does seem to have dropped back in the polls over recent months loa but people do still worry about it. I haven't seen seat by seat polling, which might give a better indication of how well they will do (not sure how concentrated their support is, and fighting multiple seats in a general election is a lot different to fighting a high-profile by-election and chucking every resource you have at it).

There really hasn't been much change in the polls since the start of the year, let alone the start of the campaign. It's very small, inconclusive moves up and down in a narrow range.

It doesn't seem as if anyone is making headway. So a weak coalition, which may not make it through a full 5-year term seems pretty likely. So I wouldn't rule out another election in less than a year, and share of vote this time might be important for that.

2/3 of all MPs will have to vote to dissolve this parliament before the 5 years are up.

None of them are going to want to do it in under a year. For a start one of them will try to run a government so they will see how that goes first.

Even then no one will want another election unless they have a chance of having a different outcome, which I can't see happening without dc and em both being replaced- which will take months.

I agree with Jackie. Just because it might be possible to bring down a government, doesn't mean it will happen at the drop of a hat. Bringing down a government is a major thing to do, and I doubt any party would take that step unless they were reasonably sure what the outcome would be.

If for example, the Queen's speech is voted down, that Government cannot proceed; and if no-one else can form one, then there will have to be an election.

Fixing the term of Parliaments is meant to make it difficult to depart from that when there is a Government that can function (to prevent gaming the date). Not to lock the country into limbo when one cannot be formed.

If there were a 'no confidence' vote, then by convention disbanding of the Government is immediate, isn't it? The newer rules might mean that a further election isn't called immediately, but if no government can be formed then I don't see an alternative.

As someone who lives and works in Scotland (and in the public sector) I should point out that the SNP do not practise what they preach. My school budget has been cut year on year and we are losing teachers this year, meaning subjects are being lost. The NHS here has been cut. The SNP, far from being politically good at negotiating, are ruthless about quashing opposition in the Scottish Parliament. The committees there are not for scrutinising / oversight, but are simply to do the SNP's bidding. Their followers, much like some of UKIP's, have a kind of cultish way about them.

Be very careful what you wish for. The SNP has always been an alliance of right and left wing with a single issue driving them. Some SNP were, historically, very right wing (there is at least one ex-minister who advocated privatising the NHS). Salmond is to the right of Sturgeon (and they reputedly HATE each other). They will do whatever it takes to get independence. Remember, they brought down the government that led to the rise of Thatcher in 1979. Their economic policies are a massive joke but they don't care because they will do and say whatever it takes. Their main target is traditional Scottish Labour voters, so they are cloaking themselves in red and singing the song of the left.

Even if the Queen's speech is voted down, there still has to be a 2/3 no confidence vote doesn't there? I would expect all parties to be pragmatic in the drafting of the first post-election Queen's speech to be honest, whatever they are saying just now about aiming for a majority. And I would expect the party with the highest number of seats to be very quickly doing the analysis on whether they could secure the initial support to get a Queen's speech through before they attempted to form a government.

I don't know about anyone else but Im loving watching the Daily Mail shitting themslevs over the prospect of a Labour/SNP coalition.

Link here

ourscotland.myfreeforum.org/archive/salmond-causes-rival-to-change-

The SNP won't vote against a labour queens speech. (Even if they don't agree with all of it)

If they did that they'd be blamed for letting the Tories back in (1979 again). They won't make that mistake again.

Yes the SNP holyrood government have limited council over spending by capping the council tax. But it is then the council's responsibility to choose how to spend the money they do have. If you are unhappy with how your particular council is spending your money vote them out in 2017!

If I read it right, it's either a 2/3 'let's have the election at this other time' vote, or losing a 'no confidence' vote (unless the Commons votes again to reverse that).

I thought failing to pass the Queen's speech counted as a 'no confidence vote' (but might be utterly wrong about that). In which case there can be an election, unless someone else attempts to form a government from the existing composition of the House).

If no-one thinks they can form a government, then we'd have to do it all over again straight away.

This is not Braveheart. We are not all going to paint our faces blue and come screaming at you with bagpipes and spears. Chill out England.

Well that's a bloody disappointment. I was quite looking forward to some ham acting, pissing all over actual Scottish history and Mel Gibson's ultimate demise.

The vilification of Ed Miliband hasn't quite worked. Turns out the bacon sandwich and he had pre-marital sex angle isn't enough so they're trying to whip up some anti-Scots sentiment instead.

How they slice up the pie as a local council is less important than the fact that the pie is smaller (cuts - austerity). This results in less money for schools which is a cut. And, my local council does its very best with a shrinking pot. (SNP led, btw).

Freezing council tax is a tax freeze. The poorest don't pay council tax.

Also, look at the implementation of the Curriculum for Excellence.

Disaster for Scotland - disastrous for the UK.

Turns out the bacon sandwich and he had pre-marital sex angle isn't enough so they're trying to whip up some anti-Scots sentiment instead.

He he, yes, you're right! They've got 2 weeks; I wonder if they have any other slur campaigns up their sleeve? Did Ed Milliband once smoke a cigarette perhaps? Or cheat in a spelling test?

I think the Tory's tactics have been pretty unpleasant and underhand. I just don't trust a word David Cameron says.

It's a least as likely to be a Conservative govt propped up by Northern Irish MPs, as by all 2 of UKIP's MPs.

We've been there before often enough - John Major was handing out concessions to Ulster unionists over pit closures even before he became completely dependent on them in 1996-7. The Tories went into the last election in alliance with the Ulster Union Party, and are discussing pacts with Unionists for this election.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

I don't understand this squealing about how awful it is that a Scottish party should have influence in Parliament, and lack of similar comment about Northern Irish parties which have been at it for decades.

Also, look at the implementation of the Curriculum for Excellence.

Is it really any worse than what's been happening in Education in England under the Tories?

I like positive politics where parties talk about what they have to offer, clear and workable manifestos, ethics and an ethos. Something to hang your hat on. Sadly, what you actually find is that this close to the election, with little to actually offer in way of ideas, they try and win an election based on the denigration of their opposition. It works too. Leads to a country voting and living in a climate of fear. Wouldn't it be lovely if we could vote for something instead of being urged to desperately vote against something?

The council tax is highly regressive.

Poor pensioners pay it.

Poor working families pay it.

You don't have to be on full benefits to be poor!

But what you describe in your OP isn't a coalition - it's a minority Labour government.

A coalition would involve a formal agreement between the coalition partners, inevitably resulting in both parties compromising on some matters.

The risk of an SNP/Labour coalition is that some of the compromises agreed by Labour could be to the benefit of Scotland but the detriment of the rest of the UK. Retirement ages is one example.

The general election should be about the whole country.

Quite frankly the "give us your vote and we'll spend lots of money - yippee free ice creams, puppies and no work on a Friday for everyone!!" approach is terrifying. We are just getting back on track. Uncontrolled spending caused the problems of the past few years. Our debt is still astronomical and amazingly we are managing to pull ourselves out of it. If Labour wins the election I think we're in for a rocky ride. If Labour and the SNP join forces then the same applies with the added problem of obvious tensions and power struggles between the two. In the long run Labour cannot afford to lose so many voters to the SNP.

For those of you saying that 59 Scottish MPs can't out vote the rest of Parliament, might I remind you that tuition fees only came about because Scottish MPs voted for them safe in the knowledge it wouldn't apply in Scotland?