Miliband;”No Labour – SNP Agreement” – HOW?

[Isitmebut]

Mr Miliband is being tricksy here, especially as he states that ‘he’d refuse to be Prime Minister’ rather than have A (or any) formal agreement with the SNP’ - as firstly, their policies for years and current manifesto’s offer the same direction of travel, and secondly, the combination of the two opposing the Conservative’s in Westminster ENSURES the Conservatives can not form a government, with Cameron, or anyone else as Prime Minister.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/nicola-sturgeon-says-the-snp-would-prop-up-a-labour-government-even-if-the-tories-had-a-40seat-lead-10200407.html

We can look at the Westminster math in a moment, but;

• When Labour/Miliband proposed legislation to slow UK budget deficit/National Debt reduction, would the SNP agree? YES.

• When Labour/Miliband proposed legislation for more government borrowing to ‘invest’ in unspecified government projects when we currently have £1.5 trillion of national Debt, would the SNP agree? YES.

• When Labour/Miliband proposes tax rises on any asset/wealth as the ideological tax rises currently proposed could cost, rather than raise tax receipts when we currently have an £87 billion annual overspend, would the SNP agree? YES.

• When Labour/Miliband guarantees that UK citizens have no democratic right to an EU Referendum, no matter what happens, or the costs, of a continually stagnant Europe looking for higher UK contributions and bringing in ever more EU citizens looking for work, would the SNP agree? YES.

• When Labour/Miliband proposes numerous £££ ‘incentives’ to Scotland on his own initiative in order for them to vote for Labour again in 2020, would the SNP agree? YES.

In fact the SNP Ms Sturgeon via her new deputy in Westminster Mr Salmond, has stated that through her experience in Scotland when in opposition, the SNP could exact a price - for every legislative SNP block vote supporting the main Westminster party in government, which can ONLY BE Labour, as she refuses to support any Conservative legislation.

The math is simple, explained better in the OP of the link below, but as there are 650 Westminster parliamentary seats, if neither Mr Cameron or Mr Miliband who have no current chance of a majority and are still on course for around 277 MP’s each – the SNP with its current 55 seats plus, will not just control the UK parliament, but will only support a Labour government.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/2360007-Conservative-UKIP-Coalition-EU-Referendum-HOW

So the Amazing Mr Ed lips moving saying ‘there will not be A agreement with the SNP’, is trying to make a horses arse out of all of us, as there will be NUMEROUS agreements with the SNP – and all can be done on a nod, or wink of an eye.

ginmakesitallok .... re your "You're not seriously telling me that the Tories give a fuck about anywhere apart from southern England?"

Thats not true is it, you must be listening to Miliband who would like us to believe all government policies including High Speed 2 (HS2), every policy to encourage private sector investment, and every job over the past 5-years IS IN (OR FOR) THE SOUTH EAST- which the facts show is rollocks.

Labour's idea of regional growth was lose a million Manufacturing jobs 2-years before the crash began and hire loads of expensive government officials we didn't need in 1997 to replace them, spraying them around the county as Ballsian 'growf'.

Like it or not, Cameron/Osborne has done a lot of work in just 5-years putting in place policies for a Northern Powerhouse, that Labour never attempted.

Growth map of the UK: How the North West is catching up with London despite capital's economy growing 3.7% in a year

www.dailymail.co.uk/money/markets/article-2956127/North-West-s-growth-catching-London-capital-s-production-output-grows-3-7-12-months.html

Clearly you have been 'bought' by SNP Sturgeon's recent offer to INVEST Scottish money in the North of England, no doubt using the EXTRA money they get from England via the Barnett Formula - now THAT is what I call taking the P one s.

JackSkellington … re your ” "Stay part of the UK, but make sure your parties don't have too big a say!" is basically the message here, which is sad.”

Does anyone remember it was the Conservatives in government who ALLOWED Scotland to have a Referendum?

Does anyone remember, as Ms Sturgeon does, that in the past it was with Conservatives working with the SNP in Scotland, that got through legislation the ‘oppose everything’ Labour Party used to block?

Then HOW can the hell can any person in Scotland, or anywhere else, say that a SNP stating as policy, that they will NOT support _a democratically elected Conservative Party in Westminster, EVEN if they have a 40 seat advantage over Labour – as being democratic, or even ‘kin ‘British’?

Scotland want it all there own way, so to whine about the ‘democratic process’, when so one way, is again is taking the p one s out of England.

One day Scotland may remember that Labour/socialism has not left the UK economy in better shape than they found it, for over 70-years I believe - so they should be somewhat more appreciative to the 'captain sensible' party who gets the economy back on track, only to see it pan-hole again once handed over.

'Progressive' policies only work if the economy works, as I can't see a case now e.g. Greece, or history, where when the economy gets mullahed, THE POOR get the better of it.

The fact that Scotland had to be 'allowed' a vote on whether it should be independent doesn't strike you as unfair ?

And again, you're pitting Scotland against England or vice versa - this election is being fought on party political agendas but it's oh so convenient to suggest otherwise and that it's on national agendas.

And when you start talking about an entire nation as whining you make your agenda perfectly clear.

As Blistory said, Scotland should be grateful that it was allowed a referendum? From parties which supposedly represent the entire UK on an equal basis?

FWIW I don't support Labour, would never vote for them and I would be kidding myself if I thought they had any socialist values left.

Blistory .... I quite resent that, as you imply that whatever Scotland does/wants, does not affect England, me, and mine - for decades to come, which is clear wrong.

And that if the majority of English people vote the Conservatives in as the largest party BECAUSE of their manifesto/budget deficit reduction plan versus the other parties - already against the electoral handicap of dodgy English boundary lines needing far more votes than Labour for a majority - that I have to accept it, as Scotland is somehow special?

P-lease.

What strikes me as unfair, was a pre independence vote Scotland relying on oil at $110 a barrel to pay most of the bills, and having seen it go below $50 a barrel less than a year later and would have killed any spending plans they had - STILL thinks they are better off outside the more diversified UK, and pushing to that agenda.

Before the vote Scotland were told they could never have the Pound and access to our government bond market to borrow, as there was a chance they'd borrow too much (and screw our bond credit rating) in all of our names.

Now we find they'll only support the weak patsy Miliband who will give them whatever they want to get back in with Scotland, including their demands for more and more borrowing (in all our names) for as yet unspecified 'investment' - on TOP of what Labour wants to borrow past 2020 on similar unspecified investments.

”SNP wants extra £180bn as price of Labour coalition”
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/snp-wants-extra-180bn-as-price-of-labour-coalition-10039863.html

"Alex Salmond: I will help write Ed Balls' first Budget"
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11488369/Alex-Salmond-I-will-help-write-Ed-Balls-first-Budget.html

"The former First Minister says he will threaten to sabotage the first Budget of a minority Labour government unless Mr Balls accepts SNP demands for billions of pounds more spending"

"Top economist warns Labour will borrow extra £170 billion"
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11341489/Top-economist-warns-Labour-will-borrow-extra-170-billion.html

"The Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned that Ed Miliband's public spending plans could leave the Treasury unable to intervene in the event of another banking crisis"

Clearly we were right NOT to trust an independent Scotland sharing our capital markets - but now using their Westminster power for their own agenda, they won't just screw themselves, with Labour they'll take the rest of us down with them.

JackSkellington ... who said Scotland should be grateful, what I said is that for a party whining about democracy, why not practice what they preach in Westminster, as they received in Holyrood??

For a party that may represent 4 million out of 60 odd million in the UK to say that they have no interest in working with the party giving the UK a recovery that the bottom wipes in Europe they so love can only DREAM of - saying only the larger bottom wipes who so screwed up over 13-years, has the right to govern the UK under them - belongs in a South American Republic, not here.

If it was the other way around, and the Conservatives screwed the UK economic pooch and not Labour, maybe they'd have a point, but to suggest they want 'more of the same' (probably without the business sector on board funding this farce as scale down investment) - is a disaster waiting to happen that WILL affect us all.

Stop bleating about the Scots having the audacity to vote.

If you want a government that deals with only English issues, ask for one.

The deficiency lies in the English not having their own government, not in the Scots, Northern Irish or Welsh having a democratic say in the UK one.

None of the MPs from Scotland, Wales or NI can impose anything on England unless a significant number of ENGLISH MPs also want it so please stop with the scaremongering and anti Scots drivel. English MPs, if they so wish, will be able to impose the storage of nuclear weapons, on Scotland for yet more years even if every single other nation in the UK voted against it. If all of Scotland votes to stay within the EU and all of England votes to leave - where the hell is Scotland holding the power or holding England to ransom ?

English MPs have power. They always have had, they always will do, no matter which political party is in power. It's one of the benefits of being the majority. For me, that results in my vote being of little political significance in a UK parliament but I accept that it's how democracy works.

Scotland get so much they can afford to give everyone free prescriptions and have no university fees. Those arent essentials so it indicates they have more money than they need

So it anyone seriously telling me that against democracy, a Labour Party borrowing £30-40 billion a year before the crash when they should have been paying National Debt off, together an SNP who would have crashed and burned Scotland in their FIRST year by £5 billion or so - should now be in charge of the UK borrowing taps of a few hundred £billion????

December 2014; “Oil rout would have wrecked an independent Scotland’s finances”

www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d97d49ce-877d-11e4-bc7c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3Mci5L4Nj

”Scotland’s North Sea revenues would have slumped to one fifth of Holyrood’s preferred forecasts in its first year of independence if Scots had voted Yes in September, according to an Office for Budget Responsibility simulation using current oil prices.”

”Had Scotland voted Yes to independence, it would now be looking at oil revenues of £1.25bn instead of £6.9bn in 2016-17 — its first year as a new country — while facing a deficit of close to 6 per cent of national income, compared with a UK forecast of 2.1 per cent.”

”Angus Armstrong, of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, said that in these circumstances, a newly independent country would struggle to issue debt in capital markets. “The volatility absolutely kills you. Having to raise an additional £5bn of debt just because the oil price drops in the past five months would have been very serious.”

“It is very hard to see how Scotland could have raised those levels of debts in year one of independence,” he added.”

Blistory .... re your two points;

"Stop bleating about the Scots having the audacity to vote."
Clearly that is NOT my point and clearly easier to deflect than answer why to the SNP, democracy in Holyrood and Westminster means different things.

"If you want a government that deals with only English issues, ask for one."
The Conservatives are offering what Miliband won't, a 'English votes for English issues' type legislation in the first 100 days if the largest/majority party, BUT WAIT, thanks to the SNP's Westminster version of democracy, they can't - as Del says, 'kel supris Rodney'.

You can keep insisting that this election is about England/Scotland whereas what appears to be offending you is the fact that firstly Labour may be able to gain power and that secondly they may have to make compromises with minority parties to do so.

Quite why you find the idea that the SNP may or may not contribute to a Labour government offensive is beyond me. They may equally contribute or not to a Conservative minority government.

I like the fact that coalition politics tends to moderate the extreme and allows for a wider range of views to have a say. The Scottish voting system for Holyrood was deliberately designed to make governing more accountable and collaborative. I'm sorry that you see that as denying your vote any power and further sorry that you insist on berating the Scots in a negative manner to make your point.

I assume that if Miliband gets a minority government and doesn't enter a coalition, he simply says to the SNP / Plaid / Greens / SDLP - "this is my policy - vote with it or with the Tories"

I don't actually think that will be too unstable - there are things like Trident where the Lib Dems and Tories will vote with Labour, and things where the smaller parties will.

It has the potential to be a more representative soft left / centrist government as every policy implemented will have to be debated on its merit everything voted on issue by issue.

Ha ha ha ha "soft left", with 1970's type Labour/Miliband State Controls and the trade unions and SNP wanting to write their first budget after the election - ya kill me.

None of those 'softies' understand that in a several hundred billion a year spending UK economy, you have to work with/encourage the private sector that pays all the those bills via tax receipts - before even starting to paying off our debt.

All want to 'borrow to invest' before we clear the current £87 billion a year government deficit/overspend (still nominally the largest in Europe/) in what, fatter government, where if they pay a new government manager £50k out of taxpayers money and get £20k back in tax, they think they have £20k to spend.

All don't seem to care before we spend splurge if we have the £403 billion of total National Debt we had in 1997, or the £1,500,000,000,000 (£1.5 trillion) now - as apparently their 'investment' will pay it off, but none of them know on what as just the interest on the loan can get close to what we currently spend on the NHS, by the end of the next parliament.

Trident is the only sticking point, hence no FORMAL agreement can be made.

Wait until the markets wake up to the so called soft left government, bond interest rates will rise, we will be on 'credit watch' before too long, and the Pound will pan-hole.

ALL made possible by the SNP, crowding out any chance of a Conservative government, even if the largest Westminster party.

Why don't we just do away with democracy and let 'the markets' decide which party should hold power?

ALL made possible by the SNP, crowding out any chance of a Conservative government

lol. Do you understand how democracy works?

Read the rest of the thread idiot, it was the SNP and posters on here whining that 'you wanted us to stay in the UK, but complain that democracy works two ways in two parliaments, both in our (Scotland's) favour'.

BTW the 'markets' will decide sooner or later, beit the capital markets pricing our debt and/or those businesses who decide to contract or leave the UK under 1970's style socialism, tax receipts shrink, so the UK heads for another Labour requested IMF financial bailout, as in 1976.

What a shame we'd have wasted 5-years, as whether now or 5-years time when we have £2 tril of debt, there will need more cuts, more shit to sort, for those that were not even at work or could vote in the 2000's.

'you wanted us to stay in the UK, but complain that democracy works two ways in two parliaments, both in our (Scotland's) favour'.

Yes - and?

BTW the 'markets' will decide sooner or later, beit the capital markets pricing our debt and/or those businesses who decide to contract or leave the UK under 1970's style socialism, tax receipts shrink, so the UK heads for another Labour requested IMF financial bailout, as in 1976.

That's hysterical. Neo-liberalism-lite in the form of the Labour party winning isn't going destroy Capitalism in the UK. Businesses will always complain they're not getting enough. If we always listened to businesses, we'd have no minimum wage, no corporate tax, not 40-hour work week, and in fact, no workers rights whatsoever.

What a shame we'd have wasted 5-years, as whether now or 5-years time when we have £2 tril of debt, there will need more cuts, more shit to sort, for those that were not even at work or could vote in the 2000's.

We've wasted 5 years with the Tories, with the longest peacetime recovery and longest drop in living standards for 200 years.

Austerity has wrecked havoc with people's lives.

Neo shmio Blah blah blah...Sterling even fell last Friday, and if you don't understand the price of risk goes up, the larger the figure and ability to repay that debt, I wouldn't comment if I was you - ask Greece paying around 11% the last time I looked.

"Austerity has wrecked havoc with people's lives"

In 2010 Labour said that they "will halve the UK deficit".

In 2015 The Coalition has halved the UK deficit.

I guess the difference is Labour were too cowardly to take any cuts/spending/new taxes decisions to achieve that by 2010 to limit their electoral damage, whereas the grown up politicians had to - but socialist make a career out of blaming the Conservatives for everything.

If a government has a £10 billion deficit and cuts £20 billion, its 'austerity'.

If they are spending £157 billion too much, with most of it on a fat inefficient state taking over 53% of national output - its good housekeeping.

As Westminster has 650 M.P.s.

As either the Conservatives or Labour needs around 325 seats for a majority.

As both the Conservatives and Labour are polling around 280 seats each.

As the SNP who will only work with Labour whether the Labour Party is the largest party or not - are polling 53 or more seats, out of the 59 Scottish WEstminster seats.

Labour....280 seats
SNP.........53 seats.
Total... 333 seats at least.

Now do the math again and see while Miliband is lying about any 'deals' until his majority over the Conservatives are confirmed giving him Westminster legitimacy, so if 50 odd million English voters don't want to be ruled by the whims of 4 million mainly nationalists hoping to split up the UK from Scotland - don't make Labour who unbalanced/wrecked our economy, the largest party.

As a little Englander, I don't read the SNP Manifesto, but as I keep hearing "we will borrow to invest and provide growth", as 'we' will all be paying it off, shouldn't we all know on WHAT it will be spend - or did I miss that election memo?

I should have been more concerned as before the Independence vote, when we told Salmond that he couldn't have the Pound and Government Gilt market to borrow, he threw a hissy fit and said 'we'll we won't pay back our share of the UK national debt'.

So thinking about this further, I have a theory.

Scotland I believe would have a £2.5 bil to £5 bil revenue from North Sea oil, depending on whether $55 a barrel or $110, but as we know there will be less oil as time goes on.

So is Scotland looking to be the 'Dubai of the North' and needing to 'borrow to invest' in alternate revenue sources AWAY from oil, for the day the North Sea runs dry dry - as an independent Scotland without oil, can't survive on Scotch Whiskey alone.

Or piss it away and invest in fat government 'growf' as Labour did?

Either way, if borrowing in OUR name on the cheque account, it would be nice to know.