Sturgeon warns Milliband............

[Filo]

....don't let Tories in!



Thats the headline today


Labour ought to be turning that around on her, if anyone lets the Tories in it will be her, failure to align with Labour will destroy the SNP in Scotland, the Scotish electorate will never forgive a leader that allows the Tories to continue!

[Sprotyrover]

I think She has only the one agenda and it isn't about cosying up to the English Labour Party.

[coventryrover]

I think she's great

PLus she wants to align with labour but Milibland, as shown last night, doesnt seem to want to cooperate when she asked would he work with the SNP to keep the tories out

[The Red Baron]

....don't let Tories in!



Thats the headline today


Labour ought to be turning that around on her, if anyone lets the Tories in it will be her, failure to align with Labour will destroy the SNP in Scotland, the Scotish electorate will never forgive a leader that allows the Tories to continue!

I understand what you're saying, but I can't see how the SNP can let the Tories in. In Scotland, barring one or two rural seats, you will either have a Labour or a SNP MP. Neither is going to support a minority Tory government. The only way the SNP could aid the Tories would be to field candidates outside Scotland, where they could split the anti-Tory vote.

And as BST has pointed out, although the SNP will no doubt make demands in return for supporting a minority Labour government, there are risks for them if they push matters to the point of bringing that government down. That is when they could face accusations of letting the Tories in.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Good chance the Tories could get 3 seats in Scotland though.  The snp won't ever help the Tories but still will labour.  She almost sounded desperate last night.  She'll help if him if he needs it.

The economic news today could help the Tories though.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Two things going on.

1) The SNP wouldn't be distraught if we have a Tory Govt next month it would help their narrative about the Basteid Sassenachs imposing a hateful regime on them.

2) If the Left doesn't have enough votes to take power and a coalition featuring the Tories DOES get in, the SNP want to be able to say "Well, WE didn't want that outcome. It's they basteid Labourites that let the Tories in.

The skilful, nasty bas**rds. They want the Tories in. And they want Labour to be blamed for it.

I've never in my whole life seen such an unprincipled lot of poetical street fighters as the SNP. It'd be deeply impressive if there weren't such high stakes.

[Donnywolf]

.... and of course after the "once in a lifetime / generation vote" as it was called last year rejecting Independence for Scotland the SNP then immediately went back into action to try to get another vote asap until they win

They really want the Tories to win I think. Cameron will then have to provide the electorate the promised vote on whether to stay in or leave the EU .... and at that point Scotland and specifically the SNP have got a route to another vote on Independence for them as the proposed exit from the EU would constitute the sort of "substantial issue" that they said would trigger another Independence vote

[BillyStubbsTears]

The LAST thing the SNP want is another independence vote any time soon. Not with the oil price collapse. They know that the scrutiny of their finances would be the death knell for their case.

What they want is to continue stoking the feeling of resentment in Scotland. They want to spin a story that they are being hamstrung by a devious combination of Lab and Con at Westminster. So that they can build up a head of steam for another vote as and when economic conditions are temporarily better.

I cannot find words to express my contempt for the SNP. They are trying to engineer a once in half a millennium change for their people, which is fine in principle. The people have the right to decide. But on something this big, there should be a moral and principled debate. The SNP have turned it into a gutter politics debate. They do not engage honestly with any of the substantive issue. You can do that to decide which party is in charge of running bin collection. You can't do that on the issue as big as independence.

[Filo]

The point I'm making is that Labour should be shouting out loud to the SNP and the Scotish electorate is conform with Labour or have more of the same, at the moment it's the SNP that are telling Labour to conform with them

[BillyStubbsTears]

Filo

Labour can't. They're in a tough spot. If Lab openly talks about collaborating with the SNP, the Tories will savage them in England.

Sturgeon knows this, so she's poking the open wound. She's baiting Labour, saying, "If you won't commit to working with us, we have to assume that you're considering a scenario where you work against us and that let's the Tories back in."

It's all b*llocks on all sides. But it's fascinating skilful and vicious politics.

[IC1967]

I think she's great

PLus she wants to align with labour but Milibland, as shown last night, doesnt seem to want to cooperate when she asked would he work with the SNP to keep the tories out

Excuse me. You need to listen to what he says more carefully. He said he won't form a formal coalition. Whenever he is pressed on this subject he always uses the word formal before the word coalition. He does this to fool people such as yourself into thinking he won't work with the SNP.

Let's get one thing crystal clear. Labour's only chance of wielding power is if they form an informal coalition with the SNP.

This is not what the vast majority of English voters want and he knows it. Luckily for him there are millions of people that fall for his spin. Cop yourself on man and realise you are listening to the most untrustworthy, duplicitous politician out there.

He is taking you and your kind for a mug and you are letting him get away with it.

[Glyn_Wigley]

I think she's great

PLus she wants to align with labour but Milibland, as shown last night, doesnt seem to want to cooperate when she asked would he work with the SNP to keep the tories out

Excuse me. You need to listen to what he says more carefully. He said he won't form a formal coalition. Whenever he is pressed on this subject he always uses the word formalbefore the word coalition. he does this to fool people such as yourself into thinking he won't work with the SNP.

Let's get one thing crystal clear. Labour's only chance of wielding power is if they form an informal coalition with the SNP.

This is not what the vast majority of English voters want and he knows it. Luckily for him there are millions of people that fall for his spin. Cop yourself on man and realise you are listening to the most untrustworthy. duplicitous politician out there.

He is taking you and your kind for a mug and you are letting him get away with it.

And you need to look up the definition of coalition. Either two parties have Cabinet positions in the same government (coalition) or they don't (not a coalition). The use of the word 'formal' is completely irrelevant, however you try to sideline everybody with whatever spin you dream up for it. My guess is that you'll somehow try and portray a minority Labour government as being some sort of coalition with the SNP, which will give me the biggest laugh of the day.

[IC1967]

I think she's great

PLus she wants to align with labour but Milibland, as shown last night, doesnt seem to want to cooperate when she asked would he work with the SNP to keep the tories out

Excuse me. You need to listen to what he says more carefully. He said he won't form a formal coalition. Whenever he is pressed on this subject he always uses the word formalbefore the word coalition. he does this to fool people such as yourself into thinking he won't work with the SNP.

Let's get one thing crystal clear. Labour's only chance of wielding power is if they form an informal coalition with the SNP.

This is not what the vast majority of English voters want and he knows it. Luckily for him there are millions of people that fall for his spin. Cop yourself on man and realise you are listening to the most untrustworthy. duplicitous politician out there.

He is taking you and your kind for a mug and you are letting him get away with it.

And you need to look up the definition of coalition. Either two parties have Cabinet positions in the same government (coalition) or they don't (not a coalition). The use of the word 'formal' is completely irrelevant, however you try to sideline everybody with whatever spin you dream up for it. My guess is that you'll somehow try and portray a minority Labour government as being some sort of coalition with the SNP, which will give me the biggest laugh of the day.

May I refer you to the Oxford Dictionary -

Definition of coalition in English:
noun
A temporary alliance for combined action, especially of political parties forming a government: a coalition between Liberals and Conservatives [mass noun]: they had a taste of government in coalition with the Social Democrats

I'd be grateful if you could show us where this term has now taken on the meaning you imply. If you can't (I fully expect you to be unable to) we'll just have to put it down to you providing another example of pedantry.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/coalition

You also need to tell David Cameron and the Guardian that they are not using the word correctly.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/17/david-cameron-labour-snp-coalition-of-chaos

[The Red Baron]

The point I'm making is that Labour should be shouting out loud to the SNP and the Scotish electorate is conform with Labour or have more of the same, at the moment it's the SNP that are telling Labour to conform with them

Trouble is, I doubt this approach would get much traction in Scotland at the moment. Labour is scarcely more popular than the Tories, and they need to woo Scots voters rather than using scare tactics.

Labour's unpopularity in Scotland is an odd one, because after all they created the Scottish Parliament and were on the winning side in the Referendum. I can only think that voters have bought into the SNP narrative that Labour is part of the Westminster Establishment.

[Donnywolf]

Does it not show the ludicrous voting system we endure ... and try to impress on others ... when the SNP fail to carry the (their) nation on Independence by (I am guessing about 55 - 45 %) and yet come a f****** General Election they look set to nearly clean up every Seat in the (their) land and p*** on Labours chips !

[IC1967]

Our voting system is ludicrous. The LibDems will get possibly more than 10 times as many MPs than UKIP with a far lower share of the vote.

It's only worth voting in a marginal. This disenfranchises most of the electorate.

[Donnywolf]

Our voting system is ludicrous. The LibDems will get possibly more than 10 times as many MPs than UKIP with a far lower share of the vote.

It's only worth voting in a marginal. This disenfranchises most of the electorate.

True .... its why Thatcher got in when only 42 out of a Hundred voted wanted the Conservatives as their Government and the other 58 out of a Hundred DID NOT want them to Govern

Result ? One of the biggest landslides in history

[The Red Baron]

We need a proper system of PR. Not the Alternative Vote fiasco that the Lib Dems were pushing until it was rejected in the referendum.

Yes, it would mean multi-member constituencies, but I don't see that as a bad thing. At the moment if you think your MP is an asshole then you are stuck with them, at least until the next election. With multi member constituencies you could choose which MP to approach if you wanted their assistance.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Does it not show the ludicrous voting system we endure ... and try to impress on others ... when the SNP fail to carry the (their) nation on Independence by (I am guessing about 55 - 45 %) and yet come a f****** General Election they look set to nearly clean up every Seat in the (their) land and p*** on Labours chips !

DW.

Aye. And the polls are suggesting that at the General Election, the Scottish vote will be SNP 40-45%, Everyone Else 55-60%.

Result in seats: SNP ~85-90%. Everyone Else 10-15%.

If we really are moving away from two-party politics, the voting system has to be changed within the next decade. It is an obscenely undemocratic system at the moment. For the SNP to get maybe 4% of the UK votes and get maybe 50 seats, and for UKIP to get say, 10-12% of the vote and pick up maybe 1-3 seats cannot be defended by anyone.

[colfromdonny]

I think we need the SNP to form some sort of alliance with the labour party. The labour party have signed up to the current tory spending plans so if tory or labour are in power austerity will go on, with the SNP allied to labour they may be able to curb the cuts that are going to come on a massive scale a little bit like the lib dems did with the tories, granted it was only a little , but at least they managed some drawing back on the tory plans with a little bit of their own plans allowed .

[Glyn_Wigley]

I think she's great

PLus she wants to align with labour but Milibland, as shown last night, doesnt seem to want to cooperate when she asked would he work with the SNP to keep the tories out

Excuse me. You need to listen to what he says more carefully. He said he won't form a formal coalition. Whenever he is pressed on this subject he always uses the word formalbefore the word coalition. he does this to fool people such as yourself into thinking he won't work with the SNP.

Let's get one thing crystal clear. Labour's only chance of wielding power is if they form an informal coalition with the SNP.

This is not what the vast majority of English voters want and he knows it. Luckily for him there are millions of people that fall for his spin. Cop yourself on man and realise you are listening to the most untrustworthy. duplicitous politician out there.

He is taking you and your kind for a mug and you are letting him get away with it.

And you need to look up the definition of coalition. Either two parties have Cabinet positions in the same government (coalition) or they don't (not a coalition). The use of the word 'formal' is completely irrelevant, however you try to sideline everybody with whatever spin you dream up for it. My guess is that you'll somehow try and portray a minority Labour government as being some sort of coalition with the SNP, which will give me the biggest laugh of the day.

May I refer you to the Oxford Dictionary -

Definition of coalition in English:
noun
A temporary alliance for combined action, especially of political parties forming a government: a coalition between Liberals and Conservatives [mass noun]: they had a taste of government in coalition with the Social Democrats

I'd be grateful if you could show us where this term has now taken on the meaning you imply. If you can't (I fully expect you to be unable to) we'll just have to put it down to you providing another example of pedantry.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/coalition

You also need to tell David Cameron and the Guardian that they are not using the word correctly.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/17/david-cameron-labour-snp-coalition-of-chaos

A minority Labour government propped up by the SNP is NOT a coalition, as the SNP would not be forming part of the government.

QED, Brainiac.

And of course Oily Dave and his mates are misusing it. They're preying on the fears those like you who don't know the true meaning of the word coalition.

So come on, you're the one who has pointed out the supposed importance of the word 'formal'. So what's the all-important difference between your definition of a 'formal' coalition and an 'informal' one. One that sticks to the definition of the word coalition as per your own sourced definition would be nice.

[IC1967]

Ffs! You wouldn't let it lie would you? Talk about being a pedant.

Look. The Guardian is hardly a friend of Dave. You have failed to produce a definition of coalition that means the word can only be used if Cabinet positions are part of the deal.

I'll spell it out for you in the vain hope you might get it this time.

An informal coalition is different to a formal coalition. A formal coalition may well have Cabinet positions as part of the deal but not necessarily so. An informal coalition may well have Cabinet positions as part of the deal but not necessarily so. Cabinet positions are neither here nor there. Just because the Tories gave the LibDems Cabinet positions this time hasn't changed the meaning of the word coalition!!!

Get it, got it, good.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Ffs! You wouldn't let it lie would you? Talk about being a pedant.

Look. The Guardian is hardly a friend of Dave. You have failed to produce a definition of coalition that means the word can only be used if Cabinet positions are part of the deal.

I'll spell it out for you in the vain hope you might get it this time.

An informal coalition is different to a formal coalition. A formal coalition may well have Cabinet positions as part of the deal but not necessarily so. An informal coalition may well have Cabinet positions as part of the deal but not necessarily so. Cabinet positions are neither here nor there. Just because the Tories gave the LibDems Cabinet positions this time hasn't changed the meaning of the word coalition!!!

Get it, got it, good.

And how exactly do two parties form a government (the definition of a coalition) if only one party has all the government positions?

You really are embarrassing yourself by your pathetic attempts at obfuscation.

[IC1967]

Ffs! You wouldn't let it lie would you? Talk about being a pedant.

Look. The Guardian is hardly a friend of Dave. You have failed to produce a definition of coalition that means the word can only be used if Cabinet positions are part of the deal.

I'll spell it out for you in the vain hope you might get it this time.

An informal coalition is different to a formal coalition. A formal coalition may well have Cabinet positions as part of the deal but not necessarily so. An informal coalition may well have Cabinet positions as part of the deal but not necessarily so. Cabinet positions are neither here nor there. Just because the Tories gave the LibDems Cabinet positions this time hasn't changed the meaning of the word coalition!!!

Get it, got it, good.

And how exactly do two parties form a government (the definition of a coalition) if only one party has all the government positions?

You really are embarrassing yourself by your pathetic attempts at obfuscation.

You take pedantry to a new level. It is perfectly possible for Labour to have an informal coalition with the SNP after the next election without any SNP ministers. How obvious is that?

Now get an abject apology sorted because your definition of coalition is one that you've made up yourself and has no relevance to the real world.

[hoolahoop]

Two things going on.

1) The SNP wouldn't be distraught if we have a Tory Govt next month it would help their narrative about the Basteid Sassenachs imposing a hateful regime on them.

2) If the Left doesn't have enough votes to take power and a coalition featuring the Tories DOES get in, the SNP want to be able to say "Well, WE didn't want that outcome. It's they basteid Labourites that let the Tories in.

The skilful, nasty b*****ds. They want the Tories in. And they want Labour to be blamed for it.

I've never in my whole life seen such an unprincipled lot of poetical street fighters as the SNP. It'd be deeply impressive if there weren't such high stakes.

I missed this post and how right you were and will be. The SNP let the Tories in with their rhetoric ; unfortunately the Labour party in Scotland couldn't respond to the challenge and of course the SNP won 56 seats with swings that I have never seen in my lifetime.
How the Labour party responds in Scotland is the question or if there is a break up of the Union then surely the Scottish parliament would need an effective opposition.

[hoolahoop]

We need a proper system of PR. Not the Alternative Vote fiasco that the Lib Dems were pushing until it was rejected in the referendum.

Yes, it would mean multi-member constituencies, but I don't see that as a bad thing. At the moment if you think your MP is an asshole then you are stuck with them, at least until the next election. With multi member constituencies you could choose which MP to approach if you wanted their assistance.

RB the Lib/Dems were forced to water down the form of PR to AV by the Tories don't you remember ?
Like anything else Labour never got behind it in Parliament as a step to a full PR system.
I'm sick of folk altering history to give the Lib/Dems another kicking. The opportunity was there but thrown away and it has led to this !

[BillyStubbsTears]

Two things going on.

1) The SNP wouldn't be distraught if we have a Tory Govt next month it would help their narrative about the Basteid Sassenachs imposing a hateful regime on them.

2) If the Left doesn't have enough votes to take power and a coalition featuring the Tories DOES get in, the SNP want to be able to say "Well, WE didn't want that outcome. It's they basteid Labourites that let the Tories in.

The skilful, nasty b*****ds. They want the Tories in. And they want Labour to be blamed for it.

I've never in my whole life seen such an unprincipled lot of poetical street fighters as the SNP. It'd be deeply impressive if there weren't such high stakes.

I missed this post and how right you were and will be. The SNP let the Tories in with their rhetoric ; unfortunately the Labour party in Scotland couldn't respond to the challenge and of course the SNP won 56 seats with swings that I have never seen in my lifetime.
How the Labour party responds in Scotland is the question or if there is a break up of the Union then surely the Scottish parliament would need an effective opposition.

Hoola

Best possible outcome for SNP. This is the outcome they have dreamed of.

Every single time that Sturgeon popped up and said, "we want to work with Labour" there was an underlying, unspoken second sentence. "I'm deliberately goading you folk in England who rightly think that Scotland gets an unfairly helpful deal off your backs; you listen hard to me, let me goad you, and then make damn sure you go out and vote AGAINST Labour."

The Tories, The Sun and The Mail hammered that message home explicitly. A pact between two morally bankrupt groups with nothing in common but a hatred of Labour.

That's politics. f**king hard and f**king dirty. What galls me is the poor thick f**kers in Scotland who have swallowed this as a principled stance. They have been played and they have another 5 years of a Tory Govt to show for it.

Because THAT is what the SNP always wanted. So they can spend the next 5 years saying, "Labour's gone. England is Tory. If you want shut of the Tories, you have no choice but independence." The SNP paint themselves as being on the side of the Scots. What they ACTUALLY are is on the side of Scottish Independence. Which is a different thing. But they are zealots. And like all nationalist zealots, they will f**k anyone over to get their outcome.

[BillyStubbsTears]

PS
Just as I pressed "POST" I heard Salmond on the radio.

Phase 2 of the "deceive the Scots" plan. He's said "After that result, the Scots have a right to be heard."

But they DON'T! And he knows that. The way Parliament works, with the Tories having a majority, the Scots, just like the people of South Yorks, can be totally ignored.

So Salmond is cranking up the enthusiastic expectations of the Scots, knowing that they will be disappointed. So that Phase 3 can come: the "No option but Independence" move.

Like I say, skilful, skilful politics. But utterly devoid of morals.

[RobTheRover]

The Sun had a big part to play.



Tell the English not to vote Labour or you will get the SNP, and tell the Scots to vote SNP.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Rob

And Salmond is on very good terms with Murdoch.

 http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/apr/25/alex-salmond-rupert-murdoch-ties

Just a coincidence, I'm sure...