Politics Thread!

[pogo]

That's true but Cameron's achieved that by mostly keeping his head a pretty low press profile for a Prime Minister. I think that's a delibarate (and pretty good to be honest) strategy and probably motivatiob behind really not wanting to do the televised debates.

I don’t see that: he’s been as high profile a PM as many. Osbourne gets a lot of coverage but it’s nothing like the Blair-Brown days where the Treasury under Brown seemed almost as powerful as the PM. Cameron hasn’t been PM for long: less than five years. He also has not played a large role in any international diplomatic or other incident, like the Falklands or Iraq.

The Guardian are predicting a wipeout for Labour in Scotland:



And thinking on this it really could render the UK ungovernable. The closest parallel (though not very close) is the US. There through a combination of gerrymandering, self-sorting by race/age/income, and voter suppression methods the two parties don’t represent or compete for the same voters. This leads them to adopt extreme positions, to better appeal to their own core voters. For most there is little reason to compromise their position, to win a primary, or even a seat in the House of Representatives. Which means there is little need to compromise in government, little ground to do so on.

Scotland could end up with a similar problem, with MPs who have little or nothing in common with those from the rest of the UK and no need to compromise. They could turn every vote into a contest over another referendum, or nationalising North Sea oil, or whatever else the SNP wants as a reward for its support. Which means nothing gets done as neither Labour or the Conservatives will be willing to be dictated to by a party which represents less than 10% of the UK (and was supported by under half of them).

You need only look at the US where the Republican dominated House of Representatives turns every major piece of government into a battle over abolishing Obamacare, reversing Obama’s immigration reforms, or some other Republican priority that will be rejected or vetoed by the Senate or President. It’s rendered the country ungovernable, or at least almost nothing gets done by Congress.

[gravy]

That's true but Cameron's achieved that by mostly keeping his head a pretty low press profile for a Prime Minister. I think that's a delibarate (and pretty good to be honest) strategy and probably motivatiob behind really not wanting to do the televised debates.

I don’t see that: he’s been as high profile a PM as many. Osbourne gets a lot of coverage but it’s nothing like the Blair-Brown days where the Treasury under Brown seemed almost as powerful as the PM. Cameron hasn’t been PM for long: less than five years. He also has not played a large role in any international diplomatic or other incident, like the Falklands or Iraq.

We'll agree to disagree on that. Brown (probably for the wrong reasons) had far higher press profile.

The Guardian are predicting a wipeout for Labour in Scotland:



And thinking on this it really could render the UK ungovernable.

I think that's exactly what will happen in Scotland. So here's my prediction and rationale:

* Lib dem vote will collapse countrywide
* Labour fucked in Scotland to SNP's gain
* Cons get the single largest amount of seats but no majority
* No party will enter in a coalition with them (see lib dem cautionary tale)
* They'll for a government but won't get past the queen's speech vote

And then all mayhem breaks out

[zip accident]

That's true but Cameron's achieved that by mostly keeping his head a pretty low press profile for a Prime Minister. I think that's a delibarate (and pretty good to be honest) strategy and probably motivatiob behind really not wanting to do the televised debates.

I don’t see that: he’s been as high profile a PM as many. Osbourne gets a lot of coverage but it’s nothing like the Blair-Brown days where the Treasury under Brown seemed almost as powerful as the PM. Cameron hasn’t been PM for long: less than five years. He also has not played a large role in any international diplomatic or other incident, like the Falklands or Iraq.

The Guardian are predicting a wipeout for Labour in Scotland:



And thinking on this it really could render the UK ungovernable. The closest parallel (though not very close) is the US. There through a combination of gerrymandering, self-sorting by race/age/income, and voter suppression methods the two parties don’t represent or compete for the same voters. This leads them to adopt extreme positions, to better appeal to their own core voters. For most there is little reason to compromise their position, to win a primary, or even a seat in the House of Representatives. Which means there is little need to compromise in government, little ground to do so on.

Scotland could end up with a similar problem, with MPs who have little or nothing in common with those from the rest of the UK and no need to compromise. They could turn every vote into a contest over another referendum, or nationalising North Sea oil, or whatever else the SNP wants as a reward for its support. Which means nothing gets done as neither Labour or the Conservatives will be willing to be dictated to by a party which represents less than 10% of the UK (and was supported by under half of them).

You need only look at the US where the Republican dominated House of Representatives turns every major piece of government into a battle over abolishing Obamacare, reversing Obama’s immigration reforms, or some other Republican priority that will be rejected or vetoed by the Senate or President. It’s rendered the country ungovernable, or at least almost nothing gets done by Congress.

So what have the rest of us got to vote for? Forget the Tories, not happening, for me at least.

[pogo]

Mayhem is probably right. In theory we get another election but with SNP so secure in Scotland the result might be no different. What then ? Perhaps a grand Tory-Labour coalition. They agree on far more than they disagree, with all the other parties except perhaps the Lib Dems being more extreme or nationalist.

[gravy]

Mayhem is probably right. In theory we get another election but with SNP so secure in Scotland the result might be no different. What then ? Perhaps a grand Tory-Labour coalition. They agree on far more than they disagree, with all the other parties except perhaps the Lib Dems being more extreme or nationalist.

There's been governments before with no coaliation but a support agreement on passing the budget and votes of confidence. All other issues are on a case by case basis. I suspect Salmond, in particular, would fucking love being in a perpetual dealmaking role.

That could be an option: labour + SNP but not a formal coalition

All of these are based on the assumption that UKIP will just be a damp squib, if they're not the mayhem^2

[Dio]

Scotland could end up with a similar problem, with MPs who have little or nothing in common with those from the rest of the UK and no need to compromise. They could turn every vote into a contest over another referendum, or nationalising North Sea oil, or whatever else the SNP wants as a reward for its support. Which means nothing gets done as neither Labour or the Conservatives will be willing to be dictated to by a party which represents less than 10% of the UK (and was supported by under half of them).

You need only look at the US where the Republican dominated House of Representatives turns every major piece of government into a battle over abolishing Obamacare, reversing Obama’s immigration reforms, or some other Republican priority that will be rejected or vetoed by the Senate or President. It’s rendered the country ungovernable, or at least almost nothing gets done by Congress.

This is quite a sharp observation actually and one I hadn't really thought about before. Yes, that's going to make a big mess of things.

* Lib dem vote will collapse countrywide
* Labour fucked in Scotland to SNP's gain
* Cons get the single largest amount of seats but no majority
* No party will enter in a coalition with them (see lib dem cautionary tale)
* They'll for a government but won't get past the queen's speech vote

And then all mayhem breaks out

Yeah, this is also a possibility.

Two years of chaos, then conceding Scotland independence just so something can get done again?

[Dio]

Ha, actually, I just thought of the ultimate comedy conclusion to this: it's very possible that the two closest parties - at least in the big policies right now - are Labour and the Tories.

[gravy]

[venusian]

A bit of such mayhem won't go amiss. The biggest factor fucking up politics, IMHO, is blind tribalism. It would do them all good to learn to work with/against other groupings on a policy area by area basis.

[precious_pony]

I love Scotland. I really feel sad that Scotland wants to leave.

I think a lot of this comes down to people often forgetting about Scotland when referring to the UK. A lot of people use UK, when they mean England, and England when they mean UK. I'm not Scottish, but that really annoys me too. It must be annoying for Welsh and Northern Irish people too. I understand people from the north of Wales are fiercely protective of their language, moreso than people in the south of Wales. A sense of identity is so important. The SNP appeals to that. I love Scotland and I love Scottish people but the way that it stands right now, I can't see a way that the UK is going to be able to form a government without at least promising another referendum - the result of which will be clear.

[gravy]

I love Scotland. I really feel sad that Scotland wants to leave.

If only there was some sort of vote or something to find out what the people want!

[pogo]

There's been governments before with no coaliation but a support agreement on passing the budget and votes of confidence. All other issues are on a case by case basis. I suspect Salmond, in particular, would fucking love being in a perpetual dealmaking role.

He would love it; he could argue Scotland was good preparation with its PR system, before the SNP won enough seats to go it alone. The problem is as he’s already made clear his price for doing deals would be rewards for Scotland. Not just polices favouring them marginally but ones that are effectively large transfers to Scotland, such as extending HS2 to Scotland. But It would be political suicide for any UK party to sign up to such deals. Apart from seeming unfair in themselves hefty bribes for Scottish voters would mean even worse cuts, or higher taxes elsewhere.

In the face of that the Tories and Labour might feel they have no choice but to go into coalition. And their first order of business ? Forcing through some sort of constitutional reform to reduce the chance of it happening again. Maybe boundary changes to bring the number of Scottish MPs to more in line with the population, maybe moves to stop Scottish MPs vetoing English laws. Difficult but possible with political will.

[precious_pony]

There's been governments before with no coaliation but a support agreement on passing the budget and votes of confidence. All other issues are on a case by case basis. I suspect Salmond, in particular, would fucking love being in a perpetual dealmaking role.

He would love it; he could argue Scotland was good preparation with its PR system, before the SNP won enough seats to go it alone. The problem is as he’s already made clear his price for doing deals would be rewards for Scotland. Not just polices favouring them marginally but ones that are effectively large transfers to Scotland, such as extending HS2 to Scotland. But It would be political suicide for any UK party to sign up to such deals. Apart from seeming unfair in themselves hefty bribes for Scottish voters would mean even worse cuts, or higher taxes elsewhere.

In the face of that the Tories and Labour might feel they have no choice but to go into coalition. And their first order of business ? Forcing through some sort of constitutional reform to reduce the chance of it happening again. Maybe boundary changes to bring the number of Scottish MPs to more in line with the population, maybe moves to stop Scottish MPs vetoing English laws. Difficult but possible with political will.

Any attempt to take back power would be to play into the SNP's hands. Ultimately, we either abide by democratic principles or we don't. If Scots want out of the UK, then unfortunately, there is very little we can do about it. The swing to the SNP since the referendum is pretty much a vote of no confidence in the UK by Scottish voters. An unofficial do-over.

[pogo]

They don’t want out of the UK, or didn’t at the last referendum. And it would be a much harder ask now, not least as North Sea revenues that the SNP were (optimistically) hoping to plug the holes in the finances have largely collapsed with the oil price. The SNP vote is well short of the 50% they’d need to convert their support into a referendum win.

And it’s not taking back any powers from Scotland, just giving England the same powers as them. The right to decide things that have nothing to do with Scotland such as education in England, for example. The difficulty is such an “English parliament” would be so large as to dominate all matters, not just those under its remit, while there’s no interest in further devolution within the UK to create self-governing regions comparable in population to Scotland.

[zip accident]

If the Tory party had 70% of the vote, the party would swing to the right (losing some members and gaining others in the process) until they were barele electable, if Labour had 70% of the vote the party would swing to the left (losing members etc.) until they were barely electable, that's what the main political parties are, minor parties are largely single isse parties.