Politics Thread!

[merman]

If he thinks “backstabbing” and “backstairs deal” are especially nasty he’s not been in politics for long.

The “backstairs deal” thing is actually more interesting, as it points to perhaps their biggest problem, the SNP. It looks like the only workable coalition will be Labour + SNP, as both have ruled out working with the Tories, and they are the parties likely to get the most seats by a wide margin. And in theory they are ideologically very close, both being on the left of British politics.

But the coalition could be very bad for Labour. It could be dragged decisively to the left, which would be cheered by some backbenchers but be very bad for it electorally. Or even worse it could end up doing things to favour Scotland, such as even more generous funding or boondoggles like HS3, which would be disastrous for it in England and little help in Scotland where credit would go to the SNP.

The problem for the SNP is the opposite: they only win if they extract concessions from Labour, whether economic ones such as ending austerity or goodies for Scotland. They will have only a fraction of Labour’s seats, a small percentage of votes (they should come fifth nationally – they will only get so many seats as their votes are highly concentrated) and so no mandate to get what they want. But if Labour don’t get an overall majority they will be able to block them until they get what they want.

Michael Fallon said that Ed Miliband would stab the country in the back. How is that anything but an unnecessary and uncalled for comment? WHERE IS HIS EVIDENCE, when Ed has repeatedly said he is in favour of retaining Trident?

And yet again the Tories are saying "Labour Coalition bad" when they will not rule out a deal with UKIP, the Ulster Unionists or other parties if they fail to win an outright majority (again).

Cameron spent last August saying "better together" and now he says "oh, you Scottish people can't have any influence on politics that affect the whole country".

And if a Labour-SNP coalition bought in anti-austerity and socialist policies, that can only be a good thing compared to the Tories privatising everything in sight and demolishing the state.

[pogo]

Michael Fallon said that Ed Miliband would stab the country in the back. How is that anything but an unnecessary and uncalled for comment? WHERE IS HIS EVIDENCE, when Ed has repeatedly said he is in favour of retaining Trident?

The SNP have said Trident is a red line for them, implying they will only support Labour if they scrap it. But Labour say they will keep it. So no Labour-SNP coalition. And that’s likely the only coalition that will work.

The SNP will get at least double the number of seats of any other party, so will probably be able to make up the numbers for Labour, the Tories or both, but they’ve ruled out working with the Tories.

The Lib Dems are due to lose at least half their seats. They will do deals with anyone but results will have to fall in a narrow range for that to work; Labour or the Tories will have to come within a few seats of an overall majority. On current polls that looks very unlikely. Other parties will get even less, in low single figures. None look like good coalition partners anyway, being either too extremist or too narrowly focussed (except perhaps the Greens – I imagine they like the Lib Dems could work with anyone if asked, but they will be lucky to increase their seats from one).

So if Miliband rules out scrapping Trident, and the SNP insist on it, there can be no coalition. Absent some major surprise in the next four weeks we’re on course for a constitutional crisis, or at least a quick rerun of the election.

[pogo]

Almost as soon as I write that Nicola Sturgeon contradicts it (though to be fair she’s also contradicting what she said not long ago) and says Trident would not be a red line for supporting Labour.

Nicola Sturgeon says Trident conflict would not stop SNP backing other Labour policies

Which leaves the question what will be? She suggests they won’t go into coalition but will support Labour on a case by case basis, but that could be far worse. Economically they are well to the left of Labour, so without some agreement they could just veto everything Labour do to e.g. tackle the deficit, including any budget they come up with. But of course they want to do what [they think is] for Scotland. They won’t be able to do that by just supporting or not supporting Labour in votes. If not in coalition they will need to negotiate on a bill-by-bill basis, agreeing a budget in advance only if it includes generous provisions for Scotland, say.

Finally, why are they talking to Sturgeon? She’s not standing as an MP, so will play no part in any government or arrangement the SNP is part of. Salmond will surely be the SNP leader at Westminster. Is he seen as so unpopular that they dare not put him forward before the election?

[Ratsoap]

The SNP ruled out a coalition with Labour yonks ago.

What they said they will do is work with Labour to keep the Tories out. It's not quite the same thing.

[pogo]

The SNP ruled out a coalition with Labour yonks ago.

She’s a bit less certain in the Guardian interview:

It’s more likely to be an arrangement where we would support Labour on an issue-by-issue basis,

Formal coalition makes more sense for them as they are much more likely to achieve their goals. Much like the Lib Dems who got a referendum on PR, the thing that was most important to them. Problem is Labour will be very reluctant to give them anything they want. Labour can argue, quite correctly, that Labour are more than socialist enough for the British public. They don’t need dragging further left by the SNP. And they will be even less willing to do anything that especially benefits Scotland. And more generally the SNP have established themselves as a political force by running against Labour, for Holyrood and now for Westminster. It’s going to be hard for them to compromise with Labour when their whole platform is based on opposing Labour.

[gravy]

Formal coalition makes more sense for them as they are much more likely to achieve their goals.

What do you think their goals are?

Much like the Lib Dems who got a referendum on PR, the thing that was most important to them.

And it's fucked them electorally for a generation. Only an idiot would uss the LibDems as a template.

[Dio]

Much like the Lib Dems who got a referendum on PR, the thing that was most important to them.

They did? From where I was sitting they got a weak referendum, campaigned against by the government that they were part of, on AR which is no significant improvement on what we have now.

I'd have said they were right if they'd dug in and demanded as price a referendum on real PR that would be campaigned for by the government as a fairer system. But they didn't, they capitulated for a weak option, that they were always likely to lose.

[zip accident]

And it's fucked them electorally for a generation.

Supposing the Greens *don't* get their act into gear and make the change permanent.

[pogo]

Much like the Lib Dems who got a referendum on PR, the thing that was most important to them.

They did? From where I was sitting they got a weak referendum, campaigned against by the government that they were part of, on AR which is no significant improvement on what we have now.

I'd have said they were right if they'd dug in and demanded as price a referendum on real PR that would be campaigned for by the government as a fairer system. But they didn't, they capitulated for a weak option, that they were always likely to lose.

There’s no reason the Tories had to campaign for it. If they didn’t believe in it then they were right to oppose it. Are you saying they should have e.g. supported Scottish independence, even though they did not agree with it?

Individual Tories did support it, as did most other parties. It probably made little difference though, it was rejected by a wide margin. A more radical system would have fared even worse; the Lib Dems perhaps saw this as more likely to pass so the best way to get to a more proportional system, or at least one that would give them more chance of being in parliament again, with AV particularly helping elect centrist compromise candidates in otherwise close run constituencies.

[Dio]

I'm saying that the LD's argument going into the coalition should have been "It's clear that the current electoral system is not representative because it gives a minority of voters exaggerated value and the majority of voters almost no value at all. Therefore, it's obvious that it should be changed, and that the government - i.e. all the cabinet and the PM - will campaign for it".

That would have been a price worth paying for them. What they got, wasn't.

A more radical system would not have fared worse under such a system. It would probably have faired a lot better, with all the 'important' people going round saying what a good idea it was, not what a bad idea it was. I mean, I personally voted against AR as if it had been granted, it would have closed the question for a generation, and AR only really solves the question of tactical voting and doesn't address the much bigger issue for democracy that my vote is worth 1% of the value of a 'fair' vote and 0.01% the value of a vote in certain marginal constituencies. Devaluing the votes of the majority cannot possibly be good for democracy. I believe this country has the wit to produce a fairer voting system that can still somewhat de-emphasise crackpot minorities and still give people some link to their local MP.

[merman]

Voter apathy. That's the key for this election.

Good weather and we can kick the Tories out.
Bad weather and the people who don't bother condemn us to a Tory/UKIP/Unionist coalition that will screw us all over.

[gravy]

That sounds a lot like 'the 45'

[pogo]

A more radical system would not have fared worse under such a system. It would probably have faired a lot better, with all the 'important' people going round saying what a good idea it was, not what a bad idea it was.

I think a more radical proposal though would have attracted far more opposition, from those opposed to such radical change on principal and from those worried that it would lead to near permanent gridlock, as in e.g. Belgium, or much greater representation of extremists as seen in e.g. Israel. Hard to know for sure as we never had that vote, but the one we had rejected any change so completely that a change in question or even greater Tory support would probably made little difference.

It does perhaps though show the problem the junior party has in a coalition. Even if they get their top priorities adopted they can be watered down or opposed later by the larger party or parties in the coalition, and so get nothing of what they want. And the challenge for the SNP is even greater, as everything they want is likely to be strongly opposed by English and Welsh voters. Nothing in their platform is centrist, or for the benefit of the whole of the UK.

[offyoutoddle]

Voter apathy. That's the key for this election.

Good weather and we can kick the Tories out.
Bad weather and the people who don't bother condemn us to a Tory/UKIP/Unionist coalition that will screw us all over.

This is why I must resist my reluctance to vote this year. Thank you for reminding me of this.

[pogo]

Labour pledges huge fines on tax avoiders to raise £7.5bn a year

Clearly the details are important, as the danger with any tax measure is it could backfire, changing behaviour so the changes bring in less or even have a negative impact. So how exactly will they achieve this £7.5bn?

Shadow chancellor Ed Balls told the Observer that under Labour’s proposals the chancellor and the head of HM Revenue and Customs would both be summoned annually before parliament to explain how they were performing against the target to claw back the £7.5bn a year.

So no details; instead HMRC have to come up with something, and parliament gets to tell them off until they do.

The problem is £7.5bn is a lot of money, almost 10% of the deficit and far more than the “hundreds of millions” they think can raise from abolishing non-dom status. It will require very large fines. And there are many problems with that. Avoidance isn’t actually illegal (that’s tax evasion). Some will go to court to protest they are being fined for something that’s not illegal. Others will take steps to avoid being caught: it might turn some avoiders into evaders for example. Others will use limited liability of companies to avoid paying fines (setting up a company to avoid a fine might seem silly but we are talking about very large fines to raise £7.5bn from a small fraction of taxpayers), or change their domicile.

So most likely what they come up with eventually will raise a lot less, if anything at all, and they will again have to find some other source of revenue to fund their election promises. Another NI rise perhaps, to ensure they hit the largest number of taxpayers like last time.