Even *after* they've lost the referendum for secession?

Obviously I don't know remotely near what you guys know; but I've Googled a few Washington Post articles. Is the info in these articles pretty much aligned with what the British press have been saying?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/04/14/britain/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/a-new-political-order-in-scotland-threatens-to-upend-the-british-election/2015/04/14/3842ae1a-da10-11e4-bf0b-f648b95a6488_story.html

I would have thought any separatist political party losing a secession referendum would discredit it just a slight bit. But again, that's just my guess from where I sit 3,000 miles away.

Sassenach wrote:In terms of what you can do for your constituents, all MPs are more or less the same. Their position gives them influence with public authorities which they can exercise on their behalf through sticking their nose in and asking questions. MP correspondence is always given highest priority and where there's interest from an MP it usually serves to grease the wheels to make things happen (although not all the time of course). Beyond that, the opposition don't really have very much legislative power unless the Parliamentary arithmetic is very tight, as it may well end up being this year. That said though, Labour did manage to scupper us going to war in Syria during the current Parliament, which was a pretty significant achievement for an opposition. It relied on their being a lot of backbench opposition from within the Tories, but nevertheless it was in direct defiance of the wishes of the government.

In fact, that indirectly resulted in Obama calling off his own plans for war in Syria, so it was a pretty epic achievement really as it also interfered with American foreign policy. Quite how Ed Miliband has managed to come out of that with essentially no credit for it whatsoever is an enduring mystery of the age.

I don't know, I saw Nick Boles trying to give him 'credit' for it (along the lines of "Who would Putin want? the guy who stopped the Syrian intervention"). Ultimately, Miliband was doing what oppositions are supposed to do, which is to oppose unless there is a good reason not to (and I still don't believe it was compelling especially given post-intervention Libya). What made the difference was the Conservative rebels and lack of solid Lib Dem support.

For what it's worth though, right now I'm going to tentatively predict that the Tories will end up narrowly being the largest party, based on the presumption that we'll see a late swing back from UKIP. There's no real evidence of this happening yet, but I do think it probably will in the end. I'm calling a lead of about 2% in the popular vote but a virtual tie in seats, with the Tories having enough to be the largest party but not enough to form another coalition with the Lib Dems. We'll then see a constitutional crisis and an unholy mess will ensue...

Dan, care to make a prediction ?

Well, it may be the triumph of hope over experience, but...

I think in percentage terms it will be about level between the main two, any UKIP unwind will go back to both main parties (as seems to have happened over the past few months). The Lib Dems will get some Green votes back and hold in some odd places. Scotland will go SNP.

I think in terms of seats, it will also be fairly close, with Labour slightly ahead (about 275-80 against 260-65. Possible to form a coalition with the SNP, or a minority goverment with the LDs, but very unstable.

Either way, despite the FTPA, there will be a lot of pressure for an election within 12 months.

Jim - yes the SNP support has been boosted by the referendum defeat, which bucks trends the world over (and the last time it happened in Scotland). Why?

Well, basically, they howled like stuck pigs about how unfair it was. They pointed to promises made on behalf of the No campaign, and also to David Cameron's statement on the morning of the result that seemed to throw those promises away. And in particular, they blamed Labour - which is a bit odd, as Labour has always been a unionist party when it comes to Scotland, and always resisted nationalist moves in the past, going for devolution as a compromise to quash independence desires. But there is a reason - Labour politicians (Alistair Darling, Gordon Brown and Jim Murphy) were very active in the No campaign, and when it looked close, a few weeks before the vote, went all out to turn the tide.

At the moment, it is very odd, because it seems that the Tories are egging the SNP on, while also trying to scare us about the possibility they may hold the balance of power. The Sun newspaper is backing the SNP in its Scottish edition, but backing the Tories against the "nightmare" of a Labour-SNP outcome in its England & Wales edition.

Well, it may be the triumph of hope over experience, but...

I think in percentage terms it will be about level between the main two, any UKIP unwind will go back to both main parties (as seems to have happened over the past few months). The Lib Dems will get some Green votes back and hold in some odd places. Scotland will go SNP.

I think in terms of seats, it will also be fairly close, with Labour slightly ahead (about 275-80 against 260-65. Possible to form a coalition with the SNP, or a minority goverment with the LDs, but very unstable.

I think any break back from UKIP is liable to favour the Tories much more than Labour. UKIP is taking votes from Labour more in the northern strongholds where the only real damage it can do is to slightly reduce their commanding majorities. That's not so much the case for the Tories.

The other factor in all of this is how willing Labour voters will be to vote tactically for the Lib Dems this year. I saw a poll the other day which put the Tories ahead in 13 LD seats in the South West, largely thanks to a collapse in tactical voting. Whether it will play out like that remains to be seen of course, but if it does then it would put the Tories on 315 seats compared to last time. To then end up down at the 265 or so that you're predicting means that Labour will need to win a good 50 of the English and Welsh marginals. Not impossible by any means, but it would be a big ask.

It's all very fascinating either way. I've booked the Friday off work and plan to stay up deep into the night with a bottle of good whisky. I'm guessing you'll do the same...

Sassenach wrote:I think any break back from UKIP is liable to favour the Tories much more than Labour. UKIP is taking votes from Labour more in the northern strongholds where the only real damage it can do is to slightly reduce their commanding majorities. That's not so much the case for the Tories.

It's very hard to really tell. In marginal seats, I think UKIP have been picking support up from both. In my seat, I know they have been.

The other factor in all of this is how willing Labour voters will be to vote tactically for the Lib Dems this year. I saw a poll the other day which put the Tories ahead in 13 LD seats in the South West, largely thanks to a collapse in tactical voting. Whether it will play out like that remains to be seen of course, but if it does then it would put the Tories on 315 seats compared to last time. To then end up down at the 265 or so that you're predicting means that Labour will need to win a good 50 of the English and Welsh marginals. Not impossible by any means, but it would be a big ask.

If the polls are level, then that's a national swing of 3%. even ignoring the Scotland effect (which would see a swing from Lab-Con), it seems that marginals could swing more (Ashcroft's polling is not consistent on this, but there are some patterns).

It's all very fascinating either way. I've booked the Friday off work and plan to stay up deep into the night with a bottle of good whisky. I'm guessing you'll do the same...

Well, the night coincides with a family birthday I have to go to, and, well, I'm holding back on holidays at the moment because in 2-3 months I'm going to be a dad, so I will probably just stay up late and see how the early results look, and then check very early in the morning before I go to work.

Won't get much done when I get there, though.

sass

It's all very fascinating either way. I've booked the Friday off work and plan to stay up deep into the night with a bottle of good whisky. I'm guessing you'll do the same..

Do they report results from each riding on a cumulative basis?
Or is it that they only announce the riding results in a group announcement with all the candidates and the returning officer for the constituency on some porch somewhere?
Its a peculiarity of UK elections I noticed in watching returns for Scotland this announcement ceremony.

Each of them is announced locally. All the candidates get up on stage in some chilly community hall somewhere in the constituency and the returning officer reads out the tally. It means they all dribble in through the night because some seats manage to do the count quicker than others, so you slowly get a picture of how things are going. It makes for great drama when it's a tight election, and you get to watch scenes of utter devastation when big name MPs lose their seats (there should be plenty of that this year, Nick Clegg being one big possibility).

At the moment, it is very odd, because it seems that the Tories are egging the SNP on, while also trying to scare us about the possibility they may hold the balance of power. The Sun newspaper is backing the SNP in its Scottish edition, but backing the Tories against the "nightmare" of a Labour-SNP outcome in its England & Wales edition.

Sounds rather disingenuous.

Sassenach wrote:Each of them is announced locally. All the candidates get up on stage in some chilly community hall somewhere in the constituency and the returning officer reads out the tally. It means they all dribble in through the night because some seats manage to do the count quicker than others, so you slowly get a picture of how things are going. It makes for great drama when it's a tight election, and you get to watch scenes of utter devastation when big name MPs lose their seats (there should be plenty of that this year, Nick Clegg being one big possibility).

This sounds much like here. There is nothing as exciting sitting in the after party on election night watching the various returns come in on the tv when your side is winning. And nothing as depressing when your side is losing.

archduke

This sounds much like here

Its actually different if I understand what i watched...
They don't have numbers reported by poll and during the night.
They wait till all the polls are counted in a riding and then announce them.
When Sass says, "dribble in" he means completed riding results. Not partial results of ridings.
I don't know what they do at central headquarters as polls are counted. Drink I suppose.

That's exactly right, although they do also have exit polls and they can often figure out how things are going in individual seats because they have people monitoring the count and they get a rough idea of which way the vote is heading by the ballot papers that get placed into each pile.

What you have to bear in mind is that our constituencies are much smaller than your congressional districts.The average number of registered voters in each is about 80000, and obviously they don't all turn out to vote. This means that in the case of some small urban areas they can have the whole vote counted within a few hours of the polls closing. Most of the early announcing seats are safe Labour ones, but the percentages that they get give a good indicator of how things are likely to go nationally even if the actual outcome is never in doubt. As such there's always fascinating data to chew over even in the earliest hours of an election night. It makes for great TV for those of us like me who are political junkies. I always make sure to book the following day off work...

JimHackerMP wrote:

At the moment, it is very odd, because it seems that the Tories are egging the SNP on, while also trying to scare us about the possibility they may hold the balance of power. The Sun newspaper is backing the SNP in its Scottish edition, but backing the Tories against the "nightmare" of a Labour-SNP outcome in its England & Wales edition.

Sounds rather disingenuous.

Yes, it is. Not sure if it's working - the polls are not really moving after about two weeks of that stuff. The SNP are way ahead in Scotland, Con/Lab are tied on about 33-34% each nationally.

There's a lot to comment on, but none of it seems to be changing minds or votes. I already voted by post so I can't change my mind anyway :-)

sass

What you have to bear in mind is that our constituencies are much smaller than your congressional districts

I think the other thing that is different is that US elections tend to have ballots with perhaps dozens of electoral posts and or ballot initiatives.The counting is much more difficult.
In Canadian federal elections and UK, we count the results of one ballot. Its not difficult.
Unlike the UK, In Canada we get results reported as they come in... A poll captain, who has participated in the ballot count, calls in the results of each ballot box to his riding captain. The media gets these results, and the results posted at the riding electoral office and reports riding elections partially.
So we see the votes plus the number of polls reporting out of the total polls... And sometimes elections come down to waiting for a handful of polls in some remote corner of the nation.

You also have an advantage in UK of having an election in one time zone. We have 4 and a half. (Newfoundland). In the past, elections could be essentially over before those on the Pacific Coast have even voted.. Which could effect results...

And our biggest state is in the fourth time zone (out of 6). So that means the polls on the Left Coast close at 11pm Washington time. And even if it was close after the votes were counted in California, AK and HI are predictable; the former solid red, the latter solid blue, and only 7 electoral votes (and 3 congressmen) between them.

Ricky's right have you seen the average election ballot from the United States? We don't like to have to vote more than once within a year or so. Look at the low turnout in primaries...you get the idea.

This sounds much like here. There is nothing as exciting sitting in the after party on election night watching the various returns come in on the tv when your side is winning. And nothing as depressing when your side is losing.

Unless you are me, in which case (as it will be the night of November 8, 2016) you've got a bottle of whiskey in one hand, celebrating nothing more than the fact that the military isn't likely to seize power out of sheer pity.

Moving away from the abortion of a thread about Hillary... Dan said this and I thought it made more sense to reply here.

Mind you our pre-election stuff is also pretty depressing. The volume and increasing hysterical nature of "beware the danger of potential coalition partner X" rubbish is ridiculous. Especially with regard to the SNP - it is only making them stronger and risking the very split in the Union that the Tories said we had to avoid 7 months ago.

Yes, it's been a pretty dismal election all round really. The SNP scare is the only issue that's managed to gain any traction. Bit rich to start blaming Cameron and the Tories for all this though. The problem is entirely of Labour's making. They brought in devolution because they thought it would ensure that Scotland could remain a rotten borough for evermore, then proceeded to neglect the place for years and years until Scottish voters were disgusted with them and switched across to the SNP. Perhaps it is a little dangerous to be stoking English reaction to the prospect of a Labour/SNP government, but again, this wouldn't be an issue if Labour hadn't steadfastly refused to address the democratic deficit in England that resulted from their lop-sided devolution settlement.

There's nothing Nicola Sturgeon would like better than to put the squeeze on English taxpayers for 5 years to fund largesse north of the border. It's not in her interests to give a damn about any backlash this might cause because all of the damage would be done to Labour first and the relationship between England and Scotland second, both of which she wants to see harmed. It's legitimate to point out the risks of this during the election campaign. I agree that it makes for an unedifying spectacle, but let's not pretend that it's the Tories who are to blame. Any halfway competent Labour leader should have been romping this election given the collapse in the Lib Dem vote and the generally useless nature of the current PM and so wouldn't be needing to fall back on a toxic alliance with ugly nationalists to creep into power.

Sassenach wrote:Moving away from the abortion of a thread about Hillary... Dan said this and I thought it made more sense to reply here.

yeah, it does. That thread is dead to me.

Mind you our pre-election stuff is also pretty depressing. The volume and increasing hysterical nature of "beware the danger of potential coalition partner X" rubbish is ridiculous. Especially with regard to the SNP - it is only making them stronger and risking the very split in the Union that the Tories said we had to avoid 7 months ago.

Yes, it's been a pretty dismal election all round really. The SNP scare is the only issue that's managed to gain any traction.

Possibly - the polling is early yet even after two weeks of the same message, and with margin of error in terms of actual voting intention.

Bit rich to start blaming Cameron and the Tories for all this though. The problem is entirely of Labour's making.

Not partisan in any way at all?

They brought in devolution because they thought it would ensure that Scotland could remain a rotten borough for evermore, then proceeded to neglect the place for years and years until Scottish voters were disgusted with them and switched across to the SNP.

There was a lot more to it than that. We had in the 1980s, post- the previous referndum, a situation where Scotland was used as a testing ground for national policies, like the Poll Tax. What it meant was a majority was imposing upon the minority, and that started to increase the pressure for a measure of devolution, if not independence. It also resulted in the Tories losing a lot of support in Scotland (which had until the 70s been reasonably solid in a lot of places). Thus as the main opposition, Labour slipped into the vacuum (as the SNP at that stage were not very strong or popular).

Yes, I would agree that Scottish Labour has been complacent, and where it has a hegemony the usual issues have arised, and to an extent are due a reckoning. But no-one outside Labour or the SNP in Scotland has really put a compelling case to the Scots for an alternative. That is not the fault of those parties, is it?

Donald Dewar, however, was regarded by most as a man of principle, and it was he who led the push for devolution first within Labour in Scotland, then nationally, and then in government (remember that the West Lothian question was put by Labour MP Tam Dalyell). Devolution - moving towards a more federal structure, brings power closer to the people and away from Westminster, and most major democracies were far less centralised than the UK (apart from France, which has overtaken us since).

Northern Ireland was more pressing to devolve, as that's part of the solution to the violence. Wales had similar demands. It was the failure to get regional devolution in England apart from London that resulted in the lop-sided settlement (yet I do not see people posing the same problems about London MPs voting on things that only affect non-London places). But actually, it is very rare that the English MPs do not hold the sway anyway, and very few elections have swung on who won Scotland (indeed, two since WWII, and one of those helped the Tories).

The "danger" is largely theoretical, and plays into fear. I see you have fallen for it, but perhaps you were predisposed to distrust the Scots.

Perhaps it is a little dangerous to be stoking English reaction to the prospect of a Labour/SNP government, but again, this wouldn't be an issue if Labour hadn't steadfastly refused to address the democratic deficit in England that resulted from their lop-sided devolution settlement.

It's not just stoking English reaction, it is stoking Scottish feeling. Last year, it was vital that the Scots remain part of the Union, this year, they are dangerous and we can't by any means accept the democratic will of the Scots voters.

There's nothing Nicola Sturgeon would like better than to put the squeeze on English taxpayers for 5 years to fund largesse north of the border. It's not in her interests to give a damn about any backlash this might cause because all of the damage would be done to Labour first and the relationship between England and Scotland second, both of which she wants to see harmed.

She wants independence, not war.

It's legitimate to point out the risks of this during the election campaign. I agree that it makes for an unedifying spectacle, but let's not pretend that it's the Tories who are to blame.

It is legitimate to point out the issue. But that is not the same as continually labouring the point withe the press using sexist imagery of Sturgeon and increasingly hysterical terms. And it is not legitimate for the Conservatives to use Trident as a pawn - Fallon's recent statements suggest that he would not support a Labour vote on renewal of Trident, in order to show how dangerous it would be to allow the SNP to vote against it is rank hypocrisy and totally undermines his "national security" argument.

Any halfway competent Labour leader should have been romping this election given the collapse in the Lib Dem vote and the generally useless nature of the current PM and so wouldn't be needing to fall back on a toxic alliance with ugly nationalists to creep into power.

I don't believe this cant. Labour was associated with the 2008 crash and ensuing recession and deficit. The damage from that is still there and would be regardless of who the leader is. And the 'competence' of him is indeed a message that the Tories and their friends in the press have been spamming us with for years, so despite the fact that he is up for difficult debates and facing real people (while Cameron can't even abide the NHA Party at his local hustings, let alone agree to more than one face to face debate with opponents), and looking - well, not a superstar, but a lot better than we are being told he is.

Actually, a half-competent Tory leader would have won the 2010 election easily, and not allowed Clegg to get any leeway.

The Lib Dem vote has indeed collapsed, but of course the UKIP vote has increased. Nothing, of course, to do with the way the the Conservatives deal with their EU problem, of course!

And that is the thing that really undermines the Tory campaign against the SNP possibly working with Labour (which would only be Confidence & Supply anyway) - We have a Coalition government now, and we will likely have no majority on May 8th, so someone will have to work with someone else, and someone they've spent the last few weeks opposing.

And what if the Tories can only form a majority with the help of the DUP? They are not separatists, but they are a vocal interest group from one small part of the country, and would do as they did over Maastricht: demand a price for their support. Of course, the Tories seem to be spoiling that relationship as well, going by the DUP's statements recently.