If in doubt, INTERVENE….you know it makes sense

No leave things alone – the market always knows best. That’s why we’ve never had a banking crises or housing crises. In free market La La Land.

Except the root cause of the banking crisis lay in the deliberate distortions of interest rates, the pricing of risk and hen flooding the market artificially with liquidity. Odd definition of a free market, but full marks for the all-important “consistency”!

Housing market free….?!? No really.

Edit: keep it in bounds 😉

Hey I’m just repeating what we’re told about the virtues of the free market, if you are disputing it then direct your criticism at those who are proponents of it.

Thatcher had very strong views on housing (and banking) and the free market.

If you want to make a critique of her policies and where it all went wrong then feel free and go ahead. I won’t stop you.

Never a good idea to believe what your told Ernie, especially from politicians. Much better to look at the evidence and make your own mind up.

Could have sworn that you had mentioned that your poster girl had not cut government spending. Must have been mistaken. Your the resident expert on dear Maggie, so I will leave it you you. As is said before, Thatcherism was largely a myth. Sorry to prick the bubble though.

Labour oversaw the banking crises and rampant housing market having been in power for 10 years at the ports they occurred. The way to improve the availability of social housing is for the government to build more of it. This Laboir policy will be counterproductive, like their non-Dom policy which and Balls said will most likely mean less tax is collected the proposed rent control will cost the government, ie us, money as availability of rental properties to local authorities will shrink

Never a good idea to believe what your told Ernie, especially from politicians.

Thatcher was wrong? That’s going to come as a terrible shock to jambalaya.

Good for him for putting her back in her rightful place.

Which place is that then? As far as I can see nothing has changed for SNP, they’re hardly going to change their minds and support the Tories instead are they?

End of the day Labour know they need the SNP support but can’t say that publicly as that would undermine their candidancies in Scotland. Likewise they also know that they will have that support regardless so they can afford to act the big men. They have to keep up an act otherwise what’s the point?

Honestly, I think the outcome of all this will be determined by just how much the SNP are needed when the dust settles. If they are only short by a small margin then they could, in theory, rely on other minority parties on a vote by vote basis but if the SNP command a significant share of power then we may well see Ed eating his words.

Thatcher had strong views on many things, Tony Blair was smart enough to pick up on those which where successful and reposition the Labour Party in accordance and thus deliver 13 years of government.

SK – but he has made a commitment hasn’t he? 😉

Good job we don’t need to believe them!

While Mr Miliband had previously ruled out a Labour-SNP coalition, he had been more cautious on more informal deals. He told the BBC on Sunday, however: “No coalition, no tie-ins, I have said no deals; I have been clear about that?.?.?.?I am not doing deals with the Scottish National party.”

When asked whether this meant explicitly ruling out a confidence-and-supply agreement, he replied: “No deals”, and reiterated that in the event of a hung parliament, discussions with SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon were “not happening”.

Tuition fees anyone?

On a serious point, should the main parties be campaigning on their own policies or should they now be clear with the electorate and come clean on how they would approach forming coalitions and with whom? Otherwise, they make compromises for their expediency while ignoring the reasons why people voted for them. Clegg gets pilloried for this now, but this time it’s even more blatant as the odds on any outright majority are so slim.

Labour oversaw the banking and rampant housing market.

Even though they weren’t even in power in the early 1990s when the construction industry saw the the greatest turn around from profit to lose of any industry in British history, and the UK experienced the greatest repossession of homes ever as the result of a completely unsustainable housing bubble?

So previously we were blaming Labour for the global recession and international banking crises, now we’re blaming them for the worse collapse ever in the housing market which occurred under a Tory government.

Just as well that the Tories had nothing to do with anything, not even when they were in government, and are completely blameless, eh?

So she cannot then vote down a potential minority labour gov and Ed know it. Good for him for putting her back in her rightful place. The poker match goes on.

Except it’s perfectly possible for the SNP to vote against some of a Labour government’s bills without bringing down the government. It’s not all or nothing, the SNP doesn’t have to support a minority Labour government in everything.

Well check out dear Nicola’s views on legitimate government then Ben?

So if Labour get more seats than the Tories in the election but not an outright majority then Ed will stand by and allow the Tories and LibDems/Unionists/Ukip to form the government for the next 5 years rather than ally with the SNP (providing the numbers stack up)??

A Labour minority government without a formal SNP coalition coes not suit Alex Salmond as they can’t play the “nasty Tories we didn’t vote for” card nor can they get the additional devolved powers / another referendum they crave. The only party which was going to grant the Scots a binding referendum was the Tories as Labour have too much to lose (did and swill still do in the future). Labour are doing the right thing with the SNP by pointing out clearly that a vote for trim is not a transferable AV style vote for labour

THM can you stop the “Dear Nicola” line please? It looks rather sexist and dismissive. It also looks like the sort of thing people start doing when they’re worried….

I really hope the Tories are removed from power, utterly. In cahoots with their revolting press-buddies they’re setting the social progress and cohesion in this country back decades.

A Labour minority government without a formal SNP coalition coes not suit Alex Salmond

Alex Salmond is no longer leader of the SNP.

I had a bit of a chuckle at Milliband saying no deal with the SNP. He’s let himself be manipulated into political harikari by Tory pressure.

I was just imagining a scenario after the election where the Tories have more seats but Labour is close and could form a govt by making alliances.

Scenario 1: No deal, and Milliband lets the Tories in for another 5 years. I suspect English Labour voters would then gut the party like Scottish Labour voters have done up here. It would effectively be the end of Labour. The SNP use this as an excuse for a UDI. Meanwhile Milliband gets quickly replaced as party head.

Scenario 2: Nicola rings up Labour HQ. “Any of you guys want to be in govt? Come talk to us – but not Ed Milliband because he’s made his opinion clear.” I reckon there would be a stampede. Milliband has probably just killed his prospects of being the next Labour PM unless he does a humiliating U-turn.

bencooper – Member

Alex Salmond is no longer leader of the SNP.

Aw now, don’t stop Jambalaya from trying to scare the kids with the big bogeyman

THM can you stop the “Dear Nicola” line please?

He will probably change to it DN quite soon. Which of course will be as hysterically funny as his use of DO for Alex Salmond*.

*In case you don’t understand the joke DO stands for Deceitful One.

No joke there Ernie. Don’t you remember the independence debate? Hardly a straight line uttered throughout including the one that cost him the result.

Here.s the deal then stripes, I will trade ” dear” with “fiscal responsibility”. That seems fair. Is independence cohesive BTW?

Epic, do you actually think that Ed was telling the truth? Ditto the Tories with UKIP. Commeth the hours they will get into bed who whoever is required. Power is the ultimate objective.

teamhurtmore – Member
…Epic, do you actually think that Ed was telling the truth?…

No, that’s what amused me. Ms Sturgeon has a remarkable similarity to a certain UK lady politician of a few decades ago.

Charmingly unforgiving and tough as nails.

Refusing to deal with Milliband would be an excellent way of cracking the whip at the start of the relationship. There’s enough people in the Labour party willing to knife him in the back and crawl over hot coals for the chance of being PM for a tactic like that to work. All for the good of the party, of course. 🙂

If there hasn’t been some informal chats already, the Labour party contenders have changed their spots.

Let’s not forget Sturgeon has many years of experience at the top of her game.

No joke there Ernie. Don’t you remember the independence debate? Hardly a straight line uttered throughout including the one that cost him the result.

Yes I remember the independence debate and I agree that the SNP were less than honest, as they are now in this election promising opposition to austerity while maintaining the same levels of revenue collection as Labour and the Tories. I have repeatedly said that the SNP want to mix social democratic policies with neoliberal economic policies – at least Labour if you listen to what they are saying are no longer claiming to be social democrats (let alone God forbid socialists) they support Tory cuts and spending levels.

But firstly it doesn’t mean that Labour deserves support for fully embracing right-wing policies, the argument against austerity is the correct one imo and it needs to be backed up with the argument against neoliberal economic policies such as privatisation – use the wealth created by the nation to pay for the nation’s assets, for example. So on that basis if I was living in Scotland I would probably vote SNP as they represent half the battle won.

And secondly I can make my point without resorting to silly childish name taunting or tediously repeating a joke that if it was ever actually funny a year ago no longer is. Specially if at the same time I wanted to also make the point that everyone else is daft.

Epic, do you actually think that Ed was telling the truth? Ditto the Tories with UKIP.

So in the same post that you explain why you call Alex Salmond ‘Deceitful One’ you accuse Labour, the Tories, and UKIP, of all being deceitful. Yeah, good point well made 🙂

FACE PALM.

Amusing self pwn though

Yes, epic and she has experience of “legitimate” minority governments too!! Hmmmm…..

Good to see the HRMC pointing out a higher tax take with a lower MRT of tax and the fact that the rich are paying more in terms of tax. And under a Coaliton government. Who would have thought it? Half of tax coming from 3% of earners.

But firstly it doesn’t mean that Labour deserves support for fully embracing right-wing policies, the argument against austerity is the correct one imo and it needs to be backed up with the argument against neoliberal economic policies such as privatisation – use the wealth created by the nation to pay for the nation’s assets, for example. So on that basis if I was living in Scotland I would probably vote SNP as they represent half the battle won.

Welcome aboard! Now if that mindset could only migrate South.

Alex Salmond will be the leader of the SNP at Westminster. Sturgeon is head of the party and has a full time job as First Minister at Holyrood. Salmond is just keeping his head down following party strategy as he is electorial poison South of the border.

Just over a week to go

bencooper – Member

A Labour minority government without a formal SNP coalition coes not suit Alex Salmond

Alex Salmond is no longer leader of the SNP.
But he would in all probability be the leader of the SNP group at Westminster and so in charge of negotiations between Westminster parties from the SNP perspective. In all the talk about what NS says, it may have been forgotten she isn’t standing for Westminster. MPs will only make deals with MPs, so it is AS they’ll be dealing with. After the conduct of the referendum campaign, not sure how much appetite there will be for that in the Unionist parties.

Edit: Jambalaya got there first…

Ernie, always a mistake to take these folk at face value. Just read what the IFS said about the SNP so called end of austerity – no really. And as the FT noted today, they are smart at shifting the narrative away from a scrutiny of what they do since according to them, “there is a world of difference between Ms Sturgeon’s rhetoric and her party’s work in office….The SNP has not governed as progressively as she implies…”

What would Dr Watson be saying!

Salmond is just keeping his head down following party strategy as he is electorial poison South of the border.

Two points.
1. They have no candidates south of the Border so it has no bearing on them
2. You [ and the other unionist tories] keep telling us they want to be agent provocateurs within the Union so why would they not deploy him?

Incoherent argument

The Scottish National party’s spending plans imply the same cuts, if not more, than Labour’s plans over the next five years, the Institute for Fiscal Studies said on Thursday, highlighting a “considerable disconnect” between the nationalists’ rhetoric on austerity and their policies.

So should folk be voting labour to minimise the effects SNPs austerity plans? Honestly those RW SNP folk, they will be arguing for the removal of lenders of last resort next. Austrian school economics anyone!! Form an orderly queue after the fiscal responsibility line.

Perhaps they will hold the same hard line as the (not very LW) folk in Syriza who would never put austerity ahead of defending the people that voted them in. Pension pot, what pension pot? We are just borrowing your money to pay those nasty creditors back. Excuse us…..

Anyway back to minority governments and never doing deals with Tories, always worth checking what spots a leopard is wearing. From the Scottish government

Minority Government
After the 2007 election, the SNP won the most seats, but did not have an overall majority. They chose not to enter into a coalition with another party to give them an overall majority. Instead they formed a minority government. This meant that the other parties in the Parliament have more seats altogether than the SNP, and can vote against the government.

What have been some of the effects of a minority government?

The government is more likely to have to give concessions in order to pass their main policies – for example, in the 2009 budget the SNP conceded funding for town regeneration projects in return for the support of the ….(wait for it)……Conservative Party MSPs.

The ends justify the means….

I think its looking increasingly likely that when we go to vote in May, it won’t be for the last time this year.

It’ll just be interesting to see who’s leading the main parties when we get to go to the polls again. All the Tory contenders would probably be even more toxic than Dave outside their South Eastern Tory heartlands

For those saying Miliband has just committed harikiri, have a read of that guardian article. Labour’s best, and possibly only chance of forming a minority govt is to be the largest party. They don’t need a deal with the SNP to form a minority govt, they just need to have confidence that they won’t vote against them in a queen’s speech or budget vote, which I think we can all agree is very unlikely.

They don’t need a deal with the SNP to form a minority govt, they just need to have confidence that they won’t vote against them in a queen’s speech or budget vote, which I think we can all agree is very unlikely.

Admittedly I read your link quickly but I can’t see where that is mentioned, he mentions a minority Labour government “tacitly sustained by the SNP”.

Why is it “very unlikely” that the SNP would vote against them in a queen’s speech or budget vote ? What would the SNP have to lose ? How would a constitutional crises and a second snap election be detrimental to the SNP ? Why is it particularly in the SNP’s benefit to have a stable government in Westminster ? Do you think that a quick second general election would drive support away from the SNP, if so, what’s that based on ?

Sorry for all the questions but I don’t quite understand all this talk about how the SNP “must” support Labour in Westminster.

I am pretty certain I have read that trident,or a lack of, is going to be one of NS’s main demands to supporting the Labour Government. I can’t see how this is surmountable.

Labour’s best, and possibly only chance of forming a minority govt is to be the largest party

IMHO neither is true their best chance of being the govt is in a coalition with a working majority.

we can all agree is very unlikely

Nuclear weapons is a BIG issue here.
I agree with ernie re all this. THE SNP will not support the Tories this fact alone does not mean they MUST support Labour.

Re Binners point

Interestingly we could see all the leaders go

CMD if he does not get a majority/form the govt
Nigel if not an MP
Ed – well for being ed [ crosses fingers]
Nick – lose seat or party revolt as IMHO he is far more Tory than they are and they may stick in the knives when they get slaughtered in the election

Interesting times ahead.

ernie_lynch – Member
…Why is it particularly in the SNP’s benefit to have a stable government in Westminster ?..

If a Labour govt won’t cooperate, it’s not in the SNPs interests.

A refusal by Labour to cooperate would justify a vote of no confidence initiated by the SNP. Either the Tories would support Labour, thus proving to Scots they are one and the same party, just different colours or there would be another General Election. Either would probably just increase the SNP majority in Scotland.

At the moment judging by the mass media, Scots are being told that while we’re wanted in the Union, we’re not allowed to influence govt policy or have anything but tame sheep representation, and it’s becoming obvious to the dumbest voter that UK actually means England in Westminster speak.

JY, the strength of the SNP is affecting voting intentions South of the border no doubt about it in my mind. Both the Lib Dems and the tories are campaigning with this very much in mind

The SNP would vote with Labour on many things and both sides would just kick the can down the road on Trident for example.

As stated above SNP budget/manifesto and their actions whilst in power in Scotland have shown they are very much a party of “austerity” – not surprising as in reality there is little choice.

What’s happened to the Scottish Greens? In the independence aftermath it seemed they might become a force to be reckoned with.

THE SNP will not support the Tories this fact alone does not mean they MUST support Labour.

I actually think that unconditional support by the SNP for a minority Labour government could be hugely detrimental to the SNP.

All those Scottish former Labour voters will wonder why they abandoned Labour and switched to the SNP if the result is simply a guaranteed Labour government.

And if that’s the case they would probably be better off getting a Labour Party member to represent them in Westminster.

At least there would be a vague chance that Miliband might offer a Labour MP a sympathetic ear. If he’s in a good mood and feels generous.

All those Scottish former Labour voters will wonder why they abandoned Labour and switched to the SNP if the result is simply a guaranteed Labour government. And if that’s the case they would probably be better off getting a Labour Party member to represent them in Westminster.

But there can never be a majority SNP government. Surely the SNP are getting the votes as people hope they will be able to get more concessions/devolution from Westminster and to “teach the Labour a lesson” / protest vote. I don’t see the reason for voting for them otherwise. Holyrood yes but not the GE.