Iain Duncan Smith resigns

[Butts]

Not really, you have to remember the size of parties bares no relation to the number of votes they had.

If every SNP voter had voted Labour, we'd still have a Tory slim majority government with 329 seats, (288 Lab), is.e no change from now
If every UKIP voter had voted Labour, we'd have a Labour minority government with 299 seats (Tory 267)
If every UKIP voter had voted Tory, we'd have a massive Tory majority government (402 seats vs 165 Labour)
If every Green had voted Labour we'd have a Tory minority government (320 seats, vs 244 Labour)

But for all practial purposes the votes are largely irrelevant unlike the number of seats awarded to each party.

The SNP are an effective brake on more extreme Conservative measures, for parliamentary purposes UKIP, Greens, Plaid Cymru and even the Liberal Democrats are a mere blip on the richter scale.

 

[miami]

But for all practial purposes the votes are largely irrelevant unlike the number of seats awarded to each party.

The SNP are an effective brake on more extreme Conservative measures

How can you possibly say that?

That's what the Lib Dems were in 2010, because without lib dems voting for a measure it didn't get past (unless Labour supported the measure).

However now, if the conversatives decide to pass a measure, it gets passed. If enough rebel it doesn't.

However none of that relates to how people will vote in 2020.

There are 4 groups of people who will significantly change the result from what we got in 2015.

1) People who voted Tory last time but won't again due to the way they've managed the country
2) People who voted Labour last time but won't because of Corbyn
3) People who didn't vote Lib Dems to "Punish" them, who return to voting libdems
4) People who voted UKIP last time who will vote someone else next time as UKIP won't have a purpose

Of those I think 4 will be the largest group (it's nearly 4 million voters - 30% of those that voted Tory - and spread across the country)

My figures show how much the UKIP voters can swing it towards Tory or towards a Labour-led Coalition next time there's a vote.

 

[St Rollox]

Paul, i noticed you don't mention Scotland.

 

[miami]

Paul, i noticed you don't mention Scotland.

I'm talking about the Westminster government passing laws for the entire UK. Scotland is irrelevant in the makeup of this government - if everyone who voted SNP had voted Labour, The Conservatives would still have had a majority government - losing just 1 seat off their present total.

 

[Butts]

I'm talking about the Westminster government passing laws for the entire UK. Scotland is irrelevant in the makeup of this government - if everyone who voted SNP had voted Labour, The Conservatives would still have had a majority government - losing just 1 seat off their present total.

Oh dear a recruiting post for the SNP !!!

If Labour had retained it's seats in Scotland I don't think Jeremy Corbyn would have become leader of the Party. Also Trident would not have been under such a threat as the SNP are anti-nuclear deterrent.

So I beg to differ

 

[miami]

Oh dear a recruiting post for the SNP !!!

If Labour had retained it's seats in Scotland I don't think Jeremy Corbyn would have become leader of the Party.

If Labour had won every seat in Scotland, they would still be in opposition, the Tories would have had 1 less* seat and still have a majority government.

As I understand it Labour party members voted in a massive number to appoint Corbyn. Why would they have voted differently if Labour failed to win Scotland?

Also Trident would not have been under such a threat as the SNP are anti-nuclear deterrent.

So I beg to differ

Trident isn't under threat unless the majority of MPs in the hosues of westminster vote against it. With the current makeup of the house that means the Tory part would hvae to rebel. And Labour would have to also support scrapping it en-mass. Neither seems likely.

However that's all irelevent. The changing votes in Scotland in 2020 will not have any affect on the makeup of Westminster.

Oh yes, forgot about boundry changes, which will almost guarentee a Conservative win in 2020, baring a major split post-referendum.






* PS. I would say "3 fewer seats" or "5 fewer seats", however "1 fewer seat" doesn't sound right. Is this grammatically correct?

 

[dcsprior]

Oh dear a recruiting post for the SNP !!!

If Labour had retained it's seats in Scotland I don't think Jeremy Corbyn would have become leader of the Party. Also Trident would not have been under such a threat as the SNP are anti-nuclear deterrent.

If Labour had won every seat in Scotland, they would still be in opposition, the Tories would have had 1 less* seat and still have a majority government.

As I understand it Labour party members voted in a massive number to appoint Corbyn. Why would they have voted differently if Labour failed to win Scotland?

In Scotland, Labour were comprehensively beaten by a Party who at least present themselves as being to their left; whereas in England & Wales, their share of the vote held up when the three biggest competing parties are to their right. It's not unreasonable to expect this helped the most left-wing of their leadership contenders.

The UKIP support won't be there in 2020 (or sooner if the tory party falls apart), regardless of the referendum result.

That would seem logical, but I said the same thing about the SNP (despite supporting them) before the independence referendum in September 2014.

 

[Senex]

Oh yes, forgot about boundry changes, which will almost guarentee a Conservative win in 2020, baring a major split post-referendum.

Will the referendum actually close the question, unless there's a huge majority on one side or the other? If it ends up as something like 55/45 to stay, can you see UKIP and the Tory right wing accepting the decision, packing up, and going home? I can't -- I can just see the endless carping against Europe and all its deeds carrying on as before and Britain continuing to be a thoroughly bad member of the club. If on the other hand it's 55/45 to go, will the Euro-enthusiasts just lie down and accept that, or will they fight on (in which case UKIP might well live on to keep up its Little Britain argument)?

* PS. I would say "3 fewer seats" or "5 fewer seats", however "1 fewer seat" doesn't sound right. Is this grammatically correct?

The tradition "rule" would indeed give "1 fewer seat" -- "fewer" for countables and "less" for non-countables.