On another topic, I got a flyer through my letterbox with a manifesto for a party called Liberty GB which read like a less rational version of the BNP policies. Among other gems they want to cut migration to zero for five years. Not net migration - actual migration. Unsurprisingly they also want the UK out of the EU and the HRA, to “halt and turn back” the scourge of Islam, to stop the indoctrination of children in the school system (which I assume means “start indoctrinating them with our dogma”) and other similar insanities.
Since the immigration policy alone would destroy the economy and the NHS (not to mention the effect on the agricultural industry) I’m going to go out on a limb and say this is not the party for me.
Similarly, I got one from the Trade Union and Socialism party (TUSC - I forget what the C is for). They sound lovely. Their plan is to stop austerity, re-open all the libraries, build a shedload of houses, fund the NHS to whatever extent is needed… sounds great.
If can just overcome my niggling doubts about the affordability of all this, I will definitely be voting for them.
During last May’s elections for something or the other there was a flyer for NO2EU, a socialist anti-austerity party ( which they blamed on the EU weirdly enough ).
Despite the fact that when the Common Market was joined it was the Labour people who hated the thing ( ‘A Bankers’ Ramp !’ ) * and the Tories who dearly loved Brussels; I am assuming this is some kind of naive dupe operation going on — of the kind beloved back in the day by the soviets [ and of course equally the CIA ], who funded many an organization unconnected to their own ideals — run by Central Office to split the UKIP vote.
Labourites have long made their peace with the EU — partly because they discovered that Commissioners are quite well paid. As are Euro-MPs.
Liberty GB is essentially one guy called Paul Weston. He left UKIP, because they weren’t anti-muslim enough, to found the British Freedom Party. The BFP then allied with the English Defence League. He left that to found Liberty GB. His “party” is one of the ever-changing micro-factions of the far-right.
Trade Union and Socialist Coalition. Not really a far-left micro-faction, but an umbrella group for some of them. The union backing allows a decent amount of candidates to stand, and in GE2015 it’s enough that they will have a PPB.
Their basic position is that the EU is bad for worker’s rights - freedom of movement leads to reductions in pay and conditions across the board. It’s another umbrella group (with some of the same backers and participants as TUSC), but electorally more focussed on EU elections.
Lucky us - we’ve got Dr George Whale (also formerly of the BFP) running in our constituency. In a safe Labour seat where the LibDems placed second last time I’m not convinced he’s going to do terribly well. We’ve also got a TUSCer whom I know nothing about.
Ian Bone, anarchist and member of the Class War party, was running here as well but appears to have dropped off the ballot. I do like the party’s raison d’etre: they’re standing “because all other candidates are scum”.
He has said that he is unwilling to form a coalition with Labour if it is dependent on SNP for confidence and supply or negotiations through the usual channels.
This seems to suggest the following based on the assumption that the LibDems get thirty seats and neither major party gets more than 290 seats.
He would go into a coalition with the Tories and say DUP to get above 326.
He would go into coalition with Labour and the Greens, Plaid and the Greens lifted that coalition above 326.
But be would not go into coalition with Labour needing support from the SNP even if Labour was the largest party and had the most votes. Even if there was no possible Government of Tories and LibDems. That seems to indicate that he would throw the country into a period of prolonged uncertainty with a minority Conservative or Labour Government governing with no certainty of passing much legislation, and potentially the calling of a second election.
At the last election he excused the Coalition on the grounds of stability, but he seems to be willing to ignore that this time.
If he forms a second Tory coalition or obstructs a Labour government, he will no longer be able to claim any credentials with the left and will be seen as Tory lite for decades.
It does seem bizarre, I agree. I find this constant reminding that they won’t do deals with Boogeyman X to be so bloody boring. Just work together for Christ sake!
What I think is more than likely to happen is that there will be a Labour/SNP coalition, however, in order to deflect criticism from his recent stance, Miliband will ‘reluctantly’ orchestrate a vote within the party as to whether to go ahead with the proposal, he then has the ability to say ‘Well I didn’t want a coalition with the SNP, but the party forced my hand’ So to speak.
It is almost impossible to imagine a true coalition between the SNP and Labour. They have both aggressively denied that it is a possibility and there is major enmity between the parties in Scotland. What is more likely is a minority coalition between Labour and LibDems with each vote requiring support from a third party, whether SNP, DUP, Plaid, Green, etc. This gets round pre-election statements by all parties.
It still has some problems with membership control of committees by non-coalition parties and the need to use the usual channels (virtual confidence and supply) to maintain control.
Sturgeon on air appeals to Miliband to work with the SNP in a coalition government. Their manifestos are so similar, it takes a trained eye to spot the difference (basically Trident and another vote on scottish independence eventually).
Of course, right now, with an election happening, the main parties are unlikely to say we think we can work with so-and-so, as they’re still fighting to get an outright majority (which could still happen…polls have certainly misled by bigger margins before), or just more seats that the other party. They don’t want to fragment their own vote, or turn off voters that have a particular antipathy towards the junior partner.
When the dust has settled, labour and SNP look like very cosy bedfellows.
I should imagine that, if the final results make it necessary, the House of Commons will divine from the entrails of our fine old British Constitution that, hey presto!, the sky - and the government - will not after all fall if governments have to argue for every vote, more important issues are taken as free votes (Trident? Another Scottish referendum? Even, dare I say it, an EU referendum?), and government doesn’t actually have to be seen to “control” the House…
Close bedfellows who are in a battle to the death. It’s their closeness that makes them hate each other so much. I agree, Labour can do a deal with the SNP. If they were to do so however they run the risk as being seen as hostage to SNP interests. Labour, a party not traditionally viewed as fighting hard for English interests, will have to walk a very fine line. The easiest of hatchet jobs will be for the Tories to paint Milliband(already suspected of having little regard for English interests) as weak if he is not seen as fighting all the way for English interests.
Miliband could be the hero of the hour agianst his better instincts. The English conundrum (no longer the West Lothian Question as it now involves relationships with NI and Wales) could be solved by an SNP Labour DUP Plaid Green agreement to dissolve the House of Lords and mandate an English Parliament along the lines of the Scottish Parliament; devolve more powers to NI and Wales to equalise the devolutions and then allow each national Parliament, according to its population, to send proportional candidates to a 100 member House of Nations to replace the Lords.
This would leave the Commons to form a Government for all non devolved issues. This could be elected on a more proportional basis.
Both of which would be awful things to legislate for. I’m sorry but whatever you think about the SNP and Scotland’s grievances, their attitude on Lords reform is half-baked. I would expect such proposals to go the same way as Clegg’s terrible plans, too.
Oh god, no. Between the vile Robinsons and that debacle in Newtownabbey with the Reduced Shakespeare Company and everything else, they come across as a bunch of irrational theocratic arseholes. Am I wrong about this?