Because the LD and UKIP run candidates across Britain and indeed the entire UK in the latter case. The SNP are just focused on 5 million people who live in Scotland.
Given the next parliament will be about cuts and more cuts the concern is lower cuts will be demanded for Scotland to get SNP support. That risks causing real problems within the union.
By that logic, the Tories shouldn't be allowed to form a coalition with any of the Northern Ireland parties. Yet I've seen no-one complain about the possibility of that.
The reality is the polls expect Labour + SNP to have enough seats between them to form a government while Conservatives + UKIP + DUP + Lib Dems will not have enough seats. So there's a greater fear of the SNP getting in to parliament than UKIP or the DUP.
Also while Farage has said UKIP would join a Coalition with the Conservatives and Lib Dems, UKIP's 'red lines' for a Coalition agreement conflict with the Lib Dem's 'red lines' so one of them would have to back down and I can't see it being the Lib Dems if they have more seats and a greater share of the votes.
I think the Tories have misread people's views on the SNP in England. Most people I talk to would welcome a deal between labour and the SNP. Far from being concerned about it they see it as a way of bringing labour closer to its left leaning origins. People respect Nicola Sturgeon. And many of them don't actually care about whether Scotland eventually becomes independent if that's what scots choose. Finally there is a sense that the SNPs views are closer to the interests of Northern England than the very Londoncentric views of the Tories or even these days labour.
So the SNP are not the bogeyman for a lot of people that Cameron is making them out to be and its only the Tories who are saying that the public are afraid of a labour SNP deal. I'm not so sure that's the view of many out there.
Very true, the most frightening prospect for me is a Tory majority or Tory led coalition.
The Tories can't cross the line on their own either. But again he is unchallenged on it on BBC Breakfast.
Why is nobody asking him who he will work with to try and get a majority?? Why are the Tories being allowed to continue to pretend about this? They keep pushing this line "we only need 23 more seats for a majority" which is a load of nonsence, because that would only be true if they didn't lose a single seat.
Is the mainstream media actively protecting the Tories on this issue, or is it just across-the-board shoddy journalism?
Because its a non issue. UKIP may not get one seat, and even if they do win 2 or 3 they can't vote with pro immigration, and pro EU parties. They are not needed for a formal coalition, as Miliband has ruled that out as the criteria for a stable government by rejecting ny coalitions on his side.
The key players with enough seats to matter are the Liberals and DUP. They will vote as whim, party interest, and whatever logic they adopt takes them . They can go either way with no great difficulty - they will argue for the party with most votes, most seats or the stable solution - as they want to.
The contentious issue is the SNP - who will be massively over represented by a factor of two - while UKIP may be massively under-represented by a factor of nearer 60 - even if they get one seat.The SNP come at it as a party trying to steer government to one extreme - not the centre - and a party whose goal it is to demonstrate that the Union can't work Its also that the SNP and Labour's policies will have been rejected by a majority of the voters - who voted for varying degrees of more austerity - not less.
I've seen polls that put UKIP as more scary holding the balance of power than the SNP and people would fear the DUP more if some of their views got as much scrutiny in the British press as they deserve too (seeing as they may be part of our government potentially)
Because it is highly unlikely that the Conservatives and DUP will have enough seats between them to form a majority. DUP will have about 8 seats as opposed to SNPs 50 odd on a measley 3-4% of the total vote.
The DUP leader was not invited to the election debates. We never hear from them. Their leader is not in the press every day bleating on about how much he wants to "block" another party from power and how many demands he will make of the Tories for their support.
Not mine though as a UKIP supporter in this election i think Nigel Farage would make damm sure we got a referendum on the EU.
For me getting my first chance to vote on the EU membership in my lifetime is important.
It may be more important than you know - because if you get your way and if the nations of the UK give different answers to the question of whether we ought to remain in the EU or not, then we could be staring a constitutional crisis in the face that could precipitate the irreversible break-up of the UK.
So when all is said and done, UKIP may (ironically) be a greater danger to the integrity of the UK than the SNP is.
As its gone from a Free Trading Agreement to a mini parliament of its own that makes laws i doubt many in the UK know are being passed.
That BIB is not true, because it never was merely an FTA, and the EEC/EU has had a Parliament since we joined it (and has had directly elected MEPs since 1979). That's not to say that the EEC hasn't changed, though - it clearly has, and its remit is considerably wider than that to which we acceded in the 1970s.
Surely you could ask the same question about both the Conservatives and Labour. Both will tell you they are fighting for an absolute majority. Neither will tell you who they'd deal with failing that majority, only who they wont work with (UKIP or SNP).
The reality is that the only options for the Conservatives are Lib Dem and Unionists in N.Ire whilst hoping that any UKIP MPs vote with them when it matters. For Labour it's the Lib Dems, Plaid Cymru, Greens, SDLP in N.Ire and hoping the SNP vote with them when it matters.
It may be more important than you know - because if you get your way and if the nations of the UK give different answers to the question of whether we ought to remain in the EU or not, then we could be staring a constitutional crisis in the face that could precipitate the irreversible break-up of the UK.
So when all is said and done, UKIP may (ironically) be a greater danger to the integrity of the UK than the SNP is.
That BIB is not true, because it never was merely an FTA, and the EEC/EU has had a Parliament since we joined it (and has had directly elected MEPs since 1979). That's not to say that the EEC hasn't changed, though - it clearly has, and its remit is considerably wider than that to which we acceded in the 1970s.
We also have had the "Single European act" no referendum on one of the biggest single transfers of power from one country to the EU.
Not all vote as separate nations as far as i know the original referendum was country wide not on a nation by nation basis.
The reality is the polls expect Labour + SNP to have enough seats between them to form a government while Conservatives + UKIP + DUP + Lib Dems will not have enough seats. So there's a greater fear of the SNP getting in to parliament than UKIP or the DUP.
Also while Farage has said UKIP would join a Coalition with the Conservatives and Lib Dems, UKIP's 'red lines' for a Coalition agreement conflict with the Lib Dem's 'red lines' so one of them would have to back down and I can't see it being the Lib Dems if they have more seats and a greater share of the votes.
UKIP just won't have enough seats to bother about. Farage and UKIP's supporters already have had their EU red line adopted by Cameron If they want a referendum 98% of them, outside the 100,000 in winnable seats ,ought to be voting for Cameron. . If there are any UKIP MPs at all ,they can hardly vote for more immigration, no referendum or more spending, with Labour
There is no real problem with the Liberals as they just have to accept the referendum which isn't a red line - they can just say they are being democratic - and demand a say in the question set. Their red line is no UKIP in a formal coalition , and education spending rises - both demands can be met by an informal arrangement with any UKIP MP that gets there and a bit mnore money The Liberals can probably be offered more too., and will be able to argue they stopped some cuts.
The issue is if the Liberals decide to go with who wins most seats, or most votes, or whoever can get to 323 regardless. There's great dangers, and not much political gain in going with Labour- if it can get to 323 with SNP support - but the activists may want to do that, and the pragmatists may think its the only solution.
Ultimately. though. a government that exists on votes from coming second, and SNP MPs - who have to be ignored when they have voted the government in - just looks illegitimate - it may also be unstable, and it may fall. .
We also have had the "Single European act" no referendum on one of the biggest single transfers of power from one country to the EU.
No referendum was ever promised on that one; and the Government that ratified it went on to win a healthy victory at the next General Election.
Not all vote as separate nations as far as i know the original referendum was country wide not on a nation by nation basis.
The 1975 referendum was country-wide, but it was (and still is) possible to tell how many people voted which way at a county level. We know, for instance, that Shetland and the Western Isles were the only two parts of the UK to vote 'out' in 1975. It is that data that would be used to determine how each nation had voted - and if in particular it turns out that Scotland voted one way and England another, then there is going to be a lot of resentment in one of those nations, whatever the overall result.
No referendum was ever promised on that one; and the Government that ratified it went on to win a healthy victory at the next General Election.
The 1975 referendum was country-wide, but it was (and still is) possible to tell how many people voted which way at a county level. We know, for instance, that Shetland and the Western Isles were the only two parts of the UK to vote 'out' in 1975. It is that data that would be used to determine how each nation had voted - and if in particular it turns out that Scotland voted one way and England another, then there is going to be a lot of resentment in one of those nations, whatever the overall result.
Surely you could ask the same question about both the Conservatives and Labour. Both will tell you they are fighting for an absolute majority. Neither will tell you who they'd deal with failing that majority, only who they wont work with (UKIP or SNP).
The reality is that the only options for the Conservatives are Lib Dem and Unionists in N.Ire whilst hoping that any UKIP MPs vote with them when it matters. For Labour it's the Lib Dems, Plaid Cymru, Greens, SDLP in N.Ire and hoping the SNP vote with them when it matters.
Indeed. The difference is that the SNP could be the instrument that removed a Cameron government - but might be irrelevant after that if the others in that loose coalition outnumbered the Conservatives. The maths on the other side are tighter, and require those parties to continue to vote together - although their individual demands may be more easily met?
Maybe because no one wants to work with the Tory's apart from possibly UKIP, who wont have enough seats anyway.
The LibDems and the DUP have both said they will work with the Tories.
I'm a little surprised that there has been so little discussion about what price the DUP would demand for their co-operation with the next government, especially considering that NI already gets more per head of population spent on it than any other part of the UK.
Yes that might well be the case but i anticipate any further referendum would be countrywide
I don't expect the level of information about how people vote in it to be any less detailed in any future referendum than it was in 1975. So you'll be able to work out if there's a difference between the way people voted in different nations.
and in a "democracy" we have to live with that.
Yes, and we will all have to live with all its consequences - which could include the disintegration of the UK.
But although no referendum was promised on the single European act there damm well should have been IMO.
That's your opinion. Personally I don't think there's anything particularly holy about referendums. I'm not convinced that they're any better a means of approving legislation than Parliamentary votes. Especially given the number of complaints I've read about the way the 1975 referendum was conducted, and at least one expressed view on this board that any future referendum would be 'bent' - and given the conduct of both the AV and independence referendums - I don't think a referendum would actually solve anything. I think there might be something in Attlee's comment about them being a device of dictators and demagogues.
As for cast iron dave.>:( 2009 and counting.
David Cameron's "cast-iron guarantee" only applied if he became PM soon enough for the UK to withdraw its instruments of ratification before the Lisbon Treaty was signed and sealed, and put the matter to a public vote before resubmitting them. He said so at the time, though that has not stopped others from trying to make it appear as if he said something he did not.
Comments
By that logic, the Tories shouldn't be allowed to form a coalition with any of the Northern Ireland parties. Yet I've seen no-one complain about the possibility of that.
Also while Farage has said UKIP would join a Coalition with the Conservatives and Lib Dems, UKIP's 'red lines' for a Coalition agreement conflict with the Lib Dem's 'red lines' so one of them would have to back down and I can't see it being the Lib Dems if they have more seats and a greater share of the votes.
Very true, the most frightening prospect for me is a Tory majority or Tory led coalition.
Tory, UKIP and DUP would be my nightmare.
Mine too
Not mine though as a UKIP supporter in this election i think Nigel Farage would make damm sure we got a referendum on the EU.
For me getting my first chance to vote on the EU membership in my lifetime is important.
As its gone from a Free Trading Agreement to a mini parliament of its own that makes laws i doubt many in the UK know are being passed.
Looking forward to it! SNP have expressed specifically a hatred of the Conservatives so what goes around comes around.
OTOH tax avoiding back stabber Milliband would kiss Ms Sturgeon's backside to become PM which could be quite a spectacle.
Ditto Miliband. You'd surely hardly expect the leaders of the two main parties to say otherwise?
Because its a non issue. UKIP may not get one seat, and even if they do win 2 or 3 they can't vote with pro immigration, and pro EU parties. They are not needed for a formal coalition, as Miliband has ruled that out as the criteria for a stable government by rejecting ny coalitions on his side.
The key players with enough seats to matter are the Liberals and DUP. They will vote as whim, party interest, and whatever logic they adopt takes them . They can go either way with no great difficulty - they will argue for the party with most votes, most seats or the stable solution - as they want to.
The contentious issue is the SNP - who will be massively over represented by a factor of two - while UKIP may be massively under-represented by a factor of nearer 60 - even if they get one seat.The SNP come at it as a party trying to steer government to one extreme - not the centre - and a party whose goal it is to demonstrate that the Union can't work Its also that the SNP and Labour's policies will have been rejected by a majority of the voters - who voted for varying degrees of more austerity - not less.
The DUP are utterly toxic.
The DUP leader was not invited to the election debates. We never hear from them. Their leader is not in the press every day bleating on about how much he wants to "block" another party from power and how many demands he will make of the Tories for their support.
It may be more important than you know - because if you get your way and if the nations of the UK give different answers to the question of whether we ought to remain in the EU or not, then we could be staring a constitutional crisis in the face that could precipitate the irreversible break-up of the UK.
So when all is said and done, UKIP may (ironically) be a greater danger to the integrity of the UK than the SNP is.
That BIB is not true, because it never was merely an FTA, and the EEC/EU has had a Parliament since we joined it (and has had directly elected MEPs since 1979). That's not to say that the EEC hasn't changed, though - it clearly has, and its remit is considerably wider than that to which we acceded in the 1970s.
We also have had the "Single European act" no referendum on one of the biggest single transfers of power from one country to the EU.
Not all vote as separate nations as far as i know the original referendum was country wide not on a nation by nation basis.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/6/newsid_2499000/2499297.stm
UKIP just won't have enough seats to bother about. Farage and UKIP's supporters already have had their EU red line adopted by Cameron If they want a referendum 98% of them, outside the 100,000 in winnable seats ,ought to be voting for Cameron. . If there are any UKIP MPs at all ,they can hardly vote for more immigration, no referendum or more spending, with Labour
There is no real problem with the Liberals as they just have to accept the referendum which isn't a red line - they can just say they are being democratic - and demand a say in the question set. Their red line is no UKIP in a formal coalition , and education spending rises - both demands can be met by an informal arrangement with any UKIP MP that gets there and a bit mnore money The Liberals can probably be offered more too., and will be able to argue they stopped some cuts.
The issue is if the Liberals decide to go with who wins most seats, or most votes, or whoever can get to 323 regardless. There's great dangers, and not much political gain in going with Labour- if it can get to 323 with SNP support - but the activists may want to do that, and the pragmatists may think its the only solution.
Ultimately. though. a government that exists on votes from coming second, and SNP MPs - who have to be ignored when they have voted the government in - just looks illegitimate - it may also be unstable, and it may fall. .
No referendum was ever promised on that one; and the Government that ratified it went on to win a healthy victory at the next General Election.
The 1975 referendum was country-wide, but it was (and still is) possible to tell how many people voted which way at a county level. We know, for instance, that Shetland and the Western Isles were the only two parts of the UK to vote 'out' in 1975. It is that data that would be used to determine how each nation had voted - and if in particular it turns out that Scotland voted one way and England another, then there is going to be a lot of resentment in one of those nations, whatever the overall result.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Communities_membership_referendum,_1975
Yes that might well be the case but i anticipate any further referendum would be countrywide and in a "democracy" we have to live with that.
But although no referendum was promised on the single European act there damm well should have been IMO.
As for cast iron dave.>:( 2009 and counting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQ2n7oMcSi0
Indeed. The difference is that the SNP could be the instrument that removed a Cameron government - but might be irrelevant after that if the others in that loose coalition outnumbered the Conservatives. The maths on the other side are tighter, and require those parties to continue to vote together - although their individual demands may be more easily met?
The LibDems and the DUP have both said they will work with the Tories.
I'm a little surprised that there has been so little discussion about what price the DUP would demand for their co-operation with the next government, especially considering that NI already gets more per head of population spent on it than any other part of the UK.
I don't expect the level of information about how people vote in it to be any less detailed in any future referendum than it was in 1975. So you'll be able to work out if there's a difference between the way people voted in different nations.
Yes, and we will all have to live with all its consequences - which could include the disintegration of the UK.
That's your opinion. Personally I don't think there's anything particularly holy about referendums. I'm not convinced that they're any better a means of approving legislation than Parliamentary votes. Especially given the number of complaints I've read about the way the 1975 referendum was conducted, and at least one expressed view on this board that any future referendum would be 'bent' - and given the conduct of both the AV and independence referendums - I don't think a referendum would actually solve anything. I think there might be something in Attlee's comment about them being a device of dictators and demagogues.
David Cameron's "cast-iron guarantee" only applied if he became PM soon enough for the UK to withdraw its instruments of ratification before the Lisbon Treaty was signed and sealed, and put the matter to a public vote before resubmitting them. He said so at the time, though that has not stopped others from trying to make it appear as if he said something he did not.