If it were just England/Wales then he's probably right. But Scotland are helping the Conservatives this time.

Ironic that it's Scotland that are keeping the Conservatives in the race by diminishing Labour.

If the Tories win it will be "same old nasty Tories blah blah blah" they need Labour to nailbite over a deal with SNP and either break the vow of no coailition or for them to agree a policy by policy pact, for it to fail and then the Tories romp to victory when next election is called.

I bet there isn't one real Tory MP who thinks winning this time is a good idea if they were to tell the truth.

Good point this.

But hasn't it been said previously that the national polls are already factoring in Scotland and the SNP's lead, so that would imply that England and .Wales are showing a stronger Labour lead?

Yes but Lab are losing only a modest % in scotland compared with a huge number of seats so it may go someway to balancing their fptp advantage

A modest %?

2010's share was 42% for Labour, set against the Tories on 16.7%

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/elect...s/region/7.stm



A recent result for Scotland, from post 48 in this part of the thread had Labour on 28%, Tories on 18%

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showp...9&postcount=48


So that's one big loss of 14% for Labour, hardly modest.

There is absolutely no justification for this belief. The change of seats from Labour and Lib Dem to the SNP in Scotland will not increase the number of Tory seats, so it is impossible for Scotland to help the Conservatives. The number of Scottish Conservative seats will either reduce by one or stay the same.

I know that this is a line Labour like to trot out (vote for pot, get kettle), but it is palpably false. Project fear is alive and well.

Voting for the SNP instead of Labour will not help the Conservatives in any way.

It work out somewhere between 1 and 1.5% over the mainland, which is pretty modest.

Of course it will if all the SNP seats went to Labour they would have a majority.

Granted, but MattXfactor was referring to a modest % in scotland"

18 days to #GE2015 - @guardian projection:

LAB 271 seats
SNP 55

LDEM 28

CON 270
Ukip 4

No they shouldn't.

Cameron has over 600 candidates and large numbers of party workers in every constituency giving up their own time and working to get him back into government. It is a complete betrayal of the hard work undertaken by his own party workers to suggest that people should vote against the candidates chosen by local Conservative constituency associations.

It is also tactically misguided because the only people likely to listen are his Tory-inclined voters so while Miliband tells Labour voters to vote Labour Cameron muddles his message by telling some Conservative voters to vote for other parties.

Therefore it would not change the probability that the Conservatives will have a majority or be able to form a government with other parties.

The only effect will be whether Labour has a majority or forms a government with the support of other parties.

Therefore whether SNP have a say in Westminster policy or not.

Friday morning/afternoon will be unbearable

Can you think of a reason why a democratically elected party with around 50 seats should be excluded from having a say?

Exactly thank you this is the point I was trying to make, what I was saying was that Labours FPTP advantage will be in large parts destroyed due to the collapse in scotland.

I wasn't sorry this wasn't clear, I was trying to say that Lab will only lose a small % nationwide but will lose bucketloads of seats to the SNP meaning that the FPTP advantage they normally have will be diminished considerably meaning that if the Parties tied on election day in terms of vote share its conceivable they'd be close to tied on seat numbers too.

Because if Labour had 326 they do need the SNP if they don't get 326 they do therefore of course whether someone votes SNP or Labour matters.

It's about policy implementation.

Also its considerably more likely that a SNP/Lab would fail to last 5 years, where as a Lab majority would easily last 5 years.

Like saying did it matter if you voted Lib Dem or Tory in 2010 of course it did as Lib Dem voters gave them a say in policy if they had voted Tory polices would be different now.

Yes exactly, also there's the long term effects a Lab SNP pact could have, it has the potential to cause their support to plummet.

I'd be interested to know what people of all sides think the final vote shares will be based on current opinion polls etc.? I don't know if I'm being biased here but I just can't see Lab finishing on 34-35% which they seem to be polling currently, especially when you consider they've lost around 1.5% nationwide in scotland, meaning they'll have to effectively gain 6-7% in the rest of the UK?

Again I re-iterate I may be being slightly biased but I do find it difficult to see them polling that high.

As a Labour voter I would be surprised if Labour did not poll around 34-35%. It is only 5% higher than Brown got and he was a very unpopular Prime Minister dealing with the recessionary consequences of a global financial meltdown.

My main concern is that the Tories may well poll just above 35% with the backing of some returning UKIP voters and safety-first centrists. This is of course the breakthrough that Tory strategists are waiting for and it could still happen. Even if it does happen though it will almost certainly not be on a large enough scale to give them an overall majority.

I think if the Conservatives finish as the largest party Cameron will declare "victory" and force Labour's hand with regard to the SNP with the Tory press screaming blue murder if Miliband does a deal with Sturgeon and calling any minority Labour government illegitimate.