The only swing that really matters is the one from the election in 2010. Any reduction in seats for a party is a sign of failure no matter how you spin it.

I agree

And at the moment, it's not looking good for him, polls predict a 19% swing to Labour in Hallam.

Further more to the talk that Labour and Tory voters were going to tactical vote the Lib Dem candidate in Gordon to stop Salmond winning his seat it now seems Tory voters are coming in to help Jim Murphy keep his seat as well.

I wonder if tactical anti SNP voting is going to catch the pollsters off guard.

It just shows the 3 unionist parties are so similar and that only the SNP and Scottish Greens offer a realistic alternative.

The BNP and UKIP use that line too. Are the SNP and SGP adopting their rhetoric? Or is this just an illustration of how divisive the SNP is?

Greens and realistic are not words you expect to see in the same sentence and the SNP is an alternative only in terms of independence. If you look at its economic policy in terms of deeds not words it is very similar.

Explain divisive.

...no.

No, I didn't think you could.

I can, but I don't respond well to abrupt demands. How about you rephrase your request? Better still, how about you try a dictionary or use the brain you presumably have to work it out for yourself?

No, I knew you couldn't.

I can, but I don't respond well to abrupt demands. How about you rephrase your request? Better still, how about you try a dictionary or use the brain you presumably have to work it out for yourself?

I think it's likely that where another party (i.e. not Conservative or UKIP) could sneak in then the would be UKIP voters will stay Conservative. The swing to UKIP will come in the Conservative strongholds and won't be enough to give UKIP any seats. I actually think if the Tories manage to get 34 or 35% it may be enough to give them as many seats as they got last time, despite a reduced vote share.

I can't because they are not divisive. You just made it up.

How about you check your attitude before throwing around false accusations.

I have no reason to make anything up. In any event, my remark was phrased interrogatively: Or is this just an illustration of how divisive the SNP is?

I go on what data i have to hand, and the data I have (which an earlier poster mentioned, in places like Gordon) suggests that there are parties who are traditional political foes, but whose supporters are voting for one another's candidates in order to keep another party out.

That is not "made up", but a clear indication that a party is divisive: that hostility towards it is sufficiently great that people will vote against their personal consciences in sufficient numbers to block their election.

In the context of this topic, such an effect can obviously have an impact on projected seat numbers if the degree of tactical voting is sufficiently great to block some SNP candidates from being elected.

That's the sort of behaviour we used to have down here whenever it looked like a BNP candidate was in danger of being elected. It's the sort of behaviour that's been talked about in cases of UKIP candidates possibly being elected. It's the sort of behaviour we had in 1997 when everyone was sick to the back teeth of the Tories.

What part of "divisive" is so unacceptable to you?

They are divisive and one example being Salmond's Team Scotland vs. Team Westminster nonsense during the referendum campaign.

Well that was the reality of the Indyref. Team Westminster came up here on two occasions. Once - all of the Labour Party and once the three leaders.

This isn't about the referendum though and rather whether the SNP are divisive.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...stminster.html

Discussing the pro-UK leaders, Mr Salmond said: "Earlier in the week, of course, they were arguing they were going to leave it to people in Scotland. Now they've arrived in a last-minute panic. Therefore I'm entitled to say that today's campaign is Team Westminster – with Ed Miliband, David Cameron and Nick Clegg – against Team Scotland, which is a broad-based Scottish campaign,"

Referring to the YES side as Team Scotland can only be taken as a divisive comment.

But that was during the indyref!!

It's about the language the SNP have used...

In response to Team Westminster. What about more recently?

I'm sure Salmond knew perfectly well what he was saying and could have phrased it differently if he had wanted... and that was recently, it was only last year.

But he didn't and that was indyref stuff. Where are the examples of them being divisive during the GE campaign?

32 seats for the Lib Dems? I'd be very surprised if they got that many.