More election thoughts

[andrewducker]

Because of the final result, and the fact that nobody is going to do a deal ith the Conservatives, whoever wants to form a government will need _everyone else_ to join them. You need 65 seats to reach a majority, which means either SNP + Lib Dem + Green or Labour + Lib Dem + Green + Margo MacDonald (ex-SNP, now only independent MSP).

The chances of Margo going with Labour are, one assumes, quite slim. The chances of her going with the SNP are presumably even slimmer, what with them having kicked her out. Luckily for them, they don't need her. They do need the Greens and the Lib Dems though, so one suspects there'll be an interesting series of discussions going on right now...

Comments

[guybles.livejournal.com]

It's an interesting thought that the Greens might be enthusiastic enough for power - any power - that they will take the SNP shilling. Since the Lid Dem-SNP coalition had been talked about for the last few weeks, including Alex Salmond starting to dilute the notion of indepdendence. However if the Green's become king-makers, as it were, what will they demand in return? Hence, if they get their wish, how can they enforce it?

I remember musing at the 1997 election that the Lib Dems rolled over for a possibility of power. It would be nice to think that it wouldn't happen again, except with a new partner.

(this is assuming, of course, that we don't have the outside possibility of the Electoral Commission pointing out that the whole thing is a farce and should be run again)

[andrewducker]

I'm hoping we don't have to do it again.

To be honest, I'd say that the main problem with this time round (except for glitchy computers) was holding two different elections, with different systems, on the same day.

But yes - the Greens have a smidge of power - how can they use it. Not for a lot, I'd say, but they ought to be able to get something.

[guybles.livejournal.com]

The interesting patchwork that Scottish politics has (is about to) become means that the Greens do, indeed, have some but not a huge amount of power. I wouldn't put it past an SNP-Lib Dem coalition to go forward with minority rule, trusting that there is no way that Labour, the Tories and three randoms could agree for long enough to scupper any real action by the Scottish Parliament^*. However, if the compromise is achieved on an independence referendum, that would certainly need a majority administration to handle it authoritatively.

^* This is working on the assumption that the Scottish Parliament actually does anything that couldn't be otherwise achieved by the average local council.

[andrewducker]

Well, I'm hoping that the SNP will manage to force through a referendum on devolution that gets overwhelmingly rejected, thus laying the damn thing to death for good, while also clearing the way for more devolution of power and a renegotiation of power across the UK, including more devolved power to regional centres in England.

And yes, the chances of anyone agreeing on anything for long enough to scupper their plans is pretty small.

[khbrown.livejournal.com]

Don't you mean independence, not devolution? The devolution referendum was what led to the setting up of the Scottish Parliament in the first place.

[andrewducker]

Sorry, yes. Brain explosion.

[drplokta]

They don't have to have a majority to form a government, so the SNP could form a minority administration and figure to be able to get enough votes from either Labour or the Lib Dems and Greens to get through any policy that seems vaguely sensible.

[chillies.livejournal.com]

and if it is a minority government, writing to your MSPs on issues is more likely to have an effect. An abstention here, a defection there will make the difference.

[guybles.livejournal.com]

A representative government? An MSP who respects and responds to the wishes of their electorate? I fear you are dreaming the impossible dream...

Here's hoping.

[chillies.livejournal.com]

There's a number of factors that favour the parliament consisting of party machines vying for influence: few restrictions on party funding so the bigger the machine, the more economies of scale; and regional list votes that move representatives away from the people. Even with these the best time is when it's finely balanced.

[andrewducker]

True - and in an ideal world I'd want them to have to talk over each policy and make sure it was right for the whole population rather than just forcing things through because they have a majority. I bet things don't work out that way in real life though.