Election morning briefing: is the SNP really holding the UK to ransom?
|
Version 0 of 1. The big picture It’s all about Scotland on Monday, and the SNP. The party’s manifesto launch brings attention to two parallel themes: the SNP’s own boast to potential voters about the influence they could have on a Westminster coalition; and apocalyptic warnings from the Conservatives and their allies in the media about how damaging this would be. Neither is arguably a completely fair representation of the truth. First the SNP view, as explained to my colleagues Libby Brooks and Patrick Wintour. Interviewed by them, Nicola Sturgeon gives her thoughts on the party’s possible influence in a likely hung parliament, notably through being a “constructive participant” in a Labour government: With fixed-term parliaments, it gives parties in a minority-government situation – [where] hopefully the SNP will be in a position of influence – huge ability to change the direction of a government without bringing a government down. There are very limited circumstances in that act where you can trigger a general election, but what you can do is build alliances to change the direction of a government on particular issues and that is what the SNP would seek to do. Some of the media reaction to this view reiterates the slightly curious argument that in using its elected MPs in a normal parliamentary way to shape national policy the SNP is somehow subverting the political process – or, as two front pages have it, holding the UK “to ransom”. THE TIMES: We will hold UK defence to ransom, SNP warns #tomorrowspaperstoday #BBCPapers pic.twitter.com/KF4HaM2O5f TELEGRAPH: SNP's ransom note to Miliband #tomorrowspaperstoday #BBCPapers pic.twitter.com/Id6JnuyN1g As many pundits have pointed out, the SNP’s position is perhaps less strong than billed – the party has limited its bargaining power with Labour by already saying it will not prop up a Tory-led government, while Ed Miliband has completely ruled out changing policy on Trident. Expect the Labour leader to echo such points at his Glasgow address this afternoon, and seek to shore up the dwindling Labour vote in Scotland. The other Labour front on Monday will be “NHS week”, which brings the promise of not just a poster on what Labour sees as David Cameron’s broken promises on health, but “a dossier”. And finally, as the Mirror’s front page stresses, it is the final day on which you can register to vote if you wish to have a say on 7 May. Not done it yet? What are you waiting for? Click here. MIRROR: Your country needs you....to vote! #tomorrowspaperstoday #BBCPapers pic.twitter.com/X1efyVc9UF Today’s diary Here’s what we know so far: Reading list for the day The Times’s main leader for the day (paywall) continues the “SNP ransom” theme with some arguably overblown rhetoric: On present evidence the Scottish nationalists are more likely than the Lib Dems to hold the balance of power on May 8. The SNP is a separatist party on the cusp of national power, and is not afraid to say how it would use it. It would back Labour on cutting tuition fees, scrapping the coalition’s welfare reforms and fixing energy prices. The signs are that at the same time it would hold the UK budget to ransom with line-item deliberations more familiar in Washington. Matthew d’Ancona in the Guardian has a more thoughtful variant on this theme, arguing that the way the election is shaping up is likely to leave the country with a “considerably messier” form of coalition than seen over the last five years: Like the more earnest characters in Star Wars, the leaders of minor parties who are angling for a pact always promise to bring balance to the Force. In almost all cases, this is wildly misleading. If you think coalition was bad – backroom deals, cut-and-paste policymaking, good ideas lost in the quicksand between the two parties – then try the looser varieties of alliance. David Steel’s account of the Lib-Lab pact of 1977-78, A House Divided, should be required reading. “The House of Commons did enjoy a period when it actually controlled the executive,” writes Steel. “Unless the government could muster by argument a majority, its measures could not pass.” All of which is fine, as long as the constituent parties understand and accept this transfer of power and are prepared for five years of gruelling parliamentary negotiation over absolutely everything. George Osborne pens a piece for the Telegraph, repeating the well-worn arguments about finishing the economic job, and focusing in particular on the sale of Lloyds shares: The share offer will raise billions of pounds, helping taxpayers to get back the money that the last Labour government put in, and reducing the national debt. This is another example of our long-term plan in action – cleaning up the mess we inherited, dealing with our debts, rewarding hard-working taxpayers and rebalancing the economy towards investment and saving. While below-the-line comments are necessarily not the complete view of readers, the most-recommended view so far indicates Osborne’s message is not being wholly welcomed: Finally, who’s going to win? Two interesting articles tackle the key question. Keiran Pedley from pollsters GfK NOP has written a piece for PoliticalBetting.com asking whether the surveys so far might have got it wrong, noting differences in results between telephone and online polls, and raising the 1992-style issue of “shy Tories” – people who end up voting Conservatives after telling pollsters they will not. What is clear is that the election is close and pollsters face a number of challenges in correctly reflecting voting intention in national opinion polls. There appear to be some differences when considering survey mode, at least when considering Ukip and the sheer number of parties involved present real challenges. Any one of them being significantly out creates a potential problem. Finally, the age old problem of potential ‘shy Tory’ voters could rear its head again whilst turnout in Scotland could also have a significant impact in the eventual result too. Meanwhile, the New Statesman’s excellent May2015.com analysis site suggests that the polls so far point pretty clearly to Ed Miliband ending up in Downing Street. Labour are only set to win about as many seats as the Tories. So why do we think Miliband must be favoured to be the next PM? Because governments aren’t necessarily formed by the largest party; the next one will be formed by whomever can cobble together 323 seats... According to our forecast, the ‘anti-Tory’ parties – Labour, the SNP, and smaller parties like the Greens, Plaid Cymru, SDLP and Respect – are going to win 337 MPs, 14 more than they need to ‘lock Cameron out’, as Alex Salmond put it to us last month. Fourteen seats isn’t very many. Surely if the polls just swung slightly towards the Tories – as many pundits still expect – our ‘anti-Tory’ bloc would quickly lose at least a dozen seats? The problem for Cameron is this isn’t really what happens. He can move ahead in the polls, as Election Forecast are predicting, or outperform them because they are overlooking ‘shy Tories’, as Elections Etc believe, and still fail to hold power. At best he would hold power by the slenderest of majorities. But any such scenario is far from the likeliest outcome. If today were a song... OK, so the message isn’t perhaps completely apt – the argument is the SNP do want at least some control of a future government. But Teenage Fanclub are Scottish, and it’s a lovely, gentle tune for a Monday morning. It even contains a late-song change of key, a much-neglected element in modern pop. Non-election news story There is only one such story on Monday, and it’s horrific: Italy’s prime minister has called for an emergency summit about the humanitarian crisis off its southern coast after as many as 700 migrants died when their overcrowded boat capsized in the Mediterranean. |