Political round up.............

First topic message reminder :

Pr4wn wrote:Why are 16 and 17 year olds old enough to pay tax but not old enough to vote?

Good point, take them out of having to pay tax.

Starmer coming for Sunak now, Boris and co have backed themselves into a corner

The latest Scottish assembly figures are awful for Con/Lab..

While they both argue internally the SNP look like getting a nice majority next year...

Sturgeon miles ahead in terms of leadership quality.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Ahhh. Andy Burham, the moonlighting virologist and World-leading epidemiologist...

Substance is more than just a nine letter word.

Just in case you didn't know..

Strangely, I did know that. Bless you...

Wales not looking good for Labour next May..

2016..

Lab 31
Con 15
PC...11


Projection..2020

Lab 25
Con 19
PC...14

Gridlock.....Imagine some Corbyn supporters defecting to PC in the next few months should he not be reinstated..

Wales may be the one to watch next May...

Looks like more Corbyn supporters are defecting to the Tories

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Gridlock.....Imagine some Corbyn supporters defecting to PC in the next few months should he not be reinstated..

Wales may be the one to watch next May...

Now is the time to strike. Movements like 'Yes Cymru' are also fast on the rise

The Welsh right wing will always vote Tory. But the left are now starting to lean towards nationalism like a lot of people I know since the Brexit and Covid disasters

Adam Price needs to put in the campaign of a lifetime though

I think Plaid forming a coalition government with Labour again is as good as they can hope for in this election. That would be something to build on.

Having said that, it's pretty clear that the Brexiters will be coming for devolution next. When they said 'take back control', they meant it.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Having said that, it's pretty clear that the Brexiters will be coming for devolution next. When they said 'take back control', they meant it.

They already are. Any Welsh psychotic Brexitear has now already started an anti-Welsh government campaign on social media

These people really do hate anyone other than a bunch of Etonians in London having power over them. The mind boggles

Biden rumoured to be considering Obama as ambassador to the UK.

Downing Street state they will push ahead with internal market bill designed to override Brexit deal on NI despite overwhelming Lords defeat in amendment looking to remove measures that seek to "disapply" parts of NI protocols.

Biden has previously stated that the measures would put the Good Friday agreement at risk.

Given that most of Biden's inner circle are reported to detest Johnson following his 'part-Kenyan' comments on Obama in the Sun during the Brexit referendum I think this is going to end just brilliantly.

Kantar
Con 40
Lab 36 -2

Comres
Con 40
Lab 36 -4

Survation...Best PM

Johnson 40
Starmer.. 33

If anyone can find the Labour leader can they point out this is the worst PM and Govt in living memory.

Perhaps leave Corbyn alone for a while and do some opposing.

Cummings is off then. What good did it do the Government to keep him on when they could have dropped him in the summer?

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:Cummings is off then. What good did it do the Government to keep him on when they could have dropped him in the summer?

Its been heavily rumoured that there has been something of an internal power struggle between him and Lee Cain, and Carrie Symonds.

The whole thing is a Frak shambles. Rats deserting a sinking ship, but one that they gnawed a hole clean through the hull of. If rumours are to be believed then Johnson wont be too much longer in the position so he and Cummings can ride off into the sunset into lucrative speaking and consultation deals while the rest of us suffer through the Poopie they brought on us.

Farcical to keep him at all and in the end for jack all. Now Boris is without his handler

Beginning of the end now for Alex Johnson. Would be surprised to see him still in office as PM in June.

Question is - which of the Tory MPs want to assume the role of PM during the difficult recovery years from the Covid fall-out? And which of them want to lead their utter shambles of a party?

Who's betting Farage takes Johnson cutting loose a couple of high profile Brexiteers as an excuse to crawl out the woodwork?

Not sure Keir Starmer is in charge of Labour....This kamikaze war with his left means it's hard to see him winning the 122 seats for a majority in England and Wales he needs..The three By elections in Scotland (results below) show that Labour is dead in Scotland....

Polls also suggest Welsh independence is gaining support and there are some Lab/PC marginals...

Think Starmer needs to realise HQ wants to destroy the left and if it means him losing in 2024 then it's collateral damage..

Two Aberdeen by elections..

SNP 47 +7
Con..20 -1
Lab..12 -5

SNP..43 +11
Con..42 +1
Lab...3 -5

Edinburgh by election

SNP...39 +2
Con...19 -5
Lab....16 -7

Remembering that winning seats in General Elections in Scotland for the Tories is a bonus...Labour it is essential.

The problem for Labour in Scotland is that who people vote for is no longer a party political issue, but a constitutional issue.

In order to win votes back they're going to have to either promise a second referendum or be very radical and propose some kind of federalization of the UK in which Scotland becomes a federal state with greater autonomy than devolution offers. That allows Labour to to "protect the Union" while offering the softer Independence supporters a compromise.

Covid could be used a catalyst to give local areas greater control over their policital and fiscal decisions so that you have several federal states such as London and South East, Scotland, Wales and the South West, the Midlands, North West England, North East England (and Merseyside) and Northern Ireland.

superflyweight wrote:The problem for Labour in Scotland is that who people vote for is no longer a party political issue, but a constitutional issue.

In order to win votes back they're going to have to either promise a second referendum or be very radical and propose some kind of federalization of the UK in which Scotland becomes a federal state with greater autonomy than devolution offers.  That allows Labour to to "protect the Union" while offering the softer Independence supporters a compromise.  

Covid could be used a catalyst to give local areas greater control over their policital and fiscal decisions so that you have several federal states such as London and South East, Scotland, Wales and the South West, the Midlands, North West England, North East England (and Merseyside) and Northern Ireland.      

Interesting thoughts, super. Undoubtedly some benefits would accrue from increased autonomy of the federated states as you have outlined.

However, as I am noticing here, there are also some unexpected (but not unpredictable) disturbing trends and behaviours driven by state leaders / state governments which have recently arisen in our federal state system. I'm actually quite shocked to see this occur before my eyes - given the fact that for all of my life we have been a relatively strong, stable and cohesive collection of states.

Sure there always has been (and always will be) historical, economic, social and political differences between the States within a Federation (which have been managed in a relatively civilised way by federal parliament) but since Covid there has definitely been a more cynical - and perhaps even more sinister - approach to managing the virus outbreak within the various State jurisdictions.

What I mean is: NSW residents are barred from travelling to Queensland. It's easier to travel to Tashkent than the Gold Coast for us. Ditto restrictions between Vic and SA, WA and the rest of Australia, Sydney v Darwin, people from ACT ok with Qld but people from regional Victoria (with zero cases) are not allowed into Qld. Police states in action!

As a comparison; I'm sure folks from Texas could travel to Arkansas or Louisiana... and Floridians could cross state lines into Georgia and vice versa.
In Australia it was/still is, a very strict and controlled situation for over 9 months and we're not yet out of it. The precedents have been set however...

As I understand it, the Federal Government is responsible for the overall national legislative and sovereign powers, overarching administrative jurisdiction, etc but then there is the individual self-governing powers of each State. In Australia's case I sense a bit of "we won't touch that... that's for each individual state to decide" from the Fed Gvt - as well as - "the Federal Constitution says the following... therefore you must adhere to that." Open to challenge, precedents and interpretation of course.

So in effect, there has been some buck passing; as well as some level of stick wielding to certain states - from the Fed Gvt. This situation seems to have been strongly exacerbated by the coronavirus with some awkward and difficult exchanges between Federal and State leaders. Some nasty words and behaviours have come to the surface and it seems nobody knows who's right/wrong and what's best/worst for us. Democracy in action, yeah?

Your idea of having, say, 8 states in the UK... would be similar to Australia (6 states, 3 territories, 7 external territories) and may help to solidify and stabilise the Union. I think this would be a much better arrangement compared to the US - with 50 states, DC and some 14 other unincorporated / incorporated territories. That's far too many pieces; some of which are too small. A recipe for things to go wrong.

We only have to look at the mess and confusion from these 2020 US Elections and the variations in legislation and administration (including vote counting methods) between many states to realise that the Republic is well over-governed and is always potentially subject to mad law disputes... both civil and uncivil! They really need an independent and impartial US Electoral Commission to oversee the counting of votes and even then - mistakes can happen and dodgy behaviour can slip through. It would be far more fairer and far better than at present though.

Interesting insight, PJ. Always thought the federal system in Australia made sense given the vastness of the place and also given that each State (from an outsider anyway) seems to have a different economy than the others.

Yes, we are lucky that we have some very large states... and a couple of small ones. Keeps things nice and simple.

However, there are constant calls for break away states, i.e northern Qld, central Qld and even The Red Centre, being so far from Darwin, wants greater autonomy but f-all people live there!

On the other hand, I was looking at a map on the weekend. Specifically this one:

Tindale map 1974:

Looks very impressive and remarkably detailed at a glance... but what does it really represent?

Over 250 different languages and tribes... many interlocking and overlapping... accuracy disputed. It's maybe good for us to know how people were organised in the past so we can learn from their experiences, understanding of natural resources, use of land... but I'm also aware that so much of this knowledge has been lost or perhaps reinvented for contemporary discussions and would be very difficult to reconstitute.

It really reminds me of one of those Middle Age European maps with a patchwork of kingdoms, states, grand duchies duchies, voivodeships, etc.

It's taken hundreds (if not thousands of years) to amalgamate all of those disparate entities into solid homogeneous nations (some with considerable regional variety within) - through wars and conquests mainly - but sometimes through peaceful agreement after war.

Would be a pity to see things break apart and lead to fragmentation again... although I can see certain countries have good cases for independent status. So many tough questions and no shortage of possible answers.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Not sure Keir Starmer is in charge of Labour....This kamikaze war with his left means it's hard to see him winning the 122 seats for a majority in England and Wales he needs..The three By elections in Scotland (results below) show that Labour is dead in Scotland....

.....

Left winger whose response to the Labour party being lead to defeat in numerous elections by a left wing leadership is to claim that they are not paying enough attention to the left wing vote.

Looks like the drop in the polls last week made Labour bottle getting rid of Corbyn..

Corbyn got the greatest rise in vote share since 1945 and while he may not have a great following impending boundary changes making Labour need a 10 point lead to win a majority has obviously cooled the enthusiasm...

Sacking Corbyn didn't give Starmer the bounce he thought it would....Because people have other things to worry about than made up charges of Anti semitism..

Still Starmer can get on with opposing the Tories now if Burnham and Rashford want to stop doing the job for him.

Labour bottle it again or rather the NEC did, a body separate from the parliamentary body but I'm sure you knew that already right Truss?

Starmer has not yet made a decision on whether to restore the whip to Corbyn. Apparently some Labour MPs are threatening to resign if Corbyn does have the whip restored.

Made-up charges of anti-semitism, Truss? You should read this:

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/investigation-into-antisemitism-in-the-labour-party.pdf

Judging by Starmers posts on Twitter, one is not impressed by the decision of the NEC and rightly so. So important he maintains his current stance and offers a viable voting alternative, standing by old relics will not do that.

Starmer continuing his war on the left started by the ehrc and maintained by Corbyn by refusing to restore the whip

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Not sure Keir Starmer is in charge of Labour....This kamikaze war with his left means it's hard to see him winning the 122 seats for a majority in England and Wales he needs..The three By elections in Scotland (results below) show that Labour is dead in Scotland....

Polls also suggest Welsh independence is gaining support and there are some Lab/PC marginals...

Think Starmer needs to realise HQ wants to destroy the left and if it means him losing in 2024 then it's collateral damage..

Two Aberdeen by elections..

SNP 47 +7
Con..20 -1
Lab..12 -5

SNP..43 +11
Con..42 +1
Lab...3 -5

Edinburgh by election

SNP...39 +2
Con...19 -5
Lab....16 -7

Remembering that winning seats in General Elections in Scotland for the Tories is a bonus...Labour it is essential.

I think it was Ken Livingstone who hit the nail on the head at a general election coverage on TV when Labour were all but wiped out in Scotland. He stated then that Scottish Labour had to be seen to cut the ties from the Westminster branch and look to appeal to Scottish voters and not be seen to be kowtowing to the big daddy at Westminster. Focus on Scottish issues and what Scottish voters want. Sadly, that has never happened.

GSC wrote:Starmer continuing his war on the left started by the ehrc and maintained by Corbyn by refusing to restore the whip

But what about the polls four years away from the next election?

GSC wrote:Starmer continuing his war on the left started by the ehrc and maintained by Corbyn by refusing to restore the whip

Fair play to Starmer, he's digging in and letting everyone know that he's in charge. Corbyn's fellow loons, McDonnell and Burgon in this case, are 'demanding' the whip is restored to Corbyn...not realising they're in little position to demand anything.

Will lay my cards out here - I'm a left-of-centre voter, switching between Labour and Green depending on election and voting system.  I'm v keen on the direction Corbyn moved Labour to, and agree 95% with his policies and principles (Brexit being an exception - disagree with Corbyn pushing for Article 50 to be triggered back in 2016 - an ill-judged knee-jerk reaction in my opinion).  I'm not in Labour party (never have been) but as part of an affiliated union I get a vote in Labour leadership contests.  Shell-shocked after the 2019 general election I voted Starmer, predominantly for his expertise on Brexit, but also as he had more gravitas than the other candidates.  He also made the right noises about preserving the general thrust of Labour's economic policies from Corbyn/McDonnell era.

So far, I feel it's a mixed picture on his leadership.  V disappointing on Brexit, given how perilously close we are to a no Deal, though I suspect this is calculated, and tactical, a form of triangulation perhaps.  Still, I would like a leader of opposition to put the pressure on extending the transition period (which can be done despite Johnson's rhetoric) given the dire alternative.  He has though been v effective on exposing Johnson and his cronies' ineptitude, and more latterly, corruption over Covid.  All in all, it's been a solid start, marked as much by avoiding mistakes and steadily raising his profile - decent signs so far.

However, I feel his handling of the EHRC anti-semitism report and Corbyn's response has been his first significant mistake.  Initially Starmer kept out of it and let the disciplinary process do it's work, but I feel getting involved now and removing the whip is a mistake - it creates divisions in the party needlessly.  Say what you like about Corbyn but he has huge support from members in the party so Starmer is creating more conflict than is necessary.  Corbyn's crime was to, whilst accepting majority of the report's findings and continuing to condemn anti-semitism to voice an opinion that the anti-semitism issue had been used as a stick to beat the left of Labour with.  I do feel Corbyn's comments, whilst accurate, were unhelpful and he'd have been best off keeping quiet.  However, the withdrawal of the whip given he had being cleared by the disciplinary process, is wrong-headed.  It is also worth pointing out it is not universally accepted by the Jewish community either - Corbyn has support in some quarters from that community, but their voices are being ignored by mainstream media.

MrInvisible wrote:Will lay my cards out here - I'm a left-of-centre voter, switching between Labour and Green depending on election and voting system.  I'm v keen on the direction Corbyn moved Labour to, and agree 95% with his policies and principles (Brexit being an exception - disagree with Corbyn pushing for Article 50 to be triggered back in 2016 - an ill-judged knee-jerk reaction in my opinion).  I'm not in Labour party (never have been) but as part of an affiliated union I get a vote in Labour leadership contests.  Shell-shocked after the 2019 general election I voted Starmer, predominantly for his expertise on Brexit, but also as he had more gravitas than the other candidates.  He also made the right noises about preserving the general thrust of Labour's economic policies from Corbyn/McDonnell era.

So far, I feel it's a mixed picture on his leadership.  V disappointing on Brexit, given how perilously close we are to a no Deal, though I suspect this is calculated, and tactical, a form of triangulation perhaps.  Still, I would like a leader of opposition to put the pressure on extending the transition period (which can be done despite Johnson's rhetoric) given the dire alternative.  He has though been v effective on exposing Johnson and his cronies' ineptitude, and more latterly, corruption over Covid.  All in all, it's been a solid start, marked as much by avoiding mistakes and steadily raising his profile - decent signs so far.

However, I feel his handling of the EHRC anti-semitism report and Corbyn's response has been his first significant mistake.  Initially Starmer kept out of it and let the disciplinary process do it's work, but I feel getting involved now and removing the whip is a mistake - it creates divisions in the party needlessly.  Say what you like about Corbyn but he has huge support from members in the party so Starmer is creating more conflict than is necessary.  Corbyn's crime was to, whilst accepting majority of the report's findings and continuing to condemn anti-semitism to voice an opinion that the anti-semitism issue had been used as a stick to beat the left of Labour with.  I do feel Corbyn's comments, whilst accurate, were unhelpful and he'd have been best off keeping quiet.  However, the withdrawal of the whip given he had being cleared by the disciplinary process, is wrong-headed.  It is also worth pointing out it is not universally accepted by the Jewish community either - Corbyn has support in some quarters from that community, but their voices are being ignored by mainstream media.

Given the stand taken by Starmer over this issue, and the very lukewarm 'apology' from Corbyn I think he had no choice but to follow this course of action. It also helps to distance Labour now from Corbyn's disastrous election performance. To be honest it feels that Starmer has to some extent been stitched up by the committee that let Corbyn back in.

So anti-semitism is a needless reason to create division within the party?

As for the 'not accepted by the whole Jewish community' argument, it's on a par with 'i'm not racist, i've got a black mate'.

Yougov (Labour voters)

Was Keir Starmer right to withhold whip from Corbyn ??

Yes 38
No..32

Talk about party splits.

Do you think Labour is divided as a Party ??

Yes 63%
No...8% (36% under Corbyn)

If the lightweight hadn't bothered suspending Corbyn last month this debacle wouldn't have happened and Labour would probably be 10 points ahead.

Johnson has a PPE scandal...Free school meals humiliation and record job losses and he's going up in the polls.

What a twonk Starmer is...Thank goodness for Burnham and Rashford

It was Labour's General Secretary who suspended Corbyn, not Kier Starmer.

And, while the below image is not updated for the most recent poll, most people seeing Labour as a divided party is nothing new.

Spoiler:

Anyway, both yourself and MrInvisible seem to be missing the point that if Starmer had restored the whip to Corbyn, there would have been a party split anyway with numerous Labour MPs resigning because they're disgusted with Corbyn.

http://islingtontribune.com/article/the-denunciation-of-jeremy-corbyn-is-wrong

See above, written by Jewish Labour party members in Corbyn's local branch. No doubt their views don't count as they're in Islington, but the way this issue has been portrayed is that the Corbyn critics represent everyone in Jewish community - this is not the case, but it doesn't fit the mainstream media narrative (which Starmer is responding to) so is conveniently overlooked.

MrInvisible wrote:http://islingtontribune.com/article/the-denunciation-of-jeremy-corbyn-is-wrong

See above, written by Jewish Labour party members in Corbyn's local branch.  No doubt their views don't count as they're in Islington, but the way this issue has been portrayed is that the Corbyn critics represent everyone in Jewish community - this is not the case, but it doesn't fit the mainstream media narrative (which Starmer is responding to) so is conveniently overlooked.

Do you actually believe this matters? A proportion of the Jewish community being unaffected by antisemitism does not mean it doesn't exist.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

If the lightweight hadn't bothered suspending Corbyn last month this debacle wouldn't have happened and Labour would probably be 10 points ahead.

I keep asking the same question because it's relevant. Why are you so fixated with polling FOUR YEARS away from the next election?

Soul Requiem wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

If the lightweight hadn't bothered suspending Corbyn last month this debacle wouldn't have happened and Labour would probably be 10 points ahead.

I keep asking the same question because it's relevant. Why are you so fixated with polling FOUR YEARS away from the next election?

(a) because he has a chip on his shoulder about Starmer and anyone from the centre of the party trying to make them electable again;
(b) because he thinks this country is more left wing than it is and he mistakingly thinks that this country would vote in a left wing party (none of the Labour leaders to win an election were from the left of the party);
(d) because he has fallen into the trap of thinking that to deal with a lurch to the right by the government that the opposition has to lurch to the left;
(e) because he'd rather dream of a socialist utopia than support a party that would operate in the real world.

These polls are a nonsense and as has been shown time and time again in recent years - the process of polling and the resuts they produce are deeply flawed.

The 2019 Labour MP for Colne valley has just quit the Party...Councillors quitting the Party and going independent and for what....For Starmer to look like a strong leader who takes on the left while millions worry about their future and whether they can keep a roof over their heads.

Starmer has too many Blairites fighting battles of the past he needs to smell the coffee... Miliband was killed by Blairites neutering him.

Blair cleaned up in Scotland with 50+ seats...Starmer won't win 10 and Blair also only needed to be three points ahead  for a majority and Starmer will probably need a ten point lead.

Crazy politics...Great lawyer..Crap politician

Good riddance to bad rubbish springs to mind, those standing by Corbyn are hardly a loss to the party.

Soul Requiem wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

If the lightweight hadn't bothered suspending Corbyn last month this debacle wouldn't have happened and Labour would probably be 10 points ahead.

I keep asking the same question because it's relevant. Why are you so fixated with polling FOUR YEARS away from the next election?

I was wondering this as well to be honest. Particularly as when Labour were polling much better just after Starmer took over Truss was very quick to point out that polling well between elections is meaningless, something along the lines of "ask Ed Milliband".

Any chance Starmer drove into your cat as well as a cyclist Truss?

Tony Blair approval rating...Yougov

Approve.....13%
Disapprove.71%

He did win three Elections...But he isn't popular now.

In 2005 Blair got 35% of the popular vote....Corbyn 40% in 2017.

Corbyn was crap but Starmer can't win without his supporters turning up.

It isn't 1997...People move on...Needs change.

A party called the SNP rules Scotland and it's on 50%+..Blair loses in 2005 with the SNP on 50 seats.

Yet another pointless post addressing none of the issues at hand.

Soul Requiem wrote:Yet another pointless post addressing none of the issues at hand.

When you tell me one Anti semetic thing Corbyn has said I'll start taking your bitter contributions seriously.

Won't hold my breath.

EHRC didn't find systematic AS in Labour...It said Corbyn interfered to speed expulsion for it up.

You haven't read the report.. Bless you.

Stop watching Kuennsberg and stop reading the Mail.

Bless

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The 2019 Labour MP for Colne valley has just quit the Party...Councillors quitting the Party and going independent and for what....For Starmer to look like a strong leader who takes on the left while millions worry about their future and whether they can keep a roof over their heads.

Starmer has too many Blairites fighting battles of the past he needs to smell the coffee... Miliband was killed by Blairites neutering him.

Blair cleaned up in Scotland with 50+ seats...Starmer won't win 10 and Blair also only needed to be three points ahead  for a majority and Starmer will probably need a ten point lead.

Crazy politics...Great lawyer..Crap politician

Suspect Labour have to go through this. They won't be electable for some time. They weren't (and won't get) elected on a bulging eyed, radical leftist platform a la Corbyn. It didn't work for Foot/Kinnock either. If the red brigades want to jump ship - let them.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Soul Requiem wrote:Yet another pointless post addressing none of the issues at hand.

When you tell me one Anti semetic thing Corbyn has said I'll start taking your bitter contributions seriously.

Won't hold my breath.

Good grief! No-one (that I can recall) claimed Corbyn, himself, had uttered anything anti-Semitic. What they do claim, and apparently so do the EHRC, is that his (*cough*) leadership of the Labour party didn't address anti-Semitism elsewhere within the Party and as that 'leader' he hasn't accepted any responsibility or acknowledged it even occurred.

Takes a strange Anti Semitic Party and leader to improve measures to kick out Anti Semites which the EHRC acknowledged...

As I'm the only one who has viewed the EHRC conclusions it's pointless engaging with grown Men who think the media is fair and balanced.

The Moon isn't made of cheese either.. Sorry to tell you.

Moving on..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:EHRC didn't find systematic AS in Labour...It said Corbyn interfered to speed expulsion for it up.

You haven't read the report.. Bless you.

Stop watching Kuennsberg and stop reading the Mail.

Bless

Been getting your information from Momentum again?

Bless you.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Tony Blair approval rating...Yougov

Approve.....13%
Disapprove.71%

He did win three Elections...But he isn't popular now.

In 2005 Blair got 35% of the popular vote....Corbyn 40% in 2017.

Corbyn was crap but Starmer can't win without his supporters turning up.

It isn't 1997...People move on...Needs change.

A party called the SNP rules Scotland and it's on 50%+..Blair loses in 2005  with the SNP on 50 seats.

1) As has been pointed out previously, there was no viable third party in 2017, hence why Corbyn got an inflated vote share. You can't draw valid comparisons to 2005 because of this.

2) Blair doesn't lose, as such, in 2005 if the SNP win 50 seats. Labour won 41 seats in Scotland in 2005. Let's suppose all those go to the SNP. It would still leave Labour with 314 overall seats, a hell of a lot more than the Tories, and enough to rule on a deal with the Lib Dems.