Sunday, May 9, 2010

A little 'relevant' lesson in basic arithmetic for the Labour party

I couldn't help but raise a smile to see that even Peter Hoskin of the Spectator thought that Labour were not merely foolish in rubbishing Alex Salmond's offer of a progressive alliance to freeze out the Tories, but were also appallingly bad-mannered.

As Columbo might say - I'm a little confused here, Labour. Based on public statements from your party, two things are apparently true - a) it is still, in principle, perfectly possible to form a Labour-led coalition, and b) the SNP are utterly irrelevant to that process. Well, if we assume a long-term deal with the DUP is highly unlikely, that means the only progressive coalition available is as follows -

Labour 258
+ Liberal Democrat 57
+ SDLP 3
+ Green 1
+ Alliance 1
+ Independent (Sylvia Hermon) 1

That comes to a grand total of 321 seats. The combined opposition to that coalition government would have a total of 323 seats - and that's excluding the five abstentionist Sinn Féin MPs, plus the still-to-be-elected member for Thirsk and Malton, who is highly likely to be a Tory. But, on the other hand, if you move the nine Scottish and Welsh nationalists from the opposition column to the coalition column, you have a government total of 330 seats, and a combined opposition total of just 314.

So, just remind me again, Labour, how exactly do you work out that the SNP are 'irrelevant' to this process?

2 comments:

  1. What do you make of some Scottish Labour figures saying that a possible LibLab coalition will not need the SNP because they say that the SNP "wouldn't dare to vote with the Tories"?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think that's just bravado. It may well be true that the SNP wouldn't vote down the coalition on a confidence vote, but if Labour actually want to get any legislation through they'll have to start dealing constructively with the SNP, even if it's only behind the scenes.

    ReplyDelete