Mr Kissyfur wrote:
The SNP can't sit there and vote against a labour minority government without getting the "you're enabling the Tories", which would kill them
You're not wrong on this bit but the result is still lose/lose as far as I can see. Ed is banking hard, in that case, on having a minority with more seats than the Conservatives, which doesn't seem likely from the current polls, and has more or less given up on saving any Labour seats in Scotland.
The more likely result is that Cameron will have at least 10-15 seats more than Ed, giving him the mandate to try to set up a government first. A formal coalition with the remnants of the Lib Dems and an informal understanding with UKIP will probably give it enough strength to form as a minority. One thing Clegg does seem firm about is that the party with the most seats has the clearer mandate to govern, so there would need to be very strong barriers against partnering with them and I don't think they exist.
The gap is going to count though and I'm not certain how this will play out. Lets say the Tories get 280 and the Lib Dems 27. That makes 307 and is 19 shy of a majority, even if you throw 3-4 UKIP in.
Meanwhile Labour get 270 and the SNP 47. That makes 317 - still short but the bigger number. Let's say Plaid throw their weight behind them - still only 320.
This is where it gets a bit tricky and really problematic for the country. Surely the Tories have the bigger mandate (by simple virtue of more seats), but can't get the numbers together. Neither can Labour but their number is bigger BUT they don't have as many seats as the Tories by themselves. A ConLib would be formal, and at best a Labour minority would be a 'vague understanding' of support from the SNP - hardly conclusive. Then Ed would be utterly dogged by the constant accusation of being held up by the horrible Nationalists.
As with most things, a 50/50 split is generally terrible as even the party arguing they have 51% is operating on a knife edge. All in the result is totally uncertain and looks to be a fucking nightmare either way.
Personally I'm looking for a 1992-esque late swing to the blues, because it seems at least possible and offers the best chance for stability.
_________________
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
Pretty much everyone agrees with Gnomes,
really, it's just some are too right on to admit it.