It's been like one long school break time in the playground. Silly name calling, who can shout the loudest and who can get who into trouble. A thoroughly uninspiring bunch, the lot of them.

Well no, not if Labour are happy to be kicked out at the next election.

Buy yourself a cheap day return to Birmingham, you won't struggle then.

We should have two mew laws:
- UK residential property owned by non-EU citizens should be subject to an annual tax on value; and
- no newspapers / media outlets only to be controlled / owned by UK domiciled and resident individuals / companies.

LOL

The SNP would no more "pull Labour's strings" than the LimpDems have pulled the tories over the last five years.

We're looking at the very last of two-party politics. I reckon that if Labour do form the next government and in the absence of a very unlikely landslide, then consensus politics will be the way forward. To that end, we'll also be offered over the next five years, a proposal for some form of PR and reformation of the HoL. This may disappoint many left-wingers but would strike fear into the hearts of the tories, simply because they truly believe they were "born to rule".

We're heading for a federalist United Kingdom and that is the only way to keep the UK together

What's the consensus between Labour and the SNP on Trident? Move it to Manchester?

The SNP have put themselves forward as an anti-Tory party as much as a nationalist party in this election (and in the referendum). What people may have forgotten is there are elections for the Scottish parliament in 2016.

Now you can't really appeal to disaffected Labour voters, then vote down a Labour government that then results in a Tory administration and expect to retain that support.

They would be just like the Lib Dems. Went to the country on one platform, anti-Tory, and enabled the thing they said they were against.

They have little choice but to back Labour, deal or no deal.

There doesn't need to be one. SNP can vote against. Labour and Tories vote for. Trident is renewed. It's obvious.

If the SNP made this a red line issue (which they have already said they won't....) then for reasons outlined in my previous post they won't be thanked for bringing a Labour govt. down if it lets the Tories in.

Do you believe that if a Queen's Speech is defeated, then that means the end of the government?

If the SNP votes down a Labour government, does it necessarily mean that there will be a Tory government? If The Tories can form a government they will do, the Labour / SNP relationship becomes irrelevant. If the Tories can't form a government then they can't form a government.

The most likely scenario, if the polls are correct, is that Cameron will follow the precedents set by Heath and Brown and hang about in Downing Street, trying to form a government. Eventually he will fail and resign. Milliband then becomes PM.

If the SNP votes down the Labour government, it doesn't let the Tories in. Because they can't form a government.

Eventually, if neither Labour or the Tories can form a government, there would have to be a second election. Labour and the Tories would have to agree to support a motion for an early election. The SNP wouldnt have let in the Tories. They would fight that election on the basis that it been caused by the Westminster parties blatant disregard of the voice of Scotland. Another step towards a second referendum.

The big day has arrived.
Don't think I've ever been as uninterested in a GE campaigh as this one.
In fact I've gone as far as to purposefully avoid it as much as has been possible...
Just looked this morning online at the six candidates in my constituencey.
The usual three jokers from the main parties who have convinced the great British public that austerity is their fault.
The Little Englander UKIPer (village greens, church bells and no swarthy types hiding behind the cemetary headstones).
Greens (go on, you know it'll make you feel all cuddlier inside).
Yorkshire First (who I couldn't be d to read about but assume he's a miniature version of a UKIPer).

I doubt I'll be rushing to my designated polling station anytime soon.

Brenda may be appointing a new govt soon, but not much changes, I was delighted to read that I am paying for police officers to leaflet the village where William and Kate live warning everyone off harassing by photography. A heartwarming use of public money and police time I think, but would have been good if they could have dropped off a menu from the local Indian at the same time for free. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-32609527

Brenda may be appointing a new govt soon, but not much changes, I was delighted to read that I am paying for police officers to leaflet the village where William and Kate live warning everyone off harassing by photography. A heartwarming use of public money and police time I think, but would have been good if they could have dropped off a menu from the local Indian at the same time for free. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-32609527

It's not just about voting Labour down but offering to support a Tory govt. One of the things I have seen suggested elsewhere is the SNP do a deal with the Tories who deliver devomax to the SNP in exchange for support in passing William Hague's "EVEL" legislation. The logic being devmax is what they always wanted and the Tories have long since given up on Scotland or the concept of the United Kingdom and just want to "rule" England.

I think it is a bit fanciful to say the least and if they did then I reckon the SNP would revive other parties fortunes north of the border as quickly as support for Labour dropped away after the referendum and with 2016 looming they won't do it.

As to the simpler situation of a Labour Queens speech being rejected the SNP would possibly have to vote against to ensure it was, not just abstain. Another election occurs and if the Tories won outright then I am sure Labour and others would argue a vote for the SNP was a vote for the Tories as they suggest voting for the Lib Dem's is.