UK election special

[Elerond]

If you need to rebuild your capital city, then you probably really need to end austerity, although I don't think it is necessary what other people mean when they say that austerity should end. 

[Raithe]

And...Lord Sugar Quits Labour
 

Lord Sugar has announced he has quit the Labour party because of its "negative business policies and the general anti-enterprise concepts".

The Apprentice star said he had lost confidence in the party over the last year and that it had been "aware of my disillusionment for some time".

Lord Sugar said he informed the party of his decision on Friday and kept his intentions quiet during the election campaign rather than use them to "possibly damage" Labour's election chances.

He was appointed a peer by the previous Labour administration in 2009, but attacked the vision outlined during Mr Miliband's tenure.

In a statement, Lord Sugar said: "In the past year I found myself losing confidence in the party due to their negative business policies and the general anti-enterprise concepts they were considering if they were to be elected.

"I expressed this to the most senior figures in the party several times." He continued: "I was originally brought into the party by Gordon Brown during an era where true enterprise was being supported by the party. I signed on to New Labour in 1997 but more recently, particularly in relation to business, I sensed a policy shift moving back towards what Old Labour stood for. By the start of this year, I had made my decision to resign from the party whatever the outcome of the General Election. However, I am a loyal person and rather than use my decision to possibly damage the party's chances in the election, I decided, as a relatively high-profile individual, to keep my intentions quiet for the duration of the campaign."

During his maiden speech in the Lords, the businessman made reference to his successful BBC show The Apprentice.

He faced criticism after being appointed an "enterprise champion" by Mr Brown's government, but told peers in 2009: "I am the new boy on the block. In your Lordships' House I am certainly the apprentice.

[213374U]

Part of the problem is that by moving left they were trying to appeal to the kind of people who deface war memorials and want to burn down London in order to end austerity.

 

I seriously doubt they were looking to appeal to the kind of violent "anti-system" groups that pull that **** off. The wage slave that stays at home and is more bothered by his mortgage payments eating up the better part of his salary than the protests he watches on TV, on the other hand...

 

Regardless, it's very worrying. People rioting because they don't like the result of free and fair elections isn't something you see every day. That's an obvious sign of disenfranchisement and I think it's only going to get worse.

[Monte Carlo]

That's an obvious sign of disenfranchisement and I think it's only going to get worse.

 

Alternatively, it's a sign of bien pensant idleness and stupidity, by a small hardcore of idiots who come out and play twice a year. Most of them are middle-class kids. The remainder aren't even worth dignifying with argument or analysis.

[213374U]

So what you're saying is it's being blown out of proportion by the media and the rioting isn't significant or representative of anything. Well, I don't live there so you probably have a better perspective.

 

Idleness and stupidity ostensibly brought down the Roman Empire, though.

[Monte Carlo]

The media show the 'best bits.' There will be a crowd of, say, two thousand, out of which fifty act like tossers.

 

I'm more worried about the Judge Dredd 'Block War' style riots like the ones we suffered in 2011, TBH. Middle-class protestors are predictable and fundamentally harmless. The Mob, OTOH, are a different kettle of fish.

 

That is definitely driven by an almost nihilistic level of wilful stupidity, and it worries me much more than the misguided capering of Jasper and Arabella with their Guy Fawkes masks.

[Rostere]

No I f***ing wouldn't. I don't mind voting for a set of standards, but ideologies are for people who struggle with complex problems.

I'm sorry, I'm not a native English speaker, the word "ideology" might have different connotations for you.

 

I use this definition. 2c: "the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program". The collected political goals of a party or an individual is what I am talking about.

 

An ideology - in the sense I'm talking about it - is the sum of a set of political opinions. As you might have noticed, elected representatives in democracies organize into parties to push through commonly agreed-upon political agenda, which is defined according to the ideology of the party, which is the aggregate of the ideology of it's constituents.

 

Anyone who makes up their mind before they hear the issue is a ****ing fool. Everybody, nah, nah, nah, everybody is so busy wanting to be down with a gang! I’m a conservative! I’m a liberal! I’m a conservative! It’s bull****!

I think you have completely missed the point if you think this is relevant to our discussion. Our discussion is about voting for political goals and theories instead of NOT voting for these, but for "a person" (whatever that means).

 

With regard to me personally, your quote above could not be a worse description. I make up my mind on every issue with meticulous care (this is more connected to me compulsively reading copious amounts of news articles and following politics than the fact that I'm going to use it to vote for someone, though), and then match them to candidates' stances with any of the online tools available for doing so.

 

In practice, before elections news sites compete for traffic by building these tools. Candidates can declare their stance (positive or negative, from 1 to 5) regarding 30 or so political suggestions, and in text explain the reason for their doing so. I will do the same myself and match my scores against all candidates I can vote for in my district in question (approximately 477 different persons in my particular district if we only count the parties currently in the Riksdag) by the variant of the STV voting system we have.

 

Then, I am going to vote for the person whose political goals, motivated with sound reasoning, align the closest with mine (and by the above definition, whose ideology closely matches mine). Supposing this person gets elected, I will keep track of his/her performance, which might differ from what I wanted, in case I would not vote for that person again. I don't identify with any party and always feel dirty after I have voted, but I have made my utmost to ensure that the person I voted for is as closely as possible my avatar in the Riksdag, by using a method of common ideology as I have detailed above.

 

Now...

 

You write that you "f***ing wouldn't" vote with ideology as a guide. You want to vote "for a person" (whatever that means).

 

Now, let us repeat the definition of ideology from the British Merriam-Webster dictionary: An ideology is the sum of:

• Sociopolitical assertions (a candidate's analysis of the current sociopolitical situation)
• Sociopolitical theories (a candidate's theories about how the current situation was influenced by previous governments and how future governments might influence it)
• Sociopolitical aims (a candidate's values on more/less desirable sociopolitical situations)

So you have said that you "f***ing wouldn't" vote for a candidate based on any of this - anything which makes up an ideology. You want to vote for "a person" (whatever that means). But what meaningful attributes define a politician that are not part of his/her ideology? Are you talking about religion? Sexual inclination? Hobbies? Ethnic background? Hair style?

 

It's hard to dissect your statement into meaning anything else than you being a superficial moron who judges politicians like you would judge Big Brother contestants, or you really agreeing with me but trying to lash out at my opinions for some personal reason, or you not knowing what "ideology" means, or you intentionally trolling. There's nothing wrong with trolling but in that case you could at least be a bit more obvious.

 

You also write that "ideologies are for people who struggle with complex problems". In this, you might ironically enough be correct. Ideologies are for people who struggle with complex problems, and moronic superficiality is for people who lack the capacity to start struggling with complex problems to begin with.

 

What the hell is so difficult to understand?

 

Stop trying to force the UK into your limited nationalist mindset for 30 seconds.

You know, it's getting harder and harder to take you seriously by the minute. I've written stuff on this forum for 8 years, and if anything about my political opinions should be abundantly clear, it's that I am the opposite of a nationalist. I have never during those 8 years written anything which could possibly be interpreted as being "nationalist", because that type of thinking is the polar opposite to mine.

 

It's a very, very odd derogatory term to choose and to be honest I think it's most likely that some type of Freudian projection is going on. By saying that the FPTP voting system is grossly outdated and insufficiently democratic, I have somehow insulted your nationalist sentiments. Because of some inexplicable reason you think that 19th-century voting systems are integral to your national identity and because you, somewhere deep inside, realize that it's silly to have nationalist feelings about an old voting system you accuse me of being a nationalist.

 

FPTP makes elections fundamentally between candidates at a local level.

But this is also one of the reasons it's so bad. Currently, you have six different parties representing various regional special interests in Parliament, holding 76 seats. That's an absurd amount.

 

FPTP requires no party to have a national vision, but enables the rise of parties who pander to specific regional interests (SNP...). This is of course true not only of the nationalist parties, but of all candidates. The result is a navel-gazing parliament obsessed with regional problems and lacking national vision.

 

_As we've just seen_ FPTP deprives top party hacks of the comfort of knowing they'll always be in power. Even the Prime Minister.

I take it you're referring to Ed Balls. This is a bad example, since the reason he was ousted was that a candidate from another party took his place.

 

For all we know, Ed Balls might have been the ideal candidate for the Labour voters in his district (and national Labour voters). It makes literally ZERO ****ING SENSE AT ALL that a person should be voted from parliament because the people of opposing opinion from his home town go out to vote. What would make sense however, is if Ed Balls was removed from parliament because no Labour voters wanted him there. Can you understand the difference?

 

Which incidentally is exactly how things are organized in the typical proportional voting system. The parties have lists of candidates, from which you can vote for specific persons. Candidates then get switch places on the party lists depending on how many "personal votes" they get. So if very few Labour people want Ed Balls, then other people will take his place on the list, even if he is placed 2nd on it by the party. This happens all the time where I live. Several previous ministers lost their seat when the people voted for different people on the party lists.

 

Further, prop rep means coalitions where a majority party has to pander to the fringes.

Wrong. In recent history, vote share has been roughly split between Lib Dems, Labour and the Tories, with the Lib Dems being the smallest party among the three. A system of proportional representation would leave them pandering to the centre, not the fringes. Which is also typically the case internationally.

 

Yes, from a British POV, proportional representation is the old hippy adage made flesh - "don't vote man, the Government always wins."

What the heck? This makes zero sense at all.

 

Smug Euro coalitions, all back-scratching and wallowing in shabby consensus it's what's given us awesome governments like, er, France and Spain. Germany is different, because they have all the money.

LOL. This is blatant cherry-picking, and you know it. Absurd.

 

I don't like elements of FPTP, it's brutal, what's happened to UKIP shows a democratic deficit. But they know our system. They have to develop grassroots political structures the hard way. Like hardy perennials in a well-tended garden, not fly-by-night knotweed.

 

Well, a lottery would also be brutal.

 

The problem is not that UKIP lacks grassroots organization, that's not the problem at all. What they do lack is regional focus. They need to focus on the districts where they are (relatively) popular, pander to their specific wishes and blow all their campaign money there, and absolutely nothing at all on the rest of the country. That's how you win in a FPTP system. All other votes for UKIP in districts where they aren't currently among the likely winners is a complete waste.

 

As for Scotland. *shudders* it's a one-nation state of swivel-eyed loons at the moment. Not the Scotland I knew. It's like an old mate you haven't seen for a while suddenly joins the Moonies or something.

But it isn't.

 

Only 50% or so voted for the SNP, and that's after they promised to respect the "no" vote very thouroughly.

 

The election map gives a completely misleading impression, about 50% or so of Scots are not SNP voters, it's just that the SNP is the biggest party. They have 99% or so of the Scotish seats, but that's just because in the game of FPTP they were spread out as to be the single largest party in every single district.

[Zoraptor]

The belief that PR ends with parties pandering to the fringes is certainly an inaccurate one, and it is rather ironic in that it is the tories saying it who stand to lose most from PR yet many people just seem to believe them despite them having an obvious reason for bias and no real examples either. What tends to happen is that the big left and right party go more central, and blame any unpleasant policies on their partner(s) being too moderate or too extreme. Which is exactly what happened to the libdems this time, they got the blame for the bad and no credit for the moderation. To illustrate, our current right wing government has the ACT party as a partner, it is economically far right wing and a client of the ruling party only getting a seat because they didn't stand against him. They are the fall guy for any right wing lunacy the gov wants to do like selling the prisons off to incompetent british firms. They don't get anything the gov doesn't really want itself but which they know will be unpopular to most of their soft support. Same for the Maori party, they got some lip service like whanau ora, but otherwise got nothing despite being supposedly quite left wing, hence they lost quite badly last election as did the libdems.

 

In any case, the alternative to fptp should not be mmp or similar, they are designed by politicians for politicians, both of them. Multi member STV is by far the best, only direct electorate voting for individual candidates so no party lists for old hacks and apparatchniks but gives proportional results overall so you don't end with the party with the 3rd most votes getting 1 seat.

[Monte Carlo]

I'm not going to be lectured to by Scandinavians. It's utter apples-and-oranges. You can't even begin to compare the socio-economic and cultural underpinnings of Scandie Social Democracy and what happens in the UK.

 

Cradle-to-grave statist, high-tax coalition government obviously works for Scandinavians. That's great. It won't forever,  in a globalised world.

[Raithe]

For the somewhat politically related news...

 

Princes Charles "Black Spider Letters" set for publication after 10 year battle

 

 

 

The Royal Family’s reputation for political neutrality faces its most serious challenge in a generation as the “black spider” memos written by Prince Charles to senior ministers are finally set to published after a 10-year legal battle.

 

The Cabinet Office has announced that the memos would be published on Wednesday afternoon, following a Supreme Court ruling last month. Ministers had previously attempted to block their publication on the grounds that public knowledge of their contents would undermine the Prince of Wales’ “position of political neutrality”.

 

Their publication – which could reveal whether the heir to the throne privately lobbied government ministers on issues ranging from farming to complementary medicine – presents David Cameron with a potential constitutional crisis less than a week after the general election.

But some of the information in the letters will remain secret, after the Upper Tribunal (Administrative Appeals Chamber) approved “provisional redactions” to protect personal data of people other than Charles.

 

The 27 letters, given their name because of the Prince’s spidery writing, were sent to ministers in seven Whitehall departments. They were sent between 2004 and 2005 to Labour secretaries of state for business, innovation and skills; health; children, schools and families; environment, food and rural affairs; culture, media and sport; as well as the Northern Ireland Office and the Cabinet Office, and are said to contain “particularly frank” interventions on policy. 

A Freedom of Information Tribunal had first ordered the publication of the memos in 2012, following requests from the Guardian newspaper. But the then attorney general Dominic Grieve took the extraordinary step of over-ruling that decision to protect the Prince’s reputation.

 

At the time, Mr Grieve warned they “contain remarks about public affairs which would in my view, if revealed, have had a material effect upon the willingness of the government to engage in correspondence with the Prince of Wales, and would potentially have undermined his position of political neutrality.”

 

Saying that if members of the public read the letters, they could think that the Prince had disagreed with government policy, Mr Grieve argued that disclosure would undermine the Prince’s ability to perform his duties if he became monarch.

 

Ministers have spent hundreds of thousands of pounds in legal fees to prevent their disclosure but, in March, the Supreme Court overturned Mr Grieve’s decision, ruling that the government had unlawfully blocked the publication of the letters.

 

Calling that decision “deeply disappointing”, David Cameron said it was “about the principle that senior members of the Royal Family are able to express their views to government confidentially.”

 

Clarence House has previously expressed disappointment “that the principle of privacy has not been upheld,” but royal aides have indicated they are relatively relaxed about the publication of the letters themselves.

 

The 27 documents are expected to be published by the Information Commissioner and the Cabinet Office at 3pm.

Timeline: The ‘black spider’ memos

• The 27 letters, sent between Charles and ministers in seven government departments,  were the subject of a  Freedom of Information  request in 2005.
• A Freedom of Information tribunal ruledthe letters could be published in September 2012.
• The following month, then Attorney General Dominic Grieve overruled this decision and warned that their publication would “potentially have undermined his position of neutrality”.
• The Supreme Court overturned this in March 2015 and they will now be published.

 

[Rostere]

I'm not going to be lectured to by Scandinavians.

So that is what it's all about then? You are not going to listen to people of a different nationality?

 

I am incredibly grateful that's not how things work in the scientific world.

 

It's utter apples-and-oranges. You can't even begin to compare the socio-economic and cultural underpinnings of Scandie Social Democracy and what happens in the UK.

There's nothing inherently "Scandinavian" about proportional representation.

 

The two most popular systems of proportional representation were first formulated in Belgium and France (although France uses neither of them, obviously).

 

Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with culture. Back in the days everybody used FPTP variants, because it's the simplest way to arrange elections. Then at some point it became feasible to use more advanced systems, which might require voting results to be summed up centrally before final results can be announced, and more complicated mathematical formulae. At that point a lot of people switched to proportional representation, becuase that is what most people want out of democracy - that the parliament reflects national voter sympathies. The old system of FPTP voting is instead an absurd game where the biggest party wins, which might not reflect popular opinion at all. If 20% vote right-wing and 80% vote left-wing, but spread their votes evenly across eight parties, the right-wing will win. If this is not a complete bankruptcy of a voting system, then I don't know what is. This is also illustrated in practice by the Green Party in the UK elections, which serves as a spoiler for the left-wing.

 

Cradle-to-grave statist, high-tax coalition government obviously works for Scandinavians. That's great. It won't forever,  in a globalised world.

But this has nothing at all to do with what we are discussing. Nothing. At. All. This is about proportional representation, in case you have missed it. Not what people vote for in certain countries. In any case, the last Swedish election resulting in a left-wing majority took place in 2002 - 13 years ago. There has not been a consistent left-wing majority in polls for some time. You heard it from me first - you might want to revise your picture of Sweden as a left-wing country.

 

Just look at the UK - the results of proportional representation would disfavour the Tories most, and favour the UKIP instead. That's definitely a shift to the right. SNP would also be hit hard by proportional representation.

[BruceVC]

 

I'm not going to be lectured to by Scandinavians.

So that is what it's all about then? You are not going to listen to people of a different nationality?

 

I am incredibly grateful that's not how things work in the scientific world.

 

It's utter apples-and-oranges. You can't even begin to compare the socio-economic and cultural underpinnings of Scandie Social Democracy and what happens in the UK.

There's nothing inherently "Scandinavian" about proportional representation.

 

The two most popular systems of proportional representation were first formulated in Belgium and France (although France uses neither of them, obviously).

 

Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with culture. Back in the days everybody used FPTP variants, because it's the simplest way to arrange elections. Then at some point it became feasible to use more advanced systems, which might require voting results to be summed up centrally before final results can be announced, and more complicated mathematical formulae. At that point a lot of people switched to proportional representation, becuase that is what most people want out of democracy - that the parliament reflects national voter sympathies. The old system of FPTP voting is instead an absurd game where the biggest party wins, which might not reflect popular opinion at all. If 20% vote right-wing and 80% vote left-wing, but spread their votes evenly across eight parties, the right-wing will win. If this is not a complete bankruptcy of a voting system, then I don't know what is. This is also illustrated in practice by the Green Party in the UK elections, which serves as a spoiler for the left-wing.

 

Cradle-to-grave statist, high-tax coalition government obviously works for Scandinavians. That's great. It won't forever,  in a globalised world.

But this has nothing at all to do with what we are discussing. Nothing. At. All. This is about proportional representation, in case you have missed it. Not what people vote for in certain countries. In any case, the last Swedish election resulting in a left-wing majority took place in 2002 - 13 years ago. There has not been a consistent left-wing majority in polls for some time. You heard it from me first - you might want to revise your picture of Sweden as a left-wing country.

 

Just look at the UK - the results of proportional representation would disfavour the Tories most, and favour the UKIP instead. That's definitely a shift to the right. SNP would also be hit hard by proportional representation.

 

 

Dont take Monte's comment personally Ros..you know the English, very intransigent 

 

The rest of us really enjoy your insights. I wish my country was run like the the  Scandinavian countries ..I think overall you guys have the most effective government model to uplift your citizens and ensure economic prosperity 

[Nonek]

Apparently Mr Galloway is contesting his resounding loss in this election, should be worth a chuckle or two.

[Rostere]

Dont take Monte's comment personally Ros..you know the English, very intransigent 

 

Oh, I'm not sure it's not simple intransigence. I think the matter is just that for whatever reason he has become convinced that FPTP is a "British" phenomenon... And if it is a British phenomenon, he wants to keep it that way to avoid being like his cherry-picked notion of "the rest of the world" (conveniently lumped together), or maybe just to feed some vain notion that being British is inherently different. To me this is just like being unwilling to go from typewriters to computers because the latter are insufficiently British, well, luckily that didn't happen. In the field of science and technology it is generally accepted that there is no such thing as alignment with a country and/or a culture. You use the optimal tool for what you're trying to achieve and it's simple as that.

 

 

The rest of us really enjoy your insights. I wish my country was run like the the  Scandinavian countries ..I think overall you guys have the most effective government model to uplift your citizens and ensure economic prosperity

 

The situation is very complicated. If I was very cynical I could say that the only really important policy throughout the 1900s was staying out of the two World Wars. When two sides fight in such wars, the biggest winner (relatively speaking) is the part which stays neutral. See also Switzerland.

 

If you read through Swedish newspapers you will find zero praise for any government, and nothing but scathing criticism. You would get the impression that this is the worst place on earth to live in, or at least the worst governed. There are a lot of problems here as well - there is a housing bubble of absurd proportions, in all European capitals there is only a similar situation in London. It is true that this is a very good place to live by different indices of development, but there are still strategical problems we are facing which could easily send our country plunging downwards.

[Raithe]

Oh the joys of politics...

 

MSN - SNP prepared to overrule Cameron on a 2nd Independence Referendum

 

 

 

 

 

The Scottish National party would be prepared to push ahead with a second independence referendum without David Cameron’s permission if the prime minister refuses any future demand to hold one, a senior party source in Westminster has indicated.

 

The party would be prepared to try to overrule the prime minister and hold an indicative ballot of the Scottish people if it believes it has a political mandate for a referendum but Westminster refuses to allow one.

When talking about whether Cameron would be able to refuse another demand for an independence vote, the senior SNP source claimed that the prime minister would not be able to, adding that “precedent is all”.

 

Before the general election, SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon repeatedly stressed that another referendum is off the agenda unless there is a “material” change in circumstances. However, there is no clear definition of what this means and the SNP has several options that might pave the way for it to argue it has a mandate for another.

Possible reasons include if Cameron resists the SNP’s demands for greater devolution of powers, if the UK votes to leave the European Union or withdraw from the European convention on human rights, or if the SNP wins a decisive victory at the Holyrood elections in 2016 having expressed a desire for another referendum in its manifesto.

 

On Wednesday, Sturgeon separately indicated that the Scottish people could demand another independence referendum if Cameron does not agree to her call for more powers for the Scottish parliament. She also said the prime minister cannot “rule out a referendum against the will of the people”.

The subject is likely to be the matter of discussion at a meeting between Sturgeon and Cameron on Friday, at which the first minister will present the prime minister with a shopping list of demands including control over the minimum wage, national insurance contributions, welfare, business taxes and equality policy.

The SNP source said that the party believes a second referendum will happen and that it would be won decisively if it took place tomorrow, despite last year’s vote being billed as a way of settling the issue for a generation. It “only has to be won once” and the last referendum was lost only because of the Labour former prime minister Gordon Brown’s intervention, the source added.

 

A spokesman for Sturgeon said: “These claims are totally wrong – there are no such plans. The position is crystal clear – the general election was not a mandate for another referendum. And there will only be another referendum if and when the people of Scotland back such a proposal at a Scottish parliament election.

“It is not for David Cameron or any other single politician to try and dictate what Scotland’s future should be – it will always be in the hands of the people.”

The issue of whether there will be another referendum has taken centre stage since the SNP won a landslide victory in Scotland at the general election.

Cameron has definitively ruled out allowing another poll since the election, saying “there isn’t going to be one”, but the SNP appears to have been emboldened by the fact it won 56 out of 59 Scottish constituencies.

 

The Conservatives have promised to devolve more powers to Scotland but Cameron is maintaining he is willing to go no further than the proposals published by the Smith commission, offering partial responsibility for tax raising. Sturgeon is pushing for full fiscal responsibility, while acknowledging that will take a number of years. She said earlier this week that Cameron “has to” discuss the matter.

Alex Salmond, the former first minister and previous SNP leader, said last week that the tidal wave of support for his party left Cameron with “no legitimacy whatsoever” in Scotland.

 

In a move that will do nothing to help relations between the SNP and Conservatives, the prime minister on Thursday gave a peerage and ministerial job in the Scotland Office to Andrew Dunlop, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher at the time of the poll tax. Responding to that appointment, SNP Westminster leader Angus Robertson said it was an “appalling and anti-democratic” scandal.

 

However, SNP insiders believe antagonistic moves like this will actually boost the campaign for independence. Likewise, it is understood the SNP is hoping Jim Murphy will stay in his position as Scottish Labour leader given the fact he oversaw the collapse of his party at the polls last week.

The senior SNP source even said the party would have considered fielding candidates in the north of England had the leadership debates happened sooner, as they made clear Sturgeon’s potential for popularity south of the border. Sturgeon has said there are no plans to do this, despite a favourable impression of her among many English voters and a social media campaign in the north of England called #TakeUsWithYouScotland.

 

It is understood that not even Sturgeon herself believed the predictions that the SNP would almost sweep the board in Scotland with 56 out of 59 seats, having a “wobble” on Thursday night about how well the party would fare against Labour.

The fact that the SNP is talking about opportunities for another referendum is likely to make for a combative parliament. Many of the party’s new MPs have been celebrating in the House of Commons this week, taking over a bar in parliament called the Sports and Social Club that has usually been populated by Labour researchers.

 

The party is already in talks to get all the obligations and privileges of the Liberal Democrats as the new third party in Westminster. An SNP MP said the party has secured use of the old Lib Dem corridor and suggested renaming it “Freedom Alley”. Robertson will move into Nick Clegg’s old office and the party’s whips will get an office allowing them to open unofficial communications with the Labour and Tory whips, known as the “usual channels”.

The party is also expecting to be handed at least two chairmanships of select committees and two questions at prime minister’s questions, as well as opposition debate time.

 

Robertson was confirmed as SNP’s Westminster leader on Tuesday, despite speculation that Salmond could make a return to the top job in London. Sturgeon has made clear she will be her party’s chief negotiator and spokesman on major issues.

Speaking following the SNP’s landslide election, Robertson said his party was “better placed to hold the UK government to account” than ever before.