Ketara made the point that nuclear weapons deter other nuclear armed powers
BUT
If nuclear weapons can't be used against another nuclear armed country (because you would both wipe each other out)
and they don't stop conventional wars like Vietnam, Falklands etc etc
Then they aren't really any good IMO.
You keep nuclear weapons around as a deterrent to stop other people using them on you, in a nutshell. Not for any functional 'good' so to speak. The only problems that arise are when someone who does not like you has them, and you do not. That puts you in a very nasty, precarious position, where they can obliterate you at will, and you can do nothing back.
As I said earlier, you can question whether nuclear deterrence will hold forever, whether or not we should rely on somebody else to provide for our defence, and so forth. But what it ultimately comes down to, is whether or not you're potentially prepared to risk the entire existence of this country on a 'need but don't have' basis, as opposed to a 'have but don't need' one, when the latter is a reasonably small chunk of the defence budget.
YMMV. I personally think the cost is worth the security. It doesn't remove the need for conventional forces, but it substantially lowers the risk of our nation going up in nuclear smoke. And that's an expense I'm willing to pay for!
World affairs mutate regularly. And nuclear bombs are easy enough to come by, if you know how to solve a sixty year old physics equation and have any real industry behind you. You can say that we shelter under the American shield, but using that logic, we might as well scrap the entire Armed Forces, and declare that we don't need them anymore now that we have NATO. The truth is, you can't always rely on your objectives allying with those of an allies for the span of a decade, let alone a century. Nuclear independence gives us more actual independence.
Anyway, enough nuclear talk. Let's get back to laughing at Nick Clegg.
Did we ever stop?
Newsflash for you Ketara: our countries already going up in smoke! The SNP have induced mass panic in Westminster. Not that I'm complaining
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Easy E wrote: I'm a stupid Yank, but I know a bit about Nuclear Deterrence issues.
Perhaps the Brits Nukes on their own are almost useless. Even within NATO, the contribution is small. However, it is still a contribution.
This contribution is a political weapon just as much as an actual weapon. There are two reasons:
1. NATO is a joint, cooperative arrangement. To be joint other participants besides just the US need to contribute stuff. Thanks for the Trident or two.
2. It gives you leverage and power on the world stage.
Regarding Point 2, let's look at two other countries as an example. Iraq and North Korea.
Iraq was one of the most hated and belligerent nations in the world. It was invaded and dismantled twice by a coalition of enemies.
North Korea is one of the most hated and belligerent nations in the world. It is just fine thanks to a pitiful little Nuke.
I think we can all see why you want a Nuke, even small and ineffective ones. Sure, the UK doesn't want to be belligerent and hated, but the world can change rapidly and suddenly you are on the "outs" of the world political system instead of on the "in".
Plenty of NATO countries are non-nuclear. Hell, Iceland doesn't even have an army.
As for North Korea, I think that its large neighbour to the north is more than a deterrent than its solitary nuke.
Yodhrin wrote: The idea that Trident is even slightly effective as a deterrent is pure, Unicorns-farting-rainbows-level fantasy.
Even if we were in a state of heightened tensions with Russia, we physically don't have enough qualified crew to man more than a couple of the subs at once,
Source. Because quite frankly, the Royal Navy has a wonderful ability to draft in the crew it needs from other ships/the RNR as necessary. We have plenty of spare submarine crew tied up in manning 'Astute' Class submarines that could easily be shunted sideways at a moment's notice, so I highly, highly doubt the veracity of this statement.
You can't just chuck some random sailors on a nuclear-armed sub, not even ones who serve on other nuclear-powered submarines, there are roles on Vanguard subs that require expensive specialist training and presently the number of people who have that training is predicated on a single sub operating at any one time, with one in reserve.
...but what it ultimately comes down to is this; Are you prepared to risk the existence of your nation upon you being wrong?
Yes, because I disagree with your assessment of how effective nuclear deterrence is for the UK. MAD worked because America has enough nukes to wipe out the planet several times over, as do the Russians. For everyone else nukes are pointless; the only people they would deter from using nukes are rational people, who would not use nukes in the first place, and if the leader of a nuclear power ever is mad enough to use their nukes, us having a handful to throw back at them will make no difference at all, because they're mad. The reality is WE are the ones who use the threat of nukes to push our agenda on the "world stage" - they're not about defence, they're about situations like the one described above where Thatcher threatened the French with the prospect of the UK nuking Argentina if they didn't make it easier for us to win a conventional war. They're about giving us a permanent seat on the security council despite the fact we're not a superpower any more. Former politicians, former Trident sub-commanders, former diplomats; as soon as a lot of people leave the offices that require them to back the party line on Trident, they admit Trident is a useless bauble.
If someone is serious about defending this country, Trident is the last thing they should be supporting. FFS, we're an island nation with no martime patrol aircraft and our navy is so inadequate at coastal defence that they have to have a destroyer chug up the coast for over a day to reach the North Sea or North Atlantic, those being the locations of not only most of our offshore oil & gas but also of our main area of responsibility as part of NATO. That is what NATO needs from us; the capacity to respond rapidly to an incursion into the Icelandic Gap, and as a location for command & control and air strike capacity in case of an incursion into northern Norway; right now we're not capable of either because successive governments have insisted on wasting money on a pointless nuclear system, on a bloated land army to aid in America's foreign misadventures, and on almost completely bespoke equipment and machinery rather than buying cheaper and often-superior off-the-shelf solutions where possible.
EDIT: And the idea that the reason for the difference in experience between Iraq and North Korea is NK's pitiful and questionably-function "nuclear programme" is a tad laughable. NK continue to exist because anyone that tried to invade them would find half the Chinese People's Liberation Army boiling over the border to eradicate them. And not because China are worried about NK's nukes; because China want a nice big mountainous buffer between them and the American-backed South Korean government with their American-manned military bases.
You can't just chuck some random sailors on a nuclear-armed sub, not even ones who serve on other nuclear-powered submarines, there are roles on Vanguard subs that require expensive specialist training and presently the number of people who have that training is predicated on a single sub operating at any one time, with one in reserve.
Much of Britain's military capabilities are little more than ornaments. Yes we could deploy them but they can't be sustained for more than a couple of months before running out of kit or personnel while the actual footprint on the ground would be tiny. At this point the Armed Forces are an expensive decoration, they either need a massive increase in funding (on kit that actually works) or they need to be pared back to a defense force because in reality that's all they really are after the Strategic Defense and Security Review although the writing had been on the wall since the early 90's.
As a Army regular I have seen just how flimsy some of our capabilities actually are, even if they do work very well (which is not a given). In a real war against real opposition we would not fare very well at all.
FFS, we're an island nation with no martime patrol aircraft and our navy is so inadequate at coastal defence that they have to have a destroyer chug up the coast for over a day to reach the North Sea or North Atlantic, those being the locations of not only most of our offshore oil & gas but also of our main area of responsibility as part of NATO. That is what NATO needs from us; the capacity to respond rapidly to an incursion into the Icelandic Gap, and as a location for command & control and air strike capacity in case of an incursion into northern Norway; right now we're not capable of either because successive governments have insisted on wasting money on a pointless nuclear system, on a bloated land army to aid in America's foreign misadventures, and on almost completely bespoke equipment and machinery rather than buying cheaper and often-superior off-the-shelf solutions where possible.
You can't just chuck some random sailors on a nuclear-armed sub, not even ones who serve on other nuclear-powered submarines, there are roles on Vanguard subs that require expensive specialist training and presently the number of people who have that training is predicated on a single sub operating at any one time, with one in reserve.
Source. Because I would say that this is absolutely untrue, I'm afraid. Firstly, we have a minimum of one submarine at sea at any one time due to our 'continuous at sea' deterrent. Key word? Minimum. We often have more than one moving around at a time. If we only had two submarine crews, we'd be in trouble.
Secondly, people themselves move around. They don't just get put on a submarine and stay there for the rest of their lives, and die once extracted from it. There are always ex-crewmembers who have moved to other vessels, or retired/left the service. They are still available for reassignment/being recalled.
Thirdly, submarine crew are usually trained in multiple job roles. You can't have a nuclear sub that can't operate because one guy is ill in bed, so there are usually several people on a sub who can operate in any given position.
Fourthly, many systems do require more specialist training, but many others do not, or share systems with other submarines. As a result, it is possible to transfer other submariners to those less specialised positions, whilst shuffling the aforementioned permanent crew capable of operating the more complicated systems to those which require them.
I really don't know who told you we can only operate one submarine at a time, but I'm afraid they were talking absolute rubbish. There are about 3,500 operational submariners in the UK at any given time, and a good chunk of them work on the Vanguards. Considering there are only 135-180 crew members on a Vanguard at any given time, I'm reasonably sure we can operate four together.
Yes, because I disagree with your assessment of how effective nuclear deterrence is for the UK.
Okay. That's fair enough.
MAD worked because America has enough nukes to wipe out the planet several times over, as do the Russians. For everyone else nukes are pointless; the only people they would deter from using nukes are rational people, who would not use nukes in the first place,
What about dictators or other unsavoury people (of which there have many through history)? Is it so inconceivable that a new Hitler/Stalin/Mao could arise? With nukes? Who would then use them to start throwing their weight about with non-nuclear powers?
and if the leader of a nuclear power ever is mad enough to use their nukes, us having a handful to throw back at them will make no difference at all, because they're mad.
So let me get this straight. Only mad people would ever use a nuclear bomb, or threaten to use one. Even if it's against a non-nuclear power?
I disagree.
The reality is WE are the ones who use the threat of nukes to push our agenda on the "world stage" - they're not about defence, they're about situations like the one described above where Thatcher threatened the French with the prospect of the UK nuking Argentina if they didn't make it easier for us to win a conventional war. They're about giving us a permanent seat on the security council despite the fact we're not a superpower any more.
We're not a superpower, but we are a power. Our military has the ability to launch an invasion more or less anywhere with a beach. Our economy is one of the largest in the world. We have one of the most high-tech armaments industries, nuclear weaponry, and substantial diplomatic pull around the world. We're not the US/China/Russia, but we're very definitely in the next league down.
If someone is serious about defending this country, Trident is the last thing they should be supporting. FFS, we're an island nation with no martime patrol aircraft and our navy is so inadequate at coastal defence that they have to have a destroyer chug up the coast for over a day to reach the North Sea or North Atlantic, those being the locations of not only most of our offshore oil & gas but also of our main area of responsibility as part of NATO.
Who on earth said that coastal defence was our current priority? I think you mistake what your perception of our military's role to be as things stand, with what it's role actually is, and what it's commanders view it to be.
That is what NATO needs from us; the capacity to respond rapidly to an incursion into the Icelandic Gap, and as a location for command & control and air strike capacity in case of an incursion into northern Norway; right now we're not capable of either because successive governments have insisted on wasting money on a pointless nuclear system, on a bloated land army to aid in America's foreign misadventures, and on almost completely bespoke equipment and machinery rather than buying cheaper and often-superior off-the-shelf solutions where possible.
Bloated? The BEF in 1914 had more men then us. As for the rest, well....
Let me put it this way. I don't think you and me will see eye to eye on this, because you and I have completely different views about Britain's place in the world. I would also venture (in the most inoffensive way possible), that I'm not entirely certain that you're up to date with how the armed forces actually work at the moment.
I said £180m, when infact i was aiming for the B key.
The SNP have declared they want to borrow an extra £180 BILLION, this frightens me in our current economy.
Also the SNP and Labour have NOT stated they wont share power, they have said they will form a power sharing agreement, if they are a minority, basically creating a government through the back door, by making the 2 parties with less votes than the expected Tory vote (but not enough for a majority)
So basically the majority of England is expected to vote Tory, and the English WILL resent seeing some 4 million voters 200 miles north of them deciding who runs their country.
It instills bile and resentment, and the neverendum will always be nearby until this calms down.
The SNP\ Sturgeon have also said while they arent doing another referendum, Sturgeon HAS said that a 2016 SNP Holyrood manifesto will allow p[eople to vote for the option of another. This is totally against the 'Once in a generation pledge'
Anyway, vote for who you want, its a fair ballot and i hold no resentment to anyone personally, i just dont like the SNP's politics. Cry for the hard done by, but Sturgeon has option to be 6th highest paid politician in the western world! She gets more than Cameron, but she has no responsibility for fiscal operations, defence and international standing. She should not be paid more than the PM.
I said £180m, when infact i was aiming for the B key.
The SNP have declared they want to borrow an extra £180 BILLION, this frightens me in our current economy.
Also the SNP and Labour have NOT stated they wont share power, they have said they will form a power sharing agreement, if they are a minority, basically creating a government through the back door, by making the 2 parties with less votes than the expected Tory vote (but not enough for a majority)
So basically the majority of England is expected to vote Tory, and the English WILL resent seeing some 4 million voters 200 miles north of them deciding who runs their country.
It instills bile and resentment, and the neverendum will always be nearby until this calms down.
The SNP\ Sturgeon have also said while they arent doing another referendum, Sturgeon HAS said that a 2016 SNP Holyrood manifesto will allow p[eople to vote for the option of another. This is totally against the 'Once in a generation pledge'
Anyway, vote for who you want, its a fair ballot and i hold no resentment to anyone personally, i just dont like the SNP's politics. Cry for the hard done by, but Sturgeon has option to be 6th highest paid politician in the western world! She gets more than Cameron, but she has no responsibility for fiscal operations, defence and international standing. She should not be paid more than the PM.
I remember the 1980s when a Conservative majority in England (but not in Scotland) imposed policies that Scotland didn't like. Nobody in England complained. It's democracy, we had to live it back then, and England would have to live with it now if the SNP held the balance.
It's the people of Scotland who decided when they have another referendum - not Salmond, Sturgeon, Cameron, Clegg, Miliband etec etc
If the SNP have another referendum pledge in their 2016 manifesto and if they get a majority, then in my view, they're well within their rights to hold another referendum. I don't think they will have another so soon.
And finally, I 100% agree with your comment on not liking the SNP. That is your right. I don't agree with it (I'll be voting SNP myself), but that is your divine right. No complaints from me If you don't like the SNP.
If the SNP have another referendum pledge in their 2016 manifesto and if they get a majority, then in my view, they're well within their rights to hold another referendum. I don't think they will have another so soon.
And finally, I 100% agree with your comment on not liking the SNP. That is your right. I don't agree with it (I'll be voting SNP myself), but that is your divine right. No complaints from me If you don't like the SNP.
Yep, that sounds democratic.
Scotland voters elected to stay in the Union, but the SNP didn't like the result, lets keep on going! We will break them!
If the SNP have another referendum pledge in their 2016 manifesto and if they get a majority, then in my view, they're well within their rights to hold another referendum. I don't think they will have another so soon.
And finally, I 100% agree with your comment on not liking the SNP. That is your right. I don't agree with it (I'll be voting SNP myself), but that is your divine right. No complaints from me If you don't like the SNP.
Yep, that sounds democratic.
Scotland voters elected to stay in the Union, but the SNP didn't like the result, lets keep on going! We will break them!
Will they do referendums anymore once you leave?
Like I said, another referendum is unlikely because of the closeness to the last vote.
But if the SNP say vote for us and we'll hold another referendum, and then they get a majority and hold one - how is that not democratic?
If they wait long enough fine. People will vote for the SNP for reasons other than wanting a referendum.
It would be fine if they had a voting method where if you could tick another box as you vote saying "future referendum Y/N?"
The cost of that last referendum cost £16 million in real terms.
It also generated a lot of antipathy that wasn't there before.
If the SNP does say it wants another referendum at "a future date", what a new business will do when deciding where to base itself is consider risks. Scotland will be seen as a risk by the business and its creditors.
I know you said don't care about your countries economy, but don't you worry about your job/ future jobs?
E4 is going on strike - to try to encourage young people to vote in the general election.
The channel will be turned off when the polls open at 7am on May 7, the hope being that its youth audience will rush out to vote when there's nothing on the telly. Well, on E4, anyway.
To prove it's really happening, E4 has even introduced us to Darren - the guy who makes sure E4 is on, and who will turn it off when it's time to head to the ballot box.
If you try to watch E4 on May 7, for most of the day all you'll get is Darren manning the control room - and there won't even be any adverts. (Admittedly, the idea of watching Darren all day might appeal to some people - but we probably don't want them voting anyway.)
"Less than half of under 25s voted at the last election, so we've engaged the most powerful weapon that we have at our disposal to try and boost that number - switching off their favourite TV channel for the day!" said Channel 4's Dan Brooke.
But never fear Hollyoaks fans, the Chester-set show must go on even on polling day - E4 resumes airing on May 7 from 7pm onwards.
so any minute now we'll see politicians vying for the vote of that hard to reach Hollyoaks/Made in Chelsea demographic.
If I were this 'Darren', I'd seize the opportunity of a whole channel to myself for the day and perform a series of mimes, monologues and stand-up comedy routines. The resulting performance would be seen by all those millions that just can't turn the TV off, go viral on the Youtube, and I'd be made! E4 today, Live at the O2 tomorrow!
Seize the day, Darren! This could change your life!
I remember the 1980s when a Conservative majority in England (but not in Scotland) imposed policies that Scotland didn't like. Nobody in England complained. It's democracy, we had to live it back then, and England would have to live with it now if the SNP held the balance.
The Conservatives held a majority in the UK (What people held in England and Scotland are irrelevant). SNP will not hold a majority in the UK. After all, wether the SNP like it or not
However, it is down to the other parties to decide to work with them, and I think everyone has made it clear they won't form a coalition with the SNP. They might work with them on a case by case basis, but I can't see the SNP getting what they want out of this. If anything they will make Labour and Torys more likely to work together.
I remember the 1980s when a Conservative majority in England (but not in Scotland) imposed policies that Scotland didn't like. Nobody in England complained. It's democracy, we had to live it back then, and England would have to live with it now if the SNP held the balance.
It's the people of Scotland who decided when they have another referendum - not Salmond, Sturgeon, Cameron, Clegg, Miliband etec etc
If the SNP have another referendum pledge in their 2016 manifesto and if they get a majority, then in my view, they're well within their rights to hold another referendum. I don't think they will have another so soon.
And finally, I 100% agree with your comment on not liking the SNP. That is your right. I don't agree with it (I'll be voting SNP myself), but that is your divine right. No complaints from me If you don't like the SNP.
The issue with the ref vote re-run and it being voted for through democratic process falls down is a bit like how the SNP may get a majority in scotland for a lot of seats due to YES voters predominantly being SNP voters, but No voters being from various party supporters.
Basically it means that the monority can govern the majority, i do not like this state of affairs.
Basically you have 100 voters and you have 100 seats at parliament, 30 of them vote for the SNP, 20 vote for Labour, 20 vote for Tory 9 vote for Lib Dem and 9 vote green, 7 vote Ukip say, 5 vote others
The main 3 old guard parties come to a combined total of 49 seats, Lab\Con wont form a coalltion, we know this from experience, they are too diametrically opposed. so this leaves Tory\Lib Dem, Lab, Lib Dem to form a hung parliament coalition, however this only creates a max of 29 seats, so the SNP have 1 more seat, a majority of the seats over anyone else.
This means that even though some 49% of the population doesnt want the SNP, they are governed by them because 30% wants it.
I realise this is how first past the post works, BUT, this means the tail is wagging the dog in terms of a second referendum, as the SNP would have been voted in by a minority of the population, this means that the SNP can take this that as they were voted in by the 'majority' I.e. most seats (when in fact they got less than half the vote overall) they have the 'wishes' of the populas to carry out a second referendum, when in fact some 55% of the voting public did not want to sepreate nor do they want a second vote.
Now granted this is extremely simplified, however the main point is, if the SNP achieve a majority in the 2016 holyrood election, even if only by 1 seat (as they have now) they can carry out a second referendum vote on the assumption that 'all of scotland' want it as scotland voted in an SNP government.
Someone called Nicola out on this at the Aberdeen leader debate when they called out that the SNP DO NOT speak for all of Scotland, in fact, over 60% of Scotland voted for a different part to the SNP.
This is why many in Scotland are so angry and feel lied to by the SNP, its all clever talking and hazy details.
I.e. the Labour team up, Yes they have stated they wont form a coalition government, but they HAVE stated they will form a 'power sharing agreement', this is the same thing as a coalition, its just got a different dress on, and it will again be trying to hold majority power over a nation that voted another party into more seats (but not a majority).
Nicola Sturgeon was also never voted into power, she was handed it, we got no say in that, similar story to when Gordon Brown became prime minister.
I believe that ANY prime minister\ first minister standing down before a term is complete, should result in a new election.
Its just all very murky, and i dont like the infighting its created up here, its turned friends against each other, including me personally, i lost friends in the ref which upset me greatly.
Scotland needs some kind of Unionist party that is none of the other three going.
Part of the reason why the SNP is so popular is because people are so fed up with the current state of affairs.
I don't really think the SNP are that answer and I'm now glad it was a No vote.
I'm not particularly interested in living in a country that wants to strong arm land from landowners to build crap "anywhere" housing and other short term economic projects.
The SNP would be disasterous for Scotland. They'd become a new bourgeois class among the chip on their shoulder masses. They'd blame the inescapable EU for their problems once they are absorbed.
Scotland doesn't need a massive population. It should have pride in striving to be a humble, green and pleasant (steady) nation.
obsidianaura wrote: If they wait long enough fine. People will vote for the SNP for reasons other than wanting a referendum.
It would be fine if they had a voting method where if you could tick another box as you vote saying "future referendum Y/N?"
The cost of that last referendum cost £16 million in real terms.
It also generated a lot of antipathy that wasn't there before.
If the SNP does say it wants another referendum at "a future date", what a new business will do when deciding where to base itself is consider risks. Scotland will be seen as a risk by the business and its creditors.
I know you said don't care about your countries economy, but don't you worry about your job/ future jobs?
Business should not get to dictate the democratic process. They have far too much influence as it is, and if it were up to me, I'd tell them to keep their noses out.
I say that not only as a Scottish independence supporter but as a supporter of an EU referendum. All these business warnings about the UK leaving the EU are a danger to British democracy. The people, not the fat cats, decide on Britain's membership of the EU.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Medium of Death wrote: Why do I find the fact that an SNP voter talking about "no chance of referendum" to be highly dubious?
I don't want another referendum so soon - it would be counter-productive. But should the rest of the UK vote to leave the EU and Scotland votes to stay in, then that's legitimate grounds for another vote in my view.
I remember the 1980s when a Conservative majority in England (but not in Scotland) imposed policies that Scotland didn't like. Nobody in England complained. It's democracy, we had to live it back then, and England would have to live with it now if the SNP held the balance.
The Conservatives held a majority in the UK (What people held in England and Scotland are irrelevant). SNP will not hold a majority in the UK. After all, wether the SNP like it or not
However, it is down to the other parties to decide to work with them, and I think everyone has made it clear they won't form a coalition with the SNP. They might work with them on a case by case basis, but I can't see the SNP getting what they want out of this. If anything they will make Labour and Torys more likely to work together.
During the referendum, David Cameron stood up and said that Scotland was an equal partner in the UK. The rest of the UK can't complain if Scotland has influence. Great Britain is NOT greater England.
I remember the 1980s when a Conservative majority in England (but not in Scotland) imposed policies that Scotland didn't like. Nobody in England complained. It's democracy, we had to live it back then, and England would have to live with it now if the SNP held the balance.
It's the people of Scotland who decided when they have another referendum - not Salmond, Sturgeon, Cameron, Clegg, Miliband etec etc
If the SNP have another referendum pledge in their 2016 manifesto and if they get a majority, then in my view, they're well within their rights to hold another referendum. I don't think they will have another so soon.
And finally, I 100% agree with your comment on not liking the SNP. That is your right. I don't agree with it (I'll be voting SNP myself), but that is your divine right. No complaints from me If you don't like the SNP.
The issue with the ref vote re-run and it being voted for through democratic process falls down is a bit like how the SNP may get a majority in scotland for a lot of seats due to YES voters predominantly being SNP voters, but No voters being from various party supporters.
Basically it means that the monority can govern the majority, i do not like this state of affairs.
Basically you have 100 voters and you have 100 seats at parliament, 30 of them vote for the SNP, 20 vote for Labour, 20 vote for Tory 9 vote for Lib Dem and 9 vote green, 7 vote Ukip say, 5 vote others
The main 3 old guard parties come to a combined total of 49 seats, Lab\Con wont form a coalltion, we know this from experience, they are too diametrically opposed. so this leaves Tory\Lib Dem, Lab, Lib Dem to form a hung parliament coalition, however this only creates a max of 29 seats, so the SNP have 1 more seat, a majority of the seats over anyone else.
This means that even though some 49% of the population doesnt want the SNP, they are governed by them because 30% wants it.
I realise this is how first past the post works, BUT, this means the tail is wagging the dog in terms of a second referendum, as the SNP would have been voted in by a minority of the population, this means that the SNP can take this that as they were voted in by the 'majority' I.e. most seats (when in fact they got less than half the vote overall) they have the 'wishes' of the populas to carry out a second referendum, when in fact some 55% of the voting public did not want to sepreate nor do they want a second vote.
Now granted this is extremely simplified, however the main point is, if the SNP achieve a majority in the 2016 holyrood election, even if only by 1 seat (as they have now) they can carry out a second referendum vote on the assumption that 'all of scotland' want it as scotland voted in an SNP government.
Someone called Nicola out on this at the Aberdeen leader debate when they called out that the SNP DO NOT speak for all of Scotland, in fact, over 60% of Scotland voted for a different part to the SNP.
This is why many in Scotland are so angry and feel lied to by the SNP, its all clever talking and hazy details.
I.e. the Labour team up, Yes they have stated they wont form a coalition government, but they HAVE stated they will form a 'power sharing agreement', this is the same thing as a coalition, its just got a different dress on, and it will again be trying to hold majority power over a nation that voted another party into more seats (but not a majority).
Nicola Sturgeon was also never voted into power, she was handed it, we got no say in that, similar story to when Gordon Brown became prime minister.
I believe that ANY prime minister\ first minister standing down before a term is complete, should result in a new election.
Its just all very murky, and i dont like the infighting its created up here, its turned friends against each other, including me personally, i lost friends in the ref which upset me greatly.
I don't like Conservative governments or there policies, but I can't complain if people vote them in. And if they do get in, it will be on about 36% of the national vote. That's not a majority either. Like you said, it's the first past the post system.
I'm pro-Scottish independence. That doesn't make me pro-SNP, but I will be voting for the SNP as they are the best vehicle for achieving independence. If Scotland were independent, I'd vote for somebody else.
obsidianaura wrote: If they wait long enough fine. People will vote for the SNP for reasons other than wanting a referendum.
It would be fine if they had a voting method where if you could tick another box as you vote saying "future referendum Y/N?"
The cost of that last referendum cost £16 million in real terms.
It also generated a lot of antipathy that wasn't there before.
If the SNP does say it wants another referendum at "a future date", what a new business will do when deciding where to base itself is consider risks. Scotland will be seen as a risk by the business and its creditors.
I know you said don't care about your countries economy, but don't you worry about your job/ future jobs?
Business should not get to dictate the democratic process. They have far too much influence as it is, and if it were up to me, I'd tell them to keep their noses out.
I say that not only as a Scottish independence supporter but as a supporter of an EU referendum. All these business warnings about the UK leaving the EU are a danger to British democracy. The people, not the fat cats, decide on Britain's membership of the EU.
Business is everything to us. It's indirect but it's still all their money that pays for everything, defence, health, schools, roads and pay it's all their money it doesn't come from ANYWHERE else. Encouraging business wherever possible it is the key to succeeding or becoming a poor country and fading into obscurity. At least that's what I believe.
obsidianaura wrote: If they wait long enough fine. People will vote for the SNP for reasons other than wanting a referendum.
It would be fine if they had a voting method where if you could tick another box as you vote saying "future referendum Y/N?"
The cost of that last referendum cost £16 million in real terms.
It also generated a lot of antipathy that wasn't there before.
If the SNP does say it wants another referendum at "a future date", what a new business will do when deciding where to base itself is consider risks. Scotland will be seen as a risk by the business and its creditors.
I know you said don't care about your countries economy, but don't you worry about your job/ future jobs?
Business should not get to dictate the democratic process. They have far too much influence as it is, and if it were up to me, I'd tell them to keep their noses out.
I say that not only as a Scottish independence supporter but as a supporter of an EU referendum. All these business warnings about the UK leaving the EU are a danger to British democracy. The people, not the fat cats, decide on Britain's membership of the EU.
Business is everything to us. It's indirect but it's still all their money that pays for everything, defence, health, schools, roads and pay it's all their money it doesn't come from ANYWHERE else. Encouraging business wherever possible it is the key to succeeding or becoming a poor country and fading into obscurity. At least that's what I believe.
I agree that business is important, but the minute they start dictating the democratic process, we've had it. All they care about is the bottom line. First chance they get - they'll be off to China.
Besides, plenty of people who pay tax don't work for business. NHS (1 million people) police, fire service, civil service, self-employed etc etc
obsidianaura wrote: If they wait long enough fine. People will vote for the SNP for reasons other than wanting a referendum.
It would be fine if they had a voting method where if you could tick another box as you vote saying "future referendum Y/N?"
The cost of that last referendum cost £16 million in real terms.
It also generated a lot of antipathy that wasn't there before.
If the SNP does say it wants another referendum at "a future date", what a new business will do when deciding where to base itself is consider risks. Scotland will be seen as a risk by the business and its creditors.
I know you said don't care about your countries economy, but don't you worry about your job/ future jobs?
Business should not get to dictate the democratic process. They have far too much influence as it is, and if it were up to me, I'd tell them to keep their noses out.
I say that not only as a Scottish independence supporter but as a supporter of an EU referendum. All these business warnings about the UK leaving the EU are a danger to British democracy. The people, not the fat cats, decide on Britain's membership of the EU.
Business is everything to us. It's indirect but it's still all their money that pays for everything, defence, health, schools, roads and pay it's all their money it doesn't come from ANYWHERE else. Encouraging business wherever possible it is the key to succeeding or becoming a poor country and fading into obscurity. At least that's what I believe.
I agree that business is important, but the minute they start dictating the democratic process, we've had it. All they care about is the bottom line. First chance they get - they'll be off to China.
Besides, plenty of people who pay tax don't work for business. NHS (1 million people) police, fire service, civil service, self-employed etc etc
Yes,where does that money come from? and a self employed person, is running, "a business."
If we do lose all our business to China, we're dead in the water end of.
We all serve the mighty 1% bow down to our masters.
The SNP is not Scotland. The plan was to have a vote on the EU at the first Parliament elections in an independent Scotland. Personally, I'd prefer to see Scotland out of the EU but dealing with them on a Norway/Switzerland style relationship.
obsidianaura wrote: If they wait long enough fine. People will vote for the SNP for reasons other than wanting a referendum.
It would be fine if they had a voting method where if you could tick another box as you vote saying "future referendum Y/N?"
The cost of that last referendum cost £16 million in real terms.
It also generated a lot of antipathy that wasn't there before.
If the SNP does say it wants another referendum at "a future date", what a new business will do when deciding where to base itself is consider risks. Scotland will be seen as a risk by the business and its creditors.
I know you said don't care about your countries economy, but don't you worry about your job/ future jobs?
Business should not get to dictate the democratic process. They have far too much influence as it is, and if it were up to me, I'd tell them to keep their noses out.
I say that not only as a Scottish independence supporter but as a supporter of an EU referendum. All these business warnings about the UK leaving the EU are a danger to British democracy. The people, not the fat cats, decide on Britain's membership of the EU.
Business is everything to us. It's indirect but it's still all their money that pays for everything, defence, health, schools, roads and pay it's all their money it doesn't come from ANYWHERE else. Encouraging business wherever possible it is the key to succeeding or becoming a poor country and fading into obscurity. At least that's what I believe.
I agree that business is important, but the minute they start dictating the democratic process, we've had it. All they care about is the bottom line. First chance they get - they'll be off to China.
Besides, plenty of people who pay tax don't work for business. NHS (1 million people) police, fire service, civil service, self-employed etc etc
Yes... where does that money come from?
If we do lose all our business to China, we're dead end of
You must have missed that bit when the Bank of England pumped £400 billion into the economy . Business is not as independent as it likes to think. They're up to their necks in grants, subsidies. etc.
The SNP is not Scotland. The plan was to have a vote on the EU at the first Parliament elections in an independent Scotland. Personally, I'd prefer to see Scotland out of the EU but dealing with them on a Norway/Switzerland style relationship.
obsidianaura wrote: If they wait long enough fine. People will vote for the SNP for reasons other than wanting a referendum.
It would be fine if they had a voting method where if you could tick another box as you vote saying "future referendum Y/N?"
The cost of that last referendum cost £16 million in real terms.
It also generated a lot of antipathy that wasn't there before.
If the SNP does say it wants another referendum at "a future date", what a new business will do when deciding where to base itself is consider risks. Scotland will be seen as a risk by the business and its creditors.
I know you said don't care about your countries economy, but don't you worry about your job/ future jobs?
Business should not get to dictate the democratic process. They have far too much influence as it is, and if it were up to me, I'd tell them to keep their noses out.
I say that not only as a Scottish independence supporter but as a supporter of an EU referendum. All these business warnings about the UK leaving the EU are a danger to British democracy. The people, not the fat cats, decide on Britain's membership of the EU.
Business is everything to us. It's indirect but it's still all their money that pays for everything, defence, health, schools, roads and pay it's all their money it doesn't come from ANYWHERE else. Encouraging business wherever possible it is the key to succeeding or becoming a poor country and fading into obscurity. At least that's what I believe.
I agree that business is important, but the minute they start dictating the democratic process, we've had it. All they care about is the bottom line. First chance they get - they'll be off to China.
Besides, plenty of people who pay tax don't work for business. NHS (1 million people) police, fire service, civil service, self-employed etc etc
Yes... where does that money come from?
If we do lose all our business to China, we're dead end of
You must have missed that bit when the Bank of England pumped £400 billion into the economy . Business is not as independent as it likes to think. They're up to their necks in grants, subsidies. etc.
But it did that buy selling government bonds to financial businesses ( or something like that I don't understand how QE works). You cant really just make up money. Otherwise we'd just pay off our debt, or wreck other countries by making up money and buying their recourses.
They are inescapable these businesses.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm thinking about quantitate easing now.
I know printing money devalues your currency against others but I was wondering about the following scenario.
Say the government prints £5 million and gives it so 100 agents. Then the agents go somewhere we don't get on with, like Russia for example.
The 20 agents buy as much gold as they can from Russia then returns with the gold and puts it in the Bank of England's vault.
Does that harm the Russian economy and improve the UK's? Or is there more to it?
Rick_1138 wrote: The main 3 old guard parties come to a combined total of 49 seats, Lab\Con wont form a coalltion, we know this from experience, they are too diametrically opposed. so this leaves Tory\Lib Dem, Lab, Lib Dem to form a hung parliament coalition, however this only creates a max of 29 seats, so the SNP have 1 more seat, a majority of the seats over anyone else.
This means that even though some 49% of the population doesnt want the SNP, they are governed by them because 30% wants it.
I realise this is how first past the post works, BUT, this means the tail is wagging the dog in terms of a second referendum, as the SNP would have been voted in by a minority of the population, this means that the SNP can take this that as they were voted in by the 'majority' I.e. most seats (when in fact they got less than half the vote overall) they have the 'wishes' of the populas to carry out a second referendum, when in fact some 55% of the voting public did not want to sepreate nor do they want a second vote.
A situation that STV could have prevented. But it was more in the interests of the big two parties to claim that it was too complicated (you poor little stupid proles could never understand something so mind blowingly complex - better to just obey your political masters, they know better) and to insist that it would be unfair, effectively giving two or more votes to some people (because a system where a constituent can be elected with 35% of the vote whilst 65% of the population hates their guts is SO much more fair!).
Rick_1138 wrote: Nicola Sturgeon was also never voted into power, she was handed it, we got no say in that, similar story to when Gordon Brown became prime minister.
I believe that ANY prime minister\ first minister standing down before a term is complete, should result in a new election.
That is an unfortunate misunderstanding of how UK politics works. At a general election we do not vote for a party, a Prime Minister or a party leader. We vote for our own constituents. From the elected ministers, the one that can hold the confidence of parliament becomes Prime Minister. It is a misunderstanding that is shared by many of our country folk.
It is also a misunderstanding that the main two parties exploit and have no interest in educating the populace about.
The SNP is not Scotland. The plan was to have a vote on the EU at the first Parliament elections in an independent Scotland. Personally, I'd prefer to see Scotland out of the EU but dealing with them on a Norway/Switzerland style relationship.
So a new start up "Anti-EU" party would immediately thrive and be able to contest the SNPs manoeuvre's into the EU? Especially if they'd be coming off the back of a successful Yes vote.
That's pretty deluded.
There is absolutely no point in you supporting a party that wants to join the EU while the UK is looking to move out of Europe.
Rick_1138 wrote: The main 3 old guard parties come to a combined total of 49 seats, Lab\Con wont form a coalltion, we know this from experience, they are too diametrically opposed. so this leaves Tory\Lib Dem, Lab, Lib Dem to form a hung parliament coalition, however this only creates a max of 29 seats, so the SNP have 1 more seat, a majority of the seats over anyone else.
This means that even though some 49% of the population doesnt want the SNP, they are governed by them because 30% wants it.
I realise this is how first past the post works, BUT, this means the tail is wagging the dog in terms of a second referendum, as the SNP would have been voted in by a minority of the population, this means that the SNP can take this that as they were voted in by the 'majority' I.e. most seats (when in fact they got less than half the vote overall) they have the 'wishes' of the populas to carry out a second referendum, when in fact some 55% of the voting public did not want to sepreate nor do they want a second vote.
A situation that STV could have prevented. But it was more in the interests of the big two parties to claim that it was too complicated (you poor little stupid proles could never understand something so mind blowingly complex - better to just obey your political masters, they know better) and to insist that it would be unfair, effectively giving two or more votes to some people (because a system where a constituent can be elected with 35% of the vote whilst 65% of the population hates their guts is SO much more fair!).
Rick_1138 wrote: Nicola Sturgeon was also never voted into power, she was handed it, we got no say in that, similar story to when Gordon Brown became prime minister.
I believe that ANY prime minister\ first minister standing down before a term is complete, should result in a new election.
That is an unfortunate misunderstanding of how UK politics works. At a general election we do not vote for a party, a Prime Minister or a party leader. We vote for our own constituents. From the elected ministers, the one that can hold the confidence of parliament becomes Prime Minister. It is a misunderstanding that is shared by many of our country folk.
It is also a misunderstanding that the main two parties exploit and have no interest in educating the populace about.
STV? - Is this like proportional representation? Genuine question.
As the the leader bit, i completely understand how it orks, i know its consituencies etc, but normally you vote or the party and their leader is to be PM, however i know we dont, as voters, decide the PM, we decide the party through volume of seats\Constituencies.
I just dont like the slighty "well decide" attitude it gives off when internal politics decide the new PM\First Minister of the nation.
Medium of Death wrote: The fact that Alternate Vote didn't go through still pisses me off.
Their was literally no reason not to vote for it.
The fact it would give people like the BNP seats in Parliament? That's a pretty good reason for me.
Let's not pretend that AV is some perfect system. Yes, it makes the political makeup of Parliament more akin to that of the country. But it also makes it infinitely easier to get radicals/whackjobs into Parliament, whereupon they can start bargaining for less than salubrious policies in exchange for joining coalitions.
AV is more democratic. FPTP is more stable. Both have pros and cons. At the end of the day, the majority of the country decided they preferred stability over the extra modicum of democracy.
Medium of Death wrote: The fact that Alternate Vote didn't go through still pisses me off.
Their was literally no reason not to vote for it.
The fact it would give people like the BNP seats in Parliament? That's a pretty good reason for me.
Let's not pretend that AV is some perfect system. Yes, it makes the political makeup of Parliament more akin to that of the country. But it also makes it infinitely easier to get radicals/whackjobs into Parliament, whereupon they can start bargaining for less than salubrious policies in exchange for joining coalitions.
AV is more democratic. FPTP is more stable. Both have pros and cons. At the end of the day, the majority of the country decided they preferred stability over the extra modicum of democracy.
The current system just allows the two parties to do virtually nothing.
If the public's concerns had been addressed when mass immigration issues first began to arise you probably would have found people wouldn't have turned to the BNP years later.
They are a dead party anyway.
I didn't say it was a perfect system I said it would have been better.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think FPTP only really works when you have people in the house of lords/parliament that aren't globalist Europhiles.
The current system just allows the two parties to do virtually nothing.
If the public's concerns had been addressed when mass immigration issues first began to arise you probably would have found people wouldn't have turned to the BNP years later.
People didn't have to 'turn to' the BNP. There are always racist, sexist, homophobic thuggish fethwits in every society. AV gives them a voice in Government. I'd prefer to the current system over one that permitted that.
That's a reason for it not going through regardless (since you said there was no reason to block it).
There was also the protest vote against the whole "we've abandoned all the policies which would actually benefit people and we promised to stick to if we were in power, just so we can get a chance to ask about something which might increase our chance for more power in the future".
The current system just allows the two parties to do virtually nothing.
If the public's concerns had been addressed when mass immigration issues first began to arise you probably would have found people wouldn't have turned to the BNP years later.
People didn't have to 'turn to' the BNP. There are always racist, sexist, homophobic thuggish fethwits in every society. AV gives them a voice in Government. I'd prefer to the current system over one that permitted that.
That's a reason for it not going through regardless (since you said there was no reason to block it).
I honestly don't think the BNP would have had any successful political gains in such a system as they would have been pariahs. People may vote for them but they would have been largely ineffective.
I think Democracy as it stands is ultimately flawed through the way it is handled at the moment. I wouldn't trade it in though as I don't feel we have a calibre of "elite" capable or worthy of the power that a more authoritative system would grant them.
George Spiggott wrote: Why the Abdication anyway? Is it because the abdicating king, like the DM was a Fascist sympathiser?
Britain will face its biggest constitutional crisis since Edward VIII abdicated in 1936 if Ed Miliband runs Britain with Nicola Sturgeon, Theresa May has warned.
In a dramatic intervention in the Election campaign, the Home Secretary questioned whether English voters would accept the 'legitimacy' of a Labour Government backed by Scottish Nationalists.
And she compared the effects of such a pact to the way Britain's governing class was paralysed for months in the 1930s because of King Edward VIII's affair with American divorcee Wallis Simpson.
After being told the public would not accept Simpson as Queen, the crisis was only resolved when Edward abdicated.
Surely the essentially unelected War Cabinet formed by Churchill in 1940 or the various unelected Prime ministers would be bigger constitutional issues but then the is the Mail so........rabble rabble Scots!1! rabble rabble
Given that the only chance that Labour has of forming a government on the 8th of May will be with the SNP I wonder how much of this is pre-election spin and how much is genuine. Its certainly more fuel for the independence fire.
Its also now very possible that no party will be able to form a majority government and this gak will be dragged out even longer.
I see so Teresa May says so. Comparing the myth of the reasons behind the abdication crisis to a myth of SNP parliamentary dominance over Labour. Nice irony.
I know printing money devalues your currency against others but I was wondering about the following scenario.
Say the government prints £5 million and gives it so 100 agents. Then the agents go somewhere we don't get on with, like Russia for example.
The 20 agents buy as much gold as they can from Russia then returns with the gold and puts it in the Bank of England's vault.
Does that harm the Russian economy and improve the UK's? Or is there more to it?
Have I just solved the UKs problems in one post?!
Simplest way to put it: if you announce quantitative easing, investors will value your currency a little less (per unit of it, that is), but they'll still have faith in the underlying issuer (your national bank).
If you do any sort of 'clandestine issue' like that, essentially counterfeiting your own currency, you undermine that fundamental underlying confidence in your entire currency / system.
If it ever comes out, the value of the currency involved will nosedive.
If you do it in significant quantities (of issued currency), the chance of it coming out increases ever more (if only because of the number of people involved. Only one/a few has/have to squeak and the whole scheme bites it. It's why conspiracies usually aren't all they're claimed to be, really )
So either you have little to no use for such actions, or it has some use but the risk is immense.
This all without even mentioning the morality of it all (again, it only takes one or two credible whistleblowers, responsibly contacting the proper authorities to put a stop to it, if nothing else).
And not to mention that gold really isn't all it's cracked up to be when it comes to securing currency values (hasn't been for the better part of a century, at least - and good fething riddance, too), although of course your idea might as well concern the clandestine purchase of more useful goods.
Oh, and keep in mind bills are (serial) numbered, again somewhat raising the issue of it all being uncovered and coming out, thus again ruining your credibility for decades to come.
...All this just to give the first few insurmountable objections that come to my mind
I blame him for most things, but he's at fault for running a half ass campaign on AV.
A half ass campaign for something he half wanted. The Lib Dems always wanted PR.
The Lib Dems wanted it, but they weren't prepared to fight for it. Clegg could have walked away from the coalition at anytime if he couldn't get a referendum on PR. Instead, he stayed on for the ministerial car, and because he put power before principal. The Lib Dems deserve to wiped out at this election.
Automatically Appended Next Post: All this Daily Mail talk makes me laugh. For two years they begged us to say. And we stayed. Now they're saying our votes shouldn't count.
Anybody remember this speech:
It’s only Great Britain because of the greatness of Scotland, and the thinkers, writers, artists, leaders, soldiers, and inventors who have made this country what it is. So a NO vote means faster, fairer, safer and better change. And this is a vital point: Scotland is not an observer in the affairs of this country. Scotland is shaping and changing the United Kingdom for the better … and will continue to shape the constitution.”
David Cameron Sept 16 2014
Well, Dave, we stayed and we're shaping the country, but now you and your newspaper friends are saying it would be illegitimate if the SNP went into government with Labour!!
I thought Conservatives loved the Union?
If they keep talking like that, the Union will unravel very quickly.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: New? The way things are going, you'll get something new all right - the end of the UK!!
Telling Scottish voters that their vote doesn't count is something new in British history!
I do recall the Daily Mail being part of high level, secret internal government discussions on how "the fething English" were going to pay back the Scottish for years of siding with the French against other Scottish people, the Welsh and a few Englishmen while wearing dresses, painting themselves blue and shouting "FREEEEEEEDOOOOOM!".
Oh, wait, no. What I think I meant was that I recall the Daily Mail being the newspaper equivilent of the muck you find on your shoe when you go for a walk through a farm yard just after the cows had been through...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: New? The way things are going, you'll get something new all right - the end of the UK!!
Telling Scottish voters that their vote doesn't count is something new in British history!
I do recall the Daily Mail being part of high level, secret internal government discussions on how "the fething English" were going to pay back the Scottish for years of siding with the French against other Scottish people, the Welsh and a few Englishmen while wearing dresses, painting themselves blue and shouting "FREEEEEEEDOOOOOM!".
Oh, wait, no. What I think I meant was that I recall the Daily Mail being the newspaper equivilent of the muck you find on your shoe when you go for a walk through a farm yard just after the cows had been through...
Teresa May, she of the government, is also saying it.
From what I have read, she said some self evident problems to do with Scotland being independent/part of the EU, etc previously. Other than that, I can't actually see anywhere, even in the Daily Mail article, full of hyperbole as it is, where she says that Scottish votes are worthless.
Given that the only chance that Labour has of forming a government on the 8th of May will be with the SNP
Mathematically incorrect, I'm afraid. It's all just media hype.
At the moment, the percentages favour another Tory/Lib Dem coalition, followed by a Labour/Lib Dem coalition, followed by a Labour/Lib Dem/SNP coalition. There simply are not enough seats in Scotland to ally Labour and the SNP to form a new Government, short of Labour pulling off a miracle. I detailed this once before somewhere else, but I'll do it again here.
At the moment, there are about fifty nine seats in Scotland, with the SNP controlling about six, the Tories one, the Lib Dems eleven, and Labour forty
Just to emphasise how limited Scottish influence is on the formation of government, I'll say it again. Fifty nine seats. And that's out of a total of six hundred and fifty across the UK. At the moment, the Conservatives have 302 MP's, Labour 256, and the Lib Dems 56. For the SNP to gain seats at the next election, roughly two thirds of them must be pulled from Labour. This means that any SNP gains, are direct Labour losses. Assuming (generously) that the SNP grab another 24 seats, 8 of those will be Lib Dem, and 16 Labour. That leaves us with an SNP with 30 seats, and Labour with 240.
That combined 270 seats alone does not match up the current Conservative 302. If we assume that the Conservatives will shed around twenty seats, taking us to 290 vs 280 in favour of a Labour/SNP coalition, that simply isn't enough. You need 325 seats for a majority. Which means that in order for a Labour/SNP coalition to be viable, the Conservatives would actually need to lose fifty five seats to Labour total under that setup, as opposed to twenty (slightly less if the SNP makes less inroads into Labour than envisaged).
If there was a very strong Labour leader, and an unpopular Conservative Government, I could see there being a 55 seat swing. But with Ed Miliband? At a time when the economy is doing well? It isn't going to happen. It just isn't. Twenty seats is plausible, thirty seats conceivable, but beyond that? Improbable. In other words, even if the SNP and Labour get together, the odds mean that they would need the Lib Dems on board. And if Labour doesn't do too badly in Scotland, or the Lib Dems don't lose too many of their seats, it's highly plausible that they wouldn't need the SNP to begin with, as they'd have a majority between them, just about.
That's what this next election is all about. The odds are that the Tories will still have the largest party, meaning they get the first chance to form a government. If the figures are such that it would need to be a Labour/Lib Dem/SNP pact, Clegg will most likely jump straight back into bed with the Tories. A three way coalition would be a disaster, and he knows that. If Miliband pulls out enough seats to make a pure LIB Dem/Labour coalition, it then becomes an option. And that leaves Clegg as the kingmaker.
All of this guff about the SNP is just distraction and noise, and has little bearing on the policking going on in Westminster at the moment. This is an election where all Cameron needs to do is not screw up too badly. Miliband on the other hand, is desperate to grab as many Tory seats as possible, whilst losing as few Labour seats in Scotland as possible. Otherwise he has no chance of becoming powerful enough to make Clegg come to bargain with him. Nobody is fighting to win here, but rather to not lose. And that's been reflected by the lacklustre and distraction based political campaigning so far.
SilverMK2 wrote: Other than that, I can't actually see anywhere, even in the Daily Mail article, full of hyperbole as it is, where she says that Scottish votes are worthless.
She believes that English voters would not accept Sturgeon's party having vital power over their lives.
Even the mail isn't stupid enough to make such a statement directly but the above quote, and many others like it, are really quite suggestive. The rightwing press has been full of 'Jockophobia' over recent weeks, why do you think that could be?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Other than that, I can't actually see anywhere, even in the Daily Mail article, full of hyperbole as it is, where she says that Scottish votes are worthless.
She believes that English voters would not accept Sturgeon's party having vital power over their lives.
Even the mail isn't stupid enough to make such a statement directly but the above quote, and many others like it, are really quite suggestive.
And that quote is a very long way from saying that Scottish votes are worthless. Personally I think a United Kingdom is stronger than 4 seperate nations but I would not prevent any area splitting off if it was a true representation of the desire of the people, and it was properly organised and viable. I, like many in the UK, am tired of a London-centric running of the UK... but that doesn't mean that I am going to throw all my toys out of the pram and put words into peoples mouths just so I have something to rage against.
Mathematically incorrect, I'm afraid. It's all just media hype.
The polls consistently back up my position though. Labour and the Tories are neck and neck and have been for the entirety of the campaign, they are both hovering around the 270-80 mark. Obviously this is just polling data but if they are even reasonably accurate the SNP will play a key role in voting through a Labour government. If Labour don't take up the offer of SNP support there will definitely be a Tory government.
The deficit measures the gap between money going into government, and money going out. If the government spends more than it receives, it is in deficit. Otherwise it is in surplus. You can find our full article on the deficit here.
In 2014-15 the deficit is estimated to have been about £90 billion, or £60 billion if you don’t include investment spending.
This is different from government debt, which measures how much the government owes in total. In February 2015 the debt was estimated to be about £1.5 trillion, or 80% of GDP. This figure excludes public sector banks.
Common claims:
“Five years ago, the budget deficit was more than 10% of GDP, the highest in our peacetime history”
The deficit in 2009-10 was 10.2% of GDP.
The Office for Budget Responsibility have data from 1948 onwards, and this is the highest the deficit has been in this period.
It was also the highest in cash terms at £154 billion, and the highest when adjusted for inflation.
“The deficit has been halved”
This is correct when looking at the deficit as a proportion of the UK’s economic output (GDP) each year: this has gone from 10% in 2009-10 to 5% in 2014-15.
The absolute value of the deficit has not halved, though. Over the same period it went from £154 billion to £90 billion.
Reducing the deficit is not the same as ‘paying down the debt’.
“George Osborne has borrowed more than he claimed he was going to back in 2010″
The government is borrowing more than it planned to: the Institute for Fiscal Studies says that from 2010/11 to 2014/15 the government has borrowed approximately £100 billion more than it planned to at the start of this parliament.
However, this is not due to a failure to cut spending; it’s just that the economy hasn’t performed as well as was expected. http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/budgets/as2014/as2014_johnson.pdf#page=3 This means the government has raised less money in tax.
“The Coalition have failed to meet their deficit targets”
The Coalition is set to meet their supplementary target to have debt falling as a proportion of GDP. The balanced budget part of the mandate only requires that the government plan for a balanced budget three years in the future.
As the IFS point out, the government can technically meet this moving target without ever achieving budget balance
“The debt has doubled”
Debt has risen, but not doubled. It has risen from just under £1 trillion in April 2010 to about £1.5 trillion in February 2015. As a proportion of GDP, it’s risen from just over 60% to 80%
This is a UK election, the Scottish and Welsh votes are worth just a much as an English vote.
Mathematically incorrect, I'm afraid. It's all just media hype.
The polls consistently back up my position though. Labour and the Tories are neck and neck and have been for the entirety of the campaign, they are both hovering around the 270-80 mark. Obviously this is just polling data but if they are even reasonably accurate the SNP will play a key role in voting through a Labour government. If Labour don't take up the offer of SNP support there will definitely be a Tory government.
I'm afraid that the pollsters also said that Nick Clegg was going to win the last election, or at the very least make massive sweeping gains. I wouldn't believe everything you read, myself included.
I've laid out the maths, and you're free to disagree with my analysis. But even if Labour and Tory both hit the exact 280 mark, the SNP would still basically have to have seized another 35 seats to gain a majority in any sort of coalition. Even if we assume they took took every lib dem seat in scotland before taking a single Labour one, they'd still have to have taken twenty four Labour seats. Which means Labour would have had to have made up that twenty four seats the SNP will have taken off of them, plus a further twenty four seats to hit the 280.
In other words, Labour would need to seize a total of 44 seats in the rest of the UK, and the SNP 35 in Scotland. Which is highly unlikely. Not to mention the fact, that in a sane world, the Lib Dems won't be completely forced out of Scotland, meaning Labour would lose additional seats there, which would need to be made up in the rest of the country.
You're free to disagree with me on this one, but we usually only see swings like that historically with unpopular governments, and whilst Cameron isn't exactly high in the ratings right now, he's doing no worse than Miliband.
There are multiple meanings of the word 'deficit', and an economy can still be booming even whilst any form of deficit exists. As things stand, we're out of recession, the unemployment register is shrinking, and the pound is reasonably strong. We've lightened our vulnerability to the Grexit, formed some rather interesting financial links with China, and the drop in oil price is helping us as much as harming us. I make no comments with regards to the long term sustainability of our economy, but then again, you could say that about any country.
As things stand? Economically, we're doing reasonably well at the moment. There are plenty of countries that would love to be in our position.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The Lib Dems wanted it, but they weren't prepared to fight for it. Clegg could have walked away from the coalition at anytime if he couldn't get a referendum on PR. Instead, he stayed on for the ministerial car, and because he put power before principal. The Lib Dems deserve to wiped out at this election.
Clegg was either a woefully poor negotiator or he simply didn't want any of the things the Lib Dems claimed they wanted.
Clegg having a Portillo moment will be the highlight of the election/year/decade for me.
As things stand, we're out of recession, the unemployment register is shrinking, and the pound is reasonably strong. We've lightened our vulnerability to the Grexit, formed some rather interesting financial links with China, and the drop in oil price is helping us as much as harming us. I make no comments with regards to the long term sustainability of our economy, but then again, you could say that about any country.
As things stand? Economically, we're doing reasonably well at the moment. There are plenty of countries that would love to be in our position.
So our lords and masters keep telling us. They also told us,
Assad used chemical weapons on his own people, That Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, ETCETC.
So you believe what you want to. I'll keep my eyes open for flying pigs.
As things stand, we're out of recession, the unemployment register is shrinking, and the pound is reasonably strong. We've lightened our vulnerability to the Grexit, formed some rather interesting financial links with China, and the drop in oil price is helping us as much as harming us. I make no comments with regards to the long term sustainability of our economy, but then again, you could say that about any country.
As things stand? Economically, we're doing reasonably well at the moment. There are plenty of countries that would love to be in our position.
So our lords and masters keep telling us. They also told us,
Assad used chemical weapons on his own people, That Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, ETCETC.
So you believe what you want to. I'll keep my eyes open for flying pigs.
Errr....
-Unemployment IS down, although it seems to be being filled more with self-employed people than people getting employment under companies Whether that is good is a separate debate (the Tories have started a lot of self-help with regards to initial business loans, but people so employed are making less than they generally were before), but there's no much doubt on that score, unless you're convinced the Illuminati are rigging the figures.
-The strength of the pound is a simple matter of exchange rates. That's not exactly something our 'lords and masters' as you put it, can pretend was true if it wasn't.
-We are out of recession, and in growth. I'm pretty sure the EU would be crying out loud if we were falsifying the figures on that score. Whether it is sustainable growth is another question, but like before, the fact that it IS the case isn't really in question?
-With regards to a potential Grexit, we're not immune, but everybody's been preparing for it for half a bloody decade now. The markets will be damaged if it leaves, but as we're not currently tied into the Euro, anbd we've been shedding as much involvement in Greek affairs as possible, we're less vulnerable to it than most in the EU.
I don't like the Tories particularly, and most of our economic boom is centred around London ( a flaw if I ever saw it). But the facts I've laid out, are more less facts, they've got nothing to do with party lines. And just for future reference....Assad DID use chemical weapons on his own people.
I guess the facts are there, and the election will come down to whether a majority of people feel like the facts are real to them, or not.
The neglected regions of the UK still have a voice in the election, and the focus on the South East may end up biting both Labour and the Tories in the arse. Indeed it seems it already is.
It's a common problem I suppose, focus on a capital. Ireland has it even worse with the skew towards Dublin, and many smaller European nations are similar. France is heavily skewed towards Paris too. But no matter where that sort of skew happens, it presents political issues for whoever is perceived as "the Establishment". I think Germany does reasonably well because it's got several prosperous centres rather than being too skewed towards any one city (though some cities are less prosperous than others, especially in the north of Germany).
As an interested outsider, I think the most likely outcome is a hung parliament resulting in an unstable coalition. I agree that the "threat" posed by the SNP is very much overblown, but I also think the debate is pretty nasty and mean spirited. UKIP seems like a total sideshow to me.
Definitely. Farage's goal at the moment is to grab Thanet, and to come second in a few more seats. Once he's done that, he can spend the next five years purging the more undesirable/rogue elements of his party (of which there are many, UKIP's rate of expansion has left him desperately clutching to the helm), and then try and nab another five or six seats next time.
Of course, that's dependent on him grabbing Thanet. If he fails, UKIP will be spent as a political force.
I think Cleggie will be more inclined to go back with the Tories then Miliband. Now he's 'dipped his wick' into actual power, he won't want to leave it, and the Tories are the known quantity this time around. He knows the people, he knows the politics, he knows what's up for negotiation, who is trustworthy, and who isn't. He'll also be looking to build a legacy now, and turning to Labour would almost be akin to admitting he made a mistake last time.
I'd peg it at 70% odds for a Tory/Lib Dem coalition again. Which, to be frank, is actually probably the most stable of the potential matches this time around.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The Lib Dems wanted it, but they weren't prepared to fight for it. Clegg could have walked away from the coalition at anytime if he couldn't get a referendum on PR. Instead, he stayed on for the ministerial car, and because he put power before principal. The Lib Dems deserve to wiped out at this election.
Clegg was either a woefully poor negotiator or he simply didn't want any of the things the Lib Dems claimed they wanted.
Clegg having a Portillo moment will be the highlight of the election/year/decade for me.
Same here. I'm working on the Friday, but I'll quite happily sit up until 5am for the chance to see Clegg getting a boot up the backside.
Definitely. Farage's goal at the moment is to grab Thanet, and to come second in a few more seats. Once he's done that, he can spend the next five years purging the more undesirable/rogue elements of his party (of which there are many, UKIP's rate of expansion has left him desperately clutching to the helm), and then try and nab another five or six seats next time.
Of course, that's dependent on him grabbing Thanet. If he fails, UKIP will be spent as a political force.
I think Cleggie will be more inclined to go back with the Tories then Miliband. Now he's 'dipped his wick' into actual power, he won't want to leave it, and the Tories are the known quantity this time around. He knows the people, he knows the politics, he knows what's up for negotiation, who is trustworthy, and who isn't. He'll also be looking to build a legacy now, and turning to Labour would almost be akin to admitting he made a mistake last time.
I'd peg it at 70% odds for a Tory/Lib Dem coalition again. Which, to be frank, is actually probably the most stable of the potential matches this time around.
To be fair to Farage, he probably thought UKIP would be the talking point of this election, but unfortunately for him, the SNP came along and stole their thunder.
Rick_1138 wrote: I cant see the link to Brady and Sturgeon. I think they will stick with the simple' Were doomed!" line.
However i am in 2 minds about staying up, as tbh if it is a hung parliament, it could take days to get any form of agreement together.
I stayed up for the referendum, but with this election i dont see the point as we wont know for a while.
I'll be honest with you. If somebody offered me the choice between 50 SNPMPs or Nick Clegg getting humiliated at 3am on May 8th, it would be a hard choice to make.
The new controversies with the DUP Health Minister at least drawing attention to some of the hypocrisy in how the SNP vs. DUP as coalition partners narratives has been playing out. The DUP recently told the Tories off for being so shortsighted with regard to the Union too.
This election is interesting in so many ways. It has the potential to be pretty destabilising, especially if the Tories/Libs win again and Cameron actually goes through with his referendum on Europe plan (which hardly seems to get any traction in the press).
I'd respect the choice of the voters obviously, but selfishly I hope it doesn't come to that because it would screw Ireland over a lot, and probably the rest of the EU too. And I think we need a strong EU - though a reformed one.
Well, I'm shocked. Really shocked. You can knock me down with a feather
Nobody knows what's going to happen on May 7th, but I can guarantee one thing - If I see Nick Clegg on the TV one more time, my foot is going through the screen!
Had to fight the urge this morning not to lash out. Hell, I may need to start a kickstarter to get a new 40 inch plasma widescreen
Just out of interest what happens if this does happen and they get a Yes vote, can the No vote expect the same in return?
Jim Sillars is not an MP or MSP, nor will he be in the future, having retired a few years back.
Sturgeon ruled out another referendum the other day. Most Yes people I know don't want another one, either. It's too soon. This is just the usual media blowing things out of proportion. As much as I like Sillars, he's got a habit of speaking like this, in opposition to official party policy.
For me, a valid reason would have to happen, such as Britain pulling out of the UK, but Scotland voting to stay in, for there to be another referendum.
It's to soon for another referendum. I'm happy to wait a few years.
It's to soon for another referendum. I'm happy to wait a few years.
Another one inside of two decades is too soon.
Unless of course, us lot down in England want to vote on whether or not we want to be free of the UK, with our new oil resources under Gatwick airport.
I'm utterly perplexed as to why any Scottish person would feel the need for Independence but then want to be part of the EU.
I'm told on good authority that there are a lot of independent nations in Europe who are also EU members
Personally, I'd prefer a Switzerland/Norway arrangement.
This is one of the reasons why FPTP is cancer Ketara, the SNP are set to gain all the seats.
Nobody mentioned fixing FPTP when Labour or the Conservatives were winning majorities.
It wouldn't be a problem if there was a single Scottish Unionist party standing in opposition.
There is a single unionist party in opposition. The Liberals, Conservatives, and Labour all have policies that are so identical to each other, nothing separates them ideologically anymore.
It's to soon for another referendum. I'm happy to wait a few years.
Another one inside of two decades is too soon.
Unless of course, us lot down in England want to vote on whether or not we want to be free of the UK, with our new oil resources under Gatwick airport.
You may think I'm biased, but ultimately, it's up to the Scottish people. Tomorrow, next week, next month, next year, decade, century etc. It's not up to Sturgeon, Salmond, Cameron etc etc
You may think I'm biased, but ultimately, it's up to the Scottish people. Tomorrow, next week, next month, next year, decade, century etc. It's not up to Sturgeon, Salmond, Cameron etc etc
Sure. As long as they're willing to pay for it. These things cost money that could be better spent elsewhere, rather than rehashing the same question every five years.
Medium of Death wrote:This is one of the reasons why FPTP is cancer Ketara, the SNP are set to gain all the seats.
I would be willing to venture a thousand pounds, at any bookie, that the SNP will not win 'all the seats'. I would also only give 50/50 odds of them even taking half of the seats. The SNP are not as popular as the press makes out, in the same way Cleggie wasn't, and UKIP isn't (I haven't forgotten the polls claiming Farage would be taking dozens of seats just before the press got bored and moved onto the SNP).
Just out of interest what happens if this does happen and they get a Yes vote, can the No vote expect the same in return?
Jim Sillars is not an MP or MSP, nor will he be in the future, having retired a few years back.
Sturgeon ruled out another referendum the other day. Most Yes people I know don't want another one, either. It's too soon. This is just the usual media blowing things out of proportion. As much as I like Sillars, he's got a habit of speaking like this, in opposition to official party policy.
For me, a valid reason would have to happen, such as Britain pulling out of the UK, but Scotland voting to stay in, for there to be another referendum.
It's to soon for another referendum. I'm happy to wait a few years.
Medium of Death wrote: AV wouldn't benefit the SNP would it? Idoub they'd want anything but FPTP.
I'd like PR.
Then again I'm not sure whether changing the rules in a bad situation is a good idea.
I honestly don't know.
I was being facetious. The SNP and many smaller parties cry out for AV\PR voting instead of FPTP, however when they find themselves in power then they very much do not want to do the change as they now have influence.
If Scotland had PR or AV, we would have a larger SNP majority BUT the Labour and Tory block would be sizable and they SHOULD balance each other out.
however we all know in practice they will just bicker.
I don't know about anybody else, but I'm done with this election. I'm bored of debates, the waffle in the newspapers, and leaflets getting pushed through the door. They only end up in the wastepaper anyway!
I've said this before, but roll on Thursday and let us be done with this.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I don't know about anybody else, but I'm done with this election. I'm bored of debates, the waffle in the newspapers, and leaflets getting pushed through the door. They only end up in the wastepaper anyway!
I've said this before, but roll on Thursday and let us be done with this.
I agree. While I've known which way I'd be voting from the start just because I have strong leanings at any time, election or otherwise, this whole campaign so far has just lacked any kind of flair, and it's not surprising that people are finding it hard to care about the outcome. Watch one speech per party and you've seen them all, and the debates continue to be useless unless the two people who have a mathematical chance to be become PM don't go head to head.
And then there's the almost certain fact we're getting some kind of coalition; in other words, your vote may not even decide who gets in in the end. Coalitions really should be a last resort, but despite all the rhetoric it seems every party is gunning for one from the start, perhaps due to the rise of coalition-enabling parties like UKIP and SNP that mean you don't need a majority if you have the right friends.
I almost worry that coalitions will become the norm in future elections, which is an alarming thought as far as I'm concerned.
I wonder if on Friday morning the two big parties may have to consider working together or there is a total vacuum?
UKIP: don't really see them taking enough seats to have any impact. Lets be generous and say they win 10. Not much
SNP: depends if the press are right. A Scottish friend of mine seems to think that SNP aren't as strong as the press make out
LibDems: they could get a drubbing so not be in a position to help.
Labour: have ruled out forming a coalition with SNP. LibDems could be too weak to help
Tories: don't think they have ruled out UKIP, but I can't see UKIP having enough seats to swing it. If they did it would only be enough to put those two parties just ahead.
I so think Friday morning is going to be so interesting / a mess. Hopefully if this is the case it will cause the main parties to sort themselves properly for the next election.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I don't know about anybody else, but I'm done with this election. I'm bored of debates, the waffle in the newspapers, and leaflets getting pushed through the door. They only end up in the wastepaper anyway!
I've said this before, but roll on Thursday and let us be done with this.
I agree. While I've known which way I'd be voting from the start just because I have strong leanings at any time, election or otherwise, this whole campaign so far has just lacked any kind of flair, and it's not surprising that people are finding it hard to care about the outcome. Watch one speech per party and you've seen them all, and the debates continue to be useless unless the two people who have a mathematical chance to be become PM don't go head to head.
And then there's the almost certain fact we're getting some kind of coalition; in other words, your vote may not even decide who gets in in the end. Coalitions really should be a last resort, but despite all the rhetoric it seems every party is gunning for one from the start, perhaps due to the rise of coalition-enabling parties like UKIP and SNP that mean you don't need a majority if you have the right friends.
I almost worry that coalitions will become the norm in future elections, which is an alarming thought as far as I'm concerned.
I've been saying it from the beginning - none of the main leaders have a vision for the country, and it's why the polls are neck and neck. If labour or the conservatives had a decent leader, all this talk of hung parliaments would vanish. In many ways, and not that I'm complaining, you could argue that it's only the weaknesses of the main parties that has allowed the SNP a chance of being part of the new government.
Wolfstan wrote: I wonder if on Friday morning the two big parties may have to consider working together or there is a total vacuum?
UKIP: don't really see them taking enough seats to have any impact. Lets be generous and say they win 10. Not much
SNP: depends if the press are right. A Scottish friend of mine seems to think that SNP aren't as strong as the press make out
LibDems: they could get a drubbing so not be in a position to help.
Labour: have ruled out forming a coalition with SNP. LibDems could be too weak to help
Tories: don't think they have ruled out UKIP, but I can't see UKIP having enough seats to swing it. If they did it would only be enough to put those two parties just ahead.
I so think Friday morning is going to be so interesting / a mess. Hopefully if this is the case it will cause the main parties to sort themselves properly for the next election.
Well, I'm up in Scotland, and I can honestly say, the SNP are everywhere. People on the ground, leaflets through the door, hubs set up in former retail property, you name it, the SNP are there. In contrast, labour are non-existent. I've yet to see any of the other candidates, be they LAB/LIB/CON
The SNP candidate, on the other hand, has been everywhere. I've seen him in the street, on the bus, and in the supermarket. He was talking to normal people. Normal people!! Even non- SNP voters respect the work this person is putting in, and that could be the difference.
I do like candidates working for their votes
Anybody else seen their candidates, or are you getting bombarded by leaflets through the letterbox.
We had four Labour leaflets through our letterbox all at once. One addressed to each of the four registered voters here, myself my parents and my brother.
Ironically I'm the only one currently at home this next week with my brother at uni for his final year exams and my parents on holiday in Rome so I'm the only one who will be voting/can vote.
But I'd rather drop dead than vote Labour.
It'll be UKIP for me, or I might just not bother. I live in a safe Labour seat (Sedgefield, former constituency of Tony Blair) so it's not like my vote counts.
Nobodies come to canvass me yet, unsurprisingly.
Automatically Appended Next Post: My local polling station is a 2 min walk down the road from me. Not sure it's worth the effort tbh.
Not seen any of my candidates around, just assorted leaflets through the door (most of which got a cursory glance then binned). Then again, I'm (sadly) in a pretty safe Conservative area.
On a sort of related note, is anyone here planning on vote-swapping? For those not in the know, this is a new phenomenon where people online are swapping votes (eg agreeing to vote for each other's choice) across constituencies with the idea of 'their' vote being cast somewhere it's more likely to make the difference.
For some reason it seems like it's trying to cheat the system, but on the basis it's still one vote per voter, there isn't really a logical argument against it that I can see. According to some sources, this could end up tipping the balance in up to 100 seats, which is pretty strange.
Paradigm wrote: Not seen any of my candidates around, just assorted leaflets through the door (most of which got a cursory glance then binned). Then again, I'm (sadly) in a pretty safe Conservative area.
On a sort of related note, is anyone here planning on vote-swapping? For those not in the know, this is a new phenomenon where people online are swapping votes (eg agreeing to vote for each other's choice) across constituencies with the idea of 'their' vote being cast somewhere it's more likely to make the difference.
For some reason it seems like it's trying to cheat the system, but on the basis it's still one vote per voter, there isn't really a logical argument against it that I can see. According to some sources, this could end up tipping the balance in up to 100 seats, which is pretty strange.
I've not heard of this vote swapping, but up here, people are trying to organise tactical voting to keep the SNP out. Don't know if it'll work though.
I hadn't heard of the vote swapping idea. It makes a kind of sense but can you trust the person you swap with?
I don't consider it cheating the system, just a new form of tactical voting.
If the government wants people to vote for the people/parties they want to get into power they need to bring in proportional representation. It would be a good solution to the House of Lords problem.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: We had four Labour leaflets through our letterbox all at once. One addressed to each of the four registered voters here, myself my parents and my brother.
Ironically I'm the only one currently at home this next week with my brother at uni for his final year exams and my parents on holiday in Rome so I'm the only one who will be voting/can vote.
But I'd rather drop dead than vote Labour.
It'll be UKIP for me, or I might just not bother. I live in a safe Labour seat (Sedgefield, former constituency of Tony Blair) so it's not like my vote counts.
Nobodies come to canvass me yet, unsurprisingly.
Automatically Appended Next Post: My local polling station is a 2 min walk down the road from me. Not sure it's worth the effort tbh.
I would vote.
I'm no fan of UKIP but you have to start somewhere. It took the SNP years to get to this point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I hadn't heard of the vote swapping idea. It makes a kind of sense but can you trust the person you swap with?
I don't consider it cheating the system, just a new form of tactical voting.
If the government wants people to vote for the people/parties they want to get into power they need to bring in proportional representation. It would be a good solution to the House of Lords problem.
The best solution would be to scrap it and replace it with an elected senate.
I'd love to have £300 a day just for turning up to a place. Bloody pirates!!
The idea of a body in government that does not have to worry about short term politics but can instead concentrate on the long term (which sadly seems to mean "anything after next week" far too much of the time) is a good one.
To be honest I would be happier with a significant reduction in the number of MP's and central government, with a regional MP representing a more powerful local collection of councils covering several counties/cities.
The House of Lords could be replaced with a senate on the US model with each region or county having representatives (this would go some way to addressing the London-centric nature of UK politics) or it could be replaced with election by PR.
SilverMK2 wrote: The idea of a body in government that does not have to worry about short term politics but can instead concentrate on the long term (which sadly seems to mean "anything after next week" far too much of the time) is a good one.
To be honest I would be happier with a significant reduction in the number of MP's and central government, with a regional MP representing a more powerful local collection of councils covering several counties/cities.
Good idea in principal, but in reality, it could lead to cronyism. The Labour party in Glasgow has been bad for this over the years. The amount of family members some Labour MPs were 'employing' in key positions brought a whole new meaning to Nepotism.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: The House of Lords could be replaced with a senate on the US model with each region or county having representatives (this would go some way to addressing the London-centric nature of UK politics) or it could be replaced with election by PR.
This is Westminster we're talking about. They don't like giving away anything. It would be easier to get blood from a stone.
It took about 5 years in the Scottish Parliament for laws promised by the Calman commission to be handed over from Westminster.
I love elections, so I'm nerding out over this one. But I gotta say, even I am flagging a bit with the tedious stuff the parties are putting out. The SNP is the most exciting thing to come out of the election, and that too is a fairly straightforward situation.
I do find it interesting that the coalition with the DUP/other Unionist groups in the North STILL isn't part of the narrative when people discuss this. I mean, I'd rather a forward thinking Nationalist to a stone age Unionist bigot any day. I know it seems that I'm banging on this drum a lot, but I just remain pretty amazed at the disconnect between Norn Iron and the rest of the UK when it comes to this election, at least in the media. Seen a couple of Guardian articles, and that's it.
Looking more likely to be a Tory government again, I reckon, or if not, a very unstable Labour/EveryonenotaTory coalition. I find the fear of coalition government quite amusing though, as it's the norm in plenty of places across the world. There's nothing too much to fear from it, I just think both the politicians and the electorate in the UK are a bit unfamiliar with it. The Lib Dems are definitely going to suffer for that, I'd say.
I do find it interesting that the coalition with the DUP/other Unionist groups in the North STILL isn't part of the narrative when people discuss this. I mean, I'd rather a forward thinking Nationalist to a stone age Unionist bigot any day. I know it seems that I'm banging on this drum a lot, but I just remain pretty amazed at the disconnect between Norn Iron and the rest of the UK when it comes to this election, at least in the media. Seen a couple of Guardian articles, and that's it.
Its old news though and the SNP's meteoric rise are more noticeable. Its not as if the majority of the British press are especially good at going beyond surface detail.
The reason why NI gets mainly ignored is that their population and political influence is negligible compared to the whole of the country. When situations arise in which the Conservatives are kept in power by Ulster Unionist votes, which happens rarely, there are headlines. If the Sinn Fein members would take their seats the influence of the Ulster Unionist party would be even less that it actually is.
A phrase book for Electionland, with handy translations to help you understand what on earth
they’re talking about. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/15ND4l7J3chZ6Vh7NYyjNkp/alistair-beatons-parlez-vous-politics We have no plans
A popular phrase, heard almost every day, e.g. ‘We have no plans to increase VAT.’ Translation: ‘We’re going to
increase VAT.’ Sometimes this will be heard with the word ‘absolutely’, as in ‘we have absolutely no plans to
increase VAT’. Translation: ‘We are definitely going to increase VAT.’ May also be heard in the context of possible
post-election scenarios: ‘We have no plans to go into coalition with any other party.’ Translation: ‘We’d shack up with
a bunch of rabid left-wing/right-wing meatheads if it got us through the door of Number 10.’
Let me make this crystal clear
Let me repeatedly avoid answering the question. Sometimes takes the form of 'let me be absolutely clear.'
What I want to say is this
I’m going to answer, but not the question I’ve been asked.
It’s the right thing to do
It’s the wrong thing to do, but we’re going to do it anyway. In some contexts, can also mean ‘we haven’t a clue why
we’re proposing this, but we want you to feel we have a conscience.’
Hardworking families
Almost everyone except beggars, scroungers, spongers and people who look a bit foreign.
Taking tough decisions
Breaking promises. Can also mean cutting benefits to the disabled.
We will balance the books
We might balance the books but it’s highly unlikely.
There are no easy answers
There are easy answers but they all involve putting up taxes and we’re scared to tell people that.
We’ll crack down on tax avoidance
We’ll ask Starbucks to give us a couple of hundred quid.
Supporting small businesses
Supporting large businesses.
A Northern powerhouse
Refurbishing a former department store in Manchester and calling it ‘a business incubator’.
A business incubator
A former department store in Manchester, now filled with hipsters drinking flat whites.
Kilkrazy wrote: The reason why NI gets mainly ignored is that their population and political influence is negligible compared to the whole of the country. When situations arise in which the Conservatives are kept in power by Ulster Unionist votes, which happens rarely, there are headlines. If the Sinn Fein members would take their seats the influence of the Ulster Unionist party would be even less that it actually is.
Fair enough. It would be interesting if Sinn Féin would take their seats alright, though it's unlikely to happen since it involves an oath to the Queen, right?
The parody videos of this election have been my favourite part
I know it wasn't technically an election video but the Cameron Rap one was gold.
Sinn Fein MPs abstention from the UK parliament is because they do not feel it is the legitimate government of Northern Ireland.
However there is an idea they may take their seats after this election, presumably the government will depend on minority party support and this could provide an opportunity for Sinn Fein to press for independence.
Paradigm wrote: Oh dear. Milliband has set down commandments on a stone tablet...
If Labour lose, is he now going to lead all Britain's Lefties in a great Exodus, parting the Channel and taking them to Europe?
I'm sorry, Ed, but this is quite possibly the campaign cockup we have all been waiting for...
Have you seen the photoshop parodies that have predictably sprung up? I cannot believe that a politician would do something so stupid as being photographed near a tombstone, 4 days out from the election .The symbolism is clear for all to see. What a gift for the Tories...
Paradigm wrote: Oh dear. Milliband has set down commandments on a stone tablet...
If Labour lose, is he now going to lead all Britain's Lefties in a great Exodus, parting the Channel and taking them to Europe?
I'm sorry, Ed, but this is quite possibly the campaign cockup we have all been waiting for...
Have you seen the photoshop parodies that have predictably sprung up? I cannot believe that a politician would do something so stupid as being photographed near a tombstone, 4 days out from the election .The symbolism is clear for all to see. What a gift for the Tories...
Seen a few (tombstone, shopping list, Moses, My Rushmore), but quite honestly the original is still the funniest; if you'd told me without a picture, I would struggle to believe it!
It shouldn't, and won't to those who have already made up their mind, but handing the opposition media pretty much perfect headline ammunition 4 days before an election is still not genius!
Short of digging up Margaret Thatcher's corpse and posing alongside it for a photograph, I cannot think of anything that could have done more damage to Miliband than this. Utter stupidity.
If you've spent months trying to convince people you're not weird, then building an 8f foot high tombstone for your back garden will not win over those doubters!!
Paradigm wrote: Oh dear. Milliband has set down commandments on a stone tablet...
If Labour lose, is he now going to lead all Britain's Lefties in a great Exodus, parting the Channel and taking them to Europe?
I'm sorry, Ed, but this is quite possibly the campaign cockup we have all been waiting for...
Have you seen the photoshop parodies that have predictably sprung up? I cannot believe that a politician would do something so stupid as being photographed near a tombstone, 4 days out from the election .The symbolism is clear for all to see. What a gift for the Tories...
Seen a few (tombstone, shopping list, Moses, My Rushmore), but quite honestly the original is still the funniest; if you'd told me without a picture, I would struggle to believe it!
It shouldn't, and won't to those who have already made up their mind, but handing the opposition media pretty much perfect headline ammunition 4 days before an election is still not genius!
Wonder what the Mail will make of this tomorrow!
When I first heard it, I thought it was April fools day...then I realised it was the month of May.
That tombstone was millibands 'Kinnock' moment i think, a lot of swinging voters will see that and just go 'NOPE'.
As for tactical voting i am voting Lib Dem up in Gordon, even though i am more of a Tory, but my feet are in both camps.
This is the first time i have actually voted with some thought, rather than just Tory to try and get more parity against the Labour huge Majority of the last 15 years, i am a small c conservative, and i dont agree with everything the tories have done, BUT the Lab\SNP idea terrifies me on an economical viewpoint.
Increased borrowing will lead to a rise in inflation and as a result a rise in Interest rates.
I am buying my first house in a couple of years, and a 2-3% interest rate increase could mean a house i have just bought, could see a three fold increase in mortgage payments meaning i would get turfed out again as soon as i got it.
TBF though, there is also an element of 'Anyone but Salmond' up here too.
You know Russel Brand? That guy that keeps telling people not to vote? He's now changed his mind, presumably after his interview, and is urging people to vote Labour...
I personally don't have much time for his commentary (and as the article notes, perhaps this is a waste if his followers have taken his previous advice and not actually registered to vote), but I guess it does say something about Milliband if he's convinced one of the most high-profile non-voters that he's worth backing.
More amusingly, I'm wondering how much DC is now regretting his comment that he 'didn't have time to hang out' with Brand...
Paradigm wrote: You know Russel Brand? That guy that keeps telling people not to vote? He's now changed his mind, presumably after his interview, and is urging people to vote Labour...
I personally don't have much time for his commentary (and as the article notes, perhaps this is a waste if his followers have taken his previous advice and not actually registered to vote), but I guess it does say something about Milliband if he's convinced one of the most high-profile non-voters that he's worth backing.
More amusingly, I'm wondering how much DC is now regretting his comment that he 'didn't have time to hang out' with Brand...
And to prove that Brand is even more of a hypocrite, here is a report of the time he insulted Ed Balls and how Ed Balls insulted him back.
Still reckon it's going to be a big old mess come Friday morning. I would go as far as to predict we will have to have another election in a years time as it will all fall apart. They will only have themselves to blame as none of them really stand for anything anymore, it's all about saying what needs to be said to get into power.
Looks that way. Latest news on Britain's economy is that it's growth has slowed down, too. Eurozone is growing faster, at present.
So not sure the Tories fabled economic prowess is really all that solid. Not that Labour had any particularly good ideas at the time anyway, being basically the same as the Tories these days but with slightly different PR.
I wonder what way the public will react if an unstable government is created.
The Tories' fabled economic prowess is not that solid. They have prolonged the recession by their austerity measures while also not really tackling the deficit. They have done nothing about stimulating increases in productivity.
Things are getting better because that is what happens. Regression to the mean, not genius economic guidance from the government in the past five years.
Wolfstan is pretty much on the button in my opinion, only I think there is a reasonable chance someone might put together a coalition that will last longer than a year.
If the government spending is in deficit there are several ways to address the problem.
1. Increase taxes.
2. Reduce spending.
3. Grow the economy, as this causes tax receipts to increase naturally without raising the level of taxation.
The Tories chose to try and decrease spending which had the expected effect of shrinking the economy so that tax receipts dropped about as fast as spending.
Kilkrazy wrote: If the government spending is in deficit there are several ways to address the problem.
1. Increase taxes.
2. Reduce spending.
3. Grow the economy, as this causes tax receipts to increase naturally without raising the level of taxation.
The Tories chose to try and decrease spending which had the expected effect of shrinking the economy so that tax receipts dropped about as fast as spending.
This is what confuses the hell out of me when it comes to economics. In order to reduce your debts, you have to spend more, thus getting into more debt, in order to reduce your previous debt
Kilkrazy wrote: If the government spending is in deficit there are several ways to address the problem.
1. Increase taxes.
2. Reduce spending.
3. Grow the economy, as this causes tax receipts to increase naturally without raising the level of taxation.
The Tories chose to try and decrease spending which had the expected effect of shrinking the economy so that tax receipts dropped about as fast as spending.
This is what confuses the hell out of me when it comes to economics. In order to reduce your debts, you have to spend more, thus getting into more debt, in order to reduce your previous debt
No one is going to be able to touch the UK debt not till we're in surplus. Labour actually aren't planning on getting rid of the deficit in their term in office.
The simple fact is the government spends more in tax than it takes in tax, there are only 2 ways to fix that, 1 raise taxes, 2 cut services. I'd rather services were cut than pay more tax.
Conservatives will do that, that's why I'm voting for them. Labour will do neither, and have shown no plan to run a budget surplus so will keep borrowing. Hoping that nothing will go wrong for the world in the next 5+ years.
The reason why the government should not reduce spending in a recession is that a recession comes about when private business is contracting, spending less on salaries, investment and research, etc. All that unspent money results in further contraction as people are thrown out of work, firms get reduced orders for goods and services, and so on in a vicious circle.
One effect of the contraction is reduced tax receipts leading to an increased deficit.
This effect can be offset by the government spending to get the economy moving again.
The conservatives were in fact forced to do this in the form of quantitative easing when their policy of austerity failed in the first couple of years.
The important thing in the long term is to get the economy growing, get people back to work with growing incomes, and eventually the government can run a surplus and pay down the national debt.
Kilkrazy wrote: If the government spending is in deficit there are several ways to address the problem.
1. Increase taxes.
2. Reduce spending.
3. Grow the economy, as this causes tax receipts to increase naturally without raising the level of taxation.
The Tories chose to try and decrease spending which had the expected effect of shrinking the economy so that tax receipts dropped about as fast as spending.
The issue is, and many fall into this trap, Debt and deficit are not the same, and you cannot reduce debt until you remove the deficit.
Debt will always increase as the interest creates more debt, the deficit wont be cleared until the govt reduces spending, i.e. equals its income and outgoing against GDP.
This was always going to be how the problem was fixed, the fact that Labour and the SNP have stated they wont increase taxes yet increase spending is what makes their economic plan laughable.
To increase borrowing to flood money into the economy in the form of publisc borrowing to spend is a false economy, as it will only lead to the situation we had in 2007\8 where the economy was indebted tot he hilt and the money train was still going full tilt, it had to break.
The tories have to borrow still to ensure the public sector doesnt simply fall over due to the increase in its size during the last labour governments, they have to reduce that spending gradually.
An increase in taxes would help, however increase in taxation will lead to a reduction in consumer spending (less money in their pockets), so it would be a double whammy of reduced public spending AND a reduction in money in the public pocket.
What the lab\Lib govt did was to increase the limit that people can earn before being taxed, and have increased the taxation on the top earners (though the press would have you believe this isnt so. The tories have increased tax take on higher earners to a greater degree than labour ever have, the press however bang on about corporation tax, they forget that the greater volume of tax comes from the public taxayers, of which the top earners provide more to the state than all mid to low earners combined! Due to the % system of tax, 10% of 100 is a LOT less than 10% of £10,000, but people decry the rish should pay more, they already do, to a high degree.
Its envy politics and it blinds the public into pointing the finger at th top 1% and business, when in fact the blame lies solely at Labours feet creating a debt mountain that will take decades to clear.
Also if Labour\SNP go ahead with their plans, increased borrowing, then inflation and interest rates MUST rise, its an economic certainy, this will lead to already struggling homeowners paying mortgages to foreclose and lose their homes in large numbers, the laready fragile economy which is largely built on home ownership loans, would crash, worse than in 2008 and Britain, which was in a deeper economic hole than Greece in 2008 (but with the strength of a seperate currency (£) and having excellent historical credit was able to not fall into the debt hole the 'PIGS' group did. If a second crash in the housing market happened, we will end up like Greece!
The economic argument that we can spend our way back to propserity is laughable in our current state, let the deficit be cleared at least, then worry about borrowing to increase NHS spending for example.
The Tories may not be perfect, but they have proven time and again, they sort out the economic mess left by the Labour government for 5 occasions in history, going back to 70's era labour spending will doom our economy for a generation.
I dont care who you vote for but remember increased public borrowing will result in your mortgage probably doubling within 5 years.
You will see that the recent rapid increase occurred under the conservative s, not labour govt and the previous most rapid increase occurred under the Major govt.
How does this show Tory economic management in a good light?
Kilkrazy wrote: The reason why the government should not reduce spending in a recession is that a recession comes about when private business is contracting, spending less on salaries, investment and research, etc. All that unspent money results in further contraction as people are thrown out of work, firms get reduced orders for goods and services, and so on in a vicious circle.
One effect of the contraction is reduced tax receipts leading to an increased deficit.
This effect can be offset by the government spending to get the economy moving again.
The conservatives were in fact forced to do this in the form of quantitative easing when their policy of austerity failed in the first couple of years.
The important thing in the long term is to get the economy growing, get people back to work with growing incomes, and eventually the government can run a surplus and pay down the national debt.
This is the theory under Keynesian economics, at least. And for a long time, it worked. Unfortunately, the mutation in the state of economics shifting to a more globalised form has resulted in the above becoming far less certain, and you take the risk of introducing large scale quantitative easing and taking large debts for none of the promised payoff. These things no longer guarantee a return to growth.
I can't say austerity is necessarily the best policy, but Keynesian economics were based on an economic model half a century out of date now. The truth is, all governments are more or less just flailing around and hoping that something they try will work, because none of them (or any economist) really has any clue what necessarily works anymore.
What rapid increase? starting from the massive spike in the 50's after WW2 bankrupted the UK and repaying of war debt to the USA and massive public spending to rebuild the country, debt as a % of GDP has continued to fall sharply simply because we werent shoveling cash into the furnace to rebuild.
Taking that graph from more recent history of about 1960- today, we see a different picture, debt as a % levels off circe the mid 60's, falls again under labour but this was also during the period of the 3 day week, winter of discontent and massive strike action, again around the early-mid seventies debt reduction levels off for about 6 years, then we get the Thatcher Tory Gt, we see debt start to fall rapidly (it halves from50% to 25% of GDP) between 1982 and 1992, the Thatcher and Major governments.
We then get to Labours landslide in 1997, all the reduction in deficit which was turned into a surplus under Major! was undone in about 5 years, it then dips again under blairs second term, then under gordon Browns tenure, where the more left elements of old labour begin to come back after the new labour PM leaves, debt spikes massively and we return to 75% debt of GDP. The highest it had been for over 45 years.
What part of that debt spike was under the tory govt, oh yes, the bit where the curve dipped sharply, and the sharp increase....yes, after 15 years of labour over spending.
Granted the banking\sub prime crisis happened which made it much worse, but even Blair admits they should have been reigning in the spending about 2005, but they carried on regardless and left a poisoned chalice for the tories to deal with, and surprise surprise, the electorate dont like cuts and tax increaes, and are upset that the tories couldnt fix the largest % debt in 60 years in under 5 years.
But carrying on the methods that got us into this debt crisis again under labour, that will reduce the deficit.....
Now to my simple brain / understanding it would appear to be all pie in the sky. There is no way on this earth that we will actually ever clear the debt, even if we control the deficit. The article sates that we were in surplus with regard to the deficit for long periods of time... still managed to rack up the debt though. Again, as I said, I not quick on getting my head around this stuff, but it doesn't look like tightening our belts for 10 years will make any difference what so ever. It's not like focusing on clearing off your large credit card bill. Say the Tories got were in power for the next ten years and implemented their deficit reduction plan, what would that actually mean in the real world?
Now to my simple brain / understanding it would appear to be all pie in the sky. There is no way on this earth that we will actually ever clear the debt, even if we control the deficit. The article sates that we were in surplus with regard to the deficit for long periods of time... still managed to rack up the debt though. Again, as I said, I not quick on getting my head around this stuff, but it doesn't look like tightening our belts for 10 years will make any difference what so ever. It's not like focusing on clearing off your large credit card bill. Say the Tories got were in power for the next ten years and implemented their deficit reduction plan, what would that actually mean in the real world?
The countries credit rating can go down if it looks to creditors that you're not properly servicing the debt. In which case they'll increase the interest rates and lend money less freely.
If we have a balanced budget cost of lending can go down. Saving money and also allows business in the UK better access to credit, more businesses means more jobs, means more money in tax.
To add to my above post, this shows why debt will be so bad for so long, and that the Tories ARE reducing the debt in the last couple of years, but it will take a long time.
Reaver83 wrote: I'll be voting for the lib dems )though I live in a very safe tody seat) but their policies appeal the most to me.
I think the key to me is having a coalition, but a centrist one, a coalition of SNP/labour or Tory/UKIP is a disaster.
Out of interest, what is it you find appealing about a centrist government, as opposed to something more left or right?
To me, centerism is a large part of why our politics in the UK are so stale, and why there is so much voter apathy based on the argument that 'they're all the same anyway'. As the former left and right wing parties have come closer to the centre of the spectrum, and it has become harder to actually discern the difference between a Labour and Conservative policy in many cases (especially during a term as opposed to during an election campaign), all the vigour and meaning of politics is being sucked away.
Centerism to me says (the case of the LDs styling the themselves as actual centrists) that 'we don't actually have any policy or intent, we're here just to get into power', or (in the case of Lab/Con moving closer to the centre) 'we'll abandon the founding principles of our party ideology if it looks like we can appear more appealing and get into power'. The divide closes, and we start talking about coalitions like they're the best/normal outcome, and to me that's not right. To me, a coalition (unless it's a proper Left+left or Right+right one), means that someone, somewhere, is selling out their ideals for a shot at power.
Centerism doesn't seem healthy to me, either for government itself or how politics as a whole is perceived in the UK.
(By the way, please don't take any of this as an attack on your views, I'm just genuinely curious as to why you'd prefer a centrist coalition to a more left/right leaning one.)
Reaver83 wrote: I'll be voting for the lib dems )though I live in a very safe tody seat) but their policies appeal the most to me.
I think the key to me is having a coalition, but a centrist one, a coalition of SNP/labour or Tory/UKIP is a disaster.
Out of interest, what is it you find appealing about a centrist government, as opposed to something more left or right?
To me, centerism is a large part of why our politics in the UK are so stale, and why there is so much voter apathy based on the argument that 'they're all the same anyway'. As the former left and right wing parties have come closer to the centre of the spectrum, and it has become harder to actually discern the difference between a Labour and Conservative policy in many cases (especially during a term as opposed to during an election campaign), all the vigour and meaning of politics is being sucked away.
Centerism to me says (the case of the LDs styling the themselves as actual centrists) that 'we don't actually have any policy or intent, we're here just to get into power', or (in the case of Lab/Con moving closer to the centre) 'we'll abandon the founding principles of our party ideology if it looks like we can appear more appealing and get into power'. The divide closes, and we start talking about coalitions like they're the best/normal outcome, and to me that's not right. To me, a coalition (unless it's a proper Left+left or Right+right one), means that someone, somewhere, is selling out their ideals for a shot at power.
Centerism doesn't seem healthy to me, either for government itself or how politics as a whole is perceived in the UK.
(By the way, please don't take any of this as an attack on your views, I'm just genuinely curious as to why you'd prefer a centrist coalition to a more left/right leaning one.)
Probably because in truth most of us don't really care about the day to day stuff, which in reality means that in our hearts most of us are happy with boring politics. Do I have a job? Can I pay the mortgage? Can I get medical treatment when I need it? Are my kids be educated the best way? I would imagine for a lot of people that is all that really matters on a day to day basis.
I think I mentioned it before, not sure, but for me and my wife I have to say that all the stuff you see in the news hasn't really impacted us in any bad way. Both of us work, or mortgage is small (so interest rate drop was great for us), education doesn't really affect us and had no real problems getting medical treatment. So day to day, meh!?!
Outside of that I do believe that the vulnerable should be protected, we should be able to defend ourselves and help other peoples that need help, that education should be open to all, that everybody pays what is due tax wise, and that the NHS should be free. With regard to immigration, I say you have to of been working here for a year before you have entitlement to it (emergency treatment aside). I also believe that A&E is only for emergencies, anything else and you are turned away, however these visits are recorded. This means that they can then be looked into to see if there is actually a problem with access to GP surgeries or it's just bloody laziness/impatience.
So when it comes to voting those are the sort of things I look at, even if I've not been affected by any of it personally.
I think personally going to far either way be both damaging socially and economically, taking as slightly extreme examples if we went for the Lab/SNP end of the spectrum, we would likely have bloated public services costing us lots ( as an NHS employee odd i know) conversely cutting all spending to benefits from a Con/UKIP area would cause huge suffering to those who need it most.
Honestly I think we need more cuts - but with compassion and care, and also need more spending, but not recklessly and irresponsibly.
One simple way to save money... better control of all those big public projects. Stop the waste, stop the rip offs. Start making sure that we actually get value for our taxes. Right from the rip offs at council level to those big budget projects that go out of control. Those in power or civil servants, who are in control of these projects should face going to prison or sacked (without their pensions) for allowing such things to happen.
Wolfstan wrote: One simple way to save money... better control of all those big public projects. Stop the waste, stop the rip offs. Start making sure that we actually get value for our taxes. Right from the rip offs at council level to those big budget projects that go out of control. Those in power or civil servants, who are in control of these projects should face going to prison or sacked (without their pensions) for allowing such things to happen.
I agree,
I'm also in favour of NHS privatisation really, if it's done correctly.
I think a hybrid system where the state owns the hospitals and has a set of private contractors bid for the running of the hospitals. The contract is given to the best company for the job. If they do well they keep their contract, if they do poorly another company comes in takes control.
That way we don't have such huge admin fees to keep the thing running, Politicians aren't meant to manage hospitals really are they?
@wolfstan very fair point, I can certainly see how 'boring' politics are no worry so long as you can go on living as normal regardless of government.
@Reaver: so basically, you don't trust the parties at either end of the spectrum to act in moderation, so a centre coalition that keeps both sides in check is a better option? Fair enough, can't argue with that!
I freely admit that I am something of an idealist when it comes to politics, hence why personally I think the bigger the gap between left and right the better (obviously remaining within the bounds of reason, I'm not saying our choice should be fascist or communist at the polls!), and why I'd rather have a Left or Right majority in government with a strong stance than a potentially more 'stable' centre coalition. But I can certainly see why others disagree.
Wolfstan wrote: One simple way to save money... better control of all those big public projects. Stop the waste, stop the rip offs. Start making sure that we actually get value for our taxes. Right from the rip offs at council level to those big budget projects that go out of control. Those in power or civil servants, who are in control of these projects should face going to prison or sacked (without their pensions) for allowing such things to happen.
I agree,
I'm also in favour of NHS privatisation really, if it's done correctly.
I think a hybrid system where the state owns the hospitals and has a set of private contractors bid for the running of the hospitals. The contract is given to the best company for the job. If they do well they keep their contract, if they do poorly another company comes in takes control.
That way we don't have such huge admin fees to keep the thing running, Politicians aren't meant to manage hospitals really are they?
They tried that hybrid system in Scotland under the Labour regime at the Scottish parliament - it was a complete disaster!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wolfstan wrote: One simple way to save money... better control of all those big public projects. Stop the waste, stop the rip offs. Start making sure that we actually get value for our taxes. Right from the rip offs at council level to those big budget projects that go out of control. Those in power or civil servants, who are in control of these projects should face going to prison or sacked (without their pensions) for allowing such things to happen.
@wolfstan very fair point, I can certainly see how 'boiring' politics are no worry so long as you can go on living as normal regardless of government.
@Reaver: so basically, you don't trust the parties at either end of the spectrum to act in moderation, so a centre coalition that keeps both sides in check is a better option? Fair enough, can't argue with that!
I freely admit that I am something of an idealist when it comes to politics, hence why personally I think the bigger the gap between left and right the better (obviously remaining within the bounds of reason, I'm not saying our choice should be fascist or communist at the polls!), and why I'd rather have a Left or Right majority in government with a strong stance than a potentially more 'stable' centre coalition. But I can certainly see why others disagree.
That gap between left and right died in the 1980s. Since then, everybody's been trying to occupy the middle, which is why all the parties are so similar, and why none can command a majority.
That gap between left and right died in the 1980s. Since then, everybody's been trying to occupy the middle, which is why all the parties are so similar, and why none can command a majority.
Everything is shifting left or left of centre.
The Conservative party are a joke.
The reason politics are so similar is that no progress can be made without some clamour for "free stuff". The Welfare state needs massively cut back.
I have some strong reservations about it. There seems to be no real benefit for it, apart from allowing commuters to get in to London quicker, from further out. It appears to be a big budget project that provides no real economic benefit... apart for those building it!
I have some strong reservations about it. There seems to be no real benefit for it, apart from allowing commuters to get in to London quicker, from further out. It appears to be a big budget project that provides no real economic benefit... apart for those building it!
That'd be my company, for the earthmoving at least (hopefully, if we get the contract)
You're better building these things before you need it though. This project will take years to complete. By the time it's done it will be more needed
People are focusing on the economics, which is important, but there's another point that tends to be overlooked: The Fixed Term Parliaments Act.
David Cameron can use this to stay in office if a hung parliament is returned on Thursday. In fact, he may be harder to shift than an alcoholic from a brewery.
Now, this may be good news for Conservative voters on this forum, but for the more sensible of us...
Anyway, Derek Bateman (former BBC reporter and pro-indy Scotland supporter) has done a very good piece of analysis on it IMO
and here are the main points. Yes, the author is pro-indy, but I think he raises some good points that should concern us all. If Cameron stays, it could be a MAJOR constitutional crisis.
The Cabinet Manual based on the Fixed Term Parliaments Act and British custom and practice has a number of passages that were designed for democratic stability which can be twisted by a cunning politician to his own ends. Prime among them is: ‘Prime Ministers stay in office until they resign.’ Right there Cameron has the control over his own destiny. ‘It remains a matter for the Prime Minister, as the Sovereign’s principal adviser, to judge the appropriate time at which to resign, either from their individual position as Prime Minister or on behalf of the government. Recent examples suggest that previous Prime Ministers have not offered their resignations until there was a situation in which clear advice could be given to the Sovereign on who should be asked to form a government.’ It adds ominously: ‘It remains to be seen whether or not these examples will be regarded in future as having established a constitutional convention.’
Furthering the case for a squatting David Cameron is this section: ‘Where an election does not result in an overall majority for a single party, the incumbent government remains in office unless and until the Prime Minister tenders his or her resignation and the Government’s resignation to the Sovereign. An incumbent government is entitled to wait until the new Parliament has met to see if it can command the confidence of the House of Commons.’
But, but…he can’t stay on forever if he hasn’t got a majority, surely. No, he can’t, but on the other hand he has no need to resign unless the other parties can trump him by cobbling together a potential majority. ‘Where a range of different administrations could potentially be formed, political parties may wish to hold discussions to establish who is best able to command the confidence of the House of Commons and should form the next government.’
And here's the kicker:
The power vested in the sitting PM is spelled out by Colin Talbot, Professor of Government at Manchester University. ‘Under the FTPA the only circumstances in which a Government falls would be if (a) they resigned – unlikely but not impossible or (b) the following is passed by a majority in the House of Commons. That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government. Nothing else forces a Government out of office – not defeat on a Queen’s Speech, a Budget, a key piece of legislation, a vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister, nothing.’
Like I say, Cameron could be very difficult to shift.
Ed, being Ed, has shoot himself in the foot (again) by refusing to work with the SNP. The one party could help him evict Cameron...
If Cameron feels on Friday morning he can form a viable government he has every right to try and do so. If he fails to assemble a strong enough coalition he will go down fairly quickly to a vote of no confidence.
Kilkrazy wrote: If Cameron feels on Friday morning he can form a viable government he has every right to try and do so. If he fails to assemble a strong enough coalition he will go down fairly quickly to a vote of no confidence.
I agree. The point the article is making is that Miliband has played this so badly (allowing the Tory press to dictate to him about the SNP) that he has walked into a constitutional bear trap.
And all he had to do was leave open the possibility of working with the SNP.
Cameron holds the aces because Ed's strategy has been a mess.
Kilkrazy wrote: If Cameron feels on Friday morning he can form a viable government he has every right to try and do so. If he fails to assemble a strong enough coalition he will go down fairly quickly to a vote of no confidence.
I agree. The point the article is making is that Miliband has played this so badly (allowing the Tory press to dictate to him about the SNP) that he has walked into a constitutional bear trap.
And all he had to do was leave open the possibility of working with the SNP.
Cameron holds the aces because Ed's strategy has been a mess.
No one really wants the SNP in government, it was the right thing to do.
Surely you have to admire the man for that stance? He believes it wouldn't be right to and has said so. He's not skirted around it, leaving the option open just so he can get into power. Obviously if it did come down to needing them and he buckled, it would ruin him, more so than the tuition fees about face that the LibDems did.
Wolfstan wrote: Surely you have to admire the man for that stance? He believes it wouldn't be right to and has said so. He's not skirted around it, leaving the option open just so he can get into power. Obviously if it did come down to needing them and he buckled, it would ruin him, more so than the tuition fees about face that the LibDems did.
That may be, but IF Miliband could keep the Tories out by working with the SNP, and chose not to, then the Labour party would be dead in Scotland.
Wolfstan wrote: Surely you have to admire the man for that stance? He believes it wouldn't be right to and has said so. He's not skirted around it, leaving the option open just so he can get into power. Obviously if it did come down to needing them and he buckled, it would ruin him, more so than the tuition fees about face that the LibDems did.
That may be, but IF Miliband could keep the Tories out by working with the SNP, and chose not to, then the Labour party would be dead in Scotland.
And seeing that's where the party was created...
He's said he wouldn't before the votes are made. So at least voters know that.
Wolfstan wrote: Surely you have to admire the man for that stance? He believes it wouldn't be right to and has said so. He's not skirted around it, leaving the option open just so he can get into power. Obviously if it did come down to needing them and he buckled, it would ruin him, more so than the tuition fees about face that the LibDems did.
That may be, but IF Miliband could keep the Tories out by working with the SNP, and chose not to, then the Labour party would be dead in Scotland.
And seeing that's where the party was created...
He's said he wouldn't before the votes are made. So at least voters know that.
Please, tell me you're not that naïve
You know as well as I do, that come Friday morning, if SNP + Labour = Ed in number 10, then Ed will be declaring his love for all things Scotland quicker than you can say Sean Connery
Also if the SNP fails to support genuinely left-wing policies put forward by a Labour govt they only damage themselves in the eyes of their own supporters.
Kilkrazy wrote: Also if the SNP fails to support genuinely left-wing policies put forward by a Labour govt they only damage themselves in the eyes of their own supporters.
Thus, the cycle of the minority party in a coalition getting the short end of the stick begins again.
More likely, if he purged all the nutters there would be a much smaller party at the end.
UKIP is essentially a party of pub bores, loudmouthed taxi drivers and generally speaking people with a vague discontent that has crystallized into suspicion of foreigners, etc.
Kilkrazy wrote: Also if the SNP fails to support genuinely left-wing policies put forward by a Labour govt they only damage themselves in the eyes of their own supporters.
Thus, the cycle of the minority party in a coalition getting the short end of the stick begins again.
The SNP won't make the mistakes the Lib Dems made. If there's one, and only one 'good' thing that Nick Clegg has done these 5 years, it's provide a blueprint of what not to do in a coalition if you're the junior partner.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: More likely, if he purged all the nutters there would be a much smaller party at the end.
UKIP is essentially a party of pub bores, loudmouthed taxi drivers and generally speaking people with a vague discontent that has crystallized into suspicion of foreigners, etc.
Unfortunately, people like that make up a big chunk of society.
I don't mind loudmouth taxi drivers - it's the dodgy drivers that rig their meters that gets my goat!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
angelofvengeance wrote: Ugh can we just go and vote already? It feels like we're crawling slowly towards the 7th at this point lol.
I'm sick of it as well. Just let me vote!!!!
Automatically Appended Next Post: England beware.
I went out to the shops earlier, and on my way back, I seen hordes of Tartan clad warriors marching towards the English border
Thus, the cycle of the minority party in a coalition getting the short end of the stick begins again.
Which is why the SNP ruled out a coalition long before Labour did.
David Cameron was on the Today program this morning and all he could do was give non commital answers (to questions such as where the Torys plan to make £12b 'savings' from the welfare budget or exactly when does a minority Tory government become more legitimate than a Labour one) while repeat the same tired old sound bites that have been his staple for the last 5 years(my favourite was calling the global financial crash a 'Labour recession'). Virtually anyone would make a better prime minister than him, even red (lol) Ed.
To be honest I no longer care, which ever pack of liars finally manage to 'win' tommorow its unlikely to make the slightest difference given how centrist UK politics have become.
David Cameron was in government for the last five years and all he could do was give non commital answers while repeat the same tired old sound bites that have been his staple for the last 5 years. Virtually anyone would make a better prime minister than him, even red (lol) Ed.
No one really wants the SNP in government, it was the right thing to do.
You mean aside from all the people who vote(d) SNP?
No one of consequence
Why should 2-4% of the population get so much sway eh?
Because of our rubbish FPTP system - usually it's the small number of swing voters in a small number of 'key' seats that get the influence. Not quite sure why we accept that it's a good idea to put all the power in the hands of people that CAN'T MAKE UP THEIR FETHING MINDS, but there you go.
If the Conservatives don't like the SNP winning seats, maybe they should propose policies that would be more popular with the voters.
Back on topic I voted this morning for town council, district council and parliamentary seats. I voted a straight anti-Tory ticket, which meant I had to spread my votes around a bit. It probably won't do any good except for the town council election.
Kilkrazy wrote: If the Conservatives don't like the SNP winning seats, maybe they should propose policies that would be more popular with the voters.
Back on topic I voted this morning for town council, district council and parliamentary seats. I voted a straight anti-Tory ticket, which meant I had to spread my votes around a bit. It probably won't do any good except for the town council election.
Voted as well - SNP.
Thank God it's all over. Another week of this and I'd be reaching for a revolver
Thing is, nothing happens until 3am, so now we've got to play the waiting game
Please God, let Clegg receive a swift boot to the rear
I assuming most people reading this already have or intend to, but just in case:
GO AND VOTE
Even if you abstain, spoil the ballot or wish a pox on all their houses, go and take part and be heard if you are able! We are lucky to live in a nation where everyone can make their choice freely, and have a say in who runs our country, so name sure you do! There's no such thing as a worthless vote!
obsidianaura wrote: I'd like to see how the UK voted divided by person rather than region.
Is there such data around?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Found one.
To me, more than anything that shows how the Lib Dems get shafted by First Past The Post.
Compared to Labour's numbers, they get 79% of the votes but only 22% of the seats.
I heard recently that something like 83% of the votes for the Lib Dems in the last election effectively didn't count. Regardless of whether you support them or not, that hardly seems fair.
Ed, being Ed, has shoot himself in the foot (again) by refusing to work with the SNP. The one party could help him evict Cameron...
Surely that's just an extension of the "vote SNP, get Tory" rhetoric? He wants Labour votes, so he has to put people off voting SNP by scaring them with the tories.
If he'd said he'd work with the SNP, he'd lose a lot of Labour voters to SNP.
I suspect after the votes are in, he'll about turn on that one so quickly you'll hear a sonic boom.
obsidianaura wrote: I'd like to see how the UK voted divided by person rather than region.
Is there such data around?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Found one.
To me, more than anything that shows how the Lib Dems get shafted by First Past The Post.
Compared to Labour's numbers, they get 79% of the votes but only 22% of the seats.
I heard recently that something like 83% of the votes for the Lib Dems in the last election effectively didn't count. Regardless of whether you support them or not, that hardly seems fair.
Yep I agree, proportional representation is the way forward.
But then SNP would get no seats. I think they need their own separate government.
Frozocrone wrote: If there's one thing I really want, it's Nick Clegg being removed from power. Cannot fathom another five years with him 'keeping the Tories in check'
(and the Green Party to get an overwhelming majority, but FPTP will never give it to them so I'm sorta stuck with voting Labour)
Ahh, the joys of the election
I really hate this tactical voting nonsense you get with FPTP. I really wish they'd implement a vote for and a vote against, then you're being more honest (i.e. for: Green, against: Tory), instead of wanting to vote green but voting labour because you really don't want the tories.
I usually vote but having just gotten round to looking at my voting card I find that my Village was grouped in with a town about 40 minutes away (a fair distance in the UK).
That constituency has 68k people and the sitting MP has a 19k majority and has done for 20 years. I have no idea about this chap nor have any inclination to travel to the town in question which is out in the sticks. I have however meet the MP for the nearest big Town (2 minutes away) on a number of occasions who actually has an effect on my life.
I'm five years late, but FFS who made this wonky boundary up? They want a good kick up the arse!
I like to use my vote but I find the above makes it a bit of a dead rubber for me.
I'll trot along tonight and see where my (lack of) conscience takes me.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: [...I went out to the shops earlier, and on my way back, I seen hordes of Tartan clad warriors marching towards the English border
Seems pointless, you have better benefits North of the Border. Bazinga!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: [...I went out to the shops earlier, and on my way back, I seen hordes of Tartan clad warriors marching towards the English border
Seems pointless, you have better benefits North of the Border. Bazinga!
Yeah plus if they get spotted marching they'll lose the incapacity benefit they're on
obsidianaura wrote: I'd like to see how the UK voted divided by person rather than region.
Is there such data around?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Found one.
To me, more than anything that shows how the Lib Dems get shafted by First Past The Post.
Compared to Labour's numbers, they get 79% of the votes but only 22% of the seats.
I heard recently that something like 83% of the votes for the Lib Dems in the last election effectively didn't count. Regardless of whether you support them or not, that hardly seems fair.
Actually this time round FPTP will help lib dems. It will not be good for the greens.
Personally I would much rather FPTP than a proportional representation system where by you end up with no representation. I normally vote Lib Dem or independent and live in a very save tory seat, but I would much rather have someone represent my area, who was chosen by the people in the area, than an amorphous blob of MPs chosen by the party dependent on how many seats they get that time. If we got prop rep you would have little or no say in who actually represents you. But then I think we should stop this presidential nonsense that is taking over and get rid of political parties, or at least the party whip. Let MP's stand on their own and vote for the will of their constituents on every vote rather than the way their party tells them, even if that is against what the people they represent want.
Well. I'll stick my neck out and say that my vote is going blue.
Labour have had numerous chances with me but their rhetoric is pure garbage. Milliband has literally got himself a millstone round his neck what with his recently unveiled obelisk of meaningless promises.
There are too many posts for me to individually reply to, so I'll try and cover the main issues.
1) I don't want the Lib-Dems getting help, I want them out! Out! I would ask everybody to channel their negative energy towards Sheffield and one Mr Clegg.
2) I've been to the shops for some supplies for the long night - Red Bull and Doritos. I'd advise everybody to do the same
3) Paradigm is right. Go out and Vote. If you live in England or Wales, vote for anybody bar Lib Dems. Sorry Lib Dems, Clegg has seriously annoyed me these past 5 years
4) Was going to say something else, but this campaign has killed off a lot of brain cells. I'm starting to drool now
Frozocrone wrote: If there's one thing I really want, it's Nick Clegg being removed from power. Cannot fathom another five years with him 'keeping the Tories in check'
(and the Green Party to get an overwhelming majority, but FPTP will never give it to them so I'm sorta stuck with voting Labour)
Ahh, the joys of the election
I really hate this tactical voting nonsense you get with FPTP. I really wish they'd implement a vote for and a vote against, then you're being more honest (i.e. for: Green, against: Tory), instead of wanting to vote green but voting labour because you really don't want the tories.
Yeah, I feel forced to do it. I was too young to vote in the last election but as a student with housing prospects the tories just don't have the policies I agree with. I was in support of the referendum regarding changing how the voting system works (I believe it was called alternative voting, where you have 1 for the most ideal candidate, 2 for the second most ideal candidate and so on. Although it would have benefitted LibDems the most from what I gathered), despite being unable to have a say in it.
In Japan they have a system in which every constituency elects a member by FPTP and there are also a significant number of seats that are allocated by PR. This satisfies both sides of the question.
Japan has various other issues with democratic representation so a mixed system is not the universal panacea.
Fairness aside, if as seems likely this election again results in a hung parliament, it will show that neither major party's manifesto answers the demands of the electorate. A voting alliance or formal coalition is effectively PR by another name, and perhaps we ought to formalise the situation with constitutional reform.
Kilkrazy wrote: In Japan they have a system in which every constituency elects a member by FPTP and there are also a significant number of seats that are allocated by PR. This satisfies both sides of the question.
Japan has various other issues with democratic representation so a mixed system is not the universal panacea.
Fairness aside, if as seems likely this election again results in a hung parliament, it will show that neither major party's manifesto answers the demands of the electorate. A voting alliance or formal coalition is effectively PR by another name, and perhaps we ought to formalise the situation with constitutional reform.
Good luck waiting for constitutional reform - Labour and the Lib Dems have been promising to scrap the Lords for decades.
Sky News is boasting about their general action coverage for the last 30 years and how they were the first to introduce something new each time (24 hour coverage, fancy computer graphics, HD coverage etc). It seems that this election is so boring, that this time the gimmick iS Behind the Scenes coverage.
That's right, they heard we like coverage, so they're giving us coverage of their coverage so we can watch them cover while they cover.
This time the channel is giving the viewers an even closer look from the other side of the camera. Adam Bolton: "we're gonna show what Sky News is up to behind the scenes with these extra cameras and we're gonna do it live throughout the night".
I sent a postal vote last week.. bit depressing really, had to vote CON as UKIP has surged into the second spot in our area, and is threatening to take the seat.. so voted for the lesser of two evils.. just.
All my local options where much more to my liking.
Have to be up at 6am in the morning.. yeah, I'm not getting much sleep tonight.
I voted blue, to my eternal disgust. I like Cleggie the most on a personal level, but hate his policies.
I voted Lib Dem at the local elections though. Whenever I read the Eye, it always seems to be Conservative and Labour pigs with their snouts in the trough giving themselves, their family, and their mates all the local contracts, rarely the Lib Dems.
Depressingly, my local polling station was in young offender's service building and there was a foreign chap in there complaining that there was no SNP candidate on his ballot paper.
I live in Salford, England. This country is fethed.
To those of you who have remarked you didn't vote the way you would have liked to, care to shed some light why you did? Was it just tactical voting, or did you feel a vote for the party you really wanted to support would be wasted in your area/in genereal?
I went Labour, which I'm sure won't come as a surprise who has read any of my posts in this thread Milliband may have made one or two cockups, but overall I get the impression he does have the drive and the conviction to bring some degree of change, which is more than I've seen from anyone else.
That is a terrible, and dishonest, analogy. Countries are not the same as people, and the finances of countries are not directly comparable to the finances of individuals.
Plus, your narrative contradicts the actual facts!
whembly wrote: As an American... I find all this stuff intriguing... even though I have zero fething clue what ya'll are talking about.
Basically you've got 2 major parties. Labour and Concervatives, plus various smaller parties.
Labour was in charge for 15 years and spent increasingly more than it took in tax.
Last election was 5 years ago and no party got enough votes, the Concervativess joined with a smaller party called the Liberal democrats and formed a goverment to lead parliament.
They cut back services and welfare to save money but also lowered taxes mainly in favour of the rich. Their time in office the didn't cut the defict as much as they said they would but managed to reduce it a fair bit (defict means spending more than you take in tax)
The parties in the next 5 years have put out their plans on what they plan on doing.
Concervatives say they will cut more services and will stop having a defict within those 5 years. They also will let the public vote of they want to stay in the EU by 2017
Labour say they will cut services too but not as harshly. They don't plan to stop spending more than they take in taxes. They will also put taxes up. They also don't want the public to have an option to vote on staying in the EU. They think it would be better to stay and don't want to have uncertainty for businesses deciding on coming to the UK.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: That is a terrible, and dishonest, analogy. Countries are not the same as people, and the finances of countries are not directly comparable to the finances of individuals.
Plus, your narrative contradicts the actual facts!
How? Labour spent all the money. They left a note saying "sorry there's no money left"
They have always always alway messed up the budget without fail
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Sky News is boasting about their general action coverage for the last 30 years and how they were the first to introduce something new each time (24 hour coverage, fancy computer graphics, HD coverage etc). It seems that this election is so boring, that this time the gimmick iS Behind the Scenes coverage.
That's right, they heard we like coverage, so they're giving us coverage of their coverage so we can watch them cover while they cover.
This time the channel is giving the viewers an even closer look from the other side of the camera. Adam Bolton: "we're gonna show what Sky News is up to behind the scenes with these extra cameras and we're gonna do it live throughout the night".
Useful for journalism students I guess.
I cam trump that. I started to take pictures of people taking pictures of people taking pictures years ago.
It is not actually as interesting as you might think.
In fact they got more years with more budget surplus than all the Conservative governments since 1980.
Speaking purely from an economic standpoint, that was due to them inheriting a balanced budget and a growing housing bubble from Major/Thatcher, as opposed to any policies of their own.
Reaver83 wrote: If that exit poll is correct - I'm stunned - not unhappy, but it really says to me that labour will never be in government again
I seriously doubt the SNP is going to win EVERY seat in Scotland. I would be extremely surprised if this poll was completely accurate in that regard, at least.
Reaver83 wrote: If that exit poll is correct - I'm stunned - not unhappy, but it really says to me that labour will never be in government again
if the current First Past The Post voting system is in place then it's hard to argue against that point.
If the voting system were to change...that would be interesting. But last time the country voted no to that referendum so I don't see FPTP going away anytime soon.
I don't think it will be entirely accurate. I think UKIP will get a few more seats, they did build momentum after winning the European elections. I think Labour will get a few more seats and the SNP won't get every seat in Scotland, the UK stayed the UK. Just my thoughts.
The exit poll is usually regarded as the most accurate of them all, as it's based on hard data gathered from people leaving polling stations (who have actually just voted). Usually about 20,000 odd of them at 240 sites. At the last election, the exit poll was almost identical to the final results. That's not to say it can't go wrong (it did in 92), but it's usually regarded as the most concrete poll there is.
Sorry, I meant the exit poll and assorted polls/forecasts I've seen pop up. Either way, there seems to be quite a bit of variety between various predicted results.
Or perhaps I'm just in denial as it looks like the Tories are in again!
Paradigm wrote: Sorry, I meant the exit poll and assorted polls/forecasts I've seen pop up. Either way, there seems to be quite a bit of variety between various predicted results.
Or perhaps I'm just in denial as it looks like the Tories are in again!
I just watched the question time with Cameron and Miliband, and was surprised at the depth of venom thrown at Miliband compared to Cameron. Cameron managed to spin and squeak his way out of all the difficult spots, but Miliband just kept getting nailed. And then he almost fell over on the way out, which was kind of entertaining to boot.
I think Labour is in deep trouble, generally speaking. No plan, no decent politicians, and no ideals.
No, there's a YouGov exit poll that's much closer to what was expected (Tories down a bit, Labour up a bit, Liberals cut in half, but still with a decent proportion), but that's not the one the media companies paid for, so they aren't using it!
Ketara wrote: [
I just watched the question time with Cameron and Miliband, and was surprised at the depth of venom thrown at Miliband compared to Cameron. Cameron managed to spin and squeak his way out of all the difficult spots, but Miliband just kept getting nailed. And then he almost fell over on the way out, which was kind of entertaining to boot.
Milliband does seem to get targeted quite a lot, and not just on strictly political matters. I don't know of it's because he's seen as weak, or odd, or what, but he does typically get a barrage levelled at him, it seems.
No plan, no decent politicians, and no ideals.
I think I could say the same about the Tories though. Or rather, they do have ideals, but those ideals are mainly lining the pockets of the fat cats and bankers at the expense of everyone else.
But just on character and putting policy aside, I would much rather Milliband than Cameron or Clegg. He's not perfect, but he's the least of three weevils.
First 3 seats are all to Labour. What is interesting though is that UKIP and Conservatives are near enough tied on votes so far.
Greens and Lib Dems are no where to be seen However this is very early stages.
I think I could say the same about the Tories though. Or rather, they do have ideals, but those ideals are mainly lining the pockets of the fat cats and bankers at the expense of everyone else.
Hey, at least they have some ideals! On a more serious note, the Tories are alright at the moment, from a structural standpoint. They stand for everything they've ever stood for (namely small government, mild xenophobia, mild disregard for the poor, incentives for business, etc). Like it or hate it, you generally know where they stand. They've run an average campaign, not particularly remarkable or incompetent. In terms of politicians, Cameron is distinctly average, but Osborne and May are waiting in the wings as the heirs apparent. Together, they make a reasonably strong/competent team (like them or hate them).
Miliband and Labour on the other hand, are obsessed with trying to be the Lib Dems. Socialism has been ditched, along with any commitment to the working class, so they're just sort of....floating. They have no long term plan or ideals beyond 'say anything to get into power'. Miliband is a poor public face, and the only two other two known are Harriet Harman and Ed Balls, discredited and generally loathed relics of the last government. There's a real dearth of talent and personality in the Labour party at the moment, and I think losing this election will hurt them to the point where they'll need to reform, or be in serious trouble.
UKIP is running riot at the moment. I can't say I saw this level of swing coming. If Farage seizes Thanet, UKIP will be around for the foreseeable future as an actual party, it would appear.
Ketara wrote: UKIP is running riot at the moment. I can't say I saw this level of swing coming. If Farage seizes Thanet, UKIP will be around for the foreseeable future as an actual party, it would appear.
Eh, I still don't see UKIP in its current form surviving a Conservative-led Coalition, simply as the promised referendum will make or break them. Either the nation rejects the idea of leaving the EU, proving the people don't want their one policy, or they accept it, leaving UKIP with nothing.
Of course, they could reinvent themselves like the SNP have to an extent after the Y/N referendum, but I don't think they have much mileage to do that.
Looks like I underestimated the SNP. And overestimated Labour's ability to pick up seats elsewhere. At this rate, it'll be a DUP/Conservative coalition. Be interesting to see where the night goes.
Ketara wrote: Looks like I underestimated the SNP. And overestimated Labour's ability to pick up seats elsewhere. At this rate, it'll be a DUP/Conservative coalition. Be interesting to see where the night goes.
Isn't that what ya'll have now?
Do you think that EU membership referendum played a large role here?
We have a Liberal Democrat/Conservative coalition right now.
This is absolutely brutal, Labour and the Liberal Democrats are getting decimated. At this rate, the Conservatives might actually win a majority. We're about midway now, and they've gained twelve seats for four lost.
In fact they got more years with more budget surplus than all the Conservative governments since 1980.
Speaking purely from an economic standpoint, that was due to them inheriting a balanced budget and a growing housing bubble from Major/Thatcher, as opposed to any policies of their own.
jasper76 wrote: Electing a 20-year-old? Slim pickings, or decadence?
I think nobody expected the sheer sweeping victory of the SNP, so not all their candidates were exactly well-vetted choices. I have to admit, I completely underestimated it myself.
As things stand, assuming cons don't lose any more seats, they're four gains away from a coalition majority with the DUP.
And as Fraser Nelson put it; 'So far, Miliband has lost 33 seats - that's 33 fewer than Gordon Brown was able to win in the middle of a recession in 2010. He's a goner.'
A similar thing happened in Queensland not last election but the one before, the Liberals came swinging through in a big way and a young guy got elected in what was normally a safe labor seat. He got to live off that until the next election. Lucky bugger
Okay. Assuming no more losses or equivalent gains to balance them out, a Conservative/DUP coalition or a Conservative majority will be the outcome of this election, something I only gave a twenty percent odds to previously.
Didn't see that one coming! I think Sturgeon may be about to get a rude awakening about the SNP acting as a 'voice' in the near future, despite their recent gains.
Ketara wrote: Looks like I underestimated the SNP. And overestimated Labour's ability to pick up seats elsewhere. At this rate, it'll be a DUP/Conservative coalition. Be interesting to see where the night goes.
Isn't that what ya'll have now?
Do you think that EU membership referendum played a large role here?
Currently Conservative and Liberal Democrat, so whether it's a Conservative majority or Con/DUP pact, there's going to be a definite shift in attitude at the top (despite what people have been saying about the Lib Dems).
However I think (I hope!) that the referendum is only a minor issue in this. I think the two big things are the economy and Scotland.
A large portion of the country are still traumatised by what happened in 2008 and will do pretty much anything to avoid a repeat. There is a definite perception that the current government have done pretty well with the economy and that Labour aren't competent/can't be trusted. How true that is is debatable, but when did truth have anything to do with how people vote?
Secondly it seems there's been a big last minute surge in England to counter the rising support for the SNP in Scotland; again I think there was a perception that Labour were going to be beholden to the SNP for a majority, so Scotland would get whatever it wanted at the expense of local English regions. Again, debatable about how true this was, but the Conservatives really played it up in the last week or so and it seems to have struck a nerve.
55 (probably 56) out of 59 Scottish MPs will be SNP, combined by another 5 years of the Tory's ideologically driven austerity. I can all but hear the ink fading on the Treaty of Union already.
Ketara wrote: I think Sturgeon may be about to get a rude awakening about the SNP acting as a 'voice' in the near future, despite their recent gains.
I think that if there is another Tory government it will actually make the SNPs end goal easier. The SNP will make a tremendous and highly vocal push for the type of policies that the people of Scotland actually want and the Torys will essentially ignore them. Labour is a spent force in Scotland and is unlikely that they will be revived if they keep to the their current course of aping the Tories so I think that the SNPs political future for a generation is assured. What may have damaged the SNP is if they damaged the Labour vote to the extent that it prevented Labour from office while allowing the Tories in, which didn't happen and in fairness never would have.
All in all I can only see the resentment towards Westminster growing and that can only increase the likelihood of an independent Scotland. I look forward to the day when I can get my Scottish passport.
Silent Puffin? wrote: 55 (probably 56) out of 59 Scottish MPs will be SNP, combined by another 5 years of the Tory's ideologically driven austerity. I can all but hear the ink fading on the Treaty of Union already.
Ketara wrote: I think Sturgeon may be about to get a rude awakening about the SNP acting as a 'voice' in the near future, despite their recent gains.
I think that if there is another Tory government it will actually make the SNPs end goal easier. The SNP will make a tremendous and highly vocal push for the type of policies that the people of Scotland actually want and the Torys will essentially ignore them. Labour is a spent force in Scotland and is unlikely that they will be revived if they keep to the their current course of aping the Tories so I think that the SNPs political future for a generation is assured. What may have damaged the SNP is if they damaged the Labour vote to the extent that it prevented Labour from office while allowing the Tories in, which didn't happen and in fairness never would have.
All in all I can only see the resentment towards Westminster growing and that can only increase the likelihood of an independent Scotland. I look forward to the day when I can get my Scottish passport.
I have to say I agree with your interpretation; I don't agree with the sentiment, as I think we are all much better off with Scotland in the union, in the same way that the UK is far better off in the EU. Trying to go it alone in the modern world is foolish at best and potentially disastrous.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I hope some kind of federalised arrangement is top of Cameron's list, otherwise the whole situation could spiral rapidly beyond the point of no return.
I hope some kind of federalised arrangement is top of Cameron's list, otherwise the whole situation could spiral rapidly beyond the point of no return.
Given his behaviour after the indyref I would doubt it.The only way that a federalised approach would work would be with a full English parliament along side the Welsh and NI assemblies and the Scottish parliament. I just can't see that ever happening with our current political class. Camerons 'plan' will be the same half measures wrapped up with political point scoring that has been Westminster's preferred method for decades; I fully expect to hear a lot more about EVEL in the coming weeks.
Am I right in thinking that the rise of the SNP is less to do with any kind of revival in genuine Scottish seperatism, but is more due to the SNP holding to left wing values, which resonates with Scottish voters who no longer see their values reflected by the modern Labour party?
If so, the way forward isn't necessarily a division of the union. The way forward may be for the SNP to evolve towards a new left wing party, and take the ground that Labour has abandoned, and that the Liberal Democrats flirted with for short while.
sebster wrote: Am I right in thinking that the rise of the SNP is less to do with any kind of revival in genuine Scottish seperatism, but is more due to the SNP holding to left wing values, which resonates with Scottish voters who no longer see their values reflected by the modern Labour party?
If so, the way forward isn't necessarily a division of the union. The way forward may be for the SNP to evolve towards a new left wing party, and take the ground that Labour has abandoned, and that the Liberal Democrats flirted with for short while.
Yes, that's the primary driver of the SNP's surge; although there are other reasons such as the strength of Nicola Sturgeon and the SNPs proven track record in the Scottish parliament, a large part of the SNPs share of the vote could be explained by people who vote SNP in Scottish elections transferring that vote to a Westminster election for the first time. Many people who voted SNP want to retain the union although thats a relative term given that the the % of Scots who voted for the SNP in this election is only around 10-15% higher than voted Yes in the indyref so its a reasonable assumption that the majority of SNP voters want an independent Scotland. I'm sure that this is a subject that will be polled to death over the coming months though.
Given that Scotland routinely votes to the political left and the UK as a whole routinely gets a right wing government there is a growing a(nd already high) discontent with Westminster within Scotland so its not hard to see just why the SNP has the support that it does.
I've said it before during the Scottish referendum, a lot of the complaints the SNP had about Westminster apply equally to everyone outside the Home Counties; unfortunately it appears that whilst the anti-Westminster sentiment in Scotland has gone to the SNP, in England it's going to UKIP, where previously it might have gone to Labour or the Lib Dems. This appears to have drained the Labour margins in a lot of places, leaving the Tories clear.
Surprise to see the size of the swing from labour, i bailed at 2:30 as had work today. However its partly the anti- westminster sentiment from the last 5 years, the surge in SNP support from the indy ref and the fact that labour are just treading water, with no other left option, the SNP walked this, but with a tory majority i can see them peddling another 5 years of 'all the tories fault' instead of actually trying to do something with scotland.
Next years holyrood elections will be a massive SNP win again as its going to be that way for a while.
So- lowest ever turn out in my part of the UK. Kind of a disgrace really. I don't get why people complain about stuff when they haven't actually voted.
Rick_1138 wrote: but with a tory majority i can see them peddling another 5 years of 'all the tories fault' instead of actually trying to do something with scotland.
I don't think so. The next 5 years would be an opportunity to work out some of the wrinkles in the SNPs performance, such as reduced NHS spending in Scotland or some of their dodgy tax policies, and polish up their policies in general (in terms of accuracy rather than spin). The SNP should now be laying very solid foundations to ensure that they can deliver (in so far as possible) to their newfound support. Given that the SNP are a professional, ambitious and driven political party so I expect that this is what they will be doing.
I don't believe this last minute surge idea. ATM the Tories are on 36% of the total vote which is almost exactly what they got last time. It hardly argues for a significant change of heart.
People on the whole don't care about the EU.The economy is their no.1 concern. As you say there is a general impression that the Conservatives are a safer pair of hands on that tiller. This is incorrect but most people vote on instinct rather than by looking at the facts.
On the whole I think the Tories have got lucky with the distribution of FPTP votes. If they end up with a majority of seats on only about one in three of votes, it will prove it.
Silent Puffin? wrote: UKIP has gotten absolutely nowhere though. They only managed 1 (maybe 2) seats, so much for the UKIP revolution.
But they will have a fair sized % of the overall vote.
Pleasing though to see a complete lack of BNP candidates and vote, hopefully we won't see this like again in any significant way as per the last election.
Ed Balls is gone, funny and a millstone around the labour parties neck that they didn't seem willing to shift. Did I mention funny.
sebster wrote: Am I right in thinking that the rise of the SNP is less to do with any kind of revival in genuine Scottish seperatism, but is more due to the SNP holding to left wing values, which resonates with Scottish voters who no longer see their values reflected by the modern Labour party?
If so, the way forward isn't necessarily a division of the union. The way forward may be for the SNP to evolve towards a new left wing party, and take the ground that Labour has abandoned, and that the Liberal Democrats flirted with for short while.
I think that's about it; SNP stand for what labour used to, and a lot of labour voters were alienated with the independence referendum nonsense.
As a Scot who voted yes to independence and for an SNPMP, I have to say that's where I sit. I don't really want a separate Scotland, I just don't want a Tory government.
From the results it looks like there's a huge political difference between Scotland/England so I've actually starter to come round to the idea of a separation as what both nations want.
Of course, doing so would annihilate any chance of a Labour majority using FPTP, but that looks like it's gone now anyway.
Labour need a strong leader and a drastic reform if they are going to get seats in the 2020 Election.
Agree about political divide. If there is a separation, I don't want either party to crawl back to the other for handouts or rejoining. Personally I feel the SNP wanted more powers devolved to Scotland. That would be a better solution (at least to me anyway)
sebster wrote: Am I right in thinking that the rise of the SNP is less to do with any kind of revival in genuine Scottish seperatism, but is more due to the SNP holding to left wing values, which resonates with Scottish voters who no longer see their values reflected by the modern Labour party?
If so, the way forward isn't necessarily a division of the union. The way forward may be for the SNP to evolve towards a new left wing party, and take the ground that Labour has abandoned, and that the Liberal Democrats flirted with for short while.
I think that's about it; SNP stand for what labour used to, and a lot of labour voters were alienated with the independence referendum nonsense.
As a Scot who voted yes to independence and for an SNPMP, I have to say that's where I sit. I don't really want a separate Scotland, I just don't want a Tory government.
From the results it looks like there's a huge political difference between Scotland/England so I've actually starter to come round to the idea of a separation as what both nations want.
Of course, doing so would annihilate any chance of a Labour majority using FPTP, but that looks like it's gone now anyway.
The smartest thing the SNP could do is to state categorical that there will be no new indy referendum for say 10 years, then build on this success and become the new labour vote in Scotland, then plan for a full indy plan, that is more economically sound, explain tax increase will happen but it will help lower earners because XYZ.
The big problem with the last vote was economically it was dreaming, and the public knew it.
However i still dont see this as a vote of confidence in a separate Scotland, that was last year and the majority said no, but this election alows those who voted No to state to westminsetr\scottish labour that they still want change for scotland.
The holyrood election next year will show more differences again i think.
@Killkrazy; it may not be a surge compared to the last election, but in the run up to this one almost all the polls had both the main parties trading around 33-34%, so to suddenly have the Conservatives on 36% and Labour down to 30% after months of no change I think constitutes a surge (well at least a wet burp).
Of course a further independence vote decision does not sit with the SNP rather with the UK govt. Also the Scots people voted for Union so the SNP does not have a mandate for such action.
Ironic that the last referendum was granted by the hated Tories, Blair would never have accepted any chance of a reduction in his power.
Looks to be a majority, there are still some seats left that were held in the 2010 elections by Conservatives - and they just need five more to get the magic 326.
Interesting to note that one of those is Thanet South, where Nigel Farage is standing. If Farage loses that, Cameron will have claimed the heads of Farage, Miliband and Clegg.
I love the fact that Cameron is saying that the result is some sort of endorsement for the Tory party... yeah ok Dave. There are 650 seats up for grabs, you are (at this moment in time) likely to get 326, 325 or 324 of them. Not really an endorsement is it?
By the way that's a statement I'd make about any party who came out the same sort of comment, based on those figures.
I think things will be interesting for the SNP now, they are now the UK's third largest political party, I would have voted for them myself, as I agree with most of their policies, but can't get over the blatantly racist abuse their supporters repeatedly hurled at my (English) wife at home in Dundee during the referendum.
They won't have the voice they thought they were going to have as they shot themselves in the foot by taking away the Labour seats they would have needed to form a coalition, and the thought of Alex Salmond writing the Labour budget may have scared a lot of voters blue.
I'm sitting at my desk compulsively refreshing the results page for Thanet South, I want to see that smug git Farage lose...
Having been following the results since 5am this morning (I had the radio on whilst walking my dog), this South Thanet result is the one I've been waiting for... Seeing the fixed grin on Farages' face was priceless. And so the pupil has become the master
Just waiting for the outrage on my facebook wall...already people are looking to cross the border than live in a Conservative Britain.
Clegg - retired.
Farage - retired
Just waiting on Miliband now. So many people I know are outraged at this election. I even know some that didn't vote and are complaining. What on earth? You don't get to complain.
and a self employed person, is running, "a business."
)
