Since the other politics thread seems to be largely concerned with the 2016 US Election, I figured us on this side of the pond ought to have our own thread for the UK election 2015. As per the other one, feel free to post, link, discuss and debate anything related to the election or UK politics in general, and please try to keep it civil and on-topic.
For those (UK or otherwise) that are in the dark about exactly what we're dealing with here, the BBC have helpfully collated a list of lnks to the main parties' sites, and also those pertaining to specific parts of the government:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18247131
Again, for those not familliar, here is a rundown of the situation as it stands:
Spoiler:
Britain currently has a coalition government made up of the Conservative (right-of-centre) and Liberal Democrat (left-of-centre) parties, with a Conservative PM (David Cameron) and a LD deputy PM (Nick Clegg). The Cabinet consists of MPs from both parties. This came about due to a 'Hung Parliament' in 2010, in which no party had a majority without forming alliances.
Labour fill the role of the Opposition Party, led by Ed Milliband.
Other significant parties include the UKIP (UK Independance Party, Right wing), the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru (Wales) and the Green Party (left-of-centre). All the parties listed above will be taking part in a TV debate prior to the election.
In last year's Member of European Parliament elections, UKIP made significant gains in several contituencies, while the Liberal Democrats lost support in many areas.
The UK Election will take place on May 7th 2015.
Here are where the Parties stand on various major issues, again courtesy of the BBC:
Manifesto watch: Where parties stand on key issues - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29642613
***
Now, purely my thoughts:
This could be an interesting one. One thing I think is certain is that the Lib Dems are going to lose out a lot here. After the formation of the coalition, they have done a lot of backpedalling on promises they made, particularly on lowering tuition fees (say goodbye to the Student vote, Mr Clegg), and if anything, all I think they've proven is that they are willing to sell out for a shot at power. I can see them ending up in a coalition again, but only as a tool for another party to achieve a majority.
As far as I can see, the main issues this election will be fought on are immigration/EU Membership, the NHS and education.
I reckon immigration is the only area where UKIP are going to gain any ground, and only then if people don't look too closely at their domestic policies. They did well in the MEP elections purely on that basis, but I consider it unlikely that this will translate into a major gain in Parliament. Every Party seems to have recognised that immigration will be important this year, with some (UKIP, LibDems) promising English Language tests for migrants, and most suggesting that migrants will have to 'earn' benefits, and some that benefits can not be used to support dependants outside the UK. Interestingly, Cameron has ruled out a 'cap' on immigration, instead choosing the route of reducing the incentive for moving to the UK. He has also promised to challenge EU freedom of movement regulations, as part of a renegotiated relationship between Britain and the EU. This is all well and good if he will actually stand up to them, but as the recent backpayment debacle proved (going from 'We'll pay nothing' to 'We'll pay some' to 'we'll pay slowly), I'm not sure he has the clout and confidence to do so.
On the NHS, the general trend seems to be towards increasing its funding, either through cutting benefits (Conservative) or increasing taxes (Labour). Since no one (yet) has suggested privatisation of the service, the parties all fall along similar lines here, but given that Labour have commited themselves to halting any privatisation of the NHS or its services, I have a feeling they may do well with that. On a personal level, the fact they plan to fund the increase in spending with a higher tax on higher income causes me to lean this way. The Greens have also suggested something similar, with a fast-tracked health fund from taxes, but except in very specific areas, I can't help but feel it would be a waste of a vote.
Where the Conservatives absolutely lose my support is on education, with their policy of continung to promote Academies. From what I have seen and experienced first hand, making a school an academy (basically granting it greater independance and supporting it through local businesses rather than government bodies) has no real impact on the quality of the education provided, it simply shifts the responsibility further from the government. I can't honestly support an education policy that is not in the interest of the students being educated.
There is also the issue of lowering the voting age to 16, which oddly enough the Conservatives oppose but everyone else supports. I think it is ultimately a good thing trying to get younger citizens involved in politics, but so far, no one has confronted the real issue here; the lack of a general political education at secondary school level, which is something that needs to happen if the voting age is to be lowered. This in unlikely to be a deciding factor in my books, but could end up being pretty significant on a larger scale, and certainly important in how it will affect the policies of whoever gets through going forward.
At this point, it's hard to say which way I'll end up going; Labour are probably closest to my political standpoint, but whether or not I have faith in them to deliver is up for debate. I couldn't guess at a result at this stage either, as I don't think the European Elections are a good indicator of the way things are going internally (especially once you throw UKIP into the mix). I would like to see a single-party Government rather than a coalition, and to me, the worst case scenario would be a Labour/Conservative Coalition, which sadly I think may be a real possiblity if there is no majority and the LibDems have lost so much support they cannot tip the balance. In which case, we'l just end up with 5 years of back-and-forth, nothing really getting done, and the same blurred and vaguely centerist mess we have at the moment.
The biggest issue with the whole thing is that, at the moment, none of the Party Leaders inspire any confidence. You can spend hours reading the manifestos, and it all looks good on paper, but then you look at what has actuallly been done since the last election and sigh; Clegg is a sellout, Cameron has spent most of the time doing very little, and while Milliband can stand as the opposition and make a lot of noise, that's easy to do when you don't have to prove you can do a better job, but not so much when you actually have to. Farage is sadly the only interesting figure in the system at the moment, but for all the wrong reasons; too many blunders, affected personas and trying to be all things to all people. He might be entertaining to watch in the same way as it can be entertaining to watch idiots falling off bicycles or pandas sneezing, but I wouldn't actually trust him to run... anything really (in fact, I'd choose the panda over him). What we need is exactly what we don't have; a politician with ideals, skilled at rhetoric and someone who can actually inspire some trust.
So anyway, that's me ramblings out of the way. To the thread!
If I was a betting man, I'd put my money on a Con victory.
UKIP do rattle a lot of chains, and I can see them gaining a few seats. However, due to our First Past the Post system, I can't see many areas where they would actually gain enough votes to outdo the other parties.
I can see labour losing more seats, Milliband has spent the last four years being ridiculed by the media, and I don't think he has enough personal clout to actually be a PM. He doesn't exactly inspire confidence in others.
The same for the LibDems, this coalition government has really put them in the dumps. Clegg hasn't made the party as important as it should have been, its because of them that we have the ConDem government that we have.
There is also the SNP, I can see them gaining more seats in Scotland, seeing as that is traditionally a labour area, it won't be very good for them.
welshhoppo wrote: If I was a betting man, I'd put my money on a Con victory.
UKIP do rattle a lot of chains, and I can see them gaining a few seats. However, due to our First Past the Post system, I can't see many areas where they would actually gain enough votes to outdo the other parties.
I can see labour losing more seats, Milliband has spent the last four years being ridiculed by the media, and I don't think he has enough personal clout to actually be a PM. He doesn't exactly inspire confidence in others.
The same for the LibDems, this coalition government has really put them in the dumps. Clegg hasn't made the party as important as it should have been, its because of them that we have the ConDem government that we have.
There is also the SNP, I can see them gaining more seats in Scotland, seeing as that is traditionally a labour area, it won't be very good for them.
I'm in agreement here, Sillyband doesn't stand a chance.
In a 2 man race I'd agree, but given the current climate I don't know, UKIP might just take enough Tory votes to put Labour ahead by default. FPTP won't give UKIP that many seats, agreed, but it may just cripple the Cons enough.
Of course, they are all full of the same stuff, and all will have to raise taxes and cut spending after the election so the next 4 months guff can be largely ignored. The likelihood of a coalition means any pre-election pledge is worth even less than usual. A good example would be Labours 'save the NHS from privatisation'. Their Shadow Health Secretary Andy Burnham was Health Secretary in 2006 and the first man to privatise a UK ambulance service, if they were in any way committed to the NHS they could at least find someone with slightly cleaner hands
What we will hear little or nothing about is the crippling cost of PFI, because the Tories lovingly kicked it off, transferring huge public finds to private companies they then went to work for, Labour were if anything even more enthusiastic for a decade and now the Lib-Dems are guilty by association. UKIP couldn't afford to stop PFI now either, so one way or another we will be paying off what amounts to a whole pile of really, really bad loan deals for a very long time.
Darkjim wrote: In a 2 man race I'd agree, but given the current climate I don't know, UKIP might just take enough Tory votes to put Labour ahead by default. FPTP won't give UKIP that many seats, agreed, but it may just cripple the Cons enough.
That is a good point. With even Tory MPs defecting to UKIP, are they going to put enough of a dent in the Con voters to give Labour an edge? More to the point, would this be a good thing? On one hand, I'd be happy to see Cameron out (although I'm not convinced I want Milliband in) but giving UKIP a power base, even a non-effective one (this time round) might not be the best outcome. If people start taking UKIP seriously, what might we get in the 2020 election? They are already coming up at a rate not really seen since the rise of Labour in the early C20, having gone from relative obscurity to to having both MPs and MEPs, but outside of ther EU get-out plan, I really don't see them having much mileage unless they reinvent themselves pretty heavily.
If Cameron is smart, he'll bring forward his referendum promise as early as he can, and take a chance between now and May to prove he'll stanf up to the EU. That could take a lotrom UKIP's sails, and hopefully get Labour to actually commit to something regarding the EU, which to my mind they haven't really done yet, beyond their immigration policies.
I can see Labour getting bent over and done dry in Scotland.
SNP are going to take them to the cleaners.
this kills any chance of Labour winning enough seats to be a credible threat.
Lib Dems, as far as I can see traditionally got a lot of support from students, and after their time in coalition, well, that's gone now.
The Conservative party, I think are going to lose a bit of support to UKIP, but all in all, I think it won't be too bad.
In al seriousness I can see the big winners in the next election being SNP, The Green Party, and UKIP.
I want a green+BNP coalition backed by independents. It will never happen but would be awesome.
"lets plant more trees!"*
"but only indeginous british ones!"
My main concern is that beaker who can't talk or lead and looks like a cartoon character will get in, or that the tories will get it with UKIP or ukip will get in alone.
I hate party politics. The annoying thing is that most people in blind polls support the policies of the greens but won't vote for them as they are percieved as hippies who will ban cars and meat. Their own name undermines them!
Seriously? Not that I don't think it'll necessarily encourage 16+yo to actually vote and make an impact...
O.o
When I was 16, I was a dumb ass...
It is a bit of a stupid idea. I'm all for getting young people getting involved in politics (although as you point out, it might not work), but I am pretty certain when I was 16 I would have no idea what to vote, given the complete lack of political education in the current system. Similarly, most people I know at that age, have very limited political knowledge for the same reason?
Of course, it makes sense from the 'get in power, screw ideals' attitude that is flooding modern politics, as it meant there are millions more impressionable minds with none of the cynicism that comes with age, whom they can dupe into voting for them with false promises. Not that that's any different now, of course!
Soteks Prophet wrote: I want a green+BNP coalition backed by independents. It will never happen but would be awesome.
"lets plant more trees!"*
"but only indeginous british ones!"
My main concern is that beaker who can't talk or lead and looks like a cartoon character will get in, or that the tories will get it with UKIP or ukip will get in alone.
I hate party politics. The annoying thing is that most people in blind polls support the policies of the greens but won't vote for them as they are percieved as hippies who will ban cars and meat. Their own name undermines them!
tl;dr: The Lib Dems will be crushed, UKIP will bleed support away from the Tories, Labour will be severely damaged by SNP gains in Scotland, but will be propped up by the SNP in a Coalition. The SNP will be the greatest winners, relatively.
The Tories will lose a handful of seats to UKIP, perhaps we'll even see a couple more defections. Not enough to crush the party (a desire expressed by Peter Hitchens of the Mail on Sunday and shared by me), but enough to worry them and force them to come up with even more disingenuous gimmicks and empty promises in future to appeal to the voters being poached by UKIP.
Like their promise to hold a referendum on Britian's EU membership in the next Parliament, which IMO they have no intention of keeping and don't want anyway, but they made the promise regardless because they know they won't ever be in a position where they will have to keep it. Theres no way they'll have an absolute majority making them the biggest party. The best they can hope for is another coalition, at which point they'll quietly drop the EU Ref promise or kick it into the long grass yet gain, blaming their Coalition partner for "obstructing" them. An excuse which served them very well 2010 - 2015, with Cameron abandoning all sorts of inconvenient empty promises that he didn't want to keep anyway, blaming it on "those nasty Lib Dems".
The Liberal Democrats will lose a lot of seats leaving them a shadow of their former selves and more or less irrelevant.
Labour will lose a LOT of Scottish seats to the SNP, and will be forced to do a lot of horse trading and back scratching to get the SNP to prop them up in a coalition government.
Ultimately the SNP will be the biggest winners in 2015, and will take a mischievous glee in stirring gak up by interfering in "English laws" - areas that apply only to England and not Scotland. Having failed to convince the Scots to vote for independence, they'll do their best to stir up anti-Scottish sentiment in England thereby keeping Scottish Independence on the political agenda (See! We told you so, those English all hate us!). IIRC Nicola Sturgeon has already expressed her intention to do just that (they're ending their long standing policy of SNPMP's not getting involved in matters that only affect England not Scotland).
Shots are being fired over the issue of Youth benefits/unemloyment, and as someone in the targeted age bracket, I can't say I agree with either Milliband or Cameron.
Cameron:
- Jobseeker's Allowance for 18-21 year olds replaced with a 'Youth Benefit' that only lasts 6 months before they MUST do unpaid community work or enter an apprenticeship.
- NO housing benefit for 18-21 YOs.
- Savings used to fund 3m new apprenticeships.
David Cameron: Unemployed young 'should do community work' - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31500763
Milliband:
- Promises apprenticeships for anyone with Level 3 qualifications (2 A-levels or L3 Diploma) by 2020
- No word on benefit cuts, but committed to 'the working families of Britain' as a part of economic recovery
- Unemployed Youth must take training courses if they lack required qualifications.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31483886
Can't say I'm happy with either of these focusing on apprenticeships; not that I have anything against them in principle, but when we have University graduates that leave with a double First and can't get a job, should we really be creating 'already filled' jobs by the million, and getting a situation where in the same time it takes to get a Degree, you can do an apprenticeship and be guarunteed a job at the end of it? Seems to rather heavily incentivise not going to university, and offers nothing for those that are. Creating new jobs is great, but I do think the focus should be on creating them for those already qualified rather than putting all the focus on future-proofed apprenticeships and leaving millions of people that have already done the neccessary learning unemployed.
Which is why I'm going to tentatively say that I think Labour might come out of this particular tussle better, as they aren't forcing people into apprenticeships in the same way that the Cons are, while still opening them up to those who want them. As said, though, I'd like to see how either side plans on dealing with the job deficit that's here right now, rather than in 5 year's time...
tl;dr: The Lib Dems will be crushed, UKIP will bleed support away from the Tories, Labour will be severely damaged by SNP gains in Scotland, but will be propped up by the SNP in a Coalition. The SNP will be the greatest winners, relatively.
The Tories will lose a handful of seats to UKIP, perhaps we'll even see a couple more defections. Not enough to crush the party (a desire expressed by Peter Hitchens of the Mail on Sunday and shared by me), but enough to worry them and force them to come up with even more disingenuous gimmicks and empty promises in future to appeal to the voters being poached by UKIP.
Like their promise to hold a referendum on Britian's EU membership in the next Parliament, which IMO they have no intention of keeping and don't want anyway, but they made the promise regardless because they know they won't ever be in a position where they will have to keep it. Theres no way they'll have an absolute majority making them the biggest party. The best they can hope for is another coalition, at which point they'll quietly drop the EU Ref promise or kick it into the long grass yet gain, blaming their Coalition partner for "obstructing" them. An excuse which served them very well 2010 - 2015, with Cameron abandoning all sorts of inconvenient empty promises that he didn't want to keep anyway, blaming it on "those nasty Lib Dems".
The Liberal Democrats will lose a lot of seats leaving them a shadow of their former selves and more or less irrelevant.
Labour will lose a LOT of Scottish seats to the SNP, and will be forced to do a lot of horse trading and back scratching to get the SNP to prop them up in a coalition government.
Ultimately the SNP will be the biggest winners in 2015, and will take a mischievous glee in stirring gak up by interfering in "English laws" - areas that apply only to England and not Scotland. Having failed to convince the Scots to vote for independence, they'll do their best to stir up anti-Scottish sentiment in England thereby keeping Scottish Independence on the political agenda (See! We told you so, those English all hate us!). IIRC Nicola Sturgeon has already expressed her intention to do just that (they're ending their long standing policy of SNPMP's not getting involved in matters that only affect England not Scotland).
I'd have to disagree with those conclusions. Most polls I've seen show Labour and Conservative with roughly a third of the votes each, and UKIP getting about 10-15%. Even if the SNP took every seat in Scotland (assuming that all Labour seats are in England, Wales and NI), that's only 8% of the total, and not enough to rival a Conservative/UKIP coalition. I'd suggest that the latter is the most likely outcome of the next election.
My 2p worth. Vote UKIP. And not for immigration , let me explain!
Let me explain my reasoning. I 100% am against the benefits system. I go out, I work hard, and then money is taken out of my pay packet and GIVEN to people who choose not to work. I am not interested in any explanation or debate, I am against this. People on Benefits have a better lifestyle than myself. In this I support Cons, I am against Labour. In their last term in power they allowed an entire generation to become benefit bums and have said they will increase spending on welfare benefits. Cons have done something to curb this area of spending, but not enough. This is where UKIP have a vote wining policy for me. They will cap child benefit to the first 2 children. Have as many children as you like, but anymore than 2 and you receive no benefits.
2nd vote winner from UKIP for me. They will ban the slaughter of any animal on religious grounds. I eat meat, I am pro animal rights. Slitting a sheep’s throat with a knife and leaving it to die whilst the blood drains out of it is not the way to kill for food. A quick, bolt through the head is what is needed, but we allow slitting of throats to please Muslim and Jewish religions. Ban it, pure and simple. It's not just that. I am against the slaughter of animals in this method, yet for ease, a large amount of food sources now source Halal meat so they do not upset the Muslim population. I am against this.
3rd vote winner. More benefits. Currently, you can claim UK benefits for family members that don’t even reside in the UK. So a mother from Poland, based in the UK, can claim child benefit for her dozen brood who live in Poland, and have never set foot in the UK. UKIP will end this.
I also believe the Political establishment has become stale, it needs a kick up the arse. If UKIP receive a strong turnout, regardless of who gets in power, they will not be able to ignore UKIP.
Well, you're not interested in any debate so it's safe to just go "You're wrong and have a very poor understanding of many things" and leave it at that.
I also believe the Political establishment has become stale, it needs a kick up the arse. If UKIP receive a strong turnout, regardless of who gets in power, they will not be able to ignore UKIP.
This is about the only part I agree with; whether he's right or not, Farage is about the only politician in the current system that actually manages to make an impression beyond the policies, a skill that seems lost these days.
But other than that, I don't think I could ever support the majority of UKIP's domestic policies. I do agree with them over the EU, but I'd rather see that come about through them prompting anyone else into action than doing it themselves.
MrDwhitey wrote: Well, you're not interested in any debate so it's safe to just go "You're wrong and have a very poor understanding of many things" and leave it at that.
Maybe that was a bit strong a statement. The whole debate of taking money off someone who works to give to those who don't is a whole other topic to discuss, not really here at the risk of de-railing this thread. Personally, someone who contributes nothing to society should get nothing in return in my opinion. And the debate of 'because you should' or 'civilised society' doesn't wash me me. There are other, modern Western countries which don't operate a benefits system and they do fine. If everyone decided they needed Benefits, who'd provide them with income. They do nothing for me, yet I'm forced to do something for them. But let's not de-rail this thread.
Personally, I will be voting UKIP. I don't beleive they will win an outright leadership, but I do feel that another co-Gov. could be formed with them. Cons for example would rather form a colaition with UKIP than risk loosing power to Labour, and UKIP would take any shot to get into power. From my own working background, Labour are (and have been) a disaster, Cons have been ok. Cameron's lost my vote though over lack of action on a) Benefits Culture, b) EU, c) Immigration. I don't think we'd have quite as big an issue on Immagration if the Benefits Culture was tackled, and they certainly wouldn't be queuing up at Calais to get here.
Any government that had balls could get rid of PFI by the simple method of explaining to the private vultures what would happen to their chances of getting any government contract in the future if they insisted on obtaining the usurious terms accorded to them under the current system.
Putting that to one side, UKIP's policies are a big bag of clown shoes. The Lib-Dems very sadly shot themselves in the foot with a 10-bore shotgun by their botched referendum on proportional representation. This issue, which has the potential to resolve the current crisis of confidence in politics, has been pushed off the agenda for a generation.
Labour, I don't know. Milliband does not inspire confidence.
The Tories of course are the usual bunch of nasty party freaks hiding under a banner of "fairness" and "We're all in it together" (unless we are millionaires, of course...) They are still more hated than perhaps they realise.
I foresee another hung parliament with the rump of the Lib-Dems, the Greens and SNP holding the balance of power.
Personally, I will be voting UKIP. I don't beleive they will win an outright leadership, but I do feel that another co-Gov. could be formed with them. Cons for example would rather form a colaition with UKIP than risk loosing power to Labour, and UKIP would take any shot to get into power. From my own working background, Labour are (and have been) a disaster, Cons have been ok. Cameron's lost my vote though over lack of action on a) Benefits Culture, b) EU, c) Immigration. I don't think we'd have quite as big an issue on Immagration if the Benefits Culture was tackled, and they certainly wouldn't be queuing up at Calais to get here.
Why do feel there are major issues with:
a) Benefits Culture, what is this? Can you define it in terms of scale and demographics?
b) EU, what actions do you think should be taken and why?
c) Immigration
Personally I will not be voting for UKIP. As far as I can tell they are a party that stands on a platform of "You are being run by unelected people far away for their interests, vote for us and we can run you for ours instead". This does not answer any questions. That they constantly try to get votes by stoking fear of problems that don't really exist and are, for the main, hyper-tories with whom I share as little common ground as some geezer in Brussels is unlikely to change my position.
TheSecretSquig wrote: The whole debate of taking money off someone who works to give to those who don't is a whole other topic to discuss, not really here at the risk of de-railing this thread. Personally, someone who contributes nothing to society should get nothing in return in my opinion. And the debate of 'because you should' or 'civilised society' doesn't wash me me. There are other, modern Western countries which don't operate a benefits system and they do fine. If everyone decided they needed Benefits, who'd provide them with income. They do nothing for me, yet I'm forced to do something for them. But let's not de-rail this thread.
It's on-topic in relation to the UK, I feel, so feel free to discuss it.
Personally, while I can certainly see where you are coming from, I do feel very strongly that in a country that will refer to itself as civilised, fair, democratic and effective that no human being, employed or otherwise, should ever be left without what they need to survive, or have to fear for the roof over their heads or the food in their mouths. It is easy to dismiss benefits claimants as 'lazy, good for nothing thieves' or whatever, but I'd hazard a very confident guess that the primary cause of unemployment (and therefore benefit claimants) is not lack of motivation or even lack of qualification, but lack of availability. One cannot do a job if the job simply is not there.
If you have a university leaver who comes out with a relevant degree, but by dint of locale, health or any other factor cannot get a job, would you deny them the benefits that would keep them housed and fed, but because at that moment they cannot 'contribute'? Or what about someone who has worked for 20 years, and is suddenly made redundant and cannot find another job?
To me, such a thing would seem utterly barbaric, and I have to question the effectiveness and morality of my government whenever I see people in a first world, economically developed and culturally/politically stable nation barely keeping above the poverty line, and in all too many cases falling below it.
Paradigm wrote:If you have a university leaver who comes out with a relevant degree, but by dint of locale, health or any other factor cannot get a job, would you deny them the benefits that would keep them housed and fed, but because at that moment they cannot 'contribute'? Or what about someone who has worked for 20 years, and is suddenly made redundant and cannot find another job?.
Let’s discuss a few topic’s here. Job’s. Anyone can get a job in this Country. There are 100’s of workers who arrived in the UK and within days have set up their own business washing cars. Within 3 miles of my own house there are 4 garages, every one of them now has a car washing business, 3 Polish, 1 Turkish, all are busy. So, if these unqualified people can suddenly ‘invent’ a job and start working there is no reason someone else can. The issue is that the chap leaving uni with his top degree expects to walk into a top job. The uni leaver with his degree won’t wash cars, it’s beneath them. Then there’s the other side, “why should I wash cars when I can be paid benefits to sit on my backside and do nothing”. If we didn’t pay benefits, people would be forced to find work.
On the subject of Benefits. It should be for the bare necessities, nothing else. Benefits should be given vouchers or a card that only allows expenditure on essential items. Booze, Fags, Scratchcards, Sky TV, 3D Flatscreen HDi TV’s are not essentials. Disability Benefits. Why, just because you are disabled, you receive enough benefits to have a brand new car every 2 years? (I know, because I have family on disability allowances). Sorry, I work, I contribute, but money is taken from me, preventing me from owning a new car, and given to someone else so they can have a new car every 2 years. It’s wrong. Whilst I agree they need help, here’s some vouchers that entitle you to free public transport. Not, here’s a free, brand new car every 2 years. “oh, I don’t live near Public Transport”. Well move house then!
My previous job was a domestic electrician, my company had the contract from the local authorities to re-wire all the houses on their Council Estates. I could write pages on what I witnessed, but needless to say for the sake of my health, I left the job before my blood pressure went through the roof. I witnessed first-hand what sort of Lifestyle people on Benefits can afford, how it’s no longer seen as ‘help’, its seen as a ‘right’ and a lifestyle by 2 generations now. Every house had Sky TV, the latest Flatscreen TV, multiple Games Consoles, all paid for by my Tax. I’ve witnessed Girls determined to get pregnant, just so they then receive their free Council House, and all the Benefits that go with it. Mothers with +6 children, planning more, just so they’ll receive more Benefits and get a bigger house. The whole system is wrong and ANY party that does something to curb this wins my vote. Labour will increase welfare spending, just like they did last time.
I’ve yet to hear an argument, which justifies why money I have earned, is taken off me, and given to the above. All the arguments are ‘civil society’ or ‘it’s the right thing to do’. Sorry they don’t wash. If we all adopted the same attitude, who would pay then? I guess because I’ve witnessed the deep end of the Benefits Culture, it’s swayed my view. “Gee, thanks for working and earning some money, now give some to me because I don’t have a job. I’ll never have a job, so I’ll never give you anything back”. Sorry, its wrong!
Kilkrazy wrote:UKIP's policies are a big bag of clown shoes.
If stopping animals from having their throats slit open and then letting them bleed to death instead of a quick bolt in the head, all in the name of ‘Religion’ is a ‘Clown Shoes’ Policy, then you and I live on different planets.
Another UKIP Policy. Cut Foreign Aid. Why do we give India £100’s Millions in Foreign Aid? It’s not a 3rd world Country, It has its own Space Programme, combined, it is the single biggest banker in Swiss Bank Accounts (+£900b) yet we are still giving them foreign Aid. When the UK has a Failing NHS, Schools need funding, services are being cut, why are we giving Billions every year to countries which clearly, don’t need it. If everything was good in the UK, then yes, give it. But its not.
Schools. My local School which my daughter will start at next year has now had to employ 2 Polish Translators. This is because where I live, there has been a large influx of Polish families. With this, comes the expectation that we will school their Children. No Issue. My issue comes that instead of spending limited school funds on things for actual education, these now are cut because we now employ translators. Wrong. This is an English School. Speak English, or leave. Why should all the English speaking children have their standard of education cut, because the School now needs to fund Translators for a small number of Children? If you want to be taught in Polish, fine, but pay for it yourself, this is an English School.
I couldn't care less what happens in this election but for 3 things:
1) I want there to be a more stable economy and the deficit situation improved
2) I absolutely want to see the NHS improved, not cut, and definitely not privatised
3) I want people to realise just how flawed UKIP is and ultimately reject it
The Greens are laughable, only matched by how hard I'm going to laugh when the Liberal Democrats get wrecked this election, and UKIP are literally beyond a joke now as their new masses-inspiring stupidity is actually a concern instead of just something I can sit and laugh at
unfortunately this puts me in a dilemma between Labour (the anti-thesis in intentions towards 1) and Conservative ( very suspiciously leaning against 2), but I'll probably take my chances and vote Conservative
TheSecretSquig wrote: The uni leaver with his degree won’t wash cars, it’s beneath them. Then there’s the other side, “why should I wash cars when I can be paid benefits to sit on my backside and do nothing”. If we didn’t pay benefits, people would be forced to find work.
I believe we had a system like that once, you know, back in the days of work houses, indentured servitude and transportation.
Let’s discuss a few topic’s here. Job’s. Anyone can get a job in this Country.
Your fundamentally wrong there. I hear this again and again from people who have been lucky enough to grow up in affluent areas. I grew up in South Yorkshire in the 80s. I have seen almost entire towns go from people working in mines, doing hard, dirty, dangerous and highly skilled jobs to being out of work and stuck on benefits. Are you telling me those people, some of whom are still stuck in a trap of short term work with periods of unemployment are lazy? You can't set up a car wash if no one can afford a car. Where I live now there are hand car washes all over. When I go up to see relatives in Yorkshire... Not so much. Few people in a pit village can afford £8 to get their car washed when they could do it them self.
Disability Benefits. Why, just because you are disabled, you receive enough benefits to have a brand new car every 2 years? (I know, because I have family on disability allowances). Sorry, I work, I contribute, but money is taken from me, preventing me from owning a new car, and given to someone else so they can have a new car every 2 years. It’s wrong. Whilst I agree they need help, here’s some vouchers that entitle you to free public transport. Not, here’s a free, brand new car every 2 years. “oh, I don’t live near Public Transport”. Well move house then!
How on earth can you argue DLA is wrong? For a start, to get higher rate DLA (Now PIP) you have to be unable to walk more than 25 meters. How exactly does public transport help with that? Even if it did, many people on higher rate DLA have modifications to their house to live as independently as they can. Ramps, stair lifts, low worktops, etc... Ignoring the difficulties of moving house for an able bodied person (you can't just move if your in social housing, and if you own it costs tens of thousands) if you have these modifications it can make it very difficult to sell your old house and cost to do the new house, and social housing is just as much of a problem. Higher rate DLA provides people with transport who would otherwise be housebound. It's actually quite economical compared to the alternatives. And if you know so much about it because of your family you would realize that DLA/PIP is primarily not about "getting a free car" but about the many other areas of support it provides. Someone who needs motorbility would give it up in a heartbeat to have enough mobility not to use it. Be thankful you have never been in the position of having to claim PIP/DLA.
This is an English School. Speak English, or leave. Why should all the English speaking children have their standard of education cut, because the School now needs to fund Translators for a small number of Children? If you want to be taught in Polish, fine, but pay for it yourself, this is an English School.
So the children should now suffer because they have been moved to another country? The kids will pick up English quite fast, but what do they do until then?
You show the exact problem of UKIP. It is based on lies and fear. So much of what you are saying is twisted or outright tabloid lies mixed with anger. They are hoping that they will pick up enough votes from a divide and concour strategy to get in. They don't have to tell the truth, just twist reality enough that enough people will believe them so they can get enough votes to get a few seats. They know no one will form a coalition with them. Even the Tories know it would be suicide for them.
I think we are probably going to end up with a short term Lib/Lab/Con or possibly a Lib/Lab/Green coalition which will brake down within a year. No one will want to join up with UKIP or SNP. It would be politically disastrous.
This is an English School. Speak English, or leave. Why should all the English speaking children have their standard of education cut, because the School now needs to fund Translators for a small number of Children? If you want to be taught in Polish, fine, but pay for it yourself, this is an English School.
So the children should now suffer because they have been moved to another country? The kids will pick up English quite fast, but what do they do until then?
So ALL the Children in a School must suffer because they now can’t afford the new books required for next term because they are funding x2 £17,000 translators? And diverting funds from the rest of the School to allow to foreign nationals who can’t speak English to be taught is acceptable? I have no issue in teaching these students. My issue is that we go out of our way to accept them at the sacrifice of everyone else.
And this is the problem. We, as a Country, bend over backwards to assist people, instead of ourselves.
The DLA question. I’m sorry, but you’ve not addressed my question. How is it fair, that you are given the means to buy a new car every 2 years just because of your 'disability'?
I did not grow up in an affluent area. Where I lived, there isn’t a great deal of opportunity. So I moved to be where the work is. If your Mining Village in South Yorkshire doesn’t provide you work, then move to where the work is. But, being in the pay of Benefits means there is no motivation or incentive to get off your backside and find work. Why bother when I can live a life on Benefits? Reported in the press yesterday, a single mother who’s only income is ‘Benefits’ afforded a £3,000 round the world holiday, all paid for by the taxpayer :
This is an English School. Speak English, or leave. Why should all the English speaking children have their standard of education cut, because the School now needs to fund Translators for a small number of Children? If you want to be taught in Polish, fine, but pay for it yourself, this is an English School.
So the children should now suffer because they have been moved to another country? The kids will pick up English quite fast, but what do they do until then?
So ALL the Children in a School must suffer because they now can’t afford the new books required for next term because they are funding x2 £17,000 translators? And diverting funds from the rest of the School to allow to foreign nationals who can’t speak English to be taught is acceptable? I have no issue in teaching these students. My issue is that we go out of our way to accept them at the sacrifice of everyone else.
And this is the problem. We, as a Country, bend over backwards to assist people, instead of ourselves.
By "ourselves" I take it you mean "Me" given that you have a problem with money being spent on the poor, the disabled and other peoples children.
The DLA question. I’m sorry, but you’ve not addressed my question. How is it fair, that you are given the means to buy a new car every 2 years just because of your 'disability'?
Yes I have. I have explained why people need motorbility. Just because you don't like the answer does not mean I have not answered the question. It's fair because we try and give people with disabilities equal access to services. For some that means use of a car.
I did not grow up in an affluent area. Where I lived, there isn’t a great deal of opportunity. So I moved to be where the work is. If your Mining Village in South Yorkshire doesn’t provide you work, then move to where the work is. But, being in the pay of Benefits means there is no motivation or incentive to get off your backside and find work. Why bother when I can live a life on Benefits?
So did I. Thats not an opportunity provided to everyone. Not everyone can say "I'm going to move to find a job!" If you have no job and no money how do you afford the costs of moving? How do you find another job? As I said, are you seriously suggesting that thousands of people went from one day working in the mining industry for decades to just deciding "I can't be bothered to work."? Life isn't as simple that. Not everyone can up sticks and move their family, and if they did not everyone can just find enough work to survive.
This alone tells me all I need to know about Benefits. It’s too much. But I suppose for other voters, this isn’t an issue and is perfectly acceptable?
Thats a single case of one person who, as an adult, lives with family who can afford to look after her and her son. She did not pay for a round the world trip on benefits, her parents paid for it. If they were not able or willing to support her she would not have been able to do that. That is totally unrepresentative of the vast majority of people. She is lucky that her family are willing to support her like that, and I think she realizes it. You can't apply that as an example of anything.
UKIP are a deeply racist party with frankly frightening views who time and again have to distance themselves from their candidates just to keep alive.
If UKIP get more than 3 MPs I give it a month before one of them says something stupid and a year before we have a bi-election because one of them has to stand down.
Did anybody see Cameron's little piece on wages the other day? Telling employers that it's about time that staff started getting pay rise's... Nice and subtle that one Dave!
Wolfstan wrote: Did anybody see Cameron's little piece on wages the other day? Telling employers that it's about time that staff started getting pay rise's... Nice and subtle that one Dave!
Yes, I believe my comment was along the lines of "11% of a much larger starting wage with a fantastic pension and expense account sounds about right just-call-me-Dave".
The DLA question. I’m sorry, but you’ve not addressed my question. How is it fair, that you are given the means to buy a new car every 2 years just because of your 'disability'?
Yes I have. I have explained why people need motorbility. Just because you don't like the answer does not mean I have not answered the question. It's fair because we try and give people with disabilities equal access to services. For some that means use of a car.
No you haven't. If it's 'Fair' and 'equal', why isn't everybody given a car? I need a car to drive to work. I need a car just as much as a disabled person. But they are 'given' a car, from money that's taken from me. No one gives me a car. Please explain how this is fair? If you want equal rights and all that, fine, but make it 100% equal. Taking something from someone, then giving it to someone else is not fair and equal rights.
I have no issue with people recieving allowances. My issue comes that the allowances are too much, so much so that there is no incentive to return to work or even look for it. Please watch 'Benefits Britain', or 'Too fat to Work'. If you are on Benefits to pay for the bare necessities, how can you afford to overeat yourself obese?
As for UKIP being racist, this is just the media. UKIP being a relatively new party are closely being scruitinised by every Media outlet waiting for the next slip up. Labour, Cons, Lib Dem are used to this sort of attention, so avoid it, and the Media ignore it. How can the Leader of a 'Racist' Party be married to a German Wife FFS?
Benefits are wrong. I've yet to be convinced otherwise. I've lived and worked surrounded by Benefit bums, quitting a job because of them for the sake of my health.
The School translators are wrong. Again, no justification whilst the School now has to divert £34,000 of funds from education of children just to pay for translators so a couple of foreign nationals can be taught. The whole School suffers.
TheSecretSquig wrote:No you haven't. If it's 'Fair' and 'equal', why isn't everybody given a car? I need a car to drive to work. I need a car just as much as a disabled person. But they are 'given' a car, from money that's taken from me. No one gives me a car. Please explain how this is fair? If you want equal rights and all that, fine, but make it 100% equal. Taking something from someone, then giving it to someone else is not fair and equal rights.
I work with the disabled, from paralympians to those who are severely physically and mentally disabled. Trust me when I say that for many disabled people, having a car is far more necessary to them than it is to you. It is also not just about giving "free" stuff to the disabled, it is about enabling them to live as normal lives as possible, potentially allowing them to take part in society and work as would any other person. We regularly work with people who have progressive illnesses who will, over the course of months, years or decades, lose the ability to move, speak, control their own bowels and bladder, swallow and even breathe unassisted. We could potentially save millions by just ignoring them and letting them die, but we don't; because both they and we are human beings. We provide them with therapy, carers, equipment (which can cost tens of thousands of pounds) to help them, because that is the decent thing to do. We don't get you a computer which can track your eye movements to control the cursor, hooked up to environmental controls to close curtains, switch on appliances and communicate with others because you don't need it. Try getting a 180kg powered wheelchair with communication aids, EC's and ventilator, humidifier, feeding system and all sorts of other kit on a bus, along with a couple of carers and all of the bits required to look after a person and tell me that an adapted car isn't a better option. Tell me the person who has lost the use of their legs should get the bus rather than a set of hand controls for their car so they can carry on their long distance commute to work.
I have no issue with people recieving allowances. My issue comes that the allowances are too much, so much so that there is no incentive to return to work or even look for it. Please watch 'Benefits Britain', or 'Too fat to Work'. If you are on Benefits to pay for the bare necessities, how can you afford to overeat yourself obese?
Disability benefits, even the higher rate, are significantly less than minimum wage. Given all the extra costs involved for many disabled people and their family (if they have one to help support them), they certain do not get "too much".
No you haven't. If it's 'Fair' and 'equal', why isn't everybody given a car? I need a car to drive to work. I need a car just as much as a disabled person. But they are 'given' a car, from money that's taken from me. No one gives me a car. Please explain how this is fair? If you want equal rights and all that, fine, but make it 100% equal. Taking something from someone, then giving it to someone else is not fair and equal rights.
Let someone smash your knees so you can't walk again and you can have a car. How about that? Sounds fair to me. Or how about lugging around 20kg bottles of oxygen? Ignoring the breathing problems someone would have that means they need it.
You get the equal dissability you get equal benefits. Your just wanting "me me me". I do t think you understand what equal rights means. How do you need a car just as much as someone who can't walk 25 meters? If you honestly think there is an equivalence between you as an able bodied person wanting a car and someone who can't walk 25 meters needing a car I pitty you. DLA helps people live as near normal life as possible.
Also, it's not giving someone a car. The person with the dissability is entitled to a payment to help with transport. If they are entitled to this they are entitled to use that money to lease a car from the independant, self funding, motorbility chairty. Alternitvly they can use it for taxies or other methods of transport. No one is given a car.
I have no issue with people recieving allowances. My issue comes that the allowances are too much, so much so that there is no incentive to return to work or even look for it. Please watch 'Benefits Britain', or 'Too fat to Work'. If you are on Benefits to pay for the bare necessities, how can you afford to overeat yourself obese?
Fatty food is cheap. High sugar food is cheap. That's how. I don't get my information from sensationalist TV programs with an agenda thank you. I get much of it from time spent working with people on housing benefit in a previous job. Most people do want to be working. Most people feel trapped, not wanting to live that way.
As for UKIP being racist, this is just the media. UKIP being a relatively new party are closely being scruitinised by every Media outlet waiting for the next slip up. Labour, Cons, Lib Dem are used to this sort of attention, so avoid it, and the Media ignore it. How can the Leader of a 'Racist' Party be married to a German Wife FFS?
Since when is "German" a race. The party may not be racist in its manifesto, but it sure as hell attracts a lot of racists. I doubt they are more closely scrutinised that the party in power.
As things stand, I think we will most likely see another Tory administration. My prediction:-
-The SNP will dent Labour's seat count. They're not going to drive Labour out, but I see them swallowing a quarter to a third of Labour's Scottish seats, which will put any sort of majority beyond their reach.
-UKIP will poll amazingly until the day of the vote, just like the Lib Dems, and then actually not really get any extra seats due to FPTP (like the Lib Dems did last time around).
-The Lib Dems will most likely shed about about a quarter to a third of their seats. Some will go to Labour, some to the Conservatives.
The result will be that the Tories will have the first chance to form a new Government. Depending on how close they are to a majority, they might ally with the DUP if they're close to a majority, which would be excellent news for Northern Ireland funding wise. Alternatively, they might find themselves back in bed with the Lib Dems. If the Lib Dems refuse, they might choose to try and go it as a minority government, or promise Plaid Cymru the moon to get them to change their minds on an alliance.
Regardless, I predict the next one will go to the Tories, something which I'm not sure makes me happy or sad. On one hand, Cameron is a better bet than the rest of them, on the other hand, that really says nothing at all as my pet dog would be better at running the country than most of them.
Ketara wrote: As things stand, I think we will most likely see another Tory administration. My prediction:-
-The SNP will dent Labour's seat count. They're not going to drive Labour out, but I see them swallowing a quarter to a third of Labour's Scottish seats, which will put any sort of majority beyond their reach.
-UKIP will poll amazingly until the day of the vote, just like the Lib Dems, and then actually not really get any extra seats due to FPTP (like the Lib Dems did last time around).
-The Lib Dems will most likely shed about about a quarter to a third of their seats. Some will go to Labour, some to the Conservatives.
The result will be that the Tories will have the first chance to form a new Government. Depending on how close they are to a majority, they might ally with the DUP if they're close to a majority, which would be excellent news for Northern Ireland funding wise. Alternatively, they might find themselves back in bed with the Lib Dems. If the Lib Dems refuse, they might choose to try and go it as a minority government, or promise Plaid Cymru the moon to get them to change their minds on an alliance.
Regardless, I predict the next one will go to the Tories, something which I'm not sure makes me happy or sad. On one hand, Cameron is a better bet than the rest of them, on the other hand, that really says nothing at all as my pet dog would be better at running the country than most of them.
Either way, we're all fethed.
My money's on a SNP/Labour coalition on a supply and demand basis. I think the SNP will drop their stance on Trident renewal if extra powers for Scotland were promised.
I don't know what your view is, but I think the SNP in power with Labour would probably hasten the break-up of the UK. The thought of Alex Salmond as deputy PM would probably drive the Tory regions mad
Two former foreign secretaries have been suspended from their parliamentary parties after being secretly filmed apparently offering their services to a private company for cash.
Conservative Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Labour's Jack Straw both say they have broken no rules.
Reporters for the Daily Telegraph and Channel 4's Dispatches posed as staff of a fake Chinese firm.
The MPs have referred themselves to Parliament's standards watchdog.
Labour leader Ed Miliband has written to the prime minister calling for a ban on MPs having second jobs.
'Useful access'
It is claimed that Mr Straw was recorded describing how he operated "under the radar" and had used his influence to change EU rules on behalf of a firm which paid him £60,000 a year.
On the subject of payment, Mr Straw is heard saying: "So normally, if I'm doing a speech or something, it's £5,000 a day, that's what I charge."
Sir Malcolm is reported to have claimed he could arrange "useful access" to every British ambassador in the world.
The MP for Kensington and chairman of Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee was recorded saying: "I am self-employed - so nobody pays me a salary. I have to earn my income."
He said his usual fee for half a day's work was "somewhere in the region of £5,000 to £8,000".
Both men defended themselves on appearances on BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Monday morning.
Sir Malcolm said he had "nothing to be embarrassed about". He said the allegations were "unfounded" and he vowed to fight them "with all my strength".
He said he had never accepted an offer from the fake firm, saying it was a "preliminary" discussion "about what they had mind".
Sir Malcolm is paid £67,000 a year and he said telling the company he was not paid a salary was a "silly thing to say".
"Of course I receive a salary as a Member of Parliament but I was referring to my business interests, from none of which I receive a salary. I receive payment for services I provide," he said.
He told the Daily Politics an MP's salary "sounds a lot of money to anyone earning less than that".
But he added: "The reality is that to anyone from a professional or business background earns considerably more than that."
Limiting MPs to their parliamentary salary would be "excluding very large numbers of very able people" who could not "accept such a substantial reduction in their standard of living," he added.
About 200 MPs have business interests, he said, and everything he earns is detailed in the Register of Members' Interests.
Sir Malcolm said he would not stand down as security committee chairman, unless his committee colleagues wanted him to.
"One's got nothing to do with the other," he said. "None of the matters are remotely to do with intelligence or security."
He said he had a letter from Channel 4, accepting he had not offered access to any privileged or secret information.
Mr Straw has suspended himself from the Parliamentary Labour Party, and the party said it was aware of the "disturbing allegations" against him.
The Blackburn MP, who had already announced his intention to stand down in May, said he was "mortified" that he had fallen into the reporters' "trap" but that he had said nothing "improper".
He told Today the language he used had been "not necessarily wrong but could be taken out of context".
Transcripts requested
During his 36 years as an MP he had been "absolutely scrupulous" about observing the rules, he said, adding that the entire discussion had been around what he would do after leaving Parliament.
He acknowledged he should have postponed the conversation until after 7 May.
Earlier, Mr Straw said he had taken on one consultancy role since his ministerial career ended in 2010, with commodity suppliers, ED&F Man (Holdings) Ltd, saying it was done in accordance with the MPs' Code of Conduct.
Sir Malcolm and Mr Straw both said they had requested copies of the recording transcripts, but that Channel 4 and the Telegraph had not provided them.
Former Prime Minister Tony Blair offered Mr Straw his support, saying he was a "byword for being a hard-working constituency MP and parliamentarian".
Green Party leader Natalie Bennett said her party would "end second jobs for MPs".
Mr Miliband said the allegations against Mr Straw were "disturbing" and called for the issue of second jobs to be settled "once and for all".
Prime Minister David Cameron said he did not favour a complete ban on MPs having other employment, saying Parliament was "enriched" in some cases by members' outside experience.
Describing the reports as "very serious matters", he promised an "immediate disciplinary inquiry" into Sir Malcolm's case.
The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, which manages MPs' pay, has recommended a 9% salary rise, but party leaders have said that would be unacceptable.
Phillip Blond, director of the centre-right thinktank ResPublica, said MPs should be banned from having outside jobs - but should also have their pay increased.
"We need to recognise that MPs are at the top of the public service tree, and pay them at the same level as top GPs, top civil servants, top head teachers," he said.
Advisory board
The undercover reporters had created a fictitious communications agency called PMR, which they said was based in Hong Kong.
A statement on Channel 4's website said 12 MPs with "significant outside interests" were invited to apply for jobs with PMR, which had "plenty of money" and wanted to hire "influential British politicians to join its advisory board".
"Not all politicians are for hire," the statement added.
"Half of those approached didn't respond. One said he wanted to check us out in Hong Kong so we took it no further. And another said he just wasn't that interested. Of the others, two stood out - Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Jack Straw."
The documentary, called Politicians for Hire, will be broadcast on Channel 4 at 20:00 GMT.
My money's on a SNP/Labour coalition on a supply and demand basis. I think the SNP will drop their stance on Trident renewal if extra powers for Scotland were promised.
I don't know what your view is, but I think the SNP in power with Labour would probably hasten the break-up of the UK. The thought of Alex Salmond as deputy PM would probably drive the Tory regions mad
It's not going to happen I'm afraid. I'm not just being contrary, the maths just simply doesn't add up for that to be feasible. Allow me to illustrate. As things stand right now, the Tories have 306 seats, Labour 258, and the SNP6. That's correct. 6. Technically, the BNP actually grabbed a higher percentage of the vote at the last general election, even though they won no seats.
Now as things stand, there is a grand total of 59 Parliamentary seats up for grabs in Scotland. If we assume that the most amazing thing happens, and the SNP grabs every single seat in Scotland, all that happens is that it dents the Labour & Lib Dem count. It barely touches the Conservatives.
Looking realistically, it is likely the SNP will carry more seats, probably in the region of another ten. Let's be highly optimistic. Let's say they grab twenty five extra seats this time around, twenty from Labour and five from the Lib Dems. If we keep on being optimistic, let's say Labour regains those twenty seats by taking ten from the Tories, and ten from the Lib Dems elsewhere in Britain.
That gives us a Labour with 258 votes, and an SNP with 31, or 289 total. Now if the Tories made absolutely no gains whatsoever, and just lost those ten seats to Labour, they would still have 8 more seats than the SNP and Labour combined. If they team up with the DUP, that number jumps higher still, and with the Lib Dems playing wild card, a minority government is a feasible alternative.
What is more likely is that if the Tories lost ten seats to Labour, they would gain them back off of the Lib Dems, keeping them static, resulting in an alliance with the DUP taking them higher still.
In other words, assuming there is no massive earthshaking change in the politicial scene(unlikely, knowing the British public), we are likely to see another coalition government, either with Dave and Co sharing with the DUP in a minority government, or the Lib Dems in a majority. Miliband simply lacks the credibility and popularity to pull in a substantial number of swing voters, especially considering that Cameron still has a reasonable record at this stage of the game. In another five years, when the tory sleaze has built up, perhaps then. But it won't be this round.
I'm sorry, but we have 2 definitions of what's fair and equal.
Hyperthetical question. 2 Design Engineers work in a previous office I seconded to for 6 months. I don't know what Grades they were, lets assume they were both the same grade and therefore take home the same wage packet. But, the Engineer on the left is a wheelchair user. So, now qualifies for DLA and is given a load of extra cash. How is that fair? Both do the same job, work the same hours, but one has extra income because he is a wheelchair user. Yes my views are extreme, but there are multiple definitions of what is fair.
It isn't a 'me me me me' attitute I have. I too want fairness and equality. Giving someone the means to own a new car every 2 years whilst other people who work and have money taken from them to fund that, to me, is not fair. Same with parking. If it's a double yellow and parking is not allowed, fine. Oh, but I've a Blue badge, I can park there. Why is it ok to discriminate and tell one driver they can't park a car, but another they can. Equal rules for all, not rules for one, rules for someone else. Similar in the news last year with the bus services (and not just in the Daily Mail, it was on the BBC). A woman was asked to leave a bus (which was full), because a disabled person wanted to get on, and the wheel chair place was taken by her sleeping children in the pram. Neither child could walk yet. The driver told the chap, bus is full, wait for the next one. Rightly so in my book. Court ruled that the Driver MUST remove the passengers so disabled person can get on. So if the bus is full, a disabled person can have people removed from the bus to get on. Now, lets assume the bus pitches up, its full, said woman wants to get on with her pushchair and children. Bus Driver tells her to wait for the next one. How is that fair and equal? In my book it isn't. If people want fairness and equality, then the same rules apply to everyone.
Like the School example, the whole School has had £34,000 removed from their education budget because it is obliged to teach 2 foreign nationals in their language. Can someone here please explain to me how that is fair on all the Children of that School? My work takes me and my family to other coutries. When I was working in Germany, the School language was German. As it should be. Would the local School employ a translator for my son so he could attend. No. And rightly so. My son does not speak German, we paid for a place in a private English Speaking School in Munich.
I have no issue with Benefits. Someone looses their job, the state should back them up. For a time. But indefinately, no. 2 years is more than enough time to find another job, or move to where the work is.
TheSecretSquig wrote: Similar in the news last year with the bus services (and not just in the Daily Mail, it was on the BBC). A woman was asked to leave a bus (which was full), because a disabled person wanted to get on, and the wheel chair place was taken by her sleeping children in the pram. Neither child could walk yet. The driver told the chap, bus is full, wait for the next one. Rightly so in my book. Court ruled that the Driver MUST remove the passengers so disabled person can get on. So if the bus is full, a disabled person can have people removed from the bus to get on. Now, lets assume the bus pitches up, its full, said woman wants to get on with her pushchair and children. Bus Driver tells her to wait for the next one. How is that fair and equal? In my book it isn't. If people want fairness and equality, then the same rules apply to everyone.
Thats not my recollection. As I recall, the ruling was that users are equal, the "Disabled Space" is allocated on a first come first served basis. Whoever is there first, whether a wheelchair user or a parent with a pram, gets priority and the second person has to wait.
TheSecretSquig wrote: I'm sorry, but we have 2 definitions of what's fair and equal.
Hyperthetical question. 2 Design Engineers work in a previous office I seconded to for 6 months. I don't know what Grades they were, lets assume they were both the same grade and therefore take home the same wage packet. But, the Engineer on the left is a wheelchair user. So, now qualifies for DLA and is given a load of extra cash. How is that fair? Both do the same job, work the same hours, but one has extra income because he is a wheelchair user. Yes my views are extreme, but there are multiple definitions of what is fair.
No, your views are ableist. You have stepped from a rather misguided view of the world to flat out ableism.
1) DLA is not "a load of extra cash".
2) Under your definition should those people also not have the same outgoings? Wouldn't that also be fair? Being in a wheelchair means he probably has a lot of additional costs in his life above and beyond those of an able bodied person. How is it, under your definition, fair that he has to meet extra, unavoidable, costs from the same pay?
Your arguing about blue badge parking though? It seems you simply have prejudice attitudes towards people with limited mobility, and probably all disabilities. I asume you have the same problem with some kids with learning disabilities getting 1:1 support. You probably get angry about councils spending money on brail, as after all that's only for some people and costs more.
Your not asking for equality, your asking for people to not take disabilities in to account when providing services.
Your wrong about the wheelchair/bus situation. The final ruling was that no one had to move, and the problem was not asking her to get off, but to carry her child and fold up the pushchair.
Nice to see UKIP supporters don't just have a problem with racism, homophobia and sexism, they are ableist too.
Nice to see UKIP supporters don't just have a problem with racism, homophobia and sexism, they are ableist too.
Do you work in the media? Seems strange you assume my views represent the majority? One bad quote from a UKIP member and all UKIP are bad. As I am a UKIP supporter, I'm now a racist, homaphobic, sexist. Interesting! You know nothing about my race, views on homosexuality.
Appologies if I was wrong with the bus example.
Again, I have nothing wrong with a Blue badge. But, there are double yellows for a reason, normally there is a hazard or the road needs to be kept clear. So why doesn't someone with a blue badge cause a hazard? If everyone else does? Can you not see my viewpoint here? If its unsafe or causes an obstruction you parking there, then surely if anyone parks there it causes an obstuction or is unsafe?
And you are still ignoring the School example. An entire School has £34,000 wiped from its budget just to teach 2 foriegn nationals?
We could go on all day here and we will never see common ground. My views are extreme, I admit. But that's why we have a democratic society so we can choose how we are run. Maybe my life experiences have biased my opinion and there are genuine Benefits claimants out there who truely deserve to be funded by the taxpayer, but I've yet to meet one. So I will leave my input to this thread here and wish you and whoever you vote for, good luck.
I do feel bad if I've raised your blood pressure on this thread, it seems to have given your responses. So, as a punishment, I will go and raise mine. "Benefits Britain" is on the TV in 15 mins. I'll go and watch how these truely deserving people should be given money from my wage packet. Good night.
Sorry, having enough cash to fund a new car may not qualify as a "load of extra cash" then you're paid a lot more than I.
You obviously don't understand how car leasing works. £50 per week is not "loads". That's higher rate PIP. It's not nothing, but I would hardly discribe it as "loads".
Nice to see UKIP supporters don't just have a problem with racism, homophobia and sexism, they are ableist too.
Do you work in the media? Seems strange you assume my views represent the majority? One bad quote from a UKIP member and all UKIP are bad. As I am a UKIP supporter, I'm now a racist, homaphobic, sexist. Interesting! You know nothing about my race, views on homosexuality.
I didn't say you were, I only called you abalist. I said other UKIP supporters were racist, homophobic and sexist, as shown by the actions of UKIP candidates time and again.
Again, I have nothing wrong with a Blue badge. But, there are double yellows for a reason, normally there is a hazard or the road needs to be kept clear. So why doesn't someone with a blue badge cause a hazard? If everyone else does? Can you not see my viewpoint here? If its unsafe or causes an obstruction you parking there, then surely if anyone parks there it causes an obstuction or is unsafe?
Blue badge holders are only aloud to park on double yellows if they are not going to cause a hazard or obstruction. The reason being that multipul people would cause a problem parking there, but a few blue badge holders would be more inconvininced than the drivers going round them.
And you are still ignoring the School example. An entire School has £34,000 wiped from its budget just to teach 2 foriegn nationals?
I know nothing about that. It's your story with no evidence. I have no idea of the details so can't say much more than I have.
We could go on all day here and we will never see common ground. My views are extreme, I admit. But that's why we have a democratic society so we can choose how we are run. Maybe my life experiences have biased my opinion and there are genuine Benefits claimants out there who truely deserve to be funded by the taxpayer, but I've yet to meet one. So I will leave my input to this thread here and wish you and whoever you vote for, good luck.
My aim was not to see eye to eye or change your views, only to show up where you are wrong so your opinions are not left unchallenged. Disability discrimination is a major problem in the UK still. It must be chalanged whenever it can be.
Da Stormlord wrote: All I can really say is I don't want labour to win the election. For me its either UKIP or conservatives
Care to elaborate? Is there any specific Labour policies you don't like the sound of, or do the Cons/UKIP just better align with your own views?
I find that Miliband says alot of things which dont need to happen, and I don't see UKIP struggling being the leading party. Conservatives are pretty fine right now, besides the NHS. As for lib Dems, their desperate.
I was wondering how far into a thread on UK politics I'd have to read before I saw anything about the DUP allying with the Tories. I agree with this Ketara, I see it as being a very likely outcome. Though I do think Sinn Féin will gain ground at the expense of some of the more moderate or wishy washy unionists. But that will have no impact unless they decide to take their seats, and I reckon no one in Westminster would ally with them. (Which is exactly correct, considering Sinn Féin are a bunch of dishonest lunatics).
I say Tories/DUP or Tories/UKIP, with the latter being the much preferred option by the Tories because that particular pack of bigots gets a lot less screen time in the UK media than UKIP.
My money's on a SNP/Labour coalition on a supply and demand basis. I think the SNP will drop their stance on Trident renewal if extra powers for Scotland were promised.
I don't know what your view is, but I think the SNP in power with Labour would probably hasten the break-up of the UK. The thought of Alex Salmond as deputy PM would probably drive the Tory regions mad
It's not going to happen I'm afraid. I'm not just being contrary, the maths just simply doesn't add up for that to be feasible. Allow me to illustrate. As things stand right now, the Tories have 306 seats, Labour 258, and the SNP6. That's correct. 6. Technically, the BNP actually grabbed a higher percentage of the vote at the last general election, even though they won no seats.
Now as things stand, there is a grand total of 59 Parliamentary seats up for grabs in Scotland. If we assume that the most amazing thing happens, and the SNP grabs every single seat in Scotland, all that happens is that it dents the Labour & Lib Dem count. It barely touches the Conservatives.
Looking realistically, it is likely the SNP will carry more seats, probably in the region of another ten. Let's be highly optimistic. Let's say they grab twenty five extra seats this time around, twenty from Labour and five from the Lib Dems. If we keep on being optimistic, let's say Labour regains those twenty seats by taking ten from the Tories, and ten from the Lib Dems elsewhere in Britain.
That gives us a Labour with 258 votes, and an SNP with 31, or 289 total. Now if the Tories made absolutely no gains whatsoever, and just lost those ten seats to Labour, they would still have 8 more seats than the SNP and Labour combined. If they team up with the DUP, that number jumps higher still, and with the Lib Dems playing wild card, a minority government is a feasible alternative.
What is more likely is that if the Tories lost ten seats to Labour, they would gain them back off of the Lib Dems, keeping them static, resulting in an alliance with the DUP taking them higher still.
In other words, assuming there is no massive earthshaking change in the politicial scene(unlikely, knowing the British public), we are likely to see another coalition government, either with Dave and Co sharing with the DUP in a minority government, or the Lib Dems in a majority. Miliband simply lacks the credibility and popularity to pull in a substantial number of swing voters, especially considering that Cameron still has a reasonable record at this stage of the game. In another five years, when the tory sleaze has built up, perhaps then. But it won't be this round.
A fair point, but you've overlooked the fact that UKIP may dent the Conservatives (and Labour too) and wield influence at the marginal seats.
Quite frankly, I'll believe it when I see it. The FPTP system is designed to smack new groups around, and considering exactly the same people predicting massive UKIP gains now are the ones who were predicting landslide Lib Dem victories after Clegg's telly performance last year, you can colour me somewhat dubious.
@TheSecretSquig You use the term "fair" a lot but you seem to disagree about the definition of it with some other posters. Out of interest how do you define fair?
or Equitable?
also, in case I can still elicit a response...
Why do feel there are major issues with:
a) Benefits Culture, what is this? Can you define it in terms of scale and demographics?
b) EU, what actions do you think should be taken and why?
c) Immigration
Ketara wrote: Quite frankly, I'll believe it when I see it. The FPTP system is designed to smack new groups around, and considering exactly the same people predicting massive UKIP gains now are the ones who were predicting landslide Lib Dem victories after Clegg's telly performance last year, you can colour me somewhat dubious.
This is very true; even though the Greens, UKIP and the SNP have all elevated in status since the last election, but (this time round at least) I don't see them putting too big a dent in anyone's territory. Maybe in another 5 years UKIP will have the clout to be deciding the balance of power (assuming they haven't self-destructed by then), but not this time.
I also think that a Conservative victory might just knock a lot of wind from UKIP's sails. If they go ahead with the promised referrendum, and we do leave the EU, UKIP will have lost a major bargaining chip, if we stay in then it will prove to them that the majority of the voters wouldn't side with them anyway.
Ketara wrote: Quite frankly, I'll believe it when I see it. The FPTP system is designed to smack new groups around, and considering exactly the same people predicting massive UKIP gains now are the ones who were predicting landslide Lib Dem victories after Clegg's telly performance last year, you can colour me somewhat dubious.
This is very true; even though the Greens, UKIP and the SNP have all elevated in status since the last election, but (this time round at least) I don't see them putting too big a dent in anyone's territory. Maybe in another 5 years UKIP will have the clout to be deciding the balance of power (assuming they haven't self-destructed by then), but not this time.
I also think that a Conservative victory might just knock a lot of wind from UKIP's sails. If they go ahead with the promised referrendum, and we do leave the EU, UKIP will have lost a major bargaining chip, if we stay in then it will prove to them that the majority of the voters wouldn't side with them anyway.
This is my general opinion. I think that UKIP will drain the level of conservative majority in a number of areas. I wouldn't even be too surprised if they grabbed one or two seats. But I don't see them doing anything more. And once this referendum has been held, and the will of the British people made public, their teeth will have been pulled on their only real policy (Either we'll be leaving or have decided not to do so). UKIP won't be around in six years.
I also think that a Conservative victory might just knock a lot of wind from UKIP's sails. If they go ahead with the promised referrendum, and we do leave the EU, UKIP will have lost a major bargaining chip, if we stay in then it will prove to them that the majority of the voters wouldn't side with them anyway.
Unfortunately I don't think either will stop UKIP. I'm sure they will fizzle out soon as that kind of anger and hate tends not to be self sustaining. However I don't think an EU referendum will change things. If we leave then they will take that as endorsement of their other policies. If we stay (which I think we will) I think we will end up with the same thing as the Scottish referendum. Like the SNP they will come up with reasons why they lost. People are stupid. Everyone lied. etc.
I think more seats will actually be damaging to them. They will be under more scrutiny, and I can see them doing something truly stupid and they will no longer be able to hide. As we have seen some (probably many) of their supporters have truly abhorrent views, but many of those are ones that have moved from the BNP and EDL, moving "down" the scale. I see them losing less extreme members as time goes on and they find they have less and less places to hide.
I don't think that UKIP or any of the other minor parties will be able hold the balance of power. As long as either Labour or Tories hold enough seats to form a coalition with the Lib Dems they will do that. If not I think we will see a Lib/Lab/Con coalition before we see anyone working with UKIP (Any party working with them would have huge damage at the next election) or the SNP (Too damaging and no one would trust anything they did as there would always be the question of it putting Scotland before everyone else). Lab or Con might form a coalition with the Lib Dems and other minor parties if they needed to, but it would be people like the DUP (For the Tories) or Plaid Cymru or the Greens (For Labour) as they would be minor enough to not have much power, and their views are broadly in line with the major partner.
To sum up these are the coalitions I could see working, as an overall majority seems unlikely:
Unfortunately I don't think either will stop UKIP. I'm sure they will fizzle out soon as that kind of anger and hate tends not to be self sustaining. However I don't think an EU referendum will change things. If we leave then they will take that as endorsement of their other policies.
There's one slight flaw with this statement. Primarily the assumption that they have other policies.
There's one slight flaw with this statement. Primarily the assumption that they have other policies.
They do! Legislating for/against whatever the papers say is important this week!
My predictions for UKIP policies post EU referendum:
Cancer will be made illegal. This will reduce the cost on the NHS and instantly wipe out one of the biggest killers in the UK (aside from foreign workers).
Re-instate the death penalty for murdered, peados and foreigners caught commuting crimes (Such as being in possession of suspiciously dark skin. Having a funny accent etc. Welsh Coal miners will be issued permits)
Re-instate Princess Dianna, raise her to sainthood and make her eternal queen (Kim Il-sung, but less foreign). The rest of the Royal Family will be deported on suspicion of being German and Greek without a permit.
Immediately cessation of all solar farm building to stop us using up the sun.
I have just been looking at the green party manifesto. Those guys are just as crazy as UKIP! I do hope nither of them gain the ground people are suggesting they will. Their policies are ill thought out, repressive and, in many cases, just plain bat gak insane.
At least the policies are written down and plain(ish) to read with a overt philosophical basis. They may be nuts but they are at least good enough to tell you precisely how nuts they are:
Personally I am quite happy with much of the scope of the green agenda. I would argue that nuclear power is needed as a stable core for our energy needs with renewable making up the difference however.
Just spotted this little tit bit on the UKIP "policies for people" section:
Encourage councils to provide more free parking for the high street.
As a person with a professional interest and involvement in this sphere I feel I can give this a response:
Obvious vote grab is obvious. This is akin to promising to be nice to good people (like you) and not nice to bad people, as in it is pretty much an empty phrase that promises something that most people would really like without actually addressing the issues that cause it to be a problem. Without attempting to resolve the issues around available kerb space/off street parking provision, land prices competing stakeholders etc. they may as well be promising to hope for the best.
Rather ironically, the power/resources matter is just about the only place I disagree with the Greens (I'm very pro-nuclear power). Besides that, they are probably the closest we have to a significant left-wing party (and I mean actually left wing, not the kind of left wing that Labour pretend to be which is all vaguely centerist), and their focus on counteracting rampant consumerism and the increasing wealth gap is something I'd wholeheartedly support.
If there was a significant party that basically took the Green principles minus the actual, you know, 'green' stuff, I'd probably be throwing my vote their way.
Paradigm wrote: Rather ironically, the power/resources matter is just about the only place I disagree with the Greens (I'm very pro-nuclear power). Besides that, they are probably the closest we have to a significant left-wing party (and I mean actually left wing, not the kind of left wing that Labour pretend to be which is all vaguely centerist), and their focus on counteracting rampant consumerism and the increasing wealth gap is something I'd wholeheartedly support.
If there was a significant party that basically took the Green principles minus the actual, you know, 'green' stuff, I'd probably be throwing my vote their way.
I agree with your initial statement; I'm not sure whether I would ever vote for the Greens, but damn, if they supported nuclear power it would certainly sway my opinion.
It warms the cockles of my heart to see so many people pro-Nuclear here. It's got to be the stop gap til we come up with a sustainable alternative.
I am close as hell to becoming a Green activist, but I think their policies on Nuclear and GM are uninformed fear mongering and it holds me back. Shame really.
The Greens got into power in Ireland a few years ago as a minority party in a coalition, and they completely ceased to exist as a national force directly afterwards. They'd be forced to compromise on everything they believe, just like the Lib Dems. (I've never really understood why that works like that. I mean, why do people blame the Lib Dems for having to backtrack? They should blame the Tories, because the Tories are the ones who forced them to do it. Weird. )
Da Boss wrote: I mean, why do people blame the Lib Dems for having to backtrack? They should blame the Tories, because the Tories are the ones who forced them to do it. Weird. )
Well, the lib dems were the one to backtrack. They could have grown a spine, but no
That's just not how coalition governments work though. It's my impression from looking at the UK that the parties there aren't very good at coalition government.
I understand the sentiment, but in the end, what could they do? Leave Government and force another general election? Proving that they are unreliable and "can't deal with power"? Or swallow something they don't like in the hopes of getting something else down the line (which is politics). If anything, the Conservatives have shown themselves to be pretty terrible coalition partners,
Da Boss wrote: . I mean, why do people blame the Lib Dems for having to backtrack? They should blame the Tories, because the Tories are the ones who forced them to do it. Weird. )
It's more down to the fact that as the minority partner, they quite simply haven't pushed for the commitments that they made during the last election trail which people actually regarded as important. Instead of keeping lower tuition fees as one of their bargaining chips, they went for AV. Instead of refusing to increase VAT, Clegg prioritised House of Lords reform.
In other words, the Lib Dems used up all their bargaining power with the Tories in attempts to increase their own power, instead of following through on what people voted for them for. And people know that. Coalition and compromises aren't a problem, it's the multiple abandoned policies in the pursuit of greater political power.
Or in other words, the lies. And the clear evidence of a lack of any real ethics, or sense of responsibility to their voterbase. Instead of being the third, alternative party, they've just demonstrated that they are the same party as the other two with a different colour on the electioneering pamphlet.
I am close as hell to becoming a Green activist, but I think their policies on Nuclear and GM are uninformed fear mongering and it holds me back. Shame really.
Can you link me to some of this 'uninformed fear mongering'? I don't want to start an argument, but as someone who is not a fan of nuclear power I would be interested to see if they really are talking rubbish or if they just don't agree with your views.
(Apologies if I sound like a tw*t - I've tried rephrasing to be less confrontational but it's not really working. I am genuinely not intending to sound insulting though!)
Da Boss wrote: That's just not how coalition governments work though. It's my impression from looking at the UK that the parties there aren't very good at coalition government.
I understand the sentiment, but in the end, what could they do? Leave Government and force another general election? Proving that they are unreliable and "can't deal with power"? Or swallow something they don't like in the hopes of getting something else down the line (which is politics). If anything, the Conservatives have shown themselves to be pretty terrible coalition partners,
Da Boss wrote: That's just not how coalition governments work though. It's my impression from looking at the UK that the parties there aren't very good at coalition government.
I understand the sentiment, but in the end, what could they do? Leave Government and force another general election? Proving that they are unreliable and "can't deal with power"? Or swallow something they don't like in the hopes of getting something else down the line (which is politics). If anything, the Conservatives have shown themselves to be pretty terrible coalition partners,
We have fixed term parliaments now. If a coalition falls apart mid parliament, we're stuck with a minority government for the rest of the parliament (5 Years). AFAIK, there's nothing anybody can do to force a general election.
Da Boss wrote: . I mean, why do people blame the Lib Dems for having to backtrack? They should blame the Tories, because the Tories are the ones who forced them to do it. Weird. )
It's more down to the fact that as the minority partner, they quite simply haven't pushed for the commitments that they made during the last election trail which people actually regarded as important. Instead of keeping lower tuition fees as one of their bargaining chips, they went for AV. Instead of refusing to increase VAT, Clegg prioritised House of Lords reform.
In other words, the Lib Dems used up all their bargaining power with the Tories in attempts to increase their own power, instead of following through on what people voted for them for. And people know that. Coalition and compromises aren't a problem, it's the multiple abandoned policies in the pursuit of greater political power.
Or in other words, the lies. And the clear evidence of a lack of any real ethics, or sense of responsibility to their voterbase. Instead of being the third, alternative party, they've just demonstrated that they are the same party as the other two with a different colour on the electioneering pamphlet.
Yeah, this is where I stand on the LibDems. It's not the fact the entered a coalition as the lesser part (I would have been more irritated from an ideological standpoint with a Con/Lab coalition), it's the fact that I can't think of a single promise made pre-coalition that they have actually fulfilled. There should be at least some give-and-take in a coalition, and during this last tenure, it's been all giving to the Tories and no taking the initiative to try and do anything with their promised policies.
I think you'd have to be either mad or on the LibDem payroll* to say they've come out of this partnership better off than they went in
*Funny enough, I actually put this question (have the LDs improved their image/status since entering the coalition?) to a LD press manager a couple of years back in a Q&A, he said they had. I think he was the only one in the room who actually believed it....
Interesting stuff, thanks for the answers. I hadn't realised that about the fixed term. That's mental. Why bother making a coalition then? The smaller partner will ALWAYS be screwed.
Ketara: Okay, good points. But I could see electoral reform as a bigger issue than student fees (though both are huge issues) in a certain light.
Peebs: No problem mate, your post was really polite. I can link you an artilcle by a journalist who articulates many of the reasons I am pro nuclear if you like, but essentially I think renewable is not there yet as an alternative and fossil fuels do more damage to the environment. Nuclear suffers from the usual problem that it's failures are dramatic, but rare, like airplane crashes etc. There are no free lunches with regard to energy but I definitely feel that nuclear energy needs to be part of any approach to energy supply.
Da Boss wrote: Interesting stuff, thanks for the answers. I hadn't realised that about the fixed term. That's mental. Why bother making a coalition then? The smaller partner will ALWAYS be screwed.
Not always. They carry the ability to scupper the major party if there is not a give and take, which means they can get policies through that benefit them (meaning "the nation" rather than the party, but eh ). The major party can't kick them out so they have some serious sway if they have the backbone to stick up for their core values. Leaving government means that they lose all of that for no real benefit.
The major party gets a potential majority if the partner parties agree to vote together, for example as part of an agreed upon "you vote for this and we do this for you" idea.
Paradigm wrote: Rather ironically, the power/resources matter is just about the only place I disagree with the Greens (I'm very pro-nuclear power). Besides that, they are probably the closest we have to a significant left-wing party (and I mean actually left wing, not the kind of left wing that Labour pretend to be which is all vaguely centerist), and their focus on counteracting rampant consumerism and the increasing wealth gap is something I'd wholeheartedly support.
If there was a significant party that basically took the Green principles minus the actual, you know, 'green' stuff, I'd probably be throwing my vote their way.
I agree with your initial statement; I'm not sure whether I would ever vote for the Greens, but damn, if they supported nuclear power it would certainly sway my opinion.
That's what I was thinking, which is why I read their manifesto more closely. They have a lot of very extream policies that they don't talk about so much including:
Banning private ownership of all "lethal weapons" including air rifles and bows
Banning ALL animal testing (no more vital medical testing)
Banning modern farming in any current recognisable state
Enforcing the promotion of vegitarian and vegan diats in all public sector hospitals and schools
In essence reduce the UK militery to zero. I am a pacifist and belive conflict should be avoided, but they are relying on Europe as a buffer with no input to european millitery security.
They want serving members of the millitery the right to refuse orders on grounds of moral objection and to form trade unions
Make all research done at universities, even when privately funded, public information.
Massive increases in car tax, ignoring the massive rural population that cannot rely on public transport.
Basically they have the policies of a naive urban student activist.
The major party gets a potential majority if the partner parties agree to vote together, for example as part of an agreed upon "you vote for this and we do this for you" idea.
The issue comes when, like the LDs this time around, they end up voting for the Conservative policies without actually getting any concessions from them.
On a slightly tangential note, I just saw an episode of the BBC series 'Inside the Commons', and I reccommend it to anyone who wants a closer look at the real (and frankly rather hideous) nature of British politics. Personally, I was appalled by the kind of schoolboy tit-for-tat, timewasting and general poor attitude some MPs seem to have for the whole affair. It really is quite a distressing state of affairs when you see how petty, chidlish and ignorant some of our elected leaders can be. The prevailing attitude from what I saw (and mostly from Tories, it has to be said, altthough that might just be what was filmed) was that the whole thing was something of a game, a point-scoring event rather than something that actually effects people's lives. It should still be on Iplayer if anyone didn't catch it.
Banning animal testing, hahahahahahahaaha. That's a brilliant policy. I can't wait to see it enforced.
Christ.
I'm okay with making all research public though. No reason not to.
Banning modern farming is lso hilarious. Promoting vegetarianism is actually pretty sensible though- meat production is wreaking havoc on the world environment.
Da Boss wrote: That's just not how coalition governments work though. It's my impression from looking at the UK that the parties there aren't very good at coalition government.
I understand the sentiment, but in the end, what could they do? Leave Government and force another general election? Proving that they are unreliable and "can't deal with power"? Or swallow something they don't like in the hopes of getting something else down the line (which is politics). If anything, the Conservatives have shown themselves to be pretty terrible coalition partners,
We have fixed term parliaments now. If a coalition falls apart mid parliament, we're stuck with a minority government for the rest of the parliament (5 Years). AFAIK, there's nothing anybody can do to force a general election.
I belive we have a fixed maximum term, but you can have one before. You have to have either two votes of no confidence in two weeks or 2/3rds of parliment vote to have an early election.
Da Boss wrote: It warms the cockles of my heart to see so many people pro-Nuclear here. It's got to be the stop gap til we come up with a sustainable alternative.
I am close as hell to becoming a Green activist, but I think their policies on Nuclear and GM are uninformed fear mongering and it holds me back. Shame really.
The Greens got into power in Ireland a few years ago as a minority party in a coalition, and they completely ceased to exist as a national force directly afterwards. They'd be forced to compromise on everything they believe, just like the Lib Dems. (I've never really understood why that works like that. I mean, why do people blame the Lib Dems for having to backtrack? They should blame the Tories, because the Tories are the ones who forced them to do it. Weird. )
Pretty much this. Some parts of the environmental movement have wised-up and recognised that we're going to have to solve this problem with infrastructure-level solutions, but there's still plenty of whackaloons about who think they're going to convince the entire planet to go 100% organic and drastically cut back their access to modern amenities, and a fair few of them are in the Green Party. I'm going to an event in a couple of months with Patrick Harvey(co-leader of the Scottish Greens), I'll be asking whether he agrees with his colleagues in the Greens of England & Wales that supporting groups like Take the Flour Back and attending "protests" with them where they destroy publicly funded GM research crops is appropriate behaviour and his answer will determine whether they get my vote in 2016 at Holyrood.
I'm okay with making all research public though. No reason not to.
No private company or charity would get universities to do research if they could not keep the data secret until they are ready to publish it, so would lose billions. It would be massively damaging to the russle group.
Paradigm wrote: Rather ironically, the power/resources matter is just about the only place I disagree with the Greens (I'm very pro-nuclear power). Besides that, they are probably the closest we have to a significant left-wing party (and I mean actually left wing, not the kind of left wing that Labour pretend to be which is all vaguely centerist), and their focus on counteracting rampant consumerism and the increasing wealth gap is something I'd wholeheartedly support.
If there was a significant party that basically took the Green principles minus the actual, you know, 'green' stuff, I'd probably be throwing my vote their way.
I agree with your initial statement; I'm not sure whether I would ever vote for the Greens, but damn, if they supported nuclear power it would certainly sway my opinion.
That's what I was thinking, which is why I read their manifesto more closely. They have a lot of very extream policies that they don't talk about so much including:
Banning private ownership of all "lethal weapons" including air rifles and bows
Banning ALL animal testing (no more vital medical testing)
Banning modern farming in any current recognisable state
Enforcing the promotion of vegitarian and vegan diats in all public sector hospitals and schools
In essence reduce the UK militery to zero. I am a pacifist and belive conflict should be avoided, but they are relying on Europe as a buffer with no input to european millitery security.
They want serving members of the millitery the right to refuse orders on grounds of moral objection and to form trade unions
Make all research done at universities, even when privately funded, public information.
Massive increases in car tax, ignoring the massive rural population that cannot rely on public transport.
Basically they have the policies of a naive urban student activist.
Yeah, some of that is pretty silly. But then they raise some very valid points that various other parties like to tiptoe around or outright ignore. For example, from their 'Philosophical Basis' page:
Conventional political and economic policies are destroying the very foundations of the wellbeing of humans...
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, society has expected continual increases in material affluence for the people of the world, and has therefore relentlessly pursued the goal of economic growth. Some nations, such as our own, have indeed become very rich and yet within them there is still abject poverty....
We should instead aim to develop sustainable economies, which improve well-being focused on human values rather than consumerism.
As human beings, we all have the potential to live co-operatively and harmoniously with each other, and with reverence and respect for the complex web of life of which we are a part. Yet it has become increasingly obvious that this potential cannot be realised while basic human needs remain largely unmet.
Society should guarantee access to basic material security for all
Now admittedly I did have to sift through a lot of eco-based rubbish to get to that, but the point is that they do seem to focus very much on the societal issues that other parties either omit or approach from a very different angle.
Which is why, to go back to my earlier comment, if you were to cut the focus on Green issues, you would have a left-wing party that actually represented the needs of the people, which to my mind Labour have ceased to do.
Oh ye, they do have many very good policies, but they have too much crazy in there. UKIP have some very good points about decentralisation of power, increase of the personal alowance and increases in the value of vocational education, but both have a total detachment from reality when you look closely at their core aims.
The issue comes when, like the LDs this time around, they end up voting for the Conservative policies without actually getting any concessions from them.
The funny thing is that the Tories actually followed through on their side, and gave the concessions asked for. The problem is that in the first case (AV ), it's more or less an issue for the great British public to decide, as it strongly affects the constitution. So laughingly, the Tories gave the Lib Dems their referendum for AV, and everyone voted against it. And after that, there was absolutely no way the Lib Dems could publicly turn around and demand it was implemented against the will of the populace.
Which led to the Lib Dems muttering about forcing it through despite democracy ( true colours?).
The second time (Lords) the Conservatives tried to put in a triple line whip against it, but the backbenchers wouldn't have it.
I'm okay with making all research public though. No reason not to.
No private company or charity would get universities to do research if they could not keep the data secret until they are ready to publish it, so would lose billions. It would be massively damaging to the russle group.
Hmm. Perhaps you're right, but I have the feeling that it wouldn't be as damaging as you think. They're still going to want their research done, and it'd be expensive as hell to get it done in house.
The radical in me also says that losing those billions in return for honesty might be worth it, as far as progress goes. If this sort of thing was in place years ago, Big Tobacco wouldn't have been as able to hide the harm caused by cigarettes, as just one high profile example.
But perhaps I need to think on this some more. My gut says it's a good idea, but my gut is full of gak.
They would just take it elsewhere. I'm sure Cal-tech, Harvard, Yale etc would happily take on the work of Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial etc. The UK universities would lose massive funding and research for doctoral training, along with lots of academics.
More likely it would drive the best universities to start refusing state funding and become private universities. Now, if the greens did come in to power they would have to drop many of their more extream policies, but it just shows the naivety of the party.
Most research is private by dint of not being published until the publisher is ready, rather than any great secrecy. Most post-doc and doctoral places are advertised giving information on the research to be conducted.
Scientists are great self publishers already. However this kind of law may help correct the massive positive bias in literature, where "failed" (or negatively positive) studies are simply not reported. And there is no clause to say that journals have to publish everything simply because it is a requirement for universities and research institutions to make public the research they are doing and the results they have obtained.
Yes, it is published as part of peer review, but the problem is that they want to make it subject to FoI requests. The media may not publish it, but you can be sure every competitor would be bombarding universities with FoI requests for any data held on anything that could possibly be of interest to them long before it is ready to publish. Glaxo would be asking time and again for all of the work Welcome are doing, and Bayer would be wanting to see everything Astrazenica do, etc.
The other possibility is that they would deem it all commercially sensitive, so not subject to FoI, and actually reduce the amount of data published, whilst tying up time and money in data commissioner hearings as people challenge it.
What do people make of the leaders themselves? Is having a media savvy and charismatic leader a must? Is the era of a Harold Wilson- type leader ( vilified by the media, not very glossy, but gets elected anyway) over? It seems like the successful parties ATM have really good leaders - Cameron, farage, salmond.
troy_tempest wrote: What do people make of the leaders themselves? Is having a media savvy and charismatic leader a must? Is the era of a Harold Wilson- type leader ( vilified by the media, not very glossy, but gets elected anyway) over? It seems like the successful parties ATM have really good leaders - Cameron, farage, salmond.
I firmly believe that the best kind of politicains are the ones that stand out; not just on policies, but oratory skills, the ability to inspire confidence, to be able to convince you that they are right. And frankly, I don't think any of the current crop have that in any kind of abundance.
Cameron: About as typical Tory-boy as you can get, arrogant, at times pretty petulant, and just dull. I can't think of a single moment during his tenure where I've heard him speak and not been left doubtful. Take the recent EU-debt debarcale. The EU spring a bunch of debt on us because our ecnonomy has basically done 'too well', and Cameron says 'we won't pay a penny'. Next thing you know it's 'We'll consider a deal', before it finally comes down to us paying it all back. Way to go on the 'having a spine' front, DC!
Clegg: A sellout. Since the last election he's been reduced to the No10 tea-making boy, again I can't think of any particular moment he's stood out or a single pre-election promise he's even tried to keep. Wouldn't vote for him or the LDs in their current state in a million years.
Milliband: Policy-wise, I'm more in his camp than anyone else's, but something about him gives me doubts. He can sit there and claim he can do a better job, but I'm not sure he's a strong enough leader for the Party, and were he to win, I think the pressure would soon have him backing out of promises or failing to follow through on policies. It would be a headline-writer's dream, but I think they'd do better with Ed Balls in charge. Milliband just doesn't inspire confidence, sadly.
Farage: Plays a very clever game, trying to be 'all things to all men', at once the 'perfect candidate' for disillusioned voters on both sides of centre, but break that facade and there's very little behind it. His Party basically have one policy when it comes down to it, and Farage is too careless in who he lets in, resulting in spending more time backtracking/covering/apologising for his candidates' blunders or incompetence. I appreciate the effect he's having in shaking up the system a little (which neede doing, even if it's just unfounded scare-mongering), but I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.
Can't say I've seen enough of Sturgeon or the Welsh or Green leaders to comment on them. I always felt Salmond was rather arrogant and stuck-up, though
troy_tempest wrote: What do people make of the leaders themselves? Is having a media savvy and charismatic leader a must? Is the era of a Harold Wilson- type leader ( vilified by the media, not very glossy, but gets elected anyway) over? It seems like the successful parties ATM have really good leaders - Cameron, farage, salmond.
A charismatic leader is not a must. But a leader has to project an air of competence at the least.
And that's something that Ed Miliband just completely falls down on. He's a clever man in an academic sense, but he looks, and sounds, like a moron. His political moves are always a step behind everyone else, and they tend to be kneejerk badly thought out reactions the majority of the time. He's a second rate politician, and has no real political views that don't change with the wind/press in the hope of getting votes. He barely has control of his own party, constantly scrapping with Ed Balls and the Unions as he does.
David Cameron is an ex spin-doctor himself, so he rarely makes obvious gaffes or major political blunders. He's a reasonably savvy political operator, he's managed to more or less keep the Tories in line (no mean achievement in itself), and he's a competent statesman. But he's a distinctly average public speaker, and is often perceived to be leading from the rear instead of the front. In other words, he's more or less the definition of one of those general, mediocre, and forgettable Prime Ministers that will only be remembered in exceptionally boring political books in a century's time.
Nick Clegg is the best public speaker of the lot of them. He's quick on his feet vocally, intelligent, well travelled, and cultured. He's not a particularly skilled political operator though, most likely due to being a Lib Dem (they're not used to having actual responsibility or power). If he'd been in a different party or time, he would have had the makings of a solid Home or Foreign Secretary. As things stand however, Cameron has successfully used him as a shield in the public eye, and he'll most likely be discarded at the end of this administration. One gets the feeling that if he'd matured a bit more as a politician, and been in his current position in fifteen years, he wouldn't have screwed it up as badly as he has.
Nigel Farage is an opportunist. Pure and simple. He's quite good at spinning the media wheel, but has no real political leanings he's willing to declare beyond mild xenophobia. His capacity for picking lieutenants and general political organisation is very sub-par. He's actually in serious danger of losing control of his own machine, and spends most of his time trying to hide that fact. Unless he develops the necessary skills soon, Farage and his party will be dead and buried politically in seven years time.
troy_tempest wrote: What do people make of the leaders themselves? Is having a media savvy and charismatic leader a must? Is the era of a Harold Wilson- type leader ( vilified by the media, not very glossy, but gets elected anyway) over? It seems like the successful parties ATM have really good leaders - Cameron, farage, salmond.
Salmond isn't the SNP leader any more, Nicola Sturgeon is; if he gets elected to Westminster it will be as an ordinary MP, maybe WM group leader although frankly I think that would be a mistake, Salmond's too toxic. It's unfair, IMO, because frankly I think the general opinion that he's smug and/or dishonest is more fueled by politically-opposed newspaper editorials that portray him in that way than his own actual behaviour, but it is what it is. Better to shuffle off Angus Robertson, shift Stewart Hosie up to the leadership, and install Salmond as Deputy in his place if he must be given a "position".
As for the broader question, Ketara has it just about bang on; Miliband would probably be vaguely competent in office but comes off as a bumbling numptie, Cameron projects an air of competence but it's hollow and robotic, Clegg is just a shell of a man now and if the voters don't crucify him his own party will, and Farage is a shapeshifting lizard-banker currently assuming the form of "pub-going everyman" who doesn't seem to have anything but projected traits.
I would not say Cameron is a particularly good statesman actually. Well I suppose it depends on your definition of statesman. I think he looks out for English interests well enough, but is absolutely disinterested in the other parts of the UK. I think his behaviour on Scotland is very poor and will lead to a less stable UK down the line, and it was mostly a calculated vote winner. That is not the behaviour of a statesman. I'll admit he looks pretty good though. I mean he photographs well and he looks like you think a prime minister should. I think he's also a pretty good politician.
Milliband has an unfortunate face and manner and he hasn't got any strong opinions for fear of losing a vote. Would not want him leading the party I was going to vote for.
The Green leader had a fairly high profile mess up recently didn't she?
Farage is as others have said a populist, but they all are to some degree. Salmond came off pretty well to me, as far as a nationalist goes.
Don't know about the Welsh parties unfortunately.
Gerry Adams is a total liability for Sinn Féin but I think because they are so cult like and military in their organisation, they will not be getting rid of him for a long time. In fairness, he's the only person they have who is recognizable on both sides of the Border and in the rest of the UK, even if it is for terrible reasons.
Peter Robinson is dogged by scandals with expenses and his wife's activities, but he's popular enough with his own party. They're also a pack of intolerant bigots, but at least none of them are murderers that I'm aware of.
Ed Milliband just turns me off Labour completely. Insipid, uninspiring and always looks to be one step away from having Balls etc take control.
As for the shadow cabinet I wouldn't want any of them in power either. A lot of them aided the demagogue Blair in his rituals of power and are responsible for a lot of the social problems we have now.
I'm not much of a fan of the current crop of Tories either, I do wonder what Osbourne could do if he took the leadership. Or even Boris Johnson.
Mr. Burning wrote: Ed Milliband just turns me off Labour completely. Insipid, uninspiring and always looks to be one step away from having Balls etc take control.
As for the shadow cabinet I wouldn't want any of them in power either. A lot of them aided the demagogue Blair in his rituals of power and are responsible for a lot of the social problems we have now.
I'm not much of a fan of the current crop of Tories either, I do wonder what Osbourne could do if he took the leadership. Or even Boris Johnson.
Oh god...yep, I just threw up a little in my mouth at that thought. Sinister Gideon and Bumbling Boris in charge of the country, I think the only outcome that could actually be worse would be if that sickening, twisted, monstrous heap of feces in a human skinsuit Iain Duncan Smith somehow ended up in power.
EDIT: Oh aye, has anyone been following the social media hilarity around #FundedByUKGovernment? For anyone who's not seen it yet, this is the latest genius idea to put all of us uppity provincial sorts in our place; they're going to put big honking signs/plaques on infrastructure projects featuring the words "Funded by the UK Government", and a HUEG Union Jack flag graphic just in case we'd had one too many bottles of Buckie("That's what those Jockos drink, isn't it Tarquin old chum? Must appear topical and empathetic towards the plebs don'tcha know! Fafafafafafah.") and fail to grasp the subtle subtext
Mr. Burning wrote: Ed Milliband just turns me off Labour completely. Insipid, uninspiring and always looks to be one step away from having Balls etc take control.
As for the shadow cabinet I wouldn't want any of them in power either. A lot of them aided the demagogue Blair in his rituals of power and are responsible for a lot of the social problems we have now.
I'm not much of a fan of the current crop of Tories either, I do wonder what Osbourne could do if he took the leadership. Or even Boris Johnson.
Oh god...yep, I just threw up a little in my mouth at that thought. Sinister Gideon and Bumbling Boris in charge of the country, I think the only outcome that could actually be worse would be if that sickening, twisted, monstrous heap of feces in a human skinsuit Iain Duncan Smith somehow ended up in power.
I would rather vote for the Tories with Osbourne or Boris at the helm than for what constitutes the Labour party. I really should be an ardent Labour supporter but I find The Tories dishonesty and their acts of skulduggery much more...honest.
Mr. Burning wrote: Ed Milliband just turns me off Labour completely. Insipid, uninspiring and always looks to be one step away from having Balls etc take control.
As for the shadow cabinet I wouldn't want any of them in power either. A lot of them aided the demagogue Blair in his rituals of power and are responsible for a lot of the social problems we have now.
I'm not much of a fan of the current crop of Tories either, I do wonder what Osbourne could do if he took the leadership. Or even Boris Johnson.
Oh god...yep, I just threw up a little in my mouth at that thought. Sinister Gideon and Bumbling Boris in charge of the country, I think the only outcome that could actually be worse would be if that sickening, twisted, monstrous heap of feces in a human skinsuit Iain Duncan Smith somehow ended up in power.
I would rather vote for the Tories with Osbourne or Boris at the helm than for what constitutes the Labour party. I really should be an ardent Labour supporter but I find The Tories dishonesty and their acts of skulduggery much more...honest.
Oh don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Labour these days, but I'd still rather chew off my own thumbs than vote Tory. Labour might be a bit gak, they might be vacuous weather vanes that point wherever the tabloid winds blow, in many cases they might even be just plain old Red Tories, but at least I can still yet(barely) believe their rhetoric about the disabled and unemployed etc is naked political opportunism, rather than the genuine disdain I know the Tories hold most of the populace in.
Mr. Burning wrote: Ed Milliband just turns me off Labour completely. Insipid, uninspiring and always looks to be one step away from having Balls etc take control.
As for the shadow cabinet I wouldn't want any of them in power either. A lot of them aided the demagogue Blair in his rituals of power and are responsible for a lot of the social problems we have now.
I'm not much of a fan of the current crop of Tories either, I do wonder what Osbourne could do if he took the leadership. Or even Boris Johnson.
Oh god...yep, I just threw up a little in my mouth at that thought. Sinister Gideon and Bumbling Boris in charge of the country, I think the only outcome that could actually be worse would be if that sickening, twisted, monstrous heap of feces in a human skinsuit Iain Duncan Smith somehow ended up in power.
EDIT: Oh aye, has anyone been following the social media hilarity around #FundedByUKGovernment? For anyone who's not seen it yet, this is the latest genius idea to put all of us uppity provincial sorts in our place; they're going to put big honking signs/plaques on infrastructure projects featuring the words "Funded by the UK Government", and a HUEG Union Jack flag graphic just in case we'd had one too many bottles of Buckie("That's what those Jockos drink, isn't it Tarquin old chum? Must appear topical and empathetic towards the plebs don'tcha know! Fafafafafafah.") and fail to grasp the subtle subtext
If the EU gets to do it, why not the UK government too?
I mean it is not like scottish politicians make a big deal about the things that are funded for scottish people but not those in the rest of the uk... like university, prescriptions, etc...
Interesting perspectives on the leadership, I've come full circle on miliband - when he got installed I though liability, unelectable etc, then the daily mail thing happened and I thought actually I can see this working. I voted Tory last time and think they have done ok, but will be voting labour this time. But I expect that if labour somehow get in, miliband will not last the parliament. Which is a pity, because I'd like to see him succeed.
Mr. Burning wrote: Ed Milliband just turns me off Labour completely. Insipid, uninspiring and always looks to be one step away from having Balls etc take control.
As for the shadow cabinet I wouldn't want any of them in power either. A lot of them aided the demagogue Blair in his rituals of power and are responsible for a lot of the social problems we have now.
I'm not much of a fan of the current crop of Tories either, I do wonder what Osbourne could do if he took the leadership. Or even Boris Johnson.
Oh god...yep, I just threw up a little in my mouth at that thought. Sinister Gideon and Bumbling Boris in charge of the country, I think the only outcome that could actually be worse would be if that sickening, twisted, monstrous heap of feces in a human skinsuit Iain Duncan Smith somehow ended up in power.
EDIT: Oh aye, has anyone been following the social media hilarity around #FundedByUKGovernment? For anyone who's not seen it yet, this is the latest genius idea to put all of us uppity provincial sorts in our place; they're going to put big honking signs/plaques on infrastructure projects featuring the words "Funded by the UK Government", and a HUEG Union Jack flag graphic just in case we'd had one too many bottles of Buckie("That's what those Jockos drink, isn't it Tarquin old chum? Must appear topical and empathetic towards the plebs don'tcha know! Fafafafafafah.") and fail to grasp the subtle subtext
If the EU gets to do it, why not the UK government too?
Am I allowed to think it's moronic in both cases?
SilverMK2 wrote: I mean it is not like scottish politicians make a big deal about the things that are funded for scottish people but not those in the rest of the uk... like university, prescriptions, etc...
Silvermk2 QFT as they say. The scottish government has been light years ahead of Westminster in terms of branding, sexiness etc. Someone in their media comms & branding strategy team ( 'Torquil?', 'Angus?') knows what they are doing. During the referendum, the nationalist leaflets and communications were so far ahead it was embarassing.
Yodhrin wrote: Wait, whut? How are the two things related?
Really?
Both are cases of governments highlighting and branding projects they feel will sway people to think positively on those in power.
"Look at the new school funded by the EU, maybe they are not just a massive black hole for our money and we do get something back"
"Look at that bridge - funded by UK government - well, it is good they finally decided to do something to improve the traffic around here"
"We give free university places to everyone but the English because really, screw them!" - "That is awesome, because really, screw the English!"
Yes, really. The SNP government draws attention to stuff like free tuition to illustrate the difference in their priorities compared to the coalition government, it's a party political issue, like when Labour bring up the minimum wage in order to demonstrate the difference(aha) between them and the Tories. This "branding initiative" isn't about policy, it's naked propaganda, designed to reinforce the falsehood that Scotland is subsidised by the UK by implying the branded projects would never have happened without the generosity of the UK government, when in reality the revenues gathered from Scotland's economy and personal taxes more than cover all the spending we receive(and before anyone tries pulling out that hackneyed referendum graphic - it's not additional money if it's debt that has to be paid back, it's the percentages that matter because they're correct whether the UK's in surplus or deficit). If they were putting "paid for by your tax money" on things nobody would be complaining.
This is what the UK government do for projects undertaken abroad using foreign aid money ffs, to remind those dastardly foreign sorts who to be appropriately grateful to.
As for your wee joke; give it a rest with the "is it cuz I is English lulz" stuff. It might be funny in another time, but we live in the context of a media that regularly runs frothing editorials comparing anyone who votes SNP or supported independence(that being nearly half the voting population of the country remember) with the Hitler Youth or the National Front, or insist that we're all vacant thugs motivated exclusively by hatred of everything English, and it's just fething tiresome now even in jest.
As for your wee joke; give it a rest with the "is it cuz I is English lulz" stuff. It might be funny in another time, but we live in the context of a media that regularly runs frothing editorials comparing anyone who votes SNP or supported independence(that being nearly half the voting population of the country remember) with the Hitler Youth or the National Front, or insist that we're all vacant thugs motivated exclusively by hatred of everything English, and it's just fething tiresome now even in jest.
I would be interested to hear how it could be justified that people from Europe should receive free degrees in Scotland, and the Scottish also, but the English must pay their way.
That is one specific policy that has always struck me as absurdly discriminatory, and lends much credence to the 'feth the English' perspective of the SNP within England.
Not sure about the policy, and it seems pretty unfair alright, but it might be a pragmatic policy. There's so many English people who would avail of the free fees that it would hedge scottish people out of the closest universities to them.
Da Boss wrote: Not sure about the policy, and it seems pretty unfair alright, but it might be a pragmatic policy. There's so many English people who would avail of the free fees that it would hedge scottish people out of the closest universities to them.
That's the thing though. If it was applied evenly to everyone outside of Scotland, I could (with ill grace) accept that. It's the specific exclusion of English/Welsh/Irish students that sticks in my craw. I mean, seriously? A French person can grab a free degree in Scotland using taxpayer funding, but an English person can't? That just stinks of racism to me, and the ludicrous amount of twisting and turning required to try and make it into something rational is simply absurd.
If we started making it so that Scottish people had to pay for GP appointments in England, there would be outrage, and rightly so.
Yes, really. The SNP government draws attention to stuff like free tuition to illustrate the difference in their priorities comparto the coalition government, it's a party political issue, like when Labour bring up the minimum wage in order to demonstrate the difference(aha) between them and the Tories. This "branding initiative" isn't about policy, it's naked propaganda, designed to reinforce the falsehood that Scotland is subsidised by the UK by implying the branded pjects would never have happened without the generosity of the UK government, when in reality the revenues gathered from Scotland's economy and personal taxes more than cover all the spending we receive(and before anyone tries pulling out that hackneyed referendum graphic - it's not additional money if it's debt that has to be paid back, it's the percentages that matter because they're correct whether the UK's in surplus or deficit). If they were putting "paid for by your tax money" on things nobody would be complaining.
They are putting "paid for by your tax money" on things. As much as you would wish it otherwise you live in the UK, and the UK government, for the most part, decides on what to spend tax money on.
we live in the context of a media that regularly runs frothing editorials comparing anyone who votes SNP or supported independence(that being nearly half the voting population of the country remember) with the Hitler Youth or the National Front, or insist that we're all vacant thugs motivated exclusively by hatred of everything English
Hyperbole much? Having read the articles a number of scottish friends linked to in the referendum, from some (apparently) fairly.mainstream scottish news sources, the only frothing I saw was on the part of rabid nationalists intent on English blood.
Personally my parents are from the uk, with half of my family from the far north and some straddling into scotland. I was born overseas (though have always been a uk citizen) and have lived all over the world. I have little love of politicians or the londoncentric view that seems to exist in politics. I genuinely dont care if parts of the uk want to break away, as long as the breakup is fair and everyone gets a say. I will say that a break probably isnt a great idea in an age of globalisation and the formation of large political and trading unions...
I hope the mods don't mind that I re-activate this old thread. The UK general election campaign started today, so instead of creating a new thread, I'll just push this one back into play.
Also, could a mod change the title of this thread to: The Political junkie thread - UK edition GE election page 4 onwards (or words to that effect).
Thanks.
Automatically Appended Next Post: 38 days of wall to wall coverage. I like UK politics as much as the next man, but this is going to be a real test, even for me
The next 38 days will be... entertaining... or mind-numbing.... or just infuriating.
If anyone has seen the event last week where Cameron and Milliband got Paxman'ed, what are your thoughts on that? Personally, I think Milliband came across a lot stronger, especially vs Paxman, and I'm actually leaning towards voting his way now. While I strongly disagree with some Labour policies, he does seem to 'get' the Party ethos better than some, and it's refreshing to see a party leader stand up and say 'Yes, my Party has made mistakes in the past, but that wasn't me, and I want to fix them." It gives a far better impression than just refusing to see where previous incarnations of one's Party have messed up.
Don't vote for Rubberband. He's not Prime Minister material. At all. His voice grates at me like chalk on a blackboard. Cameron and co, for all their toffy-ness have actually made some decent headway into pulling us out of our "New Labour" induced economic nose dive. Whereas Labour would continue to spend spend spend us into further decline.
The next 38 days will be... entertaining... or mind-numbing.... or just infuriating.
If anyone has seen the event last week where Cameron and Milliband got Paxman'ed, what are your thoughts on that? Personally, I think Milliband came across a lot stronger, especially vs Paxman, and I'm actually leaning towards voting his way now. While I strongly disagree with some Labour policies, he does seem to 'get' the Party ethos better than some, and it's refreshing to see a party leader stand up and say 'Yes, my Party has made mistakes in the past, but that wasn't me, and I want to fix them." It gives a far better impression than just refusing to see where previous incarnations of one's Party have messed up.
I honestly thought Miliband came across as the geeky kid in the playground trying to act like the tough guy. I cringed. Cameron was equally as bad.
I think the most revealing point was the lack of policies or ideas being discussed. I couldn't care less about Ed or Dave's kitchens. What are their visions for the country in the next 5 years? We never got any of that.
angelofvengeance wrote: Don't vote for Rubberband. He's not Prime Minister material. At all. His voice grates at me like chalk on a blackboard.
Cameron and co, for all their toffy-ness have actually made some decent headway into pulling us out of our "New Labour" induced economic nose dive. Whereas Labour would continue to spend spend spend us into further decline.
New Labour had almost bugger all to do with the economic problems. The Tories has almost bugger all to do with fixing the economy. Most of it was down to the markets and global trade. It irritates me intensely when political parties pretend they have much influence over the economy. They do have SOME, but it is minimal, especially since the Bank of England started setting interest rates. The BofE have had far more influence on the economic recover than the government. Sticking with a low, stable interest rate has been far more influential in increasing spending, reducing hording of money and getting investment than anything the government have done. If it was up to the treasury still interest rates would have gone up and up every year as pensioners complained about their savings as pension funds suffered at the hands of a falling market.
angelofvengeance wrote: Don't vote for Rubberband. He's not Prime Minister material. At all. His voice grates at me like chalk on a blackboard.
Cameron and co, for all their toffy-ness have actually made some decent headway into pulling us out of our "New Labour" induced economic nose dive. Whereas Labour would continue to spend spend spend us into further decline.
So we can safely assume a Labour/SNP deal would be your worst nightmare?
angelofvengeance wrote: The BofE have had far more influence on the economic recover than the government. Sticking with a low, stable interest rate has been far more influential in increasing spending, reducing hording of money and getting investment than anything the government have done. If it was up to the treasury still interest rates would have gone up and up every year as pensioners complained about their savings as pension funds suffered at the hands of a falling market.
Last thing the government wants is a rise in interest rates. If it goes up then so does the interest on that lovely 1.4 trillion debt bomb. We are already paying about 40billion a year on interest. Imagine what that would be if the interest rates were 3-4-5 e.t.c %.
Yes, really. The SNP government draws attention to stuff like free tuition to illustrate the difference in their priorities comparto the coalition government, it's a party political issue, like when Labour bring up the minimum wage in order to demonstrate the difference(aha) between them and the Tories. This "branding initiative" isn't about policy, it's naked propaganda, designed to reinforce the falsehood that Scotland is subsidised by the UK by implying the branded pjects would never have happened without the generosity of the UK government, when in reality the revenues gathered from Scotland's economy and personal taxes more than cover all the spending we receive(and before anyone tries pulling out that hackneyed referendum graphic - it's not additional money if it's debt that has to be paid back, it's the percentages that matter because they're correct whether the UK's in surplus or deficit). If they were putting "paid for by your tax money" on things nobody would be complaining.
They are putting "paid for by your tax money" on things. As much as you would wish it otherwise you live in the UK, and the UK government, for the most part, decides on what to spend tax money on.
we live in the context of a media that regularly runs frothing editorials comparing anyone who votes SNP or supported independence(that being nearly half the voting population of the country remember) with the Hitler Youth or the National Front, or insist that we're all vacant thugs motivated exclusively by hatred of everything English
Hyperbole much? Having read the articles a number of scottish friends linked to in the referendum, from some (apparently) fairly.mainstream scottish news sources, the only frothing I saw was on the part of rabid nationalists intent on English blood.
Personally my parents are from the uk, with half of my family from the far north and some straddling into scotland. I was born overseas (though have always been a uk citizen) and have lived all over the world. I have little love of politicians or the londoncentric view that seems to exist in politics. I genuinely dont care if parts of the uk want to break away, as long as the breakup is fair and everyone gets a say. I will say that a break probably isnt a great idea in an age of globalisation and the formation of large political and trading unions...
Take another look. The recent polling has browned the knickers of the political and media establishment, we're back to being a "threat to democracy", we're intolerable assassins of decency, the very idea that we might vote for a party that will have any actual impact on the UK political process beyond warming benches will apparently enrage the English to the point that the Thames will be flowing with "metaphorical rivers of blood". If you looked at the media during the referendum and would seriously argue that the only vileness on show was from supporters of independence, you didn't look very hard.
angelofvengeance wrote: Don't vote for Rubberband. He's not Prime Minister material. At all. His voice grates at me like chalk on a blackboard.
Cameron and co, for all their toffy-ness have actually made some decent headway into pulling us out of our "New Labour" induced economic nose dive. Whereas Labour would continue to spend spend spend us into further decline.
Hogwash. New Labour were, in her own words, Thatcher's greatest achievement; neoliberal doctrine in the hollow husk of social democracy, a political parasitic wasp. Even now, with the supposedly "red in tooth and claw" Milibungler in charge(and even that I question; Balls is the one pulling most of the strings, and he's Osborne in a red tie), Labour are a right-authoritarian party just like the Tories, and given Osborne's "economic miracle" is dependent on desperate and colossal borrowing to fund mortgage welfare for the middle class, and the continuing charity of the BoE keeping interest zeroed and the Quantitative Easing flowing, the idea that a Tory government would have dealt with the global financial crisis any better is farcical.
Spending is one of the government's most powerful tools for generating economic growth, and it is growth that will enable us to deal with the debt, not cuts; taking money out of the pockets of low-income families and benefits recipients is totally counter-productive, as is forcing the unemployed and disabled into poorly paid zero-hours "jobs", because poor people spend money when they get it. We're back to an economy balanced precariously on consumer debt and a housing bubble in the SE of England just as we were before the GFC, only this time come the crash we'll be in worse shape since the Tories have spent the last five years hollowing out public services and the social security system and many people are in far less stable employment.
The genuine hilarity of this election is that the best hope for the UK's economic recovery is the SNP.
I think we can agree to disagree on "the evils" of the media.
I would tend to agree thay spending on tangible infrastructure is the way to both put more money in circulation and improve the nation while sorting out the ecconomy. Personally I think the political parties had very little to do with either the ressession or recovery. Labour could have proofed the financial market better, certainly, but it was a collapse of western financial markets, not national policies which caused that.
The tories have done a little to improve things but imo any improvement is simply that naturally felt as global markets pick up again. I feel a reasonable "spend to mend" policy would have got us back quicker rather than the slash and burn we have had.
The SNP do not seem, to my mind, have done anything much for scotlands ecconomy above and beyond what the economy would have done left to itself.
SNP are as bad as the rest of the political parties. It was only recently that the Telegraph revealed their figures on oil revenues were inflated BY 90 PER CENT (wtf). The Scottish First Minister even admitted they'd done it. Scotland would've been in deep, deep gak from the starting block if they'd gone independent. On the other hand, if Scotland had gone independent, Labour would lose A LOT of seats in the House of Parliament. So much so in fact, there would probably never be another Labour-run government again.
Anyways, 2 celebs have now endorsed Labour- The Hobbit's Martin Freeman and Dr Who's David Tennant. Kinda saw the latter coming from a mile away, but didn't expect the former at all. Outside of acting, I can't say I like either of them any more. Look at the bloody mess we're in (yes, yes I know some of it is down to global markets etc) after 13yrs of Labour leadership.
Lib Dems just may as well not even bother being in parliament anymore. Teeny tiny party now.
angelofvengeance wrote: The BofE have had far more influence on the economic recover than the government. Sticking with a low, stable interest rate has been far more influential in increasing spending, reducing hording of money and getting investment than anything the government have done. If it was up to the treasury still interest rates would have gone up and up every year as pensioners complained about their savings as pension funds suffered at the hands of a falling market.
Last thing the government wants is a rise in interest rates. If it goes up then so does the interest on that lovely 1.4 trillion debt bomb. We are already paying about 40billion a year on interest. Imagine what that would be if the interest rates were 3-4-5 e.t.c %.
I read somewhere that there's a real danger the economy could start deflating
You know, as well as I do, that for all the talk of economic recovery, the housing bubble is going to burst 2-3 years from now (I'd put money on it) and we'll be back to square one again.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote: I think we can agree to disagree on "the evils" of the media.
I would tend to agree thay spending on tangible infrastructure is the way to both put more money in circulation and improve the nation while sorting out the ecconomy. Personally I think the political parties had very little to do with either the ressession or recovery. Labour could have proofed the financial market better, certainly, but it was a collapse of western financial markets, not national policies which caused that.
The tories have done a little to improve things but imo any improvement is simply that naturally felt as global markets pick up again. I feel a reasonable "spend to mend" policy would have got us back quicker rather than the slash and burn we have had.
The SNP do not seem, to my mind, have done anything much for scotlands ecconomy above and beyond what the economy would have done left to itself.
The SNP are always operating with one hand tied behind their backs. There's only so much you can do with the pocket money Westminster gives Scotland.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
angelofvengeance wrote: SNP are as bad as the rest of the political parties. It was only recently that the Telegraph revealed their figures on oil revenues were inflated BY 90 PER CENT (wtf). The Scottish First Minister even admitted they'd done it. Scotland would've been in deep, deep gak from the starting block if they'd gone independent. On the other hand, if Scotland had gone independent, Labour would lose A LOT of seats in the House of Parliament. So much so in fact, there would probably never be another Labour-run government again.
Anyways, 2 celebs have now endorsed Labour- The Hobbit's Martin Freeman and Dr Who's David Tennant. Kinda saw the latter coming from a mile away, but didn't expect the former at all. Outside of acting, I can't say I like either of them any more. Look at the bloody mess we're in (yes, yes I know some of it is down to global markets etc) after 13yrs of Labour leadership.
Lib Dems just may as well not even bother being in parliament anymore. Teeny tiny party now.
Even without the oil, Scotland does well for itself. Oil has always been a bonus. Out of all the UK regions, only London makes more money than Scotland.
Agree with you about the Lib Dems. Can't wait to see Clegg getting the proverbial boot up the backside.
The BofE have had far more influence on the economic recover than the government. Sticking with a low, stable interest rate has been far more influential in increasing spending, reducing hording of money and getting investment than anything the government have done. If it was up to the treasury still interest rates would have gone up and up every year as pensioners complained about their savings as pension funds suffered at the hands of a falling market.
Err.. I didn't type this. Why am I being quoted here? lol. These are Steve steveson's words not mine.
The BofE have had far more influence on the economic recover than the government. Sticking with a low, stable interest rate has been far more influential in increasing spending, reducing hording of money and getting investment than anything the government have done. If it was up to the treasury still interest rates would have gone up and up every year as pensioners complained about their savings as pension funds suffered at the hands of a falling market.
Err.. I didn't type this. Why am I being quoted here? lol. These are Steve steveson's words not mine.
Im blaming the forum...
Nothing to do with my terrible skills at quoting posts on forums
I think I'll be voting Conservative when the time comes.
I don't like the party or much of what it stands for but it does have an economic plan that I think is the best for the situation we're in at the moment.
Labour and Conservative have two different views on the economy.
Conservatives want to reduce our debt/deficit as fast as possible while things are going well "fix the roof when the sun is shining".
Labours plans expose us to too much risk in my opinion. They don't want to cut as much as Conservatives do but even with all the cuts that have been made it isn't enough to reduce the deficit. We still have a tricky situation going on with Europe, Greece may exit the EU and while we aren't directly exposed to this, the countries we trade primarily with are.
I think the faster we can get the UK looking stable the better we will do, especially as the rest of Europe slips.
The Conservatives also are much more willing to spend taxes on investing in infrastructure, like with the new roads they're planning on building and high speed rail, labour doesn't want this and would rather use it for education or welfare. Which sounds good but it actually bad, as I see it. I'll try and explain why I belive that.
The trouble with spending on welfare/education is consumes the tax, and there is no way to get it back once its gone.
Investing it on things like roads and rail etc historically it pays for itself in business growth and thus employing more people.
It's not poor education that the UK is suffering from right now there are plenty of people with degrees looking for work but not getting hired. More businesses starting/moving to the UK means more people in work, means more income tax paid and faster debt paying off.
The faster government debt is paid off the cheaper it is for business to borrow money in this country and so more moves here, and the cycle spins on to prosperity, such as I understand it.
I get irritated by Labour who got took over a financially stable country and then over the 10 years they were in power they spent huge amounts more than they took in tax and left us so much in debt and with such a deficit. Then oppose everything the current government has done to fix it even though it seems to be working, then complain that it has taken so long to sort it out.
When voting I wish people would stop looking at the party leaders and their personalities so much, their personalities don't matter if they do their job right, plus they aren't their party, there's hundreds of other people who your fate depends on. Vote on what most affects you or is aligned with what you want for the country
I hate what the conservatives do, I hate that they knew about the HSBC scandal and did nothing because their party donors were involved. I hate that so many of them are career politicians who don't understand a normal human. I hate that so many went to private schools and have such privileged backgrounds.
As for Labour they seem better and more diverse and have somewhat more diverse group of people in the party.
If I had faith that Labour could act financially responsibly and do what's best for the country I'd vote for them. Or any other party that has a better idea, I'd go with them.
I'm still open to changing my mind on any points I've made however this is just how I understand the situation to be at the moment.
The thing I hate most about politics is that is all so... unclear. It's so frustrating that a politician can give a speech and we then all end up having to read a paper or go online for someone to decode what they really said.
obsidianaura wrote: I think I'll be voting Conservative when the time comes.
I don't like the party or much of what it stands for but it does have an economic plan that I think is the best for the situation we're in at the moment.
Labour and Conservative have two different views on the economy.
Conservatives want to reduce our debt/deficit as fast as possible while things are going well "fix the roof when the sun is shining".
Labours plans expose us to too much risk in my opinion. They don't want to cut as much as Conservatives do but even with all the cuts that have been made it isn't enough to reduce the deficit. We still have a tricky situation going on with Europe, Greece may exit the EU and while we aren't directly exposed to this, the countries we trade primarily with are.
I think the faster we can get the UK looking stable the better we will do, especially as the rest of Europe slips.
The Conservatives also are much more willing to spend taxes on investing in infrastructure, like with the new roads they're planning on building and high speed rail, labour doesn't want this and would rather use it for education or welfare. Which sounds good but it actually bad, as I see it. I'll try and explain why I belive that.
The trouble with spending on welfare/education is consumes the tax, and there is no way to get it back once its gone.
Investing it on things like roads and rail etc historically it pays for itself in business growth and thus employing more people.
It's not poor education that the UK is suffering from right now there are plenty of people with degrees looking for work but not getting hired. More businesses starting/moving to the UK means more people in work, means more income tax paid and faster debt paying off.
The faster government debt is paid off the cheaper it is for business to borrow money in this country and so more moves here, and the cycle spins on to prosperity, such as I understand it.
I get irritated by Labour who got took over a financially stable country and then over the 10 years they were in power they spent huge amounts more than they took in tax and left us so much in debt and with such a deficit. Then oppose everything the current government has done to fix it even though it seems to be working, then complain that it has taken so long to sort it out.
When voting I wish people would stop looking at the party leaders and their personalities so much, their personalities don't matter if they do their job right, plus they aren't their party, there's hundreds of other people who your fate depends on. Vote on what most affects you or is aligned with what you want for the country
I hate what the conservatives do, I hate that they knew about the HSBC scandal and did nothing because their party donors were involved. I hate that so many of them are career politicians who don't understand a normal human. I hate that so many went to private schools and have such privileged backgrounds.
As for Labour they seem better and more diverse and have somewhat more diverse group of people in the party.
If I had faith that Labour could act financially responsibly and do what's best for the country I'd vote for them. Or any other party that has a better idea, I'd go with them.
I'm still open to changing my mind on any points I've made however this is just how I understand the situation to be at the moment.
The thing I hate most about politics is that is all so... unclear. It's so frustrating that a politician can give a speech and we then all end up having to read a paper or go online for someone to decode what they really said.
So like my earlier post to somebody else, we can safely say that you won't be in favour of a Labour/SNP deal?
I think that's a fair bet! I'm always open to changing my mind though.
I feel the SNPs acts like the Scottish are more important than anyone else. There are nearly 70 Million people in the UK, why should 5 million people to hold sway over all of us.
They're also trying to get another referendum because the first time round it didn't go the way they wanted. Are they going to keep doing that till they get the answer they want?
If Scotland was independent it would be in debt now because of oil. Luckily for them, they aren't, and even if they had voted yes the rest of the UK would still have to pay the debt, but it shows reasons why it was safer to vote no I think.
On the other hand they were giving more tax to the UK than they received until the oil price fell. Which doesn't seem fair either.
It'd be better if we had better links between London and Edinburgh. Work harder on bring everything together rather than separate it off.
obsidianaura wrote: I think that's a fair bet! I'm always open to changing my mind though.
I feel the SNPs acts like the Scottish are more important than anyone else. There are nearly 70 Million people in the UK, why should 5 million people to hold sway over all of us.
They're also trying to get another referendum because the first time round it didn't go the way they wanted. Are they going to keep doing that till they get the answer they want?
If Scotland was independent it would be in debt now because of oil. Luckily for them, they aren't, and even if they had voted yes the rest of the UK would still have to pay the debt, but it shows reasons why it was safer to vote no I think.
On the other hand they were giving more tax to the UK than they received until the oil price fell. Which doesn't seem fair either.
It'd be better if we had better links between London and Edinburgh. Work harder on bring everything together rather than separate it off.
I'll be voting SNP in a few weeks time
I won't debate your other points, but do you agree with me on the following?
1) London and the SE influences so much in terms of money spent, and political influence, that it's dragging down the rest of the UK (including other parts of England), because Westminster is obsessed with London.
2) Only a federal solution (full fiscal autonomy for Scotland and more devolution for Wales and NI, plus regions of England that are not London) with the Lords being scrapped, can save the UK, because the way things are going, the Union is going to collapse. Either it'll be Scotland, or England. Reform is needed in my view.
3) None of the main parties propose anything that will address this massive imbalance between England 85% of the UK, and the remainder countries.
obsidianaura wrote: I think that's a fair bet! I'm always open to changing my mind though.
I feel the SNPs acts like the Scottish are more important than anyone else. There are nearly 70 Million people in the UK, why should 5 million people to hold sway over all of us.
They're also trying to get another referendum because the first time round it didn't go the way they wanted. Are they going to keep doing that till they get the answer they want?
If Scotland was independent it would be in debt now because of oil. Luckily for them, they aren't, and even if they had voted yes the rest of the UK would still have to pay the debt, but it shows reasons why it was safer to vote no I think.
On the other hand they were giving more tax to the UK than they received until the oil price fell. Which doesn't seem fair either.
It'd be better if we had better links between London and Edinburgh. Work harder on bring everything together rather than separate it off.
I'll be voting SNP in a few weeks time
I won't debate your other points, but do you agree with me on the following?
1) London and the SE influences so much in terms of money spent, and political influence, that it's dragging down the rest of the UK (including other parts of England), because Westminster is obsessed with London.
2) Only a federal solution (full fiscal autonomy for Scotland and more devolution for Wales and NI, plus regions of England that are not London) with the Lords being scrapped, can save the UK, because the way things are going, the Union is going to collapse. Either it'll be Scotland, or England. Reform is needed in my view.
3) None of the main parties propose anything that will address this massive imbalance between England 85% of the UK, and the remainder countries.
1. I initially thought yes London gets too much but now I'm looking at the data from the house of Commons library "Public expenditure by country and region" it says that in 2013/14 £ per head in London was 9,866 Scotland was 10,275. So looking at it that way it does seem fairly distributed. Because the bulk of the population is in London most of the public spending is happening there, it serves more people. There's probably more to it so I'll ponder it a while.
2. I doubt the Union is going to collapse if it's left as is, it is undoubtedly the safest thing to do, change is always risky. It wouldn't get any fairer either though. I think every country of the Union should have full autonomy over collecting and spending its tax, with a few things like defence shared by some proportional method. I think Conservatives have always been in favour of ceding authority to local authorities.
The House of Lords is a relic and should probably be reformed but I don't think it should go entirely. The advantage of them is that they are not career politicians like the commons is, and also not elected so they have a different prospective to the parties, plus some of them are very clever and have a wealth of expertise, they have the ability to block dodgy stuff being passed from the commons. They also aren't paid. Still in this day and age hereditary lords and the privileged getting these positions of power is a bit odd.
3. The population of the UK is 83.9% England, 8.4% Scotland, 4.8% Wales, 2.9% Northern Ireland. Based on that I would say 85% is almost fair. I don't think any country of the Union should get more or less than it deserves.
I think the member countries know what is best for them and should have the full authority on how to run themselves. I still think marinating the Union and doing that is possible. Don't want to lose Scotland, I am a MacRae after all, and my dad is Scottish
obsidianaura wrote: I think that's a fair bet! I'm always open to changing my mind though.
I feel the SNPs acts like the Scottish are more important than anyone else. There are nearly 70 Million people in the UK, why should 5 million people to hold sway over all of us.
They're also trying to get another referendum because the first time round it didn't go the way they wanted. Are they going to keep doing that till they get the answer they want?
If Scotland was independent it would be in debt now because of oil. Luckily for them, they aren't, and even if they had voted yes the rest of the UK would still have to pay the debt, but it shows reasons why it was safer to vote no I think.
On the other hand they were giving more tax to the UK than they received until the oil price fell. Which doesn't seem fair either.
It'd be better if we had better links between London and Edinburgh. Work harder on bring everything together rather than separate it off.
I'll be voting SNP in a few weeks time
I won't debate your other points, but do you agree with me on the following?
1) London and the SE influences so much in terms of money spent, and political influence, that it's dragging down the rest of the UK (including other parts of England), because Westminster is obsessed with London.
2) Only a federal solution (full fiscal autonomy for Scotland and more devolution for Wales and NI, plus regions of England that are not London) with the Lords being scrapped, can save the UK, because the way things are going, the Union is going to collapse. Either it'll be Scotland, or England. Reform is needed in my view.
3) None of the main parties propose anything that will address this massive imbalance between England 85% of the UK, and the remainder countries.
1. I initially thought yes London gets too much but now I'm looking at the data from the house of Commons library "Public expenditure by country and region" it says that in 2013/14 £ per head in London was 9,866 Scotland was 10,275. So looking at it that way it does seem fairly distributed. Because the bulk of the population is in London most of the public spending is happening there, it serves more people. There's probably more to it so I'll ponder it a while.
2. I doubt the Union is going to collapse if it's left as is, it is undoubtedly the safest thing to do, change is always risky. It wouldn't get any fairer either though. I think every country of the Union should have full autonomy over collecting and spending its tax, with a few things like defence shared by some proportional method. I think Conservatives have always been in favour of ceding authority to local authorities.
The House of Lords is a relic and should probably be reformed but I don't think it should go entirely. The advantage of them is that they are not career politicians like the commons is, and also not elected so they have a different prospective to the parties, plus some of them are very clever and have a wealth of expertise, they have the ability to block dodgy stuff being passed from the commons. They also aren't paid. Still in this day and age hereditary lords and the privileged getting these positions of power is a bit odd.
3. The population of the UK is 83.9% England, 8.4% Scotland, 4.8% Wales, 2.9% Northern Ireland. Based on that I would say 85% is almost fair. I don't think any country of the Union should get more or less than it deserves.
I think the member countries know what is best for them and should have the full authority on how to run themselves. I still think marinating the Union and doing that is possible. Don't want to lose Scotland, I am a MacRae after all, and my dad is Scottish
If it were up to me, I'd scrap the Lords and replace it with an elected senate. Hereditary law makers are an affront to democracy. I'd also draw up a written constitution, not this un-written nonsense we've put up with for centuries.
I like the idea of a lottery system, people put their names in who want to do it, then names are picked at random and then serve a term then change again. Like jury duty but opt in.
I certainly agree the Lords needs to go, or at the very least be majorly reformed so as not to be a seat only for the rich and landed. The issue is that I think we do need some kind of second house or body that fulfils a similar role otherwise stuff would get through Commons and that would be that; there would be no going back, even less accountability/responsibility from the party in power.
I'm not sure the UK needs a written constitution, though. That strikes me as the kind of thing that would just get in way of progress, be used as spurious justification for the Issue of the Week, and we've functioned perfectly well without one so far.
Paradigm wrote: I certainly agree the Lords needs to go, or at the very least be majorly reformed so as not to be a seat only for the rich and landed. The issue is that I think we do need some kind of second house or body that fulfils a similar role otherwise stuff would get through Commons and that would be that; there would be no going back, even less accountability/responsibility from the party in power.
I'm not sure the UK needs a written constitution, though. That strikes me as the kind of thing that would just get in way of progress, be used as spurious justification for the Issue of the Week, and we've functioned perfectly well without one so far.
True it is why the US is armed to the teeth
On the other hand doesn't the Russian constitution prevent extradition? That'd be useful.
Thing is, though, none of the main parties are serious about constitutional reform. Labour have promised it for decades, the Lib Dems did nothing about it whilst in coalition, and Call Me Dave's English votes for English laws will provoke constitutional reform, with disastrous (but welcome for me) consequences that will speed up the end of the UK.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Thing is, though, none of the main parties are serious about constitutional reform. Labour have promised it for decades, the Lib Dems did nothing about it whilst in coalition, and Call Me Dave's English votes for English laws will provoke constitutional reform, with disastrous (but welcome for me) consequences that will speed up the end of the UK.
You keep mentioning it, but is there any evidence behind your prophecies of the End Times breakup of the UK?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Thing is, though, none of the main parties are serious about constitutional reform. Labour have promised it for decades, the Lib Dems did nothing about it whilst in coalition, and Call Me Dave's English votes for English laws will provoke constitutional reform, with disastrous (but welcome for me) consequences that will speed up the end of the UK.
You keep mentioning it, but is there any evidence behind your prophecies of the End Times breakup of the UK?
Evidence? Nearly half of the electorate of Scotland voted for breaking away from the UK. The No side won by 5 points. In politics, a 5 point swing is not a huge gulf to bridge.
I'll reminded you that at the start of the referendum campaign, the No Vote was at 70%
I'll also reminded you that Call me Dave wants a two tier system for Scottish MPs in Parliament. There is nothing that will speed up the end of the UK quicker than restricting the voting rights for Scottish MPs.
But that's all in the past. Let's discuss May 7th and the interesting outcomes that will spring up.
MrDwhitey wrote: Nick Clegg can go take a running jump into a pit of snakes.
Again
Agreed.
Nick Clegg: I haven't been in government these past five years - it's not my fault.
What a scumbag. I hope he gets a boot up the rear on May 7th!
What really gets me about him is how, this close to election, he is trying to paint himself as some kind of enabler of a coalition, and actually going for that as a result! What that says to me is 'the only reason I'm here is to jump into bed with whoever wins', or in other words an abso!ute statement that whatever ideals he may have, they will go out of the window if there's a whiff of power in air.
Back to tonight's debate, I think it was, as I expected, somewhat pointless. I don't intend to marginalise any part of the UK, but I don't see the point in putting questions on the national economy or health service to the party leaders that, for better or worse, aren't going to have any say in it come whatever government we end up with. Yes, the LDs, UKIP, the Greens, Plaid Cyrmu and the SNP might end up in a coalition (though honestly I doubt it for most of them), the'Big Issues' being debated are going to be decided on by either Cameron or Milliband. With that in mind, 5 of the 7 Parties were there only to spout rhetoric they can never act on (or be judged on) and take up time in which the two people that will decide how the country is run should be debating each other.
That's why I think Cameron is an absolute coward for refusing to face Milliband 1 on 1, which really I think he has a duty to do. If he wants people to vote his way, then he should be standing face to face with the opposition and winning those votes, not just expecting them. No smokescreens, no other speakers to take bullets for him, Cameron should have the balls to face Miliband head to head. If he doesn't have enough faith in his policies to stand up and argue them with their primary detractor, why should any of us have that faith in him or his policies?
I just find it highly amusing that there's all this worry over an election pact between the SNP and Labour but nothing said at all about the pact between the DUP and the Tories, especially considering the history of collusion there. And considering the DUP will likely return more seats than UKIP, the Greens and Plaid Cymru together.
It's all a bit suss. If people are so worried about the SNP, why aren't they worried about the troglodytes over the water?
I suppose people in the North are used to being ignored by the establishment though. And it probably suits the DUP.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Thing is, though, none of the main parties are serious about constitutional reform. Labour have promised it for decades, the Lib Dems did nothing about it whilst in coalition, and Call Me Dave's English votes for English laws will provoke constitutional reform, with disastrous (but welcome for me) consequences that will speed up the end of the UK.
The Liberals did not address the Lords but they did get the referendum on proportional representation which would have been a big change in the constitution. Unfortunately that was screwed up and the issue cannot be raised for a generation now, I think.
Instead we are stuck with the position that politics as a whole is so unpopular that a Labour-SNP coalition is seen as (A) likely, and (B) undesirable by many.
Personally I am fine with the SNP winning seats and forming a coalition. Scotland is part of the Union and Scottish MPs clearly must be able to join a Union ministry.
Da Boss wrote: It's all a bit suss. If people are so worried about the SNP, why aren't they worried about the troglodytes over the water?
The DUP and NI in general are not creating a huge fuss about leaving the union and taking all the toys with them while leaving all the rubbish behind for everyone else to clear up. There is also not the possibility of sweeping political change in NI, with the possibility of large numbers of seats going to the "me first and only" party.
Da Boss wrote: Pretty funny that they didn't invite any of the parties from Northern Ireland to the debate.
I mean is it part of the UK or not?
I don't see the point. NI parties don't stand in Britain and British parties don't stand in NI. There's absolutely no cross over, so getting them to debate each other would be a waste of everybody's time. The only reason anybody from the rest of the UK would pay attention to NI would be for the prospect of Tories forming a confidence and supply deal with the DUP. I'm not saying that's the way it should be, just that that's the current reality.
Prediction for this year:
Tories win the most seats but not enough to have a majority, even with a coalition with the Lib Dems and supply from DUP (almost certain).
Labour form a minority government in coalition with Lib Dems and a confidence and supply deal with SNP (likely, not a certainty though).
Lib Dems lose big in Scotland, lose small in rest of Britain (Clegg's seat is safe). Greens, UKIP and Plaid Cymru get roughly half a dozen seats between them (likely, but not sure, there's a chance Lib Dems could be almost wiped out, and the vote for the fringe parties is not easily predictable).
Tories end up regretting opposing the alternative vote proposal as their votes get sucked away and wasted on UKIP and the UK is held to ransom by Scottish Nationalists (my least likely prediction - Tories never regret or apologize for anything).
Should we end up with a hung parliament, revote in October, Tories win a landslide.
MrDwhitey wrote: Nick Clegg can go take a running jump into a pit of snakes.
Again
Agreed.
Nick Clegg: I haven't been in government these past five years - it's not my fault.
What a scumbag. I hope he gets a boot up the rear on May 7th!
What really gets me about him is how, this close to election, he is trying to paint himself as some kind of enabler of a coalition, and actually going for that as a result! What that says to me is 'the only reason I'm here is to jump into bed with whoever wins', or in other words an abso!ute statement that whatever ideals he may have, they will go out of the window if there's a whiff of power in air.
Back to tonight's debate, I think it was, as I expected, somewhat pointless. I don't intend to marginalise any part of the UK, but I don't see the point in putting questions on the national economy or health service to the party leaders that, for better or worse, aren't going to have any say in it come whatever government we end up with. Yes, the LDs, UKIP, the Greens, Plaid Cyrmu and the SNP might end up in a coalition (though honestly I doubt it for most of them), the'Big Issues' being debated are going to be decided on by either Cameron or Milliband. With that in mind, 5 of the 7 Parties were there only to spout rhetoric they can never act on (or be judged on) and take up time in which the two people that will decide how the country is run should be debating each other.
That's why I think Cameron is an absolute coward for refusing to face Milliband 1 on 1, which really I think he has a duty to do. If he wants people to vote his way, then he should be standing face to face with the opposition and winning those votes, not just expecting them. No smokescreens, no other speakers to take bullets for him, Cameron should have the balls to face Miliband head to head. If he doesn't have enough faith in his policies to stand up and argue them with their primary detractor, why should any of us have that faith in him or his policies?
Sorry, bit of a rant there....
Clegg has shown himself up to be a total weasel an opportunist. The man has no principals. All he cares about is the perks that go with being a government minister. I feel sorry for ordinary Lib Dems who've plugged away for years, but I hope they take a severe beating in May. Serves them right for electing Clegg as leader.
Agree with you regarding Cameron. When push comes to shove, he ducks out. He too scared to come north during the Scottish referendum, and had to be dragged up their by his own party!
Dave doesn't strike me as the kind of man who could stand up to Putin. Then again, there are few who can deal with a former KGB agent
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: Pretty funny that they didn't invite any of the parties from Northern Ireland to the debate.
I mean is it part of the UK or not?
some of those parties have historic links to paramilitaries and terrorist groups. The main parties in the UK will be worried about their image.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Thing is, though, none of the main parties are serious about constitutional reform. Labour have promised it for decades, the Lib Dems did nothing about it whilst in coalition, and Call Me Dave's English votes for English laws will provoke constitutional reform, with disastrous (but welcome for me) consequences that will speed up the end of the UK.
The Liberals did not address the Lords but they did get the referendum on proportional representation which would have been a big change in the constitution. Unfortunately that was screwed up and the issue cannot be raised for a generation now, I think.
Instead we are stuck with the position that politics as a whole is so unpopular that a Labour-SNP coalition is seen as (A) likely, and (B) undesirable by many.
Personally I am fine with the SNP winning seats and forming a coalition. Scotland is part of the Union and Scottish MPs clearly must be able to join a Union ministry.
None of the main parties will reform the lords - they see it as a retirement home.
I agree with you about Scottish MPs, but if there is a Labour/SNP deal, the right wing press will probably go ape, and sadly, we'll see a rise in anti-Scottish sentiment.
Henry: Actually, the Tories and the Greens both stand candidates in Northern Ireland. Labour does not get involved, admirably perhaps, but saying there is no crossover is a bit disingenuous when the DUP will support the Tories in any coalition bid, quietly increasing their number of seats in exchange for favoritism as has gone on for years.
Silver: Good points about the relevance of the SNP, but then why was Plaid Cymru invited and not the NI parties? Also, I can think of one NI party who definitely want to split from the UK.
I reckon you are right about the image issue, but I also have a feeling that most people in the UK tend to forget about Northern Ireland entirely.
One of the nine Britons detained in Turkey for allegedly trying to cross the border into Syria is the son of a Labour councillor, his father has confirmed.
Shakil Ahmed, who represents the Kingsway ward on Rochdale Borough Council, said he wants his son to come home "as soon as possible so I can find out what's going on".
The group of five adults and four children, who are believed to be related, are being returned to the UK after they were stopped in Hatay province yesterday.
Greater Manchester Police (GMP) said officers were trying to establish their reason for travelling to the Syrian border.
Assistant Chief Constable Ian Wiggett said: "What is obviously concerning is why a family were seemingly attempting to take very young and vulnerable children into a warzone; such a volatile and dangerous environment is no place for them whatsoever."
Footage released earlier apparently showed the Britons arriving at a police station in the Southern Hatay province, where they are understood to have been kept overnight.
The group includes two women aged 47 and 22, three men aged 24, 22 and 21, and four children aged one, three, eight and 11, GMP said.
The force said it had uncovered "no evidence whatsoever" of any imminent threat to the Rochdale community or elsewhere in the UK.
Mr Ahmed said in a statement: "I was shocked, worried and extremely upset to hear that my son has been arrested on the Turkey/Syria border. It's a total mystery to me why he's there, as I was under the impression he was on a work placement in Birmingham.
"My son is a good Muslim and his loyalties belong to Britain, so I don't understand what he's doing there. If I thought for a second that he was in danger of being radicalised, I would have reported him to the authorities.
"He's studying a degree in politics and sociology at Manchester University and has a good future ahead of him. I just want to speak to my son and get him home as soon as possible so I can find out what's going on."
Iman Irfan Chishti, of the Rochdale Council of Mosques, said: "We are shocked to hear this has happened in our town.
Rochdale has had its fair share of negative publicity of late, given the grooming issue, and this is the last thing we need."
Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, said: "The news that nine people from Rochdale, including children, have been arrested in Turkey trying to get into Syria is deeply worrying.
"The idea you can take young children into a war zone is despicable and we condemn those adults who have done this."
Simon Danczuk, who is defending the Rochdale seat for Labour in the General Election, said: "I am in the process of trying to find out more information on this case from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, though I would like to thank the authorities for stopping this family entering what is effectively a war zone.
"I'm particularly disturbed that children were involved. I've also been in touch with the father of one of the young men who was there and he is shocked and confused as to why his son would be trying to enter Syria.
"At this stage I don't want to say too much until I receive more information from the police on whether a criminal offence has been committed. But I have a very clear position on anyone trying to get involved with terrorist groups and that is they must feel the full force of the law.
He added that Rochdale "stands united against any terrorist activity".
Mr Wiggett said: "One of our primary concerns is the safety and welfare of the young children and we are working with partners to ensure a full safeguarding strategy is in place upon their return to the UK.
"We are all working together to help identify vulnerable members of our society and intervene and engage them before it is too late.
"I would also like to take the opportunity to remind everyone of their responsibility to help us in our fight against extremism and prevent anyone thinking of travelling to Syria or other war zones from going.
"This is especially difficult for parents or people with close relationships with those people in question but it is these people who are most likely to spot the early signs of radicalisation.
"If anyone has any information about individuals or groups they think are a concern or vulnerable to radicalisation they can call us in complete and utter confidence."
GMP said its officers were working closely with Rochdale Borough Council and faith leaders as part of the Prevent initiative, which aims to divert young Muslims away from terrorism and violent extremism.
The latest Britons to be detained follow three young men who were stopped at the Turkey-Syria border last month. They were tracked down after police were given a tip-off about their alleged plan to enter the country.
A woman was also arrested at the border on a separate occasion last month.
In February, police launched an international manhunt for three schoolgirls who went missing from their east London homes.
Bethnal Green Academy pupils Shamima Begum, Amira Abase and Kadiza Sultana are believed to be inside Syria after flying to Turkey on a well-trodden path to the country.
It is understood they were following another 15-year-old girl who travelled there in December.
A High Court judge has since confiscated the passports of four other pupils at the school after concerns were raised by Tower Hamlets Council.
The Metropolitan Police believe around 600 Britons have travelled to Syria and Iraq since the conflict began, while around half are believed to have returned to the UK.
One of the nine Britons detained in Turkey for allegedly trying to cross the border into Syria is the son of a Labour councillor, his father has confirmed.
Shakil Ahmed, who represents the Kingsway ward on Rochdale Borough Council, said he wants his son to come home "as soon as possible so I can find out what's going on".
The group of five adults and four children, who are believed to be related, are being returned to the UK after they were stopped in Hatay province yesterday.
Greater Manchester Police (GMP) said officers were trying to establish their reason for travelling to the Syrian border.
Assistant Chief Constable Ian Wiggett said: "What is obviously concerning is why a family were seemingly attempting to take very young and vulnerable children into a warzone; such a volatile and dangerous environment is no place for them whatsoever."
Footage released earlier apparently showed the Britons arriving at a police station in the Southern Hatay province, where they are understood to have been kept overnight.
The group includes two women aged 47 and 22, three men aged 24, 22 and 21, and four children aged one, three, eight and 11, GMP said.
The force said it had uncovered "no evidence whatsoever" of any imminent threat to the Rochdale community or elsewhere in the UK.
Mr Ahmed said in a statement: "I was shocked, worried and extremely upset to hear that my son has been arrested on the Turkey/Syria border. It's a total mystery to me why he's there, as I was under the impression he was on a work placement in Birmingham.
"My son is a good Muslim and his loyalties belong to Britain, so I don't understand what he's doing there. If I thought for a second that he was in danger of being radicalised, I would have reported him to the authorities.
"He's studying a degree in politics and sociology at Manchester University and has a good future ahead of him. I just want to speak to my son and get him home as soon as possible so I can find out what's going on."
Iman Irfan Chishti, of the Rochdale Council of Mosques, said: "We are shocked to hear this has happened in our town.
Rochdale has had its fair share of negative publicity of late, given the grooming issue, and this is the last thing we need."
Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, said: "The news that nine people from Rochdale, including children, have been arrested in Turkey trying to get into Syria is deeply worrying.
"The idea you can take young children into a war zone is despicable and we condemn those adults who have done this."
Simon Danczuk, who is defending the Rochdale seat for Labour in the General Election, said: "I am in the process of trying to find out more information on this case from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, though I would like to thank the authorities for stopping this family entering what is effectively a war zone.
"I'm particularly disturbed that children were involved. I've also been in touch with the father of one of the young men who was there and he is shocked and confused as to why his son would be trying to enter Syria.
"At this stage I don't want to say too much until I receive more information from the police on whether a criminal offence has been committed. But I have a very clear position on anyone trying to get involved with terrorist groups and that is they must feel the full force of the law.
He added that Rochdale "stands united against any terrorist activity".
Mr Wiggett said: "One of our primary concerns is the safety and welfare of the young children and we are working with partners to ensure a full safeguarding strategy is in place upon their return to the UK.
"We are all working together to help identify vulnerable members of our society and intervene and engage them before it is too late.
"I would also like to take the opportunity to remind everyone of their responsibility to help us in our fight against extremism and prevent anyone thinking of travelling to Syria or other war zones from going.
"This is especially difficult for parents or people with close relationships with those people in question but it is these people who are most likely to spot the early signs of radicalisation.
"If anyone has any information about individuals or groups they think are a concern or vulnerable to radicalisation they can call us in complete and utter confidence."
GMP said its officers were working closely with Rochdale Borough Council and faith leaders as part of the Prevent initiative, which aims to divert young Muslims away from terrorism and violent extremism.
The latest Britons to be detained follow three young men who were stopped at the Turkey-Syria border last month. They were tracked down after police were given a tip-off about their alleged plan to enter the country.
A woman was also arrested at the border on a separate occasion last month.
In February, police launched an international manhunt for three schoolgirls who went missing from their east London homes.
Bethnal Green Academy pupils Shamima Begum, Amira Abase and Kadiza Sultana are believed to be inside Syria after flying to Turkey on a well-trodden path to the country.
It is understood they were following another 15-year-old girl who travelled there in December.
A High Court judge has since confiscated the passports of four other pupils at the school after concerns were raised by Tower Hamlets Council.
The Metropolitan Police believe around 600 Britons have travelled to Syria and Iraq since the conflict began, while around half are believed to have returned to the UK.
I'm no fan of Farage and his mob, but if that had been a UKIP councillor, the press would have been all over it like a bad rash. Double standards in the media.
And four days on, the fallout is still hanging about. Alistair Carmichael, Secretary of state for Scotland (Portsmouth) has reacted to the leak by shrugging his shoulders and saying these things happen.
Better ministers have resigned for less than that, but the guy has no honour.
Possibly a mistake bringing out Blair. So far, Milliband has done a good job of admitting 'yeah, the last Labour government made some big mistakes, but we want to move forward and fix them'. Perhaps having the figurehead of said previous government support you while making comments such as the above undermines that somewhat... Deserved or not, Blair does have something of a bad reputation for a range things.
That said, I doubt it'll have that big an impact; at this point, I'd imagine most have made up their minds in terms of leaning if not Party, and while on the Right there is actually a choice (in places) there's no real alternative to Labour on the Left. Maybe the SNP in Scotland, but outside of that, Left pretty much equals Labour.
Paradigm wrote: Possibly a mistake bringing out Blair. So far, Milliband has done a good job of admitting 'yeah, the last Labour government made some big mistakes, but we want to move forward and fix them'. Perhaps having the figurehead of said previous government support you while making comments such as the above undermines that somewhat... Deserved or not, Blair does have something of a bad reputation for a range things.
That said, I doubt it'll have that big an impact; at this point, I'd imagine most have made up their minds in terms of leaning if not Party, and while on the Right there is actually a choice (in places) there's no real alternative to Labour on the Left. Maybe the SNP in Scotland, but outside of that, Left pretty much equals Labour.
I don't know, they've got Plaid Cymru in Wales and the Green party in a few places. While it might not have much of an impact overall, it could easily cost them a couple of seats here and there; Tony Blair is mostly remembered for his involvement in the Iraq war.
I think that Blair saying that nobody should be given a say on anything because people might disagree with them is generally symptomatic of Labour's approach to government. It reeks of the 'We know what's best for you' approach that left wing governments often fall into, and highlights the fact that they don't seem to realise that they're not there to do what they think is best for the country. They're there to do what the majority of the public wants done. If most of Britain decides tomorrow we want to withdraw from NATO, scrap the NHS, and declare war on Tajikistan, that's what the government should be doing, however crazy it might seem.
But then again, perhaps I'm simply naive. All hail our upper middle class/lower upper class political overlords?
Ketara wrote: I think that Blair saying that nobody should be given a say on anything because people might disagree with them is generally symptomatic of Labour's approach to government. It reeks of the 'We know what's best for you' approach that left wing governments often fall into, and highlights the fact that they don't seem to realise that they're not there to do what they think is best for the country. They're there to do what the majority of the public wants done. If most of Britain decides tomorrow we want to withdraw from NATO, scrap the NHS, and declare war on Tajikistan, that's what the government should be doing, however crazy it might seem.
But then again, perhaps I'm simply naive. All hail our upper middle class/lower upper class political overlords?
I agree - democracy always seems to be a major pain for Westminster when it doesn't suit the main parties.
On another note, though, Ketara, be honest. You and I both voted for Tony Blair, and we're regretting every minute of it until the day we day.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Paradigm wrote: Possibly a mistake bringing out Blair. So far, Milliband has done a good job of admitting 'yeah, the last Labour government made some big mistakes, but we want to move forward and fix them'. Perhaps having the figurehead of said previous government support you while making comments such as the above undermines that somewhat... Deserved or not, Blair does have something of a bad reputation for a range things.
That said, I doubt it'll have that big an impact; at this point, I'd imagine most have made up their minds in terms of leaning if not Party, and while on the Right there is actually a choice (in places) there's no real alternative to Labour on the Left. Maybe the SNP in Scotland, but outside of that, Left pretty much equals Labour.
I don't think it'll make much of a difference. Latest poll suggests Labour are heading for a wipeout in Scotland, and most people seem to agree that Ed isn't PM material, regardless if Sturgeon said it or not.
Paradigm wrote: Possibly a mistake bringing out Blair. So far, Milliband has done a good job of admitting 'yeah, the last Labour government made some big mistakes, but we want to move forward and fix them'. Perhaps having the figurehead of said previous government support you while making comments such as the above undermines that somewhat... Deserved or not, Blair does have something of a bad reputation for a range things.
That said, I doubt it'll have that big an impact; at this point, I'd imagine most have made up their minds in terms of leaning if not Party, and while on the Right there is actually a choice (in places) there's no real alternative to Labour on the Left. Maybe the SNP in Scotland, but outside of that, Left pretty much equals Labour.
I don't know, they've got Plaid Cymru in Wales and the Green party in a few places. While it might not have much of an impact overall, it could easily cost them a couple of seats here and there; Tony Blair is mostly remembered for his involvement in the Iraq war.
I agree - democracy always seems to be a major pain for Westminster when it doesn't suit the main parties.
On another note, though, Ketara, be honest. You and I both voted for Tony Blair, and we're regretting every minute of it until the day we day.
Fortunately, he was elected before I was old enough to vote. So I actually get to blame you for it.
I voted for Cameron last time around, and I'll be voting for *groans* Cameron again this time around.
Next time, I'll pick somebody else. I don't want the Tories to have three terms.
I'm ashamed of what I did, but it just made sense at the time, like buying a coldplay album or a sting solo album, or painting the living room walls lime green
The latest 'Non-Dom' balls up just makes me think WTF! Can't any of them sort themselves out when it comes to policies?
When I vote I will put my cross against my usual party candidate, not because I really believe in them, just that there is nothing else. The two big parties are so up themselves it's unbelievable. The Lib Dems are on a hiding to nothing and all the others have no real chance. In fairness the SNP might be in a position to have a say with regards to a coalition.
None of them seem to have any back bone and none of them are capable of telling the truth, certainly not when it comes to 'where is the funding coming from'. I look at them and think, "Really? This is the best you can come up with?" Here's an idea, try actually releasing a manifesto that you believe in, that explains in b&w how you intend to achieve it and stand by it, come what may.
I still have an issue with the lot of them with regard to the expense's scandal. This came out due to a reporter, not a MP whistleblower. If nothing had been reported, nothing would of changed. Wringing your hands and saying that you personally didn't agree with the system and didn't make claims isn't good enough. It should of been the MP's themselves that brought this out in to the open, especially new ones. They should of seen what was happening and had the balls to stand up and denounce it.
So for me it's a real struggle to actually care about any of them.
Wolfstan wrote: The latest 'Non-Dom' balls up just makes me think WTF! Can't any of them sort themselves out when it comes to policies?
When I vote I will put my cross against my usual party candidate, not because I really believe in them, just that there is nothing else. The two big parties are so up themselves it's unbelievable. The Lib Dems are on a hiding to nothing and all the others have no real chance. In fairness the SNP might be in a position to have a say with regards to a coalition.
None of them seem to have any back bone and none of them are capable of telling the truth, certainly not when it comes to 'where is the funding coming from'. I look at them and think, "Really? This is the best you can come up with?" Here's an idea, try actually releasing a manifesto that you believe in, that explains in b&w how you intend to achieve it and stand by it, come what may.
I still have an issue with the lot of them with regard to the expense's scandal. This came out due to a reporter, not a MP whistleblower. If nothing had been reported, nothing would of changed. Wringing your hands and saying that you personally didn't agree with the system and didn't make claims isn't good enough. It should of been the MP's themselves that brought this out in to the open, especially new ones. They should of seen what was happening and had the balls to stand up and denounce it.
So for me it's a real struggle to actually care about any of them.
I agree, I think one of the reasons most people don't vote is because nothing is clear at all. I was saying before, there's no point listening directly to the MPs. You have to go through a third party who can hopefully explain what that really meant.
I don't have children, I'm employed with an average paying job. I'd like to be better off but I'm ok with things as they are. I feel voting the Conservatives for all they are, cant ruin that with their next 5 year term. The other parties I feel, do run the risk.
Wolfstan wrote: The latest 'Non-Dom' balls up just makes me think WTF! Can't any of them sort themselves out when it comes to policies?
When I vote I will put my cross against my usual party candidate, not because I really believe in them, just that there is nothing else. The two big parties are so up themselves it's unbelievable. The Lib Dems are on a hiding to nothing and all the others have no real chance. In fairness the SNP might be in a position to have a say with regards to a coalition.
None of them seem to have any back bone and none of them are capable of telling the truth, certainly not when it comes to 'where is the funding coming from'. I look at them and think, "Really? This is the best you can come up with?" Here's an idea, try actually releasing a manifesto that you believe in, that explains in b&w how you intend to achieve it and stand by it, come what may.
I still have an issue with the lot of them with regard to the expense's scandal. This came out due to a reporter, not a MP whistleblower. If nothing had been reported, nothing would of changed. Wringing your hands and saying that you personally didn't agree with the system and didn't make claims isn't good enough. It should of been the MP's themselves that brought this out in to the open, especially new ones. They should of seen what was happening and had the balls to stand up and denounce it.
So for me it's a real struggle to actually care about any of them.
Fair points, but none of that matters. We've still got 4 weeks to go, and I'm losing the will to live. If their plan was to bore the electorate to death, then it's succeeding.
I thought 2010 was bad, but this has got to be the most dull and insipid general election campaign I've ever seen
That's the thing isn't it? It's already making you wander what's the point?
Do you think it's the coalition years that have done that? It seems to me that none of them stand out. There isn't a charismatic leader amongst the lot of them. Nothing to inspire you whatsoever
Wolfstan wrote: That's the thing isn't it? It's already making you wander what's the point?
Do you think it's the coalition years that have done that? It seems to me that none of them stand out. There isn't a charismatic leader amongst the lot of them. Nothing to inspire you whatsoever
Do they need to be charismatic? I just want them to do their jobs and keep the wheels turning.
Wolfstan wrote: That's the thing isn't it? It's already making you wander what's the point?
Do you think it's the coalition years that have done that? It seems to me that none of them stand out. There isn't a charismatic leader amongst the lot of them. Nothing to inspire you whatsoever
Do they need to be charismatic? I just want them to do their jobs and keep the wheels turning.
And for that, the Tories seem to be the best bet. The only problem is that whilst they don't seem to screw up the economy much and keep the government ticking over, they don't exactly do much to make everything else (poverty, education, etc) any better. If you're well or alright off, under the Tories, you'll probably continue to be well or alright off. If you're on the bottom? That's where you'll stay, most likely.
Wolfstan wrote: The latest 'Non-Dom' balls up just makes me think WTF! Can't any of them sort themselves out when it comes to policies?
When I vote I will put my cross against my usual party candidate, not because I really believe in them, just that there is nothing else. The two big parties are so up themselves it's unbelievable. The Lib Dems are on a hiding to nothing and all the others have no real chance. In fairness the SNP might be in a position to have a say with regards to a coalition.
None of them seem to have any back bone and none of them are capable of telling the truth, certainly not when it comes to 'where is the funding coming from'. I look at them and think, "Really? This is the best you can come up with?" Here's an idea, try actually releasing a manifesto that you believe in, that explains in b&w how you intend to achieve it and stand by it, come what may.
I still have an issue with the lot of them with regard to the expense's scandal. This came out due to a reporter, not a MP whistleblower. If nothing had been reported, nothing would of changed. Wringing your hands and saying that you personally didn't agree with the system and didn't make claims isn't good enough. It should of been the MP's themselves that brought this out in to the open, especially new ones. They should of seen what was happening and had the balls to stand up and denounce it.
So for me it's a real struggle to actually care about any of them.
I don't think any party has a clear path to solving poverty
The main thing that cases poverty in a country like the UK is not having work. Nearly half of all family's in poverty don't have anyone working.
There's too many people competing for the same job. The labour pool is massive. It not only has access to the high population of the UK but everyone in the EU as well.
If you're an employer and you find that you have a choice of hundreds of people for you job, you can get skills for a job at a cheaper price.
Increasing benefits treats the symptoms of the problem but not the cause. Plus that money is gone once paid. It is not an investment in the UK, there will never be anything regained from it.
Being in the EU means we cannot control the supply of labour from the EU as its a fundamental part of being an EU member.
That simple law is what allows wages to be kept low.
Leaving the EU means risking companies who want access to that labour pool and free market leaving to work in another EU country. The EU in this respect is great for business, bad for workers.
As it looks like we're stuck with the EU I think the best thing to do would be to concentrate on the infrastructure of the country and bring more business here.
Building more roads, more rail lines, making travel around the country more easy so it doesn't matter where you live. IF you're able to get to work faster, it means you can go further and not be as restricted on what jobs you can have
You create more jobs whilst these projects are being built and businesses will open in new areas creating even more jobs.
At the same time the government needs to start building houses, it doesn't work being left in private sector control, they control supply and demand to make money. Going on a massive building drive will again produce more jobs, and will help with the population that will continue to immigrate here for work. Increasing housing supply will lower housing prices and reduce poverty.
Benefit is not meant to be paid to people because there is no work, that is a toxic situation, they are meant for people who can't work.
When the US was going through the depression they borrowed money and started building roads, they build huge lengths of road all over the country, that investment paid for itself thanks to the industry that formed around it. They literally spent their way out of the depression because the did it cleverly.
I think we could do with something like that here.
As long as house building is accompanied by a block on buy to let - too many houses have a for sale sign one day and a to let sign the next by people and companies who are pricing out first time buyers and people wanting to buy to live in.
However, house building must be government led - developers want to keep the market value of land and houses high by restricting rate of development - they dont want to build more houses faster as that will lower the price they can get at retail.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Fair points from everybody above my message, but we're all forgetting one thing: vision.
Where is the party with a big vision for Britain in the 21st century?
Every party seems to be acting like a bank manager. A tax cut here, a pension shake up there.
It's dull, uninspiring stuff. You look at 1945 and the welfare state, that was probably the last time Britain had a vision for a better society.
I fear for this island's future, I fear we have nothing to look forward too but a slow decline as Brazil, China, India, USA, et al, surge ahead of us.
There's a very identifiable trend in Modern British history towards what's dubbed as 'declinism'. You have all these books which chart the slow decay of British industry and waning influence from the 1860's onwards, which point to declining share of world trade and banking, comfortable industries failing to innovate and adapt and falling behind high tech foreign competition, ever shrinking military budgets outside of the wars, and so forth. It paints a very sad picture of Britain.
Except of course, it's mostly all rubbish.
Recent more detailed historiographical study has shown that whilst British share of world trade might have declined pre-1914, for example, the total amount exported still increased astronomically. The great recession of the 1890's actually wasn't a recession, just a smaller growth rate than the previous decade. Some of the biggest British industries, like iron, decayed, but other newer ones, like pharmaceuticals, subsequently improved astronomically. British military budgets usually shrink historically, when not faced with an imminent threat/war.
Our main problem was that our economy was based upon industrial, medium-tech production by the 1960's and 1970's, and with WW2 well out of the way, we faced increasing competition from the likes of a resurgent Germany and Japan. Our Unions crippled us, competitively speaking, and we had to go cap in hand to the IMF. That was as a direct result of a 'vision for a better society', where the state was forced to subsidise unproductive industries, national service had only just been disbanded (leading a widespread cultural contempt for the Army), and the country barely functioned. Keynesian economics had become increasingly irrelevant/outdated in a globalised economy, and trying to integrate them with socialist economic principles just lead to financial ruin.
I'm not a big fan of Thatcher or her methods. But economically, she completely threw this country into a reverse gear. By refocusing our productive capacities purely on the profit-making and the high-tech, things we had less direct competitors in, breaking the unions, and starting the housing bubble, she essentially put in place the economic prosperity Blair's lot rode the wave of. After that, we've further built on that by focusing on the services and financial sectors.
In other words, we're actually doing alright at the moment. There's no immediate decline in the future. Our economy is doing alright, and we're well placed, both geographically and financially to continue doing so for the time being. India and China cannot cut into the industries our economy is currently focused on in such a way as damages us, and in some ways, we're actually benefiting nicely from the rise of China (being one of the few offshore sites for the Renmibi, for example) We've cut the military down to bare minimum numerically, but that's always been the case in times of peace. As long as the quality is top notch, it's not a concern, and we retain the armaments industries to rearm as/when necessary.
The problem most politicians face, is that our country is actually more or less the most prosperous and equal it has ever been (bar perhaps a few years in the l;ate 90's/early 2000's). And it's extremely hard to convince people that we need a radical new policy/style of government/basis for our economy, when what we're doing more or less works.
So they all either end up arguing about issues of no substance, or reiterating their identical committal to issues of substance, because that's all they have left to do. Our system is not utopia. It's not heaven. But it's a damn sight better than most other systems in the world, taken as a whole, and provides security and shelter reasonably well for the vast majority of us.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Fair points from everybody above my message, but we're all forgetting one thing: vision.
Where is the party with a big vision for Britain in the 21st century?
Every party seems to be acting like a bank manager. A tax cut here, a pension shake up there.
It's dull, uninspiring stuff. You look at 1945 and the welfare state, that was probably the last time Britain had a vision for a better society.
I fear for this island's future, I fear we have nothing to look forward too but a slow decline as Brazil, China, India, USA, et al, surge ahead of us.
There's a very identifiable trend in Modern British history towards what's dubbed as 'declinism'. You have all these books which chart the slow decay of British industry and waning influence from the 1860's onwards, which point to declining share of world trade and banking, comfortable industries failing to innovate and adapt and falling behind high tech foreign competition, ever shrinking military budgets outside of the wars, and so forth. It paints a very sad picture of Britain.
Except of course, it's mostly all rubbish.
Recent more detailed historiographical study has shown that whilst British share of world trade might have declined pre-1914, for example, the total amount exported still increased astronomically. The great recession of the 1890's actually wasn't a recession, just a smaller growth rate than the previous decade. Some of the biggest British industries, like iron, decayed, but other newer ones, like pharmaceuticals, subsequently improved astronomically. British military budgets usually shrink historically, when not faced with an imminent threat/war.
Our main problem was that our economy was based upon industrial, medium-tech production by the 1960's and 1970's, and with WW2 well out of the way, we faced increasing competition from the likes of a resurgent Germany and Japan. Our Unions crippled us, competitively speaking, and we had to go cap in hand to the IMF. That was as a direct result of a 'vision for a better society', where the state was forced to subsidise unproductive industries, national service had only just been disbanded (leading a widespread cultural contempt for the Army), and the country barely functioned. Keynesian economics had become increasingly irrelevant/outdated in a globalised economy, and trying to integrate them with socialist economic principles just lead to financial ruin.
I'm not a big fan of Thatcher or her methods. But economically, she completely threw this country into a reverse gear. By refocusing our productive capacities purely on the profit-making and the high-tech, things we had less direct competitors in, breaking the unions, and starting the housing bubble, she essentially put in place the economic prosperity Blair's lot rode the wave of. After that, we've further built on that by focusing on the services and financial sectors.
In other words, we're actually doing alright at the moment. There's no immediate decline in the future. Our economy is doing alright, and we're well placed, both geographically and financially to continue doing so for the time being. India and China cannot cut into the industries our economy is currently focused on in such a way as damages us, and in some ways, we're actually benefiting nicely from the rise of China (being one of the few offshore sites for the Renmibi, for example) We've cut the military down to bare minimum numerically, but that's always been the case in times of peace. As long as the quality is top notch, it's not a concern, and we retain the armaments industries to rearm as/when necessary.
The problem most politicians face, is that our country is actually more or less the most prosperous and equal it has ever been (bar perhaps a few years in the l;ate 90's/early 2000's). And it's extremely hard to convince people that we need a radical new policy/style of government/basis for our economy, when what we're doing more or less works.
So they all either end up arguing about issues of no substance, or reiterating their identical committal to issues of substance, because that's all they have left to do. Our system is not utopia. It's not heaven. But it's a damn sight better than most other systems in the world, taken as a whole, and provides security and shelter reasonably well for the vast majority of us.
Obviously, I'm going to disagree with Ketara on this one.
Ketara, you overlook two important points:
1) In the 19th century, we had an Empire. Resources and markets were always ours for the taking, and we always had the nuclear option of grabbing a chunk of Africa if we needed a morale boost or expansion for economic growth. Look at the grand vision for a Cairo to Cape Town railway as an example for this.
2) Thatcher may have changed Britain's path (and not for the better in my view) but as a result we have wealth concentrated in London and the South east. Our main industry is finance and because of this we have an endless cycle of boom and bust, property bubbles, and banks needing bailed out every 10 years, at a huge cost to the taxpayer. Our national debt is off the scale, and the deficit gets worse by the year. Debt has doubled under Osborne's 'grand' plan.
Because of the focus being on London and the SE, the North of England and the Midlands are in decline, Scotland is a problem that will not disappear, and constitutional questions are beginning to rear their head again - and nobody has the answer to this. Not Ed, not Dave, and never in a million years, turncoat Clegg!
Again, I ask the question to everybody: who has a vision for Britain's future?
1) In the 19th century, we had an Empire. Resources and markets were always ours for the taking, and we always had the nuclear option of grabbing a chunk of Africa if we needed a morale boost or expansion for economic growth. Look at the grand vision for a Cairo to Cape Town railway as an example for this.
2) Thatcher may have changed Britain's path (and not for the better in my view) but as a result we have wealth concentrated in London and the South east. Our main industry is finance and because of this we have an endless cycle of boom and bust, property bubbles, and banks needing bailed out every 10 years, at a huge cost to the taxpayer. Our national debt is off the scale, and the deficit gets worse by the year. Debt has doubled under Osborne's 'grand' plan.
Because of the focus being on London and the SE, the North of England and the Midlands are in decline, Scotland is a problem that will not disappear, and constitutional questions are beginning to rear their head again - and nobody has the answer to this. Not Ed, not Dave, and never in a million years, turncoat Clegg!
Again, I ask the question to everybody: who has a vision for Britain's future?
I don't think we need our government to have a vision, big sweeping changes are too risky, slow structured change is safer. I'd argue that the wealth concentrated in the south east and London is the amount of people who live there. If you can get people move around more freely it wouldn't be a problem but its stuck in a cycle now. People live in the south because there's well paying jobs, business open because there are workers there.
The UK does rely on its financial industry, at least now the banks are forced to have a buffer of cash to bail themselves out from now on.
That's the thing with politics, boring and steady is generally what is required. Most of us just want to be able to go to work, pay our way and have the infrastructure working ok. It's not rocket science, but isn't very exciting.
For me things haven't been too bad personally. I've seen a drop in my mortgage repayments (and as my mortgage isn't huge, I saw the benefits), the price of goods on the high street dropped and there are many more sales/deals available. Ok I have no control over energy prices but they have been dropping recently and supermarket price wars have helped a lot. I would imagine that there a lot of people in a similar position in this country. So for me political things haven't really had an impact, therefore what Ketara says holds mainly true.
However looking at the bigger picture and outside of my world I have to say there are plenty of issues that need to be looked at and resolved and that for me is the crux of the matter. None of them seem know what they really stand for. I would imagine that Cameron would love to put the EU issue to bed and stay in it, but the trouble is he's frightened of potentially losing power so will faff around the subject. Have some balls man and say what you think and stick with it, no matter what the cost to you is. The others are just as bad, but that one stands out the most in my eyes.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Obviously, I'm going to disagree with Ketara on this one. 1) In the 19th century, we had an Empire. Resources and markets were always ours for the taking, and we always had the nuclear option of grabbing a chunk of Africa if we needed a morale boost or expansion for economic growth. Look at the grand vision for a Cairo to Cape Town railway as an example for this.
The Empire didn't pay for itself, financially speaking. The cost of maintaining the security of such a vast expanse was one of the things that broke it, it wasn't just the two world wars. Having resources, 'there for the taking' is all very well and good, but when you don't have industrial or educational base outside of the homeland to exploit it, it becomes somewhat irrelevant. I can mark lots of goldmines on a map, but if I have no equipment or men to get it, it's not worth much.
In other words, we're actually better off without the bloody thing in the short-mid term. It would have probably worked out for us long term, but even if we still had it today, it would be causing vast problems.
2) Thatcher may have changed Britain's path (and not for the better in my view) but as a result we have wealth concentrated in London and the South east. Our main industry is finance and because of this we have an endless cycle of boom and bust, property bubbles, and banks needing bailed out every 10 years, at a huge cost to the taxpayer. Our national debt is off the scale, and the deficit gets worse by the year. Debt has doubled under Osborne's 'grand' plan.
Firstly, I feel that I should state that economics is no longer like managing a household in today's economy. National debt and deficits are not in themselves inherently issues anymore, something I've only recently come to understand. I know it runs counter to basic intuition, but managing national economics is actually very different to managing personal finances, both in scope and form.
Thatcher took us out of a rut, and gave us some economic breathing space. We're comfortable for the time being, and whilst doubtless there will be crashes in the future, I think we'll more or less be alright. The economy that can give continuous growth and no recession ever has yet to be discovered. When it is, we can possibly think about changing over to it, but I think for now, we're really no worse or better off in our economic position than most.
As things stand with regards to exports, we sell money, oil, nuclear and aerospace expertise, cars, pharmaceuticals, and education. It's a diverse enough and flexible range of things, and assuming we act competitively to keep our advantage, we not going to lose these markets in the short-mid term. You can argue that such a view is ignoring long range planning, but honestly? Planning for long term economics is a fools game. A wonderful exercise on paper, but it'll have changed by next year.
Because of the focus being on London and the SE, the North of England and the Midlands are in decline, Scotland is a problem that will not disappear, and constitutional questions are beginning to rear their head again - and nobody has the answer to this. Not Ed, not Dave, and never in a million years, turncoat Clegg!
Again, I ask the question to everybody: who has a vision for Britain's future?
Perhaps then the sensible thing is to accept that we cannot provide continuous high quality employment evenly spread across the UK, and focus on building one or two key alternative centers alone. That's more or less the current wisdom, hence the focus on Birmingham and Manchester.
I know it sucks, but sometimes you have to work with the art of the possible. You can't have everything. We'd all like a continuously growing economy providing equal job opportunities across the entire UK, but it just isn't going to happen, no matter who you elect, or what policies they enact. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a charlatan.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Obviously, I'm going to disagree with Ketara on this one. 1) In the 19th century, we had an Empire. Resources and markets were always ours for the taking, and we always had the nuclear option of grabbing a chunk of Africa if we needed a morale boost or expansion for economic growth. Look at the grand vision for a Cairo to Cape Town railway as an example for this.
The Empire didn't pay for itself, financially speaking. The cost of maintaining the security of such a vast expanse was one of the things that broke it, it wasn't just the two world wars. Having resources, 'there for the taking' is all very well and good, but when you don't have industrial or educational base outside of the homeland to exploit it, it becomes somewhat irrelevant. I can mark lots of goldmines on a map, but if I have no equipment or men to get it, it's not worth much.
In other words, we're actually better off without the bloody thing in the short-mid term. It would have probably worked out for us long term, but even if we still had it today, it would be causing vast problems.
2) Thatcher may have changed Britain's path (and not for the better in my view) but as a result we have wealth concentrated in London and the South east. Our main industry is finance and because of this we have an endless cycle of boom and bust, property bubbles, and banks needing bailed out every 10 years, at a huge cost to the taxpayer. Our national debt is off the scale, and the deficit gets worse by the year. Debt has doubled under Osborne's 'grand' plan.
Firstly, I feel that I should state that economics is no longer like managing a household in today's economy. National debt and deficits are not in themselves inherently issues anymore, something I've only recently come to understand. I know it runs counter to basic intuition, but managing national economics is actually very different to managing personal finances, both in scope and form.
Thatcher took us out of a rut, and gave us some economic breathing space. We're comfortable for the time being, and whilst doubtless there will be crashes in the future, I think we'll more or less be alright. The economy that can give continuous growth and no recession ever has yet to be discovered. When it is, we can possibly think about changing over to it, but I think for now, we're really no worse or better off in our economic position than most.
As things stand with regards to exports, we sell money, oil, nuclear and aerospace expertise, cars, pharmaceuticals, and education. It's a diverse enough and flexible range of things, and assuming we act competitively to keep our advantage, we not going to lose these markets in the short-mid term. You can argue that such a view is ignoring long range planning, but honestly? Planning for long term economics is a fools game. A wonderful exercise on paper, but it'll have changed by next year.
Because of the focus being on London and the SE, the North of England and the Midlands are in decline, Scotland is a problem that will not disappear, and constitutional questions are beginning to rear their head again - and nobody has the answer to this. Not Ed, not Dave, and never in a million years, turncoat Clegg!
Again, I ask the question to everybody: who has a vision for Britain's future?
Perhaps then the sensible thing is to accept that we cannot provide continuous high quality employment evenly spread across the UK, and focus on building one or two key alternative centers alone. That's more or less the current wisdom, hence the focus on Birmingham and Manchester.
I know it sucks, but sometimes you have to work with the art of the possible. You can't have everything. We'd all like a continuously growing economy providing equal job opportunities across the entire UK, but it just isn't going to happen, no matter who you elect, or what policies they enact. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a charlatan.
I'm disagreeing again
I think you vastly overestimate the cost of running the Empire. During the 1920s, when the British empire was at its zenith, 40 people administered the Empire from the colonial office. 40 people looking after 500 million! And it still ran smoothly.
India is a good example of this low cost. There were never more than 100,000 soldiers/police in the country, but the cost wasn't too high, because Imperial troops were supplanted by forces (usually policemen) from the local maharajas who paid their cost out of their own pocket.
And the best example is the dominions. Although technically part of the Empire, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa et al, would have paid their own security bills and pretty much everything else.
I agree with you that no country will ever escape a deficit in this day and age, but ours seem to happen more often and with more ferocity, due to weak economic and regulatory foundations. Remember that bull about light touch regulation!
Other countries like Norway and Switzerland have their bad times, but they bounce back quicker than us due to stronger financial foundations.
As for the regions, I agree with you that equal opportunities spread across the country is pie in the sky, but it doesn't divert from the black hole effect that London has on the rest of us. The North of England has effectively been abandoned at times!
One final point, we're in a housing bubble s you know, and it will burst as you know. The depressing thing is, though, you can set your watch by when it's going to happen. Again!
1) In the 19th century, we had an Empire. Resources and markets were always ours for the taking, and we always had the nuclear option of grabbing a chunk of Africa if we needed a morale boost or expansion for economic growth. Look at the grand vision for a Cairo to Cape Town railway as an example for this.
2) Thatcher may have changed Britain's path (and not for the better in my view) but as a result we have wealth concentrated in London and the South east. Our main industry is finance and because of this we have an endless cycle of boom and bust, property bubbles, and banks needing bailed out every 10 years, at a huge cost to the taxpayer. Our national debt is off the scale, and the deficit gets worse by the year. Debt has doubled under Osborne's 'grand' plan.
Because of the focus being on London and the SE, the North of England and the Midlands are in decline, Scotland is a problem that will not disappear, and constitutional questions are beginning to rear their head again - and nobody has the answer to this. Not Ed, not Dave, and never in a million years, turncoat Clegg!
Again, I ask the question to everybody: who has a vision for Britain's future?
I don't think we need our government to have a vision, big sweeping changes are too risky, slow structured change is safer. I'd argue that the wealth concentrated in the south east and London is the amount of people who live there. If you can get people move around more freely it wouldn't be a problem but its stuck in a cycle now. People live in the south because there's well paying jobs, business open because there are workers there.
The UK does rely on its financial industry, at least now the banks are forced to have a buffer of cash to bail themselves out from now on.
What would you do to change it?
I would have let the banks crash in 2008. Yeah, short term pain, but long term, it would have sent out a message to the banks to pull the finger out and stop wrecking the economy. The billions that were wasted bailing them out could have been spent on helping people recover, rather than prop up these corrupt institutions, in my view.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wolfstan wrote: That's the thing with politics, boring and steady is generally what is required. Most of us just want to be able to go to work, pay our way and have the infrastructure working ok. It's not rocket science, but isn't very exciting.
For me things haven't been too bad personally. I've seen a drop in my mortgage repayments (and as my mortgage isn't huge, I saw the benefits), the price of goods on the high street dropped and there are many more sales/deals available. Ok I have no control over energy prices but they have been dropping recently and supermarket price wars have helped a lot. I would imagine that there a lot of people in a similar position in this country. So for me political things haven't really had an impact, therefore what Ketara says holds mainly true.
However looking at the bigger picture and outside of my world I have to say there are plenty of issues that need to be looked at and resolved and that for me is the crux of the matter. None of them seem know what they really stand for. I would imagine that Cameron would love to put the EU issue to bed and stay in it, but the trouble is he's frightened of potentially losing power so will faff around the subject. Have some balls man and say what you think and stick with it, no matter what the cost to you is. The others are just as bad, but that one stands out the most in my eyes.
I'm pro-EU, but it's high time the British people had their say. We need a referendum. It's absence is bad for democracy, and I hope we get one within the next 2-3 years.
I think you vastly overestimate the cost of running the Empire. During the 1920s, when the British empire was at its zenith, 40 people administered the Empire from the colonial office. 40 people looking after 500 million! And it still ran smoothly.
Yes. Extremely smoothly. If you consider the fact that there was no healthcare, no education system, no democracy, and indeed, most of the apparatus of a modern government.
India is a good example of this low cost. There were never more than 100,000 soldiers/police in the country, but the cost wasn't too high, because Imperial troops were supplanted by forces (usually policemen) from the local maharajas who paid their cost out of their own pocket.
And the best example is the dominions. Although technically part of the Empire, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa et al, would have paid their own security bills and pretty much everything else.
You're looking in the wrong place, and still wrong regardless I'm afraid.
Firstly, the primary defence cost of the Empire was the Royal Navy. When we were desperate for extra Dreadnoughts pre-WW1, and the Canadian Prime Minister (Borden I think?) offered to try and raise the money to pay for a few, the Canadians shot him down. We shouldered that burden alone more or less, although Australia built a few ships (but didn't want them sent abroad). Secondly, we were the ones who contributed the vast majority of the finance to two World Wars, and shouldered the repayments as well. The gold we sent over to America was stashed in Britain, not New Zealand. Now that's the defence of Empire, not Britain. If we weren't busy trying to saddle the world, we'd never have ended up in WW1 most likely.
Finally, you're overlooking the local administrative costs. The systems for local taxation were primitive and inefficient, and barely gathered in enough to pay for their own administration. The maintenance of ports/recoaling stations/fuel stations were only just about met by taxation on trade.
Other countries like Norway and Switzerland have their bad times, but they bounce back quicker than us due to stronger financial foundations.
Hardly comparable. They don't have economies based on the same things as us, they don't subsidise an armaments trade, they have a far smaller population, and they tack taxation a lot higher. You might as well be comparing us to Saudi Arabia for all the economic sense that relevance has.
As for the regions, I agree with you that equal opportunities spread across the country is pie in the sky, but it doesn't divert from the black hole effect that London has on the rest of us. The North of England has effectively been abandoned at times!
But what would you do? The low-mid tech industrial sector is bloated. There are few natural resources to exploit, with the main one, coal, being unprofitable. The financial sector isn't going to move from London.
It's gakky, but sometimes, the world is gakky. If there's nothing there, there's nothing there.
One final point, we're in a housing bubble s you know, and it will burst as you know. The depressing thing is, though, you can set your watch by when it's going to happen. Again!
Sure. Welcome to boom and bust. I repeat, the system of continuous growth has yet to be invented. If you have a solution, I'm sure the political class would like to know it.
I think you vastly overestimate the cost of running the Empire. During the 1920s, when the British empire was at its zenith, 40 people administered the Empire from the colonial office. 40 people looking after 500 million! And it still ran smoothly.
Yes. Extremely smoothly. If you consider the fact that there was no healthcare, no education system, no democracy, and indeed, most of the apparatus of a modern government.
India is a good example of this low cost. There were never more than 100,000 soldiers/police in the country, but the cost wasn't too high, because Imperial troops were supplanted by forces (usually policemen) from the local maharajas who paid their cost out of their own pocket.
And the best example is the dominions. Although technically part of the Empire, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa et al, would have paid their own security bills and pretty much everything else.
You're looking in the wrong place, and still wrong regardless I'm afraid.
Firstly, the primary defence cost of the Empire was the Royal Navy. When we were desperate for extra Dreadnoughts pre-WW1, and the Canadian Prime Minister (Borden I think?) offered to try and raise the money to pay for a few, the Canadians shot him down. We shouldered that burden alone more or less, although Australia built a few ships (but didn't want them sent abroad). Secondly, we were the ones who contributed the vast majority of the finance to two World Wars, and shouldered the repayments as well. The gold we sent over to America was stashed in Britain, not New Zealand. Now that's the defence of Empire, not Britain. If we weren't busy trying to saddle the world, we'd never have ended up in WW1 most likely.
Finally, you're overlooking the local administrative costs. The systems for local taxation were primitive and inefficient, and barely gathered in enough to pay for their own administration. The maintenance of ports/recoaling stations/fuel stations were only just about met by taxation on trade.
Other countries like Norway and Switzerland have their bad times, but they bounce back quicker than us due to stronger financial foundations.
Hardly comparable. They don't have economies based on the same things as us, they don't subsidise an armaments trade, they have a far smaller population, and they tack taxation a lot higher. You might as well be comparing us to Saudi Arabia for all the economic sense that relevance has.
As for the regions, I agree with you that equal opportunities spread across the country is pie in the sky, but it doesn't divert from the black hole effect that London has on the rest of us. The North of England has effectively been abandoned at times!
But what would you do? The low-mid tech industrial sector is bloated. There are few natural resources to exploit, with the main one, coal, being unprofitable. The financial sector isn't going to move from London.
It's gakky, but sometimes, the world is gakky. If there's nothing there, there's nothing there.
One final point, we're in a housing bubble s you know, and it will burst as you know. The depressing thing is, though, you can set your watch by when it's going to happen. Again!
Sure. Welcome to boom and bust. I repeat, the system of continuous growth has yet to be invented. If you have a solution, I'm sure the political class would like to know it.
Federalism would be my solution. More power to the regions and Home Rule for Scotland. That would tilt the economic in-balance away from London, in my view.
There are more people in Yorkshire than Scotland, but Yorkshire doesn't even have a fraction of the powers Scotland has.
Ketara wrote: I think that Blair saying that nobody should be given a say on anything because people might disagree with them is generally symptomatic of Labour's approach to government. It reeks of the 'We know what's best for you' approach that left wing governments often fall into, and highlights the fact that they don't seem to realise that they're not there to do what they think is best for the country. They're there to do what the majority of the public wants done. If most of Britain decides tomorrow we want to withdraw from NATO, scrap the NHS, and declare war on Tajikistan, that's what the government should be doing, however crazy it might seem.
But then again, perhaps I'm simply naive. All hail our upper middle class/lower upper class political overlords?
I agree - democracy always seems to be a major pain for Westminster when it doesn't suit the main parties.
On another note, though, Ketara, be honest. You and I both voted for Tony Blair, and we're regretting every minute of it until the day we day.
...
...
So did I but it is difficult to remember now the depth of revulsion for the Tory party that existed by the early to mid 90s, and the marvellous image Blair presented of change and hope.
Ketara wrote: I think that Blair saying that nobody should be given a say on anything because people might disagree with them is generally symptomatic of Labour's approach to government. It reeks of the 'We know what's best for you' approach that left wing governments often fall into, and highlights the fact that they don't seem to realise that they're not there to do what they think is best for the country. They're there to do what the majority of the public wants done. If most of Britain decides tomorrow we want to withdraw from NATO, scrap the NHS, and declare war on Tajikistan, that's what the government should be doing, however crazy it might seem.
But then again, perhaps I'm simply naive. All hail our upper middle class/lower upper class political overlords?
I agree - democracy always seems to be a major pain for Westminster when it doesn't suit the main parties.
On another note, though, Ketara, be honest. You and I both voted for Tony Blair, and we're regretting every minute of it until the day we day.
...
...
That's true. Back then, even Tories didn't like the Tory party.
I think the main reason people hate Blair (leaving aside Iraq) is because they pinned a lot of hope on him, and he failed to deliver.
So did I but it is difficult to remember now the depth of revulsion for the Tory party that existed by the early to mid 90s, and the marvellous image Blair presented of change and hope.
You are right. It was Thatcher's decision to allow council tenants to buy their houses at discount prices while also preventing councils from building more stock that helped lead us into the current situation of unaffordable house prices.
However, the policy will be very popular with inhabitants of housing association properties as they will now be able to cash in on the price boom. In other words it is a pretty obvious bribe.
Just out of interest, has anybody seen any of these 'hard working' people that the politicians keep going on about? They are obviously out there otherwise the buggers wouldn't keep on going on and on and on and on... about them!
Am I less of a person for just going to work and doing my job or should I put a bit more 'vim' in to my efforts? If I don't will the tabloids start slating me and my ilk within their pages? Oh the shame!!!
Kilkrazy wrote: You are right. It was Thatcher's decision to allow council tenants to buy their houses at discount prices while also preventing councils from building more stock that helped lead us into the current situation of unaffordable house prices.
However, the policy will be very popular with inhabitants of housing association properties as they will now be able to cash in on the price boom. In other words it is a pretty obvious bribe.
Agreed. This is the most blatant political bribe I've seen in years. Very short-sighted, and will cause a stack of problems in the not too distant future.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
obsidianaura wrote: They have at least required council to sell 5% of their houses and build more on a one for one basis which is a start.
Also the money the housing associations get will go back into building more I suppose.
The problem with policies like these though is they forget Barnett consequentials. If they provide more money for houses in England, then proportionally, more money has to be spent in Scotland as well.
An example is when the other day the Tories said they'd spend £8 billion more on the NHS in England, but with Barnett, that figure would rise to £10 billion as NI. Wales, and Scotland would also get more.
I can't trust any figures from the Tories.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wolfstan wrote: Just out of interest, has anybody seen any of these 'hard working' people that the politicians keep going on about? They are obviously out there otherwise the buggers wouldn't keep on going on and on and on and on... about them!
Am I less of a person for just going to work and doing my job or should I put a bit more 'vim' in to my efforts? If I don't will the tabloids start slating me and my ilk within their pages? Oh the shame!!!
It's just the usual political guff. Remember Mondeo man?
Agreed. This is the most blatant political bribe I've seen in years. Very short-sighted, and will cause a stack of problems in the not too distant future.
If the government committed to a proper house building project, it wouldn't be an issue. Therein, I think, lies the real problem.....
obsidianaura wrote: They have at least required council to sell 5% of their houses and build more on a one for one basis which is a start.
Also the money the housing associations get will go back into building more I suppose.
At the moment, the Housing associations have turned into quango style profit chasing companies that twist as many rules as possible to build as few social houses as possible, and as many high value luxury flats as possible.
If the government committed to a proper house building project, it wouldn't be an issue. Therein, I think, lies the real problem.....
I've always thought this. It is the main reason why houses are so expensive. Make more, lower the cost of housing. Solve one of the biggest problems for the non boomer generations.
I do really hate new builds though, am I the only one?
You see these new estates and they're all toy towns, all looking the same with their red brickwork and strange white powder on the walls (what is that about?!). There's no parking so the streets are lined with cars outside working hours. Why don't planners realise you need more than one space per household. Having one car parking space for a professional couple doesn't work. People need to drive to work! Oh and heaven forbid you have any friends or relatives that might want to visit!
Sorry to moan, but it is so irritating. It's all very well wanting to encourage people to use public transport but it's good enough for most people.
I've always thought this. It is the main reason why houses are so expensive. Make more, lower the cost of housing. Solve one of the biggest problems for the non boomer generations.
The problem is that it bites against two central Tory tenets. Firstly, it's big government. Taking the responsibility for mass acquisition and development of land requires considerable funding and organisation for minimal return. Secondly, it would affect the housing market in the short term, by dropping house price values, which immediately hits their core voter base (landowners) in the teeth.
There's a reason less houses have been built under the current administration than practically any other administration in living memory.
Agreed. This is the most blatant political bribe I've seen in years. Very short-sighted, and will cause a stack of problems in the not too distant future.
If the government committed to a proper house building project, it wouldn't be an issue. Therein, I think, lies the real problem.....
obsidianaura wrote: They have at least required council to sell 5% of their houses and build more on a one for one basis which is a start.
Also the money the housing associations get will go back into building more I suppose.
At the moment, the Housing associations have turned into quango style profit chasing companies that twist as many rules as possible to build as few social houses as possible, and as many high value luxury flats as possible.
Thing is, though, Ketara, during the 1980s when the Conservatives last championed right to buy, they also promised to build more affordable homes. That came to nothing, and 30 years on, we're struggling with a chronic lack of affordable housing and a whole heap of problems.
Now they're promising right to buy again with the usual bull about building more affordable homes. I'll believe it when I see it.
The problem is that it bites against two central Tory tenets. Firstly, it's big government. Taking the responsibility for mass acquisition and development of land requires considerable funding and organisation for minimal return. Secondly, it would affect the housing market in the short term, by dropping house price values, which immediately hits their core voter base (landowners) in the teeth.
There's a reason less houses have been built under the current administration than practically any other administration in living memory.
Probably doesn't help that quite a few of the Tories are rich and have money in land. Dropping land values wouldn't suit them .
Their loaning money for deposits for first time buyers scheme I don't think is a good idea, it only pushes the price of houses up. A house is only as expensive as people can afford. Their house saving ISA, the one where you save for 4 years and then buy will probably push house prices up too, although probably in 2 years the price might fall as the demand is lower. Could probably make yourself some profit if you had any spare cash
As for increasing the amount of houses built they could do a few things that might help, maybe relax planning permission so its not as difficult to build, within reason. They should also require the property to be built within x amount of time or it expires. There's lots of property with planning permission ready to be built on but being sat on to make sure they get the largest profits.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Thing is, though, Ketara, during the 1980s when the Conservatives last championed right to buy, they also promised to build more affordable homes. That came to nothing, and 30 years on, we're struggling with a chronic lack of affordable housing and a whole heap of problems.
Now they're promising right to buy again with the usual bull about building more affordable homes. I'll believe it when I see it.
obsidianaura wrote:
Probably doesn't help that quite a few of the Tories are rich and have money in land. Dropping land values wouldn't suit them .
Their granting extra money to buy houses scheme I don't think is a good idea, it only pushes the price of houses up. A house is only as expensive as people can afford.
Thing is, right to buy actually makes economic sense within a limited context. Unless you want the majority of the country either dependent upon state housing or forced into untenable private rent costs, right to buy is an excellent tool for allowing previously impoverished people to effectively acquire a house at cost, often in expensive areas, as well as encouraging them to invest in something of tangible value. It's a good tool for social mobility generally, which is why so many previously working class families have now effectively migrated to the middle classes.
The problem comes when the balance is not effectively renewed, and sufficient levels of new social housing created to replace that which is sold. Go too far one way, and there's too much housing, which hits savers, landlords, and the economy generally. Go too far the other, and you eventually end up in a classic Marxist version of capitalist society, where the vast majority of the income of the average working man gets swallowed up into paying the vastly inflated rents of their minority capitalist/corporate owners.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Thing is, though, Ketara, during the 1980s when the Conservatives last championed right to buy, they also promised to build more affordable homes. That came to nothing, and 30 years on, we're struggling with a chronic lack of affordable housing and a whole heap of problems.
Now they're promising right to buy again with the usual bull about building more affordable homes. I'll believe it when I see it.
obsidianaura wrote:
Probably doesn't help that quite a few of the Tories are rich and have money in land. Dropping land values wouldn't suit them .
Their granting extra money to buy houses scheme I don't think is a good idea, it only pushes the price of houses up. A house is only as expensive as people can afford.
Thing is, right to buy actually makes economic sense within a limited context. Unless you want the majority of the country either dependent upon state housing or forced into untenable private rent costs, right to buy is an excellent tool for allowing previously impoverished people to effectively acquire a house at cost, often in expensive areas, as well as encouraging them to invest in something of tangible value. It's a good tool for social mobility generally, which is why so many previously working class families have now effectively migrated to the middle classes.
The problem comes when the balance is not effectively renewed, and sufficient levels of new social housing created to replace that which is sold. Go too far one way, and there's too much housing, which hits savers, landlords, and the economy generally. Go too far the other, and you eventually end up in a classic Marxist version of capitalist society, where the vast majority of the income of the average working man gets swallowed up into paying the vastly inflated rents of their minority capitalist/corporate owners.
I don't disagree on the right to buy, I think that's good so long as it replenishes the housing stock afterwards.
I mean the first time buyers deposit loan. Where they will loan 35% of your deposit.
Housing associations set to be crippled by Conservative plans to extend the right-to-buy policy will launch a legal challenge against the move, they have said.
The Tories announced today that they will force housing associations to sell off homes at a fraction of their value despite warnings that the policy could cause the not-for-profits to go bankrupt.
Tony Stacey, chair of a group of 100 housing associations and chief executive of South Yorkshire Housing Association, told trade publication Inside Housing when the policy was first mooted in March that he would “definitely” launch a challenge.
“I would definitely challenge it legally. This is so fundamentally critical to us. It would shoot up to the top of our risk map if it was confirmed. We are duty bound morally to fight it in any way we possibly can,” the Placeshapers chair told the publication.
Other housing association chief executives are quoted as saying they “would be surprised” if a legal challenge did not happen because the policy would risk the viability of the entire social housing sector.
Because housing associations are private not-for-profit businesses, forcing the sale of homes at below market value could potentially breach Article 1, Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which gives everyone the “right to the peaceful enjoyment of one’s possessions”.
Industry sources also say charity law would have to be changed to accommodate the move because charities, including many housing associations, are generally prohibited from selling off their assets at below market value.
Today’s move by the Conservatives was criticised by both the Chartered Institute of Housing and the National Housing Federation, which represent housing associations and the industry at large.
Ruth Davison, the Federation’s policy director, said: “We fully support the aspiration of homeownership but extending right-to-buy to housing associations is the wrong solution to our housing crisis.
“Following 40 years of successive governments’ failure to build the homes the country needs, soaring rents and house prices and the biggest baby boom since the 1950s, ensuring that there enough homes today and tomorrow must be our nation’s top priority.”
A spokesperson for the Federation said they would need to see the detail of the policy before they could say whether they would support a legal challenge.
CIH deputy chief executive Gavin Smart said he feared “the figures simply won’t stack up” for the extension.
“Right-to-buy has already had a huge impact on the supply of genuinely affordable homes, which is being cut at a time when more and more people are in need. The next government should be reviewing the way the policy currently works, not extending it,” he argued.
David Cameron officially announced the policy in a speech today, arguing that it could benefit 1.3 million families and turn Britain into a “property-owning democracy”.
“We are the party of working people, offering you security at every stage of your life,” he said.
John Healey, a former Labour housing minister, described the policy as a “cheap Thatcher tribute act” and said it would worsen Britain’s housing shortage.
Housing associations set to be crippled by Conservative plans to extend the right-to-buy policy will launch a legal challenge against the move, they have said.
The Tories announced today that they will force housing associations to sell off homes at a fraction of their value despite warnings that the policy could cause the not-for-profits to go bankrupt.
Tony Stacey, chair of a group of 100 housing associations and chief executive of South Yorkshire Housing Association, told trade publication Inside Housing when the policy was first mooted in March that he would “definitely” launch a challenge.
“I would definitely challenge it legally. This is so fundamentally critical to us. It would shoot up to the top of our risk map if it was confirmed. We are duty bound morally to fight it in any way we possibly can,” the Placeshapers chair told the publication.
Other housing association chief executives are quoted as saying they “would be surprised” if a legal challenge did not happen because the policy would risk the viability of the entire social housing sector.
Because housing associations are private not-for-profit businesses, forcing the sale of homes at below market value could potentially breach Article 1, Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which gives everyone the “right to the peaceful enjoyment of one’s possessions”.
Industry sources also say charity law would have to be changed to accommodate the move because charities, including many housing associations, are generally prohibited from selling off their assets at below market value.
Today’s move by the Conservatives was criticised by both the Chartered Institute of Housing and the National Housing Federation, which represent housing associations and the industry at large.
Ruth Davison, the Federation’s policy director, said: “We fully support the aspiration of homeownership but extending right-to-buy to housing associations is the wrong solution to our housing crisis.
“Following 40 years of successive governments’ failure to build the homes the country needs, soaring rents and house prices and the biggest baby boom since the 1950s, ensuring that there enough homes today and tomorrow must be our nation’s top priority.”
A spokesperson for the Federation said they would need to see the detail of the policy before they could say whether they would support a legal challenge.
CIH deputy chief executive Gavin Smart said he feared “the figures simply won’t stack up” for the extension.
“Right-to-buy has already had a huge impact on the supply of genuinely affordable homes, which is being cut at a time when more and more people are in need. The next government should be reviewing the way the policy currently works, not extending it,” he argued.
David Cameron officially announced the policy in a speech today, arguing that it could benefit 1.3 million families and turn Britain into a “property-owning democracy”.
“We are the party of working people, offering you security at every stage of your life,” he said.
John Healey, a former Labour housing minister, described the policy as a “cheap Thatcher tribute act” and said it would worsen Britain’s housing shortage.
It's so obviously a bribe it's laughable.
Totally agree. In my view, it shows how morally bankrupt the Tories are. Whenever they are in office, if it's not nailed down, they'll sell it. The sale of Royal Mail was a complete shambles, and surprise surprise, the biggest beneficiaries were mates of the Tory party. George Osborne's best man made £40 million out of it. It is crony capitalism at its worst.
The buy to let mob will have a field day with this.
I find it difficult to sympathise with the housing associations. Y'know, the companies that treat their social housing tenants like pariahs, and regularly try to squirm around to erect as little social housing as possible.
They might be not for profit, but everyone in them is committed ti stealing the largest slice of the pie possible in terms of salaries. The amounts their chief executives get are staggering.
During the past few decades the amount all chief executives get has become staggering, whether they work in private companies, PLCs or different kinds of charities or the NHS, schools, etc.
You see these new estates and they're all toy towns, all looking the same with their red brickwork and strange white powder on the walls (what is that about?!). There's no parking so the streets are lined with cars outside working hours. Why don't planners realise you need more than one space per household. Having one car parking space for a professional couple doesn't work. People need to drive to work! Oh and heaven forbid you have any friends or relatives that might want to visit!
Sorry to moan, but it is so irritating. It's all very well wanting to encourage people to use public transport but it's good enough for most people.
The white powder on the walls is efflorescence. It is salts leaching out of the bricks. Apparently it can cause problems and should be treated, but most people in these houses don't care about the building they live in. According to my brother (who is a builder) the best way to remove it is a wash of cheap supermarket value coke. Apparently the good stuff does not work, you have to use the really cheap stuff.
Also, I understand that planners do know this, but it is councilors meddling for "green" reasons. They think that if you only build room for one car people will only buy one car... As if people can live like that. They tell you to use public transport, but thats not always possible. Where I live we have just lost our local bus, which was hardly used because it ran 5 times a day, cost £5 to get anywhere and too forever.
Thing is, right to buy actually makes economic sense within a limited context. Unless you want the majority of the country either dependent upon state housing or forced into untenable private rent costs, right to buy is an excellent tool for allowing previously impoverished people to effectively acquire a house at cost, often in expensive areas, as well as encouraging them to invest in something of tangible value. It's a good tool for social mobility generally, which is why so many previously working class families have now effectively migrated to the middle classes.
There is another issue with it. The houses will be sold at a discount, to those who already have a secure place to live at a reasonable rent. People like my friends (I am lucky enough to have been able to buy a small house thanks to a small inheritance that gave me enough boost to our deposit fund) who cannot afford to buy a house due to high house prices and high rent stopping them being able to save the £30k+ needed to buy a house in any reasonable time span, but are too well paid to get social housing. Thanks to the currently horrifically distorted housing market it will lead to a bizarre situation where low and high income people will own houses and those in the middle will be even less secure. It is a bribe to voters who are not traditionally tory voters.
Kilkrazy wrote: During the past few decades the amount all chief executives get has become staggering, whether they work in private companies, PLCs or different kinds of charities or the NHS, schools, etc.
It remains a mystery to me why jail time wasn't handed out to those bankers that wrecked the economy in 2008.
Edit: scratch that. I think we all know why bankers weren't jailed. Westminster is a corrupt racket.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote: I find it difficult to sympathise with the housing associations. Y'know, the companies that treat their social housing tenants like pariahs, and regularly try to squirm around to erect as little social housing as possible.
They might be not for profit, but everyone in them is committed ti stealing the largest slice of the pie possible in terms of salaries. The amounts their chief executives get are staggering.
I agree with most of this, but letting millionaire landlords snap up even more property is not the answer.
A lot of them built their 'empires' on tax payer funded housing benefits. These parasites got rich at our expense.
You see these new estates and they're all toy towns, all looking the same with their red brickwork and strange white powder on the walls (what is that about?!). There's no parking so the streets are lined with cars outside working hours. Why don't planners realise you need more than one space per household. Having one car parking space for a professional couple doesn't work. People need to drive to work! Oh and heaven forbid you have any friends or relatives that might want to visit!
Sorry to moan, but it is so irritating. It's all very well wanting to encourage people to use public transport but it's good enough for most people.
The white powder on the walls is efflorescence. It is salts leaching out of the bricks. Apparently it can cause problems and should be treated, but most people in these houses don't care about the building they live in. According to my brother (who is a builder) the best way to remove it is a wash of cheap supermarket value coke. Apparently the good stuff does not work, you have to use the really cheap stuff.
Also, I understand that planners do know this, but it is councilors meddling for "green" reasons. They think that if you only build room for one car people will only buy one car... As if people can live like that. They tell you to use public transport, but thats not always possible. Where I live we have just lost our local bus, which was hardly used because it ran 5 times a day, cost £5 to get anywhere and too forever.
Thing is, right to buy actually makes economic sense within a limited context. Unless you want the majority of the country either dependent upon state housing or forced into untenable private rent costs, right to buy is an excellent tool for allowing previously impoverished people to effectively acquire a house at cost, often in expensive areas, as well as encouraging them to invest in something of tangible value. It's a good tool for social mobility generally, which is why so many previously working class families have now effectively migrated to the middle classes.
There is another issue with it. The houses will be sold at a discount, to those who already have a secure place to live at a reasonable rent. People like my friends (I am lucky enough to have been able to buy a small house thanks to a small inheritance that gave me enough boost to our deposit fund) who cannot afford to buy a house due to high house prices and high rent stopping them being able to save the £30k+ needed to buy a house in any reasonable time span, but are too well paid to get social housing. Thanks to the currently horrifically distorted housing market it will lead to a bizarre situation where low and high income people will own houses and those in the middle will be even less secure. It is a bribe to voters who are not traditionally tory voters.
Agree with this. Like I've already said, BTL has been a curse on some parts of London, and fuelling an economy on a housing bubble, will end in tears. Again.
To be fair to the Daily Mail(*urghp* yup, I just threw up in my mouth a little), the Sturgeon smear was concocted by Carmichael and Mundell at the Scotland Office in cahoots with the Telegraph, the Mail just uncritically regurgitated it.
Honestly through my favourite "Mail Moment" so far in GE2015 was when they ran two huge front-page stories on Sturgeon on the same day - in the UK edition they branded her "the most dangerous woman in Britain" and insisted she would subjugate the English to a socialist nightmare by putting Labour in power, and in the Scottish edition they went with the aforementioned "Sturgeon secretly wants a Tory government" smear. I mean seriously, there were newsagents down in the Borders where the two editions literally sat on the shelf side by side
Now, as an antidote to having to think about the Daily Heil, enjoy this actual thing that someone just retweeted at me:
How about an increasing tariff for property renters, if you rent 1 property you pay x if you have 2 xx rate 3 xxx and so on. Might free up some houses. ( I haven't really thought this through )
On a corporate tax subject, I was reading that the EU is the reason we don't get tax from some companies.
If a company has residence in the EU it will only be liable for taxes in the country it registered in and not liable to anything else so we have no way of controlling that.
Also we've been denied by the EU being able to negotiate the terms of the EU treaty before the referendum.
I know we probably need the EU but right now if the referendum was moved up to now I'd vote out and damn the consequences.
Kilkrazy wrote: Companies pay tax wherever their head office is registered, it's nothing to do with the EU.
Yes you pay tax where your head office is but not exclusively. Unless its an EU company and you're a EU member
Any corporation duly established in any EU state may legally sell right across the EU. And corporation tax will be payable where the company is registered and not where any sales might take place.
So they set up in Luxemburg and then, tax avoidance.
If we were not a member of the EU we could tax sales, but we're not allowed.
Kilkrazy wrote: Companies pay tax wherever their head office is registered, it's nothing to do with the EU.
Then tax companies based on a proportionate percentage of their global profits. Company generates X revenue and makes Y profit globally, and generates Z revenue in your country. Find what percentage Y is of X, then apply that to Z and tax the resulting figure. You can't avoid or evade it, because "our HQ is in Luxembourg and our fulfillment centre is in Jersey" is irrelevant to determining total revenue, since the people buying the stuff reside here.
Corporations have had it their own way for too long, they want the benefits of a global economy at the same time as they manipulate the old nation-state structures to avoid any of the drawbacks, it's time they paid their due - either all the tax haven bollocks is eradicated with measures like the one outlined above, or governments should go back to placing limits on how, when, and in what quantities private entities can move money across borders, physically or otherwise.
Kilkrazy wrote: Companies pay tax wherever their head office is registered, it's nothing to do with the EU.
Then tax companies based on a proportionate percentage of their global profits. Company generates X revenue and makes Y profit globally, and generates Z revenue in your country. Find what percentage Y is of X, then apply that to Z and tax the resulting figure. You can't avoid or evade it, because "our HQ is in Luxembourg and our fulfillment centre is in Jersey" is irrelevant to determining total revenue, since the people buying the stuff reside here.
Corporations have had it their own way for too long, they want the benefits of a global economy at the same time as they manipulate the old nation-state structures to avoid any of the drawbacks, it's time they paid their due - either all the tax haven bollocks is eradicated with measures like the one outlined above, or governments should go back to placing limits on how, when, and in what quantities private entities can move money across borders, physically or otherwise.
But we can't :( the EU has laws against governments doing that
Apologies for steering the thread away from a tax discussion, but I've just Nick Clegg on the news promising Britain that the Lib-Dems would be a voice of reason if it went back into coalition.
I had to fight the urge to put my foot through the TV screen.
I feel sorry for decent, Lib Dem voters, but I hope they're wiped out in a few weeks time. They deserve nothing less for abandoning their principles five years ago in exchange for a ministerial limo.
And I hope to God that in the early hours of May 8th, we see Clegg doing the walk of shame.
Kilkrazy wrote: Companies pay tax wherever their head office is registered, it's nothing to do with the EU.
Then tax companies based on a proportionate percentage of their global profits. Company generates X revenue and makes Y profit globally, and generates Z revenue in your country. Find what percentage Y is of X, then apply that to Z and tax the resulting figure. You can't avoid or evade it, because "our HQ is in Luxembourg and our fulfillment centre is in Jersey" is irrelevant to determining total revenue, since the people buying the stuff reside here.
Corporations have had it their own way for too long, they want the benefits of a global economy at the same time as they manipulate the old nation-state structures to avoid any of the drawbacks, it's time they paid their due - either all the tax haven bollocks is eradicated with measures like the one outlined above, or governments should go back to placing limits on how, when, and in what quantities private entities can move money across borders, physically or otherwise.
But we can't :( the EU has laws against governments doing that
I'm not convinced of that. I've had a look through the relevant statutes and can't see any direct impediment - obviously IANAL nor am I an expert on EU law so I could be wrong, but if I am I'd appreciate it if someone could actually show me how I'm wrong, since I've seen people claim the EU prevents lots of things that it actually doesn't. The only thing I can find with google-fu is an article from 2012 on out-law.com which makes that claim, but it's extremely questionable. For a start, the claimed legal basis for the opinion given is based on the application of a turnover tax in the sense of a sales tax, not in the sense of a method of calculating corporate tax liability. The "tax expert" being quoted quickly skips past that and brings up an entirely different subject(transfer pricing) and proceeds to argue against that instead, on the basis not even of EU laws but OECD "principles". And there's the small matter that the expert in question works for the law firm which runs the out-law.com website, Pinsent Masons, who are purveyors of "strategic tax advice"(ie finding and lobbying for loopholes to allow blood-sucking corporate scumbags to dodge taxes).
Member states have the right to set the rates for and manage the collection of "direct" taxation very nearly as they see fit. Corporation tax is a direct tax, not an indirect tax like VAT.
I thought the Labour party's election broadcast was shockingly forthright...
Yodhrin wrote: or governments should go back to placing limits on how, when, and in what quantities private entities can move money across borders, physically or otherwise.
Is that even possible with the way our financial systems work?
Remember the stink that Farage stirred up when he "insulted" the audience by calling them left wing?
Spoiler:
EXCLUSIVE: Election debate fix - BBC admits two out of three audience members were lefties THE BBC has confirmed the hand-picked audience for last night’s election debate WAS left-leaning – though Nigel Farage was booed for pointing this out.
Out of all the audience members who had declared an allegiance to a party, only ONE THIRD leaned towards the political right. The Ukip leader was roundly booed when he suggested the make-up of the BBC election debate audience was left wing ‘even by the left-wing standards of the BBC.’ Host David Dimbleby even fired a broadside at Farage claiming the audience had been “carefully chosen” by independent polling organisation ICM to represent the balance between all parties. But, after persistent quizzing by Daily Express journalists, the BBC and ICM finally revealed the make-up of audience members.
ICM used the following audience ratio for those with a party preference:
Conservative 5
Labour 5
Lib Dem 4
Ukip 3
SNP 2
Green 2
Plaid 1.
This meant that just 36% of audience members swung to the right.In addition one fifth of the audience was made up of ‘undecided voters’ from the local area around Westminster.
Nigel Farage blasted the audience and BBC when he was booed for his views on immigration. He said: "There just seems to be a total lack of comprehension on this panel and indeed this audience, which is a remarkable audience even by the left-wing standards of the BBC." Today Mr Farage said: "Sometimes these things go wrong, sometimes you get groups who apply to be on programmes who perhaps aren't as truthful on their applications as they could be. "In this case, the BBC gave the job to a polling company called ICM who are famous for getting everything about Ukip wrong and that I think was the mistake.”
He said it wasn’t the first time a BBC audience had been aggressive towards Ukip. He added: “The night of the by-election that Douglas Carswell won in Clacton with a landslide, there was a Ukip representative - Patrick O'Flynn - on Question Time in Clacton and the audience were deeply hostile to him." He also repeated claims of a bias audience on Sky News saying: “From the off it was so completely obvious that we did not have an audience reflective of public opinion. "Regardless of whether you are a Ukip supporter or not, this [immigration] is something that has a huge response in the public."
A BBC spokesperson said: “All the broadcasters and the political parties agreed that the appropriate way to recruit audiences for debates was to ask a respected independent polling organisation to do the job on our behalf. “That was the case for all the debates in 2010, for the Clegg/Farage debates last year, as well as for both the debates during this campaign – ICM has an established track record of recruiting the audiences for all these debates.”
An ICM spokesman said its recruitment process was “premised on orthodox random location selection techniques.” It said 30 geographical areas were selection within a 20 mile radius of the venue, as well as a small number of SNP and Plaid Cymru supporters from Scotland and Wales. The recruitment approach replicated those used previous debates, the spokesperson added.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Remember the stink that Farage stirred up when he "insulted" the audience by calling them left wing?
Spoiler:
EXCLUSIVE: Election debate fix - BBC admits two out of three audience members were lefties THE BBC has confirmed the hand-picked audience for last night’s election debate WAS left-leaning – though Nigel Farage was booed for pointing this out.
Out of all the audience members who had declared an allegiance to a party, only ONE THIRD leaned towards the political right. The Ukip leader was roundly booed when he suggested the make-up of the BBC election debate audience was left wing ‘even by the left-wing standards of the BBC.’ Host David Dimbleby even fired a broadside at Farage claiming the audience had been “carefully chosen” by independent polling organisation ICM to represent the balance between all parties. But, after persistent quizzing by Daily Express journalists, the BBC and ICM finally revealed the make-up of audience members.
ICM used the following audience ratio for those with a party preference:
Conservative 5
Labour 5
Lib Dem 4
Ukip 3
SNP 2
Green 2
Plaid 1.
This meant that just 36% of audience members swung to the right.In addition one fifth of the audience was made up of ‘undecided voters’ from the local area around Westminster.
Nigel Farage blasted the audience and BBC when he was booed for his views on immigration. He said: "There just seems to be a total lack of comprehension on this panel and indeed this audience, which is a remarkable audience even by the left-wing standards of the BBC." Today Mr Farage said: "Sometimes these things go wrong, sometimes you get groups who apply to be on programmes who perhaps aren't as truthful on their applications as they could be. "In this case, the BBC gave the job to a polling company called ICM who are famous for getting everything about Ukip wrong and that I think was the mistake.”
He said it wasn’t the first time a BBC audience had been aggressive towards Ukip. He added: “The night of the by-election that Douglas Carswell won in Clacton with a landslide, there was a Ukip representative - Patrick O'Flynn - on Question Time in Clacton and the audience were deeply hostile to him." He also repeated claims of a bias audience on Sky News saying: “From the off it was so completely obvious that we did not have an audience reflective of public opinion. "Regardless of whether you are a Ukip supporter or not, this [immigration] is something that has a huge response in the public."
A BBC spokesperson said: “All the broadcasters and the political parties agreed that the appropriate way to recruit audiences for debates was to ask a respected independent polling organisation to do the job on our behalf. “That was the case for all the debates in 2010, for the Clegg/Farage debates last year, as well as for both the debates during this campaign – ICM has an established track record of recruiting the audiences for all these debates.”
An ICM spokesman said its recruitment process was “premised on orthodox random location selection techniques.” It said 30 geographical areas were selection within a 20 mile radius of the venue, as well as a small number of SNP and Plaid Cymru supporters from Scotland and Wales. The recruitment approach replicated those used previous debates, the spokesperson added.
At best, UKIP only get 15% of the vote, so in fairness, they should get 15% of the audience. It's Cameron's fault for not being there. If he'd been there, the audience would have been more right wing to reflect the national balance.
Also, as an uneducated yankee , isn't it that your representatives elect your PM? I can't quite remember.
If you mean whoever has the most MPs gets to be PM, then essentially yes. We are probably looking at some kind of coalition again so there will likely be a deputy PM from another party.
Unrelated but here's a nice BBC4 documentary about Britain leaving the EU presented by Peter Hitchens.
This is what happens when an allegedly left wing party tries to out Tory the Tories and then firmly allys with them. The Lib Dems getting demolished was inevitable after their happy little coalition.
It would be a shame though if Charlie Kennedy loses his seat, I am from the Ross, Skye and Lochaber constituency so he has been a fixture, if such a thing is even possible for a politician, for much of my life but times change.
As it stands though a minority Labour government propped up by the SNP and the tattered remnants of the Lib Dems is highly likely. I can't see the Tories making up the 30 or so seats that they would require to form a minority government unless they form a coalition with Labour of course. If they do that though the SNP would form the opposition; wouldn't that be glorious?
Personally I will be voting SNP this year as it best represents my political views and I was a Yes voter anyway. In the last election I voted Lib Dem in one of the safest Tory seats in the country so its not as if my vote was wasted.......
This is what happens when an allegedly left wing party tries to out Tory the Tories and then firmly allys with them. The Lib Dems getting demolished was inevitable after their happy little coalition.
It would be a shame though if Charlie Kennedy loses his seat, I am from the Ross, Skye and Lochaber constituency so he has been a fixture, if such a thing is even possible for a politician, for much of my life but times change.
As it stands though a minority Labour government propped up by the SNP and the tattered remnants of the Lib Dems is highly likely. I can't see the Tories making up the 30 or so seats that they would require to form a minority government unless they form a coalition with Labour of course. If they do that though the SNP would form the opposition; wouldn't that be glorious?
Personally I will be voting SNP this year as it best represents my political views and I was a Yes voter anyway. In the last election I voted Lib Dem in one of the safest Tory seats in the country so its not as if my vote was wasted.......
For all the talk of the UK being a Conservative country, the Tories haven't won an election outright since 1992.
And as for Cameron, he couldn't get a majority against Gordon Brown
Question for everybody: Am I the only person bored to death with this campaign? I'm ready to vote now. I made my mind up months ago. I don't want 17 more days of this
This is what happens when an allegedly left wing party tries to out Tory the Tories and then firmly allys with them. The Lib Dems getting demolished was inevitable after their happy little coalition.
It would be a shame though if Charlie Kennedy loses his seat, I am from the Ross, Skye and Lochaber constituency so he has been a fixture, if such a thing is even possible for a politician, for much of my life but times change.
As it stands though a minority Labour government propped up by the SNP and the tattered remnants of the Lib Dems is highly likely. I can't see the Tories making up the 30 or so seats that they would require to form a minority government unless they form a coalition with Labour of course. If they do that though the SNP would form the opposition; wouldn't that be glorious?
Personally I will be voting SNP this year as it best represents my political views and I was a Yes voter anyway. In the last election I voted Lib Dem in one of the safest Tory seats in the country so its not as if my vote was wasted.......
For all the talk of the UK being a Conservative country, the Tories haven't won an election outright since 1992.
And as for Cameron, he couldn't get a majority against Gordon Brown
Question for everybody: Am I the only person bored to death with this campaign? I'm ready to vote now. I made my mind up months ago. I don't want 17 more days of this
England especially the south-east is more conservative than Scotland and Wales. This is of course a generalisation and you need to look into the detail to see the full picture.
Personally I am very disillusioned with this election and with politics in general. I think the last government that tried to implement significant reforms and strategies was Thatcher. I don't agree with everything she did or think it was successful. My point is that since then governments seem to have concentrated on tinkering and soundbite politics rather than facing up to the big issues that need to be addressed. This campaign seems even worse with blatant "fixes" being thrown out like bones to dogs, such as the inheritance tax change, the promise to set up a taskforce to prosecute companies hiring under minimum wage, and the dicking around with who is or isn't going to give the NHS another 6 billion or 8.6 billion pounds and where that money is coming from, when there is a demographic catastrophe of General Practitioners coming in the next 15 years that no-one in parliament seems to want to address.
This is what happens when an allegedly left wing party tries to out Tory the Tories and then firmly allys with them. The Lib Dems getting demolished was inevitable after their happy little coalition.
It would be a shame though if Charlie Kennedy loses his seat, I am from the Ross, Skye and Lochaber constituency so he has been a fixture, if such a thing is even possible for a politician, for much of my life but times change.
As it stands though a minority Labour government propped up by the SNP and the tattered remnants of the Lib Dems is highly likely. I can't see the Tories making up the 30 or so seats that they would require to form a minority government unless they form a coalition with Labour of course. If they do that though the SNP would form the opposition; wouldn't that be glorious?
Personally I will be voting SNP this year as it best represents my political views and I was a Yes voter anyway. In the last election I voted Lib Dem in one of the safest Tory seats in the country so its not as if my vote was wasted.......
For all the talk of the UK being a Conservative country, the Tories haven't won an election outright since 1992.
And as for Cameron, he couldn't get a majority against Gordon Brown
Question for everybody: Am I the only person bored to death with this campaign? I'm ready to vote now. I made my mind up months ago. I don't want 17 more days of this
England especially the south-east is more conservative than Scotland and Wales. This is of course a generalisation and you need to look into the detail to see the full picture.
Personally I am very disillusioned with this election and with politics in general. I think the last government that tried to implement significant reforms and strategies was Thatcher. I don't agree with everything she did or think it was successful. My point is that since then governments seem to have concentrated on tinkering and soundbite politics rather than facing up to the big issues that need to be addressed. This campaign seems even worse with blatant "fixes" being thrown out like bones to dogs, such as the inheritance tax change, the promise to set up a taskforce to prosecute companies hiring under minimum wage, and the dicking around with who is or isn't going to give the NHS another 6 billion or 8.6 billion pounds and where that money is coming from, when there is a demographic catastrophe of General Practitioners coming in the next 15 years that no-one in parliament seems to want to address.
I agree with all of that. Politicians have been reduced to bank managers these days. The market knows best. That's the mantra all the main parties agree on and this nation is suffering because of it.
The GP thing you mention is a major problem, but for me, constitutional problems need to be addressed as well.
If this country doesn't fix the lords, or implement a federal system within the next five years, then I believe the Union is finished. The centre will not hold.
There is a constitutional problem, an energy supply problem, a housing problem, an industrial policy problem, a growing pensions and old age care problem, transport infrastructure problems, public finances and the PFI problem. There others that do not occur to me at the moment.
All of these are long term strategic issues that need to be considered and addressed in good time because they take in some cases decades to resolve and they aren't because partly I think parliaments do not look beyond the five year horizon to the next general election.
In some ways it would be better if any party at all could get a commanding majority since they would have enough time to either feth things up -- which would at least give the country some clue as to the right way forwards -- or perhaps they might get things right.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I see the Daily Mail have ramped up their anti-SNP coverage to warp 9, in today's papers.
I didn't know it was possible to be a Nazi and a Communist at the same time.
Well Stalin was a communist and had crimes almost as bad the Nazis.
I'm sure the SNP is not that bad
I do wonder about their position with nuclear weapons with Russia doing what it is doing. You're pro SNP, what do you think about scrapping them?
Before, I suspected they took a stance against them so Scotland wouldn't have to contribute to the upkeep of the weapon system. However they still are maintaining their position.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Communist Nazis! To defeat that you would need a creature with the head of Churchill, the body of FDR, and the legs of someone who's legs still work.
This is British business. Keep your American mitts off our property!
Naturally, of course, I'm at liberty to post comments on the other political thread.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I see the Daily Mail have ramped up their anti-SNP coverage to warp 9, in today's papers.
I didn't know it was possible to be a Nazi and a Communist at the same time.
Well Stalin was a communist and had crimes almost as bad the Nazis.
I'm sure the SNP is not that bad
I do wonder about their position with nuclear weapons with Russia doing what it is doing. You're pro SNP, what do you think about scrapping them?
Before, I suspected they took a stance against them so Scotland wouldn't have to contribute to the upkeep of the weapon system. However they still are maintaining their position.
I'm anti-trident myself. To have nuclear weapons 20 miles away from Scotland's largest city, is sheer lunacy. If Westminster wants them so bad, then they can park them on the Thames outside the house of commons
On a more serious note, the idea that the SNP is a threat to Britain's nuclear deterrent is nonsense.
Even if the SNP win all 59 Scottish seats, the other 600 MPs can still push Trident through the commons, and Labour and the Tories have said they will do this.
Well I'm not much of a labour fan, I still haven't forgiven them for selling all of our gold.....
Tbf, Swansea is an absolute dump. She needs quite a bit of money in order to get her up to scratch with the rest of the UK. We only have one major road into the city, and it's often blocked with traffic. Doesn't help that Cardiff gets a lot more money to spend than Swansea does, but at least our football team is better.
Doesn't help that the council is useless, we had quite a bit of EU money sitting around, which they then spent smearing the area with speed humps and speed signs. Rather than fixing the hundreds of potholes that I have to routinely dodge on a day to day basic, less I get painfully tossed from my motorcycle.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Communist Nazis! To defeat that you would need a creature with the head of Churchill, the body of FDR, and the legs of someone who's legs still work.
This is British business. Keep your American mitts off our property!
Naturally, of course, I'm at liberty to post comments on the other political thread.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I see the Daily Mail have ramped up their anti-SNP coverage to warp 9, in today's papers.
I didn't know it was possible to be a Nazi and a Communist at the same time.
Well Stalin was a communist and had crimes almost as bad the Nazis.
I'm sure the SNP is not that bad
I do wonder about their position with nuclear weapons with Russia doing what it is doing. You're pro SNP, what do you think about scrapping them?
Before, I suspected they took a stance against them so Scotland wouldn't have to contribute to the upkeep of the weapon system. However they still are maintaining their position.
I'm anti-trident myself. To have nuclear weapons 20 miles away from Scotland's largest city, is sheer lunacy. If Westminster wants them so bad, then they can park them on the Thames outside the house of commons
On a more serious note, the idea that the SNP is a threat to Britain's nuclear deterrent is nonsense.
Even if the SNP win all 59 Scottish seats, the other 600 MPs can still push Trident through the commons, and Labour and the Tories have said they will do this.
They'd insist on it before forming a collation before its voted on wouldn't they?
Why are you anti-trident out of interest?
Russia will nuke all the UKs cities. Regardless of where the ordinance is kept. The warheads will be out at sea, that's the point of nuclear submarines.
Isn't that base in one of the lowest density population locations in the UK? Makes some sense putting it where it is.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Communist Nazis! To defeat that you would need a creature with the head of Churchill, the body of FDR, and the legs of someone who's legs still work.
This is British business. Keep your American mitts off our property!
Naturally, of course, I'm at liberty to post comments on the other political thread.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I see the Daily Mail have ramped up their anti-SNP coverage to warp 9, in today's papers.
I didn't know it was possible to be a Nazi and a Communist at the same time.
Well Stalin was a communist and had crimes almost as bad the Nazis.
I'm sure the SNP is not that bad
I do wonder about their position with nuclear weapons with Russia doing what it is doing. You're pro SNP, what do you think about scrapping them?
Before, I suspected they took a stance against them so Scotland wouldn't have to contribute to the upkeep of the weapon system. However they still are maintaining their position.
I'm anti-trident myself. To have nuclear weapons 20 miles away from Scotland's largest city, is sheer lunacy. If Westminster wants them so bad, then they can park them on the Thames outside the house of commons
On a more serious note, the idea that the SNP is a threat to Britain's nuclear deterrent is nonsense.
Even if the SNP win all 59 Scottish seats, the other 600 MPs can still push Trident through the commons, and Labour and the Tories have said they will do this.
They'd insist on it before forming a collation before its voted on wouldn't they?
Why are you anti-trident out of interest?
Russia will nuke all the UKs cities. Regardless of where the ordinance is kept. The warheads will be out at sea, that's the point of nuclear submarines.
Isn't that base in one of the lowest density population locations in the UK? Makes some sense putting it where it is.
The Trident base (Faslane) is 20 miles away from Glasgow. Population 100,000
The safety record there is not good. It's this that worries people, not Putin's finger o the red button.
If you want the nukes, feel free to dig a pond in your back garden and keep the Submarines there
I'm anti-nuclear weapons from a moral point of view (I consider them immoral)
and from a practical point of view, I consider them impractical.
Nuclear weapons didn't stop Argentina from invading the Falklands. The didn't stop America losing the Vietnam war, and they didn't stop Bin Laden from crashing jets into the twin towers on 9/11, and they won't stop ISIL now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
welshhoppo wrote: Well I'm not much of a labour fan, I still haven't forgiven them for selling all of our gold.....
Tbf, Swansea is an absolute dump. She needs quite a bit of money in order to get her up to scratch with the rest of the UK. We only have one major road into the city, and it's often blocked with traffic. Doesn't help that Cardiff gets a lot more money to spend than Swansea does, but at least our football team is better.
Doesn't help that the council is useless, we had quite a bit of EU money sitting around, which they then spent smearing the area with speed humps and speed signs. Rather than fixing the hundreds of potholes that I have to routinely dodge on a day to day basic, less I get painfully tossed from my motorcycle.
What about the Welsh assembly? Shouldn't they be fixing this?
Is it just me or do the Tories seeming to be panicking slightly? The Lloyds TSB share statement just comes across as another bribe. It's like Tory central office have thought, "bugger, we're losing ground, toss out another bribe.". Apparently it's not even a new idea, it's just been brought back out into the light of day again. Not saying that any of the others are any better, but I think we are going to be in interesting times come the end of this election..
Wolfstan wrote: Is it just me or do the Tories seeming to be panicking slightly? The Lloyds TSB share statement just comes across as another bribe. It's like Tory central office have thought, "bugger, we're losing ground, toss out another bribe.". Apparently it's not even a new idea, it's just been brought back out into the light of day again. Not saying that any of the others are any better, but I think we are going to be in interesting times come the end of this election..
They are panicking. Like I said earlier, Cameron couldn't even beat Gordon Brown in 2010, and now with the economy on the 'up' he still struggling to get past the 36% mark.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Only the truly mad or desperate would unleash that kind of devastation on fellow human beings.
Agreed.
They already have, if you remember, twice. Putin has threatened to do so several times this year.
War is a constant of humanity unfortunately.
I'd be fine if they wanted a sub base near Colchester, its a bit in land but Clacton is fine. Seriously if Scotland paid for them to be moved here I wouldn't have a problem. I think the jobs would do the area good
I agree nuclear weapons are immoral, that's not why we have them, we would never use them to attack anyone. It's there to stop someone like Putin from firing them at us. If they fire, we fire. They flew a bomber armed with a nuke on the edge of our airspace just the other day. There is a real threat. They are not for fighting terror or protecting overseas interests. I didn't think people thought that was what they were for?
Co'tor Shas wrote: Only the truly mad or desperate would unleash that kind of devastation on fellow human beings.
Agreed.
They already have, if you remember, twice. Putin has threatened to do so several times this year.
War is a constant of humanity unfortunately.
I'd be fine if they wanted a sub base near Colchester, its a bit in land but Clacton is fine. Seriously if Scotland paid for them to be moved here I wouldn't have a problem. I think the jobs would do the area good
I agree nuclear weapons are immoral, that's not why we have them, we would never use them to attack anyone. It's there to stop someone like Putin from firing them at us. If they fire, we fire. They flew a bomber armed with a nuke on the edge of our airspace just the other day. There is a real threat. They are not for fighting terror or protecting overseas interests. I didn't think people thought that was what they were for?
Thing is, though, our independent nuclear deterrent isn't independent.
We need the Yanks' permission to fire it, and analysis shows that the UK's warhead numbers wouldn't dent Russian defences that much.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Only the truly mad or desperate would unleash that kind of devastation on fellow human beings.
Agreed.
They already have, if you remember, twice. Putin has threatened to do so several times this year.
War is a constant of humanity unfortunately.
I'd be fine if they wanted a sub base near Colchester, its a bit in land but Clacton is fine. Seriously if Scotland paid for them to be moved here I wouldn't have a problem. I think the jobs would do the area good
I agree nuclear weapons are immoral, that's not why we have them, we would never use them to attack anyone. It's there to stop someone like Putin from firing them at us. If they fire, we fire. They flew a bomber armed with a nuke on the edge of our airspace just the other day. There is a real threat. They are not for fighting terror or protecting overseas interests. I didn't think people thought that was what they were for?
Thing is, though, our independent nuclear deterrent isn't independent.
We need the Yanks' permission to fire it, and analysis shows that the UK's warhead numbers wouldn't dent Russian defences that much.
Not true, it is dependent on the US for maintenance but it is simply untrue that they cannot be fired without permission from US.
Can you show me the analysis you're talking about. A trident weapon carries a cluster of nuclear weapons in each one and it carries multiple missiles. I'd heard previously that trident could take out every major city
Co'tor Shas wrote: Only the truly mad or desperate would unleash that kind of devastation on fellow human beings.
Agreed.
They already have, if you remember, twice. Putin has threatened to do so several times this year.
War is a constant of humanity unfortunately.
I'd be fine if they wanted a sub base near Colchester, its a bit in land but Clacton is fine. Seriously if Scotland paid for them to be moved here I wouldn't have a problem. I think the jobs would do the area good
I agree nuclear weapons are immoral, that's not why we have them, we would never use them to attack anyone. It's there to stop someone like Putin from firing them at us. If they fire, we fire. They flew a bomber armed with a nuke on the edge of our airspace just the other day. There is a real threat. They are not for fighting terror or protecting overseas interests. I didn't think people thought that was what they were for?
Thing is, though, our independent nuclear deterrent isn't independent.
We need the Yanks' permission to fire it, and analysis shows that the UK's warhead numbers wouldn't dent Russian defences that much.
Not true, it is dependent on the US for maintenance but it is simply untrue that they cannot be fired without permission from US.
Can you show me the analysis you're talking about. A trident weapon carries a cluster of nuclear weapons in each one and it carries multiple missiles. I'd heard previously that trident could take out every major city
Yeah, we could take out every major Russian city, but the Russian counter-strike would blow this island across the Atlantic. We'd probably fuse with Texas!
Thing is, though, our independent nuclear deterrent isn't independent.
We need the Yanks' permission to fire it, and analysis shows that the UK's warhead numbers wouldn't dent Russian defences that much.
The only permission needed is that of the Prime Minister. Each submarine also carries a sealed lockbox with a document instructing what the submarine Captain should do if the Prime Minister is unreachable (i.e, dead or so far underground he cannot transmit orders). Writing out those orders is one of the tasks a new Prime Minister does on his first evening in power, and they're immediately dispatched to all submarines by special military courier.
Thing is, though, our independent nuclear deterrent isn't independent.
We need the Yanks' permission to fire it, and analysis shows that the UK's warhead numbers wouldn't dent Russian defences that much.
The only permission needed is that of the Prime Minister. Each submarine also carries a sealed lockbox with a document instructing what the submarine Captain should do if the Prime Minister is unreachable (i.e, dead or so far underground he cannot transmit orders). Writing out those orders is one of the tasks a new Prime Minister does on his first evening in power, and they're immediately dispatched to all submarines by special military courier.
/Interestingthingstoknow#
Don't be so naïve, Ketara.
Do you honestly think that Washington would allow the UK to start firing nukes left, right, and centre without their say so?
If you believe that, I've got a horse for sale. It's called Shergar
Co'tor Shas wrote: Only the truly mad or desperate would unleash that kind of devastation on fellow human beings.
Agreed.
They already have, if you remember, twice. Putin has threatened to do so several times this year.
War is a constant of humanity unfortunately.
I'd be fine if they wanted a sub base near Colchester, its a bit in land but Clacton is fine. Seriously if Scotland paid for them to be moved here I wouldn't have a problem. I think the jobs would do the area good
I agree nuclear weapons are immoral, that's not why we have them, we would never use them to attack anyone. It's there to stop someone like Putin from firing them at us. If they fire, we fire. They flew a bomber armed with a nuke on the edge of our airspace just the other day. There is a real threat. They are not for fighting terror or protecting overseas interests. I didn't think people thought that was what they were for?
Thing is, though, our independent nuclear deterrent isn't independent.
We need the Yanks' permission to fire it, and analysis shows that the UK's warhead numbers wouldn't dent Russian defences that much.
Not true, it is dependent on the US for maintenance but it is simply untrue that they cannot be fired without permission from US.
Can you show me the analysis you're talking about. A trident weapon carries a cluster of nuclear weapons in each one and it carries multiple missiles. I'd heard previously that trident could take out every major city
Yeah, we could take out every major Russian city, but the Russian counter-strike would blow this island across the Atlantic. We'd probably fuse with Texas!
Exactly that's what is called mutually assured destruction. That's why they don't nuke us and we don't Nuke them.
Also if you think about it, how many nuclear armed countries have been invaded.
Ukraine wouldn't be under attack from Russia if they had not listen to us and kept their Nukes
Thing is, though, our independent nuclear deterrent isn't independent.
We need the Yanks' permission to fire it, and analysis shows that the UK's warhead numbers wouldn't dent Russian defences that much.
The only permission needed is that of the Prime Minister. Each submarine also carries a sealed lockbox with a document instructing what the submarine Captain should do if the Prime Minister is unreachable (i.e, dead or so far underground he cannot transmit orders). Writing out those orders is one of the tasks a new Prime Minister does on his first evening in power, and they're immediately dispatched to all submarines by special military courier.
/Interestingthingstoknow#
Don't be so naïve, Ketara.
Do you honestly think that Washington would allow the UK to start firing nukes left, right, and centre without their say so?
If you believe that, I've got a horse for sale. It's called Shergar
I think it's more naive to think that we'd agree to anything else.
I'm quite amused by the panic Sturgeon is causing. I don't believe she's trustworthy, but the idea that the scottish are "subverting democracy" by voting for the party that they believe best represents their interests is hilarious to me.
If the Tories and Labour want the Scots to vote for them, perhaps they should try to come up with policies the Scots find attractive.
And the Tories have no problem allying with bigots when it suits them- see their long running alliance with the DUP.
Edit: Also if I was British I'd keep the nukes. I would like Ireland to have some too, then we could have a bit more sway internationally. Very exclusive club, this WMD club.
Also if you think about it, how many nuclear armed countries have been invaded.
Ukraine wouldn't be under attack from Russia if they had not listen to us and kept their Nukes
The Falkland Islands are British territory - Argentina invaded it. Britain didn't send a missile their way with Major Kong sitting upon it
The US embassy in Saigon was de facto American territory, the North Vietnamese danced all over it.
Ok, that last example was splitting hairs, but nuclear weapons can't solve every problem.
Even if Ukraine had nukes, would they have used them if Russia had annexed Crimea? I doubt it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: I'm quite amused by the panic Sturgeon is causing. I don't believe she's trustworthy, but the idea that the scottish are "subverting democracy" by voting for the party that they believe best represents their interests is hilarious to me.
If the Tories and Labour want the Scots to vote for them, perhaps they should try to come up with policies the Scots find attractive.
And the Tories have no problem allying with bigots when it suits them- see their long running alliance with the DUP.
Edit: Also if I was British I'd keep the nukes. I would like Ireland to have some too, then we could have a bit more sway internationally. Very exclusive club, this WMD club.
For two years, Conservatives and Labour begged Scotland to stay in the UK. They stayed. Now they've shifted the goalposts and are saying we only wanted you to stay if you voted for us.
Da Boss wrote: I'm quite amused by the panic Sturgeon is causing. I don't believe she's trustworthy, but the idea that the scottish are "subverting democracy" by voting for the party that they believe best represents their interests is hilarious to me.
If the Tories and Labour want the Scots to vote for them, perhaps they should try to come up with policies the Scots find attractive.
And the Tories have no problem allying with bigots when it suits them- see their long running alliance with the DUP.
Edit: Also if I was British I'd keep the nukes. I would like Ireland to have some too, then we could have a bit more sway internationally. Very exclusive club, this WMD club.
It's not the Scottish it's the SNP. Who do well for Scotland but would injure the rest of the UK if they thought it would benefit Scotland
It's more about the SNP getting into a coalition with another party and having more influence than they fairly ought to. Like the lib dems but without a county bias.
Also if you think about it, how many nuclear armed countries have been invaded.
Ukraine wouldn't be under attack from Russia if they had not listen to us and kept their Nukes
The Falkland Islands are British territory - Argentina invaded it. Britain didn't send a missile their way with Major Kong sitting upon it
The US embassy in Saigon was de facto American territory, the North Vietnamese danced all over it.
Ok, that last example was splitting hairs, but nuclear weapons can't solve every problem.
Even if Ukraine had nukes, would they have used them if Russia had annexed Crimea? I doubt it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: I'm quite amused by the panic Sturgeon is causing. I don't believe she's trustworthy, but the idea that the scottish are "subverting democracy" by voting for the party that they believe best represents their interests is hilarious to me.
If the Tories and Labour want the Scots to vote for them, perhaps they should try to come up with policies the Scots find attractive.
And the Tories have no problem allying with bigots when it suits them- see their long running alliance with the DUP.
Edit: Also if I was British I'd keep the nukes. I would like Ireland to have some too, then we could have a bit more sway internationally. Very exclusive club, this WMD club.
For two years, Conservatives and Labour begged Scotland to stay in the UK. They stayed. Now they've shifted the goalposts and are saying we only wanted you to stay if you voted for us.
An oversea territory doesn't count it's not nearly the same. What would the world have done if we had nuked over a tiny territory like that
Why is it bad when the SNP does it and okay when the DUP does it though?
Also, coalitions are totally common in a lot of other EU countries and the minor party usually gets completely screwed, and only benefits if they are very clever in picking their battles and spinning what happens. Fair doesn't really come into it, it's politics.
Da Boss wrote: Why is it bad when the SNP does it and okay when the DUP does it though?
Also, coalitions are totally common in a lot of other EU countries and the minor party usually gets completely screwed, and only benefits if they are very clever in picking their battles and spinning what happens. Fair doesn't really come into it, it's politics.
It's not the Scottish it's the SNP. Who do well for Scotland but would injure the rest of the UK if they thought it would benefit Scotland
How? Anything that the SNP manage to do with a confidence and supply agreement with Labour (the SNP ruled out a coalition long before Labour did) would have a broadly similar affect across the entire UK; besides there will be a maximum of 56 SNPMPs, no where near enough to do anything without the support of English MPs. Devo max wouldn't injure the rUK and to be honest at this stage its quite possibly the only thing that will save the union in the long term as the momentum is strongly behind the Yes camp, even after last year's referendum defeat. Besides the 3 main UK parties did make their 'vow' after all
Coalitions and other power sharing agreements are hardly new and are an inevitable consequence of our parliamentary system. Denying the wishes of Scots voters would bring about the end of the Union even quicker than leaving the EU would.
The SNP have released their manifesto, nothing unexpected really although I really don't like the proposal to implement a mandatory 50% female membership on public boards.
Thing is, though, our independent nuclear deterrent isn't independent.
We need the Yanks' permission to fire it, and analysis shows that the UK's warhead numbers wouldn't dent Russian defences that much.
The only permission needed is that of the Prime Minister. Each submarine also carries a sealed lockbox with a document instructing what the submarine Captain should do if the Prime Minister is unreachable (i.e, dead or so far underground he cannot transmit orders). Writing out those orders is one of the tasks a new Prime Minister does on his first evening in power, and they're immediately dispatched to all submarines by special military courier.
/Interestingthingstoknow#
Don't be so naïve, Ketara.
Do you honestly think that Washington would allow the UK to start firing nukes left, right, and centre without their say so?
If you believe that, I've got a horse for sale. It's called Shergar
Either you're asserting that British nuclear submarine Captains take their orders from the US President, or that the British Prime Minister does. Either one is mildly ludicrous.
Thing is, though, our independent nuclear deterrent isn't independent.
We need the Yanks' permission to fire it, and analysis shows that the UK's warhead numbers wouldn't dent Russian defences that much.
The only permission needed is that of the Prime Minister. Each submarine also carries a sealed lockbox with a document instructing what the submarine Captain should do if the Prime Minister is unreachable (i.e, dead or so far underground he cannot transmit orders). Writing out those orders is one of the tasks a new Prime Minister does on his first evening in power, and they're immediately dispatched to all submarines by special military courier.
/Interestingthingstoknow#
Don't be so naïve, Ketara.
Do you honestly think that Washington would allow the UK to start firing nukes left, right, and centre without their say so?
If you believe that, I've got a horse for sale. It's called Shergar
Either you're asserting that British nuclear submarine Captains take their orders from the US President, or that the British Prime Minister does. Either one is mildly ludicrous.
You know as well as I do that British Prime minsters couldn't send a rowing boat overseas without America's say so. We've been the junior partner a long time.
Incidentally (can't recall who asked) Lord Ashcroft blocked me on Twitter because I tweeted that I would '*literally* rather cut my face than follow Lord Ashcroft on Twitter.'
He tweeted back '...to help you in case you ever change your mind, I'm helping you out by blocking you...take care'
Thing is, though, our independent nuclear deterrent isn't independent.
We need the Yanks' permission to fire it, and analysis shows that the UK's warhead numbers wouldn't dent Russian defences that much.
The only permission needed is that of the Prime Minister. Each submarine also carries a sealed lockbox with a document instructing what the submarine Captain should do if the Prime Minister is unreachable (i.e, dead or so far underground he cannot transmit orders). Writing out those orders is one of the tasks a new Prime Minister does on his first evening in power, and they're immediately dispatched to all submarines by special military courier.
/Interestingthingstoknow#
Don't be so naïve, Ketara.
Do you honestly think that Washington would allow the UK to start firing nukes left, right, and centre without their say so?
If you believe that, I've got a horse for sale. It's called Shergar
Either you're asserting that British nuclear submarine Captains take their orders from the US President, or that the British Prime Minister does. Either one is mildly ludicrous.
You know as well as I do that British Prime minsters couldn't send a rowing boat overseas without America's say so. We've been the junior partner a long time.
Like that time we invaded the Falklands. Oh wait, America tried to stop it first.
Thing is, though, our independent nuclear deterrent isn't independent.
We need the Yanks' permission to fire it, and analysis shows that the UK's warhead numbers wouldn't dent Russian defences that much.
The only permission needed is that of the Prime Minister. Each submarine also carries a sealed lockbox with a document instructing what the submarine Captain should do if the Prime Minister is unreachable (i.e, dead or so far underground he cannot transmit orders). Writing out those orders is one of the tasks a new Prime Minister does on his first evening in power, and they're immediately dispatched to all submarines by special military courier.
/Interestingthingstoknow#
Don't be so naïve, Ketara.
Do you honestly think that Washington would allow the UK to start firing nukes left, right, and centre without their say so?
If you believe that, I've got a horse for sale. It's called Shergar
Either you're asserting that British nuclear submarine Captains take their orders from the US President, or that the British Prime Minister does. Either one is mildly ludicrous.
You know as well as I do that British Prime minsters couldn't send a rowing boat overseas without America's say so. We've been the junior partner a long time.
Like that time we invaded the Falklands. Oh wait, America tried to stop it first.
The Falklands are a British overseas territory. You can't invade what's yours. Britain liberated it
You know as well as I do that British Prime minsters couldn't send a rowing boat overseas without America's say so. We've been the junior partner a long time.
So to clarify, you are asserting that the British Prime Minister cannot give orders of a hostile/warlike nature to a British nuclear submarine Captain without permission from the US President? Yes or no will suffice.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Considering they get the warheads from the US in the first place...
So you are saying that supplying a weapon to a country/person means that they are incapable of using those weapons without you?
This has to be trolling. No way are you being serious.
We keep a stock of them at Faslane and armed Trident subs are on permanent patrol world wide, iiirc. Ketara?
Aye. It wouldn't be much of a deterrent if it wasn't ready for use at a moments notice. There's always a submerged sub with nuclear warheads somewhere, waiting for the signal.
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, and even all four Vanguard subs(or their proposed, ridiculously-expensive replacements) simply aren't capable of launching enough warheads to wipe out the Russians' ability to respond; not in a first strike scenario, and not in a retaliatory strike scenario. The only chance Trident has of having any impact whatsoever in a nuclear exchange is as part of a coordinated NATO attack with America's nukes, and their nukes outnumber ours to such a hilarious degree that our contribution to such an effort would be akin to a child adding the "firepower" of their stick & rubber-band catapult to a battalion of rifle infantry, ie it could equally well be achieved without our involvement.
This is the problem with Trident; its only viable target is civilians, and that makes it pointless. If we were ever to use Trident to first-strike a city full of people, whatever smouldering pile of rubble survived the retaliation would be a pariah state for generations, so we can't use it for a first strike and everybody we might possibly use it against knows that perfectly well. In any scenario where Trident was launched as a retaliatory attack, it would be equally as pointless - it would only take a handful of modern nuclear weapons to bathe this entire island in death, so if anyone was ever insane enough to actually launch them at us firing Trident back would be a vacant act of spite; some politician somewhere slaughtered a bunch of our civilians, so bugger it, lets slaughter a bunch of theirs back even if it makes no difference.
It's expensive, it's pointless without NATO, NATO would work just as well without it, it's unusable for a first-strike and it's pointless as retaliation. Even if you completely ignore the massive ethical problems with nuclear weaponry, Trident is a pointless joke; a penis extender for politicians so they can sit on the Security Council pretending we're still an empire while doing what America tells us to.
And even if you set all that aside; if the UK government insists on replacing Trident, they can replace it somewhere else, because housing nuclear weapons a few minutes drive outside Scotland's most populous city-centre is intolerably irresponsible, especially considering their atrocious safety record.
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, and even all four Vanguard subs(or their proposed, ridiculously-expensive replacements) simply aren't capable of launching enough warheads to wipe out the Russians' ability to respond; not in a first strike scenario, and not in a retaliatory strike scenario. The only chance Trident has of having any impact whatsoever in a nuclear exchange is as part of a coordinated NATO attack with America's nukes, and their nukes outnumber ours to such a hilarious degree that our contribution to such an effort would be akin to a child adding the "firepower" of their stick & rubber-band catapult to a battalion of rifle infantry, ie it could equally well be achieved without our involvement.
This is the problem with Trident; its only viable target is civilians, and that makes it pointless. If we were ever to use Trident to first-strike a city full of people, whatever smouldering pile of rubble survived the retaliation would be a pariah state for generations, so we can't use it for a first strike and everybody we might possibly use it against knows that perfectly well. In any scenario where Trident was launched as a retaliatory attack, it would be equally as pointless - it would only take a handful of modern nuclear weapons to bathe this entire island in death, so if anyone was ever insane enough to actually launch them at us firing Trident back would be a vacant act of spite; some politician somewhere slaughtered a bunch of our civilians, so bugger it, lets slaughter a bunch of theirs back even if it makes no difference.
It's expensive, it's pointless without NATO, NATO would work just as well without it, it's unusable for a first-strike and it's pointless as retaliation. Even if you completely ignore the massive ethical problems with nuclear weaponry, Trident is a pointless joke; a penis extender for politicians so they can sit on the Security Council pretending we're still an empire while doing what America tells us to.
And even if you set all that aside; if the UK government insists on replacing Trident, they can replace it somewhere else, because housing nuclear weapons a few minutes drive outside Scotland's most populous city-centre is intolerably irresponsible, especially considering their atrocious safety record.
This is exactly what I wanted to say to Ketara and Albatross. Have an exalt.
I think it is, but it's not a good argument. It's similar to the argument people use to justify the Royal Family when they say they only cost 65 pence a week or something.
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.
and even all four Vanguard subs(or their proposed, ridiculously-expensive replacements) simply aren't capable of launching enough warheads to wipe out the Russians' ability to respond;
That's kind of not the point of nuclear deterrence. It only takes a few warheads whacking Britain, and we're out for the count.
not in a first strike scenario,
Why would we want to be the first to use nukes?
and not in a retaliatory strike scenario.
Also kind of not the point of a nuclear deterrent. If Britain is being wiped out by nukes/already has been, we're not going to be targeting nuclear launch sites. There wouldn't be much point.
The only chance Trident has of having any impact whatsoever in a nuclear exchange is as part of a coordinated NATO attack with America's nukes,
I guarantee you that our nuclear warheads will have impact. They don't hit a city and just knock down a few street lights, or maybe light up a car or two.
But you appear to be conflating the 'impact' of a nuclear strike/nuclear deterrence with either completely obliterating a country or their launch sites.
and their nukes outnumber ours to such a hilarious degree that our contribution to such an effort would be akin to a child adding the "firepower" of their stick & rubber-band catapult to a battalion of rifle infantry, ie it could equally well be achieved without our involvement.
Ah. The real argument emerges. 'Other people can take of that end of things for us, therefore why should we bother?'
I could write an essay here, but I doubt I'd change your mindset with that as your reasoning.
This is the problem with Trident; its only viable target is civilians, so that makes it pointless.
Welcome to warfare in the twenty first century? Any war that isn't horrifically unbalanced usually involves civilians in some way. Mainly because it takes three civilians to maintain a soldier in the field, and by striking civilians, you also strike the support behind the military. You'll note that not many ball bearings came out of Hamburg once we were done with it. The lines between 'civilian worker' and 'military fighter' have been blurred for a long time now in the theory of warfare.
Having said that, attacking civilians is not guaranteed to be effective, due to the fact that it's actually quite hard to kill lots of them in any vaguely equivalent war. Nuclear warfare however, is one of the few things that can be guaranteed to wipe out a city/manufacturing district. So if anything, nuclear war is one of the few scenarios in which attacking civilians is meaningful.
If we were ever to use Trident to first-strike a city full of people, whatever smouldering pile of rubble survived the retaliation would be a pariah state for generations, so we can't use it for a first strike and everybody we might possibly use it against knows that perfectly well.
I really think you're missing the concept of nuclear deterrence here....
In any scenario where Trident was launched as a retaliatory attack, it would be equally as pointless - it would only take a handful of modern nuclear weapons to bathe this entire island in death, so if anyone was ever insane enough to actually launch them at us firing Trident back would be a vacant act of spite; some politician somewhere slaughtered a bunch of our civilians, so bugger it, lets slaughter a bunch of theirs back even if it makes no difference.
That's better, but you're still missing the key point here.
Namely; nobody launches their nukes at us in any capacity, because we have the ability to throw them back.
We don't keep nukes for first strike, or for retaliation. We keep them around as a deterrent. And judging by the fact that nobody has used nukes since WW2, it seems to be working. You could ascribe that to other factors, and probably construct some very clever arguments to insist that (and might even be right!), but what it ultimately comes down to is this; Are you prepared to risk the existence of your nation upon you being wrong?
Argentina attacked the Falklands despite the UK's possession of nuclear weapons.
North Vietnam humiliated a global superpower with nuclear weapons.
The Soviet Union were humiliated in Afghanistan, despite having nuclear weapons
Bin Laden crashed jumbo jets into the twin towers. Nuclear weapons didn't stop that, nor will they stop ISIL.
I could go on.
There are some scenarios where nuclear weapons are about as useful as a Nick Clegg promise.
Defenders of trident say that it's an uncertain world, we don't know what's going to happen.
The first 15 years of the 21st century have just confirmed that nuclear weapons, IMO, are one of the most useless things mankind has ever invented. Their use guarantees his doom and provides him with a false blanket of security.
Argentina attacked the Falklands despite the UK's possession of nuclear weapons.
North Vietnam humiliated a global superpower with nuclear weapons.
The Soviet Union were humiliated in Afghanistan, despite having nuclear weapons
Bin Laden crashed jumbo jets into the twin towers. Nuclear weapons didn't stop that, nor will they stop ISIL.
I could go on.
There are some scenarios where nuclear weapons are about as useful as a Nick Clegg promise.
Defenders of trident say that it's an uncertain world, we don't know what's going to happen.
The first 15 years of the 21st century have just confirmed that nuclear weapons, IMO, are one of the most useless things mankind has ever invented. Their use guarantees his doom and provides him with a false blanket of security.
That's not what they are for, without them the US would have attacked Russia or vice versa. It keeps big countries from attacking each other.
We never attacked Argentina and they never attacked Britain because politically it would have been bad. Bombing Argentina's main land airfields would have saved lives. Argentina didn't think we'd do anything to stop them, they certainly weren't worried about being nuked.
Nukes stop superpowers attacking each other. If you kill us we'll kill you. It's not nice but it needs to be a threat. If Russia thought they could attack the west with impunity it would've done it.
I'd bet that if Ukraine still had kept its weapons they'd still have Crimea at the moment.
Argentina attacked the Falklands despite the UK's possession of nuclear weapons.
North Vietnam humiliated a global superpower with nuclear weapons.
The Soviet Union were humiliated in Afghanistan, despite having nuclear weapons
Bin Laden crashed jumbo jets into the twin towers. Nuclear weapons didn't stop that, nor will they stop ISIL.
I could go on.
There are some scenarios where nuclear weapons are about as useful as a Nick Clegg promise.
Defenders of trident say that it's an uncertain world, we don't know what's going to happen.
The first 15 years of the 21st century have just confirmed that nuclear weapons, IMO, are one of the most useless things mankind has ever invented. Their use guarantees his doom and provides him with a false blanket of security.
You are missing out the 'nuclear' part of 'nuclear deterrence', and assuming it means 'deterring all warfare'.
They are not there to deter conventional wars. They are there to deter wars between nuclear capable powers, or, in a last resort pinch, the use of nuclear weapons in a war between nuclear powers. And to reiterate, we haven't had one of those in a while. I would say that India and Pakistan are good examples of countries that despise each other, but seem to be kept from each others throats by their nuclear arsenals.
My interest was peaked in the Falkland war by our discussions.
Worryingly we nearly did nuke Argentina back then.
"Excuse me. I had a difference to settle with the Iron Lady. That Thatcher, what an impossible woman!" the president said as he arrived, more than 45 minutes late, on May 7 1982. "With her four nuclear submarines in the south Atlantic, she's threatening to unleash an atomic weapon against Argentina if I don't provide her with the secret codes that will make the missiles we sold the Argentinians deaf and blind." He reminded Mr Magoudi that on May 4 an Exocet missile had struck HMS Sheffield. "To make matters worse, it was fired from a Super-Etendard jet," he said. "All the matériel was French!"
In words that the psychoanalyst has sworn to the publisher, Meren Sell, are genuine, the president continued: "She's livid. She blames me personally for this new Trafalgar ... I was obliged to give in. She's got them now, the codes."
Hopefully it was a bluff, probably saved lives but still... glad that never got tested.
Trident is going nowhere, even if the SNP get all seats in Scotland, Labour wont allow trident to be scrapped, so the SNP either put there money where their mouth is and not form a coalition and we get ANOTHER election straight away, or they back down.
Debating the reasoning behind nuclear weapons aside, i still think this election is going to throw up a few surprises.
My money is on either a Tory\LibDem\Ukip coalition OR a lab\SNP one, however i think the latter will collapse quickly and we will get another election by october-dec time.
The polls up here (I am in Gordon, Salmond's seat) are showing an almost 35% swing from labour to SNP when looked at previous votes in the last elections, and TBH i cannot see it. I think the SNP will win a lot more seats, but i dont expect them to 'rule' scotland.
The independance ref ended up with some 400, 000 more people saying No, and thats a LOT, and after it all, only 2 regions actually voted Yes after that too. There is a lot of resentment up here at the SNP for creating a hatred filled attitude towards England, creating a Them and Us situation, when in reality the SNP can do no better job than anyone else in power.
When the SNP manifesto stated they would spend an extra £180m on public spending i laughed, how borrowing almost a fifth of the national debt again, and throwing it at the NHS and Benefits will help end austerity i have no idea.
using that 3180 to start major infrastructure projects, house building, road improvement maybem but giving someone a free £2000 PA of borrowed money just entrenches the debt and deficit of paying it back even further meaning the debt filled hole carries on to the next generation.
Its economic madness, and is just being done to pull out the old line of "The nasty party want to take your sweeties away, Here have some free sweeties from us, were nice to you, vote for us!"
Its spiteful, hate filled politics and its the sole reason i despise the SNP.
Asa result of the marginal seat i am torn between vtoing Tory, to help toward a Tory majority, OR Lib Dem, as this seat has always been a safe LD seat, but with the step down of Sir Malcolm Bruce and Salmond being such a touchstone for the Nats up here, voting Lib Dem may help to keep Salmond out of national politics.
We shall see. The only thing i do agree with a few SNP voters on here is, i am already sick of the campaign and just want to vote.
Rick_1138 wrote: Trident is going nowhere, even if the SNP get all seats in Scotland, Labour wont allow trident to be scrapped, so the SNP either put there money where their mouth is and not form a coalition and we get ANOTHER election straight away, or they back down.
Debating the reasoning behind nuclear weapons aside, i still think this election is going to throw up a few surprises.
My money is on either a Tory\LibDem\Ukip coalition OR a lab\SNP one, however i think the latter will collapse quickly and we will get another election by october-dec time.
The polls up here (I am in Gordon, Salmond's seat) are showing an almost 35% swing from labour to SNP when looked at previous votes in the last elections, and TBH i cannot see it. I think the SNP will win a lot more seats, but i dont expect them to 'rule' scotland.
The independance ref ended up with some 400, 000 more people saying No, and thats a LOT, and after it all, only 2 regions actually voted Yes after that too. There is a lot of resentment up here at the SNP for creating a hatred filled attitude towards England, creating a Them and Us situation, when in reality the SNP can do no better job than anyone else in power.
When the SNP manifesto stated they would spend an extra £180m on public spending i laughed, how borrowing almost a fifth of the national debt again, and throwing it at the NHS and Benefits will help end austerity i have no idea.
using that 3180 to start major infrastructure projects, house building, road improvement maybem but giving someone a free £2000 PA of borrowed money just entrenches the debt and deficit of paying it back even further meaning the debt filled hole carries on to the next generation.
Its economic madness, and is just being done to pull out the old line of "The nasty party want to take your sweeties away, Here have some free sweeties from us, were nice to you, vote for us!"
Its spiteful, hate filled politics and its the sole reason i despise the SNP.
Asa result of the marginal seat i am torn between vtoing Tory, to help toward a Tory majority, OR Lib Dem, as this seat has always been a safe LD seat, but with the step down of Sir Malcolm Bruce and Salmond being such a touchstone for the Nats up here, voting Lib Dem may help to keep Salmond out of national politics.
We shall see. The only thing i do agree with a few SNP voters on here is, i am already sick of the campaign and just want to vote.
Why do Unionists keep talking about the referendum? You won, but you're acting as though you lost. The SNP have ruled out another referendum unless the UK is pulled out of the EU in a vote, which would be a reasonable stance in my view.
Labour have ruled out a coalition with the SNP and the SNP have ruled out a coalition with Labour. There may be a confidence and supply deal, though, which is different.
£180 million is peanuts in the grand scheme of UK finances. I wouldn't have a problem with any party saying they would spend that.
There may be resentment where you live at the SNP, but where I live (further south) there's resentment that citizens of the 7th richest country in the world have to go begging for food at foodbanks.
As for the Us and them mentality, it's the Daily Mail, the Telegraph, and Tory politicians screeching about the dangers of the SNP to the UK.
Scotland is a part of the UK. The 18th of September confirmed that. By telling Scottish voters that their vote doesn't count if they vote SNP, or saying that SNPMPs should not be allowed to sit in Parliament (which some barmy commentators have hinted at) will destroy this Union quicker than Alex Salmond ever could.
Part of being in a democracy means you accept things you don't like. If that means the SNP pulling the strings at Westminster, tough.
I accepted the 18th September result. I'm not planning on marching on London to start a revolution, but now I'm being told my vote doesn't count on May 7th...
I hope to god it's not an SNP-Labour coalition. Christ, that'd be awful. 2 of the most socialist parties in control of the UK is a recipe for disaster.
I'd rather be shot than let Chuka Umunna and Ed Balls run the money side of the UK govt. SNP are horrendous too. If the SNP had gotten their way last year and made Scotland independent, that country would've been crippled from day one because they promised that the oil industry would keep Scotland going. When in fact, their oil revenue figures were inflated by 90% to make it look good. The SNP even admitted doing it after The Telegraph's economists had a look at their stuff!
Argentina attacked the Falklands despite the UK's possession of nuclear weapons.
North Vietnam humiliated a global superpower with nuclear weapons.
The Soviet Union were humiliated in Afghanistan, despite having nuclear weapons
Bin Laden crashed jumbo jets into the twin towers. Nuclear weapons didn't stop that, nor will they stop ISIL.
I could go on.
There are some scenarios where nuclear weapons are about as useful as a Nick Clegg promise.
Defenders of trident say that it's an uncertain world, we don't know what's going to happen.
The first 15 years of the 21st century have just confirmed that nuclear weapons, IMO, are one of the most useless things mankind has ever invented. Their use guarantees his doom and provides him with a false blanket of security.
The more countries that choose to get rid of them, the more useful they become for the countries that choose to keep them. If America/Europe/The "West" in general decommissioned its nuclear arsenals, don't you think the arsenals of Russia, China, Iran (?), North Korea etc would become more strategically "useful"? You can afford to be more aggressive when your opponent has chosen to disarm himself.
It'd be like throwing your gun away, right before a Mexican Standoff.
Why do Unionists keep talking about the referendum? You won, but you're acting as though you lost. The SNP have ruled out another referendum
Pull the other one.
I have no idea why Scotland would want in the EU by itself if the UK leaves Europe it would make no sense. It also would be worse for the rest of the UK because the SNP have threatened not to patrol the borders previously and would likely do so again at cost to England.
Argentina attacked the Falklands despite the UK's possession of nuclear weapons.
North Vietnam humiliated a global superpower with nuclear weapons.
The Soviet Union were humiliated in Afghanistan, despite having nuclear weapons
Bin Laden crashed jumbo jets into the twin towers. Nuclear weapons didn't stop that, nor will they stop ISIL.
I could go on.
There are some scenarios where nuclear weapons are about as useful as a Nick Clegg promise.
Defenders of trident say that it's an uncertain world, we don't know what's going to happen.
The first 15 years of the 21st century have just confirmed that nuclear weapons, IMO, are one of the most useless things mankind has ever invented. Their use guarantees his doom and provides him with a false blanket of security.
The more countries that choose to get rid of them, the more useful they become for the countries that choose to keep them. If America/Europe/The "West" in general decommissioned its nuclear arsenals, don't you think the arsenals of Russia, China, Iran (?), North Korea etc would become more strategically "useful"? You can afford to be more aggressive when your opponent has chosen to disarm himself.
It'd be like throwing your gun away, right before a Mexican Standoff.
Like I said. nuclear arsenals did the Soviet Union no good in Afghanistan and did not stop North Vietnam from enjoying a house party at the US embassy in Saigon!
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.
Anyway, enough nuclear talk. Let's get back to laughing at Nick Clegg.
Why do Unionists keep talking about the referendum? You won, but you're acting as though you lost. The SNP have ruled out another referendum
Pull the other one.
I have no idea why Scotland would want in the EU by itself if the UK leaves Europe it would make no sense. It also would be worse for the rest of the UK because the SNP have threatened not to patrol the borders previously and would likely do so again at cost to England.
Why would they patrol the borders?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
angelofvengeance wrote: I hope to god it's not an SNP-Labour coalition. Christ, that'd be awful. 2 of the most socialist parties in control of the UK is a recipe for disaster.
I'd rather be shot than let Chuka Umunna and Ed Balls run the money side of the UK govt. SNP are horrendous too. If the SNP had gotten their way last year and made Scotland independent, that country would've been crippled from day one because they promised that the oil industry would keep Scotland going. When in fact, their oil revenue figures were inflated by 90% to make it look good. The SNP even admitted doing it after The Telegraph's economists had a look at their stuff!
Scottish hordes are marching on England - burning villages, cutting down morris dancing poles, and outlawing the game of cricket
Rick_1138 wrote: Trident is going nowhere, even if the SNP get all seats in Scotland, Labour wont allow trident to be scrapped, so the SNP either put there money where their mouth is and not form a coalition and we get ANOTHER election straight away, or they back down.
Debating the reasoning behind nuclear weapons aside, i still think this election is going to throw up a few surprises.
My money is on either a Tory\LibDem\Ukip coalition OR a lab\SNP one, however i think the latter will collapse quickly and we will get another election by october-dec time.
The polls up here (I am in Gordon, Salmond's seat) are showing an almost 35% swing from labour to SNP when looked at previous votes in the last elections, and TBH i cannot see it. I think the SNP will win a lot more seats, but i dont expect them to 'rule' scotland.
The independance ref ended up with some 400, 000 more people saying No, and thats a LOT, and after it all, only 2 regions actually voted Yes after that too. There is a lot of resentment up here at the SNP for creating a hatred filled attitude towards England, creating a Them and Us situation, when in reality the SNP can do no better job than anyone else in power.
When the SNP manifesto stated they would spend an extra £180m on public spending i laughed, how borrowing almost a fifth of the national debt again, and throwing it at the NHS and Benefits will help end austerity i have no idea.
using that 3180 to start major infrastructure projects, house building, road improvement maybem but giving someone a free £2000 PA of borrowed money just entrenches the debt and deficit of paying it back even further meaning the debt filled hole carries on to the next generation.
Its economic madness, and is just being done to pull out the old line of "The nasty party want to take your sweeties away, Here have some free sweeties from us, were nice to you, vote for us!"
Its spiteful, hate filled politics and its the sole reason i despise the SNP.
Asa result of the marginal seat i am torn between vtoing Tory, to help toward a Tory majority, OR Lib Dem, as this seat has always been a safe LD seat, but with the step down of Sir Malcolm Bruce and Salmond being such a touchstone for the Nats up here, voting Lib Dem may help to keep Salmond out of national politics.
We shall see. The only thing i do agree with a few SNP voters on here is, i am already sick of the campaign and just want to vote.
Why do Unionists keep talking about the referendum? You won, but you're acting as though you lost. The SNP have ruled out another referendum unless the UK is pulled out of the EU in a vote, which would be a reasonable stance in my view.
Labour have ruled out a coalition with the SNP and the SNP have ruled out a coalition with Labour. There may be a confidence and supply deal, though, which is different.
£180 million is peanuts in the grand scheme of UK finances. I wouldn't have a problem with any party saying they would spend that.
There may be resentment where you live at the SNP, but where I live (further south) there's resentment that citizens of the 7th richest country in the world have to go begging for food at foodbanks.
As for the Us and them mentality, it's the Daily Mail, the Telegraph, and Tory politicians screeching about the dangers of the SNP to the UK.
Scotland is a part of the UK. The 18th of September confirmed that. By telling Scottish voters that their vote doesn't count if they vote SNP, or saying that SNPMPs should not be allowed to sit in Parliament (which some barmy commentators have hinted at) will destroy this Union quicker than Alex Salmond ever could.
Part of being in a democracy means you accept things you don't like. If that means the SNP pulling the strings at Westminster, tough.
I accepted the 18th September result. I'm not planning on marching on London to start a revolution, but now I'm being told my vote doesn't count on May 7th...
The IMF has pointed out that SNP would have a £9 billion fiscal gap by the end of the decade based on their manifesto.
The population of Scotland is 5 million, subtract from that Children, the unemployed, retired pensioners and apparently "1,040,000 with a long-term activity-limiting health problem or disability" How many working people does that leave? The burden falls on them. If I it were me I'd me more worried about the odd £180 million being spent here and there.
There's not very many Scottish folk, things have the capacity to go wrong very quickly, and no barriers to leaving for greener pastures. The more I think about it the more risky going SNP seems. Small rewards, but risk of complete ruin. Or stick with the status quo and things could get better, or worse but no more bad than the rest of the UK
Like I said, it's a Mexican Standoff. Unilateral Disarmament is suicidal, because the balance of power instantly swings in favour of the party that doesn't disarm. Don't you think Putin would use nuclear weapons, or be much more aggressive in threatening to use them, if there was absolutely 0 chance of a nuclear retaliation?
If you can talk every nuclear power in the world to disarm at the same time, great. But that will never happen.
Rick_1138 wrote: Trident is going nowhere, even if the SNP get all seats in Scotland, Labour wont allow trident to be scrapped, so the SNP either put there money where their mouth is and not form a coalition and we get ANOTHER election straight away, or they back down.
Debating the reasoning behind nuclear weapons aside, i still think this election is going to throw up a few surprises.
My money is on either a Tory\LibDem\Ukip coalition OR a lab\SNP one, however i think the latter will collapse quickly and we will get another election by october-dec time.
The polls up here (I am in Gordon, Salmond's seat) are showing an almost 35% swing from labour to SNP when looked at previous votes in the last elections, and TBH i cannot see it. I think the SNP will win a lot more seats, but i dont expect them to 'rule' scotland.
The independance ref ended up with some 400, 000 more people saying No, and thats a LOT, and after it all, only 2 regions actually voted Yes after that too. There is a lot of resentment up here at the SNP for creating a hatred filled attitude towards England, creating a Them and Us situation, when in reality the SNP can do no better job than anyone else in power.
When the SNP manifesto stated they would spend an extra £180m on public spending i laughed, how borrowing almost a fifth of the national debt again, and throwing it at the NHS and Benefits will help end austerity i have no idea.
using that 3180 to start major infrastructure projects, house building, road improvement maybem but giving someone a free £2000 PA of borrowed money just entrenches the debt and deficit of paying it back even further meaning the debt filled hole carries on to the next generation.
Its economic madness, and is just being done to pull out the old line of "The nasty party want to take your sweeties away, Here have some free sweeties from us, were nice to you, vote for us!"
Its spiteful, hate filled politics and its the sole reason i despise the SNP.
Asa result of the marginal seat i am torn between vtoing Tory, to help toward a Tory majority, OR Lib Dem, as this seat has always been a safe LD seat, but with the step down of Sir Malcolm Bruce and Salmond being such a touchstone for the Nats up here, voting Lib Dem may help to keep Salmond out of national politics.
We shall see. The only thing i do agree with a few SNP voters on here is, i am already sick of the campaign and just want to vote.
Why do Unionists keep talking about the referendum? You won, but you're acting as though you lost. The SNP have ruled out another referendum unless the UK is pulled out of the EU in a vote, which would be a reasonable stance in my view.
Labour have ruled out a coalition with the SNP and the SNP have ruled out a coalition with Labour. There may be a confidence and supply deal, though, which is different.
£180 million is peanuts in the grand scheme of UK finances. I wouldn't have a problem with any party saying they would spend that.
There may be resentment where you live at the SNP, but where I live (further south) there's resentment that citizens of the 7th richest country in the world have to go begging for food at foodbanks.
As for the Us and them mentality, it's the Daily Mail, the Telegraph, and Tory politicians screeching about the dangers of the SNP to the UK.
Scotland is a part of the UK. The 18th of September confirmed that. By telling Scottish voters that their vote doesn't count if they vote SNP, or saying that SNPMPs should not be allowed to sit in Parliament (which some barmy commentators have hinted at) will destroy this Union quicker than Alex Salmond ever could.
Part of being in a democracy means you accept things you don't like. If that means the SNP pulling the strings at Westminster, tough.
I accepted the 18th September result. I'm not planning on marching on London to start a revolution, but now I'm being told my vote doesn't count on May 7th...
The IMF has pointed out that SNP would have a £9 billion fiscal gap by the end of the decade based on their manifesto.
The population of Scotland is 5 million, subtract from that Children, the unemployed, retired pensioners and apparently "1,040,000 with a long-term activity-limiting health problem or disability" How many working people does that leave? The burden falls on them. If I it were me I'd me more worried about the odd £180 million being spent here and there.
There's not very many Scottish folk, things have the capacity to go wrong very quickly, and no barriers to leaving for greener pastures. The more I think about it the more risky going SNP seems. Small rewards, but risk of complete ruin. Or stick with the status quo and things could get better, or worse but no more bad than the rest of the UK
The IMF hasn't had a lot of good things to say about the UK economy, either.
I don't speak for everybody, but it's never been about economics for me. Self-determination is what I'm interested in.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Like I said, it's a Mexican Standoff. Unilateral Disarmament is suicidal, because the balance of power instantly swings in favour of the party that doesn't disarm. Don't you think Putin would use nuclear weapons, or be much more aggressive in threatening to use them, if there was absolutely 0 chance of a nuclear retaliation?
If you can talk every nuclear power in the world to disarm at the same time, great. But that will never happen.
Why do Unionists keep talking about the referendum? You won, but you're acting as though you lost. The SNP have ruled out another referendum
Pull the other one.
I have no idea why Scotland would want in the EU by itself if the UK leaves Europe it would make no sense. It also would be worse for the rest of the UK because the SNP have threatened not to patrol the borders previously and would likely do so again at cost to England.
Why do Unionists keep talking about the referendum? You won, but you're acting as though you lost. The SNP have ruled out another referendum
Pull the other one.
I have no idea why Scotland would want in the EU by itself if the UK leaves Europe it would make no sense. It also would be worse for the rest of the UK because the SNP have threatened not to patrol the borders previously and would likely do so again at cost to England.
Why would they patrol the borders?
If Scotland joined the EU after the UK leaves?
Freedom of movement to Scotland from EU.
It would be a Republic of Ireland/Northern Ireland situation.
Why do Unionists keep talking about the referendum? You won, but you're acting as though you lost. The SNP have ruled out another referendum
Pull the other one.
I have no idea why Scotland would want in the EU by itself if the UK leaves Europe it would make no sense. It also would be worse for the rest of the UK because the SNP have threatened not to patrol the borders previously and would likely do so again at cost to England.
Why would they patrol the borders?
If Scotland joined the EU after the UK leaves?
Freedom of movement to Scotland from EU.
It would be a Republic of Ireland/Northern Ireland situation.
I don't think it would. I'd imagine there would be a lot more incentive for people to try to get to England and the SNP would use that as leverage, as they have implied they'd do that in the past.
I agree...that you don't understand the concept of a nuclear deterrence.
Ok, let's do a match up against the other nuclear powers.
Britain Vs. the USA. In the unlikely scenario that Britain goes to war with its close ally and global super power, the result is? Britain wiped out by the USA
Britain Vs. Russia. Result: Britain wiped out by Russia's superior nuclear arsenal. Putin in bunker walks away unscathed.
Britain Vs. France. Again, another close ally, and fallout would probably contaminate the UK. Result: Britain and France cripple each other. Europe contaminated with fallout.
Britain Vs. Pakistan: why this would ever happen, God only knows. Result: who knows!!
Britain Vs. Israel: Result: the end times would have to be on us for this to happen
Britain Vs. India: see Pakistan and Israel
Britain Vs. North Korea. As of yet, don't have range. More likely to menace South Korea.
If there's any other power I've missed, feel free to include it.
My conclusion: I doubt if we'd go to nuclear war with France, Israel, India, Pakistan etc. etc. and the USA and Russia would wipe us out.
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.
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".
