The Political Junkie Thread- UK Edition! Election Aftermath P20+

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Steve steveson**

TheSecretSquig wrote:
Steve steveson wrote:
TheSecretSquig wrote:

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.

TheSecretSquig wrote:

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.

TheSecretSquig wrote:

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.

TheSecretSquig wrote:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2963750/Benefits-single-mother-admits-spending-3-000-taxpayers-cash-dream-round-world-trip-Australia-Bali-Dubai.html

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.

**SilverMK2**

Also, its from the daily mail - almost as bad as Fox...

**Wolfstan**

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!

**SilverMK2**

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".

**TheSecretSquig**

Steve steveson wrote:
TheSecretSquig wrote:

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.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

TheSecretSquig wrote:
If you are on Benefits to pay for the bare necessities, how can you afford to overeat yourself obese?

Quite easily actually.

Mass produced processed foods, packed full with sugar and fat, are cheap.

**SilverMK2**

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".

**Steve steveson**

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.

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.

**Ketara**

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.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

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

**Dreadclaw69**

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-31589202

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.

**Ketara**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

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 SNP 6. 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.

**TheSecretSquig**

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.

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

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.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-30376446

**Steve steveson**

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.

**TheSecretSquig**

Steve steveson wrote:

1) DLA is not "a load of extra cash".

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.

Steve steveson wrote:

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.

**Steve steveson**

TheSecretSquig wrote:
Steve steveson wrote:

1) DLA is not "a load of extra cash".

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".

Steve steveson wrote:

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**

Paradigm wrote:
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.

**Da Boss**

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.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Ketara wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

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 SNP 6. 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.

**Ketara**

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.

**MrDwhitey**

I'd just like to thank Steve and Silver.

I hadn't expected to see someone with the views a certain person does towards the disabled here.

**Koppo**

@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

**Paradigm**

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**

Paradigm wrote:
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.

**Steve steveson**

Paradigm wrote:

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:

Lib/Lab
Con/Lib
Con/Lib/DUP
Lab/Lib/PCy/Green
Lib/Lab/Con

I can't see anything else working unless something truly stunning happens and UKIP do get massive numbers of seats, which seems unlikely.

Personally I would like to see the Free United Kingdom Party as part of any government.

http://thepublandlord.com/

**Ketara**

Steve steveson wrote:

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.

**Co'tor Shas**

From the view of an outsider (me), UKIP seem a bit like the tea party, without the strength of an established party behind the,

**Steve steveson**

Ketara wrote:

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.

**Steve steveson**

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.