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.

**welshhoppo**

I always thought that the SNP, an anti Union party, getting a say in the British Parliament is pretty paradoxical.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

welshhoppo wrote:
I always thought that the SNP, an anti Union party, getting a say in the British Parliament is pretty paradoxical.

You could make a similar argument for UKIP. Pulling the UK out of the EU could have a massive impact on jobs and trade.

**angelofvengeance**

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.

**Optio**

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.

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

**obsidianaura**

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.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

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?

**obsidianaura**

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.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

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**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
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

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

obsidianaura wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
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.

**obsidianaura**

Yes a written one would help a great deal.

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.

**Paradigm**

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.

**obsidianaura**

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.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

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.

**-Shrike-**

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**

-Shrike- wrote:
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.

**Paradigm**

7-leader debate on ITV now... Could be a laugh, although cramming all 7 in 2 hours is a bit of a waste.

Clegg gunning for a coalition from line one!

**MrDwhitey**

Nick Clegg can go take a running jump into a pit of snakes.

Again

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

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!

**Paradigm**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
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....

**Da Boss**

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?

**MrDwhitey**

Colonials don't govern, they get governed.

**Da Boss**

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.

**Kilkrazy**

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.

**SilverMK2**

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.

**Henry**

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.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Paradigm wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
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.

**Da Boss**

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.

**angelofvengeance**

This just in: A son of a Labour councillor has been busted trying to get into Syria to fight for Islamic State... Oh dear.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/04/02/son-of-labour-councillor-detained-trying-to-cross-into-syria_n_6994256.html

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.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

angelofvengeance wrote:
This just in: A son of a Labour councillor has been busted trying to get into Syria to fight for Islamic State... Oh dear.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/04/02/son-of-labour-councillor-detained-trying-to-cross-into-syria_n_6994256.html

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.