General Election 2015

[eFestivals]

I fear it is already too late.

yep it is.

Which is what happens when one side reaches for the skies while leaving the population behind.

Say what you like about Cameron, but he gets that at least. We're now getting to see just how much he was prepared to reign in what he'd really like to be doing to ensure he got the power to some things down the path he'd like to travel.

There's a lesson there.

[eFestivals]

Tuition fees was a huge strategic error and it really cost them. Its easy to say what they could/should have blocked, the reality is if they block everything ther government would have collapsed. and we would have ended with a tory majority earlier. However what we will see in the next few years the good that the lib dems did in coaltion, by seeing all the things tory push through, that lib dems didn't allow and it wont be pretty.

People often look at things as all good or all bad, the reality is normally in the middle. Nobody on the left should be rejoicing at the demise of the lib dems. There many seats down south where labour aren't competitive and may end up tory for life.

Hmmm, I'd say David Steel nailed it in an article the other day.

If Clegg hadn't handed himself over the tories before people had voted in 2010 - by saying he'd attempt coalition first with the largest party - he could have flirted with Labour and extracted more from the tories as a result.

[eFestivals]

unless of course you are Neil when you can argue for PR but sing the praises of the strong governments PR brings.

I presume you really meant to type "but sing the praises of the strong governments FPTP brings"?

Except you're making it up. Again.

I've simply referenced the public's view, which is exceedingly clear. 80% are against coalitions, for whatever reasons. They prefer what they see as the strong govts created by FPTP. Any party that won't reference what the public thinks is always going to find getting elected difficult, unsurprisingly.

And you've made clear that coalitions should be the sort of stitch up that the tories and LibDems did. That's what you spent the weeks before the election advocating (as long as it was the very small partner, the minority - your side - that held the upper hand).

I'm all for PR, but I'm also all for the honest democracy that it can deliver if people like you aren't backing an anti-democratic stitch up. Parties should vote for policies that they support that their electorate endorsed them for. Anything else is a lesser democracy.

Now, which parties have a recent proven history of not wanting honest democracy? That'll be the tories, the LIbDems, and the SNP.

The Labour party - whatever their other faults - were at least prepared to take their cue from 'the people'. That's a step towards more representative govt that no other party seemed to support.

[eFestivals]

You guys are never going to accept a party horsetrading so you effectively rule out any future coalitions...

except of course LJS is now arguing against the position he took before the election, where he was demanding that Labour bend to the SNP and do what they say.

The question of democracy is not about "how do I get my party into power", but "what gives the most honest democracy".

And that's not an agreed stitch-up between parties, it's parties voting in support of what they support.

Edited May 13, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

interesting posts from the GE topic in the Glasto section ...

This is my take on things:

1) Labour were on the back foot as soon as they picked Ed not David
2) People were terrified of a Labour / SNP coalition, allowing the Scottish woman to call all the shots.
3) Lib Dems were crucified for being bedfellows with the Conservatives
4) A lot of Working class people voted UKIP not Labour
5) Cameron and Osbourne managed the Economy reasonably well (or got lucky)
6) We've been promised a European Referendum by Cameron

Easy to see why they won......

I worked for 5 days as a canvasser in 5 marginal constituencies, this is exactly right from listening to several hundred people on their doorsteps.

[LJS]

yep it is.

Which is what happens when one side reaches for the skies while leaving the population behind.

Say what you like about Cameron, but he gets that at least. We're now getting to see just how much he was prepared to reign in what he'd really like to be doing to ensure he got the power to some things down the path he'd like to travel.

There's a lesson there.

I suspect there are several lessons there.

[eFestivals]

If you're going to horse trade your alleged principles and most fundamental values and campaign issues then what's the point of having an election the first place?

Have you stopped to think that you've voiced your support for a party who's aim was to do exactly that?

They weren't happy to merely vote for the policies they supported, they also demanded that other parties voted how they didn't want. They made a lot of noise about, and based their whole campaign around it.

But of course any horse-trading would have them give up on some of their principles too. It's not the one-way street they suggested via their campaign that it would be (so if you thought it would be, they mugged you of your brain).

The best democracy comes from voting for what you support, and allowing others to do the same - the very thing that your party demanded shouldn't happen, and are still ridiculously demanding shouldn't happen - having made up their own fake rules for the country and system your countrymen voted to be part of (or doesn't that vote count either? ).

It's laughable how some people think it's only democracy when they get everything they want without regard to anything else.

[viberunner]

While I agree with what you are saying from an idealist point of view, reality is different. While its great to have red lines in theory, they are no use of the party with the most mps (and money to fight another election) call your bluff and go to the electorate again. You could potentially go from getting some things you want, to getting nothing you want.

What, like the loss of 50 MPs and the annihilation for a generation, possibly even a death knell?

The SNP are quislings, happy to abandon the desire for a self-financing Scotland so they don't get found out as a bunch of bullshitters.

Their goal is independence as quickly as the electorate will allow. You know this Neil.

But, being "British" and who realises after independence he'll have to call himself "English", with all the EDL and "common sense innit" connotations that has, I can sympathise - though vociferously disagree - with your desire to avoid reality.

[viberunner]

The best democracy comes from voting for what you support, and allowing others to do the same - the very thing that your party demanded shouldn't happen...

Got some quotes on that mate?

[eFestivals]

Their goal is independence as quickly as the electorate will allow. You know this Neil.

but not full fiscal responsibility as fast as Westminster can facilitate.

But, being "British" and who realises after independence he'll have to call himself "English", with all the EDL and "common sense innit" connotations that has, I can sympathise - though vociferously disagree - with your desire to avoid reality.

I'd have more concern for you own welfare than mine, if I were you. Oh, you already do, you're a nationalist, my error.

It's you who's associated with the EDL.

Edited May 13, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Got some quotes on that mate?

are you just back from a long holiday?

[LJS]

Neil, no one in their right mind, including the SNP , suggested that the SNP would hold Labour to ransom. Every sane person knew perfectly well that if there was no overall majority there would be some form of negotiation & some sort of compromise, which would undoubtedly involve Labour as the largest partner getting the vast majority of its programme implemented, with a few concessions to the SNP. If the SNP made wild & unreasonable demands it would be entirely reasonable for Labour to refuse such a deal & let the people decide. Everyone knew this...

Even the Tories knew this but they pretended they didn't & concocted their little myth to scare the more gullible amongst Labour supporters...& Neil who was either stupid enough to fall for Tory propaganda or thought we were stupid enough...

I'm not sure which is true but he was wrong either way & just ended up looking like a bigoted twat.

[LJS]

On a more relevant note, here's a different take on what Labour needs to do now...

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/it-was-working-class-not-middle-class-sunk-labour

[viberunner]

I'd have more concern for you own welfare than mine, if I were you. Oh, you already do, you're a nationalist, my error.

It's you who's associated with the EDL.

That first line is important. You're wanting Scotland to save England from the English. That's the heart of it. I wish we had both the power and the mandate, but we have neither.

Hell, we've been blamed for England voting for Nazis & Numpties for us daring to vote for Scottish parties. I suggest any attempt by us to "help you" will be destined to meet with hostility, resentment, and failure.

I think you're going to have to fix your own country and to do that I think you're going to have to agree that you are a country.

As for SNP=EDL...

AN APPLICATION from the Scottish Defence League (SDL) to hold a parade in the Scottish capital during the Edinburgh Festival has been rejected by council officials.

http://www.scotsman.com/what-s-on/scottish-defence-league-s-festival-march-vetoed-1-3486600

Perhaps for the first time in his political career, Nigel Farage, the scourge of British politics, found himself in retreat on Thursday evening as dozens of protesters hounded him out of central Edinburgh.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/may/16/nigel-farage-edinburgh-protesters-van

And England? Countless EDL marches throughout England and 13% of the English voting for Farage.

[viberunner]

are you just back from a long holiday?

No, just calling your assertion out. If the examples are plethoric it shouldn't take you too long...

[eFestivals]

Neil, no one in their right mind, including the SNP , suggested that the SNP would hold Labour to ransom.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q="keep+labour+honest"&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=AUdUVZ_xDcGy7Qbk-ICoBw#q=SNP+"keep+labour+honest"

Keeping Labour honest would be holding Labour to their manifesto pledges - including the bits the SNP didn't want.

Were the SNP campaigning against the own policies, or was it really a threat to hold Labour to ransom?

The choice is yours. You decide.

The shock is mine. Either you're far dumber than I ever imagined, or you'll speak the truth for once. It's shocking either way.

Edited May 14, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q="keep+labour+honest"&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=AUdUVZ_xDcGy7Qbk-ICoBw#q=SNP+"keep+labour+honest"

Keeping Labour honest would be holding Labour to their manifesto pledges - including the bits the SNP didn't want.

Were the SNP campaigning against the own policies, or was it really a threat to hold Labour to ransom?

The choice is yours. You decide.

The shock is mine. Either you're far dumber than I ever imagined, or you'll speak the truth for once. It's shocking either way.

Your link led nowhere, which is perhaps apt. We are arguing about what might hypothetically have happened in a hypothetical situation. You somehow believe the SNP would have had Labour in their evil grasp & would have controlled their every move.

That's fine, as it is totally irrelevant to where we are now, you believe that if you want.

[eFestivals]

That first line is important. You're wanting Scotland to save England from the English.

PMSL.

Do you think? I'd stop taking the nutty pills if I were you.

I want Scotland to save England from a deluded Scotland.

You've clearly never actually stopped to think how this plays out on a small island.

But to help you, how vibrant is the Northern Ireland economy, and how does it effect the Irish economy?

And, to be clear, the Scottish/English impact will be waaaay bigger for a number of clear reasons, which you can find in a huge number of different stats.

As for SNP=EDL...

AN APPLICATION from the Scottish Defence League (SDL) to hold a parade in the Scottish capital during the Edinburgh Festival has been rejected by council officials.

yeah, I know. The SNP hate the competition. They're the SNP's racists, not anyone else's.

And England? Countless EDL marches throughout England and 13% of the English voting for Farage.

what is it about nationalism that you're having difficulty with?

49% of people in Scotland voted for the nutty nationalists who don't reference the facts.

Both blame the horrid 'other' for all of the problems within the borders.

Both make claims that don't stand up to any factual scrutiny.

If everyone voted nationalist, all of the problems of our glorious country will come to an end.

Edited May 14, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Your link led nowhere, which is perhaps apt.

the link won't post.

Google "snp keep labour honest"

FFS.

We are arguing about what might hypothetically have happened in a hypothetical situation.

No. We are arguing about the facts of what happened.

Either the SNP were campaigning on the basis that they supported the parts of Labour's manifesto that were against their own.

Or "keep Labour honest" meant "holding Labo0ur to ransom".

Take your pick.

Which one was it?

Were the SNP campaigning against themselves, or did they really mean something else?

You somehow believe the SNP would have had Labour in their evil grasp & would have controlled their every move.

whether they would or wouldn't can be argued over.

What the SNP campaigned on can't be argued over.

Were the SNP campaigning against their own policies, or did they mean something else when they said they'd "keep Labour honest"?

That's fine, as it is totally irrelevant to where we are now, you believe that if you want.

What do you believe?

Were the SNP campaigning against their own policies, or did they mean something else when they said they'd "keep Labour honest"?

Edited May 14, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

the link won't post.

Google "snp keep labour honest"

FFS.

No. We are arguing about the facts of what happened.

Either the SNP were campaigning on the basis that they supported the parts of Labour's manifesto that were against their own.

Or "keep Labour honest" meant "holding Labo0ur to ransom".

Take your pick.

Which one was it?

Were the SNP campaigning against themselves, or did they really mean something else?

whether they would or wouldn't can be argued over.

What the SNP campaigned on can't be argued over.

Were the SNP campaigning against their own policies, or did they mean something else when they said they'd "keep Labour honest"?

What do you believe?

Were the SNP campaigning against their own policies, or did they mean something else when they said they'd "keep Labour honest"?

Ok, you interpret "keeping Labour honest" differently to me.

Let's move on.

[LJS]

That was the Tories. They Di not fit into anyone "in their right mind" and people who fell for their bullshit (no names) don't either.

Now can we move on?

[eFestivals]

Now can we move on?

before you've faced the truth of what the SNP were doing?

I guess you'd prefer we moved on.

[eFestivals]

Ok, you interpret "keeping Labour honest" differently to me.

Let's move on.

So what did the SNP mean in your view?

Do bear in mind when you answer that the Labour party being "honest" is the Labour Party sticking to it's own manifesto promises, and not being forced into doing other things they've not promised.

So what did the SNP mean when they talked about "keeping Labour honest", LJS?

And how do you think the SNP saying they'd "keep Labour honest" was interpreted by the rest of the country?

Either Sturgeon was very poorly advised and didn't mean to undermine Labour - in which case is someone who fails to recognise the effects of their doings the best person to lead a devolved govt?

Or did Sturgeon know what she was doing and liked what she was doing and wanted to undermine Labour?

Which of the two was it, LJS? Is Sturgeon incompetent, or very happy with the effects of her words?

Edited May 14, 2015 by eFestivals

[viberunner]

what is it about nationalism that you're having difficulty with?

I find it a problem being in a political union with a country where 50% of the population vote Bullingdon or UKIP.

England should feel free to sail to the hard right as Scotland drifts to the left.

And if you think that Scotland would be the (financially) poorer for it, so be it. Somethings are worth paying for.

[eFestivals]

I find it a problem being in a political union with a country where 50% of the population vote Bullingdon or UKIP.

You mean you have a problem living in the country your region wants to be part of when you don't. Yeah, I know.

How much of a problem will you have living a country that's significantly poorer than the current Scotland you detest?

Have you ever stopped to think about that one? That what is claimed as 'better' won't be better at all?

Even the SNP know it, they call their own dream "suicide". Why don't you know it too?

England should feel free to sail to the hard right as Scotland drifts to the left.

if England sails to the right while Scotland goes left, how do you think that might work out?

Have you looked at the stats for the dependencies of other countries, to see that Scotland is massively more dependent on England for its economy than any other country in Europe is on another country - by over twice as much as the next, and about 5 times the average?

Have you studied the Scottish Govts own accounts in GERS, and looked at how Scotland is permanently supported from the south, because it cannot raise enough taxation internally?

Have you considered the massive cuts in spending and services a self-financing Scotland would need, or the massive tax increases as an alternative?

Have you considered that launching your own currency would cost you a full year's GDP, and put Scotland's national debts above 150% of GDP at indy (around the same as Greece), leaving no room to borrow?

Have you considered that not a jot of anything is being done by the party of indy to make Scotland ready for indy?

Have you considered what a fuck-up Scotland would be if a solid EU border separates England from Scotland (take your pick for which of the two is in and the other out, it makes no difference)?

And if you think that Scotland would be the (financially) poorer for it, so be it. Somethings are worth paying for.

That's fine if you're happy to vote yourself poorer.

Just make sure the rest of your countrymen know that your plan is to impoverish them, cos you wouldn't want to be a liar like that nasty nasty Westminster, would you?

If you're wanting something better you have to do it better. Tell your countrymen how poor you want them be.

Edited May 14, 2015 by eFestivals