General Election 2015

[eFestivals]

Here`s another interesting general election piece from the Guardian. If Labour`s vote doesn`t collapse in England. Milliband will be PM they think.

Tonight Milliband will quite rightly force home the point that he wants to win. I remain bemused that some on here are not " happy " with the safety net Salmond will provide if that is not the case. Can`t see Dave getting the seats he will need. I think Dave is toast If him and Danny Alexander are shown the door at the same time then I think the SNP will have done us all a favour.

This Guardian fella offers an interesting antidote to Salmond at the end of his piece.

Miliband should call Salmond’s bluff. He should quickly offer the Scots Parnell’s home rule, warts and all. Salmond could take over his full budget, his welfare state and a currency tied to sterling. He should pay for his own pensioners, regiments and wind turbines. He can gather up his subventions and subsidies, as well as his MPs, and take the lot of them back over Hadrian’s Wall, leaving behind little more than a concept of citizenship and some joint services.

Miliband would have hardly any Scottish Labour MPs to object. The Tories would be out of office and no English voter would bat an eyelid. Miliband would get one parliament, the Tories the next................

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/26/alex-salmond-more-powerful-possibly-imagine-snp?

you're now championing an "unconditional" support of Labour by the SNP.

(despite Salmond having stated the opposite, but there's no accounting for what happoens in a snipper's mind).

So, on the basis of that "unconditional" support, care to tell me what the point of a vote for the SNP is, if they're going to 100% Labour's lackies but with no influenbce into Labour's policies as Labour MPs would have?

What's the point of the SNP in your world?

[Comfy Bean]

so what you're saying is that you';re still making it up contrary to clear facts*?

(* Salmond's "hold Labour's feet to the flame" comment)

And you wonder why I constantly take the piss.

Oh Dear

That is not what he said. Yet again you are making it up.

[eFestivals]

Oh Dear

That is not what he said. Yet again you are making it up.

I might have got the quote slightly wrong in the exact wiords, but not i the meaning.

Especially when Salmond played a role-play game with Marr, where Salmond walked him thru a scenario where the SNP would screw Labour into doing what the SNP wants.

But just like GERS the facts evaporate to be replaced by snippers' self-inventions.

You're going to be a very puzzled man next time you get an indyref. Any chance you'll invite me up to spend the day with you for some good entertainment?

[Comfy Bean]

you're now championing an "unconditional" support of Labour by the SNP.

(despite Salmond having stated the opposite, but there's no accounting for what happoens in a snipper's mind).

So, on the basis of that "unconditional" support, care to tell me what the point of a vote for the SNP is, if they're going to 100% Labour's lackies but with no influenbce into Labour's policies as Labour MPs would have?

What's the point of the SNP in your world?

My goodness. In my opinion, Salmond will make an unconditional offer to form an anti-tory group of MP`s that will lock Dave out. So... Dave out Ed in. That is my opinion with 6 weeks to go. Would you rather see this happening than another 5 years of Dave : Yes or No ?

I`m not championing anything. I think Ed should push hard on the line that he wants to win. Salmond has given him a Plan B. I know this doesn`t sit with your long held view that Salmond / people of Scotland want Dave in. Salmond is offering a way to lock Dave out. What part of that is passing you by ? How many Tories do you think the people of Scotland will elect ????

You really need to accept this and stop making stuff up. I often give " my view ". i`ve never claimed to be an expert. Your playing the man to avoid theses issues in my opinion. I`m interested in why you see Salmonds offer as a bad thing in this General election ( the purpose of this thread ). I`ve already said I don`t think you want another 5 more years of Dave. Do you think Ed can get Labour over the line ? Do you accept that you thought this before ?

I`m happy to accept that you can see Ed getting enough votes. I happen to disagree and have always held that view as you know. It`s all about opinions at the end of the day

[kaosmark2]

I still think Ed and a Cleggless Lib Dems will have enough MPs.

[Comfy Bean]

I might have got the quote slightly wrong in the exact wiords, but not i the meaning.

Especially when Salmond played a role-play game with Marr, where Salmond walked him thru a scenario where the SNP would screw Labour into doing what the SNP wants.

But just like GERS the facts evaporate to be replaced by snippers' self-inventions.

You're going to be a very puzzled man next time you get an indyref. Any chance you'll invite me up to spend the day with you for some good entertainment?

You said Labour. Salmond said Westminster.Quite a difference in context. That is a fact for you right there

Why not mention gers again........................oh you did !

I pointed you to the page(s) where I gave my opinion yesterday. For everyone`s sanity I`m not getting into these gers figures again but will look forward to you pmsl`ing again next year at the state of *our finances under the current Westminster regime.

You are more than welcome to spend any day with me and I`d happily buy you ( or anyone else on here ) a pint. I fear though Neil that you would then spend months denying that I ever bought the pint in the first place

* when I say our I mean our.

[Comfy Bean]

I still think Ed and a Cleggless Lib Dems will have enough MPs.

Mark, this is a good point. What numbers / polls are you basing this on. Would agree that would be more favourable to Ed but bear in mind that the SNP MP`s don`t want cabinet seats. The Lib Dems are finished in Scotland. Their`s was the original vow that caused a stir up here as you know. I`m not sure how close they are to losing a load of seats down your way and I don`t see the SNP getting the 50 seats that they are currently polling so you could be right.

If you don`t mind me asking, are you still going with the Greens mate ?

In our elections up here next year I think Labour will bomb and Nicola Sturgeon backed by Patrick Harvie is my dream ticket

[eFestivals]

My goodness. In my opinion, Salmond will make an unconditional offer to form an anti-tory group of MP`s that will lock Dave out. So... Dave out Ed in. That is my opinion with 6 weeks to go. Would you rather see this happening than another 5 years of Dave : Yes or No ?

I would, but there's not a hope in hell of that happening.

Salmond will try to extract a price for his support.

You're a fruitcake.

I`m not championing anything. I think Ed should push hard on the line that he wants to win. Salmond has given him a Plan B.

Has Salmond given Miliband a plan B? Or has Salmond stolen plan A?

There's no way you can paint voting SNP as giving Miliband the best support, unless you've had all of your braincells removed.

I know this doesn`t sit with your long held view that Salmond / people of Scotland want Dave in. Salmond is offering a way to lock Dave out. What part of that is passing you by ? How many Tories do you think the people of Scotland will elect ????

what don't you get about politics? The list is clearly very very long.

Salmond is saying he wants Labour - else his support disappears - but he would much rather it was Chicken Dave, because if it's Chicken Dave support for indy will grow.

What part of that is passing you by?

Just as his laughable indy economic policy gets to show, he is quite happy to give endless bullshit for you to swallow in a brain-dead manner.

You really need to accept this and stop making stuff up.

I know, it's naughty of me to keep saying that Salmond wants Sindy when it's just not true, eh?

I`m interested in why you see Salmonds offer as a bad thing in this General election

and i'm interested in how you see an offer which doesn't exist?

Do you think Ed can get Labour over the line ?

he certainly would if the people who want a Labour govt voted Labour.

[eFestivals]

I still think Ed and a Cleggless Lib Dems will have enough MPs.

I've certainly seen seat predictions on one of the seat predictions sites which has that happening.

[eFestivals]

You said Labour. Salmond said Westminster.Quite a difference in context.

But it proves what you said wrong! It's Salmond making clear he expects a price to be paid to him for SNP support within Westminster.

And just as aside, all of that piece is laughable anyway, because every single part of 'the vow' is going to be delivered. It's all on track already, and it's party policy of the three trad parties.

But don't let any of that stop you claiming a victory for Salmond when he causes nothing at all to happen.

You are more than welcome to spend any day with me and I`d happily buy you ( or anyone else on here ) a pint. I fear though Neil that you would then spend months denying that I ever bought the pint in the first place

if I did, it would only be because i was laughing so much I'd missed it happen.

[LondonTom]

Apparently after a coin toss, the format will be Dave & Paxo, then Dave & Burley with audience participation, Ed & Burley and finally Ed & Paxo.

What an utterly bizzare format, surely it would be better to have Dave, then Ed then change interviewers?

I found out night that I've got a Green Candidate in my area now, so unless something drastic changes anything I will be voting for her. (The seat has been Labour for about 120 years, so its doubtful there is any chance of the Tories getting in or anyone else).

Only found out, as I decided to annoy the candidates with one of those Green Peace email your local politician campaigns. (The No Fracking pledge one, so obviously didn't need to email the greens to ask them to vote no Fracking ). Only one to have emailed back so far and seemed rather genuine.

[kaosmark2]

Mark, this is a good point. What numbers / polls are you basing this on. Would agree that would be more favourable to Ed but bear in mind that the SNP MP`s don`t want cabinet seats. The Lib Dems are finished in Scotland. Their`s was the original vow that caused a stir up here as you know. I`m not sure how close they are to losing a load of seats down your way and I don`t see the SNP getting the 50 seats that they are currently polling so you could be right.

If you don`t mind me asking, are you still going with the Greens mate ?

In our elections up here next year I think Labour will bomb and Nicola Sturgeon backed by Patrick Harvie is my dream ticket

A combination of seeing all of them, and my awareness that polls tend to exaggerate electoral changes right up until the exit polls.

Lib Dems are fucked in a few places. I still expect they'll still return 30-40 MPs nationally, particularly in rural seats where there's low student population and the left-wing members of the population will just grit their teeth and vote for them in hope they don't prop up the Tories next time.

I'm 90% going with Greens. I'm prepared to let the local Labour candidate persuade me otherwise, but I doubt she will.

[eFestivals]

what I find odd is how, when the coalition first announced it's austerity plans, most people who didn't vote them in were up in arms about the plans. Now that Labour have decided that the only way to fight the Tories is to be a watered down version of them (immigration is another example), the austerity plans are the way to go....

In case you failed to notice, Labour had plans to deal with the deficit last time too. In fact, Gideon has pretty much worked to Labour's plans and not the tory plans, tho without the investment and with added fake-housing boom.

So actually, both Labour, and my position towards their position, has remained pretty much in the same place over the last five years.

[kaosmark2]

Labour had austerity plans, but their austerity plans involved continuing investment in things that would generate tax revenue, not just cutting all public services regardless of impact.

[metallimuse]

R

[LJS]

and yet it's your view which has fucked up Ed's chances in the first place.

Not the tories, not Ed himself. You.

You and your fact-free ideas, without referencing anything of the realities of Labour or the SNP.

Yes, Neil, all Labour losses will be entirely Comfy's fault.

I bet you did that global warming too Comfy.

Put the men in white coats on standby. Neil's already tenuous link to reality is fading fast.

[LJS]

you're now championing an "unconditional" support of Labour by the SNP.

(despite Salmond having stated the opposite, but there's no accounting for what happoens in a snipper's mind).

So, on the basis of that "unconditional" support, care to tell me what the point of a vote for the SNP is, if they're going to 100% Labour's lackies but with no influenbce into Labour's policies as Labour MPs would have?

What's the point of the SNP in your world?

The clue is in the "S"

It's not complicated.

[zero000]

The audience for this debate are sycophantic morons. Also that question about shredded wheat was horrendous. Cameron was given a much too easy ride.

[zero000]

Ed is getting such a grilling by comparison, it's bizarre. Kay Burley isn't helping matters, impartial my arse.

[kaosmark2]

Brilliant answer from Ed about what he most admires about Cameron. Praising him for standing up to his party in regard to modern marriage values and overseas aid was both honest and politically astute.

Mediocre performance from both otherwise.

[kipper64]

I think Cameron done pretty poorly overall, especially in the Paxman part. Kay Burley was far too easy on him, she didn't chip in at all (maybe quite rightly), on the other hand she did quite a few times to Ed. Ed wasn't amazing, but done quite well overall despite that. Will see how his Paxman quiz plays out.

I agree his answer about equal marriage was good!

[zero000]

Ed is having a nightmare here. Cameron played Paxman much better.

[kipper64]

I don't think he did? He was flustered from the get-go re: foodbanks, followed by the borrowing/debt question and definitely on the zero hour contracts soundbite. Handed Labour a freebie there.

Ed's not doing well either, the first part of the interview was far too past focused, what's the point in debating what happened in 2004, when there's more relevant issues and points to make.

[zero000]

He's coming into it well, but he was very rambling and tangential at the beginning.

[lost]

Ed is having a nightmare here. Cameron played Paxman much better.

The cuts to the audience smirking are pretty damning, not sure if that means it didn't happen for Cameron or the director is a conservative