The 2015 General Election Megathread

[2NaFish]

The domestic analogy really, really doesn't work here.

 

It would maybe be better if it was, rather than insurance, a bazooka and a sign in your front garden that said, "i shoot to kill"

 

Although the insurance analogy is pretty great. When i'm burgled insurance pays for me to get new stuff. But when there's an attack of britain that's worthy of using trident, we get a nuclear holocaust.

[Gorgiewave]

A citty on a hill, the Athens of the North:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IuPsmN6TME

[JamboAl]

The domestic analogy really, really doesn't work here.

Do you mean it doesn't work or do you mean IN YOUR OPINION it doesn't work?

[Rand Paul's Ray Bans]

It would maybe be better if it was, rather than insurance, a bazooka and a sign in your front garden that said, "i shoot to kill"

 

Although the insurance analogy is pretty great. When i'm burgled insurance pays for me to get new stuff. But when there's an attack of britain that's worthy of using trident, we get a nuclear holocaust.

 

It's the anthropomorphic tectonic plates that tickle me.

 

Do you mean it doesn't work or do you mean IN YOUR OPINION it doesn't work?

 

The former.

 

Would you like me to explain? Spoiler: it'll be absolutely humiliating for you.

[2NaFish]

Do you mean it doesn't work or do you mean IN YOUR OPINION it doesn't work?

 

It falls apart in atleast half a dozen major ways. It's an appalling analogy.

[Thunderstruck]

The domestic analogy really, really doesn't work here.

Poll of Ukranians and Iraqis indicates that they think they would be between significantly better off and somewhat better off if they had retained/obtained some nuclear capability.

[The Mighty Thor]

Poll of Ukranians and Iraqis indicates that they think they would be between significantly better off and somewhat better off if they had retained/obtained some nuclear capability.

What is the relevance of that to the question of whether the UK spends in excess of ?100 billion on another nuclear deterrent or not?

[2NaFish]

Poll of Ukranians and Iraqis indicates that they think they would be between significantly better off and somewhat better off if they had retained/obtained some nuclear capability.

 

Ridiculous non sequiturs aren't going to pull this one out of the fire, i fear.

[SE16 3LN]

That's nailed it for me.

 

A swing to the SNP isn't necessarily "nationalism".  Rather a vehicle for change.  For me, the fact no one is talking about modernising and revamping the Westminster system so that it is more representative and democratic speaks volumes.

 

Rightly or wrongly, the lurch to the right by the Labour party is an anathema to many too.  And not just in Scotland!

Sleep walk your way into that one if you want, but remember who gave them legitimacy when you can't turn the tide back.

[Guest Trapper John]

Sleep walk your way into that one if you want, but remember who gave them legitimacy when you can't turn the tide back.

Boris is an old Commie. Remember their mantra, 'the end justifies the means'.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Trapper John

[JAYEL]

Labour losing support of the Unions in Scotland

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11570792/The-historic-link-between-Labour-and-the-trade-unions-is-about-to-break-thanks-to-the-SNP.html

[Thunderstruck]

What is the relevance of that to the question of whether the UK spends in excess of ?100 billion on another nuclear deterrent or not?

I would have thought the relevance is quite clear. Do you think either of those countries would have been threatened or invaded if either had strategic weaponry?

[Boris]

Sleep walk your way into that one if you want, but remember who gave them legitimacy when you can't turn the tide back.

 

Don't you trust the electorate to make a mature decision about who it would wish to govern if/when an independent Scotland came about?  Don't you think that pluralism is part of our democratic tradition?  To me, it seems, that for some the fear of independence outweighs individual political thought or conviction.  This, imo, very weak slur, equating the SNP with a kind of nationalism redolent of the 1930's (Nazi's, right?) is really quite sad.  I mean, I'm sure we are all aware of the dangerous forms of nationalism to which are being referred, one can look at the break up of the former Yugoslavia to see that, but misses the point that Scotland, in its relationship with the UK, doesn't have those ethnic tensions.  As I've said all along, the SNP may well be a means to an end in propagating change to the political system,  be that within the UK or within an independent Scotland.  To think that all of a sudden it's going to become anything other than a liberal western democracy is frankly ludicrous.

 

Boris is an old Commie. Remember their mantra, 'the end justifies the means'.

 

Or realpolitik, as others may have called it, Tovarich!

[Rand Paul's Ray Bans]

Poll of Ukranians and Iraqis indicates that they think they would be between significantly better off and somewhat better off if they had retained/obtained some nuclear capability.

 

 

Even though it has no relevance to what was being discussed, do you have a link to this poll?

Edited May 4, 2015 by Rand Paul's Ray Bans

[aussieh]

I would have thought the relevance is quite clear. Do you think either of those countries would have been threatened or invaded if either had strategic weaponry?

probably sooner.

[JamboAl]

It's the anthropomorphic tectonic plates that tickle me.

 

 

The former.

 

Would you like me to explain? Spoiler: it'll be absolutely humiliating for you.

Yes.  Please explain.  I don't mind being humiliated if I learn something in the process.

[Thunderstruck]

Even though it has no relevance to what was being discussed, do you have a link to this poll?

No relevance? The point was about insurance.

 

As for the Poll - a rhetorical device; I thought that might have been obvious. Mea culpa.

[JamboX2]

Don't you trust the electorate to make a mature decision about who it would wish to govern if/when an independent Scotland came about? Don't you think that pluralism is part of our democratic tradition? To me, it seems, that for some the fear of independence outweighs individual political thought or conviction. This, imo, very weak slur, equating the SNP with a kind of nationalism redolent of the 1930's (Nazi's, right?) is really quite sad. I mean, I'm sure we are all aware of the dangerous forms of nationalism to which are being referred, one can look at the break up of the former Yugoslavia to see that, but misses the point that Scotland, in its relationship with the UK, doesn't have those ethnic tensions. As I've said all along, the SNP may well be a means to an end in propagating change to the political system, be that within the UK or within an independent Scotland. To think that all of a sudden it's going to become anything other than a liberal western democracy is frankly ludicrous!

Ludicrous perhaps, but the SNP have not really demonstrated an ability to be productive at cross party working. Nor have they shown an impetus to imagine a pluralistic Scotland after the feted independence occurs. If I remember rightly they actively campaigned and spoke out against competing visions of independence in the referendum - the Green view that we'd need a vote of the people to consent to NATO and EU membership was scoffed at. The idea of a republic ignored and the notion that Scotland should have its own currency or opt to join the euro were totally rejected in favour of an SNP proposed currency union.

 

I think it would take a generation for some form of non-nationalistic based Scottish politics to come around after independence. It would 1. Take a long time for wounds on both sides to heal and 2. The SNP mantra was always going to be "they didn't want it, don't give them the keys to the nation".

 

Sadly, the best way to defeat the SNP is give them what they want. Sturgeon and the SNP can be popular and an alternative because they've got a boogeyman in Westminster - failures on their watch can be palmed off. Give them tax, spend, welfare and international responsibilities and a budget ebbing and flowing on tax receipts and we would see how left wing and anti-austerity they'd be. And we know that from the Swinney memo that cuts were an inevitability.

[aussieh]

No relevance? The point was about insurance.

 

As for the Poll - a rhetorical device; I thought that might have been obvious. Mea culpa.

So you made it up, how very Libdem.

[aussieh]

Ludicrous perhaps, but the SNP have not really demonstrated an ability to be productive at cross party working. Nor have they shown an impetus to imagine a pluralistic Scotland after the feted independence occurs. If I remember rightly they actively campaigned and spoke out against competing visions of independence in the referendum - the Green view that we'd need a vote of the people to consent to NATO and EU membership was scoffed at. The idea of a republic ignored and the notion that Scotland should have its own currency or opt to join the euro were totally rejected in favour of an SNP proposed currency union.

 

I think it would take a generation for some form of non-nationalistic based Scottish politics to come around after independence. It would 1. Take a long time for wounds on both sides to heal and 2. The SNP mantra was always going to be "they didn't want it, don't give them the keys to the nation".

 

Sadly, the best way to defeat the SNP is give them what they want. Sturgeon and the SNP can be popular and an alternative because they've got a boogeyman in Westminster - failures on their watch can be palmed off. Give them tax, spend, welfare and international responsibilities and a budget ebbing and flowing on tax receipts and we would see how left wing and anti-austerity they'd be. And we know that from the Swinney memo that cuts were an inevitability.

Excuse, but why are Labour not attacking their true enemy Conservative?.

[JamboX2]

I don't really disagree with your analysis of the SNP and, come the Holyrood elections next year, I would hope to see a detailed scrutiny of the SNP's track record in Government - at that election as the Govt they have to be held account. So far though, and again I think it's all about perception, I can't help but feel Labour are being found wanting. The main problem is, as I mentioned, the friction between the UK party and policy and how that is translated for the Scottish electorate. The perception is that Labour nationally is centre-right as a means to an end to appease Tory-mindedness in the south of England.

 

I think you have mentioned it before, but Paul Mason's analysis of the UK is something I agree with and that needs addressing with Labour being the natural party to do so on a UK scale.

That perception is wrong though. There's never been a bigger difference between the two main parties for donkeys years. It's a failure to get that message out there. Miliband will probably make a good prime minister but he's a rubbish opposition leader.

 

In Scotland there's the opposite of what happened in Wales. Welsh Labour wrapped themselves up in the Welsh flag and made themselves the party to protect Wales from wrong minded UK Labour and Tory policies. Their success in that was perception only.

 

Scottish Labour, always (and rightly to me) wary of being drawn into patriotism and nationalism, actually opposed UK Labour policies and Blairite reforms staunchly, charted their own course and the SNP took on the mantle well due to a botched election in 2007. The Labour message then was wrong to focus on independence but they did and lost a seat more than the SNP.

 

The issue of perception is that they allowed the SNP to paint themselves as something - anti-SNP initially - and never fought against it.

 

Scottish Labour has a good story to sell on its own achievements in Scotland from its time in office. The party of Free Personal Care, free tuition, schools for the future, hospitals etc. Building on that is vital. The SNP record should rightly be scrutinised tightly at the Holyrood election - but it won't be and the focus will be on another constitutional bung fight. Which helps no one.

Edited May 4, 2015 by JamboX2

[JamboX2]

Excuse, but why are Labour not attacking their true enemy Conservative?.

They are. But in Scotland the SNP are the bigger opponent. Both at Holyrood and Westminster.

 

Nationally Labour are attacking the Tories. The media is more interested in the Sturgeon-Miliband issue however and that is playing a bigger role.

 

I've said this election Labour should've just said, we are working for a majority and should we fail to achieve it we will work to secure a minority government on the outcome of the vote. Ignore the SNP and talk about the policies they want to implement.

 

Not worked out like that.

[Boris]

That perception is wrong though. There's never been a bigger difference between the two main parties for donkeys years. It's a failure to get that message out there. Miliband will probably make a good prime minister but he's a rubbish opposition leader.

 

 

 

I'm not really arguing why Labour has made a James Hunt of it or whether the perception is right or wrong.

 

Point is, the perception exists and Labour, through hubris, arrogance whatever, is getting its arse felt because of it.

 

the Scottish party comes across as shambolic.

[Thunderstruck]

So you made it up, how very Libdem.

You are too kind.

[JAYEL]

Ludicrous perhaps, but the SNP have not really demonstrated an ability to be productive at cross party working. Nor have they shown an impetus to imagine a pluralistic Scotland after the feted independence occurs. If I remember rightly they actively campaigned and spoke out against competing visions of independence in the referendum - the Green view that we'd need a vote of the people to consent to NATO and EU membership was scoffed at. The idea of a republic ignored and the notion that Scotland should have its own currency or opt to join the euro were totally rejected in favour of an SNP proposed currency union.

 

I think it would take a generation for some form of non-nationalistic based Scottish politics to come around after independence. It would 1. Take a long time for wounds on both sides to heal and 2. The SNP mantra was always going to be "they didn't want it, don't give them the keys to the nation".

 

Sadly, the best way to defeat the SNP is give them what they want. Sturgeon and the SNP can be popular and an alternative because they've got a boogeyman in Westminster - failures on their watch can be palmed off. Give them tax, spend, welfare and international responsibilities and a budget ebbing and flowing on tax receipts and we would see how left wing and anti-austerity they'd be. And we know that from the Swinney memo that cuts were an inevitability.

 

Ludicrous that the SNP are going to win almost every seat in Scotland at the election

 

 

You are not getting your message across

[Boris]

Ludicrous perhaps, but the SNP have not really demonstrated an ability to be productive at cross party working. Nor have they shown an impetus to imagine a pluralistic Scotland after the feted independence occurs. If I remember rightly they actively campaigned and spoke out against competing visions of independence in the referendum - the Green view that we'd need a vote of the people to consent to NATO and EU membership was scoffed at. The idea of a republic ignored and the notion that Scotland should have its own currency or opt to join the euro were totally rejected in favour of an SNP proposed currency union.

 

I think it would take a generation for some form of non-nationalistic based Scottish politics to come around after independence. It would 1. Take a long time for wounds on both sides to heal and 2. The SNP mantra was always going to be "they didn't want it, don't give them the keys to the nation".

 

Sadly, the best way to defeat the SNP is give them what they want. Sturgeon and the SNP can be popular and an alternative because they've got a boogeyman in Westminster - failures on their watch can be palmed off. Give them tax, spend, welfare and international responsibilities and a budget ebbing and flowing on tax receipts and we would see how left wing and anti-austerity they'd be. And we know that from the Swinney memo that cuts were an inevitability.

 

Well, you can blame YES Campaign for allowing the SNP to dominate.  Ironically the reason YES lost IMO.  Personally, I voted YES, but understand why NO won the day.  the SNP, a party whose raison d'etre is independence should have had currency, Eu etc etc nailed down immediately, in fact should have been their opening salvoes.  Greens should have kicked up more of a fuss.

 

Doesn't mean though that we would have a one party state come independence.  Which really was the crux of my point.

 

The SNP are there to be shot at.  So far no-one seems able to though.

[JamboX2]

Well, you can blame YES Campaign for allowing the SNP to dominate. Ironically the reason YES lost IMO. Personally, I voted YES, but understand why NO won the day. the SNP, a party whose raison d'etre is independence should have had currency, Eu etc etc nailed down immediately, in fact should have been their opening salvoes. Greens should have kicked up more of a fuss.

 

Doesn't mean though that we would have a one party state come independence. Which really was the crux of my point.

 

The SNP are there to be shot at. So far no-one seems able to though.

SNP Teflon is an incredible thing.

 

As someone who voted Yes as well the official campaign to me was nothing more than an arm of the SNP run from Bute House. The No campaign was equally shambolic and not really open to all.

 

It's failure stemmed from SNP hubris and a belief it'd be all right on the night, no need to answer hard questions, our vibe is fun and friendly, it'll see us through.

 

That hubris is again present this year. A hard question is rebutted with "that's ludicrous/nonsense/wrong" or "are you a Tory?"

 

It's juvenile and infuriating that like you say no one is landing any hard blows on the SNP. There's plenty to hit them with, but they keep going.

 

I wasn't saying there'd be a one party state either, more that they aren't a party open to different voices inside itself let alone amongst others. John Finnie was chased out for leading the opposition to NATO membership. Parties cannot be effective with a lack of debate. They weaken if controlled too tightly from the top (see Scottish Labour). It's the seeds of the SNP's eventual downfall. Like Dewars vetting of every candidate selected in 1999 was for Scottish Labour.

[Guest Trapper John]

Well, you can blame YES Campaign for allowing the SNP to dominate.  Ironically the reason YES lost IMO.  Personally, I voted YES, but understand why NO won the day.  the SNP, a party whose raison d'etre is independence should have had currency, Eu etc etc nailed down immediately, in fact should have been their opening salvoes.  Greens should have kicked up more of a fuss.

 

Doesn't mean though that we would have a one party state come independence.  Which really was the crux of my point.

 

The SNP are there to be shot at.  So far no-one seems able to though.

Not easy when their voters are deaf and blind to any criticism and believe/accept anything the Party tells them. No matter how absurd or badly costed.

 

Remind you of anything, Comrade?

[Gorgiewave]

SNP Teflon is an incredible thing.

 

As someone who voted Yes as well the official campaign to me was nothing more than an arm of the SNP run from Bute House. The No campaign was equally shambolic and not really open to all.

 

It's failure stemmed from SNP hubris and a belief it'd be all right on the night, no need to answer hard questions, our vibe is fun and friendly, it'll see us through.

 

That hubris is again present this year. A hard question is rebutted with "that's ludicrous/nonsense/wrong" or "are you a Tory?"

 

It's juvenile and infuriating that like you say no one is landing any hard blows on the SNP. There's plenty to hit them with, but they keep going.

 

I wasn't saying there'd be a one party state either, more that they aren't a party open to different voices inside itself let alone amongst others. John Finnie was chased out for leading the opposition to NATO membership. Parties cannot be effective with a lack of debate. They weaken if controlled too tightly from the top (see Scottish Labour). It's the seeds of the SNP's eventual downfall. Like Dewars vetting of every candidate selected in 1999 was for Scottish Labour.

 

But this Teflon will peel off.

 

No lie can live forever.

[JamboX2]

I'm not really arguing why Labour has made a James Hunt of it or whether the perception is right or wrong.

 

Point is, the perception exists and Labour, through hubris, arrogance whatever, is getting its arse felt because of it.

 

the Scottish party comes across as shambolic.

It's in a panic. No one expected Lamont to resign. No one expected the SNP to surge ahead in late October as they did and no one expected Murphy to not be this ineffective after a decent referendum.

 

As someone who voted Yes and voted for Findlay, I've not gone with the grain of the thought bubble behind those 3 ball drops but it's no surprise it's shambolic at the moment.

 

Needs a real long term plan. The aim should be hold control of its key councils in a few years and push the SNP into minority at 2016 to make active gains in terms of policy and to show what Labour would do in power again for Scotland. The route back lies at council and Holyrood level.

[The Mighty Thor]

I would have thought the relevance is quite clear. Do you think either of those countries would have been threatened or invaded if either had strategic weaponry?

Are we under threat of invasion? If so, from whom?

[Gizmo]

That's nailed it for me.

 

A swing to the SNP isn't necessarily "nationalism".  Rather a vehicle for change.  For me, the fact no one is talking about modernising and revamping the Westminster system so that it is more representative and democratic speaks volumes.

 

Rightly or wrongly, the lurch to the right by the Labour party is an anathema to many too.  And not just in Scotland!

I know I keep saying this but the potential for another hung parliament or coalition government shows there is not a great appetite across the UK for either establishment party - they are both centrist, neo-liberal and signed up for TTIP which is just heralding in the same politics as the US - sponsored by corporations, banks and business and serving for their needs and not the peoples. It furthers inequality, erodes rights and reduces the quality of life for the majority of people.

 

The SNP are not that radical but at least they offer a viable alternative (I'd be happier if all their candidates were 100% against TTIP and not just looking for the Scottish NHS to be protected from it) and recognize that austerity economics is utterly discredited and needs to be stopped. Labour have failed this country for decades despite being able to weigh their vote across many parts of Scotland and I don't understand why the more fervent labour supporters cannot recognise how pissed off many traditional labour voters were at the false dawn that "New Labour" turned out to be - their complicity in the referendum only hastened their demise, imo.

 

I actually agree with the concept of eschewing nationalism and moving towards a global community with open borders and freedom of movement. But I think any transition towards this requires small steps and I believe a fairer, independent Scotland within a federal EU is a better stepping stone to getting there - the UK and Westminster is power-hungry to the point they'd probably leave the EU rather than give up any powers or power-projection on the world stage.

 

Incidentally, TTIP & the EU signing up to this treaty with the US is not the way forward for establishing a global community - what sounds like a treaty is really just a power grab by corporations who will end up with the ability, enshrined legally, to sue governments and councils. We need to be taking power away from the corporations and banking fraternity not giving them the tools to further enrich themselves at our expense.

[Boris]

Not easy when their voters are deaf and blind to any criticism and believe/accept anything the Party tells them. No matter how absurd or badly costed.

 

Remind you of anything, Comrade?

 

New Labour?

 

[Boris]

I know I keep saying this but the potential for another hung parliament or coalition government shows there is not a great appetite across the UK for either establishment party - they are both centrist, neo-liberal and signed up for TTIP which is just heralding in the same politics as the US - sponsored by corporations, banks and business and serving for their needs and not the peoples. It furthers inequality, erodes rights and reduces the quality of life for the majority of people.

 

The SNP are not that radical but at least they offer a viable alternative (I'd be happier if all their candidates were 100% against TTIP and not just looking for the Scottish NHS to be protected from it) and recognize that austerity economics is utterly discredited and needs to be stopped. Labour have failed this country for decades despite being able to weigh their vote across many parts of Scotland and I don't understand why the more fervent labour supporters cannot recognise how pissed off many traditional labour voters were at the false dawn that "New Labour" turned out to be - their complicity in the referendum only hastened their demise, imo.

 

I actually agree with the concept of eschewing nationalism and moving towards a global community with open borders and freedom of movement. But I think any transition towards this requires small steps and I believe a fairer, independent Scotland within a federal EU is a better stepping stone to getting there - the UK and Westminster is power-hungry to the point they'd probably leave the EU rather than give up any powers or power-projection on the world stage.

 

Incidentally, TTIP & the EU signing up to this treaty with the US is not the way forward for establishing a global community - what sounds like a treaty is really just a power grab by corporations who will end up with the ability, enshrined legally, to sue governments and councils. We need to be taking power away from the corporations and banking fraternity not giving them the tools to further enrich themselves at our expense.

 

I don't disagree with you!

[JAYEL]

I know I keep saying this but the potential for another hung parliament or coalition government shows there is not a great appetite across the UK for either establishment party - they are both centrist, neo-liberal and signed up for TTIP which is just heralding in the same politics as the US - sponsored by corporations, banks and business and serving for their needs and not the peoples. It furthers inequality, erodes rights and reduces the quality of life for the majority of people.

 

The SNP are not that radical but at least they offer a viable alternative (I'd be happier if all their candidates were 100% against TTIP and not just looking for the Scottish NHS to be protected from it) and recognize that austerity economics is utterly discredited and needs to be stopped. Labour have failed this country for decades despite being able to weigh their vote across many parts of Scotland and I don't understand why the more fervent labour supporters cannot recognise how pissed off many traditional labour voters were at the false dawn that "New Labour" turned out to be - their complicity in the referendum only hastened their demise, imo.

 

I actually agree with the concept of eschewing nationalism and moving towards a global community with open borders and freedom of movement. But I think any transition towards this requires small steps and I believe a fairer, independent Scotland within a federal EU is a better stepping stone to getting there - the UK and Westminster is power-hungry to the point they'd probably leave the EU rather than give up any powers or power-projection on the world stage.

 

Incidentally, TTIP & the EU signing up to this treaty with the US is not the way forward for establishing a global community - what sounds like a treaty is really just a power grab by corporations who will end up with the ability, enshrined legally, to sue governments and councils. We need to be taking power away from the corporations and banking fraternity not giving them the tools to further enrich themselves at our expense.

 

 

Perfectly summed up..

 

 

I still dont see why some still cling to the Labour party

Edited May 4, 2015 by JAYEL

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I know I keep saying this but the potential for another hung parliament or coalition government shows there is not a great appetite across the UK for either establishment party - they are both centrist, neo-liberal and signed up for TTIP which is just heralding in the same politics as the US - sponsored by corporations, banks and business and serving for their needs and not the peoples. It furthers inequality, erodes rights and reduces the quality of life for the majority of people.

 

The SNP are not that radical but at least they offer a viable alternative (I'd be happier if all their candidates were 100% against TTIP and not just looking for the Scottish NHS to be protected from it) and recognize that austerity economics is utterly discredited and needs to be stopped. Labour have failed this country for decades despite being able to weigh their vote across many parts of Scotland and I don't understand why the more fervent labour supporters cannot recognise how pissed off many traditional labour voters were at the false dawn that "New Labour" turned out to be - their complicity in the referendum only hastened their demise, imo.

 

I actually agree with the concept of eschewing nationalism and moving towards a global community with open borders and freedom of movement. But I think any transition towards this requires small steps and I believe a fairer, independent Scotland within a federal EU is a better stepping stone to getting there - the UK and Westminster is power-hungry to the point they'd probably leave the EU rather than give up any powers or power-projection on the world stage.

 

Incidentally, TTIP & the EU signing up to this treaty with the US is not the way forward for establishing a global community - what sounds like a treaty is really just a power grab by corporations who will end up with the ability, enshrined legally, to sue governments and councils. We need to be taking power away from the corporations and banking fraternity not giving them the tools to further enrich themselves at our expense.

Just one question. You say that austerity must end so how much should the UK be borrowing per week? ?2bn? ?2.5bn? ?3bn?

 

The fact is that most of the deficit is structural, not cyclical so you can never get growth at a rate sufficient enough to pay down the deficit. Unless you fancy some Modern Monetary Theory of course which I would actually love to see in a developed economy, just to prove it is complete bollocks!

[aussieh]

You are too kind.

[Toxteth O'Grady]

The biggest mistake Labour have made is that they are the Opposition Party that hasn't opposed the government.

[Thunderstruck]

Are we under threat of invasion? If so, from whom?

No. We have been able to deter any such threat for the past 70 years.

 

Personally, I would prefer that we had no need for strategic weaponry but, alas, we clearly do not live in a world of peace and harmony. I would happily see them all scrapped or put beyond immediate use - but only as a multilateral agreement; something that, quite frankly, will never happen.

[TheMaganator]

Well, you can blame YES Campaign for allowing the SNP to dominate.  Ironically the reason YES lost IMO.  Personally, I voted YES, but understand why NO won the day.  the SNP, a party whose raison d'etre is independence should have had currency, Eu etc etc nailed down immediately, in fact should have been their opening salvoes.  Greens should have kicked up more of a fuss.

 

Doesn't mean though that we would have a one party state come independence.  Which really was the crux of my point.

 

The SNP are there to be shot at.  So far no-one seems able to though.

It is not that nobody is able to shoot at them, Boris. It is that those who vote for them simply don't care. 

 

Take their free tuition policy. It doesn't work for what it was meant to do. It has not helped kids from poorer backgrounds get into university and higher education - it has actually meant they have to borrow more. Yet we had that awful moment and splurge if cash on Salmond having a stone engraved with that stupid 'rocks will melt with the sun' quote. The SNP support lap it up and we all move on. Teflon - as was said above. 

http://www.centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk/sites/default/files/papers/workingpaper3_fairestofthemall_creid.pdf

 

[2NaFish]

No. We have been able to deter any such threat for the past 70 years.

 

Personally, I would prefer that we had no need for strategic weaponry but, alas, we clearly do not live in a world of peace and harmony. I would happily see them all scrapped or put beyond immediate use - but only as a multilateral agreement; something that, quite frankly, will never happen.

 

The bear patrol must be working like a charm.

[Boris]

It is not that nobody is able to shoot at them, Boris. It is that those who vote for them simply don't care. 

 

Take their free tuition policy. It doesn't work for what it was meant to do. It has not helped kids from poorer backgrounds get into university and higher education - it has actually meant they have to borrow more. Yet we had that awful moment and splurge if cash on Salmond having a stone engraved with that stupid 'rocks will melt with the sun' quote. The SNP support lap it up and we all move on. Teflon - as was said above. 

http://www.centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk/sites/default/files/papers/workingpaper3_fairestofthemall_creid.pdf

 

 

So, the question must be, what has led to half the electorate wanting to embrace them?

 

If, as can be demonstrated, the failings in the SNP and their policies and term in office, why is there no backlash?  

 

In my opinion, it is the main parties inability to separate themselves from their London masters.  Rightly or wrongly.

 

But then this shows a reluctance to support Londo-centric parties and must surely be a huge steer to them to reorganise on properly Scottish lines.  So, if these parties kind of had a relationship like the CSU from Bavaria has with the CDU in the greater German Bund, they may well attract votes?

 

It is these parties inabilities to do this that has helped the rise of the SNP.  IMO.

[Jam Tarts 1874]

I see the facists have been out and about again trying to shout down democracy.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32580153

 

As an aside, just had a good demonstration of the nats' stupidity.  One of their campaign cars has just been round "vote fur snp and get thae tories oot o Westmister" was the cry. 

 

I wonder if the numwit concerned or indeed any nat can explain how the snp are going to get the tories out of Westminster.

[Boris]

I see the facists have been out and about again trying to shout down democracy.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32580153

 

As an aside, just had a good demonstration of the nats' stupidity.  One of their campaign cars has just been round "vote fur snp and get thae tories oot o Westmister" was the cry. 

 

I wonder if the numwit concerned or indeed any nat can explain how the snp are going to get the tories out of Westminster.

 

By helping prop up a Labour minority govt?

[JamboX2]

So, the question must be, what has led to half the electorate wanting to embrace them?

 

If, as can be demonstrated, the failings in the SNP and their policies and term in office, why is there no backlash?

 

In my opinion, it is the main parties inability to separate themselves from their London masters. Rightly or wrongly.

 

But then this shows a reluctance to support Londo-centric parties and must surely be a huge steer to them to reorganise on properly Scottish lines. So, if these parties kind of had a relationship like the CSU from Bavaria has with the CDU in the greater German Bund, they may well attract votes?

 

It is these parties inabilities to do this that has helped the rise of the SNP. IMO.

I don't think it is totally that. Scots voted Labour in the central belt for donkeys and they neglected their core support too long.

 

That's hard to get back on top of. And is one peice of the jigsaw.

 

Equally, people, I think, don't really care about policy being set at different levels. Edinburgh Labour have different policies from Glasgow Labour but they share Scottish wide policy. As do local branches of the SNP, LibDems etc. Why does or should the sound of the voice offering the policies matter? Murphy is more Scottish than Ed but the narrative is the same by in large as the SNP's, yet no dramatic shift in polls moving to Labour.

 

We are guilty in Scotland of viewing our political parties in a nationalistic manner nowadays. I prefer to look at the policy in black and white in a manifesto. To me the SNP are no better in their offer than Labour. The real left wing alternative is Green. But as we've spoke about they aren't anywhere to be seen here.

 

The clincher for me is the track record of the SNP, both nationally and locally its not as progressive as is being or ever has been offered. How can local government cuts by an SNP council be progressive if for the cost for funding personal care, school places or nursery provision is to give a man in a ?500,000 house a proportionately higher tax cut than those at the bottom? Where is the commitment to social mobility when further education is cut to support universities? Where is the desire to reform democracy in Scotland when you stay committed to running the nation through hundreds of quangos?

 

I was too young to be let down by Blair. But I'm old enough to remember the commitments promised in 2007 by the SNP, and I'm sorry to say to some here, but they let me and my generation down on a lot.

[TheMaganator]

So, the question must be, what has led to half the electorate wanting to embrace them?

 

If, as can be demonstrated, the failings in the SNP and their policies and term in office, why is there no backlash?  

 

In my opinion, it is the main parties inability to separate themselves from their London masters.  Rightly or wrongly.

 

But then this shows a reluctance to support Londo-centric parties and must surely be a huge steer to them to reorganise on properly Scottish lines.  So, if these parties kind of had a relationship like the CSU from Bavaria has with the CDU in the greater German Bund, they may well attract votes?

 

It is these parties inabilities to do this that has helped the rise of the SNP.  IMO.

Because the majority of their supporters see them as the only vehicle to independence and are prepared to forgive and ignore what it takes to get them there. 

[Gorgiewave]

So, the question must be, what has led to half the electorate wanting to embrace them?

 

If, as can be demonstrated, the failings in the SNP and their policies and term in office, why is there no backlash?  

 

In my opinion, it is the main parties inability to separate themselves from their London masters.  Rightly or wrongly.

 

But then this shows a reluctance to support Londo-centric parties and must surely be a huge steer to them to reorganise on properly Scottish lines.  So, if these parties kind of had a relationship like the CSU from Bavaria has with the CDU in the greater German Bund, they may well attract votes?

 

It is these parties inabilities to do this that has helped the rise of the SNP.  IMO.

 

You assume there's some solid logic behind it. Voting for a party because it is allegedly left-wing when its policies and record are the opposite is not logical.

 

So, as leginten says, we need a better electorate who do their homework rather than thinking every day's the gala day.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Gorgiewave

[Gorgiewave]

Because the majority of their supporters see them as the only vehicle to independence and are prepared to forgive and ignore what it takes to get them there. 

 

They are also drugged to the eyeballs with self-pity and self-righteousness. These outweigh any policies and the SNP play up to that.

[Boris]

Because the majority of their supporters see them as the only vehicle to independence and are prepared to forgive and ignore what it takes to get them there. 

 

Interesting.

 

Therefore, if some Westminster constitutional change were to occur to the political system (PR, elected second chamber, federalism perhaps?) do you think this would tempt people back into voting for the unionist (for want of a word) parties?

[Boris]

They are also drugged to the eyeballs with self-pity and self-righteousness. These outweigh any policies and the SNP play up to that.

 

You don't half sound silly sometimes.