The 2015 General Election Megathread

[Cade]

The tears and snotters on friday morning are going to be

[deesidejambo]

New Labour?

 

10/10.  don't get me started on those gits again.

[Sidsnot]

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.

I wonder where all the swastika blokes are today,probably at a BNP rally down south I guess.

If Murphy and The Lizard want to bawl their heads off then hell mend the trolls,the shitebag loves nothing more than screaming his head off at other politicians,he's yesterday's man on Friday.

[deesidejambo]

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?

Not quite, but I see the reason many moving to SNP are simply disaffected by a lack of representation by the left of politics.   You don't need constitutional or electoral change to get that.  You just need Labour to move back to its roots.

[Sidsnot]

You don't half sound silly sometimes.

What do you mean by sometimes.

[GBJambo]

The tears and snotters on friday morning are going to be

Indeed they are. When the snp don't win as many seats as they expect and are frozen out.

[2NaFish]

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

 

Fundamentalism breeds no irony. I bet you can type that without a hint of self-knowledge.

[deesidejambo]

The tears and snotters on friday morning are going to be

I agree. It will be like watching Rangers and hubs both getting booted by QOS.    But I'm in at 7/1 for a LD win in Gordon and 12/5 for Labour to hold Aberdeen South.   Piece of piss.  Beware the silent ones - the tactical voters.  They wont show up in the polls, but they are there.

[Boris]

Not quite, but I see the reason many moving to SNP are simply disaffected by a lack of representation by the left of politics.   You don't need constitutional or electoral change to get that.  You just need Labour to move back to its roots.

 

A lack of left because the system dictates what policy has to be for electoral success? 

[GBJambo]

I agree. It will be like watching Rangers and hubs both getting booted by QOS. But I'm in at 7/1 for a LD win in Gordon and 12/5 for Labour to hold Aberdeen South. Piece of piss. Beware the silent ones - the tactical voters. They wont show up in the polls, but they are there.

Exactly the silent tactical voters will spring a few surprises.

[leginten]

I agree. It will be like watching Rangers and hubs both getting booted by QOS.    But I'm in at 7/1 for a LD win in Gordon and 12/5 for Labour to hold Aberdeen South.   Piece of piss.  Beware the silent ones - the tactical voters.  They wont show up in the polls, but they are there.

It will be interesting, to say the least. What number of seats would constitute a bad night for the SNP, given the landslide predicted by the pollsters? 45? 40? 35?

 

I somehow find it hard to imagine they will end up taking over 50 seats. It's the fact that they are almost certainly going to have a substantially higher number of seats at Westminster than ever before that makes it hard to predict where exactly the SNP disappointment/Labour face-saving line is.

[deesidejambo]

A lack of left because the system dictates what policy has to be for electoral success? 

Maybe.  It the choice was either left or right, then the first past the post system was suited to that.     The problem comes if all parties are so similar there is little difference between them.   Then it gets muddy, as people vote for national parties as opposed to whoever is best to represent them.   It was amusing hearing Ruth Davidson criticise the PR system in Scotland, as it works against the Tories, but she toed the national party line nevertheless.  I still think she is a decent person though - she should defect to LD.

[aussieh]

Exactly the silent tactical voters will spring a few surprises.

Silent voters, well that must include me, ive never been asked, so stick that in your pipe.

[deesidejambo]

Exactly the silent tactical voters will spring a few surprises.

And I'm gonna cash in.      G&Ts all round.

[aussieh]

It will be interesting, to say the least. What number of seats would constitute a bad night for the SNP, given the landslide predicted by the pollsters? 45? 40? 35?

 

I somehow find it hard to imagine they will end up taking over 50 seats. It's the fact that they are almost certainly going to have a substantially higher number of seats at Westminster than ever before that makes it hard to predict where exactly the SNP disappointment/Labour face-saving line is.

Anything over 6, is a good night.

Your numbers are feckin magical.

Edited May 4, 2015 by aussieh

[Thunderstruck]

Exactly the silent tactical voters will spring a few surprises.

Are springing. Voting has been underway for over a week.

 

Some of the changes in tone might indicate that, like Ruth D admitted to last Sept, others are involved in illegal reporting of what was seen at opening of Postal Votes. Not illegal to look but illegal to tell.

[aussieh]

desperados.

[deesidejambo]

Silent voters, well that must include me, ive never been asked, so stick that in your pipe.

Every election, and the Indyref, under predicts the Tory (or No) vote.   This is because its not "right on" to say you vote Tory, but in the privacy of that little booth......  I'm pretty sure the tory vote will be highe than that given by the polls, and that some of those Tories will vote, for example in Gordon, for LD (they have already been asked to by Clegg) and I know my misuse is also going to vote Labour this time just to try to keep the Nats out.  I'm reasonably sure she isn't the only person who will do this.

[aussieh]

Every election, and the Indyref, under predicts the Tory (or No) vote. This is because its not "right on" to say you vote Tory, but in the privacy of that little booth...... I'm pretty sure the tory vote will be highe than that given by the polls, and that some of those Tories will vote, for example in Gordon, for LD (they have already been asked to by Clegg) and I know my misuse is also going to vote Labour this time just to try to keep the Nats out. I'm reasonably sure she isn't the only person who will do this.

aww this to keep oot the SNP, when westminster rips us to bits constantly, carry on.

[Cade]

SNP won't get anywhere near as many seats as the polls are suggesting. 30-35 is a more reasonable estimate.

[Malinga the Swinga]

aww this to keep oot the SNP, when westminster rips us to bits constantly, carry on.

Westminster isn't ripping me to bits. In fact, Westminster has a better record of fulfilling its promises than the shambles that is Holyrood. In fact, the number of broken promises and election pledges that the abhorant SNP, led by Salmond, Sturgeon and her crazed disciples far outweighs what happens in Westminster.

[GBJambo]

Every election, and the Indyref, under predicts the Tory (or No) vote. This is because its not "right on" to say you vote Tory, but in the privacy of that little booth...... I'm pretty sure the tory vote will be highe than that given by the polls, and that some of those Tories will vote, for example in Gordon, for LD (they have already been asked to by Clegg) and I know my misuse is also going to vote Labour this time just to try to keep the Nats out. I'm reasonably sure she isn't the only person who will do this.

There is an online campaign United against Seperation that is driving a grass roots tactical voting campaign

[aussieh]

Westminster isn't ripping me to bits. In fact, Westminster has a better record of fulfilling its promises than the shambles that is Holyrood. In fact, the number of broken promises and election pledges that the abhorant SNP, led by Salmond, Sturgeon and her crazed disciples far outweighs what happens in Westminster.

Good fur you. Abhorant, no thats anything tory.

[Guest Trapper John]

There is an online campaign United against Seperation that is driving a grass roots tactical voting campaign

And very good it is too. 

 

Country before party. Quite right.

[kingantti1874]

I'm really starting to dislike this country, the weather, the old firm, and now we have a bunch of socialist republican arseholes who think it's a great idea to interrupt the democratic process.... If it were not for immediate family I'd leave and never look back.

[Guest Trapper John]

I'm really starting to dislike this country, the weather, the old firm, and now we have a bunch of socialist republican arseholes who think it's a great idea to interrupt the democratic process.... If it were not for immediate family I'd leave and never look back.

Welcome to the land of 'change': the new Scotland.

[SE16 3LN]

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.

 

 

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

Disappointed in that response to be honest Boris. I never mentioned the Nazi's, you did. Voting for a Nationalist party believing you're getting anything other than Nationalism is frankly ludicrous, 

[Australis]

Watching the news with Jim Murphy being hounded by thugs, and not being allowed to speak or be heard.

It's like 1930's Germany.

Nationalism is a filthy disgusting thing, when only one voice or party is allowed to be heard.

 

What a horrible wee country Scotland is turning into. People afraid to put posters in their windows. and being shouted down, not having a right to speak. People voting in a once in a generation referendum, then being told they are traitors and quislings. #55%

It is so like 1930's Germany with all the divide and hate, while Salmond and Sturgeon's silence seems to support it all.

[GBJambo]

I'm really starting to dislike this country, the weather, the old firm, and now we have a bunch of socialist republican arseholes who think it's a great idea to interrupt the democratic process.... If it were not for immediate family I'd leave and never look back.

Yep. Shocking scenes in Glasgow today. This is the future of Scotland unless people come to their senses.

[dobmisterdobster]

Yep. Shocking scenes in Glasgow today. This is the future of Scotland unless people come to their senses.

"Shocking scenes"

 

 

[dobmisterdobster]

double post

Edited May 4, 2015 by dobmisterdobster

[GBJambo]

double post

Two wrongs don't make a right. Nice whataboutery there

[Boris]

Disappointed in that response to be honest Boris. I never mentioned the Nazi's, you did. Voting for a Nationalist party believing you're getting anything other than Nationalism is frankly ludicrous,

I never said you did, I was merely alluding to the insinuations regards what nationalism is from other sources, so apologies if the inference was that you had said such.

 

I think my point is valid I.E. Not all nationalist parties should be feared and neither is the wish to be independent. I don't recall any of the unionist parties bemoaning the break up of the USSR, for example.

[Guest Trapper John]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Nice whataboutery there

 Scenes like today will bring a few more soft Nats back to Labour. Or at least joining in on tactical voting.

[Guest Trapper John]

I never said you did, I was merely alluding to the insinuations regards what nationalism is from other sources, so apologies if the inference was that you had said such.

 

I think my point is valid I.E. Not all nationalist parties should be feared and neither is the wish to be independent. I don't recall any of the unionist parties bemoaning the break up of the USSR, for example.

Comparing the breakaway of the Eastern European countries from the USSR/Warsaw Pact with Scotland and the UK?

 

I'd say that was more about freedom than nationalism.

 

Weak, Boris.

[JamboX2]

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?

Not for all. Maybe for some. Maybe for some their vote may count more - I can vote Green, LibDem, Tory or SSP and we might see a representative from that party (on PR). I don't think the SNP want federalism as that concedes that the union is still relevant and has a major role to play for Scotland. Electoral reform is a tangible benefit. Lords reform hasn't happened because it's not. Simple. Hurts for people wanting no more lords but it's not going to win you hundreds of seats. It'll win you 5 or 6 and I bet you they all serve major universities with large student populations. But it's not a vote winner in affluent areas or working class ones.

 

However, none of those things will appeal to a significant minority of the Scottish electorate anymore. They want one thing, the SNP want that too, and they are using it as a vehicle for it.

 

So Boris, no, I don't think it will if all those things happened it would cause SNP voters to turn back. A chunk maybe but there's a whole swathe who won't.

 

The SNP will be a major player in UK politics from now on. It's up to them if they are constructive or not. If it's the latter all they are doing is to agitate for another vote, and that isn't good enough for thousands of Scots who deserve a government actually concerned with real issues, not who is the last line before the EU Commission.

[Stuart Lyon]

Is Queen Nicola the new Eva Peron? Look what happened to Argentina when she was in charge!

[Guest Trapper John]

Of course, it's all one way.

 

He wasn't hounded by thugs. Murphy is bellowing into a loudspeaker in a public place, people are entitled to challenge him. The only violence today (caught on video) was a labour dogsbody attacking someone.

 

Absolutely pathetic. Do you condone SNP supporters being assaulted? I could provide 20 articles of recent events including death threats and pregnant women being kicked.

So, do you think this is all good then?

 

Never before in living memory has Scotland been so divided.

 

All for nationalism.

[Guest Trapper John]

No it won't. Most 'Nats' know the game that the press play, they do their own research and are able to distinguish lies from fact.

One of the most risible comments in the history of JKB.

[TheMaganator]

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?

I think a few would go back but not many. 

[TheMaganator]

No it won't. Most 'Nats' know the game that the press play, they do their own research and are able to distinguish lies from fact.

 

'The press is pure mega bias - come to Wings Over Scotland and the National to receive the TRUTH'

[Guest Trapper John]

Course not. But I have the ability to be reflective and acknowledge that there are idiots on both sides whereas people like you proclaim that it's all one way.

Where did I say it was one way?

[Guest Trapper John]

I've found a majority of you comments on this thread particularly to be rather more risible than my statement.

 

I fail to see what happened in Glasgow as 'absolute chaos' and 'violence'.

Who mentioned 'absolute chaos and 'violence?' Not me.

 

But for the record yes, I believe the the scenes today were a disgrace to democracy. You'd be saying the same thing if one of your candidates was treated similarly.

 

Nat hypocrasy knows no limits it seems.

[Guest Trapper John]

Not quite. I believe in doing your own research before believing the daily anti-Scotland diatribe we're subjected to daily.

 

You and your party DO NOT speak for Scotland. Do you not understand that concept?

[TheMaganator]

Not quite. I believe in doing your own research before believing the daily anti-Scotland diatribe we're subjected to daily.

Daily anti-Scotland diatribe? 

 

You're not getting upset at that McKenna piece are you?

[Ivan Drago]

Absolutely pathetic. Do you condone SNP supporters being assaulted? I could provide 20 articles of recent events including death threats and pregnant women being kicked.

I don't think anyone condones anyone getting assaulted based on their politics - why would they?

 

The amount of people apologising for what happened today is embarrassing. And I'd say the exact same if it had been some idiot shouting in Nicola Sturgeons not letting her speak.

[TheMaganator]

I don't think anyone condones anyone getting assaulted based on their politics - why would they?

 

The amount of people apologising for what happened today is embarrassing. And I'd say the exact same if it had been some idiot shouting in Nicola Sturgeons not letting her speak.

It's the same clowns who hounded Murphy during the independence referendum and who hounded Farage off the streets when he was in Edinburgh. 

 

It's democracy likesy though eh

[Rand Paul's Ray Bans]

Do you have house insurance or just don't bother because the chances of an earthquake or being burgled are low?

 

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

 

Okies. So you're trying to explain deterrence theory with a domestic analogy. Some stuff off the top of my head:

 

Burglary

 

The act of burglary is not akin to being threatened or hit with nuclear weapons. Having your 40 inch TV nicked is not a valid comparison to a nuclear strike. The only tenuous scenario in which there is a comparison is if the burglar kills you and you kill the burglar is self-defence - MAD. But then we have to deal with the problem that comparing a state to a person generally does not hold. I could not survive a knife through the heart; you could not survive a knife to the throat. Could the USA survive without Los Angeles? Sure. New York too? Aye. What about if we add in Washington too? I think so. Could Israel survive a nuclear strike? Probably not. It is always a dangerous game to apply the domestic analogy to an international context, even though the Hobbesian state of nature is often cited by realists. 

 

Even if your TV is nicked, you could buy another one. The USA couldn't buy another Los Angeles. 

 

Burglars will probably not be deterred by a sign outside your house stating "If you burgle my house, I will burgle yours". They will weigh up that you will probably not find out who they are or where they live unless they are caught by the police and subsequently charged, tried, and put in jail. The threat of being caught and put in jail is a stronger deterrent than the commitment to reciprocate burgling a burglar's house. The fact that the burglars indeed did burgle shows that they valued the potential profit of the burglary over the risk of being burgled themselves and being on the end of the long arm of the law. The disincentives of launching nuclear weapons are clear: for a fatal blow you deal to your enemy, a fatal blow is dealt to yourself. (Although the validity of this can be questioned slightly with what I stated above.)

 

Earthquake

 

Earthquakes are caused by the movement of tectonic plates. Tectonic plates do not have agency. They cannot decide whether to rub together to cause an earthquake or to not rub together. Conversely, the holders of the launch codes for nuclear weapons do have agency. They decide whether they want to launch the weapons or to not. 

 

Humans cannot retaliate to an earthquake with an earthquake. How on earth (lol) do you force an earthquake upon tectonic plates? And, as explained above, tectonic plates do not have agency. They cannot grasp whether there is benefits or risks to causing an earthquake and destroying your house. Coherently presenting the threat that you will submit the tectonic plates to an earthquake if they cause an earthquake upon you will not deter them from causing an earthquake which will destroy your house. Whereas in a scenario of MAD you know what your target(s) is/are and you do have the means of doing it.

 

We also have to consider the consequences of causing an earthquake to tectonic plates. This would probably cause another earthquake, and thus more destruction and possibly death. There is no ethical or logical basis for the suffering caused by this earthquake caused by earthquake. In a scenario of MAD (if we ignore Jeff McMahan's responsibility criterion, which is a massive other debate), generally a citizen population of the state launching a nuclear weapon against you is fair game.

[Guest Trapper John]

Okies. So you're trying to explain deterrence theory with a domestic analogy. Some stuff off the top of my head:

 

Burglary

 

The act of burglary is not akin to being threatened or hit with nuclear weapons. Having your 40 inch TV nicked is not a valid comparison to a nuclear strike. The only tenuous scenario in which there is a comparison is if the burglar kills you and you kill the burglar is self-defence - MAD. But then we have to deal with the problem that comparing a state to a person generally does not hold. I could not survive a knife through the heart; you could not survive a knife to the throat. Could the USA survive without Los Angeles? Sure. New York too? Aye. What about if we add in Washington too? I think so. Could Israel survive a nuclear strike? Probably not. It is always a dangerous game to apply the domestic analogy to an international context, even though the Hobbesian state of nature is often cited by realists. 

 

Even if your TV is nicked, you could buy another one. The USA couldn't buy another Los Angeles. 

 

Burglars will probably not be deterred by a sign outside your house stating "If you burgle my house, I will burgle yours". They will weigh up that you will probably not find out who they are or where they live unless they are caught by the police and subsequently charged, tried, and put in jail. The threat of being caught and put in jail is a stronger deterrent than the commitment to reciprocate burgling a burglar's house. The fact that the burglars indeed did burgle shows that they valued the potential profit of the burglary over the risk of being burgled themselves and being on the end of the long arm of the law. The disincentives of launching nuclear weapons are clear: for a fatal blow you deal to your enemy, a fatal blow is dealt to yourself. (Although the validity of this can be questioned slightly with what I stated above.)

 

Earthquake

 

Earthquakes are caused by the movement of tectonic plates. Tectonic plates do not have agency. They cannot decide whether to rub together to cause an earthquake or to not rub together. Conversely, the holders of the launch codes for nuclear weapons do have agency. They decide whether they want to launch the weapons or to not. 

 

Humans cannot retaliate to an earthquake with an earthquake. How on earth (lol) do you force an earthquake upon tectonic plates? And, as explained above, tectonic plates do not have agency. They cannot grasp whether there is benefits or risks to causing an earthquake and destroying your house. Coherently presenting the threat that you will submit the tectonic plates to an earthquake if they cause an earthquake upon you will not deter them from causing an earthquake which will destroy your house. Whereas in a scenario of MAD you know what your target(s) is/are and you do have the means of doing it.

 

We also have to consider the consequences of causing an earthquake to tectonic plates. This would probably cause another earthquake, and thus more destruction and possibly death. There is no ethical or logical basis for the suffering caused by this earthquake caused by earthquake. In a scenario of MAD (if we ignore Jeff McMahan's responsibility criterion, which is a massive other debate), generally a citizen population of the state launching a nuclear weapon against you is fair game.

Yer like a dug wi' a bone, Joe...

[Rand Paul's Ray Bans]

No relevance? The point was about insurance.

 

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

 

If you're going to use a rhetorical device, don't make it a shit one.