Jump to content

The 2015 General Election Megathread


Rand Paul's Ray Bans

Recommended Posts

Mate my posts were certainly not aimed at you. Your one of the most, if not, THE most politically minded and balanced poster that I see on this forum without a doubt. I guess my point was aimed at the more hysterical posters who pounce on every single thing that happens, that they deem to be sure signs that the SNP or any of their voters are nasty types and are taking us all to 1930's Germany.

Trapper asked why I don't nail my colours to any mast and my answer is they are all pretty much the same give or take one or two policies and I move to suit what I believe at the time. My beliefs have changed since I was younger and they could possibly change again in the future.

I've toyed with an SNP vote on this occasion after voting Tory at the last one and a couple for Tony Blair before that but like I say I'm not 100% behind the SNP this time for a couple of reasons. I might abstain...

No worries Jack. Wasn't getting at you. Just don't think trivialising the trauma of that whole issue or using it against hysterical SNP = Nazis stuff is helpful. It's an issue that those who may see it and not go away and read up on themselves might misconstrue and that's not good for a lot of reasons.

 

I know I won't change your mind on who to vote for, so vote for who you want to or who you think will represent your family, friends and community best.

 

Oh and if you abstain, make sure you do it by spoiling your ballot. Your discontent will be noted in the statistics and means your "f@@@ off" is registered! It's as vital as picking your favourite arsehole in a democracy :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 14k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • aussieh

    1284

  • JamboX2

    893

  • TheMaganator

    818

  • Boris

    639

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I don't agree. Sorry. Northern Ireland opts to vote for Northern Irish parties. They never form the government and they never really exert too much influence. Therefore, is every UK government illegitimate in Northern Ireland?

No. Because it's a UK wide election, whereby the UK electorate as a whole makes its mind up and we get a UK government on the back of it. If Scotland chooses to vote nationalistically like Northern Ireland and not for UK wide parties then that loss of governing influence is a consequence.

Interestingly if Labour held most of their seats (say 30) on current polls they'd be ahead of the Tories. Also, the SNP might be a prop for Labour but they're a poor one. The Labour Party would need Green, SDLP and Plaid backing too. So it's a shakes alliance at best.

The example was used to highlight how archaic the system is. Not to do down the SNP. It's a crap system if we have a multiparty democracy. As a result it should go. Yes it'll harm the SNP. But it'll benefit the people over parties and rid us of incumbency complacency. Two things that have been held up as failures of Scottish politics under Labour would go.

A missed chance for Labour is its failure to embrace electoral reform. I honestly think we need to change that mindset going forward.

Northern Ireland has a whole set of circumstances which I think makes it difficult to compare to Scotland, including a set of MPs which never even goes to Westminster - and does not regard any Westminster government as being legitimate - and a slight majority of the population which still elects Unionist MPs.

 

There are certain realities about the forthcoming election which mean that any attempt to freeze out the prospective bloc of SNP MPs will result in a very poor outcome for those who will then scream loudest about the fall-out. If it's a hung parliament and Labour can only govern with SNP support, the "legitimacy" argument makes itself. While this election has nothing to do with the constitution, any attempt by the Unionist parties at Westminster to sideline the bulk of Scotland's MPs can do nothing but harm to the Union itself.

 

In any case, it's a bit rich of supporters of a party which has traditionally tried to make huge capital out of the "democratic deficit" every time Scotland votes Labour but gets a Tory government to dismiss Sturgeon's comments. If the "democratic deficit" wasn't an argument about legitimacy, what was it?

Edited by leginten
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Northern Ireland has a whole set of circumstances which I think makes it difficult to compare to Scotland, including a set of MPs which never even goes to Westminster - and does not regard any Westminster government as being legitimate - and a slight majority of the population which still elects Unionist MPs.

There are certain realities about the forthcoming election which mean that any attempt to freeze out the prospective bloc of SNP MPs will result in a very poor outcome for those who will then scream loudest about the fall-out. If it's a hung parliament and Labour can only govern with SNP support, the "legitimacy" argument makes itself. While this election has nothing to do with the constitution, any attempt by the Unionist parties at Westminster to sideline the bulk of Scotland's MPs can do nothing but harm to the Union itself.

In any case, it's a bit rich of supporters of a party which has traditionally tried to make huge capital out of the "democratic deficit" every time Scotland votes Labour but gets a Tory government to dismiss Sturgeon's comments. If the "democratic deficit" wasn't an argument about legitimacy, what was it?

On your last point, I'd argue Holyrood and the Snedd and Stormont help address the democratic deficit substantially. However, PR addresses democratic deficits as well, as every vote counts more effective in showing the choice of people.

 

The SNP could win near 40% of the Scottish vote. Their majority of seats is deserved but not wholly legitimate based on share of votes. In a UK wide context it's off that a party with 15% could have 2 seats and in a UK context with 4% have 45. Labour won as Labour at UK elections until devolution brought about a more autonomous Scottish Labour. However, as a sister party the vote share was never counted separately. As a separate party in the UK the SNP will have a much lower UK vote share, but higher share of seats than most.

 

However, that's only the case if we had one big national list for the whole UK - which is made. It'd need to be a set of regional and local lists or larger constituencies returning multiple members. So the discrepency on that national share would still exist. But it would be a wholly fairer system.

 

Again, I used it to highlight a perceived injustice. However, here I've shown again that will likely occur anyway as Scotland and Scottish seats under PR would still return near 60 MPs and so that discrepency where a nationalist party stood would exist regardless.

 

The SNP want power and influence. What party doesn't? But what they ignore is that in a party of minorities their voice won't be the most important as whoever is in government will need to work with all parties of all colours and stripes. The SNP will need to let the Greens, Plaid, the SDLP and the Liberals have a say and some influence if they are to ensure there's an anti-Tory government.

 

So the issue of "freezing out scots" isn't about it being on purpose or hate filled or whatever, it's about building alliances to pass legislation and enacting polices. I'd hope the SNP do what's best for the majority of the UK population at all turns and not just the scots if they too have to compromise to get what they want to other parties and nations in the UK.

 

All will need to work together at some stage in the next parliament. It's not about freezing people out or about not working with whoever or favouring others. The SNP should know it's all pragmatic. They passed budgets with Tory support a while ago. So they'll need to remember that they won't always get their own way and that that doesn't mean they're being ignored, marginalised or whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On your last point, I'd argue Holyrood and the Snedd and Stormont help address the democratic deficit substantially. However, PR addresses democratic deficits as well, as every vote counts more effective in showing the choice of people.

The SNP could win near 40% of the Scottish vote. Their majority of seats is deserved but not wholly legitimate based on share of votes. In a UK wide context it's off that a party with 15% could have 2 seats and in a UK context with 4% have 45. Labour won as Labour at UK elections until devolution brought about a more autonomous Scottish Labour. However, as a sister party the vote share was never counted separately. As a separate party in the UK the SNP will have a much lower UK vote share, but higher share of seats than most.

However, that's only the case if we had one big national list for the whole UK - which is made. It'd need to be a set of regional and local lists or larger constituencies returning multiple members. So the discrepency on that national share would still exist. But it would be a wholly fairer system.

Again, I used it to highlight a perceived injustice. However, here I've shown again that will likely occur anyway as Scotland and Scottish seats under PR would still return near 60 MPs and so that discrepency where a nationalist party stood would exist regardless.

The SNP want power and influence. What party doesn't? But what they ignore is that in a party of minorities their voice won't be the most important as whoever is in government will need to work with all parties of all colours and stripes. The SNP will need to let the Greens, Plaid, the SDLP and the Liberals have a say and some influence if they are to ensure there's an anti-Tory government.

So the issue of "freezing out scots" isn't about it being on purpose or hate filled or whatever, it's about building alliances to pass legislation and enacting polices. I'd hope the SNP do what's best for the majority of the UK population at all turns and not just the scots if they too have to compromise to get what they want to other parties and nations in the UK.

All will need to work together at some stage in the next parliament. It's not about freezing people out or about not working with whoever or favouring others. The SNP should know it's all pragmatic. They passed budgets with Tory support a while ago. So they'll need to remember that they won't always get their own way and that that doesn't mean they're being ignored, marginalised or whatever.

The point I've been making over the last few pages of this thread, and one that I think you agree with, is that the "share of the vote" argument has no legitimacy whatsoever in the context of a FPTP Westminster election, and that it's extremely curious and not a little suspicious that the issue is now very much on the table - as anyone watching Newsnight on BBC2 this evening will have seen.

 

The SNP will know that it's all pragmatic. It's Sturgeon who has been proposing the pragmatic approach, Murphy and Miliband who have been posturing about refusing to work with the SNP (while Miliband simultaneously courts the separatist SDLP on the quiet). As well as making him look faintly ridiculous, Miliband's stance is helping to fuel the increasingly unpleasant anti-Scottish feeling south of the border epitomised by the Tories' disgraceful Salmond poster, something of which Goebbels would have been proud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I look foward to the barring of the SNP at westminster, i wonder what the soft no voters will think of that wee gem.

70% of England say their Mps are illegitimate.

Democracy is just swell.

Edited by aussieh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Trapper John

The only hate that I see is coming from people like yourself.

Over 50% of the electorate in Scotland appear to be voting SNP. Are you really trying to say all these people hate other Nationalities.

You would do better to ask yourself why people are switching to SNP .

You don't seem to be able to accept that others have a different point of view and resort to using the word 'hate' a lot to deflect your frustration that anyone should have the temerity to question your party. How many times have you said that I must 'hate' Scotland?

 

As for over 50% on Thursday, that remains to be seen. What is certain, is that well over 50% don't want independence which is your party's reason for existence. 

 

Why are they switching to the SNP? It's a mystery how a country can be taken in by such an insubstantial bunch of shysters posing as the saviours of Scotland with a laughably latent Socialist agenda which cannot be paid for, blatant liars about oil revenues, calling the IFS declared fiscal gap of ?7.6bn a 'myth' and  a fanatical belief that everyone else is wrong and only the SNP is right.

 

Yes, it is a wonder that so many support this nonsense,

Edited by Trapper John
Link to comment
Share on other sites

jambo1185

Why are people surprised that many in the rest of the UK do not a want a party whose primary aim, whatever they may be saying now, is to leave the UK to be involved in running the UK? If Sinn Fein suddenly decided to start taking their seats and mopped up in NI i wouldn't be that thrilled about them having significant power in the next parliament.

 

Of course that makes people nervous and uncomfortable. The whole reason for Nicolas hand of friendship is nothing to do with solidarity, its because she recognises this point and is trying to mitigate it by calming down rUK voters about how the SNP will behave at Westminster.

Edited by jambo1185
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Trapper John

I didn't watch the video so apologise to GW. After reading his posts for a month, I have came to expect a similar theme. My previous comment stands, not on this occasion, but on the other countless posts berating all things SNP.

There are far more posts and posters berating all things Labour and Tory.

 

You're being a little selective in your angst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Trapper John

Ex-Labour supporter. There's quite a contingent now in and around the UK. And we're far from confused, in fact most people I meet in Scotland seem to be finally waking from the confusion of blindly following a political party for years with very little changing.

 

Myself included.

And are now blindly supporting another?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are people surprised that many in the rest of the UK do not a want a party whose primary aim, whatever they may be saying now, is to leave the UK to be involved in running the UK? If Sinn Fein suddenly decided to start taking their seats and mopped up in NI i wouldn't be that thrilled about them having significant power in the next parliament.

 

Of course that makes people nervous and uncomfortable. The whole reason for Nicolas hand of friendship is nothing to do with solidarity, its because she recognises this point and is trying to mitigate it by calming down rUK voters about how the SNP will behave at Westminster.

Nae point being in the UK then, always being told your vote is important, if want change you have to vote, doesnt seem the case in this union of equals.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was this argument used when Labour was hoovering up the vast majority of Scottish seats?

Or did we not require balance then?

The difference is even though labour currently have 40 seats, there are another 3 political parties and an independent also representing Scotland. If SNP get 59 seats (which I don't think they will) surely even the most staunchest nationalist can concede that this is unrepresentative and actually bad for Scotland? I know FPTP is to blame but can any nationalists concede that this outcome would be grossly unfair on Scotland and on the whole a bad thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Trapper John

No. Blindly supporting a party is when you're dragged along to canvass for the local candidate as a child by your father. Then vote for them over 20 years without little changing because it's what you do. That's blind loyalty.

 

Myself, and what remains of my family, now support SNP as we finally see an alternative.

(admin delete)

 

Please stop trolling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference is even though labour currently have 40 seats, there are another 3 political parties and an independent also representing Scotland. If SNP get 59 seats (which I don't think they will) surely even the most staunchest nationalist can concede that this is unrepresentative and actually bad for Scotland? I know FPTP is to blame but can any nationalists concede that this outcome would be grossly unfair on Scotland and on the whole a bad thing?

Just Bias bud, the democratic deficit was fine when it suited Labour, Scotland being a special case and all that patter that said, now its not so special.

I dont disagree with what you say, its the circumstance that surrounds.

Edited by aussieh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are just really starting to bang the drum a bit too much to old songs from years gone by now.

 

Democratic deficits and the like.

 

Its almost as though Holyrood never happened and like it or not that addresses a democratic deficit. Such things exist within Scotland as well. But bring up islanders rights to greater control of their local services and the SNP shout you down on unity being key for Scotland.

 

Lets be blunt.

 

The SNP will win seats. A lot. They are as legitimate a choice as anyone else. And they will be able to work with Labour come Friday as that's politics.

 

The electoral system is a busted flush. How can you maintain confidence in a system where parties with 10% of the national vote get 2 seats and those on 33% of the vote get near 40% of the seats?! Its a busted flush and in a tine when the UK is edging towards multiparty democracy then that change is needed urgently.

 

Devolution will need reviewed on a UK wide context to bring about an equality of the balance of power in the UK. England will need to be part of that, but decisions there are for the English not us, the Welsh or Irish.

 

The UK will likely be very different after this parliament is over. Its up to the voices of change, well those claiming to be for change, to actually try and make that happen, but in an open and constructive way. Threats of votes and referendums will kick that away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dusk_Till_Dawn

We are just really starting to bang the drum a bit too much to old songs from years gone by now.

 

Democratic deficits and the like.

 

Its almost as though Holyrood never happened and like it or not that addresses a democratic deficit. Such things exist within Scotland as well. But bring up islanders rights to greater control of their local services and the SNP shout you down on unity being key for Scotland.

 

Lets be blunt.

 

The SNP will win seats. A lot. They are as legitimate a choice as anyone else. And they will be able to work with Labour come Friday as that's politics.

 

The electoral system is a busted flush. How can you maintain confidence in a system where parties with 10% of the national vote get 2 seats and those on 33% of the vote get near 40% of the seats?! Its a busted flush and in a tine when the UK is edging towards multiparty democracy then that change is needed urgently.

 

Devolution will need reviewed on a UK wide context to bring about an equality of the balance of power in the UK. England will need to be part of that, but decisions there are for the English not us, the Welsh or Irish.

 

The UK will likely be very different after this parliament is over. Its up to the voices of change, well those claiming to be for change, to actually try and make that happen, but in an open and constructive way. Threats of votes and referendums will kick that away.

 

I can't see anything other than PR by the time we get to the next general election. First past the post isn't fit for purpose.

 

Massive push by the right-wing press down south to smear Miliband this morning. Results of this election are going to be fascinating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4% of the UK vote and 50 seats, whilst others hit 10% and get two... The argument for PR is being made in this election.

 

The SNP could win near 40% of the Scottish vote. Their majority of seats is deserved but not wholly legitimate based on share of votes. In a UK wide context it's off that a party with 15% could have 2 seats and in a UK context with 4% have 45. Labour won as Labour at UK elections until devolution brought about a more autonomous Scottish Labour. However, as a sister party the vote share was never counted separately. As a separate party in the UK the SNP will have a much lower UK vote share, but higher share of seats than most.

Whilst I take your point regards %age of vote and number of seats, I don't think you can do this UK wide.

 

For example, in 2010, the DUP got 0.8% of the total UK vote, but received 8 seats.  The SNP got 1.7% and 6 seats.

 

If you bring in PR, it has to be the same system throughout the UK, but it also has to be for the constituent parts of the UK.

 

So, you have PR but if the SNP win 40% of the Scottish vote, they get 40% of the Scottish Seats.  If the DUP get 25% of the vote in Northern Ireland, then they get 25% of the Northern Irish seats and so on and so forth.

 

If you base it on UK wide total votes, then this skews the results in the favour of the "Big three" parties (Labour, Tory & Lib Dem) but you could also see that parties that long represent their communities, DUP, SDLP, Sinn Fein, would end up with no seats whatsover as they wouldn't pass the threshold of percentage of total vote to qualify for a seat.

 

Therefore, to use the SNP getting 50 seats on 4% of the total UK vote, while mathematically correct, is slightly misleading, in my opinion as the base for total votes should be Scotland, not the UK, as the Northern Irish example would show, they could vote all they liked but in a total UK vote are so small their parties wouldn't qualify for a seat, well possibly one.

Edited by Boris
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick

Whilst I take your point regards %age of vite and number of seats, I don't think you can do this UK wide.

 

For example, in 2010, the DUP got 0.8% of the total UK vote, but received 8 seats. The SNP got 1.7% and 6 seats.

 

If you bring in PR, it has to be the same system throughout the UK, but it also has to be for the constituent parts of the UK.

 

So, you have PR but if the SNP win 40% of the Scottish vote, they get 40% of the Scottish Seats. If the DUP get 25% of the vote in Northern Ireland, then they get 25% of the Northern Irish seats and so on and so forth.

 

If you base it on UK wide total votes, then this skews the results in the favour of the "Big three" parties (Labour, Tory & Lib Dem) but you could also see that parties that long represent their communities, DUP, SDLP, Sinn Fein, would end up with no seats whatsover as they wouldn't pass the threshold of percentage of total vote to qualify for a seat.

 

Therefore, to use the SNP getting 50 seats on 4% of the total UK vote, while mathematically correct, is slightly misleading, in my opinion as the base for total votes should be Scotland, not the UK, as the Northern Irish example would show, they could vote all they liked but in a total UK vote are so small their parties wouldn't qualify for a seat, well possibly one.

Which is why direct PR doesn't work but STV with multi-member constituencies does.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is why direct PR doesn't work but STV with multi-member constituencies does.

 

Correct, but also misleading to berate the undemocratic nature of the SNP winning 50 seats (hypothetically) with 4% of the total UK vote.  Not that you were, but I think the Northern Irish seats really highlight this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick

Correct, but also misleading to berate the undemocratic nature of the SNP winning 50 seats (hypothetically) with 4% of the total UK vote. Not that you were, but I think the Northern Irish seats really highlight this.

Absolutely.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

jambo1185

Correct, but also misleading to berate the undemocratic nature of the SNP winning 50 seats (hypothetically) with 4% of the total UK vote.  Not that you were, but I think the Northern Irish seats really highlight this.

 

Boris, I take the wider point but your comment about skewing in favour of the big three doesn't quite pan out in the maths. 4% of the UK share would give the SNP 26 seats, 40% of the Scottish vote would give it less, 23/24. Plus, if it you are taking the view that it is a UK election for a UK parliament, not a split election with all four countries electing separately its representatives dinstinct from what is going on elsewhere (which would be a more federal UK angle), then the system should look at the UK as a whole (arguably) - although you are right of course that NI mucks this up and kind of forces you down the road to splitting up the 4 home nations.

 

I think a link to a constituency/local MP of some-kind is important to most people still, so I think the public would in any reformed voting system still want to feel they have "their MP", as opposed to a bunch of people from a general region from different parties and you're not quite sure who you are supposed to go speak to about any local issue you may have. Holyrood seems to strike a good balance on that front.

Edited by jambo1185
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick

Boris, I take the wider point but your comment about skewing in favour of the big three doesn't quite pan out in the maths. 4% of the UK share would give the SNP 26 seats, 40% of the Scottish vote would give it less, 23/24.

Fair call but that's more of a statistical anomaly than anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't see anything other than PR by the time we get to the next general election. First past the post isn't fit for purpose.

 

Massive push by the right-wing press down south to smear Miliband this morning. Results of this election are going to be fascinating.

Let's hope you're right. It is indeed not fit for purpose.

 

But the sad fact is that if Labour were on course for their usual quota of Scottish MPs, we'd be hearing very little about the electoral system. It would be business as usual. The lack of representation compared to percentage of votes cast for the Greens, UKIP and (in Scotland) the Tories would be regarded as a price worth paying for the continued dominance of the duopoly, if it was even debated at all.

 

Something stinks here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jambo1185

Let's hope you're right. It is indeed not fit for purpose.

 

But the sad fact is that if Labour were on course for their usual quota of Scottish MPs, we'd be hearing very little about the electoral system. It would be business as usual. The lack of representation compared to percentage of votes cast for the Greens, UKIP and (in Scotland) the Tories would be regarded as a price worth paying for the continued dominance of the duopoly, if it was even debated at all.

 

Something stinks here.

 

It will also be interesting to see whether the SNP still push for electoral reform if they think they can completely dominate Scotland for the forseeable future under the current system. Suddenly they would become the Turkey voting for Christmas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jambos are go!

No. Blindly supporting a party is when you're dragged along to canvass for the local candidate as a child by your father. Then vote for them over 20 years without little changing because it's what you do. That's blind loyalty.

 

Myself, and what remains of my family, now support SNP as we finally see an alternative.

Little change? Well they tripled spending on the NHS, introduced a minimum wage, free personal care, tax credits, surestart, increased support for nursery education,a decade of growth, rebuilt schools and hospitals, reduced child poverty, increased life expectancy and stopped an invasion of Syria. And introduced the biggest constitutional change in nearly a century when the Scottish Parliament was created. Compare that with the timid SNP administration at Holyrood. Your post is just rhetoric and your dad knew what was good for you.

 

And all these benefits that are under threat were in large part given to us by Labour

Edited by jambos are go!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

flecktimus

Not true. If scotland vote labour we will have a labour government

 

IF Scotland Votes SNP we will have a Labour government, unless Ed wants to hand the keys to David. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF Scotland Votes SNP we will have a Labour government, unless Ed wants to hand the keys to David.

No if Scotland votes snp. The conservatives will have enough seats with the Lib dems, ukip and Dup to form a government

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jambos are go!

IF Scotland Votes SNP we will have a Labour government, unless Ed wants to hand the keys to David. 

Whoever has the most number of seats gets the first chance to govern so its vital that Labour are the biggest party. The LibDems will jump back into bed with the Tories in an instant. Its all about electoral arithmetic but the surest way to get a Labour Government is to vote Labour. Its wrong to suggest that voting SNP will ensure a Labour Government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nae point being in the UK then, always being told your vote is important, if want change you have to vote, doesnt seem the case in this union of equals.

nothing is stopping you from leaving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Mighty Thor

Little change? Well they tripled spending on the NHS, introduced a minimum wage, free personal care, tax credits, surestart, increased support for nursery education,a decade of growth, rebuilt schools and hospitals, reduced child poverty, increased life expectancy and stopped an invasion of Syria. And introduced the biggest constitutional change in nearly a century when the Scottish Parliament was created. Compare that with the timid SNP administration at Holyrood. Your post is just rhetoric and your dad knew what was good for you.

 

And all these benefits that are under threat were in large part given to us by Labour

 

A decade of growth :lol: Aye straight onto the national debt. Buy now, don't pay later.

Stopped an invasion of Syria :lol: WMD's, Iraq, Afghanistan......

Rebuilt schools and hospitals :lol: PFI projects which we'll be paying for in 20 years time.

 

Blair and Brown gave us all that and more. We've a lot to be thankful for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nothing is stopping you from leaving.

And leave Scotland to your mob.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Libdems the political slag of the UK.

Edited by aussieh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

jambo1185

Haha, just read Mundell say in an interview in The Holyrood that he reckons if the Tories by some miracle win 5 seats in Scotland the SNP will probably go out and rent 4 more pandas for Edinburgh zoo.

 

I somehow doubt the SNP will need to, in fact they can probably give one of them back, but if the Scottish Tories do have a good day tomorrow, the SNP will need to do something to keep the 'there are no Tories in Scotland' line spinning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoever has the most number of seats gets the first chance to govern so its vital that Labour are the biggest party. The LibDems will jump back into bed with the Tories in an instant. Its all about electoral arithmetic but the surest way to get a Labour Government is to vote Labour. Its wrong to suggest that voting SNP will ensure a Labour Government.

conservatives will form a government based on the polls. Even if they don't have the most seats. They will bribe the libdems if the vote holds add in the dup. The labour party unless they pick up a lot of seats against the polls will not be able to form a stable enough government. Even with the snp who I dont think would be good bed fellows and would likely pull support over a minor issue such as trident.

 

I actually think the snp strategy is again to stir grievance with Westminster. It is all they know how to do after all. This will keep their core support on board and lead to another win in the 2016 Holyrood election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Change is that code for Power.

Edited by aussieh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Mighty Thor

conservatives will form a government based on the polls. Even if they don't have the most seats. They will bribe the libdems if the vote holds add in the dup. The labour party unless they pick up a lot of seats against the polls will not be able to form a stable enough government. Even with the snp who I dont think would be good bed fellows and would likely pull support over a minor issue such as trident.

 

I actually think the snp strategy is again to stir grievance with Westminster. It is all they know how to do after all. This will keep their core support on board and lead to another win in the 2016 Holyrood election.

 

A minor issue like Trident? I'd rather they pulled support on a 'minor' issue like that rather than lose their principles in a heartbeat over minor issues like tuition fees. That was a 'red line' issue :lol:

 

I assume that by 'stirring grievance' you mean speaking up and standing firm for the people of Scotland? I certainly hope that they know how to do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mikey1874

Little change? Well they tripled spending on the NHS, introduced a minimum wage, free personal care, tax credits, surestart, increased support for nursery education,a decade of growth, rebuilt schools and hospitals, reduced child poverty, increased life expectancy and stopped an invasion of Syria. And introduced the biggest constitutional change in nearly a century when the Scottish Parliament was created. Compare that with the timid SNP administration at Holyrood. Your post is just rhetoric and your dad knew what was good for you.

 

And all these benefits that are under threat were in large part given to us by Labour

good point - but people don't generally know or remember outwith high profile policies and what Labour did was overwhelmed by the banking crash and maybe the Iraq war. Deficit (though not debt) has also become the dominant idea while FPTP means they just chase relatively few votes with low tax promises etc.

 

similarly in 7 or 8 years of SNP government I couldn't tell you what they've done apart from keep tax low (council tax kept the same), create Police Scotland and something on access to land for walkers? Maybe they've done great things in health, education but its not been obvious.

 

Things have moved on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jambo1185

A minor issue like Trident? I'd rather they pulled support on a 'minor' issue like that rather than lose their principles in a heartbeat over minor issues like tuition fees. That was a 'red line' issue :lol:

 

I assume that by 'stirring grievance' you mean speaking up and standing firm for the people of Scotland? I certainly hope that they know how to do that.

 

The SNP do not speak for Scotland, they speak for their supporters, no one else. And given MPs are not allowed to criticize the party, its leadership, or any policy, they certainly won't be standing up for their constituents (who are they suppost to look out for and represent irrespective of whether or not they voted for them) if and when an SNP policy would, for whatever reason, be of detriment to their area, or just goes against their values.

 

And free tuition fees in Scotland has seen lower access to university for kids from the poorest backgrounds, and kids leave Scottish unis with high debts still regardless, a "red line" that is purely ideological and presentational (it sounds nice and better than protecting grants even though the latter would be far more effective) rather than actually being grounded in improving social mobility. Another crowning glory of the SNPs education record in government.

 

http://blogs.ft.com/off-message/2015/05/01/the-snp-has-let-down-scotlands-poorest-students/

Edited by jambo1185
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Mighty Thor

The SNP do not speak for Scotland, they speak for their supporters, no one else. And given MPs are not allowed to criticize the party, its leadership, or any policy, they certainly won't be standing up for their constituents if and when an SNP policy would, for whatever reason, be of detriment to their area, or just goes against their values.

 

And free tuition fees in Scotland has seen lower access to university for kids from the poorest backgrounds, a "red line" that is purely ideological and presentational (it sounds nice) rather than actually being grounded in improving social mobility. Another crowning glory of the SNPs education record in government.

 

IMac is a Lib Dem supporter. Tuition fees were one of Clegg's pledges which he broke in a heartbeat to get a shot in the boss's chair.

 

Why wouldn't SNP MP's represent their constituents? What a bizarre and frankly ridiculous thing to say. Do Scottish Labour MP's not represent their constituents or is it only SNP MP's in your mind?

 

University education needs over-hauled completely as it's not working and it's not delivering young people to the employment market 'work ready'. In fact it's turning out kids with absolutely no idea of real life or any concept of what they've spent 3 or 4 years doing other than getting pished and racking up crippling debts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are people surprised that many in the rest of the UK do not a want a party whose primary aim, whatever they may be saying now, is to leave the UK to be involved in running the UK? If Sinn Fein suddenly decided to start taking their seats and mopped up in NI i wouldn't be that thrilled about them having significant power in the next parliament.

 

Of course that makes people nervous and uncomfortable. The whole reason for Nicolas hand of friendship is nothing to do with solidarity, its because she recognises this point and is trying to mitigate it by calming down rUK voters about how the SNP will behave at Westminster.

what about the SDLP????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will also be interesting to see whether the SNP still push for electoral reform if they think they can completely dominate Scotland for the forseeable future under the current system. Suddenly they would become the Turkey voting for Christmas.

Sturgeon said in the last debate that she supported PR, even though it would hurt the SNP share of seats 

Edited by Dipped Flake
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMac is a Lib Dem supporter. Tuition fees were one of Clegg's pledges which he broke in a heartbeat to get a shot in the boss's chair.

 

Why wouldn't SNP MP's represent their constituents? What a bizarre and frankly ridiculous thing to say. Do Scottish Labour MP's not represent their constituents or is it only SNP MP's in your mind?

 

University education needs over-hauled completely as it's not working and it's not delivering young people to the employment market 'work ready'. In fact it's turning out kids with absolutely no idea of real life or any concept of what they've spent 3 or 4 years doing other than getting pished and racking up crippling debts.

I dont want to sound like I'm holding the party line.... clegg shouldn't have made the promise. It wasn't a major manifesto pledge and it wasn't a red line.

However as has been covered previously more students from less advantaged backgrounds go to university in england. They pay nothing up front and they pay what they can afford after they graduate and start working.

 

the cost of free tuition has resulted in the reducrion of student support grants resulting in kids wirhout money having to go into work instead of continuing education. On top of that they have closed collage places to pay for it.

 

a lot of bs is said about the libdems but they have done a lot to improve this country. Their MPs are renowned for being hard working for their constituents. The more we have the better. I would love a libdem labour coalition but the snp surge has killed that. So next best way to get liberal policies past is to enter coalition wity the conservatives. So be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dusk_Till_Dawn

University education needs over-hauled completely as it's not working and it's not delivering young people to the employment market 'work ready'. In fact it's turning out kids with absolutely no idea of real life or any concept of what they've spent 3 or 4 years doing other than getting pished and racking up crippling debts.

 

One reason why I agree with tuition fees to a point is that if nothing else, they make people think about whether they actually want to go to university - as opposed to just going because they can and because they want a three-year piss up (or a four-year piss up in Scotland, the lazy *****).

 

But it shouldn't be as expensive as it is and the fees should be fairly means-tested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can think for myself, you're bordering on offence.

 

Labour was 'better the devil you know', but they've lost their way completely, and I believe that this has only been exemplified recently.

 

Would prefer if you said, that it's taken all this time to find a credible alternative.

In some people's worlds there is no alternative to Labour, they probably voted for them at every single election and will do this time and the next time and the next time, no matter how much they lurch to the right or eschew socialism for neo-liberalism.

 

I don't know how Flapper John has the temerity to take you to task for embracing a credible alternative when it presented itself, when many of us came to the same conclusion after the bitter disappointment of Blair's "New Labour" and had to throw off decades of ingrained "labour good, tory bad" programming which saw the Labour vote - and the electorate - taken for granted.

 

"Don't think - just vote as you always have" - it should be the Labour election slogan.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jambo1185

IMac is a Lib Dem supporter. Tuition fees were one of Clegg's pledges which he broke in a heartbeat to get a shot in the boss's chair.

 

Why wouldn't SNP MP's represent their constituents? What a bizarre and frankly ridiculous thing to say. Do Scottish Labour MP's not represent their constituents or is it only SNP MP's in your mind?

 

University education needs over-hauled completely as it's not working and it's not delivering young people to the employment market 'work ready'. In fact it's turning out kids with absolutely no idea of real life or any concept of what they've spent 3 or 4 years doing other than getting pished and racking up crippling debts.

 

The SNP is the only one with an official gagging order which actively prevents any MP/MSP from (publicly) opposing party policy. There could come a point where a policy would, for whatever reason, have a very detrimental impact on a SNP MP's constituency (or conversely the SNP policy may be against something that would be very good for a particular constituency and all the feedback from constituents is that they want it). My view is that in that situation the MP has a duty to put their constituents before the party and seek to have that policy changed, and ultimately vote against the party line if necessary - the gagging order explicitly prohibits this and would effectively require the MP concerned to leave the party.

 

You might argue that it's just a formal recording of the whip system, but it ultimately means there cannot be an SNP "rebel", in the way that, for example, you would expect there to be Labour rebels on trident, or Tory rebels on Europe. It would also suggest that in no circumstances will elected SNP members get a 'free vote' on any topic.

Edited by jambo1185
Link to comment
Share on other sites

jambo1185

what about the SDLP????

 

Yup, them too. I don't really understand why a party which wants to separate the UK would want to be involved in formally governing the UK to be honest, unless they are wanting to bring it down from the inside. Which is probably why the SNP have never said they want to go into coalition, it makes much more sense for them to do it vote by vote.

Edited by jambo1185
Link to comment
Share on other sites

jambo1185

The full motion passed at the SNP conference (in private) was:-

 

"Accept that no member shall within, or outwith the Parliament, publicly criticize a Group decision, policy or another member of the Group."

 

so there can be no equivalent of Ian Murray criticizing Labour defence policy and saying he wouldn't support Trident renewal, for example. And you wouldn't get an equivalent of Ruth Davidson criticizing the way the Bedroom Tax was implemented on national radio.

Edited by jambo1185
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TheMaganator

 

 

Why wouldn't SNP MP's represent their constituents? What a bizarre and frankly ridiculous thing to say. Do Scottish Labour MP's not represent their constituents or is it only SNP MP's in your mind .

Because they have signed up to not criticise their leadership.

 

So if the leadership wants to do something that will potentially harm their constituents they are not allowed to criticise it.

 

SNP MPs will represent the SNP and only the SNP. Not necessarily their constituents and certainly not all of Scotland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...