Jump to content

The 2015 General Election Megathread


Rand Paul's Ray Bans

Recommended Posts

jambo1185

Well said. My thoughts entirely.

 

Many are now coming to the same conclusion.

 

I definitely agree with the last sentence of  Gizmo's post. The stuff about Labour MPs having no idea what was going on because they haven't actually ever canvassed their constituency in 20 years is incredible.

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

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.

 

If an MP is elected then by default they have the support of their constituents and they have a mandate for their policies as such.

 

Don't remember Lord James voting against the Poll Tax when he had a majority of about 300 in Edinburgh West.  Not sure how that was representing his constituents.  

 

Tory, Labour, Lib Dem, SNP whomever, they ALL represent their party first and foremost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jambo1185

If an MP is elected then by default they have the support of their constituents and they have a mandate for their policies as such.

 

Don't remember Lord James voting against the Poll Tax when he had a majority of about 300 in Edinburgh West.  Not sure how that was representing his constituents.  

 

Tory, Labour, Lib Dem, SNP whomever, they ALL represent their party first and foremost.

 

I agree Boris but for me it's precluding it from ever happening. I mean the party whips are so strong MPs rarely stray, but from time to time issues may crop up (possibly some which are not covered in their manifesto at all, especially as a party of opposition) where you would want to see your MP (whoever it was) speaking out (Ian Murray I've already mentioned), but I think the knowledge that no matter what my new SNP MP will never go against the party line is a little bit concerning. Even if it was unlikely the Labour guy would, at least in theory it would be possible!

 

Plus parties do occasionally allow their MPs a free vote - this motion would seem to make that impossible for the SNP crew.

Edited by jambo1185
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leipzig 51

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

No they won't.

Latest predictions Labour 276 SNP 52

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TheMaganator

If an MP is elected then by default they have the support of their constituents and they have a mandate for their policies as such.

 

Don't remember Lord James voting against the Poll Tax when he had a majority of about 300 in Edinburgh West.  Not sure how that was representing his constituents.  

 

Tory, Labour, Lib Dem, SNP whomever, they ALL represent their party first and foremost.

I don't think that is true at all. 

 

That is why you have heard of back bench revolts. MPs regularly speak out against their party. Ian Murray disdit recently on Trident. 

 

As someone who has claimed they are voting SNP as a means to a more democratic nation the fact that democracy itself is not allowed amongst those MPs must not sit well with you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jambo1185

Yeah come on Boris, we all love a good back bench revolt to keep the leadership on their toes! An SNP one might make Holyrood more fun.

Edited by jambo1185
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Mighty Thor

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.

 

So are you saying that an SNP MP won't represent their constituents or that they are not allowed to speak out against the party policy?

 

They are two very different things. 

 

Riddle me this. What happens with Labour MP's when the branch office 'manifesto' differs from the party line? What happens when Scottish Labour manifesto policies don't represent the best interests of rUK Labour constituents? Substitute Labour with 'Scottish' Tory or 'Scottish' Lib dems. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Mighty Thor

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.

 

To extend your argument then Conservative MP's will only represent the Conservatives (or generally themselves) same with Labour, same with Lib Dems.

 

It's a poor argument to suggest that any MP wouldn't represent their constituents regardless of their party, it's particularly pathetic to suggest so just because they are SNP MP's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TheMaganator

To extend your argument then Conservative MP's will only represent the Conservatives (or generally themselves) same with Labour, same with Lib Dems.

 

It's a poor argument to suggest that any MP wouldn't represent their constituents regardless of their party, it's particularly pathetic to suggest so just because they are SNP MP's.

No, it is a sound argument. The SNP candidates have all signed up to not criticise the leadership. 

 

So that means they cannot vote against, or speak out against, the leaderships' views. 

 

No other party has had to do that.

 

See above for a recent example of Ian Murray and Trident. 

 

You wont get that from the SNP.

 

Do you think thta is good or bad for democracy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Option 1. Labour government helped by Snp etc...

2. Labour Sidestep Snp, Slab are finished, tory government, Indy coming soon.

3.Tory government helped by libs and Ukip, Indy coming sooner.

4. Tory Majority, Indy coming Asap.

Oh, the absolute joy of tomorrow, is simply going to be SPUNKTACULAR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that is true at all. 

 

That is why you have heard of back bench revolts. MPs regularly speak out against their party. Ian Murray disdit recently on Trident. 

 

As someone who has claimed they are voting SNP as a means to a more democratic nation the fact that democracy itself is not allowed amongst those MPs must not sit well with you. 

 

 

Yeah come on Boris, we all love a good back bench revolt to keep the leadership on their toes! An SNP one might make Holyrood more fun.

 

As an adherent of democratic centralism then "freedom of discussion, unity of action." as V.I. Lenin once opined.

 

sm-lenin.jpg

 

No, it is a sound argument. The SNP candidates have all signed up to not criticise the leadership. 

 

So that means they cannot vote against, or speak out against, the leaderships' views. 

 

No other party has had to do that.

 

See above for a recent example of Ian Murray and Trident. 

 

You wont get that from the SNP.

 

Do you think thta is good or bad for democracy?

 

I think that what they have effectively introduced is a form of collective responsibility, you know, like the Cabinet has.  

 

Does it concern me?  No, not particularly.  I'm sure if an MP felt so strongly about something then they would leave the party.  I'm sure they would have a forum to argue and offer a different point of view, but once a position was reached and agreed on, then the concept of collective responsibility kicks in.

 

So, a bit like democratic centralism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hasselhoff

Option 1. Labour government helped by Snp etc...

2. Labour Sidestep Snp, Slab are finished, tory government, Indy coming soon.

3.Tory government helped by libs and Ukip, Indy coming sooner.

4. Tory Majority, Indy coming Asap.

Oh, the absolute joy of tomorrow, is simply going to be SPUNKTACULAR.

 

I'm hoping for 4 or 3 - There will be enough Tories in Scotland to show that Scotland isn't totally anti-Tory (remove tactical voting and the totals for Conservative would be even higher)

 

If another Indy Ref comes along, it will fail again as they still won't have any answers for what failed them last time, i.e. economy, currency etc. I almost hope they do try it again soon as 2 defeats in a short period of time should stop any further referendums for a long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Option 1. Labour government helped by Snp etc...

2. Labour Sidestep Snp, Slab are finished, tory government, Indy coming soon.

3.Tory government helped by libs and Ukip, Indy coming sooner.

4. Tory Majority, Indy coming Asap.

Oh, the absolute joy of tomorrow, is simply going to be SPUNKTACULAR.

What makes you think the UK government will agree to another referendum so soon when the majority of true scots are opposed to it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What makes you think the UK government will agree to another referendum so soon when the majority of brits are opposed to it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jambo1185

So are you saying that an SNP MP won't represent their constituents or that they are not allowed to speak out against the party policy?

 

They are two very different things.

 

Riddle me this. What happens with Labour MP's when the branch office 'manifesto' differs from the party line? What happens when Scottish Labour manifesto policies don't represent the best interests of rUK Labour constituents? Substitute Labour with 'Scottish' Tory or 'Scottish' Lib dems.

Its the second but the point im making is that could lead to a situation where they are unable to act in the best interests of their constituents. I think we are using "represent" in slightly different ways. Literally they will always be representing their constituents of course and im not saying they wont be taking points forward for them day to day, but if they have no room for manoeuvre to speak out on their constituents behalf where (or if) necessary against SNP policy its questionable how good the representation is. The two may be different but they can also be intrinsically linked to each other at certain times.

 

Its the same for all the parties which is why i mentioned the existing whip system in my previous post, but no other party has this type of gagging order which controls MPs far more tightly. Its a wider point which Boris deals with under his collective responsibility point but i am inherently uncomfortable with how the SNP have approached it.

 

Back bench revolts can be very useful at getting a party leadership to wake up and take stock as private internal rumblings are easily dismissed. Likewise an individual holding their ground on a particular issue can also increase trust in that local MP and ensure the local communities voice is heard. I think it gives the SNP leadership too easy a time this way and its right that these guys can be challenged and pushed from within.

 

For me it just takes things a little bit over the line but i understand why she feels she needs this group to be so tightly controlled. I think they could have achieved what they want without having to pass a formal party motion to ve honest in which case we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Edited by jambo1185
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been fun guys, we've all enjoyed this thread a great deal, but the time is almost upon us. I look forward to discussing the fallout with you all come may 8th.

 

But it's about time this thread was closed for quiet reflection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that the tube that runs a Septic blog?

It could well be,thing is,he's entitled to his opinion same as anyone else,Celtic fan or not,right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah it could close while polls are open and then reopen for results coming in?

 

It's just the right thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Psychedelicropcircle

It's been fun guys, we've all enjoyed this thread a great deal, but the time is almost upon us. I look forward to discussing the fallout with you all come may 8th.

 

But it's about time this thread was closed for quiet reflection.

But chocolate Tory boy will have a few negative SNP stories to post in the hope that all JKB SNP minded change to Tory at the last minute.....if this fails it'll be 2nafash that caused 50 + seats by his quiet reflection request

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gorgiewave

Full Fiscal Autonomy demolished again, the SNP candidate floundering and clueless.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick

It could well be,thing is,he's entitled to his opinion same as anyone else,Celtic fan or not,right.

Absolutely. I also then know how much interest I have in reading it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Full Fiscal Autonomy demolished again, the SNP candidate floundering and clueless.

 

According to one snp msp we could still use the Barnett formula along with ffa!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely. I also then know how much interest I have in reading it.

So you don't like him I take it?

Admittedly he does go on a bit but he knows his stuff if truth be told.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick

So you don't like him I take it?

Admittedly he does go on a bit but he knows his stuff if truth be told.

It's not a question of "like". It's a question of how readable his spraff is.

 

I'll pass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hasselhoff

At the end of the Sky video above, it says one of the Glasgow candidates is James Marris of "Cannabis is Safer than Alcolhol" 

 

Would like to see their manifesto

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gorgiewave

According to one snp msp we could still use the Barnett formula along with ffa!

 

Here she is. Anybody going to a job interview and totally flaffing an explanation would get nowhere:

 

https://audioboom.com/boos/3133904-snp-s-margaret-ferrier-on-full-fiscal-autonomy-for-scotland?utm_campaign=embed&utm_content=retweet&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Spot on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

King prawn

William Hill offering 10/11 on Plaid Cymru getting more seats than UKIP. 

 

UKIP lo - 0

             - 1

         hi - 3 seats

Plaid Cymru lo - 2

                        - 4

                     hi - 6 seats

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hasselhoff

It's been fun guys, we've all enjoyed this thread a great deal, but the time is almost upon us. I look forward to discussing the fallout with you all come may 8th.

 

But it's about time this thread was closed for quiet reflection.

 

Surely if you want quiet reflection, just don't open the thread. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gorgiewave

And another thing, for all the "but Labour worked with the TERRIBLE, HORRIBLE TORIES" whiners, see this sensible, grown-up point at 1:14.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Mighty Thor

No, it is a sound argument. The SNP candidates have all signed up to not criticise the leadership. 

 

So that means they cannot vote against, or speak out against, the leaderships' views. 

 

No other party has had to do that.

 

See above for a recent example of Ian Murray and Trident. 

 

You wont get that from the SNP.

 

Do you think thta is good or bad for democracy?

 

I'm sorry but it's not a sound argument. It's a piss poor argument that suits your anti-SNP agenda.The argument was that SNP will not represent their constituents. I'm calling bullshit on that and i know you know that too. 

 

I'm sure the Tory whips control their MP's every bit as tightly but in a more clandestine way. I can't recall any great Tory back bench revolts ever, on anything at all, not even the morally reprehensible things like foisting the poll tax on one part of the UK before any of the rest. Feel free to point out the great Tory back-bench revolts to me. 

 

What's bad for democracy is the duplicitous and sleekit nature of Cameron who was banging on about us all being better together but now talks of 'the chilling prospect' of the democratically elected representatives of UK citizens having any kind of say in Westminster. That's bad for democracy today and sends a bigger message of division than Nicola Sturgeon could ever hope to muster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thunderstruck

Yeah it could close while polls are open and then reopen for results coming in?

Voting has been underway for a fortnight and it is likely that between 25% and 30% of the votes that will be cast are already under lock and key. The "turnout" from Postal a Votes is significantly higher than the walk-up vote.

(Electoral Commission data).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jambo1185

I think MT it's a perception issue as much as anything though. It's not great for local people (those who will not be voting SNP of course) to hear things like this

 

youtu.be/w2PWEVyRLo4

 

SNP candidate in West Aberdeen and Kincardine saying he wouldn't vote against his party even if there was detriment to the area, and then seems to justify it by saying that when the incumbent Lib Dem MP did vote against his party line on an issue it went through anyway and didn't make a difference, so there's no point (which is challenged by a woman in the audience on the basis at least he was standing up for his constituents). To be fair it cuts off before he finishes so he may have come up with a gem of a response we didn't hear.

 

And I think that's true regardless of the party, so for me it's not really an SNP-only issue. I wouldn't want to sit and hear a Labour, Lib Dem, Green or Tory candidate say that to me in a hustings either - it's just the SNP motion has resulted in an additional level of scrutiny on this point because it's seems far more explicit and restrictive than the existing whip system, and the SNP have opened themselves up on this one by the motion being leaked. If it had been a Scottish Labour motion I (at least) would have been just as critical and concerned about it. Of course it's arguable that it's a good thing that they are at least being transparent about the level of control that will be exerted on their MPs, but I suppose some people would take the view that they would hope/like to think, their MP would 'do the right thing' (whatever that might be), and the SNP motion seems to remove that as a possibility altogether otherwise you have to leave the party.

 

Perhaps because of the newness of many of the candidates the SNP leaders are concerned that they need this additional layer on top of the party whip? Plus, in the past it won't have been hard to Hosie to deal with 5 other MPs, suddenly he could be trying to deal with another 50 which I suspect will be a bit of a shock to the system.

 

I mean at a much more basic level, and somewhat superficial level, Abbot and Portillo used to go on This Week and basically slag off their own party and leadership for an hour about how arguments were being made, policies implemented etc... There wouldn't be a possibility for someone from the SNP to fulfill that kind of roll of being a public alternative, outspoken, prodding voice within the party because its not allowed, and do think that's a bit of a shame. And it means Sturgeon can never be challenged for leadership (as anyone criticizing her would be kicked out), whereas the other parties when things go down the pan the leadership can be publicly criticized by those who are maneuvering to take over.

 

On back bench revolts, Cameron has been defeated 6 times in government, but nothing particularly exciting, maybe the Syria vote. Of course, mainly back bench revolts are stopped before they get to the vote as concessions are made.

Edited by jambo1185
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TheMaganator

I'm sorry but it's not a sound argument. It's a piss poor argument that suits your anti-SNP agenda.The argument was that SNP will not represent their constituents. I'm calling bullshit on that and i know you know that too.

 

I'm sure the Tory whips control their MP's every bit as tightly but in a more clandestine way. I can't recall any great Tory back bench revolts ever, on anything at all, not even the morally reprehensible things like foisting the poll tax on one part of the UK before any of the rest. Feel free to point out the great Tory back-bench revolts to me.

 

What's bad for democracy is the duplicitous and sleekit nature of Cameron who was banging on about us all being better together but now talks of 'the chilling prospect' of the democratically elected representatives of UK citizens having any kind of say in Westminster. That's bad for democracy today and sends a bigger message of division than Nicola Sturgeon could ever hope to muster.

Is what the SNP have done good or bad for democracy?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Mighty Thor

Is what the SNP have done good or bad for democracy?

Is the party whip system good or bad for democracy?

 

Your answer to that will answer your question to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

On back bench revolts, Cameron has been defeated 6 times in government, but nothing particularly exciting, maybe the Syria vote. Of course, mainly back bench revolts are stopped before they get to the vote as concessions are made.

 

More shipping Liberal votes than Tory ones though, I would imagine?  Not really a back bench revolt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is what the SNP have done good or bad for democracy?

 

Neither.  How a party organises itself is up to them.

 

The democratic bit is whether you vote for them or not.

 

Was Thatcher good for democracy?  I'd say no, for numerous reasons.

 

Is the coalition good for democracy?  Again, no, imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leipzig 51

Scottish voting intentions for the May 2015 UK general election (Panelbase, 1st-6th May) :

SNP 48% (n/c)
Labour 26% (-1)
Conservatives 14% (-2)
Liberal Democrats 5% (+1)
UKIP 3% (n/c)
Greens 2 (n/c)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jambo1185

More shipping Liberal votes than Tory ones though, I would imagine?  Not really a back bench revolt.

 

I think 4 Lib Dem, 2 Tory, but would need to properly check.

 

As I mentioned though, most back bench revolts are snubbed out pretty quickly as concessions are made, but they at least are able to arise in the first place and then its embarrassing for the government when defeated (Blair and his Terrorism Bill one springs to mind) and the whole thing forces them into a rethink over how they are approaching things. I think it potentially hurts the development of the party as well to be honest, particularly one which has a range of political views within it from across the political spectrum but all working towards one central goal, but I'm not sure how good the level of debate and scrutiny is within the SNP privately on policy, or whether it is very much a case of leadership say x and that's that.

 

Sturgeon is of course hoping for a back bench revolt from Labour on Trident, something she definitely wouldn't be getting if Labour had adopted a similar motion in the run-up to this election.

Edited by jambo1185
Link to comment
Share on other sites

jambo1185

Is the party whip system good or bad for democracy?

 

Your answer to that will answer your question to me.

 

The whip system has become too powerful in recent times for me, given the influence they have on committee appearances and also over the points raised in debates on motions. They can basically make or break your political career really.

Edited by jambo1185
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think 4 Lib Dem, 2 Tory, but would need to properly check.

 

As I mentioned though, most back bench revolts are snubbed out pretty quickly as concessions are made, but they at least are able to arise in the first place and then its embarrassing for the government when defeated (Blair and his Terrorism Bill one springs to mind) and the whole thing forces them into a rethink over how they are approaching things. I think it potentially hurts the development of the party as well to be honest, particularly one which has a range of political views within it from across the political spectrum but all working towards one central goal, but I'm not sure how good the level of debate and scrutiny is within the SNP privately on policy, or whether it is very much a case of leadership say x and that's that.

 

Sturgeon is of course hoping for a back bench revolt from Labour on Trident, something she definitely wouldn't be getting if Labour had adopted a similar motion in the run-up to this election.

 

If Labour had gone with the feeling of its party membership then Blair should have unilaterally disarmed!  Yeah democracy!

 

I suspect that the SNP motion allows dissent with the confines of the party, but externally everyone sings from the same hymn sheet.  Or as Lyndon Johnson put it, better have people inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jambo1185

If Labour had gone with the feeling of its party membership then Blair should have unilaterally disarmed!  Yeah democracy!

 

Haha. I'm not saying the party has to go with whatever its membership is saying, but at least it can be publicly criticized when it doesn't, which is something the disagreeable members will want to do if they are clamouring for the party to change and potentially get a change in leadership.

Edited by jambo1185
Link to comment
Share on other sites

chuck berrys hairline

At the end of the Sky video above, it says one of the Glasgow candidates is James Marris of "Cannabis is Safer than Alcolhol"

 

Would like to see their manifesto

 

Get's my vote :)

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...