Jump to content

The 2015 General Election Megathread


Rand Paul's Ray Bans

Recommended Posts

UKIP getting airtime. :vrface:

 

Our PM wanting provincial little Greens to get more airtime. :vrface:

 

Yet the UK's 3rd largest party...

 

:cornette:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 14.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • aussieh

    1284

  • JamboX2

    893

  • TheMaganator

    818

  • Boris

    639

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

AlphonseCapone

The more the loonies parties get coverage the more they are exposed for being loony. I 'd get them all in and let the voters decide who they want to vote for.

I agree they'll get exposed but I don't see why they get the publicity and not the Greens.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rand Paul's Ray Bans

Cameron wants the Greens involved as they're taking some voters from Labour at the moment. Sadiq Khan has also called for the Greens involvement, diverging from official Labour party line; but as (I think) he heads up a strategy unit for dealing with the Greens, I think his strategy is to take them head on and, as TheMaganator said, expose them as being an unrealistic option. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Psychedelicropcircle

Big Davy C agrees with you re the Greens http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30726499

 

 

Cheers, I am not sure I know what you are talking about though.

Meaning your aren't a tory just someone with the 'hibs bitterness for the SNP. Just as well really even your unionist pals would rip you a new one trying to put a positive spin on tory policy. FTSNP

Link to post
Share on other sites

This in spades. Anyone moaning about Westminster or english/british parties had their chance! Spineless *****

 

:spoton:

 

 

They have all had their chances when in power and have done nothing for Scotlandshire..

 

 

Time for change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cameron wants the Greens involved because he only loses in a  televised debate (Milliband and Clegg can't be perceived much worse whilst Cameron is best perceived as distant, measured and statesmanlike) so more bodies makes it less of a debate and more of Sunday market.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The more the loonies parties get coverage the more they are exposed for being loony. I 'd get them all in and let the voters decide who they want to vote for. 

Which is absolutely great except for one big problem 

 

Screen-Shot-2013-07-10-at-09.31.04.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re the TV debate...say the tv stations say 'ok, we'll go ahead with UKIP, Labour and Lib Dems' it kind of puts Cameron into a corner. He'd have to join and he could have no complaints about a lack of fairness if he chose to stay out of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
TheMaganator

Meaning your aren't a tory just someone with the 'hibs bitterness for the SNP. Just as well really even your unionist pals would rip you a new one trying to put a positive spin on tory policy. FTSNP

:unsure:
Link to post
Share on other sites
The Mighty Thor

The more the loonies parties get coverage the more they are exposed for being loony. I 'd get them all in and let the voters decide who they want to vote for. 

 

I'd agree with this. It has both a positive and negative effect. UKIP for example will benefit and suffer at the same time. The white van driving essex types will be nursing a chubby while Nigel waxes lyrical about the country being ruined by them immigrants, whilst the rest of us will see them as the tinpot arseholes they really are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Giving the BNP lots of airtime and media column inches worked very well in exposing them for the nutters that they are.

Their electoral support has dropped off sharply and they are losing council seats they had taken as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Scandalous ruling by Ofcom today.

 

Ruling that the Greens are not a major party and therefore have no right to take part in any debates (and get less party broadcasts too) whereas UKIP are counted as a major party is a disgrace.

 

UKIP are being jemmied into the establishment by the media barons and trying to ignore parties like the SNP, Greens and Plaid Cymru is shocking behaviour.

Its a decision made on past electoral performance though. To which they've done badly. The Scots Greens didn't even have candidates in 2010. Ukip meanwhile done wonders in consecutive euro elections.

 

SNP and PC don't stand uk wide. Should Nigel Dodds be in the debates too?

Link to post
Share on other sites
AlphonseCapone

Its a decision made on past electoral performance though. To which they've done badly. The Scots Greens didn't even have candidates in 2010. Ukip meanwhile done wonders in consecutive euro elections.

 

SNP and PC don't stand uk wide. Should Nigel Dodds be in the debates too?

 

The SNP might play an important role though if they make the gains suggested.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The SNP might play an important role though if they make the gains suggested.

 

I think you have to draw the line though at parties which only stand in one country within the UK, otherwise the UUP, DUP, SDLP, Sinn Fein (although they wouldn't bother I'm sure), as well as the SNP and PC, would need to be brought in and it would be a total rammy and impossible to structure. In particular, the SNP and other national parties would/should not be able to take part in sections of the debate if the topic is on a matter which isn't reserved (and even if they were their input would be limited to general soundbites, whattaboutery, and something generic about Barnett consequentials).

 

It makes more sense to me to have additional specific Scottish, Welsh and NI debates, although I guess there are limited topics the Scottish one would really be able to cover as there's no sense asking them to debate devolved issues, although I'm sure it will all be about the NHS anyway, always is. Although I suspect Cameron, Miliband and Clegg wouldn't take part, it would be Scottish reps for the parties.

 

I'm quite happy with UKIP being given additional rope to hang themselves, and the Greens would need to think pretty carefully about their participation as it might highlight a lack of depth across key policy areas (I mean a ?10 p/h living wage sounds wonderful, but it could be unaffordable to huge numbers of businesses who continue to struggle in the current climate, who may end up having to (i) employ less people for higher pay and/or (ii) put up prices to cover the cost).

Edited by jambo1185
Link to post
Share on other sites

SNP and PC don't stand uk wide. Should Nigel Dodds be in the debates too?

 

I'm voting for my constituent MP, not a president. To make up rules regarding parties representing nationally or not is to build so many castles in the sky.

 

The fact that these debates exist at all is against the nature of the system. That they should seek to exclude and include on such flimsy pretences is thoroughly to be expected.

 

Still, not as big a carve up as the history of the american presidential debates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm voting for my constituent MP, not a president. To make up rules regarding parties representing nationally or not is to build so many castles in the sky.

 

The fact that these debates exist at all is against the nature of the system. That they should seek to exclude and include on such flimsy pretences is thoroughly to be expected.

 

Still, not as big a carve up as the history of the american presidential debates.

 

I agree, the only debates people should be interested in, are any hustings taking place in their constituency. I don't really like these 'Leader's Debates' as it all turns into a bit of a personality contest, but I understand why they are popular.

 

If the Loonies (the OMRLP before anyone starts ;)) put up enough candidates, do they get to be included to? The line has to be drawn somewhere, and if it's by parties who already have a seat, or have "realistic expectations of getting a seat" or something, then that means Galloway/Respect gets to take part - do any of us want that?

Edited by jambo1185
Link to post
Share on other sites
TheMaganator

How can anyone vote Labour/Tories?

 

They have BOTH ruined this country and bombed loads of Arab countries in the process.

How is the country ruined exactly?

 

Who do you intend to vote for and what would they have done differently to labour or Tory?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dusk_Till_Dawn

This is going to be one of those elections where no-one is going to want to vote for anyone.

 

I live in England. At the moment I'd probably vote conservative through gritted teeth

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm voting for my constituent MP, not a president. To make up rules regarding parties representing nationally or not is to build so many castles in the sky.

 

The fact that these debates exist at all is against the nature of the system. That they should seek to exclude and include on such flimsy pretences is thoroughly to be expected.

 

Still, not as big a carve up as the history of the american presidential debates.

Totally agree with you. Think these debates are a farce. However, the fact that hung parliaments may become more of norm, we may actually need to see the leaders debate their aims and policies.

 

For me it's the representative that counts. I always voted for Margo because she done absolute wonders for the City of Edinburgh. She got budget concessions for more money from the city when it was all going west. Didn't need a TV debate to know that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you have to draw the line though at parties which only stand in one country within the UK, otherwise the UUP, DUP, SDLP, Sinn Fein (although they wouldn't bother I'm sure), as well as the SNP and PC, would need to be brought in and it would be a total rammy and impossible to structure. In particular, the SNP and other national parties would/should not be able to take part in sections of the debate if the topic is on a matter which isn't reserved (and even if they were their input would be limited to general soundbites, whattaboutery, and something generic about Barnett consequentials).

 

It makes more sense to me to have additional specific Scottish, Welsh and NI debates, although I guess there are limited topics the Scottish one would really be able to cover as there's no sense asking them to debate devolved issues, although I'm sure it will all be about the NHS anyway, always is. Although I suspect Cameron, Miliband and Clegg wouldn't take part, it would be Scottish reps for the parties.

 

I'm quite happy with UKIP being given additional rope to hang themselves, and the Greens would need to think pretty carefully about their participation as it might highlight a lack of depth across key policy areas (I mean a ?10 p/h living wage sounds wonderful, but it could be unaffordable to huge numbers of businesses who continue to struggle in the current climate, who may end up having to (i) employ less people for higher pay and/or (ii) put up prices to cover the cost).

Agree with this. Glad the Greens are in. They are truly national and the English and Scottish parties act in alliance for the UK elections. Hope they do well as well.

 

As I've said Britain needs a voting system which can truly reflect it's people. Greens are growing, UKIP is about, the SNP etc on the rise. It's only right they have seats in the Parliament which represents us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be interesting to see how the SNP sell themselves as the election approaches.  Their hope of independence has gone now, it seems, for some time, so what will be their flagship policies?  How are they going to differentiate themselves from the main 3 parties?  I can understand they will still attract protest votes this time and the die hard nationalists will still fly the flag but I wonder how they are going to maintain their popularity in the foreseeable future.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be interesting to see how the SNP sell themselves as the election approaches.  Their hope of independence has gone now, it seems, for some time, so what will be their flagship policies?  How are they going to differentiate themselves from the main 3 parties?  I can understand they will still attract protest votes this time and the die hard nationalists will still fly the flag but I wonder how they are going to maintain their popularity in the foreseeable future.

 

By being ever so slighty to the left of whoever is in Westminster.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be interesting to see how the SNP sell themselves as the election approaches. Their hope of independence has gone now, it seems, for some time, so what will be their flagship policies? How are they going to differentiate themselves from the main 3 parties? I can understand they will still attract protest votes this time and the die hard nationalists will still fly the flag but I wonder how they are going to maintain their popularity in the foreseeable future.

The message has already been established:

 

1. Hold the big 3s feet to the fire on Smith implementation.

2. Stand up for 'Scotland's Interest'

3. Be the anti-Trident party

 

They are very much in line with the established centre of British politics. Their White Paper showed they were as uninterested in wealth redistribution to the poor as the Tories and as short sighted on economic reform as Labour.

 

Policy wise it'll be interested to see how the operate when the cards are down. They'll have a free vote on many issues which arise. If a Tory or Labour minority government arise they'll be as awkward as possible and set deadlines and red lines on areas which don't relate to the negotiated area.

 

Salmond recently even went as far as to say it's not about independnece now but home rule. Wonder if Nicola knew of this policy change, as she's not ruled that second vote out.

Edited by JamboX2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't be voting SNP and "getting the best deal for Scotland" isn't a message that appeals to me but it's probably true and it probably will be voted for in droves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

David Cameron doing publicity for upcoming romantic comedy How to Lose an Election in 10 Days

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30778424

 

Nigel Farage goes full on "Stormfront" and asks "won't someone think of the Judeo-Christians"

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30776186

 

Ed Milliband figures that the solution to his image problem is to spend more time next to the most effortlessly handsome man on the planet 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2906765/How-Ed-Miliband-wined-dined-Hollywood-star-George-Clooney-glamorous-British-wife-Amal.html

 

Alex Salmond criticises others for not taking the long view before putting a 2 month shelf life on debate 

 

https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/politics/referendum/452827/undefined-headline-835/

 

And Nick Clegg was probably up to something which i'm sure JKB's resident Lib Dem will be along to tell us about at some point.

Edited by djf
Link to post
Share on other sites
Rand Paul's Ray Bans

I was wondering when proposed crackdown on civil liberties would appear. :dry:

 

Authoritarians gonna be authoritarian.

Edited by Joe Biden's Aviators
Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs/11290363/Hospitals-and-fire-services-to-be-run-outside-the-public-sector.html

 

Great British fire sale! Everything must go*!

 

 

 

 

 

*except defence & policing. gotta keep the riots in check.

Truly terrifying stuff. The fact a government can hark back to the 1930s and claim that will be progress is mad. They may not realise that slums and abject squalor with the poor unable to afford health care or education was not progress based on their own backgrounds but I grew up up with grandparents who did and it's no where near good enough to say that's acceptable.

 

The basic principle of government is to protect the state and people from harm and since the 1950s to provide a safety net of health provision and assistance for all those who need it.

 

These guys make Thatcher look saintly at times.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Truly terrifying stuff. The fact a government can hark back to the 1930s and claim that will be progress is mad. They may not realise that slums and abject squalor with the poor unable to afford health care or education was not progress based on their own backgrounds but I grew up up with grandparents who did and it's no where near good enough to say that's acceptable.

 

The basic principle of government is to protect the state and people from harm and since the 1950s to provide a safety net of health provision and assistance for all those who need it.

 

These guys make Thatcher look saintly at times.

This has nothing to do with austerity. Austerity is simply a smokescreen for the powers that be to carry out their ideological pogrom at the expense of the public sector.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This has nothing to do with austerity. Austerity is simply a smokescreen for the powers that be to carry out their ideological pogrom at the expense of the public sector.

Totally agree. Sadly the public are hoodwinked into thinking cuts are needed to rebalance the economy. There is no doubt that the state is bloated in some ways. Some things can be done better. Much better. A streamlined tax and welfare system would be a prime example of that, but that doesn't mean we alter the purpose of these services - namely to provide public services.

 

I'm in a mixed position here. The idea of going back to the 1930s is a joke frankly, but the electoral system is going to bar a Green government or a left wing government.

 

There's also an utter hypocrisy in some like the SNP for their positions on all this. A party who proposed tax breaks to big business whilst arguing they'd enact fiscal retrenchment in Scotland after a yes vote anyway can't at the same time because we had a no win walk about promising the end of austerity. Labour are no different here. Whilst they argue for a redistribution of economic power - to consumers through stronger watchdogs and representation on pay commissions etc - are still going to make cuts. Perhaps they'll invest more for growth but they'll still cut.

 

Personally, we all know there will be cuts. No one is escaping this in Europe and we are no different. We should accept some cuts are to be made but focus on where we should be protecting money and where we should be cutting. Imo, defence is botched in terms of spending and I'd question ring fencing health at the expense of education but that's to be debated. That's the real debate, economic reform and protecting public services we rely on to get through this economic downturn. Imo, the Tories aren't offering that. Nor are the LibDems, when once they did.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ToadKiller Dog

So 28 scots Labour MPs voted with the government at Westminster to impose ?75bn of cuts and tax rises .

Nice of them .

Jim Murphy would have made it 29 but was elsewhere .

 

Can they not even pretend to be on the side of poor these days .

Edited by ToadKiller Dog
Link to post
Share on other sites
Geoff Kilpatrick

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs/11290363/Hospitals-and-fire-services-to-be-run-outside-the-public-sector.html

 

Great British fire sale! Everything must go*!

 

 

 

 

 

*except defence & policing. gotta keep the riots in check.

Sounds like kite flying.

 

Alternatively, the books are so shit (which they are) that the Tories want Ed Balls to destroy Labour entirely when they are forced into making cuts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So 28 scots Labour MPs voted with the government at Westminster to impose ?75bn of cuts and tax rises .

Nice of them .

Jim Murphy would have made it 29 but was elsewhere .

 

Can they not even pretend to be on the side of poor these days .

What are you against? The cuts or the tax rises?
Link to post
Share on other sites

So 28 scots Labour MPs voted with the government at Westminster to impose ?75bn of cuts and tax rises .

Nice of them .

Jim Murphy would have made it 29 but was elsewhere .

 

Can they not even pretend to be on the side of poor these days .

Not sure here, but did they not back the tax rises and not the cuts?

 

Also how can you tell how Murphy would've voted on this? He wasn't there.

 

I don't know how Salmond would've voted on the minimum wage as he wasn't there in 1998.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure here, but did they not back the tax rises and not the cuts?

 

Also how can you tell how Murphy would've voted on this? He wasn't there.

 

I don't know how Salmond would've voted on the minimum wage as he wasn't there in 1998.

 

I'm sure Murphy would have voted in the same manner as the rest of the Shadow Cabinet.  I think you know that too.

 

How fortuitous that he wasn't there!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure Murphy would have voted in the same manner as the rest of the Shadow Cabinet. I think you know that too.

 

How fortuitous that he wasn't there!

He isn't a member of the shadow cabinet.

 

And we both know that the concession to join a cabinet is collective responsibility. Debate at cabinet, vote, go with the decision of the majority.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He isn't a member of the shadow cabinet.

 

And we both know that the concession to join a cabinet is collective responsibility. Debate at cabinet, vote, go with the decision of the majority.

I never said he was, but as leader in Scotland, he's not going to go against the UK leader in a Westminster vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said he was, but as leader in Scotland, he's not going to go against the UK leader in a Westminster vote.

Something he's actually making a thing of is going against Ed. Which isn't surprising as he doesn't like Ed Miliband.

 

As I said yesterday, there's going to be cuts any way you look at it. Independence or not. The debate should be on tax more or cut more now and so on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/joan-mcalpine-local-councils-power-4975210

 

It's things like this where you despair at party politics. Basically, local government is bad because in some cases they may not agree with the central government and make alternative choices. No understanding that that is the purpose of local democracy.

 

Investing in services and supporting people is not backing 'cronies'. Centralisation at the UK or the Scottish level is bad and anti-democratic for all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/joan-mcalpine-local-councils-power-4975210

 

It's things like this where you despair at party politics. Basically, local government is bad because in some cases they may not agree with the central government and make alternative choices. No understanding that that is the purpose of local democracy.

 

Investing in services and supporting people is not backing 'cronies'. Centralisation at the UK or the Scottish level is bad and anti-democratic for all.

She is a prime example of what is wrong with Scottish politics.

 

If she is one of the best Scotland has to offer we should all go home now.

 

Apart from anything else - the rank hypocrisy of her position. Her government ran a parliament that had powers that they didn't use that they let lapse...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something he's actually making a thing of is going against Ed. Which isn't surprising as he doesn't like Ed Miliband.

 

As I said yesterday, there's going to be cuts any way you look at it. Independence or not. The debate should be on tax more or cut more now and so on.

 

The idea that Murphy has actually done anything significant against Ed is nonsense. They're all happy to have a few pretend fights to try and show that Murphy is independent/radical/Scottish/whatever will get more votes. Ed, and Diane Abbott, and whoever else are happy to go along with it because they a) like having lots of Scottish Labour MPs at Westminster, and B) don't do badly themselves electorally bickering a bit with Murphy.

Link to post
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...