The 2015 General Election Megathread

[Nookie Bear]

If they sit back and allow Scotland to suffer IF they have the opportunity to to assist then they will be finished as a party in Scotland. 

Cant understand why anyone would want the country to get worse than it is to score political points.

For the record, I would vote conservative if they had the policies that I identified with but that wont ever happen though.

 

But that is clearly in the thinking of many SNP figures and supporters, if not a stated policy of course

[Pans Jambo]

But that is clearly in the thinking of many SNP figures and supporters, if not a stated policy of course in my opinion.

FTFY

[Pans Jambo]

The correct answer is conservative - but scotland only ever votes for the party who promise most in the way of free state handouts so that will never happen.

As opposed to England where they only vote to make themselves richer and to hell with Pensioners, disabled, unemployed, children, NHS, etc.

 

We can only hope someone comes along to make things equal.

[deesidejambo]

If they sit back and allow Scotland to suffer IF they have the opportunity to to assist then they will be finished as a party in Scotland. 

Cant understand why anyone would want the country to get worse than it is to score political points.

For the record, I would vote conservative if they had the policies that I identified with but that wont ever happen though.

It is going to be a challenge.

 

Firstly, they are there on a mandate to represent Scotland - 55% of whom do not want Idenpendence, so representing them is an interesting obligation!

 

But the other issue will also play out - imagine in two years time everything is going well, Scotland is happy with whatever powers are devolved, the SNP have "delivered" a better Scotland etc etc.   Then logic suggests that the call for Independence may wane - there wll be little for Scots to feel aggrieved about and they may feel happy with the current situation.  Why would the populace want Independence if they are already sitting pretty?

 

I think the SNP have a lot to gain by stoking more grievance, something they will have difficulty with given that they are now in Westminster with all that "clout".

 

In other

[kingantti1874]

As opposed to England where they only vote to make themselves richer and to hell with Pensioners, disabled, unemployed, children, NHS, etc.

 

We can only hope someone comes along to make things equal.

Do they - I think they are far better at taking an educated look at policy and making a choice.. And the conservative economic policies are the correct answer - you cannot spend more than you earn - it is not sustainable..

 

As per above SNP no longer want FFA. Ask yourself why that is.

[doctor jambo]

As opposed to England where they only vote to make themselves richer and to hell with Pensioners, disabled, unemployed, children, NHS, etc.

 

We can only hope someone comes along to make things equal.

Whats the difference- everyone voting out of self interest.

And if anything the Tories are protecting the pensioners at the expense of everyone else.

And the argument would go that those on benefits are voting to make themselves "richer" though it is all relative, though they wish to have more money they have not earned, but merely wish it taken off others and given to them.

ANd perhaps if things were a bit more rational the truly disabled could have proper levels of benefit,

[Stuart Lyon]

Pans Jambo - At least in England their government spent a bigger increase on NHS than the SNP did in Scotland. Why not match the English figure?

[Gorgiewave]

In further news from Bradford West:

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/weird-news/incredible-photographs-show-triumphant-spotted-5682625

[Gorgiewave]

Its also a broken promise as in their manifesto they said they would "seek agreement that the Scottish Parliament should move to full fiscal responsibility".

 

Robertson came up with some guff about nit even asking for it because the SNP are not the UK government, which doesn't even make sense.

 

 

SNP already working with backbench tories behind the scenes to try and block Mays surveillance legislation according to newspapers today.

 

Where are these things reported? I can't see them.

[deesidejambo]

SNP don't want FFA/FFR? What do they want? Do they even know?

They have to represent the whole of Scotland now, even the 50% who didn't vote for them, and the 55% who voted against Independence.

 

The honeymoon is over.

[The Mighty Thor]

SNP don't want FFA/FFR? What do they want? Do they even know?

 

Independence. 

 

Duh!

[Stuart Lyon]

Deesidejambo - I don't think for one minute that they are representing anyone but themselves in order to pursue independence paid for by the Scottish people. Higher taxes is a great policy yet some lemmings voted for it.

[The Mighty Thor]

They have to represent the whole of Scotland now, even the 50% who didn't vote for them, and the 55% who voted against Independence.

 

The honeymoon is over.

 

 

Deesidejambo - I don't think for one minute that they are representing anyone but themselves in order to pursue independence paid for by the Scottish people. Higher taxes is a great policy yet some lemmings voted for it.

 

Gentlemen i'd suggest your coping mechanisms can't deal with last week's result.

 

The new SNP MP's, like all of the 650 MP's in the UK will represent their constituencies and constituents when parliament reconvenes on 27th May. I trust this clarifies matters.

 

(mod delete)

[Gizmo]

Kerevan happy to take the enemy's money!

He's actually only taking the nominal average Scottish salary and donating the rest to charity. And it's tax-payers money, not Westminsters.

 

As for his point about the likelyhood of the UK economy imploding, that's a belief not a wish. And utterly hypocritical to read the usual Unionist posters berating him for that belief when they were quick to celebrate the reduced oil revenues post-referendum, receipts from which of course accrue to the UK treasury...

 

[SE16 3LN]

Ironically, those who voted Tory in England for fear of the SNP having "power" are exercising grievance politics themselves.

Have you found one yet. I haven't.

[kingantti1874]

You do realise that the selfishness you have shown on this thread means you are voting for exactly the same reasons as you accuse them of. All you want is to pay less tax,

I'm happy to pay the same proportion of tax as anyone esle... Pay a higher %age of tax to sustain a nation of bottom feeders?

 

No - I work my ****ing arse off to get what I have.. I have no time for people who want something they did not earn and we have far to many of them, people who do not want opportunities who want people to hand them a lifestyle they do not deserve. iPads, iPhones, Sky tv's, smoking, drinking- none of these things should be attainable for long term unemployed..

[The Mighty Thor]

He's actually only taking the nominal average Scottish salary and donating the rest to charity. And it's tax-payers money, not Westminsters.

 

As for his point about the likelyhood of the UK economy imploding, that's a belief not a wish. And utterly hypocritical to read the usual Unionist posters berating him for that belief when they were quick to celebrate the reduced oil revenues post-referendum, receipts from which of course accrue to the UK treasury...

 

 

Now that puts that little lot of shite to bed quite nicely.

[2NaFish]

Have you found one yet. I haven't.

 

On holiday in greece atm, i've spoke to 4 english folk who said they changed their vote off the back of the snp threat. their words.

[kingantti1874]

And they are not, you clearly only read about the few that abuse the system, they are what I would call criminals, not long term unemployed.

 

There are people in this country who work the arse off but have to use food banks to feed their family, receive benefits to top their wages. You should go and donate at a food bank and stay around for a while, it would open your eyes to what is happening out there........

 

 

Don't kid yourself Brian - it's more than a few

[2NaFish]

Don't kid yourself Brian - it's more than a few

 

he never said a few, he said the few. the few is a relative amount, a few is somewhere between 2 and 8.

 

Relatively, referring the them as "the few" is actually to overstate the situation.

[doctor jambo]

Don't kid yourself Brian - it's more than a few

It is more than a few but its a whole raft of problems

- fathers not supporting their children properly

- mothers not allowing more access to children (which actually may encourage the fathers to support them fiscally)

- IN work benefits being too high

-actual pay being too low so benefits needed  despite working

-lack of rent capping causing a necessity for housing benefit

- non means tested pensioner benefits

 

Personally I'd have everyone fully fiscally responsible for their children until 16 from mid 2016- you already have kids then fine- otherwise you've got time to think about whether you can afford a kid- and if you don't , don't.- both men and women both. Man fathers kid you're het- DNA test confirms its yours money straight from your account to hers 25 % net income per child automatically or 25% of your benefits

[aussieh]

Don't kid yourself Brian - it's more than a few

Do u squeak when you walk?.

[doctor jambo]

Do u squeak when you walk?.

Hey Sidsnot - different computer today?

[aussieh]

Hey Sidsnot - different computer today?

Ok GW

[aussieh]

Hey Sidsnot - different computer today?

You should see a real Doctor for that seethe youve be posting.

56 (mod delete)

[Gorgiewave]

Does anybody have a link to the Angus Robertson story?

[doctor jambo]

That is frankly an astonishing position for a Doctor to take, you realise what you are advocating there is that poor people can't have sex!!!!

No, that is not what I am advocating- I am advocating ALL people are financially responsible for their children ,and that people who cannot afford to have children wait until they can.

Have a kid or twenty if you want, but responsibility for it lies with you.

Poor people can have as much sex as they want- I don't equate sex with having children.

Why should parts of society limit their family size because of financial factors, yet other parts don't?

This is not about being vulnerable its about being responsible

[Nookie Bear]

56(mod delete)

[doctor jambo]

No, that is not what I am advocating- I am advocating ALL people are financially responsible for their children ,and that people who cannot afford to have children wait until they can.

Have a kid or twenty if you want, but responsibility for it lies with you.

Poor people can have as much sex as they want- I don't equate sex with having children.

Why should parts of society limit their family size because of financial factors, yet other parts don't?

This is not about being vulnerable its about being responsible

In fact what I am proposing is fairer, because the high earners will have to pay more- why should your child not experience the standard of living it would have had if its parents were still together?

I know too many better off parents who moved on and left their exes and kids struggling

That seems grossly unfair

[deesidejambo]

No, that is not what I am advocating- I am advocating ALL people are financially responsible for their children ,and that people who cannot afford to have children wait until they can.

Have a kid or twenty if you want, but responsibility for it lies with you.

Poor people can have as much sex as they want- I don't equate sex with having children.

Why should parts of society limit their family size because of financial factors, yet other parts don't?

This is not about being vulnerable its about being responsible

The Tories plan to cut the maximum benefits from ?26000 to ?23000.  I'm all for that.   Get the benefit scammers back to work.  I wonder if the SNP will support that?

[doctor jambo]

The Tories plan to cut the maximum benefits from ?26000 to ?23000.  I'm all for that.   Get the benefit scammers back to work.  I wonder if the SNP will support that?

 

I'm kind of against that- because if you already have a large state sponsored brood there is not much you can do about it now, and driving kids further into poverty is not a good thing- its not their fault after all.

However introduce it in 12 months- 3 months to think about contraception then 9 months gestation if you don't ( or to find employment to support your future progeny)

[aussieh]

[Nookie Bear]

 

 

[deesidejambo]

I'm kind of against that- because if you already have a large state sponsored brood there is not much you can do about it now, and driving kids further into poverty is not a good thing- its not their fault after all.

However introduce it in 12 months- 3 months to think about contraception then 9 months gestation if you don't ( or to find employment to support your future progeny)

I get that.       I dont know how quick it will be introduced but the idea to give everyone 12 months time ot plan for themselves is a good one.      You should stand for Parliament yourself.

[doctor jambo]

You should see a real Doctor for that seethe youve be posting.

56 (mod delete)

Easy Sid, don't strain your spelling any more than you already have

[aussieh]

The Tories plan to cut the maximum benefits from ?26000 to ?23000. I'm all for that. Get the benefit scammers back to work. I wonder if the SNP will support that?

Thatd be good, just need the jobs.

[aussieh]

Easy Sid, don't strain your spelling any more than you already have

Will do Cupid stunt.

[SE16 3LN]

On holiday in greece atm, i've spoke to 4 english folk who said they changed their vote off the back of the snp threat. their words.

Was it your Uncle's, sisters, friend's brother in law. I need more empirical evidence than that

[Nookie Bear]

Easy Sid, don't strain your spelling any more than you already have

 

I was only kidding that aussieh and Sidsnot where the same person!

 

(Although it would make me feel safer in my bed if I knew there was one less Nationalist nutjob out there  )

[doctor jambo]

Thatd be good, just need the jobs.

To have that ?26k in pocket though you'd need to be a top rate tax payer though aka the enemy

So how can you be on such support and therefore weak and vulnerable to satanic Tory cuts, yet be on take home equivalent of a top rate tax payer and therefore a bourgeois

Tory who should have their taxes hiked to support those on benefits 

IT MAKES NO SENSE

[aussieh]

To have that ?26k in pocket though you'd need to be a top rate tax payer though aka the enemy

So how can you be on such support and therefore weak and vulnerable to satanic Tory cuts, yet be on take home equivalent of a top rate tax payer and therefore a bourgeois

Tory who should have their taxes hiked to support those on benefits

IT MAKES NO SENSE

what do you suggest doctor? Euthanasia.

[Gorgiewave]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Robertson

 

Not much of a Story

 

 

Robertson's expenses claims have included^[when?] a television costing ?1,119, a ?400 home cinema system, ?500 for a bed, ?20 for a corkscrew and ?2,324 for a sofa bed.^[12] The home cinema system was initially denied by the expenses office, however Robertson appealed this decision and it was subsequently awarded.^[13]

 

^{Good man.}

[doctor jambo]

Does anyone know how many people are on that much benefit just now? and how do you get it? I'd be very surprised if anyone outside of London is going to be affected by this.

Its not many.

And most of it is housing benefit in London

Rent caps need introduced to rise at the rate of inflation only

I think London Weighting should also be removed from Public sector jobs

[doctor jambo]

what do you suggest doctor? Euthanasia.

Reproductive responsibility?

It would also, perhaps, reduce child poverty

[aussieh]

Its not many.

And most of it is housing benefit in London

Rent caps need introduced to rise at the rate of inflation only

I think London Weighting should also be removed from Public sector jobs

now your talking, well said, but do you think Boris will allow Dav to put said cap in place, nothing will be done to **** with London Boris wont ave it.

Bedroom tax was invented for Boris to rid London of the non minted.

Edited May 12, 2015 by aussieh

[aussieh]

Reproductive responsibility?

It would also, perhaps, reduce child poverty

So would higher wages.

You know wit, forget it, you seem to think all less wealthy are shit on your shoe, theres plenty of scum with money, its how they made it and how they keep it, No?

[aussieh]

I was only kidding that aussieh and Sidsnot where the same person!

 

(Although it would make me feel safer in my bed if I knew there was one less Nationalist nutjob out there )

Right Sid, you ready?

We're behind yoooooouuuuuuu....

[Boris]

The Tories plan to cut the maximum benefits from ?26000 to ?23000.  I'm all for that.   Get the benefit scammers back to work.  I wonder if the SNP will support that?

 

If someone was scamming benefits, do you think they'd really stop scamming for ?3k p.a.?

 

Seriously?

[SE16 3LN]

Its not many.

And most of it is housing benefit in London

Rent caps need introduced to rise at the rate of inflation only

I think London Weighting should also be removed from Public sector jobs

That's exactly what it is, Landlords subsidy in effect.

 

Your point about removing London weighting from Public Sector jobs is, however, crazy. It's almost impossible to recruit to teaching, nursing and social care staff in London as it is. Migrant workers who are prepared to live in sub standard housing conditions are propping the system up.

 

London has the worst levels of poverty in the UK and is the only region where child poverty has increased over the last ten years. Homelessness is at least twice the national average in every London Borough and overcrowding and sub standard housing is becoming the norm. Even if you take into account Housing Benefit levels in London, public spending per person in  London is almost half the amount it is in Scotland for instance. 

 

You're right Rent caps must be introduced, along with a huge social housing building project. For too long the rights of working class Londoners have been disregarded in favour of the other regions. 

[doctor jambo]

So would higher wages.

You know wit, forget it, you seem to think all less wealthy are shit on your shoe, theres plenty of scum with money, its how they made it and how they keep it, No?

I would advocate for higher wages - living wage no less, which is still pretty abysmal, but better than the current level.

But I would say also that if you adopt a public health model- you cannot lift children out of poverty at one end whilst more continue to be born into it at the other.

It is self defeating

And what is more- its unaffordable to the tax payer