The 2015 General Election Megathread

[JamboX2]

John Bercow wants ?3bn to stop Westminister sinking into the Thames .

I am sure we will find the money easy enough just take it off the folk on benefits

Do you propose we allow a world heritage site to simply vanish?

 

See the Holyrood project for Scots profligacy on a building project.

[deesidejambo]

Unionists have no vision, still stuck in the Empirial past.

And dee what causes this Social pish you go on about, the British class system?.

Maybe it was a good time to change it for the better, if people have no hope, they've desire, no faith, no drive to be better.

A New City needs built, it could be funded from the oil, negotiated off Westminster, creating jobs, jobs, and more jobs for thousands, I'm quite sure investors would be won.

Come on get on board, build a greater Scotland.

You know it makes sense.

The "Social Pish" you refer to is fact.

 

In every population, there is a pecking order.   Its natural and is only denied by those at the lower part of the order.   There are rich and poor.  There are educated and non-educated.  There are Jambos and Hibees.  There are Leaders and drones.    Which are you?

[HaymarketJambo]

John Bercow wants ?3bn to stop Westminister sinking into the Thames .

I am sure we will find the money easy enough just take it off the folk on benefits

 

I have the answer, move the Westminster Parliament to the old Royal High School Site at Calton Hill, Edinburgh is a great city to work in. LOL 

[deesidejambo]

John Bercow wants ?3bn to stop Westminister sinking into the Thames .

I am sure we will find the money easy enough just take it off the folk on benefits

Agreed.    Those on benefits need to cancel their Sky and Mobile Phone contracts.  Then they wont need to go to food banks.

[HaymarketJambo]

Agreed.    Those on benefits need to cancel their Sky and Mobile Phone contracts.  Then they wont need to go to food banks.

 

Got to agree with you on that one. 

[aussieh]

The "Social Pish" you refer to is fact.

 

In every population, there is a pecking order. Its natural and is only denied by those at the lower part of the order. There are rich and poor. There are educated and non-educated. There are Jambos and Hibees. There are Leaders and drones. Which are you?

A Jambo, certainly not a sheep, but youd know more aboot them.

[deesidejambo]

A Jambo, certainly not a sheep, but youd know more aboot them.

I'll put you down as a socio-DE.   And you are insulting the sheep-****ing community.  Shame on you.

[Psychedelicropcircle]

Still waiting on the deeside class system being explained. My ticking off the yes box last September makes me DE going by deesides previous posts *awaits enlightenment*

[ToadKiller Dog]

Do you propose we allow a world heritage site to simply vanish?

 

See the Holyrood project for Scots profligacy on a building project.

Nope but they could scrap trident to pay for it , or moth ball the museum until we can afford such a palace .

Or maybe privatise the place , we can rent it from Branson or that rich Ukrainian billionaire resident in London ?

Many fine buildings in London where they can meet in the mean time . I suggest the millennium dome .

 

Good to see more whataboutry as an argument seems a common tactic

[JAYEL]

Agreed.    Those on benefits need to cancel their Sky and Mobile Phone contracts.  Then they wont need to go to food banks.

 

 

More benefits are paid to those that are working than the unemployed

[Arnold Rothstein]

More benefits are paid to those that are working than the unemployed

 

Where did he suggest that wasn't the case?

[JAYEL]

Where did he suggest that wasn't the case?

 

So working people have to cancel their Sky and mobile phone contracts ?

[Boab]

Great debate, guys.

Benefits...Westminster sinking into the sea.....****ing riveting stuff

[JAYEL]

Great debate, guys.

Benefits...Westminster sinking into the sea.....****ing riveting stuff

 

SNP's fault

[Arnold Rothstein]

So working people have to cancel their Sky and mobile phone contracts ?

 

If they can't afford them yes. There is no right to a sky or mobile phone subscription. 

[JamboX2]

Nope but they could scrap trident to pay for it , or moth ball the museum until we can afford such a palace .

Or maybe privatise the place , we can rent it from Branson or that rich Ukrainian billionaire resident in London ?

Many fine buildings in London where they can meet in the mean time . I suggest the millennium dome .

 

Good to see more whataboutry as an argument seems a common tactic

They'll move out of the Palace whilst it's renovated. No doubt.

 

Government spending is all about decisions and the impact of them. I'd happily see Westminster physically modernised and made fit for purpose in the 21st century.

 

The argument I was making was that the Scottish political class, all parties, consented to a new parliament to be built which was at a cost of billions and came out of the Scottish budgets. Did that mean there was less money to spend elsewhere? Yes. But we got a house for the nation out of it and a modern parliament fit for the 21st century.

 

In all it was worth it. The modernisation of Westminster would be as well.

 

It seems to me, that point blank, all decisions at Westminster are bad to some and Holyrood good and vice versa to some here. In my opinion there's actually a decent balance in having multiple sources of power running things.

[JyTees]

for some reason, you and some others think that only Celtic or Catholics voted yes, or yes voters are some kind of terrorists.

Shocking views.

Deflection. Another Nat trait.

 

The point I was making was the first time I heard the "fear factor" brought into the fray was when a huge chunk of illiterate half breeds were congregated in the Roseburn stand. 99% of whom were extolling the same virtues as you.

 

Coincidence?

[JAYEL]

If they can't afford them yes. There is no right to a sky or mobile phone subscription. 

 

Why just pick on people on benefits ?

[JamboX2]

So working people have to cancel their Sky and mobile phone contracts ?

The issue with welfare is that it subsidises poverty. Working poverty. A job should pay a living wage which means you can live without income support. Or rent without housing benefit. The economy needs to support people more than the state and it didn't.

 

State services and spending support real poverty. I'd scrap child benefit and use the money to fund universal child care, for example. It would give families a chance to take on full time, full wage work. Rather than earn some extra few pounds to live off.

[Arnold Rothstein]

Why just pick on people on benefits ?

 

Do you mean deeside's comment or society in general?

 

IMO, if you cannot afford something then you don't get it irrelevant of whether you're on benefits or not.

[JAYEL]

The issue with welfare is that it subsidises poverty. Working poverty. A job should pay a living wage which means you can live without income support. Or rent without housing benefit. The economy needs to support people more than the state and it didn't.

 

State services and spending support real poverty. I'd scrap child benefit and use the money to fund universal child care, for example. It would give families a chance to take on full time, full wage work. Rather than earn some extra few pounds to live off.

 

The issue with welfare is that it subsidises companies that dont pay a living wage

[JamboX2]

You are correct. The YES campaign couldn't make a coherent argument on the practicalities of what Independence would mean, which for the SNP is surprising giving that is the raison d'etre of their party!

 

That said, they still polled 45% of the votes cast which, given that opinion polls usually had independence at the 30% mark, shows a marked increase.

 

The seed has been planted, the return of 56 SNP MP's also shows, imo, a new dynamic in Scottish, and by association, UK, politics.

 

The article by Paul Mason that JamboX2 linked to, and the interview with Stiglitz that I linked to, says to me that the rise of the SNP/feelings for independence, is not out of some woad face painted nationalism, but a shift because the main parties (Con, Lib, Lab) are not engaging with the electorate. They are not listening to what the average Joe needs/wants. The economic crisis and consequences of that appear to be more detrimental to those with less, and also those who were less responsible. Those culpable seem to be getting away with it and getting richer into the bargain. It's a basic argument, but that's just my sense of how it is, or rather, how it is perceived. Greece, Spain and now Poland have all elected political representatives outwith the mainstream political parties, arguably Scotland has done the same. UKIP in rUK too. What's happening is not unique to Scotland. It is, rather, a crisis of neo-liberal capitalism and how those political monoliths deal with the situation allowed under their watch.

I actually think the Labour Party under Miliband had some policies about trying to redress the failings of the economy. He was just caught between two approaches - full anti-austerity language or the centrist approach about responsible government spending. It messed up what could have been a good message.

 

I would also say the SNP are the less committed wing of the whole independence anti-austerity movement. RiC, the Greens, Women for Independence and so on are far more committed to the anti-austerity and new economy ideas than the SNP who are lukewarm to it and offered the same as Labour at the election in hard policy (the SNP campaign was light on policy).

 

They are not a Podemos or a Syriza, offering a new vision and a new form of how the economy works. They are still wedded to the new-liberal ideal of low tax and high spending and of having as free a market as possible. But they have managed to marry up the message of an independent or more powerful Scotland with being against the establishment and against the way things are without there being much weight to that in terms of policy and how that new nation or new system will work.

 

That's my issue with the idea.

 

But they've captured that mood so well and it's a credit to them that they have. I just pity the fact that there's little actual work being done at Holyrood in furthering that aim. It's all still very middle of the road and managerial. No treat reforming zeal to change Scotland. No revolution in education, no new way of running public services which is more accountable to people or that relates to the specific concerns and needs of different parts of Scotland and no new way of running public transport for people as a service rather than a profit maker. All within their power.

 

But I add, it's a failing of many parties and governments.

[JamboX2]

The issue with welfare is that it subsidises companies that dont pay a living wage

What I just said.

 

Welfare should be a support structure to make life worth living and to provide support to people to work if they've young children, to help care for the elderly in infirmity and support and care for those not able to do so for themselves.

 

Social security is your unemployment benefits, income support and housing support benefits. They should be short term fixes for problems people face in life. The aim should always be to get into work and for work to pay so that the state doesn't always need to be paying people extra to live a decent life.

 

And I actually think those on a minimum or living wage alone should not pay any tax.

[JamboX2]

http://youtu.be/UhwMoPF6540

 

Excellent speech by Tommy Shepherd. Don't agree with nationalism, be it civic or whatever, nor in one nation politics of all things to all men as politics should represent a variety of views rather than one overriding opinion. But an excellent speech and in it was a more left wing understanding of how 21st century socialism could work. Local power, accountability and fairness. The hallmarks of what Scottish Labour should be.

 

I hope in years to come Mr Shepherd finds his way back to Labour. He looks like he could be an asset to UK politics there.

[TheMaganator]

He's for the SNP but favours local power? That's pretty much what the SNP are against in Scotland

[Rand Paul's Ray Bans]

The issue with welfare is that it subsidises poverty. Working poverty. A job should pay a living wage which means you can live without income support. Or rent without housing benefit. The economy needs to support people more than the state and it didn't.

 

Why should businesses have to cough up for a living wage? They didn't set VAT at 20%. They don't put duties on alcohol and cigarettes, which hits the poor more than middle and above classes. They haven't oversaw a diabolical failure to replace housing stock. They didn't draw up ludicrous planning laws. They didn't gerrymander the energy market to serve a few large companies. 

 

I'm all for businesses paying the living wage if they want to, and can do so. But they shouldn't be coerced into it by the state which has played a massive part in making the cost of living so high that people need benefits even if they're working. 

[jambo1185]

He's for the SNP but favours local power? That's pretty much what the SNP are against in Scotland

Indeed. As are Labour generally who continue to advocate centralised power and a bigger more involved state.

 

Was a great speech though.

[aussieh]

Deflection. Another Nat trait.

The point I was making was the first time I heard the "fear factor" brought into the fray was when a huge chunk of illiterate half breeds were congregated in the Roseburn stand. 99% of whom were extolling the same virtues as you.

Coincidence?

Heard it on a motivational speaker clip.

Your team get pumped last night haha.

[deesidejambo]

What I just said.

 

Welfare should be a support structure to make life worth living and to provide support to people to work if they've young children, to help care for the elderly in infirmity and support and care for those not able to do so for themselves.

 

Social security is your unemployment benefits, income support and housing support benefits. They should be short term fixes for problems people face in life. The aim should always be to get into work and for work to pay so that the state doesn't always need to be paying people extra to live a decent life.

 

And I actually think those on a minimum or living wage alone should not pay any tax.

I would advocate raising the tax threshold significantly and balancing this by raising the rate of higher rate tax, thereby shifting the balance more in favour of those on lower wages.   A potential problem with this is a large and growing proportion of the population are on higher rate, which kicks in (I think) at about ?40,000 per year.    I have not seen the sums for a while but in the past I remember seeing that to raise the threshold to ?15,000 would only need a 1-2% rise in higher rate to balance.  That to me seems reasonable.  If anyone else knows the exact sums feel free to post.

[JamboX2]

Why should businesses have to cough up for a living wage? They didn't set VAT at 20%. They don't put duties on alcohol and cigarettes, which hits the poor more than middle and above classes. They haven't oversaw a diabolical failure to replace housing stock. They didn't draw up ludicrous planning laws. They didn't gerrymander the energy market to serve a few large companies.

 

Totally agree and government should be proactive in changing those failings as well.

 

The minimum wage should rise with inflation at the least.

 

I'm all for businesses paying the living wage if they want to, and can do so. But they shouldn't be coerced into it by the state which has played a massive part in making the cost of living so high that people need benefits even if they're working.

Business cant at the same time shirk their own responsibility to their employees by not paying a fair wage for work engaged by their employees.

 

Government has to do more to address their failure in managing the economy and to regulate it to be fairer. But it cannot pick up the bill either for the failure of the real economy to support people to live a sustainable and full life without a reliance of in-work benefits.

[JamboX2]

He's for the SNP but favours local power? That's pretty much what the SNP are against in Scotland

Totally agree Mags. But whilst some of its content was weak it was an excellent speech from a new mp.

 

The other Scottish parties going into next year have to pull out all the stops to get better candidates from a variety of backgrounds to stand to improve their lot in Holyrood.

 

I would say that the quality of some SNP MPs is better than their MSPs. Many of whom are staying put in Holyrood.

[JamboX2]

I would advocate raising the tax threshold significantly and balancing this by raising the rate of higher rate tax, thereby shifting the balance more in favour of those on lower wages. A potential problem with this is a large and growing proportion of the population are on higher rate, which kicks in (I think) at about ?40,000 per year. I have not seen the sums for a while but in the past I remember seeing that to raise the threshold to ?15,000 would only need a 1-2% rise in higher rate to balance. That to me seems reasonable. If anyone else knows the exact sums feel free to post.

Totally agree. The burden of tax needs shifted to higher bands and away from the poor and middle classes. Make it truly progressive.

 

There also needs to be a move towards wealth and special property taxation of certain goods and large properties that only the really wealthy can afford.

[HaymarketJambo]

http://youtu.be/UhwMoPF6540

 

Excellent speech by Tommy Shepherd. Don't agree with nationalism, be it civic or whatever, nor in one nation politics of all things to all men as politics should represent a variety of views rather than one overriding opinion. But an excellent speech and in it was a more left wing understanding of how 21st century socialism could work. Local power, accountability and fairness. The hallmarks of what Scottish Labour should be.

 

I hope in years to come Mr Shepherd finds his way back to Labour. He looks like he could be an asset to UK politics there.

That was just a brilliant speech by Tommy Shepherd, and said it all really.

 

Like I said in a previous post Joanna Cherry MP for Edinburgh South West made also a brilliant speech as well, and like I said Hearts got mention as well.       

[Boris]

I actually think the Labour Party under Miliband had some policies about trying to redress the failings of the economy. He was just caught between two approaches - full anti-austerity language or the centrist approach about responsible government spending. It messed up what could have been a good message.

 

I would also say the SNP are the less committed wing of the whole independence anti-austerity movement. RiC, the Greens, Women for Independence and so on are far more committed to the anti-austerity and new economy ideas than the SNP who are lukewarm to it and offered the same as Labour at the election in hard policy (the SNP campaign was light on policy).

 

They are not a Podemos or a Syriza, offering a new vision and a new form of how the economy works. They are still wedded to the new-liberal ideal of low tax and high spending and of having as free a market as possible. But they have managed to marry up the message of an independent or more powerful Scotland with being against the establishment and against the way things are without there being much weight to that in terms of policy and how that new nation or new system will work.

 

That's my issue with the idea.

 

But they've captured that mood so well and it's a credit to them that they have. I just pity the fact that there's little actual work being done at Holyrood in furthering that aim. It's all still very middle of the road and managerial. No treat reforming zeal to change Scotland. No revolution in education, no new way of running public services which is more accountable to people or that relates to the specific concerns and needs of different parts of Scotland and no new way of running public transport for people as a service rather than a profit maker. All within their power.

 

But I add, it's a failing of many parties and governments.

 

I don't disagree with your analysis of the SNP - arguably they are being populist to an extent, although I do think they are slightly left of centre.  Slightly.

 

As I hope I got across in my original post, this has kind of transcended party politics in that it's about the whole way politics works now.  Lib, Lab & Con are all part of the current "ancien regime".  So are the SNP, but they are (cleverly?) distancing themselves from it by openly talking of anti-austerity.  

 

But it's not just politics, it's the economics of it all too.  For a state of the economy synopsis, I'll take Stiglitz over Osbourne, thank you very much.

 

Unless Labour, Liberals and the Tories address the rot that has set in to the system, then I can see the likes of UKIP taking votes, along with the SNP and what that will ultimately lead to.  Perhaps the Scottish Labour Party under new management could take the lead?

[Stuart Lyon]

A very good speech by Tommy Shepherd. Sound socialist principles unfortunately under an independence seeking party.

[TheMaganator]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11637023/A-Left-wing-mob-tried-to-assault-me-in-broad-daylight.-What-made-them-so-angry.html

 

"The Left, I can only conclude, is no longer driven by either logic or reason. It?s all about the expression of emotion. And so long as you do it holding an anti-austerity placard, its not thuggery ? it?s a protest."

 

A few on here should take time to reflect on this article.

[Boris]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11637023/A-Left-wing-mob-tried-to-assault-me-in-broad-daylight.-What-made-them-so-angry.html

 

"The Left, I can only conclude, is no longer driven by either logic or reason. It?s all about the expression of emotion. And so long as you do it holding an anti-austerity placard, its not thuggery ? it?s a protest."

 

A few on here should take time to reflect on this article.

 

Carswell talking absolute bobbins, in this poster's opinion.

 

He pleads with us that it is silly to dismiss UKIP policies because a "leftist" journalist calls them racist, yet is happy to use the same broadbrush approach to the "left" itself, based on a few arseholes he met in the street?

 

Cross refer what Carswell is saying with the interview with Stiglitz and the piece by Paul Mason.

 

As I said earlier, the mainstream are losing to alternatives because the mainstream is seen as the cause and facilitator of austerity.  Ironically, UKIP are beneficiaries of this.

[Hasselhoff]

Salmond asked about his EU legal advice porkie from a few years back by Andrew Neil - Annnnnnnnyway, it's not as bad as Carmicheal so that's ok

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02sf07v

[deesidejambo]

The Tories are fast becoming the new socialists.    I think thats Camerons influence - I like that.

 

The issue is, more and more people are getting wealthier and are moving into the higher tax brackets, despite the purported notion that poverty is increasing.   It isn't.       

 

People are fooled into thinking due to the rise in food banks the whole country is falling into povertty.  That is not the case.      The rise in food banks is a fad capitalised on by those on benfits who now get free food and can spend their benefits on other stuff, like their Sky subscriptions.

 

Individuals are getting richer, and are becoming, wait for it, shy Tories.

[Boris]

The Tories are fast becoming the new socialists.    I think thats Camerons influence - I like that.

 

The issue is, more and more people are getting wealthier and are moving into the higher tax brackets, despite the purported notion that poverty is increasing.   It isn't.       

 

People are fooled into thinking due to the rise in food banks the whole country is falling into povertty.  That is not the case.      The rise in food banks is a fad capitalised on by those on benfits who now get free food and can spend their benefits on other stuff, like their Sky subscriptions.

 

Individuals are getting richer, and are becoming, wait for it, shy Tories.

 

A pint of whatever you are drinking!

 

[deesidejambo]

A pint of whatever you are drinking!

 

You sure you're not a shy Tory?  I think we should be told.

[JamboX2]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11637023/A-Left-wing-mob-tried-to-assault-me-in-broad-daylight.-What-made-them-so-angry.html

 

"The Left, I can only conclude, is no longer driven by either logic or reason. It?s all about the expression of emotion. And so long as you do it holding an anti-austerity placard, its not thuggery ? it?s a protest."

 

A few on here should take time to reflect on this article.

Over course ukip don't hold irrational anger for anything.

 

Like the SNP they are a reactive force to a perceived boogeyman.

[aussieh]

A pint of whatever you are drinking!

 

Real men don't drink Gin.

[deesidejambo]

Real men don't drink Gin.

Tonights the night.    Kid just finished Highers so household can relax.     And that means Gin & Grapefruit all round.       You should try it sometime - bring out your feminine side.

[aussieh]

Tonights the night.    Kid just finished Highers so household can relax.     And that means Gin & Grapefruit all round.       You should try it sometime - bring out your feminine side.

Good stuff enjoy.

[Psychedelicropcircle]

A pint of whatever you are drinking!

 

It's usually consumed in a bag it's called evostick.

[Psychedelicropcircle]

Aussie next time your enroute to tynecastle pop yourself into jolly botanist at haymarket, gintatstic??

[Boris]

You sure you're not a shy Tory?  I think we should be told.

 

Positive.  Thanks.

[aussieh]

Aussie next time your enroute to tynecastle pop yourself into jolly botanist at haymarket, gintatstic??

Caught in gintastic spiders web.

Have you been?

[HaymarketJambo]

Aussie next time your enroute to tynecastle pop yourself into jolly botanist at haymarket, gintatstic??

 

Also make sure you have plenty cash going to the jolly botanist, I got charged ?3.80 for a pint of Edinburgh Castle Rock beer there other night.