General Election

[Shanks said no]

Edinburgh West news

 

 

According to BBC Two MPs - Michelle Thompson and Natalie McGarry who have been suspended by the party since 2015 will learn their fate on Saturday when the party's National Executive Committee is meeting to decide.

 

The SNP's national executive has ruled not to endorse two sitting MPs as candidates in the general election.

 

Michelle Thomson and Natalie McGarry, who were elected as SNP MPs but now sit as independent members, were told by the party's ruling body that they would not be selected.

Ms Thomson withdrew from the SNP whip last year amid an ongoing police investigation into property deals.

 

She said she was "very disappointed with the decision".

 

And the Edinburgh West MP confirmed that "after careful consideration" she had decided not to put herself forward for election.

[Hasselhoff]

https://twitter.com/aidankerrtweets/status/855919581390569474

[SwindonJambo]

https://twitter.com/aidankerrtweets/status/855919581390569474

That's bonkers. Panelbase too, who are the SNP's Pollsters of choice. If these figures are accurate, then the Tories could win a fair few seats with Labour wiped out. Who'd a thunk if? Interesting times ahead !

 

Wonder what their sample size was. Anything much less than 1,000 is generally considered unreliable.

[GBJambo]

That's bonkers. Panelbase too, who are the SNP's Pollsters of choice. If these figures are accurate, then the Tories could win a fair few seats with Labour wiped out. Who'd a thunk if? Interesting times ahead !

 

Wonder what their sample size was. Anything much less than 1,000 is generally considered unreliable.

Sample size was 1029

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

That's bonkers. Panelbase too, who are the SNP's Pollsters of choice. If these figures are accurate, then the Tories could win a fair few seats with Labour wiped out. Who'd a thunk if? Interesting times ahead !

 

Wonder what their sample size was. Anything much less than 1,000 is generally considered unreliable.

I'm confused. One of the claims I always heard was that Scotland was old Labour and Blairite New Labour was not what they wanted.

 

Now they have a reincarnation of Foot in charge and, er, Scots don't want to vote for him!

[SwindonJambo]

Sample size was 1029

That tends to make it relevant then. A 33% share of the Popular Vote for the Tories in Scotland has not happened in decades. I wonder where they're taking their extra votes from ? Folks who normally Labour or Lib Dem voting tactically in hope of stopping another indyref perhaps?

 

Very interesting times ahead! I'd still be very surprised if the SNP got much fewer than 45 seats.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

That tends to make it relevant then. A 33% share of the Popular Vote for the Tories in Scotland has not happened in decades. I wonder where they're taking their extra votes from ? Folks who normally Labour or Lib Dem voting tactically in hope of stopping another indyref perhaps?

 

Very interesting times ahead! I'd still be very surprised if the SNP got much fewer than 45 seats.

I think that being positioned as the party of the union is paying off for them.

[SwindonJambo]

I think that being positioned as the party of the union is paying off for them.

You could very well be right. I suspect much of the increase in support is through gritted teeth from people whose normal choice of party is in disarray. Strange old situation. And I think that. Corbyn is even further left than Foot! Corbyn actually entered Parliament in 1983, the one disastrous election that Foot actually fought. I fully expect Corbyn to suffer an even heavier defeat.

[Mikey1874]

I find it curious that at an election parties suddenly come up with stuff they should have dealt with already.

 

Tories suddenly proposing to cap energy prices (gas and electric) for people on standard tariffs its reported today.

[Bazzas right boot]

It's going to be an interesting few weeks anyway. A cynical and shrewd move from the PM for sure, although it remains to be seen why she thinks this is a particularly optimum time for a snap election. What does she know that we don't about our next few years? Consequences of Brexit? More cuts? What is she protecting them/herself against? Labour have been floundering for some time.

 

It's a fairly smooth move in terms of giving herself a bit of protection from Brexit effect further down the road. "Don't complain, this is what you wanted. We asked you. Twice."

 

Indyref2 might have some impact on SNP but I'd be amazed if it's anything other than a relatively minor slip and/or loss of just a seat or two. It's also not beyond the realms of possibility that they'll add a new seat. Difficult to call but I can't see them struggling too badly with this one. If they can pick up just one seat, I really hope it's Mundell's.

 

Also, May is a humungous chicken. She knows she'll do herself no favours in live debate. I'd like to see any of them try to stand in front of members of the public and defend the Rape Clause, and I hope they're asked about it on every doorstep they visit. Ruth Davidson included in that.

 

The polls aren't looking too healthy right now but still can't see Corbyn suffering as badly as they expect him to. Again, the Brexit threat may cushion him from the worst of it. Still can't get my head around the idea of Labour voters turning Tory though. That blows my mind a little bit.

 

And eh, Lib Dem.... hmeh. Chance in Edinburgh West perhaps? It'll be interesting to see how O&S feel about Carmichael these days, knowing what they know now.

 

I say I'm sick of politics but then announcements happen and I'm drawn right back in again. Oh well [emoji851]

Decent summary.

 

Tactically up here it may result in a few more Tory seats, cons and Davidson will lap it up.

 

As for indey ref two, I'm more interested in the % vote of the GE see if the snp vote holds, drops or increase's that will give a bigger indicator of where that's going.

Tactical voting by some can affect seats, but not a referendum. Tories gaining might push more soft no's to the yes side.

 

Down south, labour are probably at more of a threat from ukip than the Tories directly. Of course the lib Dems can gain from cons, it may result in the opposite of what May wants, can't see cons gaining much up north and outside London the map is blue down south. Lib Dems Could reduce her majority even if labour only do slighty worse than last time.

[JamboX2]

I find it curious that at an election parties suddenly come up with stuff they should have dealt with already.

 

Tories suddenly proposing to cap energy prices (gas and electric) for people on standard tariffs its reported today.

A policy they described as dangerous and Marxist in 2015.

[Boris]

I heard someone on the Radio this morning saying the same thing and defending how this policy is different and we need more not less competition.

 

Why can't they just accept it has not worked out and that privatisation has put bills up.

 

Because that would expose their economic vision for the sham that it is.

[doctor jambo]

It might not be a bit of fun once they get hold of your IP address and start gleaning the info. All forms of social media are involved so be careful when filling out these questionnaires on Facebook or whatever, even if you think they are harmless.

 

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/how-our-likes-helped-trump-win

If you are anti  that then consider why the SNP are rolling out SPIRE that will auto-harvest all your information including your medications and conditions and share them with pharmaceutical companies.....

Its all in YOUR interests though

[Jambo 4 Ever]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39682939

 

UKIP manifesto to pledge a burka ban...

 

I would agree with this

[Mikey1874]

A policy they described as dangerous and Marxist in 2015.

Yeah

 

And its pretty much the same

 

The same energy firm propaganda and some energy experts have already derided it

 

It doesn't make any sense this proposal unless Tory strategy is to act like its neck and neck with Labour

[Cade]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39682939

 

UKIP manifesto to pledge a burka ban...

 

I would agree with this

Also proposing that school nurses fiddle with Muslim girl's bits to check for FGM, even after every school holidays.

 

As well as many other Islamophobic, insane ideas.

[Jambo 4 Ever]

Also proposing that school nurses fiddle with Muslim girl's bits to check for FGM, even after every school holidays.

 

As well as many other Islamophobic, insane ideas.

Well someone has to check for this abuse somehow

[Victorian]

There seems to be a lot of people getting on the TV to say they're switching from their life long support of Labour to vote Conservative, under the banner of 'May's a strong leader / May isn't that idiot Jeremy Corbyn'.

 

Unrepresentative coverage or another example of why party policies barely matter to people? Who should I choose? Everyone else likes that one and hates the other one.. good enough for me, where's the pencil?

[Norm]

Also proposing that school nurses fiddle with Muslim girl's bits to check for FGM, even after every school holidays.

 

As well as many other Islamophobic, insane ideas.

My missus mentioned that last night. She said she would have been horrified if some strange school nurse had to rummage down there when she was a girl.

[deesidejambo]

My missus mentioned that last night. She said she would have been horrified if some strange school nurse had to rummage down there when she was a girl.

Indeed it is not a pleasant thought.

 

But neither is FGM which I think your missus would also abhor.

 

Question is - why is FGM, which is about as disgusting and abhorrent as it can get, permitted?

[Jambo 4 Ever]

My missus mentioned that last night. She said she would have been horrified if some strange school nurse had to rummage down there when she was a girl.

Not as bad as FGM surely

[coconut doug]

If you are anti  that then consider why the SNP are rolling out SPIRE that will auto-harvest all your information including your medications and conditions and share them with pharmaceutical companies.....

Its all in YOUR interests though

The Spire site clearly states that information will not be auto-harvested. It says everything will be encrypted, used for specific projects and that no database will be kept. They will not share information with pharmaceutical companies but might consider requests from unis for research through their ethics committee. http://spire.scot/your-questions-answered/

 

Not sure what it has to do with the SNP either- it seems to be led exclusively by medical practitioners.

 

Obviously you didn't fully read or understand the chilling link posted by SM. There are no parallels here. Unless of course you can point me to the specifics and prove me wrong.

[deesidejambo]

It is not permitted in the UK nor most Western countries.

True - my post should have read - why is it tolerated?

 

imo Govts always have difficult choices.  Choices that will be picked on as evil by some, but in reality they may be the lesser of two evils.

 

I want to see FGM totally and utterly stamped-out.    No "tolerance" and no "its islamophobic". 

 

Sitting doing nothing to catch and bring the perpetrators to justice should be rejected.

 

I won't vote UKIP btw but anyone (not you btw) suggesting that attempts to try and deal with this is islamophobic is not acceptable.

 

Note i dont know if this is an issue in Scotland, but in the midlands FGM is a serious and not uncommon activity.

[deesidejambo]

I think there is probably better ways of tackling it than inspecting girls genitals. You need to use education and prosecute those responsible, deport them if they are non-EU nationals.

 

I'm not aware that is a big issue in Scotland, but it is a practice that we should be trying to get banned world wide, lets use aid as leverage and threats of sanctions.

 

I find it somewhat bizarre that this is an issue that UKIP felt they needed to address in their Manifesto.

I think UKIP are going for votes in Midlands and North England.    They will lose votes to the Tories in the South now that Brexit is over but the Labour votes in the north are up for grabs.  I think they are tapping into any inherent racist or xenophobic feeling there.

 

My daughter works in Birmingham with close links to Social Services and she thinks it may be a bigger issue down there than Scotland.

[Seymour M Hersh]

It is not permitted in the UK nor most Western countries.

 

Indeed but I think you'll struggle to find anyone that's ever been charged and convicted in the UK of carrying out this obscene abuse of women. I can only find one prosecution in the 30 or more years it's been against the law. And I'm not sure if the bloke was ever convicted. Over 100 convictions in France though. 

[Sten Guns]

Being against FGM and attempting to tackle this horrific act is Islamaphobic.

 

My word.

 

Gotta love the modern regressive left.

[deesidejambo]

That's my problem with this, UKIP are exploiting it for votes rather than actually trying to address the issue. They are tapping in on Islamophobia.

I'd tend to agree but thats campaigning for you!  It worked for the Brexit vote.

 

But it happens all the time - the rape clause was an attempt by the Tories to give women who were raped more tax credits.   Money that they would otherwise not be entitled to.     But that is jumped on a somehow "evil" by those who don't understand what the intent was.

 

It would be ironic if the Tories dropped the clause and capped the tax credits to two children.   Part of me says they should drop it just to spite the fools who didn't understand its intent.

 

Will be interesting to see what they do.

[JamboX2]

No, listen and read more carefully.

 

Using a poorly thought out and unworkable policy in your manifesto in an attempt to get votes, rather than address the issue comes across as Islamophobia.

 

You need to educate people and give them the opportunity to speak up about FGM in their communities, inspecting girls is only going to let you know the extent of the problem, it's not like if they catch it early enough they can reverse it.

[deesidejambo]

They shouldn't be capping the benefit at all.

 

It is just another example of Conservative policy that shows their uncaring nature and belief that everyone is on the take, except businesses and shareholders.

On that I tend to agree.   But what interests me is the peeps are not up in arms about capping the tax credits (child benefit is not capped remember) but they are up in arms about the Rape Clause which means no cap!   

[Sten Guns]

No, listen and read more carefully.

 

Using a poorly thought out and unworkable policy in your manifesto in an attempt to get votes, rather than address the issue comes across as Islamophobia.

 

You need to educate people and give them the opportunity to speak up about FGM in their communities, inspecting girls is only going to let you know the extent of the problem, it's not like if they catch it early enough they can reverse it.

Oh I can read champ.

 

It's **** all to do with religion and everything to do with protecting girls from this abhorrent and disgusting act.

 

The act modern day feminists strangely don't have an issue with either.

 

Bizarre stuff.

[Sten Guns]

But what interests me is the peeps are not up in arms about capping the tax credits (child benefit is not capped remember) but they are up in arms about the Rape Clause which means no cap!

Excellent point. One said peeps are not being taken to task over.

[Sten Guns]

Can you explain to me how this UKIP policy is going to protect Girls from this abhorrent and disgusting act?

It might. It might not. Unless it was implemented and tried we won't ever know I guess.

 

That's not my point though, my point it that it's not Islamophobic.

 

This isn't about disliking Muslims / Islam. Saying so severally cheapens the severity of FGM and borders on excusing it.

[deesidejambo]

It does seem a bit degrading to have to fill out a form stating you have been raped in order to continue to receive benefits you are currently entitled to.

They are entitled to benefits already. These are not capped.

 

It's tax credits which they apply for and in order to stop everyone claiming them without providing evidence I think filling in a form is acceptable. Again it's a lesser of two evils but not overly nasty.

[Boris]

They are entitled to benefits already. These are not capped.

 

It's tax credits which they apply for and in order to stop everyone claiming them without providing evidence I think filling in a form is acceptable. Again it's a lesser of two evils but not overly nasty.

 

In a show of "we're all in it together", perhaps they could apply it to the Civil List as well then?

[deesidejambo]

 

In a show of "we're all in it together", perhaps they could apply it to the Civil List as well then?[/quote

 

Well most Royals have two kids so they get away with needing the rape clause. Scamps.

[Boris]

 

In a show of "we're all in it together", perhaps they could apply it to the Civil List as well then?[/quote

 

Well most Royals have two kids so they get away with needing the rape clause. Scamps.

 

I was meaning more the logic - i.e. only your first two get on it.  That would rule out Andrew and Edward for a start.

[deesidejambo]

I was meaning more the logic - i.e. only your first two get on it. That would rule out Andrew and Edward for a start.

Unless Queenie was raped. You never know.

[Victorian]

Can you explain to me how this UKIP policy is going to protect Girls from this abhorrent and disgusting act?

It wouldn't protect the girl in the instance of the practice having been discovered but it would at least discover the act. The relevant authorities would then investigate and prosecute. Thus contributing to future prevention, as well as proving some degree of a deterrent. Much like any crime really.

 

Why would any of that be in question? Not that I'm going to defend this policy or UKIP.

[Mikey1874]

Being against FGM and attempting to tackle this horrific act is Islamaphobic.

 

My word.

 

Gotta love the modern regressive left.

Suppose we could find similar examples of what you could

 

Most child abuse is committed by white men. So all white children should have regular medical examinations. Kind of rest my case here.

 

So fair enough some people don't like face coverings and find them offensive. I don't like a few things like swearing on buses in front of children. More useful to tackle that sort of thing. Why are Muslim schools being banned when its okay to have Christian ones? Or Catholic ones in Scotland.

 

They've already had to say bee keepers can keep their head coverings which is nice.

 

The main UKIP doner and possible future leader Aaron Banks has said this is "war on Muslim religion"

[Victorian]

But that is not how we investigate Rape is it. Lets just examine all woman and then see who has been raped shall we?

 

Who are we going to examine? how are we deciding who needs inspection and who does not? Are we examining all girls?

 

It is a terrible policy and only a complete ****wit would support it, unfortunately UKIP realise the country is full of them.

Obviously not. The policy is quite obviously flawed but some degree of targeted detection could have merit. If other indicators exist in some instances then checks of this kind could be merited and would potentially have the obvious benefits of crime detection and prevention.

[Don Dan]

Its dead easy to check if someone has been raped just ask the courts to verify it. This is no ones business other than the claimant, the benefit officer and the court. 

[Victorian]

I'm my view only if there was some justifiable suspicion, perhaps previous in the family/community group, or a tip off. Personally I just can't support random, targeted or universal screening.

 

Like I have said it is opportunism of the most gross kind by UKIP.

Justifiable suspicion being the reason for targeted screening. That's the job of social services to manage and investigate suspicions of any kind. Unfortunately there have been way too many rank failures on that score.

 

But yes, universal screening is not feasible or merited.

[Boris]

Obviously not. The policy is quite obviously flawed but some degree of targeted detection could have merit. If other indicators exist in some instances then checks of this kind could be merited and would potentially have the obvious benefits of crime detection and prevention.

 

 

I'm my view only if there was some justifiable suspicion, perhaps previous in the family/community group, or a tip off. Personally I just can't support random, targeted or universal screening.

 

Like I have said it is opportunism of the most gross kind by UKIP.

 

 

Justifiable suspicion being the reason for targeted screening. That's the job of social services to manage and investigate suspicions of any kind. Unfortunately there have been way too many rank failures on that score.

 

But yes, universal screening is not feasible or merited.

 

Like, crazy idea, but like some sort of named person?*

 

*tongue firmly in cheek*

[Jambo 4 Ever]

Suppose we could find similar examples of what you could

 

Most child abuse is committed by white men. So all white children should have regular medical examinations. Kind of rest my case here.

 

So fair enough some people don't like face coverings and find them offensive. I don't like a few things like swearing on buses in front of children. More useful to tackle that sort of thing. Why are Muslim schools being banned when its okay to have Christian ones? Or Catholic ones in Scotland.

 

They've already had to say bee keepers can keep their head coverings which is nice.

 

The main UKIP doner and possible future leader Aaron Banks has said this is "war on Muslim religion"

When did they say that?

[Norm]

FGM is horrific and needs stopped but examining every girl's genitals is not the solution.

[coconut doug]

I'd tend to agree but thats campaigning for you!  It worked for the Brexit vote.

 

But it happens all the time - the rape clause was an attempt by the Tories to give women who were raped more tax credits.   Money that they would otherwise not be entitled to.     But that is jumped on a somehow "evil" by those who don't understand what the intent was.

 

It would be ironic if the Tories dropped the clause and capped the tax credits to two children.   Part of me says they should drop it just to spite the fools who didn't understand its intent.

 

Will be interesting to see what they do.

 

 

On that I tend to agree.   But what interests me is the peeps are not up in arms about capping the tax credits (child benefit is not capped remember) but they are up in arms about the Rape Clause which means no cap!   

You actually think people are opposed because they "didn't understand the intent" and that they are "fools".

 

You think it should be about money and the capping or otherwise of benefits!

[deesidejambo]

You actually think people are opposed because they "didn't understand the intent" and that they are "fools".

 

You think it should be about money and the capping or otherwise of benefits!

Yup.

 

The intent of the clause was to allow rape victims to get more tax credit than they otherwise would get.

 

People say the clause should be scrapped.

 

Fine then, scrap it so the victims dont get the tax credits.

 

If anything should be scrapped it should be the cap, then the rape cause would not be required in the first place.

 

But you bang on - scrap the Clause only.

[maroonlegions]

The Tory logic that those in need of tax credits ,(and who have been mean tested for it and provided wage slips ect to prove they are entitled to it), dont need extra  money for a third child is a sinister  way of denying those in need. 

 

After all ALL children regardless of how they were conceived should be provided for if their parents income dictates it.  

 

This rape clause is just a way out for this Tory rat pack to cut welfare spending and  who think nothing off cutting money to those who need it.

 

Its blatant that stopping claims for a third child is just yet another attack on the welfare state and cleverly spinning it and making it out as if  they are doing a favour to rape victims ,

insidious cuts by an insidious Tory cabinet.

 

Any third child was covered anyway regardless of it was  conceived, it was the Tories who changed it and they used there rape clause to spin it. 

 

After all it was the banks greed  that instigated Austerity and not those  from a poor background in high unemployment areas wanting kids or indeed the disabled either.  

 

Again its all about what kind of society these politicians are selling us  or trying to convey as a acceptable way to treat the less well off in our society. 

 

Judge a society  on not how many millionaires it has judge it on how it treats its poor and less well off. 

 

I for one will be telling my kids to respect all no matter there social status and especially those who are less well off.

 

What is the next clause if these crooks get in again then??

 

What about changing it to only one child and any claims  for a second child  must come with the proof or reasonable believe-ability that the second child was no ACCIDENT.

 

Or just go all out for maximum savings to fund tax breaks for the rich by making any claims for the first child to the conditions of the fist child.

 

 Just in case BBC and Sky fail to mention it, here is a list of the Tory MPs who are being investigated by the police for fraud at the last General Election.

 

  Theresa May confirmed that they are all standing again this time.

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                      

[maroonlegions]

You actually think people are opposed because they "didn't understand the intent" and that they are "fools".

 

You think it should be about money and the capping or otherwise of benefits!

 Yip, afraid so,  he is full of compassion, understanding and has a  humanitarian outlook on those less fortunate.

 

Fools be them who do have the above human traits these evil nasty poor people who just want benefits to sit around ans smoke fags and watch Sky TV.

 

And what do those organisations such as UNICEF actually know about child poverty or the causes for it in relation to this Tory rat pack.

 

Only weak fools care about those in poverty. 

[Norm]

I'll be honest, I'm not entirely against capping tax credits depending on the number of kids. 3 is maybe too low though. 4 I think would be a bit fairer. A lot of folk want 2 kids so will try for 2 kids. The traditional family unit, so to speak. If they **** up with protection after that, well, it happens. I don't like to punish people for making a **** up.

 

But after kid number 3, well, whilst I don't like folk being punished for **** ups, I do expect them to learn a lesson. You can't just shag your way to making a football team and expect everyone else to pay for it.