Fiiish. I asked above but you did not respond. You said that people can become home owners if they sacrificed and saved for a deposit (when we discussed the housing association property sell offs), and you intimated becoming a home owner was within everybody's reach. Most tellingly you suggested people 'live with their parents' while they save. 10000 young people leave care each year, no social housing available, and no parents to live with. Such a person might have a modest low paid job and have to rent for £850 a month in somewhere like Catford. The person is not feckless or lazy, simply had an unfortunate start in life. How do you think the Conservative housing policy is going to make such a person a home owner with one bed flats costing in the region of £180+k in Catford? Earlier you said it could be done, maybe you could explain how.
Did I say that, exactly? I've not said a lot about housing policy in this thread to my memory.
Ed Balls was in charge of deregulating the city back when Labour were in power. While I agree that there were a number of "lies" the Tories used about the economy to say that Labour did not have a hand in the financial crash is a bit too rose tinted for me.
However, the Tories and Lib Dems were also culpable for what happened, Vince Cable broadly supported measures to deregulate the city (put forward by Labour) and George Osborne opposes the EU regulations that safeguard against another crash because they could prove prohibitive to business and London as a financial centre.
The fact of the matter is that in the boom times deregulation was good for the economy and all of the political parties would support it because it would reflect badly on them to oppose something that could benefit British business. When things went bust it was this attitude that brought the house of cards crashing down because there were no safeguards in place to stop the chain of dominoes falling.
This is a very simple explanation of the crash and I'm sure there are people who can cover it in more detail. It's also my understanding so could be completely wrong.
The reason, I'm guessing, that labour didn't fight these lies is that they didn't want the reputation of their chancellor to get dragged through the mud completely. He signed on the dotted line for deregulation and would prove easy pickings for their opponents in debates.
This also isn't the sole reason for Labour losing, there are many and if they only focus on one then 2020 will be a rerun of last week.
Gordon Brown was praised by the World financial community for stopping the crisis get too out of hand. Without decisive action the whole deck of cards could have come tumbling down. Alastair Darling was also very underated. He helped steady the ship and got the economy growing. It was the Conservatives austerity that the shrunk the economy and massively increased the debt.
The Conservatives were criticising Labour for not having enough deregulation. Labour let Conservative dominate the field. It is like a football team surrendering the midfield. Any team will struggle to win.
I have never to this day understood why Labour did not challenge the Conservative lie and misdirection over the economy. It helped, along with other things to fatally undermine their challenge.
Maybe because they are more informed than the people specularing on here and know that the claims of the conservatives are (partially at least) true??
It was wasn't just people speculating on here who questioned the lie that Labour were responsible for the global crisis and badly mis-managed the economy. I think the Governor of the Bank of England and a Senior Civil Servant in the Treasury are a bit better informed than any of the posters who contributed to this thread.
Fiiish, you said people can live with their parents to save up to become a homeowner, round about the time housing association tenants right to buy policy was announced. Are you now thinking, given my example, that home ownership is not a realistic aspiration, and the Conservatives trumpeting at the time that they wanted everybody to have the chance to own their own home was rather an empty promise, or a promise for a narrow section of society. Surely you remember your 'live with their parents' proposal, or do you now agree that your proposal was unrealistic give the present housing crisis especially in London? A crisis set in train by Margaret Thatcher policies.
The ex soldier is probably the only one who could do it, but it would be dependent on how much his real life experience is negated for the immoral and over powered by the union based funding that the party is reliant on,
That despicable oddius worm mandleson has even stated that the power and influence of the unions has caused the party to try to influence the British public in the poor-rich divide that is nowhere near the point needed to win an election
I think I read somewhere that the problem with Jarvis is that nobody is really aware of his views on any of the important issues facing the country and the Labour party.
I bet all the parties wish that they had a Nick Clegg in their ranks,
That man deserves more than what this elelection gave him,
Watched a lot of the people that are being mentioned by people on here as possible and potential leaders and not one of them comes across as having any real morale substance or ability to drag labour from its own self destructive tendency
I don't think so.Clegg was a disaster. Imagine Sturgeon ditching her opposition to austerity and deciding to support Cameron.
Clegg made a firm promise to voters that he would vote against tuition fees and then immediately did a you turn when in government. He had led the L/D's to the left of New Labour and then supported a Tory government.
Therefore he betrayed the people who voted for him .His election message was confused as he didn't seem to stand for anything other than curbing the excesses of the main parties.
The people on this thread who have praised him in the main apart from @bingaddick did not vote for him and wanted a majority Tory government. You got your wish.
Can admin not kill this thread now and all politics based threads (like admin used to)... the election is over, the season is over and Politics is taking over and killing CL.
Every thread seems to involve a dig at lefties or righties and it sucks.
I know people will say if you don't like reading this thread or that thread etc, but you can't avoid it when it crops up on most threads!
Ed Balls was in charge of deregulating the city back when Labour were in power. While I agree that there were a number of "lies" the Tories used about the economy to say that Labour did not have a hand in the financial crash is a bit too rose tinted for me.
However, the Tories and Lib Dems were also culpable for what happened, Vince Cable broadly supported measures to deregulate the city (put forward by Labour) and George Osborne opposes the EU regulations that safeguard against another crash because they could prove prohibitive to business and London as a financial centre.
The fact of the matter is that in the boom times deregulation was good for the economy and all of the political parties would support it because it would reflect badly on them to oppose something that could benefit British business. When things went bust it was this attitude that brought the house of cards crashing down because there were no safeguards in place to stop the chain of dominoes falling.
This is a very simple explanation of the crash and I'm sure there are people who can cover it in more detail. It's also my understanding so could be completely wrong.
The reason, I'm guessing, that labour didn't fight these lies is that they didn't want the reputation of their chancellor to get dragged through the mud completely. He signed on the dotted line for deregulation and would prove easy pickings for their opponents in debates.
This also isn't the sole reason for Labour losing, there are many and if they only focus on one then 2020 will be a rerun of last week.
Gordon Brown was praised by the World financial community for stopping the crisis get too out of hand. Without decisive action the whole deck of cards could have come tumbling down. Alastair Darling was also very underated. He helped steady the ship and got the economy growing. It was the Conservatives austerity that the shrunk the economy and massively increased the debt.
The Conservatives were criticising Labour for not having enough deregulation. Labour let Conservative dominate the field. It is like a football team surrendering the midfield. Any team will struggle to win.
I have never to this day understood why Labour did not challenge the Conservative lie and misdirection over the economy. It helped, along with other things to fatally undermine their challenge.
Maybe because they are more informed than the people specularing on here and know that the claims of the conservatives are (partially at least) true??
I set out very early in this thread a comparison of Osborne's own 2010 publicly stated performance indicators for the economy. There were about 8. He failed to meet them all. Labour failed to even remotely get that message across allowing the Tories to continue pumping out their own "chaos or competence", largely unchallenged.
The stats are a matter of public record and it was about a failure to present them in a way the average voter understood, not hiding them in case fingers were pointed back at Gordon Brown...because that happened anyway.
Gutted about Dan Jarvis, would have taken it to the Tories in a massive way, to the point where a friend who works at Conservative HQ texted me last night to say 'Brilliant, we've won in 2020 already now Jarvis is out'.
But just shows what a good man he is by putting his kids first, and his analysis of what needs doing is spot on.
Can admin not kill this thread now and all politics based threads (like admin used to)... the election is over, the season is over and Politics is taking over and killing CL.
Every thread seems to involve a dig at lefties or righties and it sucks.
I know people will say if you don't like reading this thread or that thread etc, but you can't avoid it when it crops up on most threads!
I will say it, and I will ask the question because I seriously would like to know the answer. Why are you continuing to open and read this thread?
I cannot stand Rugby, Cricket, Horseracing and Motorsport. So I don't open or read those threads and I certainly wouldn't dream of posting in any of them asking Admin to shut them down!
Fiiish, you said people can live with their parents to save up to become a homeowner, round about the time housing association tenants right to buy policy was announced. Are you now thinking, given my example, that home ownership is not a realistic aspiration, and the Conservatives trumpeting at the time that they wanted everybody to have the chance to own their own home was rather an empty promise, or a promise for a narrow section of society. Surely you remember your 'live with their parents' proposal, or do you now agree that your proposal was unrealistic give the present housing crisis especially in London? A crisis set in train by Margaret Thatcher policies.
I remember being against the right-to-buy policy and that home ownership isn't necessarily feasible in a lot of cases, but the rental market needs to be better regulated in order to help those for whom home ownership is probably not going to happen due to their circumstances. That was my opinion prior to polling day and my opinion remains unchanged. I may have said something along the lines of 'live with your parents' but this wasn't really my solution to Britain's housing problem, maybe it was more of a comment on those who probably are in a position to live with their parents and save rather than try to waste money in expensive rent. I seriously think you're mistaking my support for whatever you think you're quoting me on with another poster.
I bet all the parties wish that they had a Nick Clegg in their ranks,
That man deserves more than what this elelection gave him,
Watched a lot of the people that are being mentioned by people on here as possible and potential leaders and not one of them comes across as having any real morale substance or ability to drag labour from its own self destructive tendency
I don't think so.Clegg was a disaster. Imagine Sturgeon ditching her opposition to austerity and deciding to support Cameron.
Clegg made a firm promise to voters that he would vote against tuition fees and then immediately did a you turn when in government. He had led the L/D's to the left of New Labour and then supported a Tory government.
Therefore he betrayed the people who voted for him .His election message was confused as he didn't seem to stand for anything other than curbing the excesses of the main parties.
The people on this thread who have praised him in the main apart from @bingaddick did not vote for him and wanted a majority Tory government. You got your wish.
Agreed. I liked Clegg but he was seriously wrong-footed on a lot of things. He made two key errors:
1) Banking on being the junior party of a coalition would be seen as an acceptable reason by an electorate unused to coalition for abandoning against quite key and popular manifesto pledges
2) Wasting any capital he had in the coalition on electoral reform and Lords reform, which although important, the vast majority of the electorate do not see as priorities. Meanwhile pledges on the environment and education were swept aside and anything meaningful they did in coalition they let the Tories take the credit for, plus he allowed his MPs to brief against Tory colleagues and inevitably they got slaughtered in the backlash.
Contrary to belief, a lot of natural Lib Dem voters prefer the Tories over Labour, but a lot of their support prior to the 2010 election came from disaffected Labour voters who wanted to make a meaningful protest vote. Thus it was natural that entering coalition with the Tories would lead to this bloc of disaffected Labour voters abandoning them en masse, but then they decided to foolishly attempt to woo back this bloc that was never going to vote for them in 2015, whilst the language they started to use started to spook their more centre-right voters. As the old expression goes, if you chase two rabbits you will lose them both.
I bet all the parties wish that they had a Nick Clegg in their ranks,
That man deserves more than what this elelection gave him,
Watched a lot of the people that are being mentioned by people on here as possible and potential leaders and not one of them comes across as having any real morale substance or ability to drag labour from its own self destructive tendency
I don't think so.Clegg was a disaster. Imagine Sturgeon ditching her opposition to austerity and deciding to support Cameron.
Clegg made a firm promise to voters that he would vote against tuition fees and then immediately did a you turn when in government. He had led the L/D's to the left of New Labour and then supported a Tory government.
Therefore he betrayed the people who voted for him .His election message was confused as he didn't seem to stand for anything other than curbing the excesses of the main parties.
The people on this thread who have praised him in the main apart from @bingaddick did not vote for him and wanted a majority Tory government. You got your wish.
Agreed. I liked Clegg but he was seriously wrong-footed on a lot of things. He made two key errors:
1) Banking on being the junior party of a coalition would be seen as an acceptable reason by an electorate unused to coalition for abandoning against quite key and popular manifesto pledges
2) Wasting any capital he had in the coalition on electoral reform and Lords reform, which although important, the vast majority of the electorate do not see as priorities. Meanwhile pledges on the environment and education were swept aside and anything meaningful they did in coalition they let the Tories take the credit for, plus he allowed his MPs to brief against Tory colleagues and inevitably they got slaughtered in the backlash.
Contrary to belief, a lot of natural Lib Dem voters prefer the Tories over Labour, but a lot of their support prior to the 2010 election came from disaffected Labour voters who wanted to make a meaningful protest vote. Thus it was natural that entering coalition with the Tories would lead to this bloc of disaffected Labour voters abandoning them en masse, but then they decided to foolishly attempt to woo back this bloc that was never going to vote for them in 2015, whilst the language they started to use started to spook their more centre-right voters. As the old expression goes, if you chase two rabbits you will lose them both.
What you say is true about some Liberal voters Clegg's big problem was that there is not a big core vote their big surge occured in 1997 as part of the Blair landslide when tactical voting took place.
The most impressive achievement of Lynton Crosby's win is that he has rebuilt the Tory core vote. Places like Lewes, Surbiton ,Twickenham and Sutton should never have been marginals and I suspect will never be again.
Gutted about Dan Jarvis, would have taken it to the Tories in a massive way, to the point where a friend who works at Conservative HQ texted me last night to say 'Brilliant, we've won in 2020 already now Jarvis is out'.
But just shows what a good man he is by putting his kids first, and his analysis of what needs doing is spot on.
A real shame .As John Mann said on the Daily Politics yesterday he would have put the fear of God into the Tories.
I think Tom Watson would be interesting as Deputy . His campaigns about press regulation and child abuse have been inspirational. A genuine politician who has taken on some powerful institutions and brought about real changes.
George Galloway has decided to launch legal proceedings on the grounds that the result of the election in the seat he lost should be 'put aside'. Apparently he thinks there has been some postal vote fraud but also he is accusing his opponent of making false statements.
Some incredible details coming out of this story though. Apparently the row surrounds an Islamic marriage certificate the Labour candidate who won the seat produced during the campaign as proof that she was forced to marry at age 15. Galloway then produced what he claimed was the 'real' certificate that proved she was 16, not 15 (which apparently either he or an intermediary went to Pakistan to retrieve and allegedly lied about being a relative in order to obtain it), and it is on these grounds that he wants the ballot to be re-held as he claims this means his opponent is guilty of making false statements in an election campaign. Some of you may remember Phil Woolas was ejected as MP on similar grounds, albeit he was found to have made false statements regarding his opponent, rather than himself.
I seriously doubt that this will get anywhere but it is all pretty nasty stuff if true.
I am not going to trawl back through this thread but Fiiish, my memory is you said that people ought to live with their parents because you agreed saving for a deposit whilst renting was impossible for the average person. I went into a lot of detail at the time, citing a couple of nurses living together and renting, and how much disposable they would have to save. Not everybody can start out in life supported by their parents.
However we move on, but it is exactly the distain some show to the poor and vulnerable that I think is what is the underlying philosophy of Conservatism. No the Torys are not going to murder everybody and all that, but deep down when push comes to shove the cost benefit analysis of life will prevail (I mentioned earlier the Ford Pinto case) where the Tories do know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
There is in my view an 'I'm all right jack' approach to life from the Tories, and if others don't like it, to quote Norman Fowler, they ought to get on their bike. I am all in favour of people helping themselves, but I believe that the Tories underlying approach is that if others need help it is because they are lazy and faking it (look at the review of whether disabled folk can or can't work). The alternative is no, not to hand out stuff willy nilly, but to reflect on what kind of things bind a society together. I believe the Conservatives leave that kind of reflection to charities, and don't want to be bothered by such as the food bank generation.
The Tories have won, they have won the 35% they need to assume power, something other parties (bar the SNP in Scotland) have failed to do, and as long as they minister to their 35% they will keep power, but the cost it seems to me will be a fractured and divided country, Scotland only being the start.
Can admin not kill this thread now and all politics based threads (like admin used to)... the election is over, the season is over and Politics is taking over and killing CL.
Every thread seems to involve a dig at lefties or righties and it sucks.
I know people will say if you don't like reading this thread or that thread etc, but you can't avoid it when it crops up on most threads!
I will say it, and I will ask the question because I seriously would like to know the answer. Why are you continuing to open and read this thread?
I cannot stand Rugby, Cricket, Horseracing and Motorsport. So I don't open or read those threads and I certainly wouldn't dream of posting in any of them asking Admin to shut them down!
Read my last line again. It seems you have stopped halfway through.
Politics is always a dodgy subject, as is religion.
These types of threads in the past were closed pretty quick, if people had kept it to just this thread it'd be fine... but it is leaking into other threads between certain posters scoring points on one another because of differing political views.
In my opinion the admin team gave everyone a chance to keep it in one place and certain people haven't.
George Galloway has decided to launch legal proceedings on the grounds that the result of the election in the seat he lost should be 'put aside'. Apparently he thinks there has been some postal vote fraud but also he is accusing his opponent of making false statements.
Some incredible details coming out of this story though. Apparently the row surrounds an Islamic marriage certificate the Labour candidate who won the seat produced during the campaign as proof that she was forced to marry at age 15. Galloway then produced what he claimed was the 'real' certificate that proved she was 16, not 15 (which apparently either he or an intermediary went to Pakistan to retrieve and allegedly lied about being a relative in order to obtain it), and it is on these grounds that he wants the ballot to be re-held as he claims this means his opponent is guilty of making false statements in an election campaign. Some of you may remember Phil Woolas was ejected as MP on similar grounds, albeit he was found to have made false statements regarding his opponent, rather than himself.
I seriously doubt that this will get anywhere but it is all pretty nasty stuff if true.
This isn't quite right. Galloway is a really nasty piece of work and had been accusing Naz Shah, the Labour candidate and eventual winner for the seat, of lying throughout the campaign.
He has the UK marriage certificate which, obviously, happened when she was 16 and took place when she re-entered the country. She states that she had another marriage ceremony in Pakistan when she was 15. She had been sent there by her mum to protect her from an abusive step father and her relatives decided to arrange a marriage for her. There is no reason to disbelieve her and this story is consistent with normal practice in Pakistan. But the age isn't the point. It was that the marriage was forced that was the real point for her.
Galloway will use any underhand approach that he can to win. He has a history of attacking and being abusive to opposition and character assassination is his stock in trade. He also broke the law by retweeting the results of an exit poll before the polls closed. Bizarrely, he went on a victory tour of Bradford on his battle bus once the polls closed on Thursday even though the everyone else thought he had lost convincingly.
I am not going to trawl back through this thread but Fiiish, my memory is you said that people ought to live with their parents because you agreed saving for a deposit whilst renting was impossible for the average person. I went into a lot of detail at the time, citing a couple of nurses living together and renting, and how much disposable they would have to save. Not everybody can start out in life supported by their parents.
Yes I remember someone saying that and I also remember your point about nurses. However I did not make the posts you're attributing to me. If you want me to say I agree with you, then I agree with you but I never disagreed with you on this in the first place.
EDIT I looked back and it was actually Addickted you were discussing this with. I had only just gotten back from my honeymoon so I at least have an alibi anyway, sorry for dropping you in it mate!
Was not aware it was cropping up on other threads. Could I ask for a link to a thread where this has happened? I just don't understand how or why tensions between posters on a political thread manifest themselves in threads about Charlton, football or music? Genuinely curious.
Was not aware it was cropping up on other threads. Could I ask for a link to a thread where this has happened? I just don't understand how or why tensions between posters on a political thread manifest themselves in threads about Charlton, football or music? Genuinely curious.
I've had others (although not yourself) following me around into other threads making the same boring snipes they've been making here, for example on threads about music or even Game of Thrones.
Was not aware it was cropping up on other threads. Could I ask for a link to a thread where this has happened? I just don't understand how or why tensions between posters on a political thread manifest themselves in threads about Charlton, football or music? Genuinely curious.
I've had others (although not yourself) following me around into other threads making the same boring snipes they've been making here, for example on threads about music or even Game of Thrones.
That's not on. I think this whole politics thing, as interesting as it has been, needs to stop here for the moment. Maybe the thread can be closed and reopened if/when there is anything big and new happening? @AFKABartram ?
You have certainly ruffled a few feathers on here Fiiish lol. Politics is a very touchy subject as has been proved on here over the last few days. We all need to remember why we are here in the first place and the one thing we all have in common.
You have certainly ruffled a few feathers on here Fiiish lol. Politics is a very touchy subject as has been proved on here over the last few days. We all ineed to remember why we are here in the first place and the one thing we all have in common.
You have certainly ruffled a few feathers on here Fiiish lol. Politics is a very touchy subject as has been proved on here over the last few days. We all ineed to remember why we are here in the first place and the one thing we all have in common.
A love of porn ?
i was expecting my sack of porn to arrive any day now. Isn't that why everyone's posted in this thread?
I am not going to trawl back through this thread but Fiiish, my memory is you said that people ought to live with their parents because you agreed saving for a deposit whilst renting was impossible for the average person. I went into a lot of detail at the time, citing a couple of nurses living together and renting, and how much disposable they would have to save. Not everybody can start out in life supported by their parents.
However we move on, but it is exactly the distain some show to the poor and vulnerable that I think is what is the underlying philosophy of Conservatism. No the Torys are not going to murder everybody and all that, but deep down when push comes to shove the cost benefit analysis of life will prevail (I mentioned earlier the Ford Pinto case) where the Tories do know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
There is in my view an 'I'm all right jack' approach to life from the Tories, and if others don't like it, to quote Norman Fowler, they ought to get on their bike. I am all in favour of people helping themselves, but I believe that the Tories underlying approach is that if others need help it is because they are lazy and faking it (look at the review of whether disabled folk can or can't work). The alternative is no, not to hand out stuff willy nilly, but to reflect on what kind of things bind a society together. I believe the Conservatives leave that kind of reflection to charities, and don't want to be bothered by such as the food bank generation.
The Tories have won, they have won the 35% they need to assume power, something other parties (bar the SNP in Scotland) have failed to do, and as long as they minister to their 35% they will keep power, but the cost it seems to me will be a fractured and divided country, Scotland only being the start.
and in terms of the human rights act, UKIP had it as a key policy to abolish it and replace it. 4 million people voted for them.
We elected one Ukip MP. They're the first party ever to fail to win any MPs in a general election and then lose seats in the following election. I am more than happy to continue to ignore anything proposed by them .
A bit late on this one but ever since I read this I thought I'd point out a couple of things. Firstly, this isn't really a good reason to ignore the opinions of 4 million people. Secondly, Respect won zero MPs at the last General Election and then lost all their seats (since they had won a by-election in 2012) this time round, so this statement isn't even true, and there are probably quite a few examples of this throughout history with the various independent smaller parties that appear from time to time. UKIP are also the UK's largest represented party in Europe so regardless of whether you agree with their policies or not, they ought to be taken seriously.
You're right. Respect did, indeed win a seat at a by-election, which they went on to fail to win. Happy to stand corrected. There may even be others in this odd, anomalous position, none of which spring to mind, however. Therefore, I will correct what I said earlier; and agree to lump Ukip in with Respect and possibly some others as having potty views I am happy to ignore.
and in terms of the human rights act, UKIP had it as a key policy to abolish it and replace it. 4 million people voted for them.
We elected one Ukip MP. They're the first party ever to fail to win any MPs in a general election and then lose seats in the following election. I am more than happy to continue to ignore anything proposed by them .
A bit late on this one but ever since I read this I thought I'd point out a couple of things. Firstly, this isn't really a good reason to ignore the opinions of 4 million people. Secondly, Respect won zero MPs at the last General Election and then lost all their seats (since they had won a by-election in 2012) this time round, so this statement isn't even true, and there are probably quite a few examples of this throughout history with the various independent smaller parties that appear from time to time. UKIP are also the UK's largest represented party in Europe so regardless of whether you agree with their policies or not, they ought to be taken seriously.
You're right. Respect did, indeed win a seat at a by-election, which they went on to fail to win. Happy to stand corrected. There may even be others in this odd, anomalous position, none of which spring to mind, however. Therefore, I will correct what I said earlier; and agree to lump Ukip in with Respect and possibly some others as having potty views I am happy to ignore.
which completely defeats the point of the first past the post system. The reason why we have FPTP is to protect ourselves from populist extremist parties, the major party who wins the election can then cherry pick the best policies from the more populist flash in the pan extremist parties. It allows us to have strong, stable government whilst also listening to those voters who are more dynamic and can shift their allegiances from ukip to the tories etc.
I think the SNP now find themselves in a perilous position - they are the third largest party in the Commons and unusually for a party with as many seats as they have, they're specifically representing the people of one geographical area of the country. This means that they will never realistically be part of a Government apart from in Coalition, and even then as a junior partner only. This of course relies on an election where neither the Tories or Labour gain enough seats to form a government by itself.
So it has a large bloc of voting power but what is it going to do with it? Now the Tories have a majority, however slim, they will be able to outvote the Nats, Labour, Green and Lib Dems combined.
The Scots have unwittingly locked itself out of any meaningful say in national affairs. At least when Labour had the most MPs in Scotland they had to consider them into their government plans. I believe Cameron genuinely wants to keep the UK united and for that reason alone he will probably do his best to avoid the ire of the Scots (including his plans to devolve further powers).
But apart from that, the Scots are going to quickly realise that their MPs are now useless as long as they are in SNP colours. The SNP will have to figure out some way to make their voices heard in the Commons, especially now that their natural allies Labour will be now aggressively pursuing winning back their seats in Scotland, without which they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government again in the future. Sturgeon refuses to countenance any kind of cooperation with the Tories but she will be making a gamble - risk the fury of their core voters by bargaining with the Tories, or risk that their irrelevance in Parliament will be noticed by the voters that have swung to them and who will quickly flood back to Labour to get their voice back.
I think the SNP now find themselves in a perilous position - they are the third largest party in the Commons and unusually for a party with as many seats as they have, they're specifically representing the people of one geographical area of the country. This means that they will never realistically be part of a Government apart from in Coalition, and even then as a junior partner only. This of course relies on an election where neither the Tories or Labour gain enough seats to form a government by itself.
So it has a large bloc of voting power but what is it going to do with it? Now the Tories have a majority, however slim, they will be able to outvote the Nats, Labour, Green and Lib Dems combined.
The Scots have unwittingly locked itself out of any meaningful say in national affairs. At least when Labour had the most MPs in Scotland they had to consider them into their government plans. I believe Cameron genuinely wants to keep the UK united and for that reason alone he will probably do his best to avoid the ire of the Scots (including his plans to devolve further powers).
But apart from that, the Scots are going to quickly realise that their MPs are now useless as long as they are in SNP colours. The SNP will have to figure out some way to make their voices heard in the Commons, especially now that their natural allies Labour will be now aggressively pursuing winning back their seats in Scotland, without which they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government again in the future. Sturgeon refuses to countenance any kind of cooperation with the Tories but she will be making a gamble - risk the fury of their core voters by bargaining with the Tories, or risk that their irrelevance in Parliament will be noticed by the voters that have swung to them and who will quickly flood back to Labour to get their voice back.
If Labour had won 57 out of 59 seats in Scotland (ie the one they have plus the 56 that SNP have), they would still not be in government, so their voters in Scotland would still not "make their voices heard in the Commons".
I'm struggling to see how increasing their number of seats from 6 to 56 puts the SNP in a "perilous position".
Maybe they would have preferred to hold the balance of power, but the position they're in now allows the SNP to blame any problems on the Tory government's austerity while taking credit for anything good that happens. Before the election (eg the 'made-up conversation' with the French consul), I would have said this would be the ideal situation for Sturgeon. Scottish Labour is in turmoil after falling apart and then losing their seats. I think the SNP are in a strong position and Sturgeon is the right leader to make the most of it.
Comments
theguardian.com/business/2014/dec/29/labour-government-not-responsible-crash-bank-england-governor-mervyn-king
theguardian.com/business/2015/may/03/senior-tory-financial-crash-was-purely-a-banking-crisis-not-labour-overspend
Surely you remember your 'live with their parents' proposal, or do you now agree that your proposal was unrealistic give the present housing crisis especially in London? A crisis set in train by Margaret Thatcher policies.
Clegg made a firm promise to voters that he would vote against tuition fees and then immediately did a you turn when in government. He had led the L/D's to the left of New Labour and then supported a Tory government.
Therefore he betrayed the people who voted for him .His election message was confused as he didn't seem to stand for anything other than curbing the excesses of the main parties.
The people on this thread who have praised him in the main apart from @bingaddick did not vote for him and wanted a majority Tory government. You got your wish.
Can admin not kill this thread now and all politics based threads (like admin used to)... the election is over, the season is over and Politics is taking over and killing CL.
Every thread seems to involve a dig at lefties or righties and it sucks.
I know people will say if you don't like reading this thread or that thread etc, but you can't avoid it when it crops up on most threads!
The stats are a matter of public record and it was about a failure to present them in a way the average voter understood, not hiding them in case fingers were pointed back at Gordon Brown...because that happened anyway.
But just shows what a good man he is by putting his kids first, and his analysis of what needs doing is spot on.
http://labourlist.org/2015/05/im-ready-to-serve-in-labours-renewal-but-not-as-leader/
I cannot stand Rugby, Cricket, Horseracing and Motorsport. So I don't open or read those threads and I certainly wouldn't dream of posting in any of them asking Admin to shut them down!
1) Banking on being the junior party of a coalition would be seen as an acceptable reason by an electorate unused to coalition for abandoning against quite key and popular manifesto pledges
2) Wasting any capital he had in the coalition on electoral reform and Lords reform, which although important, the vast majority of the electorate do not see as priorities. Meanwhile pledges on the environment and education were swept aside and anything meaningful they did in coalition they let the Tories take the credit for, plus he allowed his MPs to brief against Tory colleagues and inevitably they got slaughtered in the backlash.
Contrary to belief, a lot of natural Lib Dem voters prefer the Tories over Labour, but a lot of their support prior to the 2010 election came from disaffected Labour voters who wanted to make a meaningful protest vote. Thus it was natural that entering coalition with the Tories would lead to this bloc of disaffected Labour voters abandoning them en masse, but then they decided to foolishly attempt to woo back this bloc that was never going to vote for them in 2015, whilst the language they started to use started to spook their more centre-right voters. As the old expression goes, if you chase two rabbits you will lose them both.
What you say is true about some Liberal voters Clegg's big problem was that there is not a big core vote their big surge occured in 1997 as part of the Blair landslide when tactical voting took place.
The most impressive achievement of Lynton Crosby's win is that he has rebuilt the Tory core vote. Places like Lewes, Surbiton ,Twickenham and Sutton should never have been marginals and I suspect will never be again.
I think Tom Watson would be interesting as Deputy . His campaigns about press regulation and child abuse have been inspirational. A genuine politician who has taken on some powerful institutions and brought about real changes.
Some incredible details coming out of this story though. Apparently the row surrounds an Islamic marriage certificate the Labour candidate who won the seat produced during the campaign as proof that she was forced to marry at age 15. Galloway then produced what he claimed was the 'real' certificate that proved she was 16, not 15 (which apparently either he or an intermediary went to Pakistan to retrieve and allegedly lied about being a relative in order to obtain it), and it is on these grounds that he wants the ballot to be re-held as he claims this means his opponent is guilty of making false statements in an election campaign. Some of you may remember Phil Woolas was ejected as MP on similar grounds, albeit he was found to have made false statements regarding his opponent, rather than himself.
I seriously doubt that this will get anywhere but it is all pretty nasty stuff if true.
It's a #conspiracy
I am not going to trawl back through this thread but Fiiish, my memory is you said that people ought to live with their parents because you agreed saving for a deposit whilst renting was impossible for the average person. I went into a lot of detail at the time, citing a couple of nurses living together and renting, and how much disposable they would have to save. Not everybody can start out in life supported by their parents.
However we move on, but it is exactly the distain some show to the poor and vulnerable that I think is what is the underlying philosophy of Conservatism. No the Torys are not going to murder everybody and all that, but deep down when push comes to shove the cost benefit analysis of life will prevail (I mentioned earlier the Ford Pinto case) where the Tories do know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
There is in my view an 'I'm all right jack' approach to life from the Tories, and if others don't like it, to quote Norman Fowler, they ought to get on their bike. I am all in favour of people helping themselves, but I believe that the Tories underlying approach is that if others need help it is because they are lazy and faking it (look at the review of whether disabled folk can or can't work). The alternative is no, not to hand out stuff willy nilly, but to reflect on what kind of things bind a society together. I believe the Conservatives leave that kind of reflection to charities, and don't want to be bothered by such as the food bank generation.
The Tories have won, they have won the 35% they need to assume power, something other parties (bar the SNP in Scotland) have failed to do, and as long as they minister to their 35% they will keep power, but the cost it seems to me will be a fractured and divided country, Scotland only being the start.
Politics is always a dodgy subject, as is religion.
These types of threads in the past were closed pretty quick, if people had kept it to just this thread it'd be fine... but it is leaking into other threads between certain posters scoring points on one another because of differing political views.
In my opinion the admin team gave everyone a chance to keep it in one place and certain people haven't.
He has the UK marriage certificate which, obviously, happened when she was 16 and took place when she re-entered the country. She states that she had another marriage ceremony in Pakistan when she was 15. She had been sent there by her mum to protect her from an abusive step father and her relatives decided to arrange a marriage for her. There is no reason to disbelieve her and this story is consistent with normal practice in Pakistan. But the age isn't the point. It was that the marriage was forced that was the real point for her.
Galloway will use any underhand approach that he can to win. He has a history of attacking and being abusive to opposition and character assassination is his stock in trade. He also broke the law by retweeting the results of an exit poll before the polls closed. Bizarrely, he went on a victory tour of Bradford on his battle bus once the polls closed on Thursday even though the everyone else thought he had lost convincingly.
EDIT I looked back and it was actually Addickted you were discussing this with. I had only just gotten back from my honeymoon so I at least have an alibi
So it has a large bloc of voting power but what is it going to do with it? Now the Tories have a majority, however slim, they will be able to outvote the Nats, Labour, Green and Lib Dems combined.
The Scots have unwittingly locked itself out of any meaningful say in national affairs. At least when Labour had the most MPs in Scotland they had to consider them into their government plans. I believe Cameron genuinely wants to keep the UK united and for that reason alone he will probably do his best to avoid the ire of the Scots (including his plans to devolve further powers).
But apart from that, the Scots are going to quickly realise that their MPs are now useless as long as they are in SNP colours. The SNP will have to figure out some way to make their voices heard in the Commons, especially now that their natural allies Labour will be now aggressively pursuing winning back their seats in Scotland, without which they will find it extremely difficult to form a Government again in the future. Sturgeon refuses to countenance any kind of cooperation with the Tories but she will be making a gamble - risk the fury of their core voters by bargaining with the Tories, or risk that their irrelevance in Parliament will be noticed by the voters that have swung to them and who will quickly flood back to Labour to get their voice back.
I'm struggling to see how increasing their number of seats from 6 to 56 puts the SNP in a "perilous position".
Maybe they would have preferred to hold the balance of power, but the position they're in now allows the SNP to blame any problems on the Tory government's austerity while taking credit for anything good that happens. Before the election (eg the 'made-up conversation' with the French consul), I would have said this would be the ideal situation for Sturgeon. Scottish Labour is in turmoil after falling apart and then losing their seats. I think the SNP are in a strong position and Sturgeon is the right leader to make the most of it.