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.
I agree for most of this but you missed the point of what I said - at least if they voted Labour, they would have been part of HM Opposition and part of a combined force that could more easily leverage the Government, especially given how wafer-thin the Tories' majority is and the fact that backbench Tories tend to be more rebellious.
I did forget to mention this point though - SNP were banking on neither party getting a majority so they could be the Kingmaker, and I feel that's how many Scots were thinking when they voted. But now as the Tories assume full control, there will still be posters and banners around Scotland saying 'Vote SNP, Get Tory', and despite that mathematically that isn't what has happened, that is how it now appears. There is also the fact that many analysts are attributing the fact that the Tories won so many seats off Labour and the Lib Dems on their very effective campaign of 'don't let the SNP in through the back door'. I think a lot of Scots will be wondering whether the SNP in Westminster does Scotland more harm than good, especially since the SNP is continuing a campaign of hatred against a party over 40% of England voted for.
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!
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.
If the SNP are in a lose lose situation when it comes to Parliamentary votes and suchlike, the problem such as it is, is still with David Cameron. If the Conservatives spend the next five years putting two fingers up to the SNP it will send out a dangerous message with regard to the Union, and with regard to any Conservative seats being won in Scotland (remote a possibility as that may be). There are still Conservative voters in Scotland and I am intrigued to see how this plays out. The overtures have to come from the Conservative government if they want to persuade us we're all in it together.
To be honest he's a soft target for the loonies - hated as much as Cameron by the flash mob idiots but he doesn't get a security detail wherever he goes and he tends to go out in public for pub lunches and such, tries to live as normal a life as possible. Having loonies coming to accost him and his wife and kids wherever he goes takes its toll. They're probably sick of it as much as he is.
Decent article in evening standard tonight by Simon Jenkins on some sort of progressive property tax (page 14). Both Con & Lab guilty here but he cited a £15m mansion in Kensington was paying £2,903 annual council tax in 1989, now paying £2,134 today. A real feel good story if there was one.
Are these not simple things a government could get right (on a local or national level)
It's looking increasingly likely that this Government wants to scrap the Human Rights Act. You, know, that piece of law which enshrines all sorts of rights that we should value, like the right to life, freedom from torture, freedom from slavery, respect for private life, right to marry and start a family, protection from discrimination, right to education, etc, etc.
Now, some people might think that's a good idea. I can't for the life of me think why, but some people might.
But not everyone is a fan of the idea. Carwyn Jones, the leader of the Welsh Assembly has said that scrapping the Human Rights Act "makes us look like a banana republic". The Scottish Parliament has said it will withhold legislative consent on scrapping the Act. And, as you can see in this letter (below) scrapping the Act will put us in breach of the UK-Republic of Ireland Good Friday Agreement.
As far as I'm aware, the only difference between the current HRA and the proposed British Bill of Rights will be that the UK Supreme Court will be the final authority on human rights adjudications and not the ECHR. I think until the proposals have been fully outlined, any hysteria should be avoided, although the letter does raise a very valid point about ensuring that any change in the law does not breach the Good Friday Agreement.
Great news. Perhaps it will stop the train & tube drivers annual strike.
This. Had enough of people stomping their feet when they want a pay rise at hard working Londoners expense. I only ever have sympathy when it is safety related.
As far as I'm aware, the only difference between the current HRA and the proposed British Bill of Rights will be that the UK Supreme Court will be the final authority on human rights adjudications and not the ECHR. I think until the proposals have been fully outlined, any hysteria should be avoided, although the letter does raise a very valid point about ensuring that any change in the law does not breach the Good Friday Agreement.
Neil Harris' face, full of hope on the commemorative mug, no wait that's the Millwall relegation thread. Wouldn't be surprised to see a relegation appeal lodged with the ECJ
It's looking increasingly likely that this Government wants to scrap the Human Rights Act. You, know, that piece of law which enshrines all sorts of rights that we should value, like the right to life, freedom from torture, freedom from slavery, respect for private life, right to marry and start a family, protection from discrimination, right to education, etc, etc.
Now, some people might think that's a good idea. I can't for the life of me think why, but some people might.
But not everyone is a fan of the idea. Carwyn Jones, the leader of the Welsh Assembly has said that scrapping the Human Rights Act "makes us look like a banana republic". The Scottish Parliament has said it will withhold legislative consent on scrapping the Act. And, as you can see in this letter (below) scrapping the Act will put us in breach of the UK-Republic of Ireland Good Friday Agreement.
If it does cover all the laws and values that the Human Rights Act did, what's the point in spending all that money (that we apparently don't have much of) on replacing it in the first place?
If it does cover all the laws and values that the Human Rights Act did, what's the point in spending all that money (that we apparently don't have much of) on replacing it in the first place?
As far as I'm aware, the only difference between the current HRA and the proposed British Bill of Rights will be that the UK Supreme Court will be the final authority on human rights adjudications and not the ECHR. I think until the proposals have been fully outlined, any hysteria should be avoided, although the letter does raise a very valid point about ensuring that any change in the law does not breach the Good Friday Agreement.
The European Court of Human Rights (the court established by the European Convention on Human Rights) hears applications against states accused of breaching one or more human rights. So, if you think your rights are being breached in Britain, you can go to the European Court of Human Rights to have an adjudication. Seems fair to me: if you think the government breaches your rights, you have somewhere to go to get some justice.
What could be wrong with that? Well, some might say that it's an excessive burden. So it's worth seeing how many times the UK has had to face accusations. Last year, the UK had to defend itself in cases ranging from British people being tortured to churches not being open to the public; and from prisoners' voting rights to Stephen Gough, the serial naked rambler. In total, the UK was accused of breaching the ECHR in ten cases last year. Not exactly massively onerous, time-consuming and costly. To put it in context, the UK faces the prospect of defending a case of breach of the ECHR roughly half as often as the UK suffers a death due to bird 'flu.
Of those ten, however, the UK was found to be in breach of the ECHR in just three cases. The case of prisoners being prevented from voting; a man whose wages were confiscated as well as being thrown in prison for working illegally; and a 67 year old woman who, 9 years after suffering a stroke, fell and broke her hip and, despite being assessed as requiring assistance to use a commode at night, her council (Kensington & Chelsea) wanted to save money by supplying incontinence pads instead.
So, that's it. Three times last year we were found out breaching a list of fundamental human rights. Once, when a simple amendment to prisoners' voting legislation could have been put in place; once when we confiscated someone's wages as well as imprisoning them; and once when we tried to save a few quid on the care of an elderly stroke patient.
Instead of putting our house in order, it seems we are deciding to scrap the whole thing. It makes one wonder what the Tories *really* want to be able get away with, by scrapping one set of rights and "replacing" them with a new Bill. Which of the rights do the Tories want us to get rid of?
Remember, in the new world, unlike 67 year old disabled pensioner Elaine McDonald, if *your* rights are breached and you fail to get the Supreme Court to agree with you, it's tough titty. But of course, that's what we all voted for, right?
Never realised the amount of active activists involved in politics. Just read that labour deployed 400+ activists on polling day in every single London key constituency, and around 150 outside London. That is huge numbers
As I said earlier in the thread I worked in Ilford North which Labour took with a 500 majority .
I am certain the numbers made a difference I suspect there were around 500 volunteers on the day which is almost the size of Wes Streeting's majority .
An interesting article about what went wrong confirming AFKA's figures .
Dream on anyone who thinks the SNP are in a "perilous state".
Feels more like a one party state here now, with no valid opposition. Such a progressive party, too, the SNP - allowing police on routine patrol to carry guns, insisting that every child has a named guardian (other than their parents) and trying to create a national database / ID system through the back door which even the Information Commissioner has condemned.
But no point arguing those points with SNP supporters as they are far too besotted with the cult of Nicola...
Comments
I did forget to mention this point though - SNP were banking on neither party getting a majority so they could be the Kingmaker, and I feel that's how many Scots were thinking when they voted. But now as the Tories assume full control, there will still be posters and banners around Scotland saying 'Vote SNP, Get Tory', and despite that mathematically that isn't what has happened, that is how it now appears. There is also the fact that many analysts are attributing the fact that the Tories won so many seats off Labour and the Lib Dems on their very effective campaign of 'don't let the SNP in through the back door'. I think a lot of Scots will be wondering whether the SNP in Westminster does Scotland more harm than good, especially since the SNP is continuing a campaign of hatred against a party over 40% of England voted for.
The overtures have to come from the Conservative government if they want to persuade us we're all in it together.
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/generalelection2015/breaking-grant-shapps-given-big-demotion-with-new-role-in-david-camerons-cabinet/ar-BBjCyw7
Are these not simple things a government could get right (on a local or national level)
And so it begins
Now, some people might think that's a good idea. I can't for the life of me think why, but some people might.
But not everyone is a fan of the idea. Carwyn Jones, the leader of the Welsh Assembly has said that scrapping the Human Rights Act "makes us look like a banana republic". The Scottish Parliament has said it will withhold legislative consent on scrapping the Act. And, as you can see in this letter (below) scrapping the Act will put us in breach of the UK-Republic of Ireland Good Friday Agreement.
caj.org.uk/files/2015/05/11/CAJ_correspondence_to_SOS_re_HRA_May_20151.pdf
So, well done Tories. So far you're doing a great job "bringing the country together".
I'm sure a British Bill of Rights will cover all the laws and values you mention.
What could be wrong with that? Well, some might say that it's an excessive burden. So it's worth seeing how many times the UK has had to face accusations. Last year, the UK had to defend itself in cases ranging from British people being tortured to churches not being open to the public; and from prisoners' voting rights to Stephen Gough, the serial naked rambler. In total, the UK was accused of breaching the ECHR in ten cases last year. Not exactly massively onerous, time-consuming and costly. To put it in context, the UK faces the prospect of defending a case of breach of the ECHR roughly half as often as the UK suffers a death due to bird 'flu.
Of those ten, however, the UK was found to be in breach of the ECHR in just three cases. The case of prisoners being prevented from voting; a man whose wages were confiscated as well as being thrown in prison for working illegally; and a 67 year old woman who, 9 years after suffering a stroke, fell and broke her hip and, despite being assessed as requiring assistance to use a commode at night, her council (Kensington & Chelsea) wanted to save money by supplying incontinence pads instead.
So, that's it. Three times last year we were found out breaching a list of fundamental human rights. Once, when a simple amendment to prisoners' voting legislation could have been put in place; once when we confiscated someone's wages as well as imprisoning them; and once when we tried to save a few quid on the care of an elderly stroke patient.
Instead of putting our house in order, it seems we are deciding to scrap the whole thing. It makes one wonder what the Tories *really* want to be able get away with, by scrapping one set of rights and "replacing" them with a new Bill. Which of the rights do the Tories want us to get rid of?
Remember, in the new world, unlike 67 year old disabled pensioner Elaine McDonald, if *your* rights are breached and you fail to get the Supreme Court to agree with you, it's tough titty. But of course, that's what we all voted for, right?
I am certain the numbers made a difference I suspect there were around 500 volunteers on the day which is almost the size of Wes Streeting's majority .
An interesting article about what went wrong confirming AFKA's figures .
http://labourlist.org/2015/05/it-wasnt-what-was-in-our-manifesto-that-was-the-problem-it-was-what-was-missing/
Feels more like a one party state here now, with no valid opposition. Such a progressive party, too, the SNP - allowing police on routine patrol to carry guns, insisting that every child has a named guardian (other than their parents) and trying to create a national database / ID system through the back door which even the Information Commissioner has condemned.
But no point arguing those points with SNP supporters as they are far too besotted with the cult of Nicola...