If Russell Brand is an influential figure with young people and their political view then this country is in more trouble than I ever realised before
The man in a prick of the highest order, he spouts nonsense amd drivel
I'm a young person and I completely agree. Addickupnorth made the good point he has sensible ideas on drug treatment and that it's a health issue, not a criminal one. He has extensive experience in this and should stick to it as it's being discredited by the drivel he talks about voting.
Anyone who thinks not voting achieves anything above voting needs a crash course in political history.
I guarantee if all 18-25 year olds voted in this election, policies would very swiftly change to appeal to young people more.
The one thing the BBC interview with Sturgeon showed this morning is that she isn't very good at listening.
I still can't believe that they screwed up their own vote for independence and now may have a major say in the running of England.
But they won’t, really. Even if we end up with a Labour government propped up by the SNP (fairly likely IMO) then there will still only be circa 50/60 Scottish MP’s out of 650 odd, that’s less than 10%. The myth that the SNP will wreck England to Scotland’s advantage doesn’t really hold up to scrutiny and if Miliband, as Prime Minister, gets pressured into legislation that is clearly detrimental to England’s interests by the SNP it simply wont pass through the Commons and he’ll undermine his position.
The reason that the SNP are so strong in Scotland is to do with our first past the post system, last year 45% of the population voted for independence, presumably almost all of those people will vote SNP in this election. 55% of people voted against independence but their support is fragmented amongst Labour, Lib Dem and (some) Tory so it will be a struggle for any one of those three parties to match the SNP in a constituency on a first past the post basis. If we had proportional representation then the SNP’s share of the seats would be about half what it is likely to be (and they would have half the power they are going to wield).
The one thing the BBC interview with Sturgeon showed this morning is that she isn't very good at listening.
I still can't believe that they screwed up their own vote for independence and now may have a major say in the running of England.
This is exactly the line of thinking that alienates many Scottish voters and exacerbates the preconception.
Every part of the UK is entitled to elect whoever it chooses, from whichever political party it chooses, in order to do two things. First, to represent that constituency; and second to influence the government of the United Kingdom. It's the way we have chosen to do things in the UK: a parliamentary democracy.
As much as I dislike the idea of a large number of Scottish Nationalists (or Nationalists of any kind) being in the UK Parliament, if that is what the electorate of parts of the country want, then that's how it should - and must - be.
Every MP is there for (at least) these two jobs. Represent the constituency; influence the governance of the United Kingdom. No-one "runs England". To equate "England" with the "UK" is preposterous, lazy and wrong. And it leads to resentment.
Chizz, what you have said is totally correct - each MP, whether Scottish, Welsh or English gets one vote in the Commons to cast (excepting the Speaker et al) and as England has the most MPs, it has the most clout in determining the direction of the UK as a whole. The idea that Scots would have undue influence in UK legislation is incorrect (there may be an argument that Scottish voters have smaller constituencies and would have a few less MPs if there constituencies were widened but that is not really what is being argued here). However that is not the issue.
The issue is the constitutional travesty that has been allowed to develop as a side effect of Scottish (and by some extension Welsh) devolution. Most areas of legislation including how the Scottish budget is actually spent is devolved to Scotland. English MPs could not vote to cancel Scottish spending plans or to divert Scottish money to England.
The reverse, however, is possible. By convention, Scottish MPs are supposed to abstain on votes in Westminster on devolved matters. The exception to this is if there is reasonable cause that the effects of the vote will have knock-on effects on devolved matters in Scotland. Over the years, more and more Scottish MPs are taking part in Westminster votes on devolved matters with the justification of enacting the exception becoming flimsier and flimsier.
Now the SNP has publicly abandoned its adherence to this convention. Sturgeon has stated that in order to bargain for more spending or more laws that they want in Scotland, she is willing to help Labour push through laws on devolved matters. She has also stated that if this means levying higher taxes or reducing spending in England, specifically the south of England, she will vote on this as well.
If Russell Brand is an influential figure with young people and their political view then this country is in more trouble than I ever realised before
The man in a prick of the highest order, he spouts nonsense and drivel
I'm a young person and I completely agree. Addickupnorth made the good point he has sensible ideas on drug treatment and that it's a health issue, not a criminal one. He has extensive experience in this and should stick to it as it's being discredited by the drivel he talks about voting.
Anyone who thinks not voting achieves anything above voting needs a crash course in political history.
I guarantee if all 18-25 year olds voted in this election, policies would very swiftly change to appeal to young people more.
Totally spot on !!! I chaired a hustings for over a hundred young people last Thursday with the Hornchurch candidates. Awakening the young vote would change everything
Chizz, what you have said is totally correct - each MP, whether Scottish, Welsh or English gets one vote in the Commons to cast (excepting the Speaker et al) and as England has the most MPs, it has the most clout in determining the direction of the UK as a whole. The idea that Scots would have undue influence in UK legislation is incorrect (there may be an argument that Scottish voters have smaller constituencies and would have a few less MPs if there constituencies were widened but that is not really what is being argued here). However that is not the issue.
The issue is the constitutional travesty that has been allowed to develop as a side effect of Scottish (and by some extension Welsh) devolution. Most areas of legislation including how the Scottish budget is actually spent is devolved to Scotland. English MPs could not vote to cancel Scottish spending plans or to divert Scottish money to England.
The reverse, however, is possible. By convention, Scottish MPs are supposed to abstain on votes in Westminster on devolved matters. The exception to this is if there is reasonable cause that the effects of the vote will have knock-on effects on devolved matters in Scotland. Over the years, more and more Scottish MPs are taking part in Westminster votes on devolved matters with the justification of enacting the exception becoming flimsier and flimsier.
Now the SNP has publicly abandoned its adherence to this convention. Sturgeon has stated that in order to bargain for more spending or more laws that they want in Scotland, she is willing to help Labour push through laws on devolved matters. She has also stated that if this means levying higher taxes or reducing spending in England, specifically the south of England, she will vote on this as well.
No - the number of non-English MP's are dwarfed by the number of MP's from England so so there's no way non-English MP's could vote to cancel English spending plans or to divert English money to Scotland (Or elsewhere) without the support of hundreds of English MPs.
This has been built up into a big issue when it isn't really.
Chizz, what you have said is totally correct - each MP, whether Scottish, Welsh or English gets one vote in the Commons to cast (excepting the Speaker et al) and as England has the most MPs, it has the most clout in determining the direction of the UK as a whole. The idea that Scots would have undue influence in UK legislation is incorrect (there may be an argument that Scottish voters have smaller constituencies and would have a few less MPs if there constituencies were widened but that is not really what is being argued here). However that is not the issue.
The issue is the constitutional travesty that has been allowed to develop as a side effect of Scottish (and by some extension Welsh) devolution. Most areas of legislation including how the Scottish budget is actually spent is devolved to Scotland. English MPs could not vote to cancel Scottish spending plans or to divert Scottish money to England.
The reverse, however, is possible. By convention, Scottish MPs are supposed to abstain on votes in Westminster on devolved matters. The exception to this is if there is reasonable cause that the effects of the vote will have knock-on effects on devolved matters in Scotland. Over the years, more and more Scottish MPs are taking part in Westminster votes on devolved matters with the justification of enacting the exception becoming flimsier and flimsier.
Now the SNP has publicly abandoned its adherence to this convention. Sturgeon has stated that in order to bargain for more spending or more laws that they want in Scotland, she is willing to help Labour push through laws on devolved matters. She has also stated that if this means levying higher taxes or reducing spending in England, specifically the south of England, she will vote on this as well.
This is another example of what I posted about exacerbating preconceptions. You are implying it's possible for English money to be diverted to Scotland. There is no such thing as "English money". There is taxation, applied at the UK-level, which is disbursed across the UK by Westminster and across the devolved nations by their parliaments/assemblies. There is no such thing as "English money".
It's the kind of lazy trap that people fall in to. Like "English votes for English laws". I would bet that, if I knocked on twenty doors in my local area, lots of people would agree that we need "English votes for English laws". But if I asked them all to name an "English law", I am sure few would would be able to do so. In practice, if an MP is doing his two primary jobs correctly (first representing his constituents; second influencing the UK government) then there is no need to be concerned about a third job (ie "managing England's money").
I should point out that I think to say that England "has the most clout" doesn't really apply. Very rarely to MPs representing England, Wales or Scotland vote en bloc. In fact, I cannot think of any vote in which all of the MPs representing England went through a different division to all the MPs from Scotland or from Wales.
The one thing the BBC interview with Sturgeon showed this morning is that she isn't very good at listening.
I still can't believe that they screwed up their own vote for independence and now may have a major say in the running of England.
But they won’t, really. Even if we end up with a Labour government propped up by the SNP (fairly likely IMO) then there will still only be circa 50/60 Scottish MP’s out of 650 odd, that’s less than 10%. The myth that the SNP will wreck England to Scotland’s advantage doesn’t really hold up to scrutiny and if Miliband, as Prime Minister, gets pressured into legislation that is clearly detrimental to England’s interests by the SNP it simply wont pass through the Commons and he’ll undermine his position.
The reason that the SNP are so strong in Scotland is to do with our first past the post system, last year 45% of the population voted for independence, presumably almost all of those people will vote SNP in this election. 55% of people voted against independence but their support is fragmented amongst Labour, Lib Dem and (some) Tory so it will be a struggle for any one of those three parties to match the SNP in a constituency on a first past the post basis. If we had proportional representation then the SNP’s share of the seats would be about half what it is likely to be (and they would have half the power they are going to wield).
It strikes me that the SNP post election will be in a position where they have to support Labour to keep Cameron out. If they don't then there might be another election and the Scottish electorate will have a simple choice between putting Labour in power or supporting a party who won't support a left of centre government.
In that scenario I would predict a swing back to Labour in Scotland.
The irony is that as an outsider I only see two main policy differences between Labour and the SNP. One is Trident which I believe shouldn't be renewed on cost - and any case for removal has to go before our allies so that won't happen. And the very realistic (in my opinion) call to end austerity. I have posted before that our deficit is only 1% higher than the 3% recognised by economists as sustainable and there must be simple ways to solve that including growth and selling government assets like the banks.
If Russell Brand is an influential figure with young people and their political view then this country is in more trouble than I ever realised before
The man in a prick of the highest order, he spouts nonsense amd drivel
Were you ever young? A lot of Brand’s views are sensible, just not realistic. That is the domain of the young and I would be disapointed in them if it wasn't. They have lots of time to become cynical like us old farts. The snippet we have seen of the interview with Miliband is an example. He rightfully highlights the big corporations who avoid tax, and challenges Miliband/politicians to do more. Miliband acknowledged more could be done, but there is a limit because the corporations can just move somewhere else, hinting the solution goes outside of this country. Miliband and Cameron have to have the solutions, Brand can just point out the problems.
Whilst there may be a number of things where people disagree with him, he does talk sense on a number of issues. Drugs being one.
People have also been critical of the humanitarian credentials of Conservatives on this thread. I think that is unfair – to some of them at least. One thing that the press has conveniently overlooked is the part Miliband played in preventing the US attacking Syria a couple of years ago. This would have meant helping what now is IS!!!! I think that a number of Tories displayed courage voting against this at the time, despite the will of their leadership and deserve praise and recognition for this.
The one thing the BBC interview with Sturgeon showed this morning is that she isn't very good at listening.
I still can't believe that they screwed up their own vote for independence and now may have a major say in the running of England.
But they won’t, really. Even if we end up with a Labour government propped up by the SNP (fairly likely IMO) then there will still only be circa 50/60 Scottish MP’s out of 650 odd, that’s less than 10%. The myth that the SNP will wreck England to Scotland’s advantage doesn’t really hold up to scrutiny and if Miliband, as Prime Minister, gets pressured into legislation that is clearly detrimental to England’s interests by the SNP it simply wont pass through the Commons and he’ll undermine his position.
The reason that the SNP are so strong in Scotland is to do with our first past the post system, last year 45% of the population voted for independence, presumably almost all of those people will vote SNP in this election. 55% of people voted against independence but their support is fragmented amongst Labour, Lib Dem and (some) Tory so it will be a struggle for any one of those three parties to match the SNP in a constituency on a first past the post basis. If we had proportional representation then the SNP’s share of the seats would be about half what it is likely to be (and they would have half the power they are going to wield).
It strikes me that the SNP post election will be in a position where they have to support Labour to keep Cameron out. If they don't then there might be another election and the Scottish electorate will have a simple choice between putting Labour in power or supporting a party who won't support a left of centre government.
In that scenario I would predict a swing back to Labour in Scotland.
The irony is that as an outsider I only see two main policy differences between Labour and the SNP. One is Trident which I believe shouldn't be renewed on cost - and any case for removal has to go before our allies so that won't happen. And the very realistic (in my opinion) call to end austerity. I have posted before that our deficit is only 1% higher than the 3% recognised by economists as sustainable and there must be simple ways to solve that including growth and selling government assets like the banks.
But it's Labour ruling out working with the SNP. If Miliband sticks to that position and the result is a minority Tory government then Labour will be undermined in Scotland (and thus have little chance of ever winning an outright majority) for a generation.
If the polls are right and the SNP hold the real balance of power then Miliband will need to negotiate.
Ignore the billionaires what about the good honest people who work hard in the city (I think the labour definition is scumbag bankers)
What about the people that have grafted from the bottom from a 10k salary to a 150k salary
Those are the people that labour hate...
Rubbish - The Blair government were highly supportive of such people. I am left of centre and I am very much supportive of the 10-150k grafters. More power to them. I started at the bottom and am a higher rate tax payer. Oddly enough this government totally shafted me. I lost my child benefit , got no gain on my top rate of tax, paid more on prescriptions etc etc
If you are a higher rate tax payer you shouldnt bloody have any child benefit! I dont get child benefit and frankly why should I? If you earn over £60k and you think you cant afford to have kids then trade in the flat screen and make sacrifices (that comment is not targeted at you - more at anyone who thinks the child benefit rules are too tight.).
Probably some of the most sense posted on this thread.
Except before the GLOBAL crash borrowing was much lower than under the tories
That's because the govt had to borrow to save the banks that collapsed on Labour's watch whilst the subsequent recession devastated tax receipts!
That was six years ago so I'm unsure why the shares in the banks and the loan books of closed entities have not been sold. And I'm also why, given the economy has grown again, that the government is still borrowing record amounts of money?
And claim there is this impossible deficit which demand more austerity.
As per another contributor, construction is flat lining and the rate of house building is not meeting requirements as we all know. More house building should generate taxable profits for builders and more low cost housing should reduce the housing benefit bill which is a rediculous subsidy to landlords which takes no account of record low financing costs for property portfolios.
I don't know all of the numbers nor solutions but I have observed the US have had more growth than the UK and have divested assets captured during the crash. And they have chosen not to play the austerity card.
Do SNP hold the balance ? They can hold the balance, but If Labour throws its hat in with say the Lib Dems – yes the SNP could scupper them by siding with the Tories but would they do it. They could, but Sturgeon knows that it won’t go down well if she helps the Tories into power. So re-assuring Scotland it is very much in the minds of the government but no alliance with SNP could be workable. The SNP secretly would want the Tories to get in though, as this always makes their recruitment easier.
One of the strange things in this election is the scaremongering about a Labour- SNP deal. What I find funny about this is, the Conservatives may be the party that is more likely to do a deal than Labour. Miliband fought for the union despite knowing it would affect Labour’s popularity north of the border. The conservatives have used consessions they made, in a Scotland v England issue for electoral gain. This is dangerous and cheap politics. But if the conservatives want to bring down a minority Labour government they will need to offer the SNP something.
If people are worried about the SNP, the answer is they should vote labour. That is what is so strange. We all pretty much know that neither Labour nor the Conservatives will have a clear majority after the election after all. Labour has more options in this scenario, even if they get fewer votes than the tories.
It's the kind of lazy trap that people fall in to. Like "English votes for English laws". I would bet that, if I knocked on twenty doors in my local area, lots of people would agree that we need "English votes for English laws". But if I asked them all to name an "English law",
You do know that Scotland has its own Scottish Laws that apply only in Scotland and England has some English laws that only apply in England don't you? Here's one - You can't sell a house "subject to contract" in Scotland, something we should have in England.
If Russell Brand is an influential figure with young people and their political view then this country is in more trouble than I ever realised before
A lot of Brand’s views are sensible, just not realistic. That is the domain of the young and I would be disapointed in them if it wasn't. Miliband and Cameron have to have the solutions, Brand can just point out the problems. Whilst there may be a number of things where people disagree with him, he does talk sense on a number of issues. Drugs being one.
I agree with the above bits.
Brand is like many of us that can see what is broken but have no fooking clue how to fix it.
Sadly no matter who we vote for, can all these things be changed.
It has to be little by little, each election hoping your voting for someone who will fix at least a few of those many things, mixed with relative disappointment when they don't.
Muttley you do know Brand is 40 in a couple weeks? Not sure where you get this 'voice of the young' thing from. Most people younger than him think he is an idiot.
If Russell Brand is an influential figure with young people and their political view then this country is in more trouble than I ever realised before
The man in a prick of the highest order, he spouts nonsense amd drivel
Were you ever young? A lot of Brand’s views are sensible, just not realistic.
If a view is not realistic then it is unlikely to be sensible. If you think sensible views do not have to be realistic, then we might as well vote Green.
Is it sensible that massive tax avoiding corporations are made to pay their share? yes of course- both Labour and Tories would agree with that statement. The lack of reality is that there are factors outside the control of politicians in this country that complicate matters.
And I know Brand is 40ish, but his audience is young.
It's the kind of lazy trap that people fall in to. Like "English votes for English laws". I would bet that, if I knocked on twenty doors in my local area, lots of people would agree that we need "English votes for English laws". But if I asked them all to name an "English law",
You do know that Scotland has its own Scottish Laws that apply only in Scotland and England has some English laws that only apply in England don't you? Here's one - You can't sell a house "subject to contract" in Scotland, something we should have in England.
The one thing the BBC interview with Sturgeon showed this morning is that she isn't very good at listening.
I still can't believe that they screwed up their own vote for independence and now may have a major say in the running of England.
But they won’t, really. Even if we end up with a Labour government propped up by the SNP (fairly likely IMO) then there will still only be circa 50/60 Scottish MP’s out of 650 odd, that’s less than 10%. The myth that the SNP will wreck England to Scotland’s advantage doesn’t really hold up to scrutiny and if Miliband, as Prime Minister, gets pressured into legislation that is clearly detrimental to England’s interests by the SNP it simply wont pass through the Commons and he’ll undermine his position.
The reason that the SNP are so strong in Scotland is to do with our first past the post system, last year 45% of the population voted for independence, presumably almost all of those people will vote SNP in this election. 55% of people voted against independence but their support is fragmented amongst Labour, Lib Dem and (some) Tory so it will be a struggle for any one of those three parties to match the SNP in a constituency on a first past the post basis. If we had proportional representation then the SNP’s share of the seats would be about half what it is likely to be (and they would have half the power they are going to wield).
It strikes me that the SNP post election will be in a position where they have to support Labour to keep Cameron out. If they don't then there might be another election and the Scottish electorate will have a simple choice between putting Labour in power or supporting a party who won't support a left of centre government.
In that scenario I would predict a swing back to Labour in Scotland.
The irony is that as an outsider I only see two main policy differences between Labour and the SNP. One is Trident which I believe shouldn't be renewed on cost - and any case for removal has to go before our allies so that won't happen. And the very realistic (in my opinion) call to end austerity. I have posted before that our deficit is only 1% higher than the 3% recognised by economists as sustainable and there must be simple ways to solve that including growth and selling government assets like the banks.
But it's Labour ruling out working with the SNP. If Miliband sticks to that position and the result is a minority Tory government then Labour will be undermined in Scotland (and thus have little chance of ever winning an outright majority) for a generation.
If the polls are right and the SNP hold the real balance of power then Miliband will need to negotiate.
They've ruled it out because Labour are standing candidates across Scotland and want to win as many as possible. So I can't see how they can cede any ground during the election. What happens after is determined by the numbers.
Thing is I can understand Glasgow going solid SNP as it was the heart of the yes vote but am confused if Edinburgh which had a solid 60% no vote would return SNP MPs. A friend of mine is from there and is a Labour supporter so will ask him about where it's going and why.
Whatever happens I still think Cameron was a disgrace to come out with English constitutional reform as a blocker, the day after the referendum. Just like his Vat rise and NHS reform that wasn't in the prospectus. Stunts like that must surely inflame anti union sentiment?
It's the kind of lazy trap that people fall in to. Like "English votes for English laws". I would bet that, if I knocked on twenty doors in my local area, lots of people would agree that we need "English votes for English laws". But if I asked them all to name an "English law",
You do know that Scotland has its own Scottish Laws that apply only in Scotland and England has some English laws that only apply in England don't you? Here's one - You can't sell a house "subject to contract" in Scotland, something we should have in England.
Hello. Yes, I am aware that there are laws in Scotland that are different from the laws in the rest of the UK. I do not know of any "English laws". Your example is not an "English law". It's possible to sell a property "subject to contract" anywhere in the UK, with the exception of the differences that exist in Scotland. In this respect, there is no difference between Cardiff and Carlisle.
Is it important to you that "English laws" are differentiated, in terms of who is allowed to set them? And if so, which laws?
Muttley you do know Brand is 40 in a couple weeks? Not sure where you get this 'voice of the young' thing from. Most people younger than him think he is an idiot.
Ha! That's very funny. Because the current, median UK average age is 39.9. Which means that, by the time of the general election, he will officially be "old".
The one thing the BBC interview with Sturgeon showed this morning is that she isn't very good at listening.
I still can't believe that they screwed up their own vote for independence and now may have a major say in the running of England.
But they won’t, really. Even if we end up with a Labour government propped up by the SNP (fairly likely IMO) then there will still only be circa 50/60 Scottish MP’s out of 650 odd, that’s less than 10%. The myth that the SNP will wreck England to Scotland’s advantage doesn’t really hold up to scrutiny and if Miliband, as Prime Minister, gets pressured into legislation that is clearly detrimental to England’s interests by the SNP it simply wont pass through the Commons and he’ll undermine his position.
The reason that the SNP are so strong in Scotland is to do with our first past the post system, last year 45% of the population voted for independence, presumably almost all of those people will vote SNP in this election. 55% of people voted against independence but their support is fragmented amongst Labour, Lib Dem and (some) Tory so it will be a struggle for any one of those three parties to match the SNP in a constituency on a first past the post basis. If we had proportional representation then the SNP’s share of the seats would be about half what it is likely to be (and they would have half the power they are going to wield).
It strikes me that the SNP post election will be in a position where they have to support Labour to keep Cameron out. If they don't then there might be another election and the Scottish electorate will have a simple choice between putting Labour in power or supporting a party who won't support a left of centre government.
In that scenario I would predict a swing back to Labour in Scotland.
The irony is that as an outsider I only see two main policy differences between Labour and the SNP. One is Trident which I believe shouldn't be renewed on cost - and any case for removal has to go before our allies so that won't happen. And the very realistic (in my opinion) call to end austerity. I have posted before that our deficit is only 1% higher than the 3% recognised by economists as sustainable and there must be simple ways to solve that including growth and selling government assets like the banks.
But it's Labour ruling out working with the SNP. If Miliband sticks to that position and the result is a minority Tory government then Labour will be undermined in Scotland (and thus have little chance of ever winning an outright majority) for a generation.
If the polls are right and the SNP hold the real balance of power then Miliband will need to negotiate.
They've ruled it out because Labour are standing candidates across Scotland and want to win as many as possible. So I can't see how they can cede any ground during the election. What happens after is determined by the numbers.
Thing is I can understand Glasgow going solid SNP as it was the heart of the yes vote but am confused if Edinburgh which had a solid 60% no vote would return SNP MPs. A friend of mine is from there and is a Labour supporter so will ask him about where it's going and why.
Whatever happens I still think Cameron was a disgrace to come out with English constitutional reform as a blocker, the day after the referendum. Just like his Vat rise and NHS reform that wasn't in the prospectus. Stunts like that must surely inflame anti union sentiment?
As above, the reason is that 60% "yes" equals 40% "no". Whilst the 60% is fractured amongst supporters of three parties, the 40% is almost exclusively SNP which means, under the first past the post method, the SNP will win the most votes (though not a majority) of any party and this the seats.
Opinion on independence hasn't changed massively since September but the FPTP system gives the SNP a major advantage over the Unionist parties.
Is it sensible that massive tax avoiding corporations are made to pay their share? yes of course- both Labour and Tories would agree with that statement. The lack of reality is that there are factors outside the control of politicians in this country that complicate matters.
And I know Brand is 40ish, but his audience is young.
If Russell Brand is an influential figure with young people and their political view then this country is in more trouble than I ever realised before
The man in a prick of the highest order, he spouts nonsense amd drivel
He has views and he has a platform to air them. Just like you. You air your views on here because you are able to do so. If you had a larger platform I dare say you would use that.
I'm not saying I agree with much of anything he says but I'm not going to slag the blokes right to say it and get it across any ways he can.
If people are worried about the SNP, the answer is they should vote labour.
Well you've turned everyone's thinking upside down with this.
I was inclined to say ridiculous, but the more you read, the more bizarre and fascinating it is for me.
It is akin to watching a game of football.
We all see the same match, yet all have different views.
Like I say, I find it all fascinating.
What I said is logical. If you are worried about SNP, you should try to avoid the situation where they have the most power surely!!! If you accept that neither Labour or the Conservatives will have a majority - even with the Lib Dems - And the odds on this with the real pollsters (the bookies) are really low. The more powerful Labour are the less influence the SNP will have.
Comments
Anyone who thinks not voting achieves anything above voting needs a crash course in political history.
I guarantee if all 18-25 year olds voted in this election, policies would very swiftly change to appeal to young people more.
I still can't believe that they screwed up their own vote for independence and now may have a major say in the running of England.
The reason that the SNP are so strong in Scotland is to do with our first past the post system, last year 45% of the population voted for independence, presumably almost all of those people will vote SNP in this election. 55% of people voted against independence but their support is fragmented amongst Labour, Lib Dem and (some) Tory so it will be a struggle for any one of those three parties to match the SNP in a constituency on a first past the post basis. If we had proportional representation then the SNP’s share of the seats would be about half what it is likely to be (and they would have half the power they are going to wield).
Every part of the UK is entitled to elect whoever it chooses, from whichever political party it chooses, in order to do two things. First, to represent that constituency; and second to influence the government of the United Kingdom. It's the way we have chosen to do things in the UK: a parliamentary democracy.
As much as I dislike the idea of a large number of Scottish Nationalists (or Nationalists of any kind) being in the UK Parliament, if that is what the electorate of parts of the country want, then that's how it should - and must - be.
Every MP is there for (at least) these two jobs. Represent the constituency; influence the governance of the United Kingdom. No-one "runs England". To equate "England" with the "UK" is preposterous, lazy and wrong. And it leads to resentment.
The issue is the constitutional travesty that has been allowed to develop as a side effect of Scottish (and by some extension Welsh) devolution. Most areas of legislation including how the Scottish budget is actually spent is devolved to Scotland. English MPs could not vote to cancel Scottish spending plans or to divert Scottish money to England.
The reverse, however, is possible. By convention, Scottish MPs are supposed to abstain on votes in Westminster on devolved matters. The exception to this is if there is reasonable cause that the effects of the vote will have knock-on effects on devolved matters in Scotland. Over the years, more and more Scottish MPs are taking part in Westminster votes on devolved matters with the justification of enacting the exception becoming flimsier and flimsier.
Now the SNP has publicly abandoned its adherence to this convention. Sturgeon has stated that in order to bargain for more spending or more laws that they want in Scotland, she is willing to help Labour push through laws on devolved matters. She has also stated that if this means levying higher taxes or reducing spending in England, specifically the south of England, she will vote on this as well.
This has been built up into a big issue when it isn't really.
It's the kind of lazy trap that people fall in to. Like "English votes for English laws". I would bet that, if I knocked on twenty doors in my local area, lots of people would agree that we need "English votes for English laws". But if I asked them all to name an "English law", I am sure few would would be able to do so. In practice, if an MP is doing his two primary jobs correctly (first representing his constituents; second influencing the UK government) then there is no need to be concerned about a third job (ie "managing England's money").
I should point out that I think to say that England "has the most clout" doesn't really apply. Very rarely to MPs representing England, Wales or Scotland vote en bloc. In fact, I cannot think of any vote in which all of the MPs representing England went through a different division to all the MPs from Scotland or from Wales.
If they don't then there might be another election and the Scottish electorate will have a simple choice between putting Labour in power or supporting a party who won't support a left of centre government.
In that scenario I would predict a swing back to Labour in Scotland.
The irony is that as an outsider I only see two main policy differences between Labour and the SNP. One is Trident which I believe shouldn't be renewed on cost - and any case for removal has to go before our allies so that won't happen. And the very realistic (in my opinion) call to end austerity.
I have posted before that our deficit is only 1% higher than the 3% recognised by economists as sustainable and there must be simple ways to solve that including growth and selling government assets like the banks.
Whilst there may be a number of things where people disagree with him, he does talk sense on a number of issues. Drugs being one.
People have also been critical of the humanitarian credentials of Conservatives on this thread. I think that is unfair – to some of them at least. One thing that the press has conveniently overlooked is the part Miliband played in preventing the US attacking Syria a couple of years ago. This would have meant helping what now is IS!!!! I think that a number of Tories displayed courage voting against this at the time, despite the will of their leadership and deserve praise and recognition for this.
If the polls are right and the SNP hold the real balance of power then Miliband will need to negotiate.
Probably some of the most sense posted on this thread.
And claim there is this impossible deficit which demand more austerity.
As per another contributor, construction is flat lining and the rate of house building is not meeting requirements as we all know. More house building should generate taxable profits for builders and more low cost housing should reduce the housing benefit bill which is a rediculous subsidy to landlords which takes no account of record low financing costs for property portfolios.
I don't know all of the numbers nor solutions but I have observed the US have had more growth than the UK and have divested assets captured during the crash. And they have chosen not to play the austerity card.
One of the strange things in this election is the scaremongering about a Labour- SNP deal. What I find funny about this is, the Conservatives may be the party that is more likely to do a deal than Labour. Miliband fought for the union despite knowing it would affect Labour’s popularity north of the border. The conservatives have used consessions they made, in a Scotland v England issue for electoral gain. This is dangerous and cheap politics. But if the conservatives want to bring down a minority Labour government they will need to offer the SNP something.
If people are worried about the SNP, the answer is they should vote labour. That is what is so strange. We all pretty much know that neither Labour nor the Conservatives will have a clear majority after the election after all. Labour has more options in this scenario, even if they get fewer votes than the tories.
You do know that Scotland has its own Scottish Laws that apply only in Scotland and England has some English laws that only apply in England don't you? Here's one - You can't sell a house "subject to contract" in Scotland, something we should have in England.
Brand is like many of us that can see what is broken but have no fooking clue how to fix it.
Sadly no matter who we vote for, can all these things be changed.
It has to be little by little, each election hoping your voting for someone who will fix at least a few of those many things, mixed with relative disappointment when they don't.
If you think sensible views do not have to be realistic, then we might as well vote Green.
And I know Brand is 40ish, but his audience is young.
Thing is I can understand Glasgow going solid SNP as it was the heart of the yes vote but am confused if Edinburgh which had a solid 60% no vote would return SNP MPs. A friend of mine is from there and is a Labour supporter so will ask him about where it's going and why.
Whatever happens I still think Cameron was a disgrace to come out with English constitutional reform as a blocker, the day after the referendum. Just like his Vat rise and NHS reform that wasn't in the prospectus. Stunts like that must surely inflame anti union sentiment?
Is it important to you that "English laws" are differentiated, in terms of who is allowed to set them? And if so, which laws?
Opinion on independence hasn't changed massively since September but the FPTP system gives the SNP a major advantage over the Unionist parties.
I was inclined to say ridiculous, but the more you read, the more bizarre and fascinating it is for me.
It is akin to watching a game of football.
We all see the same match, yet all have different views.
Like I say, I find it all fascinating.
I'm not saying I agree with much of anything he says but I'm not going to slag the blokes right to say it and get it across any ways he can.