General Election 2015

[eFestivals]

There are always (at least) two ways to ask a question. you could say "is it reasonable when party has no overall majority that it seeks consensus with other democratically elected MP's to try and form a stable government?

Yep, that's a way of doing things - a way that the SNP did not take.

They didn't talk about consensus and majority support, they talked about "keeping Labour honest".

Which was code for "make Labour do our bidding".

That 'code' fooled no one, particularly not the 49% who voted SNP, as that was *EXACTLY* what they were voting in support of.

But let's just pretend the SNP never said anything like that, and then we can pretend the SNP are like a cat on the internet, that everyone loves.

[LJS]

Is what the Labour party did to stop a REAL nationalist war where people were being murdered as a result of unending nationalists violence with a cause going back centuries in any way comparible to the situation in Britain today between the Labour party and the SNP?

If your debating technique is valid, you're saying that the SNP should start a violent war until Labour comes round to their ideas. Oh yeah, you're the smart guy.

Nationalist bollocks only leads to an ever greater nationalist bollocks.

Which is where everything you say falls apart, because it does not lead anywhere better.

Deliberately missing the point is another trick. we're getting them all today. I pointed out that you wilfully edited what vibe said for your own ends. Your response is entirely irrelevant.

[eFestivals]

The thing that scares me the most is that c**ts like Blair are coming out and saying Labour need to become a centre-right party again.

how did veering to the left work out for Labour?

They can be a party of principle or a party of power. Take your pick.

What they can't be is a party of both. Other principles are at play, with personal greed top of the tree in almost every voter's mind.

Certainly for the SNP, where extra spending is a good thing only when non-Scots are the ones funding it. The proof is in their own words.

The solution to getting the Tories out isn't for Labour to imitate them with bribes for the middle-classes and shitting on their traditional core. 20 years of that from 96-2016 is why Scotland rejected Labour. It's why people are abandoning Labour for the Green party, it's why UKIP are coming 2nd in a large number of Labour seats.

Blair got to prove that it's bribes to the middle classes which gets the tories out.

The SNP proved in Scotland that it's bribes to the middle classes which gets a party into power.

What have you missed?

Edited May 10, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Deliberately missing the point is another trick. we're getting them all today. I pointed out that you wilfully edited what vibe said for your own ends. Your response is entirely irrelevant.

Did or did not the SNP suggest that they would force Labour to change course from their manifesto promises?

You can chuck in all the squirrels you want to avoid getting to the nitty-gritty - which is all my editing was about, getting to the nitty-gritty - but that doesn't change the unwanted threat the SNP was making to the whole country, which had no majority support.

How is a threatening to go against the majority a better democracy, LJS?

Edited May 10, 2015 by eFestivals

[kaosmark2]

They can be a party of principle or a party of power. Take your pick.

If they sell their principle to get into power, what's the point of having them in power?

[LJS]

The thing that scares me the most is that c**ts like Blair are coming out and saying Labour need to become a centre-right party again.

The solution to getting the Tories out isn't for Labour to imitate them with bribes for the middle-classes and shitting on their traditional core. 20 years of that from 96-2016 is why Scotland rejected Labour. It's why people are abandoning Labour for the Green party, it's why UKIP are coming 2nd in a large number of Labour seats.

Yeah, Mandelson has risen from the grave & was on the radio being predicable this morning.

If they sell their principle to get into power, what's the point of having them in power?

Kaos I agree with you.

[pink_triangle]

What election result did you just see?

I credit politicians in being a bit cleverer in terms of what's in their best interest than the general public.

[pink_triangle]

Interestingly they said on the news yesterday that Labour needed more votes per mp than the conservatives. I wonder if that means boundary reform wont be as effective as they thought. Apparently it will hit the snp the hardest. I also wonder if there would be some conservative rebels pushing this through. It will cause some conservative to lose their jobs, I wonder if they are certain to take one for the team.

[LJS]

Interestingly they said on the news yesterday that Labour needed more votes per mp than the conservatives. I wonder if that means boundary reform wont be as effective as they thought. Apparently it will hit the snp the hardest. I also wonder if there would be some conservative rebels pushing this through. It will cause some conservative to lose their jobs, I wonder if they are certain to take one for the team.

Anyway, a couple of people have asked me how this election would have looked had the revised boundaries proposed in the last Parliament gone through. I’ve done a rough rejig of my provisional boundary calculations using the result of this election, and had the new boundaries gone through the Conservatives would have won 322 seats, nine fewer than they did but enough to give them a healthy majority of 44 in a Commons of 600 MPs. Labour would have won 204 MPs (28 fewer), the SNP 50 seats (and would have pushed Labour out of Scotland entirely) and the Lib Dems just 4.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/

[pink_triangle]

If that's true (it's not consistent with the report I heard that snp would be hit) we have to hope the 9 who lose their seats, come on board to stop this blatant gerrymandering. I hope the house of lords can make this difficult, but no doubt there is a huge list of tory donors on the way as we speak.

[LJS]

If that's true (it's not consistent with the report I heard that snp would be hit) we have to hope the 9 who lose their seats, come on board to stop this blatant gerrymandering. I hope the house of lords can make this difficult, but no doubt there is a huge list of tory donors on the way as we speak.

I have no idea how accurate it is & to some extent it must be guesswork.

[LJS]

I've heard it suggested that Dave will repeal the fixed term parliament act so he can call an election when it suits him. I must say it seems a bit blatant to me...even for a Tory!

[lharris92]

I've heard it suggested that Dave will repeal the fixed term parliament act so he can call an election when it suits him. I must say it seems a bit blatant to me...even for a Tory!

well the ones who wanted that act were the lib dems as it gave them a set amount of time in office, the tories went along with it as it kept them on side.

besides the fixed term thing could have been a nightmare had there been a hung parliament, it could have been a turbulent time for the economy so to speak if there were similar numbers of labour/tory mp's with more lib dems and less SNP. not that it matters anyway, but it could have made matters worse.

and onto Labour, the only reason they got into power was due to them shifting from the left into the centre-right, becoming appealing to the middle class. they in effect sold their soul to the devil (Blair) to gain power. there are too many people who won't vote for them in England if they shift left, which they did this time, but not as far left as scotland feels they should be. Labour won't be a force in scotland for years to come (no matter what happens there), and in England apart from the north east and more working class places/inner cities they struggle to win seats. They need a overhaul of what they feel is the best course of action to take, but I fear they will rush into it and try to gain in the short term instead of a long term plan.

[viberunner]

And you're all perpetuating the fucking us vs them divide and conquer that the c**ts in power want.

From this side of The Wall there does seem to be more difference between the countries than similarities that bind us. And yes, most (certainly not all) of EF's readers are from the progressive minority down south.

But the sad truth is the racists seemed to have outbred you via old people.

[LJS]

well the ones who wanted that act were the lib dems as it gave them a set amount of time in office, the tories went along with it as it kept them on side.

besides the fixed term thing could have been a nightmare had there been a hung parliament, it could have been a turbulent time for the economy so to speak if there were similar numbers of labour/tory mp's with more lib dems and less SNP. not that it matters anyway, but it could have made matters worse.

and onto Labour, the only reason they got into power was due to them shifting from the left into the centre-right, becoming appealing to the middle class. they in effect sold their soul to the devil (Blair) to gain power. there are too many people who won't vote for them in England if they shift left, which they did this time, but not as far left as scotland feels they should be. Labour won't be a force in scotland for years to come (no matter what happens there), and in England apart from the north east and more working class places/inner cities they struggle to win seats. They need a overhaul of what they feel is the best course of action to take, but I fear they will rush into it and try to gain in the short term instead of a long term plan.

Hmm, that's a depressing picture you paint, although sadly I suspect an accurate one. It seems to me that this country (UK) is increasingly divided from North to South. the only saving grace for Labour is that they may be able to retain their support in the north of England when they, as seems inevitable, lurch back to the right, because unlike Scotland, there is really nowhere else for labour voters to go. And if the LibDems prove incapable of recovery there are votes up for grabs in the centre ground.

So I wouldn't say it's hopeless for Labour. It's just hopeless for those of us who would like to see a Labour Party twith socialist policies and the passion to argue for them.

I once saw Michael Foot speak - I think it was at an anti cuts - save the NHS rally in the Thatcher years. For all that he was a terrible TV performer and had bad jackets, he spoke with a fire & a passion that puts today's identikit politicians to shame.

[pink_triangle]

For all the talk about the demise of Labour, if the next leader can convert even 2 people from tory to Labour he could well end up pm. The mountain top isn't very high.

While we love to be idealist there has to be a sense of pragmatism.New Labour did some good things, particularly early on . Give me new Labour ahead of what we have now anyday.

I think it's about finding the right balance between your ideology and winning an election to get the opportunity to do what you want.

The leader will be a big choice and again compromises may need to be made. Conservatives would love to see a Burnham or Cooper get the job, someone like umana would worry them far more.

[LJS]

For all the talk about the demise of Labour, if the next leader can convert even 2 people from tory to Labour he could well end up pm. The mountain top isn't very high.

While we love to be idealist there has to be a sense of pragmatism.New Labour did some good things, particularly early on . Give me new Labour ahead of what we have now anyday.

I think it's about finding the right balance between your ideology and winning an election to get the opportunity to do what you want.

The leader will be a big choice and again compromises may need to be made. Conservatives would love to see a Burnham or Cooper get the job, someone like umana would worry them far more.

You're absolutely right. there has to be a compromise & there is no magic right answer as to how much compromise is right. I guess everyone will have their own opinion.

[kaosmark2]

It seems I need to keep repeating this as you ignore it whenever Neil or I point it out.

The divide isn't between north and south. It's cities vs rural. It just so happens that the North has more big cities and the South has more villages.

[LJS]

It seems I need to keep repeating this as you ignore it whenever Neil or I point it out.

The divide isn't between north and south. It's cities vs rural. It just so happens that the North has more big cities and the South has more villages.

So there are more urban areas in the North.That's may be why there is a North South divide, It doesn't mean there isn't one.. Draw a line from Grimsby to the Wirral and you have at the most 50 Tories north of that line which means you have about 280 south of it.

There are only a dozen labour MP's out of 199 seats in the South East, South west & East of England.

Doesn't mater if you call it North/South or Rural urban, It's a divided country.

edit: Oh & I think you may find wealth comes into it too.

Edited May 10, 2015 by LJS

[bunique]

Great posts Barry. Labour under Blair did huge amounts to raise the profile of safeguarding children and improving outcomes under Every Child Matters. It was one of the first things the ConDems swept away (even telling the DfE staff to stop using the phrase). Huge mistake.

Edited May 10, 2015 by bunique

[viberunner]

The much blasted PFI is one example of that. We needed to rebuild hospitals and schools and after 20 years of under investment from the Tories. We would of needed to borrow MASSIVE sums to do it without PFI and pay the interest rate to go with it. PFI was a good choice for a government with a lot of spending to do.

So instead of borrowing massive amounts openly now and confronting that debt we borrow massive amounts quietly and push the debt onto the ungrateful tit-sucking parasites that are our larval form.

[pink_triangle]

I fucking hate it when absolute no brains like yourself paint New Labour / Blair as being something similar to the Tories. Blair delivered ten years of solid econmic growth, invested in schools, hospitals, and people. Introduced the minimum wage, maternity leave for Dads, increased Child Benefit, introduced sure start, introduced teaching assistants, child tax credits, embedded us deeper into Europe and the employment protections that brings, free entry to museums, free nursery places for children. All good things for people on low incomes / no incomes.

What exactly where all these bribes I hear you and others talk about so much for the middle classes ? They certainly passed me by! I got more out of the ConDems than I did out of Labour. Its fucking disgusting my take home pay went up and up under them.

New Labour won three elections with healthy majorities and I have no reservation in thinking Blair could of won a fourth if he had not handed over to Brown. (Another example of Labour fucking themselves over)

As soon as Labour went more left under Brown and further under Ed the public turned their backs on them.

Only a fool (take a bow) would now suggest it would be a mistake to return to Blair / New Labour way of thinking.

Some on the left need a fucking reality check and need to grow up a bit. New Labour is about as "left" as this country will ever want to go. Your socialist utopia will never come. It never could. Get real and win the battles you can win.

I agree, I think a lot of the good stuff is lost because of the war in Iraq and the fact that he isn't the most likable of blokes. As someone to the left of new labour, I would love if everyone felt the same way about politics that I do. I however accept the reality and pragmatically accept that its not worth aiming for perfection, if perfection cant get in the position to get anything done,

[bunique]

Isn't the difference that the original PFI left the assets in public hands, but the newer arrangements put in place under coalition hands the assets to the PFI partners?

[LJS]

Wow, Barry. Remarkable defence of outrageous PFI. These are very very bad value for the taxpayer. Its not as if no one was saying it at the time. Do you have an interest to declare Barry?

[LJS]

http://www.independent.co.uk/money/loans-credit/crippling-pfi-deals-leave-britain-222bn-in-debt-10170214.html