General Election 2015

[feral chile]

lovin the new ministers:

Part One:

Caroline Dinenage is a Tory MP who previously said the state had “no right” to redefine marriage, and who voted against same-sex marriage, and has just been appointed minister for equalities.

Priti Patel, new Minister of State at the Department for Work and Pensions, told the BBC’s Question Time programme in 2011 that she would support the reintroduction of the death penalty because she believed it would act as a deterrent to crime.

The new minister for disabled - Justin Tomlinson whose history shows a severe lack of support for the disabled with a strong record of voting against the interests of sick and disabled claimants and voted in favour of repealing the Human Rights Act.

http://www.orwelltoday.com/plenty.shtml

Keeping the wheels of industry turning

without increasing the real wealth of the world

was achieved by continuous warfare.

11. Ministry Of Plenty (Starvation)

From the moment when the machine first made its appearance it was clear to all thinking people that the need for human drudgery, and therefore to a great extent for human inequality, had disappeared. If the machine were used deliberately for that end, hunger, overwork, dirt, illiteracy, and disease could be eliminated within a few generations. The machine, when used for that purpose, did raise the living standards of the average human being very greatly over a period of about fifty years at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries.

The problem was how to keep the wheels of industry turning without increasing the real wealth of the world. Goods must be produced, but they must not be distributed. And in practice the only way of achieving this was by continuous warfare. The primary aim of modern warfare is to use up the products of the machine without raising the general standard of living. If technical progress were allowed to flourish in directions other than war and surveillance, there would be no more need for human drudgery and human inequality would disappear.

The needs of the population are always underestimated, with the result that there is a chronic shortage of half the necessities of life; but this is looked on as an advantage. It is a deliberate policy to keep even the favoured groups somewhere near the brink of hardship, because a general state of scarcity increases the importance of small privileges and thus magnifies the distinction between one group and another.

[Rose-Colored Boy]

I just can't get my head around how on earth the Tories can have the cheek to take the BBC to town over imaginary biases when three-quarters of the newspaper industry is in their backpocket.

[viberunner]

Priti Patel is a, ahem, pretty foul creature.

Aside from her view on "justice", she worked for BAT and was part of a project that tried to (secretly) influence the WHO on the tobacco framework. She also worked for the booze industry, and used her Parliamentary questions to lobby for (sorry ask questions regarding) tobacco and booze, take bribes (sorry, I mean donations) from them, etc.

She also wrote "the British are the worst idlers in the world" but when asked about it refused to comment.

Slagged the BBC off for not giving Hindu Nationalist Indian politicians glowing reviews.

[bunique]

Sajid Javid: Calling a strike will be harder

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32705695

""Especially when it comes to essential public services, think of the impact [a strike] has - transport, the health service - on ordinary people going about their daily jobs. I think they should be in people's minds as well when these kind of decisions are made.""

Isn't that the whole fucking point of a strike?

[pink_triangle]

Priti Patel is a, ahem, pretty foul creature.

Aside from her view on "justice", she worked for BAT and was part of a project that tried to (secretly) influence the WHO on the tobacco framework. She also worked for the booze industry, and used her Parliamentary questions to lobby for (sorry ask questions regarding) tobacco and booze, take bribes (sorry, I mean donations) from them, etc.

She also wrote "the British are the worst idlers in the world" but when asked about it refused to comment.

Slagged the BBC off for not giving Hindu Nationalist Indian politicians glowing reviews.

While I agree with all that, I think she is a very good media perfomer. Its those types that are the most dangerous!

[pink_triangle]

Sajid Javid: Calling a strike will be harder

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32705695

""Especially when it comes to essential public services, think of the impact [a strike] has - transport, the health service - on ordinary people going about their daily jobs. I think they should be in people's minds as well when these kind of decisions are made.""

Isn't that the whole fucking point of a strike?

The conservatives claim to be governing for the whole country yet their priorities seem to be change the system to make it harder for them to lose power, take money off the disabled to fund inheritance tax for the wealthy, reduce the rights of workers and abolish human rights.

People will soon realize that the lib dems were nowhere near as bad as many made out, nor is Clegg the devil he was portrayed. Unfortunately by the time they realize, it will be too late.

[kaosmark2]

While I agree with all that, I think she is a very good media perfomer. Its those types that are the most dangerous!

Nicky Morgan. Far more amiable in the eyes of the public than Gove, but her policies are even worse.

[viberunner]

People will soon realize that the lib dems were nowhere near as bad as many made out, nor is Clegg the devil he was portrayed. Unfortunately by the time they realize, it will be too late.

Clegg was a Quisling, happy to betray LD principles for access to power. And it got his party burnt at the stake. He could have demanded more or pulled the plug a shorter time into the process citing irreconcilable differences.

The bedroom tax, tuition fees, instant sanctions, tax cut for the richest, flogging off the Royal Mail (having first ensured the taxpayer takes on the pension liability), just for starters, drained them of all credibility especially among the non-right end of the spectrum.

If they're not going to be socially-minded (without being 6th Form Marxists) what's their point? Someone on the left might as well head left, someone on the right might as well vote right.

Deborah Orr in The Guardian, formerly a card-carrying Lib Dem, summed up it up perfectly: she left not because of the coalition itself but because of the manner of the coalition.

[atomised]

Sajid Javid: Calling a strike will be harder

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32705695

""Especially when it comes to essential public services, think of the impact [a strike] has - transport, the health service - on ordinary people going about their daily jobs. I think they should be in people's minds as well when these kind of decisions are made.""

Isn't that the whole fucking point of a strike?

Good job network rail didn't get that memo

[LJS]

The conservatives claim to be governing for the whole country yet their priorities seem to be change the system to make it harder for them to lose power, take money off the disabled to fund inheritance tax for the wealthy, reduce the rights of workers and abolish human rights.

People will soon realize that the lib dems were nowhere near as bad as many made out, nor is Clegg the devil he was portrayed. Unfortunately by the time they realize, it will be too late.

I fear it is already too late.

Politics is massively unpredictable, but it is hard to see the Tories losing in 5 years time assuming they can negotiate the EU referendum successfully, which is why I favour a radical Labour party. Let the lib dems have the centre ground. There will be anger at some of the measures you have mentioned. Labour should be using that anger to build a radical left wing party. And, yes Neil, they'd probably lose...but chances are they'll lose anyway. Let's go down fighting!

[pink_triangle]

Clegg was a Quisling, happy to betray LD principles for access to power. And it got his party burnt at the stake. He could have demanded more or pulled the plug a shorter time into the process citing irreconcilable differences.

The bedroom tax, tuition fees, instant sanctions, tax cut for the richest, flogging off the Royal Mail (having first ensured the taxpayer takes on the pension liability), just for starters, drained them of all credibility especially among the non-right end of the spectrum.

If they're not going to be socially-minded (without being 6th Form Marxists) what's their point? Someone on the left might as well head left, someone on the right might as well vote right.

Deborah Orr in The Guardian, formerly a card-carrying Lib Dem, summed up it up perfectly: she left not because of the coalition itself but because of the manner of the coalition.

Tuition fees was a huge strategic error and it really cost them. Its easy to say what they could/should have blocked, the reality is if they block everything ther government would have collapsed. and we would have ended with a tory majority earlier. However what we will see in the next few years the good that the lib dems did in coaltion, by seeing all the things tory push through, that lib dems didn't allow and it wont be pretty.

People often look at things as all good or all bad, the reality is normally in the middle. Nobody on the left should be rejoicing at the demise of the lib dems. There many seats down south where labour aren't competitive and may end up tory for life.

[LJS]

So you are simply against any future coalition government ? You want either majority Con / Lab governments forever and a day....

Maybe they teach reading differently up here, Barry. But I don't see that in what viberunner said.

I think this phrase gives the clue " not because of the coalition itself but because of the manner of the coalition."

Most of us on here seem to favour some form of PR which makes it hard to argue against coalitions ... unless of course you are Neil when you can argue for PR but sing the praises of the strong governments PR brings.

I think what pissed me off was that the Libdems appeared to have spent some time pitching themselves as a left of centre party & then dave fluttered his eyelashes at them & before they knew it they were waving through 80% of Dave's policies.

[TheGayTent]

Tuition fees was a huge strategic error and it really cost them. Its easy to say what they could/should have blocked, the reality is if they block everything ther government would have collapsed.

It probably was a huge strategic error by the Lib Dems, but if we accept the idea that they had to compromise on what they could push for acceptance by the conservatives and what they had to accept they couldn't progress with, then choosing tuition fees as one to go back on, was an easy mistake to make.

After all, scrapping tuition fees wasn't one of the headlines in their 2010 election manifesto. It didn't even get a mention until something like page 33 of the 100 page manifesto.

I feel sorry for them.

Almost.

[pink_triangle]

It probably was a huge strategic error by the Lib Dems, but if we accept the idea that they had to compromise on what they could push for acceptance by the conservatives and what they had to accept they couldn't progress with, then choosing tuition fees as one to go back on, was an easy mistake to make.

After all, scrapping tuition fees wasn't one of the headlines in their 2010 election manifesto. It didn't even get a mention until something like page 33 of the 100 page manifesto.

I feel sorry for them.

Almost.

The trouble is it was the only policy (to my knowledge) that they were all photographed with pledge cards. While your right compromises had to be made, they probably shouldn't have chosen this one.

[kaosmark2]

Tuition fees wasn't just a manifesto promise. Lots of the MPs made a personal pledge as a MP to vote against any rises. It got quite a lot of cover amongst student circles. I get the anger around it.

[Rose-Colored Boy]

You guys are never going to accept a party horsetrading so you effectively rule out any future coalitions...

I mean seriously which small party would consider it again looking what happened to the Lib Dems ?

Coalitions don't just have to be between small parties tho. We've had grand coalitions before in this country and I dare say that we'll have them again as soon as we (hopefully) bring in MMPR.

[Rose-Colored Boy]

Tuition fees wasn't just a manifesto promise. Lots of the MPs made a personal pledge as a MP to vote against any rises. It got quite a lot of cover amongst student circles. I get the anger around it.

On the other hand they would tell you that they put a lid on Cameron and Osborne wanting to raise them by more than they did...and we also now have a fairer system of paying back the loans (tho I admit I'm not sure how much of the second part was down to the Lib Dems I'd bet it was most of it) Edited May 12, 2015 by Zac Quinn

[kaosmark2]

On the other hand they would tell you that they put a lid on Cameron and Osborne wanting to raise them by more than they did...and we also now have a fairer system of paying back the loans (tho I admit I'm not sure how much of the second part was down to the Lib Dems I'd bet it was most of it)

What pissed me off about it was more that they didn't seem to understand the difference between a personal pledge as a MP and a party manifesto promise. They're different beasts.

It also utterly fucks anyone who's had health problems and wants to return to education, as the loans only available if you haven't had a previous course.

[viberunner]

Tuition fees was a huge strategic error and it really cost them. Its easy to say what they could/should have blocked, the reality is if they block everything ther government would have collapsed. and we would have ended with a tory majority earlier.

It's not even what they should blocked, it's the moderating influence they should have had. So, Bedroom Tax. Provide exemptions for Disabled people, for example, so they can have medical equipment in the 2nd bedroom.

Lord Steel had a good analysis of Nick Clegg himself, he was only first elected in 2005 and surrounded himself with LD yes-men, and made various strategic errors. It's worth a read.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/11/nick-clegg-liberal-democrats-disaster-coalition

So you are simply against any future coalition government ? You want either majority Con / Lab governments forever and a day....

No, but if we are to have sensible coalitions we need to know what are the "red lines" of possible coalition parties. So a UKIP voter would have every right to feel aggrieved if UKIP held the balance of power, got government seats, but instead of demanding a referendum instead signed open-border treaty with Turkey.

Tuition Fees, as a lightning-conductor of the malleability of Nick Clegg, was not just a manifesto commitment, it was a personal pledge and an issue Liberal Democrats campaigned mercilessly. It was abandoned in moments. I don't mind coalition governments, I mind having parties where you have no idea what you'll get from them in coalition.

That was my assessment of the national mood during the AV campaign... what, give the Liberal Democrats more power? They can't be trusted.

You guys are never going to accept a party horsetrading so you effectively rule out any future coalitions...

I mean seriously which small party would consider it again looking what happened to the Lib Dems ?

If you're going to horse trade your alleged principles and most fundamental values and campaign issues then what's the point of having an election the first place?

We might has well have policies jotted on cards, stuck on a board, and let blindfolded people throw darts to see which ones we get.

After all, scrapping tuition fees wasn't one of the headlines in their 2010 election manifesto. It didn't even get a mention until something like page 33 of the 100 page manifesto.

It was a solid campaign issue of theirs.

Tuition fees wasn't just a manifesto promise. Lots of the MPs made a personal pledge as a MP to vote against any rises. It got quite a lot of cover amongst student circles. I get the anger around it.

Oh, you said it too.

[pink_triangle]

No, but if we are to have sensible coalitions we need to know what are the "red lines" of possible coalition parties. So a UKIP voter would have every right to feel aggrieved if UKIP held the balance of power, got government seats, but instead of demanding a referendum instead signed open-border treaty with Turkey.

Tuition Fees, as a lightning-conductor of the malleability of Nick Clegg, was not just a manifesto commitment, it was a personal pledge and an issue Liberal Democrats campaigned mercilessly. It was abandoned in moments. I don't mind coalition governments, I mind having parties where you have no idea what you'll get from them in coalition.

That was my assessment of the national mood during the AV campaign... what, give the Liberal Democrats more power? They can't be trusted.

If you're going to horse trade your alleged principles and most fundamental values and campaign issues then what's the point of having an election the first place?

We might has well have policies jotted on cards, stuck on a board, and let blindfolded people throw darts to see which ones we get.

While I agree with what you are saying from an idealist point of view, reality is different. While its great to have red lines in theory, they are no use of the party with the most mps (and money to fight another election) call your bluff and go to the electorate again. You could potentially go from getting some things you want, to getting nothing you want.

No doubt the lib dems could have done better in coalition, just as Labour could in the Blair years, no doubt even the snp will make mistakes in Scotland! I just think some balance is needed.

In the next 5 years we will see what effect the lib dems were having on the government. I suspect for all the criticism many will wish they were still there. I don't dream of a con lib coalition, but its much better than what we ended up with.

[lost]

Same thing happened in Ireland. The greens were wiped out after a coalition with the Fianna Fail after I think supporting a refinery and fossil fuels project whilst in government.. The minor parties do seem to be at a massive disadvantage with regards to this sort of stuff and really can't make any manifesto pledges but then equally that would put them at a disadvantage during campaigning

[eFestivals]

People will soon realize that the lib dems were nowhere near as bad as many made out, nor is Clegg the devil he was portrayed. Unfortunately by the time they realize, it will be too late.

there's another version of this to play out too.

They'll both play out.

[Mr.Tease]

So as well as essentially taking away our right to strike, the Tories are also about to ban our right to protest- their definition of 'terrorism/extremism' has clearly been formulated to apply to anti austerity, anti capitalist, environmental, etc protesters:

The measures would give the police powers to apply to the high court for an order to limit the “harmful activities” of an extremist individual. The definition of harmful is to include a risk of public disorder, a risk of harassment, alarm or distress or creating a “threat to the functioning of democracy”.

The aim is to catch not just those who spread or incite hatred on the grounds of gender, race or religion but also those who undertake harmful activities for the “purpose of overthrowing democracy”.

How Cameron can say this shit with a straight face is beyond me, especially considering it's being given in a queens speech:

“Freedom of speech. Freedom of worship. Democracy. The rule of law. Equal rights regardless of race, gender or sexuality.

“We must say to our citizens: this is what defines us as a society.”

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/13/counter-terrorism-bill-extremism-disruption-orders-david-cameron

[eFestivals]

You misinterpret, misrepresent and make shit up.

A normal conversation or debate is futile

Do you have anything to say to rebut my points, to make your idea stand up that people voted UKIP and tory because they wanted a left-wing govt?

Or do you do this sort of vitriol because you've made yourself look stupid and want to continue to make yourself look stupid?

[eFestivals]

Clegg was a Quisling, happy to betray LD principles for access to power.

The SNP are quislings, happy to abandon the desire for a self-financing Scotland so they don't get found out as a bunch of bullshitters.

What's amazing is that you've not worked out it, because it's so bleeding obvious from their own gobs.