General Election 2015

[kaosmark2]

I'm sure there were a small amount of people who voted for her because she was young and gay and small amount against. Looking at results throughout Scotland, I suspect many good and mediocre Labour mps have been replaced by good and mediocre snp mps and that most people have voted for party and not person. I suspect many of us on here would have been voted in the bulk of the consistency wearing the right colour rosette.

I really liked Douglas Alexander. I think it's a huge shame that he lost, and it's clearly a rejection of the party not the MP.

Also think the same of a number of Lib Dems. I feel the cabinet ministers should have all gone (how did Clegg survive?), and was delighted to see the back of our c**t, but the fact the party's leadership sold its soul doesn't actually reflect on every MP in the party.

[LJS]

I really liked Douglas Alexander. I think it's a huge shame that he lost, and it's clearly a rejection of the party not the MP.

Also think the same of a number of Lib Dems. I feel the cabinet ministers should have all gone (how did Clegg survive?), and was delighted to see the back of our c**t, but the fact the party's leadership sold its soul doesn't actually reflect on every MP in the party.

I completely agree with you that the rejection of Labour MP's in Scotland & Libdems throughout the UK was all about party & not about individuals. When that happens you are bound to lose some good MP's & although I don't personally share your high opinion of Douglas Alexander, It is just that - an opinion - so we are allowed to differ.

As far as Labour's demise in Scotland is concerned one of their defeated MP's Ian Davidson has a column in today's Scotland on Sunday where he takes no prisoners. I don't present this as entirely reliable as I think there is a healthy dose of sour grapes involved, but it gives some insight into the state of the Labour Party in Scotland.

LABOUR in Scotland owes an apology to the party and the labour movement throughout the rest of Britain for its abject failure in the general election. Not only did its incompetence lose Labour 40 seats in Scotland but it also cost Labour seats in England and Wales

http://www.scotsman.com/news/ian-davidson-labour-blighted-by-c-words-1-3781666

[GlastoSimon]

Thought I'd pop along to read thoughts on the Sturgeon thing but I see that's been well covered

Bit late but re: the 20-year-old MP, doesn't it just show that people don't really care for politics on a local level or realise who they're actually putting into parliament? Our local MP is an effing moron for example, but people aren't voting for him, they're voting Tory and for Cameron. It doesn't matter how good/bad your local MP is in most people's eyes.

Likewise, these people weren't voting for the 20-year-old, they were voting SNP. If the same 20-year-old was running for PM, for any of the parties, they'd be laughed off.

[viberunner]

Interesting read. Where more than 1 in 50 Scots are members of the SNP...

We do not even have the numbers to mount substantial doorstep campaigns. No wonder party membership figures are a secret – so low as to be embarrassing, even including the bogus members recruited under the “buy a branch” scheme, who are essentially sleepers, only activated for selection conferences.

Buuuuuurrrrrrrn!!!

He's right that the Scottish Labour campaign was risible: defensive and cockarsed. But what else could it have been? The shots for Scottish Labour are called in London and that was a party that huffing it couldn't even dream to be speaking to the orrible Scots. People who live in Scotland, even if they're NO voters who aren't pro-SNP, for the most part know the SNP aren't some kind of malignant evil to be isolated and contained at all costs.

Even in next year's Scottish elections what can the Labour party do? Does Scottish Labour continue as a Johnny-come-lately convert to the SNP policy of zero tuition fees, exposing a gross hypocrisy given it was Scottish Labour MPs who forced them upon an English electorate? And that's just an example, just how far does Scottish Labour veer away from Islington Labour? Does it become an ideologically divergent party, or does it spout London policies and attitudes and remain - as former leader Johann Lamond said - "a branch office"?

PS, doing a Google for background info on Johann I stumbled upon this BBC spunk for Jimbo.

New Scottish Labour Party leader Jim Murphy says he wants to become first minister of Scotland. But what steps will he have to take in order to realise his ambition? Use this guide to find out.....

Well, made ME laugh...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29830358

[LJS]

Thought I'd pop along to read thoughts on the Sturgeon thing but I see that's been well covered

Bit late but re: the 20-year-old MP, doesn't it just show that people don't really care for politics on a local level or realise who they're actually putting into parliament? Our local MP is an effing moron for example, but people aren't voting for him, they're voting Tory and for Cameron. It doesn't matter how good/bad your local MP is in most people's eyes.

Likewise, these people weren't voting for the 20-year-old, they were voting SNP. If the same 20-year-old was running for PM, for any of the parties, they'd be laughed off.

I completely agree that the notion of a 20 year old being prime minister is laughable. What I totally fail to see is what in god's name the problem is with having an MP who is 20.

Particularly when you consider this...

The average MP is still a man, aged 51 (as has been the case since 1992), and, somewhat predictably, is most likely to have previously worked in politics. A third of MPs went to fee-paying private schools (compared with the national average of about 7%. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/10/who-are-the-new-mps-middle-aged-white-men-again

So would it have been better in your view if Mhairi Black had been replaced by another middle aged, middle class, privately educated white man?

Even if you think she is a bit young for the job, I cannot see how that is anywhere near the top of the problems with the way people are represented at Westminster. I read that all the Labour leadership candidates are Oxbridge educated. Does anyone think that is good?

[viberunner]

Bit late but re: the 20-year-old MP, doesn't it just show that people don't really care for politics on a local level or realise who they're actually putting into parliament?

The Labour MP who survived in Scotland, Ian Murray, is well known for trying to be an effective constituency MP and he worked hard to save the Hearts football club. Very few doubt that his deeds and work (and self-promotion of it, naturally) rather than residual Labour vote, kept him on.

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/latest/hearts-administration-ian-murray-defends-role-1-3056761

A bonus is he now has a promotion... leader of the delegation of Scottish Labour MPs.

[GlastoSimon]

As a young person myself it's nice to see my views potentially represented, or at least concern for young people being represented. I'm just thinking perhaps it's too early for her to 'jump in' to Westminster politics, so to speak. No real world experience etc. which Labour are critiqued for all the time.

Maybe I'm doing a disservice, but I'm just imagining a student (even some of the ones I know which are more 'politically aware') in Westminster and it'd be a nightmare. I'm sure she's much better than that, but I still think she could have waited a bit before giving it a go.

Re: Ian Murray, fair play to him. I think there are still a few good politicians who are remembered, and consequently re-elected based on their service to the constituency. However, what I'm getting at is that people will vote for any old MP, even if they're shit, as long as they're representing a certain party.

Edited May 24, 2015 by GlastoSimon

[LJS]

As a young person myself it's nice to see my views potentially represented, or at least concern for young people being represented. I'm just thinking perhaps it's too early for her to 'jump in' to Westminster politics, so to speak. No real world experience etc. which Labour are critiqued for all the time.

Maybe I'm doing a disservice, but I'm just imagining a student (even some of the ones I know which are more 'politically aware') in Westminster and it'd be a nightmare. I'm sure she's much better than that, but I still think she could have waited a bit before giving it a go.

She is one in 650 mp's

at the risk of being really really boring, she is not the issue

data about the education of 525 of the new MPs shows that of these 25% went to private schools – compared with just 7% of the general population. This is progress: in 2010 more than half of Tory MPs (54%) were privately educated but that figure has fallen to a still strikingly high 40%. Among Labour, MPs in the 2015 intake who went to a fee-paying school dropped from 14% in the last election to 11%.

The charmed surroundings of Oxbridge, however, continue to be a common experience for many of the new intake. Of the 427 winning candidates who, according to UCL research, went to university, 131 (31%) went to either Oxford or Cambridge University. After the last election, 34% of all Tory MPs and 17% of Labour had been to Oxbridge.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/08/record-numbers-female-minority-ethnic-mps-commons

So tell me, what is the bigger issue? one 20 year old (0.3% of mp's) or 131 Oxbridge graduates (20% of mp's)

[Comfy Bean]

Good post Simon. I would add to your last sentence that a fair few really shit labour and libs mp's have been swept away by the snp train which is surely a good thing. I think you are right though that many in Scotland voted snp first and foremost. Some but not everyone. Guess this was true with the tories in England as well.

[Comfy Bean]

I think on black that she will hopefully continue to make politics more " interesting " and "real " to the young uns. As we know this kicked off with the indy ref and going by the ge turnout has continued in Scotland. I wish her well. Surely most on here will?

[kaosmark2]

I don't think Oxbridge graduates is the problem. They're good universities. I think the number that went to public schools is a much bigger issue, and that lots of them did exactly the same courses.

[brandycoke]

So, you misunderstand or misinterpret what Comfy says, making your reply completely irrelevant & it's us nats that are lacking in logic?

Patronised by a Nat,..well who'd have thought it?

[viberunner]

I don't think Oxbridge graduates is the problem. They're good universities.

It's not even Oxbridge, it's especially Oxford and one course in particular. (And a course that doesn't even have a good academic reputation). That's a huge concentration of power.

There are lots of good universities in the UK, the Russell Group is 20-strong with other good contenders bouncing around to get in.

[kaosmark2]

It's not even Oxbridge, it's especially Oxford and one course in particular. (And a course that doesn't even have a good academic reputation). That's a huge concentration of power.

There are lots of good universities in the UK, the Russell Group is 20-strong with other good contenders bouncing around to get in.

As I said, that lots did exactly the same courses is the problem.

[5co77ie]

I really hope Jeremy will be speaking at Glastonbury:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/08/labour-leadership

[eFestivals]

I really hope Jeremy will be speaking at Glastonbury:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/08/labour-leadership

thing is, while everyone knows it's what needs doing (closing the equality gap), no one has any realistic plan for how the genie can be put back in the bottle.

The only things I can think of which might be the practical means (nationalisation/sequestration) are waaaaay outside of the politically possible in today's society, and I can't see that changing for many decades without a catastrophic event (last time it took a major war ).

[LJS]

thing is, while everyone knows it's what needs doing (closing the equality gap), no one has any realistic plan for how the genie can be put back in the bottle.

The only things I can think of which might be the practical means (nationalisation/sequestration) are waaaaay outside of the politically possible in today's society, and I can't see that changing for many decades without a catastrophic event (last time it took a major war ).

Defeatist talk like yours condemns us to years of Tory & quasi-Tory governments.

I fail to see what is wrong with arguing for what you believe in.

Jeremy is right. The Labour party should be the party of aspiration: aspiration for a fairer and more just society. Not aspiration to get power by being like the Tories but just not so nasty.

No wonder so many of us up here want out.

& if your answer is about financial black holes, you will have proved my point perfectly.

Edited June 8, 2015 by LJS

[eFestivals]

Defeatist talk like yours condemns us to years of Tory & quasi-Tory governments.

Reality. I know you have a problem with it.

Meanwhile, if I'm defeatist you must have the answer that has stumped every politician in the world to date.... so spill....?

I fail to see what is wrong with arguing for what you believe in.

It's arguing for world peace and momma's apple pie ... while holding a gun and having no ingredients.

It's not any argument for what he believes in, it's merely an observation of what is wrong (which I agree with). But without a solution it remains merely that observation.

Jeremy is right. The Labour party should be the party of aspiration: aspiration for a fairer and more just society. Not aspiration to get power by being like the Tories but just not so nasty.

No wonder so many of us up here want out.

& if your answer is about financial black holes, you will have proved my point perfectly.

Show me a country that thinks they can buck the markets and I'll show you the very real hardships that real people suffer created via that in Argentina and Greece.

Politics is the art of the possible, it's not inventing the wildest fantasy you're able to imagine and believing you can have it.

Meanwhile, your 'out' brings you a 15% cut in Scottish spending, far worse than the tories will give you. Stop talking patent bollocks, that even SNP MP's have recognised would be "suicide" for Scotland.

Edited June 9, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

Reality. I know you have a problem with it.

Meanwhile, if I'm defeatist you must have the answer that has stumped every politician in the world to date.... so spill....?

It's arguing for world peace and momma's apple pie ... while holding a gun and having no ingredients.

It's not any argument for what he believes in, it's merely an observation of what is wrong (which I agree with). But without a solution it remains merely that observation.

Show me a country that thinks they can buck the markets and I'll show you the very real hardships that real people suffer created via that in Argentina and Greece.

Politics is the art of the possible, it's not inventing the wildest fantasy you're able to imagine and believing you can have it.

Meanwhile, your 'out' brings you a 15% cut in Scottish spending, far worse than the tories will give you. Stop talking patent bollocks, that even SNP MP's have recognised would be "suicide" for Scotland.

I guess that, oddly enough, we don't disagree much about the sort of society we'd like to see.and I guess we're agreed that realistically such a society is not achievable, so compromise is required. We just have a different view on how much compromise is acceptable.

[eFestivals]

I guess that, oddly enough, we don't disagree much about the sort of society we'd like to see.and I guess we're agreed that realistically such a society is not achievable, so compromise is required. We just have a different view on how much compromise is acceptable.

It's not about the "acceptable", it's about the possible.

Get back to me when someone, anyone, has a workable answer for closing the wealth gap.

And when I say that, I don't mean closing it by making all of the rich bugger off somewhere else - cos while that might close the wealth gap, not a soul will be happy about that 'success' that has made them poorer.

The best we can hope for without everyone in the world suddenly turning into compassionate people is for that gap to be frozen. Perhaps when we've managed to stop the gap widening even further we might find a way to reverse it slightly.

It's no good reaching for the stars when you're not even able to reach into next week.

[LJS]

It's not about the "acceptable", it's about the possible.

Get back to me when someone, anyone, has a workable answer for closing the wealth gap.

And when I say that, I don't mean closing it by making all of the rich bugger off somewhere else - cos while that might close the wealth gap, not a soul will be happy about that 'success' that has made them poorer.

The best we can hope for without everyone in the world suddenly turning into compassionate people is for that gap to be frozen. Perhaps when we've managed to stop the gap widening even further we might find a way to reverse it slightly.

It's no good reaching for the stars when you're not even able to reach into next week.

Other countries manage it. Otherwise we wouldn't be too (or nearly top) of the inequality league.

As for "it's about the possible" when the "possible" looks like being well to the right of Ed's Labour, it becomes barely worth the effort.

I'd rather we tried to make the improbable possible.

[eFestivals]

Other countries manage it. Otherwise we wouldn't be too (or nearly top) of the inequality league.

Other countries have managed to stop the wealth gap growing, true.

We haven't, we've been socialised into a runaway wealth gap - and that will only ever change by changing the socialisation back again.

Spot the difference?

It's going to take a hell of a lot more for the UK to change things than just a few new tax rules.

As for "it's about the possible" when the "possible" looks like being well to the right of Ed's Labour, it becomes barely worth the effort.

I'd rather we tried to make the improbable possible.

Wonderful words.

Now show us the plan that can achieve it.

NO ONE has a plan that can achieve it. NO ONE!!!

Not even Salmond and Sturgeon, who less than a year ago intended to grow the gap even further in Scotland.

Edited June 9, 2015 by eFestivals

[LondonTom]

higher taxes for people who can afford it

rent caps

stop out and out encouraging people to buy to let

I think what you and LJS miss from what Neil says, is that most of the country seems to disagree with these policies, so they are not a solution that would actually ever happen.

Given the Green party pretty much campagined for these things and got about 3% of the vote (including mine). I think its safe to say, that a softer approach that appeals to more people might be better for making life better in the short term.

[eFestivals]

higher taxes for people who can afford it

rent caps

stop out and out encouraging people to buy to let

Things which will lessen it, and perhaps stop it. They won't reverse what's already happened.

The simple fact is that there's too many people who will lose out or who see themselves losing out in the future, which will stop any blatant attempts at correction.

It's perhaps possible to go further via sneaky means, but then you'll still have to be keeping your fingers crossed that plenty of people won't notice stuff like their house price falling (in proportional value).

The only thing that reverses where we are are for bosses to see their wages fall proportionally against their staff. Hands up anyone who thinks that's likely to happen....?

[eFestivals]

who disagrees? the rich, that's all.

Nope.

The people who disagree are *anyone* that will lose out, or fears they might lose out, or thinks they might somehow get hit by the measures in the future.

For example, correcting the house price anomalies requires that every house owner happily goes along with them being 'robbed' of the money they already feel they've made from their house.

For many very ordinary people - way more than just "the rich" - that's in the hundred thousand plus plus plus! How many people do you know that happily give up (say) a hundred grand?

it was part of what the Green Party campaigned for. Along with coverage from most of the media that portrayed them as nutters, they were on a hiding to nothing. I voted for them too.

especially without a fair(er) voting system.

They are nutters.

But that aside, I've just outlined the difficulty with meaningful housing costs reform - just one of their policies where they advocate major change which impacts negatively onto a huge number of people.

People are resistant enough to change when it's just for changes sake. They get a fuck of a lot more resistant when that change will cost them money (or they think it will).

And the Greens advocate huge change in a big number of areas, where just about everyone will be hugely impacted by those changes.

Now, you can argue that ordinary people should wise up and see the big picture and realise that they might gain as much (or more, even) than they lose, but you're asking them to believe you've got everything right about huge changes in society... and so they decide the risk is too great and would rather stick with what they have.

And so, to ever get power, the Greens will have to compromise and adopt a gradualist approach - the very thing you refuse to do, and so you consign these things to never happening.