General Election 2015

[LJS]

No, not me. The UK did.

You know, the country that includes your region.

I can play much smugger than you about how my region voted - because there were less tory votes than in your own region - but I'm not so pathetic as to draw imaginary lines and pretend they mean something different.

Your region is what? The South West? Less Tory votes than Scotland? Talk me through that one.

[eFestivals]

you do not know that. No doubt in due course, someone will publish research that will go some way to answering that. But as is normal, you will continue to present your opinion as proven fact.

so do you really think I guessed fr0om nothing about it all played out? If so, I'm fucking lucky to have called so much of it right.

Or perhaps there's more facts in what I said than you're prepared to face, because facing that truth would have to have you admit you've got so much wrong?

Now you're calling me wrong about FFA. Get back to me in 2020 about that one, and we'll see who called that one right too.

If you guys want to avoid a lifetime under the Tories, you need to move beyond "it was the snippers wot dunnit"

I can't change the effect that Scotland voting SNP has on England.

You're welcome to vote for who you like, but stop pretending it has no impact on how others vote. The SNP got to where it is by playing up the very thing which you claim doesn't happen the other way.

[eFestivals]

So we have to pander to English bigotry by voting for parties we don't like because otherwise the English, in a self-destrutive hissy fit, vote for the Bullindons and the UKIP Lynch Mob?

you're admitting the impact of how England votes effects how Scotland votes .... while denying it can work the other way.

Stupid, much?

[LJS]

Yes, it's called "The Labour Party Manifesto 20152.

I'm glad to see you were paying such close attention to know that Labour fully deserves the hatred you spout.

While your glorious SNP promised to give Murdoch a free hand.

In fact, your glorious SNP promised to lick Murdoch's arse and did. Try googling "salmond leveson".

But the SNP are a principled party, yeah?

https://youtu.be/EsCyC1dZiN8

[eFestivals]

Cos it was wrong.

You voted SNP and got tory, exactly as the saying said.

It wasn't wrong, was it? The proof lives at Westminster.

[LJS]

you're admitting the impact of how England votes effects how Scotland votes .... while denying it can work the other way.

Stupid, much?

OK let's just say you're right. What does it say about the hundreds of thousands of English voters who were so terrified of the SNP, that they abandoned their desire for social justice and opted instead for welfare cuts & the scrapping of the human right act?

[eFestivals]

No, the Tories cooked it up, the press ramped it up, and Labour fucked it up.

but before "the Tories cooked it up", I said it to you - months and months before the tories used it.

Am I the tory party strategist? Is that why I called it right?

Perhaps it was a lucky guess by me, with me making loads of lucky guesses about all sorts of things which turned out true.

Or might it be that I was aware of how these things play out, and your denials showed that you weren't?

[LJS]

You voted SNP and got tory, exactly as the saying said.

It wasn't wrong, was it? The proof lives at Westminster.

I could have voted monster raving Barry party & got Tory. The responsibility for the Tory government lies with the people predominantly in the southern half of England who elected Tory mp's. Some of the responsibility may lie with the Labour party who ran an uninspiring campaign. But what I choose to vote in Scotland is not to blame. You have always argued there is no such thing as a seperate Scottish vote in a UK election. Now you're arguing that that non existent Scottish vote is to blame for the shit government we are all landed with. Make your mind up.

[eFestivals]

The UK is undemocratic.

Is it? Or is its implementation of democracy something you'd prefer implemented in another way?

No implementation is perfect. For me, PR is much better, but that doesn't mean I reject what we have as not democracy. We democratically voted to keep it that way (Scotland too!). And then Scotland democractically voted to remain part of that "undemocratic" system - proving it democratic.

Rather amusingly, many implementations of PR dis-allow parties who get less than 5% of the vote. Be careful what you wish for!

[eFestivals]

No, it turns out the English - fifteen million of them - prefer right-wing parties, racist parties, austerity and bigotry.

and 50% of your countrymen do, by your own often-posted analysis of what counts as right wing.

But lets just forget about them in the new one party state, yeah?

Labour weren't stupid. They were led by a clumsy spod (to borrow Charlie Brooker's endearing term).

But what's the point of having 9 million progressive votes (nearly a million of which are from Scotland) when there are 15 million reactionaries in England?

Oh, so the "red tories" are progressive now, and not tories after all? Well I never.

[LJS]

Is it? Or is its implementation of democracy something you'd prefer implemented in another way?

No implementation is perfect. For me, PR is much better, but that doesn't mean I reject what we have as not democracy. We democratically voted to keep it that way (Scotland too!). And then Scotland democractically voted to remain part of that "undemocratic" system - proving it democratic.

Rather amusingly, many implementations of PR dis-allow parties who get less than 5% of the vote. Be careful what you wish for!

Christ, Neil, you can't even agree on the things we agree on. You are so intent on argument that you end up arguing for FPTP & trident & Tory austerity. It's absolutely fine to agree from time.

[eFestivals]

September is irrelevant.

PMSL.

Just because you say it is doesn't mean that it is.

do you think the English has goldfish memories or something? They aren't paying attention? That they're that stupid?

Or perhaps the stupid take is your own?

Plenty noticed it was "Scotland is one of the richest countries in the world" back in September, but "we desperately need money sent from England" this time around. The duplicity didn't go unnoticed.

[pink_triangle]

So, to sum up, either the SNP caused the Tory victory because voters down south cannot stomach the results of a democratic vote in Scotland. In which case the Union's fucked.

I don't think caused, I would say contributed. A less aggressive rhetoric about working with Labour and we have minoroty tory government, not great but better than we have now.

I don't think most south of the border care who represents Scotland. I think however they care if there is a party of influence whos priority is only one part of the country. If there was a London party, or a Midland party, the concerns could be the same.

[LJS]

and 50% of your countrymen do, by your own often-posted analysis of what counts as right wing.

But lets just forget about them in the new one party state, yeah?

Oh, so the "red tories" are progressive now, and not tories after all? Well I never.

In England: Tory + Ukip = 55%

In Scotland: Tory + Ukip = 16.5%

[eFestivals]

So, to sum up, either the SNP caused the Tory victory because voters down south cannot stomach the results of a democratic vote in Scotland. In which case the Union's fucked.

Can voters in Scotland stomach the results of a democractic vote of the UK?

You now say that how others vote has no effect on other votes. You're calling yourself a liar!

Or, the SNP didn't cause the Tory victory and you guys all voted Tory & Ukip because you have a fundimentally different view of the sort of country you want, in which case the union is fucked.

Heads its fucked, tails its fucked.

Yep, heads it's fucked and tails it's fucked because facts or consistent takes on how things work count for nothing.

We're not that fundamentally different.

Scotland didn't want more money spent when it was (just) Scottish money that would be being spent - your glorious party campaigned on that basis just 9 months ago.

But when England does the same thing of voting for its money not to be spent at a greater rate, that, apparently, makes us "fundamentally different".

You only get your arguments to stand up by picking the bits that suit you and ignoring the parts which don't.

A party in England campaigned on the basis of "we can spend more money because we'll take it from Scotland" and it was a popular message - it helped UKIP get 13% of the vote, for example. But not that popular, because only that 13% are that c**tish.

And the same "we'll get others to pay" goes down even better in Scotland, where 50% of Scots seem to think the English are mug enough to do it (and scum if they won't).

Perhaps the English aren't the mugs you took them for?

[eFestivals]

Christ, Neil, you can't even agree on the things we agree on. You are so intent on argument that you end up arguing for FPTP & trident & Tory austerity. It's absolutely fine to agree from time.

FFS.

I know what I support, but in a democracy I know that others have the right to support something different.

For you, it's democratic when it conforms to your view and not democratic when it's not.

Which of the two of us is doing it wrongly, LJS?

[viberunner]

No, not me. The UK did.

You know, the country that includes your region.

I can play much smugger than you about how my region voted - because there were less tory votes than in your own region - but I'm not so pathetic as to draw imaginary lines and pretend they mean something different.

Scotland is technically country, you know. Our own legal system and everything.

It's not about smugness... other than for forum banter... the serious point is much deeper and you've already admitted it. And neither wish it were true. But the fact remains there is this obscene about of support for the Conservatives and UKIP in England.

It's bad enough the destruction they've wrought on England... I don't want that destruction to happen in Scotland too.

all hail nationalism, because the UK ran on a nationalist basis will make everything so much better.

Actually shouldn't a national party be nationally appealing rather than being seen as-for-and-by the an Oxford PPE Metropolitan elite?

We only know that you voted SNP and got tory,

No, what we know is we voted SNP and you (not personally, just on average down there) voted Tory. And UKIP.

Yes, it's called "The Labour Party Manifesto 20152.

You said this was to "Kill Murdoch". And by that I assume metaphorically, so let's examine the Labour Party Manifesto on the issue.

A Labour government would protect media plurality and implement recommendations for independent press regulation found in the Leveson report, according to the party’s election manifesto.

The commitment to media plurality and reminder of “promise to victims of the phone-hacking scandal” is likely to be seen as an attack on Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, the ultimate owner of the Sun and Times. However, the pledge on media ownership falls short of Ed Miliband’s suggestion in 2012 in that no owner should be allowed to control more than 34% of the UK media, a cap which would force News Corp to sell one of the titles.

So even the "killing" of Murdoch promised in 2012 that - gasp - ONE of his titles would need to be sold (does that really count as a killing?) wasn't in the manifesto.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/apr/13/labour-media-plurality-leveson-manifesto-ed-miliband

I guess with a streak-of-piss manifesto pledge like that you would prefer to be all hissy rather than link and quote.

you're admitting the impact of how England votes effects how Scotland votes .... while denying it can work the other way. Stupid, much?

It's not that I think it cannot be the case, what I would argue is the Scots have voted against the Tories, then the Liberal Democrats and Labour based on the perceptions of those parties and how they have affected Scotland rather on what the English vote is about.

and 50% of your countrymen do, by your own often-posted analysis of what counts as right wing.

But lets just forget about them in the new one party state, yeah?

Oh, so the "red tories" are progressive now, and not tories after all? Well I never.

The Red Tories are more progressive than the Blue Tories. But apparently not progressive enough to have considered making a government with the SNP.

Which is odd.

Labour were quite happy to work with and help get the IRA elected to power. And yes I think that's a good thing, if somewhat unseemly (as the people getting elected have presided over murders) but for the greater good for ending the Irish civil war it was the mature political thing to do.

But Labour can work with the IRA but can't - "on principle" - work with the SNP.

So yah, Labour progressiveness has stark limits.

[eFestivals]

Yes, Scotland can vote for anyone it like providing it is London-friendly Labour.

No, Scotland can vote for whoever it likes, just as England can.

And just as the SNP can reject a tie-up with the tories - as it did - then Labour can reject a tie-up with the SNP.

Or does everyone have to do what you say?

Vote for who the fuck you like, and accept the consequences of your choice. It seems you don't, tho - and that's your problem, not mine. Get over your own problems, and don't pretend they're someone else's.

Edited May 10, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

FFS.

I know what I support, but in a democracy I know that others have the right to support something different.

For you, it's democratic when it conforms to your view and not democratic when it's not.

Which of the two of us is doing it wrongly, LJS?

I don't know, Neil. One of us appears to stop believing in something when it is not supported by the majority, the other believes if something is right, it remains right even if only a minority support it & the proper thing to do is to work to persuade people until it is supported by the majority.

[viberunner]

In England: Tory + Ukip = 55%

In Scotland: Tory + Ukip = 16.5%

I know! Let's exile that 16% to England and on a 1-for-1 basis accept left-wing immigrants providing none of them are Neil.

[eFestivals]

Hang on, since when was social spending "pissing money up the wall?"

for all of the time that promising to spend more money than the SNP was "austerity".

[eFestivals]

And Labour lied to take is into an illegal war. & saddled us with billions of debt through ridiculous pfi scams.

I don't bring these up because they are not relevant to today. When you have something relevant to today, I suggest you bring it up. Until then...

Except of course Labour have changed course while the SNP have not.

The facts count for nothing if they're not SNP approved facts.

[kipper64]

It's counter productive to blame Labours disasterous result on a rise of SNP. Labour suffered bug losses and the Tories big gains in the local council elections in England which surely SNP would have no influence in.

Labour have got a lot of issues to resolve off the back of this. I think a key overlooked threat is UKIP. Sure they didnt make gains but if you look at a map of 2nd place winners UKIP has a lot of purple dotted about English Labour heartlands which if the trend continues its going to make things even harder for Labour. Ukip also making gains in councils (and their first overall control council afaik) means theyll have plenty more exposure across England.

Then you go to English marginals which many which many in Labour might think a centralised approach will be needed as stated by Blair which coukd be right but might alienate them in their normal seats.

Lastly comes to Scotland where a move to the right for Labour will liiely cement the SNP as a 'party of the left' leaving Labour little chance to regain Scotland.

Throw in those boundary changes that are coming and Labour have a lot of big issues that will need addressing that only the Labour party can fix, blaming the SNP isnt going to get them re-elected.

[bunique]

Neil - thanks for referencing an actual poll (that I spotted shortly after my post) rather than referring me to the anecdata Barry suggested. I am still surprised that it's being touted as such a significant motivator in swinging people to the Tories, but at least it's somewhere I can start reading!

Edited May 10, 2015 by bunique

[viberunner]

No, Scotland can vote for whoever it likes, just as England can.

Vote for who the fuck you like, and accept the consequences of your choice. It seems you don't, tho - and that's your problem, not mine. Get over your own problems, and don't pretend they're someone else's.

Okay, how about this? Can Scotland please be able to vote for whoever we like and then not get blamed for England being 55% hard-right and far-right wingnut vote?

I don't mind Scotland having to accept the consequences of the Scottish vote. It's being blamed for the outcome of the English vote that riles somewhat.

"I wouldn't normally vote for the racist kick-'em-out party but those bloody Scots and that Nigel Farage talks a lot of sense with a good old fashioned English pint in his hand you know he wasn't a woofter at school but that Miliband I don't know he kind a looks like one doncha fink?"