General Election 2015

[LJS]

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 Labour.

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.

I think maybe you should read that last sentence back & apply it to yourself.

[eFestivals]

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

The People's Republic of Easton and Stokes Croft.

Less tory than Scotland. More Green than Scotland. Less nationalist than Scotland. Less UKIP than Scotland.

It's great what you can do by redrawing the lines.

[viberunner]

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.

Actually Labour's vote went up overall, and was on-par with their 2005 win.

2015, 9.3 million votes

2010, 8.6 million votes

2005, 9.5 million votes

What happened was the Tories got the additional turnout, and a lot of Lib Dem drift.

[LJS]

The People's Republic of Easton and Stokes Croft.

Less tory than Scotland. More Green than Scotland. Less nationalist than Scotland. Less UKIP than Scotland.

It's great what you can do by redrawing the lines.

Congratulations.

[LJS]

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

Och,now I was sure you said they had as well.

[eFestivals]

liveing in the past

except of course giving Murdoch a free-hand is current SNP policy, and nothing from the past.

[LJS]

Just listening to Chuka Umunna on Andrew Marr....

Very impressive man. I would like to see him lead the Labour party I think.

Did he blame the Snp at all?

[viberunner]

The People's Republic of Easton and Stokes Croft.

Less tory than Scotland. More Green than Scotland. Less nationalist than Scotland. Less UKIP than Scotland.

It's great what you can do by redrawing the lines.

It's a bit anti-Establishment handy too, to it's credit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_riots

And Easton is now represented in Parliament by a woman called Thangam Debbonaire which is, undoubtedly, the best name of any Parliamentarian. (So also appears to be a pretty good/serious person... we'll see if she graduates to the Labour frontbench).

[LJS]

except of course giving Murdoch a free-hand is current SNP policy, and nothing from the past.

Could you show me that policy?

[eFestivals]

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?

It says that they felt the outcome was for the best, which is their free choice to make as much as its yours to disagree.

That's called "democracy". It's a concept you're being taught to forget.

[viberunner]

This. If every SNP seat was Labour we'd still have a tory government.

Yeah, turns out the argument is if we promised to vote Labour so would they.

Kind of like the "you show me first then I'll show you mine, no you go first, how about at the same time but no cheating" game when you were six.

[eFestivals]

In England: Tory + Ukip = 55%

In Scotland: Tory + Ukip = 16.5%

In Scottish myth* about Scotland: blue tories + ukip + libdems + red tories = 51%.

(* approved and endorsed and continually re-stated by vivberunner, who I was replying to)

[viberunner]

Did he blame the Snp at all?

He has his thesis / campaign trail in The Guardian so you can pick it apart at your leisure.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/labours-first-step-to-regaining-power-is-to-recognise-the-mistakes-we-made

He's surprisingly mature and well-informed (or his advisors are) though there's a touch of "we should aspire to a porridge that is warm but not overhot" you kind of wonder why he wasn't the one leading Labour for the last 5 years.

As for your question directly, this is the part of the article about that:

why did we lose?

Some point to Scotland, where we lost 40 of our 41 seats to the SNP. It is true, the rise of nationalism there was a factor that has deep, cultural roots. But our collapse north of the border was compounded by our failure to keep the Conservatives from holding and taking seats in England. We targeted 80 Tory-held seats in England, but made a net gain of just four. Of the 10 seats in the three southern regions outside London which we won in 2010, we actually lost two. It was in England that David Cameron won his majority and put a Labour-led government out of reach.

Why did we do so badly there? First, we spoke to our core voters but not to aspirational, middle-class ones. We talked about the bottom and top of society, about the minimum wage and zero-hour contracts, about mansions and non-doms. But we had too little to say to the majority of people in the middle.

Goes on and on but not bad.

[LJS]

It's a bit anti-Establishment handy too, to it's credit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_riots

And Easton is now represented in Parliament by a woman called Thangam Debbonaire which is, undoubtedly, the best name of any Parliamentarian. (So also appears to be a pretty good/serious person... we'll see if she graduates to the Labour frontbench).

Great name sounds like an early motor car.

[viberunner]

In Scottish myth* about Scotland: blue tories + ukip + libdems + red tories = 51%.

(* approved and endorsed and continually re-stated by vivberunner, who I was replying to)

It's the Red Tories of London Labour to give them the full title.

Also, unsure about your figures.

24.3 Labour

14.9 Conservative

07.5 Liberal Democrat

01.6 UKIP

01.3 Scottish Green

00.1 TUSC

00.2 Others

-----------------

50.0%

SNP 50.0%

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015_(Scotland)

Edited May 10, 2015 by viberunner

[LJS]

In Scottish myth* about Scotland: blue tories + ukip + libdems + red tories = 51%.

(* approved and endorsed and continually re-stated by vivberunner, who I was replying to)

I demand a recount.

(hint, you'll find the correct answer is less than 49 %. I guess if you round each individual % up you can fiddle it to over 50% but you wouldn't do that.

[eFestivals]

Scotland is technically country

no its not. There is nothing which 'technically' makes a country.

, you know. Our own legal system and everything.

requires no country, as shown in many places - including the last 300 years of the union, for example.

Despite the modern myths, the truth is that Scotland revoked its sovereignty and ceased to exist (as did England).

But the fact remains there is this obscene about of support for the Conservatives and UKIP in England.

and yet it's nothing really like how you claim.

I could claim the SNP is full of Scottish racists - it's certainly got a noticeable number of them - and say that sums up everything about the SNP/Scotland just as you'd doing about England.

Or I could claim that SNP voters weren't voting for the anti-austerity part of their manifesto pledges but instead the austerity-max part that comes from FFA.

(Dave will be bringing this up very soon, and it will rather surprise the huge numbers who missed this part of what they voted for).

There's plenty of people who voted UKIP because they support the EU referendum part of their policies and not much else. I've even seen people who claim to otherwise support Labour and the EU say they'd vote UKIP, because they want the EU issue settled (not that it will be; it'll be a neverendum just as Scottish indy will be).

And then there's people who can cleverly count numbers (it's a horrible English thing ) and understand what they mean both today and into the future, who might love to have lots more spending but who also know the bills need paying and the pain we've suffe4red already shouldn't be pissed away for no purpose - who might have decided that we couldn't afford the financial disaster of the SNP.

Etc, etc etc.

It's bad enough the destruction they've wrought on England

yeah, it's terrible of England to better fund its NHS than Scotland does, eh?

It's not the one way street you've been suckered into believing.

... I don't want that destruction to happen in Scotland too.

where the SNHS gets robbed to give privileges to the middle classes? Yeah, that'd be terrible.

I wonder why you voted for it then?

[eFestivals]

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

I dunno, should it?

You seem to be a bit confused about a nation is, and I can't understand what you're saying until you tell me.

But once you've worked out what you mean, perhaps you might stick with it? Instead of out yo-yo-ing a yo-yo?

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

And then let's examine the SNP manifesto on the issue. Can you please tell me what page I can find it on?

Labour is shit because it's doing something about a 'bad' when the SNP have promised to do nothing. I'm glad we've sorted that out. :lol:will do

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.

30+ years of SNP propaganda that you've recently sucked up proves your argument wrong.

You've voted against those parties because of your (misplaced) belief that they only serve England.

You're now ranting against England being influenced by a party that categorically states that it serves just Scotland.

Once you've come out of fog of confusion, you might manage to say something that actually fits the facts.

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

perhaps because they're tories, or just perhaps because you call them tories?

Whichever it might be, there's no friendship to be had with the hostile.

Labour were quite happy to work with and help get the IRA elected to power.

and of course ending the death and destruction caused by 100 years of nationalist bullshit played no part.

And now you think nationalist bullshit is great thing.

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

care to show the IRA/Labour formal alliance in UK govt?

[eFestivals]

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.

I've stopped believing in nothing.

Unlike you, who has stopped believing that the UK is democratic because the UK's democratic choices haven't suited what you want.

One of use recognises the choices of democracy. The other of us is rejecting the democratic choice.

Unless you're going to show me where there wasn't a democratic choice...?

[eFestivals]

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.

You know? What do you know?

You seem to know that Labour are progressive, because that's what you clearly stated here.

After posting how reactionary they are for years and calling them "red tories".

When you've found a your own mind perhaps you'd do us all the courtesy of letting us know what you're own mind says in non-contradictory terms?

[pink_triangle]

Straw man much? I said they answered a fair and direct question fairly and directly. And it as apposite one given the polling leading up to the election.

To have dodged it would have seemed dodgy.

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

If you think us returning 59 Labour MPs would change today's government you need to recount.

I'm no fan of it either and the SNP also prefer PR to FPTP.

Then again few in England bemoaned that under FPTP the SNP have historically done disproportionately badly.

In 2005 Labour got 922,402 Scottish votes and 41 MPs, the SNP got 412,267 and 6 MPs.

In 2001 Labour got 1m Scottish votes and 56 MPs, the SNP got 450,000 votes and 5 MPs.

And so it goes back year after year after year after year.

Did you hear Salmond talk about the 1983 three SNP MPs who made Thatcher's life hell? Those three got 330,000 votes, Labour got 990,000 votes and returned 41 MPs.

Anyway, very few, if any, of those years (many of which I was in England itself, being English) did I ever hear anyone in England complain FPTP meant there were fewer SNP MPs than PR would have given. NOW the SNP reached the FPTP tipping-point NOW it's an issue.

UKIP have done badly from FPTP. Under PR UKIP could would have 80 seats being Kingmakers to the Tory 240. Labour's 200 with the SNP's 30 and the Green's 25 AND the Lib Dem 50 would fall short.

That's something to think about. Eighty UKIP MPs.

I don't think there's any problem with waiting for the results before discussing potential deals. It may be slightly vague, but tactically would have been worth it, if snp didn't want to help the torys in England.

As for PR I screamed for it when the snp were under represented and will continue now they are over represented. If the electorate says that ukip deserve 80 seats then so be it.

[eFestivals]

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?

who's done that? Not me.

I said long before the vote that what Scotland does has an effect and that was pooh-poohed by people like you - because you go with the myth that Scotland is an irreleance to the English.

It's not, and it never was. Which is precisely why how others intend to vote impacts into how each of us use our own vote - whether in Scotland or England.

You voted SNP because you're sick of what comes from England. People in England can do the reverse, and did.

Who knew?

I did. I said as much. And was told I was wrong to say that England thinks just like Scotland.

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.

because Scotland isn't doing the reverse, yeah?

England impacts on Scotland, Scotland impacts on England.

The snippers myth is wrong. You'd bought a myth.

[eFestivals]

I think maybe you should read that last sentence back & apply it to yourself.

I am. I've spent months telling you these islands are full of troy thinkers, in Scotland too (even the SNP voters).

I fully accept that how England has voted in the past has affected your vote. When will you accept the impact onto others of your own choice?

I'm simply trying to get you to accept the true idea that actions have unwanted consequences as well as the wanted ones.

[eFestivals]

Och,now I was sure you said they had as well.

No, it's you that have claimed "the SNP welcomed the Leveson conclusions".

Tho strangely the party who have acted as Murdoch's puppet don't seem to have any policy of implementing what you say they "welcomed".

Labour have changed away from Murdoch. The SNP have not.

The proof was in each's manifesto.

[viberunner]

no its not. There is nothing which 'technically' makes a country.

requires no country, as shown in many places - including the last 300 years of the union, for example.

Despite the modern myths, the truth is that Scotland revoked its sovereignty and ceased to exist (as did England).

I agree it is not a sovereign state, but countryhood is a wider term than that.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, UN member state, Member of the EU.[Note 3]

The United Kingdom is a Commonwealth realm[Note 5] consisting of four constituent countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states

The United Kingdom is the 22nd-most populous country, with an estimated 64.5 million inhabitants.[3] It is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system of governance.[8][9] Its capital city is London, an important global city and financial centre with an urban population of 10,310,000, the fourth-largest in Europe and second-largest in the European Union.[10] The current monarch—since 6 February 1952—is Queen Elizabeth II. The UK consists of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.[11] The latter three have devolved administrations,[12] each with varying powers,[13][14] based in their capitals, Edinburgh, Cardiff, and Belfast, respectively. Guernsey, Jersey, and the Isle of Man are not part of the United Kingdom, being Crown dependencies with the British Government responsible for defence and international representation.[15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom