General Election 2015

[pink_triangle]

Cameron is a coward, there should be no thought of tactics in these situations. If Cameron feels he is better suited to lead this country than Miliband, he should man up.

[gary1979666]

But there's also a lot of other cowardice in the election campaign - and they are in a lot more important areas than some tv debates. He's a coward because he doesn't want to do something that will hit his ratings. Why don't the other parties give us a bit more clarity on where they are going to cut? They must know some of the biggies - all this, we-don't-know-til-we-get-in bo!!ocks is rubbish, they know roughly how much things cost, but they all (Tories included to be fair)are dancing around the edge. They don't want to spell it out, as it's bad news and they're all scared to admit it, yet it should be one of the main factors we use to decide who we want to govern us. I remember when Brown back in 2010 put some kind of ban on the use of the word "cuts" - at least Darling had the balls to actually admit they were coming.

[eFestivals]

But there's also a lot of other cowardice in the election campaign - and they are in a lot more important areas than some tv debates. He's a coward because he doesn't want to do something that will hit his ratings. Why don't the other parties give us a bit more clarity on where they are going to cut? They must know some of the biggies - all this, we-don't-know-til-we-get-in bo!!ocks is rubbish, they know roughly how much things cost, but they all (Tories included to be fair)are dancing around the edge. They don't want to spell it out, as it's bad news and they're all scared to admit it, yet it should be one of the main factors we use to decide who we want to govern us. I remember when Brown back in 2010 put some kind of ban on the use of the word "cuts" - at least Darling had the balls to actually admit they were coming.

Why do they need to spell it out?

The important part is not what they're going to cut, but that they're going to cut less than the tories.

However they do it, it's less painful than the alternative.

[eFestivals]

PS: if the tories are so proud of their cutting, why when they've had five years of cutting are their cuts going to cut deepest of all from March this year, too soon to see their impact before the election?

But anyway ...

You might have noticed that I advocate 20% of seats scattered around the UK to be up for re-election each and every year, which will help stop the manipulation of the electoral process by the party in power. Democracy is too important to give politicians the freedom to warp it.

[gary1979666]

I think it should matter what is cut / what is 'safe' - and this isn't meant as an attack on just labour, the tories are just as guilty of not spelling out what we can expect. I'm sure you'll agree the way things are cut are as important as how much.

I think I read somewhere that the cuts made in this parlaiment are about the level that labour had originally set out back in 2010 (OK, they may have toned it down too in the cold light of day too, but bear with me.) Just because the amount is the same, doesn't mean the methods are.

I know there's lots of ifs and buts about growth, etc, but for each party to come out and say NHS - safe, Eductation - 10% cut, Defence - 15%, Police - 20%, VAT - up, NI - down - would certainly give a truer flavour of what to expect.

It might be political suicide, or are they just too scared to tell us what they really think. I'm sure the Tories had a list drawn up pre the election with VAT going to 20%, Child Benefit reductions, Tuition Fees increases, etc.

Re your idea - it's certainly food for thought. Would keep them more 'honest', or would they shy away from unpopular necessities? Dunno. Not sure I'm on board fully, but do like concept.

[eFestivals]

I think it should matter what is cut / what is 'safe' - and this isn't meant as an attack on just labour, the tories are just as guilty of not spelling out what we can expect. I'm sure you'll agree the way things are cut are as important as how much.

I'm not sure it really matters what gets cut in the end.

After all, nothing of the cuts is about delivering an improved service, it's about ensuring that service will deteriorate.

I think I read somewhere that the cuts made in this parlaiment are about the level that labour had originally set out back in 2010 (OK, they may have toned it down too in the cold light of day too, but bear with me.) Just because the amount is the same, doesn't mean the methods are.

oh, i agree. And neither are the effects.

I know there's lots of ifs and buts about growth, etc, but for each party to come out and say NHS - safe, Eductation - 10% cut, Defence - 15%, Police - 20%, VAT - up, NI - down - would certainly give a truer flavour of what to expect.

It might be political suicide, or are they just too scared to tell us what they really think. I'm sure the Tories had a list drawn up pre the election with VAT going to 20%, Child Benefit reductions, Tuition Fees increases, etc.

at the end of the day, what is being cut by each is a random number plucked out of the air, only for the purposes of cutting.

However, there is a difference in the reasons for cutting, and so also a different in the depth of cuts from each. One is cutting to stop the bankers running away with as much free money, while the others are cutting to allow the bankers to run away with even more.

From where the public is sat, there should only be one those that gets support, unless you enjoy punching yourself in the face.

Re your idea - it's certainly food for thought. Would keep them more 'honest', or would they shy away from unpopular necessities? Dunno. Not sure I'm on board fully, but do like concept.

I reckon it would be harder to duck issues than it is now.

Edited March 5, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

He's already thpought of as a cowardly, arrogant, anti-democratic upper class prat, tho unfortunately only by those who won't swallow anything of him.

And that, unfortunately, is pretty much hpow it'll stay if he ducks the debates. Those that already give him the benefit of the dopuybt will continue to do so around him bottling the debates.

Note how he's blaming the broadcasters for not coming up with a format that suits him - and yet he's never once mentiooned this to the broadcasters in any of the many meetings there's been between his representatives aND THOSE broadcasters.

He's very clearly, and very definitely, going to bottle it.

Your money, eh? I have money too.

Fancy a tenner bet, with WaterAid as the beneficiary?

You're on

So there you go - your vote is nothing about policies or whether you lean left or right or whether the party you vote for leans left or right, it's an "I hate Labour vote".

Which is laughable when you claim to be praying that you get a Labour govt.

Sigh! You should be well aware from our conversations elsewhere that I absolutely do not hate the Labour party. I feel massively disappointed & let down by them (& not because they were on the No side in the Indyref) & I no longer trust them to perform the role they were founded to perform.

It is with considerable sadness that I have come to the decision that I can no longer support them but it is not a decision taken lightly & it is certainly not taken out of spite.

Personally I HATE the TV debates! I wished we never went down that route....

BUT

Cameron played the big I am during the last election asking for them etc... To not face them now is a level of coward I can only imagine will hurt him come election time. I might of been tactics but I reckon its going to back fire.

Yeah. I know what you mean about TV debates - they certainly generate more heat than light.

But take them away & what are we left with PPB's & staged photo opportunities. They may be shite but they are the best & most democratic shite we have!!

[eFestivals]

You're on

Cool.

Tho perhaps I was a little hasty, as it's looking like the TV companies might stand firm and empty-chair him, and so perhaps shame him into doing it after all.

No worries with the bet tho, I'll happily still go with that.

Sigh! You should be well aware from our conversations elsewhere that I absolutely do not hate the Labour party. I feel massively disappointed & let down by them (& not because they were on the No side in the Indyref) & I no longer trust them to perform the role they were founded to perform.

It is with considerable sadness that I have come to the decision that I can no longer support them but it is not a decision taken lightly & it is certainly not taken out of spite.

So how do you get something better by voting for something more to the right?

And if it's not done with spite, why don't the differences in impact between Tories and Labour concern you greatly?

Yeah. I know what you mean about TV debates - they certainly generate more heat than light.

But take them away & what are we left with PPB's & staged photo opportunities. They may be shite but they are the best & most democratic shite we have!!

I read a comment piece that said 20 years ago, there was a daily press briefing. Blair changed it to a monthly press conference. Cameron stopped doing even that.

So yeah, debates are the best we'll get in the short-term. Bring them on!

[LJS]

So how do you get something better by voting for something more to the right?

And if it's not done with spite, why don't the differences in impact between Tories and Labour concern you greatly?

I have no intention of voting for something more to the right but when judging the leftness or rightness of the Labour Party, I shall not be turning a blind eye (as you appear happy to do) to their record in government.

Your second point relies on your & labour's flawed & simplistic "vote SNP get Tory" line

I don't buy it & neither, it would appear, do the vast majority of Scottish voters. I know you disagree, but I can live with that.

I want no renewal of Trident. I want less austerity & a commitment to greater fairness & equality. I want more powers devolved to Holyrood.

In my judgement, these outcomes are more likely with a sizeable cohort of SNP MP's wielding influence over a Labour government. Just in case you think I am now declaring that i shall vote SNP, i shall repeat that I have not made my mind up yet - I am waiting to see their exact position on a number of key policy areas.

[kaosmark2]

I have no intention of voting for something more to the right but when judging the leftness or rightness of the Labour Party, I shall not be turning a blind eye (as you appear happy to do) to their record in government.

Miliband's Labour have distanced themselves from New-Labour?

[eFestivals]

I have no intention of voting for something more to the right but when judging the leftness or rightness of the Labour Party, I shall not be turning a blind eye (as you appear happy to do) to their record in government.

you've said you might vote SNP.

That's more to the right, they won't commit to taxing the rich, and they leave the liabilities of their spending with the poor.

You know, like how the SNP have caused Scottish councils to double their debts so your kids have got free uni - and councils is where the poorest get more proportionally robbed than any other aspect of govt revenue raising.

You're voting anti-Labour, I get it. You're doing that out of spite, and nothing to do with policies. Policies would have you voting for them.

Meanwhile, I'm wetting myself laughing at anti-Labour voters such as you who want a Labour govt.

And I wet myself laughing again at how anti-Labour voters are getting all in a tizzy that their own actions are bringing about a very similar but opposite anti-SNP voting block, whilst claiming that anti-SNP block will help the tories while refusing to accept the same applies with *ALL* non-Labour seats including the ones they'll cause.

And I wet myself laughing yet again at how the SNP want "full fiscal autonomy" but SNP supporters won't accept the SNP's own-created Scottish Accounts (GERS) which say that Scotland will have to make deeper cuts than the tories plan.

But you're thinking straight, yeah, and your vote will be towards the best result for the UK and Scotland as proven by policies, and not driven purely by spite? Yeah, I get it.

Your second point relies on your & labour's flawed & simplistic "vote SNP get Tory" line

No, it's driven by the honest and truth line that each lesser Labour seat makes a tory govt more likely.

To which you say "they're both the same".

Say that to me again when Scotland is getting tory cuts that Labour will not give you.

And if that's true, why are voting for a party or 'cause' that intends to support a "red tory" govt?

And if Scotland is left-leaning and if more votes will come by Labour going left, why do the Scottish left-of-Labour parties get fuck all votes?

I don't buy it & neither, it would appear, do the vast majority of Scottish voters. I know you disagree, but I can live with that.

You don't even by what the SNP say, tho you'll vote for them while rejecting even the SNP's statement of Scottish finances as lies.

If even the SNP don't know where Scotland's magic money tree is, who in Scotland does?

I want no renewal of Trident. I want less austerity & a commitment to greater fairness & equality. I want more powers devolved to Holyrood.

So you want a £300m a year boost to Scotland's GDP and a £2Bn a year cut in Scotland's GDP, you want more spending by the govt and you don't care your kids will pay your bills, you want nothing that will tax the rich or well off but you want your privileges still paid for by the poorest, and you want Scotland to find that magic money so you can have full fiscal autonomy without full fiscal consequences.

In the spirit of camaraderie, I wish all of those things for Scotland too. It would be churlish of me to not want the Scottish people punch themselves in the face.

In my judgement, these outcomes are more likely with a sizeable cohort of SNP MP's wielding influence over a Labour government. Just in case you think I am now declaring that i shall vote SNP, i shall repeat that I have not made my mind up yet - I am waiting to see their exact position on a number of key policy areas.

all hail the SNP, who just last week said they no longer wanted the rich to take even more money from the poor. The current amount of robbery by the rich is just perfect for the SNP, so there4's no need to change it.

Meanwhile, those who vote with your intentions aim to cause one of two possible results...

1. a tory govt where the SNP complain that Scotland is mistreated.

or

2. a Labour govt where the SNP complain that Scotland is mistreated.

And it's so mistreated that the people of Scotland voted for the mistreatment to continue.

[zahidf]

Well LJS, Trident is not going to be blocked by the SNP if they are part of the Labour govt

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/06/nicola-sturgeon-trident-snp-general-election-labour

[5co77ie]

I'm not a big fan of Paloma Faith but hat is off to her booking Owen Jones as her support on tour:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/londoners-diary-paloma-faith-wants-to-put-politics-back-into-pop-10088127.html?origin=internalSearch

Singer Paloma Faith won her first Brit Award last week and gave a moving, if rambling, speech applauding the world’s grafters. Now she is putting her warm-up act where her heart is: she’s hired Owen Jones to be the opener for her UK tour, which begins later this month.

Jones, the Guardian columnist and socialist rabble-rouser, says he has been asked to speak before she sings because Faith is worried that her fans’ politics aren’t sound.

“I guess she’s worried that some of her fans are turning to Ukip,” says Jones. “She’s interested in the old tradition that used to be more commonplace in the Seventies and Eighties of music and politics linking up. I’m trying to get across ideas, beliefs and causes that are otherwise ignored, and reach as many people as possible through things like music, comedy and drama.”

Jones and Faith hatched the plan over coffee and he is prepping to address issues such as immigration, social housing, unemployment and the living wage on his tour dates which includes the Brighton Centre and London’s O2 Arena.

While many ignore the support acts in favour of getting the drinks in, Jones doesn’t want to be forgotten. “I want the audience to leave with more hope than they entered,” he tells a Time Out blog. “Nothing worse than if people were like ‘Oh, blimey, some preachy pre-pubescent Macaulay Culkin lookalike is ranting at me about politics’.” Paloma, we’re sure, has every Faith in him.

[LJS]

you've said you might vote SNP.

That's more to the right, they won't commit to taxing the rich, and they leave the liabilities of their spending with the poor.

You know, like how the SNP have caused Scottish councils to double their debts so your kids have got free uni - and councils is where the poorest get more proportionally robbed than any other aspect of govt revenue raising.

You're voting anti-Labour, I get it. You're doing that out of spite, and nothing to do with policies. Policies would have you voting for them.

Meanwhile, I'm wetting myself laughing at anti-Labour voters such as you who want a Labour govt.

And I wet myself laughing again at how anti-Labour voters are getting all in a tizzy that their own actions are bringing about a very similar but opposite anti-SNP voting block, whilst claiming that anti-SNP block will help the tories while refusing to accept the same applies with *ALL* non-Labour seats including the ones they'll cause.

And I wet myself laughing yet again at how the SNP want "full fiscal autonomy" but SNP supporters won't accept the SNP's own-created Scottish Accounts (GERS) which say that Scotland will have to make deeper cuts than the tories plan.

But you're thinking straight, yeah, and your vote will be towards the best result for the UK and Scotland as proven by policies, and not driven purely by spite? Yeah, I get it.

No, it's driven by the honest and truth line that each lesser Labour seat makes a tory govt more likely.

To which you say "they're both the same".

Say that to me again when Scotland is getting tory cuts that Labour will not give you.

And if that's true, why are voting for a party or 'cause' that intends to support a "red tory" govt?

And if Scotland is left-leaning and if more votes will come by Labour going left, why do the Scottish left-of-Labour parties get fuck all votes?

You don't even by what the SNP say, tho you'll vote for them while rejecting even the SNP's statement of Scottish finances as lies.

If even the SNP don't know where Scotland's magic money tree is, who in Scotland does?

So you want a £300m a year boost to Scotland's GDP and a £2Bn a year cut in Scotland's GDP, you want more spending by the govt and you don't care your kids will pay your bills, you want nothing that will tax the rich or well off but you want your privileges still paid for by the poorest, and you want Scotland to find that magic money so you can have full fiscal autonomy without full fiscal consequences.

In the spirit of camaraderie, I wish all of those things for Scotland too. It would be churlish of me to not want the Scottish people punch themselves in the face.

all hail the SNP, who just last week said they no longer wanted the rich to take even more money from the poor. The current amount of robbery by the rich is just perfect for the SNP, so there4's no need to change it.

Meanwhile, those who vote with your intentions aim to cause one of two possible results...

1. a tory govt where the SNP complain that Scotland is mistreated.

or

2. a Labour govt where the SNP complain that Scotland is mistreated.

And it's so mistreated that the people of Scotland voted for the mistreatment to continue.

Dearie me, Neil, you seem to have had a rather damp morning. Please accept my apologies for any discomfort I may have inadvertently caused. I know bladder control can be tough for those of us advancing in years.

As I'm on a train, this will be a brief reply so apologies if I miss any of your many & imaginative points.

Yes, I might vote SNP but as I have said before this decision will be based on their full manifesto & whether in my judgement it is likely to contribute to making my countries a better & fairer place. If you choose to waste your time crucifying me for voting for a party I might not vote for, go ahead.

My kids will be paying for the debacle of the past few years no matter who wins the election. I want them to be paying in a fairer society than the hideously inequitable one we live in now. Ultimately, I have no faith in Westminster really delivering that which is why I am pro Indy. In the meantime I am looking for the route that best limits Westminster's institutional bias in favour of the City & the establishment.

In the meantime you may find this link helpful.

http://www.tena.co.uk/professionals/incontinence-management-centre/types-and-causes-of-incontinence/male-incontinence/

Edited March 6, 2015 by LJS

[krisskross]

that pun is awful

'Paloma, we’re sure, has every Faith in him.'

[LJS]

Well LJS, Trident is not going to be blocked by the SNP if they are part of the Labour govt

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/06/nicola-sturgeon-trident-snp-general-election-labour

I'm in 2 minds about this. Obviously I am disappointed as it removes the only vague possibility of halting the insane renewal of trident.

On the other hand, it suggests Nic is serious about playing a constructive role in UK politics which, from where I stand, is a good thing.

[kaosmark2]

it suggests Nic is serious about playing a constructive role in UK politics which, from where I stand, is a good thing.

A constructive role, while working hard to destroy the UK.

[eFestivals]

Yes, I might vote SNP but as I have said before this decision will be based on their full manifesto

Yet isn't it funny that there's nothing in the world which would have you consider to vote Labour on the basis of their manifesto.

But you're not driven by spite.

If you choose to waste your time crucifying me for voting for a party I might not vote for, go ahead.

I'm choosing to crcify you on the basis that you refuse to consider policies and make your choice via those.

You have decided without reference to policies that you will not vote Labour .... while praying that you get a Labour govt and not a tory one.

If you can't see how you're acting against your own wants, there's no helping you.

My kids will be paying for the debacle of the past few years no matter who wins the election.

and your kids will be paying extra - because you want them to and don't think that's unfair - if the wishes stated above come true.

It's unfair for the poor to be poor, but it's perfectly fair for you to make the poor poorer. Do you have much a problem with dot-to-dot puzzles by any chance?

I want them to be paying in a fairer society than the hideously inequitable one we live in now.

and making the poor even poorer isn't making things worse?

You can happily hand over yours and your childrens wealth and opportunities to the bankers if you wish. I want better for my kids.

The only way anything changes is if the rich pay more. Get back to me to tell me you were right if Nicola ever says "tax the rich".

But hey, at least she's stopped saying "give the rich more" ... just yesterday she stopped doing that, wasn't it?

Ultimately, I have no faith in Westminster really delivering that which is why I am pro Indy. In the meantime I am looking for the route that best limits Westminster's institutional bias in favour of the City & the establishment.

Indie Scotland, the only country in the world where the rules of money won't apply? That'll be because of the magic money tree.

How's that working out for Greece, btw?

Edited March 6, 2015 by eFestivals

[gary1979666]

A constructive role, while working hard to destroy the UK.

Exactly. Love him or hate him, Major has it right this morning!

[LJS]

A constructive role, while working hard to destroy the UK.

For the time being Scotland is stuck in a loveless relationship with you guys. For the sake of the kids, we need to try & make things work as best we can until we finally run off.

[eFestivals]

I'm in 2 minds about this. Obviously I am disappointed as it removes the only vague possibility of halting the insane renewal of trident.

So that's another "principle" of the SNP you've been supporting that doesn't actually exist.

How many times? Their one and only principle is to try and fuck up the UK, to get voters who won't read what the SNP actually say voting for them. You know, exactly as you8 did and do.

On the other hand, it suggests Nic is serious about playing a constructive role in UK politics which, from where I stand, is a good thing.

She's said she won't support the tories (tho had no problem in Holyrood with that, ho-hum).

Which means she *HAS TO* support Labour unconditionally. There's no other option, and it won't have a jot of any SNP wants happen.

So you might as well vote Labour, and ensure you actually get the Labour govt you say you want.

But instead, you'll vote against Labour and help the tories by doing so, but you're not a tory despite supporting parties to the right of Labour.

No, you're not a tory.

No, you're really really not, despite every single thing you're doing being Thatcher's dream. The pursuit of individualism to break down the cohesion of the state and the 'the people's solidarity'.

But you're not a tory.

[LJS]

Yet isn't it funny that there's nothing in the world which would have you consider to vote Labour on the basis of their manifesto.

But you're not driven by spite.

I'm choosing to crcify you on the basis that you refuse to consider policies and make your choice via those.

You have decided without reference to policies that you will not vote Labour .... while praying that you get a Labour govt and not a tory one.

If you can't see how you're acting against your own wants, there's no helping you.

and your kids will be paying extra - because you want them to and don't think that's unfair - if the wishes stated above come true.

It's unfair for the poor to be poor, but it's perfectly fair for you to make the poor poorer. Do you have much a problem with dot-to-dot puzzles by any chance?

and making the poor even poorer isn't making things worse?

You can happily hand over yours and your childrens wealth and opportunities to the bankers if you wish. I want better for my kids.

The only way anything changes is if the rich pay more. Get back to me to tell me you were right if Nicola ever says "tax the rich".

But hey, at least she's stopped saying "give the rich more" ... just yesterday she stopped doing that, wasn't it?

Indie Scotland, the only country in the world where the rules of money won't apply? That'll be because of the magic money tree.

How's that working out for Greece, btw?

Just for the record, I shall not vote for any party whose policies, in my judgement will make the poor poorer.

[LJS]

So that's another "principle" of the SNP you've been supporting that doesn't actually exist.

How many times? Their one and only principle is to try and fuck up the UK, to get voters who won't read what the SNP actually say voting for them. You know, exactly as you8 did and do.

She's said she won't support the tories (tho had no problem in Holyrood with that, ho-hum).

Which means she *HAS TO* support Labour unconditionally. There's no other option, and it won't have a jot of any SNP wants happen.

So you might as well vote Labour, and ensure you actually get the Labour govt you say you want.

But instead, you'll vote against Labour and help the tories by doing so, but you're not a tory despite supporting parties to the right of Labour.

No, you're not a tory.

No, you're really really not, despite every single thing you're doing being Thatcher's dream. The pursuit of individualism to break down the cohesion of the state and the 'the people's solidarity'.

But you're not a tory.

The SNP are & remain opposed to nukes. Realpolitik means you don't always get everything you want.

[eFestivals]

For the time being Scotland is stuck in a loveless relationship with you guys. For the sake of the kids, we need to try & make things work as best we can until we finally run off.

you only get to finally run off - by the word of your counrtrymen - by fucking up the UK so badly, a poorer-by-10% scotland is no longer a poorer-by-10% Scotland.

That's the only trick the SNP have up their sleeve to bring about the victory you so desire.

Oh, sorry, that can't be right, GERS is a lie to people like you, isn't it? Which means that only you know Scotland's financial position, and you agree that the SNP are financial incompetents via your rejection of what GERS says of Scotland's finances.

[eFestivals]

Just for the record, I shall not vote for any party whose policies, in my judgement will make the poor poorer.

Is that an admission that the SNP are to the right of Labour, then?

It's true for all of the while they can't say "tax the rich".

So go on .... you can say it ... can't you?

Or are you still going with the version you've invented that doesn't reference any facts...?