General Election 2015

[oneeye]

Morning pop pickers, a little something to lighten the mood at the start of BST

[eFestivals]

This is one of the great myths of our age

it's not really a myth, tho is it? The SNP brought down the Labour govt, which heralded the age of Thatcher. All 100% true.

All myths are around what would have happened without that, and the myths include the SNP's version.

Meanwhile, I guarantee that the SNP will bring down the next Labour govt too, if Miliband wins. They *HAVE* to do that, else they're Labour's bitches just as the LibDems are tory bitches. The only question now is when exactlty the SNP will choose to bring down the Labour govt to gift govt to the tories.

[LJS]

it's not really a myth, tho is it? The SNP brought down the Labour govt, which heralded the age of Thatcher. All 100% true.

All myths are around what would have happened without that, and the myths include the SNP's version.

Meanwhile, I guarantee that the SNP will bring down the next Labour govt too, if Miliband wins. They *HAVE* to do that, else they're Labour's bitches just as the LibDems are tory bitches. The only question now is when exactlty the SNP will choose to bring down the Labour govt to gift govt to the tories.

... Thatcher was going to win - there is nothing to suggest any other result was likely - all the SNP (& the liberals & the ulster unionists & the democratic unionists) did was alter the date of her victory.

and the answer to your second point is - If the tories can amass enough support to form a government they will do so as they get"first go" if they don't Labour will form a government probably with the support of the Libdems or the SNP or both. Why would the SNP vote to bring down such a government? Remember under the fixed term parliament act, voting against indiviual measures will not bring down the government.

[LJS]

I thought the party with the most seats got the first go... Its neck and neck in the polls at the moment...

The SNP want people in Scotland to lose confidence in Westminster... What better way than to bring down a government ? They have form...

The governing party gets the first go.

[Comfy Bean]

I thought the party with the most seats got the first go... Its neck and neck in the polls at the moment...

The SNP want people in Scotland to lose confidence in Westminster... What better way than to bring down a government ? They have form...

I agree with your first point Barry. Hard to separate Labour and the Tories - in the polls I mean

On your 2nd point on wanting people to lose confidence in Westminster, I think you need to think that one through and I don`t think it`s only in Scotland.

[Comfy Bean]

Catching up on the news over my hungover fry up this morning I had a thought on why the ex labour voters in Scotland may have turned to the SNP.

On immigration, Trident, Austerity and ruling out working with / voting with the Tories, Sturgeon and Salmond are saying the things we used to hear from our Labour leaders.

On immigration :

Mr Cameron, the immigration numbers continue to rise - thoughts.... " Concern, danger, no benefits for 2 years, no housing, benefits tax credits.

Mr Milliband, the immigration numbers continue to rise - thoughts..... " Concern, danger, no benefits for 2 years, no housing, benefits, tax credits.

Mr Salmond, the immigration numbers continue to rise - thoughts.... " Good "

First we had Labours NHS leaflet now we have the mugs

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03/labours-anti-immigrant-mug-worst-part-it-isnt-gaffe

[LJS]

First we had Labours NHS leaflet now we have the mugs

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03/labours-anti-immigrant-mug-worst-part-it-isnt-gaffe

I know I have been rather critical of labour on here & I did wonder if I was being a little harsh ...

then I saw the mug

I give up.

[viberunner]

it's not really a myth, tho is it? The SNP brought down the Labour govt, which heralded the age of Thatcher. All 100% true.

The SNP with 11 members did not have that power. A large amount of Labour MPs joined the vote.

After that the British electorate voted in Thatcher. Not the SNP.

[viberunner]

Meanwhile, I guarantee that the SNP will bring down the next Labour govt too, if Miliband wins. They *HAVE* to do that, else they're Labour's bitches just as the LibDems are tory bitches. The only question now is when exactlty the SNP will choose to bring down the Labour govt to gift govt to the tories.

The difference is the Tories - and especially this Bullingdon variant - are really hard right, something few Liberal Democrat party members are.

On other other hand the SNP are really quite left-facing, as are the Labour party members.

If anything it gives the Labour leadership (and I'm no Ed fan but he's less Blairite than many) an excuse to go to the left as over the last few decades the success of the conservatives has forced them to the right.

[eFestivals]

If the tories can amass enough support to form a government they will do so as

they get"first go" if they don't Labour will form a government probably with the

support of the Libdems or the SNP or both. Why would the SNP vote to bring down

such a government? Remember under the fixed term parliament act, voting against

indiviual measures will not bring down the government.

why did the SNP vote to (try to, in one case) bring down a Labour govt in '74 and '79? Write whatever bullshit you want for the reasons, but the fact is: they did.

If they can do it twice before, they can do it this time, yes?

Meanwhile ... those SNP seats stand a chance of causing not-a-Labour govt, because a valid govt is not necessarily the biggest grouping.

And, the SNP have stated VERY clearly that they expect Labour to be their bitches and not the SNP as Labour's bitches. You know, the tail wagging the dog. Why do you think the majority of the country would accept that as a valid govt (particularly if not a majority)?

The LibDems had 26% of the vote for their 50-ish MPs. It's a very different game when there's only 3.5% of the vote behind the SNP's 50-ish seats, but I'm sure that won't stop the creation of yet ano0ther bullshit myth.

Edited March 30, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

On your 2nd point on wanting people to lose confidence in Westminster, I think you need to think that one through and I don`t think it`s only in Scotland.

which other part of the UK is voting in support of breaking up the UK?

Other people want to reform Westminster to give good govt. The SNP don't want good govt from Westminster, they want Westminster to be nasty to Scotland to help drive more Scots away from the UK.

FFS, what have you missed?

[eFestivals]

On immigration :

Mr Cameron, the immigration numbers continue to rise - thoughts.... " Concern, danger, no benefits for 2 years, no housing, benefits tax credits.

Mr Milliband, the immigration numbers continue to rise - thoughts..... " Concern, danger, no benefits for 2 years, no housing, benefits, tax credits.

Mr Salmond, the immigration numbers continue to rise - thoughts.... " Good "

Summarised as....?

England (and perhaps other parts of the UK, but to Scotland) has more than the number of immigrants it needs and more than the number of immigrants that can be eeasily absorbed.

Scotland has far fewer immigrants, and needs many more to be future-viable.

Meanwhile, the anti-immigration feeling is very similar in England and Scotland, despite the huge difference in proportional immigration.

Meanwhile, those that come to the UK don't want to go to Scotland.

Meanwhile, the SNP support for immigration is about to change - because it undermines indy.

And finally, if iScotland were to have an immigration policy unacceptable to rUK, iScotland would be causing border posts with England (tho iScotland being outside of the EU would also cause that).

If Scotland wants more immigrants, it needs to fiund another way - rather than driving them away with nationalism.

Edited March 30, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

I know I have been rather critical of labour on here & I did wonder if I was being a little harsh ...

then I saw the mug

I give up.

and if you care to notice, Labour plans no controls on immigration.

What they plan instead is controls on benefits, that stop people taking the piss - and even in Scotland people HATE others taking the piss over benefits.

But lets just pretend that Scotland is all for giving it's wealth away, yeah?

[eFestivals]

The SNP with 11 members did not have that power.

those SNP members voted to bring down Labour govts - twice!!

[eFestivals]

The difference is the Tories - and especially this Bullingdon variant - are really hard right, something few Liberal Democrat party members are.

On other other hand the SNP are really quite left-facing, as are the Labour party members.

If anything it gives the Labour leadership (and I'm no Ed fan but he's less Blairite than many) an excuse to go to the left as over the last few decades the success of the conservatives has forced them to the right.

do the feelings of the electorate come into any of this, or does Miliband have to do what you say?

As you've missed it: if the people of the UK wanted more-left-wing govts, they'd vote for one of the many more-left-wing parties.

The facts and democracy count for nothing to those who never reference the facts.

[LJS]

Meanwhile, the SNP support for immigration is about to change - because it undermines indy.

I think you are wrong about this. I certainly have seen nothing to support this assertion.

[LJS]

do the feelings of the electorate come into any of this, or does Miliband have to do what you say?

As you've missed it: if the people of the UK wanted more-left-wing govts, they'd vote for one of the many more-left-wing parties.

The facts and democracy count for nothing to those who never reference the facts.

The feelings of the electorate count for fuck all from 1 minute past 10 on the 7th of May.

Just as they counted for fuck all when we invaded Iraq.

[LondonTom]

The feelings of the electorate count for fuck all from 1 minute past 10 on the 7th of May.

Well unless the electorate forgets what happens by the time of the next election.

Which could be sooner than expected if things carry on the way they are.

[eFestivals]

I think you are wrong about this. I certainly have seen nothing to support this assertion.

but you snippers have said ...

- the SNP will support Labour unconditionally, but they've said they won't.

-that the SNP are for a 50p tax rate, then Alex says defo not for a 50p tax rate, then NS says dwefinitely for a 5p tax rate - but also that Alex has only said what she's approved (work that onbe out! )

- that Scotland is economically viable, but GERS says not without huge spending cuts

- that Scotland wants full fiscal autonomy, but also Barnet top ups.

Etc, etc, etc - duplicious to the last.

What the SNP want is indy, and they'll do whatever fuckarounds they think will further that.

What they don't want is good UK govt.

Edited March 30, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Labour contributing to the fuelling of anti-immigration feeling is top of the list of my reasons for not voting for them

and yet how have they fuelled it? The question that never gets answered with anything sensible.

Do you really think that benefits should be available to anyone who arrives in the UK? It's a fine principle, I admit, but it's not sustainable; we might as well just vote to abolish benefits altogether and cut out the middle bit.

75% of the British people think that something needs to be done about immigration, and as we can see over time the more it gets ignored the more it's perceieved as a problem. Something needs to be done to address those public worries, and I'd far rather a rule around entitlement to benefits than borderr guards and no EU membership. It's all very well waqnting everything your own way, but there's other views in the country and to a greater extent.

Edited March 30, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

and yet how have they fuelled it? The question that never gets answered with anything sensible.

and thank you tony for proving it.

[eFestivals]

either we want a Europe with free movement or we don't.

a restriction on eligability for benefits doesn't interfere with that.

And I'll point out that the UK would still have a greater eligability to benefits than most of the EU under Labour's suggested change.

Labour are fuelling it by pandering to the small minded (Tory and KIP voters mainly) who think their should be a restriction of movement for certain people.

that could only be true if Labour had any plans to restrict the movement of anybody. They don't.

Meanwhile, 75% of the British population do want some kind of change around immigration. Labour have come up with a solution which is a minor change that they believe people will support and which is wholey in-line with EU principles (as demonstrated by just about every other EU country that does things in a similar way).

And the main aspect that stops some people moving is that they don't have enough money or qualifications to move...

I'm sure there's a website somewhere, where you can send inviduals like that the money they need.

Meanwhile, most of the country seems to think UK taxes are best spent on UK services for UK residents, rather than on encouraging more residents and diluting services at a level we can't afford even before we get those new residents.

But not a single bit of anti-immigrant rheoric from Labour along the way, just bullshit dribbled by those who make it up for themselves.

Edited March 30, 2015 by eFestivals

[russycarps]

Brent, London

brent central is one of the seats labour could win back. You'd rather help a tory government get into power then?

god help us.

[eFestivals]

http://www.labour.org.uk/issues/detail/immigration

Labour are saying they'll do what the tories failed to do, in getting the numbers down.

They're not saying much apart from they'll be more efficient at what the tories said they'd do, but failed. Great, they'll be tougher than the Conservatives said they'll be

Whoop de do

What part of that do you think is Labour saying anything about what you said, "either we want a Europe with free movement or we don't."?

Do we have open borders with the whole world, or just the EU? Do you think the UK population supports open borders with the whole world?

Any new restriction they might make is not on EU arrivals.

Having a 2 year benefits rule still makes the UK one of the most liberal in Europe with o0ur benefit rules.

It's nothing about the first bit of bullshit you gave as your reason for your dislike, so now you're just scraping around for anything that will try and stop you looking a plonker with the bollocks you first posted abour "either we want free movement or we don't".

We've never had free movement, so we clearly don't want free movement.

We've had free movement with the EU, and that free movement with the EU will continue unchanged.

What's to hate tony? Or do you only get to hate it when you're self-inventing what it is?

[eFestivals]

Why should I vote for a party whose policies I disagree with?

firstly you have to actually reference their policies to be disagreeing with them, rather than you inventing their policies as you've just proven you do.