General Election 2015

[krisskross]

Not sure how but it does seem to be possible for non-EU nationals to get on the electoral register, without actually registering themselves. Think it might be due to council tax or something, but very odd.

[LJS]

If only...

Labour will have to move to the left or lose the election

://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/04/labour-move-left-lose-election-ed-miliband-corporate-business

[gary1979666]

I thought it was his movement to the left which has got him to where he is now. Wouldn't a move back to to Blairism get more popularity?

[eFestivals]

I thought it was his movement to the left which has got him to where he is now. Wouldn't a move back to to Blairism get more popularity?

it certainly would (not that that's what I want to happen).

Where are the voters voting for parties to the left of Labour? There's very few of them (and they certainly aren't in Scotland) and unlikely to leave their current voting intention anyway. Would a green voter ideologically switch to Labour? Probably not.

Meanwhile, if they went left, they're far more open to right wing media attacks, which will see their vote crumble.

As for the Guardian: I read it every day (I don't skim-read it), and it's tack to try and undermine Labour to try and shore-up the LibDem votes screams loudly, all the time. So much so, that the Torygraph gives a much more accurate picture of UK politics.

[kaosmark2]

As for the Guardian: I read it every day (I don't skim-read it), and it's tack to try and undermine Labour to try and shore-up the LibDem votes screams loudly, all the time. So much so, that the Torygraph gives a much more accurate picture of UK politics.

That's been the case for years. Some of its writers are clearly disillusioned with the Lib dems, but the paper generally still gives a hugely biased view.

The Torygraph spouts a lot of fascist rhetoric, but I tend to find its portrayal of politics as it is now to be a fair reflection.

[LJS]

I thought it was his movement to the left which has got him to where he is now. Wouldn't a move back to to Blairism get more popularity?

Any move to the left has been marginal & accompanied by tough talking on immigration & benfits.

It would appear that everyone here has fallen for the Blairite Myth that anything with the slightest whiff of socialism about it is tantamount to electoral suicide.

For most of us on here this is massively disappointing but is it true?

Conventional wisdom says Labour should aim for the centre ahead of the general election. New polling suggests this might not be the winning approach https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/01/29/three-trumps-could-win-labour-election/

As the above article points out, there is a tendency for people to "swing to the right" as soon as they enter the polling station, so it certainly wouldn't be a risk free strategy although I for one would prefer it to their more recent principle free strategy. It might even win them some support back in Scotland.

On behalf of Progressive Polling, previously declared SNP voters told Survation:

• A policy of a mandatory living wage would make 37% more likely to vote Labour
• A commitment to permanently abolishing tuition fees for university education in Scotland would make 30% more likely to vote Labour
• Promising to decommission the Trident nuclear weapons system would make 30% more likely to vote Labour
• A policy to re-nationalise Scottish rail services would make 27% more likely to vote Labour
• Promising free nursery places for children from the age of 12 months would make 21% more likely to vote Labour

http://survation.com/is-it-all-over-for-labour-in-scotland-poll-of-snp-voters/

Of course its always possible that Labour really believe the "tory lite" policies they have been peddling since the dawn of new Labour & have no desire to offer real change.

Edited February 6, 2015 by LJS

[eFestivals]

so how come that the SNP's policy of keeping buses in private hands - funnily enough, in the hands of the SNP's biggest donor - and the opposite of the trend in England now doesn't factor on that list as well?

Why are Labour held to account over rail, but the SNP gets a free pass over the much more used buses?

Anyone might think that there's something warped going on.

[eFestivals]

Any move to the left has been marginal & accompanied by tough talking on immigration & benfits.

It would appear that everyone here has fallen for the Blairite Myth that anything with the slightest whiff of socialism about it is tantamount to electoral suicide.

For most of us on here this is massively disappointing but is it true?

Have you not noticed the percentages of those who want Labour to go left, in a Scotland that claims to be firmly left?

If that doesn't wise you up, perhaps you might join up your own words about how England is tory-obsessed (which i'm not disagreeing with) into your thinking, and consider how that might effect how people voted if Labour went left?

I'd love a victory for the (true) left, but I'm not so stupid as to think one has any hope at all in the current climate - a climate where Scotland has only just caught up with Thatcherism, and where it's Thatcherist principles of individualism driving the SNP's rise.

Edited February 7, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

Have you not noticed the percentages of those who want Labour to go left, in a Scotland that claims to be firmly left?

If that doesn't wise you up, perhaps you might join up your own words about how England is tory-obsessed (which i'm not disagreeing with) into your thinking, and consider how that might effect how people voted if Labour went left?

I'd love a victory for the (true) left, but I'm not so stupid as to think one has any hope at all in the current climate - a climate where Scotland has only just caught up with Thatcherism, and where it's Thatcherist principles of individualism driving the SNP's rise.

I've quoted polling figures which suggest that there might be some electoral advantage in labour moving to the left.

You respond with some old gossip about the SNP & buses.

Edited February 7, 2015 by LJS

[eFestivals]

I've quoted polling figures which suggest that there might be some electoral advantage in labour moving to the left.

"might" being the important word, and a consideration that doesn't try to count who moves away as others only-perhaps move nearer.

[eFestivals]

Heard on the Radio they are about to announce a £2 billion school rebuilding program....

Just like the one they cut when they came into power saying it was too costly...

Politics is a massive bag of w*nk....

Yep, Osborne's 'Plan A' which he said he was sticking to while saying Labour's plans would be a disaster, is starting to look mightily like that Labour plan, tho without the benefits that a proper plan would have brought.

Still, it's fooling most of the stupid who vote tory. Many of the less stupid tories have noticed and switched to UKIP (and are the 'smart' UKIP voters, if that's not an oxymoron ).

And the banks are still unreformed, over 6 years since the crash.

[russycarps]

and meanwhile more tax payers money is thrown at pensioners to tempt them to stay with the tories.

and of course the only pensioners to actually benefit from the lucrative longer term bonds are the wealthy ones who can afford to be without a large lump sum for 3 years.

The rich get richer, the poor get shafted. It was ever thus.

[5co77ie]

Psalm 12th May : "Because the poor are plundered and the needy groan, I will now arise," says the Lord. "I will protect them from those who malign them."

Edited February 9, 2015 by 5co77ie

[eFestivals]

I really can't stand Ed Milliband...

because...?

I'm just wondering if its because he looks a bit weird?

[russycarps]

because...?

I'm just wondering if its because he looks a bit weird?

"imagine him meeting putin, putin will eat him for breakfast!"

seems to be the current reason to hate him.

[eFestivals]

A bit of everything...

Its obviously some what unfair to highlight he is a bit weird, sounds and looks funny. Ultimately its not a reason to not vote for him... But it does make it hard for him to get a message across at times...

either he gets his message across to you without you being affected by him being 'wierd', or he doesn't. Care to say which it is, for you personally?

I think he has been a weak leader of the opposition. He hasn't successfully attacked the government when they have been open targets. He lost most of the PMQ debates I watched.

PMSL.

He's certainly no worse than Cameron in PMQs, tho that's meaningless anyway. It's the substance of policy which counts.

[eFestivals]

Given the disaster of his idea to put a freeze on energy prices, he isn't doing much in that department either.

And yet if he'd actually had the power to implement it at that time, it would have been a fantastic policy.

Cameron had the power to do something and did nothing.

Which is worse?

[eFestivals]

I think he has a communication issue.

I am open minded to what he says to say... I come away from listening thinking I have just been preached to by a college student doing A-Level politics.

He doesn't carry authority or feeling of excitement from what he says. He doesn't have that "Blair / Thatcher" feel around him at all. The power to win you over. To get you coming along with his plan / vision.

I think Cameron and Clegg have more of it.n

This isn't policy I am talking. Just from a communication point of view.

vote authority and excitement, your country needs authority and excitement.

[kaosmark2]

Heard on the Radio they are about to announce a £2 billion school rebuilding program....

Just like the one they cut when they came into power saying it was too costly...

Politics is a massive bag of w*nk....

Not to mention that the one they'd cut already had 2/3rds of the funds committed, so the state actually lost a vast amount of money on it.

[eFestivals]

It was a fucking terrible policy.

that would only be true if the current market & govt regulation is perfect.

Is it perfect, or can it be improved?

(clue: when 40% of the price is faked by the market, it can be improved).

If the policy had been introduced the consumer would of paid more.

That's a presumption you're making, but don't let that stop you making it up out of nothing.

Nothing was said about what would happen if prices were to fall, and it would be a mighty stupid govt that put in place regulation that said prices couldn't fall.

And even if prices had gone up the price would of been adjusted before the cap came in to counter act it. Or the price would of gone up after the cap to make up for it.

I see that clearly stated policy doesn't stop you making it up from your head either.

Any manipulation of prices around a price freeze would have been reversed.

He is now talking about capping prices and forcing companies to reduce prices when wholesale prices all which is something of an improvement on the idea and much more workable.

it's a more explicitly-stated version of the same policy.

[pink_triangle]

He doesn't carry authority or feeling of excitement from what he says. He doesn't have that "Blair / Thatcher" feel around him at all. The power to win you over. To get you coming along with his plan / vision.

.

From what I have read there were the same doubts about Thatcher before she came into power. He may surprise people if made pm.

[eFestivals]

Its no more me making it up than you by saying it was a fantastic policy without knowing all the details to say that.

The difference is that I'm not making it up and saying it like it's a fact.

Meanwhile, are you really saying that in regard to the big issues in the domestic energy market, a Dave Cameron policy of doing nothing is better than a policy of reform?

The companies set their own prices. Milliband was not talking about imposing a price on them. Just FREEZING the price.

Just freezing the price - temporarily - until a review of the energy market had been carried out.

It wasn't a policy of freezing the price and then doing nothing.

Wholesale gas prices have been going downwards for quite a while. As you say... Join the dots...

I said at the time he announced the policy that it ran the risk of being out of date down the line, so I'm not pretending that everything about it was fabulous or is fabulous.

It was a shit policy that would never have been implemented. Hence the adjustments to it now.

It was doing something and not nothing, about an issue where something needs doing.

It's actually brave of Ed to say something needs doing, because the market set-up we have is much his own creation.

For the tories, it's channelling loads of private and public money into the pockets of them and their cronies, so nothing needs to be done.

[eFestivals]

I haven't even bothered reading your reply. I can't be arsed.

good good ... it's always better to fantasise these things than interface with reality.

[gary1979666]

Neil, I seem to remember that you were quite critical of that policy when it was announced. Have you changed your view on it or have I completely misremembered?

[lost]

Agree with Barry on this one. If there is a problem, there is existing legislation there via the cartels and competition act to deal with it. Politicians coming out and promising price fixes for purely populist reasons isn't the way to go about it.

We've had similar policies in Venezuela for years now, the government trying to fix prices low to "help the poor" and attacking "greedy companies" its only resulted in shortages of essential goods and services and those companies which supply them being forced out of business. Only the oil industry remained and now the oil price is crashing the shit is hitting the fan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfqRrjpHs1s