General Election 2015

[eFestivals]

In the interest of balance.

that was before Salmond sold Murdoch Scotland in 2011.

As proven in court.

[gary1979666]

are the votes of the Scottish people in a general election now dismissed by labour?

Nah, I think Labour has been dismissed by the Scottish people.

In the poll that predicted an SNP white wash, I think the Tories were within touching distance of Labour and up on the 2010 result.

[gary1979666]

Also haven't seen Ed's stumble yet. Has it been blown out of proportion or did he almost go down?

[eFestivals]

So if the snp offer is now ruled out by Ed, did we just see the first signs of the grand coalition :-(

are the votes of the Scottish people in a general election now dismissed by labour?

I've said a few times before that I think ed was quite right to use the line that he is fighting for a majority. why not stick to that ?

Think he has let dave force his hand. Can't see how we end up with labour without the snp unless the libs can be relied upon to get the seats and then back ed. Dangerous game.

Ed's 'betrayed' Scotland by not betraying his own party to side with those who call him a tory and who desperately want a tory govt - because the 'red tories' are the same as the 'blue tories', right?

Ed's ruled out deals.

He's not ruled out the SNP voting to support good policies.

What's most important to snippers? We get to find out.

Are they against the tories, or are they only out for themselves?

[LJS]

Also haven't seen Ed's stumble yet. Has it been blown out of proportion or did he almost go down?

He was hit by an "undecided" sniper (not snipper) in the audience.

Actually, it was no big deal.

Edited May 1, 2015 by LJS

[Comfy Bean]

I think you've confused yourself for me. I'm the one that follows current affairs, and your the one who ignorantly spouts the cybernat myths.

That's your own myth of a myth.

Meanwhile it's nothing to do with Salmond and the SNP having been bought by Murdoch.

Ed had his picture in the Sun once? Wow.

Playing the media is something very different to being owned by the media.

Salmond being bought by Murdoch is a fact proven in a court of law.

Yep, you're dead right.

And he protects himself from Leveson via the SNP, who he's bought to act in his interests.

It's been proven in court!

It`s not " my own myth of a myth " though. As I said, that`s what you said the last time. Doesn`t make it untrue though mate. Unless the BBC are cybernats which seems unlikely

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14785501

Ed on the front page of the Sun holding the Sun is not a myth. You saying he was in the Sun once is just being a little silly

Have you worked out why the man you give so much credit to has NOW came out for the SNP yet and have you managed to have a think about what he is saying in the more widely read english version.

I honestly hope the Sun readers are not as easily taken in as you seem to have been mate.

How are you working the Sun front page with the SNP logo and a noose into your arguement ?

I posted it in the Indy thread but for anyone who doesnt go in there, here is a map of the seat polling the day BEFORE Murdoch switched sides. The SNP are in yellow :

[Comfy Bean]

Also haven't seen Ed's stumble yet. Has it been blown out of proportion or did he almost go down?

They had a daft question mark shaped raised stage thingy and Ed kept stepping on and off it to get closer to the audience when he was answering them. I feared the worst for him a few times and he sort of missed his step on the way off it at the end. No biggie really. Certainly no Madonna type fall

I said after the channel 4 one with Sky that the audience were very obviously against Ed. It was clear from the start last night that they were biased against him. I think he made a mistake with the Scottish vote stuff last night but of course I would say that I suppose. I honestly think though that he did not need to say what he did. Let Cameron or dare I say Murdoch say what they like. He had his line about fighting for a majority. He should have stuck to it instead of them bullying him into a corner.

[eFestivals]

I agree that he has to say he's going for a majority but there's probably a better way to do it than to say he'd rather not be in government at all than work with the SNP.

That's not what he said.

He said he'd rather not be in govt than DO A DEAL with the SNP.

Nothing is stopping the SNP from voting for policies they support.

Unless they'd rather vote in support of the tories?

[eFestivals]

That being said, michael portillo predicts ed will be pm and he's one of the cleverest men in the world, not to mention charming, charismatic and dashing.

and on the paedo list.

[gary1979666]

and on the paedo list.

You do know that you're dead to Russy now, right?!

[Comfy Bean]

Miliband definitely got the harder questions but his denial about over spending didn't go down well at all

Aye. I agree with all of this. When he denied the overspending thing I was really surprised. That bit and what he said about deals were mistakes in my opinion. Everyone watching knows where the polls are at. We all know that deals WILL need to be done so what is he talking about ? Who`s he trying to have on with that ? Was he maybe trying to help Jim Murphy up here ? I suppose that would atleast make sense.

Does anyone have what he said word for word. It came across as pretty much - I would rather 5 more years of Dave than do a deal with whoever the jocks vote for. NOTE NO QUOTATION MARKS !

I always thought Dave would get back in. said plenty of times here that I thought he would have Ed in the " heat of battle ". I then said a couple of weeks ago that I believed Ed was our next PM. Until last night, I honestly thought that would be the case. Now, not so sure

Oh and why does Ed call Dave " Mr Cameron " all the time. Has he not been told " call me Dave ". He insists on finding out the first name of everyone else.

And whoever left that note for the Tories about no money left is an idiot. Best prop Dave could ever hope for.

[eFestivals]

It`s not " my own myth of a myth " though.

Yes it is. You just claimed you told me about Blair being godfather to Murdoch's kind. Which is funny, cos i read about it years ago, long before you started posting politics here.

Ed on the front page of the Sun holding the Sun is not a myth. You saying he was in the Sun once is just being a little silly

The were the same pics from all the party leaders. Each party leader was given the opportunity of a piece in the Sun. They took it.

Which is a bit different to having a contract to write for The Sun, which Salmond has had.

Which is a bit different to welcoming Murdoch's support as Sturgeon has done.

And is very different to selling a political party to Murdoch as Salmond has done.

Have you worked out why the man you give so much credit to has NOW came out for the SNP yet and have you managed to have a think about what he is saying in the more widely read english version.

Yes, i've worked it out.

Vote SNP to get a tory govt. Vote SNP to ensure Murdoch retains his media power.

How are you working the Sun front page with the SNP logo and a noose into your arguement ?

That's from 2007.

As the documents shown in court prove, Salmond didn't sell Murdoch the SNP until 2011.

[LJS]

That's not what he said.

He said he'd rather not be in govt than DO A DEAL with the SNP.

Nothing is stopping the SNP from voting for policies they support.

Unless they'd rather vote in support of the tories?

What he said was, pretty ambiguous - it depends what you mean by a deal - & he did backtrack on that a bit. The problem is it sounded like him saying he'd rather let Cameron in than work with the SNP and that is how it has been widely interpreted (& not just by snippets)

I'm pretty certain that risks at least as many votes as it might gain. Or are you saying, Labour voters are relaxed about letting Cameron back in?

Edited May 1, 2015 by LJS

[Comfy Bean]

Ed's 'betrayed' Scotland by not betraying his own party to side with those who call him a tory and who desperately want a tory govt - because the 'red tories' are the same as the 'blue tories', right?

Rubbish. Your just making this up now. He has never been called a Tory by either me or LJS but you continue with this garbage. We even had a chat the other day about how I was pleased when Ed beat off his brother to the leadership. I notice you kept out of that conversation

Who said the red tories are the same as the blue tories. ?? How many times do we have to say we don`t want a Tory Govt. Lock Dave Out is the plan. You and Ed need to get on board with NS and take care of business.....before it`s too late.

Ed's ruled out deals.

Have you seen the polls ? NS is the key now for no Dave. Today more than ever. Unless the Lib`s see a late surge it`s going to fall to NS.

Serious question. Would anyone rather see a grand coalition than Ed with SNP support.

Of those 2 choices, what would you want ?

[eFestivals]

What he said was, pretty ambiguous - it depends what you mean by a deal - & he did backtrack on that a bit. The problem is it sounded like him saying he'd rather let Cameron in than work with the SNP and that is how it has been widely interpreted (& not just by snippets)

I'm pretty certain that risks at least as many votes as it might gain. Or are you saying, Labour voters are relaxed about letting Cameron back in?

Cameron only gets back in if Labour have enough seats and the SNP don't support Labour.

Miliband ruled out "deals".

The SNP can vote for what they support.

What do you hate about no-stitch-up democracy in action?

[kaosmark2]

Have you seen the polls ? NS is the key now for no Dave. Today more than ever. Unless the Lib`s see a late surge it`s going to fall to NS.

Serious question. Would anyone rather see a grand coalition than Ed with SNP support.

Of those 2 choices, what would you want ?

http://www.headoflegal.com/2015/04/19/ed-can-enter-no-10-without-nicolas-keys/

Ed doesn't have to demonstrate he has a majority, Cameron can be locked out without him having to get an effective majority first. The only way Cameron isn't locked out if he can't form a majority straight after the result (inc. with a coalition), is if the SNP or some other minor party vote down the Queen's speech appointing Ed.

Edited May 1, 2015 by eFestivals

[gary1979666]

We even had a chat the other day about how I was pleased when Ed beat off his brother

*snigger*

Edited May 1, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Who said the red tories are the same as the blue tories. ??

you've never heard this said by snippers?

How many times do we have to say we don`t want a Tory Govt. Lock Dave Out is the plan. You and Ed need to get on board with NS and take care of business.....before it`s too late.

Are you threatening to support the tories?

If Sturgeon plans to lock out the tories, who does she plan to lock in?

Or doesn't she want to play a constructive part in govt after all, and instead will be a wrecker?

Why do you think anyone has to agree to being held hostage by another party:? Would you agree to the SNP being held hostage by the tories?

Ed is playing the long game, and not the SNP's game. If he plays the SNP's game he kills Labour forever and the UK is ruled only by nationalist parties (you'd love that ).

Have you seen the polls ? NS is the key now for no Dave. Today more than ever. Unless the Lib`s see a late surge it`s going to fall to NS.

you're threatening to support the tories.

Serious question. Would anyone rather see a grand coalition than Ed with SNP support.

Nope, but that could only come about if the SNP support the tories.

Of those 2 choices, what would you want ?

Of the two choices, what do the SNP want?

Or isn't that quwstion allowed to be asked of the SNP, only of Labour?

Edited May 1, 2015 by eFestivals

[Comfy Bean]

*snigger*

Roger that

[LJS]

Cameron only gets back in if Labour have enough seats and the SNP don't support Labour.

Miliband ruled out "deals".

The SNP can vote for what they support.

What do you hate about no-stitch-up democracy in action?

Which all makes Ed appearing to be prepared to let the Tories in, a really really stupid thing to say.

[gary1979666]

http://www.headoflegal.com/2015/04/19/ed-can-enter-no-10-without-nicolas-keys/

Ed doesn't have to demonstrate he has a majority, Cameron can be locked out without him having to get an effective majority first. The only way Cameron isn't locked out if he can't form a majority straight after the result (inc. with a coalition), is if the SNP or some other minor party vote down the Queen's speech appointing Ed.

I think Labour would have to be careful with that one.

From what I get from the article is that if Cameron gets 280 seats and Milliband 270 and he does not want to do a deal with the SNP, then for Ed can force Dave out of No 10.

It may be the correct way, but it will look very undemocratic. I would think the only way for that to pass basic scrutiny from the public is if Lab + SNP (+LD?) > 323 and there is some kind of agreement in place, which would mean concessions. As to try it without, then the SNP will have him over a barrel.

[LJS]

you've never heard this said by snippers?

Are you threatening to support the tories?

If Sturgeon plans to lock out the tories, who does she plan to lock in?

Or doesn't she want to play a constructive part in govt after all, and instead will be a wrecker?

Why do you think anyone has to agree to being held hostage by another party:? Would you agree to the SNP being held hostage by the tories?

Ed is playing the long game, and not the SNP's game. If he plays the SNP's game he kills Labour forever and the UK is ruled only by nationalist parties (you'd love that ).

you're threatening to support the tories.

Nope, but that could only come about if the SNP support the tories.

Of the two choices, what do the SNP want?

Or isn't that quwstion allowed to be asked of the SNP, only of Labour?

I'm sure there are examples to the contrary, but in most countries, where an election doesn't produce a clear winner, the first thing that happens is the politicians talk amongst themselves to see if they can agree a programme that can win majority support. It's what happened here in 2010. It's what happened in Scotland in 2007. Only when that fails (as it did in 2007) does someone have a bash at running a minority administration.

That seems sensible & grown up to me & it would certainly something we'd need to get used to if we get some form of PR.

Edited May 1, 2015 by LJS

[russycarps]

and on the paedo list.

he is 100% innocent. People throw themselves at him, he had no reason to commit these crimes...

Edited May 1, 2015 by russycarps

[Comfy Bean]

you've never heard this said by snippers?

You were quoting one of my posts when you said it. How can I prove what you are claiming to have heard down the pub or whatever is rubbish. Do you accept that no-one has ever said such things on here ?

Perhaps thats the best way for our discussion to work ......on here

Are you threatening to support the tories?

NO. I have told you many many times that I have never supported the tories. Thats never, as in never ever. Do you ever look back at what you say ? Why would you say this.

If Sturgeon plans to lock out the tories, who does she plan to lock in?

Ed

you're threatening to support the tories.

Oh dear

Of the two choices, what do the SNP want?

Or isn't that quwstion allowed to be asked of the SNP, only of Labour?

Don`t really understand your point here ? NS wants Dave out ED in. I agree with her. What do you want Neil. Why you avoiding the question ? Grand Coalition or ED and NS holding hands...........of friendship. Whats so diificult about you giving your opinion on this one.

Oh and I liked the way you have now remembered that you already knew about Blair and Murdochs godfather story. I remember that this was not what you said a good while back in the Indy thread

[eFestivals]

Which all makes Ed appearing to be prepared to let the Tories in, a really really stupid thing to say.

Ed can only let the tories in if the SNP let the tories in.

What part of that are you having difficulties with?

Edited May 1, 2015 by eFestivals