General Election 2015

[eFestivals]

As ever you've missed a bit.

The SNP justification is that the deficit I s less important than spending on people.

Yet there's nothing to spend on people if the deficit isn't managed.

I've seen the UK's debt of 250℅ of GDP in the 40s/50s along with a welfare state given as justification of why its OK to spend .... But that person seems to have forgotten the rationing and austerity that went with it.

Sturgeon has given her view that deficits are an irrelevance, so I wouldn't be happy for her to manage a kid's savings account, let alone a country.

[LJS]

"Senior Labour politicians have expressed reservations about Ed Miliband flatly ruling out any kind of deal with the Scottish National party in order to govern after the election."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/02/election-2015-top-labour-figures-question-milibands-snp-stance

[LJS]

As ever you've missed a bit.

The SNP justification is that the deficit I s less important than spending on people.

Yet there's nothing to spend on people if the deficit isn't managed.

Which is why they propose to manage it.

I've seen the UK's debt of 250℅ of GDP in the 40s/50s along with a welfare state given as justification of why its OK to spend .... But that person seems to have forgotten the rationing and austerity that went with it.

Sturgeon has given her view that deficits are an irrelevance, No she hasn't so I wouldn't be happy for her to manage a kid's savings account, let alone a country.

& anyway, she won't be running the UK - she might have an influence but I'm sure the Eds will make sure she doesn't get to go on some mad spending spree:)

[bunique]

Convenient timing for a royal birth, eh? #tinfoilhat

[paolo2143]

A Tory majority is a prospect that should terrorise most ordinary hard working people and not just those in the public services.

It is unbelievable how the Conservatives have not been dragged over the coals about where they are going to find the £12 Billion in cuts from as they just keep deflecting the question with the old "throw a dead cat on the table " routine which has no doubt been drummed into them by advisor Lynton Crosby.

They knew they could not afford to tell the public the truth about the cuts so they deliberately stoked up a fear of SNP controlling a Labour minority Govt just to distract attention and since they are never going to win by inspiring the population they just use that tried and tested other method of trying to scare us all into voting for them by default.

I just hope enough people see through their tactics ,maybe they should watch this cliphttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcVFHC8hwpc

[lost]

I've seen the UK's debt of 250℅ of GDP in the 40s/50s along with a welfare state given as justification of why its OK to spend .... But that person seems to have forgotten the rationing and austerity that went with it.

This is spot on, it's been dragged up a few times, firstly around the time of the first set of cuts.

The main reason you can't compare the two is because the 40's/50's debt was mainly run up during world war 2 and so people are effectively comparing a war time deficit and debt with a peace time one. These are obviously two completely different things, at the end of a war you declare peace and then immediately stop paying for as many planes, tanks, ammunition's etc.. In the same way with a peace time deficit you can't just stop paying pensions, wages, PFI contracts etc..

If I was to use a metaphor I would say it would be like viewing someones bank account the week after their wedding, knowing they didn't go under and then assuming you can get married every month. Obviously someones deficit spending that week would look terrible with the costs on the day and the honeymoon to pay for but when things go back to normal they should be able to generate a surplus to pay off the wedding. Equally someone who is running a smaller deficit but its going on mortgage, bills and food is going to have a much bigger problem turning it around.

It is unbelievable how the Conservatives have not been dragged over the coals about where they are going to find the £12 Billion in cuts from

To be fair all the main parties manifestos are frankly ridiculous which huge funding gaps. Everybody is voting blind on this one which is the main reason i'm probably not going to vote.

[eFestivals]

"Senior Labour politicians have expressed reservations about Ed Miliband flatly ruling out any kind of deal with the Scottish National party in order to govern after the election."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/02/election-2015-top-labour-figures-question-milibands-snp-stance

I'm wetting myself at all of this.

The SNP have spent the last months ruling out a coalition, and pretty much ruling out a confidence and supply deal. As Salmond himself has stated before Ed said anything at all about this, vote-by-vote support was by-far the most likely.

It's an outrage that the SNP might have to vote in support of policies they support.

And it's an outrage that Miliband refuses to do what the SNP had already refused to do.

Are they a little confused, or just amazingly dumb?

Snippers seem to truly believe the myths they've been spouting, that voting SNP will make Labour their bitch.

Snippers, who've spent the last 3+ decades moaning about how they're dominated by England, have started nationalist politics across these islands but now say they're dismayed at nationalism entering UK politics.

Snippers, who demanded devolution, are now dismayed at what devolution is bringing to them.

Snippers, who started all this, have failed to think it thru and now discover their errors.

And they think indie is the answer, where Scotland will end up the bitch of English nationalism like it's never known before.

Vote how you like, and like the consequences of your vote.

[eFestivals]

Sturgeon has given her view that deficits are an irrelevance, No she hasn't

Sturgeon: Deficits are "not relevant because it’s a snapshot one-year figure"

No, she's not said that at all.

& anyway, she won't be running the UK

If snippers accept that, then why the dismay when Ed says she won't be running the UK?

- she might have an influence but I'm sure the Eds will make sure she doesn't get to go on some mad spending spree:)

He will - by not doing a deal with her where the terms of the deal she wants would let her go on a spending spree.

[LJS]

I'm wetting myself at all of this.

The SNP have spent the last months ruling out a coalition, and pretty much ruling out a confidence and supply deal. As Salmond himself has stated before Ed said anything at all about this, vote-by-vote support was by-far the most likely.

It's an outrage that the SNP might have to vote in support of policies they support.

And it's an outrage that Miliband refuses to do what the SNP had already refused to do.

Are they a little confused, or just amazingly dumb?

Snippers seem to truly believe the myths they've been spouting, that voting SNP will make Labour their bitch.

Snippers, who've spent the last 3+ decades moaning about how they're dominated by England, have started nationalist politics across these islands but now say they're dismayed at nationalism entering UK politics.

Snippers, who demanded devolution, are now dismayed at what devolution is bringing to them.

Snippers, who started all this, have failed to think it thru and now discover their errors.

And they think indie is the answer, where Scotland will end up the bitch of English nationalism like it's never known before.

Vote how you like, and like the consequences of your vote.

Interestingly, your response to an article about Labour figures questioning Labour's position is just another attack on SNP supporters.

[eFestivals]

Interestingly, your response to an article about Labour figures questioning Labour's position is just another attack on SNP supporters.

Sorry that I just can't stop laughing at people who don't like Labour doing what the SNP have said they want and expect Labour to do, and who are confused by the party they support.

As for those 'senior Labour figures', if those unnamed people really have those opinions, they're rather dumb people from any angle you want to go at. Even from an SNP-loving angle.

Are senior Labour members with more than just one braincell really saying that Labour should tell people to not vote Labour but to instead vote for their opponents?? What do you think?

Are senior Labour members with more than just one braincell really saying that Labour should change to become an English nationalist party? What do you think?

Are senior Labour members with more than just one braincell really saying that Labour should never have a majority again? What do you think?

Are senior Labour members with more than just one braincell really saying that Labour should back indie for Scotland? What do you think?

Are senior Labour members with more than just one braincell really saying they should abandon senior Labour members who are Scottish? What do you think?

Are senior Labour members with more than just one braincell really saying that Scottish Labour members now and forever cannot be PM? What do you think?

Get back to me when you've worked it out.

[eFestivals]

Sturgeon: Deficits are "not relevant because it’s a snapshot one-year figure"

Nothing to say about what you said Sturgeon hasn't said, LJS?

Might you roll out some Scottish exceptionalism, and say deficits only don't count when it's a Scottish deficit, as a way to give St Nicola a free pass for stupidity?

Or will you just accept that she thinks deficits are irrelevant, and instead move her stupidity onto yourself?

Take your pick.

[LJS]

Sorry that I just can't stop laughing at people who don't like Labour doing what the SNP have said they want and expect Labour to do, and who are confused by the party they support.

As for those 'senior Labour figures', if those unnamed people really have those opinions, they're rather dumb people from any angle you want to go at. Even from an SNP-loving angle.

Are senior Labour members with more than just one braincell really saying that Labour should tell people to not vote Labour but to instead vote for their opponents?? What do you think?

Are senior Labour members with more than just one braincell really saying that Labour should change to become an English nationalist party? What do you think?

Are senior Labour members with more than just one braincell really saying that Labour should never have a majority again? What do you think?

Are senior Labour members with more than just one braincell really saying that Labour should back indie for Scotland? What do you think?

Are senior Labour members with more than just one braincell really saying they should abandon senior Labour members who are Scottish? What do you think?

Are senior Labour members with more than just one braincell really saying that Scottish Labour members now and forever cannot be PM? What do you think?

Get back to me when you've worked it out.

The answer to every one of your questions is , of course, no.

Quite what the relevance of any of the questions is, is quite beyond me. Possibly, your most pointless & vacuous post ever.

[eFestivals]

The answer to every one of your questions is , of course, no.

Quite what the relevance of any of the questions is, is quite beyond me. Possibly, your most pointless & vacuous post ever.

If what the Guardian has published stood up to any sense, the sensible answer to each of my questions would be 'yes' and not the 'no' you've replied with.

So you've just called out that article as stupid, and any senior Labour members that article might have been based on as stupid. Which puts you in the same places as me.

There may or may not be people that stupid in the Labour party, but there's definitely someone stupid enough on the SNP's side who wishes Labour were that stupid. I wonder who that is?

[LJS]

Nothing to say about what you said Sturgeon hasn't said, LJS?

Might you roll out some Scottish exceptionalism, and say deficits only don't count when it's a Scottish deficit, as a way to give St Nicola a free pass for stupidity?

Or will you just accept that she thinks deficits are irrelevant, and instead move her stupidity onto yourself?

Take your pick.

You're using what she said in response to an IFS report on the implications of full fiscal autonomy for Scotland & suggesting that applies to the discussion here which is about the UK deficit. You also misquote her by implying she has said deficits are not important.

Remember, the IFS has said there is no reason why the Labour party could not achieve its financial targets.

If you think the SNP are proposing a spending spree, I'd hate to go shopping with you.

[LJS]

If what the Guardian has published stood up to any sense, the sensible answer to each of my questions would be 'yes' and not the 'no' you've replied with.

So you've just called out that article as stupid, and any senior Labour members that article might have been based on as stupid. Which puts you in the same places as me.

There may or may not be people that stupid in the Labour party, but there's definitely someone stupid enough on the SNP's side who wishes Labour were that stupid. I wonder who that is?

I'm guessing my link must be taking you to a different article from the one it's taking me to.

[eFestivals]

You're using what she said in response to an IFS report on the implications of full fiscal autonomy for Scotland & suggesting that applies to the discussion here which is about the UK deficit. You also misquote her by implying she has said deficits are not important.

It doesn't matter a fuck what specific scenario Sturgeon was talking about.

Either deficits are relevant to self-financing economies, or their not relevant to self-financing economies. Which is it, LJS?

Given that she's proposing a policy of a self-financing Scotland, it's laughable to say how it self-finances is "not relevant".

Remember, the IFS has said there is no reason why the Labour party could not achieve its financial targets.

And what did the IFS say about the SNP's policies?

That they couldn't achieve their financial targets. Oh dear.

If you think the SNP are proposing a spending spree, I'd hate to go shopping with you.

Yep, you'd definitely hate paying your own way.

It would be a right bastard for you to have to pay for your things by yourself, eh?

Edited May 3, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

It doesn't matter a fuck what specific scenario Sturgeon was talking about.

Either deficits are relevant to self-financing economies, or their not relevant to self-financing economies. Which is it, LJS?

Given that she's proposing a policy of a self-financing Scotland, it's laughable to say how it self-finances is "not relevant".

And what did the IFS say about the SNP's policies?

That they couldn't achieve their financial targets. Oh dear.

Yep, you'd definitely hate paying your own way.

It would be a right bastard for you to have to pay for your things by yourself, eh?

She has never said deficits are not important.

[eFestivals]

She has never said deficits are not important.

she said the deficit in her proposed policies is "not relevant".

That's the *EXACT* opposite of what you've just claimed.

The spending cuts she proposes that are far bigger than anything the tories have ever threatened are "not relevant".

How Scotland manages in that new era of mega-austerity is "not relevant".

How the SNHS is paid for is "not relevant".

How your kids are educated is "not relevant".

But don't let that stop you from supporting the policies she proposes and their effect on you - that the very bad effect on you is "not relevant".

Edited May 3, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

she said the deficit in her proposed policies is "not relevant".

No she didn't, you can go & find the link if you want & I think you will find her critising the use of a one year snapshot, you won't find anywhere where she says deficits are irrelevant.

Anyway, I'm watching Clegg on Andy Marr & I cannot believe I am the only person who is sick & fed up of interviewers banging on about what happens after May 7th. Anyone with a brain knows that in order to get any sort of stable government all parties involved would have to compromise. Equally we all know, no party is going to flag up in advance which of the policies they are campaigning on are negotiable. Quite why interviewers like Marr waste their time on this is beyond me.

[eFestivals]

No she didn't, you can go & find the link if you want & I think you will find her critising the use of a one year snapshot, you won't find anywhere where she says deficits are irrelevant.

she was commenting on her proposed policies.

She said the deficit in her proposed policies wasn't relevant.

She said it wasn't relevant because it's just a one year snapshot - a snapshot that's identical for having a deficit in 24 of the last 25 years, and where that deficit is significantly bigger than whole-UK's in 18 of those 25 years.

Now, even the best spinner in the world can't spin those true facts into something that's "not relevant", so her "not relevant" actually means "please be stupid enough to accept the bullshit I'm giving you, so that I, Ms Sturgeon, can impoverish all of Scotland forever".

But yeah, nothing of that is relevant.

FFS.

Anyway, I'm watching Clegg on Andy Marr & I cannot believe I am the only person who is sick & fed up of interviewers banging on about what happens after May 7th. Anyone with a brain knows that in order to get any sort of stable government all parties involved would have to compromise. Equally we all know, no party is going to flag up in advance which of the policies they are campaigning on are negotiable. Quite why interviewers like Marr waste their time on this is beyond me.

I see you're doing the normal snipper thing of making it up as you go along.

The minority Labour govt of '74 was stable, apart from all of the while that the SNP was destabilising it - by changing their tune all of the time, to ask for things they knew couldn't be delivered to give an excuse to bring it down.

You get a stable govt by having honest parties who do what they say. The SNP didn't back then (read it in Callaghan's memoirs), and they won't do now either. There's nothing beneficial to the SNP from the UK being well-governed.

Equally we all know, no party is going to flag up in advance which of the policies they are campaigning on are negotiable.

You seemed to have missed Miliband's definitive statement. Because he knows snippers don't listen, he spelt it out twice, even doing you the courtesy of coming to your region to tell you.

And because you don't listen you now claim the opposite of the facts.

Just as with iScotland and a currency union and the EU, the snipper version is "it's all lies from other parties, only the SNP don't lie".

Get back to me in a week or so, and we'll run thru this again.

Edited May 3, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

OK, Dave passing a law to prevent himself raising taxes was pretty crazy.

The question is: Is Ed carving his promises on stone more or less crazy?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32573812

Word on the street is the SNP will respond by battering & deep-frying their manifesto.

[pink_triangle]

As someone who is definitely going to vote labour, the thought of an SNP influence worries me, therefore I dread to think the impact it will have on a swing voter. Assuming the SNP wont demand another referendum at this stage, what will they demand to stay in line. I can only assume it is going to be more money for Scotland, which is natural for a party of Scotland.

However as someone Wales with strong affinity to the north of England, it terrifies me the potential of money being distributed away from us to Scotland as part of any negotiation, we need it just as badly, if not more. At least with the lib dems the majority of us have the opportunity to punish them via the ballot box, however the vast majority of the country cant do the same for the SNP.

[LJS]

As someone who is definitely going to vote labour, the thought of an SNP influence worries me, therefore I dread to think the impact it will have on a swing voter. Assuming the SNP wont demand another referendum at this stage, what will they demand to stay in line. I can only assume it is going to be more money for Scotland, which is natural for a party of Scotland.

However as someone Wales with strong affinity to the north of England, it terrifies me the potential of money being distributed away from us to Scotland as part of any negotiation, we need it just as badly, if not more. At least with the lib dems the majority of us have the opportunity to punish them via the ballot box, however the vast majority of the country cant do the same for the SNP.

I'm curious, Pink. Why are you so scared of some SNP mp's, who will have been elected on a manifesto not radically different from the labour party? When the Libdems formed a coalition with the Tories, it wasn't about "their demands" it was about negotiation& agreement.

You talk about the lib dems - I've voted for them in the past & I would have been appalled if they had joined up with the Tories then. You say they are accountable at the ballot box - 5 years later!! once the damage is done.. great:)

I am genuinely at a loss as to what the fuss is about with the SNP. They have made it crystal clear that even if they win every seat in Scotland, they will not see this as a mandate for a second referendum. Their manifesto policies are by and large about the UK as a whole. They seek an end to austerity which has made the poorest in society pay for the sins of the richest. They seek to avoid the renewal of trident preferring to spend money on health & education instead of WMD. There are only minor differences between the two parties. So, why the fear? Do you think they'll sneak Scotland away when no one is looking?

The thing that would worry me , if I were you, is that the Labour party is being bullied more & more by the Tories to rule out co-operation with the SNP, which could deliver real positive change throughout the UK. The danger is they will spurn the SNP & let the Tories in, or bring about a second election. Can Labour afford a second election?

[LJS]

.Mr Cameron insisted he is the "only option" for avoiding a "calamitous" and "chilling" tie-up between Ed Miliband and the SNP.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/cameron-wants-ukip-and-lib-dem-supports-to-back-tories-and-avoid-calamito.1430650311

OK all you Labour voters out there, if Dave says it's so "calamitous" and "chilling" presumably it must be good. I mean you wouldn't rather have Dave, would you?... would you?

[pink_triangle]

I'm curious, Pink. Why are you so scared of some SNP mp's, who will have been elected on a manifesto not radically different from the labour party? When the Libdems formed a coalition with the Tories, it wasn't about "their demands" it was about negotiation& agreement.

You talk about the lib dems - I've voted for them in the past & I would have been appalled if they had joined up with the Tories then. You say they are accountable at the ballot box - 5 years later!! once the damage is done.. great:)

I am genuinely at a loss as to what the fuss is about with the SNP. They have made it crystal clear that even if they win every seat in Scotland, they will not see this as a mandate for a second referendum. Their manifesto policies are by and large about the UK as a whole. They seek an end to austerity which has made the poorest in society pay for the sins of the richest. They seek to avoid the renewal of trident preferring to spend money on health & education instead of WMD. There are only minor differences between the two parties. So, why the fear? Do you think they'll sneak Scotland away when no one is looking?

The thing that would worry me , if I were you, is that the Labour party is being bullied more & more by the Tories to rule out co-operation with the SNP, which could deliver real positive change throughout the UK. The danger is they will spurn the SNP & let the Tories in, or bring about a second election. Can Labour afford a second election?

Im not sure manifestos mean very much, I don't think any party is being particularly honest about their plans for the future, both labour and conservative will use not being a majority as an excuse for getting out of any promises that they deliver. What worries me more is the grubby backroom promises that will be made to put either Cameron or Milliband in power. During the last coaltion negotiations nothing was written down to get around freedom of interest requests and no doubt the same will happen for any negotiations post the next election.

I have no problem with the SNP wanting the best deal for Scotland, they are a Scottish party. However it cant always be assumed that the best deal for Scotland is the best for everyone else. There isn't an unlimited pot and if extra money is syphoned to Scotland, it must come from somewhere else. I worry that the rest of us may have to fund a giveaway to Scotland. Im not against you having your fair share, I just don't want you to have more.