UK General ELection 7 May 2015

[Stavros]

The Prime Minister went to Buckingham Palace on Monday to formally inform Her Most Noble Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II that her Parliament has been dissolved, and that there will be a General Election on Thursday 7th May.

This has been referred to either as the most boring, or the most interesting election of recent years. The boredom seems to relate to the lack of dominant issues, so that this election if it is about anything, is about 'more of the same' under the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition, or 'something else, as yet undefined' by the Labour Party.

David Cameron has been accused of having no vision, Ed Miliband of having no charisma, and so far neither of the two main parties has been able to establish a clear lead in the opinion polls, which put them roughly 3% points adrift of each other.

Where this is becomes an interesting election is on the margins, where the Scottish National Party, the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), and the Green Party look set to increase their share of the vote. Note, however, that the popular vote does not elect governments in the UK, which is formed from the largest party in the House of Commons, and therefore the number of seats in the House is the decisive factor. The Labour landslide of 1997 was won with a million fewer votes than the Tory victory of 1993.

Predictions are tricky in these situations, because UKIP could take votes from both Labour and the Tories, the Scottish Nationalists appear to be eating into the Labour vote in Scotland while the Green Party is more likeley to take votes from Labour. A wipe-out of the Liberal Democrats is predicted by some, but in all these cases votes do not always mean seats so that my own worthless opinion on the evidence so far is that we will return on May 8th with the same Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition that we have had these past five years.

UKIP may win three or four seats, Labour I expect to lose more in Scotland but retain its vote in Wales. I do not expect the Greens to improve on the one seat they have (in the coastal town of Brighton) and they may lose that.

In so far as there are issues -Labour will bang on about the NHS because it has little else to promote, having long ago given up wealth re-distribution as a pillar of its party vision; the Tories will claim the economy is improving and it would be mad to change course now; the Liberal Democrats will insist they are containing the worst the Tories might otherwise inflict on the population; UKIP want a referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union, which they want the UK to leave, and want an end to immigration even if they claim they want a 'managed policy' on this; the Greens want an end to fossil fuels, and a vague commitment to social justice, and the Scottish Nationalists want more -and yet more- for Scotland.

Boring, or interesting? I think interesting, but I won't be losing any sleep over the outcome.

[Laphroaig]

I think it will be more interesting than most elections, because it really does seem to be wide open this time and despite Labour ruling it out, an SNP coalition is a possibility. Talk about the tail wagging the dog...
I still want an option at the bottom of the ballot paper for "none of the above" though.

[broncofan]

I had a co-worker who sent me a link to a PM questions a couple of months ago. I swear I had no idea what the major issues were but it was entertaining. I have since watched parts of Jeremy Paxson's interview with Cameron and Miliband. Still, after watching such a conversation I am only able to get a sense of personal styles..in the same way American Presidential debates probably reveal very little about the issues if you are not already aware of the candidate's positions.

Ed Miliband pretty much suffers from the same malady that American politicians Al Gore and John Kerry had. They seem uncomfortable dealing with people and come across as aloof. This in turn makes it very easy for the press to prey on them.

I remember John Kerry being picked apart during his 2004 campaign for saying things like "Whom amongst us doesn't like Nascar"...the stilted phrasing of which made him seem an unlikely Nascar supporter. Or Al Gore being accused of claiming to have invented the internet and having every facial expression analyzed during his debates with George Bush. By the end of that election he seemed a villain just for being slightly odd.

So Miliband seems to deal with the same thing...can he eat a bacon sandwich, is he a geek, etc. Cameron on the other hand is a bit slicker when it comes to answering questions and seems generally more comfortable. It's partly my fault if I don't know any of the issues, but the press does not make it any easier by focusing so much on personality (I'm not claiming it's any different here).

So maybe you guys can help me out by telling me two or three major domestic issues that Miliband and Cameron have taken different stances on. I've heard Miliband carry on about how he supports ordinary British people and stands for change rather than more of the same...but that didn't help me much:).

[broncofan]

In so far as there are issues -Labour will bang on about the NHS because it has little else to promote, having long ago given up wealth re-distribution as a pillar of its party vision;
Miliband seemed to have a little more leeway to use the populist rhetoric than people do in the U.S. Here, if you even acknowledge that a graduated tax system is indirectly re-distributive you are advocating socialism or even Marxism. I recall something about the mansion tax and various other comments about helping out ordinary people (Miliband seemed to identify himself as someone who is financially well off and can afford to be helpful), or was that just rhetoric?

Edit: Seems I had the name wrong above. The interview was with Jeremy Paxman. A bit of an aggressive interviewer eh? Both good and bad to that.

[Laphroaig]

So maybe you guys can help me out by telling me two or three major domestic issues that Miliband and Cameron have taken different stances on. I've heard Miliband carry on about how he supports ordinary British people and stands for change rather than more of the same...but that didn't help me much:).



I'm going to be completely honest, having voted Labour all my life (I'll never vote Conservative), I'm finding it increasingly difficult now too separate the policies of the 2 main parties.

Following the independence referendum, Scotland may have a slightly different agenda, but for the rest of the UK, the 2 main issues in this election will be probably be immigration and the economy.

I don't know each party's stance on immigration, the Conservatives keep saying they have cut it but the figures seem to show different.

On the economy, this is a sweeping generalisation, but broadly speaking the Conservatives want to continue the current program of spending cuts in order to reduce the deficit and eventually build up to a budget surplus, while Labour want to increase public spending in order to stimulate and grow the economy to achieve the same effect. It largely boils down to whether you want to continue with the Conservatives "austerity" which is slowly working (albeit much slower and with more pain than they claim) or whether you take a leap of faith and think Labours plans can be "trusted" after the economic collapse under Gordon Brown. (Whether it was his fault is an entirely different debate).

In the end, I'm thoroughly disillusioned with both parties (hence the "none of the above" comment) and am seriously considering voting SNP for the first time.

[Stavros]

In the end, I'm thoroughly disillusioned with both parties (hence the "none of the above" comment) and am seriously considering voting SNP for the first time.

I think that this is a common feeling among many voters -I was surprised when a close friend was enthusiastic about the SNP campaign during the referendum as she doesn't even live there, but she liked the social justice element of their programme, something she feels is lacking in the English parties.

[Stavros]

So maybe you guys can help me out by telling me two or three major domestic issues that Miliband and Cameron have taken different stances on. I've heard Miliband carry on about how he supports ordinary British people and stands for change rather than more of the same...but that didn't help me much:).

On the economy, as Laphroaig said, Labour will increase the higher rate of taxation to 50% the Tories will keep it at 40%; Labour has endorsed the Liberal Democrat concept of a 'Mansion tax' on properties valued at over £2 million -which includes the house which Miliband lives (which has two kitchens).

Labour will not hold a referendum on the UK's membership of the EU, the Tories might -it depends on the circumstances.

Labour will reduce tuition fees for University students, the Tories will not. Neither Miliband (PPE [Politics, Philosophy and Economics] at Oxford) nor Cameron (PPE at Oxford) paid tuition fees when they were at university, nor did I. If Miliband had any balls, he would scrap tuition fees altogether. His shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose name IS Ed Balls (yes you guessed it, PPE at Oxford) doesn't have any of the political kind. Neither, you will be relieved to hear does Mrs Balls, also known as Yvette Cooper, Labour's shadow Secretary for Work, Health and Pensions who, I kid you not, studied PPE at Oxford.
The diversity of candidates in this election is such an encouragement to the younger generation.

Cameron now claims to be the 13th cousin of Kim Kardashian, which like 'Two kitchens' Miliband is the sort of detail that frankly is not going to make voters change their minds, but may make some shake their heads.

Meanwhile, another UKIP candidate has resigned -in the last year something like 15 parliamentary candidates have either been sacked, resigned, or defected on a range of issues such as embezzling party funds, complaining about racism and bullying in the party, gaffes etc etc. The latest to resign, Jeremy Zeid had printed in his Facebook page the view that after leaving the White House, Israel should 'do an Eichmann' on Barack Obama, ie, kidnap him and put him on trial in Israel...apparently Obama is responsible for leaking information about Israel's nuclear weapons. Expect more madness from UKIP in the next few weeks.

Links to stories here:
Cameron and Kim
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11506560/David-Cameron-reveals-he-is-related-to-Kim-Kardashian.html

UKIP candidate resigns over Obama comment
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-32134581

[broncofan]

That's very helpful on the economic front by both of you. I understand as we generally have the same split here. Stimulus or austerity. I like the idea of reduced or fully subsidized university bills although we don't accomplish anything like that ourselves. So I guess Labor isn't confident that the public would get behind full subsidy?

How significant are the differences on foreign policy?

Also, do either of you support a referendum on EU membership? I genuinely appreciate the info.

[broncofan]

Cameron now claims to be the 13th cousin of Kim Kardashian, which like 'Two kitchens' Miliband is the sort of detail that frankly is not going to make voters change their minds.

What about whether Mr. Cameron brushes his hair back in a very particular way to avoid revealing a bald spot? I actually think that kind of attention to detail can be very useful:).

[Stavros]

That's very helpful on the economic front by both of you. I understand as we generally have the same split here. Stimulus or austerity. I like the idea of reduced or fully subsidized university bills although we don't accomplish anything like that ourselves. So I guess Labor isn't confident that the public would get behind full subsidy?

How significant are the differences on foreign policy?

Also, do either of you support a referendum on EU membership? I genuinely appreciate the info.

Foreign policy in general rarely plays a major role in elections, whereas defence has a higher profile. At the moment there are three main issues:
Defence Expenditure, Trident, EU -

The Tories are committed to maintaining expenditure of 2% of GDP on defence in line with NATO recommendations; Labour might reduce that or argue we can't afford 2% but would spend close to it.

Labour and the Tories both want to keep Trident as the UK's nuclear deterrent, the SNP want it scrapped which is only relevant if there is an SNP-Labour Coalition although the issue could be kicked into the grass as domestic issues take precedence.

Only UKIP want to leave the EU, via a referendum. The problem of reform in the EU, badly needed as it has expanded over the last 10 years, is as difficult as reform in the UN where dominant players resist it. The argument is that if there were a referendum, the campaign itself would damage Britain by raising questions in Europe about its commitment, it would limit long term investment decisions by foreign businesses in Britain pending the outcome, and create anxiety among those EU nationals who live in the UK who would not know what will happen if they have bought property, have children in school here, and so on.

UKIP's argument is that Britain is not going to lose its trade with the rest of Europe just because we are not formal members of it, but we will not have to incorporate EU laws and directives which they say undermine the UK's sovereignty and are also bad for business owing to issue such as health and safety, discrimination and human rights, and of course, the right of EU citizens to work in any EU member country.

A counter argument is that if the UK left the EU the City of London might lose its status as a major financial hub, the evacuation of jobs and property taken by EU nationals, many working for firms who in the UK because of UK membership would increase unemployment and send house prices crashing.

The issues are briefly looked at here:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/generalelection/british-foreign-policy-and-the-2015-general-election/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11458816/General-Election-2015-How-each-party-compares-on-defence-policy.html

[peejaye]

Not sure why this post is on here but listen. If the Tories get elected; they will privatise the NHS for sure. There's absolutely millions and more to be made by these already multi-millionaire ministers and their fat greedy friends. YOU will pay; visits to the Doctors and hospital visits, in particular, will be astronomical!
Ask our friends in the USA. Watch Judge Judy(TV programme), $1,000 for an overnight stay in hospital! Half the cases are suing for medical bills! Why do you think Cameron as already announced he won't serve a 3rd term, he won't need to! Please, spare us from this barbaric behaviour. We're supposed to be a civilised nation?
Before anyone accuses me of being a Labour supporter, I don't think much of them either, more millionaire politicians! UKIP are just Tories who hate Europe, Rubbish!

[Laphroaig]

Also, do either of you support a referendum on EU membership? I genuinely appreciate the info.


A quick reply, I support the idea of a referendum, after all that is what democracy is supposed to be about. Which way I'd vote I'm not sure as I haven't looked into it in detail yet.

I voted yes in the Scottish referendum, mainly because, although I didn't buy into the "utopian" independent Scotland promised by the SNP, I don't like the current status quo. I felt it was worth making the attempt on the basis, if you don't try you'll never know. But, of course, according to the SNP at least, an independent Scotland would still have remained within the EU and there wouldn't have been an EU membership referendum in Scotland.

I may lean towards leaving the EU for similar reasons, but as I said, I'd need to do some research first before I come to a conclusion one way or the other.

[peejaye]

I would support a referendum on the EU Laphroaig but I cannot express how important it is to KNOW & understand everything you would be voting for. All the rhetoric xenophobic crap you hear on TV is only one side of things.
I follow politics but I have very little knowledge on how the UK would benefit from leaving or staying in the EU. Hopefully we will stay as we are and a referendum won't happen.
PS; If I were Scottish I would of voted YES without a doubt, 101% YES!

[Laphroaig]

peejaye, I agree completely that on issues as important as this, it is essential to make an informed decision. If there is an EU referendum (which I believe the Conservatives have promised if they are re-elected) then I'll look more deeply into it all. But, my point was that, in my current "uninformed" state I would be more inclined to vote for change.

[broncofan]

I thought Stavros gave a very good summary on three positions on a referendum. There are those who do not want a vote at all, those who support a vote but hope it does not result in change, and those that would like to leave the EU. The one question mark I had was over the type of threats that being a member of the EU poses to the UK's sovereignty. Without knowing what the specific directives are my uninformed guess would be that threats to sovereignty that result from following certain directives and conforming UK law to various EU standards might be overblown...it sounds like a position that could be based on fear-mongering...a foreign hand or culture meddling in domestic affairs (ie. my post:)).

Of course nobody wants their laws respecting human rights and health and safety to be dictated by a different governing authority. If the encroachment really is so significant, that could certainly outweigh any countervailing benefit. So is it?

I suppose I also don't understand the role that a referendum plays in your democracy (unfortunately it does not play much role in U.S politics). It is a more democratic process than picking a leader who in turn makes all decisions and is difficult to remove from power in the interim. But I would assume something has to have become contentious to begin with before it's brought to a vote?

As a post-script, if my questions are becoming annoying just ignore them. I am aware I could take more initiative on my own to figure these things out, but this has been a useful time saver.

[Stavros]

I thought Stavros gave a very good summary on three positions on a referendum. There are those who do not want a vote at all, those who support a vote but hope it does not result in change, and those that would like to leave the EU. The one question mark I had was over the type of threats that being a member of the EU poses to the UK's sovereignty. Without knowing what the specific directives are my uninformed guess would be that threats to sovereignty that result from following certain directives and conforming UK law to various EU standards might be overblown...it sounds like a position that could be based on fear-mongering...a foreign hand or culture meddling in domestic affairs (ie. my post:)).

Of course nobody wants their laws respecting human rights and health and safety to be dictated by a different governing authority. If the encroachment really is so significant, that could certainly outweigh any countervailing benefit. So is it?

I suppose I also don't understand the role that a referendum plays in your democracy (unfortunately it does not play much role in U.S politics). It is a more democratic process than picking a leader who in turn makes all decisions and is difficult to remove from power in the interim. But I would assume something has to have become contentious to begin with before it's brought to a vote?

As a post-script, if my questions are becoming annoying just ignore them. I am aware I could take more initiative on my own to figure these things out, but this has been a useful time saver.

It is a key part of the anti-EU policy of UKIP that '75%' of British law is 'made in Brussels', as it fits with their argument that by being a member of the EU the government of the UK has ceded sovereignty to 'another power' and that the laws and directives of the EU have damaged British business, our freedoms, and so on.

The UKIP claim is based on something European Commissioner Viviane Reding said, if not what she actually meant, and a debate then arose as to whether or not that 75% figure is accurate.

The UKIP claims are found here:
http://www.ukip.org/the_truth_is_out_at_least_75_of_our_laws_are_made_ by_eu_institutions_says_senior_european_commission er_viviane_reding

A rebuttal of the UKIP claims can be found here:
https://fullfact.org/europe/ukip_eu_elections_posters-31629

The problem with referenda is that they by-pass Parliament. We elect a Parliament to enact and scrutinise the law, and have elections to change it if we think it is not doing a good job. On toxic issues which regularly divide the House of Commons, division is usually the end result until and unless a different set of MPs decide otherwise. Because there are issues of sovereignty in the UK's relationship with Europe, and because of the claim that entry into the 'Common Market' as it was called at the time, was not explicit in the manifesto of the Tory Party which won the election in 1970 and took the UK in, it is argued that this important decision was never put to the vote. Harold Wilson, who succeeded Tory Prime Minister Edward Heath in 1974, thus decided to put the matter to rest with a referendum in 1975 which resulted in a positive vote for Common Market membership; but he also did it because his own party was divided on the issue and he wanted to end the squabbling in Labour with a decisive vote that would shut up the anti-Europeans (mostly on the left of the party).

But if you follow the argument about parliamentary politics. a referendum is actually an abdication of responsibility by government, which in effect -as happened in 1975- was the Prime Minister saying 'I can't decide -you do it for me' which rather begs the question -why have a government? There was a similar form of buck-passing in 1967 with the only other referendum I can think of that has taken place in UK territory -when the inhabitants of Gibraltar were asked if they wanted to remain full citizens of the UK or make an accommodation with Spain (which at the time was a military dictatorship under Franco). It was a political stunt with only one outcome -can you imagine the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands voting to become part of Argentina?
Opinion polls regularly claim that 'most people' want the death penalty restored, it gets more complicated when you drill into the issue, as some want it reserved for terrorists, child murderers, and killers of policemen, and few ever seem to believe the justice system can convict a person who is in fact, innocent. And if there is to be law made by referendum on the death penalty, why not have a referendum on whether or not we should elect the Head of State? On that basis alone, law-making is best left to legislators.

[Stavros]

peejaye, I agree completely that on issues as important as this, it is essential to make an informed decision. If there is an EU referendum (which I believe the Conservatives have promised if they are re-elected) then I'll look more deeply into it all. But, my point was that, in my current "uninformed" state I would be more inclined to vote for change.

I link below a UKIP pamphlet by William Dartmouth 'Out of the EU and into the World' which I think is a fair expression of the anti-EU position UKIP holds.

I do wonder how far UKIP have thought through their arguments, not least because detaching itself from the EU would take years, be expensive to administer, and be riddled with claims -some of them legal- related to business contracts, and that is just for starters. The magic formula, 'let's leave the EU' sounds like magic, but most magic practised by humans is, in fact, illusion, indeed, depends on illusion to work.

UKIP have not thought through the impact of withdrawal on those British citizens who work in the EU, or the EU citizens who work in the UK, a lot of them because of the EU nexus -London is the fourth largest French city in the world with more than 100,000 of them, many with families whose children are at school here - the same applying to the Germans and other EU member states if not always in the same volume. If it is the case that a substantial proportion of EU citizens leave the UK, how does this impact on property prices, and crucially, on employment?

UKIP argues that leaving the EU will not damage trade with Europe, but it doesn't take into full consideration the fact that British firms trading in the EU will still have to conform to EU regulations on employment practices, health and safety directives, while having no authority to question any of them because the UK government will have lost its ability to influence or change or initiate EU laws and directives.

UKIP also does not take into full consideration the view from outside the EU which may view a UK exit as a vote of no confidence in a market of 500 million, or an inflated view of itself as being in some way superior to that market. But while it may be viewed as part of the disenchantment with globalisation, how does any economy detach itself from the most inclusive economic phenomenon that has taken place in capitalism since the industrial revolution? Is globalisation for the UK thus an obstacle, or an opportunity?

Don't expect an answer for a party that has no vision, only complaints.

The UKIP pamphlet is here:
http://www.williamdartmouth.com/docs/Out_Of_The_EU_and_into_the_world.pdf

[peejaye]

I personally think UKIP are a bunch of fools who, as you say Stavros, have thought very little through. They play on the euphoria of, un-intelligent people and "Sun readers" who like to feel part of a gang, a bit like bullies, making out everything in the UK would be fantastic again if we sent all foreigners back home. We could even start leaving our front doors unlocked again as my folks did in the 1960's around here, because let's face it; We have no UK "born n bred" criminals, it's just Johnny foreigner who commit all the crimes.
Not my words, these are the idiots who like UKIP, very insecure un-educated people. They won't get to power because not everyone in this country is stupid just yet!
My personal opinion; We could even have civil war type incidents on our streets everyday if these clowns came to power, dangerous people indeed!
I'm not against leaving the EU but certainly not because of immigration. More for reason as the "Gravy train" some of these MEP's are riding on. They get £180,000 per year in expenses alone + their salary! Nice (work?) if you can get it.

[Jericho]

While they're a red mile from *my* Labour Party, they're still the only hope for the people of this country.

[Laphroaig]

Farage thoroughly burned UKIP's chances of getting any votes in Scotland with his comments about "too much of English taxpayers money heading over Hadrians Wall" in last nights live ITV debate.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-scotland-32171887

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-04-02/farage-and-sturgeon-clash-over-scottish-and-english-taxes/

http://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/news/leaders-debate-greens-slam-ukip-attempts-to-slash-scotlands-block-grant/

So much for the "United Kingdom" in his party's name. He also needs a geography lesson, the border isn't at Hadrians Wall...

[Stavros]

Farage thoroughly burned UKIP's chances of getting any votes in Scotland with his comments about "too much of English taxpayers money heading over Hadrians Wall" in last nights live ITV debate.

So much for the "United Kingdom" in his party's name. He also needs a geography lesson, the border isn't at Hadrians Wall...

Indeed, I don't even know why they call themselves the United Kingdom Independence Party when they don't seem to have much of a presence outside England, and with such a focus on the depressed (and mostly depressing) coastal towns perhaps they should re-name themselves the English Coastal Party?
His other gaffe was to single out people who are HIV positive and according to him 'coming here' to get free treatment on the NHS. Making an example of a social group is never a good idea in public debates.

What intrigues me now is the fate of the Liberal Democrats,and whether they can hold on to enough seats to maintain their coalition with the Tories. Miliband and his team to my mind are still too close to the last Labour government, people can still remember them, and it hurts.

[Laphroaig]

The irony is that Farage was firmly in the No camp in the Scottish referendum. Typical hypocritical politician.
I missed his other gaffe, I could only stomach watching about an hour of the debate.

Nick Cleggs buzzword of the debate was "balance". He seemed to be suggesting that no matter which party ends up in power, a Lib Dem presence in parliament will be required to keep an eye on them and make sure their excesses are kept in check. If that's the best message he can come up with then they are in big trouble.

[broncofan]

I watched through the introductions and Johnny's question about the economy. I liked Nicola Sturgeon's answers the best, but of course I can understand why Labor has to pretend they are going to cut "wasteful" spending. There's nothing controversial about cutting wasteful spending as nobody could advocate for wasteful spending. It's tough to campaign by saying that you are not going to worry about deficits now, that it may be more important to grow the economy in the short term (which often means you are not ready to rein in spending) and then worry about national debt later on. You could be labeled as fiscally irresponsible, but I just get the sense that austerity does not work.

Nigel Farage is a bug-eyed smarmy clown. He doesn't seem to have any ideas.

[Stavros]

I missed his other gaffe, I could only stomach watching about an hour of the debate.


According to today's Telegraph it wasn't a gaffe, it was deliberate and aimed at UKIP core voters -they called it 'shock and awful' and initially had intended to single out people with TB:

Mr Farage discussed whether to deploy statistics showing that sixty per cent of newly-diagnosed HIV patients are foreigners at length with his aides before Thursday night’s television debate, and decided to go ahead after being reassured it would “motivate” the party’s base, the Telegraph understands.
The remarks, which were denounced as distasteful by Mr Farage’s political rivals, were not an attempt to “reach out” to floating voters but instead a “core vote message”, sources disclosed.
A Ukip source said Mr Farage had originally intended to warn of the comparatively high proportion of migrants with tuberculosis “but then we realised that HIV drugs are more expensive”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11514369/Revealed-Nigel-Farage-planned-Aids-comment-as-part-of-shock-and-awful-TV-debate-strategy.html


I dont doubt the figures which show a high proportion of foreign nationals seeking treatment for HIV, but it isn't clear why they are in the UK -they may be students, people on working visas, and so on. It also is not clear how many knew they were HIV positive before they came into the country, just as there is in fact a provision in Immigration law which means a border official can deny entry to someone who is HIV positive if they do not have the money to fund their treatment -but what the precise rules are on it are I don't know.

[Laphroaig]

What intrigues me now is the fate of the Liberal Democrats,and whether they can hold on to enough seats to maintain their coalition with the Tories. Miliband and his team to my mind are still too close to the last Labour government, people can still remember them, and it hurts.


The most recent yougov poll in Scotland suggests that the Liberal Democrats are facing political annihilation here, with their support dropping from 19% in 2010 to just 3% now. Appologies for lowering the tone and posting links to The Sun but the yougov site link which I've included isn't working for me at the moment.

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/ge2015/6399232/Termispan-classredbNATbspanor.html

http://may2015.com/featured/the-8-key-points-from-todays-yougov-scotland-poll-none-are-good-for-labour/

http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2015/apr/snp-welcome-another-strong-poll-showing

[peejaye]

Stavros; I must correct you on one thing that you say. Milliband and his party are too close to the Labour party? Are you serious? Milliband and ALL of his party are far too close to the Tories! That's the problem with politics in this country. Ever since "The Monster" Blair destroyed the Labour party and everything it stood for by introducing his center-right "New" Labour, the working class in the UK haven't had anyone to vote for! New labour support big business and privatisation of this countries assets, what's left of them that is!
The only difference between Labour and Conservative nowadays is the latter are more evil. They are not known as the "Nasty party" without reason.
Most other points you make I am pleased to say; I agree with.

[Stavros]

Stavros; I must correct you on one thing that you say. Milliband and his party are too close to the Labour party? Are you serious? Milliband and ALL of his party are far too close to the Tories! That's the problem with politics in this country. Ever since "The Monster" Blair destroyed the Labour party and everything it stood for by introducing his center-right "New" Labour, the working class in the UK haven't had anyone to vote for! New labour support big business and privatisation of this countries assets, what's left of them that is!
The only difference between Labour and Conservative nowadays is the latter are more evil. They are not known as the "Nasty party" without reason.
Most other points you make I am pleased to say; I agree with.

But this is what I actually said, with emphasis added
Miliband and his team to my mind are still too close to the last Labour government, people can still remember them, and it hurts.

For some time there has been an argument that the only real difference between Labour and Conservative concerns which party can manage capitalism better than the other -it was part of the argument Ralph Miliband used in his book Parliamentary Socialism, although he later changed his view to decide that Labour was irredeemable. Other than that, I agree with your views on 'New Labour', and do not see how the current leadership can revitalise the party. I don't think David Miliband would have made a difference either.

[Stavros]

The most recent yougov poll in Scotland suggests that the Liberal Democrats are facing political annihilation here, with their support dropping from 19% in 2010 to just 3% now. Appologies for lowering the tone and posting links to The Sun but the yougov site link which I've included isn't working for me at the moment.


Unless the Liberal Democrats can compensate for losses in Scotland with wins in England, their potential to maintain the coalition with the Tories does not look good. As I said, intriguing if the SNP wins enough seats (not votes) to make a numerical majority with Labour possible, but as Labour is also poised to lose seats, and not just in Scotland, I now wonder if the Tories could achieve a numerical majority of seats in the Commons. WIth such a dearth of serious discussion of policy, the numbers are more interesting than the issues! It will be definitely be interesting to see how the Labour vote holds up in places like Rochdale, Rotherham and Blackburn.

[Laphroaig]

Of course, opinion polls don't always translate into votes and votes don't always translate into seats, but with the rise in popularity of the SNP (in Scotland) and UKIP (in England), hypothetically it's possible to see a future coalition government being propped up by by one or more "minority" parties.

Strange then that Labour have already ruled out a possible coalition with the SNP.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31906463

I assume that they don't want to alienate Labour voters in England, but a u-turn on that point of view after the election wouldn't exactly come a surprise.

Even stranger is the news that the SNP secretly favour a Conservative government.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/11514933/Nicola-Sturgeon-secretly-backs-David-Cameron.html

I have nothing to back this up but the impression I got from Leanne Wood (Plaid Cymru) during the TV debate was that the Welsh voters were ready to desert Labour as well.

[peejaye]

I agree Laphroaig & well said Stavros. You are a wise man. I, wrongly assumed you were referring to the "traditional" Labour party.
Maybe David Milliband would of had the press closer to hand than Ed who seemingly as alienated them! David M just reminds me of Blair as do most of "new" Labour.
Doesn't it concern you when "tabloid filth" like the Daily Mail brand Ed as "Red Ed"? It's readers actually go for it, as do the media! Imagine what their opinion of "far right" would be! It's gone far to far for me. We are living amongst some "very sick" people!

[Stavros]

I agree Laphroaig & well said Stavros. You are a wise man. I, wrongly assumed you were referring to the "traditional" Labour party.
Maybe David Milliband would of had the press closer to hand than Ed who seemingly as alienated them! David M just reminds me of Blair as do most of "new" Labour.
Doesn't it concern you when "tabloid filth" like the Daily Mail brand Ed as "Red Ed"? It's readers actually go for it, as do the media! Imagine what their opinion of "far right" would be! It's gone far to far for me. We are living amongst some "very sick" people!

David is a smooth operator, where Ed often looks dazed and confused. The problem is with identity, other than the NHS what does the Labour Party have to offer? I am not bothered with the tabloid press or even the Telegraph where Janet Daley over the weekend wrote an article in which she argued that Miliband is reviving class politics. He was the Trade Union's man, and it was their vote that clinched his victory in the leadership election, but the Unions are a spent force these days. Perhaps after the end of the Cold War there should have been a re-alignment on British politics, the problem is that small parties seem to remain small, and some left alternatives, like Respect, have become one-man bands. If Coalition politics is here to stay, however, this may make small party politics more attractive, but will also mean more parties with extreme views although it is hard to see any actually returning MPs to Parliament. For the time being we are stuck with what we have.

[Stavros]

I have nothing to back this up but the impression I got from Leanne Wood (Plaid Cymru) during the TV debate was that the Welsh voters were ready to desert Labour as well.

The conundrum in Wales is that both the Liberal Democrats and Labour might lose seats to the Nationalists, but this would still only give Plaid Cymwru six or seven seats, and some think one of the LibDems, in spite of tuition fees, is a popular MP and might hold on. This might not make much of a difference to the overall balance of power in the Commons.

Incidentally, there are three transgendered candidates running in this election:

Emily Brothers, Labour, in Sutton and Cheam (she is also blind)
Charlie Kiss, Green Party, Islington South and Finsbury
Stella Gardiner, Green Party, Bexleyheath and Crayford.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/12/13/transgender-green-candidate-theres-a-woeful-lack-of-trans-politcians/

In the past, Stephanie Dearden ran for the Liberal Democrats in 2005, and Nikki Sinclaire was UKIP MEP for the West Midands to 2014 although before that date she either left UKIP or was expelled, I can't recall which.

[broncofan]

I sensed that some of the stigma for Labour was based on Gordon Brown being Prime Minister during the financial crisis. If that's the case, I think any stigma is probably unjust. Nobody, or very few people, anticipated the crisis and the main cause of the crisis was poor bank regulation. I do not know how the parties fare on this issue, but typically more conservative/pro-business parties were in favor of de-regulation (when it came to reserve requirements and protections against banks being over-leveraged). Interesting that anyone should win political points for a truly international crisis that hardly anyone predicted.

You can always find leaders who will say the more progressive party doesn't understand the business climate. But are they saying that because they're worried about their tax liability or because they have identified a tangible macroeconomic harm that will flow from their policies? My sense is the former. My mechanic told me he would have to shut down if Obamacare was implemented. People often conflate their self-interest with the public interest. He's still in business and still a puttz.

So is Labour afraid of appearing too progressive? Is that a legitimate fear? Has it become a legitimate political fear given the effective scare-mongering of various right wing press outlets?

[Stavros]

I sensed that some of the stigma for Labour was based on Gordon Brown being Prime Minister during the financial crisis. If that's the case, I think any stigma is probably unjust. Nobody, or very few people, anticipated the crisis and the main cause of the crisis was poor bank regulation. I do not know how the parties fare on this issue, but typically more conservative/pro-business parties were in favor of de-regulation (when it came to reserve requirements and protections against banks being over-leveraged). Interesting that anyone should win political points for a truly international crisis that hardly anyone predicted.

You can always find leaders who will say the more progressive party doesn't understand the business climate. But are they saying that because they're worried about their tax liability or because they have identified a tangible macroeconomic harm that will flow from their policies? My sense is the former. My mechanic told me he would have to shut down if Obamacare was implemented. People often conflate their self-interest with the public interest. He's still in business and still a puttz.

So is Labour afraid of appearing too progressive? Is that a legitimate fear? Has it become a legitimate political fear given the effective scare-mongering of various right wing press outlets?

I don't agree with you argument -the end of the Labour government that coincided with the banking crisis led to the same government bailing out banks, and implementing the quantitative easing that is believed to have prevented the crisis from being even worse indeed, to have stabilized a sinking ship. The problem Labour faces is that the Blair and Brown governments are associated with high levels of immigration -whatever the facts about immigration it has always been a toxic issue in the UK-; the continuing fall-out from regime change in Iraq and the two engagements in Afghanistan with a knock-on effect on defence expenditure; tuition fees in universities; the creation of 'academies' and 'free schools' as well as 'faith schools' that have deepened our apartheid education system; and the historic, near-permanent low-to-zero interest rates which have been part of the insane rise in house prices which now means the average price of a house in the London area is £500,000 which may be why Labour's proposed 'mansion tax' is to be levied on homes beginning at £2 million, rather than, say £1 million.

It is not true that the banking crisis was not predicted, even if not widely, but it wasn't a global crisis either, as there was no banking crisis in Canada, in fact there hasn't been a banking failure in Canada since the 19th century. But let's face it, few people are going to wake up in the morning and say 'let's have what the Canadians have!', but rather 'Let's take maximum, hell, reckless risks with other people's money, way to go!' or words to that effect.
http://www.nber.org/digest/dec11/w17312.html

The idea of Labour being progressive is now close to absurd, it is terrified of being different on a wide range of issues, which is why UKIP appeals to those voters who feel the two main parties -as with Democrats and Republicans in the US- are just two versions of the same party with some minor differences on social policy, and when it comes to abortion and gay marriage, there isn't much to choose between Labour and the Tories. What does 'progressive' even mean in the 21st century?

[broncofan]

You're saying I'm wrong that the financial crisis issue is the major baggage of Labour? Given the other reasons you provided, I can accept that. It also sounds like you're saying they were given some credit for steadying things and preventing further collapse.

But I think with regards to those who predicted the crisis and those who avoided it, we're making slightly different points. I did not know about Canada, but it does show that a different, more responsible financial culture will lead to fewer (or no) bank failures. My point was only that the effects of this crisis were felt so broadly and so many people were blind-sided by it. It seems unfair for people to play the blame game in the typical way, unless there were other organized political parties warning about collateralized debt obligations before it became apparent they would default.

I believe in pervasive regulation of banks. It's not a very attractive policy for the public though...sure they don't like bank failures which are rare, catastrophic events, but people don't like being denied loans either, which is more common and therefore more likely to shift a vote.

What's progressive? Eliminating student tuition like you stated earlier would be a start. More broadly than that...not looking at opinion polls before calibrating one's position on an issue that should reflect a deeply and sincerely held belief about social and economic justice.

[broncofan]

as with Democrats and Republicans in the US- are just two versions of the same party with some minor differences on social policy, and when it comes to abortion and gay marriage, there isn't much to choose between Labour and the Tories. What does 'progressive' even mean in the 21st century?
You take away these two social issues and I can understand how people would see a lot of similarities between major parties. But you are fortunate not to have a political party representing the neanderthal viewpoint on the gay marriage issue. Nor do you have the major gun wedge issue we have...which just means your political culture is more sane and reasonable, albeit more raucous from what I've seen of PMs questions:).

[Stavros]

There are in fact a lot of Tories who are opposed to gay marriage; women being ordained as priests in the Church of England and being elevated to the status of Bishop; and also have a fierce opposition to the UK's membership of the EU. Some have decided the party is not going to change on these issues and have defected to UKIP, others don't like the social policy but swallow their pride as they can see being opposed to liberal social policy loses votes, particularly among young people. The issue of Europe was so divisive in the Tory party it was seen as one of issues that undermined their chances of winning an election during 13 years of Labour rule, which is also why Cameron has the referendum on Europe as an option for the party though some think he is not serious about it.

Labour and the Tories both believe we do not need to elect our Head of State, do not need to change the way we vote, do not believe there is an alternative to capitalism, do not want to leave the EU, NATO or the UN; believe we should have a diverse education system, believe in the NHS as a service free at the point of use (but this may change if pay-as-you-go charges are mooted, but after the election); believe in the Commonwealth, foreign aid and favour Israel over all and any other country in the Middle East, with the possible exception of Turkey which, for reasons unknown to any sane individual, they think should be a full member of the EU.

[peejaye]

Well said again Stavros.
David Cameron would be totally mortified if the people of this country voted to leave the EU. Cameron loves the EU and everything it's interests stand for supporting capitalism and privatisation programmes. That is why YOU won't get a referendum on the EU if the Tories are elected. It's just to "woo" voters because the Tories are running scared of UKIP.
They will just say if elected ; It's not in the interests of the UK economy to risk leaving the EU right now. That will be the end of it! Anyone thinking they will get a vote are total fools!

[Stavros]

It has been revealed that John Langley, UKIP's candidate for Bristol Stockwood, is also known as porn star 'Johnny Rockard'. In the event of a Hung parliament, Mr Langley, a Rising star in UKIP, may be expected to sit on the right hand of UKIP leader Nigel Farage in any negotiations leading to a coalition government.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-32230155

http://www.johnnyrockard.com/

[Laphroaig]

Slightly off topic, but I'd pay big money to watch this.

"UKIP's leader has been challenged to a duel in London's Hyde Park by a Polish prince brandishing a sabre.

Yanek Zlinski claimed Polish people suffered, and feared, violence in the UK, which he blamed on Nigel Farage's party, prompting him to make a video with claims about discrimination."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32318250

[Stavros]

The noble Prince doesn't need to go so far. I would not be surprised if he is good at Sabrage which, as it rhymes with his adversary, he can demonstrate for Nigel, though I don't think it can be done on a bottle of Old Peculiar. Can't have everything, and Lidl or Aldi probably do a champers that would suit the leader of UKIP.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ye28n_aJspA

[Ben]

If Voting's Not The Answer:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCjKRIuJZ0M

[Ben]

There may be nothing to vote for — but there's plenty to vote against:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/04/there-may-be-nothing-vote-theres-plenty-vote-against

[broncofan]

Russell Brand is a genuine ignoramus…this is the pseudo-intellectual left... what happens when you want to advocate progressive policies but don't have any common sense and are incapable of original thought. You end up saying stuff like "corporations are evil, all bankers are swindlers, and the media is one giant tarantula." A grain of truth in all of it, but there are specific policies that get at the improper incentives (better corporate governance, better bank regulation etc.).

So what are the predictions for the election? Will Labor be willing and able to form a coalition with the SNP and what would the balance of power be in that relationship? SNP wants increased spending and to not fund the Trident nuclear programme. What sort of deal would they have to make?

[Stavros]

Russell Brand is a genuine ignoramus…this is the pseudo-intellectual left... what happens when you want to advocate progressive policies but don't have any common sense and are incapable of original thought. You end up saying stuff like "corporations are evil, all bankers are swindlers, and the media is one giant tarantula." A grain of truth in all of it, but there are specific policies that get at the improper incentives (better corporate governance, better bank regulation etc.).

So what are the predictions for the election? Will Labor be willing and able to form a coalition with the SNP and what would the balance of power be in that relationship? SNP wants increased spending and to not fund the Trident nuclear programme. What sort of deal would they have to make?

The SNP are in a comfortable place, they lost the referendum on independence but have reaped a strange victory with party membership doubling in a short space of time -but, as nationalists they can move from the left to the right of the political spectrum without ever having to apologise, as whatever they do they do for the good of Scotland.

Between 2007 and 2011, for example, the SNP relied on an informal coalition with the Conservative Party in Scotland to get its budget through the Scottish Assembly, proving by example that when it comes to making deals for political survival, anything goes. The SNP in power in Scotland, with Alex Salmond and then First Minister Nicola Sturgeon at the helm, has centralised the police services and increased its powers to 'stop and search' people they think might be about to commit a crime -mostly young men aged 16-30. The fact that Scottish universities do not charge their students tuition fees may be an advantage, but a reduction of education subsidies has meant that places in colleges have been slashed by over 100,000 putting poorer people and the disabled at a disadvantage as the cohort most likely to choose college courses to try and improve their lives. Taxation has not been used to 're-distribute' wealth in Scotland, and has not been used to 'hammer the rich'. In other words, Nicola Sturgeon may present herself as a champion of the poor and the downtrodden masses, and she is further to the left of Alex Salmond, but she is first and foremost a nationalist, which does not mean major changes to the tax system, does not mean a centrally planned economy in Scotland, and does mean that the predominantly 'free market' orientation of the Scottish economy will continue.

The situation at the moment is that a formal coalition between Labour and the SNP has been ruled out but that a 'working relationship' may take place in which the SNP agrees to vote with Labour to get its legislation through. The key legislation on the Queen's Speech, if it happens, will probably not be difficult, whereas specific issues on devolution and defence will be. Labour is committed to Trident, which means the SNP will have to concede on this, which for many in Scotland will be a blessing as the UK's nuclear capability is located in an area of Scotland which is seen as an economic benefit and even in Sturgeon's case, it can be written off as a 'win some, lose some' irritation. Labour says it will maintain the 'Barnett formula' which is, in effect, a subsidy paid by the UK to Scotland (and also Wales) but may want to re-negotiate it as Scotland, economically, is not doing that badly; but the real issue is how far this becomes part of a wider debate on increasing devolved powers to Scotland as part of the SNP's long term agenda to be independent, and also as part of Sturgeon's attempt to take the Labour Party 'back to the left' as she believes Labour has moved too close to the Tories. Labour is in the weak position of having made promises on increased devolution of powers, it will be hard for Miliband to resist SNP pressure on this.

But consider this: if the Tories offered more devolution to the SNP the SNP could support a minority Tory government, in spite of what Sturgeon says, after all, she keeps saying it is Scotland's interests that come first. The danger in all of this is that whatever the SNP does, it doesn't follow that it will be popular with the Scottish people who did vote against it in the independence referendum. The SNP may win handsomely this time around, but there will be other elections to follow; over time the SNP could be vulnerable particularly with young voters frustrated by any lack of real progress by the SNP.

And bear in mind that to win seats from Labour, the SNP needs swings of between 15 to 20% and that surges in voting don't always deliver seats. There is a long way to go before the results are in and some people are going to be very disappointed.

Nicola Sturgeon is popular because she comes across as a plain speaking politician who means what she says; she is, like a large number of contemporary politicians, a lawyer (more precisely in the UK context a solicitor), and has experience of government as First Minister in Scotland, and thus has held a more senior post than Ed Miliband, whom she has met I think only three times.

[Ben]

Russell Brand is a genuine ignoramus…this is the pseudo-intellectual left... what happens when you want to advocate progressive policies but don't have any common sense and are incapable of original thought. You end up saying stuff like "corporations are evil, all bankers are swindlers, and the media is one giant tarantula." A grain of truth in all of it, but there are specific policies that get at the improper incentives (better corporate governance, better bank regulation etc.).

So what are the predictions for the election? Will Labor be willing and able to form a coalition with the SNP and what would the balance of power be in that relationship? SNP wants increased spending and to not fund the Trident nuclear programme. What sort of deal would they have to make?

Actually, what's your real opinion of Russell Brand -- ha ha!
I think Brand favors democracy, genuine democracy, meaningful democracy.
Which of course frightens the people that run England.... I mean, someone like Cameron favors neo-democracy. Or democracy by the few. Which is understandable. As they want to serve their own interests.
And, too, how's bailing out banks actual capitalism? Does the business class favor actual capitalism? I mean we could experiment with pure capitalism by getting rid of government completely. Then we'd have a pure capitalism. Wouldn't be very nice... but we could experiment with it. Are politicians that bold to favor actual capitalism?
I think Brand is going back to the likes of Adam Smith. Who did favor corporations... of one. And that one person should/would be the owner, the worker and the manager.
I mean, we're so far removed from what Adam Smith envisioned capitalism to be.
Remember ol' Smith was a moralist.... Is there anything moral about corporations? Brand would see them as being amoral. Therefore neither good nor bad. I mean, they're institutions that cater to selfishness. And they have to be. Otherwise they wouldn't work.
Is it human nature to be selfish? Yes. But it is also human nature to be kind, to be caring.
Human nature is everything and anything that human beings do. And, too, one could be selfish and greedy. Or kind and caring. It hinges on the reward system.
And corporations reward selfish behavior and they have to. Again, they wouldn't work... if people were kind, were caring.
If Rex Tillerson cared about the impact of climate change he'd be out as CEO of Exxon.
And, lastly, it certainly isn't fair for the few to control the many. Nor is it fair for the many to control the few... so what's the solution?

[broncofan]

Actually, what's your real opinion of Russell Brand -- ha ha!
I think Brand favors democracy, genuine democracy, meaningful democracy.
Which of course frightens the people that run England.... I mean, someone like Cameron favors neo-democracy. Or democracy by the few. Which is understandable. As they want to serve their own interests.
And, too, how's bailing out banks actual capitalism? Does the business class favor actual capitalism? I mean we could experiment with pure capitalism by getting rid of government completely. Then we'd have a pure capitalism. Wouldn't be very nice... but we could experiment with it. Are politicians that bold to favor actual capitalism?
I think Brand is going back to the likes of Adam Smith. Who did favor corporations... of one. And that one person should/would be the owner, the worker and the manager.
I mean, we're so far removed from what Adam Smith envisioned capitalism to be.
Remember ol' Smith was a moralist.... Is there anything moral about corporations? Brand would see them as being amoral. Therefore neither good nor bad. I mean, they're institutions that cater to selfishness. And they have to be. Otherwise they wouldn't work.
Is it human nature to be selfish? Yes. But it is also human nature to be kind, to be caring.
Human nature is everything and anything that human beings do. And, too, one could be selfish and greedy. Or kind and caring. It hinges on the reward system.
And corporations reward selfish behavior and they have to. Again, they wouldn't work... if people were kind, were caring.
If Rex Tillerson cared about the impact of climate change he'd be out as CEO of Exxon.
And, lastly, it certainly isn't fair for the few to control the many. Nor is it fair for the many to control the few... so what's the solution?
The problem is that Russell Brand is advocating policies that it is unlikely the majority of people in the UK support. The fact that they are not implemented is not proof of a failure of democracy, only that his proposed policies do not have widespread support.

He believes that corporations should be owned cooperatively by employees and community members affected by the corporation’s activities. Of course he does not explain what effect this will have on people’s incentive to invest money. Why would someone form a corporation if they are automatically divested of part ownership?

I read parts of the UK Companies Act and think it makes sense that corporate directors’ fiduciary obligations run to all stakeholders-including bondholders, employees and members of the community they operate in. This means that directors cannot behave in a mercenary fashion and then fall back on their fiduciary responsibilities to explain why they pay their workers sub-standard wages. It also provides a director protection against shareholders who think it is the corporate director’s job to offer the least pay to their employees or to exploit their local environment.

There is no such thing as pure capitalism (complete de-regulation) as it would lead to unstable credit markets and widespread default. Banks that are not regulated fail. If they are allowed to fail (it sounds like you lament the bank bailout), it means disaster for depositors who are not able to insure against moral hazard and the consequent loss of their life savings. The corporation itself is a creature of law, created to provide a vehicle for investment that shields an individual’s personal assets and allows lots of capital to be pooled.

The goal of the government should be to protect the reasonable expectations of investors, to protect against moral hazard, and to incentivize responsible behavior in corporate executives. Workers should have the right to systematically withhold their labor to drive up wages….but just because Russell Brand’s vague sketch of a cooperatively owned corporation is not every person’s idea of economic justice does not mean the UK’s democratic processes have failed (how about polls showing a dissonance between the public's desires and enacted policies). Of course, if the public in the UK supported mandatory ratios between executive pay and employee pay, or cooperatively owned corporations…then it would be undemocratic to stand in the way of their implementation.

[Stavros]

The conundrum in Wales is that both the Liberal Democrats and Labour might lose seats to the Nationalists, but this would still only give Plaid Cymwru six or seven seats, and some think one of the LibDems, in spite of tuition fees, is a popular MP and might hold on. This might not make much of a difference to the overall balance of power in the Commons.

Incidentally, there are three transgendered candidates running in this election:

Emily Brothers, Labour, in Sutton and Cheam (she is also blind)
Charlie Kiss, Green Party, Islington South and Finsbury
Stella Gardiner, Green Party, Bexleyheath and Crayford.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/12/13/transgender-green-candidate-theres-a-woeful-lack-of-trans-politcians/

In the past, Stephanie Dearden ran for the Liberal Democrats in 2005, and Nikki Sinclaire was UKIP MEP for the West Midands to 2014 although before that date she either left UKIP or was expelled, I can't recall which.

Another transgendered candidate has been identified, this is Zoe O'Connell standing in Maldon in Essex for the Liberal Democrats. The further point of interest is that she is living in a polyamourous relationship with a married couple. I came on this when reading about the possibility that the Green Party would endorse legalising polyamory, according to a question posed to Natali Bennet leader of the party when she was asked:
“As someone living with his two boyfriends in a stable long-term relationship, I would like to know what your stance is on polyamory rights. Is there room for Green support on group civil partnerships or marriages?”

Ms Bennett responded: “At present, we do not have a policy on civil partnerships involving more than two people.
“We are, uniquely in this country, a party whose policies are developed and voted for by our members.
“We have led the way on many issues related to the liberalisation of legal status in adult consenting relationships, and we are open to further conversation and consultation.”

Full story is here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11576818/Greens-open-to-three-person-marriage-says-Natalie-Bennett.html

[Laphroaig]

A couple of interesting recent opinion polls. First predicting that the SNP is on course to win ALL 59 Scottish seats!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/the-snp-is-on-course-to-win-every-single-seat-in-scotland-leaving-labour-with-zero-10212220.html

The second revealing that voters in some marginal seats are moving away from UKIP.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/voters-deserting-ukip-marginal-seats-5482748

Opinion polls should always be taken with a pinch of salt, but food for thought all the same.

[flabbybody]

I've read through this thread to prepare myself for Thursday's election night coverage. It might get mentioned in the U.S. news shows sometime between baseball scores and the latest Justin Bieber story.
One thing is sure... that the plural of referendum is referenda.
Stavros continues to amaze

[Stavros]

I've read through this thread to prepare myself for Thursday's election night coverage. It might get mentioned in the U.S. news shows sometime between baseball scores and the latest Justin Bieber story.
One thing is sure... that the plural of referendum is referenda.
Stavros continues to amaze
Flattered as I am, I would be genuinely amazing if I could correctly predict the outcome. This is the closest election on polling results we have had, particularly as the polls are based on up to date census information, whereas in the past this has not always been the case. One enigma is the 'Shy Tory' -those Tory voters who are shy of admitting to pollsters that they will vote Tory, but how this translates into seats -rather than votes- is the unanswered question. Unless in the last few days an unexpected event happens or someone makes a major gaffe, little will change.

[flabbybody]

Not sure why this post is on here but listen. If the Tories get elected; they will privatise the NHS for sure. There's absolutely millions and more to be made by these already multi-millionaire ministers and their fat greedy friends. YOU will pay; visits to the Doctors and hospital visits, in particular, will be astronomical!

This is simply untrue and a total misstatement of the Consevative position.

[Stavros]

Privatisation of the NHS is an emotive subject, but also one that needs to be set in context, because we have always had a fusion, however uncomfortable, between the private and the public sectors. From the beginning, the Labour Govt of 1945 had to concede the right of physicians to practice private health care and for the insurance companies to offer private health insurance packages. And it is beyond doubt that the pharmaceutical industry has made billions from the NHS but as they have been amongst the top sources of funds for research and development in pharmaceuticals it could be argued that they also put a lot back into the NHS.
Since Mrs Thatcher came to power in 1979 there have been reforms to the NHS which included the 'internal market reforms' and the 'private finance initiative' -both maintained by the Labour government, and which were intended to improve efficiency. In fact, the result has been that while in 1983 the NHS spent 5% of its budget on administration costs, it now spends 15%.

The right of private firms to bid for contracts from the NHS was amended by the Coalition government so that the cap imposed by Labour of 2% was raised by the coalition to 49%. But in fact the number of new contracts issued under the PFI when Labour was in power had reached 5% by 2010 and under five years of coalition has reached 6% so that both Labour and the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition have a record of supporting Private Finance Initiatives in the NHS meaning that it is disingenuous of the Tories to make claims about privatisation when they have raised the threshold of private opportunity, and in Labour's case a combination of lies and spin.

Strictly speaking, none of the parties support the wholesale privatisation of the NHS, whereas partial privatisation by stealth has been government policy since 1988. Or it could just be an acknowledgement that the NHS on its own cannot provide everything and that it needs private sources of investment even if this means private firms benefit from the NHS, but as noted above, this has always been the case with pharmaceuticals, and also medical suppliers (eg surgical instruments, machinery).

Of greater concern at the moment -but hardly mentioned at all, is that part of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership -TTIP- which the EU and the USA are negotiating -in secret- and which is intended to give US corporations access to the single market of the EU through a major amendment to regulatory barriers. The general argument is that this will weaken the regulations developed in the EU on issue such as job security, health and safety and the environment, because these regulations are weaker in the USA than in the EU and parity is a key feature of the TTIP. Although the government has said that TTIP will not be used to guarantee US firms access to NHS contracts because public services in the EU will be protected, the UK's Trade Minister Lord Livingstone has said talks on the NHS are 'on the table' -
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/what-is-ttip-and-six-reasons-why-the-answer-should-scare-you-9779688.html

Another worry is that TTIP will include Investor-State Disputes Settlement clauses which in theory could allow US firms to sue the governments of the EU if government policies undermine the profit made from contracts -one example given is of the Swedish energy firm Vatenfall taking the German government to court because of its decision to phase out nuclear power, though this appears to relate to an existing contract with that company and a demand for compensation. But if ISDS went through it could mean the government not imposing carbon emissions levels on firms linked to TTIP if it meant reducing the profits of the trade inviting the US firm to sue the British government -for imposing on firms a policy that came from a democratically elected government...clearly this will or should become a matter of open discussion soon.

[flabbybody]

Based on this analysis NHS can only offer its citizen/patients higher quality care by continuing the trend towards partial privatization. The issue facing voters is to chose the ruling party who can strike the right balance by assuring NHS will not succumb to the private sector forces that will be exerted on it by its interaction with for-profit vendors (many in the U.S. apparently). That invisible hand thing Adam Smith spoke about can be might persuasive.
I believe Obamacare has failed at this. Yes we have more people covered but far too often cost factors at American hospitals override medical judgement when deciding treatment options.
You guys might not get another shot at getting this right. I hope you don't fuck it up.

[Stavros]

Based on this analysis NHS can only offer its citizen/patients higher quality care by continuing the trend towards partial privatization. The issue facing voters is to chose the ruling party who can strike the right balance by assuring NHS will not succumb to the private sector forces that will be exerted on it by its interaction with for-profit vendors (many in the U.S. apparently). That invisible hand thing Adam Smith spoke about can be might persuasive.
I believe Obamacare has failed at this. Yes we have more people covered but far too often cost factors at American hospitals override medical judgement when deciding treatment options.
You guys might not get another shot at getting this right. I hope you don't fuck it up.

I think a common problem is that the costs of delivery tend to be related more to the bureaucracy involved than the actual costs of the medicine and the labour. The cost of a cortisone injection comes in at about £12 at your local doctor's surgery where it costs £120 in the local hospital -because the running costs of a hospital are that much more costly, reflecting that rise in admin costs I mentioned in the earlier post -the running costs of a hospital in the US are far higher than in the UK which suggests that this is a crucial area that soaks up funding which would otherwise be spent on actual medicine.

You might think that in an age of computing administration would be easier and cheaper to deliver, but in fact the medical care sector has been left behind -various attempts to integrate NHS computing so that a patient's records can be accessed anywhere in the system have failed, at a cost of millions of pounds. It is probably cheaper and more efficient for NASA to send a probe to Mars than it is to run a general hospital.

The anxiety that people have is that charges will be introduced in the NHS because of the pressures it is under, particularly on funding. It is a cardinal rule in election campaigns that parties seeking power do not pledge to increase either income tax or national health contributions, even if the logic on costs says otherwise; or, if taxes are to be raised it will always be on the rich as nobody cares about them. Private finance in one form or another has always been there because the NHS alone cannot provide services and also manufacture bandages, syringes, heart monitors and so forth. In fact a year after the NHS was created the Act of Parliament was amended to allow the NHS to impose prescription charges -Nye Bevan, the Minister who steered the NHS act through the Commons in 1948 resigned in protest- though actual charges were not introduced until 1952 and since then have been amended to exclude the unemployed, students, people over 60 -and abolished completely in Wales and Scotland. Nevertheless, there is a fear that people may be charged say £5 to visit their GP or a Casualty department.

There is an argument that if people lived healthier lives a degree of pressure on the NHS would be relieved -people convinced they are dying would not be rushed to Casualty in an ambulance when in fact they have belly ache; casualties on weekends are busy with people who can't handle their drink or get into fights. On another level, while many more people are living beyond the age of 80, many of them are also in better health than their counterparts say 20 years ago. My generation smoked less than our parents so that smoking related illnesses are less common in our cohort, but it seems if you reduce a chronic problem in one area, another one emerges -alcohol abuse and obesity related illnesses are taking up more resources than they were 20 years ago and are now more common in the 30-40 year age group for example.

Perhaps, fundamentally, people resent the idea that someone is making a profit from someone else's illness.

[martin48]

The NHS is something dear to the hearts of most Brits - like the BBC, the Post Office and the railways. Maybe that's why politicians want to change them all beyond recognition. We can't afford the perfect health service though we spend less than most developed countries. Health expenditure in the UK was 9.27 per cent of GDP in 2012. This compares to 16.90 per cent in the USA, 11.77 per cent in the Netherlands, 11.61 per cent in France, 11.27 per cent in Germany, 10.98 per cent in Denmark, and 10.93 per cent in Canada. The NHS net surplus for the 2013/14 financial year was £722 million.
Politicians of all parties have, as they do for education, messed around with the NHS. The Public Private Initiative (PPI) was a big mistake. To get health investment off the books, NHS Trusts bought new facilities on a mortgage. Saddling them with 20-30 year debts. This is the root cause of many of the NHS's problems.





I think a common problem is that the costs of delivery tend to be related more to the bureaucracy involved than the actual costs of the medicine and the labour. The cost of a cortisone injection comes in at about £12 at your local doctor's surgery where it costs £120 in the local hospital -because the running costs of a hospital are that much more costly, reflecting that rise in admin costs I mentioned in the earlier post -the running costs of a hospital in the US are far higher than in the UK which suggests that this is a crucial area that soaks up funding which would otherwise be spent on actual medicine.

You might think that in an age of computing administration would be easier and cheaper to deliver, but in fact the medical care sector has been left behind -various attempts to integrate NHS computing so that a patient's records can be accessed anywhere in the system have failed, at a cost of millions of pounds. It is probably cheaper and more efficient for NASA to send a probe to Mars than it is to run a general hospital.

The anxiety that people have is that charges will be introduced in the NHS because of the pressures it is under, particularly on funding. It is a cardinal rule in election campaigns that parties seeking power do not pledge to increase either income tax or national health contributions, even if the logic on costs says otherwise; or, if taxes are to be raised it will always be on the rich as nobody cares about them. Private finance in one form or another has always been there because the NHS alone cannot provide services and also manufacture bandages, syringes, heart monitors and so forth. In fact a year after the NHS was created the Act of Parliament was amended to allow the NHS to impose prescription charges -Nye Bevan, the Minister who steered the NHS act through the Commons in 1948 resigned in protest- though actual charges were not introduced until 1952 and since then have been amended to exclude the unemployed, students, people over 60 -and abolished completely in Wales and Scotland. Nevertheless, there is a fear that people may be charged say £5 to visit their GP or a Casualty department.

There is an argument that if people lived healthier lives a degree of pressure on the NHS would be relieved -people convinced they are dying would not be rushed to Casualty in an ambulance when in fact they have belly ache; casualties on weekends are busy with people who can't handle their drink or get into fights. On another level, while many more people are living beyond the age of 80, many of them are also in better health than their counterparts say 20 years ago. My generation smoked less than our parents so that smoking related illnesses are less common in our cohort, but it seems if you reduce a chronic problem in one area, another one emerges -alcohol abuse and obesity related illnesses are taking up more resources than they were 20 years ago and are now more common in the 30-40 year age group for example.

Perhaps, fundamentally, people resent the idea that someone is making a profit from someone else's illness.

[Stavros]

Very well put Martin, an important perspective too.

[broncofan]

We can't afford the perfect health service though we spend less than most developed countries. Health expenditure in the UK was 9.27 per cent of GDP in 2012. This compares to 16.90 per cent in the USA, 11.77 per cent in the Netherlands, 11.61 per cent in France, 11.27 per cent in Germany, 10.98 per cent in Denmark, and 10.93 per cent in Canada. The NHS net surplus for the 2013/14 financial year was £722 million.

And health outcomes? I'm not sure what expenditures as a percentage of gdp says without reference to quality of care.

[peejaye]

This is simply untrue and a total misstatement of the Consevative position.

Total bollox! If these "Monsters" get into power; They will have the shoes off our feet! Last thing we want is a system like yours!

[martin48]

This is simply untrue and a total misstatement of the Consevative position.


Reasons why I don't trust the Tories

When Nye Bevan established the NHS for free treatment and healthcare for all following the war, the Tories voted against the National Health Act in Parliament on three occasions in an attempt to prevent the NHS as we know it today.

In 2009 the Tory health secretary Jeremy Hunt co-authored a book calling for the NHS to be dismantled calling it 'no longer relevant'

The 2010 Tory manifesto (P47) said 'we will stop forced closures of A&E' (What went wrong?), Tories also said 'no more top down re-organisation' (They have actually turned the NHS on its head never mind reorganised it)

The Tory led coalition have made cuts of over £20-billion to the NHS dressing them up as efficiency savings'

Under the coalition waiting times have risen to their worst levels for many years, the NHS has been forced to axe over 4,000 senior nurses since 2010;

62 Tory MP's and 63 Tory Lords have links to taking on NHS private health care contracts

Worst of all the Tories introduced the 2012 Health And Social Care Act removing the government duty to provide healthcare, meaning the Health Secretary now only has to promote healthcare and is no longer lawfully obliged to provide it.

[peejaye]

Well said Martin48. You sound like a very intelligent guy. Jeremy Hunt & his millionaire colleagues are "drooling" at the mouth at the thoughts of a privatised NHS system.

To our US friends(?); I pay £850+ in tax and insurances every month, not my choice! Why the f++k should I have to pay when I want to see a Doctor?
What are these "morons" doing with our money......dishing it out to their friends/investors in the privatised sector.

I hope, one day, they meet their maker!

[broncofan]

To our US friends(?); I pay £850+ in tax and insurances every month, not my choice! Why the f++k should I have to pay when I want to see a Doctor?

I don't think anyone was claiming your healthcare system is not effective, only whether the conservative party wants to completely abolish NHS. I wanted to understand what your health care outcomes were given your streamlined expenditures. I don't doubt that they are very good or that the U.S does not receive any appreciable benefit (if any?) from spending 80% more per dollar of gdp. It's just that cost cannot be divorced from quality. It's also important to note that for extremely morbid conditions, people will spend much more for even the most marginal improvement in survival rate or quality of life…so there will be non-linearity in the cost-quality relationship that could just represent different priorities.

I'm from the U.S. as you speculate. Am just curious about your elections. I am not putting forward our own system as a model to emulate…in fact I think our system is rife with all of the wrong incentives for doctors and patients which is why our expenditures are enormous.

[peejaye]

No offence meant Bronco. As you may of detected; our health service is very precious to us over here, Conservative politicians exempted! There isn't much in life gets you "down" than being ill then having to wait two weeks to see a Doctor!

[martin48]

Rating the "quality" of health services is difficult but the most respected study is by the World Health Organisation (WHO).

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en

I quote

"The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds. The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of GDP on health services, ranks 18 th ."

Another report has been produced by the Commonwealth Fund, a Washington-based foundation which is respected around the world for its analysis of the performance of different countries' health systems. It examined an array of evidence about performance in 11 countries, including detailed data from patients, doctors and the World Health (http://www.theguardian.com/society/health) Organisation. It ranked UK top and the US last. (2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/17/nhs-health

I rest my case

[broncofan]

I wasn't asking because I expected different results but because health care expenditures by themselves aren't all that revealing. I expected the UK to have very good healthcare, otherwise NHS would be an arbitrary and excessive source of national pride:). And I would not expect that.

From the Commonwealth Fund Study, it said, "The only serious black mark against the NHS was its poor record on keeping people alive. On a composite "healthy lives" score, which includes deaths among infants and patients who would have survived had they received timely and effective healthcare, the UK came 10th (out of 11)." I would have considered this last part a fairly big priority so as you say it is probably difficult to agree on criteria to rate quality. But given a choice between the U.S. and U.K. health care systems, I would choose the U.K. system in a heartbeat…for a variety of reasons, which include the fact that your system seems to manage chronic conditions much better and provides more uniform care, which should be a big priority, in addition to the enormous cost savings and administrative efficiency. Anyhow, if you are considering spending more of your gdp on healthcare, the "healthy lives" category might receive a bit of investment.

[Jericho]

Well, I guess by this time tomorrow, we'll all know what's in store for us (Brits) in the future...Cake or Sodomy!

[martin48]

I suspect - same old shit




Well, I guess by this time tomorrow, we'll all know what's in store for us (Brits) in the future...Cake or Sodomy!

[flabbybody]

you might not know who's PM for days if no party gets majority

[martin48]

There'll always be a PM in post except for the brief time between Cameron offering his resignation to the Queen and she appointing Miliband

[Stavros]

I have compiled this list of MPs and their educational background -university and subject- to illustrate how narrow the field of top flight politicians has become. Some of the MPs on the list may not make it through the night...

Conservative
David Cameron (Prime Minister) Oxford, PPE
George Osborne (Chancellor of the Exchequer) Oxford, History
Theresa May (Home Secretary) Oxford, Geography
Phillip Hammond (Foreign Secretary) Oxford, PPE
Chris Grayling (Justice) Cambridge, History
Michael Fallon (Defence) St Andrews, Classics and Ancient History
Ian Duncan Smith (Works and Pensions) Royal Military College, Sandhurst
Jeremy Hunt (Health) Oxford, PPE
Eric Pickles (Communities and Local Govt) Leeds Polytechnic
Nicky Morgan (Education) Oxford, Jurisprudence
Justine Greening (International Development) Southampton, Economics

Liberal Democrats
Nick Clegg (Leader and Deputy PM) Cambridge, Archaeology & Anthropology
Vince Cable (Business) Cambridge, Natural Sciences, then Economics
Danny Alexander (Treasury) Oxford, PPE
Ed Davey (Energy & Climate Change) Oxford, PPE
Simon Hughes (Justice) Cambridge, Law

Labour
Ed Miliband (Leader) Oxford, PPE
Harriet Harman (Deputy Leader) York, Politics
Douglas Alexander (Foreign Secretary) Edinburgh, Politics
Ed Balls (Chancellor) Oxford, PPE
Yvette Cooper [Mrs Balls] (Home Secretary) Oxford, PPE
Rachel Reeves (Work & Pensions) Oxford, PPE
Maria Eagle (Environment) Oxford, PPE
Sadiq Khan (Justice) University of North London, Law
Andy Burnham (Health) Cambridge, English
Chuka Umunna (Business), Manchester, Law
Tristram Hunt (Education) Cambridge, History
Caroline Flint (Energy & Climate Change) University of East Anglia, American Literature & Film Studies
Vernon Coates (Defence) Warwick, Economics & Politics

John Bercow (Mr Speaker) Essex, Politics

[martin48]

Good old Eric Pickles

[Laphroaig]

Good old Eric Pickles

But can he eat that burger better than Ed Milliband and his bacon sandwich...

840166

It's ridiculous that the above picture will probably be one of the defining images of this election...

[flabbybody]

hey Kennedy (L) beat Nixon in 1960 because he looked better on television. That's democracy

[rodinuk]

but the Civil Service runs the country so you're only electing their puppets...

[Laphroaig]

but the Civil Service runs the country so you're only electing their puppets...

Yes Minister...

840219

[Laphroaig]

hey Kennedy (L) beat Nixon in 1960 because he looked better on television. That's democracy

That's American democracy, along with McDonalds, one of your more unfortunate exports...

[rodinuk]

...I've just ex-ported the McDonalds I had for tea :puke

[Laphroaig]

...I've just ex-ported the McDonalds I had for tea :puke

Best place for it, serves you right for eating it in the first place. :tongue:

[Laphroaig]

Sitting watching the BBC coverage.

Exit poll currently predicting:

Conservative 316
Labour 239
SNP 58 (out of 59 Scottish seats!!)
Lib Dems 10
Plaid Cymru 4
UKIP 2

Conservatives still short of an overall majority.

Will be interesting to see if that changes much over the night.

[flabbybody]

so much for polling data that showed its too close to call.
Sterling through the roof vs dollar

[Plaything]

so much for polling data that showed its too close to call.
Sterling through the roof vs dollar

Interesting. If this remains the case, may be an excuse to take a break from the media dullards and go rip it up in Chicago for a few days...

Buddy Guy's Legends.

Plaything incoming. Catfish at the bar. Shoot some pool at the back.

Still got the blues...

[flabbybody]

Holy shit, this is as big as Thatcher's margin in early 80's

[Laphroaig]

Holy shit, this is as big as Thatcher's margin in early 80's

The difference is that Thatcher had a (big) majority. This time Cameron and the Conservatives won't hold an overall majority and with the Lib Dem losses, the current coalition may not hold enough seats for a majority either.

Current running total (after 398 out of 650 declared)

Labour 162
Conservative 156
SNP 53 (out of 57 declared)
Lib Dems 6

Last night Nicola Sturgeon was playing down the exit poll results. She must be doing the Highland Fling now. At the moment the SNP are up 48 and Labour are down 40 seats in Scotland.

Again, last night, Paddy Ashdown was so confident that the BBC exit poll was wrong and the Lib Dems would win 20-30 seats that he actually said he would eat his hat live on TV. Watch this space...

[Laphroaig]

Just shows you how quickly things can change.

After 483 seats declared

Conservatives 205
Labour 195
SNP 55
Lib Dem 6

Conservatives are now predicted to have a narrow overall majority.

Will Paddy Ashdown be the first politician in history to keep a promise?...

[peejaye]

I'm in mourning. I'm afraid our friends "North of the border" have probably let these animals into power, sorry Laphroaig!
This will be the ONLY reason Labour havn't been elected, despite Milliband not being "Leader" material, far right press havn't helped either.
Londons stockbrokers, bankers and millionaires will be partying into the small hours, as for the rest of us.......
"hold on tight"
Only good thing, Ed will be gone later today I suspect.

[Jericho]

Looks like it's sodomy, then! :shrug

[Laphroaig]

Peejay, do the maths, even if Labour had won ALL the Scottish seats they still couldn't have formed a government. It's their failings in England that have cost them.

[peejaye]

Yes, it appears that way now. They were only 39 in front when I wrote!
I'm coming North, can't stand 5 more years of this....

[Plaything]

Sincerely hope that none of you find need of Fire and Rescue in the coming years. There will not be many of us out there...

Kurt Vonnegut suggested that he could think of 'no more stirring symbol of man's humanity to man, than a fire engine'

Cameron see's things a little differently.

It is what it is.

Buckle up.

[Laphroaig]

Yes, it appears that way now. They were only 39 in front when I wrote!
I'm coming North, can't stand 5 more years of this....

Peejaye, you're welcome up north. But, having rejected both the Tories and Labour, unless Scotland gets the devolved powers it was promised, we could face a difficult political period here.
The SNP may be the new 3rd force in Westminster but with a Conservative majority, they are effectively toothless.

[peejaye]

Yes Laphroaig but Westminster may have to listen to you now. How can you be governed by London when they only have one MP in Scotland? It's mad!
I wanted independence for Scotland in the referendum because I seriously considered moving "lock, stock & barrel" up there to get away from this "far right filth" which as destroyed this once great Kingdom!
Lots of English people admire Nicola Sturgeon because of her passion for "her" people. I am one of them.

[Stavros]

When I started this thread on the 31st of March, I wrote:
"my own worthless opinion on the evidence so far is that we will return on May 8th with the same Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition that we have had these past five years."

Although my prediction is sort of right, I clearly underestimated the extent of the losses suffered by both Labour and the Liberal Democrats, but it still remains my view that with a slender majority the Tories will either offer an extension of the coalition agreement with the remaining Liberal Democrats or try to seek an understanding on support for key legislation on a vote-by-vote basis. In five years MPs die, defect, are forced to resign, so that the margin of victory though sufficient to form a government is still not the most secure basis on which Cameron can be Prime Minister.

One key issue is in the slippery concept of legitimacy -given the hammering they have received, could the Liberal Democrats seriously entertain joining a coalition? Power is a drug, and they have little else to lose, and could be given junior positions in the government. Moreover, by doing this, Cameron can again kick into touch the referendum on the UK's membership of the EU as the price for forming a coalition, but would risk alienating an already unsettled anti-European bloc in his party which, with enough defections could threaten to undermine his rule. Whether or not Cameron could call on the Northern Ireland parties, the DUP in particular is obscure. Northern Ireland would want some serious cash in return.

The obvious legitimacy deficit is in Scotland where none of the English parties now have a presence of any significance outside Council seats, important as these are on a day to day basis. However, for London to lose control of a large part of the UK is not unprecedented in British politics.
In the General Election of 1918, 73 out of the 105 seats in Ireland were won by Sinn Fein, who not only refused to take their seats in the House of Commons, but established an (illegal) independent government in Dublin, deepening the crisis that had been taking place since the Easter Rising of 1916 and setting Ireland on the road to civil war. It was also the first major breakaway from the British Empire and symbolically also important as Ireland had been a possession since the 12th century. However, I do not expect a civil war to erupt north of the border!

How the new government relates to the SNP is going to be fascinating, but it is also the greatest challenge that the SNP have faced as they have to deliver something to an electorate that has been so aroused since last year's independence referendum. Issues that have been talked about include 'fiscal autonomy', ending the 'Barnett formula' -but I dont see any agreement on nuclear weapons, but we shall see.

It has been a dramatic night, the most astonishing being the loss of Ed Balls, I don't think anyone saw that coming. It is rare for three party leaders to resign on the same day, but we can say farewell to three men who, it turns out, are not considered leaders at all by the people who matter. The Labour Party is in crisis, it has never performed as badly as this since Thatcher's wipeout of 1983 but where it goes from here nobody knows. I think the time might be ripe for the dissolution of the parties and the creation of new parties which reflect the world in which we now live. I would hope that the younger generation under the age of 40 can now step up to the challenge and begin the process of change this country so badly needs. People have voted grudgingly for more of the same, because the alternative was so much more unattractive.

Nigel Farage like the Liberals of old has complained that the Scots with 1 million votes get 56 MPs and UKIP with 3 million get 1, exposing his ignorance of the country he sought to lead. A simple glance at the map of Scotland reveals that not may people live on mountains which Scotland has in abundance, and that the concentration of the population into the urban areas between Glasgow in the West and Edinburgh in the East, and in the industrial areas of Dundee, Ayr and Aberdeen is the source of all those parliamentary seats -unless someone is suggesting Scotland have constituencies with over 200,000 voters, the political geography reflects the spread of seats across Scotland, it is a geographical reality that only proportional representation can change, and we rejected that in 2011.

Needless to say my constituency is yet to declare, even though it is 1.20 in the afternoon. Apparently a goat was seen in the dawn light heading off into the bushes with a clutch of ballot papers in its jaws, followed by numerous confused constables and a photographer. Let's hope they don't need a re-count. And all this to elect a Tory!

[flabbybody]

I'll have to re-read your post a few times to fully soak in your analysis... spot on as always Stavros. One thing's for sure... no one named Ed Balls should ever leave public life.

[Stavros]

Some interesting figures and stats:

Voter turnout remains low at 66.1% but the highest this century -the turnout was higher in Scotland @ 71%.

Transgendered candidates results:

Emily Brothers -Labour, Sutton and Cheam -came third with 11% of the vote.
Zoe O'Connell -Liberal Democrat, Maldon -came fifth with 4.5% of the vote.
Stella Gardiner -Green Party, Bexleyheath and Crayford -came fifth with 2% of the vote.
Charlie Kiss -Islington South and Finsbury -came fifth with 7.6% of the vote.

There are more non-white MPs in the House of Commons, up to 41 from 27 (Labour 23, Tories 17.

The first MP of Chinese descent, Alan Mak was elected to Havant for the Conservatives.

Other odd facts here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32651781

[Odelay]

Yes Laphroaig but Westminster may have to listen to you now. How can you be governed by London when they only have one MP in Scotland? It's mad!
I wanted independence for Scotland in the referendum because I seriously considered moving "lock, stock & barrel" up there to get away from this "far right filth" which as destroyed this once great Kingdom!
Lots of English people admire Nicola Sturgeon because of her passion for "her" people. I am one of them.

peejaye, and others, with what you know of American politics, would you gather that your far right filth is worse than the Republican Party in the US? As a liberal, I certainly understand your reaction to the party on the right, but the Tories have always seemed rather tame, to me, when compared to the right wing idealogues here in the US who have completely taken over the Republican Party. This new idiot Senator Tom Cotton is what I expect from the Grand Ol' Party from now until ... well, actually, I see it never changing.

[flabbybody]

113 people voted for a dead guy. Where they trying to make a point or just stupid?

[Jericho]

113 people voted for a dead guy. Where they trying to make a point or just stupid?

I'd like to think they were trying to make a point, but having seen the results of this election...

[Laphroaig]

113 people voted for a dead guy. Where they trying to make a point or just stupid?

As Jericho says, I'd hope they did it either to make a point or out of respect for the candidate.

As for stupid voting, remind us again, how many Americans voted George W Bush in for a SECOND term of office?... :banghead :werd:

[Jericho]

peejaye, and others, with what you know of American politics, would you gather that your far right filth is worse than the Republican Party in the US?

Google Iain Duncan Smith.

[broncofan]

I was interested in the UK elections because I've never followed a parliamentary election. It would seem the Tories are more tame than our Republicans, but given the choice, the electorate chose the right wing option for the second straight time. You can't at once be worried about the Tories dismantling your nationalized health care system and then on the other think they really are tame.

Anyhow, if I were to venture a guess..I think if we had a parliamentary system many of the more extreme Republicans would form their own party…they do not because we vote for a single executive in a separate election and dividing the vote would compromise them too much. As a result we have an agglomeration of varied interests under one tent which adds to the perception they are more extreme.

As for how the various elections were contested, I'd have to disagree with some of the comments indicating that in the U.S. we consider more superficial factors like how photogenic a candidate is. The focus on Ed Miliband's appearance, his social awkwardness, how he eats sandwiches, whether he committed fratricide, his father's disposition towards treason; well it wasn't exactly high brow. It was exactly the type of thing we'd hear in our elections and quite persistent too. I did enjoy how engaged the people seem to be in the electoral process though and hope the next five years under Cameron go well.

[fred41]

As for how the various elections were contested, I'd have to disagree with some of the comments indicating that in the U.S. we consider more superficial factors like how photogenic a candidate is. The focus on Ed Miliband's appearance, his social awkwardness, how he eats sandwiches, whether he committed fratricide, his father's disposition towards treason; well it wasn't exactly high brow. It was exactly the type of thing we'd hear in our elections and quite persistent too. I did enjoy how engaged the people seem to be in the electoral process though and hope the next five years under Cameron go well.

Well, folks here have a tendency to forget that we imported that type of sensationalist news from the UK.

[fred41]

As Jericho says, I'd hope they did it either to make a point or out of respect for the candidate.

As for stupid voting, remind us again, how many Americans voted George W Bush in for a SECOND term of office?... :banghead :werd:

George Bush was elected twice because he was extremely likeable...especially given the opposition. That's all it takes. The media leans left and it always will, but the folks in Bush's plane still liked him better than the folks in Gore's plane. Gore should've been able to win by a landslide, but he didn't because he sounds like a patronizing dork. He can grow a beard and wear jeans but it still looks fake. Same with Kerry...only worse. Hell, when you look at it in perspective, you can come up with all kinds of polling breakdowns, but I think the reason President Obama beat Hillary Clinton in the primaries was because he is tremendously more likeable than her.
Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton...no one new who the hell they were at the time, but you can imagine having a beer with them...and sometimes... that is all it takes.
Not sure if that applies in the UK though.

[broncofan]

I thought the bacon sandwich litmus test is sort of the same thing as we have here where politicians try to avoid seeming out of touch. Can the pol eat a bacon sandwich or are they too highfalutin to eat what the working class people eat?

Mind you there might not be as much of that, but Miliband was considered a North London geek….in the same way John Kerry was considered a northeastern patrician robot. Part of the reason they may have to prove they are not out of touch is because many of their politicians, like ours, are drawn from a small pool of elite universities. And while both leaders may not have been members of a skull and bones club, David Cameron was a member of the Bullingdon club, whose members go through various initiation rituals, including a recent one of burning money in front of beggars.

Anyhow, the political literacy and level of participation seem to be much greater in the UK. A voter turnout in the mid to high 60 percent is higher than we get in U.S. national elections and people seemed generally knowledgeable about the candidate's positions. But I actually followed a few races and there was much of the same rabble-rousing, scapegoating, and attention to personal characteristics we have here. Just my take…

[Laphroaig]

I didn't pay much attention to the whole "bacon sarnie saga" at the time so I never really bothered to find out what the point of it was.
What caught my attention was the use of that photo on the front page of The Sun newspaper in a last ditch effort to persuade it's readership not to vote Labour.
Ironically, at the same time the Scottish Sun was encouraging us to vote SNP. Though some have claimed that this was a cunning ploy to lock out Labour as well. If it was, then it was astonishingly successful...

Others will correct me if I'm wrong but I have the impression that the Leaders live TV debates which were introduced during the 2010 election have led to a greater focus on personality/looks/likeability than was the case in previous elections.

Mind you, if it came down to beer drinking, Farage would be PM now, he was never out of a pub during his campaign...

[Stavros]

peejaye, and others, with what you know of American politics, would you gather that your far right filth is worse than the Republican Party in the US? As a liberal, I certainly understand your reaction to the party on the right, but the Tories have always seemed rather tame, to me, when compared to the right wing idealogues here in the US who have completely taken over the Republican Party. This new idiot Senator Tom Cotton is what I expect from the Grand Ol' Party from now until ... well, actually, I see it never changing.

If there are similarities on the 'far right' in the UK and the US it is with what we would call 'White Supremacists', people whose view of society is derived from the concept of 'race' in which, quite simply, White people are demonstrably superior to all others. There may be nuances which are different, I think that much of this kind of 'far right' attitude in the UK starts out as xenophobia and morphs into pseudo-science as they try to explain or justify the belief.

The differences then emerge with the solutions. The 'far right' in the UK is statist, in the sense that they believe in the kind of corporatist state that one associates with Hitler and Mussolini -a strong centralised government which brings all the major forces of the state, society and the economy into one unbreakable union. I am not sure the white supremacists have the same view of the role of the state in their dreamy white land.

Although I think there are still people in the Consevative and Republican parties who believe 'white people' are superior beings -a view that can also be found in the Labour party- differences are found when you move closer to the centre. The 'right wing' or the economically 'liberal' wing of the Conservatives is similar to the Republican and TEA party in its mistrust of government, its belief in low taxation, and the belief that government should not be doing what people can do for themselves. But the Conservative party is for the most part devoted to the State, monarchy, and the Church of England, giving the UK its Christian identity and its political institutions. Margaret Thatcher thus became both the heroine of the 'libertarian' right and also their greatest disappointment, because she only went so far in detaching the state from the economy, which is also the criticism that the TEA party and theorists (now dead) like Rothbard, Hoppe and Ayn Rand had of the American system and is the source of Republican In Name Only jibe of the TEA party.

So an agreement on low taxation, minimal government, anti-welfare, and the state detached from the economy unites the two, but in the American context the dream is a revival of the America of small communities, low to zero taxation, locally raised militias rather than a 'national' army, and an almost invisible Federal government, which is how the America of George Washington and de Tocqueville is fondly 'remembered', whereas in the UK the state, the monarchy, the armed forces and the Church cannot be separated or dismantled. It is the difference between the 'One Nation' Tories like Cameron and a libertarian like defence secretary Michael Fallon, but none of these people subscribe to theories of race, they have become tolerant of women in politics and of homosexual realities -it is their view on the relationships between the state, society and the economy where they intersect with so-called 'neo-liberalism' and globalisation and many Republicans in the US.

[Stavros]

I thought the bacon sandwich litmus test is sort of the same thing as we have here where politicians try to avoid seeming out of touch. Can the pol eat a bacon sandwich or are they too highfalutin to eat what the working class people eat?

Mind you there might not be as much of that, but Miliband was considered a North London geek….in the same way John Kerry was considered a northeastern patrician robot. Part of the reason they may have to prove they are not out of touch is because many of their politicians, like ours, are drawn from a small pool of elite universities. And while both leaders may not have been members of a skull and bones club, David Cameron was a member of the Bullingdon club, whose members go through various initiation rituals, including a recent one of burning money in front of beggars.

Anyhow, the political literacy and level of participation seem to be much greater in the UK. A voter turnout in the mid to high 60 percent is higher than we get in U.S. national elections and people seemed generally knowledgeable about the candidate's positions. But I actually followed a few races and there was much of the same rabble-rousing, scapegoating, and attention to personal characteristics we have here. Just my take…

Broncofan, the bacon sandwich episode was one of the veiled anti-Jewish jibes that came and went through the campaign. Last year or whenever it was the Daily Mail published an article in which Miliband's father was described as a Marxist who hated Britain, the subliminal message was the same that has been levelled at the Jews for centuries -they can't be trusted. And given that Benjamin Disraeli converted to Christianity at the age of 12, Miliband would have been the first Jew to become Prime Minister, even if he is an atheist and eats bacon sandwiches. Moreover, the Daily Mail in the days when it was owned by the Rothermeres, was an early enthusiast for Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, and has been one of the most consistently aggressive anti-Labour papers since they were able to be so. Some of these nuances might not get over the pond. As for the man, he became leader because his brother David refused to kow-tow to the Trade Unions, just as the same unions will be the key decision makers on whoever becomes leader of the party which, I assume will be decided at the Conference in September -there will be a special session before the main business of the week.

As for the political literacy of the public -they might be more literate than the average voter in the US, but that's not saying much. The low turn-outs are mostly due to apathy but is something one ought to worry about. There were 70% plus in some constituencies, but there hasn't been an 80% plus turnout since 1951 -even crucial elections like 1979 and 1997 were 76% and 71% respectively.

[martin48]

Looks like I got it right even if the polls didn't. Look forward to more very poor people, more rich bastards, little England out of Europe and Scotland off on its own.





I suspect - same old shit

[peejaye]

I think Martin48 is "spot-on" with his predictions although I still suspect Cameron will do a "U-turn" on a referendum on Europe?
Think that was just a vote winner and it worked. Millions liked what Nigel Farage said about the EU but didn't trust him with anything else much to the massive advantage to Cameron.

[Laphroaig]

I think Martin48 is "spot-on" with his predictions although I still suspect Cameron will do a "U-turn" on a referendum on Europe?
Think that was just a vote winner and it worked. Millions liked what Nigel Farage said about the EU but didn't trust him with anything else much to the massive advantage to Cameron.

I think there are enough euro skeptics within the Tory party to keep Cameron "honest" on his pledge to hold an EU referendum. He has such a slim majority in Parliament that he can't afford to alienate any faction within his party.

What could be interesting is the form the referendum takes. I can't put a link but I heard on the radio this morning that some want a condition of the referendum to be that ALL 4 countries within the UK will have to support an "out" vote, not just a simple overall UK majority.

[martin48]

Good point - One of the first thing Cameron has to do is pass "English MPs for English laws" Can he then get a referendum though on just England in or out of the EU 'Cos Scotland will vote in. Northern Ireland and Wales have done very well out of EU investment - but perhaps they will forget.

As usual. the election went the way it did because voters worry about the economy and the economic arguments for staying in Europe are so strong as opposed to the risks of pulling out. The out campaign will have the money backing it and the strong individuals.

What a possible place in history for Cameron - part of a small island off the coast of Europe with little influence on the world. The Empire finally dead!



I think there are enough euro skeptics within the Tory party to keep Cameron "honest" on his pledge to hold an EU referendum. He has such a slim majority in Parliament that he can't afford to alienate any faction within his party.

What could be interesting is the form the referendum takes. I can't put a link but I heard on the radio this morning that some want a condition of the referendum to be that ALL 4 countries within the UK will have to support an "out" vote, not just a simple overall UK majority.

[Stavros]

Good point - One of the first thing Cameron has to do is pass "English MPs for English laws" Can he then get a referendum though on just England in or out of the EU 'Cos Scotland will vote in. Northern Ireland and Wales have done very well out of EU investment - but perhaps they will forget.

As usual. the election went the way it did because voters worry about the economy and the economic arguments for staying in Europe are so strong as opposed to the risks of pulling out. The out campaign will have the money backing it and the strong individuals.

What a possible place in history for Cameron - part of a small island off the coast of Europe with little influence on the world. The Empire finally dead!

My understanding is that the government will need the House of Commons to pass a bill authorising it to hold a referendum on the UK's membership of the EU. With a majority of only 12 and with the Tories still split on the issue -as is also true of the Labour party to a lesser extent but not the SNP or the Northern Ireland parties, it is a bill that could be rejected as a previous attempt was in October 2014. The dilemma is facing Cameron on the opposite side of the House. The UK is the member of the EU but Scotland wants to remain in, making the wording of the bill crucial, for example containing some sort of option for Scotland though I am not sure what that might be. The problem is that if the UK ceased to be a member of the EU so would Scotland, and the only way Scotland could re-join the EU would be if it was independent of the rest of the UK. Either way, a referendum with a 'Yes lets leave' could provoke independence in Scotland so that Cameron's attempt to maintain the Union and leave the EU -which I don't think he wants- is not possible. Just as impossible, it seems, are those reforms to the EU which Cameron thinks would make a referendum unnecessary -more flexibility on the adoption of EU regulations and directives, limits on the free movement of people through members states of the EU, etc- so that either way the choices offer an unsatisfactory outcome.
The other alternative, for the UK to leave the EU under Article 50 of the Treaty of Rome would also require a Commons vote, and without a referendum I think it would be considered illegitimate.

The irony is that if there was a referendum on the UK's membership of the EU, I think most people would vote to remain in. So the next two years could be absorbed with ferocious arguments which result in no change at all.

[Laphroaig]

The irony is that if there was a referendum on the UK's membership of the EU, I think most people would vote to remain in. So the next two years could be absorbed with ferocious arguments which result in no change at all.

Totally agree, but then we wouldn't be a democracy if we didn't have the debate.

[Stavros]

Totally agree, but then we wouldn't be a democracy if we didn't have the debate.

And the debates will be needed if we are to get the details the politicians are too scared to tell you before the vote.

I was not aware until today of the 'Luxembourg Compromise' which member states of the EU can opt out of EU policies if it damages the 'national interest' (see the second link below).

Policy proposals and actions that might be on the table next week:

1) An EU Referendum bill
2) the Draft Communications Bill (the 'Snooper's Charter') -forcing ISP to keep huge amounts of data on their customers, and to make that information available to the government and security services.
3) the Human Rights Act to be repealed, and be replaced with a new 'Bill of Rights'.
4) Boundary Commission to re-draw the electoral map of the UK and reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600.
5) Department of Energy and Climate Change -the budget will be slashed, but I could see this department being re-named with 'Climate change' being dropped, or it could be scrapped altogether and Energy merged with Transport or a new ministry merging other departments.
6) 'English votes for English laws' -should make for a lively debate!
7) Fiscal autonomy for Scotland -I think this needs an Act of Parliament, not really sure how the laws on taxation work.

All in the context of major cuts in government spending although the Conservatives also pledged an extra £8bn for the NHS.

Articles on these can be found here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/unshackled-from-coalition-partners-tories-get-ready-to-push-radical-agenda-10237611.html

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/10/conservatives-to-push-forward-on-manifesto-and-scrap-human-rights-act

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/snoopers-charter-set-to-return-to-law-as-theresa-may-suggests-conservative-majority-could-lead-to-huge-increase-in-surveillance-powers-10235578.html

[martin48]

Nigel Farage is to remain as UKIP leader!!! Whoopee!! (more sarcasm )

[Laphroaig]

Nigel Farage is to remain as UKIP leader!!! Whoopee!! (more sarcasm )

I heard this on the radio just before I left work. Apparently his party rejected his resignation. Way to ruin my evening...

The only good news is that this guy might still get the chance to have his duel with Farage.

841375

I wonder how you say "They don't like it up 'em." in Polish.

[holzz]

i see nothing wrong in this tory govt or their policies.

People need to man up a bit.

[peejaye]

Then you clearly not a honest decent caring person!

[Jericho]

If your attitude's, I'm alright Jack, fuck the rest of you!, then this government's right up your alley.
But for anyone who gives a shit, or has a social conscience, the next five years are going to be a fucking disaster! :shrug

[flabbybody]

sounds like our version of the Tea Party. They say they want smaller government because they don't need or want any entitlements. Until you point out that their elderly parents rely on Medicare and their bi-polar kids get subsidized meds via Medicaid.
Oh, they're not against that. Just welfare moms and food stamps

[Laphroaig]

i see nothing wrong in this tory govt or their policies.

People need to man up a bit.

Which mansion (ivory tower) did you grow up in?

[Stavros]

Some interesting figures from the new House of Commons:

650 MPs

Women
191, 29% of the total
-compared to US House of Representatives -435 seats: 84 or 19.3%, of which Republicans are 22, Democrat 62;
or Sweden =45%.
By Party
Conservative Party -68
Labour Party -99
SNP -20

Openly LGBT
32 *highest number of openly LGBT legislators in the world, but accurate global figures are hard to come by.
Labour -13
Conservative 12
SNP -7
There were a total of 155 openly LGBT candidates in the 2015 election, most of them Conservative Party candidates.
-comparisons: openly LGBT in the US House of Representatives -5.

Non-White MPs
42, or 6.6%
compared to the US House of Representatives -85 or 27%

apologies for any wrong figures, and a) I have not compared the numbers of women MPs with their % share of the population, ditto LGBT and non-white legislators.

[Stavros]

Something else has occurred to me as I join some more dots from the election results.

Sinn Fein (f.1905) now has elected MPs in the UK House of Commons (but they do not take their seats); elected members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, elected MEP's in the European Parliament, elected Deputies in the Dail Eireann -the lower house of the Irish Parliament, and members who sit in the upper house or Seanad Eireann (Senate). I cannot think of another political party that has elected representatives in two different countries, and five different legislatures. Perhaps someone will tell me if there is.

[rodinuk]

Pickles gets a knighthood would you believe :yayo:

[martin48]

For those that don't know this gentleman, he's the one on the right

[Laphroaig]

Alternatively...

844434

[flabbybody]

off topic, the disturbing image out of the UK that made American media was Charles shaking hands with the person who is more or less the face of 1970's terrorism

[Stavros]

Putting the past behind us, moving forward in a spirit of reconciliation....

[rodinuk]

...The idea of Labour being progressive is now close to absurd, it is terrified of being different on a wide range of issues, which is why UKIP appeals to those voters who feel the two main parties -as with Democrats and Republicans in the US- are just two versions of the same party with some minor differences on social policy, and when it comes to abortion and gay marriage, there isn't much to choose between Labour and the Tories. What does 'progressive' even mean in the 21st century?

Might like to revisit that question now that Jeremy Corbyn/Tom Watson are the new leadership pairing for the Labour party....

[peejaye]

Best thing to happen to the Labour party for 25 years or more. It's a great day for ordinary working people. Of course, the "privileged" amongst us will disagree!
YOU people have had it to good for too long!

Watch out for the "new" Trade union laws to be announced on Monday by the "nasty party".

[Stavros]

http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Stavros http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?p=1594441#post1594441)
...The idea of Labour being progressive is now close to absurd, it is terrified of being different on a wide range of issues, which is why UKIP appeals to those voters who feel the two main parties -as with Democrats and Republicans in the US- are just two versions of the same party with some minor differences on social policy, and when it comes to abortion and gay marriage, there isn't much to choose between Labour and the Tories. What does 'progressive' even mean in the 21st century?
Might like to revisit that question now that Jeremy Corbyn/Tom Watson are the new leadership pairing for the Labour party....

-I see no reason to change my position, as I have no confidence in Tom and Jerry and what so far is their incoherent platform. In the particular case of Jerry, I think that he has issues which must be on the agenda but which he may not be able to take as far as he wants, and it relates to both the UK situation and the internal decision-making machinery of the Labour Party. Here are some interesting issues that come with Corbyn:

1) The hysterical reactions to the 'return to the 1980s' does beg two crucial questions, on party democracy and on Europe:
-Corbyn, as a long time supporter of the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy [CPLD] must want to restore the Labour Party Conference as the supreme policy making body of the party, as it was before first Kinnock and then Blair cut off its balls so that it became an annual feel-good rally with no policy making powers. Policy being made by a small elite around the party leader/PM and his advisers has been one of the key factors since 1997 which has alienated many party members, but how does Corbyn intend to restore powers to Conference given that it would be one way of maintaining the interest of the new membership, but given the old questions over the Unions having, or not having a block vote? I am not sure how he will be able to change the rules on this. Clause 4 is another issue but at this stage not as important as Conference.
-In the 1975 referendum on the UK's membership of the European Economic Community [these days the EU] Corbyn voted for the UK to leave and with most of the labour left, led by Michael Foot and Tony Benn, maintained this position (regardless of the actual vote in 1975) all the way through to the historic vote at Conference in 1981 which made leaving the EU Labour Party policy. In theory Corbyn has since changed his position -but has he? Dianne Abbott on Radio 4 yesterday lunchtime insisted that Corbyn wants the UK to remain in the EU, but in fact up until this weekend, his position was conditional on Cameron's negotiations on EU reform not giving away workers rights, environmental protection, and a guarantee to crack down on 'Brussels-backed' tax havens -with no knowing what his position is on TTIP; which means that it is still possible that Corbyn will campaign for the UK to leave the EU in the next referendum.

2) Changes to British politics beg the question: how will Corbyn win back lost Labour votes?
-Boundary changes this Parliament should see the number of constituencies reduced from 650 to 600, but while the SNP may be at its zenith, how many seats in Scotland -if Scotland remains in the UK over the next 10 years- does Labour need to get back -surely a minimum of 30?- and how will Labour win back seats in England where in the current format it needs at least 100 without being handed the gift of a civil war in the Tory Party over Europe?
-Indeed, the potential for the referendum on Europe to damage both Labour and the Tories makes the populist idea that Corbyn is tapping into a new radicalism look attractive -as window dressing, but as Corbyn has nothing new to say about politics or the economy, I suspect that when the voters go inside the shop, they will find that there is nothing worth buying.
-Fundamental to Corbyn's project is to move the 'centre ground' of British politics to 'the left', to re-shape the debate on housing, education, health and foreign policy but it isn't clear how he is going to do this or if he can succeed if his policy alternatives do not look practicable. The mere fact that he is likely to raise taxes and use quantitive easing to fund his policies must surely be insane if as expected interest rates begin to rise over the next 18 months.

In sum we have:
a) an ambiguous position on the UK's membership of the EU;
b) an as yet to be defined position on Labour Party democracy;
c) no new or exciting policies on the economy, housing, education, health, the environment or foreign policy with no serious thought as to their costs;
d) political baggage -Northern Ireland, Israel and the Palestinians, the Falkland Islands, nuclear disarmament- which suggests Corbyn is intellectually as weak as many other MPs (albeit for different reasons), exposing the extent to which the current generation of politicians is the least inspiring we have had for more than a generation.

The Labour Party is a broken party, Tom and Jerry cannot fix it. It is doomed. It doesn't get my vote, and will never get my vote again.

[broncofan]

Edit: This bumped to the second page so I should specify I am asking this to Stavros.

I am a little tipsy so if this isn't crystal clear tomorrow, I'll have to ask it when I am feeling better. But is part of the problem with Corbyn's views on the economy, housing, education, foreign policy and health-care that he has clear objectives but has not laid out how he plans to accomplish them? Or that he has proposed policies, but they are not as progressive as he tries to sell them as? In other words has he proposed policies but they clearly are insufficient to accomplish his aims, meaning that he isn't as committed to his stated objectives as he pretends?

What would be a better anti-austerity package given the expectation of higher interest rates?

If you do not like Corbyn or Labour, who are you liable to support?

[Stavros]

Edit: This bumped to the second page so I should specify I am asking this to Stavros.

I am a little tipsy so if this isn't crystal clear tomorrow, I'll have to ask it when I am feeling better. But is part of the problem with Corbyn's views on the economy, housing, education, foreign policy and health-care that he has clear objectives but has not laid out how he plans to accomplish them? Or that he has proposed policies, but they are not as progressive as he tries to sell them as? In other words has he proposed policies but they clearly are insufficient to accomplish his aims, meaning that he isn't as committed to his stated objectives as he pretends?

What would be a better anti-austerity package given the expectation of higher interest rates?

If you do not like Corbyn or Labour, who are you liable to support?

To be fair to Corbyn, he has not put much flesh on policy, but we do know that on education he is opposed to tuition fees; that on transport he would bring all the railway companies (currently privately owned) into public ownership; that on defence he would not renew the Trident missile programme which would, in effect, mean the end of the UK's 'independent' nuclear deterrent capability; and that on tax the suggestion is a top rate of 60% on earnings of £100,00 a year and above (in the 1960s it was 99%).
Policies on tuition fees, on worker's rights, on the environment, on equal pay for women, on diplomacy rather than war are popular but not new or even radical; but as I say his position on Europe is still ambiguous, and his defence policy on nuclear weapons is confusing because if the UK remains in NATO it will still be living under a nuclear umbrella. If the UK were to leave NATO it would bring into question the UK's membership of the Security Council of the UN, I would not be surprised if Corbyn were happy for the UK to leave that body, I assume the UK's place would be taken by Germany.

The fact that governments borrow money is not remarkable in itself, whether or not, or for how long the UK can sustain its existing debt without a rise in interest rate is still an unanswered question; if interest rates rise, if the housing market goes into recession -well, if this, if that -predicting economic performance is always a risky business, but Corbyn has not even begun to address very real issues such as the low rate of productivity in the UK compared to the rest of the OECD countries, and there is no sign that he has a long term policy to deal with the fact that the UK has one of the largest cohort of low-paid workers in the OECD many of whom do not pay tax because Labour and the last government as well as this one have raised the threshold for tax deductions.

I must confess, also to being biased, as I was a Labour party activist in the late 70s and 1980s and unlike Jeremy Corbyn, Ken Livingstone, and John McDonnell (Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer) I watched Labour lose four general elections in a row and concluded we had lost the argument on key policies such as personal taxation, the public ownership of business, nuclear weapons, and housing. I could go on at length about some of these people as I am aware of their Trotskyist roots (it comes out of the London School of Economics in the mid-1960s and the divergence between the anti-party International Marxist Group and the entrist strategy of the Socialist Charter Group and CLPD) and because they have not changed their view that the Labour Party is the only vehicle through which to engineer the socialist revolution. I knew some of the Labour people in the sense that they viewed me as someone who actually knocked on people's doors and delivered leaflets, and crucially because I voted for them in the multiple committees the party had in those days. One of them (but not a Trotskyist), until last weekend one of the longest-serving front-bench figures in the party used to give me a lift home from the pub in his (or should it be her?) car, while on another occasion I had a very ugly exchange of words with, yup, John McDonnell who as far as I can tell has not changed his position on a wide range of policies in the last 40 years.

I left the party for reasons too numerous and probably too boring to most people to relate, but they include endless meetings, and meetings about meetings; a failure/refusal to connect with the people they claimed they wanted to lead (note, not represent); and because of the attempt that was made by Ken Livingstone and Jeremy Corbyn to forge links with Provisional Sinn Fein c1983-84, at the time one of the most shameful acts that the left perpetrated on an increasingly irrelevant party. I spoke against a resolution inviting Gerry Adams to our constituency and was ostracised by several members of the party but in any case I left London later that year and never re-joined the party.

My political views are now too eccentric to be accommodated by any existing party, I have lost faith in the present generation of politicians and believe they have no real grasp of what is of short, medium and long term importance, and have no policy ideas to address them.