UK General ELection 7 May 2015

[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.

[Ben]

If Voting's Not The Answer:

[Ben]

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

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...y-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...ns-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/gene...e-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...-10212220.html

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

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...-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