UK General ELection 7 May 2015

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.

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.

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:).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laphroaig

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

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/poli...ardashian.html

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

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:).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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/generalelecti...eral-election/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gene...ce-policy.html

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

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.

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!

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 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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...viviane_reding

A rebuttal of the UKIP claims can be found here:
https://fullfact.org/europe/ukip_eu_..._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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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..._the_world.pdf

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.

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

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-2...tland-32171887

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-...english-taxes/

http://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/new...s-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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laphroaig

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/gene...-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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

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/scot...ATbspanor.html

http://may2015.com/featured/the-8-ke...od-for-labour/

http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news...g-poll-showing

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laphroaig

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.

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/poli...d-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.

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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!

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laphroaig

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...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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

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:).

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.

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!

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/

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