[Closed] Election Campaign

Well considering that it's well reported that he was the person who torpedoed talks between labour and the libdems last time round the facts would suggest otherwise.

It'd be like denouncing Europe, denouncing European workers and then marrying and employing a German. It would just be daft.

Farage is douncing the European Union not Europe and he's saying we should have controlled immigration, employing and/or marrying a German is still allowed under those proposals. The Australians do business globally and encourage immigration via their points based system.

Pigs will fly before he will ever get into bed with the tories.

Do they also give odds on Hell freezing over?

Well it's happened before, a Labour and Conservative coalition that is. And at a time when the stated aims at least between the two parties were far greater than they are today.

I can fairly easily imagine a situation in which Labour and the Conservatives would form a "national government".

If you think it's impossible then that's a testament of just how successful they both have been in convincing you that there are real differences between them.

There are far greater differences within the Labour Party itself than there are between Labour and the Conservatives nationally, likewise within the Conservative Party.

Indeed...
[img] [/img]

Our enemies change

Can't be bothered to check the odds, but wouldn't the smart money be on two elections in 2015?

Most of the bargaining and stitch ups are all arse about tit anyway at the moment, with completely false debates taking place now.

That is of course unless the polls are complete BS - which has happened before. Not least with the impact of the one rogue poll in Scotland (future scandal?)

There was a tongue in cheek article in one paper this morning re the benefits of chaos ie, governments who cannot pass legislation and the positive results this creates. All correlation and no proof of causation but a fun read nonetheless.

I thought Brown went cap in hand to the Lib Dems but they felt Brown and Labour where too discredited

Well obviously I wasn't there, but I'm sure I read plenty times in various reports on the labour-libdem negotiations that Balls was a cantankerous git who made it very clear that there was no deal to be done.

jambalaya - Member

Our enemies change

Michael Portillo is your new enemy ?

scotroutes - Member

Indeed...

Ya, but I wonder if he managed to say that to Mrs T in her face ... 😆

If I was a former something something I bet I could also come up with so many things to say like the crystal ball.

Anyway how does he know what his enemy thinks?

😆

Portillos been saying that for a few years

However he also reflected on his own position and said this:

[i]A year ago I wrote here that the postwar case for Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent was outdated. I am not sure whether to take myself seriously, by which I mean that if I were still a minister I do not know whether I would argue for Britain to forgo updating Trident. As I know from having tried both, it is easier to be a pundit than a politician. In government, the forces of inertia are strong. Because the future is unknowable, the argument “better safe than sorry” normally carries the day.[/i]

Michael Portillo is your new enemy ?

In government, the forces of inertia are strong. Because the future is unknowable, the argument “better safe than sorry” normally carries the day.

That doesn't seem to apply to NHS, welfare or education reforms.

That doesn't seem to apply to NHS, welfare of education reforms.

Of course not, they don't affect anyone's profit margins. Government ministers tend not to get cushy non-exec directorships in public sector organisations once they leave parliament.

ninfan - Member

Portillos been saying that for a few years

However he also reflected on his own position and said this

The paragraph before the one you quoted :

[b][i]Under Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty each signatory “undertakes to pursue negotiations…. relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race… and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty…on complete disarmament”. The Treaty is often quoted against Iran, but Britain evidently ignores the obligations that apply to those who have nuclear weapons already.[/i][/b]

And in the paragraph immediately after the one you quoted :

[b][i]But if this government is to argue for renewing Trident it cannot simply restate a doctrine of deterrence that was relevant only in a bygone era.[/i][/b]

All of which puts him completely at odds with official Conservative Party policy, which I believe was scotroutes point when he posted this :

[img] [/img]

I see Burnham is making a bid for the PM's job.

He's stated Labour will have to do a deal with the SNP.

Minister for the blooming obvious?

The Burnham thing is nothing IMO. It's hardly news that labour will talk to the SNP. Not doing so would be childish and silly on a DUP scale. There's a huge difference though with talking and deal-making.

That gets into silly semantics- if they talk and come to an agreement, that's a deal.

I liked the comment last night "Technically it's true that Ed won't make [i]a[/i] deal. He'll have to make loads of deals"

He doesn't have to make a deal with anyone, he can form a government and challenge the SNP to vote against it. And then if they do blame them for not being serious enough about keeping the Tories out of Downing Street.

Personally I'd love to see a Labour / SNP coalition, we might actually run the country for the benefit of it's citizens.....

ernie_lynch - Member
He doesn't have to make a deal with anyone, he can form a government and challenge the SNP to vote against it. And then if they do blame them for not being serious enough about keeping the Tories out of Downing Street.

Spot on and his best strategy.

Weaken and he rules Lab out as a LW (sorry!) force * in Scotland. This way the pressure is right back on Nicola. He should play complete hard ball and then the SNP, "we will do anything to prevent the Tories" will tie them down throughout.

Ed might look stupid at times, but he's smart here.

* in practice those lefty SNP folk implement more RW stuff that new labour!!! More unfulfilled socialists in Scotland coming up.....

Love this socialist forum, can't wait for next Friday 🙂

* in practice those lefty SNP folk implement more RW stuff that new labour!!! More unfulfilled socialists in Scotland coming up.....

Can you provide examples please?

Tuition fees

"in practice those lefty SNP folk implement more RW stuff that new labour!!!"

Can you provide examples please?

There's plenty of examples where the SNP are more right-wing than Labour, if you put rhetoric to one side.

I'm all ears.

Ed may have strengthened his position in England but he's totally thrown away any chance of Labour seats in Scotland. His (and the other parties) stance on the situation has come across as incredibly insulting to everyone in Scotland who voted or will vote for the SNP and dare I say it, even a lot of Labour supporters. I suspect the if DC gets in again it won't be the SNP who get the blame up here, it'll be Ed.

Labour are facing a wipeout in Scotland anyway, what matter if they say no to working with the SNP?

Labour are facing a wipeout in Scotland anyway, what matter if they say no to working with the SNP?

I suspect the disdain and rhetoric is the kind of thing that'll be remembered and prevent them bouncing back in the future. Personally, that's fine by me, but I'm surprised at quite how strong the response was given that they may still want Scottish seats in the future.

Personally, that's fine by me, but I'm surprised at quite how strong the response was given that they may still want Scottish seats in the future.

This is the analysis I think which I posted a few pages back

Look at it strategically, if Labour are going to recover in Scotland they have to defeat "Vote SNP and get the best of both worlds". How do they do that? By making the SNP irrelevant in Westminster by not pandering to them.

The trick is to treat the SNP with disdain without this rubbing off on the voters - easier said than done.

Strange as it may seem, this election isn't just about Scotland.
Given that Labour (and everyone else) aren't going to win there ir makes sense to concentrate on seats they can win. The rhetoric of the indyref & the SNP hasn't gone down that well across the wider UK & many don't like the idea of Scots MP's voting on devolved/English matters.
Play to the electorate you can win, its far far bigger than that of Scotland.

Strangely I find myself agreeing with THM again, and more disturbingly Jambo. As I said some pages back, labour have nothing to lose by playing hard ball with the SNP. Much as I like the idea of a labour govt kept in check by the SNP it's a fantasy. IMO they're playing the long game. Either the Tories will form a short-lived lame duck minority govt, or labour will hold out long enough until people are begging them to step in and do whatever deals are necessary.

But, Muddydwarf, as Sturgeon pointed out... Many "english" matters do affect Scotland through funding implications. So to have the scottish mps not allowed to vote on something that will actually have an impact on Scotland is the reds and blues trying to get get their majority rule from a position of non majority

Strangely I find myself agreeing with THM again

Wisdom comes to us all in the end Dazh!

LW, RW it's all bllx. Just look at Dilma Rouuseff in Brazil to see what happens when the left are faced with the realities if the market. They react, yes REact in exactly the same way, in fact after more aggressively than their so-called RW peers since the credibility gap in the economic front is perceived to be greater.

& many don't like the idea of Scots MP's voting on devolved/English matters.

Why is no one proposing proper reform then? An English Parliament and a proper federal system would solve so many issues but there seems to be absolutely no desire for it at all for Labour or the Tories. They couldn't bare to see Scotland leave and yet want them to have no say in the running of the country.

Why is no one proposing proper reform then?

they did, but Labour and the Lib Dems were both set against it because they would lose the numbers advantage they had through Scottish and Welsh Mp's (66/258 labour, 14/52 lib dem) and a likely guaranteed Conservative majority on any English vote from here till eternity

Of course, that may be less of an issue now, hence EVEL will be back on the agenda after the election.

dazh - Member

As I said some pages back, labour have nothing to lose by playing hard ball with the SNP.

Of course they do 😕 They lose stability in government and the absolute certainty of getting into power. But also, they massively damage their chances of recovering in Scotland. And they damage the union itself and make a future indy ref both more likely, and more likely to succeed.

Obviously they think the tradeoff is worth it, but it's certainly not the case that they have nothing to lose.

The really odd thing in all of this is watching the 2 big unionist parties putting so much effort into doing the greatest possible damage to the union, while the SNP are offering an option that could actually strengthen it and being rebuffed. Proper through the looking glass stuff.

they did, but Labour and the Lib Dems were both set against it

More Z-11 nonsense.

[url= http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2014/09/andrew-lansley-mp-the-case-against-an-english-parliament.html ]Andrew Lansley MP: The case against an English Parliament[/url]

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/william-hague/11559458/William-Hague-pledges-income-tax-rate-just-for-England-to-take-power-away-from-Scots.html ]William Hague pledges income tax rate just for England to take power away from Scots[/url]

[i]"We do not support English nationalists, we do not want an English Parliament, we are the Conservative and Unionist Party through and through. "[/i]

.

a likely guaranteed Conservative majority on any English vote from here till eternity

In your dreams.

The ones which feature Thatcher probably.

Yeah right the SNP gave an option to strengthen the UK.

dragon - Member

Yeah right the SNP gave an option to strengthen the UK.

Course they did. It's not their goal, mind you. But to have a UK parliament respecting scottish voters' democratic demands and working productively with the SNP to make a better country for everyone is the most damaging thing a unionist party can do to the goal of independence- make people feel like we're one nation, and one nation they want to be part of.

If you want to say "better together" then make people feel like they're better together. Not brain surgery. Instead all the unionists have gone down the path of division, difference and treating scottish voters with contempt. And people think this is how you win back ex-labour voters!

The West Lothian needs solving or English/Welsh voters will be up in arms when Scots MP's vote on devolved matters. Scotland can't have devolved powers yet expect to vote on such matters as are not the business of Westminster in Scotland.
I personally don't care who the Scots send to Westminster, that is the prerogative of those electors. But Scots need to remember the anti Westminster, anti Union rhetoric didn't go down well in the rest of the UK & we have no reason to trust that an avowed separatist party will work for the good of all.
The hypocrisy is amusing, first it was 'we don't want to be part of the Westminster system' now followed by this gleeful falling over themselves to be part of that very system.

The hypocrisy is amusing, first it was 'we don't want to be part of the Westminster system' now followed by this gleeful falling over themselves to be part of that very system.

True dat.

Ernie

Straw man - the question was
[i]Why is no one proposing proper reform then?[/i]
Not
[i]Why is no one proposing an English Parliament then?[/i]

The two are not synonymous, even the guardian said the Tory plans were for reform
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/14/tory-reform-plans-lethal-cocktail-end-uk-gordon-brown

They lose stability in government and the absolute certainty of getting into power.

Relying on the SNP whilst having less seats than the tories is far from stable, and far from certain.

But also, they massively damage their chances of recovering in Scotland.

People voting SNP and getting a labour govt is hardly good for the labour party.

make a future indy ref both more likely

That's off the agenda for a good long while, at least until they can demonstrate that there is sufficient demographic change that invalidates the previous decision.

2 big unionist parties putting so much effort into doing the greatest possible damage to the union

Very true. The two parties campaigned for a no vote in the referendum, it's hypocritical in the extreme that they now seek to lock them out of any decisions when they are probably going to be the 3rd largest party in the UK.

SNP are offering an option that could actually strengthen it

Unless the SNP are being incredibly naive, or they have officially abandoned separatism, I don't think they'd ever do anything which they thought strengthened the union.

The question Z-11 was :

Why is no one proposing proper reform then? An English Parliament and a proper federal system would solve so many issues but there seems to be absolutely no desire for it at all for Labour or the Tories.

To which you answered :

they did, but Labour and the Lib Dems were both set against it

This is clearly bollocks. As you well know.

I think you need to go back and read my post again.

You will also note the construction of the sentence you have quoted, and where the question mark is!

I think you need to go back and read my post again.

Yeah I just did and it confirms that you deliberately attempted to mislead whatnobeer. His question was clearly framed in the context of "An English Parliament and a proper federal system". As well you know.

Where was the question mark?

dazh - Member

Unless the SNP are being incredibly naive, or they have officially abandoned separatism, I don't think they'd ever do anything which they thought strengthened the union.

Nah, it's basically a risk they have to take. It's really a trap for them but one they can't avoid- for as long as Scotland's in the UK, they have to be seen to work for a better Scotland within the UK, and they have to be seen to work to deliver the goals they say they would deliver with an independent Scotland. Scotland isn't served by the decay of the UK while we're part of it, and a party that'll hurt Scotland today will never lead it to independence. It's incompatible.

But, a better UK could easily become one that more Scots want to stay in. The goal isn't just an independent Scotland, it's a better Scotland. Right now, many people don't believe Westminster will deliver that, but perhaps it can. And if Westminster was to work with them productively, it draws their teeth and ties Scotland more strongly to the UK.

If Westminster won't work with them, they gain. That's the risk they have to take. As of right now, it's paying off for them spectacularly- probably more so than they dreamed. But that doesn't mean there was never a risk.

I think British history will remember this as the missed opportunity.

NW explains it very well

they are not entering the UK as some form of trotskyites millitant* intent on malevolence to show the system does not work in order to bring about a brave revolution and independence for Scotland, despite what the right wing and the unionist say.

What may happen is they win , want to act with the UK[ or pretend if you are that deeply cynical of them] and all the rUK parties shun the SNP and refuse. The SNP they go look they wont work with us, they are still ignoring scotlands voice so what other options do we have but go it alone.

I am not sure what the issue is with working with the SNP. For example it will mean the Barnett formula stays so that is hardly likely to speed up the cries for freedom from scots ...its removal may well and that is more likely without them in govt

I am still surprised by how much fear there is in england of the SNP

I am not sure what the issue is with working with the SNP.

For the record I have no problem with the SNP. I quite like them and think they would be a positive influence on both a labour govt and the UK as a whole. My points about them are purely from the point of view of labour's short and longer term election prospects. Neither labour or the SNP will benefit from a stable tory-led government*. They may benefit from a short term unstable tory govt, but for as long as the dominant belief is that labour and the SNP are somehow conspiring to seize power against the wishes of the electorate, then it's not in their long term interests to do a deal to form a minority govt.

*edit: on reading it again that's an obvious and stupid point. I have been drinking 🙂

Every day independence gets closer.

I am not sure what the issue is with working with the SNP

The SNP would make dangerous bedfellows for the Labour leadership, firstly by applying pressure on policy, and secondly by threatening them politically, not just in Scotland but by setting a precedent that it is possible to have an alternative political party for traditional Labour voters.

Central to the New Labour's lurch to the right was the firm assurance that there was nowhere else for traditional Labour voters to go.

The LibDems never posed such a threat to the Conservatives because firstly they were much closer politically, secondly they were not a new phenomena which was eating into traditional Conservative votes, and thirdly it was clear from the very start that their support would collapse if they went into coalition with the Conservatives, which of course it did, immediately.

The hypocrisy is [s]amusing[/s]hilarious, first it was 'we [s]don't[/s]want the Scots to be a big part of the Westminster system' now followed by this [s]gleeful[/s] falling over themselves to [s]be[/s] stop us being a big part part of that very system.

Every day independence gets closer....
[i]

We live in hope!

See, there is this idea that A) most people wanted Scotland to stay, which I'm really not sure about. Certainly I only know two people who wanted that & they are both Scots.
B) that we don't want Scotland to play a part at Westminster. Again, whilst you are part of the Union that is your right. We just don't agree with Scots MP's voting on English affairs. Non-Scots MP's cannot decide policy on devolved issues, that is the crux of the matter & if you can't see why that is riling the English & Welsh voters then I do wonder whether you are really interested in being part of the greater good.

*you - being the SNP/Nationalist minded voter

Problem is that there are not that many truly English-only affairs - for example the Scottish NHS budget is affected by the level of spending on the NHS in England, so it is kinda our business too.

As usual in this country, the current system is a fudge that doesn't really work for most people. England should have a parliament, and then there should be a federal government to oversee the parliaments of E, S, W & NI. But English people didn't want a parliament, I think because quite a few see Westminster as "their" parliament, which also goes a way to explaining the current panic about the SNP.

Speaking personally here, if we had a proper federal system of government, I'd probably lose all interest in Scottish independence.

I would happily see the HoC be an English Parliament & the HoL reformed into a UK senate. I doubt that would satisfy many Scots Nats though & personally I would still want Scotland gone.
This election is a case in point, we are rehashing the indyref but its actually about all of the UK. We need Scotland to go so we can reform our own affairs.

Where was the question mark?

I thought it was fairly obvious with the follow up statement after the question mark what sort of proper reform I was talking about. But maybe not.

I think Ben nails it above. Any decision taken at Westminster usually have a knock on effect on the other devolved parliaments. And as such, and given that it's the [b]UK[/b] parliament then the of course Scottish MP's have the right to vote on any motions that come before them.

Now, I'm maybe being cynical, but I think the option of fully devolved power to England as well as everyone else isn't on the table as it would involve too much loss of power from those who covet it the most.

muddydwarf - a genuine question for you...

I can easily see why the electorate in England would be unhappy about 59 SNP MPs voting on English matters (assuming for the moment that these were definable) but what's the difference between that and Labour being in control with a majority of less than 59 MPs? Surely it amounts to the same thing?

Depends, are they Scottish Labour MP's?

The English electorate at least has a chance/choice to vote for those Labour MP's. They are answerable to English constituencies. It is the idea that we have MP's deciding our policies, ones that cannot affect their own constituencies whilst being unanswerable that angers many.

[quote=muddydwarf ]Depends, are they Scottish Labour MP's?Aye - that's what I was getting at. If the SNP took no seats and Labour took all 59 but had a Westminster majority of less than 59.

muddydwarf - Member

B) that we don't want Scotland to play a part at Westminster. Again, whilst you are part of the Union that is your right. We just don't agree with Scots MP's voting on English affairs.

Scuse me, but we have the prime minister saying outright that SNP MPs shouldn't be allowed power in Westminster. I think if what you're saying were true, it would be defensible but it's just not the case, the message has been "keep these people out of our government" full stop.

or

"This would be the first time in our history that a group of nationalists from one part of our country would be involved in altering the direction of the government of our country and I think that is a frightening prospect."

muddydwarf - Member

It is the idea that we have MP's deciding our policies, ones that cannot affect their own constituencies whilst being unanswerable that angers many.

How angry were you last time this happened?

Also, why is it worse that someone you don't have the opportunity to vote for might have influence, than having someone you had the chance to vote for and decided not to? They're both people you didn't vote for. If the SNP ran 300 candidates in England and lost every seat, would that make it all fine?

On issues where there truly is no impact on Scotland, I think it's impossible to argue with the west lothian question challenge- other than to say that obviously regional matters shouldn't be taking up parliamentary time in the national parliament. But the truth is, most matters in England do impact Scotland.

Spending in the UK only matters to Scotland because of the Barnett formula, suddenly the SNP dont want FFA immediately whereas independence could be secured in 18 months - I wonder why.

When was that?
In my voting lifetime I don't recall a political party representing one single region of the Union demanding the opportunity to affect policy on devolved powers.
Scotland has had the opportunity to vote Con/Lib/Lab just like the rest of the UK, when has the UK had the opportunity to vote SNP?
That is immaterial though, powers are now devolved that were not in Thatchers reign & that means if English MP's cannot create Scottish policy then Scots MP's must not be allowed to create English policy.

I may not vote Tory, but my fellow constituents did. Therefore I must accept the majority verdict, we cannot do that when MP's we had no opportunity to vote for impose policy on us. Especially when we cannot recall them.

@ Muddydwarf- Major's government was propped up by the Ulster Unionists. The Tories were all for it back then, weird how they've changed their mind eh.

I did a sneaky edit which I think you've not seen, I'll just repost it here because I'm really interested to know your response...

"why is it worse that someone you don't have the opportunity to vote for might have influence, than having someone you had the chance to vote for and decided not to have influence? They're both people you didn't vote for. If the SNP ran 300 candidates in England and lost every seat, would that make it all fine?"

Major's government was propped up by the Ulster Unionists.

He had a theoretical minority for five months, hardly propped up.

Labour and the Tories have been reaping the benefits of the Westminster system (specifically FPTP) for decades but now the SNP may play another aspect of it (the UK parliament directly governs England) suddenly this is evil and must be stopped.

Fix Westminster, don't blame Scots for their choice of representatives. Some sort of federal system seems the best idea to me, the EVEL kludges suggested after the referendum seemed to vary between impractical and blatantly partisan.

muddydwarf - Member
...That is immaterial though, powers are now devolved that were not in Thatchers reign & that means if English MP's cannot create Scottish policy then Scots MP's must not be allowed to create English policy.

Ironically that would be more likely to be happening if Labour had a clean sweep of Scotland. Scots Labour MPs regularly vote on England only issues.

Whereas the SNP have traditionally abstained from English only matters.

Which is why up here we are coming to the conclusion that it's simply a matter of trying to deny Scots any representation at all unless its under the whip of either of the 2 Tory parties, the Red one or the Blue one.

Natives have been known to get revolting when there's no representation...

Whereas the SNP have traditionally abstained from English only matters

Yes, and the bleating that came from the right-wing press when the SNP hinted that they might change that policy was amazingly hypocritical.

Whereas the SNP have traditionally abstained from English only matters.

I know but they have changed their tune, hence the change in attitude.

Yes, and the bleating that came from the right-wing press when the SNP hinted that they might change that policy was amazingly hypocritical.

Perhaps now they only capable of having an effect on things ergo not abstaining....

2 sides to every story..

To be succinct, ive no problem with thr concept of coalition govts. Were we to have the old system of central govt a strong Scottish element in a coalition govt would be something to admire.
However, when Scotland has her own govt, one that Westminster cannot interfere with (day to day at least) then the MP's that Scotland sends to Westminster must accept there are to be certain restrictions on their voting rights.
It cannot happen both ways, if Scotland has the right to define its own affairs without interference from the wider Union then the reverse must apply.
So when NS gleefully says her SNP MP's will vote on devolved matters we in England see that as deliberate malevolence.

To be succinct

You have much to learn.

I don't want Scottish MP's of ANY political colour voting on English affairs.

For the last few hundred years Scottish MPs have been voting on English matters and there has hardly been a murmur about them because they have been part of the big parties and the Scottish MPs have had to toe the line and vote according to the whip even when it was against the interests of their constituents in Scotland.

Now there is a party that will put Scottish constituents foremost and the Westminster system is desperately trying to muzzle them.

Thus the only conclusion that can be drawn is that Westminster want to prevent Scots having representation.

muddydwarf - Member
I don't want Scottish MP's of ANY political colour voting on English affairs.

We will happily accede to that if you agree to no English MPs of ANY political colour voting on Scottish affairs.

@muddydwarf- I think Sturgeon's been pretty clear that she considers it valid for Scottish MPs to vote on devolved matters where there's still an impact on Scotland. The NHS is the example she normally uses. I've not seen her argue "we'll vote on things that have no effect on Scotland"- she's making the argument that most devolved matters don't meet that definition.

Open to being proved wrong but certainly when she announced that change, that was exactly how she represented it. And that goes to the core of the "evel" argument.

I honestly feel that evel is a convenient excuse here, because it's absolutely clear that people aren't objecting only to the SNP having influence in devolved matters. I've quoted David Cameron many times, he says the SNP shouldn't be allowed power in our government, full stop.

For the last few hundred years .............

That's a serious distortion of history epicyclo. You know full well that what has changed everything is devolution.

For the last few hundred years

There wasn't a Scottish Parliament for all but 20 of those.

What NS considers valid voting points isn't particularly the case, its what the English constituencies consider valid that will be the flash points.

English MP's cannot vote on Scottish devolved matters, so that's an easy answer to epicyclo.

No one wants to disenfranchise Scottish voters, whilst Scotland is part of the Union we expect, no we demand they play a part. It is simply that devolution has thrown up a problem, where the system is unbalanced and we now have a political grouping coming to Westminster that are willing to abuse the anomalies for their own political ends and the English electorate can do nothing about that.
Its quite simple.