You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Yes the tories want a thriving economy [ and low taxes] so they can afford the welfare state
I am sure we can all agree that you just nailed the Tory raison d'etre
You're right Jammy. The sight of Dave's Big Society, and his unswerving dedication to care for the most disadvantaged in society has moved me to tears at times. He truly feels their pain. And has made it his life work to alleviate it. By promoting the use of food banks, for example. And I feel its been an honour to witness the genuine compassion and empathy of that fearless champion of the poor, sick and disabled - Ian Duncan Smith. He's truly like Mother Theresa.
And Grant Schapps? George Osborne? Eric Pickles What can I say? The living embodiment of Dave's famous compassionate conservatism, to a man! Gaaawd bless 'em all!
*doffs cap*
Well all of those people would have been worse off under a Labour government as collectively the country would have been foobared. Of course we didn't have any of those poor people under 13 years of Labour which where universally wonderful. As the IFS report says Labour intend to match the Tories already announced spending cuts for many departments.
Well all of those people would have been worse off under a Labour government as collectively the country would have been foobared.
In your opinion.....
Any country that has a growing number of food banks is not a country undergoing an economic recovery.
Wasn't the economy growing when labour left office? Why wouldn't it have kept growing if Labour's policies are so close to the marvelous Tories?
@epic of course the two things are not mutually exclusive, you can have economic recovery and poverty / need for charity. The foodbank issue has been hugely over played, I've posted on this earlier in the thread.
@binners, yes absolutely in my opinion. If you want a comparison if we'd had a Labour government the last 5 years we'd be in the same mess Hollande has delivered in France.
The food banks thing has been debunked as the Trussell Trust admitted last week that their "shock" figures of a million people being supported by food banks is actually a million visits with the average number of visits per person per year being 2. An average of 2 trips a year by people who use food banks is hardly evidence of abject poverty or starvation .
The Labour party say the Tories are destroying the NHS and are going to save it and spend £131.5bn
Maybe the Tories are destroying the NHS in other ways, rather than just not spending enough money on it?
It's so easy to get caught up in arguments about spending plans, when we should also be arguing about why the money is needed/what it's going to spent on.
"Debate me!
Debate me!
I am ready!
I am ready to be the Prime Minister!
My entire life is built up to this moment!
I want to offer myself as Prime Minister!.
Call on me!
Call on me!
I will govern you!"
FFS! 🙄
Apologies for not sitting down and reading the 19 preceding pages, but is there anywhere in this thread that has discussed the benefits of staying in the Europe?
Its something i'm not that familiar with. I know it costs us a lot and people are always ready to point that out. But i'd expect that there must be some benefits?
Cheers WW
I see Dave and Gideon have both ventured North, rolled their sleeves up, and been pictured in dark, gritty factories with oily working class oiks, holding spanners.
They rely must be bloody panicking!!!
Jammy - you're comparing our economy over the last five years, to one that's part of the eurozone
Seriously? Don't be so bloody daft!!!! 😆
WW - if we leave Europe, then basically we really are utterly and completely ****ed!!! Our economy will implode!
But we won't have any Germans telling us our bananas have to be straight, so I'm sure that'll more than make up for our plummeting living standards!
wittonweavers - Member
... but is there anywhere in this thread that has discussed the benefits of staying in the Europe?... I know it costs us a lot and people are always ready to point that out. But i'd expect that there must be some benefits?
Cheers WW
The benefits are as follows:
1. One big family.
2. We are all equal.
3. We help each other out.
4. Your home is my home vice versa.
5. One big market to compete with Merica, Russia, China, Asia etc
6. We live and die together.
7. Economically we bail the weaker ones out if they are in trouble.
8. United as one. All for one and one for all ...
9. Freedom of movement see point 4.
10. Centralised power.
The limitations:
1. We need more rules.
2. We need more control.
3. We need more hierarchies.
4. We need more power.
5. We need more money.
6. We need more people to write the rules.
7. We need more people to govern the people.
8. We need more ways to tell the people how to live their lives.
9. We need more people to make decisions.
There you go big is "beautiful" innit!
😛
binners - MemberWW - if we leave Europe, then basically we really are utterly and completely ****ed!!! Our economy will implode!
Bloody champagne communist only think about money and wealth creation! 😆
I'm looking for a balanced argument in my mind...
WW - if we leave Europe, then basically we really are utterly and completely ****ed!!! Our economy will implode!
Not so sure - that's a bit emotional and not factual. Why would we implode? Switzerland manage ok?
Chewkw - thanks for taking a few minutes to give me your thoughts though i'm still not convinced. Does anyone know the maths that shows what we put in compared to what we take out - financially i mean?
Yes we are one big family but a very long way from all being equal. Some countries will always put most in and take least out. You can say that the weakest get bailed out, but you could equally say that the weakest get saddled with a mountain of debt that they will be burdened with forever.
I'm not at all convinced that we couldn't trade with Europe, China et al on our own anyway...?
just5minutes - MemberAn average of 2 trips a year by people who use food banks is hardly evidence of abject poverty or starvation .
Really ? You think going twice in one year for help with eating isn't a sign of abject poverty ? What in your nasty Katie Hopkins fantasy world is abject poverty ? How bad do you think things have to get in the UK before you consider it to be a serious problem, or is there no limit ?
In contrast you obviously see the vague chance of a Labour government putting a bit of a squeeze on the obscenely rich as an extremely serious problem, you are appalled, disgusted, and shocked, by that outrageous state of affairs, aren't you ?
And to counter your regurgitated Daily Mail bollox about the Trussell Trust :
[i]
Britain's biggest foodbank charity has defended its latest figures claiming more than one million people used food banks in the last 12 months.
According to latest figures released by the Trussell Trust this week, foodbank use rose to more than one million with four in 10 of those needing help being children.
The trust, which is Britain's biggest foodbank charity, said there were more than 1,000,000 claims for at least three days' emergency food from its foodbanks in the last 12 months, more than in any previous year.
After the independent fact checking organisation Full Fact challenged the claims on its website, Trussell Trust issued a clarification.
The trust said: "Trussell Trust figures show that Trussell Trust foodbank use has hit one million for the first time, but we have not claimed that the numbers relate to unique individuals.
"The Trussell Trust is measuring volume – the number of people to whom it has given three days' food. The Trussell Trust has consistently measured figures in this way and reports them at the middle and end of each financial year.
"Trussell Trust figures clearly state that we are counting the number of people to whom we have given three days' food – these are not necessarily unique people. Year-on-year, the figures are showing an increase in numbers given three days' food by Trussell Trust foodbanks.
"As our press release says, 49 per cent of people coming to Trussell Trust foodbanks in a year needed help once. On average people needed two foodbank vouchers in a year. Each foodbank voucher entitles people to three days' food and support."
The trust also emphasised its figures relate to Trussell Trust foodbanks and not to the hundreds of other independent food aid providers. "There is no official data on other food aid projects, but some people estimate that there are likely to be the same number again of non-Trussell Trust foodbank style projects in the UK."
The trust added: "Our focus remains on the people behind these numbers, and the fact that more people than ever have been referred to Trussell Trust foodbanks for three days' emergency food is deeply concerning."
Full Fact said the claim that more than a million people are using Trussell Trust food banks was inaccurate and came from confusing the number of different people using Trussell Trust food banks in a year with the number of times they use the food banks.
"The Trussell Trust say that on average people needed two food bank vouchers annually, so the number of people using food banks is likely to be around half of the 1.1 million figure."
The service is "emergency food and support", not sustained food provision. About half of users needed one food bank voucher in a year, though a significant minority, about 15 per cent, used the service more than three times.
Full Fact also noted that supply is not the same as demand.
"The rise in uses of Trussell Trust food banks came with a rise in the number of food banks themselves, up from 56 food banks in 2009 to 445 food banks in 2014. "This represents a major expansion of the Trust into new areas." The trust served 29 UK local authorities in 2009 but that number increased to 251 by 2013.
"The increase in supply doesn't necessarily reflect an increased demand for emergency food. There may have been people in need of emergency food in the past who wouldn't have shown up in the Trust's figures because there was no Trussell Trust food bank nearby," said Full Fact.
Academics from Manchester University have said that while a social stigma remains in using food banks, there is an increasing "normalisation" in their use due to the growth in the number of food banks and food donation points in supermarkets.
Full Fact admits there may be around 800 food banks across the UK. There are also other providers of emergency food assistance such as soup kitchens and Meals on Wheels, adding up to about 1,500 emergency food assistance providers in Britain.
The coalition government rejected the link between benefit reforms and food bank use.
But an analysis in the British Medical Journal found the increase in use and number of food banks was associated with spending cuts, benefit sanctions and unemployment.
Full Fact concluded: "Data from the Trussell Trust may be the best evidence we have, but reporting on the subject needs to be clearer about the limitations of the evidence to inform debate about such a serious issue."[/i]
The Trussell Trust have clearly "admitted" to nothing, despite your false claims.
wittonweavers - Member
Chewkw - thanks for taking a few minutes to give me your thoughts though i'm still not convinced. Does anyone know the maths that shows what we put in compared to what we take out - financially i mean?
All the points are covered and all you got to do is to extrapolate them. You cannot escape any of the points above as it will not work if any of them are missing.
Yes we are one big family but a very long way from all being equal. Some countries will always put most in and take least out. You can say that the weakest get bailed out, but you could equally say that the weakest get saddled with a mountain of debt that they will be burdened with forever.
The point about bending the rules that comes with the territory (concept, idea, etc whatever) ...
Elementary organisational theory Mr Watson.
What we are experiencing is centralisation vs decentralisation vs the in-between the two opposing extremes.
UK is in-between but the left ideology is arguing for centralisation while the right ideology is arguing for decentralisation ... then both try to justify the in-between because they are scared of the unknown. 😆
just5minutes - MemberThe food banks thing has been debunked as the Trussell Trust admitted last week that their "shock" figures of a million people being supported by food banks is actually a million visits with the average number of visits per person per year being 2.
They didn't "admit" it- it's in the report, clear as day, some people just missed it. And it doesn't debunk anything, food bank use is rising, that's just a fact.
Exactly what do you think the trussell trust has to gain here?
food bank use is rising, that's just a fact
Does that actually tell us anything though?
Genuine question.
Is the food bank similar to war time rationing?
Can't seem to post this into a neat YouTube format, but this is somebody talking about food bank use. It is heart rending. The nations health improved during ww1 and 2 because of rationing. Food banks show how unhealthy we now are.
Does it tell us anything?
Well it tells us people are hungry? What more would you like it to tell us?
Does just 5 minutes ever respond when his posts have been debunked or does he just return the next day with something else?
JY, perhaps the username refers to the amount of time the Conservative Battle Bus wifi lets you have online each evening.
wittonweavers - Member
Apologies for not sitting down and reading the 19 preceding pages, but is there anywhere in this thread that has discussed the benefits of staying in the Europe?
No, even given the UKIP factor. In fact despite international conflict being flagged as the biggest risk facing the world (WEF, Davos 2015) foreign policy has been largely ignored except for the BS trading that will happen with lab and snip over Trident and a new vote. Talk about parochial petty politics!
No discussion of how to tackle our appalling productivity trends or excess leverage. Instead we have non debate over the non existent difference on the NHS and noise around non doms and ZHCs. Thank goodness, none of these folks are involved with real businesses
You have to go to French socialists to find any talk about supply side reforms!
Thank goodness, none of these folks are involved with real businesses
Yeah being responsible for the nation's health, education, housing, law and order, defence, the environment, and a few other things, is a piece of piss compared to the skills needed to head your business empire THM.
Well at least one is a success Ehrnie. But I never hire incompetents which helps!
Surely being much cleverer than anyone else is what really helps THM ?
If you say so, if you say so.
Anyway, what was the topic again?
jambalaya - Member
@epic of course the two things are not mutually exclusive, you can have economic recovery and poverty / need for charity...
No, that's not a recovered economy, that's a dysfunctional one.
What is the point of government if it does not look after its people?
We seemed to have pretty pointless ones for a long time then on that basis! Another failing to add to the list 😉
ninfan - MemberDoes that actually tell us anything though?
an analysis in the British Medical Journal found the increase in use and number of food banks was associated with spending cuts, benefit sanctions and unemployment.
We seemed to have pretty pointless ones for a long time then on that basis!
Look up what recovery means THM.
Let's not spoilt the fun, you tell me Ernie
Well it's very basic stuff THM.
But let me help you, here's a hint from Wikipedia :
[i]An economic recovery is the phase of the business cycle following a recession, during which an economy regains and exceeds peak employment and output levels achieved prior to downturn. A recovery period is typically characterized by abnormally high levels of growth in real gross domestic product, employment, corporate profits, and other indicators.[/i]
See how that squares with the statement : [i]"We seemed to have pretty pointless ones for a long time then on that basis!" [/i]
Yes and how does that link exactly - not really related to what we were talking about now was it?
Little clue, we were talking about poverty and charity.
I hope no students use that definition in the forthcoming Econ A levels BTW.
EDIT: the post I am replying to had a rude picture and has been deleted but it quote Jams full quote re explaining AS role
Aside from that being very difficult its a request from me which makes it doubly hard for you
I only read the first bit from Jam in NW's post missing his original as I skim read his posts these days.
If your ability was 1/10th of your confidence we would be in the presence of a genius. As it is we are in the presence, as NW so clearly pointed out [ as did i the day earlier], in the presence of a man who cannot even agree with himself, contradicts himself and then uses evidence that does not support his conclusion and then denies it.
Still not sure if he believes what he says or he is just typing for the LOLZ
Little clue, we were talking about poverty and charity.
We were talking about recovery :
@epic of course the two things are not mutually exclusive, you can have economic recovery and poverty / need for charity...No, that's not a recovered economy, that's a dysfunctional one.
To which you immediately replied :
We seemed to have pretty pointless ones for a long time then on that basis! Another failing to add to the list
I'll leave it at that THM, you got a little confused. Have an early night and your mind might be a little clearer tomorrow 🙂
Well thanks for the kind assistance anyway (even if wiki came up a little short)
I thought about starting another thread on this, but I thought it best to keep it all together: [url= http://blog.lboro.ac.uk/general-election/media-coverage-of-the-2015-general-election-report-3/ ]Does the media have an anti SNP bias?[/url].
Thought it interesting given the last discussion here about the BBC & the indy ref.
I'm looking for a balanced argument in my mind...
Not sure this is the right place for that sort of thing 🙂
Seriously though, I've always been quite ambivalent about Europe. I really llike the breaking down borders, cooperating and working with each other rather than fighting each other side of things, but dislike the rightwing, elitest, neo-liberal everyone must be a capitalist pig side of it. The clincher though is that as long as the rightwing of the tory party and the nutters in UKIP think it's a bad thing, then there must be something going for it.
I'm no fan of the SNP but the media are undoubtedly biased against them
Anyway so Ed has appeared with Russell brand for the trews
Shrewd move ? Haters of Brand were unlikely to vote for Ed anyway ?? So with over a million , mostly young, subscribers to his channel a potential coup for Ed?
Young people are often under represented in elections , however they did turn out for the Scots referendum
So he's going to go after Amazon for tax avoidance
Good luck with that 🙂 See the pair of them don't seem to know the difference between revenue and profit.
Think you are missing the point allthepies
I'm no fan of the SNP but the media are undoubtedly biased against them
Yes, yet despite that Nicola Sturgeon is [url= http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/politics/wider-political-news/poll-shows-sturgeon-is-now-the-most-popular-politician-across-britain.124601616 ]the most popular party leader in the UK.[/url]
[quote=kimbers said]Think you are missing the point allthepies
You're going to have to explain it to me. Ed said he's the man to tackle Amazon's tax avoidance, how's he going to do that ?
Its not a cast iron garuantee as we know those don't exist, its a piece of electioneering aimed at a demographic politicians find it very hard to engage with or is it more of an advert for brands YouTube channel - how much EDitorial control do eds PR team have here ? Brand wants maximum hits (coz he needs to keep that ego fed!) Banging on about his favorite subject of global corporations, and one which is very popular with voters too !
Agree with DazH again
I alos liek the notion of a brotherhood of humanity and the EU has impressive social goals and tries to harmonise all EU economies. It is also basically a rich club that exists to make trade easier and to make money so its hardly humanitarian in nature
In essence its a govt with all that is good and bad about that.
I do find it ironic that those who are most passionate about the UK union , lets call them English for that is what they are, are also the most against an EU one. They like being the big dominant player in a Union but they wont be a "minor" partner or even one of the 4 "big "hitter" in the EU.
I think a lot oif it is a mixture of patriotism and an independent streak.
Whatever happens its unrealistic to think we can withdraw from the EU, not fund it/pay in and retain all the trade advantages we get from membership.
In the short run it will economically harm us but I am sure over a number of decades we would recover. We wont starve either way so I guess it depends how much you value freedom v economic prosperity
Interestingly the Independents want to be in the EU but not on the UK.
I would be a fairly disinterested Yes to stay in voter.
Today's development is just weird. Tories promise to pass laws whose only purpose is forcing them to keep their own promises, because apparently not even they believe them. And what does that say about all the other promises they're making which they're [i]not[/i] proposing making laws about...What about the promise to pass the laws about promises? I suppose it doesn't count until they pass a law that forces them to pass a law about promises... And they haven't promised not to overturn the law about promises.
I like that Ed Miliband's response is essentially WTF was in my drink
I'm no fan of the SNP but the media are undoubtedly biased against them
Really @kimbers, I see the SNP getting a huge amount of coverage and airtime to make their views known
JY you really are clutching at straws now. The timing of the IFS report and it's conclusions couldn't have done more to support my statements over the past many months that rises in the top rates of tax are counterproductive. Why don't you take the time to read the document, its not that long. New Labour understood that and that's why in 13 years under Blair and Brown those rates where held steady. Raising the top rate of tax is political, it plays to sections of the electorate but it is counterproductive in terms of raising revenue and negative in terms of economic impact.
The Conservatives have already introduced new laws to try and tackle tax avoidance from Amazon, Labour have a track record of doing nothing in this regard. The Labour parties incompetance is increasing stamp duty but allowing foreign companies to buy residential property shows they are largely clueless in how to manage tax policy. The simple fact is Amazon and Apple etc have totally legal arrangements with Luxembourg and Ireland respectively which take advantage of EU tax laws to ensure they pay very little tax.
The simple fact is Amazon and Apple etc have totally legal arrangements with Luxembourg and Ireland respectively which take advantage of EU tax laws to ensure they pay very little tax.
Totally legal you say?
According to Commission, its early view is that the ruling granted Amazon selective and ongoing tax advantages in a way that breached its rules against state aid. It has asked Luxembourg to provide further information ahead of its final ruling. Under EU law, any "unlawful aid" granted to a particular company can be recovered from the recipient of that aid."At this stage, the Commission considers that the contested tax ruling appears to result in a reduction of charges that should normally be borne by the entity concerned in the course of its business, and should therefore be considered as operating aid," it said in the letter.
jambalaya - MemberThe timing of the IFS report and it's conclusions couldn't have done more to support my statements over the past many months that rises in the top rates of tax are counterproductive.
Genuine LOL. It's really hard to know where to start arguing with this. I mean, you actually quoted parts of the report yourself which say the opposite of what you're claiming it says, so it's not like we actually need to refute you, you've already done it yourself.
jambalaya - MemberReally @kimbers, I see the SNP getting a huge amount of coverage and airtime to make their views known
Did you read the loughborough report? It found that they get less quote coverage than the lib dems and ukip (who they're forecast to get 3 and 25 times more MPs than, respectively, beating them into 4th and IIRC 8th place). But more importantly that the coverage they do get is overwhelmingly negative.
I have the unfair advantage that the report I'm quoting from actually supports my argument:
"Only the Conservatives have sustained a positive overall ranking across all three sample periods, although this positivity has fallen back in the latest sample period.
Labour has had a consistently negative press throughout the campaign so far. This negativity has increased sharply over the most recent period.
SNP coverage has swung from credit to debit in the second and third sample periods. Negative coverage of the party in the second sample period exceeded levels of negativity for Labour for the same period.
UKIP has consistently registered negative editorial scores for all of the sample periods."
Latest Ipsos-Mori poll in Scotland:
SNP 54% (+2)
Labour 20% (-4)
Conservatives 17% (+5)
Lib Dems 5% (+1)
Greens 2% (-2)
UKIP 1%
SNP projected to win in every seat now.
And Labour about as popular as the Tories in Scotland 😀
If it's the same as their last, it's a very small sample that one, 1000 people. But still, interesting reading.
And Labour about as popular as the Tories in Scotland
That's got to smart!
Did you read the loughborough report? It found that they get less quote coverage than the lib dems and ukip (who they're forecast to get 3 and 25 times more MPs than, respectively, beating them into 4th and IIRC 8th place). But more importantly that the coverage they do get is overwhelmingly negative.
The SNP are standing in less than 10% of the seats, you can't expect them to get as much coverage in the National Press (most papers have separate Scottish editions, which have not been reviewed) as parties who are standing in the vast majority of the 650. The LibDems and UKIP are anticipated to get a much higher share of the vote.
And Labour about as popular as the Tories in Scotland
Jim Murphy is proving a great choice as their leader in Scotland now...
If it's the same as their last, it's a very small sample that one, 1000 people. But still, interesting reading.
1000 is about normal for poll size, isn't it? But yes, predicting seats from polls is very difficult, the seat predictor uses a uniform swing, and other systems are weighted in one way or another. Problem with weighting is that this situation is unprecedented.
The fun and games of First Past The Post.
Throw in a bit of tactical voting, local popularity and both the Tories and LibDems could end up with more Scottish MPs than Labour (i.e. One each)
The organised tactical voting system isn't going very well, though - no-one can agree on which version of the "wheel" to use, not helped by people producing spoof versions. The Torygraph tried making an online calculator where you put in your postcode and it told you who to vote for to get the result you wanted - except for every constituency in Scotland it just says "Anyone but SNP".
Interesting stuff on R2 at the moment with Cameroon and Jezza Vine.
He didn't know a few key figures, wonder whether he will get the same treatment as Natalie Bennett?
To totally ignore the debate so far(which I have been enjoying), I know there are a couple of green party activists on hear who may like my little message below.
Dear Green Party
Thanks for the flyer which you posted through our letterbox last night. It was great to see you standing by your green principles and printing it locally on recycled paper, with a low chemical non glossy finish.
Ah, no wait a minute, it was printed in Scotland wasn't it, then I guess you used fairy dust to transport it to Wales, or perhaps a big truck that uses oil? Oh and it wasn't recycled either was it, and it did have quite a nice high gloss finish which uses more energy to produce and is harder to recycle?
It's time to admit that the 'green' party is no more environmentally friendly that any other. You are the socialist workers party with a pretty flower. This is a real shame, as the country could really benefit from a political party which was pretty much in the centre but would fight for a better, cleaner and sustainable economy, one that was able to demonstrate through actions that being sustainable isn't that hard if you try.
Isn't that the same argument that stupid Americans (and others) use to deny global warming - eg it's snowing here.
Yes, of course, you'd expect the green party to be a bit more sensible than to use paper that isn't very green but then maybe it's not as simple as that or even if it is, maybe it's just one mistake by one person rather than being something you can extrapolate to mean whatever you want it to...
Just a thought 😉
the loss of labours scottish seats must be quite galling to a lot of activists
millibands obviously made huge headway if its still a really tight race with the loss of so many seats
ultimately I think the tory/right wing practice of talking up the SNP as a real threat has been hugely successful in legitimising them as a political party in the eyes of many, its undoubtedly cost labour a lot of votes
its also hugely empowered the SNP, Id expect another referendum on independence very soon and this time the Yes will do it it easily
Dear Green Party
...
There's a lot of competition but this might actually be my favourite anti-green party argument yet.
The online #SNPout campaign is basically full of people calling the SNP Nazis over and over and over again while a simple click on a significant % of [b]their[/b] profiles shows likes and shares for UVF,eff off were(sic)full! etc. Mind you some of the comments about Ruth Who? stealing ballot papers for the ref on WoS isn't much better. I still find it hard to believe that Shuggy McBam is going to go into a polling booth and vote Tory. Mind you, I got banned from the most popular site for asking who Oswald Mosely represented before starting his own party.
In other words,the tactical voting seems to be as well run as Jim Murphy's party.
@gearfreak, I like your post but readers have expectations; a campaign leaflet that doesn't get the readers attention is worthless, so it could be that a more environmentally friendly leaflet could be more wasteful. You need to weigh up damage vs effectiveness, not just damage as a standalone.
(how do you know the paper wasn't recycled, btw?)
kimbers - Member
the loss of labours scottish seats must be quite galling to a lot of activists...
It was inevitable after the Referendum when Labour stood shoulder to shoulder with and were indistinguishable from the Tories. They will not be forgiven for that for a long time.
They could have supported the Union and not lost support if they had played it differently and given us good reasons to support the Union (and there's several this Yes supporter can think off), but we didn't hear any of them from the Labour party.
Better Together (Labour & Tory) is going to be a hard meme to dislodge from the Scottish psyche especially as many Labour party members have been grumbling about the Blairite move to the right for years.
Not sure Labour has a lot of activists in Scotland Kimbers 🙂 I am also not sure there is going to be a referendum in quicktime either as it is not on the SNP manifesto for this general election and more pertinently where is the legislative time for a referendum bill at Westminster?There could be another general election if this one is indecisive, Scottish Parliament election in 16, possible EU referendum in 17 all of these work against a referendum before the end of the next parliament.
However I agree there will be another indy referendum and hopefully a yes vote.
Latest polls are showing that the SNP will win every seat in Scotland. Wouldnt that be good.
gordimhor - Member
Not sure Labour has a lot of activists in Scotland Kimbers
(like the westminster elite) I wasnt really thinking about scotland 😉
So, do we now think that Cameron played a blinder with the referendum?
I think the SNP surge comes from a few different sources, the referendum messaging that "Labour sided with the Tories" and the fact that Yes voters have decided to vote SNP in order to push for more devolution powers knowing Labour aren't going to deliver that for them. I don't see the anti-SNP dialogue from Tories etc having a big impact, the main movers from Labour to the SNP aren't particularly influenced by that. It's much more the fact that the SNP are promising an end to austerity whereas Labour recognise it's necessary.
Labour made it clear today they would be renewing Trident, that's going to be an interesting discussion in any coalition with the SNP
Latest polls are showing that the SNP will win every seat in Scotland. Wouldnt that be good.
The Tories certainly think so
He didn't know a few key figures, wonder whether he will get the same treatment as Natalie Bennett?
Well, he doesn't know what football team he's a great fan of, so what can you expect. The only thing he knows for sure is the name of his son, which he trots out every time he wants to slide past some new NHS "reform".
@gordimor, here is my guess on a referendum. The SNP put that into their next manifesto for the Scottish parliament and then hold a referendum without Westminster buy in / promise to honour it as they had last time. This gives them a very good chance of getting a Yes as the No voters don't bother to turn out as it's not binding. They then use that result to try and put pressure on Westminster.
I cannot see any likelihood of Labour or the Conservatives granting another referendum in the next 20 years.
Could this be the SNPs 'libdem' moment? Promise the world knowing they won't be the main party then realise they're getting tarred with the same brush as Labour. Presuming Labour has the competence to know what a brush is in the first place, once in power.
Or does promising the world to Scotland get them off the hook a bit, as there won't be an indepence referendum for a while.
Not sure Labour has a lot of activists in Scotland
However I agree there will be another indy referendumThere were quite a few round our way recently trying to drum up support. Very visible here trying to keep their man in post.
Not coming any time soon so all the factors which led to the rise in pro-Indy sentiment could well dissipate. Not least, there's going to be no Westminster appetite to approve another referendum until the increased devolved powers have been used for a couple of terms.
@Northwind - see my original post on the IFS report. It supports me perfectly which is clearly why I quoted it in such detail. [url= http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/election-campaign/page/18#post-6871210 ]Original Post[/url]
What is clear is that a Labour/SNP government would spend before they had seen the impact of their "tax rises" with the most likely outcome being a massive increase in the deficit as tax revenues fall far short.
It was inevitable after the Referendum when Labour stood shoulder to shoulder with and were indistinguishable from the Tories.
While that is no doubt a factor I suspect the issue with Labour in Scotland involves other factors e.g.:
- Labour no longer being a socialist party
- Labour looking more and more like a Tory-light every day
- A terrible choice of leader for the UK party
- A terrible choice of leader for the Scottish party
- A poorly performing Labour party in the Scottish Parliament both when they were in power and in opposition
- Exceptionally negative campaigning by the Labour party in Scotland
- The old line of "vote for us or you get the Tories" being worn out by Scotland voting for them last time but still getting the Tories
ninfan - Member
So, do we now think that Cameron played a blinder with the referendum?
you mean he deliberately ran a clusterfk of a campaign knowing that hed have to rely on Gordon Brown to save his ass , but that help would scupper labour at the next election?
if so he's far more gifted than anyone suspected