[Closed] Election Campaign

Could you imagine how quickly Scotland would claim independence if that were to happen.

Do they also give odds on Hell freezing over?

The Union will be split under the Labour and with their usual hypocritical stance they insist that the world has changed and they are merely part of the change.

Because no other political party is ever hypocritical. Ever.

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

dazh - Member

At 33/1 on paddy power for a labour/Tory coalition im starting to wonder if its worth putting a tenner on it....

Two words: Ed Balls.

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

He will do anything in exchange for power and a taste of the sweet smell of top govt position. He is will definitely conjure something for that.

Pimpmaster Jazz - Member
Because no other political party is ever hypocritical. Ever.

At this moment the fishy smell comes from the red army ...

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

What is it with the red that always wanted to emulate the centralised Politburo administration with open free for all mega state?

He married a German so what? Is marrying someone an issue now?

He will do anything in exchange for power and a taste of the sweet smell of top govt position.

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.

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.