I know its a bit one dimensional but some of those close to Westminster who feel they are representing us need to understand how much money people outside Westminster (which is made up of MPs from through the UK remember) sends their way in terms of Government jobs, NHS, infrastruture spending, welfare etc.
There are 60 odd million people in the UK - less than a quarter of those live in London...
ernie_lynch - Member
Yes THM is a typical multinational-loving lefty. And who hates small businesses of course.
I think he is just too idealistic. Aahhh bless him/her ... 😆
Anyway Chewwy can you expand on why the Green Party is out of touch with reality and why UKIP is the only sensible choice?
Not sure why but the other day I was strangely attracted to Caroline Lucas for few minutes not sure why. I feel dirty and shame thinking about it.
Why I think Green Party is out of touch? I just think they are thinking too big i.e. trying to save the world and all that ...
I prefer UKIP because they present a view that big is not necessary beautiful i.e. EU, and that we should have more control of our border which makes sense.
Those are just my views and you can explore that in details if you wish but for me that's enough.
😛
I think he is just too idealistic. Aahhh bless him/her ...
Yep, a typical head-in-the-clouds lefty.
And the Green Party is just too ambitious and needs to be like small thinking UKIP?
We need to squash big ideas and think small.
ernie_lynch - Member
We need to squash big ideas and think small.
Yeap. It's easier to change yourself rather than to change the world.
Bloody hell I think I have a wisdom! 😆
It's easier to change yourself rather than to change the world
Never a truer word spoken.
And if at first you don't succeed try and try again, then quit. There's no point being a damn fool about it.
Walks home whistling the "Red Flag" 😉
Have a good weekend all!
Even being a bit biased, I'd say [url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/17/tories-increasingly-panic-stricken-says-top-ed-miliband-adviser ]this pretty much hits the nail on the head[/url] on the current state of play. No doubt the tories will say the change in campaign themes was planned but it really does look like they're making it up on the hoof and I don't think that's going to translate into votes.
From the above link :
Axelrod – who is said to be earning £300,000 to give his advice.........He is due to return to Britain on 26 April for the campaign run-in.
Labour Party politicians are so incapable of selling Labour policies, and their vision of Britain to the British people, that they have to give staggering amounts of money to a foreigner who has no vote and doesn't even live here to do it for them.
The vast bulk of money in the Labour Party's coffers comes from pennies collected in the form of the political levy from ordinary working people's trade union subs.
Ed Miliband thinks it's a good idea to give almost a third of a million pounds of it to a wealthy American in return for doing a job which apparently requires such a light touch that the man with the Wild West name won't even need to be in the country until just 10 days before the general election.
Perhaps since senior Labour politicians are clearly incapable without outside help of one of the basic requirements that comes with the job, ie, "convincing people and winning elections", they could use the services of Mr Axelrod to help them run the country should they win the general election?
After all it makes sense that the man who helped them run their general election campaign should also help them run the country. He could pop over for a few days at a time to see how they are getting on and return home with suitcases of presumably tax-free cash.
I can understand this sort of bollocks from the Conservative Party as it deals with the perennial conundrum of how it get ordinary working people to vote for them - someone with the marketing skills to get people to buy things which they neither need nor want obviously has something useful to offer them.
But for the Labour Party to rely on these tactics really speaks volumes on how the party has evolved. There really is no discernible difference between the two parties. Such is the legacy of Tony Blair.
Or the legacy of those who vote.....?
You think "those who vote" are happy with the state of British politics and the choices they have?
What do you think all this talk about hung parliaments, minority governments, and coalitions, is all about?
Who mentioned happy? I was talking about your point on legacy.
It's about folk wanting the debt filled mirage of growth to continue and being unhappy with those (who will ultimately exercise authority) who note that it cannot. Another legacy of those who vote.
Who mentioned happy?
So people aren't happy with the state of British politics? Well here's something we can both agree with.
Watched David Cameron on the AM show this morning. First time I've seen Marr in "attack dog" mode being bested. Cameron kept calm, kept his head and controlled the interview to his advantage. Marr was made to look like a shouty nitwit. Impressive.
If keeping calm under pressure is a leadership requirement, Sten 10, then.
Yes watched Marr for first time in years this morning and after my Cameron comments earlier. For the first time, he sounded like a true PM this election and handled the difficult points pretty well. May be the tide might just turn - the 23 seats point was quite compelling.
Nice to see Vince wheeled out at last too.
Whilst I share the distaste in the labour party dishing out huge amounts of cash to Axelrod, and question the value of doing so, I question why they should need to restrict themselves in their campaigning effort when they're opponents are given free reign. I've got no problem with the labour party using whatever tactics they deem necessary as long as the policies are not also watered down (which they are of course, but that's a different debate). In the face of the tories peddling brazen lies, misinformation, and basically re-writing history, I've often thought the labour party should be taking a leaf out of their book.
Wonder what Axelrod is doing for his £300,000 in the US ?
Why isn't he over here. Perhaps it's part of his [url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/key-election-adviser-to-ed-miliband-pays-no-uk-tax-10181271.html ]tax planning strategy.[/url]
If keeping calm under pressure is a leadership requirement, Sten 10, then.
Well if so it was certainly a leadership requirement that Iain Duncan Smith possessed in abundance, it's hard to imagine him ever losing it.
[img] 
[/img]
Sadly for Iain Duncan Smith the British people felt that despite his calm and relaxed manner he lacked leadership qualities.
The famous Dennis Healey quote "like being savaged by a dead sheep" comes to mind.
In the face of the tories peddling brazen lies, misinformation, and basically re-writing history, I've often thought the labour party should be taking a leaf out of their book.
Why ? If you believe in your own arguments there is no need at all to lie, misinform, and re-write history.
Yes ernie, but I wasn't talking about IDS.
[img] 
[/img]
There was also:
First time I've seen Marr in "attack dog" mode being bested. Cameron kept calm, kept his head and controlled the interview to his advantage. Marr was made to look like a shouty nitwit
... but perhaps you missed that bit in your rush to divert the focus of my comment.
Yes ernie, but I wasn't talking about IDS.
No you weren't, it's me who decided to talk about Ian Duncan Smith.
I gave him as an example of someone who can keep exceptionally calm under pressure, more so than Cameron I would say, but yet clearly failed to impress the British public this made up for his lack of leadership qualities.
I don't think that we've yet established that only people you want to talk about can be discussed on here Woppit.
If you believe in your own arguments there is no need at all to lie, misinform, and re-write history.
If you keep the policies true, without watering them down, then it follows that they wouldn't need to lie or misinform as they'd actually believe in them, this is possibly why the labour party come across as insincere. Still doesn't prevent them from throwing some sh*t the other way though. The tories will not think twice about misrepresenting labour's policies or the effects of past policies so labour shouldn't either. Despite my dislike of negative campaigning, I do think sometimes that the labour party are just too nice.
I do think sometimes that the labour party are just too nice.
I think you might be confusing "nice" with cowardice and lacking conviction 🙂
.
The tories will not think twice about misrepresenting labour's policies or the effects of past policies
The way to counter that is with the truth, and exposing Tory myths, such as that they are the party of low taxation, low government spending, law and order, high growth, budget surpluses, anti-recession, etc.
It reminds me of the Mike Yardwood joke in which Harold Wilson says to Ted Heath, "Stop telling lies about Labour and we'll stop telling the truth about the Tories!".
I don't think that we've yet established that only people you want to talk about can be discussed on here Woppit.
Of course, ernie. Absolutely no connection between my comment and your following response. How silly of me.
There was a direct connection between your comment and my response. I wanted to mention Ian Duncan Smith, so I did. HTH
SNP manifesto launch again making the Labour party look meek in the extreme, basically we promise not the bully them in a coalition.
The problem the Labour party has in that the confrontational style of the 1970's and 80's is what consigned them to all those years in opposition and a trip to the IMF for a bailout.
Ernie on the taxation/borrowing points it's a case of the Labour being a party of higher taxation and higher borrowing vs the Tories not the absolute levels. Labour cannot possibly win an argument which says they will reduce taxes or borrowing as quite rightly no one believes that, it goes against everything they are saying.
.....not the absolute levels.
Is that a fancy way of you admitting that the Tories tax and spend at least as much as Labour and sometimes even more ?
I agree that it's difficult for Labour to win arguments as long as enduring Tory myths about Labour's tax and spending persist. And the other myth which you've brought up that a Tory government would never have gone to the IMF.
No, just that tax rises were necessary to address the deficit. It was not possible with spending cuts alone. Any Labour government in recent times is going to spend more and tax more than their Tory equivalent, more in rate terms but probably less overall as they will preside over economic failure. I will accept that Labour are probably going to tax non-doms less than the Tories by abolishing the status
No, just that tax rises were necessary to address the deficit.
Really ? During the 1980s the tax burden in the UK hit its highest level ever, the then Prime Mister Margret Thatcher was hugely unconcerned with clearing the deficit.
She needed the money to pay for the more than doubling of unemployment to the highest levels since the 1930s, which she had created.
For those on the political left your wish has been granted. You win.
[b]"Miliband is now most likely to be next prime minister"
[/b]
[url= https://uk.news.yahoo.com/comment/talking-politics/miliband-is-now-most-likely-to-be-next-prime-130415590.html#ztifGP8 ]Yahoo! News back up by some experts analysis ... [/url]
Mr Debate Me x2 ("Debate me! Debate me! You and me one to one!") is going to the next PM. Well done.
Remember you have wished for a Labour govt and get one so let's see if our lives will be improved.
😯
edit: arrghhh ... was posted on the other political threads ... you lot are opening too many fronts ... 😡
Seems to me the labour party are in a bit of a fix with this SNP thing. The tories obviously think it's game-changer and as with the 'labour caused the financial crisis' fiction, the longer labour stay silent and refuse to hit it head on the more they'll be damaged. If I were them I'd be sending out an unequivocal message of no deals whatsoever with the SNP. They've already ruled out a formal coalition but they really need to rule out any informal support deals too I think and gamble on being the largest party. Probably already be too late though.
Labour can't send out the message that they will make a deal with the SNP or anyone else. If they do the Tories will jump all over it with "Labour Lies" and they are having to resort to a coalition because they don't believe they can win outright, running scared, etc.
If they keep quiet and then lose some momentum then they will have to make a deal to form a government. Which will play into the Tories hands after the election.
They can't win either way.
If I were them I'd be sending out an unequivocal message of no deals whatsoever with the SNP
Nah labour should be asking the tories to rule out coalitions with the libdems, ukip and the dup.
It is ridiculous that they have allowed the Tories to dictate conditions for a possible coalition the way they have, Ed should have laughed in Cameron's face when he came out with that one.
They are all in a muddle, and the losers?
The people they represent. Why? Because they cannot (for obvious reasons) discuss how they are going to approach the most likely outcome - a coalition.
The honest approach would be to be very clear on the red line issues and where they see the fits and the problems. But no poker players lays his cards down first.
It is ridiculous that they have allowed the Tories to dictate conditions for a possible coalition the way they have
True, but it's mainly a result of the significant possibility of labour being able to form an SNP-supported minority govt whilst not even being the largest party. That is what Sturgeon is asking Miliband to sign up to, and he should quash any such talk with an outright refusal of any deals, whether formal or not. IMO this is their best/only chance of being the largest party, and I can't see any scenario where they could govern if they're not.
Labour wont win a majority unless the SNP withdraws and that is not going to happen. he is not going to piss off his biggest ally and then look like a liar immediately on forming a govt with them. I bet he wishes he could rule it out but clearly he cannot.
hey've already ruled out a formal coalition but they really need to rule out any informal support deals too
They cannot for the reasons THM notes
We all know there will be a coalition. We all know that SNP wont help the Tories and that UKIP probably wont help Labour but apart from that none of the players will discuss their lines in the sand before the cards have been dealt [ to stretch THM's analogy]
All the parties have issues[ re coalitions] , not just labour.
FWIW the default position constitutionally is Dave gets a first dibs at forming a govt - though last time the Lib dems went with who had the most seats and votes [ though this is not binding]
Nahh ... wishful thinking there as Mr Debate Me! Debate Me! is desperate to be the next PM so he will come up with so many justifications just to become PM. The temptation is too high to avoid.
Therefore, we shall have PM Debate Me! Debate Me! next.
You arsed for Labour govt you get it ... Debate Me! Debate Me! 🙄
Labour wont win a majority unless the SNP withdraws and that is not going to happen.
I'm talking about a simple majority not an overall one. I really can't see any scenario where they could govern whilst having less seats than the tories. If they're the largest party, they can probably rely on the libdems, SDLP, greens and PC to informally support them and it's inconceivable that the SNP would support a confidence vote against them. If they're smaller than the tories though, the tories will hang on, and force labour and the SNP to vote them out in a confidence vote, cue new election and the tories winning. Being the largest party really is the only chance IMO.
And chewy you need to get over your 'debate me' problem 🙂
I really can't see any scenario where they could govern whilst having less seats than the tories.
well that's the most likely outcome, surely?
dazh - Member
And chewy you need to get over your 'debate me' problem
Nope. That Debate Me! Debate Me! seem to stuck with me now ... D'oh!
I am afraid that is not very statesman like expression but there you go you are going to have a person like him to be the next PM.
Are we doomed? Let's see ...
😯
If I were them I'd be sending out an unequivocal message of no deals whatsoever with the SNP.
How are they going to stop the SNP voting for things on a case-by-case basis? Can't stop SNP MPs voting for Labour bills if they like them - or proposing amendments to get them through.
All Labour could do would be to refuse to form a government - and that'd be suicide.
well that's the most likely outcome, surely?
Maybe, although the polls are suggesting a dead-heat pretty much, there may only be a handful of seats in it, and I think this SNP thing has the potential to cost labour more than that in England.
Can't stop SNP MPs voting for Labour bills if they like them - or proposing amendments to get them through.
Of course not, but there's a vast difference between doing legislative deals in back-rooms and normal parliamentary procedure. This is my point, they could afford to refuse any formal or informal SNP support now, whilst knowing that in all likelihood the SNP wouldn't dare vote with the tories to bring down the govt.
All Labour could do would be to refuse to form a government - and that'd be suicide.
Not necessarily, they could allow the tories to form a govt, block any damaging legislation, then regroup and vote them out with the SNP at a time of their choosing when they have more support. If they do it right away then the tories will claim that it'll be some sort of putsch by a party who lost the election and their nationalist co-conspirators and they will claim the moral high ground. I really don't see any benefit in that.
bencooper - Member
How are they going to stop the SNP voting for things on a case-by-case basis? Can't stop SNP MPs voting for Labour bills if they like them - or proposing amendments to get them through.All Labour could do would be to refuse to form a government - and that'd be suicide.
I can bet you that Labour will come up with so many justifications to change their decision later just to be in govt or as PM.
Just voting on issues can be done without a deal. A Labour or Conservative minority government can put forward bills and see how the votes go. Various articles I read back last year suggested the most likely outcome was a minority government which lasts 12-18 months before another general election. I still think that's a very likely outcome.
If Labour does a deal with the SNP they will be finished in Scotland for good as people will see that voting SNP is the same as voting Labour with the extra independence tweak.
The SNP have to rule out a coalition with the Tories as a big part of their support is ex Labour and if they did a deal their vote would go back to Labour.
dazh - MemberTrue, but it's mainly a result of the significant possibility of labour being able to form an SNP-supported minority govt whilst not even being the largest party. That is what Sturgeon is asking Miliband to sign up to, and he should quash any such talk with an outright refusal of any deals, whether formal or not. IMO this is their best/only chance of being the largest party, and I can't see any scenario where they could govern if they're not.
Yet you described exactly how it would be done.
Miliband would have to be stupid to rule it out; why do you think the Tories and their press are clamouring for him to do just that?
What Miliband should be doing is taking that fight back to the tories and saying "Why would we not work with another UK party? These are UK MPs representing UK citizens in the UK parliament". Sadly he's totally failed to even get in the argument. Which is really Miliband all over- always doing his best, and sometimes doing very well, but always within the rules someone else sets for him that he doesn't quite understand.
The Tories are playing this well, in the very short term- they have few allies so they're trying to take allies out of the game. In the long term, it's terrible for the country, as Lord Forsyth surprisingly pointed out. But then that's Cameron for you.
It shows up the worst of both parties sadly.
I really can't see any scenario where they could govern whilst having less seats than the tories.
Probably not if it is a large number [ 30 + perhaps less? not sure] but the critical point is who can get a working majority not who has the most seats
Not sure if the Tories cannot win a confidence vote then they cannot form a govt so I assume, constitutionally, this would not mean labour got a chance
well that's the most likely outcome, surely?
% vote seems very close and the latest poll I saw [ though it was the guardian] had them on 1 more MP than the Tories despite a 3 % smaller vote. I did not look at the methodology used.
