[Closed] This SNP rout.....

She wanted more for Scotland and more now - ergo less for everyone else.

the SNP don't believe the pot is finite

bencooper - Member

There is only a finite amount of resource

No, there isn't - this is the lie at the heart of the whole austerity agenda, that there's only so much money to go around. It's like those people who compare the national debt to a credit card.

The SNP's plan was to grow the economy for everyone, with some more public spending. It worked for Roosevelt with the New Deal. Whether it would work for the UK is debatable of course, but the idea that the pot of money (which doesn't exist anyway) is only a fixed size fuels the selfish nature of this debate.

Gowrie - Member
And what was Nicola on about this morning on Andrew Marr? She wanted more for Scotland and more now - ergo less for everyone else.

Here's the position of the SNP as I see it:

They can see that the country is on its arse and that people are pretty ****ing miserable in certain parts of society. They see that producticity is on its arse. They can also see the potential of those parts of society that are on their arse to be more productive. They are trying to make them less miserable by motivating them to become more productive and play an active role in society instead of merely existing. They are trying to do that by looking after them - you could say carrot. The Tories are using great big **** off sticks. Is it any surprise that the country is on its arse when the people who can potentially add most are being kicked down the whole time?

She can take her own countrymen for fools (currencies, debt, tax cuts, more spending etc) but she is the fool is she thinks rUK will swallow it. It's a zero us game in her mind (clear from the first words of the manifesto and Marr this morning) so why on earth would rUK roll over. We are not that foolish as Thursday showed. Ed was spot on.

No harm in her standing up from Scoltand's interests first but don't be surprised if others have different views or priorities. The new princess Di/Alexis Carrington dress sense is not going to fool anyone.

And you wonder why folk south of the border reacted in the way they did??? Still we could always blame the media, they are so biased don't you know.

Who is calling you foolish, England wants to play the austerity game and Scotland doesn't(as evidence by the GE result) and the mantra now seems to be to threaten us with full fiscal autonomy... Batter in, we'll take it along with the responsibility, where's the conflict?

Yes, but first you have to understand what fiscal responsibility means.

(We are so austere that we keep spending more money than we earn at the state and household level. God help us if we become profligate!)

Da, it's alright i understand, I'll need to pay my own bills. It's touching, but you don't need to worry about us, we can stand on our own 2 feet and we know we'll need to tighten our belts at times! 😆

And you wonder why folk south of the border reacted in the way they did??? Still we could always blame the media, they are so biased don't you know.

There is documented evidence of more negative publicity for the SNP than against nearly any other party. The Tories wouldn't of attacked the idea of and SNP/Labour deal if they thought it wouldn't work.

England wants to play the austerity game and Scotland doesn't(as evidence by the GE result)

1) Does anyone think the English or Scottish people have any idea whether austerity or spending will work?

2) Easy on the England. It was far from unanimous! Please please don't tar all non-Scots with the same Tory brush. It's bloody offensive!

Hurtmore, do you realise that by constantly referencing Sturgeon's dress sense or appearance you just come over as a sexist ass? It's 2015 for heavens sake, no need to judge a female politician on asthetics. You've made it abundantly clear you don't like her politics, the sexist overtones are just unecessary, even by your standards.

Oh no here comes a wave of immigration from the south.

Turns out that the Tories can't axe the Human Rights Act in Scotland as that is devolved. Wonder who negotiated that bad boy.

(Old article)

http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/scotland-exempt-from-tories-human-rights-act-axe-1-3559633

2) Easy on the England. It was far from unanimous! Please please don't tar all non-Scots with the same English Tory brush. It's bloody offensive!

Difference is we have an out of sorts, so hopefully we can make the most of it.

We are so austere that we keep spending more money than we earn at the state and household level. God help us if we become profligate!)

If only we had voted for a govt committed to reducing this and creating a surplus.

Why do you call AS out about his [ economic] lies and then suggest we dont live with a govt that is implementing austerity policies?

Its stretching a truth to breaking point to claim the govt is not implementing austerity all we can discuss is how quickly they are doing it and whether doing it more slowly would be better for growth etc

You alone seem to argue this is not austerity times. It is disingenuous at best

Its a reasonable point made above about not being so sexist when discussing her. Play the politics not the person and certainly not the persons appearance.

We are so austere that we keep spending more money than we earn at the state and household level. God help us if we become profligate!)

OK - what do you suggest as the solution? Keep in mind that you are not allowed to kill anyone or drive them to a position where they want to kill themselves. Go for it.

Why would you want to kill anyone? How odd...

There is nothing sexist in noting how someone's dress sense has changed/gone back in time. Save the sexist accusations for when it really matters.

I'll take your avoidance of answering the question as you having no solution. Just as I knew would be the case.

Yes the forum tires of the way you are always going on about sartorial matters on the politics threads and you definitely dont just do it about her 😕

You are gok wan and I claim my make over 🙄

Wanman

First diagnose the problem, then come up with the solution. If you start with getting the diagnosis wrong, you are doomed to get the respond right.

Done the responses many times in other threads.

As the OECD notes, the term austerity is greatly abused and misused. Still given that such abuse is very common, some of the above is hardly surprising.

Perhaps we could start by being precise - deficit reduction perhaps or fiscal consolidation. Try Greece is you want real austerity - a primary surplus at exactly the wrong time to pander to the € nut jobs

You alone seem to argue this is not austerity times.

No he's not alone, I agree with THM.

In 2010 when the Tories and the LibDems formed a coalition government they said that it was absolutely imperative that swingeing cuts in government spending be introduced to ensure that the deficit would be fully cleared by 2015. Otherwise we would end up like Greece. Remember ?

Labour argued that the cuts should be less severe and that only half the deficit should be cleared by 2015. Totally irresponsible claimed the Tories and the LibDems.

Initially the coalition did apply significant cuts which particularly hurt the more vulnerable. But as it became apparent that further severe cuts would start affecting less vulnerable people and that combined with a faltering economy this would very likely lead to electoral disaster for the Tories, the austerity programme was in effect abandoned and the Tories/LibDems embraced Labour's solution, which they had previously denounced, and which resulted in the economy picking up. Saving their bacon on May 7.

It was Labour's plan A what won it for the Tories.

[url= http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/01/how-conservatives-ridiculed-labour-pledging-halve-deficit ]How the Conservatives ridiculed Labour for pledging to halve the deficit[/url]

[i][b]George Osborne and his ministers once mocked the opposition for the goal they now boast of achieving. [/i][/b]

The Tories might be a lot of things but they're certainly not stupid.

EDIT: I agree he did not do what he said he would and he did what Labour said was best however it is still clearly a period where actions are being taken by the govt to reduce the deficit
As noted we can discuss how fast and how severe it is /was but not if it has/will happen[ed].
Original:

Definition of austerity measure
Austerity measures refer to official actions taken by the government, during a period of adverse economic conditions, to reduce its budget deficit using a combination of spending cuts or tax rises.

Happy to read other meanings of it and your explanation of how this is not happening in the UK currently

That is a definition from the FT BTW

First diagnose the problem, then come up with the solution. If you start with getting the diagnosis wrong, you are doomed to get the respond right.

Perhaps we could start by being precise - deficit reduction perhaps or fiscal consolidation. Try Greece is you want real austerity - a primary surplus at exactly the wrong time to pander to the € nut jobs

Right - the problem is the country is pissing money down the drain. Someone owns that drain and is getting very rich off the leaking public finances. The solution - plug the leaks as best you can.

Here's an idea - increase the minimum wage to one that allows people to live without those god awful tax credit things. Yes, shareholders won't make as much profit and the top 1% wont be able to afford multiple hundred million pound yachts and private archipelagoes, but who gives a shit. Why should the government pay to subsidise people paying shite wages?

Seems the Scotland Office spokesman quoted by The Hootsmon may not be 100 %correct.
[url= http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2014/10/02/will-devolution-scupper-conservative-plans-for-a-british-bill-of-rights/ ]ukhumanrightsblog[/url]
Abolition of the HRA will be massively difficult and complex.... Fortunately

JY- I'm afraid they're right. Yes the tories have been implementing cuts and selling off national assets, but austerity was only ever a convenient excuse that enabled them to do things they'd never normally get away with, not the actual goal.

Course, that's actually much worse than genuine austerity, in every possible way.

Happy to read other meanings of it and your explanation of how this is not happening in the UK currently

Even using your definition I don't think it backs up your claim. As far as I'm aware average government spending for the last 5 years was more than the previous 5 years under Labour.

I wouldn't bother pushing the point if it wasn't so important to expose the Tories deliberate lies/distortion of the truth.

If people weren't frighten off from voting Tory by the threat of austerity it was because they had been falsely told that they had already experienced austerity.

If people weren't put off by the Tories economic incompetence it was because they weren't reminded that the Tories only achieved what Labour had promised to achieve, after denouncing it as irresponsible.

It was Labour's plan A what won it for the Tories.

But instead of saying this, instead of taking credit and saying they we're glad the Tories had embraced Darlings plan (even though the Tory plans were always front loaded) Labour spent the next four years saying that the ongoing Tory cuts were disastrous and holding back the recovery - yet suddenly at the last minute, when it's clear that the economy is growing despite their own predictions (double dip, triple dip, million more unemployed) they decide to try and tell us that it was all down to Labour after all - and you wonder why Labour had no fiscal credibility 😆

Edit:

If people weren't frighten off from voting Tory by the threat of austerity it was because they had been falsely told that they had already experienced austerity.

And who was telling them that? Ed "Too far, too fast" Balls.

Here's an idea - increase the minimum wage to one that allows people to live without those god awful tax credit things. Yes, shareholders won't make as much profit and the top 1% wont be able to afford multiple hundred million pound yachts and private archipelagoes, but who gives a shit. Why should the government pay to subsidise people paying shite wages?

Oh Z-11 is resorting to the laughing emoticon

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/this-snp-rout/page/5#post-6898347

What a surprise.

One reason the austerity argument by Labour didn't work is for many people they are seeing an improvement in their economic situation. Perhaps that's different in Scotland so the austerity argument was more powerful but in the wider UK it wasn't a winning formula

And who was telling them that? Ed "Too far, too fast" Balls.

Yes that's right. And what is your point exactly ?

Its not my definition its the FT definition and for it not to be true you need to argue and prove] that they have not been reducing the size of the deficit

Yes the tories have been implementing cuts and selling off national assets, but austerity was only ever a convenient excuse that enabled them to do things they'd never normally get away with,

I agree they have also taken advantage of the situation to do things that are as motivated by politics as austerity

average government spending for the last 5 years was more than the previous 5 years under Labour.

Shareholders in most cases are our pension funds

One more time [ its ok I have it bookmarked for when you claim it but please stop will you

At the end of 2010 the UK stock market was valued at £1,777.5 billion.
Rest of the world investors owned 41.2 per cent of the value of the UK stock market at the end of 2010, up from 30.7 per cent in 1998.
Other financial institutions held 16.0 per cent of the value of the UK stock market at 31 December 2010, up from 2.7 per cent in 1998.
UK individuals owned 11.5 per cent of the value of the UK stock market at the end of 2010, down from 16.7 per cent in 1998.
At the end of 2010, insurance companies held 8.6 per cent [b]and pension funds held 5.1 per cent by value[/b]. These are the lowest percentages since the share ownership survey began in 1963.
44.9 per cent of the shares by value were held in multiple ownership pooled accounts where the beneficial owner is unknown. These have been allocated to sectors using further analysis of share registers; updating the previous allocations which date from 1998

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/pnfc1/share-ownership---share-register-survey-report/2010/stb-share-ownership-2010.html

JY pension funds give money to asset managers who buy shares, most don't own them directly as they are not staffed adequately to do so as it's too expensive. As such those stats are misleading. We can argue about the word most. If you turn the argument round the other way and look at the portion of a pension funds assets which are invested in shares or corporate bonds (also impacted by higher business costs) you'd see it's very significant, the majority of their assets.

Junkyard - lazarus

You admit they do it after saying they did not?

I'm not sure what you mean- yes they've implemented cuts. They just can't really be called austerity cuts, because they were just regular Tory cuts-for-their-own-sake.

Ernie, of course I can use the laughing emoticon if I want

In fact I could give you 331 reasons why I am laughing!

As I said the other day:

oh, just imagine the disappointment amongst the lefties on Friday morning, the whinging, the wailing, the utter despair, the grey cloud that will descend across them when they realise the numbers dont add up, and that Ed has managed to spanner the ball into the crowd

How could I not be laughing?

Its not my definition its the FT definition and for it not to be true you need to argue and prove] that they have not been reducing the size of the deficit

You have changed the definition of austerity now. You are now claiming that just [i]"reducing the size of the deficit"[/i] defines austerity.

The whole anti-austerity argument is based on the fact that austerity isn't even necessary to reduce a deficit.

As such those stats are misleading.

We can argue about the word most.

yes they've implemented cuts. They just can't really be called austerity cuts, because they were just regular Tory cuts-for-their-own-sake.

The exact motivation for the tories is a separate debate to whether it is occuring

ninfan - Member

In fact I could give you 331 reasons why I am laughing!

But you obviously can't tell me what point you were trying to make with this comment :

[i] And who was telling them that? Ed "Too far, too fast" Balls. [/i]

You clearly don't know yourself what your point was, so how do you expect me to know ?

Presumably it was nothing more than just another silly, puerile, and completely meaningless, point-scoring exercise on your part.

If they have done cuts then its austerity

But average government spending was greater than the previous 5 years.

Adjusting departmental budgets does not meaning a reduction in overall government spending.

You have changed the definition of austerity now. You are now claiming that just "reducing the size of the deficit" defines austerity..

Definition of austerity measure
Austerity measures refer to official actions taken by the government, during a period of adverse economic conditions, to reduce its budget deficit using a combination of spending cuts or tax rises.

The whole anti-austerity argument is based on the fact that austerity isn't even necessary to reduce a deficit.

But average government spending was greater than the previous 5 years.

Adjusting departmental budgets does not meaning a reduction in overall government spending.

Is this aimed at me or NW ? We both appear to accept that the govt rained in the spending and implement austerity "cuts" we have only discussed why they did it from what I can see

Ernie - I think you need to think what your own point was

You Today:
[i]If people weren't frighten off from voting Tory by the threat of austerity it was because they had been falsely told that they had already experienced austerity.[/i]

You Three years ago:
[i]Austerity slows down an economy and has now pushed Britain back into recession. HTH.[/i]

You, three years ago
[austerity] [i]It's clearly kicked in now, as the economy slipping back into recession clearly suggests. I guess more than a quarter million public sector workers getting thrown out of work last year might have contributed to it.[/i]

So which was it? Did they experience austerity or not? Three years ago you were telling us that austerity was so bad it had pushed us into a double dip recession, now you're telling us that it was all a Tory lie!

Christ if ninfan agrees with me in a debate with ernie then i am going to bed 😳

I don't know if you are doing this on purpose, it's annoying if you are.

Your definition of austerity explains what the aim of austerity is, ie, to reduce a deficit. It doesn't mean that reducing a deficit is the definition of austerity.

As I have already pointed out - [b] austerity isn't even necessary to reduce a deficit. [/b]

You Three years ago:
Austerity slows down an economy and has now pushed Britain back into recession. HTH.

Yep, that is exactly true - thanks for bring it up, I am truly grateful, seriously.

The clue here is "Three years ago".

During the first half of the last administration the Tories implemented their economic plan :

[url= http://www.rferl.org/content/Britain_Announces_Sweeping_Austerity_Measures/2196108.html ]Britain Announces Sweeping Austerity Measures[/url]

[b]
[i]"The British government has unveiled the largest cuts to public spending since World War II "[/i][/b]

The consequences for the economy were extremely negative, hence my above comment. The Tories were repeatedly asked what their "plan B" was as the situation worsened, I think most people can remember that.

The Tories refused to answer the question beyond claiming that there was no plan B because it was needed and they would fully clear the deficit by 2015.

It is now crystal clear that the Tories plan B was in fact Labour's plan A.

The Tories abandoned all attempts to reduce the deficit in 5 years and instead opted for Labour's plan to half it in 5 years, something which they had previously dismissed as completely irresponsible.

Of course it had the desired effect, as anyone with any commonsense had predicted, and the economy picked up a little, allowing them to take the credit for implement Labour's policy - to reduce the deficit no quicker than by half in 5 years. Whether the recovery is sustainable is a completely different issue.

So yes, it was exactly as I said in my quote which you so kindly copied and pasted. Did it take you long to find it ?

.

EDIT :

now you're telling us that it was all a Tory lie!

I have no idea what that means. What of the many Tory lies are you referring to ?

So, have people experienced austerity or not?

The consequences for the economy were [u]extremely negative[/u],

Yes, because like you said, it pushed us into a double dip recession didn't it?

Truth was, [u]it never happened[/u]! There was no double dip recession - so who was wrong, you or the Tories?

have people experienced austerity or not?

Well if you still haven't figured out what I'm saying despite me spelling it out you never will.

EDIT : And you've edited your post to include some more silly point-scoring nonsense.

As a general rule I ignore you Z-11, but occasionally your bumbling daftness gives me the oppotunity to make a point, such as the previous one 🙂

[quote=Junkyard ]Christ if ninfan agrees with me in a debate with ernie then i am going to bed

it gets worse

[quote=ernie_lynch ]No he's not alone, I agree with THM.

It won't be the first time I've agreed with THM aracer, as he has with me occasionally.

There's nothing particularly surprising about that. Unless of course you only see things at the level of Z-11's puerile school playground taunting. Then such things must indeed appear shocking.

The last two pages highlight the need for what was said earlier

teamhurtmore - Member
If people did their own research instead of believing everything they read in the papers and on the internet we'd be in a much better place.
Si solum

Latin for "if only".

In an international context, the gap between our spending and revenue is also v high. Austerity, austerity.... 😉

One reason the austerity argument by Labour didn't work is for many people they are seeing an improvement in their economic situation. Perhaps that's different in Scotland so the austerity argument was more powerful but in the wider UK it wasn't a winning formula

Considering the number of new cars I'm seeing in Dundee and Perth, I think at least confidence in the economy is improving. My (admittedly industry specific) job alerts quality and quantity has also improve significantly over the past 6 months. In my sector, there's definitely a lot more going on, although I'm not able to compare to pre-recession as I changed careers.

I'm somewhat isolated from areas that could be described as low income however.

quietly removes STW from the list of references...

The last two pages highlight the need for what was said earlier

The last two pages highlight just how few people actually discuss these matters on this forum. You could seamlessly drop a page in from THE OTHER thread and no one but you mob would notice.

All we need now is for Ben to pop up pointing out he saw his first Scottish Tory voter drowning a bag of kittens.

Shortly followed by some lazy sterotyping from someone that once met a Scot that didn't like them. Whilst blithely ignoring that dicks exist and are not restricted by geographical and societal boundaries.

All we need now is for Ben to pop up pointing out he saw his first Scottish Tory voter drowning a bag of kittens

A friend of my mother voted Tory. She's on various benefits, her husband is on disability benefit (and has massively benefitted from the NHS). She voted Tory to save the jobs at Faslane.

There's no reasoning with some people.

I don't think all Tory voters are kidden-drowners. Some of them are very nice people. But they let the evil bastards back in, so they have to take some responsibility for that. I think the "shy Tory" phenomenon shows that people know in their hearts that voting Tory is selfish and something to be ashamed of.

In an international context, the gap between our spending and revenue is also v high. Austerity, austerity

It would be rather difficult [ not to mention foolish] for me to do my own research on the economy. Can I not just trust the independent figures instead?
Still you snipe and give us latin lessons.
Heu ,modo itera omnia quae mihi nunc nuper narravisti, sed nunc Anglica

8)

You could seamlessly drop a page in from THE OTHER thread

You could add a few others to the list as well as they all seem to be discussing the same things.

From Paddy Asdown's interview (I confess I quote this "selectively" as he talk a load of other bollix 😐 )

[i]The public feared Miliband/Salmond more than they feared a Tory majority[/i]

A friend of my mother voted Tory. She's on various benefits, her husband is on disability benefit (and has massively benefitted from the NHS). She voted Tory to save the jobs at Faslane.

There's no reasoning with some people.

Faslane jobs are very important to the town. That in itself is a good enough reason.

She recognises that the Tories NHS spending commitments where more generous than Labour's and she feels a strong economy will protect her benefits as the country will be able to afford them. She also believes that as a genuine claiment she will be protected from cuts aimed a "scroungers". She is also worried that increasing immigration will put an unsustainable burden on the NHS/welfare and she wants to protect that for "real Brits" like herself.

she feels a strong economy will protect her benefits as the country will be able to afford them

It not even a deduction as to what she thinks about her benefits it is just a complete and utter guess and a statement of what you think the Tories stand for.

Perfect logic? No. Labour would renew Trident too. So would the Lib Dems. Even the SNP wouldn't be able to prevent it. But even if the SNP could prevent it, the SNP plans are to keep Faslane for the surface fleet anyway. And the jobs aren't particularly important to the local economy anyway.

So no, it's about as far from perfect logic as you can get.

She recognises that the Tories NHS spending commitments where more generous than Labour's and she feels a strong economy will protect her benefits as the country will be able to afford them. She also believes that as a genuine claiment she will be protected from cuts aimed a "scroungers". She is also worried that increasing immigration will put an unsustainable burden on the NHS/welfare and she wants to protect that for "real Brits" like herself.

Amazing, you know the mind of a woman you've never met better than I do, and I've known her all my life.

In your tooth gnashing outrage you both probably missed the bit where he said

for example

if there's that much tooth-gnashing, the Tory government might bring the UK out of recession thru Keynesian Demand Management - the unemployed will all become dental technicians.

Ernie,

Your logic kinda makes sense but it's incomplete really, you agree that this government started with austerity and curtailed it as it would affect election results. But that's only half the picture, we have another 5(I reckon 15) years of this mob, so we are still very much in an austerity footing, and arguably we are just getting to the business end of the cuts to come. Particularly with Call me Daves retirement plan coming up in 5 years, he doesn't need to worry too much about re-election, that's Boris's problem. Them being free of coalition doesn't bode well either.

In your tooth gnashing outrage you both probably missed the bit where he said

Think of austerity as living within your means, as financial prudence. We should have that forever not just 10-15 years.

the top 1% wont be able to afford multiple hundred million pound yachts and private archipelagoes, but who gives a shit.

Why should the government pay to subsidise people paying shite wages?

ernie_lynch - Member
..

As a general rule I ignore you Z-11,

seosamh,

I think your logic is flawed seosamh, firstly you appear to be missing the point as to why the Tories abandoned their economic plan A and adopted Labour's plan instead.

The Tories are extremely pragmatic. However much they might want to enrich themselves and screw ordinary working people to achieve that they know they must above all else win elections.

That is why for example Thatcher famously declared that the NHS was 'safe in her hands'. It [i][b]was[/b][/i] safe in her hands, she recognised the enormous value the British people placed on the NHS, to attack it would have been political suicide, and besides there were plenty of other things to privatise. Today's Tories have been and will be spending years attacking and undermining the NHS to soften public opinion against it.

Thatcher maintained this level of pragmatism until she completely lost it over the poll tax and she became an electoral liability for the Tories. When this point came the Tories showed just how ruthless they can be and their self-survival kicked in. Despite previously being hugely popular within the party they sacked their leader, and did it while she was a Prime Minister with a comfortable majority, a fairly unprecedented turn of events.

You might well think that Cameron doesn't want to win another general election so that he will do as he pleases, but if that really is the case I'm sure the Tory Party will have other ideas.

And you might also think that the Tories will be in power for another 15 years but I can't see what logic that is based on. Firstly 20 years of a Tory government, any government in fact, is extremely unlikely. And not least because the Tories aren't actually very popular at all.

The Tories won this general election with a smaller percentage of the vote than any other government in modern times, 36.9% is an unbelievably small percentage. They only won because the Labour Party was even more unpopular, I'm not sure that there has ever previously been a case when the combined anti-Tory vote was so great but the Tories still managed to win an election.

Secondly you are ignoring past experiences of unexpected Tory wins and what it eventually led to. Now I don't want to over-egg the history repeats itself mantra but it would be foolish to ignore it. In 1992, just like last week, pretty much everyone, including the Tories themselves, thought that the Tories would not achieve a majority. People voted on the basis that it almost certainly wouldn't happen, if they had thought it possible then I'm sure that some at least would have probably voted differently - people do vote tactically to a surprising degree.

The end result was John Major's government. Although John Major inherited Thatcher's second recession his government didn't go on to preform that relatively badly, there was certainly no evidence that his government was much more unpopular than any other Tory government.

And yet despite that, and having secured more support than Cameron did last Thursday, after 5 years of an unexpected Tory government the Tories lost massively - their worst result since only God knows when.

If you think every is rosy in the Tory camp you are wrong imo. And we haven't even discussed all the crises that awaits them, Europe, devolution/constitutional demands, the fact that their economic policies don't add up, the NHS, when the housing crises leads to the shit hitting the fan properly, and so on.

But even if the SNP could prevent it, the SNP plans are to keep Faslane for the surface fleet anyway.

@Ben - You have come out with this nonsense over and over again.

What surface fleet? Faslane has a squadron of minesweepers. The surface fleet mainly operates out of Portsmouth and Plymouth.

If you are talking about the iScotland surface fleet, that will be completely insignificant and could never justify a base on the scale of Faslane.

And the jobs aren't particularly important to the local economy anyway.

A throwaway with nothing to back it up.
If you live in Helensburgh, then Faslane is vital for your town. Closure would be terrible. Although one positive effect would be a drop in the house prices if there is anyone working to buy a house.

Faslane provides a lot of well paid jobs, in an area with little other employment options.

ernie_lynch - Member
Your definition of austerity explains what the aim of austerity is, ie, to reduce a deficit. It doesn't mean that reducing a deficit is the definition of austerity.

Well said. How long will it take to sink in do you think?

As I have already pointed out - austerity isn't even necessary to reduce a deficit.

Indeed, during a mis-named Tory austerity administration, government spending was largely unchanged in real terms but shrank as a % of GDP as the economy recovered. Austerity, what austerity.

Ernie,

I don't think the tories are in any great shakes, or that the electorate thinks they are. My pessimism is that they will get in as default, at least next time(particularly when they start changing boundaries). But it's not because they are popular, it's because of the complete and utter dearth of talent and the lack of ideas that the Labour party has at it's disposal.

I used to think it was a deliberate ploy that the Scottish labour party leaders kept getting worse and worse over the last 5 to 10 years, ultimately I just realise the Labour party is just riddled with career politicians that have no ideas but to try and stay a little left of the tories (You can see it now, their answer to this defeat is to mimic them again, rather than understanding they need to get back to grass roots(which is how the SNP won Scotland)).

Something radical needs to happen in the Labour party anyhow imo. As next stop in the pits of hell for them is UKIP taking over their northern heartlands if they don't get their act together.

As for austerity, I'm only predicting what I think will happen, we'll see what's what come the next 5 years.

She voted Tory to save the jobs at Faslane.

Joe, the reality is that future cuts will probably be much more severe - or they will simply, adjust deficit targets again. CMD has a much tougher job now, or should I say GO does. Boris and Theresa will be quietly licking their lips in the background

[quote=ernie_lynch ]The Tories won this general election with a smaller percentage of the vote than any other government in modern times, 36.9% is an unbelievably small percentage. They only won because the Labour Party was even more unpopular, I'm not sure that there has ever previously been a case when the combined anti-Tory vote was so great but the Tories still managed to win an election.

I agree with your suggestion that they only won because Labour was even more unpopular (you have to wonder how on earth they messed it up so badly when this election should have been the easiest win ever for them). However I dispute your suggestion about the size of the anti-Tory vote - as I mentioned a few pages ago, this is the first election since 1959 where Labour and the Liberals haven't got more than 50% of the popular vote (not even if you include SNP). UKIP might not be the Tories, but it's stretching things to suggest that people voting for them were all anti-Tory. Looking at the popular vote, it's clear that the Tory vote is a lot smaller than it might have otherwise been due to the size of the UKIP vote, which had almost no effect on the actual results - did Labour even manage to win any seats due to UKIP splitting the right wing vote? Their low percentage share certainly isn't any sort of rejection of right wing policies, and in number terms they won despite the low popular vote because that vote went to UKIP.

Nicola on Loose Women now 🙄

the Labour party is just riddled with career politicians that have no ideas ......

........Something radical needs to happen in the Labour party

And right there lies both the insurmountable problem and the solution.

There is zero chance of radical change within the Labour Party, it is a thoroughly undemocratic organisation riddled with career politicians.

Well maybe 0.1% of a chance. What above all else career politicians fear is losing elections. That is why Labour's wipe out in Scotland was a positive step forward. Labour behaved like Tories in Scotland and now they are in the same place as the Tories.

Nope, the Tories are in power 😉

(A wee joke - twist of point acknowledged up front!)

I'm fairly confident that the Tories aren't in power in Scotland so your wee joke whilst clearly very assuming obviously loses some of its irony.

More amusing than assuming. But appreciate SOH required 😉

the Tories aren't in power in Scotland

They are not in power, but they have power OVER Scotland.

Well I'll take that back then. The Tories have done extremely well in Scotland. I don't know what I was thinking.

Someone should push for devolution for Scotland.

mon to buggery, I know we'll argue about anything, but arguing over the contents of a shite joke is taking things a bit far? 😆

😀

How do you expect THM to hone his comedic skills if we don't discuss his shite jokes ?

ultimately I just realise the Labour party is just riddled with career politicians

So no different from every party then.

Problem Labour have is their main reason to exist i.e. the heavy industry based working man doesn't exist anymore. So they can swing left to try and shore up their Northern and Scottish vote, but in doing so won't win any general elections. Or go more middle ground to try and win as per New Labour but they need the correct leader to pull this off.