# UK General Election 2015



## Deleted member 84471 (Mar 26, 2015)

Exactly 6 weeks until polling day now and a few days before Parliament is dissolved, I think it's about time an election thread was made. Discuss any developments here.

I think Miliband did a lot better than many would have expected him to there.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Mar 26, 2015)

*Conservatives*: we don’t care about people without jobs.

*Labour*: we will pay people not to work.

*Lib Dems*: we have no feasible suggestions.

*UKIP*: foreigners are taking your jobs.

Choose.


----------



## |)/-\\/\/|\| (Mar 26, 2015)

I would say just don't care about people without jobs. You need to focus on the economy not the jobs. The economy will create jobs. Oh and foreigners are definitely taking your jobs so perhaps think twice before letting your country be a zoo.


----------



## Kagekatsu (Mar 26, 2015)

If the polls hold up, we're looking at a Labour minority government backed by SNP votes.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Mar 26, 2015)

If the Conservative don't get back in then I will gladly leave NF. Watch this space.



|)/-\\/\/|\| said:


> I would say just don't care about people without jobs. You need to focus on the economy not the jobs. The economy will create jobs. Oh and foreigners are definitely taking your jobs so perhaps think twice before letting your country be a zoo.



Using the unemployed as an excuse to push , something used by both the Cons and Labour, just doesn't sit well with me. Plus also using the unemployed as unpaid labour until they get a job, smh. And foreigners _are_ taking jobs: unskilled jobs and fucking over Labour's core demography, but hey, gotta push that multiculturalism agenda.


----------



## Lucaniel (Mar 26, 2015)

labour, least of the evils when you leave out all the parties that aren't going to amount to anything


----------



## Hozukimaru (Mar 26, 2015)

It'll probably be a close fight between the Conservatives and Labour. Are the Liberal Democrats and the Greens up for coalitions? Which major party are they most likely to get behind?


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Mar 26, 2015)

Kagekatsu said:


> If the polls hold up, we're looking at a Labour minority government backed by SNP votes.



Agreed, and probably the best outcome I can hope for given the alternatives.


----------



## Lucaniel (Mar 26, 2015)

Hozukimaru said:


> It'll probably be a close fight between the Conservatives and Labour. Are the Liberal Democrats and the Greens up for coalitions? Which major party are they most likely to get behind?



lib dems are whores so either, but i can't see the greens joining the tories unless they wanna do a lib dems and show the country that they were wrong to trust them/take them seriously


----------



## Han Solo (Mar 26, 2015)

Voting Green, hopefully Lucas can hold onto her spot. Latest poll put her in the lead, but they aren't usually too accurate.


----------



## Jagger (Mar 26, 2015)

MbS said:


> *Conservatives*: we don?t care about people without jobs.
> 
> *Labour*: we will pay people not to work.
> 
> ...


Once you place it that way, they all seem shit.


----------



## Kagekatsu (Mar 26, 2015)

Hozukimaru said:


> It'll probably be a close fight between the Conservatives and Labour. Are the Liberal Democrats and the Greens up for coalitions? Which major party are they most likely to get behind?



Lib Dems are expected to lose at least half their current seats if not more. Very few are willing to forgive them after doing a 180 on "No more tuition fees in England" and being seen as just another branch of the Tories. They may still be able to hold on to just enough seats to remain in contention for a coalition though, depends on if Labour can avoid the expected bloodletting in Scotland and find someone to replace Clegg, as he's not expected to survive the purge.

Greens are getting a bit of support primarily from ex-Labour voters wanting a more genuine leftist party to support (Labour is often castigated as being "Red Tories" since the Blair years). However, even their supporters admit that some of the policies the Greens are pushing have more basis in idealism then pragmatism and they're not expected to gain much other than a couple seats at best.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Mar 26, 2015)

Two recent polls from yesterday:

ComRes: CON 35%, LAB 35%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 10%, GRN 7%. 

YouGov: CON 35%, LAB 35%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 12%, GRN 6%.

Scotland (last week),

ICM: CON 14%, LAB 27%, LDEM 6%, SNP 43%, UKIP 7%


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (Mar 26, 2015)

The Greens still haven't recovered since Natalie Bennett's car crash interview. They could have maybe just pushed the Lib Dems into fifth, but it now seems unlikely. That and it's becoming increasingly well known that the only Green run council is a complete joke now only worthy of being put out of its misery.


----------



## Han Solo (Mar 26, 2015)

MbS said:


> The Greens still haven't recovered since Natalie Bennett's car crash interview. They could have pushed the Lib Dems into fifth but it seems unlikely. That and it's becoming increasingly well known that the only Green run council is a complete joke now only worthy of being put out of its misery.



That interview was genius. 

Really no worse than some of the drivel coming out UKIP though tbh, and their absurdity didn't destroy them.


----------



## N120 (Mar 26, 2015)

MbS said:


> The Greens still haven't recovered since Natalie Bennett's car crash interview. They could have maybe just pushed the Lib Dems into fifth, but it now seems unlikely. That and it's becoming increasingly well known that the only Green run council is a complete joke now only worthy of being put out of its misery.



They are what the lib dems were before the coalition. they are aiming to pick up those dissenting votes, and for most part they are happy with just that. gain enough votes to get the spotlight with which you can shout slogans but not enough votes to actually have to implement them. the lib dems went through the shock of actually getting into govt and exposing their naivety when they backtracked on pledges they dished out  left right and centre like candy, without ever putting much thought into them. "Hey we're liberal" 

The same is the case with the greens, amateur campaigners with good intentions, but ameteurs nonetheless, who have no serious qualifications or means to actually fulfill slogans at an executive level.

"Hey, we love trees " 

I'd like to say ukip are no different, they are worse imo, because these guys have past Tory backers in their ranks, have meps and ex ministers involved  within the party structure, yet they have failed to clean up their act. The only thing that appeals about them now, isn't their policy but their leader Nigel farage, when he goes, all these ex Tories will go back to serving the cons, and their voters back to reading page 3 of the sun, and complaining about how the pc brigade can't handle traditional boobs and casual racism.

I missed most of Cameron's speech, caught up with eds and he came across cringeworthy, overacting at its finest. All these analysis post the debate are unnecessary, nothing important was said.

Also, there should be an option for none of the above.


----------



## Aduro (Mar 26, 2015)

Lib Dems fucked my generation of students over by tripling uni fees for the sake of getting seats in the cabinet. No Way.
Conservative are the ones who actually wanted to make the fees go up in the first place and will give the Scots preferential treatment. Their cuts are practically working on the worker ant principle and sacrificing those who aren't useful to the economy or corrupt enough to take advantage.
UKIP and other nationalist parties are just preying on fears of losing the welfare state, xenophobia and pretending to be working class by drinking in public. They're completely overblown by the media anyway. Besides, half their MPs just ditched other parties so they could get out the shadow of better politicians, they're effectively second-rate.
Green seems to morally care about their policies, I mean who runs off to the Green Party for power? but they're too specific, Voting for Green to run an entire constituency would be like getting in a car made by someone who only knows how to make tyres properly. I think nationalists are equally overly obsessed with immigration BTW.
TUSC The coalition of most prominent socialist parties in the constituency I'm voting in and the only one that seems genuinely anti-austerity, still I doubt they can finance all they promise to, and I doubt they would even make those promises if they had a shot of getting elected.

That leaves labour, not exactly an inspiring party and they haven't been anywhere near the left since Michael Foot but they are still slightly less conservative than the conservatives.  Besides Milliband at least claims to admire Attlee and has worked in energy and climate change which might mean the Greens (who are still arguably bigger than UKIP) might form a coalition.

Honestly the seats in both my home and uni haven't voted anything but Tory or Lib Dem in living memory, but I think its important to vote against them so they at least know that some people oppose their callous policies.


----------



## Hozukimaru (Mar 27, 2015)

There are some quite real issues to consider. The March Economist/Ipsos MORI Issues Index shows that the number one issue that concerns British people is immigration (45%), followed by the NHS (38%) and the economy (28%). 

source for policies bellow is bbc:

*Immigration*


*Spoiler*: __ 



Conservatives: David Cameron wants to make migrants wait four years before they can claim certain benefits, such as tax credits, Universal Credit, or get access to social housing. He wants to stop migrants from claiming child benefit for dependents living outside the UK, and remove those that have failed to find work after six months. Mr Cameron has promised to put reform of EU free movement rules at the heart of his renegotiation of Britain's relationship with the EU. He has ruled out a temporary cap on migrant numbers or an "emergency brake" on EU freedom of movement rules - ideas both mooted in recent months, saying this would be less "effective" than reducing the incentives for people to come to the UK. The party has a continuing goal to bring net immigration down to below 100,000 people a year (it currently stands at 243,000).

Labour: "Stronger" border controls to tackle illegal immigration with "proper" entry and exit checks. "Smarter" targets to reduce low-skilled migration but ensure university students and high-skilled workers are not deterred. Employment agencies who only recruit abroad will be outlawed while the fines for employing illegal immigrants will be increased.

Lib Dems: Reintroduce exit checks at borders, so the government can identify people who are overstaying their visa. Will require all new claimants for Jobseekers Allowance to have their English language skills assessed, with JSA then being conditional on attending language courses for those whose English is poor. Ensure that EU migrants have to "earn" their entitlement to benefits.

SNP: Allow the devolved government to have control over immigration to Scotland, and introduce a Canadian-style earned citizenship system to attract highly-skilled immigrants.

UKIP: Introduce an Australian-style points policy, used to select migrants with the skills and attributes needed to work in the country - covering people from inside and outside the EU. Bring net immigration down to 50,000 people a year. Priority lanes for UK passport holders. Increase UK border staff by 2,500. Tougher English language tests for migrants seeking permanent residence. Opt out of the Dublin treaty to allow the UK to return asylum seekers to other EU countries without considering their claim. Anyone who currently has the legal right to live, work, or study in the UK would not face deportation in the event of the country's withdrawal from the EU.

Greens: Progressively reduce UK immigration controls. Migrants illegally in the UK for over five years will be allowed to remain unless they pose a serious danger to public safety. More legal rights for asylum seekers.






*The NHS*


*Spoiler*: __ 



Conservatives: Chancellor George Osborne says he will put an extra ?2bn into frontline health services across the UK, which he described as a "down payment" on a plan drawn up by NHS bosses calling for an extra ?8bn a year above inflation by 2020. In England, everyone would be able to see a GP seven days a week by 2020. Recruit 5,000 more doctors.

Labour: Shadow chancellor Ed Balls said Labour would commit an extra ?2.5bn a year above Mr Osborne's plan. The money will come from three sources - a new "mansion" tax, clamping down on tax avoidance by big corporations and a new tax on tobacco companies. Patients in England would get a GP appointment within 48 hours and would not have to wait longer than a week for cancer tests and results. Scrap the Health and Social Care Act and end "creeping privatisation" of the NHS. Integrate health and social care services into a system of "whole-person care". Give greater priority to mental health services. Replace the Cancer Drugs Fund in England when it runs out in 2016 with a ?330m fund to improve access to innovative cancer drugs, surgery and radiotherapy. Recruit 5,000 more healthcare workers to help patients stay in their homes and introduce new safety checks to identify people at risk of hospitalisation. Prioritise child mental health by increasing the proportion of the mental health budget spent on children.

Lib Dems: An extra ?1bn for the NHS every year, to be funded by - amongst other things - making higher earners pay more tax on their shares. Half of this will go towards mental health. Ensure that spending on the NHS rises in line with growth in the economy. People who need therapy for conditions such as depression will be guaranteed treatment within 18 weeks. For young patients experiencing psychosis for the first time treatment will be provided within two weeks of being referred by a GP. This is all going to happen from April, with more mental health targets to follow if the Lib Dems return to government. Wants a cross-party review of the future of NHS funding.

SNP: Reduce the number of senior managers in the NHS by 25% over the next parliament. Streamline the work of health boards. Real terms increases in year-on-year NHS spending.

UKIP: An extra ?3bn per year in NHS funding paid for by quitting the EU and through "middle management" cuts. Keep NHS free at the point of delivery. Stop any further use of PFI, and encourage local authorities to buy out their PFI contracts early where it is affordable to do so. Ensure all visitors and migrants who have been here for fewer than five years have NHS-approved medical insurance as a condition of entry to UK, with ?200m of the ?2bn saved to be spent on ending hospital parking charges in England. Bring back state-enrolled nurses and return powers to matrons. Monitor and Care Quality Commission to be replaced with elected county health boards. Stop spending ?90m a year on gastric band and breast enhancement operations.

Greens: Funding to be diverted away from centralised facilities towards community healthcare, illness prevention and health promotion. Stop privatisation. Abolish prescription charges. Dedicated NHS Tax to go direct to the health service. Ban proactive recruitment of non-British NHS staff from overseas. A complete ban on the promotion of tobacco and alcohol products, including sponsorship.





*Taxes and the economy*


*Spoiler*: __ 



Conservatives: Eradicate the deficit by 2018 and secure an overall budget surplus by 2019-20. Achieve this by spending cuts, not tax rises, while raising NHS spending. An income tax cut for 30 million people by 2020. Tax would start to kick in at ?12,500 a year, instead of ?10,500. This will cost ?5.6bn. The higher tax rate, 40%, would start at ?50,000 instead of ?41,900, again by 2020, at a cost of ?1.6bn. This will be paid for through ?25bn in additional spending cuts and economic growth. No increases in VAT.

Labour: Get the current budget into surplus and the national debt falling "as soon as possible in the next parliament". No additional borrowing for new spending. Reintroduce the 50p top rate of income tax for earnings over ?150,000. Cut income tax for 24 million people by bringing back the 10p rate, paid for by scrapping the Married Couples' Tax Allowance. Bring in a "mansion tax" on properties worth over ?2m, to raise ?1.2bn. A tax on bankers' bonuses. A 5% pay cut for every government minister. Push for UK overseas territories to be put on an international blacklist if they refuse to co-operate with a drive against tax avoidance. No increases in VAT or National Insurance contributions.

Lib Dems: Raise the personal allowance - the point at which you start paying income tax - to ?11,000 in April 2016 and then to ?12,500 by 2020. "Strict new fiscal rules" to ensure the deficit has gone by April 2018, with the wealthy contributing the most. The Lib Dems invented the "mansion tax" but in contrast to Labour have set out how it would operate - along similar lines to council tax bands. There are also Lib Dem plans to increase capital gains tax - paid on profits from second homes or shares - from 28% to 35%. Impose an additional 8% rate of corporation tax on UK banks to raise an extra ?1bn a year to help pay off the deficit.

SNP: Oppose UK plans in the Infrastructure Bill which will allow oil and gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing beneath people's homes without consent. Invest in offshore wind farming. Support an international bank tax and limits to industry bonuses.

UKIP: Increase the personal allowance to the level of full-time minimum wage earnings, about ?13,500, by 2020. Abolish inheritance tax. Introduce a 35% income tax rate between ?42,285 and ?55,000, at which point the 40% rate becomes payable. Set up a Treasury Commission to design a turnover tax on large businesses. Cut foreign aid budget by ?9bn a year. Scrap HS2. Save ?8bn a year in membership fees by leaving the EU. Lower the VAT rate charged on restorations to listed buildings.

Greens: People earning more than ?100,000 a year would pay 50% income tax. Wealth tax of 1% to 2% on people worth ?3m or more. Renationalise the railways and energy companies. Scrap HS2. Allow councils to impose extra business rates on out-of-town supermarkets to fund small local businesses. Crackdown on tax avoidance by multinationals. Allow "the current dependence on economic growth to cease, and allow zero or negative growth to be feasible without individual hardship". Commit Britain to a "zero carbon" future. Cut rail and bus fares by an average of 10%. Enforce a cap on bankers' bonuses.


----------



## Nemesis (Mar 27, 2015)

erictheking said:


> Two recent polls from yesterday:
> 
> ComRes: CON 35%, LAB 35%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 10%, GRN 7%.
> 
> ...



The scary thing about UK politics is that nationally the SNP are going to get less than either Ldem or UKIP yet concentrated enough to actually have upto 40 MPs.  (Honestly I think we need a PR system but that is for another thread if we wish to have one in the debate room)

For me I am still unsure who to actually vote for.  This might actually be the 3rd election in a row where I am actually voting AGAINST someone.  The first I was voting against Carswell (UKIP MP former Conservative.) When Clacton and Harwich were united.  We knew back then he was a PoS MP who couldn't care less about the corner of the country and was front and centre on the whole 2nd home fiasco.  

But as much as I want the tories out of government my Constituency (which isn't the clacton (Carswell) part that split in 2010) is going to be between Conservatives and UKIP.  Lib Dems are likely going to be fighting Labour for 3rd. (Essentially we have Harwich which is Labour slant over UKIP.  Colchester outskirts which is Lib Dem slant over Conservative.  With heavy Conservative middle area)

So essentially I am stuck with vote UKIP (Who I despise considering they're basically a racist part for the toffs to stop UKIP) or Conservatives (Just to stop UKIP even if I hate the conservatives.) Or do I throw away the vote on Labour and hope that somehow the predictions in my constituency are completely wrong.



> I would say just don't care about people without jobs. You need to focus on the economy not the jobs. The economy will create jobs. Oh and foreigners are definitely taking your jobs so perhaps think twice before letting your country be a zoo.



That would imply that the job is ours to begin with.  It is actually belonging to the employer who should be able to employ anyone from some random corner of Essex to some random corner of Australia (random country) if they so please.


----------



## Alwaysmind (Mar 27, 2015)

How about these guys:


Put that way, the UK seems to have poor choices, though I would argue to please not elect a conservative govt.
In any case, libs and greens are always good options.


----------



## tari101190 (Mar 27, 2015)

MbS said:


> *Conservatives*: we don’t care about people without jobs.
> 
> *Labour*: we will pay people not to work.
> 
> ...


*sigh* I guess I'll take red...


----------



## Zyrax (Mar 27, 2015)

Anyone who doesn't vote for UKIP is a cuckold


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Mar 27, 2015)

Kagekatsu said:


> If the polls hold up, we're looking at a Labour minority government backed by SNP votes.


Well, looking at this: , and considering you need 323 seats for a majority (assuming sinn fein takes five seats), if the prediction is exactly correct Labour need at least two other parties to form government (and so do the tories, but SNP probably won't consider teaming up with them, and without SNP they'd probably need to convince the Lib Dems, SDLP and Plaid Cymru to team up with the DUP, not very likely).


MbS said:


> If the Conservative don't get back in then I will gladly leave NF. Watch this space.
> 
> 
> 
> Using the unemployed as an excuse to push , something used by both the Cons and Labour, just doesn't sit well with me. Plus also using the unemployed as unpaid labour until they get a job, smh. And foreigners _are_ taking jobs: unskilled jobs and fucking over Labour's core demography, but hey, gotta push that multiculturalism agenda.


Every main party apart from greens and snp (if they count) are saying they want to try reducing immigration, including labour.


Hozukimaru said:


> It'll probably be a close fight between the Conservatives and Labour. Are the Liberal Democrats and the Greens up for coalitions? Which major party are they most likely to get behind?


Unless it is _extremely_ close (which is possible, I suppose), the greens will likely be irrelevant in coalition deals. While I can see UKIP getting a lot more seats than the above prediction (for one thing, their vote share prediction is half the polls), I can't see the same thing happening to the greens.


Nemesis said:


> The scary thing about UK politics is that nationally the SNP are going to get less than either Ldem or UKIP yet concentrated enough to actually have upto 40 MPs.  (Honestly I think we need a PR system but that is for another thread if we wish to have one in the debate room)
> 
> For me I am still unsure who to actually vote for.  This might actually be the 3rd election in a row where I am actually voting AGAINST someone.  The first I was voting against Carswell (UKIP MP former Conservative.) When Clacton and Harwich were united.  We knew back then he was a PoS MP who couldn't care less about the corner of the country and was front and centre on the whole 2nd home fiasco.
> 
> ...


Personally I don't like the idea of PR but I do think an idea would be to have extra seats given out that "peg" the seat number of parties who get more votes but less seats to the one above them.

Your idea about "keeping UKIP out" in your constituency is odd because any site I found about Harwich predicts labour comes second, not UKIP.


----------



## dr_shadow (Mar 27, 2015)

I root for Labor. Us Social Democrats need to reconquer Europe.

*Current political situation in the European Union*


*Spoiler*: __ 





Red - Social Democrat
Yellow - Liberal
Blue - Conservative


----------



## Roman (Mar 27, 2015)

What I'm mostly concerned is whether or not the UK wants to leave the EU. From my understanding, UKIP is the only party that's really advocating it while all other parties are talking about reforms and stricter control over who's allowed to pass the border?


----------



## Saishin (Mar 27, 2015)

Election weren't to be held on 2017?



MbS said:


> *Conservatives*: we don?t care about people without jobs.
> 
> *Labour*: we will pay people not to work.
> 
> ...


Which is the least worse?


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Mar 27, 2015)

Freedan said:


> What I'm mostly concerned is whether or not the UK wants to leave the EU. From my understanding, UKIP is the only party that's really advocating it while all other parties are talking about reforms and stricter control over who's allowed to pass the border?



Yes, but greens and the tories want a referendum on it, despite not actually wanting to leave.

In terms of greens they are more bothered about TTIP and the EU's "neoliberal bias" than immigration, mind.


----------



## dr_shadow (Mar 27, 2015)

Saishin said:


> Election weren't to beheld on 2017?



The last election was in 2010, and the U.K has since adopted the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, which states that elections should normally be held every 5 years.

Before the FTPA, the Queen could dissolve parliament whenever she wanted, but a given parliament could not stay on longer than a maximum of 5 years. In practice the queen always dissolved parliament before the deadline, so you could say that until now no parliament ever completed a full "term"...

I guess the FTPA is supposed to bring more stability to politics, as it makes the election timing less random. Though Britain was never as bad as Japan or Israel with random elections, I think.


----------



## Roman (Mar 27, 2015)

Hmm, so generally speaking, so long as it's not UKIP, I'll be ok


----------



## Hozukimaru (Mar 27, 2015)

jetwaterluffy1 said:


> Yes, but greens and the tories want a referendum on it, despite not actually wanting to leave.
> 
> In terms of greens they are more bothered about TTIP and the EU's "neoliberal bias" than immigration, mind.



Won't UKIP subject any decision concerning Brexit to a referendum as well? 

And besides that I think that Labour and the Lib Dems have also talked about a referendum but only if more power is transfered from the UK to Brussels (eg via a new EU treaty).


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Mar 27, 2015)

mr_shadow said:


> The last election was in 2010, and the U.K has since adopted the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, which states that elections should normally be held every 5 years.
> 
> Before the FTPA, the Queen could dissolve parliament whenever she wanted, but a given parliament could not stay on longer than a maximum of 5 years. In practice the queen always dissolved parliament before the deadline, so you could say that until now no parliament ever completed a full "term"...
> 
> I guess the FTPA is supposed to bring more stability to politics, as it makes the election timing less random. Though Britain was never as bad as Japan or Israel with random elections, I think.



The FTPA doesn't really mean much though because Parliament can just repeal it and hold an election anyway. The only thing is that repealing a bill takes a lot longer than calling a snap election, by which time any electoral advantage may go away, and it is decided by Parliament, not the prime minister (makes a difference in coalitions).

Also, the election can run all the way to the deadline anyway. This happened in the last election in 2010.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Mar 27, 2015)

Hozukimaru said:


> Won't UKIP subject any decision concerning Brexit to a referendum as well?
> 
> And besides that I think that Labour and the Lib Dems have also talked about a referendum but only if more power is transfered from the UK to Brussels (eg via a new EU treaty).



Technically party policy is for the UK to just leave if they win, but since they won't win their condition for a coalition is a referendum in 2015 under certain conditions (e.g. eu citizens living in the UK can't vote in it).

The tories and the greens want a referendum later and under different conditions.


----------



## Alwaysmind (Mar 27, 2015)

mr_shadow said:


> I root for Labor. Us Social Democrats need to reconquer Europe.
> 
> *Current political situation in the European Union*
> 
> ...



Hate to bring this up and burst bubbles but the Social Democrats are going to lose France next time around. 
Let this be a lesson to all. Take notes and remember what not to do when you pick a leader of a party (or should I say who not to pick as a leader).


----------



## Sunuvmann (Mar 27, 2015)

erictheking said:


> Two recent polls from yesterday:
> 
> ComRes: CON 35%, LAB 35%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 10%, GRN 7%.


Labour government with LDEM and GRN in coalition? Yes please.


----------



## Nemesis (Mar 27, 2015)

As the way things are going anyone that wants to get anywhere is going to need the SNP for support.  Regardless if they are outright saying it or denying it.  No one is going to get close to a majority.  Conservatives might be able to get a bare minimum majority with UKIP/Lib Dem and DUP support (It will always get ulster unionist support in Northern Ireland since they're linked at the hip.  Even if Ulster Unionist Party is more or less destroyed).

Labour has more or less said they are not going into coalition with the SNP.  Might co-operate on deal by deal basis.  Lib Dems are getting destroyed and will likely shy away from any teaming with the tories again and make Clegg fall on his sword.  Greens and Plaid Cymru will likely go where the SNP goes but together will have at most 5-6 MPs.

Essentially I'm thinking by November we're going to have another election.  SNP have already stated they will outright block anything from the conservatives.  Even the opening of parliament and the Queen's speech.  Neither Labour nor Conservatives going to get enough to actually run parliament and it will need another run off.  If between May and November Clegg gets the boot and another Charles Kennedy like person takes over then maybe Lib Dems might regain some support, while if UKIP mess up more they might lose some more.  While in Scotland the SNP voters who left labour might realise that it would be better to vote labour in Westminster while SNP in Scottish Parliament.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Mar 27, 2015)

Sunuvmann said:


> Labour government with LDEM and GRN in coalition? Yes please.



That might be true if we were using PR but we are not. You are better off looking at the seat predictions I posted earlier: 
As of the time of posting, the prediction is:
Con: 283
Lab: 280
SNP: 38
Lib Dems: 26
DUP: 8
SDLP: 3
Plaid Cymru: 2
UKIP: 1
Greens: 1
Other: 8

If the results here exact (which they aren't, look at the error margins), the most likely deal after the election would be a labour-lib dem coalition with SNP support. Basically (assuming the prediction is exact), IMO it goes like this in order of likelihood:

1) Labour-Lib Dem-SNP
2) Labour-Lib Dem-DUP-SDLP-Plaid Cymru-Greens-Lady Hermon-Respect-Alliance
3) Labour-SNP-SDLP-Plaid Cymru
4) Conservative-Lib Dem-DUP-SDLP-Plaid Cymru-Lady Hermon

As you can see, the first option is quite a bit more likely that the subsequent ones.

I am assuming that of the 8 "other" seats, 5 go to sinn fein, 1 to lady hermon, 1 to respect and 1 to alliance. The large number of northern irish parties are there under the presumption you can collectively pay them all off by channeling large amounts of money into N. Ireland, as any party without SNP needs northern irish parties to get a majority anyway, except in a Grand Coalition.


----------



## Nemesis (Mar 27, 2015)

Add to the problem that the SDLP will not side with the conservatives.   Neither will Plaid (both are too far "left" and Plaid in Westminster won't do anything the SNP doesn't).  I will have to say that 4 is easily ruled out.

2 I will find myself ruling out because Respect is Galloway and no one wants to touch it.

3) Could happen on a case by case basis.  

1) Is most likely.

What people need to remember is that in west minster Sinn Fein is  a non entity, yes they have places in the commons but they never take them.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Mar 27, 2015)

Nemesis said:


> Add to the problem that the SDLP will not side with the conservatives.   Neither will Plaid (both are too far "left" and Plaid in Westminster won't do anything the SNP doesn't).  I will have to say that 4 is easily ruled out.
> 
> 2 I will find myself ruling out because Respect is Galloway and no one wants to touch it.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I factored out sinn fein. I only care how many seats they get because it tells you how many you need for a majority.

Labour could swap Respect for UKIP; and the Tories could swap Plaid for UKIP and Alliance. More likely?

And of course if the prediction isn't exactly right (which it won't be) the situation changes substantially. One seat goes from the Tories to Labour and Labour can knock Respect off alliance #2. One seat goes from Labour to Tories and the Tories could swap Plaid for Alliance for alliance #4.

This is going to make by-elections very interesting.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Mar 27, 2015)

jetwaterluffy1 said:


> That might be true if we were using PR but we are not. You are better off looking at the seat predictions I posted earlier:
> Lib Dems: 26
> Greens: 1





> LDEM 8%, GRN 7%.


How the shit!?


(context: <== murrican with English father who would vote Labour if I could but I have Green sympathies)


----------



## Han Solo (Mar 27, 2015)

Sunuvmann said:


> How the shit!?
> 
> 
> (context: <== murrican with English father who would vote Labour if I could but I have Green sympathies)



The joys of FPTP voting...


----------



## Nemesis (Mar 27, 2015)

Sunuvmann said:


> How the shit!?
> 
> 
> (context: <== murrican with English father who would vote Labour if I could but I have Green sympathies)



You know what is worse.  SNP are predicted to get 40-50 MPs with a vote of 2.6% to 3.8%.  That is why FPTP system is a pile of shit


----------



## Sunuvmann (Mar 27, 2015)

Y'all need to reform that.

That's some seriously undemocratic shit right thar.

Granted, US's gerrymandered constituencies are about equally fucked up. But that's also pretty damn fucked up.


----------



## Kagekatsu (Mar 27, 2015)

Sunuvmann said:


> Y'all need to reform that.
> 
> That's some seriously undemocratic shit right thar.
> 
> Granted, US's gerrymandered constituencies are about equally fucked up. But that's also pretty damn fucked up.



They had a referendum to replace FPTP with Alternate Voting a few years ago, both Labour and Tories pretty much did their best to kill it and they did.

Though I should note that the vote for the SNP in Scotland is not necessarily a pro-indy vote.


----------



## Sherlōck (Mar 27, 2015)

*These are the countries where Britain's immigrants come from and emigrants go to *


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Mar 27, 2015)

Sunuvmann said:


> How the shit!?
> 
> 
> (context: <== murrican with English father who would vote Labour if I could but I have Green sympathies)


Two reasons:
> In most areas of the country there are a decent amount of people support green but in very few areas of the country (constituencies) do _most_ people support greens, and you need most people to support greens in a particular area for them to get an MP there. This is not the case with the lib dems, partially because they have quite a few MPs who are very popular locally, even if nationally the party is not currently doing very well in the eyes of the public. However, this does mean the greens do relatively well in the euro elections, because they use PR (also the euro elections has a high turnout of protest voters).
> The people who made this think that on election day the green vote will go down and the lib dem vote will go up. Go on the site, look at the "current polls" tab and compare it to the "vote forecasts" tab. In the polls greens nearly hit the lib dems, in the vote forecasts lib dems have three times the number of votes the greens do.


Kagekatsu said:


> They had a referendum to replace FPTP with Alternate Voting a few years ago, both Labour and Tories pretty much did their best to kill it and they did.


AV would not change the problem the greens face as it would still maintain constituencies, and there isn't many places where most people would put greens second place, either. They did a simulated rerun of the 2010 election with AV and the greens still had the same number of MPs: one.

Also Labour campaigned _for_ AV, because it would mean they couldn't lose to the tories by having their vote split with the lib dems. Since then UKIP have risen and are causing the same problems for the tories.

Incidentally, this causes greens and UKip to have great influence on lib dem , labour and tory policy, because these parties want to win back voters from them to avoid vote-splitting.


----------



## Han Solo (Mar 27, 2015)

AV would have been better, but it doesn't really fix the problem.


----------



## Hozukimaru (Mar 27, 2015)

It doesn't seem like a system that promotes proportional representation. In the 2010 elections the Cons got 36.4% of the votes, Labour got 29% and the Lib Dems got 23%. That translates to 47.1%, 39.7% and 8.8% of the total seats in the House of Commons. UKIP and BNP didn't get any seats despite getting 3.1% and 1.9% of the votes. The SNP on the other hand got 0.9% of the house with just 1.7% of the votes. The Greens got 0.9% of the votes and 0.2% of the house.

It's not like the Greek system is much better though. The main flaw is the 50 extra seats that the first party gets. SYRIZA got 49.7% of the seats with just 36.3% of the votes.


----------



## Alwaysmind (Mar 27, 2015)

What ever you do UK, keep George Galloway, from what I've seen, he does what an opposing MP should do.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Mar 27, 2015)

Hozukimaru said:


> It doesn't seem like a system that promotes proportional representation. In the 2010 elections the Cons got 36.4% of the votes, Labour got 29% and the Lib Dems got 23%. That translates to 47.1%, 39.7% and 8.8% of the total seats in the House of Commons. UKIP and BNP didn't get any seats despite getting 3.1% and 1.9% of the votes. The SNP on the other hand got 0.9% of the house with just 1.7% of the votes. The Greens got 0.9% of the votes and 0.2% of the house.
> 
> It's not like the Greek system is much better though. The main flaw is the 50 extra seats that the first party gets. SYRIZA got 49.7% of the seats with just 36.3% of the votes.



The DUP had a bigger discrepancy than SNP, they got 8 seats.

Here's what would happen in the 2010 election, meanwhile, if you had used my idea of "pegging" the seats of a party to another if it beats it in vote share:
Con, Labour, Lib Dems, DUP unaffected
SNP +2
Sinn F?in +3
Green +7
UKIP +8
BNP +8
Plaid Cymru, SDLP, Alliance, Lady Hermon unaffected
UCU-NF +1
English Democrats +1
Respect +1
TUV +1
Rodney Conner +1

Total needed for majority: 338
Tory-Lib Dem still possible.
Labour-Lib Dem-SNP-Plaid Cymru now impossible
Labour-Lib Dem-SNP-Plaid Cymru-Green-UKIP now possible

So pretty much the same result as last time then. But it would make a bigger difference next election, with SNP set to beat Greens, Lib Dems and UKIP in seats by a considerable margin.


----------



## Nemesis (Mar 27, 2015)

Alwaysmind said:


> What ever you do UK, keep George Galloway, from what I've seen, he does what an opposing MP should do.



Galloway always goes into a constituency where he is bound to win.  So no chance of him vanishing



			
				Sunuvmann said:
			
		

> Y'all need to reform that.
> 
> That's some seriously undemocratic shit right thar.
> 
> Granted, US's gerrymandered constituencies are about equally fucked up. But that's also pretty damn fucked up.



House of Commons and House of Representatives are elected in the exact same manner.  If there were two third parties in the US with same amount of electoral vote.  But one was so spread thin it didn't get anywhere, but the other was completely clumped up in one corner of the US the second of the third parties would be over represented in the lower house of the US.  

This is what we are likely to see with SNP and Scotland.  Compared to LD/Green/UKIP.  But yes it does need a change.



			
				Kagekatsu said:
			
		

> They had a referendum to replace FPTP with Alternate Voting a few years ago, both Labour and Tories pretty much did their best to kill it and they did.
> 
> Though I should note that the vote for the SNP in Scotland is not necessarily a pro-indy vote.



Lets be honest the AV vote was just there to fail so the big two can turn around and say "Look the British Electorate don't want change."

That was why it was allowed, it was a half arsed change to keep the status quo because they're too scared to go with a full PR system.  Which would likely actually win out in there was a PR vs FPTP.  It was nothing more than a sham paid for by the taxpayer.


----------



## Aduro (Mar 28, 2015)

I've just become 100% certain I'm voting Labour in the general election.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...liband-the-battle-for-number-10-10138526.html


I really hope they enforce it if Labour wins, by pushing her off a ferry. Can we do the election tomorrow?


----------



## Nemesis (Mar 28, 2015)

Aduro said:


> I've just become 100% certain I'm voting Labour in the general election.
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...liband-the-battle-for-number-10-10138526.html
> 
> 
> I really hope they enforce it if Labour wins, by pushing her off a ferry. Can we do the election tomorrow?



Funny that people are actually saying that She's with Labour and only saying that to get people to vote for them since she knows how unpopular she is.  How insane some people are.

I'm surprised Farage hasn't come out to say "I'll put Clarkson back on TV during prime time if elected." just to see how that goes for him.


----------



## Aduro (Mar 28, 2015)

Nemesis said:


> Funny that people are actually saying that She's with Labour and only saying that to get people to vote for them since she knows how unpopular she is.  How insane some people are.
> 
> I'm surprised Farage hasn't come out to say "I'll put Clarkson back on TV during prime time if elected." just to see how that goes for him.



Farage would promise to make Winston Churchill the next host of Top Gear if he thought it would get him a significant amount of seats.

Yeah it is about time the posturing started, although I think Hopkins in more interested in the rare people who support her than the majoirty who think she's full of shit. Part of me does get annoyed when the election becomes too much of a media circus though. Cameron was criticised more for leaving his daughter in a pub than cutting pensions and failing to get tough on oil companies leaving old people freeze to death


----------



## Golden Circle (Mar 28, 2015)

The poll needed the option "I believe in Harvey Dent".


----------



## N120 (Mar 29, 2015)

PR system sounds appealing, in theory. Everyone should have a voice and be represented.

But, the PR system is far from perfect. people used to blame a single party for governmental failures, parties are now gearing up to blame coalitions for governmental failures. PR system will not change that, it will shift the blame around some more.

What needs shaking up is how the govt operates, as it stands It's a broken record No matter who plays it.


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 29, 2015)

Lets hope in these debates Bennett makes herself out to be an even bigger idiot than she is, like when she was absolutely destroyed/confused here:

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzGyEXPDQBI[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Black Wraith (Mar 29, 2015)

I'll be voting labour this time round. I'm a natural Labour supporter but last election I had to vote for the Lib Dems because Labour was quite frankly unvoteable. They were a mess.

This time, Milliband might be portrayed like a cartoon character but he does have some really good policies and as long as he keeps up with his performance in the last debate he might just make people change their minds about him.

Clegg was someone that very few people recognised or new about 5 years ago and now he's all but vanished. He destroyed his voter base by increasing the university fees.

It's going to be an interesting 6 weeks to see just how all the leaders perform especially with UKIP throwing a wrench into this whole thing.


----------



## Saishin (Mar 30, 2015)

mr_shadow said:


> The last election was in 2010, and the U.K has since adopted the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, which states that elections should normally be held every 5 years.
> 
> Before the FTPA, the Queen could dissolve parliament whenever she wanted, but a given parliament could not stay on longer than a maximum of 5 years. In practice the queen always dissolved parliament before the deadline, so you could say that until now no parliament ever completed a full "term"...
> 
> I guess the FTPA is supposed to bring more stability to politics, as it makes the election timing less random. Though Britain was never as bad as Japan or Israel with random elections, I think.


Oh yeah yo're right,I got confused,in 2017 there will be the referendum  to leave the EU


----------



## dr_shadow (Mar 30, 2015)

Sweden used to have First-Past-the-Post elections before the introduction of universal suffrage. At that time we had 2 parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives.

In I think 1909 the pressure was on the Conservative government to introduce universal suffrage for men. However they knew that rural districts were bound to vote for the Liberals, or worse, the Social Democrats. Forecasts said the Conservatives would be ANNIHILATED under the one district-one man model.

They therefore made a switch to proportional elections a condition for endorsing universal male suffrage. That way they managed to linger on in parliament supported by the wealthy minority of voters, though only a shadow of their former selves.

For Britain, I guess it would take a similar crisis for one of the big two for them to want PR.


----------



## Sherlōck (Mar 31, 2015)

*David Cameron claims he's related to Kim Kardashian: 'Did you know I'm 13th cousins? *



> Forget falling foul of the acerbic wit of Jeremy Paxman or the considered but probing technique of Andrew Marr, it was the grilling David Cameron faced from Heat that could well end up being the most revealing.
> 
> During his interview with the gossip magazine, the Prime Minister made the extraordinary claim that he is related to Kim Kardashian-West – the reality TV star and business mogul who shot to fame on the back of a sex tape.
> 
> ...



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/david-cameron-claims-hes-related-to-kim-kardashian-did-you-know-im-13th-cousins-10146513.html?cmpid=facebook-post


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Mar 31, 2015)

Sherlōck said:


> *David Cameron claims he's related to Kim Kardashian: 'Did you know I'm 13th cousins? *
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/david-cameron-claims-hes-related-to-kim-kardashian-did-you-know-im-13th-cousins-10146513.html?cmpid=facebook-post


Considering you have  I don't see this as too unlikely.


----------



## Nemesis (Mar 31, 2015)

I think once you get passed like 6th or 7th you're basically saying everyone.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Apr 2, 2015)

Seven-way leaders debate (you need a tv license to watch currently, but click on "live coverage").
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/election-2015-32137362
It's an ITV debate but ITV aren't putting it on their player currently.

And polls on who won:

The SNP results are particularly interesting, seeing as scotland only makes up 8% of the UK population.


----------



## Nemesis (Apr 2, 2015)

I believe that is because many in England are more left than what Labour/LD/Cons are but are spread too thing or are going to vote labour out of principle.  Thing about the SNP is that they are very similar to back bench labour MPs.  While Blair/Brown/Milliband are pro trident.  Many labour supporters are amongst those who are in line with SNP on disarmament of the UK nuclear deterrent.

For Farage high points it is simple.  He will have a certain amount of supporters from the far right of the country no matter what.  Even if they will vote conservative.  There are those that fall into the whole "It's all foreigners and Europe." bullshit that he said for basically every line.  I bet many even clapped him for saying he would deny HIV health service to anyone who wasn't fortunate to pop out of a british vagina.

In the end I think Cameron did poor and Ed did good.  Farage can go jump off a bridge and Sturgeon needs to stop to think.  If the SNP do get their way and change out the FPTP system it will put her on a national level back down to irrelevance since the only other option would be to become PR since AV is not wanted.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Apr 3, 2015)

Nemesis said:


> I believe that is because many in England are more left than what Labour/LD/Cons are but are spread too thing or are going to vote labour out of principle.  Thing about the SNP is that they are very similar to back bench labour MPs.  While Blair/Brown/Milliband are pro trident.  Many labour supporters are amongst those who are in line with SNP on disarmament of the UK nuclear deterrent.
> 
> For Farage high points it is simple.  He will have a certain amount of supporters from the far right of the country no matter what.  Even if they will vote conservative.  There are those that fall into the whole "It's all foreigners and Europe." bullshit that he said for basically every line.  I bet many even clapped him for saying he would deny HIV health service to anyone who wasn't fortunate to pop out of a british vagina.
> 
> In the end I think Cameron did poor and Ed did good.  Farage can go jump off a bridge and Sturgeon needs to stop to think.  If the SNP do get their way and change out the FPTP system it will put her on a national level back down to irrelevance since the only other option would be to become PR since AV is not wanted.



I don't think the "far right", as the traditional definition, makes up ~20% of Britian.

I don't get the impression sturgeon is for country-wide PR, in fact I don't think she was really talking about electoral reform at all in that line, she was more giving off a "they're all the same" rhetoric of the big three and talking about more regional government. She might be for PR regardless, but probably more in the sense it is done in the euro elections, where scotland and similar-sized regions submit MEPs in a proportional manner.

I don't think it's just the left-wing views she was talking about either, as plaid cymru and greens were saying similarly left-wing views and they came last. She just performed well.

By the way, the leader's debate has now moved to the ITV youtube channel:


----------



## Nemesis (Apr 3, 2015)

jetwaterluffy1 said:


> I don't think the "far right", as the traditional definition, makes up ~20% of Britian.



Either way I can't believe that people in this country would think a guy who basically said "People diagnoses with HIV should be left to die if they weren't fortunate enough to be born within certain artificial borders." .  To me that is a scary prospect where around 20% of the population minimum actually agree to this.



> I don't get the impression sturgeon is for country-wide PR, in fact I don't think she was really talking about electoral reform at all in that line, she was more giving off a "they're all the same" rhetoric of the big three and talking about more regional government. She might be for PR regardless, but probably more in the sense it is done in the euro elections, where scotland and similar-sized regions submit MEPs in a proportional manner.



Yeah I think you're right.  I tend to forget you can have that kind of PR system and it doesn't need to be nation wide.  I think she did well and if I was scottish right now I'd look at her and then the high support Farage got and think "Second referendum may not come soon enough."



> I don't think it's just the left-wing views she was talking about either, as plaid cymru and greens were saying similarly left-wing views and they came last. She just performed well.
> 
> By the way, the leader's debate has now moved to the ITV youtube channel:



Honestly I think that is more because she spent her time pushing for wales and yelling at Farage than what Sturgeon did which was actually talk to the people of the entirety of the UK.  Sturgeon played her cards right.  Simply put it was "Yeah we want to go alone.  But while we're together we want to make sure it is best for you too." and it got through to people.

Honestly I hope Labour gets enough MPs that they can do deals with SNP, maybe what is left over of LD too.  If of course LD ditch Clegg.  I think he is a poisoned chalice even if he was able to pull the conservatives back on the more extreme stuff.

Also something interesting happened yesterday.  The DUP said they are open to work with Labour.  This is big because that is 8 MPs and each side needs as many MPs as they can get.


----------



## Linkdarkside (Apr 4, 2015)

Sherlōck said:


> *David Cameron claims he's related to Kim Kardashian: 'Did you know I'm 13th cousins? *
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/david-cameron-claims-hes-related-to-kim-kardashian-did-you-know-im-13th-cousins-10146513.html?cmpid=facebook-post


----------



## Nemesis (Apr 4, 2015)

Problem with that is when they get to 8th-9th cousins you're basically talking about the entire world.


----------



## Megaharrison (Apr 4, 2015)

Everybody on the internet loves the Greens but to expect someone like Bennett to win a debate is pretty hilarious. She comes off as stupid, even with the leftist media handicap in her favor.


----------



## Lucaniel (Apr 4, 2015)

Megaharrison said:


> Everybody on the internet loves the Greens but to expect someone like Bennett to win a debate is pretty hilarious. She comes off as stupid, even with the leftist media handicap in her favor.



the leftist media handicap...in a country where the most widely-read newspapers are the daily mail, the sun, and the daily telegraph (all right-leaning if not right-wing; with the daily mirror being the only widely-read labour-supporting paper)  and where the most widely-watched news channel is obsessively centrist to avoid any sign of bias (the BBC; to the extent of over-covering UKIP) and one of the other most-widely-watched news channels is owned by...rupert murdoch


----------



## Kagekatsu (Apr 5, 2015)

Chart of how many seats and arrangements the party needs to win, based on current polls.


----------



## Lucaniel (Apr 5, 2015)

why do people still support the lib dems


----------



## Kagekatsu (Apr 5, 2015)

Lucaniel said:


> why do people still support the lib dems



Most of the seats their expected to retain are in SW England, which has always been their heartland.


----------



## Lucaniel (Apr 5, 2015)

yeah but it's like...they finally got a taste of real power and all it proved was that they're ineffectual, unprincipled whores. i'd expect an exodus tbh


----------



## blueblip (Apr 5, 2015)

Lucaniel said:


> the leftist media handicap...in a country where the most widely-read newspapers are the daily mail, the sun, and the daily telegraph (all right-leaning if not right-wing; with the daily mirror being the only widely-read labour-supporting paper)  and where the most widely-watched news channel is obsessively centrist to avoid any sign of bias (the BBC; to the extent of over-covering UKIP) and one of the other most-widely-watched news channels is owned by...rupert murdoch


This reminds me of a scene from Yes Minister:





> *Humphrey:* "The only way to understand the Press is to remember that they pander to their readers' prejudices."
> 
> *Hacker:* Don't tell me about the press, I know exactly who reads the papers: The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by people who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.
> 
> ...


----------



## Lucaniel (Apr 5, 2015)

an absolute classic, bb


----------



## Nemesis (Apr 5, 2015)

Lucaniel said:


> why do people still support the lib dems



Essentially the areas they are looking to retain it is Lib Dems vs Conservatives.  So it is hold on to Lib Dems to make sure the tories don't get in more than anything else.  Plus heartland or in other areas it is more the MP has done good for the area not the party he is with (Like in Colchester the guy could go independent or labour and still get voted in.)



> the leftist media handicap...in a country where the most widely-read newspapers are the daily mail, the sun, and the daily telegraph (all right-leaning if not right-wing; with the daily mirror being the only widely-read labour-supporting paper) and where the most widely-watched news channel is obsessively centrist to avoid any sign of bias (the BBC; to the extent of over-covering UKIP) and one of the other most-widely-watched news channels is owned by...rupert murdoch



Completely true plus if we add TV we can see who is left/right /central

Left Leaning:
Mirror 
Guardian
Channel 4.

Right leaning:
Sun
Mail
Telegraph
Times
Express
(Daily not morning) Star
Sky news

More Central
Independent.
BBC (If any thought of bias is brought up it has tons of Inquiries)
ITV maybe (I don't know I don't watch itv)


----------



## N120 (Apr 5, 2015)

Lucaniel said:


> yeah but it's like...they finally got a taste of real power and *all it proved was that they're ineffectual, unprincipled whores.* i'd expect an exodus tbh



So they were liberal  

They were like that before coming to power. it wasn't until the introduction of US style TV debates and Nick cleggs performance in front of the cameras that people took them seriously,or atleast thought they could. 

It's the same with Nigel farage and ukip now, the crap their members get upto now, won't stop if they manage to secure a coalition deal post election. No one should be surprised if a future ukip cabinet member makes dodgy remarks about blacks and Eastern Europeans, but they will.


----------



## blueblip (Apr 5, 2015)

Lucaniel said:


> an absolute classic, bb


That show was GOAT. As in, it truly is one the greatest of all time. They don't make 'em like that anymore.


----------



## Nemesis (Apr 5, 2015)

They tried to remake it.  I tell you now, do not watch it.


----------



## Saishin (Apr 5, 2015)

> *Muslim group with links to extremists boasts of influencing election*
> 
> A group suspected of being a front for Islamic extremists claims it can control as many as 30 seats in the general election and boasts of acting a "kingmaker"
> 
> ...


----------



## N120 (Apr 5, 2015)

Read the article, some truth, some exaggeration of the truth, some bending of reality and ALOT of insinuations and assertions.

Shit piece, something I would expect from daily mail not telegraph.

*Truth*:

There are muslim groups who are trying to engage more and more with the political process, representing every shade of the political spectrum.

*Exaggeration*

This idea that any one group can control muslim votes or can guarantee block voting to aquire upto 30 seats is far-fetched. They may influence some but a whole community? 

* bending reality*

There are right leaning muslims in support/membership/councillors and ministers of UKIP and conservatives party, the left is also no different in fact most muslims traditionally were pretty much in the Labour camp. 

The muslim vote is as diverse as any other group, and in most cases is in line with the rest of the country, where the youth are interested in fees, housing, the business owners on taxes and a few ideological lead voters who are socialist in principle.

Having said that, FP matters is where the Muslim voters feel they have been shunned for decades, but even there they aren't alone. A million people marched against the gulf war...and there was even an anti war candidate who lost his son, who ran against Blair.

*insinuation*
I'm getting a little tired of this islamophobic scare-mongering about the muslim boogeyman hiding in your closet.

These groups are in general lobbyist, representing various interests, I'm not here to defend them as I don't support them but the fear mongering really is getting OTT. People asked for this, for muslims to participate and integrate, when they don't people say "see they don't integrate", but when they do its "oh my gawd" a conspiracy. 

 these assertions and insinuations of creeping shariah and extremism, of an Trojan horse community ...wow.

We may not be your favourite people, fair enough. But get a grip.

But, on some level it's understandable, when a counter group/s gains some momentum, there will always be those who would seek to defend their interest against the rising opposition.

As such we have seen attempts at Character assassinations, fear mongering, and lies peddled against an entire community. Primarily from the zionist camp lead by Melanie Philips, Edl, Katie Hopkins and Douglass Murray. Fringe nutters. 

Now it's getting mainstream.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Apr 6, 2015)

Nemesis said:


> Either way I can't believe that people in this country would think a guy who basically said "People diagnoses with HIV should be left to die if they weren't fortunate enough to be born within certain artificial borders." .  To me that is a scary prospect where around 20% of the population minimum actually agree to this.


The ~20% of the population who thought Farage won didn't necessarily agree with every single thing Farage said in that debate. I doubt 20% of the population agreed with every single thing _any_ political leader said in that debate.



> Also something interesting happened yesterday.  The DUP said they are open to work with Labour.  This is big because that is 8 MPs and each side needs as many MPs as they can get.


They said several months ago, and after the last election, it's no big news. The DUP would be horrific to work with though, and could set off tensions in northern ireland, both parties would be best off avoiding them if possible.



Lucaniel said:


> the leftist media handicap...in a country where the most widely-read newspapers are the daily mail, the sun, and the daily telegraph (all right-leaning if not right-wing; with the daily mirror being the only widely-read labour-supporting paper)  and where the most widely-watched news channel is obsessively centrist to avoid any sign of bias (the BBC; to the extent of over-covering UKIP) and one of the other most-widely-watched news channels is owned by...rupert murdoch


None of which actually presided over the debate. What matters is whether itv is leftist or not. In my opinion, it makes little difference whether they were or they weren't, because the host could barely keep control over the debate regardless.


Kagekatsu said:


> Chart of how many seats and arrangements the party needs to win, based on current polls.


Could you give a source for that chart? There is more than one seat projection group and the methods and results can vary between them.


N120 said:


> This idea that any one group can control muslim votes or can guarantee block voting to aquire upto 30 seats is far-fetched. They may influence some but a whole community?


Bloc voting in muslim constituencies is a thing though. Did you hear about all the controversy going on in George Galloway's constituency?


----------



## Morglay (Apr 6, 2015)

After the debate I can safely say I just don't trust Ed... Attempting to appeal to the working class man when he can't even pronounce years. He was making all the right pandering noises, yet I didn't get the feeling he has a plan to make a more prosperous country.

Clegg won't even be able to get a sniff at leading the country again. Nobody wants someone spineless who is prone to getting bullied as a head of state. That apology was just pathetic and weak.

I don't feel like we are spoiled for choice right now. I don't like David Cameron as a human being yet he didn't completely sink the country. Might actually be voting Conservative... 

Nigel IMO actually came out strongest from that debate. He had facts, figures and made his plan clear. It was mainly ridiculous and will sink the country. Yet he was straight forward and direct in a way that people will appreciate.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Apr 6, 2015)

Lucaniel said:


> irrelevant to what i was talking about
> 
> i was talking about mega's post saying that bennett has a "leftist media handicap" in her favour, which was about the whole election coverage, not just the debate.



But the instant polls just that: instant, they were counted minutes after the debate. The rest of the media didn't have the time to spin anything.


----------



## N120 (Apr 6, 2015)

jetwaterluffy1 said:


> Bloc voting in muslim constituencies is a thing though. Did you hear about all the controversy going on in George Galloway's constituency?



Considering The anecdotal evidence being used is GG , I have to ask Which controversy? 

In any case you're making my point, unless you can name one organisation that has won any particular party 30 seats or more as a direct result of block voting then this is a heavily exaggerated claim. 

It doesn't account for the fact that GG in many cases has muslim opposition from mainstream parties (labour), who have huge support up north.

It Doesn't account for the fact that there are muslim mps across many parties, representing many views not all of it being muslim-centric.

Theres No evidence to suggest the muslim voice Is a single voice when it comes to deciding who theyd vote for, that's not to say parties/groups don't ask for it to win them seats. All mainstream parties do, as do many political organisations.


----------



## Lucaniel (Apr 6, 2015)

jetwaterluffy1 said:


> But the instant polls just that: instant, they were counted minutes after the debate. The rest of the media didn't have the time to spin anything.



but he wasn't specifically talking about the debate.....................................................................................................................................


lemme just shoot myself and get it over with


----------



## Esponer (Apr 6, 2015)

_*Conservatives*_ ? economically ineffective, pushing ideological austerity which only damages consumer confidence, and trying to frame a global economic crisis as a leftist problem. Cameron's been reasonably progressive on some social issues, but welfare is a disaster and he's promising more of the same. They're my political nemesis. I would at least respect them if they were actually competent, fair laissez-faire libertarians, but they're not. 

_*Labour *_? don't deserve to call themselves left-wing by any measure. Ed Miliband keeps making half-hearted noises suggesting he'd like to move Labour a bit left of Blair's New Labour, but either he's lying or he's unable to. This is a country where 68% of citizens want the energy companies nationalised, but the nominally 'left-wing' party won't stretch any further than promising a cap of energy prices. There's either no courage at all in the Labour party, or they're just the Conservatives in red.

To be fair, Labour didn't crash the economy. And I'm absolutely going mad over that. In 2008 before the crisis hit, Labour had reduced debt as a % of GDP from what they inherited from the Conservatives. _Reduced_, yet the media spins the nonsense that Labour spent too much. 2008 hit and debt % GDP grew because GDP shrank, and because of the bailout. In reality, 1997?2010 Labour wasn't drastically different to what the Conservatives would do. Except where the problem is lack of regulation in the banking sector and Cameron wanted _less_ regulation, you could put some money on it being worse under Cameron.

None of this is a very good case for Labour, though. Here's the reality: in a two party system, both parties will have a tendency to drift toward the centre to catch the undecided. There's a second drift, though: both will drift to the right to appease the most powerful lobbies. So Labour have drifted centre-right, and a vote for them "to keep the Tories out" means no pressure's put on them at all to change that.

_*Liberal Democrats*_ ? I voted for them in 2010 because I voted for the policies I agreed with, and they were standing on a more left-wing manifesto than Labour. It wasn't perfect, but it was something. I'm actually not 'betrayed' on the tuition fee decision, so much as I'm appalled at their absolute lack of political acumen. The coalition was political suicide, and they've destroyed all hope for electoral reform in my generation. Then destroyed what was left of my respect for them by pulling right, signing up to the myth that Labour caused a global economic crisis, and actually justifying many of the Conservatives' worst, most ideologically driven drivel to themselves.

_*UKIP* ? _Conservative cast-offs, economically right of the Conservatives and certainly socially regressive. They blame immigation for _everything_, their representatives are awful and their policies mostly incoherent. Their supporters don't know what they're voting for. This is a party that's after the abolition of inheritance taxes, driving up wealth disparity. Farage is, unfortunately, the most charismatic politician the UK has right now.

_*SNP *_? like most non-Scots, I don't really know _that_ much about them. Sturgeon put in the best performance in the seven way election debate, but she had a relatively easy position. A Labour + SNP coalition / confidence-and-supply agreement is the most likely outcome right now, and I'm undecided about if that's a good thing. SNP do seem anti-austerity, proving they have slightly more economic competence than Labour, but? here's the thing. If a nationalist party is seen to be playing kingmaker, it's going to stir up a lot of bad sentiment in the union. And if the defection from Labour-in-Scotland to SNP leads to a government that _doesn't_ involve SNP (who have overwhelming support there),  Scotland will start feeling they've been driven out of Westminster politics (albeit by their own actions). Either way, whatever politics the SNP represent I'm worried about what their surge will mean. It honestly might even be better to have a weak Conservative government from 2015?2020 if it encourages some kind of reformed Labour which wins back support in Scotland. (But I doubt Labour would either reform or win back support, so it's moot.)

_*Greens *_? I've met Natalie Bennett and I like her, but here's the thing. Anyone standing as leader of a party should be able to wipe the floor with me in a debate. I should feel I'm around someone really formidable. I'm sorry to say I didn't. I talked to her about nuclear power, electoral reform and coalition choices, and? eh. Her performance in the debates hasn't been that good either. I think she could be an excellent MP, but the Greens are a small party and so they need a leader twice as charismatic as a major party. Not half as.

Politically and economically, I prefer the Greens to any of the others, although they're not perfect. Problems first: I disagree on their anti-nuclear stance, I'm still hazy on if they've reformed on GM, and their manifesto is generally a mix of long-term ambitions (great: more parties need to dare to put this in, but you should contextualise them vs. priorities) and unstructured ideas. I can forgive some of the silly stuff because the core stuff is good and important, but here's the thing: 2015 _needs the Greens_. Labour and Lib Dems have lost all credibility amongst the left wing voting bloc. So we need Greens to shape up, fast, and they're not there.

Bright sides: they're the biggest non-nationalist party who prioritise dealing with climate change, are against austerity, against TTIP and in favour of a living wage and eventually a citizens' income. Also, I wonder how many people realise they support a referendum on the EU.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Apr 6, 2015)

Esponer said:


> To be fair, Labour didn't crash the economy. And I'm absolutely going mad over that. In 2008 before the crisis hit, Labour had reduced debt as a % of GDP from what they inherited from the Conservatives. _Reduced_, yet the media spins the nonsense that Labour spent too much. 2008 hit and debt % GDP grew because GDP shrank, and because of the bailout. In reality, 1997–2010 Labour wasn't drastically different to what the Conservatives would do. Except where the problem is lack of regulation in the banking sector and Cameron wanted _less_ regulation, you could put some money on it being worse under Cameron.


I know someone who is involved in the liberal democrat party and they said that, in their opinion, labour's economic policy before the recession was very irresponsible because while they reduced the debt as a proportion of GDP, they were still borrowing money, it's just the economy was growing faster. In his opinion there was always going to be an economic crash at some point, so doing any kind of borrowing at a time of prosperity he saw as irresponsible.

Regardless, how left or right wing you are isn't whether you balance the books, it's how you do it: for the right it's cuts; for the left, it's taxing the rich. On the flip side, how you spend money is similar, for the left it's increased public spending, for the right it's tax cuts.


----------



## Esponer (Apr 6, 2015)

jetwaterluffy1 said:


> I know someone who is involved in the liberal democrat party and they said that, in their opinion, labour's economic policy before the recession was very irresponsible because while they reduced the debt as a proportion of GDP, they were still borrowing money, it's just the economy was growing faster. In his opinion there was always going to be an economic crash at some point, so doing any kind of borrowing at a time of prosperity he saw as irresponsible.


But if Labour were to mount a principled defence, they'd say that their borrowing was to invest in public spending (as it mostly was) which was designed to increase GDP many times over by the fiscal multiplier effect. In which case they'd argue that not "just" the economy was growing faster: it was growing faster _because_ of their investment.

And you have to look at individual public spending areas. Labour defending themselves as best they can argue that many areas badly needed to be invested in. School buildings that were falling apart and whatnot. I can see their argument there: you can't refuse to improve infrastructure when the economy is in a good state if that infrastructure is in such a bad state it could start damaging the economy. (But a note: Building Schools for the Future, Labour's ambitious investment program to tackle my example, was heavy-handed and badly managed, speaking as someone personally affected.)

Lastly, one could argue that had Labour refused to invest in infrastructure in the lead-up to 2008, the crash would've been _slightly_ gentler. But debt related to handling the crisis is much higher than debt Labour accrued to invest in infrastructure. Like 5?10 times higher, offhand. And some of those programmes _were_ needed and _did_ do good, even if not perfect. On the other hand, Conservatives wanted _less_ banking regulation, and I'm much more afraid of something that might've multiplied the UK's liability to the economic crash than something that added a relatively small number to it.

The Liberal Democrat party, actually, strongly supported more banking regulation. Vince Cable in particular. So in 2010 I voted for them, in part because I believed they would've been the safest party in government (hypothetically) between '97 and '10. But when they haemorhagged left-wing support they moved further to the right, Cable disappointed me by _mostly_ falling into line, and actually abandoned a lot of their real economic sensibilities.

I find myself defending Labour's record more than I set out to at times like this. They didn't run the government I would've run. In brief:



While well-meaning and actually _not_ fiscally irresponsible, many of their investment programmes were heavy-handed, stank of personal ambition and cost too much for what they delivered;
Labour fully adopted the Conservative's PFI deal concept, which was a disaster;
They refused to improve banking regulation, living in a neoliberal "we've defeated boom and bust" dreamworld and dooming us to being hit by the 2008 crisis;
Despite the left 50%-or-more of the population strongly wanting nationalisation of many services, a major crackdown on tax evasion and a much better welfare system, 'New Labour' went all Tory Lite and showed very little interest in any of that;
Afghanistan/Iraq.



jetwaterluffy1 said:


> Regardless, how left or right wing you are isn't whether you balance the books, it's how you do it: for the right it's cuts; for the left, it's taxing the rich. On the flip side, how you spend money is similar, for the left it's increased public spending, for the right it's tax cuts.


Basically. Though with the scale of our tax evasion problem (greater than our current disastrous deficit, similar in size to all NHS funding put together), we don't actually need higher taxes on paper. We just need better enforcement of the taxes we have. The Conservatives are unforgivable for not committing to that fight: tax evasion isn't a left vs. right issue, it's simply corruption.

Also, there's another side: "how you spend money" could be rephrased as "how you stimulate the economy", and we must bear in mind that you can balance the books by increasing tax receipts through public spending that creates new or better jobs. A principled left-wing strategy right now is to do this, plus clamp down on tax evasion ? actual tax increases on the rich don't really feature. Labour are only talking about undoing the Conservative's reductions last I heard.

(The Greens are more committed to actually increasing taxes on the rich, I think, but I see that more as a commitment to dealing with climate change, which is an additional challenge on top of the deficit.)



Morglay said:


> Clegg won't even be able to get a sniff at  leading the country again. Nobody wants someone spineless who is prone  to getting bullied as a head of state. That apology was just pathetic  and weak.


It was. And of course he'd never be a head of  state. He _may_ still get to play coalition partner. First question  is if he can keep hold of his seat: that's actually about 50:50.

Conservatives  are forecasting at 275-290 seats. They need 326 for a majority. Lib  Dems will lose most of their 57 seats, dropping to 15?30. It's possible  we could keep the Con/Lib coalition, although it's looking tough.

Labour  are _also_ forecasting at 270?290 seats. They'd be more likely to  band together with the SNP who're likely to have 40?50 seats. (I doubt  you'd get the upper end of both ranges there, since some of those will  be the same seats.)

The chance of Nick Clegg staying in as deputy  prime minister has got to be around 20% still, and it'd be higher if  Sheffield wasn't so likely to personally kick him out of Parliament.

It's  an interesting election. In traditional terms, the 'outcome' (Con  majority, Lab majority, hung) is more predictable than ever before. It's  looking pretty well hung. But what government will form is really hard  to judge. Con+Lib, Lab+SNP and Lab+Lib are all a) equally uncertain to  form a majority, which would only be a weak one, and b) about equal for  bad consequences (Lab+SNP means partnering with a party that doesn't  want to be in the union ? and any LD coalition is going to drive the  country to murder).

I toy with the ridiculous idea of Con+Lab. I  don't want it, but with how close I think the two parties really are,  the threat of an SNP relationship and how much both would like the Lib  Dems to not exist, there's a strange logic behind the madness of it. But  it'd be just as likely to fracture both parties internally as it would  to reimpose a two party system in 2020.


----------



## Hozukimaru (Apr 6, 2015)

Let's look at the main pledges of each party, the ones that BBC lists are their key priorities:

_Labour_

1. Cut the deficit every year, no extra borrowing for manifesto commitments
2. Make it illegal for employers to undercut British workers by exploiting migrants
3. Extra ?2.5bn funding for the NHS, to pay for 20,000 more nurses and 8,000 GPs
4. Cut university tuition fees by ?3,000
5. Freeze energy bills until 2017 and give energy regulator new powers to cut bills this winter

_Conservatives_

1. Eliminating the deficit
2. Cutting taxes by raising basic and higher rate starting points
3. Helping people to own their own home and have financial independence in retirement
4. Providing an education system that helps children reach their potential
5. Holding a referendum on Britain?s EU membership

_UKIP_

1. Rapid referendum on Britain?s membership of the European Union
2. Control immigration
3. Powers for voters to recall MPs
4. Extra ?3bn a year for the NHS
5. No tax on the minimum wage

_Lib Dems_

1. Balance the budget fairly through a mixture of cuts and taxes on higher earners
2. Increase tax-free allowance to ?12,500
3. Guarantee education funding from nursery to 19 and qualified teachers in every class
4. Invest ?8bn in the NHS. Equal care for mental & physical health
5. Five new laws to protect nature and fight climate change

_Greens_

1. Wants an end to austerity and the minimum wage to be raised to ?10 an hour by 2020
2. Backs an environmentally-friendly economy relying less on fossil fuels
3. Believes in free university tuition and a non-repayable student grant
4. Fully behind a free publicly-available NHS


----------



## Aduro (Apr 6, 2015)

Hozukimaru said:


> Let's look at the main pledges of each party, the ones that BBC lists are their key priorities:
> 
> _Labour_
> 
> ...



1. All the parties will be promising this
2. Vague and unhelpful
3 No chance
4. Hopefully true but still annoying for me as I already payed 9000 for this year
5. Energy giants are pretty powerful but they might have a chance.




Hozukimaru said:


> _Conservatives_
> 
> 1. Eliminating the deficit
> 2. Cutting taxes by raising basic and higher rate starting points
> ...


1. Obvious all parties claim this.
2 & 3. Believable but probably for the "hard-working" rich or those willing to get into debt
4. Eton Mafia and Academy elitism. Probably drive out more teachers.
5. God I hope not.



Hozukimaru said:


> _UKIP_
> 
> 1. Rapid referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union
> 2. Control immigration
> ...


1. God I hope not.
3. Major constitutional change, unlikely to be accepted, they're just trying to look more democratic.
4. Fuck off will that happen
5. So people will be payed slightly over minimum wage?



Hozukimaru said:


> _Lib Dems_
> 
> 1. Balance the budget fairly through a mixture of cuts and taxes on higher earners
> 2. Increase tax-free allowance to ?12,500
> ...



1. Somewhat plausible, if from the greedy bullshit party
3. Hopefully true but government interference in schools tends to have the opposite effect.
4. LOL even more of an exaggeration than UKIP. They wouldn't even promise this if they thought they could reach last elections popularity.
5. Trying to win Green coaltion for tories or labour.



Hozukimaru said:


> _Greens_
> 
> 1. Wants an end to austerity and the minimum wage to be raised to ?10 an hour by 2020
> 2. Backs an environmentally-friendly economy relying less on fossil fuels
> ...



Doesn't matter they won't get large amounts of seats relative to their proportion of votes.
1. Could be a genuinely useful policy but would lead to inflation unless they tac the rich more.
3. Ditto
2. Well if they are in a coalition they could encourage this.
4.  Technically we have that for all citizens besides prescription charges dental etc. Not pledging any money.


----------



## N120 (Apr 6, 2015)

both the conservatives and labour can argue that their plans on spending/tax cuts were engineered to stimulate growth.

Like you said, labour did spend and that expenditure wasn't without its flaws. The NHS was top heavy, as were most govt depts with beaurocracy and money wasted on expensive agency workers on short term contracts as opposed to secure employment.

People/opposition complained about this prior to labours exit of the over bloated govt system. People felt overwhelmed by the size of it and what it was costing us to sustain it. It also didn't help their cause to over legislate, at one point people were calling it the nanny state.

In addition to the spending problem we saw a decline in teachers, nurses, doctors and such, a problem which was/is compounded by cuts and renewing running contracts on less lucrative terms. Money wasn't always spent wisely, and not always in the right places.

IVe got nothing against govt spending as long as it's invested in the right places.

cameron on the otherhand came through with the promise to change that philosophy, to downsize govt (along with its expenses), cut off the excess fat and rely more on big society(local initiatives) and businesses to generate the wealth and long term stability.

 Where labour failed, cons are trying to rectify, for eg. a policy which gets my thumbs up is shift from blairs university drive to now an emphasis and funding provided towards apprenticeship schemes, which to my mind was a sensible move for the future.

Having said that, the problem with the cons is that they too are top heavy, only that they incentivise the rich. they don't respect the workforce, their policies hit the most vulnerable in our society and the benefits of growth and wealth aren't redistributed throughout the economy, but creamed off by the wealthy and shovelled into off-shore bank accounts.

I'm not a big labour or cons fan, I can see valid arguments from both camps. Having said that I'm probably more left leaning than I like to think I am. 

Eg. Like you pointed out I support/sympathise with the idea of renationalising our core infrastructure, What worries me however is the gov management over them, which has always been poor.

With labour, you can't help but think this unionist mentality/structure will creep in and overtake these infrastructures to a point where they become unsustainable and a money pit.

Shame we have no balance between the two.


----------



## Nemesis (Apr 6, 2015)

Hozukimaru said:


> Let's look at the main pledges of each party, the ones that BBC lists are their key priorities:
> 
> _Labour_
> 
> ...



1) Everyone is doing a variation of this.
2) Isn't it already illegal
3)  Can't complain good policy
4) Ditto
5) If anything with the fuel costs going down, freezing isn't what is needed but a reduction in costs to the customer.



> _Conservatives_
> 
> 1. Eliminating the deficit
> 2. Cutting taxes by raising basic and higher rate starting points
> ...



1) Everyone is promising
2) Only cutting on the top which will help no one.  Plus can't cut taxes and reduce deficit without massive cuts in the public spending (sorry that ?1 in every one hundred isn't going to work and too vague)
3) Could work but only if they pay for new houses built.
4) Vague, no details
5) As long as it isn't too quick.  But honestly Cameron isn't going to get those nice treats he is after from EU.



> _UKIP_
> 
> 1. Rapid referendum on Britain?s membership of the European Union
> 2. Control immigration
> ...



1)  Watch businesses when this starts to stay away from making investments into the UK, while those in the UK start looking elsewhere.

2) UKIP to English translation:  Basically Germans ok but none of those filthy Bulgarians, Romanians, Greeks, Italians.

3) Watch how if this happens Bye-Elections happen every couple weeks

4) No they will destroy the NHS.  Sorry you may try to hide it UKIP but your deputy basically had on the front of his web site till a few weeks ago how he wants to destroy the NHS since it is evil.

5) There is no tax on min wage.  No one makes that much on min wage a year to be taxed.  But of course UKIP being extreme tories want to actually destroy min wage.




> _Lib Dems_
> 
> 1. Balance the budget fairly through a mixture of cuts and taxes on higher earners
> 2. Increase tax-free allowance to ?12,500
> ...



1) Again everyone doing this.  But what is needed is more details.
2) No complaints
3) More details required
4) Sounds good
5) Sounds good too.

6) Lib Dem issues are the past 5 years they slept with the devil and now going to be destroyed because of it.  They need a good internal look after the election even IF they go into coalition and first things first oust Clegg.  Or show what would have happened if they didn't reign in on the tories.



> _Greens_
> 
> 1. Wants an end to austerity and the minimum wage to be raised to ?10 an hour by 2020
> 2. Backs an environmentally-friendly economy relying less on fossil fuels
> ...



1) Looks good
2) Needs to be done would make us more independent in energy
3) Can't complain.
4) Can't complain

Too bad they will have double the votes of the SNP but only 1 MP which will make them a non issue in westminster.


----------



## Esponer (Apr 6, 2015)

N120 said:


> both the conservatives and labour can argue that their plans on spending/tax cuts were engineered to stimulate growth.


True. You stimulate growth by getting consumers spending more, which can be done either way. On the face of it, a tax cut does it more directly. The Tory way is to prefer cutting the top rate of tax, though, which has three problems right now.



The recession didn't hurt the rich. In fact, let's be real: it didn't hurt _a lot_ of middle class people. I didn't feel it at all, on a twentysomething's graduate job. It _did_ affect a lot of people, but it was really the poorest.
Figures show QE (quantitative easing) fed 40% of the economic benefit to the 5% wealthiest. Already, before Tory policy comes into play.
The Marginal Propensity to Consume of the rich is lower than the poor. i.e., if you boost the poor's disposable income, they spend it right back into the economy and you get a fiscal multiplier effect. If you boost the rich's disposable income, you get less of an effect.
Technically the rich's wealth doesn't stagnate in a bank ? it's invested out. But it's a less direct stimulus to growth than getting people consuming directly, and how the bank chooses to invest it can be disastrous. See: 2008.


If I was going to compare government spending to invest in the economy to directly increasing disposable income (whether cutting taxes or otherwise), I'd compare it to raising the disposable income of the _consuming_ class. Then the picture is like this:


Stimulate growth through?



Government spending ? Labour.
Increase disposable income of the poor?
?by taxing them less ? Liberal Democrat.
?significantly raising the minimum wage ? Greens.

Increase disposable income of the rich by taxing them less ? Conservatives.


Bit simplistic as most of them do a combination, but it seems like their priorities. I just don't think 3 is a good idea, and I think you can see that in how the economy hasn't recovered as quickly as it should, and as it has in the past. Also, I worry that the real effect of cutting the taxes of the rich is just to create more wealth disparity and build a dependence of the state on cap-in-hand borrowing. If the rich have too much, the state can't function without borrowing from them unless it becomes a minarchy. Maybe the Conservatives want that, but I also think their sponsors quite _like_ being able to indebt the government to them and thus exercise more control.




N120 said:


> Like you said, labour did spend and that expenditure wasn't without its flaws. The NHS was top heavy, as were most govt depts with beauracracy and money wasted on expensive agency workers on short term contracts as opposed secure employment(thats another issue, 0hour contracts).
> 
> People/opposition complained about this prior to labours exit of the over bloated govt system. People felt overwhelmed by the size of it and what it was costing us to sustain it. It also didn't help their cause to over legislate, at one point people were calling it the nanny state.


I agree with quite a bit of this. I want to dig more into the NHS. Ideologically I can't support any profit motive anywhere in the NHS. But I'd like to get into the detail of the structure and just how much it's value for money. I need to learn more on this. I've seen figures saying it actually _is_ great value for money, but I think it's hard to actually be a Briton using the NHS and honestly believe it's not choked by bureaucracy.

But there's an important note here. The NHS wasn't choked by bureaucracy originally because of Labour. It started with Thatcher commissioning the Griffiths Report in 1983. Labour should've been improving that, not worsening it, but still: both major parties have utterly failed on the NHS.



N120 said:


> In addition to the spending problem we saw a decline in teachers, nurses, doctors and such, a problem which was/is compounded by cuts and renewing contracts on less lucrative terms. Money wasn't always spent wisely, and not always in the right places.
> 
> IVe got nothing against govt spending as long as it's invested in the right places.


I think there was an attitude in Labour's '97-2010 government of father-knows-best imperialism. Underqualified politicians created glossy programmes that were blatantly supposed to be their personal 'legacy', and which weren't properly researched. It's probably my main complaint with Labour, parallel with the related move to authoritarianism. It's not something I really attach with the left-wing or the right-wing, and when I say Labour should be left and has shifted right, their father-knows-best state tendencies are a whole other dimension.



N120 said:


> cameron on the otherhand came through with the promise to change that philosophy, to downsize govt(along with its expenses), cut off the excess fat and rely more on big society(local initiatives) and businesses to generate the wealth and long term stability.
> 
> Where labour failed, cons are trying to rectify, for eg. a policy which gets my thumbs up is shift from blairs university drive to now an emphasis and funding provided towards apprenticeship schemes, which to my mind was a sensible move for the future.


Need to learn more about what's actually going on with apprenticeship schemes. It's actually something in principle I completely agree with. Too many people are going to university, which devalues the degrees and has turned many universities into? farms, frankly. I keep hearing political ideas about apprenticeships but I haven't seen any of the problems I have with education get any better yet. University admissions need to drop, and we also need to be sure they're cutting the least qualified, not the least wealthy.

I guess also I don't trust the Conservatives to cut the 'fat', even where I believe it's there. The benefit crackdown has hurt too many people I know, people who have been victimised by a target-based system that's come to the wrong conclusion about their conditions. Too much of this 'fat-cutting' seems ideologically driven more than anything: there's so much more money in tax evasion than there is in a victim-blaming benefit crackdown.

And the Big Society is a joke. We're to rely on charities? Charities are shutting down. The charity I volunteer at used to rent a property that was shared between two other charities. One of the three lost funding and had to shut down. As a consequence, the remaining two couldn't afford the rent any more. We both managed to cling on, but in relocating had to shut down many of our services.



N120 said:


> Having said, the problem with the cons is that that they too are top heavy, only that they incentivise the rich. they don't respect the workforce, their policies hit the most vulnerable in our society and the benefit of growth and wealth aren't distributed throughout the economy, but creamed off by the wealthy and shovelled into off shore bank accounts.
> 
> I'm not a big labour or cons fan, I can see valid arguments from both camps. Having said that I'm probably more left leaning than I like to think I am.


I guess we're very much in agreement about that!



N120 said:


> Eg. Like you pointed out I support/sympathise with the idea of renationalising our core infrastructure, What worries me however is the gov management over them, which has always been poor.
> 
> With labour, you can't help but think this unionist mentality/structure will creep in and overtake these infrastructures to a point where they become unsustainable and a money pit.
> 
> Shame we have no balance between the two.


I've seen a lot of figures showing that our nationalised services still operated pretty efficiently compared to privatised monopolies. But still, I agree with your central point: I don't feel they've been run as well as they _could_. Labour should cut its ideological fat if it's going to be the party of renationalising. Too much health and safety, too much PR, too much litigation culture, too much legacy-building, too much management, not enough respect for genuine expertise. But I still strongly feel the best answer is a lot of renationalisation, handled well in a way which _should_ be achievable.

As for balance? well, at one point I looked to the Liberal Democrat party for that. Right now my attitude is more to support what's left of the genuine left-wing, but hope that it grows and evolves. Grassroots left-wing has its own whole set of flaws and vulnerabilities, as I've learned from a few months in an organisation for politically unaligned lefties to debate. There are _so_ many idealists who don't know what they're doing. Still, the country is more left-wing than its mainstream parties represent, there _is_ a sensible set of centre-left policies out there to be found, and I hope somehow we get to the stage we can vote for it.


----------



## N120 (Apr 6, 2015)

@esponer.

I'll be honest, at one point my brain froze. I guess that your elite education levels > mine. 

So I read it twice. 

I can't find much there that I'm not in agreement with. So this is more of a message of support than a counter post. 



Hozukimaru said:


> Let's look at the main pledges of each party, the ones that BBC lists are their key priorities:
> 
> _Labour_
> 
> ...



1. If 4 and 3 are to be believed, then is that doable? Labour are also planning to make cuts just as the Tories are, so how are they costing it and promising no extra borrowing?

2. Sound bites, it's illegal anyway.
3. A policy we need, but what of the future? 

4. It's a silly move, eradicate it altogether. I'm of the principle that basic level of Education and NHS should be free. We need to invest in peoples health and development in order to push ourselves forward. In the end society benefits. charging students forces talent out of the system and restricts their growth. 

5. Either allow greater scope for competition to drive prices down naturally or take control of said Institutions and charge at cost prices. It's silly to privatise them then tell the contracted providers that they can't make money beyond a set figure, once a cap is introduced they'll hike up prices to the cap limit and then cut corners to secure higher profit from the set pool.



> _Conservatives_
> 
> 1. Eliminating the deficit
> 2. Cutting taxes by raising basic and higher rate starting points
> ...



1. Cool story bro.
2. Why not link Both the minimum wage and the band at which tax is payable to inflation? While we are it, what of 0 hour contracts?
3. So far, most of the developments are pricing people out. Esp in London.
4.cool story bro.
5. Will see how it develops. But giving racists the chance to come out of Europe is not the best option. Would have been better off challenging Europe to reform and then pinning the referendum on wether reformations were possible or not. 

This would pressure the EU and ease public concern.



> _UKIP_
> 
> 1. Rapid referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union
> 2. Control immigration
> ...



1. .... unlikely to happen as they wont get the support they need to legislate such a move.
2......non EU, sure.
3. Surprised this wasn't proposed earlier. 
4. ........how?
5. Same answer as above.



> _Lib Dems_
> 
> 1. Balance the budget fairly through a mixture of cuts and taxes on higher earners
> 2. Increase tax-free allowance to ?12,500
> ...



1. They will have to follow the coalition partners policies on major issues.
2. That trick.
3.  would have thought you'd learn the first time round, Mr. Clegg. Education is compulsory upto the age 18 anyway.
4.cool story bro.
5. And they are?



> _Greens_
> 
> 1. Wants an end to austerity and the minimum wage to be raised to ?10 an hour by 2020
> 2. Backs an environmentally-friendly economy relying less on fossil fuels
> ...



1. This is confusing, how will they fulfill all 4 pledges and cut national debt?
2. How? What exactly are you going to target and how much will it cost?
3. Cool.
4. Cool.

every party so far has promised to increase the threshold of tax, and/or increase in minimum wage. But in real terms wages are cut every year, so why not link minimum wage and the threshold of taxation to inflation like everything else?. We won't need to hear promises of minimum wage rises every other election, which is supposed to do just that anyway.

The NHS needs better management and organisation, alongside its funding. It's better to fund at cost basis than pour x amount of money in and hope for the best. This is the area where we need more creativity, better infrastructure, a long term plan and greater responsibility.

>more in-house training facilities to train doctors/nurses/carers.
>restructure commercial deals with pharmaceuticals and if need be co-produce drugs and development of medicine and techniques in specialised units to lower costs of drugs and treatment. Some of these partnership can be ofset to already established specialist hospitals where both independent companies can operate alongside NHS teams. Ie we pay our share instead of commercial rates.


Education should be free.

There needs to be a greater drive to diversify our economy.  
development, technology and maufacturing should be pushed as we are too reliant on the financial/service sector. We need to incentivize small businesses to take risks and push our creative/development sector. if the apprenticeship scheme can work alongside them, then we could push towards having a more productive population in the long run.

The service sector will grow as it has done.

Meh, Same old nonsence every 5 years.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (Apr 7, 2015)

Esponer said:


> Conservatives  are forecasting at 275-290 seats. They need 326 for a majority. Lib  Dems will lose most of their 57 seats, dropping to 15?30. It's possible  we could keep the Con/Lib coalition, although it's looking tough.



You need 323 for a majority. You're forgetting that the 5 sinn fein MPs never turn up.


----------



## Hozukimaru (Apr 7, 2015)

Now that their key priorities are known I'll make their plans for the _economy_ more specific:

_Labour_

1. Deliver a surplus on the current budget in the next parliament, with debt falling as a share of GDP
2. Raise minimum wage to ?8 an hour and ban ?exploitative? zero hours contracts
3. No additional borrowing for new spending
4. 80,000 more apprenticeships

_Conservative_

1. Eliminate the deficit and run an overall surplus by the end of the parliament
2. Aim for full employment where "anyone who wants a job is able to get a job"
3. Use money saved in reducing the benefits cap to fund 3 million apprenticeships
4. Triple the number of start-up loans to businesses to 75,000

_UKIP_

1. Reduce Britain?s debts
2. Review all legislation and regulations from the EU and remove those hampering British competitiveness
3. Negotiate a bespoke trade agreement with Europe
4. Enhance the UK?s position at the World Trade Organisation

_Lib Dems_

1. Deal with deficit by 2017/18 with a mixture of spending cuts & tax rises
2. Expand apprenticeships and develop national colleges for vocational skills
3. Extend reserved paternity leave from 2 to 6 weeks
4. Raise ?1bn from extra corporation tax on banking sector

_Green_

1. Increase the minimum wage to ?10 per hour by 2020
2. End austerity measures and restore public sector jobs
3. Ban "exploitative" zero-hours contracts
4. Introduce a maximum 35-hour working week


----------



## Esponer (Apr 7, 2015)

jetwaterluffy1 said:
			
		

> You need 323 for a majority. You're forgetting that the 5 sinn fein MPs never turn up.


Point. I got myself mixed up thinking it was 326 even considering that.



			
				Hozukimaru said:
			
		

> _Labour
> _4. 80,000 more apprenticeships
> 
> _Conservative
> ...


It'd be good to include more detail than this. I'm worried that 'apprenticeship' is becoming a weasel word.

For instance, apparently 93% of apprenticeships started by people over 25 (a massively growing category) are for employers _they already worked for_. I wouldn't call that an apprenticeship ? I'd call that your current job's training programme.

I like apprenticeships in principle, but I don't know whether what's being delivered are useful changes to our education system, or even if they basically operate as corporation tax cuts on the sly by paying corporations to do what they need to do anyway.

Of note is that in my link above, Labour's 80,000 is much more strongly linked to _school leavers_, and commit that their apprenticeships last 2 years and are Level 3 qualifications or higher. I don't know if the Conservative's 3 million promised apprenticeships are of the same kind of quality.


----------



## Nemesis (May 6, 2015)

With just over 24 hours until polls open here is the latest look at both the popular vote and the likely make up of the results of the General Election according to  going by Lord Ashcroft (who is considered the foremost in the UK.  Even if he is with the Conservative party)

Con/Labour 33% each (first and second)
Ukip 14% (third)
Lib Dems 9% (4th)
Greens 5% (fifth)
SNP 4% (Six)

But Commons set up like (Going by Ashcroft)
Cons 273
Lab 268
SNP 56
Lib Dems 28
UKIP 2
Greens 1

Honestly I think election day will not be the big event.  It will be the opening with the next few days making the political excitement.

Also as of right now my mind is made up which way I am voting.  Labour on national level.  Local level I will vote for certain people regardless of political party.


----------



## Saishin (May 6, 2015)

oh my god who gonna win? the polls say they are very tight


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (May 6, 2015)

Nobody is going to win, the polls and predictions make that very likely.


----------



## Nemesis (May 6, 2015)

Whoever gets into number 10 will be decided likely by the SNP.  They're the only ones who will likely have enough MPs to back Labour or Conservatives.

But they know if they back the conservatives they will be hit harder than the Lib Dems (Conservatives in Scotland is poison and SNP have essentially come out that they will stop a conservative queen's speech on principle).  They will likely have to grin and bare Labour while trying to stop some of the more harsh of Labour plans on austerity.

When it comes to trident they're a non entity.  Labour and Conservatives will both vote yes putting the yes vote to over 500.  Although there is a possibility of a few labour and lib dems voting against.

Although I do find it funny that Labour talk about no deals with SNP when they are linked to SDLP in Northern Ireland who have the same goal of breaking up the UK with peaceful democratic means.  SDLP promote unification of North and Southern Ireland as part of the Republic of Ireland.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (May 6, 2015)

Nemesis said:


> Whoever gets into number 10 will be decided likely by the SNP.  They're the only ones who will likely have enough MPs to back Labour or Conservatives.
> 
> But they know if they back the conservatives they will be hit harder than the Lib Dems (Conservatives in Scotland is poison and SNP have essentially come out that they will stop a conservative queen's speech on principle).  They will likely have to grin and bare Labour while trying to stop some of the more harsh of Labour plans on austerity.
> 
> ...



Well for one thing, northern ireland isn't part of the mainland so people often forget about it, and another, northern ireland in some ways is a bit of an embarrassment for the rest of the UK, whilst people are generally proud of Scotland. Also there's the fact that the DUP can have some extreme views and used to have ties to paramilitaries, the UUP has ties to the tory party, and alliance has ties to the lib dems, so the only remaining parties are republican.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (May 6, 2015)

jetwaterluffy1 said:


> Well for one thing, northern ireland isn't part of the mainland so people often forget about it, and another, northern ireland in some ways is a bit of an embarrassment for the rest of the UK, *whilst people are generally proud of Scotland.* Also there's the fact that the DUP can have some extreme views and used to have ties to paramilitaries, the UUP has ties to the tory party, and alliance has ties to the lib dems, so the only remaining parties are republican.



Literally who?

The Scots are slowly eclipsing the English as the lepers of the UK. The Welsh can't stand them, the English don't care about them, foremost, and Northern Ireland - who cares about NI? Point is the SNP is turning the rest of the UK against the Scots - just as planned.


----------



## Torpedo Titz (May 6, 2015)

MbS said:


> *Conservatives*: we don?t care about people without jobs.



And so they shouldn't.

I was a post-school NEET for 1-2 years suckling the benefits system dry and shitposting all day. Several years later I earn enough to move out and have fantastic career prospects. How did this happen? Through my own grit to persist in shit jobs and shit industries, while developing my skills, building my experience and setting up a network of business contacts.

Largely speaking, people without jobs can fuck off. I only have mercy for rare and authentic disability cases or recent redundancy.

Supporting single, working mothers through child benefit (for example) is a different kettle of fish.

I'm voting Tory tomorrow to finish the job. To smash bureaucracy and decades of rampant benefits for good. The day Labour supports the working man is the day I'll reconsider.


----------



## N120 (May 6, 2015)

Jon Stark said:


> And so they shouldn't.
> 
> I was a post-school NEET for 1-2 years suckling the benefits system dry and shitposting all day. Several years later I earn enough to move out and have fantastic career prospects. How did this happen? Through my own grit to persist in shit jobs and shit industries, while developing my skills, building my experience and setting up a network of business contacts.
> 
> ...



Problem being low and middle income earners don't particularly relate to the tories, and majority of the benefit scroungers are old age pensioners and the royal family.

People without jobs need jobs not benefits, not caring about the situation hardly solves the problem.


----------



## Sunuvmann (May 6, 2015)

Saishin said:


> oh my god who gonna win? the polls say they are very tight





jetwaterluffy1 said:


> Nobody is going to win, the polls and predictions make that very likely.





Labour-SNP-Lib Dem coalition is the most likely result.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (May 6, 2015)

Jon Stark said:


> And so they shouldn't.
> 
> I was a post-school NEET for 1-2 years suckling the benefits system dry and shitposting all day. Several years later I earn enough to move out and have fantastic career prospects. How did this happen? Through my own grit to persist in shit jobs and shit industries, while developing my skills, building my experience and setting up a network of business contacts.
> 
> ...



You’re under the perception that certain people on benefits are scroungers, like you were. There’s some truth in that, welfare has been heavily abused under Labour: welfare should never be more lucrative then employment. But you’re using an anecdote as evidence of criterion. For any positive anecdote you give me, I can give you back a negative one.

The major problem for the unemployed is Zero Hour contracts; they're are not apprenticeships or a guarantee of transitioning people back into long-term work – they’re cheap and convenient temporary labour for employers and business. There’s also the growing disparity between job availability and opportunity between the South and oop North the Tories think they can remedy by building a rail track linking the two closer.

Zero Contracts don't curb unemployment; they are part of the problem perpetuating it.

And despite Labour promising to abolish zero hours, regularly use them with their staff and employees too. It's just a greater indictment of how the modern Labour Party doesn't care about the working class.


----------



## Nemesis (May 6, 2015)

Honestly I don't think ALL zero hour contracts should be banned.  Sometimes work is flexible which does suite the zero hour but most of the time there is an issue with zero hour contracts.  I used to be on them and having weeks where you're not working is an ass but for some companies it is what is needed.

I feel though the biggest problem is the demonization of those on JSA and other benefits.  Most of them are looking for proper work.  Right now I am one of them, I apply for anything that I can do within reason (As in nothing that ends late because public transport here stops at around 9pm).  But what I do find is some of the hoops you have to go through to be dumb.  2 week course (10 days 6 hours a day) on how to write a damn CV, the whole work for benefits situation as well.  Look I am not against people doing work, but the latter is also part of the reason for unemployment being higher than it needs to be.  These companies take the person on benefits, get their free labour and then the person gets dumped off and replaced.  That helps no one apart from the business and has caused people to lose out on their chosen careers. (That girl who was actually doing volunteer work in a museum who had to leave because she'd lose out on benefits if she didn't go stack fucking shelves) It also has the person working full time for less than minimum wage.  We have the damn minimum wage for a reason and it is not to subsidize businesses with job seekers who the business doesn't have to pay for.


----------



## Easley (May 6, 2015)

I think the Conservatives will do a lot better than people expect. Polls often understate Tory support. It's Labour that is in a very precarious position. The party could always rely on Scotland giving them a large number of seats. At this election they might lose over 30, worst case scenario possibly all of them. If their English vote doesn't hold up, the Tories might even gain an overall majority. A Labour/SNP coalition would be a disaster. 

I'm voting Conservative. They've done a decent job with the economy and should be given more time. Handing the reins over to Labour now is a very bad idea. The terrible trio of Miliband, Harman, and Balls don't inspire much confidence. Ed is also gaffe-prone. And who can forget the "stone tablet" manifesto, or the sex-segregated rally in Birmingham? Embarrassing.


----------



## Nemesis (May 6, 2015)

The tories have NOT done a good job at all.  The sex segregated rally in Birmingham was a local issue that took place in a Mosque, not a prayer room but it still had to go by the buildings rules.

The stone tablet. At least that can't really be changed and people can bring it up if things don't go their way.  

Economy.  You mean how Debt to GDP is UP rather than down.  When Tories took over it was 70% of entire GDP now it is at 90%.

The job market that is essentially a time bomb that is ticking ready to self destruct.

The whole "You're all better off now." thing which isn't true at all.  The only ones better off are the ones who are already wealthy.

Austerity program that doesn't work, needs to be destroyed.  Country needs investment not cuts.

If you want gaffes how about the whole Business letter supporting the conservatives that was proven to be fraudulent.  Many on the list have spoken out saying they not only didn't write their names on the list they would never sign anything pro tory.  (Which in turn ended up with a conservative plant in question time trying to outright defend the letter which was defunct.  Which Ed should have struck her back with but didn't)


----------



## Sunuvmann (May 6, 2015)

The only reason things are less shit is when the austerity turned out to be terrible as everyone knew it would and there was almost a double dip recession in 2012, the Tories quietly scaled back on their austerity.

Inflicting less harm isn't actually making things better.

Also, I would trust in five thirty eight's numbers. Their track record here in the US is pretty damn superb. They're statistical masters.


----------



## Easley (May 6, 2015)

My constituency is a Labour stronghold so a Tory vote is almost worthless here, but if you ask someone why they voted Labour its usually because they dislike the Conservatives, NOT because Labour have superior policies. It's funny. Some people still think they represent the working class and vote for them come what may. New Labour is not the same party. If these working class regions woke up, Labour would be finished.

Economically, the Tories have been decent, not great, but I doubt Labour could've done better - and possibly much worse. As the opposition they can safely make lots of fancy claims but unless their policies are put into practice there's no way of knowing how effective they'd be. I hope we don't find out the hard way. 

If the SNP win big in Scotland, and Labour are solid in England, I can imagine Nicola Sturgeon being the puppet mistress pulling Ed's strings.


----------



## Sunuvmann (May 6, 2015)

Easley said:


> My constituency is a Labour stronghold so a Tory vote is almost worthless here, but if you ask someone why they voted Labour its usually because they dislike the Conservatives, NOT because Labour have superior policies. It's funny. Some people still think they represent the working class and vote for them come what may. New Labour is not the same party. If these working class regions woke up, Labour would be finished.


Well yes, they'd be much better with Green but until there is a more proportional system, that would be a meaningless vote.



> Economically, the Tories have been decent, not great, but I doubt Labour could've done better - and possibly much worse. As the opposition they can safely make lots of fancy claims but unless their policies are put into practice there's no way of knowing how effective they'd be. I hope we don't find out the hard way.


Yeah, there, you're completely wrong.

The US has continued to do far better than the UK in growth because we did the stimulus and Obama mitigated the damages of the small bout of austerity we had when the Republicans won congress.


> If the SNP win big in Scotland, and Labour are solid in England, I can imagine Nicola Sturgeon being the puppet mistress pulling Ed's strings.


Or she could be a completely ineffectual junior partner as Clegg was.

What's she going to do? Switch sides? They would be destroyed. Anything that enables the Tories would guarantee their loss.

And if she dropped out of the coalition for an early election, they'd probably be punished as well. Her threats are hollow so she will fall in line.


Anyway, as I think was said on this thread (head's a bit fuzzy from cold), particularly Scottish issues like the Trident thing, Tories will vote with most of Labour to shut that down.


----------



## Easley (May 6, 2015)

Sunuvmann said:


> Yeah, there, you're completely wrong.
> 
> The US has continued to do far better than the UK in growth because we did the stimulus and Obama mitigated the damages of the small bout of austerity we had when the Republicans won congress.


UK growth rate in 2014 was 2.8%. US growth rate was 2.4%.

Conservative economic policy was recently praised by the IMF, so they are doing something right.



> Or she could be a completely ineffectual junior partner as Clegg was.
> 
> What's she going to do? Switch sides? They would be destroyed. Anything that enables the Tories would guarantee their loss.
> 
> And if she dropped out of the coalition for an early election, they'd probably be punished as well. Her threats are hollow so she will fall in line.


Sturgeon is far more calculating than Clegg will ever be. She also represents Scotland on a Nationalist platform and is likely to use her influence to the max. I'm pretty sure Ed will concede many points if it keeps the coalition intact. Hypothetical of course.


----------



## Atlantic Storm (May 6, 2015)

Easley said:


> UK growth rate in 2014 was 2.8%. US growth rate was 2.4%.
> 
> Conservative economic policy was recently praised by the IMF, so they are doing something right.



A growth rate of 2.8% is good for any  developed economy, but is  probably being oversold quite a bit by the  Conservatives. It's nice to  look at, but not really all that impressive  when you consider that a  lot of it just went towards catching up with  the other economies. We're  doing well, so we may well overtake some of  them, but I'm not sure if  the UK's good fortunes are going to last.

The Tories have done well given their situation, though. I'll agree to that.

(Don't mind me, I'm just an A-level student trying to ease into posting  into the Caf? to  force myself into getting more exposed to politics and  economics news. My opinion really isn't all that well educated.)


----------



## Han Solo (May 6, 2015)

Easley said:


> UK growth rate in 2014 was 2.8%. US growth rate was 2.4%.
> 
> Conservative economic policy was recently praised by the IMF, so they are doing something right.





Productivity in the UK is still below the 2008 peak, unlike every other G7 economy. Of course it was going up until 2010/2011 when the Tory policies really started to go into effect.

We also have some of the worst current account deficits in a long time.


----------



## Nemesis (May 6, 2015)

Easley said:


> UK growth rate in 2014 was 2.8%. US growth rate was 2.4%.
> 
> Conservative economic policy was recently praised by the IMF, so they are doing something right.



And every economist outright praised Brown and Obama for their response following the start of the 2008 crash.




> Sturgeon is far more calculating than Clegg will ever be. She also represents Scotland on a Nationalist platform and is likely to use her influence to the max. I'm pretty sure Ed will concede many points if it keeps the coalition intact. Hypothetical of course.



The problem is there is no way Sturgeon can pull the plug under labour and keep the SNP in good views in the scottish voter.  She has to keep the line close.  Trident is a non issue, Every SNP MP can vote no and it will still be passed.  (Even though we should scrap trident and if we are to use Nukes to have our own one that doesn't rely on the US).

The SNP are in a good and bad position.  If they show anything pro Conservative they will lose the Labour voters in Scotland that went over.   If they stop Milliband MP they might end up causing another vote in November in which could push those Labour SNP voters back to Labour.  

But of course Labour has to be careful too.  If they allow Conservatives in power just to save face in England could be the biggest thing that pushes another Scottish independence.  That is something Labour just can not allow.  While they can win a majority without Scotland this election has shown how hard it is (If the SNP surge didn't happen.  Labour would be much closer to 300+ MPs).

There will be a deal to benefit both, there is too much to lose on both sides for there not to be.  Add that Plaid Cymru always vote along with SNP.  Greens will too (add another 4-5MPs) and the SDLP that takes Labour whip in Westminster (Another 1-2 MPs) it really logically has to happen.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (May 6, 2015)

Nemesis said:


> And every economist outright praised Brown and Obama for their response following the start of the 2008 crash.



Did they? I read an article a while back about how banks should be allowed to go bust.


----------



## Nemesis (May 6, 2015)

Is an article from 2008 mentioning how Brown did good.  Brown's problem was 2 fold.

1) In a democratic society you will end up with fatigue of one side or the other after a certain amount of time.

2) People too interested in PR than policy.  Charisma over substance.  If Brown had the Charisma of Obama he would have likely still be PM coming into this election.


----------



## Blue (May 6, 2015)

I'm not sure if you're saying the bailouts were a good thing or a bad thing, but either way, they were Bush policy that Obama continued, not Obama's idea.

All in all they seem to have worked out pretty good. There is some merit in the argument that failed banks should be allowed to bankrupt and restructure, but at the very least the bailouts didn't do any harm.


----------



## N120 (May 6, 2015)

The bailouts werent a success story either. 

Businesses found it difficult to borrow and expand, individuals found it difficult to finance new business ideas, and the banks did restructure their business and are now charging the average customer a set fee to use their services which were free pre-recession.

Add to that, the losses were taken on by the govt while the profit were being creamed off by private investors and individuals, and the bankers involved in the mess were still in many instances walking away with bonuses.

The people who lost out were tax payers, small businesses, savers and homeowners. You could probably add to that list.

The bailout should be working for the people, not private institutions which had bad business practices.


----------



## Nemesis (May 6, 2015)

Blue said:


> I'm not sure if you're saying the bailouts were a good thing or a bad thing, but either way, they were Bush policy that Obama continued, not Obama's idea.
> 
> All in all they seem to have worked out pretty good. There is some merit in the argument that failed banks should be allowed to bankrupt and restructure, but at the very least the bailouts didn't do any harm.



They imo were needed.  As much as i hate the whole too big to fail, not bailing them out would have caused things to be much much worse than what they are now.  The banks would have taken their money from somewhere else and that would have been all the savings within the accounts.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (May 7, 2015)

Nemesis said:


> 2) People too interested in PR than policy.  Charisma over substance.  If Brown had the Charisma of Obama he would have likely still be PM coming into this election.


Brown had plenty of charisma. His two main problems were:
1) He had a glass eye so he looked ugly.
2) Bigotgate.
Without those two factors, labour would probably have the largest number of seats right now. Brown may not be PM though.


Nemesis said:


> They imo were needed.  As much as i hate the whole too big to fail, not bailing them out would have caused things to be much much worse than what they are now.  The banks would have taken their money from somewhere else and that would have been all the savings within the accounts.


So you could pay back the people's savings. It would probably have cost about the same. I don't think that economists were universal in that bailing out the banks was better, but yes, some of them thought so.


----------



## Admiral Kizaru (May 7, 2015)

Just casted my vote for Labour. 

Not a massive fan of Ed Miliband but I can't stand the Tories even more. As a party member considering I do jack all for them in terms of campaigning, it's probably the least I can do. Still, it comes to something that the leader of a party is so bad, that even though I belong to it I'm not very enthusiastic about voting for them.

Mind you, the tears of the Daily Mail and The Sun in a few days when Ed forms a coalition with the SNP and becomes PM will be magnificent. Probably the best thing about this year's election. 



jetwaterluffy1 said:


> 2) Bigotgate.
> Without those two factors, labour would probably have the largest number of seats right now. Brown may not be PM though.



lol

A few idiots may have been influenced by it but to suggest that was one of his major problems is plain absurd. It was just one day's worth of headlines. 

What was more problematic for Brown was general Labour fatigue after more than a decade of them in office, the impact of the recession brought on by the financial crisis (even though Darling was just turning things around) and most of the partisan media outlets bar The Mirror turning against him and running nothing but constant negative attacks on him. Alastair Campbell nailed it when he called out that cunt Adam Boulton on Sky News about it. 

If anything the Conservatives should have been embarrassed that they weren't able to win a majority given those conditions.


----------



## Pocalypse (May 7, 2015)

Voted for Labour in the morning, lesser of the two problems I suppose thought not very enthusiastic about it, see what happens. Really just comes down to two parties anyway, the rest is just filler.


----------



## Nemesis (May 7, 2015)

I think another thing that people are missing out on when it came to last election was Brown not calling one when the media demanded it.  Pretty much people forgot we don't live in a presidential system like in the US and in Parliaments PM changes have happened mid term near enough all the time. (I guess it happened during the time of the 2008 elections didn't help either)


----------



## Aduro (May 7, 2015)

I went for Labout, our seat has voted Tory for decades but I want to let them know people are still dissatisfied here.


----------



## Sunuvmann (May 7, 2015)

jetwaterluffy1 said:


> Did they? I read an article a while back about how banks should be allowed to go bust.


Oh they should since risky behavior is disincentivised.

But not when too big to fail and them doing so would fuck things up for everyone.

They need to be broken up before they get to be that large. And Dodd-Frank took some significant steps in that direction.

Its silly wall street not supporting that though. If anything, that would be great for them. Their investments get diversified so hey, less risk. Plus, more often then not, such a split ends up yielding even more wealth.

Case in point the Rockefellers.


----------



## ~riku~ (May 7, 2015)

Cast my first ever vote in a General Election. Felt exhilarating *___*

Voted for Greens.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (May 7, 2015)

Sunuvmann said:


> Oh they should since risky behavior is disincentivised.
> 
> But not when too big to fail and them doing so would fuck things up for everyone.
> 
> ...



Northern rock, too big to fail? Really?


----------



## Nemesis (May 7, 2015)

Northern Rock in their defense did little wrong.  Some newspaper (forget which) made a false headline about Northern rock which caused pensioners to panic and run on the bank.  In the end Northern Rock ran out of money before they could pay back everyone doing the run on the bank.


----------



## Sunuvmann (May 7, 2015)

jetwaterluffy1 said:


> Northern rock, too big to fail? Really?


Possibly? idk lol 


(Americunt with Londoner father so while I try and follow British news I probably wasn't during 2008 since there was quite a bit of shit going on here haha )


----------



## Sunuvmann (May 7, 2015)

Nemesis said:


> Northern Rock in their defense did little wrong.  Some newspaper (forget which) made a false headline about Northern rock which caused pensioners to panic and run on the bank.  In the end Northern Rock ran out of money before they could pay back everyone doing the run on the bank.


Do you guys have something like the ?

If not, you really should. That pretty much prevented bank runs since the great depression. Even during the financial crisis.


----------



## Nemesis (May 7, 2015)

We do but before northern rock it wasn't a good one.

Since then they kept upping how much you'd get back to about ?85k (I think $130k)


----------



## Hozukimaru (May 7, 2015)

All EU member states are required to have some form of deposite insurance that complies with some minimum EU standards. In the UK it's the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. The FSCS fully covers deposits up to 85,000 pounds.


----------



## Black Wraith (May 7, 2015)

I just put in my ballot. Voted Labour for both. Seems like there was a good turnout today.

I voted Tories last time and I don't regret it as in my view 5 years ago Labour had lost it's way and was in shambles. I think these past few years in opposition has done good for them. 

I hope for an outright Labour win but not expecting it.


----------



## N120 (May 7, 2015)

norther rock was split into two. With the profitable assets being sold to Virgin and the toxic assets (bad debts) still held under public ownership and rebranded under the banner of NOthern Rock asset management Plc.

 The govt is underwriting the losses of private institutions and selling off the profitable portions for less than what was invested. This happened after the govt guaranteed to compensate savers who would lose money if the bank fell.


----------



## Nemesis (May 7, 2015)

These exit polls.  Cons 316, Lab 236, SNP 58 and LD 10

How the hell did that happen.


----------



## Kagekatsu (May 7, 2015)

Nemesis said:


> These exit polls.  Cons 316, Lab 236, SNP 58 and LD 10
> 
> How the hell did that happen.



That I didn't see coming.

Only guess is a lot of UKIP support switched to Con at the last minute to prevent Labour from picking up any marginals.

Update: YouGov exit poll is reporting differently

CON: 284
LAB: 263
SNP: 48
LD: 31
PLAID: 3
UKIP: 2
GREEN: 1


----------



## dr_shadow (May 7, 2015)

Boooooooo!


----------



## Pocalypse (May 7, 2015)

That must be wrong, exit polls have known to be wrong in the past. 1992 for example...YouGov seems to be the correct one.


----------



## Nemesis (May 7, 2015)

Exit polls in 2010 were 100% correct if I recall correctly.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (May 7, 2015)

That fucking exit poll can't be right, surely.


----------



## Hozukimaru (May 7, 2015)

> *Shy Tory Factor*
> 
> *Shy Tory Factor is a name given by British opinion polling companies to a phenomenon observed by psephologists in the 1990s, where the share of the vote won by the Conservative Party (known as the 'Tories') in elections was substantially higher than the proportion of people in opinion polls who said they would vote for the party.*
> 
> ...





Maybe it's this?


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (May 7, 2015)

Nemesis said:


> These exit polls.  Cons 316, Lab 236, SNP 58 and LD 10
> 
> How the hell did that happen.



If the exit polls represent the actual results and not just dodgy exit polls? The only results that were within electionforcast's error margins were ukip and plaid cymru if you're going by this: 

I think a lot of the reason may have been dodgy polls and bad models rather than people changing their minds at the last minute. With that in mind: this might also be a dodgy poll.

With results that wacky though, I imagine bizarre results in northern ireland are possible too, which means the "other" still might make a labour coalition possible.


----------



## Esponer (May 7, 2015)

erictheking said:


> That fucking exit poll can't be right, surely.


Very 1992. It's? possible, sadly.

YouGov apparently just released a more normal exit poll, with:

CON 284 MPs, LAB 263, LIBS 31, SNP 48, UKIP 2, PLAID 3, GREEN 1

I'm just checking that though, as I just heard it from a friend.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (May 7, 2015)

YouGov exit poll result:

CON 284 
LAB 263 
LIB DEM 31
SNP 48
UKIP 2
PLAID 3
GREEN 1


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (May 7, 2015)

Hozukimaru said:


> Maybe it's this?



The election forecasters usually factor that stuff in though. Go on electionforcast's website and contrast polls vs vote share predictions. They are pretty different to each other, even including the final polls.

Especially on the lib dem vote share. The polls were saying they were tanking, the share predictions were saying they's do much better. Maybe the things they were trying to factor out with the lib dems simply never happened.


----------



## Saishin (May 7, 2015)

> *Suddenly Britain looks like Italy*
> 
> (CNN)Staid old Britain suddenly looks more like Italy. No less than seven parties are vying for seats in the parliamentary election taking place Thursday, a contest that has underscored the unraveling of any national consensus around certain fundamental assumptions about Britain's role in Europe, its special relationship with the United States and even its own political cohesion and identity. But perhaps what's most distressing about the campaign debate, from a trans-Atlantic perspective, is its utter insularity.
> 
> ...


----------



## Esponer (May 7, 2015)

If you look at the NOP/MORI exit poll everyone's talking about, the Conservative > Labour surge isn't the only oddity. LD dropping to 10 is incredible, and Greens winning a second seat is… not _impossible_, but quite the achievement. Even Norwich South didn't seem that likely for them, and there was talk of them losing Brighton Pavilion.


----------



## Nemesis (May 7, 2015)

erictheking said:


> That fucking exit poll can't be right, surely.



Seems like everyone except the Tories are saying it's false.  Even SNP are saying they are way too high in this exit poll.


----------



## Pocalypse (May 7, 2015)

How accurate was the poll in 2010?


----------



## Nemesis (May 7, 2015)

Pocalypse said:


> How accurate was the poll in 2010?



It was spot on if I remember rightly.

But

Sunderland South declared.  Labour increase (Was expected) UKIP second (Not expected)


----------



## Easley (May 7, 2015)

This was always on the cards. Labour had "free" Scottish seats simply because voters hated the Conservatives. The SNP's rise changed everything. Now that Labour need English votes to win a majority they are found wanting.


----------



## Saishin (May 7, 2015)

Wait a minute it seems Cameron is in advantage now.


----------



## Torpedo Titz (May 7, 2015)

Nemesis said:


> These exit polls.  Cons 316, Lab 236, SNP 58 and LD 10
> 
> How the hell did that happen.



The damage of the Blair years will never be forgotten.


----------



## N120 (May 7, 2015)

Things are getting interesting.


----------



## Esponer (May 7, 2015)

Nemesis said:


> It was spot on if I remember rightly.
> 
> But
> 
> Sunderland South declared.  Labour increase (Was expected) UKIP second (Not expected)


The LD wipe-out there is impressive: 14% dropped to 2%. I'm not that surprised by UKIP coming in second. I think what's happened is that most LD votes have gone to Lab, and a slice of Lab votes have gone to UKIP, plus a slice of Con. Since the Conservatives weren't a formidable opponent here at all, the populist UKIP effect will have been at full power as there was little reason to vote tactically.

It actually comes out looking like LD votes went to UKIP, but I don't think that's what happened.


----------



## Pocalypse (May 7, 2015)

It's a shame the Green party isn't high up there, at all really because most of the people I've talked to in the last 2-3 weeks have favoured the Green party over the other parties but due to the party not being up there, it would be a waste to cast a vote on such a small party so out of necessity, Labour is the only other major party to go for. 

That and most people in the country either vote for the Tories or Labour out of habit and media coverage, even when the Green party has better policies. And I don't think the party will ever be a major party, who knows.


----------



## Saishin (May 7, 2015)

Jon Stark said:


> The damage of the Blair years will never be forgotten.


So why he was voted twice?


----------



## N120 (May 7, 2015)

Saishin said:


> So why he was voted twice?



Hypocrites. The cons didn't have a leg to stand on when Blair was in power, they were going through leadership changes and none of them clicked with the wider population, Cameron did and even he couldn't muster up a majority win in his victory over labour.

It was the recession that ultimately forced people to look elsewhere with any serious intent.


----------



## Nemesis (May 7, 2015)

Saishin said:


> So why he was voted twice?



Three times actually.  Mostly because Conservatives fucked up big time just after the 1992 election that killed the UK economy.  Not only that Thatcher years were much much worse.


----------



## Esponer (May 7, 2015)

Pocalypse said:


> It's a shame the Green party isn't high up there, at all really because most of the people I've talked to in the last 2-3 weeks have favoured the Green party over the other parties but due to the party not being up there, it would be a waste to cast a vote on such a small party so out of necessity, Labour is the only other major party to go for.
> 
> That and most people in the country either vote for the Tories or Labour out of habit and media coverage, even when the Green party has better policies. And I don't think the party will ever be a major party, who knows.


Don't rule it out. All pre-election polling together put them on an average national share of 5%, which is a quintupling of 2010. And the NOR/MORI poll even says they'll win a second seat.

It's a tiny gain, but at this point it's about _legitimacy_. With the collapse of the Liberal Democrat left-wing bloc, and with Labour still not convincingly representing the centre-left, there is some promise of the Greens making more gains.

If they do moderately well in 2015, and if we get more used to coalitions, 2020 could see them genuinely able to contest a few constituencies. In the current climate if you can hit 10 you can be a pretty viable partner with the larger partners.

Alternatively, they may just make Labour sit up, pay more attention, and get back in line. The UK's two party system is crumbling not so much because of genuine evolution (you'll find that people generally _want_ majority government, not coalitions), but because Labour aren't socialist and Conservatives aren't libertarians. Get back in your damn boxes, parties.

_Edit:_ Also, I like Natalie Bennett, but she's not really the leader the Greens need right now. (Could say that about the Conservative, Labour and LD leaders too…) 'Modest gains' are a good target for 2015. If the Greens are going to make something of themselves, they need to have a much cleaner policy set cutting out the far-too-inclusive chaff, and they need another leader.


----------



## Megaharrison (May 7, 2015)

My official song for this election and all the butthurt that shall rise out of it:

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3tXJwGVaog[/YOUTUBE]

It's just a shame UKIP didn't gain more. Can't barrage the Farage.


----------



## Nemesis (May 7, 2015)

Galloway could lose his seat.  That's great news if true.


----------



## Esponer (May 7, 2015)

Nemesis said:


> Galloway could lose his seat.  That's great news if true.


Bigger deal ? there's talk that Farage hasn't won Thanet South. That'd be interesting.


----------



## TasteTheDifference (May 7, 2015)

can't wait to see alex salmond gloating in the HoC when it reconvenes, one thing i'm wondering about is the allegiance of the sole seat that's supposedly not been captured by the SNP, if it's Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale then


----------



## Nemesis (May 7, 2015)

Esponer said:


> Bigger deal ? there's talk that Farage hasn't won Thanet South. That'd be interesting.



Farage will still be causing shit in European Parliament though.


----------



## Esponer (May 7, 2015)

Nemesis said:


> Farage will still be causing shit in European Parliament though.


He won't be leader of UKIP anymore, though.


----------



## Nemesis (May 7, 2015)

Maybe not but he'll be influential and this wouldn't be the first time he stepped down from UKIP leadership.


----------



## Pocalypse (May 7, 2015)

Esponer said:


> Don't rule it out. All pre-election polling together put them on an average national share of 5%, which is a quintupling of 2010. And the NOR/MORI poll even says they'll win a second seat.
> 
> It's a tiny gain, but at this point it's about _legitimacy_. With the collapse of the Liberal Democrat left-wing bloc, and with Labour still not convincingly representing the centre-left, there is some promise of the Greens making more gains.
> 
> ...



Fair point, gaining one seat extra compared to 2010 is beneficial for them but these gains are still small. I just think the Greens haven't been hyped up in the media enough to gain more popularity when news is filled with just Labour or Conservative. 

Who did you vote for today? Labour?


----------



## Esponer (May 7, 2015)

Nemesis said:


> Maybe not but he'll be influential and this wouldn't be the first time he stepped down from UKIP leadership.


Fair point. I'm curious to see if there'll be a UKIP collapse after this. I heard an awful lot of UKIP supporters say that all the polling was part of a giant conspiracy. If they come out with 2-4, that will be completely shattered. Farage then stepping back as leader might put the last nail in the coffin and kill the UKIP movement before it began.

_Might_. I'd be more confident of that happening if Labour ended up in government, particularly with SNP support. I could see that collapsing UKIP and driving many back to the Conservatives. But the BBC/Sky exit poll is more suggestive of Con/LD or Con/DUP, and might put less pressure on UKIP voters to revert to the main parties.

How many UKIP voters are coming from the Conservatives, though? Some of the early results seem suggestive of their support mainly coming from ex _Labour_. (You can also read some as saying LD votes went to UKIP, but I think it's more likely LD went to Labour, and Labour went to UKIP.)



Pocalypse said:


> Fair point, gaining one seat extra compared to 2010 is beneficial for them but these gains are still small. I just think the Greens haven't been hyped up in the media enough to gain more popularity when news is filled with just Labour or Conservative.
> 
> Who did you vote for today? Labour?


Honestly, it might be a blessing in disguise. Before they're put in the spotlight, the Greens need a strong, clear economic message based on the authoritative stances of Paul Krugman, Positive Money, etc. They need to cut a lot of the chaff. And Bennett just seemed like she'd be destroyed in the spotlight.

That said, I did vote Green. Particularly bizarre from someone researching nuclear energy.


----------



## Nemesis (May 7, 2015)

If they are ex labour then that is completely Turkeys voting for christmas.  Therefore these are dumb people who don't realise that UKIP are Tory extreme and proof this country is having a massive brain drain.


----------



## Pocalypse (May 7, 2015)

Why would Labour go for UKIP...that's just dumb. LD going for Labour makes more sense than Labour going for UKIP.

Thanet South ain't doing it for Farage at the moment


----------



## Esponer (May 7, 2015)

Pocalypse said:


> Why would Labour go for UKIP...that's just dumb.


It's not about economy, it's about class. UKIP is identity politics. They have voters who don't know what their policies are _and don't care_. They 'feel' that UKIP reflect their values and their culture, and so they'll vote for them.

I think you'll probably find that UKIP get a fair bit of their support from a demographic which has generally followed The Sun's recommendations (so Tory in 2010, but Labour from 1997), and which has Labour roots but is generally politically ignorant.


----------



## Han Solo (May 7, 2015)

Lib Dems getting simply destroyed, coalition fucked their viability even more than I thought it would.


----------



## Megaharrison (May 7, 2015)

Meanwhile, the Greens have geniuses like this

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzGyEXPDQBI[/youtube]

Good thing they have an enlightened sophisticated leader to fit their enlightened sophisticated demographic.


----------



## Esponer (May 7, 2015)

Han Solo said:


> Lib Dems getting simply destroyed, coalition fucked their viability even more than I thought it would.


Yeah, if it comes out as predicted it raises serious questions about the idea of them making another deal with the Conservatives. Though arguably they've already lost all support they can lose from that. I know some've said if they'd ended up in a deal with Labour it would've been even worse for them ? pissing off those in the party who prefer the Tories.


----------



## Nemesis (May 7, 2015)

Why do you bring her up when the Greens have been a non issue.  They're getting 2MPs and are mostly ignored by the electorate.


----------



## Megaharrison (May 7, 2015)

Nemesis said:


> Why do you bring her up when the Greens have been a non issue.  They're getting 2MPs and are mostly ignored by the electorate.



Really? I get most of my Britfag exposure from online and every place I go to people won't shut up about them even though their leader is an idiot. 

Good keks they got stomped in any regard.


----------



## Han Solo (May 7, 2015)

Esponer said:


> Yeah, if it comes out as predicted it raises serious questions about the idea of them making another deal with the Conservatives. Though arguably they've already lost all support they can lose from that. I know some've said if they'd ended up in a deal with Labour it would've been even worse for them – pissing off those in the party who prefer the Tories.



I really can't imagine by these results it could have been any worse.



Nemesis said:


> Why do you bring her up when the Greens have been a non issue.  They're getting 2MPs and are mostly ignored by the electorate.



Taking Mega seriously...


----------



## Pocalypse (May 7, 2015)

Esponer said:


> Yeah, if it comes out as predicted it raises serious questions about the idea of them making another deal with the Conservatives. Though arguably they've already lost all support they can lose from that. I know some've said if they'd ended up in a deal with Labour it would've been even worse for them ? pissing off those in the party who prefer the Tories.



Talk about being stuck between a rock and a hard place 

Funny thing is I don't feel bad for them whatsoever, even with atrocity of the current results. If the exit poll is true and the LDs were forecast to win 10 seats, wonder how much worse it could have even got if they went for Labour...I'd even think the Greens would trump LD.


----------



## Nemesis (May 7, 2015)

Megaharrison said:


> Really? I get most of my Britfag exposure from online and every place I go to people won't shut up about them even though their leader is an idiot.
> 
> Good keks they got stomped in any regard.



Actually they're predicted to do better than last time around .  2 MPs instead of 1.  They were never predicted to do well

In other news Shadow Cabinate member Douglass Alexander loses his seat to SNP


----------



## TasteTheDifference (May 7, 2015)

20 year old student beats senior labour figure 

apparently the tories could potentially win an over all majority


----------



## Han Solo (May 7, 2015)

Haha, SNP have completely rolled everyone.


----------



## Nemesis (May 7, 2015)

Well UK.  It's been a good 308 year partnership.


----------



## Han Solo (May 7, 2015)

Nemesis said:


> Well UK.  It's been a good 308 year partnership.



Yeah if we end up with a Tory led goverment while the SNP control basically every seat in Scotland it's not going to end well.


----------



## Nemesis (May 7, 2015)

Han Solo said:


> Yeah if we end up with a Tory led goverment while the SNP control basically every seat in Scotland it's not going to end well.



It's the perfect storm for the independence movement.


----------



## Nemesis (May 7, 2015)

SNP failed to take a seat in Scotland.  It was the Orkney and Shetlands from Lib Dems.


----------



## Megaharrison (May 7, 2015)

>SNP 12% of popular vote, 37 seats
>UKIP 10% of popular vote, 0 seats

Me thinks leftists aren't going to cry about FPTP anymore.


----------



## Han Solo (May 7, 2015)

Megaharrison said:


> >SNP 12% of popular vote, 37 seats
> >UKIP 10% of popular vote, 0 seats
> 
> Me thinks leftists aren't going to cry about FPTP anymore.



Most people I know are hoping that maybe now enough people will finally give a shit enough about electoral reform to get something done.


----------



## Nemesis (May 7, 2015)

I'm scared me and Carswell agree on something.

That we need electoral reform towards a more proportional system D:



> >SNP 12% of popular vote, 37 seats
> >UKIP 10% of popular vote, 0 seats
> 
> Me thinks leftists aren't going to cry about FPTP anymore.



Me thinks you know nothing about British politics.  It won't be people on the left who will stop complaining.  It will be everyone but Conservatives now that will complain.


----------



## TasteTheDifference (May 8, 2015)

lol i was right tories keep their seat in scotland

also fuck clegg


----------



## Nemesis (May 8, 2015)

Oh Esthar McVey you bitch, blame yourself for your loss not everyone else.


----------



## Sherlōck (May 8, 2015)

So some candidates from Bangladeshi background won. Honorary mention Tulip Siddiq granddaughter of our Father of the Nation & niece of our current Prime Minister. 

Congratulation to her & other candidates who won.Here's to hoping our relation with UK will improve.


----------



## Nemesis (May 8, 2015)

Galloway is voted out thankfully.

Conservatives now predicted 325.  Really people are going to want more cuts to essential services.  Less money for those that need it the most and more put into the top for the discredited trickle down bullshit.


----------



## Easley (May 8, 2015)

haha, the Guardian is trying its best to sound magnanimous in defeat, but failing. That bastion of leftist journalism thought a Labour triumph was all but a certainty. I think they were in deep denial about Scotland. Anyone could see that the SNP would wipe out the Labour party, and with it their hopes of winning the election. Clegg and the Lib Dems also paid a heavy price - losing about 40 seats - even Vince Cable and Danny Alexander are gone. Voters are ruthless.


----------



## Admiral Kizaru (May 8, 2015)

Batten down the hatch if you are poor, disabled, sick. 

The wealth gap will be going vertical, the NHS will be in the grasping hands of the profiteers and the nation will be neatly split, the have-it-alls-and-want-even-more versus the rest of us including the dumb fucks who thought they might get a scrap if they turned traitor against their neighbour.

Decent people now need to pull together.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (May 8, 2015)

Easley said:


> haha, the Guardian is trying its best to sound magnanimous in defeat, but failing. That bastion of leftist journalism thought a Labour triumph was all but a certainty. I think they were in deep denial about Scotland. Anyone could see that the SNP would wipe out the Labour party, and with it their hopes of winning the election. Clegg and the Lib Dems also paid a heavy price - losing about 40 seats - even Vince Cable and Danny Alexander are gone. Voters are ruthless.


???
The Guardian election model predicted a higher SNP seat share than most.

Anyway, does anyone know what the council results were?


----------



## Vault (May 8, 2015)

People fearing for the NHS


----------



## Admiral Kizaru (May 8, 2015)

Maddington said:


> Was this result ever in any doubt?



Ermmm yes?

Most pre-election polls had the Labour and Tories at roughly the same % of vote which whilst may have given the Tories a slight edge in the seats, would have been enough for an anti-Tory majority of Lab/SNP/Lib Dems. That was the predicted outcome based on the data. 

The polls were horribly wrong. Not that anyone's going to be held accountable for that of course.


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (May 8, 2015)

Labour will now move even further to the right. 

This country's absolutely fucked.


----------



## Vault (May 8, 2015)

But seriously how did they get the forecasts so wrong


----------



## Pocalypse (May 8, 2015)

Jesus christ, what a fucking stomp. 



Labour are done for. So much for the YouGov poll being correct. Will Ed even retain his position after this?


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (May 8, 2015)

Ed Miliband has just resigned.


----------



## Vault (May 8, 2015)

Holy shit  

Labour has work to do while hoping for a monumental fuck up by the Tories to turn this around. Cot damn


----------



## Pocalypse (May 8, 2015)

Ah shit yeah just read it on the BBC articles.

What a clusterfuck of a day. 

Nick Clegg, Ed Milliband and Farage have all quit or will be quitting. Whilst Cameron is laughing his ass off right now


----------



## Admiral Kizaru (May 8, 2015)

erictheking said:


> Ed Miliband has just resigned.



Never should have been appointed in the first place. A lot of people including me saw this coming from a mile away but no, the union stooges and the true leftists had to have their way. 

Decimated in Scotland and reduced to London and a few inner cities in England and Wales. 


Just god hope they don't elect a boring, un-charismatic and snakey figure like Yvette Cooper now. 

I'd personally go for Andy Burnham myself or someone else completely new.


----------



## Pocalypse (May 8, 2015)

Can anyone even challenge Cameron right now? He's taking everyone out piece by piece, and it's not even by a close result, it's by a fucking landslide. I'm sure even he didn't expect it to be this easy.


----------



## Vault (May 8, 2015)

> Boring, un-charismatic and snakey figure



So basically not another Ed?  I agree.


----------



## Admiral Kizaru (May 8, 2015)

Pocalypse said:


> Can anyone even challenge Cameron right now? He's taking everyone out piece by piece, and it's not even by a close result, it's by a fucking landslide. I'm sure even he didn't expect it to be this easy.



It's a landslide in terms of what the polls and everyone initially predicted but it's not a landslide in terms of actual seats. They're only going to have an extremely wafer thin majority at this rate assuming they go it alone. Labour in 1997 .... now that was a fucking landslide. 

And no. Boris is going to have to reign in his leadership ambitions for a while now. I wonder what position in the cabinet if one at all, they'll give him.


----------



## Vault (May 8, 2015)

Pocalypse said:


> Can anyone even challenge Cameron right now? He's taking everyone out piece by piece, and it's not even by a close result, it's by a fucking landslide. I'm sure even he didn't expect it to be this easy.



Cameron and Osbourne are probably laughing their tits off


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (May 8, 2015)

So nothing change ? You'll have your vote to stay or leave the EU ?


----------



## Pocalypse (May 8, 2015)

Admiral Kizaru said:


> It's a landslide in terms of what the polls and everyone initially predicted but it's not a landslide in terms of actual seats. They're only going to have an extremely wafer thin majority at this rate assuming they go it alone. Labour in 1997 .... now that was a fucking landslide.
> 
> And no. Boris is going to have to reign in his leadership ambitions for a while now. I wonder what position in the cabinet if one at all, they'll give him.



You're right about that, the Labour victories under Blair were more impressive than Cameron's but right now Cameron might head to those directions if Labour don't change their shit up. Usually polls give some sort of a clue on how things will go down, the pre-polls weren't even close tbh and so many people were doubting the exit poll yesterday that it was wrong.

Either way the SNP demolished Labour pretty much too. That was a given. Even though I voted for Labour and them not winning, glad the Lib Dems got wiped though


----------



## Vault (May 8, 2015)

I love how the Lib Dems were pretty much cannibalised by the Tories


----------



## Easley (May 8, 2015)

jetwaterluffy1 said:


> ???
> The Guardian election model predicted a higher SNP seat share than most.


Yes, but they also thought Labour would get enough English seats to form a coalition with the SNP.


----------



## Mider T (May 8, 2015)

TasteTheDifference said:


> 20 year old student beats senior labour figure
> 
> apparently the tories could potentially win an over all majority



This kind of stuff happens in an upset, unfortunately she's a dumb broad.


----------



## Pocalypse (May 8, 2015)

Maddington said:


> I love how the Lib Dems were pretty much cannibalised by the Tories



Clegg played into his hands really, this pic says it all 



One's got a sneaky "keikuku" going on whilst the other's madly raging inside.


----------



## N120 (May 8, 2015)

It'll take more than just a leadership challenge now for labour to regain power, they've just lost their leader and the big names within the party. Guess it's time for a drastic makeover and fresh faces within the Labour Party.

I wasn't expecting this level of carnage at all, the powers structure of the  party was exhumed last night leaving an empty shell.


UKIP has lost farage and with that the effectiveness of delivering their message come the referendum and I don't see them making a big noise, after which they'll become a fringe party again anyway.

LD 

Winners, the snp and Scotland.


----------



## Admiral Kizaru (May 8, 2015)

Maddington said:


> I love how the Lib Dems were pretty much cannibalised by the Tories



They've cannabalised their seats but not their vote. 

What's happened is that in the seats where the primary left-wing opposition is the Lib Dems (the South West etc), the lefties who've been angered by the concessions that the Lib Dems have made in the coalition have instead fled to the Greens and ironically Labour, splitting the anti Tory vote and letting the Tories back in with the same amount of votes as last time. 

Fucking idiots. You've seen the right vote tactically in areas (alternating between UKIP and Tory) to keep Labour out but these clowns can't see that sticking with the Lib Dems is the best thing to do if they want to remain committed to their political principles.


----------



## Pocalypse (May 8, 2015)

It's seats and votes that they've cannibalised. LD got 2.3 million votes this election where in 2010 they got 6.8 mil. They lost in all aspects.


----------



## Admiral Kizaru (May 8, 2015)

Yes but most of the votes that they lost didn't go to the Tories. You don't usually shift your political ideology that much to vote for someone who's the complete opposite of your previous beliefs. And a lot of that was is in the North East, where the Lib Dem gains in 2010 shifted back to Labour.

If you look at the individual constituency results in places like the South West where the Tories have stolen seats from the Lib Dems and compare them to the 2010, you'll see that the Tories haven't gained much if any new votes; it's just the Lib Dem vote has been reduced with the Greens and Labour gaining those voters who have been disenfranchised by the Lib Dems.


----------



## Pocalypse (May 8, 2015)

Ah you got a point there. Just compared the results between 2010 and 2015, yeah the Greens have quintupled their votes while Labour gained some extra 600k votes but that's ambiguous as some of the ex Labour voters switched to SNP so Labour must have took in much more than 600k from the LD voters.

Basically this election came down to the Tories doing jack shit whilst everyone else tore each other off.


----------



## Amanda (May 8, 2015)

So Britons, are you still going to drag yourself into the EU table to whine in the future too, or was this it for our marriage?


----------



## Esponer (May 8, 2015)

Admiral Kizaru said:


> Just god hope they don't elect a boring, un-charismatic and snakey figure like Yvette Cooper now.
> 
> I'd personally go for Andy Burnham myself or someone else completely new.


What about Chuka Umunna or even Dan Jarvis? Umunna's been on my radar for a bit, Jarvis only for a few hours (he's very new blood). I don't really know much about either, though I think Umunna is more "as close to the Tories as we can get" than "let's go back to the left". British Obama might end up working for Labour, though?


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (May 8, 2015)

Pocalypse said:


> Jesus christ, what a fucking stomp.
> 
> 
> 
> Labour are done for. So much for the YouGov poll being correct. Will Ed even retain his position after this?


That image is misleading because the tories are likely to have seats in country areas with low population density, whilst labour generally win seats in cites with high population density. That's why you see those election maps with pentagons, to equalise constituency land area.


Pocalypse said:


> Can anyone even challenge Cameron right now? He's taking everyone out piece by piece, and it's not even by a close result, it's by a fucking landslide. I'm sure even he didn't expect it to be this easy.


It wasn't a landslide. I wouldn't be surprised if the tories lose their majority by the end of this parliament.


Easley said:


> Yes, but they also thought Labour would get enough English seats to form a coalition with the SNP.


So did every other election model. Or at least that labour would win enough seats to make a conservative government impossible.


----------



## Easley (May 8, 2015)

Labour will have to reinvent themselves. They need to find a way to appeal to English voters. This election exposed just how reliant they were on Scottish seats. Take those away and they don't have a prayer of winning a majority. England is Conservative. If the working class turn against Labour it's over. Their core voters don't recognize this party.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (May 8, 2015)

Council results so far: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results/councils
Lib dems aren't doing as badly there, although they have lost quite a few seats. Labour are currently ahead. Big gains for Ukip.


----------



## Nemesis (May 8, 2015)

Easley said:


> Labour will have to reinvent themselves. They need to find a way to appeal to English voters. This election exposed just how reliant they were on Scottish seats. Take those away and they don't have a prayer of winning a majority. England is Conservative. If the working class turn against Labour it's over. Their core voters don't recognize this party.



And that is the problem, Conservatism is bad and needs to be destroyed.  England needs to look at Norway, Sweded, Denmark, Netherlands, Finland as a means to run a country.  Not try to be the US.  The first lot run their countries so much better.  Have higher freedoms, standard of living, equality in finance and law.


Holy crap did the UUP take a Sinn Fein seat?  If so that means that 331 for conservatives is in in fact 333 as UUP takes the Conservative whip.


----------



## Morglay (May 8, 2015)

I voted Labour in the end. 

It did not matter, Cameron will soon pave the streets with the bones of the poor.


----------



## Admiral Kizaru (May 8, 2015)

Esponer said:


> What about Chuka Umunna or even Dan Jarvis? Umunna's been on my radar for a bit, Jarvis only for a few hours (he's very new blood). I don't really know much about either, though I think Umunna is more "as close to the Tories as we can get" than "let's go back to the left". British Obama might end up working for Labour, though?



I've got to admit that I haven't been as invested in the inner workings of Labour as I was back in 2010. 

Andy Burnham impressed me back during the leadership contest in 2010. He's from a working class background and struck me as someone who could resonate well with the traditional small town Labour voter in middle England; exactly the folks Labour lost big time yesterday. He was my second choice behind David back then. 

As for Chuka, he's another that comes across well in interviews but to be brutally candid, I'm not sure the country is ready for a British Obama. Got a feeling UKIP would double it's vote, citing the need to stop the Islamisation of Britain or some other nonsense. 

Heard Jarvis' name mentioned on a few blogs/articles this morning but I don't know enough about him to form an opinion yet.

One of the few positive notes though from the annihilation is that Ed Balls is gone because he would have inevitably been the front runner today had he managed to hang on. The guy was poison for Labour; too maligned and disliked by the general population.

However selecting a new leader is only the first part. Labour need to craft a clear vision and position to the electorate that appeals to a larger segment of the population. What recent elections have demonstrated is that you win them by demonstrating "economic competence/credibility", not appearing to be too extreme in either direction and having a telegenic leader. Which is why they need to stop the whole "run away from Blairism" and "we lost because we're not left enough" nonsense ....... something sadly I'm not confident they won't do. 

Ultimately though I think they'd be hard pressed to win a majority in 2020 regardless of what happens considering the utter rape they experienced in Scotland. Got to hope for a major SNP scandal or otherwise for them to shed the ridiculous gains they received yesterday.


----------



## Nemesis (May 8, 2015)

Admiral Kizaru said:


> Ultimately though I think they'd be hard pressed to win a majority in 2020 regardless of what happens considering the utter rape they experienced in Scotland. Got to hope for a major SNP scandal or otherwise for them to shed the ridiculous gains they received yesterday.



Labour will not get a majority in 2020.  Boundary changes are incoming that will give the conservatives up to another 20 safe seats in Parliament.


----------



## Black Wraith (May 8, 2015)

This is a crazy result. I definitely wasn't expecting such a result. With Milliband, Clegg and Farage all gone Cameron must take advantage of such a situation. SNP are the only ones that have come out good but don't have anything but Scottish seats.

I'm not looking forward to the EU referendum.


----------



## dr_shadow (May 8, 2015)

[YOUTUBE]qbmWs6Jf5dc[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Blue (May 8, 2015)

Morglay said:


> I voted Labour in the end.
> 
> It did not matter, Cameron will soon pave the streets with the bones of the poor.



Oh god, these liberal tears. Fucking delicious. I want to drown in them.


----------



## Lucaniel (May 8, 2015)

i think the lib dem swing was actually slightly more towards labour than the tories

it was a full on feeding frenzy really

the snp, labour, and the tories devoured the lib dems


----------



## Blue (May 8, 2015)

Reminder


> In giving Conservatives a new majority, voters rewarded an impressive economic record. Five years of Tory policies, such as a reduction in the corporate tax rate to 20% from 28% and a welfare reform that shifted more people into work have produced record employment participation rates and by far the fastest growth of any large European economy. Keynesian critics in the U.S. and U.K. derided this as ?austerity,? but limits on government spending and tax cuts have been vindicated.





Liberal economics is bullshit and always will be bullshit. Social programs are a matter of morality, not practicality.



Lucaniel said:


> i think the lib dem swing was actually slightly more towards labour than the tories
> 
> it was a full on feeding frenzy really
> 
> the snp, labour, and the tories devoured the lib dems



I wouldn't consider losing 25 seats devouring anything

Eating a guppy right before the shark inhales you is not a victory


----------



## Lucaniel (May 8, 2015)

Blue said:


> Reminder
> 
> 
> 
> ...



cool story

was talking to vault


----------



## Han Solo (May 8, 2015)

Blue said:


> Reminder
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Han Solo said:


> Productivity in the UK is still below the 2008 peak, unlike every other G7 economy. Of course it was going up until 2010/2011 when the Tory policies really started to go into effect.
> 
> We also have some of the worst current account deficits in a long time.



Yeah, I wouldn't be too quick to praise the Tory economic record.


----------



## Blue (May 8, 2015)

I was using you as a sounding board against everyone here trying to rationalize this rout

Stay mad


----------



## Lucaniel (May 8, 2015)

Blue said:


> I was using you as a sounding board against everyone here trying to rationalize this rout
> 
> Stay mad



i'm not rationalising anything doe, labour obviously shit the bed

i was talking entirely about the lib dems 

i think you're the mad one

stay mad


----------



## Saishin (May 8, 2015)

*David Cameron pledges a 'greater Britain'*
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-2015-32659720


----------



## Blue (May 8, 2015)

Han Solo said:


> Yeah, I wouldn't be too quick to praise the Tory economic record.


>GDP per hour worked

What even is that measure? 

If you take it at face value, it's even more remarkable that the UK is the most successful European economy when its productivity is so low. Basically everyone in the UK spends their workdays browsing facebook and you're still coming out ahead?

I'd call that a win.


----------



## WT (May 8, 2015)

voted conservatives. Glad they won

I'm all for making people work to earn a living


----------



## Han Solo (May 8, 2015)

Blue said:


> >GDP per hour worked
> 
> What even is that measure?
> 
> ...



GDP per hour work is the standard measure of productivity.

And no it means that any increase in living standards (of which there really hasn't been this past government term) are coming either from working longer hours or debt. 

For international reference:



It's the biggest productivity gap between the UK and other G7 countries since 1992 or so. And the worst current account deficits since the 1980's.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (May 8, 2015)

Blue said:


> Reminder
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Do you know what liberal economics is?
Liberal economics is Neoliberal economics without globalization.
The conservatives have the most liberal economics policy of the main UK parties bar UKIP.


----------



## Nemesis (May 8, 2015)

WT said:


> voted conservatives. Glad they won
> 
> I'm all for making people work to earn a living



Outside of a few people that can be counted on in one hand benefits do not even give close to what is needed to survive even the barest existence in the UK.  You simply can not do it.

To earn a living you have to work.  Unfortunately people fell into the whole "We given more people jobs, more so than anyone else ever." by the conservatives and didn't look at what these jobs were.

Either 0 hour contract where you have no security at all

or

Minimum wage jobs where you can't make any kind of living out of it.

There were no jobs made that actually could have you living a decent first world standard of living which is a home for yourself, heating, water, electricity, internet (Which is ESSENTIAL for modern life), own transport are all essentials these days not adding food to that.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (May 8, 2015)

All the council results are in:

Council Control:
Conservative 95
Labour 61
Lib Dem 3
Residents Association 1
No Overall Control 29

Council Seats:
Conservative 1399
Labour 1031
Lib Dem 183
UKIP 44
Residents Association 43
Greens 18
Liberal Party 4
Independents 128
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results/councils


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (May 8, 2015)

> People voting Greens.
> This retarded.



Nemesis said:


> Well UK.  It's been a good 308 year partnership.



It's funny people still think this.



Amanda said:


> So Britons, are you still going to drag yourself into the EU table to whine in the future too, or was this it for our marriage?



And it's funny how morons still think this exclusively of the UK, when it's actually most of Yurope except Doucheland.

Greece feels neglected.

Dat ignorance.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (May 8, 2015)

MbS said:


> > People voting Greens.
> > This retarded.



Was that in response to the council results? They got significantly less seats that the residents association (something I've never heard of).


----------



## Amanda (May 8, 2015)

MbS said:


> And it's funny how morons still think this exclusively of the UK, when it's actually most of Yurope except Doucheland.
> 
> Greece feels neglected.
> 
> Dat ignorance.




Not entirely sure what you're trying to say.

Anyway, in my country we haven't been offered a choice to vote about if we continue in the EU or not, and most likely never will be. So yes, I'm asking the Britons here what they think, how will the referendum go.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (May 8, 2015)

Y'kno, while I do generally detest Nick Clegg I do feel a scrap of pity for the guy, maybe. Both he and Cameron conspired to fuck students over on tuition fee, but it's Clegg who's carrying the can for it...  actually, nah I don't feel anything.

And what people need to keep in mind is that Scots voting overwhelmingly for the SNP doesn't also mean they want Independence (although I'm in favour of it, and seeing them become the Poland of the North).

Scotland's just trailing 40 years behind the rest of the UK regarding Tax and Spend polices. Although in this case it's Tax (rest of the UK) & Scotland (spend)s. Now if the SNP actually had to raise _all_ of the money it spends then I guarantee they wouldn't be riding high atm.

Cause let's be frank, Scots waving little Saltires and feeling 'proud' they happened to be born in a grey waste is redundant when you can't sustain the economy and standard of living as it is now.

What morons voting SNP don't realise is that this is it; this is the peak for Scotland and it is never going to get any better then this, enjoy it while it lasts Tartan Tossers.

Oh, and ppl actually think there'll be a simple Yes/No EU referendum? Haha, no. 



jetwaterluffy1 said:


> Was that in response to the council results? They got significantly less seats that the residents association (something I've never heard of).



People voting Green in this thread.

I get the distinct impression they aren't overtly familiar with the party's polices and see it as a lefty protest vote, when it's actually a wasted vote.


----------



## Han Solo (May 8, 2015)

MbS said:


> People voting Green in this thread.
> 
> I get the distinct impression they aren't overtly familiar with the party's polices and see it as a lefty protest vote, when it's actually a wasted vote.



Except y'know, where I voted.


----------



## Kafuka de Vil (May 8, 2015)

Amanda said:


> Not entirely sure what you're trying to say.
> 
> Anyway, in my country we haven't been offered a choice to vote about if we continue in the EU or not, and most likely never will be. So yes, I'm asking the Britons here what they think, how will the referendum go.



There won't be a simple Yes/No referendum, I guarantee.

Most likely each country of the UK will be deliberated a choice weather to stay in or out, and need a 3/4 majority overall to pass.

It's only Sothern England (minus Cornwall) that really wants out the EU. Because let's be frank, most southerners are racist pigs - something about being closer to the Continent. As it just so happens the South is also more populous then all the other regions combined, so it has the Scots shitting their wee kilts if there was a straight nationwide vote held.

As it stands currently, with the EU in the mess it is right now, if there was a simple Yes/No referendum today: the UK would be leaving the EU tomorrow.



Han Solo said:


> Except y'know, where I voted.



In a galaxy far, far away...

That sounds about right.


----------



## Hozukimaru (May 8, 2015)

jetwaterluffy1 said:


> Do you know what liberal economics is?
> Liberal economics is Neoliberal economics without globalization.
> The conservatives have the most liberal economics policy of the main UK parties bar UKIP.



In general when it comes to politics and parties:

US liberal = European social democrat (govt economic intervention, emphasis on social rights and workers rights)

US conservative = European conservative (free market economy, emphasis on freedom of choice _and_ conservative values)

US libertarian = European liberal (free market economy, emphasis on freedom of choice)

So when Blue talks about liberal economics he means left-wing economics, while you talk about right-wing economics.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (May 8, 2015)

Amanda said:


> Not entirely sure what you're trying to say.
> 
> Anyway, in my country we haven't been offered a choice to vote about if we continue in the EU or not, and most likely never will be. So yes, I'm asking the Britons here what they think, how will the referendum go.


It'll probably result in a vote to stay in. But it'll be close and depend very much on the political situation and how the renegotiation is perceived to go.


MbS said:


> People voting Green in this thread.
> 
> I get the distinct impression they aren't overtly familiar with the party's polices and see it as a lefty protest vote, when it's actually a wasted vote.


Green works very well as a lefty protest vote. Not so great as a serious vote, but never mind.


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (May 9, 2015)

Might as well list all eight lib dem MPs now they are small enough to list:

Nick Clegg

Tim Farron

Norman Lamb

Greg Mulholland

Tom Brake

John Pugh

Mark Williams

Alistair Carmichael


----------



## Admiral Kizaru (May 9, 2015)

jetwaterluffy1 said:


> Might as well list all eight lib dem MPs now they are small enough to list:
> 
> Nick Clegg
> 
> ...



Even though I'm a Labour member I was really upset to see both Vince Cable and Simon Hughes lose their seats on Thursday. Both of them are thoroughly decent & honourable men and hardworking MPs for their constituency. 

I had the pleasure of meeting the latter once and he was extremely pleasant and friendly to me then, like he has been to everyone in his entire 33 years as an MP for his constituency. Caught a bit of his resignation speech on the BBC during their coverage and I nearly shed a tear during it; he was humble and gracious as always. 

Alas, they sadly got caught up in the general Lib Dem backlash and even though it was Labour who profited from Hughes' loss, I would have gladly given up that seat to keep him there.


----------



## Kagekatsu (May 9, 2015)

It's going to be an interesting five years


----------



## Admiral Kizaru (May 9, 2015)

Kagekatsu said:


> It's going to be an interesting five years



Fucking idiots. 

If they spent as much energy campaigning and knocking on doors prior to the election as they're doing now protesting, just maybe the Tories wouldn't have won a majority. 

I don't like it either but the Tories won fair and square. That's democracy and they need to deal with it.


----------



## Torpedo Titz (May 9, 2015)

Kagekatsu said:


> It's going to be an interesting five years



The Tolerant Left.


----------



## Kagekatsu (May 9, 2015)

Admiral Kizaru said:


> Fucking idiots.
> 
> If they spent as much energy campaigning and knocking on doors prior to the election as they're doing now protesting, just maybe the Tories wouldn't have won a majority.
> 
> I don't like it either but the Tories won fair and square. That's democracy and they need to deal with it.


One actually defaced a WW2 memorial with anti-Tory graffiti 


In fairness, it's probably just anarchists using the protests as a cover. Still, that's not exactly making your cause sympathetic.


----------



## Admiral Kizaru (May 9, 2015)

Kagekatsu said:


> One actually defaced a WW2 memorial with anti-Tory graffiti
> 
> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> ...



Sigh ..... well that's the next weeks worth of Daily Mail headlines and front pages right there. 


Edit - They're already on it.


----------



## Lucaniel (May 9, 2015)

what do the women of WW2 have to do with the tories?



fucking idiots


----------



## Gunners (May 9, 2015)

Admiral Kizaru said:


> Sigh ..... well that's the next weeks worth of Daily Mail headlines and front pages right there.
> 
> 
> Edit - They're already on it.



Look at those whities rioting.


----------



## Pocalypse (May 9, 2015)

What dickheads, why waste energy after the Tories won? Sounds stupid.

Prolly cuz VE Day and want to spark up attention.


----------



## Nemesis (May 9, 2015)

Might as well make sure your voices remain heard it might stop the Tories from more unecessary cuts that makes life easier for the wealthy and hard for everyone else.

Of course that won't happen, cuts will be incoming regardless and of course this whole "We're in this together." means "Oh you're going to suffer while we pretend to be hurting."


----------



## Lucaniel (May 9, 2015)

> Might as well make sure your voices remain heard it might stop the Tories from more unecessary cuts that makes life easier for the wealthy and hard for everyone else.



i assume this is about the protest rather than the graffiti


----------



## Esponer (May 9, 2015)

Admiral Kizaru said:


> However selecting a new leader is only the first part. Labour need to craft a clear vision and position to the electorate that appeals to a larger segment of the population. What recent elections have demonstrated is that you win them by demonstrating "economic competence/credibility", not appearing to be too extreme in either direction and having a telegenic leader. Which is why they need to stop the whole "run away from Blairism" and "we lost because we're not left enough" nonsense ....... something sadly I'm not confident they won't do.
> 
> Ultimately though I think they'd be hard pressed to win a majority in 2020 regardless of what happens considering the utter rape they experienced in Scotland. Got to hope for a major SNP scandal or otherwise for them to shed the ridiculous gains they received yesterday.


See, I both agree and disagree. My understanding of Umunna is that he'd be a more Blairite 'New Labour' leader, and realistically I think he might be the most effective leader they could have in the next few terms. I'm not sure that Burnham can separate himself from a toxic brand well enough, but I could be wrong and need to look into him more.

But I'm also not convinced that Labour actually failed because of where they positioned themselves on the left/right spectrum _at all_. Ed Miliband's position, bit right, bit left? I don't think that's what did it. You're right about demonstrating economic competence, and it's telling that while there's a whole body of Keynesian-esque economic thought more on Labour's grassroot side, Labour didn't really summon it up. They had a leader that didn't inspire confidence, and no clear message at all. And the last nail in the coffin: an abject failure to fight back against the myth that they caused a global economic crisis (and that the Conservatives would've been any better).

When you look at the fact that Labour and Lib Dem votes, some of them, have gone to UKIP, I think we're forced to acknowledge that there's a decent-sized bloc of British voters who don't actually think in terms of left or right at all. They don't know enough to take a view either side.

In view of all this, Ed Miliband's policies being a hair left of Blair's, and whether they need to move that hair right again, just? isn't a big deal. The majority of Britons are on record as wanting left-wing policies (like renationalisation) that Miliband was absolutely nowhere _near_ offering. He wasn't too left to win an election.


----------



## Lucaniel (May 9, 2015)

> The majority of Britons are on record as wanting left-wing policies (like renationalisation)



is this from opinion polls? what's your source?

also



> Leigh MP Andy Burnham is now bookies' favourite to be next Labour leader - but is he too old at 45?
> Manchester Evening News



that's too old now?


----------



## Lucaniel (May 9, 2015)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...pologises-no-money-left-note-general-election

is there no appreciation for peculiarly english gallows humour anymore?


----------



## Nemesis (May 10, 2015)

Lucaniel said:


> i assume this is about the protest rather than the graffiti



Of course, the graffiti people can go fuck themselves defacing a war memorial that has absolutely nothing to do with the election or party politics.



> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...neral-election
> 
> is there no appreciation for peculiarly english gallows humour anymore?



Even though it is a joke, whoever wrote it should have known that the conservatives were going to use it against Labour in the next election.

Milliband should have pounced on it though basically saying "If there were no money left where did you get the money to spend on XYZ?" and also when the conservative plant during question time ranted at him for Ed Balls saying "The business letter was a joke." he should have replied back at her detailing many of the businesses supposedly signing up to it outright condemning the same note.



Esponer said:


> See, I both agree and disagree. My understanding of Umunna is that he'd be a more Blairite 'New Labour' leader, and realistically I think he might be the most effective leader they could have in the next few terms. I'm not sure that Burnham can separate himself from a toxic brand well enough, but I could be wrong and need to look into him more.
> 
> But I'm also not convinced that Labour actually failed because of where they positioned themselves on the left/right spectrum _at all_. Ed Miliband's position, bit right, bit left… I don't think that's what did it. You're right about demonstrating economic competence, and it's telling that while there's a whole body of Keynesian-esque economic thought more on Labour's grassroot side, Labour didn't really summon it up. They had a leader that didn't inspire confidence, and no clear message at all. And the last nail in the coffin: an abject failure to fight back against the myth that they caused a global economic crisis (and that the Conservatives would've been any better).
> 
> ...



I'm not sure.  I am starting to believe that England as a whole outside of a few areas is having a small drift to the right, in which they are becoming aligned with the Democrat party in the US.  While it could be argued that since there were labour, Lib Dem and Green votes that did not bring in MPs (Especially the latter two) the Conservatives and UKIP really did do more votes than the three combined.

Now this also could be because the unfortunate rise in nationalism within the countries of the UK.  UKIP could be gaining some of those.  But I can't for the life of me think that in all actuality the voters in the UK do not realise that UKIP are essentially made up mostly of almost entirely former Conservatives that are upset with both how central the conservatives are in comparison to UKIP and how some of the Conservative party are pro EU (Like Cameron regardless of how he has to pander).

Maybe I'm wrong but it could be that England itself needs to be devolved into regions because of this.  London itself is its own entitiy, it near enough always has been.  Below Yorkshire, England is almost enitrely blue (Outside of London.)  While north there is some Blue areas but it is mostly red.

For Left of centre voters there needs to be a break up of England into regions that are equal to Scotland and wales with devo max.  Turn the UK federal with each region having a PR style of government.  Have Westminster responsible for defense, foreign policy and a few other nation wide necessities (like civil rights and maybe even a codified constitutional set of rights).  While the regions of England and the constituent countries of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland keep the other levels that will benefit each region.  Since there is no way the needs of the south east are the same as the needs of Yorkshire or Lancashire areas.


----------



## Easley (May 10, 2015)

Even though UKIP didn't convert votes into seats, thanks to our FPTP system, I think their message resonated with people. We don't want an open door (muslim) immigration policy, like Sweden. That country hit the self-destruct button.

Foreigners need to integrate.


----------



## tari101190 (May 10, 2015)




----------



## Blue (May 10, 2015)




----------



## Admiral Kizaru (May 10, 2015)

Esponer said:


> See, I both agree and disagree. My understanding of Umunna is that he'd be a more Blairite 'New Labour' leader, and realistically I think he might be the most effective leader they could have in the next few terms. I'm not sure that Burnham can separate himself from a toxic brand well enough, but I could be wrong and need to look into him more.
> 
> But I'm also not convinced that Labour actually failed because of where they positioned themselves on the left/right spectrum _at all_. Ed Miliband's position, bit right, bit left… I don't think that's what did it. You're right about demonstrating economic competence, and it's telling that while there's a whole body of Keynesian-esque economic thought more on Labour's grassroot side, Labour didn't really summon it up. They had a leader that didn't inspire confidence, and no clear message at all. And the last nail in the coffin: an abject failure to fight back against the myth that they caused a global economic crisis (and that the Conservatives would've been any better).
> 
> ...



To be clear I'm not against Chuuka as the leader, I'm just not convinced yet that electorally he would do best in 5 years against whoever the Tories put up then and that for me should be the biggest factor in selecting the next leader. As a unashamed Blairite myself, I agree with most of his political positions. 

Mind you, the more I read about Dan Jarvis the more I like what I see. One of the problems with Andy Burnham, is that like a lot politicians these days he hasn't really had a proper job outside of the "political advisor/researcher/thinktank/lawyer" etc etc bubble, which given Jarvis' Para background can't be a charge leveled against him. Ed got a lot of flack for that in the campaign, even though Cameron and Osborne are just as bad, if not worse here. Plus from the Youtube's I've seen of him, he doesn't appear to be a guy Cameron can slap around at the dispatch box. I don't know yet whether he has any skeletons in his closet or whether he can communicate effectively to a national audience but once I hear more from him, I could be very tempted to throw my lot in with him. 

Similarly to you before I kind of half agree with the rest of your post. We do live in a talent show watching and selfie taking society. Ed was unable to inspire confidence in the populace, articulate a clear vision that people could stand behind or fightback robustly against the bullying and slanderous tactics of the Tories and their media allies (The Sun/DM/Torygraph etc etc). People deride Alastair Campbell, especially for his role in the leadup to the Iraq war, but he knew how to deal with these cunts and you would have seen a much stronger counter attack were he in charge of Ed's media strategy. 

So yeah even if he shifted a bit to the centre, I'm not sure that it would have mattered that much this election at least. He got defined as "Red Ed" early on and no matter the actual content of his proposed policies, that label stuck in the face of no attempt to shed it from him. But then you need to consider the fact that people were so afraid the false caricature of "Red Ed" does imply that a lot of people are naturally hostile to that brand of leftism/socialism and it's not something you can successfully win an election on. You need to be known for hogging the centre lane; something that Blair knew how to do well.


----------



## Lucaniel (May 10, 2015)

> ne of the problems with Andy Burnham, is that like a lot politicians these days he hasn't really had a proper job outside of the "political advisor/researcher/thinktank/lawyer" etc etc bubble, which given Jarvis' Para background can't be a charge leveled against him.



but realistically what is the benefit in terms of effectiveness in political work, drafting legislation, etc., of being a paratrooper over being from that bubble?

i can't see any, outside of superficial thinkers nodding when you use your credibility as a blue-collar man of action as a weapon against your soft-handed pencil-pusher opponents, and voting you in, so you can then reveal you sadly don't know as much as them about how to do the job


----------



## Admiral Kizaru (May 10, 2015)

Lucaniel said:


> but realistically what is the benefit in terms of effectiveness in political work, drafting legislation, etc., of being a paratrooper over being from that bubble?
> 
> i can't see any, outside of superficial thinkers nodding when you use your credibility as a blue-collar man of action as a weapon against your soft-handed pencil-pusher opponents, and voting you in, so you can then reveal you sadly don't know as much as them about how to do the job



In terms of on-the-job performance, probably nothing. Though I'd point on that a PM would hardly be drafting legislation or getting right into the weeds in terms of deep policy detail himself ..... that's why they have a team of aides and advisors. Moreover, he'd be making decisions based on the information he's given to him. Coming from an Army background, he may be a bit more decisive and calmer under pressure but tbh, that's a bit of a stretch. 

However in terms of public image and consequentially electability, a lot. We've just discussed how Ed's poor public image as a "North London nerd" affected his election chances; rightly or wrongly, that stuff is important these days. It's not a secret either that politicians are generally quite loathed, partly because they're seen as so detached so having a guy who seen as "ordinary" may help with that. 

Plus, I suspect voters would feel that someone's who's had an ordinary job, would be more understanding and appreciative of their daily concerns and challenges and so would be more inclined to support them when developing policy and making decisions.


----------



## Rob (May 10, 2015)

Of course this old man is in here


----------



## Admiral Kizaru (May 10, 2015)

Roƅ said:


> Of course this old man is in here



Disgusting how Blue is treated on here.


----------



## Lucaniel (May 10, 2015)

Admiral Kizaru said:


> In terms of on-the-job performance, probably nothing. Though I'd point on that a PM would hardly be drafting legislation or getting right into the weeds in terms of deep policy detail himself ..... that's why they have a team of aides and advisors. Moreover, he'd be making decisions based on the information he's given to him. Coming from an Army background, he may be a bit more decisive and calmer under pressure but tbh, that's a bit of a stretch.
> 
> However in terms of public image and consequentially electability, a lot. We've just discussed how Ed's poor public image as a "North London nerd" affected his election chances; rightly or wrongly, that stuff is important these days. It's not a secret either that politicians are generally quite loathed, partly because they're seen as so detached so having a guy who seen as "ordinary" may help with that.
> 
> Plus, I suspect voters would feel that someone's who's had an ordinary job, would be more understanding and appreciative of their daily concerns and challenges and so would be more inclined to support them when developing policy and making decisions.


well as long as we're agreed that the army background makes him a better sell to the people, rather than better at the actual work of politics, i agree


----------



## Rob (May 10, 2015)

Stop running from the truth AK


----------



## Admiral Kizaru (May 10, 2015)

And no sooner was I espousing the virtues of Dan Jarvis as potential next Labour leader he rules himself out for the job. 



Sigh. 

Tristram Hunt seems to be making some moves in the media for what I suspect will be a run as well. Even though he's a Blairite, he's also the son of a baron and has one of the most poshest voices in politics. Probably not the best guy to turn to to reclaim Scotland with that in mind.


----------



## Kanki (May 10, 2015)

Conservatives bringing back fox hunting with dogs 

cunts.


----------



## Kanki (May 10, 2015)

We're in an era where personality is arguably more important (in terms of winning elections) than policies. The next leader needs to separate himself as much as possible from the current regime and be a charismatic figure who can actually speak with authority. 

It's even more important for the Lib Dems. I saw who they might have as their next leader....he may be smart but he's got the charisma of a brick. It's going to take them a generation to recover at least.


----------



## Admiral Kizaru (May 10, 2015)

Kanki said:


> Conservatives bringing back fox hunting with dogs
> 
> cunts.



Sigh...... it's good to see that the Tories as usual have their priorities correct immediately after winning the election. 

Never mind stopping the record number of families under their watch having to resort to the indignity of foodbanks to survive or preventing massive global companies avoid millions in due tax, whilst at the same time persecuting the single mum who claims an additional tenner a week with punitive sanctions. 

I hope those who thought, "what's the worst that could happen" and voted Tory on Thursday are already regretting their decision.


----------



## Nemesis (May 11, 2015)

People in food banks.
Austerity making things harder for the working class.
Real Under employment low


So lets bring back a "sport." in which we have toffs on horseback and packs of hounds chase a fox who is scared for their lives before it gets ripped apart.

Yup the tories are back in power and it is only going to get worse from here.


----------



## Parallax (May 11, 2015)

i see Blue lurking and I can't wait for his response

even if he never actually responded to a few of the posts that seemed to invalidate his posts


----------



## Blue (May 11, 2015)

Parallax said:


> i see Blue lurking and I can't wait for his response
> 
> even if he never actually responded to a few of the posts that seemed to invalidate his posts



what

Did I even make a serious post in this thread?


----------



## Blue (May 11, 2015)

Last two pages are mostly people upset about the conservative victory, which I didn't feel the need to interrupt

but since you're looking for my response, here it is:


----------



## Kagekatsu (May 11, 2015)

Blue said:


> Last two pages are mostly people upset about the conservative victory, which I didn't feel the need to interrupt
> 
> but since you're looking for my response, here it is:



Most are upset due to the fact that the Tories are promising a massive austerity cut to social services, particularly disabled benefits as a means of decreasing the deficit. And with the Lib Dems no longer in a coalition to keep them on a leash, plus the reports of people who have had their benefits cut literally committing suicide, many on the left are expecting the absolute worse.

There's also them trying to bring about an EU referendum and possible Brexit. Though it's likely the UK will vote to stay in the EU, that's going to cause problems to investor confidence and possibly curtail the present recovery.


----------



## Blue (May 11, 2015)

Kagekatsu said:


> Most are upset due to the fact that the Tories are promising a massive austerity cut to social services, particularly disabled benefits as a means of decreasing the deficit. And with the Lib Dems no longer in a coalition to keep them on a leash, plus the reports of people who have had their benefits cut literally committing suicide, many on the left are expecting the absolute worse.
> 
> There's also them trying to bring about an EU referendum and possible Brexit. Though it's likely the UK will vote to stay in the EU, that's going to cause problems to investor confidence and possibly curtail the present recovery.



You say these things like they're negatives in absolute terms. Deficit spending is spending the future. The UK will never go bankrupt and explode like Greece is threatening to, but every pound you spend now is 4 or 5 pounds you won't be able to spend in 2050.

If people commit suicide with their benefits cut now, in this economic boom, how many will when things look less rosy and they're cut even further? It isn't the responsibility of a politician to manage the suicidal tendencies of nuts any more than it's a celebrity's responsibility to meet a fan who promises suicide if they don't.

The EU referendum was going to happen whether or not the Tories got a majority, and settling the question will be good for the markets in the long run. Well, so long as it's settled by remaining in the EU.


----------



## Nemesis (May 11, 2015)

We are not in an economic boom.  The boom in the uk is a false boom that only helps the upper class.  The working class sees nothing of it with the only employment being minimum wage, part time or zero hour.

If we were in a new economic boom like during most of the labour government era we would be having record employment at a higher rate of pay.  To the point where only a few would be on the list i just gave above.

Also considering the Tories are going to do nothing to help and more to hurt when they outright said "We're all in this together." and yet they still do nothing more than a slight slap on the wrist for those that outright refuse to pay their tax which in itself causes the biggest black whole in the British budget than anything else?

For every pound spent in the welfare budget.  ?15 is lost by someone not paying tax.  Why do the cuts when that is peanuts compared to the real issue with our economy.

That and the housing bubble that will burst unless something is done soon.


----------



## Parallax (May 11, 2015)

Blue said:


> what
> 
> Did I even make a serious post in this thread?



I assume every post you make on this subject is serious, so yeah.  I mean unless you're admitting that all your posts here are trolls, then I'm wrong on the matter.


----------



## Blue (May 11, 2015)

Parallax said:


> I assume every post you make on this subject is serious, so yeah.  I mean unless you're admitting that all your posts here are trolls, then I'm wrong on the matter.



Last srs post I made was 3 days ago soooooo

(excepting the one I made this morning)


----------



## Parallax (May 11, 2015)

I know that?  I'm not seeing any imaginary posts


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (May 11, 2015)

Farage UKIP leader again as UKIP reject his resignation:

Norman Lamb announces run for Lib Dem leader:

Liz Kendall announces run for Labour leadership:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32676664


----------



## Nemesis (May 11, 2015)

Chuka Umunna has basically all but announced he was running a few days ago anyway for the Labour leadership.  I think he will be the one to win.


----------



## WT (May 11, 2015)

Kagekatsu said:


> Most are upset due to the fact that the Tories are promising a massive austerity cut to social services, particularly disabled benefits as a means of decreasing the deficit. And with the Lib Dems no longer in a coalition to keep them on a leash, plus the reports of people who have had their benefits cut literally committing suicide, many on the left are expecting the absolute worse.
> 
> There's also them trying to bring about an EU referendum and possible Brexit. Though it's likely the UK will vote to stay in the EU, that's going to cause problems to investor confidence and possibly curtail the present recovery.



There's no optimum solution and its pointless to point the finger at the government. They have to make unpopular choices and the tories are making all of the right unpopular choices. I know it sucks that cuts are being made to disabled benefits however, cuts need to be made. I strongly believe that the utmost priority is to get the economy bouncing again and the best way to do this is as the tories are planning: keep taxes on the low and decrease the unemployment rates.

These sorts of sacrifices are necessary for the short to medium term. We can think about the disabled benefits in the longer term when we actually have the money to pay for them.

The other day, I met an able man who cried at the idea of being forced to apply for a job every other week or so or his benefits would be cut. I'm sorry, you can't have my sympathy here. I work my ass off and it pisses me off to no end when there are scroungers around looking for the easy option. 

I'm glad my vote for the tories counted.


----------



## Nemesis (May 11, 2015)

WT said:


> There's no optimum solution and its pointless to point the finger at the government. They have to make unpopular choices and the tories are making all of the right unpopular choices. I know it sucks that cuts are being made to disabled benefits however, cuts need to be made. I strongly believe that the utmost priority is to get the economy bouncing again and the best way to do this is as the tories are planning: keep taxes on the low and decrease the unemployment rates.



No the taxes need to either rise for the wealthy or need to be collected with the damn loopholes closed.  Either way the cuts will do nothing to the economy while those that never suffered in this crisis continue to be allowed to evade taxation.



> These sorts of sacrifices are necessary for the short to medium term. We can think about the disabled benefits in the longer term when we actually have the money to pay for them.



Again closing the loopholes which cause 10times the budget deficit than the entirety of the welfare budget should be priority.  Not harming those that need the money.



> The other day, I met an able man who cried at the idea of being forced to apply for a job every other week or so or his benefits would be cut. I'm sorry, you can't have my sympathy here. I work my ass off and it pisses me off to no end when there are scroungers around looking for the easy option.
> 
> I'm glad my vote for the tories counted.



Maybe it is because there are not fucking jobs for the man to apply within the area he lives.  And no telling him he either has to spend his entire wage on travel or move 100s of miles away from his home, family and friends is not going to cut it either.


----------



## WT (May 11, 2015)

Nemesis said:


> No the taxes need to either rise for the wealthy or need to be collected with the damn loopholes closed.  Either way the cuts will do nothing to the economy while those that never suffered in this crisis continue to be allowed to evade taxation.



My father worked his ass off his entire life and began from incredibly humble means. He spent most of his life in debt and managed to get himself, with incredible difficulty an education. He became a doctor. 

He then spent working nights and days saving lives and lived most of his life an a slightly above average wage. He reached his peak recently and is now benefiting from the effort he put in all his life.

Its a similar case with me, I've worked hard, gone through a degree and have a masters in Mathematics. I've gained professional qualifications after this and am now on a better path.

Why should we sacrifice our efforts to pay for people who can't be arsed to get a job? 

They should get a fucking job and learn to earn themselves. Take a wound in your pride and start off at a call center or something. I've known people to do that and progress, there's no shame in earning.  




> Again closing the loopholes which cause 10times the budget deficit than the entirety of the welfare budget should be priority.  Not harming those that need the money.



I agree with that. Its the super rich who benefit unfairly from the loopholes. I'm against raising taxes though. 




> Maybe it is because there are not fucking jobs for the man to apply within the area he lives.  And no telling him he either has to spend his entire wage on travel or move 100s of miles away from his home, family and friends is not going to cut it either.



No, there are. People just don't want to make an effort to earn. They like being stuck in their little bubble where they don't have to work. Its the same for the guy I was speaking about.


----------



## Nemesis (May 11, 2015)

WT said:


> My father worked his ass off his entire life and began from incredibly humble means. He spent most of his life in debt and managed to get himself, with incredible difficulty an education. He became a doctor.
> 
> He then spent working nights and days saving lives and lived most of his life an a slightly above average wage. He reached his peak recently and is now benefiting from the effort he put in all his life.
> 
> ...



And the amount of people that are actually on benefits when they are scrounging is 1-2% of those on benefits.  So again why should those who are actually trying damn hard to find a fucking job suffer just because people are crying about what are essentially numbers so low they shouldn't count



> I agree with that. Its the super rich who benefit unfairly from the loopholes. I'm against raising taxes though.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes very few people.  Others try their fucking hardest but are in no win situations.  It's been proven that the government is telling JSA workers to sanction people just to make the numbers of people sanctioned higher to appease people who think all people on benefits are scroungers.

That is the crime with benefits.  Not the 1-2% who find a way to cheat the system.


----------



## N120 (May 11, 2015)

A little Compassion and a helping hand goes a long way. 

We're not going to take money, status or prestige with us when we die. If we don't utilise these to better ourselves and others around us what's the point of it all?


----------



## WT (May 12, 2015)

N120 said:


> A little Compassion and a helping hand goes a long way.
> 
> We're not going to take money, status or prestige with us when we die. If we don't utilise these to better ourselves and others around us what's the point of it all?



There's a massive ethical difference between people willingly giving away money and people being forced to give away money when they have worked so hard to attain it in the first place. 

One of the greatest evils in my opinion is forced charity. Its an ideal that resonates entirely with communism and shouls have no place in this world.


----------



## Blue (May 12, 2015)

WT said:


> My father worked his ass off his entire life and began from incredibly humble means. He spent most of his life in debt and managed to get himself, with incredible difficulty an education. He became a doctor.



Are you me?


----------



## N120 (May 12, 2015)

WT said:


> There's a massive ethical difference between people willingly giving away money and people being forced to give away money when they have worked so hard to attain it in the first place.
> 
> One of the greatest evils in my opinion is forced charity. Its an ideal that resonates entirely with communism and shouls have no place in this world.



I agree with you on the principle that distribution of wealth, healthcare provisions, education, job creation and welfare is down to the govt and not the individual. 

The blame in this case falls on govt policies/system not on the people wether they be rich or poor. 

And that's the main concern, the system/govt doesn't always work for everyone.


----------



## Saishin (May 13, 2015)

> *'British Obama' announces his candidacy to lead Labour Party*
> 
> Chuka Umunna, 37, promises to restore Labour government by 2020
> 
> ...


----------



## jetwaterluffy1 (May 13, 2015)

"British Obama"


----------

