General Election 2015 Match Day Thread (Merged)

[Esmond Million's Bung]

[Red-Robbo]

or collecting that money right up to writing a nicely coherent letter about being absent for 6 months whilst you become the 2nd man in history to recover from dementia/escape prosecution for sex assaults and strangely both establishment figures and both British.

I think he actually did turn up and vote Es! Clearly Alzheimer's must be no bar to sitting in Britain's senior chamber and reviewing/amending our laws.

Rerun the Richard Littledick quote at this point!

[Esmond Million's Bung]

I think he actually did turn up and vote Es! Clearly Alzheimer's must be no bar to sitting in Britain's senior chamber and reviewing/amending our laws.

Rerun the Richard Littledick quote at this point!

 

Yes he did in fact his attendance was described well above average, you have to ask how on earth it is constitutionally safe to allow people that 'ill' to vote or to sit in judgement on people, perhaps it's about time these people were at least tested annually.

 

As an aside I read an article several years ago from a paper written by a professor at Southampton University, who analysed many Harold Wilson speeches etc. and he concluded that in his opinion he was displaying all of the classic symptoms of dementia up to 18 months before Callaghan took over.

[Red-Robbo]

Yes he did in fact his attendance was described well above average, you have to ask how on earth it is constitutionally safe to allow people that 'ill' to vote or to sit in judgement on people, perhaps it's about time these people were at least tested annually.

As an aside I read an article several years ago from a paper written by a professor at Southampton University, who analysed many Harold Wilson speeches etc. and he concluded that in his opinion he was displaying all of the classic symptoms of dementia up to 18 months before Callaghan took over.

Indeed. And there's some suggestions that Churchill had it on his second administration.

Apparently he had to be constantly reminded what day of the week it was.

Lords reform isn't much of a doorstep voter exciter, but I think it is very important.

Our system is a nonsense. A melange of superannuated party cronies; dodgy donors; a few very old scientists; some bishops and a smattering of guys who have the hereditary right to be there because their great-great-great-great grandmothers sucked off the king.

In my view, you have a good opportunity to use and mixed FPTP and PR system if it was reformed. Elect the Commons traditionally, use the same votes proportionally to determine the composition of a checks and balances upper chamber.

[chipdawg]

Indeed. And there's some suggestions that Churchill had it on his second administration.

Apparently he had to be constantly reminded what day of the week it was.

Lords reform isn't much of a doorstep voter exciter, but I think it is very important.

Our system is a nonsense. A melange of superannuated party cronies; dodgy donors; a few very old scientists; some bishops and a smattering of guys who have the hereditary right to be there because their great-great-great-great grandmothers sucked off the king.

In my view, you have a good opportunity to use and mixed FPTP and PR system if it was reformed. Elect the Commons traditionally, use the same votes proportionally to determine the composition of a checks and balances upper chamber.

I agree with you to an extent- are system is a nonsense and while promises for reform of it will never win you an election, I think it's vitally important. However, a FPTP lower chamber and a PR upper chamber will probably just result in 2 chambers that don't really agree with each other and if we assume that an upper house can't ultimately deny the will of a lower house, you just end up with everything delayed and nothing halted. Because our 'constitution' is in essence based on the judgement of the courts, we already have a system of making sure that what the commons wants to do is legally viable. In that respect, the House of Lords is largely irrelevant. I personally feel that a two-tiered political system would better of there were regional assemblies rather than two at Westminster- perhaps those could be PR as a start?

I always get really annoyed by the argument for PR about people liking having 'an MP who they know works for them'. The good constituency MPs are few and far between, the vast majority merely follow the whip and work in the party interest rather than the interests of the people in their area and the party interests are largely based around keeping the areas of London around Canary Wharf and St Paul's happy, therefore keeping GDP up and making it look they're doing a good job! Plus, on my ballot paper only 2 of the 8 candidates on the paper (TUSC and Green) lived even close to the constituency. You might as well just have an MP assigned to you on the basis of PR

[Red-Robbo]

I agree with you to an extent- are system is a nonsense and while promises for reform of it will never win you an election, I think it's vitally important. However, a FPTP lower chamber and a PR upper chamber will probably just result in 2 chambers that don't really agree with each other and if we assume that an upper house can't ultimately deny the will of a lower house, you just end up with everything delayed and nothing halted. Because our 'constitution' is in essence based on the judgement of the courts, we already have a system of making sure that what the commons wants to do is legally viable. In that respect, the House of Lords is largely irrelevant. I personally feel that a two-tiered political system would better of there were regional assemblies rather than two at Westminster- perhaps those could be PR as a start?

I always get really annoyed by the argument for PR about people liking having 'an MP who they know works for them'. The good constituency MPs are few and far between, the vast majority merely follow the whip and work in the party interest rather than the interests of the people in their area and the party interests are largely based around keeping the areas of London around Canary Wharf and St Paul's happy, therefore keeping GDP up and making it look they're doing a good job! Plus, on my ballot paper only 2 of the 8 candidates on the paper (TUSC and Green) lived even close to the constituency. You might as well just have an MP assigned to you on the basis of PR

As the Lords has an inbuilt Tory majority, you have two houses that don't agree with each other already - every time there is a Labour government. That's why it took the hunting bill so long to pass.

Tbh having no majority in the upper chamber - which only reviews legislation, it doesn't pass laws itself - is not a bad thing. You'd get the views of the millions voting Ukip, Green, Lib Dem reflected whilst not having important business held up by the representatives of Scotland or Ulster.

Btw in my plan, you'd only have about 100 senators or whatever we wanted to call them.

As for regional assemblies, yes I agree. Good idea.

[Aizoon]

To be fair, I believe these changes have been proposed by the electoral commission and will actually make a fairer distribution of seats. The reason being some areas such cities in the north of England, Scotland and the Welsh valleys have had slower population growth than other areas such as the south east of England, London etc. As an extreme example, the Isle of Wight elects a single MP with an electorate of 110,000+, yet other constituencies have an electorate half the size, or smaller. I can see some arguments though as there are several contentious changes with constituency straddling historical boundaries eg there will be a constituency running across the Cornwall-Devon border and also across the Lancashire-Yorkshire border.

Ultimately, the changes will not have a massive effect. If the changes had taken place before the 2015 election, the Conservatives would have gained 52.3% of seats rather than the 50.9% they achieved and Labour would have gained 35.1% rather than their actual 35.7%. The SNP would have gained 8.2% of the seats rather than their 2015 8.6%. The changes would only be significant if there was an extremely close election (as was predicted for 2015), however, it wouldn't have changed the ultimate make up of any government for 30+ years. Furthermore, it will increase the number of seats in England which are straddling rural and urban areas and thus "marginal".

In my opinion talk of "locking out" Labour for evermore is therefore wide of the mark.

It would be interesting to see how easy it is for the Conservatives to get it through parliament, as it will result in the number or MPs dropping from 650 to 600 it will mean several MPs from all parties are likely to lose their job at the next election. With Cameron only having a slim majority those in his party who are in seats which would cease to exist (or would change sufficiently that they'd naturally be won by a different party) could rebel and stop the plans, just like the Lib Dems did in the last government.

Note, all of the above is based on the changes proposed in 2013, the Conservatives could look for further changes, however, they are unlikely to be much more beneficial to the Tories as since 2013 the largest population increases have been in inner city areas (such as East London) which are naturally labour leaning.

 

A lot of sense there, but the Isle of Wight example is a red herring. The electors there voted for a single constituency rather than two, each bundled with a bit of Hampshire.

[marshy]

The Tories moving to straight away change the constituency boundaries to their benefit is disgraceful. They are supposed to work in the public interest and this just yet again proves what a load of self-serving tossers they are. How can they get away with it?

 

They can 'get away with it', (not sure that's a very apt expression), because the British people in their wisdom, in the quiet of their polling booths, decided they didn't like the look of a Labour party moving to the left being pushed and prodded, even courted on national TV, by the leader of a small and grossly over represented  electorate north of the border.

 

Surely you cannot be so prejudiced in your views that you think unequal boundaries enhance our democracy. It is only right and proper that demographic movement should be recognized from time to time by realigning the boundaries. This should have happened during the coalition of course but Clegg had a sulk after Lords reform was squashed, even though they were given a vote on AV. This was one reason among many why, along with many others, I changed my vote from Lib Dem to Tory.

[Kid in the Riot]

They can 'get away with it', (not sure that's a very apt expression), because the British people in their wisdom, in the quiet of their polling booths, decided they didn't like the look of a Labour party moving to the left being pushed and prodded, even courted on national TV, by the leader of a small and grossly over represented  electorate north of the border.

 

Surely you cannot be so prejudiced in your views that you think unequal boundaries enhance our democracy. It is only right and proper that demographic movement should be recognized from time to time by realigning the boundaries. This should have happened during the coalition of course but Clegg had a sulk after Lords reform was squashed, even though they were given a vote on AV. This was one reason among many why, along with many others, I changed my vote from Lib Dem to Tory.

 

Of course the changes should take place if they're fair but given the Tories look set to benefit a fair bit (even it's only 3-4% as Stoke Giff Red has said) you will understand my concern and cynicism.

[Red-Robbo]

They can 'get away with it', (not sure that's a very apt expression), because the British people in their wisdom, in the quiet of their polling booths, decided they didn't like the look of a Labour party moving to the left being pushed and prodded, even courted on national TV, by the leader of a small and grossly over represented electorate north of the border.

Surely you cannot be so prejudiced in your views that you think unequal boundaries enhance our democracy. It is only right and proper that demographic movement should be recognized from time to time by realigning the boundaries. This should have happened during the coalition of course but Clegg had a sulk after Lords reform was squashed, even though they were given a vote on AV. This was one reason among many why, along with many others, I changed my vote from Lib Dem to Tory.

Wasn't quite as straightforward as you make out, Marshy.

After the Tories reneged on their coalition talks promise to reform the Lords - and surely you cannot support the current ludicrous arrangements there - as well as reneging on other parts of the agreement, including the way the AV referendum was set up, and cash for vocational training, the Lib Dems felt they had no ammunition other than to withdraw their support for changes that the Tories were licking their lips awaiting, not because of any massive concern for fairness - they'd blocked such reforms in the past - but because they knew it would benefit them.

I surely needn't add the caveat to your earlier assertion by pointing out that almost 2/3 of those who voted, did not vote for the Cons.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

Looks like the labour party blood letting has started, a couple of Blairites in the shadow cabinet Chuka and Hunt who are likely to be candidates in the labour leadership contest questioned Miliband's policies, but dear old Ms Abbot called it right, pity they didn't challenge Ed's strategy during and not after the event, looks like Gordon's "not me guv" is alive and kicking and of course the slimy Mr Mandelson has said that new labour was thrown out to quickly. He also said this, which I have to agree with:- 

 

'We were sent off in 2010 on a giant political experiment in which we were sent out and sort of told to wave our fists angrily at the nasty Tories and wait for the public to make sure how much they missed us.

'Well they weren't missing us and they didn't miss us. Instead they ripped the stripes off our shoulders'.

 

As I said several hating tories is not a policy, so boys new labour mk2.

 

[Red-Robbo]

Looks like the labour party blood letting has started, a couple of Blairites in the shadow cabinet Chuka and Hunt who are likely to be candidates in the labour leadership contest questioned Miliband's policies, but dear old Ms Abbot called it right, pity they didn't challenge Ed's strategy during and not after the event, looks like Gordon's "not me guv" is alive and kicking and of course the slimy Mr Mandelson has said that new labour was thrown out to quickly. He also said this, which I have to agree with:-

'We were sent off in 2010 on a giant political experiment in which we were sent out and sort of told to wave our fists angrily at the nasty Tories and wait for the public to make sure how much they missed us.

'Well they weren't missing us and they didn't miss us. Instead they ripped the stripes off our shoulders'.

As I said several hating tories is not a policy, so boys new labour mk2.

I think Mandelson's about as relevant to modern politics as Blair is. He's such a liability every time he opens his mouth, that I can't help but thinking he's a long-term Tory undercover agent.

He needs to **** off and spend more time in some oligarch's yacht.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

I think Mandelson's about as relevant to modern politics as Blair is. He's such a liability every time he opens his mouth, that I can't help but thinking he's a long-term Tory undercover agent.

He needs to **** off and spend more time in some oligarch's yacht.

 

Maybe so but he is correct in the case of hating the tories is not a policy, the rest is up to labour to decide on direction, it's going to be fun, follow Ed's way (that has failed) or return to a formula that worked for 3 elections and 13 years and only really went awry because labour anointed the wrong man, do you see a theme emerging here?.

[Red-Robbo]

Maybe so but he is correct in the case of hating the tories is not a policy, the rest is up to labour to decide on direction, it's going to be fun, follow Ed's way (that has failed) or return to a formula that worked for 3 elections and 13 years and only really went awry because labour anointed the wrong man, do you see a theme emerging here?.

But probably a better policy than apeing the Tories which has always been what he advocated.

Really, with right-leaning persons, the party can do nothing: they are either "too much like the Tories" and have "lost touch with the working man" - or they are "dangerously socialists" and "have moved too far from the central ground". Often these contradictory criticisms are made by the same people.

I honestly believe that whoever was selected as Labour's leader would have been subjected to the same degree of vitriol from the Tory press and the same degree of (highly successful it has to be said) spin from loathsome antipodean Lynton Crosbie.

David Miliband - for example - would have faced exactly the same accusations that he'd be in the pocket of the SNP and was "weak": the latter something you hear people mindlessly repeat without ever being able to qualify exactly what they mean.

The fact is there was a lot more to Labour's manifesto than simply "hating the Tories": rent caps; fuel price freezes; extra cash for the NHS funded by what would effectively be one higher band of council tax and the abolition of the nonsensical non-dom status. All things that would benefit ordinary people.

What were the Tory policies? Keep everything as they were apart from selling off social housing thus making the affordable housing crisis worst and selling off Lloyds shares at less than they could have got on the open market to people with plenty of spare cash. Great!

[Esmond Million's Bung]

But probably a better policy than apeing the Tories which has always been what he advocated.

Really, with right-leaning persons, the party can do nothing: they are either "too much like the Tories" and have "lost touch with the working man" - or they are "dangerously socialists" and "have moved too far from the central ground". Often these contradictory criticisms are made by the same people.

I honestly believe that whoever was selected as Labour's leader would have been subjected to the same degree of vitriol from the Tory press and the same degree of (highly successful it has to be said) spin from loathsome antipodean Lynton Crosbie.

David Miliband - for example - would have faced exactly the same accusations that he'd be in the pocket of the SNP and was "weak": the latter something you hear people mindlessly repeat without ever being able to qualify exactly what they mean.

The fact is there was a lot more to Labour's manifesto than simply "hating the Tories": rent caps; fuel price freezes; extra cash for the NHS funded by what would effectively be one higher band of council tax and the abolition of the nonsensical non-dom status. All things that would benefit ordinary people.

What were the Tory policies? Keep everything as they were apart from selling off social housing thus making the affordable housing crisis worst and selling off Lloyds shares at less than they could have got on the open market to people with plenty of spare cash. Great!

 

I don't believe the tory press did the damage in the normal way this time around.

 

of course there was more to their manifesto, but I cannot once recall hearing an answer as to where the money was coming from, it was incredibly vague.

 

The big question for me has got to be how did all of the polls get it so spectacularly wrong?, the polls barely fluctuated for a year, I just  can't make sense of it and find it hard to believe that so many people apparently changed their minds on the day, the polls basically got it wrong to the tune of 70 seats, that's ridiculous, something stinks about that.

 

As I said RR with current crop of politicians on offer, I think people would still have ended up disappointed whoever won. I bet labour wished that they had a Nicola Sturgeon within their ranks, I don't know about you but I can't see anybody looks as though they will be able set the political world alight let alone unite the party, I can see things getting ugly, but labour have to get it right this time.

[JM91]

The big question for me has got to be how did all of the polls get it so spectacularly wrong?, the polls barely fluctuated for a year, I just  can't make sense of it and find it hard to believe that so many people apparently changed their minds on the day, the polls basically got it wrong to the tune of 70 seats, that's ridiculous, something stinks about that.

 

I can answer this.  

Because left wing looneys seem so set on themselves having some kind of morale highground that it is pointless saying you vote for the Conservatives because you get hounded down by the bigots who cant tolerate differing opinions.  

Its far easier to say you're voting Labour/Lib Dem and then get to the ballot box and vote Conservative.  

[MrBibs]

I can answer this.  

Because left wing looneys seem so set on themselves having some kind of morale highground that it is pointless saying you vote for the Conservatives because you get hounded down by the bigots who cant tolerate differing opinions.  

Its far easier to say you're voting Labour/Lib Dem and then get to the ballot box and vote Conservative.  

Surely opinion polls are carried out confidentially?

[Red-Robbo]

[marshy]

I can answer this.  

Because left wing looneys seem so set on themselves having some kind of morale highground that it is pointless saying you vote for the Conservatives because you get hounded down by the bigots who cant tolerate differing opinions.  

Its far easier to say you're voting Labour/Lib Dem and then get to the ballot box and vote Conservative.  

 

I have to say there seems to be a great deal of truth in this. In the main supporters of the right behaved impeccably throughout the campaign. Unfortunately we had the unedifying spectacle of Tory councillors, MPs and their families having their houses, garages, cars vandalised, daubed with slogans like ''Tory Scum'' etc. Not to mention being shouted down and hounded by activists in the streets. 

[Kid in the Riot]

I can answer this.  

Because left wing looneys seem so set on themselves having some kind of morale highground that it is pointless saying you vote for the Conservatives because you get hounded down by the bigots who cant tolerate differing opinions.  

Its far easier to say you're voting Labour/Lib Dem and then get to the ballot box and vote Conservative.  

 

You've got a nerve referring to "left wing loonies" considering the amount of factually incorrect nonsense you've posted on this thread so far... Of course many of the opinion polls are carried out confidentially and without prejudice so unfortunately once again your theory doesn't stack up.

 

I think the more likely explanation is that a lot of middle ground voters turned out for fear of an SNP/Labour coalition which the right wing media successfully promoted the ills of. Bottom line is it must have been a turnout issue as that many people can't have changed their minds at the last minute.

 

I have to say there seems to be a great deal of truth in this. In the main supporters of the right behaved impeccably throughout the campaign. Unfortunately we had the unedifying spectacle of Tory councillors, MPs and their families having their houses, garages, cars vandalised, daubed with slogans like ''Tory Scum'' etc. Not to mention being shouted down and hounded by activists in the streets. 

 

And of course members of right-wing parties have never behaved in this manner....

 

I can't have been the only one that noticed the irony of Leslie's car being sprayed with "media whore" only for her to appear in every single photo of her graffitti'd cars in The Post.

[Portland Bill]

Surely opinion polls are carried out confidentially?

They are, but that doesn't suit JM's anti left agenda.

[marshy]

You've got a nerve referring to "left wing loonies" considering the amount of factually incorrect nonsense you've posted on this thread so far... Of course many of the opinion polls are carried out confidentially and without prejudice so unfortunately once again your theory doesn't stack up.

 

3).I think the more likely explanation is that a lot of middle ground voters turned out for fear of an SNP/Labour coalition which the right wing media successfully promoted the ills of. Bottom line is it must have been a turnout issue as that many people can't have changed their minds at the last minute.

 

 

1)And of course members of right-wing parties have never behaved in this manner....

 

2).I can't have been the only one that noticed the irony of Leslie's car being sprayed with "media whore" only for her to appear in every single photo of her graffitti'd cars in The Post.

 

1). I was talking about the recent campaign of course but generally speaking I think it is the left-wing activists that have been the ones to more readily indulge in these aggressive tactics. In British elections anyway.

 

2). Not my constituency so not aware of the history of this case. However, whatever the history the action of these vandals was counter-productive. Besides, is she supposed to take it on the chin and not bring it to the attention of the public and the police?

 

3). I think you are definitely correct on this. The thought of a small, strident , and over represented party being in power swung it for the Tories. Turned out well for Sturgeon as it strengthens her case for independence from a Tory England.

[Barrs Court Red]

I see the in/out vote may be brought forward...,at a time the EU may force us to take in migrants.

That could be a real game changer if it drags on, as at the moment I don't think the anti EU camp would win.

[Barrs Court Red]

Why don't we just give the scots fiscal autonomy? That way they can have the high tax socialist paradise they want.

[Kid in the Riot]

I see the in/out vote may be brought forward...,at a time the EU may force us to take in migrants.

That could be a real game changer if it drags on, as at the moment I don't think the anti EU camp would win.

 

Who knows, after last week's result anything seems possible. UKIP already have 4 million people mobilised it would seem.

[Calculus]

Why don't we just give the scots fiscal autonomy? That way they can have the high tax socialist paradise they want.

Tempting I know. If we do and as predicted it all goes wrong who you think would be bailing them out?

In any event, what does full fiscal autonomy within the UK mean? Should they pay for a slice, for example, of the armed forces, foreign office, EU, foreign aid budgets? If so, how much? Should they be able to opt of Trident financially. Should HMRC charge them for collecting their taxes for them? These and a thousand other questions will need answers.

Don't ask me for the answers, I haven't a clue. Suspect that we'll offer them a few extra powers but well short of full fiscal autonomy. IMO there's no doubt that they'll be independent within the next 10 years - and the sooner the better!

[Red-Robbo]

Why don't we just give the scots fiscal autonomy? That way they can have the high tax socialist paradise they want.

 

They have a fair degree of tax-raising powers already. and it has to be said the so-called "loony lefties" of the SNP have managed to make Scotland the fastest growing economy within the UK.

 

The Barnett Formula is clearly unfair however, and I agree with you, that the way forward is to give them entirely their own tax pot to play with and let them sink or swim from that.

 

It would take quite a bit of negotiation however as the Scots would obviously have to pay into the national coffers for defence etc, and as they would be keeping the pound, a London-based Bank of England would still be making decisions that would financialy affect them.

[BCFC Jimmer]

1). I was talking about the recent campaign of course but generally speaking I think it is the left-wing activists that have been the ones to more readily indulge in these aggressive tactics. In British elections anyway.

 

It is natural for people to revolt when they feel they demoralised and treated unfairly.

 

Given how the Conservative government has consistently shat on vulnerable people I am amazed we have not seen more protests.  For example, In France/Germany the public just wouldn't have it.

 

I often feel sorry for the Police who have to deal with violence (many of them and their colleagues have been the victim of Tory cut backs).

 

4 days on from the election and I still can't come to any other conclusion apart from most Tory voters being 'duped'.  A horrible state of affairs indeed.

[Aizoon]

Surely opinion polls are carried out confidentially?

 

They are. But some people are afraid they'll be thought of as selfish bustards if they say they'll vote Conservative. So they say Labour or Don't Know (aka Lib Dem) and then vote Conservative anyway.

[Aizoon]

Tempting I know. If we do and as predicted it all goes wrong who you think would be bailing them out?

In any event, what does full fiscal autonomy within the UK mean? Should they pay for a slice, for example, of the armed forces, foreign office, EU, foreign aid budgets? If so, how much? Should they be able to opt of Trident financially. Should HMRC charge them for collecting their taxes for them? These and a thousand other questions will need answers.

Don't ask me for the answers, I haven't a clue. Suspect that we'll offer them a few extra powers but well short of full fiscal autonomy. IMO there's no doubt that they'll be independent within the next 10 years - and the sooner the better!

 

Why should it go wrong? It hasn't in Bolivia or Iceland.

 

The neo-con idea of rewarding the wealthy and soaking the poor has been a disaster on its own terms. If you give money to the rich, they will salt it away in tax havens. If you give money to the poor they will spend it and boost the economy.

 

Perfectly obvious, unless you're one of the rich or influenced by the mass media that they own.