2015 Election season ..........stuff it in here.

[Guest MattP]

If voters now demand a smooth, self-confident, charismatic showman like Blair or Cameron, then Ed is doomed

They don't yet, Cameron couldn't get an overall majority against the dullest man ever to enter politics.

I really hope people won't blame the media if Ed does crash and burn. It's really nothing to do with them, he's been hopeless and his performance in pmqs is a joke now. Six valuable questions and everyone the same today.

He's had four years and still no one knows what he stands for or any real policy he's came up (barring the energy price freeze, which would now actually be costing people more )

I'll be honest, the fact he's still sat there probably shows the people in his party might be loyal but also shows they are incapable of running the country.

[Guest MattP]

Can't agree with your analysis of Foot there Alf. He and his faction created the split in the Labour party, you can't really say he inherited it. Also it wasn't his lack of charisma that cost them the election but his extreme left wing manifesto, called even by members of his own party as the longest suicide note in history.

Makes me laugh when Labour supporters encourage this shift to the left - it results in diabolical poll ratings every time.

The people simply don't want that sort of politics, people generally have ambition and drive these days and believe it should be rewarded rather than frowned upon and punished.

[leicsmac]

Makes me laugh when Labour supporters encourage this shift to the left - it results in diabolical poll ratings every time.

The people simply don't want that sort of politics, people generally have ambition and drive these days and believe it should be rewarded rather than frowned upon and punished.

 

Little bit of a ad hominem there Matt? I'm pretty sure Alf never mentioned shifting to the left in his post, nor is he a Labour supporter - or so he has said.

 

And your second sentence is pure strawman. It's like me saying that people generally have ambition and drive and should be encouraged to to screw others over and be as ruthless and uncaring as possible in order to help themselves along with a big dollop of social Darwinism, and then presenting that as a view of the right.

[Guest MattP]

I was talking people in general.

You often here people saying Labour need to 'back to their roots' etc or go back across to the left.

Fact is they fail every time they do that as the working public don't want it. They've seen the damage it does.

[Monk]

As an Englishman living in Scotland I think the English politicians, media and public overestimate the desire for independence now. It's been used as a threat by the tories in debate and labour have struggled to wiggle out of it somehow. The reality is up here that the vast vast majority accept the result of the referendum and are not expecting to see another come along again any time soon, regardless of the SNP's power at Westminster.

 

Nicola Sturgeon is pretty much the only UK political leader with any credibility at all, would be fantastic to have her party to drag Labour a bit more to their natural place on the left rather than the 'me too' politics of the last 5 years. 

 

I despise Milliband for not making his party stand out despite ample opportunity to, but Cameron is arrogant, taking the country into dangerous waters on the EU and just generally a tw*t. Hope he gets kicked out.

[leicsmac]

I was talking people in general.

You often here people saying Labour need to 'back to their roots' etc or go back across to the left.

Fact is they fail every time they do that as the working public don't want it. They've seen the damage it does.

Enough of the working public disagreed with your view and wanted a pretty left wing leader in Brown to deny the Tories a majority last time out.

That being said, I think there's been a drift to the centre from both main parties ever since the days of Blair and populist politics came in. They simply can't win enough seats to guarantee a majority without offering something to a lot of different people. Labour needed to appeal to big business, and the Tories had to go softer on many of their social policies.

But given we're heading for a second hung parliament in as many elections, even that strategy is beginning to fail.

I think there is going to be a fairly radical change in the political system in the U.K. soon enough. More compromise is going to have to happen.

[Guest MattP]

Enough of the working public disagreed with your view and wanted a pretty left wing leader in Brown to deny the Tories a majority last time out.

That being said, I think there's been a drift to the centre from both main parties ever since the days of Blair and populist politics came in. They simply can't win enough seats to guarantee a majority without offering something to a lot of different people. Labour needed to appeal to big business, and the Tories had to go softer on many of their social policies.

But given we're heading for a second hung parliament in as many elections, even that strategy is beginning to fail.

I think there is going to be a fairly radical change in the political system in the U.K. soon enough. More compromise is going to have to happen.

Well Brown had so many on his payroll it was always going to be tough, a ballooning welfare state and public sector while still handing tax credits to households earning 50k.

I agree on the last point - the country in generally now is very centre ground and a shift to either side doesn't do either party any good.

Another reason why Scotland needs to go really - they are a hugely socialist country and it isn't fair they can mooch off us under the Barnett formula to satisfy it, let alone get more with vieled threats.

If they want everything they do want it's time to pay for it themselves.

[Voll Blau]

Not specifically election-related, but a decent article in the Guardian today...

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/11/mainstream-left-silencing-sympathetic-voices?CMP=fb_gu

[Guest MattP]

Not specifically election-related, but a decent article in the Guardian today...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/11/mainstream-left-silencing-sympathetic-voices?CMP=fb_gu

Pretty good read although not something I'm sure anyone will be surprised at.

Hard to believe it's from today though as I didn't see any mention of Jeremy Clarkson.

[leicsmac]

Well Brown had so many on his payroll it was always going to be tough, a ballooning welfare state and public sector while still handing tax credits to households earning 50k.

I agree on the last point - the country in generally now is very centre ground and a shift to either side doesn't do either party any good.

Another reason why Scotland needs to go really - they are a hugely socialist country and it isn't fair they can mooch off us under the Barnett formula to satisfy it, let alone get more with vieled threats.

If they want everything they do want it's time to pay for it themselves.

 

And the fact that this would leave a Tory majority in virtual perpetuity for everyone else has nothing to do with this? Pardon my cynicism.

 

Also...why would Scotland leaving result in a desirable sea-change in politics here, viz. better representation? The way I see it the only way that will happen is a change in the voting system, as has been discussed many times before.

[MooseBreath]

If England wants a tory majority in virtual perpetuity then why shouldn't that be what England gets?

[leicsmac]

If England wants a tory majority in virtual perpetuity then why shouldn't that be what England gets?

 

Tyranny of the majority, Moose. I believe that argument has been used by many of the right-wing inclination on here before, and it is one that I actually do agree with. Policy should have variation based on the votes in each area in order to reflect what those in that area want. Right now the system is far too rigid and centralised in areas where it could be managed far better at a local level. Having a Tory majority Government in perpetuity (which would be probable if Scotland were to be removed from the equation) would hardly be fair on those not voting for them (who might actually consititute the majority of voters) as there likely would be no change for a very, very extended period of time. At least with the system we have right now there's an element of balance where there is at least a chance of a change of Government once every decade, fifteen years at the outside.

 

Of course, you could say that such a party in charge for such a long time would eventually become so unpopular that they are thrown out anyway, but given how entrenched party politics is in this country on both sides and how few true "swing" voters there are I'm not sure that it would happen.

 

I'm very much in the camp of more localised, decentralised government on quite a few matters (outside of the truly big stuff) and far better proportional representation where more votes matter. Having one group with too much power for too much time - regardless of their political affiliation - is a recipe for disaster.

[Finnegan]

Bit confused. Mac lives in Korea, works in Korea, pays tax in Korea - right? Why would that be in any way wrong?

[leicsmac]

Bit confused. Mac lives in Korea, works in Korea, pays tax in Korea - right? Why would that be in any way wrong?

 

I think people were labouring under the misconception that I thought people who move abroad to make money are bad, rather than those who just move their money abroad. I hope the clarification that I made earlier on in this page helps out with that.

[Finnegan]

I thought that was pretty obvious before you felt you had to clarify it.

It was tenuous at best from MB.

[leicsmac]

I thought that was pretty obvious before you felt you had to clarify it.

It was tenuous at best from MB.

 

Yeah, me too. But I like to be thorough and a little obsessive compulsive. It's why I like picking at arguments on here.

[MooseBreath]

JTH was talking about people who move themselves out of the UK because the tax here is too high, I believe. That's different from people who move their money out of the UK. Worth a quick clarification imo, but thanks for your feedback finno.

[Finnegan]

You're welcome, chap. Happy to help.

[Guest MattP]

Too early obviously to get excited, but polls not looking good at all for Labour in March. Conservatives have the biggest lead for over three years.

 

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/03/10/uk-britain-election-poll-idUKKBN0M611V20150310

 

I think Cameron needs to keep driving home this SNP-Labour possible pact - if there's one thing a lot of English people agree on whatever their political position it's that Salmond and the SNP are pretty vile and we don't want them near Westminster in anyone's best case scenario.

 

Labour as big at 20/1 for an outright majority now, just imagine being on that at odds on Purpleronnie?

[Buce]

Farage would 'axe race-discrimination laws':

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31846453

[SMX11]

Farage would 'axe race-discrimination laws':

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31846453

 

Good headline that. It's a shame the ruling class don't understand what he actually meant.

[Guest MattP]

Farage would 'axe race-discrimination laws':

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31846453

Gordon Brown - 'British jobs for British workers' - Finally Gordon gets it - a policy for the working man, in touch with the people and back to the party's roots!

Nigel Farage - 'We'll let companies employ a British person over a foreigner if they want too' - Racist, Nasty Nigel - One of the most shocking things I've heard in politics.

[Mark_w]

And when asked if he would retain a ban on discrimination on the grounds of race or colour, he said: "No... because we take the view, we are colour-blind. We as a party are colour-blind."

 

Leaving aside his nationalist policies/views that just don't sit right with me and never will, what he's saying, with regards to race, seems foolishly idealistic doesn't it? If I'm interpreting what he's saying correctly.

 

He may be 'colour blind' and his party may be colour blind (I'm sure he'd acknowledge that plenty of the members of his party aren't based on some of the things various, now ex, members of UKIP have come out with) but Britain as a whole certainly isn't. Scrapping discrimination laws, if that is UKIP's intention, is a massive step backwards, I'm sure most of us would love them to be unnecessary but they aren't because whether he wants to acknowledge it or not racism does still exist and is still a major problem. I think he'd be better off acknowledging that a lot of people within UKIP and a chunk of the people who intend to vote UKIP just aren't 'colour blind' and that's really something he needs to address.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

Gordon Brown - 'British jobs for British workers' - Finally Gordon gets it - a policy for the working man, in touch with the people and back to the party's roots!

Nigel Farage - 'We'll let companies employ a British person over a foreigner if they want too' - Racist, Nasty Nigel - One of the most shocking things I've heard in politics.

Nothing wrong with that at all. Companies should be able to hire who they want. Why shouldn't they?

 

UKIP for me. A breath of fresh air in politics, thank God. 

[Benji]

Too early obviously to get excited, but polls not looking good at all for Labour in March. Conservatives have the biggest lead for over three years.

 

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/03/10/uk-britain-election-poll-idUKKBN0M611V20150310

 

I think Cameron needs to keep driving home this SNP-Labour possible pact - if there's one thing a lot of English people agree on whatever their political position it's that Salmond and the SNP are pretty vile and we don't want them near Westminster in anyone's best case scenario.

 

Labour as big at 20/1 for an outright majority now, just imagine being on that at odds on Purpleronnie?

Out of pure interest, has it ever been tested whether polls are ever worth the paper they're written on? I appreciate by their nature it would be difficult to prove, but presumably polls taken very close to the election could be measured against election results.

I see this one has less than 2,000 people polled when nearly 30 million people voted in 2010. I just can't help but think they mean the square root of fk all, but maybe I'm just cynical.