According to my FaceBook timeline the country is instantly going to revert to 1979 - 90 for some reason.
Very tired and confused rabble rousing in my opinion.
General Election 2015 Page 28
Quote: Ben @ 8th May 2015, 11:34 PM BSTAccording to my FaceBook timeline the country is instantly going to revert to 1979 - 90 for some reason.
Very tired and confused rabble rousing in my opinion.
Not sure. Contrary to popular perception, Margaret Thatcher was the most left wing Prime Minister of the last 36 years. It's just that neither her supporters or opponents will admit it. There are quite a lot of situations of that kind. People conspire to make it "the truth" when patently it isn't the truth at all. Once everyone has been convinced, the one who speaks the real truth is considered wrong or bizarre.
My logic is that she just started a direction. Everyone else has built on top of it. Consequently they have all been Thatcher plus. It isn't as if anything much of what she did has ever been dismantled.
In 2010, it was thought that a lot of New Labour supporters decided to vote Liberal as a protest. The theory was that these were Centre-Leftish people who couldn't continue to support New Labour, but they weren't going to vote Tory. However, disillusionment with the Liberals* has meant that these same people have now abandoned the Liberal party, and obviously gone back to voting Labour...no, hold on, you're telling me they now vote Tory? What's going on?
*Everyone hates the Liberal, we all know that. Going into government with the Tories was unforgivable, because the Liberal voters hate Tories. So naturally, these people are going to punish the Liberals by voting...um...Tory, you say?
Oh, I see, there's still that tuition fee thing to hate them for, when they went back on their word because of pressure by those loathsome Tories. Well then, naturally we'll vote...Tory.
The only explanation I can see is that voters find Miliband too ugly for power.
Nah. He's totes adorbs. If all the preteen Milifans had been old enough to vote he'd have been fine.
Quote: Nogget @ 9th May 2015, 7:10 AM BSTIn 2010, it was thought that a lot of New Labour supporters decided to vote Liberal as a protest. The theory was that these were Centre-Leftish people who couldn't continue to support New Labour, but they weren't going to vote Tory. However, disillusionment with the Liberals* has meant that these same people have now abandoned the Liberal party, and obviously gone back to voting Labour...no, hold on, you're telling me they now vote Tory? What's going on?
*Everyone hates the Liberal, we all know that. Going into government with the Tories was unforgivable, because the Liberal voters hate Tories. So naturally, these people are going to punish the Liberals by voting...um...Tory, you say?
Oh, I see, there's still that tuition fee thing to hate them for, when they went back on their word because of pressure by those loathsome Tories. Well then, naturally we'll vote...Tory.The only explanation I can see is that voters find Miliband too ugly for power.
Milliband does have a deeply unfortunate face. But I think a lot of LibDem voters did go back to Labour, it is just that Labour is haemorrhaging supporters to UKIP.
Cameron did two clever things in the campaign:
He kept potential Tory defectors to UKIP on side by promising a referendum.
He frightened English voters off Labour by raising the prospect of the Scottish bogeyman. (Ed's claim that he would never do business with the SNP did nothing to assuage this fear - as it was obvious he would have to - but it did complete the process of alienating Scots voters from the Westminster establishment.)
The problem for Cameron is that his second term is going to be bogged down in navigating the intractable issues of Scotland and Europe, with backbench MPs empowered by a small majority and proving as susceptible to the whip as the feral cats.
Being totally politically ignorant, what I don't understand is how they have a Scottish parliament and yet still have seats in the House of Commons?
Not that they could or would, but how come there are no English representatives in the Scottish parliament?
I vaugly gather that now the scheme is that they are members of the UK parliament, but they are not allowed to vote on matters that only affect England.
Quote: Chappers @ 8th May 2015, 9:15 PM BSTWhy don't they just make every constituency have the same average number of constituents
Well that is what the Conservatives wanted to do in 2013 (effective for this election), but the Lib Dems ratted on the deal in retaliation for the public declining AV.
Quote: Hercules Grytpype Thynne @ 9th May 2015, 11:54 AM BSTBeing totally politically ignorant, what I don't understand is how they have a Scottish parliament and yet still have seats in the House of Commons?
Not that they could or would, but how come there are no English representatives in the Scottish parliament?
Because the Parliaments are not actually equal. The UK Parliament in Westminster is still supreme. Underneath it are the Scottish Parliament and Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies.
It's all to do with the amount of autonomy and power they are given. UK Parliament has the most, but has in Scotland devolved a great deal to Holyrood.
Similarly, it has devolved some powers (but less than in Scotland, hence only assemblies, not parliaments) to both Wales and Northern Ireland.
The proposal now seems to be for more powers - possibly now equal to each other - given to both Wales and Scotland, and the same/similar powers given to a newly created English parliament. Or assembly. Or something.
Which all means our taxes go to fund ANOTHER level of bureaucracy and politicians. YAY!
Quote: Aaron @ 9th May 2015, 5:56 PM BSTWell that is what the Conservatives wanted to do in 2013 (effective for this election), but the Lib Dems ratted on the deal in retaliation for the public declining AV.
Because the Parliaments are not actually equal. The UK Parliament in Westminster is still supreme. Underneath it are the Scottish Parliament and Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies.
It's all to do with the amount of autonomy and power they are given. UK Parliament has the most, but has in Scotland devolved a great deal to Holyrood.
Similarly, it has devolved some powers (but less than in Scotland, hence only assemblies, not parliaments) to both Wales and Northern Ireland.
The proposal now seems to be for more powers - possibly now equal to each other - given to both Wales and Scotland, and the same/similar powers given to a newly created English parliament. Or assembly. Or something.
Which all means our taxes go to fund ANOTHER level of bureaucracy and politicians. YAY!
Thanks Aaron, that's what I thought (the last bit) - effin' typical. Bastards!
Quote: Aaron @ 9th May 2015, 5:56 PM BSTWell that is what the Conservatives wanted to do in 2013 (effective for this election), but the Lib Dems ratted on the deal in retaliation for the public declining AV.
Actually, I think that wasn't AV. It was some sort of retaliation, agreed.
But it was about the Tories having reneged on something, which led the LibDems to retaliate. Might have been Lords reform, but I'm not sure.
Quote: Aaron @ 9th May 2015, 5:56 PM BSTBecause the Parliaments are not actually equal. The UK Parliament in Westminster is still supreme. Underneath it are the Scottish Parliament and Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies.
It's all to do with the amount of autonomy and power they are given. UK Parliament has the most, but has in Scotland devolved a great deal to Holyrood.
Similarly, it has devolved some powers (but less than in Scotland, hence only assemblies, not parliaments) to both Wales and Northern Ireland.
The proposal now seems to be for more powers - possibly now equal to each other - given to both Wales and Scotland, and the same/similar powers given to a newly created English parliament. Or assembly. Or something.
Which all means our taxed go to fund ANOTHER level of bureaucracy and politicians. YAY!
Well, as usual, the person we have to thank for this mess is Tony 'WMD' Blair.
He set up this parliamentary/assembly fruit salad.
Once again, devoid of any guiding principle. Thus everything is disjointed and improvised.
Keep in mind that he wanted regional assemblies in England, because he knew an English assembly/parliament would be Tory. And he obviously wanted as much possibly to be dominated by Labour, fair minded bloke that he is.
It didn't work out because the pilot vote in the North East told him that they didn't want an assembly. Nobody wanted any. Only Labour. So the idea was ditched and England ended up with nothing.
Of course at the time people warned him that the SNP might use the Scottish Parliament as an institute of grievance. But Tony 'WMD' Blair only saw that it would be dominated by Labour at the time, so it must be a good thing.
As we all know, it turned out somewhat differently.
But then, Tony 'WMD' was a moron and just about everything he touched turned out differently from what he had expected or hoped.
Now we've got this total mess. We can either have an English Parliament or a rule in the British Parliament which would only allow English MPs to vote on English matters. Both are messy and far from ideal.
The former would create a body which would be much, much too powerful, destabilising the United Kingdom.
The latter would effectively mean that any future PM must be English or else he would be barred from many of he most important votes.
So once again, thank you, Tony 'WMD' Blair.
May you get an itch you can never scratch.
2015 Parliament Under PR - (And Not)
Cons 242 (331)
Labs 199 (232)
UKIP 82 (1)
LDS 51 (8)
SNP 31 (56)
GRN 25 (1)
These figures are based on the 629 seats won by the six main parties.
So also allow for very minor changes for Plaid Cymru, Northern Ireland.
Quote: A Horseradish @ 9th May 2015, 6:40 PM BST2015 Parliament Under PR - (And Not)
Cons 242 (331)
Labs 199 (232)
UKIP 82 (1)
LDS 51 (8)
SNP 31 (56)
GRN 25 (1)
Well, that's the translation of the result.
But if we had PR many people would have voted differently.
Many of the votes various parties get only come their way because they are one of two parties who stand a chance in a given constituency.
Therefore, if you had PR the result would most likely look very different.
That said, being a supporters of PR, I am nonetheless against the introduction of any changes. We've had a referendum very recently. The idea was decisively rejected.
Quote: Gussie Fink Nottle @ 9th May 2015, 6:47 PM BSTWell, that's the translation of the result.
But if we had PR many people would have voted differently.Many of the votes various parties get only come their way because they are one of two parties who stand a chance in a given constituency.
Therefore, if you had PR the result would most likely look very different.That said, being a supporters of PR, I am nonetheless against the introduction of any changes. We've had a referendum very recently. The idea was decisively rejected.
AV isn't PR.
We haven't had a referendum on PR.
We have had a referendum on pretend PR.
Has Paddy Ashdown chosen and prepared his hat?
Quote: zooo @ 9th May 2015, 8:11 AM BSTNah. He's totes adorbs. If all the preteen Milifans had been old enough to vote he'd have been fine.
I did see an interview of Miliband the other day and the kids in the background looked a right bunch of losers and misfits.
Quote: Chappers @ 9th May 2015, 6:49 PM BSTHas Paddy Ashdown chosen and prepared his hat?
It was pathetic for an ex Royal Marine, a Sophisticated Polyglot and Royally Endorsed High Priest of Dark Recesses. He claims that Alastair Campbell has to undertake a commitment to eat his own kilt first. Is it small wonder everything is as bad is it is now? These people must be pensioned off quickly.