General Election 2010: Which way will you vote?

[GlesgaeHibby]

General Election confirmed as 6th May this morning.

4 weeks to go, and I'm still unsure which way I'll be voting. I know that it certainly won't be Labour or the Conservatives, with the Lib Dems or SNP likely to get my vote.

I've attached a poll to gauge the general consensus on hibs.net

Feel free to discuss who you will be voting for and why.

[steakbake]

Tactical vote for the LibDems to bin the sitting Labour MP.

[Beefster]

General Election confirmed as 6th May this morning.

4 weeks to go, and I'm still unsure which way I'll be voting. I know that it certainly won't be Labour or the Conservatives, with the Lib Dems or SNP likely to get my vote.

I've attached a poll to gauge the general consensus on hibs.net

Feel free to discuss who you will be voting for and why.

Not having a go at you but I've never understood how people can be trying to choose between a unionist and nationalist party. IMHO, the only reason for voting SNP at a general election is to vote for independence.

[Woody1985]

Can you add a 'no one' option?

[Hainan Hibs]

Voting for the SNP.

[MountcastleHibs]

Not having a go at you but I've never understood how people can be trying to choose between a unionist and nationalist party. IMHO, the only reason for voting SNP at a general election is to vote for independence.

So by that logic if you're not voting for one of the big two, there's no point in voting.

Everyone is entitled to their own views and own representation. As a first time voter, I know I won't be voting Labour or Conservative, and will make the choice between Lib Dem or SNP.

[Beefster]

So by that logic if you're not voting for one of the big two, there's no point in voting.

Everyone is entitled to their own views and own representation. As a first time voter, I know I won't be voting Labour or Conservative, and will make the choice between Lib Dem or SNP.

Not sure which logic you're using but no, I'm not even remotely implying that.

My point is that the Lib Dems support the union whereas the SNP's reason for existing is to secure independence for Scotland. I, personally, don't see how someone can reconcile them in their mind so that both are still an option but each to their own.

[MountcastleHibs]

Not sure which logic you're using but no, I'm not even remotely implying that.

My point is that the Lib Dems support the union whereas the SNP's reason for existing is to secure independence for Scotland. I, personally, don't see how someone can reconcile them in their mind so that both are still an option but each to their own.

Sorry, misunderstood you original point. There are some people that would think what I said though.

There are several reasons for me why I am not voting Labour or Tory. That leaves me with two viable options, SNP or Lib Dem. To me, independence is on the backburner in this election. There are far bigger concerns which is why I consider SNP and Lib Dem's as the most credible options.

[steakbake]

Why should people think strictly in party political ways?

I don't usually vote LibDem, in fact, this is the first time that I will. But I'm doing so as a tactical voter.

As much as the "I'm voting Labour because my great-great-great grandfather voted Labour" annoys me, so does the idea that you have to stick to one party and one party only every time you vote.

People have different priorities according to the circumstances of when they vote or what might be possible when they vote.

I don't see any contradiction in voting for one party which might have totally opposing policies to another one you might vote for, if your priority is to bring about change.

[poolman]

Gie's me the boak ****in politicians

Broon never pays attention to anybody in the course of a normal year, now he sets the date for the GE and he's out shaking bairns hands in a train station in London and telling all and sundry what a marvellous job the Labour Party are doing

If I had the wonga I'd zoom off to a desert island for the next 31 days

[GlesgaeHibby]

Not having a go at you but I've never understood how people can be trying to choose between a unionist and nationalist party. IMHO, the only reason for voting SNP at a general election is to vote for independence.

Independence is not an issue at this election, whether the SNP make massive inroads or not. I'm torn between policy, and the likelihood of the SNP or Lib Dem candidate toppling Labour in my constituency (East Lothian, Labour since it was formed and has been taken for a ride by Anne Moffat for the last 9 years).

On policy Labour have failed us. They have ruined pensions, spent recklessly, presided over an illegal war, wasted time and money trying to pursue ludicrous policies such as the ID cards and now they plan a tax on jobs. Labour ruled for 10/11 years with economic growth >3% each year, and yet they continued reckless spending during this period. They simply cannot be trusted.

Regarding the conservatives, they have always been an anti Scotland party and they will shaft us considerably by cutting the budget available to the Scottish Parliament. They'll never get my vote.

The SNP have been far from perfect in power, but they have delivered on a range of issues that have benefitted many: Abolition of graduate endownment, reduction and abolition of prescription charges, investment in green energy as well as trying to implement a fairer local taxation system. I also agree with their stance on trident.

The Liberal Democrats have a number of policies I agree on, such as investment in the railway network, raising of tax threshold to £10,000, working towards global elimination of nuclear weapons, tough environmental commitments such as 40% electricity from renewables by 2020.

That pretty much sums up why I'm torn between the two.

[SlickShoes]

I feel that whoever i vote for nothing will change anyway.

I will use my vote but it will probably end up going to a party that can cause the biggest upset.(this does not include the BNP) im talking real non facist racist parties.

[Hibbyradge]

Tactical vote for the Lib Dems to keep the Tories out.

Or I may just vote Labour.

[Sylar]

It's up to the parties to convince me - by promising to raise national insurance and the continued rise in fuel duty, there's not a hope in hell I'll vote for the current set of criminals.

Not sure any of the others will be much better though.

[bawheid]

Independence is not an issue at this election, whether the SNP make massive inroads or not. I'm torn between policy, and the likelihood of the SNP or Lib Dem candidate toppling Labour in my constituency (East Lothian, Labour since it was formed and has been taken for a ride by Anne Moffat for the last 9 years).

On policy Labour have failed us. They have ruined pensions, spent recklessly, presided over an illegal war, wasted time and money trying to pursue ludicrous policies such as the ID cards and now they plan a tax on jobs. Labour ruled for 10/11 years with economic growth >3% each year, and yet they continued reckless spending during this period. They simply cannot be trusted.

Regarding the conservatives, they have always been an anti Scotland party and they will shaft us considerably by cutting the budget available to the Scottish Parliament. They'll never get my vote.


They may never get your vote but in real terms the only party who can prevent a Conservative government are Labour. If you vote out the Labour candidate in East Lothian, it makes a UK Tory government more likely.

I've never voted Labour in my life but I'm highly likely to do so this time, just to try and keep the Tories out.

Dunno how Labour are planning on marketing their campaign, but reminding the electorate of what a frickin nightmare the Tories were last time would be a good start.

[hibsbollah]

I have NO idea:confused:
whoever it is, it'll be the 'least worst' option.

[Removed]

Can you add a 'no one' option?

:agree:

[MCC Hibs]

As the Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band once sang "No matter who you vote for the Government always gets in"

[RyeSloan]

It's up to the parties to convince me - by promising to raise national insurance and the continued rise in fuel duty, there's not a hope in hell I'll vote for the current set of criminals.

Not sure any of the others will be much better though.

Fuel duty aside (it's not really a green tax is it) why do you wish for national insurance to rise and is this really your primary driver when choosing who to vote for this time around?

As for who will get my vote....well I'm not sure. I will look at the candidates as well as the parties before I decide I think although I am hardly bowled over by any of them tbh.

Sadly with the FPTP system depending on where you live your vote might not count for much.

[Hibbyradge]

Fuel duty aside (it's not really a green tax is it) why do you wish for national insurance to rise and is this really your primary driver when choosing who to vote for this time around?

As for who will get my vote....well I'm not sure. I will look at the candidates as well as the parties before I decide I think although I am hardly bowled over by any of them tbh.

Sadly with the FPTP system depending on where you live your vote might not count for much.

He doesn't. I think you misinterpreted his comma! :wink:

[GlesgaeHibby]

They may never get your vote but in real terms the only party who can prevent a Conservative government are Labour. If you vote out the Labour candidate in East Lothian, it makes a UK Tory government more likely.

I've never voted Labour in my life but I'm highly likely to do so this time, just to try and keep the Tories out.

Dunno how Labour are planning on marketing their campaign, but reminding the electorate of what a frickin nightmare the Tories were last time would be a good start.

Being brutally honest, we are highly likely to see a conservative government come may. I'm not voting for labour in my constituency as our labour MP for the past 9 years has shafted the constituency by failing to represent us or do the job she was paid to do, whilst having an abysmal expenses record.

The local party have a new candidate that has been ready shipped in by the NEC with little local connections, and is purely somebody that will tow the London party based line. I refuse to be seen to endorse that.

[Sylar]

Fuel duty aside (it's not really a green tax is it) why do you wish for national insurance to rise and is this really your primary driver when choosing who to vote for this time around?

As for who will get my vote....well I'm not sure. I will look at the candidates as well as the parties before I decide I think although I am hardly bowled over by any of them tbh.

Sadly with the FPTP system depending on where you live your vote might not count for much.

Yeah - as Radge said, you've misread my post.

:)

[bawheid]

Being brutally honest, we are highly likely to see a conservative government come may.

Don't think it's that cut and dried at all. Labour have come right back into it, going by the polls, and a hung parliament is looking likely.

The more seats Labour get, the less likely it is that the Tories will have overall control. That'll be my thinking when I visit the polling station on May 6.

Any idea who the Lib Dems might side with in the event of a hung parliament? That might also have a bearing on your choice in East Lothian.

[steakbake]

Don't think it's that cut and dried at all. Labour have come right back into it, going by the polls, and a hung parliament is looking likely.

The more seats Labour get, the less likely it is that the Tories will have overall control. That'll be my thinking when I visit the polling station on May 6.

Any idea who the Lib Dems might side with in the event of a hung parliament? That might also have a bearing on your choice in East Lothian.

It depends whose polls you like to read.

Labour have reduced the gap, but the pollster who called it right last time (ICM) have the Tories 11 ahead, enough for a majority. Very in-depth polling of the key marginal seats in England, which, with no disrespect to East Lothian, will determine the outcome of this election - they are found to be around 17% ahead.

I think the polls do not tell the full story because the election will not be decided nationally, as opinion polls try to replicate. The UK electoral system relies on the turnover of at most a couple of hundred seats, most of which are located in the English towns.

If the Tories keep up their lead and win, I think they will have a reasonable majority and certainly enough to form a government.

If you're interested in following the polling situation and getting information about the picture behind the polls, www2.politicalbetting.com is a reliable website.

[GlesgaeHibby]

It depends whose polls you like to read.

Labour have reduced the gap, but the pollster who called it right last time (ICM) have the Tories 11 ahead, enough for a majority. Very in-depth polling of the key marginal seats in England, which, with no disrespect to East Lothian, will determine the outcome of this election - they are found to be around 17% ahead.

I think the polls do not tell the full story because the election will not be decided nationally, as opinion polls try to replicate. The UK electoral system relies on the turnover of at most a couple of hundred seats, most of which are located in the English towns.

If the Tories keep up their lead and win, I think they will have a reasonable majority and certainly enough to form a government.

If you're interested in following the polling situation and getting information about the picture behind the polls, www2.politicalbetting.com is a reliable website.

:agree: Tragically.

It'll be interesting to see how they do in Scotland, as currently they only have one MP. I can't see them making big improvements to that number. It then becomes difficult for the Scottish people to accept a conservative government at Westminster if there is only 1 or 2 Scottish Tory MPs. They won't really have a mandate to govern Scotland given that they are widely rejected by us as a nation.

I'm sure most on here agree that we need to reform the UK voting system. First Past the Post is a shoddy system in which people can be elected even if more people vote against them than for them.

[Calvin]

I'm East Lothian too and as an SNP member I will be voting for the party I support.

Previously, I would have voted Lib Dems on the national stage, but given that the SNP won the Euro Elections vote in East Lothian last year, we have a real chance of winning the EL seat in the upcoming election.

Andy Sharp seems a good candidate who will actually work for his constituents, which suits me, but also the fact the the SNP will have another vote down south seems an attractive proposition.

I agree with Salmond that in a hung parliament, Scotland would have quite strong bargaining power with a fair number of MPs, and I am wanting to have this possibility.

It has been said in this thread that the Conservatives will probably have a majority - but I disagree. I think the power of the people that wouldn't vote anyone but Labour will come through on poling day. I will be particularly interested to see how many seats the Tories win in Scotland.

[SHODAN]

Labour without a second thought.

[--------]

They may never get your vote but in real terms the only party who can prevent a Conservative government are Labour. If you vote out the Labour candidate in East Lothian, it makes a UK Tory government more likely.

I've never voted Labour in my life but I'm highly likely to do so this time, just to try and keep the Tories out.

Dunno how Labour are planning on marketing their campaign, but reminding the electorate of what a frickin nightmare the Tories were last time would be a good start.


I may have missed something, bawheid, but last time I looked New Labour WERE Conservative in all but name....

I'll vote SNP. the only way Westminster takes any proper notice of Scotland or of the needs of Scotland is is there's a big vote for the Nationalists.

Concentrates their tiny minds - no Scottish politician in Westminster wants his or her own personal gravy train to be cancelled.

BTW, Calvino, I come from East Lothian and live in Lanarkshire. I can understand why MY MP's a monkey with a red rosette (Lanarkshire, Labour, done deal) but how on earth do Anne Moffat and Iain Gray keep getting returned election by election?

Prize pair of chocolate teapots those.

[GlesgaeHibby]

I may have missed something, bawheid, but last time I looked New Labour WERE Conservative in all but name....

I'll vote SNP. the only way Westminster takes any proper notice of Scotland or of the needs of Scotland is is there's a big vote for the Nationalists.

Concentrates their tiny minds - no Scottish politician in Westminster wants his or her own personal gravy train to be cancelled.

BTW, Calvino, I come from East Lothian and live in Lanarkshire. I can understand why MY MP's a monkey with a red rosette (Lanarkshire, Labour, done deal) but how on earth do Anne Moffat and Iain Gray keep getting returned election by election?

Prize pair of chocolate teapots those.

As you said, monkey with red rosette. Iain Gray may be a hopeless leader of the labour party in Scotland but I think he's a reasonable MSP for his constituents. Always had quick responses from him when I've contacted him. He seems like a reasonable enough guy whenever I've met him, although I'd probably still never vote for him as Scottish Labour on the whole are grossly incompetent.

I hope this time that we may finally see a change in the way East Lothian votes in may. After the Anne Moffat scandal/deselection process surely many of those who have blindly voted labour for years will take notice and vote for a change, vote in anger at the way we have been treated for the past 9 years. Given that the SNP ran them close in the European elections last year I'd hope we can see them leapfrogging labour come may.

[--------]

As you said, monkey with red rosette. Iain Gray may be a hopeless leader of the labour party in Scotland but I think he's a reasonable MSP for his constituents. Always had quick responses from him when I've contacted him. He seems like a reasonable enough guy whenever I've met him, although I'd probably still never vote for him as Scottish Labour on the whole are grossly incompetent.

I hope this time that we may finally see a change in the way East Lothian votes in may. After the Anne Moffat scandal/deselection process surely many of those who have blindly voted labour for years will take notice and vote for a change, vote in anger at the way we have been treated for the past 9 years. Given that the SNP ran them close in the European elections last year I'd hope we can see them leapfrogging labour come may.


Glad you've had reasonable responses from Gray - I have several friends around Haddington and Tranent who've found him completely useless.

But then I suppose I'm just an embittered, cynical old man. My only excuse is that my Westminster representative just happens to be the Grand Wizard of the Supreme Lodge of the Greatest Football Fans in the Entire Wide Wurruld, sur.

http://www.freewebs.com/shamik_das/Pictures/John-Reid.jpg

[RyeSloan]

Yeah - as Radge said, you've misread my post.

:)

Phew thank god for that...I really thought I was out of touch if people were basing their voting intentions on who would put up their NI the most and put more and more tax on fuel!! :greengrin :thumbsup:

[GlesgaeHibby]

Glad you've had reasonable responses from Gray - I have several friends around Haddington and Tranent who've found him completely useless.

But then I suppose I'm just an embittered, cynical old man. My only excuse is that my Westminster representative just happens to be the Grand Wizard of the Supreme Lodge of the Greatest Football Fans in the Entire Wide Wurruld, sur.

http://www.freewebs.com/shamik_das/Pictures/John-Reid.jpg

Ouch!

[--------]

Ouch!

I take it back - I've just got a letter from him thanking me for "the help, support and advice" I've given him "during the 23 years I served as a Member of Parliament".

All those time I told his canvassers that hell would freeze over before I'd vote for him.... He was listening. And he was taking it all to heart. I am humbled.

But there's only one wee problem - he's got my name wrong again, as he has every single time he's written to me over the past 5 and a half years. And I've only told his office five or six times....



Dear John -

MY NAME IS NOT FREAKIN GERARD!

Signed,

Doddie.

PS: Good riddance. :bye:

[Wilson]

Labour without a second thought.

Or a first one?

[AgentDaleCooper]

Tactical vote for the Lib Dems to keep the Tories out.

Or I may just vote Labour.

that's how i'm feeling. point a gun to my head and i'd probably vote labour if it kept the tories out. i really, really don't want to though.

---------- Post added at 03:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:33 AM ----------


Labour without a second thought.

out of interest, why?

[sKipper]

SNP for me.

[lucky]

Labour 100% Cameron or Brown so its a no brainer the rest just don't count.


But more worryingly there are two fascists on the his board who have stated they are going to vote BNP. Shame on you, you are Nazis **** who have no place within society never mind the Hibernian family:grr:

[Westie1875]

Lib Dems, I don't trust Labour or the Tories so I don't want either of them getting a majority.

[Woody1985]

Labour 100% Cameron or Brown so its a no brainer the rest just don't count.

But more worryingly there are two fascists on the his board who have stated they are going to vote BNP. Sham on you, you are Nazis **** who have no place within society never mind the Hibernian family:grr:

As far as I'm concerned the BNP are a valid democratic party, within the laws of this country, and therefore whomever wants to vote for them can.

It comes back to the point again that it would seem some (not saying you but maybe it does include you?) only want democracy when it suits them.

You could argue that voters of Labour or the Tories are **** for the way that their party have handled this country and it's people over generations AND they've done it on a much larger scale than any of the other parties.

P.S. It wasn't me who voted for them. :greengrin

[.Sean.]

Lib Dems for me.

[marinello59]

As far as I'm concerned the BNP are a valid democratic party, within the laws of this country, and therefore whomever wants to vote for them can.



Absolutely. Odious and despicable as they are that's democracy for you.

[Beefster]

As far as I'm concerned the BNP are a valid democratic party, within the laws of this country, and therefore whomever wants to vote for them can.

It comes back to the point again that it would seem some (not saying you but maybe it does include you?) only want democracy when it suits them.

You could argue that voters of Labour or the Tories are **** for the way that their party have handled this country and it's people over generations AND they've done it on a much larger scale than any of the other parties.

P.S. It wasn't me who voted for them. :greengrin

What have Labour/Tories done that is so bad?

[--------]

What have Labour/Tories done that is so bad?


Come to North lanarkshire and see what more than three-quarters of a century of monkeys with red rosettes can do for you. :cool2:

D'you think somebody broke the mould BEFORE they made Iain Gray? :faf:

[JimBHibees]

Not having a go at you but I've never understood how people can be trying to choose between a unionist and nationalist party. IMHO, the only reason for voting SNP at a general election is to vote for independence.

Or for the possibility of more SNP Mp's at Westminster possibly having some say in how Scotland is treated especially if a hung parliament.

[ginger_rice]

Here's something for you all to consider.

At present the state pension age is 65, 3 of the 4 main parties involved in the election in Scotland are intending to increase the state pension age to 66, then 68 even 70 has been considered.

They will not admit to this at present, but they will as soon as they get in power....does an emergency budget within 50 days not worry you?

Only one party has a comitment to keep the pension age to 65, and you will be hard pushed to find then on a Ballot paper in England.

[ginger_rice]

BTW, Calvino, I come from East Lothian and live in Lanarkshire. I can understand why MY MP's a monkey with a red rosette (Lanarkshire, Labour, done deal) but how on earth do Anne Moffat and Iain Gray keep getting returned election by election?



Simple reason really, in general Tory supporters are more likely to switch to a tactical vote to keep Labour out, Labour supporters are in general less likely to switch allegience. So in areas which are traditionally working class Labour will normally do well.

[Mibbes Aye]

I may have missed something, bawheid, but last time I looked New Labour WERE Conservative in all but name....


My take is that the whole Western world shifted, pretty roughly during the 1970s. We tentatively took a real step in a different direction, culturally and philosophically. The Right were quicker onto the case, hence Thatcher and Reagan. Eventually the progressives caught up, hence Clinton and Blair. And for all that the moral high groundistas might wish to castigate them, Clinton and Blair were a million times better than the scorched-earth venom and vitriol of the 1980s neo-liberals and their hatred of anything that was for the good of all, rather than the good of the 'deserving'.

On that basis, I really dislike the comparison between New Labour and the Tories. The world shifted and Labour had to follow.

But don't tell me that any Tory government or manifesto would have introduced a minimum wage. Because they wouldn't have. They were dead against it.

Don't tell me any Tory government would set targets to reduce child poverty and pensioner poverty. And then reduce child and pensioner poverty in huge numbers.

Don't tell me that any Tory government would have introduced Sure Start or child and working tax credits. They might be complicated but anyone who has been in receipt of them will know the difference they make.

Don't tell me that any Tory government would have guaranteed paid paternity leave, extended maternity leave and proposed to extend paternity leave further.

Don't tell me any Tory government would have taken steps to protect those less able to protect themselves, through the creation of the Disability Rights Commission. And on the subject of equalities, who brought in Section 28? And who removed it?

Don't tell me any Tory government would have protected and enhanced paid holidays for workers.

New Labour was as much a child of Thatcherism as it was of the Labour movement.

Yet it doesn't embrace the selfish, self-centred, self-satisfied, individualist "I'm better than you", naked materialism that oozes out of a braying, smug Cameron and Osbourne and their camp, from every pore.

I'm old enough to have seen Kinnock being maligned and humiliated by a vicious Tory press, then latterly revised and recast as a visionary. He was always ferociously intelligent, and these words from nearly thirty years ago would apply fairly to the possibilty of a government where David Cameron and George Osbourne were let loose to reward their privileged and rich backers at the expense of the rest of us. It was written about Thatcher but it would be true of her acolytes today. The last section, in bold, sums it up for me:

If Margaret Thatcher is re-elected as prime minister on Thursday, I warn you.

I warn you that you will have pain – when healing and relief depend upon payment.

I warn you that you will have ignorance – when talents are untended and wits are wasted, when learning is a privilege and not a right.

I warn you that you will have poverty – when pensions slip and benefits are whittled away by a government that won’t pay in an economy that can't pay.

I warn you that you will be cold – when fuel charges are used as a tax system that the rich don't notice and the poor can't afford.

I warn you that you must not expect work – when many cannot spend, more will not be able to earn. When they don't earn, they don't spend. When they don't spend, work dies.

I warn you not to go into the streets alone after dark or into the streets in large crowds of protest in the light.

I warn you that you will be quiet – when the curfew of fear and the gibbet of unemployment make you obedient.

I warn you that you will have defence of a sort – with a risk and at a price that passes all understanding.

I warn you that you will be home-bound – when fares and transport bills kill leisure and lock you up.

I warn you that you will borrow less – when credit, loans, mortgages and easy payments are refused to people on your melting income.

If Margaret Thatcher wins on Thursday...

I warn you not to be ordinary.

I warn you not to be young.

I warn you not to fall ill.

I warn you not to get old.


Nearly thirty years on but the truth about electing a Conservative government is enshrined in those four lines...........

[IndieHibby]

If the state spends more than it earns, where does the money come from?

[LiverpoolHibs]

My take is that the whole Western world shifted, pretty roughly during the 1970s. We tentatively took a real step in a different direction, culturally and philosophically. The Right were quicker onto the case, hence Thatcher and Reagan. Eventually the progressives caught up, hence Clinton and Blair. And for all that the moral high groundistas might wish to castigate them, Clinton and Blair were a million times better than the scorched-earth venom and vitriol of the 1980s neo-liberals and their hatred of anything that was for the good of all, rather than the good of the 'deserving'.

On that basis, I really dislike the comparison between New Labour and the Tories. The world shifted and Labour had to follow.

But don't tell me that any Tory government or manifesto would have introduced a minimum wage. Because they wouldn't have. They were dead against it.

Don't tell me any Tory government would set targets to reduce child poverty and pensioner poverty. And then reduce child and pensioner poverty in huge numbers.

Don't tell me that any Tory government would have introduced Sure Start or child and working tax credits. They might be complicated but anyone who has been in receipt of them will know the difference they make.

Don't tell me that any Tory government would have guaranteed paid paternity leave, extended maternity leave and proposed to extend paternity leave further.

Don't tell me any Tory government would have taken steps to protect those less able to protect themselves, through the creation of the Disability Rights Commission. And on the subject of equalities, who brought in Section 28? And who removed it?

Don't tell me any Tory government would have protected and enhanced paid holidays for workers.

New Labour was as much a child of Thatcherism as it was of the Labour movement.

Yet it doesn't embrace the selfish, self-centred, self-satisfied, individualist "I'm better than you", naked materialism that oozes out of a braying, smug Cameron and Osbourne and their camp, from every pore.

The anti-Toryism is laudable but I think you're far too willing to make excuses for Labour. From a leftist perspective the most telling fact is that thirteen years of a, nominally, Labour party has seen a redistribution of wealth from the worst off in society to the best off - and they have done this with enormous majorities in successive parliaments. I'm not sure it's ever been recognised what an astounding statistic that is and I'm equally unsure how anyone even vaguely of the left can continue to support and offer apologias for them, the 'but the Tories would have been worse' line just doesn't cut it anymore. Although having said that, and depressing as it is, they can probably rely on my vote in a few weeks.

The Blair and Brown governments accepted the supposed victory of 'There-Is-No-Alternative-ism' as much as anyone within the Conservative party; it's just that a continued reliance (to whatever not-particularly-large degree) on the party base and the trade unions, too battered and cowed by decades of defeats to realise that the parliamentary arm of the labour movement were now fundamentally opposed to their interests, meant they had to provide some relatively minor ameliorating measures so that the continuation - exacerbation? - of grotesque inequality wasn't overly, as you put it, naked.

I don't have any idea what's progressive, in terms of either Clinton, Blair or Brown, in accepting this wholesale neoliberal analysis of society and the economy. Again, with regards to the economy, Labour have taken Tory policy on financialisation, deregulation, maintaining 'flexible' labour markets, the disastrous reliance on financial credit to maintain economic growth, draconian anti-union legislation, etc. and accelerated it expeditiously.

Couple that with one of the most brutally Atlanticist foreign policies of any British government ever and things don't look great for the legacy of New Labour. It's certainly on this point that 'the Tories would have been worse' argument begins to fall down; in semi-comparable circumstances the Major government pursued a considerably more independent line on the Balkans and the Gulf than any Labour government of the last thirteen years has. Given that there was barely a conflict around the world initiated by a powerful state that Blair wasn't a willing propagandist for (the obvious instances apart; cheering on Israeli slaughter in Lebanon, Russian destruction of Chechnya and the Caucasus more generally) I'm not sure how the Tories possibly could have been any worse. No British government in living memory has been as complicit in destruction around the world as New Labour.

Labour has done everything in its power to bring about a reproduction of the American one-party system. Just as with the Republicans and Democrats, Conservative and Labour now operate as two wings of the same party; both having the exact same fundamental attitudes towards class, state, markets, international affairs and pretty much everything else going. The sooner that is recognised by those on the left, the sooner work can properly start into forming a genuine electoral alternative.

Neoliberal economics, neoconservative foreign policy and right-wing social policy. The prospect of a Tory government fills me with dread, but New Labour deserves everything it gets.

[steakbake]

The prospect of a Tory government fills me with dread, but New Labour deserves everything it gets.

Very true. Why should Labour be exempt from the electorate's judgement, just because they aren't the Tories? That is their essential message in this campaign.

Either way, it's pish. I hope heads roll on election night.

[Rory89]

The only main party I can guarentee I'll never vote for is Conservatives, so they're first out. Labour are a definite no for reasons too obvious to even need to explain. After that you have the Lib Dems who are lightweight and The SNP (Tartan Tories).

Tough choice, I'll decide closer to the time (maybe on the day) whether my first chance to vote will reluctantly go to Lib Dems or The SNP. Because my constituency is now Glasgow Central Burgh I think it'll make hee haw difference anyway because Labour will probably win that seat, I'll need to look into that.

[GlesgaeHibby]

The only main party I can guarentee I'll never vote for is Conservatives, so they're first out. Labour are a definite no for reasons too obvious to even need to explain. After that you have the Lib Dems who are lightweight and The SNP (Tartan Tories).

Tough choice, I'll decide closer to the time (maybe on the day) whether my first chance to vote will reluctantly go to Lib Dems or The SNP. Because my constituency is now Glasgow Central Burgh I think it'll make hee haw difference anyway because Labour will probably win that seat, I'll need to look into that.

How exactly are they tartan tories?

The SNP are a centre-left party.

[steakbake]

How exactly are they tartan tories?

The SNP are a centre-left party.

Tartan Tories came about because of the myth that the SNP somehow brought about Thatcher.

Labour failing in government was the cause of the Tories, but like many things in the society that Labour have presided over in the last 13-14 years, it's always someone elses fault.

[LiverpoolHibs]

The only main party I can guarentee I'll never vote for is Conservatives, so they're first out. Labour are a definite no for reasons too obvious to even need to explain. After that you have the Lib Dems who are lightweight and The SNP (Tartan Tories).

Tough choice, I'll decide closer to the time (maybe on the day) whether my first chance to vote will reluctantly go to Lib Dems or The SNP. Because my constituency is now Glasgow Central Burgh I think it'll make hee haw difference anyway because Labour will probably win that seat, I'll need to look into that.

The SSP and Greens are standing in Glasgow Central if you want a left vote.

Although Osama Saeed's the SNP candidate, I think, and he's rather good.

[Hainan Hibs]

Tartan Tories came about because of the myth that the SNP somehow brought about Thatcher.


Labour will spout that the SNP are an irrelavance at these elections but they are never too quick to blame the Thatcher years on the SNP.

Nothing to do with the state of Labour mind, just the "irrelevant" SNP that caused Thatcher.


(Just a wee rant at Labour from me :grr::greengrin)

[GlesgaeHibby]

Tartan Tories came about because of the myth that the SNP somehow brought about Thatcher.

Labour failing in government was the cause of the Tories, but like many things in the society that Labour have presided over in the last 13-14 years, it's always someone elses fault.

Spot on. "Global Recession" is another great example. If GB had managed our finances better we would have been in a much better position to deal with the crisis, yet none of it was his fault.

[--------]

The SSP and Greens are standing in Glasgow Central if you want a left vote.

Although Osama Saeed's the SNP candidate, I think, and he's rather good.


He is indeed, and he is rather good. I'd like to see him elected. :agree:

http://www.osamasaeed.org/

"Labour’s current MP is standing down, and they want you to vote for his son."

Says it all, really.

[Mibbes Aye]

The anti-Toryism is laudable but I think you're far too willing to make excuses for Labour. From a leftist perspective the most telling fact is that thirteen years of a, nominally, Labour party has seen a redistribution of wealth from the worst off in society to the best off - and they have done this with enormous majorities in successive parliaments. I'm not sure it's ever been recognised what an astounding statistic that is and I'm equally unsure how anyone even vaguely of the left can continue to support and offer apologias for them, the 'but the Tories would have been worse' line just doesn't cut it anymore. Although having said that, and depressing as it is, they can probably rely on my vote in a few weeks.

The Blair and Brown governments accepted the supposed victory of 'There-Is-No-Alternative-ism' as much as anyone within the Conservative party; it's just that a continued reliance (to whatever not-particularly-large degree) on the party base and the trade unions, too battered and cowed by decades of defeats to realise that the parliamentary arm of the labour movement were now fundamentally opposed to their interests, meant they had to provide some relatively minor ameliorating measures so that the continuation - exacerbation? - of grotesque inequality wasn't overly, as you put it, naked.

I don't have any idea what's progressive, in terms of either Clinton, Blair or Brown, in accepting this wholesale neoliberal analysis of society and the economy. Again, with regards to the economy, Labour have taken Tory policy on financialisation, deregulation, maintaining 'flexible' labour markets, the disastrous reliance on financial credit to maintain economic growth, draconian anti-union legislation, etc. and accelerated it expeditiously.

Couple that with one of the most brutally Atlanticist foreign policies of any British government ever and things don't look great for the legacy of New Labour. It's certainly on this point that 'the Tories would have been worse' argument begins to fall down; in semi-comparable circumstances the Major government pursued a considerably more independent line on the Balkans and the Gulf than any Labour government of the last thirteen years has. Given that there was barely a conflict around the world initiated by a powerful state that Blair wasn't a willing propagandist for (the obvious instances apart; cheering on Israeli slaughter in Lebanon, Russian destruction of Chechnya and the Caucasus more generally) I'm not sure how the Tories possibly could have been any worse. No British government in living memory has been as complicit in destruction around the world as New Labour.

Labour has done everything in its power to bring about a reproduction of the American one-party system. Just as with the Republicans and Democrats, Conservative and Labour now operate as two wings of the same party; both having the exact same fundamental attitudes towards class, state, markets, international affairs and pretty much everything else going. The sooner that is recognised by those on the left, the sooner work can properly start into forming a genuine electoral alternative.

Neoliberal economics, neoconservative foreign policy and right-wing social policy. The prospect of a Tory government fills me with dread, but New Labour deserves everything it gets.
I think this falls into the trap that so many 'guardians of the left' find themselves in, where they perceive the government and its actions as somehow sitting in splendid isolation, free from the forces, influences and constraints of the wider world. It's admirable but ultimately very naive. We live in a globalised society where market forces, neo-liberal economics, reign absolute, except there's an argument that it's still skewed away from pure capitalism in favour of some nations. Any approach has to be an interpretation of that, if you genuinely want to change even an iota. There isn't an appetite or a meaningful place for old left politics, however much that might disappoint some of us.

Fighting yesterday's battles only makes us tomorrow's losers.

[GlesgaeHibby]

He is indeed, and he is rather good. I'd like to see him elected. :agree:

http://www.osamasaeed.org/

"Labour’s current MP is standing down, and they want you to vote for his son."

Says it all, really.

They ran Labour very close in Glasgow Central at the European elections last year. Hope he can beat them this time round.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I think this falls into the trap that so many 'guardians of the left' find themselves in, where they perceive the government and its actions as somehow sitting in splendid isolation, free from the forces, influences and constraints of the wider world. It's admirable but ultimately very naive. We live in a globalised society where market forces, neo-liberal economics, reign absolute, except there's an argument that it's still skewed away from pure capitalism in favour of some nations. Any approach has to be an interpretation of that, if you genuinely want to change even an iota.

I'm not in any trap and I'm perfectly well aware of the forces that act upon any given government, society, the economy or whatever.

I'm pretty happy to admit that I'll never allow my politics or convictions to be based upon some kind of 'least bad' equation whilst exploitation continues (or accelerates) unabated. That's precisely what most people who've succumbed to the New Labour project have done, decided to work within the narrowest of narrow boundaries - barely identifiable from their supposed opposition, so I'll steer clear of that if it's all the same.


There isn't an appetite or a meaningful place for old left politics, however much that might disappoint some of us.

Fighting yesterday's battles only makes us tomorrow's losers.

You may hate the argument claiming the Tories and Labour are interchangeable, but this is an argument I absolutely despise - even just the use of 'old left' (part and parcel of the ideological charged linguistic trope where, for example, anyone resisting privatisation, union busting or attacks on workers' pay and conditions is preventing 'modernisation'). The analysis doesn't lose its accuracy nor the ideas their truth because, at a certain point in time, there doesn't seem to be a massive amount of support for them.

It's in arguments like this that the naivete actually lies, as it rests upon an insufficient analysis of the way in which ideology works, the extent of the coercive power of the ruling class (as a case in point, I wonder how many people reading this will snort derisively at the use of the term 'ruling class') and the way in which a 'consensus' is reached.

You're using the question of the existence of a popular constituency for left-wing politics as a starting point, and that's a huge mistake. The proper question is 'do the arguments stand up?' and then go from there.

[Betty Boop]

The leaders of the three main parties are on shortly, for the big debate. :greengrin

[.Sean.]

The leaders of the three main parties are on shortly, for the big debate. :greengrin
Clegg is coming across well, it would seem Cameron and Brown are more interested in scoring points over eachother :blah:

[Hainan Hibs]

Clegg has opened up a can of whoop ass on Cameron and Brown.

[stevensons-fan]

Clegg is coming across well, it would seem Cameron and Brown are more interested in scoring points over eachother :blah:

Totally agree, think Clegg has came across really well.

[Sylar]

Damn - I forgot this was on - do ITV have an Iplayer type function?

[Removed]

Damn - I forgot this was on - do ITV have an Iplayer type function?

Wouldn't worry about it, I turned over after 20 mins :blah: :blah: :blah: :yawn: :yawn: :yawn:

[JimBHibees]

How insincere did Brown sound when going on about the forces? dear oh dear, pathetic sound bites we have heard a million times before.

[GlesgaeHibby]

Dave was full of soundbites with zero substance to him at all. Slipped all the big questions. Still won't give any promises on education or police funding.

[Sir David Gray]

This is my first post on here after a few months' break. Hope you've all missed me! :greengrin

My constituency has one of the largest Labour majorities in the whole of Scotland and, as a result, we don't have many candidates standing here.

As things stand just now, the parties who are standing in my constituency in this election are;

Labour
Conservatives
SNP
Liberal Democrats

My (Labour) MP has had one of the highest expenses claims over the past couple of years so there is absolutely no way that I will be voting for him.

I would never vote SNP. Even if we had a full quota of parties standing in my constituency, the SNP would be as likely to get my vote as the BNP, SSP or any communist party. I don't agree with many things that they have done since they formed the Scottish Government in 2007.

I don't consider the Liberal Democrats to be a serious option. For me, they are far too pro-EU, for a start.

With that in mind, the only option for me is the Conservatives. I don't necessarily want to vote for the UK Conservatives but I will definitely be voting as I think it's a very important thing and I can't vote for any of the other three parties.

It's a pity that we don't seem to have a UKIP candidate standing in our constituency as I would have voted for them.

[Pretty Boy]

Thought Nick Clegg came accross really well. Gordon Brown was not too bad although he struggles to keep answers short and sweet.Cameron pretty much confirmed everything i thought about him. All soundbites and cheese with little or no substance below the shiny exterior.

[Beefster]

Some polls showing Clegg big winner, some showing Cameron. Brown trailing badly in third in them all.

[Ed De Gramo]

Lib Dems for me

Thought Nick Clegg done fantastic tonight and the polls seem to agree :thumbsup::thumbsup:

[Pretty Boy]

Some polls showing Clegg big winner, some showing Cameron. Brown trailing badly in third in them all.

I really don't get how anyone watching that could have been impressed by David Cameron. He seemed really uncomfortable early on and gradually mutated into a dodgy used car salesman as the debate continued.

[fordie2]

This is my first post on here after a few months' break. Hope you've all missed me! :greengrin

My constituency has one of the largest Labour majorities in the whole of Scotland and, as a result, we don't have many candidates standing here.

As things stand just now, the parties who are standing in my constituency in this election are;

Labour
Conservatives
SNP
Liberal Democrats

My (Labour) MP has had one of the highest expenses claims over the past couple of years so there is absolutely no way that I will be voting for him.

I would never vote SNP. Even if we had a full quota of parties standing in my constituency, the SNP would be as likely to get my vote as the BNP, SSP or any communist party. I don't agree with many things that they have done since they formed the Scottish Government in 2007.

I don't consider the Liberal Democrats to be a serious option. For me, they are far too pro-EU, for a start.

With that in mind, the only option for me is the Conservatives. I don't necessarily want to vote for the UK Conservatives but I will definitely be voting as I think it's a very important thing and I can't vote for any of the other three parties.

It's a pity that we don't seem to have a UKIP candidate standing in our constituency as I would have voted for them.

So you don't consider the Lib Dems a serious option but you wish there was a UKIP candidate:confused:

[Pretty Boy]

So you don't consider the Lib Dems a serious option but you wish there was a UKIP candidate:confused:

Trust me these types of contradictions are par for the course with that particular poster. Ask him about Sharia law or homosexuality if you fancy a right good laugh.

[Hibbie_Cameron]

I was impressed with Clegg but still wont be voting for him

[lucky]

Tartan tories are still allive kicking. The SNP have voted 66% of the time with the Tory party and Wee Eck has voted the highest amount of them x

[Sir David Gray]

So you don't consider the Lib Dems a serious option but you wish there was a UKIP candidate:confused:

They are not a serious option for me as I don't agree with Lib Dem policy on a number of issues that are important to me.

UKIP is not as big a party but I wholeheartedly agree with their central policy of withdrawing from the European Union, I voted for them at the European election last year and I would have voted for them again if they had a candidate standing in my constituency.

My views are generally in line with the centre-right and, although I would have preferred to have voted for someone other than the UK Conservatives, they are the only party representing the centre-right in my constituency this year.

I would immediately rule out the SNP and Labour, so the only contest is between Conservatives and Lib Dems. For reasons I have outlined already, the Conservatives will probably be my choice this year.

[Beefster]

I really don't get how anyone watching that could have been impressed by David Cameron. He seemed really uncomfortable early on and gradually mutated into a dodgy used car salesman as the debate continued.

It probably depends on how prejudiced you were before the debates.

I thought Brown was negative, wooden, a bit petulant and showing his weakness by the incessant sucking up to the Lib Dems. But then, I was always going to.

[heretoday]

They all talk about "change". What they mean is "a new face". Nothing much is going to change whoever gets in.

At least they were all wearing ties. That makes a "change".

[JimBHibees]

Tartan tories are still allive kicking. The SNP have voted 66% of the time with the Tory party and Wee Eck has voted the highest amount of them x

Dear oh dear Labour's desperation is coming to the fore. New labour are much more tory than any party and you know it.

[JimBHibees]

Spot on. "Global Recession" is another great example. If GB had managed our finances better we would have been in a much better position to deal with the crisis, yet none of it was his fault.

Yeah but he was great at being seen as the Iron Chancellor and in command of the economy while completely ignoring regulation on the Banking industry etc. He is incapable of mentioning the recession without 'global' being attached to it, almost as if it is one word.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I really don't get how anyone watching that could have been impressed by David Cameron. He seemed really uncomfortable early on and gradually mutated into a dodgy used car salesman as the debate continued.

It doesn't seem like many people were particularly impressed by him. Every poll in the aftermath has Clegg miles out in front with not much to choose between Cameron in second and Brown in third.

It'll be very interesting to see if this has any major impact on Saturday's voting intention polls.

N.B. Cameron's delightful anecdote about a chat with a '40 year old black man' about immigration must have left people thoroughly nauseated, surely.

[da-robster]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/apr/16/leaders-debate-tv-ratings

[lyonhibs]

I think it's a shame that Nick Clegg leads the Liberal Democrats - it sounds like a rather obvious things to say, but unfortunately I don't think the massive swing in voting tendencies that would require a Lib Dem government is likely to happen.

He was the only one that seemed willing to give a straight answer, and has things costed out in the manifesto. But then again, it's easy enough to say "we'll say £x billion from here and re-invesit here" if - deep down - you know you'll never have to take the risk of actually implementing those plans as the leader of a majority government.

Brown and Cameron were like 2 wee boys in a playground, sniping away.

I think a lot of people would have gone into the debate with the mindset that "all the policies are roughly the same" and that won't have changed much after that performance.

The only thing that the debate confirmed for me was that David Cameron is a slimy berk. If I shook his hand, I'd check to make sure my watch was still on and I still had 5 fingers.

[bawheid]

N.B. Cameron's delightful anecdote about a chat with a '40 year old black man' about immigration must have left people thoroughly nauseated, surely.

:agree:

It was cringeworthy!

As was Brown going down to the audience at the end to shake hands, only to be followed like sheep by Cameron and Clegg a few seconds later.

[JimBHibees]

It doesn't seem like many people were particularly impressed by him. Every poll in the aftermath has Clegg miles out in front with not much to choose between Cameron in second and Brown in third.

It'll be very interesting to see if this has any major impact on Saturday's voting intention polls.

N.B. Cameron's delightful anecdote about a chat with a '40 year old black man' about immigration must have left people thoroughly nauseated, surely.

Agree he seems to have been everywhere and met everyone or his researchers have or more likely his aides dream up they have. :greengrin

[LiverpoolHibs]

Agree he seems to have been everywhere and met everyone or his researchers have or more likely his aides dream up they have. :greengrin

Probably the most interesting thing about watching it was trying to work out what pre-determined tactics they had. Cameron's, as you say, incredibly anecdote heavy schtick (the 40 year old black man who'd apparently been in the navy since the age of ten, the women with her setee set alight, the woman who couldn't get cancer drugs), Clegg positing himself as the underdog and making a point of remembering the names of everyone asking a question and frequently referencing them in his responses, Brown's (pretty unsucessful) attempt to sideline Cameron through agreement with Clegg...

[JimBHibees]

Probably the most interesting thing about watching it was trying to work out what pre-determined tactics they had. Cameron's, as you say, incredibly anecdote heavy schtick (the 40 year old black man who'd apparently been in the navy since the age of ten, the women with her setee set alight, the woman who couldn't get cancer drugs), Clegg positing himself as the underdog and making a point of remembering the names of everyone asking a question and frequently referencing them in his responses, Brown's (pretty unsucessful) attempt to sideline Cameron through agreement with Clegg...

Totally agree the amount of money spent on preparation must have been enormous. Personally think that Dave and Gord will team up on Clegg the next 2 debates but not too much especially in Brown's case or "I agree with Nick" as he is now known. The knee jerk reactions to the feedback from the 1st debate will be interesting in the next 2. It will be interesting how impartial the Murdoch empire will be in their debate especially if Dave isnt coming over that well.

Is the next one Sky or BBC?

[LiverpoolHibs]

Totally agree the amount of money spent on preparation must have been enormous. Personally think that Dave and Gord will team up on Clegg the next 2 debates but not too much especially in Brown's case or "I agree with Nick" as he is now known. The knee jerk reactions to the feedback from the 1st debate will be interesting in the next 2. It will be interesting how impartial the Murdoch empire will be in their debate especially if Dave isnt coming over that well.

Is the next one Sky or BBC?

Sky. International affairs.

[The_Todd]

I had a great laugh at the start of the show when the camera was panning around the three leaders. Cameron look terrified at this point, and throughout the debate looked uncomfortable at best from where I was sat.

I can only assume that the 26% who said he performed best out the three were dyed in the wool Tories would would say a Mannequin would have won the debate had it been wearing a blue rosette and promised tax breaks for the stinking rich - but if the 26% (or whatever the figure was) were your average Joe floating voter in the street, that's where I get worried.

I think Clegg had them both "pwned" (to borrow the kids vernacular) on electoral reform though - if you both really wanted it, why did neither of you vote in favour of it?

I'd say the best outcome for Nick Clegg would be a hung parliament, which results in a Lib-Lab coalition which in turn results in the Lib Dems pushing through Proportional Representation as their bargaining chip. When that happens they can be taken much more seriously as a potential party of government - the current FPTP system really prevents the emergence of a new force. I can't see a Lib-Con coalition, especially as Cameron and the Tories are really determined to keep the status quo in terms of voting systems and even the House of Lords.

[magnificent_seven]

I can't believe 3 people have voted BNP.

[Danderhall Hibs]

I can't believe 3 people have voted BNP.

Did you think it'd be more?

[magnificent_seven]

Thought it would be zero.

[SHODAN]

I can't believe 3 people have voted BNP.

Or UKIP. :bitchy:

[JimBHibees]

Thought it would be zero.

change would for should

[Phil D. Rolls]

Did you think it'd be more?

I can name four or five on here off the top of my head. :greengrin

Did anyone else notice a strong resemblance between David Cameron and Lord Snooty last night? Poor performance to say the least, he looked like he was bricking it.

[Mibbes Aye]

I'm not in any trap and I'm perfectly well aware of the forces that act upon any given government, society, the economy or whatever.

I'm pretty happy to admit that I'll never allow my politics or convictions to be based upon some kind of 'least bad' equation whilst exploitation continues (or accelerates) unabated. That's precisely what most people who've succumbed to the New Labour project have done, decided to work within the narrowest of narrow boundaries - barely identifiable from their supposed opposition, so I'll steer clear of that if it's all the same.



You may hate the argument claiming the Tories and Labour are interchangeable, but this is an argument I absolutely despise - even just the use of 'old left' (part and parcel of the ideological charged linguistic trope where, for example, anyone resisting privatisation, union busting or attacks on workers' pay and conditions is preventing 'modernisation'). The analysis doesn't lose its accuracy nor the ideas their truth because, at a certain point in time, there doesn't seem to be a massive amount of support for them.

It's in arguments like this that the naivete actually lies, as it rests upon an insufficient analysis of the way in which ideology works, the extent of the coercive power of the ruling class (as a case in point, I wonder how many people reading this will snort derisively at the use of the term 'ruling class') and the way in which a 'consensus' is reached.

You're using the question of the existence of a popular constituency for left-wing politics as a starting point, and that's a huge mistake. The proper question is 'do the arguments stand up?' and then go from there.

The most amusing thing for me with the navel-gazers and the self-congraulators who 'keep the flame alive' is how many excuses they will find for their failure to legitimately offer a lead, to step up and take the people with them and impose genuine measures to battle deprivation and the like, while bitterly castigating those who do.

Labour might be flawed but the likes of the minimum wage and Surestart have done and will do more for the most disadvantaged than hollow words based on an idealism that knows it never has to face the difficult realities of government.

[heretoday]

I can name four or five on here off the top of my head. :greengrin

Did anyone else notice a strong resemblance between David Cameron and Lord Snooty last night? Poor performance to say the least, he looked like he was bricking it.

I thought he looked a bit odd. He had a funny haircut.

[LiverpoolHibs]

The most amusing thing for me with the navel-gazers and the self-congraulators who 'keep the flame alive' is how many excuses they will find for their failure to legitimately offer a lead, to step up and take the people with them and impose genuine measures to battle deprivation and the like, while bitterly castigating those who do.

Labour might be flawed but the likes of the minimum wage and Surestart have done and will do more for the most disadvantaged than hollow words based on an idealism that knows it never has to face the difficult realities of government.

I'm not exactly sure why that would be amusing, but anyway. I don't understand why you seem to think Labour shouldn't be held to the same standard as any other party of government. They have led some of the most right-wing administrations in British political history and should be held accountable for having done so by anyone who considers themselves on the left. A couple of creditable policies do nothing to mitigate that. During their history the Tories have passed the Catholic Emancipation Act, the Factory Act, the Public Health Act and the Dwellings Act, introduced universal suffrage, old-age pensions and unemployment benefits. But so what? Surestart and the minimum wage are both to be commended (to some extent anyway), but the congratulation starts to ring a bit hollow considering the fairly simple measures that could have been taken to alleviate inequality and exploitation, say strengthening the bargaining power of labour through repealing anti-union legislation, never were; leading to a situation where the share of the national wealth owned by the top 1% of the population has increased from 17% to 21% under their tenure. So Labour haven’t forgotten how to redistribute wealth, they just do it to the benefit of the enormously wealthy now - and that's without mentioning the enormous redistribution of public wealth to the rich currently ongoing by virtue of public spending cuts to service a national debt created through giving lots of money to very rich people. Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised by that, after all Marx pointed out that tendency in 1867 - "The only part of the so-called national wealth that actually enters into the collective possession of the modern people is their national debt."

I'm not going to forgive them on the grounds that they are operating within certain conditions. That's just ludicrous, why criticise anything that happens in politics in that case? The 'no appetite' argument is pure sophistry given that Blair and Brown routinely went against public opinion in pushing through right-wing policy in a variety of areas. And you'd think with the enormous parliamentary majorities Labour have had, they might have attempted to make the argument for more radical policy if they genuinely wanted to pursue it. The reneging on principle and ideology and divestment of everything they are meant to stand for means there is now literally no reason for anyone on the left to continue any principled attachment to the Labour Party.

And it's nothing to do with 'making excuses'. It’s just that, y'know, defeating the entire force of the modern nation state and replacing it with a radically alternate social, economic and political system isn’t the easiest undertaking ever conceived.

[One Day Soon]

Being brutally honest, we are highly likely to see a conservative government come may. I'm not voting for labour in my constituency as our labour MP for the past 9 years has shafted the constituency by failing to represent us or do the job she was paid to do, whilst having an abysmal expenses record.

The local party have a new candidate that has been ready shipped in by the NEC with little local connections, and is purely somebody that will tow the London party based line. I refuse to be seen to endorse that.

That is crap by the way. She was living in Port Seton when one of her kids was born. And she wasn't shipped in by the NEC either. You better get better informed before you vote.

[One Day Soon]

I'm East Lothian too and as an SNP member I will be voting for the party I support.

Previously, I would have voted Lib Dems on the national stage, but given that the SNP won the Euro Elections vote in East Lothian last year, we have a real chance of winning the EL seat in the upcoming election.

Andy Sharp seems a good candidate who will actually work for his constituents, which suits me, but also the fact the the SNP will have another vote down south seems an attractive proposition.

I agree with Salmond that in a hung parliament, Scotland would have quite strong bargaining power with a fair number of MPs, and I am wanting to have this possibility.

It has been said in this thread that the Conservatives will probably have a majority - but I disagree. I think the power of the people that wouldn't vote anyone but Labour will come through on poling day. I will be particularly interested to see how many seats the Tories win in Scotland.

That is depressingly trite. There's about as much chance of the SNP winning East Lothian as there is of us winning the league this year.

[One Day Soon]

I may have missed something, bawheid, but last time I looked New Labour WERE Conservative in all but name....

I'll vote SNP. the only way Westminster takes any proper notice of Scotland or of the needs of Scotland is is there's a big vote for the Nationalists.

Concentrates their tiny minds - no Scottish politician in Westminster wants his or her own personal gravy train to be cancelled.

BTW, Calvino, I come from East Lothian and live in Lanarkshire. I can understand why MY MP's a monkey with a red rosette (Lanarkshire, Labour, done deal) but how on earth do Anne Moffat and Iain Gray keep getting returned election by election?

Prize pair of chocolate teapots those.

That's right Doddie. The Tories were just ITCHING to put a national minumum wage in place.

[One Day Soon]

Come to North lanarkshire and see what more than three-quarters of a century of monkeys with red rosettes can do for you. :cool2:

D'you think somebody broke the mould BEFORE they made Iain Gray? :faf:

Seeing as Iain Gray is a season ticket holder at Easter Road perhaps you could take it up with him directly. What exactly is it that you don't like about him?

[One Day Soon]

The anti-Toryism is laudable but I think you're far too willing to make excuses for Labour. From a leftist perspective the most telling fact is that thirteen years of a, nominally, Labour party has seen a redistribution of wealth from the worst off in society to the best off - and they have done this with enormous majorities in successive parliaments. I'm not sure it's ever been recognised what an astounding statistic that is and I'm equally unsure how anyone even vaguely of the left can continue to support and offer apologias for them, the 'but the Tories would have been worse' line just doesn't cut it anymore. Although having said that, and depressing as it is, they can probably rely on my vote in a few weeks.

The Blair and Brown governments accepted the supposed victory of 'There-Is-No-Alternative-ism' as much as anyone within the Conservative party; it's just that a continued reliance (to whatever not-particularly-large degree) on the party base and the trade unions, too battered and cowed by decades of defeats to realise that the parliamentary arm of the labour movement were now fundamentally opposed to their interests, meant they had to provide some relatively minor ameliorating measures so that the continuation - exacerbation? - of grotesque inequality wasn't overly, as you put it, naked.

I don't have any idea what's progressive, in terms of either Clinton, Blair or Brown, in accepting this wholesale neoliberal analysis of society and the economy. Again, with regards to the economy, Labour have taken Tory policy on financialisation, deregulation, maintaining 'flexible' labour markets, the disastrous reliance on financial credit to maintain economic growth, draconian anti-union legislation, etc. and accelerated it expeditiously.

Couple that with one of the most brutally Atlanticist foreign policies of any British government ever and things don't look great for the legacy of New Labour. It's certainly on this point that 'the Tories would have been worse' argument begins to fall down; in semi-comparable circumstances the Major government pursued a considerably more independent line on the Balkans and the Gulf than any Labour government of the last thirteen years has. Given that there was barely a conflict around the world initiated by a powerful state that Blair wasn't a willing propagandist for (the obvious instances apart; cheering on Israeli slaughter in Lebanon, Russian destruction of Chechnya and the Caucasus more generally) I'm not sure how the Tories possibly could have been any worse. No British government in living memory has been as complicit in destruction around the world as New Labour.

Labour has done everything in its power to bring about a reproduction of the American one-party system. Just as with the Republicans and Democrats, Conservative and Labour now operate as two wings of the same party; both having the exact same fundamental attitudes towards class, state, markets, international affairs and pretty much everything else going. The sooner that is recognised by those on the left, the sooner work can properly start into forming a genuine electoral alternative.

Neoliberal economics, neoconservative foreign policy and right-wing social policy. The prospect of a Tory government fills me with dread, but New Labour deserves everything it gets.

What an absolutely classic Trot analysis. Betrayed beautifully by the last line. A Tory government isn't about New Labour getting everything it deserves, its about all of us getting what we don't deserve. If you genuinely think that Tories in power over the last 13 years would have been little different or even better, you are either lying or or more used to the politics of transitional demands with all the political expediency that goes with that politics.

[One Day Soon]

I'm not exactly sure why that would be amusing, but anyway. I don't understand why you seem to think Labour shouldn't be held to the same standard as any other party of government. They have led some of the most right-wing administrations in British political history and should be held accountable for having done so by anyone who considers themselves on the left. A couple of creditable policies do nothing to mitigate that. During their history the Tories have passed the Catholic Emancipation Act, the Factory Act, the Public Health Act and the Dwellings Act, introduced universal suffrage, old-age pensions and unemployment benefits. But so what? Surestart and the minimum wage are both to be commended (to some extent anyway), but the congratulation starts to ring a bit hollow considering the fairly simple measures that could have been taken to alleviate inequality and exploitation, say strengthening the bargaining power of labour through repealing anti-union legislation, never were; leading to a situation where the share of the national wealth owned by the top 1% of the population has increased from 17% to 21% under their tenure. So Labour haven’t forgotten how to redistribute wealth, they just do it to the benefit of the enormously wealthy now - and that's without mentioning the enormous redistribution of public wealth to the rich currently ongoing by virtue of public spending cuts to service a national debt created through giving lots of money to very rich people. Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised by that, after all Marx pointed out that tendency in 1867 - "The only part of the so-called national wealth that actually enters into the collective possession of the modern people is their national debt."

I'm not going to forgive them on the grounds that they are operating within certain conditions. That's just ludicrous, why criticise anything that happens in politics in that case? The 'no appetite' argument is pure sophistry given that Blair and Brown routinely went against public opinion in pushing through right-wing policy in a variety of areas. And you'd think with the enormous parliamentary majorities Labour have had, they might have attempted to make the argument for more radical policy if they genuinely wanted to pursue it. The reneging on principle and ideology and divestment of everything they are meant to stand for means there is now literally no reason for anyone on the left to continue any principled attachment to the Labour Party.

And it's nothing to do with 'making excuses'. It’s just that, y'know, defeating the entire force of the modern nation state and replacing it with a radically alternate social, economic and political system isn’t the easiest undertaking ever conceived.

That is by some distance one of the most stupid and historically inaccurate statements I have read on Hibs.net or in fact anywhere. The measurement of wealth redistribution by virtue of taxation redistribution on an annual subsidy basis really is the most dismal of ways to assess whether a country or society is baing radically altered. But it is the kind of politicis that is comfortable with keeping the masses dependent upon the state. Its true enough that there's not much difference between Trots and Tories - both comfortable in the status quo.

[Mibbes Aye]

I'm not exactly sure why that would be amusing, but anyway. I don't understand why you seem to think Labour shouldn't be held to the same standard as any other party of government. They have led some of the most right-wing administrations in British political history and should be held accountable for having done so by anyone who considers themselves on the left. A couple of creditable policies do nothing to mitigate that. During their history the Tories have passed the Catholic Emancipation Act, the Factory Act, the Public Health Act and the Dwellings Act, introduced universal suffrage, old-age pensions and unemployment benefits. But so what? Surestart and the minimum wage are both to be commended (to some extent anyway), but the congratulation starts to ring a bit hollow considering the fairly simple measures that could have been taken to alleviate inequality and exploitation, say strengthening the bargaining power of labour through repealing anti-union legislation, never were; leading to a situation where the share of the national wealth owned by the top 1% of the population has increased from 17% to 21% under their tenure. So Labour haven’t forgotten how to redistribute wealth, they just do it to the benefit of the enormously wealthy now - and that's without mentioning the enormous redistribution of public wealth to the rich currently ongoing by virtue of public spending cuts to service a national debt created through giving lots of money to very rich people. Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised by that, after all Marx pointed out that tendency in 1867 - "The only part of the so-called national wealth that actually enters into the collective possession of the modern people is their national debt."

I'm not going to forgive them on the grounds that they are operating within certain conditions. That's just ludicrous, why criticise anything that happens in politics in that case? The 'no appetite' argument is pure sophistry given that Blair and Brown routinely went against public opinion in pushing through right-wing policy in a variety of areas. And you'd think with the enormous parliamentary majorities Labour have had, they might have attempted to make the argument for more radical policy if they genuinely wanted to pursue it. The reneging on principle and ideology and divestment of everything they are meant to stand for means there is now literally no reason for anyone on the left to continue any principled attachment to the Labour Party.

And it's nothing to do with 'making excuses'. It’s just that, y'know, defeating the entire force of the modern nation state and replacing it with a radically alternate social, economic and political system isn’t the easiest undertaking ever conceived.

Nothing to do with 'making excuses'?......

Not actually stepping up to the plate because of the difficulty of having to overturn the established order and all the travails that involves, no, that's not making excuses.

And explaining a lack of acceptance of one's beliefs because it's a battle to overcome the false constructs forced on the working man by the ruling class, no, that's not making excuses.

While some were busy 'not making excuses', there's been a massive building programme of new hospitals and schools. Hospitals and schools far more fit for purpose than what was around in 1997. Hospitals and schools that are there for those of us who need them, not for those of us who can afford to choose whether to use them. Alongside that, a massive investment in putting more doctors, nurses and teachers in.

No excuses there. Better hospitals, better schools, more professionals to work in them. For everyone, not for those who can afford to buy better than their neighbour.

But hey, why let massive investment in public services get in the way of an ideological conceit?

[GlesgaeHibby]

That is crap by the way. She was living in Port Seton when one of her kids was born. And she wasn't shipped in by the NEC either. You better get better informed before you vote.

I am well enough informed, thank you very much.

Time will tell if it's crap, but I believe she is just somebody that will happily take orders from Brown.

I am aware she lived in Port Seton for a short time, I'm also aware that Labour actually trotted out the fact that one of the other candidates had "holidayed at Seton Sands". Talk about clutching at straws to find a local connection.

I'm still in shock that Kirsty O'Brien didn't win it, with a name like that.

Regarding your reply to Calvino's post, I seriously hope that Labour are toppled in East Lothian, and there is a real chance.

Labour seem to think they have the god given right to an MP in East Lothian. That sheer arrogance angers me. The culture in East Lothian of "my dad voted labour, and his dad did, so I will" is shockingly depressing.

After 9 years of lip service, and scandal from Labour it's time for a change in EL.

Rant over.

[Phil D. Rolls]

That is crap by the way. She was living in Port Seton when one of her kids was born. And she wasn't shipped in by the NEC either. You better get better informed before you vote.

Sorry, I don't follow what you guys are arguing about. She's from Dunfermline, if that makes any difference.

The woman is an out and out crook (she has stolen the trust of her electors). As for her brass neck retiring on sickness grounds, when she had been fighting to keep her seat two days before, that is one of the most breathtaking p*ss takes I have ever seen.

[One Day Soon]

I am well enough informed, thank you very much.

Time will tell if it's crap, but I believe she is just somebody that will happily take orders from Brown.

If you don't think that 99% of all MPs take their orders from their party leaders you are going to be sadly disappointed - and that includes the footsoldiers and cannon fodder of Salmond and Clegg too.

I am aware she lived in Port Seton for a short time, I'm also aware that Labour actually trotted out the fact that one of the other candidates had "holidayed at Seton Sands". Talk about clutching at straws to find a local connection.

I don't think you can reasonably describe two years as a short time. Labour didn't claim anything about the candidates. During a selection the individual candidates are just that - individual candidates for selection. I think Ms O'Brien was the one who tried to demonstrate a laughable connection with East Lothian by mentioning her holidays in Port Seton.

I'm still in shock that Kirsty O'Brien didn't win it, with a name like that.

Why? What are you implying?

Regarding your reply to Calvino's post, I seriously hope that Labour are toppled in East Lothian, and there is a real chance.

Labour might be beaten in East Lothian, but the SNP have no chance of doing it.

Labour seem to think they have the god given right to an MP in East Lothian. That sheer arrogance angers me. The culture in East Lothian of "my dad voted labour, and his dad did, so I will" is shockingly depressing.

Why do you say that? What is your evidence to suggest that Labour believes it has a God given right to win there?

After 9 years of lip service, and scandal from Labour it's time for a change in EL.

Well they are certainly fielding a different candidate so that is a change is it not?

Rant over.

My rant's just beginning!

---------- Post added at 09:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:15 AM ----------


Sorry, I don't follow what you guys are arguing about. She's from Dunfermline, if that makes any difference.

The woman is an out and out crook (she has stolen the trust of her electors). As for her brass neck retiring on sickness grounds, when she had been fighting to keep her seat two days before, that is one of the most breathtaking p*ss takes I have ever seen.

Mr Rolls we are debating the newly selected Labour candidate, not the previous MP. Hopefully that clarifies things.

[GlesgaeHibby]

My rant's just beginning!

---------- Post added at 09:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:15 AM ----------



Mr Rolls we are debating the newly selected Labour candidate, not the previous MP. Hopefully that clarifies things.

TBH, I couldn't really give a toss about the Labour candidate in East Lothian because there is not a chance she will receive my vote.

Given that the SNP ran Labour close in last years Euro elections, why is there no chance they will win this one? I do agree the Lib Dems look the most likely to stand a chance of taking this seat from Labour, and as such they are probably likely to receive my vote.

[One Day Soon]

TBH, I couldn't really give a toss about the Labour candidate in East Lothian because there is not a chance she will receive my vote.

Why not? Do you vote for candidate or party or a mixture of both?

Given that the SNP ran Labour close in last years Euro elections, why is there no chance they will win this one? I do agree the Lib Dems look the most likely to stand a chance of taking this seat from Labour, and as such they are probably likely to receive my vote.

Because European votes do not read across to voting patterns in other elections. The electorate is pretty sophisticated and will work out who was first and second in the equivalent election last time round. All the parties will tell you that they are in second place and the key challengers in any seat they don't currently hold - usually on the basis of distorting some irrelevant opinion poll or by taking a previous election result from - say - local council elections and projecting that completely unsustainably on to the current election.

I think I'd rather chop my own nads off, fry them in olive oil and eat them than vote for the nauseating poseurs that the Lib Dems are. At least with the other three 'main' parties you know broadly where they stand - independence, public services, private wealth - but with the Lib Dems its just a load of made up pi5h depending on what they think people want to hear.

[Beefster]

Because European votes do not read across to voting patterns in other elections. The electorate is pretty sophisticated and will work out who was first and second in the equivalent election last time round. All the parties will tell you that they are in second place and the key challengers in any seat they don't currently hold - usually on the basis of distorting some irrelevant opinion poll or by taking a previous election result from - say - local council elections and projecting that completely unsustainably on to the current election.

I think I'd rather chop my own nads off, fry them in olive oil and eat them than vote for the nauseating poseurs that the Lib Dems are. At least with the other three 'main' parties you know broadly where they stand - independence, public services, private wealth - but with the Lib Dems its just a load of made up pi5h depending on what they think people want to hear.

Someone's worried about the Lib Dems pushing Labour into third place, methinks.

For the record, the Lib Dems will be getting my vote in East Lothian. Not because I agree with many of their policies but because Labour have take the piss for too long in East Lothian and need to be removed.

[LiverpoolHibs]

What an absolutely classic Trot analysis. Betrayed beautifully by the last line. A Tory government isn't about New Labour getting everything it deserves, its about all of us getting what we don't deserve. If you genuinely think that Tories in power over the last 13 years would have been little different or even better, you are either lying or or more used to the politics of transitional demands with all the political expediency that goes with that politics.


That is by some distance one of the most stupid and historically inaccurate statements I have read on Hibs.net or in fact anywhere. The measurement of wealth redistribution by virtue of taxation redistribution on an annual subsidy basis really is the most dismal of ways to assess whether a country or society is baing radically altered. But it is the kind of politicis that is comfortable with keeping the masses dependent upon the state. Its true enough that there's not much difference between Trots and Tories - both comfortable in the status quo.

I might be able to reply better to these if I had much of an idea what you're talking about. You haven't argued with anything I've written choosing instead to construct this really odd straw man of 'Trot analysis'.

I've no idea where you've been if you think that's one of the 'most stupid and historically innacurate' statements you've ever read. It's demonstrably true; neoliberal economics, neoconservative uber-Atlanticist foreign policy and a largely right-wing social agenda.


Nothing to do with 'making excuses'?......

Not actually stepping up to the plate because of the difficulty of having to overturn the established order and all the travails that involves, no, that's not making excuses.

And explaining a lack of acceptance of one's beliefs because it's a battle to overcome the false constructs forced on the working man by the ruling class, no, that's not making excuses.

While some were busy 'not making excuses', there's been a massive building programme of new hospitals and schools. Hospitals and schools far more fit for purpose than what was around in 1997. Hospitals and schools that are there for those of us who need them, not for those of us who can afford to choose whether to use them. Alongside that, a massive investment in putting more doctors, nurses and teachers in.

No excuses there. Better hospitals, better schools, more professionals to work in them. For everyone, not for those who can afford to buy better than their neighbour.

But hey, why let massive investment in public services get in the way of an ideological conceit?

But this is mostly nonsense; just a carefully constructed, well-worn attempted guilt trip for people who refuse to play the game.

1997-2001 saw the lowest level of public sector investment since the Second World War - lower than under any Thatcher or Major government. It has picked up since then, and as I've already said there are some areas of the Labour governments of the last thirteen years that are to be commended. But we still spend less on public services than most other European nations.

And it also misses the point that they're now fully committed to reversing this progressive public spending if they win the next election. It also fails to account for the privatisation continued from the Conservative years and the huge increase in subcontracting (up to a point where this was making up 20% of all public spending, good work!) and PFI/PPP making up a huge proportion of this 'public spending' and creating an unprecedented marketisation of the public sector.

[One Day Soon]

Someone's worried about the Lib Dems pushing Labour into third place, methinks.

For the record, the Lib Dems will be getting my vote in East Lothian. Not because I agree with many of their policies but because Labour have take the piss for too long in East Lothian and need to be removed.

Don't be ridiculous. If Labour don't win in east lothian they certainly won't finish third. If you want to vote LD because your main objective is to beat Labour in East Lothian then fair enough, I'm just relieved you aren't pretending there is some policy reason for voting for those invertebrates.

[Beefster]

I might be able to reply better to these if I had much of an idea what you're talking about. You haven't argued with anything I've written choosing instead to construct this really odd straw man of 'Trot analysis'.

I've no idea where you've been if you think that's one of the 'most stupid and historically innacurate' statements you've ever read. It's demonstrably true; neoliberal economics, neoconservative uber-Atlanticist foreign policy and a largely right-wing social agenda.



But this is mostly nonsense; just a carefully constructed, well-worn attempted guilt trip for people who refuse to play the game.

1997-2001 saw the lowest level of public sector investment since the Second World War - lower than under any Thatcher or Major government. It has picked up since then, and as I've already said there are some areas of the Labour governments of the last thirteen years that are to be commended. But we still spend less on public services than most other European nations.

And it also misses the point that they're now fully committed to reversing this progressive public spending if they win the next election. It also fails to account for the privatisation continued from the Conservative years and the huge increase in subcontracting (up to a point where this was making up 20% of all public spending, good work!) and PFI/PPP making up a huge proportion of this 'public spending' and creating an unprecedented marketisation of the public sector.

Monetary terms or % of GDP?

How many are 'most' because I'm fairly certain that our total government expenditure as a % of GDP and in monetary terms is more than the majority of EU countries?

---------- Post added at 11:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:39 AM ----------


Don't be ridiculous. If Labour don't win in east lothian they certainly won't finish third. If you want to vote LD because your main objective is to beat Labour in East Lothian then fair enough, I'm just relieved you aren't pretending there is some policy reason for voting for those invertebrates.

I was talking nationally. The latest poll has them in 2nd place.

[weecounty hibby]

Don't be ridiculous. If Labour don't win in east lothian they certainly won't finish third. If you want to vote LD because your main objective is to beat Labour in East Lothian then fair enough, I'm just relieved you aren't pretending there is some policy reason for voting for those invertebrates.
Well done, another example of the name calling etc expected from Labour. Please by all means counter peoples arguments based on policy and the likes but you have now desended into name calling for some reason. Losing the argument maybe?

If you are implying they are spineless I don't think so. Being a Lib Dem must be like being a Hibby, you know you are never going to win the big one but you carry on regardless because it's what you believe in and when you do get a bit of success it feels so much better.

[One Day Soon]

I might be able to reply better to these if I had much of an idea what you're talking about. You haven't argued with anything I've written choosing instead to construct this really odd straw man of 'Trot analysis'.

I doubt it. Your replies on anything to do with the record of successive Labour governments are blinkered, factually inaccurate and reek of posturing leftism. And you know exactly what I'm talking about.

I've no idea where you've been if you think that's one of the 'most stupid and historically innacurate' statements you've ever read. It's demonstrably true; neoliberal economics, neoconservative uber-Atlanticist foreign policy and a largely right-wing social agenda.

What a load of guff. But I tell you what, why don't you set out some policy examples of what you would consider to constitute non-neoliberal economics, non-neoconservative uber-Atlanticist foreign policy and a largely non-right-wing social agenda?



But this is mostly nonsense; just a carefully constructed, well-worn attempted guilt trip for people who refuse to play the game.

What the **** is THAT supposed to mean? Do you imagine you live in a forest with Robin Hood kit on and somehow outside the system?

1997-2001 saw the lowest level of public sector investment since the Second World War - lower than under any Thatcher or Major government. It has picked up since then, and as I've already said there are some areas of the Labour governments of the last thirteen years that are to be commended. But we still spend less on public services than most other European nations.

These are meaningless. If you don't qualify what you are measuring here it is nothing more than rhetoric - no surprise there. For example, public spending as a proportion of GDP is this year higher than at any time since 1945.


And it also misses the point that they're now fully committed to reversing this progressive public spending if they win the next election. It also fails to account for the privatisation continued from the Conservative years and the huge increase in subcontracting (up to a point where this was making up 20% of all public spending, good work!) and PFI/PPP making up a huge proportion of this 'public spending' and creating an unprecedented marketisation of the public sector.

Did you notice that we just had the worst recession since the 1930s? All parties are committed to cutting public expenditure and will have to raise taxes. And again what is 'marketisation' of the public sector supposed to mean? Do you even understand PFI/PPP since they are actually two different things.

[One Day Soon]

Well done, another example of the name calling etc expected from Labour. Please by all means counter peoples arguments based on policy and the likes but you have now desended into name calling for some reason. Losing the argument maybe?

If you are implying they are spineless I don't think so. Being a Lib Dem must be like being a Hibby, you know you are never going to win the big one but you carry on regardless because it's what you believe in and when you do get a bit of success it feels so much better.

I have already given a detailed explanation of why they are invertebrate so you should not treat my use of that term as name calling but rather as a short title for my views on them. Though I admit I now realise that this description is posted on the 'c'mon the Lib Dems ' thread.

And if you think that name calling is confined to any one party then you are being pretty puerile about it. There are weekly examples of this across all parties in both Parliaments and outside it. Added to which I don't buy the deranged nonsense that politics should be above name calling, division and difference as well as policy debate and argument. That is classic Lib Dem crap. 'We should all put our differences aside and sit down together to fix things'. God knows how many times Clegg came out with that in the debate. The whole point about politics is that parties have different views of the world which cannot be reconciled - unless you are the Lib Dems in which case you don't have any fixed views. Or as one Lib Dem councillor once memorably said when asked her opinion about a possible school closure "I don't know what I think, I haven't spoken to my constituents yet".

They are spineless, just watch them trying to take a difficult real political decision. Have you any idea how relieved the SNP are that they don't have a coalition with these people in the Scottish Parliament? Its nothing like being a Hibby by the way - we don't say "winning the cup or the league is really difficult so can we change the rules please?" That's what they do and its why we have such a crap voting system for the parliament. Still it makes it easier for them to get their bums on Ministerial seats eh?

Anyway they are much more comfortable sitting on the sidelines pontificating about how bad the other parties are just as Clegg did in the debate.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Monetary terms or % of GDP?

How many are 'most' because I'm fairly certain that our total government expenditure as a % of GDP and in monetary terms is more than the majority of EU countries?

Apologies, I was looking at slightly outdated statistics, it seems.


Well done, another example of the name calling etc expected from Labour. Please by all means counter peoples arguments based on policy and the likes but you have now desended into name calling for some reason. Losing the argument maybe?

If you are implying they are spineless I don't think so. Being a Lib Dem must be like being a Hibby, you know you are never going to win the big one but you carry on regardless because it's what you believe in and when you do get a bit of success it feels so much better.

To be fair, he's not descended - the name calling started pretty early on.


I doubt it. Your replies on anything to do with the record of successive Labour governments are blinkered, factually inaccurate and reek of posturing leftism. And you know exactly what I'm talking about.

Nope, I really don't.


What a load of guff. But I tell you what, why don't you set out some policy examples of what you would consider to constitute non-neoliberal economics, non-neoconservative uber-Atlanticist foreign policy and a largely non-right-wing social agenda?

You want me to produce a manifesto?

In what sense is it a 'load of guff' to point out that successive Labour governments have pursued a neoliberal economic policy, and neoconservative foreign policy and a largely right-wing social policy. Which of those do you disagree with?


What the **** is THAT supposed to mean? Do you imagine you live in a forest with Robin Hood kit on and somehow outside the system?

I have no idea what that means.


These are meaningless. If you don't qualify what you are measuring here it is nothing more than rhetoric - no surprise there. For example, public spending as a proportion of GDP is this year higher than at any time since 1945.

As above, I happily retract much of that comment.

Your statistic is equally innacurate, however. It's the highest as proportion of GDP since '75-'76.


Did you notice that we just had the worst recession since the 1930s? All parties are committed to cutting public expenditure and will have to raise taxes. And again what is 'marketisation' of the public sector supposed to mean? Do you even understand PFI/PPP since they are actually two different things.

I'd have thought it was pretty self-evident what it meant - introducing the market into the public sector through the PFI/PPP. And no they aren't two different things - PFI is a form of a PPP and the title of PFI was dropped by Labour, using PPP instead, due to unpopularity.

[JimBHibees]

I'd have thought it was pretty self-evident what it meant - introducing the market into the public sector through the PFI/PPP. And no they aren't two different things - PFI is a form of a PPP and the title of PFI was dropped by Labour, using PPP instead, due to unpopularity.

PFI/PPP are the same thing completely. A joke that has the public sector paying off the building of a new hospital for 30 years or so and no doubt getting turned over for the benefit of doing so. Bending over for the private sector which has them running scared and pandering to big business with the present Business Secretary coming out with comments like I am completely relaxed with people getting ridiculously wealthy (paraphrasing). The ex Prime Minister is swanning round the world earning millions off the back of an illegal war. Brown has just admitted he should have regulated the banks better (no **** sherlock.). Labour are morally corrupt and everyone with a backbone knows it. My current MP has been charged with fraud. Magic how good and with the ordinary people Labour is. Brown was cringeworthy earlier on this week when he said he wants to live as his dad told him 'To do the right thing'. Unfortunately when he took power and could have turned it around he became a parody of arch rival Blair and allowed his arch rivals Campbell and Mandelson work the strings from the back.

[Mibbes Aye]

Yes.

I know that when my children fall sick, or my parents fall sick, the fact that they're being treated for free, at an almost brand-new hospital that replaced a Victorian-era one that wasn't fit for purpose, but was built through PPP, well that worries me....:rolleyes:

[One Day Soon]

PFI/PPP are the same thing completely. A joke that has the public sector paying off the building of a new hospital for 30 years or so and no doubt getting turned over for the benefit of doing so. Bending over for the private sector which has them running scared and pandering to big business with the present Business Secretary coming out with comments like I am completely relaxed with people getting ridiculously wealthy (paraphrasing). The ex Prime Minister is swanning round the world earning millions off the back of an illegal war. Brown has just admitted he should have regulated the banks better (no **** sherlock.). Labour are morally corrupt and everyone with a backbone knows it. My current MP has been charged with fraud. Magic how good and with the ordinary people Labour is. Brown was cringeworthy earlier on this week when he said he wants to live as his dad told him 'To do the right thing'. Unfortunately when he took power and could have turned it around he became a parody of arch rival Blair and allowed his arch rivals Campbell and Mandelson work the strings from the back.

What a magnificent collection of assertions. PFI and PPP are not the same thing and if you can't grasp that fact as a basic starting point then there's no debate to be had here.

[JimBHibees]

What a magnificent collection of assertions. PFI and PPP are not the same thing and if you can't grasp that fact as a basic starting point then there's no debate to be had here.

How are the not the same thing oh smart one. Basically getting the private sector to finance and run public sector projects such as schools and hospitals. PPP is PFI rebadged.

Everything I have listed are true also.

[lyonhibs]

PFI/PPP are the same thing completely. A joke that has the public sector paying off the building of a new hospital for 30 years or so and no doubt getting turned over for the benefit of doing so. Bending over for the private sector which has them running scared and pandering to big business with the present Business Secretary coming out with comments like I am completely relaxed with people getting ridiculously wealthy (paraphrasing). The ex Prime Minister is swanning round the world earning millions off the back of an illegal war. Brown has just admitted he should have regulated the banks better (no **** sherlock.). Labour are morally corrupt and everyone with a backbone knows it. My current MP has been charged with fraud. Magic how good and with the ordinary people Labour is. Brown was cringeworthy earlier on this week when he said he wants to live as his dad told him 'To do the right thing'. Unfortunately when he took power and could have turned it around he became a parody of arch rival Blair and allowed his arch rivals Campbell and Mandelson work the strings from the back.

Oh of course - the private sector is nothing but a bunch of heartless crooks, who are out to eat your kids, whilst the public sector is full of beacons of good practice and efficient organisations??? :confused:

[JimBHibees]

Oh of course - the private sector is nothing but a bunch of heartless crooks, who are out to eat your kids, whilst the public sector is full of beacons of good practice and efficient organisations??? :confused:

No one said that I was merely trying to make the point that IMO Labour has been cowtowing and beholden to big business throughout their term in power and some of these PFI/PPP deals are an absolute joke and has hawked the public sector to enormous commitments for years.

[Beefster]

The more things change, the more they stay the same and all that jazz...

http://www.snptacticalvoting.com/2010/04/scotland-on-sunday-poll.html

[joe breezy]

I live in a very white area that is extremely Conservative and where the BNP does well at local elections.

So I'm voting Lib Dem, which is what I used to vote anyway in Edinburgh.

I don't agree with any of the political parties completely I'm afraid but I'm still going to vote.

[Calvin]

I am annoyed and pleased by the Labour campaigning in this election, it's very clever but demonstrates that they are very scared of the SNP and LDs.

All this 'It's a two horse race, a Labour government or a Tory government' spiel is going to work exactly how they want up here: keeping people voting for Labour without a real thought, just because they don't want the tories.

The more people around my age that I actually talk to, the more I find out that they are planning on voting, which is good, but have put no thought into it whatsoever, mainly due to the aforementioned reason.

I've been in London all week, got back yesterday to 3 labour leaflets, a tory leaflet and a UKIP leaflet. Labour must be concerned to give me 3 leaflets in a week!

[LiverpoolHibs]

Really interesting piece by the philosopher John Gray on the Tories at this election and after it, available here (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n08/john-gray/thatcher-thatcher-thatcher).

Some excerpts as it's relatively lengthy:

What happens in these circumstances can be seen in the predicament of Obama, a Gorbachev figure struggling to reconcile the reforms he has promised – and in the case of healthcare, seemingly delivered – with the intractable realities of a failed economic system. The type of capitalism that Thatcher and Blair believed was the only possible model for Britain is in retreat, while rival versions are advancing in China, India and other countries. By modelling himself on Blair, Cameron has endorsed a version of modernisation that is plainly obsolete.

His strategy has been to follow Blair in aligning his party with the country that Thatcher unwittingly helped bring into being, including its more liberal aspects. But embracing liberal Britain does not square with his lamentations that the country is broken, and his message has often sounded garbled. His right-wing critics view his uncertain positioning of the party as a failure of leadership – if only he was less opportunistic, more like Thatcher as they remember or imagine her to have been, all would be well. But Cameron’s repeated volte-faces are not the result of his personal shortcomings. There are irresolvable contradictions in his party’s situation.

Which ties in perfectly with this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vd21SEyyl8) sort of thing.

The problem facing all three parties is that they have framed policy on the basis that the post-Thatcher settlement was permanent. (Indeed Nick Clegg committed the Liberal Democrats to the settlement after its collapse had begun.) But neoliberal policies could be legitimated politically because they didn’t directly attack Britain’s social-democratic inheritance; Thatcher held back from any frontal assault on the welfare state, while Blair and Brown made ‘modern’ public services central to New Labour’s project. The ideologues who tried to shape Conservative policies in the Thatcher era were unable to shrink the welfare state; but something of the contraction they demanded will now come about as a consequence of the banking crisis. If Brown emerges from the election still in government it will fall to Labour to implement the retrenchment that Thatcherism failed to achieve. In a reversal of the progressive narrative, it looks like the roll-back of British social democracy will be a consequence of neoliberalism’s demise.

In the era of austerity that seems sure to follow the election all the parties will be found wanting, but the most damaging impact may be on the Conservatives. A minority Cameron government will depend for its survival on party discipline and the continuing tolerance of the Liberal Democrats. Neither is likely to last long. The inevitable tax rises will meet resistance from Conservative MPs and the constituency rank and file. Nick Clegg will not find it easy to retain support in his party for Conservative spending cuts: while many potential Liberal Democrat voters may have voted Conservative in the past, his party remains largely social democratic in outlook. No doubt there will be pressure on the Conservative leader to call a second general election. But cutbacks and tax rises on the necessary scale will alienate many voters, and it is far from clear that he would secure a working majority.

With Cameron facing such an uncertain prospect some Conservatives may conclude that this election is one the party would be better off losing. That would be a serious mistake. If the Conservatives fail to emerge as the largest single party Cameron’s position as leader will surely be challenged, and it is not hard to see a return of the mayhem that kept them out of power for so many years. The small and much resented cabal that imposed a public face of moderation would be rejected, the ideological passions that have remained beneath the surface would re-emerge and the Conservatives would once again become a rancorous, ungovernable rabble. This would present a strategic opportunity for Brown, who has already floated a far-reaching programme of constitutional reform, including not only the replacement of the House of Lords with an elected second chamber but also a referendum on changing the electoral system for the House of Commons to a version of the Alternative Vote. Of course AV is much less than the Liberal Democrats want, but it is more than they can expect from the Tories. It may not be proportional representation – AV is a strongly majoritarian system – but it would entrench three-party politics for the foreseeable future, with the Liberal Democrats benefiting from the likelihood that many Labour voters would put them second and the Conservatives facing the risk of being pushed into third place.

Rather than allowing the return to power of a rejuvenated Conservative Party, the election may yet return it to a condition not far from that in which it found itself before Cameron became leader [...] But for most of her time in power Thatcher avoided issues of sexual morality, and steered clear of religion – a stance rooted in the Tory tradition of marginalising potentially divisive questions of belief. From one angle, Cameron’s makeover of his party can be seen as attempting to rescue that tradition, but his attempt was inherently flawed, and not only because of his demotic flirtation with the politics of ‘broken Britain’. Thatcher set in motion an upheaval that undermined the Conservatism she herself in many ways represented, while the Conservatism that prevailed before her has disappeared for ever. The Conservative Party that emerges after the election may have more in common with the Continental European right than with anything that has been seen before in mainstream British politics. It is not unrealistic to imagine a breed of Conservatives appearing who have more in common with Geert Wilders than they do with Thatcher, Blair or Cameron.

[Leicester Fan]

Really interesting piece by the philosopher John Gray on the Tories at this election and after it, available here (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n08/john-gray/thatcher-thatcher-thatcher).


You're wrong, it wasn't the slightest bit interesting.

[Removed]

You're wrong, it wasn't the slightest bit interesting.

That's a bit rotten, I bet Liverpool Hibs is a right barrel of laughs on a night out :agree:

[Mibbes Aye]

You're wrong, it wasn't the slightest bit interesting.

Thought it was interesting enough in offering a bit of welcome thought and analysis.

I instinctively am minded to disagree with elements of Gray's discourse. Nevertheless, he makes intriguing points about this election and its potential effect on the Conservative Party.

Whether it plays out as he describes is another matter - I think there is still enough of an inherent distinction in their party and in our electorate that we won't necessarily see a Continental model (which is a generalisation in itself).

Nevertheless he does touch upon some raw nerves for the Tories. They are pregnant with schisms and it's easy to feel that even a landslide would only sustain them for a couple of years before the cracks became too much.

Anything less, as is pretty much certain, and it's not difficult to envisage a Conservative Party split asunder.

Unfortunately (:greengrin) they have always been great survivors, great adapters, modifiers and incrementalists. Unless they've lost that capacity they'll get by.

[ballengeich]

Nevertheless he does touch upon some raw nerves for the Tories. They are pregnant with schisms and it's easy to feel that even a landslide would only sustain them for a couple of years before the cracks became too much.

Anything less, as is pretty much certain, and it's not difficult to envisage a Conservative Party split asunder.


Much the same could be said about Labour. There's a significant proportion of the party who thought that the whole Blairite project was just window-dressing which would be abandoned once power had been achieved. Regardless of the election result conflict is likely.

[LiverpoolHibs]

You're wrong, it wasn't the slightest bit interesting.

Funnily enough, I didn't think adding the caveat 'if you're likely to find this sort of thing interesting' was necessary. I'll keep you in mind in future, though.


That's a bit rotten, I bet Liverpool Hibs is a right barrel of laughs on a night out :agree:

What sort of person doesn't like discussing the post-electoral fortunes of the Conservative Party over a few jars? :dunno:

[Beefster]

Much the same could be said about Labour. There's a significant proportion of the party who thought that the whole Blairite project was just window-dressing which would be abandoned once power had been achieved. Regardless of the election result conflict is likely.

I'd say that a Labour 'repositioning' is much more likely after this election than a Tory one. The unions will be pushing for it, Ed Balls will be pushing for it and Mandelson will lose any will to resist it if Labour lose power.

[JimBHibees]

I am annoyed and pleased by the Labour campaigning in this election, it's very clever but demonstrates that they are very scared of the SNP and LDs.
All this 'It's a two horse race, a Labour government or a Tory government' spiel is going to work exactly how they want up here: keeping people voting for Labour without a real thought, just because they don't want the tories.

The more people around my age that I actually talk to, the more I find out that they are planning on voting, which is good, but have put no thought into it whatsoever, mainly due to the aforementioned reason.

I've been in London all week, got back yesterday to 3 labour leaflets, a tory leaflet and a UKIP leaflet. Labour must be concerned to give me 3 leaflets in a week!


Whats clever about it they have been saying the same things for years. The amount of people up here who automatically vote labour is embarressing and nothing to be proud of especially given their performance in recent years.

[One Day Soon]

Really interesting piece by the philosopher John Gray on the Tories at this election and after it, available here (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n08/john-gray/thatcher-thatcher-thatcher).

Some excerpts as it's relatively lengthy:

What happens in these circumstances can be seen in the predicament of Obama, a Gorbachev figure struggling to reconcile the reforms he has promised – and in the case of healthcare, seemingly delivered – with the intractable realities of a failed economic system. The type of capitalism that Thatcher and Blair believed was the only possible model for Britain is in retreat, while rival versions are advancing in China, India and other countries. By modelling himself on Blair, Cameron has endorsed a version of modernisation that is plainly obsolete.

His strategy has been to follow Blair in aligning his party with the country that Thatcher unwittingly helped bring into being, including its more liberal aspects. But embracing liberal Britain does not square with his lamentations that the country is broken, and his message has often sounded garbled. His right-wing critics view his uncertain positioning of the party as a failure of leadership – if only he was less opportunistic, more like Thatcher as they remember or imagine her to have been, all would be well. But Cameron’s repeated volte-faces are not the result of his personal shortcomings. There are irresolvable contradictions in his party’s situation.

Which ties in perfectly with this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vd21SEyyl8) sort of thing.

The problem facing all three parties is that they have framed policy on the basis that the post-Thatcher settlement was permanent. (Indeed Nick Clegg committed the Liberal Democrats to the settlement after its collapse had begun.) But neoliberal policies could be legitimated politically because they didn’t directly attack Britain’s social-democratic inheritance; Thatcher held back from any frontal assault on the welfare state, while Blair and Brown made ‘modern’ public services central to New Labour’s project. The ideologues who tried to shape Conservative policies in the Thatcher era were unable to shrink the welfare state; but something of the contraction they demanded will now come about as a consequence of the banking crisis. If Brown emerges from the election still in government it will fall to Labour to implement the retrenchment that Thatcherism failed to achieve. In a reversal of the progressive narrative, it looks like the roll-back of British social democracy will be a consequence of neoliberalism’s demise.

In the era of austerity that seems sure to follow the election all the parties will be found wanting, but the most damaging impact may be on the Conservatives. A minority Cameron government will depend for its survival on party discipline and the continuing tolerance of the Liberal Democrats. Neither is likely to last long. The inevitable tax rises will meet resistance from Conservative MPs and the constituency rank and file. Nick Clegg will not find it easy to retain support in his party for Conservative spending cuts: while many potential Liberal Democrat voters may have voted Conservative in the past, his party remains largely social democratic in outlook. No doubt there will be pressure on the Conservative leader to call a second general election. But cutbacks and tax rises on the necessary scale will alienate many voters, and it is far from clear that he would secure a working majority.

With Cameron facing such an uncertain prospect some Conservatives may conclude that this election is one the party would be better off losing. That would be a serious mistake. If the Conservatives fail to emerge as the largest single party Cameron’s position as leader will surely be challenged, and it is not hard to see a return of the mayhem that kept them out of power for so many years. The small and much resented cabal that imposed a public face of moderation would be rejected, the ideological passions that have remained beneath the surface would re-emerge and the Conservatives would once again become a rancorous, ungovernable rabble. This would present a strategic opportunity for Brown, who has already floated a far-reaching programme of constitutional reform, including not only the replacement of the House of Lords with an elected second chamber but also a referendum on changing the electoral system for the House of Commons to a version of the Alternative Vote. Of course AV is much less than the Liberal Democrats want, but it is more than they can expect from the Tories. It may not be proportional representation – AV is a strongly majoritarian system – but it would entrench three-party politics for the foreseeable future, with the Liberal Democrats benefiting from the likelihood that many Labour voters would put them second and the Conservatives facing the risk of being pushed into third place.

Rather than allowing the return to power of a rejuvenated Conservative Party, the election may yet return it to a condition not far from that in which it found itself before Cameron became leader [...] But for most of her time in power Thatcher avoided issues of sexual morality, and steered clear of religion – a stance rooted in the Tory tradition of marginalising potentially divisive questions of belief. From one angle, Cameron’s makeover of his party can be seen as attempting to rescue that tradition, but his attempt was inherently flawed, and not only because of his demotic flirtation with the politics of ‘broken Britain’. Thatcher set in motion an upheaval that undermined the Conservatism she herself in many ways represented, while the Conservatism that prevailed before her has disappeared for ever. The Conservative Party that emerges after the election may have more in common with the Continental European right than with anything that has been seen before in mainstream British politics. It is not unrealistic to imagine a breed of Conservatives appearing who have more in common with Geert Wilders than they do with Thatcher, Blair or Cameron.


Misanthropic raver might be a more apt description than philosopher.

In what sense is Obama dealing with a 'failed economic system'? In what sense has Cameron modelled himself on Blair? These are lazy assertions.

The 'thing' this is supposed to tie into is a barely coherent news report from ITN. It claims that Cameron was unable to answer questions or unable to speak in joined up sentences. Of course it doesn't bother to actually demonstrate that prima facie to the viewer. As usual the nanny media little Gods tell us their version of the news and what to think rather than let evidence speak for itself. Boy did Alistair Campbell have all those preening anti-democratic mobsters sussed.

As to the second piece, it is a very leaky old tub. "neoliberal policies could be legitimated politically because they didn’t directly attack Britain’s social-democratic inheritance" The slight problem with that broken reasoning is that one of the core objectives of neo-liberal policies is to attack social democracy and its pesky appendages such as public services. So the neo-liberal tag he seeks to apply is just plain wrong. If it doesn't walk or quack like a duck then it isn't a duck.

"Conservative policies in the Thatcher era were unable to shrink the welfare state; but something of the contraction they demanded will now come about as a consequence of the banking crisis. If Brown emerges from the election still in government it will fall to Labour to implement the retrenchment that Thatcherism failed to achieve. In a reversal of the progressive narrative, it looks like the roll-back of British social democracy will be a consequence of neoliberalism’s demise."
He's a very confused boy. There is a difference. Attempting to shrink the welfare state - eg You can have your operation free on the NHS within two years as opposed to you can have your operation free on the NHS within two weeks. Attempting to dismantle it - eg we are getting rid of the NHS and you will have to buy your health care through private insurance.

It is hilarious that the deranged and disinherited hard left and the academic and quasi-academic cognoscenti of the liberal media like nothing better than to cuddle up and have a wet dream about how Labour is really the Tories in disguise. Because otherwise what is the unpalatable truth they have to face? That actually it is possible to effect radical social reform without adopting the lunatic strictures of these very people. In other words its a bit like the Yam mindset in which they think the story is 'no-one likes us, we don't care' but the real truth is 'no one cares about us and we don't like it'.

This 'philosopher' appears to be unable to distinguish between producer and consumer interest where public services are concerned and still worse seems capable of assessing the merit and purpose of public services only in terms of expenditure. Not very deep thought that. But then we are talking about a man who predicted almost three years ago that the state of Iraq would cease to exist in consequence of Liberal interventionism. Well I suppose that he does have the advantage of time on his side. While Iraq still exists he can always say that what he predicted just hasn't happened yet. Dearie me.

What a corker the claim about the Tories and Geert Wilders is. Another steaming pile of horse manure. You really do have to be deliberately myopic about the Tory Party to make a claim of that sort. I suppose though that making daft constructs of this sort pays his bills since the papers will no doubt pay him a shilling or two for such 'wacky' analysis. He's been published in the Guardian - enough said.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Misanthropic raver might be a more apt description than philosopher.

No, no it wouldn't. There is absolutely nothing in the article that could be described as misanthropic or indeed raving. You just seem to have chosen two words completely at random.


In what sense is Obama dealing with a 'failed economic system'? In what sense has Cameron modelled himself on Blair? These are lazy assertions.

It would be pretty boring if every time someone wanted to discuss the failure neoliberalism and the collapse of the consensus, which - oddly enough - is quite frequently at the moment, they had to repeatedly detail why it was a failed system. Seeing as you object so greatly, perhaps you could detail why it isn't a failed system

And he explains perfectly clearly why he thinks Cameron has modelled himself on Blair – you may disagree with it but it’s not just an assertion.


The 'thing' this is supposed to tie into is a barely coherent news report from ITN. It claims that Cameron was unable to answer questions or unable to speak in joined up sentences. Of course it doesn't bother to actually demonstrate that prima facie to the viewer. As usual the nanny media little Gods tell us their version of the news and what to think rather than let evidence speak for itself. Boy did Alistair Campbell have all those preening anti-democratic mobsters sussed.

Not for the first time, I've got absolutely no idea what you're raving (that's now applicable) about.

If you felt the clip was overly reduced, cut or edited you could quite easily have followed a link to a longer video of the interview. Or, you know, go off on one about 'preening anti-democratic mobsters' – whatever takes your fancy.


As to the second piece, it is a very leaky old tub. "neoliberal policies could be legitimated politically because they didn’t directly attack Britain’s social-democratic inheritance" The slight problem with that broken reasoning is that one of the core objectives of neo-liberal policies is to attack social democracy and its pesky appendages such as public services. So the neo-liberal tag he seeks to apply is just plain wrong. If it doesn't walk or quack like a duck then it isn't a duck.

It’s not a 'second piece', it's a further extract from the article as a whole that I linked to – which suggests to me you haven't even read the article in its entirety prior to embarking on this bizarre diatribe.

Now then, you're right to say that a core objective of neoliberalism is to attack much of what had been established in the post-war consensus; you are, however, blindingly wrong to then jump to the conclusion that the fact the state hasn’t been completely rolled back under New Labour means that neoliberalism hasn't been continued wholesale by successive governments – that's just strange. Attacking the welfare state, public services et. al. is only one facet of what is a pretty wide-ranging economic and political project, and one that has been halted (though I doubt completely abandoned) due to a crisis before it completely achieved its goals. Furthermore, the continued attachment between Labour and the Unions (however one-way that relationship has become) has had an ameliorating impact on social and economic policy, I've already stated that and said that there are a few things for which Labour are to be commended.

Reductively, neoliberalism has a few main characteristics; financialisation, deregulation of both markets and labour, increased flexibility of labour markets and the contemporaneous attacks on trade unions, privatisation (most of which was completed under Thatcher and Major but was continued by Labour) and a firm commitment that the state will protect finance capital whatever happens. All of these apply axiomatically to the U.K. over the last thirteen years.

Neoliberalism doesn’t actually object that much to public spending as long as it’s spent in manner that aids its world-view. The PPP/PFI programmes which New Labour accelerated massively are part of the same process. It's nothing to do with 'rolling back the state' or anything like that, it's about altering the function of the state in relation to capital.

To steal your metaphor, what you’re actually trying to say is that a duck that’s missing a few feathers is no longer a duck.


"Conservative policies in the Thatcher era were unable to shrink the welfare state; but something of the contraction they demanded will now come about as a consequence of the banking crisis. If Brown emerges from the election still in government it will fall to Labour to implement the retrenchment that Thatcherism failed to achieve. In a reversal of the progressive narrative, it looks like the roll-back of British social democracy will be a consequence of neoliberalism’s demise."
He's a very confused boy. There is a difference. Attempting to shrink the welfare state - eg You can have your operation free on the NHS within two years as opposed to you can have your operation free on the NHS within two weeks. Attempting to dismantle it - eg we are getting rid of the NHS and you will have to buy your health care through private insurance.

It is hilarious that the deranged and disinherited hard left and the academic and quasi-academic cognoscenti of the liberal media like nothing better than to cuddle up and have a wet dream about how Labour is really the Tories in disguise. Because otherwise what is the unpalatable truth they have to face? That actually it is possible to effect radical social reform without adopting the lunatic strictures of these very people. In other words its a bit like the Yam mindset in which they think the story is 'no-one likes us, we don't care' but the real truth is 'no one cares about us and we don't like it'.

Crikey, if you consider Gray to be of the left, nevermind the 'hard-left', then there are serious problems afoot. What's the radical social reform Labour have enacted? Redistributing wealth from the worst off in society to the wealthiest is, granted, pretty radical - but I'm not sure we should congratulate them for it...

Your NHS example seems to have absolutely no connection to the quote you're supposedly answering.


This 'philosopher' appears to be unable to distinguish between producer and consumer interest where public services are concerned and still worse seems capable of assessing the merit and purpose of public services only in terms of expenditure. Not very deep thought that. But then we are talking about a man who predicted almost three years ago that the state of Iraq would cease to exist in consequence of Liberal interventionism. Well I suppose that he does have the advantage of time on his side. While Iraq still exists he can always say that what he predicted just hasn't happened yet. Dearie me.

Ah, here's that obsession with 'producer and consumer interest' again.

Do you have a link, stupendously unconnected though it is, to him claiming Iraq would cease to exist? It's not that unusual a claim if he's talking about the Ba'athist conception of Iraq, considering the strong likelihood of a Kurdish state being formed in the future.


What a corker the claim about the Tories and Geert Wilders is. Another steaming pile of horse manure. You really do have to be deliberately myopic about the Tory Party to make a claim of that sort. I suppose though that making daft constructs of this sort pays his bills since the papers will no doubt pay him a shilling or two for such 'wacky' analysis. He's been published in the Guardian - enough said.

What was that about lazy assertions?

Out of interest, does the constant hyperbolising and vituperation (I'm not sure they even cover it) not get a wee bit tiring?

[ballengeich]

Yes.

I know that when my children fall sick, or my parents fall sick, the fact that they're being treated for free, at an almost brand-new hospital that replaced a Victorian-era one that wasn't fit for purpose, but was built through PPP, well that worries me....:rolleyes:

The problem with a hospital built through PFI or PPP is not the treatment it gives - greater investment on the Health Service was welcome - but that the financial arrangement made will have been more costly than the alternative of paying by open government borrowing which could have been done at lower interest rates.

By an accounting trick, PPP projects do not appear in totals of government borrowing, even though they have to be paid for over many future years. It's like piling things on to your credit card then pretending you've no debts because you haven't arranged a bank overdraft.

You and your children will be paying more in tax for many years for PPP projects than was necessary to achieve the same results.

[Mibbes Aye]

The problem with a hospital built through PFI or PPP is not the treatment it gives - greater investment on the Health Service was welcome - but that the financial arrangement made will have been more costly than the alternative of paying by open government borrowing which could have been done at lower interest rates.

By an accounting trick, PPP projects do not appear in totals of government borrowing, even though they have to be paid for over many future years. It's like piling things on to your credit card then pretending you've no debts because you haven't arranged a bank overdraft.

You and your children will be paying more in tax for many years for PPP projects than was necessary to achieve the same results.

The hospitals and school wouldn't be built anywhere near as quickly or in the numbers they have, had they been built by other means.

And there's an argument that the whole-life cost of the service is actually cheaper, because private borrowing is subject to stricter control than government borrowing and because the private sector operates to a higher degree of financial efficency.

What's critical in the process is robust and stringent management of the purchasing and of the contract by the public sector. Getting the spec right then monitoring adequately. But PPP is only one tool in procuring and commissioning public services - it's not the be-all and end-all.

The paradigm's shifted - the gap that existed between the public and private sectors isn't desirable or viable in meeting the challenges and expectations of society in the 21st century. It's got to be a partnership model, albeit one where the outcomes are driven by the strategic direction of the public sector.

[ballengeich]

The hospitals and school wouldn't be built anywhere near as quickly or in the numbers they have, had they been built by other means.

And there's an argument that the whole-life cost of the service is actually cheaper, because private borrowing is subject to stricter control than government borrowing and because the private sector operates to a higher degree of financial efficency.

What's critical in the process is robust and stringent management of the purchasing and of the contract by the public sector. Getting the spec right then monitoring adequately. But PPP is only one tool in procuring and commissioning public services - it's not the be-all and end-all.

The paradigm's shifted - the gap that existed between the public and private sectors isn't desirable or viable in meeting the challenges and expectations of society in the 21st century. It's got to be a partnership model, albeit one where the outcomes are driven by the strategic direction of the public sector.

There is no reason why government borrowing could not have put the money and physical resources in place just as quickly as private finance.

I'm sceptical about the belief that private borrowing is necessarily cheaper through more effective control. This has been built into government comparison of the relative cost of public and PPP investment and seems to have resulted in generally more expensive contracts. Private Eye has investigated this continuously, exposing the results, and the writings of Professor Alison Pollock give a more informed analysis of the subject than I am capable of.

My point about PPP being concealed government borrowing remains. I've read that the National Audit Office may be challenging the practice.

[Mibbes Aye]

There is no reason why government borrowing could not have put the money and physical resources in place just as quickly as private finance.

I'm sceptical about the belief that private borrowing is necessarily cheaper through more effective control. This has been built into government comparison of the relative cost of public and PPP investment and seems to have resulted in generally more expensive contracts. Private Eye has investigated this continuously, exposing the results, and the writings of Professor Alison Pollock give a more informed analysis of the subject than I am capable of.

My point about PPP being concealed government borrowing remains. I've read that the National Audit Office may be challenging the practice.

Do you have figures for the whole-life cost of hospitals or schools built through PPP as against the projected whole-life cost of those not?

Allyson Pollock certainly can give an analysis. She's not alone. Dr. Mark Dutz has written extensively (as well as working extensively) on public private partnerships......

[One Day Soon]

No, no it wouldn't. There is absolutely nothing in the article that could be described as misanthropic or indeed raving. You just seem to have chosen two words completely at random.



It would be pretty boring if every time someone wanted to discuss the failure neoliberalism and the collapse of the consensus, which - oddly enough - is quite frequently at the moment, they had to repeatedly detail why it was a failed system. Seeing as you object so greatly, perhaps you could detail why it isn't a failed system

And he explains perfectly clearly why he thinks Cameron has modelled himself on Blair – you may disagree with it but it’s not just an assertion.



Not for the first time, I've got absolutely no idea what you're raving (that's now applicable) about.

If you felt the clip was overly reduced, cut or edited you could quite easily have followed a link to a longer video of the interview. Or, you know, go off on one about 'preening anti-democratic mobsters' – whatever takes your fancy.



It’s not a 'second piece', it's a further extract from the article as a whole that I linked to – which suggests to me you haven't even read the article in its entirety prior to embarking on this bizarre diatribe.

Now then, you're right to say that a core objective of neoliberalism is to attack much of what had been established in the post-war consensus; you are, however, blindingly wrong to then jump to the conclusion that the fact the state hasn’t been completely rolled back under New Labour means that neoliberalism hasn't been continued wholesale by successive governments – that's just strange. Attacking the welfare state, public services et. al. is only one facet of what is a pretty wide-ranging economic and political project, and one that has been halted (though I doubt completely abandoned) due to a crisis before it completely achieved its goals. Furthermore, the continued attachment between Labour and the Unions (however one-way that relationship has become) has had an ameliorating impact on social and economic policy, I've already stated that and said that there are a few things for which Labour are to be commended.

Reductively, neoliberalism has a few main characteristics; financialisation, deregulation of both markets and labour, increased flexibility of labour markets and the contemporaneous attacks on trade unions, privatisation (most of which was completed under Thatcher and Major but was continued by Labour) and a firm commitment that the state will protect finance capital whatever happens. All of these apply axiomatically to the U.K. over the last thirteen years.

Neoliberalism doesn’t actually object that much to public spending as long as it’s spent in manner that aids its world-view. The PPP/PFI programmes which New Labour accelerated massively are part of the same process. It's nothing to do with 'rolling back the state' or anything like that, it's about altering the function of the state in relation to capital.

To steal your metaphor, what you’re actually trying to say is that a duck that’s missing a few feathers is no longer a duck.



Crikey, if you consider Gray to be of the left, nevermind the 'hard-left', then there are serious problems afoot. What's the radical social reform Labour have enacted? Redistributing wealth from the worst off in society to the wealthiest is, granted, pretty radical - but I'm not sure we should congratulate them for it...

Your NHS example seems to have absolutely no connection to the quote you're supposedly answering.



Ah, here's that obsession with 'producer and consumer interest' again.

Do you have a link, stupendously unconnected though it is, to him claiming Iraq would cease to exist? It's not that unusual a claim if he's talking about the Ba'athist conception of Iraq, considering the strong likelihood of a Kurdish state being formed in the future.



What was that about lazy assertions?

Out of interest, does the constant hyperbolising and vituperation (I'm not sure they even cover it) not get a wee bit tiring?


Do you know what? I spent a long time answering each of the points in your post only to find that my session had timed out and I had to log in again. When I did the whole post was gone. So I'm going to settle for this response instead:

bollocks

I'm sure you can appreciate the succinct and cogent political analysis which has gone into this.

[Beefster]

Vince Cable nailed yet again by Andrew Neil:

YouTube - Guy News: Cable's Flip Flop Smack Down (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-grwkqnc1U)

[marinello59]

bollocks

I'm sure you can appreciate the succinct and cogent political analysis which has gone into this.

You have my vote. I would love answers like this at PMQ.:greengrin

[One Day Soon]

Vince Cable nailed yet again by Andrew Neil:

YouTube - Guy News: Cable's Flip Flop Smack Down (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-grwkqnc1U)


Beefster that is just sublime. The joy of it is not that it is somehow a fiendish hatchet job - it is that it simply demonstrates in words of one syllable what the truth is about Lib Dem dishonesty when you put their words and their policies under the spotlight.

[Sir David Gray]

Or UKIP. :bitchy:

You say that as if UKIP are even close to being like the BNP.

I have looked at both parties' policies on various occasions and I can see very little common ground between them. In fact the BNP actually approached UKIP at the end of 2008 to discuss the possibility of creating a pact between the two parties for the European elections last year and UKIP immediately turned the offer down, saying that there are no circumstances in which UKIP would ever think about doing a deal with the BNP.

The BNP is a fascist, Nazi party, no matter how much they try to refute those allegations, whereas UKIP, in my opinion, is a party with fairly moderate, right-leaning policies.

Personally, I can't believe the amount of people on here who are voting for the SNP and Labour.

The SNP are, in my opinion, total hypocrites. They bang on and on about how Scotland should leave the UK, become an independent nation and take full control over its own affairs. That sounds great in principle, except for the fact that, under the SNP, Scotland would not become a fully independent nation, nor would it have full control over its own affairs, when the first thing they would do, after leaving the United Kingdom, would be to sign us up as the next member state of the European Union. So instead of being ruled from Westminster, a significant amount of our laws would be coming from Brussels. As far as I'm concerned, any party that is a serious and credible pro-independence party should be campaigning for Scotland to be independent of the UK and the EU.

With Labour, in the 13 years that they have been in power, we now have enormous levels of debt and unemployment, that will be leaving its mark on the country for generations to come, we have been led into, and are still paying for, a war that is widely regarded as illegal, we have an Armed Forces that is grossly underfunded and we also had the disgraceful treatment of the Gurkhas. That's just the things that I can think of, off the top of my head.

My problem is not with UKIP's policies. I think they have some policies on issues like Europe, immigration, defence and foreign policy that are pretty much spot on in my opinion.

My problem is with UKIP's leaders.

First of all we had their former leader, Nigel Farage, making a show of himself a couple of months ago in the European Parliament when he made puerile and completely unnecessary remarks towards the President of the European Council. Although I totally agree with his views on the EU, there are more appropriate and mature ways to make your point. That kind of behaviour just reflects badly on UKIP as a party. If anything their current leader, Lord Pearson, is even worse. I saw him on some BBC election programme the other day and it appeared as if he wasn't aware of some UKIP policies that were included in their election manifesto and he said that he didn't think that he was there to discuss such matters. It was actually quite an embarrassing interview, if truth be told.

As I've said already, UKIP has a number of policies that I believe are potential vote winners with the public and it's just a great shame that they don't have someone who is able to push these policies forward in an effective manner.

I notice that Nick Clegg was apparently named the the 'winner' of last week's debate and yet when the news sent a reporter to interview people on the street the day after, and told them about some of the Liberal Democrat policies such as adopting the Euro, staunchly supporting further integration into the EU and providing an amnesty for illegal immigrants, the people who were interviewed were less supportive of Clegg and his party. Since UKIP takes the complete opposite view on those kind of issues, I believe that if they had a competent leadership in place, they could be on course for some serious success at the polls.

Unfortunately, it looks as if incompetence and childishness will be their main stumbling block but not only that, they would also seemingly prefer to promote a negative message on their campaign posters, with their "sod the lot" slogan referring to the three main parties. They would have been far better trying to get across a positive message regarding UKIP and their policies, because I do think that they stand for things that will appeal to a vast number of the electorate.

It's a pity that they don't seem to be taking advantage of that.

[bawheid]

I notice that Nick Clegg was apparently named the the 'winner' of last week's debate and yet when the news sent a reporter to interview people on the street the day after, and told them about some of the Liberal Democrat policies such as adopting the Euro, staunchly supporting further integration into the EU and providing an amnesty for illegal immigrants, the people who were interviewed were less supportive of Clegg and his party.

:faf:

Are you Hibs.net's version of the Daily Telegraph?

[LiverpoolHibs]

Do you know what? I spent a long time answering each of the points in your post only to find that my session had timed out and I had to log in again. When I did the whole post was gone. So I'm going to settle for this response instead:

bollocks

I'm sure you can appreciate the succinct and cogent political analysis which has gone into this.

:agree:

I think that suits us both.


Vince Cable nailed yet again by Andrew Neil:

YouTube - Guy News: Cable's Flip Flop Smack Down (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-grwkqnc1U)

Wow, I never thought I'd find myself cheering on Andrew Neil. Absolutely excellent.


:faf:

Are you Hibs.net's version of the Daily Telegraph?

Norman Tebbit jr. (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/normantebbit/100035387/nick-clegg-is-a-sycophantic-pro-immigration-europhile-david-cameron-should-tell-us-so/)

[GlesgaeHibby]

:faf:

Are you Hibs.net's version of the Daily Telegraph?

I reckon FalkirkHibee is hibs.nets version of the Daily Mail, who of course told their readers this morning about 'Nick Cleggs Nazi Slur'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1267921/GENERAL-ELECTION-2010-Nick-Clegg-Nazi-slur-Britain.html

[ballengeich]

Do you have figures for the whole-life cost of hospitals or schools built through PPP as against the projected whole-life cost of those not?

Allyson Pollock certainly can give an analysis. She's not alone. Dr. Mark Dutz has written extensively (as well as working extensively) on public private partnerships......

I haven't found any overall comparisons though I've realised that there's a load of Pollocks writing about the health service.

Private Eye has made repeated assertions that comparison between PPP and public costs before contracts are awarded use different discounting of future outlays assuming greater efficiency in the private sector. I'd be interested to know the theoretical justification for this.

As an aside, the collapse of Jarvis has thrown up another question about PPP. The future maintenance of several schools they had been involved in building in my own Stirling constituency is uncertain as a result.

[heretoday]

Blimey! After the TV debates featuring the most lack-lustre set of politicians since the dark ages I am seriously thinking of voting SNP, although I don't particularly like Alex Salmond and I don't want an Independent Scotland - but in Edin West what choice do we have?

His mere absence from these awkward talent shows makes him more attractive and his vaguely anti-war policies appeal also.

[Leicester Fan]

You know, you're not supposed to be voting on who comes across best on TV. You're supposed to vote for whose policies you most agree with. The debates are a chance to hear the leaders explain why their policies are right and the others are wrong. It's not a beauty contest.

[Mibbes Aye]

I haven't found any overall comparisons though I've realised that there's a load of Pollocks writing about the health service.

Private Eye has made repeated assertions that comparison between PPP and public costs before contracts are awarded use different discounting of future outlays assuming greater efficiency in the private sector. I'd be interested to know the theoretical justification for this.

As an aside, the collapse of Jarvis has thrown up another question about PPP. The future maintenance of several schools they had been involved in building in my own Stirling constituency is uncertain as a result.

Which takes you back to my point about how critical it is for the public sector to get the spec absolutely right when they procure in this manner. There's no good reason not to, and it should ensure any potential turns for the worse are covered, and in fact where the private sector is commissioned but fails to meet its obligations it should be carrying any additional charges incurred by government in making up their shortfall.

[Hainan Hibs]

You know, you're not supposed to be voting on who comes across best on TV. You're supposed to vote for whose policies you most agree with. The debates are a chance to hear the leaders explain why their policies are right and the others are wrong. It's not a beauty contest.

Really? I was confused to as why Dermot O'Leary hasn't been making an appearance.

"Phone and Add 01 for Clegg.....02 for Brown.....03 for Cameron"

:greengrin

[Scooter]

anyone but snp. they've done nothing really and salmond is a egotistic maniac. Sturgeon is also ruining the health service

[ginger_rice]

I haven't found any overall comparisons though I've realised that there's a load of Pollocks writing about the health service.

Private Eye has made repeated assertions that comparison between PPP and public costs before contracts are awarded use different discounting of future outlays assuming greater efficiency in the private sector. I'd be interested to know the theoretical justification for this.

As an aside, the collapse of Jarvis has thrown up another question about PPP. The future maintenance of several schools they had been involved in building in my own Stirling constituency is uncertain as a result.

It's only Balfron the rest are under the Stirling Gateway consortium.

The cosy of PPP buildings and the way ther are run is really dreadful, I work in one and it's looking really tatty already after less than 3 years. IMHO PPP is not a good way to build and run public buildings, however you can't blame the councils as under the previous Labour administration in Edinburgh it was the only game in town.

By the way did you realise that half of my family are buried in your user name :wink:

[ballengeich]

Which takes you back to my point about how critical it is for the public sector to get the spec absolutely right when they procure in this manner. There's no good reason not to, and it should ensure any potential turns for the worse are covered, and in fact where the private sector is commissioned but fails to meet its obligations it should be carrying any additional charges incurred by government in making up their shortfall.

I agree with your first sentence. The public sector seems to have been very bad at this at least in the early days of the partnership.

How is your final point to be covered when the private company goes bust?

[ballengeich]

It's only Balfron the rest are under the Stirling Gateway consortium.

The cosy of PPP buildings and the way ther are run is really dreadful, I work in one and it's looking really tatty already after less than 3 years. IMHO PPP is not a good way to build and run public buildings, however you can't blame the councils as under the previous Labour administration in Edinburgh it was the only game in town.

By the way did you realise that half of my family are buried in your user name :wink:

Thanks for the correction on the school status.

I'll look for your user name on the memorial stones next time I'm up there:wink:

[marinello59]

And the award for most annoying Party Election Broadcast so far goes to the Scottish Socialist Party. Two minutes to tell us in the most contrived manner that the replacement for Trident could cost a lot. Talk about missing an open goal.

[One Day Soon]

And the award for most annoying Party Election Broadcast so far goes to the Scottish Socialist Party. Two minutes to tell us in the most contrived manner that the replacement for Trident could cost a lot. Talk about missing an open goal.

They are as oxymoronic as its possible to be. 'Socialists' who are 'Nationalists'. Dear me. You don't come across many clever Trots though.

[Calvin]

And the award for most annoying Party Election Broadcast so far goes to the Scottish Socialist Party. Two minutes to tell us in the most contrived manner that the replacement for Trident could cost a lot. Talk about missing an open goal.

Unbelievable. I was watching it with two mates and we were just stunned that it was so bad. The point was valid but just presented in the worst way ever.

[Beefster]

Vince Cable takes another monstering on the Lib Dem decision to keep £2.4 million of stolen money.

YouTube - Jon Sopel mauls Vince Cable (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3X8DwoAw2k)

[sadtom]

4 BNP **** on here.
Any chance of you master race pr1cks owning up!
Could maybe meet you after the game tomorrow if you fancy.
Thick fascist *****s!

[LiverpoolHibs]

They are as oxymoronic as its possible to be. 'Socialists' who are 'Nationalists'. Dear me. You don't come across many clever Trots though.

No, socialists who believe in the right to national self-determination. Those two go hand-in-hand.

Absolutely appalling PPB, however.

[Mibbes Aye]

I agree with your first sentence. The public sector seems to have been very bad at this at least in the early days of the partnership.

How is your final point to be covered when the private company goes bust?

How does anyone mitigate against that? All you can do is manage the risk to an acceptable level.

Do you know what the maintenance contract says? Without seeing it one would expect the maintenance to be paid for in arrears on an ongoing basis, with immediate termination rights for the public body in the case of business failure. If a contractor is unable to perform their duties then it's a clear breach and there has to be scope to move to bring in someone else. While there may be disruption at least the financial commitment is managed appropriately.

As to avoiding companies going bust in the first place, it's worth bearing in mind that these organisations don't set up to fail. Sometimes they do, however. There are comprehensive guidelines in place across the public sector to try and ensure where at all possible that any private company receiving public money for goods and services is fit to deliver. In the face of one of the harshest economic climates we've ever known, the waterline has got a lot higher though. And those carrying out the commissioning or procuring have to ensure they are following the guidance robustly.

[JimBHibees]

Vince Cable takes another monstering on the Lib Dem decision to keep £2.4 million of stolen money.

YouTube - Jon Sopel mauls Vince Cable (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3X8DwoAw2k)

So what? Getting worried.

[JimBHibees]

The problem with a hospital built through PFI or PPP is not the treatment it gives - greater investment on the Health Service was welcome - but that the financial arrangement made will have been more costly than the alternative of paying by open government borrowing which could have been done at lower interest rates.

By an accounting trick, PPP projects do not appear in totals of government borrowing, even though they have to be paid for over many future years. It's like piling things on to your credit card then pretending you've no debts because you haven't arranged a bank overdraft.

You and your children will be paying more in tax for many years for PPP projects than was necessary to achieve the same results.

Completely true. Basically buying on a credit card government policy which Nu Labour originally criticised then took on as a great idea when the big business oil salesman Blair took charge.

[Pete]

Sorry if it's already been discussed but I haven't read the whole thread.

I'm torn between three voting styles in this election.

1. My principles: I would vote for a socialist candidate becasue that's what I believe in...but what's the point as they have no chance this election. However, If I do vote socialist I am sticking to my principles and perhaps one day they might get in if more people stuck to their principles and voted for them.

2. Tactical: There are one party I don't wan't to see get in so my vote for their nearest rivals will count. However, I'm voting for someone I don't believe in and who's parties principles I don't believe in.

3. The actual candidate: ...regardless of political party.When I was living in Edinburgh South one of the councillors was Jason Rust. He was fantastic and a real "people" person...always championing local issues. He is now the conservative parliamentary candidate and I wouldn't think twice about voting for him if I still lived there simply because of his personality...even though he is a conservative and it might be the difference between the tories getting a seat in Scotland or not.
In my new home I've been impressed with the Lib Dem MP we have. He's stuck by us on some problems we have had and I'm tempted to vote for him even though I don't support Lib Dem and I'd be abandoning my principles. I might even be helping to deny the party I would realistically like to see in power an achievable seat.


I think a lot of people have the same dilema as myself...they somehow feel their vote is wasted or feel guilty no matter who they vote for. I think there has to be some sort of change in the system to allow your vote to count no matter who it's for or what seat.
Half of me doesn't see the point in going at all.

[Pete]

4 BNP **** on here.
Any chance of you master race pr1cks owning up!
Could maybe meet you after the game tomorrow if you fancy.
Thick fascist *****s!

I Don't think the BNP even have anyone running for parliament in Scotland.

However, threatening violence against their supporters only makes you slightly better than what they are.

Their whole argument and their princples can be torn apart very easily with words alone.

[Mibbes Aye]

Completely true. Basically buying on a credit card government policy which Nu Labour originally criticised then took on as a great idea when the big business oil salesman Blair took charge.

Very good.

So what was your plan for giving people decent hospitals and schools to replace the broken ones we inherited from Thatcher and Major, falling apart at the seams with no real investment for twenty years?

I'm genuinely interested to hear your costed proposal that would have made things better. Go on JimB, share it.....?

It's basic stuff.

Labour is far from being perfect. But it does have a core belief that we can be a better country, a better society because of what we can do together.

And most importantly, that we share a responsibility for those who are weaker, more vulnerable, poorer.

You can search long and hard for that elsewhere but neither the Tories, the LibDems or the SNP will ever acknowledge that.

[Sumner]

An SNP vote = vote for Alex Salmond :bitchy:

... "how low can you go?" :bitchy:

[anon1]

Lib Dems + A vote for the Union.

Independance is a ridiculous idea. Actually, I'd doubt Salmond would even go through with it given the chance anyway! He's just in it for his own + cronies benefit.

---------- Post added at 11:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:29 PM ----------


4 BNP **** on here.
Any chance of you master race pr1cks owning up!
Could maybe meet you after the game tomorrow if you fancy.
Thick fascist *****s!

Its called Democracy, get used to it!!

[steakbake]

An SNP vote = vote for Alex Salmond :bitchy:

... "how low can you go?" :bitchy:

David Cameron or Gordon Brown.

[Sir David Gray]

We finally have a UKIP candidate in my constituency. :thumbsup:

So take one vote off the Conservatives and give UKIP an extra vote.


:faf:

Are you Hibs.net's version of the Daily Telegraph?

I don't understand why you've put a :faf: smilie there. I was highlighting the fact that, despite Nick Clegg apparently coming across well in the first debate, people are less supportive of certain Lib Dem policies. I strongly disagree with their views on the European Union and I find their policies on issues such as illegal immigration and Trident completely irresponsible and they could have catastrophic effects on the country.


I reckon FalkirkHibee is hibs.nets version of the Daily Mail, who of course told their readers this morning about 'Nick Cleggs Nazi Slur'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1267921/GENERAL-ELECTION-2010-Nick-Clegg-Nazi-slur-Britain.html

Not at all. I am very much an independent when it comes to politics. Like I said earlier in the thread, whilst the Conservatives are probably the mainstream party that are closest to reflecting my views, I don't particularly support them, especially when it comes to UK elections as I'm still sceptical as to how much the UK Conservatives really support Scotland. I will probably support them at Scottish elections, though.

I don't tend to read the Telegraph all that often but there have been several occasions when I have disagreed with what the Daily Mail has said. They are often typical of a tabloid paper (I know the Mail is technically not a tabloid in the true sense of the word) with their sensationalist headlines but in the main you are absolutely correct to say that I am Hibs.net's version of the Daily Mail. :greengrin


And the award for most annoying Party Election Broadcast so far goes to the Scottish Socialist Party. Two minutes to tell us in the most contrived manner that the replacement for Trident could cost a lot. Talk about missing an open goal.

I would never consider voting for them in the first place but I saw this broadcast on Friday night and I thought it was highly embarrassing.

It was cheesy and just generally annoying and if I was considering voting for them, that kind of broadcast would have put me right off them.


4 BNP **** on here.
Any chance of you master race pr1cks owning up!
Could maybe meet you after the game tomorrow if you fancy.
Thick fascist *****s!

I presume that you are challenging those BNP voters to a fight? If so, that is exactly the kind of bullying and threatening tactic that these BNP people engage in all the time. If you were to resort to violence in order to challenge the BNP then I don't see how that makes you any better than the people you apparently detest so much.

We might not like it but the BNP is a legitimate political party that is legally taking part in the forthcoming election. If you believe in democracy, there is nothing you can do about them taking part but you can help to keep them out of the House of Commons by making sure that you vote (particularly if there is a BNP candidate in your constituency) and putting an 'x' in any box, other than the BNP's.


I Don't think the BNP even have anyone running for parliament in Scotland.

They have 13 candidates in Scotland this year.

[Pete]

They have 13 candidates in Scotland this year.

That surprises me. I'd like to know where they are putting these people up for election and why. The BNP support is mainly in towns in the North of England where muslims have genuinely taken over some areas. It's a really complicated issue and one for another thread but a lot of people have a lot of genuine issues because there is so much racial tension.

They're wasting their time up here. There are Asian gangs and criminals etc... but it's basically integrated and everyone knows their place. They might get one or two votes from the mad element but their presence is pointless.

They're fighting a losing battle in the wrong place.

[Beefster]

So what? Getting worried.

So what? Considering their insistence on peddling the line that they're whiter than white, I think keeping vast sums of money obtained by fraud shows them to be hypocrites. If this was Labour or Conservatives, they'd be getting a much harder time about it.

I'm not particularly worried though and they or the SNP will probably get my vote in East Lothian as an 'anti-Labour' vote.

[GlesgaeHibby]

We finally have a UKIP candidate in my constituency. :thumbsup:

So take one vote off the Conservatives and give UKIP an extra vote.



The EU does more good than bad:



EU Working time directive guarantees 4 weeks paid holiday per year for workers
Largest internal trading market in the World
EU Emissions Trading Scheme. Worlds largest Carbon Trading scheme to cut C02 emissions.
Aid to developing countries (twice as much as US)
Strong Consumer rights
Regional development fund
Clearer food labelling
EU peace keepers working to avert humanitarian crises throughout the World
Strict aircraft safety targets. Planes not meeting these targets are banned from flying into any EU Country.
Forcing the French to buy British Beef again after BSE crisis

Although I can see why you are against EU membership given that you've admitted you read the Daily Heil.

[LiverpoolHibs]

That surprises me. I'd like to know where they are putting these people up for election and why. The BNP support is mainly in towns in the North of England where muslims have genuinely taken over some areas. It's a really complicated issue and one for another thread but a lot of people have a lot of genuine issues because there is so much racial tension.

They're wasting their time up here. There are Asian gangs and criminals etc... but it's basically integrated and everyone knows their place. They might get one or two votes from the mad element but their presence is pointless.

They're fighting a losing battle in the wrong place.

Mainly in Glasgow and Aberdeen.

The rest of the post is highly innacurate, you can read the IPPR report on the cause of support for the BNP here (http://www.ippr.org.uk/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=743) - you have to register with them but it's free.

The report notes that of the ten main BNP heartlands, nine have below average immigration and that areas with the highest levels of immigration tend to have the lowest levels of support for the BNP.

The areas in which they've drawn a significant level of support recently tend to be former manufacturing bases with high levels of unemployment and other socio-economic problems. They also tend to be areas which were previously Labour and trade-union strongholds where the decline of manufacturing (and other factors) has destroyed the unions and support for the Labour Party has, understandably, atrophied over the last thirteen years leaving a vacuum into which the BNP has stepped, to one degree or another.

Then there's also the impact of a climate of racist and/or anti-immigration discourse within parliamentary politics which increases rather than decreases support for them.

[GlesgaeHibby]

So what? Considering their insistence on peddling the line that they're whiter than white, I think keeping vast sums of money obtained by fraud shows them to be hypocrites. If this was Labour or Conservatives, they'd be getting a much harder time about it.

I'm not particularly worried though and they or the SNP will probably get my vote in East Lothian as an 'anti-Labour' vote.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8635277.stm

Interesting video to watch, particularly for those of us voting in East Lothian.

[One Day Soon]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8635277.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8635277.stm)

Interesting video to watch, particularly for those of us voting in East Lothian.

So basically the SNP candidate was instructed by the SNP head office spin doctors not to speak to Michael Crick. The sort of control freakery people like to accuse Labour of.

Where did the Lib Dem get that suit by the way? He looked like he'd just escaped from Albania in the 1970s.

[Calvin]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8635277.stm

Interesting video to watch, particularly for those of us voting in East Lothian.

Interesting. Poor show from Andy Sharp there I have to say.

With Veitch in Port Seton and O'Donnell in Prestonpans I'm hoping for some door to door campaigning on my doorstep soon.

[Betty Boop]

The SNP are to raise £50,000, to proceed with legal action against the BBC.
What is the point?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8642550.stm

[One Day Soon]

No, socialists who believe in the right to national self-determination. Those two go hand-in-hand.

Absolutely appalling PPB, however.

No, so called socialists who actively pursue separatism as a policy. Those two do not go hand in hand. There is a vast difference between on the one hand believing in and accepting self-determination (most democrats believe in that) and on the other adopting and actively pursuing a nationalist agenda.

So much for socialist internationalists. The are comfortable with this because they are Trotskyist.

I didn't see the PPB but I would imagine that much of the wit and colour has gone from their work now that they have returned to the humourless droning bunch that they were always going to be without the - ahem - 'colour' of comrade Sherridan to give them more public appeal.

[LiverpoolHibs]

No, so called socialists who actively pursue separatism as a policy. Those two do not go hand in hand. There is a vast difference between on the one hand believing in and accepting self-determination (most democrats believe in that) and on the other adopting and actively pursuing a nationalist agenda.

So much for socialist internationalists. The are comfortable with this because they are Trotskyist.

I don't understand what dichotomy you're trying to draw. If you support the right to national self-determination how would that manifest itself except in pursuing that national self-determination?

There's nothing contrary to internationalism in doing that.

[One Day Soon]

The SNP are to raise £50,000, to proceed with legal action against the BBC.
What is the point?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8642550.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8642550.stm)


The point is that these debates now are the general election and the SNP know it. They have effectively displaced all other coverage in importance. So if you are not part of it then you effectively aren't in the election. They are being starved of the oxygen of publicity and it it is damaging their electoral chances very, very badly. You can hear their rising hysteria over this on Radio Scotland almost every morning through one spokesperson or another. And I don't mean hysteria pejoratively, I mean that they are genuinely concerned about the effect this is having on their vote.

I am not a Nat but I think there is a real problem here between wanting to have a meaningful televised debate between party leaders but also excluding the fringe parties. I can see why it is being done in this way and that it makes perfect sense. I can also see why the SNP think it unfair - which it is - and their position makes sense too. The question is how to make it work?

[One Day Soon]

I don't understand what dichotomy you're trying to draw. If you support the right to national self-determination how would that manifest itself except in pursuing that national self-determination?

There's nothing contrary to internationalism in doing that.

I have a game to get to but very quickly...........I support the right to self determination for Scotland if we collectively wish to exercise it. But I'm not in favour of doing so, I'm not in favour of independence and I wouldn't go and make independence a core part of my political manifesto.

But then the Trots are just a bunch of shamelessly opportunist poseurs so what would you expect from them? They seem to believe that poverty and inequality stops and starts at the border that doesn't presently exist with England. Their policy is all about maximising their list vote vis-a-vis the SNP and absolutely nothing to do with principles.

[GlesgaeHibby]

So basically the SNP candidate was instructed by the SNP head office spin doctors not to speak to Michael Crick. The sort of control freakery people like to accuse Labour of.

Where did the Lib Dem get that suit by the way? He looked like he'd just escaped from Albania in the 1970s.

Lib Dem candidate looks out of his depth. Seemed like a bit of a gormless character.


Interesting. Poor show from Andy Sharp there I have to say.

With Veitch in Port Seton and O'Donnell in Prestonpans I'm hoping for some door to door campaigning on my doorstep soon.

Don't count on it, I've never seen anybody campaigning in my neighbourhood in Port Seton for any election.

[JimBHibees]

So what? Considering their insistence on peddling the line that they're whiter than white, I think keeping vast sums of money obtained by fraud shows them to be hypocrites. If this was Labour or Conservatives, they'd be getting a much harder time about it.

I'm not particularly worried though and they or the SNP will probably get my vote in East Lothian as an 'anti-Labour' vote.

They are certainly cleaner than the other two parties with regard to expenses however I see what you mean. How long ago was this guy donating to Liberals - 6 years ?

I have the same dilemma in West Lothian however will vote SNP as cant bring myself to vote Labour and this seat is between the 2 though Labour will likely win it IMO.

[One Day Soon]

I don't understand what dichotomy you're trying to draw. If you support the right to national self-determination how would that manifest itself except in pursuing that national self-determination?

There's nothing contrary to internationalism in doing that.

Every unionist and every separatist I know supports the right to national self-determination. The difference is that the separatists believe that right should be exercised to become a separate nation and the unionists believe that right should be exercised to remain part of the UK.

But as I said the Trots are just a bunch of shamelessly opportunist poseurs whose position on independence is all about maximising their list vote vis-a-vis the SNP and absolutely nothing to do with principles.

[One Day Soon]

They are certainly cleaner than the other two parties with regard to expenses however I see what you mean. How long ago was this guy donating to Liberals - 6 years ?

I have the same dilemma in West Lothian however will vote SNP as cant bring myself to vote Labour and this seat is between the 2 though Labour will likely win it IMO.

You're having a laugh - the Lib Dems are up to their necks in it. They've been sitting on in excess of £2 million this guy gave them, he's on the run accused of defrauding people of their money and they are declining to give this money back even though if they did it would mean people who had money stolen from them might get some of it back.

A uniquely black and white case and their answer is that this isn't really anything to do with them.

For clarity's sake the direct comparison would be that someone empties the wallets of a bunch of Hibs.net posters at an Easter Road function, makes a donation to another club using that money and then that club refuses to hand the money back even though it knows it was stolen. They're not cleaner - they're just a hell of a lot more hypocritical.

[Beefster]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8635277.stm

Interesting video to watch, particularly for those of us voting in East Lothian.

If a lot of East Lothian voters see that, the SNP and Lib Dems have blown their chances.

[GlesgaeHibby]

If a lot of East Lothian voters see that, the SNP and Lib Dems have blown their chances.

:agree: Big time. I'm even less sure who to vote for after watching that.

[JimBHibees]

You're having a laugh - the Lib Dems are up to their necks in it. They've been sitting on in excess of £2 million this guy gave them, he's on the run accused of defrauding people of their money and they are declining to give this money back even though if they did it would mean people who had money stolen from them might get some of it back.

A uniquely black and white case and their answer is that this isn't really anything to do with them.

For clarity's sake the direct comparison would be that someone empties the wallets of a bunch of Hibs.net posters at an Easter Road function, makes a donation to another club using that money and then that club refuses to hand the money back even though it knows it was stolen. They're not cleaner - they're just a hell of a lot more hypocritical.

How many Labour MP's up in court recently?

You forgot to add that the Electoral Commission told them they didnt need to pay it back.

Now lets talk about the Mandelson and Hinduja, cash for honours, buying access to MP's - a pint with Tony et al

---------- Post added at 10:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:52 AM ----------


:agree: Big time. I'm even less sure who to vote for after watching that.

What did it say?

[GlesgaeHibby]

How many Labour MP's up in court recently?

You forgot to add that the Electoral Commission told them they didnt need to pay it back.

Now lets talk about the Mandelson and Hinduja, cash for honours, buying access to MP's - a pint with Tony et al

---------- Post added at 10:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:52 AM ----------



What did it say?

BBC report in East Lothian. Spoke to Lab, Conservative and Lib Dem candidates.

SNP candidate didn't even bother showing up, and the Lib Dem candidate seems way out of his depth.

[JimBHibees]

BBC report in East Lothian. Spoke to Lab, Conservative and Lib Dem candidates.

SNP candidate didn't even bother showing up, and the Lib Dem candidate seems way out of his depth.

Is there not an ongoing dispute between the reporter and SNP? Sounds like dirty tricks going on?

[Beefster]

You forgot to add that the Electoral Commission told them they didnt need to pay it back.

That's akin to saying 99% of all the claimed expenses that outraged the electorate were 'within the rules'.

It doesn't take any account of doing the right thing morally.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I have a game to get to but very quickly...........I support the right to self determination for Scotland if we collectively wish to exercise it. But I'm not in favour of doing so, I'm not in favour of independence and I wouldn't go and make independence a core part of my political manifesto.

But then the Trots are just a bunch of shamelessly opportunist poseurs so what would you expect from them? They seem to believe that poverty and inequality stops and starts at the border that doesn't presently exist with England. Their policy is all about maximising their list vote vis-a-vis the SNP and absolutely nothing to do with principles.


Every unionist and every separatist I know supports the right to national self-determination. The difference is that the separatists believe that right should be exercised to become a separate nation and the unionists believe that right should be exercised to remain part of the UK.

But as I said the Trots are just a bunch of shamelessly opportunist poseurs whose position on independence is all about maximising their list vote vis-a-vis the SNP and absolutely nothing to do with principles.

You talk about 'Trots' more than any person I've ever encountered before...

Given that the SRSP were fairly central to the founding of the SSP and producing its constitution it doesn't really make a great deal of sense to put their support for independence down to (real)political expediency.

[One Day Soon]

You talk about 'Trots' more than any person I've ever encountered before...

Why doesn't that surprise me....

Given that the SRSP were fairly central to the founding of the SSP and producing its constitution it doesn't really make a great deal of sense to put their support for independence down to (real)political expediency.

I'm afraid it does. The SSP only has any remotely plausible existence in the context of the Scottish Parliament electoral system and in particular the list vote. The only competition it faced in that vote was from the SNP, hence their ridiculous separatist posturing to try and cuddle up to that vote. Much good it did them in the long run.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Why doesn't that surprise me....

I don't know, why doesn't that surprise you?


I'm afraid it does. The SSP only has any remotely plausible existence in the context of the Scottish Parliament electoral system and in particular the list vote. The only competition it faced in that vote was from the SNP, hence their ridiculous separatist posturing to try and cuddle up to that vote. Much good it did them in the long run.

But you've just ignored the fact that an explicitly republican socialist group was central to the foundation of the party.

[One Day Soon]

I don't know, why doesn't that surprise you?

You certainly don't generally hear a lot of Trots referring to Trots.

But you've just ignored the fact that an explicitly republican socialist group was central to the foundation of the party.

Yes I have, because it had absolutely bu66er all to do with the policies adopted and articulated by the one man band that was Tommy's tea party.

[Betty Boop]

Yes I have, because it had absolutely bu66er all to do with the policies adopted and articulated by the one man band that was Tommy's tea party.

Speaking of Tommy, he is speaking at Leith Academy tomorrow night, along with Willie Black Scottish Trade Unionist and Socialist candidate.

[JimBHibees]

Very good.

So what was your plan for giving people decent hospitals and schools to replace the broken ones we inherited from Thatcher and Major, falling apart at the seams with no real investment for twenty years?

I'm genuinely interested to hear your costed proposal that would have made things better. Go on JimB, share it.....?

It's basic stuff.

Labour is far from being perfect. But it does have a core belief that we can be a better country, a better society because of what we can do together.

And most importantly, that we share a responsibility for those who are weaker, more vulnerable, poorer.

You can search long and hard for that elsewhere but neither the Tories, the LibDems or the SNP will ever acknowledge that.

I dont know invest properly in capital projects rather than hawking the public sector massively to the private sector over 30 years or so. All of which at the end of the contract period are actually owned by the private sector.

[Dinkydoo]

Tactical vote for the Lib Dems or Labour party for me.

IMO in terms of voting it's a case of damage limitation - OK, Labour aren't/haven't done brilliantly over the past few years but it could be much worse......BNP anyone?

[Beefster]

If ever there was an illustration of the complete contempt that those ****ers hold the electorate, it's this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8649012.stm

A pensioner (and lifelong supporter of Labour) putting genuine concerns to the PM, the PM giving it all the 'concerned' faces and then, in private like a sneaky little weasel, calling her a bigot and suggesting that he shouldn't have had to speak to her in the first place.

[JimBHibees]

If ever there was an illustration of the complete contempt that those ****ers hold the electorate, it's this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8649012.stm

A pensioner (and lifelong supporter of Labour) putting genuine concerns to the PM, the PM giving it all the 'concerned' faces and then, in private like a sneaky little weasel, calling her a bigot and suggesting that he shouldn't have had to speak to her in the first place.

Couldnt agree more complete double glazing salesman. Had some hope when Brown took over that there might have been a change for the better back to core values however that didnt last long and he has IMO been as corrupted as the rest of the party by power.

[Mibbes Aye]

I dont know invest properly in capital projects rather than hawking the public sector massively to the private sector over 30 years or so. All of which at the end of the contract period are actually owned by the private sector.

Where was the money for all this capital spending?

That's a rhetorical question, as you've already said you don't know......

[JimBHibees]

Where was the money for all this capital spending?

That's a rhetorical question, as you've already said you don't know......

Borrow and put it on the PSBR like happened in the past.

[ballengeich]

Borrow and put it on the PSBR like happened in the past.

That would have cheaper than PFI/PPP in the long term. The money could also have raised by a more progressive taxation system than we currently have.

[Mibbes Aye]

Borrow


Basically buying on a credit card government policy

I'm confused. Thought you were against borrowing?


That would have cheaper than PFI/PPP in the long term. The money could also have raised by a more progressive taxation system than we currently have.

I'm confused again. You said that you didn't know the whole-life costs involved?

This method of procurement is far from perfect. But it was the far better option in delivering hospitals and schools on time and on budget. Hospitals and schools that were desperately needed.

[ballengeich]

I'm confused again. You said that you didn't know the whole-life costs involved?

This method of procurement is far from perfect. But it was the far better option in delivering hospitals and schools on time and on budget. Hospitals and schools that were desperately needed.

As a general rule, governments can borrow more cheaply than private institutions, so the cost of providing work through public rather than private borrowing should be cheaper. I don't have the whole-life costs for comparison (and comparisons would be difficult given that any particular project is done by one or the other method), but neither do you. You've simply made an assertion that PFI/PPP was the better option without any facts to back this up - its just an article of New Labour faith. Unless either of us find statistical evidence that's just something we'll have to agree to differ on.

Another point to consider is that PPP borrowing does not appear in the government's debt figures even though the money to repay the costs of private companies' borrowing will be shelled out in future so I regard it as dishonest, concealed borrowing. I agree that investment in public services was required, but I would like the consequences to have been spelled out more openly.

What would your view have been on raising the money from taxation?Interest paid on government debt in the last financial year is quoted at over £40 billlion - that's around £650 per head of the population. It's forecast to double in the next few years. I realise that financial institutions have had a hard time recently, but do we really want to be handing over that sort of money before we even start to repay the capital?

[RyeSloan]

As a general rule, governments can borrow more cheaply than private institutions, so the cost of providing work through public rather than private borrowing should be cheaper. I don't have the whole-life costs for comparison (and comparisons would be difficult given that any particular project is done by one or the other method), but neither do you. You've simply made an assertion that PFI/PPP was the better option without any facts to back this up - its just an article of New Labour faith. Unless either of us find statistical evidence that's just something we'll have to agree to differ on.

Another point to consider is that PPP borrowing does not appear in the government's debt figures even though the money to repay the costs of private companies' borrowing will be shelled out in future so I regard it as dishonest, concealed borrowing. I agree that investment in public services was required, but I would like the consequences to have been spelled out more openly.

What would your view have been on raising the money from taxation?Interest paid on government debt in the last financial year is quoted at over £40 billlion - that's around £650 per head of the population. It's forecast to double in the next few years. I realise that financial institutions have had a hard time recently, but do we really want to be handing over that sort of money before we even start to repay the capital?

Are you suggesting that the Governement shouldn't pay it's interest obligations on it's debt????

You are also forgetting the fact that the Scottish Government has no direct debt raising powers so any capital investment programme is required to come out of the block grant. It was clear to all that Scotlands NHS and Education infrustructure needed a much bigger and quicker input of cash than could be ever be provided from central funding....the solution was PFI.

Now there is plenty wrong with PFI although frequently these are exagerrated by peoples principles stance (private companies should not profit etc etc) rather than the process itself but it is clear that PFI DID allow a huge wave of investment to be completed in a relatively short space of time. Yes this will cost and it may even cost more than if it came from central government spending/borrowing but when you consider that publically funded projects are infamous for delays and cost overruns and that there was simply no huge borrowing pot to use just what was the alternative??

To possibly provide one answer to my quesiton is to take the SNP way which is to do basically nothing. No PFI is great but then the result of no new schools or hospitals kind of kills any positive from that I would say....

[HibeeEmma]

Interesting to see how many people will vote SNP in the election.

Can I ask what they have done that have impressed you since coming into power?

Only thing i've noticed is taking away the bridge toll (which I feel is actually less effective in the long run)

[Mibbes Aye]

As a general rule, governments can borrow more cheaply than private institutions, so the cost of providing work through public rather than private borrowing should be cheaper.

I wonder if the man on the Athens omnibus would agree :greengrin


I don't have the whole-life costs for comparison (and comparisons would be difficult given that any particular project is done by one or the other method), but neither do you. .

Absolutely correct. Which is why I don't make claims about one being more expensive than the other.....

To be candid, the whole-life costs or the transactional costs involved over the lifespan of a hospital are bound to be so complex and complicated that I would wager one could validly argue a number of positions quite successfully.


You've simply made an assertion that PFI/PPP was the better option without any facts to back this up - its just an article of New Labour faith. Unless either of us find statistical evidence that's just something we'll have to agree to differ on.?

I made the assertion that IMO it was the better option at that time. And not one without its own faults.

I would disagree abut it being an article of faith. I'm not ideologically wed to the vehicle of PFI or PPP. I think where there may have been a convincing argument for a New Labour 'article of faith' is around the application of performance management in public services, from planning and commissioning through to delivery.

As to backing it up with evidence I imagine there will be stats that can be used on either side of the fence. Nevertheless I'm aware that the National Audit Office looked at PFI in comparison to 'traditional' public construction projects back around the time of the second Labour term. Can't remember the exact figures but I would stand by these as more or less accurate:

Three-quarters of PFI projects were completed on-time and on-budget
Three-quarters of non-PFI projects went over both budget and time

Perhaps the most vivid example of a recent non-PFI public construction would be the Scottish Parliament itself. Ten times over budget and delayed beyond my recall.

When the Conservatives were finally ousted in 1997 we urgently needed hospitals and schools, free at the point of use, for the majority of our population who can't afford to go private.

And that's what we got.



Another point to consider is that PPP borrowing does not appear in the government's debt figures even though the money to repay the costs of private companies' borrowing will be shelled out in future so I regard it as dishonest, concealed borrowing. I agree that investment in public services was required, but I would like the consequences to have been spelled out more openly.

What would your view have been on raising the money from taxation?Interest paid on government debt in the last financial year is quoted at over £40 billlion - that's around £650 per head of the population. It's forecast to double in the next few years. I realise that financial institutions have had a hard time recently, but do we really want to be handing over that sort of money before we even start to repay the capital?

I don't think progressive taxation is as simple as raising tax for higher-earners sounds, if that makes sense.

And prohibitive tax rises for high-earners wouldn't have been able to fund the hospital and school building programme either, nowhere near it.

Across the board increases - much higher tax for everybody - might have been more sustainable as a funding stream for massive rebuilding but when it comes down to it, I doubt Labour would have been in a position to roll out its programme had it stood on some sort of Scandinavian-style tax policy. Swing voters simply wouldn't have come over.

I think the party had a chance to get into government and a chance to build decent infrastructure for the next few decades for those who can't afford to pay for their healthcare or education.

But that chance would have evaporated had the Tories been able to paint Labour into a corner of 'punitive taxation'. And they would have.

To be frank, on a personal level I'm probably minded towards the model. But politically, I don't think the country would have gone for it and we would have lost the chance to give decent hospitals and schools to the next couple of generations of ordinary people.

[GlesgaeHibby]

Interesting to see how many people will vote SNP in the election.

Can I ask what they have done that have impressed you since coming into power?

Only thing i've noticed is taking away the bridge toll (which I feel is actually less effective in the long run)

65/94 manifesto commitments that they have managed to achieve as a minority government, including more police on the streets and free university education.

Their commitment to renewable energy and staunch opposition to Trident is another major reason.

[One Day Soon]

Borrow and put it on the PSBR like happened in the past.

You really just make it up as you go along don't you?

[ballengeich]

Are you suggesting that the Governement shouldn't pay it's interest obligations on it's debt????

You are also forgetting the fact that the Scottish Government has no direct debt raising powers so any capital investment programme is required to come out of the block grant. It was clear to all that Scotlands NHS and Education infrustructure needed a much bigger and quicker input of cash than could be ever be provided from central funding....the solution was PFI.

Now there is plenty wrong with PFI although frequently these are exagerrated by peoples principles stance (private companies should not profit etc etc) rather than the process itself but it is clear that PFI DID allow a huge wave of investment to be completed in a relatively short space of time. Yes this will cost and it may even cost more than if it came from central government spending/borrowing but when you consider that publically funded projects are infamous for delays and cost overruns and that there was simply no huge borrowing pot to use just what was the alternative??

To possibly provide one answer to my quesiton is to take the SNP way which is to do basically nothing. No PFI is great but then the result of no new schools or hospitals kind of kills any positive from that I would say....

I wasn't suggesting that the government shouldn't pay its debt. I was trying to get incomprehensible overall figures down to a level where I can understand my own liability. Looking at how much government debt is going to cost all of us in future it seems to me that there has been a regrettable lack of fiscal prudence in recent years.

I'm aware that the Scottish government does not have borrowing powers (why not would be another worthwhile debate), but the UK government could have borrowed to fund projects in England, but chose not to, so my views are not confined to Scotland's environment.

I don't accept your claim that there was no money available to borrow. Private companies involved in PFI were able to borrow to carry out their contracts and in recent years credit has, if anything, been all too readily available to anyone who wanted it. That has included governments.

Funding through raised taxation would also have been an option. When taxes have been raised they have generally been indirect taxes which tend to affect the less well-off more than the wealthy.

[ballengeich]

As to backing it up with evidence I imagine there will be stats that can be used on either side of the fence. Nevertheless I'm aware that the National Audit Office looked at PFI in comparison to 'traditional' public construction projects back around the time of the second Labour term. Can't remember the exact figures but I would stand by these as more or less accurate:

Three-quarters of PFI projects were completed on-time and on-budget
Three-quarters of non-PFI projects went over both budget and time



I had a quick look at NAO and Audit Scotland reports on this. NAO gave non-PFI projects as 63% to timetable and 54% to price. Audit Scotland's report gave figures of 41% and 48% respectively. Both were below the PFI figures, but the lower figures in Scotland suggest that we have some local problem in the management of public sector projects. I hope these are being investigated.

I noted your observation that if Labour could not be open about its plans as it would not have been elected. You seem unconcerned about that as it gave the party a chance to gain power to carry out its policies. I feel that shows a lack of respect for the electorate and the democratic process. Sadly the same is going on in the current election. That's not a party point as I don't think that any party is being honest about the actions they will take on government debt and taxes. For me, the choice on Thursday will be, more than ever before, a question of picking the least bad.

[the_ginger_hibee]

4 BNP **** on here.
Any chance of you master race pr1cks owning up!
Could maybe meet you after the game tomorrow if you fancy.
Thick fascist *****s!

Ok. We can compare skinheads and sing witty rhymes.

[RyeSloan]

I wasn't suggesting that the government shouldn't pay its debt. I was trying to get incomprehensible overall figures down to a level where I can understand my own liability. Looking at how much government debt is going to cost all of us in future it seems to me that there has been a regrettable lack of fiscal prudence in recent years.

I'm aware that the Scottish government does not have borrowing powers (why not would be another worthwhile debate), but the UK government could have borrowed to fund projects in England, but chose not to, so my views are not confined to Scotland's environment.

I don't accept your claim that there was no money available to borrow. Private companies involved in PFI were able to borrow to carry out their contracts and in recent years credit has, if anything, been all too readily available to anyone who wanted it. That has included governments.

Funding through raised taxation would also have been an option. When taxes have been raised they have generally been indirect taxes which tend to affect the less well-off more than the wealthy.

To be clear I am talking specifically abotu the Scottsh Goverments recent use of PFI to build Scholls and Hospitals, not Englands approach. However I can't quite get your arguement, are you saying that government debt is way too high but that they should have borrowed more to finance substantially bigger capital investment programmes??

Back to Scotland specifically though, I also did not say there was no money available to borrow, what I said was that the Scottiosh Gvt has no direct access to capital markets so was not able to include direct borrowing as an option v PFI.

I do agree though that a general and substantial rise in taxes could have been used but I and plenty of other voters think that direct governement taxes are quite high enough already thank you so not even tax and spend Labour was willing to try that!

So again I will ask that despite the flaws/failings of PFI just what option did the Scottish Goverment have when facing the huge capital expenditure requirements? Sit back and do nothing like the SNP have for the last few years or actually go out and get it done?

[Mibbes Aye]

I had a quick look at NAO and Audit Scotland reports on this. NAO gave non-PFI projects as 63% to timetable and 54% to price. Audit Scotland's report gave figures of 41% and 48% respectively. Both were below the PFI figures, but the lower figures in Scotland suggest that we have some local problem in the management of public sector projects. I hope these are being investigated.

I noted your observation that if Labour could not be open about its plans as it would not have been elected. You seem unconcerned about that as it gave the party a chance to gain power to carry out its policies. I feel that shows a lack of respect for the electorate and the democratic process. Sadly the same is going on in the current election. That's not a party point as I don't think that any party is being honest about the actions they will take on government debt and taxes. For me, the choice on Thursday will be, more than ever before, a question of picking the least bad.

You noted wrongly then :greengrin

They were open about the need for investment in public services.

They were open about not hiking up income tax to pay for it.

They were open about using vehicles like PPP.

There was no hidden plan to increase income tax punitively, because, well, because there was no plan to increase income tax punitively!

If anything, it showed a willingness to listen to the electorate who, when it counted, would have rejected paying a lot more for a better social infrastructure (while remaining happy to use and bemoan existing services). Labour had to change in response to its electorate if it wanted to advance its core causes. And it did.

I agree with your non-party specific point about the lack of clarity. I suspect, for various reasons, you and I would do exactly the same in their shoes. I wonder whether we sometimes get the politics we deserve though. Ridiculous expectations and utter superficiality dominate, fuelled or driven by an agenda-orientated media.

[Sir David Gray]

That surprises me. I'd like to know where they are putting these people up for election and why. The BNP support is mainly in towns in the North of England where muslims have genuinely taken over some areas. It's a really complicated issue and one for another thread but a lot of people have a lot of genuine issues because there is so much racial tension.

They're wasting their time up here. There are Asian gangs and criminals etc... but it's basically integrated and everyone knows their place. They might get one or two votes from the mad element but their presence is pointless.

They're fighting a losing battle in the wrong place.

The seats that they are contesting are;

Banff and Buchan
Gordon
Aberdeen North
Aberdeen South
Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine
Livingston
Glasgow North
Glasgow North East
Glasgow East
Glasgow South
Glasgow South West
Glasgow North West
Glasgow Central

They are contesting a whole host of seats in the North East of Scotland (including both Aberdeen seats), every seat in Glasgow and also the Livingston seat. They are possibly contesting that seat because their MP, Jim Devine, was one of the MP's to have been charged in connection with their expenses and they might think that they have a chance of taking advantage of that.

They are targeting Glasgow seats for a number of reasons. Obviously Glasgow has the highest number of immigrants (particularly Asians) in the whole of Scotland and Glasgow is also seen as being a solid working class area and they will be looking to take votes off Labour.

I have no idea why they seem to be targeting so many seats in the North East.

I think you're right, though, they are wasting their time up here. I would be very surprised if they got much more than 2-3% of the vote in any of the seats that they are contesting.



The EU does more good than bad:



EU Working time directive guarantees 4 weeks paid holiday per year for workers
Largest internal trading market in the World
EU Emissions Trading Scheme. Worlds largest Carbon Trading scheme to cut C02 emissions.
Aid to developing countries (twice as much as US)
Strong Consumer rights
Regional development fund
Clearer food labelling
EU peace keepers working to avert humanitarian crises throughout the World
Strict aircraft safety targets. Planes not meeting these targets are banned from flying into any EU Country.
Forcing the French to buy British Beef again after BSE crisis

Although I can see why you are against EU membership given that you've admitted you read the Daily Heil.

All of the above are things that the UK could quite easily do by themselves, we don't need some outside agent to run our affairs.

Your final point about forcing the French to buy British beef after the BSE crisis is exactly the sort of reason why I am against the EU. If France wants to boycott British beef then let them boycott it. It should be their choice and no-one should force them into doing anything.

The EU also prevents its member nations from legalising capital punishment and although I am strongly opposed to the death penalty myself, I believe that each country should be able to decide for themselves if they want to introduce it.

Of all the issues that I have debated on here, I have usually been able to acknowledge and understand the opposing viewpoint, even if I haven't necessarily agreed with it.

However, as far as the European Union is concerned, I have yet to see an argument from anyone who is pro-Europe that I could at least say "yes, I can see where you're coming from, although I don't quite agree with you".

It is one of the single biggest issues that I feel very strongly about and I really could not be much more against the EU if I tried.


Mainly in Glasgow and Aberdeen.

The rest of the post is highly innacurate, you can read the IPPR report on the cause of support for the BNP here (http://www.ippr.org.uk/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=743) - you have to register with them but it's free.

The report notes that of the ten main BNP heartlands, nine have below average immigration and that areas with the highest levels of immigration tend to have the lowest levels of support for the BNP.

The areas in which they've drawn a significant level of support recently tend to be former manufacturing bases with high levels of unemployment and other socio-economic problems. They also tend to be areas which were previously Labour and trade-union strongholds where the decline of manufacturing (and other factors) has destroyed the unions and support for the Labour Party has, understandably, atrophied over the last thirteen years leaving a vacuum into which the BNP has stepped, to one degree or another.

Then there's also the impact of a climate of racist and/or anti-immigration discourse within parliamentary politics which increases rather than decreases support for them.

With regards to the bit in bold, I have done a bit of research that seems to contradict that point a little bit. Here are the following ten constituencies where the BNP had their best results at the 2005 election;

Barking
Dewsbury
Burnley
West Bromwich West
Dudley North
Dagenham
Keighley
Stoke-On-Trent South
Bradford South
Stoke-On-Trent Central

I accept that the BNP's support in places like Stoke and Barking is down to other factors and not really to do with immigration. However, places like Dewsbury, Burnley, West Bromwich, Dudley, Keighley and Bradford all have significant migrant populations and although the BNP supporters in those places may have other economic/social reasons for their political allegiances, I think immigration will have a pretty large bearing.

However, it does stand to reason that the constituencies with the highest levels of immigration have low levels of support for the BNP. In the constituency that has one of the least amount of "White British" people in the whole country (Bethnal Green and Bow), the BNP didn't even have a candidate in 2005, and in 2001 their candidate only polled 3.2% of the vote.

Also, forgive me if I've picked you up incorrectly but it seems to me as if you are saying here that the BNP is picking up votes from disaffected Labour voters. That seems to be at odds with something that you said several months ago in another thread, when you seemed to be suggesting that BNP voters are more inclined to support the Conservatives.

If I have picked you up wrong then perhaps you could set me straight.

[Beefster]

Has a sitting government ever urged the electorate not to vote for them before?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8658694.stm

I'll be voting tactically but not on the instructions of any party. It seems the message of a government that know they're defeated.

[JimBHibees]

Has a sitting government ever urged the electorate not to vote for them before?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8658694.stm

I'll be voting tactically but not on the instructions of any party. It seems the message of a government that know they're defeated.

Couldnt agree more. Basically admitting they cant wint.

[JimBHibees]

You really just make it up as you go along don't you?

Bit rich from the person who was saying PFI/PPP arent the same thing. Just to be clear Labour were aghast when the Tories brought in PFI then when New Labour took office they took it on as a policy. Should you not be out knocking on doors as your party is losing the election.

[lucky]

Labour 41 22.78%
Conservatives 20 11.11%
Liberal Democrats 40 22.22%
Scottish National Party 61 33.89%
UKIP 3 1.67%
Green Party 5 2.78%
BNP 5 2.78%
Other 5 2.78%


Interesting how out of touch the poll on here is against all opinion polls that have been done in Scotland.

The SNP do well on here but not so well in the rest of the country

•Labour: 36%
•SNP: 26%
•Lib Dem: 20%
•Con: 14%
•Other: 4%
Thats was STV latest one but the average since since May 2005 is
Con 17.7 %
Lab 36.0 %
Lib 14.7 %
SNP 26.6 %

source http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/index.html?polls_scot.html

Maybe big Nish was right 95% know nothing about everything :greengrin

[GlesgaeHibby]

All of the above are things that the UK could quite easily do by themselves, we don't need some outside agent to run our affairs.

Your final point about forcing the French to buy British beef after the BSE crisis is exactly the sort of reason why I am against the EU. If France wants to boycott British beef then let them boycott it. It should be their choice and no-one should force them into doing anything.

The EU also prevents its member nations from legalising capital punishment and although I am strongly opposed to the death penalty myself, I believe that each country should be able to decide for themselves if they want to introduce it.

Of all the issues that I have debated on here, I have usually been able to acknowledge and understand the opposing viewpoint, even if I haven't necessarily agreed with it.

However, as far as the European Union is concerned, I have yet to see an argument from anyone who is pro-Europe that I could at least say "yes, I can see where you're coming from, although I don't quite agree with you".

It is one of the single biggest issues that I feel very strongly about and I really could not be much more against the EU if I tried.



How exactly does the UK form the Worlds biggest Carbon Trading Scheme by itself?

How does the UK form the Worlds largest internal trading market by itself?

How does the UK get us cheaper flights? Competition in the EU has helped drive prices down.

:faf: That has got to be one of the worst arguments yet.

How can you not see where the benefits of the EU internal trading market are coming from? It has helped grow GDP by 2.2% in 2006 more than it would have grown had the internal trading market not existed. It has also helped create an additional 2.75 million Jobs across Europe. How can you not "at least say yes I can see where your argument is coming from" to that?

And you are against the death penalty, but think EU support Laws banning the death penalty are a bad thing? :faf: Deary me.

[Beefster]

A prospective parliamentary candidate, in a shallow attempt to make himself popular, jumps on the anti-Brown bandwagon and calls him the 'worst Prime Minister we have had in this country".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8659399.stm

[ballengeich]

To be clear I am talking specifically abotu the Scottsh Goverments recent use of PFI to build Scholls and Hospitals, not Englands approach. However I can't quite get your arguement, are you saying that government debt is way too high but that they should have borrowed more to finance substantially bigger capital investment programmes??

I think it is too high. My point is that PFI is concealed government borrowing. The money has to be repaid over a period, but it does not appear in government debt figures.

I do agree though that a general and substantial rise in taxes could have been used but I and plenty of other voters think that direct governement taxes are quite high enough already thank you so not even tax and spend Labour was willing to try that!

The tactic of the last few years seems to have been spend without tax. The consequences will be with us for years to come and will include increased tax rates.

So again I will ask that despite the flaws/failings of PFI just what option did the Scottish Goverment have when facing the huge capital expenditure requirements? Sit back and do nothing like the SNP have for the last few years or actually go out and get it done?

The Scottish parliament has an option to raise income tax rates in Scotland. If this was unacceptable then it should have been accepted that there was not support for the capital expenditure the government wanted to carry out. You and I might not like the consequences for public services, but that's democracy.

[ballengeich]

You noted wrongly then :greengrin

They were open about the need for investment in public services.

They were open about not hiking up income tax to pay for it.

They were open about using vehicles like PPP.

There was no hidden plan to increase income tax punitively, because, well, because there was no plan to increase income tax punitively!

If anything, it showed a willingness to listen to the electorate who, when it counted, would have rejected paying a lot more for a better social infrastructure (while remaining happy to use and bemoan existing services). Labour had to change in response to its electorate if it wanted to advance its core causes. And it did.

I agree with your non-party specific point about the lack of clarity. I suspect, for various reasons, you and I would do exactly the same in their shoes. I wonder whether we sometimes get the politics we deserve though. Ridiculous expectations and utter superficiality dominate, fuelled or driven by an agenda-orientated media.

I accept your points about the use of PFI rather than income tax being out in the open. What wasn't open was the extent and future consequences of the scale of borrowing being planned (or maybe it just happened rather than being planned). By the way, one of the NAO's comments on PFI was that it sometimes seemed to be getting used in order to keep figures off the balance sheet.

As you say, we probably get the politics we deserve.

[RyeSloan]

The Scottish parliament has an option to raise income tax rates in Scotland. If this was unacceptable then it should have been accepted that there was not support for the capital expenditure the government wanted to carry out. You and I might not like the consequences for public services, but that's democracy.


Fair enough I see where you are coming from although I honestly don't think that even with extra direct taxes that enough monies could have been raised to support the investment required.

Interesting to see you mention the tax varying powers of the Scottish Gvt, it was a hot topic at the time (YES YES) but since then I have rarely seen anything about it....I often wondered what would happen if we did vary the rate, of course I would suggest varying it down the way to promote extra jobs, people and investment into Scotland to help reduce our chronic reliance on the state to prop up our economy but I'm sure if it is used it will only be the other way!!......

[One Day Soon]

Couldnt agree more. Basically admitting they cant wint.

Isn't Alex Salmond telling people in England to vote Lib Dem the same thing?

[hibsbollah]

A prospective parliamentary candidate, in a shallow attempt to make himself popular, jumps on the anti-Brown bandwagon and calls him the 'worst Prime Minister we have had in this country".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8659399.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8659399.stm)

I heard him on the radio in the car. Totally clueless:faf:

[One Day Soon]

Bit rich from the person who was saying PFI/PPP arent the same thing. Just to be clear Labour were aghast when the Tories brought in PFI then when New Labour took office they took it on as a policy. Should you not be out knocking on doors as your party is losing the election.


Bit rich from the person who was saying PFI/PPP arent the same thing.
They're not, but its not my job to run adult education classes for you.

Just to be clear Labour were aghast when the Tories brought in PFI then when New Labour took office they took it on as a policy.
No they didn't - don't you pay attention at all? There is nothing wrong with PPP - its an excellent way to leverage in additional investment in new buildings and infrastructure which you would not otherwise have. But I'm sure you would prefer for our young people to be educated in crap run down schools, our sick people to be treated in dilapidated hospitals no longer fit for purpose and for the Scottish Parliament building to be the bright shining beacon example of traditional public sector project management running millions of pounds over budget. That's much better value for money.

Should you not be out knocking on doors as your party is losing the election.
Remind me, is your SNP currently in third or second place?

[Beefster]

Isn't Alex Salmond telling people in England to vote Lib Dem the same thing?

No. Voters in England can't vote SNP.

[JimBHibees]

Bit rich from the person who was saying PFI/PPP arent the same thing.
They're not, but its not my job to run adult education classes for you.

Just to be clear Labour were aghast when the Tories brought in PFI then when New Labour took office they took it on as a policy.
No they didn't - don't you pay attention at all? There is nothing wrong with PPP - its an excellent way to leverage in additional investment in new buildings and infrastructure which you would not otherwise have. But I'm sure you would prefer for our young people to be educated in crap run down schools, our sick people to be treated in dilapidated hospitals no longer fit for purpose and for the Scottish Parliament building to be the bright shining beacon example of traditional public sector project management running millions of pounds over budget. That's much better value for money.

Should you not be out knocking on doors as your party is losing the election.
Remind me, is your SNP currently in third or second place?

Oh dear campaigning not going well today. Labour didnt criticise PFI/PPP whatever they rebadged the Tory policy, your not a spin doctor are you. Laughable. :greengrin

[hibsdaft]

It seems the message of a government that know they're defeated.

when i put the data from tonights Yougov/Sun poll into the BBC swingometer Labour came out 20 seats ahead of the Tories.

tonight's Comres/ITV poll would see the Tories form government.

the Tories will win the highest vote %age but who will form government is definitely still up for grabs.

[BroxburnHibee]

Is it too simplistic to say.........

If we do end up with a hung parliament then it will be because the people do not trust any of them to run the country on their own. It may also be that the voters quite like ideas from across the political spectrum and maybe would like a bit of co-operation instead of this boring tit for tat pish.

[AgentDaleCooper]

interesting statistics here... (http://www.metro.co.uk/news/824640-general-election-2010-final-metro-harris-poll-too-close-to-call)

if you're over 50, IT'LL BE YOUR FAULT! :wink:

but seriously...interesting that the country could actually have more left-minded people in the future...though of course they say that you go more to the right as you get older...:dunno:

[AgentDaleCooper]

by the way, FK it, i think i'm going to vote labour. for some perverse reason, my respect for brown has soared since bigot-gate. he's WAY more of an actual person than the other two, and is IMO the only one out of the three who doesn't want it purely for the title.

plus my constituency is a marginal between labour and tories.


hoping for a labour/lib dem coalition :pray:

[IWasThere2016]

I vote SNP (local agenda).

Fewer Labour MPs/MSPs the better as otherwise they will have us in Dundeh - they cut services last time

[One Day Soon]

Oh dear campaigning not going well today. Labour didnt criticise PFI/PPP whatever they rebadged the Tory policy, your not a spin doctor are you. Laughable. :greengrin

Oh dear campaigning not going well today.

Is it not? What do you think you are doing wrong then?

Labour didnt criticise PFI/PPP whatever they rebadged the Tory policy

That's so incomprehensible that I'm not entirely sure what point you are trying to make.

your not a spin doctor are you

You're right. I prefer inconvenient things like facts and evidence. And unlike you I'm perfectly prepared to admit the shortcomings of the party I support when the criticisms are rational and real. I'm also prepared to accept that there have been real achievements under administrations of political parties I don't support.

Laughable.

Yep. Your arguments - or lack of them - certainly are.

[steakbake]

Just having a look at some last minute polling. Don't think there will be any change in Scotland. If there is, it will just be one or two seats but more or less the same as 2005.

Any change in government will happen from results in England and Wales and our results become fairly irrelevant.

Scotland, it seems, is happy to keep clinging desperately to Labour's apron strings, despite their being four other viable middle of the road democratic mainstream parties.

[Beefster]

YouTube - Election Debate Rap Battle (by Dan Bull) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7h92DALSM_A&feature=player_embedded)

[marinello59]

Usually by this stage I have decided where my vote is going. I am still a 'don't know.' Anybody else the same? The absence of election statements from anybody other than the sitting Labour MP standing in my constituency doesn't help.

[Betty Boop]

I will be voting for Mark Lazarowicz.

[Mibbes Aye]

Usually by this stage I have decided where my vote is going. I am still a 'don't know.' Anybody else the same? The absence of election statements from anybody other than the sitting Labour MP standing in my constituency doesn't help.

You've got to love the English language.

In order to sit, you have to stand, even if you're already sitting :greengrin

[marinello59]

You've got to love the English language.

In order to sit, you have to stand, even if you're already sitting :greengrin

:greengrin

[JimBHibees]

Labour didnt criticise PFI/PPP whatever they rebadged the Tory policy

That's so incomprehensible that I'm not entirely sure what point you are trying to make.



Yep not the greatest English but pretty clear to me. :greengrin

Labour initially criticised the Tory PFI policy then took it on as a good idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_finance_initiative