General Election 2015...

[The_Exile]

Jeezo, if that's being described as "Absolute chaos" what can I describe the queue for a pie in the FF Lower as?!!

[Kato]

................ I am not voting SNP because of their economic plans which I think make little sense. End of.

Which political parties economic plans make sense?

[lord bunberry]

Jeezo, if that's being described as "Absolute chaos" what can I describe the queue for a pie in the FF Lower as?!!
Pointless

[DaveF]

I backed the SNP and now I don't.

Behaviour like http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-scotland-32581803 doesn't help

Well done to Eddie Izzard for wearing matching lipstick with his cleaveage revealing low cut top. That really should be the story here.

[ronaldo7]

It seems the start of WW3 in Glasgow this morning was staged managed by Labour themselves. Sean Clerken a spokesman for the little know Citizens united who has had a go at the SNP in the past was told Murphy would be at ST Enoch's by Labour themselves.

This is the same guy who chased Iain Gray into a subway sandwich bar in 2011.

Storm in a tea cup, but some might fall for it and change their vote:wink:

I've seen a few pics on Twitter and you're lucky if 30 people are involved. According to Eddie Izzard though following Jim's lead, the Nationalists were all over this. That's a Lie.

This is the kind of stuff that's putting people off the Labour party. The manipulation of the press is something to behold, and one of the reasons I've left Labour.

Its #Fundilymundily:greengrin all about Jim, however the knives are now being sharpened behind the scenes and his days are numbered.

[Stranraer]

Which political parties economic plans make sense?

I'm not telling you who I'm voting for but it will be a party who would reduce the deficit, not spend more money.

[Hibbyradge]

I'm not telling you who I'm voting for but it will be a party who would reduce the deficit, not spend more money.

Oooh. How enigmatic!

Don't worry, no-one will ask you to tell.

[DaveF]

Mozza has shifted stance so many times I am expecting him to come out for the DUP before Thursday. :devil:


I'm not telling you who I'm voting for but it will be a party who would reduce the deficit, not spend more money.

You were right all along M59 :greengrin

[bawheid]

I'm not telling you who I'm voting for but it will be a party who would reduce the deficit, not spend more money.

This comes across as attention seeking guff I'm afraid. I thought you were a socialist?

[Pretty Boy]

Guardian reporting a big surge for Clegg in Sheffield Hallam from Tory supporters.

48% of those polled who said they were voting for Clegg had a national preference for the Conservatives. He now has a 7 point lead.

[Moulin Yarns]

This comes across as attention seeking guff I'm afraid. I thought you were a socialist?

Hopefully of the green variety

[Fergus52]

I'm not telling you who I'm voting for but it will be a party who would reduce the deficit, not spend more money.

Spending more money is what most leading economists think should be done.

The whole austerity agenda was based on a mis-reading of data and European governments keep it up because it's good at getting the poor poorer and the rich richer, which suits them to a tee. Continuing to make cuts only widens inequality, increased public spending is the only way out of it.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion

[Kato]

I'm not telling you who I'm voting for but it will be a party who would reduce the deficit, not spend more money.

I never asked you who you were going to vote for.

You're not a politician, you are allowed to answer the question.

The deficit is a red herring in all this, neither the Tories or Labour's sums add up. So to pick on the SNP, whose sums don't add up either, seems a bit weird.

[Stranraer]

Spending more money is what most leading economists think should be done.

The whole austerity agenda was based on a mis-reading of data and European governments keep it up because it's good at getting the poor poorer and the rich richer, which suits them to a tee. Continuing to make cuts only widens inequality, increased public spending is the only way out of it.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion

So what about the note left saying "there's no money left". How can we spend money that we don't have?

[CropleyWasGod]

So what about the note left saying "there's no money left". How can we spend money that we don't have?

That's what Governments have been doing since Moses (not Miliband) was a boy.:greengrin

[cabbageandribs1875]

I'm not telling you who I'm voting for but it will be a party who would reduce the deficit, not spend more money.



you appear to change yer politics as much as you change your username, what will it be next week/month :hilarious one week independence, putting leaflets through folks doors urging them to vote YES...then next yer wee union jack, how bizarre

[Stranraer]

you appear to change yer politics as much as you change your username, what will it be next week/month :hilarious one week independence, putting leaflets through folks doors urging them to vote YES...then next yer wee union jack, how bizarre

I haven't changed my username once. I voted YES and backed the SNP until recently. It's typical of you that instead of discussing party politics you want to try and take the piss out of me.

P.S. The Union Jack logo is because of the name above it :wink:

[cabbageandribs1875]

I haven't changed my username once. I voted YES and backed the SNP until recently. It's typical of you that instead of discussing party politics you want to try and take the piss out of me.

P.S. The Union Jack logo is because of the name above it :wink:


i beg your pardon ? care to elaborate please :confused: oh and p.s. DO NOT pm me again ok :wink:

[ronaldo7]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CELhaevW8AAOAmO.jpg:aok:

[Jonnyboy]

I haven't changed my username once. I voted YES and backed the SNP until recently. It's typical of you that instead of discussing party politics you want to try and take the piss out of me.

P.S. The Union Jack logo is because of the name above it :wink:

Really?

[The_Todd]

Really?

Funny how people don't realise their username history is on their profile!

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Really?

Yup, its more than once. :-)

[ronaldo7]

Funny how people don't realise their username history is on their profile!

I never knew Jim Murphy posted on here.:greengrin

[Just Alf]

I backed the SNP and now I don't.

Behaviour like http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-scotland-32581803 doesn't help

Now that you know Labour orchestrated the "riot" have you changed your mind?

And for clarity, Duncan Hothersall (Labour) was tweeting about it BEFORE the incident!!!!

[Tyler Durden]

Now that you know Labour orchestrated the "riot" have you changed your mind?

And for clarity, Duncan Hothersall (Labour) was tweeting about it BEFORE the incident!!!!

What makes you say that Labour orchestrated this mornings events?

[DaveF]

BBC now reporting that senior Labour figures considering minority coalition with Lib Dems if that cam to pass. Not exactly ground breaking news, but I did read (in the New Statesmen no less :greengrin) that Len McCluskey threatened a funding cut from Unite if such a coalition ever happened.

[Just Alf]

What makes you say that Labour orchestrated this mornings events?

One of the Labour team was tweeting about it before it happened..... I'll try and find the one in question but it's looking like they've been getting deleted :-(

Rhoda macdonald and the afore mentioned Duncan H.

[DaveF]

One of the Labour team was tweeting about it before it happened..... I'll try and find the one in question but it's looking like they've been getting deleted :-(

I had a look at Hothersall's twitter and it looks like he claims he only tweeted before the event as he spotted other tweets hinting at the demo to take place. There are a few tweets missing though so who knows.

And frankly, who cares :greengrin

[Just Alf]

14804

[Just Alf]

I had a look at Hothersall's twitter and it looks like he claims he only tweeted before the event as he spotted other tweets hinting at the demo to take place. There are a few tweets missing though so who knows.

And frankly, who cares :greengrin

Anyone who would think of the "riot" as another reason to change allegiance I guess :cb

But aye I know .... :greengrin

[degenerated]

You can apply that logic to very many Labour supporters and politicians too.
The Bain principle is what it's known as

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2012/03/31/the-bain-principle/

[JimBHibees]

I backed the SNP and now I don't.

Behaviour like http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-scotland-32581803 doesn't help

Except it wasn't the SNP.

[degenerated]

Well done to Eddie Izzard for wearing matching lipstick with his cleaveage revealing low cut top. That really should be the story here.
Is that who it was, I was just saying to the other half that Johann Lamont looked like she'd lost a few pounds 😁

[degenerated]

It seems the start of WW3 in Glasgow this morning was staged managed by Labour themselves. Sean Clerken a spokesman for the little know Citizens united who has had a go at the SNP in the past was told Murphy would be at ST Enoch's by Labour themselves.

This is the same guy who chased Iain Gray into a subway sandwich bar in 2011.

Storm in a tea cup, but some might fall for it and change their vote:wink:

I've seen a few pics on Twitter and you're lucky if 30 people are involved. According to Eddie Izzard though following Jim's lead, the Nationalists were all over this. That's a Lie.

This is the kind of stuff that's putting people off the Labour party. The manipulation of the press is something to behold, and one of the reasons I've left Labour.

Its #Fundilymundily:greengrin all about Jim, however the knives are now being sharpened behind the scenes and his days are numbered.
It's got mcternan written all over it, he pulled exactly the same stunt in Australia.

http://m.adelaidenow.com.au/news/gillard-and-abbott-run-protest-gauntlet/story-e6frea6u-1226254435221

And in this instance we have a tweet from Labour activist around 35 minutes before the event happened.

http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/05/04/8c4e69576069eea61c785b26a4f453e5.jpg

[stoneyburn hibs]

Is that who it was, I was just saying to the other half that Johann Lamont looked like she'd lost a few pounds 😁

Ha ! Good one

[Moulin Yarns]

The Bain principle is what it's known as

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2012/03/31/the-bain-principle/



Here is an article worth reading, in my very humble opinion

http://bright-green.org/2015/05/04/a-crisis-is-at-hand-only-voting-green-will-do/

[Hibbyradge]

I almost feel sorry for Nicola Sturgeon's opponents.

All they can say (eroneously) is "Don't vote SNP because they want a second referendum".

For a start, most people in Scotland understand that this election is not about a referendum, it's a Westminster general election, and, regardless of who gets into power, a second referendum can not result. (I actually doubt it will appear in the SNP's 2016 Scottish manifesto, but we'll have to wait and see).

Secondly, who are they talking to? Who are they trying to scare?

I imagine that at least 45% of the electorate would be perfectly happy to have another referendum, even though that's not currently possible.

Although many No voters have deserted Labour too, even if it's only the Yes folk that vote SNP, there will still be a landslide.

Jim Murphy tries his best to scaremonger by saying that the SNP plan to oppose a Labour queen speech and budget, when in fact, "the most dangerous woman in Britain" has terrified the right wing press by repeatedly saying that she will help make Milliband Prime Minister!

Thursday night/Friday morning is going to be exciting, if polls are accurate.

I almost wish I didn't have a flight to Mallorca to catch in the morning so I could stay up as I usually do. :wink:


Watching the negotiations in the following weeks, however, could be very interesting indeed.

Ed/Nicola dream team!

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-scotland-32582528

[JeMeSouviens]

It's got mcternan written all over it, he pulled exactly the same stunt in Australia.


:agree:

Slimier than a bucket full of slime.

[Fergus52]

So what about the note left saying "there's no money left". How can we spend money that we don't have?

By borrowing to invest, which will allow us to have more money long term.

[Fergus52]

I don't see how anyone in scotland with a moral compass could vote for any party that wants to cut public spending.

In our biggest city over a third of it's children are below the poverty line and rely on food banks not to go hungry. This is in a country with the 6th largest economy in the world?

Continued cuts will breed more inequality and put more and more people into poverty.

[Hibbyradge]

So what about the note left saying "there's no money left". How can we spend money that we don't have?

They seem to have managed it.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/11/the-tories-have-piled-on-more-debt-than-labour/

[johnbc70]

I don't see how anyone in scotland with a moral compass could vote for any party that wants to cut public spending.

In our biggest city over a third of it's children are below the poverty line and rely on food banks not to go hungry. This is in a country with the 6th largest economy in the world?

Continued cuts will breed more inequality and put more and more people into poverty.

So what have the current Scottish Government done about these dreadful statistics? They have been in power long enough to surely have done something about it, or is it all someone else's fault. Why did the SNP vote against the living wage for example?

Too quick to blame others when I am sure they could do a lot more.

[Beefster]

So what have the current Scottish Government done about these dreadful statistics? They have been in power long enough to surely have done something about it, or is it all someone else's fault. Why did the SNP vote against the living wage for example?

Too quick to blame others when I am sure they could do a lot more.

I think you're wrong. Council tax freezes and free prescriptions, irrespective of wealth, are way bigger vote winners than helping folk in poverty.

[Hibrandenburg]

I don't see how anyone in scotland with a moral compass could vote for any party that wants to cut public spending.

In our biggest city over a third of it's children are below the poverty line and rely on food banks not to go hungry. This is in a country with the 6th largest economy in the world?

Continued cuts will breed more inequality and put more and more people into poverty.

Since the finacial crisis the gap between rich and poor has widened, the richest in our society are richer now than they have ever been. Conclusion:

Austerity is making the poor pay for the crisis caused by the rich.

[snooky]

Re. a possible second referendum.
I don't foresee this happening for at least another 5 years. The last thing the SNP would want is another NO vote.
I'm confident that if and when there is another referendum it will be when the result will be a foregone conclusion.

[God Petrie]

As a nationalist, the worst thing that could happen would be to lose another referendum. That would end it for decades.

In terms of independence, an SNP landslide in scotland coupled with a tory government and Boris Johnson as PM could very well be the perfect storm. Through in a possible EU exit and it's hard to see Scotland not voting yes.

[JeMeSouviens]

So what have the current Scottish Government done about these dreadful statistics? They have been in power long enough to surely have done something about it, or is it all someone else's fault. Why did the SNP vote against the living wage for example?

Too quick to blame others when I am sure they could do a lot more.

The Scottish government under the SNP pays its own employees at least the living wage. Previous Labour led Scottish governments didn't and no UK government (including the Labour ones) has.

So their record on that is the best in the UK.

They claim to have voted against forcing companies awarded contracts by the Scottish Gov to pay the living wage on legal advice that the EU wouldn't allow it. This seems a slightly shaky claim to me and surely they should have at least voted for the bill and given it a go?

To summarise: nobody whiter than white but SNP best record of those who have been in government somewhere.

[JeMeSouviens]

I think you're wrong. Council tax freezes and free prescriptions, irrespective of wealth, are way bigger vote winners than helping folk in poverty.

Speaking of the dreaded freeze. :snowman I see the Scottish gov have launched a multi-party commission to look at local government finance:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-32566472

Submit your thoughts online here: http://localtaxcommission.scot/

Hopefully they will come up with a way of implementing a proper locally accountable progressive income tax. :agree:

[Moulin Yarns]

I think you're wrong. Council tax freezes and free prescriptions, irrespective of wealth, are way bigger vote winners than helping folk in poverty.

JMS has answered about the Council Tax freeze, and I will offer up the answer to the free prescription charges.

There are a number of sources which acknowledge that any money raised by prescription charges on those that wouldn't be eligible for free prescription wouldn't even cover tehcost of administering the charge, therefore it is more cost effective to have prescriptions free to all.

Personally I would like each prescription to have printed in huge block capitals

THIS PRESCRIPTION IS PROVIDED FREE OF CHARGE BY THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT, HOWEVER IF YOU WISH TO DONATE TOWARDS THE NHS IN SCOTLAND A SUGGESTED DONATION OF £7 IS WELCOME


(FIGURE PLUCKED FROM THIN AIR)

[Fergus52]

So what have the current Scottish Government done about these dreadful statistics? They have been in power long enough to surely have done something about it, or is it all someone else's fault. Why did the SNP vote against the living wage for example?

Too quick to blame others when I am sure they could do a lot more.

I agree, the SNP don't do anywhere near enough to counter inequality, despite painting themselves as the socialistic party of the people.

I just feel their economic plan does better to address it than any of the other big parties.

[JeMeSouviens]

Approval ratings from Yougov (which somewhat restore my faith in humanity :wink:):


Do you think Nicola Sturgeon is doing well or badly as First Minister?

Well: 75% (+7)
Badly: 19% (-7)

NET RATING: +56

Do you think that Jim Murphy is doing well or badly as leader of the Scottish Labour party?

Well: 27% (-5)
Badly: 62% (+8)

NET RATING: -35

[RyeSloan]

By borrowing to invest, which will allow us to have more money long term.

Well after £1.5 trillion pounds of borrowing if that line was anyway true we should be getting a whacking great return on our 'investment' by now no?

[RyeSloan]

I don't see how anyone in scotland with a moral compass could vote for any party that wants to cut public spending. In our biggest city over a third of it's children are below the poverty line and rely on food banks not to go hungry. This is in a country with the 6th largest economy in the world? Continued cuts will breed more inequality and put more and more people into poverty.

Just a thought but maybe increased public spending is not the answer to foodbank use?

Genuine question but is there any evidence to show that increased central government spending from increased borrowing would have any long term effect on the situation?

On the flip side I would suggest that the most effective route would be to increase the minimum wage, the working tax credit to me just appears to be a government subsidy to private companies...I'm probably totally wrong but reducing government expenditure on the distorting and cumbersome working tax credit by increasing the minimum wage would seem to me to be a win win. People would earn a 'living wage' and therefore not require benefits to survive and the government would not need to pay working tax credits thus saving at least part of the £30 odd billion the tax credit system is now costing.

[HiBremian]

Well after £1.5 trillion pounds of borrowing if that line was anyway true we should be getting a whacking great return on our 'investment' by now no?

A huge chunk of that borrowing has gone on bailing out the banks, not investing in the real economy. If public borrowing is used to finance job-creating investment, of course we'd be getting a return. Personally, I think those who caused the crash in the first place - and walked away having trousered millions in bonuses and fees - should actually now cough up and repay that part of the national debt.

http://www.glasgowmediagroup.org/the-wealth-tax

[RyeSloan]

A huge chunk of that borrowing has gone on bailing out the banks, not investing in the real economy. If public borrowing is used to finance job-creating investment, of course we'd be getting a return. Personally, I think those who caused the crash in the first place - and walked away having trousered millions in bonuses and fees - should actually now cough up and repay that part of the national debt. http://www.glasgowmediagroup.org/the-wealth-tax

Apart from the bank bailouts didn't add that much to the national debt at all....most of the bail out figures you see were guarantees that were never required...in face the BoE has made healthy profits from the bailouts, profits that are returned to the treasury. The reason the debt ballooned was that the UK govt had become over reliant on the income tax and corp tax the bankers were paying (not to mention the stamp duty from all the London property deals)...income tax receipts have still not recovered.

As for a wealth tax, well you won't be surprised to hear I'm dead against that...solely for the reason that we all know what happens to new taxes. They are imposed at a level where most are not captured then the old favourite of fiscal drag sets in and before you know it we are all captured by it. A land tax would be worth looking at but the 'mansion taxes' being proposed by Labour and the Lib Dems are no where near that. Anyway no matter what tax is levied you can only squeeze so much revenue out...as I've said before an honest discussion on what the government can actually raise and how that is spent is required not just a new list of taxes on the 'rich' that either won't raise what they say they will or will end up hitting the majority at some point to try and compensate.

Suggesting a wealth tax will generate enough revenue to 'invest' that will then somehow reduce the inequality gap is nonsense in my book...sure you want people who gained to pay, I get that but in reality those gains were also going to the treasury in the form of bumper taxation, when that evaporated then the debt pile really got going.

[cabbageandribs1875]

oor nicola is chatting to the masses tomorrow morning at the mound @9:30

[Beefster]

JMS has answered about the Council Tax freeze, and I will offer up the answer to the free prescription charges.

There are a number of sources which acknowledge that any money raised by prescription charges on those that wouldn't be eligible for free prescription wouldn't even cover tehcost of administering the charge, therefore it is more cost effective to have prescriptions free to all.

Personally I would like each prescription to have printed in huge block capitals

THIS PRESCRIPTION IS PROVIDED FREE OF CHARGE BY THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT, HOWEVER IF YOU WISH TO DONATE TOWARDS THE NHS IN SCOTLAND A SUGGESTED DONATION OF £7 IS WELCOME


(FIGURE PLUCKED FROM THIN AIR)

I'm almost positive that the "it costs more to administer the payment of prescriptions than it recoups from the payments" chat is a myth. I'll check later but IIRC I posted a link a while back to a study showing that the administration of prescriptions payments is much much lower than the potential income.

[cabbageandribs1875]

Who would take his place though? Nobody with an eye to the future would touch it with a bargepole.



Eddie Izzard (lipstick and all) with Russel Brand replacing the downing st pussy cat

[Just Alf]

Just a thought but maybe increased public spending is not the answer to foodbank use?

Genuine question but is there any evidence to show that increased central government spending from increased borrowing would have any long term effect on the situation?

On the flip side I would suggest that the most effective route would be to increase the minimum wage, the working tax credit to me just appears to be a government subsidy to private companies...I'm probably totally wrong but reducing government expenditure on the distorting and cumbersome working tax credit by increasing the minimum wage would seem to me to be a win win. People would earn a 'living wage' and therefore not require benefits to survive and the government would not need to pay working tax credits thus saving at least part of the £30 odd billion the tax credit system is now costing.

Yup, makes total sense, also less complicated (cheaper) to manage.

[Just Alf]

I'm almost positive that the "it costs more to administer the payment of prescriptions than it recoups from the payments" chat is a myth. I'll check later but IIRC I posted a link a while back to a study showing that the administration of prescriptions payments is much much lower than the potential income.

That's true enough, the additional cost to administer paid prescriptions is still much more than the existing process (a little less than double). Regardless, charging would bring in a net income (not profit though, drugs are sooo expensive these days)

The fact is the SNP have decided to arrange their NHS budget to allow for free prescriptions, it really rips my knitting when peeps in other parts of the UK moan about it when the failure there is they've not pushed their political representatives to do similar

[speedy_gonzales]

I don't see how anyone in scotland with a moral compass could vote for any party that wants to cut public spending.

In our biggest city over a third of it's children are below the poverty line and rely on food banks not to go hungry. This is in a country with the 6th largest economy in the world?



I've argued in the past that this 'poverty line' is an arbitrary line drawn from various figures and stats and we shouldn't be too blinded when drafting social policies when using this stat as a yardstick.

Quite a lot of my immediate family are below this poverty line. They don't use foodbanks. Their children do not go without. They are not poor!

I posted this in the referendum thread, but I said then and maintain the fact today, if Scotland had gained independence many of the families that are below the poverty line could have found themselves above it with absolutely no change to their circumstance, just the fact that the numbers used to make the calculation would have changed.

Even going by the EU's own indicators of extreme poverty I'd have been classed as poor even though I'd never considered myself to be whilst living in Gorgie when a student (although I did own my own flat), them being:

Cannot afford to
• To face unexpected expenses
• One week annual holiday away from home (never had a weeks holiday between '96-2000, primarily due to cost)
• To pay for arrears (mortgage or rent, utility bills or hire purchase instalments)
• A meal with meat, chicken or fish every second day (perhaps more by choice by we only had meat 2 or 3 times a week)
• To keep home adequately warm (always struggled with a draughty tenement with no central heating)
• To have a washing machine (had to use Gorgies finest launderette)
• To have a colour TV
• To have a telephone
• To have a personal car (never owned a car until 2000 even though I passed my test in '92, again due to cost)

[ronaldo7]

The most dangerous woman in the UK.

14811

[Hibby Bairn]

Just a thought but maybe increased public spending is not the answer to foodbank use?

Genuine question but is there any evidence to show that increased central government spending from increased borrowing would have any long term effect on the situation?

On the flip side I would suggest that the most effective route would be to increase the minimum wage, the working tax credit to me just appears to be a government subsidy to private companies...I'm probably totally wrong but reducing government expenditure on the distorting and cumbersome working tax credit by increasing the minimum wage would seem to me to be a win win. People would earn a 'living wage' and therefore not require benefits to survive and the government would not need to pay working tax credits thus saving at least part of the £30 odd billion the tax credit system is now costing.

It's a delicate one. Increasing minimum wage or living wage would be a direct cost on employment. That would probably mean decrease in jobs especially in industries that pay wages at lower end.

I find it impossible to understand how anyone can "survive" these days on less than £12k unless still living at home. Probably even £15k.

But we are the consumers wanting lower prices which means lower profits which means lower wages.

Employers NI could be looked at again to help I think. I also believe something could be done about higher tax rate. Increase starting threshold but also increase tax rate at that level. £75k sounds about right I think.

[lord bunberry]

It's a delicate one. Increasing minimum wage or living wage would be a direct cost on employment. That would probably mean decrease in jobs especially in industries that pay wages at lower end.

I find it impossible to understand how anyone can "survive" these days on less than £12k unless still living at home. Probably even £15k.

But we are the consumers wanting lower prices which means lower profits which means lower wages.

Employers NI could be looked at again to help I think. I also believe something could be done about higher tax rate. Increase starting threshold but also increase tax rate at that level. £75k sounds about right I think.

I remember when the minimum wage came in there was lots of talk that it would lead to higher unemployment. I suspect that the introduction of a living wage wouldn't have a major impact on employment.

[Hibbyradge]

I remember when the minimum wage came in there was lots of talk that it would lead to higher unemployment. I suspect that the introduction of a living wage wouldn't have a major impact on employment.

:agree:

[RyeSloan]

It's a delicate one. Increasing minimum wage or living wage would be a direct cost on employment. That would probably mean decrease in jobs especially in industries that pay wages at lower end. I find it impossible to understand how anyone can "survive" these days on less than £12k unless still living at home. Probably even £15k. But we are the consumers wanting lower prices which means lower profits which means lower wages. Employers NI could be looked at again to help I think. I also believe something could be done about higher tax rate. Increase starting threshold but also increase tax rate at that level. £75k sounds about right I think.

Not if the costs were passed on...and if done in a phased manner, say over 3-5 years I think the profit margins of UK inc could probably take it...sure it's not without risk but removing the need to raise tax for the ever increasing tax credit bill as well as removing the perverse distortions it puts on the labour market would probably lead to a net neutral position at worst (based in nothing but my general assumptions of course!).

Tax credits are the classic example if how once government spending is turned on it doesn't stop..too many vested interests. I'm sure I read the bill in the first year was £2bn, now it's £30bn yet not a peep from any politician about how that needs to stop as they are too afraid of the negative headline.

[Hibby Bairn]

I remember when the minimum wage came in there was lots of talk that it would lead to higher unemployment. I suspect that the introduction of a living wage wouldn't have a major impact on employment.

Yes but I do think it has led to proliferation of loose employment including zero hours contracts. There isn't enough security of employment at the lower wage end. To the point where it is now becoming almost the norm.

I also think that some of the hourly rates paid to 16/17 year olds is bordering on slave labour.

[ronaldo7]

1995?

Are you for real? That's twenty years ago

A lot of posters on here weren't even born then

For real? Blair wasn't even PM then and I've got no desire to check out whether your claim is accurate or bollocks.

I do know it's prehistoric.

Quick question, can you find me a post where I ask you to account for Gordon Wilson's statements as leader?

Up your game R7 and live in the present rather than decades ago :bitchy:

My claim, accurate or Bollocks, I'll just leave this here for you mate:wink:

14812

[Mibbes Aye]

My claim, accurate or Bollocks, I'll just leave this here for you mate:wink:

14812

Good-oh.

My analysis would be that in 1997, with a growing economy, it was more of a priority to get the minimum wage on the statute books and the working time regulations - you know, guaranteed annual leave, rest breaks and the like. That was where the thrust of the exploitation was occurring.

I'm curious that this seems a real touchstone issue for you. A comment by Blair twenty years ago.

Then I looked back two years ago, 2013, and found that 27,000 Scots in the devolved public sector were on zero-hour contracts.

So then I looked at two manifestos for the general election. You will be ahead of me here on which two I looked at :greengrin

I'll paste what they both said

Option 1 - (We) will ban exploitative zero-hour contracts

Option 2 - We will support efforts in the next parliament to end unfair and exploitative zero-hour contracts, with a time-limited consultation, which fully involves businesses and the trade unions, to agree the most effective way forward

Time for a game of Spot the Difference :greengrin

I know you can't answer this but involving businesses fully in agreeing the best way forward on zero-hour contracts? Really?

[steakbake]

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Vandals-drilled-oil-tank-attack-Bristol-MP/story-26443808-detail/story.html

Kind of puts Jim Murphy and Eddie Izzard's terrifying, violent experience into perspective.

[Hibby Bairn]

Anyone else think Miliband appears uncomfortable when he is in and around "working class" people?

[ronaldo7]

Good-oh.

My analysis would be that in 1997, with a growing economy, it was more of a priority to get the minimum wage on the statute books and the working time regulations - you know, guaranteed annual leave, rest breaks and the like. That was where the thrust of the exploitation was occurring.

I'm curious that this seems a real touchstone issue for you. A comment by Blair twenty years ago.

Then I looked back two years ago, 2013, and found that 27,000 Scots in the devolved public sector were on zero-hour contracts.

So then I looked at two manifestos for the general election. You will be ahead of me here on which two I looked at :greengrin

I'll paste what they both said

Option 1 - (We) will ban exploitative zero-hour contracts

Option 2 - We will support efforts in the next parliament to end unfair and exploitative zero-hour contracts, with a time-limited consultation, which fully involves businesses and the trade unions, to agree the most effective way forward

Time for a game of Spot the Difference :greengrin

I know you can't answer this but involving businesses fully in agreeing the best way forward on zero-hour contracts? Really?

You could have saved yourself some time by typing. R7, you were correct.

Now, how long since Labour have been saying they'd abolish the HOL?

Can you see a pattern forming here. Make promises, get into power, Oops that's got to go to the long grass. Typical Liebour.

[ronaldo7]

Anyone else think Miliband appears uncomfortable when he is in and around "working class" people?

He's lost without his focus groups. Nicola will keep him left:wink:

[Mibbes Aye]

You could have saved yourself some time by typing. R7, you were correct.

Now, how long since Labour have been saying they'd abolish the HOL?

Can you see a pattern forming here. Make promises, get into power, Oops that's got to go to the long grass. Typical Liebour.

Simple question - was it in the 1997 Manifesto?

[Mibbes Aye]

You could have saved yourself some time by typing. R7, you were correct.

Now, how long since Labour have been saying they'd abolish the HOL?

Can you see a pattern forming here. Make promises, get into power, Oops that's got to go to the long grass. Typical Liebour.

:faf:

Serious question - language like that isn't aimed at those who want to debate seriously, it's tabloid-style, Murdoch-style, keep saying it and hope it sticks.

Where are your arguments for those who do take it seriously?

Where are your arguments defending council tax freezes and corporation tax rises when so many people are using foodbanks?

Where are your arguments for why nationalism has any relevance in the 21st century?

[ronaldo7]

Simple question - was it in the 1997 Manifesto?

HOL or Zero hours:dunno:

[Mibbes Aye]

HOL or Zero hours:dunno:

HOL reform was there and taken forward, though it became clear there was no consensus.

Zero-hours didn't feature, my take is as I described above - the economy had moved and it wasn't the problem it is in a flatlining economy, whereas NMW and working time regs were.

Incidentally, are you going to be asking about Labour's policy on Suez? The General Strike? The Reformation, maybe the Punic Wars? :wink:

Try and keep it current - maybe explain the 27,000 devolved public sector jobs in Scotland that are zero-hours, or answer my Spot the Difference competition?

[ronaldo7]

:faf:

Serious question - language like that isn't aimed at those who want to debate seriously, it's tabloid-style, Murdoch-style, keep saying it and hope it sticks.

Where are your arguments for those who do take it seriously?

Where are your arguments defending council tax freezes and corporation tax rises when so many people are using foodbanks?

Where are your arguments for why nationalism has any relevance in the 21st century?

Corporation tax rises:confused:

[ronaldo7]

HOL reform was there and taken forward, though it became clear there was no consensus.

Zero-hours didn't feature, my take is as I described above - the economy had moved and it wasn't the problem it is in a flatlining economy, whereas NMW and working time regs were.

Incidentally, are you going to be asking about Labour's policy on Suez? The General Strike? The Reformation, maybe the Punic Wars? :wink:

Try and keep it current - maybe explain the 27,000 devolved public sector jobs in Scotland that are zero-hours, or answer my Spot the Difference competition?

Spot the difference.

14813

[ronaldo7]

Spot the difference.

14813

And how many of those jobs are in Glasgow council Labour for 70 years. You just can't see the wood for the trees.

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/labour-council-under-fire-over-zero-hours-contracts-204447n.123964696

Even the riggers for the Labour Party rallies were on zero hours.

The bouncers were on zero hours.

Not walking the walk but talking the talk.

As mentioned on the thread earlier, the SNP Gov have walked the walk, more still to do though.

[Hibbyradge]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/former-tory-peer-calls-conservative-5525765

[Fergus52]

Well after £1.5 trillion pounds of borrowing if that line was anyway true we should be getting a whacking great return on our 'investment' by now no?

not if the governments spending it unwisely.

George osbourne is a ****** and had literally pissed away all our money

[Hibbyradge]

not if the governments spending it unwisely.

George osbourne is a ****** and had literally pissed away all our money

14814

[RyeSloan]

not if the governments spending it unwisely. George osbourne is a ****** and had literally pissed away all our money

So let me get this straight...we have had years of people telling us just how bad the austerity has been yet we have links that say the Tories borrowed more in 5 years than labour did in it's recent 12 years in office...now we have good public spending that is called investment as long as the Tories haven't done it when it's classed as pissing the money away?

[ronaldo7]

HOL reform was there and taken forward, though it became clear there was no consensus.

Zero-hours didn't feature, my take is as I described above - the economy had moved and it wasn't the problem it is in a flatlining economy, whereas NMW and working time regs were.

Incidentally, are you going to be asking about Labour's policy on Suez? The General Strike? The Reformation, maybe the Punic Wars? :wink:

Try and keep it current - maybe explain the 27,000 devolved public sector jobs in Scotland that are zero-hours, or answer my Spot the Difference competition?

Blair had 418 seats out of 659 when he won in 1997. After years of saying they would "Abolish" the Lords they decided to do a deal with the Tories in the Lords, and reform it. Hey, something for everyone eh.

He didn't need anyone else regarding the HOL reform, Labour could have pushed it through from his side of the commons, but decided not to. As I said Labour have made promises, but when they got into power, decided the promise could be broken, whether in government or not. As you said though...I'll have had my promise.

Even yesterday we heard from Lucy powell that the stunt Ed made regarding his promises which were engraved on his Tombstone might not be honoured. It seems a Labour promise is as good as a Lib dem one.

Nothing's changed, they're still doing it. Just ask the women fighting the LABOUR council in Glasgow about equal pay.

Labour have had their chance, it's time to do it differently for a wee change, and let's see how we get on with the SNP.

[steakbake]

For me, at any rate, the Labour promises that will be engraved onto the #Edstone (and placed in the Downing Street garden) are just a bizarre gimmick.

It's a list of hurrah concepts that most people would generally agree with. They're not pledges, or policies but just a list of glittering generalities, like the kind of mantras that Huxley and Orwell wrote about:

- A stronger economic foundation - yep, we'd all like that, please. No-one likes a weak economic foundation. Only, I think the decision has been made which economic foundation we'll be using (neo-liberal capitalism) so it'll just be rearranging those deck chairs again.

- Higher living standards for working families - again, sounds like a plan. I don't want plummeting living standards. I want to shop at Waitrose, not Lidl.

- An NHS with time to care - that's nice: time to care. So does that mean doctors will give you 10 minutes instead of the standard 8?

- Controls on immigration: by definition, an immigration system is a system of control - but yeah, necessary. How about an "Australian points based system" - because everyone knows it's tough for us to go there. What-we already have it? And the Australians ditched it because it didn't work? What? Don't talk about that? But someone should tell the people that's what we've already got - because many of them think it's what we need.

- A country where the next generation do better than the last: excellent - they can continue our hard work and hopefully they'll all go to University before settling down to become hard working families. Who shop at Waitrose - not Lidl like their impoverished forebears. Or we could institutionalise foodbanksand call them something else? Family Nourishment Centres?

- Homes to buy and action on rents: yeah, I'd like to buy a home. Not a house. And if I was renting, I'd like action on it, not just words.

So there we have it... meaningless. That poor stone took millions of years to form and here it is, about to be immortalised with the kind of trite, self evident bull**** that marks the peak to which the people's party has ascended.

[Hibbyradge]

So there we have it... meaningless. That poor stone took millions of years to form and here it is, about to be immortalised with the kind of trite, self evident bull**** that marks the peak to which the people's party has ascended.

Save our stones. Vote Conservative! :greengrin

It's testament to the lack of trust the electorate have for all politicians, not just the Labour Party.

Same applies to the Tory's promise to pass a law forcing them to implement their manifesto pledge not to raise tax. That one is worse, imo. It's like they don't even trust themselves to stick to their promises, so they make it illegal to break them!

Of course, when the time comes that they do need to raise tax, they'll just repeal the law or change it.

[RyeSloan]

For me, at any rate, the Labour promises that will be engraved onto the #Edstone (and placed in the Downing Street garden) are just a bizarre gimmick. It's a list of hurrah concepts that most people would generally agree with. They're not pledges, or policies but just a list of glittering generalities, like the kind of mantras that Huxley and Orwell wrote about: - A stronger economic foundation - yep, we'd all like that, please. No-one likes a weak economic foundation. Only, I think the decision has been made which economic foundation we'll be using (neo-liberal capitalism) so it'll just be rearranging those deck chairs again. - Higher living standards for working families - again, sounds like a plan. I don't want plummeting living standards. I want to shop at Waitrose, not Lidl. - An NHS with time to care - that's nice: time to care. So does that mean doctors will give you 10 minutes instead of the standard 8? - Controls on immigration: by definition, an immigration system is a system of control - but yeah, necessary. How about an "Australian points based system" - because everyone knows it's tough for us to go there. What-we already have it? And the Australians ditched it because it didn't work? What? Don't talk about that? But someone should tell the people that's what we've already got - because many of them think it's what we need. - A country where the next generation do better than the last: excellent - they can continue our hard work and hopefully they'll all go to University before settling down to become hard working families. Who shop at Waitrose - not Lidl like their impoverished forebears. Or we could institutionalise foodbanksand call them something else? Family Nourishment Centres? - Homes to buy and action on rents: yeah, I'd like to buy a home. Not a house. And if I was renting, I'd like action on it, not just words. So there we have it... meaningless. That poor stone took millions of years to form and here it is, about to be immortalised with the kind of trite, self evident bull**** that marks the peak to which the people's party has ascended.

My thoughts on that exactly....I mean if you are going to carve something in stone it should at least have some meaning! General concepts few would have any issue with but not one word of HOW he would bring these things to pass just sums it up really.

[Geo_1875]

For me, at any rate, the Labour promises that will be engraved onto the #Edstone (and placed in the Downing Street garden) are just a bizarre gimmick.

It's a list of hurrah concepts that most people would generally agree with. They're not pledges, or policies but just a list of glittering generalities, like the kind of mantras that Huxley and Orwell wrote about:

- A stronger economic foundation - yep, we'd all like that, please. No-one likes a weak economic foundation. Only, I think the decision has been made which economic foundation we'll be using (neo-liberal capitalism) so it'll just be rearranging those deck chairs again.

- Higher living standards for working families - again, sounds like a plan. I don't want plummeting living standards. I want to shop at Waitrose, not Lidl.

- An NHS with time to care - that's nice: time to care. So does that mean doctors will give you 10 minutes instead of the standard 8?

- Controls on immigration: by definition, an immigration system is a system of control - but yeah, necessary. How about an "Australian points based system" - because everyone knows it's tough for us to go there. What-we already have it? And the Australians ditched it because it didn't work? What? Don't talk about that? But someone should tell the people that's what we've already got - because many of them think it's what we need.

- A country where the next generation do better than the last: excellent - they can continue our hard work and hopefully they'll all go to University before settling down to become hard working families. Who shop at Waitrose - not Lidl like their impoverished forebears. Or we could institutionalise foodbanksand call them something else? Family Nourishment Centres?

- Homes to buy and action on rents: yeah, I'd like to buy a home. Not a house. And if I was renting, I'd like action on it, not just words.

So there we have it... meaningless. That poor stone took millions of years to form and here it is, about to be immortalised with the kind of trite, self evident bull**** that marks the peak to which the people's party has ascended.

A list of vague statements that can't really be meaningfully measured.

[JimBHibees]

For me, at any rate, the Labour promises that will be engraved onto the #Edstone (and placed in the Downing Street garden) are just a bizarre gimmick.

It's a list of hurrah concepts that most people would generally agree with. They're not pledges, or policies but just a list of glittering generalities, like the kind of mantras that Huxley and Orwell wrote about:

- A stronger economic foundation - yep, we'd all like that, please. No-one likes a weak economic foundation. Only, I think the decision has been made which economic foundation we'll be using (neo-liberal capitalism) so it'll just be rearranging those deck chairs again.

- Higher living standards for working families - again, sounds like a plan. I don't want plummeting living standards. I want to shop at Waitrose, not Lidl.

- An NHS with time to care - that's nice: time to care. So does that mean doctors will give you 10 minutes instead of the standard 8?

- Controls on immigration: by definition, an immigration system is a system of control - but yeah, necessary. How about an "Australian points based system" - because everyone knows it's tough for us to go there. What-we already have it? And the Australians ditched it because it didn't work? What? Don't talk about that? But someone should tell the people that's what we've already got - because many of them think it's what we need.

- A country where the next generation do better than the last: excellent - they can continue our hard work and hopefully they'll all go to University before settling down to become hard working families. Who shop at Waitrose - not Lidl like their impoverished forebears. Or we could institutionalise foodbanksand call them something else? Family Nourishment Centres?

- Homes to buy and action on rents: yeah, I'd like to buy a home. Not a house. And if I was renting, I'd like action on it, not just words.

So there we have it... meaningless. That poor stone took millions of years to form and here it is, about to be immortalised with the kind of trite, self evident bull**** that marks the peak to which the people's party has ascended.

Saw a clip of a Labour rep on a radio show on the news last night saying something aling the lines of 'of course, just because the pledges were in stone doesnt mean we couldnt break them somewhere down the line'. :greengrin

[Fergus52]

So let me get this straight...we have had years of people telling us just how bad the austerity has been yet we have links that say the Tories borrowed more in 5 years than labour did in it's recent 12 years in office...now we have good public spending that is called investment as long as the Tories haven't done it when it's classed as pissing the money away?

They've borrowed whilst continuing to cut public spending. That's the worst of both worlds. Shows how incompetent they really are

[Hibbyradge]

Saw a clip of a Labour rep on a radio show on the news last night saying something aling the lines of 'of course, just because the pledges were in stone doesnt mean we couldnt break them somewhere down the line'. :greengrin

I heard the interview on Radio 5 Live.

What she said/meant was that, of course, carving something into stone doesn't mean anything in itself. Ed Milliband, however, will keep his promises and people can rely on that.

The media of course quoted her out of context.

[ronaldo7]

I heard the interview on Radio 5 Live.

What she said/meant was that, of course, carving something into stone doesn't mean anything in itself. Ed Milliband, however, will keep his promises and people can rely on that.

The media of course quoted her out of context.

http://biasedbbc.org/blog/2015/05/05/that-lucy-powell-moment/ :greengrin

[Hibbyradge]

http://biasedbbc.org/blog/2015/05/05/that-lucy-powell-moment/ :greengrin

Yes, that's the interview. It's embarrassing for her, I agree. :embarrass

However, as I said, she went on to say that Milliband was principled and would deliver his promises.

At the time, I didn't think anything of it, and neither did Peter Allen who only returned to it later in the show after it was pointed out to him, presumably by his producer.

I'm still hoping for a landslide SNP win and Labour as biggest party, so I'm probably less inclined to leap upon these wee slips! :greengrin

[ronaldo7]

Yes, that's the interview. It's embarrassing for her, I agree. :embarrass

However, as I said, she went on to say that Milliband was principled and would deliver his promises.

At the time, I didn't think anything of it, and neither did Peter Allen who only returned to it later in the show after it was pointed out to him, presumably by his producer.

I'm still hoping for a landslide SNP win and Labour as biggest party, so I'm probably less inclined to leap upon these wee slips! :greengrin

I Fundilymundily :agree::wink:

[Hibbyradge]

I Fundilymundily :agree::wink:

I'm less inclined to overlook that! :faf:

Who'd be a politician these days? It's much more about style than substance, hence the reason Alex Salmond has obviously been told to lie low.

How I wish Sturgeon had been the leader last September.

[CropleyWasGod]

I heard the interview on Radio 5 Live.

What she said/meant was that, of course, carving something into stone doesn't mean anything in itself. Ed Milliband, however, will keep his promises and people can rely on that.

The media of course quoted her out of context.

... and then there was Kez on GMS (yesterday?) who was asked what the most important promise from the Tablet of Stone was.

She answered by saying that it was something


..... which isn't on the stone. :greengrin

[Geo_1875]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-32591800

I wondered when he'd get his 5 minutes in the media.

[Stranraer]

I read that SNP candidate Tasmina Sheikh was Labour, then Tory and now SNP so I'm not the only one to alter my views :greengrin

Looking forward to an all nighter tomorrow, crates of Red Bull at the ready!

[DaveF]

So what's everyone's predictions for the Scottish seats? Which snp, labour or tory activists have the inside track on how the postal vote panned out?

[Future17]

http://biasedbbc.org/blog/2015/05/05/that-lucy-powell-moment/ :greengrin

I must be in the minority here, but I understand exactly what she's saying:

"I don't think anyone's suggesting the fact he's carved them in stone means he's absolutely not going to break them..."

She's not suggesting he's going to break them, she's suggesting that them being carved in stone makes no difference to people's perception of whether or not he may break them. Or have I missed something here? :greengrin

[JeMeSouviens]

I must be in the minority here, but I understand exactly what she's saying:

"I don't think anyone's suggesting the fact he's carved them in stone means he's absolutely not going to break them..."

She's not suggesting he's going to break them, she's suggesting that them being carved in stone makes no difference to people's perception of whether or not he may break them. Or have I missed something here? :greengrin

They're so vague and woolly you'd have trouble breaking them if you tried!

[RyeSloan]

They've borrowed whilst continuing to cut public spending. That's the worst of both worlds. Shows how incompetent they really are

I'm curious if you can tell me by how much they actually cut real spending by in £'s....

[JeMeSouviens]

So what's everyone's predictions for the Scottish seats?

I think tactical Unionism will see Lab hang on in a few seats and Lab to Lib/Con tactical switchers will hang on to a couple of Libs and the Tories might actually make a gain or 2. Although the polls seem literally incredible, I don't believe they'll be miles and miles out.

So:

Lib 2 (Carmichael and Kennedy)
Con 2 (Berwick and DCT)
Lab 8 (including Slimebucket)
SNP 47 (including Salmond and Joanna Cherry QC in Edi SW, hurrah!)

[Hibbyradge]

So what's everyone's predictions for the Scottish seats? Which snp, labour or tory activists have the inside track on how the postal vote panned out?

I can exclusively reveal...there are 2 postal votes sitting on my stairs waiting to be handed in to the polling station tomorrow.

[ronaldo7]

I must be in the minority here, but I understand exactly what she's saying:

"I don't think anyone's suggesting the fact he's carved them in stone means he's absolutely not going to break them..."

She's not suggesting he's going to break them, she's suggesting that them being carved in stone makes no difference to people's perception of whether or not he may break them. Or have I missed something here? :greengrin

:greengrin

Have you seen the back of the Stone of Density, that's where the real cuts are:wink:

[Future17]

I can exclusively reveal...there are 2 postal votes sitting on my stairs waiting to be handed in to the polling station tomorrow.

It's folk like you who delay the results being declared!!! :panic:

:greengrin

[The Harp Awakes]

I think tactical Unionism will see Lab hang on in a few seats and Lab to Lib/Con tactical switchers will hang on to a couple of Libs and the Tories might actually make a gain or 2. Although the polls seem literally incredible, I don't believe they'll be miles and miles out.

So:

Lib 2 (Carmichael and Kennedy)
Con 2 (Berwick and DCT)
Lab 8 (including Slimebucket)
SNP 47 (including Salmond and Joanna Cherry QC in Edi SW, hurrah!)

A pretty decent forecast I'd say. I'd go for the SNP winning between 45-50 seats which really would be a remarkable result for the Party. Without tactical voting I think it could have been close to a whitewash for the SNP. Having said that there are some contituencies where tactical voting would have little effect e.g., Dumfries where it's a 3-way marginal between the SNP, Labour and Tories; that one's too close to call I think.

[Hibbyradge]

It's folk like you who delay the results being declared!!! :panic:

:greengrin

I love the power! :greengrin

[ballengeich]

I'm curious if you can tell me by how much they actually cut real spending by in £'s....


http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/total_spending_2015UKbn

This site indicates that total government spending rose from £673bn in 2010 to a planned £731bn in 2015. A 10% rise in pounds, a small cut in real terms after inflation is included. The big jumps are in pension and health spending.

While some areas have been cut considerably, overall austerity has been slight.

[Moulin Yarns]

Today I engaged the 'Forward Together' keep the Union, anyone but SNP Labour Party member in Perth High Street today and asked how he would feel if his groups tactical voting allowed the Tories a majority of 1 seat to allow them to form the next government and push LAbour into further isolation.

his answer, seriously, was, "Just as long as the SNP don't get any power" :rolleyes:

I gave him one of my leaflets and left him with "At least I have the courage of my convictions and believe in socialism and will vote the way I want, not how I'm told" :greengrin


God, it made me feel better

[Just Alf]

[QUOTE=

:agree:

[JeMeSouviens]

Today I engaged the 'Forward Together' keep the Union, anyone but SNP Labour Party member in Perth High Street today and asked how he would feel if his groups tactical voting allowed the Tories a majority of 1 seat to allow them to form the next government and push LAbour into further isolation.

his answer, seriously, was, "Just as long as the SNP don't get any power" :rolleyes:

I gave him one of my leaflets and left him with "At least I have the courage of my convictions and believe in socialism and will vote the way I want, not how I'm told" :greengrin


God, it made me feel better

:top marks

[ronaldo7]

Today I engaged the 'Forward Together' keep the Union, anyone but SNP Labour Party member in Perth High Street today and asked how he would feel if his groups tactical voting allowed the Tories a majority of 1 seat to allow them to form the next government and push LAbour into further isolation.

his answer, seriously, was, "Just as long as the SNP don't get any power" :rolleyes:

I gave him one of my leaflets and left him with "At least I have the courage of my convictions and believe in socialism and will vote the way I want, not how I'm told" :greengrin


God, it made me feel better

:top marks

[RyeSloan]

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/total_spending_2015UKbn This site indicates that total government spending rose from £673bn in 2010 to a planned £731bn in 2015. A 10% rise in pounds, a small cut in real terms after inflation is included. The big jumps are in pension and health spending. While some areas have been cut considerably, overall austerity has been slight.

Thanks although the question wasn't really aimed at you ;-)

It is interesting though that after 5 years of austerity this and austerity that and links to how austerity politics have failed the figures show that in reality spending hasn't been cut at all. In fact in inflation adjusted £ terms spending has remained at an effective all time high and some £250bn higher than just over a decade or so ago.

Sure some areas have suffered cuts while others have gained but overall the picture is one of sustained spending levels, which takes me back to my original point. If £700bn per annum of public spending is currently being 'invested' where is the return on all that spending and how will a relatively small amount more make the difference that some suggest?

I'm not trying to make any party political points (my low esteem of all parties and their fiddling and meddling will be well known by now!) just trying to make sense of the types of comments my question re cuts in £'s was addressed at.

[snooky]

I can exclusively reveal...there are 2 postal votes sitting on my stairs waiting to be handed in to the polling station tomorrow.

Ruth Davidson won't like that. Doesn't she check the postal votes beforehand? :wink:

[JeMeSouviens]

Probably the last Scotland poll this GE, from Panelbase:

SNP 48% (n/c)
Lab 26% (-1)
Con 14% (-2)
Lib 5% (+1)
UKIP 3% (n/c)
Greens 2 (n/c)

[JeMeSouviens]

... and the poll of polls from Prof Curtice:

http://blog.whatscotlandthinks.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Slide12.jpg

[Fergus52]

Thanks although the question wasn't really aimed at you ;-)

It is interesting though that after 5 years of austerity this and austerity that and links to how austerity politics have failed the figures show that in reality spending hasn't been cut at all. In fact in inflation adjusted £ terms spending has remained at an effective all time high and some £250bn higher than just over a decade or so ago.

Sure some areas have suffered cuts while others have gained but overall the picture is one of sustained spending levels, which takes me back to my original point. If £700bn per annum of public spending is currently being 'invested' where is the return on all that spending and how will a relatively small amount more make the difference that some suggest?

I'm not trying to make any party political points (my low esteem of all parties and their fiddling and meddling will be well known by now!) just trying to make sense of the types of comments my question re cuts in £'s was addressed at.

You've made your point, I realise now that increased public spending doesn't really address inequality.

But I still think further cuts will only make things worse, particularly with a lack of re-distributive policies.

[Fergus52]

Thanks although the question wasn't really aimed at you ;-)

It is interesting though that after 5 years of austerity this and austerity that and links to how austerity politics have failed the figures show that in reality spending hasn't been cut at all. In fact in inflation adjusted £ terms spending has remained at an effective all time high and some £250bn higher than just over a decade or so ago.

Sure some areas have suffered cuts while others have gained but overall the picture is one of sustained spending levels, which takes me back to my original point. If £700bn per annum of public spending is currently being 'invested' where is the return on all that spending and how will a relatively small amount more make the difference that some suggest?

I'm not trying to make any party political points (my low esteem of all parties and their fiddling and meddling will be well known by now!) just trying to make sense of the types of comments my question re cuts in £'s was addressed at.

And whilst public spending may have increased overall, the Tories have cut heavily in areas which affect the most vulnerable in society. A public spending increase is needed particularly in those areas to re-address the damage they've done.

[Hibbyradge]

Ruth Davidson won't like that. Doesn't she check the postal votes beforehand? :wink:

I think the technical term is she "approves" them. :wink:

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Ruth Davidson won't like that. Doesn't she check the postal votes beforehand? :wink:

Only after the ice cream shops have shut! She's obviously been trying to converse with "floating" voters.

[BroxburnHibee]

Am I right in saying that since the 92 election the polls have pretty much called every election as near as dammit including the referendum?

If true then we really could be looking at an SNP landslide.

Certainly looks as if Livingston will have a new MP tomorrow night.

[RyeSloan]

You've made your point, I realise now that increased public spending doesn't really address inequality. But I still think further cuts will only make things worse, particularly with a lack of re-distributive policies.

But what is government spending if it isn't largely re-distributive?

£155bn on pensions
£135bn on NHS
£92bn on education
£112bn on social security

All of the above is paid for out of general taxation...the IFS did some numbers on this recently and was followed up by a review by an accountancy group. Their best estimates was 60% of all tax payers are actually net beneficiaries of government spending, yup 60%! Assuming non tax payers are automatically beneficiaries as well then you can see that the UK already has a massive programme of re-distribution.

Interestingly they put the household income level that you need to earn to become a net contributor at around £35k...that suggests (although clearly as these are averages there will be exceptions) that anyone below that line receives more in government spending than they contribute.

Lastly the top 1% of earners contribute approx 30% of income tax...that's up from 11% in 1980...so that would suggest there has been a huge move to rely on 'the rich' to redistribute to others.

Honestly I've no problem with re-distribution but it makes sense to understand what is already happening and what has happened before simply demanding more and particularly before making statements that suggest there is a lack of such policies when the figures may well suggest otherwise!

[Hibernia&Alba]

So, are the SNP going to win more than fifty seats, as predicted? I think they will.

[cabbageandribs1875]

So, are the SNP going to win more than fifty seats, as predicted? I think they will.


35-40 and i'l be a happy chappy

[Hibernia&Alba]

35-40 and i'l be a happy chappy

Sky and BBC poll of polls earlier today both had SNP on 55!

[snooky]

Just watched Danny Alexander on BBC news report trying to knock a bung into a barrel. What a barrel of laughs.
Someone should have told him you don't hold it near the heavy end.
FFS, get a grip Danny boy. :idiot:

[cabbageandribs1875]

Sky and BBC poll of polls earlier today both had SNP on 55!



many shaking fists shall be punched in the air if that comes about :thumbsup:

[Hibernia&Alba]

Am I right in saying that since the 92 election the polls have pretty much called every election as near as dammit including the referendum?

If true then we really could be looking at an SNP landslide.

Certainly looks as if Livingston will have a new MP tomorrow night.

Yes, since the massive fail of 1992, the polls have been pretty accurate as to party share and seats; and it really does seem the SNP are heading for a massive win, taking almost every seat. Wee point of caution: some of the seats are very tight between SNP and Labour, so they mightn't have quite the margin of victory, but it seems certain they will have more seats than the other parties combined.

[snooky]

I just pray that there's no accusations of suspected shenanigans - whether true or false - like we witnessed at the Referendum.
I certainly will be more vigilant and aware of the voting procedure tomorrow while at the polling station.

[Hibbyradge]

I'd like if Labour win a few more seats than is forecast.

Much better that they're the biggest party than the Tories.

[Hibernia&Alba]

I'd like if Labour win a few more seats than is forecast.

Much better that they're the biggest party than the Tories.

And of course they would be but for losing so many seats to the SNP, as is projected. They'd be home and dry with a majority.

[lord bunberry]

And of course they would be but for losing so many seats to the SNP, as is projected. They'd be home and dry with a majority.
They should've tried a bit harder then. They've taken the Scottish electorate for granted for far to long.

[Hibernia&Alba]

They should've tried a bit harder then. They've taken the Scottish electorate for granted for far to long.

Absolutely. They've spent so much time trying to win marginal Tory voters, they've forgotten their base in traditional Labour areas.

[Purple & Green]

Re. a possible second referendum.
I don't foresee this happening for at least another 5 years. The last thing the SNP would want is another NO vote.
I'm confident that if and when there is another referendum it will be when the result will be a foregone conclusion.

Exactly - first rule of war, pick your battles - the ones you can win. Now devo max is off the table it's a straight choice and there won't be ref2 unless it's virtually certain of a yes vote.

Something material has to change, who knows what that might be - we don't even know who will be the largest party on Friday or who might be in government.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Purple & Green]

Probably the last Scotland poll this GE, from Panelbase:

SNP 48% (n/c)
Lab 26% (-1)
Con 14% (-2)
Lib 5% (+1)
UKIP 3% (n/c)
Greens 2 (n/c)

Lowest labour vote in Scotland in a general election since 1918 (spookily the year of Irish landslide)

This has been building up since 1999 and speeding up since 2007.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[speedy_gonzales]

This Telegraph survey (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11471048/who-should-I-vote-for.html) was fun.

I answered as honestly as I could and where I wasn't convinced chose the neutral option.
Apparently my answers were more aligned to Labour or Lib Dem policies, SNP & UKIP were at the other end of the spectrum which was surprising.

Perhaps other .netters could try and see where they land and see if there are any surprises.

Remember, it's only a bit of fun, I ain't voting Labour tomorrow!

edited to add the interesting part for was me not the survey or result, but the question/answer breakdown at the end,,,,some parties are not as progressive as they make out!

[Purple & Green]

And of course they would be but for losing so many seats to the SNP, as is projected. They'd be home and dry with a majority.

It's difficult to know: if labour was heading for a majority would the conservative vote hold up stronger in England?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibernia&Alba]

This Telegraph survey (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11471048/who-should-I-vote-for.html) was fun.

I answered as honestly as I could and where I wasn't convinced chose the neutral option.
Apparently my answers were more aligned to Labour or Lib Dem policies, SNP & UKIP were at the other end of the spectrum which was surprising.

Perhaps other .netters could try and see where they land and see if there are any surprises.

Remember, it's only a bit of fun, I ain't voting Labour tomorrow!

edited to add the interesting part for was not the survey or result, but the question/answer breakdown at the end,,,,some parties are not as progressive as they make out!

Greens - which is correct :-)

[MyJo]

They should've tried a bit harder then. They've taken the Scottish electorate for granted for far to long.

None of the UK parties give a damn about scotland any more, The polls are suggesting a SNP landslide victory for the scottish seats which would suggest firstly that the scottish people are disillusioned with the main parties and secondly that the SNP are the party that the scottish people are choosing to represent them in westminster.

The fact that both sides are attacking the SNP as being "dangerous" and ruling out any form of coalition or even to work with the SNP IMO shows utter contempt for scottish voters while we will have to put up with whichever of the parties that get into power on the back of english votes cobbling together a government from all the parties that we did not vote for.

Better Together my A***

[Jonnyboy]

Just watched Danny Alexander on BBC news report trying to knock a bung into a barrel. What a barrel of laughs.
Someone should have told him you don't hold it near the heavy end.
FFS, get a grip Danny boy. :idiot:

Hope he loses his seat. He's got a coupon you'd never tire of slapping :greengrin

[stoneyburn hibs]

This Telegraph survey (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11471048/who-should-I-vote-for.html) was fun.

I answered as honestly as I could and where I wasn't convinced chose the neutral option.
Apparently my answers were more aligned to Labour or Lib Dem policies, SNP & UKIP were at the other end of the spectrum which was surprising.

Perhaps other .netters could try and see where they land and see if there are any surprises.

Remember, it's only a bit of fun, I ain't voting Labour tomorrow!

edited to add the interesting part for was me not the survey or result, but the question/answer breakdown at the end,,,,some parties are not as progressive as they make out!

Greens followed by SNP for me. Not that surprised tbh, although it's always been an SNP/Greens 1st and 2nd voting pattern for myself.

[Hibby Bairn]

But what is government spending if it isn't largely re-distributive?

£155bn on pensions
£135bn on NHS
£92bn on education
£112bn on social security

All of the above is paid for out of general taxation...the IFS did some numbers on this recently and was followed up by a review by an accountancy group. Their best estimates was 60% of all tax payers are actually net beneficiaries of government spending, yup 60%! Assuming non tax payers are automatically beneficiaries as well then you can see that the UK already has a massive programme of re-distribution.

Interestingly they put the household income level that you need to earn to become a net contributor at around £35k...that suggests (although clearly as these are averages there will be exceptions) that anyone below that line receives more in government spending than they contribute.

Lastly the top 1% of earners contribute approx 30% of income tax...that's up from 11% in 1980...so that would suggest there has been a huge move to rely on 'the rich' to redistribute to others.

Honestly I've no problem with re-distribution but it makes sense to understand what is already happening and what has happened before simply demanding more and particularly before making statements that suggest there is a lack of such policies when the figures may well suggest otherwise!

Didn't know all of that. Very interesting.

[Scottie]

None of the UK parties give a damn about scotland any more, The polls are suggesting a SNP landslide victory for the scottish seats which would suggest firstly that the scottish people are disillusioned with the main parties and secondly that the SNP are the party that the scottish people are choosing to represent them in westminster.

The fact that both sides are attacking the SNP as being "dangerous" and ruling out any form of coalition or even to work with the SNP IMO shows utter contempt for scottish voters while we will have to put up with whichever of the parties that get into power on the back of english votes cobbling together a government from all the parties that we did not vote for.

Better Together my A***
:top marksThey begged us to remain part of the country at the Indy vote and wanted to hear our voice now they have turned against every man jack of us. Stay strong and vote SNP tomorrow if you want you opinions heard and valued. :aok:

[lord bunberry]

None of the UK parties give a damn about scotland any more, The polls are suggesting a SNP landslide victory for the scottish seats which would suggest firstly that the scottish people are disillusioned with the main parties and secondly that the SNP are the party that the scottish people are choosing to represent them in westminster.

The fact that both sides are attacking the SNP as being "dangerous" and ruling out any form of coalition or even to work with the SNP IMO shows utter contempt for scottish voters while we will have to put up with whichever of the parties that get into power on the back of english votes cobbling together a government from all the parties that we did not vote for.

Better Together my A***
:top marks

[The Harp Awakes]

None of the UK parties give a damn about scotland any more, The polls are suggesting a SNP landslide victory for the scottish seats which would suggest firstly that the scottish people are disillusioned with the main parties and secondly that the SNP are the party that the scottish people are choosing to represent them in westminster.

The fact that both sides are attacking the SNP as being "dangerous" and ruling out any form of coalition or even to work with the SNP IMO shows utter contempt for scottish voters while we will have to put up with whichever of the parties that get into power on the back of english votes cobbling together a government from all the parties that we did not vote for.

Better Together my A***

I agree. The way the UK political parties have conducted themselves during this GE campaign has been a disgrace. Clearly they have no interest in Scotland whatsoever and are falling over themselves in demonising Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP and Scots in general.

[Hibernia&Alba]

I agree. The way the UK political parties have conducted themselves during this GE campaign has been a disgrace. Clearly they have no interest in Scotland whatsoever and are falling over themselves in demonising Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP and Scots in general.

All parties demonize each other during an election campaign, and all use negative campaigning and fear to some degree. Once the SNP had announced they could never work with the Tories, Labour shouldn't have fallen into the Tory trap of ruling out an SNP coalition, which they did to appease English voters who feared being 'held to ransom' by 50 SNP MP's. Labour should merely have said that, if the SNP get a mandate, Labour has the right to explore whether they could work together, then left it at that. Another example of Labour cowardice - both they and the Tories are playing a don't lose, rather than a go out to win strategy.

[Hibby Bairn]

Just seen Mr and Mrs Miliband on BBC News. What on earth do they know about "ordinary working people" as he keeps putting it?

He deserves the meltdown coming his way.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Just seen Mr and Mrs Miliband on BBC News. What on earth do they know about "ordinary working people" as he keeps putting it?

He deserves the meltdown coming his way.

They probably know more about ordinary working people than the hereditary multi-millionaire and public school educated David Cameron and George Osborne, though how much more I'm unsure.

[Hibby Bairn]

They probably know more about ordinary working people than the hereditary multi-millionaire and public school educated David Cameron and George Osborne, though how much more I'm unsure.

It is almost impossible to tell the difference. That is Labour's problem.

[Moulin Yarns]

Biggest worry is the tactical voting by the anti SNP Better Together alliance.

[degenerated]

Hope he loses his seat. He's got a coupon you'd never tire of slapping :greengrin
Cybernat chaos brings hibs.net to a halt 😁

[overdrive]

They probably know more about ordinary working people than the hereditary multi-millionaire and public school educated David Cameron and George Osborne, though how much more I'm unsure.

In a funny sort of way, Cameron comes across as more genuine in his interactions with normal folk than Miliband does.

[Hibernia&Alba]

In a funny sort of way, Cameron comes across as more genuine in his interactions with normal folk than Miliband does.

Aye, I agree with you. Miliband comes over as a rather shy man who finds the attention difficult.

[Hibernia&Alba]

By the way, how come Scotland only has 59 seats? Didn't we used to have mair than that?

[cabbageandribs1875]

By the way, how come Scotland only has 59 seats? Didn't we used to have mair than that?



sir george foulkes of p@shy breeks probably broke a few seats and they were never replaced

[DaveF]

By the way, how come Scotland only has 59 seats? Didn't we used to have mair than that?

There was 72 seats in years gone by but I assume boundary changes reduced that number.

[Hibernia&Alba]

There was 72 seats in years gone by but I assume boundary changes reduced that number.

Aye, 72 was the number I had in mind from somewhere. I think the old boundaries used to be unfairly weighted towards Labour at the cost of Tory seats and there was an attempt to reduce that. Not sure when it all changed.

[DaveF]

Aye, 72 was the number I had in mind from somewhere. I think the old boundaries used to be unfairly weighted towards Labour at the cost of Tory seats and there was an attempt to reduce that. Not sure when it all changed.

2005 it was reduced to 59.

[JeMeSouviens]

And of course they would be but for losing so many seats to the SNP, as is projected. They'd be home and dry with a majority.

Most projections have Lab on around 270, losing 30-35 to the SNP. Suggesting they'd only be scraping over 300, nowhere near a majority.

And the SNP is also taking seats off the Con friendly Libs.

[JeMeSouviens]

I'd like if Labour win a few more seats than is forecast.

Much better that they're the biggest party than the Tories.

Nah, I want them to be 2nd largest but governing with SNP consent, just to ram the "biggest party" lie right up Murphy. :wink:

[Hibernia&Alba]

Most projections have Lab on around 270, losing 30-35 to the SNP. Suggesting they'd only be scraping over 300, nowhere near a majority.

And the SNP is also taking seats off the Con friendly Libs.

Aye, that makes sense. Is it 42 Scottish Labour seats just now? If Labour kept them all, they'd probably have around 300-310, so still short of an outright majority.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Labour down to around half a dozen Scottish seats.

[hibsbollah]

Hope he loses his seat. He's got a coupon you'd never tire of slapping :greengrin

I cant stand Danny Alexander either. More Tory than a tory, always wheeled out to defend austerity when the conservative front bench cant be bothered, and looks like beaker from the muppet show.

Thankfully hes going to get destroyed in Inverness by the SNP.

Im hoping for a Labour majority, but will be voting Green. Will have a special eye out for Thanet South and Brighton Pavillion. I love an election, especially when the outcome is so hard to call. My fear is in England, the economy is the issue that most people will have at the front of their minds, and the Tories might get a lot of last minute undecideds.

[snooky]

Two questions.....
1) How come it's suddenly wrong to be 'governed' by a party you didn't vote for? Apparently it's worked fine up here for years.
2) How come it's suddenly wrong to have a coalition (i.e. Labour/SNP) when it was okay for the Con/Libs?

[lord bunberry]

Two questions.....
1) How come it's suddenly wrong to be 'governed' by a party you didn't vote for? Apparently it's worked fine up here for years.
2) How come it's suddenly wrong to have a coalition (i.e. Labour/SNP) when it was okay for the Con/Libs?
It's only ok if we do what we're told and keep quiet. As soon as we start realising that we might have a voice we're suddenly dangerous

[Hibernia&Alba]

Cameron, Osborne, Clegg & co had better not be in charge this time tomorrow!

Have said that, a hung parliament looks a certainty, so they will remain in office until the horse trading is complete. Probably better to say they better not be in a position to stay in office tomorrow!

[Moulin Yarns]

Two questions.....
1) How come it's suddenly wrong to be 'governed' by a party you didn't vote for? Apparently it's worked fine up here for years.
2) How come it's suddenly wrong to have a coalition (i.e. Labour/SNP) when it was okay for the Con/Libs?

I noticed a lot of 'people on the streets were all saying that when asked if the SNP should have power at Westminster.

The other thing I noticed from all the main parties was the constant help for the "working man" I don't remember anyone saying they were going to help the non working man as such.

[Hibby Bairn]

Cameron, Osborne, Clegg & co had better not be in charge this time tomorrow!

Have said that, a hung parliament looks a certainty, so they will remain in office until the horse trading is complete. Probably better to say they better not be in a position to stay in office tomorrow!

A second hung parliament in a row coupled with a stronger showing from "minority" parties will hopefully see changes to our electoral system from first past the post.

[Pretty Boy]

Just went and voted and had a wee chat with Mark Lazarowicz who was outside the polling station.

He seemed philosophical about the result, said it's too close to call and hopes his good work locally will help him keep his seat. Almost feel sorry for him as he comes across as a decent man but his party nationally have ****ed people like him over

[Green Man]

Just went and voted and had a wee chat with Mark Lazarowicz who was outside the polling station.

He seemed philosophical about the result, said it's too close to call and hopes his good work locally will help him keep his seat. Almost feel sorry for him as he comes across as a decent man but his party nationally have ****ed people like him over
That's exactly how I feel about Mark Lazarowicz. He's a man who still holds the core Labour values and its a shame for him that the party has changed so much. I had a chat with the Labour guy at my polling station and he said the same about Mark's local work. EN&L is the only seat where I wouldn't mind too much if Labour win.

[Keith_M]

Just went and voted and had a wee chat with Mark Lazarowicz who was outside the polling station.

He seemed philosophical about the result, said it's too close to call and hopes his good work locally will help him keep his seat. Almost feel sorry for him as he comes across as a decent man but his party nationally have ****ed people like him over


Nice guy, wrong party. He should switch to the SNP.

[Kato]

Just seen Mr and Mrs Miliband on BBC News. What on earth do they know about "ordinary working people" as he keeps putting it?

He deserves the meltdown coming his way.

Which candidate for PM knows more about working people?

[stoneyburn hibs]

Which candidate for PM knows more about working people?

Neither

[Bristolhibby]

A second hung parliament in a row coupled with a stronger showing from "minority" parties will hopefully see changes to our electoral system from first past the post.

This. FPTP was always used as an excuse to have "Strong Government", and prevent hung Parliaments.

The people simply don't want one digital party, PR must come, and don't put it to a plebiscite, just change it.

J

[Kato]

Neither

Exactly

[Bristolhibby]

Nice guy, wrong party. He should switch to the SNP.

Or stay in a totally independent Scottish Labour Party, like the Greens.

They can aline themselves to Westminster Labour, but could distance themselves to make them more electable in Scotland.

J

[Green Man]

Nice guy, wrong party. He should switch to the SNP.

I suggested to him a while back that he would be well suited to the Scottish Greens. I received a polite reply saying that, while he agreed on many points, he is opposed to independence.

[Geo_1875]

Or stay in a totally independent Scottish Labour Party, like the Greens.

They can aline themselves to Westminster Labour, but could distance themselves to make them more electable in Scotland.

J

That would fool nobody. If they want to become electable in Scotland they'll need to recruit some Socialists.

[steakbake]

I suggested to him a while back that he would be well suited to the Scottish Greens. I received a polite reply saying that, while he agreed on many points, he is opposed to independence.

Not all Greens were pro-independence. People were given a choice.

[Green Man]

Not all Greens were pro-independence. People were given a choice.

You're right. I meant to give the independence point as a reason why Mark Lazarowicz wouldn't be suited to the SNP (or rather, the SNP wouldn't be suited to him).

[snooky]

Not all Greens were pro-independence. People were given a choice.

As it should be.
IMO, the SLP put the last nail in their coffin by their insistence in towing the UK Party line at the Referendum.

[ronaldo7]

14825

[cabbageandribs1875]

approx declaration times per region

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/05/06/election-2015-declaration-times_n_7220684.html

[lord bunberry]

14825
14826

[Hibbyradge]

14826

I don't like that one so much.

[DaveF]

14826

Some people have way too much free time!

[lord bunberry]

I don't like that one so much.
It looks like something a child would do :greengrin. What about this one
14827

[Hibernia&Alba]

Are the news channels making any predictions on seat numbers?

[Peevemor]

14828

[CropleyWasGod]

Are the news channels making any predictions on seat numbers?

Don't think they're allowed to today.

All they can show are smiling shots of politicians casting their vote, some wag asking who they voted for, and the waggier politician saying something mildly amusing.

[lord bunberry]

Are the news channels making any predictions on seat numbers?
I watched one earlier say
Tories 270
Labour 236
Snp 55

[Hibbyradge]

Are the news channels making any predictions on seat numbers?

They're not allowed to comment on the election now, until after the polls close.

[Hibernia&Alba]

I watched one earlier say
Tories 270
Labour 236
Snp 55

I hope the gap between Tory and Labour isn't that wide. 10-15 seats would be much better.

[Hibbyradge]

I watched one earlier say
Tories 270
Labour 236
Snp 55

Who's going to win the other 89?

The Liberals?

[Hibernia&Alba]

They're not allowed to comment on the election now, until after the polls close.

Ah right. That's fair enough, in order to avoid accusations of influencing those yet to vote.

[lord bunberry]

I hope the gap between Tory and Labour isn't that wide. 10-15 seats would be much better.
I was quite surprised to see it that wide as well. It was from from Scotland 2015 last night. They had pollsters in the studio saying their margin of error was generally around 2%. The one that always appears to be the most accurate is the exit poll on the news at 10.

[Betty Boop]

http://s18.postimg.org/kmckc3ijt/Willie_Simpsons.jpg

[Hibernia&Alba]

Something tells me Betty's cartoon may ruffle some feathers :-D

I voted Green and am staying oota it.

[lord bunberry]

Who's going to win the other 89?

The Liberals?
Sorry you're correct I just watched it again it was,
Tories 281
Labour 266
SNP 51
Lib Dems 27
Others 25
That was from election forecast on Scotland 2015 last night.

[Hibbyradge]

http://s18.postimg.org/kmckc3ijt/Willie_Simpsons.jpg

Except, if we'd voted yes, we wouldn't be independent just now.

Let's chat again in March. :wink:

[Hibernia&Alba]

Sorry you're correct I just watched it again it was,
Tories 281
Labour 266
SNP 51
Lib Dems 27
Others 25
That was from election forecast on Scotland 2015 last night.

That's better.

There are going to be some truly enormous swings to the SNP. Does anyone know what the record swing is? The record could be broken today.

[Hibbyradge]

Sorry you're correct I just watched it again it was,
Tories 281
Labour 266
SNP 51
Lib Dems 27
Others 25
That was from election forecast on Scotland 2015 last night.

That would do me, I think.

The Tories wouldn't be able to form a government, even with the Libs, UKIP, Ulster Unionists and all the independents voting for them.

It's going to be very interesting.

[Hibbyradge]

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2015/05/final-ashcroft-national-poll-con-33-lab-33-lib-dem-10-ukip-11-green-6/

[stoneyburn hibs]

http://s18.postimg.org/kmckc3ijt/Willie_Simpsons.jpg

Willie should make a run for the Labour leadership.

[JimBHibees]

http://s18.postimg.org/kmckc3ijt/Willie_Simpsons.jpg

Gutted Willie said last year he was voting Yes. So fickle. :greengrin

[MyJo]

Gutted Willie said last year he was voting Yes. So fickle. :greengrin

There's a lot of them about :greengrin

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wihaFybOrKw

[steakbake]

Except, if we'd voted yes, we wouldn't be independent just now.

Let's chat again in March. :wink:

...2016

[Hibbyradge]

...2016

Which March did you think I meant? :greengrin

[overdrive]

I've just decided who I'm voting for and it is actually one of the three parties I wouldn't have considered voting for in the run up to this election so far.

Not that they stand a chance in my constituency.

[JeMeSouviens]

http://s18.postimg.org/kmckc3ijt/Willie_Simpsons.jpg

Another Scottish Labour supporter happy to rip off their comrades down South. Take away Scotland's Barnett subsidy* and the same sized deficit would appear. How do you justify Labour's policy guaranteeing Barnett to the direct detriment of public service in the rest of the UK?



* £1623 per capita public spending above UK average * 5.3 million population = £8.6 Bn

We are literally being bribed to stay in the Union.

[JeMeSouviens]

Sorry you're correct I just watched it again it was,
Tories 281
Labour 266
SNP 51
Lib Dems 27
Others 25
That was from election forecast on Scotland 2015 last night.

All the main forecasts are on this page (scroll down a wee bit):

http://www.may2015.com/category/seat-calculator/

[Hibbyradge]

Late move towards Labour according to Guardian and Ashcroft.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/may/07/election-polling-day-live-tories-and-labour-neck-and-neck-uk-votes?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2

Come on the Sturgeon/Miliband dream team!

[speedy_gonzales]

Come on the Sturgeon/Miliband dream team!

Maybe a bit late in the day, but how involved would Sturgeon be in any coalition?

It has puzzled me how she has fronted all the debates/interviews(admirably I may add) but she isn't even standing for election.

The other main parties have subordinate 'Scottish' party leaders, perhaps Nicola requires a subordinate 'British' party leader :wink:

Personally, I'd expect her to fulfil her FM's role to the fullest, not sure how much time that would leave for the trivial matter of Westminster.

[Green Man]

Maybe a bit late in the day, but how involved would Sturgeon be in any coalition?

It has puzzled me how she has fronted all the debates/interviews(admirably I may add) but she isn't even standing for election.

The other main parties have subordinate 'Scottish' party leaders, perhaps Nicola requires a subordinate 'British' party leader :wink:

Personally, I'd expect her to fulfil her FM's role to the fullest, not sure how much time that would leave for the trivial matter of Westminster.

I'd expect Stewart Hosie to be the foremost SNP MP at Westminster as he's the depute leader. Salmond will be there as well though so I expect he'll have an influence.

[SHODAN]

I'd expect Stewart Hosie to be the foremost SNP MP at Westminster as he's the depute leader. Salmond will be there as well though so I expect he'll have an influence.

Angus Robertson is the current leader of the SNP in Westminster and there are no plans to change that.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Late move towards Labour according to Guardian and Ashcroft.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/may/07/election-polling-day-live-tories-and-labour-neck-and-neck-uk-votes?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2

Come on the Sturgeon/Miliband dream team!

I see Ruth Davidson is being quoted on The Guardian link claiming intimidation by SNP supporters in Annan poling station. This kind of talk seemed inevitable, sadly, and no doubt there will be counter-accusations.

[Green Man]

Angus Robertson is the current leader of the SNP in Westminster and there are no plans to change that.

Thanks for correcting me - I remember that now you've said it. It's not the first time I've mixed him up with Stewart Hosie in that role.

[speedy_gonzales]

I'd expect Stewart Hosie to be the foremost SNP MP at Westminster as he's the depute leader.


Angus Robertson is the current leader of the SNP in Westminster and there are no plans to change that.

I've seen Stewart Hosie being interviewed but I can't think of one interview where I've seen Angus Robertson.
I'm well aware Sturgeon is the party leader but does anyone else think it a bit strange that those actually in contention and those that may be part of any coalition have been bit mainstream media shy?
The other parties have acted similarly, it's been mostly the party leaders doing all the PR (apart from Gideon Osborne lift a couple of boxes on to the back of a LGV) but at least those party leaders are standing for election:confused:

[Geo_1875]

http://s18.postimg.org/kmckc3ijt/Willie_Simpsons.jpg

And we should take advice from this Scottish émigré rather than Irvine Welsh? At least Irvine didn't commit electoral fraud to vote in the Independence Referendum.

[marinello59]

I've seen Stewart Hosie being interviewed but I can't think of one interview where I've seen Angus Robertson.
I'm well aware Sturgeon is the party leader but does anyone else think it a bit strange that those actually in contention and those that may be part of any coalition have been bit mainstream media shy?
The other parties have acted similarly, it's been mostly the party leaders doing all the PR (apart from Gideon Osborne lift a couple of boxes on to the back of a LGV) but at least those party leaders are standing for election:confused:

Nicola Sturgeon will be leading the SNP delegation in any post-election discussions with other parties so it is only right that she is centre stage.

[steakbake]

I see Ruth Davidson is being quoted on The Guardian link claiming intimidation by SNP supporters in Annan poling station. This kind of talk seemed inevitable, sadly, and no doubt there will be counter-accusations.

People need to be very very careful of accusations flying around: as Murphy's terrifying ordeal of having to deal with hecklers in public would confirm.

I am not defending anything here at all, but something like that has to be investigated by the authorities before it is 'tweeted' to become fact. As Twain said - a lie can be half way round the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.

Pretty poor are the reports in Doncaster that a candidate has been left off the ballot paper!

[JimBHibees]

Here is a link to the predicted result times for each of the constituencies. Could be a kip until 3am I think. :greengrin


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/05/06/election-2015-declaration-times_n_7220684.html

[Just Alf]

I've seen Stewart Hosie being interviewed but I can't think of one interview where I've seen Angus Robertson.
I'm well aware Sturgeon is the party leader but does anyone else think it a bit strange that those actually in contention and those that may be part of any coalition have been bit mainstream media shy?
The other parties have acted similarly, it's been mostly the party leaders doing all the PR (apart from Gideon Osborne lift a couple of boxes on to the back of a LGV) but at least those party leaders are standing for election:confused:

I was thinking that as well, then I remembered the likes of Ed and David coming to Edinburgh during Holyrood elections to support their respective parties.... so it's almost the same in reverse..... although NS is a bit more involved this time!

[Geo_1875]

Here is a link to the predicted result times for each of the constituencies. Could be a kip until 3am I think. :greengrin


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/05/06/election-2015-declaration-times_n_7220684.html

I'll just go to bed and wake up to the, hopefully, good news.

[lord bunberry]

I'll just go to bed and wake up to the, hopefully, good news.
I'll be staying up. I will finish work about 02:00 and be glued to the TV from then on.

[Peevemor]

It's a public holiday here tomorrow so I'll try to stay up (but will most likely flake out on the couch as usual).

[lord bunberry]

Classic
http://youtu.be/KyISprZphtM

[JeMeSouviens]

I see Ruth Davidson is being quoted on The Guardian link claiming intimidation by SNP supporters in Annan poling station. This kind of talk seemed inevitable, sadly, and no doubt there will be counter-accusations.

Dumfries & Galloway council says its mince:

https://twitter.com/dgcouncil/status/596302016416247810

Still, that's not going to concern Ruth, the smear's out there so job done. :rolleyes:

[Geo_1875]

Dumfries & Galloway council says its mince:

https://twitter.com/dgcouncil/status/596302016416247810

Still, that's not going to concern Ruth, the smear's out there so job done. :rolleyes:

So was she lying or just exaggerating?

[steakbake]

So was she lying or just exaggerating?

She was perhaps misled... to be charitable.

[Geo_1875]

She was perhaps misled... to be charitable.

She seems easily misled going by some of the nonsense she spouts at election events, and she's not the only one.

[Hibernia&Alba]

So was she lying or just exaggerating?

Her defence will be "just disseminating said reports".

[DaveF]

Dumfries & Galloway council says its mince:

https://twitter.com/dgcouncil/status/596302016416247810

Still, that's not going to concern Ruth, the smear's out there so job done. :rolleyes:

No retraction and there probably won't be one as she'll wait for it to be washed over by the GE chatter.

Any Conservative supporters defend that sort of thing from a party leader?

[snooky]

She was perhaps misled... to be charitable.

Misled or not, an immediate retraction and apology was called for.
She didn't do either = screwed up x 2

[Hibby Kay-Yay]

I thought that no campaigning was allowed on voting day?

Big thanks to the Lib Dem (Mike Crockhart constituency) for dropping a leaflet theough my door at 06:20 this morning. The dog woke the whole house up due to the letterbox getting rattled.

[Hibbyradge]

Maybe a bit late in the day, but how involved would Sturgeon be in any coalition?

It has puzzled me how she has fronted all the debates/interviews(admirably I may add) but she isn't even standing for election.

The other main parties have subordinate 'Scottish' party leaders, perhaps Nicola requires a subordinate 'British' party leader :wink:

Personally, I'd expect her to fulfil her FM's role to the fullest, not sure how much time that would leave for the trivial matter of Westminster.

She'll be pulling the strings as leader, I guess, but you make a good point.

Isn't Angus the SNP's leader at Westminster?

[Hibbyradge]

Angus Robertson is the current leader of the SNP in Westminster and there are no plans to change that.

:agree:

[Hibbyradge]

I thought that no campaigning was allowed on voting day?

Big thanks to the Lib Dem (Mike Crockhart constituency) for dropping a leaflet theough my door at 06:20 this morning. The dog woke the whole house up due to the letterbox getting rattled.

Was that the long card thing? I got one of those too, but didn't realise the significance before I tore it in half.

[marinello59]

I thought that no campaigning was allowed on voting day?

Big thanks to the Lib Dem (Mike Crockhart constituency) for dropping a leaflet theough my door at 06:20 this morning. The dog woke the whole house up due to the letterbox getting rattled.

I think it's OK if it's done before the polling stations open.

[7 Hills]

http://s18.postimg.org/kmckc3ijt/Willie_Simpsons.jpg

Oil prices have actually been rising again recently, but the mainstream media aren't mentioning that fact much.

[Hibby Kay-Yay]

Was that the long card thing? I got one of those too, but didn't realise the significance before I tore it in half.

That's the one. I let the dog destroy it but my wife could easily have burned it with her 'who the **** is that' look. :agree:

[ronaldo7]

If she retracted now it wouldn't be so bad. However if she leaves it to run then it will come back and chomp her ass.

Should have said it was Ruthie I was talking about, just like the other millions of the twatteratti.

[DaveF]

If she retracted now it wouldn't be so bad. However if she leaves it to run then it will come back and chomp her ass.

Should have said it was Ruthie I was talking about, just like the other millions of the twatteratti.

Going by the number of cones she has got through in this campaign that's an awful lot of chomping required.

[lyonhibs]

http://www.voterpower.org.uk/

Could be absolute cobblers, but pretty interesting if not. :agree:

[JeMeSouviens]

http://www.voterpower.org.uk/

Could be absolute cobblers, but pretty interesting if not. :agree:

It's a touch out of date. The SNP surge has turned every seat bar the ones they already held into a marginal.

[CropleyWasGod]

I thought that no campaigning was allowed on voting day?

Big thanks to the Lib Dem (Mike Crockhart constituency) for dropping a leaflet theough my door at 06:20 this morning. The dog woke the whole house up due to the letterbox getting rattled.

The Lib Dems have put about 4 or 5 leaflets through my door in the same constituency. That's 3 or 4 too many. I had to get all Victor Meldrew on them and put up a note.....yes, a NOTE!!

Desperate doesn't begin to describe Crockart's tactics.

[cabbageandribs1875]

so, has ruth davidson apologised for making up scandalous lies yet ? ******* disgusting behaviour

[marinello59]

Oil prices have actually been rising again recently, but the mainstream media aren't mentioning that fact much.

You are reading the wrong papers then.

[BroxburnHibee]

Just been down to vote - never seen the polling station so busy.