Jump to content

General Election 2015


trousers

Recommended Posts

But nothing can come close to overshadowing the really bad news that this marks the beginning of the true onslaught against the poor (working and non) and vulnerable in Britain. Nothing now can put a brake on the Tories' deep-seated instincts to crush the weak. I expect the social cleansing of London in particular to pick up pace dramatically, especially as, in the tradition of Lady Porter, there are votes in driving out the remaining working-class communities from the heart of the city.

 

Ironically, it'll probably be their own back benchers that put the brakes on some of the crazier legislation, but as we know, people will lap up the attendant propaganda, those in prosperity will probably see more, and those without will probably see less. There is no hiding for the Tories this time. It is their government and their shout. I'm not sure anyone would ever join up with them again after seeing the bedraggled remnants of the Liberal Coalition Expedition sidle sullenly through the doors of the Commons, with a party bloc that couldn't even put out a first eleven.

 

Labour did bloody terribly. Huge error to go against the Nationalists up in Scotland during the referendum, especially in a time when Labour's own political compass was so temperamental. What were they, exactly? With Ed's ascension to the leadership, the right-wingers immediately cast Labour as firebrand socialists. In England, they absolutely never got the memo that UKIP were a threat to them, and would eat into their vote. The pronouncement that Labour definitely wouldn't be offering an in/out referendum cost them dearly, I reckon. Was looking at the result for Basildon South and Thurrock. This used to be one of the key marginals between Lab/Con. It's now a three horse race, with Labour behind UKIP for the bronze.

 

Hopefully, they'll realise just how much they dropped the ball and will remember what they need to do to have a chance of getting elected next time. They have got to make coherent, decent policy which has wide social benefits. They've got to stop trading blows on Tory ground, like trying to be just as tough on benefits. It's a false economy; they never will be, because they're not as ruthless as the Tories, and neither are their voters. They lose core support, and the floaters don't believe them when they say it anyway. Most of all, they need to choose their new leader wisely. I don't think another Miliband is the answer, however much of an upgrade he may be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That sounds a lot like sour grapes to me. So the guy you want didn't win, boo-hoo. It's hardly as if we've elected a BNP majority.

 

I've seen a few comments this morning along the lines of 'bye-bye' NHS etc. Like that's going to happen.

 

Strange thing about the NHS is that as a percentage of GDP (probably the best measure of what the country can afford) the Tories took it over 8% for the first time, and since 2010, increased spending by £13bn (which is about 13% or 5.5% in real terms). It's all well and good listening to the scaremongering by political parties, but it is usually best to look at the facts. I believe in 2012, spending on NHS did dip, but still, not (AFAIK) as a percentage of GDP.

https://fullfact.org/health/manifesto__election_2015_health-44592

 

As it is such an important issue to so many people, why do people think that any politician is going to cause themselves unnecessary hardship with such a hot potato?

 

Anwyay, the thing I "like" about NHS discussions, is that efficiencies and savings from them are never talked about, only spending more and more and more. Say for example (NB this is just for illustrative purposes) you spend £100bn in year 1, but in year 2 find £10bn of efficiencies without affecting service at all and spend £95bn, what are the headlines likely to be? X Party slashes NHS Budget, when the reality is somewhat different. Main problem with the Tories is that they have never ever been able to transmit messages properly, so when others say the NHS is going to be privatised then people go into meltdown.

 

As Nigel Lawson wrote:

 

"The National Health Service is the closest thing the English have to a religion, with those who practise in it regarding themselves as a priesthood. This made it quite extraordinarily difficult to reform. For a bunch of laymen, who called themselves the Government, to presume to tell the priesthood that they must change their ways in any respect whatever, was clearly intolerable. And faced with a dispute between their priests and ministers, the public would have no hesitation in taking the part of the priesthood."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Clegg has fallen on his sword. He made a huge misjudgement when he got into bed with the Tories and he and the party have paid the price. As a Liberal myself I am gutted. It is hard to see a way back for the Party in my lifetime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't going to vote because I was unhappy about the coalition and Clegg's decision about tuition fees. I did think about a protest vote elsewhere but in the end did vote for the LibDems. I can understand why they lost their vote, what I cant understand is why the voters voted Tory. The SW used to be firmly Liberal, look at it now. Very sad day for the centre ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't going to vote because I was unhappy about the coalition and Clegg's decision about tuition fees. I did think about a protest vote elsewhere but in the end did vote for the LibDems. I can understand why they lost their vote, what I cant understand is why the voters voted Tory. The SW used to be firmly Liberal, look at it now. Very sad day for the centre ground.

 

Because they know that the Conservatives are best for the economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Clegg has fallen on his sword. He made a huge misjudgement when he got into bed with the Tories and he and the party have paid the price. As a Liberal myself I am gutted. It is hard to see a way back for the Party in my lifetime.

 

I expect he loved the last 5 years cosying up to the pm though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol: what a load of melodramatic twaddle.

 

Time will tell. My concern is for the future for my grandchildren - indeed for all children. Health, education and welfare will suffer greatly and this will hit people who cannot (or will not) pay for private health and education. Already these services are suffering - it will be even more the case now that Cameron has this huge majority.

 

I think when the power of the rabid right (who may well control Cameron) becomes apparent there will be great unrest in our country.

 

But hey Dave - thanks for the promise of another £200 on my pension. That'll help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't going to vote because I was unhappy about the coalition and Clegg's decision about tuition fees. I did think about a protest vote elsewhere but in the end did vote for the LibDems. I can understand why they lost their vote, what I cant understand is why the voters voted Tory. The SW used to be firmly Liberal, look at it now. Very sad day for the centre ground.

 

because the facts speak for themselves. Many, MANY out there are not tribal with their vote. Not Liberal no matter what. People vote with their wallets and what they believe is the best. The UK is on the road to a pretty good recovery after an almighty crash in 2008. The facts back that up for enough people in their lives. Zero Hour contracts to many are a good thing (66% of those on them WANT them to remain) and the NHS being saved is offered by Labour every single election. When it does not need saving.

The Liberals this time just didnt really offer anything. Other than being in the middle. Hardly something to grab for those unlike you who will vote for who ever is best for them at the time, regardless of what party that is

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time will tell. My concern is for the future for my grandchildren - indeed for all children. Health, education and welfare will suffer greatly and this will hit people who cannot (or will not) pay for private health and education. Already these services are suffering - it will be even more the case now that Cameron has this huge majority.

 

I think when the power of the rabid right (who may well control Cameron) becomes apparent there will be great unrest in our country.

 

But hey Dave - thanks for the promise of another £200 on my pension. That'll help.

 

Nah. Won't be anywhere near as bad as you think, that's just your bias talking. I'm quite positive that they will continue sorting the economy out and we will do alright.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that they didn't offer anything and have been squeezed out of the middle ground. What I don't get is that many people were hacked off with Clegg with going with the Tories rather than Labour. So why then vote Tory and not Labour in protest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that they didn't offer anything and have been squeezed out of the middle ground. What I don't get is that many people were hacked off with Clegg with going with the Tories rather than Labour. So why then vote Tory and not Labour in protest?

 

No I reckon they were hacked off at nick for breaking his promises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't going to vote because I was unhappy about the coalition and Clegg's decision about tuition fees. I did think about a protest vote elsewhere but in the end did vote for the LibDems. I can understand why they lost their vote, what I cant understand is why the voters voted Tory. The SW used to be firmly Liberal, look at it now. Very sad day for the centre ground.

Voters punished Vince Cable for going in with the Tories by voting in...the Tories. Confusing.

 

Will be very interesting to see the Tories implementing all their promises that they thought they wouldn't have to make because they wouldn't win a majority. Genuinely think it could destroy them after 2020 (I know, ever the optimist).

 

Although we have to get through another 5 years of the Tories and it will be pretty horrendous for the poor, in some ways it could be blessing. I think Miliband would have become very unpopular - now Labour can rebuild with a charismatic leader and win in 2020.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that they didn't offer anything and have been squeezed out of the middle ground. What I don't get is that many people were hacked off with Clegg with going with the Tories rather than Labour. So why then vote Tory and not Labour in protest?

 

I suspect that a lot of Lib-Dem votes went to the other weird and wonderful formations, promising no end of stuff and of course never being in a position to deliver on any of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect that a lot of Lib-Dem votes went to the other weird and wonderful formations, promising no end of stuff and of course never being in a position to deliver on any of it.

 

That's exactly what Clegg thought 5 years ago, and then found he was in a position to deliver on tuition fees, but couldn't.

 

The electorate remembered that and IMO is why the LibDems are destroyed this morning.

 

People have long memories and don't forgive what they perceive as lies from politicians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No mirrors in your gaff, Smirkers?!

 

Line up, knock down, etc. :)

 

I made it too easy for you Pap. I just dont think itll be as bad as many are making out. There will be cuts I imagine, but the majority of which are pretty much necessary. Though Id very much like to see the foodbank issues being tackled, I have no trust in labour but having almost a million using foodbanks in a country such as ours is frankly sickening.

 

My main worry is the Con majority having no left sided brake. I was pretty happy with the ConLib government being dragged more to the middle, it'll be interesting to see what happens now.

 

As per the other parties. I think UKIP are effectively spent, especially if there is a referendum. Lib Dems will find in nigh on impossible to come back and unless the tories make a spectacular **** up over the next 5 years then Labour will be reeling too, even if they appoint a legitimate leader.

 

That said, I think Boris could be a bad bad move

Edited by Smirking_Saint
Auto correct
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time will tell. My concern is for the future for my grandchildren - indeed for all children. Health, education and welfare will suffer greatly and this will hit people who cannot (or will not) pay for private health and education. Already these services are suffering - it will be even more the case now that Cameron has this huge majority.

 

I think when the power of the rabid right (who may well control Cameron) becomes apparent there will be great unrest in our country.

 

But hey Dave - thanks for the promise of another £200 on my pension. That'll help.

 

Cut defence spending, increase heath, education and welfare spending. Simples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure how much to draw from this election. A tired electorate has ultimately subscribed to a philosophy of 'if it aint too broke...' and put the incumbents back in on the basis of an incipient recovery. Putting aside whether the recovery is sustainable and the necessity of the Tory response, which was helpfully frontloaded, that record has trumped anything Labour can offer. By the same token, support is perilously conditional: there are few levers with which politicians can influence economic outcomes such that 'competence' is as much given as earned.

 

Either way, Labour will find it difficult to capitalise. If it wants to gain ground in the South, it will have to move more to right, though that's the opposite required in Jockland. But ultimately it needs to secure both sides. Some may point to the eclectic, broad-church of Blairism as a precedent but that was forged in more optimistic times. Economic uncertainty has deepened divisions while there remains a residual scepticism to false idols trumpeting political triangulation. Once bitten, twice shy and all that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cut defence spending, increase heath, education and welfare spending. Simples.

 

I very much doubt that that will happen actually, Hollande slashed defence spending you know and then found out that it leaves you right in the crapper and had to go back on nigh on everything he'd done in that direction, like putting the army on street corners to control the rabble that he has himself created by not controlling imigration, letting convicted criminals wander about unchecked and not giving out the bucket loads of handsout that he promised.. Then again he's an idiot..

Edited by Window Cleaner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Miliband's refusal to play with SNP cost him many seats.

Cleggy bowing the knee to Cammy for the coalition has diluted LD support.

 

Reality is that this supposed austerity period hasn't hurt anyone, so DC voted in for more of the same. He'll need to rachet up the austerity now as he has no credible opposition and 5 years to balance the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect that a lot of Lib-Dem votes went to the other weird and wonderful formations, promising no end of stuff and of course never being in a position to deliver on any of it.

 

Only for the last 5 years the Lib-Dems have been in a position to deliver but one of the first things they did was to roll over on tuition fees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Miliband's refusal to play with SNP cost him many seats.

Cleggy bowing the knee to Cammy for the coalition has diluted LD support.

 

Reality is that this supposed austerity period hasn't hurt anyone, so DC voted in for more of the same. He'll need to rachet up the austerity now as he has no credible opposition and 5 years to balance the books.

 

Au contraire, just the idea that he'd team up with them to gain power and leave most of the nation at the mercy of a handful of scots probably did for him actually. You cannot have the politics of a nation being decided by 50 odd nouveau venues representing 5% of the electorate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harsh! She wasn't alone in thinking the exit polls were rubbish to be fair.

 

Apparently they're scientiffically and soundly based, my daughter in law is in theoretical politics, whatever that may mean.

Still at least she doesn't design golf courses or have a masters in football supporter technology or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only for the last 5 years the Lib-Dems have been in a position to deliver but one of the first things they did was to roll over on tuition fees.

 

Absolutely, when you promise you have to deliver and they didn't so they got the kick up the bum they deserved, they were weak, lost all credibility. People saw that the country is run by one of 2 parties so if you want to vote usefully you might as well vote for one of them, the rest voted for the UKIP..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe but the other polls were indicating a hung Parliament. I have been watching the coverage on BBC and they all seem amazed that the exit polls were right. If someone asked me how I voted I would tell them something different. It seems everyone has been honest this time!

 

When I woke up this morning I expected to see a lot of horse trading going on, not a straight off Tory win. I think it was only the exit poll that predicted this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely, when you promise you have to deliver and they didn't so they got the kick up the bum they deserved, they were weak, lost all credibility. People saw that the country is run by one of 2 parties so if you want to vote usefully you might as well vote for one of them, the rest voted for the UKIP..

 

I agree that they got what they deserved, but they are not the only Party to ever renege on Election promises. I guess us liberal folk take it more personally. The growth in the UKIP vote is scary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Miliband's refusal to play with SNP cost him many seats.

Cleggy bowing the knee to Cammy for the coalition has diluted LD support.

 

Reality is that this supposed austerity period hasn't hurt anyone, so DC voted in for more of the same. He'll need to rachet up the austerity now as he has no credible opposition and 5 years to balance the books.

 

But it doesn't matter about Milliband refusing to play, it didn't cost him seats that mattered in blocking the Conservatives from a majority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tories are in a very difficult place, they can now govern on their own wit hno LD concessions, but with a majority reduced from 70 to close to zero; their big-business backers are very much pro-Europe and moving out of the EU is generally seen as being bad for big-business/finance/city of London. The leadership will now be forced to squirm between their own big-business backers and their hard-line anti-Europe back-benchers. UKIP offered two distinct (but connected) policies, namely coming out of Europe and reducing immigration. I would suggest the majority of UKIP voters voted for the latter over the former. While Ukip clearly do attract voters from right across the spectrum including plenty of bright and articulate people (step fd our very own Lord D.) my, admittedly anecdotal, evidence based on what I've seen/read the last few weeks and living in Farage's actual putative constituency and having seen Farage and his followers canvassing down my actual street is that the majority of Ukip support is concerned first and foremost with 'immigration' and rather less with more peripheral concerns about sovereignty. I'm not sure you can take the Con's 36%? + UKIP's 10%? = 46%? of those that voted as a 'massive endorsement' (of ONE single policy)?

 

For what it's worth I don't disagree with the first part of your post, the EU has clearly grown and become increasingly undemocratic with little say from the people, but that's the price of a parliamentary democracy, we elect people to make decisions for us, we don't vote on single issues and parties don't stand on single issues, and we don't (generally) have referunda unless it's on big one-off issues, the EU has been established through 'creep' over 30+ years.

 

Clearly it is time for a straight in/out referendum with all sides agreeing to be bound by the result for a set number of years (20?); clearly in real life that won't happen, the side that loses will be back picking at it within 6 months (see Scottish devolution!)

 

Probably like a lot of issues in politics 'Europe' is massively important, but to a relatively small number of people. The reality is a lot of people give it little thought and to all intents and purposes it doesn't impact overtly on their day-to-day life either positively or negatively (although of course in reality Euro law underpins a lot of day-to-day stuff). If you ask people in the street or pub or at work their concerns they would be more likely to say: health/housing/cost of living/immigration/education/local issues before they ever say 'Europe'

 

Out of interest what do you think the split would be on an in/out vote?

 

I'll go 55/45 in favour of staying in.

Thank you for your well reasoned reply, without labelling anybody who wants a referendum on Europe as some sort of nutter. I accept your analogy that UKIP supporters effectively had concerns regarding two main issues, coming out of Europe and Immigration, but of course the two were irrevocably linked, as the Treaties signed subsequent to the original Treaty of Rome permitted the freedom of movement of the citizens of the EU between countries without much in the way of restriction. Therefore their concerns about our membership of the EU were fired by the mass immigration that we have endured as a direct result of our membership and the anger that successive governments have not permitted the British electorate to vote on the Treaties that caused these issues.

 

But of course, it is not exclusively UKIP members who have these concerns; there are supporters of all parties who feel that a referendum is long overdue, but because of the argument you have put forward, that we elect the MPs that we feel will make those decisions on our behalf, it is easy to sweep it under the carpet. As a one-issue party, UKIP have concentrated the minds of the other parties wonderfully.

 

The massive endorsenment of UKIP's stance on Europe was the one that they received from the electorate during the European Parliamentary Elections, when they won the largest number of seats, beating the two major parties for the first time in those elections.

 

When you claim that Europe is not something uppermost in Joe Public's mind, that they would be more likely to be concerned with health, housing, cost of living, education, local issues, then of course it could be argued that Europe and immigration directly impact most of those. Immigrants need somewhere to live, they also have health problems, their children need education, etc. The extra burden on those services requires additional funding, which then impacts on people's cost of lving.

 

I'm pleased to hear that despite the points you raise, you (and Verbal I see), agree that a referendum should be held during this Parliament. As you say, now that Cameron has an absolute majority and doesn't need the support of other parties, they can carry out their pledge to hold one in 2017. Any backbench dissidents should be told that as an election pledge they must support that policy. My own position is that I am content to remain in Europe solely as part of a trading block, much as it was when we first joined. I don't see that big business/finance/City of London would have any particular problem with us maintaining our trade with Europe, but dropping all the other stuff.

 

The biggest difficulty is the wording of the referendum question. Either there should be third option additionally to the yes/no, stay in/ leave vote, or it should be understood that the aim is to remain in Europe solely for the trading agreements and that the only way to strengthen our hand would be to vote no in the referendum and then renegotiate the basis for our return.

 

I think that a straight in/out vote would still command a majority, but if it was the prelude to renegotiating solely a membership for trade, then I reckon two-thirds of the electorate would go for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the people have decided and the Conservatives are back in charge again - as they have for much of my life it feels. I didn't vote for them, but I'm not all that surprised to see that they are the largest party again. I consul myself with the thought that David Cameron is far from being the worse Prime Minister I've ever seen. Non Tory voters can only hope that the PM doesn't lurch further to the right now that there is no constraining Liberal influence in Downing St.

 

Labour I think got just what they deserved, I see little reason why our people should have trusted them with the economy and English fear of some repulsive Lab/SNP alliance alienated many voters I think - having the wrong Miliband brother in charge didn't help much either. I for one have rather more sympathy for the Lib Dems who have at least ensured that this nation has enjoyed stable governance over the last five years. The savage kicking the electorate has just administered to this party proving that no good deed ever goes unpunished ...

 

For me more important than who happens to reside at Number Ten for the next five years, are the implications of this SNP landslide in Scotland. The Scottish people are now demonstrably anti Labour, anti Conservative, anti Westminster, and (to some extent) anti England too - what we are seeing here is a spectacular example of the 'politics of grievance' in action. As the political rift between Scotland and England widens even further, calls for another independence referendum are bound to increase you'd think. I must add that I sense a growing mood of exasperation with endless Scottish dissatisfaction growing south of the border too.

 

Our wonderious old constitution is badly in need of fundamental reform now, reform that will satisfactorily address the infamous 'West Lothian' question once and for all and provide a equitable solution for all the peoples of these islands - or this great nation may be rent apart before very long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Labour must be kicking themselves now for picking the wrong Miliband. Ed seems like a decent chap but didn't have the umph to take on Cameron - and lets face it, he is hardly the toughest opponent. Still, he was "pumped up" for this so perhaps that made the difference? :(

Boris must be licking his lips today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})