May 2011 Election

[theentomologist]

Wasn't sure whether to start a new thread for this, but decided to chuck it in here since this is the main politics thread at the moment and most will pick it up. Very amusing take on the divide between Keynes and Hayek.

tbf Kaynes seems a much more fun bloke.

amusing to see milliband starting the 'back to the '80's' line. if he manages to make that stick in the conciousness the tories are fucked.

also Francis Maude. what an utter c**t.

[Ad Lib]

tbf Kaynes seems a much more fun bloke.

amusing to see milliband starting the 'back to the '80's' line. if he manages to make that stick in the conciousness the tories are fucked.

also Francis Maude. what an utter c**t.

Keynes may enjoy his binge but Hayek seldom nurses a hang-over

Miliband was chronically poor today at the TUC Family Funday. He was trying to come across as this leader of the poor oppressed working class but he came across as what he really is: a vacant beige hopelessly middle-class source of faux-empathy.

[Reynard]

tbf Kaynes seems a much more fun bloke.

amusing to see milliband starting the 'back to the '80's' line. if he manages to make that stick in the conciousness the tories are fucked.

also Francis Maude. what an utter c**t.

I wouldn't have thought so. He definitely has the Michael Foot fucking dribbling incompetence thing going on. Bent faced socialist c**t with a speech impediment.

[theentomologist]

I wouldn't have thought so. He definitely has the Michael Foot fucking dribbling incompetence thing going on. Bent faced socialist c**t with a speech impediment.

what he is like is irrelevant -I've not time for any of those- if he keeps at the 'back to the '80's' line eventually he links this lot with thatcher's lot and then your lot are utterly fucked. the best thing that could happen for your lot is that thatcher dies, then there's one week of parties but its more difficult.

[xbl]

I wouldn't have thought so. He definitely has the Michael Foot fucking dribbling incompetence thing going on. Bent faced socialist c**t with a speech impediment.

I've noticed that it always seems to be Tory supporters who make personal comments about rival politicians, based on things that they can't really control. Thats one thing about the Tory party, it seems that their supporters like their politicians to be free from any physical defects, and presumably, racially pure. One can only imagine what your line of attack would have been if Diane Abbot had been chosen...

[Ad Lib]

I've noticed that it always seems to be Tory supporters who make personal comments about rival politicians, based on things that they can't really control. Thats one thing about the Tory party, it seems that their supporters like their politicians to be free from any physical defects, and presumably, racially pure. One can only imagine what your line of attack would have been if Diane Abbot had been chosen...

Yeah, like people making personal comments about people like David Cameron or Nick Clegg, based on things that they can't really control like who their parents are, what school they were sent to?

As for Dianne Abbott the line of attack is simple: champagne socialist hypocrite who criticises private schooling whilst sending her own child to one because she didn't want him mixing with the riff-raff children from the local Caribbean immigrant neighbourhood.

Edit: oh and what about the Labour MPs who mocked a Tory MP with cerebral palsy as he attempted to make a statement to the House of Commons a couple of months back?

[xbl]

Yeah, like people making personal comments about people like David Cameron or Nick Clegg, based on things that they can't really control like who their parents are, what school they were sent to?

As for Dianne Abbott the line of attack is simple: champagne socialist hypocrite who criticises private schooling whilst sending her own child to one because she didn't want him mixing with the riff-raff children from the local Caribbean immigrant neighbourhood.

Edit: oh and what about the Labour MPs who mocked a Tory MP with cerebral palsy as he attempted to make a statement to the House of Commons a couple of months back?

You would have thought it was for Ed Miliband too, but no, apparently his physical features are fair game, same as for Brown. As for Clegg, I have no idea what school he went to :: shrugs :: but then, I'm not a Tory who is obsessed with personal attacks. As for the Tory MP in question, is this a justification? A use of the classic "thems worser than us"?

[xbl]

Incidentally, if I recall correctly, 2 prospective Tory MSPs and a prospective Lib Dem MSP have withdrawn from their respective candidacies in the last week. Just how much of a shambles are the Labour lite parties?

[Ad Lib]

You would have thought it was for Ed Miliband too, but no, apparently his physical features are fair game, same as for Brown. As for Clegg, I have no idea what school he went to :: shrugs :: but then, I'm not a Tory who is obsessed with personal attacks. As for the Tory MP in question, is this a justification? A use of the classic "thems worser than us"?

All I was saying is that you're completely incorrect to say that it's "always" Tory supporters "who make personal comments about rival politicians, based on things that they can't really control."

They're all at it. We draw the line at racial slurs and attacks on outright debilitating medical conditions. Everything else is pretty much fair game. There is nothing wrong with insults based on people's appearance in and of itself.

Edit: and for the record, Nick Clegg went to Westminster School.

[Ad Lib]

Incidentally, if I recall correctly, 2 prospective Tory MSPs and a prospective Lib Dem MSP have withdrawn from their respective candidacies in the last week. Just how much of a shambles are the Labour lite parties?

I wouldn't call them Labour lite considering their recent voting records in Holyrood actually align more closely to the SNP than they do to Labour.

I don't know about the Lib Dem candidate of which you speak, but one Tory candidate withdrew because of failing to declare that he had been declared bankrupt about a decade ago. That it should have been a long-time since discharged seems to have escaped their notice. The other one I only saw a snippet but it looked bizarre: something to do with a local health authority appointments policy changing leading to the withdrawal of the candidate .

[xbl]

I wouldn't call them Labour lite considering their recent voting records in Holyrood actually align more closely to the SNP than they do to Labour.

I don't know about the Lib Dem candidate of which you speak, but one Tory candidate withdrew because of failing to declare that he had been declared bankrupt about a decade ago. That it should have been a long-time since discharged seems to have escaped their notice. The other one I only saw a snippet but it looked bizarre: something to do with a local health authority appointments policy changing leading to the withdrawal of the candidate .

Yeah, in the second one, I think it was something like he would have to step down as part of the health board for that region or some such. Its just odd that he waited until right before the election, same with the Lib Dem guy (found a link):

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hlAqHMzA-7uM5t01cDhAp_3J1BcA?docId=N0238131301170455252A

A top Liberal Democrat candidate for Holyrood has resigned from the party. Hugh O'Donnell was Liberal Democrat MSP for Central Scotland before the start of campaigning earlier this month for the Scottish Parliament elections. It is understood he was unhappy with the direction of the party in Scotland and the coalition in Westminster.

A Liberal Democrat spokeswoman said: "We have accepted Hugh O'Donnell's resignation."

I mean why NOW? Why not a few months back, nothing has particularly changed...

Regarding Labour Lite, I'm not convinced that is the case at all. I don't have the figures but I know that from a previous FMQ session (end of April 2010), it was revealed that Iain Gray voted with the Tories 75% of the time. Since then, yes, we've had a budget, but we've also had various bits and pieces thrown out by the collective North Britishers (see Pricing, Minimum), so I doubt the figures have changed. The only figure I've heard is that 75% one.

[Ad Lib]

Yeah, in the second one, I think it was something like he would have to step down as part of the health board for that region or some such. It's just odd that he waited until right before the election, same with the Lib Dem guy (found a link):

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hlAqHMzA-7uM5t01cDhAp_3J1BcA?docId=N0238131301170455252A

I mean why NOW? Why not a few months back, nothing has particularly changed...

It happens more than you might think. Basically Party machines are notoriously bad at dealing with electoral strategy with specific candidates, and it takes an election for things to finally come to a head or for administrative obstacles to suddenly appear.

Regarding Labour Lite, I'm not convinced that is the case at all. I don't have the figures but I know that from a previous FMQ session (end of April 2010), it was revealed that Iain Gray voted with the Tories 75% of the time. Since then, yes, we've had a budget, but we've also had various bits and pieces thrown out by the collective North Britishers (see Pricing, Minimum), so I doubt the figures have changed. The only figure I've heard is that 75% one.

Iain Gray voting with the Tories 75% as opposed to the Tories voting with the SNP how much of the time? If you don't have that figure for comparison, it's an utterly meaningless statistic and the Labour Lite tag pretty meaningless. Indeed at the last FMQs Salmond basically acknowledged that he's had to rely on Tory and Lib Dem votes to get stuff done and that where Labour have moved into alignment with SNP policy, the other parties actually got there first.

[xbl]

It happens more than you might think. Basically Party machines are notoriously bad at dealing with electoral strategy with specific candidates, and it takes an election for things to finally come to a head or for administrative obstacles to suddenly appear.

"Do you want to stand in the election? Its in a year."

"Aye"

"Do you want to stand in the election? Its in 9 months."

"Definitely!"

"Do you want to stand in the election? Its in 7 months."

"Count me in."

"Do you want to stand in the election? Its in 5 months."

"Not a doubt."

"Do you want to stand in the election? Its in 4 months."

"I am 100% committed to this!"

"Do you want to stand in the election? Its in 2 months."

"Signed and sealed."

"Do you want to stand in the election? Its in 7 weeks."

"YES, without a doubt."

"So thats the deadline, you in aye?"

"Ay.....actually, no, I'm out."

What is it, GA Fives elections?

Iain Gray voting with the Tories 75% as opposed to the Tories voting with the SNP how much of the time? If you don't have that figure for comparison, it's an utterly meaningless statistic and the Labour Lite tag pretty meaningless. Indeed at the last FMQs Salmond basically acknowledged that he's had to rely on Tory and Lib Dem votes to get stuff done and that where Labour have moved into alignment with SNP policy, the other parties actually got there first.

So is yours!

I don't have the stats, but do you really think the SNP and Lib Dems voted more with the SNP than with Labour? I mean really? Who exactly are you trying to kid?

[Ad Lib]

"Do you want to stand in the election? Its in a year."

"Aye"

"Do you want to stand in the election? Its in 9 months."

"Definitely!"

"Do you want to stand in the election? Its in 7 months."

"Count me in."

"Do you want to stand in the election? Its in 5 months."

"Not a doubt."

"Do you want to stand in the election? Its in 4 months."

"I am 100% committed to this!"

"Do you want to stand in the election? Its in 2 months."

"Signed and sealed."

"Do you want to stand in the election? Its in 7 weeks."

"YES, without a doubt."

"So thats the deadline, you in aye?"

"Ay.....actually, no, I'm out."

What is it, GA Fives elections?

Except they don't keep asking. People are nominated by internal party structures and things lie pretty dormant before they heat up around election time, when they then have to actually submit forms to the Electoral Commission to stand in a constituency. They're politicians so they fall out with each other and overlook procedural obstacles with greater frequency than C. Muir and K. Thacker use the VL patter.

So is yours!

I don't have the stats, but do you really think the SNP and Lib Dems voted more with the SNP than with Labour? I mean really? Who exactly are you trying to kid?

I didn't provide any statistics. All I said was that more recently the Tories and Lib Dems were voting more with the SNP than they were with Labour. My immediate thoughts were with respect to the council tax freeze, police numbers and the budget as a whole (the only issues of any note in the last few months), before Labour's deathbed conversion to the former.

I'm not denying for a minute that further back, there was a lot more overlap on stuff like (e.g.) Local Income Tax, Referendum Bill, Minimum Alcohol Pricing etc. More recently, though, and certainly on the issue of balancing the books north of the border, the two coalition parties have wedged themselves firmly behind the SNP and as far away as possible from Iain Gray's mob.

There is so little difference between the 4 main parties in Scotland there's barely any point in voting. The only motive can really be to do whatever you can to keep Labour out.

It's worth pointing out too that voting coalescing is not prima facie an indicator of agreement. Particularly of the Liberal Democrats, the reason for their opposition to some of the stuff the SNP have put forward has been completely different from the reasons pledged by Labour. One such example was on the Health Ombudsmen reforms a few months back where that fatty Labour spokesbitch said the reforms were a plain waste of time whilst the Lib Dems expressed concerns about how the proposed reforms were supposed to fit into the existing framework, but agreed in principle with the reforms themselves.

[General]

It's between Alex Salmond and Iain Gray.. if the latter is in charge of my country come May then I will personally be emigrating to Libya.

[Reynard]

It's between Alex Salmond and Iain Gray.. if the latter is in charge of my country come May then I will personally be emigrating to Libya.

You better start packing.

[capybara]

Did you not say that you voted for Solidarity last time out, or in a previous election? They are a party who took their entire programme from another and the only thing they (or their cousins in the SSP) ever costed was the price of an 'advert' in their monthly magazine.

I voted for them on the list .I voted SNP in the Constituency,i am sympathetic to some of the Greens policies but there total oxidisation to road and bridge building means no vote from me.

[capybara]

Is there any possibility of a coalition between two of the beaten parties. For instance,if Labour were the biggest party but the total of say the SNP and the Lib Dems was greater,could they form a coalition? Or is it incumbent (like the last time) for the biggest party to see if it can form a Government? I am sure Lab were courting the Lib Dems after the last election.

[Reynard]

Is there any possibility of a coalition between two of the beaten parties. For instance,if Labour were the biggest party but the total of say the SNP and the Lib Dems was greater,could they form a coalition? Or is it incumbent (like the last time) for the biggest party to see if it can form a Government? I am sure Lab were courting the Lib Dems after the last election.

I'd hope the SNP tried to form a coalition or at least some sort of pact to let them govern. I'm not sure how Salmond would approach this one. Formal coalition would possibly be stronger government, but I'm sure the SNP could form a minority government like they have this time. They willl be supported by the Tories and the Libdems on an issue by issue basis like just now. It has probably worked reasonably well in this parliament. I doubt any of the other parties would support Labour in the same way.

[xbl]

I didn't provide any statistics. All I said was that more recently the Tories and Lib Dems were voting more with the SNP than they were with Labour. My immediate thoughts were with respect to the council tax freeze, police numbers and the budget as a whole (the only issues of any note in the last few months), before Labour's deathbed conversion to the former.

I'm not denying for a minute that further back, there was a lot more overlap on stuff like (e.g.) Local Income Tax, Referendum Bill, Minimum Alcohol Pricing etc. More recently, though, and certainly on the issue of balancing the books north of the border, the two coalition parties have wedged themselves firmly behind the SNP and as far away as possible from Iain Gray's mob.

There is so little difference between the 4 main parties in Scotland there's barely any point in voting. The only motive can really be to do whatever you can to keep Labour out.

It's worth pointing out too that voting coalescing is not prima facie an indicator of agreement. Particularly of the Liberal Democrats, the reason for their opposition to some of the stuff the SNP have put forward has been completely different from the reasons pledged by Labour. One such example was on the Health Ombudsmen reforms a few months back where that fatty Labour spokesbitch said the reforms were a plain waste of time whilst the Lib Dems expressed concerns about how the proposed reforms were supposed to fit into the existing framework, but agreed in principle with the reforms themselves.

Did you only learn this phrase a couple weeks ago? Its fast becoming one of the hallmarks of your obfuscation attempts. Do you get a little twinge of smug satisfaction every time you drop it in?

It doesn't really matter what reasons are given, it doesn't excuse the fact that the majority of time, the three Unionist parties vote in lockstep. You say recently, but on alcohol pricing, on the "Tesco Tax" (charging Tesco the same as in England - Gasp!), on Calman, on basically everything apart from the budget, and certainly on all the high profile things, the three parties tend to vote together. I argue that Labour and the Tories vote together. I then provided some evidence. You claimed that they didn't, and never provided anything to prove your point. I'm of the opinion that the only reason the Labour-Lites have been trying to distinguish themselves is that they can see where this is all going. We're well on our way to having the SNP, and the North British Combined Unionist Party, with possibly only a couple seats for a few small parties.

Is there any possibility of a coalition between two of the beaten parties. For instance,if Labour were the biggest party but the total of say the SNP and the Lib Dems was greater,could they form a coalition? Or is it incumbent (like the last time) for the biggest party to see if it can form a Government? I am sure Lab were courting the Lib Dems after the last election.

Yep, two smaller parties can attempt to form a coalition, as you mentioned, Labour were trying to get the Lib Dems in power so that Jack "At least he wasn't Iain Gray" McConnell could cling on to power.