General Election 2019 - AND IT’S LIVE!

[alta-pete]

Are you related to Gordon Brown?

[Father Ted]

I’ll stick my head above the parapet....

Can anyone tell me what they hope to achieve by there being a hung parliament and how they expect that to pan out?

Cliches about ‘just keeping Tories out’ need not respond. How would it actually take us forward?

Aye because the Tories are doing such a fantastic job so far.....not. Intent in driving us into the ground. Anything is better than that.

At least in a hung parliament, a semblance of sense and putting the people first, may just sneak into the parliament, hopefully.

[alta-pete]

Aye because the Tories are doing such a fantastic job so far.....not. Intent in driving us into the ground. Anything is better than that.

At least in a hung parliament, a semblance of sense and putting the people first, may just sneak into the parliament, hopefully.

This is my issue. We’ve had an essentially hung parliament since 2017 and achieved the sum total of nothing. So the Tories can do neither a fantastic job nor drive into the ground (some may view that as a small positive in its own right) but we’re doing nothing but pay these c***s (all parties) to lunch at our expense.

I’ll ask again - how is a hung parliament a good thing?

[Londonwell]

18 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I'd say if a rational way is found out of the Brexit mess there will be less appetite for an immediate referendum on indy. More likely a gradual progression with devo max and a federal system, to the point where independence will just be a formal stroke of a pen. If Johnson gets his way it won't just be a hard brexit he gets. 

Devo max klaxon!

[Sir Tarmo Kink]

Ok, fair enough.

Indulge my hypothesising but say we did win independence on a (say) 55/45 vote - I doubt the break will be any easier than Brexit. But once we do get to a deal on our leaving the U.K. would that not also have to go to a confirmatory vote? I imagine the 45% (or even the (say) 20%) switherers might not like how the negotiated independence settlement might look?

We should keep re-voting until the losers get what they want

[Londonwell]

21 minutes ago, alta-pete said:

 

This is my issue. We’ve had an essentially hung parliament since 2017 and achieved the sum total of nothing. So the Tories can do neither a fantastic job nor drive into the ground (some may view that as a small positive in its own right) but we’re doing nothing but pay these c***s (all parties) to lunch at our expense.

I’ll ask again - how is a hung parliament a good thing?

 

I can ‘kinda’ see where you are coming from but the answer that you’re going to get is that avoiding a Tory majority is a naturally good thing.

As as SNP worker/supporter, and someone of left leaning politics, probably the best scenario for me is the SNP holding sway of a Corbyn led gov. Even that though isn’t without its difficulties for the party, which is why I’ve always thought the SNP has far more to lose from this election than it has to gain.

Edited December 2, 2019 by Londonwell

[ICTJohnboy]

20 minutes ago, alta-pete said:

Are you related to Gordon Brown?

 

Neil Kinnock, more like.

[Melanius Mullarkey]

1 minute ago, Tarmo Kink said:

 

We should keep re-voting until the losers get what they want

 

RA PEEPUL HAVE SPOKUN

[ICTJohnboy]

48 minutes ago, alta-pete said:

I’ll stick my head above the parapet....

Can anyone tell me what they hope to achieve by there being a hung parliament and how they expect that to pan out?

Cliches about ‘just keeping Tories out’ need not respond. How would it actually take us forward?

 

There's been Tory Governments over the years which have been bad enough, but now we are facing the prospect of a Boris Johnson led Government for up to 5 years.

Keeping the Tories out is one thing - keeping Boris out is something else.

[Sir Tarmo Kink]

RA PEEPUL HAVE SPOKUN

BREXIT MEANS BREXIT NOT HAVE ANOTHER VOTE TO STOP BREXIT

[welshbairn]

21 minutes ago, alta-pete said:

 

This is my issue. We’ve had an essentially hung parliament since 2017 and achieved the sum total of nothing. So the Tories can do neither a fantastic job nor drive into the ground (some may view that as a small positive in its own right) but we’re doing nothing but pay these c***s (all parties) to lunch at our expense.

I’ll ask again - how is a hung parliament a good thing?

 

For those who see Corbyn as the bogeyman of the left (I'm not one of them), he would probably have to make room for someone else for a stable government. So that would be nice for you shirley?

[Lurkst]

Willie Rennie on STV there, denying the hypocrisy of wanting a second referendum on Brexit but not one on independence.

 

[ICTJohnboy]

6 minutes ago, Tarmo Kink said:

 

BREXIT MEANS BREXIT NOT HAVE ANOTHER VOTE TO STOP BREXIT

 

 

Who's version of Brexit would you want to see?

 

[alta-pete]

I can ‘kinda’ see where you are coming from but the answer that you’re going to get is that avoiding a Tory majority is a naturally good thing.
As as SNP worker/supporter probably the best scenario for me is the SNP holding sway of a Corbyn led gov. Even that though isn’t without its difficulties for the party, which is why I’ve always thought the SNP has far more to lose from this election than it has to gain.

This is the bit that gets me - and their individual competence is perfectly fairly up for debate - but the U.K. has had Tony Blair, Robin Cook, Gordon Brown, Menzies Campbell, Charles Kennedy, Malcolm Rifkind and any number of others that have had serious influence over the direction of the country.

I reckon Scotland has had a disproportionate influence on the wider U.K. population in recent history than we have ever been entitled to. And if you listen to the various shouts on here about the ‘gammons’ - at Ibrox (I doubt) and daahn saarf - I’d say that’s a good thing for everyone.

So why, when we’ve historically always punched above our weight, do we want to pick a fight? We’ve historically run the whole U.K. anyway, so why cut ourselves off from our ant farm?

[welshbairn]

9 minutes ago, alta-pete said:

We’ve historically run the whole U.K. anyway, so why cut ourselves off from our ant farm?

We're getting taken out of an arrangement with Europe we feel is to our advantage, for one. And our inclination is not towards yet another Tory government, which historically we've been allergic to more than not. The compensation of having the odd Michael Gove figure to stand up for us amongst the old Etonians does not really do it, I'm afraid.

[Londonwell]

18 minutes ago, alta-pete said:

This is the bit that gets me - and their individual competence is perfectly fairly up for debate - but the U.K. has had Tony Blair, Robin Cook, Gordon Brown, Menzies Campbell, Charles Kennedy, Malcolm Rifkind and any number of others that have had serious influence over the direction of the country.

I reckon Scotland has had a disproportionate influence on the wider U.K. population in recent history than we have ever been entitled to. And if you listen to the various shouts on here about the ‘gammons’ - at Ibrox (I doubt) and daahn saarf - I’d say that’s a good thing for everyone.

So why, when we’ve historically always punched above our weight, do we want to pick a fight? We’ve historically run the whole U.K. anyway, so why cut ourselves off from our ant farm?

Scotland, perhaps more so now than anytime in my living memory, gets telt to eat it’s cereal and to like it. That has been perfectly illustrated by the 3 years of Brexit shitshow.

The influence I was referring to in my post was over indyref 2 agreement. The individual politicians you’ve quoted, I not only disagree with a lot of their politics , but also, even if they were batting for Scotland (which in many cases I doubt) as individuals they would have been pissing against the wind, PM’s included.

Edited December 3, 2019 by Londonwell

[Pet Jeden]

7 minutes ago, ICTJohnboy said:

 

Who's version of Brexit would you want to see?

 

You can apply that idiotic caveat to every election or referendum. Events change after the vote. It doesn't invalidate the original vote. In a referendum in particular, the electorate vote on the principle, not detail and forecasts. Nobody (outwith a handful of sad politicos) reads a manifesto, Nobody read the SNP's 400 page document. In their hearts, people either want to stay in or come out of the UK or the EU. You can argue about whether the people will be a bit better off or a bit worse off in 30 years time. But neither will result in the sky falling in. That smart arse argument that we need a 2nd vote takes us down a horrible, dangerous road. The message to hot heads in the years come  is - you can't really effect change through the ballot box. So...

[alta-pete]

Fair enough. We've got something like 10% of the UK population but I do think a lot more than 10% of influence at Westminster. Only a personal view...

[Pet Jeden]

39 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

For those who see Corbyn as the bogeyman of the left (I'm not one of them), he would probably have to make room for someone else for a stable government. So that would be nice for you shirley?

Ah but, but. That's not what the people would have voted for. In this situation we would need a further People's Election or a Confirmatory Vote, surely. That's how the logic works, yes?

[welshbairn]

13 minutes ago, alta-pete said:

Fair enough. We've got something like 10% of the UK population but I do think a lot more than 10% of influence at Westminster. Only a personal view...

100% in Scotland could be nice. Better than 12-15% in Westminster say, if that were so.

Edited December 3, 2019 by welshbairn