General Election 2019 - AND IT’S LIVE!

[Dunning1874]

19 hours ago, NotThePars said:

 

Large swathes of the political class are Hugh Abbott*. "You can't say you hate the public." "Yes I can, I've met them."

 

*For the avoidance of doubt I'm not calling them nonces. Maybe.

Dealing with the important issues here, that was Peter Mannion.

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

When it comes to infrastructure projects, let's not forget the constant dualling of the A1 in Scotland under an SNP government (a project admittedly started under Labour).

The SNP have made a busy, important road fit for purpose....and much safer.....within Scotland. 

As soon as you get into Northumberland the A1 becomes a country track, with the only investment being in signs showing how many have died on the road in the last year. 

It's a disgrace, and it shows the priorities of various Westminster governments. Thank God they're not in charge of Scottish projects.

[Pet Jeden]

6 hours ago, Baxter Parp said:

The SNP minority government wanted to cancel it but Holyrood voted to keep it going so you have the memory of a fucking moron.

It was an Edinburgh Council project. How could Holyrood have forced them to carry on with it against their will? They couldn’t. My memory might be a wee bit hazy, but ffs Parp...that’s jobbies you’ve just posted through the P&B letterbox.

[Guest Bob Mahelp]

6 minutes ago, MixuFixit said:

 

 

I hear this a lot from unionists, it's such a strange thing to say because it makes the assumption for some reason that post independence it'll be the SNP running the show in perpetuity.

The other interpretation is of course that they're saying SNP but mean Scots which is too depressing to spend much time thinking about.

On either case it just means someone hasn't given the concept more than really quite superficial thought.

 

It's also a bizarre statement when you consider what the alternatives (at this moment) are to an SNP government. 

In an imaginary situation where either Labour or Tories formed the Scottish government, the first actions of both of them would be to roll back devolution bit by bit and make sure that fewer decisions were taken by Holyrood and more by Westminster. 

How in God's name would that be better for the Scottish economy ?

In an independent Scotland, I've no problem at all with one party forming a minority administration and agreeing on concensus politics with other parties. I think that would be for the benefit of all.

But allowing the Tories or Labour to decide on major decisions for Scotland before independence ? No fucking way. 

[Ira Gaines]

4 minutes ago, Bob Mahelp said:

It's also a bizarre statement when you consider what the alternatives (at this moment) are to an SNP government. 

In an imaginary situation where either Labour or Tories formed the Scottish government, the first actions of both of them would be to roll back devolution bit by bit and make sure that fewer decisions were taken by Holyrood and more by Westminster. 

How in God's name would that be better for the Scottish economy ?

In an independent Scotland, I've no problem at all with one party forming a minority administration and agreeing on concensus politics with other parties. I think that would be for the benefit of all.

But allowing the Tories or Labour to decide on major decisions for Scotland before independence ? No fucking way. 

It's that last sentence that does it for me. Those parties can not be trusted to run this country's economy. That has been pretty much proven at this point. The Tories especially and given that they'll likely be in government for a long time yet, that is a very important point.

Yet an independent Scottish government can't be trusted. That is about as basic as a "too wee, too stupid" comment that can be made, and probably one of the very worst arguments to make against an independent Scotland. It's not surprising though. It's fucking entrenched in these sorts of people. They'll just believe whatever their beliefs want them to believe and not take any sort of reality into consideration.

[cyderspaceman]

As far as brexit is concerned, I fear the remain vote is going to be split, allowing brexit to happen.

Our first past the post system needs changing. We could theoretically  have 30%  voting LibDem, 30% voting Labour, 9% voting Other and the Cons getting in on 31%,  when 69% of the electorate don't want them.  (doesn't apply solely to the Tories, of course)

I know it's been said before but it's shit.

[Granny Danger]

The Tories will not raise income tax, NI contributions or VAT.  They are also going to significantly increase public spending whilst actually increasing the NI threshold and cut corporation tax (though not right away).

I am struggling to see how all this is possible but since it’s not being challenged by the MSM then it must be right.

 

[Paco]

Sturgeon says Labour would need to scrap Trident and grant indyref2 to enter any coalition agreement. These are her ‘red lines’.

Evidently wants a Johnson government.

[cyderspaceman]

10 hours ago, paul-r-cfc said:

Why do we bother having an election?

[Fullerene]

13 minutes ago, cyderspaceman said:

As far as brexit is concerned, I fear the remain vote is going to be split, allowing brexit to happen.

Our first past the post system needs changing. We could theoretically  have 30%  voting LibDem, 30% voting Labour, 9% voting Other and the Cons getting in on 31%,  when 69% of the electorate don't want them.  (doesn't apply solely to the Tories, of course)

I know it's been said before but it's shit.

I remember Tory MP Nigel Evans complaining about the last election.

"43% and we haven't got a majority.  43% should have given us a landslide."

He said it with a straight face and as usual he was not challenged on it either.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

As soon as Malky wrote "The source is the Daily Mail . . ." I stopped reading.

[Ross.]

1 hour ago, Paco said:

Sturgeon says Labour would need to scrap Trident and grant indyref2 to enter any coalition agreement. These are her ‘red lines’.

Evidently wants a Johnson government.

We all know that if it came to it, both sides would concede on something to ensure there wasn’t a conservative government.

Probably end up with another EU referendum and an agreement that if the result UK wide doesn’t match the vote in Scotland then Scotland gets another independence vote.

[Paco]

We all know that if it came to it, both sides would concede on something to ensure there wasn’t a conservative government.
Probably end up with another EU referendum and an agreement that if the result UK wide doesn’t match the vote in Scotland then Scotland gets another independence vote.

Of course, I get that. But Sturgeon saying something that is so poisonous to the English electorate just gives Johnson and the Tories another easy attack line that will work.

May as well have said she’ll make it law that every English household must take in a refugee.

[Arabdownunder]

As soon as Malky wrote I stopped reading.

FTFY

[BFTD]

1 hour ago, cyderspaceman said:

As far as brexit is concerned, I fear the remain vote is going to be split, allowing brexit to happen.

Our first past the post system needs changing. We could theoretically  have 30%  voting LibDem, 30% voting Labour, 9% voting Other and the Cons getting in on 31%,  when 69% of the electorate don't want them.  (doesn't apply solely to the Tories, of course)

I know it's been said before but it's shit.

It's much worse than that. You could have a majority government with much less than 31% of the vote. given the right circumstances.

The really worrying thing is that people in the UK are beginning to consider it more important for one party to have unfettered power than to be required to build consensus with those whose views differ from theirs. I doubt many folk would still consider it possible, but we might be at the start of a slide towards fascism.

[NotThePars]

4 hours ago, Dunning1874 said:

Dealing with the important issues here, that was Peter Mannion.

Oh fucking hell. That's the second shocker I've had on here. Resigning in disgrace.

[Granny Danger]

27 minutes ago, BigFatTabbyDave said:

It's much worse than that. You could have a majority government with much less than 31% of the vote. given the right circumstances.

The really worrying thing is that people in the UK are beginning to consider it more important for one party to have unfettered power than to be required to build consensus with those whose views differ from theirs. I doubt many folk would still consider it possible, but we might be at the start of a slide towards fascism.

I see a majority Tory government introducing compulsory ID for voting as was recently mooted.  It will be the first step in voting restrictions.

Call it fascism or something else but it will be a further step to unfettered abuse of power aimed at making the continuation of that grip on power more likely.

 

[BFTD]

1 minute ago, Granny Danger said:

I see a majority Tory government introducing compulsory ID for voting as was recently mooted.  It will be the first step in voting restrictions.

Call it fascism or something else but it will be a further step to unfettered abuse of power aimed at making the continuation of that grip on power more likely.

It's not even the actions of individual parties that I find worrying; they all try and gerrymander their way to continued electoral victory in one way or another, which isn't to say it should be acceptable. It's more that polling seems to indicate that more people think politicians bickering over issues is bad, and that a strong, unopposed government is the ideal. That's not good.

[Ross.]

46 minutes ago, Paco said:

 

Of course, I get that. But Sturgeon saying something that is so poisonous to the English electorate just gives Johnson and the Tories another easy attack line that will work.

May as well have said she’ll make it law that every English household must take in a refugee.

 

A fine show of humanitarianism. They can’t argue with that.

[Malky3]

7 hours ago, Highlandmagyar 2nd Tier said:

Get it right. It isn't the Aberdeen Bypass. It's called Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route. Idiot.

Who cares.