trudij
Senior Jockey
Surely the democratic part is that there was a choice to vote for? ( though it appears to be the equivalent of giving me the choice between vodka and water....)
The election 2015
- Thread starter trudij
- Start date
simmo
Senior Jockey
Having a one party state is not a particular healthy state of affairs. But when they are the only party listening to the people of Scotland.........
Political parties are equally capable of stifling debate as they are promoting it. There was a lovely moment on R5 a couple of years ago when they were doing their MP's panel. The MP's from all three parties had to leave to attend a vote. In all innocence Gaby Logan asked them what they were voting on. None of them knew. Basically all they do is walk through a division according to the the direction of the whip
The health of a democratic model lies in the choice and freedom to make those choices, if you choose to express that through a constituted party or series of parties then they're just models.
I'm not so sure that parties don't ultimately become a corrupting influence myself. Remember our system is supposed to be based on the election of a representative to represent the people who live in an area of the country.
What happened is that MP's started forming voting pacts with each other rather than voting in accordance with their electorates wishes. From these cosy arrangements emerged parties. Ultimately the MP starts to serve the party first and the voter second. If parties were done away with, and MP's could debate unencumbered by the threat of party whips we might get better decisions and much more involvement and participation from a bottom up model. A party line is as likely to restrict debate as it is to promote it
Ultimately what happens in one party states is that you get factions within the party, and these do start to become parties within a party. It's not as far removed as you might think from the parliamentary process. You still elect your representatives but do so based on your assessment of their ability rather than your assessment of the party they represent, and by proxy therefore, someone elses ability
In a strange way, I was happy to vote for the SNP based on their policy programme, but am denied the opportunity to do so (democracy?). The nearest I could get to voting SNP was Labour who I felt might join a popular front with them. In this imperfect system I end up endorsing a party I don't want to endorse in the hope of making a speculative long distance connection with another party.
Personally I still think there is something to be said for having the option of a negative vote, that is to say voting to remove a vote from the tally of a nominated party. It's still representative and would be closer to my strength of feeling in my case. I'd happily have voted one off the Tories, and at least that way won't have been conned into voting Labour, and especially since Labour will doubtless interpret my vote as an endorsement, when it isn't
The health of a democratic model lies in the choice and freedom to make those choices, if you choose to express that through a constituted party or series of parties then they're just models.
I'm not so sure that parties don't ultimately become a corrupting influence myself. Remember our system is supposed to be based on the election of a representative to represent the people who live in an area of the country.
What happened is that MP's started forming voting pacts with each other rather than voting in accordance with their electorates wishes. From these cosy arrangements emerged parties. Ultimately the MP starts to serve the party first and the voter second. If parties were done away with, and MP's could debate unencumbered by the threat of party whips we might get better decisions and much more involvement and participation from a bottom up model. A party line is as likely to restrict debate as it is to promote it
Ultimately what happens in one party states is that you get factions within the party, and these do start to become parties within a party. It's not as far removed as you might think from the parliamentary process. You still elect your representatives but do so based on your assessment of their ability rather than your assessment of the party they represent, and by proxy therefore, someone elses ability
In a strange way, I was happy to vote for the SNP based on their policy programme, but am denied the opportunity to do so (democracy?). The nearest I could get to voting SNP was Labour who I felt might join a popular front with them. In this imperfect system I end up endorsing a party I don't want to endorse in the hope of making a speculative long distance connection with another party.
Personally I still think there is something to be said for having the option of a negative vote, that is to say voting to remove a vote from the tally of a nominated party. It's still representative and would be closer to my strength of feeling in my case. I'd happily have voted one off the Tories, and at least that way won't have been conned into voting Labour, and especially since Labour will doubtless interpret my vote as an endorsement, when it isn't
Last edited:
It's not really an anti vote, because you're participating and making a judgement. It's a more representative way of lending some meaning to the spoilt paper or the abstension
Political parties are always trying to assure us that they want to know what we think of them - ha!
Well what better way of registering that than through the option of negative votes (they don't really want to know you know - for this reason)
Sure if one party beats another by a tally of minus 10,000 against minus 20,000, then so be it, but isn't that a better reflection of the public mood then all these false endorsements we're forced into making. It would also do away with the tactical vote too and the potentially corrupting influence that has. The liberals (remember them?) wouldn't pick up protest votes and then claim them disingenuously as support, if you could chalk one off instead
You basically have the option to cast a positive or negative vote. All you do is walk into the polling station and announce to the person which type of vote you want to cast. They hand you the appropriate coloured sheet and then you put your cross against them. It might seem odd voting Tory in my case, but I'd get used to it. In any event, I've been practising as a few months ago the RSPB ran a comeptition for Britains national bird and I decided that with Cameron as PM, the Blue Tit would get my vote. Sadly options like a cuckoo, Bull(****)finch, or vulture weren't on the list
Political parties are always trying to assure us that they want to know what we think of them - ha!
Well what better way of registering that than through the option of negative votes (they don't really want to know you know - for this reason)
Sure if one party beats another by a tally of minus 10,000 against minus 20,000, then so be it, but isn't that a better reflection of the public mood then all these false endorsements we're forced into making. It would also do away with the tactical vote too and the potentially corrupting influence that has. The liberals (remember them?) wouldn't pick up protest votes and then claim them disingenuously as support, if you could chalk one off instead
You basically have the option to cast a positive or negative vote. All you do is walk into the polling station and announce to the person which type of vote you want to cast. They hand you the appropriate coloured sheet and then you put your cross against them. It might seem odd voting Tory in my case, but I'd get used to it. In any event, I've been practising as a few months ago the RSPB ran a comeptition for Britains national bird and I decided that with Cameron as PM, the Blue Tit would get my vote. Sadly options like a cuckoo, Bull(****)finch, or vulture weren't on the list
Last edited:
simmo
Senior Jockey
Quiz question. Who recently said this?
"Hard-working families don't just want us celebrating their hard work; they want to know that by hard work and effort they can rise up, achieve. They want to be better off and they need to know we don't just tolerate that, we support it."
"Hard-working families don't just want us celebrating their hard work; they want to know that by hard work and effort they can rise up, achieve. They want to be better off and they need to know we don't just tolerate that, we support it."
Colin Phillips
At the Start
Clivex ?
trudij
Senior Jockey
Wasn't warbs, that's way too short a post [emoji12]
Blair.
By the way, I agree that the SNP is the only Party listening which is at the heart of why Scotland voted the way it did.
The problem with the SNP stance on independence is it will have the opposite effect to what Blair says. Independence will mean a rise in taxes for hardworking families.
Don't misunderstand my position on this. I get it, but I do refute the opinion that the ordinary man south of the border has any anti-feeling towards Scotland. Most people aren't die hard football fans who have been brought up on that kind of banter and are intelligent enough to regard people as people and nothing else.
The Scottish opposition parties put up a poor show, and yes they can be accused of of putting up weak candidates, but let's be realistic, several heavyweight politicians lost and it wouldn't have mattered who they put up. The result would have been exactly the same.
As for the lies in the lead up to the referendum, they happened on both sides not just Westminster.
My central point remains that the Union, Scotland, and the people of Scotland will be significantly worse off if Scotland gains independence. The SNP can run whatever arguments they like, the biggest one being the anti-English feeling they go out of their way to create, but ultimately a break up makes no sense whatsoever.
History will judge the SNP and it will also judge the people of Scotland if independence happens in the future. I'm clear in my own mind though that within a couple of years the vast majority of Scotland would seriously regret their vote and wish for what they previosly had. And the likelihood is that within a few more years there would be more Scots living elsewhere than in Scotland itself, and at the very least the majority of the wealth would move south.
By the way, I agree that the SNP is the only Party listening which is at the heart of why Scotland voted the way it did.
The problem with the SNP stance on independence is it will have the opposite effect to what Blair says. Independence will mean a rise in taxes for hardworking families.
Don't misunderstand my position on this. I get it, but I do refute the opinion that the ordinary man south of the border has any anti-feeling towards Scotland. Most people aren't die hard football fans who have been brought up on that kind of banter and are intelligent enough to regard people as people and nothing else.
The Scottish opposition parties put up a poor show, and yes they can be accused of of putting up weak candidates, but let's be realistic, several heavyweight politicians lost and it wouldn't have mattered who they put up. The result would have been exactly the same.
As for the lies in the lead up to the referendum, they happened on both sides not just Westminster.
My central point remains that the Union, Scotland, and the people of Scotland will be significantly worse off if Scotland gains independence. The SNP can run whatever arguments they like, the biggest one being the anti-English feeling they go out of their way to create, but ultimately a break up makes no sense whatsoever.
History will judge the SNP and it will also judge the people of Scotland if independence happens in the future. I'm clear in my own mind though that within a couple of years the vast majority of Scotland would seriously regret their vote and wish for what they previosly had. And the likelihood is that within a few more years there would be more Scots living elsewhere than in Scotland itself, and at the very least the majority of the wealth would move south.
Last edited:
simmo
Senior Jockey
Blair it was - yesterday, in response to what Labour need to do to get votes back. Compare and contrast (or not) with David Cameron's rhetoric before the election. It's hard to tell the difference.
Maruco, you are wrong on several points there.
Blair position is not the aim - Blair's position is the position of the Tories. That is a bad thing.
Lies in the referendum - Everything (and I mean literally everything) that Better Together put out was a verifiable lie.
Anti-English feelings being stirred up by the SNP - I have never seen any anti-English rhetoric from the SNP. Plenty of anti-Westminster, but that's a British institution, not just an English one (but you may just have proved one of my points from earlier).
Your last paragraph is just la-la land stuff.
Maruco, you are wrong on several points there.
Blair position is not the aim - Blair's position is the position of the Tories. That is a bad thing.
Lies in the referendum - Everything (and I mean literally everything) that Better Together put out was a verifiable lie.
Anti-English feelings being stirred up by the SNP - I have never seen any anti-English rhetoric from the SNP. Plenty of anti-Westminster, but that's a British institution, not just an English one (but you may just have proved one of my points from earlier).
Your last paragraph is just la-la land stuff.
EC1
On a break
If Labour hadn't gone middle ground though we would have had the Tories in since 1979.
There is no way on earth a Left Labour party can win. Over my lifetime..whether right or wrong ..the left are engrained in people's minds as evil and must never gain power..that can't be reversed imo.
The tories and tory press rule by fear..they won this election by fear...the threat of SNP/Labour union has won this election for them..thats why i backed the tories to win outright..no aftertiming..i posted my view a page or two back after hearing weeks of "fear" rhetoric from the tories.
In reality its all about training mindsets..not just having policies. Fear wins elections..fear will make sure we stay in Europe..the referendum is a total waste of time simply due to fear. Fear made sure Scotland voted No ..as soon as i kept hearing how..oooohh your pension might disappear..i knew just from that one threat alone..no way would it be a yes
I always judge these sorts of outcomes by the fear level...its surprising how often you can predict people's behaviour.
Another factor that has won the tories this election..in simple terms..because many people with little interest in politics don't look deeply..they vote on the outline of events. The outline being this..last time labour were in..they left a note saying the country was skint..the coalition then came in and has..apparently ..made us not skint..so wtf was going to give it back to Labour.
That note is one of the biggest mistakes Labour has made in my lifetime...it virtually said..we don't give a toss and are happy to leave smart arse jokes like this about...we don't care.
These things might not seem that relevant to someone like Warb with his vast knowledge of politics..but its stunts like that that people remember
On top of these things also is ..Labour are sh1t at picking leaders in the main. Ed Miliband seems a really decent guy to me...but i wouldn't vote for him because he instils nil confidence...his sidekick was even worse..no one in their right mind would have wanted Balls holding the wallet.
Labour are in a real mess now...a real mess. Their only alternative is to move to center again..because history tells us that without doing that we are all destined for Tory rule for good...and our alternative when Labour do that is a Tory lite version of Labour.
I said before..ordinary Joe is f00ked..he has no representation because the real labour Party cannot win using the values it was formed for..unions have had their day...and the people that they think are good leaders for them..are unelectable by the many.
There is no way on earth a Left Labour party can win. Over my lifetime..whether right or wrong ..the left are engrained in people's minds as evil and must never gain power..that can't be reversed imo.
The tories and tory press rule by fear..they won this election by fear...the threat of SNP/Labour union has won this election for them..thats why i backed the tories to win outright..no aftertiming..i posted my view a page or two back after hearing weeks of "fear" rhetoric from the tories.
In reality its all about training mindsets..not just having policies. Fear wins elections..fear will make sure we stay in Europe..the referendum is a total waste of time simply due to fear. Fear made sure Scotland voted No ..as soon as i kept hearing how..oooohh your pension might disappear..i knew just from that one threat alone..no way would it be a yes
I always judge these sorts of outcomes by the fear level...its surprising how often you can predict people's behaviour.
Another factor that has won the tories this election..in simple terms..because many people with little interest in politics don't look deeply..they vote on the outline of events. The outline being this..last time labour were in..they left a note saying the country was skint..the coalition then came in and has..apparently ..made us not skint..so wtf was going to give it back to Labour.
That note is one of the biggest mistakes Labour has made in my lifetime...it virtually said..we don't give a toss and are happy to leave smart arse jokes like this about...we don't care.
These things might not seem that relevant to someone like Warb with his vast knowledge of politics..but its stunts like that that people remember
On top of these things also is ..Labour are sh1t at picking leaders in the main. Ed Miliband seems a really decent guy to me...but i wouldn't vote for him because he instils nil confidence...his sidekick was even worse..no one in their right mind would have wanted Balls holding the wallet.
Labour are in a real mess now...a real mess. Their only alternative is to move to center again..because history tells us that without doing that we are all destined for Tory rule for good...and our alternative when Labour do that is a Tory lite version of Labour.
I said before..ordinary Joe is f00ked..he has no representation because the real labour Party cannot win using the values it was formed for..unions have had their day...and the people that they think are good leaders for them..are unelectable by the many.
A Scottish public sector deficit of 14bn a year is worse than Greece, and the SNP are talking about spending increases of 3 percent a year.
Given the SNP argument supposes that there is a sustained increase in the price of oil, when in fact oil prices are crashing alongside the sustained surge in worldwide renewables, I'd suggest the la la land stuff is from them and those naive enough to believe them and not me Simmo.
Given the SNP argument supposes that there is a sustained increase in the price of oil, when in fact oil prices are crashing alongside the sustained surge in worldwide renewables, I'd suggest the la la land stuff is from them and those naive enough to believe them and not me Simmo.
Last edited:
EC1
On a break
i think they will pick Chuka Umunna for leader...i'm not a fan but he is the obvious pick to give Cameron some competition....if they pick Burnham its 15 years of tory rule imo.
M
marbler
Guest
Rightly or wrongly the consensus now is that their 13 years in office were not the cleverest. Its punishment for an ill thought-through thirteen years in office. I think Ed did the right thing. In a time where the political goalposts of left and right have been tinkered with through coalition lib-con politics, and the rise of other parties like Ukip, he stayed true to generally well accepted core labour values. He positioned himself in the right place and would have lost the election wherever he chose to lerch. They made some awful blunders ( immigration. Iraq War etc) in those 13 years and last week was a reflection of the british publics feelings on that. Cameron is like an average football player who was given too much space for too long.
Last edited:
EC1
On a break
don't get me wrong Marble..i admire Ed for sticking to what he believed in..the problem for labour is that people who hold real old fashioned labour values will never win power..thats why Blair ousted the old guard
i hated labour under Blair...but i can honestly say that thanks to Blair..that one time i voted in my life i actually felt i had changed something. That one time was when Tony Benn stood down in my town and Blair tried to foist one of his clones on our Labour Party...they didn't want him..and neither did the voters..its the only time i never voted Labour up to until then..voted for Lib Dem's who duly won what had been a Labour stronghold since when God were a lad. The staisfaction i got from that was unreal..i had helped make a difference and tell Blair that i hated how he went about his business.
If having another Blair type is the only way to win..then they will do it..but its not Labour in its real sense..Labours original values now are not values held by the public in general..they maybe should change their name to Fake Labour
i hated labour under Blair...but i can honestly say that thanks to Blair..that one time i voted in my life i actually felt i had changed something. That one time was when Tony Benn stood down in my town and Blair tried to foist one of his clones on our Labour Party...they didn't want him..and neither did the voters..its the only time i never voted Labour up to until then..voted for Lib Dem's who duly won what had been a Labour stronghold since when God were a lad. The staisfaction i got from that was unreal..i had helped make a difference and tell Blair that i hated how he went about his business.
If having another Blair type is the only way to win..then they will do it..but its not Labour in its real sense..Labours original values now are not values held by the public in general..they maybe should change their name to Fake Labour
Last edited:
Just to add to my previous post with regards the SNP, it's possible that Nicola Sturgeon is bright enough to realise this and devolution may be her preferred option after all. If so she may set out simply to get the best possible deal for Scotland using the threat of independence as the lever.
If indeed that proves to be the case, rather than a push for independence in this term, she will go up significantly in my estimation. The difficultly she will have will be the risk of conflict with Salmond and his supporters who want independence at any cost, so she would have to tread carefully.
She has the possibility of locking out the opposition for decades if she gets what's good for Scotland and is then honest enough to spell out the economic dangers of independence, proves it, and then declares her allegiance to the Union. It would be an incredibly smart move which would ultimately secure the SNP as the lasting force in Scottish politics.
If indeed that proves to be the case, rather than a push for independence in this term, she will go up significantly in my estimation. The difficultly she will have will be the risk of conflict with Salmond and his supporters who want independence at any cost, so she would have to tread carefully.
She has the possibility of locking out the opposition for decades if she gets what's good for Scotland and is then honest enough to spell out the economic dangers of independence, proves it, and then declares her allegiance to the Union. It would be an incredibly smart move which would ultimately secure the SNP as the lasting force in Scottish politics.
Blair learnt from Clinton that the bottom line is the voter wants the party that occupies the middle ground, it doesn't matter what the party is called.
It was a smart move and it's the only one open to Labour if they want to win the next election, unless they simply wait for the Conservatives to screw it up. If it's the later they'll get one term, if it's the former they'll get two and perhaps a third.
It was a smart move and it's the only one open to Labour if they want to win the next election, unless they simply wait for the Conservatives to screw it up. If it's the later they'll get one term, if it's the former they'll get two and perhaps a third.
Last edited:
EC1
On a break
Nicola Sturgeon is without doubt one of the best Party Leader's i've seen Maruco...regardless of what views she has...she makes the others look like cardboard cut outs. Cameron is one of the worst i've ever seen..fake..disingenous..just awful.
did you see his "pumped up" speech a few days ago?..ffs...what a complete..and i mean complete..muppet he is.
did you see his "pumped up" speech a few days ago?..ffs...what a complete..and i mean complete..muppet he is.
Last edited:
M
marbler
Guest
Im not saying they were a terrible government for those 13 years, but they got 1 or 2 or (3) very big things wrong and thats been exploited. The immigration issue, economic downturn, Iraq war etc were decisions and outcomes that can take any party a generation to come back from. I have no big axe to grind with Tony Blair. He was given plenty of space like Cameron and he took his chance. Slowly but surely Cameron is dismantling the left wing values and policies that were in-part implemented under Blair. The human rights act. Welfare state etc. I understand why people think labour need to hold the centre ground and i agree with them, but if Milliband had won the election he was hardly going to run a socialist government was he? He would have continued to try to cut the deficit only at a slower rate. That pretty much means he was somewhere in the centre ground doesnt it?
Last edited:
EC1
On a break
good summing up i think
I think Labour were relieved to lose last time..they thought that putting the mess right would make whoever was in charge very unpopular over the last 5 years..but the electorate has realised that apart from the bankers ruining the country that Brown also played his part..throw in Miliband being less than convincing and its all backfired on them.
When you think how Brown agreed with Nick Clegg on loads of things..the "I agree with NIck" job...in that leaders debate before the 2010 election..you would have thought a lib/lab pact would have been a cert..but Labour wanted out of government so squashed it
Last edited:
I'm not a fan either EC, and that speech also reminded me why. In many ways he reminds me of Blair if I'm honest. Personality politics plays to the people for all the reasons you said earlier.
There are so few talented 'conviction' politicians now. The problem is they're branded extreme when usually they're not. They rarely get to lead their parties in the modern age.
I too too have much admiration for Nicola Sturgeon. She looks as though she's potentially capable of bridging the gap and it'll be fascinating to see how she handles herself, and whether she's strong enough to stand on her own two feet and resist the previous leadership. She too will need to bring her party closer to the centre.
There are so few talented 'conviction' politicians now. The problem is they're branded extreme when usually they're not. They rarely get to lead their parties in the modern age.
I too too have much admiration for Nicola Sturgeon. She looks as though she's potentially capable of bridging the gap and it'll be fascinating to see how she handles herself, and whether she's strong enough to stand on her own two feet and resist the previous leadership. She too will need to bring her party closer to the centre.
Last edited:
EC1
On a break
Conviction politicians are rare now ...its clones that are required..and that goes back to Blair imo..he created a mould and now thats the sort of Labour politician we have. I still love how our town ousted his clone after Tony Benn went..it was just joy..best moment re politics i've had.
Whilst watching lots of it on TV over the last few months..they have loads of the old guard on for interviews...from both parties ..and even as old men/women..they still have more about them than current crop of yes folk.
Whilst watching lots of it on TV over the last few months..they have loads of the old guard on for interviews...from both parties ..and even as old men/women..they still have more about them than current crop of yes folk.
Last edited:
M
marbler
Guest
How much of this centre ground thing, or going a bit left or right is actually that significant in terms of winning an election. This is more about perception than reality. Ed Milliband was going to stick to austerity but at a slower rate. That makes him a centre ground politican, at least compared to the SNP. You are right though , they deinately could do with another showman like Tony Blair to sell these perceptions and/or versions of reality in a better way
Last edited: