The election 2015

yes Ed was less extreme than Cameron re austerity..but i think it was just a lack of confidence in him..and particularly Balls

i think the left right thing makes no difference to voters at all...until.. the media bogey men them...thats when the fear sets in...Red this and red that day in day out..a bit like the Tory..vote for Ed get Nicola ...brainwashing process

the media make or break politicians..say it often enough and eventually it gets through to people who have little interest in politics that such and such is too extreme...whilst lauding such as Thatcher..who was more extreme than any of them..oh yes the Iron Lady..Iron meaning extreme..but in a complimenatary way
 
Last edited:
I agree re- lack of confidence but why don't people just come out and say that from the off? He wasnt up for the job...fair enough if thats what people think.. But people shouldn't masqerade that opinion under the guise of 'he was too left wing.' That doesnt wash with me personally. The way you look, express an opinion and your confidence levels isn't the same as what your actual political opinions are. Im sure there are un-confident people in all parties. This is not exclusive to Ed Milliband.
 
Last edited:
i've said on here that I didn't think Miliband was a PM throughout tbh..that was nothing to do with left/right..just that he didn't fill me with confidence..i doubt the left wing thing is a factor with the public..again its a media obsession..particularly afterwards when they failed to spot the real reason..ie confidence.

One thing i have come to a conclusion about..all these political experts on TV miss the most obvious factors.

Firstly..they don't factor in whether someone instils confidence..its all about facts and policies..nothing else. Secondly they rigidly believe polls taken from just 1000 people..then when told the exit poll..which is based on 22000 that have actually voted..they don't believe it..thats not really too smart. Exit polls are always going to be more representative..for two reasons..one there is a larger sample..and secondly..a % of people who vote tory will not admit it in a pre election poll in case they then get asked to justify it..whereas when they have voted they tell the truth as they know no further questions will follow. Many ordinary joes do not like admitting they vote Tory..thats a real factor

From what i can see.. if a 1000 pre election poll says Labour and Tories are tied..it actually means tories are about 5 or 6% in front. So for Labour to win a majority they need a double figure % in any pre election poll
 
Last edited:
Fair enough ec. I wasnt aiming my last post at you personally btw.
 
Last edited:
you made a good point..the instil confidence thing is something i've heard little about from the pundits

the poll thing staggered me tbh..then when given the exit poll figures..such as Ashdown wouldn't believe it..but was convinced by the pre election ones..completely illogical thinking really

that exit poll was so accurate... it was scarey good..a work of genius
 
Milliband was openly socialist and couln't be considered anything other than left wing.

He gained the leadership by openly rejected New Labour, was aided and supported by the Unions in his leadership campaign, and killed his relationship with his own brother, something that has never recovered.

Whoever it was that said Milliband was too left wing for England and not left wing enough for Scotland had it absolutely spot on.
 
Another 5 years..or more of..."Our long term economic plan".."Northern powerhouse"....the tories love their mantras...now always make sure you always say at least one of these each time you ask a question at PM question time or interviews...and when the next election comes round make sure you say.."a vote for labour will let the SNP in"

the mp's who do that long term plan thing when they ask questions at PM questions just look like morons to me...boring puppets
 
Maruco said:
Milliband was openly socialist and couln't be considered anything other than left wing.

He gained the leadership by openly rejected New Labour, was aided and supported by the Unions in his leadership campaign, and killed his relationship with his own brother, something that has never recovered.

Whoever it was that said Milliband was too left wing for England and not left wing enough for Scotland had it absolutely spot on.
Click to expand...

the voters don't really care much about that though is the point i made really...its all media jargon..New Labour passed most people by as it was just viewed as Labour by ordinary joe.

He certainly wouldn't be perceived as extreme in any way by the general voter...left and right is overplayed imo...its always going to be down whether someone gives of confidence..take Ed Balls for instance..wouldn't matter what he was...general public just see someone who has a sort of fixed smile on most of the time but doesn't transmit much confidence in him handling financial affairs of a country

politics gets over complicated to those within it..they then think the general public is entrenched in it to the same degree..they aren't..its down to very simple principles when it comes to voting
 
simmo said:
This is head against brick wall stuff here. Which will be why Scotland ends up going.
Click to expand...

Why Simmo?

Whatever her views she's not a magician and can't defy basic economics whatever she, you, or anyone choose to believe.

If she wants to take Scotland independent she should be doing so from a secure financial footing. Every economic indication beyond the immediate term suggests it would be a financial disaster for Scotland if it were to happen now. That's not Tory Government lies, it's an absolute fact.

There would need to be significant changes to Scotland's economic outlook for her to win a referendum, or even to responsibly push for a referendum. She will also need to appease the other 50% of the population and until she does the hard numbers will ensure a No vote.

Im not sure why you feel as though your banging your head against a brick wall. The fact is that if she wants to appeal to a wider public she has no choice but to take a more moderate line with some of her policies, until such time she's in position to avoid creating financial ruin for the country.

She may or may not do so, but if she doesn't you won't get independence, and if she does she may pull it off. Salmond was the reason it nearly happened, but he was also the reason it failed. Do you expect her to make the same mistakes?
 
Last edited:
EC1 said:
the voters don't really care much about that though is the point i made really...its all media jargon..New Labour passed most people by as it was just viewed as Labour by ordinary joe.

He certainly wouldn't be perceived as extreme in any way by the general voter...left and right is overplayed imo...its always going to be down whether someone gives of confidence..take Ed Balls for instance..wouldn't matter what he was...general public just see someone who has a sort of fixed smile on most of the time but doesn't transmit much confidence in him handling financial affairs of a country

politics gets over complicated to those within it..they then think the general public is entrenched in it to the same degree..they aren't..its down to very simple principles when it comes to voting
Click to expand...

I generally agree with your views on this, but anyone with a remote interest in politics remembers how he became leader in the first place. Boris Johnson reminded everyone very loudly and publicly how he knifed his brother in the back only a week ago.

I'm not sure people have forgotten what New Labour was either. The general perception at the time was that New Labour was more Conservative than the Conservatives. Essentially anyone 40 or older with any interest largely have that view.

The reality is that in everything but name, Brown apart, we've the country that has been lead by conservative style politics since 1979.
 
Last edited:
The whole political vehicle, whether it be Labour or New Labour has lost its street cred at present really.
 
Last edited:
obviously if people follow politics they know how he got elected..but general public as a whole probably don't..the election is a bit like the grand national..lots take part betting on it but only a small % know the worth of the form of the runners.

yes agree..tory or tory lite since 79...but unfortunately thats the only way to get elected.
 
Last edited:
There's no doubt the Tories got in as the least worst. Now we get to see how they perform out of coalition.

There are no excuses with manifesto pledges this time around. They also know that Labour will try to occupy the centre ground, so it's vital they firmly take it and make Labour look like a replicas. Cameron's task is to keep the right of his party as quiet as he can, and that's where there is some credibility in Warbler's comments about possible defections down the line.
 
Last edited:
Maruco said:
Milliband was openly socialist and couln't be considered anything other than left wing.
Click to expand...

"Was." is the operative word in this sentence. First and foremost he simply positioned himself as an alternative to what was on offer.
Whether that's left, right or in the centre depends on who he was arguing against....which is the centre right conservative party.

He could be considered left wing, but given he supported tackling the deficit people have overplayed this.
I think he pushed the right buttons... but he didn't have the right appeal and people wanted to punish him for perceived issues they have with New Labour.
 
Last edited:
marble said:
"Was." is the operative word in this sentence.
He could be considered left wing, but given he's supported tackling the deficit I think people have overplayed this.
Click to expand...

I get the point but he could hardly do anything else if he wanted any chance of winning the election given the state of the economy when they lost power. It brings us back to where we started with Liam Bryne's suicidal comments last time they were in.
 
Maruco said:
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.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be so certain you're representing Salmond correctly.

Remember what he said in 2012 in California when doing a Q&A session

He said the Scottish people have the “right to decide” on maximum devolution – or devo max – in the forthcoming referendum as well as the SNP’s flagship policy. He described devo max as "a very attractive argument"

Sadly, it was yet another catastrophic strategic error by David Cameron that has caused this situation. He explicitly rejected devo max and wouldn't allow it on the ballot sheet, insisting instead on an 'in/ out' choice only. Had he offered a middle way that's what he'd have got, and none of these battle lines need have been drawn, as Cameron wouldn't have found himself making promises off the back of a rogue poll and reneging on it (neither would have had to tell us that the Queens purrs!). By making it a yes/ no choice though he forced the Scots into a corner and to dive one way or the other. What was the likely outcome of cornering Glaswegians? and let's be honest, 45% is fair return. Cameron has to be personally responsible for adding at least 10% to that tally. Nicola Sturgeon for her part has spoken more openly about a progressive alliance, but I doubt she'll survive an attempt to drop independence.

The position the labour party has now is very similar to that of the Republican party. The base has become so wide it fractures. They have looney christians and tea party zealots on one side and the more sober business conservatives on it's other fringe. They might worship Reagan, but the bottom line is, he wouldn't win a nomination today. Labour needs two parties to cover it's bases now. If UKIP is maintained, the Tories might find themselves facing a similar medium term problem. It remains to be seen how UKIP develops. Falange has probably taken them as far as he could. Their narrative won't go away, and it will continue to chime for the rest of this decade as the patched up Euro wobbles around. Falange carried a lot of baggage, might the party be better off without him now? We'll see

So coming back to the progressive alliance, the stumbling block is the independence issue. Otherwise it could be brought to bear with SNP filling the role of socialist conscience in Scotland, and Labour adopting a Blair position in England. Will the SNP start to dilute their demands for full independence? I doubt it. I'm not sure they can now anyway. Cameron pushed them into a corner and they've lashed out (they always would)

The momentum will continue to flow for independence now, and this will only be reinforced as the 56 MP's find that they're basically barracked, mocked, and ignored. They'll have little difficulty presenting this as English racism and non listening Tory Westminster. That'll resonate with Scots.

Strategic judgement has been a major weakness of David Cameron. He basically makes bad decisions. He did the same in Libya, and was only saved by Ed Miliband over Syria.

He's also going to find himself making contradictory arguments (or huge chunks of his party are) as the Scottish independence debate which he'll resist, will also run simultaneously with the Euro referendum. I think there's enough distinction between the two in order to adopt contrasting positions, but whether the public will latch on that is a leap of faith. It will look much more like a power lust from London



 
Maruco said:
It brings us back to where we started with Liam Bryne's suicidal comments last time they were in.
Click to expand...

That was actually bloody naughty of David Laws, (a man not known for his humour)

All outgoing ministers leave notes for incoming ministers (American Presidents do the same). We're led to believe that most are polite, some are personal, some are jocular, and occasionally some are sassy. The protocol however is that the content remains private between the author and the recepient

What Laws didn't realise is "there's no money" is a standard civil service answer to any opening gambit from a spending minister. It was a phrase he'd hear ever day, and indeed use himself. Think "yes Minsister".

You don't go the Financial Chief Secretary and say I've got a capital programme idea and I want £5Bn, and they say yes, here it is. They always say "There's no money" (regardless of whether there is) and then the negotiation and horse trading starts.

Laws was unaware of this, and duly took the note at face value. He obviously only lasted in the job a week before he was exposed claiming some housing irregularity for his boyfriend. What I thought was really cynical was the Tory plant in the Question Time audience who asked about the letter only for Cameron to miraculously produce it from his inside pocket and then incredulously claim that he "carries it with him everywhere". I wouldn't mind betting that if he were asked to produce it from his pocket at some random future date he wouldn't be able to lay hands on it somehow.
 
Last edited:
Maruco said:
I get the point but he could hardly do anything else if he wanted any chance of winning the election given the state of the economy when they lost power.
Click to expand...
True, but to play devils advocate, Sturgeon did do, and/or, suggest in the shape on an anti-austerity package and she did rather well on Thursday.

Admittedly what appeals to Scottish voters doesn't appeal to English voters at present and I'm comparing apples and oranges, but with your point in mind I would have genuinely been interested to see what share of the vote Labour would have got if they'd totally gone against austerity.

Clearly I wouldn't have advised them to do that though, for the fairly obvious reasons you state.

Ed Milliband probably took the safe option on the austerity issue, but perhaps it was an area he should have taken more of a risk on to try and win the election??? I dunno. :)
 
Last edited:
I may not be representing Salmond accurately, but what is accurate is that it's widely accepted that devo max would create an annual 5bn black hole in Scotland's finances that would ultimately be paid for by Westminster. How could he allow that option, and why should he.

Salmond new this and was disengenuous when pushing for it. It was card to play against Cameron in stirring up his vote and nothing else.

We won't have devo max now for the very same reason, but I'm sure Sturgeon will play the card.

Whatever happens the Conservatives have a majority and 53 SNP's can't change that. Better to play a different game in my opinion. Sturgeon needs to appeal to the 55% who voted no and that means she needs to get closer to the centre ground whether Simmo or the 45% that voted yes like it or not, otherwise they have no hope of getting what they want.
 
It's not just Sturgeon.

OK I'll humour everyone and accept that the Labour party is left wing! In total they gained 22 seats and lost 48, of which 32 fell to the SNP, (a more left wing alternative)

That is to say the SNP gained 50, Labour lost 26, The greens gained 1 and PC and the SDLP remained unchanged. The overall net gain for the 'left family' was 25

The losses by way of where you sit on this narrow strip of UK political landscape defined as left and right, was actually in the centre, where the Liberals lost 49

The bigger damage was done by Ed Miliband the candidate, rather than the radical left policies like ending zero hours contracts, requiring tax evaders to pay tax, introducing socially responsible rent controls, or a move towards a living wage. Let's not call this socialism. It's social fairness, nothing more.

I think damage was also done in the first 9 months when Harriet (please leave politics) Harman took over the leadership and basically surrendered the debate allowing the coalition to set a narrative which was capable of being challenged had labour moved fast enough on it. Instead she sat out and labour indulged in a navel gazing exercise of pickign their new leader, whislt the coalition planted the idea (incredibly successfully) that labour had gone wild and bust the economy. They hadn't, but the bankers got off scott free as evidence to the contrary was systematically removed fromt he ONS website. Lets not forget that the coalition were so shocked by labour profligacy that they committed to labour spending targets. Even when they went digging for capital programmes they hardly came up with much. I provided a list of those they cancelled or suspended pending review (many of which were reinstated). The damage to the finances was done bailign out banks and you can clearly see this showing up in the debt figures

Just as an aside, I seem to recall we froze something like £17Bn worth Libyan assets in the UK, anyone know what ever happened to these and who owns them now?
 
Maruco said:
Whatever happens the Conservatives have a majority and 53 SNP's can't change that. Better to play a different game in my opinion. Sturgeon needs to appeal to the 55% who voted no and that means she needs to get closer to the centre ground whether Simmo or the 45% that voted yes like it or not, otherwise they have no hope of getting what they want.
Click to expand...

I honestly wouldn't be so certain. Indeed I was speaking to someone about this, this morning who is plotting his capital flight, and he agreed with the IRA quote

"We (the independence movement) only have to get lucky once. You have to get lucky every time"

Once the SNP forces are humiliated and frustrated by the Westminster process, and the prospect of perma Tory government starts to set in again, the grounds for divorce become inevitable. I think the smart play might be to start preparing the electorate (slowly) for a reality check, but they might just accept a bit of blood sweat and toil to build their brave new world, plus the sacrifice and struggle that is involved. Ironically, it's the public sector workers who'll be the biggest casualties, and this is where so much SNP support resides in the professional classes

Sturgeon doesn't need to appeal to the 55% therefore. She needs to retain those who voted on Thursday, or appeal to 5.5% to effect the swing she needs to turn the 45.7 into 50.1. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to discover she already commands that a level of support based on her personality rather than the altogether more slippery devious Salmond
 
Last edited:
"The bigger damage was done by Ed Miliband the candidate, rather than the radical left policies like ending zero hours contracts, requiring tax evaders to pay tax, introducing socially responsible rent controls, or a move towards a living wage. Let's not call this socialism ."

Sorry i'm using a phone and have lost the quote brackets for this. I agree though. You have described a grounded reality of what he proposed in terms of social-domestic policy.
 
Last edited:
Warbler said:
That was actually bloody naughty of David Laws, (a man not known for his humour)

All outgoing ministers leave notes for incoming ministers (American Presidents do the same). We're led to believe that most are polite, some are personal, some are jocular, and occasionally some are sassy. The protocol however is that the content remains private between the author and the recepient

What Laws didn't realise is "there's no money" is a standard civil service answer to any opening gambit from a spending minister. It was a phrase he'd hear ever day, and indeed use himself. Think "yes Minsister".

You don't go the Financial Chief Secretary and say I've got a capital programme idea and I want £5Bn, and they say yes, here it is. They always say "There's no money" (regardless of whether there is) and then the negotiation and horse trading starts.

Laws was unaware of this, and duly took the note at face value. He obviously only lasted in the job a week before he was exposed claiming some housing irregularity for his boyfriend. What I thought was really cynical was the Tory plant in the Question Time audience who asked about the letter only for Cameron to miraculously roduce it from his inside pocket and then incredulously claim that he "carries it with him everywhere". I wouldn't mind betting that if he were asked to produce it from his pocket at some random future date he wouldn't be able to lay hands on it somehow.
Click to expand...


this is exactly what I mean Warb..this may be a common practice to leave notes..but voting public don't know that...clearly Cameron knew the worth of that ignorance and has never let it drop..like you say..pulling it from his pocket ffs..what a stunt..a cheap shot as far as political followers will think..a major blow re teh voting public..stunts like that turn opinion

tactically..the tories have whipped Labours arse all ways up ..they understand what will damage an opponent..once they find what that is..they play it every week it seems

On Question time other night Alistair Campbell called the Tories devious barstewards..not in a bad way..more in an admiring way i thought...he's spot on
 
Irrespective of how the SNP ministers feel in Westminster, England, Wales, and Ireland end up paying for Scotland to have their cake and eat it under devo max. It can't happen and independence is a preferable option to the other nations, which is precisely where the SNP want to take Scotland. It should never be offered as an option. Independence, yes/no and that's it. Vote for it, and then if it's yes Scotland makes its bed and lies in it, whatever the size of financial black hole it ends up in.

Nationalism is ultimately damaging wherever you go in the world, and history tells use there are rarely any winners. Those that stir it up are usually a powerful voice who either lead people into wars or obscurity. They go from being vaunted to hated. The road Scotland is on is towards certain financial ruin.

I agree Scotland should get the option to choose, but there can be no going back if there is ever a yes vote if people are naieve to believe the SNP propoganda. I don't understand why anyone in this world would set themselves up to be the next Greece though!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top