Politics, The Election May 2015

[Bruce Rioja]

Which in itself is complete bollocks.

[Worthy4England]

I could whinge about a biased press, or a biased BBC. End of the day you just need to suck it up and stop bleating. If our representatives (either right or left) can't answer the questions being posed, then tough shit.

[Bruce Rioja]

I could whinge about a biased press, or a biased BBC. End of the day you just need to suck it up and stop bleating. If our representatives (either right or left) can't answer the questions being posed, then tough shit.

True enough, like where's the funding coming from?

I see that Miliband's now blaming Cameron for the deaths of Libyan migrants. Tasteful.

[Worthy4England]

I could whinge about a biased press, or a biased BBC. End of the day you just need to suck it up and stop bleating. If our representatives (either right or left) can't answer the questions being posed, then tough shit.

True enough, like where's the funding coming from?

I see that Miliband's now blaming Cameron for the deaths of Libyan migrants. Tasteful.

Funding comes via taxation - but like most things funded through taxation you don't get a pick. I might be dead against Trident, but I don't see a workable vote that'd get me off the hook for it. It's like listening to United fans all watching the match in the pub. Spot every foul against them, but miss all the other fouls they commit. One-eyed...

As for the Milliband speech (that hasn't actually happened yet?) the quote I have is:

"In Libya, Labour supported military action to avoid the slaughter Gaddafi threatened in Benghazi. But since the action, the failure of post-conflict planning has become obvious," he will say. "David Cameron was wrong to assume that Libya's political culture and institutions could be left to evolve and transform on their own. The tragedy is that this could have been anticipated. It should have been avoided. And Britain could have played its part in ensuring the international community stood by the people of Libya in practice rather than standing behind the unfounded hopes of potential progress only in principle."

Which bit outside of some inert Tory bints' viewpoint says "Yer a murderer Cameron"?

[Prufrock]

Which in itself is complete bollocks.

What is? That a massive left-wing majority is representative of our country?

If so, I agree, but folk can't have it that Labour and Lib Dem are left-wing without conceding that.

What there is is a massive centrist majority in the country. With the three biggest English parties dancing around on the top of a pin-head with Labour and the Tories arguing over whether a very small number, or a tiny number of people should pay inheritance tax, whether the top rate of income tax should be 40% or 45% (for the first 9 years of Leftie Commie Maggie's reign it was never lower than 60%) and quite how quickly we should stop paying for everything, while the Lib Dems laughably try to market themselves as the moderate's splitting the difference. A difference it's barely possible to find nevermind split.

I can't get my head around the number of people I see posting on Facebook either that Miliband or Cameron would be the worst thing to ever happen to this country. Unless you're extremely far right or far left, whoever gets in isn't going to do it much differently than your guy.

[Prufrock]

On a different note, if as seems certain, we don't get a majority government again, and if say three years into the next parliament again neither of the big two is significantly ahead in the polls, when does the argument for PR become unanswerable. At the very least we'll have to re-name it the "Post? What F*cking Post?" System.

[thebish]

or.. parties will simply have to be more honest and form coalitions BEFORE the election so that we actually know what we are voting for...

already I think their manifestos should highlight the bits of policy they are prepared to negotiate away/forget if they don't achieve overall power - at the moment they can claim they'd do whatever-the-feck they want and then pipe up with "yes - we'd have done it if we had an overall majority - but this is a coalition so all bets are off."

[Bruce Rioja]

or.. parties will simply have to be more honest and form coalitions BEFORE the election so that we actually know what we are voting for...

Indeed. It'll be interesting to see if Miliband still rebuffs Wee Jimmy Krankie's offer so stoically if a whiff of possibly being in office passes his way.

[Prufrock]

or.. parties will simply have to be more honest and form coalitions BEFORE the election so that we actually know what we are voting for...

already I think their manifestos should highlight the bits of policy they are prepared to negotiate away/forget if they don't achieve overall power - at the moment they can claim they'd do whatever-the-feck they want and then pipe up with "yes - we'd have done it if we had an overall majority - but this is a coalition so all bets are off."

I still don't see how that would stop a PR argument being overwhelming. The main thing FPTP has going for it is that it means you have a clear govt in charge for 5 years, and after 5 years you can chuck them out. That doesn't look like happening anymore, and we look like we're stuck with coalitions for the foreseeable, where smaller parties hold the balance. If that is the case, I can't see how anyone can argue against those smaller parties being allocated that influence according to the share of the vote they get rather than the quirks of where they can scrape past the post.

[thebish]

or.. parties will simply have to be more honest and form coalitions BEFORE the election so that we actually know what we are voting for...

Indeed. It'll be interesting to see if Miliband still rebuffs Wee Jimmy Krankie's offer so stoically if a whiff of possibly being in office passes his way.

and - I'm sure you simply forgot to add! - if Cameron continues to label UKIP as a bunch swivel-eyed loons if a whiff of possibly being in office passes his way. (much like he and Clegg laughed off how EACH had declared the other would be a disaster in government... and then went into government together with that toe-curling wedding in the Rose garden..)

[Beefheart]

or.. parties will simply have to be more honest and form coalitions BEFORE the election so that we actually know what we are voting for...

already I think their manifestos should highlight the bits of policy they are prepared to negotiate away/forget if they don't achieve overall power - at the moment they can claim they'd do whatever-the-feck they want and then pipe up with "yes - we'd have done it if we had an overall majority - but this is a coalition so all bets are off."

Shouldn't that *sort of* be how it works though? If no party gets an overall majority then a government becomes, in theory, a sort of weighted average of the parties forming a coalition which better reflects the will of the electorate.

There does at the moment seem to be a lot of 'we won't enter into a coalition with this party after the election' which leaves us very much in the dark as to what actually will happen and a lot of avoiding talking about 'red lines'.

[thebish]

or.. parties will simply have to be more honest and form coalitions BEFORE the election so that we actually know what we are voting for...

already I think their manifestos should highlight the bits of policy they are prepared to negotiate away/forget if they don't achieve overall power - at the moment they can claim they'd do whatever-the-feck they want and then pipe up with "yes - we'd have done it if we had an overall majority - but this is a coalition so all bets are off."

Shouldn't that *sort of* be how it works though? If no party gets an overall majority then a government becomes, in theory, a sort of weighted average of the parties forming a coalition which better reflects the will of the electorate.

There does at the moment seem to be a lot of 'we won't enter into a coalition with this party after the election' which leaves us very much in the dark as to what actually will happen and a lot of avoiding talking about 'red lines'.

yeah... I guess what I am saying is that when it seems so overwhelmingly likely that there WILL be a coalition or multi-party agreenment of SOME sort (though nothing is yet certain) - I'd like to know what is up for negotiation and what isn't...

without that - you might as well tear up all the manifestos as they are utterly irrelevant - documents designed for a situation nobody thinks will happen...

[Bruce Rioja]

or.. parties will simply have to be more honest and form coalitions BEFORE the election so that we actually know what we are voting for...

Indeed. It'll be interesting to see if Miliband still rebuffs Wee Jimmy Krankie's offer so stoically if a whiff of possibly being in office passes his way.

and - I'm sure you simply forgot to add! - if Cameron continues to label UKIP as a bunch swivel-eyed loons if a whiff of possibly being in office passes his way. (much like he and Clegg laughed off how EACH had declared the other would be a disaster in government... and then went into government together with that toe-curling wedding in the Rose garden..)

Yes, absolutely. Though the thought of Farridge having any sort of authority would lead me to review whether I vote or not.

[bobo the clown]

^^^ though of course that Krankie woman may have 50 or so seats whereas Niggle Nigel will struggle to get 10 ... so one is greatly more valuable than the other.

[Worthy4England]

Far be it for me to point out that two parties that decried the notion of a coalition and are still issuing edicts on what should and shouldn't be permissible are

a) Not ruling out any combinations themselves

and

b) Have been in one for the last 5 years.

The only party to actually rule out a coalition with anyone at the moment, is the one that's getting criticized...

[thebish]

[thebish]

the other folk that Dave is not ruling out getting into power-sharing bed with...

Police are investigating comments by Northern Ireland's Health Minister, in which he appeared to link child abuse with gay couples.
Northern Ireland's Health Minister apologised after the comments, but it has now emerged he may face action.
Jim Wells told an audience in Downpatrick: "The facts show that a child is far more likely to be abused or neglected" if brought up in a homosexual relationship.

now - here's the thing... politicians have simply decided we are stupid, haven't they??

1. he says this
2. he claims he is being misreported and didn't say it
3. it turns out it was recorded with a phone and appears on twitter
4. he admits he DID say it - but he doesn't believe that - it's the opposite of what he believes
5. why would he say it then?
6. well - his wife is recovering from a stroke so he is stressed and a bit tired
7. so??
8. errr... so, naturally, being tired makes us say things that are the opposite of what we believe.. we all do that, right? really???

[Beefheart]

Yeah, I get inexplicably homophobic when I'm tired, or racist when I'm on pain medication. Stress can make me 'over firmly deny' things. We shouldn't expect so much from our politicians, they're only people.

[Bruce Rioja]

I could whinge about a biased press, or a biased BBC. End of the day you just need to suck it up and stop bleating. If our representatives (either right or left) can't answer the questions being posed, then tough shit.

True enough, like where's the funding coming from?

I see that Miliband's now blaming Cameron for the deaths of Libyan migrants. Tasteful.

Funding comes via taxation - but like most things funded through taxation you don't get a pick. I might be dead against Trident, but I don't see a workable vote that'd get me off the hook for it. It's like listening to United fans all watching the match in the pub. Spot every foul against them, but miss all the other fouls they commit. One-eyed...

As for the Milliband speech (that hasn't actually happened yet?) the quote I have is:

"In Libya, Labour supported military action to avoid the slaughter Gaddafi threatened in Benghazi. But since the action, the failure of post-conflict planning has become obvious," he will say. "David Cameron was wrong to assume that Libya's political culture and institutions could be left to evolve and transform on their own. The tragedy is that this could have been anticipated. It should have been avoided. And Britain could have played its part in ensuring the international community stood by the people of Libya in practice rather than standing behind the unfounded hopes of potential progress only in principle."

Which bit outside of some inert Tory bints' viewpoint says "Yer a murderer Cameron"?

Well, the electorate will read into it what it likes. Substitute Iraq for Libya and Blair for Cameron, if you like. Also, Miliband supported twatting Libya, let's not forget that!

[Worthy4England]

If he was trying to land the Libya was like Iraq line, like you're suggesting, I reckon he missed by more than the walking distance between them! The first sentence says he supported it so you'd need to have Alzheimers to not forget it.

Tory OMG moment in my book.

Mr Storm, I'd like you to meet Mrs Teacup.