Politics, The Election May 2015

[thebish]

there are competing claims - depending on how you measure "cost" among other factors.

one set of claims (EU study) here:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... ysis-finds

another set of claims (American energy/climate think-tank) here:

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-p ... ind-energy

you pays your money and you takes your choice...

[Hoboh]

Health is quite a central issue to a good economy though. The good health of a nation's workforce is directly linked to its productivity und so weiter.

Again, with an ageing population, pension reform is also a key policy.

And anyway, lets all be clear, if we were to hold any party to their manifesto, we'd have a very different society right now. For example UKIP, who are seen as a serious threat, have as a key policy the banning of wind farms and leaving the EU. I find that equally barking and isolationist and "unworkable and in isolation would reduce us to the level of a third world nation". Yet taken semi-seriously?

Because it wouldn't!

[Lord Kangana]

And the moon is made of cheese. Because it is.

[Hoboh]

And the moon is made of cheese. Because it is.

It is proved beyond all reasonable doubt the moon is not made of cheese but not that a country will become isolated worldwide because it doesn't stick in German controlled Europe!
Oh how happy to see the wasp chewer in overdrive about the ECB QE
No chance of a holiday in Greece after Sunday either Angie babes

[Hoboh]

Belonging to an organisation such as Islamic State, al-Qaida or the IRA should not be a crime in itself because people should be punished for what they do, not what they think, Natalie Bennett.

Oh sorry the Greens are on the up and we are not supposed to knock them! (Just wait until her hidden plans for car drivers comes out!)

[jaffka]

watched it this morning

she is barking mad

wants to reduce the armed forces, allow people to be freely members of the terrorists groups. aye whatever love, go and get a fella and do some ironing, it will help you to grow a brain

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

She seems to be mistaken with thought and action. She's right that people can think what they want, but joining ISIS or Al Qaida goes beyond thought and is actively supporting and enables the atrocities.

I might have voted for the Greens, despite one or two whacky ideas it would have been preferable to LibLabCon and UKIP. It now looks like a vote equivalent to choosing which finger to cut off - all options are shit and it's going to end up hurting either way.

[thebish]

the greens may WANT to reduce the armed forces - the tories have ACTUALLY reduced the armed forces and plan to reduce them more... what's bonkers for one should be deemed bonkers for another...

[Lord Kangana]

I'm afraid the propaganda has been swallowed hook line and sinker here, theres little chance of bringing the discussion back to reality.

[Worthy4England]

I'm afraid the propaganda has been swallowed hook line and sinker here, theres little chance of bringing the discussion back to reality.

My comments regarding them were based on reading their manifesto (rather than on someone else's interpretation of their manifesto). They're absolutely barking.

[Worthy4England]

Just to try and highlight some of the problems the Greens will have. They have one seat - it's marginal 47th on the "marginal" list - with a majority of 1242. the swing required for Labour in second place to win it is 1.2%.

The second seat Greens are probably targeting is Norwich South - they would need to swing 3,433 votes to win it. Problem they have, is this number is only so low because there was pretty much a three way bun fight in 1st, 2nd and 3rd places (LD - 13,960, Lab 13,605, Con 10,902) - so either Lab or Con have much less that they'd need to swing the seat than the Greens.

Their next nearest target would be Swansea West - there they'd need to swing 5,966 votes - not too bad, but they're in 7th place - 12,335 Labour, 11,831 LD, 7,407 Cons, they also have UKIP, BNP and PC in front of them. They polled 400 votes.

Cambridge, they polled 3,804 votes (their third highest in any constituency) - they'd have to swing 8,000 votes to win it.

I don't see a huge increase in seats for them tbh.

[Lord Kangana]

I don't either. But, as bish has pointed out (and I find the Telegrasph article to be as disingenuous as the discussion) it would be nice to spot the inconsistencies in arguments. So, they want to reduce our armed forces (and frankly, I'm not sure what use expensive armoured divisions and airbourne troops are to us but hey ho), yet the tories have already done so. Nick Clegg picked up on this at the last election, people just seem to pick a team and run with it, glossing over the parts that don't seem to fit their own world view.

[Worthy4England]

I don't either. But, as bish has pointed out (and I find the Telegrasph article to be as disingenuous as the discussion) it would be nice to spot the inconsistencies in arguments. So, they want to reduce our armed forces (and frankly, I'm not sure what use expensive armoured divisions and airbourne troops are to us but hey ho), yet the tories have already done so. Nick Clegg picked up on this at the last election, people just seem to pick a team and run with it, glossing over the parts that don't seem to fit their own world view.

It doesn't get to the inconsistencies between arguments, because their economic standpoint is so barking. The fact that some wider policies might or might not align with Tory/Lab/LibDem becomes a sideshow.

No team is likely to fit everyone's world view in it's entirety, so I guess you have to go with "best fit" - acknowledging that may mean there are some things you don't agree with, from the party you voted for.

[thebish]

my interjection was not about the bonkerness of policies - merely the inclusion of a policy in the alleged bonkers list that has been pretty thoroughly pursued by the current coalition and not highlighted in such a fashion by the telegraph as "bonkers"...

[Hoboh]

How many more does this slug need to hide behind?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... mentpage=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Worthy4England]

my interjection was not about the bonkerness of policies - merely the inclusion of a policy in the alleged bonkers list that has been pretty thoroughly pursued by the current coalition and not highlighted in such a fashion by the telegraph as "bonkers"...

Not sure that stands close scrutiny - in relation to defence spending (which LK pointed to). 2010, defence spending was £32.4Bn. £33.03 - 2011, £33.24 - 2012, £31.6 - 2013, £32.3 - 2014, est £32.8 - 2015 Think these are actuals rather than inflation adjusted, so a couple might be effectively "cuts". It's marginal.

I didn't see defence get mentioned in the DT article (particularly - did I miss something? Always possible)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... itain.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Hoboh]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -sacrifice" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yeah right Dave, funny how £7 billion just happens to be the difference in raising the 40p threshold to £50,000.

[Lord Kangana]

Rather sensible views on the NHS here...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30972569" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(Interestingly enough, it has nothing to do with the title on the page.)

[Hoboh]

I don't think I'll be voting for UKIP at the election to be honest.

[Lord Kangana]

I was being serious. Its the most honest appraisal I've seen. PFI is one of the most scandalous episodes in the politics of this country.