Final polls for GE15 and round up !!

First topic message reminder :

TNS -...............Con 33.................Lab .....32

Panelbase -.......SNP 48................Lab ......26 = wipeout !!

Opinion -..........Con 35.................Lab.......34

Yougov Wales...Lab 39..................Con 25..........Plaid 13 (Change the leader she's crap!!)

Comres .........Con 35..................Lab 30..........(Majority within the margin of error)

Yougov...........Con 34..................Lab 34...................

Ashcroft has Farage winning............

Ashcroft has Clegg safe.........

Ashcroft has IDS number 2 Esther Mcvey behind in her seat.............

Don't forget the big plus for the Tories is voter registration...................Like Republicans in the USA......They are more likely to register.....

Pollsters don't ask are you registered !!

Adam D wrote:I would also like to point out in my constituency, snp was elected. Roughly 22000 to 20000 for lib dem. by the time you have added in labour and Tories votes, the vote would be roughly 60% against snp or anti Westminster if you will.

I would think that many other areas would be the same.

Of course Adam but if you were to poll Labour, Tory and Lib Dem voters in Scotland you don't honestly think they are all in the pro-Westminster camp do you?

The reasons why these industries were closed in England, Scotland and Wales were because they were unprofitable. But I assume that doesn't matter.

No company can operate at a loss continually.

If it cost more money to get the oil out of the North sea than could be made from it, then Scotland is well and truly screwed.

Adam D wrote:During the referendum I was sick and tired of uneducated youths spouting out in public places about Thatcherism.

None of them had been born when the things they moaned about and apparently were the cause for revolution.  All of them swore like it was going out of fashion. The truth is, that I have no problem with people wanting independence for the right reasons.

Many of my friends voted for the snp (I personally don't get why) and at least they had reasons. But all of the people I know who had a reasonable education and have decided to try and get a proper career, could see the pitfalls of seperation.

Is it any surprise that all the people asked for soundbite a on the news, were generally either students (who will protest any eatablishment) or people who had not seen a days work in the last 10 years.

I personally feel embarassed to be living in Scotland when I see these people on the news as a representation of a fine and beautiful country.

Any more embarrassed than saying Tony Blair was your Prime Minister or poll tax was a fair system or the slave labour of YTS was a wonderful thing etc etc etc. The point is that people have opinions. Some feel that just because Labour and Conservatives have largely ruled the roost for centuries in British politics does not mean they have to accept their policies as the only viable alternative. Point to me the last government who any Joe Bloggs person in the street have been delighted or pleased with the job it has done and you'd be doing very well.

Adam D wrote:The reasons why these industries were closed in England, Scotland and Wales were because they were unprofitable. But I assume that doesn't matter.

No company can operate at a loss continually.

If it cost more money to get the oil out of the North sea than could be made from it, then Scotland is well and truly screwed.

And why were they unprofitable and which governments ran them into the ground? Which governments brought in poll tax, council tax, slave labour YTS etc etc etc.

I think the last government (and current by association) have done a great job with the hand they were given. The economy is growing and they have done so whilst other economies have struggled.

During this time, they have also managed to cut public spending and reduce national debt.

Job well done in my book.

Why does the wealth from Aberdeen not get spread evenly? Alex salmond couldn't even get his own constituency to vote for independence. And why?

Because of the indecent ount of money in the area. What have the snp done about that? Nothing.

Because they need the oil companies on side. Same corruption, different name.

Adam D wrote:Why does the wealth from Aberdeen not get spread evenly? Alex salmond couldn't even get his own constituency to vote for independence. And why?

Because of the indecent ount of money in the area. What have the snp done about that? Nothing.

Because they need the oil companies on side. Same corruption, different name.

Hmm so you admit to Westminster corruption then? It says naff all for aching to remain tied to that instutution. I say they have had 300+ years of corrupting and I'd sooner be corrupted by a fellow Scot than a body I have no affiliation with.

CaledonianCraig wrote: And lets not forget that sentiment is slowly growing in England as they seek alternative options to Labour and Conservative in the form of UKIP. Across the UK (not just Scotland) people have had enough of the same old same old. The last two elections show that as one returned with no majority for any party and followed by one with a wafer thin majority for one whilst a new party on the block (outwith Scotland) in the form of UKIP has become the third largest and is growing in size.

I thought the most interesting (and telling) part of that UKIP documentary the BBC did was the bit where the woman says she supports UKIP because they don't have whips or party discipline telling people what to say or not to say like the other parties do; cue UKIP seminar trying to teach prospective candidates what they can and can't say while campaigning. There are reasons the traditional parties are the way they are.

Lowlandbrit wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote: And lets not forget that sentiment is slowly growing in England as they seek alternative options to Labour and Conservative in the form of UKIP. Across the UK (not just Scotland) people have had enough of the same old same old. The last two elections show that as one returned with no majority for any party and followed by one with a wafer thin majority for one whilst a new party on the block (outwith Scotland) in the form of UKIP has become the third largest and is growing in size.

I thought the most interesting (and telling) part of that UKIP documentary the BBC did was the bit where the woman says she supports UKIP because they don't have whips or party discipline telling people what to say or not to say like the other parties do; cue UKIP seminar trying to teach prospective candidates what they can and can't say while campaigning. There are reasons the traditional parties are the way they are.

Yes but things are changing in political Britain. The Labour and Tory parties have lost a lot of voters due to those voters becoming disillusioned. Before there was no options out there aside from the Lib Dems but that has changed now. UKIP came second in many seats and their support is swelling for much the same reason as the SNP has grown. Disdain and distrust in Labour and Tories who have long ruled the roost in Westminster. For many they have had enough.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes but things are changing in political Britain. The Labour and Tory parties have lost a lot of voters due to those voters becoming disillusioned. Before there was no options out there aside from the Lib Dems but that has changed now. UKIP came second in many seats and their support is swelling for much the same reason as the SNP has grown. Disdain and distrust in Labour and Tories who have long ruled the roost in Westminster. For many they have had enough.

My point is look at the LibDems. Whatever the system, whatever the parties, at the end of the day you need to get at least half the people in parliament to agree on what to do. The more people you try to appeal to, the more negotiating and compromise is needed, and that just leads to disappointment again. It's possible Labour could be replaced by some sort of nationalist alliance, but once all of them are done negotiating don't be surprised if it's just Labour with a different name.

Lowlandbrit wrote:It's possible Labour could be replaced by some sort of nationalist alliance, but once all of them are done negotiating don't be surprised if it's just Labour with a different name.

But that's what SNP theoretically is - Labour with a Different name.

But that's also an overly simplistic allusion as it again makes a name more important than the people who vote, grow old, die and are replaced by a new electorate.  The name Labour Party has no right to exist or to continue to exist - none of the parties have - simply because some people feel their 'history' is too rich for them ever to die out.

Labour is simply a name people used to get them through however many decades Labour has existed for.  The people who voted for Labour in the past in Scotland (or their families) have simply moved on and their goals in life have changed and they see no problem with inventing a new name for that change of heart.... it's called SNP.  The people are still the same kinds of people but they simply choose to rename their aspirations under a new heading.  But Unionist/Westminster Preferring Labour doesn't answer those aspirations.  So SNP will never really be simply Labour with a different name, the difference now is a fundamental one.

The same may now happen in England.  It's clear to most observers (even this outsider) that Labour fails now when it claims to be for the poor.  The majority in England want parties that appeal to the happy medium of middle class.  Conservatives and Labour are simply two models of the same philosophy (when Labour is being honest! - and voters are receptive to them).  The public don't fall for the myth that these college grad rich people that rule Labour are anti-business and pro-Statehandouts.  Labour is being forced by a modern world to adapt and simply be a alternative practical solution to the very same Conservative philosophy.  The difference between Labour and Conservatives is not political ideology at all but simply a difference of opinion on the nitty gritty of how best to balance the books.

So Labour are being told by the electorate that they are no longer seen as the protectors of the poor but a rival in the majority 'centre' with Conservatives.  The baton of 'Labour' might now pass to a new party and perhaps it doesn't even have a name yet - but it will probably come from the genuine less well off, not from wealthy graduates pretending they have any concept what less-well-off means anymore.

To counter some of Caledonian Craig's stuff here, not everyone in Scotland wants independence. Far from it in fact when you condsider the combined votes for the unionist partys in the Election last week were a greater %age than those who voted no in the Indyref.

If David Cameron is even half as smart as I think he is he should invite Nicola to Downing Street for Coffee and a "blether".

DC - Hi Nicky, congratulations on how well you did in Scotland.

NS - Thank you David.

DC - I have to respect the will of the Scottish people. As you rightly said it is no longer business as usual in the UK.

NS - I'm Glad.

DC - So, after reading your white paper you were convinced that Scotland could be an independent country in 2018. Well I'm sure having full fiscal autonomy in the same time scale should be easy then!

NS - What do you mean?

DC - I mean I'm scrapping the Barnett Formula in 2018. You can have FFA, raise all your own taxes and pay all your own benefits. Of course we'll still take a %age for Defence and Foreign aid since they will remain under UK control but you'll have this FFA you want so badly. This is of course the first step to federalism and goes beyond the smith commissions proposals that you seem to think weren't good enough.

NS - But I won't be able to afford any of my pledges and end Austerity without getting money from the Barnett Formula, at least without raising taxes for a lot of workers in Scotland...

DC - I know, and be sure to tell the Scottish people that before the Hollyrood elections.

The problem is rugger if DC does this and people realise how poorly thought out many of the SNP's financial plans are, which such a course of action would surely do, does he really want the supporters north of the border who have deserted the labour party returning to the fold. For as long as the SNP hold such sway in Scotland is nigh on impossible for Labour to get a majority.

Rowley wrote:The problem is rugger if DC does this and people realise how poorly thought out many of the SNP's financial plans are, which such a course of action would surely do, does he really want the supporters north of the border who have deserted the labour party returning to the fold. For as long as the SNP hold such sway in Scotland is nigh on impossible for Labour to get a majority.

Yes and no. As much as DC is a "new tory" e.g. Europe friendly and business driven, despite this he won't want to see the union disintegrate.

Scotland's problem is there is no one capable of taking the SNP to task over the mess the country of Scotland is in. What annoys me the most is that Sturgeon stood on the podiums across the country talking about Foodbanks as if she and the SNP had nothing to do with it.

Councils and the SNP government have the ability to bring in policies to remove foodbanks but it is way easier to blame the decline in Scotland on the Tories and use foodbanks as a political weapon. We have a budget from England, a higher budget per head of population than England (for lots of different reasons) so we really have no excuse.

The SNP have been in charge in Scotland for 8 years and what have we got? Foodbanks up, Police and Fire services amalgamated into a bloated centralized command structure that blatantly doesn't work (the Mrs is in the police so I know all about the troubles they face with staffing), My Town's A&E department shut down the nearest A&E for a town of 70 thousand people is 11 miles away.

The SNP have made an almighty hash of things mostly the NHS in Scotland but have done a litteraly wonderful job of blaming everyone else.

The less I say about the aggressive form of Nationalism that has been seen on the streets of Glasgow and all over twitter the better.

As for the hypocrisy of the SNP, here is a wee anecdote.

I had a SNP member at my door before the Election asking about my voting intentions.

I asked him why his party was encouraging people to vote green in England when their policies are anathema to the SNP's bedrock principal of drilling as much oil as possible from the North sea and supporting the Scottish Economy. He had no answer.

So I then quizzed him on the fact that the SNP had been lobbying for a cut in North Sea taxes, for companies like BP and Exxon who's profits run into Billions of pounds each year.

I then asked about corruption and the Events leading up to Don Trump getting his golf course. For those who don't know here is the quick version.

1. Trump wants a golf course north of Aberdeen on a beauty spot.
2. The Locals say no.
3. The council Says no.
4. Trump visits Salmond.
5. Salmond Visists Aberdeen Council
6. Aberdeen Council says yes.

I asked if this is the socialism that the SNP stands for?

He then left my doorstep.

The SNP have become the most slippery party in the whole of the UK and seem to claim to be paragons of honesty and integrity in the UK.

I know all politicians and political parties are the same but for some reason the SNP remain blameless in a lot of their Zealots eyes. It's all a bit sinister if you asked me.

...or maybe you just didn't vote for them, Rugger?

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Rowley wrote:The problem is rugger if DC does this and people realise how poorly thought out many of the SNP's financial plans are, which such a course of action would surely do, does he really want the supporters north of the border who have deserted the labour party returning to the fold. For as long as the SNP hold such sway in Scotland is nigh on impossible for Labour to get a majority.

Yes and no. As much as DC is a "new tory" e.g. Europe friendly and business driven, despite this he won't want to see the union disintegrate.

Scotland's problem is there is no one capable of taking the SNP to task over the mess the country of Scotland is in. What annoys me the most is that Sturgeon stood on the podiums across the country talking about Foodbanks as if she and the SNP had nothing to do with it.

Councils and the SNP government have the ability to bring in policies to remove foodbanks but it is way easier to blame the decline in Scotland on the Tories and use foodbanks as a political weapon. We have a budget from England, a higher budget per head of population than England (for lots of different reasons) so we really have no excuse.

The SNP have been in charge in Scotland for 8 years and what have we got? Foodbanks up, Police and Fire services amalgamated into a bloated centralized command structure that blatantly doesn't work (the Mrs is in the police so I know all about the troubles they face with staffing), My Town's A&E department shut down the nearest A&E for a town of 70 thousand people is 11 miles away.

The SNP have made an almighty hash of things mostly the NHS in Scotland but have done a litteraly wonderful job of blaming everyone else.

The less I say about the aggressive form of Nationalism that has been seen on the streets of Glasgow and all over twitter the better.

As for the hypocrisy of the SNP, here is a wee anecdote.

I had a SNP member at my door before the Election asking about my voting intentions.

I asked him why his party was encouraging people to vote green in England when their policies are anathema to the SNP's bedrock principal of drilling as much oil as possible from the North sea and supporting the Scottish Economy. He had no answer.

So I then quizzed him on the fact that the SNP had been lobbying for a cut in North Sea taxes, for companies like BP and Exxon who's profits run into Billions of pounds each year.

I then asked about corruption and the Events leading up to Don Trump getting his golf course. For those who don't know here is the quick version.

1. Trump wants a golf course north of Aberdeen on a beauty spot.
2. The Locals say no.
3. The council Says no.
4. Trump visits Salmond.
5. Salmond Visists Aberdeen Council
6. Aberdeen Council says yes.

I asked if this is the socialism that the SNP stands for?

He then left my doorstep.

The SNP have become the most slippery party in the whole of the UK and seem to claim to be paragons of honesty and integrity in the UK.

I know all politicians and political parties are the same but for some reason the SNP remain blameless in a lot of their Zealots eyes. It's all a bit sinister if you asked me.

Nail thumped quite majestically on the head!

SecretFly wrote:...or maybe you just didn't vote for them, Rugger?

I couldn't Fly.

Initially the heart said "yes" but the head and 5 minutes with a calculator said "what the hell are you thinking?"

The truth is after a lot of soul searching the heart said no too. The world needs less borders IMO, not more.

Nice to see that George Kerevan (new elected SNP MP for East Lothian and experienced lecturer in Economics and responsible for much of the SNP's independence economic claims) has admitted that in the current economic climate, FFA without balancing payments (i.e. Barnett) from the UK would be economic suicide.

A staggering turnaround from his position in the lead up the referendum that Scotland would be ready to go it alone as early as 2018.

superflyweight wrote:Nice to see that George Kerevan (new elected SNP MP for East Lothian and experienced lecturer in Economics and responsible for much of the SNP's independence economic claims) has admitted that in the current economic climate, FFA without balancing payments (i.e. Barnett) from the UK would be economic suicide.

A staggering turnaround from his position in the lead up the referendum that Scotland would be ready to go it alone as early as 2018.

Hes just fearmongering on behalf on the British government, ignore it.

superflyweight wrote:Nice to see that George Kerevan (new elected SNP MP for East Lothian and experienced lecturer in Economics and responsible for much of the SNP's independence economic claims) has admitted that in the current economic climate, FFA without balancing payments (i.e. Barnett) from the UK would be economic suicide.  

A staggering turnaround from his position in the lead up the referendum that Scotland would be ready to go it alone as early as 2018.  

It's not surprising.

For me the SNP's position has always been a bluffers game. Cameron needs to call the bluff on FFA and call it quickly. Otherwise the SNP might rampage to another election victory next year and plunge Scotland into neverendum referendum.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:...or maybe you just didn't vote for them, Rugger?

I couldn't Fly.

Initially the heart said "yes" but the head and 5 minutes with a calculator said "what the hell are you thinking?"

The truth is after a lot of soul searching the heart said no too. The world needs less borders IMO, not more.

That's what Putin is trying to tell yis all.  But nobody is listening.  Less borders.... just let us slide in there and slip in here and we'll be all grand together....maybe yis won't even mind if we delete the border between ourselves and Poland again?  We'll take that resource from them and leave them with that rule that we invented a 1000 miles away to suit ourselves.  Imperialism loves the idea of fewer borders, Rugger.

The thing that interests me though, is that the most Heartfelt Unionists (and they have an absolute right to feel so of course) - but the most heartfelt people that want the Union between Scotland and the rest of the UK to remain just as it is, are generally the same people who would be very untrusting of, and cynical about, and unenthusiastic for the Union of Europe.
So the irony is of course that as the Conservatives have discussions with the Scottish with an eye on keeping Scotland interested in a degree of Unity (even if it meant Federalism), at the very same time they'll be deep in discussions with Europe - arguing for less Centralism, less powers for Brussels, more power returned to Westminster and an absolute categorical NO to any continuing attempts at Federalising Europe.

The UK likes its Border.  I agree with them - I like mine too.  Less Administrative European 'Imperialism' not more.

SecretFly wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:...or maybe you just didn't vote for them, Rugger?

I couldn't Fly.

Initially the heart said "yes" but the head and 5 minutes with a calculator said "what the hell are you thinking?"

The truth is after a lot of soul searching the heart said no too. The world needs less borders IMO, not more.

That's what Putin is trying to tell yis all.  But nobody is listening.  Less borders.... just let us slide in there and slip in here and we'll be all grand together....maybe yis won't even mind if we delete the border between ourselves and Poland again?  We'll take that resource from them and leave them with that rule that we invented a 1000 miles away to suit ourselves.  Imperialism loves the idea of fewer borders, Rugger.

The thing that interests me though, is that the most Heartfelt Unionists (and they have an absolute right to feel so of course) - but the most heartfelt people that want the Union between Scotland and the rest of the UK to remain just as it is, are generally the same people who would be very untrusting of, and cynical about, and unenthusiastic for the Union of Europe.
So the irony is of course that as the Conservatives have discussions with the Scottish with an eye on keeping Scotland interested in a degree of Unity (even if it meant Federalism), at the very same time they'll be deep in discussions with Europe - arguing for less Centralism, less powers for Brussels, more power returned to Westminster and an absolute categorical NO to any continuing attempts at Federalising Europe.

The UK likes its Border.  I agree with them - I like mine too.  Less Administrative European 'Imperialism' not more.

Please don'r mistake my comment for imperialism, that is not what was intended. I would love closer ties with Europe Fly. I'm not an imperialist by any stretch of the imagination either.

I suppose what bothers me more is that people who get upset with the democracy we all live in when "their side" loses. My vote was doubly wasted. Lost in an SNP landslide in Scotland and Lost again in a Tory government in Westminster. However this is grounds for me to have grumble but I'm not going to take to the streets in protest. We can't just expect to change the rules in our democracy when the party you support (whoever that may be) fails to convince the rest of the people in the country that their ideas are credible.

For years people in the South of England had to put up with a Labour Government that they perhaps didn't want to see.

Democracy is all about rights and responsibilities. You have the right to a vote, and opinion and a voice. You have a responsibility to your country and your fellow citizens to accept the result and get on with your life!

Scottish independence - they voted no. Ask again in 25 years' time.

Proportional voting - we voted no. Ask again in 25 years' time.

Tory majority - we voted yes. Ask again in 5 years' time.

I wish the media would crack on with the real issues of the day rather than harping on about things we've all voted on and agreed as a nation. Individuals can carry on to their hearts' content, but the media should be reporting news, not old hat.

Azzy wrote:

Tory majority - we voted yes. Ask again in 5 years' time.

Unless some ambitious Tory wants to begin asking the question earlier

RuggerRadge2611 wrote: I would love closer ties with Europe Fly. I'm not an imperialist by any stretch of the imagination either.

That's where we'd part ways big time, Rugger.  

I just see Europe as an endlessly creeping attempt at a New Imperialism.  An Imperialism to challenge a renewed Russian Imperialism.  An Imperialism to compete against Chinese Imperialism.  And I'm not talking in old fashioned terms.  I'm talking in modern terms - in global industry outreach, in technology, in finance and influence in developing areas of the world.  That requires conformity and one voice coming from Europe, and therefore increasingly the idea of Nation States in Europe is becoming a burden for the Imperialism technocrats.  They're tiring of having to wait for so many people to agree and disagree.  One ruler, one foreign policy, one economic blueprint is what they demand.  Conformity.

More and more stringent and binding laws from Commissioners none of us directly elect, more talk shops from the floor-sweeping rubberstamping 'Parliament' that nobody ever listens to, more dogmatic ruler statements from unelected Commission Presidents, more and more decisions made based on population majorities rather than National Equalities, and a fundamental desire for a Federal Europe that few of us 'citizens' will be allowed to Directly vote on as National Governments vote instead on profound treaties ON OUR BEHALF  (example: Labour saying a referendum on Europe isn't needed.  Why not trust the opinion of your people???  Are they not qualified to have an opinion on where Europe is going and where they want it to go?)

Had all the treaties that have already come from Europe been actually put directly in referenda to the citizens of Europe as a whole, then Europe would not look like it does today and there would not be the 'Nationalistic' tensions that exist now either.  The citizens feel like they'd been overlooked in the debates as the diplomats and Commissioners and indeed their own Governments talk over their heads.  

Dangerous to pretend hundreds of millions of peoples don't have complex views on what they want the European Union to look like.
Dangerous to constantly run away from asking them their official opinions in referendums.
Dangerous to think you can impose a United States of Europe on still very proud peoples who still see themselves in strong Nationalistic terms.  Germans are still Germans.  Spanish are still Spanish.  Diplomats would need to look very closely at how everything implodes (and often violently in Europe) when conformity is attempted without real concern for the wishes of the individual peoples.  Europe is always a tinder box waiting for a spark.  It will ignite too if normal people are continuously ignored by their own Governments and the new bosses in Brussels.

SecretFly wrote:  (example: Labour saying a referendum on Europe isn't needed.  Why not trust the opinion of your people???  Are they not qualified to have an opinion on where Europe is going and where they want it to go?)

It's not a question of being qualified Fly. Coming from someone who has lived through a referendum I can say with 100% certainty Scotland is now a divided nation. Otherwise why do so many of the Yes voters in Scotland still wear their 45 Badges of pride literally. It may not look like it on the surface but underneath, this nation is very divided.

The divisions caused between friends and family (trust me I speak from experience   ) within Scotland will never fully heal. I don't think either side of the debate has fully come to terms with what was said and done in the indyref and moved on from it.

The uncertainty caused by an in out referendum has already shaken the confidence of HSBC. Whilst far from being concerned about the stereotypical "fat cat" bankers I worry that would happen to HSBC and the rest of the financial centers in the whole of the UK if we opened debates on the pros and cons of EU membership. These companies employ a lot of people, good honest people who are totally disassociated from the stereotypical wrong doing of investment bankers. Their jobs will be on the line too.

It's a moot point I might add since I hypothesize the odds of such a decision surviving a parliament to even make it as far as a referendum is remote. A lot of "new torys" are well aware of the good parts of what the EU membership means and will no doubt vote in favor of the EU.

The good parts of the EU were all in the old EEC. A Union of the willing rather than a Union of Imposition and Governance.

The thing is, these referendum debates are a very effective smokescreen for those in power. Get everyone talking about the referendums and lots of other things go unnoticed.

Like the erosion in quality in basic services.

Rugger - a vote is the only thing you have that's yours. Never turn down the opportunity to have a say simply because a Party says they'll handle your opinion for you.

Never ever trust a Party......

My issue with Europe is how large a role Germany plays. It may sound old-fashioned, behind the times, and plain wrong, but for me they should still be paying reparations, not running the show.

They paid their agreed reperations, did they not??

I have no idea, but whatever they were, they weren't enough, because less than 60 years later they were running Europe again.

Maybe that's because they're simply better at it than anyone else??

Well balanced economy, strong work ethic etc.

Do you really think any of the Med countries would be better positioned to lead?

The UK has never been a full game player, so can't really argue it should control Europe's destiny, even more so the Nordics, so that's the only other strong economies stripped out other than France - which would be nowhere without CAP.

Azzy wrote:I have no idea, but whatever they were, they weren't enough, because less than 60 years later they were running Europe again.

Yeah, because overly punitive reparations worked out stunningly well after the 1st world war didn't they?

Rowley wrote:

Azzy wrote:I have no idea, but whatever they were, they weren't enough, because less than 60 years later they were running Europe again.

Yeah, because overly punitive reparations worked out stunningly well after the 1st world war didn't they?

For all his faults, Field Marshall Haig was one of the only 'senior' British voices to urge caution with the punishments imposed on Germany after 1918. He pretty much called what would happen if they tried to impose reparations that went too far.

Do you think during the second world war he walked around being smug and saying told you so? Obviously wildly inappropriate but must have been tempting.

Rowley wrote:Do you think during the second world war he walked around being smug and saying told you so? Obviously wildly inappropriate but must have been tempting.

I would agree that I think he would have.

Rowley wrote:Do you think during the second world war he walked around being smug and saying told you so? Obviously wildly inappropriate but must have been tempting.

Unlikely as he died in 1928.

I've been reading a lot about Haig recently. He gets an awful lot of stick, a lot of it perfectly justified, but towards the end of the war, he had become quite a flexible and adept warfare tactician. He deserves enormous criticism for the Somme and other battles but the Blackadder Goes Forth version of him isn't quite as accurate as I once thought. Particularly in 1918 when they were pushing the Germans back. His forces faced the vast bulk of the German units that still had strength and willpower. He sometimes faced them numerous times as they were recycled back to the line. He deserves some credit for that part of the war if we are to constantly criticize him for 1916.

Don't you have a Culture Cup to run?

Galted wrote:Don't you have a Culture Cup to run?

Yes, I am waiting for all the nominations, as you well know.  Anyway, this is big boys sh*t and you're out of your depth.

I think you would be better off on www.cargopants.co.uk/forum

Mind the windows Tino. wrote:

Galted wrote:Don't you have a Culture Cup to run?

Yes, I am waiting for all the nominations, as you well know.  Anyway, this is big boys sh*t and you're out of your depth.

I think you would be better off on www.cargopants.co.uk/forum

There's simply no need for foul language and personal attacks on this forum, a forum designed for mature debating and exchange of ideas.

I'll have to go to sleep soon.
So Question 2 will go global in the Music section I presume, Tino?

By the way... I think Secret Fly has nailed it above. Makes a lot of sense. Same thing is happening here but on a smaller and more insignificant scale I believe. That's the times...

The Loaded Dog wrote:I'll have to go to sleep soon.
So Question 2 will go global in the Music section I presume, Tino?

Yes, pal. Just waiting a couple of nominations.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Rowley wrote:The problem is rugger if DC does this and people realise how poorly thought out many of the SNP's financial plans are, which such a course of action would surely do, does he really want the supporters north of the border who have deserted the labour party returning to the fold. For as long as the SNP hold such sway in Scotland is nigh on impossible for Labour to get a majority.

Yes and no. As much as DC is a "new tory" e.g. Europe friendly and business driven, despite this he won't want to see the union disintegrate.

Scotland's problem is there is no one capable of taking the SNP to task over the mess the country of Scotland is in. What annoys me the most is that Sturgeon stood on the podiums across the country talking about Foodbanks as if she and the SNP had nothing to do with it.

Councils and the SNP government have the ability to bring in policies to remove foodbanks but it is way easier to blame the decline in Scotland on the Tories and use foodbanks as a political weapon. We have a budget from England, a higher budget per head of population than England (for lots of different reasons) so we really have no excuse.

The SNP have been in charge in Scotland for 8 years and what have we got? Foodbanks up, Police and Fire services amalgamated into a bloated centralized command structure that blatantly doesn't work (the Mrs is in the police so I know all about the troubles they face with staffing), My Town's A&E department shut down the nearest A&E for a town of 70 thousand people is 11 miles away.

The SNP have made an almighty hash of things mostly the NHS in Scotland but have done a litteraly wonderful job of blaming everyone else.

The less I say about the aggressive form of Nationalism that has been seen on the streets of Glasgow and all over twitter the better.

As for the hypocrisy of the SNP, here is a wee anecdote.

I had a SNP member at my door before the Election asking about my voting intentions.

I asked him why his party was encouraging people to vote green in England when their policies are anathema to the SNP's bedrock principal of drilling as much oil as possible from the North sea and supporting the Scottish Economy. He had no answer.

So I then quizzed him on the fact that the SNP had been lobbying for a cut in North Sea taxes, for companies like BP and Exxon who's profits run into Billions of pounds each year.

I then asked about corruption and the Events leading up to Don Trump getting his golf course. For those who don't know here is the quick version.

1. Trump wants a golf course north of Aberdeen on a beauty spot.
2. The Locals say no.
3. The council Says no.
4. Trump visits Salmond.
5. Salmond Visists Aberdeen Council
6. Aberdeen Council says yes.

I asked if this is the socialism that the SNP stands for?

He then left my doorstep.

The SNP have become the most slippery party in the whole of the UK and seem to claim to be paragons of honesty and integrity in the UK.

I know all politicians and political parties are the same but for some reason the SNP remain blameless in a lot of their Zealots eyes. It's all a bit sinister if you asked me.

Great post ! I think Cameron should scrap the Barnett formula and immediately offer FFA to Scotland. See SNP panic then.

Thoughts about General Election from a first year student (me):

1/ I voted Lib Dems in the election. Firstly I think they've been unfairly demonised in general for going into a coalition; at the time them going with the Tories was the only way there could be a government (Lib-Lab didn't have 326 seats), and a government was needed for stability in quite tough economic times.
They've also been very badly demonised by students, including a pathetic campaign by NUS. The changes to tuition fees weren't actually worse than the system before which Blair and Labour had put into place. The system works as such that the threshold to start paying it was lifted from 16k to 21k; so this new system actually means the students who go on to be poorer or unemployed pay nothing. It charges more from the students who go on to get higher incomes, remember most students don't actually have to pay the full 9k a year.
I'm aware as a student we shouldn't have a system like in the US where students have threat of assets taken away from them if they are poor or unemployed (so hence I supported threshold increased to 21k). At the same time I think it's right students pay, remember nothing is 'free'- so if it's not students paying it will be paid by non students too which is not fair on them.

2/ As someone who sees myself as a centrist; I was sad the Lib Dems were punished so badly. I also was sad to see Miliband having to resign like that, I don't particularly like Labour- but I felt the criticism of Miliband from the media was unfair and superficial.
Not too unhappy that Tories won majority, as long as Cameron can keep their party and policies close to the centre ground. If Cameron can't keep control of their backbenchers, and party goes too far with the right with big cuts that could harm the economy. At the same time sensible cuts to get down the deficit and economic growth alongside that would be a good combination.
In general the intimidation of fellow young people and students towards the Tory voters I see as pretty puerile. I didn't vote Tory- but many on social media make it out as if everyone who voted Tory are evil sc*mbags. It's just pathetic; I can see many rational reasons why people may have voted Tory.

I will watch the next budgets closely and see how Tories do with their majority. The results the coalition obtained between 2010-2015 were good (deficit cut but not too fast, economic growth speeding up by the end), although I admit wage growth was modest. If current government can replicate that more or less - I think Tories will have done a good job.

IMBL

Some good points. I also voted Lib Dem as I agree they have been somewhat unfairly vilified - they really had to enter a coalition with the Conservatives in 2010, and were always going to have to compromise some of their policies and principals. Perhaps the tuition fees one was a bad choice tactically, but if it hadn't been that there'd have been something else (maybe a cut in the child allowance) that would have upset their supporters.

I will admit that I knew my vote was irrelevant in one sense as our incumbent Tory MP was going to be voted back in regardless (ended up with something like 55% of the vote).

Not too unhappy with the Tories getting back in, other than the whole EU renegotiations and referendum pledge. The EU is far from perfect, but it is to our economic advantage to be in, and I suspect that any renegotiation led by Cameron will not focus on reforming the EU itself (i.e. reducing the power of the Commission and straightening out its budget and finances) but on the UKs position within the organisation.

As for the cuts and 'austerity' (which while much spoken of, we haven't really had compared with the likes of Ireland or the Med countries), these were a necessary evil for a number of reasons:
1 - The global downturn and Labour policy screwed the national finances
2 - The public sector (as often) had become bloated. Local authorities with non-jobs relating to diversity, environment etc, and with an over-abundance of middle manager-level staff (because of their annual increments and the lack of positions to be promoted into).

The point is that the cuts were not done to be vindictive, but because there was insufficient money to pay for all the things that were being done by national and local government.

If you ignore the tuition fees fiasco, the Lib Dems did pretty much everything they set out to do in coalition. It was a good five years for them. Admittedly they could - and should - have made more of their time in power, but all in all, it was a solid time. However voters were constantly reminded about tuition fees, and as that was the one policy for which the Lib Dems were known, it was a death knell to their chances of winning seats.

Their election campaign strategy was non-existent though - they had five years to plan on how to deal with the tuition fees matter and just ignored it. They should have come up with a strategy long ago to position themselves as a strong 3rd party; instead they allowed the gurning loon Farage to usurp them, as well as that awful Aussie woman and Nicola Sturgeon. It was a very poor campaign by them.

Azzy

I think the LDs found themselves a bit between a rock and a hard place with regard to the election campaign, especially given the expectation that another coalition was coming.

Campaign on their record in government, which was relatively difficult for the public to discern with regard to what were LD-led policies and what were Conservative (plus raising the spectre of the tuition fees issue), or campaign as an opposition party and just aim to get their message across as best they could?

They went for the first option, in the hope of maintaining the status quo, and it seriously failed. The sad thing about it is that I think Clegg was a far better party leader than either Cameron or Milliband, but was the leader of the wrong party.

I liked Nick Clegg before, and still like him now. He's made hard decisions for the good of the country and not been rewarded. Hard-working MPs such as Simon Hughes have also lost their seats, which doesn't reflect the effort the Lib Dem MPs have gone to for their constituents (most MPs, not all).

I can see me voting Lib Dem in 2020 if the party gets back to basics. Same as Labour has to do. This coalition period, and the Miliband leadership disaster, has shown that you need to be strong on your core beliefs. I don't think either Labour or Lib Dem were, but Tory, SNP and UKIP were and that showed on polling day.

Azzy

Agree that the Libs have to try to re-establish themselves as a sensible centrist party with strong liberal / social democratic credentials, to differentiate themselves from the more authoritarian Conservatives and Labour. I expect them to be back to being the #3 party by the next election (UKIP will implode as it becomes obvious how much it is Farage and no-one else credible, the Greens will stay as they are with a core of support through most of the country).

More difficult for Labour, as their core constituency (unionised working class) has diminished over the last 30 years and they have to appeal more to aspirational educated professionals, but without alienating those on the old left in the north-east and Scotland. This election, a tightrope that they managed to miss on both sides, although not helped by the relative unpopularity of the two Eds. I think they really have te re-embrace the Blairite New Labour ideas, and find a charismatic leader who can sell those ideas to the left.