General Election 2015

[Otta]

miga Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Didn't catch question time debates last night

> but

> > hear Milliband ruled out coallition with SNP.

> > That's the end of his chances of being PM then.

>

> He did add though "not while the SNP plans another

> referendum in the next 5 years".

Exactly, I think his plan is to get Sturgeon to say they'll put that on hold for a bit, and then he can back track.

BUT

He got a slapping last night, and was too strong on saying who he wouldn't go in to partnership with.

I have never liked Clegg one bit, but last night I did feel myself thinking that maybe just maybe he's not the self serving prick I've had him down as...

[Earl Aelfheah]

Fair enough, as I said, I didn't actually see it. Thought it sounded a bit odd.

[Jeremy]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I have never liked Clegg one bit, but last night I

> did feel myself thinking that maybe just maybe

> he's not the self serving prick I've had him down as...

Just interested... why do/did you think he's self serving?

Putting to one side the obvious point that we're all self serving to a certain extent.. what makes him more so than other politicians? Do you think he sold out his party by entering the coalition? What were the alternatives?

[JohnL]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Otta Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I have never liked Clegg one bit, but last night

> I

> > did feel myself thinking that maybe just maybe

> > he's not the self serving prick I've had him

> down as...

>

> Just interested... why do/did you think he's self

> serving?

>

> Putting to one side the obvious point that we're

> all self serving to a certain extent.. what makes

> him more so than other politicians? Do you think

> he sold out his party by entering the coalition?

> What were the alternatives?

He wanted position in Government was always my belief

and that was his primary aim above all else.

The tuition fees thing, I saw as not important - as

they all lie.

Cameron has just been caught out saying "career"

instead of "country" - but newspapers will probably

ignore.

[DaveR]

Clegg is a bright guy and a true Liberal i.e. he actually understands the political origins of the Liberal Party, and that free trade and individual liberty have been core concepts. That's why he understood that there is actually a natural fit with the 'liberal wing' of the Tory party. Unfortunately, the Lib Dems as a party are not particularly in tune with him - on many issues much of their membership are essentially Labour (and 'old Labour' at that) - and their electoral success has been based largely on being smart and/or dirty operators at the constituency level, rather than a national political message.

I still think another Con-Lib coalition would be by far the best outcome, and I'm hoping like hell the polls are wrong and the Lib Dems manage to hold on to 35 or so seats.

NB - I don't think it's really arguable that Marxism is not inherently authoritarian - Marx himself derided the concept of individual rights and freedoms as illusory because of the inherent power/class relationships of a capitalist society, and collectivism (and by extension communism) was explicitly a contrary approach. Marxist devotees have always argued that the Soviet Union perverted communist theory, and insofar as the Soviet leaders in practice set themselves up as a new ruling class, that criticism obviously has force, but the denial of individual liberty (and the idea that dissidents are 'class traitors') comes straight from the big man.

[JohnL]

Milliband on a train now - obviously ruling

in vote by vote with the SNP - or that's

how I saw it.

It's so close.

[Otta]

Same as JohnL, my gut always just told me that getting himself a front row seat in parliament was number 1 priority for Clegg.

But he's the only one who really knows.

Traditionally I've always voted LD until 2010. Torn now.

[red devil]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The tuition fees thing, I saw as not important -

> as

> they all lie.

It was important to the swathe of first-time young voters who voted LD...

[Jeremy]

I'm not sure if I agree, DR. I don't really see the Lib Dems as linear descendents of the original Liberal party. They have more of a Social Liberal ideology.

[david_carnell]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This labor party? A bunch of white collar

> public sector union apparatiks and North London

> policy wonks with naive lefty ideas about

> patronising hand me down 'progressiveness'. You

> think it truly represents them in a meaningful

> way?

These are just such tired cliches - I should be surprised but coming from you it's all I've come to expect.

Smug, trendy, sneering liberals who won?t let us talk about immigration? It?s just a rightwing delusion and a lazy substitute for thinking. You sound like Jeremy Clarkson.

Your pitch that ?we? are the norm, representing the views of all right-thinking Brits and ?they? ? the metropolitan elite ? try to stop us saying what everyone really thinks is bullshit.

Those oh so familiar targets of ?Hampstead socialists?, or Islington Marxists. But hang on. Your own Simon Heffer reckons the metropolitan elite is all over Notting Hill too ? in the shape of top Conservatives! Heffer sees David Cameron and his chums as members of ?the expensively educated metropolitan elite?.

There?s always a temptation to believe that everyone else thinks the same way we do, unless there?s something weird about them. But it?s a delusion. Your whole ?metropolitan elite? schtick, which seems to have a range of mutually exclusive definitions, is just a lazy substitute for thinking, and a convenient way of marginalising anyone you don?t agree with.

An elite is by definition a tiny group that wields power out of all proportion to its size ? like the investment bankers who crashed the global economy, for example, though for some reason they get away with it. But anyone who has a degree or lives in London or might vote for a party other than the Tories and Ukip is supposed to be part of a minuscule unrepresentative cabal.

[JohnL]

red devil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> JohnL Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > The tuition fees thing, I saw as not important

> -

> > as

> > they all lie.

>

>

> It was important to the swathe of first-time young

> voters who voted LD...

To be honest it was probably near the first thing he bargained away

in those days when LibDem and Tory senior MPs negotiated.

[Jeremy]

I actually find Milliband quite frank and realistic regarding immigration. Maybe just because he's learned from his predecessors mistakes... but the current Labour policies make the most sense to me. The message seems to broadly supportive of immigration, but to stop people abusing the system.

[uncleglen]

david carnell wrote

'Smug, trendy, sneering liberals who won?t let us talk about immigration? It?s just a rightwing delusion and a lazy substitute for thinking.'

I see- you are a sneaky git alright!

[david_carnell]

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> david carnell wrote

> 'Smug, trendy, sneering liberals who won?t let us

> talk about immigration? It?s just a rightwing

> delusion and a lazy substitute for thinking.'

> I see- you are a sneaky git alright!

???

[DaveR]

"I'm not sure if I agree, DR. I don't really see the Lib Dems as linear descendents of the original Liberal party. They have more of a Social Liberal ideology"

If you poll Lib Dem members and aggregate the results I think you'll find a complete mess, rather than any particular ideology, but the leadership and prominent MPs have always included plenty who are properly aware of the history and heritage of UK Liberalism. They just never shouted about it because they knew the wider membership were a bit flaky. The Lib Dem conference was always notorious for sheer looniness and the leadership getting a mauling from the grassroots.

[miga]

.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I don't believe there are huge differences between the two main parties policy wise. Their manifestos don't really tell you much of substance, and as the next government is going to be in coalition anyway, the parties can jettison any part of the manifesto during 'negotiations' should they wish. Besides, who knows what sort of decisions will have to be made over the course of the next parliament?

Personally, I think it's more important to come to a view on the parties general 'orientation' towards issues. This at least provides some very general clues as to how a parties future decisions are likely to align with your own preferences.

For me, in very general terms, the Tories are about a small state, individualism, trickle down economics. Labour are more about stronger state services, collectivism, some redistribution of wealth.

The latter proposition is for me much more convincing, but others will have their own view (or may entirely disagree with my characterisations of the main two parties).

[Otta]

I totally agree with that post rahrahrah.

[Loz]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> For me, in very general terms, the Tories are about a small state, individualism, trickle down

> economics. Labour are more about stronger state services, collectivism, some redistribution of

> wealth.

>

> The latter proposition is for me much more convincing, but others will have their own view

> (or may entirely disagree with my characterisations of the main two parties).

I think, in theory, you are correct. But Labour haven't really been about that for a good 20 years. I think Miliband would probably like a move more in that direction, but he knows that neither the party nor the electorate will back him on that.

Besides, if the party really wanted that sort of policy base, they would have gone for Andy Burnham in the leadership election. Probably the most credible real lefty seen in the Labour leadership ranks for quite a while.

[DulwichFox]

Makes me die seeing David Cameron with shirt top button undone, no tie and his sleeves rolled up..

and then visiting construction sites and factories donned with Hard Hat and Hi-Vis jacket.

Getting the Job Done eehhh.. ??

Backing working people .. ???

What a joke.

DulwichFox

[keekybreeks]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Miga I think you're confusing Marxist theory with

> marxist practice.

>

> To be completely clear I think large parts of Tory

> policy on welfare especially is pretty unpleasant

> and am very uncomfortable with the demonisation of

> benefit claimants whilst plenty of affluent

> pensioners ( and that,s the majority of them

> presently) get mass state subsidies they don't

> need but in the modern world the welfare state and

> provision of health and education need reforming

> or we will go bust. The Tories at least

> acknowledge this even if their execution isn't

> always right? If labour wins by the way they will

> either break their supporters hearts or the

> country...or maybe both. I completely support the

> Tories education policies a continuation of the

> excellent initiatives started by New Labour and

> which are finally turning our state education

> standards round quite dramaticallyand yet Red ED

> is going to reverse much of these as his union

> backers oppose reform.

>

> Miles away from its working class origins, The

> Labour Party is increasingly a niche party for the

> public sector unions, the client state and , of

> course, the 'useful idiots' of Hampstead and

> Islington - discuss

you were doing so well , I almost took you half seriously

You have let us down, but more importantly, you have let yourself down as well

[flocker spotter]

i am axually gonna vote this time

sheesh

getting old

[keekybreeks]

http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2015/04/30/sick-conservative-poster-compares-miliband-to-stroke-victim-mirror-online/

[????]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ???? Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > This labor party? A bunch of white collar

> > public sector union apparatiks and North London

> > policy wonks with naive lefty ideas about

> > patronising hand me down 'progressiveness'. You

> > think it truly represents them in a meaningful

> > way?

>

> These are just such tired cliches - I should be

> surprised but coming from you it's all I've come

> to expect.

>

> Smug, trendy, sneering liberals who won?t let us

> talk about immigration? It?s just a rightwing

> delusion and a lazy substitute for thinking. You

> sound like Jeremy Clarkson.

>

> Your pitch that ?we? are the norm, representing

> the views of all right-thinking Brits and ?they? ?

> the metropolitan elite ? try to stop us saying

> what everyone really thinks is bullshit.

>

> Those oh so familiar targets of ?Hampstead

> socialists?, or Islington Marxists. But hang on.

> Your own Simon Heffer reckons the metropolitan

> elite is all over Notting Hill too ? in the shape

> of top Conservatives! Heffer sees David Cameron

> and his chums as members of ?the expensively

> educated metropolitan elite?.

>

> There?s always a temptation to believe that

> everyone else thinks the same way we do, unless

> there?s something weird about them. But it?s a

> delusion. Your whole ?metropolitan elite? schtick,

> which seems to have a range of mutually exclusive

> definitions, is just a lazy substitute for

> thinking, and a convenient way of marginalising

> anyone you don?t agree with.

>

> An elite is by definition a tiny group that wields

> power out of all proportion to its size ? like the

> investment bankers who crashed the global economy,

> for example, though for some reason they get away

> with it. But anyone who has a degree or lives in

> London or might vote for a party other than the

> Tories and Ukip is supposed to be part of a

> minuscule unrepresentative cabal.

Simon Heffer is one of my own? News to me. We don't all live in your simplistic them or us world? Simon Heffer is a horrendous snob who wants a Tory govt. I want a lib Dem/conservative one as I said, if you read, rather than jumping into your splenetic rage. I never said nowt about immigration so stop your smearing crap again. Personalisation too. You are ticking all the boxes of intolerant 'progressives' argument - smear, personalise, shutdown. How about debating rather than insulting.

[maxxi]

flocker spotter Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> i am axually gonna vote this time

>

> sheesh

>

> getting old

I am genuinely considering not voting, for the first time.

Getting older.