2015 General Election

Well, Murdoch have put his support behind every elected prime minister in your country since Tatcher. (Did he support Brown last time? I don't remember, but that was antoher example of the medias character assasination basically deciding an election.) Him giving John Major the Milliband treatment and putting his support behind Blair played a big part in Blair getting elected. (Not that John Major wasn't perfectly capable of showing himself up.)

In a historical context your assertions that the right wing media, the tabloids, coming out for the Tories won't mean more votes for the Tories doesn't seem as straight forward. One can hope things have changed as Petty says, but have they? Look at Milliband.  

malickfan wrote:The real question for me is, If people are swayed by the opinions and 'journalism' of The Sun are their votes really worth chasing

If they mean the Tories remaining in power, getting to continue their dismantling of the welfare state and the NHS, I'd say so.

That's what I'm getting at with the policies, not the people. This is an election that will have a massive effect on the future of your country.

Well, Murdoch have put his support behind every elected prime minister in your country since Tatcher- Blue

Yes, sort of, he sees which way the wind is blowing and switches his papers allegiance so they always support the winner, then they declare it was their support 'wot won it' but in fact there is no evidence it has ever made the slightest difference, despite what the Sun might claim after the event.

Them switching to supporting the SNP in Scotland is a good example- they are doing it because it looks like the SNP are heading for a Scottish landslide at the election, then they will declare afterwards if it happens that it was the Sun that did it. But it would have turned out that way if the Sun had declared their support for a packet of crisps. It makes no difference.

If I was in England I don't know who I would vote for either- probably find an independent candidate to back. Or make a protest vote and give it to the Monster Raving Loonies or something (wait hold on Figg is already doing that- oh no, thats UKIP!).

There need not be infighting if the SNP get in in numbers- unless the Westminster parties want to make a fight instead of working for the common good with the SNP. Its not in the SNP's interests to do otherwise than to show they are trying to be constructive.
Afterall if Scotland does send a large number of SNP MP's to Westminster thats democracy within the Union, thats the democratic choice of Scots as to who they want to represent them.
Isn't that what the Unionist parties were begging from us just a year ago when Cameron came here and pleaded with us to stay in the Union and that our voice was equal and it should not be leaving the UK but leading it?

Maybe he should be careful what he wishes for. Because it very much looks like Scotlands voice is coming and it is going to be heard. And I think that could actually be good for the stuffy old cosy Westminster relationships. And ironically potentially good for the Union in the long run.

If however England as a nation and through their representatives act entirely hostility to a large SNP presence the we will have an issue- as Scots who have had to put up with decades of getting Tory governments we never voted for and being told thats just how being in a Union works, would not take well to England suddenly finding that situation unbearable and untenable when the boot is on the other foot.

It can't be denied that your electorial system fucks you over, but I still think voting is a way to make your voice heard. Even if it's through something so small as it showcasing that your voice isn't heard in the current electorial system. (A large percentage of the vote not being represented in actual mandates in parliment is a strong argument for electorial reform. Which might mean your vote might matter mrore in future.) I think with the big issues that are so central to this particular election, deciding which side you should vote for should be what you take a stand on. Do you want the further dismantlig of the welfare state adn the NHS? Do you want Tories to take their current policies further, or do you want the alternative? You should look on the policies of the parties on the side you agree on and vote for the party you feel most represent your opinions.

I wouldn't be worried about the SNP if I were you. They stand for sensible policies in Scotland, and will in the UK as a whole. That's just my opinion though.

The Sun headlines wont make one bit of difference seeing as people buy it who already vote Tory. its preaching to the converted. If that headline was on the front cover of The Financial Times or the Guardian it might make people sit up and notice, but not The Sun, that's what they do best.

seeing as people buy it who already vote Tory. its preaching to the converted.- Figg

Not the Scottish edition, they'd only sell about 2. One for the single Tory MP, and one for his dog.
And you cant get much further away from Tory than SNP.

they are just trying to to wind up Wallace, the Sun have a tradition of being incendiary, and long may they do so, in the best tradition of Hogarth.

I think its baser and simpler Figg- they can see which way the wind is blowing and they sell more papers here when they support the SNP than when they dont.
Its about sales and money. I dont think there is plan here to follow in footsteps of journalists of the past, or to invoke some sort of traditional Sun legacy- its just jumping on a bandwagon for a grubby cash grab.

if you say so. but they are in a business to make money.

Yes they are, that is rather my point. Blue was implying that Murdoch has undue political influence on election outcomes- this shows that whilst that might be true its not the priority, selling newspapers is more important and if that means supporting a party like the SNP who are left of centre, and against the editorial stance of Murdoch, they will still do it if thats where the cash is.

I don't know. I don't see why it has to be either. To me it's seems more likely that it's a combination. Although I will say that a whole lot more than the general endorsement the general attempts, by a whole lot of the tabloid newspapers, alos the ones outside Murdochs control, to label and make candidates seemingly unelectable is a lot mroe problematic. The ways Milliband has been treated in the run up to this election for instance. Now I have no great love for Ed Milliband, and he certainly hasn't made their job any more difficult than it could be, but what been said about him and how many people have bought into the message is pretty astounding.

its dog eat dog whats the big deal? I am surprised people are getting surprised over election shenanigans, it always happens before a general election.  plus wheres the fun if everyone plays nicely? ok the stuff about Eds family was out of order, but everything else is fair game.

Things got a bit morel lively finally at the QT debate last night.

First up Cameron, who put in a good solid performance, but was slippery as an eel- he evaded lots of questions, most notably where the extra welfare cuts were coming from and despite giving lots of evasive answers to the question of cutting child tax he never actually ruled it out or said it wasn't on the cards.

Next up was Miliband- who put in an oddly nervy performance unlike his recent appearances- I reckon this one did him more harm than good.
A lot of people in the UK seem to think, for some odd reason, that the previous Labour government were responsible for a global financial banking collapse, and they hit him hard on that, if I thought a bit unfairly in that the questions seemed to come from a place of ignorance.
The biggest moment for Mili came when he ruled out working with the SNP and seemed to suggest that he would rather let Cameron back in that rely on SNP votes.
Now that might win him some kudos in middle England but if he were to actually do it its the end of Scottish Labour for at least a generation- they will go the way of the Tory up here.
He also seems to proceeding from either a position of ignorance or inexperience in government. He seemed to imply all Labour had to do was form a minority government and then dare the SNP to vote it down at the Queens Speech- as if that was it, which is stupid. The Queens Speech merely lays out the government program and shows if the party has the command of the House to form a government by getting the Queens speech voted through- the SNP will not vote that down, they will not expect deals to be cut, or to be consulted on the Speech, its irrelevant- thats not where the power lies. That comes afterwards when the government need to pass legislation.

If the polls prove true the best Miliband can hope to do is form a minority government- then what?

He cant get a single piece of his program through the House, none of it.
The Tories will never back him in the Chamber save over national emergencies, the Lib Dems most likely wont have the numbers left to make a difference- who does that leave?


UKIP? No chance of them and Labour together and the matter of an in-out EU referendum stands in the way.
The Greens? Plaid Cyrmu? They are aligned in an anti-austerity progressive politics, anti-trident pact with the SNP.
The NI parties? DUP are more right of centre than UKIP and the Tories combined- so they are out.
Sinn Fein don't take up their seats in the Commons so they effectively count as zero when it comes to voting, and the rest of the NI parties are too small to make a difference.
So without that block of SNP votes how does Ed think he will get any laws at all passed?

Probably the thing that will get the most air time for poor Ed was him stumbling and tripping as he left the stage.

Last was Clegg, which is about all you can say really, he was on last. He seemed as irrelevant in the debate as his party is likely to become after the election.

what happens if there is a dead heat? they both get 260 seats or something like that and neither have enough extra seats from allied parties to make a majority gvt? what the hell will happen if Ed refuses the SNP and Dave refuses UKIP, the only way is if Dave cosies up to Clegg again, but that's still not enough seats. its a very weird election. I thought it very interesting when Ed said he would rather not be PM than let the SNP join in a coalition, but they are arch enemies at the moment, losing so many seats must sting, its also interesting not one of them would answer the question, what will you do in the case of a hung parliament.
I agree Dave did a good job last night and Ed was hammered over Blair and Brown. The thing that worries me with the Tories are cuts to benefits, that would be beyond belief if they hammer the poorest again. with child benefit I agree with cuts for people who earn over £50,000 per year because they patently don't need child support, its a ridiculous law anyway. only poorer families should get it, and not serial shaggers either. ie those people men and women who produce a kid every year from various partners.
Eds trip said it all really.

with child benefit I agree with cuts for people who earn over £50,000 per year because they patently don't need child support, its a ridiculous law anyway. only poorer families should get it- Figg

Its a sound idea in principle- the problem comes in practice- as it tends to turn out that all the bureaucracy required to means test everyone and find out who is and who isn't eligible ends up costing more than just giving everyone the same.

It might be actually more effective to have a campaign which encourages those who receive any benefits they don't actually need to donate them to local charities in their area instead.



A dead heat is unlikely, but not impossible- it'll sure as hell be interesting if it happens though!

And yeah the Tories will hit the poor again- they have already promised a massive cut in the welfare bill, double the hits already taken in this Parliament, the only people that can affect are the poor. And even worse than has already happened.

I wonder if a dead heat has ever happened before? what on earth would they do, and what happens if its only 1 or two seats difference, hardly a mandate for power.
Unfortunately I think the Tories are the only ones with the experience with the economy, but as you said the price is the poor get hammered. on the other hand Labour if they got into power could go down the same route, as they will probably fuck things up again and will be scrabbling round for cash. theres no guarantee Labour is going to be any fairer.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:with child benefit I agree with cuts for people who earn over £50,000 per year because they patently don't need child support, its a ridiculous law anyway. only poorer families should get it- Figg

Its a sound idea in principle- the problem comes in practice- as it tends to turn out that all the bureaucracy required to means test everyone and find out who is and who isn't eligible ends up costing more than just giving everyone the same.

I find it hard to believe it costs as much to check how much money someone is making as it does to pay for child support.

No, especially not as they committed themselves to Tory budgets. S har to see where the difference will be except in what gets cut, but its more and more cuts either way.
Miliband is weak- he has been bullied and manipulated into backing Tory austerity plans, he has been bullied and manipulated into ruling out a coalition that could be good for the country by the Tories, he bends to every poll and every bit of public opinion and bad press- not a good sign for a potential leader.

I find it hard to believe it costs as much to check how much money someone is making as it does to pay for child support.- Halfy

its never that straight forward- what about savings? Shares? ISA's ect Do they count? If so you need everyone to provide their bank and retirment funds ect details too. Then you need the IT systems to sort it all out, work out who gets what, how much, how often.

These things, particularly the IT quickly run into billions (they always seem to go grossly over budget on these things- for example Universal Credit, now 2 years late on roll out has so far cost a staggering 12.8 billion- and its to 'simplify' who is due out of work benefit and put it into a single payment).

This could turn out interesting- Jim Murphy, leader of the Scottish Labour Party is in danger of losing his seat t the SNP- this has been the case for awhile now with polls showing a consistent 9 point lead to the SNP- but those polls have narrowed by six points, and coincidentally at the same time the Tory vote in the constituency has fallen by 5.
Seems Tory voters are going to vote for Jim to try to save him and block the SNP in some tactical voting- but not sure 'Leader of Scottish Labour saved by Tory voters'- will be a headline that will do him a lot of long term good in Scotland in terms of his credibility to lead Scottish Labour.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I find it hard to believe it costs as much to check how much money someone is making as it does to pay for child support.- Halfy

its never that straight forward- what about savings? Shares? ISA's ect Do they count? If so you need everyone to provide their bank and retirment funds ect details too. Then you need the IT systems to sort it all out, work out who gets what, how much, how often.

These things, particularly the IT quickly run into billions (they always seem to go grossly over budget on these things- for example Universal Credit, now 2 years late on roll out has so far cost a staggering 12.8 billion- and its to 'simplify'  who is due out of work benefit and put it into a single payment).

If you take it off their tax form, then you already have a mechanism to check up on that - it would be silly for another agency to duplicate that effort. Granted, tax reporting is only spot checked, but if it's good enough for the government's revenue service, surely it's good enough for child support services.

Doesn't work like that here- we dont do out taxes every year and hand them in. They are taken at source in most cases, the main exception being the Council Tax which is paid monthly and charged yearly.
So we dont have tax forms.

When you claim a benefit you provide them with your information via a lot of form filling- they then check it out and either grant or deny the benefit. Then you can either accept or appeal the decision and theres a lot more form filling.


Where do you think Douglas Adams got Vogons from? The UK bureaucratic civil service based system-

surely they are doing this wrong, the people who really need child support should claim it, and the people who are paid over a certain amount would have to claim too, everyone claims first, gets their earnings checked and then they get paid if they fall below a certain limit. Its not automatic dole out of cash. People earning over £50,000 get a letter saying 'vous et taking the piss' nuff said. job done. saying people can 'donate' any money they don't feel entitled to is a joke. theres a world of Gucci handbags out there to be bought you know.