2015 General Election

I'll say she puts bricks in hers. (she is such a romantic soul ) Brings tears to my eyes.

I'll have to check my temperature, but I did feel quite sorry for Salmond today. The SNP were standing in front of the Houses of the Evil Empire for a photoshoot and Sturgeon was there at the front being the Lady in Red and there was poor wee Salmond in the back row bouncing on his heels to get his mug in the shot. At one point he even waved.

At one point he even waved.- Figg

Salmond would wave in an empty room. That's just him. He still has a job to do and Scotland expects him to get on and do it. But he has form- he did a good job as First Minister but it never stopped him being smug and attention seeking- you can get away with that so long as your competent and do what you said you would- so far he has always done that.

If you have access to the BBC iplayer there is a very good but brief documentary giving an overview of how the SNP got to where they are today- The Rise of the SNP- I even learned some new things- including something I got wrong in our recent disagreement Figg- Salmond did not say he would resign before the referendum he only announced it after the result, and the SNP party did refuse to accept his resignation, but he refused their refusal and stepped down anyway. Almost certainly as part of a longer term strategy, as political strategy has always been his strong suit.

Anyway its an excellent little documentary even if it does necessarily skate over a lot of SNP history, it does highlight the key moments, worth a watch if you've got half an hour.

I found it on youtube



(Didnt expect it to be there as it was only broadcast yesterday so it might disappear again soon!)

Ive been looking through the results and the percentages.

Some stand out stats (beyond the results themselves) are quickly apparent-

Voter turnout was higher than before but not substantially in England but there is a clear trend of increasing voter turnout-

-59 per cent in 2001, 61 per cent in 2005, 65 per cent voted in 2010, 66.1 percent in 2015

In Scotland the turnout was noticeably higher at 71% with two constituencies having turnouts in the 80's.

I think there is a lesson here regards the Electoral Roll- at the referndum debate both sides wanted as many voters as possible registered- the problem is a lot of poor people dont register to vote because the voting register is used to hunt down old non-payment of tax, including Maggie's hated poll tax, which many poor in Scotland (and elsewhere in the UK) refused to pay.

To get round this the SNP- in the teeth of fierce opposition form the other parties pledged that the electoral roll would not be used for this purpose- the result of doing this was a surge in people registering to vote.

I am strongly of the opinion England should follow suit- as the few millions you will get in unpaid tax, and mainly off the poorest in society (so you have to reclaim it at about 4 quid a month from their benefits), is worth less to a country than an active electorate.

The other interesting thing about the stats is the SNP vote- despite it looking like a landslide (and it is for a Parliamentary election) its actually about the same as the referendum vote in favour of leaving.

The SNP in this election got 52% of the vote, compared to 45% in the referendum for a Yes.
It seems the voters who made up the '45' have stuck to voting SNP, and Sturgeons promise it wasn't a mandate for another referendum got them the extra votes that pushed them over 50% mark of eligible voters (the Tories got 36% and Labour 30.4% of the eligible vote).

If you take the SNP vote however and break it down- they seem to have kept the 45% and the turnout on average was 70% that only leaves 25% of the electorate- the Unionist vote as it were from the referendum, but unlike the referendum there is no single NO vote to vote for, instead that vote got split between the three unionist parties.
But as this is Scotland that was really split between Labour and Lib Dem (with a few Greens on the edge) resulting in their complete collapse, squeezed as they were between turnout, the 45 and the collapse of the Labour party leading to the 7% gain over the referendum result for the SNP.

Next years Scottish elections will be a much clearer view of how Scots are really thinking, as being a PR system its more reflective of how people are actually voting.

Looking back on recent events its interesting that the SNP id not want the referendum debate when it happened, it was too soon for their plan- they sort of end up in it by accident, victims of their on success.
A referendum pledge has been in every SNP manifesto for decades, and thats as far as it usually gets- the SNP landslide, taking a majority in the Scottish Parliament meant they had to implement their manifesto, including the referendum- problem was they never expected to be in that position yet, the landslide caught them just as off guard as the other parties given the Parliament was supposedly designed to prevent any party ever being able to get a majority.

My guess therefore is that there will be no referendum pledge in the next SNP manifesto, or if there is it will be heavily caveated with a need first for a significant change in circumstances (such as England voting to leave the EU and Scotland voting to stay in).
I reckon they will stick to the plan they began with years ago- steady as she goes, more powers bit by bit, demonstrate competence exercising those powers and so slowly convince the electorate it can be done, and done competently.

I think Sturgeon was quite right to rule out this General Election being a mandate for another referendum, as on the figures its likely the result would be much the same again, and even if the SNP were to win a second referendum on these figures it would probably be a narrow margin of a % or two. And I suspect what Sturgeon wants when it does happen again is at least 60% voting YES. And to get that she still has work to do.

Yeah, thats it, the Mother of All Parliaments.

Is there a lot more of the chamber behind the camera? because every photo and video I've ever seen of the House of Commons makes it look way too small to hold 650 people.  Although I guess it doesn't need to be if few of them bother to show up.

No all that is behind them are the doors, which are quite big- there the ones Black Rod knocks on for reasons only the British would bother preserving.




The Commons cant fit every MP in. By tradition you have to turn up and put your name on the seat- literally, they have little place cards.
You have to get in early to get available seats. If you have a special interest there is a committee you go to and if they think you have a case to be there a seat is reserved in your name, and by tradition the longest serving MP, known as The Father of the House (or could be Mother but there hasn't been a female met the criteria yet), gets a permanent seat, but there name still has to be put on the seat, because of tradition, of course.
When the House is packed like above the doors are open and MP's are pressed into the corridor leading up to it.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:If you have access to the BBC iplayer there is a very good but brief documentary giving an overview of how the SNP got to where they are today- The Rise of the SNP- I even learned some new things- including something I got wrong in our recent disagreement Figg- Salmond did not say he would resign before the referendum he only announced it after the result, and the SNP party did refuse to accept his resignation, but he refused their refusal and stepped down anyway. Almost certainly as part of a longer term strategy, as political strategy has always been his strong suit.

Anyway its an excellent little documentary even if it does necessarily skate over a lot of SNP history, it does highlight the key moments, worth a watch if you've got half an hour.

I found it on youtube  



(Didnt expect it to be there as it was only broadcast yesterday so it might disappear again soon!)

can you find me some bamboo to shove under my fingernails on youtube as well? cos it would be less painful.

Its not a film by the SNP its a BBC documentary about the SNP.

The Tories are laying out their plans to 'tackle extremism'.

According to the BBC -

'such orders would apply if ministers "reasonably believe" a group intended to incite religious or racial hatred, to threaten democracy, or if there was a pressing need to protect the public from harm, either from a risk of violence, public disorder, harassment or other criminal acts.'

Ok, first since when was it up to Ministers and not the legal profession to to do the 'reasonably believe' bit- surely finding out if there is reason to believe a criminal act has occurred is the job of the Courts not Ministers?

Secondly what the hell does "threaten democracy' mean? That sounds like 'breach of the peace' in that its not a defined crime its a trawling net designed to catch as many and as wide an amount as possible. A catch-all term you can use when you don't have anything substantial that will stick.
Also what about something like the UK Communist Party? Which has existed for decades. By definition its a 'threat to democracy' but its also free speech and the right to political affiliation without fear of prejudice.

It certainly looks like an unpleasant piece of work.

I do not like the language being used at all.

'the UK has been a passively tolerant society for too long.'- Cameron

'the government wants to "bring people together to ensure we are living together as one society. What we are proposing is a bill which will have certain measures within it, measures such as introducing banning orders for groups and disruption orders for individuals, for those who are out there actively trying to promote this hatred and intolerance which can lead to division in our society and undermines our British values.
"But it will be part of a bigger picture , a strategy which will also have as a key part of it actually promoting our British values, our values of democracy, rule of law, tolerance and acceptance of different faiths.
- Theresa May, Home Secretary.

"The measures, she added, will focus on "extremism of all sorts... that is seeking to promote hatred, that is seeking to divide our society, that is seeking to undermine the very values that make us a great country to live in".

There is a rather obvious them emerging here apart from the clamp down on hate groups bit, promoting Britain, this is Cameron's idea of 'one nation'.
But you can't force Britain back together with propaganda and laws. He is making it worse.
This is the same messed up thinking that believed you could make Iraq a democracy by bombing the shit out of it and removing all its infrastructure. You can't force what you want to happen on people.

The really worrying thing is that these new laws will be implemented by the truly Orwellian Ministry of Justice.

Its remit is equally Orwellian.

Officially its remit is-

'to reduce re-offending and protect the public, to provide access to justice, to increase confidence in the justice system, and uphold people’s civil liberties.'

What they actually control-

'The Secretary of State is the minister responsible to Parliament for the judiciary, the court system and prisons and probation in England and Wales, with some additional UK-wide responsibilities e.g. the UK Supreme Court and judicial appointments by the Crown.

Other areas the Ministry of Justice controls-

European Union and international justice policy
Freedom of information and data protection
Human rights and civil liberties
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
The National Archives

Or in Orwells terms, “He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”

The Ministry of Justice controls the National Archives therefore our past. And in the here and now, it controls the judiciary and the prisons, it controls all the data and decides what information is made available and what is not, and it defines what rights we have as subjects.

They may as well just have called it the Ministry of Truth.

And as if that was not bad enough Cameron just appointed Michael Gove to be its Minister.
You might recall that name, he was the hugely controversial figure who was formerly Minister for Education in England and Wales.
Dear Kafria used to lament and curse his name in equal measure for how he treated teachers, leading to strike actions and all sorts of problems.

It also doesn't help that the Minister for Justice has one of those faces which would not look out of place in old pictures of the Nuremberg Trials!-





edit add- just discovered the Ministries Board contains someone with the wonderful title of - Director General of Transforming Justice.

I suspect he does exactly what it says on the tin.

During the new MP's induction- at which all the new MP's from all parties are gathered together and given the fire drills ect- the group were told that it was considered 'bad form' to clap. For which the SNP contingency gave him 'a warm round of applause'.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
- Theresa May, Home Secretary.

"The measures, she added, will focus on "extremism of all sorts... that is seeking to promote hatred, that is seeking to divide our society.

There goes football.

At this rate wouldn't surprise me.

"The measures are also expected to introduce banning orders for extremist organisations who use hate speech in public places, but whose activities fall short of it being proscribed as a terror group."- BBC

Or in other words closing down people saying things the government don't like, but ho fall short of calling for any action, or for any acts of terrorism,, because if they were they could be done under the current laws.
What they mean by 'activities fall short of' is 'wouldn't stand up in a Court with a judge and jury.'

"The banning orders and extremism disruption orders will work in a similar way to ASBOs, with police having to go to the courts to obtain them, a Downing Street spokesman said.
The granting of a ban, which would be subject to immediate review by the High Court, would make membership or funding of the organisation concerned a criminal offence.
The extreme disruption orders could be imposed on individuals, using the same criteria."

Those sound like safe guards until you realise the Ministry of Justice will be both in charge of implementing these new laws, and appointing the judiciary and controlling the freedom of information.

"Extremism is defined in the government's prevent strategy as "vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. In addition, calling for the deaths of members of the armed forces"."

Few things of note to me here, what are fundamental British values defined as? And what counts as vocal opposition to the rule of law? Is a protest a vocal opposition to the rule of law? Is a national strike an active opposition to the rule of law?

And very importantly the use of the word 'including' so what else and why aren't they telling us what else? 'Including' implies 'not limited to'.

I have one word, well maybe two ? but, Dictatorship springs to mind & so does Nazism. We ( the general public ) are sliding down a slippery road thanks to evil bastards who would not look out of place as 'baddies' in Dr Who.

Nest of Vipers the lot of 'em ! Power crazed & hungry for self gain at any price. They will not & do not care who they tread on & drown to get what they want. If youre not 'one of them' then you are scum that needs to be taught a lesson, & the lesson is.....you knuckle under, you strive, not for yourself but for them, you ask for nothing for verily you will get nothing, this is your lot from cradle to grave, get used to it ! ...........thats how I see it.

well I for one applaud the fact that the UK gvt is no longer going to tolerate those who threaten us. if you haven't broken the law or intend to do so theres nothing to worry about. for years now they have been criticised for being lax over religious nutters, I agree we have been a ''passively tolerant society for too long'' now they do something its suddenly Orwells 1984. talk about paranoid.

each case would also be reviewed under the High Court

BBC- Speaking on Radio 4's Today Programme, Theresa May, the Home Secretary, said the strategy was designed to "protect British values" while checking those who wanted to encourage others down the road to radicalism.

She went on: "We are one nation, there will be different views within that nation. One of the great things about living in the United Kingdom is that we allowed a right to live our lives as we want to live our lives.

"This is a difficult area and it is an area where we do have to be careful about how we draft the legislation to make sure that it does cover what we want it to cover, but still enables free speech to take place. This isn’t an easy measure to bring in, it is something that has to be looked at very carefully. We are very conscious of the need to still maintain that value of free speech.

"This extremist preaching, this message of hatred, this message of intolerence, can lead down a path of radicalisation.

"What we are proposing is a bill which will have certain measures within it, measures such as introducing banning orders for groups and disruption orders for individuals, for those who are out there actively trying to promote this hatred and intolerance which can lead to division in our society and undermines our British values.


Wall Street Journal=
British Prime Minister  David Cameron outlined plans on Wednesday for new legislation intended to crack down on Islamist extremism and radicalization, including new immigration rules, powers to close down premises used by extremists and restrictions on extremist organizations and individuals.

The proposed legislation will include new so-called banning orders for extremist organizations that seek to undermine democracy or incite hatred in public places but fall short of being included in an official list of banned terror groups. It also will include new so-called extremism disruption orders to allow police to restrict individuals who seek to radicalize young people. The new law will give law-enforcement authorities new powers to close premises where extremists are seeking to influence others, and include immigration restrictions on extremists.

The government is also looking at whether more could be done to tighten asylum rules for people who express extremist views that might radicalize others


also,
Suspected terrorists with British passports will be banned from Britain for two years and the Charity Commission will be given new powers to “root out charities who misappropriate funds towards extremism and terrorism”. Mosques or other premises where it is found that extremists are seeking to influence people could also be closed under the new laws.


sounds pretty sensible to me, and if protects innocent people from extremist fanatics its about time.

The danger lies in labelling pure political criticism as 'inciting hatred' just because it comes from a muslim source. If the law passes it needs to be watched very carefully to make sure it doesn't cross into harassment of muslim minorities.

It's not unlike the laws here which upheld a business's right to operate according to it's religious principles and looked harmless on paper, but by intent was very clearly a cover for discrimination against homosexuals.

each case would also be reviewed under the High Court- Figg

Yeah a High Court operating under the eye of the Ministry of Justice, the same people responsible for implementing these new laws and making sure they are implemented fairly. Surely that is a major conflict of interest.
And they have responsibility for the judiciary all the way up to the Supreme Court, the highest Court in the land.
So if the government is out to get you, you cant get a trial in a court they don't have their hands on the appointment of the judges to. The only other place you could then turn to is the European Court of Human Rights- oh but wait, the Tories are pulling us out of that and tearing up the European Humans Right Act (created largely by the driving force of the UK government under Churchill after the war to protect us!)- so we wont have any higher court to go to above a UK one.
And all the Uk courts fall under the purvue of the Ministry of Justice.
And we will only find out which orders are being put out there, and on who and for why from data made available through the Freedom of Information Act- and who controls the administration of it? Yeah you guessed it, the Ministry of Justice.
That does not make me at all comfortable.

'One of the great things about living in the United Kingdom is that we allowed a right to live our lives as we want to live our lives.'

Yeah assuming how we want to live our lives coincides with how the government want us too. Just like they wanted Scotlands voice to be heard in the UK, so long as we only voted for Westminster parties, otherwise they dont want to hear anything.

The language being used here is way to lose and undefined, 'British values' what the fuck are those?
If you cant test it in a court of law, as these orders circumvent trial in court, who decides whats 'dangerous' and what's not?
On whose criteria?

'but still enables free speech to take place.'

Only if its what they deem you can say. Right now if you are inciting violence, if you are inciting others to act violently, if you call for violent acts you can already be arrested. These new laws go beyond that and say we will arrest you, even if you arent breaking the law in a way a court would convict for. That's not protecting free speech its infringing it.

And them just repeating the phrase 'one nation' in every statement is not going to make the UK into one nation- and god fobid it every does become one nation because thats the end of our diversity of culture between the UK's different parts.

I thought there was a good piece on the dangers of this legislation on the BBC-

'At the heart of our democracy is Parliament Square in Westminster, Around it, statues to honour great statesmen. But would the occupants of the plinths survive the government's proposed extremism test?
Nelson Mandela advocated the violent overthrow of the South African state - Margaret Thatcher described the ANC as "a typical terrorist organisation".
The British jailed Mahatma Gandhi for sedition - his extremist views too much for Prime Minister Lloyd George.
Jan Smuts, the South African prime minister venerated with a statue opposite the Houses of Parliament, was censured by the United Nations for his racist policies.
Under the proposals, ministers would be able to silence any group or individual they believe is undermining democracy or the British values of tolerance and mutual respect.
One can understand a government's determination to prevent extremism that might lead to radicalisation and terrorism. But where to draw the line? And indeed, how do we draw up a definition?
There is, it seems to me, an inherent contradiction between banning orders and the core British value that one should be tolerant of different viewpoints.
It is one thing to legislate against activities which can be demonstrated to incite violence or hatred. Quite another to pass a law that can silence anyone who the government thinks has "dangerous views". What would Churchill, Gandhi or Mandela think?'- Mark Easton BBC

it depends if you value 'free speech' over peoples right to not be blown up by murderous fanatics. personally I am not paranoid over these new powers, they needed to close a loophole allowing these people free reign to poison young people. I think its disgusting its taken this long actually. people have a short memory. I remember the London bombings and Lee Rigby getting his head cut off on an ordinary English street, if a few peoples 'liberties' are curtailed as a result I don't give a flying monkeys fart.

Thats way too narrow a view Figg- these laws don't just target Muslim extremists they are not so easy to defend.
They target anyone undermining 'British values and democracy'-load more folks than some nutty terrorist cells.

What about the SNP- surely advocating the dissolving of the UK undermines British values, what about the UK Communist Party? What about the right to protest? To strike?

Just what is "vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values and laws"

Who decides what those values are? How are they measured? What counts as 'opposition'- could you arrest Russel Brand for making public youtube videos advocating political anarchy and that people shouldn't vote? Because thats not only opposing a British Value it also undermining democracy.
Is a strike opposition to the law? Is a picket line?

What about the protests against the Iraq war- we went to war by the law- in the sense that it was all sealed off legally if not morally. So is protesting such an event now 'opposition to the law?

Laws cannot have vague and foggy terms in them like "British values" and "opposition" they must have a clear definition of what those things are. Otherwise its incredibly dangerous as its open to any government, present or future, to abuse it for their own benefit.


Its all too easy to throw up some god awful acts committed by a fringe minority of nutters like the London bombers or the nutjob that carried out the beheading as justification for this sort of legislation- its exactly that sort of patriotic reaction the government is relying on you having so you dont look to closely at what their new laws actually say.

Memories are short-we didn't do all that shit, curbing our freedoms, giving huge powers of control to our government when the IRA were bombing the crap out of us, and that was regular.
And in the end it was talking, listening and compromising that secured peace, not government and military interventions like Bloody Sunday,  that only made it much, much worse.


In other worrying Tory appointments news I see they have made Caroline Dinenage Equalities Minister- a woman who vocally opposed the Same Sex marriage bill and then failed to turn up for the vote.

She has since tweeted about her appointment-

'I support equal marriage & I'm fully committed to advancing the cause of LGBT equality moving forward'

Yes so committed you opposed it in the House and then failed to turn up to vote. This must be Camerons double-think cabinet.

And new Tory Minister Priti Pattel, who saidin 2011 she was in favour of bringing back the death penalty, is refusing to answer if she still believes that, giving the politicians answer- 'it's not a part of today's current debate' but refusing to answer if she is still in favour or not.

And as an extra bit of worry, know who else has previously spoken out of a return to the death penalty, Michael Gove, yup our new head of the Ministry of Justice. Sleep well.