Re: 2015 General Election

by halfwise Fri May 15, 2015 5:06 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:No good argument ever started with the words "At least its not as bad as...."

Its not the point TH film isn't as bad as having your intestines unwound on a stick before your own eyes, but that doesnt make TH film any good.

...

There should never, ever, be a time when we say, 'thats good enough'. Its nowhere need good enough and we should continually strive to improve the fairness and representation of the people, and to scrutinise those who lead in our name.

We have people here who at times claims it's unpatriotic to criticize the country. They have it totally backwards in my book. Though admittedly it's easier to be unpatriotic and criticize than it is to be patriotic and criticize. It may be up to the criticizer to make the distinction clear.

by Pettytyrant101 Fri May 15, 2015 7:54 pm

Well I'm patrotic, sort of.
I believe in an independent Scotland and Im very patrotic about that- but we didn't get that. So I am very keen on if we have to stay in this Union then we may as well fix the damn thing.

Top of my list of things to do-

Abolish the House of Lords.

Abolish the House of Commons and turn Westminister into a tourist trap- the building is crumbling and the bill to fix it is eye-watering- rather that comes out of tourist cash than the tax payer.

Replace the Commons with a new UK Parliament in the Midlands, with a modern non-confrontational design (ie more European, or like the Scottish Parliament with a horseshoe shape for better more fair debating).

Ditch first past the post and replace it with a PR system to better represent the actual vote.

Ditch Trident, spend the money on better services and on building conventional forces, particuarly the Navy as the lack of quick response vesels we have for a island nation is frankly embarrassing (when a Russian sub appears off the east coast of Scotland its ridiculius the nearest response vesslel is in Portsmouth).
If Trident must be kept it should be moved to England- we've done our turn and we don't want it here.

Devolution to the regions of England, a much stronger Welsh Assembly with finding an dpowers comparable to Scotland.

Break up of the City of London (not the place the financial centres) with them to be relocated around the UK, spreading the services industry further afield than London. I would suggest three locations London, Manchester and Edinburgh.

I think those would be a good start. But I am not holding my breath for any of it either.

by Mrs Figg Fri May 15, 2015 7:56 pm

I am patriotic and I can criticize too. But my argument has nothing to do with patriotism but practical comparison of two countries on a day to day basis, everytime I come home to the UK I think shit we have it good here. Putting aside utopian dreams, its a pretty good place to live. Obviously there are some serious problems lurking, but on the other hand there are millions of people who would risk their lives to live in the UK, if its so shitty why is that? because the alternative is dire. ok we shouldn't settle for the bad things, but the good outways the negative in my book.

by Pettytyrant101 Fri May 15, 2015 9:51 pm

the good outways the negative in my book.p Figg

Then lets not let the buggers ruin what is good out of fear of the other.

by Mrs Figg Fri May 15, 2015 10:25 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Well I'm patrotic, sort of.
I believe in an independent Scotland and Im very patrotic about that- but we didn't get that. So I am very keen on if we have to stay in this Union then we may as well fix the damn thing.

Top of my list of things to do-

Abolish the House of Lords.

No way, they are dominated by Labour peers. its the last chance to stop Tory laws going through. Abolishing the Lords is anti-democratic

Abolish the House of Commons and turn Westminister into a tourist trap- the building is crumbling and the bill to fix it is eye-watering- rather that comes out of tourist cash than the tax payer.

The building is a symbol of democracy -HANDS OFF!

Replace the Commons with a new UK Parliament in the Midlands, with a modern non-confrontational design (ie more European, or like the Scottish Parliament with a horseshoe shape for better more fair debating).

what does it MATTER where it is? non confrontational design ha ha! you mean BLAND and politically correct. fuq dat! I don't want beige

Ditch first past the post and replace it with a PR system to better represent the actual vote.

ok that's sensible

Ditch Trident, spend the money on better services and on building conventional forces, particuarly the Navy as the lack of quick response vesels we have for a island nation is frankly embarrassing (when a Russian sub appears off the east coast of Scotland its ridiculius the nearest response vesslel is in Portsmouth).
If Trident must be kept it should be moved to England- we've done our turn and we don't want it here.

no way! dem Ruskies keep flying over Southend

Devolution to the regions of England, a much stronger Welsh Assembly with finding an dpowers comparable to Scotland.

we have that in the pipeline already

Break up of the City of London (not the place the financial centres) with them to be relocated around the UK, spreading the services industry further afield than London. I would suggest three locations London, Manchester and Edinburgh.

breaking yet more high status English establishments. Guy Faux much

I think those would be a good start. But I am not holding my breath for any of it either.

by Pettytyrant101 Fri May 15, 2015 10:49 pm

Abolishing the Lords is anti-democratic- Figg

Shocked

How? its full of placed peers and heridity seats and the Church- not one of them elected democratically.

'The building is a symbol of democracy'

It would still be a symbol, but every thing moves on, and seriously do some googling on how badly the place is falling apart- for decades MP's have avoided fixing the place becuase it would cost so much tax payers money- and of course the longer they have dodged it the worse it has become- they are talking about needing to abandon the place in ten to twenty years due to its state of disrepair- may as well convert it to something useful that will pay for itself.

'what does it MATTER where it is?'

Wealth spreading - everything is in London. The setting up of Holyrood and the Scottish Parliament created lots of secondary work in Edinburgh. Moving the Parliament north to more a central position stops the London centric pull and would bring valuable investment and prestige to another part of the country that needs it more.
Also having MP's have to sit outside of London stops MP's themselves getting so caught up in the Westminister bubble and losing touch with whats going on in the rest of the country outside London- a very common complaint about our democracy.

'non confrontational design ha ha! you mean BLAND and politically correct.'

Churchill once said that the building shapes the sort of Parliament you get- which explains why we hae been dominated by two parties and confrontaional politcs for decades- we've tried it for long enough and its time to grow up and have an adults Parliament whose design fosters good debate and compromise.
And the Scottish Parliament has just such a set up and I wouldnt call it bland, but it has produced far more concillatory politiics carrying more parties with it in legislation than is common at Westminister.

'no way! dem Ruskies keep flying over Southend'

Trident doesnt deter Russia- look at all the good its done us in stopping what happened in Ukraine.
Look how well its helping us deal with ISIS.
Much larger and stronger conventional forces are far more practical and you can actually use them at need.
If we ever need to use Tident we're fucked- for every missile we have pointing at Russia it has a hundred pointing back- we cant win shit with Trident.
And we are embarrassingly ill defended when it comes to conventional forces.

'we have that in the pipeline already'

The devil will be in the detail as always- I will wait and see - you have to remenber that up until very recently the Tories were utterly opposed to any notions of devolution and opposed the setting up of the Scottish Parliament under Labour. Cameron can talk a good game, but he has to take his party with him, and Tories are not natural fans of devolution.

'breaking yet more high status English establishments. Guy Faux much'

Rolling Eyes

No, its for the same reason as moving the Parliament- to begin to resolve the massive imbalance in the UK between North and South. Spreading the financial services around the country a bit to a few locations in key areas would bring much needed wealth creation to areas outside London, such as the Midlands and north of England. Edinburgh you could just strengthen the exisiting financial institutions already there.

by Mrs Figg Sat May 16, 2015 1:51 am

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Abolishing the Lords is anti-democratic- Figg

How? its full of placed peers and heridity seats and the Church- not one of them elected democratically.

I just explained why before

'The building is a symbol of democracy'

It would still be a symbol, but every thing moves on, and seriously do some googling on how badly the place is falling apart- for decades MP's have avoided fixing the place becuase it would cost so much tax payers money- and of course the longer they have dodged it the worse it has become- they are talking about needing to abandon the place in ten to twenty years due to its state of disrepair- may as well convert it to something useful that will pay for itself.

you may want to break up and abandon English institutions, because you seem to have a problem with London and everything it stands for. But I would rather have the ancient, vibrant, mad as a hatter houses of parliament than a world full of dull dreary self satisfied Scottish parliament buildings.

'what does it MATTER where it is?'

Wealth spreading - everything is in London. The setting up of Holyrood and the Scottish Parliament created lots of secondary work in Edinburgh. Moving the Parliament north to more a central position stops the London centric pull and would bring valuable investment and prestige to another part of the country that needs it more.
Also having MP's have to sit outside of London stops MP's themselves getting so caught up in the Westminister bubble and losing touch with whats going on in the rest of the country outside London- a very common complaint about our democracy.

why does your parliament sound like a porno movie made in Hollywood?
everything is in London because its the capital city and its been the centre of British life for thousands of years.

'non confrontational design ha ha! you mean BLAND and politically correct.'

Churchill once said that the building shapes the sort of Parliament you get- which explains why we hae been dominated by two parties and confrontaional politcs for decades- we've tried it for long enough and its time to grow up and have an adults Parliament whose design fosters good debate and compromise.

Hence the smug politics of Salmond and co. you have a building that looks like its trying too hard. its cocky and pretensious

And the Scottish Parliament has just such a set up and I wouldnt call it bland, but it has produced far more concillatory politiics carrying more parties with it in legislation than is common at Westminister.

beige. wheres the history? wheres the character?

'no way! dem Ruskies keep flying over Southend'

Trident doesnt deter Russia- look at all the good its done us in stopping what happened in Ukraine.
Look how well its helping us deal with ISIS.
Much larger and stronger conventional forces are far more practical and you can actually use them at need.
If we ever need to use Tident we're fucked- for every missile we have pointing at Russia it has a hundred pointing back- we cant win shit with Trident.
And we are embarrassingly ill defended when it comes to conventional forces.

if we didn't have Trident, they wouldn't be doing a fly-by, they would be landing.

'we have that in the pipeline already'

The devil will be in the detail as always- I will wait and see - you have to remenber that up until very recently the Tories were utterly opposed to any notions of devolution and opposed the setting up of the Scottish Parliament under Labour. Cameron can talk a good game, but he has to take his party with him, and Tories are not natural fans of devolution.

'breaking yet more high status English establishments. Guy Faux much'

No, its for the same reason as moving the Parliament- to begin to resolve the massive imbalance in the UK between North and South. Spreading the financial services around the country a bit to a few locations in key areas would bring much needed wealth creation to areas outside London, such as the Midlands and north of England. Edinburgh you could just strengthen the exisiting financial institutions already there.

spreading financial services around the country wouldn't make one iota of difference. and could be an unnecessary complication.

by Pettytyrant101 Sat May 16, 2015 2:21 am

I just explained why before- Figg

The fact its stuffed with Labour, and Liberal Peers is part of the places problem- its members can be appointed by a Prime Minister to stuff it with folk that will vote in their favour- by the end of this Parliament it will be stuffed with Tory peers- and not a one of them democratically. Do you want that?

'because you seem to have a problem with London and everything it stands for.'

No I dont- but even the dogs in the street know the UK economy is hugely imbalanced by London havng everything in it. Its been a problem for a long time that was made a million times worse by Thatcher destroying all the industry in the rest of the country.
The sheer weight of London is like a Black Hole in the UK, it draws all the money towards it.
Even Cameron seems to have acknowledged this hence his talk of creating a 'northern powerhouse' to balance London out- but I dont think he can unless they move stuff out of London to the north of England.

'I would rather have the ancient, vibrant, mad as a hatter houses of parliament'

And what about the repair bill?-
'The Houses of Parliament could have to be "abandoned" within 20 years without extensive repair work, Commons Speaker John Bercow has said.
The Grade I-listed building suffers from flooding, contains a great deal of asbestos and has fire safety issues.
In a speech in Westminster, Mr Bercow said a £3bn repair bill was a "realistic scenario".
Do you want to spend three billion of public money on it instead of teachers, or nurses, or police, or welfare for the poor?
And we all know with any building work the estimate is always lower than the final cost- even at 3 billion, thats a quarter of the entire welfare cuts to cut the deficit.
So its 3 billion for the most vulnerable or 3 billion to rebuild a building thats out of date for its purpose anyway.
Its had its day, not just its archaic practises but also its very fabric.
It would however make a mint as another historic tourist attraction- if its good enough for the Tower of London its good enough for the Palace of Westminster.
There is no point letting nostalgia cloud reason. And as things are going there is good chance they wont have a choice but to move anyway-
'Mr Bercow said it would be a "huge pity" if by the 200th anniversary of the fire that destroyed the old Palace of Westminster in 1834, "we had to abandon this site and look elsewhere in order to serve the public interest properly".
He added: "Yet I will tell you in all candour that unless management of the very highest quality and a not inconsequential sum of public money are deployed on this estate over the next 10 years that will be the outcome."

And if they do have to go elsewhere for any period of time, where would they go- Bercow's anser is-

"If we were to decant, should we consider all options including, almost certainly, a regional option? We should."

'a world full of dull dreary self satisfied Scottish parliament buildings.'

The Scottish Parliament building is many things (including grossly over costed- blame Labour for that they drew up the hopeless contracts) but its not dull or dreary. Award winning yes, and if you have ever been in it it absolutely stunning, the way natural light is used inside its quite breathtaking.
But more importantly it has everything a modern Parliament needs, unlike Westminister where many MP's dont even have an office to use as there isnt the room.

'why does your parliament sound like a porno movie made in Hollywood?'

I assume you mean Holyrood? (though Im not certain) its a general collective term for the area the Parliament is in, not the actual Parliament. Holyrood is Holyrood Palace, which is the ancient and official residence of the Queen in Scotland built in the 1600's.

'and its been the centre of British life for thousands of years.'

Moving the Parliament does not mean changing the capital- it still would be. And the fact its been the centre of life for thousands of years is the problem, its too big, too much a drain of ideas, resources and above all money. Drawing it in like a sponge from the rest of the UK.

'Hence the smug politics of Salmond and co. '

Even his critics acknowledge he lead the Parliament well and consensually wherever possible. The SNP consult widely with other parties. You might think thats a bad thing for some reason I think it produces better policy and better law with a broader base of support.

'wheres the history? wheres the character?'

History is made in time- in a hundred years it will have history- once upon the time Westminister had no history and was new- now its day is done.
The Scottish Parliament building itself has loads of character however, its design is quirkly as hell and it incorpartes parts of older historic buildings into its fabric- you really should visit it some time before disparaging it without reason.

'if we didn't have Trident, they wouldn't be doing a fly-by, they would be landing.'

Rubbish- becuase we are an island and with strong conventional forces we would be hard to invade, just as Hitler and back to the Romans before him found out.
If Russia invaded now what we do, throw Trident at them? What good's that going to do?
Faslane would the the very first place they would seize or destroy.

'spreading financial services around the country wouldn't make one iota of difference.'

Not true we have historic examples of where thats exactly what it did. Money follows money.

by Eldorion Sat May 16, 2015 3:12 pm

One of the more bizarre comments from election night was Scottish Labour leader Jim Murphy saying he wouldn't resign, but apparently he's pulled an anti-Farage and decided to resign now anyway despite surviving a no confidence vote.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-32760196

by Pettytyrant101 Sat May 16, 2015 3:33 pm

Yeah he has agged this out needlessly by trying to hang on i n there this long- he should have gone when he lost his seat.
He did make some interesting parting shots however- particulary aimed at Unite boss Len Mclusky, who blamed Scottish Labour for the national Labour failure, and who opposed Murphy's appointment in the first place.
Murphy said in his resignation speech that any new leader should be elected on one member one vote, which cuts the union block vote out.
Interesting times when Labour, founded by the Unions, is at total war with them.

I think what we will eventually see is a seperate Scottish Labour party, affiliated with but not part of the Westminster Labour Party, and quite possibly with a vastly reduced Union influence. Although I doubt they will cut themselves off entirely from the Unions as they provide the cash for the party funding.

by Pettytyrant101 Fri May 22, 2015 4:55 pm

One has to wonder what exactly qualifies as 'dirty tricks' for the Civil Service.

You may recall during the election a memo was leaked by the Scottish Office of a meeting between the French Ambassador and Nicola Sturgeon at which Sturgeon allegedly offered the opinion she would rather the Tories won the election.
It was calculated to weaken SNP support in Scotland.

It was vehemently denied to be true at the time by Sturgeon, the French Ambassador and the Embassy staff present.

Well now we have the result of the leak inquiry and the perpetrator was.....

'former Scottish Secretary Alistair Carmichael....Mr Carmichael said it was an error of judgement and he accepted "the details of the account are not correct".....The official cabinet office inquiry into the leak has now released its report.
It said Mr Carmichael's former special adviser Euan Roddin leaked the confidential memo to the Daily Telegraph - but he had Mr Carmichael's permission to do so.... Mr Carmichael, who is now the only Liberal Democrat MP in Scotland, has written to Ms Sturgeon and Ms Bermann to apologise - describing the leak as a "breach of protocol."
He said that, had he still been a government minister, he would have "considered this to be a matter that required my resignation".- BBC

So just to be clear, it was leaked by a government body: the Scottish Office. With the knowledge and nod of the Scottish Secretary: a government Cabinet Minister. Its contents are by their own admission 'not correct'. It was leaked at the height of an election campaign with a message tailored to hurt the SNP. And if Carmichael were still in office it would be a matter of resignation.

So how does the civil service enquiry conclude?

"There is no evidence of any political motivation or 'dirty tricks'."

You couldn't make it up. Mad

by Bluebottle Fri May 22, 2015 5:16 pm

Oh, I think they just did. Very Happy

by Pettytyrant101 Fri May 22, 2015 5:18 pm

Well yes - but even I am somewhat shocked by how blatant it is- they are basically saying no that's not black its white. Even though there own inquiry describes nothing but black!

by azriel Fri May 22, 2015 5:33 pm

Sadly, thats the way of the world. Its the grasping, greedy, fearful people in it. Afraid of losing their little bit of heaven on Earth. Rolling Eyes

by Pettytyrant101 Sun May 24, 2015 7:28 pm

The post election meltdown continues ni Scotland-

Shetland and Orkney has seen protests against Carmichael, calling on him to resign over the fake memo leak and his lying to cover it up. But he is determined to cling on in there, and the libdem party machine is backing him on the basis he is their only Scottish MP left. He went from a majority of 2000 to 800 at the election, its unlikely he would survive a by-election. I mean what would his platform be for it?- 'Vote for me I promise I won't be a lying bastard next time!'

And Scottish Labour have descended into farcical infighting- Dugdale is favourite with Westminster Labour for the Scottish Leadership, but there are rumblings that other candidates supporters are being bullied and threatened into backing her, as Westminster Labour want a quick election with her standing unopposed.
So Scottish Labour, who lost in large part because people felt they were being controlled form London, are holding an election in which London Labour are trying to fix the outcome of Scottish Labour elections. They have learned nothing at all.

by Mrs Figg Sun May 24, 2015 10:44 pm

theres only two of them, whats their beef?

by Pettytyrant101 Sun May 24, 2015 10:53 pm

Well she is the party favourite- he is more maverick, more likely to call for cutting ties with Westminster Labour for example- but this sort of petty infighting is not going to do them any good - we have the Scottish Parliament elections next year and at this rate there isn't going to be a credible opposition to the SNP- and good democracy requires a credible opposition party.

by Mrs Figg Sun May 24, 2015 11:33 pm

the opposition has been destroyed, what can 2 MPs hope to do against 56? its already undemocratic.

by Pettytyrant101 Sun May 24, 2015 11:44 pm

That's only at the national level, not the devolved level. And its Scottish Labour leader they are electing.

The SNP have a majority in the Scottish Parliament but its a pr vote, so the other parties are better and more fairly represented, even the Tories (who have 15 MSP's on 12% of the vote share).
At Westminster even with nearly every Scottish seat they are still a minority party. But in Scotland they are dominant and the Scottish Parliament needs a credible opposition- I can actually see the Tories increasing their seats next year rather than a Labour of LIb Dem come back.
The Scottish Tories have a good, very likeable, very progressive leader in Ruth Davidson. She is more appealing than anything being offered by the other opposition parties right now.

by Eldorion Sun May 24, 2015 11:53 pm

Mrs Figg wrote:the opposition has been destroyed, what can 2 MPs hope to do against 56? its already undemocratic.

Electoral success like that isn't sustainable without violating democratic institutions in a way that the SNP doesn't have the power to do even if they were inclined to try. The SNP won't dominate Scottish politics forever. Eventually the other parties (or refugees from them) will get their shit together and create a credible, Scottish-based opposition. The SNP itself may even split if they achieve independence or full fiscal autonomy.

I think there's a niche for a center-right party that is neutral towards unionism (if not actively opposed to it) now that the SNP has moved more decisively towards being a social democratic party and that the current Tory party has been decimated in Scotland. It's a question of when, not if, some party steps forward to full that niche.

by Pettytyrant101 Mon May 25, 2015 12:06 am

I think there's a niche for a center-right party that is neutral towards unionism- Eldo

Only problem there is that its hard to see where such a group would emerge from. There are Scottish Tories who have put forward the notion of an independent Scottish Conservative party, but its never got any traction.
Part of the problem is their name- the full title of the Tories is Conservative and Unionist Party- tricky to dump that last bit when its in your name.
I think it more likely we will see an independent Scottish Labour party first- but I am not convinced its not too little too late for them.
You can come back form people hating you, you can even come back from people thinking you were incompetent- but once people are just openly laughing at you, that's tricky.

by Eldorion Mon May 25, 2015 12:20 am

Yeah, I don't think the Tories in their current form are viable in Scotland. But I do think there will eventually be a new party that fills that void in the political spectrum, because there are center-right voters in Scotland who will want a party that reflects their ideas, regardless of how the devolution/independence issue ultimately ends up.

I could see the Scottish Labour Party surviving if it splits off from the main Labour party in the way the Scottish Greens did from their parent party, but I'm not sure that Labour central would allow that before it's too late.

by Pettytyrant101 Mon May 25, 2015 12:37 am

Thee are certainly right of centre voters here who dont really have any representation in the current form- its better at the Scottish elections as if they vote Tory there the list system means it will be represented in the parliament at least.
But up until the 1950's the Tories were the biggest party in Scotland. They dont have anything like that support any more, but its more than it seems from election results.

Of course whilst the SNP have taken on a social democratic mantle, its only so deep- they still favour right of centre economic policy. That's the reason why when they were a minority government they got budgets passed with Tory backing.
So if they keep those sort of right of centre policies on economics (usually the bit Tory voters care most about) the SNP might continue to gather up those right of centre votes too. Making it even harder for some sort of Scottish right of centre party to emerge.

by Pettytyrant101 Mon Jun 08, 2015 5:26 pm

Been watching the Scotland Bill debate in the Commons this afternoon.
About 20 folk on the government benches but the opposition benches are full.

I don't think when the Tories or Labour came up with the Smith Commission in the last days of the referendum to offer more powers, that they ever imagined they would have to get it by a House with 57 SNP Members sitting across from them scrutinising every line. Laughing

The SNP are putting down amendments to increase the powers of the bill.
Labour are now saying they too want amendments for the bill to go further- but not the same things as the SNP for the most part- which is annoying as Labour needs to back the SNP if there is any chance of the amendments getting through.

Its win/win again for the SNP however- so long as they are seen to be doing all they can they can either claim any extra powers are down to their work, or any lack of further powers it's the illegitimate Tories with no political mandate enforcing a bill on Scotland the Scottish government and Scottish opposition don't like.

by Bluebottle Mon Jun 08, 2015 10:59 pm

I can't imagine the lack of interest from the Tories will have all that good an effect on any remaining pro-Union sentiments in Scotland. Shocked