General Election 2015

[hypochondriac]

Regardless of policy differences, the current coalition has been a very effective government who have introduced radical reforms to tax, welfare and the NHS. I think the last 5 years has smashed the idea that coalition doesn't work. Both parties managed to get through key policies and work together. As a second to that, the economy is also growing now again (and fast) and things are looking up.

 

Bloody hell I agree with Andy!

[Wes Tender]

If SNP end up being the decisive adjunct to a ruling coalition then the English, N Irish and Welsh ought to have an independence referendum.

 

The only voters who ought to have a referendum out of that lot are the English. The Northern Irish and Welsh have their own Assemblies and the Scots have their own Parliament. And yet all of their MPs elected to our Parliament can vote on English matters when ours are excluded on voting on theirs. It was bad enough when Labour MPs from Wales and Scotland brought about a Labour majority, but a Labour Government propped up by an alliance of SNPs would make the clamour for and independent English Parliament irresistable.

[whelk]

Bloody hell I agree with Andy!

 

Things a re looking up are they? What is actually improving? More people in work? Earning fck all with no sort of career jobs and paying no tax.

 

Surprising how so many lap up this bs as it approaches an election.

[whelk]

Regardless of policy differences, the current coalition has been a very effective government who have introduced radical reforms to tax, welfare and the NHS. I think the last 5 years has smashed the idea that coalition doesn't work. Both parties managed to get through key policies and work together. As a second to that, the economy is also growing now again (and fast) and things are looking up.

 

What key policies have got through?

What radical reform of the NHS have they succeeded in? Having no remit to **** away money on management consultants and zero improvement. lots of Tories vested interests have been looked after?

 

Oh and forgot the tax reform for the very wealthy. Well done lads. What a success.

[trousers]

Because Cameron's strategists are failing?

Maybe. Maybe not. We'll find out on May 7th

[hypochondriac]

Things a re looking up are they? What is actually improving? More people in work? Earning fck all with no sort of career jobs and paying no tax.

 

Surprising how so many lap up this bs as it approaches an election.

 

Eh? I haven't lapped anything up. When this lot came to power the country was utterly f*cked. In an appaling situation I think they have done pretty well. The lib dems have curbed the more militant Tory tendencies and our economy is performing as one of the best in Europe. Of course they have done some bad and some dumb things but every government does that.

[trousers]

The Tory press are really afraid.

I'm not surprised. The thought of Miliband getting the keys to No.10 is frightening

[whelk]

Eh? I haven't lapped anything up. When this lot came to power the country was utterly f*cked. In an appaling situation I think they have done pretty well. The lib dems have curbed the more militant Tory tendencies and our economy is performing as one of the best in Europe. Of course they have done some bad and some dumb things but every government does that.

 

Sorry didn't mean to imply you personally mean you had lapped it up - obviously many support the coalition anyway, I know the country was fcked but so was most of the world. The convenient spin to blame the govt of the time (who I was no fan of) was lapped up.

I know people are bored by its 'all the bankers' line but is true.

They can close libraries and Children centres etc. and say there is no money but there so much money propping up the financial institutions. Reform of public sector mostly amounts to just reorganisation upon reorganisation not actually eliminating the 'waste' and inefficiencies. Most is supporting an ideology that they had no remit to act upon and not saving huge amount of money

Economies are cyclical and growth is inevitable when come out of a recession. The fact that so many Eurozone countries are worse means many think Osbourne has put astute policies in to create growth.

As I said what has actually improved?

 

I do also realise little point arguing as views are normally entrenched.

[Jonnyboy]

Met a high ranking academic today who said "I'm a Thatcherite when comes to the NHS in that we need to afford it, but whatever you do lads don't vote these f*ckin tories back in." Had to agree.

[View From The Top]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/07/jeremy-hunt-accused-cover-up-critical-nhs-report-tory-mp

[CB Fry]

He won't be deputy PM though.

He's got more chance than Nicola Sturgeon, squire.

[Jonnyboy]

He's got more chance than Nicola Sturgeon, squire.

 

Surely as leader of the SNP she would be deputy PM a la Clegg?

[CB Fry]

Surely as leader of the SNP she would be deputy PM a la Clegg?

 

Sturgeon is the First Minister of Scotland, and will remain that. As senior SNP MP of a rump of maybe forty-fifty MPs in Westminster, Salmond will be in a great position to become Deputy PM (should the rest of the election fall in his favour). There won't be a Deputy PM not from the Houses of Westminster, and really, no point. Better to have both of them in positions of power either side of Hadrians Wall.

 

I'd rather not see his pie face anywhere near Downing Street but brace yourself. It might happen.

Edited 7 March, 2015 by CB Fry

[Saintandy666]

Can not see Salmond, or indeed Angus Robertson who is the leader of the SNP in westminster, taking an active role in government with Labour. It wouldn't function because they hate each other, and it wouldn't be in the interest of the longer term goals of the party both in practice and popularity. Far more likely is a deal on further devolved powers in exchange for voting through of the main bills and budget and so on.

 

Whether the SNP have the discipline as the Lib Dems have to carry any deal through to fruition we shall see.

[whelk]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/07/jeremy-hunt-accused-cover-up-critical-nhs-report-tory-mp

 

Left wing media bias.

 

"A recent report said......the Lansley overhaul left structures so “complex, confusing and bureaucratic” that the organisation of the service “is not fit for purpose”. "

 

I thought NHS was not fit for purpose anymore because of immigrants and only way to solve was to let the private sector profiteer.. But no it seems it maybe the Tory reforms no-one voted for. And of course it cannot be sustained even when the economy is doing so so well now. - we even have growth and jobs. So much better than all those dark times in the past when it was in a decent state yet is now unaffordable.

Ok more people and we are living longer puts increased strain but constantly reviewing management in the name of reform is where most of the waste is. Same in education.

[Batman]

Left wing media bias.

 

"A recent report said......the Lansley overhaul left structures so “complex, confusing and bureaucratic” that the organisation of the service “is not fit for purpose”. "

 

I thought NHS was not fit for purpose anymore because of immigrants and only way to solve was to let the private sector profiteer.. But no it seems it maybe the Tory reforms no-one voted for. And of course it cannot be sustained even when the economy is doing so so well now. - we even have growth and jobs. So much better than all those dark times in the past when it was in a decent state yet is now unaffordable.

Ok more people and we are living longer puts increased strain but constantly reviewing management in the name of reform is where most of the waste is. Same in education.

 

there needs to be changes to the NHS though. ANY party who tries to do it with such a massive and complex organisation is going to get battered

[Wes Tender]

I see now that Red Ed, if elected, will force the leaders of the main political parties to attend TV debates in future elections by act of Parliament.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/07/ed-miliband-leaders-tv-debates-guarantee-law.

 

Typical of the wooly thinking of the loony left-wing not to realise the irony of that position, that if there is to be freedom of speech where within reason people are permitted to express their own opinions, then there is a tacit understanding that as a part of that freedom, nobody should be forced to express their opinions if they don't wish to. How do they think that they could enforce this if a politician refused to attend?

[Batman]

Some of the Green Party ideas from the papers....

 

Human rights for dolphins

A third gender to be an option for passports

getting rid of the royal family, house of lords and much of the armed forces

Getting rid of border controls

making many classes of drugs legal

Ban many classes of cars

Ban many dairy companies as cows are raped and murdered for their produce

[Verbal]

I see now that Red Ed, if elected, will force the leaders of the main political parties to attend TV debates in future elections by act of Parliament.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/07/ed-miliband-leaders-tv-debates-guarantee-law.

 

Typical of the wooly thinking of the loony left-wing not to realise the irony of that position, that if there is to be freedom of speech where within reason people are permitted to express their own opinions, then there is a tacit understanding that as a part of that freedom, nobody should be forced to express their opinions if they don't wish to. How do they think that they could enforce this if a politician refused to attend?

 

I think the 'wholly thinking is closer to home, Lord Tender.

 

Are you seriously suggesting that a compulsion on politicians to take part in public debates is a limit on their rights to free speech? That a party leader is somehow within his or her rights to say nothing in a democratic process?

 

Politicians aren't just 'people'. They are 'people' purporting to represent us. They are therefore accountable. We can define accountability in many ways, but one of them, surely, is to debate in the most watched forum of all, television, especially during election times. Political leaders cannot opt out of talking - not least because it is, by definition, what they do: talk publicly. They are public figures.

 

This proposal isn't a 'limit' on their free speech. It's saying: if you want to be a leading politician, making claims on people's attention and taxed incomes, you have to state your case to defend your manifesto.

 

Besides, since when did politicians ever say 'I have these politics but I'm not prepared to say anything about them'? Dictators might take that view, but democratic politics is all about the public space. A non-talking democratic politician is either an oxymoron or a budding political criminal.

 

And as for what to do if they refuse? Simple, and it's already been proposed: empty-chair them. Show everyone they're running scared.

 

Saying 'I'm not talking' should never be an option in formal debates like these. It's calculated cowardice.

[Saintandy666]

What key policies have got through?

What radical reform of the NHS have they succeeded in? Having no remit to **** away money on management consultants and zero improvement. lots of Tories vested interests have been looked after?

 

Oh and forgot the tax reform for the very wealthy. Well done lads. What a success.

 

The Health and Social Care act, whether you agree with it or not, represents radical reform. As does the introduction of the universal credit in welfare. Add in pupil premium, triple-lock on pensions, 10k income tax allowance, shared parental leave and equal marriage (to just name a few) and this government can clearly be shown to have been very effective. Attack them that you think their policies aren't helping the country or another way might have been better - but the coalition have done lots and by that have destroyed the idea coalition governments are ineffective.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I think the 'wholly thinking is closer to home, Lord Tender.

 

Are you seriously suggesting that a compulsion on politicians to take part in public debates is a limit on their rights to free speech? That a party leader is somehow within his or her rights to say nothing in a democratic process?

 

Politicians aren't just 'people'. They are 'people' purporting to represent us. They are therefore accountable. We can define accountability in many ways, but one of them, surely, is to debate in the most watched forum of all, television, especially during election times. Political leaders cannot opt out of talking - not least because it is, by definition, what they do: talk publicly. They are public figures.

 

This proposal isn't a 'limit' on their free speech. It's saying: if you want to be a leading politician, making claims on people's attention and taxed incomes, you have to state your case to defend your manifesto.

 

Besides, since when did politicians ever say 'I have these politics but I'm not prepared to say anything about them'? Dictators might take that view, but democratic politics is all about the public space. A non-talking democratic politician is either an oxymoron or a budding political criminal.

 

And as for what to do if they refuse? Simple, and it's already been proposed: empty-chair them. Show everyone they're running scared.

 

Saying 'I'm not talking' should never be an option in formal debates like these. It's calculated cowardice.

 

Nonsense .

 

Any politician has the right to refuse a TV debate . Some Politicians refused to do QT with Nick Griffin , was that wrong . We are not talking about a politician refusing to discuss his policies , but one refusing to do so in a particular forum .

[Whitey Grandad]

I'm not in favour of these 'debates'. Too much like Big Brother or Masterchef for my liking. A couple of good sound bites and we might end up with someone incompetent like Nick Clegg. Choosing who we want to run the country is far more serious than this.

[bridge too far]

These days, there is a significant disconnect with politics especially with the younger generation.

 

Younger people tend to get most of their information from the internet but they do watch TV a lot so it would be a good thing to have a balanced debate on TV to get them more engaged.

 

Before the days of Party Politicals, most electioneering was done on the stump but we've moved with the times. Party Politicals are not really of any value these days because we all want the chance to see our politicians challenged. TV debates might address that as long as none of those 'controlling' the debate kow-tow too much to the establishment.

 

Cameron seems to do quite well sometimes at PMQs. But that's no surprise, all the questions from his side are planted and he has time to prepare his answers. You'll all notice he never answers questions from an opposition MP, instead he makes his answers into criticism of previous administrations. He's made a mockery of the whole event. I really think he'd struggle to answer direct questions in a debate off the cuff.

[Batman]

These days, there is a significant disconnect with politics especially with the younger generation.

 

Younger people tend to get most of their information from the internet but they do watch TV a lot so it would be a good thing to have a balanced debate on TV to get them more engaged.

 

Before the days of Party Politicals, most electioneering was done on the stump but we've moved with the times. Party Politicals are not really of any value these days because we all want the chance to see our politicians challenged. TV debates might address that as long as none of those 'controlling' the debate kow-tow too much to the establishment.

 

Cameron seems to do quite well sometimes at PMQs. But that's no surprise, all the questions from his side are planted and he has time to prepare his answers. You'll all notice he never answers questions from an opposition MP, instead he makes his answers into criticism of previous administrations. He's made a mockery of the whole event. I really think he'd struggle to answer direct questions in a debate off the cuff.

but in those debates, isn't even more restrictive than PMQs?

[whelk]

Nonsense .

 

Any politician has the right to refuse a TV debate . Some Politicians refused to do QT with Nick Griffin , was that wrong . We are not talking about a politician refusing to discuss his policies , but one refusing to do so in a particular forum .

 

You disagree with your mate Nigel then?

 

Amazing what people will defend to be loyal to a party's stance.

[stug76]

You'll all notice he never answers questions from an opposition MP, instead he makes his answers into criticism of previous administrations. He's made a mockery of the whole event. I really think he'd struggle to answer direct questions in a debate off the cuff.

 

 

Is funny but that's exactly how I feel when listening to pretty much all the labour politicians, it annoys me intensely.

 

There was a Scottish labour MP on the radio the other day and her only positive she could offer to Scottish voters was that voting labour would prevent the tories getting in. Not once did she offer a policy as a reason for voting labour. The labour party, and it's politicians seen to have no conviction or belief in themselves, instead relying on an anti tory agenda which is so poor for the main opposition party.

[benjii]

These days, there is a significant disconnect with politics especially with the younger generation.

 

Younger people tend to get most of their information from the internet but they do watch TV a lot so it would be a good thing to have a balanced debate on TV to get them more engaged.

 

Before the days of Party Politicals, most electioneering was done on the stump but we've moved with the times. Party Politicals are not really of any value these days because we all want the chance to see our politicians challenged. TV debates might address that as long as none of those 'controlling' the debate kow-tow too much to the establishment.

 

Cameron seems to do quite well sometimes at PMQs. But that's no surprise, all the questions from his side are planted and he has time to prepare his answers. You'll all notice he never answers questions from an opposition MP, instead he makes his answers into criticism of previous administrations. He's made a mockery of the whole event. I really think he'd struggle to answer direct questions in a debate off the cuff.

 

It's quite ridiculous of you to pretend that this is a new phenomenon under Cameron. You may have numerous legitimate gripes with him but the notion that he is the first PM to be slippery and not answer the question at PMQs is just risible. Find some footage of Blair or something for a true look at a narcissistic evasionist of the highest order.

[bridge too far]

It's quite ridiculous of you to pretend that this is a new phenomenon under Cameron. You may have numerous legitimate gripes with him but the notion that he is the first PM to be slippery and not answer the question at PMQs is just risible. Find some footage of Blair or something for a true look at a narcissistic evasionist of the highest order.

 

I've been watching PMQs for years. I don't recall any previous PM so blatantly not answer questions put to him by the opposition parties.

[The Cat]

PMQ's is an utter joke. Blair lumped the 2 sessions together into one so he could be less accountable for bombing loads of innocent people or something.

 

The questions have always been planted and in all the time I've heard them the PM, whoever it has been, rarely directly answers a question.

[bridge too far]

PMQ's is an utter joke. Blair lumped the 2 sessions together into one so he could be less accountable for bombing loads of innocent people or something.

 

The questions have always been planted and in all the time I've heard them the PM, whoever it has been, rarely directly answers a question.

 

I agree with you about the planted questions and I wish it would stop. But I have never known a PM turn a question round and ask the Leader of the Opposition to answer a question (usually related to something that happened 5 or more years ago).

 

The whole thing needs reforming and maybe questions should be asked and answered on the hoof?

[Jonnyboy]

there needs to be changes to the NHS though. ANY party who tries to do it with such a massive and complex organisation is going to get battered

 

Get rid of agency staffing for starters.

[Batman]

I've been watching PMQs for years. I don't recall any previous PM so blatantly not answer questions put to him by the opposition parties.

 

[bridge too far]

 

Wow! Great answer - I can see you thought that one through

[Batman]

Wow! Great answer - I can see you thought that one through

 

there was nothing to think through with the rubbish you have posted to which I posted the laughing face at.

 

ALL party leaders could easily be accused of what you suggest about not answering questions directly. ALL PMs have done it.

on a lesser scale, I heard the leader of the Greens fail to answer anything on the famed LBC interview. Blair used to weasel his way out of everything. He was bloody good at it

[hypochondriac]

Wow! Great answer - I can see you thought that one through

 

You do sound incredibly biased tbf.

[hutch]

I see now that Red Ed, if elected, will force the leaders of the main political parties to attend TV debates in future elections by act of Parliament

It could be worse. They could force us to watch.

[trousers]

I've been watching PMQs for years. I don't recall any previous PM so blatantly not answer questions put to him by the opposition parties.

 

It's proportional to the quality of question being asked.... "Ask a stupid question....."

[Wes Tender]

I think the 'wholly thinking is closer to home, Lord Tender.

 

Are you seriously suggesting that a compulsion on politicians to take part in public debates is a limit on their rights to free speech? That a party leader is somehow within his or her rights to say nothing in a democratic process?

 

Politicians aren't just 'people'. They are 'people' purporting to represent us. They are therefore accountable. We can define accountability in many ways, but one of them, surely, is to debate in the most watched forum of all, television, especially during election times. Political leaders cannot opt out of talking - not least because it is, by definition, what they do: talk publicly. They are public figures.

 

This proposal isn't a 'limit' on their free speech. It's saying: if you want to be a leading politician, making claims on people's attention and taxed incomes, you have to state your case to defend your manifesto.

 

Besides, since when did politicians ever say 'I have these politics but I'm not prepared to say anything about them'? Dictators might take that view, but democratic politics is all about the public space. A non-talking democratic politician is either an oxymoron or a budding political criminal.

 

And as for what to do if they refuse? Simple, and it's already been proposed: empty-chair them. Show everyone they're running scared.

 

Saying 'I'm not talking' should never be an option in formal debates like these. It's calculated cowardice.

 

Well, if you can't see the irony in Labour's Red Ed proposing to force people to enter into a debate against their will and the connection to the principles of free speech whereby one is free to speak one's mind, or equally free to refuse to comment, then I'm certain that I'll be wasting my time trying to explain it to you. Have you not heard of the saying that you can take a horse to the water, but you can't make it drink?

 

But also you don't need to explain the principles of democracy to me, I do know how it works. By and large our political candidates can choose to explain their policies to their electorate by numerous methods, the Party manifesto, Question Time debates, their own election literature, their weekly surgeries, etc. But I see that you prefer the whole thing to be a Presidential style format, trying to convince the electorate to vote for a Party on the basis of how their leader comes across on TV instead of how good your local constituency MP would be.

 

And I have to laugh at your suggestion that if anybody refused to attend these debates in the future, (should attendance become a legal obligation), your solution will be that they will represented by an empty chair. The punishment should fit the crime, eh? The only law-breaking to be punished by such laughable retribution would make Labour a laughing stock. Ed obviously hasn't thought that part of it through, if he thinks that the punishment for breaking the law by refusing to attend these debates would be as per your suggestion.

[SuperMikey]

there was nothing to think through with the rubbish you have posted to which I posted the laughing face at.

 

ALL party leaders could easily be accused of what you suggest about not answering questions directly. ALL PMs have done it.

on a lesser scale, I heard the leader of the Greens fail to answer anything on the famed LBC interview. Blair used to weasel his way out of everything. He was bloody good at it

 

What's your obsession with the Greens, Brett? That interview was atrocious but the policies hadn't been properly costed, so how could she answer the questions without being held accountable for any changes later on?

 

And anyway, BTF's point was that Cameron avoids questions more than any other PM she's seen - your point that all PMs have done it doesn't lessen her argument at all..

[Ex Lion Tamer]

I agree with you about the planted questions and I wish it would stop. But I have never known a PM turn a question round and ask the Leader of the Opposition to answer a question (usually related to something that happened 5 or more years ago).

 

The whole thing needs reforming and maybe questions should be asked and answered on the hoof?

I'd like the speaker to have the power to step in if a question isn't adequately answered

[CB Saint]

In today's technological age - is PMQs out dated? Its not like the PM is being held to account because he doesn't answer any questions he doesn't want to anyway.

 

Considering the whole thing has degenerate into childish name calling, I imagine there is better ways for 600 MPs to spend an hour of their time every week

[Lord Duckhunter]

Tony Blair was the first pm I remember answering an opposition question by asking a question. Michael Howard used to point out it was Prime Ministers questions , not opposition leaders questions.

 

William Hague was a great performer who used to mock Blair regularly ( in fact I did read it was one of the reason Blair cut it from twice to once a week) , but it didn't do him any good out in the country. Not enough people watch it to really affect elections and all they're trying to do is get a line on news at ten. Its not a debate or a question and answer session , its a series of sound bites chucked at each other.

[buctootim]

In today's technological age - is PMQs out dated?

 

Yes probably. It would be more interesting if the general public could send in questions. They could still get avoided of course, but the PM would get more criticism for deflecting them and it might generate a bit more light.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

In today's technological age - is PMQs out dated? Its not like the PM is being held to account because he doesn't answer any questions he doesn't want to anyway.

 

Considering the whole thing has degenerate into childish name calling, I imagine there is better ways for 600 MPs to spend an hour of their time every week

 

No. It is wonderful theatre and has a cult following in certain parts of the world. It draws people into politics.

[Whitey Grandad]

No. It is wonderful theatre and has a cult following in certain parts of the world. It draws people into politics.

 

They're supposed to be running the country, not providing entertainment.

[st alex]

Some of the Green Party ideas from the papers....

 

Human rights for dolphins

A third gender to be an option for passports

getting rid of the royal family, house of lords and much of the armed forces

Getting rid of border controls

making many classes of drugs legal

Ban many classes of cars

Ban many dairy companies as cows are raped and murdered for their produce

 

Except that you've just made up half of those, and they still sound more logical then any UKIP policies. Legalising recreational drugs and reducing the number of cars on the roads are difficult to argue against.

 

I've often wondered, what does a utopia or an ideal world look like to a right winger? Compared to someone with liberal values. I think one of those worlds would be a great deal nicer than the other.

[Wes Tender]

Except that you've just made up half of those, and they still sound more logical then any UKIP policies. Legalising recreational drugs and reducing the number of cars on the roads are difficult to argue against.

 

I've often wondered, what does a utopia or an ideal world look like to a right winger? Compared to someone with liberal values. I think one of those worlds would be a great deal nicer than the other.

 

Which UKIP policies did you have in mind that don't sound as logical as those that Batman made up? Come on, give it your best shot.

 

 

There is a Utopian world and an ideal world, but most of us have to live in the real world.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Some of the Green Party ideas from the papers....

 

Human rights for dolphins

A third gender to be an option for passports

getting rid of the royal family, house of lords and much of the armed forces

Getting rid of border controls

making many classes of drugs legal

Ban many classes of cars

Ban many dairy companies as cows are raped and murdered for their produce

 

Funnily, I quite like a number of these policy ideas.

[Wade Garrett]

Laughed at Milliband yesterday on the BBC, giving the impression he was some sort of hard nut because he didn't get bullied at school.

 

Seriously, who is running his PR. Comes across as more of a tool every time I see him. If his brother was in charge (cheers TUC), Labour would be running away with this election. Ed will get decimated. If they can't get even get my vote, they're going to really struggle.

 

Reckon we'll have to put up with the Tories for another 5 years.

[buctootim]

Laughed at Milliband yesterday on the BBC, giving the impression he was some sort of hard nut because he didn't get bullied at school.

 

Seriously, who is running his PR. Comes across as more of a tool every time I see him. If his brother was in charge (cheers TUC), Labour would be running away with this election. Ed will get decimated. If they can't get even get my vote, they're going to really struggle.

 

Reckon we'll have to put up with the Tories for another 5 years.

 

Its going to be a total lottery - decided by whichever parties' supporters are more disenchanted. Much of Labour's vote will stay home, Tories will switch to UKIP and defecting LD voters will decide who gets in.