General Election 2015

[Wade Garrett]

There's only one party that created an economic funk and that was by over-borrowing and committing to spending that couldn't be afforded.

 

I don't think they did. They did bail the Tory bankers out though, they nigh on bankrupted the nation, and are still quaffing champagne and smoking the best cigars as if they did nothing wrong. And to think, the Tories wanted an even less regulated City. That would have worked!

To blame the Government totally is a tad unfair.

[pap]

 

Another Tory smoking gun.

 

Of interest to those supplementing their personalities with nationalism, I guess.

[Wade Garrett]

I'm getting a bit fed up with the Tory bias in the media. I mean, what the hell is all this Trident nonsense about?

 

Some Tory disagrees with a hypothetical decision made by a hypothetical coalition meaning Milliband is a back-stabber - how on earth is that headline news?

 

It's ever desperate Tory press who are seriously failing to land any telling blows on Milliband. It's quite telling that they aren't talking up the dismal Tory campaign.

[buctootim]

It's ever desperate Tory press who are seriously failing to land any telling blows on Milliband. It's quite telling that they aren't talking up the dismal Tory campaign.

 

The whole campaign is desperate. There is such a lack of talent on all sides. Fallons attempt was misjudged - it just gave Labour the opportunity to get massive publicity for saying they would maintain the continuous at sea deterrent - thereby making the Tory look spiteful and Labour trustworthy.

[Wes Tender]

The whole campaign is desperate. There is such a lack of talent on all sides. Fallons attempt was misjudged - it just gave Labour the opportunity to get massive publicity for saying they would maintain the continuous at sea deterrent - thereby making the Tory look spiteful and Labour trustworthy.

 

Did it make Labour look trustworthy? I suppose different people read the interview different ways depending on their political allegiances. With the benefit of the passing of a few days in which the detail will have been largely forgotten by most of the electorate, the over-riding impression will remain that Labour might potentially renege on their commitments to our Trident nuclear defensive capabilities if they need the support of the SNP in forming a government and that they did not come out and state categorically that the replacement nuclear submarine capability would remain at four boats.

[Torres]

I'm getting a bit fed up with the Tory bias in the media. I mean, what the hell is all this Trident nonsense about?

 

Some Tory disagrees with a hypothetical decision made by a hypothetical coalition meaning Milliband is a back-stabber - how on earth is that headline news?

Given that all Party manifestos are hypothetical, should we not talk about them at all?

[trousers]

Another Tory smoking gun.

 

Of interest to those supplementing their personalities with nationalism, I guess.

 

Not guilty m'lud. I never had a personality to start with.

[buctootim]

Did it make Labour look trustworthy? I suppose different people read the interview different ways depending on their political allegiances. With the benefit of the passing of a few days in which the detail will have been largely forgotten by most of the electorate, the over-riding impression will remain that Labour might potentially renege on their commitments to our Trident nuclear defensive capabilities if they need the support of the SNP in forming a government and that they did not come out and state categorically that the replacement nuclear submarine capability would remain at four boats.

 

They said they would maintain a continuous at sea deterrent and would take the advice of the Admiralty, acknowledging that four would almost certainly be required. Making stuff up and then being proved wrong is not the way to get elected - especially when the tories will fail to maintain the NATO commitment of spending 2% of GDP on defence. It just adds hypocrisy to the list.

[Torres]

Trident isn't even the issue and it's not actually the Tory target of the day, merely a convenient issue to highlight to English voters the danger of voting Labour and ending up with a government heavily (and probably unduly) influenced by a party they were unable to even vote for who are desperate to break their country away from England at the expense of the English taxpayer.

 

In that respect today will be effective and we probably expect more of it.

[saint si]

If dune were still about, he'd be telling us how Trident keeps us at the "top table", and that going around threatening people with nukes is good diplomacy.

 

Not the purpose of the nuclear deterrent as you well know

[buctootim]

Trident isn't even the issue and it's not actually the Tory target of the day, merely a convenient issue to highlight to English voters the danger of voting Labour and ending up with a government heavily (and probably unduly) influenced by a party they were unable to even vote for who are desperate to break their country away from England at the expense of the English taxpayer.

 

In that respect today will be effective and we probably expect more of it.

 

Its not effective though because it forces Miliband to issue a categoric assurance that it wont happen. On a cynical tactical level they would have done better with gentle ongoing doubt raising and innuendo.

[pap]

Not the purpose of the nuclear deterrent as you well know

 

What exactly are we deterring on account of us having nukes?

 

The obvious answer, preventing foreign aggression, seems something of a stretch with the EU and NATO about.

 

Who are we at risk from?

[CB Fry]

Slightly disturbing tweet from the Grauniad's bright young columnist.

 

https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/586092985743466496

 

"Michael Fallon’s “stabbed in the back” metaphor is deeply sinister. It is a classic anti-Semitic trope."

 

Blimey.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Slightly disturbing tweet from the Grauniad's bright young columnist.

 

https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/586092985743466496

 

"Michael Fallon’s “stabbed in the back” metaphor is deeply sinister. It is a classic anti-Semitic trope."

 

Blimey.

 

Hmmm, I can see where he is coming from. The stabbed in the back thing is indeed a trope from post-WW1 Germany, and there was plenty of propaganda stating a belief that the Jews of Germany cost the country the war by, well, stabbing them in the back. This being a pretty well known example:

 

 

Fallon's comments are pretty low, and with the way he uses the 'stabbed in the back' line with regards to his brother and then the country I can see why someone would draw the comparison.

 

Not sure I agree with Mr Jones, but I can see where he is coming from. Fallon is just being a petty, crass scaremongerer though.

[Whitey Grandad]

I don't think they did. They did bail the Tory bankers out though, they nigh on bankrupted the nation, and are still quaffing champagne and smoking the best cigars as if they did nothing wrong. And to think, the Tories wanted an even less regulated City. That would have worked!

To blame the Government totally is a tad unfair.

 

If you really believe that then there's no hope for any of us. Labour was cosying up to the bankers in the City throughout their term in office. There is absolutely no way that a bank can bankrupt a nation, which prints its own money. The causes of the recession were many and diverse and banking was only a part of it. Many countries came through the same period with barely a scratch. Our problem was that Labour's excesses had left us very exposed to world financial problems.

[pap]

Slightly disturbing tweet from the Grauniad's bright young columnist.

 

https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/586092985743466496

 

"Michael Fallon’s “stabbed in the back” metaphor is deeply sinister. It is a classic anti-Semitic trope."

 

Blimey.

 

Jones has done himself up a bit there. Classic example of trying to be too clever. He's probably technically correct in what he says, but the problem is that his audience, or indeed Fallon, probably have no idea of the origins of the term and therefore had no anti-semitic intent.

[Torres]

Its not effective though because it forces Miliband to issue a categoric assurance that it wont happen. On a cynical tactical level they would have done better with gentle ongoing doubt raising and innuendo.

As I said, Trident isn't the real issue, the electorate on the whole don't care about Trident, but it's been weaponised (hoho) to get at the real point of SNP influence over Milliband.

[trousers]

Jones has done himself up a bit there. Classic example of trying to be too clever. He's probably technically correct in what he says, but the problem is that his audience, or indeed Fallon, probably have no idea of the origins of the term and therefore had no anti-semitic intent.

 

Blimey*, I agree with pap.

 

(*when I say "blimey" I don't actually mean "blind me")

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Jones has done himself up a bit there. Classic example of trying to be too clever. He's probably technically correct in what he says, but the problem is that his audience, or indeed Fallon, probably have no idea of the origins of the term and therefore had no anti-semitic intent.

 

I'd go along with this. The reason for my above post was to try give a bit of back ground before the anti-outrage brigade come in getting all outraged.

[buctootim]

Many countries came through the same period with barely a scratch. Our problem was that Labour's excesses had left us very exposed to world financial problems.

 

 

Really? looks pretty across the board to me. In fact many countries, the PIIGS, were far worse.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=cjsdgb406s3np_&ctype=l&met_y=gdp-ppp#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=gdp-ppp&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:61:65:184:83:162&ifdim=region&tstart=639615600000&tend=1302303600000&hl=en_US&dl=en_US&ind=false

[buctootim]

the electorate on the whole don't care about Trident, but it's been weaponised (hoho) to get at the real point of SNP influence over Milliband.

 

They dont. The point is Fallon has given Miliband a 24 carat maximum publicity opportunity to demonstrate he will pursue Labour's policies whatever the SNP think. The Tories have effectively shot themselves in the foot by neutralising one of their best angles of attack.

[Wes Tender]

They said they would maintain a continuous at sea deterrent and would take the advice of the Admiralty, acknowledging that four would almost certainly be required. Making stuff up and then being proved wrong is not the way to get elected - especially when the tories will fail to maintain the NATO commitment of spending 2% of GDP on defence. It just adds hypocrisy to the list.

 

As far as I'm aware, the coalition has spent above the 2% of GDP during its term that our NATO commitment stipulates should be our aim. In your assertion that the Tories will fail to meet this commitment figure, do you know something that we don't?

 

Fallon firmly committed the Tories to 4 Trident submarines without the mealy-mouthed we will take the advice of the Admiralty line and if as is likely four will be required, then I don't see why there would be a problem in them stating that they also would commit to four boats -apart from the ticklish problem that they would have to be stationed at Faslane against the wishes of the SNP.

[buctootim]

As far as I'm aware, the coalition has spent above the 2% of GDP during its term that our NATO commitment stipulates should be our aim. In your assertion that the Tories will fail to meet this commitment figure, do you know something that we don't?

 

UKIP trustworthy?

http://www.ukip.org/cameron_fiddling_the_books_on_nato_defence_spending_is_a_betrayal_of_our_troops

[badgerx16]

.....t the mealy-mouthed we will take the advice of the Admiralty line ......

 

The 3 boat option was considered as part of the MOD's study of options for the replacement program :

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/212745/20130716_Trident_Alternatives_Study.pdf

 

It is stated that this is a viable option, but will not give exactly the same level of deterrence as CASD.

 

So hardly 'mealy mouthed'.

[Whitey Grandad]

Really? looks pretty across the board to me. In fact many countries, the PIIGS, were far worse.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=cjsdgb406s3np_&ctype=l&met_y=gdp-ppp#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=gdp-ppp&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:61:65:184:83:162&ifdim=region&tstart=639615600000&tend=1302303600000&hl=en_US&dl=en_US&ind=false

 

Oceania hardly noticed, Denmark and Portugal hardly faltered. Germany had a slight retrenchment in very steady growth as did Latin America. Asia saw nothing but a steady rise. It seems to me that the socialist high-spend countries came off worst.

 

The oil price rise alone would have been enough to cause a significant recession.

[JackFrost]

If you really believe that then there's no hope for any of us. Labour was cosying up to the bankers in the City throughout their term in office. There is absolutely no way that a bank can bankrupt a nation, which prints its own money. The causes of the recession were many and diverse and banking was only a part of it. Many countries came through the same period with barely a scratch. Our problem was that Labour's excesses had left us very exposed to world financial problems.

 

Indeed, and Brown stuck two fingers up at the IMF who were warning of just that.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2005/apr/18/politics.ukgeneralelection20051

 

Then a few years later, the financial crisis hit.

[buctootim]

Oceania hardly noticed, Denmark and Portugal hardly faltered. Germany had a slight retrenchment in very steady growth as did Latin America. Asia saw nothing but a steady rise. It seems to me that the socialist high-spend countries came off worst.

 

The oil price rise alone would have been enough to cause a significant recession.

 

You have an odd approach to life. You tell yourself what you want to hear and then seem to believe it, facts notwithstanding. Germany, Denmark and Portugal all had long recurrent recessions and periods of stagnation. As the UK is in Europe they are out comparators to judge whether Labour did better or worse than average, not Paraguay.

http://www.independent.ie/business/world/denmark-cant-avoid-third-recession-in-four-years-29236928.html

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21580178-despite-shrinking-economy-portuguese-want-keep-euro-floundering

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11160944/Eurozone-in-crisis-Germany-could-enter-third-recession-in-six-years.html

[Wade Garrett]

If you really believe that then there's no hope for any of us. Labour was cosying up to the bankers in the City throughout their term in office. There is absolutely no way that a bank can bankrupt a nation, which prints its own money. The causes of the recession were many and diverse and banking was only a part of it. Many countries came through the same period with barely a scratch. Our problem was that Labour's excesses had left us very exposed to world financial problems.

 

Leave it out. The banks casino outlook on investments nearly brought the country down.

[Batman]

A 3 boat option is basically what we have now more of a 3 and a half. 1 Boat is in a long refit at any one time. A new class of boat will take away the need for such a long refit (nuclear refuel so to speak)

 

that is in an ideal world. How on earth the CASD is maintained is the work of magic by the RN given the current climate.

 

a pure 3 boat option would indeed put the CASD element at huge risk IMO. the wiggle room that is available now would be gone.

 

Any how, the new boats will be smaller than the current V-class. But seeing the massive over spend on everything else we do, they will probably cost 4x as much.

[CB Fry]

If you really believe that then there's no hope for any of us. Labour was cosying up to the bankers in the City throughout their term in office. There is absolutely no way that a bank can bankrupt a nation, which prints its own money. The causes of the recession were many and diverse and banking was only a part of it. Many countries came through the same period with barely a scratch. Our problem was that Labour's excesses had left us very exposed to world financial problems.

Okaaaaaay.

[CB Saint]

There is a real chance of a Labour / SNP coalition, now seeing as Labour will not negotiate on Trident and the SNP have kinda / sorta ruled out a new referendum, what will The SNP demand as kingmakers?

 

a greater proportion of the oil revenues?

uplift in the Barnett formula?

 

 

any thoughts?

[SuperMikey]

There is a real chance of a Labour / SNP coalition, now seeing as Labour will not negotiate on Trident and the SNP have kinda / sorta ruled out a new referendum, what will The SNP demand as kingmakers?

 

a greater proportion of the oil revenues?

uplift in the Barnett formula?

 

 

any thoughts?

 

My thoughts are that they will try to win contracts and get more industry into Scotland in order to strengthen the infrastructure, with a view towards building for independence. There won't be another referendum for some years, but if the SNP can use the larger stage to tempt energy companies to invest in the area for example, that will be to their advantage - short-term for the UK, long-term for Scotland.

 

Of course, that's complete supposition on my part.

[Wes Tender]

Labour's submarines to replace Trident have just been leaked:-

 

[Batman]

it will be a different headline story at the weekend. will be someone elses turn to put their foot in their mouth on a different topic

 

pensions, police, education are yet to be fluffed over in interviews

[Torres]

Indeed, but should a party that claimed it was there to "govern in the national interest" really be sending the country into an economic funk for its own electoral interests?

 

(After the taps have been turned back on, of course)

 

They dont. The point is Fallon has given Miliband a 24 carat maximum publicity opportunity to demonstrate he will pursue Labour's policies whatever the SNP think. The Tories have effectively shot themselves in the foot by neutralising one of their best angles of attack.

 

They haven't, because people just don't believe Ed or believe in Ed. His caricature of a nice but slightly pathetic chap will hurt him here.

 

Given the growing perception of Sturgeon (on both sides of the border) as a strong-willed and highly capable politician there is a sense that a) should they need to, Labour will form some sort of coalition with the SNP, because Ed is Ed, and b) that Sturgeon will be too powerful for Ed, because Ed is Ed, and get far more from the bargain than she's really entitled to. Sturgeon says that no Trident in Scotland is a definite, but anyone who followed the independence campaign will know that in reality the SNP would back down if they could extract the right concessions - concessions which would be hugely costly to Westminster and the English.

 

That's what this is really about. Vote Labour, get anti-English SNP nutters. I imagine the Tories are working on a snappier slogan.

[View From The Top]

Out of interest, assuming that it's another hung parliament, can Cameron survive having failed to win a GE twice despite being up against Gordon and now Ed?

[whelk]

Leave it out. The banks casino outlook on investments nearly brought the country down.

 

No it was extravagant state of the art lighting at libraries. If we could have curbed the excesses we would have ridden out untouched by the global crisis. "The mess inherited from Labour blah blah........"

[Torres]

Out of interest, assuming that it's another hung parliament, can Cameron survive having failed to win a GE twice despite being up against Gordon and now Ed?

 

If he can build a workable coalition, yes. Otherwise, not a hope.

[CB Fry]

Out of interest, assuming that it's another hung parliament, can Cameron survive having failed to win a GE twice despite being up against Gordon and now Ed?

With a slim or no majority and backbenches crammed with malcontents I doubt he'd survive five years, especially with Boris in the house.

[Torres]

With a slim or no majority and backbenches crammed with malcontents I doubt he'd survive five years, especially with Boris in the house.

 

That may well depend on who any coalition partners are and who they would rather work with as Conservative leader. Substitute names and parties where appropriate and marked with * but Cameron wouldn't get kicked out in favour of May* if Clegg* refused to work with anyone but Cameron or Osborne*. Would those backbench malcontents back Boris* over Cameron if they felt that Cameron kept Farage* in check better than Boris* would?

 

Any succession plots and races would be incredibly complex.

[CB Fry]

That may well depend on who any coalition partners are and who they would rather work with as Conservative leader. Substitute names and parties where appropriate and marked with * but Cameron wouldn't get kicked out in favour of May* if Clegg* refused to work with anyone but Cameron or Osborne*. Would those backbench malcontents back Boris* over Cameron if they felt that Cameron kept Farage* in check better than Boris* would?

 

Any succession plots and races would be incredibly complex.

 

Agree with that. But if the Tory coalition/majority is as slim as I think it will be I think we'd end up with another poll within a year or so. With likely a new Conservative leader.

[badgerx16]

Labour's submarines to replace Trident have just been leaked:-

 

 

The quality of your wit is astounding.

[aintforever]

If you really believe that then there's no hope for any of us. Labour was cosying up to the bankers in the City throughout their term in office. There is absolutely no way that a bank can bankrupt a nation, which prints its own money. The causes of the recession were many and diverse and banking was only a part of it. Many countries came through the same period with barely a scratch. Our problem was that Labour's excesses had left us very exposed to world financial problems.

 

The size of our financial industries is what left us particularly exposed and with the Conservatives traditionally favouring less regulation the crash would still have hit us hard with them in government.

 

What happened was unprecedented, the idea that it was just because Labour spent too much is just nonsense. I'm pretty sure the Tories were in government during the recession in the early 1990's - what happened to your saving for a rainy day b*ll*x back then?

[trousers]

What happened was unprecedented, the idea that it was just because Labour spent too much is just nonsense.

 

Has anyone ever said the crash happened "just because of Labour"?

 

If the Tories had been in power at the time, and the same level of crash occurred, you can be sure that those now saying " it wasn't much to do with Labour" would be blaming the Tories with a similar level of rancour to those who are holding Labour to account.

[aintforever]

Has anyone ever said the crash happened "just because of Labour"?

 

If the Tories had been in power at the time, and the same level of crash occurred, you can be sure that those now saying " it wasn't much to do with Labour" would be blaming the Tories with a similar level of rancour to those who are holding Labour to account.

 

Plenty of people bang on about it as if it was Labours fault. Fact is if the Tories were in power you can be sure government spending wouldn't have been so high but you can also be just as sure that the banks would have been bigger and even more out of control so who knows what sort of mess we would have been in.

[trousers]

Out of interest, assuming that it's another hung parliament, can Cameron survive having failed to win a GE twice despite being up against Gordon and now Ed?

Depends how many people vote for him. He got signicantly more votes in 2010 than Blair did in 2005 so he had as much right to govern from that perspective. Its the flaws in electoral boundaries that can result in a "failure" to win outright, not the number of people that vote for you, per se.

Edited 9 April, 2015 by trousers
/@

[View From The Top]

Has anyone ever said the crash happened "just because of Labour"?

 

If the Tories had been in power at the time, and the same level of crash occurred, you can be sure that those now saying " it wasn't much to do with Labour" would be blaming the Tories with a similar level of rancour to those who are holding Labour to account.

 

I'm not so sure. Very few, or at least those with an IQ above that of "utter ****", blame Labour because they're not blinkered. I think the same would be true if the tories had been in power. It was one of those events that any "non ****" can see that politicians couldn't stop from happening but could only work to limit the damage regardless of which party it was.

[trousers]

Plenty of people bang on about it as if it was Labours fault. Fact is if the Tories were in power you can be sure government spending wouldn't have been so high but you can also be just as sure that the banks would have been bigger and even more out of control so who knows what sort of mess we would have been in.

The point is, that whoever wasn't in power at the time was always bound to 'bang on about it' when they got into power. The nasty Tories and their supporters don't have a monopoly on blaming other parties for all the country's woes.

Edited 9 April, 2015 by trousers
Pop

[aintforever]

Given that all Party manifestos are hypothetical, should we not talk about them at all?

 

Is forming a coalition with SNP and getting rid of trident in Labour's manifesto?

 

I'm not against people speculating about what might happen but how is some Tory's opinion on something that probably won't happen get to be headline news across all the media?

[buctootim]

Just to put the hoary old myth to sleep. The deficit was caused mostly by a collapse in tax revenues, not an increase in spending.