General Election 2015

[Batman]

If people think that Labour will make your lives better you will be disappointed. Just watch living standards drop as the money flows out of the country and the pound plummets. The cost of anything that is imported will go up, costing everybody more.

Having Balls in charge of the economy lol. Foreign investors will leave and the impression people will have the impression they are not welcome.

You only have to look across the channel to see what can happen

 

That won't happen. Much like the disaster predicted on here when this coalition was formed in 2010.

 

Much will be the same. People will accept the cuts more because labour are doing it.

 

Just I think milliband is a goon.

Edited 17 April, 2015 by Batman

[Batman]

I'm not sure about the UKIP vote. Part of me agrees with you that when it comes down to it they'll go tory. However, UKIP have worked hard on cultivating the overweight bloke in the pub who is always on about foreigners, Express readers and oldies who still dream of Empire.

 

LOL

[trousers]

If Labour alone don't get more than the Tories on the night then I'd think it might need to be a bit more formal. Otherwise the Conservatives could form a minority administration, I think.

 

 

Miliband has publicly ruled out any formal agreement, be it a coalition or a confidence & supply arrangement. (I'm not 100% on the latter but I'm pretty sure I've seen interviews where he's ruled it out when pushed. Of course, he could always 'do a Clegg' and change his mind when blinded by the lights of power...).

 

As I understand it, you don't need a formal arrangement to win the right to form a government, you just need to have a more convincing proposition than your opponents. What I don't understand is who decides what is best for the country if both options on the table look as weak as each other .... HRH ?!

[Unbelievable Jeff]

If people think that Labour will make your lives better you will be disappointed. Just watch living standards drop as the money flows out of the country and the pound plummets. The cost of anything that is imported will go up, costing everybody more.

Having Balls in charge of the economy lol. Foreign investors will leave and the impression people will have the impression they are not welcome.

You only have to look across the channel to see what can happen

 

It's certainly not my preference but it certainly won't be THAT bad. The problem I see is that the SNP will hold ththem to ransom, so it will be very difficult to create the changes they want without giving Scotland exactly what they want.

[Wes Tender]

In the footballing sense, on a saints messageboard having a blue nose is a bit dodgy. I also get a bit dogmatic because I know what the unionist/conservative party were formed from and looking at their leadership it doesn't appear to have changed. I find this sad. I find many of their policies stuck in a time long before the 1960's and it makes me deeply suspicious of their motives.

 

Whilst Labour are more centre now, I don't think you should class anyone as purely a "leftie" or a "right-winger" but you'll understand how it's so much easier to think of the right as a bunch of nasty so-in-so's than it is the left.

 

Why is being a so-called blue nose a bit dodgy on a football forum? I'd like to hear your reasoning.

 

And you shouldn't refer back in history to the roots of the Conservative & Unionist Party in order to draw any conclusions as to how you perceive them now. CB Fry has castigated me severely for daring to reflect on what Labour was like 30/40 years ago, so you had better watch out for his scolding, fair and even-handed as he always is.

 

And excuse me for not understanding how the nasty right is any worse than the nasty left, especially the squeeze them until the pips squeak brigade.

[trousers]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32346214

 

The head of the International Monetary Fund, Christine Lagarde, has endorsed the government's economic strategy.

 

Speaking at an IMF meeting in Washington she said "it's obvious what's happening in the UK has worked".

[View From The Top]

It's certainly not my preference but it certainly won't be THAT bad. The problem I see is that the SNP will hold ththem to ransom, so it will be very difficult to create the changes they want without giving Scotland exactly what they want.

 

They're not going to hold them to ransom, that's just silly.

[sandwichsaint]

Miliband has publicly ruled out any formal agreement, be it a coalition or a confidence & supply arrangement. (I'm not 100% on the latter but I'm pretty sure I've seen interviews where he's ruled it out when pushed. Of course, he could always 'do a Clegg' and change his mind when blinded by the lights of power...).

 

As I understand it, you don't need a formal arrangement to win the right to form a government, you just need to have a more convincing proposition than your opponents. What I don't understand is who decides what is best for the country if both options on the table look as weak as each other .... HRH ?!

 

Not sure the Queen gets to decide much these days, the leader with the most seats gets first go at forming a coalition that can carry a majority in the house of commons, if they can't get a majority then the second biggest party will be asked to try and form a workable majority - if they can't either then we're into minority govt/supply and confidence territory, and pretty quickly towards a second election.

 

Not convinced that Lab won't make a more formal agreement with the SNP when the time comes, it's quite conceivable we could see something like Tories 290, Lab 280, SNP 40, and Ed being PM with fewer seats than the Tories.

[Wes Tender]

They're not going to hold them to ransom, that's just silly.

 

So Sturgeon refusing to form an alliance with Milliband and vice versa doesn't mean that there will have to be any horse trading between the two parties if they allied themselves together in order the keep out the Conservatives? That's just naive to think that. Sturgeon having labelled Milliband's Labour as Labour Lite indicates that if they are to support them, it will be on the basis that the SNP (and indeed Plaid Cymru and maybe the Greens if they get any seats), will put pressure on them to be more dogmatic in pursuit of more left-wing policies. If Labour did not have their support on some issues, then it would be possible that they would be outvoted where the Conservatives might be supported by the other parties.

 

But then again, the other interesting scenario will be whether the SNP vote with Labour on solely English matters, raising anger at the West Lothian question. But then they would probably want that, as the growing English nationalism that would result would help them in their aims of an independent Scotland.

[Batman]

SNP will have zero interest on the whole of the UK in general. They will vote on UK matters that will directly benefit Scotland. Fair play to them but the 60m others outside of Scotland will get a bit of a not so good deal out of that

 

I will be amazed if in 5 years (should it be an SNP propping up labour) if Scotland are not even more better off per person than they already are at the expense of (mainly) England

[View From The Top]

So Sturgeon refusing to form an alliance with Milliband and vice versa doesn't mean that there will have to be any horse trading between the two parties if they allied themselves together in order the keep out the Conservatives? That's just naive to think that. Sturgeon having labelled Milliband's Labour as Labour Lite indicates that if they are to support them, it will be on the basis that the SNP (and indeed Plaid Cymru and maybe the Greens if they get any seats), will put pressure on them to be more dogmatic in pursuit of more left-wing policies. If Labour did not have their support on some issues, then it would be possible that they would be outvoted where the Conservatives might be supported by the other parties.

 

But then again, the other interesting scenario will be whether the SNP vote with Labour on solely English matters, raising anger at the West Lothian question. But then they would probably want that, as the growing English nationalism that would result would help them in their aims of an independent Scotland.

 

Horse trading is rather different from being held to ransom even for the hard of thinking.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

It's funny how many people are so rattled by SNP. They're a clever bunch, that's for sure. I've been impressed by Sturgeon, Salmond can't be an easy act to follow but she has done well.

 

Talking of funny, UKIP are salty, so so salty.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/leaders-debate-ukip-wants-an-inquiry-into-the-leftwing-bias-of-the-bbc-and-suggests-audience-members-lied-about-their-political-beliefs-10183568.html

[saintbletch]

SNP will have zero interest on the whole of the UK in general. They will vote on UK matters that will directly benefit Scotland. Fair play to them but the 60m others outside of Scotland will get a bit of a not so good deal out of that

 

I will be amazed if in 5 years (should it be an SNP propping up labour) if Scotland are not even more better off per person than they already are at the expense of (mainly) England

 

Me too, Batman.

 

After 5 years of a Conservative-led coalition, the wealthy are doing better per person than the less wealthy. It's a fact that if you have power, or an influence on power, you get something for those you represent. I don't expect the SNP to buck that truism - if they are given the opportunity.

 

What interests me is that it looks like the effort David Cameron put into keeping Scotland as part of the UK, might have backfired spectacularly.

 

It struck me at the time that is was odd that Cameron came out saying that he passionately wanted to keep Scotland tethered to the teat, whilst being unlikely to be significantly represented north of the border.

 

I must admit that with the resurgence of the SNP, I was predicting an annihilation for Labour in this general election. I figured that without their Scottish Labour seats, and on the back of decent economic figures, the Conservatives would walk in to power.

 

I wonder if the Conservative party thought the same? I think I got it wrong. I think they did too.

 

It remains to be seen if the same efforts from Milliband to maintain the union will backfire on him too.

[saintbletch]

It's funny how many people are so rattled by SNP. They're a clever bunch, that's for sure. I've been impressed by Sturgeon, Salmond can't be an easy act to follow but she has done well.

 

Talking of funny, UKIP are salty, so so salty.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/leaders-debate-ukip-wants-an-inquiry-into-the-leftwing-bias-of-the-bbc-and-suggests-audience-members-lied-about-their-political-beliefs-10183568.html

 

I'm not so sure it's so wide of the mark, KRG.

 

After the debate, I saw two of the five that raised questions interviewed on Sky News.

 

Far from being vetted as to their beliefs, they both said that they were simply asked what question they would like to ask to which leader.

 

They suggested that their questions were un-edited, and they weren't questioned further about their beliefs.

 

This seems to fly in the face of the assurances that David Dimbleby gave Farage - that the audience was independently selected to represent the balance of the parties.

 

Perhaps the sympathies of the audience were inferred from their question. IF so, that is a pretty lazy way to do it, and it would be very easy to improperly influence.

 

That said, IF the balance that the independent firm was striving for, was to reflect the 5 parties on the stage, then it would obviously have a left-of-centre bias.

[Nolan]

There's always the possibility the a government can't be formed and we vote again.

[OldNick]

Yawn.

yep yawn, I understand your position as you are in the public sector and the loosening of strings by Labour will see more money wasted. Iam sure if I was in the comfort of index linked pensions etc I would be left orientated.

Have you seen the price of fuel jump already due to sterlings weakness as the political uncertainty takes its hold?

Like it or not people with real wealth controls our destiny, most of it is in foreign hands and they will move their money elsewhere if it looks like the government is not sympathetic to business.

I have seen many governments and all cost me more money each time,my position is not from selfishness but i wish for the nation to be able to pay its way and then be more than able to look after the weak.

My view is that a Labour government as well meaning as they look , are not good for the nation as a whole. All politicians treat it as a game, they are all intent on power and influence there are few who really are passionate about doing the right thi for us all. Say anything to get power and bugger the consequences.

 

While we are at it, can you or any of the other Labour supporters please tell me what Ed means when he says Rich and Poverty ?

Ed mentions the people with the broadest shoulders, but will that mean people earning 20k, 30k 50k or 1m a year?

 

I read that ANYONE in the UK are in the IIRC 1% of the wealthiest people in the world. Therefore what contrues poverty? When i was a kid it was kids without shoes no roof over their head and starving. Is it now no Sky or washing machine?

[Johnny Bognor]

Me too, Batman.

After 5 years of a Conservative-led coalition, the wealthy are doing better per person than the less wealthy.

 

I don't dispute that, but the gap between rich and poor grew under Labour, so much so that when they left office, the gap was the widest in 40 years.

 

 

It's funny how many people are so rattled by SNP. They're a clever bunch, that's for sure. I've been impressed by Sturgeon, Salmond can't be an easy act to follow but she has done well.

 

For me there are two reasons:

1) They dont want to be part of the UK, so I am uncomfortable with them having their hands on the levers of power in the UK

2) They maybe clever politically, but their economic credentials are shocking. Thie economic model for independence relied heavily on an oil price that halved, just a few months later. Had they had got their independence, they would have already had their begging bowl out.

Edited 17 April, 2015 by Johnny Bognor

[saintbletch]

There's always the possibility the a government can't be formed and we vote again.

 

True.

 

Do you think that Nick Clegg has a recurring nightmare where just before signing the coalition agreement, he receives a text message from the ghost of David Lloyd George reminding of that choice?

 

I have to believe that other parties will have learned from the Lib Dem's demise, so your suggestion is surely well understood.

 

That said, as Clegg proved, the prize is a big one and we are each, but flesh, blood and ego.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

I'm not so sure it's so wide of the mark, KRG.

 

After the debate, I saw two of the five that raised questions interviewed on Sky News.

 

Far from being vetted as to their beliefs, they both said that they were simply asked what question they would like to ask to which leader.

 

They suggested that their questions were un-edited, and they weren't questioned further about their beliefs.

 

This seems to fly in the face of the assurances that David Dimbleby gave Farage - that the audience was independently selected to represent the balance of the parties.

 

Perhaps the sympathies of the audience were inferred from their question. IF so, that is a pretty lazy way to do it, and it would be very easy to improperly influence.

 

That said, IF the balance that the independent firm was striving for, was to reflect the 5 parties on the stage, then it would obviously have a left-of-centre bias.

 

When people like Reckless & Nuttall are bemoaning that the audience do not represent the views of the British public, what are they referring to?

 

Are they suggesting that the audience was bussed in from overseas? Considering the party in question, that would be pretty funny. But it is doubtful. Maybe, just maybe despite being the self styled defender of all things British, he and his people's army don't represent the entire nation?

 

It's just boring now that any time anyone has a pop at UKIP they go crying about bias, or how it's all a big set up. Like no one else ever has to deal with it. Further more, when you are a party that is so detestable, and it's key issue is at it's heart divisive and about setting people against each other you are going to experience more push back. It's irksome when they also harp on about the world being too nice and PC. It's all utter b*****ks.

[hutch]

She plays silly jocks on May 8th/9th she could royally fu ck herself.

 

Well nobody else is going to, are they?

 

My take on last night's little debate is that it was a bit like watching a League 2 football match because it was the International break for the proper clubs.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

For me there are two reasons:

1) They dont want to be part of the UK, so I am uncomfortable with them having their hands on the levers of power in the UK

2) They maybe clever politically, but their economic credentials are shocking. Thie economic model for independence relied heavily on an oil price that halved, just a few months later. Had they had got their independence, they would have already had their begging bowl out.

 

1) So because a group wishes to govern themselves they should not be allowed to be represented? That's no reason for them to not exist. Whether we as residents of England (I assume you are as well, apologies if that is misguided) like it or not.

2) I'm not saying they are the soundest policy wise, or that I agree with all they say

[saintbletch]

@Johnny Bognor, genuine question - looking to debate and hear your thoughts, not deride you.

 

You mention that your politics are centre-biased.

 

Ignoring (if you can) their political history, if you look at Labour's manifesto, what do you see that is too far left from the centre to win your support?

 

I ask because I personally see today's Labour party as occupying the centre ground in British politics.

 

I recognise that we might be viewing the same thing from different perspectives, but my sense is that those truly on the left of the political spectrum feel that there is no longer a mainstream party that represents their views.

[saintbletch]

Also, genuine question to those with UKIP sympathies...

 

What did you think of Nigel Farage suggesting that he offered support to Milliband, but it was rebuffed as it was conditional on Labour offering a referendum on Europe.

 

Personally I was surprised that those who might have voted Conservative but chose UKIP, might have in fact been lending their vote to Ed.

[View From The Top]

yep yawn, I understand your position as you are in the public sector and the loosening of strings by Labour will see more money wasted. Iam sure if I was in the comfort of index linked pensions etc I would be left orientated.

Have you seen the price of fuel jump already due to sterlings weakness as the political uncertainty takes its hold?

Like it or not people with real wealth controls our destiny, most of it is in foreign hands and they will move their money elsewhere if it looks like the government is not sympathetic to business.

I have seen many governments and all cost me more money each time,my position is not from selfishness but i wish for the nation to be able to pay its way and then be more than able to look after the weak.

My view is that a Labour government as well meaning as they look , are not good for the nation as a whole. All politicians treat it as a game, they are all intent on power and influence there are few who really are passionate about doing the right thi for us all. Say anything to get power and bugger the consequences.

 

While we are at it, can you or any of the other Labour supporters please tell me what Ed means when he says Rich and Poverty ?

Ed mentions the people with the broadest shoulders, but will that mean people earning 20k, 30k 50k or 1m a year?

 

I read that ANYONE in the UK are in the IIRC 1% of the wealthiest people in the world. Therefore what contrues poverty? When i was a kid it was kids without shoes no roof over their head and starving. Is it now no Sky or washing machine?

 

 

Pathetic drivel

[View From The Top]

@Johnny Bognor, genuine question - looking to debate and hear your thoughts, not deride you.

 

You mention that your politics are centre-biased.

 

Ignoring (if you can) their political history, if you look at Labour's manifesto, what do you see that is too far left from the centre to win your support?

 

I ask because I personally see today's Labour party as occupying the centre ground in British politics.

 

I recognise that we might be viewing the same thing from different perspectives, but my sense is that those truly on the left of the political spectrum feel that there is no longer a mainstream party that represents their views.

 

Labour certainly don't represent the left but, IMHO, have cleverly taken the centre ground thus making the tories look very right wing and a party of the wealthy.

[saintbletch]

Labour certainly don't represent the left but, IMHO, have cleverly taken the centre ground thus making the tories look very right wing and a party of the wealthy.

 

I agree VFTT, but with that move to the centre, the SNP has equally cleverly positioned Labour as Tory-lite in Scotland. I also think this move to the centre may cost Labour in the North too (generalisation acknowledged)

 

I think whether the move by Labour was clever will not be known until the wash-up of a) the election result and/or b) the negotiations to form a coalition/CaS government.

[saintbletch]

When people like Reckless & Nuttall are bemoaning that the audience do not represent the views of the British public, what are they referring to?

 

Are they suggesting that the audience was bussed in from overseas? Considering the party in question, that would be pretty funny. But it is doubtful. Maybe, just maybe despite being the self styled defender of all things British, he and his people's army don't represent the entire nation?

 

It's just boring now that any time anyone has a pop at UKIP they go crying about bias, or how it's all a big set up. Like no one else ever has to deal with it. Further more, when you are a party that is so detestable, and it's key issue is at it's heart divisive and about setting people against each other you are going to experience more push back. It's irksome when they also harp on about the world being too nice and PC. It's all utter b*****ks.

 

I disagree with none of that KRG, but it certainly looks like the BBC may have a question to answer.

 

I do agree that Nigel is deliberately employing some tactics in the debate to ensure a share of the headlines.

 

In the first debate, some saw the AIDs comment as a dropped ball, but if I were advising Farage (as a leader of a minor party) on communication, I'd have given him something like that to ensure a share of the headlines the next day. It's not going to upset his core voters, and it will ensure it gets discussed, and probably debated in the workplace and on forums such as this.

 

Last night, castigating the audience and then suggesting that his real audience wasn't there in the 'studio', but were instead the voters at home - a) ensured he got headlines and b) shows that he's happy to say unpopular things and shove it to The Man - thus sticking up for those that feel repressed by Left sensibilities.

 

It won't hurt him, or UKIP I feel.

[OldNick]

Pathetic drivel

so what construes the shoulders of the rich and also poverty?

[KelvinsRightGlove]

I disagree with none of that KRG, but it certainly looks like the BBC may have a question to answer.

 

I do agree that Nigel is deliberately employing some tactics in the debate to ensure a share of the headlines.

 

In the first debate, some saw the AIDs comment as a dropped ball, but if I were advising Farage (as a leader of a minor party) on communication, I'd have given him something like that to ensure a share of the headlines the next day. It's not going to upset his core voters, and it will ensure it gets discussed, and probably debated in the workplace and on forums such as this.

 

Last night, castigating the audience and then suggesting that his real audience wasn't there in the 'studio', but were instead the voters at home - a) ensured he got headlines and b) shows that he's happy to say unpopular things and shove it to The Man - thus sticking up for those that feel repressed by Left sensibilities.

 

It won't hurt him, or UKIP I feel.

 

Don't disagree bletch, but I'm still going to carry on laughing at what a bunch crying manbabies they are.

 

I don't have to hint at impartiality, and make no secret of my unwavering disdain for Farage and all things UKIPs.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

so what construes the shoulders of the rich and also poverty?

 

It's a poor tactic that is so often used. See also, women talking about their experiences "well, would be much worse in a Muslim country" (not actually my view, just a common response), minorities talking about racial issues "would be worse if you were in a country like Russia/go back to your own country", or LGBT folk talking about their experiences again "well, it would be much worse if you were in Russia/Muslim country etc". It's nonsense, and is has no real meaning. It's just a stalling tactic to stop people talking about inequality and roadblock to change.

 

Why do you care about 'w'? It's much worse for/in 'x,y,z' so basically shut up.

 

Yes, those deemed poor by UK standards are probably better off than those in some other places. Does that mean they should just shut up and get on with it? Because they are only worse of relatively than the Super-Rich of the world, or the 1% of a well off country should there be no aspiration to improve things for everyone?

[Johnny Bognor]

@Johnny Bognor, genuine question - looking to debate and hear your thoughts, not deride you.

 

You mention that your politics are centre-biased.

 

Ignoring (if you can) their political history, if you look at Labour's manifesto, what do you see that is too far left from the centre to win your support?

 

I ask because I personally see today's Labour party as occupying the centre ground in British politics.

 

I recognise that we might be viewing the same thing from different perspectives, but my sense is that those truly on the left of the political spectrum feel that there is no longer a mainstream party that represents their views.

 

You have to start with the economy and wealth creation. Then you need to distribute it. That is where I sit generally. This places me slightly right of centre. Probably in the Ken Clarke zone. The social credentials for Labour are clearly there, as I have said before, I agree with the minimum wage, but Labour have failed to state how they are going to improve the economy and prosperity for all. There is no strategy.

 

Economically, the tories are actually fairing quite well, just look at the very latest news:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32348353

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32346214

 

... so they are moving in the right direction, but they are relying on lower taxation and cuts to acheive it. There are those within the tory party who sometimes make sense on a social angle, such as IDS, who I genuinely believe is seeking to find solutions to our social problems. But IDS may as well **** in the wind as none of it will ever happen.

 

So let's say for arguments sake, you give the tories the economic argument. For me they still fail. They rely on taxation and cuts, which may stimulate the present economy, but where is the real strategy to look at securing prosperity for all in the long term and investing in the future??? Neither Labour or Tory have this. If either party could give me this, they have my vote hands down. Red or Blue. Couldn't give a ****.

 

In summary, tory fail me socially, labour fail me economically. Maybe that is how the electorate feels and why we no longer have two party politics.

 

So what would I do?

The UK established itself as a developed nation on the back of inventiveness. Herein lies the key for prosperity in the future. In some fields, the UK performs well, but I believe that we need to engineer future growth based on creating / developing IP and entrepreneurship to create real substantial wealth. Then maybe we can afford a decent social society for all to live in.

 

How can this be achieved?

 

There are many ways, but as I dont have time to go into detail, let's look at one policy area where all political parties are failing.

 

Take tuition fees. Presently political parties are either for them (in the interests of cost) or against them (on the basis of fairness). Why does the concept of tuition fees have to be based purely on cost or fairness. Seems quite narrow minded to me. Why shouldn't they be determined on the basis of need for the greater good of the nation? You see, there is another way and both parties fail to recognise this. So how about looking at areas where there could be a real tangible benefit to the economic prosperity of the UK in the future? Perhaps in the areas of design technology.

 

Why not scrap tuition fees on courses where it is demonstrated that it could contribute to a new industrialised revolution? I for one, as a taxpayer, would be quite happy to pay for engineers, product designers and the like, as this should secure our future. On the other hand, I think it is a waste of time funding a course in "contemporary outer mongolian jazz in the 16th century". People should have a right to study it, but it shouldn't be an automatic right for it to be funded.

 

So there you go. A common sense policy which takes account of fairness and cost at the same time. You could call it a compromise. You could call it common sense, which when applied correctly, will help to build a more prosperous future for all. But as it does not sit with the dogma of both of the major parties, it won't happen. So here is an example of where political dogma, left or right, is holding the nation back.

 

I didn't vote in the euro elections and I will spoil my ballot in this election.

Edited 17 April, 2015 by Johnny Bognor

[hutch]

It's a poor tactic that is so often used. See also, women talking about their experiences "well, would be much worse in a Muslim country" (not actually my view, just a common response), minorities talking about racial issues "would be worse if you were in a country like Russia/go back to your own country", or LGBT folk talking about their experiences again "well, it would be much worse if you were in Russia/Muslim country etc". It's nonsense, and is has no real meaning. It's just a stalling tactic to stop people talking about inequality and roadblock to change.

 

Why do you care about 'w'? It's much worse for/in 'x,y,z' so basically shut up.

 

Yes, those deemed poor by UK standards are probably better off than those in some other places. Does that mean they should just shut up and get on with it? Because they are only worse of relatively than the Super-Rich of the world, or the 1% of a well off country should there be no aspiration to improve things for everyone?

It's a pretty natural response to the deliberate transposition (is that a word) of the words " need" and "want" by those with vested interests in order to make political points.

 

Very few people living in Britain today don't have everything they need, but a significant proportion don't have everything they want.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I disagree with none of that KRG, but it certainly looks like the BBC may have a question to answer.

 

I do agree that Nigel is deliberately employing some tactics in the debate to ensure a share of the headlines.

 

In the first debate, some saw the AIDs comment as a dropped ball, but if I were advising Farage (as a leader of a minor party) on communication, I'd have given him something like that to ensure a share of the headlines the next day. It's not going to upset his core voters, and it will ensure it gets discussed, and probably debated in the workplace and on forums such as this.

 

Last night, castigating the audience and then suggesting that his real audience wasn't there in the 'studio', but were instead the voters at home - a) ensured he got headlines and b) shows that he's happy to say unpopular things and shove it to The Man - thus sticking up for those that feel repressed by Left sensibilities.

 

It won't hurt him, or UKIP I feel.

 

Adam Boulton claims that he spoke to 3 of the questioners last night and 2 said they felt the audience was not representative and one claimed she was never even asked what her politics were. Interesting that it was not the normal QT people that the BBC use, but another company . Listening to the Spectator podcast this morning Hardman claimed that it was representative , but that lefties " clap louder" . She also said every politician says privately that the studio audience doesn't matter, but only Nigel would say so in front of them.

 

You're right, it will not have hurt Farage in the slightest. The audience whether balanced or not presented him with an opportunity and he took it.

 

Interesting that Portillio , who is no fan of Nigel said on " This Week" that Nigel was the only participant living in the real world. Ed got shifted to the left and the others just wanted to spend spend spend spend.

[saint si]

You don't select a representative audience by asking for X labour, Y tories, Z lib dems etc. You select it by taking a balanced cross section of society that is reasonably representative of the population at large. Asking for and then trying to force-fit to a particular percentage of voting intentions would actually make it less fair.

[Whitey Grandad]

Adam Boulton claims that he spoke to 3 of the questioners last night and 2 said they felt the audience was not representative and one claimed she was never even asked what her politics were. Interesting that it was not the normal QT people that the BBC use, but another company . Listening to the Spectator podcast this morning Hardman claimed that it was representative , but that lefties " clap louder" . She also said every politician says privately that the studio audience doesn't matter, but only Nigel would say so in front of them.

 

You're right, it will not have hurt Farage in the slightest. The audience whether balanced or not presented him with an opportunity and he took it.

 

Interesting that Portillio , who is no fan of Nigel said on " This Week" that Nigel was the only participant living in the real world. Ed got shifted to the left and the others just wanted to spend spend spend spend.

 

Just a thought... why should there be a studio audience at all?

[saintbletch]

You have to start with the economy and wealth creation. Then you need to distribute it. That is where I sit generally. This places me slightly right of centre. Probably in the Ken Clarke zone. The social credentials for Labour are clearly there, as I have said before, I agree with the minimum wage, but Labour have failed to state how they are going to improve the economy and prosperity for all. There is no strategy.

 

Economically, the tories are actually fairing quite well, just look at the very latest news:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32348353

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32346214

 

... so they are moving in the right direction, but they are relying on lower taxation and cuts to acheive it. There are those within the tory party who sometimes make sense on a social angle, such as IDS, who I genuinely believe is seeking to find solutions to our social problems. But IDS may as well **** in the wind as none of it will ever happen.

 

So let's say for arguments sake, you give the tories the economic argument. For me they still fail. They rely on taxation and cuts, which may stimulate the present economy, but where is the real strategy to look at securing prosperity for all in the long term and investing in the future??? Neither Labour or Tory have this. If either party could give me this, they have my vote hands down. Red or Blue. Couldn't give a ****.

 

In summary, tory fail me socially, labour fail me economically. Maybe that is how the electorate feels and why we no longer have two party politics.

 

So what would I do?

The UK established itself as a developed nation on the back of inventiveness. Herein lies the key for prosperity in the future. In some fields, the UK performs well, but I believe that we need to engineer future growth based on creating / developing IP and entrepreneurship to create real substantial wealth. Then maybe we can afford a decent social society for all to live in.

 

How can this be achieved?

 

There are many ways, but as I dont have time to go into detail, let's look at one policy area where all political parties are failing.

 

Take tuition fees. Presently political parties are either for them (in the interests of cost) or against them (on the basis of fairness). Why does the concept of tuition fees have to be based purely on cost or fairness. Seems quite narrow minded to me. Why shouldn't they be determined on the basis of need for the greater good of the nation? You see, there is another way and both parties fail to recognise this. So how about looking at areas where there could be a real tangible benefit to the economic prosperity of the UK in the future? Perhaps in the areas of design technology.

 

Why not scrap tuition fees on courses where it is demonstrated that it could contribute to a new industrialised revolution? I for one, as a taxpayer, would be quite happy to pay for engineers, product designers and the like, as this should secure our future. On the other hand, I think it is a waste of time funding a course in "contemporary outer mongolian jazz in the 16th century". People should have a right to study it, but it shouldn't be an automatic right for it to be funded.

 

So there you go. A common sense policy which takes account of fairness and cost at the same time. You could call it a compromise. You could call it common sense, which when applied correctly, will help to build a more prosperous future for all. But as it does not sit with the dogma of both of the major parties, it won't happen. So here is an example of where political dogma, left or right, is holding the nation back.

 

I didn't vote in the euro elections and I will spoil my ballot in this election.

 

Thanks for taking the time to put your thoughts down. I really appreciate it, and it really helps debate on here.

 

From your views, I can see how you (legitimately in my view) see yourself as occupying the centre ground.

 

I guess we might agree that there is no such thing as a single "centre ground" when politics covers such a diverse range of topics?

 

So perhaps it's better to suggest that you occupy some form of notional "mean-centre"? i.e. left of centre on some issues, right of centre on others. On average, centre.

 

That's fair. I can respect that. Not that you need my approbation.

 

However, in true political style you failed to answer my question. (smiley thing)

 

I specifically asked that, given your claim to feel unrepresented (my term, not yours) in the centre ground, and ignoring political history and baggage (as much as is possible) what specifically about Labour's manifesto makes you suggest that they don't represent this mean-centre ground.

 

Perhaps you can answer that in the context of my new definition of a mean-centre (some left+some right=averagely centre)?

 

My contention is that Labour has consciously moved to the centre to grab votes from the like of you, and that perhaps it is your historical view of Labour that stops you seeing them as representing a "mean" centre view?

[saintbletch]

Adam Boulton claims that he spoke to 3 of the questioners last night and 2 said they felt the audience was not representative and one claimed she was never even asked what her politics were. Interesting that it was not the normal QT people that the BBC use, but another company . Listening to the Spectator podcast this morning Hardman claimed that it was representative , but that lefties " clap louder" . She also said every politician says privately that the studio audience doesn't matter, but only Nigel would say so in front of them.

 

You're right, it will not have hurt Farage in the slightest. The audience whether balanced or not presented him with an opportunity and he took it.

 

Interesting that Portillio , who is no fan of Nigel said on " This Week" that Nigel was the only participant living in the real world. Ed got shifted to the left and the others just wanted to spend spend spend spend.

 

Yep, see this post from earlier this morning.

 

I'm not so sure it's so wide of the mark, KRG.

 

After the debate, I saw two of the five that raised questions interviewed on Sky News.

 

Far from being vetted as to their beliefs, they both said that they were simply asked what question they would like to ask to which leader.

 

They suggested that their questions were un-edited, and they weren't questioned further about their beliefs.

 

This seems to fly in the face of the assurances that David Dimbleby gave Farage - that the audience was independently selected to represent the balance of the parties.

 

Perhaps the sympathies of the audience were inferred from their question. IF so, that is a pretty lazy way to do it, and it would be very easy to improperly influence.

 

That said, IF the balance that the independent firm was striving for, was to reflect the 5 parties on the stage, then it would obviously have a left-of-centre bias.

 

I think the question is whether the audience was designed to represent the general electorate, or to ensure that each of the 5 leaders was represented in a ratio commensurate with their seats/poll position/etc.

 

If it is the latter, then it would be inherently left-wing without the balancing impact of the Tories.

[aintforever]

I agree VFTT, but with that move to the centre, the SNP has equally cleverly positioned Labour as Tory-lite in Scotland. I also think this move to the centre may cost Labour in the North too (generalisation acknowledged)

 

I think whether the move by Labour was clever will not be known until the wash-up of a) the election result and/or b) the negotiations to form a coalition/CaS government.

 

I'm not sure it will cost them up North, no left wingers up there are going to vote Lib Dem again. Might lose a few votes to the Greens but I doubt a lot. Any lost to SNP and the Welsh won't matter anyway because they will just form a coalition.

 

You have to reach middle England to win and Ed's move from appearing loony left to mr moderate will only help. Wether that will be enough to get a cartoon character into no10 remains to be seen. I doubt it.

[buctootim]

This election is harder to call than most. I fear support will start to hemorrhage away from UKIP as Farage collapses under the tighter scrutiny and the LDs recover a bit as Clegg is a decent performer. Both of those will work against labour

[Johnny Bognor]

Thanks for taking the time to put your thoughts down. I really appreciate it, and it really helps debate on here.

 

From your views, I can see how you (legitimately in my view) see yourself as occupying the centre ground.

 

I guess we might agree that there is no such thing as a single "centre ground" when politics covers such a diverse range of topics?

 

So perhaps it's better to suggest that you occupy some form of notional "mean-centre"? i.e. left of centre on some issues, right of centre on others. On average, centre.

 

That's fair. I can respect that. Not that you need my approbation.

 

However, in true political style you failed to answer my question. (smiley thing)

 

I specifically asked that, given your claim to feel unrepresented (my term, not yours) in the centre ground, and ignoring political history and baggage (as much as is possible) what specifically about Labour's manifesto makes you suggest that they don't represent this mean-centre ground.

 

Perhaps you can answer that in the context of my new definition of a mean-centre (some left+some right=averagely centre)?

 

My contention is that Labour has consciously moved to the centre to grab votes from the like of you, and that perhaps it is your historical view of Labour that stops you seeing them as representing a "mean" centre view?

 

The biggest block for voting labour is economic competence. I think the condems have done a reasonable job on the economy. I haven't seen a lot from labour to suggest they would do as well.

 

Having said this, things like reducing business rates, which caught my eye, would be good for the economy. But even on rates, neither political party has grasped the nettle.

 

The business rate system was devised at a time when the size of your business premises correlated to the size of your business and therefore was a 'fair' business tax. The bigger you were, the more you can pay. However, in today's economy, this model doesn't work any more. You can have highly profitable businesses operating from small premises, paying far less than a much less profitable business in bigger premises. If you think about it, it is ludicrous. To give a specific example at what a ridiculous tax this is, we can look at ebay shops. They compete with high street retailers. The high street retailers have to pay rates on their premises. The run from home ebay shops don't. How is this a fair business tax? Is it any wonder why the retail sector is under the cosh? The world has and is changing faster than we can legislate.

 

So whilst Labour are doing something positive in terms of business tax, which will help the economy, they have missed a trick. The tories don't even come close on this specific area and they are supposed to be the party of business.

 

I am quite dillusioned because there are not many conviction politicians. They are all from the same bull**** political class who no more represent their electorate than I do. I am disillusioned because most policy is on the basis of party dogma, rather than what is really in the best interests of the nation as a whole. I am disillusioned because there is often no middle ground.

 

Take views on foreign aid. People seem to be against it or for it. Again there is some middle ground to be had. How about not giving aid to China, who clearly don't need it. How about not giving aid to India, whilst they are investing in nuclear weapons and a space programme. But how about continuing to give aid to countries that really need it.

 

******** to spoiling my ballot paper. I will draw a box for the Johnny Bognor Common Sense Party. They will definately get my vote. Hey, this could be the start of something new and quite special....

Edited 17 April, 2015 by Johnny Bognor

[Lord Duckhunter]

Just a thought... why should there be a studio audience at all?

 

I completely and utterly agree with this. All the time its them whinging on about their lives. I'm not interested , stand for election , otherwise stfu and let me listen to people who are.

[Lord Duckhunter]

This election is harder to call than most. I fear support will start to hemorrhage away from UKIP as Farage collapses under the tighter scrutiny and the LDs recover a bit as Clegg is a decent performer. Both of those will work against labour

 

Its nothing to do with tighter scrutiny , its to do with FPTP. You know the system the lib/dumbs pledged to get rid for PR until they got seduced by Tory offers of minister's salaries and limos .

[buctootim]

its to do with FPTP. You know the system the lib/dumbs pledged to get rid for PR until they got seduced by Tory offers

 

You've forgotten the referendum already?

[saintbletch]

The biggest block for voting labour is economic competence. I think the condems have done a reasonable job on the economy. I haven't seen a lot from labour to suggest they would do as well.

 

Having said this, things like reducing business rates, which caught my eye, would be good for the economy. But even on rates, neither political party has grasped the nettle.

 

The business rate system was devised at a time when the size of your business premises correlated to the size of your business and therefore was a 'fair' business tax. The bigger you were, the more you can pay. However, in today's economy, this model doesn't work any more. You can have highly profitable businesses operating from small premises, paying far less than a much less profitable business in bigger premises. If you think about it, it is ludicrous. To give a specific example at what a ridiculous tax this is, we can look at ebay shops. They compete with high street retailers. The high street retailers have to pay rates on their premises. The run from home ebay shops don't. How is this a fair business tax? Is it any wonder why the retail sector is under the cosh? The world has and is changing faster than we can legislate.

 

So whilst Labour are doing something positive in terms of business tax, which will help the economy, they have missed a trick. The tories don't even come close and they are supposed to be the party of business.

 

I am quite dillusioned because there are not many conviction politicians. They are all from the same bull**** political class who no more represent their electorate than I do.

 

I see where you're coming from. Thanks again.

 

But, and I don't want to put words in your mouth, the only thing you have put forward as a reason that Labour doesn't represent your centraist/mean-centralist views is in fact an historical feeling, based on Labour governments of the past.

 

I'm not saying that it isn't a a genuine reason for not voting Labour. Far from it, we all bring that sort of historical experience/baggage to the decision. It seems sensible for you to not vote Labour if you don't trust their economic record - or perhaps their economic team (Ed Balls anyone?).

 

But, it does seem to leave my contention intact - that Labour does now represent a mean-centre-ground in British politics.

 

Doesn't it?

 

******** to spoiling my ballot paper. I will draw a box for the Johnny Bognor Common Sense Party. They will definately get my vote. Hey, this could be the start of something new and quite special....

 

Put me down as party treasurer. I'll post you my Monaco address by PM.

[Lord Duckhunter]

You've forgotten the referendum already?

 

Must of. When was the referendum on pr

[View From The Top]

Must of. When was the referendum on pr

 

 

After the last general election.

[Wes Tender]

Pathetic drivel

 

What is pathetic is your two word dismissive response to somebody else's opinion. I understand that you're a teacher/lecturer and it might be that as a result you have some over-inflated opinion of what a clever person you are, but responding to others' opinions in this manner hardly demonstrates much intellectual capacity. How about you trying to respond to the points OldNick made and the questions he asked? Then, even if other posters disagreed with your views as you do with OldNick's at least they would have some degree of respect for you.

[saintbletch]

After the last general election.

 

I think the point is that this was the Alternative Vote.

 

Not strictly PR.

[buctootim]

Must of. When was the referendum on pr

 

2011. Or are you going to claim Alternative Vote wasn't the exact form of PR you would have chosen so doesn't count and therefore you are justified in using childlike epithets?

[Lord Duckhunter]

After the last general election.

 

Was it before or after the AV vote?