General Election May 2015

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 31 Mar 2015, 17:08

The Conservatives are considering options for scrapping several benefits

surprise, surprise the Tories are hell-bent on punishing disabled people and working families with crippling welfare cuts.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 05 Apr 2015, 21:14

Nicola Sturgeon @NicolaSturgeon

This, by @zoesqwilliams in @guardian, is very, very perceptive

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... chinations

jonny2mad · Post by **jonny2mad** » 06 Apr 2015, 08:41

for people who saw the debate my cousin worked this out on the hiv question

If 60% of annual new HIV diagnoses are non UK born, then at c£20k average cost to NHS that's £125m in year one. Which requires >25000 UK tax payers to fund, based on average Tax of £5000. Year Two that's £250m paid for by the entire tax of 50,000 people to cover new arrivals in year two. And so on. very likely that current non-UK born HIV patients are >25000 which means Around 100,000 taxpayers' entire tax contributions are funding treatment for non UK born people. Since the government currently borrows £1 in every £5 it spends, Farages point is a valid one

Having seen the debate the only person who actually answered the audiences questions was farage, and not one of the panel when he brought up health tourism came up with a way of paying for it or a limit to the number of people from outside the uk we are supposed to treat .

Tarrel · Post by **Tarrel** » 06 Apr 2015, 20:00

biffvernon wrote:Nicola Sturgeon @NicolaSturgeon
This, by @zoesqwilliams in @guardian, is very, very perceptive

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... chinations

If this was "engineered" by "The Establishment" it was a very shrewd move, as it could be damaging to the SNP in my opinion.

Having lived up here a few years now, it is very clear to me how absolutely in contempt many Scots hold the Conservative party. Labour's huge miscalculation during the referendum campaign was to be seen associating with the Conservatives in the Better Together camp. Even a mere suggestion of support for the "Tories" is likely to create a backlash and, maybe, second thoughts among those who might have contemplated voting SNP.

A previous Labour voter might be thinking; "Why should I vote SNP so they can support Ed Milliband in government, and run the risk of them supporting The Tories, when I can vote Labour and get Ed Milliband anyway?"

Tarrel · Post by **Tarrel** » 06 Apr 2015, 20:07

I listened to an interesting talk by Angus Robertson at the public adoption meeting for our local SNP candidate on Friday. Robertson is leader of the SNP MPs in parliament and SNP spokesman on defence and foreign affairs.

He made it very clear that the SNP's opportunity is to become the "third party" in Westminster, which opens up all sorts of seats on various key committees and gives more air-time in the Commons apparently. If you're not in the Big Three you basically don't get heard according to Robertson.

So, for the SNP, seats currently held by the Lib Dems are more important targets than those held by Labour, as they represent a "double whammy"; one fewer Lib Dem MP and one more SNP. This includes our constituency, which has been Lib Dem for years (although their majority has been falling over the past few elections).

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 08 Apr 2015, 15:48

I've reviewed the likely outcome for my local constituencies.

My local seat is true blue Tory to the core. Rich, educated, white, employed, land owning, rural.

Even with a local independent splitting the UKIP vote, the greens came 6th (last).

In the city a recent Ashcroft poll indicated that the LD would hold, but the student vote is crucial and fickle. Cambridge students are not natural greens, being the offspring of the global 1%, but the greens should beat UKIP who are on very stony ground, and with a lot of tactical voting might squeeze the Tories out of third. They hope to pick up a seat or two in the local elections on the same day.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 08 Apr 2015, 15:58

Tarrel wrote:....Having lived up here a few years now, it is very clear to me how absolutely in contempt many Scots hold the Conservative party. Labour's huge miscalculation during the referendum campaign was to be seen associating with the Conservatives in the Better Together camp. Even a mere suggestion of support for the "Tories" is likely to create a backlash and, maybe, second thoughts among those who might have contemplated voting SNP.

A previous Labour voter might be thinking; "Why should I vote SNP so they can support Ed Milliband in government, and run the risk of them supporting The Tories, when I can vote Labour and get Ed Milliband anyway?"

Voting for the SNP is not about supporting Labour, it is about dragging them back from the right. Consequently, I urge all Scottish voters to vote for the most left wing candidate that looks like having a chance of winning the seat. Which, in most cases, is the SNP.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 08 Apr 2015, 16:10

Green Party election broadcast trending on twitter:

#ChangetheTune.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPgS7p40ERg

Tarrel · Post by **Tarrel** » 08 Apr 2015, 17:35

biffvernon wrote:Green Party election broadcast trending on twitter:

#ChangetheTune.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPgS7p40ERg

Just watched it. Superb!

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 08 Apr 2015, 21:51

Highly amusing, yes.

I think it is a mistake to promise to scrap tuition fees though. That's what the liberal democrats did, until they got into power, when they did a total U-turn on it. And I don't think that was purely because they were in coalition with the tories - I believe that tuition fees for higher education were inevitably going to rise, and that scrapping them now would not be a wise use of resources. It's not that I wouldn't like to see people being able to have a free university education, but that I think there are other things that are more important - better ways of using what would be a vast amount of money.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 08 Apr 2015, 23:06

UndercoverElephant wrote:Highly amusing, yes.

I think it is a mistake to promise to scrap tuition fees though. That's what the liberal democrats did, until they got into power, when they did a total U-turn on it. And I don't think that was purely because they were in coalition with the tories - I believe that tuition fees for higher education were inevitably going to rise, and that scrapping them now would not be a wise use of resources. It's not that I wouldn't like to see people being able to have a free university education, but that I think there are other things that are more important - better ways of using what would be a vast amount of money.

One of the main reasons, though, for the rise in fees is due to the rising demands of big business for degree educated students. Which, in turn, has led to every man and his dog needing a degree just to get any kind of job which pays more than the minimum wage and the reason for their demand for degree educated employees is due to their unwillingness to pay for the appropriate training on the job.

My brother is the CEO of a major international financial institution (I'll leave you to imagine the kind of conversations we have given my stated views on here). He started out as a building society clerk on the back of a couple of A levels in the late seventies. He freely admits that it would be quite impossible for him to contemplate employing someone in a similar clerk's position today unless that person had at least a bachelor’s degree, possibly a master's degree and probably a year's internship experience.

The way to resolve the tuition fees issue is to significantly raise the academic bar to entry and then make what fewer places are available fully funded from state coffers. This would, in turn, force employers to re-invest in properly training their employees instead of the current situation of having what should be properly seen as just another business operating cost being subsidised by the taxpayer.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 09 Apr 2015, 12:17

Listen to Dale Vince on why he's backing a right-wing party.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 10 Apr 2015, 10:57

Every single Tory supporter, in four photos

On top of the hilariousness of the Cameron-sham, those placards were making me puke. Weird combination.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 11 Apr 2015, 11:36

We've got a nice little issue going. Our candidate (a barrister) has been butting up 8x4 posters on the verges of trunk roads without permission in contravention of the criminal law Section 132 Highways Act 1980. I've told the police and they have asked the Highways Agency to investigate.
We have lots of photos of the people erecting the signs and the candidate herself, posing with them!

More at http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/2015/0 ... n-law.html

Post by **adam2** » 11 Apr 2015, 12:14

Advertising that would otherwise be considered to be illegal, seems to be unofficially permitted for election purposes.
It does not appear to be confined to any particular party.

The smaller signs make good fire wood, with the stakes being useful in the garden.
The larger signs can be useful for roofing sheds or poultry houses etc.

I know of some conservative voting poultry, next to UKIP goats, well according to the adverts out of which the houses are made.