• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

UK - Election 2015

Rum said:
What do people think, in terms of a democratic deficit, are the consequences of a hung Parliament with the SNP holding the controlling cards?
Click to expand...

Not much. I'm all too used to the government of the day not reflecting my views elected with just about 35% of the nation behind them. If the SNP achieve this position it will be novel that the ones holding the cards "undemocratically" will be the SNP "up north" rather than the SE MPs "down south" but nothing different to the past bar the names change.
 
Last edited:
Rum said:
What do people think, in terms of a democratic deficit, are the consequences of a hung Parliament with the SNP holding the controlling cards?
Click to expand...
It is not good, but it is very familiar to Scots from the period prior to the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, when Tory governments imposed unwelcome measures on a Scotland that voted Labour.

If that is perfectly in order, as many posters here think, then it is equally in order for a Scottish party to hold a balance of power in the UK.

Perhaps it has happened that a Tory government has needed the support of Ulster Unionists to form a majority in the Commons. If this had happened the Tories would not have rejected such support as representing a democratic deficit.

But I don't much like the situation you speculate about. There is a simple solution of course. That Scotland becomes independent.
 
Francesca R said:
Well I think you made that bit up yourself.

I was wondering why something you thought was obvious logic was also odd. Never mind.
Click to expand...

So you don't think that promoting something that you're ideologically opposed to is odd or smacks of trying to win at any cost?
Fair enough. Seems extremely obvious to me.
 
Rum said:
What do people think, in terms of a democratic deficit, are the consequences of a hung Parliament with the SNP holding the controlling cards?
Click to expand...
It shows up the flaws of single constituency winner a bit more starkly than has been the case to date. That isn't the SNPs fault and they may be the beneficiaries of a system they oppose.

Other than that it is fine and appropriate. And coalition governments ought to compromise their policies (that means break manifesto promises). The electorate is its own worst enemy in not being able to handle this. Sooner or later it will just have to wise up.
 
Dissolution said:
So you don't think that promoting something that you're ideologically opposed to is odd or smacks of trying to win at any cost?
Click to expand...
Perhaps you can show what policies that the tories are ideologically opposed to are ones they are simultaneously promoting. Preferring that the SNP wins Scottish seats rather than Labour (but preferring the LibDems win rather than SNP) isn't that.
 
Francesca R said:
Perhaps you can show what policies that the tories are ideologically opposed to are ones they are simultaneously promoting. Preferring that the SNP wins Scottish seats rather than Labour (but preferring the LibDems win rather than SNP) isn't that.
Click to expand...

They're promoting a party whose whole reason for existence is the independence of Scotland, something which they're utterly opposed to.
That's leaving aside their other policies which are largely left-wing.
Nuclear disarmament, free higher education, opposition to more nuclear power plants, commitments to renewable energy, increases in social housing... basically everything.

It's hard to imagine a mainstream party with a substantial amount of voters that have less agreement with the Tories on policy.
You're well aware of this, so I don't know why you're trying to pick your way around it.
 
Craig B said:
It is not good, but it is very familiar to Scots from the period prior to the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, when Tory governments imposed unwelcome measures on a Scotland large swathes of the UK that voted Labour.

...snip...
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you.
 
You can't show it? OK then.

It is also obvious and not at all odd that Labour would want the UKIP to do well at the tories' expense, even though it is hard to find a party with less agreement with Labour.

That seems to be all you have. It is perfectly rational. I don't know why you're trying to pick your way around it.
 
Francesca R said:
You can't show it? OK then.

It is also obvious and not at all odd that Labour would want the UKIP to do well at the tories' expense, even though it is hard to find a party with less agreement with Labour.

That seems to be all you have. It is perfectly rational. I don't know why you're trying to pick your way around it.
Click to expand...

What a hilariously poor non-answer. Have you ever considered going into politics?

I've shown what you asked for, but you ignore it and claim I haven't.
You've used a counter-example with no basis (Labour pushing UKIP) and suggested that I've made a claim that I haven't.
Schoolyard stuff.
 
Dissolution said:
They're promoting a party whose whole reason for existence is the independence of Scotland, something which they're utterly opposed to.
That's leaving aside their other policies which are largely left-wing.
Nuclear disarmament, free higher education, opposition to more nuclear power plants, commitments to renewable energy, increases in social housing... basically everything.

It's hard to imagine a mainstream party with a substantial amount of voters that have less agreement with the Tories on policy.
You're well aware of this, so I don't know why you're trying to pick your way around it.
Click to expand...

There tends to be an assumption that the SNP would red line issues (like getting rid of nukes). If we get into hung parliament territory my guess is almost everything would be on the table except moving the nukes. Neither Labour nor the Conservatives would agree to that and the SNP - hard headed as they are - know that.
 
Darat said:
Fixed that for you.
Click to expand...
That's the idea I had in mind, that Scotland is simply an area that voted Labour, worthy of no particular constitutional consideration, that I had in mind when I wrote
Craig B said:
It is not good, but it is very familiar to Scots from the period prior to the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, when Tory governments imposed unwelcome measures on a Scotland that voted Labour.

If that is perfectly in order, as many posters here think, then it is equally in order for a Scottish party to hold a balance of power in the UK
Click to expand...
There is therefore no "democratic deficit" if one area of the UK is the same as another, so no problem.

But of course that is quite evidently not so, and it may be that a political revolution is taking place in Scotland, the results of which will be profound. We will see next month.
 
Craig B said:
It is not good, but it is very familiar to Scots from the period prior to the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, when Tory governments imposed unwelcome measures on a Scotland that voted Labour.
Click to expand...

How is that any different from Tory-voting areas feeling aggrieved when Labour gets in, or indeed non-Scottish Labour-voting also areas when the Tories get in?
 
Dissolution said:
They're promoting a party whose.........

........
You're well aware of this, so I don't know why you're trying to pick your way around it.
Click to expand...

There's your problem. You haven't given a single iota of evidence in support of this.
 
If neither party gets a majority in 2015, what would be the most likely coalitions (assuming the Lib Dems get crushed)?

As for Trident, with an aggressive Russia going on a clay grabbing spree, the "scrap trident" lot come across as quite naive.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom