|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: UK Election 2015
|
luvanddaisies
the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761
|
Posted
I posted a poll in the Circus about how people are intending to vote in the UK's General Election in May.
The Circus isn't really the place to discuss the Election, and I'm sort of hoping that anything and everything that is discussion about the Election in general can go here. (although discussing the poll over there is fine), and I was hoping that there might be shipmates with interesting knowledge, opinions and perspectives about it.
Who are you planning to vote for? Are you reluctant to use your vote for one of the three centre-right neo-liberal parties? Are you voting differently from your usual? How's the campaign going? Who's emerging as a favourite for you, and who's being a total numpty? Have you found any good articles about it, or is the coverage something you're trying to hide from? Does the whole thing really matter anyway?
Me? I'm planning to vote for the Green Party this time, always having voted Lib Dem in the past (although I did get to vote in the first Scottish election, and I voted SNP with my party vote then). I live in a seat which has a Labour MP, but I won't be voting 'tactically' this election (this Guardian article has some reasons why, put much better than I could) . I joined the Green Party early in January, the first time I've been a member of a political Party, and I'd describe myself as a Watermelon .
Had I been living in Scotland and for the Referendum (I'm Scottish, but I've lived down in London for years), I would have voted 'Yes' (originally I had myself down as a 'No', but as I followed the campaign, I changed my mind). I think following that rekindled my political interest and made me less apathetic, even though I couldn't vote.
I'm particularly interested in the
Common Weal project, which is kind of relevant here because it looks likely that some sort of Coalition will result from May's vote, and their Red Lines Campaign , launched today, seeks to get smaller Parties to sign up to this set of "Red Line" issues, and to get people to vote for those that do. Although it's a Scottish project, it could be useful for the whole UK.
[ 02. November 2015, 08:58: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." (Mark Twain)
Posts: 3711 | From: all at sea. | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
Here are some random things I think might happen.
1. The campaigns from the 3 main parties will be uninspiring, and highly personalised. They will all concentrate on the economy and austerity vs more spending, with no real big ideas.
2. The Lib Dems will get wiped out. If people feel the economy is still in the toilet, people will blame them for propping up the Conservatives in government. If people feel the economy is getting better, the Conservatives will get the credit. Lots of hate for the lib dems is still around over tuition fees etc.
3. SNP will do well in Scotland, which will continue to annoy people in England over the whole "English votes for English laws" type business. They might beat up the Labour party in Scotland badly enough to stop Labour winning a majority.
4. UKIP will win some more seats, but I'm not sure what the impact of that will be.
5. Smaller parties will have better, more interesting ideas than the main three, but I don't know how many seats they will be able to mount serious challenges for under first past the post.
I have always voted, and have only ever spoiled my paper once (for the police and crime commissioner elections, where there wasn't an option to say you didn't want one), but I'm definitely pretty uninspired by the main parties in this election (as per point 1 above).
I'll have to see who else is available....
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
While the Lib Dems might lose many of the gains they've made over the last 15-20 years, I suspect they'll still have around 20 seats or so. Yes, they're unpopular, but they often have a very effective ground operation in those areas where they're dug in (see, for example, with the Eastleigh by-election).
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
More than anything else, UKIP will gain from the "I can't be bothered to vote" factor, especially as that will affect the coalition partners and Labour more than anyone else. I'm sure that will win them seats, some in unexpected places, so the quality of UKIP MPs, which was always going to be variable, will be exceptionally so.
If you don't want UKIP, get out and vote!
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
I'm not so sure. I think some seats may change hands as a result of former Labour or Conservative voters switching to UKIP, or indeed disgruntled people going out and voting UKIP, but I'm not sure if that's enough for UKIP to win seats.
If you look at the Rochester and Strood by-election, in which the UKIP candidate was well-known (having been the MP), UKIP didn't win by the margin they expected and the Conservatives believe they are in with a chance of winning back the seat at the General Election. At the General Election, UKIP candidates will be largely unknown and voters will be thinking about a range of issues when they go to the polls. The exception might be whatever seat Farage decides to stand in, I suppose.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Go on folks. How would you improve education in the UK? Cameron is aggressively demanding improvement but I don't think he has anything more than threats and bluster.
If I ruled the world (or was education secretary) then I would ensure that the public sector can emulate the best features of fee-paying schools by merging the resources of the latter into the schools system. Top notch facilities and the better state schools could show Eton, Harrow etc how to improve their GCSE scores.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Rogue
Shipmate
# 2275
|
Posted
When they changed the rules about having a fixed term of office rather than calling it at the sitting Prime Minister's whim my first thought was that we would have months of ridiculous campaigning rather than the four weeks we used to get. I don't think I have been proven wrong. Why can't they just wait until nearer the time? And who will pay the bill?
--------------------
If everyone starts thinking outside the box does outside the box come back inside?
Posts: 2507 | From: Toton | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
At the moment I'm seriously thinking of spoiling my ballot paper. None of the available parties has earned my vote and unfortunately the only way of saying "None of the above" is either to spoil the paper or not to vote at all. I'm also looking around to see if there are any campaigns I can attach myself to in order to argue for the inclusion of "none of the above" in future elections.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
When they changed the rules about having a fixed term of office rather than calling it at the sitting Prime Minister's whim my first thought was that we would have months of ridiculous campaigning rather than the four weeks we used to get. I don't think I have been proven wrong. Why can't they just wait until nearer the time? And who will pay the bill?
We're already paying it. The civil service is under notice of the election and things are a bit 'boat sick'. I suppose we'll have a "Reverse Robin Hood" Budget on March 18th, with the House dissolved on March 30th.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The exception might be whatever seat Farage decides to stand in, I suppose.
That would be South Thanet, where the Tories are defending a 7,617 majority which they won from Labour in 2010, having previously been a marginal.
Since it was created in 1983, the seat has been something of a bellwether, which possibly has something to do with why Farage chose it.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sipech:
(re the South Thanet consituency of the UK Parliament>
Since it was created in 1983, the seat has been something of a bellwether, which possibly has something to do with why Farage chose it.
nb, a Bellwether was originally placed around the neck of a castrated ram leading a flock of sheep.
Well chosen, Sipech.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
At the moment I'm seriously thinking of spoiling my ballot paper. None of the available parties has earned my vote and unfortunately the only way of saying "None of the above" is either to spoil the paper or not to vote at all. I'm also looking around to see if there are any campaigns I can attach myself to in order to argue for the inclusion of "none of the above" in future elections.
Yes, I feel a kind of impotent fury, since I am faced with the prospect of 3 centre-right parties, who have taken neo-liberalism to their bosom. I suppose I could do a protest vote, big deal.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
At the moment I'm seriously thinking of spoiling my ballot paper. None of the available parties has earned my vote and unfortunately the only way of saying "None of the above" is either to spoil the paper or not to vote at all.
I don't know what constituency you are in, so don't know who your options will be. But, are you sure that there will be no-one on the ballot you could vote for? I could see an argument why Labour, Tory and Lib Dem have shown themselves to be unworthy of our vote. And, I would say the likes of UKIP and BNP are political scum, and should never get the chance to show whether they can do anything other than completely cock things up. But, what of the Greens? Or, any local independent?
Why not stand yourself as a "none of the above" independent? Form a party with the name "none of the above" and get someone to stand in every constituency. That will get "none of the above" on the ballot paper.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
Hmm - it's £500 (the deposit), and you need 5% of votes cast in order not to lose it. I suppose you'd get your 15 minutes of fame.
Maybe that could also be a twist in this election? A few more Martin Bell, single issue types getting in?
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Go on folks. How would you improve education in the UK?
Destroy every f*****g comprehensive school in England. And Wales and Northern Ireland.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Hmm - it's £500 (the deposit), and you need 5% of votes cast in order not to lose it. I suppose you'd get your 15 minutes of fame.
Maybe that could also be a twist in this election? A few more Martin Bell, single issue types getting in?
The "single issue" at this election is, as ever, the economy, or more accurately the apparent need for austerity.
It ought to be obvious that the deficit hasn't been reduced by anything like as much as had been hoped and few jobs that provide tax income have been created (two of my now adult children are in work and despite working up to 30 hours a week they pay no income tax).
Thanks to HS2, the "bomb magnets" (the Royal Navy's non-aircraft carriers) low wages and mass unemployment, public spending is still way up above any target George Osborne has set from may 2010 onwards. Treasury projections of economic performance haven't been much better than those which got Tesco into a lot of trouble.
After all that, an anti-austerity campaigner, in the right constituency, might just pull it off.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Go on folks. How would you improve education in the UK?
Destroy every f*****g comprehensive school in England. And Wales and Northern Ireland.
And replace 80% of then with secondary moderns?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
And replace 80% of then with secondary moderns?
Or technical schools? Free schools are a start, but sadly I don't think any mainstream party really has the guts to re-introduce grammars.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
And replace 80% of then with secondary moderns?
Or technical schools? Free schools are a start, but sadly I don't think any mainstream party really has the guts to re-introduce grammars.
You'd need to make sure that there were enough grammar places for all the children who achieved the appropriate result in the 11 plus, regardless of gender - I know one woman who only just "failed", which actually means she passed, but, like the provision of toilets in theatres, there were fewer places for girls than boys. There is evidence that girls passed in greater numbers than boys, to be met with fewer places.
You'd also need to be sure that "technical" was really well thought through. My school offered commercial education in shorthand and typing, pre-nursing courses, and domestic science. There was proper science in out of the way, poorly financed* and dangerous labs** for the remainder of girls destined to be teachers. Or possibly bank clerks. "We don't encourage girls to become accountants - we had one take out articles once, but she left to have a baby." "We don't encourage girls to get involved with the local chemicals industry." (Don't know what the excuse was for that.) We had no access to woodwork, metalwork, technical drawing or such like (on offer at boys grammars).
*We weren't able to use platinum electrodes for breaking up water into hydrogen and oxygen, so we learned to lie about experimental results when carbon reacts with the oxygen.
**No fire exits.
[ 02. February 2015, 13:30: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Go on folks. How would you improve education in the UK?
Destroy every f*****g comprehensive school in England. And Wales and Northern Ireland.
I agree! Bring back grammar schools and secondary modern schools BUT this must happen as well:
Secondary schools, for those who are not academic in the writing-essays style, must never again be seen or treated as lower or dead end education.
In my education world, the academic rigour of the grammar schools, along with the discipline and ethos of said schools, must be emulated in the secondary schools - this means that more vocational subjects must be taught with equal rigour and must lead to parallel qualifications at 16+.
There is no reason whatever why vocational and academic qualifications should not be celebrated and honoured side by side. So what if you won't get an A* in economics, if you come out of further education with the equivalent qualification in being an electrician, plumber, nurse or mechanic then excellent!
That's where the divide should be - style and content of education, not higher achievement in grammar and lower achievement in secondary.
Different types of schools but the same expectation of success.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
And replace 80% of then with secondary moderns?
Or technical schools? Free schools are a start, but sadly I don't think any mainstream party really has the guts to re-introduce grammars.
I was lucky enough to go to a (boys) technical school after 11+ but entrance was academically competitive rather than on aptitude. Later on I went to a (boys) grammar school having been to a (mixed) comprehensive in between.
The only disavantage I found at the comp was that it was so big! At the end of my fifth year there were just under 1800 on the school roll with about 150 teachers. The technical school was very good while the grammar I attended at the end was dreadful (name withheld to protect the over-sensitive).
Anyway, the correlation between attainment at 10/11 and future performance is pretty shaky, especially if equal resources are applied to all, which was never the case in the grammar/sec mod/tech era.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I went to a comprehensive school. Which was large (it was actually a merger between a grammar and secondary modern on opposites sides of the same road), but that meant there was resources available to provide a very broad curriculum - there were a small number of specialised subjects at A level where some people sat classes in other local schools (or pupils from other schools came to us). It never did me any harm, it not only challenged me academically but also provided opportunities for all pupils to do technical as well as academic subjects - a bit of wood work, metal work, technical drawing, home economics etc.
My answer to how to provide the best possible education for our children? Properly resourced comprehensive schools. The key part of that is, of course, the properly resourced part - suitable buildings, sufficient qualified teachers and other support staff, good quality and sufficient equipment. Basically, invest some money into the future of the country.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Go on folks. How would you improve education in the UK?
Destroy every f*****g comprehensive school in England. And Wales and Northern Ireland.
Well, I disagree. I'd close every private and grammar and academy and free school. Some of them, yes, need to be razed to the ground and the earth salted, but many of them (with a bit of judicious busing) can be reopened with a fully comprehensive curriculum the day after.
There is nothing wrong with a comprehensive education - certainly nothing that you've managed to identify. What would you replace it with? Zero marks if you consign the nation's children to a grammar/secondary modern system.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I went to a comprehensive school. Which was large (it was actually a merger between a grammar and secondary modern on opposites sides of the same road), but that meant there was resources available to provide a very broad curriculum -
The scale of large schools does indeed enable them to offer a lot of minority interest options. A smaller school couldn't economically offer a class that one or two children wanted to take, but perhaps the large school can offer the class for twenty. The same argument can be made for big fancy expensive bits of equipment. A large school might be able to justify having one, whereas a small school couldn't.
Some children thrive in large schools, and some don't. This doesn't mean that one or the other is "better" - it means that children are not all identical. I am becoming increasingly convinced that one-size-fits-all isn't necessarily the best model. I find a voucher system quite interesting, but it seems to be quite vulnerable to screwing over children from poor families, and I'm not quite sure how you rectify that.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I find a voucher system quite interesting, but it seems to be quite vulnerable to screwing over children from poor families, and I'm not quite sure how you rectify that.
You could make the education voucher inversely proportional to the "cultural capital" mentioned in the "Class" thread hereabouts. Children of disabled single parents with few qualifications who have never worked, and live in a tatty bedsit would then be as able to send their sons and daughter to the same schools as do Lord and Lady Muck in their country pile. The poorer child might still go to St Tesco's Comp, but it would provide a welcome financial boost.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Some children thrive in large schools, and some don't. This doesn't mean that one or the other is "better" - it means that children are not all identical. I am becoming increasingly convinced that one-size-fits-all isn't necessarily the best model.
Of course, children are different and need differences in their learning environment. I'm also convinced that those differences spread across subjects in individual students. A student may excell at maths and science with limited interaction with other students, yet for history need to be in a larger group to do well, can confidently work on her own in metal working but need more hands on help in English literature. And, what works reasonably well at age 12 may be completely inappropriate at 15. Even for a single student, then, I don't think we can possibly have an optimal system and need to make some compromises.
I think large schools are actually better placed to provide a not-too-bad fit for the vast majority of students. Large schools have options for providing different classes for pupils with different abilities - indeed, given that once you pass about 30 pupils per intake year you need to divide them into different classes to be manageable then it only makes sense to put people with similar maths ability together for maths, similar history ability together for history etc. That can include smaller classes for those who struggle in large classes (if the school is adequately resourced - which is the biggest problems schools face), even individual tuition if needed (and that can extend to all parts of the ability range - a friend at school received individual tuition on advanced maths to sit the special paper at A level because he needed more than just very good A levels for the place he wanted at Cambridge).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Heavenly Anarchist
Shipmate
# 13313
|
Posted
My 14 year old is just choosing his options and I was surprised at how broad the choice was at his school (a local academy). He is a geeky scientific type and, timetable allowing, will be able to study a level 2 Btec in Engineering (equivalent to GCSE) alongside his triple science, a combination that really impressed his scientist father. The available syllabus ranges from GCSE Ancient History to a Btec in Health and Social Care, extra curricular options include a qualification in music technology and GCSE Astronomy (he started the modules for the latter earlier this year). I doubt a grammar school would have offered such a wide range of combinations for study.
I find a lot of government announcements on education very annoying. The Secretary of State announced a goal for times tables in year 6 a couple of days ago which already exists for year 4 in the curriculum. She appeared to say that schools would need to attain the goal 100% or be penalised, without acknowledging that some pupils, such as those with special educational needs, will never be able to meet the goals. Such goals are just unrealistic and would seem to just be an opportunity to enforce management change.
[ 02. February 2015, 17:52: Message edited by: Heavenly Anarchist ]
--------------------
'I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.' Douglas Adams
Dog Activity Monitor
My shop
Posts: 2831 | From: Trumpington | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I hate to say anything good about our local academy chain - the chaining and empire building is the reason for my attitude, and what it has done to the primary where I taught* - but its core school, originally supposedly comprehensive, in a town with several grammars, then a city technology college, seems to have a good arrangement by having four houses with different emphases for study. (And all named after men, another gripe.**) This does seem to offer good possibilities for offering education suitable to each child's aptitude. Proper comprehensive, in as far as it can be with four grammars in the same town and another one town away.
*(And it sold part of its estate to an African prosperity gospel mega-church about which I have doubts. That was public land once.)
** Brunel, Chaucer, Darwin, Da Vinci - linked to the theme of each house. I admit that a woman engineer might be hard to find, but Da vinci isn't even British.
[ 02. February 2015, 18:04: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Heavenly Anarchist
Shipmate
# 13313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I hate to say anything good about our local academy chain - the chaining and empire building is the reason for my attitude.
I'm with you here. There is no secondary school in our village at present, my son gets the bus to a nearby village. But the academy school there has maintained a very traditional ethos and still seems like a comp to me. But the new school being built in our village will be owned by an academy in the city and I really dislike them, the headmaster sounds like a businessman, they are not straight talkers and people I've spoken to say they are only interested in results not individuals. We will be sending our youngest to the same school as his brother rather than the new one only 5 minutes walk away.
--------------------
'I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.' Douglas Adams
Dog Activity Monitor
My shop
Posts: 2831 | From: Trumpington | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Who's emerging as a favourite for you, and who's being a total numpty?
For me it's choosing the "least worst" option. I won't vote for any party that wants to legalize all drugs or handguns, abolish the monarchy, or deport foreigners (unless they're serious criminals who deserve to be extradited). I feel deeply reluctant to vote for any party that wants to rush through HS2, fracking, more benefit cuts, or promise wonderful things and a dream lifestyle when you know perfectly well they won't be able to find the money to fund it.
I'm fed up with politicians voting themselves huge pay rises when the rest of us are lucky if we get 2%, never mind bonuses.
I want a party that does more for the NHS and pays more attention to pensioners. Most older people have spent their lives working and paying taxes, their retirement should be the best years of their lives and a well-earned reward for their hard work, not the kind of struggle it seems to be for many with stark choices about which bill to pay and which room to heat.
If there was a charisma contest Cameron would probably win, but only just. Ed Miliband has no charisma, Nick Clegg is usually too depressed, and Nigel Farage is, um, Nigel Farage.
I'll be voting basically because women went through a hell of a lot a century ago to get the rest of us the vote and we owe it to them not to throw this opportunity away. However this time round I don't have a great deal of enthusiasm for it. I feel let down by the party I've supported for years, but they're probably still the least worst alternative.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
When they changed the rules about having a fixed term of office rather than calling it at the sitting Prime Minister's whim my first thought was that we would have months of ridiculous campaigning rather than the four weeks we used to get. I don't think I have been proven wrong. Why can't they just wait until nearer the time? And who will pay the bill?
Maybe I'm missing something, but surely the doctrine that no Parliament can bind its successor makes this the most pointless piece of legislation on the statute book? Any party or coalition capable of governing is also capable of repealing it.
[ 02. February 2015, 18:24: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I would be voting Green but the local party has decided, against my advice, not to put up a candidate. Consequently I will be reluctantly voting SNP. No way I'm voting for that treacherous git Murphy, and that's generous compared with what I could say about the lib dems or tories.
As for education, I received an excellent education at a comprehensive school, one of three in a small town in the south of England. We had a choice of two on our side of town and they catered to everyone from the leafy suburbs to the new housing estates to the village council housing. We got better results than the local private school too. That's what every child should have access to. In Scotland, where I now live, the system gets close, but the cities still suffer the problem of selection by catchment area. I think using banding to create comprehensive intakes in the cities and larger towns would do a lot to combat inequality.
The writing off of 80% of the population at age 11 which would inevitably follow the reintroduction of grammar schools cannot be permitted.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Some of them, yes, need to be razed to the ground and the earth salted
Literally?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Metapelagius
Shipmate
# 9453
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Some of them, yes, need to be razed to the ground and the earth salted
Literally?
Reminds me of Harold Wilson's riposte half a century ago to those advocating a massive programme of nationalisation. "So you want to make Marks and Spencers as efficient as the Co-op?"
--------------------
Rec a archaw e nim naccer.
y rof a duv. dagnouet.
Am bo forth. y porth riet.
Crist ny buv e trist yth orsset.
Posts: 1032 | From: Hereabouts | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I would be voting Green but the local party has decided, against my advice, not to put up a candidate. Consequently I will be reluctantly voting SNP. No way I'm voting for that treacherous git Murphy, and that's generous compared with what I could say about the lib dems or tories.
As for education, I received an excellent education at a comprehensive school, one of three in a small town in the south of England. We had a choice of two on our side of town and they catered to everyone from the leafy suburbs to the new housing estates to the village council housing. We got better results than the local private school too. That's what every child should have access to. In Scotland, where I now live, the system gets close, but the cities still suffer the problem of selection by catchment area. I think using banding to create comprehensive intakes in the cities and larger towns would do a lot to combat inequality.
The writing off of 80% of the population at age 11 which would inevitably follow the reintroduction of grammar schools cannot be permitted.
I still feel haunted by the memory of friends who went to secondary moderns, and were in effect, shunted onto the waste tip.
And don't tell me that it need not be like that; with the current crop of neo-liberal shits that we have in Parliament, it would be.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Some of them, yes, need to be razed to the ground and the earth salted
Literally?
I'd integrate the public schools into the state system, turn the grammar schools into comprehensives and make sure their resources are available to all schools.
I wouldn't salt the earth at our public schools though because that would ruin some of the best cricket pitches anywhere in the world.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
At the moment I'm seriously thinking of spoiling my ballot paper. None of the available parties has earned my vote and unfortunately the only way of saying "None of the above" is either to spoil the paper or not to vote at all. I'm also looking around to see if there are any campaigns I can attach myself to in order to argue for the inclusion of "none of the above" in future elections.
Yes, I feel a kind of impotent fury, since I am faced with the prospect of 3 centre-right parties, who have taken neo-liberalism to their bosom. I suppose I could do a protest vote, big deal.
That would be 38 Degrees. The idea was taken to a select committee on voter engagement last year and there's a video available. Lots of slightly horrified politicians who could not believe that some voters are fed up enough to spoil papers or choose none of the above.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Some of them, yes, need to be razed to the ground and the earth salted
Literally?
As literally as you mean to "destroy every fucking comprehensive".
(And yes, the word "fucking" is the least offensive thing about your sentiment...)
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Metapelagius:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Some of them, yes, need to be razed to the ground and the earth salted
Literally?
Reminds me of Harold Wilson's riposte half a century ago to those advocating a massive programme of nationalisation. "So you want to make Marks and Spencers as efficient as the Co-op?"
Guess where I shop ever week? ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Some of them, yes, need to be razed to the ground and the earth salted
Literally?
I'd integrate the public schools into the state system, turn the grammar schools into comprehensives and make sure their resources are available to all schools.
I don't understand how this would work. On a practical level, opening Eton rowing lake to all schoolchildren isn't going to benefit all schoolchildren because there'd be only one rowing lake to be shared by hundreds of thousands.*
But if you spend thousands of pounds a year educating your child who is suddenly turfed out of his private school and into a comp, are you likely to just sit and accept that fact? Isn't it likely that the parents of the children in now defunct public schools will get together and arrange for them to continue to get the added benefits that a public school education brings, whether by after-comprehensive school activities or social groups, etc.?
*Although they probably already do allow others to use it? Don't know.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
(And yes, the word "fucking" is the least offensive thing about your sentiment...)
I'd always put both words in Crossman's (admittedly alleged and private) statement in rather the same category.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
But if you spend thousands of pounds a year educating your child who is suddenly turfed out of his private school and into a comp, are you likely to just sit and accept that fact? Isn't it likely that the parents of the children in now defunct public schools will get together and arrange for them to continue to get the added benefits that a public school education brings, whether by after-comprehensive school activities or social groups, etc.?
This is pretty much the point. Not that we completely eliminate the hideous amount of privilege that is conferred upon a child by buying them a place at a private school, but that the parents are now vocal agitators with a vested interest in improving the lot of the 93% of children in the state sector they previously could afford to ignore.
Yes, it is social engineering, and it's exactly social engineering in the way that private schools are social engineering, except this benefits the many, not just the few.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Heavenly Anarchist
Shipmate
# 13313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
There is no reason whatever why vocational and academic qualifications should not be celebrated and honoured side by side. So what if you won't get an A* in economics, if you come out of further education with the equivalent qualification in being an electrician, plumber, nurse or mechanic then excellend.
As mentioned, my son's secondary school does offer Btecs in subjects such as bricklaying (level 1) and engineering (level 2) and health and social care (level 2) and more - level 2 is equivalent to GCSE. This is in an ordinary academy and these are taught alongside GCSEs so pupils can do both, thus removing the need for separate grammar and secondary moderns and opening up opportunities for all without judgement. We are happy for our mathematically minded child to take a Btec in engineering alongside his GCSEs as this will likely be useful for his future science or technology career.
--------------------
'I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.' Douglas Adams
Dog Activity Monitor
My shop
Posts: 2831 | From: Trumpington | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Why not stand yourself as a "none of the above" independent?
Because knowing my luck, I'd win. And on my list titled "Things I'd Like To Be", "an MP" is just below "found dead in a ditch".
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
The priority is to get these cruel cynical bastards out of office, even if it's a matter of choosing the lesser of the two evils. I'd love to think that the Greens could get a lot of seats but they can't. So I'll vote Labour, unenthusiastically. I learnt my lesson in 2010 when I voted Green and the Tories took the seat from Labour by fewer votes than the Greens attracted. I doubt very much that many of those Green voters would have considered voting Tory.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosa Winkel
Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424
|
Posted
The Greens are more of an unknown factor. There are many people who are well to the left of Labour who believe that the Greens are likewise. In fact, the Greens range from being young and socialist to older and liberal.
I'm a Labour party member, but now that I'm registered in Ynys Mon, I'm voting Plaid Cymru. Leanne Wood is impressive, and they're one of the few parties against austerity, the plaque of modern politics in the EU. In effect, I'm hoping that Labour would lose its seat. I guess this would be seen as treason by some of my old comrades in Chester. (If I would be registered in Chester I would vote Labour)
A Labour/Plaid Cymru/SNP/Green coalition would be good, but not as good as many on the left expect.
--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project
Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
... there's a video available. Lots of slightly horrified politicians who could not believe that some voters are fed up enough to spoil papers or choose none of the above.
Yes. I'm about three-quarters through watching that, and what I'm getting over and over again from it is a profound disrespect from MPs towards the people they should be ultimately accountable to.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
A Labour/Plaid Cymru/SNP/Green coalition would be good, but not as good as many on the left expect.
I rather suspect that the odds it being worth including the Green party in any coalition are slim.
It does, however, seem reasonably likely that we'll end up not only with no single party holding a majority, but with no two parties holding a majority.
Now that the SNP have reneged on their principled position of not voting on things that don't affect Scotland, they look to be a real player in the next government. The chance that they'd find common ground with the Conservative party seems close to zero. I'd put money on a grand "anyone but the Tories" coalition before I'd expect a Con/SNP effort.
Basically, I think the options are:
Con/Lib (status quo)
Lab/SNP
Lab/SNP/Plaid
Lab/SNP/Lib
and just possibly
Lab/Lib (although that doesn't seem very likely)
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
And yes, I didn't mention UKIP, because I think they're going to fizzle out and go nowhere. On the other hand, it would be amusing to discover that Nick "Norman" Clegg ended up playing kingmaker again, with his choice between Con/UKIP and Lab/SNP/Plaid as partners. It might end up as a game of who hates who least.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
The Greens are more of an unknown factor. There are many people who are well to the left of Labour who believe that the Greens are likewise. In fact, the Greens range from being young and socialist to older and liberal.
It's fairly easy to judge, however, because Green party policy is decided democratically and is publically available. It's fairly demonstrable that the Greens are both to the left and more socially liberal than Labour (not that either of those things is a challenge under present circumstances).
And yes, I'd also rule out a tory/SNP coalition, because any attempt would see the shout of "naw fuckin' way" ring from city to island to glen before the ink was dry and the SNP would risk being decimated at the next Holyrood election.
[ 03. February 2015, 05:29: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Now that the SNP have reneged on their principled position of not voting on things that don't affect Scotland, they look to be a real player in the next government.
I think Nicola Sturgeon got it wrong to raise that possibility, though I've only heard it discussed in relation to the NHS. AIUI, it's never been SNP policy, more of a "gentlemans agreement" by individual SNP MPs - and I suspect that if Nicola Sturgeon was to tell her MPs to vote on a clearly non-Scottish-only matter then she may well find many of her MPs finding other business they need to do that day.
The problem, of course, is deciding what constitutes an "English-only matter". Virtually anything decided for England (and Wales) has the possibility of knock-on effects in Scotland.
Though, I think there was never any problem in principal about the SNP going a UK government, because so few powers are fully devolved anyway. There would be no issues from a Scottish perspective to SNP MPs serving on the Cabinet in areas of defence, international affairs, etc. In that event, I wonder what would be the price the SNP would want to join a coalition - it's probably too soon for a further referendum, all parties have committed themselves to further devolution. From the SNP policies I would find it great if they were to ask for scrapping Trident and easing immigration controls were part of the price they asked to form a government, maybe reducing voting age to 16.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
