Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: UK Election 2015
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Dogwalker: A connection between UK 2015 and US 2016: maybe this is well known over there, but it surprised me.
It came up a year or two ago, when Bernie Sanders (the only US politician to use the word "socialist" without meaning it as an insult) came up in discussion.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Alan Cresswell: Interestingly, there was one party that has been consistently pro-immigration for many years. That's the Scottish Nationalist Party. It didn't seem to do them any harm at all.
Immigration to southern England has traditionally been much higher than to Scotland which would probably explain the difference in attitude. There are less people squashing in, and presumably members of the dominant culture do not feel threatened.
-------------------- "I fart in your general direction." M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Except opposition to immigrants is often higher in parts of England where there are less of them - and vice versa.
-------------------- All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by IngoB: quote: Originally posted by Cod: This is a non-point which you make because, once again, you are assuming that democracy is inevitably about parties. My view is that it is about electing the individuals who govern us. While it makes sense for those individuals to organise themselves into political parties, the fact remains that government is carried on by real people who use their own minds and experiences to make decisions on behalf of those who have elected them.
I don't know what century and what country you live in.
You should have spotted that I live in New Zealand, which I suppose means I think that we are some time in the Fourth Age, or perhaps the fifth as Faramir and Samwise don't seem to be around any more.
quote: It's definitely not the 21stC UK though. I have not spotted the slightest difference here to the "party politics" I have seen in Germany. Zip. Zilch. Nada. You are not being governed by "individuals", other than in the sense that obviously any human grouping is made up out of individuals. In fact, take this whole bloody thread. It is mostly a whine about how the Conservatives have won, in spite of being so mean. Oh, and how Labour has lost its socialist ways. And we wonder what the SNP will do, and how the Lib Dems will recover from being crushed etc. If individuals are being mentioned, then it is almost invariably the party leadership. We are for the most part not discussing the fate of this or that backbench MP. And we are not discussing either how say Mr Cameron did in his constituency in Oxford, nobody really cares about that, we are discussing his management at party level. You declared yourself to be a long time Lib Dem supporter, and gave a long analysis of the problems faced by that party. You didn't say that you are supporting some particular MP and didn't give us details on what challenges that individual faced.
The UK is quite simply another party-governed democracy, at least at the national level. Deal with it.
This adds nothing to what you've previously said, nor does it answer anything I've said.
quote: quote: Originally posted by Cod: The system as used in places like Germany, NZ and Scotland subverts that principle, and to that extent they are less democratic than FPTP polities.
As mentioned, in the German system anybody elected in their constituency gets a seat in parliament (with a caveat concerning the "hurdle", which however practically never plays a role).
As explained by you, some members of parliament (in the German system) do not represent constituencies. They are appointed off a list.
NB: the "hurdle" plays a role in just about every election here because voters know to split their votes to try and get increased representation for their side of the political spectrum.
Voters Epsom in Auckland, for example, consistently elects a right-wing libertarian as its MP but use their party vote for National (main centre-right party), so they get 2 MPs for the price of one.
quote: quote: Originally posted by Cod: In any event, most electoral systems "systematically trash" the votes of those whose preferred candidate or slate of candidates does not win. Not many countries have party proportional governments. One side has to lose.
You now have a 12-seat majority in Parliament - 51.2% of seats, Sinn Fein corrected - for a party that was supported by 36.9% of voters. Yes, in every system votes get "trashed" in the sense of some candidates losing. But that does not justify this kind of result.
Why is it not justified?
quote: quote: Originally posted by Cod: No. "Democracy" as currently understood is the principle that people choose who governs them. It is less about successful government than human rights.
Yes, and now try to turn your principle into reality. Invariably, you will have to make pragmatic choices to get some system that works in practice. Remember, this is about you critiquing the "hurdle" as not being principled. And my point is quite simply that the "hurdle" is a pragmatic measure, as there must be many pragmatic measures if one wants to turn the ideal of democracy into an actual reality. Pretty much all of the actual democracy you find yourself in is based on pragmatic choices people have made. For example, why precisely do you not expect to vote until in about five years from now? The election cycle is not part of your "democratic ideal", is it now? It is what you get when you try to turn your democratic ideal into reality, and have to face the fact that people cannot be expected to vote all the time, and that politicians need some stability of power to do their work. The election cycle is pragmatic solution for a practical problem in implementing the ideal of democracy. So is the "hurdle". You can of course critique the "hurdle" on various grounds, but not because it is not "principled". Very little in the actual political process is "principled".
You're comparing apples with oranges here. It is part of the essence of representative democracy that those elected are allowed to get on with the job. An arbitrary threshold rule is not.
quote: quote: Originally posted by Cod: With the exception of Italy, this is really not a problem for mature democracies.
The UK is a mature democracy. As shown above, in a proportional system without "hurdle", the UK would now most likely head for a re-election. With the "hurdle", there would most likely be a coalition government. This kind of measure works because political coalitions are the harder to form the more parties are involved. And the chance to construct a majority with fewer parties increases if there is a minimum seat size to them. You may not like the "hurdle" for other reasons, but it certainly does the job it is intended to do.
I think a moment's reflection makes clear that had this election been conducted under PR, or indeed AV or STV the result would have been completely different, and the parties would have campaigned in quite different ways. I can see this from comparing UK elections with those in NZ which has a system much like Germany's. The key point to note that here voters and political parties (which lamentably are now built into the constitutional fabric of its political process) enter an election campaign knowing that an absolute majority in parliament is unlikely. Coalitions are an entirely normal and expected of the discussion.
You cannot conclude that the vote share would have been the same had this election been conducted under PR.* Accordingly you cannot conclude that a second election would have been necessary.
Even if the vote share had been the same, I note that the combined Tory, UKIP and Lib Dem vote share was about 57%.
quote: quote: Originally posted by Cod: If MPs squabble too much amongst themselves to form a stable administration, the appropriate solution is for the electorate to kick them all out and replace them with other MPs. Under a constituency-based system, this is simple.
Frankly, this is so far removed from the political reality in the UK that I will not bother commenting on it.
..which is a point in favour of FPTP. And I haven't even had to note that the public opted to retain it in a referendum a few years ago, so it is the democratically preferred choice. It is true that on boards like this one, plenty (in my view perversely) rejected the alternative because they wanted a better one. I expect most people opted to retain FPTP because they thought it a perfectly decent system.
-------------------- "I fart in your general direction." M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
So on the cards in the near future:
- Overturning the hunting ban. - The snoopers charter. - Withdrawal from the HRA. - Weaker employment rights.
Anything I missed?
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
The EU referendum looks set to dominate the middle of this parliament.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by chris stiles: So on the cards in the near future:
- Overturning the hunting ban. - The snoopers charter. - Withdrawal from the HRA. - Weaker employment rights.
Anything I missed?
Finish tendering all state provided aspects of the NHS, so the process can't be reversed in the next parliament. Owing to the circle debacle, in hospitals this will be done be devolving out specialties over time. Something that has already started to happen during the lifetime of the previous parliament.
-------------------- All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Doublethink.: quote: Originally posted by chris stiles: So on the cards in the near future:
- Overturning the hunting ban. - The snoopers charter. - Withdrawal from the HRA. - Weaker employment rights.
Anything I missed?
Finish tendering all state provided aspects of the NHS, so the process can't be reversed in the next parliament. Owing to the circle debacle, in hospitals this will be done be devolving out specialties over time. Something that has already started to happen during the lifetime of the previous parliament.
That process was started by the Blair govt when they demanded a specific minimum NVQ or other level of training for every different job in the NHS. I know it just sounds "sensible" but the way it was rolled out was pretty clearly a prelude to obtaining services from the private sector.
Wrt the NHS I find myself slightly ambivalent - in that the big pharma PR train has resulted in a huge public pressure for new drugs new drugs and has therefore channelled a lot of NHS funds into shareholder profits rather than anything particularly useful. e.g. between 0.5 and 2% of NHS funds go on Statins. There is no way out of this hole - other than declaring a moratorium on new medications and drawing clear and painful lines as to what kind of treatment is affordable through public prescription. This is, of course, a 2-tier system because anyone with money will be able to go beyond the lines drawn. The increasing age of our population adds to the pressure. So far I haven't seen anyone make any move in a direction that will prevent the NHS overspending year after year other than by reducing baseline services. However, as Florence Nightingale well knew - if you have high standards of cleanliness and good quality basic nursing and fresh air (see how many wards in new hospitals rely on vent ducts) and natural light - you're already 50% of the way there. Without that cleanliness and basic air/light we have hospitals becoming increasingly dangerous places to be in. Subcontracting cleaning out saves a few thousand pounds and digs a hole in the entire foundations of modern medicine.
quote: Anything I missed?
TIPP
-------------------- "Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Cod: This adds nothing to what you've previously said, nor does it answer anything I've said.
Curious. I would say it undermines everything you have said. In summary: By and large, your MPs do not act as "individuals", but as party members. By and large, everybody from the media down to you, personally, evaluates government in terms of party politics, not "individual" politics. De facto, both the execution and the discussion of politics is just as party-centric in the UK as in for example Germany. Insisting that votes must be counted individual-centric, even if that falsifies the actual party-centric intentions of voters, is thus a classic case of ideology preventing the adoption of appropriate solutions.
quote: Originally posted by Cod: As explained by you, some members of parliament (in the German system) do not represent constituencies. They are appointed off a list.
Correct. They remain however proper representatives of the will of the people. I should perhaps mention that in the German system you get two votes, one to assign to a local candidate, one to assign to national representation.
(Frankly, the actual German system is more complicated than I had realised. For example, there federal structure apparently plays a role in the sense that the seats are first split according to the different "lands" (like Bavaria) in proportion to their population. The representation calculations are actually done at the "land" level, and the national parliament is then re-assembled from these. I also note that I obviously miscalculated above in giving SNP no representation because they failed the "5% hurdle", for they clearly did not fail to gain at least 3 constituencies. So their candidates would enter parliament, and potentially its numbers would have to be adjusted to represent they share of votes. But (as I have just learned) not really their share on the national level, but rather in Scotland (which would be the equivalent of a German "land"). So I now think that they would presumably simply take almost all of the Scotland-dedicated seats of the federal parliament. But it's complicated, and I think I would need an afternoon to actually figure things out.)
quote: Originally posted by Cod: Voters Epsom in Auckland, for example, consistently elects a right-wing libertarian as its MP but use their party vote for National (main centre-right party), so they get 2 MPs for the price of one.
I can't speak for the NZ system, but that's not really a fair claim for the German system. It would be more accurate to say that everybody gets 2 MPs for their 2 votes, one for the local constituency and one for the national representation. And then some places will choose to split their votes, so that they get a local MP from one party, but a national MP from the other. This however puts them at no advantage to those who took their two MPs from the same party.
quote: Originally posted by Cod: Why is it not justified?
Because 36.9% is nowhere near 51.2%. In this parliament, Conservative politics will have the absolute majority. But it is note the case that the absolute majority of people wanted Conservative politics, far from it.
quote: Originally posted by Cod: You're comparing apples with oranges here. It is part of the essence of representative democracy that those elected are allowed to get on with the job. An arbitrary threshold rule is not.
If nobody can form a government, or at least not a stable one, then those elected can also cannot get on with their job. The "hurdle" aims to reduce the frequency of that happening. You can critique whether it achieves that aim. But it is no more "arbitrary" than the election cycle. Notably, the numerical value of the hurdle has the same "arbitrary but only within a sensible range" quality as the length of the election cycle. Also for the election cycle, there is no really good reason to prefer five years over four years. But there is good reason not to go to one year or ten years.
quote: Originally posted by Cod: The key point to note that here voters and political parties (which lamentably are now built into the constitutional fabric of its political process) enter an election campaign knowing that an absolute majority in parliament is unlikely. Coalitions are an entirely normal and expected of the discussion.
I would consider that to be a very good thing.
quote: Originally posted by Cod: Even if the vote share had been the same, I note that the combined Tory, UKIP and Lib Dem vote share was about 57%.
True, but since Lib Dem and UKIP would never form a coalition with each other, also irrelevant.
quote: Originally posted by Cod: And I haven't even had to note that the public opted to retain it in a referendum a few years ago, so it is the democratically preferred choice. It is true that on boards like this one, plenty (in my view perversely) rejected the alternative because they wanted a better one. I expect most people opted to retain FPTP because they thought it a perfectly decent system.
That's true enough. It's one of these interesting questions of democracy though how long such decisions should be taken to last. A question that I'm sure the SNP is pondering as well...
-------------------- They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Alan Cresswell: quote: Originally posted by Drewthealexander: If you live in Happytown and have an influx of people from Immigrania equivalent to 10% of your existing population, this puts pressures on your schools, health, and other public services whether your forebears date back five generations or five hundred.
The pressure on schools etc is only an issue of they are not adequately funded. For which there is no excuse within a community that is experiencing economic growth which is almost always the case where there are new immigrants.
By definition, immigrants who make the trip on their own have the resources and determination to immigrate - they have the money for the visa application, airfare etc which almost certainly means they are skilled and can easily find work, and the determination to move is also the same sort of characteristic that will mean they're likely to work hard, often establishing their own business. People like this will generate jobs and without a doubt pay more in taxes than the costs to the tax payer of the associated services they need - schools, doctors etc.
Other immigrants are brought over by others, usually people already here. They're brought in to do low-skilled, low-paid jobs that employers can't find anyone locally to fill. Which is why a lot of people from Eastern Europe are here, and they usually come for short periods of time. That means they won't be here to retire and claim pensions, they often have no family with them and so no schools needed, and rarely need to see the doctor. On low wages they won't pay much in tax, but they're not asking much from the tax payer either.
The "problem" isn't with the immigrants. The "problem" is with a government that doesn't return the increased tax revenue they bring back into the community where they live to provide things like schools and medical centres. Of course, the incoming government is unlikely to pass back tax revenue from the native population into such things either, preferring to squander it on tax-breaks for their wealthy chums and unnecessary nuclear armed submarines.
Personally I don't see immigrants as "problems" - I was responding to the question above as to why current ethnic groups may take this view.
But on your point, even where immigrants are net contributors to a local economy it doesn't follow that the value of their economic contribution could, with sufficient speed, translate into adequate education and health services even if local and national government chose to. There is a time lapse between having the cash to create health and education infrastructure and physically putting it into place. We also have a problem of recruiting GPs to meet demands for health care created by longevity.
Choosing where to spend money is one issue, the lack of effective planning to meet demands created by a range of factors - including birth rates, mortality rates and longevity (as well as immigration and internal movements of UK population) also impact on specific localities.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
There are certainly other issues. Lack of planning is certainly one of them. There seems to be a certain amount of unregulated house building (there are regulations about the quality of the housing etc, but other parts of the process aren't as regulated) - it doesn't seem unusual for a developer to turn an abandoned warehouse into flats, have 30 young couples move in and then someone think "wait a mo, we've just got 20 pre-school and primary age children on our doorstep, what school can they go to?" That's just a lack of planning and foresight, nothing to do with immigration.
Issues like recruiting enough people for the health service (and, other sectors such as child minders and teachers) is another problem that isn't a result of immigration. It's partly funding, with austerity measures squeezing the pot of funding for new posts. It's partly immigration control, for decades the UK has depended upon immigrants to fill posts and then the government puts on ludicrous immigration caps and wonders why they can't recruit enough doctors.
-------------------- 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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I see that George Galloway has started a legal challenge over the result in his constituency, claiming that the Labour candidate made false claims and also some irregularities in postal votes.
Which since Labour have also made complaints about Galloway making false claims, and he was reported to the police over release of exit poll data before close of polling, does seem to make it a case of probably a bit of blame on both sides.
It won't affect the national result. And with an 11000 majority, I can't see questioning a few postal ballots is going to make much difference in Bradford either.
-------------------- 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
|
|
passer
Indigo
# 13329
|
Posted
I just read that too. My first reaction was along the "Will no-one rid me of this turbulent priest" lines, but without the backdrop of the target of the anger having any worth. I often wonder just who specifically he is grandstanding for in this way, and who his financial backers really are. A truly contemptible man.
Posts: 1289 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ancient Mariner
Sip the ship
# 4
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Sarah G: Elections are won from the middle of the political spectrum. Clinton knew it, Blair perfected it, and Cameron got it.
Like it or not, the centre ground is, by definition, where most people are. Any party needs to have those people if it is to have power. If Labour doesn't head off into the middle ground, they'll spend many, many years acting as OfGov.
Those who think Blair was a waste of time as Labour PM. forget, or never knew, just how horrible the alternatives were (Michael Howard with 'Are you thinking what we're thinking?').
I agree. When the chips are down and as a rule, the largest minority of voters go for the party closest to a traditional, middle-of-the-road 'wet Tory' position. At general elections this 'largest minority' tends to reject extremism. We elected Thatcher in 83, for example, only because the country saw Michael Foot as even more extreme at the time - though it's hard to believe looking back. In 87 Kinnock was still deemed too extreme against Thatcher(!) Major was the archetypal wet Tory and got in in 92 against the odds.
Blair got in in 97 as (virtually) a wet Tory in disguise and Major lost because the country rejected the sleaze connection and the right-wing sh1ts in the Tory backbenches. When the Tories tried to defeat Blair with a succession of right-wing leaders they palpably failed.
Like it or not, Cameron came over as the lesser of extreme equals like Farage/ SNP etc. The 'largest minority' still rule, it seems. [ 11. May 2015, 09:16: Message edited by: Ancient Mariner ]
-------------------- Ship of Fools' first novel, Rattles & Rosettes, is the tale of two football (soccer) fans: 16-year-old Tom in 1914 and Dan in 2010. More at www.rattlesandrosettes.com
Posts: 2582 | From: St Helens (near Liverpool) UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
That's also what happened in Scotland. However, as Scotland is generally to left of England, it was Cameron who was seen as "extreme" and the "largest minority" went to the SNP.
YouGov did a profile of each constituency. In mine, (based on 970 people polled) they concluded that we were to the right of the Scottish average, but to the left of the UK average. The constituency profile showed that people here were more likely to be in work than the Scottish or UK average, and also more likely to be older / white / homeowners. This explains why we're to the right of the Scottish average, but I found it interesting that affluent / home owning / older voters are still to the left of the UK average. [ 11. May 2015, 10:50: Message edited by: North East Quine ]
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Alan Cresswell: There are certainly other issues. Lack of planning is certainly one of them. There seems to be a certain amount of unregulated house building (there are regulations about the quality of the housing etc, but other parts of the process aren't as regulated) - it doesn't seem unusual for a developer to turn an abandoned warehouse into flats, have 30 young couples move in and then someone think "wait a mo, we've just got 20 pre-school and primary age children on our doorstep, what school can they go to?" That's just a lack of planning and foresight, nothing to do with immigration.
Issues like recruiting enough people for the health service (and, other sectors such as child minders and teachers) is another problem that isn't a result of immigration. It's partly funding, with austerity measures squeezing the pot of funding for new posts. It's partly immigration control, for decades the UK has depended upon immigrants to fill posts and then the government puts on ludicrous immigration caps and wonders why they can't recruit enough doctors.
The need for school and other resources is certainly recognised by the planning process in Wales and developers, predictably, hate it with a passion.
Down the road from us a large house was demolished about 15 years ago and there have been at least five schemes to build flats or (most recently) houses on the land. Caveats have always been added regarding car parking and a hefty one-off sum demanded up front towards the education budget. The land remains derelict, which is a shame as it is over the road from a park, convenient for schools and has a beautiful view to the west (well, as beautiful a view as you get in Newport!)
As for health workers I was in hospital for a while a couple of weeks ago and three of the four A & E doctors who treated/checked me weren't "white British" by any means. Thank God for immigrants.
-------------------- "He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
luvanddaisies
the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Stejjie: Fair point about the SNP: mea culpa, I honestly wasn't aware of their pro-immigration stance - more power to their elbow!
That said, I do still wonder how that would go down in England; I'm fairly sure that it would be much less well received down here. ...
Perhaps in England it's different: the immigration issue seems to be caught up in all the debates about English "identity" etc.
I dunno... I just don't see an avowedly pro-immigration party in England doing that well, sadly.
Didn't do the Green Party much harm - they quadrupled their vote share, retained their sitting MP, retained 5 or 6 times more deposits than their previous best effort, and in the days since the election have seen more than 2000 members join the Party, whose membership had surged to previously unimagined levels before the Election. As a consequence they have increased their share of Short Money, and have given themselves more to build on next time around.
quote: Originally posted by chris stiles: So on the cards in the near future:
- Overturning the hunting ban. - The snoopers charter. - Withdrawal from the HRA. - Weaker employment rights.
Anything I missed?
Fracking Tendering out the NHS TTIP & ISDS
It's not going to be a fun time
Oh, and y'know how we were all pleased to see the back of Farage? He's ba-ack.
-------------------- "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
|
|
Touchstone
Shipmate
# 3560
|
Posted
Spoke to a friend today and the election came up in conversation, natch. He's a public sector worker, doing OK, though not brilliantly paid. Will probably make it to management in the fullness of time if there's still a public sector left for him to manage.
Turns out he voted Tory - and in a marginal seat that Labour were targeting and failed to win. His reasons were rather vague, he thought that Labour had wasted money on "hare brained schemes", though when I asked for an example, he couldn't name one. I ended up giving him one - the Iraq war - though I also pointed out that the Tories were rather keen on that too. I think he'd picked up the phrase on social media, and it had lodged in his mind.
My initial thought was "if Labour can't reach people like him they're well and truly stuffed", but I think it gives an insight into how people who aren't very politically engaged decide how to vote. Labour probably had the best of the conventional campaign, but the Tories won it on Facebook, twitter etc.
-------------------- Jez we did hand the next election to the Tories on a plate!
Posts: 163 | From: Somewhere west of Bristol | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by North East Quine: That's also what happened in Scotland. However, as Scotland is generally to left of England, it was Cameron who was seen as "extreme" and the "largest minority" went to the SNP.
An interesting thing the election coverage reminded me of is that Scotland was not always to the left of England and in the 1950s tended to vote slightly more Conservative. What happened to that?
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Good question. I don't know the answer. I know that there used to be a strong religious influence on the way people voted. I asked one old woman how her family had voted and she replied "We were Free Church" assuming that I would know that Free Church = Liberal. Church of Scotland tended towards Conservative, Roman Catholics tended towards Labour. I'm not sure how strong those links were, but even in the 2010 General election, many LibDem constituencies corresponded to areas where the Free Church is strongest. The Liberals supported the Crofters War of the 1880s, and that seemed to have a lingering legacy.
But I'm just havering, really. I don't know the answer to your question. Anybody?
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
Hmmm I had wondered that! So maybe the decline of the Church of Scotland ties into the decline of Conservatism in Scotland? Anyone for or agin?
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Can I suggest a "decoupling" of religion and politics rather than a "decline" in the church per se?
Paging Cottontail!
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic: An interesting thing the election coverage reminded me of is that Scotland was not always to the left of England and in the 1950s tended to vote slightly more Conservative. What happened to that?
The decline was likely well under way but the Thatcherite demolition of Scottish industry, followed by the poll tax, seem to have been the key factors in making the tories unelectable in most of Scotland.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
A thought:
My friend Alastair has lived in Scotland all his life apart from a brief period at university. His take on the apparent left-sing biasis in Scottish politics is that it has partly come about because of the demonising of the Conservatives, and especially Margaret Thatcher. He believes that the degree of dislike (perhaps hatred is a better word) that has attached to the word 'Tory' is such that generations born from the 1970s onwards truly believe that the Conservative Party is directly comparable to the powers of darkness. Since the LibDems are seen a largely middle-class the answer north of the border has been to vote for anything or anyone else.
And many Scots are fed up with the corruption and nepotism of Scottish Labour and so the rise of the SNP has been swift and spectacular.
In short, the creation of the right-wing bogeyman is partly responsible for the rise of the SNP.
-------------------- Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet: quote: Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic: An interesting thing the election coverage reminded me of is that Scotland was not always to the left of England and in the 1950s tended to vote slightly more Conservative. What happened to that?
The decline was likely well under way but the Thatcherite demolition of Scottish industry, followed by the poll tax, seem to have been the key factors in making the tories unelectable in most of Scotland.
But even last week they still got about 15% of the vote- a long way from the 50% of 1955, but more than the very distorted allocation of seats would suggest. In 1992 - post-Thatch, post Poll Tax - they got just over 25% of the vote.
-------------------- My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by L'organist:
In short, the creation of the right-wing bogeyman is partly responsible for the rise of the SNP.
But why, if this is a correct analysis, was the "right-wing bogeyman" created in Scotland but not in England? OK, I can see that industrial areas like Glasgow might have an undying hate for Maggie just as Newcastle or South Wales might have. But why should this have any more traction in rural Scotland than it did in southern England? Maggie had (and has) lots of committed fans in England - why not so much in Scotland?
And it doesn't explain the pre-Thatcher decline from the 1950s peak.
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
luvanddaisies
the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761
|
Posted
So, RIght-Wing Dave's nice new Cabinet includes a Justice Minister who opposed an enquiry into the paedophile scandals at Westminster and is said to be pro-hanging, an Equality Minister who voted against equal marriage, a Minister for Disabled People who is in favour of the cuts to disability benefits, and a Science Minister without a science background, but who is in favour of fracking.
At the same time, the rabid press organs that are the Mail and the Express have had front page headlines trumpeting how great it is that the "Madness of Human Rights" is set for repeal...
It's going to be a long and very damaging five years, isn't it?
-------------------- "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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It's almost as if the barbarians have entered the city, and we wait to see what will escape their vandalism, BBC, NHS, Human Rights, etc.
-------------------- I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
luvanddaisies
the'fun'in'fundie'™
# 5761
|
Posted
I know. I'm feeling a bit bad about my level of engagement with it though - there's going to be a lot of battles to fight, and if people all just do what I do, clicktivism, discussion and moaning, that's not much of a protest, is it.
Annoingly, I'm away on holiday for the 20th June Anti-Austerity Demo , and I'm working until 15:30 on May 30th for the demo against cuts .
(I wonder if there might be mileage in a SofF "See You On The Streets" thread in All Saints - there are a lot of us who seem to be pretty gutted by the prospect of what five years of a Tory majority will do to us... Does anyone think that might be a thing worth trying as a thread?)
-------------------- "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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Good idea. Don't mourn, organize.
-------------------- I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by L'organist: In short, the creation of the right-wing bogeyman is partly responsible for the rise of the SNP.
Right, because one can automatically create bogeymen out of whole cloth without any media support.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by luvanddaisies: (I wonder if there might be mileage in a SofF "See You On The Streets" thread in All Saints - there are a lot of us who seem to be pretty gutted by the prospect of what five years of a Tory majority will do to us... Does anyone think that might be a thing worth trying as a thread?)
If we know where you end up protesting, we can organise a SoF pro-Tory counter-demo.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Anglican't: If we know where you end up protesting, we can organise a SoF pro-Tory counter-demo.
All three of you...
-------------------- Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Just realized that the above mentioned science minister is Jo Johnson, brother of Boris; well, thank heaven for some class, and also, Floreat Etona, Floreat Bullingdona!
-------------------- I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by North East Quine: That's also what happened in Scotland. However, as Scotland is generally to left of England, it was Cameron who was seen as "extreme" and the "largest minority" went to the SNP.
I understand there is research which states that people in Scotland identify further to the left, however, when asked specific questions on matters such as benefits, immigration, tax, Europe, law and order and so on, there is no difference or leastways a negligible one.
-------------------- "I fart in your general direction." M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote: Anglican't
If we know where you end up protesting, we can organise a SoF pro-Tory counter-demo.
That's fine, because it's in your genes. I've finally caught up with an article in New Scientist about belief (4 April 2015) Paywalled (Though there seem to be a number of places that have downloads. Not honest, I suppose.) There is some discussion of political differences, curiously looking more at the right than the left, but it is New Scientist, so maybe they have liberal as default. Conservatives, apparently, react more fearfully to threatening images, so may see the world as more threatening. They are more likely to be disgusted by disgusting things. In all political persuasions, disgust makes people more averse to the morally suspect, but this reaction is stronger in conservatives. (DH territory.) Instinctive responses can lead people with different political beliefs to inhabit different realities, with people reaching beliefs first, and then selecting the facts to fit them, and seeking justifications for this. People also adopt shibboleth beliefs to ensure they fit into the right tribe - such issues as climate change, evolution and I think we can spot some others.
I keep on thinking that I see more right wing contributors to web sites thinking that writing people off as lefties, with a few oft repeated phrases which do not go into detail is enough to show up the weakness of their arguments rather than the reverse. I suspect that this may be because I am in my own little bubble and don't register anything so basic. I usually see references to the homeless, the disabled and so on in the left corner. Not "You lost, losers, that's democracy, you can't protest because you live in a state which allows you the right to protest, so shut up." Not here of course - or at least, not in this part of here.
What does seem to be a real difference - and I've come across it in a number of places, almost in the same words- is a conservative belief that democracy means that a person is elected into a post (need not be as an MP) in order to take all the decisions without further consultation of the electorate); while the left hold a belief that democracy involves - in fact requires - a continual interaction with the person elected and the decision making process. And a belief that if they refuse to listen, action is needed.
It is really sad that the only thing the conservatives felt the need to do this for was fox hunting. [ 12. May 2015, 18:48: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by L'organist: A thought:
My friend Alastair has lived in Scotland all his life apart from a brief period at university. His take on the apparent left-sing biasis in Scottish politics is that it has partly come about because of the demonising of the Conservatives, and especially Margaret Thatcher.
Alan made a post about a week back in response to mine on Scottish nationalism and my experience of it (in Glasgow in the 90s). I intend to respond to it in the next few days. In the meantime, I will make this comment on what I observed back then.
The Tories were seen as right-wing English nationalists who cared about nothing except money. They were individualists who placed little emphasis on societal cohesion. In that respect they were un-Scottish, and voting for them was an unpatriotic thing to do.
Labour tended to campaign on demonising the Tories as un-Scottish (see above). However, coming from a relatively wealthy Tory-Lib Dem marginal, I was astonished that off campus, Labour didn't seem to do anything in their constituencies at all, and their activities tended to get directed from the top. I remember even back then thinking that the party was on borrowed time.
The SNP also demonised the Tories, and fought it out with Labour over who was more Scottish. It was noticeable that their activist base was younger than Labour's and growing. They had a far more articulate leader in Alex Salmond. Like the Lib Dems, they were picking up a lot of local support on the basis that their councillors did a better job than Labour's.
In short, the atmosphere of political debate was coloured by a kind of war between the SNP and Labour over who was the more fair and Scottish (the two being treated as synonyms). The obvious casulty of such a debate is support for the Union, so it is not surprising that the SNP were slowly winning that debate. [ 12. May 2015, 18:51: Message edited by: Cod ]
-------------------- "I fart in your general direction." M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Cod: quote: Originally posted by North East Quine: That's also what happened in Scotland. However, as Scotland is generally to left of England, it was Cameron who was seen as "extreme" and the "largest minority" went to the SNP.
I understand there is research which states that people in Scotland identify further to the left, however, when asked specific questions on matters such as benefits, immigration, tax, Europe, law and order and so on, there is no difference or leastways a negligible one.
YouGov have asked questions on those issues and concluded that Scots are to the left. However, YouGov draw from a pool of people who have signed up to receive opinion polls, which probably affects the outcomes.
Here's an example You can check any other constituency by clicking on the map. [ 12. May 2015, 19:08: Message edited by: North East Quine ]
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Just how left wing actually are the SNP in, say, the rural north of Scotland? I know they'll be signed up to the party's national manifesto, but how lefty is your average SNP voter or even member in that sort or area? [ 12. May 2015, 19:35: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic: quote: Originally posted by L'organist:
In short, the creation of the right-wing bogeyman is partly responsible for the rise of the SNP.
But why, if this is a correct analysis, was the "right-wing bogeyman" created in Scotland but not in England? OK, I can see that industrial areas like Glasgow might have an undying hate for Maggie just as Newcastle or South Wales might have. But why should this have any more traction in rural Scotland than it did in southern England? Maggie had (and has) lots of committed fans in England - why not so much in Scotland?
And it doesn't explain the pre-Thatcher decline from the 1950s peak.
The Poll Tax was trialled in Scotland and was introduced as a work in progress. It upset a lot of people who weren't against the Poll Tax per se. For example "student" hadn't been properly defined for the purpose of "student discount" It was clear that undergraduates were "students" but not clear that post grads were. My then fiance, now husband was doing his PhD, and faced the possibility of 60% of his income going on Poll Tax. His parents would have bailed him out, but there were others who faced having to drop out. His supervisor, a Prof in a big house, who stood to gain personally from the Poll Tax was fighting against it because of the impact on his department of PhD students potentially giving up their studies.
When we got married, I notified the Poll Tax office in advance, but had my notification bounced, as it had to be done after we were married. In fact, it had to be done within 14 days of marriage. I phoned up to explain that we'd be going on honeymoon after our wedding, but was told that we'd be fined if we flew off without having completed our Poll Tax paperwork.
Fortunately, we had a window of opportunity, as we got married on a Saturday, and were flying off on honeymoon on Mon afternoon. So we got up early on Monday morning, and went to the Poll Tax office to confirm we were now married and living together.
I was absolutely spitting mad that I was forced to queue in a council office less than 48 hours after our wedding, or face a crippling fine.
By the time it was introduced in England, they'd realised that it is not unreasonable for newly weds to go on honeymoon, and newly weds don't like getting up early on their second morning together, and they'd extended the period.
Because it was being trialled, and hadn't been fully thought out it adversely affected a lot of people, including the affluent middle classes, in bizarre and hurtful ways.
26 years on, I'm still pissed off about being a newly wed in a queue in a council office, when I wanted to be a newly wed snuggled up with my new husband.
There was a Spitting Image sketch in which Maggie Thatcher raked her finger nails down Scotland and said "Scotland? Ah, you mean the Testing Ground" and that was certainly what the Poll Tax felt like.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Although the Poll Tax was actually introduced early in Scotland at the request of the Scottish Conservatives, wasn't it, because there was aa rate revaluation in the offing and they wanted to avoid having the rates increased*. It's another one of those myths (the local equivalent here, I suppose, is Churchill sending the troops to deal with striking miners at Tonypandy, when he actually held troops back even though the coal owners and local magistrates/ police wanted him to send them in).
*Sadly it also made a good joke obsolete- about the lady selling her house in Morningside who, when asked what the rates were like, denied that there were any rates at all there. 'No rates, really?' 'Certainly not- rates in Adelaide Terrace, the very idea! A few wee mice, perhaps...'
-------------------- My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
A simple question... why were enough people persuaded to vote Conservative to give the Conservatives a majority?
Of course my theory is that our message chimed with the electorate. They preferred our policies over those of the other parties. Which again begs the question why?
Perhaps I am wrong though and there are other reasons that explain why enough people voted Conservative to return a majority Conservative government.
-------------------- "The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Penny S:
<SNIP>
What does seem to be a real difference - and I've come across it in a number of places, almost in the same words- is a conservative belief that democracy means that a person is elected into a post (need not be as an MP) in order to take all the decisions without further consultation of the electorate); while the left hold a belief that democracy involves - in fact requires - a continual interaction with the person elected and the decision making process. And a belief that if they refuse to listen, action is needed.
It is really sad that the only thing the conservatives felt the need to do this for was fox hunting.
That's interesting, because the last time that Neil Kinnock lost, to John Major, the big issues in that election (as opposed to the ones that are always there) were constitutional reform (PR was being proposed) and devolution of some kind to Wales and Scotland.
Kinnock constantly said that if elected, he would hold commissions and referendums on those two things. Major said that if he was elected, neither would happen, period.
Kinnock lost, and Major won.
-------------------- I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by deano: A simple question... why were enough people persuaded to vote Conservative to give the Conservatives a majority?
I don't think it is a simple question.
The first thing to note is that although enough were persuaded, it wasn't actually a lot of people. The Conservatives only gained an extra 0.8% of the vote compared to 2010, that's less than 400,000 people. Labour had a +1.5% swing, the Greens +2.8%. Almost all those gains coming at the expense of the LibDems.
True, they must have found their Conservative candidate a more attractive choice than the alternatives. But what they found attractive is probably highly variable. Probably only a very small minority who voted Conservative would actually agree with everything in the Conservative manifesto. Which is why it's stupid to wave it around and claim a mandate to do all of what's in there (though, that's a mistake that practically every Prime Minister in recent memory has fallen for). Though, without a referendum on everything in that document it's effectively impossible to know what the people of Britain who voted Conservative do or don't want. Which is why MPs need to be listening to their constituents as votes on these proposals come their way - and if it's clear their constituents do not want what's proposed defy their whip.
-------------------- 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
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by luvanddaisies quote: Annoingly, I'm away on holiday for the 20th June Anti-Austerity Demo...
Shame.
I won't be there either - but that's more to do with not wishing to be associated with a blind-leading-the-blind outing being put together by an organisation set up by Unite, UNISON, the Communist Party of Great Britain, Tariq Ali, various smaller unions including the NUT, PCSU, NUJ and RMT, red Pepper, Salma Yaqoob (sometime leader of Respect) etc, etc, etc.
If you wish the UK to look after the most vulnerable of its population (and I assume you do) then you need to think about where the money is going to come from - and that has to be a sustainable source, not something like a mansion tax or levy on bonuses which will soon cease to produce anything.
Much of the anti-austerity/stop-the-cuts rhetoric sounds very appealing but it is at the level of Sixth Form debate, all pie-in-the-sky and with no concrete proposals on how to sustainably fund our ever-expanding health and welfare systems.
And regardless of how you personally feel about the result of the recent election, the fact is that the majority of votes were cast for broadly right-wing parties* that support reform of the welfare system.
In any case, why do people assume that reform is synonymous with destruction or making unfair? Surely a better way of ensuring that those in need of help get it is for people to work with the government and make constructive proposals, rather than the blanket "cuts are wrong, we oppose the lot" foot-stamping attitude on display since the election result became known.
* Conservative/ UKIP/ DUP
-------------------- Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
There's reform which is about making the system work better, and there's reform which is cuts-driven. I have no problem with the first of these and as a Socialist I'd like to see our welfare spending reduced considerably- by people being able to get jobs which give them a living income. If you want to cut welfare spending, start by making employers pay a living wage so we don't have to subsidise them with tax credits (and I know that was originally a Labour policy, before anyone points it out).
-------------------- My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by L'organist: In any case, why do people assume that reform is synonymous with destruction or making unfair?
Because our experience over the last 5 years of coalition government has given us no reason to expect otherwise, and therefore we expect worse now the Tories have a slim majority.
-------------------- Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Albertus I think you may find that one of the first areas that will be looked at is the sheer unwieldyness of the whole system.
Top of my own personal list would be the nonsense of taking money with one hand (income tax) and then giving it back with the other (tax credits) when what is required is a proper look at, and overhaul of, the whole business of supporting people with children. Ever since Barbara Castle rolled together the old Family Allowance and the children's tax allowances into Child Benefit the monetary worth of CB has fallen further and further behind where it should be. Root-and-branch reform of the tax system as a whole is also required - and may now happen.
Doc Tor There is still little realisation among the general public at the scale of chaos in the public finances in 2010 when the coalition took over. To be brutally frank, it would have made far more sense for all benefits to have been frozen in 2010 and for the NHS to have had funding cut in line with other items of government expenditure: that didn't happen and it wasn't just because the LibDems stopped the "wicked" tories. [ 13. May 2015, 14:54: Message edited by: L'organist ]
-------------------- Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
My impression from the door-to-door canvassing I did prior to the election was that there was a concern about a bogeyman SNP/Labour pact or coalition - or, at the very least, if Labour got in then the SNP would be putting pressure on them south of the border as well as in Scotland.
There was also some concern about Labour's handling of the economy last time round.
So, I wasn't surprised to see a swing Torywards, but not to the extent that we saw both nationally and locally - although it's fair to say that they've hardly won by a landslide.
I have to say, that for different reasons to L'Organist, I do worry about the kind of knee-jerk 'let's take to the streets' approach which does, it seems to me, rely on simplistic 6th form (or even 4th form) solutions as well as an understandable sense of outrage ...
L'Organist may refer to the 'demonisation' of the Tories, but come on, when you see people walking around with pointed tails emerging from their trouser legs and suspicious bumps in their bouffant hair-cuts then it's hardly surprising that people begin to smell the sulphur.
Oh, the Tridents in their hands are a bit of a give away too -
Some on the Tory Right have done a pretty good job of demonising themselves.
What I worry about now is that some of the more vocal and rough-and-tumble lefties will disgrace themselves by smashing things up and running amok - thereby giving the Conservatives the moral high-ground and opportunity to say, 'There, we told you so ... let's have a clamp-down.'
I wish I didn't have to say that but I think it's true.
-------------------- Let us with a gladsome mind Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
I find the phrase "anti-austerity" to be a bit like saying "stop the chemo, it's really unpleasant".
I think my question was simple, and it doesn't have a complicated answer. More people preferred our policies than those of any of the other parties, and in our electoral system, which was approved of by referendum only a couple of years ago, that is enough to give a majority, and a mandate to govern.
It can be spun a multitude of different ways to try to make it appear that the Conservatives didn't really win, but they did.
Even under a different electoral system, it needs to be made clear that UKIP would have been the big winners, not the Green Party or the Socialist Workers Party.
It seems to me that it is the electorate that has moved to the right over the years, certainly in England, for whatever reasons.
The haemorrhaging of votes from Labour to UKIP seems to reflect this.
I suspect "old Labour" voters don't recognising the current Party as being the same one that stood for the working man. Todays Labour Party is more focused on capturing the votes of luvies who work for the BBC or write for the Guardian.
Of course quite a lot of those old Labour types may not hold the right type of views on say immigration that would be acceptable at the more fashionable Islington dinner-parties.
-------------------- "The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|