CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

And now? (Not the White Paper thread)

(693 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. crowriver
    Member

    "What are the odds on that being a coalition between the red and blue conservative and unionist parties rather than the current blue/yellow one?"

    Never say never, but the odds are about 10,000,000 to 1 I reckon.

    Con minority government, supported on an issue by issue basis by other parties, is my forecast.

    Labour will lose some Scottish seats to the SNP, but not as many as SNP might hope. Maybe we'll even have a Green MP in Edinburgh.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  2. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    Which Edinburgh seat could the Greens win?

    (I was teasing about the red/blue coalition. That would be like Lloyds Banking Group giving up on its Scottish Widows and Clerical Medical brands. Customers wouldn't know where to turn for life assurance.)

    Posted 9 years ago #
  3. gibbo
    Member

    @chdot

    "Do you mean you want all (independence - SNP version?) or nothing?"

    Pretty much.

    These powers are either going to mean nothing to us - but will be used to marginalise Scotland - or will be the route to cutting Scotland's funding.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  4. LaidBack
    Member

    The 'story so far' ?

    A richt braw read that you won't get in the Sunday Post!

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/westminster-be-warned-deceit-wont-work-next-time.25617760

    Posted 9 years ago #
  5. PS
    Member

    The general election is going to be very interesting.

    UKIP's ability to take votes from both Labour and the Conservatives, combined with unknowns around nationalists and what the hell will happen to the LidDem vote, all means that a number of previously safe seats will be up for grabs. First past the post means that conceivably we could see some MPs elected with <30% of the vote...

    First past the post is not designed for that sort of situation - what sort of "mandate" can you claim to have with <30% of the popular vote?.

    If it results in a chaotic enough parliament - who knows, we could be looking at a widely-held view that there is a need for constitutional change...

    Posted 9 years ago #
  6. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    @PS

    Presumably it was FPTP which was responsible for the grand coalitions called Labour and Conservative which dominated up until the eighties? FPTP is always going to push people into one of two camps, split along the most important axes of the day. In those days it was maybe Left/Progressive against Right/Traditionalist?

    The left having seemingly immolated itself of late, perhaps the new axis in Scotland is Scottish/Progressive against British/Traditionalist, which I think is what Yes Scotland and Better Together essentially represented.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  7. chdot
    Admin

    "

    The general election is going to be very interesting.

    ...

    If it results in a chaotic enough parliament - who knows, we could be looking at a widely-held view that there is a need for constitutional change..."

    Indeed.

    Predicting something this unpredictable is more fun than wise!

    I think it's reasonable to assume that no party will have an overall majority.

    I don't really think there is any possibility that Lab/Con won't be 1/2 (or 2/1)

    I think it's likely that the SNP will get more seats than UKIP. The SNP won't get any in England (though if they stood in Berwick...)

    There is a UKIP MEP in Scotland - the 'benefit' of a 'fairer' voting system. The odds of a Scottish UKIP MP must be so long it's almost worth putting a £1 bet on.

    So time for some serious coalition negotiations.

    Lab + SNP (+ still likely to need others) hard to see, but perhaps more likely than Con + SNP.

    Con + UKIP? No of course not...

    Lab + nationalists (various) + Green(s) + LD might be enough for a majority - but would it be what people voted for??

    I'm sure there is an SNP wish/strategy of 'we'll back however offers another referendum or extra extra powers', but I don't know if the SNP is brave/foolish enough to say so before the next election.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  8. crowriver
    Member

    @IWRATS "Which Edinburgh seat could the Greens win?"

    Ah, now that would be telling, wouldn't it?

    Posted 9 years ago #
  9. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    @crowriver

    Arthur's Seat doesn't count.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  10. chdot
    Admin

    "Arthur's Seat doesn't count."

    Good point...

    Posted 9 years ago #
  11. PS
    Member

    FPTP is always going to push people into one of two camps, split along the most important axes of the day

    Well, it should if people believe in the system - which leads to such unpleasantries as tactical voting ["I believe in X policies but they're unlikely to win, so I'll vote Y because it means Z is less likely to win" and then Party Y claims it has a mandate to do all sorts of stuff...], but once folks start seeing 4 or 5 parties up there fighting for their vote it suddenly doesn't make so much sense - perhaps it's worth voting for a party you believe in (as far as such things are possible) after all?

    The Yes/No split may have some effect in Scotland, but it's unlikely to impact the rest of the UK where on a general election basis, there's suddenly a lot of extra options that look more solid (ie, they may actually win a seat or three) than they ever used to.

    And in Scotland, what might an SNP in road into the Labour vote do, with a few UKIP votes splitting things further? Maybe one or two extra Conservative seats? :-o

    Throw in the fact that there will be some Lib Dems who retain their seats because of who they are rather than their party's record, then it's all in the mix.

    Interesting times.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  12. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    @PS

    Indeed. FPTP makes me giddy with rage. I suspect that we're now so far from the old two party days that many results in Scotland will essentially be random. The blue conservatives may well benefit from this, but they ought to have more Scottish seats anyway. They're massively unrepresented in relation to their vote share. Quite why that share is over 5% I've no idea.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  13. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    Oh, and has anyone else got the UKIP calypso (UKalypso? Apocalypso?) stuck in their head? The BBC seem to be promoting UKIP at every turn - they got a good ten minutes on Radio 4 this morning with that ditty.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  14. chdot
    Admin

  15. chdot
    Admin

    http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/alistair-darling-seat-at-risk-says-new-poll-1-3578754

    (Though I think that's the SNP not the Greens that could unseat him!)

    Posted 9 years ago #
  16. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    Alastair Darling's seat will be red leather should green leather ever be out of his reach. He has earned a lifetime role in the government of the United Kingdom, free from the turbulent and sometimes unreasonable voters of West Edinburgh.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  17. cb
    Member

    Tax payers money where does it go?
    Not even George Osborne knows
    When we’re in power and we engage
    There will be no tax on minimum wage

    Our leaders committed a cardinal sin
    Open the borders let them all come in
    Illegal immigrants in every town
    Stand up and be counted Blair and Brown

    Chorus:
    Oh yes when we take charge
    And the new Prime Minister is Farage
    We can trade with the world again
    When Nigel is at number 10

    The British People have been let down
    That’s why UKIP is making ground
    From Crewe to Cleethorpes to Outer Hendon
    They don’t believe Cameron’s referendum

    Coalition could be a fact
    With any party we could make a pact
    Stop telling lies about us too
    And we’ll stop telling the truth about you

    [Chorus]

    Though our pension scheme is in a mess
    We need money for the NHS
    With Jean-Claude Juncker we’re giving away
    55 million every day

    Oh what a farce, he won the vote
    This is my favourite Juncker quote
    He looked the reporters straight in the eyes
    “When things get serious it’s time to lie”

    [Chorus]

    The EU live in wonderland
    Tried to ban bent bananas and British jam
    We don’t want jam the EU way
    Jam yesterday, tomorrow and never today

    The daily polls suggest somehow
    UKIP are the third party now
    In the Euro elections we were so immersed
    We weren’t the third party, we were the first

    [Chorus]

    When the government’s sitting on the fence
    UKIP policies make more sense
    Get out of Europe, is our target
    Common wealth and not common market

    Other parties please take note
    UKIP is not a protest vote
    So mark your cross and by word of mouth
    Tell them what to do in Thanet South

    [chorus]

    With the EU we must be on our mettle
    They want to change our lawnmowers and our kettles
    Our hairdryers, smartphones and vacuum cleaners
    But UKIP is wise to their misdemeanours

    Farage he likes his fags and beer
    But there’s one thing I want to get clear
    Now I like Nigel he’s a friend of mine
    He appears on Dimbleby on Question Time

    [chorus]

    The other parties will count the costings
    In Eastleigh, Thurrock and Bow they’re lost in
    Labour and Tories shaking in their boots
    When UKIP kick them up the grassroots

    Meanwhile down on Clacton-on-Sea
    UKIP are making history
    Douglas Carswell is quite adamant
    Will be the first MP in parliament

    [chorus]

    Posted 9 years ago #
  18. chdot
    Admin

  19. chdot
    Admin

    "

    Holyrood must be given the power to improve Scotland’s productivity, infrastructure and innovation, business leaders will tell the commission tasked with building a cross-party consensus on devolution.

    "

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/lord-smith-commission-innovation-key-business-1-3578759

    Posted 9 years ago #
  20. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    "business leaders will tell the commission"

    And the commission will be ignored by the post-May 2015 governing coalition. Little point in even reporting its doings. We'll get what we're given by English MPs. That's what we voted for.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  21. Ed1
    Member

    The guardian article I twaddle on about in my lunch yesterday as was a bit cold to go out.

    The debt figures can be quite distorted, under new labour things that would have been debt were put on to liability so could hide the real debt, this pre dated new labour but labour increased under the golden rule shift which had effect of shifting debt to liability.

    The coalitions use quite a lot of propaganda on benefits for working age people there is also under coalition lots of transfer payments to support asset prices, although this also occurred under new labour. Transfer payments in effect through interest rates manipulation.

    Many of the transfers the state makes are outside tax and spend and tend to get ignored. Insurance has value, and distortions have a cost if the state agrees to insure something it can cost some thing else even if never uses insurance.

    Media fixate on transfer payments to the poorest people, but most transfers are not to the poorest. They focus on tax and spend, debt, government can also make transfers through legislation, in straight mock taxation, like the bag charge, a fixed charge by law spending is mandated through government, sure they may give a choice but this would be like having to pay a tax and then being given a list of different things to spend it on. The electricity mock tax where a charge put on then mandated to be spent on something else. This is effectively tax and spend that does not appear on tax and spend figures. Government put the charge on, government set what has to be spent on.

    Subsidizing many better of people through asset insurance, interest rate manipulation, of houses market etc if left to own personal endeavours many people currently wealthy would have been wiped out finically yet the last 2 governments decided to insure private assets, assets are now entitled to benefits it would seem.

    I remember reading about how in London people on housing benefits are getting moved out of some areas even if lived there for generations. As argument being that they could no afford to live in the areas. Yet part of the reason is due to government’s policy of inflating house prices the government’s manipulation. This is taking money from poorer renter in London owners of London property. It’s a transfer payment, rent being a function of house price even if long lags.

    So to be “perverse” you could argue that part of the housing benefit that is paid to Londoner is compensation for the government manipulated the market and creating this extra cost above what the true market rate would be.
    An alternative view for fun.
    Millionaires claiming lunch money in parliament on all sides labour Tory, lib Dem, claiming the country is broke and yet claiming free lunch when they can affords to buy their own, when claiming the country can not afford benefits, It’s an entitlement culture for Mps. Of course they would argue its because they are worth it but of course someone may claim this about them self. The index they may use is compared to foreign countries. You could of course argue to be perverse British Mps are overpaid if used an index of say state pension or job seekers and compared this to some European countries where multiples of other state benefits would be less than the uk Mps.

    More sillyness.
    Mps may also claim they are worth tax payers money because responsibility? What responsibility is this? With out accountability can there be responsibility, MPs are protected from accountability finically, legally and physically in a way that few other jobs are. Many poor people are on a zero hour contract and can be sacked for no fault up to 2 years. Mps have a 5 year contracts with a pay of even if complete failure also legally protected from costs and losses through their actions even if what may be consider negligent in other sectors.

    The other argument is that mps are paid on what they do or how hard they work? Well this is not the argument used for the poor people, as its what the market may pay.

    Someone could work hard and paid legal minimum wage etc.

    Mps will also claim that the independent body looks at there benefits and pay why the increase. They choose an independent body to so this, most people can not choose and independent body to use the criteria that mps body uses.

    Indeed if an independent body looked at benefits they would likely say they are too low as some international bodies have.

    In short what appears to happen is that governments transfer payments to poor are in straight, and then compared to an artificially created market rate one the government often influenced.

    Benefits for the better of done through non cash, more subtle harder to measure, legal changes etc.

    The media only understand the straight cash and spend figures internationally these are used for comparisons. Even basic things that are spend like pfi can get around the figures. The transfer in wealth from the markets being manipulated also property in compared to market rate have effectively transferred wealth.

    The most simple is tax and spend, then shadow taxation in effect through legal requirements, then interest rate, insurance etc.

    Still get tradionial things that are transfers of wealth from artificially created economic rents mandated through legislation which has effect of transferring wealth to people performing certain function or providing services that would be paid less in relation to the market.

    If value is going to the poorer people may be in easily accessible units money etc that goes through tax and spend, value transferred to better or tends to be less accessible less transparent.

    Although this is a guardian article so would not expect a great deal of rigour. Even in the economist etc mainly uses accessible and straight forward frames mainly or did when I read it before the pay wall got to big. A bias to figures that are accessible, the problem is if bias occurs in respect to accessible then can shift things from accessible to inaccessible and get largely ignored.

    Things that don’t know need to be estimated or weighted or get distortions to metrics.

    State propaganda silliness ?
    The propaganda we seem to get on “state TV “ -) in respect to benefits and poor etc. I always think could make an alternative programs like benefit street could apply to mps, banks, lawyers, doctors any street, where could find “economic rent” cost to society, relativism

    To be silly if just look at the cost of benefits if say a doctor was paid 10 percent more than the market rate, and then he would be more of cost than job seeker. Yes the doctor may contribute but is paid for that, this is an independent in respect to over payment in theory, as in theory the overpayment would be above what it took to get someone to do the job.

    People notices unemployed people because think all money waste, if see doctors, even paid by the government so out the same source of benefits and they get overpaid above what the market rate may be, then waste money. But also banker, through subizidty to their industry, or a lawyer or accountant through government supported protection uncompetitive practices is also a tax on society in effect.

    The government manipulation of assets has meant large shifts in value from some groups to others, this is akin to tax and spend it the state law makers taking from one group through another yet this is hard to estimate and harder slightly harder to grasp.

    The current main parties are using quite propaganda against the poorer the young etc some people may say. Could equally be used against others its who controls the this more than any object truth in some peoples view, I did not vote in the referendum but may be was a missed opportunity for a new type of government. The concerns of labour /conservative being superficial may be need a new more democratic system a more representative system etc I don’t know really.

    The market rate in respect to government is used more often in respect to the poor and weaker groups, the market rate is often a false one created in part governments this is almost never acknowledged smoke and mirrors are things better or is it an asset bubble don’t know really.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  22. chdot
    Admin

  23. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    It would appear that the Smith Commission has agreed that their principles include;

    'aiming to bring about “a durable but responsive democratic constitutional settlement”, not causing detriment to the UK as a whole and causing neither the UK nor Scottish government to gain or lose financially as a consequence of devolving a specific power.'

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/23/scottish-devolution-smith-commission-english-votes

    Not clear to me what a power can be unless it alters the financial balance between Edinburgh and London. Unless it's more air rifle stuff.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  24. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    Also, SNP fuming, Greens conflicted...

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-29739085

    Posted 9 years ago #
  25. Morningsider
    Member

    IWRATS - those principles were agreed by all the parties, including the SNP and Greens. Must admit, The Guardian's condensed version looks worse than the one published by The Smith Commission:

    http://www.smith-commission.scot/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Press-Statement-First-Plenary.pdf

    Posted 9 years ago #
  26. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    @Morningsider

    Thanks. The missing 'simply' changes the sense of the words substantially.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  27. chdot
    Admin

    "

    FORMER SNP deputy leader Jim Fairlie has claimed that any future campaign for independence needs to set the idea of socialism to one side if it is to attract the support of Scotland’s middle classes.

    "

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/fairlie-independence-must-win-over-middle-class-1-3582298

    Posted 9 years ago #
  28. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    Gah!

    The SNP needed and need to understand the difference between a constitutional and an electoral question. We would have had the chance to make our society a slave owning hereditary hierarchy or a Krapotkin-inspired mutual voluntary aid community or anything in between that we fancied, socialism included. Being in favour of actual capitalism would be radical enough for most people these days.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  29. crowriver
    Member

    Jim espousing the old school Tartan Tory wing philosophy there. Or maybe Tartan Liberals sounds less offensive.

    Given that Labour gave up any pretence to being socialist in the 1990s, the "centre ground" of politics in the UK continues to march in lockstep to the right...

    Posted 9 years ago #
  30. chdot
    Admin

    "

    Johann Lamont to stand down as Scottish Labour leader

    ...

    BBC Scotland understands that Ms Lamont has been unhappy for some time about the direction of party strategy.

    "

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29765415

    Posted 9 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin