[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by MTVN

Damn right

I am surprised as high as a fifth of voters already would like the SNP involved in UK govt:

Considering just over a third would prefer the Lib Dems who have already been in a coalition,that is a respectable start for Sturgeon and the SNP across the UK generally then.

Someone will have to be in coalition or supporting role if there is a hung parliament.

[Kizzy]

Which is why Ed was 100% right to not align himself with the SNP during the debates, I was really suspicious of her motives in attempting to pin him down too... She must have known that would have a detrimental effect on his popularity in England.
He would have been crucified by the right wing media even more mercilessly than he is and it would give Cameron bullets to fire, boosting his popularity by doing absolutely nothing.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Which is why Ed was 100% right to not align himself with the SNP during the debates, I was really suspicious of her motives in attempting to pin him down too... She must have known that would have a detrimental effect on his popularity in England.
He would have been crucified by the right wing media even more mercilessly than he is and it would give Cameron bullets to fire, boosting his popularity by doing absolutely nothing.

The last election was spoiled by the media watching the polls every day as to were the Lib Dems ahead of Labour or not and would the Lib Dems get 100 or more seats.

Now the media is obsessed with who will do a deal with who,this is all this election has been about.
In the end, someone will have to a deal with someone else or even more than just one other party probably.

Personally, I don't doubt Nicola Sturgeon,I think she sees hung parliaments as the likely norm in UK politics long term, she will be looking at the independence issue again,not in the next 5 years however.

She can be so strong against the Conservatives because of the fact, that were she to ever countenance working with the Conservatives, she would lose support for the SNP bigtime,especially as it seems she is now attracting big numbers of former Labour voters.

Ed Miliband is right to rule out at this time any talk of deals,the only sensible time for that is after the election result,'if' it is necessary to do so.
Ed is being massively underestimated in my view.

[arista]

Nigel Farage may end up
costing Labour more seats than the Tories

[Report says even a 2% swing
from Labour to UKIP could
cost Ed Miliband 14 constituencies ]

[Experts from the University of Sheffield
said it was too simplistic to assume
the Tories stood to lose most
from UKIP’s popularity in parts of the country.
They said much of UKIP’s support
came in deprived areas that
are typically Labour heartlands.]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...he-Tories.html

[joeysteele]

I wouldn't get that excited at any prospect of UKIP costing Labour many seats,I was in Heywood and Middleton where UKIP narrowly came 2nd in the by election.
UKIP are for sure however far preferred to the Conservatives in such seats.

That challenge seems to have faded considerably and it appears Labour are heading for a comfortable win again there.

I think 3 or even 4 are possibly at risk but no more,I would put money on that too,so sure am I as to that at least.
Rotherham is one where this could happen.

[arista]

[MTVN]

Two routes were available to Nicola Sturgeon as she strode out to rock-concert-like applause at her manifesto launch this morning. Both were politically viable, consistent with her stated desire to lead Scotland to independence, and would have guaranteed her influence over any Labour government dependent on her party's MPs.

The first route was to put forward a really left-wing electoral programme: eye-watering tax hikes on the rich, an expansion of the welfare state, mass-renationalisation of utilities and infrastructure. That would have invited Scottish voters to give Ms Sturgeon a mandate to twist the arm of any Labour government. It would have aligned her with her stated allies in England: the Green Party. It would have fired up the many thousands of excitable young, left-wing Scots who have signed up to the SNP since the independence referendum last September. Indeed, it would have been consistent with the Yes campaign's own loopy proposals and prognostications. That campaign, prone as it was to treating arithmetic as a fusty English imposition, laid radical left-wing tracks onto which Ms Sturgeon could have steered the SNP train. But she did not.

Another option would have been a return to the SNP's own fiscally conservative roots. Remember: the party spent several decades as the "tartan Tories", the home of palid, calculator-fumbling oil executives and chartered accountants. Imagine if Ms Sturgeon had strode out onto that stage and pledged to cut the deficit and make the state leaner and more efficient; to make the numbers add up. "Scots are fed up of paying the interest on English debts", she might have insisted. Imagine the dismay at Miliband HQ as it dawned on strategists that, in any SNP-supported government, SNP MPs in Westminster would be able to point to their own manifesto as justification for siding with Tories, in the event that they did not get their way when legislation was being drafted. With a mandate to triangulate in Scotland's interests, Ms Sturgeon could have variously played off England's two main parties against each other and, whenever she failed, trumpeted the case for independence afresh.

But she took neither route. Instead, she took the one guaranteed (whatever the English tabloids claim) to minimise her party's influence in Westminster; that is, the one entirely in keeping with the outlook of the average member of the parliamentary Labour party. Reading the SNP manifesto, your correspondent was overwhelmed by a single impression: no document in recent British history has better epitomised the instincts of the average Labour MP. Like Labour, the SNP would: raise the top rate of tax to 50p, abolish the "bedroom tax", increase the minimum wage, reintroduce the bankers' bonus tax, boost house-building and support for the disabled, decentralise political power, overhaul the House of Lords, mandate lower energy prices, accelerate progress towards carbon-reduction targets, increase female representation on company boards, cut (but not abolish) tuition fees across Britain, support EU membership, uphold Britain's international aid commitments, oppose the "privatisation" of the NHS and boost apprenticeships. As the Resolution Foundation notes, the two parties' fiscal plans are eminently reconcilable. The only major difference—the SNP would abolish Trident where Labour might not—invites as much prevarication over the next five years as did the coalition agreement between the pro-Trident Conservatives and the Trident-sceptic Liberal Democrats in 2010. And (whisper it softly): those two parties got on just fine.

The fact is that the SNP manifesto could do Ms Sturgeon and her party immense damage. It writes her into an alliance with Labour out of which she cannot easily wriggle. A notable gap between the parties would have given her both leverage in Westminster and, when that fell short, an excuse for the second independence referendum that she craves but that few Scots currently do (witness the noisy booing from the audience when she refused to rule it out in the second televised Scottish leaders' debate two weeks ago). But no such gap exists. The SNP leader will not hold Labour "to ransom". In fact, come any Labour-SNP majority, it is not Ms Sturgeon who would be the "most powerful woman in Britain", but Rosie Winterton. The not-inconsiderable abilities of the Labour chief whip would dictate what any such government could achieve. SNP MPs would have a simple choice: toe the line, or stray from their own manifesto. And be in no doubt: where they erred, Labour would be well placed to dump failures on them in precisely the fashion that makes even left-leaning Lib Dem MPs mumble that they might be better off back with the Tories. Moreover, Ms Sturgeon's case for a second independence referendum, one that she could certainly make (probably successfully) under a new Conservative-led government in Westminster, would wither.

http://www.economist.com/news/britai...t-condemns-snp

Good job Sturge

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

I wouldn't get that excited at any prospect of UKIP costing Labour many seats,I was in Heywood and Middleton where UKIP narrowly came 2nd in the by election.
UKIP are for sure however far preferred to the Conservatives in such seats.

That challenge seems to have faded considerably and it appears Labour are heading for a comfortable win again there.

I think 3 or even 4 are possibly at risk but no more,I would put money on that too,so sure am I as to that at least.
Rotherham is one where this could happen.

Boy do I LOVE that Joey Steele.

[kirklancaster]

According to The Guardian today:

Tories strike election gold with warnings on Sturgeon and Miliband

By uniting the SNP and Labour leaders in the nation’s mind, the Conservative party has injected new life into their campaign. The Tories are stoking fears of excessive borrowing, leftwing influence and instability.

Have the Tories hit the jackpot? Judging by the media coverage of the past five days they have. They have managed to combine their warnings of economic chaos after 8 May – the threat of excessive borrowing, leftwing influence and instability – with the threat posed by Scottish nationalism. By uniting Nicola Sturgeon and Ed Miliband in the nation’s mind, the Tories have injected a badly needed new ingredient into their warnings about Miliband. Previously, those warnings were not gaining sufficient traction because Miliband had been outperforming expectations.


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...liband-warning

[billy123]

Probably the most depressing election i have witnessed in my lifetime. All partys align themselves so far right that i am struggling to care which numpty aligns with which numpty. The lack of real choice is alarming,uninspiring and worrying in equal measure.

There might be a 2 party system or a 10 party system but none of it really matters when they are all so similar.
I will vote but whoever wins will leave me feeling pretty disappointed about the options available.

In essence nobody wins apart from big business,banking and the top earners. All just buddies scratching each others testicles while your average Joe works himself into the ground for less money and for longer.

Which is the lesser of the evils money decides.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by bobnot

Probably the most depressing election i have witnessed in my lifetime. All partys align themselves so far right that i am struggling to care which numpty aligns with which numpty. The lack of real choice is alarming,uninspiring and worrying in equal measure.

There might be a 2 party system or a 10 party system but none of it really matters when they are all so similar.
I will vote but whoever wins will leave me feeling pretty disappointed about the options available.

In essence nobody wins apart from big business,banking and the top earners. All just buddies scratching each others testicles while your average Joe works himself into the ground for less money and for longer.

Which is the lesser of the evils money decides.

Welcome to the 'jaded' club - I have felt like this for years.

[Kizzy]

Yes their prophesying has even eclipsed the 12 billion of austerity cuts to come by the looks of it.... I hope Labour have something good up their sleeve, we need it like yesterday! or these monsters maintain the upper hand

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

According to The Guardian today:

Tories strike election gold with warnings on Sturgeon and Miliband

By uniting the SNP and Labour leaders in the nation’s mind, the Conservative party has injected new life into their campaign. The Tories are stoking fears of excessive borrowing, leftwing influence and instability.

Have the Tories hit the jackpot? Judging by the media coverage of the past five days they have. They have managed to combine their warnings of economic chaos after 8 May – the threat of excessive borrowing, leftwing influence and instability – with the threat posed by Scottish nationalism. By uniting Nicola Sturgeon and Ed Miliband in the nation’s mind, the Tories have injected a badly needed new ingredient into their warnings about Miliband. Previously, those warnings were not gaining sufficient traction because Miliband had been outperforming expectations.


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...liband-warning

I think this will have some effect in the far south of England but from the Midlands upwards I doubt it.
In the Midlands, and I was born in Worcesterhire and lived there until I went to Uni,when I have been there so far in this campaign albeit very briefly, I cannot get a feeling as to how the voters there are leaning at all.

They say they don't like labour, like the Conservatives even less and don't trust UKIP.
I also really didn't come across one who had taken even any notice of Clegg and the Lib Dems.

However, elsewhere, I think this is seen as desperation from the Conservatives as to the SNP.
And to be fair,it can be said about me at times too and Labour, it is seen as being irrational just as much as Labour warning about a Conservative/UKIP deal too.

Voters are more intelligent than some politicians give them credit for and wheeling out publicity hungry fomer PMs who the Nation were glad to see the back of, I think doesn't really help their cause.
Margaret Thatcher couldn't get the voters to reject Tony Blair, so really I'd say John Major has no chance.

It is clear that if things stay as they are, deals will have to be done, with one other party or several parties.
What the voters hate is being dictated to, and demonising a party just because it is miles away as to policy from the party criticising it, I feel doesn't now wash with the voters.

The other thing as to the SNP, people actually do see Scotland as a success story under the SNP, the charges of recklessness the desperate figures of the Conservative are trying to make against them now, just doesn't fit with their time running Scotland at all.

I got lots of people yesterday saying, they hope the SNP did a deal with Labour after the election and maybe they would make Labour bring in free prescriptions for England too,like they have in Scotland.
I hope the Conservatives are making rods for their own backs with this negative campaigning and I really think they likely are too.

They should be romping home parading their so called miraculous ,(I think not),record in govt; not getting sidetracked going down all the side streets on the election journey and wasting loads of time doing so.

[Livia]

Fascinating article here by Abhaey Singh, government advisor and founder of the The Indian Debating Union. It's quite long but if you've got time, give it a read...

http://www.fourthrepository.com/

Zero-Hours, Food Banks, Immigration: Lies British Voters MUST Deconstruct

One of the delphian truths of modern democracy is that voter perceptions are often far removed from ground realities: ‘Liberals’ draw their lineage from a founder and first prime minister, Viscount Palmerston, who was a manifestly illiberal gun-boat diplomat and pure-blooded imperialist; successive Whig and Labour governments have an enduring record of entrenching protectionism and cronyism, from Victorian Opium Wars, to the safeguarding of 21st Century tobacco interests; whilst Edmund Burke, the progressive founding father of modern Conservative philosophy, was a century ahead of his time in his tireless championing of human rights, with more recent Conservative governments democratising home ownership, undermining City cliques, and legalising gay marriage.

The distortionary reality of policy cycles – as opposed to the contiguity of political cycles – further skews professed or alleged administrative legacy: Margaret Thatcher is still blamed for the deferred symptoms of the Britain inherited from her predecessors, whilst the recently dissolved coalition government will long be tainted by the after-effects – and painstaking correction – of Labour’s ruinous patronage of public finances.

Food Banks
In the same vein, the widespread use of food banks is synchronically used to vilify ‘heartless Tory’ polity, despite first proliferating during Tony Blair’s second and third, and Gordon Brown’s first terms.

Today’s food bank ignominy is a perpetuation of Britain’s Blair-Brown endowment, as well as the product of a now organised food bank sector better equipped to relieve long-established demand: the number of people fed by the Trussell Trust itself grew almost by almost 2,200% between 2005-6 and 2010-11.

Similarly, Mervyn King’s much politicised references to the greatest long-term fall in living standards and household incomes quoted research which measured data as of 2010. Again, this reality had virtually nothing to do with the policies of the coalition government.

Making a spectacle of the misery of others is objectionable in any instance, but much more so when those supposedly predisposed to the economically excluded lack the integrity (or acumen) to accept that their own worldview has long been foundational to the existential indignity of millions: alarming affirmations of Labour-induced poverty – which the SNP and Green Party are hell-bent on re-embedding – are reflected in the pronounced, almost anatomical deprivation in long-held Labour constituencies.

Whilst a structural cost-of-living crisis can seldom be reversed within five years, average wages and disposable household income have noticeably increased within a few years of the coalition government assuming office, whilst core and food inflation have conspicuously fallen.

‘Zero-Hour’ Contracts
Legally enforceable employment contracts with no stipulated minimum hours of work have long been a lifeline for millions of students, single parents, the elderly and social carers. They also provide marginalised, low-skill workers on-the-job training and a stepping stone to better employability. Only 2.3% of Britain’s workforce use such contracts, with one-third of them – or c.0.8% of the working population – wanting more hours per week.

If, as Ed Miliband implies asudden, all such contracts were borne of malevolent intent, he should also explain his uncharacteristic reticence when their usage doubled between 2004 and 2011. It was, yet again, the coalition government’s prohibition of the exploitative exclusivity clause – witlessly sanctified by three previous Labour administrations – that marked a more sincere and propitious political intervention.

David Cameron and Vince Cable’s meek defence of them notwithstanding, flexible contracts are broadly accepted as a critical income facilitator for almost a million Brits; whilst exploitation by some unscrupulous employers must be attenuated, grandstanding on the issue not only betrays a perfunctory appreciation of the low-skill economy, but is also offensively disingenuous.

Immigration
Equally, whilst Nicola Sturgeon, Leanne Wood or Nigel Farage’s pre-election approaches to immigration have been honourably consistent with their broader political philosophies, it is again Miliband’s that has been nothing short of repulsive. In replicating Gordon Brown’s nauseating 2010 pre-election script, his sudden, distastefully heightened proclamations – and mugs – on immigration equate to a brand of reprobate dog whistle politics discarded decades ago by most conscientious politicians.

Lest we forget, it is Labour that has existentially pandered to minorities, turning a blind eye to outrageous practices within their own constituencies: many of the worst cases of societal disharmony, paedophilia and child grooming have happened in Labour constituencies and wards. Votes, evidently, matter more than values.

Such reflexive appeasement politics – which polarises, segregates and vitiates British society – is the product of an unintuitively destructive volte-farce from a post-war Labour Party which entrenched racist attitudes and social schisms by playing ‘working-class’ Britons against first generation African, Caribbean and Asian immigrants.

More than insulting the intelligence of all Brits, this philistine political expediency also serves to debase, dehumanise and disenfranchise minorities: millions of decent, law-abiding and proud British Muslims would not have to absorb the social backlash or relative incapacity borne of Labour’s recklessly opportunistic tolerance of pockets – now palisades – of ghettoisation and radicalisation.

A far more honourable – and constructive – approach would be of a consistent and balanced narrative on immigration reform, irrespective of elections: it was Margaret Thatcher who evoked Disraeli’s ‘One Nation’ philosophy to co-opt ethnic minorities into mainstream British life, John Major who judiciously insisted that British policies must be ‘colour blind’, and David Cameron who has habitually dignified the contributions of erstwhile migrants, whilst simultaneously, and consistently, making the legitimate case for immigration reform.

The pathological lust to propitiate voters with lazy, easy and feel-good assurances that pander to clannish instincts – whether of creed, club, or constituency – rather than to win them over with hard-won arguments that place nation and community first, reveals the heartbeat, pulse and calibre of those who seek our votes. Similarly, eagle-eyed guardianship of the national treasury and feckless profligacy are each important statements of intent: one elevates nation-building and the security of future generations above short-term politics, the other predicates power before propriety, credo over conscience, and ballot above Britain.

Whilst still far removed from the transcendental nobility of Edmund Burke, the fact that a handful of ‘Eton toffs’ may be better qualified to serve the interests of low-wage earners, impoverished children and small businesses should not be clouded by the frailties of political prejudice. Nor should acceptance that the ‘nasty party’ has recently made prime ministers of a grocer’s daughter and a rejected would-be bus conductor, fought for the dignity of gays and accorded genuine respect to ethnic minorities.

Conceding that these truths may be testament to a devotedly compassionate philosophical core might also prove invaluable when bequeathing electoral custody of the nation’s destiny. Whilst the Conservatives must do far more to crush the degeneracy of Britain’s Cromwellian-Walpolean excess-economy, lessen the transitionary blows from ‘welfare state’ to ‘welfare society’, and at least try to learn the art of communicating with an exasperated nation, it also behoves Britain’s voters to recognise that our suffrage in May 2015, more than ever, cannot be distilled through the prism of political predilection, but through fastidious rationalisation of who is best equipped to nurture the country’s systems and serve her most vulnerable – not merely for five years, but for generations to come.

[bots]

I think John Major is pretty popular, and lets not forget that he had millions more voting for him than either the tories or labour are likely to get now, so I think its a pretty smart move.

Its quite a revelation that we have basically a communicator that won't be the leader of the party in the commons (ie unelected) dictating policy and terms for the whole of the UK in conjunction with the labour party. I think if the tories were doing this, the labour supporters would be shouting foul play.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Yes their prophesying has even eclipsed the 12 billion of austerity cuts to come by the looks of it.... I hope Labour have something good up their sleeve, we need it like yesterday! or these monsters maintain the upper hand

Hey, don't get despondent Kizzy, come round with me and you will hear very little as to positives for this govt:

I with loads of others mention that 12 billion pounds worth of welfare cuts at every opportunity and will do so until the tuesday before polling day among many other rotten things too.

The media are boring voters rigid with the who will do a deal with who scenarios and the opinion polling, the voters are really learning nothing at all from the media.

This may surprisingly end up an election that is actually won on the streets and doorsteps, and if that is the case, I am finding the Labour message is far preferable.
I helped campaign for the Lib Dems in 2010 and never ever found so many people asking questions of canvassers and wanting to discuss issues the way I am finding things this time.

I still loved the response I got when I mentioned david Cameron and the Conservatives wanting to bring back foxhunting, a group of people I slipped it into the conversation with were horrified, saying NO, surely he isn't.
I said he sure is, check his manifesto.

I think I and the others I was with,just possibly lost him some votes there,oh deary me.

[MTVN]

lol at Jamie Reed pulling the plug on his interview with Andrew Neil because he was getting torn apart over Labour's NHS policy

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by MTVN

lol at Jamie Reed pulling the plug on his interview with Andrew Neil because he was getting torn apart over Labour's NHS policy

Neil should be SIR ANDREW NEIL.

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Livia

Fascinating article here by Abhaey Singh, government advisor and founder of the The Indian Debating Union. It's quite long but if you've got time, give it a read...

http://www.fourthrepository.com/

Zero-Hours, Food Banks, Immigration: Lies British Voters MUST Deconstruct

One of the delphian truths of modern democracy is that voter perceptions are often far removed from ground realities: ‘Liberals’ draw their lineage from a founder and first prime minister, Viscount Palmerston, who was a manifestly illiberal gun-boat diplomat and pure-blooded imperialist; successive Whig and Labour governments have an enduring record of entrenching protectionism and cronyism, from Victorian Opium Wars, to the safeguarding of 21st Century tobacco interests; whilst Edmund Burke, the progressive founding father of modern Conservative philosophy, was a century ahead of his time in his tireless championing of human rights, with more recent Conservative governments democratising home ownership, undermining City cliques, and legalising gay marriage.

The distortionary reality of policy cycles – as opposed to the contiguity of political cycles – further skews professed or alleged administrative legacy: Margaret Thatcher is still blamed for the deferred symptoms of the Britain inherited from her predecessors, whilst the recently dissolved coalition government will long be tainted by the after-effects – and painstaking correction – of Labour’s ruinous patronage of public finances.

Food Banks
In the same vein, the widespread use of food banks is synchronically used to vilify ‘heartless Tory’ polity, despite first proliferating during Tony Blair’s second and third, and Gordon Brown’s first terms.

Today’s food bank ignominy is a perpetuation of Britain’s Blair-Brown endowment, as well as the product of a now organised food bank sector better equipped to relieve long-established demand: the number of people fed by the Trussell Trust itself grew almost by almost 2,200% between 2005-6 and 2010-11.

Similarly, Mervyn King’s much politicised references to the greatest long-term fall in living standards and household incomes quoted research which measured data as of 2010. Again, this reality had virtually nothing to do with the policies of the coalition government.

Making a spectacle of the misery of others is objectionable in any instance, but much more so when those supposedly predisposed to the economically excluded lack the integrity (or acumen) to accept that their own worldview has long been foundational to the existential indignity of millions: alarming affirmations of Labour-induced poverty – which the SNP and Green Party are hell-bent on re-embedding – are reflected in the pronounced, almost anatomical deprivation in long-held Labour constituencies.

Whilst a structural cost-of-living crisis can seldom be reversed within five years, average wages and disposable household income have noticeably increased within a few years of the coalition government assuming office, whilst core and food inflation have conspicuously fallen.

‘Zero-Hour’ Contracts
Legally enforceable employment contracts with no stipulated minimum hours of work have long been a lifeline for millions of students, single parents, the elderly and social carers. They also provide marginalised, low-skill workers on-the-job training and a stepping stone to better employability. Only 2.3% of Britain’s workforce use such contracts, with one-third of them – or c.0.8% of the working population – wanting more hours per week.

If, as Ed Miliband implies asudden, all such contracts were borne of malevolent intent, he should also explain his uncharacteristic reticence when their usage doubled between 2004 and 2011. It was, yet again, the coalition government’s prohibition of the exploitative exclusivity clause – witlessly sanctified by three previous Labour administrations – that marked a more sincere and propitious political intervention.

David Cameron and Vince Cable’s meek defence of them notwithstanding, flexible contracts are broadly accepted as a critical income facilitator for almost a million Brits; whilst exploitation by some unscrupulous employers must be attenuated, grandstanding on the issue not only betrays a perfunctory appreciation of the low-skill economy, but is also offensively disingenuous.

Immigration
Equally, whilst Nicola Sturgeon, Leanne Wood or Nigel Farage’s pre-election approaches to immigration have been honourably consistent with their broader political philosophies, it is again Miliband’s that has been nothing short of repulsive. In replicating Gordon Brown’s nauseating 2010 pre-election script, his sudden, distastefully heightened proclamations – and mugs – on immigration equate to a brand of reprobate dog whistle politics discarded decades ago by most conscientious politicians.

Lest we forget, it is Labour that has existentially pandered to minorities, turning a blind eye to outrageous practices within their own constituencies: many of the worst cases of societal disharmony, paedophilia and child grooming have happened in Labour constituencies and wards. Votes, evidently, matter more than values.

Such reflexive appeasement politics – which polarises, segregates and vitiates British society – is the product of an unintuitively destructive volte-farce from a post-war Labour Party which entrenched racist attitudes and social schisms by playing ‘working-class’ Britons against first generation African, Caribbean and Asian immigrants.

More than insulting the intelligence of all Brits, this philistine political expediency also serves to debase, dehumanise and disenfranchise minorities: millions of decent, law-abiding and proud British Muslims would not have to absorb the social backlash or relative incapacity borne of Labour’s recklessly opportunistic tolerance of pockets – now palisades – of ghettoisation and radicalisation.

A far more honourable – and constructive – approach would be of a consistent and balanced narrative on immigration reform, irrespective of elections: it was Margaret Thatcher who evoked Disraeli’s ‘One Nation’ philosophy to co-opt ethnic minorities into mainstream British life, John Major who judiciously insisted that British policies must be ‘colour blind’, and David Cameron who has habitually dignified the contributions of erstwhile migrants, whilst simultaneously, and consistently, making the legitimate case for immigration reform.

The pathological lust to propitiate voters with lazy, easy and feel-good assurances that pander to clannish instincts – whether of creed, club, or constituency – rather than to win them over with hard-won arguments that place nation and community first, reveals the heartbeat, pulse and calibre of those who seek our votes. Similarly, eagle-eyed guardianship of the national treasury and feckless profligacy are each important statements of intent: one elevates nation-building and the security of future generations above short-term politics, the other predicates power before propriety, credo over conscience, and ballot above Britain.

Whilst still far removed from the transcendental nobility of Edmund Burke, the fact that a handful of ‘Eton toffs’ may be better qualified to serve the interests of low-wage earners, impoverished children and small businesses should not be clouded by the frailties of political prejudice. Nor should acceptance that the ‘nasty party’ has recently made prime ministers of a grocer’s daughter and a rejected would-be bus conductor, fought for the dignity of gays and accorded genuine respect to ethnic minorities.

Conceding that these truths may be testament to a devotedly compassionate philosophical core might also prove invaluable when bequeathing electoral custody of the nation’s destiny. Whilst the Conservatives must do far more to crush the degeneracy of Britain’s Cromwellian-Walpolean excess-economy, lessen the transitionary blows from ‘welfare state’ to ‘welfare society’, and at least try to learn the art of communicating with an exasperated nation, it also behoves Britain’s voters to recognise that our suffrage in May 2015, more than ever, cannot be distilled through the prism of political predilection, but through fastidious rationalisation of who is best equipped to nurture the country’s systems and serve her most vulnerable – not merely for five years, but for generations to come.

Interesting read, thanks Livia.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

Fascinating article here by Abhaey Singh, government advisor and founder of the The Indian Debating Union. It's quite long but if you've got time, give it a read...

http://www.fourthrepository.com/

Zero-Hours, Food Banks, Immigration: Lies British Voters MUST Deconstruct

One of the delphian truths of modern democracy is that voter perceptions are often far removed from ground realities: ‘Liberals’ draw their lineage from a founder and first prime minister, Viscount Palmerston, who was a manifestly illiberal gun-boat diplomat and pure-blooded imperialist; successive Whig and Labour governments have an enduring record of entrenching protectionism and cronyism, from Victorian Opium Wars, to the safeguarding of 21st Century tobacco interests; whilst Edmund Burke, the progressive founding father of modern Conservative philosophy, was a century ahead of his time in his tireless championing of human rights, with more recent Conservative governments democratising home ownership, undermining City cliques, and legalising gay marriage.

The distortionary reality of policy cycles – as opposed to the contiguity of political cycles – further skews professed or alleged administrative legacy: Margaret Thatcher is still blamed for the deferred symptoms of the Britain inherited from her predecessors, whilst the recently dissolved coalition government will long be tainted by the after-effects – and painstaking correction – of Labour’s ruinous patronage of public finances.

Food Banks
In the same vein, the widespread use of food banks is synchronically used to vilify ‘heartless Tory’ polity, despite first proliferating during Tony Blair’s second and third, and Gordon Brown’s first terms.

Today’s food bank ignominy is a perpetuation of Britain’s Blair-Brown endowment, as well as the product of a now organised food bank sector better equipped to relieve long-established demand: the number of people fed by the Trussell Trust itself grew almost by almost 2,200% between 2005-6 and 2010-11.

Similarly, Mervyn King’s much politicised references to the greatest long-term fall in living standards and household incomes quoted research which measured data as of 2010. Again, this reality had virtually nothing to do with the policies of the coalition government.

Making a spectacle of the misery of others is objectionable in any instance, but much more so when those supposedly predisposed to the economically excluded lack the integrity (or acumen) to accept that their own worldview has long been foundational to the existential indignity of millions: alarming affirmations of Labour-induced poverty – which the SNP and Green Party are hell-bent on re-embedding – are reflected in the pronounced, almost anatomical deprivation in long-held Labour constituencies.

Whilst a structural cost-of-living crisis can seldom be reversed within five years, average wages and disposable household income have noticeably increased within a few years of the coalition government assuming office, whilst core and food inflation have conspicuously fallen.

‘Zero-Hour’ Contracts
Legally enforceable employment contracts with no stipulated minimum hours of work have long been a lifeline for millions of students, single parents, the elderly and social carers. They also provide marginalised, low-skill workers on-the-job training and a stepping stone to better employability. Only 2.3% of Britain’s workforce use such contracts, with one-third of them – or c.0.8% of the working population – wanting more hours per week.

If, as Ed Miliband implies asudden, all such contracts were borne of malevolent intent, he should also explain his uncharacteristic reticence when their usage doubled between 2004 and 2011. It was, yet again, the coalition government’s prohibition of the exploitative exclusivity clause – witlessly sanctified by three previous Labour administrations – that marked a more sincere and propitious political intervention.

David Cameron and Vince Cable’s meek defence of them notwithstanding, flexible contracts are broadly accepted as a critical income facilitator for almost a million Brits; whilst exploitation by some unscrupulous employers must be attenuated, grandstanding on the issue not only betrays a perfunctory appreciation of the low-skill economy, but is also offensively disingenuous.

Immigration
Equally, whilst Nicola Sturgeon, Leanne Wood or Nigel Farage’s pre-election approaches to immigration have been honourably consistent with their broader political philosophies, it is again Miliband’s that has been nothing short of repulsive. In replicating Gordon Brown’s nauseating 2010 pre-election script, his sudden, distastefully heightened proclamations – and mugs – on immigration equate to a brand of reprobate dog whistle politics discarded decades ago by most conscientious politicians.

Lest we forget, it is Labour that has existentially pandered to minorities, turning a blind eye to outrageous practices within their own constituencies: many of the worst cases of societal disharmony, paedophilia and child grooming have happened in Labour constituencies and wards. Votes, evidently, matter more than values.

Such reflexive appeasement politics – which polarises, segregates and vitiates British society – is the product of an unintuitively destructive volte-farce from a post-war Labour Party which entrenched racist attitudes and social schisms by playing ‘working-class’ Britons against first generation African, Caribbean and Asian immigrants.

More than insulting the intelligence of all Brits, this philistine political expediency also serves to debase, dehumanise and disenfranchise minorities: millions of decent, law-abiding and proud British Muslims would not have to absorb the social backlash or relative incapacity borne of Labour’s recklessly opportunistic tolerance of pockets – now palisades – of ghettoisation and radicalisation.

A far more honourable – and constructive – approach would be of a consistent and balanced narrative on immigration reform, irrespective of elections: it was Margaret Thatcher who evoked Disraeli’s ‘One Nation’ philosophy to co-opt ethnic minorities into mainstream British life, John Major who judiciously insisted that British policies must be ‘colour blind’, and David Cameron who has habitually dignified the contributions of erstwhile migrants, whilst simultaneously, and consistently, making the legitimate case for immigration reform.

The pathological lust to propitiate voters with lazy, easy and feel-good assurances that pander to clannish instincts – whether of creed, club, or constituency – rather than to win them over with hard-won arguments that place nation and community first, reveals the heartbeat, pulse and calibre of those who seek our votes. Similarly, eagle-eyed guardianship of the national treasury and feckless profligacy are each important statements of intent: one elevates nation-building and the security of future generations above short-term politics, the other predicates power before propriety, credo over conscience, and ballot above Britain.

Whilst still far removed from the transcendental nobility of Edmund Burke, the fact that a handful of ‘Eton toffs’ may be better qualified to serve the interests of low-wage earners, impoverished children and small businesses should not be clouded by the frailties of political prejudice. Nor should acceptance that the ‘nasty party’ has recently made prime ministers of a grocer’s daughter and a rejected would-be bus conductor, fought for the dignity of gays and accorded genuine respect to ethnic minorities.

Conceding that these truths may be testament to a devotedly compassionate philosophical core might also prove invaluable when bequeathing electoral custody of the nation’s destiny. Whilst the Conservatives must do far more to crush the degeneracy of Britain’s Cromwellian-Walpolean excess-economy, lessen the transitionary blows from ‘welfare state’ to ‘welfare society’, and at least try to learn the art of communicating with an exasperated nation, it also behoves Britain’s voters to recognise that our suffrage in May 2015, more than ever, cannot be distilled through the prism of political predilection, but through fastidious rationalisation of who is best equipped to nurture the country’s systems and serve her most vulnerable – not merely for five years, but for generations to come.

There's nothing fascinating about it, it's just another tory shmoozefest.
Ancient history along with Mervs (bank of England) musings and no mention of the global recession.
I'm sure if I trawled google I could come up with an equally valid counter.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by MTVN

lol at Jamie Reed pulling the plug on his interview with Andrew Neil because he was getting torn apart over Labour's NHS policy

Wonder what he makes of the 8 million jackanory story tory NHS policy?
Neil is getting on my last nerve with his barracking of interviewees lately.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

There's nothing fascinating about it, it's just another tory shmoozefest.
Ancient history along with Mervs (bank of England) musings and no mention of the global recession.
I'm sure if I trawled google I could come up with an equally valid counter.

So you knew all that then. Foodbanks thrive under Labour, zero hours contracts not all bad... not something you usually hear Labour supporters admit they knew. Normally they're using those topics as a stick to beat the Tories... and yet, you were aware of this all the time? Shocking.

[arista]

Yes Livia
Ch4HDNews brings that up alot

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

So you knew all that then. Foodbanks thrive under Labour, zero hours contracts not all bad... not something you usually hear Labour supporters admit they knew. Normally they're using those topics as a stick to beat the Tories... and yet, you were aware of this all the time? Shocking.

They grew during a time of global recession and they exploded during a time of supposed economic growth....funny that.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

They grew during a time of global recession and they exploded during a time of supposed economic growth....funny that.

Actually they were growing under Labour before the "global recession"... but... shhhhhhhhhhhhh...

Your nice little visual aid only goes back to 2010.