Poll: General election voting round 5 (final one)

[[TFU] Thegoon84]

Money should be equal to al,l not more to the Scotch and less to the English and Welsh.

So why should you have more...

STUPID COMMENT! There's more to it than just that and its on a country by country basis. Government didn't just wake up one morning and think... i know we'll give more money to Wales because we fancy it, maybe read up on the barnet formular... Its the king **** himself nigel says "Wales negotiated a terrible deal where as Scots didn't" yet we still get more than England.

Because we dont generate as much tax as england because you have a bigger population is the reason why we're subsidised . Maybe if we're going down this road we should to look at individual towns and cities and make sure they have less to make it more fair for everyone...

What a piggish attitude... Pitty we didn't take the same attitude when we were generating a fortune toward growing this country!

WHAT I DONT AGREE WITH is Scotland blackmailing the country into getting more money.

 

[Neodite]

What for actually caring and wanting working families to be put first over the rich and multinational businesses?

Or for saying how is with UKIP in Wales. One of its main manifesto points was to cut subsidies to Wales, we can generate enough income tax to support ourselves due to population numbers... Or are you gonna try and call us spongers?

No, for telling other members to go **** themselves and calling them stupid.

If you cannot have atleast half a decent debate. Just leave.

 

[Freefaller]

Postal Vote posted. Let's see what mess we end up with.

I fear disruption over the next few years.

 

[Freddie1980]

Will they accept that, though? Will they allow Labour to vote through a load of its programme, with there being ZERO from the SNP? When the Lib Dems went into coaltion, they ended up getting a load of their manifesto included in the coalition's programme - if there's no agreement between the SNP and Labour, the SNP could be propping up Labour and getting nothing they want (other than policies they both agree on, obviously).

It's like me and you going on a round the World trip, but me only agreeing to go to the countries I want to. You'll agree with me on loads, so I'll get a lot of what I want, but if you want to go anywhere I don't I'll laugh in your face and veto it. I can see it being extremely unpalatable to the SNP/its MPs... how will their electorate see it if they vote SNP, but just get Labour policies?

I see your point I think the trouble for the SNP is if they don't support a Labour minority government they will be seen to have allowed the Conservatives back into 10 which could be costly to them in we have another election in a few years (likely to happen with a minority government).

 

[joeyjojo]

Eh? So if you are unlucky to inherit a state of finances where you are spending more than you earn - those that put it in that state can beat you with the "well you borrowed more" after we left it with you stick

Ah, except the Conservatives didn't "inherit" an economy in trouble at all. It was modestly recovering under Labour, and progress only stalled once Osborne took the reigns and started cutting.

Mediamacro myth 1: 2010 Britain faced a financial crisis

The country is in deficit, that means that debt can only go up because you have to borrow in order to pay the bills and to make payments on your existing debt.

The country has run a budget deficit for at least 27 of the last 33 years, only running a small surplus under Brown and Major. Of course this can't go on for all time, but the country's finances aren't like an individual's - obviously you'd go bankrupt if you spent beyond your means for 30 years but for a country that's not such an immediate problem. We have debts going back centuries.

Obviously the government should balance the books where possible, but trying to do that at the same time as demand is weak is a recipe for disaster, as Osborne has shown. They should have stimulated the economy while borrowing was cheap and invested in the future, not reduce public spending at the same time as the private sector was.

Fact is, in the period prior to the crash, which was a boom period, Labour were not only running a defecit when their beloved Keynesian economics tells us they should have been trying to run a surplus, but also setting up record levels of PFI deals for new/replacement schools and hospitals which we'll be paying for the next 50 years. All in order to make people feel good and buy their votes at the next election.

This backfired spectacularly when the crisis hit before the election.

Got to agree with your here, a lot of PFI deals were hopelessly optimistic and are now close to unsustainable, especially in hospitals. A disaster.

This is true, Labour should have been tightening the belt during the boom and they didn't. However, after the crash, their policies were right on the spot and it is the Tories that failed with their austerity. Ironically, had they continued the investments and delayed cuts, the post crash growth would have all but guaranteed another victory.

Agreed, but they might have lost the battle and won the war. By getting the public so concerned about deficits and spending we might have to live with a far smaller state for many years.

 

[[TFU] Thegoon84]

No, for telling other members to go **** themselves and calling them stupid.

If you cannot have atleast half a decent debate. Just leave.

Think i'm going to have one way or another .

Just sick and tired of hearing the same old line... "Why should you get more".

 

[ethan]

Will they accept that, though? Will they allow Labour to vote through a load of its programme, with there being ZERO from the SNP? When the Lib Dems went into coaltion, they ended up getting a load of their manifesto included in the coalition's programme - if there's no agreement between the SNP and Labour, the SNP could be propping up Labour and getting nothing they want (other than policies they both agree on, obviously).

It's like me and you going on a round the World trip, but me only agreeing to go to the countries I want to. You'll agree with me on loads, so I'll get a lot of what I want, but if you want to go anywhere I don't I'll laugh in your face and veto it. I can see it being extremely unpalatable to the SNP/its MPs... how will their electorate see it if they vote SNP, but just get Labour policies?

It's obviously the lesser of two evils. In the same situation what would you prefer? (Rhetorical)

 

[TheGamingGeneral]

So, Miliband won't do any sort of deal with the SNP even if that hands victory to the Tories. Way to go Ed, your party in Scotland is officially dead.

It can't get much worse for Labour in Scotland so he might aswell call the SNP's bluff. What are they going to do? Side with the torries to spite labour? He should have been on the offensive with this much earlier, the SNP are telling people in Scotland it is safe for them to vote SNP as they will work with Labour to lock out cameron. I don't understand why labour havent made more of a point of cutting out the middle man (or woman in the case of sturgeon).

 

[ubersonic]

So, Miliband won't do any sort of deal with the SNP even if that hands victory to the Tories. Way to go Ed, your party in Scotland is officially dead.

You're looking at it the wrong way, if he doesn't stand up to the SNP his party is dead in Scotland.

It's not a case of mean Ed refusing to play ball with the SNP, etc etc. It's a case of the SNP running a campaign on the message that if you vote for them they will help Labour defeat the Tories plus get some tasty deals for Scotland in return. The SNP are basically exploiting Labour in order to increase their voter share while at the same time hurting Labour (why would any sane Scotsman vote Labour if they can just vote SNP and get Labour + free stuff). Ed HAS to show that that type of political hijacking will not be tolerated otherwise you can bet the same will happen in 2020.

 

[ubersonic]

http://www.itv.com/news/wales/topic/opinion-poll/

UKIP polling third in Wales in terms of popular vote, ahead of Plaid Cymru.

A lot of people underestimate how many people in Wales are actually English immigrants. In the Rhyl area the two most common birthplaces are Merseyside and Greater Manchester.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

Plus, he can always renege on what he says now. Because he "Can't ignore the will of the people".

But yes, he should have said 'no deals with the SNP' much earlier in the campaign so as to take the wind out of the SNP before they gained much momentum.

 

[Raumarik]

How can they cut out the middle man/woman ? She's leader of their party but has said that any major decisions would be made by her, but others would be made by MPs in Westminster. So essentially she runs the show on anything massively important.

I actually respect her for being that open about it, just wish Labour would get off it's high horse, sack Jim Murphy and get some new blood in up in Scotland, they're dead in the water until they do it.

 

[Raumarik]

You're looking at it the wrong way, if he doesn't stand up to the SNP his party is dead in Scotland.

It's not a case of mean Ed refusing to play ball with the SNP, etc etc. It's a case of the SNP running a campaign on the message that if you vote for them they will help Labour defeat the Tories plus get some tasty deals for Scotland in return. The SNP are basically exploiting Labour in order to increase their voter share while at the same time hurting Labour (why would any sane Scotsman vote Labour if they can just vote SNP and get Labour + free stuff). Ed HAS to show that that type of political hijacking will not be tolerated otherwise you can bet the same will happen in 2020.

I'm not convinced of that tbh, SNP had nothing to lose either way. If he stands up to the SNP and the tories get back in the blame will be on Labour, if it falls apart and nobody is clearly to blame, it'll likely still fall on Labour as they're the party who all along have been resistant to working with the other and finally if they do join up the SNP show they can be a sensible partner in Westminster.

Labour have backed themselves into a corner, it's biggest issue is that this will sit very differently with labour voters in England than it will with those ex-labour voters in Scotland regardless.

I still think too much attention is paid to the SNP though, UKIP/Greens and the dynamics between tory/labour/lib dems is arguably more important now.

 

[leaskovski]

Postal Vote posted. Let's see what mess we end up with.

I fear disruption over the next few years.

In what way?

 

[covenantuk]

The country has run a budget deficit for at least 27 of the last 33 years, only running a small surplus under Brown and Major. Of course this can't go on for all time, but the country's finances aren't like an individual's - obviously you'd go bankrupt if you spent beyond your means for 30 years but for a country that's not such an immediate problem. We have debts going back centuries.

But the problem is, that due to the bailout plus pre-existing debt from Labour's spending spree, the level of interest repayments alone are hindering attempts to get the defecit down without widespread cuts in public spending.

No, it's ALL Labour's fault, but if they had been even slightly prudent in the boom years, the UK would be in a far better position now - almost certainly in surplus and paying down some debt or able to put more money into services.

 

[Freefaller]

In what way?

I don't think there will be a majority vote, and whatever coalition/partnership is formed it is going to struggle to agree on policies - I just hope that whatever policies are sacrificed or modified don't hurt the public/country too much.

 

[ubersonic]

Labour have backed themselves into a corner, it's biggest issue is that this will sit very differently with labour voters in England than it will with those ex-labour voters in Scotland regardless.

The effect will be the same in England and Scotland if he deals with the SNP though: no chance in 2020, in England he will be dead to voters after selling them out, in Scotland he will be dead to voters who know they can vote SNP and get Labour + more.

 

[robgmun]

Plus, he can always renege on what he says now. Because he "Can't ignore the will of the people".

Next Friday will certainly be a day of rampant hypocrisy from everyone. Its going to be a very long day for the UK

 

[do_ron_ron]

I'd take that with a pinch of salt personally, it's easy to say that at this stage but when it comes down to the crunch, would he really do that?

Course he wouldn't, he's a politician. It is all about power and wanting it. Unless there is a big swing to the Tories in the last few days, Cameron has no hope of forming a Govt. as the SNP/PC/Greens will block them.
This leaves Labour to try to form a Govt.

Will the LibeDems vote themselves into oblivion again or will they try to get a coalition with Labour? The answer, of course, is yes. They want power if they get some LibDem policies.

At this stage I think Labour/LibDem will dare the SNP to bring them down, which they will not. This does not rule out backstairs deals to get certain policies through as time passes. The SNP are in a weaker position than most people think.

 

[Efour]

Id feel really sorry for any UK government that has to work with the SNP, putting a noose around their neck and threatening every time something doesn't go really in favour of Scotland... Its probably a better position than the freedom they wanted (didn't want) last time.

Im guessing a Lib/Lab+leftovers coalition, no one will work with UKIP so why "waste" your votes....