-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics
- Thread starter markysimmo
- Start date
Think Clegg still comes across very well. He's a great public speaker. So is farage actually. Cameron holds back more but comes across very strongly in a more understated way. Sturgeon comes across forcefully too. The other three seem nervous and a bit unsure, particularly when challenged. I though Milliband made the same mistake as Gordon Brown did on the last elections debate in that he obviously came with a pre rehearsed speil which was to look at the camera rather than the audience or engage with the questioners or other politicians and just bang on about 2 or 3 sound-bite policies like zero-hours contracts. All the time. He came across like a robot.
If you take in taxes, then they are spent on public services. That's almost the whole purpose of government, to tax and spend. The Tories want wealthier people to be taxed less and to cut public services more than is necessary out of political ideology. Labour would be better in this regard imo, although I don't entirely trust them to deliver what they say, hence my vote for them is far from certain.
Anyway, I watched the 7-way debate and I thought it was good. I'd vote for Nicola Sturgeon above any of the others to be honest.
People in Scotland are...
Quite right they are too.
Although I think Sturgeon's proposal that the SNP collude with Labour to engineer a vote of no confidence if the Tories win the largest share of the vote is a staggering betrayal of a politician's duty and of the principles of democracy and I don't think English voters would stand for it if it happened
I don't agree. She's doing right by the people who are voting for her, the very definition of a politician's duty. As for principles of democracy, that's how our system works. Rightly or wrongly, that is our democracy.
Robspur12
Nick Barmby
Yes of course it is. But what you usually get from the Tories is a " successful " economy means tax cuts rather than investment in public services. And unfortunately those tax cuts favour the very wealthy more because low and middle income voters rely on those public services and the few extra quid in their pocket does not compensate enough for poorer services.
Sadly a "successful" economy has not translated into eliminating the deficit because although cuts have decimated the public sector, the income tax take appears to have levelled off; so we will have more cuts to services while taxes that benefit the very wealthy such as the corporation tax paid on profits greater than £300000 a year are cut. Can I also add that it is one thing to hit the terminally work shy by reducing their benefits or to hold down the levels paid out in housing benefit, I'll even accept limiting child benefit to 2 children but to start hitting carers and the disabled as was being reported on BBC is totally unacceptable and shows that the "nasty" party is back.
This is coming from someone who believes that the Labour Party and the Milliband/Balls combo is far from perfect.
it's not how it works though. She's saying that if conservatives get in with a minority government she would collude against the wishes AND result of the PROCESS. Her people voted against independence so within that there is an acceptance that a Tory UK government is a possibility if the weight of UK (English)voters want that. Her even suggestion of the notion of engineering a situation of no confidence by arbitrarily blocking any conservative motion even if her party agreed with the principals is something from a corrupt African dictatorship, not any kind of democratic process or principle we have in this country, I'd go so far as to say it is disgusting
Don't confuse the weight of English voters with the weight of Tory voters. I didn't hear all this bleating from Tories in 2010 when Clegg sold his voters down the river, something much worse than Sturgeon proposes (as she actually wants to look out for the people voting for her). African dictatorship, behave yourself!
We, there was no bleating as the Tories won the most votes and most seats in 2010.
There is nothing wrong with bringing down a minority government. If that is done at inception, then so what? If a government cannot win sufficient votes/seats to command a majority, and then further they do not command the confidence of the house, then they cannot complain. That goes for Tory, Labour or whoever.
A similar thing happened in 1979 with the SNP -- oddly, Tory voters were quite happy at that time...
A similar thing happened in 1979 with the SNP -- oddly, Tory voters were quite happy at that time...
So what does it matter if you bring down a minority government you don't want after 3 weeks, or block a minority government you don't want right off the bat? Why should the SNP facilitate a government that their voters do not want?
If the party you vote for doesn't have a clear majority, then you can't complain about the other parties expressing the will of those who voted for them.
If the party you vote for doesn't have a clear majority, then you can't complain about the other parties expressing the will of those who voted for them.
Nobody is going to win an outright majority. One the election is done the will of the people has spoken. The SNP MPs have a duty to serve in Parliament providing stability. You aren't going to get a majority of one party why don't we just keep re doing elections over and over? Neither losing side will ever be happy. The people that voted them in voted against independence so they have to accept what ever the majority of UK voters want. If that is a Tory minority government then that's what it is and SNP MPs have a duty to vote properly on each issue after considering parliamentary debates and bills, not decide before each vote to vote against every motion. Disgusting.
SNP's priority is their duty to their constituents. Their constituents do not want a Tory government. Funny how you aren't concerened with the will of Lib Dem voters at the last election -- a party whose MP's went against the will of the bulk of their constituents and facilitated a Tory government. (and if you are wondering how I know the will of most Lib Dem voters, you only have to see how many seats they are going to lose as evidence).
You only seem concerned with the will of the people as it relates to Tory voters. I am guessing that is because you are a Tory voter.
Life long Labour voter. And party member up till recently.
I'm using the Tories as an example as it is the Tories the SNP have targeted in this matter.
I don't think you're getting it? The primary job of any politician IMO is to serve the country and British people.
Why don't we just vote against every motion of every party that gets in that we don't like? Is that the attitude of a responsible MP? No. The reason?
Well like I said you get a minority Tory government, the SNP vote against every motion forcing vote of no confidence and re-election, the Tories win again (unlikely to change much in a short period of time) but the SNP agree with Labour to form a minority coalition, which is against the majority will. But then the Tories and UKIP vote against every motion because they frontline it, so parliament gets dissolved again. You think this is their fudging right? How idiotic
I am getting it. An MP's duty is to the constituents that put them there, that (should be) how the whole system works. The SNP would be serving the British people, the ones who they represent. Let's agree to disagree because I am not going to go along with your point of view and it's silly of us to go around in circles. Nothing personal, I just don't agree with you at all on this.