Off Topic Political Debate

You misunderstood me - even the 4-7% of people who vote Green are taken mostly from either Labour or in some cases the Liberals and this is where they can influence Labour policy. Just as UKIP hopes to influence Conservative policy by the same means. Also just how long can the UK hold onto such an undemocratic voting system - the only other majority governments in Europe are in Russia and Belarus.

 

I cannot see any party or groups of parties being able to form a majority government unless there is a sudden change over the next few days. No doubt there will be an attempt made to run the country with a minority, but when Harold Wilson tried to he had to go back to the voters within a matter of months.
The last Con/Lib administration worked quite well from what I observe, yet there is no way that you can vote for that alliance. Coalition candidates have stood in the past without success.
Italian governments since the last war have been extremely unstable, with attempts made to form coalitions that have fallen within days. It would not surprise me if no viable administration can be formed over the coming days and weeks and you are all asked to think again before long.

 

Labour will take notice of other parties only if they need support in parliamentary votes. The Greens with probably only one MP does not constitute much difference to Labour I'm afraid. Handy but fairly insignificant.

 

Maybe so - an admirable thing to do, but I can't see how that equates to the situation Scotland is in. When a country of 5 million is ruled by another country of ten times that size and things do go wrong, it's hardly sensible to expect them to say "Well it was our own fault"...

Showing my ignorance here - but what is SFP?

 

Sorry you still do not understand, Labour are not interested in the one or two seats but in the 4 to 5% of voters the Greens are taking away from Labour - in order to win them back Labour has to become more 'Green'.

 

Agreed.... environment related issues have been marginal in this election

 

In a modern society I see the first past the post wins all two party system as outdated and not fit for purpose.

Coalition is a way forward as checks and balances are in place and policy is moderated by pragmatism....

 

That presumes a dialogue between Labour and the Greens before the election. There is absolutely no sign of any Green influence in Labour's statements.

I could understand Labour talking to the SNP because they will have 50 seats but the Greens are political minnows.

 

I think the bigger parties try and claw back dissident voters by attending to the key policies of the marginal parties.... eg. all the immigration fuss at the moment....
However as far as I can see none of the main Westminster parties have really focussed on environment and related issues this time round.

Populism tends to rule.. .and of course it is people's fear about immigration which has fuelled the flames currently

 

Scotland has not been ruled by England - any more than has Cornwall or Yorkshire. We have had one Parliament whose job it is to rule the entire UK. Until the latest SNP bubble the percentage of votes cast in Scotland for the various parties equated very broadly to that in many English cities and counties. Suddenly thanks to nationalism Scots deny any part in their own history.
Sorry SFP - my own made up acronym - Scottish Federalist as opposed to Nationalist Party

 

because you have to put out the fire before you save the furniture. If the economy is not fixed there is no money for the "nice" things - like health, education, welfare and the environment. Liberals, Labour and Conservatives all agree that austerity must remain to reduce the debt and repair the economy - they only differ on the speed. It is the no hope parties like the Greens, SNP and UKIP who can indulge in the pretence that the economy does not need to be fixed first.
People who are serious about a better future realise it does not happen by itself

 

Interesting map Yorkie. The number of EU citizens living in the UK is 2.34 million, not much difference, which makes a mockery of the hysteria over EU immigration. Before anyone comes around and says that the British population abroad is 'different', there are 40,000 British citizens claiming unemployment benefit in other EU countries. Unemployed Britons in the richer EU nations such as Germany, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and France outnumber claimants from those countries in the UK.

 

I have 2 things to say here Leo, firstly, the UK is not a poor country and what is needed is not to increase the size of the cake but rather to distribute it better. Do you think endless 'growth' is possible in a World of limited resources. The second - environmental protection is not a luxury. Britain has the obligation to reduce it's carbon footprint to about a quarter of the existing levels - this is a must, not a luxury to be dealt with once everything else is working. Tackling global warming is the major challenge of our century, yet we are perpetually distracted by things like terrorism etc. which are minor in comparison. We have an obligation to hand the World over to the next generation in a healthy condition - if we don't then we will go into the history books (if there are any) as more damned than even the Nazis were. We have this obligation whatever the consequences may be.

 

Absolutely agree that we are a country of migration both in and out. Having lived, resided and worked abroad outside the EU on three separate occasions so far I have never expected neither do I expect unrestricted access to overseas employment markets. I believe in control both in and out to protect each countries culture and provide domestic opportunities. I believe our foreign policy should address the push factors from underdeveloped countries as well as restricting the attractiveness of the pull.
I believe in a modern world which by definition is fossil fuel based. The demonization of fossil fuels has been very well manipulated by the global green lobby with an incredible amount of disinformation and no I do not believe in global warming (now called climate change as the scientists begin to agree that the data is flawed). Lived in Tunisia where in areas sea level has dropping has resulted in over 50 miles coastal retreat in areas since roman times, we are looking at a tiny time period where trends are not statistically valid as anything but noise. The arrogance of mankind to think that he is having this massive impact is incredible. I am extremely anti wind in my political stand believing that the Scottish heritage in terms of the highlands should be protected and despise the green policy encouraging wind farms that are 20% efficient, kill millions of birds including endangered species and cause industrialization of the rural landscape. I believe in strong defence and maintenance of the UK as part of the global police force for good. I would rather see the UK and others look at more focus on sequestration than emission for carbon be that technical solutions or just proper agriculture and arbiculture control. We will differ on the relatie threat of "climate change" versus "islam". Whereas I do not see climate change as a threat I see mankinds very existence as a "human" race to be threatened by Islam which yes I do classify as a fundamentally evil concept which needs to be eradicated in all its forms. The reason we are in a more dangerous situation subsequent to our recent middle eastern policies is that we never finished the job in any of these wars. History always proes you must see a war through to complete vanquishing of the evil force including cultural re-education after hostilities. We have made mistakes in the middle east of being too moderate in our dealings with the enemies of civilisation applying western justice when only middle eastern justice would have been understood. As the planet is now encountering unprecedented population increase it is inevitable that nature must step in to control this, whether this is through war, disease or water scarcity remains to be seen but be assured the next 300 years are going to contain some very unpleasant periods.

 

Cologne - this is for you - from the England & Wales Green Party manifesto. You may now understand why I previously declined to debate Green policy specifically. Without quoting this fully I cannot show how unreal it is. If anyone else cares to wade through it - here it is with a few of my comments:

EC310 Conventional economic policy uses economic growth, inflation, balance of payments and unemployment as 'economic indicators', the normal criteria against which progress is measured. Although it is the most usually quoted indicator, gross national product (GNP) is a poor indicator of true progress and does not adequately measure people's sense of well-being correct it is to measure economic output. It measures only the activity in the formal sector, regardless of what that activity is. In consequence, current economic theory fails adequately to reflect the real effects of human activity within a finite ecosystem, and is used to 'validate' economic activities which are ecologically unsustainable and/or socially unjust. EC400 A great deal of economic activity worldwide is unaccounted for (and is largely performed by women), e.g. work in the home and community voluntary work.how do you measure that and why? You may as well take the population and multiply it by a random number. It serves no purpose. This work is essential to the survival of the wider economy, yet is unacknowledged by conventional economic theory and practice - and as such it will continue . Individual consumer choice can be exercised positively, in favour of environmentally and ethically sound products - cant they now if that ia what consumers want ?, and investment, including promotion of low-interest loans; negatively, as in consumer boycotts; or actively in favour of ethical investment and reduced overall consumption. (see EC731) Whose ethics? and who wants less consumption? Is there some mass movement I am unaware of where consumers actively try not to buy things? Well then -just don't Things are bought because they are wanted.

Objectives

EC401 The objective of EC402 is to shift the balance of economic power in favour of individuals and households, and away from large scale, remote private companies and central government. Really - OK for cottage industries but transport manufacture, pharmaceuticals to name but few? It will make full-time paid employment less necessary, and will encourage home-based and part-time employment, and work in the 'third sector'. -and zero hours contracts are just SOOO popular People will be able to choose their own working lifestyles.Never mind the needs of society then if they don't fit The objective of EC403 is to enable people to meet their needs at the level most personal to them (the household sector being the smallest unit in any community) and to contribute more effectively through the informal economy to the wider community. What on earth does this mean? A strong household sector, both informal and formal, will be resilient to fluctuations in the wider economy. Why - on what basis - when people are broke your cottage clothes will not be bought and you will starve

Policies

EC402 Introducing the Citizens' Income scheme. (see EC730) the really fun bit

EC730 A Citizen's Income sufficient to cover an individual's basic needs will be introduced, which will replace tax-free allowances and most social security benefits (see EC711). A Citizen's Income is an unconditional, non-withdrawable income payable to each individual as a right of citizenship. It will not be subject to means testing and there will be no requirement to be either working or actively seeking work. - their words - a bit of a joke in there - yes?

EC731 The Citizens' Income will eliminate the unemployment and poverty traps, as well as acting as a safety net to enable people to choose their own types and patterns of work (See EC400). The Citizens' Income scheme will thus enable the welfare state to develop towards a welfare community, engaging people in personally satisfying and socially useful work. And just where is that money to come from - because nobody is paying taxes any more

EC732 When the Citizens' Income is introduced it is intended that nobody will be in a position that they will receive less through the scheme than they were entitled to under the previous benefits system. Children will be entitled to a reduced amount which will be payable to a parent or legal guardian. People with disabilities or special needs, and single parents will receive a supplement. God will provide

EC733 Initially, the housing benefit system will remain in place alongside the Citizens' Income and will be extended to cover contributions towards mortgage repayments (seeHO602). This will subsequently be reviewed to establish how housing benefit could be incorporated into the Citizen's Income, taking into account the differences in housing costs between different parts of the country and different types of housing. (See morehere). This is Labour with knobs on - we will give you everything and have no idea where the money comes from

There is no point going on. No sane person can surely be duped into voting for that tosh. Even if I conceded that the Greens mean to confiscate all property and redistribute it that would be a one off - when everyone then has a little bit of nothing and no money tobe taxed it will be nopoint in saying "axe Trident" as that would already have gone as so has the money to pay for it.

This is a tiny part of the Green Manifesto - to rip the whole thing to pieces would take ages.

 

Suffice to say that I am not voting for the 'Aberdeen' party, and I'm sorry if this comes over in the wrong way but your thinking (at times - ref. Islam) is leading towards the kind of 'final solution' theories found in the darkest points of our history.

 

Islam is neither a concept nor is it fundamentally evil. This is often an interesting debate but that view is a gross misrepresentation of the way to live which most Moslems seek...and I speak as a well travelled but convinced atheist.

 

In saying that, are you stating that Scotland is not a country in it's own right?

 

No it just is not true. When the UK economy stalled in 2009 the next five years trying to rebuild it have seen mass suffering - on a scale miniscule to what Greens propose.
I do believe growth will continue - it may be that it has to be increasingly proved to be sustainable -but when a shark stops swimming it drowns - so does an economy. People have been forecasting world overpopulation for centuries - they would not be able to believe a world population of 7billion.
Yes - environmental issues are very important - but must be met by increased wealth and growth - energy is unlimited - it is our ability to extract it from the likes of sea, wind and sun that are deficient. Invest more in those technologies by all means.
Global terrorism is far more serious in my view than you believe.