Off Topic Great Britain General Election May 7th 2015.

Fair enough. The SNP one is also higher, but not doubled like the UKIP one. Just did the calcs based on total turnout and registered voters and SNP got 40% of Scottish votes, vs 12% UKIP votes across the nation.

 

I don't think I mentioned anything about tax?

To be honest, I don't know what the solution is. I'm aware that what I'm talking about is idealistic and currently within the realms of fantasy. Nothing will change in a hurry, but I can hope for a world that is at least moving slowly in the right direction, whereas it seems to me to be getting inexorably worse at the moment.

Perhaps I'm just cranky at waking up to yet another 5 years of disenfranchisement (if that's a real word)

 

David Cameron is not going to have any option other than to let Scotland go during the next parliament.

 

I posted figures earlier this morning for more than just those two parties. I added how many vote per seat it worked out at too. All the non-UKIP ones were around 25k to 60k per seat. Obviously, UKIP's is 3.8m per seat

 

Well I haven't seen everything as it's a long thread and moving quickly. Also I don't know what you're on about

EDIT: Brain being slow.

Yes I agree that it looks skewed, but my point was that UKIP's 3.8million votes per seat is only because they are spread so thinly across the nation. They're in a weird position of being a small party in most individual places across the country (and therefore not wanted in those areas) and having a large number of votes overall. The voting system is odd but I was just trying to work it out

 

Ok. But like I said, I'm not a Marxist- I don't want everyone to have the same amount. There has to be some sort of meritocratic structure. I just think things could be a lot better than they currently are.

 

I realised what you were saying, I was responding to the "how would it make everyone poorer" question

 

I agree and disagree in equal meaure with that.

I think hardwork, ambition and intelligence combined DO generally provide people with financial reward in our society, as there are plenty of opportunities for people to stand out from the crowd, as the crowd is often mediocre. I don't agree that ambition and achievement automatically means that you've squashed people on your way to it either, that's a daft assertion imo mate.

However, not all of the population are driven, ambitious and intelligent, there's plenty who are limited in all of those areas, and a socially responsible society would want to ensure that these working people have a sustainable level of income and decent housing. Our friends the Tories have no interest in that basic principle, as they would rather pander to those who are more than capable of looking after themselves.

 

I didn't say that. I said

.
Meaning that ambition is not automatically a good thing, it depends on how it's used.

I agree with the rest.

 

I agree.

It is how you apply hard work, ambition and what brains you have.

If a boy or girl just works hard they can work hard cleaning toliets all thier left and get nowhere

If a boy or girl is just ambitious they can go on reality tv and try the get fmaous route and end up doing porn or whatever.

however

If you work hard, think to improve yourself and think hey... even if i can't do x or y i can still improve myself and continually upskill etc and seek out opportunity. there are in the country routes for all and its never too late to go pick up a biro and do a night class or a course of some type that will be paid for either by yourself through work or via social security.

Think about america where you don't get that and you are on your own.

The tax rate itself is meaningless argument. The argument should be what do you get for it. Look at the danes. they are mad people but pay huge taxes and have free education and healthcare etc.

I would say that want it all now is a bad way of thinking. I personally am first in my family to go to uni. my parents grafted for that. Because they did I can now and then mine might but as kids grow up with they seem to be ****ing lazy arsed entitled so and sos.

More someone has without working for it the less grateful they are... and thats tories for you.

 

Looks like one of the Labour leadership candidates will have Liverpool/Warrington roots. And to top it off he's really a blue!!

Andy Burnham

Chuka Ummuna
Yvette Cooper
Harriet Harman maybe??

 

Miliband threw Harmon's name in the hat but Andy Burnham would be my choice.

 

please log in to view this image

 

I think he's the probable choice. Has the most experience as an MP having had lots of different positions in the shadow cabinet and he is the right age and profile. Chuka Ummuna would be an interesting, refreshing choice but I think is a bit young, raw and will lose out to Burnham's more leftist ideology. Deputy leaders traditionally don't do well in leadership contests so I would rule Harmon out. Yvette Cooper could spring a surprise though as she's married to Ed Balls who will retain a lot of support in the party even though he lost his seat, support which may well transfer to her.

 

Personally I'm devastated about the total turn away from liberalism last night in favour of nationalism and anti-Europeanism. Country sucks.

 

Burnham is a good bloke, but the mere fact that he's a scouser would make him virutally unelectable in the Tory Southern heartlands, and that makes him a bad choice. Harsh but true.

 

Possibly yeah. Plenty of people do have an innate and immediate ability to judge someone else in an unthinking way that's based on messed up stereotypes and cliches. People in those constituencies and also in non-Scouse ones in the North/North West will probably just see legions of bewigged Harry Enfield style 'Scousers' marching through their minds when they read about Burnham or hear him speak. You wonder how much football might actually play a part in this given his involvement with Everton/LFC and participation in the Hillsborough services and campaign given the demographics of football support across the country and in the south especially where Labour need to try and make new inroads.

 

whats europe ever done for us... thats why that doesn;t matter

The SNP side is purely self interest. The gobshits in scotland need to learn same as the gobshites in NI... you gt nothing electing tarts who just dance up and down making noice and being anit government.

If labour were in right now we'd all be saying FFS the jocks are going to rape us all now.

 

must mean he's a "man of the people, the real people" then

 

Why?

It is not that simple. A poll only a few days ago had only 45% of people for scottish independence and 55% against. Exactly the same figures of 6-9 months ago when the official voting took place. So no majority for independence.

But the referendum in Scotland has in effect educated and informed the scottish people to a great degree. They realised that the SNP was the only party that would fight for scottish interests WITHIN the UK parliament. Labour, Lib Dems and Tories had to have an overall UK remit and could not just focus on scotland. It is a no brainer when you think about it.