How can you say that with any confidence? The SNP have never been anywhere near government so how can you know that they would have caused/will cause trouble? That line "Wicked witch of the north", smacks of something a trashy newspaper would say to try and scare a few people off of thinking about these things more critically. Don't be their parrot JR!
Yeah, damn that horrible woman for wanting to make things better for the people she represents, rather than big business and corporations. I wish people would think for themselves bit more rather than just swallow what we are told we should believe by people and organisations with alternative, shady and quite often entirely disingenuous agendas.
Michael 'String 'Em Up' Gove as Justice Secretary!? I initially thought I was reading a satirical piece when I saw that! I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
TMC, you love this post, but you did't "like" it. There are two thing that are totally divisive in our society, religion and politics. It is best not to discuss either in public, and a message board is public, because the outcome is enmity, with no side conceding that the other may have a valid point. At no point on this thread have I stated my political leanings, they are my private concern. I do condemn the ranting of both sides of the argument. This forum should be above such things. I would put my rose coloured specs on if I wanted to descend to that level of abuse. Strangely, they have not gone as low as this board, which is worrying. Time to call it a day I think, and move on.
To those who don't want to discuss such things I say this ...Why do you continue to click on the thread? Has Gove passed a law saying that you have to already? The only other possible conclusion is that you don't want these things discussed for some reason.
They just interviewed a newly elected SNP MP on telly and it seems that they are set on anti-austerity. They seem a pretty uncompromising bunch I think parliament is going to become quite entertaining. I can see mass expulsions of SNP members, possibly even intended. Pass the popcorn Doris!
I actually disagree to a certain extent that this board is "public". I obviously accept anyone in the world could log on and read what is being written, however none of you know me, none of you know what I look like and only a handful actually know my real first name let alone anything else about me. That's why I don't really understand why people bleat about "personal attacks" when some debates sometimes get a little heated. If I criticise what somebody says I am criticising the opinion of someone I don't know and am not ever likely to know in person. I couldn't be actually personally having a go at the person because I don't even know their name or what they look like, so what is so personal about a username and an avatar? I personally enjoy using this forum as a sounding off board sometimes, I find it a good way of letting off steam without actually falling out with anyone that I'm going to bump into, such as a work colleague for example. I wasn't in the office Friday and today is my first day back and I am making a conscious effort not to discuss politics or the election at all as I know there are a few Tories about and I really don't want to be falling out with anyone I have to spend 40 hours a week in the company of. Therefore I take a bit of a different view on things and see this forum a better medium to discuss such things than in 'real life'. Sorry if that offends anyone, it really is never my intention
Sorry to bring this old chestnut back up again, but I just wanted to point this out as it's close to my heart and I missed your comment, Miggins. I do appreciate though that you have actually thought about the subject and made a vaguely coherent conclusion. I do however, fundamentally disagree with your standpoint on renewables: Wind power is cheapest energy, EU analysis finds Onshore windfarms far cheaper than coal and gas when health impacts are factored in, report shows (Oct 2014) http://www.theguardian.com/environm...cheapest-energy-unpublished-eu-analysis-finds "The report says that for every megawatt hour (MW/h) of electricity generated, onshore wind costs roughly €105 (£83) per MW/h, compared to gas and coal which can cost up to around €164 and €233 per MW/h, respectively. “This report highlights the true cost of Europe’s dependence on fossil fuels,” said Justin Wilkes, the deputy CEO of the European Wind Energy Association (EWEA). “Renewables are regularly denigrated for being too expensive and a drain on the taxpayer. Not only does the commission’s report show the alarming cost of coal but it also presents onshore wind as both cheaper and more environmentally-friendly.”
Also applies to the comment by COTB. SNP campaigned on being 'anti austerity' and I can see a massive clash looming with the Tories in power and unless the Tories can persuade ALL of their MPs to 'toe the party line', then I can see a 'vote of no confidence' looming in the next couple of years.
The tory right as getting what they want on Europe - a (hopeful) renegotiation of our current position plus a definite referendum in two years. They will not rock the boat on other matters as I don't see their views being intrinsically more hard right than the PM's. If they fight Cameron then they face another election this time with a public hacked off at them for wasting the mandate given to them by infighting. Not a good platform to defend. My opinion for what it's worth about Labour is that they are akin to Tesco - unbeatable in the 90's but currently getting a kicking from two sides - for being too right wing in Scotland and too anti-wealth generation in much of England. I honestly don't see how Labour can win back support in both areas and once again become all things to enough people to make a difference at the ballot box. Any move made to mollify the SNP will be picked up by the Tories and used as a stick to beat them and any attempt to attract the core English vote will result in the SNP Woading up on them. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. Of the two issues the Scotland one is the least important as regardless of whether Scotland has 59 SNP or Labour MP's they will still be anti-Tory but until Labour can win back the hearts and votes of the English they are going to be in the political wilderness for an awfully long time to the point where they may see wither the break up of the union or some form of electoral reform as their only way to get back into power.
That's what I think this country is missing, we need more syllogistic fallacies and we need them NOW!!
I know you're just poking the bear with that comment but I'm going to reply. Having studied that area of British politics in some detail, I came to the conclusion that Thatcher probably had to do something. Unions were too powerful, mines weren't sustainable. I fully accept that. However, there was never any plan to replace the loss of that industry other than moving towards a banking economy (thanks to which we have had the worst recession sine the 20's) and she didn't give a single **** about what happened to these people, their families and the communities because of the loss of a hugely influential industry. What should have happened is the government should have developed the north, given people jobs on constructing infrastructure and the like, rather than just hanging them out to dry and leaving us with this north/south divide. One of the biggest failing of the last 30 years is the lack of real investment in our infrastructure.
Pretty spot on really. This'll be an unpopular opinion but I would have been MORE likely to vote for Labour if they had said they'd agree to an SNP coalition.
Small point - we did have him as PM 1951-1955, it wasn't so bad an efforr, but he was pretty unwell by then. I don't have an issue with people discussing politics on here and I agree that while this is technically a public forum, there is a level of anonymity and so it is great to hear some different opinions and bounce ideas. However, there was a point where this thread strayed dangerously close to getting pretty nasty. It's not worth it, let's just all make sure we don't take what's written on here too seriously one way or the other. They're just opinions and always interesting even when you disagree
Agreed I am all for renewables and we need a mix, no one is a perfect solution to a wicked problem. If the government is so against things such as wind turbines they must focus on making a more efficient housing stock. Improving insulation, build quality, retrofit etc is the cheapest way to reduce carbon emissions and we are one of the worst for inefficient energy use due to old/poor quality housing. But with this government I imagine we can kiss goodbye to most environmental issues.
I can't disagree with you there. It's just unfortunate that the Tory government we have now, like I've said earlier on here, is generally averse to energy efficient buildings, instead opting for significantly decreased building regulations.
