All parties need to be honest about the NHS. They have to explain why it will continue to become more expensive for years to come and then address the question of how to pay for it. If its services are to remain free at the point of use then advocates of that policy have to be honest and admit that either taxes will have to rise or cuts will have to made in other areas. The alternative is that parties have to explain what charges they will levy.

The fact that it's Andy Burnham automatically gives Labour a head start given that, despite all these attempted Tory smears, he's still one of the most well-liked and trusted Shadow Ministers.

All parties need to be honest about the NHS. They have to explain why it will continue to become more expensive for years to come and then address the question of how to pay for it. If its services are to remain free at the point of use then advocates of that policy have to be honest and admit that either taxes will have to rise or cuts will have to made in other areas. The alternative is that parties have to explain what charges they will levy.

 

Completely agree. And, even though people right now probably would say they didn't want tax rises if you asked them, I honestly think if a politician stood up and said income tax was going by 2p because it was needed to save the NHS then people would happily accept it as well as respecting a politician who had the balls to say it.

 

 

The fact that it's Andy Burnham automatically gives Labour a head start given that, despite all these attempted Tory smears, he's still one of the most well-liked and trusted Shadow Ministers.

 

I still think think EdM (assuming he isn't ousted) needs to make Burnham shadow chancellor and push right to the forefront of their election campaign. There's no getting around the fact Labour are in dire need of someone who speaks like a humanbeing, rather than a ProfessionalPolitician, to "sell" their message to those people who are flocking to UKIP. Plus, there's evidence that even with Andy's current relative low profile, he's already popular: one of Lord Ashcroft's focus-group thingies a while ago said that, apart from Miliband and Balls, Andy was the only Labour person people ever mentioned spontaneously (pg. 19 of this). They desperately need him to be one of their main spokesmen if they're to have any chance next year.

Edited May 25, 201411 yr by Danny

Alan Johnson - another politician who speaks human - has made it fairly clear he doesn't want to return to the front benches but Labour should be doing all they can to persuade him to take a role in the campaign.

This from Lord Ashcroft's latest poll:

 

Thinking about the state of Britain's economy and the amount the government spends and borrows, which of these statements comes closest to your view, even if you don't completely agree with them?

 

The national economy is not yet fixed, so we will need to continue with austerity and cuts in government spending over the next five years: 41% (current UKIP voters 37%)

While a period of austerity was needed to fix the national economy, we don't need another five years of cuts in government spending: 25% (current UKIP voters 22%)

Austerity and cuts were never needed, it was just used as an excuse to cut public services: 34% (UKIP voters 41%)

 

 

So a total of 60% of people (and an even greater proportion among UKIP voters, the crucial swing group) don't want more cuts, yet NONE of the mainstream parties are currently offering such a platform. And then they wonder why anti-establishment parties are getting a greater vote than ever before.

Edited May 28, 201411 yr by Danny

This from Lord Ashcroft's latest poll:

 

Thinking about the state of Britain's economy and the amount the government spends and borrows, which of these statements comes closest to your view, even if you don't completely agree with them?

 

The national economy is not yet fixed, so we will need to continue with austerity and cuts in government spending over the next five years: 41% (current UKIP voters 37%)

While a period of austerity was needed to fix the national economy, we don't need another five years of cuts in government spending: 25% (current UKIP voters 22%)

Austerity and cuts were never needed, it was just used as an excuse to cut public services: 34% (UKIP voters 41%)

So a total of 60% of people (and an even greater proportion among UKIP voters, the crucial swing group) don't want more cuts, yet NONE of the mainstream parties are currently offering such a platform. And then they wonder why anti-establishment parties are getting a greater vote than ever before.

 

...but it seems they'll never learn: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/05/29..._n_5413596.html

My big concern for next year is about the possible Lib Dem collapse. If they do completely collapse and lose most of their seats will they possibly go to the Tories instead?

 

Personally I think hopefully after Scotland successfully stay with the UK Alistair Darling should be shadow chancellor! Getting rid of Ed Balls would send more good signals then bad imo.

My big concern for next year is about the possible Lib Dem collapse. If they do completely collapse and lose most of their seats will they possibly go to the Tories instead?

 

It would probably have a bigger benefit to Labour. You're right that there's a lot of seats currently held by the Lib Dems which would go to the Tories if they collapsed, but at the same time, there's loads of Tory-Labour marginals where, if you transfer a good chunk of the Lib Dem vote over to Labour, Labour take the seats.

 

That said, Labour could still end up losing a lot of those seats because, despite gaining that chunk of Lib Dems, they're losing their grip on a lot of traditional Labour voters who voted for them at the last election.

Although in a lot of Labour-Tory marginals you wouldn't necessarily expect to find that many "traditional" Labour voters.

I think the Greens could do quite well out of a LibDem collapse in some places. I think it depends why people voted LibDem.

 

My seat is a very safe LibDem seat, or it was anyway, because people used to focus their energy on LibDem to keep out the Tories. We're the only part in Fife that isn't really a Labour seat, much more Tory thanks to St Andrews and the Farmers. So I think we could be a SNP gain.

 

The far far far north of Scotland will stay LibDem I think, they gave them strong support at the Euro's and the two sets of Islands to the North are the only to constituency seats the party has in Edinburgh. I think Labour will make a few gains from them around the central belt, SNP may pick up a couple and there will be one or two where they'll keep because despite letting the tories in they'll be viewed as the least cunty option.

 

UKIP won't get near a seat up here. They only gained an MEP because the SNP couldn't quite hit enough votes to pick up a 3rd and the Greens had to make do with 0.0000001% of the press coverage they got.

I think the Greens could do quite well out of a LibDem collapse in some places. I think it depends why people voted LibDem.

 

My seat is a very safe LibDem seat, or it was anyway, because people used to focus their energy on LibDem to keep out the Tories. We're the only part in Fife that isn't really a Labour seat, much more Tory thanks to St Andrews and the Farmers. So I think we could be a SNP gain.

 

The far far far north of Scotland will stay LibDem I think, they gave them strong support at the Euro's and the two sets of Islands to the North are the only to constituency seats the party has in Edinburgh. I think Labour will make a few gains from them around the central belt, SNP may pick up a couple and there will be one or two where they'll keep because despite letting the tories in they'll be viewed as the least cunty option.

 

UKIP won't get near a seat up here. They only gained an MEP because the SNP couldn't quite hit enough votes to pick up a 3rd and the Greens had to make do with 0.0000001% of the press coverage they got.

In Scotland surely a lot will depend on the referendum result. If Scotland votes for independence then there wouldn't seem much point in voting SNP as their main objective will have been achieved. It is also possible that, in the event of a Yes vote, the UK government will legislate to allow existing Scottish MPs to continue until Independence Day without an election.

True. I think in the event of a yes vote our MP's will not stand for re-election in 2015 or the government will be formed ignoring the result of our vote. (As their departure could turn a majority into a minority administration)

True. I think in the event of a yes vote our MP's will not stand for re-election in 2015 or the government will be formed ignoring the result of our vote. (As their departure could turn a majority into a minority administration)

The BBC projection based on the local election results last week showed Labour just a few seats short of a majority. However, without Scottish MPs they would be some way short. If that happened - and Scotland had voted for independence - then I suspect they would do a deal with the Lib Dems immediately rather than with until the Scottish MPs left. OTOH, if Scotland had voted no, I think they would try and govern on their own.

Depending on what way we vote, so much could change up here literally overnight. A no could either stop the SNP dead or catapult them onto bigger things and a Yes in the next term. A Yes would throw the rule book and next election predictions out the window for both sides of the wall.

 

The next 16 weeks are going to be seriously exciting.

If it's a "Yes" vote, I would expect the SNP to have a near clean sweep of nearly all Scottish seats. The talk among the rest of the UK parties would probably very quickly turn to posturing about how they'd be "tough" in independence negotiations and all kinds of insulting anti-Scottish stuff, so presumably Scottish people would respond in kind.

Edited May 30, 201411 yr by Danny

Depending on what way we vote, so much could change up here literally overnight. A no could either stop the SNP dead or catapult them onto bigger things and a Yes in the next term. A Yes would throw the rule book and next election predictions out the window for both sides of the wall.

 

The next 16 weeks are going to be seriously exciting.

If Scotland votes No do you think Salmond would be put under heavy pressure to resign? If he stays and comes out fighting within days of a defeat then that could conceivably lead to the SNP winning new Westminster seats. OTOH, if the SNP spend their time squabbling over why they lost, they are more likely to lose seats.

If Scotland votes No do you think Salmond would be put under heavy pressure to resign? If he stays and comes out fighting within days of a defeat then that could conceivably lead to the SNP winning new Westminster seats. OTOH, if the SNP spend their time squabbling over why they lost, they are more likely to lose seats.

I think there could be an orderly changing of the guard to Nicola at the next Scottish Election if he was to come under pressure. I expect her to take over in the not to distant future regardless of the outcome though. She's a fantastic politician and is probably second only to Salmond in terms of talent and determination in UK politics. I think it's something Salmond could survive without really breaking a sweat. He's not afraid of a fight and takes critics comments and opposing views far better than any other party leader in the UK. It's what really won the SNP the 2011 election.

 

The SNP can survive a No vote very easily, the Yes camp is very well organised and orderly behind Alex and Nicola. For the most part there has been very few comments made by SNP MSP's or MP's on the debate and the senior people have put forward a good case that, from what I can see, no one in the party has found fault with. In the case of an adverse reaction, they are the side best set up to cope I think. The infighting is likely to come from the Unionist I think as they all try to claim credit for saving the Union or argue over who lost the union. Both would be a major turn off for voters.

I think there could be an orderly changing of the guard to Nicola at the next Scottish Election if he was to come under pressure. I expect her to take over in the not to distant future regardless of the outcome though. She's a fantastic politician and is probably second only to Salmond in terms of talent and determination in UK politics. I think it's something Salmond could survive without really breaking a sweat. He's not afraid of a fight and takes critics comments and opposing views far better than any other party leader in the UK. It's what really won the SNP the 2011 election.

 

The SNP can survive a No vote very easily, the Yes camp is very well organised and orderly behind Alex and Nicola. For the most part there has been very few comments made by SNP MSP's or MP's on the debate and the senior people have put forward a good case that, from what I can see, no one in the party has found fault with. In the case of an adverse reaction, they are the side best set up to cope I think. The infighting is likely to come from the Unionist I think as they all try to claim credit for saving the Union or argue over who lost the union. Both would be a major turn off for voters.

From Salmond to Sturgeon? Sounds fishy to me :ph34r:

:basil:

HA! Good thing Fisheries is such an important part of our economy!