The idea of the SNP and Milliband been in Government together, would like something out of a horror story. Awful thought.

Why? The Tories seemed perfectly happy to cooperate with the SNP in the Scottish parliament for four years.

Why? The Tories seemed perfectly happy to cooperate with the SNP in the Scottish parliament for four years.

 

Well when I say the SNP, I mean Alex Salmon more specifically.

He's not the leader of the Westminster group. Stewart Hosie is, the Dundee MP, and he's actually rather a capable guy who also happens to be the Deputy Leader of the SNP (didn't get my vote but he was second in my ranking) so it would be him that is in charge and not Salmond.

 

Alex needs to f*** right off tbh. If he stays in his box in Aberdeenshire we'll be fine. The more he chats shit and winds up the Tories/Labour the more press he's going to get and while that may massage his ego, it's going to hurt the parties election chances.

 

Although he is very correct. The SNP will do what it can to remove a Minority Tory Government. It's pretty much standing on a platform of 'vote for us instead of Labour and you'll still get Labour but a government that actually has to give a shit about what happens outside the M25 if it wants its legislation to pass'.

The idea of the SNP and Milliband been in Government together, would like something out of a horror story. Awful thought.

I can't say I'm in favour of the idea, but what exactly do you think would happen? In any case, Ed's already ruled out the SNP being in government with Labour, and the SNP have ruled out being in government with Labour.

I can't say I'm in favour of the idea, but what exactly do you think would happen? In any case, Ed's already ruled out the SNP being in government with Labour, and the SNP have ruled out being in government with Labour.

 

I thought you would know more than others that politicians lie all the time :lol: I don't believe them both for a second. If the opportunity arose they would take, despite what they say publicly.

Can Qassandra or Soy Adrian please tell me what Labour's economic policies are, because I'm genuinely confused at this point. People keep contradicting eachother. One week, we're told by the IFS that Labour would make much smaller cuts than the Tories, yet at the same time we're told that Labour are going to cut the deficit as quickly as the Tories AND are not going to raise any of the major taxes (VAT, income tax, national insurance). So how exactly is it going to be done??? And God knows how they expect the average member of the public to have a clue what their stance is, when I'm paying more attention than most yet am still clueless.

Edited March 25, 201510 yr by Danny

Tory: we're going to make huge cuts but eventually we will stop, and it wont possibly hurt essential services (This is a lie)

Labour: we're going to make quite big cuts, but less quickly and have done a couple of back of fag packet estimates on how to avoid it hitting essential services (This is a lie)

Lib-Dems: we'll cut less than the other two and if we hold the balance of power will force them not to cut so savagely (this is wishful thinking)

UKIP: we'll say we'll cut wherever we can get votes out of it because we're not going to win and don't really have a clue

Greens: we won't make cuts on essential services, we'll get rid of nuclear weapons to pay for it

 

The rest: we'll say stuff that appeals to our core voters because we aren't national parties and can never govern nationally, but we are hoping to force the Tories/labour (delete as appropriate) to give way to demands in order for us not to bring them down (see 1979 for previous example/threat).

 

Hope that helps clarify :lol:

The alternative version of the Tory message is "We're going to make £12bn cuts in benefits but we won't tell you how until after the election".

 

This means

 

a) We haven't got a clue but we think it sounds good

 

or

 

b) We know exactly how we we'll do it but we'd lose a lot of votes if we told you

They were quite funny snipits in PMQs today when a labour MP from Scotland stood up to ask a question the Tories just shouted 'SNP gain'!

They were quite funny snipits in PMQs today when a labour MP from Scotland stood up to ask a question the Tories just shouted 'SNP gain'!

From a party that hasn't elected more than one MP in Scotland in any election since 1992, that shows some gall.

I thought you would know more than others that politicians lie all the time :lol: I don't believe them both for a second. If the opportunity arose they would take, despite what they say publicly.

Well, no, they don't lie all the time at all - lies generally come back to bite you. Politicians avoid the question, answer different questions to the ones they were asked, refuse to deny or affirm things outright, or say 'they don't plan/expect' to do things that they later on do - they do all of those things, but they rarely lie. And they rarely give outright statements unless they're supremely confident they won't go back on them, for much the same reason. There is a very, very good reason both Ed Miliband and Nicola Sturgeon have ruled out coalition - it doesn't suit either of them to go into coalition with each other, at all, for various very differing reasons on either side (in short - it plays into all the Tory attack lines if Ed Miliband goes into coalition with the SNP, and the SNP can't exactly pretend that Labour are basically the same as the Tories if they're going into coalition with them, which is the basis of their narrative for why they're popular at the moment. Okay, that SNP reason is a bit of a contradiction anyway given they've said they wouldn't support a Tory minority government but would support a Labour one, but for some reason nobody's paying attention to that.)

 

But, I'll ask the question again - what do you genuinely think would happen (I specifically emphasise) that would be so dreadful from the SNP supporting a Labour minority government?

Can Qassandra or Soy Adrian please tell me what Labour's economic policies are, because I'm genuinely confused at this point. People keep contradicting eachother. One week, we're told by the IFS that Labour would make much smaller cuts than the Tories, yet at the same time we're told that Labour are going to cut the deficit as quickly as the Tories AND are not going to raise any of the major taxes (VAT, income tax, national insurance). So how exactly is it going to be done??? And God knows how they expect the average member of the public to have a clue what their stance is, when I'm paying more attention than most yet am still clueless.

I'm a bit hazy on it myself, but luckily the answer is only about two weeks away. Balls isn't big on leaving himself hostage to fortune so he'll have the sums added up for the manifesto or a separate document released for the campaign.

 

I can only presume it's something to do with the IFS projection last week that our deficit reduction plans would be on track with relatively few additional cuts being made - I think basically, because the economy's finally started up again, tax receipts are projected to start increasing a fair amount from next year onwards, but we don't need to cut as much as the Tories, as they're planning to cut a lot more between 2015 and 2019 in order to make up for their 'rollercoaster rise' in spending in 2020 (which they've done so they can't be accused of taking spending levels back to the 1930s anymore).

I'm a bit hazy on it myself, but luckily the answer is only about two weeks away. Balls isn't big on leaving himself hostage to fortune so he'll have the sums added up for the manifesto or a separate document released for the campaign.

 

I can only presume it's something to do with the IFS projection last week that our deficit reduction plans would be on track with relatively few additional cuts being made - I think basically, because the economy's finally started up again, tax receipts are projected to start increasing a fair amount from next year onwards, but we don't need to cut as much as the Tories, as they're planning to cut a lot more between 2015 and 2019 in order to make up for their 'rollercoaster rise' in spending in 2020 (which they've done so they can't be accused of taking spending levels back to the 1930s anymore).

 

But then I don't understand how there could be a significant difference between the Tories and Labour if they're both going to get rid of the deficit in an almost identical timeframe (give or take a year) and neither is going to raise taxes in any meaningful way. The equation just doesn't add up unless the spending cuts planned are also roughly equal.

 

And more to the point, I don't think it's going to add up to the public either (or seem "credible" :P ): there's a trade-off to everything in life, and it's not going to be believable that spending cuts could be significantly less unless there's a "cost" to it, be it a higher deficit or higher taxes. No matter how difficult it is to be upfront about either of those things with the current media mood, it's necessary because otherwise the public are just going to dismiss what Labour say as unbelievable milk-and-honey stuff.

Edited March 26, 201510 yr by Danny

But then I don't understand how there could be a significant difference between the Tories and Labour if they're both going to get rid of the deficit in an almost identical timeframe (give or take a year) and neither is going to raise taxes in any meaningful way. The equation just doesn't add up unless the spending cuts planned are also roughly equal.

 

And more to the point, I don't think it's going to add up to the public either (or seem "credible" :P ): there's a trade-off to everything in life, and it's not going to be believable that spending cuts could be significantly less unless there's a "cost" to it, be it a higher deficit or higher taxes. No matter how difficult it is to be upfront about either of those things with the current media mood, it's necessary because otherwise the public are just going to dismiss what Labour say as unbelievable milk-and-honey stuff.

Indeed. If Labour promise as much as an extra light bulb, it will be reported as an unfunded promise worth millions of pounds. Meanwhile, Osborne comes up with plans with a funding gap of billions of pounds and gets away with it. Welcome to the land of a "free press".

But then I don't understand how there could be a significant difference between the Tories and Labour if they're both going to get rid of the deficit in an almost identical timeframe (give or take a year) and neither is going to raise taxes in any meaningful way. The equation just doesn't add up unless the spending cuts planned are also roughly equal.

Basically I don't trust the Tory spending plans for 2019-2020 about as far as I could throw Boris, which was basically George levelling the surplus down and spending up enough for there to be a smaller difference (i.e. the Tories moving towards Labour spending plans, rather than vice versa). He knows the media slaver over him enough to get away with it and that it damages Labour for the perception to be there that there isn't much difference between Labour and the Tories, and that he (or his successor) would be able to go back to the Autumn Statement spending plans in five years' time with relatively little consequence if they win.

There's also the fact that Balls is open to deficit-funded capital spending (which makes economic sense as cost-benefit analysed capital spending generally pays for itself), whereas Osborne's ruled it out - that's about £10-20bn of spending difference there which isn't really affected by the last couple of weeks.

Basically I don't trust the Tory spending plans for 2019-2020 about as far as I could throw Boris,

I didn't realise you were so trusting. I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw Eric Pickles with one hand,

I HAVE WEAK WRISTS

And I'm ancient

 

How mortifying to see Ed floundering when his attempted humiliation goes off script!