2015 Election

[tmcd35]

 

Was watching a documentary on BBC iPlayer last night about the rise of the Nazi party and Hitlers charisma, how in convinced a nation to follow him.

 

The parallels with Nigel Farage and UKIP (from the perspective of this documentary) were scarily striking!

 

• Charismatic Leader
  
• Blame problems on foreigners (Jews)
  
• Nationalism
  
• Rise in popularity after financial crises (recession/austerity)
  

 

 

*No I'm not trying to suggest Farage could become Hitler

[Garacesh]

That's always the case, though. The layman only kinda-sorta cares about politics. I don't mean to sound insulting, but it's true, although it does seem more people are watching the debates or getting involved this time around.

 

We were told by Labour x-y-z that failed to happen. Then the Tories did the same. Most people don't have a lot of faith in the smaller parties eg Greens (though it looks like they're going to get a significant spike in votes this year) and Lib Dem don't have a chance.. If you can't convince someone with your policies, convince them with charisma. By no means do I condone Farage or suggest anyone should support him and his party, but as aforementioned with Hitler, charisma is sometimes all it takes.

Edited May 5, 2015 by Garacesh

[localzuk]

You're right @Garacesh. People have their own pet dislikes/likes and as such they focus on those when it comes to elections. Like immigration. A colleague is obsessed with it (I suspect its actually through racism due to other things they've said). When I've spoken to them to ask what information they base their views on, they don't actually have any. They base them on what Nigel Farage is saying and what they think they see. Actual facts are nowhere to be seen.

[Garacesh]

Realistically, though, I can appreciate why people take their own anecdotal evidence over the published facts. We've all become jaded to official statistical reports because day in, day out, we see them manipulated for some ulterior motive. Often the statistic criteria is tweaked to produce the desired results. If that's not the case, the sample is carefully selected to skew results. With this in mind, it makes sense people might say "Sod the statistics! They're always messed with anyway. I know what I see and my neighbourhood is full of immigrants. White people are the minority here*, I don't care about anywhere else!". I lived in a neighbourhood where being white certainly did put you in the minority. Most of the families were of Pakistani descent. I can't speak for whether they're immigrants or not, but the average person (where I used to live, certainly) does equate 'Not White' with 'Immigrant', especially when they still hold their accents and speak their native tongue.

 

* 'White British people are the minority' was one thrown around a lot at the last election, not necessarily by politicians but I heard it a lot from the average person.

[sparkeh]

It's quite interesting hearing Nick Clegg talk about coalitions and the party with the most seats automatically having the ' democratic mandate' to form the next government. Given the shortcomings of the first past the post voting system (which effectively means a party can win a Westminster majority with potentially under a third of the people in the UK voting for them) surely it's perfectly reasonable that second and third place parties should be in a position to form a government if between them their seats outnumber the main one and theoretically say represented two thirds of the population?

Yes its completely reasonable. However I fear that from Friday onwards we will be subject to constitutional wrangling as Cameron tries to cling onto power, embroiled in an argument about legitimacy.

 

An interesting section of the Cabinet Manual:

“Where an election does not result in an overall majority for a single party, the incumbent government remains in office unless and until the prime minister tenders his or her resignation and the government’s resignation to the sovereign. An incumbent government is entitled to wait until the new parliament has met to see if it can command the confidence of the House of Commons, but is expected to resign if it becomes clear that it is unlikely to be able to command that confidence and there is a clear alternative.”

 

I think the argument would come down to whether this means the party can command confidence immediately after the election or at the Queen's Speech.

[tmcd35]

Looking at that paragraph in the Cabinet Manual it seems to me the election rests on two things for Cameron. Him getting a majority or SNP not gaining seats. If SNP get the gains polls expect then it shouldn't matter how far short of a majority Cameron fulls, it doesn't sound like the SNP would allow him to carry the confidence of the house regardless. Which is probably why Labour are saying they can go it alone in a minority government on a vote-by-vote basis.

[CAM]

Anyone getting election adverts? (Yes it links to the tory website!)

 

[LeMarchand]

Anyone getting election adverts? (Yes it links to the tory website!)

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]30392[/ATTACH]

 

Yep: http://www.edugeek.net/forums/edugeek-net-site-problems/32512-inappropriate-adverts-edugeek-post-url-here-10.html#post1313612 - posted seconds after you!

[speckytecky]

I'm surprised the Greens aren't polling heavier in this one given the fact they have such a strong education policy, will scrap OFSTED and scrap tuition fees.

[rickjames]

Because people realise they won't be able to fund their rather audacious pledges.

 

Brand coming out in support of Labour is quite the coup.

[Andrew_C]

I'm surprised the Greens aren't polling heavier in this one

Because people realise that their vote would be wasted. Shame; but there it is, that's 1st passed the post for you. There may be one or two constituencies where they might get an MP. Much more likely to lose their deposit.

[pcstru]

Because people realise that their vote would be wasted. Shame; but there it is, that's 1st passed the post for you. There may be one or two constituencies where they might get an MP. Much more likely to lose their deposit.

I don't consider my vote wasted simply because it does not result in the election of the candidate. It can send a message that this voter supports these policies and that can encourage other parties to 'move into that space' with policies that seek to address those issues. A vote for a candidate should also encourage the candidate and the party they belong to. I no one voted simply because they didn't believe their candidate would win, the overall turnout would be extremely poor!

[CAM]

I'm surprised the Greens aren't polling heavier in this one given the fact they have such a strong education policy, will scrap OFSTED and scrap tuition fees.

 

Scrap OFSTED: So who does inspections to maintain standards?

 

Scrap Tuition Fees: So where does the funding come from to maintain standards in HE?

 

Oh wait....

 

Scrap Fossil Fuels: So we can have a ropey electricity supply and lose the benefits of nuclear power and a nice stable supply of coal.

 

And Scrap Trident: Because everything will be better whilst Putin rampages over our shores because we have no defence and NATO kicked us out as we can't host a stockpile! Yay!

[localzuk]

Scrap OFSTED: So who does inspections to maintain standards?

 

Local education boards would be my thought.

 

Scrap Tuition Fees: So where does the funding come from to maintain standards in HE?

 

General taxation, like it did do for decades prior to this recent change.

 

Oh wait....

 

Scrap Fossil Fuels: So we can have a ropey electricity supply and lose the benefits of nuclear power and a nice stable supply of coal.

 

I disagree with their stance on nuclear, but their idea of scrapping fossil fuels is entirely correct. Unless we want to leave an uninhabitable world for future generations, it has to happen. There is a widescale campaign from all sorts of organisations to "leave it in the ground" now too. Major investors are backing out of fossil fuels. The end of fossil fuelled energy is going to happen sooner rather than later.

 

And Scrap Trident: Because everything will be better whilst Putin rampages over our shores because we have no defence and NATO kicked us out as we can't host a stockpile! Yay!

 

We can host a stockpile, why would that change? We just wouldn't own our own nuclear weapons. Ideologically, I want rid of nuclear missiles. Reality gets in the way somewhat, but at some point we may well be able to move towards that future. The cost of Trident is pretty darn high. That's money that could be better spent in the country. It could fill the funding gap for the NHS, welfare and education in one go.

[tmcd35]

Scrap OFSTED: So who does inspections to maintain standards?

Agree.

 

Scrap Tuition Fees: So where does the funding come from to maintain standards in HE?

Disagree - raise taxes elsewhere, income tax? Education free at point of deliver, at least till 21/first degree.

 

Scrap Fossil Fuels: So we can have a ropey electricity supply and lose the benefits of nuclear power and a nice stable supply of coal.

Disgree-kinda - Scrap fossil fuels. Nuclear doesn't use 'em. Anti-Green but...we need more nuclear power!

 

And Scrap Trident: Because everything will be better whilst Putin rampages over our shores because we have no defence and NATO kicked us out as we can't host a stockpile! Yay!

Disagree - Really, really don't see the benefits of our own nuclear stock pile. Russia, China, and USA are welcome to squabble amongst themselves. I'm sure we won't be kicked out of NATO for getting rid of them. Isn't Canada a NATO member? How'd they manage without nuclear subs?

 

 

But, yes, back to your point - Green policies are generally ill thought out

[sted]

Scrap OFSTED: So who does inspections to maintain standards?

I thing the idea behind offstead is good but they appear to of become a law unto themselves and this needs changing

 

Scrap Tuition Fees: So where does the funding come from to maintain standards in HE?

 

Oh wait....

it wasn't so many years ago the government gave you money to go to university/college I think I was the last year they gave me money to go so that was about 2000 ish

 

Scrap Fossil Fuels: So we can have a ropey electricity supply and lose the benefits of nuclear power and a nice stable supply of coal.

long term fossil fuels have to at least be reduced but the only sensible option as things stand that isn't dependant on factors outside your control (so wind/solar) is nuclear so for the foreseeable future unless battery tech get a lot better a lot quickly to smooth out the delivery of power from renewables then we need more nuclear it the least worst option

 

And Scrap Trident: Because everything will be better whilst Putin rampages over our shores because we have no defence and NATO kicked us out as we can't host a stockpile! Yay!

 

I don't see the point of trident under what circumstances could we possibly use the nuclear warheads and have a hope of surviving? the only possible excuse is r&d and jobs

[flyinghaggis]

I don't see the point of trident under what circumstances could we possibly use the nuclear warheads and have a hope of surviving? the only possible excuse is r&d and jobs

 

My take is that it's primarily there as a deterrent to any military action. I suppose you could question the need as to whether we ourselves directly require nuclear weapons but I think that Putin's aggression in former soviet states and the current threat of an EU referendum in the UK means, to me at least, that now is the wrong time to start talking about scrapping trident. Perhaps further down the line if we feel that as part of the EU we can maintain a more united front against the likes of China, Russia and the US then maybe but definitely not at the moment IMO.

[Andrew_C]

My take is that it's primarily there as a deterrent to any military action.

Worked well in the Ukraine didn't it?

[Gatt]

Yep: http://www.edugeek.net/forums/edugeek-net-site-problems/32512-inappropriate-adverts-edugeek-post-url-here-10.html#post1313612 - posted seconds after you!

 

Why is this imappropriate?

Would you be saying the same if it was Labour / SNP / Lib Dem?

[StevieM]

Why is this imappropriate?

Would you be saying the same if it was Labour / SNP / Lib Dem?

 

Absolutely! This is, as far as I'm aware, a politically neutral site. I don't want to be seeing ads for ANY political party.

Edited May 5, 2015 by StevieM

[Gatt]

Absolutely! This is, as far as I'm aware, a politically neutral site. I don't want to be seeing ads for ANY political party.

 

Then shouldn't this thread be locked?

 

How far do we take this?

 

if we can allow a thread on political views, then surely we should also allow political ads too?

[StevieM]

if we can allow a thread on political views, then surely we should also allow political ads too?

 

This is a forum for discussion. I take no issue with members airing their political views, even if I don't agree with them. I do, however, have an issue with these discussions becoming host to paid advertisements. The other option would be to ensure that all political views were represented equally through paid advertisements, but I think we'd all get bored of that pretty quickly.

[tmcd35]

Without trident the UK will be weaker.

 

I disagree. Given the vast sums of money, £100bn over 40years, well be paying out on something that will almost certainly go unused. I can't help think that if even a small proportion of that was redirected into our intelligence services and regular military we'll be a lot stronger and still have cash to spare education and health.

[clockend25]

That's the key for me. I think it's absolutely correct to be questioning the use of the money being talked about for the renewal of trident, but I'd want to see a decent amount of it re-invested in equipping and expanding our regular army and special forces.

[tmcd35]

Of course not. The whole point of discussion is to have points you disagree on otherwise there'd be nothing to talk about. Surely if you felt strongly that we are stronger with nuclear weapons then you'll be able to suggest how losing them would weaken us? I don't see why decommissioning would weaken, especially if the money was reinvested in the right areas.

 

As for the Manhatten project, I honestly don't know. It was a different country, at a different time, international politics was very different, and our knowledge of nuclear wasn't as it is now. In the middle of a world war building a bigger bomb seems like a sensible thing to do.

 

Any way, the Manhatten project (and the research that proceeded it) lead to nuclear power stations, and that's a good thing. I'm not anti-nuclear. And right now I'd be funding more research in to nuclear fussion, see another use for trident money.

 

Besides I'm not arguing for whole world total disarmament. I certainly don't think the Americans should be reducing their nuclear capabilities. Other than a perminent seat on the UN security council and debt, I'm not sure what nuclear weapons give us as a nation.

Edited May 6, 2015 by tmcd35