Support NeoGAF

[MatrixMan.EXE]

Not sure who I'm going to vote for. I actually agree with a lot of what Farage says on the EU, because imo its an undemocratic cesspit of power hungry dregs. Similarly his views on foreign aid etc have me nodding in agreement. His stance on immigration too, is slightly muddy, and yet I agree with parts of it, I just find the party as a whole insufferable. And I say this as a 22 year old black guy from South East London who's grandparents were immigrants.

The other candidates bored me to tears on their question time debate on Thursday. More than anything, the awful pickings just goes to show how much of a downer politics in this country is. No charisma, and really, there is little difference between all the parties at heart, all reading off the same neoliberalist playbook Thatcher and Reagan wrote 3 decades ago. le sigh.

 

[King_Moc]

Brown actually offered a referendum on PR to Clegg, but it would have been unwhipped because he couldn't talk round the Blairites. Wouldn't have made it through the commons.

Brown was in favour of AV, even before the election: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8492622.stm

My counterpoint would be that if Labour goes into a minority government with SNP support on a Queen's bill then the majority of the country *will* have gotten the government they voted for. Unless you seriously think that a lot of SNP voters would prefer the conservatives in power, there's clearly a majority of people who would rather a Labour government. The arguement over legitmacy is extremely poisonous because it undermines not only our entire parliamentary system, but it also trashes the idea of parties outside Labour and Conservative.

When you consider that probably a fairly small minority of Lib Dem voters wouldn't have wanted a Tory government over a Labour one, the present Conservative government barely looks legitimate either.

 

[Maledict]

I think the Libs were split roughly 50% to be honest. Absolutely lt of people whovoted for them and now never will wanted a Lib / Lab government, but the core 10% or so of their vote that are hardcore liberal democrats wold just rather they were in government rather than anything, and could form a party either way. Didnt the coalition agreement have to get voted through the party membership as well, or just the MPs?

In terms of seats however, its hard to argue that the current government isn't legitamate. They have a decent, workable majority and have worked surprisingly well together.

TBH, I think that when the Lib vote goes above 10% they are generally attracting protest votes that don't actually read the manifesto. Sad but seems to be true.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Brown was in favour of AV, even before the election: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8492622.stm

Yeah, he was also one of the Labour figures who pushed really strongly for the Jenkins Report on voting reform, something Blair wasn't keen on at all.

Honestly, I liked Brown's political beliefs. He wasn't good at politics, but he was a good politician.

 

[Maledict]

I think some fhis beliefs were sound, although his love of tax credits was a complete blind alley. He certainly had a deep and abiding commitment to solid Labour policies, a lot of which I agree with.

However, I just cannot get over what he did in government - his behaviour, and that of his team (Balls in particular) was horrendous. He behaved like a child denied sweets, and his absurd conviction he was 'due' the prime ministership made so many things worse in the last Labour government. Had we not had the Blair / Brown thingso much more could have been done. I wish Blair had just ignored the idea of any 'deal' with him and beaten him fair and square in the leadership contest (as he was absolutely going to do). Unfortunately Blair was freaking terrible at confrontation and handling cabinet disagreements...

EDIT: I had hoped that Brown would go into the Scottish parliament after he left the leadership. I still think he has a lot to offer the country, and since losing the last election it seems to have liberated him in a way I wouldnt have thought possible. He certainly would be in a better place to revitalise Scottish Labour at Holyrood and create a vision for Scotland beyond 'not the Tories'.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

A Blair that outright beats him is a Blair that is more Blairite Blair, though. That's not exactly something I'd be too keen on.

 

[Walshicus]

I actually agree with a lot of what Farage says on the EU, because imo its an undemocratic cesspit of power hungry dregs.

Power hungry "dregs" who do far more to protect YOU and YOUR rights as both a citizen and a consumer than any Westminster government has since its formation.

Undemocratic? You vote for a moderately powerful Parliament, and the government you elect at home is responsible for nominating the executive which is again confirmed by the Parliament you vote for. It's plenty democratic as it is, and frankly the people who are holding back the advancement of citizen participation are eurosceptics *like* UKIP.

You know why UKIP wants out of Europe? It's got jack shit to do with immigration or sovereignty or any of the bullshit they pretend to care about; they want out because their wealthier backers want to roll back the swathe of worker and consumer protections that the EU fights for.

Every working class person who votes UKIP is unwittingly voting to make their own life that little bit shittier.

S'maddening!

 

[Real Hero]

there is little difference between all the parties at heart, all reading off the same neoliberalist playbook Thatcher and Reagan wrote 3 decades ago. le sigh.

And yet you find UKIP appealing? A vote for them is a vote for exactly that.

 

[King_Moc]

Power hungry "dregs" who do far more to protect YOU and YOUR rights as both a citizen and a consumer than any Westminster government has since its formation.

Undemocratic? You vote for a moderately powerful Parliament, and the government you elect at home is responsible for nominating the executive which is again confirmed by the Parliament you vote for. It's plenty democratic as it is, and frankly the people who are holding back the advancement of citizen participation are eurosceptics *like* UKIP.

You know why UKIP wants out of Europe? It's got jack shit to do with immigration or sovereignty or any of the bullshit they pretend to care about; they want out because their wealthier backers want to roll back the swathe of worker and consumer protections that the EU fights for.

Every working class person who votes UKIP is unwittingly voting to make their own life that little bit shittier.

S'maddening!

I'm always amazed that none of the opposition ever bring up the fact that UKIP want to remove mandatory paid leave, paid sick leave and paid maternity leave. A vote for UKIP is a vote to give yourself the same employee rights that they have in the USA.

Edit: It's a vote to cancel the NHS in favour of a USA style health insurance scheme where the jobless are meant to just die as well. Farage keeps openly lying and saying he never said this, but he fucking did: http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-farage-insurance-based-nhs-private-companies

 

[kitch9]

Power hungry "dregs" who do far more to protect YOU and YOUR rights as both a citizen and a consumer than any Westminster government has since its formation.

Undemocratic? You vote for a moderately powerful Parliament, and the government you elect at home is responsible for nominating the executive which is again confirmed by the Parliament you vote for. It's plenty democratic as it is, and frankly the people who are holding back the advancement of citizen participation are eurosceptics *like* UKIP.

You know why UKIP wants out of Europe? It's got jack shit to do with immigration or sovereignty or any of the bullshit they pretend to care about; they want out because their wealthier backers want to roll back the swathe of worker and consumer protections that the EU fights for.

Every working class person who votes UKIP is unwittingly voting to make their own life that little bit shittier.

S'maddening!

Not really, even if the sky fell in and they got into government they would last one term because none of that is in their manifesto.

 

[War Peaceman]

Yeah, he was also one of the Labour figures who pushed really strongly for the Jenkins Report on voting reform, something Blair wasn't keen on at all.

Honestly, I liked Brown's political beliefs. He wasn't good at politics, but he was a good politician.

I completely agree, his heart was generally in the right place he was simply awful at working with people.

Every working class person who votes UKIP is unwittingly voting to make their own life that little bit shittier.

S'maddening!

Don't necessarily disagree with the main thrust of your argument but it is a very patronising attitude. What if these working class people want what ukip offers? I think there is a danger in assuming people are ignorant rather than just ideologically different...

 

[Spaghetti]

Don't necessarily disagree with the main thrust of your argument but it is a very patronising attitude. What if these working class people want what ukip offers? I think there is a danger in assuming people are ignorant rather than just ideologically different...

you have a point

turkeys certainly have voted for christmas before

 

[Walshicus]

It just reminds me too much of American politics.

 

[giant_frying_pan]

Brown was in favour of AV, even before the election: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8492622.stm

I know those are Brown's comments, but I feel I need to point out (not necessarily to you, but just anyone reading in general) that one of the most devious things the Conservatives did when drawing up their coalition agreement with the Lib Dems was to get them to climb down from their actual first choice PR voting system (STV - single transferable vote) and settle for the Alternative Vote.

Then in the referendum campaign, the Tories criticised AV for being a watered down, second-best option! I detest them, but it was so shrewd. Lib Dems played into their hands on that and so many other things. It's they that are going to get a kicking for the unpopular policies and not the Conservatives.

David Cameron said in that campaign that FPTP was 'decisive' and would return fewer Hung Parliaments. Yet here we are about to get two in a row.

[EDIT - Some parts of that article are priceless:

The Liberal Democrats say the AV option is "a small step in the right direction"

The Conservatives are strongly opposed to replacing the current "first past the post" system, saying it results in stable governments.

So:
1.) Liberal Democrats aren't strong enough in their convictions.
2.) Conservatives want a voting system that favours them and the old guard, rather than properly represent the public's wishes.

But we knew that already!]

 

[MatrixMan.EXE]

Power hungry "dregs" who do far more to protect YOU and YOUR rights as both a citizen and a consumer than any Westminster government has since its formation.

Undemocratic? You vote for a moderately powerful Parliament, and the government you elect at home is responsible for nominating the executive which is again confirmed by the Parliament you vote for. It's plenty democratic as it is, and frankly the people who are holding back the advancement of citizen participation are eurosceptics *like* UKIP.

You know why UKIP wants out of Europe? It's got jack shit to do with immigration or sovereignty or any of the bullshit they pretend to care about; they want out because their wealthier backers want to roll back the swathe of worker and consumer protections that the EU fights for.

Every working class person who votes UKIP is unwittingly voting to make their own life that little bit shittier.

S'maddening!

I think you're simplifying things a bit too much, but maybe you're not, I'll my research. But, in all seriousness, you say that its decided by the Parliament we vote for, yeah, but why can't we, as a people decide. If you really think the government we elect voting for whether we stay in the EU, is the same as us a people voting to stay within the Eurozone then I'm not quite sure what to tell you other than, well, it isn't.

However, I haven't bought his rhetoric that even if we left the EU, there'd be no tariffs. France and Germany for example, wouldn't stand for it.

And yet you find UKIP appealing? A vote for them is a vote for exactly that.

I don't find UKIP appealing. As a whole I don't really like the party, as I say. I just agree with many of the things Farage says. I also disagree with lot of them, but his stance on the European Union and Foreign Aid for example are spot on in my opinion. All I'm saying is that, for the constant shit UKIP get, they disgust me no less than the Conservative party to be honest. And again, I only agree with bits and pieces of their policy.

 

[kmag]

The talk of legitimacy is bullshit, especially if it's Cameron who is attempting to cling on. He's had two shots at winning a majority and would have failed if the polls hold trye. Losing slightly better than the other loser means nothing.

People do not vote governments in in this system, they vote them out. Failing to win as a sitting PM means he should be laughed at if he attempts to claim "legitimacy" without sufficient MP's (either individually or in coalition)

 

[King_Moc]

Not really, even if the sky fell in and they got into government they would last one term because none of that is in their manifesto.

Not everything a party is going to do appears in their manifesto. Look at this nonsense that UKIP forgot to delete off of their Lewes site: http://www.ukiplewes.com/small-business/

3.1 Employment contracts



A potential employee is usually in the weaker bargaining position when it comes to negotiating the terms of his or her individual contract of employment, so it is tempting for the government to try and win the votes of employees (who inevitably outnumber SME owners by a huge margin) by imposing terms into employment contracts which appear generous to the employee. The inevitable result of such self-serving government interference into the millions of contracts that are entered into each year is hugely misleading and, with all distortions, the costs to the economy as a whole always outweigh the apparent gains.

UKIP would put an end to most legislation regarding matters such as weekly working hours, holidays and holiday, overtime, redundancy or sick pay etc. and provide a statutory, standard, very short employment contract template. The first column would contain the main areas – such as days’ holiday or weekly working hours, the second column would show a typical figure for all employees (or employees in that specific type of business) and the employer would enter a figure into the third column (which might be more or less generous than the figure in the second).

A copy of this template would be made available to all candidates before the job interview, to enable them to compare and contrast between different jobs and to save embarrassment during the interview itself. Copies of the agreed list would be given to employer and employee when the job offer is agreed, and only in the absence of such a list, would the terms of employment revert to the statutory default.

Those employers who offer relatively generous terms would be able to use this in their advertising and might be able to attract better candidates or pay slightly lower salaries, and the reverse would apply to employers who demand longer working hours, or offer fewer holidays or fewer days’ sick pay etc.

3.2 Parental leave and Statutory Maternity Pay (‘SMP’)

The EU is responsible for a great deal of UK employment legislation. A good example of excessive EU regulation is proposals for ‘longer and better maternity leave’6. The head of the commission appointed by the UK government to look into implementation was the Human Resources Director of a large supermarket chain7, who ultimately adopted the EU’s proposals as intended.

Commonsense tells us that larger organisations employing thousands or tens of thousands of people can easily accommodate a small and stable percentage of their employees being on maternity leave at any one time8; as the small additional cost to the large employers can easily be borne by reducing overall wage levels by a similar percentage, and there is no need to take on extra staff for maternity cover.

Contrast this with the real life experiences of small businesses employing a dozen or fewer people: the simultaneous loss of one or two staff, with the requirement to take on replacement staff while keeping the job open in case the mother decides to return to work, can be a ruinous exercise, not to mention the administrative costs and the cash cost of Statutory Maternity Pay. The impact on small businesses is disproportionately damaging.

As a result, many SMEs are understandably nervous about employing young women, or try not to promote them to key positions. Yet, instead of returning to the root cause of this, the UK government has chosen to implement a raft of anti-discrimination legislation; all enforced by yet more quangos and inspectors, to persecute SMEs who do so. The demands of running a small business are conspicuously ignored.

UKIP proposes to vastly simplify this legislation. It would be up to each employer to decide whether to offer parental leave and this would be one of the items included in the standard employment contract (see above). An SME which refuses to offer parental leave will either have to offer young women higher salaries than other businesses which offer a long leave period or they will simply have to recruit from a smaller pool of potential employees

3.4 ‘Equal Rights’ and Employment Tribunals

UKIP believes there is too much centrist interference in employer/employee relations. It is far better to allow localised tribunals to build up a body of practical case law and real life examples on what is, and what is not, acceptable, and to occasionally embody these into consolidating statutes, than it is for the government, largely in the name of some ‘equality and discrimination’ agenda to constantly impose more and more rules on employers who then find it almost impossible to work out which particular rights given to one perceived victim group trump those of another group.

There is also a hierarchy of wrongs. The maximum award for unfair dismissal is calculated in a similar way to redundancy payments (a multiplier based on the employee’s age and length of service is applied to the employee’s weekly earnings) which makes good sense. However, the Tribunal can award unlimited compensation in the case of ‘discrimination’ or ‘dismissal on health and safety grounds’11, which is unjust and excessive.

UKIP would legislate to ensure the scope of claims which can be heard by tribunals will be greatly reduced. In particular, limits on unfair dismissal and discrimination claims will be re-instated and no unfair dismissals or discrimination claims would be admitted by the Tribunals in respect of employees with less than two years continuous employment.

UKIP believes tribunals should have a balanced partnership of employers, trade unions and independent partners. An appeals procedure should also be introduced. Tribunal hearings should also be made open to Freedom of Information requests.

UKIP would additionally scrap most ‘equality and discrimination’ legislation, cap all compensation payments and allow commonsense to prevail. UKIP would punish fraudulent, mischievous complainants, including punishment for legal representatives who institute grossly excessive, speculative or fraudulent claims (such as some ‘no win no fee’ solicitors) through legal sanctions.

5.2 The Flat Tax

The cornerstone of UKIP’s tax policies is to roll Employee’s National Insurance and basic rate income tax into a flat rate of income tax of 31% for all sources of personal income (except pension income) which is to be kept at 20%. There would be no higher rate tax – partly funded by restricting tax relief for pension contributions to the first £10,000 of contributions per annum from the colossal sum of £255,000 now – and partly funded by ending other tax breaks and loopholes.

a) To amend the Race Relations Amendment Act (2000) so that it is much less intrusive into the affairs of companies and organisations, in particular, by removing the need to positively promote ‘diversity’ in the workforce which many see as divisive. The Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations (2003) and the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (2003), which each implement EC directives imposing duties on employers to positively promote social engineering policies, will be repealed as a natural consequence of leaving the EU. Contract compliance as practised by the Greater London Assembly, for example, will be outlawed. UKIP will oppose measures in the ‘Equality’ Bill to force employers in the public sector to discriminate against the indigenous male population and to apply contract compliance to enforce such treatment on staff in private firms bidding for public sector contracts.

Of course, now that they're more mainstream and are looking for more votes, you won't see this in the manifesto that they show you. But if you think that this isn't on theirs, or their paymasters agenda, then you're being very naive.

 

[Dr Zhivago]

Cameron now saying "vote for me as Prime Minister". Seems he's trying to recast the election as a presidential one.

 

[Kathian]

Cameron now saying "vote for me as Prime Minister". Seems he's trying to recast the election as a presidential one.

Which is silly considering the Miliband play failed. They wanted to be talking about how far behind Labour were at this point. Their entire election strategy has been awful.

 

[MatrixMan.EXE]

Not everything a party is going to do appears in their manifesto. Look at this nonsense that UKIP forgot to delete off of their Lewes site: http://www.ukiplewes.com/small-business/











Of course, now that they're more mainstream and are looking for more votes, you won't see this in the manifesto that they show you. But if you think that this isn't on theirs, or their paymasters agenda, then you're being very naive.

See a lot of this is why, as I said earlier, I find UKIP on the whole insufferable. I just agree with various views Farage has on certain aspects of the political landscape. Didn't he get caught out earlier this year when he suggested Privatising the NHS? That's Thatcherism 2.0, and I'm not really interested in supporting such extreme American style free market policy.

 

[King_Moc]

See a lot of this is why, as I said earlier, I find UKIP on the whole insufferable. I just agree with various views Farage has on certain aspects of the political landscape. Didn't he get caught out earlier this year when he suggested Privatising the NHS? That's Thatcherism 2.0, and I'm not really interested in supporting such extreme American style free market policy.

Even the most extreme parties will say some stuff you agree with. I was 55% aligned with UKIP on one of those policy test things, and I despise them.

 

[Walshicus]

But, in all seriousness, you say that its decided by the Parliament we vote for, yeah, but why can't we, as a people decide.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Do you want a constant running referendum on every aspect of policy or just the EU? It kind of seems that you want to get rid of government entirely and just have 'the people decide'.

If you really think the government we elect voting for whether we stay in the EU, is the same as us a people voting to stay within the Eurozone then I'm not quite sure what to tell you other than, well, it isn't.

We're not in the Eurozone.

 

[MatrixMan.EXE]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Do you want a constant running referendum on every aspect of policy or just the EU? It kind of seems that you want to get rid of government entirely and just have 'the people decide'.



We're not in the Eurozone.

In my haste, I meant to type European Union, sorry. But, to elaborate, I'm not anti-government, no way. My issue is that, while the European Union offers some brilliant consumer and worker rights, I believe the direction is going isn't conducive to Britain's well being. There needs to be a happy medium, no?

 

[CyclopsRock]

The talk of legitimacy is bullshit, especially if it's Cameron who is attempting to cling on. He's had two shots at winning a majority and would have failed if the polls hold trye. Losing slightly better than the other loser means nothing.

People do not vote governments in in this system, they vote them out. Failing to win as a sitting PM means he should be laughed at if he attempts to claim "legitimacy" without sufficient MP's (either individually or in coalition)

But if we are moving away from a purely mathematical definition of legitimacy then we must make allowances for FPTPs strange artefacts, no? I mean, the Cons got a higher vote share in 2010 than Labour did in 2005 - so it's hard to argue that Cameron not getting a majority indicates the government has a lack of legitimacy (ie he failed to get a majority, likely for the second time next week) when the bar for a majority is different for different governments.

Again, in a no mathematical way...

 

[Lego Boss]

Which is silly considering the Miliband play failed. They wanted to be talking about how far behind Labour were at this point. Their entire election strategy has been awful.

Yes but even that might not be enough to kick tge nasty party out.

I met Cameron at my daughter's nursery with a rawning Nicky Morgan in tow. When l called him 'Mr Cameron' instead of 'Prime Minister' his eyes nearly popped out of his skull.

It's the power it gets to everyone eventually to the point where it's about the cult of personality than governing in the majority interest.

 

[CCS]

Me and some friends were having a discussion about some of the party leaders earlier. The consensus we came to:

David Cameron: Smug, and very very punchable.

Nick Clegg: Divided on whether we like him or not, all agree that he's got no backbone though.

Nigel Farage: Everyone hates him.

Ed Miliband: We think he's cute, in a "I want to hug him and reassure him that he can be prime minister" way.

#theyouthspeak

 

[kmag]

But if we are moving away from a purely mathematical definition of legitimacy then we must make allowances for FPTPs strange artefacts, no? I mean, the Cons got a higher vote share in 2010 than Labour did in 2005 - so it's hard to argue that Cameron not getting a majority indicates the government has a lack of legitimacy (ie he failed to get a majority, likely for the second time next week) when the bar for a majority is different for different governments.

Again, in a no mathematical way...

From the cabinet manual (pp 14-15) re the formation of a government after an election:

Parliaments with no overall majority in the House of Commons
2 .12 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 Governments 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.

The notion that Cameron is somehow the legitimate PM if he's the biggest party but facing an majority anti-tory block is ridiculous. There's absolutely no reason why Labour et al should feel pressured to abstain because this notion that the biggest minority party is the 'winner', I appreciate that's not what your saying but it does seem to be the notion that Tory supporters are forming.

 

[hohoXD123]

Come on now, they made things too easy for CCHQ...

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Yes but even that might not be enough to kick tge nasty party out.

I met Cameron at my daughter's nursery with a rawning Nicky Morgan in tow. When l called him 'Mr Cameron' instead of 'Prime Minister' his eyes nearly popped out of his skull.

It's the power it gets to everyone eventually to the point where it's about the cult of personality than governing in the majority interest.

I thought we were supposed to call him 'Dave'?

 

[tomtom94]

Nigel Farage said, without UKIP holding the PM's "feet to the fire", he feared any referendum would not be "fair".

Coming from the party who want the question on a referendum to be as leading as possible that's pretty hilarious.

 

[Blue Lou]

"An NHS" doesn't seem right to me.

 

[CyclopsRock]

From the cabinet manual (pp 14-15) re the formation of a government after an election:


The notion that Cameron is somehow the legitimate PM if he's the biggest party but facing an majority anti-tory block is ridiculous. There's absolutely no reason why Labour et al should feel pressured to abstain because this notion that the biggest minority party is the 'winner', I appreciate that's not what your saying but it does seem to be the notion that Tory supporters are forming.

I think you're misinterpreting Collins's point though - hes not suggesting that Cameron is legitimate, he's saying that Miliband may not be and thus it would be wise to have another election lest the electorate turn against what they see as an illegitimate government (again, this a) depends on the result and b) is Collins's point not mine).

 

[King_Moc]

"An NHS" doesn't seem right to me.

Say "A NHS" out loud. It's "A National Health Service", and "An NHS".

 

[nOoblet16]

, there is little difference between all the parties at heart, all reading off the same neoliberalist playbook Thatcher and Reagan wrote 3 decades ago. le sigh.

This is complete false, you might not agree with Green or you might not think them to be serious enough etc etc, but they are certainly not the "same at heart" as Tories or Labour or others. Frankly, between this and your opinion on EU about how we the people should vote and not the parliament we elect, there seems to be some uninformed and anti-establishment sentiments going on here. You essentially are asking to get rid of representative democracy when it's the only form of democracy that is feasible for a government...direct democracy is simply not an option.

 

[CyclopsRock]

"An NHS" doesn't seem right to me.

I saw on reddit the other day that there are quite a few words in English that uses to begin with an 'n' but because of that weirdness you describe ended up changing. So "apron" used to be "napron" but "a napron" became "an apron" and the rest is history. Maybe we'll end up with "an Ational Health Service"!

 

[Maledict]

I think you're misinterpreting Collins's point though - hes not suggesting that Cameron is legitimate, he's saying that Miliband may not be and thus it would be wise to have another election lest the electorate turn against what they see as an illegitimate government (again, this a) depends on the result and b) is Collins's point not mine).

Thats nonsense though. What happens if they don't produce a majority government a second time around? How many times do we have to go at it before we give up? Why is one type of election result 'legitimate' and another not?

The voters return a parliament, that then produces a government. If no party can pass a Queen's speech then we have to go again, but not because of some weird appeal for 'legitamacy' that so happens to favour one party over another.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

There's a pretty strong correlation between less local immigration and stronger UKIP support that extends nationwide.

Because they don't want it, full stop.

You know why UKIP wants out of Europe? It's got jack shit to do with immigration or sovereignty or any of the bullshit they pretend to care about; they want out because their wealthier backers want to roll back the swathe of worker and consumer protections that the EU fights for.!

TTIP?

 

[RedShift]

Doesn't pretending the election is presidential actually make a Labour government more legitimate? The SNP have been very clear a vote for them is a vote for Miliband in No 10, so in this new presidential system the Tories have dreamt up their votes should really be merged with Labour's. Hell, Plaid and the Greens too.

I'm sure the right wing media won't write it that way but still.

 

[TheOnlyOneHeEverFeared]

I'll put money on labour being in power this time next week.

 

[hohoXD123]

Doesn't pretending the election is presidential actually make a Labour government more legitimate? The SNP have been very clear a vote for them is a vote for Miliband in No 10, so in this new presidential system the Tories have dreamt up their votes should really be merged with Labour's. Hell, Plaid and the Greens too.

I'm sure the right wing media won't write it that way but still.

Sure, anyone who has been following politics at all should know that. The gutter press should make for some delicious reading after the election.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Thats nonsense though. What happens if they don't produce a majority government a second time around? How many times do we have to go at it before we give up? Why is one type of election result 'legitimate' and another not?

The voters return a parliament, that then produces a government. If no party can pass a Queen's speech then we have to go again, but not because of some weird appeal for 'legitamacy' that so happens to favour one party over another.

Well, I guess part of Collins point is that you can't tell people that how they feel is "nonsense" when it comes to if they feel like the government represents the will of the people. Again, he's not talking about if a Labour government could govern, but rather if it would be a good idea if they did.

And it's not the election or the result whose legitimacy is in question. The House is The House is the House, and it'll be whatever the people decide it to be.

Edit: Also, I agree that it shouldn't be so much about the leaders and it should be less presidential, but then, I was against the debates too (and this was the exact reason Thatcher gave for declining to participate).

 

[King_Moc]

I'll put money on labour being in power this time next week.

Even if they get in, I think having the whole thing sorted out in 3 days may be optimistic.

 

[iMax]

I'll put money on labour being in power this time next week.

I'll put 4p on it.

 

[Saiyar]

"An NHS" doesn't seem right to me.

The a/an distinction is based on phonetics, not spelling. An is there to remove glottal stops.

 

[tomtom94]

Seen a post on Facebook by BoJo mocking Miliband's use of the "election stone" and while I think it's pretty dumb I do also feel people who live in glass houses and commission abstract sculptures and Pindaric odes to celebrate the Olympics probably shouldn't throw stones.

 

[CCS]

I have just discovered that I have an event that requires me to get completely plastered at 6pm on election night. Start as you mean to go on I guess... Apologies for my inevitable drunk rant in which I call David Cameron many bad things.

 

[kmag]

Seen a post on Facebook by BoJo mocking Miliband's use of the "election stone" and while I think it's pretty dumb I do also feel people who live in glass houses and commission abstract sculptures and Pindaric odes to celebrate the Olympics probably shouldn't throw stones.

On one level it's a stupid stunt which makes them a look a bit stupid, but it's eaten up a days news cycle and it's not that damaging. You can actually argue that even when it's been mocked it's getting their policies a brief bit of air time. I doubt much is going to change the polls at this point, if any movement is going to come it'll come in the booth.

 

[kitch9]

I'll put money on labour being in power this time next week.

Post election is going to be a cluster fuck of broken promises and vile vitriol that will take a lot of sorting only for it to collapse a couple of months later if the polls are to be believed.

 

[Yen]

https://vine.co/v/e7Dz2w6VlJU

 

[nib95]

https://vine.co/v/e7Dz2w6VlJU

http://bit.ly/1PcwoX0