2015 post UK election discussion

[roydo]

But how? Labour wouldn't have had to listen to anything the SNP wanted to play fast and loose with. They simply would have voted his policies through the commons or faced being rejected next time round for letting the Tories in.

Yeah, but those policies wouldnt have been agreed on without huge concessions to the SNP. And if one of those concessions is another referendum after the Holyrood elections next year, they couldnt give a stuff who is in power in England if they get Independence.

After all, that is the central point to their existence. They would have had a golden chance to wring every last drop out of the UK, then chip off.

Then again, they could end up doing deals with Cameron at times, if his nutters play up, and a policy helps Scotland!

 

[davek]

Through gritted teeth I have to say it was a stunning win. Never in a million years would I have predicted that. He has had his career defining moment he craved so much, in 50 years time it will still be the election which commentators refer to most.

The Atlee Labour Government of 1945 is the only election ever to be talked about with reverence. That changed a whole nation inside out. It was like the Domesday Book for the Tories and their backers.

Every single election since (this one included) has been all about reforming and then demolishing what was built in the late 40s/early 50s. Thatcher wan't a revolution, it was a counter revolution: nasty and horrific yes, but a mere picking away at the edges of what that Labour Government put in place. A true monument run by giant figures, unlike the microbes in government currently wielding power.

 

[Seanjd]

Yep, that could happen. No doubt. He has a honeymoon period until the G&T swilling golf club 1922 lot stop thanking him for getting them back in, (mind you, most of that lot would still be elected come what may I would guess).

Will he last the full term? 50/50 imo. Depends who the LP get in charge I suppose. Its a pretty slim looking list atm.

Indeed, if have any chance, they really do need that 'hard leader' type. It pains me to say it, but Burnham won't cut it (his brother thought me when I was at college funnily enough), although I would agree with most of his ideas.

Cameron needs to be careful. Especially with the rise of UKIP. You could imagine more of those back benches defecting over the next 5 years if he doesn't keep them happy, which is terrifying if you aren't a bigoted loonatic.

 

[SNova]

But how? Labour wouldn't have had to listen to anything the SNP wanted to play fast and loose with. They simply would have voted his policies through the commons or faced being rejected next time round for letting the Tories in.

I remember hearing that they would want to scrap Trident before helping labour into power.

 

[Seanjd]

The Atlee Labour Government of 1945 is the only election ever to be talked about with reverence. That changed a whole nation inside out. It was like the Domesday Book for the Tories and their backers.

Every single election since (this one included) has been all about reforming and then demolishing what was built in the late 40s/early 50s. Thatcher wan't a revolution, it was a counter revolution: nasty and horrific yes, but a mere picking away at the edges of what that Labour Government put in place. A true monument run by giant figures, unlike the microbes in government currently wielding power.

I have no doubt that Cameron will be looked back at with more disdain and anger than Thatcher by the likes of you and me in years to come.

 

[daylightrobber]

Yep, that could happen. No doubt. He has a honeymoon period until the G&T swilling golf club 1922 lot stop thanking him for getting them back in, (mind you, most of that lot would still be elected come what may I would guess).

Will he last the full term? 50/50 imo. Depends who the LP get in charge I suppose. Its a pretty slim looking list atm.

I pointed out early on in the thread that there are a significant of Lib Dem Lords in the upper house. Many are feeling betrayed. I think they may be problematic at times.

 

[Seanjd]

I remember hearing that they would want to scrap Trident before helping labour into power.

Again, it's wishful thinking. They still would have propped up a Lab gov simply by voting with them if it meant no Tories.

 

[roydo]

Indeed, if have any chance, they really do need that 'hard leader' type. It pains me to say it, but Burnham won't cut it (his brother thought me when I was at college funnily enough), although I would agree with most of his ideas.

Cameron needs to be careful. Especially with the rise of UKIP. You could imagine more of those back benches defecting over the next 5 years if he doesn't keep them happy, which is terrifying if you aren't a bigoted loonatic.

Indeed he does. It is sad really. The Labour Party have a long and proud tradition of strong, principled, leaders and MPs; I remember when John Smith sadly died, and John Major said "He, (Smith), was an opponent, but never an enemy"

And although I have tended to disagree with most of their leaders, I would say the same about most of them. Foot maybe not though. he was a bit bonkers!

 

[SNova]

Again, it's wishful thinking. They still would have propped up a Lab gov simply by voting with them if it meant no Tories.

Still, it's one of those things that probably helped put the tories into government.

 

[davek]

Not from my view point mate. I have been consistent on this for months. The SNP would have relished playing fast and loose with Ed. Make no bones about it.

I said a few weeks back that I would rather have a Labour majority win than some cobbled together "agreements" with a minority Labour win/SNP.

Mate, two things:

1/ isn't this SNP stuff just a fig leaf - a flag of convenience - used by people a little bit ashamed of voting these monsters in again?

2/ Cameron - you seem to believe he's a Tory patrician (some sort of One Nation good egg) who can be differentiated from the nasty barking mad backwoodsman Tory backbenchers and ideologues. He cant. He's truly 100% committed to this unfolding horror show of £12B of welfare cuts.

I detect (not just with you) a bit of rowing back and covering of bases in the aftermath of the election. I reckon you and others thought this would be a hung parliament and that £12B to be cut would be off the table due to coalition demands tempering the Tories. Well, they are untethered now and they WILL tear this place apart. You seem like a decent sort so I'll say this now: I guarantee in 2 years time you'll be sorry you chose to give this lot your backing...and you wont be on your own either.

 

[Seanjd]

Still, it's one of those things that probably helped put the tories into government.

That's true, it may have contributed.

 

[roydo]

Again, it's wishful thinking. They still would have propped up a Lab gov simply by voting with them if it meant no Tories.

Not a chance the SNP would vote for Trident. They would vote No, but the policy would have carried with the Tories supporting Labour on it.

Ifs and buts though.

 

[davek]

I have no doubt that Cameron will be looked back at with more disdain and anger than Thatcher by the likes of you and me in years to come.

Yes, and that'll be because everyone had the Thatcher period to guide them away from this decision they've made.

I'm kin furious this is happening again in my lifetime. An absolute pisstake that people have fallen for the same trick again.

 

[chewee]

The Atlee Labour Government of 1945 is the only election ever to be talked about with reverence. That changed a whole nation inside out. It was like the Domesday Book for the Tories and their backers.

Every single election since (this one included) has been all about reforming and then demolishing what was built in the late 40s/early 50s. Thatcher wan't a revolution, it was a counter revolution: nasty and horrific yes, but a mere picking away at the edges of what that Labour Government put in place. A true monument run by giant figures, unlike the microbes in government currently wielding power.

Indeed it was a government for the people that improved the lives of tens of millions. Atlee is a hugely underrated figure in British history, what he did was nothing short of staggering in such a short space of time.

That last era of concensus was ushered in on the back of WW2, it would take something dramatic like that again to change the selfish, self centred nature of Britains concious.

 

[roydo]

Mate, two things:

1/ isn't this SNP stuff just a fig leaf - a flag of convenience - used by people a little bit ashamed of voting these monsters in again?

2/ Cameron - you seem to believe he's a Tory patrician (some sort of One Nation good egg) who can be differentiated from the nasty barking mad backwoodsman Tory backbenchers and ideologues. He cant. He's truly 100% committed to this unfolding horror show of £12B of welfare cuts.

I detect (not just with you) a bit of rowing back and covering of bases in the aftermath of the election. I reckon you and others thought this would be a hung parliament and that £12B to be cut would be off the table due to coalition demands tempering the Tories. Well, they ae untethered now and they WILL rear this place apart. You seem like a decent sort so I'll say this now: I guarantee in 2 years time you'll be sorry you chose to give this lot your backing...and you wont be on your own either.

Deffo thought it would be a hung result mate. And my position on the role the SNP might have played in that has been consistent for ages, going back to the referendum debates we had.

I dont share the description of them being "monsters" as it happens. Nor do I subscribe to the narrative that on Monday morning Whitehall will be crawling with Gerald Scarff cartoons hunting out the most vulnerable to attack as malingers and servs to be destroyed.

I may well be sorry in 2 years time, because the right wing of the the Tories, by then, could hold a gun to Camerons head, on Europe in particular.

But I would rather have a majority Government, of either shade, rather than a minority one dependent on a single(ish) issue party with zero interest in the welfare of the English, Welsh, or Northern Irish. Rich or poor.