AND HERE WE GO - THE 2019 GENERAL ELECTION THREAD

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

None of which makes the SNP relevant to the rest of the UK.

If we were to have a vote in any future independence referendum it would be a different matter.

If the rest of the UK were to wish the union to remain intact then it is vitally important that the Conservatives and Labour parties in Scotland are able to counter what the SNP say - so what the SNP say then matters for the Conservatives and Labour parties in Scotland. But whatever these parties might say is currently undermined in the view of many Scots by their take on the Westminster parties; their policies and the voting intentions of the rUK.

Plus some areas of policy are not devolved to Holyrood. And so if Westminster parties policy is divergent from that of the SNP, then that again is grist for the mill for the SNP (Brexit being the obvious example); and of course the funding of many services in Scotland is determined through the Barnett formula upon the spending on the equivalent services determined by Westminster. Not that any of the above seems to matter one iota to Labour and Conservative Westminster parties - maybe they should give it a bit more consideration if they wish the union to remain intact. If not that bothered - then bash on!

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

There is SNP representation in Westminster. They represent Scottish voters. Of course they are relevant. Westminster isn't just for the English. DUP are there, Plaid Cymru are there... what a bizarre post!

indeed - and if the SNP in Westminster had been supportive of the government on Brexit over the last three years ?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I mentioned to Missis T that the party that i could relate to was the LIB Dems, however the fact they will ignore a democratic vote kicked that in the head.

The LibDems will only 'ignore' a democratic vote if the will of the people as expressed in the forthcoming GE tells them to do so.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

indeed - and if the SNP in Westminster had been supportive of the government on Brexit over the last three years ?

None of which alters the position of voters in England in regard to the SNP.

They are not on the ballot paper.

BTW none of this is anti-Scottish as I am in favour of independence for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In the latter case I would prefer to see a united Ireland.

I would also like to see far more powers devolved to the English regions and away from Westminster.

 

[HughJars]

And Labour's current promises to WASPI women?

Cut rail fares by a third?

Neither yet costed but still "promised".

Where is any of that any different?

And yes it was known that Blair and Campbell were lying on WMD.

And Wilson and his then Chancellor knew that they were misleading the public to get us to believe that devaluation would have no effect upon us.

"promises" - they are campaign promises, they may not meet them, in which case vote them out, but that's what they say they'll do.

Meanwhile the Tories state they will add 50,000 new nurses, except they're not, their own policy clearly states it'll be 31,000. They state they'll build 40 new hospitals, except their own policy says no such thing, it's refurbishing, and only 6 at present. That's two outright lies. Whereas labour are promising a policy to those figures. You can;t say they're the same, they're not. The Tories are lying to your face.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

"promises" - they are campaign promises, they may not meet them, in which case vote them out, but that's what they say they'll do.

Meanwhile the Tories state they will add 50,000 new nurses, except they're not, their own policy clearly states it'll be 31,000. They state they'll build 40 new hospitals, except their own policy says no such thing, it's refurbishing, and only 6 at present. That's two outright lies. Whereas labour are promising a policy to those figures. You can;t say they're the same, they're not. The Tories are lying to your face.

And so are Labour!

Your one-eyed view of this is bordering on childlike.

 

[HughJars]

And so are Labour!

Your one-eyed view of this is bordering on childlike.

Which part of the labour policy doesn't bear up? I've given you two policy claims that the Tories have made that are patently untrue. Name one Labour one?

 

[Hobbit]

None of which alters the position of voters in England in regard to the SNP.

They are not on the ballot paper.

BTW none of this is anti-Scottish as I am in favour of independence for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In the latter case I would prefer to see a united Ireland.

I would also like to see far more powers devolved to the English regions and away from Westminster.

Why doesn't it alter the position of voters in England? As previously stated, the SNP could support a minority Labour govt. What would be the trade off in that? We know some of the SNP policy promises from their manifesto, and no doubt some of them would be on the table.

And there are constituencies in England that don't have a candidate from some parties, i.e. they don't appear on the ballot paper.

You believe they are an irrelevance in England. I disagree - someone might be a floating voter, considering Labour but decide against it because of the prospect of SNP influence. Ergo they are relevant.

 

[Hobbit]

Which part of the labour policy doesn't bear up? I've given you two policy claims that the Tories have made that are patently untrue. Name one Labour one?

The taking away the married allowance? "95% of people won't pay more tax, on the top 5%." = a Labour lie. If someone loses the married allowance they will pay more tax.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

Why doesn't it alter the position of voters in England? As previously stated, the SNP could support a minority Labour govt. What would be the trade off in that? We know some of the SNP policy promises from their manifesto, and no doubt some of them would be on the table.

And there are constituencies in England that don't have a candidate from some parties, i.e. they don't appear on the ballot paper.

You believe they are an irrelevance in England. I disagree - someone might be a floating voter, considering Labour but decide against it because of the prospect of SNP influence. Ergo they are relevant.

Personally I prefer to vote based upon issues and policies rather than potential outcomes.

On that basis the SNP are irrelevant to me but I accept that others my vote on a different basis.

 

[drdel]

If the rest of the UK were to wish the union to remain intact then it is vitally important that the Conservatives and Labour parties in Scotland are able to counter what the SNP say - so what the SNP say then matters for the Conservatives and Labour parties in Scotland. But whatever these parties might say is currently undermined in the view of many Scots by their take on the Westminster parties; their policies and the voting intentions of the rUK.

Plus some areas of policy are not devolved to Holyrood. And so if Westminster parties policy is divergent from that of the SNP, then that again is grist for the mill for the SNP (Brexit being the obvious example); and of course the funding of many services in Scotland is determined through the Barnett formula upon the spending on the equivalent services determined by Westminster. Not that any of the above seems to matter one iota to Labour and Conservative Westminster parties - maybe they should give it a bit more consideration if they wish the union to remain intact. If not that bothered - then bash on!

So a Scottish voter of a 5mill pop can influence the UK government and the place of Scotland in the UK. However any other resident (62milll) cannot influence Scotland's government (other than indirectly) and neither can they influence a decision on the unity of the UK. If the Scottish want the rUK to be concerned then IMO we should have a vote if not then why is there a relevance?

 

[Deleted member 18588]

Which part of the labour policy doesn't bear up? I've given you two policy claims that the Tories have made that are patently untrue. Name one Labour one?

So the manifesto was fully costed in advance, as claimed and the independent bodies that looked at it were wrong.

To make election pledges that you know to be impossible to fulfill is as bad as lying.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

So the manifesto was fully costed in advance, as claimed and the independent bodies that looked at it were wrong.

To make election pledges that you know to be impossible to fulfill is as bad as lying.

I believe they have lied in some areas, but they will also quote the 130 economists who have supported it and say it can be done.
Independent bodies have been used by both sides to prove or disprove the opposition.

 

[patricks148]

So a Scottish voter of a 5mill pop can influence the UK government and the place of Scotland in the UK. However any other resident (62milll) cannot influence Scotland's government (other than indirectly) and neither can they influence a decision on the unity of the UK. If the Scottish want the rUK to be concerned then IMO we should have a vote if not then why is there a relevance?

just shows times have changes, pleanty of instances where scotland got a Gov it didn't vote for, despite not having a single Tory MP on occasion they still were foisted with a Conservative Gov, one that used it a a testing ground for Unpopular bills such as the Poll Tax .

 

[Deleted member 18588]

I believe they have lied in some areas, but they will also quote the 130 economists who have supported it and say it can be done.
Independent bodies have been used by both sides to prove or disprove the opposition.

I accept what you say but struggle to see how the additions that are being attached (WASPI, rail fares etc.) can have been costed within it.

All my adult life I have heard politicians promising whatever they thought they needed to say to secure my vote and, without exception, they have failed to deliver on those promises.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I accept what you say but struggle to see how the additions that are being attached (WASPI, rail fares etc.) can have been costed within it.

All my adult life I have heard politicians promising whatever they thought they needed to say to secure my vote and, without exception, they have failed to deliver on those promises.

That’s a different point though, the manifesto they claimed was fully costed, the add ons afterwards were not in the manifesto and they’ve said they will borrow to cover those areas.
I wouldn’t expect any party to have a manifesto that covers every eventuality.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

just shows times have changes, pleanty of instances where scotland got a Gov it didn't vote for, despite not having a single Tory MP on occasion they still were foisted with a Conservative Gov, one that used it a a testing ground for Unpopular bills such as the Poll Tax .

Ah! The old two wrongs make a right argument.

The reverse of your quoted scenario has also been true with Labour being in power nationally on the back of Scottish votes and England having a Government it did not vote for.

More reason for independence for Scotland and others together with devolution for English regions.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

That’s a different point though, the manifesto they claimed was fully costed, the add ons afterwards were not in the manifesto and they’ve said they will borrow to cover those areas.
I wouldn’t expect any party to have a manifesto that covers every eventuality.

OK if you are happy to accept the basis of costing the manifesto.

Personally I tend to agree with those that maintain the assumptions being made for the economy and, thus, tax take are unrealistic.

 

[spongebob59]

Laura Pillock just been on the radio saying the 4 day week isn't a Labour policy merely an aspirat ion, a soundboard they got out there ,now seems it's backtracking. Suspect they'll be a lot of this. Wonder if they correct this i n the wider nationa l coverage.

 

[SocketRocket]

I accept what you say but struggle to see how the additions that are being attached (WASPI, rail fares etc.) can have been costed within it.

All my adult life I have heard politicians promising whatever they thought they needed to say to secure my vote and, without exception, they have failed to deliver on those promises.

Because something is costed doesn't make it affordable