The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[graeme2911]

Which policies would they be.

I dunno....maybe just some small issues like making immigration out to be a huge problem, when in fact it benefits the country.
A not fully costed manifesto
Fracking
Full nuclear power dependancy
Cutting the high tax bracket for those who can afford to pay a tiny bit more in comparison
Leaving the EU which will cause huge damage to UKs economy, and investment desirability from overseas.
Leaving the EU which restricts free movement for UK citizens
Privatisation of public sectors, incuding NHS
Not to mention "send the buggers back" which would likely destroy the NHS.

Other non-policy related things:
UKIP are funded by a large amount of Tory donors.
UKIP is a haven for disgraced, exhiled or generally dislike MPs - mainly from the Tory party.
There are almost daily reports of UKIP candidates getting into bother for some form or bigotry or racism.

That's the short version.

 

[1966efc]

Overall spending for education between the ages of 3 and 18. Labour have said they'll protect the budget as it stands, not taking into account an anticipated increase in pupil numbers of 7% during the next parliament. The Tories have said they will guarantee per pupil spending, not taking into account inflation which is expected to be around 7% during the next parliament.

Both parties will have a significant real term cut to school level education funding if that is the case.

You're right & it's shameful (though I think the rise in primary is 18% - would need to double check).

 

[SNova]

I dunno....maybe just some small issues like making immigration out to be a huge problem, when in fact it benefits the country.
A not fully costed manifesto
Fracking
Full nuclear power dependancy
Cutting the high tax bracket for those who can afford to pay a tiny bit more in comparison
Leaving the EU which will cause huge damage to UKs economy, and investment desirability from overseas.
Leaving the EU which restricts free movement for UK citizens
Privatisation of public sectors, incuding NHS
Not to mention "send the buggers back" which would likely destroy the NHS.

Other non-policy related things:
UKIP are funded by a large amount of Tory donors.
UKIP is a haven for disgraced, exhiled or generally dislike MPs - mainly from the Tory party.
There are almost daily reports of UKIP candidates getting into bother for some form or bigotry or racism.

That's the short version.

Lol. Clearly haven't read the manifesto.

 

[Clint Planet]

Overall spending for education between the ages of 3 and 18. Labour have said they'll protect the budget as it stands, not taking into account an anticipated increase in pupil numbers of 7% during the next parliament. The Tories have said they will guarantee per pupil spending, not taking into account inflation which is expected to be around 7% during the next parliament.

Both parties will have a significant real term cut to school level education funding if that is the case.

So, if it's even stevens, let's vote with the teacher shortage in mind.

 

[graeme2911]

Lol. Clearly haven't read the manifesto.

LOL. I have.
It is the one with just one black person in, right?

 

[Chang Elephant]

Now now, they also intend to shrink the state, to the point that schools suffer and crime rises significantly, wouldn't want to vote for that?

Shrink the state to the point that the UK is just one gigantic floating tax haven for the criminals of the world and we'll all share the benefits

 

[SNova]

LOL. I have.
It is the one with just one black person in, right?

If you have you've literally just lied about their polices.
And really? How racist would it be to actually point that out. There was definitely more than one in the manifesto because Steven Woolfe is mixed race.

 

[Brennan]

So, if it's even stevens, let's vote with the teacher shortage in mind.

It's not even though, as far as i can tell.

Labour have just said they will protect the current budget, so that will fail on two counts. 1. Inflation 2. Increase in pupil numbers.

While the Tory policy isn't ideal either it will at least guarantee that every child who joins the education system in the next five years will receive the same level of funding as children do currently. It doesn't take into account inflation but that seems the superior option.

 

[graeme2911]

If you have you've literally just lied about their polices.
And really? How racist would it be to actually point that out. There was definitely more than one in the manifesto because Steven Woolfe is mixed race.

Hahaha, hilarious. Yes, pointing out a right wing political party's intolerance and non-acceptance of other ethnicities makes me a racist. It's this sort of hysterical offence which has given UKIP it's "popularity".

If you have read the manifesto, you have literally just misunderstood their policies, and fallen for their "party for the everyday people" rhetoric. Farage went to one of the most elite schools in the country btw. Just like most of their MPs and donors. They are the epitomy of self serving.

 

[SNova]

Hahaha, hilarious. Yes, pointing out a right wing political party's intolerance and non-acceptance of other ethnicities makes me a racist. It's this sort of hysterical offence which has given UKIP it's "popularity".

If you have read the manifesto, you have literally just misunderstood their policies, and fallen for their "party for the everyday people" rhetoric. Farage went to one of the most elite schools in the country btw. Just like most of their MPs and donors. They are the epitomy of self serving.

Show me the policy that wants to privatise the NHS. Or send the buggers back as you put it.

I'm actually pretty certain that Labours manifesto had less if not the same amount of non white faces. Not that it matters, because it's just bloody skin colour.

 

[harry]

LOL. I have.
It is the one with just one black person in, right?

The old race card eh, i was waiting for this one. This usually means you are losing the debate.

 

[Eggs]

I don't know how this conclusion can be reached though Eggs.

We live in a parliamentary democracy which allows parliament to determine who governs the country. We, the electorate can determine through our votes who we elect to represent us at constituency level in the House of Commons, no more. When we vote we are not voting for a party to govern, we are voting for an individual to represent the constituency we reside in.

It is very clear from the processes within the Cabinet Manual what should happen in the event of a single party not having an overall majority.

Firstly the continuation rule is applied, i.e. the previous incumbent is entitled to see if he/she can command the confidence of the house.

In the event of that not being possible the incumbent resigns and the Queen will "invite the person who appears most likely to be able to command the confidence of the House to serve as Prime Minister and to form a government”. This is the gravitational principle, according to which the person mostly likely to succeed at the task is entrusted with forming the government.

Nowhere does it state that this person must have the largest number of seats in the House (the plurality principle), only that he/she can command the confidence of the House.

This principle has been in force since the mid 19th century

There is an alternative principle that was last used in 1924 when removing Baldwin's Government. This is when the party deemed responsible for stopping the previous incumbents from regaining power is asked to form a Government and is known as the fault principle. Following the Fixed Term Parliamentary Act of 2011 this may well be used in asking Labour to form a minority Government with the confidence of the House.

.......as you indicate much of this is down to convention. I'm only repeating a steer I have heard a few times now that Labour grandees would advise Milliband against forming a government if the gap between the Tory's is too big (10-15 seats is the sort of margin suggested). My simplistic thinking is that it shouldn't matter as long as a majority is secured that enables Labour to function, I also think 10 seats or so isn't that much in the scheme of things.

The days/weeks after the election could be fascinating.

 

[neil999]

russell brand has just endorsed voting labour...interesting

 

[Jxg]

How is warning against voting Conservative with reference to their policies on benefits and sanctions in any way similar to linking Labour to the Rotherham incident?

The lad implied that if you consider voting for the Conservatives, you need to keep in mind that their policies killed numerous people.

I'm saying that based on that, if you consider voting for Labour, you need to keep in mind their policy of "appeasement" in Rotherham which saw... well, I'd rather not type it. Silly comparison? They both are.

 

[Mrk]

russell brand has just endorsed voting labour...interesting

Well that's convinced me...




Vote Tory.