Why the Tories Won

Shakethedisease

wotsthat wrote: »

We'll see - I doubt the SNP politicians have smaller egos or are any less ambitious than the rest. Won't be long before there's friction between those elected to serve in Westminster and their leader (who wasn't) 'calling the shots' from 400 miles away.

Westminster is a means to a 'possible' end. Not the be all for an SNP politician. In fact, imo it will be in the SNP's favour that their leader won't be there. It will create a 'distancing' for Sturgeon and free her to see the bigger picture rather than getting sucked into the system as other leaders do.

Moby

antrobus wrote: »

The problem isn't to find those policies that involve the promise of increased funding that will get votes. The problem is to find those policies that involve raising the necessary money to pay for it that doesn't lose votes.:)

That's the Labour Party's central dilemma. It seems extraordinarily reluctant to suggest any increases in taxation. No amount of marginal tinkering with the tax system (e.g. mansion tax), or indeed vague promises to tackle tax avoidance or evasion in some more vigorous fashion than is currently the case, is going to raise that much in the way of hard cash.

If you want Scandinavian levels of public services you need Scandinavian levels of taxation.

Point taken but I thought one of the main issues in the campaign was how the tories were going to find the money to fund their promises to the NHS....what was it again 8 billion extra a year?

chewmylegoff

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I'm not suggesting anything anything of the sort.

I will criticise any MP, SNP included, for using negative campaigning, especially if not using specific facts.

As an example, I believe all MP's should see clarity of where the funds are coming from and where they are being spent, so instead of bickering that parties manifestos are unsubstantiated, the truth can be discussed.

If one party is spending 2.4% of the revenues on budget and another party shows 2.2%, then they can articulate where that 0.2% is being prioritised elsewhere

The electorate then get the opportunity to clearly see which manifesto they prefer.

The problem I foresee though is that the differences probably would be so little that it would be difficult to differentiate without the magnification spin and bullsh!t that we get.

One of the best things about the election campaign was that the general public did not let the politicians get away with not answering the question posed

Fully costed spending plans are just spin and bullsh1t as well because no party has any idea what tax revenues are going to be, how much revenue their changes to the tax system will raise, how much their spending pledges will actually cost etc.

The Green Party published a fully costed spending plan in its manifesto which was just complete nonsense. It might as well just have been constructed by a random number generator especially the income bits. There is little value to having an appendix in the manifesto with some made up numbers in it.

This is not to say that parties shouldn't be pushed to give more detail on exactly how they will pay for the pie in the sky pledges they put in their manifestos but if you're expecting that to result in a moral evolution in politics you're dreaming.

The main problem is that politicians are trying to be elected by the electorate. As long as people respond to their lies and bullsh1t by voting for it then they will all continue to give us lies and bullsh1t. We keep voting for the same parties on the same basis and expecting a different result. The problems with the way politicians act will persist as long as they are human beings elected by a bigger crowd of human beings. Perhaps if we replace them and us with computers....

wotsthat

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Certainly nothing to note so far that indicated there will be disharmony in the SNP like the other parties have shown over the years.

Maybe your just wishing for this a little too hopefully

They've never had 56 MP's before - that's going to be difficult to manage and not helped by the party leader not having a seat herself. That's new territory.

The Tories have a similar problem - they'll have MP's willing to leverage the slim majority for their own ends.

wotsthat

Shakethedisease wrote: »

Westminster is a means to a 'possible' end. Not the be all for an SNP politician. In fact, imo it will be in the SNP's favour that their leader won't be there. It will create a 'distancing' for Sturgeon and free her to see the bigger picture rather than getting sucked into the system as other leaders do.

It's not as if the SNP strategy is so complicated they need a master strategist based 400 miles away directing operations.

Maybe she just didn't expect to get so many MP's and didn't have the bottle to put herself forward?

chris_m

chewmylegoff wrote: »

The Green Party published a fully costed spending plan in its manifesto which was just complete nonsense. It might as well just have been constructed by a random number generator especially the income bits. There is little value to having an appendix in the manifesto with some made up numbers in it.

One can put whatever one likes in a manifesto when one knows that there is zero chance of having to deliver against it

gadgetmind

Unless you carve it in stone.

Thrugelmir

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I understand the SNP was very clear about setting out the £140 Billion programme for delivery on a UK-wide basis over the course of the parliament.

And the figures under proper analysis and scrutiny did not add up. There were black holes. Given the current state of finances not a sensible approach to managing an economy.

Generali

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

One would beg to differ.

But then my opinion is one of a voter who resides in Scotland and whose vote value is being considered, whilst your opinion is of one who has never voted in Scotland, didn't vote in the election and resides in Australia.

How can you truly believe that 56 seats that represent the majority of the voting electorate to be meaningless.

If these MP's have no purpose or reason, then why have a House of Commons where opposition parties meet with the government?

Do you really believe that the value of 56 SNP MPs returned from Scotland is greater than 56 Conservative MPs returned from the South East of England?

Shakethedisease

wotsthat wrote: »

It's not as if the SNP strategy is so complicated they need a master strategist based 400 miles away directing operations.

Maybe she just didn't expect to get so many MP's and didn't have the bottle to put herself forward?

She's the First Minister of Scotland. You need to be an MSP for that. And I highly doubt she ever wants to set foot in Westminster as an MP. And do remember.. 56 out of the 56 MP's elected to Westminster, aren't planning on being there forever either. Most of them were prominent in the Yes campaign for independence just eight months ago.

It was a No, of course. So we've all have to get on with that, and accept it. But imo, Nicola Sturgeon not being part of Westminster, is a distinct advantage. These days Holyrood is far more relevant in the day to day lives of most Scots than Westminster is. So I wouldn't sweat the 400 miles thing too much. We aren't.