The Pitters' Place

The only bright side I can see is that 63.1% of people actually didn't vote for the Conservatives. Although a fair chunk of that percentage did vote for UKIP...ugh. Still, the Tories can't touch the NHS, right? I mean, there'd be riots, protests...people would care enough, wouldn't they?

aels wrote:A friend of mine from school just wrote an 800 word FB... thing on that very subject. That the Tories are going to fuck everything over so comprehensively that it's going to take years to sort out.

That'll be the problem. Say the next government is Labour, they'll spend the first 5 year term trying to fix the Tory cock ups. then people will just decide not to vote Labour again, because they haven't made visible changes and it's all their fault so they'll vote Tory again. Because people are idiots and democracy doesn't work

You should have to pass some sort of test in order to vote. Like, there needs to be a large comments box next to each candidate. you have to write 3 party policies in there for your vote to count. If you can't name three, you can't vote.

I would hope so. The NHS is one of the few things I'd be prepared to riot over. If they hacked it up though, it'd all be cloak and dagger shit. They'd never come right out and say 'We're dismantling the NHS' because they're not fucking suicidal but I don't put it at all past them to increase privatisation and shutdown of core services and then dress it up in fancy bullshit.

Blade Azaezel wrote:

aels wrote:A friend of mine from school just wrote an 800 word FB... thing on that very subject. That the Tories are going to fuck everything over so comprehensively that it's going to take years to sort out.

That'll be the problem. Say the next government is Labour, they'll spend the first 5 year term trying to fix the Tory cock ups. then people will just decide not to vote Labour again, because they haven't made visible changes and it's all their fault so they'll vote Tory again. Because people are idiots and democracy doesn't work

You should have to pass some sort of test in order to vote. Like, there needs to be a large comments box next to each candidate. you have to write 3 party policies in there for your vote to count. If you can't name three, you can't vote.

I'm opposed to voter restrictions on principle but I'm not letting anyone from Cornwall vote again. I've decided. It's just a bunch of rich old white fucks who moved here to retire, and poor old white fucks who grew up here, and all of them fear change and brown people and the gays. No more voting south of the Tamar because we don't know what's good for us and we'll happily vote for our own fucking disenfranchisement.

You need to pass exams before you can get into a college, and yet you're free to influence the route the country takes for another 5 years with barely enough education to tie your own shoelaces. I don't like it. People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis. You can't trust people!

I can't disagree with Super Hans. He's a man with a van.

I'm sure there's a good chance the Tories will lose in 2020. The economy will largely be sorted out then and Labour will come in and spend, spend, spend! like they always do with no thought about how we're going to pay for it...

There has to be a middle ground between the two positions.

Blade Azaezel wrote:You should have to pass some sort of test in order to vote. Like, there needs to be a large comments box next to each candidate. you have to write 3 party policies in there for your vote to count. If you can't name three, you can't vote.

I disagree. I not only believe every citizen should have the right to vote; I also believe there should be more direct democracy. Meaning: People who can vote on particular laws. I believe the word is plebiscite.

After all, it's the citizens that are affected by the law; therefore they should have a say.
Switzerland has had this system for quite a while, and it seems to work.

I'm not sure that, because something works in one of the smallest, richest countries in Europe, it'll work in the larger nations.

Blade Azaezel wrote:I'm not sure that, because something works in one of the smallest, richest countries in Europe, it'll work in the larger nations.

We won't know, unless we try it.

OpiateOfTheMasses wrote:
I'm not a fan of ..the SNP

We got a problem m8

She still married him though because women only want to date bastards and not nice guys like me.

I'm not sure what came first, my love of Hermione Granger or my epic crush on Emma Watson. Either way, they've both fed into one another for the last fifteen years and now I want to make her my witchwife!

I basically was Hermione Granger at school except I never brought down any dark wizards. I caught someone out at rounders once but apparently that's not the same thing.

aels wrote:I basically was Hermione Granger at school except I never brought down any dark wizards. I caught someone out at rounders once but apparently that's not the same thing.

Only if they had no nose.

Yeah, they had no nose and then I asked around about how they smelt and the verdict was 'terrible'.

I have no nose and I must sneeze.

So now there are thousands of people protesting in London against the Tory win. It begins

OurGloriousLeader wrote:

OpiateOfTheMasses wrote:
I'm not a fan of ..the SNP

We got a problem m8

Just because I'm Scottish it doesn't mean I want to bankrupt the country or believe that the rest of the UK owes us a living.

On a wider note - the Scottish rejection of Labour and the simultaneous English rejection of Labour has raised an interesting dilemma for the Labour party going forward... To appeal to Scotland and the north of England they will have to move further to the left (i.e. become even more "Old" Labour), but to try to get votes in the South they will need to move back the Blairish "New" Labour.

Which way will they go? Or will they try to invent something new altogether?

By all rights Labour should win the next election because everyone will be thoroughly fed up with Austerity/the Tories and the economy should be somewhat repaired by 2020, but if Labour can't re-invent themselves into something that looks sensible then we could see them effectively self destruct then (again).

Furthermore, if the Tories have half a brain (and they do - it's their soul they're missing) they'll come up with some form of wider devolution which means that there will be an English parliament by 2020 in some form or another. So even if Labour wins back Scotland and keeps Wales, it'll be very hard for them to win outright in England, so we could still see the Tories running England even if Labour wins the UK.

I read an article suggesting the Tories plan to reinvent the boundaries of certain constituencies which could see labour lose 20 seats. Thereby making it harder for them to win next time around.

They wanted to do that in the last parliament but the Lib Dems wouldn't let them, so it makes sense that they're going to try again now.

But of course - everyone hates the Lib Dems 'cos they "betrayed everyone and sided with the Tories". No-one notices all the times they prevented some of the worst excesses of the Tories. (But I've already had this rant, so I won't start that again...)

OpiateOfTheMasses wrote:
Just because I'm Scottish it doesn't mean I want to bankrupt the country or believe that the rest of the UK owes us a living.

Don't fall for the trick that Scottish economy isn't self-sufficient. Our budget, when looked at tax income and expenditure, is no worse than the UK's overall - and that's without looking at oil revenue.

OurGloriousLeader wrote:

OpiateOfTheMasses wrote:
Just because I'm Scottish it doesn't mean I want to bankrupt the country or believe that the rest of the UK owes us a living.

Don't fall for the trick that Scottish economy isn't self-sufficient. Our budget, when looked at tax income and expenditure, is no worse than the UK's overall - and that's without looking at oil revenue.

I'm not falling for it. I absolutely believe that Scotland could be an economically viable independent country...

...just not with Sturgeon or Salmond anywhere near the reigns of power.

Why are all SNP leaders named after fish?

OpiateOfTheMasses wrote:

OurGloriousLeader wrote: I'm not falling for it. I absolutely believe that Scotland could be an economically viable independent country...

...just not with Sturgeon or Salmond anywhere near the reigns of power.

I think it's unlikely they can be that incompetent.

OurGloriousLeader wrote:

OpiateOfTheMasses wrote:

OurGloriousLeader wrote: I'm not falling for it. I absolutely believe that Scotland could be an economically viable independent country...

...just not with Sturgeon or Salmond anywhere near the reigns of power.

I think it's unlikely they can be that incompetent.

Their stated policies and historical actions would suggest otherwise...

It'll be interesting to see what happens over the next 6 to 12 months. I suspect the Tories may offer Scotland much more power to raise monies as well as the power to spend them too. Effectively "Devo Maxed out". It'll be interesting to see how keen the SNP are to take responsibility for raising money themselves rather than having the convenience of blaming others for not giving them enough and if they do take those powers, how well they cope with them...

I suspect you'll see them trotting out dozens of excuses as to why they can't accept the proposals rather than biting their hand off to prove how much better they'd use them.

Doubt it

It's already started. They're arguing that he's not giving them enough powers. He'll end up giving them more powers. They'll argue that they're still not enough powers. And then either refuse to take them or more likely take them and then blame the lack of the full powers on why everything failed.

It can never be their fault.

SNP have proven themselves willing and able of taking devolved powers and using them to enact admittedly populist policies. They will ask for more, they will get more, then they will use them.

Try reading OGL's post in Liam Neeson's voice.

CashRules wrote:Try reading OGL's post in Liam Neeson's voice.

The last part does sound a lot like a "Taken" quote.

OurGloriousLeader wrote:SNP have proven themselves willing and able of taking devolved powers and using them to enact admittedly populist policies. They will ask for more, they will get more, then they will use them.

Enacting only populist policies is the problem. What do people want? They want more money spent on pretty much everything, they want more welfare spend (particularly on the "deserving poor"), they want more education, they want more health care, etc. They also want more free things like prescriptions, tuition and residential care. Oh - and they don't want to have to pay any more taxes for any of it - someone else can pay for all of it. Or they can borrow the money. Or - well it doesn't really matter because Joe Public has completely lost interest where the money comes from as long as it's not him and as long as they get all the Populist things they wanted.

So in the short term, as long as you're happy to rack up the debt it's really easy to be popular if you're willing to borrow like there's no tomorrow. Just spend, spend, spend. And at the moment, they've got a nice fall back position that they can't do everything they're promising 'cos Westminster won't let them (rather than the truth which is that it just doesn't add up), but as they're offered more and more powers they will have to start making real decisions and admitting that they can't afford to give everything to everyone.

And that populist sheen will start to tarnish.

So the SNP will fight to look like they want the power, but ultimately they will be fighting to make sure they keep a "Get out of Jail Free" card explaining why everything's gone to shit because Westminster wouldn't let them control the TV Licences fees any other bollocks reason they can think of.