Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP

Salmond confirmed as standing in Westminster. Buzzing to see that.:lol:
 
Nigel Farage has blamed not being able to make it to a UKIP event due to traffic on immigration. What a guy.
 
Think I'll probably give my vote to the Greens next year. Tories got 42% of the vote in my area last time so there isn't gonna be a swing even if UKIP split their vote quite dramatically. I despise Labour too, the only way I'd vote for them would be if they had a genuine chance of ousting the Tories. Hopefully if the Greens do relatively well the "wasted vote" argument will slowly start to lose it's validity.

Unless the Monster Raving Loony Party are standing in my area, of course. Then they get my vote.
 
Last edited:
SNP on course to hold balance of power in Westminster, according to new poll showing depth of Labour's collapse

Nationalists expected to take 54 of Scotland's 59 constituencies next May in poll predictions that could see Alex Salmond become minister in next UK Government

By Ben Riley-Smith, Political Correspondent
22 Dec 2014

The SNP is on course to hold the balance of power in Westminster after the next election as a poll revealed almost half of all Scottish voters plan to back the party.

A staggering collapse in Labour's appeal north of the border will see the Nationalists win 54 of the 59 Scottish constituencies and play a central role in any Coalition negotiations, pollsters found.

The predictions raise the prospect of Alex Salmond, the SNP's former First Minister who is running for Parliament, becoming a minister in the next UK Government – a scenario unimaginable six months ago when he led the campaign to break up the Union with Scottish independence.

The poll also reveals the depth of Labour's problem in Scotland and reveals the challenge Jim Murphy faces in turning around the party's fortunes after becoming Scottish Labour leader.

The loss of 37 of Labour's 41 seats in Scotland could prove fatal to Ed Miliband's hopes of entering Number 10, losing a power base the party has enjoyed for decades.

Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP leader and First Minister of Scotland, said the poll was a "great early Christmas present" for the party and promised a renewed push after the New Year to get the "strongest possible voice" in Westminster.

The Survation poll for the Daily Record predicted 48 per cent of voters will back the SNP next May – its highest ever predicted vote share in Westminster elections from the pollster.

Labour is expected to get 24 per cent, Conservatives 16 per cent, Liberal Democrats 5 per cent and the UK Independence Party 4 per cent.

Mr Salmond, who is expected to win the seat of Gordon next May, has suggested SNP MPs could controversially break with convention and start voting on English-only laws to prop up a Labour Government.

The prospect of a party set on Scottish independence holding close to one in six seats in Westminster could trigger fresh concerns for the state of the Union less than a year after Scots voted to stay in the UK by 55 per cent to 45 per cent.

Mr Salmond recently told The Independent there could be a "balanced" Parliament after the May election, adding: "That’s an opportunity to have delivered to Scotland what we have been promised" – a reference to the package of new powers which has been agreed for Holyrood.

Mr Murphy reacted to the poll by restating his autonomy from the party's Westminster leadership and warned a vote for the SNP would let David Cameron keep the keys to Downing Street.

"Scottish Labour is changing. We are one week into a new leadership team and really determined to change. We are rewriting the party's constitution so that decisions about Scotland are made here in Scotland. The days of the Scottish Labour leader having to ask the party in London about things are gone and gone for good," Mr Murphy said.

He added: "During the referendum Scotland was divided between Yes or No. But in the general election most Scots will be united in wanting to get David Cameron out of Downing Street. The choice Scots will face next year is between sending SNP MPs to the House of Commons to protest against the Tories, or Scottish Labour MPs who will remove the Tories. Voting SNP or Green in 2015 could accidentally keep the Tories in power."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...w-poll-showing-depth-of-Labours-collapse.html
Click to expand...
 
The SNP won't get as many as 54, but yeah, they'll probably hold the balance of power and take a shitload of Labour seats. At the moment, I think they'll get somewhere between 30 and 40.
 
BBC journalist Norman Smith is booed by Labour Party supporters

The BBC's Norman Smith was heckled as he asked whether Labour was "scaremongering" about the state of the NHS in England.

He was called a "pillock" and told to "go back to London" by members of the audience in Salford.

Ed Miliband told the audience "we will hear people with respect" as he attempted to restore order.

He said: "You should talk to people in the NHS. They will genuinely say to you with an edge in their voice 'Where are things going to be in five years' time, what kind of NHS are we going to have?'.

"I met a young doctor a few months ago who had just qualified and he said to me 'You know you have got to have a plan, you know you have got to sort this out because I want the NHS to be there when I'm a doctor'.
Click to expand...

Full article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gen...urnalist-booed-during-Ed-Miliband-speech.html



Such misplaced self-righteousness can't but amuse.

I shouldn't have thought it wise for either party to be filling the airwaves with pronouncements on health policy at the moment, and certainly all bombast is better left at the door.

Perhaps this audience was borrowed from Question Time though, there do appear to be similarities.
 
That Labour, its leader and activists, continue to peddle this 'guardians of the NHS' fallacy. That they in all seriousness presume to criticise the current state of healthcare, whilst brushing the party's role in events to one side and conveniently ignoring policies both past and present.

For a political organisation with a fleeting regard for tradition, what more than that and rhetoric separate them from the coalition? Well, besides Cameron committing himself to grater funding for the NHS going into the next election. An uncomfortable irony for some of those in Salford i'd imagine.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
Full article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gen...urnalist-booed-during-Ed-Miliband-speech.html



Such misplaced self-righteousness can't but amuse.

I shouldn't have thought it wise for either party to be filling the airwaves with pronouncements on health policy at the moment, and certainly all bombast is better left at the door.

Perhaps this audience was borrowed from Question Time though, there do appear to be similarities.
Click to expand...
Its Salford mate, its hardcore labour. Also there is no self-righteousness to be found, how is it self-righteous to let someone speak and to berate the supporters from stopping him?

EDIT:
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
That Labour, its leader and activists, continue to peddle this 'guardians of the NHS' fallacy. That they in all seriousness presume to criticise the current state of healthcare, whilst brushing the party's role in events to one side and conveniently ignoring policies both past and present.

For a political organisation with a fleeting regard for tradition, what more than that and rhetoric separate them from the coalition? Well, besides Cameron committing himself to grater funding for the NHS going into the next election. An uncomfortable irony for some of those in Salford i'd imagine.
Click to expand...

Well they aren't the ones privatising it and cutting it to shreds are they?
 
The Mitcher said:
Well they aren't the ones privatising it and cutting it to shreds are they?
Click to expand...

From what basis do you speak with such certainty?

Was it not Labour who were such fans of PFI, and increased the interaction between public and private health providers? Did they not closer services and downgrade hospitals during their years in office?
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
From what basis do you speak with such certainty?

Was it not Labour who were such fans of PFI, and increased the interaction between public and private health providers? Did they not closer services and downgrade hospitals during their years in office?
Click to expand...
Blair implemented Tory policy to Labour's shame but the Tories would never have established the NHS in the first place and would privatise the whole kit and caboodle given half a chance.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
From what basis do you speak with such certainty?

Was it not Labour who were such fans of PFI, and increased the interaction between public and private health providers? Did they not closer services and downgrade hospitals during their years in office?
Click to expand...
Pretty much what Peter said.
 
peterstorey said:
Blair implemented Tory policy to Labour's shame but the Tories would never have established the NHS in the first place and would privatise the whole kit and caboodle given half a chance.
Click to expand...
The Mitcher said:
Pretty much what Peter said.
Click to expand...

If i might start with that closing assertion first; the notion of complete privatisation of the NHS is as Norman Smith put it, scaremongering. I also fail to see the relevance of which party established what more than half a century ago, what matters is who can offer the most sustainable policies for the future. Some of those connected to Labour can certainly be proud of their traditional association with the NHS, yet neither their thirteen years in government nor their expected plans grant them any greater authority to speak on the topic.

Andy Burnham dismissively shrugs off the wrongs of the previous regime, this is beginning to grate with an increasing number of the electorate i suspect.
 
Nigel Farage has received a huge boost after a Government regulator said the UK Independent Party would be ranked as a “major party” at May’s election.

In practice the decision by media regulator Ofcom guarantees airtime for Ukip for two party election broadcasts on commercial radio and television broadcasters for the first time during the campaign.

But it means that Ukip will be on the same footing as the other national parties: the Conseratives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

It will also make it almost impossible for the major broadcasters to deny Mr Farage, the Ukip leader, a place in the televised leaders’ debate.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gen...w-a-national-major-party-regulator-rules.html
Click to expand...
 
Think that's the right decision, as much as I despise them. Also, don't think the Greens had a serious case, as much as I support them...
 
This bloke disagrees though...

Prime Minister David Cameron has said he does not want to take part in the planned debates unless the Green Party are also included.

Mr Cameron is "quite happy for there to be no debates at all" during the campaign, BBC political editor Nick Robinson said.
Click to expand...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30726499
 
I think the Greens have a serious case, just because UKIP have grown rapidly in a short space of time they arent actually a significantly bigger party than the Greens yet. Theyve never won a seat in a general election, which the Greens have. Yes that is going to change this year but you cant make decisions based on what might happen in the future.
 
One of the debates is bound to have a focus on environmental policy, and by association that of utilities/energy, the Greens would at least be of benefit to that conversation i feel.

I'd also like to see charities and pressure groups invited to put questions, informed representatives with the option of a follow-up.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
One of the debates is bound to have a focus on environmental policy, and by association that of utilities/energy, the Greens would at least be of benefit to that conversation i feel.

I'd also like to see charities and pressure groups invited to put questions, informed representatives with the option of a follow-up.
Click to expand...
Yep would be a good idea.

Get rid of the general public from the audience and put as you said people from charities and pressure groups(Would also add journalists in there as well.)
 
Cheesy said:
Bit surprising. I don't think Miliband's an overly great speaker and I reckon he'd do quite poorly in these debates, which would be a major boost to Cameron. You'd expect him to advocate them either way.
Click to expand...
It's not Miliband he wants to avoid. Plus, debates in general aren't terribly easy to control. They aren't going to provide much benefit to him but could potentially make things worse. I don't actually like the debates much myself, they promote exactly the type of camera-friendly, soundbite-drenched politics that we should be looking to avoid. Add in the hoo-ha about which parties can be included and you've got more trouble than they're really worth.
 
evra said:
To be fair that's quite consistent with their narrative, we might as well claw something back.
Click to expand...

Who is the "we", and from whom are they "clawing back"?
You could write that this is more like "the EU is stealing from you and when we get elected we also steal more from you."
 
This is pathetic from the Mirror. 'Buying these 12 well-loved products means you are unwittingly helping fund the Tories'.

They're scraping barrel a bit with Woking Football Club at number 6.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/buying-12-things-means-youre-5391826

They also effectively say buying Autotrader supports the Tories indirectly. They fail to make hay of the fact The Guardian's parent group sold its majority stake in Autotrader to a private equity company in a controversial offshore-structured deal.
 
Crassly done as it's the Mirror, but there is some merit in the discussion. Trade unionists have to opt in writing for their individual levy to be donated to a political party (rightly so), and on the same principle so should shareholders. A fairer and more democratic system would also include a maximum on the amount any one individual could donate.
 
Last edited:
Ubik said:
Hague's ended up losing a fair bit of face with the last act in his parliamentary career. People on both sides of the House got genuinely angry at him.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-hagues-attempt-to-unseat-speaker-john-bercow
Click to expand...

A lot of genuine anger at this from both sides. Between this stunt and Osbourne playing the treasury committee so Cameron could blindside Milliband they're clearly enjoying playing politics this week.

They'd be out on their arse pulling this kind of shit in any large organisation
 
What are the issues the Conservatives have with Bercow? Because he tells them off for shouting?
 
712 said:
Crassly done as it's the Mirror, but there is some merit in the discussion. Trade unionists have to opt in writing for their individual levy to be donated to a political party (rightly so), and on the same principle so should shareholders. A fairer and more democratic system would also include a maximum on the amount any one individual could donate.
Click to expand...
It's not a new subject though. Individual donors have to declared over a certain amount and listed companies state whether they made political donations in their annual results.
People can find this stuff out for themselves if they really care that much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.