General Election 2015 - Thoughts/Predictions/Results

[Tetchytyke]

No one forces them to have kids. There is contraception, the morning after pill and abortion so if they end up giving birth then it is their own fault.

There. Are. No. Words.

Er, you do realise that maternity leave came about for medical reasons, don't you?

 

[Manchester77]

The polls having been showing an SNP increase month on month since the 2010 election when the SNP got 19.6% of the vote on election day.
They have increased in the opinion polls about one point every two months since then.
Lord Ashcroft's poll last month looked at the 14 safest Labour seats in Scotland and two LibDem seats.
The LibDems are dust.
The 14 Labour seats, some with 20,000 majorities showed the SNP with a slight lead.
Basically if there's a local foodbank then local Labour are in trouble.
Labour's best hope long term might be to take the hit and free itself from British Labour.
Then go for Home Rule plus basically an Isle of Man set up.
Which will probably happen anyway with or without Labour.

Yeah the safest seat in the country (Orkney and Shetland) which last GE the lib Dems won with like 70% of the vote recent polls have shown the SNP taking it! Even the AMS run elections for Holyrood (designed never to produce a majority) show the SNP winning at majority with like 75 MSPs and with Sturgeons unchallenged leadership of the SNP I can only see their support increasing as wel go forward.

The Ashcroft poll showed some of the seats with the SNP winning quite a lot actually an impressive turn around. You can see why labour are doing so well in Scotland, Welsh labour made themselves appeal to Wales with the dragon tail etc. whereas Scottish Labour does look like a branch office as Joanne described! I don't think it helps also that their leader isnt an MSP (and might not even be an MP come May!) so he isn't seen at FMQs.

On a related note whose looking forward to Nicola Sturgeon destroying Ed Milliband at the 7 party TV debate?

 

[ainsworth74]

There. Are. No. Words.

Er, you do realise that maternity leave came about for medical reasons, don't you?

Don't engage it isn't worth the time.

 

[radamfi]

There. Are. No. Words.

Er, you do realise that maternity leave came about for medical reasons, don't you?

See, you can't address the problem with people having children without being replied to as if you are evil. There is such stigma and discrimination against the childfree, yet if you even question the, at best, debatable ethics of having children, you are shot down.

If you don't have a baby, then you avoid the medical reasons for maternity leave.

 

[Butts]

It's the same with all the smokers who can spend a good deal of their day puffing away outside on a smoking break but if a non smoker asked to go outside at the same time they would be very unlikely to get permission.

Butt out ......or start smoking !!!

 

[Oswyntail]

....If you don't have a baby, then you avoid the medical reasons for maternity leave.

I appreciate you have views on the morality of bringing children into a world of pain, but we can leave that aside here.
The salient point is that parents are producing a resource that the state requires, the next generation. As with other behaviours the state believes to be beneficial, the state encourages them with the means available to it. The state does not punish childless couples, but the rewards are not available to them.

 

[radamfi]

The state does not punish childless couples, but the rewards are not available to them.

It is really no different. There is effectively a flow of money from childfree people (not just couples, but singletons too) to the state to parents. Taxation is supposed to encourage environmentally friendly behaviour ('polluter pays'), but in this case the state deliberately subsidises the least environmentally thing anyone can do. I will cause a lot of pollution and environmental damage in my life, but after I die and my body has decayed, that will be it. Whereas someone who has children will be responsible for the damage caused by all descendants. Even while the parents are alive there will be considerable extra damage. I know several people who lived without a car but then said they 'needed' a car once they had a kid.

The salient point is that parents are producing a resource that the state requires, the next generation.

Productive adults for the next few decades can be imported from other countries without generating unnecessary new people, which require education and training for several years until they are useful. But of course this assumes that there needs to be a next generation.

 

[ExRes]

Well, in your scenario, the other workers might appreciate a spot of overtime?
It has already been said, it's only two weeks...this is what happens for Annual Leave and sickness....so why not for Paternity leave? You might as well suggest that companies should not employ women, as they might require maternity leave!

"the other workers might appreciate a spot of overtime"

Are you suggesting that a (potential) Labour Government are going to base a headline policy around the possibility that workers might appreciate a spot of overtime, that's a Labour policy alright as it goes, in my experience, against every Unions policy

You might suggest companies should not employ women, I certainly didn't

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

"the other workers might appreciate a spot of overtime"

Are you suggesting that a (potential) Labour Government are going to base a headline policy around the possibility that workers might appreciate a spot of overtime, that's a Labour policy alright as it goes, in my experience, against every Unions policy

You might suggest companies should not employ women, I certainly didn't

Well, no...I'm not suggesting either! I'm just exploring possible conclusions to your suggestion! Occasional overtime is common in many roles, as I'm sure you are aware, and it is generally easy to cover for a couple of weeks absence. Oh, and in my experience, I haven't come across Unions objecting to overtime, except on those occasions when employers might abuse the system...and I'm sure you can work out how it might be abused.

 

[21C101]

I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that the Tories will win either a small majority or enough seats to govern with the Democratic Unionists.

I think people will look at Milipede and think I'm not voting for him, he's peculiar. This will of course be aided by a ferocious personal campaign against him by the Tories and their lickspittles in the press.

That, together with the mess that Brown left will see enough people deciding to stick with the devil they know.

And then many of them regretting it when Gideon brings in Beecrofts idea for no fault sacking (with statutory redundancy level pay off) within a year and the economy collapses Greek style within three as the unsustainable national debt and annual deficit come home to roost.

If the Tories don;t win then I expect the Greek style collapse within 18 months. Either way the real fun will be the election after this.

 

[Oswyntail]

....Productive adults for the next few decades can be imported from other countries without generating unnecessary new people, which require education and training for several years until they are useful. But of course this assumes that there needs to be a next generation.

I'm sorry, but that is the most nihilistically bizarre comment I have read on this site. I applaud you for voicing it publicly, but I worry for you for framing it.

 

[Jonny]

See, you can't address the problem with people having children without being replied to as if you are evil. There is such stigma and discrimination against the childfree, yet if you even question the, at best, debatable ethics of having children, you are shot down.

If you don't have a baby, then you avoid the medical reasons for maternity leave.

I have to agree on that point - my view of children is you produce them, you raise them. Especially since contraception has been free of charge on the NHS since 1999, they are practically optional. Personally I think that subsidies should be minimal, especially due to the current UK-wide accommodation shortage.

Oh and I'm the new normal - living with my parents past 30. While I appreciate it's multi-factorial with a heavy dose of vested interests, the one party I blame just happens to be the main opposition party. One factor was their attempt to re-generate the brownfield/twilight zone sites which aggravated the shortage, and that they presided over the loosest monetary policy in living memory, driven by a massive surge in equity withdrawal (up to 2008) alongside excessive in-work benefits for those with children.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that the Tories will win either a small majority or enough seats to govern with the Democratic Unionists.

I think people will look at Milipede and think I'm not voting for him, he's peculiar. This will of course be aided by a ferocious personal campaign against him by the Tories and their lickspittles in the press.

That, together with the mess that Brown left will see enough people deciding to stick with the devil they know.

And then many of them regretting it when Gideon brings in Beecrofts idea for no fault sacking (with statutory redundancy level pay off) within a year and the economy collapses Greek style within three as the unsustainable national debt and annual deficit come home to roost.

If the Tories don;t win then I expect the Greek style collapse within 18 months. Either way the real fun will be the election after this.

I would expect UKIP to take a few seats off Labour in the North-East, they picked up 1 (of 3) MEP seats for the region and quite a few parts of England and Wales turned "purple" on the 2014 Euro Election map.

Also, I wonder how much the Greens will split the left-wing vote with their predominantly leftist policies.

 

[bussnapperwm]

And then many of them regretting it when Gideon brings in Beecrofts idea for no fault sacking (with statutory redundancy level pay off) within a year and the economy collapses Greek style within three as the unsustainable national debt and annual deficit come home to roost.

If the Tories don;t win then I expect the Greek style collapse within 18 months. Either way the real fun will be the election after this.

I think either way it's going to be a roller coaster ride of a parliamentary term.

And if you vote Cleggy or Farage, you have, effectively, wasted your vote in my opinion.

 

[St Rollox]

If Ukip and the SNP take Labour held seats then David Cameron is forming the next government.

 

[jon0844]

Obviously the main issue is maternity as that is longer. Women voluntarily have children so if they want time off then they can take an unpaid career break or leave work altogether. No one forces them to have kids. There is contraception, the morning after pill and abortion so if they end up giving birth then it is their own fault.

Oh dear.

I know you're not unique though. In one of my jobs, the new director had a strict policy not to employ young women as they could go and get pregnant. In all the time I was there, he kept his word too.

A horrid backward thinking man, who also wouldn't let me hire an openly gay man to work in sales as he (and his religion) didn't allow it. He was by far the best candidate, but instead we went with his suggestion and hired someone who stole from the company, faked sales (to the point where we invoiced companies who had never ordered anything) and tried to produce false paperwork to cover his fraud.

I am surprised to read anything like that on here though.

See, you can't address the problem with people having children without being replied to as if you are evil. There is such stigma and discrimination against the childfree, yet if you even question the, at best, debatable ethics of having children, you are shot down.

If you don't have a baby, then you avoid the medical reasons for maternity leave.

We had a child almost three years ago. Before that, I've had no issue with other people who have or haven't had children. I don't care if they can or can't have children, or simply don't want children. It's none of my business.

I assume you also feel rather put out that these babies then grow up and get schooled for free? Surely us parents should pay all the costs of educating the children until such time that they can start earning their keep and paying taxes?

Edit: As mentioned above, the Government actually wants people to have children. They'll be helping to pay to keep you and me alive in future years and fund our pensions.

 

[Jonny]

I think either way it's going to be a roller coaster ride of a parliamentary term.

And if you vote Cleggy or Farage, you have, effectively, wasted your vote in my opinion.

Even if it's a Labour incumbent MP with UKIP resurgent?

Especially "up north" they don't have the same stigma (probably undeserved) that the Tories do?

 

[radamfi]

Oh dear.

I know you're not unique though. In one of my jobs, the new director had a strict policy not to employ young women as they could go and get pregnant. In all the time I was there, he kept his word too.

A horrid backward thinking man, who also wouldn't let me hire an openly gay man to work in sales as he (and his religion) didn't allow it. He was by far the best candidate, but instead we went with his suggestion and hired someone who stole from the company, faked sales (to the point where we invoiced companies who had never ordered anything) and tried to produce false paperwork to cover his fraud.

I am surprised to read anything like that on here though.

But if you had read my posts you would know that I don't approve of children for totally different reasons. The main reason is that it is unfair to bring a child into a bad world with so much suffering. Not only the global reasons such as war and inequality, but also the so called 'little things' such as bullying, depression, disease, rejection, selfishness and heartbreak. Also the environmental impact of children is immense.

I have no objection whatsoever with homosexuality. It doesn't yield children.

Again, the tone of your post makes me out to be a monster.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Even if it's a Labour incumbent MP with UKIP resurgent?

Especially "up north" they don't have the same stigma (probably undeserved) that the Tories do?

UKIP are tories in disguise and are even more extreme.
I would vote for a Tory if it stopped them getting in!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But if you had read my posts you would know that I don't approve of children for totally different reasons. The main reason is that it is unfair to bring a child into a bad world with so much suffering. Not only the global reasons such as war and inequality, but also the so called 'little things' such as bullying, depression, disease, rejection, selfishness and heartbreak. Also the environmental impact of children is immense.

I have no objection whatsoever with homosexuality. It doesn't yield children.

Again, the tone of your post makes me out to be a monster.

People have to live through the problems you mention before things change. History tells us people died, suffered, had miserable lives and now they still exist but improvements have been made thanks to medicines and other innovations. No children means no future and valuable DNA being lost. No objection to "homosexuality" because of no kids? I guess it's the same with groups that like animals too much aswell then?

You would only be a monster if you condoned murder as it reduces these children you think shouldn't exist.

 

[Tetchytyke]

That, together with the mess that Brown left will see enough people deciding to stick with the devil they know

I still think history will forgive Brown much of what he did. The big stick people hit him with- the sale of gold- only happened because several big traders had gambled on the price of gold going down and were about to go bust, and they needed to be discreetly saved. I think they should have been allowed to go to the wall, but the financial armageddon would have been worse than we even saw with the "credit crunch".

Besides which, Cameron couldn't beat Brown in the last election, and nothing I've seen indicates that he's more popular now than he was five years ago. The only difference is Miliband, who is seemingly too weak to stand up to the Daily Mail and The Sun.

A vote for the SNP won't put Cameron in Number 10- they've pretty much said they will not work with the Tories- but it will focus a few Labour minds. I see them doing well.

I have to agree on that point - my view of children is you produce them, you raise them. Especially since contraception has been free of charge on the NHS since 1999, they are practically optional. Personally I think that subsidies should be minimal, especially due to the current UK-wide accommodation shortage.

I'm not sure where all this talk of "subsidy" comes from, it's not as though you're given thousands a month just because you have kids. I know the media love to portray all parents- especially single parents- as dole-dossing scroungers, but the truth is different.

We already have huge financial problems in this country because old people are living longer but there are not enough young people to pay for them- the average family now has less than two children, so we're not even keeping the population constant. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[DarloRich]

But if you had read my posts you would know that I don't approve of children for totally different reasons. The main reason is that it is unfair to bring a child into a bad world with so much suffering. Not only the global reasons such as war and inequality, but also the so called 'little things' such as bullying, depression, disease, rejection, selfishness and heartbreak. Also the environmental impact of children is immense.

I have no objection whatsoever with homosexuality. It doesn't yield children.

Again, the tone of your post makes me out to be a monster.

So on your basis the human species would have died out after one generation as the things you find so repugnent have always existed and will always exisit.

At what point would it be accpebtale to produce children? What an odd stance

I feel that forum rules prevent me from asking further questions.

 

[radamfi]

So on your basis the human species would have died out after one generation as the things you find so repugnent have always existed and will always exisit.

At what point would it be accpebtale to produce children? What an odd stance

You say 'odd', but you precede that by saying that bad things will always exist. How is that a good advert for the continuation of the human race? Normally if you were to give a choice between suffering and not suffering, suffering would never be chosen. Only because it is a prerequisite for the continuation of the human race, it is tolerated.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

You say 'odd', but you precede that by saying that bad things will always exist. How is that a good advert for the continuation of the human race? Normally if you were to give a choice between suffering and not suffering, suffering would never be chosen. Only because it is a prerequisite for the continuation of the human race, it is tolerated.

I don't know about other people, but I'd rather live with constant suffering, agony and absolute misery than not living at all. I was once suicidal when I was a teenager. Now there's no doubt in my mind at all about this. Life is everything, anything can happen in the future, if you allow it to happen. Will all these causes of suffering exist in 100, 1,000, 1,000,000 years? It depends on whether Humans die out to stop suffering or if they instead develop solutions for them.

 

[radamfi]

I don't know about other people, but I'd rather live with constant suffering, agony and absolute misery than not living at all. I was once suicidal when I was a teenager. Now there's no doubt in my mind at all about this. Life is everything, anything can happen in the future, if you allow it to happen. Will all these causes of suffering exist in 100, 1,000, 1,000,000 years? It depends on whether Humans die out to stop suffering or if they instead develop solutions for them.

Even if you prepared to tolerate suffering yourself, the problem is that you are making the choice for other people if you decide to have a child. Other people find the suffering less tolerable and some people kill themselves when it gets too much. Humans have already had millions of years to fix things.

 

[90sWereBetter]

Even if you prepared to tolerate suffering yourself, the problem is that you are making the choice for other people if you decide to have a child. Other people find the suffering less tolerable and some people kill themselves when it gets too much. Humans have already had millions of years to fix things.

Look, we get it, you are a major misanthrope. What this has got to do with the upcoming election, I have no idea. Please stop trying to guilt people into thinking having children is evil (although I suppose it is evil on spare time and the wallet, if you look at it that way. )

I was wondering how long will the SNP bubble last for, because whilst I believe it will last long enough for them to take most of the seats in Scotland in May, surely it won't last that much longer?

I suppose though, Scottish Labour will have to get their act together after May, possibly with another leadership election. Whilst I think Jim Murphy has the capability to be a strong leader, he leans too much to the right for the electorate in Scotland to accept him.

 

[muddythefish]

That, together with the mess that Brown left will see enough people deciding to stick with the devil they know.

.

Standard right wing narrative and pure nonsense.

I assume by "mess" I assume you mean the deficit which any child will tell you is the result of having to bail out the banks and keeping the country afloat during the 2008-09 global financial crisis.

By the time of the 2010 election the economy was recovering nicely and out of recession. The subsequent recession post 2010 was caused purely by the coalition's unnecessary austerity programme.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The only difference is Miliband, who is seemingly too weak to stand up to the Daily Mail and The Sun.

.

Unlike Blair, Miliband has never sought to court the right wing press and does not see any point in doing so. The Mail's vilification of his father was a disgrace by the way.

As the Tories have admitted, people have consistently under-estimated Miliband.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Standard right wing narrative and pure nonsense.

I assume by "mess" I assume you mean the deficit which any child will tell you is the result of having to bail out the banks and keeping the country afloat during the 2008-09 global financial crisis.

By the time of the 2010 election the economy was recovering nicely and out of recession. The subsequent recession post 2010 was caused purely by the coalition's unnecessary austerity programme.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Unlike Blair, Miliband has never sought to court the right wing press and does not see any point in doing so. The Mail's vilification of his father was a disgrace by the way.

As the Tories have admitted, people have consistently under-estimated Miliband.

Indeed. And it is very telling that the vast majority of the attacks on Labour are actually personal attacks on Miliband because he isn't as camera friendly as some other politicians. Well I couldn't give a crap what the PM looked like eating a bacon sandwich!

 

[21C101]

Standard right wing narrative and pure nonsense.

I assume by "mess" I assume you mean the deficit which any child will tell you is the result of having to bail out the banks and keeping the country afloat during the 2008-09 global financial crisis.

By the time of the 2010 election the economy was recovering nicely and out of recession. The subsequent recession post 2010 was caused purely by the coalition's unnecessary austerity programme.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

To say "The subsequent recession post 2010 was caused purely by the coalition's unnecessary austerity programme." is absurd when the Labour government had to borrow a record and staggering £163,000,000,000 (£163 Billion pounds) in 2009-10 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8636701.stm. To put that figure of £163 Billion in context. The entire national debt in 1997 when Labour took power was £350 Billion.

Brown stuck to the manifesto commitment to not exceed the Tory spending plans from 1997 to 2001, resulting in £41 billion of debt being paid off by 2001. However after 2001 Brown massively and unsustainably increased spending with the effect that we were increasing the national debt in the (debt fuelled) fake boom years of 2002-2007, mistakenly thinking the boom was sustainable. It wasn't, it was a wholly unsustainable boom caused by excessive government spending resulting from government borrowing and excessive personal spending funded by excessive personal borrowing.

Had Brown stuck to the Tory spending levels after 2001 and continued to run a budget surplus and pay down the national debt, the country would have weathered the 2008 collapse far better (and Brown would probably have won the 2010 election) Labour, and Gordon Brown in particular, only have themselves to blame. There is no point just blaming the bankers. The millions of idiots who took on ridiculous mortgages and credit card loans just because some fools in the bank offered them the money are equally to blame.

Inevitably with two of Browns Henchmen running the party, and his principal gopher as shadow chancellor, Labour face an uphill task in 2015.

 

[table38]

Standard right wing narrative and pure nonsense.

I assume by "mess" I assume you mean the deficit which any child will tell you is the result of having to bail out the banks and keeping the country afloat during the 2008-09 global financial crisis.

And who was supposed to be regulating the Banks? Why were Lehmans desperately transferring all their toxic debt from the USA to the UK?

By the time of the 2010 election the economy was recovering nicely and out of recession. The subsequent recession post 2010 was caused purely by the coalition's unnecessary austerity programme.

Unlikely, given austerity didn't happen overnight. More like a "dead cat bounce".

Unlike Blair, Miliband has never sought to court the right wing press and does not see any point in doing so.

Of course not.

 

[muddythefish]

Good try - those photos were for the World Cup.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And who was supposed to be regulating the Banks? Why were Lehmans desperately transferring all their toxic debt from the USA to the UK?



Unlikely, given austerity didn't happen overnight. More like a "dead cat bounce".

The FSA I believe, not the government.

The US recovery through spending and growth has shown that austerity was no necessary
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

To say "The subsequent recession post 2010 was caused purely by the coalition's unnecessary austerity programme." is absurd when the Labour government had to borrow a record and staggering £163,000,000,000 (£163 Billion pounds) in 2009-10 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8636701.stm. To put that figure of £163 Billion in context. The entire national debt in 1997 when Labour took power was £350 Billion.

Brown stuck to the manifesto commitment to not exceed the Tory spending plans from 1997 to 2001, resulting in £41 billion of debt being paid off by 2001. However after 2001 Brown massively and unsustainably increased spending with the effect that we were increasing the national debt in the (debt fuelled) fake boom years of 2002-2007, mistakenly thinking the boom was sustainable. It wasn't, it was a wholly unsustainable boom caused by excessive government spending resulting from government borrowing and excessive personal spending funded by excessive personal borrowing.

Osborne began to revive the myth of the structural deficit in June 2010, when it was becoming clear that the deficit would be under £155 billion, well below the Treasury's £178 billion estimate made six months earlier.

In other words, the deficit was narrowing after Labour increased spending in 2009.

The fact that the US, which has made no serious deficit reductions, has suffered almost the smallest recession of any major developed economy whereas Ireland and Greece have suffered the worst because of drastic spending cuts further undermines the government's claim that radical austerity measures are needed – and shows that Osborne’s main aim is not to reduce the deficit but to accelerate the transfer of wealth to the already rich.

And if anyone still wants to talk about a “structural” deficit, then they should remember that the last 3 Labour governments managed to earn enough to cover their spending for 4 of their 13 years in office, whereas Thatcher and Major only managed balance the books for 2 out of 17 years.

 

[table38]

Good try - those photos were for the World Cup.

Damn, I must have missed that 2011 World Cup

The FSA I believe, not the government.

If only. Brown had set up an incomprehensible tripartite system with not just the FSA, but also the Bank of England and the Treasury responsible, but due to "an inadequate definition of roles and responsibilities at all three constituent parts of the system" no-one really knew who was responsible for what.

The obvious outcome was that there was next to no regulation, which each of the three blaming each other.