General election 2010 - who will (or would) you vote for?

[Frank]

I will never support ... people who don't understand anything about how life works in the real world.

The strange thing is that almost everyone thinks this way. Even the SSP. For me, however, I suspect almost everyone 'doesn't understand anything about how life works in the real world', so if I motivated myself out of some self-congratulatory moral superiority akin to your own, I'd be inclined become a dictator and still be wrong.

Socialism has become a byword for not thinking about things and jumping on a super-idealistic, divorced-from-reality viewpoint. The ideals and 'high level motivations' of so-called socialists are generally pretty respectable ("We just wanna help everyone..."), but what folks actually talk about still seems incredibly far from any sense of reality, practicality or even discourse.

To be insinuating that people who don't classify themselves as socialist or who mock socialist views have somehow left behind or are failing in their social responsibility would be simply insulting.

I don't think it's that folks have a problem with socialism or socialists, it's that the perception of socialist is a flipside of the perception of tory. One's a posh twat who doesn't give a damn, the other's a 'hero of the people' twat who only gives a damn.

[RedCelt69]

Socialism has become a byword for not thinking about things and jumping on a super-idealistic, divorced-from-reality viewpoint. The ideals and 'high level motivations' of so-called socialists are generally pretty respectable ("We just wanna help everyone..."), but what folks actually talk about still seems incredibly far from any sense of reality, practicality or even discourse.

The mess the world is currently in isn't the fault of socialism. One day, everything was (apparently) fine... the next day, the world went into meltdown. Why? Because a bunch of immensely wealthy people fucked up whilst trying to make themselves a bit more wealthy. End result? The wealthy people are relatively unaffected by hardship right now. The ones suffering are all the non-wealthy people who didn't have a flying clue what was happening with these irresponsible gamblers.

It's like, some guys in a bookmakers make some stupid decisions and back some very lame horses. When they leave their gambling den, they have the same amount of money as when they first went in (and pay each other fat bonuses)... whilst everyone who wasn't in the bookmakers are faced with a life of misery involving job-losses, pay-cuts, interrupted community services... depression, money-concerns (which often lead to) divorce and suicides.

People have been suffering (and will continue to suffer). All because of Capitalism.

You remember Capitalism? I'll use Frank's words again, slightly modified:-

"Capitalism has become a byword for not thinking about things and jumping on a super-idealistic, divorced-from-reality viewpoint."

The ideal world-system balances both Socialism and Capitalism - with both needing to be kept in check, as a move too far towards either of them will fuck us up. The here and now is a case-study that proves that point. If anyone needed a case-study.

[Guest]

Socialism has become a byword for not thinking about things and jumping on a super-idealistic, divorced-from-reality viewpoint. The ideals and 'high level motivations' of so-called socialists are generally pretty respectable ("We just wanna help everyone..."), but what folks actually talk about still seems incredibly far from any sense of reality, practicality or even discourse.

The mess the world is currently in isn't the fault of socialism. One day, everything was (apparently) fine... the next day, the world went into meltdown. Why? Because a bunch of immensely wealthy people fucked up whilst trying to make themselves a bit more wealthy. End result? The wealthy people are relatively unaffected by hardship right now. The ones suffering are all the non-wealthy people who didn't have a flying clue what was happening with these irresponsible gamblers.

It's like, some guys in a bookmakers make some stupid decisions and back some very lame horses. When they leave their gambling den, they have the same amount of money as when they first went in (and pay each other fat bonuses)... whilst everyone who wasn't in the bookmakers are faced with a life of misery involving job-losses, pay-cuts, interrupted community services... depression, money-concerns (which often lead to) divorce and suicides.

People have been suffering (and will continue to suffer). All because of Capitalism.

You remember Capitalism? I'll use Frank's words again, slightly modified:-

"Capitalism has become a byword for not thinking about things and jumping on a super-idealistic, divorced-from-reality viewpoint."

The ideal world-system balances both Socialism and Capitalism - with both needing to be kept in check, as a move too far towards either of them will fuck us up. The here and now is a case-study that proves that point. If anyone needed a case-study.

You're an idiot.

You're also using words far too broad to contribute anything useful to this discussion, and you prove that you (probably) lack the political education to be entitled to vote. First, you misunderstand the banking crisis. Second, you pin the blame on the banks for a world economic crisis for which no blame should properly be attributed to anyone, except perhaps to government. Third, you use broad, and incorrect, meanings for "Socialism" and "Capitalism." The only thing you prove is that you're totally unqualified to talk about anything economic and don't deserve the right to vote.

1) The banking crisis

You say "a bunch of wealthy people fucked up while trying to make themselves a bit more wealthy." No, wrong. It was caused because there was a lot of cheap credit around which fuelled the bubble in the housing market. Bankers ingeniously figured out a way to recover their capital that they were giving to their customers who took out mortgages, by selling their mortgages to investors. They did this by "securitising" mortgage pools, i.e. aggregating the mortgages into a single pool and creating a series of bonds which were related to the underlying performance of the mortgages. These bonds were regarded as very safe for a very long time-- from 1994 to 2007 they had a failure rate of .01%-- so it's understandable why people felt safe making them.

Governments, particularly the American government, encouraged this activity. The flow of cheap credit allowed households to go spend money in the economy, which created jobs. The increase in household wealth was politically popular, and millions of people were able to buy their own homes for the first time. The percentage of the UK's GDP comprised by the housing sector increased from 6% to 16% in ten years (and this accounts for much of the country's economic growth in the last ten years and the commensurate increase in household wealth). Everyone benefited.

Unfortunately, after a time, the capital value of homes became divorced from their real value as income-generating assets (rent). People bought homes in the hopes that the capital value would increase, not on the basis of what they were actually worth. They would sell their homes to people who thought the same thing. They would then go buy another house with the same expectation. At that point, which probably began in 2000, the housing market then became gambling for everyone involved- although very people probably knew it. To paraphrase Warren Buffett, it was like Cinderella's Ball- everyone is trying to have as much fun as possible, staying till the last possible minute, but they were dancing in a room where the clocks had no hands.

Eventually, investor confidence collapsed. When this happened, these securities failed. Banks held a lot of these securities on their balance sheets, and there was a significant danger that any given bank would go bust if enough securities went bad. This is what happened to Lehman Bros. When Lehman failed, banks stopped lending to each other and customers, because they were afraid of what would happen to THEIR money in the hands of other people. It was a confidence problem, a completely justified act of self-defence, and totally reasonable response in a time of panic.

Money is only a confidence trick, anyway, so quit bitching about how much of it other people have.

2) The Blame Game

Blaming the banks is a popular thing to do. It's also basically a government propaganda ploy to divert the blame away from themselves.

All of the household wealth, employment, and consumer demand created during the boom years was not real; it was based on inflationary economic expectations that were linked to a big gambling game played by everyone. If people do not have jobs now, it is because their skills are not in demand on the basis of current expectations. This is a fact of life in free society: people are free not to employ people who are not essential for their businesses.

Nor does blame lie with capitalism, or, the idea that the means of production-- including capital but also a man's own labour-- should remain in private hands. Where the blame should properly lie is with governments who created a low interest rate environment with loose monetary policy because it created a politically popular boom economy, and facilitated the flow of credit that was based (and secured) on worthless assets.

The blame probably belongs with governments for failing to regulate market activity, which I'll talk about briefly below.

3) Capitalism and Socialism

Socialism, in the Marxist sense, is common ownership of the means of production. It is the ownership of the means in production in common hands- or the hands of the state, and central planners. When democratic states go socialist, the whole electoral process degenerates into a process where society cleaves into two parts-- the haves, and the have-nots-- or, rather, those who receive, and those who are forced to give. In this arrangement each side attempts to use the ballot box to either defend their position or exploit the other. Democrat and Republican, Labour and Tory, Left and Right- it's the same story played out again and again.

Capitalism is simply the private ownership of labour and capital-- ownership of labour by minimising taxation on labour (tax is, in effect, the taking of labour for common ownership) and ownership of capital by protecting property rights. It does NOT mean reckless lending. Reckless lending may take place in a capitalist society, because people and corporations are free to do what they will with their possessions, even if these things are really rather stupid. I support government intervention in the market that is short of taking control of it-- antitrust/competition law, for example, or financial services regulation. However, saying "socialism is the answer" is, in my view, crossing the line. Capitalism didn't cause the problem-- stupid people exercising freedoms that come with a capitalist system caused the problem. Cure the stupid activity by regulating the market, not by socialising it. Don't socialise it by increasing taxes on the wealthy and taxes on the banks. If you tax the banks and the bankers, they will pass the cost on to their consumers- i.e. you- in the form of increased fees and rates. You're really only screwing yourself.

In closing, I will take Capitalism over socialism every day. You call that "not thinking about things?"

[RedCelt69]

You're an idiot.

Oh, I most certainly am not, but please continue...

You're also using words far too broad to contribute anything useful to this discussion, and you prove that you (probably) lack the political education to be entitled to vote.

My political education is far and above most people's. When, however, did political knowledge become necessary for suffrage?

First, you misunderstand the banking crisis. Second, you pin the blame on the banks for a world economic crisis for which no blame should properly be attributed to anyone, except perhaps to government.

Truly lolworthy. Nobody to blame, but if blame must be proportioned to anyone, it's the government? Not the bankers, heroic figures that they are. No, sir. The damned and dirty government. That's who did the dirty deed. Jesus.

Third, you use broad, and incorrect, meanings for "Socialism" and "Capitalism." The only thing you prove is that you're totally unqualified to talk about anything economic and don't deserve the right to vote.

And now suffrage is qualified by economic knowledge? Hoo boy. When you call other people idiots, take a long, hard look in the mirror. Just, y'know... as a self-lesson. If such a thing is possible for you.

The phrase "socialism" (which isn't the same thing as Marxism, fuckwit) is already being used in this thread in the loosest possible terms. My usage reflected that.

Money is only a confidence trick, anyway, so quit bitching about how much of it other people have.

I'm well aware of what money is, but cheers for explaining that black is, indeed, black and that white is, indeed, white. I wasn't bitching about how much money other people have - if they are afflicted with the mental disorder whereby personal-achievement can only be measured in cash, that is a problem between themselves and their therapist. My complaint is that, in their determination to make themselves even richer (needlessly) than they already are... everyone else suffers. Which is as true now as it has always been, regardless of your protestations to the contrary.

Blaming the banks is a popular thing to do. It's also basically a government propaganda ploy to divert the blame away from themselves.

My hatred for banks is borne from personal experience. That nasty government didn't need any propaganda.

The blame probably belongs with governments for failing to regulate market activity

The word "probably" is a wonderful tool in the hands of the witless. Goverments failing to regulate market activity? And there was me thinking that hardcore Capitalists would minimise government controls to the minimum level possible in order to allow the free market to play itself out - however that may be.

In closing, I will take Capitalism over socialism every day. You call that "not thinking about things?"

So you'd take pure, unrefined Capitalism - with no Socialist stop-gaps whatsoever? Rather than a balance of the two? What a horrible, horrible world that would be. And a short-lived one for the wealthy in an ocean of poor people.

[guest]

My hatred for banks is borne from personal experience. That nasty government didn't need any propaganda.

The word "probably" is a wonderful tool in the hands of the witless. Goverments failing to regulate market activity? And there was me thinking that hardcore Capitalists would minimise government controls to the minimum level possible in order to allow the free market to play itself out - however that may be.

So you'd take pure, unrefined Capitalism - with no Socialist stop-gaps whatsoever? Rather than a balance of the two? What a horrible, horrible world that would be. And a short-lived one for the wealthy in an ocean of poor people.

No, no. You really are a complete and total idiot.

You hate the banks from personal experience? What, did they once make you pay a fee because you were overdrawn? Cry me a river. Banks are companies that a lot of people depend on, but they are not public utilities. They are operated for the benefit of their shareholders. You should either earn more money so you can get better terms like an interest-free overdraft, or maybe consider the alternative: not using the banks. Don't strut around saying that you want to exert socialist control over the banks. You come across as being petty and jealous.

Government should exert minimal control over the market. Why? Because it is the right thing to do. Free, prosperous and happy societies everywhere usually bear the hallmarks of the free market-- people are entitled to the fruits of their own labour and to deal with their property as they please and the extent to which they help their fellow men should be decided by themselves, not by the state. Nor should the state collectivise labour through excessive taxation. We have legislation, like minimum wage laws, child labour laws and competition laws, to ensure a level playing field in the market. Even the poor are welcome to have a go and take the same risks as anyone else in the market. Since the advent of the internet there is very little stopping them from amassing the necessary information to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and make themselves a better life.

I don't frankly see much of a problem with the "boom and bust" that Gordon Brown once called abolished (also, an idiot)-- this is what Schumpeter calls the "creative destruction" of capitalism, so like the phoenix, new and dynamic economic forces will arise from the destruction of the old. There is a human cost to this, but people always have a choice-- they are always free to adapt, acquire new knowledge and skills, and find new work, instead of getting swamped by the wake of a world which has very swiftly moved along. However, claiming incapacity or jobseekers' benefit is usually an easier option for them to take than work, so we shouldn't be surprised that they opt for welfare instead... while we capitalists are charged with paying for their sloth.

Even if you do see a problem with the creative destruction of capitalism, it is established that the last credit crisis was created by loose central bank monetary policy that created historically low interest rates, combined with irresponsible lending by some mortgage lenders and irresponsible securitisation activity by some, but not all banks (a notable exception being JP Morgan). A blanket punishment for all capitalists, shopkeepers, lawyers, private doctors and all, is not a proportional response.

As it is, we live in a nasty socialist state where the poor use the ballot box (effectively the end of the barrel of a gun) to make capitalists pay for everything. The top 10% of individual earners-- and this is not earning much, perhaps over 35k per annum-- pay for the vast majority of defence (including Trident), education, housing, healthcare, all social welfare, roads, transport, pensions, and civil servant salaries. In this country you can have a roof over your head, a doctor on call, free education, and food on your table for you and your children without doing a thing. The EARNERS make it all possible. Socialising the market is in effect making men slaves to their fellows-- making people who work servants of those who do not. Why socialise it more, when those who do not earn (students, pensioners, disabled, non-working) already benefit so much? Why more socialism? Haven't you got enough already?

Would I rather live in a world that is purely capitalist than socialist? One where everyone decided to take control over his or her own life, rather than asking other people to bail them out? Yes. I think you'd find the world got on just fine without very much socialism until around 1950 when all of this European welfare state nonsense kicked off.

In the modern age, if your life isn't working out for you, it's probably your own fault.

[DACrowe]

I don't, and didn't, deny that there are (former) socialists, social conservatives, and, yes, some outright fantasists who promise things they can't deliver in the SNP. I was merely pointing out that the same description is equally true of the LIb Dems. You only have to look at the STARLINK group for evidence of Lib Dem fantasy. As for social conservatives in the Lib Dems, 23 MPs voted, in 2008, to lower the legal time limit on abortion to 22 weeks, and three voted to lower it further.

I don't know what you mean by the STARLINK group. That's not a political denial; I've just never heard of it and can't find it by googling. What I will say is 'we're getting better' in so far as most of what's in our manifesto is moderate enough that it would/could be passed as part of a coalition or fairly robust confidence-and-supply agreement. The fact the SNP are almost totally unwilling to work* with other parties prevents them getting things in Scotland and is totally ludicrous in Westminster. Take, for example, the talk on Trident - Salmond et al says that our position is too moderate (having a review rather than scrapping unilaterally). Well maybe it is (I think it's more reasonable but anyway) but who does he imagine he'd have allied with him on Parliament. It's far more likely we could command a majority from the smaller parties and the remnant CND supporters in Labour for our review proposal than for his plan to scrap it outright.

You're half right about the social conservatives point. The abortion limit might be a bad example in so far as the current British standard is based upon viability of the foetus outside the womb and that has been brought back several weeks since the 24 week limit was set by improvements in incubation and intensive care technology. Putting my moral philosophy hat on for a second I think that being the property tracked by legislation is absurd and largely unjustifiable, as opposed to tracking cognitive development, however it has been found to be a property which religious folk can identify with as being reasonable for limit-setting. Many/most of those votes are votes cast in favour of keeping what-we-say-we're tracking consistent with what the current medical scientific reality is.

That aside, you're right that there is an, if not social conservative contingent, a political-christian contingent within the LibDems; Tim Farron and Colin Breed. Tim's a nice enough guy, I've never met Colin. They were willing to set aside they're (let's be honest) homophobic views to vote for civil partnerships, the repeal of section 28 and homosexual adoption rights which is better than nothing. I think something ought to be done in so far as if the whip's office is for anything it should be for forcing Liberals to be... well... liberal. That said there's a difference between a few isolated cases who rebel against the whip but nevertheless get returned by their constituency (what can one do?) and the situation with the SNP which seems to be a deliberate move to appeal to religious social conservatives in Scotland.

And yes, the Lib Dems managed to get a lot of their policies through. Being the minority partner in a coalition is hardly the same thing as being a minority government though, is it? Let's face it, the Labour Party needed to support Lib Dem policies or they would have killed the coalition. Labour politicians generally oppose SNP policies on principle. The principle of hating the SNP.

There's no love lost between the Labour or Liberal parties either, but we were still able to work together. The SNP for whatever reason have shown themselves to be incapable of working towards a compromise (as well as the occasional independent fuckups - the SFT is a mess of their own making independent of their minority gov. status) on policy with the other parties. We got things passed because, as you say of Labour, we identified the policies we felt were key (including PR for local elections and tuition fee abolition), secured agreement on those and held our nonsense for any legislation Labour wanted to pass in return. The same is going to have to happen in Westminster if it's a hung parliament - people with either need to seek deals with parties-en-bloc or else with individual MPs; it's not an acceptable alternative to sit on your hands and then blame your failures on the fact you weren't given an overall majority or that Westminster won't give you more money.

Second, you pin the blame on the banks for a world economic crisis for which no blame should properly be attributed to anyone, except perhaps to government.

Why has the popularity of loging in suddenly declined. I'm going to be charitable and assume you're not the same guest that's voting for the BNP (but how would we know).

Your account of the banking crisis seems broadly acceptable, but I would question your right to call what you are defending capitalism. Capitalism as a rallying cry is usually taken to mean further deregulation and removal of municipalised services, organised labour, government regulation of markets and legal restrictions from markets forming. You could use it to describe the status quo, but that would be a mistake of course as, in so far as those terms have meaning, the status quo in the UK is a mix between capitalism (reliance upon the free activity of agents in markets) and socialism (use of government regulation, direction or provision for common ends). From what you're saying you're not opposed to this and (correctly, in my view) have identified a lack of regulation and scrutiny of the financial markets and what is traded on them as having been responsible for the current crisis. This means that in terms of the conceptions above you're actually advocating something more 'socialist' than the status quo.

Should bankers be blamed? It's possibly not fair to blame them for only doing what comes 'naturally' (trying to improve the bottom line) when there was limited regulation or competent scrutiny of their activities. However it has become apparent that one of the causes of the crisis was an inability to (a) properly understand the value of consolidated debt but continuing to trade it nonetheless and (b) (not unrelated to (a)) an unwillingness or inability to insist on transparency about the fundamentals actually being traded. (b) is not only the cause of the consolidated debt from sub-prime mortgages in America but also the problem with 'toxic assets'; because no one is able to credibly assess either their own or other banks' assets because they were traded with low transparency as to what they were at the time of trading. Speaking as someone that's never been a banker, I'd have to say that I would have been uncomfortable with that being the status quo in the industry. The fact that the bankers weren't themselves does give reasonable scope for blaming them; it's not just innocents trying to maximise profit in whatever regulatory framework we provide them, it's also people apparently happy to trade when they don't know what (at the bottom line) it is they're trading. That does seem blameworthy, though I admit I stopped being able to follow finance myself round about the point of complexity of futures trading.

There ought to be a distinction made between the proximal cause of this particular crisis and the underlying cause within the current economy for how the crisis could come about. The discussion above has been largely about the latter. American discussion, especially on the right, appears to focus mainly on 'the blame game' for the former, in part because it seems fairly clear that in addition to the lack of regulation the proximal cause was the push for sub-prime mortgages in the first place which was a political action taken by the Democrats under Clinton. However it seems fair to say that unless you insist on total transparency of assets and incredibly strict scrutiny you're never going to prevent the risk of another loophole in the regulations to open up and allow people to start trading in 'exciting' financial products they ought not to. This is why it seems a good idea, even if it might have a slightly negative effect on growth, to separate out investment banking from high street banking again; this means a future crisis would less severely effect the housing market and in the future if an investment bank looks like it might be about to collapse it would be less catastrophic for ordinary people if it were allowed do so (avoiding the necessity of a bailout). Now this split is obviously an extreme form of regulation, but it would be taken because there are forseeable developments a market might or will take which would be damaging if it were not taken. Is that socialism or is that capitalism? I'd suggest that the concepts, especially as the former has been degraded overtime by contrast with 'communism' (whereas you rightly point out there was no distinction as Marx conceived of them) and the latter has been warped a little by it's use in American political discourse (like so much else) neither of them are much use anymore.

[DACrowe]

I'd vote Green, but as they (or we) are not standing in Fife North East, by process of elimination I'm going to have to vote SNP.

Is the switch because of socialism or because of environmentalism? If the former then; fair enough, I can't help you. If it's the latter I should point out that the LibDem and Green manifestos are very similar in their environmental policies (the main difference being how to incentivize energy efficiency; the Greens are calling for top-down job creation (something I personally support), the LibDem policy is to offer financial incentives for people to do it or have it done. That, so far as I can see is the main difference. The SNP by contrast has recently been pimping 'clean coal' to excuse themselves for having to build new coal plans to cover the energy deficit of the nuclear plants being decommissioned (though save for that have a pretty good record on environmental issues).

On the SNP's record with comments/criticism from interested parties: www.robedwards.com/2008/04/one-year-on-how.html
On the LibDem manifesto: http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_rel ... 42010.html

Like the debates, I don't know of anywhere offering a direct comparison between the LibDems as the SNP. This is quite interesting http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/ though I worry (a) there's a difference between liking policies and thinking they're politically or economically feasible and (b) while it's heartwarming to see what appears to be a lefty bias, I suspect there might be a self-selection bias in either the blogs/websites which link to it (I got it from a green party blog) or those motivated to take the quiz.

[RedCelt69]

No, no. You really are a complete and total idiot.

M'kaaay...

Would I rather live in a world that is purely capitalist than socialist? One where everyone decided to take control over his or her own life, rather than asking other people to bail them out? Yes. I think you'd find the world got on just fine without very much socialism until around 1950 when all of this European welfare state nonsense kicked off.

...you really, really really need to get a clue. As DACrowe pointed out, you're really confused if you think that socialist tendencies were completely absent from the world prior to 1950.

In a purely Capitalist world, there would be no NHS, no welfare, no means of support for anyone who wasn't able to make their own money - and to use it to survive. In your world, the poor would be hungry, homeless and more than a little likely to find other means to survive. Your Capitalist world would involve a whole lot of personal security issues - hiring bodyguards, living in ring-fenced neighbourhoods... and, of course, you can use your hard cash to buy guns... because you will need them. Crime would be, not so much a torrent - but a deluge. I mean, it isn't as if the poor would have the means to haul themselves into a better life, because without money, they wouldn't be schooled.

It would be difficult making lots of money without the workforce to produce it, but hey... this is your fantasy world, not mine.

The disabled would be screwed (unless they're wealthy), the pensioners would be screwed (unless they're wealthy)... so they're screwed in every way imaginable. But, so long as the rich aren't paying huge taxes - that's a price worth paying... in your deluded mind.

You are a fuckwit. A fuckwit Capitalist who would contend with Adam Smith, who knew full well that the poor had to be looked after. Silly inventor of the free market economy... with those silly Socialist ideas.

Who was around a good deal earlier than 1950.

[Petay]

Dear Sinners,

I have a serious question about a certain party in the upcoming election. In light of recent interviews, statements and revelations (involving party members and their leader); does someone who votes Conservative still have a soul?

How much homophobia can they get away with and still claim to be centre-right? I appreciate that some might agree with their policies and perhaps benefit financially from them; but is this a fair price for your soul?

I hear Lucifer himself gives better prices...

[DACrowe]

Dear Sinners,

I have a serious question about a certain party in the upcoming election. In light of recent interviews, statements and revelations (involving party members and their leader); does someone who votes Conservative still have a soul?

How much homophobia can they get away with and still claim to be centre-right? I appreciate that some might agree with their policies and perhaps benefit financially from them; but is this a fair price for your soul?

I hear Lucifer himself gives better prices...

I think the answer to that question is a qualified 'yes'. Cameron appears to be doing the same trick Blair did back in 1997; he's trying to appeal to non-Conservative voters by making it look like he's bamboozled his own party, and trying to make his base think that he's bamboozling everyone else but is secretly still a proper Conservative. There's a certain irony in that while I've spent this threat instructing people to read this or that manifesto I only sat down to read the Tory manifesto cover to cover this morning. I have to say I was quite surprised in that the manifesto (save for if you think carefully about one or two points) appears to be a continuation of the "I'm a liberal conservative" he's been pitching since he became leader (when it comes to Cameron personally, I'm not /sure/ I believe it. They've made a hard sell of the 'oh he's a David Hume sceptical-conservative' in the authorised biographies but obviously his own professional history has seen him working for and with much harder-right figures (he wrote the 'It's not racist to talk about immigration' manifesto, remember)). Certainly there seem to be people in the right who think a) he is seriously and b) he's therefore betraying traditional conservative voters. Peter Hitchens is the most obvious example http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/elect ... te-it.html Unless he's up to something tricksy (can never tell with the Hitchens brothers) he's apparently convinced that 'manifesto Cameron' is the real Cameron and '3rd debate Cameron' is the fake Cameron, whereas I myself and apparently you too believe the opposite; that the 'tough on benefit fraud-', 'serious about immigration' and 'discipline back in schools-' Cameron is the real deal.

One thing that I think is true is that, like Labour in '97 they've a split party between 'New Conservatives' (Red Tories as led by manifesto-Cameron) and good-old-fashioned Conservatives like Stroud, who I assume you're alluding to. Is Cameron a liberal who's attempting to win over wealthy voters and appease the social conservatives; is he a guy who's only in it for the interests of the wealthy and is merely feigning his conservative and liberal traits (Bush?) or is he a traditional social conservative looking to appease the wealthy party donors and appeal to liberals. We have no idea but presumably the policy decisions he makes can't do all three. One thing I think it's definitely fair to say is that even with their manifesto they've been pretty vague about what their actual core beliefs are and what exactly is going to be cut to reduce the deficit. It's a strange party which has both Iain Dale and Phillippa Stroud as happy members.

The third debate really hacked me off (I hate the old Tories), but re-examining the manifesto I do find myself wondering if Hitchens is right and the 'liberal conservative' thing might not just be an act. I think it would be entirely possible to be a 'liberal (/libertarian) conservative' of the Iain Dale mode and still "have a soul". I wouldn't vote for such a person, but even Thatcher had her moments. I think, as I said in the UDS debate about Cameron, the big difference between himself and Thatcher is that Thatcher had balls; she was an ideologue plain and simple. I wouldn't mind too much if Cameron did turn out to be telling the truth and was a sort of Ted Heath figure (I wouldn't support him, but it wouldn't be like having another Thatcher back in power) I just think that given (a) as you say there's a fair whack of potential and current Tories in Westminster who aren't that mode and (b) as soon as they hit friction in the campaign they shot back over to the right that pose is looking less and less convincing at the moment.

I'm paying careful attention to the 538 blog's prediction model but it seems it's looking increasingly likely that the result is going to be close enough that the Tories can form either a coalition or at least a confidence and supply agreement with the ulster unionists and/or the nationalist parties (I know the SNP say otherwise but they've a C&S agreement with the Tories in Holyrood, there's no reason they couldn't have one in Westminister). The alternative, which I'm hoping for, is that we (the LibDems) pick up enough seats that this doesn't happen and they have to govern as a minority administration we policy passed ad hoc (there seems a fair bit we could agree on with the Tories and a fair bit with Labour; I suspect and hope a coalition is unlikely. I've always felt it would be political suicide, our experience in Scotland (though strangely successful in manifesto terms) seems to bear that our and Nick both when he was Shadow Home Secretary and running for leader said the same thing).

((In defense of the Tories (Jesus... it's got to that point) the federal party might not have that much control over who is picked as a candidate, depending on the constituency. That said, it does reflect the views of the Tory base at least in that area. ConservativeHome tends to be to the right/crazy wing of the current Tory leadership (or what that leadership publically says they are etc etc) and occasionally polls the base to demonstrate things like 77% of them want to leave the EU and other disturbing facts. If Cameron is lying about being liberal, that's a problem. If he's telling the truth then he's at odds with most of his base, and that's a problem. Either way the members of the Conservative party are a problem (unless you're right wing, in which case I guess they're a riot))).

[wild_quinine]

Dear Guest,

You post confidently on economics and market forces, but your explanations are almost textbook. There is no indication of true understanding in anything that you post. Yes, it is populist to blame the greedy and too-wealthy. However, I don't see how you might argue that the fermentation of a certain culture excuses its contemperaneous actions, even from a vicarious and privileged worldview such as your own. There is evidence that your views on Conservatism are almost deadeningly naive. You are a child amongst men, here. Even your misplaced confidence is telling.

In the modern age, if your life isn't working out for you, it's probably your own fault.

Spoken like someone who thinks he has never relied on anyone else, and believes he never will.

[SaorAlba89]

I'll be voting SNP in this election, and here's why.

The Union between Scotland and England is completely anachronistic. It was entered into with everything between reluctance and sheer resentment from ordinary Scottish people at having effectively been sold by their self-interested rulers in a time of economic difficulty. In today's terms, it would be like Greece surrendering its independence to Turkey.

The Union between Scotland and England was accepted gradually by Scots, notwithstanding long-lasting doubts that remain to this day. It was accepted because it allowed Scotland to trade openly with England, and gave Scotland a platform of influence on the world stage which was unprecedented in Scottish history. Scots were willing to sacrifice their independence to reap the benefits of the magnificent entity that was the British Empire.

Today however, the benefits of the Union cease to be. Member states of the European Union trade freely with one another, just as Scotland would do if it were independent. 80% of our trade is with England : fine, that won't change with independence, because Scotland and England will remain in the EU. We will continue to trade freely with our English neighbours.

The power of the British Empire is no more - today's power comes from having your own seat at the table of EU nations. Consider Scotland's population (5.2 million) and EU parliamentary representation (6 MEPs) with the Republic of Ireland (4.1 million and 12 MEPs). Those figures speak a thousand words. Smaller nations are better proportionately represented in the EU. Scotland will never have the Presidency of the EU while we let others speak for us.

There is now a real probability that David Cameron, an English Conservative politician with little knowledge of Scotland, will find himself at the helm of the British Government this time next week. If the polls are correct, his party will have between zero and two seats in Scotland. That is 0/2 out of 59. It will be an English Government.

Scots will never forget what Margaret Thatcher did to our country. Another English Conservative, the Scottish electorate rejected her time and time again, and yet we kept getting her back. Even if noone in the entire country voted Conservative, simple arithmetic shows us that it is the English people who choose the governance of Scotland, whether that is for or (more commonly) against the interests of Scotland. We are outvoted 9-1 in Westminster. That is not democratic, and The Claim of Right (1988) reaffirms the sovereignty of the Scottish people to choose the government best suited to their needs and wishes.

Being part of the UK is a big sacrifice for Scotland. We sacrifice our independence and our image on the world stage. But the creation of a Scottish Parliament that seeks further powers, and the rise of the SNP in the last 50 years of the 300-year Union, tell us that Scots are slowly realising that the sacrifices we're making vastly outweigh the benefits.

If we are landed with another English-elected government we didn't vote for, everyone should brace themselves. It will act as a catalyst for Scottish independence. The Scots are a canny folk: they don't fear or dislike the idea of independence, but their natural prudence and caution at making rash decisions has kept it at bay... until now. Thatcher's mandateless governance of Scotland accelerated the creation of a Scottish parliament. Cameron's mandateless governance of our nation will accelerate independence.

Scots can do so much better. The Union has kept our capable and inventive nation mediocre and impotent, and we are fed lies and polls by the unionist-sponsored media to keep our confidence at bay. Thanks to the internet, and their own observant astuteness, Scots are not going to accept this much more.

Independence is coming, and we all need to embrace it. Let's think of what Scotland could and should be, not what is was or is.

[DACrowe]

Can I just say I'm now slightly suspicious of the poll given (a) the SNP vote has very suddenly shot up and (b) there aren't 41 SNP supporters in St Andrews; that's why they couldn't affiliate this year.

[Amorphous]

Can I just say I'm now slightly suspicious of the poll given (a) the SNP vote has very suddenly shot up and (b) there aren't 41 SNP supporters in St Andrews; that's why they couldn't affiliate this year.

Glad someone else noticed that. I've been checking the poll regularly out of simple curiosity: this morning, there were 95 total votes and the SNP was somewhere in the late teens.

It appears that unreg guests are allowed to vote, so it's possible someone has been spamming the poll with different IP addresses over the course of the day. The obvious question being why on earth anyone would bother wasting their time in such a fashion.

[DACrowe]

Can I just say I'm now slightly suspicious of the poll given (a) the SNP vote has very suddenly shot up and (b) there aren't 41 SNP supporters in St Andrews; that's why they couldn't affiliate this year.

Glad someone else noticed that. I've been checking the poll regularly out of simple curiosity: this morning, there were 95 total votes and the SNP was somewhere in the late teens.

It appears that unreg guests are allowed to vote, so it's possible someone has been spamming the poll with different IP addresses over the course of the day. The obvious question being why on earth anyone would bother wasting their time in such a fashion.

I dunno. I mean... I have a good four different IP addresses I could use. Or I could just link it to the Rage Against the Machine Group
http://www.facebook.com/search/?src=os& ... 255&ref=ts

But I suspect 41 votes for the SNP and 160,000 votes for the LibDems might seem a bit suspicious and unrepresentative of the St Andrews student body.

Let's just rest happy knowing that at least some of the SNP support in St Andrews are petty fraudsters. The one I was on STAR radio with the other day was really nice. He added me on Facebook after, I kinda worried it meant I failed in my task of criticism.

[SaorAlba89]

Perhaps the SNP vote has gone up because SNP supporters have discovered the poll and spread the word? Seems a reasonable guess to me. You can only cast one vote in the poll, as I did, and I doubt if anyone would go from computer to computer entering it again and again.

I was pleasantly surprised to hear the SNP guy on the STAR debate on Tuesday, considering the SNP society is a newly established one this year. Who knows - maybe the university isn't 100% tory after all! I thought the debate was pretty sterile though, and noone really shone as a winner. I have to admit, I thought the LibDem representative did best: he seemed to know his facts better than the others and was a better speaker.

I stand by my argument against the UK electoral system though, and how Scotland will always be sidelined while we remain part of it. I cannot see any supposed advantages which remain which counter the massive sacrifices we make to be part of this anachronistic Union.

[RedCelt69]

I'd been rather hoping that similar tactics had provided the BNP with as many as 6 votes.

[DACrowe]

I'll be voting SNP in this election, and here's why.

Arguments against the Union - Fair enough, if you feel that way so be it. Personally I'd rather we had a more or less federalist United Kingdom and then eventually, over time, a federal Europe. For the moment with an economy strongly reliant on the financial industry based in London it seems a rather foolish decision to seek full independence. I'm happy enough for the status quo but would be receptive to calls to devolve more power to Edinburgh.

If that's how you feel though why vote for a political party which hasn't (and won't) be able to bring forward a referendum. Why not join a more mainstream political party and campaign for a referendum within that, or else campaign outside of mainstream politics? I keep on threatening to myself that I'll try to bring a motion to (LD) conference to support a referendum on independence but the reality is that all reliable opinion polling seems to show the support never getting higher than around 40% (and majorly down recently whether due to the recession or SNP government or what - YouGov had it at 29% with 11% 'don't know') and the argument that a referendum costs money and damages investor confidence so you shouldn't have one unless it's likely to pass. As I said, I don't accept these arguments and I think you should have a referendum. I'd vote no. I don't see it has all that much to do with sending social conservative MPs to Westminster though.

"80% of our trade is with England : fine, that won't change with independence, because Scotland and England will remain in the EU. We will continue to trade freely with our English neighbours." - There's a difference between having a free trade agreement and the kind of integration you get by being part of the same country. Edinburgh's financial sector (and what exists in Glasgow) is heavily reliant upon the connection with London. I really don't see that sticking around if we were to go it alone. A more naive but topical argument concerns the problem of how an independent Scotland would have coped with the financial crisis (if it had to bail out the RBS for example).

"Scotland will never have the Presidency of the EU while we let others speak for us." - I mean... you're right in a sense; the EU Presidency is given to members and it's Britain not Scotland which is a member state. But Lord Russell-Johnson, a Scottish Liberal Democrat, was President of the Assembly from 1999-2002. That you either don't know this or don't think it's significant I find slightly offensive as you should denigrate the achievement of a great man out of ignorance.

There is now a real probability that David Cameron, an English Conservative politician with little knowledge of Scotland, will find himself at the helm of the British Government this time next week. If the polls are correct, his party will have between zero and two seats in Scotland. That is 0/2 out of 59. It will be an English Government.

If the polls are correct he'll have Perth. But this doesn't address the real issue; not liking the Conservatives is not a reason to vote SNP, if anything it's a reason not vote SNP. The SNP and the Tories have a cosy enough arrangement up in Holyrood, and there's every reason to believe the 5 or 6 MPs you have after the election will be found in a confidence and supply arrangement with the Conservatives. Angus Robertson and John Mason have better Conservative voting records than David Willets, one of those possible Tory MPs you mentioned above. If the SNP MPs vote Tory in Westminster, and are forseeably going to be found propping up a Tory government (or how else will you honour anything in that manifesto?) why on earth would anyone who considers themself anti-conservative vote for them? Why did you stand two social conservatives in the Glasgow by-elections?

[quote[That is not democratic, and The Claim of Right (1988) reaffirms the sovereignty of the Scottish people to choose the government best suited to their needs and wishes.[/quote]

This is a fascinating and original take on Constitutional Law. I refer you to the remark made previously in the thread about 'outright fantasists'.

Thanks to the internet, and their own observant astuteness, Scots are not going to accept this much more.

Ah yes. The internet. The internet which allows us to examine the current Holyrood administration's record:

Government Procurement
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/holyroo ... 4095833.jp
http://www.heraldscotland.com/the-snp-s ... h-1.879015
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/politic ... 5354989.jp
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scott ... -22210736/

Education
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... ecord.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... oblem.html
http://www.journal-online.co.uk/article ... udent-debt

http://andrewrunning.blogspot.com/2009/ ... ction.html
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/ne ... 6110907.jp

Okay, you might say; the 2007 manifesto was an aberration - they didn't check whether their SFT idea was feasible and they didn't get a majority so they couldn't bring in their version of local income tax but half of it was just straightforward junked so you have a magic combination of three elements (a) promises made without serious research being done was to whether they're feasible, (b) a total inability to work with and find compromise with other parties to get manifesto commitments passed as a minority administration, (c) a repeated tendency to confront such failures with denial, blaming them on Westminster, collusion of the 'English' parties or media bias or outright bullshitting.

The current election's manifesto looks no better. For some highlights we have;
* A promise to get the cost of the Olympics as a Barnet consequential despite the fact that it was explicitly set up as being outwith the Barnet formula (why not get the cost of the Commonwealth games? Because that's Alex Salmond's own ego trip and he wants to fund it exclusively from the Scottish budget) despite the fact that clearly no other party would support this idea so it could never foreseeably happen.
* A promise to unilaterally do away with Trident, irrespective of strategic review, coupled with criticism of the one main party offering a moderate position which might get passed and which, presumably, would be the only plausible parliamentary partner to make this even close to becoming a reality.
* A promise to pull British (or rather, Scottish) troops out of Afghanistan, irrespective of considerations of cross-party support and with apparently no thought given to international treaty obligations we might have.
* A promise to get rid of the Common Fisheries Policy despite the fact the Lisbon Treaty makes that the business of the EU and this is a Westminster manifesto.
* A promise to spend £1.5billion on a 'rural development programme' with no explanation of where the money will come from (a recurrent feature throughout the manifesto)
* Repeated claims that they will oppose 'Westminster cuts' despite the fact (a) this is fiscally irresponsible and (b) politically impossible.

Seriously; I'm saying this as a friend - stop drinking the KoolAid and start thinking about what you can actually achieve as a party. Viewed as the manifesto of a party which (a) rejects all possibility of a coalition and (b) could not even theoretically win a majority of seats in terms of plausibility this manifesto is crazier than the UKIP one (and that's saying something for a party which promises to pull out of the EU, abolish all national insurance and scrap the foreign aid budget).

For those curious customers, by the way, the only SNP MP who voted, voted in favour of the Digital Economy Bill, the MP for the Lab/SNP marginal of Dundee East.

Edit - Woops. Freudian. Also apologies for being so strident. I hadn't expected a personal compliment in the interim. I feel all guilty now.

[DACrowe]

I have to admit, I thought the LibDem representative did best: he seemed to know his facts better than the others and was a better speaker.

Aw, shucks. The SNP guy seemed very nice. I went in without notes all prepared for it to be me vs him; he didn't seem as shy and retiring at the hustings and I hadn't expected Daniel to have done his homework.

I stand by my argument against the UK electoral system though, and how Scotland will always be sidelined while we remain part of it. I cannot see any supposed advantages which remain which counter the massive sacrifices we make to be part of this anachronistic Union.

We agree on the electoral system. Think of it this way; the more votes for the LibDems (especially in LibDem 'safe seats', oddly) the stronger the case is for scrapping the current system.

[DACrowe]

I'd been rather hoping that similar tactics had provided the BNP with as many as 6 votes.

Dare to dream, I guess. I do remember the wikileaked members list only showed one member in St Andrews. I am slightly surprised that the BNP have more votes than UKIP. I consider UKIP as nutty as the next guy, but I can understand someone being anti-EU even if I disagree with them. I can't really sympathetically understand someone supporting the BNP. I did wonder whether UKIP had done themselves a disservice by publishing a full manifesto and by doing so pushing the boat further out into crazy town. Why does there need to be a UKIP policy on National Insurance, one wonders, mad or not? I guess it probably won't make much difference - Lord Pearson evidently hasn't read it. It just seems a strange contrast to the pragmatic approach of endorsing eurosceptic MPs from other parties ((though that, if you've been following it, has been a bit complicated by the fact they're running UKIP candidates against them anyway - WTF?))