May 2011 Election

[Broccoli Dog]

SNP purely as a means to an end.

[vikingTON]

And yet elements of it are emerging as a force in US politics just now. People really questioning the role of the state in their lives and wanting politicians to have less say. You can't say that it isn't on the agenda just now.

Well it isn't, the Tea Party movement aren't likely to oppsoe, say the state''s foreign role, in fact I'd wager quite a few want the US state to be kicking the shit out of a few more countries on dubious grounds. What they are looking for is the removal of state functions on their terms only as part of their practice of conflating real issues with mythologies.

[Reynard]

Well it isn't, the Tea Party movement aren't likely to oppsoe, say the state''s foreign role, in fact I'd wager quite a few want the US state to be kicking the shit out of a few more countries on dubious grounds. What they are looking for is the removal of state functions on their terms only as part of their practice of conflating real issues with mythologies.

Well yeah.

I didn't ever say they were all in pure liberalists. But at least they have moved the debate on to their territory to a good degree. There are a whole shitload of utter bawbags that have latched on to the thing of course. To be elected you need to be popular. To be popular in politics you need to have broad appeal. To have broad appeal you have to appeal to the rabble. And the rabble in the US tend to be gun toting yeehaw imbeciles that couldn't point to Europe on a map probably. It is a little bit nationalistic as well and a few of the racist brigade have latched on too. All a bit unfortunate. US politics tends to be a bit shite though so this whole thing has been quite interesting.

[Law Stud]

US politics is usually shit because there's only two parties and generally the Democrats want the middle ground in a two horse race. Obama has lurched the Democrats to the left and the beauty of that is that this seems to have brought out the more right wing element in the Republican party.

Compare that to Scottish politics where the choice is Scottish left wing Socialism, or Scottish Nationalist left wing Socialism with politicians so dull and boring Alex Salmond actually looks enigmatic.

[xbl]

I don't agree with some of his political views (he's a Unionist), but wouldn't it be good to see him back...

George Galloway considers standing as Holyrood MSP

Mr Galloway, a Celtic fan, said he was first urged to stand through messages posted on the club's fan websites, and was also supported by members of Glasgow's Asian community and former constituents in the city's west end. In an interview for BBC Radio's Scotland at Ten programme, he said: "I'm testing the water. So far the water's lovely. If people think I can do it and ought to do it and that it will be helpful to the things that I believe in, then I will have a go. The mountain that has to be climbed is not Everest, it's Ben Nevis perhaps - it's 5% of the vote across the whole of the city of Glasgow, which could be a few as 10,000 votes."

Mr Galloway, who is an author, columnist and radio broadcaster, said he was "not really in need of a seat" to gain a public platform. But the politician, who campaigned for a Scots parliament in the 70's, said: "I think on the Labour side, and I do consider myself a Labour person, that our position in politics has not been all that well represented. Certainly since the demise of Donald Dewar, the Labour party in Scotland's going downhill a little."

Mr Galloway, who opposes independence, described First Minister Alex Salmond the "only real star" at Holyrood, but said he would back Labour to win next year, although he said of the party's leader: "I'd be lying if I told you I thought Iain Gray had set the heather on fire."

Frankly, I'm amazed he even knows who Iain Gray is! As I said, as someone who is not a Socialist and not a Unionist, I disagree with his political positions, but he would make the Parliament a better place. Also, I'd love to see him versus Salmond, and more entertainingly, him versus Gray.

[Thumper]

I'll have a clothespeg jammed round my nose for this one, anyway.

The SNP have been disastrous. I'm struggling to think of anything of note they've done except restrict people's civil liberties. If per-unit pricing on alcohol comes in I will be leaving the country, as I've had enough of Scotland's sensible drinkers being scapegoated and used as piggy banks.

I said ten years ago that after the student loans capitulation I'd never vote for a Lib Dem in the Scottish parliament again and that stands. (Stephen Glenn, who I actually like as a candidate, fortunately won't be tempting me as he's fucked off to try and persuade the Northern Irish to support the coalition's half-arsed electoral reform.

For all of Labour's problems, hopefully the ejection of the Blairite head will start them back on the right path. I'm certainly not casting a vote for them lightly.

As for George Galloway, he's a grandstanding crook. I'd sooner vote for Mayor Quimby. And this is me as someone who ostensibly agrees with most of Galloway's actual positions.

There are a whole shitload of utter bawbags that have latched on to the thing of course.

There certainly are on this thread.

[xbl]

I'll have a clothespeg jammed round my nose for this one, anyway.

The SNP have been disastrous. I'm struggling to think of anything of note they've done except restrict people's civil liberties. If per-unit pricing on alcohol comes in I will be leaving the country, as I've had enough of Scotland's sensible drinkers being scapegoated and used as piggy banks.

Come now, surely that is overstating things a bit? I would say doing nothing of note is a good thing for a start, and I'm also struggling to think of anything bad that they did. Even if you don't support the SNP, which is fair enough, I would say that considering they were the first Minority Government in Holyrood, and faced opposition from all the Unionist Parties, then they have done alright. What exactly have they done to restrict civil liberties?

Also, what is the problem with the minimum pricing? As far as I can see, it means the prices for most drinks will remain more or less unchanged. Stuff like Lager and ales will remain as they are, likewise vodka, whisky, and wine. The only stuff that will go up in price is stuff like cheap white lightning cider, extra value vodka/whisky, and general kiddie drinks. I was against it, but I've actually come round to the idea since doing a bit of reading into it. Also, don't forget that Labour have proposed minimum pricing. Except that rather than a simple regulation for manufacturers, they want to use a complicated tax based measure, to be administered by London.

So if you don't like minimum pricing and civil liberty restriction (assuming you come up with some good examples of the SNP), why vote Labour? They also propose minimum pricing and a proven record of civil liberty restriction!

[vikingTON]

Also, what is the problem with the minimum pricing? As far as I can see, it means the prices for most drinks will remain more or less unchanged. Stuff like Lager and ales will remain as they are, likewise vodka, whisky, and wine.

No they won't as they will add brand value to differentiate themselves from the now more expensive paint-strippers. That's how they make their profits in the first place.

[Thumper]

Come now, surely that is overstating things a bit? I would say doing nothing of note is a good thing for a start, and I'm also struggling to think of anything bad that they did.

I've maybe overstated the case. My perception is that I haven't personally benefitted from SNP rule other than to the extent that I might have suffered under other conditions. Presently the SNP makes more noise over things which I assuredly do not want, such as independence and drinks pricing, than it does on anything else.

What exactly have they done to restrict civil liberties?

The absurd new licensing laws are a start.

Also, what is the problem with the minimum pricing? As far as I can see, it means the prices for most drinks will remain more or less unchanged. Stuff like Lager and ales will remain as they are

It certainly won't. Right now, both Stella Artois and Tennent's are produced by InBev. Stella prices are kept articifically higher than Tennent's as a quality factor. Even still, you can presently get fifteen bottles of Stella (7.5 pints) for £6. That jumps to £9.45 under the proposed unit pricing (2.8 units per pint x 45p per unit), which is nearly a 60% increase. And that's a minimum. Retailers will do what they always do and hike their prices in accordance.

So if you don't like minimum pricing and civil liberty restriction (assuming you come up with some good examples of the SNP), why vote Labour? They also propose minimum pricing and a proven record of civil liberty restriction!

As I said, it's going to be hold-your-nose time. I can't conscienciously vote for the Lib Dems because they haven't a principled bone in their bodies, so my local vote will have to go to one or the other of Labour and the SNP and I'm happy for neither. At least I feel comfortable with my second vote, which will be Green.

[Reynard]

There certainly are on this thread.

Welcome aboard. You lefty c**t.

[Swampy]

It's hilarious how you're up in arms, Thumper, about the civil liberty restrictions of alcohol pricing but are willing to forgive and forget what the established parties have done at a Westminster level with liberties that matter far, far more.

Actually it's not hilarious, it's sad as hell.

[Reynard]

It's hilarious how you're up in arms, Thumper, about the civil liberty restrictions of alcohol pricing but are willing to forgive and forget what the established parties have done at a Westminster level with liberties that matter far, far more.

Actually it's not hilarious, it's sad as hell.

It's nice that the one thing that actually pisses off people enough to actually whine about it is the price of getting pished.

Never mind that there's a fucking camera pointing at you on every street corner watching your every fucking move.

[Ad Lib]

It's hilarious how you're up in arms, Thumper, about the civil liberty restrictions of alcohol pricing but are willing to forgive and forget what the established parties have done at a Westminster level with liberties that matter far, far more.

Actually it's not hilarious, it's sad as hell.

Immigration caps, Control Orders, DNA database, ID cards, biometric passports, ASBOs, electronic tagging, CCTV, 28 day detention without charge, smoking ban.

A much bigger deal than the price of Buckfast.

[xbl]

I've maybe overstated the case. My perception is that I haven't personally benefitted from SNP rule other than to the extent that I might have suffered under other conditions. Presently the SNP makes more noise over things which I assuredly do not want, such as independence and drinks pricing, than it does on anything else.

My belief is that government should be doing as little as possible with regard to interfering with my personal life, and in that regard, I think the SNP are far better than any Labour Administration at either Scottish or UK level. It does also help that the SNP make "noise" over issues that I have an interest in, so I can see your point. In general though, do you not think that the SNP have done a far better job of standing up for Scotland's interest generally than the Lib Labs ever did? Labour always tended to concede to whatever the UK said, its only the SNP that have really tried to stand up. But thats just my opinion, and I can see that you might think differently.

You've admitted that you were being a bit over dramatic, and theres nothing wrong with that, hell knows, I do it myself often enough! I wouldn't even say they've been bad though. I would argue that they have been competent and unspectacular in most areas, which is what I want from government. This administration has converted me into an SNP supporter.

The absurd new licensing laws are a start.

What are they? I was under the impression that licensing was done by individual councils? And you haven't actually come up with any other examples. I honestly can't think of ANY, although I'm willing to be proven wrong. If you were to ask me about Labour civil liberty infringements though, then I could be here all night reeling them off.

It certainly won't. Right now, both Stella Artois and Tennent's are produced by InBev. Stella prices are kept articifically higher than Tennent's as a quality factor. Even still, you can presently get fifteen bottles of Stella (7.5 pints) for £6. That jumps to £9.45 under the proposed unit pricing (2.8 units per pint x 45p per unit), which is nearly a 60% increase. And that's a minimum. Retailers will do what they always do and hike their prices in accordance.

I will take your word for it. Although I do note a couple key things. The government propose to simply set a minimum price. No tax, no complication, and it doesn't really have any effect on the profits of the drinks companies. If these manufacturers and retailers choose to bump up the price artificially (as VikingTon also said), then why is that the fault of the government? That is the free market at work!

As I said, it's going to be hold-your-nose time. I can't conscienciously vote for the Lib Dems because they haven't a principled bone in their bodies, so my local vote will have to go to one or the other of Labour and the SNP and I'm happy for neither. At least I feel comfortable with my second vote, which will be Green.

For me, its easy. I voted SNP for the first time in 2007 as a means to an end, but I've since been converted by their performance. But I can appreciate that you have a different view. However, I think that the criteria you are using to criticise the SNP applies more to Labour!

[Thumper]

It's hilarious how you're up in arms, Thumper, about the civil liberty restrictions of alcohol pricing but are willing to forgive and forget what the established parties have done at a Westminster level with liberties that matter far, far more.

Am I indeed. I'll thank you not to tell me what I do and do not think about the Westminster government. It certainly doesn't reflect my views either, but it's not under discussion here.

[xbl]

...but it's not under discussion here.

Actually, I think it is. After the Olympics were awarded to London, the Labour administration announced that they would begin the process of ensuring Scotland benefited. However, a recent FOI revealed that until the SNP took over in 2007, the main organisations involved received not a single communication from the Lib Lab Scottish Executive regarding funding or contracts. There is no Scottish Labour. There is British Labour, so the leader of "Scottish Labour" is actually Ed Milliband. And thats just one small example. In every other major area, Labour kowtowed to London. So on issues like immigration, civil liberties etc. do you actually believe Iain Gray will be the man to stand up and say "hang on, thats not right."? I don't think he will. The SNP on the other hand represent Scotland.

Also, Labour's disgraceful actions (Ad Lib gave that nice wee list) also apply in Scotland, so because of this and the lack of a dedicated "Scottish Labour", I think it is perfectly valid to bring the actions of Labour in Westminster into the discussion. If the economy was going well, you can bet your boots that Gray and co would be lording it up.

Edited to add, hmmmm, I wandered some distance away from the point there. Sorry all.

[Thumper]

What are they? I was under the impression that licensing was done by individual councils?

The 10-till-10 rule, for a start, which is of massive inconvenience to people who don't work day shifts. And that's national. There are all sorts of other bits of micro-management in local licensing which serve no practical purpose save for annoying people (in Edinburgh, for instance, pouring a regular's drink before he has explicitly requested it is now a breach of license) as well. This dominated the news cycles and presumably took up a considerable amount of parliamentary time.

If you were to ask me about Labour civil liberty infringements though, then I could be here all night reeling them off.

To my knowledge none of those were put in motion by the Scottish government. It is certainly true that under the regime of the early 2000s the Scottish government would have probably acqiesced to anything the Westmister majority did, but that's no longer the political reality. Again, I'm looking for positives reasons to support the SNP other than "they're not Labour" if possible.

The government propose to simply set a minimum price. No tax, no complication, and it doesn't really have any effect on the profits of the drinks companies. If these manufacturers and retailers choose to bump up the price artificially (as VikingTon also said), then why is that the fault of the government? That is the free market at work!

The free market is being constrained by governmental interference. It will find its own new equilibrium, but if will be markedly higher up the board.

I think that the criteria you are using to criticise the SNP applies more to Labour!

The criteria apply pretty broadly to all four major parties. As I say, I'll be holding my nose here. Nevertheless, part of the reason I'm in this discussion is to be convinced one way or the other.

[nessies long lost ghost]

genuine question here

If Labour got in would they raise tuition fees like the uk coalition has done or keep the SNP's "free education" policy?

[capybara]

genuine question here

If Labour got in would they raise tuition fees like the uk coalition has done or keep the SNP's "free education" policy?

The problem with Labour is we do not know. Lots of promises no costed budget. Remember though Blair promised to introduce legislation to stop top up fees....then introduced them.. Ah Labour dont you just love em.

[Broccoli Dog]

that's the braveheart spirit thumper, freedom!!!.... to get pished!

the labour government have spent the past decade dismantling civil liberties in the uk, and have brought about the deaths of countless thousands abroad and you're complaining about your cheap hooch rising in price.