IF Scotland votes for independence, Labour will lose (based on current figures) 41 seats in the next UK election, because those 41 seats are in Scotland. The Liberal Democrats will lose 11 seats. The Conservatives will lose 1 seat. Were that applied to Parliament today this would be the breakdown of parties (the main parties) Conservatives would go from 303 seat to 302 seats Labour would go from 257 seats to 216 seats Liberal Democrats would go from 56 seats to 45 seats This could have a major affect on Party politics in the UK, Labour may never again be able to challenge the Conservative Party and become the ruling party The Lib Dems would be even less of a voice. If Scotland had voted for independence before the last election the Tories would NOT have had to form a coalition with the Lib Dems and my never need to again! So if the Tories felt that their position was unassailable would they treat us and their policies different, I think they would
Sounds like an excellent result to me. Can we vote to get rid of Scotland? I am not a toff and I am not from any kind of privileged background but my thoughts seem much more aligned with Conservatism than meddling Labour. Just watching Question Time, as I do most weeks, I feel much more empathy with the Conservative panelists than the labour ones who often display crudeness and ignorance of the global aspects of this country's problems.
I see your point, however, History has shown us that almost all dictators are ousted in the end, people have often thought they had total power and could do what they want, even as a Baroness Thatcher supporter I know that she thought that too, her own party turned on her, this knowledge does help to keep some Dictators from doing some of the things they might like to do, If the leader of the Tory party thought he could not be challenged by another party might he not become the worlds next Dictator and more importantly, our Dictator ?
Quote by MidsCouple24 I see your point, however, History has shown us that almost all dictators are ousted in the end, people have often thought they had total power and could do what they want, even as a Baroness Thatcher supporter I know that she thought that too, her own party turned on her, this knowledge does help to keep some Dictators from doing some of the things they might like to do, If the leader of the Tory party thought he could not be challenged by another party might he not become the worlds next Dictator and more importantly, our Dictator ?
Naahhhh.... We need THE Dictator, not just any old Dictator.
I'm afraid the party or the person has yet to be made that could sort out our social and financial problems we are far from a developed or a civilised nation in comparison with our European neighbours
If the Scots vote to wave us bye - bye and the Cons get an almost guaranteed majority as outlined above, my opinion is that they will become more right wing than even UKIP. Then God help the ordinary working people, the sick and the old of this Country !! John
Quote by MidsCouple24 IF Scotland votes for independence, Labour will lose (based on current figures) 41 seats in the next UK election, because those 41 seats are in Scotland. The Liberal Democrats will lose 11 seats. The Conservatives will lose 1 seat. Were that applied to Parliament today this would be the breakdown of parties (the main parties) Conservatives would go from 303 seat to 302 seats Labour would go from 257 seats to 216 seats Liberal Democrats would go from 56 seats to 45 seats This could have a major affect on Party politics in the UK, Labour may never again be able to challenge the Conservative Party and become the ruling party The Lib Dems would be even less of a voice. If Scotland had voted for independence before the last election the Tories would NOT have had to form a coalition with the Lib Dems and my never need to again! So if the Tories felt that their position was unassailable would they treat us and their policies different, I think they would
IN 1997, Labour won 418 seats, the Tories 165 and LibDems 46. In 2001 the figures were 413,166 and 52. In 2005 the figures were 355, 198 and 62. In all of those years, Labour would have had a majority even allowing for the Scottish seats. Scotland voting for Independence will not be the end of party politics as you suggest.
Quote by Max777 IF Scotland votes for independence, Labour will lose (based on current figures) 41 seats in the next UK election, because those 41 seats are in Scotland. The Liberal Democrats will lose 11 seats. The Conservatives will lose 1 seat. Were that applied to Parliament today this would be the breakdown of parties (the main parties) Conservatives would go from 303 seat to 302 seats Labour would go from 257 seats to 216 seats Liberal Democrats would go from 56 seats to 45 seats This could have a major affect on Party politics in the UK, Labour may never again be able to challenge the Conservative Party and become the ruling party The Lib Dems would be even less of a voice. If Scotland had voted for independence before the last election the Tories would NOT have had to form a coalition with the Lib Dems and my never need to again! So if the Tories felt that their position was unassailable would they treat us and their policies different, I think they would
IN 1997, Labour won 418 seats, the Tories 165 and LibDems 46. In 2001 the figures were 413,166 and 52. In 2005 the figures were 355, 198 and 62. In all of those years, Labour would have had a majority even allowing for the Scottish seats. Scotland voting for Independence will not be the end of party politics as you suggest. 1997, 2OO1, 2005, that was a long time ago, things have changed since then you need to be thinking more about the last election and the need for a coalition to make things work, sure, Labour could get a landslide, but if they don't and things go as they have recently then Scotlands independence vote could have a significant effect on the remaing UK that, thus far I have not seen discussed. And if they do get independence they will need to apply to the EU to become a member state, until they get that status they should not be allowed into the UK without a passport and visa like any other non EU foreign nation and those Scottish Nationals currently residing in the UK should apply for immigration status. Personally I would be devastated to see them leave the UK and believe that they may regret it in the future.
So what do you think happened at the last election? The electorate grew tired of 13 years of Labour rule in much the same way that it had grown tired of years of Tory rule in 1997. Why do you think that a Tory government will be elected in perpetuity if Scotland gain independence?
Quote by Max777 So what do you think happened at the last election? The electorate grew tired of 13 years of Labour rule in much the same way that it had grown tired of years of Tory rule in 1997. Why do you think that a Tory government will be elected in perpetuity if Scotland gain independence?
Absolutely correct Max. People have fought and died to ensure that we the people have the right to a say in local and national politics. In this wY, we have had the opportunity to give a spanking to political parties that cocked up. As long as people like super negative narcissist Russell Brand don't get listened to, we will always have the opportunity to have our say.
I agree max. If the UK wanted a change of political leadership it could stand up and vote for it. The number of seats per party do not take into account what may have happened if the 35% of people who didn't bother to vote had done so. At the end of a long rule by any one party they seem to get voted out by a landslide majority to the opposition, so why would the tories be in power for ever?
People have fought and died in the hope that we would have a say in the destiny of our nation, but it has not happened yet, all governments regardless of party simply promise what they think will get them elected then give us the crap as to why they cannot do it yet, whilst they do what they want not what the people hoped they would. Unless your telling me that voters decided they wanted the Government to sell off it's assets, starve the NHS and Education system of necessary funds, raise the price of domestic power by putting levies on the providers, borrow trillions so that most of our tax is used to pay loan interest, underfund our social system so that children are murdered because there are not enough social workers to help them, run our services down to a level whereby helicopter ambulances, our best children's hospital, our animal protection agency and other such things that we should be government funded only exist by way of charitable donations, do you think they voted for a government that would make laws to restrict our rights whilst exempting themselves from those very same laws, a government that abuses their expenses, lies, funds terrorists, condones terrorism whilst sending our troops to fight against it, underfunds our forces so that we can barely defend ourselves and puts forces personnel lives at risk for lack of the best available equipment and sometimes the most basic of equipment ? Did we want a party that would not know what to do about legal and illegal immigration, that would bend over and take it from the EU ? Is this what we voted for ? if we get fed up of the lies will electing a different party change things, it hasn't done so yet. Is this what those brave men and women fought and died for ?
Quote by MidsCouple24 People have fought and died in the hope that we would have a say in the destiny of our nation, but it has not happened yet, all governments regardless of party simply promise what they think will get them elected then give us the crap as to why they cannot do it yet, whilst they do what they want not what the people hoped they would. Unless your telling me that voters decided they wanted the Government to sell off it's assets, starve the NHS and Education system of necessary funds, raise the price of domestic power by putting levies on the providers, borrow trillions so that most of our tax is used to pay loan interest, underfund our social system so that children are murdered because there are not enough social workers to help them, run our services down to a level whereby helicopter ambulances, our best children's hospital, our animal protection agency and other such things that we should be government funded only exist by way of charitable donations, do you think they voted for a government that would make laws to restrict our rights whilst exempting themselves from those very same laws, a government that abuses their expenses, lies, funds terrorists, condones terrorism whilst sending our troops to fight against it, underfunds our forces so that we can barely defend ourselves and puts forces personnel lives at risk for lack of the best available equipment and sometimes the most basic of equipment ? Did we want a party that would not know what to do about legal and illegal immigration, that would bend over and take it from the EU ? Is this what we voted for ? if we get fed up of the lies will electing a different party change things, it hasn't done so yet. Is this what those brave men and women fought and died for ?
The problem is that you are referring to populist politics and this is somewhat removed from the real world that we all actually have to live in. You are guilty now of doing what every political party in opposition does and that is to take a specific point, out of context, and raise it as a vote winning statement. No one is going to argue that we should help more with ambulances, air ambulances, special hospitals etc but no political party will get voted in on a policy of raising taxes which would be needed to fund these things. You make a choice of having a government that is trying to reduce local and State politics, reduce costs and just try to get the country free and easy to make business work and hence create private sector jobs. This is Conservatism. The polar opposite is Labour who aspire to big government, big social programmes and higher costs on the pretext of supporting the poor. Liberalism has become a little misaligned over the years but now appears to be more socially responsible than even labour. From these three choices, each of the parties will adopt policies that are aligned to their core beliefs and the result will be specific issues that you, me and everyone else can rally around as being a populist issue that we disagree with. The alternative is a popular revolution based on the assumption that politicians are out of touch and don't do anything for the ordinary folk. Popular revolutions have happened in recent years in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt with the result that power, money and influence transferred from one small group of people to another. 99% of the populations would be worse off, or at best, no better off because national politics in every country is far, far removed from the ordinary family. In this country we all have to learn that no political party is going to make any material differences to our lives and we have to forget that concept and return to social responsibilities that appear to have been lost. Work hard, look after yourself and your family and you will do just fine. Thinking that any political party will make a difference to your life is delusional, the only person that can make a difference to your life, is you.
recent boundary changes mean the tories put themselves in a stronger position anyway. all crooked two faced gits doesnt matter which side you vote for. they do not represent us at all. self interest.
Quote by tyracer recent boundary changes mean the tories put themselves in a stronger position anyway. all crooked two faced gits doesnt matter which side you vote for. they do not represent us at all. self interest.
The proposed boundary changes put forward by the coalition government were blocked by the House of Lords and the next review has been delayed until 2018.
Quote by tyracer recent boundary changes mean the tories put themselves in a stronger position anyway. all crooked two faced gits doesnt matter which side you vote for. they do not represent us at all. self interest.
I thought the Libdems had blocked the boundary changes? Anyway, political parties will change there policies to appear more electable. That's what they do to survive, it can look like power for powers sake when you look back at how all the major parties have changed there policies over the years.
I hate and resent boundary changes, especially when they are introduced merely to assist parties gaining more votes rather than for a reason to benefit the region. I was born in Lancashire under the Red Rose, and I am proud of my County, it's heritage and it's history, then up comes some pompous twat and tells me, no, we moved the border, your from Cumbria now. Will they pay for my "Lancashire" tattoo to be removed ? would I let them, no I was born in Lancashire and will never think of myself as Cumbrian or anything else. It is just more evidence of the way Governments think nothing of our heritage and our history and why they are happy to give control of it and us to people in Europe and elsewhere, and all the time, telling us of the history of the House of Lords and House of Commons and the right of power the Government and Lords have.
2 things to say 1/ LibLab packed thingy ............... bin done before 2/ Guy Fawkes ,sercher want big BOOM ! ye i know ,bin done before to i vote for number 2 myself
Quote by MidsCouple24 I hate and resent boundary changes, especially when they are introduced merely to assist parties gaining more votes rather than for a reason to benefit the region. I was born in Lancashire under the Red Rose, and I am proud of my County, it's heritage and it's history, then up comes some pompous twat and tells me, no, we moved the border, your from Cumbria now. Will they pay for my "Lancashire" tattoo to be removed ? would I let them, no I was born in Lancashire and will never think of myself as Cumbrian or anything else. It is just more evidence of the way Governments think nothing of our heritage and our history and why they are happy to give control of it and us to people in Europe and elsewhere, and all the time, telling us of the history of the House of Lords and House of Commons and the right of power the Government and Lords have.
The Tory proposal to change electoral boundaries was due to the fact that they proposed to reduce the number of MPs by 10%....a move I would have thought most would welcome. This was included in their election manifesto in 2010.
Quote by herts_darlings1 Anyway, political parties will change there policies to appear more electable. That's what they do to survive, it can look like power for powers sake when you look back at how all the major parties have changed there policies over the years.
Surely society moves on year on year and with it standards of living, expectations and public opinion. All the political parties need to keep up with the modern day which will involve changing their policies and remolding their parties all to get more votes. 70's labour would not have got in 1997. With the talk of landslides, my issue will always be why should one party with a parliamentary majority (but not a majority of the voters) dictate policy to everyone.
Quote by Gerty35 With the talk of landslides, my issue will always be why should one party with a parliamentary majority (but not a majority of the voters) dictate policy to everyone.
Because that's the way our electoral system works, it's based on the number of parliamentary seats gained not overall number of votes gained.
Cut costs and get the UK back on it's feet, tighten our belts, work harder, I hear this often, so I have an idea, cut the number of MP's in half, give them more constituents, that would save £250 million every year Seriously though I do not believe we need as many MP's as we actually have. The overall expense for taxpayers in 2008/9 came to , down from the previous year. The cost of the House of Commons increased by more than £12m, but the bill for running the House of Lords was reduced by £46m. The biggest single outgoing for Parliament was for MPs' salaries and pensions, which came to The total figures include wages for members and staff, building expenses, security and other administration.
Swinging Heaven features sexually explicit material. To access this site you must be of the legal age to engage with the material of an adult site.
By entering Swinging Heaven you agree to the following;
I am deemed an adult where I live, and I am at least 18 years old
I am allowed to access & view sexually explicit material
0 likes
