Metropol

Well you can have it both ways, certain people may see the SNP having a minority government as rather useful in causing trouble for Lab/Con/Lib incumbents but at the same time not having enough power to do the sillyier things they want. Like independence.

what Hymagumba said. I take you other points

1. Because we still think worse of the Tories than yes I dread to say a bad labour government, that is how deep rooted this goes! we do not have tuition fees or top-up fees, scotland.

2. I said ( hopeful) this not the time for policies about local issues, I believe there trying to trick people into voting for them with out the merit of having of national policy.

* Tax
* Benefits
* EU
* Deference
* spending

These are the only policies that will matter, as we don't control them. Anything to do with health, eduction even law is a waste of time because, there could never change it at Westminster. we need the right policies for the right election.

3. I believe scotland has ALWAYS been perceived as a "backwater" even in the 1980's.
Scotland IS a completely different country, we have our own Health, eduction, Laws, money, business policy.

Another problem for the Tories is, because scotland has a higher number of people working in the public secter, which mean any cut will not go down well.

barcode wrote: 2. I said ( hopeful) this not the time for policies about local issues, I believe there trying to trick people into voting for them with out the merit of having of national policy.

* Tax
* Benefits
* EU
* Deference
* spending

It depends what you mean by "local" issue - do you mean local to Scotland? Or local to your council/constituency? Even so, tax is both a local and a national issue.

Anyway you're wrong to say that those are the only policies that will matter - I still like to believe that for a lot of people, they are concerned with what their government/council will actually DO for them (rubbish collection, education, health, roads, work) and that's both a local and a national issue; hence my continued frustration when Cameron and Brown come together at PMQ's EVERY week and this is the script

DC: Question about spending
GB: Retort that "Tories would cut spending by 10%"
DC: Yes but you didn't answer the question
GB: All that matters is we wouldn't cut spending
DC: He's in denial and has no authority
GB: He's got no policies
JB: Order, order
GB: Cameron's a cunt
Anonymous Labour minister: GB, your arse is so lovely, can I kiss it?
GB: Yes. Time for lunch

This is NOT the only issue up for debate and it frustrates me that this is all PMQs is about at the moment.

Besides, why shouldn't the Tories tackle local issues as well as national ones? You wait for them to come out with any substance but then you're not prepared to give them a chance when they do, what hope have they got?

Can you explain (without referring to precedent) why a Tory government would be worse than the crock of shit we have now?

Any cut in spending, coincidentally, I believe can be attributed to the spending deficit in critical areas (health, education) and spending surplus (Iraq, useless computer systems) under the last chancellor. Who he?

Yes, Scotland is another country. But your MPs come and vote on national issues - for goodness' sake, one of them is bloody running the country!

With "local" issue In terms each country in the UK, IE scotland, England wales and NI. As all for have 4 different types of systems for each government department ( some more than others)

Anyway you're wrong to say that those are the only policies that will matter - I still like to believe that for a lot of people, they are concerned with what their government/council will actually DO for them (rubbish collection, education, health, roads, work) Besides, why shouldn't the Tories tackle local issues as well as national ones? You wait for them to come out with any substance but then you're not prepared to give them a chance when they do, what hope have they got?

This all belong to the Scottish parliament, it has nothing to do with Westminster. I have gone to the mp office and there have actually past the case over to the MSP! there say it has nothing to do with the mp. MSP has taken over much of the rolls of the MP in Scotland. An mp could ask a question about this ( there have done this in monthly "Scottish question time " and there get told to pass it to the Scottish Parliament most often. I do wonder what the hell does the Scottish office do!

ALL those issues you have listed would also belong to the Scottish Tory party in terms of policy, Annabel Goldie would not be very happy with him. ( this has happened before and the Scot Tories have said NO to a UK policy )

IF David cameron comes out with Great health policy , It would NEVER effect me, nor Gavin nor Hym, ever.
If he tried to push it on scotland, there would be Constitution nightmare and bring utter chaos, and Mr alex would tell him to F**** **F BUT if David cameron comes out with a policy on EU or Deference, then would effect us

Can you explain (without referring to precedent) why a Tory government would be worse than the crock of shit we have now?

No, but I still have no idea what there plans are on National issues like Benefit systems or Deference, and this is where I would deiced whether to vote Tory or not. With block vote with 50 odd seats, it could all come down to people wanting to put the spammer in the works! and Scotland could return same amount of Labour mp, because some people may not want the SNP get them, as it might give them the power of political will to try and get independence.

Would a Tory government be any worse for the people of England this is a different kettle of fish.

barcode wrote:

Can you explain (without referring to precedent) why a Tory government would be worse than the crock of shit we have now?

No, but I still have no idea what there plans are on National issues like Benefit systems or Deference, and this is where I would deiced whether to vote Tory or not.

I don't get why people moan so much about the Conservatives not having any plans. You'll find out what their plans are when they release their manifesto before the next election. It doesn't matter right now.

Unfortunately though they can come up with as many good plans as they like, but all people like you will say is, 'I bet they wouldn't really do that if they won'.

Chie wrote:

barcode wrote:

Can you explain (without referring to precedent) why a Tory government would be worse than the crock of shit we have now?

No, but I still have no idea what there plans are on National issues like Benefit systems or Deference, and this is where I would deiced whether to vote Tory or not.

I don't get why people moan so much about the Conservatives not having any plans. You'll find out what their plans are when they release their manifesto before the next election. It doesn't matter right now.

As you may have noticed I tend to have a mantra of "don't dismiss something unless you've got something substantial to back it up with" or that kind of thing. That's one of my biggest dislikes of politics, because it's an environment that you can just dismiss what the government says while offering no real alternative.

Alexia wrote:

Mr Q wrote:Labor party.

Spelling!! Bloody colonials!!

Don't blame me - I know it should be Labour (I spell English proper good). Yet the party over here is the Australian Labor Party.

James H wrote:Besides, why shouldn't the Tories tackle local issues as well as national ones? You wait for them to come out with any substance but then you're not prepared to give them a chance when they do, what hope have they got?

Local policies are best dealt with by councils serving local communities.

Westminster, particularly in these days of devolved governments in the nations, is there to deal with the big issues.

Would the tories have led us to the invasion of Iraq? I defy you to find a straightforward answer from them. They half opposed, half supported in the debates, and then largely voted for it.

Can you explain (without referring to precedent) why a Tory government would be worse than the crock of shit we have now?

For me its because they haven't communicated any ideas which make me think "yes - this will make life better". The last 10 years of Labour hasn't been faultless by any means, but there was sustained growth in nearly every aspect of the economy - until the crash. I know the tories plan to cut spending, but I don't know what on. I don't know how they plan to help Britain out of this recession.

There is supposed to be a model of "save in the good times, spend in the bad". Now I know we didn't save in the good times, but I'm alarmed about tories plans to not spend in this VERY bad time. Public spending on large projects will at least keep certain sectors moving.

Any cut in spending, coincidentally, I believe can be attributed to the spending deficit in critical areas (health, education) and spending surplus (Iraq, useless computer systems) under the last chancellor. Who he?

Erm, lets not forget the CSA's botched computer system. Isn't that firm owned by a tory who was in office when he won the contract? The Millenium Dome was a tory plan, inherited by Labour.

With all possible respect, I think you're just a touch too young to remember what was going on when Labour came to power in 97.

Yes, Scotland is another country. But your MPs come and vote on national issues - for goodness' sake, one of them is bloody running the country!

English MPs also vote on matters relating to Scots. And what's this pish about a Scotsman "running the country"? A Westminster MP is a Westminster MP, irrespective of where they're born. Blair was also born and schooled in Edinburgh - but I guess if he doesn't have the accent, then that doesn't count?

Come off it.

Gavin Scott wrote:There is supposed to be a model of "save in the good times, spend in the bad". Now I know we didn't save in the good times, but I'm alarmed about tories plans to not spend in this VERY bad time. Public spending on large projects will at least keep certain sectors moving.

I think that's slightly misleading Gavin. 1/ You're assuming the Tories plan to make general spending cuts as soon as they enter office. That's probably untrue. Cuts will need to be made in the future - but they can wait until after the economy has recovered. Whoever is in power will face this challenge - Labour is being disingenuous if they're denying that. 2/ Even in the midst of a recession, not all spending is automatically good. Governments should still strive to deliver value for money. If the Tories can identify areas where Labour's spending plans (made in the name of fighting the recession) are wasteful, then there is a valid case for voicing concern.

But of course, you need to identify the specific expenditures you would target - which obviously the Tories haven't done. However, doing so would be politically foolish for them. That's the inevitable trade-off between politics and policy.

Mr Q wrote:

Gavin Scott wrote:There is supposed to be a model of "save in the good times, spend in the bad". Now I know we didn't save in the good times, but I'm alarmed about tories plans to not spend in this VERY bad time. Public spending on large projects will at least keep certain sectors moving.

I think that's slightly misleading Gavin. 1/ You're assuming the Tories plan to make general spending cuts as soon as they enter office. That's probably untrue. Cuts will need to be made in the future - but they can wait until after the economy has recovered. Whoever is in power will face this challenge - Labour is being disingenuous if they're denying that. 2/ Even in the midst of a recession, not all spending is automatically good. Governments should still strive to deliver value for money. If the Tories can identify areas where Labour's spending plans (made in the name of fighting the recession) are wasteful, then there is a valid case for voicing concern.

But of course, you need to identify the specific expenditures you would target - which obviously the Tories haven't done. However, doing so would be politically foolish for them. That's the inevitable trade-off between politics and policy.

1) I'm not assuming anything. I'm quoting Cameron. They want general and wide ranging cuts to both public services and capital projects. Cameron's view is the cuts will help the struggling economy.

Care to explain how that will work?

2) Of course not "all" spending is good - but I'm struggling to see a downside in the announcement of 140,000 new affordable homes being built over the next 24 months. Good for the construction industry, good for the supply chain, good for the people who need affordable housing.

Gavin Scott wrote:1) I'm not assuming anything. I'm quoting Cameron. They want general and wide ranging cuts to both public services and capital projects. Cameron's view is the cuts will help the struggling economy.

Care to explain how that will work?

Well, hanging a massive debt around the public's neck is not going to stimulate long term economic growth. I don't think cuts will help the 'struggling economy' today - you wouldn't want to do them in the current conditions. But they are necessary, and they should be pursued once the economy has recovered. If unsustainable fiscal deficits are allowed to continue, the net result will be higher borrowing costs that will stifle private sector investment.

2) Of course not "all" spending is good - but I'm struggling to see a downside in the announcement of 140,000 new affordable homes being built over the next 24 months. Good for the construction industry, good for the supply chain, good for the people who need affordable housing.

I don't know the details of this specific plan, but I'm a bit bemused as to why taxpayers' money needs to be used to build houses.