Council elections - Page 15 - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Council elections


Guest flumax

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, andymac said:

11 + 9 > 19

 

11 hours ago, andymac said:

 

I now as an SNP fanboy this concept is slightly beyond you

In hindsight this is when i should have stopped debating with you but i missed it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 394
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

12 hours ago, ErsatzThistle said:

New Lord Provost of Glasgow (and the very first Scottish nationalist to hold the office) is the SNP's Eva Bolander. She's also the first EU national (from Sweden originally) to hold the office too. :ok:

Has she got a season ticket for parkhead?

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 18/05/2017 at 10:47 AM, Ally Bongo said:

 

In hindsight this is when i should have stopped debating with you but i missed it

Was the arithmetic too much?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, andymac said:

Was the arithmetic too much?

Isn't the point that in this election candidates stood expressly on a ticket that involved not going into coalition with the Tories, and then almost as soon as elected, went back on that pledge and formed a coalition anyway? And though they may now be 'independents', who could pretend they'd have got as many votes as they did, had they gone in as 'independents, with a quite distinct possible tendency of propping up Tories' - especially if there had also been official Labour candidates? I don't know Aberdeen politics, but I'd have thought at least some voters must feel conned by their actions, or at least, would have listed their preferences differently, had they known what they'd do?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, exile said:

Isn't the point that in this election candidates stood expressly on a ticket that involved not going into coalition with the Tories, and then almost as soon as elected, went back on that pledge and formed a coalition anyway? And though they may now be 'independents', who could pretend they'd have got as many votes as they did, had they gone in as 'independents, with a quite distinct possible tendency of propping up Tories' - especially if there had also been official Labour candidates? I don't know Aberdeen politics, but I'd have thought at least some voters must feel conned by their actions, or at least, would have listed their preferences differently, had they known what they'd do?  

Dont feed the troll

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, HUNTINGMcGREGOR said:

I can see some logic in that policy, even if you have probably posted it in the wrong thread. I don't think this would ever be devolved down to council level?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

I can see some logic in that policy, even if you have probably posted it in the wrong thread. I don't think this would ever be devolved down to council level?

It's a ridiculous policy. She might have go away with it 2000 years ago, but not in a modern society. If it goes ahead, you are probably right and it won't be devolved, but it will be Councils who will have responsibility for implementing and managing, when resources are already stretched. This will not happen in an Independent Scotland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, exile said:

Isn't the point that in this election candidates stood expressly on a ticket that involved not going into coalition with the Tories, and then almost as soon as elected, went back on that pledge and formed a coalition anyway? And though they may now be 'independents', who could pretend they'd have got as many votes as they did, had they gone in as 'independents, with a quite distinct possible tendency of propping up Tories' - especially if there had also been official Labour candidates? I don't know Aberdeen politics, but I'd have thought at least some voters must feel conned by their actions, or at least, would have listed their preferences differently, had they known what they'd do?  

Probably but that is the problem with representative democracy, Vote for candidate because you believe that they will do what they say, Many don't, look at Westminster. Strangely, it isn't against the rules, I don't agree with it but that is what it is. Their party will probably suspend them if it is high profile (as they have in this case I think) and the voters get to to throw them out at the next election. Meanwhile, in this case, these people can form a majority.

 

12 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:

Dont feed the troll

Good stuff, quality response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HUNTINGMcGREGOR said:

It's a ridiculous policy. She might have go away with it 2000 years ago, but not in a modern society. If it goes ahead, you are probably right and it won't be devolved, but it will be Councils who will have responsibility for implementing and managing, when resources are already stretched. This will not happen in an Independent Scotland.

A lot of folk voted for brexit because of immigration. Now, some of those folk are quite happy to admit they are xenophobic and/or racist, but most of them claim that they aren't. They try to tell us that they don't dislike foreigners, it's just that there are far too many folk living in the UK. One way to have less folk in the UK would be to have less babies. Murdering live babies is probably a step too far, even for Terresa May (maybe?) but I could see how a sterilisation program for young poor people might work. They could offer free sterilisations to a generation of 16 year-olds or even incentivise it by offering them an extra £5 a week dole money.

In Dundee, it would obviously need to be for 14 year-olds, for it to be effective though.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure we are on the same track here. As a Dad, 15 year old Dad from Dundee, my daughter is now 31, and her extermination at 2 years old, well it would have saved me a fortune and would have been a great benefit to the taxpayer. If this policy was in place in 1986, the world would have been a better place. I probably would have benefited from a sterilization programme because being such a great looking guy with a 2 ft toby, I've impregnated a few lasses - although the CSA only got me for one. He turns18 this year, never met him, but he has special needs. Cost me about 70 grand in maintenance. Just think of all the beer and pizza (and kebabs I have missed out on because of this little C%$T). May is gong the the right way. I would Devolve it to local Councils - I always get the impression that they are smart people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, andymac said:

Probably but that is the problem with representative democracy, Vote for candidate because you believe that they will do what they say, Many don't, look at Westminster. Strangely, it isn't against the rules, I don't agree with it but that is what it is. Their party will probably suspend them if it is high profile (as they have in this case I think) and the voters get to to throw them out at the next election. Meanwhile, in this case, these people can form a majority.

 

So it's because they are representatives behaving as individuals, if they dupe you, it's your problem. And yet there are all those other rules, like lying about candidates, what you can spend, and what you can call yourself as a political party (e.g. Scottish v UK labour).

But moving forward, then surely the election result needs to be changed to reflect Labour gaining fewer council seats than we all thought. ('no Labour councillors in Aberdeen') Is someone going to change the wikipedia page? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, exile said:

So it's because they are representatives behaving as individuals, if they dupe you, it's your problem.

Sort of, but many, may politicians don't do what they said they said they would or changed their minds. Lots of MPs have changed parties. The principled ones have stood down and sought re-election but they are not forced to do this by the rules.

 

11 minutes ago, exile said:

And yet there are all those other rules, like lying about candidates, what you can spend, and what you can call yourself as a political party (e.g. Scottish v UK labour).

Yes but these things are not about your representative changing their position in light of circumstances.

11 minutes ago, exile said:

But moving forward, then surely the election result needs to be changed to reflect Labour gaining fewer council seats than we all thought. ('no Labour councillors in Aberdeen') Is someone going to change the wikipedia page? 

No idea. It is wikipedia, you could probably change it. However, the election result was what the election result was. At the point of declaration the numbers were true. If a bunch of Labour councillors switched to Independent the election result stands but the current make up of councillors  by party changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's official. A minority administration in North Lanarkshire run by Labour and propped up by the Tories. Apparently not a formal coalition, just an 'arrangement'.

Scottish Labour.......sneaky ####ers I think you'll find. At least the ####in Tories don't show any pretence! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, slasher said:

It's official. A minority administration in North Lanarkshire run by Labour and propped up by the Tories. Apparently not a formal coalition, just an 'arrangement'.

Scottish Labour.......sneaky ####ers I think you'll find. At least the ####in Tories don't show any pretence! 

Er.....https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/10/alex-salmond-hypocrisy-former-scottish-tories-leader-annabel-goldie

All parties do this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, andymac said:

Does that make it ok? Anyway it's disingenuous to say the least. SLab have far more in common with the SNP than they do with the Tories but would rather cut off their nose to spite their face. Pathetic!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, slasher said:

Does that make it ok? Anyway it's disingenuous to say the least. SLab have far more in common with the SNP than they do with the Tories but would rather cut off their nose to spite their face. Pathetic!

Did you read the Guardian link? Where it talks about the SNP accommodation with the Tories? Was that OK?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, andymac said:

Did you read the Guardian link? Where it talks about the SNP accommodation with the Tories? Was that OK?

Yeah, it all goes back to Labours pathological hatred of the SNP. I saw it first hand when then the Labour hierarchy paraded down Buchanan Street and saw the the small Labour for independence stall. Feckin raging they were. They're out of step with Labour voters north and south of the border on all levels.....but I suspect you don't care about any of that. ?

Edited by slasher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, andymac said:

 

Yes but these things are not about your representative changing their position in light of circumstances.

No idea. It is wikipedia, you could probably change it. However, the election result was what the election result was. At the point of declaration the numbers were true. If a bunch of Labour councillors switched to Independent the election result stands but the current make up of councillors  by party changes.

Points taken (about representativeness) but on the last one, did you notice that in the council elections, the BBC refused to use the "what the election result was" numbers of seats (which would have shown an SNP increase in seats) but chose to invent some other measure (which showed a reduction in seats) and hence relentless propaganda about SNP on the slide. Maybe just a coincidence that it showed the SNP in a bad light, eh?

It'll be interesting to see how the general election results will be reported. given the SNP's 'whipless two'.

If hypothetically the SNP won 55 seats, you could frame that as a loss of one seat or a gain of one seat. What are the bets that the anti-SNP parties will compare this number with "what the election result was", and so record a loss. And what will the BBC use? 

My guess is that they would use words like "a notional gain" (emphasising notional, as if to say, not really) and probably also mention it could also be interpreted as a loss and then use it to re-explain the two whipless cases. And that's all true, of course, but just happens to be not the same way they interpreted the truth for the council elections....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...