European Politics

Technically, Russia, as the successor state of the Soviet Union, can point out that it never agreed to Finland's abrogation of the Paris peace treaties of 1947. Suppose Finland attempts to join the NATO, Russia could object. But then, it would have to find a good reason for why it didn't object to it joining the EU in 1995.

But Finland is not constitutionally neutral as Sweden is. It's neutrality is based on bilateral treaties.
 
Was just having a discussion in my flat about polling station rules and regulations but amid the noise of the kitchen something was misheard:

"Did you just say that you can't take drugs in a polling station? That puts the Greens at a massive disadvantage."
 
Some big bank level fraud happened in Moldova - a billion dollars has been stolen of gov't money. That's 1/8 of yearly budget. Moldovan currency rapidly lost about 50% of it's value against $ and E.
 
Dr. Eddies Wingman said:
:eek:

That's quite surprising, considering the referendum last year ...
Click to expand...
It really isn't, Wingman. This was widely predicted.

Interestingly (with some exit polls) neither a Conservative/Lib. Dem. coalition or a Labour/SNP coalition (both of which have been widely proposed as coalitions likely to be formed in the case of no one party having a majority) would hold a majority. A Conservative minority government looks the most likely outcome as things stand.
 
Last edited:
Can anyone explain the huge (to me exceptional) difference between

1. expectations that it would be neck and neck between Conservatives and Labour Party
2. a completely different result with a huge win for the Conservatives and a huge loss for Labour Party

I know that expectations should not be trusted much, but usually they are based on something. What went wrong? Did lots of doubting Brits decide at the very end, and did they choose for certainty? They chose the man in command they know?
 
Last edited:
Forostar said:
Can anyone explain the huge (to me exceptional) difference between

1. expectations that it would be neck and neck between Conservatives and Labour Party
2. a completely different result with a huge win for the Conservatives and a huge loss for Labour Party

I know that expectations should not be trusted much, but usually they are based on something. What went wrong? Did lots of doubting Brits decide at the very end, and did they choose for certainty? They chose the man in command they know?
Click to expand...

Labour did nothing to secure the socialist vote, which left it scattered amongst them, the Lib Dems, the nationalist parties and Green. The only further right competition the Tories have is UKIP, which plays highly into their favour. The SNP have done excellently to get into the position they are, and I'm very happy with the maturity the Scottish have been showing in voting recently. Plaid Cymru are essentially the Poundland version in Wales.

I'll say this for EdM. He's resilient. Turned out that wasn't a strength but a weakness. Should have handed over to Alan Johnson in autumn.
 
Perhaps I can see these elections as another referendum over Scotland's interest. Most are against thus the big majority voted for Cameron.
If Cameron would have lost, who knows what would happen. Thus a big majority wanted Cameron to win.

At the same time SNP still managed to have lots of support. Support for a party with an aim that failed? Can the NO-vs Scottish-independence-voter explain, why he can be happy with growth of SNP? @CriedWhenBrucieLeft (anyone else?)

Alright, more Scottish influence in parliament (in London). But in the future a bigger SNP might eventually mean a yes in another (real) referendum.
 
Last edited:
Forostar said:
Perhaps I can see this election as another referendum over Scotland's independence. Most are against thus the big majority voted for Cameron.
Click to expand...

No. I think the Scottish know that independence is a bad idea in the long-term. This result draws all the benefits of staying in the Union, whilst having the ability to campaign for further devolution powers.
 
That was a aim that was primarily driven by Alex Salmond, the old leader of the SNP, who was overly ambitious. I think Sturgeon understands that Scotland doesn't need to be independent to be happier.
 
This is pretty much exactly the result I expected, tbh. Labour alienated a lot of people in Scotland - where they used to have massive support - around the time of the independence vote. The Lib Dems, who were a popular alternative vote last time, have been shown the door, because they lived up to none of their principles as part of the coalition. In fact, they trampled on their own principles in some cases.

I think it's still being overlooked that the SNP votes, indeed the pro-independence votes, were not necessarily all driven by nationalism. It's not simply the case that the Westminster-centric parties aren't seen as doing enough specifically for Scotland - they are seen as representing a limited range of interests UK-wide. Scotland just happens to actually have a viable alternative vote.

RTC said:
Plaid Cymru are essentially the Poundland version in Wales.
Click to expand...
:funnypost:
 
Brigantium said:
This is pretty much exactly the result I expected, tbh. Labour alienated a lot of people in Scotland - where they used to have massive support - around the time of the independence vote. The Lib Dems, who were a popular alternative vote last time, have been shown the door, because they lived up to none of their principles as part of the coalition. In fact, they trampled on their own principles in some cases.
Click to expand...
That's what usually happens in coalitions. Good luck to another coalition partner, if there's going to be one. That party will be decimated as well. Collaborating with Cameron brought them nothing. I can almost hear him thinking "Thanks for nothing, there's the door."
RTC said:
I think Sturgeon understands that Scotland doesn't need to be independent to be happier.
Click to expand...
How long will they stay happy? I reckon that would change if the UK would leave the EU.

edit:
My bewilderment still stands:
"the pollsters got it wrong and the commentators got it wrong".

How come? Is the media that crappy in the UK? They have no ounce of a clue what's going on there?
 
Last edited:
Forostar said:
How come? Is the media that crappy in the UK? They have no ounce of a clue what's going on there?
Click to expand...

There might well have been a bit of scaremongering going on to up Conservative votes. Many people are still terrified of that socialist monolith that is, er, the Labour Party.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RTC
So last minute media influence has been very powerful in the UK.

The economy went well during Cameron. Unfortunately, many voters have no clue that immigration has been important to this same economy.

Something else: the differences between the rich and poor have increased. People who voted for Cameron are responsible for worse consequences:

-------
http://www.theguardian.com/society/...reases-gap-widens-rich-poor-imperial-research
Professor Majid Ezzati, senior author of the study in the Lancet medical journal, says poverty and austerity are largely to blame. “The present UK coalition government has cut public spending on a range of social determinants of health under the rhetoric of austerity,” he said. “Such policies will, at best, cause the rising inequality trends to continue, and could well worsen them because their adverse effects are particularly large on children and working-age people, and on more disadvantaged social groups and communities, with signs of a rise in poverty already emerging. ...

... “Moreover, National Health Service reforms, which devolve health and social care responsibilities to local governments, coupled with tight budgets and a large role for the private sector in commissioning and provision of health services, will weaken health systems and worsen inequalities in health care access and quality.”
-------

Do voters themselves have any principles left? Bah.
:down:
 
Last edited:
That's what I mean about the SNP vote. Labour isn't that different to the Conservatives when in power, in terms of privatisating public services (and not in a way that seems to save any money, I might add) and fragmenting the NHS. The only difference is, Labour creates more public sector jobs and is perceived as more likely than the Conservatives to be on the side of the working man. In reality, Labour is spending a lot of time chasing the votes of professionals and businessmen. The SNP is appealing to 'Old Labour' voters too now.

Conservative voters do so for a variety of reasons, mostly in defence of the status quo. If you're getting a decent deal, you want to retain that. Or as my family put it: "Share prices and property prices go up under the Conservatives." (They vote Conservative). Rural areas are as traditional in voting Conservative as industrial/former industrial areas are in voting Labour.
 
Forostar said:
That's what usually happens in coalitions. Good luck to another coalition partner, if there's going to be one. That party will be decimated as well. Collaborating with Cameron brought them nothing. I can almost hear him thinking "Thanks for nothing, there's the door."
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand what your point with this is. Are you saying the voters should accept that coalitions compromise positions? Or that coalitions should be avoided?
 
I am of the opinion that voters should accept compromises, to a certain extent. It depends on how far a party goes of course. And it depends on which principles someone finds (the most) important.

I find it too easy to be angry at a party in a government when it makes compromises no matter which these are. What people often forget is that, if that compromising coalition partner the voters voted for, would not be in that government, the result would not be better than when that party would not be in the government. (that was a shitty sentence, sorry)

If the Torries rule alone, people really will see how that will be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top