BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election

Subject: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 06:08 PM

The race to the general election started with the TV debate tonight between the three parties' likely chancellors of the exchequer (if the party wins). Indeed Cable (Lib Dem) is hotly tipped for chancellor if there is a hung parliament.

Well, I thought Darling (New Labour) got a couple of good licks in, and Cable got a nice closing barrage in at the conservative party's rich backers.

But they really let Osborne (COnservative) off the hook over his incredible promise to use the very public sector savings that he was denigrating last week as "imaginary" for tax (well, National Savngs) cuts for middle England rather than than the deficit reduction that last week he was saying was the only real issue and so important that it had to take priority over fighting the recession. He even tried to present those earning £20,000pa as the poor.

And no-one called him on the bankers culture of greed being the legacy of Thatcherite-Reaganite "trickle down" Hayek based economics.



Osborne is the eldest son of four children and heir of Sir Peter Osborne, 17th Baronet, co-founder of the fabric and wallpapers designers, Osborne & Little. He is heir to the Osborne baronetcy (of Ballentaylor in the County of Waterford). This makes him a part of what is known in Ireland as the Ascendancy, the old Anglo-Irish aristocracy.

Osborne was educated at the private Norland Place School in Holland Park, St Paul's School independent school and Magdalen College at Oxford University, where he received an upper second-class degree in Modern History.

Whilst at Oxford, Osborne was a member of the Bullingdon Club, a private dining club of Oxford University students; it was "infamous for riotous behaviour" and was open only to sons of aristocratic families and the wealthy. Osborne's friends David Cameron and Nat Rothschild (er, guess what his family does) were also members of the club.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: GUEST,Sapper on MENTOR stood in Glasgow
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 07:17 PM

Well whoopsie do!!!
So Osborne was a member of the Bullington Club!!

How about Patricia Hewitt, Jack Dromey and Harriet Harman all having links to a body that, during the '70s, supported The Paedophile Information Exchange? A rather foul body of perverts that, before being forced underground, openly campaigned for the legalisation of sexual acts between adults and children?

From the mid-70s to early-80s, PIE was accorded associate membership of the National Council for Civil Liberties which, at the time of the invitation to affiliate was given, had Hewitt as chair and Dromey as an exectutive member.

Harman became the NCCL Legal Officer in '79 and, in that capacity, made an official submission to the Government to the effect that explicit pornography concerning children sould not be illegal "unless it could be shown that the subject had suffered, and that prosecutors would have to prove harm rather than defendants having to justify themselves."


Harman the Paedophile supporter

And, if this is right, it is continuing

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 07:50 PM

Wow. Your elections sound more interesting than ours.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 08:17 PM

I see some pundits are awarding points to Osborne (known to his Bullingdon chums as "Oik" because his folk couldn't afford Eton and he had to make do with St Paul's) on the basis that he was less bad than expected. He did however finish third in a three-horse race.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 10:08 PM

Your point Sapper? Were any of those you name members of PIE? I think not.

The NCCL rightly took (in general) the position that any form of proscription should require proof of harm. It was about civil liberties, see? Following the generation of information, it was decided that PIE's objectives were harmful, and it ceased to be tolerated. It seems a rational process. In the 60s and 70s bodies took pat in a debate about the reshaping of public policy so that it would be based on evidence and principle, not knee-jerk reaction. Another such body was NCROPA.   The law on obscenity has somewhat changed, partly following debate. Other debates have given us the irrational (or irrationally implimented) Video Recordings Act, and the fairly fantastic law relating to psuedo-images of pseudo-children, in which fields our public policy has taken us to places that in the USA would be considered odd.

None of which I think has yet risen to any prominence in relation to the current election campaign.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 02:45 AM

Starting gun fired ?

I thought, by that, you meant the date of the election had actually been announced.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 03:25 AM

Ah, the perils of short titles! The finish line may not be in sight or even identified, but with the three chancellors last night and a Panorama on "How to win an election" studying election strategy over recent decades I think we can say that the race is on.

This is a very important election: it decides whether the UK will again be submitted to government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich and expected gratefully to tug its forelock, or whether we will have any chance of a government that makes at least a pretence of representing the cross-section of society.

There is no good choice in this election, but there are many possible bad choices (the old Etonians, the British Nazi party or either of its two shills (UKIP and English Democrats) at least). There are the wasted votes (Green, Lib-Dem), and there are no socialist candidates (yet, as far as I know - eg Respect, Socialist Worker, Socialist Labour, or anytype of communist).

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Jim McLean
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 05:36 AM

Richard Bridge, this is not an English election as SNP, Plaid Cymru and parties in Northern Ireland also have members in the UK parliament.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 07:16 AM

To say that all votes for minority parties are wasted is rather a facile generalisation, more than ever this time round, when there is a real possibility that neither of the two big parties will achieve a majority.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 07:35 AM

Yes Jim there are - but not available for me to vote for. I think I have been consistent in referring to the UK general election. I have however as yet seen no sign of any platforms for the parties you mention.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 07:38 AM

I suggest, Peter, that votes for the mini-parties are less not more likely to produce a hung parliament because any that do get seats as I see the platforms so far (ie Lib-Dem or Green, I discount the lunatic fringe) are more likely to take votes from New Labour than Conservative.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 07:55 AM

This gun they have just fired, is it the same one as they used to shoot themselves in the foot?

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Lox
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 12:24 PM

The Lib Dems have the best chance to do well that they have ever had.

Cable did well.

Its all down to clegg now.

Ayo Ghurkali?

or just Seeya Layta!

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 01:04 PM

Most of them couldn't run a raffle, what chance do they have of running a country?
I mean, apart from running it into the ground?
Oh sorry; they already did that!

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: GUEST,Allan Connochie
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 02:28 PM

"To say that all votes for minority parties are wasted is rather a facile generalisation, more than ever this time round, when there is a real possibility that neither of the two big parties will achieve a majority."

That is absolutely correct. Opinion polls in Scotland have not shown the SNP doing all that well. However it has probably less to do with people's attitude to them as it has to the idea that some people have that a vote for them is a bit wasted at Westmisnter where they can only ever be a minor force. It is in these times when majorities could be none existent or quite small that the smaller parties (talking about UK wide) could push way above their weight.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: GUEST,Sapper heading South on MENTOR
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 02:40 PM

"Your point Sapper? Were any of those you name members of PIE? I think not."

I did not say that they were PIE members Richard. However, the fact remains that, from '76 to '82(?)when they went underground, PIE was affiliated to and received support from the NCCL.

During the whole of that period Dromey and Hewitt were both holding official posts in NCCL and therefore agreed with that support.

Harman became Legal Officer in '79 and continued thus upto her entry into Parliament. PIEs affiliation continued throughout the period she held her NCCL post.

It seems strange to me that, whilst your main arguement against Osbourne is that, (like a large proportion of the Parliamentary Labour Party,) he went to a private school and also happened mix with people of his own background, you are more than happy to excuse people who supported a bunch of sick peverts wanting to legalise the buggery of children!!

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: GUEST,Sapper nearing Carstairs
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 02:52 PM

"This is a very important election:"

Quite Agree Richard

"it decides whether the UK will again be submitted to government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich and expected gratefully to tug its forelock,"

You mean a Labour Government with us poor bastards who actually work being eternally grateful to the Government and Unions for being allowed to work?


"or whether we will have any chance of a government that makes at least a pretence of representing the cross-section of society."

As does the Conservative Party.
Now, even more than ever before, Labour's place as the so-called party of the working classes is being exposed as the sham it always was.
Labour has long been hijacked as the party of the Socialist Middle Classes and Trade Union barons.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Lox
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 06:28 PM

Sapper,

"you are more than happy to excuse people who supported a bunch of sick peverts wanting to legalise the buggery of children"

Can you indicate where Richard said this?

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Lox
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 06:29 PM

"a bunch of sick peverts wanting to legalise the buggery of children"


Can you show where Harman wanted to legalize paedophilia?

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 07:39 PM

I'd have thought all you hotshots could have found more important reasons for choosing where to cast your votes than where candidates got their education.

It strikes me that there have been many more top scientists, doctors, lawyers, and just about every other profession, who were educated at Eton and Oxford, or Harrow and Cambridge, than were products of the "Comprehensive system".

New Labour inherited an all-time low inflation rate, and interest rate, along with a huge fiscal surplus which they managed, in just ten years, to fritter away in futile tinkering around the edges of the various institutions, without ever achieving anything more than the alienation of the front line staff, whom a labour government should be looking after.

They have abdicated any pretence of being the party of the working man.

The direct results of Brown's time as Chancellor, and Prime Minister, were:-

1. The wasting of funds which might have seen us through the recession. True it started in the USA, but outside the USA we were the first in, we went deeper in than anyone else (other than Greece and Eire, who had both been heading for a fall anyway), and we haven't yet come out.

2. The raid on pension funds which saw many low paid working people (including myself) forced to retire on less than half what they paid for.

3. A teaching profession turned into government pen pushers who do a week's work and then spend their evenings and weekends on reams of paperwork.

They have the immortal gall to piss and moan about Lord Ashcroft who is a "Resident Non-Dom", and earns money both in and outside of the UK.

He pays UK tax on all his UK income, and presumably pays tax on the rest in the countries in which he earns the money.

Meanwhile New Labour is a wholly owned subsidiary of the UNITE union, which pays for its campaigns (and what else besides?), and chooses its candidates.

Can anybody deny that this puts New Labour in a position of being vulnerable to undue influence?

I can't see Lord Ashcroft influencing Tory policy in quite the same way.

New Labour are one hundred percent discredited. The Tories under Cameron (who is nothing like Thatcher), are much less so.

Cameron reacted to the expenses scandal instantly and made it clear that Tories who did not immediately make restitution would not be allowed to stand as candidates in 2010.

Brown did neither, and took much longer to decide which of his mob would go, and which would just have their wrists slapped.

And just as an aside, the Moat Cleaning and the fancy Duck House expenses were, it is true, presented to the Fees Office, but were not approved, nor paid, unlike the (New Labour) payments on the non-existent mortgages.

All in all, there is a pattern emerging here, and not to New Labour's credit, or credibility.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 07:46 PM

On balance a Tory win would be even more depressing than a New Labour victory. A hung parliament which allows us to have electoral reform is the best to hope for.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Lox
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 11:08 PM

I'm with McGrath.

The question is whether the rest of britains dissatisfied voters will go Lib or Ukip.

The BNP shock in europe should hopefully get voters off their backsides.

God help us if UKIP do well!

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: GUEST,Allan Connochie
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 02:05 AM

"The question is whether the rest of britains dissatisfied voters will go Lib or Ukip."

That is too anglo-centric a take on it though. UKIP are only standing in less than half of the non-English constituencies in the forthcoming elections. They have no presence in Northern Ireland and I'm not sure about Wales but in Scotland they are pretty much an irrelevance to the overall results. The Lib Dems are relevant but I don't think there is any sign of a swing to them and they'll probably end up in 4th place here as far as overall votes go and might even lose seats. The main issue here is more how many people who voted SNP in the Holyrood election will vote SNP in the Westminster vote? The polls so far suggest Labour are doing well.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 04:44 AM

Well Allan, I'm sure that will cheer up those in England who blame the Scottish Labour MP's for a lot of the malaise that now affects Britain due to New Labour's idiotic 'fiddling round the edges'
Even Tony Blair was a Scot, although he went to great lengths to hide it. My guess is, he knows about guilt by association.
Brown, Darling, and Martin, are examples, and it's a pity that they continued, while Cook and Smith were lost. In fact we would never have had Blair were it not for John Smith's early demise.
Then there are the nutters, like Tommy Sheridan and George Galloway, and if you add them all up, it makes Scottish politicians look like a bunch of crooks and charlatans.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Arnie
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 05:19 AM

Well, the unions are doing their bit for Labour. BA cabin crew are planning further strikes and now Bob Crow is taking on Network Rail. There will be rail chaos over Easter with further strikes planned at around the same time that Gordo announces the date of the election. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!! It does make me wonder though - it is always possible that management at BA and Network Rail have chosen their moment to announce job cuts in order to provoke national strikes and damage Labour's chances of re-election. If so, Unite and the rail unions have risen to the bait magnificently....

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Mavis Enderby
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 06:27 AM

"wated votes" - what absolute and utter bollocks. Vote with your conscience.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 06:36 AM

More to the point, choose who you bvote for. Don't just say, Oh I am working class, therefore I vote Labour. Or I went to Eton, therefore I vote Tory.
Use your vote for the candidate that you think will do the most good for your constituency.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 06:40 AM

Do they still have to count spoiled votes and show then to the candidates, does anyone know?

DeG

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Mavis Enderby
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 07:06 AM

Bloody hell - just re-read - WASTED votes of course!

Found a nice quote (from here):

"They become "viable" one voter at a time, so vote with your conscience, for the right person for the job, instead of the one who offends you the least but can win"

That states my view better than I could and is exactly the situation I face this coming election.

Pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 08:34 AM

Me too Pete.

Thank God I'm not constrained by the "My dad voted (insert appropriate party) so I do too" straitjacket.

I always vote for the best candidate (IMHO of course) for the job, irrespective of party, and it's never been our long-term sitting MP.

I've never understood this idea that it's only worth voting for the most likely winner. Vote for the guy who's the best candidate.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 08:36 AM

And, of course, people only voting Tory or Labour is one reason why shite candidates get to be MPs.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: GUEST,Allan Connochie
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 01:42 PM

"Well Allan, I'm sure that will cheer up those in England who blame the Scottish Labour MP's for a lot of the malaise that now affects Britain due to New Labour's idiotic 'fiddling round the edges'"

Aye politicians in general haven't exactly distinguihsed themselves of late. Scots have been prominent in the Labour Party so it is easy for some to blame the Scots - but of course the vast majority of MPs in both the Labour Party and Parliament as a whole are English. Blair didn't just hide his Scottishness he just about disowned it. Though he is one of these people who could be what he wanted as he was a mix-max. His mother was Irish; his father was raised in Scotland by his adoptive parents but was born English; Blair himself was born in Scotland but only lived there for a few short yers in his childhood. He later went to boarding school in Edinburgh but apart from his short spells in Scotland and Oz during pre-school years and he's lived his entire life in England. Mind you another one who hides the Scottish part of his background even more than Blair is David Cameron!

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 06:20 PM

Watched a press conference convened by the SNP and Plaid Cymru on BBC TV today.

It seems, according to Alex Salmond, that they have made a pact not to form a coalition with either main party, but to vote with New Labour or with Conservatives, according to the individual issue.

I thought "Crikey, they've grown some intelligence, and maybe the LibDems might catch it too".

Then he gave the punch line. They will not be voting according to what is best for the UK.

They will back whichever party offers "the best concessions for the benefit of Scotland and Wales"

That's two minor parties for sale to the highest bidder, and to the detriment of the people of the United Kingdom. And they were among the most vehement castigators of MPs involved in the expenses scandal.

"I am a diplomat, You are a negotiator, He is a crook". It never bloody changes.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 06:29 PM

Tony Blair went to an English Public School, even it is in the middle of Edinburgh.

The SNP and Plaid Cymru are doing what their stated aims are, namely to put the intersests of Scotland and Wales first.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Lox
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 06:36 PM

Reassuring to read that UKIP are apparently so weak, nonetheless, one rep from them is still one rep too many!

Sorry, I'vebtried really hard to see their good points, but Ozzie Osborne and Daft Cameraman make my skin crawl.

Not that Media Darling or Gorgon Brown-nose inspire me much ... they just fill me with less loathing.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: GUEST,Allan Connochie
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 06:51 PM

"Then he gave the punch line. They will not be voting according to what is best for the UK. They will back whichever party offers "the best concessions for the benefit of Scotland and Wales"

The SNP's raison d'etre is to take Scotland out of the UK. They only stand in seats in Scotland and their constituents (whatever nationality they are) all live in Scotland. It seems pretty obvious that if a cetain issue looks like it is to the detriment of their constituents then they will work towards trying to protect their constituent's interest. The SNP government in Scotland have no majority hence they have policies that they are unable to forward (ie the referendum on independence)and they have other policies which they can only proceed with by taking note of the wishes of other parties and trading off against that. It is obvious that at Westminster they will try to get concessions from whoever is the government.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 07:11 PM

If they only stand in Scotland and Wales, they should not influence UK matters.

Selling their support for the biggest bribe is no less dishonest and corrupt than the things Westminster MPs have been pilloried for.

I'd love to see both of them given independence, and see how long they'd last.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 07:21 PM

Well, the legitimate ambition of the SNP and Plaid Cymru is to bring about a situation in which the United Kingdom would cease to exist. That is more likely to happen within a short time frame if there is a Conservative Government down in London.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 07:26 PM

For a long time the Conservative Party only stood in English seats. In Scotland there was practically no Conservative support, and practically all the seats were held by the Unionist Party, which was effectively the old Liberal Unionist Party that split from the Liberals over Irish Home Rule. When it was incorporated into the Conservative Party, Scottish support evaporated overnight.

The situation at Westminster is a direct result of the negotiations prior to 1707 when the English negotiators refused to accept anything other than an incorporating union.

Scotland and Wales are part of the UK and have every right to influence UK matters. I quite agree that the situation is different with English matters, just as English MPs shouldn't meddle in purely Scottish and WElsh affairs.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 07:29 PM

If it wasn't for Edward I there probably wouldn't be a Scottish nation. If it wasn't for Thatcher there probably wouldn't be a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assemly. Hey folks, A VOTE FOR CAMERON IS A VOTE FOR PLAID CYMRU AND THE SNP!

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 07:36 PM

I blame the Romans.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: GUEST,Allan Connochie
Date: 01 Apr 10 - 02:21 AM

"If they only stand in Scotland and Wales, they should not influence UK matters. I'd love to see both of them given independence, and see how long they'd last."

Scotland and Wales are full integral parts of the UK so of course they have every right to stand in UK elections and influence UK matters. I'm not sure that any of the major parties actually stand througout the entire UK! There are of course different opinions as to whether Scotland would be better or worse off outwith the UK but the idea that it would be incapable of doing so is absurd.

As for the independence question itself. A majority of Scots tend to still favour the union in some form (from the status quo,to more devolved powers, to full fiscal automony within the UK) though there is also a substantial number who favour outright independence. The question has never been fully debated or put to the Scottish people. The SNP manifesto at the last election was to organise an independence referendum and poll after poll has shown that a clear majority of people living in Scotland favour a referendum - but they can't get it through the parliament because they need the support of at least one of the major unionist parties all of whom are opposing any referendum. Hence the Scottish government can't get through one of its main manifesto aims. The wheels haven't come off the bus though and the administration has gone along with other aims hoping they can at sometime persuade perhaps the Lib Dems to give support. People just have to get used to the idea that with no overall majority governemnts can't just do everything they want.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Apr 10 - 11:08 AM

Is fractionation a legitimate aim?

Anyway, I'm glad to see the BNP internal bickering is getting worse.

This might be my first manually created blicky (if it works)

http://www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/content/havering/recorder/news/story.aspx?brand=RECOnline&category=newsRomford&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newsromford&itemid=WeED01%20Apr%202010%2017:25:20:463

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: GUEST,Allan Connochie
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 04:13 AM

"Is fractionation a legitimate aim?"

Of course it is. A majority of Scots may still support the union but that doesn't mean they don't see the SNP's aims as legitimate. And we are talking about the party who are currently the Scottish government here and not some small insignificant fraction of the Scottish electorate. Plus it is an inclusive party (totally unlike the BNP) who's stated stance is that should they achieve independence (among other categories) everyone legally resident in Scotland at that time would be offered citizenship regardless of race, religion, nationality, colour, parentage etc - and to decline citizenship would not be detrimental to their rights of abode etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 04:38 AM

So would a party seeking independence for the Isle of Sheppey be legitimate? I'd have thought it was constitutionally defective, like in US terms secession by Hawaii.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Dave Roberts
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 05:14 AM

Regarding the actual date: I've been offered employment as a Poll Clerk by my local council for the 'election of a member of Parliament'on May 6th. Odd because I, too, was under the impression that the actual date had not yet been announced (confirmed would, perhaps, be a better term).
But there we are. I have it it writing. You heard it here first.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 05:35 AM

There are local elections already set for 6th May. I assume that is what you have been offered.

Choosing a common date for the two elections would make sense in logistics terms, so it's probably the reason why the 6th is predicted for the general election.

DC

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Dave Roberts
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 06:23 AM

No. There are no local elections in Cheshire East and won't be until 2011.
The wording is specifically 'Election Of A Member Of Parliament - Congleton Parliamentary Constituency'

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: GUEST,Allan Connochie
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 01:24 PM

"So would a party seeking independence for the Isle of Sheppey be legitimate? I'd have thought it was constitutionally defective, like in US terms secession by Hawaii."

Scotland and the Isle of Sheppey are hardly comparable. One is a constituent part of the UKofGB&NI whilst the other is a small part of one of another constituent part of the UKofGB&NI. I know that the American states have no right to secede and was quite surprised when I found that out.

It is generally accepted that should a part of the UK wish to leave the union then it could. Most notably this refers to Northern Ireland. In the UK's unwritten constitution it is not at all clear how exactly it would come about it. The UK government still claims Parliamentary sovereignty but when that was tested in a Scottish Law Court in the 1950s that suggestion was questioned and Parliamentary Sovereignty was described as an English concept which did not automatically transfer to Scotland with the Union of 1707.

The SNP's stance is that should they hold and win an independence referendum then the will of the Scottish people is sovereign in Scotland and they would have the mandate to negotiate an exit from the union. No-one really seriosuly disputes this. Rather the unionist parties have a main first strategy is to not hold the referendum. The SNP need support to get it through the Scottish Parliament and other pro-independence parties don't have enough MSPs to make a difference. The next strategy for the unionist parties would be to win the said referendum. They may be making a mistake by not holding it now. Most polls show a majority of Scots in favour of the union so this may be a good time for a NO campaign to put the question to bed for a while. However if we have a Conservative government at Westminster, especially if it is at loggerheads with the Scottish Executive, and especially is it is seen by Scots as a bit anti-Scottish (as it has been seen in the past) then we may see an upsurge among those in favour of independence.

Subject: RE: BS: Starting gun fired: UK General Election
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Apr 10 - 03:51 PM

Surely as of 1603 the crown of Scotland (James 1/6) was sovereign in Scotland and when the Carolinian line became subject to the will of parliament (or, if you prefer, the will of parliament was re-asserted, since the "divine right of kings" was a continental concept) that was as true of Scottish law as of English.

Both Scotland and the Isle of Sheppey are parts of Great Britain.

Any part of the UK could secede if so permitted, and it may be that the present politically correct regime(s) would so permit, but the law should that permission be refused seems to me to be that only by right of eminent domain (translation: = effective revolution and subsequent long term stability) would the constitution be amended.