Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
sorry it's an injoke
You've ruined my hour pretty much and made me sad
this seems fairly uncalled for.
in all seriousness - ballsing up what's quite an important discussion with potentially libellous* shit like this and like this http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/social/4454379#r8301683 is the behaviour of a bellend, notwithstanding fluffybum's usual irreverent posting style.
which is why I started this one.
*I'm not best-placed to say for definite
where some Tory geezer had done super indepth polling and worked out that Labour were going to win the next election anyway, so I wouldn't worry about it.
and everyone will cringe-vote the Tories back in.
Would still take some disastrous performances in the leadership debates to not get a Labour majority. Eminently plausible though sadly.
With a few more SNP MPs, a few less Lib Dems, and a couple of UKIPers (ugh).
Can't wait for austerity continuing under Labour.
...that leadership debates have already been ruled out in 2015? Well, televised ones anyway.
Might have that wrong but pretty sure I heard it somewhere.
In fact the last thing I read about them recently suggested Cameron was lobbying to have the Greens included if an extended format allowed UKIP in for one of the debates, which is pretty hilarious.
Still brilliantly feeble though.
but I think it's happening again. The Tories might lose some ground to UKIP through them, but Miliband self-destructing will be their ace card, and that's where it will happen.
Not sure why you're so sure Miliband will self-destruct. He looks best when speaking in front of an audience. Although he usually gets quite poor write-ups from journos at PMQ's. Might be an issue.
I can't imagine him dealing with the pressures of a campaign as brutal as this one's going to be, and I feel like the debates are going to be where it all falls down.
Cameron has a very fierce temper/petulant streak. Think Miliband's got a better temperament and this will translate well.
All depends on how weird he looks, I suppose. But I don't think pressure will be a problem.
And hasn't Balls said 'woohoo' to more austerity?
[NB I only read the headlines]
there's a quote from Labour pretty much straight away.
that photo of Dave.
(except Obama, who always has to look cool)
he's balanced it out by saying rich old people can keep hold of all their money
will also be rich old people. see: the royal family.
It's very simple. Wealthy pensioners vote. So they're protected. Poor young people don't tend to vote. So they get chibbed with welfare cuts.
Obviously encouraging young people to vote is the only way of `empowering` them politically. But that wouldn't mark Brand out as a maverick, so he says other stuff instead. Silly man.
By trying to replace the majority with a different set of people.
Does voting make you feel empowered?
But by voting, I stand a greater chance of actually being empowered (i.e. having a say in who governs me and influencing them to represent my interests). The same goes for everyone.
How you feel matters, man. Well maybe not You but you know.
they'd still be represented a lot better in parliament, cause politicians would start toadying up to them and trying to buy their votes. As it is, young people are pretty much electoral cannon fodder. Brand has probably made that worse.
I don't think it's possible for a political party to properly represent an individual anymore.
And be more dogmatic than ever.
they'll always try and appeal to the people who can win them elections. if they thought that were young people, that's what they'd do
having said that, if young people voted for them having screwed over the young, then yeah, it might make them screw them over moreso. or might not. either way, the kids don't, the tories will continue to screw over the young, that's how it will be for a little while at least
If the voters supported the parties before they stand for them, they're rewarding (or giving tacit support) to the tyranny of the majority and so the parties would be further entrenched in their stance.
Do you think every bunch of policies they announce includes massive bait for the elderly because they just happen to really love pensioners?
I think a massive part of the Conservative identity is about the sort of nostalgia of 1950s morality that old people identify with. If young folk started liking it too, great, but they'd still be like lets help the rich old people. This is all conjecture now though and I see your point but I really don't think these monoliths of power are accessible or changeable anymore. The market in part has seen to it (particularly in Labours case) but their ideology is not necessarily effected by public support. The most parties seem to do is avoid unpopular methods to reach the same ends they aimed for in the first place.
why the Conservatives pander to old people. It explains why old people vote for them. They pander to them because they're desperate to keep those votes. If the votes move, so will the policies. Look at how Labour completely shifted their ideology to become electable. If a generation of young people voted en masse and the political landscape changed, the Conservatives would change tact immediately to keep hold of power.
But I think it depends on how extreme the shift was. There's a level of ideology there which a lot of the Tories probably would rather leave the party than abandon. And I don't think they'd be willing to shift to an extent to which we'd be left with the democratic deficit sorted. And if they won't change until the youth is engaged in the first place they'd need something to organize/motivate them in the first place. A promise of change! Very Scottish referendum, that.
offer them 20% off one of 100,000 houses specially built without building regs approval?
Belter of a policy that. Big love to the Coalition to reneging on their small state ideological fixation and intervening in the housing market yet again. On the demand side.
Gonna miss this lot when they're gone.
Good lad, always thought it was the selfish poor and needy that were bringing this country down.
I'm sure reducing their benefits'll definitely encourage all those people desperately hunting for work to work even harder to get a job!
because their policy of benefit caps has definitely produced the fall in rents that they promised.
I can't decide if they're genuinely evil or utterly, contemptuously stupid.
Reduce the housing benefit bill and stop payments going from the poor to landlords, by increasing the stock of council housing and building more affordable homes.
it will decrease the value of their property portfolios.