Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
This is the actual new thread.
not a patch on Devo
in his usual, tedious attention-seeking way. But despite that, I actually agree with him, after all why should someone I didn't vote for, be my ruler?"
As it is conservative or lib dems here, and our Lib Dem MP now is actually very good
but there is no factor in this 'org' that accounts for
a) the practicality/likelyhood that the policies are feasible or
b) If they are feasible then they depend on something major that is not in the manifesto and so this needs looking at
c) How likely the party is to actually follow what they say.
Because, the 'voteforpolicies org' is useless without being able to cross measure using 'a)' 'b)' and 'c)'
I suppose the 'voteforpolicies does do the job of pretending to 'help' people make a decision (when they cannot do so for themselves)....but since it does not take into account a b or c, then in fact it could 'colour' the election, and if it did become a big factor, then in future elections it might just encourage parties to even more 'just analyse market research to ensure that what you state in your manifesto best matches the results of the research....... a more honest way to go along this root would be to have multiple referendums.......and then have parliament have to discuss 'WHy' a public referendum decision might not be a good thing to become the policy for the UK .
https://voteforpolicies.org.uk could play into the hands of the biggest charlatans in the future (and also probably now....given the differences in the transparancies...the most well broadcast being the tories not laying out how they would cut back their 12billion from welfare)
vote for policies (which on its own could be deceptive....because it is NOT a referendum. nor are those policies binding) with my a, b, c's from the above post?
I think you have to do that work for yourself
or do you think that would be too messy?
If you think that would be too messy, then dont you think that it would be very difficult for voters to assess the policies AND the abcs? .....especially those voters who would need the help of this org to decide on the policies?
In which case do you not think that some voters who have problems discerning might instead just rely on the results of this 'which policy org'?
Which surely colours the election?
Because without something that 'directs' just on certain things, then it invites others to not 'mull over whether or not they trust a particular party to deliver what they say' or to assess realism or competance of the parties.
Perhaps another sister 'org' IS needed to assess practicalities and trust, and advice given to those taking the 'which policy org' that they should temper the results from that with practicality/realism and trust.
Do you get what I am trying to get at here?
I guess you could do a+b with independent experts, and news organisations do to a certain extent but it's still opinion and not definitive.
I think the policy thing is a good starting point, better than choosing based on newspaper headlines, worse than choosing based on being up on politics and having a view on how your abc questions will affect the policies.
with precise answers of the 'which policy org' type.....but the other site should not have that, instead it should have links to news and previous manifestos and stuff....and there should be CLEARLY MARKED ADVICE to not just rely on 'which plicy org' for your answers, but that the voter MUST temper this result with what THEY feel about the abcs.
DO you see what Im getting at?....i.e. that its a difficult thing to do.....to decide what 'sounds' best for the country is relatively easy, what is difficult (and is why O get so worked up) is trying to understand whether the parties are honest (not just in what they say, but in what they dont reveal) are they honest in the selection of the topics that they discuss on? Are they sincere on their promises (i.e. are they just saying we'd like to do that....but they know that its quite impractical from the way they are going to do things and therefor pragmatism will mean that something will not happen) Or are they competant to do something?
Its almost enough to make someone think....."sod it I wont think about it too much I'll just go with my gut instinct" .......or "with the results from 'which policy.org' "
i think they should perhaps form a coalition
alongside the 'evolution party', which is just some boring semi-conservative party, not science-based party as hoped.
And here's the Scottish Sun (which is equally ridiculous):
The first one is absolutely terrifyingly shit.
as if the Sun's big reveal of who they're backing is relevant any more. desperate.
and the guardian's:
shit, meet fan.
Finally a LibDem being Fusto........if this was their plan all along then its quite thought provoking.
(and much more boring) fucking the Lib Dems have given the Tories is their blocking of constituency boundary reform. Has made it pretty much impossible for the Tories to gain a majority and it could be the difference between the Tories forming the next government or not.
he looks like the serial killer that we all know he is
because mrrrrr freedom of speech, are having a little cry and trying to involve the police over HIGNFY
cw Miliband, who, although people may have thought he had a weak chin, is actually prepared to stand up and mix it...I admired the way he took the low blows about 'being the wrong brother' and comments about his personal appearance, without resorting to attack the people delivering the blows, or dodging the blows.
though last night's ComRes one had the parties tied (and the Tories usually led that poll lately) and the YouGov one keeps shifting between Labour and Tories being slightly ahead.
Not exactly being trailed, is it? The debates feel like ages ago.
"David Cameron, Nick Clegg, and Ed Miliband are taking part. The debate will not include Nigel Farage, Natalie Bennett, or Nicola Sturgeon.
Ukip’s Nigel Farage will get his own programme later in the evening, however."
u wot m8
till he gets angry
that's 50% of the audience supporting the government parties, and 25% of the audience as self-described 'don't knows', the majority of whom, at this late stage, tend to break towards the incumbent.
they're out numbered 2 to 1 because their party leader is outnumbered 2 to 1 :D
but there does not appear to be any comments enabled for that piece.
That is so fucking annoying, a right wing broadsheet making a rag type piece of lying bullshit up....why are they saying libdems are left wing? theyre in gov with them? yeah theyre left of tories, but they are right of labour......what is this shit?
Telegraph and Sun are covering themselves in shit at the moment.....but they are probably correct in assuming that this will not be remembered much because of the election drama.
what a shyster. things he lied about and talked shite about;
- labour abolishing student fees
- biggest party makes the government
- that full fiscal autonomy was a thing that could actually happen (can't get voted through if all other parties are against it, making it a non-issue really)
- made some insane comment that boris johnson will be the next PM
- said that he'd work two jobs; MP and MSP and then first minister (HAHAHAHAHAHA) after roundly criticising salmond for (wrongly, in my view) doing the same AND petitioning for it to be banned
- said that he didn't mean what he said when he'd previously said there were no cuts next year when Ed "Ed Balls" Balls said there will be
- said he is "always the underdog in his seat" when he's been the MP with a >10k majority since 1997.
fuck me, what a disaster. plus he's totally shite at debates.
he looks like he's aged about 20 years in the past 6 months
Are there any polls that include 'don't knows'? Be interesting to know how much 'float' there is.
I think they're 'weighted' or whatever bollocks.
including refusals. Many of those will be among the group of people who won't actually vote though.
yeah we have one upthread
i think ed did the best that he could considering, in both taking up the offer and coming across as an actual human being. he probably had more control in doing this than he has had in any of the interviews and debates previously broadcasted. plus, brand edited it. granted no new ground was really broken, but it gave him to address things that he's been going on about for years, like media ownership and corporations that understandably never gets much airtime or column inches yet is incredibly relevant to the stuff brand puts out via youtube.
brand has offered interviews to most parties, i think. he's got interviews with caroline lucas and natalie bennet coming today. will be interesting to see if the the greens and russell do anything other than going on about a revolution and social housing. cameron said he was asked but he was too busy.
most of the commenters on the trews seem either really anti-politicians in general or 'kippers - which seems weird cause brand's views are often polar opposite to ukips policies and everything they stand for
What's that mean? 'trews' would be trousers to me, which doesn't entirely work.
he's got a pretty devoted audience, yet all of the comments are either 'all politicians are liars. fuck liblabcon, libs have no backbone, tories are only in it for the money, and labour let immigrants come in to vote for them and groom our kids' or 'THIS IS WHY I'M VOTING UKIP'
Just presumed it was a Geordie phrase! :D
UKIP have a huge popularity with people who only see them as a protest against Westminster. I guess they either are also fine with the xenophobic ideas or they consider them just bluster to get votes from stupid people (depending on how they view their own intelligence).
yeah but surely (minus the eu thing), using this logic, the greens are as legitimate a protest vote, and are far more in line with brands ideologies and messages? seems a bit weird that fans of russell brand would vote for an 'ex-tory banker' that brand constantly ridicules and completely contradicts any of the things brand has relentlessly campaigned for.
I mean your politics are pretty firmly baked into you. Look at the very lefty bands that CG is a big fan of. Kind of similar, in my view.
Not sure what you mean about 'minus the EU thing'. I think most people realise the EU is how come there are as many migrant workers in the UK as there are. If you believe that's a bad thing for the country then you will be anti-EU on that basis alone. UKIP are against the EU and I believe the Greens are too, for that matter.
i mean that certain people would be inclined to vote ukip as a protest vote, depending on how they view the eu.
i've warmed to him more in the last month. might even see his film.
I was looking forward to it, thought brand would totally do ed.
but actually watching it I suddenly remembered how completely vacant brand is, he's got nothing about him at all.
really don't like miliband but I've warmed to him recently. he came across quite well in this I thought.
it's the most human he's came across since this interview where he talks about zx spectrums and downing pints https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14Wy4Vh-4bM
also not pretending to like spicy food (unlike cameron) and crying at films
HE'S JUST LIKE US
I just don't believe he was a Spectrum owner. For me, Ralph Miliband's home would be a solidly educational BBC Model B household, none of that rabid rightwing Sinclair's populist boxes.
The only scenario I can see where Ed would have a Spectrum would be if they bought the BBC for David to do "proper" stuff on, as the appointed son and heir, whilst Ed got a Speccy to play Manic Miner on as a consolation prize.
Brand didn't fucking push him on that did he, the big loser.
Objectively, the best performer (and only woman on the panel) was the UKIP candidate who did well at giving actual answers to an obviously hostile audience. She stood her ground but never lost her temper despite the audience constantly trying to goad her into doing so. The Labour incumbent candidate did alright but seemed a just a tad complacent/hostile in places - I guess a safe seat can do that to some people. The Lib Dem chap was just so 'Lib Dem' I felt a little bad for him. The Green candidate was all bluster and no substance, though the thing that annoyed me about him the most was that he's a professional actor in his day job but he couldn't remember a lot of his 'lines' and basically just read out his pre-prepared opening and closing statement. The Conservative candidate didn't turn up because he'd been bitten by a dog and was in hospital (could be seriously injured for all I know, but it was a bit LOL).
So, if I was going just on the performance/competence of the local candidates last night and not the national stuff, it'd have to be either UKIP or the Tory. Probably won't vote for either of them though.
The whole thing from the organisation of the event, to the chairing, to the quality of questions, to most of the characters in the audience was a hilarious shambles - had a very Dad's Army feel about it all. It's time for real change, it's time #brusma2015.
at 7.30am yesterday of his finger with a bandage around it, after his hospital discharge.
It was made to sound far worse. Although maybe if he had turned up loaded on morphine or whatever it would have injected some humour into the proceedings. It was very, very dull.
Or maybe that's only cats. Also, that looks like half his finger's missing, but probably just the bandage!
labour email me about 5 times a day
our ukip candidate seems like a very strange sort of hippy?
our tory candidate fronts a covers band.
was the independent candidate there? he has literally no web presence and i'm very confused as to what he is
it was very badly promoted. Filled mainly with various party activists I think.
The UKIP canidate was strangely likeable I thought, and definitely not overly 'UKIP-y'. As you suggest, almost seemed a little hippy free-spirit type at times.
There was a hustings last week in Wanstead and then the one last night in Leytonstone but I think that might be the only ones their doing.
There was no independent candidate (I didn't even know there was one standing). Just the four main parties minus Conservative.
seems to be a solicitor?
as it could be the only up-to-three party alliance that would have the numbers...
(still don't believe the polls predicting a Labour win - it's such a posh constituency)
joining a minority coalition involving the SNP at the weekend.
Well, that's what everyone seems to be saying. What he actually said was that `he wouldn't recommend` it, as opposed to ruling it out. In short - fuck knows.
it would have to be informal enough that it got around they're rulings
Have you changed your vote since the last election? If so, what from and why?
Because they are shitheads who are never ever getting my vote again.
you were misrepresented by a party that misrepresented itself
even the teensiest little bit?
makes me remember how much I loathe the current core leadership of the Lib Dems for fucking over a large proportion of their supporters.
I think they were very dismissive of complaints about that as well. They did not do their supporters the curtesy of even trying to justify themselves properly, perhaps because they were too busy 'doing government business' with their maste....sorry partners, and Im sure their maste.....sorry partners would not have liked, sincere regret, and apologies, expressed buy the libdem core
same as last time
(Would've voted Lib Dems though so basically yes.)
2) voting reform
joined labour party after the election cos it was cheap and i dont like the conservatives
actually voting green cos i've done voteswap with a green supporter in a tory constituency in lancashire
and i am now voting snp
It's exciting times.
voted lib dem last time. Would probably do the same again if I was still in that constituency as it's lib dems or the tories. Now voting in a confy labour seat so either them or the greens
I'm not doing that again. I've grown as a person.
mainly because of Voting Reform and Fees, plus a hope of a slightly more sensible European style coalition.
Moved to Labour support over the Student Fees fiasco (still don't understand why the Lib Dems whipped their MPs in favour), but Ed Milliband trying to out-UKIP UKIP on immigration around the turn of the year made me realise that given I'm in a seat that would take a landslide for Labour to win, I may as well vote with my heart and give the Greens a bit of support - don't agree some of what they say, but England needs a stronger voice on the left.
since January, I've been very impressed with Milliband and toyed with switching back, but there's still too much of a Blairite voice in the party for me to back them.
but their anti-immigration/pro-austerity stance is pretty unappetising. That, and the fact that a Labour government with a landslide majority ended up being one of the most authoritarian and right-wing governments we've had doesn't bode well for a Labour minority.
I've been voting Green for over a decade, but can't be sure i didn't vote Labour last time. could have voted Lib Dem for all i know.
you'd think I'd learn!
Couldn't vote last time, but would've voted Lib Dem.
Voted Lib Dem this time.
that's keeping track of all the different deals and coalitions all the leaders have 'ruled out'? Because that is all I care about. Can't get enough of people being asked to rule stuff out.
when parties start getting called traitors and stuff for attempting to form/block governments, it's gonna get fantastically nasty.
being relentlessly attacked by the press. Just because I like to be incredulous and offended about stuff.
and formed a new faction with the Tories and UKIP.
Natalie rips off her shirt to reveal a UKIP t shirt. "AUSTRALIAN STYLE POINTS SYSTEM BAY-BAY" - NWO music plays, constituents chuck litter onto the stage, biggest heel turn since Clegg
really comes into its own
No one can win a majority.
Labour have ruled out any deal (even a 'confidence and supply' arrangement') with the SNP. That pretty much scuppers Labour, surely? Even if you add in all the seats from Lib Dems, Green, and Plaid Cyrmu, I don't think there's enough to reach 326?
The Tories have ruled out a deal with UKIP which probably isn't that big a deal (what are we looking at there, maybe 6 seats?).
Seriously though, what's left? Grand Coalition? Unless Miliband is outright lying about ruling out any SNP deal, I don't see how this can possibly work. Any theories?
basically 'coalition' means giving ministerial roles to people from other parties - the SNP are blatantly going to back up Labour on most issues. Fuck knows what the Lib Dems will do in opposition with the Tories. There's no way the SNP will bring down a Labour government or support the Tories, they'd be fucking themselves completely.
Labour could run as a minority government, and the SNP will back them so it doesn't collapse immediately. There wouldn't need to be any deal struck for that to happen, largely because Labour would know that the SNP wouldn't have any other options.
My understanding was that he also ruled out a confidence and supply arrangement (i.e. no cabinet positions and ministerial cars but some influence on voting) which surely just leaves them with nothing.
After watching QT tonight, I think it's going to be another Lib Dem coalition with whoever wins the most seats out of Labour and Tory. What scares me is who might be weighted in to make up the numbers if it's the Tories again, e.g. DUP...
Depends what you class as nothing. Sure, if you ain't formally in gov then you're on the outside looking in. Them's the rules. But it'll be interesting to see how often Minority Milliband will need Tory support to win certain headline votes. ::cough::trident::cough::
If the majority of the house rejects a Conservative minority government, but accepts a Labour minority government, Labour will take power, regardless of how many fewer seats than the Conservatives they have. Labour are helped by the fact they have more potential allies than the Conservatives, so could feasibly form a government with as few as 265-270 seats, whereas the Conservatives need 290 at an absolute minimum, and probably closer to 300. Even if they do get 300, chances are the Lib Dems would still leave them marginally short of a majority, and if it's close, there's no guarantee at all they will want to go into another Tory coalition anyway.
Essentially, as we get closer to next Thursday and the polls stay deadlocked it doesn't really matter all that much which of the main parties gets the most seats. It's about which block will have the power to vote in a government.
Labour supporting block of Labour/SNP/Plaid/Green/SDLP/Lady Hermon.
Conservative supporting block of Conservatives/Lib Dems (maybe)/DUP/UKIP.
With current polling, the former block is about 20 seats ahead. I think that will probably narrow over the next week, but there's no guarantee. It's perfectly possible it could narrow to the point it's almost a complete deadlock, at which point I imagine the Lib Dems may well switch sides in order to establish some chance of a stable government.
I think it is going to be very hard for Cameron to retain power in any circumstances. He needs a huge swing in the final week, and the campaign has been so lacklustre so far I think it's too late. The Tories expected it to come weeks ago. It hasn't so far. They've possibly made a tiny incremental move ahead, but for the reasons stated above, they need more than to just be the largest party.
What happens after May 7th is probably going to be incredibly messy, arduous and painful to watch. But unless things change dramatically, it will result in Ed Miliband being prime minister. Without any need for a deal with the SNP. I think Miliband has played a blinder with the SNP issue. He knows they've backed themselves into a corner where they can't really vote against a Labour minority without losing a lot of their support. So he can say quite honestly that he has no intention of doing a deal with them. He's not being misleading with that. He doesn't need to do a deal. He'll need to be very clever with the balancing of all proposals to make sure they can get over the line in the Commons, but I don't think we're going to see any kind of formal coalition this parliament. The numbers just don't make any sense for it to go that way.
What's the convention here? Is it six months then another election, like 1974? Or does the fixed term thing apply?
and the Queen takes control.
they'd need to secure the backing of someone else to do that
if they can't - no confidence vote, another election
it means a succesful full term then re-election as a majority government.
all the 'nothing' television coverage on Friday and likely across the weekend. hours of speculation about why Ed Miliband went into a house. sightings of Alex Salmond or Nicola Sturgeon in Westminster. 24 hr rolling media trying to fill vast amounts of time with no hard facts and lots of speculation is always glorious.
And I intend to watch all the non-news that follows the eurovision-for-the-chattering-classes results night extravaganza.
which means I can't really stay up watching the results come in (OR CAN I) and that I also have a lot of free time afterwards to watch the BBC News channel...
Intention is to still be sat at the television, probably crying, as my girlfriend goes to work on Friday morning.
have been Tories one point ahead/Labour one point ahead/Tories one point ahead/Labour one point ahead. I think they're just making their poll results up now to wind people up.
I've always done it first thing, but it's a bit lame cos you're always the only person there. Might go at about 8pm this time
Are they basically backing the Conservatives, or will they support whoever gets the most votes/the most stable bloc? Think that Pegfeet's sort of explained this up there, but I think it's pretty interesting and hasn't been made clear.
Are they doing that thing where they claim they're not supporting anyone and want all the votes they can get? Think I'd like to see something in party manifestos about their policy on politics, seems to be a bit of a gap - it's all very well coming out with a policy on education or the nhs or whatever, but if you're going to jump in with another party that renders it null and void, then it would be handy to have an idea about that.
(Don't know if I'm making any sense here)
'we'll give the Tories a heart or Labour a brain' thing going on. In the circumstances a, 'the other two guys are shit - help us make them less shit' angle is probably the best they can play.
Just not sure that they've been an especially weighty balance so far - maybe they'd get better at that with confidence and experience?
Also not sure if they're leaning one way or the other - like, maybe they're closer to the Conservatives because of their relationship, or maybe familiarity's bred contempt? And I suppose it takes two to tango, so if Labour reject a partnership then that's that, but maybe it's not because everyone's spouting disingenuous game-talk.
Might have to start practicing my crude cock signature for the ballot.
but with half the number of seats and other parties (SNP, DUP etc) in the frame they wouldn't hold anywhere near as much sway as they could have done last time around had they been a bit smarter about things.
on pretty much everything. Their only (pyrrhic) victory was scuppering boundary change reform.
They try and point out crap like the pupil premium and the tax-free threshold but all the major issues they got done on: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8619630.stm
the Lib Dems encouraged the Tories to soften the extent of their year on year welfare cuts etc. Think the scale of Osborne's proposed cuts, and the ones that started in 2010 had been reduced a bit after Clegg's intervention.
Given how blithely savage his 2010-2012 programme was, I think we've all got Clegg to thank myself.
it's difficult to know whether the Tories went in into talks with more savage proposals than they felt they'd have got away with on their own, with the knowledge that by the time they were moderated down they'd have been close to their original plans anyway.
To be honest, I think the Lib Dems have been treated a bit more harshly than they deserve on much of what they've done, but they deserve an absolute pasting for the way they handled the Tuition Fee fiasco and fucked up political reform - two of the biggest issues for a large portion of the party's base in 2010. I've always said I support the decision to go into coalition with the Tories, but I think they played their hand in government badly, particularly in public.
thread went a bit weird
Are there any seats where the result's going to be really interesting/unpredictable/important, where they don't normally count all the votes until the next day? I'm too lazy to look it up, but it's usually really safe Tory rural seats, but also some remote ones in Scotland as well isn't it?
Are we going to be waiting for some postie from the Highlands and Islands to fly his biplane onto the mainland on Friday lunchtime to deliver the next PM is what I'm asking.
I think. Warwick and Leamington is one. Can't remember the other two.
if he was to get sacked would that mean that they'd get to pop in a replacement? or is that their shot done? i don't know.
would mean that the SNP wouldn't have a candidate in the seat, although he'd still be labeled as SNP on the ballot.
I think the Lib Dems in South Wales sacked a candidate after nominations closed and are having to do exactly that.
In an SNP seat cause their candidate was convicted of driving offences.
no-one knows anything about a lot of these 50 or so people who are going to be sitting in parliament in a couple of weeks.
there's absolutely no doubt there are a lot of dodgy nationalists out there. Speaking to some people up here there's a good chance this guy is far from alone in his views among prospective SNP mps.
Problem is no one has a fucking clue one way or another until they're (probably) expected to prop up a labour minority govt. Good times.
There sure are plenty of 'em about.
But which one is your favourite?
There'll be loads of new MPs, from all the parties. So why is a shrieking shit-the-bed Scotsman article 'the thing' about the SNP?
But, to humour you, and play along with your premise... loads of SNP candidates have been councillors for years, many will have been active volunteers in their community in one way or another, many will have campaigned publicly during the referendum, some have previously served as MPs/MSPs... you get the picture.
So this thinly-veiled suggestion that the SNP have needed to resort to recruiting any old oddball or rogue that has crept out of shadows is pretty overwrought.
my point isn't about rogues per se. i said the same thing about the lib dems during clegg-mania. the fact is if a small party is quite suddenly propelled way up the polls from a relatively low position, then it's likely there's gonna be some shit candidates.
i dont think the one rogue that has come out is indicative of loads more rogues, just that the pool of potential candidates probably left a lot to be desired. anyone who's spent 6 months photocopying in an MP's office and ended up being asked to stand in a seat they're never going to win knows that most candidates who stand for office would be awful at the job.
i note your plethora of "will haves" - you've never heard of a lot of them either I take it.
Whether or not I've heard of candidates for all the seats in all the fastest reaches of the country is indicative of nothing.
And your "probably" is far more speculative than my "will haves", which are based on the local seats that I do know about. There's no reason to believe that my local seats are a particular draw for talent but a slew of other seats experienced a dearth.
Have the LibDem MPs you warned us about turned out to be particularly shit representatives for their constituency (compared to a benchmark cohort of established MPs coming legit established parties like, say, Scottish Labour, who have turned out to be, well...) or have the newbie LibDems been largely undermined by the LD top dogs? I don't know the answer to that. But I do know that the SNP aren't a UKIP-like "small party quite suddenly propelled way up the polls from a relatively low position". Sure, there has been a real jump in the polls, but it follows a pattern of consistent growth (where 2010 is beginning to look like an outlier that occurred whilst the focus was on following Lab advice of returning loadsa Scottish Labour MPs to prevent a Tory gov - which duly occurred, and look how effective that was). I'll say the same thing about the SNP as I said about Sturgeon the other day - it/she's not an unknown that has come from nowhere, there's decades of maturity and seven years of actually being in government that can be cited.
All a bit needlessly defensive, this. But I don't mind admitting that it irks when pointless meeja-led nonsense is trotted out with a nudge and a wink, but without any real basis in reality.
(Full credit though, Smee, for the engagement, as opposed to the risible sneer-and-run of s_h).
apart from that, I'm not sure you've understood my point. I don't understand yours anyway.
The LDs never got the seats it briefly looked like they might during the height of Cleggmania. My point is that people were saying - foolishly - that they could get 100+ seats. Who were these 100 people? A lot of them were people standing out of a sense of duty who never expected or wanted to get in. I don't know but it strikes me that a lot of SNP candidates might be in the same position.
One difference between 2010 LibDem candidates and 2015 SNP candidates is that the former were in place well before the TV debate-induced Cleggmania (which was, as you rightly note, brief) and with no actual accompanying grassroots/membership surge (and therefore talent pool expansion) in place (or any real continued notable rise in popularity in a series of preceding elections, for that matter, if I IIRC), whereas the latter were selected after the initial membership surge and a continued upward trend in preceding elections.
In short, I'd say that the predicted SNP showing next week easily has a more solid foundation than that of the 2010 LibDem (phantom) rise or the (Euro-vote-assisted, meeja-inflated) UKIP bluster.
Anyway, this all feels like I'm gunning for ya. Which is not really the case. On review, it's s_h's response to you takes your fairly innocuous comment and runs with it all the way into silly territory.
and I'm still no closer to the answer.
I know what the answer looks like, but i cannot see a practical way to get there without power.
Perhaps the answer is to get power and not mind how you do it.
you, and others, will doubtless be glad to know, that I am currently compiling the answer to your question, in the form of words.
a) we acknowledge that everyone at birth, should be entitled to as much as anyone else, freedom of expression and of opportunity and equality of judgement and expectation...every human being should be given the chance of being valued and cherished by all others.
b) localised customs and cultural influences that children are exposed to will not do anything that is anti point a) this means that there needs to be cultural acceptance of point a).......once point a) is accepted then all 'false' justifications of predjudice and inequality can be more easily tackled
.......it goes like this...'does such and such philosophy accept that an african new born child should have as much rights (in theory) and expectation for life as a european newborn? basically that a child born in country x is equal to a child born in country y or in a culture with religeon p as religeon q etc etc. If your philosophy/culture does not accept these things then that is what needs to change........this is not just me being arbitary, this is the view and ethos of the united nations, and of reasonable sentient compassionate beings planet wide. This should be our goal.
Of course this also applies on more localised scales too......there is, for example, many examples cited of how life expectancy varies according to specific areas of cities/towns.
To want to tackle these differentials IS NOT SOCIALISM, it should not be seen as political, it should be seen as HUMANE and COMPASSIONATE and EMPATHIC.
These qualities should not be seen as Political facets, but as positive human qualities that should be grown and nurtured in our education system.
Therefore our education system should not be primarily focus upon growing 'learning' but equally upon relating to others and on practically Increasing empathy and compassion and understanding.......and most importantly teaching one to be comfortable with one limitations in some areas.......so that if one does not understand an area of complexity, there is no pressure to have to pretend, or to adopt some rhetoric.
Ever since the end of WWII, there has been an 'uneeded'? insistance that we are still at war (to encourage mindless competitiveness) with other countries, with inflation, with other companies.
We have been 'growing' the wrong skills, the wrong mindset.
We are meant to be smart, many of us are, this needs to be reflected in the way our societies are run. they are not run smartly, they are run to be on the flat in a race against other societies.....not for our benefit.
We have to work to eradicate needless competition, the way to do this is to allow people to be content without the 'winning' of arbitary competitions organised by that which is actually outside of our own context.
"Ultimately we want no nations to have artificial boundaries or arbitary national border control."
Ultimately though what you're describing there pretty much IS socialism. Free-marketeers would disagree with tonnes of what you've assumed people want there.
I am trying to have the interests of all humans at heart....because it is a crowded planet, and it is equitable to try to allow the best for all......the premise of the advantage of civilisation is to allow us to not just live by the strongest take all by brutal means.......if you suggest that it is natural to allow powerful groups take most and fuck the weak many then you might as well just say whoever has the biggest stick.
The whole premise of having laws is surely to mitigate against the strongest takes all? except that this has now meant rather than the biggest roving band of thugs take all, it means the biggest most powerful band that controls the most mechanisms of society/finance take all.....the differentials are currently growing and therefore society/civilisation is not not such a mechanism for future safety but for future danger for most people.
Free marketeers......the market s NOT free, the market is based upon arbitary borders.....if the market were free then there would be no border controles, no national duty, no national tax......THAT IS A FREE MARKET.
What we have is a gobal market that APPEARS FREE to those who are adept and enabled to mover within it without being hampered by their concience....but it is full of rules, pre agreements, artificial contrived laws and precedent, full of restrictions on unempowered humans which then allow them to become trading commodities too.......only very large powerful entities have more access to a freeer market.
Do you think developing childrens empathy and compassion, to the same degree we encourage competitiveness and 'winning' is a political thing? or a nurturing of a human virtue. ?
and that 'nurturing competativeness and winning' is capitalist?
what is 'developing pragmatic efficiency by limiting ones goals or not considering other empathic factors'? Is that facism?
What is it if you nurtured 'competativeness and winning and empathy and compas?sion equally? is that confused? paradoxical? unworkable? or is it a co-alition?
so glad it's Friday
you can lean on me, or you can just trust me.......here, look into my eyes
I think you'd be a shoo-in for president-for-life
well before verbal politics anyway........
I have to admit in communal ape societies chimps can rise to the top through being the burlyist.....or by winning member over with empathy and compassion......so this could be political I suppose......but as you can see I am willing to explore the idea
(or even animal) qualities that we describe as virtues ( compassion, empathy)
and these human qualities could get in the way of you making the money......because if lots of people valued these qualities as being very important and worthwhile and their own reward, then you would be standing out as being someone who exploited others by not valuing these qualities as highly as the enlightened population........it serves those that do not value empathy and compassion as being paramount for the health of human society, to describe being humane, as 'socialist' or some other name, that is tied up with other things that you can attack.
People have also tied up 'compassion and empathy' with religeon in the past.....like christianity.....(with again other things that can be attacked (it is messy and confuising, but the mess and confusion does not disqualify what I am trying to get at.....it just make it difficult to get across)
Indeed many people (if you take the idea of just a nice Jesus) have equated Jesus with being a socialist revolutionary........well you can do that......but I dont think its helpful.......i think its more important to keep our focus on actual things rather than symbolic words (that conjure up a whole load of other ideas....but with variation from person to person, so people often end up arguing unecessarily)
Empathy is something that what we describe as sociopaths or psychopaths, not having in the same way as most of us.........apparently many psychopaths can be successful at rising to the top of business or competative orgs.......(I could have told you this without the recent media exposure of this.....but no-one will run with things that people say unless it is 'back uppable) ......therefore it may be that normal human empathy is something that gets in the way of being ruthless enough to compete at the top in 'the power arena'.
If were not all so focussed on 'being the top' or 'the fastest' or 'the prettiest' or 'the strongest' then it is unlikely that we would be as willing to encourage such behaviour.
(this is the preamble to the preface) I will continue with this later.....please see post below (although that post below is now the littler post above)
aha i think i know what I did.....i put some text in those angled brackets......and dis doesnt display that......something html'y I imagine
and how would "Ultimately we want no nations to have artificial boundaries or arbitary national border control." work with regard to taxation of multinational corporations?
what the answer looks like (next installment tomorrow)
I will answer......when I say i cannot see a practical way of getting there, i mean that I cannot determine which vote pattern would give the best platform for getting there, or indeed if not by voting, how to use words and other methods to achieve the answer, because currently there is an extant system which does not allow for straight talking as to a future aim as they are only concerned about 'tomorrow' which is of overiding concern, because they are in such high competition.
To actually achieve other aims, in the current system, one would find it necessary to be disingenious and not to be frank and sincere.......we witness this regularly, when we see politicians (even decent ones) refusing to answer a question straight.......(often it may be due to covering up nefariousness, but it can also be to cover up something that would be unpopular to the falsely optimistic expectations of public debate baby speak)
The modern electorate likes to think of its opinion of being worthy, even if they have given little effort, or reasoning, or integrity to that opinion.....they are encouraged to then think that their opinion is 'them' and to have it changed by something that someone else says or points out is 'DEFEAT' in some way, which it obviously isnt......but viewing the arguing and haranguing and triumph displayed in debates it is obvious that they are treated to a large degree as a 'competative exercise' NOT a learning or investigative exercise.
So yeah, to get to a proper good vision/answer, one would need to abandon the very principles that one wishes the population to adopt (sincerity and candidness....with self and others) ......I imagine this applies to all politicians with integrity of intent in many shades of politics.
However it seems to be a fairly important 'red line' for me.
I did actually start off in politics a long time ago and was a chairman of a branch, got to talk to a serving minister as such, and it did show me that there was no room for people to follow their intent and to try to win party politics over to a better point of view, it was about working with the powers that existed and in exchange for enablement from those powers, those powers then own your mandate to a large extent. There was little room for persuasion by discussion, whenever one was even on a good tack and on top form and ellucidating well, it was still considered to not be bad form to merely 'scupper' such a thing, using traditional political tactical fighting.......there was no will to 'improve' our pov.
(tla.....too long alrready)
Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
i) having an eletorate that has had an education where we attempt to grow and develop and encourage empathy and compassion
ii) improving the machinery of democracy so that it emphasises the positive possibiities of democracy, rather than emphasising the negative ones.
iii) acknowledgement that 'bad behaviours and examples from politiicans should not be tolerated as readily......that it IS right that we should expect more from politicians.......ITS A REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY FUCKING RESPONSIBLE JOB or should be.......IT SHOULD BE A REAL REAL REAL PRIVILAGE .
so why dont they FUCKING ACT LIKE THEY KNOW IT IS?
.....if I got to be PM I would feel obliged to try the best i could, I WOULD beat myself up over it......if I were in the job for 10 years I wouldnt expect to have a huge rewarding city job after.....I WOULD OF ALREady had my reward.....It would be a lot easier if you were able to be sincere and candid as PM so we need to be working towards that, not distancing ourselves from that.
ASAP.....no referendum required, as it is not a political thing, unless you campaign against democracy and representation for all........it is a democratic concept, it should be irrelevant as to which of the main UK parties you are in........practically it might mean slight seat advantage for tories over labour....which as you know, I do not want.....but its still a no-brainer......the state of our current system though, is so lamentable poor, that it cannot even instigate a poor attempt at reform in that direction when the party that most wants reform gets into power.......the libdems even sissifyed themselves for the tories and still didnt insist on PR as a token in return.
are not the answer....that is patently obvious.
The way that we discuss is not the right way.....yes laugh away.....im ludicrous.....but if it is the right way, then why does argument drive people further apart?
The way that people argue against me is wrong (yes i know that sounds ludicrous too......but his is not because I am always right.....it is because I am sometimes right.....and yet my form of arguing will always lose to an expert in rhetoric (if we keep it to a format which is short enough for an ADD addled audience to tolerate) )
The way that people argue with others is wrong too. Its not just me......but Im aware of it and am prepared in some vain way to try to argue the toss, rather than just (quietly know it in my heart)
but as part of a path to something even better?
more pithily (if a trifle archly)
when you ask how it will work with regard to taxation of multinational corporations.....the answer is simple, when we are at that stage there will not be multinationals, as there will not be the same incentives of huge profit as there will not be the same differentials between cost of labour and taxes, when there is a global state of unenforced borders.
seems like they like the lib dems the best though
Guardian: Labour (with a bit of Green/Lib Dem)
Scottish Sun: SNP
Economist: Conservative (with Lib Dems)
New Statesman: Labour
Russell Brand: Green (with a bit of Ed Milliband)
Any more for any more?
going off the front pages on the BBC site the last few weeks.
when it's an explicitly labour paper, but it's on now
So doubt, very uncertainty, much if.
Ian Brady: UKIP
Usually they lean towards Labour though. In an editorial yesterday they said Miliband's too focused on inequality to be taken seriously which struck me as a bit odd...
The person who wrote that editorial saying Miliband is obsessed with equality was in the Bullingdon Club, which has caused a lot of amusement.
It's a reply to the Economist backing the tories.
"the richest 10% have borne the greatest burden of extra taxes" is that true even with the reduction to a 45% top rate?
and "inequality has not widened" - really?
But graphs I've seen (but can't be bothered to find) tend to show:
- Income tax receipts from higher rate taxpayers have increased since the removal of the 50p rate
- The top 10% of tax payers pay a greater proportion of all income tax in 2015 than they did in 2010.
- However the top 10% of tax payers pay a smaller proportion of their income in tax than they did in 2010.
Here is an excellent article on inequality from a few days ago: http://timharford.com/2015/04/the-truth-about-inequality/
Most of his 'myth-busting' is unsubstantiated, and then when he does reference some evidence it actually contradicts him!
"One final myth is that inequality in the UK has risen since the financial crisis. In fact, it has fallen quite sharply. “Inequality remains significantly lower than in 2007-08,” said the Institute for Fiscal Studies last summer. That conclusion is based on data through April 2013. The IFS did add, though, that “there is good reason to think that the falls in income inequality since 2007-08 are currently being reversed.”
"Given all this, why the sudden anxiety about inequality? "
I'm willing to take Tim Harford on his word that he's done his research mind. He's pretty good.
`There is good reason to think` =/= `there is substantial evidence` but I take your point.
He's no more guilty of this than anyone else but it ends up as a black and white simplification of a really complex issue.
(tbf I have my doubts about the whole 'widening inequality' schtick. I think inequality is bad enough on its own...)
but he does state what evidence he's using to "bust" the myths. It's a reader exercise to find the documentary evidence.
As for the last question you quote, it's rhetorical and he then goes on to deal with it. Note that the comment from the IFS itself provides no actual evidence of increasing inequality in recent years.
"lots of people seem to think this specific thing is true. Not quite! It's actually slightly different. Can we do some things about things? Can't know for sure! I suspect maybe no? But dunno."
of every edition of More or Less there.
in that the top decile is the biggest hit by the coalition tax changes. Mainly NI contribution changes, the 40% tax threshold and pension tax relief changes.
IFS report here (Section 3) although I've seen this graph before elsewhere. www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/bns/BN159.pdf
Of course what is then not mentioned is that after the top 10% it's the poorer deciles that get fucked the most afterwards.
who are already so close to the line and who have had many benefits and assistance withdrawn, is much greater as there's a lot less slack in their net income.
And therein lies the problem of discussing `inequality`. It's a massive and fluid concept which is tricky to pin down. I mean on one hand you have Conservatives like Fraser Nelson being absolutely convinced that this government has `reduced inequality` because the rich are paying a greater share etc. etc. etc. But that doesn’t strike me as accurate lived experience to be honest.
I think that most people agree that `inequality` is a problem, and one that seems to be growing, but they’re generally not in agreement about what this inequality actually IS. From my perspective I see the economy/wealth as becoming more and more driven by property ownership and that the amount of visibly growing inequality in this regard is astonishing. Thomas Piketty’s thesis seems the most right to me in this regard.
But yeah, even given this the FT’s stance is still confusing.
"I know you're fond of namedropping Pikkety, but have you actually read his book?... Hmm"
On the "top 10%" issue it occurs to me that a further complicating factor is the vast range of incomes that are included in that decile. From memory you're looking at everyone on ~£50K upwards. I suspect that many on say incomes of £50K-£70K have hardly noticed a dent in their income, possibly even higher, because those on the really massive incomes have taken a sizeable hit (albeit one that they can easily afford, being y'know stinking rich). So in fact it's probably just the top few percent that have taken that big hit, followed immediately by those at the bottom end of the income range.
fwiw I haven't read his book but I did listen to the recording of the talk he gave at LSE last year and it was fucking brilliant. For all of the trumpeting of him as a `rock star economist` he's actually incredibly boring, technocratic and measured and his analysis is based on a series of sound calculations. Even he concedes that his `evidence` is more the beginning of a potentially worrying shift as opposed to conclusive proof we're in the middle of one.
Big fan of Piketty. Apart from the bit about him beating his ex up of course :/
They tend to espouse sensible economic and social policy and have been some of the harshest critics of this current government and its policies, while also arguing that Labour are the party best placed to tackle the inequalities and the causes of the inequalities that are the real threat to the UK's long-term economic success.
The FT, in particular has been very critical of the Tories' targeted austerity and their appalling record for pushing through dreadfully drafted legislation across all departments.
as Danny Finkelstein pointed out on Newsnight last night, the political position that papers take is only in part dictated by the views of its proprietor and contributors. He argued that for the most part newspapers try very hard to reflect the views of their readers, and that for the FT and Economist, as specialist publications read internationally by a particular demographic, that demographic basically supports the coalition approach.
newspapers editorial lines are the result of complex interplay between proprietors, staff, readership and the wider political landscape??
You won't get very far advancing that position round here...
I quoted him and then ran away. :-)
has held senior, involved positions on both sides of the politics/media divide and he's a commentator of almost unrivalled perception and erudition I'd say he's got a point here :)
but then you'd have to question why the FT and the Economist have been tacitly endorsing Ed Balls' proposals for the rest of the five years.
Surely they'd lose readers if they kept on suggesting that they're wrong, and evil for 95% of the parliament?
Seems like an odd switch so late in the day.
how long has this been the case? i know that on 8th april cameron had shortest odds. when did they pass eachother?
i fucked up pretty bad not waiting longer to bet on cameron
17th April was the last time they crossed
i still have some faith in labour as biggest party, based on nothing
the tories will pull away this week, and outperform the polls next Thursday. The only questions are by how much, and whether it will be enough to put them in a position to form a government.
but people have been waiting for them to pull away for a while now, and it's only started to happen a little. They'll probably get the most seats, but not sure it'll be much above current projections.
and there's ed's refusal to work with snp, loads of the snp candidates being new and untested, and this kind of thing: http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/social/4462637#r8564804
has made being openly Tory a more acceptable position to have in comparison and therefore reduced the shy Tory factor. Impossible to tell though.
Geoff told me not to worry my pretty head about it and that all the pollsters had that worked out already.
Well we'll see. This election is a big test of polling accuracy. Quite a funny one really, we've never had as much polling and yet we've never been less certain of the result :)
there must be a significant amount of shy kippers out there? if I was voting ukip there's no way I'd let anyone else know about it.
the shy Tory factor's now become more of a shy UKIP one - particularly in phone polls - certainly phone polls tend to show lower UKIP scores than online ones. If so, then based on where UKIP voters have come from, that would proportionally hit the Tories about twice as hard as it would Labour.
ed doesnt have a mandate*
(like the labour supporters did at the start of the coalition)
(and like every prick did when brown succeeded)
*assuming labour minority
Just shook ed milibands hand and he said "thanks" 😍
As was his performance last night on that thing with the tory plants
Revealed: What life would look like under the SNP - can't wait to see them give details of the nightmare dystopia we may be facing!
all of which are on the SNP's publicly viewable website.
of the TV/on demand audience do we think stayed tuned for Nick Clegg the other night?
I gave him about 20 seconds.
got literally no interest in what he's got to say or any of the things people want to ask him about
Labour. New Direction. Labour.
I've heard a lot made of the fact that UKIP might struggle to compete against the Tories in the way the polls suggest they could because of the well oiled get-out-the-vote machine in respective constituencies.
Now, much has also been made of the decay in local Scottish Labour parties who have grown complacent of victory over the years and this has translated into a groundswell of support for the SNP.
However, does the recent growth of the SNP's membership represent a real establishment of a get-out-the-vote machine? Could their surge in the polls not translate to a big sweep in seats because in terms of actual dedicated local party activists they're still behind Labour?
Genuine question, I have no idea.
doubt they'll do as well as the polls suggest though, since at the moment they're set to win about 110% of the vote share in scotland
And I've touched on the UKIP angle upthread.
Meanwhile, in my back yard, which has the biggest Lab majority going...
This is apparently the big final week/weekend push from one side:
And this is a taste of the other side:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=832016843512677&id=775818302465865&refid=17&_ft_=top_level_post_id.832016843512677 (that's just a gratuitous shot off the women - there were at least twenty cars parked up outside our hub, in a v low car ownership area, for the half past one session, there had already been an impromptu early morning session, and one was planned for later on in the afternoon, plus there are some dudes who have been running stalls every day since January. And plans are in place to knock up every identified voter during Wed & Thu, which came as a bit of a surprise.)
As said, I don't know how representative any of the above is. What I do know is that it's all very exciting. But I'm under no illusions that things could fall way way short of the higher end of predictions. But fuck it, we only had half a dozen MPs after the count last time, so even the bottom end of predictions would be pretty incredible.
Are you actually trying to suggest that 1. Labour don't campaign very much 2. We don't have many women campaigning?
You do realise you're comparing a photo from a campaign office with one of a bunch of people who may well be an offshoot of a canvassing session.
You should really work for the national or something...
I'm with DD though, individual canvassing sessions can vary. Yesterday in Sheffield Central we had four canvassing sessions. I gather the lunchtime Young Greens effort had about 20-30 people there. The first one I went to in the city centre was me, the campaign organiser, the candidate (Jillian Creasy), the chair of the local party, and one other chap.
tl;dr - it's a bit unfair to take anything from those photos as evidence of anything to do with size and effort of the local campaign
Nobody can name the snp candidiate. The national swing is much more important.
holy. fucking. shit.
is this actually real?
the labour party: sometimes a mug just isn't racist enough, you need a fucking stone monolith
what the fuck
about setting SMART objectives.
with a curious lack of an actual SMART intersection area.
https://twitter.com/hashtag/EdStone has thrown up some real beauts.
why have they unveiled it in a drab car park strapped to a mucky steel trolley? jesus fucking christ Ed.
Looks like a 11 year old's handwriting.
it doesn't matter what they say. ;)
(tbf, they're campaigning to get people to switch to Labour, it's a daft message to put out, but logical.)
(Although I'd dispute the last word of that.)
By the way, for anyone who wants a taste of Jim Murphy (and therefore a partial insight into why his branch office has imploded), and how Ruth Davidson's Tories are managing to exorcise the ghost of Maggie, there's a Scottish leaders TV debate on tonight, being shown across the UK on the BBC News channel at 7:30pm.
Top trolling from the lad, there.
Bit weird but whatever. Think the people laughing at it are more sad for actually giving a shit about style over substance
aye, if you're happy about voting for someone who wrote 'no more immigrants' on a giant stone tablet then fair enough.
WHAT A FASCIST.
The tories actually hate foreign people and even they've done nothing to reduce immigration. Shouldn't need explaining imo
"controls on immigration" =/= improving worker's rights to prevent employers exploiting immigrant labour and undercutting wages. that might be what you want it to say, but it doesn't. at best you can argue that playing up to anti-immigration rhetoric (or playing up "good" "hardworking" integrated economically productive immigrants against the unskilled non-english-speaking criminal illegal ones) is the only politically expedient way to address the electorate's immigration obsession, but you can't be seriously defending it as a good political position
would rather labour said something shit but vacuous about immigration than the tories get in government again. I think most people would? idk tho.
Honestly think their immigration stuff could be a lot lot worse.
they could be ukip. it's hardly a good defence. personally think that "shit but vacuous" rhetoric on immigration has a massive feedback loop effect on attitudes to immigration and, by that token, a tangible effect on actual immigrants' lives, cos when there's a straight-up unchallenged political consensus that immigration is in general A Problem it inevitably reinforces that view in the electorate, and i think if you're gonna support labour it's really important to not be an apologist for the fact that they are actively contributing to that
there's a difference between being an apologist though and realising that a party that exclusively puts forward lovely progressive or even radical policies is never gonna be the main party in government in the forseeable long-term future. You can critique and be angry for ever and ever but eventually someone on the left has to govern within the bounds of a democratic society that contains a load of racist fucks who need convincing to vote left so that the full-scale erosion of the nhs/welfare state/working conditions/whatever else is at least stemmed for a little while. For that reason it's sometimes necessary to overlook the bad for the sake of the good, and i would strongly defend myself and others against the idea that it's being apologist.
To be honest I expect even the people that came up with the labour policy on this take that sort of view.
how far down the shitter would labour have to go for you not to vote for them?
presuming the tories are always going to be worse and it's always going to be either labour or conservative, is there anything they could do or say that would lose your vote?
and i think the point where it tips over into apology is when you not only support the good in spite of the bad for pragmatic reasons, but also whitewash the bad instead of acknowledging and actively fighting against it from within your party allegiance. and i think an example of that is your reply to japes there where you essentially imply that labour's immigration rhetoric isn't a problem and completely misrepresent their position on it (instead of arguing the case for why you support labour in spite of that rhetoric). listen, i get that when you're on doorsteps canvassing for votes on an anti-tory platform you're not gonna get into a critique of the worst aspects of the party you're trying to convince people to vote for, but when it comes to general debate and discussion in a forum like this, i'd be more inclined to take left-wing labour voters seriously if they were putting forward the reasoning you're using here *as well as* voicing serious critique and scepticism about the less savoury aspects of the party (just as i'm more inclined to take snp voters seriously when they can argue their case while still being vocally critical about the less savoury aspects of the snp/the independence movement). anything other than that just comes across as pure tribalist party loyalty tbh
that the people making labour policy probably don't have any dodgy views on immigration or race is exactly the kind of bizarre tribalist thing i'm on about. why give high-level labour policy-makers the benefit of the doubt based on no evidence other than out of pure blind loyalty?
than there are making tory policy, and i'm not disputing that labour's immigration policy is likely more based on "pragmatic" political strategy that strongly held anti-immigrant sentiments, but in my view a willingness to marginalise certain sectors of society for the sake of winning over racists is in itself demonstrative of having less than spectacular attitudes to race and immigration
Cba going into full detail on their policies but is it not right to point out that a party's "tough on immigration" stance isn't actually all that tough, or should we uncritically just chuck them in the racist bin with ukip etc.
for me i think its worth pointing out that the policy of enforcing the minimum wage is unambiguously a left wing policy being dressed up as an immigration crackdown. Maybe I'm not the one to judge but i think as partisanship goes that's pretty mild
but don't imply that "controls on immigration" only means "enforcing the minimum wage". nobody's going to argue with you that enforcing the minimum wage is a bad policy. but i'd argue that "Stronger border controls", "controlling low skilled migration", "people coming here won’t be able to claim benefits for at least two years" and indulging the fantasy that immigrants wilfully refuse to learn english adds up to a highly questionable immigration platform at best. come on, i'm obviously not chucking anyone in the ukip bin, but the point is that they're allowing the immigration debate to be had on ukip's terms instead of trying to reframe the debate altogether. i'm sure the labour party would argue that the latter strategy is a political impossibility in the uk right now, but i'd still rather their left-leaning and anti-racist supporters at least make attempts to challenge that instead of just going "well at least they're not ukip/the tories"
(idk if you're a member of the labour party or anything, i'm not saying you have any sway to fight it, just saying if you're gonna defend labour in threads like this don't be disingenuous about it)
I actually think the overall concept is quite a neat idea. Have something in the garden of Downing Street, visible by all, as a reminder of commitment to promises and the the public. I get that.
The problem is - these 6 pledges are (mostly) so vague, vacuous and unmeasurable that it just looks ridiculously stupid. It’s like an advertising agency putting `Their Corporate Values` in their reception on a big plaque which all say things like
`Focus on customer service`
`Living our values`
Or something similarly inane. You complain about style vs. substance but this thing has neither. Everything about it lends itself to parody. Well intentioned, but poorly delivered.
And, of course, hardly the end of the world.
from 1997 to 2005: http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/factcheck+labours+election+pledge+cards/507807.html
Love the 1997 pledge card. Harks back to that wistful time when crime used to be at the top of the political agenda. No-one really talks about it any more.
but i feel like it should be a very unbiased view on the probable outcome, as it should lack an editorial (EDiTORYal) aspect.
anyway, just checked and the odds gap is almost non existent now :(
4/5 for milliband as favourite, but evens on cameron from a lot of places with other places going 10/12 for milliband and 11/12 for cameron :////
also, my tuppence on the stone: well-intentioned, weird, bad idea, terribly executed and it made me cringe at first but a few minutes later seriously who gives a shit? also, pledging controls on immigration isn't, in itself, racist. making it the backbone of your entire campaign is.
They represent the bookies' attempt to limit their exposure based on bets made by punters on previously available odds.
(Love me a good trawl o' the odds, though).
1) small market for niche interests like an unelectable party's leader, so not the case here
2) dont think this is a great example as it's not like the markets were wildly wrong
3) dunno, seems a fair cop but as per the comment, last year's referendum was correctly called. also i feel like in the last 8 years the internet and digital tv and analysis has expanded/improved to a significant extent in context
both are ridiculous but generate stories about their policies which is basically the aim of campaigning
gained unrivalled, and clear, news coverage over the weekend. They didn't exactly lose anything.
easily mocked, but undistorted through the use of the picture
but man, party politics really does make idiots out of people
if people are just wilfully suspending their critical faculties for the sake of campaigning cos getting out the vote is more important than honest critique of their own party's positions, or if it really is just pure tribalism taking hold of otherwise sharp people
(this is in reference to both labour and SNP activists that i know)
though it felt like they were beaming it directly into my home and my home alone. no one on twitter was talking about it. total debate fatigue.
got about half the traction of the stupid stone though http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/01/ten-bills-labour-government-election-queens-speech-miliband
"The so-called immigration debate, which has so often descended into a vicious rhetorical race to the bottom, has, for me, been the most depressing part of this campaign.
Elections should be about discussion and disagreement - but for months now we’ve seen the entire political establishment trying to sound ‘tough’ in an attempt to win back votes from UKIP.
As a migrant, and someone who loves this country for the tolerance it has shown those arriving on its shores, I’ve watched in horror as politicians line up to blame those not born here for failures of government policy ...
As Ukip rose to prominence over the last five years it was no surprise to see the Tories attempt to sure-up their right flank by clamping down on migrants. They promised caps, they set targets, and they failed even on their own terms.
But it was Labour’s lack of backbone that proved just how far our politics has been infiltrated by anti-immigrant rhetoric. Rather than standing up to Nigel Farage and his chums, Labour wilted. Rather than showing real opposition, they have adopted a harsh rhetoric - proudly pledging their plans on banners and merchandise to ‘control immigration’.
Rather than challenging myths around so-called health tourism, and rather than championing the rights of migrants, they have abandoned them, leaving them to take the blame for everything from a lack of affordable housing to pressures on our NHS."
(Apart from the writers 'tolerance', which implies a holding of the nose rather than an actual welcome.)
I hate to break the magic but I really want to know where this 'The' Natalie Bennett thing came from now
independent comes out for the present coalition:
It's almost as if they haven't been paying attention over the past five years. Saying that UKIP have contributed important ideas on freedom?
But it's odd that the crux of their decision comes down to maintaining the union and staying in the EU. Only a Tory-dominated government puts either of those at risk.
yeah, it's really wtf
It didn't surprise me because the Independent has run editorials incredibly critical of Miliband for years now. No surprises at all.
Incidentally, I read this more as an attempt to `call` the result as opposed to encouraging its readers to vote a certain way. Key difference I think.
'we will not be telling you how to vote'
'the SNP...are a wrecking ball poised to hit Westminster'
'Miliband...would be a disaster for the country'
doesnt mention how he became rich enough to go around buying newspapers for one thing
ex KGB, bought a bank that was about to go tits up, made some investments, survived a financial crash in which almost all competition went tits up, amassed a ton of assets at super knock down prices, profit
seen a lot of people talking about "getting a queen's speech through" but that's not relevant anymore is it? it's just a matter of votes of confidence? is this just a technical difference and a queen's speech getting defeated is means a vote of no confidence is super likely?
although if the vote was close and there wasn't already a viable government waiting in the wings I suspect that the House would likely give the govt a (short) opportunity to come up with something more acceptable to a majority of MPs before holding a vote of no confidence.
We might find out exactly what the difference is pretty quickly if Cameron tries to go for minority rule and Labour can stay vaguely disciplined for once.
after the Tories' botched attempt to dethrone Bercow on the last day of parliament, I can't imagine he'd be minded to cut Cameron too much slack early in the next one.
`If there is a left-of-centre, anti-Tory majority in parliament then the Tories must fall, however many seats they have won.`
If the majority is voting against the tories, the tories can't govern.
No-one's disputing that.
Jones's piece doesn't have a `If the Tories win the most seats and votes and being the incumbent party they can attempt to rule as a minority administration if they want. However this is a big risk because they might not pass a Queen's speech and then their government would fail` vibe running through it though does it?
Was going purely on the quote in your post, and I agree he wouldn't be arguing that point if labour and the tories were reversed, but can't see anything wrong with the statement itself.
because it overlooks several variables which mean that it's perfectly plausible (and democratically sound) for the Tories to govern in that circumstance.
It's all about how the parties `behave` with the seats they have, not just about the actual raw number of them. Jones appears to be reducing it to raw numbers, which isn't a satisfactory analysis.
but there's a subtlety missing in all these pieces (from both the left and right perspective).
Just because a government doesn't have a majority, it doesn't automatically mean the opposition should or will bring them down - there's a whole host of reasons that they may tacitly allow a minority to govern for some time, not least that the opposition can't find enough common ground to bring together a more stable replacement.
the majority of the electorate (based on a poll I saw last week) operate on the level of `whoever gets the most seats and most votes should really form the next government`. I expect this would be the angle that Jones would take were the scenario the other way round.
Seems quite simple to me. We wait and see what happens. If the Tories have the most votes/seats. They can try to cobble together a government. If they can't (or don't want to) do that, then Labour can lead a coalition of parties they've been able to fashion an arrangement from. Seems that simple to me. And all of these scenarios and arrangements are perfectly `legitimate` (`legitimate` being this campaign's most horrendous buzzword)
Genuinely had that `nails down a blackboard` grimace on upon reading.
Still remember when marckee's default line was to claim that the Tories `didn't have a mandate` to enact their policies. Okaaaay...
I said that didn't have a mandate to govern in a position far to the right of where they got their votes.
That's the Lib Dems' fault - abandoning the people who (?naively?) voted for them, and not holding the Tories to account. Quite how a supposedly centrist party holding the balance of power allowed the Conservatives to govern on the far side of the platform on which they won they votes is beyond me.
Either way - they technically had a mandate to govern however the fuck they wanted to so it's a completely moot point.
Given that so few 2010 CON have switched to being 2015 LAB and the votes they have lost have been to far-right UKIP it seems that most of their more centrist voters think they've governed to their satisfaction. Mandate reinforced.
majority and enter into coalition to have to form a majority government, then you'd expect, and I think the voters would expect, the coalition agreement, and the subsequent term of government, to sit somewhere between the two parties' manifestos. That is what the government had a mandate for.
Pretty sure that I did say that the government had no mandate for the NHS reforms, which they didn't. If the Tories had put that into their manifesto, they wouldn't even have been in a position to form a coalition government in the first place as they'd never have won so many seats.
...seems like the majority of the people who voted for the Tories in 2010 like what they've done. So that's settled then. The majority of the people who voted for the Lib Dems in 2010 don't seem to have mind.
There are no real rules to Coalitions though. Ultimately in 2010 the Tories had 306 seats and the Lib Dems had 57. That gives you a fair reflection of the relative bargaining power/governing `mandate` of the respective parties no?
And their NHS reforms? Just read their manifesto and it was suitably vague. GP commissioning seemed to be in there. Not a lot else though.
Think your argument's incredibly pointless to be honest. Ultimately a democratically elected government did a load of stuff that most of the people who voted for them are keen to vote for again. Boo hoo.
I think the number of seats won by both major parties is going to be close enough (i.e within 10) that a Tory or a Labour led government would be seen as reasonable by most non-partisan people. The trouble is those that shout the loudest aren't going to agree.
Let's just hope that one of them doesn't have a higher number of seats but a smaller % of the popular vote. That cat/pigeon interface just got bigger...
is a really shit way to build a democracy on
shit thing to build a democracy on
you know what I mean
This election campaign has been astoundingly eye-opening in that regard.
if A Very British Coup is still on 4oD, it's worth a watch at some point. A fairly well put together 80s drama - could do with more of that kind of thing to go with the 21st century political satire.
so a legislative programme (aka Queen's Speech) and a budget, the things that let you actually govern. Defeat in one of those has historically resulted in a no confidence motion appearing
Anyone who tried a confidence motion after a government defeat on a standard vote would become a laughing stock, unless it was becoming a very regular thing.
Sheeldz's link down there is good on explaining the difference between the votes on government business and the confidence motion in the last section though - I guess the convention for how to bring about a motion of no confidence under the Fixed Term Act is yet to be established.
wondering if it could happen in the UK
Minority Government had their budget voted down
Opposition had their opposition budget voted in
result: Minority Government forced to operate with/within the opposition budget
which resulted in the Minority Government calling for a rerun of the election after dissolution of Parliament at Christmas
last minute negotiations ended up resulting in the 'December Agreement' which meant that the Minority Government agreed to operate under the Opposition budget for the financial year 2015 on the understanding that the Opposition would abstain from voting on future budgets thus allowing the election rerun to be cancelled
could something like that happen ? or would a minority budget being voted down automatically trigger a No Confidence vote and dissolution?
given that budget and no confidence votes are now clearly distinct matters.
I doubt given the current mood within the UK that in reality it would happen though, not just because we're not in tune with European style politics, but also for the logistical reasons that oppositions don't have the resources to produce a red book with the level of detail that a UK budget is generally expected to have.
despite the rather obviously pro-Union / anti-SNP wording, the concepts and legal stuff make sense.
this thread (and only this thread) goes mental when I press the end key
why is this happening
Ed understands us like no other
but it wasn't just that - the tweeter's biog
"Conservative PPC for the Calder Valley in the 2015 GE. Member Education Committee 2010 - 2015. Chairman APPG Looked After Children & Care Leavers 2012 - 2015"
MP idiocy on twitter never fails to amaze.
"Almost everything seems to be uncertain about this election. But I believe two things are certain: the arrival en masse of Scottish nationalism in Westminster (which, by the way, is business as usual in Spain) and the failure of the electoral system. Strangely enough, these are the two things about which you held referendums in this parliament. And that, regardless of the result, is a lesson in democratic quality in itself."
right, so it's may 8th. election over. no one has won. it's a complete shambles. absolutely everyone and their dug realises we need electoral reform yet the two biggest parties don't want to adopt it as it would be bad for them.
what happens next?
As in the SNP would be smaller if they were a %age of the UK as a whole. And if UKIP get a few MPs, again, it's likely they'd be insignificant compared the Tory party as a whole under PR. Is that not right?
So Labour/Conservatives might be better off overall but the I guess their MPs could all be fucked over by the necessary changes to the system?
I want more SNP MPs at westminster, but will happily admit it's a bit fucked that they're going to* get 100% of scottish seats
we could all use a break, recharge our batteries
When do I need to register to be able to have one on 8 May?
which puts UKIP in a massive bind - suddenly get pro-EU and wind up with 15% of the Commons or leave the EU and be consigned to a footnote in history
also, whats going to happen if its not possible to create majority gov even with with co-alition (which seems likely considering SNP LibDem Ukip have all dismissed the possibility of working with the other (almost) and SNP have said they won't co-alese anyway....just vote against the tories on specific issues. ?
her husband Jack Dromey for speaking at a gender-segregated Labour rally is hilarious!
and I don't just want to know all the current arguments vs religeon and stuff, but someone has to ask this question, so that we understand where the culture is coming from.......but "why ARE they all sitting seperately?" Is it meant to be primarily for the mens benefit? or the womens benefit? or are the reasons just so arcane that they have just become part of an accepted cultural norm for which people kind of fill in any absence of reason?
all of the above?
and a dash of the old patriarchal business probably, same as our weird old male-female rules and that, but we'd be better off consulting a resource other than DiS
has anyone ruled anything out today?
he'll make sure there's another election by Christmas, just see if he doesn't. Literally nobody gives a fuck though.
and still fail to attract any interest.
listened to r4 today interviews with Miliband yesterday and Clegg today - literally half of each going over and over the point of who they would go into coalition with.
they both have their party line which they're not going to move on before Friday - ok Miliband's is slightly opaque but not that much, but Clegg's is crystal clear. I hate John Humphreys' interview style and it was at it's worst in these two, but he's not the only one. It's scuppering the democratic process by ensuring that this is half, HALF of what we hear about what the parties have to offer. Shame on him.
(not sure it did)
but even if it is like in the past, then I wonder why it hasn't changed now for this group of people? I mean, I bet most of these people have moved on in other ways, I bet they have credit cards and mobile phones etc.
But even with coalitions, don't have enough to control a majority in government. One would assume by default it would go to a Labour/SNP thing, but surely a lot of people wouldn't be happy with that? By the looks of it this is an increasingly likely scenario.
tough shit, that's how it works
and the press would go apeshit. But it would be hard for the to do anything about it considering the current system.
The penultimate paragraph here is interesting.
been a couple of good pieces on this recently, eg http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/queen-palace-coup-miliband-snp-cameron-huitson-345
The Greens are chucking everything at Bristol West, barely a day goes by when I don't see The Darren Hall out on the campaign trail and their postal spam (somewhat ironically) outnumbers everyone else's at least 10:1.
Every line an absolute winner.
not be possible, apart from one BIG elephant in the room.
MOST people in this country want either Labour or Conservative.
Why can there not be a co-alition between these two parties? With voting (as is usual) on the policies as they go through parliament?
Please don't just say this is ridiculous without considering the possible merits of this e.g. this would keep policy fluid, and stop it from becoming dogma, because 'we DO NOT know the immediate future' (well they dont anyway) and these times and conditions are more uncertain for the parties experience more than in the past.
More than that If no single majority party is available there will also probably be no other 2 party coalition than this combo - so it would be the most democratic combo too.
Thoughts on this?
I'm sure there will be many of you rather anxious to jump on this and say how stupid I am (that's a given, I am stupid after all)
But it would be interesting what possible advantages such a system might unexpectedly give.
How will policy be formed? Well in a similar way to existing cross party working groups within parliaments.
"But the mps are not used to working in such a way, all they will do is argue." Is an argument that will spring to many peoples minds, to which I say "Well they are meant to be very capable intelligent people who are already used to representing a cross section of views and of discussion and compromise withing their own parties, so who better to face a new challenge such as this. Also in a changing world where many people have had to adapt their working patterns, it is not unreasonable to expect the MPS to also be able to do this with good will and without being petulant. They should be expected to make it work, like any other employees that are asked to do a different working method. If other employees sabotage a new working method resonably imposed on them by their employers, which is not detrimental to them as individuals, the we would expect the employees to be disciplined. (e.g. no matter how unfair zero hours contracts seem, Im sure those on them might suffer if they dont stick to the agreement)
So - thoughts?
I don't think you're stupid, I think it's a fairly real possibility. Because they both seem so against the SNP that they'd rather do the unthinkable and form a Con/Lab coalition in order to keep the jocks out of making decisions on policies that would affect England.
Not saying I think this is going to happen but these rat bastards are capable of absolutely anything if it means saving their own skin and clinging on to power. The left and right are closer to the middle than they've ever been.
but there is little benefit for both parties. it'd piss everyone off.
with the fixed term parliaments act there's no need for stability anymore.
i am! it pretty much only just registered with me.
it was Alistair Darling's seat, but this (obvs) has the SNP considerably ahead. my vote might actually count???!!!
currently 51% LAB 49% SNP.
most of scotland I guess
chance of winning: SNP 90%
if the seat would've changed hands without your vote?
gets closer by the day though :/
We heard about the economy and the deficit, then immigration and the NHS to a lesser extent.
There was decidedly nothing about climate change, other public services, transport, defence (only a smattering) etc.
Is that the right-wing media setting the tone or is it a failure of Labour, Greens, LDs, SNP etc. to set the terms of the debate?
(something glib about the electoral system)
doing what is best for you.
Why do people think its about their actual future interest?
It is about what people think, their opinions, their povs, and it is only about their thoughts that can be made to be dominant over other thoughts of theirs at a particular time that really matters to party politics.
If you boil it all down, its about competition, thats it, thats all there is. Its a race, they will play dirty if they can get away with it, why would they distract themselves with things that are not the most immediate worry of peoples, climate change is a potential global catastrophe, but not as immediately as people percieve other things, in most peoples books it just a 'nice to have'. Its not going to overide other factors. also people know underneath that the real answer would involve us having radically changed lifestyles and expectations, which would be unpopular for anyone that dares mention it, we know that any of the major parties that discuss environmental things are only just treating it mostly as a 'nice to have, as long as it doesnt interfere with the serious business of business/employment/economics/prosperity'
thats not the way discussion works, only you are interested in this sort of thing. Unless you are interested in just having a discussion with yourself that is.
Given that the major parties seem to accept that transport is privatised and not a nationalised thing.
I personally DO think that transport and national infrastructure is something that should be regulated/planned by the nation, but this is at odds with the major parties apparent belief in privatised transport industry.
So my slightly sour glib answer to why arnt they discussing transport? would be, because they believe it to be a private matter. Things like airports.....well are these not run by private companies? Why do politicians therefore get involved? when they've wiped the airports and airlines off their hands.
Things like airports should be down to planning permission comittees and the local councils involved with the issues (I dont actually believe in this, but according to the parites attitudes they have no right to behave in any other way without being hippocritical)
because it is enormously complex and mixed, firstly, it will probably be that Tory or labour or libdems would be up for keeping a nuclear deterent, so there is nothing to attack the others with really....there is a discussion to be had involving SNP not wanting the subs in holy loch, but the parties are already having a right old ding dong about the 'SNP' issue....the whole coalition issue with SNP/UKIP/LIBDEM combs is already a maelstrom of baffling proportions for most people.
Of course defence is an expensive thing, but most politicians represent frightened interests.
Not worth risking discussing it too much, they cant gain much from it, but could lose heavily.
why don't you just go away and talk to yourself in a mirror whilst pissing in the wind?
You are obviously unsuited to debate and the idea of democratic politics and elections. Just accept that these things are not designed for you, and just go away and live your life independent of these things, you, and many others, are not best suited to get involved in this politics - forget it.
if so, I've been reading your posts in this thread and have found a lot of stuff packed in them interesting, whatever that's worth.
(other than nhs and defence)
The biggies are Education and Welfare.
Well these are both hugely expensive.
None of the parties will be able to afford to fully fund welfare, but neither labour or tory want to discuss it too much, because the only thing that is certain is that labour will cut less than tory, neither side is honest or realistic in how much they will cut or not cut....neither will win in examination of what they claim against which they will be able to do.
Education.....hmm.....not really sure what its about really, so I cant really comment on this.
and yet I still feel really undecided and a bit nervy about who to vote for. Weird isn't it.
does have the potential to have an impact on a national, if not local, scale.
The two leading criteria in the 'legitimacy' of any coalition negotiation seems to be the number of MPs *and* the national vote share. So even if you live in a safe seat, your vote might have little impact on the former, but it might play a part in the latter.
I know it's banal and obvious but how can people peddle and/or swallow this shit while not simultaneously calling for proportional representation?
and we had a referendum on it not so long ago.
"But it wasn't the type of PR *I* wanted, it wasn't a referendum on *real* PR" blah blah blah.
The country has the system it wants (for now at least).
In a decisive election outcome, yes. In an indecisive outcome election, no. In terms of 'perception' at least.
especially if that perception is warped by deliberate Tory attempts to override the constitution
as per a lot of stuff upthread, voteshare, whilst not constitutionally relevant, is going to have a real effect on perceptions of coalitions/minority government, and cameron just deciding he;s going to be PM, then a second election that labour cant fund
It'll change no decisions at all, but it will be a handy excuse for some people to make certain decisions that they were already going to make, providing the vote share backs them up.
And that no being interpreted as "I love the current system" rather than "This new system still isn't quite right" is one of the biggest and most obvious political travesties of our generation.
Might vote Conservative tomorrow, because fuck this generation.
"I don't know fuck all about any of this, and can't be bothered to think about it, but I'm scared of change, so no change please"
And that no being interpreted as "I love the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" rather than "The United Kingdom Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland still isn't quite right" is one of the biggest and most obvious political travesties of our generation.
I think a majority of people want PR.
We have never been offered PR
Why does it even need the majority of people to want PR?
WHy dont we just have PR? its a no brainer. No consent is required, its implied by the near unanamous support of democracy as a principle, that is part of the idea of democracy....PR.....its a building block of the idea of democracy.
If you are against the idea of proportional representation then you are against a fundamental ideal of democracy.
certainly a majority of people on here want it, and Ukippers/any party whose influence will be negated by FPTP, and people who put democracy ahead of the party they want to win. but there are huge numbers of very partisan Labour/Tory voters who woud vote againsti t, and millions who would be afraid of change. was talking to my dad about it last night and he said "oh we dont want PR, there'll just be hung parliaments all the tiem" and I think that would be very much a prevailing view, whether right or wrong* (*clearly wrong), because people don't see that if the system had to adapt to coalitions then the rabid partisan, majority-seeking nature of UK politics would have to adapt too
that said a) a site called 'electoral-reform' is naturally a bit biased and b) if whatever coalition/minority we get after this GE is complete shite there may well be a swing back to a majority at the next election
from a point of view of democratic ideaology
following the principles/ideals behind democracy.
Why do you think that political parties would behave in this way?
If they would behave as such then why do they not support PR in the first place?
Unless of course some other entity makes them comply to this idea......but what could this 'other entity' be?
I thought for the first time that maybe I wouldn't have to listen to him being a dick for much longer. Made me momentarily cheerful.
Dangerous to hope.
but just in case:
i can't deny i didn't offer a choice finger as i drove past, but jesus, who thinks it's ok to say that sort of thing.
yet again it caused a Kipper to bemoan the fact that we hear all of their wrong doings but never hear of the hundred of Councillors from other parties that have been suspended or prosecuted this year alone.
how do you think the LibDems would approach coalition negotiations this time round? They must, MUST have a better plan ready than last time.
Obviously no-one knows what's in their manifesto or what they're actually for, but just on the point of how hard-headed and demanding they'd be, can we hold out hope that they'd be able to hold the Tories to account better if it happened again?
On accounts of how they're shyster fuckheads
of influence over the Tories that the electorate decided they were entitled to. DiSers have this weird notion that a very much minor coalition partner should be able to dominate its more powerful master simply because they agree with their policies more. I've never understood this.
because he seems to be making the same mistake with regard to the SNP.
But I don't think it's applicable to this instance of them just folding like a house of cards and doing the exact opposite of what they said they'd do. If they'd actually tried to exert some "positive" influence people would be more forgiving as they are, like you said, the minor party but that isn't what happened.
than anyone voted for in any significant numbers
They got themselves fucked over on so many things that were so important to their voters. Throw in the obvious glee with which some of them nailed their colours to the tory mast and fuckups like Cable's flogging of Royal Mail and it's perfectly understandable that everyone views them with contempt. They're just not very good at politics.
When did this start happening?!
what was it something like 57 seats (~6m votes) to 303 seats (~10m votes) that's roundly 1:6, unless you take it on votes, which of course our system doesn't. and the Lib Dems did get some stuff/block some stuff.
or is it just a gambit based on vague feelings of whether a group of people who have previously reneged might follow through on vague statements of intent and that they can overide someone they have appointed their leader whose position may or may not be true, given that he sometimes lies, and may just be saying something to gain advantage from it, this confusion all being possible due to there being no significant consequence to 'fibbing for advantage'
but it's hard to say as this is only the second election I've been engaged with. my intuition seems to be with becoming interested in whichever party is inspiring disaffected voters several months before they become popular (became quite fond of the Lib Dems a few months before Cleggmania, tthe Greens before their surge last year, the SNP before Sturgemania in the debates).
however i did assume Labour would get in with the SNP and Lib Dems until last week because the Lib Dems had been quite anti-Tory in their rhetoric over the last year or so, so I thought they'd want to switch sides, until Clegg said he'd work with the largest party (almost certainly Tories), but it's more complicated than what he says (esp if he loses his seat). think it's pretty impressive that despite probably losing half their seats they're sttill going to emerge as kingmakers.
scale, and 285 kilos pf parsnips on the other, if you add 6 kilos of shit to the carrots then that tips the balance in favour of the carrots
interesting that you are interested in the party that is attracting 'others' who are disaffected. You are using popularity in this demographic as a factor in your interest, which is of course what others also do, its a strategic influence that is drawing you for this reason, this sort of majority system is something that can mean that following A herd, is a principle that may be more successful than being an individual. Choice of the right herd can be a successful survival choice in the natural world too. Individualism within the political system is a strategy that is doomed to non progression.
"No Change" (which in this case is ConDemNation)
Should people be able to indicate which co-alition combo they favour (given this is probablu gonna be 2nd co-alition in a row) ?
If anything, they're probably even less prepared than last time.
Would quite enjoying seeing a situation where a Labour + Lib Dem coalition is feasible, but the first condition is that Clegg gets the boot as leader.
There is no point in responding to creakys political posts. They are all just nonsense, and contain nothing worth discussion or thinking about.
Would be to make it so you vote for who you want the least and whoever gets the least votes gets to do whatever they want
so take your pick
Parties that won seats in 2010
Conservative Party (572)
Labour Party (572, including 35 Labour Co-operative)
Liberal Democrats (572)
Plaid Cymru (40)
Green Party of England and Wales (535)
UK Independence Party (573)
Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (125)
English Democrats (35)
Class War (28)
Cannabis Is Safer Than Alcohol (20)
Christian Peoples Alliance (17)
Official Monster Raving Loony Party (15)
Yorkshire First (14)
National Health Action Party (13)
Left Unity (10)
Socialist Party of Great Britain (10)
British National Party (8)
Christian Party (8)
Communist Party of Britain (8)
Socialist Labour Party (8)
Workers' Revolutionary Party (7)
Mebyon Kernow (6)
Pirate Party UK (6)
Above and Beyond Party (5)
Independence from Europe (5)
Communities United Party (5)
Lincolnshire Independents (5)
National Front (5)
Northern Party (5)
All People's Party (4)
Animal Welfare Party (4)
Liberal Party (4)
North East Party (4)
Peace Party (4
Respect Party (4)
Whig Party (4)
Alliance for Green Socialism (3)
Liberty GB (3)
We Are The Reality Party (3)
Communist League (2)
Justice and Anti-Corruption Party (2)
Justice for Men and Boys (2)
Lewisham People Before Profit (2)
National Liberal Party (2)
Party for a United Thanet (2)
Patriotic Socialist Party (2)
Red Flag - Anti-Corruption (2)
Social Democratic Party (2)
Something New (2)
UBUNTU UK (2)
Vapers in Power (2)
Young People's Party UK (2)
Beer, Baccy and Scratchings Party (1)
British Democratic Party (1)
Children of the Atom (1)
Eccentric Party (1)
Free United Kingdom Party (1)
Hoi Polloi (1)
Land Party (1)
New Society of Worth (1)
Population Party (1)
Socialist Equality Party (1)
Wessex Regionalist Party (1)
Al-Zebabist Nation of OOOG (1)
Still didn't reply to my email though
and that a lot of what I say is grating and clumsy and irrelevant,
I cannot see that I am any different in this, than any other of the political discussion and debate, which seems as bizarre and futile as when I witter on.....its just that its more frequent, why is other discussion not also regarded as fruitcakey?
yet when I do it, I'm like a leper?
without actually addressing the contend of his post. Good to see you limiting yourself to critique about the person, rather than engagement. It is wise to know your limits.
(Oh nos, I've turned into a critical parsefone)
but I'm really unsure as to who you are.
and its not wrong, in what it says, although what it says will be derided as being unpolitic, which is kind of a good thing, but maybe not if you were seriously trying to win in a first past the post whose got the biggest dick type of competative political system
I read their blurb and thought it was something you might write.
I would have a bit more content though.
Cant see them having a hope in hell in bring regarded as anthing other than an irrelevence and somewhat niave, though.
fucking NERDS starting political parties
I do think there should be a way of officially registering disdain. Maybe some kind of vote for who you want and also down-vote who you don't want.
Would be fascinating to see how different the results were if we ran a shadow election using a completely different system alongside the General Election.
but i like the idea of running two elections at the same time, then a week later running a referendum to choose between the two results.
eg a PR election vs a current system one, or a current system with tactical voting vs without
until everyone's happy with the result.
im just talking about ticking one extra box at a general election, then maybe having a referendum a week later if there's a significant difference. think it'd give a pretty clear sign of what the majority of people actually wanted instead of it all being based on second guessing and fear mongering
I think, ultimately, most of us need to accept that vast swathes of the country couldn't give a fuck about this sort of thing
as they'd just be a general election with an extra box to tick, and the referendum wouldnt even need to necessarily happen if both things lead to teh same result, which they should do, but probably wouldnt.
But I actually think some people would be put off by having to tick an extra box/would think it would be too complicated and not bother
people thought it was too complicated, when it's really not, is it.
thing is, the run up to a general election is deeply divisive and the fall out upsetting to millions of people, and an additional layer of legitimacy would help everyone get over it all a lot quicker.
I'm on board
"Changing the world for the better cannot be achieved with systems that are built for a bygone age and to enrich the few. We need to start again from scratch.
Before reading our initial ideas for a brave new world, try and forget how everything currently works, thus opening your mind to the potential of something new.
Consider for yourself and ponder how these ideas will change your own life and the fortunes of your business.
You will soon agree, there is a better way."
and working just with the influences that are extant, from where we want to be.
It is not wrong to try to change some of the influences that nudge us in the wrong direction, many extant influences are not 'natural' although they may have substantial footholds/foundations in other things that we do need to rely on for day to day/short term survival.....which is the problem, which makes what you just posted seem niave (although It true and a good thing to consider)
There has been a destructive progression of the system that we currently have in its gradual global domination, it has destroyed alternative systems and has forced all to become part of ITS competition race (yes Im talking in a more symbolic way, get over it, this is the conundrum that faces why most people feel they cant vote for idealism, which will be regarded as niave, that instead they have to vote for something shitty but practical.
Short term competativeness (except in political tenure which is medium/short term) seems to rule us all, and the practicalities of us needing to survive within this artificial competativeness, has denied us the choice of sensiblyu choosing idealism or truly vote for what we really want for the long term future.
i.e. Do not mock the ideal for being impractical in the short term. as the piece you wrote said, abandon preconcieved ideas abbout the extant before considering what you really want.....by all means, then consider the practicalities according to the shit state the human system world is in, but do not allow the shit state the world is in dictate what you feel the world you can aim for........aim to get towards the ideal, sustainably, acknowledging the state we are in and how to get to the long term ideal with short term practical steps.
make your cross in the box, and accept that the world is shit and meh, what can you do? (I accept I bollocks on and on and on......but so do a load of you, and you are also not going to change anything........peoples arguments against me going on and on....I should shut up.....would be fine by me, except that everyone else is going on and on and on as well....without changing anything....
Dont you see that you are just the same as me in this way?
but i feel sad for any MPs who love their constituencies and work hard for them, but will lose their seats because of things their parties have done that are beyond their control :(
PARTY politics is a 'lying game'. i.e. it is disingenious and can make everyone compromise and become guilty, to a degree, of not being fully sincere. You are not able to represent what you truly feel through the current ballot box, it is a compromise, that may involve you becoming part of a misrepresentation, part of a scam, but apparently, according to some, it is your duty to get muddy.
they still get to be a part of the community, the only thing they lose is that nice shiny paycheck and the opportunity to boss people around
Who's staying up all night watching it tomorrow night then?
Might try and log in here at about 4am Friday to see what the crack is.
I don't want to, but I'll end up flicking over to see what's happening and end up watching it for far longer than I should do
is to avoid all the tedious waiting and actually get an early night. Then get up at 6/7am when the picture will just be starting to become clear, and watch all the reactions, post on DiS etc. while everyone else lies in till midday, missing out on valuable bants, shabs, thises and indie points
Harriet Harman said in an interview on LBC this morning that it's ok because it's better than "no women being there at all".
I'm sure Rosa Parks used be told the same thing...
"throw em to the extremists" eh? ;D
was going to vote.
Think I've talked myself pout of it. :D
Basically I just can't bring myself to knowingly soil myself.
I also might not be fibbing?
there probably isn't much
that they're pretty similar in comparison
can you let the rest of us know?
although I doubt if many people have an idea as to what the comparrison of what it would be like after 5 years of having either of them
Maybe not for you pal, is what I think while silently being irked.
I am in a utterly safe Tory seat. Therefore there is no need for me to soil myself. If one were in a marginal and one preferred one party to be in gov, then soiling oneself would be the price to pay to make a difference.
(although you still do not know what your choice will result in if it does make a difference, you are not voting for policies or how good someone will react to future events/realisations, you are hedging your bets based on many uncertain factors, and overall gut feeling)
voting percentages (and not just seats) are going to have a significant part to play in how government formation works out next week, and that a vote for labour, even if it doesn't get a labour mp, helps prevent a tory government
as I am very close to agreeing with voting for labour for some vain belief along those lines (but I suspect that I am being foolish for this)
but cameron has literally said that if tories have most seats, he's declaring himself winner. with the papers on his side, milliband really might need the numbers to validify his attempts to form a govt
is that the MPs will have to vote on that and surely he'd lose? Unless you think that public opinion about legitimacy would cause labour/snp/green/sdlp/pc to not vote against cameron?
which Labour lost almost immediately in 2010. It's quite feasible that a group of backbenchers would rather see the Tories try and govern in difficult circumstances than have to vote down party lines on everything so Labour can get their programme through - Depending on the numbers it may not take *that* many abstentions.
you can get out of the thread then
Isn't everyones pov valid (as long as its sincere)?
Is my presence here, somehow preventing wonderful progressive political debate that is going somewhere?
Am I bringing a downer to idle election dramatainment?
But the Tories are killing people and not in an illegal war sort of way
will that mean the election night stuff will take longer? How late will David Dimbleby have to stay up?
JD Twitch (of Optimo) has posted this on his history as a labour voter, which resonated with me a bit: http://www.optimo.co.uk/blog/index.php
I don’t have the same length of history regarding them as he does, but I have only ever voted labour, and seeing as the only alternative to Cameron is Miliband (who I like), part of me is saying that I should still vote for them, if only to help them become the largest party. The other part is against them on lots of things - their stance on immigrants, trident and refusal to put forward an anti-austerity message being the main ones, and I can vote for the SNP for views more in tune with mine on that. I voted yes in September, but I'm not particularly interested in a prolonged campaign for independence - I'd be quite happy if the issue doesn't come around again for a couple of decades, but SNP success keeps it at the front of things (in fairness, it seems to be labour and the tories who talk about it far more now than the SNP).
Also can't help thinking that defeat for labour here is necessary of they're ever going to become a party I can support again - if we endorse them whatever they do, then I don't see them changing. Lastly, I think the appointment of Jim Murphy as leader was a huge error - he embodies many of the reasons people are turning away from the party.
Don't know why I'm posting this, trying to work out my own thoughts more than anything else.
will never again be elected on a prospectus that proper left-wingers would describe as left-wing. So if you're waiting for that you'll die first.
What you can expect from Miliband is a more centrist approach which would still to people like me count as socialism. Perhaps the immigrant rhetoric is more than just rhetoric. I'd like to hope it isn't, and that in practice what they would do is fix the obvious problems which are related to but not caused by immigration (eg exploitative low wages).
I could be wrong in my hopes there. Certainly the last Labour government became more authoritarian than I was comfortable with. Perhaps that's what happens to all governments after a while. But personally I think Miliband has a genuinely radical agenda, that is considerably to the left of Blair, massively to the left of Cameron and possibly even noticeably left of Brown. But expecting grand gestures is puerile and unrealistic. If he succeeds with such a programme next parliament it will be in a sequence of fairly non-descript tweaks of the country's governance, not headline grabbers. And that's the way to govern properly IMHO.
Or are you basing that on things that aren't in the Labour manifesto?
I'm not going to hide the fact that my faith in him is based on... well primarily faith. I trust him a hell of a lot more than any of the other party leaders (and that includes NS).
That said, things like the fuel price freeze indicate radical intent, even if that may prove to be an ugly and possibly ineffective policy in practice. And his stance on Leveson should be more widely praised, particularly since it's come at great cost to him politically.
I get really angry at people claiming that the current Labour party is indistinguishable from the tories. The differences are profound. I voted for Ed as leader over his brother and Balls precisely because I thought he was a deeper thinker and a more progressive politician than both of them. I'm still prepared to give him a chance to prove that.
In this election more than any other of recent times, the manifestos are a complete waste of space. The overriding theme of this election has been all parties promising things they can't deliver, and avoiding commenting on a large range of policies that are important to the future of the country.
That's a terrible state of affairs, but it reflects badly on all participants equally so it's not a good basis to select between them.
in government than out, but I guess you never know...
I'm hoping that being in power will give him the chance to be as radical as he already is.
great leadership should be about making the public believe in your vision, not working within the constraints of what you're told the voters in key marginals want by your focus groups.
For example, as I've said on here before, every party claims to love the NHS unreservedly, but not one of them would touch it today as a new policy.
but I'm not sure there has been a way for him to do this over the last five years. When he stood up a week ago and told a bunch of people that building schools didn't bankrupt Lehman brothers he was booed. How are you supposed to get any sort of message across in a media environment where so little sensible debate is possible?
Perhaps Ed will show his great leadership by a) sneaking this election (as has been Labour's plan from the start) and then b) showing the British public his vision whilst in office, convincing them of it and then even better implementing it.
but a big part of the reason he was booed is that Labour were more or less absent for a year or so post May 2015 while the Tories and Lib Dems were parroting the "economic mess we were left by Labour" line approximately every 2 minutes. That narrative wasn't challenged until it was far too late and essentially became fact.
the media really are right up there with the most vile 'industries' in this country, if not the worst of all- quite a feat given the competition.
but the point I was after was that it's extremely difficult these days for a party leader, particularly one not in government to engage in an honest thoughtful exchange of ideas with the electorate as a whole. And that sadly is why so much of what the people want to hear (and need to hear) is going unsaid.
but I think it's reasonable to say that Milliband's pitch is about as far left as you could expect someone leading Labour on the same playing field to go given the current Neo-Liberal consensus and the need to avoid giving more than a slither of truth to the rubbish about how Labour are set up to throw away the economy on day one of a government they lead.
That's not to say that it's radical in the overall sense of things - clearly UKIP and the Green Party have more radical ideas than Labour - but for a mainstream party that's still full of Blairites, I'd say he's done a reasonably good job of promoting *an* alternative to the right-of-centre politics of 97 onwards.
I think those two paragraphs show exactly why we don't need a "define radical" conversation in this instance.
Just trying to head off the usual semantic debate that DiS conversations usually end up in :)
of the response to what I posted initially. I would agree that when I used the word radical I wasn't thinking in terms of Green policy (desirable, politically impossible, practically difficult) or UKIP policy (straight up racist). When the word popped into my head I think I was considering his stance compared to the last two Labour leaders. And as I said, I do believe he differs substantially from Brown and Blair in his values and goals.
to fearing that the right-leaning, blairite wing of labour might knife ed at some point in the not too distant future in order to restore a more palatable (to them) Labour leader???
almost certainly if he isn't, I'd guess.
The Labour party seems pretty united to me though. Not sure if there's much discord about Ed's actual ideas (although there is about certain aspects of his personality like his noted indecisiveness) but more about his inability to get elected with them. A key distinction this.
for fear of more talk about unelected Prime Ministers again - they'll have had a rough ride just getting Ed into Downing Street - the last thing they'd want to do is create another narrative against everything they try to do.
Obviously, if the Tories put together a stable government instead all bets are off.
then he's going. Think he wants another crack at leadership in opposition but he ain't gonna get it.
Think the smart money's on Umunna myself. Probably my preferred choice to take over too on balance.
i don't really see how the tories can hope for a stable government?
really can't see the lib dems backing them even if clegg wants them to?
If Cameron brazens things out and the numbers are close enough, he *might* be able to cobble together a large enough minority of MPs on matters of confidence by relying on a lack of discipline elsewhere. I'd say it's unlikely, but it is possible.
and the Lib Dems getting 25 is certainly within the realms of possibility.
Only way the Lib Dems aren't going into Coalition with the Tories again is if Clegg loses his seat.
Although... stable government. Love all this Tory-led stuff about `Ooh ooh a government led by Labour and the SNP will be weak and dangerous and...`. Bollocks. If the Tories form the next government, you just watch them tear each other apart from the inside by the end of the year with faction wars and leadership wrangles. It's going to be fucking embarrassing.
No wonder Cameron looks as if he can't be arsed with another term of it.
much much more than John Major did.
Major didn't have to govern during a recession of this depth and devastation (the recession of 91-92 was called `the recession that no-one noticed` after all) meaning he was spared from making the difficult calls that Cameron's had to make.
But in another way the comparison's easy to make. When The Tory party elects a more moderate, decent type of leader (and Cameron in actual essence is both of these things) they do like to hatchet them. Funny that.
it doesn't mean that he hasn't chosen all the wrong answers to each of them.
Guy deserves to die in a ditch.
classically Conservative path when faced with tough economic decisions. Because he's a Conservative.
Those decisions have turned out to be economically illiterate and seemingly callous, I agree.
I'd agree Clegg would have a hard task getting the party on board, and would almost certainly fail if it means just getting a single digit majority with the DUP as well. Just possibly they'd all fall back into line if they don't completely crash at the polls, get something concrete from Cameron as a promise and can field an overall majority in double figures.
But my money would be on the Lib Dems declining the kind offer of a place at the table this time.
No way the Lib Dems are giving up the chance to keep their handful of meaningless Cabinet seats unless Clegg goes.
I honestly couldn't say for sure. But a collapse in their vote will set them on edge, and there are Lib Dem MPs who have had to practically nail their hands to their seats over the last few years. The temptation for say Farron to "make a stand on principle" will possibly be too much to resist.
I don’t think the issues I mentioned in my post would count as that, but maybe they would. I just don't know if maybe there's a chance that a large SNP block could influence things in that direction slightly.
I think it's harmful that an anti-austerity or anti-trident message is non-existent in the mainstream parties.
which has overwhelming public support - would be a start.
Maybe it'll happen. Like colinz said above perhaps that's just a step further than they can pragmatically promise at this particular moment.
However this morning on the train I found a Labour leaflet at least promising to allow public companies to run railway franchises.
And a few days ago I heard a young conservative on the radio describe a proposal for a freeze on rail fares as "investment in the railways", so you can draw your own conclusions from that on which is the party with the competent grasp of economics!
Not sure where those will come from now that East Coast has been re-privatised :'(
would be a start
Do you mean nationalised companies? And if so is there anything currently prohibiting them from doing so? Or indeed anyone left in the UK that might be able to?
and we're starting to go in circles.
In the absence of any believable manifestos I'm going to vote on trust. And I trust Miliband more than any of the rest of them. And I believe he will overdeliver. And that's about it.
Genuinely curious what that leaflet promise is meant to actually convey though...
to be honest I'm not even sure of the wording.
But of course it was the last Labour government that pulled east coast back into public control. And I don't think that was in any manifestos either.
the railway couldn't be left with no operator when the franchise failed - at the time they fully intended to refranchise.
I believe the Labour idea is supposed to be that a publicly owned company on the lines of DRO would be created and allowed to bid on an equal level with Virgin, Ariva, First, Serco and so on as each franchise is re-let. They wouldn't (in theory) be given any favourable treatment though and it wouldn't be nationalisation of the franchises as such - they'd still be for fixed 8-10 year terms rather than permanent.
with running most of the UK rail network at the moment, it's just that they're German, Dutch and French companies rather than UK ones: http://www.rmt.org.uk/news/publications/rmt-research-foreign-state-owned-backed-rail-domination-of-uk/
Even at the start you have to identify that part of the underperforming part of the network is Network Rail, which is a public company. Then there are the practical issues of recapturing the franchises. As you say there's the issue about who actually takes over. There are questions for the national accounts, at least in the short term. And last, but not least, the question of whether a publicly owned rail network would actually end up being an improvement.
The policy is certainly popular, but if Labour proposed it they'd be savaged instantly by the tories and the press, and would be opening themselves up to years of painful graft trying to make it work. Personally I quite like the idea of a public operator "keeping the others honest", because obviously the current situation of milking a franchise until it runs dry and then handing the corpse off to someone else isn't working.
You're the one claiming Miliband is a secret radical ;)
But to be honest this would have been high up my wishlist maybe a decade ago. Now it's definitely not one of my priorities. I can't help feeling that the next five years will most sensibly be spent fixing a crisis in health and social care.
agree with your second paragraph
good link too, agree with quite a lot of that post
He quotes the first part of her infamous "party of those out of work", but not the key sentence at the end: "Labour are a party of working people, formed for and by working people."
It was a dopey thing to say, but tellingly this optimo geezer has decided it is evidence that Reeves hates the unemployed, whereas it's VERY clear from the full quote that she was attempting to define the Labour party back as the party of the working class. In short, optimo is one of a very large group of people: people who got so angry with certain things the last Labour government did that they are incapable of giving the party a fair listen. And that's their own loss as much as anyone else's.
don't think the rest of the quote helps tbh
The last sentence is her point. All of it. Leaving it out is just dishonest.
She's supposedly a towering intellect of the party, but I haven't detected much of that from what I've heard.
That said, I think anyone who believes she hates unemployed people is either hearing what they want to hear or an idiot.
but post-Blair they're very much a centre/centre-right prospect. It's nice that Ed is refreshingly left-leaning for a modern politician (pretty sure he called himself a socialist. Once. Quite a few years ago) but seeing as all Labour governments sell out eventually the fact that he's campaigning on an austerity + anti-immigration platform isn't exactly inspiring.
Better to vote for a party whose policies I agree with rather than one I have a misplaced loyalty to/faith in. A hung parliament is pretty much a certainty at this point so it seems like the best opportunity for left-wingers to actually get some representation in Parliament,
Who do you think might get in to provide that representation?
I'd hope that having more Green MPs in Parliament would have some effect on pulling policy to the left. As things stand then the fact that the most 'left wing' MPs are those of the Labour party (something something PPI, tuition fees, Iraq war, light touch financial regulation, etc etc something something) is a bit of a joke. That was more understandable when the only real choice a left wing voter had was between a centre left and a centre right government, but if we're bound for a minority or coalition government then I think there's much more reason to vote for parties outside the traditional options.
Sorry, badly written answer, but as someone who has often basically had to compromise and persuade themselves to vote Labour it's kind of liberating to sack them off completely.
As I've said above I have hopes for Ed to pull the Labour party around a bit, but I don't begrudge people failing to share my optimism.
I would like the Greens to become a more significant electoral force. However for them to do so requires electoral reform. It also requires them to become a more professional political party. At the moment they don't have that many candidates who are properly up to the job.
I think the Green project has many years to run though before they're in that position. And I don't think that the route there is moving up from 1 MP to 3 MPs, it has to come from a change in the voting system.
But electoral reform is never going to happen under Labour, is it?
(With regard to the other stuff, having been very anti-Blair I was chuffed with Ed Miliband becoming leader, and was beginning to really warm to him before the Labour manifesto came out. Already feel let down by them...)
edstone? ruth davidson in the tank?
my personal favourite was that tory peer on the daily politics claiming that britain produced more cars than germany then just saying 'well I'll have to check those figures' when challenged.
being sorry about his crap answers.
ukip's scottish manifesto launch deserves more credit
well done everyone
is that this time next week we're still probably going to be a little in the dark as to the outcome, what it means, and how stable it is as an option for a full term. and party leaders will still be shrieking meaningless rhetoric and flimsy promises at each other, so there isn't even much hope of getting away from that any time soon. This is the first time I've seen the electorate so engaged in an election, which is obviously great, but the level of fatigue and, potentially, dismay that will be felt when it is all, finally, eventually, over might put some folk off politics for life.
Cameron will be boarded up in Downing St. The only times he will come out will be with Nick Clegg hooded and a gun to his head to get food parcels for the hostages.
"god it's been dull hasn't it?"
But has it? It's been the most interesting and exciting election for me so I don't know what makes it supposedly dull compared to others
you could see him on that just thinking "god I hate young people. they're all thick as fuck"
*a conservative one, not the kind Ed spoke of.
everyone will have stopped going on about it in time for Halloween! (unless there's another election on the offing).
on the advice it was a dead cert.
and Ed to walk into 10 Downing Street to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VimZfYsDHkc
is a bit of a shock
It's about time!
then it may be beneficial for Labour to have the tories win, so that consequent financial disasters that will be hard to avoid, will not be blamed on the labour admin........but that is a horrible way to look at things......hmm but you know, its like whoever is in when something (that would happen irrespective of whether you used Daz or Bold) that is bad, then they can be tarnished for it.....cos political discussion is not clever enough to see beyond the hand it can see in the front of its face (for the majority)