Thread: Purgatory: And they're off - UK election rant Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000767

---

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
Yesterday's debate between the chancellor of the exchequer and his conservative and lib dem shadows is generally seen as the starting gun for the election. So it seems good to me to indulge myself with the rant that's been building over the past few years...

In the red, socialist corner, cowering desperately away from the title and pretending that they aren't the heirs of real socialists, we have the Labour party. Elected 13 years ago, the joys of office slowly but surely soured the early years of significant positive change, and the recent debacle of the recession and the sight of chickens coming to roost leaves them looking deeply flawed. The argument that 'we screwed it up last time, but this time we'll do better' is one that is not generally accepted from alcoholics, and the evidence of intoxication separating them from reality is easy to see. The failure to constrain public expenditure, instead hiding the true cost by failing to allow for either the pensions implicit in the 'investments' or the true cost of the PFI (Public Finance Initiative - a blatant effort at postponing the cost with an inevitable higher expenditure later) is wholly culpable. The wars in Iraq and especially Afghanistan were entered into without a full accounting of the real cost, leaving our soldiers to pay the price. And of course this government was in charge when the expenses scandal broke; whatever the rights or wrongs, their failure to be willing and enthusiastic about being open when it comes to bite them is perhaps inevitable, but still sickening. Meanwhile they are seriously proposing replacing the House of Lords with elected politicians. Whatever recent years have shown, the need for a group with the power to point to the lack of clothing of the elected ones is blatant; surely part of Italy's problem is this very lack.

Meanwhile, in the blue corner, we have a Tory party equally ill at ease with its ideological legacy, offering rather the prospect of better management of the country and the economy. One might hope that their privileged status and relative wealth would leave them less subject to the temptations of the expenses feeding trough, but instead many did succumb. This gave the leader the chance to purge a few whom he found problematic, whilst largely protecting his own elite. A brief display of candour about the need for 'swingeing cuts' led to polling discouragement, so convenient half truths were retreated to, not without indulging a populist cut of a proposed tax increase that is desperately needed. Meanwhile David Davis, who was willing to resign and stand again in a bye-election to highlight the growing loss of freedom in this country, was forced out of the shadow cabinet and left to fester on the back benches.

Sadly these are the only likely victors in the forthcoming election. Living as I do in a Lib Dem / Labour marginal, I shall hold my nose and vote Lib Dem on the grounds that regular change is probably better than endorsing a self perpetuating elite. But it is hard to rouse enthusiasm for the prospect of voting for a party that proposes introducing Proportional Representation. This will take the power of choosing the government from the hands of 40% of the electorate and handing it to 20% or less and allow special interests to wangle bribes for their people (as the Scots Nationalist are clearly already salivating at the prospect of being able to do in a hung parliament).

What of the alternatives? The BNP's emergence is a symptom of the failure of the present system; their overt racism has the virtue of honesty - at least they clearly believe in something, unlike the parties likely to win. But I'm obviously not going to vote for the racists...

Or indeed for UKIP; the hard question is to know whether they are really 'the BNP in blazers' or a truly non-racist party. Their emphasis against the EU is clearly sound; the idea that power should be transferred from people who you can sack at an election to those who are wholly unaccountable in any meaningful sense is logic of the authoritarian, though as a solution to the ability of voters to demand the irreconcilable, perhaps it has something to offer. And it's easier than changing the electorate, and if the electorate really get it wrong, they can be told to try again until they get it right - as the Irish found out over the Lisbon referendum...

Respect as a coherent party has the logic of the US Republicans: an untidy coalition of the religiously motivated, (in this case largely Islamic conservatives), with a group of political ideologues, in this case hard left socialists. At present however they are such a small group that their only effect is to distract a few activists from their natural home; the prospect of their giving the election to the right in the same way as third party candidates did in the US in 2000 can only raise a mild sigh of despair.

And meanwhile out on the fringe we have the Greens. For a moment at the time of the economic boom and the prospect of climate change being fought from a position of strength, there was a slight chance that their agenda would be seriously considered. Now however the pain of the recession and the self inflicted wounds of Emailgate have damaged their credibility at least for this election...

The lesson of the hype surrounding Blair and Obama when they first won, and the subsequent realisation that no one person can actually achieve mega change, is surely that we need to refrain from unrealistic expectations; human nature is flawed - so we can't really expect politicians to prove to be otherwise. The prospect of the anti-Christ, clearly prophesied in the New Testament, is a reminder that expecting too much from them is a recipe for total disaster; let's try rather to be faithful in praying for them and offering them support when they do well, not merely criticism when they cock up - as whoever gets in surely will...

[ 07. October 2010, 14:49: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 

---

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
Yawn.

I hope the peanut gallery comes good on this one.
 

---

Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on :
 
That's not a rant, that's an essay. I did like the comedy line though about the BNP's honesty regarding being racist.
 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Can we just get the line in early about "They're all as bad as each other", and take it as read for the rest of the thread?
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I watched 30 seconds of the debate and switched channels.

We need a 'none of the above' choice on Ballot forms.


 

---

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
else spoil the ballot paper
 

---

Posted by Dal Segno (# 14673) on :
 
If you wish to register a protest vote, then spoiling your ballot paper will not do it.

You need to vote Green or UKIP or Monster Raving Loony (YMMV) to register a decent protest.

The long way to make a change is to join a party, canvas for policy changes, stand for parliament and, in maybe 20 years time, become a cabinet minister.
 

---

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
But it is hard to rouse enthusiasm for the prospect of voting for a party that proposes introducing Proportional Representation. This will take the power of choosing the government from the hands of 40% of the electorate and handing it to 20% or less and allow special interests to wangle bribes for their people (as the Scots Nationalist are clearly already salivating at the prospect of being able to do in a hung parliament).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
I watched 30 seconds of the debate and switched channels.

We need a 'none of the above' choice on Ballot forms.

---

I agree, but the problem arises: what if None Of The Above wins?
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Why be scared of a Minority Government, aka Hung Parliament? We've had three in a row here in the Land of Ice and Snow and it hasn't been the end of the world. It's even been mildly entertaining.
 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
I have been known to spoil a ballot paper or even (shock) deliberately fail to vote. But then a friend pointed out that in doing so, I'm effectively saying that as I won't vote for one of the people willing to stand, and government is going to happen whether I like it or not, I'd prefer it if I was governed by somebody who wasn't elected.

Having said that, elected politicians sometimes need reminding that all that can really be said in terms of mandate to govern is that the electorate thought you were the least incompetent of those who actually bothered to apply for the job.
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
Although I used to be a Labour party member (resigned over the loss of Caluse 4) I shall vote LibDem because the candidate, currently my MP, is a friend of mine.

But also because I like a 'well-hung' parliament.
 

---

Posted by Traveller (# 1943) on :
 
The million and one irritations and directives emanating from Brussels mean that the Westminster Parliament is hardly worth bothering to vote for.

If UKIP weren't as mad as a box of frogs, they might be worth voting for to stem or even reverse the tide.

The West Lothian question hasn't been heard for a while. Any party got any good ideas on that one? Scottish MPs not allowed to vote on England (and/or Wales) only measures? Haven't checked the manifestos, but it's not making headlines.

leads to:
 

---

Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Traveller:
The West Lothian question hasn't been heard for a while. Any party got any good ideas on that one? Scottish MPs not allowed to vote on England (and/or Wales) only measures? Haven't checked the manifestos, but it's not making headlines.

---

I think that's because in comparison to economic Armageddon and the complete destruction of our public services, banking industry, armed forces and civil liberties, whether or not a few Scottish MPs get to vote on certain matters is pretty small beer.

Edited to add: The very fact that you're bothered to bring that issue up speaks volumes about your own priorities.

[ 30. March 2010, 17:22: Message edited by: Imaginary Friend ]
 

---

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
The Conservatives have suggested (I think) altering the voting rights of Scottish MPs on English bills at certain stages of the the bill's progress through parliament (so, say, the whole House can vote on it except at Committee stage, when English MPs only vote).

Also, the Conservatives want to reduce the number of MPs in Parliament. I would imagine that the number of Scottish MPs would be reduced further if this were to occur.

I suppose the importance of the West Lothian question will depend on the results of the next election.
 

---

Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :
 
Judging from the leafleting from all parties I thought the starting gun was irrelevant as they have been running laps already.

churches here have set up a local hustings to encourage people to meet candidates face to face and question them - I have the 'joy' of chairing the meeting

What feels odd is that a certain red corner aren't even putting up a candidate here
 

---

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
No Labour candidate? Impossible, surely?
 

---

Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :
 
Not yet declared and I have hunted links, emailed via national website, neighbouring party contacts on web... not a hint! (or even any reply!)

I grew up where it was said any donkey with a red rosette would get in, but we always had a blue candidate... and yellow, and locals.
 

---

Posted by Benny Diction 2 (# 14159) on :
 
I am just fed up with how pathetic they all are. One party makes a policy statement and then the others are abusive. Like kids in the play ground.

And forgive me for using vile language but George Osborne is just a smug ... (no I'll be good and not call him a ...)
 

---

Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on :
 
Have you noticed how he and Cameron have some very similar little nuances in their speech? The way the sound consonants (especially b and p) at the end of words, for example. Perhaps they have the same voice coach.

One other interesting thing from the debate yesterday was how often Osborne referred to Cameron (it must have been something like a dozen times) compared to how often Darling referred to Brown (I don't remember him doing so). Says a bit about who wears the trousers in each of those relationships, doesn't it?
 

---

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
One other interesting thing from the debate yesterday was how often Osborne referred to Cameron (it must have been something like a dozen times) compared to how often Darling referred to Brown (I don't remember him doing so). Says a bit about who wears the trousers in each of those relationships, doesn't it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Traveller:
The West Lothian question hasn't been heard for a while. Any party got any good ideas on that one? Scottish MPs not allowed to vote on England (and/or Wales) only measures? Haven't checked the manifestos, but it's not making headlines.

---

I think that's because in comparison to economic Armageddon and the complete destruction of our public services, banking industry, armed forces and civil liberties, whether or not a few Scottish MPs get to vote on certain matters is pretty small beer.

Edited to add: The very fact that you're bothered to bring that issue up speaks volumes about your own priorities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
The problem with the "West Lothian Question" is that apart from a handful of sad political process geeks, no-one in England cares a fart about it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sleepwalker:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
The problem with the "West Lothian Question" is that apart from a handful of sad political process geeks, no-one in England cares a fart about it.

---

I'm not sure that's true. I rather suspect that an awful lot of people in England don't actually know about it.

---

quote:

---

My sympathy to all those in the UK who are saddled with the prospect of either Brown or Cameron as PM.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Traveller:
* For cross-pond readers. Public spending has for four decades been allocated between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland by a (supposedly temporary) formula named after a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Joel Barnett. Average spending per capita in Scotland in 20% more than in England, with Wales at 14% more and Northern Ireland 31% more. Read more about this wonderful (for the non-English residents) system in the Wiki Article.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Touchstone:
Politically at least, Britain is currently a rather spineless nation that has run out of ideas.

---

And the nation that has not run out of ideas is.....??

Please enlighten me. I would be most fascinated to know where you think political inspiration is currently likely to be found.
 

---

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :
 
I'm not claiming Britain is any better or worse than anywhere else. Perhaps we're witnessing a general exhaustion of capitalist democracy, to be followed by...what, exactly? Chinese style totalitarianism? Scarey thought.

I seem to remember many of us having high hopes of a certain B. Obama a couple of years back, hopes which may not have been entirely misplaced.
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
The OP on this thread seems to wallow in the slough of despond, as if the sudden realisation has hit that, in the UK, we don't seem to have a political system that can deliver peace, joy, happiness, inspiration and all that is good in life. But what I would like to know is this: what political system could ever achieve such a thing? Putting my "evangelical cap" on, I am mindful of the reality of human nature, which will exploit and abuse any system, no matter how finely tuned and intelligently managed.

Now that is not to say that we should not try to create the best possible system, which is most effective at holding evil in check. But the idea that any external system could really deliver "The Good" is, to my mind, rather dehumanising, as if humans only need to be managed - like chickens in a coop - in order to attain contentment and prosperity.

All the ranting and raving about politics that our society currently indulges in, is really a longing for a state of affairs, which is not even desirable. Let's get politics and economics in its proper perspective. The quality of any political system cannot rise any higher than the moral quality of the people both running it and for whom or "on whom" it is run. For example, it is impossible for society to function without an atmosphere of trust - a state of affairs which can only be influenced by legislation to a limited extent.

I also wonder whether a lot of the cynicism about the election is due to information overload. If professional economists are engaged in a continual - and resolution defying - debate about the rights and wrongs of Keynsianism versus neo-liberalism, then what hope is there for the rest of us? And how many of us can really get our heads round the intricate maze of financial speculation? We are bombarded with all this stuff, and expected to have an opinion. Well, my opinion is that government intervention works in some situations but not in others. Therefore there is a need for pragmatism.

But how can political parties campaign on the basis of pragmatism? They all need their brand and pitch - and thus their messages are reduced to slogans, pleas for personal trust and short-term promises. The alternative is an in-depth debate on issues that even the best minds cannot agree on.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Second, you need to explain why a coalition government between parties polling 40% and 20% would result in the party polling 20% calling all the shots as you imply, why the 40% party would agree to a coalition on those terms, why their voters wouldn't turn elsewhere rather than continually voting for a party which has reasonable policies but bends over and spreads its cheeks at the first whiff of coalition, and why dictatorship by 40% is better than constructive compromise by 60%.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The OP on this thread seems to wallow in the slough of despond, as if the sudden realisation has hit that, in the UK, we don't seem to have a political system that can deliver peace, joy, happiness, inspiration and all that is good in life. But what I would like to know is this: what political system could ever achieve such a thing?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by watfordpete:
The OP asks if UKIP is truly non-racist... other posters seem to imply that voting for them is OK... here's an extract from their policy statements:

A significant proportion of immigrants and their descendents are neither assimilating nor integrating into British society. This problem is encouraged by the official promotion of multiculturalism which threatens social cohesion.

Might not be racist per se but it's pretty intolerant.

{edited for minor typo]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by watfordpete:
I'm sorry but the statement that promotion of multiculturalism threatens social cohesion does not strike me as a statement of fact. I suppose it might depend on what is meant by 'multiculturalism' but I see it as meaning understanding of different cultures, and cultural roots, within society. That to me seems like a way of developing social cohesion rather than threatening it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
If you want to get the measure of UKIP's tolerance, look at the asylum policy. It's got one paragraph on protecting victims of persecution, and seven on why asylum seekers are mostly cheats and terrorists but the EU won't let us do anything about it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
If you want to get the measure of UKIP's tolerance, look at the asylum policy. It's got one paragraph on protecting victims of persecution, and seven on why asylum seekers are mostly cheats and terrorists but the EU won't let us do anything about it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The OP on this thread seems to wallow in the slough of despond, as if the sudden realisation has hit that, in the UK, we don't seem to have a political system that can deliver peace, joy, happiness, inspiration and all that is good in life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
One of the problems of PR is that the degree of choice is even more removed - instead the same elite is offered with some marginal changes but no real change; at least FPTP offers clear choices - though in practice elections are times when these are blurred for the most part.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:
As an American, might I ask my British shipmates a question about election politics? If I understand correctly, one of Labor/Labour's policy points is a fully elected House of Lords. But wouldn't that end the idea of parliamentary supremacy?

---

quote:

---

Voters deserve a more radical vision than the timid and uninspiring policies all parties have put forward so far

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:
As an American, might I ask my British shipmates a question about election politics? If I understand correctly, one of Labor/Labour's policy points is a fully elected House of Lords. But wouldn't that end the idea of parliamentary supremacy?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Benny Diction 2:
I've just been listening to David "Call me Dave" Cameron on Radio 4's Today programme.

As smooth as a snake oil salesman. And people said Blair was slick!

And this morning the Tories have said "more" about how they will fund not putting National Insurance up. By efficiency savings in local and central government. 40,000 jobs will go. But not through redundancy but through not replacing people who leave. Fair enough you may say. But when pressed on this being only the start he ducked and dived.

Which jobs Dave? Social Workers dealing with child protection?

No doubt the Tories' grand idea is to bring in the private sector to deliver cost savings through managing back office functions for example. I saw this in operation at South Glos Council when I worked there and it happens here in Magic Roundaboutland. It is not all it is cracked up to be.

There needs to be a change in government. I don't think it is good for one party to be in government too long. But why should that mean Labour or Tory take it in turns. A hung Parliament would be an interesting change.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
UKIP insist that “a significant proportion of immigrants and their descendents in Britain are neither assimilating nor integrating into British society”. They oppose multiculturalism and political correctness, and promotes uniculturalism - aiming to create a single British culture embracing all races and religions”.

---

quote:

---

They want schools to “teach about Britain's contribution to the world, such as British inventions, promoting democracy and the rule of law and the role of Britain in fighting slavery and Nazism”. They do not envisage that there might be anything negative in Britain’s history.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
UKIP insist that “a significant proportion of immigrants and their descendents in Britain are neither assimilating nor integrating into British society”. They oppose multiculturalism and political correctness, and promotes uniculturalism - aiming to create a single British culture embracing all races and religions”.

---

So which part of that - if any - do you disagree with?

The idea that anyone is free to become British is an uncontraversial one, surely?

quote:

---

They want schools to “teach about Britain's contribution to the world, such as British inventions, promoting democracy and the rule of law and the role of Britain in fighting slavery and Nazism”. They do not envisage that there might be anything negative in Britain’s history.

---

Why shouldn't they teach about the great things this country has done? Are you saying they should instead teach our children to be ashamed of their country and go round with heads hung in shame at their hideous heritage?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
[QUOTE]... To the extent that Cameron has given some indication that he would take steps to cut public expenditure he is at least being truthful. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
The general view is that a hung parliament would mean that a coalition government would be unwilling to make the necessary cuts to reduce the £trillion or so public debt which has balooned under Brown and Labour. Without measures to control this the cost to the government of financing the debt would also baloon (if the markets were indeed willing to continue on that path) and as more and more public expenditure went towards servicing the debt then less and less would be available to support essential services.

To the extent that Cameron has given some indication that he would take steps to cut public expenditure he is at least being truthful. Brown on the other hand is in complete denial that there is a debt problem and talks about "investment" when he means spending. The loss of control of public spending during Labour's tenure was well in advance long before the credit crunch hit and commentators have been pointing out the dangers of allowing public debt to rise at the rate it has been for several years now but unfortunately Brown, who is delusional about his own abilities, refused to take heed of these warnings.

If you want to see what happens when national governments avoid making these decisions look at the state of Greece a country which may well shortly become bankrupt and where currently government borrowings costs 4% more than the equivalent rates in Germany. The effects on public services as well as taxes would then be catastrophic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by uncletoby:

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
The general view is that a hung parliament would mean that a coalition government would be unwilling to make the necessary cuts to reduce the £trillion or so public debt which has balooned under Brown and Labour. Without measures to control this the cost to the government of financing the debt would also baloon (if the markets were indeed willing to continue on that path) and as more and more public expenditure went towards servicing the debt then less and less would be available to support essential services.

To the extent that Cameron has given some indication that he would take steps to cut public expenditure he is at least being truthful. Brown on the other hand is in complete denial that there is a debt problem and talks about "investment" when he means spending. The loss of control of public spending during Labour's tenure was well in advance long before the credit crunch hit and commentators have been pointing out the dangers of allowing public debt to rise at the rate it has been for several years now but unfortunately Brown, who is delusional about his own abilities, refused to take heed of these warnings.

If you want to see what happens when national governments avoid making these decisions look at the state of Greece a country which may well shortly become bankrupt and where currently government borrowings costs 4% more than the equivalent rates in Germany. The effects on public services as well as taxes would then be catastrophic.

---

This analysis greatly exaggerates the scale of Britain's public debt problem. First, Brown had not "lost control" of borrowing before recession struck. In my opinion, he was borrowing too much, and his pro-cyclical fiscal policy was clearly a contributory factor to the economic problems we now face. Nevertheless, Britain's public debt before the start of the recession was 46% of GDP, lower than that of France (58%), Germany (61%), Italy (104%), Japan (88%) and even the USA (48%).

Looking at the 2009 figures, Britain's public debt stood at 62% of GDP, less than Ireland (64%), France (67%), Germany (70%), Italy (113%) and Japan (105%), not to mention Greece (120%).

Far more worrying, in my opinion, is Britain's high level of private debt, which stands at over 100% of GDP. Borrowers in the UK account for about one third of all unsecured debt in Western Europe. I would love to hear from the Tories, or anyone else, whether they think that an economy based primarily on shopping is sustainable, and if not, what they plan to do to build some other sort of economy.

No-one is arguing that Britain's public borrowing is not a problem - all main parties accept this. But it is a problem faced by almost every industrialised country, rather than a problem created by Gordon Brown, as the Tories (and Aumbry) would have it. The Conservative Party's ability to distract the electorate from the bankruptcy of the kinds of economic policies that they have advocated for the last thirty years by making public sector debt the main issue of the election is so astonishing that I suspect black magic must be involved.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
All very well but you fail to take into account the rapid rate of deterioration of the public finances which following trend will push Britain way above even Italy in terms of public borrowing.

You have been trotting out these complacent views for some time now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by phil2357:
Am I correct in understanding that a Bill must get Senate approval to become law?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:

quote:

---

Originally posted by phil2357:
Am I correct in understanding that a Bill must get Senate approval to become law?

---

Yes. The Senate and the House are equal. The Senate must approve appointments to certain offices and must ratify treaties. Money bills must start in the House. Other than those minor differences both Houses must approve a bill for it to become a law. (And the president must sign it or, if he vetos it, the House and Senate must override his veto.)

I don't think the British would want a US style House & Senate. I may be wrong of course.

I'm curious. It appears to me that most on board the Ship are left of center politically. Is there any British shipmate who plans on voting Conservative or UKIP?

---

or BNP?

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

BTW, I notice Cameron is reaching out to social conservatives with his call for lowering the abortion time limit and opposing assisted suicide.

I've said that if I were UK, I would vote UKIP. I may have to revise that if Cameron continues to sound like he won't just be Labour Lite.
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:
I'm curious. It appears to me that most on board the Ship are left of center politically. Is there any British shipmate who plans on voting Conservative

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
I agree with you in that he should frame it as the need to make severe cuts to put right the destabalisation of the public finances caused by Labour's imprudence.

The problem he has is that a significant proportion of the population want to bury their head in the sand about this and are willing to believe Brown's lies about spending our way out of recession so that when Osbourne made such noises the Tories polling figures plunged.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:
I'm curious. It appears to me that most on board the Ship are left of center politically. Is there any British shipmate who plans on voting Conservative?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by uncletoby:
I would love to hear from the Tories, or anyone else, whether they think that an economy based primarily on shopping is sustainable, and if not, what they plan to do to build some other sort of economy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:
Yes. The Senate and the House are equal. The Senate must approve appointments to certain offices and must ratify treaties. Money bills must start in the House. Other than those minor differences both Houses must approve a bill for it to become a law. (And the president must sign it or, if he vetos it, the House and Senate must override his veto.)

---

quote:

---

I don't think the British would want a US style House & Senate. I may be wrong of course.

---

quote:

---

I'm curious. It appears to me that most on board the Ship are left of center politically. Is there any British shipmate who plans on voting Conservative or UKIP?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:
I'm curious. It appears to me that most on board the Ship are left of center politically.

---

Yes. Thankfully, the board isn't representative of the people of Britain.

quote:

---

Is there any British shipmate who plans on voting Conservative

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:
As an American, might I ask my British shipmates a question about election politics? If I understand correctly, one of Labor/Labour's policy points is a fully elected House of Lords. But wouldn't that end the idea of parliamentary supremacy?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
Anglican't, I think you understate the traditional importance of the House of Lords. It has always had the legal power to reject bills, not merely revise them, and it has used this power on many occasions up to the present. ....

---

But, as I understand it, the Commons can always, eventually, over-ride the Lords.
I agree there should be a second Chamber, if possible one not unduly influenced by party politics and having, as its members, men and women who have made a substantial and positive contribution to the life and well-being of the nation. But I despair of the House of Lords; attempts to reform it have always been flawed.

I'm not convinced that an elected second chamber is going to be helpful; if its members are elected in the same way as the members of the Commons then it's just going to be a pale shadow of the Commons. I don't see the point.

If members are to be appointed then there has to be an agreed criterion and procedure for appointment. Should be possible in principle, but could be beyond the capabilities of party politicians.

Since this thread is supposed to be a rant, here goes:
It scarcely seems possible, but is attested by reliable witnesses, that from time to time appointments to the House of Lords have been somewhat influenced by funds donated to political parties. How this might be possible with politicians who are all - aren't they? - men and women of integrity devoted to serving their country, isn't immediately clear. What is clear is that if this rot is not stopped, then the House of Lords cannot command respect and has, therefore, no reason for its continued existence. Obviously, if any current members of the House of Lords can be shown to have entered by this route then they should return to the ranks, so to speak; and any politicians who can be shown to have betrayed the democratic institutions of their country should be immediately, totally and permanently barred from holding any public office. Nothing less will do. If we can't ensure even that much then the House of Lords has nothing to contribute to the country, unless of course we go to the entirely elected second chamber which would at least be a relatively honest and open method of appointment. But see above.

It could be worse. For much of English history, earls and barons were heavily armed gang leaders whose might meant right. At least we have come on a little from there.
 

---

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
Blackbeard,

You are correct in that the House of Commons can use the Parliament Acts to override the Lords in limited circumstances. The fact remains that the Lords have the power to throw out a bill - indeed, that must happen before the Parliament Acts can be invoked.

I agree that a pale shadow of the Commons would not be very useful (but still better than nothing). Given, however, your comments about appointments without donations (a horrific scandal, I agree, and far worse than the corruption demonstrated by MPs through their expense claims) I wonder if there is a better alternative electing the second chamber.
 

---

Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on :
 
For me, I see a certain value in the current system because you get voices of experience in the Lords who can play minor roles in the legislative process, and can on occasion serve in the Cabinet. I would like to see that maintained in any new system, if possible.

But also, the current system of directly appointing people to the Lords is not wholly desirable. So how about a compromise? A cross-party Commons committee makes a list of nominees, and the electorate can then vote from that list. For example, if ten seats are open, the committee could nominate approximately twenty people. Each voter can then vote for (say) five people on the list, and the ten nominees with the most votes are elected. What do you think?
 

---

Posted by Mr. Spouse (# 3353) on :
 
Does anyone think there should be a 'Election Mailing Preference Service' along the lines of the junk mail one? Today I received my third envelope from CCHQ (Tories) and my first from "The Office of Gordon Brown", to go with a couple from the Labour candidate and one from the Lib Dems.

I really don't want them. Despite being in a 'new' constituency following boundary changes it's going to be a two horse race and I know which of the horses I definitely DON'T want to vote for. So there is no point sending me stuff, people.

Rant over. Thank you for your time.

[ 10. April 2010, 17:14: Message edited by: Mr. Spouse ]
 

---

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :
 
Re: Lords Reform.

(1) There's a big difference, which folks are forgetting, between the legal sovereignty of Parliament (i.e. an Act of Parliament is supreme law) and the political supremacy of the House of Commons (i.e. the fact that the Government must have a majority in the Commons, and that the Commons has the last word on legislation). Reform of the House of Lords, as currently proposed, would change neither of these.

(2) Any sensible reform would have to think about what the Lords is actually for. Is it a democratic check on the government - a substantial chamber of restraint, review and reflection? Is it a chamber of territorial representation? Is it a powerless (but maybe influential) chamber of experts? Only once this question is answered can an appropriate composition be decided, and the right form of election and/or appointment found.

(3) Only when you've worked out what it's for can you decide what powers it should have. Personally, I think that as part of the role of the upper house is to act as a check against the government of the day, the powers of the Lords (or Senate, or whatever we call it) should be increased, so as to provide a genuine check on the Government's majority in the Commons. For example, a bill defeated in the Lords should be capable of being overturned only by a two-thirds majority vote of the Commons (i.e. Govt and Opposition agreeing), or by a referendum. That would provide a fair balance of power.

(4) There are other subsidiary matters to consider. Should members of the upper house be capable of being Ministers? (I'd say no). Should the upper house have any particular role in, say, the appointment of judges and ombudsmen, and the ratification of treaties (I'd say yes).

(5) Reform of the Lords needs to be put into its wider constitutional setting. For example, the responsibility of the Government to the Commons is only a matter of convention. With an elected upper chamber, it would be necessary to state, legally and constitutionally, that the Government is not drawn from, nor responsible to, the upper house.

(6) There are plenty of examples of how this could be done. The Spanish Senate is an example of a relatively weak, territorial second chamber, which nevertheless has important balancing functions. The German Bundesrat is an example of a strong and indirectly-chosen second chamber. Unfortunately, we in Britain tend not to bother learning from foreigners who smell of garlic and cabbage.

Unfortunately, none of the parties seem to have thought it through even this far. It's all being done on the back of a fag packet, with more of an eye to quick electoral fixes than good constitutional design.

[ 10. April 2010, 17:34: Message edited by: RadicalWhig ]
 

---

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :
 
This site is fun (it's a "who should you vote for" thing).

For what it's worth (not much) it recommends that I should vote Green, followed by LibDem. If I were in England, that's exactly what I'd do (i.e. vote Green in a seat where they had some vague chance of winning, otherwise vote LibDem). However, the most important question, from my point of view, is "Should Scotland become an independent State?" That question is not even on their list. Neither is the SNP included in their list of parties.*

*(Typical! Hello, London, we exist! It's always like this. Can you see now why we are fed up and want our own pool to paddle in?)
 

---

Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :
 
That was interesting - I came out as Lib Dem, closely followed by Green.
A couple of nights ago, all the local candidates squeezed onto a little stage at a local venue so the electorate could quiz them (including Lord Offa of the Dyke for the Monster Raving Loony Party, who was quite sweet really). Our sitting MP is Lib Dem, but I was more impressed by the Green and the Plaid Cymru candidates (Plaid also doesn't seem to exist on the quiz).
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
The Times leads the charge to the bottom of the food-chain by using dodgy reporting to manufacture fake stories.

Today they asserted that the Labour Party somehow got hold of personal medical records in order to send electioneering material to people who have had cancer. Their fake "evidence" for this is a handful of people who have cancer and were upset to get the junk mail and so assumed it was targeted at them.

Do the sums. A quarter of a million of these mailings were sent out. One person in fifty in this country has had cancer. Almost all of them are over fifty years old. A mailshot sent to a quarter of a million over-fifty women will be recieved by THOUSANDS of women who have been diagnosed with cancer, just at random.

The Times report is a heap of shit. Send the editors back to school to learn some basic statistics.
 

---

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eigon:
That was interesting - I came out as Lib Dem, closely followed by Green.
A couple of nights ago, all the local candidates squeezed onto a little stage at a local venue so the electorate could quiz them (including Lord Offa of the Dyke for the Monster Raving Loony Party, who was quite sweet really). Our sitting MP is Lib Dem, but I was more impressed by the Green and the Plaid Cymru candidates (Plaid also doesn't seem to exist on the quiz).

---

quote:

---

As we more than halve the fiscal deficit over the next four years, we will ensure that we do so in a fair way with a combination of a return to economic growth, cuts to lower priority programmes and fair tax rises. Responsibility at the top means people paying their fair share and we believe it is right that those with the broadest shoulders bear the greatest burden of paying down the deficit.

---

quote:

---

[/QB]Originally posted by New Yorker:
I'm curious. It appears to me that most on board the Ship are left of center politically. Is there any British shipmate who plans on voting Conservative or UKIP? [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
The Times leads the charge to the bottom of the food-chain by using dodgy reporting to manufacture fake stories.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
I was irked by a small UKIP rating - I would rather swallow my own vomit than vote for them.

---

I got -32 for UKIP. Should have been lower...
 

---

Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :
 
Carys - Hay-on-Wye is in Brecon and Radnor constituency - our MP is Roger Williams - who hasn't had his snout in the trough as much as some of the others, but still....
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
So, Labour published its manifesto today (and a copy can be read here). In the introduction, it says:

quote:

---

As we more than halve the fiscal deficit over the next four years, we will ensure that we do so in a fair way with a combination of a return to economic growth, cuts to lower priority programmes and fair tax rises. Responsibility at the top means people paying their fair share and we believe it is right that those with the broadest shoulders bear the greatest burden of paying down the deficit.

---

This brings me back to a question that I asked a while ago and never got a decent answer to. It seems to me that Labour are saying that they aren't going to make any effort to reduce the size of Britain's debt, but only reduce the rate at which the debt is increasing. Have I interpreted this paragraph directly? If this is so, what does the final phrase "paying down the deficit" actually mean?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
This site is fun (it's a "who should you vote for" thing).

For what it's worth (not much) it recommends that I should vote Green, followed by LibDem. If I were in England, that's exactly what I'd do (i.e. vote Green in a seat where they had some vague chance of winning, otherwise vote LibDem).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:
Is there any British shipmate who plans on voting Conservative

---

quote:

---

"We are the party of the National Health Service today because we not only back the values of the NHS, we back its funding and we have a vision for its future."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
But I think the Tories are being rather underhand in that they are trying to implement this by the back door, and only for those who are rich enough to be able to pay the difference in cost. That is fundamentally unfair, and comes across (to me at least) as pandering to the upper half of middle England, who are a large part of his core vote.

---

quote:

---

So we will give every patient the power to choose any healthcare provider that meets NHS standards, within NHS prices. This includes independent, voluntary and community sector providers. We will make patients’ choices meaningful by:

• putting patients in charge of making decisions about their care, including control of their health records;
• spreading the use of the NHS tariff, so funding follows patients’ choices; and,
• making sure good performance is rewarded
  by implementing a payment by results system, improving quality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
I don't see why this is a bad thing. If the NHS is a monopoly supplier of healthcare (which it virtually is) then I imagine the whole system becomes inefficient. Allowing patients to go to a health care provider of their choice presumably introduces a kind of quasi-competition which improves NHS efficiency?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
How does it increase inequality?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
Privately provided healthcare is often 'better' than the equivalent on the NHS*.

* At least in the sense of shorter waiting time, more comfortable conditions in the hospital, and perhaps better (or at least, higher paid) doctors.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sleepwalker:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
Privately provided healthcare is often 'better' than the equivalent on the NHS*.

* At least in the sense of shorter waiting time, more comfortable conditions in the hospital, and perhaps better (or at least, higher paid) doctors.

---

I'm glad you qualified your statement. Because, particularly where cancer care is concerned, the only difference between NHS and private healthcare systems will be the comfortable conditions of the hospital and the quality of the food. Oh, and whether you have your own room with TV in it, etc, etc. I doubt very much that private healthcare offers better quality medical care in this country. What people who can afford it are paying for are the luxuries, not the necessities. I would imagine it would be far better for those who can afford the luxuries to go off and do so while those who cannot, are provided with the necessities more quickly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by NJA:
It there any rationale behind the UKIP election slogan?

I suspect this kind of language will alienate many people who don't want it in public life, it makes UK people look like crude half-wits.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by NJA:
It there any rationale behind the UKIP election slogan?

I suspect this kind of language will alienate many people who don't want it in public life, it makes UK people look like crude half-wits.

---

Yes - it elegantly summaries the attitude of a large proportion of the population, in the same way that the Sex Pistols crudities did when they were in fashion... I doubt most people would raise an eyebrow, let alone worry that ' it makes UK people look like crude half-wits'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by NJA:
It there any rationale behind the UKIP election slogan?

I suspect this kind of language will alienate many people who don't want it in public life, it makes UK people look like crude half-wits.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
btw, aren't UKIP simply another variety of the sods they despise?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by NJA:
It there any rationale behind the UKIP election slogan?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by NJA:
It there any rationale behind the UKIP election slogan?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by NJA:
It there any rationale behind the UKIP election slogan?

---

I doubt if there is much they can do to increase the almost certainly risible small vote they will get next month - they are on their way to contesting for sixth or seventh place & vanishing from both the opinion polls and the bookies odds......

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
Isn't [UKIP] the party that came third in the Euro-elections and narrowly missed beating Labour to second place? They certainly beat the LibDems into fourth place.

If they come sixth in this poll (and I suspect that all the minor parties will end up doing much better than predicted) then that would be more of a reflection of the distorting effect of the first past the post voting system than an indication of their popularity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
Isn't this the party [UKIP] that came third in the Euro-elections and narrowly missed beating Labour to second place? They certainly beat the LibDems into fourth place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:

Ken - your favourite political ploy is to attack others as racist

---

Yah boo sucks to you! See what I care

If you can read what UKIP have been saying and not realise they are essentially about xenophobia then you are looking at them through very very tinted glasses.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
In general elections, voters tend to play it safe and gravitate to the three main parties. The Green and BNP shares of the vote will fall compared to the European elections, as well as that of UKIP.

To cut a long story short, UKIP won't come sixth or lower because of FPTP, they'll do so because less people will vote for them in a serious election that isn't about their primary policy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
I should have thought it also reduces the inequality insofar as it opens up the possibility of private healthcare to many more people even when it costs more than the NHS will pay for.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FreeJack:
SNP seat numbers I find quite difficult to predict. They have a potential upside they haven't achieved for 25 years, but maybe this time.

---

quote:

---

Quite likely there will be some sort of pact at Westminster between SNP, PC and Greens.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's also to do with the fact that European elections as virtually irrelevant, making them safer venues for an idealistic or protest vote.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
No big revelations - I thought that Brown had the most content and substance, with Clegg being the most personable and relaxed. Not particularly in-depth, but I wasn't expecting it to be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Given the quantity of legislation that is the responsibility of Europe, not Westminster, the fact that the people and even MtM believe this is yet another failure of our ruling class to communicate the truth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jigsaw:
I thought that introducing party leader debates into UK election campaigns was a Good Thing, but I do worry that it's just going to be a charm contest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's also to do with the fact that European elections as virtually irrelevant, making them safer venues for an idealistic or protest vote.

---

Given the quantity of legislation that is the responsibility of Europe, not Westminster, the fact that the people and even MtM believe this is yet another failure of our ruling class to communicate the truth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Even if that were true, rather than debatable, the simple fact that whomever the UK votes for in European Elections makes no difference to the overall continent-wide result is what I'm referring to. The French/German/Spanish parties are the ones that set the agenda.

Even if every single British seat in the European Parliament was filled by a member of Labour, or Conservative, or the Monster Raving Looney Party, nothing would change. We simply don't have enough seats to make a difference. It follows that who we vote for doesn't make a difference, which means European elections are irrelevant.

---

Well - Channel 4's fact check blog tends to agree with you, against the opinion of a UK government minister, let alone a former German President; once more we must learn to stop taking politicians declaring facts too seriously. However it is still significant. And your claim that UK MEPs can't influence the legislation is surely deeply flawed; the assumption that a conspiracy of Germany, France and Spain are forcing through legislation despite having less than third of the seats (244 out of 750) suggests a degree of paranoia, whilst the assumption that a well presented rational case will always be ignored is equally improbable.

Personally I would like to see the Eurosceptic party grouping which the Conservatives MEPs have joined stand in the whole of the EU - especially France and Germany - and see how solidly pro-European those countries' right wing voters really are
 

---

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jigsaw:
I thought that introducing party leader debates into UK election campaigns was a Good Thing, but I do worry that it's just going to be a charm contest.

---

I just hope it doesn't confuse voters into thinking we have a presidential system.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Given the quantity of legislation that is the responsibility of Europe, not Westminster, the fact that the people and even MtM believe this is yet another failure of our ruling class to communicate the truth.

---

I've been pondering this perception, trying to work out what it actually means.

What statistical basis is being used to make this calculation? Are we counting by word, section or complete act?

---

quote:

---

Making things worse is a profound ignorance of what the EU does and how it works. The mistaken belief that the EU is repsonsible for as much as 80% of all legislation in Europe (it is no more than 50%) and a lack of understanding of the role of national governments [...] in passing EU laws, have fostered the belief that an unaccountable and undemocratic machine in Brussels is somehow usurping the ancient role of Parliament. The media reinforce this belief...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Cameron missed opportunities to clarify the water between him and Brown, in particular on the whole big -v- small government debate; the nearest he got to a soundbite was his "cut the waste to stop the jobs tax" quote, and he should have made more of that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
[QB]And your claim that UK MEPs can't influence the legislation is surely deeply flawed; the assumption that a conspiracy of Germany, France and Spain are forcing through legislation despite having less than third of the seats (244 out of 750) suggests a degree of paranoia, whilst the assumption that a well presented rational case will always be ignored is equally improbable.[QB]

---

The party groupings in the European parliament are huge, and each is dominated by the "classical EU" block of countries. We don't (and can't) have enough members of any grouping to even influence what it does, never mind what the whole parliament does.

To compare it to the House of Commons: it's like the entire UK is equivalent to Plaid Cymru. Sure they're there, but it's not like they're going to significantly affect policy in any meaningful way. They could vote however they bloody well liked in any given election and it would still turn out the same.
 

---

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :
 
Admittedly I only caught five minutes of it before deciding that re-reading the Hobbit was a better use of my time but it sounded as if Cameron was arguing that by dropping the NI increase there would be more money to spend on the NHS. Which makes less sense than demanding Clegg and Brown tell him what he has got in his pocketses.

My impression, given the starting presuppositons that Dave is lovely, Gordon is the bogeyman and that other bloke is a bit of a non-entity is that Brown was playing a straight bat and doing OK, Cameron wasn't doing as well as some might have hoped and Nick Clegg was cooking on gas. I woke up this morning to find that this is now the conventional wisdom. So I was almost certainly mistaken.

[x-posted with Marvin.]

[ 16. April 2010, 11:32: Message edited by: Gildas ]
 

---

Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gildas:
.. it sounded as if Cameron was arguing that by dropping the NI increase there would be more money to spend on the NHS. Which makes less sense than demanding Clegg and Brown tell him what he has got in his pocketses.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Cameron missed opportunities to clarify the water between him and Brown, in particular on the whole big -v- small government debate; the nearest he got to a soundbite was his "cut the waste to stop the jobs tax" quote, and he should have made more of that.

---

I wish he'd stop calling it a "jobs tax". It's as if he thinks NICs didn't exist before! Like the "death tax", I think that kind of language is mildly dishonest, and I'm surprised that Labour hasn't picked him up on that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
An increase in NICs is effectively a tax on jobs and takes money out of the economy, so I don't think he was being dishonest there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Alas poor Gordo. When it comes to politics, this is a pretty superficial age. He can't win either a beauty contest or a charm contest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
What is the point of a studio audience which cannot clap, laugh, boo, jeer, or shout?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
An increase in NICs is effectively a tax on jobs and takes money out of the economy, so I don't think he was being dishonest there.

---

To clarify - because the employer's side is an invisible tax for most of us - NI contributions come from both the employer AND the employee. An increase in the rate, as proposed by labour, of the rate that employers pay IS a tax on jobs - because the employer will have to pay more cash to the government for every employee that they have - surely the definition of a 'Tax'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Agreed. And because the public sector employers (chiefly the NHS) have huge NI bills, increasing NI is in fact a public sector spending cut by another name. I think this is really underhand.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
An increase in NICs is effectively a tax on jobs and takes money out of the economy, so I don't think he was being dishonest there.

---

I'm not disagreeing with the content of your statement, but when Cameron says "Labour are going to introduce a jobs tax", or even "Labour's tax on jobs" he makes it sound like something new. That is extremely disingenuous. If the rate increase is that bad an idea, why not argue that on its merits rather than bandying around an emotive name.

And people don't trust politicians to be straight with them. Hardly surprising, really.
 

---

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
What is the point of a studio audience which cannot clap, laugh, boo, jeer, or shout?

---

Well, if they could it would be unseemly and rude and . . . . a bit like Prime Minister's Questions at the House of Commons I suppose.

Maybe Hon. Members should be asked to sit down and shut up at PMQ's?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
I thought Clegg was by far the best with Gordon brown a poor but solid second.

Cameron? Useless, vacuous deceiver.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dyfrig:

Entirely unrelated topic - if the Tories get in but with a minority requiring an alliance with the DUP, does that mean the latter will screw the country for everything its got in order to dismantle the Irish peace process?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
I cannot bring myself to believe for a moment that the Conservatives would do much for anyone who lives north of Oxford and/or makes less than fifty grand a year (except, perhaps, pandering to their fears and prejudices).

I don't trust the Conservative's instincts. I've been to the Home Counties, seen the prosperous Tory towns with their nice gardens. From that perspective, life is pretty swell. All it needs is some fine tuning by the "Natural Party of Government". But I've also been to Carluke, Cumbernauld, Motherwell and Renton, and I know that life is far from swell. I don't trust Labour either, mind you, but many Tories just seem to have no idea what's going on outside of Royal Tunbridge Wells.
.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FreeJack:
Obviously a Conservative MP is more likely to have an overall approach to socio-economic policy to the right of a Labour MP on average. But I don't think you can automatically equate that to a Home Counties based philosophy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
Well there is some active support for tactical voting.

That is always more likely to benefit the liberals, because they are closer to each of the other parties.

---

But there are some pretty massive differences between the Lib Dems and the other two parties as well. Off the top of my head, a list of distinctive policies includes: Not replacing Trident, the tax on banks' profits, scrapping ID cards and the second phase of biometric passports, serious commitment to electoral reform, a stated desire to be more integrated into the EU and to enter the Euro.

There are a number of things in that list that neither the Tories nor Labour come close to signing up to, and supporters of the two big parties who choose to vote tactically should remember that, especially if the current bump in their poll numbers carries through to the ballot box. A vote for the Lib Dems ought to be a vote for the Lib Dems, but I'm sure they'll take any not the other guy votes they can get!
 

---

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 
I have just bothered to re-join the labour party - but in my constituency we were third at the last election about 13500 votes behind the tories and 5000 behind the liberals. Realistically, who should I vote for ?
 

---

Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on :
 
Like I said, I'm sure the Lib Dems will take whatever votes they can get.
 

---

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :
 
Apparently two polls in the papers tomorrow will show the libDems neck-and-neck with Labour, with Tories slipping to sub-35%. Clegg has clearly seized the opportunity of the TV debates with both hands - can he now get his bandwagon into overdrive and portray his party as serious contenders for government, or at least equal partners in a coalition?

As has been remarked, their manifesto is pretty radical stuff, somewhat to the left of labour. Is Britain ready to abandon the independent deterent and roll back the Big Brother state? (I for one certainly hope so.) Their economic policies will involve a lot of pain for a lot of people - increasing tax allowances to £10K will only be the sugar on the pill. Will the electorate shrink back when the threatened "scrutiny" from Dave 'n' Gordon occurs? (possibly at the next debate) This previously dull-as-ditchwater election is suddenly starting to look interesting. Clegg obviously understands very well that as the underdog, he has to roll the dice, and this is probably the best chance he will ever have.
 

---

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 
Oh please be true - the idea of a Tory government in this situation is horrifing.
 

---

Posted by Imaginary Friend (# 186) on :
 
I think the Lib Dem poll numbers will likely just be a bump, and that they're going to have to work really hard now that scrutiny of their policies will (rightly) be intensified. I suspect that a lot of marginals which the Lib Dems are fighting will come down to local issues and the individual PPCs as well as impressions of the national parties and it will be very hard to predict how they will go from national polling data.

I would also contend that their manifest is not all that radical. It's just a little more progressive and (dare I say it?!) a little more honest than the other two main parties'.
 

---

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by FreeJack:
Actually I think they can this time round.

Because most Tories in the South East loathe Brown (and Mandelson and the like) so much, that they would let Cameron change the Tories to the point of national electability, even if they become slightly less important fish in the bigger pond. This time round there have been virtually no high profile defections from Lt. Col. Disgusted (retd.) of Tunbridge Wells to UKIP.

It's a Lancashire-centred election. And even a London one (but not a Surrey or Bucks. one.)

---

quote:

---

I would also contend that their manifest is not all that radical. It's just a little more progressive and (dare I say it?!) a little more honest than the other two main parties'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
This is a reflection of the fact that just about no constituencies in the south return Tories with the super-high majorities that Labour candidates recieve in the Welsh valleys, Liverpool, Newcastle, South Yorkshire and so on.

...

This will be the last UK election in which I will be entitled to vote, so I will be glad to cast my vote for the Lib Dems one last time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FreeJack:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
This is a reflection of the fact that just about no constituencies in the south return Tories with the super-high majorities that Labour candidates recieve in the Welsh valleys, Liverpool, Newcastle, South Yorkshire and so on.

...

This will be the last UK election in which I will be entitled to vote, so I will be glad to cast my vote for the Lib Dems one last time.

---

Your fact is not a fact. There are plenty of huge majority Conservative seats in the South of England. They talk about monkeys with blue rosettes in Buckinghamshire winning...

---

quote:

---

I take it you have been out of the country for nearly 20 years then?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Does anyone know how to apply for a postal vote? For those of us who will be out of the country on May 6th?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
Even [Lib Dem] European policy, which the Tories and Labour might expect to make mileage out of, is not particularly pronounced. Regarding the Euro, they make no commitment to join immediately, but only when the time is right - essentially no different from Labour circa 1997 - and even then, only after a referendum.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
What is Labour policy towards the Euro these days?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
You should check the facts before denying them. The Tories don't even hold every Buckinghamshire constituency, and only polled more than 50% in two.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FreeJack:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
You should check the facts before denying them. The Tories don't even hold every Buckinghamshire constituency, and only polled more than 50% in two.

---

At the last General Election in 2005, the Conservatives won all of the five constituencies in the area of Buckinghamshire County Council, four of them with a majority of over 10,000, three of them with 50%+ votes.

Bucks Facts!

---

quote:

---

The two Milton Keynes seats were part of the historic county, but are very different in demography now and have a separate unitary council. Though the Conservatives won the more rural MK NE seat last time. That Mr Bercow was subsequently elected Speaker does not change the underlying strength of the Tory party in the county. Neither does boundary change really make much difference either.

---

I see. So the 'true' Buckinghamshire is the bit that votes Tory. Eh? Eh? (nudge)

Milton Keynes North: 39.3 (Tory gain from Labour)
Milton Keynes South West: 35.2 (Labour hold)

quote:

---

I am not saying that Labour aren't slightly stronger numerically in parts of Liverpool but the feeling of safeness is broadly the same.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
(as an aside, I understand that it is the mixture of Lib Dem seats in traditional Tory areas and low turnout in seats that Labour win that makes the constituency system seem so skewed against the Tories right now.)

---

Indeed. I saw somewhere (and I can't remember where it was so I'm afraid I can't give you a link) that Labour would probably win the most seats even if nationally their share of the vote was 6 or 7 percentage points behind the Tories. You've got to wonder why the Conservatives aren't more open to PR!
 

---

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Originally posted by Radical Whig:

quote:

---

the BBC and the London-based parties have stitched it up by excluding the SNP from the leaders' debates and by minimising their media coverage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
Numerical strength is surely the best reflection of safeness. Compare Liverpool:-

Garston: 54.0
Riverside: 57.6
wavertree 52.4
Walton: 72.8
West Derby: 62.8

Note also the low turnout (between 41 and 51%) and the lack of anything like a strong challenge except in Garston and Riverside.

---

Though this time round the Lib-Dems are making a concerted effort to grab Wavertree. Largely because the current MP is retiring and Labour had the temerity to parachute in a replacement candidate from London - someone who committed the supreme crime of not knowing who Bill Shankly is!

The thing is, Liverpool council has been under Lib-Dem control for years - IIRC Labour got chucked out of Liverpool City Council at the same time as they got into Government - so Scousers are capable of voting for someone else, despite all appearences to the contrary.

[ 18. April 2010, 20:11: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
I disagree, because at least you know what you're getting with Brown. For better or worse, his record as Chancellor and PM speaks for itself. There's no reason to think he'd be much different after an election.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
can they be counted on to really serve all the the people, even those with funny accents and less than perfect clothes?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
can they be counted on to really serve all the the people, even those with funny accents and less than perfect clothes?

---

About as much as Labour can, yes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
Numerical strength is surely the best reflection of safeness. Compare Liverpool:-

Garston: 54.0
Riverside: 57.6
wavertree 52.4
Walton: 72.8
West Derby: 62.8

Note also the low turnout (between 41 and 51%) and the lack of anything like a strong challenge except in Garston and Riverside.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:
Originally posted by Radical Whig:

quote:

---

the BBC and the London-based parties have stitched it up by excluding the SNP from the leaders' debates and by minimising their media coverage.

---

I think this may be an own goal. Quite a few people I know are sufficiently riled at the exclusion as to be favouring a vote for the S.N.P.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
Well, the miscarriage of justice that was the trial of (Liverpool fan) Michael Shields was finally put right by Straw.

---

1. Michael Shields was genuinely innocent, and Jack Straw through laziness or prejudice let him remain maligned in jail for months and years longer than was necessary, and could only be nudged into action by an unprecedented campaign of support that should never have been necessary - as this article suggests,;
2. Michael Shields was as guilty as Hell, but Jack Straw let him out because it was politically expedient to do so (slandering the process the judicial process of an entire country, not to mention the European Court of Human Rights) - as this other article suggests.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
As just as the pardon was (according to, say Human Rights Watch) it was a strange decision, in that Straw referred to new evidence, which possibly was a statement given by the parents to Straw about the Starkey confession. I say strange, because this information was out months before Straw find out about it. I was surprised with the pardon, to tell the truth, as it was unprecedented.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:
Originally posted by Radical Whig:

quote:

---

the BBC and the London-based parties have stitched it up by excluding the SNP from the leaders' debates and by minimising their media coverage.

---

I think this may be an own goal. Quite a few people I know are sufficiently riled at the exclusion as to be favouring a vote for the S.N.P.

---

I'm not sure their objections have any merit. The debate was supposed to be between those who intend to form the next government. Obviously the Welsh and Scottish nationalists aren't putting up enough candidates to do that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alwyn:
...what next, the breaking news that surgeons are 'trained' for the operations that they do, or that airline pilots have 'learned' how to fly planes?

---

Shhhh it's a secret. Don't tell anyone!

 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
Don't forget Mebyon Kernow.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alwyn:
Meanwhile, the momentum for the Liberal Democrats following Nick Clegg's perceived win in the 'Prime Ministerial debate' led to this comment by former Sun editor David Yelland. Yelland's point is that parts of the media are personally committed to a Conservative Government; they have cultivated strong connections with Conservatives while ignoring the Lib Dems.

---

quote:

---

The 'big society' is bollocks. It is boiled vegetables that have been cooked for three minutes too long. It tastes of nothing. What is it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
brief against Cameron, and in particular his 'Big Society' idea. To quote (from the article) a senior Tory:

quote:

---

The 'big society' is bollocks. It is boiled vegetables that have been cooked for three minutes too long. It tastes of nothing. What is it?

---

Excellent question!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
More mundanely, when the journalist tried to explain the idea to people, the main responses were "I don't have time" and "leave it to the professionals". Both fair comments, really.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
'Big Society' just seems to be an attempt to get public services done on the cheap by people who are running to stand still.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So let me get this straight:

Historical Conservative leader says there's no such thing as society*, and people still bring it up over twenty years later to criticise them.

Modern Conservative leader says not only that there is such a thing as society, but that it should be bigger and more involved in how the country is run, and people criticise them.

Am I missing something here?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
'Big Society' just seems to be an attempt to get public services done on the cheap by people who are running to stand still.

---

You may not have noticed, but the country isn't exactly flush with cash right now. Cuts are inevitable, which means "doing it on the cheap" is inevitable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

"Big society" ...[snip]

The gist of it is that neither the individualist / contractarian / market-based system, nor the collectivist / bureaucratic / state-based system, works very well. Both neglect the value of fraternity, and both tend squeeze out the communitarian / mutualist / civic-based realm - the realm in which people are integrated with other people in the common and spontaneous organisation of their mutual affairs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What exactly do you people want? You've spent the last 20 years bitching about the Tories thinking society doesn't exist, then as soon as they ask society to be more prominent it's all "you can't expect society to do that". Make up your bloody minds.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So let me get this straight:

Historical Conservative leader says there's no such thing as society*, and people still bring it up over twenty years later to criticise them.

Modern Conservative leader says not only that there is such a thing as society, but that it should be bigger and more involved in how the country is run, and people criticise them.

Am I missing something here?

---

Yes - the Tories are still the nasty party.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Yes: cuts are inevitable. However, how is creating more schools a response to this?

---

quote:

---

Furthermore, society already has a perfectly adequate mechanism for training self-motivated members interested in teaching, nursing, social work etc to a level where they are competent and able to discharge their duties in a professional manner.

Which part of teaching, nursing or social work training do you think should be missed out? Or do you just think semi- or untrained people can do the job of a teacher, nurse or social worker?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alwyn:
You seem to be accusing the Conservative's critics of being inconsistent and unfair.

---

quote:

---

Cameron has the right-wing tabloids to go full-tilt negative for him, with no apparent downside.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
More privately-run schools = less kids in publically-run ones = more money per child in publically-run ones.

Alternatively, less kids in publically-run schools = less money required.

---

quote:

---

As far as I can tell, encouraging people to group together to create new schools doesn't mean they become the teachers, it means they become the governors.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
The media, completely unrelated to political parties? Come on, Marvin!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm willing to be corrected on this, but I was led to believe 'setting up schools' in this context didn't mean private, fee-paying independent schools - of which there are already plenty around to take your money if you wish. Rather, these were to be state-funded Academy-style schools outside the control of the LEA.

---

quote:

---

Cameron is promising us something we already have. Clearly putting the con into conservative.

---

quote:

---

(From the speech linked to earlier):

We'll only get really good schools when we say to families: you've got to get involved with your school, you've got to help back up the teachers, you've got to make sure you bring up your children properly, and also when we break open the monopoly of education and say to the social enterprises, the charities and the churches and the other organisations: come on in. In our Big Society, everyone's welcome. Come on in and set up a great school in the state system so we can get the competition, the choice, the excellence, the diversity that we have in the private system. That's what the Big Society is all about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Let's look at what Cameron has actually said on this subject.

quote:

---

(From the speech linked to earlier):

We'll only get really good schools when we say to families: you've got to get involved with your school, you've got to help back up the teachers, you've got to make sure you bring up your children properly, and also when we break open the monopoly of education and say to the social enterprises, the charities and the churches and the other organisations: come on in. In our Big Society, everyone's welcome. Come on in and set up a great school in the state system so we can get the competition, the choice, the excellence, the diversity that we have in the private system. That's what the Big Society is all about.

---

So it's a mix of individuals being more involved in schools (through bringing their kids up right, becoming governors, volunteering, etc) and charities becoming involved in schools (by investing in/setting up their own schools).

So yes, it's partly what we have now but - significantly - we aren't using. And it's partly new stuff. Hardly a con though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
More privately-run schools = less kids in publically-run ones = more money per child in publically-run ones.

Alternatively, less kids in publically-run schools = less money required.

---

I'm willing to be corrected on this, but I was led to believe 'setting up schools' in this context didn't mean private, fee-paying independent schools - of which there are already plenty around to take your money if you wish. Rather, these were to be state-funded Academy-style schools outside the control of the LEA.

quote:

---

As far as I can tell, encouraging people to group together to create new schools doesn't mean they become the teachers, it means they become the governors.

---

Don't all state schools already have to have governors? If someone wants to be a school governor, there are plenty of schools to choose from. Some of them don't even have elections to be a governor as there are vacant spaces.

Cameron is promising us something we already have. Clearly putting the con into conservative.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So, yes. You are mistaken.

---

quote:

---

All the opportunities are already there. Those who are committed to these things are already over-committed. Those who couldn't give a toss still won't give a toss.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Unless you're suggesting that Cameron has direct control over the editorial policy of the Mail, you can't suggest that he's being hypocritical by saying he'll focus on the positive then letting the Mail do the attacking for him. He is not responsible for what they publish.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So you're calling Cameron a hypocrite because he says one thing and someone completely unrelated to him does another? Riiight.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alwyn:
Is it accurate to say that Mr Cameron is "completely unrelated" to right-wing journalists? There are strong connections between the Conservatives and the right-wing media - connections that are intentionally fostered by both sides, as David Yelland's piece makes clear. Who knows more about tabloid connections with the Conservatives - you or a former editor of the Sun?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
Clegg is such an Israel-bashing anti-semite prat, he deserves to be called a Nazi.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
Clegg is such an Israel-bashing anti-semite prat, he deserves to be called a Nazi.

---

There are many Jews who criticise the State of Israel. Are they Nazis too?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
Clegg is such an Israel-bashing anti-semite prat, he deserves to be called a Nazi.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
May I point out that Northern Ireland, to a greater extent than Wales or Scotland, has a distinct political identity. Should the leaders of the dominant Unionist and Nationalist political parties be included, along with the leaders of Plaid Cymru and the SNP?

Note that at the moment those parties are the DUP (Democratic Unionists) and Sinn Fein.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

They want to encourage local volunteering with no conception of the cost of CRB checks for all of them

---

quote:

---

They want to give 3 per week to married/civilly partnered couples, thus penalising unmarried mothers/fathers.

---

quote:

---

They want to make swinging cuts which will lead us back to thatcher's 198s with high unemployment and double-dip recession.

---

quote:

---

They claim to be enlightened about lesbians and gays yet some of their senior spokespeople have said that the age of consent is too low, that gays spread HIV and that their lives are more dangerous than those on the front line in the army, that B&Bs should be allowed to discriminate. There is a brilliant videoclip of Cameron asking people to stop filming during an interview because he was completely flawed and unable to discuss this issue.

---

quote:

---

They are misleading people over the availability of cancer drugs.

---

quote:

---

They support Israeli expansion into Palestinian territory.

---

quote:

---

They want to build more roads instead of investigating in public transport.

---

quote:

---

Despite claiming to be green, they never mention wind turbines and the like: vote blue, screw green.

---

quote:

---

When they were campaigning against the Liberal Democrat Susan Kramer, they were repeatedly told to emphasize she was an “outsider” and a “foreigner.” Horne asked what it meant, and he was told: “She’s a Jewess, but we aren’t allowed to say that… So all we can say is that she got off the train from Hungary.”

---

quote:

---

Ian Oakley, who was selected to be Tory candidate for Watford, bragged: “Last year it was all green this, and all green that… all that bollocks. People just want lots and lots and lots of cheap petrol. And we are going to give it to them.” He then boasted that he planned to make many trips to Israel where he would take a machine gun and a flame-thrower to destroy Palestinian villages.

---

quote:

---

When Joanne Cash – a pregnant woman – was imposed on the constituency of Westminster North, there was a rebellion by the local party that forced Cash to resign. They said she wouldn’t be able to have a child and work at the same time. The local party agent Jonathan Fraser-Howells was reported as having commented: "It makes me sick seeing pregnant stomachs around".

---

quote:

---

If all that isn't nasty, what is?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alwyn:
However, when you suggested that Cameron is "completely unrelated" to the Mail's attacks on his political opponents, you seem to over-state your case.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
... If anyone found out that the Tories had commissioned/suggested such attacks they'd be finished.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alwyn:
Really? When Alastair Campbell explained how he manipulated the media for New Labour in The Blair Years, the Labour Party weren't 'finished.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alwyn:
Really? When Alastair Campbell explained how he manipulated the media for New Labour in The Blair Years, the Labour Party weren't 'finished.'

---

You really are naive aren't you? You pick up only one of the points I made (and probably the weakest) and come back to me on that basis. The fact is that Alistair Campbell didn't do a very good job of manipulating the media because we all knew about it - the newspapers openly complained and bitched about him ad nauseam for years. This sort of point is elementary. Anyway who tries to manipulate gets their hands burned.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IconiumBound:
As an interested lurker on this thread, I have skimmed the replies looking for trends and hoping I might see things that were opposite of the US campaign charges, counter-charges and nastiness.

So far, I havent seen much that would suggest reasonableness so I must apologise for having let our colonial attitudes infect the UK.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
In the Gay Times interview, to which you refer, Mr Cameron asked for filming to be stopped because he was giving a print interview and a TV interview at the same time. .....You seem to be quoting some grass-roots activists here. Some nutters can be found in the grass-roots of all parties.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
]Yes - the Tories are still the nasty party.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
That is why I believe the Tories are the nasty party.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
1. Have you seen the video clip or read the interview? He was, still on camera, completely ignorant of some of the issues raised in the questions and that is why he stopped - he said he was stopping in order to get more info., not because of any other engagement.

---

quote:

---

As for 'nutters' - they are the people who are the backbone of the party, who do all the work. Theirs are the attitudes held by most Tory supporters, regardless of how far Cameron tries to whitewash them out.

---

quote:

---

However, I sincerely pray - yes pray - that they won't be returned to form a government. That way will lie disaster for this country and, more imporantly, for Christian values.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
he struggled to answer a question about some Lithuanian legislation because he didn't have the information / facts to hand.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
That's absolutely not true! He struggled to answer that question because it involved directly contradicting something that he had just said! His pretend policy in Westminster was in direct opposition to his actual policy in Strasbourg. When the interviewer showed this, Cameron was unable to get out of the hole he'd dug himself and terminated the interview.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
[QUOTE]

The danger is that Plaid's exclusion from the debate will cost seats -- specifically Ceredigion. LibDems took it in 2005 with a 219 majority. Currently spike of LibDem support following the ITV debate gives them an unfair advantage in that constituency.

---

quote:

---

Added to which the UK debates are in many ways English debates. The ITV one had the theme of domestic affairs, many of which are devolved, but unfortunately most non-anoraks don't know this. But liking the LibDems manifesto promises on education is fine for a Welsh person, but they don't actually apply to schools in Wales.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
It's worth adding that the Welsh Assembly (and for that matter the Scottish Parliament) are the creations of the Westminster Parliament, which can add to, subtract from, or override their powers. Therefore, whoever gets control of it is surely relevant to voters outside England.

---

I said earlier on this thread that this election is not about just "Who governs us", but "how we are governed" and "by what authority".

The last two of these questions depend, to a large extent, on the structure of government. You might not get this, but it matters to many of us. We don't want this party or that party ruling us from Westminster and Whitehall through the creaking mechanisms of the Hanoverian State. We either want to remake the British State from top-to-bottom (LibDem policy - or at least it always used to be) or to get out of the British State altogether and create our own (SNP and Plaid Cymru policy*).

You dodged that one, as if structure was a given or a fixity and the only question was how those entrusted with the management of the Hanoverian State would use their authority. Now you are saying that the outcome of the election will determine the structure, because devolution gives no guarantee against the wiles of the Westminster Parliament (Well done, have a biscuit, this is exactly what we've been saying all along).

But then you go on to imply that this is a matter for the majority in the Westminster Parliament to decide. No. This is a matter for the people of Scotland and Wales to decide. Y Basta. This is actually a contest between two visions of sovereignty: does sovereignty rest in the Crown-in-(Westminster) Parliament, as the two main London-based parties and the common lawyers believe, or does it rest in the people of each of these nations? As Lord North and George I discovered in 1776, this is a revolutionary question, which the British State does not know how to answer, except through force, fraud, and coercion.

Of course, the two major UK parties are trying to prevent these fundamental issues from arising, but ultimately they will not go away. What authority does a UK Government have in Scotland, if only a minority of Scots have voted for it, and if the structure of authority upon which it rests has never been subject to a fair electoral test? These are hypothetical and rather abstract questions now, but just wait until the cuts start - then you'll see.

Now, if, as you rightly say, Westminster has the power to change the devolution arrangement, and, indeed, to overrule the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly on any matter, then surely it is even more necessary that the SNP and Plaid Cymru be given a fair electoral hearing in the debates, and be allowed to put across their view that this arrangement is unacceptable.

You can't have it both ways.

* (Plaid might be a bit more lukewarm about full independence than the SNP is, but as I understand it independence within the EU is their eventual aim - or at least, they wouldn't object to it).
 

---

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
Radicalwhig,

I will restate the primary issues here, because I fear that much of what you say is (unintentionally, I'm sure) quite irrelevant.

This is a leaders' debate, ie, it is between those who might form a government based upon a Parliamentary majority. The leaders of the parties standing can be divided into two categories. In the first category, we have the Tories, Labour, the Liberal Democrats, UKIP, the BNP and the Greens. All these parties are, to my knowledge, standing sufficient candidates to win a majority of seats. The essential difference between the former three and the latter three is the likelyhood of winning that majority.

In the second category, we have the Welsh and Scottish nationalists, and Mebyon Kernow, and perhaps Peter Law and the bloke from Kidderminster. It is not possible for their parties to win a majority because they have not stood sufficient candidates to achieve one.

Now, I am aware that I have laboured the point somewhat, but I think once it is clear, the fallacies in your argument become more obvious. First you say 'we' (whoever that may be) don't want 'this party or that party ruling us from Westminster'. Until and unless Scotland and Wales leave the Union, that is precisely what will happen. I was not stating a preference so much as a fact. Then you say that 'we' want to remake the British state or get out of it. Once again, that is besides the point.

Behind the rhetoric, what I understand you to maintain is that whoever wins the election should a mandate in Scotland or Wales to govern those places, and therefore the Welsh and Scottish nationalists need to be heard at a UK-wide level. As a matter of law, that is certainly false: a majority of Westminster seats is all that counts. As you have represented yourself to have a legal training I assume you know this. Where a party wins a majority of seats or votes is no more relevant to Scotland than the South East. As a matter of politics, it remains false for the same reason: this is a UK-wide election, and the mandate comes from the UK as a whole: it is no more appropriate for parts of the UK to hold the rest to ransom than it is for smaller parties to do the same to larger parties.

Now, I know this leads to the nationalist argument that England is so big that Scotland and Wales get ignored. Whether or not this is more true than for any other part of the UK is a matter of much debate, and not one I propose to address. Let us assume it is true. The solution is to advocate leaving it, as the SNP propose. Once again, however, the SNP, Plaid Cymru (and Mebyon Kernow) have ruled this out of being a relevant issue for the leaders' debate because they cannot form a government at Westminster that will achieve it. This would have been different had the Welsh and Scottish nationalists allied themselves with an English equivalent. However, they haven't, and that is an end of it.

As you might recall from my previous posts I have no particular liking for nationalist parties because I have no liking for nationalism. But that is quite clearly not my logic here. You might well be correct that the best deal for Scotland, and the most democratically legitimate outcome for Scotland is independence. That does not detract from the point that this debate was between the leaders who are at least capable of forming a government at Westminster. I really don't see how this is having anything both ways, and I would appreciate if you could explain that point without hyperbole.

The reality behind the objections is the SNP and Plaid Cymru claim to be the only parties 'speaking' for scotland and Wales respectively. I'm sure that by their own standards that claim is true. Unfortunately for them, that is not the standard that counts.
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
Point of Interest:

The Bloc Quebecois, the separatist Quebec-based party at the federal level in Canada has always participated in federal leader's debates here in Canada since it became a political factor in the 1993 Federal General Election. It only fields candidates in the 75 Quebec ridings, as opposed to the Liberals, Tories and NDP which field 308 candidates, one for every riding in the country.

There are always English and French language debates, and the Bloc leaders have always treated the English debate as a bit of a joke.

As we are now on our third minority government or hung parliament in a row, they do have significant influence since the Liberals, NDP and the Bloc can pass a bill by voting with the governing Tories.

Plus if anyone is annoyed by the SNP's rhetoric, please be aware that it appears to have been copied verbatim from the Bloc/Parti Quebecois here in Canada. It's just as silly in French as it is in English.
 

---

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
I will restate the primary issues here, because I fear that much of what you say is (unintentionally, I'm sure) quite irrelevant.

---

quote:

---

This is a leaders' debate,

---

quote:

---

ie, it is between those who might form a government based upon a Parliamentary majority.

---

quote:

---

The leaders of the parties standing can be divided into two categories. In the first category, we have the Tories, Labour, the Liberal Democrats, UKIP, the BNP and the Greens. All these parties are, to my knowledge, standing sufficient candidates to win a majority of seats. The essential difference between the former three and the latter three is the likelyhood of winning that majority.

In the second category, we have the Welsh and Scottish nationalists, and Mebyon Kernow, and perhaps Peter Law and the bloke from Kidderminster. It is not possible for their parties to win a majority because they have not stood sufficient candidates to achieve one.

---

quote:

---

Now, I am aware that I have laboured the point somewhat, but I think once it is clear, the fallacies in your argument become more obvious. First you say 'we' (whoever that may be) don't want 'this party or that party ruling us from Westminster'.

---

quote:

---

Until and unless Scotland and Wales leave the Union, that is precisely what will happen. I was not stating a preference so much as a fact. Then you say that 'we' want to remake the British state or get out of it. Once again, that is besides the point.

---

quote:

---

Behind the rhetoric, what I understand you to maintain is that whoever wins the election should a mandate in Scotland or Wales to govern those places, and therefore the Welsh and Scottish nationalists need to be heard at a UK-wide level.

---

quote:

---

As a matter of law, that is certainly false: a majority of Westminster seats is all that counts.

---

quote:

---

As you have represented yourself to have a legal training I assume you know this.

---

quote:

---

Where a party wins a majority of seats or votes is no more relevant to Scotland than the South East. As a matter of politics, it remains false for the same reason: this is a UK-wide election, and the mandate comes from the UK as a whole: it is no more appropriate for parts of the UK to hold the rest to ransom than it is for smaller parties to do the same to larger parties.

---

quote:

---

Now, I know this leads to the nationalist argument that England is so big that Scotland and Wales get ignored. Whether or not this is more true than for any other part of the UK is a matter of much debate, and not one I propose to address.

---

quote:

---

Let us assume it is true. The solution is to advocate leaving it, as the SNP propose.

---

quote:

---

Once again, however, the SNP, Plaid Cymru (and Mebyon Kernow) have ruled this out of being a relevant issue for the leaders' debate because they cannot form a government at Westminster that will achieve it. This would have been different had the Welsh and Scottish nationalists allied themselves with an English equivalent. However, they haven't,

---

quote:

---

and that is an end of it.

---

quote:

---

As you might recall from my previous posts I have no particular liking for nationalist parties because I have no liking for nationalism.

---

quote:

---

You might well be correct that the best deal for Scotland, and the most democratically legitimate outcome for Scotland is independence.

---

quote:

---

That does not detract from the point that this debate was between the leaders who are at least capable of forming a government at Westminster.

---

quote:

---

I really don't see how this is having anything both ways, and I would appreciate if you could explain that point without hyperbole.

---

quote:

---

The reality behind the objections is the SNP and Plaid Cymru claim to be the only parties 'speaking' for scotland and Wales respectively. I'm sure that by their own standards that claim is true. Unfortunately for them, that is not the standard that counts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
You really are naive aren't you? You pick up only one of the points I made (and probably the weakest) and come back to me on that basis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alwyn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
You really are naive aren't you? You pick up only one of the points I made (and probably the weakest) and come back to me on that basis.

---

So you don't like my debating style, and you're raising the tone of the debate with mild name-calling?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
And you're guilty of the most appalling hypocrisy. You can't see that you're smearing in exactly the same way as the tabloids - no evidence just association, and assumptions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
And your point about negative campaigning tactics? Are you trying to tell me that this is a uniquely conservative vice? That would be truly ridiculous.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alwyn:
- he'd hardly have graduated with a First from Oxford - and been described by constitutional scholar Vernon Bogdanor as among the brightest 5 per cent of students he had ever taught - if he didn't have serious intellectual strength.

---

Hmm. Another reason not to trust Cameron on "reforms"; if Bogdanor rates him, he must be very seriously confused! (Or - shock horror - a bit of an unreconstructed Tory!)

And I suppose Broon, for all his many faults, at least had the decency to go to a good university and get hit on the head by John Knox's breeks.

[ 23. April 2010, 10:30: Message edited by: RadicalWhig ]
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Whatever they say about their new idea, they are going to allow people to take over schools without any prior experience - so fundamentalist creationists can indoctrinate children.

---

quote:

---

They want to encourage local volunteering with no conception of the cost of CRB checks for all of them

---

quote:

---

They want to give 3 per week to married/civilly partnered couples, thus penalising unmarried mothers/fathers.

---

quote:

---

They want to make swinging cuts which will lead us back to thatcher's 198s with high unemployment and double-dip recession.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
They want to give 3 per week to married/civilly partnered couples, thus penalising unmarried mothers/fathers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Anglicant and Marvin have answered your other points, but just on this one, the present tax and benefits system de facto penalises married and civil couples with children; this reform would go some way to redressing the balance and creating more of a level playing field.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
They want to give 3 per week to married/civilly partnered couples, thus penalising unmarried mothers/fathers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:


The danger is that Plaid's exclusion from the debate will cost seats -- specifically Ceredigion. LibDems took it in 2005 with a 219 majority. Currently spike of LibDem support following the ITV debate gives them an unfair advantage in that constituency.

---

How is that any more unfair to Plaid Cymru than to, for example, UKIP or the Greens who, unlike Plaid Cymru, are standing candidates across the country?

---

quote:

---

Also, it occurs to me that perhaps many voters in Wales who would vote PC for Welsh Assembly elections vote Lib Dems for Westminster as the latter will have far more clout, rather than because of a televised debate. This would reflect what has already happened in Scotland.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Added to which the UK debates are in many ways English debates. The ITV one had the theme of domestic affairs, many of which are devolved, but unfortunately most non-anoraks don't know this. But liking the LibDems manifesto promises on education is fine for a Welsh person, but they don't actually apply to schools in Wales.

---

I'm not quite sure what your objection is here. Are you suggesting that matters concerning England only should be excluded from the debate?

---

quote:

---

It's worth adding that the Welsh Assembly (and for that matter the Scottish Parliament) are the creations of the Westminster Parliament, which can add to, subtract from, or override their powers. Therefore, whoever gets control of it is surely relevant to voters outside England.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alwyn:
FWIW, Spawn, I feel that our conversation is generating more heat than light and I'm at least as responsible for that as anyone else. Is there a chance of talking about this in a different way?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Whatever they say about their new idea, they are going to allow people to take over schools without any prior experience - so fundamentalist creationists can indoctrinate children.

---

One imagines some form of national curriculum will still apply.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Anglicant and Marvin have answered your other points, but just on this one, the present tax and benefits system de facto penalises married and civil couples with children; this reform would go some way to redressing the balance and creating more of a level playing field.

---

How so?

Child benefit (usually paid to the mother/non-working parent), Working Families Tax Credits and Child Tax Credits don't penalise married/partnered couples, unless you take a very creative view of the word penalise.

The benefit system, yes, in that people with live-in partners get less per household than if they lived apart. That should be changed - the money goes with the person, and the state should have no say in the living arrangements thereafter.

And for sure, it would have been good for me and Mrs Tor to transfer my unused personal allowance to her. But totally transferable allowances is not what Cameron is promising.

So I'd be interested on how you'd justify your assertion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
A couple of articles here and here should get you going.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
No - just like academies and independent schools, no national curriculum (sadly also a LibDem policy to 'free them from the constraints....'

---

quote:

---

From this Telegraph article:
Claim:

Mr Clegg said: "Our National Curriculum is 600 pages. The curriculum in Sweden, which has generally got fairly good education system, is 16 pages."

Truth:

According to the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency, which oversees the curriculum, the primary curriculum in English schools is 181 pages long and the secondary curriculum is 200 pages long, a combined total of 381 pages. The Swedish curriculum is 135 pages long but is being revised because it isn't considered detailed enough.

Ingrid Lindskog, of the Swedish National Agency for Education, said: "That is a big misunderstanding. The overview to the curriculum is 16 pages, but the whole curriculum is much longer. In fact, it's being revised so that it should be around 250 pages because the current one is not detailed enough."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
250 pages because the current one is not detailed enough."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Putting it simply, if you are married with children and one of you stays home to look after the children, it used to be the case that part of the stay-at-home partner's tax allowance could be transferred to the working partner. Cameron and Co are proposing a limited re-introduction of this. All other things being equal, beyond child benefit, the stay-at-home partner doesn't get any state benefit. If you split up however, the non-working parent does become entitled to significantly higher levels of benefit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:

I'm not bored enough to read it, but I am impressed (bemused?) (strangely worried?) that they have gone to the trouble of translating the whole thing into English

---

No - it's so that the true rulers of this world, the English speaking Illuminati, can check they've got it right
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
Clegg is such an Israel-bashing anti-semite prat, he deserves to be called a Nazi.

---

There are many Jews who criticise the State of Israel. Are they Nazis too?

---

Among other things, Clegg talks of Israel "imprisoning" the Palestinians. That rubbish goes beyond criticism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

They want to encourage local volunteering with no conception of the cost of CRB checks for all of them

---

So the most expensive part of setting up a school or community organisation is complying with CRB checks? I wouldn't have thought so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Can these volunteers afford the £64 each of the will have to pay for a CRB check?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:

The broadcasters ought to have been able to come up with a system that dealt with this issues. BBC and ITV have regions and so a debate on matters that are devolved could have been broadcast by them in England only (with the major parties in England, however defined). Then debates with representation from all major parties could have been broadcast on non-devolved issues. Admittedly there are issues in that Criminal Justice (for example) is devolved in Scotland but not in Wales). Northern Ireland gets its own debates because it basically (ignoring the Conservative UUP pact) has entirely separate parties.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Can these volunteers afford the £64 each of the will have to pay for a CRB check?

---

quote:

---

What sort of people will volunteer? I am worried that well-meaning do-gooders from sheltered, middle class backgrounds will alienate the people they are supposed to help. Will the work of these do-gooders be ‘joined up’ i.e. with social services, p0olice etc., so as to enable multi-agency expertise?

---

quote:

---

Can a 'top-down' government initiative encourage people to 'be good' ?

---

quote:

---

Where are these volunteers going to come from? (People are going to work longer hours and retire later) Will they be people with their own agenda? ‘Loonies’ with time on their hands? Churches and voluntary groups like the Brownies tend to be chasing an ever-decreasing number of people for help.

---

quote:

---

And why divert £50million from anti-extremism funding to pay for voluntary three-week character-building summer courses for 16-year-olds?

---

quote:

---

The poll Ipsos Mori shows that while almost half (43 per cent) of the public said they would like to get more involved in their local area in principle, only five per cent said they would seek active involvement in local services and decision making.

---

quote:

---

According to Phil Hope, minister for the 3rd sector: "The Tory attitude towards the third sector is patronising and dangerous. Their plans show they would leave charities to deal with some of society's most difficult problems without the money needed to do it, hoping for hand-outs rather than being funded properly to do their important work."

---

quote:

---

According to The Spectator (hardly a left wing rag!): One intriguing aspect of the scheme is that the Tories say they are particularly keen for it to reach ‘people who have been through the criminal justice system.’ One could argue that this is sensible, that these people are particularly in need of an experience that would teach them self-discipline and respect for others. But one can imagine that some parents might not be so keen to send their children away with a youth offender.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
A glimpse behind the scenes in the Press Room at the second leaders' debate. I find it mildly scary how the Press has to simultaneously report and maintain relationships with the politicians so that they can report in the future. Isn't that something of a conflict of interest?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
If you split up however, the non-working parent does become entitled to significantly higher levels of benefit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
....I am impressed (bemused?) (strangely worried?) that they have gone to the trouble of translating the whole thing into English?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
A glimpse behind the scenes in the Press Room at the second leaders' debate. I find it mildly scary how the Press has to simultaneously report and maintain relationships with the politicians so that they can report in the future. Isn't that something of a conflict of interest?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
The Liberals will probably be supported by the rather misnamed Independent and will at least get a sympathetic ear from the Guardian and Observer and maybe the weekly Economist (though they overtly and covertly supported the Tories in Thatchers time) Coming from different sides of the fence the Grauniad and its stablemates, and the Economist and Financial Times are the only UK national newspapers likely to remain politically independent in news reporting during the election.

---

quote:

---

And why all British people should thank God for the BBC. (And vote for party that is not going to gut the BBC and sell the offal to Murdoch's bottom-feeding lampreys)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Obviously I don't know the details this time round but I would be pretty sure that the Mail and possibly the Telegraph are entirely in bed with the Tories, and its very likely that the Murdoch papers (including the Times and the Sun) have at least close informal dealings with them as well. Same applies to the weekly Spectator. No-one really cares about the Express any more, but it is almost certainly also committed to support the Tories.

---

quote:

---

I mean, quite seriously, when the editors of the Daily Mail are deciding which stories to put on the front page they will include the Tory party in their discussions and may well exclude any news item that might discredit the Tories.

---

quote:

---

Nor am I talking about outright lies - though in the final week the Mail may well knowingly print lies on the front page - they have often done it before - but they are the only British paper with a big history of that.

---

quote:

---

Making up shock headlines that do not adequatly describe the contents of the article (The most egregious so far was the Mail's CLEGG IN NAZI SLUR ON BRITAIN which existed purely as a headline - the story underneath so inconsequential its hard to see how the staff could stay awake long enough to set it. And of course choosing which of the dozens of opinion polls to mention today in order to talk up your party and talk down the others.

---

quote:

---

And why all British people should thank God for the BBC. (And vote for party that is not going to gut the BBC and sell the offal to Murdoch's bottom-feeding lampreys)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
... a massive amount of ignorance about the reality of the difficult, testy and anxious relationships that exist between politicans and the press.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
... a massive amount of ignorance about the reality of the difficult, testy and anxious relationships that exist between politicans and the press.

---

But it there has certainly been collusion in the past. And just look at the Mail's front pages!

---

Well, the Daily Mail's agenda is hardly a secret but that doesn't mean they like Cameron. And yes, there has been collusion in the past between News International and Tony Blair to take but one example, but I strongly doubt that's ever gone as far as the Newspapers inviting day-to-day interference in editorial decisions by a politician.
 

---

Posted by Think² (# 1984) on :
 
Like many labour supporters, (I suppose), I was considering tactical voting lib dem to oppose my sitting tory MP - flipped his house, is the antithesis of everything I believe in etc plus labour was third in this consituency at the last election.

Nick Clegg has now said unambiguously that if labour share of the national vote fell to third he would not consider an alliance. Given as I would be voting lib dem to keep the tories out, and my voting lib dem wuld lower the labour vote share - I will be voting labour.

I wonder how many other votes he will have lost.
 

---

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
Spawn,

Whilst you may have a point about the Mail's misgivings about Cameron, it is ridiculous in the extreme not to acknowledge the extreme dishonesty of Mail reporting - all in order to serve a specific agenda. There are countless examples but here's a short article from an author I trust Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics

AFZ
 

---

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
Like many labour supporters, (I suppose), I was considering tactical voting lib dem to oppose my sitting tory MP - flipped his house, is the antithesis of everything I believe in etc plus labour was third in this consituency at the last election.

Nick Clegg has now said unambiguously that if labour share of the national vote fell to third he would not consider an alliance. Given as I would be voting lib dem to keep the tories out, and my voting lib dem wuld lower the labour vote share - I will be voting labour.

I wonder how many other votes he will have lost.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alienfromzog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
Like many labour supporters, (I suppose), I was considering tactical voting lib dem to oppose my sitting tory MP - flipped his house, is the antithesis of everything I believe in etc plus labour was third in this consituency at the last election.

Nick Clegg has now said unambiguously that if labour share of the national vote fell to third he would not consider an alliance. Given as I would be voting lib dem to keep the tories out, and my voting lib dem wuld lower the labour vote share - I will be voting labour.

I wonder how many other votes he will have lost.

---

I'm in a similar position. Gonna have to think very carefully about that.

AFZ

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Spawn,

Whilst you may have a point about the Mail's misgivings about Cameron, it is ridiculous in the extreme not to acknowledge the extreme dishonesty of Mail reporting - all in order to serve a specific agenda. There are countless examples but here's a short article from an author I trust Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics

AFZ

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
I think the specific question was if labour had the mps but not the vote share.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
I think the specific question was if labour had the mps but not the vote share.

---

Because of the way the constituency boundaries are drawn at the moment, if Labour managed only third place in the polls, it might have the second highest number of seats in the Commons. In that scenario, as I said before, I think there would be uproar if Clegg propped up a Labour government.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
I think the specific question was if labour had the mps but not the vote share.

---

Because of the way the constituency boundaries are drawn at the moment, if Labour managed only third place in the polls, it might have the second highest number of seats in the Commons. In that scenario, as I said before, I think there would be uproar if Clegg propped up a Labour government.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
If you split up however, the non-working parent does become entitled to significantly higher levels of benefit.

---

When my wife left me for another man and I had to move out my disposable income fell by well over five hundred pounds a month. So I am pretty bloody sure you are talking nonsense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Spawn,

Whilst you may have a point about the Mail's misgivings about Cameron, it is ridiculous in the extreme not to acknowledge the extreme dishonesty of Mail reporting - all in order to serve a specific agenda. There are countless examples but here's a short article from an author I trust Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics

AFZ

---

No I don't think there is anything intrinsic about the Daily Mail's reporting that makes it worse than other newspapers. The Daily Mail is a kneejerk target of scorn by people who seldom or never read it, but its driving assumptions and cultural standpoint are simply rather alien to those who find it most offensive.

---

quote:

---

Once again, however, the SNP, Plaid Cymru (and Mebyon Kernow) have ruled this out of being a relevant issue for the leaders' debate because they cannot form a government at Westminster that will achieve it. This would have been different had the Welsh and Scottish nationalists allied themselves with an English equivalent. However, they haven't...

---

quote:

---

By your argument, the SNP can't get independence for Scotland unless they can first win a majority in the UK Parliament by winning lots of English seats. That's the best catch-22 yet.

---

quote:

---

Way One: The SNP aren't significant because they will not form a government at Westminster.
Way Two: Westminster is of paramount importance, even in devolved countries, because it can change the terms of devolution.

If the second of these is true (which it is) then the SNP, who have a pretty strong view on Scotland's future, ought to be fairly represented, even if they will not form the next Government. Likewise Plaid Cymru should have a fair say in Wales.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carys:
It is unfair to UKIP and the Greens, but they won no seats in the last General Election. Plaid and the SNP did. Thus it is arguably more unfair to Plaid and the SNP. But having said that if you were to limit it to those who already had seats, it could be seen as keeping the Westminster club closed.

Basically, the concept is flawed!

---

I am inclined to agree with this

quote:

---

Perhaps. But this is an attitude Plaid is challenging. And then there is the opinion of the Independent Columnist who cited Plaid's 3MPs as having had more influence in the last Parliament than all of the LibDems put together!

---

quote:

---

The big problem is that under the current constituntional settlement Westminster functions both as the English Parliament and as the UK. Then because of the media bias to England (well London!) and the large population of England means that all to frequently matters that only affect England are talked about as though they affected the whole UK.

---

quote:

---

The broadcasters ought to have been able to come up with a system that dealt with this issues. BBC and ITV have regions and so a debate on matters that are devolved could have been broadcast by them in England only (with the major parties in England, however defined). Then debates with representation from all major parties could have been broadcast on non-devolved issues. Admittedly there are issues in that Criminal Justice (for example) is devolved in Scotland but not in Wales). Northern Ireland gets its own debates because it basically (ignoring the Conservative UUP pact) has entirely separate parties.

---

quote:

---

That and the fact that certain matters are not devolved/reserved. Defence is an example of this and here Plaid and the SNP oppose any replacement of Trident unlike Labour and Tories (pro like for like replacement) and LibDems (pro some sort of replacement but not like for like IIRC).

Carys

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
No, it's worse than that; the present arrangement of constituencies offers the prospect of Labour getting the third highest number of votes but the most seats; i.e. more seats and less votes than both Tories AND Lib Dems. In 1974 they had more seats but less votes than the Tories in the February election, but were allowed to get away with becoming the government.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
No, it's worse than that; the present arrangement of constituencies offers the prospect of Labour getting the third highest number of votes but the most seats; i.e. more seats and less votes than both Tories AND Lib Dems. In 1974 they had more seats but less votes than the Tories in the February election, but were allowed to get away with becoming the government.

---

Can anyone explain in words of one syllable, why in the light of this, Cameron is so set against PR?

[relevant pedantic tangent] 'less' votes are presumably those for the Tories in Labour safe seats, and vice versa. In the above context you mean 'fewer', surely? [/relevant pedantic tangent]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Two reasons, I think.

Firstly, the Tories see themselves as 'the natural party of government'. It's only us uppity voters that are denying them their true birthright, and once we see sense, they can have their 1000 year reign.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
No I don't think there is anything intrinsic about the Daily Mail's reporting that makes it worse than other newspapers. The Daily Mail is a kneejerk target of scorn by people who seldom or never read it, but its driving assumptions and cultural standpoint are simply rather alien to those who find it most offensive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Agreed; it's not worse than the Grauniad from the other side of the socio-political spectrum.

---

Matt, do you seriously believe this? Really?

For the record, I do read the Mail most days and it is in many ways incomparable to any other paper. You could reasonably claim that the Guardian was comparable with the Telegraph. I don't object to the Telegraph - I don't agree with thier political perspective but that's fine. The problem with the Wail is it's constant (probably cynical) insidious falsehoods in pursuit of its agenda. For the record, here's another example: Comment on Daily Mail Article "NHS Betrays 20,000 Cancer Patients"

Furthermore, it's not just me that says the Mail is dishonest, the PCC has some interesting statistics. Tabloid Watch Article on PCC Statistics

Which is even more surprising when you reflect on the fact that Paul Dacre holds office within the
PCC.

So please, let us not pretend that the Mail is just a right-wing-Guardian.

AFZ
 

---

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
Labour are not recent converts to changing the voting system, as anyone who's voted in the EU or Welsh Assembly elections can tell you.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't [in reply to what I said about the Daily Mail
I think you're in danger of getting into tin foil hat territory here.

---

quote:

---

Nor am I talking about outright lies - though in the final week the Mail may well knowingly print lies on the front page - they have often done it before - but they are the only British paper with a big history of that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
No I don't think there is anything intrinsic about the Daily Mail's reporting that makes it worse than other newspapers. The Daily Mail is a kneejerk target of scorn by people who seldom or never read it, but its driving assumptions and cultural standpoint are simply rather alien to those who find it most offensive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Agreed; it's not worse than the Grauniad from the other side of the socio-political spectrum.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alienfromzog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
No I don't think there is anything intrinsic about the Daily Mail's reporting that makes it worse than other newspapers. The Daily Mail is a kneejerk target of scorn by people who seldom or never read it, but its driving assumptions and cultural standpoint are simply rather alien to those who find it most offensive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Agreed; it's not worse than the Grauniad from the other side of the socio-political spectrum.

---

Matt, do you seriously believe this? Really?


So please, let us not pretend that the Mail is just a right-wing-Guardian.

AFZ

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Maybe it looks that way from the liberal-leftist perspective, but most of the people I know get the Mail because they agree with it, by and large, and have similar views of the Guardian as you do to the Mail. Are these people thick, dishonest, or raving nutters? Not really; most of them are reasonably successful (at least until the recession) business people with university degrees. I would say that Telegraph = Independent is more accurate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Maybe it looks that way from the liberal-leftist perspective, but most of the people I know get the Mail because they agree with it, by and large, and have similar views of the Guardian as you do to the Mail. Are these people thick, dishonest, or raving nutters? Not really; most of them are reasonably successful (at least until the recession) business people with university degrees. I would say that Telegraph = Independent is more accurate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by leo:
[qb] In the Gay Times interview, to which you refer, Mr Cameron asked for filming to be stopped because he was giving a print interview and a TV interview at the same time. As I understand it, the two really progress in different ways and doing both at the same time is difficult.

His stumbling came when he was asked about a Lithuanian law on teaching in schools. I would suggest that this measure isn't really at the top of any British voter's agenda.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Think²:
I think the specific question was if labour had the mps but not the vote share.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Clegg via the Independent:

"I think, if Labour do come third in terms of the number of votes cast, then people would find it inexplicable that Gordon Brown himself could carry on as Prime Minister, which is what the old convention would dictate."

"As for who I'd work with, I've been very clear - much clearer than David Cameron and Gordon Brown - that I will work with anyone, I will work with a man from the moon, I don't care, with anyone who can deliver the greater fairness that I think people want."

not Gordon Brown?

he said: "I don't think Gordon Brown - and I've got nothing personal about him - I just don't think the British people would accept that he could carry on as Prime Minister, which is what the convention of old politics dictates when, or rather if, he were to lose the election in such spectacular style."

alternative Labour figures such as Alan Johnson or David Miliband?

"I will seek with whomever else to deliver those big changes that I want, in the way the economy is run, the way the tax system works, the way our education system works and, of course, cleaning up politics from top to toe."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
His ignorance about IVF issues:

DC I haven’t looked recently at the whole legal framework for IVF, but I mean I haven’t — we haven’t got any plans to change it……You see I haven’t — I’m not an expert on, on IVF issues. …..Well look, 1 mean I don’t. I haven’t. You know I haven’t got any. What can I say? Well I can only answer the question the way I can.

---

quote:

---

On his dogy allies in Europe:

I The fact that you’ve aligned yourself with particular parties in the European parliament. Some parties which some people perceive to be anti-Semitic and anti-gay. Today a law comes in force in Lithuanian which has been described as their Section 28. It’s been condemned by Amnesty International….

DC I don’t know about that particular vote…..And of course we would never ally with I parties whose views stepped beyond the pale…..Um, well I don’t — I mean the trouble is you’re — I mean I’ll have to go back and look at this particular — this particular law. . Sorry it’s not a very good answer, I’ll have to go land look at this particular vote in the European parliament.

---

quote:

---

About civil partnerships in places of worship:

DC I do, I do. Do you know — can we stop for a second? I really — I really want to answer these questions. I’m really — either can we do a television interview or can we do a press interview? I’m finding — I’d almost like to start completely from scratch…..

---

quote:

---

continues...

As I understand it there is some very heavyweight legal advice that says there are some problems, which is if you had a permissive piece of legislation that basically said, if a religious organisation, like the Quakers, or others (want to do it, would that eventually lead to all churches through the legal process being compelled to have civil partnerships even if they didn’t want it? So there’s a problem. I think it’s very good the debate is taking place…. No of course it doesn’t but the question is whether the heavyweight legal advice is that although the amendment doesn’t compel, through legal cases it could become compulsory. I think there’s more debate and discussion needs to be had before taking this step.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Some random, no-mark, irrelevant party from a desolate backwater of Europe comes up with a half-baked law and you expect Cameron to know all about it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
What have you Tories got against Lithuania?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
... the present arrangement of constituencies offers the prospect of Labour getting the third highest number of votes but the most seats; i.e. more seats and less votes than both Tories AND Lib Dems. In 1974 they had more seats but less votes than the Tories in the February election, but were allowed to get away with becoming the government. Clegg seems to have decided he won't tolerate a repeat of that - at least with Gordo as PM, as a precise reading of his comments suggests that he might allow a Labour PM other than Gordo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:

As it is Libdem popularity is showing signs of being shortlived the more people are exposed to their flaky policies, opportunism and conniving bitchiness. In my experience, at least in local politics they tend to be the 'nasty' party.

I think the election results will surprise us in 10-days-time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
We can quibble about the details, but in the polls they remain at about 30%.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FreeJack:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
We can quibble about the details, but in the polls they remain at about 30%.

---

I don't actually believe they will get 30%.

It will be ground-breaking if they do.

It will be embarrassing for the pollsters if they don't. They got the 1992 election wrong and changed their methods to try and stop it happening again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Whatever they say about their new idea, they are going to allow people to take over schools without any prior experience - so fundamentalist creationists can indoctrinate children.

---

One imagines some form of national curriculum will still apply.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
What have you Tories got against Lithuania?

---

Nothing. It's not important enough to bother holding grudges against.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
His ignorance about IVF issues:

DC I haven’t looked recently at the whole legal framework for IVF, but I mean I haven’t — we haven’t got any plans to change it……You see I haven’t — I’m not an expert on, on IVF issues. …..Well look, 1 mean I don’t. I haven’t. You know I haven’t got any. What can I say? Well I can only answer the question the way I can.

---

The party doesn't have any specific policies about IVF, other than "keep things as they are". Is that a problem for you?

They probably don't have any policies about planning permission for people to put up a new conservatory either. Would you regard it as "ignorance" if someone randomly came up with a question about that key issue and Cameron didn't have an answer immediately to hand? Yes, you probably would.

Of course, Gordon Brown can answer any question on any subject with absolute authority due to his superheroic intellect and knowledge of every single thing there is to know. That's why he's doing so well in the televised debates. Oh, wait...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
He also said that they are going to introduce a new national curriculum in 50 days, without consultation nor further change, that well EXCLUDE art, dance, creativity and vocational subjects.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

The latter is the reason why I don't think any Christian can support the Tories without leaving his/her faith entirely out of the equation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
The latter is the reason why I don't think any Christian can support the Tories without leaving his/her faith entirely out of the equation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
A lot of people may well disagree with that view but I don't see how a belief that the state shouldn't pay for IVF is 'Christian' or 'un-Christian'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by FreeJack:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
We can quibble about the details, but in the polls they remain at about 30%.

---

I don't actually believe they will get 30%.

It will be ground-breaking if they do.

It will be embarrassing for the pollsters if they don't. They got the 1992 election wrong and changed their methods to try and stop it happening again.

---

It already seems to be going that way in the opinion polls and, even if the third leaders debate goes well for Nick Clegg, the Tory vote is more likely to turn out - this is problem with polls: the pollsters come to you but on the day people have to go to the voting booths.

I reckon it will end up 38% Tory, 32% Labour and the Lib Dems around 22%, which is where the latter were in 2005 but with fewer seats! That, according to the BBC's number cruncher, puts the Tories and Labour neck-and-neck, with Lib Dems potentially a partner with either in a coalition government.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Meanwhile, the Institute of Fiscal Studies has reminded the Big Three of the elephant in the drawing room of the massive budget deficit and the fact that no-one so far has come totally clean about what they will cut...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
What have you Tories got against Lithuania?

---

Nothing. It's not important enough to bother holding grudges against.

---

Typical Tory attitude towards:

a) Europe

b) Human rights

i.e. they're not important.

---

quote:

---

The latter is the reason why I don't think any Christian can support the Tories without leaving his/her faith entirely out of the equation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
To equate IVF with conservatory issues shows how little you know of or care for Christian ethical concerns.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Meanwhile, the Institute of Fiscal Studies has reminded the Big Three of the elephant in the drawing room of the massive budget deficit and the fact that no-one so far has come totally clean about what they will cut...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
To equate IVF with conservatory issues shows how little you know of or care for Christian ethical concerns.

---

I'm well aware of such issues.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
For a start how about fixing up some of the 840,000 empty homes that exist around Britain? Some will be temporarily vacant, others will be beyond repair but for hundreds of thousands of homes that could house some of the millions on waiting lists this would be useful work, increases the value of assets and is of social benefit. Can an economist tell me why no party has latched onto this - it looks such a great idea?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Can an economist tell me why no party has latched onto this - it looks such a great idea?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

2) Houses where nobody wants to live (e.g. western Newcastle on Tyne)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
That said the housing crisis, substantially aggravated by the level of immigration, is one that is another elephant in the room, though one that politicians are even less willing to talk about, requiring as it does large amounts of government expenditure to resolve.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
The latter is the reason why I don't think any Christian can support the Tories without leaving his/her faith entirely out of the equation.

---

Hang on a second. I don't see how human rights are at stake in this General Election - though it would be good to see politicians emphasising the other side of the equation 'responsibilities' and also having a serious look at how we negotiate the collision of competing rights.

Your remark about Christians voting Conservative is frankly bizarre. The fact is that unless you see the Bible as some sort of party political manifesto you don't have a leg to stand on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
For a start how about fixing up some of the 840,000 empty homes that exist around Britain? Some will be temporarily vacant, others will be beyond repair but for hundreds of thousands of homes that could house some of the millions on waiting lists this would be useful work, increases the value of assets and is of social benefit. Can an economist tell me why no party has latched onto this - it looks such a great idea?

---

I'm not an economist, but I imagine a large part of it would be the extra cost. There are loads of things that it would be great to do and that would create (public sector) jobs - high speed rail, housing projects, extra schools and hospitals - but the government needs to cut spending, not increase it!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
My understanding is that it is borrowing that needs to be reduced, not simply spending. If that can be done without direct spending cuts, that is OK. If people move into employment that saves on the welfare budget (which is about £200 billion of a total public sector budget of about £700 billion), brings in NICs and Income tax, enables people to buy things with VAT and excise duty on (booze, tobacco and petrol) and generally gees up the economy.

---

If people are moving into private sector employment that is true. But when people move into public sector employment the maths is somewhat different: what the public purse gains through a reduced welfare bill has to be offset against losses through increased wage and NI bills.

On the grounds that even the minimum wage adds up to more than the dole, I suspect that increasing the number of public sector jobs in order to reduce the welfare bill would be completely self-defeating, as the Treasury would be spending more than it was before.

The tangential benefits to the economy (increased spending, more VAT/excise income, etc.) would make up some of the difference, but I have to say that with our current financial situation I don't know if we can afford it.

It would probably be cheaper for the government to promise to buy any renovated houses from the developer at market value, thus achieving the double whammy of stimulating private investment in doing them up (and thus creating new private sector jobs) while at the same time creating a fresh stock of social housing .
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
He also said that they are going to introduce a new national curriculum in 50 days, without consultation nor further change, that well EXCLUDE art, dance, creativity and vocational subjects.

---

So the national curriculum is to be cut back to what it should be - a minimal core on which the professionals / local schools can build appropriately? If the Conservatives have a big idea this election, it is to leave the detail to the people on the ground, not micromanage from Whitehall. This sounds like an encouraging example of precisely that policy in action.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
As for 'leaving the detail to the people on the ground', that really means abandoning them.

---

So you have no confidence in the head teachers, school governors or local education authorities to do the right thing, only that bureaucrats in London will?
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
The latter is the reason why I don't think any Christian can support the Tories without leaving his/her faith entirely out of the equation.

---

Hang on a second. I don't see how human rights are at stake in this General Election - though it would be good to see politicians emphasising the other side of the equation 'responsibilities' and also having a serious look at how we negotiate the collision of competing rights.

Your remark about Christians voting Conservative is frankly bizarre. The fact is that unless you see the Bible as some sort of party political manifesto you don't have a leg to stand on.

---

Not the bible but Christ, whose manifesto was the year of Jubilee - good news to the poor etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Not the bible but Christ, whose manifesto was the year of Jubilee - good news to the poor etc.

---

You'll have to do better than just sloganising. The year of Jubilee is not a manifesto. It's an important part of the theological resources for informing a Christian conscience on social and political issues. But you can't make it into a manifesto.

Furthermore, I thought the good news was for everyone, including the poor. Given Labour's record on inequality, it's hardly a black and white judgement as to which party's policy actually benefits the very poorest.
 

---

Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
I see that Gordon Brown has spoken his mind and first gained, and then lost one voter. But anyway, she's just 'a bigoted woman'.


<hums Santana's 'Black Magic Woman', strolls off>
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
The national curriculum is an entitlement.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

The reason we have a housing crisis is because, as a nation, we have built substantially fewer houses than we need, year after year after year.

---

quote:

---

I'd have said it was a minimum requirement rather than an exhaustive list.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wesley J:
I see that Gordon Brown has spoken his mind and first gained, and then lost one voter. But anyway, she's just 'a bigoted woman'.


<hums Santana's 'Black Magic Woman', strolls off>

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Very damaging. Mainly because of the "one thing in public, another in private" effect.

And also stoopid.

I don't think this will blow over - more likely it will be seen as a defining moment. Broon's career looks to me to be in the bin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Very damaging. Mainly because of the "one thing in public, another in private" effect.

And also stoopid.

I don't think this will blow over - more likely it will be seen as a defining moment. Broon's career looks to me to be in the bin.

---

quote:

---

The Conservatives said Mr Brown's comments spoke for themselves.

Shadow chancellor George Osborne said: "That's the thing about general elections, they do reveal the truth about people."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
In practice, because the SATS tests on core subjects are so important for (primary) schools, any subject that isn't specifically in the National Curriculum is in danger of being squeezed out altogether.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wesley J:
I don't believe a word the Tories are saying. I consider them far greater bigots than Labour or possibly LibDem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
As for 'leaving the detail to the people on the ground', that really means abandoning them.

---

So you have no confidence in the head teachers, school governors or local education authorities to do the right thing, only that bureaucrats in London will?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
The latter is the reason why I don't think any Christian can support the Tories without leaving his/her faith entirely out of the equation.

---

Hang on a second. I don't see how human rights are at stake in this General Election - though it would be good to see politicians emphasising the other side of the equation 'responsibilities' and also having a serious look at how we negotiate the collision of competing rights.

Your remark about Christians voting Conservative is frankly bizarre. The fact is that unless you see the Bible as some sort of party political manifesto you don't have a leg to stand on.

---

Not the bible but Christ, whose manifesto was the year of Jubilee - good news to the poor etc.

---

George Lansbury summed it up: Socialism which means love, cooperation and brotherhood in every department of human affairs, is the only outward expression of a Christian's faith. I am firmly convinced that whether they know it or not, all who approve and accept competition and struggle against each other as the means whereby we gain our daily bread, do indeed betray and make of no effect the "will of God."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
As for 'leaving the detail to the people on the ground', that really means abandoning them.

---

So you have no confidence in the head teachers, school governors or local education authorities to do the right thing, only that bureaucrats in London will?

---

No, no, no, you've got it wrong: only unaccountable Whitehall bureaucrats know what's right for everyone - didn't you get the memo?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Very damaging. Mainly because of the "one thing in public, another in private" effect.

And also stoopid.

I don't think this will blow over - more likely it will be seen as a defining moment. Broon's career looks to me to be in the bin.

---

Very unfortunate. Brown has been seen in his car with his head in his hands. While it was attached to his body physically I think it may have been severed in political terms. Worst of all, it's probably given the BNP a huge boost right in one of their target areas. I can take the Tories gaining as a result, but if the next opinion polls show "Others: 15%" we'll know what's going on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gildas:

Apparently, the lady in question asked our Gordo "where do all those Eastern European immigrants come from?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pottage:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

The reason we have a housing crisis is because, as a nation, we have built substantially fewer houses than we need, year after year after year.

---

Not really. We have built substantially fewer houses than are needed in the places where, through population shifts (and immigration as it happens) the demand for housing has become most intense. In principle there is no shortage of housing stock in many parts of the country outside the South East, though in practice there are actual shortages in lots of places. For instance, in many places the housing stock, though available, may be beyond the reach of a substantial number of locals because the local economy is weak and they can't earn enough to be able to afford those properties.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
As for 'leaving the detail to the people on the ground', that really means abandoning them.

---

So you have no confidence in the head teachers, school governors or local education authorities to do the right thing, only that bureaucrats in London will?

---

No, no, no, you've got it wrong: only unaccountable Whitehall bureaucrats know what's right for everyone - didn't you get the memo?

---

I'm being entirely serious here. Thanks to the Parliamentary Select Committees the mandarins, like ministers, have to show up and answer some pretty serious questions from backbench MPs. They don't like it, and they can wriggle all they like but they still have to do it.

So they are accountable, in word and fact.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Typical Tory attitude towards:

a) Europe

b) Human rights

i.e. they're not important.

The latter is the reason why I don't think any Christian can support the Tories without leaving his/her faith entirely out of the equation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jane R:
In practice, because the SATS tests on core subjects are so important for (primary) schools, any subject that isn't specifically in the National Curriculum is in danger of being squeezed out altogether.

---

The answer to that is to abolish (or severely downgrade) SATS, not to rigidly define every single subject that has to be taught in schools.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
The latter is the reason why I don't think any Christian can support the Tories without leaving his/her faith entirely out of the equation.

---

Hang on a second. I don't see how human rights are at stake in this General Election - though it would be good to see politicians emphasising the other side of the equation 'responsibilities' and also having a serious look at how we negotiate the collision of competing rights.

Your remark about Christians voting Conservative is frankly bizarre. The fact is that unless you see the Bible as some sort of party political manifesto you don't have a leg to stand on.

---

Not the bible but Christ, whose manifesto was the year of Jubilee - good news to the poor etc.

---

George Lansbury summed it up: Socialism which means love, cooperation and brotherhood in every department of human affairs, is the only outward expression of a Christian's faith. I am firmly convinced that whether they know it or not, all who approve and accept competition and struggle against each other as the means whereby we gain our daily bread, do indeed betray and make of no effect the "will of God."

---

All laudable virtues, but why should they be arrogated to (primarily) the people who rule us?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
For the record, Clegg has now commented:

Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg said: 'Everybody in every walk of life will mutter things underneath their breath they wouldn't want people to know about.'

'In an election campaign, you have got to give as good as you get but treat whatever questions you receive with the respect they deserve. I think saying something clearly fairly insulting to the lady in question is not right, it's not right at all.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican't:
A lot of leo's bile suggests that he's been out in the spring sunshine for too long. I don't really understand his thing about IVF, though. Is his complaint that the Conservative party isn't funding it for certain people?

I've never really thought that people have the right to a child and certainly don't have a right for the state to help them have a child. A lot of people may well disagree with that view but I don't see how a belief that the state shouldn't pay for IVF is 'Christian' or 'un-Christian'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Er, okay. According to you, house prices remain high in areas where there is plenty of spare housing and the economy is weak. Whereas house prices are high in areas where there is a high demand for houses and the economy is strong.

You do realise you're talking complete arse, don't you?

I've seen it first hand at both ends of the spectrum: my dad is the chair of planning for his parish council (average house price ~£450,000). He's fought tooth and nail to restrict development inside the village envelope for the past 20 years, but we had a good long chat last time I was down, and he's starting to think the whole strategy was nothing less than a catastrophe in slow motion. Whereas, here I am in the North East, we're losing population. Schools are closing because of falling rolls. House prices here are still well over 3x income - we also have developers sitting on massive land banks and not building.

One thing that would help encourage people north are fast transport links to the south, but in order to do that, they have to go through the south to get to us. Nimby much?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

The reason we have a housing crisis is because, as a nation, we have built substantially fewer houses than we need, year after year after year.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'm being entirely serious here. Thanks to the Parliamentary Select Committees the mandarins, like ministers, have to show up and answer some pretty serious questions from backbench MPs. They don't like it, and they can wriggle all they like but they still have to do it.

So they are accountable, in word and fact.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
The latter is the reason why I don't think any Christian can support the Tories without leaving his/her faith entirely out of the equation.

---

Hang on a second. I don't see how human rights are at stake in this General Election - though it would be good to see politicians emphasising the other side of the equation 'responsibilities' and also having a serious look at how we negotiate the collision of competing rights.

Your remark about Christians voting Conservative is frankly bizarre. The fact is that unless you see the Bible as some sort of party political manifesto you don't have a leg to stand on.

---

Not the bible but Christ, whose manifesto was the year of Jubilee - good news to the poor etc.

---

George Lansbury summed it up: Socialism which means love, cooperation and brotherhood in every department of human affairs, is the only outward expression of a Christian's faith. I am firmly convinced that whether they know it or not, all who approve and accept competition and struggle against each other as the means whereby we gain our daily bread, do indeed betray and make of no effect the "will of God."

---

All laudable virtues, but why should they be arrogated to (primarily) the people who rule us?

---

They don't rule us. They govern on our behalf.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pottage:
What would make a difference to places where the economy is weak is investment in the local economy. It doesn't matter that much how many express trains there are between (say) Sunderland and London. What will make it practicable and attractive for people to live there (and thus do something to even out the demand for and availability of housing units across the country) will be decent jobs in all those places where demand is currently low.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
They don't rule us. They govern on our behalf.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pottage:
What would make a difference to places where the economy is weak is investment in the local economy. It doesn't matter that much how many express trains there are between (say) Sunderland and London. What will make it practicable and attractive for people to live there (and thus do something to even out the demand for and availability of housing units across the country) will be decent jobs in all those places where demand is currently low.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pottage:
What would make a difference to places where the economy is weak is investment in the local economy. It doesn't matter that much how many express trains there are between (say) Sunderland and London. What will make it practicable and attractive for people to live there (and thus do something to even out the demand for and availability of housing units across the country) will be decent jobs in all those places where demand is currently low.

---

The problem is that this has been part of government policy for the last 45 years that I am aware of, and it hasn't worked very well, with a very few exceptions (I have to admit the regeneration of Manchester has been a success...) It's a hard thing to do, and our persistent failure suggests that it may be better to think more radically.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wesley J:
I see that Gordon Brown has spoken his mind and first gained, and then lost one voter. But anyway, she's just 'a bigoted woman'.


<hums Santana's 'Black Magic Woman', strolls off>

---

Yes, Gordon lets the truth out of the bag: he believes the Leftist meme that if you are concerned about immigration, you are a bigot.

Also, he reveals that he is a jerk. But we already knew that.

---

quote:

---

The answer to that is to abolish (or severely downgrade) SATS, not to rigidly define every single subject that has to be taught in schools.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Two points: firstly, it does matter how many express trains there are between Sunderland and London. Those towns stuck at the end of a branch line, like Sunderland, are at a serious economic disadvantage compared to their neighbours who aren't. Add to that the poor road links north and south from the North East, and we start to see why investment in the region isn't as it ought to be.

Secondly, your sums still don't add up. Unless we build more houses that people want to live in, and lots of them, they will remain unaffordable to most. When me and Mrs Tor bought our gaff back in '92, it cost us 3x Mrs Tor's reasonable salary. Now she's on more than reasonable, the multiplier is 4x, and for someone on an average wage, over 7x. This situation cannot be right, and unless UK government is prepared to subsidise the housing market, the only thing that can rectify the imbalance is more houses to drive the average price down.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
First, recent polls indicate that Lib Dem support is stablising at 29-30%, in other words, exactly where they were after the first debate.

See: http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/voting-intention

Second, while polls (most famously in the 1992 election) have sometimes underestimated Tory support, they have not overestimated Lib Dem support. In 2005, for example, they received half a percent of votes above the exit poll.

Third, support for the Lib Dems tends to increase during election campaigns. They went into the 1997 campaign on 9%. It would be unusual for their vote to fall back close to 20%, which is what it was when the election was called.

In short, the Lib Dems' support appears to be quite robust.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
Pottage, by 'average wage' do you mean an individual person's wage, or average family income?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I think we can add the refusal (of successive governments, Labour and Tory) to invest in infrastructure projects that increase the connectivity of the north with the south to my list of complaints.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that taxes should subsidise the house market - the moves on Stamp Duty and 'co-ownership' are blind alleys which both perpetuate and ignore the real problem, which is the disproportionate cost of housing in much of the UK compared with the average wage. I could bang on here about the Tories' council house sell-off that made the situation ten times worse than any amount of immigration, but I'd rather look ahead as to what can be done to solve the problem.

Turning building land over to non-profit housing co-ops, who'd then be able to sell the houses on at a decent price. I've seen figures which suggest the actual cost, minus land, of a three bed-semi with garage is in the region of £70k. That'd be the same whether it was built in Newcastle or Newbury.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pottage:
If the government "gives" land to people on condition they build on it that IS a subsidy of course. If you are going to make me a gift I'd prefer hard cash, but I'll settle for a few acres of building land if that's all you've got.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pottage:
The definition of "subsidy" doesn't alter depending on:

(a) whether the recipient is in business to make a fat smelly profit rather than being a terribly worthy charity, or

(b) whether the asset disposed of is a chunk of real estate or a chunk of money.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

(Apparently the Bard of Barking is voting LibDem this time around. Bit of a turn-up for the books.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

I appreciate you have a vested interest in keeping things as they are, but I worry not just for my children, but for the whole of their generation who'll end up buying into the two-jobs, work-all-hours, teeter-on-the-edge-of-disaster, pray-the-interest-rates-stay-down sort of life. It is unsustainable and wrong, and it needs to be changed.

---

You mean this isn't "normal"......
 

---

Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I worry not just for my children, but for the whole of their generation who'll end up buying into the two-jobs, work-all-hours, teeter-on-the-edge-of-disaster, pray-the-interest-rates-stay-down sort of life. It is unsustainable and wrong, and it needs to be changed.

---

Amen and hallelujah to that.

One of the saddest things about aggressive capitalism is that, in the race to satisfy our desires through ceaseless competition, it ends up making us all anxious, exhausted, stressed, and losing out on the things that matter in life - the things that you cannot quantify on a balance sheet.

A good start would be to reject "growth", at least as measured in terms of GDP/GNP, and to focus on "slowth" - slowing down the way we live. E.g. If we were to cook food rather than buy it ready made and full of salt from the supermarket, growth and profits would decrease, but quality of life, creativity and health would increase. If we were to lend our lawnmower to the neighbours, and they lend us their strimmer, then growth and profits (not to mention use of metals, plastics etc) would decrease, but peace and security would increase (by the building up of social bonds through reciprocal gift-relationships).
 

---

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Turning building land over to non-profit housing co-ops, who'd then be able to sell the houses on at a decent price.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by phil2357:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
They don't rule us. They govern on our behalf.

---

But the fact still remains that if I give taxation money to a government it is not me who decides what is done with it. I may influence who governs the country through my vote, but the actual decisions about how public money is spent are not made by me. Hence I cannot claim moral responsibility for them.

Or take a different line of reasoning: I live not too far away from a new hospital that is being built. I take it you are saying that we should see this as the government expressing our neighbourly concern for one another on our behalf. OK, but what about the public money spent on the war with Iraq? Are you prepared to take some personal responsibility for that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
George Lansbury summed it up: Socialism which means love, cooperation and brotherhood in every department of human affairs, is the only outward expression of a Christian's faith. I am firmly convinced that whether they know it or not, all who approve and accept competition and struggle against each other as the means whereby we gain our daily bread, do indeed betray and make of no effect the "will of God."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
The war - no - the public mood was very much against it, as shown in demonstrations.

---