|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: And they're off - UK election rant
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I think the specific question was if labour had the mps but not the vote share.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
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 ![[Biased]](wink.gif) 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.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
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.
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. 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.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
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.
I've been playing with the vote share calculators on the BBC Election website and it is quite possible for Labour to come third across the country but still have the highest number of seats! They can't quite maintain an overall majority if they poll less than the LibDems and Tories, but it's close. Something to do with lower turn-outs in Labour seats and smaller constituencies in Wales and Scotland I believe.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
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.
Were you a non-working parent though?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
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.
Agreed; it's not worse than the Grauniad from the other side of the socio-political spectrum.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
OK, RadicalWhig - now I can reply properly.
Your objections, in essence, can be reduced to the presumption that the nationalists speak best for Scotland, and justice therefore dictates that they be heard at the debate in a particular way. I was going to respond to you point-by-point, but that would result in too long-winded a post.
Basically, my point is that this is a Westminster election held across the UK, not four separate elections. The purpose of the debates being to put the leaders of the strongest parties head-to-head, it was quite proper to exclude the leader of any party incapable of winning it.
That is one reason for excluding the SNP, and I don't think I need to add to it. But then there is the additional point you raise, ie, that the Scots have the right to be governed as they see best, and therefore their voice should be heard at the debates. But this is quite obviously false for the following reasons.
Firstly, it seems rather obvious to point out that one of the participants was Scottish, and secondly, quite clear that it is restrictive to say that only the SNP can speak for Scotland. More pertinently, however, it is strange to say that the presence of the SNP on the panel was necessary for Scots to be properly represented. The audience would be a more appropriate place for that, rather than amongst the people pitching for their votes.
Furthermore, Alex Salmond himself has said that he does not wish to influence how English votes are cast. Why then, would he, or any other SNP politician want to be on the panel?
Your next slew of points are basically to do with the fact that the current system is unfair. Be that as it may, Scotland is still part of it for this election. The only really relevant point you raise is the following, and I quote it for clarity:-
I said:-
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...
and you responded:-
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.
Not at all. I have yet to be told why the SNP chose not to ally with any English nationalist / separatist party over the border. They have only allied with Plaid Cymru. Perhaps English separatists are, somehow, dirty. At any rate, the break-up of the UK seems rather obviously a matter for the whole of the UK, but whether it is or isn't is not an issue to be decided by this election.
The only other point that I understand you to raise is that the SNP should be included because of its disproportionate regional support, ie, it should be distinguished from, say, UKIP because it polls heavily in Scotland (as it happens, the Lib Dems outpolled the SNP in 2005). What this amounts to is that Scotland should be preferentially to from other areas where there is a regional variation, and / or parties with a strong regional support should be favoured over those who receive as many votes over a greater area. This doesn't make any sense without begging the question.
Additionally, you accuse me of having my cake and eating it:-
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.
It's no good using comments like 'fairly represented' because it allows you to suggest that my argument is unfair, simply because it disagrees with yours.
In any event, it falls into the same fallacy of assuming Scottish representation to mean an SNP politician on the panel rather than Scots on the audience.
The SNP are a Scottish party, campaigning on Scottish issues for Scottish votes. Plaid Cymru are identical for Wales. The appropriate solution is to have a debate amongst the party leaders in those places, rather than the inelegant (and I think more unfair) solution of lumping them in with Clegg, Brown and Cameron.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
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 ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
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!
A bold claim, given Vince Cable's efforts in the last year.
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.
I can see your point, although I did notice the presenter of the first debate noting that certain matters were devolved, when the discussion moved onto that point. Doesn't that seem the best solution?
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.
I think the best solution is for Wales and Scotland to have its own equivalent debates. There is a certain asymmetry here, as England wouldn't have one - but that merely reflects devolution itself.
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
Indeed, but it doesn't follow that PC and the SNP should be heard on those specific matters unless they should be heard generally.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Well, I'm gonna cut out my MP, and vote for myself.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
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]
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
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]
<my itals> No one party would ever again have an outright majority in the House of Commons. Party power would be reduced.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
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.
Secondly, Cameron blocked (along with Labour) every attempt to reform the voting system during the last parliament. He can hardly volte face now, when it looks like the very system he champions will deny him victory.
And on the third hand, he's probably worried that there are more than enough people in the country who would vote Anything But Tory. Under something like STV in a single member constituency, the Tories could lose all their seats where they don't get 50% of the first preference votes.
YMMV
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
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.
I recognise you're being facetious rather than making a serious point but I'll respond. There is a genuine principle involved here. The fact is that both Labour and Conservative currently believe (and I tend to agree with them) that a two-party system remains the prevailing model. Labour's conversion to electoral reform is clearly a fairly cynical tactic rather than a genuine conversion given the fact that Brown has blocked such policy change every step of the way. I suspect that if it were proved by the final election results that we are in a multi-party situation then the Conservatives may have to look again at their opposition to all but the most limited electoral reform.
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.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Were you a non-working parent though? [/QB][/QUOTE]
Neither are most single parents.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
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.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) 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
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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.
Tin-foil hat territory? It wasn't me that wrote the headline How using Facebook could raise your risk of cancer!!!! Nor previous articles claiming that being left-handed, bubble bath, calcium, candles, chocolate, colds, curry, hair dye, menstruation AND the menopause AND hormone replacement therapy (so you just can't win even if you are a woman), mouthwash, oral sex, sex, soup, talcum powder, tea, the Internet, vitamin E, work AND retirement AND unemployment (so you can't win even if you aren't a woman, Prince Charles, and Worcester Sauce all cause cancer.
Nor me who embroiled the Daily Mail in a years-long scaremongering campaign of obfuscation and innuendo about Autism and vaccinations. That paper is at the heart of tinfoil hat territory. Don't just take my word for it - look them up in Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science" blog or on Language Log (they also have it in for the BBC's crap science reporting, just in case you think I am biased
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.
Were you caught out by the Daily Mail at some point in your life? You seem to have something personal against them. I don't care for the Mail, but they don't have the history of altering photographs to create stories, which the Sun and the Mirror have. .[/QB][/QUOTE]
The Mail does have a well-documented history of outright falsehood, going back decades. It is plainly true that they are more likely to use their news reporting for propaganda than the other papers are..
My little rant wasn't really about that though , that was just an aside - I was complaining that ALL the British papers are partisan and they ALL indulge in filtering and manipulating the news to support their favoured parties
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.
This is not what I'm talking about at all. One of the reasons the Mail is worse than the other papers is precisely because it is, on the whole, a good paper. Its visible cultural assumptions are pretty much those of the southern English middle class and really not that far from those of the the Guardian and their readership has more in common than you might suppose. (Guardian readers may not read the Mail much but their aunts do). Its mostly a pretty good paper (a very good paper by British tabloid standards, which is perhaps not hard) which makes its political bias so potentially harmful. No-one much takes the Sun or the News of the World seriously as a source of in-depth political news. Not even Sun-readers. Especially Sun-readers. The Mail is a much weightier, and mostly much worthier, paper (as well as being much more interesting to read for anyone who has more than a 15 minute fag break to read it in) so its political bias can more easily sneak in under the radar.
Which is the real point. Newspapers and broadcast media do not (on the whole) influence politics by telling people who to vote for. Voters aren't that stupid. Nor by telling lies or by smear campaigns (though that doesn't stop them trying sometimes and the Mail is usually worse than the others). They do it by deciding what counts as news, by trying to set the agenda.
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Agreed; it's not worse than the Grauniad from the other side of the socio-political spectrum.
Matt, if you really believe that then I have a bridge to sell you.
Its not a simple left-right thing. Nor a cultural tabloid vs. "serious" paper thing.The Sun and the News of the World have both supported Labour on occasions. Neither is as egregiously dishonest as the Mail so often is. Though both have pushed the boat out a bit, as has the Mirror. The Telegraph is a far more Tory paper than the Times but it has also (in recent years) been far more honest and neutral in its reporting - on the whole, like the Guardian it manages to keep its political bias to the comment pages, and out of the news pages. As, on the whole, do all the broadcast media, because (unlike newspapers) they have a legal obligation to be fair.
And its not a matter of two equal "sides" either - the British press as a whole is heavily biased towards the Tories and has been for over a century.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
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
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.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
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.
Oh dear Matt. Have you read any of my links?
What Ken said.
AFZ
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
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.
I doubt that your friends are thick, dishonest or nutters, raving or otherwise. I would suggest that they, like most of us, like to be confirmed in our prejudices (like me apropos golfers, drivers of silver German cars and, yes, Daily Mail readers) but the Daily Mail itself has a long and dishonourable history, going right back to pre-Great War jingoism and the Zinoviev letter, a deliberate forgery calculated to bring down the first Labour government.
Your friends aren't dishonest but the Daily Mail is, was and will be.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
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.
I have now got hold of the text of the interview. It was made clear 10 days before the interview date that they wanted to film it. The interview with Gordon Brown was also filmed. David Cameron explained that he found it difficult giving answers for a magazine interview which was also being filmed.
It wasn’t just the Lithuania question. Cameron was nervous and ignorant throughout. For example (I = Interviewer, DC = David Cameron)
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.
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.
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…..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.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alicïa
Shipmate
# 7668
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
I think the specific question was if labour had the mps but not the vote share.
He hasn't said he won't work with Labour, just hinted that he wouldn't work with Gordon Brown in that specific scenario (of Labour coming 3rd in the popular vote) because the usual convention is for the Prime Minister to stay.
In an interview today, he has been a bit clearer on the subject.
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."
--------------------
"The tendency to turn human judgments into divine commands makes religion one of the most dangerous forces in the world." Georgia Elma Harkness
Posts: 884 | From: Where the Art is. | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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:
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.
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? I'd be surprised if anyone outside Lithuania knows about it, muck-raking journalists aside.
Of course, every single party in the same European alliance as Labour is completely above reproach.
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…..
OK, so he's having some problems with the format. Ooh, how terrible he is.
Of course, Gordon Brown never struggles under any circumstances - he's always prefectly on message and unflustered no matter how many people are deliberately trying to trip him up.
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.
If this is the actual transcript of the interview, I don't think transcriber was doing a very good job. Where is the question he's answering with "No of course it it doesn't"?
Beyond that, what exactly is so wrong with saying that there could be problems and it's good that the debate is happening?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosa Winkel
Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424
|
Posted
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?
What have you Tories got against Lithuania? I mean, Cameron pissed them off as well.
I'd expect a leader to be careful about who he is allies with, myself. I mean, Ken Livingston rightly got all sorts of bother for his homophobic friends.
--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project
Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
What have you Tories got against Lithuania?
Nothing. It's not important enough to bother holding grudges against.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
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.
Um....I thought you had a parliamentary democracy over there still?
You know...where they elect MP's that decide who is going to be the PM?
Since when did ya'll move to a republican system based on % of the total vote? I must have missed that switch.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
It is likely that PR would transform voting patterns in Britain. It would cause more than simply requiring coalition governments.
An example from NZ, which has a Westminster parliamentary system, and which adopted PR in the 1990s. Prior to its introduction, there were two main parties: Labour and National, plus a third smaller party, Social Credit. Post introduction of PR, all governments have been formed in the main by those two main parties with one or more minor parties, either by formal coalition, or agreements to supply.
The big losers, interestingly enough, were Social Credit, who no longer exist. Approximately three parties vie for third place: the Greens, NZ First (a nationalist party) United Future (family values) and ACT (free market libertarians).
What this suggests is that the Lib Dems have the most to lose from PR, not the most to gain. PR might militate against them at Westminster elections, but the playing field is level insofar that if they were to poll +40%, they would be about as likely to be able to form a government as Labour or the Tories.
Furthermore, barring a complete meltdown, the Lib Dems' position as third party in British politics is assured: there might be a sea between the Lib Dems and the biggest two, but there is an ocean between the Lib Dems and, for example, the Greens and UKIP. Under PR, these latter two parties could outflank the Lib Dems and cut into their vote as has happened at, for example, European elections. It is also worth noting that the Lib Dem vote has not risen in Welsh or Scottish elections.
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.
We can quibble about the details, but in the polls they remain at about 30%.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
Just to add another observation based upon NZ's system.
Now, I'm no fan of PR, but Cameron's blather about a hung parliament resulting in paralysis is ridiculous scaremongering. Every parliament in NZ since the mid 1990s has been 'hung', but the country has had sufficiently stable government in every one of those years. I don't quite see what Cameron's reasons are for believing that the situation in Britain would be any different. Down here, it is not true, for example, that smaller parties hold the larger parties to ransom. Rather, politicians behave sensibly in negotiating varied agreements ranging from outright coalition to agreements to support on certain issues. As a Guardian columnist rightly pointed out, Cameron's comments reflect poorly on his abilities as a negotiator.
On another subject: can anyone provide me with any details as to the SNP's court action today?
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
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.
I have just returned from a meeting with my untion chief secretary who asked Michael Gove about this. Gove's response was 'They can follow whatever curriculum they want'. So they can choose to do Christian RE without any reference to other religions - so much for social cohesion.
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.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
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.
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.
[ 27. April 2010, 20:43: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
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...
To equate IVF with conservatory issues shows how little you know of or care for Christian ethical concerns.
Gordon Brown has statistics at his fingertips in those debates whereas Cameron makes uncosted promises which he cannot afford to keep.
[ 27. April 2010, 20:46: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
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.
The reality is that the Tories will probably get more votes from active churchgoers than they will from the population at large, and more than any other party.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
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'.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
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'.
There are lots of Christians who seem to believe that the State is the 'good samaritan', or that the best way to show love of your neighbour, or care for the needs of the poor and oppressed is through the public sector. Broadly speaking, Conservatives will agree that the state is a safety net for those who hit hard times, but does not replace taking care of your own family and community, or using your own talents for individual betterment and encouraging a society of 'good samaritans' through voluntarism, giving and acts of caring. It's a shame that David Camneron hasn't been banging on about the 'big society' for long enough for people to understand the concept, but it is what conservative philosophy is all about.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
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.
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.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
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...
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
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...
You're surprised?
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
But surely politicians should lead the public on such issues not the other way round...?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
Typical Labour spin. I said nothing about Europe and nothing about human rights, but spin, spin and spin again until it looks like I did.
It's pathological lies and spin like this that are why I don't think anybody should trust Labour with running a tombola stall, never mind the country.
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.
Since the latter is a fabrication that you have created, it follows that there is no reason any Christian shouldn't vote for the party that advocates community, society, charity and public involvement in service provision over the one that advocates a centralised nanny state directly controlling everything.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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. The point is that there is no reason to expect Cameron to be totally clued up on IVF, because it's not something that is important to this election.
The conservatory illustration was intended to show that there are any number of other "issues" that it would be ridiculous to expect the party leaders to be fully clued up on. Though I should have guessed it would be spun and spun until you could use it to imply something bad about me - it's what Labour do.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
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...
Of the three only Labour has much idea of the true state of the economy. The Conservatives and the Lib Dems can see the figures and have had pre-election briefings with the senior civil servants at the Treasury but they will get rather less information from them than Labour have, because of limited time if nothing else.
Whatever happens I expect cuts - but the easy cuts are in capital projects, like shiny kit for the armed forces, the ID card project (already scaled down) and the unified NHS systems. Problems come when you try to reduce things year on year but with something like 2.5 million registered unemployed, many of whom are in receipt of Job Seekers Allowance, Housing Benefit, free prescptions, school meals for their children and much besides, a serious program to create work, not merely jobs, would be welcome.
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?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
Actually, I'm going to expand on this.
I'm well aware that some Christians have issues with IVF. Many others do not have any such issues.
The way you state "Christian ethical concerns" in your post implies that every single Christian agrees with you and/or that anyone who disagrees isn't a True Christian. I feel compelled to point out that that is NOT TRUE, lest my initial reply is taken as tacit agreement with the implication.
After all, I don't want to give any more ammunition to the ridiculous campaign to declare that Labour are the only party that a True Christian can ever countenance voting for.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Can an economist tell me why no party has latched onto this - it looks such a great idea?
I suspect because they fall into three categories:
1) Houses which are in the process of being sold
2) Houses where nobody wants to live (e.g. western Newcastle on Tyne)
3) Houses that are awaiting demolition
The underlying assumption of this idea is that someone is acting wholly irrationally by holding onto an empty house despite the fact that its value is declining all the time. Given that few people are so irrational, it's unlikely that these reflect a meaningful source of real opportunity. Where there is such wasted, local authorities do have the power to take control of such houses and rent them out, though it's a power they've seldom exercised; an issue for you to raise with your council candidates, not national.
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.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
