Ship of Fools: The political pits

Thread: The political pits Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027345

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

Which is where Labour has sunk.

They produced a pitiful political broadcast caricaturing the opposition in an infantile way with ne'er a mention of a positive policy.

Shame on Milliband or whoever signed this infantile nonsense off.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

Got a link to it?

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Glad it wasn't just me cringing during the PEB this evening. In fact, I was so gobsmacked I watched again - it was worse.

Totally negative, nothing to do with the European elections, schoolboy humour (cYear 9 at best). And they wonder why people consider Labour unelectable.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

That was barking wasn't it - I mean, I'm quite open to reasons to vote for the Labour Party but that had "shore up the core vote and screw the rest written all over it."

in fact, if you're not a card carrying member of the Labour Party having your tummy tickled by it they may as well have subtitled it "reasons not to give your local Labour candidate the time of day if he's going to have to endorse things like this."

Utterly bizarre. Who on earth signed off on that?

Posted by dv (# 15714) on :

Absolutely puerile. I supposed they were trying to keep Milliband and Balls out of sight as much as possible. Amazing that, at this late stage in a political term, Labour appears to have no marketable policies. No wonder people are disaffected.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Labour is doing what opposition parties now do. Should Labour win the next election, the Tories will do the same. Republican do it now. Democrats will do it when the Republicans return to power.

Ain't Western democracy great.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

People should make decisions on what party or candidate to vote for based on what policies they think they are likely to enact if they are in power, their ability to make productive compromises if it is likely they will be forced to compromise, and the probability that they will do things that are illegal or otherwise corrupt if in office. If I voted based on my disgust for promotional materials released by parties and campaigns, I would not be able to vote for anyone.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

The problem here is that the elections are for the European Parliament, and the MEPs have no part in proposing legislation or executing it.

That is all in the hands of the European Commission, which is a sort of supplementary pension scheme for old political lags, and they get the ideas from the European civil service.

Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% pro-European, but until the legislative and executive branches are directly democratically elected there's little for parties to do but mud-slinging.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

Makes perfect sense if the Labour party is currently being buoyed up by x% of erstwhile damned libs and wants to make sure that buyers remorse holds.

Let's say that a large proportion of the Lib Dem share goes over to Labour. And the Socialist Happy Tree share (to borrow Laura's felicitous expression) buggers off to UKIP. With the conclusion that the Lib Dems lose all their seats in the European Parliament. So, the people who voted Lib Dem because Iraq and general left wingness have already fucked off to Labour and the protest vote sadcakes fuck off to UKIP, that leaves you with two lots, effectively, the people who think that Nick Clegg should be Prime Minister and the people who are pro-Europe, pro-Consitutional reform und so weiter. Now if it is apparent that the Lib Dems are basically shagged then the pro Europe types might want to think about voting for the one party which can deliver continued British membership of the EU.

So, basically, the plan is in the short term to persuade ex-Lib Dems to vote for Ed and, in the longer term, to persuade current Lid Dems that Ed is yer go to guy for continued EU membership. It's the re-alignment of the left that Woy hoped and pwayed for and Tony would have quite liked. Albeit not in a format that either imagined. Basically the leftwing vote migrates to Labour and the rightwing vote is divided betwixt Dave and Nige, with a handful of irreconcilables agreeing with Nick. Ed comes through the middle with between 35 - 40% of the vote and the Tories and the Kippers break down in savage recriminations.

Of course, it could all go Baroness Jenny and Dave could edge back in and the Uber-Blairites could put forth a revanche whilst Dave attempts to do a Harold Wilson and (probably) gets shafted by Nige. But given the lousy hand that Ed was dealt in 2010 (Blairites tend to overlook that the Labour Party lost the general election and that most people outwith the Labour party feuds regard Blair and Brown as much of a muchness) I think that he has a decent chance of winning the next election. If he loses he'll get no mercy but the idea that Ed Balls, Yvette Cooper, Andy Burnham, Stella Creasy or Gloria De Piero would have won is wishful thinking.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

To answer some queries above, here is the PEB. Be warned: that's nearly four minutes of your life that you won't get back.

And 'Hardworking Britain Better Off'. Is that a sentence?

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

I'm not really party to the inner thinking in the Labour Party, but I don't understand this:

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
But given the lousy hand that Ed was dealt in 2010 (Blairites tend to overlook that the Labour Party lost the general election and that most people outwith the Labour party feuds regard Blair and Brown as much of a muchness) I think that he has a decent chance of winning the next election.

Do Blairites really not understand that Labour lost in 2010? After all, it wasn't the Blairites with their hand on the tiller when Labour lost that election.

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Got a link to it?

Is this the one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41_zFHcG1R0

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

I'm mildly surprised that anyone actually watches PPBs. Irrespective of whether it's the party I support/loathe/ignore, I go and do something more interesting.

Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :

Lazy, shit thread titles wind me up. How could anyone guess from the title that this thread was about a UK political party broadcast?

That's the point of a title - to say what the subject of the discussion is. If we can't guess it's a shit thread title.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

Thread titles can also be interesting / witty, etc. can they not? Or just express the gut instinct of the writer? There's a thread title on this board at the moment entitled 'Greece is the word...' which is about a place I've never heard of before (Greece, NY) rather than about Travolta and pals or Stavros and pals.

But it's a far more interesting thread title than 'Constitutionality of prayers at council meetings in Greece'.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Not a patch on the Saatchi and Saatchi ones for the Tories. Especially the cars one. Lib Dave (Steel) and Dem Dave (Owen) in a bubble-car turning left and right simultaneously. Genius. Labour caricatured as a committee trying to fix an obsolete Rover.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

Co-incidentally, I watched The Journey last night. Or as it's more popularly known, 'John Major The Movie'. At nine minutes, it's two to three times the length of modern PPBs, but very absorbing. It also has an authenticity to it that you don't seem to get these days.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

I didn't think the ad was THAT bad. But it does have that somewhat annoying, self-consciouly witty ambience that sometimes infects British humour, and is especially out of place in a political ad.

If you're trying to do negative, it doesn't help to get bogged down in an extended comedy skit with multiple characters and tropes. An attack-ad needs to be quick and dirty, like this...

His Choice

Perfect choice of footage at the end.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The problem here is that the elections are for the European Parliament, and the MEPs have no part in proposing legislation or executing it.

That is all in the hands of the European Commission, which is a sort of supplementary pension scheme for old political lags, and they get the ideas from the European civil service.

Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% pro-European, but until the legislative and executive branches are directly democratically elected there's little for parties to do but mud-slinging.

More or less, radio 4 stats program, analysed the UKIP claim the 75% of uk law comes from Brussels, they found its source is actually a claim by european officials the the european parliament is closely involved in the creation 75% of European legislation.

Incidentally, they ran a similar feature and pointed out this same information to UKIP some years ago.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Four days left to listen again to that episode of More or Less entitled British Law: Made in Brussels?

38 degrees did a survey on voting and elections - and presented it to a Government select committee blog report and video of the presentation. One of the things a lot of the respondents wanted was a none of the above option on voting slips, which somewhat horrified the select committee.

[ 08. May 2014, 07:04: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

Totally negative, nothing to do with the European elections, schoolboy humour (cYear 9 at best). And they wonder why people consider Labour unelectable.

This is what they signed up for with Axelrod - negative campaigning. I didn't think it was totally negative though. It did end with a "what Labour would do" section.

The thing I think they failed to do was to challenge the language of the current government. We're not "hard working families". We're just people with a right to be part of our communities and a right to contribute to the economy. That's what Labour should be standing up for; not some caricature of the other parties' split between the "hard working" deserving people and the, by implication, lazy other ones. That's where this campaign is going wrong.

And of course it's not about Europe. The European elections are just an excuse for the broadcast. All parties are fighting the 2015 general election by now.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

UKIP's billboards have an asterisk next to the 75% claim and the small print makes reference to a comment by Viviane Reding, the EU Commissioner. Don't know whether the programme looked at this?

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

Totally negative, nothing to do with the European elections, schoolboy humour (cYear 9 at best). And they wonder why people consider Labour unelectable.
This is what they signed up for with Axelrod - negative campaigning. I didn't think it was totally negative though. It did end with a "what Labour would do" section.

The thing I think they failed to do was to challenge the language of the current government. We're not "hard working families". We're just people with a right to be part of our communities and a right to contribute to the economy. That's what Labour should be standing up for; not some caricature of the other parties' split between the "hard working" deserving people and the, by implication, lazy other ones. That's where this campaign is going wrong.

And of course it's not about Europe. The European elections are just an excuse for the broadcast. All parties are fighting the 2015 general election by now.

AIUI, "hard working families" is actually a Labour line, which the coalition have gone hard on too so as not to get outflanked/not left behind. I may be wrong...

So we're back to "One Nation" - which is nothing if not Tory clothes anyway.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
One of the things a lot of the respondents wanted was a none of the above option on voting slips, which somewhat horrified the select committee.

I won't get a chance to watch the clip at least until this evening so could you summarise why they were so upset about a 'none of the above' option? (EDIT - please? [Smile]

)

In my ideal world, voting would be made compulsory (unless you had a good reason, like severe illness) and there would be a clear 'None of them, they're all a bunch of numpties' option. It'd be interesting to see how many people chose that option, I think...

[ 08. May 2014, 08:24: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]

Posted by barrea (# 3211) on :

I was disgusted with it. Not a word of their own policy just mocking the opposition. What good did they think it would do. Hopeless!¬and I used to vote Labour.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Glad I saw it - it was pathetic - won't stop me voting Labour though.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

‘What would happen if no-one is elected?'
The answer was send it back to the polls , with candidates campaigning again or new ones.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Negative campaigning certainly is the pits in my opinion.

I want someone to tell me why I should vote for them. And, have access to the resources to examine the reasons they present as a couple of minutes PPB or leaflet on the door step aren't sufficient.

If I see, say, a Labour broadcast that effectively says "don't vote Tory or Lib Dem" isn't it entirely reasonable that I therefore conclude the same advert could be saying "vote Green"? Which is quite likely what I'll do anyway.

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

If I see, say, a Labour broadcast that effectively says "don't vote Tory or Lib Dem" isn't it entirely reasonable that I therefore conclude the same advert could be saying "vote Green"?

Or UKIP

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The problem here is that the elections are for the European Parliament, and the MEPs have no part in proposing legislation or executing it.

That is all in the hands of the European Commission, which is a sort of supplementary pension scheme for old political lags, and they get the ideas from the European civil service.

Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% pro-European, but until the legislative and executive branches are directly democratically elected there's little for parties to do but mud-slinging.
More or less, radio 4 stats program, analysed the UKIP claim the 75% of uk law comes from Brussels, they found its source is actually a claim by european officials the the european parliament is closely involved in the creation 75% of European legislation.

Incidentally, they ran a similar feature and pointed out this same information to UKIP some years ago.

My Italics

I wonder what "closely involved in" really means. Is it any more than our committee stage, which is very detailed but nothing whatsoever to do with formulating policy? And nothing whatsoever to do with any executive activity.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

The Commission has to draft all legislation. The Parliament has power to amend or reject bills put before it by the Commission, and has the power to ask the Commission to draft bills.

Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :

Could we petition to ban political broadcasts, posters and junk mail from.....wait, could we just ban them?

What I originally had in mind was to say ban them from mentioning the names or policies of other parties standing in the same election.

If we are stuck with a party system then I would rather they stand on their own policies rather than lean on others in an attempt to push their opponents down and effectively say "vote for me, I'm the default option because the others are incompetent/evil"

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The problem here is that the elections are for the European Parliament, and the MEPs have no part in proposing legislation or executing it.

That is all in the hands of the European Commission, which is a sort of supplementary pension scheme for old political lags, and they get the ideas from the European civil service.

Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% pro-European, but until the legislative and executive branches are directly democratically elected there's little for parties to do but mud-slinging.

Yep to all of this.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
Could we petition to ban political broadcasts, posters and junk mail from.....wait, could we just ban them?

In a democracy the electorate should be casting informed votes. That means we need to receive information from all candidates on what they would do if elected, what their policies would be, etc. Therefore, we need informative election material. The problem is that much of what we get is distinctly uninformative. Which means we end up voting without all the information we need to make our decision on polling day.

Negative campaigning presumably is effective in increasing the vote for the party using such tactics, if it was ineffective they wouldn't be campaigning that way. But, IMO, it is ineffective in fostering democracy.

Is it any wonder that many people consider all politicians to be a bunch of useless tossers looking out for their own interests and not the interests of those they represent when political campaigns tell us that other politicians are a bunch of useless tossers? If politicians stood up and said "if elected this is what I will do", and when elected work damn hard to try and do what they said, people might have a better regard for politicians and the political process. Maybe that's the secret to increasing voter turn out without introducing compulsory voting.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I'm not really party to the inner thinking in the Labour Party, but I don't understand this:

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
But given the lousy hand that Ed was dealt in 2010 (Blairites tend to overlook that the Labour Party lost the general election and that most people outwith the Labour party feuds regard Blair and Brown as much of a muchness) I think that he has a decent chance of winning the next election.
Do Blairites really not understand that Labour lost in 2010? After all, it wasn't the Blairites with their hand on the tiller when Labour lost that election.

Blairites tend to think that had Tony, or if push comes to shove, David had been in charge then Labour would have won.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In a democracy the electorate should be casting informed votes. That means we need to receive information from all candidates on what they would do if elected, what their policies would be, etc. Therefore, we need informative election material. The problem is that much of what we get is distinctly uninformative. Which means we end up voting without all the information we need to make our decision on polling day.

Negative campaigning presumably is effective in increasing the vote for the party using such tactics, if it was ineffective they wouldn't be campaigning that way. But, IMO, it is ineffective in fostering democracy.

Is it any wonder that many people consider all politicians to be a bunch of useless tossers looking out for their own interests and not the interests of those they represent when political campaigns tell us that other politicians are a bunch of useless tossers? If politicians stood up and said "if elected this is what I will do", and when elected work damn hard to try and do what they said, people might have a better regard for politicians and the political process. Maybe that's the secret to increasing voter turn out without introducing compulsory voting.

Yes, this. If only....

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

One of the big problems with positive campaigning ("here is what we would do if we win") is that governments routinely ignore what they have promised when they come into power, and even if they do not, they push some of their promises so far to the back of their agenda that they have no chance of happening before the next election. I think that an election is ample chance for parties and candidates to "consult the public" on their policies. I also think that the parties represented in Parliament should introduce the bills on their manifestos in Parliament, debate them, and work on them in committee as much as they are able to do even if in opposition. This way, if a party gets a majority in an election, they should implement all of their domestic policies immediately. Foreign and military policy depends on the actions of other countries and can therefore be modified and delayed based on conditions after the election. But failing to immediately enact the comprehensive domestic agenda that a party promised if it is elected to a majority should be as egregious as the Queen refusing to give royal assent to a bill passed by the elected representatives of the people in Parliament.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Two words: Civil Service.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% pro-European, but until the legislative and executive branches are directly democratically elected there's little for parties to do but mud-slinging.

But what would a directly elected executive look like? The current system, bent as it is, does at least ensure that every country has a voice on the Commission. If the executive were chosen Westminster-style from the European Parliament, then you could theoretically have an executive with no British representative on it if it was possible to create a majority coalition without British MEPs. And it would be quite easy to get a coalition without any MEPs from the smaller countries.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Better to ditch the whole EU.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% pro-European, but until the legislative and executive branches are directly democratically elected there's little for parties to do but mud-slinging.
But what would a directly elected executive look like? The current system, bent as it is, does at least ensure that every country has a voice on the Commission. If the executive were chosen Westminster-style from the European Parliament, then you could theoretically have an executive with no British representative on it if it was possible to create a majority coalition without British MEPs. And it would be quite easy to get a coalition without any MEPs from the smaller countries.

We get a similar situation in the UK. With the exception of national governments Northern Ireland has had no part in any cabinet since partition and until this coalition, governments were either Scotland, Wales and urban England or almost entirely England.

I'm sure some formula could be arrived at to parcel the jobs amongst the different countries and parties: if as disparate a country as Lebanon can do it, I'm sure Europe can.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
... This way, if a party gets a majority in an election, they should implement all of their domestic policies immediately. Foreign and military policy depends on the actions of other countries and can therefore be modified and delayed based on conditions after the election. But failing to immediately enact the comprehensive domestic agenda that a party promised if it is elected to a majority should be as egregious as the Queen refusing to give royal assent to a bill passed by the elected representatives of the people in Parliament.

Stonespring, do you really believe that? It's Harold Wilson's 'we have a mandate' argument on speed.

In case that reference doesn't mean anything these days, the late Harold Wilson took the line that because something was mentioned on page 35 line 18b of the party manifesto, anyone, in another party or even his own, who imposed his bringing it into effect was obstructing the views of the electorate.

If that were a legitimate rather than an indefensible argument, how would you vote if there was a party you agreed with on about 80% of their policies but thought the other 20% were seriously pernicious. Or do you think that obliges you to spoil your ballot paper?

It's also, incidentally, naive in the same way as those Conservatives who moaned after our last election that 'it wasn't fair. I voted Conservative but we haven't got a Conservative government'. Or those who think the Lib Dems have let down the electorate because as part of the price of coalition, they have had to go along with Conservative policy on tuition fees.

My apologies that all three of these examples are from my own political system, but I don't really understand how these things work under an executive presidential system.

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
[QUOTE]those who think the Lib Dems have let down the electorate because as part of the price of coalition, they have had to go along with Conservative policy on tuition fees.

Not let down the electorate - let down the students.

Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
[QUOTE]those who think the Lib Dems have let down the electorate because as part of the price of coalition, they have had to go along with Conservative policy on tuition fees.

Not let down the electorate - let down the students.

Students are part of the electorate. And there would still be many (myself included) who are part of the electorate but who are no longer students who feel betrayed by the Lib Dems.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
Lazy, shit thread titles wind me up. How could anyone guess from the title that this thread was about a UK political party broadcast?

That's the point of a title - to say what the subject of the discussion is. If we can't guess it's a shit thread title.

I like the Ship for its quirky thread titles, I am on some forums where they insist on clear subject titles - boring boring.

As to the OP yes, dreadful PPB. When it was on I thought 'getting more like USA politics by the year'.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

That's fair criticism, but it doesn't get over the simple fact that if no party gets an overall majority, you have to have some sort of coalition. Which means for those who voted Conservative or Lib Dem, that you get some of what you voted for, in stead of none of it. Is that better or worse than being a Labour voter who gets none of what they voted for? Or do we prefer to be able to sit in a corner in a pub and chunter on about how better the country would be if I was running it?

My personal view, is that I wouldn't like to see either the Conservatives or Labour in control in the next Parliament with an overall majority. I happen to think the country has worked better and the electorate has been better off with a NOC government than it would have been with either of the two largest parties.

Also, for what it's worth, although this has been deteriorating recently, for most of the present Parliament, the quality of political debate and journalism has been less fervid and febrile than during the previous one.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I'd seen the PPB so had no probs with the title. The PPB was indeed the pits. Made my postal vote just after watching it. Had visions of Jack Bauer let loose in One Brewers Green, with the shade of Nye Bevan cheering him on. Took some of the pain away.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Enoch wrote:

quote:
In case that reference doesn't mean anything these days, the late Harold Wilson took the line that because something was mentioned on page 35 line 18b of the party manifesto, anyone, in another party or even his own, who imposed his bringing it into effect was obstructing the views of the electorate.

If that were a legitimate rather than an indefensible argument, how would you vote if there was a party you agreed with on about 80% of their policies but thought the other 20% were seriously pernicious. Or do you think that obliges you to spoil your ballot paper?

Actually, I am of the opinion that, if something was mentioned in the party's manifesto(Page 35 or anywhere else) then the party, upon attaining government, does have the moral right to implement the policy, regardless of how many of their voters wanted that particular policy.

Because otherwise, you're saying that the party is morally obligated to put post-election opinion polls ahead of election results.

quote:
how would you vote if there was a party you agreed with on about 80% of their policies but thought the other 20% were seriously pernicious. Or do you think that obliges you to spoil your ballot paper?

This is where voters need to be canny to the realities of the political game. If the 20% is a deal-breaker for you, and you think it is likely that the party will try to implement it, you should spoil your ballot.

But, in many cases, the voters will gamble that the 20% is such whacked-out or antiquated policy, that the party, for reasons of political expediency, will never try to put it into practice, eg. "Distribute Danish erotica in school libraries? That's just some crazy hippie stuff left over from the 1970s. They'll never do that, and the rest of their platform is pretty sensible, so I'll vote for them anyway."

Now, if the government DOES decide to stock Danish erotica in school libraries, the voters can't complain that the decision was undemocratic. The government WAS given permission to do that. Of course, the voters also maintain the right to vote the government out in the next election.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
We get a similar situation in the UK. With the exception of national governments Northern Ireland has had no part in any cabinet since partition and until this coalition, governments were either Scotland, Wales and urban England or almost entirely England.

True, but the UK is a single sovereign state. It doesn't claim to be an association of sovereign states.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
UKIP's billboards have an asterisk next to the 75% claim and the small print makes reference to a comment by Viviane Reding, the EU Commissioner. Don't know whether the programme looked at this?

Yes they did.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

The job of the opposition is to oppose, it goes with the territory: It is why they are called opposition.

Opposition woks in two ways — saying what the opposition is doing wrong and suggesting an alternative. What I see above in this thread are a lot of people saying that the party election broadcast should have been all about the latter, and isn't it terrible that it was all about the former.

But I was disappointed with this broadcast for a different reason, it was about domestic politics under the guise of a broadcast bout the European elections. It was bad because it wasn't relevant to the election it was about.

That they chose to use a satirical style that was reminiscent of Spitting Image is not the point, (though it was more Luck and Flaw than Fluck and Law). The point is that this is the election of the European Parliament, not the national one.

The election broadcast was not relevant to the election. That is why it was wrong, not because it lampooned the government.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

But, Labour are not the Opposition in the European Parliament. So, the "that's what opposition does" argument doesn't hold. Though, as it seemed more like a very early broadcast for the next UK general election rather than for the coming European election, maybe it could be seen as a broadcast by the Opposition.

But, if it was an Opposition broadcast surely the effect is to say "in Opposition we will continue to criticise the Government". Setting themselves up for prime position to be the Opposition after the next election. Shouldn't the Labour Party be setting their sights higher and aim for Government rather than Opposition?

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
The election broadcast was not relevant to the election. That is why it was wrong, not because it lampooned the government.

Would I be correct in surimisng(from my vantage point at the opposite end of the Eurasian landmass) that the European elections are of relatively slight interest to British voters? And, as such, the party likely figured that they might as well just use the campaign to kickstart the next UK elections?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Stetson,

Sadly, you're probably correct. European Parliamentary elections are generally of even less interest to voters than any other election - not that the UK electorate appear to be enthusiastic about any election.

So, yes the current round of political broadcasts and campaigning has a feel of warming up for the next general election. The vote itself will most likely be viewed as not much more than an opinion poll on domestic UK politics.

Of course, when those standing for election in the European Parliament seem to demonstrate a very low regard for the EP and behave as though it's just a glorified opinion poll and a chance to warm up before the elections that mean something it's little wonder the electorate appear to believe the same.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, the European elections have become very peculiar; partly, I think, because one's MEP and the European Parliament seem very abstract and far away to many people.

So the elections have become anything but an election to a parliament; they provide a way to let off steam, to say fuck off to politicians; to register a protest vote and so on.

I bet that many politicians dread them, and can't wait for the 'real thing'. Yet they also can be important, as showing trends in voting. So if the Tories come third or whatever, there will be moaning and groaning in the shires no doubt, whilst also, some discounting of it as not real.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Sadly, you're probably correct. European Parliamentary elections are generally of even less interest to voters than any other election

Probably because they make absolutely no difference to anything whatsoever.

It's like the good folk of Lincolnshire being asked to elect one member of a sixteen-member parliamentary subcommittee that will do the proofreading of every third bill that passes through the House. Wow! How important is it to put aside all other plans and commitments so that you can be a part of that decision!

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Apparently Nigel Farage is my MEP. Never heard from him at all and not sure what sort of issue I would contact him about.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

European Parliament elections can also be an opportunity to vote on the single issue of European Union. Those parties with very clear positions on that issue - whether to leave or integrate further - will tend to collect more votes than they would expect in any other election.

Labour and Conservatives are pretty much divided within their own party regarding Europe, and no one really knows where they stand. UKIP are clearly seen as being anti-Europe (indeed, I doubt most people would even be able to think up a single other issue they have a position on, except perhaps immigration). LibDems have been pro-Europe, but their support has collapsed recently and they may see this as a chance to make up lost ground by trying to intice people back to them as the major pro-Europe party. The SNP are pro-Europe generally (though again Independence from the UK is now centre stage for their policy), I don't know about PC in Wales. The Greens are generally pro-Europe too, although with a very different vision for European structures and roles than the current system.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Apparently Nigel Farage is my MEP. Never heard from him at all and not sure what sort of issue I would contact him about.

You need to find a human rights issue (what with there being a European Court just for that). Preferably one involving someone being deported from the UK. Then demand that he fulfil his duty in representing his constituents by campaigning in Europe to prevent deportation.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

But the ECHR is nothing directly to do with the EU.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Ah, but that means you can find out if Nigel Farage knows that.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Ok a bit off topic...but if the 2015 UK elections were held today, what would the results be? I've heard that the LibDems will likely be smashed, but will that mean a Labour majority? A Tory majority? Or another hung parliament?

Posted by Heavenly Anarchist (# 13313) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Ok a bit off topic...but if the 2015 UK elections were held today, what would the results be? I've heard that the LibDems will likely be smashed, but will that mean a Labour majority? A Tory majority? Or another hung parliament?

Small Labour majority according to UK Polling Report. This is one of my favourite political sites because it's purpose is purely to discuss polling and it is run by a YouGov political analyst.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

Most such predictions aren't worth much, but I would put the most likely outcome as a small Labour majority.

If Scotland votes for independence, the numbers shift a bit, but Labour can probably still get by with the support of Plaid Cymru. I think they'll do almost anything to avoid doing a deal with Clegg.

It's not impossible that things could shift enough in the next year to produce a Conservative majority, but some external event would have to happen to trigger that.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

If Scotland votes for independence the work of actually making that happen will take long enough that there will be another General Election before independence is achieved. At present, although the Yes campaign have offered a vision of an Independent Scotland retaining EU membership, the GBP, sharing in the costs of Research Councils etc there is no guarantee any of these will happen because the necessary negotiations can't start until after the votes are counted in September. I always wanted a two stage process - 1) a Scottish referendum "do you want the Scottish Government to enter negotiations on Independence?", 2) and UK referendum "do you want Independence on the terms negotiated by the Scottish Government?" But, you rarely (if ever) get what you want. It's like voting for an MP/MSP/MEP ... you vote for the person that's closest to your views on the issues most important to you, you won't get someone agreeing with you on everything unless you yourself stand as an independent (independent because otherwise your views will be compromised to an extent by needing to tow a party line).

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

It's not impossible that things could shift enough in the next year to produce a Conservative majority, but some external event would have to happen to trigger that.

Or we just drift towards the election with enough people feeling increasingly better off, and when it comes down to it not trusting the two Eds to run the country.

Labour's big problems are that its lead is nowhere near where it should be at this point in the cycle, the Budget proved that overall even that lead is pretty soft, they're actually *behind* on which party's leader would make the better Prime Minister, and *behind* on economic management (which are the two big ones). The difference between what people say now, and what they're going to do when it comes down to it in May 2015 are two different things.

FWIW, whilst being unaligned myself, I know a variety of Westminster staffers from all three parties, and from chats at the weekend I get the distinct impression that the Tories are really quite chipper in the past few weeks, and the Labourites are increasingly hitting the gin with, to paraphrase Labour commentator Dan Hodges? at the weekend (someone like that anyway), the distinct uneasy feeling that they may just have blown it....

The LibDems I know have pretty much started looking for other jobs.

As the Independent said at the weekend, next year's election could be the most interesting for decades, because no one really knows what's going to happen, and it's a brave person who'd call it now.

HST, I do increasingly think small Tory majority (if the Liberals collapse enough in some Blue/Orange marginals), or Tories as largest party overall in a hung Parliament. To the extent that I'm quite tempted to put actual money on it as the prices are pretty keen.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Apparently Nigel Farage is my MEP. Never heard from him at all and not sure what sort of issue I would contact him about.

Which real ale to try next?

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Any else find it ironic that in the same week as possibly the worst PEB ever, even by the Labour Party, Ed Miliband is all over the news talking about his new-found intellectual self-confidence?

You couldn't make it up [Killing me]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0