Support NeoGAF

[Tak3n]

Michael Heseltine on daily politics...

he expects to gain some of the UKIP vote on polling day as well as some swing back vote as people face the choice in the ballot box

 

[Goodlife]

That'll do.



There was a question (admittedly to Ed Milliband but could equally have been asked of Dave) on that Question Time thingy last week where an audience member said, "Do you know how much respect you'd get if you respected the public's intelligence and actually talked about what you'll do when you don't get a majority?".

All this:

"What if you don't get a majority?"

"But I want a majority"

"Yeah, but you obviously won't get one"

"But I want a majority!"

is starting to tick me off.

Labour have said though they'll just try for minority government.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I dunno what's getting the Tories hard atm. In 2010 they had a pretty significant list of reforms they wanted to conduct which, like em or loathe em, were fairly radical in their shake up of established areas of policy. There doesn't seem to be anything like that this time, so I'm not totally sure what would even be in a coalition agreement.

 

[kmag]

I dunno what's getting the Tories hard atm. In 2010 they had a pretty significant list of reforms they wanted to conduct which, like em or loathe em, were fairly radical in their shake up of established areas of policy. There doesn't seem to be anything like that this time, so I'm not totally sure what would even be in a coalition agreement.

EU referendum, and that's about the only red line Dave has put down.

 

[Hasney]

Big Dave still has the look of a man that wants out.

 

[RedShift]

EU referendum, and that's about the only red line Dave has put down.

It doesn't seem like he even really cares about that though, it's just a ploy to help stop haemorrhaging (sp?) votes to UKIP.

 

[iMax]

Imagine if Littlejohn and Hopkins had a baby.

 

[Stevie Gerrard]

There's going to be a lot of "Confused loser tries to steal award" on friday, from both sides

 

[CyclopsRock]

Imagine if Littlejohn and Hopkins had a baby.

Imagine the sex. Imagine it.

 

[CCS]

I feel like the Lib Dems really don't understand why people don't want to vote for them. For me at least, it's not tuition fees or anything specific they've done in government. It's the fact that I don't want the Tories in power, and so while I would have voted for them when they were a left wing party as an alternative to Labour, I won't vote for them if there's a possibility of them forming a coalition with the Tories. It's that simple. And I imagine there are a lot of liberals who feel the same.

 

[Mr Git]

Imagine if Littlejohn and Hopkins had a baby.

The British public would probably ask for an in/out referendum.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I feel like the Lib Dems really don't understand why people don't want to vote for them. For me at least, it's not tuition fees or anything specific they've done in government. It's the fact that I don't want the Tories in power, and so while I would have voted for them when they were a left wing party as an alternative to Labour, I won't vote for them if there's a possibility of them forming a coalition with the Tories. It's that simple. And I imagine there are a lot of liberals who feel the same.

I think Clegg understand, he's just not particularly leftwing himself so the prospect of not being in government to espouse policies he doesn't agree with anyway doesn't seem attractive to him. It's why Sheffield Hallam is the single most important contest this election.

 

[CCS]

I think Clegg understand, he's just not particularly leftwing himself so the prospect of not being in government to espouse policies he doesn't agree with anyway doesn't seem attractive to him. It's why Sheffield Hallam is the single most important contest this election.

Which is the main reason I hope he loses. I miss Charles Kennedy.

 

[FlammableD]

Imagine the sex. Imagine it.

 

[mclem]

Imagine if Littlejohn and Hopkins had a baby.

You'd want to double-check that forehead for any conspicuous digits.

 

[Humidex]

Imagine the sex. Imagine it.

Thanks. Just having lunch here.

*ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww*

 

[MrChom]

I don't really want to say anything, I just feel like this gif deserves a second run for when the image it's associated with rears its ugly head in your mind once more.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

For this election, we can add:

Sun/Daily Herald: Conservative
Express: Conservative
Mail: Conservative
Mirror: Labour
Telegraph: Conservative
Independent: Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition
The Times: [don't think they've issued an endorsement yet?]
Guardian: Labour

Not included in the graphic above, but the Economist endorsed Conservative in every election since 1955 excepting 1964, 2001, and 2005, when they endorsed Labour, and this election, where they've endorsed a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition. The Financial Times endorsed Conservative in every election since the war excepting 1992, 1997, 2001, and 2005, when they backed Labour, and this election, where they've endorsed a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition.

 

[kitch9]

Damn, you got me. I was listening to that in the car on Saturday.

You're right, it was brilliant. I should've credited them



Yeah, they've got their reasons of course. But I still find it frustrating.

I've heard a few political commentators saying that this election could be "transformative". Well, let's hope eh?

Post election is going to be a big cluster fuck as it is without the increased cluster fuck of trying to say what will happen based on speculation.

 

[N7Commander95]

I seriously think that the overtly negative rhetoric against Miliband has been the Conservatives (and the rights) own worst enemy.

Its reaching the stage where people are getting pretty sick of it. If the actually wanted to succeed then the insults should have been kept in the periphery, rather than the front and centre of the right wing media and the conservatives methods.

 

[Tak3n]

I seriously think that the overtly negative rhetoric against Miliband has been the Conservatives (and the rights) own worst enemy.

Its reaching the stage where people are getting pretty sick of it. If the actually wanted to succeed then the insults should have been kept in the periphery, rather than the front and centre of the right wing media and the conservatives methods.

policy deflection, simple.... keep bashing your opponent so the spotlight does not stay on what you are going to do

 

[Thornton Reed]

we have a hell of a lot right wing news outlets

 

[N7Commander95]

policy deflection, simple.... keep bashing your opponent so the spotlight does not stay on what you are going to do

Yeah, its just, it was son ineptly done that you have to wonder who thought up the strategy.
They played the cards way to early

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I have to admit I was pretty shocked by the Guardian's 1955 endorsement of the Conservative party. They advocated voting for Eden, the fuck was happening in the office that day? But yeah, we do have far too many rightwing media outlets in the traditional media.

 

[King_Moc]

I have to admit I was pretty shocked by the Guardian's 1955 endorsement of the Conservative party. They advocated voting for Eden, the fuck was happening in the office that day? But yeah, we do have far too many rightwing media outlets in the traditional media.

The idea of a newspaper advocating anyone at all is disgusting. It's supposed to news, not opinion, yet they openly admit they'll be subjecting events to their own politics filter.

 

[anonymous_abc]

For this election, we can add:

Sun/Daily Herald: Conservative
Express: Conservative
Mail: Conservative
Mirror: Labour
Telegraph: Conservative
Independent: Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition
The Times: [don't think they've issued an endorsement yet?]
Guardian: Labour

Not included in the graphic above, but the Economist endorsed Conservative in every election since 1955 excepting 1964, 2001, and 2005, when they endorsed Labour, and this election, where they've endorsed a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition. The Financial Times endorsed Conservative in every election since the war excepting 1992, 1997, 2001, and 2005, when they backed Labour, and this election, where they've endorsed a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition.

Do these papers literally come out and endorse a party or is this more just implicit through their reporting?
Because it just seems super weird to me that a newspaper would endorse a party directly. Not something I believe happens in Germany.

 

[CyclopsRock]

The idea of a newspaper advocating anyone at all is disgusting. It's supposed to news, not opinion, yet they openly admit they'll be subjecting events to their own politics filter.

Eh, I'm not sure it's up to you to decide what a publication is "supposed" to do.

 

[Thornton Reed]

Do these papers literally come out and endorse a party or is this more just implicit through their reporting?
Because it just seems super weird to me that a newspaper would endorse a party directly. Not something I believe happens in Germany.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Do these papers literally come out and endorse a party or is this more just implicit through their reporting?
Because it just seems super weird to me that a newspaper would endorse a party directly. Not something I believe happens in Germany.

Endorse directly, as in they have an editorial saying "We think it would be best for the country if you voted X". And yes, the United Kingdom has a famously interventionist and pugilistic media, I don't think there are very many equivalents in other countries. Certainly, our media is stranger than our political system.

 

[N7Commander95]

Sooooo yeah. That cover is . . . something else

Its like a fucking satire on what a Sun newspaper endorsement would look like

 

[SteveWD40]

It's one of the reasons I love the idea of print media dying out. Toxic influence on our system and hopefully waning in power (couldn't get Cameron in majority when the stars were aligned in his favour).

 

[Timbuktu]

Endorse directly, as in they have an editorial saying "We think it would be best for the country if you voted X". And yes, the United Kingdom has a famously interventionist and pugilistic media, I don't think there are very many equivalents in other countries. Certainly, our media is stranger than our political system.

It is just the papers though, since the BBC is already biased towards everyone, and they are in decline. Their influence were probably overstated as well, the Sun probably just chose whoever was more likely to win.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Eh, I'm not sure it's up to you to decide what a publication is "supposed" to do.

Don't you find it a little worrying that there has only been a single election (2001) in which print media did not endorse the Conservatives? I know you're libertarian, if a little less of one these days, but people's ability to make free and fair decisions is tempered by the information they have available to them. If information-providers have an incentive to only provide certain sorts of information, then other people's freedoms are severely constrained as a result. Obviously there's a problem with dictating to any single individual publication, as each one in their own right does not constitute the problem, but it's the case of the camel's back under a thousand straws - it's not a problem when one publication does it, but when the overwhelming majority of them all do it together, it seems like you should maybe rethink how the system is structured.

 

[Mr Git]

For this election, we can add:

Sun/Daily Herald: Conservative
Express: Conservative
Mail: Conservative
Mirror: Labour
Telegraph: Conservative
Independent: Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition
The Times: [don't think they've issued an endorsement yet?]
Guardian: Labour

Not included in the graphic above, but the Economist endorsed Conservative in every election since 1955 excepting 1964, 2001, and 2005, when they endorsed Labour, and this election, where they've endorsed a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition. The Financial Times endorsed Conservative in every election since the war excepting 1992, 1997, 2001, and 2005, when they backed Labour, and this election, where they've endorsed a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition.

The print press is seemingly abundant with right wing endorsements. It will be interesting to see in the future how social media will change that. I suspect some of the major sites will have just as much swaying power as some of the papers, in terms of readership.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Post election is going to be a big cluster fuck as it is without the increased cluster fuck of trying to say what will happen based on speculation.

How would it increase the clusterfuck to discuss the actual likely outcomes of the election honestly? In other countries where coalitions are more common, they apparently talk more openly, pre-election, on who they would be willing to work with and what they would be willing to compromise on. I think that'd help people make a slightly more informed vote. Pretending that any party is even remotely close to a majority is just patronising at this point.

 

[Tak3n]

Clegg really is trying to sell his party to anyone

There’ll be a second general election before Christmas if the Liberal Democrats aren’t in government, Nick Clegg is claiming. He’s suggesting one-party minority governments are doomed to fail: Labour would not be able to survive without granting full fiscal autonomy to the SNP, while the Conservatives would have to either slash aid spending, hold an EU referendum this year or buy DUP votes – all unacceptable moves, the Lib Dems claim. Here’s what Mr Clegg has to say:



If they try to stagger through with a messy and unstable minority government instead of putting the country first then they will risk all the hard work and sacrifices people have made over the last five years. The last thing Britain needs is a second election before Christmas. But that is exactly what will happen if Ed Miliband and David Cameron put their own political interest ahead of the national interest.

 

[War Peaceman]

Do you think many people are persuaded by endorsements? Outside of maybe the FT/economist/spectator I would wager most consumers of particular papers are so because of their ideological agreement. Aka preaching to the converted.

 

[Mr Git]

How would it increase the clusterfuck to discuss the actual likely outcomes of the election honestly? In other countries where coalitions are more common, they apparently talk more openly, pre-election, on who they would be willing to work with and what they would be willing to compromise on. I think that'd help people make a slightly more informed vote. Pretending that any party is even remotely close to a majority is just patronising at this point.

I would much, much prefer this. It was grating in the QT debate when Miliband was adamant there wouldn't be a coalition, even when pressed by that member of the audience. I'd imagine the vitriol in the press has had a very negative impact on it, but I would genuinely prefer coalition systems like those in other countries. Clegg is the only one making any sort of coalition cledges, but even then it's paper thin bullshit enveloped in some ironic Oz metaphor.

 

[SteveWD40]

Clegg really is trying to sell his party to anyone

"I really like my cabinet job and would sell my soul to keep it"

 

[mclem]

we have a hell of a lot right wing news outlets

It amuses me that the direct ideological opposite to the Telegraph is not, as you might think, the Guardian, but is in fact the Mirror.

 

[War Peaceman]

There's something admirable about Clegg's dogged refusal to give up. He's maybe the most disliked figure in UK politics with very few advocates at all and yet he still keeps going.

 

[RedShift]

Eh, I'm not sure it's up to you to decide what a publication is "supposed" to do.

Still, the fact people pay money for papers that are openly biased is just sad.

It shouldn't be banned, but we should have a culture that doesn't stand for it.

I'm looking forward to the death of print media a lot.

 

[mclem]

If there is a Lib/Con coalition again, but Clegg loses his seat / is forced to resign from party leadership over poor results, how will deputy PM be selected? A temp one replaced when the LDs have a new leader?

 

[broadwayrock]

Has Lee Evans gone into wrestling?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Do you think many people are persuaded by endorsements? Outside of maybe the FT/economist/spectator I would wager most consumers of particular papers are so because of their ideological agreement. Aka preaching to the converted.

I strongly disagree. If people only bought particular papers because of their ideological leanings, then the Conservatives would never lose elections and certainly wouldn't have failed to hold a majority since 1995. As it happens, I think most people just don't really care very much about politics. They'll vote because they think they should and read enough to be able to justify their vote to themselves, but it's much less important than all of the other things they might care about - sports scores, celebrity gossip, book reviews, those random news stories of the day about dogs driving tractors, all those kinds of things. That's why people buy newspapers, and so they buy newspapers according to which provides those things best.

That's why the Sun sells - not because people necessarily agree with the Sun particularly but just because the Sun does all of the above pretty well and political considerations come last for most newspaper consumers. That means (certain) newspapers do actually wield a fair amount of influence. They capture a particular audience for non-political reasons, and then have an opportunity to provide them with a particular political mindset. It's a mistake to assume that most people are like we are in this thread and care about this stuff at a deep level. I think YouGOV did a series of polls on political engagement and found that, for example, only 7% of people can name our Shadow Home Secretary in the last two months of an election campaign, someone who has a very high chance of being one of the most important political figures on the country and has been engaged in five years of very high profile debate with Theresa May.

I think this argument is probably less true for the Guardian, the Telegraph, the Times, and the broadsheets in general - they're often more explicitly focused on political news, politics, and current affairs proper in general. I'd agree that people who buy those probably are buying them more for political reasons, and therefore more to get opinions they already agree with. However, for tabloids I think this is not true at all, and I actually think that the British tabloids are one of the most poisonous aspects of our democracy and genuinely harmful to the development of good politics, regardless of your political leanings.

 

[War Peaceman]

Still, the fact people pay money for papers that are openly biased is just sad.

It shouldn't be banned, but we should have a culture that doesn't stand for it.

I'm looking forward to the death of print media a lot.

I don't see the problem with open bias. If it is transparent then you can choose to avoid or select on that basis.

 

[Tak3n]

If there is a Lib/Con coalition again, but Clegg loses his seat / is forced to resign from party leadership over poor results, how will deputy PM be selected? A temp one replaced when the LDs have a new leader?

by all reports since the tories have urged their voters to help him he now has a 7 point lead, it did get close, but then the tories panicked as they want him in charge (says a lot how they feel they can push him around IMO) so it is looking a lot safer for him than it was 4 days ago

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I don't see the problem with open bias. If it is transparent then you can choose to avoid or select on that basis.

This isn't true or at least is only partially true because newspapers aren't really a good so much as a bundle of goods. They don't just give you political news, they also give you sports news, celebrity news, book news, TV news, music news, and so on. If you like all of the latter enough to ignore a former that may not appeal to or you, or more probably if you like all of the latter and have yet to form a strong opinion about the former (describing most of this country), then people don't really avoid or select on the basis, or don't care enough to as much as they might otherwise.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

I would much, much prefer this. It was grating in the QT debate when Miliband was adamant there wouldn't be a coalition, even when pressed by that member of the audience. I'd imagine the vitriol in the press has had a very negative impact on it, but I would genuinely prefer coalition systems like those in other countries. Clegg is the only one making any sort of coalition cledges, but even then it's paper thin bullshit enveloped in some ironic Oz metaphor.

I'm definitely in favour of referring to them as cledges from now on!

 

[Par Score]

Littlejohn in the Mail has gone full retard.

Pointing out hypocrisy at the Daily Mail is pointless, and like shooting fish in a barrel, but:

Exhibit A: Labour are not the party who treated Savile like the nation's babysitter.

Exhibit B: The Mail don't seem quite so keen on other people making Savile comparisons.

It really is the vilest of vile rags, and Littlejohn is the scummy cherry on top.