-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
May 7th | UK General Election 2015 OT - Please go vote!
- Thread starter Volotaire
- Start date
- Status
Miles Quaritch
Member
I'm wondering, why is Gove the one doing the rounds on the various news channels/shows?
Where's Cameron? Cunt? Hunt? IBS?
Where's Cameron? Cunt? Hunt? IBS?
JonathanEx
Member
Gove's job is effectively just the Conservative Punching Bag. No real name wants to do interviews as they might get challenged or it could go badly, but Gove is in the center of the venn diagram of 'Big enough name so it doesn't seem like they chickened out' / 'Not of enough note for anyone outside the bubble to give a shit' / 'Almost important enough to be in the loop' / 'What he says has zero importance whatsoever'.
I've been wanting to buy a freehold house for a while, but working as a freelancer in the games industry (dialogue editing and production) makes it very hard for me to do so. Though I work from home a lot, it is vital that I have a reasonably priced rail commute link to London for one of my work sources that I work on-site with.
Not to mention the struggle for freelancers to secure mortgages in the first place, for the amount of work that I can secure in a year (which pays well but is on-off due to project schedules and the general need for my services), I can only afford either far up north or the degenerate areas of the Midlands, both of which have no viable commute to London.
Unless the ruling parties plan to sell freehold property within a two hour commute of London for £40k to £60k, I can't deal with how the government handles this country. I'd hop over to to another abroad, but there's not much opportunity for me to do that due to how niche my work is.
Not to mention the struggle for freelancers to secure mortgages in the first place, for the amount of work that I can secure in a year (which pays well but is on-off due to project schedules and the general need for my services), I can only afford either far up north or the degenerate areas of the Midlands, both of which have no viable commute to London.
Unless the ruling parties plan to sell freehold property within a two hour commute of London for £40k to £60k, I can't deal with how the government handles this country. I'd hop over to to another abroad, but there's not much opportunity for me to do that due to how niche my work is.
Kinky John
Member
Which developed foreign countries sell property matching your criteria for £60k?
Everyone else has got a kicking or is an established liability enough to not want to do it.
It's pretty hard for the chief whip to say he doesn't believe in policies enough to do TV interviews. That's kinda the job description.
The only country beyond the UK I would consider buying in is the US, but that's a long distant dream with only the vaguest chance of happening.
Browsing Right Move, at the moment I can only afford buying a place in Northumberland (where my fathers side of the family is from, which is a benefit) or the shitholes of Lincolnshire (I'm from Lincoln and hate it with a passion). It's mad how prices hike up when you move further down the UK.
CyclopsRock
Member
Pret don't come for free.
Billy_Pilgrim
Member
Northumberland is god's country.
Mr. Luchador
Member
North-East is lovely, and a forgotten place. Only downside for Northumberland is the terrible internet connections. Plus, North-East has several game studios to work for including Ubisoft Reflections & an off-branch of CCP (which was formally a lot of Midway).
He's getting dumped as a Whip so I suspect he's taking on a broader role in the next parliament.
Jezbollah
Member
At the risk of going OT, what you're asking for was not realistic 20 years ago, let alone today. If you're a freelancer, you're going to have it tough to get any mortgage let alone one for 60k, and if you're looking at a reasonable commute from London you at the very least have to fork out another 100k if a house is what you really want. No party is going to make this easier for you.
jimbobsmells
Member
You may want to read the below:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/eamonnf...se-thats-what-home-prices-are-supposed-to-do/
And even if he royally messes up they can go with normal Tory policy towards Michael Gove and just disavow all knowledge of his existence within the party.
CyclopsRock
Member
Referendum has been their official position for... I dunno, but a long time for sure.
Ah I see I thought they just wanted to flat out leave with out holding a referendum.
The assumption being that we'd leave....meanwhile support for the EU has been rising for a while now.
QuicheFontaine
Member
To be fair, I think most UKIP policies are "fully-costed". They have a big pot of money marked "not giving this to foreigners". You may well disagree with the ethics of it, but at least they say where the money would come from.
Early on UKIP were a cross-party group set up specifically to get the UK to withdraw from the EU, but they were overshadowed in their first round of elections by the Referendum Party, who wanted a referendum (with the expectation that the people of Britain would vote in their favour, of course).
When the Referendum Party crumbled in 1997, UKIP got a lot of new supporters and pinched the idea of holding a referendum from them, I think.
Ah right thanks for the info.
real_slime
Banned
I know this is all old news, but I'm just looking at the outcomes and projections from the Liberal Democrats since Nick Clegg went into coalition with the Conservatives and, man, is there a substantial upside to that move I'm not seeing? Their support has been decimated all over the UK. What was the long term goal there?
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
The logic is, if UKIP get elected in any significant portion then the referendum result is going to say 'leave the EU'. Which is pretty sound logic, I think.
It shows them to be a legitimate party that can function whilst in power rather than just being idealistic. If they'd refused a coalition it would have looked way worse in my opinion. A bit of a poisoned chalice, I suppose. I think they've done a reasonable job in power as a lesser party (tuition promise/royal mail/AV aside). Their problem is that their big success is watering down the Tories, which is good but not a graspable, concrete achievement.
It shows them to be a legitimate party that can function whilst in power rather than just being idealistic. If they'd refused a coalition it would have looked way worse in my opinion. A bit of a poisoned chalice, I suppose. I think they've done a reasonable job in power as a lesser party (tuition promise/royal mail/AV aside). Their problem is that their big success is watering down the Tories, which is good but not a graspable, concrete achievement.
There's a lot wrong with the EU, but better in than out.
Jezbollah
Member
If a rebalancing of our existing commitments was promised as part of an IN vote, I would vote that way. If there is no rebalancing, I would probably find it hard to be persuaded by both sides for my vote to be honest.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
How can you guarantee a 'rebalancing' though?
Not talking about you specifically, but often people talk about renegotiating with EU as if we have all the power in the negotiation, which we wouldn't.
PJV3
Member
I have problems with the EU from a left wing perspective, but the overall idea of people and states coming together is something that I believe in.
Head says get out, heart says stay in, it might be worth it in the end. If Cameron gets his way and it becomes a free market and fuck everything else situation then I'm a certain get out.
industrian
will gently cradle you as time slowly ticks away.
Like anyone with a modicum of common sense, I'd vote against any measure taking us out of the largest economic and trading block in the world.
The EU isn't perfect, but it's impossible to change a system without being part of it.
That and here I was thinking that we were all ... "Better Together". ¯\_(ツ
_/¯I was going to say this pretty much mirrors my thoughts... but when I delved further I realised I don't actually understand in any great deal the pros and cons. Will get Googling, but if anyone has a link to an objective article I'd appreciate it.
I've been following this thread with interest, despite not being typically politically inclined. I've voted just once (local or general) in the time I've been eligible to vote... and that stretches to almost 24 years now. D:
QuicheFontaine
Member
I would vote to stay in, it is not all good but I think on the balance it is a net benefit overall.
As far as this election goes I am stuck between a rock and hard place. I live in a major conservative stronghold (>50% of the vote in 2010). Looking at the odds they have conservative at 1/100 and second is UKIP, who I refuse to vote for on principle, at 20/1. Lib Dems are at 28/1 and Labour is 100/1.
It is looking like my vote will not matter to be honest so not sure if I will even bother as I cannot really agree with any of them on the whole.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...n-left-the-eu-europe-politics-economy-culture
Reading this, and I think this nails what a referendum will be to the VAST majority of voters. :/
My current thought process is that we can in some way predict our future while still in the EU, and thus plan for it. We don't know what the ramifications will be if we leave (probably not the fire and brimstone of the first column in that link, but I'm sure there will be unpleasantness), and surely that's much more difficult to prepare for?
For now, I'm IN.
Reading this, and I think this nails what a referendum will be to the VAST majority of voters. :/
My current thought process is that we can in some way predict our future while still in the EU, and thus plan for it. We don't know what the ramifications will be if we leave (probably not the fire and brimstone of the first column in that link, but I'm sure there will be unpleasantness), and surely that's much more difficult to prepare for?
For now, I'm IN.
My view also.
My belief is though that this often touted Referendum needs to happen to put the issue to bed for a good while, one way or the other.
That's what sorely missing in the mainstream. Someone who outlines plausible pro's and cons. The focus on either of the two extremities just alienates the rational voter away from the argument and then you're left with the extremist voters.
It's still quite a risk, and it's not easy to gauge where the votes will go. Sadly, I know where the votes will go for a lot of people I know and that's what worries me.
I've considered myself entirely uninformed and this is why I've made a conscious decision in the past not to vote - it makes no sense for me to have a say if I don't fully understand what I'm voting for. Most people don't feel that way.
My parents for example have always voted Labour pretty much because THEIR parents voted Labour. This time out they'll probably vote UKIP because their most voiced policy (down with immigrants!) aligns with their own.
I'm rambling a little here. And yes, I did politely abuse them for voting UKIP in our local elections.
That you have the self-awareness to make this statement and element of care in the process makes you one of the people that entirely should vote, entirely because as you point out most people don't feel that way.
CyclopsRock
Member
Eh, they've never had a single policy of theirs implemented in government before, because they've never been in government. They may never do again, but I think constantly coming third is basically useless. I can't imagine who those Lib Dems are that have been members of the party their entire political life yet were still saying "No" to the coalition - what are they even in it for? Cheering from the sidelines?
I agree. There's a whole lot I find really crappo, but if there's anything worse than being in the EU, it's not being in the EU.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
Agreed. Fantasists. I think Clegg will be judged very favourably in decades to come. When we start getting the in-depth details of the inner workings of the coalition.
The issue for the Lib Dems was that they were too eager to show coalition government can work and everybody can play nice. Going into coalition was fine but they ultimately got very little out of it and tactically blundered at every opportunity.
The Tories basically used and abused them. Tactically out thought them, co-opted the popular polices as their own, and always had a willing Lib Dem face try to justify the unpopular policies. The Lib Dems in a rush to show coalition politics was feasible basically let them.
With a few simple change of tact early on they could have easily came out with more credit, but they made the decision to make their arguments behind closed doors which was a mistake.
Lets face it, if large parts of the Tories weren't so venomously anti-EU, Clegg and Laws would be Tories, and Alexander was just a lackey over-promoted by circumstance (Laws getting caught defrauding the taxpayer). Cable is more naturally left leaning but he's been largely ostracised
The Lib Dems would have had far more power by horse trading on a vote by vote basis, and there'd have been less blowback. The Tories would probably have had a failed budget by now, but the Lib Dems would in all likelihood seen a far smaller reduction.
CyclopsRock
Member
Maybe baby, but at the end of the day (I'm from London) they had about 5 seats. Whatcha gonna do? They got an AV referendum, the tax free threshold increased, maternity leave split between parents etc. They've done some "good Lib Dem work" that otherwise would literally never have gotten done. So the Tories have taken the credit for a lot of it - are you in it to get stuff done or in it to "win"?
It's more the idea of "we are a serious party" which I thought was funny. I thought that was kind of a given, even if the Greens take that idea to extremes.
Most parties are in politics to get stuff done and to be in the position to get stuff done again. The Lib Dems have stuffed the other part and utterly alienated a large percentage of their support and their membership. If they do end up in position to be in another coalition it'll almost certainly be due to the weaknesses of the other parties.
CyclopsRock
Member
And that was the only way they'd ever get anything done. They were never, ever, ever going to a win a majority. A coalition was the only way it was ever going to work, and that necessitates voting for stuff you don't actually support. If they'd co-allied with Labour they'd just have alienated a different group of their support instead.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
They could have gone C&S.
It's not exactly what they did, it's how they did it. There's a big difference between being forced to judgingly accept some painful decisions than hooping and hollering as Osborne guts social spending and kills growth for two years. There was no need for the Lib Dems to allow the useful idiot Alexander to be dragged out to front almost every single cut while Osborne largely sat back making the odd speech or two.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked