Support NeoGAF

[Maledict]

Miliband needs to do something though, doesn't he? Or we'll likely end up with another Tory / Liberal coalition?

Nope - unless something weird happens, the Tories + lib dems + Northern Ireland parties won't stack up to 325 MPs. With the Lib Dems looking at an optimistic 25 seats after the election, and the Tories on a reduction, they probably don't have the numbers anymore to make that coalition work.

The conservatives will have to buck historical trends and not lose any seats, and the lib Dems will have to hold up much better than currently thought, for the Tory / lib dem coalition to realistically work.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Nope - unless something weird happens, the Tories + lib dems + Northern Ireland parties won't stack up to 325 MPs. With the Lib Dems looking at an optimistic 25 seats after the election, and the Tories on a reduction, they probably don't have the numbers anymore to make that coalition work.

The conservatives will have to buck historical trends and not lose any seats, and the lib Dems will have to hold up much better than currently thought, for the Tory / lib dem coalition to realistically work.

That's the peculiar thing about this election (well, one of the many, many peculiar things) - The SNP stealing seats from Labour in Scotland and the Tories winning seats from the LD's in the South is basically irrelevant in terms of the electoral maths; It might change the subtleties of the coalition flavour but basically it won't change who the PM is.

 

[FlammableD]

Amazing. A UKIP gimmick wrestler + Jimmy Havok on the same card.

Farage vs Jimmy Havoc deathmatch = all my money

 

[Uzzy]

Which all makes Cameron and Crosby's election strategy very bizarre really. They must see the same polling data we all do, which have the Cameron bloc (as in, all possible sources of support) not getting enough seats to keep him in Government. He needs something big to change, cause good economic news and the incumbency factor isn't helping. Nor did the manifesto with it's right to buy policy.

So what's the plan? Hope that Miliband's government is weak and falls early?

 

[PJV3]

Cameron is probably going to be in the shit if he has to form a coalition with the Libdem's again, the right of the party is hardly in love with him as it is.

Leadership talk will begin pretty early on as they know he's going anyway. Whatever the result I think things are going to be pretty bumpy for the next 5 years.

 

[tomtom94]

The BBC's "build a majority" game is surprisingly entertaining, if only for the cute chibi representations of party leaders.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32336071

 

[kmag]

Which all makes Cameron and Crosby's election strategy very bizarre really. They must see the same polling data we all do, which have the Cameron bloc (as in, all possible sources of support) not getting enough seats to keep him in Government. He needs something big to change, cause good economic news and the incumbency factor isn't helping. Nor did the manifesto with it's right to buy policy.

So what's the plan? Hope that Miliband's government is weak and falls early?

The throw the kitchen sink giveaway manifesto was a sign of desperation imho.

 

[Matt_]

The BBC's "build a majority" game is surprisingly entertaining, if only for the cute chibi representations of party leaders.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32336071

I know it's not exact but Ive yet been able to make a tory government without having to add lib dems, ukip and a bunch of the smaller parties into a coalition, and thats including some of the irish ones
edit; oop tell a lie, got tories on 289 and lib dems on 37

 

[QuicheFontaine]

If you're tinkering with a majority-maker, it's worth noting that Con / Lab would only really need 323, not 326, assuming Sinn Fein win 5 seats and don't take them.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Cameron is probably going to be in the shit if he has to form a coalition with the Libdem's again, the right of the party is hardly in love with him as it is.

Leadership talk will begin pretty early on as they know he's going anyway. Whatever the result I think things are going to be pretty bumpy for the next 5 years.

Seems like the chances of it being like Blair/Brown third term are pretty high, but this time there will be multiple people angling for the leadership.

I just hope Teresa May doesn't get anywhere near it.

 

[Audioboxer]

After watching a few of these debates, I'd hope some fellow UKers can see why some of us Scottish wanted independence - To get away from all the shite that comes out of Westminster. Nothing to do with the English people.

Any party supporting trident can fuck off as well. That staggering figure of money is better spent on the people, and a portion towards traditional defences. If a country fires a nuclear weapon we're all dead anyway. Farage's comparison to home insurance was absolutely insane. What an idiot.

I hope SNP gets some more people down in Westminster, even Green and Plaid Cymru. The rich boys and their millions need a shake up if we're to stay United. Another referendum in the distant future if shit stays the same might not swing the same way.

I hate Millibands "people at home" phrases, he just seems like a mouthpiece being controlled remotely rather than a human being just speaking.

 

[Porcile]

Ed promising to ban unpaid internships if they're longer than a month. A far bigger deal than lowering than university fees in my opinion. I know so many people who've had to do horrible, months long unpaid internships just for the opportunity to maybe have the opportunity to get a paying job. I think after being undecided about whether to vote Liberal or Labour, my vote is now to going to Ed. He's proving himself to be far less of a damp squib than he has been in the past.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/17/labour-pledges-four-week-limit-unpaid-internships

 

[Goodlife]

If a country fires a nuclear weapon we're all dead anyway.

Isn't the point though that they won't fire the missile as they'd be dead as well?

 

[CyclopsRock]

Ed promising to ban unpaid internships if they're longer than a month. A far bigger deal than lowering than university fees in my opinion. I know so many people who've had to do horrible, months long unpaid internships just for the opportunity to maybe have the opportunity to get a paying job. I think after being undecided about whether to vote Liberal or Labour, my vote is now to going to Ed. He's proving himself to be far less of a damp squib than he has been in the past.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/17/labour-pledges-four-week-limit-unpaid-internships

We have unpaid internships where I work. Some of them last for a week or two, some longer. For us there's basically 0 change of us paying for an internship - we'd just make sure they're all under a month. Not sure if this is the intended outcome but I suspect that would happen quite a lot.

 

[Visualante2]

Just creates a revolving door of interns. Ban unpaid internships altogether. If they can get around it by calling it work experience, or an extended interview then it's meaningless. That's not to say it isn't a welcome move, I know people who have done 6 months unpaid on games just to end up having to work somewhere else. It's a bank of mum and dad affair.

 

[Mr Git]

Ahh piss I missed this debate. I'll try find it on Youtube and catch up.

So according to Clegg he wasn't invited.

https://twitter.com/nick_clegg/status/588789689353695234

The comments here are brutal. Love it.

 

[Porcile]

We have unpaid internships where I work. Some of them last for a week or two, some longer. For us there's basically 0 change of us paying for an internship - we'd just make sure they're all under a month. Not sure if this is the intended outcome but I suspect that would happen quite a lot.

A lot of young people go into internships, especially months long ones (I think that's the key point here, as these do exist, especially in the creative industry), hoping that at the end a job opportunity will arise from it, but in many instances that is not the case. Even if companies end up doing what your company does, i,e very shirt unpaid internships, at least it's much more transparent about what you're actually going to get from the internship. Hell, I once did a year long part time one, mostly on my own expense, and ultimately got nothing from it at the end, even though it was suggested many times that I would.

 

[Principate]

We have unpaid internships where I work. Some of them last for a week or two, some longer. For us there's basically 0 change of us paying for an internship - we'd just make sure they're all under a month. Not sure if this is the intended outcome but I suspect that would happen quite a lot.

Makes sense, but the intended effect is that internship won't be used as a source of free labour rather than getting companies to pay for internships, which will force companies to make job decisions quicker and not abuse potentially employees under the carrot of perhaps there's a job at the end.

 

[CyclopsRock]

A lot of young people go into internships, especially months long ones (I think that's the key point here, as these do exist, especially in the creative industry), hoping that at the end a job opportunity will arise from it, but in many instances that is not the case. Even if companies end up doing what your company does, i,e very shirt unpaid internships, at least it's much more transparent about what you're actually going to get from the internship. Hell, I once did a year long part time one, mostly on my own expense, and ultimately got nothing from it at the end, even though it was suggested many times that I would.

Makes sense, but the intended effect is that internship won't be used as a source of free labour rather than getting companies to pay for internships, which will force companies to make job decisions quicker and not abuse potentially employees under the carrot of perhaps there's a job at the end.

Most of our internships are fairly short but some are certainly longer - months, at least. This is in the creative industries fwiw. Most of the longer ones go on to get hired by us, but the reality is that most of the interns don't give us a net gain really. We save on labour in certain areas and expend additional labour (teaching them etc) in others. If they weren't here, we wouldn't suffer in any meaningful way. We genuinely do it as a sort of service to the industry (because the whole industry gains when newbies are able to get decent experience) but I don't think it's the kinda thing we'd pay to do. Most graduates simply aren't that useful.

 

[Principate]

Just creates a revolving door of interns. Ban unpaid internships altogether. If they can get around it by calling it work experience, or an extended interview then it's meaningless. That's not to say it isn't a welcome move, I know people who have done 6 months unpaid on games just to end up having to work somewhere else. It's a bank of mum and dad affair.

Yeah, but a revolving door of interns isn't actually in the companies interests, they still have to train them in many cases to do whatever jobs they want them to do, which is a wasted expenditure, as the person will only be there for a month causing them to have to train another person, and another, in any remotely technical job it's just not going to work, and they'd be better off hiring someone long term to do the job rather than constantly train people.

It basically discourages the abuse of free labour, while still allowing the company to complete the purpose of an free internship without too much extra costs (to determine if you want the potential employee in your company and ease the transition).

 

[Visualante2]

Paying them would be a service to the industry imo. I don't think you get to call it that however much you train them when they're working free.

Yeah, but a revolving door of interns isn't actually in the companies interests, they still have to train them in many cases to do whatever jobs they want them to do, which is a wasted expenditure, as the person will only be there, for a month causing them to have to train another person, and another, in any remotely technical job it's just not going to work, and they'd be better hiring someone long term to do the job rather than constantly train people.

You're working on best case scenario here. Many internships are just an extra set of hands, low level work, getting coffee, lunch, taking notes, doing busy work. There was no training at my internship. The most I got to do was sit in on a group meeting (wow such a burden) and on the last week I got to actually use a spare computer (much expense) and do some real work. In many companies a revolving door works just great.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Paying them would be a service to the industry imo. I don't think you get to call it that however much you train them when they're working free.

Paying someone who doesn't have the skills to work here is primarily a service to that person. It might benefit them but it doesn't really benefit us as a company. Given that, we'd sooner not hire anyone that pay to have someone that's not good enough.

 

[Faddy]

We have unpaid internships where I work. Some of them last for a week or two, some longer. For us there's basically 0 change of us paying for an internship - we'd just make sure they're all under a month. Not sure if this is the intended outcome but I suspect that would happen quite a lot.

But if you get someone you like and they are doing a good job there is an incentive to offer them an actual contract instead of them walking away and leaving your company in the lurch. It is a small change on the face of it but is actually a powerful tool for young people who are being exploited and levels the playing field for people who can't afford to work for months on end unpaid.

 

[Principate]

Paying them would be a service to the industry imo. I don't think you get to call it that however much you train them when they're working free.

You're working on best case scenario here. Many internships are just an extra set of hands, low level work, getting coffee, lunch, taking notes, doing busy work. There was no training at my internship. The most I got to do was sit in on a group meeting (wow such a burden) and on the last week I got to actually use a spare computer (much expense) and do some real work. In many companies a revolving door works just great.

Yeah, I understand that, but if all the company needs is an extra set of hands, the intern applying is better off simply applying for a paying job as their gaining nothing from such a internship. In any job that's actually interested in you doing any specialised work, they'll teach or show you a what the job you want entails, for which you don't need more than a month in most cases, otherwise it really is a waste of your time.

 

[AngryMoth]

So forgive my ignorance here but looking at the polls and playing with that majority builder a bit, it seems like Labour + SNP and maybe a few of the small parties is by far the most likely outcome?

Realisticly speaking I'd be fine with that. I hope labour gives up trident as part of any negotiations.

 

[SymbiantXenos]

Id be fine with a lab/snp coalition.

 

[Visualante2]

Yeah, I understand that, but if all the company needs is an extra set of hands, the intern applying is better off simply applying for a paying job as their gaining nothing from such a internship. In any job that's actually interested in you doing any specialised work, they'll teach or show you a what the job you want entails, for which you don't need more than a month in most cases, otherwise it really is a waste of your time.

These entry level paid roles don't exist in many fields cited. Film seems to have an acceptable practice of paying runners, which is better than offering an internship which is basically running.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

So forgive my ignorance here but looking at the polls and playing with that majority builder a bit, it seems like Labour + SNP and maybe a few of the small parties is by far the most likely outcome?

Realisticly speaking I'd be fine with that. I hope labour gives up trident as part of any negotiations.

Most likely outcome is a minority Labour administration that has to negotiate ordinary votes on an issue by issue basis, but can rely on the SNP and a few minor parties in votes of confidence. I doubt they'd give up Trident, they'd just use Conservative and Liberal Democrat votes to get it passed.

 

[industrian]

So forgive my ignorance here but looking at the polls and playing with that majority builder a bit, it seems like Labour + SNP and maybe a few of the small parties is by far the most likely outcome?

Realisticly speaking I'd be fine with that. I hope labour gives up trident as part of any negotiations.

I think that the ConDem coalition will still be here next month. Hopefully I'm wrong and we get a Labour minority government with SNP support.

And the SNP are more likely budge on trident. I see the SNP accepting it as long as the submarines and warheads are based outside of Scotland - and that the Scottish Parliament gets a lot more powers.

 

[Maledict]

Moving the subs out of Scotland is effectively ending the UKs nuclear deterrent. There's a reason it's there - every study into moving them shows that it's just not feasible. It's astronomically expensive and the geography of other regions (such as the south coast) isn't realistically viable. It would cost untold billions and take over a decade to do.

If the UK is going to have a nuclear deterrent, realistically the subs will be based in Scotland.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Number of seats depends, really. If we assume that every single MP except Sinn Fein would vote in a Confidence Motion on either one side or the other (not necessarily accurate), and that there will be 5 Sinn Fein MPs, then you need 322 people to vote for you to stay in government (because the Speaker always vote with the government in the event of a tie). This doesn't necessarily mean in coalition, it could be in a confidence and supply arrangement where another party won't bring your government down but won't join you officially - Labour and the Liberal Democrats had one of these in the late '70s, and the SNP are offering one to Labour this election.

The Prime Minister gets the first opportunity to form a government. If Cameron thinks he can survive a Confidence Motion, he will submit a government to Her Maj. If he either choses not to submit a government, or loses a Confidence Motion after submitting, then there's no established order but given there is only one other party will be large enough to be Prime Ministerial, it'd be Miliband's turn in reality. If Miliband also choses not to submit a government, or also loses a Confidence Motion after submitting, then there is a second election.

I would expect parties to vote something like this:

Conservatives: For Cameron.
UKIP: For Cameron.
UUP: For Cameron.

Liberal Democrats: Depends. Probably for whoever they think would be most stable in return for getting into government as a coalition.
DUP: Depends. Probably for whoever they think would be most stable in return for policy concessions.

Sinn Fein: Abstain.

SDLP: For Miliband or Abstain.
Alliance: For Miliband or Abstain.
George Galloway: For Miliband or Abstain.
Lady Sylvia Hermon: For Miliband or Abstain.

Labour: For Miliband.
SNP: For Miliband.
Plaid Cymru: For Miliband.
Green: For Miliband.

For the Conservatives to form government, at a minimum, they need UKIP+DUP+UUP+LD+CON to be at least 320, which assumes all the potential abstainers abstain and everyone who could side with them does.

Do you reckon it's worth making a cleaned up version of this and putting it in the OT? There's enough people that ask about government formation it might be worthwhile.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Genuine question: how many more powers could it get outside of full fiscal autonomy?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Moving the subs out of Scotland is effectively ending the UKs nuclear deterrent. There's a reason it's there - every study into moving them shows that it's just not feasible. It's astronomically expensive and the geography of other regions (such as the south coast) isn't realistically viable. It would cost untold billions and take over a decade to do.

If the UK is going to have a nuclear deterrent, realistically the subs will be based in Scotland.

The MoD did an assessment of this and they found there's basically no English ports anywhere that could work. An independent analysis basically said that the rUK would have to beg France to allow them to base at Ile Longue, the only nearby sustainable site, for at least a decade, while they either dredged Barrow or engaged in major reconstruction projects in Falmouth, the two next-best English sites. Even if Miliband agrees to move them out of Scotland, he's not going to begging hand in cap to France because that's going to be more electorally damaging than just keeping Trident in Scotland; the agreement would most likely to be begin the long and arduous process of moving them.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I don't really understand why the SNP want them out of Scotland (but would "live with" them still existing in the UK).

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

Wouldn't moving them also lose a lot of scottish jobs?

 

[industrian]

Moving the subs out of Scotland is effectively ending the UKs nuclear deterrent. There's a reason it's there - every study into moving them shows that it's just not feasible. It's astronomically expensive and the geography of other regions (such as the south coast) isn't realistically viable. It would cost untold billions and take over a decade to do.

If the UK is going to have a nuclear deterrent, realistically the subs will be based in Scotland.

The MoD did an assessment of this and they found there's basically no English ports anywhere that could work. An independent analysis basically said that the rUK would have to beg France to allow them to base at Ile Longue, the only nearby sustainable site, for at least a decade, while they either dredged Barrow or engaged in major reconstruction projects in Falmouth, the two next-best English sites. Even if Miliband agrees to move them out of Scotland, he's not going to begging hand in cap to France because that's going to be more electorally damaging than just keeping Trident in Scotland; the agreement would most likely to be begin the long and arduous process of moving them.

The Trident replacement would not be built in a day, and it's not as if Scotland would just set a deadline for the subs to leave (as was the case with independence). I would envision that they would have enough time to prepare a new base to be created in England or Wales. The only problem there is that it would add a huge amount to the cost of the trident replacement. As if the SNP were subtly saying "well if it's going to cost that much, why even build it? *hint hint*"

Genuine question: how many more powers could it get outside of full fiscal autonomy?

Being able to gain the ability to nationalise trains/post office/other infrastructure is a priority for the SNP. The trains part in particular, as we only have a few more years before the opt-out of the Abellio contract ends.

The complete and utter holy grail for the SNP though is total control of the oil revenue. Which will never happen in a million years.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Being able to gain the ability to nationalise trains/post office/other infrastructure is a priority for the SNP. The trains part in particular, as we only have a few more years before the opt-out of the Abellio contract ends.

The complete and utter holy grail for the SNP though is total control of the oil revenue. Which will never happen in a million years.

But realistically that would require significant tax raising abilities and otherwise some sort of magic money pot that they currently don't have access to, given the costs involved?

 

[industrian]

I don't really understand why the SNP want them out of Scotland (but would "live with" them still existing in the UK).

I doubt that anyone on the west coast of Scotland wants them there. It's very close to our most densely-populated area, and to a lot of people that just reeks of the English establishment considering Scottish lives disposable enough to be worth the risk in the event of a pre-emptive nuclear attack or an accident occurring. If someone were to park some nuclear weapons on the Thames I'm sure that Londoners and people in Essex & Kent would feel the same way as we do. If we have to have nuclear weapons stored somewhere in the UK, it should ideally be somewhere outside of populated areas.

It's also because the SNP, while they're playing the Westminster game right now, have not given up on an independent Scotland. If they were to get the nuclear weapons out of Scotland during this time, then it's a major hurdle out of the way for when they have to negotiate to dissolve the union.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

This won't really surprise anyone, but still rather funny...

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/a-teacher...-it-completely-flunked-121939478.html#DERW4gt

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

This won't really surprise anyone, but still rather funny...

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/a-teacher...-it-completely-flunked-121939478.html#DERW4gt

spelling and grammar has a well known liberal bias

 

[CyclopsRock]

I doubt that anyone on the west coast of Scotland wants them there. It's very close to our most densely-populated area, and to a lot of people that just reeks of the English establishment considering Scottish lives disposable enough to be worth the risk in the event of a pre-emptive nuclear attack or an accident occurring. If someone were to park some nuclear weapons on the Thames I'm sure that Londoners and people in Essex & Kent would feel the same way as we do. If we have to have nuclear weapons stored somewhere in the UK, it should ideally be somewhere outside of populated areas.

It's also because the SNP, while they're playing the Westminster game right now, have not given up on an independent Scotland. If they were to get the nuclear weapons out of Scotland during this time, then it's a major hurdle out of the way for when they have to negotiate to dissolve the union.

I don't understand why it makes Scottish lives seem disposable? Because I'm pretty sure large population centers would get hit anyway and London has (amongst other things) the entire political establishment of the UK Government (inc Department of Defence), the Royal Family, MI5, MI6 etc. Given all this, I daresay if some nukes were dumped in the Thames no one would give a shit - in fact, until recently the US had a bunch of nukes parked in the South East of England too, in three separate locations. I don't think Scotland bares an unreasonable brunt of the UK's defense infrastructure really, so I can't entirely understand the opposition. Besides, I think it's safe to say that any sort of military contact that involved an enemy attempting to destroy our nuclear capability would be pretty destructive anyway.

And au contraire, I'd say that - in a future where Scotland secures a Yes - having Trident (or whatever) in their land would be an excellent bargaining chip. Right now if the SNP says "You need to move it within 5 years" or whatever, the Department of Defense can basically shrug and say "Well what are you going to do about it?" As an independent country a lot more concessions could be dragged out of the UK for the lease of the site until rUK can determine a new home for them elsewhere.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

The complete and utter holy grail for the SNP though is total control of the oil revenue. Which will never happen in a million years.

Didn't they just find a load of oil near Gatwick? Maybe it's time...

Spoiler

 

[Jackpot]

So forgive my ignorance here but looking at the polls and playing with that majority builder a bit, it seems like Labour + SNP and maybe a few of the small parties is by far the most likely outcome?

Same impression. If Labour is consistently ahead/on par in the polls and boundaries tend to favour them with more MPs for less votes, doesn't this mean they'd outdo the Conservatives and be most likely to form a coalition? And in the debate yesterday all the left-wing parties were saying to Miliband that it was about stopping Cameron. I don't know what the Lib Dems are going to do but surely they'd have to side with Labour if they have more MPs?

 

[Yen]

On the topic of Trident, SDLP (3 seats) and Alliance are against renewal.

https://twitter.com/AlanRoden/status/589081827878576128
Ashcroft polls have Jim Murphy losing his seat.

 

[s_mirage]

Any party supporting trident can fuck off as well. That staggering figure of money is better spent on the people, and a portion towards traditional defences. If a country fires a nuclear weapon we're all dead anyway.

Not necessarily, you're assuming that another nuclear state would return fire on our behalf. That is not a sure thing in every scenario. What if the other states decided that since we were already destroyed, and the aggressor couldn't attack them without facing destruction anyway, they may as well follow a policy of appeasement or isolation rather than global armageddon?

Retaining a nuclear deterrent all but ensures that nuclear weapons can't be used against us. Relying on others to defend us is an altogether more risky proposition, especially when our conventional forces (and most of Europe's) have been chronically underfunded for decades.

 

[Uzzy]

https://twitter.com/AlanRoden/status/589081827878576128
Ashcroft polls have Jim Murphy losing his seat.

1 Conservative gain too? Are the Tories going to have more Scottish MPs then Labour? That'd be absurd.

 

[Walshicus]

Didn't they just find a load of oil near Gatwick? Maybe it's time...

Spoiler

Don't joke, the last thing Crawley needs is an oil industry making the town even dirtier.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Don't joke, the last thing Crawley needs is an oil industry making the town even dirtier.

You know how when you go on a picnic or sit outside a pub in the summer and you leave a can or glass of mostly-empty coke a small way away from you to attract the wasps and flies, to keep them away from you?

That's Crawley. Let's ram as much shit there as possible to save the rest.

 

[Psycho_Mantis]

So what are the likely coalitions?

My guess,
Cons/Lib Dem
Lab/SNP

 

[Deleted member 231381]

If you mean literal 'coalitions' and are not including C&S deals, then I don't you'll see anything but Con/Lib or Lab/Lib.