Support NeoGAF

[Juicy Bob]

When you factor in the "options" for Prime Ministers and governments that you're voting for in Australia compared to the UK, it's elevated to a sidestep.

True. I never voted Labor or Liberal anyway.

At least the Senator I voted for got in. If only we had a democratically elected upper house too...

 

[industrian]

My observations of Australian politics in the 2.5 months I've been here is that it's both over-governed and ungovernable. There's too many elements that can conflict and deny progress, and changing governments keep cancelling or doing over policies enacted by their predecessors. That and they're steadily heading into that "no compromises whatsoever" territory that has destroyed American politics.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

All three voted against the "bedroom tax" when George raised a private members bill to get rid of it. And all 3 have basically said they don't see the Lib Dems going back in coalition with the Tories.

George:


As Farron is likely to stand for the leadership post election, he's not been so explicit, but he was scathing about the 2010 deal back in March, and indicated that he'd only agree to any future coalition with either on vastly better terms. Terms which the Tories would find more difficult to agree than Labour given Farron's left leaning politics.

This quote:

“We have had enough of it. The Tories would not want it and I am sure my party would not go for it,” he said.

sounds a bit out of touch to me. I'm pretty sure both the Tories and his party would go for another coalition.

 

[FlammableD]

Vote for who you like best, that's how this should work.

People tend to be a bit hyperbolic about parties they don't like.

Well I want to vote SNP, but I don't live in Scotland, so that's out the window.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Which numbers? The national polls? They don't say it can't happen.

It all depends on the extent of the Lib Dem collapse. They could poll what they're getting now (~8%) and still retain 30+ seats depending on where that 8% is localised. And if they do keep 30+ seats the present coalition could stumble on.

Granted, I haven't seen many actual forecasts putting LD above the mid- to high twenties...

I think this is unlikely just from swing analysis. The Liberal Democrats are doing much, much worse in Lab vs. Lib seats than Con vs. Lib seats. If the Liberal Democrats defend more seats than expected, it is likely they defend proportionally more from the Conservatives, which means the Con+Lib bloc remains unchanged.

 

[kmag]

This quote:



sounds a bit out of touch to me. I'm pretty sure both the Tories and his party would go for another coalition.

HE might not though. If he's re-elected that is. What are they going to do drop the whip? There's not that many of them to start playing those games. George and Farron have been deeply unhappy on the direction of travel, both are from the left of the party, it's not difficult to see them not signing up to cuts of £30bn to unprotected departments.

 

[PJV3]

It would be nice if the LibDems could drop a big hint, i have a shitty tactical vote decision to make. Vote labour, get a tory mp, vote libdem and risk getting a libdem mp in a tory government.

The fact he's an Orange book Libdem doesn't fill me with joy.

 

[kmag]

It would be nice if the LibDems could drop a big hint, i have a shitty tactical vote decision to make. Vote labour, get a tory mp, vote libdem, get a libdem mp in a tory government.

If you're anti tory but don't have strong feelings about either Labour or Lib Dem you'd probably be better voting lib dem in a tory/lib dem marginal. They might end up siding with either side, but given the shoeing they're about to get and the likely arithmetic of any potential government I imagine they'll actually be smarter about what polices they allow the Tories get through this time.

It's likely they'll get a new leader, if it's Cable or Farron then they'll probably go down the Labour route if it's practicable, if it's Brown or an Orange Booker then they'll be Tory-lite again.

Although I'm loathe to encourage anyone to vote tactically. Individual 'wasted' votes could be very important this time around in terms of the legitimacy of any government either way.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

HE might not though. If he's re-elected that is. What are they going to do drop the whip? There's not that many of them to start playing those games. George and Farron have been deeply unhappy on the direction of travel, both are from the left of the party, it's not difficult to see them not signing up to cuts of £30bn to unprotected departments.

Well....yes, that's what I assumed. That, and get a talking to about doing it "for the good of the country" (which they probably got last time too).

Edit:

I think this is unlikely just from swing analysis. The Liberal Democrats are doing much, much worse in Lab vs. Lib seats than Con vs. Lib seats. If the Liberal Democrats defend more seats than expected, it is likely they defend proportionally more from the Conservatives, which means the Con+Lib bloc remains unchanged.

Fair point. I haven't been looking at the Lib / Con marginals.

 

[CyclopsRock]

If we were to change our electoral system and people - bafflingly - don't go for my system of picking a random vote from each constituency, I don't think the MEP electoral system is that bad. It's got some element of localised representation whilst still being PR. It would also massively ease any transition into federalisation we might have, because you could have a system wherein MP's spend 3 days a week working in Westminster on UK affairs, and 2 days in their local parliament/assembly/whatever working on local affairs (even if all the English MPs went to an English parliament, Welsh to their assembly etc). One MP, two legislatures each. It'll avoid the problem of undue influence across the UK whilst ensuring the local area still has "the government" that it wants (ie the SNP vote won't make a huge difference in the UK parliament but would dominate a shiny, new Scottish parliament (that possibly uses the same building, you know, for the sake of not wasting money)). No one becomes a second class MP yet it gets rid of the problem of MP's voting for things that don't affect them.

I'm a bloody constitutional architect, I am.

 

[PJV3]

If you're anti tory but don't have strong feelings about either Labour or Lib Dem you'd probably be better voting lib dem in a tory/lib dem marginal. They might end up siding with either side, but given the shoeing they're about to get and the likely arithmetic of any potential government I imagine they'll actually be smarter about what polices they allow the Tories get through this time.

It's likely they'll get a new leader, if it's Cable or Farron then they'll probably go down the Labour route if it's practicable, if it's Brown or an Orange Booker then they'll be Tory-lite again.

Although I'm loathe to encourage anyone to vote tactically. Individual 'wasted' votes could be very important this time around in terms of the legitimacy of any government either way.

I agree about tactical voting, but I would hate to contribute towards the Tories winning, which my vote sort of did anyway last time. I really don't know lol. Fuck fptp.


If the Libdem's have that vote like last time in 2010 then I think they will lean tory, a lot of the leftie membership have gone. I'm not sure if that's an automatic thing within the party or not.

 

[Dougald]

John Redwood has managed to use a photo for his campaign literature that makes him look almost exactly like the demon headmaster

 

[RetroDLC]

I was thinking about how to encourage younger people to vote, and the only idea I could come up with is a mobile app for iOS and Android that could do a full registration and handle voting on the day. It would need to be sturdy as hell with solid encryption and a sound method of checking details, but it would certainly help those who don't want to queue on voting day and don't want to deal with awkward postal voting.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I was thinking about how to encourage younger people to vote, and the only idea I could come up with is a mobile app for iOS and Android that could do a full registration and handle voting on the day. It would need to be sturdy as hell with solid encryption and a sound method of checking details, but it would certainly help those who don't want to queue on voting day and don't want to deal with awkward postal voting.

I don't really want to help those people.

 

[PJV3]

I was thinking about how to encourage younger people to vote, and the only idea I could come up with is a mobile app for iOS and Android that could do a full registration and handle voting on the day. It would need to be sturdy as hell with solid encryption and a sound method of checking details, but it would certainly help those who don't want to queue on voting day and don't want to deal with awkward postal voting.

Remove any effort and then joke candidates will blossom.

The man with a bag on his head getting into Westminster is strangely appealing at the moment.

 

[jimbobsmells]

Not really worth a new thread, but Lutfur Rahman's verdict is coming in and it's pretty devastating so far: https://twitter.com/tedjeory

That guy deserves everything he gets.

 

[typist]

Contrast brutal honesty here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YBumQHPAeU&index=4&list=FLtdgH5Wp4UlBKNYutgedPwQ

with sheer insincerity here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osQsIyPr9bQ&index=19&list=FLtdgH5Wp4UlBKNYutgedPwQ

 

[QuicheFontaine]

I don't really want to help those people.

Same. Happy for lazy sods to stay at home frankly.

Anyway, I've never had to queue up for any vote (local, GE, Europe). I'd say maybe things are different in that London, but I was there for the 2012 London Mayoral election and the West Hampstead polling station was dead.

 

[Dougald]

I've never been in a polling station for more than about 5 minutes at any one time, it takes no effort

 

[CyclopsRock]

Not really worth a new thread, but Lutfur Rahman's verdict is coming in and it's pretty devastating so far: https://twitter.com/tedjeory

That guy deserves everything he gets.

Woof! Very happy.

All but one of my votes have been in London, I've never had to queue either. You can't get to work without tripping over about 6 voting stations.

 

[kmag]

Just had a gander at the IFS report while I wait for a code build to complete.

The Tories get it in the neck the hardest as the IFS suggest they are at risk of giving "giving a misleading impression of what public service spending under a Conservative government would look like" and for banking too much on receipts from unspecified cracking down on tax avoidance. Labour gets criticised for the lack of detail as to their desired level of borrowing reduction. Lib Dems get praised for the amount of detail but again seem to be relying too much on tax avoidance crackdowns to tart up the figures. SNP are also accused of not specifying their desired level of debt and their spending not matching their anti-austerity rhetoric.

SNP Summary

The SNP plans appear to be underpinned by a specific plan for total spending, social
security and tax policies for the next parliament. In marked and positive contrast to the
other parties, they have not predicated their fiscal plans on achieving any additional
revenues from uncertain and unspecified anti-avoidance measures. However, unlike the
other parties, the SNP have not made any clear statement about what level of borrowing
they would be comfortable with in the medium- and longer-term.

The SNP’s recent rhetoric when announcing their fiscal plans states that they would be
less austere and, in particular, cut spending by less than the main Westminster parties.
For example their manifesto states that “We reject the current trajectory of spending,
proposed by the UK government and the limited alternative proposed by the Labour
Party”. There is a considerable disconnect between this rhetoric and their stated plans for
total spending, which imply a bigger cut to spending by 2019–20 than Labour’s plans.

Tory Summary

The Conservatives have provided a firm commitment to eliminate the entire budget
deficit and have been fairly specific about the speed at which they wish to achieve this.
But they have not provided anything like complete details of the measures they would
implement in order to eliminate the deficit. Beyond current government policies their
stated commitments imply:
 An increase in tax revenues of 0.2% of national income, yet their detailed tax
announcements are a net giveaway of 0.1% of national income.
 A reduction in social security spending of 0.6% of national income, yet their detailed
policies bring in only just over a tenth of that amount.
 A reduction in departmental spending of 2.5% of national income, yet their policies
imply (relative to a real freeze) an increase in spending of 0.3% of national income.
It might be unreasonable to expect the Conservatives to have set out full details of their
departmental spending plans throughout the next parliament. However, by providing so
much detail on the areas where they plan to increase spending (such as the NHS), while
providing no hint of the need for cuts elsewhere, they risk giving a misleading impression
of what public service spending under a Conservative government would look like.

Labour's summary

Labour’s detailed policies do potentially provide a fuller description than the
Conservatives of what they need to do to reduce the deficit sufficiently to meet their
aspirations. Their detailed policies would boost rather than reduce tax revenues, and they
have been clear that some cuts to unprotected departments would be required. But we
can only say ‘potentially provide’ because the Labour Party has provided disappointingly
little information on exactly how much they would borrow if they were in government
after the next election. They have committed to only borrowing to invest by the end of the
parliament, but they have been less than clear about when they would like to achieve this.
Given the coalition government’s investment plans, it would be consistent with any
reduction in borrowing totalling 3.6% of national income or more. As a result we are not
able, on the one hand, to be certain about how austere Labour are planning to be after
2015–16 nor, on the other hand, are we able to be set out precisely how far they would
seek to reduce debt as a share of national income over the coming parliament.

Lib Dems Summary

The Liberal Democrats have been more transparent about their overall fiscal plans for the
next parliament. But the vast majority of their planned cut to social security spending is
to come from their ambition to reduce fraud and error in the system and to get better at
helping people back into work and off benefits. They have also committed to raising a
substantial £10 billion from what they deem to be tax avoidance by the end of the
parliament – which is twice as much as the Conservatives and a third more than Labour –
with relatively little in the way of detailed measures to say who will be paying this
additional tax.

All parties get it in the neck for their uncosted gaps. The SNP has the smallest gap (0.3% of national income), Tories the highest (2.3% of national income), Lib Dems (1.0%) and Labour (0.4%)

The Conservatives’ unspecified policies – or gap – totals 2.3% of national income (even
assuming they deliver a freeze to all unprotected areas of departmental spending for
three years). This comprises a £5 billion increase in tax revenues through largely
unspecified tax avoidance measures, around £10 billion of unspecified cuts to social
security, and a £30 billion cut in real terms to ‘unprotected’ departmental spending
between 2015–16 and 2018–19. The Liberal Democrats’ ‘gap’ amounts to 1.0% of
national income: including a £7 billion increase in revenues from largely unspecified anti-avoidance
measures, £2 billion of cuts to social security spending by tackling fraud and
getting more benefit claimants back to work, and a £12 billion cut to ‘unprotected’
departmental spending between 2015–16 and 2017–18. The SNP need to provide further
details of a £6 billion cut to ‘unprotected’ departments (between 2015–16 and 2019–20)
– to fill their 0.3% of national income ‘gap’. Meanwhile, Labour would be able to fill the
‘gap’ in their plans (0.4% of national income) by spelling out more detail on their
proposed anti-avoidance measures and a small real terms cut to ‘unprotected’
departments.

In general it's pretty interesting how similar over the course of the parliament the Labour and SNP position would be (Labour go for gradual cuts across the parliament, the SNP for small increases then on current projected growth figures, which I assume they'd hope to exceed or would need a larger unspecified cut to meet their target in the final year. Although the IFS does point out as the SNP desire to crack down on tax avoidance but do not specify a use for that money it could help fill that gap). Far be it for me to say, but there's absolutely no reason Labour and the SNP couldn't come up with some a compromise budget which they'd both find agreeable (they both have a bit of wiggle room), or that a Labour minority couldn't come up with something that the SNP and Lib Dems wouldn't have much issue with. As by the end of the Parliament the projected spend for the SNP, Labour and Lib Dems are in the same ball park.

 

[Spookie]

Just had a gander at the IFS report while I wait for a code build to complete.

Thanks for the break down. I'll be interested to see how the news boil it down tonight though. I wouldn't be suprised to see if we just see it summerised as little more than: LABOUR PLAN TO SPEND MORE THAN THE TORIES.

 

[kmag]

Woof! Very happy.

All but one of my votes have been in London, I've never had to queue either. You can't get to work without tripping over about 6 voting stations.

I know it's a minor charge in comparison to some of the others but I just love that there is a law preventing “spiritual influence” of voters.

 

[jimbobsmells]

Sorry but that Rahman verdict... Hahahahahahahaha the guy told me to 'fuck off' when I said I wouldn't vote for him so I could not be happier.

 

[Jackpot]

Four of the major parties have not provided "anything like full details" on plans to cut the deficit, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said.

The think-tank said "broad outlines" of the choice on offer were on show but the electorate had been left "somewhere in the dark" over cuts planned by the Tories, Labour, Lib Dems and SNP.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32424739

So that's all of them then.

 

[RetroDLC]

I don't really want to help those people.

Yeah, god forbid those who have to deal with college, university and the weight of modern life in general.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Yeah, god forbid those who have to deal with college, university and the weight of modern life in general.

If they're so busy on polling day that they can't get a voting booth for the five minutes it takes to vote, they can get a postal vote. But I'm going to go ahead and guess that's about 8 people in the whole country given that most polling stations are open from about 7am til 10pm. If you're busy and unable to do any voting for all that time, I doubt you've read the manifestos either. And as the Scottish Referendum turnout showed us, the problem of low voter turnout is not one of practicality.

 

[RetroDLC]

If they're so busy on polling day that they can't get a voting booth for the five minutes it takes to vote, they can get a postal vote. But I'm going to go ahead and guess that's about 8 people in the whole country given that most polling stations are open from about 7am til 10pm. If you're busy and unable to do any voting for all that time, I doubt you've read the manifestos either. And as the Scottish Referendum turnout showed us, the problem of low voter turnout is not one of practicality.

I've read briefs of the manifestos, I'm voting Green because they support the decriminalisation and taxation of cannabis so it's equal to tobacco and alcohol, and I like their idea of a universal income for all, which I first discovered the concept of from this article. Don't jump to presumptions about myself just because I disagree with your opinions.

 

[Confrontation]

As an outsider, I just quickly wanna say: Damn your election debates interrupting the snooker every afternoon on the BBC.

 

[Nicktendo86]

Justice for Tower Hamlets! We are a fantastic borough with a great location, sights, diverse population and massive potential. We derseve so much better than the cretinous Rahman and his cronies, thank god that justice has been served today. Gone from having a shit day to a bloody brilliant one with this news.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Yeah, god forbid those who have to deal with college, university and the weight of modern life in general.

Oh come on, the current barrier to entry for voting is spectacularly low. You don't even need to bring ID. And if students really don't want to get out of their pajamas on 7th May they could have very easily arranged a postal vote, it's not an onerous process.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I've read briefs of the manifestos, I'm voting Green because they support the decriminalisation and taxation of cannabis so it's equal to tobacco and alcohol, and I like their idea of a universal income for all, which I first discovered the concept of from this article. Don't jump to presumptions about myself just because I disagree with your opinions.

Sorry, when I said "you" I meant it in the general sense, not you specifically - I was talking about people who are so busy that they can't get to a polling station within the ~15 hour gap they're given.

Edit: In other news, here's a manifesto the IFS haven't fisked:

http://www.cats.org.uk/manifesto

 

[Nicktendo86]

Oh as an as side I found out that the Tory candidate for Bethnal Green & Bow (my old home constituency) is Matt Smith who actually used to work at my firm! Didn't have much dealings with him but was a very nice chap (amongst a load of stuck up dicks) and would definitely of got my vote if I was still living at home. Not that it would do much good, rock solid safe labour seat, but ah well.

 

[kmag]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32424739

So that's all of them then.

To be fair there's a definite implied grading of the missing detail in the IFS report.

The Lib Dems probably have the most detailed plans but still have a sum around 1.0% of national income uncosted*. The Lib Dems rely on both larger amounts of tax avoidance income and larger amounts of elimination of fraud from social security spend.
Labour's uncosted gap is the second smallest at 0.4% of national income but while their manifesto does have more detail that Tories, it's open ended on the level of debt and the date of reduction so the IFS have had to make some assumptions. Labour could

The Tories manifesto is basically the opposite of Labour. Unlike Labour they've set out in detail firm commitments as to the speed and scale of the deficit reduction (elimination in the Tories case), but almost no detail at all in terms of how they're going to get there. I'll repeat this from the IFS summary:

But they have not provided anything like complete details of the measures they would implement in order to eliminate the deficit. Beyond current government policies their stated commitments imply:
 An increase in tax revenues of 0.2% of national income, yet their detailed tax
announcements are a net giveaway of 0.1% of national income.
 A reduction in social security spending of 0.6% of national income, yet their detailed
policies bring in only just over a tenth of that amount.
 A reduction in departmental spending of 2.5% of national income, yet their policies
imply (relative to a real freeze) an increase in spending of 0.3% of national income

It might be unreasonable to expect the Conservatives to have set out full details of their
departmental spending plans throughout the next parliament. However, by providing so
much detail on the areas where they plan to increase spending (such as the NHS), while providing no hint of the need for cuts elsewhere, they risk giving a misleading impression
of what public service spending under a Conservative government would look like.

The uncosted* gap for the Tories is 2.3% of national income.

The SNP have the smallest gap 0.3% of national income and provide detail on spend, social security and tax, however they provide no detail at all on what they consider their target acceptable level of deficit. And their actual plans do not match their anti-austerity plans, as although their plans call for small increases over the first 4 years the final year would require a large cut to meet their spending plans. Although the IFS do point out any revenue gained by a crackdown on tax avoidance could be put towards reducing this.

*The IFS considers any revenue relied on by the parties unspecified tax avoidance or form unspecific fraud prevention measures as uncosted. Only the SNP avoided including these sums in their plans. Here's what it says about each parties tax avoidance plans

The Tories

However, by the far the largest tax ‘takeaway’ is the Conservatives’ pledge to raise at least £5 billion of revenues by 2017–18 through anti-avoidance measures. The extent to which this is achievable is highly uncertain, given the lack of information on the tax base in question, and the lack of detail regarding the specific policies that they would
implement. As we have argued before, funding specified tax giveaways that have
relatively certain revenue implications using money from highly uncertain takeaways
elsewhere comes at the cost of adding risk to the public finances.

Labour

On top of this, Labour have also said that they would aim to raise a further £7.5 billion from tax-avoidance measures by the middle of the coming parliament.

Lib Dems

In addition to these specific policies, they also have a target of raising £7 billion by 2017–18 from clamping down on tax avoidance and evasion, rising to £10 billion by 2019–20. The extra amount after 2017–18, which was not explicitly set out in their manifesto, is intended to fund the increase in the personal allowance from £11,600 to £12,500 between 2017–18 and the end of the parliament. However, like the Conservatives and Labour, they provide relatively little concrete detail of what these anti-avoidance measures would be.

SNP

Unlike the other three parties, the SNP have not factored into their main plans any revenue increase from anti-avoidance measures. Like the other parties, they have said that they believe revenues could be increased further by clamping down on anti avoidance, but have not targeted a specific figure for this nor used any of these
unspecified savings to ‘pay for’ other policies, which the other parties have. If revenues
could be boosted by clamping down on tax avoidance, this would increase revenues
under the SNP policies above what is shown in Figure 3.1 (and, consequently, reduce
borrowing below what is shown in Figure 2.1 or provide them with scope to cut other
taxes or to increase spending). Overall, this approach to revenues raised from tax
avoidance is more sensible than that employed by the other parties.

 

[King_Moc]

Yeah, god forbid those who have to deal with college, university and the weight of modern life in general.

Seriously, gtfo with this shit. You get about 15 hours to vote in and can post it if you please. The polling stations serve such a small area that they are always within 2 streets or so and have no queue. What a ludicrous statement.

 

[kmag]

double post.

 

[kmag]

Not to wade in on the tories but the signal best bit of the IFS report, was this paragraph

The Conservative manifesto states that they ‘plan a further £10 billion of annual
[efficiency] savings in 2017–18 and £15 billion in 2019–20’. To the extent that any such
efficiency savings can be realised, this would ease the budgetary pressure facing
departments. But at best these statements are aspirational. If efficiency savings were easy
to identify and to deliver, then – presumably – they would either have been realised
already or we could reasonably expect whoever forms the next government to ensure
they are implemented. We discount them in this analysis.

where the author used 89 words to avoid having to stick the boot in. Saying BULLSHIT! would have been quicker.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Oh as an as side I found out that the Tory candidate for Bethnal Green & Bow (my old home constituency) is Matt Smith who actually used to work at my firm! Didn't have much dealings with him but was a very nice chap (amongst a load of stuck up dicks) and would definitely of got my vote if I was still living at home. Not that it would do much good, rock solid safe labour seat, but ah well.

 

[King_Moc]

Not to wade in on the tories but the signal best bit of the IFS report, was this paragraph



where the author used 89 words to avoid having to stick the boot in. Saying BULLSHIT! would have been quicker.

Maybe they're planning on taxing the rich?

 

[nib95]

Justice for Tower Hamlets! We are a fantastic borough with a great location, sights, diverse population and massive potential. We derseve so much better than the cretinous Rahman and his cronies, thank god that justice has been served today. Gone from having a shit day to a bloody brilliant one with this news.

Don't know about that mate, Tower Hamlets did very well under him. Certainly a big improvement compared to where it used to be. On a side note, some of the charges seem a bit hocus pocus to me either way. I mean, it's ok for the Tories to get 101 business leader's to sign a letter saying Labour would damage the economy and you should all vote Conservative, but when it's Luthfur Rahman getting a letter signed by 101 Imams saying something similar, it's suddenly an issue. Local restaurants handing out free food to would be supporters is him committing bribes? Some of his idiot supporters telling people they're un-Islamic for not voting for him is his fault too? I don't know, seems like this was all an inevitable and forgone conclusion.

 

[RetroDLC]

Seriously, gtfo with this shit. You get about 15 hours to vote in and can post it if you please. The polling stations serve such a small area that they are always within 2 streets or so and have no queue. What a ludicrous statement.

Not everyone is in a situation where they can visit a polling station with ease. Students who have to study, people with multiple jobs, people who have to spend their mornings and evenings commuting, people who have to deal with the stresses of family and so on. Also, in order to vote by post you have to register by post, and I don't trust Royal Mail to reliably deliver letters half the time. More options making it easier for people to vote is a good thing with no downsides.

Edit: On a side note, it's going to take an hour or two of my day to visit the nearest polling station to me in Stevenage. If I have to work any freelance in London that day, I'm going to have to do it at 7am and deal with the queue of other early risers.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I mean, it's ok for the Tories to get 101 business leader's to sign a letter saying Labour would damage the economy and you should all vote Conservative, but when it's Luthfur Rahman getting a letter signed by 101 Imams saying something similar, it's suddenly an issue.

Pretty obvious why that's different, isn't it? Economic arguments can be looked at on their own merits, sensible people can disagree and you can make up your own mind as to the veracity of their claims. But with religion? If the people to whom you're meant to go for spiritual guidance tell you A, where do you go for the counterpoint B?

Edit: Lol

 

[nib95]

Pretty obvious why that's different, isn't it? Economic arguments can be looked at on their own merits, sensible people can disagree and you can make up your own mind as to the veracity of their claims. But with religion? If the people to whom you're meant to go for spiritual guidance tell you A, where do you go for the counterpoint B?

But if those particular imams support him, and he has the wit to use that to prop up his position, is that really a crime? I'm sure there are countless religious leaders who support all kinds of parties, I didn't realise a letter confirming their support is automatic corruption? Also, you're implying that the situation is somehow different in that sensible people can't disagree with the Imams and make up their own minds about the veracity of their claims?

 

[Nicktendo86]

Please tell me you are joking... He took money away from Alzheimer's charities in order to bribe his core vote. He wanted to close nusaries. He did not attend any budget scrutiny meeting. The man is a cunt of the largest order.

 

[tomtom94]

Ever wondered what British politicians would look like if represented by Pokemon cards? Wonder no more.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/alexfinnis/milimon-i-choose-you?bffb&utm_term=4ldqphz#.yrAmY53Dn

 

[nib95]

Please tell me you are joking... He took money away from Alzheimer's charities in order to bribe his core vote. He wanted to close nusaries. He did not attend any budget scrutiny meeting. The man is a cunt of the largest order.

He put money in to things he thought it better served, some of those things I agreed with, some of them I didn't. But a re-allocation of budget to better aid the local make up, isn't necessarily automatic bribery. I would say that prior to his tenure, budget and funding wise, certain groups were under-represented in the borough, so it's not so much that he was corrupt in re allocation of funds, more so that it was a balancing act to better represent the needs of the local populace (which is increasingly made up of more South Asians and the religious alignments in question). It's just unlucky for him that he happens to himself fall in to that demographic.

 

[kmag]

Panelbase: (21/04-23/04)
LAB 34% (NC),
CON 31% (-2%),
UKIP 17% (+1),
LD 7% (-1),
GRN 4% (NC).

“@panelbase #GE2015 poll on way. LD narrowly preferred gov partner over SNP by LAB voters & preferred to UKIP by CON. Main figures shortly.”

UKIP too high, Tories too low would be my first reaction to that, still nothing out of kilter with the majority of other polls.

 

[CyclopsRock]

But if those particular imams support him, and he has the wit to use that to prop up his position, is that really a crime? I'm sure there are countless religious leaders who support all kinds of parties, I didn't realise a letter confirming their support is automatic corruption? Also, you're implying that the situation is somehow different in that sensible people can't disagree with the Imams and make up their own minds about the veracity of their claims?

Well the law states...

(2) A person shall be guilty of undue influence—

(a) if he, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, makes use of or threatens to make use of any force, violence or restraint, or inflicts or threatens to inflict, by himself or by any other person, any temporal or spiritual injury, damage, harm or loss upon or against any person in order to induce or compel that person to vote or refrain from voting, or on account of that person having voted or refrained from voting

I think the law isn't really any different to other sorts of intimidation laws - threatening to punch someone, to harm their property etc - except instead of physical harm, it's spiritual harm. So one wouldn't be arrested for saying "If you vote for the Greens, the UK will be at greater risk of terrorism" but you would for saying "If you vote for the Greens I'll bomb a tube station." I guess the judge considers this case to be more akin to the latter, in spiritual terms.

 

[CyclopsRock]

He put money in to things he thought it better served, some of those things I agreed with, some of them I didn't. But a re-allocation of budget to better aid the local make up, isn't necessarily automatic bribery. I would say that prior to his tenure, budget and funding wise, certain groups were under-represented in the borough, so it's not so much that he was corrupt in re allocation of funds, more so that it was a balancing act to better represent the needs of the local populace (which is increasingly made up of more South Asians and the religious alignments in question). It's just unlucky for him that he happens to himself fall in to that demographic.

It's obviously not an example of automatic bribery, but nothing about this case has been automatic - it was effectively a voluntary petition that got this into court, and then there was a long court case with a great deal of evidence provided over by a Judge. So yeah, it's not automatically evidence of anything, but a court has found that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that it was bribery.

 

[nib95]

Well the law states...

I think the law isn't really any different to other sorts of intimidation laws - threatening to punch someone, to harm their property etc - except instead of physical harm, it's spiritual harm. So one wouldn't be arrested for saying "If you vote for the Greens, the UK will be at greater risk of terrorism" but you would for saying "If you vote for the Greens I'll bomb a tube station." I guess the judge considers this case to be more akin to the latter, in spiritual terms.

My point is, why should he himself be punished for idiot supporters? It's not like he himself ever instructed them to threaten anyone, nor is it even mentioned that he did. Simply that a few of his supporters resorted to such tactics, but I don't see why that is corruption pertaining directly to him. Hell if that was the defecto understanding, that the actions of your supporters etc were punishable all the way to the top, UKIP and Farage for example, would be run out of office. Hell I'm sure pretty much all the leaders and parties would.

It's obviously not an example of automatic bribery, but nothing about this case has been automatic - it was effectively a voluntary petition that got this into court, and then there was a long court case with a great deal of evidence provided over by a Judge. So yeah, it's not automatically evidence of anything, but a court has found that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that it was bribery.

Until we are given more specific examples that relate directly to him, I don't think it carries the weight it ought to. As I said before, the evidence and information that such conclusions have been drawn off of, seem loose at best.