TomWaitsForNoMan
Banned
It's the "liberal" part that's the problem
-
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.
UK General Election - 8th June 2017 |OT| - The Red Wedding
- Thread starter Jezbollah
- Start date
- Status
It's the "liberal" part that's the problem
Pyroclastic
Banned
I wonder if jez will decide to do it in a fit of hubris. if not, starmer or gardiner are the best they could send out the shadow cabinet.
the guardian's editorial line has been very very corbyn-sceptic and this has continued into the election
imo they will end up endorsing the lib dems but they might fence-sit and say "there's no good forward-thinking options" as the lib dem campaign has been such a failure
they also seem to have loads of glowing articles that are weirdly credulous about may's supposed pitch to working class voters even though there is no actual policy evidence of it being real
Starwolf_UK
Member
I found May boring to listen to and she didn't seem to like being there at all. Corbyn was occasionally disappointed but given the nature of questions of which some of the initial ones are like did you get invited and though oh shit I need a question and looked at some tabloid covers on that day and saw "Corbyn is a terrorist nazi IRA member says he is friends with Hamas" (I don't get why all this IRA stuff has come up now, why not years ago when they were so desperate for dirt on Corbyn they were having to bring up ancestors running workhouses).
But when it comes to leaders the debate didn't change what I thought of either of them.
But when it comes to leaders the debate didn't change what I thought of either of them.
I like how the cameras shut off as soon as one person standing looks around noticed nobody else was and proceeded to sit down.
The way they ended it sounded to me like "I'll have to pay VAT to send my children to public school. That's unfair" displaying their true colours.
The Guardian being anti-Corbyn is nothing new. Not sure what drives it to be frank.
Kotetsu534
Member
Idle thought: the Tories, by running a hyper-presidential campaign, have effectively sidelined their opposition's biggest weakness by bringing Corbyn to the fore. That being that Corbyn doesn't command the support of many of his backbenchers, and his shadow cabinet is filled with... let's say mediocrities. And it's given Corbyn the limelight in which to improve his standing - easy to do when expectations are low. Not coincidental that by far Labour's worst moment of the campaign was when Diane Abbott was loose.
I suppose the problem the Tories would have ran into with a campaign more broadly focussed across her Cabinet is that the likes of Hammond and Rudd aren't exactly political thunderbolts either. I sometimes find campaign strategy more fascinating than the actual politics.
I suppose the problem the Tories would have ran into with a campaign more broadly focussed across her Cabinet is that the likes of Hammond and Rudd aren't exactly political thunderbolts either. I sometimes find campaign strategy more fascinating than the actual politics.
Never underestimate the left's ability to eat itself.
Huw_Dawson
Member
I just want Corbyn on a proper debate. I don't dislike the guy as a person and I would enjoy him actually having to debate the rest of the parties.
He is a vastly more interesting person on a podium than May. I am starved for good entertainment.
Plus having the Greens and Plaid out-Left-Winged would be a lot of fun. What would Lucas do if she couldn't distinguish herself as the lefty candidate? She only has the more bonkers economic policy then, and that doesn't play to any audience.
I don't understand why they didn't lock up Diane Abbott from the first cock-up. At least the Tories have been sensible and have tried to keep poisonous individuals like Jeremy Hunt out of the limelight as much as possible even if he did cause a headache with the dementia tax.
It would look very bad for the Tories to have sent a lackey to debate 5 party leaders (particularly if Jeremy Corbyn is one of them). It'll make the accusations of her running scared much worse, would have been better for the Tories to not have sent anyone at all.
Coriolanus
Banned
Usually when that happens the faction on top simply waits for the debate to end, then justifies its omission by saying that, as was displayed, the debate showed a dreadfully low level, with very little substance indeed, and the candidate did the right thing by not showing up.
Happened in two different prez campaigns down here. Candidate wasnt harmed in any significante manner.
Fwiw, we adopt a two-round system and that only happened in the first round.
Makes sense, really, wot with debates almost always being somewhat disappointing.
Happened in two different prez campaigns down here. Candidate wasnt harmed in any significante manner.
Fwiw, we adopt a two-round system and that only happened in the first round.
Makes sense, really, wot with debates almost always being somewhat disappointing.
It wouldn't be hubris. The Labour vote is rising the more people see Corbyn. They liked his manifesto, they liked him vs Andrew Neil, they liked him last night.
He should do it and show up Theresa as a coward. How can she face EU leaders if she won't face UK leaders?
And this is why I think the polls may be bullshit, this poll is based on the fact that 81.7% of 18-24 say they are certain to vote. There is some debate over what exactly youth turnout was in 2015 but Ipsos-Mori seem to think it was 44%.
In fact this poll seems to think turnout is going to be 81.2% which would be the highest since 1951. Half of the people who didn't vote in 2015 say they are now certain to vote?!
Here is a good FT graph on turnout in all the elections since the 1960s:
(there is some quibbling over how correct these numbers are but they give you the idea)
After Cameron's Brexit miscalculation it really would be something if May's General Election gambit backfired.
And_Gignac
Member
And they dare to beg for money lmao. They seem to have a personal vendetta against their readers. It's appalling.
I think money does something funny with us, in that the richer we are, the more likely it is for us to have little empathy.
Older Tory voters really aren't happy with giving only £100,000 to their relatives for the betterment of all.
Separate to that, I had an interesting idea about means testing for things like winter fuel allowance. We ought to have an opt out option for the well off. That way we'd see just how many still go for those things.
Older Tory voters really aren't happy with giving only £100,000 to their relatives for the betterment of all.
Separate to that, I had an interesting idea about means testing for things like winter fuel allowance. We ought to have an opt out option for the well off. That way we'd see just how many still go for those things.
Did they actually change or am I just imagining things? Used to like them in the past and I am still subscribed to their feed.
I just read less and less of them because it doesn't appeal to me anymore except for the odd article. Maybe its me that changed.
Coriolanus
Banned
appears to be more like the problem/characteristic The Daily Show used to display, but in reverse.
That is, guardian still remains very left-wing when it comes to unrelated international affairs, but as soon as you get to UK topics, they get close to the center. Still left, tho. TDS used to do the exact opposite.
Plus they still keep paul mason around.
SporeCrawler
Member
no its a stupid line because no deal means chaos, tarriff and most probably sanctions
QuicheFontaine
Member
There already is an opt out option for the winter fuel allowance!
The vast majority of UK employers are SMEs. It's simply not as easy as paying everyone a tenner.
It could literally shut a lot of businesses down if not handled right. It could stop people from starting up new business in the first place as the weight of regulation gets too much. The guy was right to at least question it.
I run a small business who declared a net profit of £18k last year, some businesses just don't have the wiggle room for extra overnight cost burden.
It means we'll have to rebalance the economy which is currently balanced to the protectionist walls of the EU.
I don't envisage that process to be pain free but I don't see it as undo able either, far from it.
It's almost like we need some kind of social support system that can provide financial support to those on low earnings.
SporeCrawler
Member
if you mean by "rebalancing the economy" loosing access to one of the biggest markets in the world, loosing the position as the world biggest financial market place and having to discuss hundreds of trade deals with many other major markets from scratch in a bad bargaining position, than sure
Sure, but it plays well with the public, which is how you win elections. It's simple and effective.
Of course it means chaos, but it's up to others to point out what 'no deal' means. I was quite disappointed that Paxman didn't ask about that.
electroshockwave
Member
And by "overnight" you mean by 2020?
Huw_Dawson
Member
Would be interesting to rework the Yougov data to drop the voting likelihoods down to more sane levels.
My hunch is that you'd get Con 45, Lab 35 or something at best.
My hunch is that you'd get Con 45, Lab 35 or something at best.
I think The Guardian has gone downhill in many ways since Rusbridger was ousted. He left as editor semi-willingly, and then got booted from the board overseeing the paper unwillingly, but in the transition form Rusbridger to whoever followed him investigative journalism degraded and psuedo-liberal thinkpieces gained traction. It's less concerned with progressive causes than it is with middle-class issues nowadays. I barely touch the paper now, and always have my adblocker on when I do visit the site.
Daffy Duck
Member
Is it wrong that part of me wants to see the Tories win to see how the coming shit storm devastated them?
If they lose they will kind of be getting of the hook Cameron put them on with not having to deal with post Brexit Britain over the next 5 years.
If they lose they will kind of be getting of the hook Cameron put them on with not having to deal with post Brexit Britain over the next 5 years.
Huw_Dawson
Member
The line is "they will go from Thatcher and Lawson to Major and Lamont."
As in, they will get a good result at an election, get nuked by economic events, and limp on for four years as a zombie government.
The Brexit negotiations, and likely failure, are going to cause damage to the UK economy. The question is how much damage.
Of course the hope is that after Brexit is done with, the government is dragged to the ballot box again. But I think May's interest in snap elections will have waned by then for some reason.
The re-balance of the economy you are talking about would involve just some of these things:
Finding a trading partner that isn't the EU, considering that the EU is the biggest market in the world (maybe second after the UK leaves) the only real alternative is the USA, but that involves for example shipping goods across the Atlantic, a cost which ofc the companies operating in the USA wouldn't have, so you are almost guaranteed to sell less and having to buy things for more.
Any market even remotely close to the EU will be many times bigger than the UK market, meaning any negotiation would see the UK at a disadvantage.
The trading position in those markets wouldn't be one of equals, much less having an exalted position and a say in what goes on in those markets, so that's a step down too, one which funny enough gives less control to the UK.
Goes without saying keeping the position the UK has on the financial market is gone, there is just simply no way to replace that.
Importing energy from within the EU will become more expensive, importing gas/coal from non EU countries to produce energy yourself means increasing energy production, making it ever harder to transition into renewable, and non renewable costs are only increasing.
There is the need to negotiate trade deals with a bunch of countries, this means borrowing plenty of negotiators from other countries because as far as I know the UK doesn't have anywhere near enough, and putting deals in sequential order wouldn't be particularly efficient.
Any deals will almost assuredly take many many years, in the mean time the UK economy keeps losing, the more the UK economy loses the better the position is of other countries in the negotiations, so extending negotiations can even be beneficial in some cases (see how some AAA publishers have been known to negotiate with studios).
The UK is also currently relying on the EU for a lot of food production, this is a place where it isn't even worth considering an alternative, you either produce it yourself which means subsidizing farmers or/and you import from the EU.
Getting skilled immigrants from other countries outside the EU is not going to be easy, considering how even vital services like the NHS depend heavily on that re-balancing that will be quite tricky.
I also have no doubt that this is just the big ticket items (if even that), there are almost assuredly a bunch of other things the UK relies on the EU for, like materials, parts and so on and so forth that will just become more expensive outside of the EU.
Not even going into how by losing money in the present one is also losing money in the future which means significant losses in short to medium term can take many decades to recover from even if the economy surpasses what it was before.
Honestly reliably replacing the EU for another economic power seems nothing but a pipe dream to me, I just simply see no realistic way that the UK or any EU country could do it.
toythatkills
Member
This current election is specifically to prevent that. She knows she'll be unelectable in two years.
Dorsal Axe
Member
Honestly, this is the best potential outcome from this election. Brexit is the noose the Tories put up, they and they alone deserve to hang from it. I would hate for Labour to get in and the Tories get off scot free from what's going to happen.
Huw_Dawson
Member
Glad to see I am not the only one who is looking further ahead than the 8th.
I hope we get a good return of LD, SNP, PC and Labour MPs to keep the Tory majority down. Obviously I want more of the former, but nobody wins if there is a net swing from the left to the right.
I hope we get a good return of LD, SNP, PC and Labour MPs to keep the Tory majority down. Obviously I want more of the former, but nobody wins if there is a net swing from the left to the right.
Ye I saw one of them. May says something that was recorded for the ad and then they show Corbyn saying something "opposite", only for him to be cut off mid sentence. I thought it was very low.
Huw_Dawson
Member
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/6e6119/the_european_commission_has_just_released_a/
The European Commission has put out two reports - one on the financial deal, one on citizen's rights.
If you want a fun fact to tell your friends: May has committed the UK to freeing itself from the ECJ, but the EU wants the ECJ to be the final point of arbitration for the rights of the citizens affected by Brexit.
Ergo, no deal is currently possible on the right to remain unless May u-turns.
This is why May is saying 'no deal is better than a bad deal' early on. It seems increasingly likely that she is going to wait until Merkel is reelected Chancellor of Germany, then walk away when it becomes clear that the situation is untenable. And then have four years to bail our Tory doners. :/
The European Commission has put out two reports - one on the financial deal, one on citizen's rights.
If you want a fun fact to tell your friends: May has committed the UK to freeing itself from the ECJ, but the EU wants the ECJ to be the final point of arbitration for the rights of the citizens affected by Brexit.
Ergo, no deal is currently possible on the right to remain unless May u-turns.
This is why May is saying 'no deal is better than a bad deal' early on. It seems increasingly likely that she is going to wait until Merkel is reelected Chancellor of Germany, then walk away when it becomes clear that the situation is untenable. And then have four years to bail our Tory doners. :/
JonathanEx
Member
2.79m for the C4 debate. I think a little down on last time but with people caring less about TV debates, and it being on C4, not bad. But it's not going to change many views, obviously.
But I guess if you're looking for one big thing to change everyone's mind you'll never find it, it's gradual stuff over time.
But I guess if you're looking for one big thing to change everyone's mind you'll never find it, it's gradual stuff over time.
Daffy Duck
Member
Oh that question from Paxman to May about voting remain and now having to deliver something she believes is bad for the country is gold, solid gold.
Huw_Dawson
Member
The Tories are sodding terrible this election.
SlipperyFishes
Banned
It was also on Sky, and there were about 50k people watching online via YT I believe.
That's because May looked at the pre-campaign polls and thought she was going to walk it, especially with Corbyn being 'toxic' and all the other things the media kept saying about him. So, with that, little preparation. But Corbyn has come out fighting.
I think May now realises that 6 weeks is longer than it seems.
QuicheFontaine
Member
This campaign definitely feels longer than six weeks
Had a quick chat the other day with my housemate who works in media and advertising, now take this with a pinch of salt as it does descend into 'my mate knows someone who knows someones dog who hates Corbyn' but apparently her friend does some work for the Guardian.
Her friend informed her there was a specific internal memorandum that limits what they can print or discuss about Corbyn. I'll ask her later if she can be a bit clearer about it and if there are any specifics.
I think its important to remember there are certain interest groups attached to The Guardians trust like Apax partners who may implicitly have some influence on the paper.
Her friend informed her there was a specific internal memorandum that limits what they can print or discuss about Corbyn. I'll ask her later if she can be a bit clearer about it and if there are any specifics.
I think its important to remember there are certain interest groups attached to The Guardians trust like Apax partners who may implicitly have some influence on the paper.
Theonik
Member
Especially when every sensible party really were expecting May might try and do this.
Psychotext
Member
Thought this was fun...
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/liar-liar-captain-ska_uk_592c2152e4b0065b20b77e9b
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/liar-liar-captain-ska_uk_592c2152e4b0065b20b77e9b
Huw_Dawson
Member
I mean, the Guardian is a Labour paper, same as the Mirror. Not really a controversy to suggest that.
The only neutral paper in British politics was the Indy. And they have headed online and into obscurity.
If it was not for the BBC, ITV and C4 in this country we would not have any neutral voices in the press. Once the Murdochs complete their takeover of Sky, you can expect that to begin the march rightwards as well. And of course there is increasing pressures on the government to further weaken the BBC, privatise C4...
The only neutral paper in British politics was the Indy. And they have headed online and into obscurity.
If it was not for the BBC, ITV and C4 in this country we would not have any neutral voices in the press. Once the Murdochs complete their takeover of Sky, you can expect that to begin the march rightwards as well. And of course there is increasing pressures on the government to further weaken the BBC, privatise C4...
The BBC haven't been neutral since the Conservatives threatened their funding.
Notice how they very rarely if at all point out any mistakes the Tories make.
PJV3
Member
They are returning to the safer ground of her non-existent brexit plans, concentrating on that nothingness is a safe strategy normally.
Feels like Thatcher all over again. Everyone hates her but everyone will vote for her.
Indeed that's seemingly been the case for a while, although I was surprised that Laura Kuenssberg, who normally has a big hard-on for Theresa May, wrote this today in reference to the leaders debate:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40090520
To be fair, I don't think you could argue it any other way. But I don't think Corbyn had better prepared answers, he just simply had answers whereas May didn't have answers.
Theonik
Member
I'm actually between Thatcher and Major. The dementia tax might well be her poll tax.
But. I think she'll probably win this election and end up getting booted shortly thereafter, or be left barely hanging on.
2022 will be quite interesting. If there isn't another snap election that is.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked