• 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 PoliGAF: General election thread of LibCon Coalitionage

Status
Not open for further replies.

Linkified

Member
Sir Fragula said:
The only people who use the term "superstate" without irony are idiots who've bought into The Australian and others' bullshit. Increased cooperation and pooled sovereignty arrangements within Europe are right and beneficial.

As as above. The European Single Currency would be hugely beneficial to this country.

Also; fuck it. I'm going Liberal Democrat this time. Crawley had a tiny Labour majority and I don't think it'll survive, so might as well vote for the party I want.

You see thats what the UN is for increased cooperation on a world level - the EU is just another layer of government. Plus if one of our weak willed future PM's decide to pull resources. It is likely that we wouldn't ever get an english president of the EU.

Plus we will never get the ESC as we had a chance - if you look at the currency and the way it operates. If there is high inflation in one country and they need to reduce it quickly how system is still more succesful than having inflation multiple countries controlled by one central mechanism.
 

jas0nuk

Member
That is an extremely good poll for the Lib Dems, terrible for Labour and Conservatives.

Hilariously, on uniform national swing, this leaves Labour as the largest party even though they're in 3rd place.

On a slightly more advanced calculator taking marginal seats into account, it gives
CON 287 LAB 220 LD 110.

So CON 38 short of forming a gov't.
 

Empty

Member
brain_stew said:
I just saw it on ITV news as well (yeah, know). They broke down how it would convert to seats assuming an equal spread. The Lib Dems would only have 100 seats and despite having the least amounts of votes Labour would have the msot seats (150+ more than the LDs). If anything demonstrates how broken our voting system is, surely this is it.

Clegg needs to make this point in the next debate. Something like: "Recent polls show that more of you are planning to vote for us than Labour, yet despite that Labour are projected to win 150 more seats. Your say is being taken away by our broken voting system, your power is being taken away by the grip of the two parties to my left, and unlike the other two we are going to fix it; to bring fairness and democracy to this country".

He didn't really make the case for proportional representation in the first debate at all, but it is ripe to be exploited now.
 

DECK'ARD

The Amiga Brotherhood
This bandwagon could grow as well, especially amongst younger voters.

The British love a good underdog, and the change to the 2-party system is the best underdog you could be.
 
Mr. Sam said:
The Lib Dems could get fifty percent and FPTP would still screw them over - as we established earlier.

What would it take for them to actually get power assuming an even spread? Impossible I know, but its an interesting statistic nonetheless. Voting reform is one of the biggest issues for me personally, and only solid LD performance will bring about that.
 

Wes

venison crêpe
Lib Dem supporters will want a hung parliament. Push for election reform. Another general election within a year (which would be bound to happen with a hung parliament) and the Lib Dems vote share would mean more. How much more... we wont know.
 
Am I the only one who thinks that a lot of the younger generation do tend to be more liberal? (In the UK, I mean)

Pretty much everyone I know shares similar view points. Those who care at least.
 

Zenith

Banned
Lib Dems are going to get nuked come the 2nd debate. Both parties will gang up on them and push the inexperience and naivity cards.
 

Mr. Sam

Member
Dabookerman said:
Am I the only one who thinks that a lot of the younger generation do tend to be more liberal? (In the UK, I mean)
I'm in the minority in my Politics class. In London, that is. Big ol' Conservative circle jerk.
 

Mr. Sam

Member
Subliminal said:
But if 50% of the people in this country voted Libdem surely they would have an adequate enough majority of seats to form governments?
Depends how those votes are distributed. Certainly possible that 50% of the vote would not equal 50% of seats.
 

DECK'ARD

The Amiga Brotherhood
Zenith said:
Lib Dems are going to get nuked come the 2nd debate. Both parties will gang up on them and push the inexperience and naivity cards.

Not so sure, most people I know see ditching Trident is a positive.

Plus, people still remember Iraq and the Lib Dems are the only ones who gain from that being the only ones who opposed the war.

Labour can be completely obliterated over Iraq and our soldiers being under-equipped and underfunded, and the Tories can't capitalise too much on things they supported. I think the Lib Dems will do ok on Foreign Affairs personally, and Clegg has shown he can debate as strongly as the other 2.
 
Zenith said:
Lib Dems are going to get nuked come the 2nd debate. Both parties will gang up on them and push the inexperience and naivity cards.

They'll take them more seriously this time that's for sure but it has the potential to backfire big style. It'd help legitimize as a genuine contender/equal and generally speaking, bully tactics don't tend to go down to well with the British public.

They need to approach it differently but I don't think all out attack is the best way to approach it, it could do more harm than good.
 

Mr. Sam

Member
Dabookerman said:
Apparently not.. Still don't understand that haha.
Well, a party could theoretically come a close second in every constituency in Britain, hold a majority of the vote and hold no seats whatsoever.

The dangers of a voting system based on constituencies and not votes.
 

Empty

Member
Zenith said:
Lib Dems are going to get nuked come the 2nd debate. Both parties will gang up on them and push the inexperience and naivity cards.

Dangerous strategy though. They try and talk experience, it gives Clegg free reign to position them as the same old two parties, go for 'Obama' style change rhetoric and argue that their so called experience led to both support illegal war in Iraq. It also has them looking like bullies, which is bad, and the Lib Dems can start playing the underdog card hard.
 
Mr. Sam said:
Well, a party could theoretically come a close second in every constituency in Britain, hold a majority of the vote and hold no seats whatsoever.

The dangers of a voting system based on constituencies and not votes.

Ok.. So Each constituency = 1 seat.

Right?
 

Wes

venison crêpe
All the media this coming week will be "How are the Conservatives and Labour going to raise their game to beat Clegg?" which just makes Clegg look more like the leader, the rest playing catch up.

This really is a lot of fun.

And apparently Brown will be interviewed by Paxman on the 26th. The pressure on Cameron to accept now too.
 

Mr. Sam

Member
Dabookerman said:
Ok.. So Each constituency = 1 seat.

Right?
Indeed.

The best proportional voting system in my opinion is the Alternative Vote Plus system. The inquisitive will have to Google it as I unfortunately have difficulty explaining it.
 

Walshicus

Member
Linkified said:
You see thats what the UN is for increased cooperation on a world level - the EU is just another layer of government. Plus if one of our weak willed future PM's decide to pull resources. It is likely that we wouldn't ever get an english president of the EU.
1) The UN is not able to provide utility in the same manner as the EU government does. The UN has a purpose as a forum and facility for states to air their grievances, but it is absolutely unsuited to do the kind of things that nation or multi-nation states do.

Do you really think the UN could handle the Structural Fund? Or agriculture? Half the members there are completely corrupt; what meaningful social projects could be managed? No, the European sui generis confederation we have at the moment works because deep down European states have compatible cultures and share a fundamental view of how politics and government should work.

2) English politicians, diplomats and civil servants are very well represented at the European level. I disagree with this very much.



Plus we will never get the ESC as we had a chance - if you look at the currency and the way it operates. If there is high inflation in one country and they need to reduce it quickly how system is still more succesful than having inflation multiple countries controlled by one central mechanism.
Interest rates are a lazy way of controling inflationary pressure. The best thing to come out of ECU [aside from the trade boost following elimination of exchange rate risk and the solidification of the Euro as THE reserve currency] would be pressure to shift to fiscal policy as the tool to control inflation.
 

Linkified

Member
Sir Fragula said:
1) The UN is not able to provide utility in the same manner as the EU government does. The UN has a purpose as a forum and facility for states to air their grievances, but it is absolutely unsuited to do the kind of things that nation or multi-nation states do.

Do you really think the UN could handle the Structural Fund? Or agriculture? Half the members there are completely corrupt; what meaningful social projects could be managed? No, the European sui generis confederation we have at the moment works because deep down European states have compatible cultures and share a fundamental view of how politics and government should work.

2) English politicians, diplomats and civil servants are very well represented at the European level. I disagree with this very much.


Interest rates are a lazy way of controling inflationary pressure. The best thing to come out of ECU [aside from the trade boost following elimination of exchange rate risk and the solidification of the Euro as THE reserve currency] would be pressure to shift to fiscal policy as the tool to control inflation.

I personally think there should be no agricultural funds, as one could argue the fair trade policy set up by the world trade organisation is enough. The meaningful projects that we need to manage are world health, and getting into space and trying to find new ways of improving society, it needs a global effoft in that regard. We should trade with Europe but we don't need to join them. I would actually wish we would pull out of European politics and get a trade agreement set up.

Fiscal policy is also poor simply because of the time lags to see whether or not a new increase in governement spending as been a success.

I literally want and hope that the Labour voters come out and vote for the Torries I just want to see a Tory government in charge. Liberal Democrats are way too Euro-focused for my liking and well Labour are too interfering for my liking. But won't get to work - as my local council won't allow me to get a postal ballot and I won't be in the country at the time. Oh well.
 

industrian

will gently cradle you as time slowly ticks away.
Zenith said:
Lib Dems are going to get nuked come the 2nd debate. Both parties will gang up on them and push the inexperience and naivity cards.

You can see it coming from a mile away.
 

industrian

will gently cradle you as time slowly ticks away.
Wes said:
And thus have responses pre-planned.

That is if Labour and the Tories let them respond. I remember in 2007 on shows like Question Time and other political shows watching Labour candidates shout down and not let SNP candidates speak.
 

Zenith

Banned
haha, damage control. Front page of torygraph was "Cameron: It's still a 2 horse race" and all the op-eds were the most outrageous lies they could think of about the lib dems.
 

avaya

Member
Has Cameron apologised about his comments regarding China in the last debate?

He is going to be rinsed for that in the second since it's foreign policy.
 

Walshicus

Member
Linkified said:
I personally think there should be no agricultural funds, as one could argue the fair trade policy set up by the world trade organisation is enough.
Well, agriculture is subsidised partly to ensure food security and partly to ensure the countryside is managed. It's a good program which just happens to have some issues. Fair Trade is a nice ideal, but only an idealist would rely on it.

The meaningful projects that we need to manage are world health,
I have no issues supporting global health initiatives, but they should never come before European interests.

and getting into space
Which is why ESA exists.

and trying to find new ways of improving society
This is kind of a wishy-washy aim...

We should trade with Europe but we don't need to join them. I would actually wish we would pull out of European politics and get a trade agreement set up.
European integration is happening *because* you need political cooperation to effectively manage free trade areas. There are more barriers to trade than just tarriffs and subsidies - divergent standards, divergent safety regulations, blocks on movement of labour and capital... all these things had to be harmonised to give us the economic integration we enjoy today, and it was only natural and inevitable that the successes here would lead European leaders to want to pool sovereignty in other policy areas. That's why the Common Foreign and Security Policy and Police and Judicial Cooperation pillars were built into European Union.
180px-Pillars_of_the_European_Union.svg.png

Because our 27 states have greater ability to shape our own future when working together than independent of each other. Because our interests are near uniformly convergent and separate to those of the Americans or the Chinese or the Indians.

There is a reason why nearly every free trade area on the planet has the goal of greater and greater cooperation [though to Europe's credit we're the only ones who have been able to put aside conflicting state-level interests long enough to reap the enormous benefits].

The European Union is Humanity's single greatest political achievement. I'm just amused that you'd want to remove us from that success in favour of supporting a UN that has and can have no real means to provide effective utility to its membership.


Fiscal policy is also poor simply because of the time lags to see whether or not a new increase in governement spending as been a success.
Monetary policy has the same effective lag - the time it takes people to feel the increase or decrease to their disposable income [which is why flex taxation and not govt. spending would be the principle tool here].


I literally want and hope that the Labour voters come out and vote for the Torries I just want to see a Tory government in charge. Liberal Democrats are way too Euro-focused for my liking and well Labour are too interfering for my liking. But won't get to work - as my local council won't allow me to get a postal ballot and I won't be in the country at the time. Oh well.
The Tories are a party of small minded hateful petty Englanders, and I don't care to help make Toffs richer at the expense of those who actually work.
 

Zenith

Banned
holy shit, look what Liam Fox (shadow defence secretary, born again christian, most right wing amongst tories' front bench) said about Lib Dems scrapping Trident:

"Until the Lib Dems come clean, many will conclude that they are closet unilateralists - the sort of one sided disarmers we thought we had seen the back of when CND were defeated in the 1980s," he said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8626811.stm

Thank god CND were defeated! Can you imagine a world where peace had won? *shudder*
 

avaya

Member
I really hope the Tories push the Trident issue.

They will be utterly fucked in the polls if they do that. Not defensible at all. At all.
 

Wes

venison crêpe
My dad was just telling me he went up the high street earlier and two labour people were handing out leaflets and no one was accepting them. Then a little girl came up to them and they gave one to her :lol In a labour seat too (but a very marginal one).
 

Empty

Member
Zenith said:
haha, damage control. Front page of torygraph was "Cameron: It's still a 2 horse race" and all the op-eds were the most outrageous lies they could think of about the lib dems.

i was wondering where all those anti lib-dem talking points suddenly came from at lunch today from my grandparents. now i know. the debate result has them rattled. i love it.
 

avaya

Member
Wes said:
And apparently Brown will be interviewed by Paxman on the 26th. The pressure on Cameron to accept now too.

Cameron will not accept an interview with Paxman prior to the election. Jezza would expose and crucify him in minutes.
 
Sir Fragula said:
European integration is happening *because* you need political cooperation to effectively manage free trade areas. There are more barriers to trade than just tarriffs and subsidies - divergent standards, divergent safety regulations, blocks on movement of labour and capital... all these things had to be harmonised to give us the economic integration we enjoy today, and it was only natural and inevitable that the successes here would lead European leaders to want to pool sovereignty in other policy areas. That's why the Common Foreign and Security Policy and Police and Judicial Cooperation pillars were built into European Union.
180px-Pillars_of_the_European_Union.svg.png

Because our 27 states have greater ability to shape our own future when working together than independent of each other. Because our interests are near uniformly convergent and separate to those of the Americans or the Chinese or the Indians.

There is a reason why nearly every free trade area on the planet has the goal of greater and greater cooperation [though to Europe's credit we're the only ones who have been able to put aside conflicting state-level interests long enough to reap the enormous benefits].

The European Union is Humanity's single greatest political achievement. I'm just amused that you'd want to remove us from that success in favour of supporting a UN that has and can have no real means to provide effective utility to its membership.



Monetary policy has the same effective lag - the time it takes people to feel the increase or decrease to their disposable income [which is why flex taxation and not govt. spending would be the principle tool here].



The Tories are a party of small minded hateful petty Englanders, and I don't care to help make Toffs richer at the expense of those who actually work.

And I as a supporter or further intergration applaud you for saying so! Though due to the ad-hoc nature of the EU's genesis (I.E. through signing ton of treaties over half a century nearly) there are efficiency problems. Hell the Lisbon treaty was about trying to fix them, and the Right attempted to block that too. I for one think that either the EU Council or Commission should be scrapped, the EU has TWO presidents for goodness sake. Scrap the Council and Barroso's job and then we will have a two tier Exectuive-Parliament system like France and other countries, it'll make it simpler to understand, also, get the Parliament to elect a PM and make sure he/she's in the spotlight too. Most of the problems with the EU are lack of communication, and 'little englander' mentality in this country.

avaya said:
Cameron will not accept an interview with Paxman prior to the election. Jezza would expose and crucify him in minutes.

Which is why he backed out in the first place, after seeing Clegg he must've thought "I want NO part of that!", doubt he'd be able to say much over Pax's "COME ON! LET'S HAVE IT THEN! You're a LIAR aren't you?"
 

Wes

venison crêpe
The "40-year-old black man" famously referred to by David Cameron in this week's televised election debate has hit out at the conservative leader for getting the story wrong.

Neal Forde was quoted by Cameron as being ashamed of Britain's "out-of-control" immigration system, but the Tory leader got the 51-year-old businessman's age wrong by 11 years.

He also told the audience of 9 million viewers that Forde had served in the Royal Navy for 30 years, when in fact he served for six.

More here
 

Empty

Member
Some sunday polls:

Two of Sunday’s polls have already been released – a new poll by ComRes for the Sunday Mirror has topline figures of CON 31%(-4), LAB 27%(-2), LDEM 29%(+8). This was conducted yesterday and today, and is very much in line with the YouGov figures yesterday, showing a surge in support for the Liberal Democrats following the leaders’ debate, pushing them ahead of Labour into second place.

There is also new ICM poll in the Sunday Telegraph which has topline figures of CON 34%(-3), LAB 29%(-2), LDEM 27%(+7). The fieldwork dates are very interesting here – Wednesday and Thursday. The Sunday Telegraph article says the “majority” of the fieldwork was done before the debate

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2609

:D
 

Varion

Member
Second one's definitely interesting if it was pretty much all done before the debate. I can understand the surge after that, though it's a little difficult to otherwise. Lots of people tuning in to the second half of the Paxman interview? I find it hard to believe many people actually read the party manifestos.

Still very encouraging figures though.
 

DECK'ARD

The Amiga Brotherhood
Cameron's 'Change' mantra has set the Lib Dems up perfectly to exploit the dislike of the MP's and the current system.

The way the seats work out with a third placed party being the largest will just fuel it even more I think. The way these polls are reported will be the first time a lot of people get to find out in a clear way exactly how unrepresentative the first past the post system is.

It could be a perfect storm ...
 

DECK'ARD

The Amiga Brotherhood
Another one (The People):

Lib Dems: 33%
Conservatives: 27%
Labour: 23%

OnePoll questioned 3,715 voters Thur-Sat

Most interesting election ever?
 

Zenith

Banned
DECK'ARD said:
Another one (The People):

Lib Dems: 33%
Conservatives: 27%
Labour: 23%

OnePoll questioned 3,715 voters Thur-Sat

Most interesting election ever?

I bet you that result still somehow gives Labour the most seats.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom