• 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 thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.

But in countries where it is the norm, do you often get coalitions like the one we have? A left-wing party and a right-wing party? Or is it normally just parties on the same side of the political spectrum banding together?

Germany currently has a (translated) Tory/Labour grand coalition. Because all other more favourable coalition options didn't have their own majority.

For many years last century Germany had three parties in the Bundestag.
The German Liberals are very different compared with the LibDems, but they would just switch sides after every election helping the larger of the other two (Conservatives / Social Democrats) to form a majority government. They were thereby often in power much longer than anyone else…

Dhv2g2N.png
 

Nicktendo86

Member
BBC sort of glossed over the exchanges, as usual. Questions on Gove? Really? His party now supports free schools, what was he on about?
 
BBC sort of glossed over the exchanges, as usual. Questions on Gove? Really? His party now supports free schools, what was he on about?

He didn't even mention educational policy - he literally asked "If he's so good, why did you get rid of him?" A weird exchange but then it was always going to be hard for Ed - Cam's now met his 1/3rd-of-cabinet-positions-go-to-women pledge (which is more than Labour had) and we've had great employment numbers today so...
 

Nicktendo86

Member
He didn't even mention educational policy - he literally asked "If he's so good, why did you get rid of him?" A weird exchange but then it was always going to be hard for Ed - Cam's now met his 1/3rd-of-cabinet-positions-go-to-women pledge (which is more than Labour had) and we've had great employment numbers today so...

Also, my word at pulling out the Harman quote. That was a gift from the gods.

Don't worry though Ed, Obama has finally caved in and agreed to meet you next week. You are important, promise.

Edit: my god, just seen the footage of Cameron reading the quote, Miliband shaking his head and waving his hand as if to say thats nonsense, and Harman next to him nodding, saying it's true, they should. Unreal.
 
Germany currently has a (translated) Tory/Labour grand coalition. Because all other more favourable coalition options didn't have their own majority.

For many years last century Germany had three parties in the Bundestag.
The German Liberals are very different compared with the LibDems, but they would just switch sides after every election helping the larger of the other two (Conservatives / Social Democrats) to form a majority government. They were thereby often in power much longer than anyone else…

Dhv2g2N.png

I can't really imagine that (Tory/Lab coalition) working so well over here!

It's interesting though, given the percentages hovering around the main three parties the Lib Dems could come in fourth (likely behind UKIP) in national vote share next year, but, like the German Liberals, still play the part of "Kingmaker" and end up in government again.
 

Nicktendo86

Member
actzy.gif


--

Labour Press Team ‏@labourpress 2m
Harriet Harman made straightforward defence of progressive taxation - no mention of raising taxes. Tories know they're twisting her words.

Hmmm.

https://audioboo.fm/boos/2329629-harman-raise-taxes-on-middle-classes

The tories are going to make this run. The last thing from the HoC, before the summer, was of Harman being quoted as saying middle incomes should pay more tax (falling into the stereotype that Labour are a tax and spend party which lead to disaster) while her boss says that's rubbish and she doubles down. Miliband and Balls seriously looked like they had no idea she said what she did, and neither do the Labour press team!
 
As handy as this quote was, I think it's pretty clear that what she means is that those on middle incomes should contribute more "than those on lower incomes", not "more than they do now". So why didn't she say that?! She's been doing this long enough to know better.
 
actzy.gif


--

Labour Press Team ‏@labourpress 2m
Harriet Harman made straightforward defence of progressive taxation - no mention of raising taxes. Tories know they're twisting her words.

Hmmm.

https://audioboo.fm/boos/2329629-harman-raise-taxes-on-middle-classes

I can honestly relate to people not wanting to vote in the Conservatives again, there are many ways to tackle a wide range of issues and you can happily disagree with whatever route they choose.

But how anyone can still believe in the Labour party is beyond me. They are a full on festering joke at the moment. Fuck I would rather the Lib Dem's win the next election than them.
 
I can honestly relate to people not wanting to vote in the Conservatives again, there are many ways to tackle a wide range of issues and you can happily disagree with whatever route they choose.

But how anyone can still believe in the Labour party is beyond me. They are a full on festering joke at the moment. Fuck I would rather the Lib Dem's win the next election than them.

Yeah because of all the policies that makes the modern Labour Party terrible raising taxes is the worst.
 

Deacan

9/10 NeoGAFfers don't understand statistics. The other 3/10 don't care.
Do unemployment figures count people on job centre mickey mouse programmes?
 

8bit

Knows the Score
Beginning to see buzz about the UK looking to withdraw from the ECHR. Anyone able to explain why this might be on the cards? Is there a covert attempt at leaving the EU via less conspicuous means ahead?
 
Beginning to see buzz about the UK looking to withdraw from the ECHR. Anyone able to explain why this might be on the cards? Is there a covert attempt at leaving the EU via less conspicuous means ahead?
But... By whom? The main Tory leaders don't want to leave the EU.
 
Those highly principled Lib Dems have decided that major changes are needed for the bedroom tax. Tories unsurprisingly unhappy that the papers were told before they were.
 
I'm actually in favour of votes for prisoners personally, but I am very sympathetic to the idea that parliament should remain sovereign on these sorts of issues, since they require absolutely no cross-border cohesion whatsoever.
 
Fraser Nelson, my absolute man crush, has a lovely article in the Telegraph today:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...t-behind-our-jobs-miracle-Welfare-reform.html

Successful politicians are driven by an instinct to embrace success and run away from failures, especially their own. Nick Clegg certainly has these instincts, but the wrong way around. His most memorable speech was an apology for trebling tuition fees, ensuring he is now indelibly linked with the idea. And yesterday, he decided to attack his Government’s welfare reforms – just as it became clear that they are working better than any Tory dared hope.

In his defence, it’s hard to keep up with the pace of the British jobs miracle. Each month, the figures confound the predictions of even the most optimistic economists. In last year’s Budget, for example, George Osborne set out an ambitious target of getting 900,000 more people into work by 2018. This figure will now be reached next month.

All this is nothing short of phenomenal: more jobs are being created in Britain than in the rest of Europe put together. And it is also troubling the Bank of England, whose own forecasts have been proved as wrong as everyone else’s. Mark Carney, its governor, said last summer that he would not think about raising interest rates until unemployment fell below 7 per cent – which he expected to take three years. It took six months.

There has clearly been a game-changer, something that none of the economists had incorporated in their models. And senior figures inside the Bank are beginning to conclude (and openly hint) that this is Iain Duncan Smith’s welfare reforms.

What confounded the eggheads was that the number of workers is growing four times faster than the number of working-age people: in other words, Britons have become far more likely than pretty much anyone else to look for –and find – work. Why? It’s hardly the dazzling salaries on offer, since wages are still being outpaced by inflation. Nor is it immigration: that’s still continuing, but the dole queues are shrinking faster. Fewer people now claim the three main out-of-work benefits than at any time during the Labour years.

...

For the Welfare Secretary, all of this will be a welcome distraction from the ongoing saga of Universal Credit, a massive upheaval of the entire benefits system billed as his flagship reform. Its supporters (myself included) have been dismayed at the delays, setbacks and prospects of massive write-downs. His plan to have a French company, Atos, assess the sick was also a calamity. To the people caught up in the chaos of such failures, the mayhem is unforgivable. And the jobs boom is not all down to IDS: much of it may come from the depressing fact that salaries remain stubbornly low, which makes it more tempting to hire extra bodies.

But still – not since Churchill presided over an economy recovering from war have so many Britons found so much work so quickly. At present, the Prime Minister intends to fight the next election on deficit reduction. But that strategy was decided before the scale of the employment bonanza was clear. So instead, his message should be: jobs, jobs, jobs. After all, this is as clear a success as you can get in politics – a radical gamble, based on basic Tory principles, which has made us an oasis of job creation in a beleaguered continent.

It could have been a Liberal Democrat triumph, too, had Nick Clegg been minded to take credit for it. But he has decided that all of this is just too Tory for his grassroots to swallow. One of Clegg’s aides confesses that, given the popularity of welfare reform, the Deputy Prime Minister considered boasting about it on his leaflets – but his team decided that they couldn’t, because their activists would refuse to post them.

So the Coalition has split, appropriately, on one of the fundamental points of conservatism: that docking benefits and imposing sanctions may sound cruel, but doing nothing is by far the greater cruelty.

Fraser's always (since I began reading his stuff in the Speccie around 2008) very much been of the opinion that welfare reform was a social issue first and an economic one second; That a system of non-tapered benefits and taxes on low incomes basically trapped people on benefits unless they were very lucky to get a high paying job was primarily a waste of great human potential; the fact it was an economic waste, too, was a secondary concern, and I think he's right.

Still, that figure - that the UK is generating more jobs than the rest of the EU combined - is pretty outstanding. I assume that's a P&L figure for Europe - that is, the countries with rising unemployment bringing down the total - but I'm not totally sure.
 

Nicktendo86

Member
The employment stats is a staggering achievement for this government and should be praised for it. The left will try to wish it away with lines of "zero hour contracts, government work schemes, fudging stats etc but they don't explain the massive levels of job creation and post filling.

This is down in large part to welfare reforms. There have been cock ups and some people have been treated badly, but in a broad sense they have been a massive success and has gone some way to reverse labour's tactic of putting everyone on benefits to maintain an underclass which will perpetualy vote for them.

Problem we have now is wages are just not improving. I suspect firms are using the downturn as an excuse and trying it on for as long as they can get away with, but I hope wages will big up big time soon.

Fun fact: every single labour government has left office with higher unemployment than when they started. How anyone can trust them with the keys to the economy again I will never know.

Edit: this stat is startling:

Nor has there been a rise in homelessness, despite hysterical warnings from the likes of the Child Poverty Action Group or Karen Buck, one of Labour’s London MPs. In fact, the number of people in temporary accommodation has fallen to almost half the peak reached under Labour– during the boom years, as it happens.

I really feel this government doesn't get the credit it deserves.
 

Moosichu

Member
http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5330/audio-file-set-to-blow-lid-off-paedophile-scandal-at-westminster

Copy and pasting is disabled at the link. But I would greatly recommend reasing exaro in general.

They have been a really big driver of the inquiry into the paedophile scandal. There are a lot of good MPs out there, but this whole situation has made me realise that to top branches of goverment need to be completely re-shuffled. Regardless of party.

BTW exaro isn't some wacky site: http://www.exaronews.com/content/our-people
 
http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5330/audio-file-set-to-blow-lid-off-paedophile-scandal-at-westminster

Copy and pasting is disabled at the link. But I would greatly recommend reasing exaro in general.

They have been a really big driver of the inquiry into the paedophile scandal. There are a lot of good MPs out there, but this whole situation has made me realise that to top branches of goverment need to be completely re-shuffled. Regardless of party.

BTW exaro isn't some wacky site: http://www.exaronews.com/content/our-people

I dunno, I get a weird feeling from that article. Firstly, it's written in a really bizarro way, with one-sentence paragraphs and lines like "This is political dynamite". Then they don't actually name any of the people involved, and offer no justification for methods by which they "verify its authenticity" after being asked to (by whom?) and then if you read the comments, there's a Daily Telegraph reporter on there making a pretty decent sounding case for the whole crux of the article not lining up.

I mean, it may well all be true. But this website seems a bit... off to me.
 

jimbor

Banned
I dunno, I get a weird feeling from that article. Firstly, it's written in a really bizarro way, with one-sentence paragraphs and lines like "This is political dynamite". Then they don't actually name any of the people involved, and offer no justification for methods by which they "verify its authenticity" after being asked to (by whom?) and then if you read the comments, there's a Daily Telegraph reporter on there making a pretty decent sounding case for the whole crux of the article not lining up.

I mean, it may well all be true. But this website seems a bit... off to me.

Not disagreeing with your point but the BBC news website does that for every story.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Fun fact: every single labour government has left office with higher unemployment than when they started. How anyone can trust them with the keys to the economy again I will never know.

Governments usually get voted out when they trigger poor economic performance - it'd be very odd if Labour produced splendid employment figures, but people turfed them out anyway. It's also true of the Conservative Party - the Conservatives entered government in 1951 with a 1.4% unemployment rate and left with a 1.6% unemployment rate in 1964, entered in 1970 with a 2.5% unemployment rate and left with a 2.7% unemployment rate in 1974, entered in 1979 with a 5.4% unemployment rate and left with a 6.5% unemployment rate in 1997. This just seems like one of those shitty bit-phrases designed to make partisan points by people who've not actually examined any of the issues at hand very closely.
 

Moosichu

Member
I dunno, I get a weird feeling from that article. Firstly, it's written in a really bizarro way, with one-sentence paragraphs and lines like "This is political dynamite". Then they don't actually name any of the people involved, and offer no justification for methods by which they "verify its authenticity" after being asked to (by whom?) and then if you read the comments, there's a Daily Telegraph reporter on there making a pretty decent sounding case for the whole crux of the article not lining up.

I mean, it may well all be true. But this website seems a bit... off to me.

The whole reason Baroness Butler Sloss had to step down was due to information this site dug up.

Also, if there is/was a group of paedophiles at the heart of Westminster, in MI5, MI6, the police force and the media. They are going to fighting tooth and nail to stop this from coming out.

Furthermore, they are in openly converse with Zac Goldsmith and Tom Watson on twitter.
 

War Peaceman

You're a big guy.
The best thing this government has done is the appearance of competence. I don't mean that as an insult: they seem vastly more professional than the last vestiges of New Labour and far less beset by infighting and disorder. Whether they actually are is a different story, of course.

The necessities of coalition have forced them to try and present a solid front as well as limited the amount of legislative change. I think the economy would have improved regardless of who was in government, but the last Labour government was a shambles by the end and blatantly unfit to rule.
 
The whole reason Baroness Butler Sloss had to step down was due to information this site dug up.

Also, if there is/was a group of paedophiles at the heart of Westminster, in MI5, MI6, the police force and the media. They are going to fighting tooth and nail to stop this from coming out.

Furthermore, they are in openly converse with Zac Goldsmith and Tom Watson on twitter.

Like I said, I'm certainly not saying that what they're writing is untrue; But it doesn't come across as professional at all, and I'm not sure what MI5 or talking to Tom Watson has to do with that. Hopefully it's purely a presentational and slightly whacky writing style issue.
 

Moosichu

Member
Like I said, I'm certainly not saying that what they're writing is untrue; But it doesn't come across as professional at all, and I'm not sure what MI5 or talking to Tom Watson has to do with that. Hopefully it's purely a presentational and slightly whacky writing style issue.

Fair enough.

Either way, I really hope this inquiry gets to the bottom of it all.
 

Nicktendo86

Member
So boys and girls, what should the UK FCO's position on Russia be?

Sanctions that mean something, cut reliance on Russian oil and gas, isolate until they grow up and play ball. Should be everyone's position, but it will all get swept under the rug as too many people get too rich on Russian oil/gas.
 
Sanctions that mean something, cut reliance on Russian oil and gas, isolate until they grow up and play ball. Should be everyone's position, but it will all get swept under the rug as too many people get too rich on Russian oil/gas.

Yeah, agreed. It might have repercussions in financial terms, but it's worth it imo - it's not about solidarity with Ukraine or being nice, it's that this issue won't sort itself out; It will come to a head at some point (just like Ukraine) and as far as I can see, this is the most peaceful way of dealing with the situation, but there's no solution that doesn't hurt us in some way.

In other news, fucking Ouch for the Tories:

"Ashcroft National Poll, 18-20 July: CON 27%, LAB 35%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 17%, GRN 7%. F"
 
Top Bottom