Napoleonthechimp
Member
The Cassetteboy rap was certainly amusing.
-
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.
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
WayneMorse
Banned
The economy would've imploded anyway in 2008 no matter who was in government, you don't think for a second that Prime MInister Michael Howard would've followed the exact same route as Brown did when the economy went balls up?
Check out this cool opinion poll graph.
Looking like another hung parliament I'd guess. Labour should be able to win by default really, with our crappy electoral system splitting the Con/UKIP vote and with the votes they'll pick up from the LDs, but they seem pretty useless right now so I could see them fucking it up.
That Cassetteboy Rap is pretty funny.
Looking like another hung parliament I'd guess. Labour should be able to win by default really, with our crappy electoral system splitting the Con/UKIP vote and with the votes they'll pick up from the LDs, but they seem pretty useless right now so I could see them fucking it up.
That Cassetteboy Rap is pretty funny.
anonymous_abc
Member
Check out this cool opinion poll graph.
Looking like another hung parliament I'd guess. Labour should be able to win by default really, with our crappy electoral system splitting the Con/UKIP vote and with the votes they'll pick up from the LDs, but they seem pretty useless right now so I could see them fucking it up.
That Cassetteboy Rap is pretty funny.
Thing is with crappy FPTP it's nigh impossible to extrapolate your graph of the entire electorate to seats in Westminster.
But the more hung parliaments the better, less argument for that abomination.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
You don't elect PMs, but I really don't know how anyone can dispute that New Labour and Tony Blair in particular were absolutely morally despicable.
They did the same kind of welfare-vilification, illegal wars and their anti-terror efforts infringed many civil liberties.
The only substantial good they did for the country was in gay rights, where they were absolutely brilliant. Other things, such as Regional Development Funds and attempts to end child-poverty were well-intended if not always brilliantly executed.
The Conservatives are bad and I fear what could happen with a majority, but New Labour made the best possible argument for a Tory vote. I do find it funny though that so many people complained about Milliband not talking about the deficit and recklessly promising to invest extra in the NHS yet have little complaint for the billions worth of tax cuts (some of which are decent ideas, others not at all.).
Miles Quaritch
Member
Nicktendo86
Member
Fairly simple, labour are more than happy for people to stay on the dole and promise them more benefits in exchange for them to keep voting labour. Their traditional working class base has shrunk and been replaced by an underclass dependent on a big state.
I say this as someone who grew up in a family on benefits and was 7 stone at age 16 from a mother not able to properly feed her kids and was utterly let down from going to school between 97-02 and being subjected to labour's dire policy of inflating league table pass rates rather than equipping kids with real skills.
Labour just don't work. They may well be well meaning but in practice are a disaster for this country. I honestly believe that.
Jezbollah
Member
The whole "it would have happened anyway" argument is easily disputable. The 2008 financial crisis was due to sovereign debt. Those exposed to higher amount of debt were impacted more by the crisis than others. To say that this country would have been hit as hard when they would have likely had different fiscal policies at the time is super speculative at best. Labour's rampant borrowing is the root of most of the hurt people are still experiencing today. And boy do those same people have short memories.
dapperbandit
Banned
I noticed this when I watched it. Unfortunate slip up lol
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
It's trivially easy to show this isn't true. Just look at the number of people on the Jobseeker's Allowance over the last few decades: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10604117 Labour actually made it more difficult to claim Jobseeker's Allowance while unemployed than in the Thatcher years, which is why you see the large divergence between JSA and unemployment when they used to be roughly the same. One of their worst policies, and one I despised, but your claim they just 'stick people on the dole' is just so easily proven wrong.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I think Labour was pretty morally despicable at times. I'm not saying "vote for Labour, they're really moral". I'm saying "comparatively, Labour are better than the Conservatives. By voting Conservative, or not voting Labour, you are allowing a worse harm to occur. That's wrong, so the moral option is voting Labour". It's like being told you have to kill a small child or kill all of London - neither of them is 'good', but the 'good choice' is probably the child.
Yes, I'd agree with all of these. In the aftermath of the Iraq war I would have voted for the Liberal Democrats, I think back than Charles Kennedy was a much better choice than Blair because of all these things. However, even when you accept all these harms, which I do, Labour is still better than the Conservatives given: a) the Conservatives wanted to welfare-vilify more, it was basically their entire raison d'etre during the Howard years, b) at the very least a quarter of Labour MPs rebelled on the Iraq war vote. Every single Conservative MP bar 2 voted Aye, so if you think a Conservative government would have somehow not gone into Iraq on the United States' behest you're dead wrong, and c) exactly the same principle applies on civil liberties - remember the Terrorism Act 2006, the shitest of Labour's civil liberties policies? 5% of Labour's MPs voted no compared to 4% of the Conservatives, who were also whipped in favour of it, and at the very least Labour supported stuff like the Humans Rights Act, contra Theresa May.
I mean, yes, Labour were fucking shite, but they were a much less bad brand of fucking shite than the Conservatives, who would also have taken us into Iraq, also have eroded our civil liberties, and also eroded the welfare-state; but probably would have done all of those things much worse and much faster because they didn't have the glimmerings of a conscience still hanging around on the backbench.
Others include shortest NHS waiting times since records began, the Northern Ireland peace process, the Scottish and Welsh parliaments/assemblies, taking the UK below their Kyoto target alongside large green investment policies, half a million children moved out of poverty, massive reduction in violent crime, debt cancellations to third world countries, extended maternity leave and greater protection for mothers at work, etc.
New Labour made the best possible argument for voting Liberal Democrat, but if they made you vote Conservative then your logic is fucked up. "Man, Labour did some things that were so fucking awful, I'm afraid I'm going to have to vote for a party that would do the same things but on an even grander scale". I'm cool with people voting for Kennedy in '05, I'd have done the same, I think the Liberal Democrats were the right choice then, but given in a coalition dynamic they're happy just to prop up the Conservatives, they'er no longer an option.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Except this is also not true. The 2008 financial crisis was due to toxic assets mostly in the form of sub-prime mortgages, which were leveraged into collateral debt obligations that obscured the risk portfolio associated with the base asset. Banks went on to buy loads of them because they thought they were safer than they were, whole thing goes tits up when turns out they're not safe at all. Banks lose a load of money, become worried about their solvency, and so they stop loaning money at all and just sit on it. That tanks the economy because suddenly there's no more money in circulation, and makes the problem worse as now banks also get less money in as a result of the economy being tanked. Nothing to do with government fiscal policy in the slightest. I mean, you can make the argument it could have been avoided with better regulations on how banks leverage debt, but I'm somewhat sceptical of the claim - for the most part, it wasn't British banks themselves that were involved in the CDO trade, but they relied on liquidity from international markets dominated by the US, so it was mostly indirect fallout. Even if it could have been, do you seriously think the Conservative party would have regulated banks more than the Labour party? No chance.
No. It caused a sovereign debt crisis in the Eurozone; it was not caused by one.
I notice that the Tories promised £7bn in tax cuts yesterday without making any mention of how they're going to square that up with their claims to be cutting government spending. I suppose that when your economic policies are already a bad joke, it doesn't matter if what you say is fantasist.
Also I thought it was just in awful taste for Cameron to make an emotional play at being for the NHS after the savaging his party is giving it.
Miles Quaritch
Member
Fingers crossed it gets lots of play. The stories should write themselves with what they've done to JSA for 18 to 21 year olds.
Those tax cuts apparently won't come in until 2018/2020. The FT has also been extremely critical of the economic policies. Today's edition apparently gives it a thorough savaging. Haven't had a chance to grab a copy for myself yet though...
What else could they do when Labour had someone from when before the NHS was invented talk about how bad times were back then and how his sister died because they couldn't afford to see a doctor.
They would rather people not know about those kinds of things. It makes destroying the NHS that little bit harder.
Jezbollah
Member
I suspect they wouldnt have introduced the FSA, which the coalition was quick to get rid of as soon as they came into power.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...gest-bank-regulation-overhaul-since-1997.html
Sure. Go on about how they are going to square it away. Again, I go back to my original point which the usual apologists here are avoiding like the plague - where are Labour's plans for the economy?
Probably the same as the Tories'? At what point did I suggest that I think Labour are awesome? I think they're nearly as pathetic as are Cameron and co.
dapperbandit
Banned
So apparently Arron Banks, the ex-Conservative donor who pledged £100,000 to UKIP got annoyed when William Hague described him as "Mr Nobody" and has now given UKIP £1,000,000 instead.
Jezbollah
Member
All I'm asking for is the same level of disclosure of the opposition's fiscal plans. But that would mean scrutiny. Cant have that can we?
And this was the UKIP bombshell that was supposed to hit the Tories during Cameron's speech. Nice bit of money - but they would have been happier with another defection.
The same level of disclosure? As what? Saying that you'd cut £7bn in tax revenue without giving a clue about where it'll come from? Labour might as well promise free trips to the moon in a special rocket.
Osborne's speech earlier in the week was similar pie in the sky rubbish. How many times has he promised to bring down debt? And how many times has he failed because he doesn't understand anything about economics? The Tories' economic plans are pure fantasy and have been since the start.
Miles Quaritch
Member
I wouldn't be surprised if they have a few fence sitters waiting to jump over, but aren't sure just yet. If there's an emphatic win for UKIP in Rotherham and Clacton, we'll probably see more people jumping ship.
That £1m donation is going to be put to great use to ensure they win those by-elections.
That £1m donation is going to be put to great use to ensure they win those by-elections.
anonymous_abc
Member
Reality writes the best stories... -.-
dapperbandit
Banned
Yeah, I mean unless Nigel has more up his sleeve the timing of these shock announcements is odd. Reckless's defection would have been more damaging if it came during the Conservative conference but I suppose the other side of the coin is that the defection being revealed at Doncaster drew attention to the UKIP party conference.
#mindgames
I wonder if there are more of them.
Jezbollah
Member
That's exactly it. You can judge their policy however you want. Labour haven't even addressed the subject.
As to your question of the Deficit, the numbers are here that disproves your judgement of his inability to bring down the deficit. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timwigmore/100264328/budget-2014-the-five-graphs-you-need-to-see/
Mindgames is exactly that. It'll be another fascinating aspect of next year's election.
JonathanEx
Member
Wonder if they expected a few more defections and not all came through.
I don't see how these graphs at all contradict what I said. Osborne's plan has been endless moved goalposts and missed targets. Yes, the Eurozone crisis didn't help, but every respectable economist has been saying since 2010 that cutting spending during a recession won't work and will just prolong the recovery. And, quelle surprise! That's exactly what happened. The deficit is up, growth didn't return for years. Osborne's economic fantasy was a failure. He makes Brown look like the safest pair of hands in Britain's history.
dapperbandit
Banned
Who can say?
Maybe the potential defectors bottled it - it is a big decision afterall.
Maybe Farage is guarding his hand and hopes a drip feed of defections over the coming weeks and months will keep his party in the spotlight.
Maybe it was just Carswell and Reckless.
-
What I will say is I think the way the Conservatives have acted over the year and the way the media has reported is foolish. If they wanted UKIP to disappear they should have ignored them. The media in particular actually. All that nonsense of inviting Farage on to HIGNFY to try and skewer him on TV backfired, the smear campaign backfired... Nobody knows who the English Democrats are because you aren't being told what idiots they are 24/7. Still, to give Farage his due his performances in the European Parliament and beyond are eye-catching.
That same blog includes the following:
At the end of the day, you're talking about two pretty similar plans in terms overall cuts, just the timings were a bit out. Darling's plan merely had smaller cuts in the early years of the parliament to allow for the recovery to take.
Nicktendo86
Member
The vast majority of constituencies that have a high JSA claimant count vote Labour. Why is that? Is it because labour stick up for the poor? Of so, how do they? What do labour do to stick up for the poor?
http://thebackbencher.co.uk/labour-wont-discuss-welfare/
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I mean, if I were particularly poor, and I were entirely self-interested, and I were looking at Labour and the Conservatives as potential options for my vote, and the two policies in front of me are "we'll cut your benefits a bit" against "we'll cut your benefits a lot", I'm probably going to go with the former. Makes sense, no? If this is the only line of logic for Labour 'buying poor people's votes with welfare', then by the exact same strand of logic the Conservatives are buying rich people's money with tax cuts - if you look at the top 200 wealthiest constituencies, they overwhelmingly vote Conservative. Given a choice between giving poor people money for votes vs. rich people money for votes, I'd say the first is probably somewhat less evil.
However, I'd rather assume that, you know, poorer people maybe aren't entirely self-interested and total dicks, and are perhaps concerned with the welfare of others, and are perhaps voting Labour not because of their own benefits, but because they see everyday other people struggling through a shit situation where they might not be able to make ends meet, and they see the effects that cutting benefits that support people unlucky enough to be without a decent job have, and - what it's like trying to raise a child when you're working around the clock to make ends meet because you're a single parent in an area where the only jobs going are part-time jobs and you have to take three of them just to get what you need to get and you get back from work so exhausted that you can't really even think right and there's all this other stuff you have to worry about like uniforms and textbooks - and they think 'that's a bit of a cuntish thing to do, I have empathy for those around me and understand their situation and I'd hope for a government that's marginally less cuntish towards them', in which case they'd still vote Labour. I prefer this explanation, because it even gives Conservative voters a sop to hid their moral indecency behind - you don't see the problems that the poorest constituencies have where unemployment is endemic due to lack of skills, and it's difficult to have empathy for a problem you don't understand or experience and you've never met or talked with the people who are at risk. I mean, it may not be true and you may all just be voting Conservative for the tax breaks, but I do like to assume the best of people. Don't you?
EDIT: Also, dapperbandit, I disagree re: UKIP. I don't think the tactic should have been to ignore them, but to go after them - point out why they're wrong, and why what the Conservatives are doing or whatever is the better thing to do. The trouble is, too many Conservative backbenchers are closet UKIP at heart: they don't disagree with Farage enough for Cameron to make a clear distinction line, they just think that UKIP will sabotage their electoral chances or whatnot. If they didn't have that to worry about, I think you'd see a lot more defections from the right wing of the Conservatives. I think fundamentally the problem is just an extension of Cameron's inability to detoxify the party fully before 2010, and also a more general failure of the three main parties to discuss issues like immigration which people are genuinely concerned about.
Tomorrow's British Bill of Rights : http://jackofkent.com/2014/10/exclusive-tory-proposals-for-bill-of-rights/
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I do, actually. I also feel it would be morally indecent not to give those children the best start we possibly can if they are born; they're not responsible for what their parents did.
Maybe, definitely not fair to punish the kids for that though is it?
If there's one thing the English people have needed these last few years it's a green light for our soldiers to commit war crimes abroad.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
This is like the exact opposite of a bill of rights
I particularly like the bit where it basically says all this is invalid if another law says so.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Tories ahead with YouGov for the first time since the omnishambles budget. Even though it is conference season the Labour bounce was just a 2% swing and the Tory bounce is a 4% swing and with the positive press today it may be a 5-6% swing by the end of the week.
Five more years of Dave and George.
Five more years of Dave and George.
Nicktendo86
Member
Looooong way to go in this election.
Edit: beaten like a lib dem by zomg.
Also:
Cameron is by some margin the tories' biggest asset.
Third and final edit:
Says it all really.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Possibly, were it not for the fact Con 35 Lab 34 LDem 6 UKIP 14 produces a hung parliament with a Labour plurality, which would be 277 CON 295 LAB 13 LD 65 OTHER (including 5 UKIP) on uniform swing - and that's ignoring the fact Labour perform better in marginals than in the nationals, so it probably would end up favouring Labour slightly more by maybe 10 seats or so. Also, conference bounces never last. This happens every conference season and nobody ever remembers how quickly it disappeared the last conference season.
Nicktendo86
Member
Well seeing as the Tories have been behind since 2012 this doesn't happen EVERY conference season. We know those polls would not make a con majority or even largest party as well due to unfairness in our system.
I fully expect the polls to bounce up and down until polling day. Wouldn't even be shocked if labour are 7 points ahead tomorrow. But for the Tories to have a slender lead at this stage in the electoral cycle must be a key boost to them.
I fully expect the polls to bounce up and down until polling day. Wouldn't even be shocked if labour are 7 points ahead tomorrow. But for the Tories to have a slender lead at this stage in the electoral cycle must be a key boost to them.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
The election isn't tomorrow though and the Tories will continue to recover until the election and draw votes away from the centrist Labour voters who earn between £30-40k looking nervously at the 40% tax bracket and from traditional conservative voters flirting with UKIP. Add in a shy Lib Dem factor and I think it will be Tory 37, Lab 30, LD 12, UKIP 12.
QuicheFontaine
Member
I think all these defections, while they may make UKIP a more 'serious' party having MPs and that, may actually damage their brand as an alternative to mainstream politics. If it's just a bunch of ex-Tory MPs, like, what's the point? Plus I don't think the grassroots are too pleased about actual MPs being parachuted in over their own local nutters (see their reaction to the Clacton by-election).
Edit:
Puh-leez. There's no scenario that results in five more years of Dave. Even if they win, he'll be gone in 2017 after the EU referendum.
Nicktendo86
Member
Andrew Neil said:
Veeeeery interesting. Thoughts, kmag?
Bet you it won't happen.
Nicktendo86
Member
Haha. Personally I hope it does in exchange for dumping the Barnett formula.
Edit: lol notice you edited out your £100 bet
I think they've shot their bolt on uncosted giveaways but I'm sure they'll squeeze something in for their chums.
One poll is meaningless especially when the movement is within the MOE. You'd need to see a few of them over the next month or so coalescing in a general trend. The Tories got excellent press pretty much everywhere for their pre election bribe, you'd expect some positive movement. It remains to be seen how long that lasts.
A hung parliament is still by far the most likely outcome. Unlike zomgbbqftw I don't think there's any possibility for near 50% of the electorate going for Classic Tories and New Tories now with extra nuts. Especially given that they were unable to make such a breakthrough in 2010 where frankly things couldn't have been more in their favour.
Haha. Personally I hope it does in exchange for dumping the Barnett formula.
Edit: lol notice you edited out your £100 bet
My wife is hovering over my shoulder disapprovingly.
CyclopsRock
Member
My latest pet theory is that the Lib Dems will end up doing very well in Scotland in terms of seats because of the massive split with the SNP and Labour.
Shame they had such an astonishingly shitty track record against any other sexual minorities.