• 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.

And apprenticeships which pay well below minimum wage. Good old slave labour, it never went away it was just rebranded.

I have much less of a problem with low apprentice pay than workfare. Workfare is scummy on a bunch of levels, but apprenticeships? Eh. Most apprentices, certainly at the start, offer far, far more "harm" (in terms of cost and efficiency) than benefit. Expecting companies to pay minimum wage for this privilege seems a bit hopeful.
 
Where do you get this stuff huh?

the 1833 Slavery Abolition Act was not repealed by the HRA but by the Statue Law (Repeals) Act 1998. Its repeal doesn't in any case make slavery legal.

EDIT: Certainly not in the UK, where slavery was illegal since about 1569 - the 1833 act was about the rest of the Empire.

Ah I see, I thought the Statue Law Act and the HRA were one in the same. My mistake.
 
So my dream scenario over the next few months would be Alan Johnson replacing Miliband with a total shadow cabinet reshuffle and Andy Burnham becoming Shadow Chancellor.
 
So my dream scenario over the next few months would be Alan Johnson replacing Miliband with a total shadow cabinet reshuffle and Andy Burnham becoming Shadow Chancellor.
Whilst that'd undoubtedly be a better team in any meaningful sense, do you think such a late move would really do anything but torpedo their careers?
 

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
I actually think Labour will do better in 2015 if Miliband and Balls were dumped now.

It would be a highly risky move though.

What message would the electorate get out of it (which isn't necessarily the same message that the politicians want to "send")?
(a) Labour is realistic, willing to take tough - even brutal - decisions when the chips are down
(b) Labour makes the wrong choice, dithers for four years and then panics​

I know which one their opponents would spin ...
 

RedShift

Member
I don't know why Labour didn't dump Ed a year or so ago. It is getting a bit late in the game to do it now.

Who in their right minds would ever think him leading them into an election was a good idea.
 

Maledict

Member
I don't think it matters though. The two Ed's ratings are *so* abysmal, and Ed M is so universally mocked by all the press, that in some respects the environment for him is SO hostile that no-one would be surprised if he went.

Even amongst labour supporters I know IRL (and I do know quite a few) I've yte to meet any who actually like the guy. I honestly think they still have enough time now to purge their cabinet and present a new option - risky, but am positive it would pay off.

However, they won't do it. Like I said earlier, that sort of coup is just totally impossible in labour - they will never decapitate their leaders in that way.
 
However, they won't do it. Like I said earlier, that sort of coup is just totally impossible in labour - they will never decapitate their leaders in that way.

Yeah but this is a special circumstance, Miliband is easily the worst leader of the Labour Party since MacDonald. Miliband combines the poor leadership of Michael Foot with Kinnock's lack of any ideological beliefs.
 
Tories (35) ahead by two points and Labour (33) down to their lowest score with YouGov since just after the election when they picked up the leftist Lib Dems.

ICM have Ed just net seven points up on Nick Clegg's personal ratings at -35 vs -7 for Dave (Clegg -42, Farage -1). There should also be an ICM VI later tonight or tomorrow morning, With those personal ratings and the Guardian not talking VI on their website it probably shows a Con lead of 2-3 points. Tories up by 20 points on economic competence with ICM too and it is starting to look like the economy is creeping back up the agenda with the storm clouds looming over Europe.

Ashcroft has the Tories ahead by two points as well, but we need to wait for next week to see if it holds as Ashcroft polls tend to be a bit bouncy.

Populus has a mega Labour lead, but I'm beginning to think they either have a methodology problem (given the Friday vs Monday issue) or their panel is too narrow. Other pollsters look like they show decisive movement from Lab > Con, and Populus has not picked that up, even if it does turn out to be temporary.

Also, it took the most ruthless Labour politician of a generation to depose Blair. Other than Balls there is no one in the Labour party with the gumption to take Ed down. Labour don't do regicide quite like the Tories. Since Balls is voter poison it leaves no on in the party with the experience and connections with the big power brokers in the party (unions, Mandelson) to successfully bring Ed down. A successful coup could swing a couple of points towards them from the Tories, but an unsuccessful coup could be far more damaging, voters hate split parties as the Tories seem to have learned in recent weeks despite the defections. An unsuccessful attempt on Ed could cause up to a 2 point swing to the Tories, I would put them on between 37.5 and 39 if Labour try to depose Ed and fail. It is a high risk strategy, and one Labour may try and avoid. The advantage of letting Ed lose is that they will finally be rid of the last vestiges of the Blair/Brown bullshit that has poisoned the internal debate within the party for the last 15 years. Labour could finally move on if Ed loses and purge all of the Blairites and Brownites post election. If I were a Labour backbencher it is the kind of strategy I would be looking at, accept that 2015 is not really going to be winnable and then look to purge the shite afterwards.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Where do you get this stuff huh?

the 1833 Slavery Abolition Act was not repealed by the HRA but by the Statue Law (Repeals) Act 1998. Its repeal doesn't in any case make slavery legal.

EDIT: Certainly not in the UK, where slavery was illegal since about 1569 - the 1833 act was about the rest of the Empire.

Earlier than 1569, I think - 1102(?) Council of London. Proclaimed by king not parliament, though.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Regardless, I still don't see it lasting beyond the end of the week. Labour will win Heywood and Middleton, the conferences will be forgotten, and we'll drift back to 33 / 35 / 8 / 14 / 6 like we have been for the last 9 months or so.

EDIT: disregard correction, can't read.
 
You've not got the numbers right, zomg. It's 32 / 30 / 7 / 17 / 7 from YouGov for Con / Lab / Lib / UKIP / Green, not what you've put - you have the size of the lead right but not the actual figures. Regardless, I still don't see it lasting beyond the end of the week. Labour will win Heywood and Middleton, the conferences will be forgotten, and we'll drift back to 33 / 35 / 8 / 14 / 6 like we have been for the last 9 months or so.

No, you have them wrong. You have listed the Ashcroft national poll figures. Tonight's YouGov is:

Con 35
Lab 33
LD 8
UKIP 13
Green 4

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/519241863375892480
 

Volotaire

Member
Simple advice:

Get a good husband, advises Nick Clegg's wife Miriam


Nick Clegg's wife says the most important decision a woman can make if she wants children and a successful career is choosing the right husband.

Miriam Gonzalez said it was crucial to have a willing man when it came to organising childcare, she suggested.

Mr Clegg has talked about how he prioritises time with his three sons and does the school run before attending cabinet meetings.

Ms Gonzalez is a partner at law firm Dechert LLP.

She was attending the launch of "Inspiring Women in Scotland" whose aim is to bring together high-profile female role models and girls from state schools.

Asked about the importance of sharing childcare duties with her husband she said: "If you want to have children... if in a family you have children there is an issue if you want to work, as to how you are going to organise childcare.

"I think it was [Facebook boss] Sheryl Sandberg that said the most important decision in your life is who you have children with, so of course that is crucial.

"I am being asked all the time do you want to have it all, and, I don't want to have it all - I want to have what men have.

"So if many men have children and a job, and that's what they choose, I do not know why I cannot have that, if that's what I choose."
 

Nicktendo86

Member
Is that tonight's yougov or Sunday's? In other words, is that two consecutive days of you give giving a two point Tory lead?

Edit: not that it means much of course.
 

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Earlier than 1569, I think - 1102(?) Council of London. Proclaimed by king not parliament, though.

Proclaimed by the Council of London I think, but it wasn't a legislative body and I don't think King Whoever-it-was even got wind of it let alone enacted it.

More-or-less the same thing as Alec Salmond proclaiming a nuclear ban - doesn't mean it happened.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Proclaimed by the Council of London I think, but it wasn't a legislative body and I don't think King Whoever-it-was even got wind of it let alone enacted it.

More-or-less the same thing as Alec Salmond proclaiming a nuclear ban - doesn't mean it happened.

This is the vaguest of vague memories, but I think Henry I(?) signed it or agreed to it or did whatever kings do to make stuff law to try and cut down on Scottish and Irish border raids taking English slaves then selling them back to the English. He wanted to kill the market.
 

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
This is the vaguest of vague memories, but I think Henry I(?) signed it or agreed to it or did whatever kings do to make stuff law to try and cut down on Scottish and Irish border raids taking English slaves then selling them back to the English. He wanted to kill the market.

OK, now you've got my curiosity raised! Shall have to research at least which Henry it was or wasn't ....
 

Nicktendo86

Member
So everyone's favourite blogger Dan Hodges is speculating today that the reason Clegg look so relaxed is he knows he is off soon. Makes sense.

The Lib Dem's conference has been utterly bizarre. Danny Alexander with this sleeves rolled up in an obvious metaphor for the Lib Dems rolling their sleeves up, Clegg with his chinos, having a convicted child beater speaking, half empty audience with the ones there barely managing to stay awake, a motion this morning on football!

What is the point of the Lib Dems? They have gone out of their way to burn bridges for a future coalition agreement.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
So everyone's favourite blogger Dan Hodges is speculating today that the reason Clegg look so relaxed is he knows he is off soon. Makes sense.

The Lib Dem's conference has been utterly bizarre. Danny Alexander with this sleeves rolled up in an obvious metaphor for the Lib Dems rolling their sleeves up, Clegg with his chinos, having a convicted child beater speaking, half empty audience with the ones there barely managing to stay awake, a motion this morning on football!

What is the point of the Lib Dems? They have gone out of their way to burn bridges for a future coalition agreement.

It wouldn't be entirely unsurprising if the entire party folded, at least at a national level. Say they perform at the bottom end of some the polls and hit 7% nationally, winning 11 seats - not the likeliest option, but still very plausible indeed. I don't think a party can really survive a blow that big, that quickly. All your talent starts thinking "I can never do anything good here", and promising young people start migrating to other parties. Local councils which are in your party do everything they can to become disassociate with your party's main infrastructure, which kills cohesion and can tear parties apart. You lose an entire older generation of veterans because they become too discredited to contribute. I mean, the Lib Dems are hoping that some of the Labour defectors will drift back, the polls will stabilize a little, and incumbency will carry them over the 30-seat mark, but they're teetering on the brink.
 

8bit

Knows the Score
I was in Glasgow at the weekend and found myself among the LibDems as I was at the SECC, it was the comedians in the Hydro I was there to see though. Had I seen Danny Alexander I don't think I could have stopped myself from screaming abuse at him.
 
I was in Glasgow at the weekend and found myself among the LibDems as I was at the SECC, it was the comedians in the Hydro I was there to see though. Had I seen Danny Alexander I don't think I could have stopped myself from screaming abuse at him.
You don't need to scream actual abuse. Just make Muppet noises. MEEP MEEP MEEP.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Second night in a row the YouGov poll is released late. :|
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Lab 34 Tory 32 UKIP 15 LD 8.

I could lie, and say "I'd hate to say I told you so..." but actually I really want to say I told you so. :p
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Yeah it will bounce around like this until the new year/March-ish until we get a clearer picture.

I don't even think they'll bounce around much. We'll hit the usual 36/33ish proper by the end of the week, and back to the same old same old. March isn't really a 'clearer picture' so much as a 'totally different picture'; the campaigns will be in earnest then.
 
Odds have been slashed and paddy power suspended betting that clegg will quit today!

_78074583_78074582.jpg
 

Nicktendo86

Member
I got a bit over excited there, PP have NOT suspended betting, they have just slashed the odds as they received a flurry of bets overnight.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Who would take over during the interim? Is it Farron as Chairman, or Bruce as Deputy Leader?
 
Who would take over during the interim? Is it Farron as Chairman, or Bruce as Deputy Leader?

I genuinely don't know. Bruce has already said he's standing down as an MP at the end of this parliament - it would be weird to have an interim leader during such an important part of the electoral cycle who wasn't even contesting a seat. Farron maybe but his position is so totally different to party leader, it'd be like Grant Shapps becoming Tory leader if Cameron got hit by a bus. Plus, aside from anything, he'd almost definitely be competing in any leadership contest which I'm not sure he could really do as interim leader. I think it'd have to be Bruce as long as they pull their fingers out and make it quick.
 
The Evening Standard said:
Nick Clegg blasts Tory 'snobs' and attacks 'bile' of Coalition rivals


Nick Clegg turned his guns on David Cameron and the Tories with the most aggressive attack yet on the “frenzied bile” of his Coalition partners.

In his keynote speech to the Liberal Democrat conference in Glasgow, he took off his gloves after four years of power-sharing government. “David Cameron — you can copy our ideas but you will never imitate our values,” he said scathingly, after accusing the Prime Minister of stealing the Lib-Dem flagship policy of tax cuts for the poor.

He railed at the “dated snobbery” of Conservative Right-wingers who sneered at vocational qualifications pushed in government by Lib-Dems.

And in a dig aimed at former education secretary Michael Gove, now Chief Whip, he said: “Did you know Michael Gove raided the budget for much-needed school places in order to fund his Free School obsession? Did you see the frenzied bile from the Tory Right against our plan to give young children at primary school a healthy meal at lunchtime?”


The Deputy Prime Minister fired a volley at Home Secretary Theresa May for accusing him of putting lives at risk by blocking her “Snooper” laws, which would empower police to see people’s internet use: “I say this to Theresa May: stop playing party politics with national security; stop playing on people’s fears simply to try and get your own way.

“Your Communications Data Bill was disproportionate, disempowering — we blocked it once and we’d do it again.”

Mr Clegg attacked Labour too, saying Ed Miliband had failed to learn from his mistakes in the Brown government and was “promising a new nirvana where everyone will be well-off, no one will be out of pocket, we don’t need to cut government spending and the public finances will be miraculously fixed”.

He rounded on Ukip’s Nigel Farage for trying to divide Britain with “bitter tribalism” and false solutions, adding: “Resentment, the politics of fear, doesn’t pay the bills or create a single job.” It was a fighting speech from a party leader whose personal ratings are at a record low and whose party is at six per cent in the polls. Mr Clegg admitted he and the Liberal Democrats were “tainted” by office. He said he had learned from his “mistakes”, and appealed for redemption for his most damaging error: failing to honour his 2010 pledge not to raise tuition fees.

“How will you judge us?” he asked voters. “By the one policy we couldn’t deliver in government, or by the countless policies we did deliver in government? When I apologised for the disappointment and anger caused by our inability to scrap tuition fees, I knew we could never, ever make that mistake again. And we won’t.”



Mr Clegg began by warning Islamist fanatics, including British jihadists, that they will be hunted down. After paying tribute to murdered British hostages Alan Henning and David Haines, he said Britain had to “take on the cowards who took their lives”.

Addressing Islamic State, he added: “All you have done is unite the people of Britain — Muslim and non-Muslim, of all faiths and none — around a single aim. We and our allies ... are going to find you, we are going to destroy your bases, we will cut off your supplies, isolate you from your support — and for the sake of peace, democracy and the freedom of all those you terrorise, we are not going to stop until it’s done.”

Mr Clegg predicted the Tories would fail in their claim to curb immigration and scrap human rights, and said an in-out EU referendum would cost Britain dear. Mr Cameron and Chancellor George Osborne were guilty of pretending that “every worry can be fixed with a big wave of the Union Jack,” he said.

Turning his fire on Labour, Mr Clegg added: “Ed Miliband — you might have forgotten what you did to our economy, but we have not. This is a man who was part of the government which wasted their chance and ruined the economy, destroying jobs and slashing incomes — yet not a single word on the deficit.”

He claimed of his party: “We may no longer be untainted ... I may no longer be the fresh faced outsider. But we still stand for a different kind of politics ... Treating people like adults. Not shirking the difficult dilemmas this country faces, but confronting them head on.”

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/poli...ion-partners--conference-lib-dem-9782281.html

Wow. These death throes... If only he was this explosive (and on-point) when it mattered. Lib Dems might well have been more successful if Clegg had said shit like this instead. Ah well. UKIP'll take their place, and the UK will be a little bit worse for it. Which is saying something.
 
I've heard the "Tories copied our ideas" line a few times in the past week. I don't understand the complaint. If I want to have Nandos for tea and I suggest to the missus that we go to Nandos, and then she says no but later says let's go to Nandos as if it's her idea, I still get to go to Nandos. I don't need to be in government if I always get my way anway.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
I've heard the "Tories copied our ideas" line a few times in the past week. I don't understand the complaint. If I want to have Nandos for tea and I suggest to the missus that we go to Nandos, and then she says no but later says let's go to Nandos as if it's her idea, I still get to go to Nandos. I don't need to be in government if I always get my way anway.

This is a poor way of thinking about. Suppose that you and your missus have three kids, and when either of you makes a decision, the kids get to choose what happens. If you make a decision to go to Nandos, and they're not really sure but back you anyway, and then fucking love Nandos, then they'll be more likely to listen to you in the future. Even if your wife and you both want to go to Nandos this time, next time you might want to go to Burger King but her to McDonalds, so it's pretty important that the kids know who was responsible for the awesome decision from last time, so that you can get your awesome decision this time too.

#analogies
 
Mmm, Torie-- I mean, Nandos.

Here's another (older) article which I found interesting (and believable) as well:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/11/the-tories-have-piled-on-more-debt-than-labour/


The national debt figures are out – £1.2 trillion and rising – and although I hate to say it, the Labour Party has a valid point to make. If you don’t adjust for inflation, Osborne has borrowed more in under four years than the Labour Party borrowed over 13 years. It’s unusual for Ed Balls to talk about debt accumulation as a bad thing, perhaps because his policy remains the accumulation of even more debt. But here’s the story so far:-

Labour is, as ever, spinning too much. As they know, you need to adjust for inflation to make any meaningful comparison in public spending. But the overall point holds.

Now, things are going pretty well for Osborne. Today , a CBI survey shows the strongest orders for manufacturing since 1995 (note from Citi here, graph below).

But the debt pile – growing at more than £3,000 per second – will cast a long shadow over George Osborne’s Autumn Statement next month. Is this recovery real, or another debt-fuelled illusion? The annoying truth is that we just don’t know.
 
This is a poor way of thinking about. Suppose that you and your missus have three kids, and when either of you makes a decision, the kids get to choose what happens. If you make a decision to go to Nandos, and they're not really sure but back you anyway, and then fucking love Nandos, then they'll be more likely to listen to you in the future. Even if your wife and you both want to go to Nandos this time, next time you might want to go to Burger King but her to McDonalds, so it's pretty important that the kids know who was responsible for the awesome decision from last time, so that you can get your awesome decision this time too.

#analogies

Children don't get a vote!

Thanks for engaging on my level, much appreciated :)

I think a lot of people think of politics in these terms though. For example, things like national debt always compared to a domestic household for instance, even when that's a poor comparison
 
I met my mum the other day near London Bridge in borough market. She's basically a lady of leisure now days, so we were wandering around looking at restaurants but it was surprisingly (or not?) busy for a Sunday afternoon so some places were full. We end up queuing outside Wagamamas when they say we'll need to wait 20 minutes. She points at Nandos - "What about there?" "Uhh ok, but mum, you know it's sort of semi-fast food yes?" "Is it nice?" "Yeah, it's nice, but-" "Let's go!"

It wasn't what she was expected at all. She was sort of aghast at the fact you have to get your own cutlery. But she treated it like some weird bit of espionage into working class culture, like she was the girl from Grease getting involved with the leather jacket gang.

So yeah, nandos.

In other news, this article in the NS is quite interesting but it sort of leads to a funny old question - what does "deserving" to win an election really mean? One might say that a worker "deserves" a raise because they've worked hard or come up with some clever pants solution to a problem or whatever - in other words, they've done their job well. But the same metrics can't really be applied to politics, because a party can try really hard, have good strategies and yet still have policy positions that simply don't resonate with the electorate. So in this case, what does "We might win the election, but we don't deserve to" really mean?
 

jimbor

Banned
I've heard the "Tories copied our ideas" line a few times in the past week. I don't understand the complaint. If I want to have Nandos for tea and I suggest to the missus that we go to Nandos, and then she says no but later says let's go to Nandos as if it's her idea, I still get to go to Nandos. I don't need to be in government if I always get my way anway.

You don't get the credit for a wonderful idea.
 
You don't get the credit for a wonderful idea.

I can understand that on a personal level. But in my example the goal was to get me a half chicken, spicy rice and garlic bread. If that happens, job done and the credit can go hang for all I care.

By the same token, if I joined a political party I'd imagine it'd be because I want to make some change to public policy. Again, if that happens, didn't I achieve what I set out to do? I'd especially consider it a coup if I was a Lib Dem where I didn't persuade nearly enough of the electorate to give myself a mandate to make that change. I can only see the Tories' "stealing" of their ideas as a good thing for the Lib Dems, whichever way I look at it.
 
I love love love the carriage-less met line trains (and the fact they're air conned, obv!) and tbh, I'd be happy if they just rolled those out everywhere. I assume they can't because of different tunnel sizes and whatnot, but driverless is even better. Wooooooooo.
 

Nicktendo86

Member
I love love love the carriage-less met line trains (and the fact they're air conned, obv!) and tbh, I'd be happy if they just rolled those out everywhere. I assume they can't because of different tunnel sizes and whatnot, but driverless is even better. Wooooooooo.

Yeah they can't get air con to work on deep level lines as there is nowhere for the hot air to vent, hence 'mechanical cooling' on these trains. Have to be better than the sweat boxes we have now and the extra room will be a godsend!
 
Top Bottom