Nicktendo86
Member
Shiiiiiit hoooooole.
-
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
Nah he probably jerks it to a photoshopped picture of David Miliband standing outside No. 10.
The UKIP MP thing is just too depressing for me to get into, so tangent time.
YouGov poll has come out with Scottish voting intentions:
SNP: 40% (vs 20% in 2010)
Labour: 28% (vs 42%)
Tory: 18% (vs 17%)
Lib Dem: 7% (vs 19%)
Green: 3% (vs 1%)
Other: 3% (vs 1%)
You really have to wonder what the Westminster seats are going to look like for Scotland next year.
YouGov poll has come out with Scottish voting intentions:
SNP: 40% (vs 20% in 2010)
Labour: 28% (vs 42%)
Tory: 18% (vs 17%)
Lib Dem: 7% (vs 19%)
Green: 3% (vs 1%)
Other: 3% (vs 1%)
You really have to wonder what the Westminster seats are going to look like for Scotland next year.
Not a nice thought, no. But Carswell was always going to win that by-election. A case of voting for the man, and not the party. As he had a very similar result in 2010. Heywood and Middleton on the other hand was interesting. Labour safe seat going from a 6000 win, to just 600. Yet you still had complacent spin from the likes of Douglas Alexander, and Ed Miliband running off after his statement, when it came time for questions. Pathetic.
Had a look, and this appears to be a sub sample. Opposed to a Scotland specific poll (which I'd be interested to see) But Labour support will definitely be taking a hit.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Subsample with ~90 people in it, margin of error is 26 points either way. The moral of this story is never trust a subsample.
More fool me; I just saw the ~950 figure in the article and assumed that was what was used.
anonymous_abc
Member
Today I was thinking about seating arrangements in the House of Parliament, because I was wondering where Carswell will be seated.
Anyway I was surprised to learn that there is only enough room for 2/3 of all MPs to sit at the same time. Isn't that a bit of joke?
Now I know it rarely happens that all MPs want to be present, but surely the opportunity should exist. It seems mockery of democracy if not all elected persons can take part in the process in an equal measure.
So what happens if too many MPs show up?
Do they all start to stand like sardines in a tin?
Anyway I was surprised to learn that there is only enough room for 2/3 of all MPs to sit at the same time. Isn't that a bit of joke?
Now I know it rarely happens that all MPs want to be present, but surely the opportunity should exist. It seems mockery of democracy if not all elected persons can take part in the process in an equal measure.
So what happens if too many MPs show up?
Do they all start to stand like sardines in a tin?
Nicktendo86
Member
They have to stand in the aisles.
Even more reason why the number of MP's should be cut down.
CyclopsRock
Member
So apparently the TV debate format is set.
I hope Ed has been getting some serious coaching...
- One done by Sky and C4 (with Paxo) that's just the two potential PMs, Dave v Ed
- One on the BBC that has Dave, Ed and Nick
- One on ITV that has all 4, Dave, Ed, Nick and Nigel
I hope Ed has been getting some serious coaching...
I don't think it's set yet. Both the Lib Dems and the Conservatives are calling the format unacceptable, and frankly it is. The Greens should be represented, given that they have one MP (like UKIP), and are polling as well as the Lib Dems. It's also rather bizarre to start off with the smallest debate, then finish with the widest possible one. The field should be narrowed as we get closer to election day, really.
Jezbollah
Member
Agreed. Let's get all four parties in there.
I take it Scotland, Wales and NI will have their own televised debates?
We did last time iirc.
Graphics Horse
Member
Indeed.
It's not like election days where if there's a higher than expected voter turn-out, they tell them to fuck off!
JonathanEx
Member
Interesting to see a bit of chat online about "but what about the Greens!!" more than the national parties with say, more than 1 MP. Probably "only of interest to a few people" driven behind it but the focusing on Greens v UKIP is worth noting.
CyclopsRock
Member
I think we really need to work out what these debates are for. What is their purpose? Is it just meant to be a funsy party political broadcast? In which case sure, have the Greens. But surely it's not, because... that's what party political broadcasts are for, non? Surely it's about the individuals (or, at least, them as a representative of the government that they would form). In other words, it's about potential leaders. In 2010 this was quite simple - the choice was really between Gordo and Dave for PM, so it made sense that they debated. It didn't really make sense for Nick to be there because he was never going to be PM. Then he started doing well, and their polling went up (twist 1). Then the GE happened and they actually lost seats (twist 2). Then he became kingmaker and ended up Deputy PM (twist 3).
So in that sense, given the polls and the chances of another hung parliament, I can see the arguments for allowing the smaller parties in because whilst neither Nick nor Nigel will ever be PM, they might end up with a senior ministerial or executive position, and again, if this is about the leaders then surely that can't be ignored. HOWEVER on those grounds - about holding the balance of power and possibly forming a part of government - it's obvious that a) the Greens shouldn't be within a country mile of it and b) the SNP should, because it's entirely possible that the SNP will become the 3rd largest party in Westminster if the Lib Dems continue their march of shittiness and UKIP do little more than hamstring the Tories.
So in that sense, given the polls and the chances of another hung parliament, I can see the arguments for allowing the smaller parties in because whilst neither Nick nor Nigel will ever be PM, they might end up with a senior ministerial or executive position, and again, if this is about the leaders then surely that can't be ignored. HOWEVER on those grounds - about holding the balance of power and possibly forming a part of government - it's obvious that a) the Greens shouldn't be within a country mile of it and b) the SNP should, because it's entirely possible that the SNP will become the 3rd largest party in Westminster if the Lib Dems continue their march of shittiness and UKIP do little more than hamstring the Tories.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
The polls and the fact that UKIP came top of the last nationwide election and will probably have at least two MPs by the time the debate rolls around. There are probably more defections to come as well.
CyclopsRock
Member
Also, re: Ed, I think expectations are so, so low that actually he'll need to start violently wanking on stage for people to come away with a more negative view of him than they have already. Chances are he'll land one or two decent blows amongst all the ones thrown back at him, but that'll probably be enough for most people to raise their opinion. The bar is set so ridiculously low for him.
Nicktendo86
Member
Problem is it doesn't matter, labour voters will hold their noses and vote. Ukip will split Tory vote and we will end up with Miliband as PM.
Eurgh.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
He really wouldn't be that bad. He's far more qualified than Cameron was prior. Plus Cameron isn't well liked overseas, anyway, so it isn't as if he would make that much of a difference. He's terrible at PR but he is intelligent and apparently likeable in person. It wouldn't be a disaster in any way.
dapperbandit
Banned
To be honest I'd probably gain respect for him if he did that.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Cameron had some kind of non-political career. Ed has gone from uni to party to wonk to MP to leader. In no way is he more qualified that Dave was in 2009. Cameron isn't well liked overseas basically because he is seen as a UK first type of PM and since 1997 international organisations had been used to internationalist PMs who were happy to go with a consensus, either with the EU or with the US. Moving back to the Blair model of selling British interests down the river so the PM can be well liked overseas is not in our national interest. I don't know what Ed would be like but his sycophantic fawning over Hollande and Obama doesn't fill me with confidence.
That's why I think it'd be best to start the debates with as broad a field as sensible, to allow as many parties as possible to have their say and put their case to the public. Then as the polls show which parties are likely to emerge with a preponderance of seats or play a role in the next government, the debates can be narrowed down a bit, with a final debate being between the most likely prime ministerial candidates.
There is an argument against the SNP appearing in the UK wide debates though. They'll field some 59 candidates at the next UK election, and in previous years have got a smaller share of the vote then UKIP or the BNP. They're not a UK wide party. Even the Greens and the BNP fielded enough candidates to, in theory, make up the UK Government. Nor would the SNP form a part of the government, unless they abandon their stance on not voting on English/Welsh/Northern Irish only issues.
When people start reading the small print (a quote from this terrible Newsnight debate. It's still strikes me as fascinating how a large majority of the electorate don't realise that UKIP's conservative orientated polices aren't small print, it's their ideology. UKIP really do have a terrific marketing campaign at the moment.
Nicktendo86
Member
Inflation down to just 1.2%!
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
Cameron barely had a career - he got a cushy job through connections, not sure it really is that much different. Milliband is more qualified because he has actually been a Cabinet Minister. Not a major one, granted!
The latter stuff is irrelevant to what I was talking about, all I am saying is that he wouldn't be a huge step down in any meaningful sense. I actually think Cameron is a decent statesman, even if I dislike the Conservative party as a general collective.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Worrying, really. If it takes another dip like that I'm not sure how the BoE would respond.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I think this amongst all else is why going attack dog on Ed so early was a stupid idea. Expectations management would have been to say he's reasonable to good, then lambasted him after the leaders' debates when he didn't live up to it. As it is, most people aren't like us and pay only limited attention to politics - only two-thirds of voters knew there had been party conferences, for example - and probably take in 'Ed is shit' via social osmosis. The leaders' debate is pretty unique in terms of how much visibility it has, and it's not at all the place you want your opponent to exceed expectations.
CyclopsRock
Member
Yup. That said - and I'm sort of arguing against my own point here, but I guess you bring that out in me Crab! - it didn't do that much good for the Lib Dems last year. By any objective measure, the Lib Dems "won" the debates insomuch as they gained huge levels of public awareness and Nick personally saw his ratings go up, and then they lost seats.
There's also the fact that the very same "people take a lot more notice of the debates" thing that might encourage some to raise their opinion of Ed might also really hit home to would-be UKIP voters who want to give Cameron a kick in the gonads exactly what they risk getting if they do so.
Nicktendo86
Member
Carswell also failed to attend a debate on evel today which is a bit baffling.
The more light is shown on the party the bigger the joke they will be shown to be.
anonymous_abc
Member
Cringeworthy...
Was that the Scotland debate that was mostly hijacked into something else? I didn't think it was supposed to be EVEL out of the box.
Anyway, that's Sturgeon pretty much officially leader of the SNP now as her leadership bid is uncontested.
--
Oh and this was supposedly posted earlier :
CyclopsRock
Member
I dunno if fixing a constitutional problem can really be considered a "hijacking" of an issue, especially when that issue - further devolution to Scotland - is massively interwined with it.
Well, maybe hijacking is a poor phrase, what I understood was going to be a debate on devolution with a focus on Scotland said very little about that from reading the transcript.
To wit:
Angus Robertson said:
http://www.publications.parliament....141014/debtext/141014-0001.htm#14101465000001
Nicktendo86
Member
Big falls on u employment today with youth unemployment leading the way.
CyclopsRock
Member
Whilst I'm sympathetic, how much debate is there to be had about devolution to Scotland? The party leaders (and, for some reason, Brown) all got together without consulting the electorate and already made a plan. What's left to discuss?
Jezbollah
Member
A rancid quote that quite rightly is seeing a lot of his own party (including the PM) distance themselves from.
WayneMorse
Banned
You don't think Cameron actually agrees with Freud? The Tories hate disabled people, see Boris's comments last year.
Jezbollah
Member
And you think there's no one at all from the other parties that might agree with him?
I don't think there is anyone in labour or the libs who would harber such vile ideas. Anyway that argument is utter daft. This man said it and works as a minster in DWP. He should resign and if Cameron had any balls he would fire the shit head.
Also Cameron using his dead son defence at PMQ's was awful to see. Again.
Nah some of them are in UKIP as well
Anyway there are shit MP's in every party although they really do seem to belong more to the right wing.
Nicktendo86
Member
Yeah sod off with this Tories hate the disabled bullshit.
http://order-order.com/2014/10/15/labour-backed-4-a-day-pay-for-mentally-disabled/
http://order-order.com/2014/10/15/labour-backed-4-a-day-pay-for-mentally-disabled/
WayneMorse
Banned
This is horrible, the governments of the UK and throughout Europe NEED to be spending a shit ton more of money to stimulate the economy and raise rates of inflation.
An aggressive policy of monetary easing and fiscal stimulus would get us out of the economic doldrums in a year or two.
Not going to happen. The stock market is about to have a big crash and guess what governments across europe are going to do....
WayneMorse
Banned
Yeah it's pretty likely that the recovery is gonna slow down a lot over the winter, I wouldn't be surprised if unemployment goes back up. Hopefully a recession inside a recession will at least lead to rejection of the pro-austerity right in Europe.
CyclopsRock
Member
What option do they have, though, when they don't control their own central bank? Raising money via bonds quickly become unaffordable for a lot of Eurozone countries.