UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.

Uzzy said:
Here you go.

Anyway, sure we can suggest reforms to improve things in the EU, but the way the Tories are going about it is just going to completely alienate us on the continent, even with countries that would be interested in what we've got to say.
Click to expand...

Alienate in what way, though? Cameron is expressing the generally agreed will of the British public. Is today something to be punished for in the diplomatic circles of Europe?
 
CyclopsRock said:
Alienate in what way, though? Cameron is expressing the generally agreed will of the British public. Is today something to be punished for in the diplomatic circles of Europe?
Click to expand...

Well no. It's his lack of diplomatic skills in Europe that leave much to be desired. His tactics are bizarre. He starts off with a threat and an ultimatum, as in 'say no to Juncker or a British exit will be hastened', which leaves himself no room to manoeuvre when his demands aren't met. He opposed Juncker but had no other candidate in mind. He makes policy announcements to try and tackle UKIP and his own Euro-sceptics, but the tone of them just annoy other European countries, especially Eastern European ones.

He should try some actual diplomacy for once, it might just land him some reforms. But that'd probably annoy UKIP, so he won't.
 
CyclopsRock said:
Alienate in what way, though? Cameron is expressing the generally agreed will of the British public. Is today something to be punished for in the diplomatic circles of Europe?
Click to expand...

See, here's where I disagree.

Firstly, expressing the will can be done in several ways, and he keeps choosing the way that is practically guaranteed to piss off allies and ensure we don't get to shape or influence things. He is playing purely to the home crowd and UKIP, rather than the national interests.

Secondly, just because something is a majority opinion doesn't make it right. It's been evidenced repeatedly that the country as a whole is laughably misinformed about massive issues such as benefits, pensions, tax and Europe - not helped by our press either. That's why we are a representative democracy and elect MPS rather than vote on every issue through referendum. It would be good to see Cameron act as the statesman rather than the politician (same goes for the others as well) - instead of just acting out the whims of the polls, take a stance and lead on something and have that national dialogue.

But again, that would piss off UKIP and his rabid right wingers.

(You can apply this to Miliband as well - it's not party specific! He's just lucky he has less press on Europe)
 
Uzzy said:
Well no. It's his lack of diplomatic skills in Europe that leave much to be desired. His tactics are bizarre. He starts off with a threat and an ultimatum, as in 'say no to Juncker or a British exit will be hastened', which leaves himself no room to manoeuvre when his demands aren't met. He opposed Juncker but had no other candidate in mind. He makes policy announcements to try and tackle UKIP and his own Euro-sceptics, but the tone of them just annoy other European countries, especially Eastern European ones.

He should try some actual diplomacy for once, it might just land him some reforms. But that'd probably annoy UKIP, so he won't.
Click to expand...

It wasn't exactly Cameron issuing that ultimatum, though - he was saying if if he doesn't want Juncker and yet we get Juncker, that's going to make people more likely to vote to leave the EU in the event of a referendum. The "threat" is merely that the people will get a say.

Maledict said:
See, here's where I disagree.

Firstly, expressing the will can be done in several ways, and he keeps choosing the way that is practically guaranteed to piss off allies and ensure we don't get to shape or influence things. He is playing purely to the home crowd and UKIP, rather than the national interests.
Click to expand...

So if his desire to to control immigration within the EU, how is he meant to phrase that? Everytime it comes up everyone within the EU is all "NOPE, NOT GONNA HAPPEN" - how does he "diplomatically" argue his way around that one? It sounds like you just want him to change his position rather than his tactics.

Secondly, just because something is a majority opinion doesn't make it right. It's been evidenced repeatedly that the country as a whole is laughably misinformed about massive issues such as benefits, pensions, tax and Europe - not helped by our press either. That's why we are a representative democracy and elect MPS rather than vote on every issue through referendum. It would be good to see Cameron act as the statesman rather than the politician (same goes for the others as well) - instead of just acting out the whims of the polls, take a stance and lead on something and have that national dialogue.

But again, that would piss off UKIP and his rabid right wingers.

(You can apply this to Miliband as well - it's not party specific! He's just lucky he has less press on Europe)
Click to expand...

This is all true, and representative democracy's greatest virtue has never been its decision making capacity but rather the ability for an electorate to decide if a government has done well. In other words, not to direct the government but rather give a verdict on their performance afterwards - whether they should get another term or whether to give control to someone else.

But this line of argument falls apart slightly depending on the issue. None of us want our civil liberties raped, but it happens because of the people we've elected to represent us want it to. What basically comes down to an argument of "politicians know best" largely gets deployed by people depending on whether they side with the politicians or the public. There's no clear cut answer on this one, but if Cameron is offering an In Out referendum and is simultaneously trying to reform the EU to make it more likely that we'll actually stay in (which most people accept is what he wants) then I don't think he's in the wrong for announcing that and letting the rest of the EU members know that if it's their desire for the UK to remain within the EU that they need to consider the will of the citizens of the UK and not just the handful of establishment bods across the negotiating table. There are worse things in the world than that.

PS I've had a lot of drink today, it's been a bloody good thursday.
 
Jesus christ:

B0s4GkoIIAApAXh.png


I'm Crab will have something to say about those probabilities because all the information I have is what's on those images but... holy hell. Those are the only 4 practical options and it seems like they're basically equally likely. How mad is this?!

Edit: My point isn't "omg Tories ahead" - obviously tomorrow's poll will be different just like yesterday's was. It just highlights how insanely close it is right now.
 
CyclopsRock said:
Jesus christ:

B0s4GkoIIAApAXh.png


I'm Crab will have something to say about those probabilities because all the information I have is what's on those images but... holy hell. Those are the only 4 practical options and it seems like they're basically equally likely. How mad is this?!

Edit: My point isn't "omg Tories ahead" - obviously tomorrow's poll will be different just like yesterday's was. It just highlights how insanely close it is right now.
Click to expand...

The easiest way of looking at it is a hung parliament is overwhelmingly likely. Then the mother of all parliaments goes into insider horse trading mode to decide the 'winner' (who'll probably be lucky to get the backing of 35% of the 65% of the electorate which bother to vote). Democracy ain't it great.
 
I'm fine with hung parliaments. I mean, as much as I dislike what the coalition have done, if they'd been Conservative only I'd have probably liked them even less. Equally, I recognise that while I'd prefer a Labour government, an even larger section of the population would prefer them to be tempered by the Liberal Democrats. I don't really get what the fuss is. The only real point I think to have against them is the 'horse-trading' aspect, but I think that's just because the UK doesn't have much experience with coalitions as a political culture. In countries where they are routine, most parties set out fairly clear ideas of who they'll go into coalition with and why before an election, simply because if you surprise people it tends not to be well rewarded (c.f. the Liberal Democrats).
 
Crab said:
I'm fine with hung parliaments. I mean, as much as I dislike what the coalition have done, if they'd been Conservative only I'd have probably liked them even less. Equally, I recognise that while I'd prefer a Labour government, an even larger section of the population would prefer them to be tempered by the Liberal Democrats. I don't really get what the fuss is. The only real point I think to have against them is the 'horse-trading' aspect, but I think that's just because the UK doesn't have much experience with coalitions as a political culture. In countries where they are routine, most parties set out fairly clear ideas of who they'll go into coalition with and why before an election, simply because if you surprise people it tends not to be well rewarded (c.f. the Liberal Democrats).
Click to expand...

Equally, a minority government just wouldn't last, as I don't think one in Britain has ever lasted a full "term" in Government.

I think the thing to take away from all this is that FPTP is a shitty system, but the sabotaged and neutered AV vote has apparently "proven" to Westminster that nobody wants this system changed.

If asked someone "if you only received a third of the national vote, but due to how boundaries and the voting system works, you're the only party that matters when it comes to decisions", I don't think anyone would agree.
 
Crab said:
I'm fine with hung parliaments. I mean, as much as I dislike what the coalition have done, if they'd been Conservative only I'd have probably liked them even less. Equally, I recognise that while I'd prefer a Labour government, an even larger section of the population would prefer them to be tempered by the Liberal Democrats. I don't really get what the fuss is. The only real point I think to have against them is the 'horse-trading' aspect, but I think that's just because the UK doesn't have much experience with coalitions as a political culture. In countries where they are routine, most parties set out fairly clear ideas of who they'll go into coalition with and why before an election, simply because if you surprise people it tends not to be well rewarded (c.f. the Liberal Democrats).
Click to expand...

A Lab-Lib coaltion would most likely lead to Clegg being dumped. 2015 will be rock bottom for the party but I think a coalition with Labour will help improve its standing.
 
Gordon Brown getting the job is what I'm hoping for if only because Brown vs. Sturgeon is a hell of a heavyweight slugfest.
 
Not too confident of that choice going well with the public. Especially after his little performances before the vote, which has proven to be nothing but drivel since. Promises that he has been trying to back track on poorly recently as well..

"So the Conservatives have got it wrong. I think they're a hundred per cent wrong on this hundred per cent devolution of income tax.

"They've got to understand that their measures are a gift to the separatists, they would play into the hands into the nationalist party, they would drive a wedge between Scotland and England and make the constitution unstable."
Click to expand...

Then there was also the begging for people to sign a petition, to keep those same promises that he previously made. Mental.
 
I think what he says there is largely true. Like, as a Welshman, I want a ton of devolution to Wales, too, but I think that income tax and corporation tax are very dangerous things to devolve, particularly if you're left-wing. It probably starts with good intentions, like Scotland saying "hey, let's cut corporation tax to get businesses here and help Scottish unemployed", but businesses based in London probably won't move, so it mostly affects the North of England which is already pretty poor. The North retaliates, and realises they have to cut their corporation tax, and that affects the Midlands. The Midlands retaliates, and drop theirs, and you can see how it just devolves into a cycle of all the different devolved areas under a hypothetical federal scheme getting involved in a race to the bottom because each has an incentive to cut their tax slightly lower than the one next to them. The end result is a sort of prisoner's dilemma, because now they all have less money to do what they want and help the poorest in their region. I really want the regions to have basically complete control over their own spending, yes, but taxation is something that I feel should basically always be federal, lest Scotland seek prosperity by strip-mining the North or Wales.
 
Jumping in here as an American.

Yup, this is what happens. State A says to Company B, "ya' know, you're actually paying taxes and a decent wage in state B, so here's a crap load of incentives, including tax incentives, deals on land, inherent deals on various political issues (ie. environmental stuff, workers rights stuff, and so on). In the US, it's led to a total race to the bottom where every state, including supposedly blue states are undercutting each other so that 500 jobs will move somewhere.
 
If not local tac rates, what tools can be used to encourage growth in the areas that are falling behind, though? There are only so many Learning Resource Centres you can build.
 
CyclopsRock said:
If not local tac rates, what tools can be used to encourage growth in the areas that are falling behind, though? There are only so many Learning Resource Centres you can build.
Click to expand...

More opportunities for different areas to see what works, though - you've made this argument yourself. If Scotland ends up using its resources particularly well, Wales can start thinking "hey, we should try that" - which, incidentally, is exactly what has been happening.
 
WayneMorse said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/o...p-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region

I have to say I don't really know what would be the best way to lower housing prices in London. If the 2008 crash couldn't then what will? I'm thinking that repossessing unused housing might be a good first step.
Click to expand...

It'll require some pretty draconian (in some people's eyes) measurements such as banning people from owning more than one or two properties, taxing the fuck out of foreign buyers, building new council houses etc etc
 
FliXFantatier said:
And how likely is that to happen?
I foresee a dim future.
Click to expand...

I believe taxing foreign buyers had been mentioned by politicians before, not sure if it'll ever be acted upon. A ban on owning more than one home would never happen and more council house building is expensive and will get a kicking from some sectors of the media.
 
WayneMorse said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/o...p-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region

I have to say I don't really know what would be the best way to lower housing prices in London. If the 2008 crash couldn't then what will? I'm thinking that repossessing unused housing might be a good first step.
Click to expand...

Getting rid of the green belt would be a good start, along with fixing council tax so second homes aren't ultra cheap. After that, you have to look at solid rent controls - London is the only major western city that doesn't have any, and it shows.
 
jimbor said:
I believe taxing foreign buyers had been mentioned by politicians before, not sure if it'll ever be acted upon. A ban on owning more than one home would never happen and more council house building is expensive and will get a kicking from some sectors of the media.
Click to expand...

But seriously, the foreigners who have such expensive apartments won't care if the tax bill is increased. They won't suddenly vacate their condos and leave the city. The added tax revenue might be used to build more affordable housing, but that is a stretch too, because everyone and their aunty will want a piece of the added income.
And as is stated in the article even affordable housing isn't really affordable..

Maledict said:
Getting rid of the green belt would be a good start, along with fixing council tax so second homes aren't ultra cheap. After that, you have to look at solid rent controls - London is the only major western city that doesn't have any, and it shows.
Click to expand...

That's not true, Germany is only now in the process of legislating housing and rent prices, and it will be up to the cities whether they want to and how to implement the details. It will be a while before it comes into effect. And if it actually helps is doubtful.
 
Maledict said:
Getting rid of the green belt would be a good start, along with fixing council tax so second homes aren't ultra cheap. After that, you have to look at solid rent controls - London is the only major western city that doesn't have any, and it shows.
Click to expand...

I did some googling, and according to the chaps at Sterling Ackroyd (a London based estate agency), London can meet the demand for housing in the next decade without touching the green spaces. Whether they can do that and still have affordable housing is another matter though.

Still, it astonishes me that even with the insane house prices in London, another million people are expected to move into the capital in the next decade. Perhaps the government should look at reducing pull factors for those people, through massive investment elsewhere in the country? HS3 before HS2, for example.
 
Crab said:
More opportunities for different areas to see what works, though - you've made this argument yourself. If Scotland ends up using its resources particularly well, Wales can start thinking "hey, we should try that" - which, incidentally, is exactly what has been happening.
Click to expand...

But isn't that the same with every election? People seeing what happens when policy X is implemented and then voting based on that information? I'm not sure how greater regionalisation makes this any more or less effective than it already is (or isn't, depending on how well you think that works currently). That might work fine for things like whether to have 2 or 3 different types of wheelie bins, or whether to remove parking restrictions in towns to help brick-and-mortar shops, but I'm not sure it necessarily will in a public spending capacity.

IMO tax alterations are one of the best ways to encourage local development but only when it's done in conjunction with infrastructure improvements - such as in the Docklands in the 80's and 90's. There were tax breaks to encourage companies to leave the City and head out there, but it was really the DLR and Jubilee Line extensions that made these tenable places to work. But they went hand in hand.
 
I think "Green belt" is a terrible name, too. A lot of it isn't beautiful rolling Kent countryside, a lot of it is horrible shit holes. The purpose was the green belt never really was to preserve any green areas, but rather contain the larger cities from what the post-war governments considered to be undesirable sprawl. There *are* some lovely bits of green belt land, but there are some horrible bits too.
 
Yen said:
Northern Ireland budget: 'Difficult decisions' over planned cuts of up to £850m
For months we had been hearing about how NI needed to find £200m to cover for the lack of welfare reform, and now this. The NI economy is in the toilet.
Click to expand...

Oh, now that's definitely true. NI can't really sustain itself as well as people think it can. It's more a developing country that won't develop properly. Besides, when was the last time anyone in Stormont made a semi-reasonable and well thought out decision? Also, taking a walk down the street, I have to say that we cannot afford these cuts, really.
 
Masquerader said:
Oh, now that's definitely true. NI can't really sustain itself as well as people think it can. It's more a developing country that won't develop properly. Besides, when was the last time anyone in Stormont made a semi-reasonable and well thought out decision? Also, taking a walk down the street, I have to say that we cannot afford these cuts, really.
Click to expand...

Them idiots on the hill will never solve anything
 
Yen said:
Northern Ireland budget: 'Difficult decisions' over planned cuts of up to £850m
For months we had been hearing about how NI needed to find £200m to cover for the lack of welfare reform, and now this. The NI economy is in the toilet.
Click to expand...

Crikey, the Q&A on there's a bit mad.

"What are welfare fines?
Northern Ireland is being penalised by the Treasury for not endorsing welfare reforms passed by Westminster in February 2013.

Sinn Féin has led the opposition to the reforms.

The Treasury's fines reflect how much the benefits budget in Northern Ireland should have fallen by if welfare reforms had been implemented.

As this has not happened, the Treasury is instead taking the equivalent sum from the budget. This amounts to £114m of fines in next year's budget."

I assume welfare isn't something that's devolved to the NI Assembly, so did they basically just go off piste and ignore that?
 
CyclopsRock said:
Crikey, the Q&A on there's a bit mad.

"What are welfare fines?
Northern Ireland is being penalised by the Treasury for not endorsing welfare reforms passed by Westminster in February 2013.

Sinn Féin has led the opposition to the reforms.

The Treasury's fines reflect how much the benefits budget in Northern Ireland should have fallen by if welfare reforms had been implemented.

As this has not happened, the Treasury is instead taking the equivalent sum from the budget. This amounts to £114m of fines in next year's budget."

I assume welfare isn't something that's devolved to the NI Assembly, so did they basically just go off piste and ignore that?
Click to expand...


Subject to approval by the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Northern Ireland Executive, the new Welfare Reform Bill for Northern Ireland will result in changes to the benefits system. Many of the current benefits will cease to exist and new benefits and payment systems will be introduced
Click to expand...
http://www.nidirect.gov.uk/changes-to-benefits-welfare-reform
They must have some say over it
 
CyclopsRock said:
Crikey, the Q&A on there's a bit mad.

"What are welfare fines?
Northern Ireland is being penalised by the Treasury for not endorsing welfare reforms passed by Westminster in February 2013.

Sinn Féin has led the opposition to the reforms.

The Treasury's fines reflect how much the benefits budget in Northern Ireland should have fallen by if welfare reforms had been implemented.

As this has not happened, the Treasury is instead taking the equivalent sum from the budget. This amounts to £114m of fines in next year's budget."

I assume welfare isn't something that's devolved to the NI Assembly, so did they basically just go off piste and ignore that?
Click to expand...

SF refuse to accept welfare reform (making gains in the Republic as an anti-austerity party so they won't accept welfare cuts in the North), and so with the Petition of Concern they can block it.
The DUP are all for the cuts - it's been suggested they want a cabinet seat in a 2015 Tory government as part of a coalition. They'll probably get at least 8/18 of NI's seats.
NI's politics are so messed up that even if welfare reform isn't in the interests of the DUP's voters, even if they pass it, people won't stop voting for them.
 
So, with UKIP's poll surge continuing unabated and the prospect of a hung parliament cementing itself, how's this for an interesting graph:

B1H-rNfCIAAj5db.png


And jesus - dat omnishambles budget.
 
The Guardian political blog raised a good point about Theresa May, she's the apple of a bunch of Tories eye and has gotten pretty good press, but she's presided over a litany of fuckups which generally would have gotten lesser lights sacked.

May has a reputation in Tory circles as a capable and tough pair of hands presiding over the difficult area of immigration, but previous Labour home secretaries have been sacked for far less than some of the scandals she has overseen. Anyone remember the passport delays, the unauthorised relaxation of border checks, her adviser’s late-night outburst about extremism in schools, not to mention last week’s reports about missing foreign criminals? On top of that, May has pretty much conceded defeat on meeting David Cameron’s target of getting immigration down to the tens of thousands from the hundreds of thousands. It is slightly mysterious why her stock is so high with core Conservative supporters.
Click to expand...

In terms of PMQ's, Ed actually had a good tactic today (offering Cameron the Labour Opposition Day time to hold a vote on European Arrest Warrant), but sort of botched the landing. It did get Cameron pretty uncomfortable and got the Tory backbench to literally hiss Cameron, but despite that you'd probably come away thinking Cameron got the better of the exchanges.
 
YouGov in at CON 31%, LAB 34%, LDEM 6%, UKIP 17%, GRN 7%.

It's worth noting that if you look at the average Liberal Democrat performance over the last month amongst all of the pollsters, they are now the 5th party. The Greens are now consistently ahead of them, by more than the margin of error. Rise of the Greens is having a noticeable impact on the Labour vote, too - about 40% of the current Green vote is attributable to Labour defections, representing about an extra 3% Labour could be on that they're losing from their left-wing. Tricky times for both the big parties - both of them are stuck between minor parties yipping at their heels. Does make it pretty inexcusable that the BBC excluded the Greens, though - the logic for including the Liberal Democrats but not them is a bit strained.

Labour's lead averaging at a shade under 2%, which would give them an incredibly slim majority - although the idea you can get a majority on approximately 33% of the vote says a lot about our political system
and about everyone who voted against AV.
If you try to map the votes more specifically (i.e., much of Labour's recent fall has nothing to do with the rUK, where they've maintained a relatively consistent slim lead, but rather in Scotland, where they've plummeted), then Labour would be a few seats short of a majority - around 5-10. Somewhat amusingly, the Conservatives will probably actually pick-up a Conservative MP in Scotland rather than lose one as the SNP is acting as a spoiler to Labour even in seats where the SNP have not historically been big contenders.
 
Can anyone point me in the direction of some good UK news/politics radio shows or podcasts? I'm looking for some new stuff to listen to. Are there shows on Radio 4 that are interesting?
 
http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/297729-stv-poll-labour-would-annihilated-if-general-election-held-tomorrow/

So the first Scotland specific GE polling has been carried out by IPSOS MORI

52% would vote SNP
23% would vote Labour
10% would vote Conservative
6% would vote Liberal Democrats
6% would vote for the Greens

If the swing was uniform that would leave Labour with 4 seats and the Lib Dems with 1. Now that won't happen (although the number of Scottish Lib Dem MP's might be right) and this will probably be the high mark of the SNP support as the UK wide coverage focusses on the UK parties, although I wouldn't be surprised if they get a post Salmond bounce themselves (although this might actually be happening just now), Salmond although competent was both divisive and a lightening rod for Labour attacks on the SNP. Independence aside, the SNP's policies in Government are far more popular than the party itself polls, I wonder how many voters are largely happy with their performance in Government but disliked Salmond.

I don't see how Labour can tack a policy course suitable to the support which has left them and still be palatable to England. Just saying "we'll stop the Tories" isn't going to be enough. And if they think Jim Murphy is the answer they're even more deluded than I thought, he's actively detested by the left of the party which is the portion which has upped and left. And frankly Murphy has a million skeletons in the closet (did you know he spent 9 years at university and still doesn't have a degree, that should rule him out of office imho.) most notably his expenses.
 
JonathanEx said:
The BBC did publish a response about why they weren't today if you're interested. Basically trying to work backwards with logic to go "look we talk about them loads, it just make sense alright" http://www.theguardian.com/politics...rty-televised-leader-debates-general-election
Click to expand...

BBC using similar criteria to which Ofcom use to define a major party. I suspect that for the General Election Ofcom will also class UKIP as a major party, but not the Greens.

I won't be surprised if we get two elections next year, even the third placed party may not have enough seats to form a majority coalition government on it's own.
 
Polls:

Times/YouGov Scotland:

How much do you trust:
Nicola Sturgeon: 48%
Gordon Brown: 37%
Jim Murphy: 24%
David Cameron: 19%
Ed Miliband: 15%

Times / YouGov Scotland General Election Poll

SNP: 43% (47 seats)
Labour: 27% (10 seats)
C: 15% (1 seat)
LD: 4% (1 seat)
1,078 adults Oct 27-30
 
Tories with a single point yougov lead tonight.

What say you crab? I said they would be nip and tuck with labour after conference season before building a lead in the new year and you said nonsense, labour would have a consistent six pioint lead until about March. Thoughts?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Locked
UK PoliGAF |OT3| - Strong and Stable Government? No. Coalition Of Chaos!
37 38 39 40 41
2K
255K
firehawk12 replied
  • Locked
My French assistant has a thing for me...
3
7K
Yoshi replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
Something wrong with the Funny post thread?
0
1K
Amakusa replied
Top Bottom