Support NeoGAF

[Deleted member 231381]

Uniform National Swing from the last week finally shifts Labour out of majority into hung parliament. Note that that's been obvious for some while, because UNS doesn't capture the geographically specific swings like in Scotland which really hurt Labour, but now there's a more general confirmation that they're no longer set to take a majority. Polls currently showing hung parliament, Labour pliraliity, that'd probably result in either a Lab/Lib coalition or a second election in the line of 1974.

Exciting times! I'll be really interested to see what the UK looks like even just 10 years down the road. With both the major parties struggling to hit even 31% in polls these days (long-run averages are approximately LAB 32 CON 31), it really is looking like the end of a political era. I mean, how would either party respond to a situation where they cannot form a majority coalition without SNP support? Will UKIP start pushing for electoral reform as a deal for a coalition? Will the Greens start to entrench? - they're looking to take five times as large a vote share as in 2010!

EDIT: Oxford and LSE getting a bit of a rivalry going re: their prediction models. Oxford's electionsetc currently showing 302 CON 291 LAB 26 LD 13 OTHER (includes all other parties, including big ones such as UKIP, because of the difficulty of forecasting very small parties), LSE's electionforecast going with 296 LAB 282 CON 23 LD 24 SNP 3 PC 3 UKIP 1 OTHER. Note that unlike polls, these aren't trying to say what people would vote now if there was an election, but what people actually will do come the actual election.

 

[Maledict]

I have to be honest, I have felt for some time that when it comes to polling day we will see the conservatives do better than the current polls show. Partly because the economic news will continue to be positive, partly because UKIP voters will return home, and partly because ultimately people will take one look at Miliband and rule him out for being PM. As a opposition party they need to be doing better than this with 6 months to go if they want a majority.

The Labour Party folk I know are all focused on who gets to be leader after they lose the next election, rather than actually winning 2015. No-one wants to be seen to be responsible for the loss, but everyone is factoring it in as a done deal.

(I think if there is a conservative majority people will really come to miss the lib dems as well!)

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Con 34, Lab 28, LD 11, UKIP 18, Green 5, SNP 3 (~45% in Scotland).

Con 305-315, Lab 210-240, LD 20-30, UKIP 15-20, SNP 30-40.


Con/UKIP coalition. Nige becomes deputy PM and Foreign Secretary. :O

 

[Deleted member 231381]

...how on earth do UKIP pick up 15-20 seats? Like, they're targeting 4-5 at the moment in a best possible world scenario! Also, UKIP needs to go big to pull that off, and they pull more from the Conservatives than Labour, so if they're that big, how is your Conservative prediction also so big? I thought you were in finance, or is in some specific sector that doesn't require any ability to forecast?

Spoiler

That came out meaner than I intended, and was really just supposed to be a light jibe. Apologies if you read it before I put this in!

 

[zomgbbqftw]

UKIP are targeting 10 seats in the South East, 10 seats in the South West, 5 seats in the Midlands and 10 seats across the North and possibly one seat in Wales.

I think they will do very well because the anti-politics feeling is there to be exploited and UKIP are the only party who benefit from it now since the Lib Dems are now a party of government and Labour are part of the establishment.

Labour are in big trouble though. The top forecaster at my old workplace has them between 25 and 27 with UKIP on 20 to 22 and the Tories on 33-35. He thinks there are swathes of shy UKIP voters in the North that aren't being picked up by the polls and that there is a "proud" Labour effect among ex-Lib Dem voters that also isn't being picked up. Along with Ed Miliband he is talking maximum 27 points for Labour in 2015, as you can see I was more generous!

 

[SmugAgentCoulson]

Rachel Reeves v IDS point of order

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFZVJ_iOCG0

Reeves is all over the shop in both her grammar and temper. Very surreal.

 

[SmugAgentCoulson]

I have to be honest, I have felt for some time that when it comes to polling day we will see the conservatives do better than the current polls show. Partly because the economic news will continue to be positive, partly because UKIP voters will return home, and partly because ultimately people will take one look at Miliband and rule him out for being PM. As a opposition party they need to be doing better than this with 6 months to go if they want a majority.

The Labour Party folk I know are all focused on who gets to be leader after they lose the next election, rather than actually winning 2015. No-one wants to be seen to be responsible for the loss, but everyone is factoring it in as a done deal.

(I think if there is a conservative majority people will really come to miss the lib dems as well!)

Farage wants to destroy the Tory party and the way things are going he will soon get his wish. The tide has turned and voters are not going back. It's not a question of vote UKIP get Labour anymore.....it's much more complicated than that.

Labour are in trouble as well. Lib Dems are facing wipe out. Greens are up and coming.

UKIP are growing everyday. Voters up North have an alternative to Labour for the first time for generations. For millions of Tory voters - the Tories are just not the Tories anymore. That is not going to change anytime soon. Cameron is a EU stooge.....

Thousands upon thousands of voters are going to vote next May for the first time in a generation, some have never bothered to vote until now.

May 7th 2015 is going to be the biggest shake up in politics in generations.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Farage wants to destroy the Tory party and the way things are going he will soon get his wish. The tide has turned and voters are not going back. It's not a question of vote UKIP get Labour anymore.....it's much more complicated than that.

Labour are in trouble as well. Lib Dems are facing wipe out. Greens are up and coming.

UKIP are growing everyday. Voters up North have an alternative to Labour for the first time for generations. For millions of Tory voters - the Tories are just not the Tories anymore. That is not going to change anytime soon. Cameron is a EU stooge.....

Thousands upon thousands of voters are going to vote next May for the first time in a generation, some have never bothered to vote until now.

May 7th 2015 is going to be the biggest shake up in politics in generations.

Wrt the bolded...I kind of feel like I know what you mean, yet I wonder what else he could actually do to appear tough on the EU. He's promised an in-out referendum (pending Tory majority), he tried to stop Juncker becoming President of the Commish, he tweets about not paying this extra £1.7 billion quid they're asking for...

 

[JonathanEx]

Play my new election game! Flip a coin! Heads, we've got no government, tails, we've hardly got a government! Or just sort the coins to try and put something that looks like a government but won't stay together!


...that metaphor fell through.

So Norman Baker's quit govt, blaming May. Exclusive IV in the Independent tomorrow.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Play my new election game! Flip a coin! Heads, we've got no government, tails, we've hardly got a government! Or just sort the coins to try and put something that looks like a government but won't stay together!


...that metaphor fell through.

If only coalitions looked this good

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Play my new election game! Flip a coin! Heads, we've got no government, tails, we've hardly got a government! Or just sort the coins to try and put something that looks like a government but won't stay together!


...that metaphor fell through.

So Norman Baker's quit govt, blaming May. Exclusive IV in the Independent tomorrow.

I mean, I was expecting the Liberal Democrats to start peeling away now. They need to look differentiated before the election.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

We should totally copy the Germans and have a lab/Con coalition. It would be amaaaaaazing.

 

[SmugAgentCoulson]

Wrt to the bolded...I kind of feel like I know what you mean, yet I wonder what else he could actually do to appear tough on the EU. He's promised an in-out referendum (pending Tory majority), he tried to stop Juncker becoming President of the Commish, he tweets about not paying this extra £1.7 billion quid they're asking for...

It's all hot air. Every promise. It started as trying to appease his backbenchers but now it is to appease UKIP voters as well. It won't work. He is toast. The Tories are toast.

The whole 2017 thing is just a way of kicking a referendum in the long grass. They don't want you to have a say and if they did they know it's highly likely we would leave. We would have had the referendum yesterday if they thought we would vote to stay in.

Sometimes when Cameron or his front bench talk about the EU it's like they are in opposition. It's just all talk, headlines but nothing changes. People can see what is going on and that is why next May is going to be NUCLEAR!

 

[SmugAgentCoulson]

We should totally copy the Germans and have a lab/Con coalition. It would be amaaaaaazing.

Oh I have no doubt this could happen to see off UKIP. Imagine how the backbenchers would react?

The establishment will do anything to stay in the EU. It's going to get very nasty.

 

[Masquerader]

I'm willing to bet that a weakened Conservative party will narrowly lose to a Labour party that suddenly looks very appealing at the last minute or so, no thanks to Miliband. Either way, we haven't seen the last of UKIP or the Greens. Preferably the latter. I'd actually like to see the Green party, media! FFS

Either way, this whole immigration scare isn't over yet, and politics headlines will be unbelievably boring and samey for at least a decade. Psh.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

We should totally copy the Germans and have a lab/Con coalition. It would be amaaaaaazing.

That really would be the end of a political era

 

[phisheep]

That really would be the end of a political era

It would. But I'm not yet convinced that it would be the start of a new one.

 

[SmugAgentCoulson]

It would. But I'm not yet convinced that it would be the start of a new one.

Better than the error we've got now.

Boom Boom.

 

[phisheep]

Boom Boom.

Tish?

 

[SmugAgentCoulson]

Tish?

Sorry I don't understand.

 

[ConstructMe]

how do they actually justify asking for 1.7 billion?

 

[Bleepey]

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?

The bugle podcast.

 

[anonymous_abc]

Sorry I don't understand.

 

[dapperbandit]

Play my new election game! Flip a coin! Heads, we've got no government, tails, we've hardly got a government! Or just sort the coins to try and put something that looks like a government but won't stay together!


...that metaphor fell through.

So Norman Baker's quit govt, blaming May. Exclusive IV in the Independent tomorrow.

I think this video kind of sums up what's going to happen next year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAA-A9t7TD0

 

[Uzzy]

how do they actually justify asking for 1.7 billion?

By pointing to the Office of National Statistics own figures. This showed that the gross national income of the UK, from 2002 to now, had been larger than previously reported, so our contribution based on gross national income went up. We've underpayed for more than a decade.

At least, that's what I've gathered.

 

[Nicktendo86]

D Day for tower hamlets. Come on pickles my old son don't let us down...

Edit:Tower Hamlets failing to comply with 'best value duty' in handing out grants, according to PwC audit. @itvlondon

 

[Zaph]

D Day for tower hamlets. Come on pickles my old son don't let us down...

Edit:Tower Hamlets failing to comply with 'best value duty' in handing out grants, according to PwC audit. @itvlondon

 

[Nicktendo86]

Right click aaaaand save.

The report seems damning. Grants given to organisations deemed ineligible!

Edit: and here it is

PWC finds evidence that Mayor Rahman personally selected suppliers for council contracts before bids opened.No contracts in other cases.

 

[Masquerader]

D Day for tower hamlets. Come on pickles my old son don't let us down...

Edit:Tower Hamlets failing to comply with 'best value duty' in handing out grants, according to PwC audit. @itvlondon

Just read about that. Good job, Pickle Politician. Is it really that bad over there? :c

 

[CyclopsRock]

Go on Pickles, fuck his brains out. It seems that Lutfur is refusing to stand down for now. Seems utterly indefensible but hey ho.

Let's go have a party next to the ISIS flag and sweet shop with the radicalisation leaflets on the counter!

Think that's unfair and a bit dismissive. Cameron has been slated from all sides for his failure to engage with Europe properly at all. Personally I am in favour of immigration and the free movement of,people (I'm a capitalist!), but even coming from his position and needs what he has done, repeatedly, is just *dumb*. It is bad politics and bad diplomacy.

And I'm in favour of politicians making informed choices regardless of my personal leanings. I've voted for each party in my lifetime, and I'm heavily influenced by the evidence (it's my day job after all). Also, to be frank, as a gay man I am heavily swayed by the argument that sometimes politicians have to lead and the public will follow.

Let me flip it around - do you think Cameron has done a good job with his approach to Europe? Has it got us closer to what he, and his party wants? Is this an effective policy?

EDIT: in order to clarify on the personal biases bit - I voted lib dem last time around, and was happy with the coalition government that formed. I thought it was the right choice given the electoral result, and offered us a unique chance to do something new with government. I am absolutely not a dye in the wool left wing voter wedded to a party - far from it in fact.

Fair enough! As for Cameron, I don't think he's done especially well but I also can't see a realistic turn of events in which he could have. He's in the bizarre situation wherein he's coming close to pulling us out of Europe despite the fact he wants us to stay in. But if both his party and the people overwhelmingly want a referendum, he can't simply ignore it - it's not practical from an electoral or party management POV. So he's offered it to them whilst attempting to reform the EU to make it more likely we'll stay in. He hasn't succeeded obviously (yet, at least) but again, I can't really envision an alternative set of occurrences wherein he would. He's in a Blair-and-the-unions situation, where Labour couldn't please both the unions and their newfound middle ground support. Of course, Blair had the benefit of a huge landslide majority and an opposition in a coma. Whilst Labour's opposition isn't exactly wonderful, nor is the Tories poll ratings so Cam can't afford to ignore popular opinion. He's between a rock and a hard place, so whilst I don't think he's done well, I really don't think he's done particularly badly either.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I'm reading the report now:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...e/370277/140311_-_final_inspection_report.pdf

First exciting fact: 11% of the grants given by the council were given to groups that weren't even eligible to apply for them.

Second exciting fact: Poplar Town Hall's sale wasn't to the highest bidder, it was to a lower, late bid from someone with a commercial interest in common with the Mayor.

Shocking. Simply shocking.

 

[Nicktendo86]

I'm reading the report now:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...e/370277/140311_-_final_inspection_report.pdf

First exciting fact: 11% of the grants given by the council were given to groups that weren't even eligible to apply for them.

Second exciting fact: Poplar Town Hall's sale wasn't to the highest bidder, it was to a lower, late bid from someone with a commercial interest in common with the Mayor.

Shocking. Simply shocking.

We have known about many of these for a while but its very gratifying to see it in an official report. PWC were scathing and their tone suggests shock at what they found. Lutfur is finished, is mayor in name alone now as most of his powers are being handed to the three commissioners.

This is a serious warning about directly elected mayors and the powers they wield. Permanent chief execs are a must.

 

[War Peaceman]

Good riddance to the guy. I'm glad there is concrete evidence of guilt, it makes it easier to get rid of a 'popular' figure like him. It is crazy how brazen the corruption was, really. Makes you wonder what hasn't been noticed elsewhere.

 

[kmag]

We have known about many of these for a while but its very gratifying to see it in an official report. PWC were scathing and their tone suggests shock at what they found. Lutfur is finished, is mayor in name alone now as most of his powers are being handed to the three commissioners.

This is a serious warning about directly elected mayors and the powers they wield. Permanent chief execs are a must.

See this sort of thing is where my theoretical desire for localism falls down. Local politics in a lot of places is just a cesspool, and there is usually not the media attention or interest in exposing corruption in the same way as there is at the national level, especially given the gutting of local newspapers.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

See this sort of thing is where my theoretical desire for localism falls down. Local politics in a lot of places is just a cesspool, and there is usually not the media attention or interest in exposing corruption in the same way as there is at the national level, especially given the gutting of local newspapers.

I agree. "local" politics needs to be sufficiently broad in scope to actually garner attention, or it's worse than central politics.

 

[Nicktendo86]

So auditors have refused to sign off the EU accounts. For the 19th year in a row.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

So auditors have refused to sign off the EU accounts. For the 19th year in a row.

This is one of those criticisms made by people who don't actually understand what any of the relevant bodies here do. The European Court of Auditors is constitutionally obliged to sign off on the accounts of the European Union Budget with a Declaration of Assurance only if it can fully account for 98% of budget items, which is an essentially ludicrous condition - I would not expect the ECA to ever be able to sign off on an EU budget ever, it's close to impossible. I think they came quite close in 2009(?), but having all items accounted for is something even most large private firms struggle with, let alone a supranational organization. The ECA does issue a separate report estimating the exact amount of the budget which cannot be accounted for (as opposed to the error rate), which is usually some tiny percentage - for example, it was 0.09% of the budget in 2006 (about 11 million euros). Note again that that is the fraud estimate, not the error estimate, which is what people usually try to imply when they say "oh, the EU hasn't been signed off by the auditors, wink wink, nudge nudge".

 

[cartesian]

I'm not going to go out of my way to defend the EU on this issue, simply because I don't know the first thing about accounting, but I thought the EU's own response would be worth sharing - not least because to a layman like myself it seems fairly reasonable, although, again, I don't know what 'reasonable' is when it comes to auditing [emphasis added]:

The Court of Auditors has not yet given its seal of approval to our payments in certain policy areas. However, errors in EU spending are essentially administrative mistakes. They are not the same as fraud. In cohesion policy, for example, the error rate is still slightly above 5%, which represents a considerable reduction from past levels. The Court estimates the Commission's error rate as regards payments at 2% to 5%, depending on the policy area, whereas the Court's threshold is a 2% error rate.

However, a 2% to 5% error rate means that over 95% of all EU spending is in line with the rules. Moreover, when financial corrections are taken into account, the average error rate for 2009-2012 falls below 2%, the threshold required for the Court's green light. Although the Court does not take full account of corrections in its calculation, they do indicate sound financial management.

Under the Treaty, the Commission is responsible for implementing the EU budget, in cooperation with national governments. However, the national governments have primary responsibility for managing and controlling some 80% of all EU funds, and they have a key role to play in ensuring that EU money is spent wisely and in line with the rules. The latest review of the Financial Regulation gave the Commission more preventive and corrective powers and made the EU countries more accountable (by introducing management declarations of assurance on EU funds).

 

[Nicktendo86]

This is one of those criticisms made by people who don't actually understand what any of the relevant bodies here do. The European Court of Auditors is constitutionally obliged to sign off on the accounts of the European Union Budget with a Declaration of Assurance only if it can fully account for 98% of budget items, which is an essentially ludicrous condition - I would not expect the ECA to ever be able to sign off on an EU budget ever, it's close to impossible. I think they came quite close in 2009(?), but having all items accounted for is something even most large private firms struggle with, let alone a supranational organization. The ECA does issue a separate report estimating the exact amount of the budget which cannot be accounted for (as opposed to the error rate), which is usually some tiny percentage - for example, it was 0.09% of the budget in 2006 (about 11 million euros). Note again that that is the fraud estimate, not the error estimate, which is what people usually try to imply when they say "oh, the EU hasn't been signed off by the auditors, wink wink, nudge nudge".

That's the ting that gets me though, not that the budgets are never signed off but that the system put in place makes it, as you say, nigh on impossible for them to be signed off. What is the purpose?

 

[War Peaceman]

If they set more lenient terms people would complain that they are rigged to be passed.

It does seem like a bit of a farce, really, but I'd rather they set high standards for these things. You have to look at the details, not the pass/fail state.

 

[WayneMorse]

Just shows how much of a dim twit Miliband is if he's really backing Murphy for the Scottish leadership. I don't expect Scotland to have any Labour seats left in 2015 when that guy has his way with the party.

 

[Nicktendo86]

Miliband's personal ratings have hit a new low, lower than Gordon Brown now apparently. Even the New Statesman has abandoned him. Yikes.

UK forecast to have biggest growth in Europe, good news but the drag of the Eurozone is a big worry.

Edit:

Labour MPs are calling for leader Ed Miliband to stand down, sources tell @rosschawkins

 

[Uzzy]

That New Statesman article is pretty damning. Still, I'd be a bit surprised if Labour got rid of Miliband, given it's some six months until the general election. Who'd replace him if they did get rid of him? Balls? Harman?

 

[JonathanEx]

I don't get why it's news today, surely every day people are thinking Ed should step down?

Spoiler

I get why it is, but until anyone is willing to make a challenge it seems noise over nothing and I don't think anyone has the balls to go for it today

 

[WayneMorse]

Miliband's personal ratings have hit a new low, lower than Gordon Brown now apparently. Even the New Statesman has abandoned him. Yikes.

UK forecast to have biggest growth in Europe, good news but the drag of the Eurozone is a big worry.

Edit:

This is all just fluff until someone actually challenges Miliband.

edit: And Miliband just rejected calls to resign, unless someone actually steps up to challenge him nothing will happen.

Spoiler

please someone challenge him

 

[QuicheFontaine]

This is all just fluff until someone actually challenges Miliband.

edit: And Miliband just rejected calls to resign, unless someone actually steps up to challenge him nothing will happen.

Spoiler

please someone challenge him

Maybe David? They could probably keep a lot of the campaign literature and posters and stuff if they just say "Miliband" on them.

Edit:

Oh, looking at his wiki page I guess he's not an MP any more.

 

[Nicktendo86]

He moved to america didn't he?

Having to say you are not going to step down, months before a general election, is just insane. How can the country have faith in him when his own party doesn't?

 

[Jezbollah]

It's too late for a leadership change now - should have happened six months ago.

Even if it did happen then or now, I couldn't vote for Labour if Ed Balls was still there.

 

[SmugAgentCoulson]

Time for the big guns......

 

[Maledict]

Nothing will happen and there won't be a leadership challenge. Instead the party will continue to grumble, spread poison and whisper behind people's back and undermine Ed without actually challenging him. The party is resigned to not winning, and no-one thinks it worth the risk to challenge him now when they can force him out safely after the election.

Thee is a sense of smug satisfaction watching this happen to Ed Miliband, given how he along with Balls and Brown were responsible for creating this culture in the parliamentary party themselves. Call it cosmic karma.