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

Bye bye Rifkind. You won't be missed.

Not seen it but Natalie Bennett had a car crash interview this morning apparently. The greens are as much as a joke as ukip.
 
kmag said:
He didn't create the picture, it's been floating around some of the more vociferous unionist Labour types social media for nearly a week now.

I don't think it's so much Scottish Labour opinion but rather the opinion of a minority of hardcore unionists in Scottish Labour. But it does undercut neatly Jimbo's only real slogan.
Click to expand...

There's an anyone but SNP pseudo-campaign thingy on twitter under the SNPout hashtag.
 
It's not like the Greens are actually every going to get into government, so people don't care about their policies. They just care about their values - you vote Green to indicate you don't think Labour is sufficiently left. Same reason people vote for UKIP despite the fact their 2010 manifesto was batshit insane (well, to indicate you don't think the Conservatives are sufficiently right, but same basic principle). Only policies that actually matter are Labour and Conservative ones, and perhaps uniquely for this election at least the SNP and the Lib Dems.
 
I agree with a lot of that - I also think it all comes down to political competency - she is still an elected MP - those same people (and potential voters of theirs) would expect her and her party who is up for national representation to have their manifesto points paid for - its not so much what you're going to do, it's how you're going to do it.

It's no wonder why Cameron wanted her to be part of the TV debates.
 
Dan27 said:
I agree with a lot of that - I also think it all comes down to political competency - she is still an elected MP - those same people (and potential voters of theirs) would expect her and her party who is up for national representation to have their manifesto points paid for - its not so much what you're going to do, it's how you're going to do it.

It's no wonder why Cameron wanted her to be part of the TV debates.
Click to expand...

I thought the Cameron logic was that the Greens would split the left? If it looks like the greens are incompetent, that might actually backfire which would be interesting. Maybe I'm expecting too much on those potential green voters, probably from the bias of what I've seen on Twitter etc. At least Farage can deliver passion and hold his own rather than disintegrate under pressure. That might be the difference.
 
I sort of agree with Jonathan there - Cameron wants the Greens in the debate to split the left. The chance they'll do so if Bennett appears much worse than Miliband is quite low.
 
Vivalaraza said:
Just to clear on the debates, they're going to be between the 5 leaders?

That's going to be messy?
Click to expand...

Nope.

SEVEN.

ITV’s debate, hosted by Julie Etchingham, will feature seven party leaders, as will the BBC event fronted by David Dimbleby on 16 April, according to the broadcasters’ plans published on Monday.

The Sky and Channel 4 debate, which will feature David Cameron going head to head with Ed Miliband, will take place on 30 April, just days before the general election on 7 May. It will be presented by Jeremy Paxman and Kay Burley.
Click to expand...

Or six, if Cameron chickens out. But they've set a date (despite his objection to them being in the Election period, too bad), others'll come, so I suspect he'll buckle. Imagine buckling on the 1 v 1 with Ed. That won't look good at all.
 
Crab said:
I sort of agree with Jonathan there - Cameron wants the Greens in the debate to split the left. The chance they'll do so if Bennett appears much worse than Miliband is quite low.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree, however the debates that involve the greens and ukip will be such a clusterfuck I doubt many will bother. I think the Cameron vs Miliband one will be the one most tune into, if it goes ahead.
 
I loved the host suggesting the houses would have to be made of plywood. Hah.

If the greens really could build houses at £5000 a piece I would vote for them.

It was total car crash but as suggested here it won't harm their core vote.
 
Bennet had another bad interview on the daily politics at lunch (though they did at least clear up that one of the weird points of her morning interview was a mistake - I assume due to her accent - she said Versailles, not Messiah).

And following Andrew Neil's total annihilation of her in the interview from a few weeks ago, the citizens income is now an "aspiration" and not something they expect to do in the next parliment while people who join extremist groups will now be arrested (a few weeks ago she said they would not as long as they didn't commit any acts themselves).

Also Labour refused to have someone on the daily politics to talk about the OECD report.
 
Dan27 said:
I agree with a lot of that - I also think it all comes down to political competency - she is still an elected MP - those same people (and potential voters of theirs) would expect her and her party who is up for national representation to have their manifesto points paid for - its not so much what you're going to do, it's how you're going to do it.

It's no wonder why Cameron wanted her to be part of the TV debates.
Click to expand...

Natalie Bennett, the Green's Leader, isn't their MP that's Caroline Lucas. Bennett is an ex journalist, ex Green Party Co-ordinator in Camden, and hasn't been successful in any of the Council, GLA or Parliamentary elections in which she has stood as candidate.

She's basically a party favourite who hasn't had any real cutting edge political experience at even the local level.
 
kmag said:
Natalie Bennett, the Green's Leader, isn't their MP that's Caroline Lucas. Bennett is an ex journalist, ex Green Party Co-ordinator in Camden, and hasn't been successful in any of the Council, GLA or Parliamentary elections in which she has stood as candidate.

She's basically a party favourite who hasn't had any real cutting edge political experience at even the local level.
Click to expand...

Cheers - I stand corrected. Should have remembered that.
 
Lirlond said:
It's a shame since Patrick Harvie is so much more charismatic and a much better public speaker. Stuck up here in Scotland though.
Click to expand...

Technically (and to a large degree practically as well) Bennett and Harvie are members of two different parties. The Green Party split into three geographically distinct parties in 1992. Scottish Labour for instance is not actually a party, Jimbo is the leader of nothing more than an accounting division of the Labour Party (as per the electoral commission).
 
Crab said:
It's not like the Greens are actually every going to get into government, so people don't care about their policies. They just care about their values - you vote Green to indicate you don't think Labour is sufficiently left. Same reason people vote for UKIP despite the fact their 2010 manifesto was batshit insane (well, to indicate you don't think the Conservatives are sufficiently right, but same basic principle). Only policies that actually matter are Labour and Conservative ones, and perhaps uniquely for this election at least the SNP and the Lib Dems.
Click to expand...

Well, there's also the fact the Greens are the least socially authoritarian party.

I hope for the Greens to be involved in a coalition, not because I think they'll get any economic influence on policy (they won't) but they might be able to mitigate the worst of a socially authoritarian Labour government on censorship, drugs policy, state surveillance, sexual freedoms etc etc.
 
Mindwipe said:
Well, there's also the fact the Greens are the least socially libertarian party.

I hope for the Greens to be involved in a coalition, not because I think they'll get any economic influence on policy (they won't) but they might be able to mitigate the worst of a socially authoritarian Labour government on censorship, drugs policy, state surveillance, sexual freedoms etc etc.
Click to expand...

Why would they ever be involved in a coalition? They'd literally be overjoyed if they won 2 seats, I've not seen any more optimistic forecasts than that. When a coalition is so small that 2 seats is the difference between it working and not working, both parties would rather just have another an election or sit as a minority because then they at least don't have to compromise their core base. The sole purpose of the Greens given the current climate is to remind Miliband how many votes he could be winning with a policy change. That's it.
 
Crab said:
Why would they ever be involved in a coalition? They'd literally be overjoyed if they won 2 seats, I've not seen any more optimistic forecasts than that. When a coalition is so small that 2 seats is the difference between it working and not working, both parties would rather just have another an election or sit as a minority because then they at least don't have to compromise their core base. The sole purpose of the Greens given the current climate is to remind Miliband how many votes he could be winning with a policy change. That's it.
Click to expand...

A coalition of several parties is the most likely outcome IMO, so smaller parties have a chance in that.
 
Mindwipe said:
A coalition of several parties is the most likely outcome IMO, so smaller parties have a chance in that.
Click to expand...

Why do they have a chance? The only reason to have a coalition is to have more seats than the other possible bloc. Where possible, parties will seek to minimize the amount of other parties in a coalition - they don't want to deliberately dilute their own policy potential. For the Greens to be invited into a coalition, there would have to be a gap of exactly 1 seat between the "Left bloc" and the "Right bloc", such that 2 seats takes the "Left bloc" above the "Right bloc". The odds of that are incredibly low. We're talking less than 1% here.

This is also assuming the Greens actually do get 2 seats, which itself is less than 25% likely by most estimates. If they just retain Lucas, which is what most people predict, then they have a single seat and will never be invited into a coalition because they simply don't make any difference - in the event of a tied vote, the Speaker of the House votes with the government, although cannot vote normally, so having a tie and having a +1 plurality are functionally identical.

The Greens will not be in a coalition government after this election. Liberal Democrats, quite probably, SNP, reasonably likely, UKIP, almost certainly not, Greens, absolutely no.
 
The fundamental point for both ukip and the greens is that it doesn't matter whether their ideas are workable. They aren't getting into power undiluted, if at all. Their policies are designed to swing the needle in that direction; they are a point to compromise down from. The goal is to swing policy in their direction. Ukip are very good at this.
 
Clan elders. Trying to control a city in 2015 Britain.

Ali quit on Wednesday, claiming to have suddenly realised it was going to be difficult to balance her job as a mother of two children and the demands of an election campaign. Few in Bradford believed her, as the Guardian reported.

Well placed local observers are adamant that she stepped back after realising she had been used as a pawn by local Kashmiri clan elders in their attempt to control Bradford. Ali has not responded to requests for comment from the Guardian.
Click to expand...

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...andidate-claims-online-smear?CMP=share_btn_tw
 
Nicktendo86 said:
Labour with a 6 point survation lead in tomorrow's mirror, their backing of ed really is something.
Click to expand...

The Mirror can't control Survation's results. In this case, it is because Survation's methodology is more favourable to UKIP than the average polling company, which heavily weights the Conservatives downwards. Survation's score for Labour is broadly the same as other pollsters, the gap between Survation's average 4-ish point Labour lead and YouGov's tie/marginal Labour lead is because Survation has UKIP doing 4 points better than YouGov.
 
Crab said:
The Mirror can't control Survation's results. In this case, it is because Survation's methodology is more favourable to UKIP than the average polling company, which heavily weights the Conservatives downwards. Survation's score for Labour is broadly the same as other pollsters, the gap between Survation's average 4-ish point Labour lead and YouGov's tie/marginal Labour lead is because Survation has UKIP doing 4 points better than YouGov.
Click to expand...
I was talking more about the blurb they had next to it which sounded like a north Korean dear leader report.
 
What are these rumours about Farage's health?

First thing I heard was him denying rumours which I'd never heard.

Weird how muted they've been given the immigration stats. Though it is no surprise that their polling rating has declined, it was always going to happen. They have no depth or substance. It is all Farage.
 
vcassano1 said:
Weird how muted they've been given the immigration stats. Though it is no surprise that their polling rating has declined, it was always going to happen. They have no depth or substance. It is all Farage.
Click to expand...

They always have had a lack of any non-populist policies. When their big NHS policy was making doctors speak English better you know that they really don't have anything.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...budget-to-fund-english-tax-cuts-10076356.html

I think they've given up on getting Labour seats or anything outside of England as well. Just hoping to pick off some rural Tory seats I guess.
 
It really looks like that targeting Labour strategy that zomg was talking about hasn't really manifested*, as I predicted. Although hopefully it does, as both major parties need pressure to differentiate.

*Though working class voters have always been a serious market for anti-immigration ideas, hell anti-EU is in pre-John Smith/Kinnock Labour's ballpark
 
Quite a few forecasts out today.

From Steve Fisher at Elections Etc

Labour: 283

Conservatives: 279

SNP: 40

Lib Dems: 23

Ukip: 3

Greens: 1

From Election Forecast

Conservatives: 284

Labour: 279

SNP: 37

Lib Dems: 27

Ukip: 1

Greens: 1

(These are both academic forecasts, using models that look at current polling and take into account poll trends in the run-up to an election)

From the New Statesman’s May 2015

Conservatives: 271

Labour: 271

SNP: 56

Lib Dems: 25

Ukip: 4

Greens: 1

(This is a projection based on current polling, but taking into account Lord Ashcroft’s seat by seat polling.)
Click to expand...

Taken from the Guardian live blog.

A few thoughts, anything with the SNP on above 40 is nonsensical. While there is a clear clear SNP swing the reality of Labours majorities and the demographics of the seats means that for the SNP to get above 30 would be a massive almost unprecedented achievement. 40 seats would be a epoch shaking collapse in Labour Scottish vote. Although in terms of whether the Conservatives get in or not, it doesn't really matter as the vast majority of those seats are going to be SNP or Labour which in essence is an anti-tory block* short of offering independence, the SNP will not aid a Tory government for risk of losing their new found support.

Other than that nothing feels too far off.

There's another prediction Political Studies Assoc survey of 500 "experts" which predicts Lab 282 seats, Con 278, SNP 29, LD 25, UKIP 7, Green 2. This broadly marries up with what I think will happen, although I'd probably take 5 off UKIP and give them to the Tories.

321 is the magic number. Barring a major major gaffe from someone I don't see a realistic route for Labour or Tories to that number by themselves, if you accept the rough numbers from the Political Studies Association of Labour/Tories at about 280 then they'll need another 40-50 MPs which means support from two blocks. Labour/SNP/LD. For either to get form a coalition with a single other party you're looking at winning 290-300 seats or hoping that the Lib Dems hold a decent proportion of their seats against the other mob.
 
Here's a question for you all. Give me your guesses on

1) the percentage likelihood that Labour will accept a SNP coalition deal that involves the scrapping of Trident?

2) the percentage likelihood that SNP will accept a coalition deal with Labour that doesn't involve the scrapping of Trident?

^^ I separated the angles of theory in the above - they are broadly the same question in itself.. My thoughts on the outcome is that if we are to see a non-minority government formed after the May election, it'll be formed of two scenarios: a Labour/SNP coalition (in which this question is aimed at) or it will be a Conservative/Lib Dem coalition (which would require the collapse of the UKIP vote to get the Tories to 300 MPs - I dont think the LDs are getting much over 20 MPs this time around).
 
Dan27 said:
Here's a question for you all. Give me your guesses on

1) the percentage likelihood that Labour will accept a SNP coalition deal that involves the scrapping of Trident?

2) the percentage likelihood that SNP will accept a coalition deal with Labour that doesn't involve the scrapping of Trident?

^^ I separated the angles of theory in the above - they are broadly the same question in itself.. My thoughts on the outcome is that if we are to see a non-minority government formed after the May election, it'll be formed of two scenarios: a Labour/SNP coalition (in which this question is aimed at) or it will be a Conservative/Lib Dem coalition (which would require the collapse of the UKIP vote to get the Tories to 300 MPs - I dont think the LDs are getting much over 20 MPs this time around).
Click to expand...

1) Zero
2) 100%
 
Dan27 said:
Here's a question for you all. Give me your guesses on

1) the percentage likelihood that Labour will accept a SNP coalition deal that involves the scrapping of Trident?

2) the percentage likelihood that SNP will accept a coalition deal with Labour that doesn't involve the scrapping of Trident?

^^ I separated the angles of theory in the above - they are broadly the same question in itself.. My thoughts on the outcome is that if we are to see a non-minority government formed after the May election, it'll be formed of two scenarios: a Labour/SNP coalition (in which this question is aimed at) or it will be a Conservative/Lib Dem coalition (which would require the collapse of the UKIP vote to get the Tories to 300 MPs - I dont think the LDs are getting much over 20 MPs this time around).
Click to expand...

The SNP are a both in a strong and weak position. The majority of their new support is ex Labour who will not countenance a deal with the Tories so if they have the ability to prevent the Tories from forming the Government they'll have to do a deal pretty much on any decent terms if the alternative is a Tory government.

I also don't think either Labour or the SNP will do a formal coalition with each other, it'll be supply and demand if it's anything. If both Labour and the remainder of the Lib Dems (who'll be mostly Tory leaning as they'll struggle to hold Labour facing seats) can stomach it and the math holds up then that's the only coalition I see Labour taking. The Tories only really have the option of LD and maybe UKIP as an addendum depending on the math.

Minority government should be fun for the couple of months or years it lasts.
 
The problem with Wayne's post isn't that the poll is wrong - 35/34 is not out of line at all with the general picture of a slim Labour lead. The problem is the conclusion that 35/34 would give Labour a majority, which was reached because they've applied a Uniform National Swing. If the picture across the country was indeed uniform, then Labour would stand a reasonably good chance at a majority. However, the picture is very much *not* uniform. This is because of Scotland. The SNP would have done incredibly well if they take 3.5% of the UK vote; however, if they did so they would win around 7.5% of the UK seats. Their vote is very concentrated in particular areas and has a massive drag on the Labour Party in particular. I've been saying it for a while - Scotland is where this election will be decided. England's voting intentions have barely fluctuated in quite literally almost 2 years, I don't see what would change that.

I think the most likely outcome of this election is probably a Labour minority propped up by an SNP bloc that defends them in confidence votes and provides support for things it agrees with without going into an actual coalition proper. The Liberal Democrats may possibly be brought in to a coalition, but Labour would prefer to avoid it if possible. If Labour cannot form a workable government, there will be a second election, purely because the Conservatives think they can win out. Predicting that outcome of that now would be a foolish move to make, far too much will have occurred in the meanwhile.

Labour would probably accept scrapping Trident or at least organizing for it to be moved to an English port if it meant they could stay in office. They are perilously low on funds and will not to be able to fight a second election particularly well if it happens under a year away from this one. They will accept most things the SNP asks for, I feel. I think they'd particularly accept this one because I suspect it would backfire quite spectacularly on the SNP if the Clyde Naval base's importance to the Royal Navy was reduced - it props up a lot of the local economy for the area, and I don't think people would be happy at the SNP if Scottish jobs are effectively moved to England. You have to remember the SNP's voting demographic has hugely changed. The middle-class intellectuals that used to be the SNP's mainstay, who weren't involved in industry and often have pacifist foreign policy stances and therefore would oppose Trident, are now outnumbered by the new working class influx that followed the referendum, who are very much dependent on the industrial side of shipping and involvement with things like the Royal Navy and often support a more pugilistic role for the United Kingdom.
 
kmag said:
There's another prediction Political Studies Assoc survey of 500 "experts" which predicts Lab 282 seats, Con 278, SNP 29, LD 25, UKIP 7, Green 2. This broadly marries up with what I think will happen, although I'd probably take 5 off UKIP and give them to the Tories.
Click to expand...
Remember to throw 8-10 ass-backward DUP MPs into the mix as well.
 
I'm actually looking forward to whoever wins the election having to try to convince the public that spending £3 billion (an absurdly optimistic minimum, a few external sources have put it at closer to £6 Billion) to repair the HOC/Palace of Westminster is actually a good idea.

Of course if they really need the money, they could get Hugo Weaving to blow it up to the 1812 overture and charge us all £50 to watch.
 
kmag said:
I'm actually looking forward to whoever wins the election having to try to convince the public that spending £3 billion (an absurdly optimistic minimum, a few external sources have put it at closer to £6 Billion) to repair the HOC/Palace of Westminster is actually a good idea.

Of course if they really need the money, they could get Hugo Weaving to blow it up to the 1812 overture and charge us all £50 to watch.
Click to expand...

I was catching up on the last ep of Inside the Commons last night where they were looking at the state of the place. Remarkable state it's in. Moving out for a bit is really the only option for proper repairs, isn't it?
 
JonathanEx said:
I was catching up on the last ep of Inside the Commons last night where they were looking at the state of the place. Remarkable state it's in. Moving out for a bit is really the only option for proper repairs, isn't it?
Click to expand...

They're talking about trying to work around the repairs which is adding to the cost.

I think it's going to be a hard sell to the public to justify that much expense given the low regard the political class is held in.

Despite knowing they have to, and for a number of reasons probably should, there's a part of me that just says, fuck it. If you can build the Shard for £500 million then not sure how you can justify spending at least 6 times that for a chamber which is fundamentally not fit for purpose anyway (not enough space in the debating chamber thank you Mister Churchill, not enough office space). Add to the fact the building isn't even really that old (most of it dates from around 1860, most London terraces are older, and the debating chamber in its current form was rebuilt in the late 1940's after getting at an incendiary bomb dropped on it by the Germans during WW2)
 
Pretty disappointing that it's 2015 and we don't have some sort of virtual HoC where MPs appear as holograms. I'm sure we have the technology and it wouldn't cost £3bn. Turn the physical building into a museum / other tourist attraction.
 
They should stick Parliament in York. Or at least somewhere out of London. Might just encourage a few MPs to think outside the home counties.
 
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
259K
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