If you watch the documentary series on the House of commons thenb you see what a state the place is in. Really needs quite a bit of work on it. The 6 billion is probably closer to the truth.
-
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
If you watch the documentary series on the House of commons thenb you see what a state the place is in. Really needs quite a bit of work on it. The 6 billion is probably closer to the truth.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
Will they even bother to frame it for the public as opposed to just rushing through (given there's likely to be cross party support amongst the national parties).
They could just finally pass that bill to bring the number of MP's down to 600 (this, of course, would NOT get cross party support....).
Nicktendo86
Member
"Hacking at MGN newspapers makes the operation at the News of the World look like a cottage industry - and a small one at that."
The mirror and Sunday people should be closed down.
The mirror and Sunday people should be closed down.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
I wonder if those leftie luvvies who were so quick to put the boot in will now come out and do the same now that it is their side in the wrong.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
has moron commented yet
JonathanEx
Member
If a certain editor is implicated I'm getting the harder boots.
I don't know how I feel about the state of the Mirror these days. Sometimes they'll do something and I go ah good using the tabloid style but with good views on stuff and then oh no you've just shat your pants and photocopied it into your paper.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
You mean the same person who as EiC allegedly introduced the practice at The Sun and NoW, then also did so at The Mirror? Who then also sanctimoniously acted like a cunt and started lecturing people on how awful the practice is.
Yes, he is implicated.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
To bring the number of seats down from 600 to 650, one party would have to win a majority of over 50 seats - enough to be able to resist the rebellion. After all, if you're guaranteed to lose your seat you don't give a fuck what party HQ say.
Good because ANY paper caught phone hacking etc should be either close down or the people responsible prosecuted to the full extent of the law, whether that paper is to the left or right of the political spectrum. I'm a left winger and I have no respect for any paper that breaks the law. A pox on all their houses.
Lets face it though nothing is going to happen. Coulson pretty much got away with it ( couple of months in a nice prison), Brooks got away with it (and is now being given a nice job at News corp) and Shithead will also get away with it.
Nicktendo86
Member
The left admitting to mistakes/hypocrisy? You're having a laugh.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
I don't think the left you guys are concern trolling about actually cares about the Mirror. If it was The Guardian, sure, but they have ethics it seems.
I mean really it is pathetic to complain over something that hasn't happened yet(if at all). Especially when the people you were complaining about were actually acting on a legitimate concern,
I mean really it is pathetic to complain over something that hasn't happened yet(if at all). Especially when the people you were complaining about were actually acting on a legitimate concern,
Nicktendo86
Member
EXCL: YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Tories maintain clear lead for 2nd day, 2% ahead. CON 36%, LAB 34%. Suggests movement http://t.co/QJXskQOOLY
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Liberal Democrats on 5% seems... implausible given constituency-specific information we know.
Jezbollah
Member
I know they're doing bad - I can't believe they're doing *that* badly.
If that happened at the election then labour and tories would be nearly the same in the number of seats. This would favour a lab/SNP coalition as the likely outcome.
WayneMorse
Banned
So what are the odds of a Lab/SNP coalition where Labour offer Devo-max?
JonathanEx
Member
Oh he really is just doing anything to avoid it having impact on the campaign. Surprised he's not up for the head for head with Ed, he does fine at PMQs against him. What's he worried about?
I hope they go ahead with them during the campaign without him, so that empty chairing will hit home.
Plus you know when the election campaigns are underway with manifestos etc might be the point to have the long debates about policy within them.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Cameron is not a details person, Miliband is a detail heavy wonk. If a debate gets into nitty gritty MIliband will come across as better informed and not as bad as expected.
The problem is that Tory expectations management has been too hard on Ed Miliband, if a one on one debate goes ahead and Ed Miliband doesn't pull out his cock and start wanking live on TV he will have beaten people's expectations and his ratings will rise.
Therefore he cannot be given a platform to defy said expectations, as one of 7/8 he will be drowned out and his details will look like nitpicking vs a vision, one on one and it doesn't.
JonathanEx
Member
Haha oh a nice way with words there zomg. Interesting analysis there.
Well, hell hath no fury like broadcasters scorned, so this will be entertaining whatever happens.
Well, hell hath no fury like broadcasters scorned, so this will be entertaining whatever happens.
The reason he is avoiding it is because expectations for Ed are so low that as long as he doesn't foul himself on stage, whilst eating a bacon sandwich, he will come off the winner.
Plus, like in American politcs, Miliband will automatically gain in stature just by sharing a platform with cameron. The challenger generally always wins the first debate against the incumbent, and as there would only be one the odds are stacked against cameron.
Plus, like in American politcs, Miliband will automatically gain in stature just by sharing a platform with cameron. The challenger generally always wins the first debate against the incumbent, and as there would only be one the odds are stacked against cameron.
Ashcroft's latest poll has the SNP taking 56 of the 59 Scottish seats. Even Charles Kennedy is predicted to lose his seat. On the bright side for Labour, Jim Murphy is predicted to hold onto his seat by a whole 1% of the vote.
The problem there is that the broadcasters said they will empty chair anyone who doesn't turn up. So Ed will get his platform and a lovely hour of free, prime time, advertising for himself and the policies.
If the tories think the broadcasters won;t do it then they are very much mistaken. They have now pissed about so much that it'll be done to spite them.
Also he now looks like a total coward who won't debate one on one with a man who the press likes to take the piss out off.
Suddenly its Ed who looks like he has guts and statesman like qualities and Cameron who looks pathetic.
Jezbollah
Member
If the one-on-one debates are in the standard format, then there will be a lot of dead silence and shots of an empty chair (Cameron's allotted time)- it would be a farce and train-wreck TV, just as much as it would be a free platform for Miliband when he gets his time. A lot of people tune in to see people go at it - Ed has had plenty of TV time to himself before and finds himself still deeply unpopular even in his own party.
Wow.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Ehh, I really don't think this would actually happen. And if it did, who would want to watch that? Debates are interesting, a party leader self-promoting for an hour is not. Hell, even the party faithful get up and leave during conference speeces.
JonathanEx
Member
I think it's tougher regulation-wise for them to do an empty chair for a one on one. Basically it'd be scrapped if it doesn't happen.
If it was a 3 leader debate, they could still just about get away with doing it I guess. But inviting Clegg now would be weird.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
An hour of ed talking is some kind of cruel and unusual punishment
Should be a marshmellow for cameron really
Well I suppose it's time to bring out the tub again, right?
Should be a marshmellow for cameron really
QuicheFontaine
Member
Pretty much. I think the Tory party HQ have probably done their sums right here. The seven leader debate could go ahead no problem, and Cameron could (rightfully imo) be called out as a coward. Double blow.
A one-on-one can't go ahead as a one-on-none. Apart from anything else it'd be godawful telly.
Basically, Cameron is trying to do the bare minimum, and in that sense is probably going the right way about it.
The thing is, currently Cameron isn't winning this election. He might end up in charge of the biggest party but he's almost certainly not winning a majority.
While it's probably the best thing for the Conservatives as it minimises any chance of Labour gaining, I'm not sure this is the best thing for Cameron. Even if they end up back in power via a coalition, I'm not sure Cameron could survive that long term or even short term. The grumblings have been there in the 2nd half of this Parliament, I could easily see a night of the long knives if the Tories don't scrape a majority.
While the debate gives Milliband a chance to exceed expectations, it also gives Cameron a chance to grind Ed into dust.
And fundamentally, Cameron call for debates to be before his party releases their manifesto is just silly. He'd either talk about not a lot or pre-empt his manifesto launch.
While it's probably the best thing for the Conservatives as it minimises any chance of Labour gaining, I'm not sure this is the best thing for Cameron. Even if they end up back in power via a coalition, I'm not sure Cameron could survive that long term or even short term. The grumblings have been there in the 2nd half of this Parliament, I could easily see a night of the long knives if the Tories don't scrape a majority.
While the debate gives Milliband a chance to exceed expectations, it also gives Cameron a chance to grind Ed into dust.
And fundamentally, Cameron call for debates to be before his party releases their manifesto is just silly. He'd either talk about not a lot or pre-empt his manifesto launch.
QuicheFontaine
Member
I'm sure Cameron's going pretty soon - win, lose or draw. I definitely would if I were him. It wouldn't be a bad move: 5 years, the country's still chugging along. He'd probably be recorded in history as a fairly mediocre prime minister and wouldn't have to deal with minority government / return to opposition / another coalition / second 2015 election / whatever clusterfuck follows what happens in May.
anonymous_abc
Member
I shudder to think who might follow in his footsteps in the conservative party.
He'd have about the same time as a opposition leader as he would as Prime Minister, never sure that's a good look.
Boris would be hilarious at PMQ's. Cameron simply ignores the question, Boris has a habit of making up facts, figures and policies on the spot to suit the question if his performance at the Mayoral question time is any indication.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Eh, Attlee's LO
M ratio is atrocious and he's still our best Prime Minister. Not that Cameron is, just saying that I doubt future historians care about LO time too much when considering legacy.QuicheFontaine
Member
BoJo's shadow looms large...
The question is whether or not staying longer after May would improve his 'look'. I can't imagine it would, so that's why I'd suggest leaving gracefully before being pushed.
anonymous_abc
Member
Is there a history of former PMs/Presidents/etc. staying on in the opposition after loosing an election? Doesn't seem common to me.
As you say, they can only loose standing by doing so really...
As you say, they can only loose standing by doing so really...
QuicheFontaine
Member
Churchill is the obvious answer.
Speaking of PMs and legacies, I remember seeing a question on Pointless last year about post-war PMs. Gordon Brown was one of the better answers! Sorry Gordon :-(
Eh, Attlee's LO
Attlee actually did something memorable and enduring as PM. Hell if all Attlee had done was the initial pre Marshall loan agreement with the US to keep us solvent he'd have been worth his salt as Prime Minister. The fact he got the Welfare State and the NHSm managed the decline of the British empire frankly without the kicking and screaming (shooting and killing) that other's might have, and managed the post war transition and rebuild makes him a great PM.
Dave's only real achievement is essentially Osbornes, and even that is relatively questionable. He's singularly lacking any real personal impact, that's partly due to his style and partly due to how modern politics looks down on any sort of personal conviction. Dave's leadership style has essentially been to allow his Ministers to run wild with their briefs, only really Osborne and May have repaid that trust (and even then May has been a bit ropey albeit with a poison chalice of a department), the likes of Gove, Lansley, Hunt and Duncan Smith have largely made utter balls up of their 'reforming' agendas. A lot of the time those were reforms that Cameron was hesitant about but let slide.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
It was actually very common until relatively recently. Churchill, Attlee, and Wilson all returned to the position of LO and contested further elections after leaving the office of PM for the first time, and prior to the second world war it was probably the norm rather than the exception. The fact it doesn't happen any more is because the internal structure of both parties has changed quite significantly in the last three decades.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I don't disagree that Cameron has been a weak Prime Minister, I just disagree with the reasoning. Attlee spent very little time as PM, comparatively, and most of his great achievements were not chiefly his - he presided over a cabinet of titans. Really, Attlee's greatest strength came from the fact that he was an incredible negotiator and compromiser. He knew which people to put in which roles, and how best to utilize them. I think that is, equally, Cameron's worst failing: he has absolutely no idea who to put where and has a habit of decapitating ministers early and then replacing them with even weaker picks. He also can't control the constant tensions between the various factions in his party.
Memento Mori
Member
Paxman's chairing it.
Exactly as expected, and really, the DUP have a strong case, as do the rest of the Northern Irish parties. Can't invite the SNP and Plaid Cymru without inviting the other region's parties.
Which is probably what Cameron's counting on. The DUP will make their case and probably delay proceedings, and Cameron can turn around in a few weeks time and say 'I was willing to take part in one debate, but the broadcasters/parties couldn't agree on the format, and now it's too late to have one.'
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
I actually think this is a positive part of Cameron's leadership, even if I disagree with the particular reforms. It is a nice change from Blair and a lot closer to how Cabinet/government should be run.
Cameron is not a good debater. He was beaten by Gordon Brown and Clegg, lest we forget. Milliband would destroy him (and not just because of the lack of expectations). Milliband is a lot more competent when it comes to actually talking about details as opposed to trying to be personable.
Whether people agree with the reforms or not is kind of moot. The implementation of most of this governments reforms have been completely botched. From the lack of safeguards in the free school program allowing truckloads of taxpayer money to be ploughed into a number of clearly dysfunctional educational establishments, to the NHS reforms paying millions to get rid of NHS middle management to watch them be rehired by the GP led consortium's, to the Universal Credit program which is now 6 years from full implementation despite being intended to go fully live in 2016 (that's a 5 year slip).
I don't mind a PM with a clear vision delegating to competent cabinet members or even a PM helping those cabinet members shape and deliver their own polices. It seems to me in a number of situations Dave just let his cabinet ministers go wild and failed to provide proper oversight and discipline to properly implement their plans. He's then let those same ministers flounder out of their depth for far too long before grudgingly making changes.