Support NeoGAF

[Uzzy]

According to the Guardian and Guido Fawkes, the broadcasters can just empty chair Cameron, as long as they have someone give the views of the Conservative Party, perhaps by just reading out their manifesto. That'd be amazing to watch.

 

[Maledict]

I'm not sure why people think we no longer have conviction politicians. I've said it before but Tony Blair committed himself to history due to his convictions over Iraq, to the point of going against his cabinet wishes, going against the labour party, and going against the country as a whole. Knowing it would be a vote loser and a problem, he still went down that road.

I don't think that was a good road at all - but he very clearly did something which cost him, politically, a huge amount and in the face of unprecedented opposition because of his convictions.

 

[War Peaceman]

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.

I completely agree, I just prefer the process of delegation far better than Blair-esque dictatorship. It is hardly a surprise that someone with such limited experience in management would be unable to manage a cabinet filled with IDS (one of the worst ministers in many years), Gove and May.

I'm not sure why people think we no longer have conviction politicians. I've said it before but Tony Blair committed himself to history due to his convictions over Iraq, to the point of going against his cabinet wishes, going against the labour party, and going against the country as a whole. Knowing it would be a vote loser and a problem, he still went down that road.

I don't think that was a good road at all - but he very clearly did something which cost him, politically, a huge amount and in the face of unprecedented opposition because of his convictions.

I think people recognise Blair as a conviction politician like Thatcher. It is just that most people loathe him. Thatcher acted with conviction towards conservative goals, Blair did not for Labour.

 

[kmag]

According to the Guardian and Guido Fawkes, the broadcasters can just empty chair Cameron, as long as they have someone give the views of the Conservative Party, perhaps by just reading out their manifesto. That'd be amazing to watch.

Only if they use the Peppa Pig dad voice to read out the Tory manifesto. Oink, tax cuts, Oink, benefit cuts, Oink.
That would be awesome.

 

[Jezbollah]

Only if they use the Peppa Pig dad voice to read out the Tory manifesto. Oink, tax cuts, Oink, benefit cuts, Oink.
That would be awesome.

So, like Ed Balls right now then?

 

[JonathanEx]

There's a radio station on one of the small islands (Scilly?) that recently started using computer voices to read council statements. The council were being arses, which made it more funny, and then complained to Ofcom who said it was fine to do.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Only if they use the Peppa Pig dad voice to read out the Tory manifesto. Oink, tax cuts, Oink, benefit cuts, Oink.
That would be awesome.

Peppa Pig's dad is one of the most abused characters in all of fiction. My heart bleeds for the poor boar. He's the butt of every joke in that universe.

 

[pulsemyne]

Tonight's Yougov poll (likely conducted just before the whole debate thing) has a labour lead of four points. The previous polls had a couple of days of tory leads so this is all just noise and likely it's still neck and neck. The polls over the next few days should be interesting though as the influence of the debate debacle should factor into them.

 

[Volotaire]

According to the Guardian and Guido Fawkes, the broadcasters can just empty chair Cameron, as long as they have someone give the views of the Conservative Party, perhaps by just reading out their manifesto. That'd be amazing to watch.

Imagine the power vacum if another Conservative minister (such as the party potential future leaders) took the opportunity. Of course they won't, since it would be incredibly dangerous, risky and bold to defy any unity and create uncertainty before the election.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

31/35 would actually give Labour a majority even considering Scotland! Such a shame it's probably a statistical outlier. :'(

 

[Uzzy]

Only if they use the Peppa Pig dad voice to read out the Tory manifesto. Oink, tax cuts, Oink, benefit cuts, Oink.
That would be awesome.

They could then point to Mrs Rabbit as the ideal citizen, as she has practically every job in the area. Right after Daddy Pig declares he's a bit of an expert at running the country.

 

[kmag]

SNP have dropped their Trident demands for any confidence and supply agreement with Labour. The SNP themselves would obviously not vote for a Trident replacement, but it would not be a red line.

They've also reconfirmed that they'll not support the Tories at Westminster.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/06/nicola-sturgeon-trident-snp-general-election-labour

 

[Jezbollah]

SNP have dropped their Trident demands for any confidence and supply agreement with Labour. The SNP themselves would obviously not vote for a Trident replacement, but it would not be a red line.

They've also reconfirmed that they'll not support the Tories at Westminster.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/06/nicola-sturgeon-trident-snp-general-election-labour

That's one major step towards a SNP/Labour coalition then.

All: What are your thoughts about strategic voting by SNP MPs voting on non-Scottish laws in a coalition? Part of the game or morally wrong?

 

[kmag]

That's one major step towards a SNP/Labour coalition then.

All: What are your thoughts about strategic voting by SNP MPs voting on non-Scottish laws in a coalition? Part of the game or morally wrong?

Neither the SNP nor Labour want a formal coalition. They're only talking about confidence and supply, and the SNP maintain they still will not vote on English only votes which do not affect Scotland's funding. There are very very few such votes though.

I think come what may the next parliament is going to be a bit of a clusterfuck. I don't see any way that the Lib Dems activists vote for another coalition, their leadership could ignore them but that'll break up what remains of that party. A Labour/SNP coalition or confidence and supply deal looks very shaky. The Tories don't seem to have a willing partner outside of the DUP and that would require them getting a bunch more seats.

We could be heading for a minority government, or more likely another election about 12-18 months in. Which would be interesting as only the Tories could afford to fight it.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Neither the SNP nor Labour want a formal coalition. They're only talking about confidence and supply, and the SNP maintain they still will not vote on English only votes which do not affect Scotland's funding. There are very very few such votes though.

I think come what may the next parliament is going to be a bit of a clusterfuck. I don't see any way that the Lib Dems activists vote for another coalition, their leadership could ignore them but that'll break up what remains of that party. A Labour/SNP coalition or confidence and supply deal looks very shaky. The Tories don't seem to have a willing partner outside of the DUP and that would require them getting a bunch more seats.

We could be heading for a minority government, or more likely another election about 12-18 months in. Which would be interesting as only the Tories could afford to fight it.

I think the SNP may reconsider the coalition offer, but it would be quite unlikely and Labour would have to be desperate enough to throw in a lot of goodies. I also think that the Liberal Democrat attitude is very dependent on which members in the leadership structure survive. If Clegg does indeed narrowly lose his seat as the current polls predict, it would make things interesting. The only part I disagree with is another election in about 12-18 months. Looking at historical precedent, it would be within 6-9 months. For that reason, I think Labour will be extremely generous with the terms they offer the SNP because Labour cannot afford to fight a second election so soon in the slightest. They'll also be very generous to the Liberal Democrats for the same reasons - could possibly usher in talks of PR again.

EDIT: Populus in this morning with 33L / 31C / 16UKIP / 8LD / G5. Looks like we're back to the status quo of a very tight Labour lead with what, 8 weeks left iirc?

 

[kmag]

I think the SNP may reconsider the coalition offer, but it would be quite unlikely and Labour would have to be desperate enough to throw in a lot of goodies. I also think that the Liberal Democrat attitude is very dependent on which members in the leadership structure survive. If Clegg does indeed narrowly lose his seat as the current polls predict, it would make things interesting. The only part I disagree with is another election in about 12-18 months. Looking at historical precedent, it would be within 6-9 months. For that reason, I think Labour will be extremely generous with the terms they offer the SNP because Labour cannot afford to fight a second election so soon in the slightest. They'll also be very generous to the Liberal Democrats for the same reasons - could possibly usher in talks of PR again.

EDIT: Populus in this morning with 33L / 31C / 16UKIP / 8LD / G5. Looks like we're back to the status quo of a very tight Labour lead with what, 8 weeks left iirc?

Remember the SNP are not fighting one election, they're fighting two. They're not going to go into a formal coalition with Labour if they help it, as it will weaken them in the Scottish Elections by rehabilitating Labour. A fair percentage of the SNP's support is disaffected left leaning traditional Labour supporters, the SNP don't really want to give them a reason to go back. A supply and confidence allows the SNP the ability to aggressively point out differences of opinion and vote against some of the more unpalatable decisions which will need to be made.

A formal Coalition doesn't really do anything for the SNP. The cabinet positions they could potentially go for are limited to defense, international development, foreign secretary or deputy prime minister. I doubt they'd get the defense or foreign briefs.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Remember the SNP are not fighting one election, they're fighting two. They're not going to go into a formal coalition with Labour if they help it, as it will weaken them in the Scottish Elections by rehabilitating Labour. A fair percentage of the SNP's support is disaffected left leaning traditional Labour supporters, the SNP don't really want to give them a reason to go back. A supply and confidence allows the SNP the ability to aggressively point out differences of opinion and vote against some of the more unpalatable decisions which will need to be made.

A formal Coalition doesn't really do anything for the SNP. The cabinet positions they could potentially go for are limited to defense, international development, foreign secretary or deputy prime minister. I doubt they'd get the defense or foreign briefs.

I agree, but equally if the choice is between a second election which the Conservatives will win, or propping up Labour who would rather go into opposition than be in a strict minority - which is certainly plausible, who wants to have barely any ability to pass policies in a time when you'll probably get blamed for general economic instability? - then it would be madness for the SNP to take the first option. Being seen as responsible for allowing the Conservatives back in set them back two decades the last time they did it.

 

[kmag]

Oh Lordy, the salt. It's beautiful.

By MAX HASTINGS FOR THE DAILY MAIL

To most of us, it seems like an eternity ago that David Cameron stood outside Downing Street the morning after the Scottish electorate rejected independence, and declared: ‘The people of Scotland have spoken.
It is a clear result. Now it is time for the United Kingdom to come together and move forward.’
Today, however, six months on, the latest opinion poll suggests that the General Election in May could give Labour and the Tories equal representation in the Commons, with the Nationalists sweeping Scotland to hold 56 out of 59 seats, and the balance of power at Westminster.

Following such a vote, the most plausible outcome would be a Labour minority government led by Ed Miliband, and sustained in power by Nicola Sturgeon and her tartan army.
If this sounds a nightmare scenario for the English people, and indeed for everybody with a head on their shoulders throughout the UK, it is the way events could turn out if the polls are right, and the two left-of-centre parties emerge dominant at Westminster.
Even Labour’s own strategists privately believe they are facing near oblivion north of the border, with Kirkcaldy and its vast 23,000 majority at risk when Gordon Brown relinquishes the seat.

Alex Salmond, almost a broken man last September following his referendum defeat, now intends to take a Commons seat because he sees himself as power-broker in the new parliament.
It is hard to imagine that the SNP, which espouses policies to the left of Miliband, would help David Cameron to remain in Downing Street, even if the Tories win more seats than Labour.
We thus face the bleak prospect of five million Scots determining the fate of almost 60 million people in the rest of the UK.
Nicola Sturgeon would name her price for supporting Labour, which would include a dumper-truck of English taxpayers’ cash to fund the Scottish socialist dream.

How on earth has it come about, in a few months, that the referendum which was supposed to silence debate about the UK’s constitution for a generation, today appears instead to have triggered an avalanche?
A string of factors, some blameworthy and others mere accidents of our times, have come together. It was, of course, a mistake for Cameron to agree to hold a Scottish independence referendum.
Throughout the western world, electorates are fragmenting, becoming harder to manage or predict as voters abandon lifetime loyalties to big parties, and instead cherry-pick policies and factions that look pretty on that night’s supper table.
Hundreds of millions of European voters reject governments that promise them balanced budgets, affordable welfare systems, the politics of prudence.

They cling instead to past entitlements and established privileges, heedless of new economic realities. This is what has happened in France and Greece — and could happen to Britain in May.
A large number of British people, and what looks like an overwhelming majority of Scots, claim the right to choose a government that will give them what they want, heedless of whether their dreams can be paid for.
Alex Salmond talked throughout the referendum campaign about how he and his party would spend, but far less about how Scotland would earn its living. He spoke as if Scottish ‘oil wealth’ could make it a new Saudi Arabia.
Since he wove his fairy tale, which was nonsense even then, the oil price has slumped, yet still Scots have rushed to embrace the defeated SNP. It is as if a whole people are rowing lifeboats like madmen to climb aboard the Titanic.
Like the French and Greeks, the Scots seem immune to rational argument about their circumstances and prospects. They simply challenge the Westminster parties to declare who will pay most for their support.
Sturgeon says the current government austerity programme is ‘morally unjustifiable and economically unsustainable’.
She wants another £180 billion in the next parliament, paid by the English for the benefit of the Scots — this, though her nation already receives a disproportionate share of UK public spending.
Ed Miliband has endorsed the proposal of Jim Murphy, Labour’s new leader in Scotland, to use some of the proceeds from its planned mansion tax to fund a thousand new nurses north of the border.
The SNP also seems sure to insist on scrapping the Trident submarine base up there, which would mean the end of the UK’s nuclear deterrent.
Miliband, as prime minister, hopes to stave off another independence referendum by driving through an immediate Scottish Home Rule Bill, which would give Sturgeon many of the powers she wants.
But the grim prospect for English taxpayers is that Miliband himself, and many of his supporters, would be more than happy to support the SNP’s almost Stalinist agenda for raising borrowing and soaking the rich, purely to sustain their Labour and Scottish client votes.
S turgeon would be pushing at an open door, because Miliband favours policies well to the left of the old Blairites.

In Scotland, we see the SNP and Labour outbidding each other in plans for ‘land reform’, which threaten to impose confiscatory ownership policies on the Highlands, heedless of who wins the national election.
The Nationalists are committed to renewable energy self-sufficiency by 2025, which means a drive for subsidised wind farms and hydro-schemes on a scale even more ambitious, costly and crazy than David Cameron has allowed the LibDems to impose on Britain.
None of this is yet inevitable, thank goodness. It is too soon to despair. You may remember that Scrooge in Charles Dickens’s Christmas Carol asked the Ghost fearfully if the doom he had been shown in his dream was bound to befall him.
No, said the Ghost, there is still time to change your ways — as Scrooge did.
But it is deeply dismaying that a substantial part of the population of this island seem eager to endorse the fantasy economics which have become the policies of the SNP and of Labour.
Far from the catastrophe which has unfolded in France having frightened the Left, Ed Miliband appears entirely happy to be cast as Britain’s aspiring Francois Hollande.
There is nothing David Cameron can promise the Scots that will bring them to their senses. Indeed, he has made too many foolish commitments already — first the referendum, then the unqualified promise of increased tax powers for Scotland during his outbreak of panic a week before the September vote.
The Prime Minister said the morning afterwards that the vote ‘will be remembered as a powerful demonstration of the strength and vitality of our ancient democracy’. What tosh! The nation’s hopes for avoiding a political and constitutional disaster in May now rest on a clear majority of the English people voting Tory — there is no side-stepping this bald choice.
If they do so, the dark prospect outlined above can yet be averted. But if the English vote fragments, while the Scots and Labour’s northern dependencies cast ballots for a socialist paradise in numbers opinion polls suggest, then a historic tragedy beckons for the UK.
Should this come, the backlash in the south will prove bitter indeed. If prosperous England is obliged to bankroll improvident Scotland, and also to see the SNP’s demands imposed upon the UK House of Commons, then a storm will break.
The English people already feel let down by their politicians. Their dismay is nothing, however, compared with what they will feel if Nicola Sturgeon, red in tooth and claw, becomes kingmaker for us as well as for her own deluded followers.

So much for the love bomb, it's now back to know your place.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

#notallenglishmen

well, in my case

#notallwelshmen

 

[JonathanEx]

Broadcasters not blinking, they're calling Cameron's bluff. Going ahead with debates as planned. They'll consider moving the 1 on 1 if the two leaders can agree a date, but otherwise going for original plans on the original days.

popcorn.gif etc.

https://corporate.sky.com/media-centre/news-page/2015/broadcasters-to-stick-to-election-debate-plan

 

[kmag]

Broadcasters not blinking, they're calling Cameron's bluff. Going ahead with debates as planned. They'll consider moving the 1 on 1 if the two leaders can agree a date, but otherwise going for original plans on the original days.

popcorn.gif etc.

https://corporate.sky.com/media-centre/news-page/2015/broadcasters-to-stick-to-election-debate-plan

Empty Chair! Empty Chair!

Although if I'm being honest, a dry reading from the manifesto could probably give Ed a run for his money. For the beeb debate, there's talk of Nick Robinson standing in, which is only fair, he's probably more passionate about Tory policies than Dave is anyway.

 

[JonnyBrad]

Broadcasters not blinking, they're calling Cameron's bluff. Going ahead with debates as planned. They'll consider moving the 1 on 1 if the two leaders can agree a date, but otherwise going for original plans on the original days.

popcorn.gif etc.

https://corporate.sky.com/media-centre/news-page/2015/broadcasters-to-stick-to-election-debate-plan

I don't think they'll empty chair the 1 on 1 debate. Which is probably what Dave is counting on.

 

[JonathanEx]

I don't think they'll empty chair the 1 on 1 debate. Which is probably what Dave is counting on.

I agree, but that's the one they're open to flexibility on. Although Dave says he'll do one debate, he'll only do a shorter one before any of the proposed ones. So as it stands he'll miss two big ones - and I think he expected that their "last offer" would have been accepted out of desperation. If he shows up for zero of three, that'll hurt much more than faffing around but being at one.

 

[kmag]

I don't think they'll empty chair the 1 on 1 debate. Which is probably what Dave is counting on.

No, I think C4 and Sky actually might. They're commercial broadcasters after all and the curiosity factor would drive views, far more so than no debate at all which is what they'd end up with.

 

[Jezbollah]

I wonder what might happen if Clegg stands in for Cameron in the 1 vs 1 debate?

 

[Nicktendo86]

An SNP/Labour coalition would just be hilarious. I honestly believe would be a disaster, but hilarious all the same.

I read somewhere today that the SNP have a fantastic knack of being in power but manage to blame others for things going wrong, very apt and would love to see their policies mixed with labour. With a coalition like that who needs a depression.

 

[pulsemyne]

An SNP/Labour coalition would just be hilarious. I honestly believe would be a disaster, but hilarious all the same.

I read somewhere today that the SNP have a fantastic knack of being in power but manage to blame others for things going wrong, very apt and would love to see their policies mixed with labour. With a coalition like that who needs a depression.

So you mean the SNP is a political party like every other one? I mean the Tories loved banging on about how it was labours fault the economy was a mess etc.

 

[kmag]

Cameron is pledging to open 153 new free schools.

Is there anyone anywhere who actually thinks this is a good idea? Free schools are a fucking atrocious concept (lets let a bunch of folk without training, knowledge or experience, open a school wherever they want regardless of need or demand, in whatever buildings they can get their hands on), they failed in Sweden where the idea originated with almost the exact same issues that crop up time and time again over here.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

No, I think C4 and Sky actually might. They're commercial broadcasters after all and the curiosity factor would drive views, far more so than no debate at all which is what they'd end up with.

It's no surprise that those two particularly are leaning on Dave to attend. That letter that JonathanEx linked to said the last leaders debate got 22 million viewers. An empty chair 'debate' would get nowhere near that.

 

[Jezbollah]

It's no surprise that those two particularly are leaning on Dave to attend. That letter that JonathanEx linked to said the last leaders debate got 22 million viewers. An empty chair 'debate' would get nowhere near that.

It wouldnt be compelling TV that equals ratings - it would be novelty TV, IMO.

 

[Uzzy]

It's no surprise that those two particularly are leaning on Dave to attend. That letter that JonathanEx linked to said the last leaders debate got 22 million viewers. An empty chair 'debate' would get nowhere near that.

Empty chairing Cameron would show that the broadcasters are serious about this, and ensure that next time round, we get the proper debates again.

 

[JonathanEx]

It's no surprise that those two particularly are leaning on Dave to attend. That letter that JonathanEx linked to said the last leaders debate got 22 million viewers. An empty chair 'debate' would get nowhere near that.

Also the 22 million number is shit maths on the broadcaster's part, who should know better. 22 million is literally adding up the ratings of all three debates, not unique viewers at all. I watched all three, and I'd be in that number three times.


Poor maths aside, the debates didn't massively change the result but it for about eight million people watched a political debate each time and that's well worth encouraging.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Empty chairing Cameron would show that the broadcasters are serious about this, and ensure that next time round, we get the proper debates again.

Much as I liked the debates the leaders really aren't obliged to do to them, nor do I think they should be tbh. I don't think I care for the idea of broadcasters dictating terms like this.

With the idea of an empty chair, aren't there rules about how much TV time political parties can have in the run up to an election? Aren't they limited those five minute party political broadcasts? Maybe a question for J-Ex...

Also the 22 million number is shit maths on the broadcaster's part, who should know better. 22 million is literally adding up the ratings of all three debates, not unique viewers at all. I watched all three, and I'd be in that number three times.

It did seem a little high! I thought the Only Fools and Horses Christmas Special only got around 20m.

 

[kmag]

It's no surprise that those two particularly are leaning on Dave to attend. That letter that JonathanEx linked to said the last leaders debate got 22 million viewers. An empty chair 'debate' would get nowhere near that.

The other debates got that cumulatively, c4 and sky would a) attract masses of news attention simply by having the balls to do it b) make it far more likely there will be debates in the next election cycle and c) it would still attract some viewership for sheer novelty factor if nothing else.

So it's not like there's nothing in it for the broadcasters. I think ultimately unless the polls turn Cameron will end up doing it. How he dresses it up is another matter, but at this point the Tories aren't winning anything close to a majority in the cumulative polls they're not even at point where they could get a workable majority. Now I think the polls will brake towards the Tories somewhat but I don't see it breaking anywhere near enough to get them near a majority so Dave might have to get aggressive. What's he got to lose?

 

[Ding-Ding]

The other debates got that cumulatively, c4 and sky would a) attract masses of news attention simply by having the balls to do it b) make it far more likely there will be debates in the next election cycle and c) it would still attract some viewership for sheer novelty factor if nothing else.

So it's not like there's nothing in it for the broadcasters. I think ultimately unless the polls turn Cameron will end up doing it. How he dresses it up is another matter, but at this point the Tories aren't winning anything close to a majority in the cumulative polls they're not even at point where they could get a workable majority. Now I think the polls will brake towards the Tories somewhat but I don't see it breaking anywhere near enough to get them near a majority so Dave might have to get aggressive. What's he got to lose?

He is the sitting Prime Minister. With debates such as these, he has everything to lose, yet very little to gain.

Besides, with everyone and their uncle now wanting in on these debates, they will actually stop being a real debate and more resemble Punch & Judy presents 'whack a mole'.

If, what seems to be the most likely that Cameron wont attend, he will get a pasting for the first 10 minutes before the remaing attendee's start clawing each others eyes out (which never looks good to the electorate on the run up to a GE).

It will also leave Miliband as the only real possible Prime Minister attending, which will result in him being the primary mole ready to get whacked (being hit by both the left & right of his politics). There is no way he will emerge from that kind of assault looking like a possible Prime Minister.

Despite recent broadcasters statements, I doubt the debates will even go ahead now. Especially with the rumours I have been hearing around work all week, which is without Cameron attending, Miliband will make his excuses and drop out as well.

Without either, virtually no one will be interested in either broadcasting or watching the debates

 

[Nicktendo86]

I've just realised something about Miliband and I can't believe it has taken me this long to notice; his answer to EVERYTHING is 'I'll pass a law for that'. Energy prices too high? Don't worry, I will pass a law to stop that. Youth unemployment too high? I will pass a law for that. Prime minister not keen on televised debates in our so called parliamentary system? I will pass a law for that. He best pass a law for a bigger statute book if he gets in.

 

[Jezbollah]

I've just realised something about Miliband and I can't believe it has taken me this long to notice; his answer to EVERYTHING is 'I'll pass a law for that'. Energy prices too high? Don't worry, I will pass a law to stop that. Youth unemployment too high? I will pass a law for that. Prime minister not keen on televised debates in our so called parliamentary system? I will pass a law for that. He best pass a law for a bigger statute book if he gets in.

I can't wait to see Labour's fully paid for election manifesto. lol.

 

[Ding-Ding]

I can't wait to see Labour's fully paid for election manifesto. lol.

Its manifesto will have alot of key references like 'mansion tax' but wont actually say how much money it will generate or how that money will be spent.

The reason being is their are massive holes in their promises thus far. To this point alone, the mansion tax is going to pay for Child tax credits, Housing, NHS, 10p tax rate and to help pay down the deficit. Not bad for a one of tax which best estimate place the money generated between 500m to 3bn (no one really knows, hence the huge difference)

 

[Nicktendo86]

I can't wait to see Labour's fully paid for election manifesto. lol.

I'm looking forward to the green one, could do with a laugh.

 

[War Peaceman]

I'm looking forward to the green one, could do with a laugh.

I swear I heard that they were planning to drop their pledge to abolish all cars.... HAHAHA

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I swear I heard that they were planning to drop their pledge to abolish all cars.... HAHAHA

Bad Telegraph reporting. The Greens' manifesto is decided completely democratically, which means it can take fucking ages to fix if there is a cock up. One of the Greens' past policies, TR130, was to ban the use of cars which can exceed the majority of European maximum speed limits. This was supposed to mean preventing the use of cars for this purpose, but was worded so as to just ban any cars which are capable of doing this, which is effectively every single car extant. This was pointed out later, but had to wait a year to be fixed at the next policy gathering.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

My Saxo would probably be safe anyway. It starts to wheeze anywhere above sixty.

 

[JonnyBrad]

Bad Telegraph reporting. The Greens' manifesto is decided completely democratically, which means it can take fucking ages to fix if there is a cock up. One of the Greens' past policies, TR130, was to ban the use of cars which can exceed the majority of European maximum speed limits. This was supposed to mean preventing the use of cars for this purpose, but was worded so as to just ban any cars which are capable of doing this, which is effectively every single car extant. This was pointed out later, but had to wait a year to be fixed at the next policy gathering.

Even their new proposal of forcing 70mph limiters is still going to be fucking a vote turn off and fucking barmy.

 

[kmag]

Cameron is pledging to open 153 new free schools.

Is there anyone anywhere who actually thinks this is a good idea? Free schools are a fucking atrocious concept (lets let a bunch of folk without training, knowledge or experience, open a school wherever they want regardless of need or demand, in whatever buildings they can get their hands on), they failed in Sweden where the idea originated with almost the exact same issues that crop up time and time again over here.

Actually it's 500 he's promising. Pretty brave since about a 1/3rd of the current ones are failing. That's some headline isn't it 160 new shite schools, vote Tory.

The best argument the Free School enthusiasts at Policy Exchange can come up with is that the couple of million spent on a free school, kind of improves the educational attainment of the worst performing nearby state schools. Although the same report shows that the best state schools are adversely affected by a nearby free school.

But don't worry as long as the taxpayer dosh heads towards the Tories cronies. It's all good.

Honestly is anyone actually that keen on the free school policy?

Are him and Ed really the best two the country could come up with?

 

[kmag]

Ed Balls pretty much is the most inept and loathsome politician on any side.


This attack on the Conservative spending plans might be completely true, but it begs the question what are you going to do?

 

[JonathanEx]

Ed Balls pretty much is the most inept and loathsome politician on any side.


This attack on the Conservative spending plans might be completely true, but it begs the question what are you going to do?

A chant for all parties. GET YOUR MANIFESTOS OUT FOR THE LADS

 

[8bit]

I see The Thick Of It has morphed from a TV show into a reality show in which every member of the UK is taking part.

Also, bonus what exactly is Steve Bell on about here cartoon.

 

[JonathanEx]

Apparently:

awesommelier: The Steve Bell cartoon is a reference to the WC Fields quote 'I'll try anything once apart from incest and morris/folk dancing'.

 

[8bit]

I'm sure I'm not the only one that hasn't heard that particular phrase so as a joke it's a bit of a misfire even before the questionability of using incest as a punchline.

 

[JonathanEx]

What's more Guardian than using obscure WC Fields quotes as a punchline