Talk Elections

General Politics => International General Discussion => Topic started by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on January 24, 2012, 04:40:36 PM



Title: UK General Discussion
Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on January 24, 2012, 04:40:36 PM
https://twitter.com/#!/search/stunnell (https://twitter.com/#!/search/stunnell)


Liberal Democrat minister, Andrew Stunnell, has walked into the wrong voting lobby and refuses to come out.


Title: Re: Breaking: Parliamentary Standoff in the UK / UK General Discussion
Post by: RogueBeaver on January 24, 2012, 04:46:21 PM
OK, so he's being a clown.


Title: Re: Breaking: Parliamentary Standoff in the UK / UK General Discussion
Post by: k-onmmunist on January 24, 2012, 04:46:49 PM
Oh great. That's my MP by the way guys. Hazel Grove. Wonderful.


Title: Re: Breaking: Parliamentary Standoff in the UK / UK General Discussion
Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on January 24, 2012, 04:53:51 PM
http://inagist.com/TomBlenkinsop/161919948472586241/
http://inagist.com/KevinBrennanMP/161922003861905408/
http://inagist.com/TomBlenkinsop/161921597148631041/


Title: Re: Breaking: Parliamentary Standoff in the UK / UK General Discussion
Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on January 24, 2012, 04:58:41 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_9434000/9434799.stm I think I see him on the Treasury bench, but I can't be certain.


Title: Re: Breaking: Parliamentary Standoff in the UK / UK General Discussion
Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on January 24, 2012, 05:01:09 PM
Speaker has ordered the lobby cleared, so this ends soon one way or another.


Title: Re: Breaking: Parliamentary Standoff in the UK / UK General Discussion
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on January 24, 2012, 05:13:56 PM
What does this mean?


Title: Re: Breaking: Parliamentary Standoff in the UK / UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 24, 2012, 06:35:01 PM
Resignation under collective responsibility?


Title: Re: Breaking: Parliamentary Standoff in the UK / UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 24, 2012, 06:36:16 PM
wtflol?


Title: Re: Breaking: Parliamentary Standoff in the UK / UK General Discussion
Post by: Bacon King on January 24, 2012, 06:48:23 PM
It looks like the Seargent at Arms had to be called to make him leave the lobby and vote?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion (and Stunnell)
Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on January 25, 2012, 11:09:47 PM
I think so. The Labour MP's did not really focus on how it ended, so I guess somehow he won, otherwise they would have been all over it.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion (and Stunnell)
Post by: YL on January 26, 2012, 12:35:07 PM
Nick Clegg on socialists and tax:

Quote
Socialists will support a penal rate of tax on the highest earners. Simply because it makes them poorer.

For them, tax is a badge of socialist success: the more, the better.

They would rather draw money in through the state and then hand it back to people, rather than letting them keep more of their earnings in the first place.

(Via the Guardian's live blog.)

Nothing like a good caricature, eh?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion (and Stunnell)
Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on January 26, 2012, 01:20:58 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16746389

"A minister inadvertently found himself in the wrong lobby in a Commons vote after a mix-up with a glass of water."

"In the House of Commons, MPs vote by walking through one of two lobbies - one if they are voting yes, and the other if they are voting no. "

"Lobby doors are closed eight minutes after a vote is called and the only way for an MP to get out is to walk past the tellers -" ... "- thereby registering a vote."

"Could you confirm that when he was locked in the wrong lobby, the minister bravely took refuge in the toilet - as the Conservative minister barked orders at him through the doorway?"


Title: Re: UK General Discussion (and Stunnell)
Post by: k-onmmunist on January 26, 2012, 05:43:15 PM
Nick Clegg on socialists and tax:

Quote
Socialists will support a penal rate of tax on the highest earners. Simply because it makes them poorer.

For them, tax is a badge of socialist success: the more, the better.

They would rather draw money in through the state and then hand it back to people, rather than letting them keep more of their earnings in the first place.

(Via the Guardian's live blog.)

Nothing like a good caricature, eh?

What a moron. Wish he'd just join the Tories and get it over with.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion (and Stunnell)
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 26, 2012, 05:55:20 PM
And that's why the Nick Clegg is irrelevent.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion (and Stunnell)
Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on January 26, 2012, 06:24:14 PM
I wish that Clegg and Cameron would create a new Liberal-Conservative party, and the super-right-wing-crazies would leave the Tories, and the clearly-socialist-left-wingers would leave the LibDems, and thus create a new right of centre party.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion (and Stunnell)
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 26, 2012, 08:18:48 PM
The late (and much missed) David Taylor used to vote in both lobbies when the government proposed something he disagreed with; meant that he could register a protest and also not really vote with the other lot.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion (and Stunnell)
Post by: Bacon King on January 27, 2012, 09:10:02 AM
The late (and much missed) David Taylor used to vote in both lobbies when the government proposed something he disagreed with; meant that he could register a protest and also not really vote with the other lot.

How could he do that if the doors get locked before counting?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion (and Stunnell)
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 27, 2012, 09:27:15 AM
The late (and much missed) David Taylor used to vote in both lobbies when the government proposed something he disagreed with; meant that he could register a protest and also not really vote with the other lot.

How could he do that if the doors get locked before counting?

Apparently he was quick.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion (and Stunnell)
Post by: YL on February 03, 2012, 07:06:41 AM
Chris Huhne has resigned from the Cabinet after he and his ex-wife were charged with perverting the course of justice.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2012/feb/03/chris-huhne-speeding-penalty-energy-secretary-live-updates

Interesting to speculate what might have happened if he'd been elected Lib Dem leader.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion (and Stunnell)
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 03, 2012, 07:31:36 AM
Chris 'The Fringe' Vroom was always going to be charged for this, so I don't quite get why he waited before resigning.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion (and Stunnell)
Post by: Insula Dei on February 03, 2012, 08:13:16 AM
BTW, what's with the Falkland enthusiasm in the UK media? Any specific reason the temperature over those barren cliffs a hemisphere away is rising again? (Well, outside of the presence of a prince of the realm.)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion (and Stunnell)
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 03, 2012, 08:38:13 AM
BTW, what's with the Falkland enthusiasm in the UK media? Any specific reason the temperature over those barren cliffs a hemisphere away is rising again? (Well, outside of the presence of a prince of the realm.)

Oil in the general area, so rhetoric from Argentina is stronger than it has been for ages, and so on.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion (and Stunnell)
Post by: k-onmmunist on February 03, 2012, 09:48:12 AM
I wish that Clegg and Cameron would create a new Liberal-Conservative party, and the super-right-wing-crazies would leave the Tories, and the clearly-socialist-left-wingers would leave the LibDems, and thus create a new right of centre party.

What socialist left wingers?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion (and Stunnell)
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 03, 2012, 11:22:05 AM
I wish that Clegg and Cameron would create a new Liberal-Conservative party, and the super-right-wing-crazies would leave the Tories, and the clearly-socialist-left-wingers would leave the LibDems, and thus create a new right of centre party.

What socialist left wingers?

And David Cameron is fairly moderate compared to his party? What is this, 2007?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion (and Stunnell)
Post by: Silent Hunter on February 03, 2012, 01:31:14 PM
BTW, what's with the Falkland enthusiasm in the UK media? Any specific reason the temperature over those barren cliffs a hemisphere away is rising again? (Well, outside of the presence of a prince of the realm.)

Oil in the general area, so rhetoric from Argentina is stronger than it has been for ages, and so on.

I don't understand what the Argentines actually have they can invade the islands with.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion (and Stunnell)
Post by: TheDeadFlagBlues on February 03, 2012, 01:50:28 PM
I wish that Clegg and Cameron would create a new Liberal-Conservative party, and the super-right-wing-crazies would leave the Tories, and the clearly-socialist-left-wingers would leave the LibDems, and thus create a new right of centre party.

The progressive activist base that used to be a major part of the LibDems left long ago...

()


Title: Re: UK General Discussion (and Stunnell)
Post by: YL on February 03, 2012, 01:53:22 PM
I wish that Clegg and Cameron would create a new Liberal-Conservative party, and the super-right-wing-crazies would leave the Tories, and the clearly-socialist-left-wingers would leave the LibDems, and thus create a new right of centre party.

What socialist left wingers?

And David Cameron is fairly moderate compared to his party? What is this, 2007?

I think he is, actually.  That says more about the rest of his party than it does about him, mind.

And there are certainly left wingers in the Lib Dems.  There aren't as many as there used to be, of course, but you're always going to get some people who stick with their party in a situation like that.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion (and Stunnell)
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 03, 2012, 02:17:29 PM
I'd say the LDs are actually the most divided party and have been for some time now. The pro-coalitionista-Orange Book-Cleggites and the lefty-SDP-Kennedy-Mingites. Bound to fall to peices once the coalition ceases to be and the LDs have about 20ish seats.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion (and Stunnell)
Post by: Insula Dei on February 03, 2012, 02:39:18 PM
Would public support be behind UK military actions in the unlikely case of Argentinian aggression?

I find it somewhat amusing that either the British or the Argentinian populace should care about the islands, but in the Argentinian case I can at least see where the irridentist emotion would come from, in the UK case I honestly wonder why anyone would care about those islands at all. (Beyond some vague notion of patriotism).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion (and Stunnell)
Post by: k-onmmunist on February 03, 2012, 02:48:04 PM
There was a sense that it was an attack on Britain. The people of the Falklands are British in origin and were occupied by a fascist dictatorship. The Argentines only want it back because of the oil, they could give a toss about the people of the Falklands or self determination.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion (and Stunnell)
Post by: k-onmmunist on February 03, 2012, 02:49:26 PM
I wish that Clegg and Cameron would create a new Liberal-Conservative party, and the super-right-wing-crazies would leave the Tories, and the clearly-socialist-left-wingers would leave the LibDems, and thus create a new right of centre party.

What socialist left wingers?

And David Cameron is fairly moderate compared to his party? What is this, 2007?

I think he is, actually.  That says more about the rest of his party than it does about him, mind.

Well, he's in the same party as Dan Hannan, Iain Duncan Smith, Liam Fox, Peter Bone and other far-rightist loons, so I suppose you could say he's moderate in that sense.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion (and Stunnell)
Post by: YL on February 03, 2012, 04:43:37 PM
I'd say the LDs are actually the most divided party and have been for some time now. The pro-coalitionista-Orange Book-Cleggites and the lefty-SDP-Kennedy-Mingites. Bound to fall to peices once the coalition ceases to be and the LDs have about 20ish seats.

A couple of Lib Dem blogs from today:

http://miss-s-b.dreamwidth.org/1204935.html
http://stevepitt.wordpress.com/2012/02/03/betrayal-and-loathing-in-the-lib-dems/


Title: Re: UK General Discussion (and Stunnell)
Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on February 03, 2012, 04:53:54 PM
I dont understand how anyone can support the argentine position.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion (and Stunnell)
Post by: k-onmmunist on February 03, 2012, 04:57:16 PM
I dont understand how anyone can support the argentine position.

This. It would be like supporting Japan annexing Manchuria.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Teddy (IDS Legislator) on February 05, 2012, 05:03:59 PM
Am I the only one who is more than just a little pissed that Clegg did not use the Huhne situation to bring Laws back into cabinet?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 05, 2012, 05:15:42 PM
Am I the only one who is more than just a little pissed that Clegg did not use the Huhne situation to bring Laws back into cabinet?

Yes, you are. We don't need more Orange Bookers.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 05, 2012, 08:36:12 PM
That would have been quite the PR disaster, so it's not a surprise.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 06, 2012, 05:41:01 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2097329/Labour-MP-forced-apologise-aide-tweets-Queen-benefit-scrounger.html#ixzz1ldzB2dTV

lol


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 07, 2012, 03:56:41 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html

Read this. Then the comments section.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: freefair on February 12, 2012, 11:30:58 AM

That clearly Implies social conservatism, which exists also in left wing parties. I agree with that but then I am a Libertarian.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 12, 2012, 12:15:08 PM
Dorries saying it's Gideon who wants Lansley "taken out and shot", apparently. Pinch of salt and all that, considering the source.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 13, 2012, 06:55:50 PM
And Moody's puts our AAA on a negative outlook. Great...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 14, 2012, 10:54:33 AM
http://politicalscrapbook.net/2012/02/drop-the-bill-petition/


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 19, 2012, 04:40:22 PM
()


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 22, 2012, 05:23:46 PM
After the NHS on Tuesday and the 50p rate yesterday, some reasonably nice supplementaries for Ed.

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/yp5s1ymci9/YG-Archives-Pol-Sun-results-220312.pdf


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 22, 2012, 08:02:03 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Az66ADlJxD0

Noor clappin' in't cham'bur


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on March 23, 2012, 02:04:14 PM
Apparently prominent Conservative donor Lord Ashcroft's released some polling, testing the effect of NHS candidates:

Lab 41% (+11%)
Con 36% (-1%)
Lib  9% (-14%)
changes are from the 2010 general election

Con 33% (-3%)
Lab 30% (-11%)
NHS 19% (+19%)
Lib 7% (-2%)
changes are from the above VI figures.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 23, 2012, 04:49:25 PM
Apparently prominent Conservative donor Lord Ashcroft's released some polling, testing the effect of NHS candidates:

Lab 41% (+11%)
Con 36% (-1%)
Lib  9% (-14%)
changes are from the 2010 general election

Con 33% (-3%)
Lab 30% (-11%)
NHS 19% (+19%)
Lib 7% (-2%)
changes are from the above VI figures.

Let's take into account that they wouldn't field candidates across the country, and they'd fall drastically before the general election anyway (think SDP), they'd only be a potential coalition partner for Labour, surely. There's also so many problems with asking poll respondents if they'd choose "an NHS candidate", it's unbelievable. If there was a Tory majority under those numbers, i'd hope it'd finally break FPTP once and for all.

It'd be interesting to see if they'd actually gain seats anywhere. They've said they're standing against "high profile coalition members", which could cause massive embarrassement on Election Night. I could imagine Labour standing aside in seats like South Cambridgeshire and other safe cabinet member's seats, like Tatton 97 or Wyre Forest.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Pilchard on March 23, 2012, 08:25:28 PM
I could imagine Labour standing aside in seats like South Cambridgeshire

It finally looks like there might be an interesting election in S Cambs and they're moving me out into a different constituency...oh well I don't see much chance of a major upset here anyway, even if Labour do stand aside (a 2nd place finish could happen though if they do).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Andrea on March 24, 2012, 11:51:47 AM
Sir John Stanley MP has announced his retirement. I forgot he was still there!


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 28, 2012, 02:31:53 PM
What is it with Cameron telling people to go out and stock up on petrol? Isn't storing petrol illegal?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on March 28, 2012, 03:01:57 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17542020

:D


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Insula Dei on March 29, 2012, 09:37:17 AM
Wow, what a horrible week for the Tories! I wonder what the LibDem leadership is making of all this.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 29, 2012, 10:00:46 AM
Wow, what a horrible week for the Tories! I wonder what the LibDem leadership is making of all this.

They've got a by-election tonight which the Tories'll probably finish 3rd in (and the Liberals 4th) as well, to top it off.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Bacon King on March 29, 2012, 11:28:03 PM
So with the Coalition apparently being so embattled lately, what would it take for the government to actually fall? It would require the Lib Dem MPs to all commit political suicide together, right?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: LastVoter on March 30, 2012, 04:22:22 AM
What is the NHS poll? Is NHS a one-issue party, or is it just left of labour?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 30, 2012, 06:48:49 AM
What is the NHS poll? Is NHS a one-issue party, or is it just left of labour?

There is no such party, it's just Ashcroft trolling.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 30, 2012, 09:12:01 AM
Francis Maude is in deep sh!t.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on March 30, 2012, 11:39:40 AM
I don't see the issue. All gardening companies do that anyways. :P

(Oh, and a "jerrycan" is literally a German Army (WW I) style canister".


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 30, 2012, 12:31:18 PM
I don't see the issue. All gardening companies do that anyways. :P

(Oh, and a "jerrycan" is literally a German Army (WW I) style canister".

It's because a woman set herself on fire today after accidentally igniting her jerry can in her kitchen after stoking up on petrol.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 30, 2012, 01:25:34 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxBMT0rH9hU

:P


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 01, 2012, 06:08:31 AM
Dave's approval from 42/54 to 34/61 in a week!

http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/6r8i0ygkzi/ST_Results_120331.pdf


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: k-onmmunist on April 01, 2012, 06:10:44 AM
Seriously wondering who approves of Shinyhead at this point.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on April 01, 2012, 06:40:51 AM
Dave's approval from 42/54 to 34/61 in a week!

http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/6r8i0ygkzi/ST_Results_120331.pdf

Ouch!

Al, can you explain why Ed's personal numbers are so poor, yet Labour have a nine point lead.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 01, 2012, 11:14:38 AM
That's a -27 net. Gordon Brown had a -19 when he lost the election.

Oh and irrelevent Nick's got a lovely 19% approval rating.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on April 01, 2012, 01:04:38 PM
Because most people don't care about Miliband.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 01, 2012, 01:46:39 PM
Miliband just has to make sure he doesn't get Kinnock'd.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 02, 2012, 09:17:07 AM
Just made these, if anyone's interested:
()
()


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on April 02, 2012, 08:48:38 PM
Judging by those graphs, Cameron is sort of like democracy now: he's the worst possible choice for PM except for all the others.  Labour needs to ditch Milliband.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 02, 2012, 09:40:20 PM
Judging by those graphs, Cameron is sort of like democracy now: he's the worst possible choice for PM except for all the others.  Labour needs to ditch Milliband.

Yeah, the danger for Cameron comes if Miliband can edge his ratings (consistently) to around the 35% mark. Call it complacency, but on the raw numbers alone, Labour don't need to do much to be in swinging distance of number 10 come 2015. History's stacked against Dave on that one. But then again, Ed's very open to getting "Kinnock'd" if it looks like he could actually become PM.

The silver lining (if you want to call it that) to Miliband's numbers is that no modern opposition leader's ever had two parties to loathe him mightily. Liberal voters have traditionally been unthreatening to Labour leaders (see Tony Blair 1997/2001). Obviously, that's different now. There are, of course, a good few better options for Labour than Ed. Personally though, he's been growing on me for the past 2 or 3 months. Either way, Labour's procedure for a leadership ballot's way too complex and difficult for anyone to risk it (we're not the Tories) - the only way Labour's changing leader is if he quits.

Funny how Dave's flounce bounce/"It's not like we're brothers or anything" had a worse effect on his ratings than anything else so far though:
()

And a chart for Mr. Hero-to-Zero himself:
()
Funny to think that his approvals were up in the 80%s at one point.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 04, 2012, 03:12:16 PM
The Sun're reporting numbers from this fortnight's PPM, the first following Dave's fortnight from hell:

David Cameron - 30% (-8) (His lowest 26th April 2010 against Gordon Brown (who was at 27%) and Nick Clegg (who was at 23%))
Ed Miliband - 19% (+1)
Nick Clegg - 5% (-1)
DK - 46% (+8)

And the daily poll:

Labour 42
Conservative 32 (their lowest since 18th April 2010. Outside of the Cleggasm, their lowest since 28th September 2007 (the first Brown bounce))
Liberal 9
UKIP 8 (their highest yet, I suspect)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on April 04, 2012, 09:22:31 PM
Seeing as though this thread's turned into the polling one temporarily;

Statgeek over at UKPR posted a series of graphs on the latest thread of Yougovs trends, the best being:
()
()
()


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: bore on April 05, 2012, 09:07:47 AM
It seems that everyone's approval rating has dropped over the last few months, but in terms of actual voting intention its only really hit the tories. Does this show that Cameron is, for some bizarre reason, the tories main asset, and that most people think that the Conservatives are the party of the rich, but personally like Call me Dave? If so that could be worrying for them come 2015 as I can only see Cameron being hammered even more.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 05, 2012, 05:05:22 PM
It seems that everyone's approval rating has dropped over the last few months, but in terms of actual voting intention its only really hit the tories. Does this show that Cameron is, for some bizarre reason, the tories main asset, and that most people think that the Conservatives are the party of the rich, but personally like Call me Dave? If so that could be worrying for them come 2015 as I can only see Cameron being hammered even more.

Cameron isn't so much a positive for the Tories as he is just more popular than the party at large (which has been perpetually unpopular since Black Wednesday).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 06, 2012, 07:58:41 PM
Just reading about the PM attacking the Welsh government. There is no need.

Quote
Amid signs Labour is not capitalising on the difficulties, including its shock defeat to Respect's George Galloway in the Bradford West by-election, Cameron launched a withering attack on the Labour-run Welsh government.

It was presiding over "a complete and utter shambles" in the NHS and letting pupils fall behind English colleagues by "clinging on to old, failed, stale ideologies" in education, he said.

"While all this is happening, Welsh children slip further and further behind in the international rankings," he said.

"Against other developed countries they come 30th for science, 38th for reading, 40th for maths - below average across the board - unlike any of the other nations in the UK.

"You'd think this called for some real soul-searching, some real ambition, but you know what the Welsh education minister said? That he didn't expect any "real improvement" by the next rankings - a whole three years later.

"This is nothing less than a national scandal.

"It might be the political culture in Wales just to go along with the status quo and not rock the boat but we've got to be bolder than that."

Welsh Labour described the PM's comments as "offensive smears".

Torfaen Assembly Member Lynne Neagle said: "Unlike the Tories in England, Welsh Labour in government has worked with the teaching professions to implement successful change.

"That's why we don't have league tables. That's why we've abolished SATs, introduced the Foundation Phase and created a skill-based curriculum.

"We oppose the Tory obsession for a model of education that's driven by antagonism and competition. It's why we've rejected academies and so-called free schools.

"Welsh Labour has maintained faith in the comprehensive model of education because it delivers for all our children.

"That's what the people of Wales voted for in the Assembly elections last May. We have a mandate from the people for our policies - David Cameron doesn't."

I like that zing at the end (although, Welsh Labour narrowly missed there own target of a majority, mind.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/04/06/trust-in-david-cameron-hits-new-low_n_1408585.html?ref=uk


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 08, 2012, 08:22:46 PM
()

Today, it's been twenty years since the Conservatives have won an election.
(Or twenty years since the electorate last returned a Conservative government, for you pedants out there.)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 09, 2012, 01:01:06 PM
Dennis Skinner having a good old rant about the Liberals on Election Night 1992, still very much rings true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFfkJ_l-rHM&



Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 11, 2012, 10:57:48 AM
Smithson saying the Labour lead's growing because more people are blaming the Coalition for the cuts, rather than Brown Labour. I agree with his hypothesis. If that gap closes completely, it's game over for Nick and Dave, it's the line they've been holding onto ("Because of the mess that he inherited from the last government!") for dear life for the past two years.

http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2012/04/11/labour-closes-the-blame-gap-by-10-percent/


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 17, 2012, 07:06:12 PM
Lucy Powell selected as the Labour candidate for Manchester Central. There'll be a by-election there after the Mayoral election (or is it Commissioner, can't remember).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on April 17, 2012, 08:21:42 PM
Police Commissioner, yeah. I will set up a by-election thread at some point, but it can wait for ages, I think.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on April 17, 2012, 08:24:36 PM
Mayoral elections can f' off as well.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Vosem on April 17, 2012, 08:51:45 PM
Just reading about the PM attacking the Welsh government. There is no need.

Quote
Amid signs Labour is not capitalising on the difficulties, including its shock defeat to Respect's George Galloway in the Bradford West by-election, Cameron launched a withering attack on the Labour-run Welsh government.

It was presiding over "a complete and utter shambles" in the NHS and letting pupils fall behind English colleagues by "clinging on to old, failed, stale ideologies" in education, he said.

"While all this is happening, Welsh children slip further and further behind in the international rankings," he said.

"Against other developed countries they come 30th for science, 38th for reading, 40th for maths - below average across the board - unlike any of the other nations in the UK.

"You'd think this called for some real soul-searching, some real ambition, but you know what the Welsh education minister said? That he didn't expect any "real improvement" by the next rankings - a whole three years later.

"This is nothing less than a national scandal.

"It might be the political culture in Wales just to go along with the status quo and not rock the boat but we've got to be bolder than that."

Welsh Labour described the PM's comments as "offensive smears".

Torfaen Assembly Member Lynne Neagle said: "Unlike the Tories in England, Welsh Labour in government has worked with the teaching professions to implement successful change.

"That's why we don't have league tables. That's why we've abolished SATs, introduced the Foundation Phase and created a skill-based curriculum.

"We oppose the Tory obsession for a model of education that's driven by antagonism and competition. It's why we've rejected academies and so-called free schools.

"Welsh Labour has maintained faith in the comprehensive model of education because it delivers for all our children.

"That's what the people of Wales voted for in the Assembly elections last May. We have a mandate from the people for our policies - David Cameron doesn't."

I like that zing at the end (although, Welsh Labour narrowly missed there own target of a majority, mind.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/04/06/trust-in-david-cameron-hits-new-low_n_1408585.html?ref=uk

So Wales seems to be doing even worse than the US, and the Welsh government replies with a system designed to lessen competition?! Competition (call it 'antagonism' if you want) is the ultimate motivator. It's like they're trying to worsen Welsh schools (though, of course, they really do sincerely believe what they're doing is better for students. It's actually a little frightening.)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: LastVoter on April 18, 2012, 12:47:31 AM
Competition = republican code for giving away public money to the rich.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Vosem on April 18, 2012, 06:05:21 AM
Competition = republican code for giving away public money to the rich.

That's not how I interpreted the article. Competition in an educational setting means making the students compete against each other, maybe even be 'antagonistic', as a motivator. Rivalry is, and always has been a good motivator. Apparently Welsh Labour thinks this would not be good, because sharing, or something.

But maybe 'competition' in this context means the Tories want to give away Welsh children to the rich. After all, I only read the excerpt Robot Rominee quoted. Could you enlighten me?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on April 18, 2012, 10:21:34 AM
In case of UK, competition is competition between schools.
More or less, private schools, which is bad.
Private schools shouldn't be funded by the government.
And comparing notes between schools is a bad idea because private schools can just exclude someone for having too low marks, so the averages are biaised. Here, in Quebec, we had a scandal because some school were giving answers of government exams or inflating notes to be well ranked in rankings.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: politicus on April 18, 2012, 11:18:43 AM
In case of UK, competition is competition between schools.
More or less, private schools, which is bad.
Private schools shouldn't be funded by the government.
Why not? Ours are 80% government funded which works well. It gives the parents a real choice, even if they are not wealthy.

(sorry, for going off topic... Wont give reply back if he answers - just curious)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on April 18, 2012, 03:18:57 PM
In case of UK, competition is competition between schools.
More or less, private schools, which is bad.
Private schools shouldn't be funded by the government.
Why not? Ours are 80% government funded which works well. It gives the parents a real choice, even if they are not wealthy.

(sorry, for going off topic... Wont give reply back if he answers - just curious)

Well, here, they are funded at 60%, yet, most are really expensive, while the public system has problems because it gets cuts after cuts after cuts.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 18, 2012, 03:23:55 PM
The idea of publically funding a private school is horrendous. Why setup a private school and expect the tax-payer to pick up the pieces?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: k-onmmunist on April 18, 2012, 03:32:07 PM
Just nationalize all the schools... far easier solution.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: politicus on April 18, 2012, 03:33:53 PM
The idea of publically funding a private school is horrendous. Why setup a private school and expect the tax-payer to pick up the pieces?
People who put their children in a private school are taxpayers too, why should they have to pay everything?
If you only have public schools its "one size fits all". No Rudolf Steiner schools, no Jewish schools etc. Only 100 % privately funded schools for the elite and uniform public schools for everybody else regardsless of their values and wishes.



Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Vosem on April 18, 2012, 03:34:58 PM
In case of UK, competition is competition between schools.
More or less, private schools, which is bad.
Private schools shouldn't be funded by the government.
And comparing notes between schools is a bad idea because private schools can just exclude someone for having too low marks, so the averages are biaised. Here, in Quebec, we had a scandal because some school were giving answers of government exams or inflating notes to be well ranked in rankings.

Competition between schools is good, and comparing notes is good, too, because it motivates schools that do poorly to do better or face cuts. That said, no way should private schools be government-funded.


No. If I want to make money by setting up a better-quality school than the government does and charging students to enter, who's to stop me from making money?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 18, 2012, 03:57:28 PM
The idea of publically funding a private school is horrendous. Why setup a private school and expect the tax-payer to pick up the pieces?
People who put their children in a private school are taxpayers too, why should they have to pay everything?
If you only have public schools its "one size fits all". No Rudolf Steiner schools, no Jewish schools etc. Only 100 % privately funded schools for the elite and uniform public schools for everybody else regardsless of their values and wishes.



Britain doesn't have that problem, religious schools are common in the public sector (I went to one, in fact).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on April 18, 2012, 04:43:57 PM
We have the reverse with far too many of our schools being religious. The idea that we should be taxed to pay for your kids to receive lavish private education, while our state schools are left to rot, which we then have to send our kids to, is obvious nonsense. As WD says: nationalise the lot and abolish private schools.

No. If I want to make money by setting up a better-quality school than the government does and charging students to enter, who's to stop me from making money?

The government and the voting public who don't want you to make money from schooling?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on April 18, 2012, 05:23:01 PM
In case of UK, competition is competition between schools.
More or less, private schools, which is bad.
Private schools shouldn't be funded by the government.
And comparing notes between schools is a bad idea because private schools can just exclude someone for having too low marks, so the averages are biaised. Here, in Quebec, we had a scandal because some school were giving answers of government exams or inflating notes to be well ranked in rankings.

Competition between schools is good, and comparing notes is good, too, because it motivates schools that do poorly to do better or face cuts. That said, no way should private schools be government-funded.

The problem is than private schools have better marks, because they choose the better students.
Marks aren't saying anything about the quality of their teaching, but about the quality of their method of selection.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on April 18, 2012, 07:14:46 PM
The blunt reality wrt Wales is that 'competition' (however defined) in education is not exactly practical. There's a reason why Wales was one of the most important strongholds of the movement to end selective education.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: politicus on April 18, 2012, 07:18:18 PM
The blunt reality wrt Wales is that 'competition' (however defined) in education is not exactly practical. There's a reason why Wales was one of the most important strongholds of the movement to end selective education.
Low population density in rural Wales? Or something else?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on April 18, 2012, 07:22:47 PM
The blunt reality wrt Wales is that 'competition' (however defined) in education is not exactly practical. There's a reason why Wales was one of the most important strongholds of the movement to end selective education.
Low population density in rural Wales? Or something else?

That's half of it, yeah. The other half is that most of the bits of Wales that don't have a very low population density are basically monolithically working class (and, for the most part, still not entirely urban). There isn't the demographic base to make certain approaches to education viable.

edit: 'most of' being rather important. Most of. Most of. Most of.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Vosem on April 18, 2012, 08:14:21 PM
No. If I want to make money by setting up a better-quality school than the government does and charging students to enter, who's to stop me from making money?

The government and the voting public who don't want you to make money from schooling?

Meh...private schools are a bad idea in general, but the government really shouldn't be allowed to stop me from making money in a way that doesn't hurt anybody.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: LastVoter on April 18, 2012, 08:28:26 PM
No. If I want to make money by setting up a better-quality school than the government does and charging students to enter, who's to stop me from making money?

The government and the voting public who don't want you to make money from schooling?

Meh...private schools are a bad idea in general, but the government really shouldn't be allowed to stop me from making money in a way that doesn't hurt anybody.
Wait, and you are a Republican?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on April 18, 2012, 08:34:04 PM

Wouldn't privatizing the state-sun schools also be easy?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: bore on April 19, 2012, 02:48:32 PM
No. If I want to make money by setting up a better-quality school than the government does and charging students to enter, who's to stop me from making money?

The government and the voting public who don't want you to make money from schooling?

Meh...private schools are a bad idea in general, but the government really shouldn't be allowed to stop me from making money in a way that doesn't hurt anybody.

But it does, people don't exist in a vacumn and there is only a limited amount of anything, so private schools give an advantage to the already rich over everyone else.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on April 23, 2012, 04:27:17 PM
From http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17815769

Quote from: Nadine Dorries
Unfortunately, I think that not only are Cameron and Osborne two posh boys who don't know the price of milk, but they are two arrogant posh boys who show no remorse, no contrition, and no passion to want to understand the lives of others - and that is their real crime.



Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on April 23, 2012, 04:36:13 PM
Well, she is right on that, but that's rather strange to attack your own leaders.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 23, 2012, 04:39:20 PM
Well, she is right on that, but that's rather strange to attack your own leaders.

It's not too rare for the Tories really. And she's just fuming that her seats probably going to be abolished.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on April 23, 2012, 05:17:44 PM
Well that and his (perceived) slight against her in PMQs.

In response, Cameron replied that he "does a lot of his own shopping". :D


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 23, 2012, 06:36:42 PM
Well that and his (perceived) slight against her in PMQs.

In response, Cameron replied that he "does a lot of his own shopping". :D

Sainsbury's Chipping Norton. ::)

He rightly didn't say Waitrose, he wrongly didn't realise that Sainsbury's is for posh folk these days.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on April 24, 2012, 01:12:14 PM
Right, how long before Mr. Hunt stands down? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17829360)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: bore on April 24, 2012, 02:39:20 PM
Right, how long before Mr. Hunt stands down? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17829360)

Well, David Cameron has expressed his full support for him...







I give him a week


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 24, 2012, 03:23:24 PM
Right, how long before Mr. Hunt stands down? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17829360)

Well, David Cameron has expressed his full support for him...







I give him a week


Well, atleast he'll known for something more than just being called Jeremy c**nt (that's in context, mods) once.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 26, 2012, 07:15:59 PM
()

A Daily Mail front page praising Labour! What is this sourcery!?!?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: k-onmmunist on April 26, 2012, 09:08:44 PM
Only because they want to interfere in people's personal lives, apparently.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on April 27, 2012, 02:54:18 AM
I take it the Mail is trying to start a moral panic again?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: bore on April 27, 2012, 04:26:37 AM
Why won't someone think of the children?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on April 27, 2012, 05:23:56 AM
Why won't someone think of the children?

Well obviously parents don't. It's up to them to look out for what their teenage son is getting up to, whether it's restricting internet access in 2012 or throwing dirty mags in the bin in 1992. Teenagers will always find it though :)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 30, 2012, 02:38:01 PM
Dave certainly bungled that statement today. Difficult to watch.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 01, 2012, 05:11:30 PM
Just for some perspective on Lord Reform, if we had the Clegg plan, Senators elected during the 1997 Labour landslide would only just be leaving office today.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on May 02, 2012, 03:33:37 AM
Just for some perspective on Lord Reform, if we had the Clegg plan, Senators elected during the 1997 Labour landslide would only just be leaving office today.

At least we're doing something about it, rather than stuffing the Lords with peers ;)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on May 02, 2012, 06:50:51 AM
I do think the Lords proposal is interesting. I'd prefer it to be 100% elected, not 80% elected and would rather the Bishops be booted. They seem to be trying to go for a pre 2004 style French Senate which makes sense if you want to create a neutered upper house almost from scratch.

The Lords is to be elected in 3rds, every 5 years with members having one 15 year term. As a result, it will probably not be a place in which to build a career. The problem is though, if it becomes a carehome for old politicians the number of by-elections would be enormous. Given that the proposals suggest large STV constituencies so that Scotland for example would be one constituency, that means setting up polling stations nationwide to fill one seat.

Having 5-7 elected per seat every 5 years means that smaller (read: crazy) parties would have a chance to get in. 3-4 per seat would mean smaller more manageable seats and less crazies.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on May 02, 2012, 06:54:53 AM
I do think the Lords proposal is interesting. I'd prefer it to be 100% elected, not 80% elected and would rather the Bishops be booted. They seem to be trying to go for a pre 2004 style French Senate which makes sense if you want to create a neutered upper house almost from scratch.
Britain already has a neutered upper house, so a reform that recreates one makes no sense. Not that I'd expect the current government - or a Labour majority government for that matter - to come up with anything else.



Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on May 02, 2012, 07:06:42 AM
I do think the Lords proposal is interesting. I'd prefer it to be 100% elected, not 80% elected and would rather the Bishops be booted. They seem to be trying to go for a pre 2004 style French Senate which makes sense if you want to create a neutered upper house almost from scratch.
Britain already has a neutered upper house, so a reform that recreates one makes no sense. Not that I'd expect the current government - or a Labour majority government for that matter - to come up with anything else.


I would agree with you. However the Lords could be kept down by the Commons in the era of suffrage on the basis that it was illegitimate and unelected. If you start electing members to a body then the balance of power can shift. So you just make sure you set out the ground rules for what the Lords can do (and more importantly what it can never do) before you then consider trivial matters like how to populate it.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 02, 2012, 12:34:38 PM
Just for some perspective on Lord Reform, if we had the Clegg plan, Senators elected during the 1997 Labour landslide would only just be leaving office today.

At least we're doing something about it, rather than stuffing the Lords with peers ;)

Oh no, I'd support the proposals in any referendum, don't get me wrong. We just deserve better really, like with AV.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on May 02, 2012, 04:56:33 PM
I do think the Lords proposal is interesting. I'd prefer it to be 100% elected, not 80% elected and would rather the Bishops be booted. They seem to be trying to go for a pre 2004 style French Senate which makes sense if you want to create a neutered upper house almost from scratch.

The Lords is to be elected in 3rds, every 5 years with members having one 15 year term. As a result, it will probably not be a place in which to build a career. The problem is though, if it becomes a carehome for old politicians the number of by-elections would be enormous. Given that the proposals suggest large STV constituencies so that Scotland for example would be one constituency, that means setting up polling stations nationwide to fill one seat.

Having 5-7 elected per seat every 5 years means that smaller (read: crazy) parties would have a chance to get in. 3-4 per seat would mean smaller more manageable seats and less crazies.

Why bother with by-elections for a toothless body?  If the voters (or the parties) pick people who die in office, tough luck.  If the Lords would actually have some power then I could see the need for by-elections, but as it is, there is no need, or at least none that could not be put off until the next nationwide vote.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Pilchard on May 02, 2012, 06:55:50 PM
Why bother with by-elections for a toothless body?  If the voters (or the parties) pick people who die in office, tough luck.  If the Lords would actually have some power then I could see the need for by-elections, but as it is, there is no need, or at least none that could not be put off until the next nationwide vote.

The draft bill and the joint committee report propose filling vacancies with substitute members until the next election (unless it's close to the next election - the committee recommends 1 year - in which case it would be left vacant). For some reason they propose filling the vacancy with the first unsuccessful candidate for the party at the previous election, which could involve going back to election results that may be more than 10 years old.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on May 03, 2012, 11:36:24 AM
Why not just get rid of the Lords and be done with it? The current legislative system doesn't seem to be crying out for an effective second house.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: politicus on May 04, 2012, 12:34:54 PM
Why not just get rid of the Lords and be done with it? The current legislative system doesn't seem to be crying out for an effective second house.
Your right, but Britain is way to conservative a country for that to happen. They rarely scrap institutions, just transform them.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 06, 2012, 08:39:53 AM
Funny how France is about to elect a left-wing, party back-room geek, who's never been truely respected by the upper-echlons, who no one ever thought would be President and who is sans charisma against a "smooth-operating", "modernising", "cool" right-wing incumbent, who's increasingly grown to be seen as a bully and has led a party who's only achievement in 5 years is a crap round of cuts and barely anything else.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Simfan34 on May 06, 2012, 04:17:16 PM
If I had my way, I'd reform the Lords... back to 1910.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 06, 2012, 04:41:46 PM
If I had my way, I'd reform the Lords... back to 1910.

Your act is now actively embarrassing. Grow up.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Simfan34 on May 06, 2012, 05:21:57 PM
If I had my way, I'd reform the Lords... back to 1910.

Your act is now actively embarrassing. Grow up.

Sarcasm.

But you know what? You seem to have an active distaste for some people, namely me. What is so terrible about the idea some people think that maybe, just maybe, some things were better in the past, and that not every bit of progress is a good thing? Or people who prefer to use a vocabulary that more precise and succinct, "fancy" if that's your thing, than average. Or those that enjoy certain parts of culture and dislike others. Perhaps you, sir, ought to "grow up" and be more tolerant and aware of viewpoints that are not your own.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 06, 2012, 06:52:32 PM

Haha. Your general affectations mean that you've given up any right to claim that that's the case in this case. Sorry.

Quote
But you know what? You seem to have an active distaste for some people, namely me. What is so terrible about the idea some people think that maybe, just maybe, some things were better in the past, and that not every bit of progress is a good thing? Or people who prefer to use a vocabulary that more precise and succinct, "fancy" if that's your thing, than average. Or those that enjoy certain parts of culture and dislike others. Perhaps you, sir, ought to "grow up" and be more tolerant and aware of viewpoints that are not your own.

Thanks for proving my point.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Simfan34 on May 06, 2012, 07:28:31 PM

Haha. Your general affectations mean that you've given up any right to claim that that's the case in this case. Sorry.

You're free to believe whatever you'd like. To be honest, a House of Lords as spayed and neutered as the one today has no reason to exist. It really is a Senate whose life members have taken on noble titles, nothing more; there is no real reason for more than one house meant to represent more than one interest group- and today's Lords represents no one, really. Frankly, if you're going to have a pointless institution, it might as well be interesting. This is also the root of my dislike for non-executive presidencies.

But you know what? You seem to have an active distaste for some people, namely me. What is so terrible about the idea some people think that maybe, just maybe, some things were better in the past, and that not every bit of progress is a good thing? Or people who prefer to use a vocabulary that more precise and succinct, "fancy" if that's your thing, than average. Or those that enjoy certain parts of culture and dislike others. Perhaps you, sir, ought to "grow up" and be more tolerant and aware of viewpoints that are not your own.

Thanks for proving my point.

And that point would be? That what I just said is embarrassing and immature? In what way? The only negative tone here is your condescension.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 13, 2012, 11:39:26 AM
The Indie today throwing out a rumour today saying Dave M's going back to Shadow Foreign when Ed reshuffles the ShadCab.

I don't see it, we've been here before.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 13, 2012, 11:40:27 AM
If he wants it, it's his though. Which has always been so. Easier now that ShadCab is not elected.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 13, 2012, 11:43:41 AM
Hope we'll see the back of Liam Byrne though, even with Birmingham voting no to a mayor.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 13, 2012, 11:46:22 AM
Hope we'll see the back of Liam Byrne though, even with Birmingham voting no to a mayor.

Well if even you think he should go... :D


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 13, 2012, 03:55:08 PM
Tomorrow's Indie will have an interview with Caroline Lucas in which she'll announce she's standing down as Leader of the Greens.

Anyone care?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on May 13, 2012, 06:03:59 PM
Of course.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/may/13/liberal-democrat-labour-ed-miliband

Something I've been consistently arguing - it's a shame but I become increasingly worried that it's only a matter of time before they're alienated again and this once in a generation opportunity will be scuppered, as the Blairites will almost certainly win out. [/pessimism]



Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 13, 2012, 06:18:48 PM
Of course.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/may/13/liberal-democrat-labour-ed-miliband

Something I've been consistently arguing - it's a shame but I become increasingly worried that it's only a matter of time before they're alienated again and this once in a generation opportunity will be scuppered, as the Blairites will almost certainly win out. [/pessimism]



Yes, 2015 will see a re-alignment, win or lose.

Labour have gained voters since the election, from the LibDems, whom the LDs will NEVER win back.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 13, 2012, 07:27:02 PM
From The Times:
Quote
Couples earning more than £40,000 a year would no longer be entitled to a council house under radical proposals drawn up by a prominent Conservative council.

Hammersmith & Fulham, in West London, is also proposing to give priority for council homes to foster parents, former Army personnel and special constables in its overhaul of housing policy. People in work or training and those with a connection in the borough, such as their parents, would get preference.

The authority is one of the first to spell out how it plans to implement the Government’s legislation that ends the council “tenancy for life” and gives authorities more flexibility to deal with waiting lists.

The laws, which came into effect last month, will stop the current practice which allows those on high incomes to stay in council homes for life and pass them on to their children.

Frank Dobson, the former Labour Health Secretary, and Bob Crow, the general secretary of the RMT on a salary of more than £145,000, still live in council houses.

I sometimes feel that Hammersmith and Fulham is the Tory's answer to Liverpool Militant.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 13, 2012, 08:46:29 PM
Unlikely because they are actually Tories, rather than entryists. Just extreme ones.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on May 13, 2012, 08:54:28 PM
From The Times:
Quote
Couples earning more than £40,000 a year would no longer be entitled to a council house under radical proposals drawn up by a prominent Conservative council.

Hammersmith & Fulham, in West London, is also proposing to give priority for council homes to foster parents, former Army personnel and special constables in its overhaul of housing policy. People in work or training and those with a connection in the borough, such as their parents, would get preference.

The authority is one of the first to spell out how it plans to implement the Government’s legislation that ends the council “tenancy for life” and gives authorities more flexibility to deal with waiting lists.

The laws, which came into effect last month, will stop the current practice which allows those on high incomes to stay in council homes for life and pass them on to their children.

Frank Dobson, the former Labour Health Secretary, and Bob Crow, the general secretary of the RMT on a salary of more than £145,000, still live in council houses.

I sometimes feel that Hammersmith and Fulham is the Tory's answer to Liverpool Militant.

Well, I don't understand why social housing shouldn't be reserved to people needing it if there is waiting lists.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 13, 2012, 08:58:08 PM
Residualisation.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on May 13, 2012, 09:10:11 PM
Oh, the "social mixity".

True than UK built large council estates. I personally think than social housing spread through the city, among private housing is a way better way to achieve it.

Or making like some French cities, forcing new developpments to have 20% of social housing, which enforce mixity.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 17, 2012, 04:07:19 PM
Anyone noticing the big change of narrative around Ed?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on May 17, 2012, 04:21:11 PM
Anyone noticing the big change of narrative around Ed?

He's certainly getting a lot less stick in the press, isn't he?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 17, 2012, 04:37:12 PM
Anyone noticing the big change of narrative around Ed?

He's certainly getting a lot less stick in the press, isn't he?

Even some "EM4PM" or "Miliband PM isn't unlikely" editorials floating around. Who would've thought we'd see that in January?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: freefair on May 20, 2012, 04:41:03 PM
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/welsh-politics/welsh-politics-news/2012/05/18/union-leader-slams-plaid-alliance-of-progressives-stance-against-uk-government-cuts-91466-30998512/
This news story has done something amazing. It has made me sympathise with hard-left Plaid leader Leanne Wood. What an outrageous outburst
I'm so glad I've been brought up to hate the leadership of the Labour Party. They're willfully ignorant pigs and arrogant **nts who can only approach any issue with the bullish stance that everything they do is always right , and any other political party (apart from the Greens) is automatically f****ng wrong about everything.
(P.S, Don't pretend union leaders aren't Labour leaders too)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 20, 2012, 04:46:57 PM
How is it outrageous? Given the things Plaid say about Unite officials they shouldn't be surprised if the brothers respond to overtures with raised fingers. Can't have things both ways.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on May 20, 2012, 10:47:39 PM
So apparently Cameron is a PB lurker....luckily for him, most of the posters there are not exactly left-wing....


http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2012/05/21/should-dave-stop-being-a-pb-lurker/


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: freefair on May 21, 2012, 11:09:12 AM
Cheryl Gillan announced AM Seats to be realigned to Boundary Review ones, number of list AMs to be increased to 30.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 21, 2012, 01:22:48 PM
Messy situation there. Oh dear.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 22, 2012, 07:29:42 PM
So even LaGarde's come out and ripped into Cameronomics.

We haven't half become isolated under this government.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on June 03, 2012, 05:07:46 AM
Missed this one, but ScotsLab have backed away from free tuition fees. Crap.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9261125/Johann-Lamont-Free-university-education-in-Scotland-is-holding-back-youngsters.html


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on June 03, 2012, 05:12:59 AM
Cheryl Gillan announced AM Seats to be realigned to Boundary Review ones, number of list AMs to be increased to 30.
That would dramatically increase minor parties' chances to get into the Assembly.

Good news.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on June 03, 2012, 06:51:57 AM
Missed this one, but ScotsLab have backed away from free tuition fees. Crap.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9261125/Johann-Lamont-Free-university-education-in-Scotland-is-holding-back-youngsters.html

They never really did support free tuition. UK Labour introduced tuition fees and it was the Lib Dems who twisted their arm in 1999 as part of the coalition deal. Post 2007, they opposed the SNP's abolition of the graduate endowment (which saved students an extra £2000) and then in 2010 decided they now supported free tuition, claimed the SNP were going to introduce fees and now two years later have decided fees are a good thing and that the SNP should introduce them.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on June 05, 2012, 07:32:02 AM
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2012/06/david-cameron-jeremy-hunt-sayeeda-warsi/

The lefty blogosphere calling the race, class and gender cards on this Warsi-but-not-Hunt saga. Quite unfair on the PM that actually, not to mention beyond patronising Sayeeda.

Of course, Dave identifies more with Hunt on a personal level, but the reason he's not giving Hunt a hard time is because the trail would only lead back to the PM himself.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: freefair on June 09, 2012, 05:40:29 AM
1987 General Election replay on BBC Parliament


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on June 11, 2012, 08:33:04 PM
No doubt Brown'll have left a few of the more aggressively right-wing lobby hacks gob smacked yesterday.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on June 11, 2012, 09:12:55 PM
1987 General Election replay on BBC Parliament

Wonder how far their archive stretches back to. I really enjoyed seeing the 1970s election, I'd love for more around or before that period. Are these all being broadcast on anniversaries?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on June 11, 2012, 09:14:17 PM
Back to 64 at least, I'd guess. Maybe 59 as well? I think everything before then was wiped or just never recorded.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on June 11, 2012, 09:20:37 PM
Yeah on that basis if they stick to their anniversaries schedule then we're in for nothing until 2014, where we'll be greeted with an absolute deluge of them.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on June 13, 2012, 04:42:43 AM
Back to 64 at least, I'd guess. Maybe 59 as well? I think everything before then was wiped or just never recorded.

Sounds right. The BBC's archiving policy was a bit short-sighted back in the day; as a Doctor Who fan there's a couple of things I wish existed in something other than audio.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: freefair on June 13, 2012, 11:53:23 AM
2013- 1983 Replay?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on June 13, 2012, 01:48:46 PM
Yeah, there's obviously that. I was mainly looking for pre-80's elections, however.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on June 14, 2012, 07:00:19 AM
I'm not watching, but apparently the PM's coming off badly at Leveson. Something about "Yes We Cam" and more cringey Brookes texts.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on June 14, 2012, 08:13:56 AM
'Cringey' is really quite, quite, quite the understatement.

Quote
professionally we're definitely in this together!

etc

Which means...

lol

By which I mean something different to what the Honourable Member for Witney means.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on June 14, 2012, 10:04:58 AM
'Cringey' is really quite, quite, quite the understatement.

Quote
professionally we're definitely in this together!

etc

Which means...

lol

By which I mean something different to what the Honourable Member for Witney means.

"We're all in this together" is definitely dead as a slogan now then.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on June 14, 2012, 11:01:36 AM
Didn't realise that this complete mess was our fault as well
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18422949


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on June 14, 2012, 11:43:37 AM
Didn't realise that this complete mess was our fault as well
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18422949

We're only 1/8 responsible for Mitt Romney, actually.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on June 15, 2012, 10:44:21 AM
Andrew Rosindell admires Pinochet (http://www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/news/rainham_and_dagenham_mp_jon_cruddas_slams_romford_mp_andrew_rosindell_over_pinochet_comments_1_1411044)

Great, give Romford more bad rep, why don't you?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on June 15, 2012, 01:59:33 PM
Andrew Rosindell admires Pinochet (http://www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/news/rainham_and_dagenham_mp_jon_cruddas_slams_romford_mp_andrew_rosindell_over_pinochet_comments_1_1411044)

Great, give Romford more bad rep, why don't you?

Thatcherism at its finest.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: hawkeye59 on June 16, 2012, 01:49:30 PM
Andrew Rosindell admires Pinochet (http://www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/news/rainham_and_dagenham_mp_jon_cruddas_slams_romford_mp_andrew_rosindell_over_pinochet_comments_1_1411044)

Great, give Romford more bad rep, why don't you?
I didn't know wormyguy was in Parliament.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on June 16, 2012, 02:03:57 PM
Rosindell is, and always has been, a country supper.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on June 16, 2012, 02:09:04 PM
Anyways, Peter Archer (Lord Archer of Sandwell from 1992, a Black Country MP from 1966 until then) died recently. Very much one of the good guys:

Grauniad obit (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jun/15/lord-archer-of-sandwell?newsfeed=true)
Torygraph obit (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/9332075/Lord-Archer-of-Sandwell.html)
Amnesty International obit (http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/obituary-lord-archer-sandwell-2012-06-15)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on June 16, 2012, 03:16:51 PM
Rest in Peace.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on June 16, 2012, 04:01:50 PM


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on June 17, 2012, 04:33:35 AM
Rosindell is, and always has been, a country supper.
As in what Brooks texts Cameron?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on June 17, 2012, 09:37:36 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/06/13/mitt-romney-in-discussions-to-meet-david-cameron-in-london_n_1592872.html

An insanely rich guy who thinks he's totally normal whilst he flip-flops on every possible issue? He'll get on with Nick and Dave just fine.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on June 17, 2012, 12:17:03 PM
Erm...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jun/17/benefits-striking-low-paid-workers-docked


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on June 17, 2012, 12:21:27 PM
You can tell it's a Tory government, can't you?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on June 17, 2012, 01:48:37 PM
You can tell it's a Tory government, can't you?

It's stuff like that which'll make it difficult for the Libs to play the "we stopped them from being slash-and-burn Tories" card in 2015. They have to vote stuff like this through as well to make it work.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Peter the Lefty on June 17, 2012, 06:38:15 PM
The GMB will be submitting a resolution at the Labour Conference in September to outlaw Progress. 
OMG OMG I hope this works, though I have a gut feeling it won't. 


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on June 17, 2012, 06:46:01 PM
The GMB will be submitting a resolution at the Labour Conference in September to outlaw Progress. 
OMG OMG I hope this works, though I have a gut feeling it won't. 

It's like they want all out party civil war.
()


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Peter the Lefty on June 17, 2012, 08:50:36 PM
The GMB will be submitting a resolution at the Labour Conference in September to outlaw Progress. 
OMG OMG I hope this works, though I have a gut feeling it won't. 

It's like they want all out party civil war.
()
Well, with me being me, I really hope they at least force the party to reverse their support of the wage freeze and Ed Balls's statement that he won't guarantee that any cuts will be reversed.  But I really would like to see the Blairites forced out of the party.  It'll get the Labour party back to being an actual social democratic party again.  I also hope that if they can't ban it, then they can at least break Progress's grip on the party (especially when it comes to selection of prospective parliamentary candidates.  And policies, too.)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on June 18, 2012, 03:51:36 AM
If Progress had a 'grip' on the Party then David Miliband would be leader. Parliamentary selections are also a red herring: that process is now more 'democratic' (as the term is usually understood) then it ever has been (fixing still happens all the time, because that's politics. And it doesn't all go one way). A relatively high percentage of new MPs will tend to have some link or other to Progress because Progress attracts careerists; very much a chicken/egg situation. And, obviously, careerists present better at selection meetings than other people (for the most part). Of course the big issue is the rather stupid decision of its funder (someone by the name of Sainsbury) to stop his donations to the Party when his favoured candidate lost a leadership election, but to continue to fund Progress. That looks bad.

Anyways, the most that can happen would be Progress declared a banned organisation (or whatever term is currently used) for Party members to also be members of. Though, tbf, this whole thing reeks of a two bald men and a comb situation.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: freefair on June 18, 2012, 09:24:49 AM
After Cameron leaves, d'you recon CWF and Cornerstone will try to ban "Progressive" groups, and make a deal to merge with/take on board UKIP?
After the Coalition, LiberalVision and "Orange Book" could also tragically be under threat. The last pro-market mechanism group in the LibDems.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on June 19, 2012, 03:42:35 PM
So Jimmy Carr's a tax exile, who've thought it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HXibReHW3UA


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: bore on June 24, 2012, 01:50:47 PM
Yet another brilliant idea from number 10:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18567855


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on June 24, 2012, 03:35:11 PM
Yet another brilliant idea from number 10:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18567855

That just seems nonsensical!


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on June 25, 2012, 10:41:22 AM
Political Scrapbook have dug up a photo of Danny Alexander at a party with a pro-€ pressure group from just before the Greek election! Even when they're not being Tories, the LibDems are crap.

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2012/06/danny-alexander-britain-in-europe-party/


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on June 26, 2012, 08:39:36 AM
If Progress had a 'grip' on the Party then David Miliband would be leader. Parliamentary selections are also a red herring: that process is now more 'democratic' (as the term is usually understood) then it ever has been (fixing still happens all the time, because that's politics. And it doesn't all go one way). A relatively high percentage of new MPs will tend to have some link or other to Progress because Progress attracts careerists; very much a chicken/egg situation. And, obviously, careerists present better at selection meetings than other people (for the most part). Of course the big issue is the rather stupid decision of its funder (someone by the name of Sainsbury) to stop his donations to the Party when his favoured candidate lost a leadership election, but to continue to fund Progress. That looks bad.

Anyways, the most that can happen would be Progress declared a banned organisation (or whatever term is currently used) for Party members to also be members of. Though, tbf, this whole thing reeks of a two bald men and a comb situation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/06/25/lib-dem-tim-farron-progress-party-conference-letter_n_1623479.html?utm_hp_ref=uk-politics
Tim Farron is hilarious.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on June 27, 2012, 10:06:54 AM
Instant Paxman classic. You can almost see her career (and Norwich North) falling away from her.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bddWaHuxTzc



Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on June 27, 2012, 10:28:10 AM
Lol! Required watching. I wish we had interviews like that in Germany.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on June 27, 2012, 01:09:50 PM
Aye, hilarious. I'd find it hard to watch if she wasn't a Tory.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on June 27, 2012, 01:49:04 PM
Yeah, Paxman back at his best.

Anyway....so, yeah.

()


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on June 27, 2012, 04:15:52 PM
Yeah, Paxman back at his best.

Anyway....so, yeah.

()

Two people I hate shaking hands in one photo. Lovely.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on June 27, 2012, 04:45:37 PM
Instant Paxman classic. You can almost see her career (and Norwich North) falling away from her.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bddWaHuxTzc



She didn't even answer the question about whether she ever thought she was incompetent.  I note that if you type "chloe" into Google the auto-complete suggests "chloe smith newsnight".

Is it true that Cameron appointed Smith to the Treasury because he thought she was an accountant when she actually wasn't?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on June 27, 2012, 04:48:01 PM
Instant Paxman classic. You can almost see her career (and Norwich North) falling away from her.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bddWaHuxTzc



She didn't even answer the question about whether she ever thought she was incompetent.  I note that if you type "chloe" into Google the auto-complete suggests "chloe smith newsnight".

Is it true that Cameron appointed Smith to the Treasury because he thought she was an accountant when she actually wasn't?

Wouldn't be shocked. It was a speedy appointment when Fox went and it seemed like an obscure pick at the time.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2052046/David-Cameron-gave-MP-aged-29-Treasury-job-wrongly-thinking-accountant.html


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: doktorb on June 27, 2012, 05:14:36 PM
Political Scrapbook have dug up a photo of Danny Alexander at a party with a pro-€ pressure group from just before the Greek election! Even when they're not being Tories, the LibDems are crap.

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2012/06/danny-alexander-britain-in-europe-party/


Politician has friends outside of politics SHOCK


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: BritishDixie on June 28, 2012, 06:45:06 AM
The GMB will be submitting a resolution at the Labour Conference in September to outlaw Progress.  
OMG OMG I hope this works, though I have a gut feeling it won't.  

It's like they want all out party civil war.
()
Well, with me being me, I really hope they at least force the party to reverse their support of the wage freeze and Ed Balls's statement that he won't guarantee that any cuts will be reversed.  But I really would like to see the Blairites forced out of the party.  It'll get the Labour party back to being an actual social democratic party again.  I also hope that if they can't ban it, then they can at least break Progress's grip on the party (especially when it comes to selection of prospective parliamentary candidates.  And policies, too.)

This makes me happy, so happy. Deranged Labour left wing trying to make itself unelectable again. Why don't they go the whole hog and install Neil Kinnock as leader again, that'll make Cameron look competent.

One more thing. You do realize its a wage freeze. Not a cut a freeze. Do you understand that there are some people who work outside the great god the public sector. That they might enjoy an easing in the burden of taxation that goes to pay for the salaries of greedy, wasteful shysters public sector workers, who think they are somehow hard done by. I mean at least you could sympathize with the miners for doing a hard, unpleasant job. These people are just a total rip off.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on June 28, 2012, 10:48:19 AM
In other news - former Tory MP spied for the Czechs (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18617168)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on June 28, 2012, 10:52:42 AM
I put a thread about that up on the 'History' board. I love the detail about MI5 not having any suspicions of the guy. lolololol.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on June 28, 2012, 11:47:52 AM
The GMB will be submitting a resolution at the Labour Conference in September to outlaw Progress.  
OMG OMG I hope this works, though I have a gut feeling it won't.  

It's like they want all out party civil war.
()
Well, with me being me, I really hope they at least force the party to reverse their support of the wage freeze and Ed Balls's statement that he won't guarantee that any cuts will be reversed.  But I really would like to see the Blairites forced out of the party.  It'll get the Labour party back to being an actual social democratic party again.  I also hope that if they can't ban it, then they can at least break Progress's grip on the party (especially when it comes to selection of prospective parliamentary candidates.  And policies, too.)

This makes me happy, so happy. Deranged Labour left wing trying to make itself unelectable again. Why don't they go the whole hog and install Neil Kinnock as leader again, that'll make Cameron look competent.

One more thing. You do realize its a wage freeze. Not a cut a freeze. Do you understand that there are some people who work outside the great god the public sector. That they might enjoy an easing in the burden of taxation that goes to pay for the salaries of greedy, wasteful shysters public sector workers, who think they are somehow hard done by. I mean at least you could sympathize with the miners for doing a hard, unpleasant job. These people are just a total rip off.

How is a public sector worker any less worthy than someone who works in a business? Typical Tories. And a wage freeze amount to a cut when you consider inflation and all that.

Would you tell your doctor or your child's teacher that they're not worth the money they're paid?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: BritishDixie on June 28, 2012, 12:28:59 PM
The GMB will be submitting a resolution at the Labour Conference in September to outlaw Progress. 
OMG OMG I hope this works, though I have a gut feeling it won't. 

It's like they want all out party civil war.
()
Well, with me being me, I really hope they at least force the party to reverse their support of the wage freeze and Ed Balls's statement that he won't guarantee that any cuts will be reversed.  But I really would like to see the Blairites forced out of the party.  It'll get the Labour party back to being an actual social democratic party again.  I also hope that if they can't ban it, then they can at least break Progress's grip on the party (especially when it comes to selection of prospective parliamentary candidates.  And policies, too.)

This makes me happy, so happy. Deranged Labour left wing trying to make itself unelectable again. Why don't they go the whole hog and install Neil Kinnock as leader again, that'll make Cameron look competent.

One more thing. You do realize its a wage freeze. Not a cut a freeze. Do you understand that there are some people who work outside the great god the public sector. That they might enjoy an easing in the burden of taxation that goes to pay for the salaries of greedy, wasteful shysters public sector workers, who think they are somehow hard done by. I mean at least you could sympathize with the miners for doing a hard, unpleasant job. These people are just a total rip off.

How is a public sector worker any less worthy than someone who works in a business? Typical Tories. And a wage freeze amount to a cut when you consider inflation and all that.

Would you tell your doctor or your child's teacher that they're not worth the money they're paid?

Because the public sector is lazy and bloated, whereas, whatever the Guardian tells you, business is not. Also, these people are overpaid anyway, so its about time they felt the pain.

Also I'm with Bupa, and my kids go to private school. So I don't rely on the state for my health or my child's education (good thing to, considering they would get brainwashed by socialist propaganda otherwise).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on June 28, 2012, 12:30:45 PM
Oh Lordy Lord...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on June 28, 2012, 12:36:33 PM
The GMB will be submitting a resolution at the Labour Conference in September to outlaw Progress. 
OMG OMG I hope this works, though I have a gut feeling it won't. 

It's like they want all out party civil war.
()
Well, with me being me, I really hope they at least force the party to reverse their support of the wage freeze and Ed Balls's statement that he won't guarantee that any cuts will be reversed.  But I really would like to see the Blairites forced out of the party.  It'll get the Labour party back to being an actual social democratic party again.  I also hope that if they can't ban it, then they can at least break Progress's grip on the party (especially when it comes to selection of prospective parliamentary candidates.  And policies, too.)

This makes me happy, so happy. Deranged Labour left wing trying to make itself unelectable again. Why don't they go the whole hog and install Neil Kinnock as leader again, that'll make Cameron look competent.

One more thing. You do realize its a wage freeze. Not a cut a freeze. Do you understand that there are some people who work outside the great god the public sector. That they might enjoy an easing in the burden of taxation that goes to pay for the salaries of greedy, wasteful shysters public sector workers, who think they are somehow hard done by. I mean at least you could sympathize with the miners for doing a hard, unpleasant job. These people are just a total rip off.

How is a public sector worker any less worthy than someone who works in a business? Typical Tories. And a wage freeze amount to a cut when you consider inflation and all that.

Would you tell your doctor or your child's teacher that they're not worth the money they're paid?

Because the public sector is lazy and bloated, whereas, whatever the Guardian tells you, business is not. Also, these people are overpaid anyway, so its about time they felt the pain.

Also I'm with Bupa, and my kids go to private school. So I don't rely on the state for my health or my child's education (good thing to, considering they would get brainwashed by socialist propaganda otherwise).

Indeed, your child aren't brainwashed by the socialist propaganda, they are by the ultra-liberal propaganda of private schools, which isn't better in any way.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: BritishDixie on June 28, 2012, 12:42:16 PM
The GMB will be submitting a resolution at the Labour Conference in September to outlaw Progress. 
OMG OMG I hope this works, though I have a gut feeling it won't. 

It's like they want all out party civil war.
()
Well, with me being me, I really hope they at least force the party to reverse their support of the wage freeze and Ed Balls's statement that he won't guarantee that any cuts will be reversed.  But I really would like to see the Blairites forced out of the party.  It'll get the Labour party back to being an actual social democratic party again.  I also hope that if they can't ban it, then they can at least break Progress's grip on the party (especially when it comes to selection of prospective parliamentary candidates.  And policies, too.)

This makes me happy, so happy. Deranged Labour left wing trying to make itself unelectable again. Why don't they go the whole hog and install Neil Kinnock as leader again, that'll make Cameron look competent.

One more thing. You do realize its a wage freeze. Not a cut a freeze. Do you understand that there are some people who work outside the great god the public sector. That they might enjoy an easing in the burden of taxation that goes to pay for the salaries of greedy, wasteful shysters public sector workers, who think they are somehow hard done by. I mean at least you could sympathize with the miners for doing a hard, unpleasant job. These people are just a total rip off.

How is a public sector worker any less worthy than someone who works in a business? Typical Tories. And a wage freeze amount to a cut when you consider inflation and all that.

Would you tell your doctor or your child's teacher that they're not worth the money they're paid?

Because the public sector is lazy and bloated, whereas, whatever the Guardian tells you, business is not. Also, these people are overpaid anyway, so its about time they felt the pain.

Also I'm with Bupa, and my kids go to private school. So I don't rely on the state for my health or my child's education (good thing to, considering they would get brainwashed by socialist propaganda otherwise).

Indeed, your child aren't brainwashed by the socialist propaganda, they are by the ultra-liberal propaganda of private schools, which isn't better in any way.

Well technically it is. Ultra-Liberal propaganda would hint a self-reliance, and at paying your own way. Far better than, "lets tax the rich until they drop", and "the welfare state is sacred, we must worship it" or "we need to redistribute wealth to the needy" (or in other words to those who haven't earned it).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on June 28, 2012, 12:50:46 PM
I don't recall a teacher (or lecturer or whatever) saying 'the welfare state is sacred, we must worship it', but maybe I wasn't paying attention at the time.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: BritishDixie on June 28, 2012, 12:54:40 PM
I don't recall a teacher (or lecturer or whatever) saying 'the welfare state is sacred, we must worship it', but maybe I wasn't paying attention at the time.

You get the general idea.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on June 28, 2012, 12:59:28 PM
Don't a majority of teachers support the reintroduction of corporal punishment?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: BritishDixie on June 28, 2012, 01:01:12 PM
Don't a majority of teachers support the reintroduction of corporal punishment?

Yeah but thats probably out of necessity. I'm sure a majority wouldn't support corporal punishment for criminals.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on June 28, 2012, 01:11:04 PM
I just have a question.
You say than needy people should earn their money. By working, I suppose.
There is a problem. There isn't jobs for everybody. How they do?
(And don't say the magical "if there was less taxes, there would be full employment", because that's a dubious claim)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on June 28, 2012, 01:32:12 PM
I don't recall a teacher (or lecturer or whatever) saying 'the welfare state is sacred, we must worship it', but maybe I wasn't paying attention at the time.

You get the general idea.

I certainly get that it's bullsh**t, and I'm not even British.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on June 28, 2012, 01:43:29 PM
I don't recall a teacher (or lecturer or whatever) saying 'the welfare state is sacred, we must worship it', but maybe I wasn't paying attention at the time.

You get the general idea.

The only time i've heard anything similar was in RE. From sections of the Bible.

Catholic schooled by the way.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: BritishDixie on June 28, 2012, 02:01:12 PM
I just have a question.
You say than needy people should earn their money. By working, I suppose.
There is a problem. There isn't jobs for everybody. How they do?
(And don't say the magical "if there was less taxes, there would be full employment", because that's a dubious claim)

They don't. This explanation of what must be done to solve Britain's woes is one you must explore.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYnHXUEPMPY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYnHXUEPMPY)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: bore on June 28, 2012, 03:11:24 PM
I don't recall a teacher (or lecturer or whatever) saying 'the welfare state is sacred, we must worship it', but maybe I wasn't paying attention at the time.

You get the general idea.

The only time i've heard anything similar was in RE. From sections of the Bible.

Catholic schooled by the way.

Basically the same for me, my RE teacher has made a few comments about helping the homeless etc but nothing more explicit than that. The only other teacher which I know anything about is my history teacher and even that is quite subtle, and he tries his hardest to be objective (He's mentioned his sympathy for the Greeks and strong dislike of the poll tax). What I'm saying is anyone who thinks there is a widespread plan to indoctrinate children in British schools is deluded at best, because there is no evidence for it.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on June 28, 2012, 04:57:12 PM
I don't recall a teacher (or lecturer or whatever) saying 'the welfare state is sacred, we must worship it', but maybe I wasn't paying attention at the time.

You get the general idea.

The only time i've heard anything similar was in RE. From sections of the Bible.

Catholic schooled by the way.

Basically the same for me, my RE teacher has made a few comments about helping the homeless etc but nothing more explicit than that. The only other teacher which I know anything about is my history teacher and even that is quite subtle, and he tries his hardest to be objective (He's mentioned his sympathy for the Greeks and strong dislike of the poll tax). What I'm saying is anyone who thinks there is a widespread plan to indoctrinate children in British schools is deluded at best, because there is no evidence for it.

My A-level Politics teacher exposed views, which would be expected. Never told us who he voted for, mind.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: ObserverIE on June 29, 2012, 06:58:01 AM
I just have a question.
You say than needy people should earn their money. By working, I suppose.
There is a problem. There isn't jobs for everybody. How they do?
(And don't say the magical "if there was less taxes, there would be full employment", because that's a dubious claim)

They don't. This explanation of what must be done to solve Britain's woes is one you must explore.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYnHXUEPMPY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYnHXUEPMPY)

Is this a very roundabout way of telling us that you're a satirical caricature of a right-winger?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on June 29, 2012, 11:55:02 AM
If you think the public sector is lazy and bloated, you have never set foot in corporate bureaucracy. Or in the public sector, of course. (You're also technically right, of course.) Though Quangos can be even worse than that.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on July 02, 2012, 06:42:20 AM
So, leadership speculation's sprung up around Liam Fox this morning. He'd be stupid enough to try, of course.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: BritishDixie on July 02, 2012, 11:07:39 AM
So, leadership speculation's sprung up around Liam Fox this morning. He'd be stupid enough to try, of course.

Go Liam Fox!


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on July 02, 2012, 03:52:47 PM
So, leadership speculation's sprung up around Liam Fox this morning. He'd be stupid enough to try, of course.

Go Liam Fox!

I'd support him in any leadership election, of course, but even the Tories wouldn't choose a disgraced former cabinet minister. Right?

He'd only run to make a point.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on July 02, 2012, 05:21:27 PM
I seem to remember that Fox resigned under a considerable cloud. Short memories or something.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: BritishDixie on July 03, 2012, 11:28:40 AM
So, leadership speculation's sprung up around Liam Fox this morning. He'd be stupid enough to try, of course.

Go Liam Fox!

I'd support him in any leadership election, of course, but even the Tories wouldn't choose a disgraced former cabinet minister. Right?

He'd only run to make a point.

Sadly, your probably right. The Tories will get stuck with that git Osbourne as leader if Cameron miraculously wins in 2015. If not, it might be Boris Johnson, or maybe Gove. Right-Wing candidates might include Grant Shapps or Owen Paterson.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: FreedomFighter on July 04, 2012, 01:05:33 PM
So, leadership speculation's sprung up around Liam Fox this morning. He'd be stupid enough to try, of course.

Go Liam Fox!

I'd support him in any leadership election, of course, but even the Tories wouldn't choose a disgraced former cabinet minister. Right?

He'd only run to make a point.

Sadly, your probably right. The Tories will get stuck with that git Osbourne as leader if Cameron miraculously wins in 2015. If not, it might be Boris Johnson, or maybe Gove. Right-Wing candidates might include Grant Shapps or Owen Paterson.

All retarded rightists, expecially that moron from Eton, Johnson, basically the closest thing British politics has to a GOP'er.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on July 04, 2012, 02:00:14 PM
So, leadership speculation's sprung up around Liam Fox this morning. He'd be stupid enough to try, of course.

Go Liam Fox!

I'd support him in any leadership election, of course, but even the Tories wouldn't choose a disgraced former cabinet minister. Right?

He'd only run to make a point.

Sadly, your probably right. The Tories will get stuck with that git Osbourne as leader if Cameron miraculously wins in 2015. If not, it might be Boris Johnson, or maybe Gove. Right-Wing candidates might include Grant Shapps or Owen Paterson.

All retarded rightists, expecially that moron from Eton, Johnson, basically the closest thing British politics has to a GOP'er.

Mitt Romney and David Cameron will find they have a lot in common when they meet next month.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on July 05, 2012, 10:42:54 AM
Someone mind explaining to me how Ed Balls is supposed to have helped rig LIBOR eventhough he was Education Secretary at the time?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on July 05, 2012, 02:05:07 PM
Someone mind explaining to me how Ed Balls is supposed to have helped rig LIBOR eventhough he was Education Secretary at the time?

Because Labour were responsible for everything that went wrong in the last 13 years? ;)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on July 05, 2012, 03:17:54 PM
Someone mind explaining to me how Ed Balls is supposed to have helped rig LIBOR eventhough he was Education Secretary at the time?

Because Labour were responsible for everything that went wrong in the last 13 years? ;)

Can't help but feel sorry for Ed Balls, he gets such a bad wrap.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on July 06, 2012, 07:15:24 AM
This explains a lot.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/07/05/louise-mensch-i-did-class-a-drugs-and-they-messed-with-my-brain_n_1652693.html?utm_hp_ref=uk


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: doktorb on July 09, 2012, 04:43:31 AM
Someone mind explaining to me how Ed Balls is supposed to have helped rig LIBOR eventhough he was Education Secretary at the time?

Because Labour were responsible for everything that went wrong in the last 13 years? ;)

Can't help but feel sorry for Ed Balls, he gets such a bad wrap.

He was City Minister

Ed Balls is a smug, self-satisfied class warrior AND he's partly responsible for the policies which dragged this country into the longest, deepest recession in peace times, so yes, he's responsible.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on July 09, 2012, 04:47:17 AM
Ed Balls is a smug, self-satisfied

Yeah; he's a politician. :P


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on July 09, 2012, 09:26:40 AM
Someone mind explaining to me how Ed Balls is supposed to have helped rig LIBOR eventhough he was Education Secretary at the time?

Because Labour were responsible for everything that went wrong in the last 13 years? ;)

Can't help but feel sorry for Ed Balls, he gets such a bad wrap.

He was City Minister

Ed Balls is a smug, self-satisfied class warrior AND he's partly responsible for the policies which dragged this country into the longest, deepest recession in peace times, so yes, he's responsible.

Didn't realise he moonlighted at Lehman's.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on July 13, 2012, 07:58:40 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/jul/13/employment-tribunal-fees-branded-disgrace?fb=native&CMP=FBCNETTXT9038

:o £1200!? REALLY!?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on July 23, 2012, 07:51:15 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/07/21/nick-clegg-would-form-liberal-democrat-coalition-labour-miliband_n_1692097.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

Ha, i'd resign membership and emigrate to the new Scots' Nation.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on July 25, 2012, 05:19:17 AM
UK recession deepens (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18977084)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on July 25, 2012, 06:13:12 AM
UK recession deepens (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18977084)

We're a safe haven, don't you know.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on July 31, 2012, 02:55:09 AM
Really, (rather than Cameron, Osborne and Clegg) Clarke, Hague and Cable should be leading this government. Cameron and Osborne had only four years of parliamentary experience (and hardly any shadow cabinet experience) when they essentially took control of the Tories in 2005, and Clegg had only two years when he was elected Lib Dem leader.

I mean, when was the last time we had a government with so many inexperienced figures leading it?

And yeah, yeah, I know Labour currently have this problem to an extent too.



Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on July 31, 2012, 03:52:03 PM
Really, (rather than Cameron, Osborne and Clegg) Clarke, Hague and Cable should be leading this government. Cameron and Osborne had only four years of parliamentary experience (and hardly any shadow cabinet experience) when they essentially took control of the Tories in 2005, and Clegg had only two years when he was elected Lib Dem leader.

I mean, when was the last time we had a government with so many inexperienced figures leading it?

And yeah, yeah, I know Labour currently have this problem to an extent too.



It was widely said before the election that, should they have won, the Tory government would be the most inexperienced we'd had in modern times. Even New Labour in 1997 wasn't so thin on experience.

And Labour has a problem with it to, but at least most of the shadow cabinet are experienced in government.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on July 31, 2012, 03:55:48 PM
Sort of thing that happens when you have back-to-back long-lasting governments.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on July 31, 2012, 04:11:30 PM
Sort of thing that happens when you have back-to-back long-lasting governments.

And this obsession with young leaders that's grown over the past few decades.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: TheDeadFlagBlues on August 02, 2012, 07:36:20 PM
Today I stumbled upon an amusing group of deluded fools: http://liberalleft.org.uk/site/ (http://liberalleft.org.uk/site/)

http://www.libdemvoice.org/why-liberal-left-27111.html (http://www.libdemvoice.org/why-liberal-left-27111.html)

It looks as though the tiny activist base of the LibDems that still remains is very liberal but for the most part refuses to even give lip service to the most basic aspects of social democracy. Witnessing these losers bicker with a few delusional fools who'd cling onto the yellow banner of the party even if advocated for minarchism entertained me greatly. I finally solved the mystery as to who an active LibDem member is in the Age of Clegg.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 02, 2012, 07:49:56 PM
I finally solved the mystery as to who an active LibDem member is in the Age of Clegg.

Them and students from Tory families.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Dereich on August 03, 2012, 02:30:53 PM
Hey whats the general public opinion of William Hague? Does he have a political future? The only real insight I get into British politics besides this forum are PMQs, and I always loved him during those.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 03, 2012, 02:42:09 PM
Hey whats the general public opinion of William Hague? Does he have a political future? The only real insight I get into British politics besides this forum are PMQs, and I always loved him during those.

Held in high esteem generally, but such is the job of foreign secretary.

Couldn't see him as the leader again though, I doubt he wants it at this point anyway.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on August 10, 2012, 10:36:40 AM
Hey whats the general public opinion of William Hague? Does he have a political future? The only real insight I get into British politics besides this forum are PMQs, and I always loved him during those.

Held in high esteem generally, but such is the job of foreign secretary.

Couldn't see him as the leader again though, I doubt he wants it at this point anyway.

Every Conservative MP I've spoken to sings his praises, and the grassroots of the party love him.

Anyway, did anyone see the BBC 2 thingy 'Young, Bright and on the Right'? Thoughts, if any?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on August 11, 2012, 09:39:50 AM
Anyway, did anyone see the BBC 2 thingy 'Young, Bright and on the Right'? Thoughts, if any?

I've now watched it on iPlayer.  (Link here for anyone in the UK (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b008tj5q).)

The Cambridge one came across as a stereotypical Tory Boy, except perhaps slightly more socially inept.  Documentary makers can exaggerate the weirdness of people like that, of course.

The Oxford one was a bit more interesting, and was actually from what seemed to be a genuinely unusual background for an Oxbridge student, let alone a blazer-wearing Oxford Tory, and once the programme got going I thought there was something behind the affectations.  I did wonder why he'd persisted with OUCA for so long when they were so obnoxious, not only in their general behaviour but also directly to him.  I'd think he's the more likely of the two to actually crop up as a Tory MP in a few years' time, though he seemed to find it easy to fall out with people.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on August 11, 2012, 10:24:54 AM
From the description, it sounded like a send-up of Cameron and Osborne.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Donerail on August 12, 2012, 06:55:34 PM
It shocks me, but UK political parties (or at least the Lib Dems, cause that's whose website I was on) are better at capitalism than US ones. Even the GOP, the great defenders of capitalism, don't let you get a credit card emblazoned with their logo. I don't understand why this isn't common practice in the US.

()


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on August 16, 2012, 06:13:28 PM
Any UK'ers planning on going to their respective Party Conferences this year?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on August 16, 2012, 07:53:14 PM
It shocks me, but UK political parties (or at least the Lib Dems, cause that's whose website I was on) are better at capitalism than US ones.

What a wonderful testament to our god awful politics.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 17, 2012, 08:43:14 AM
Any UK'ers planning on going to their respective Party Conferences this year?

Where are they this year actually?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: bore on August 17, 2012, 10:34:56 AM
Any UK'ers planning on going to their respective Party Conferences this year?

Where are they this year actually?

The tories are in Birmingham, labour are in Manchester and the lib dems are in Brighton.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on August 17, 2012, 10:41:34 AM
Any UK'ers planning on going to their respective Party Conferences this year?

Where are they this year actually?

The tories are in Birmingham, labour are in Manchester and the lib dems are in Brighton.

Bit of a step down for the Liberals there, haha. :P

I, for one, will be attending that 'wretched hive of scum and villainy' that is the Conservative Party Conference.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 18, 2012, 09:31:39 PM
As of last Thursday, I'm officially going to be in the first £9,000 cohort of University students. Just to shamelessly attention whore.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: LastVoter on August 18, 2012, 10:33:15 PM
As of last Thursday, I'm officially going to be in the first £9,000 cohort of University students. Just to shamelessly attention whore.
That's more expensive than my tuition I think.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 19, 2012, 10:53:36 AM
As of last Thursday, I'm officially going to be in the first £9,000 cohort of University students. Just to shamelessly attention whore.
That's more expensive than my tuition I think.

It's scandalous. Thanks Nick Clegg!


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on August 19, 2012, 12:23:37 PM
As of last Thursday, I'm officially going to be in the first £9,000 cohort of University students. Just to shamelessly attention whore.

Oooh. Where are you going for University? What did you get for A-Levels? Pray, tell all.

As of last Thursday, I'm officially going to be in the first £9,000 cohort of University students. Just to shamelessly attention whore.
That's more expensive than my tuition I think.

That's per year too, lol. Thankfully I was in the last group to pay the £3,300 fees.



Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on August 19, 2012, 12:33:21 PM
Well, obviously it's per year. Still rather less than what I'll be paying.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 19, 2012, 04:22:41 PM
As of last Thursday, I'm officially going to be in the first £9,000 cohort of University students. Just to shamelessly attention whore.

Oooh. Where are you going for University? What did you get for A-Levels? Pray, tell all.

As of last Thursday, I'm officially going to be in the first £9,000 cohort of University students. Just to shamelessly attention whore.
That's more expensive than my tuition I think.

That's per year too, lol. Thankfully I was in the last group to pay the £3,300 fees.



Off to Leeds for French + Politics! French A (was shocked with this!), Politics B, English Language B.

More effort went into French compared to Politics, I'd had an A at AS. Probably threw one or two too many hackish statements about Mitt Romney into the exam and in a response to "What kind've people vote Republican?"

I genuinely put the A in French down to having the election to follow for a few months. My oral exam was the Monday after the first round and my planned discussion piece was based on racism so it ended up revolving around how well Marine Le Pen did. God send, for me anyway.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on August 19, 2012, 04:26:57 PM
Well done on your exam results at any rate.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on August 19, 2012, 07:04:25 PM
Ah, yes, congratulations on your results! Especially on that French A, I can't do languages to save my life, aha.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on August 19, 2012, 07:07:43 PM
Well done on your exam results at any rate.

^


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 21, 2012, 07:56:26 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19334292


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 23, 2012, 11:20:03 AM
Asil Nadir gets ten years, Freddy Patel gets struck off.

This story is bizarre and at least vaguely concerning: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19354209

This, though, this is great: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/23/sunderland-kid-1930s-mugshots-online


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 27, 2012, 03:16:11 PM
Been away for the weekend to come back to silly season rumours about Miliband/Balls being Blair/Brown II. Haven't had this in a good few months now.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on August 27, 2012, 04:22:14 PM
Been away for the weekend to come back to silly season rumours about Miliband/Balls being Blair/Brown II. Haven't had this in a good few months now.

When the front page is about an escaped 'lion', you know it's silly season.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Vosem on August 27, 2012, 05:02:01 PM
Probably threw one or two too many hackish statements about Mitt Romney into the exam and in a response to "What kind've people vote Republican?"

Oh? Do tell us what sort of people vote Republican. I have a tendency to break all these sorts of rules (being young, Jewish, first-generation natural-born, and until a few years ago a city-dweller) and want to see if even one beyond a description of ideology would apply to me.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 28, 2012, 07:58:59 AM
Here we go
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtJVXcuHssI


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on August 28, 2012, 09:31:52 AM
You just know it's silly season at the moment:

http://www.itv.com/news/2012-08-28/larry-the-downing-street-cat-finally-kills-first-rodent/


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on August 28, 2012, 07:32:29 PM
Did any UK'ers watch the last episode (the third one) of Accused on the BBC?

I just finished it, and my God, the ending made me feel sick. I don't want to spoil it for those who haven't seen it, but wow, I'm actually shaking with shock.

I can't wait for next weeks episode!


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 28, 2012, 07:43:00 PM
Jimmy McGovern can sometimes feel like a one trick pony, but it's a very good trick so I don't mind much.

Robert Sheehan is a fantastic actor.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Peter the Lefty on August 28, 2012, 09:00:27 PM
Caroline Lucas is about to make a huge mistake, by standing down as her party's leader when she's clearly their best hope (and their only MP).  Those who could succeed her:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19295069



Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 29, 2012, 05:09:43 AM
Caroline Lucas is about to make a huge mistake, by standing down as her party's leader when she's clearly their best hope (and their only MP).  Those who could succeed her:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19295069



That bloke who run in Norwich South in 2010 or Jenny Jones, I imagine. Common sense would tell you Lucas'd lose the seat on the new boundaries anyway, but actual facts (local election results) are making Brighton look as if it's becoming a Green stronghold or something.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 29, 2012, 06:44:57 AM
Me thinks someone's got selective amnesia with the budget he voted for a few months back...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19406022


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: bore on August 29, 2012, 10:09:19 AM
Sort of Osbourne related, apparently his political hero is LBJ, which really surprised me. Was I wrong to be surprised?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 29, 2012, 10:19:24 AM
Sort of Osbourne related, apparently his political hero is LBJ, which really surprised me. Was I wrong to be surprised?

Woah, no.

What's all that about!?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: bore on August 29, 2012, 10:27:57 AM
Sort of Osbourne related, apparently his political hero is LBJ, which really surprised me. Was I wrong to be surprised?

Woah, no.

What's all that about!?

In case anyone is interested this is the article : http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/aug/27/which-cabinet-minsters-should-sacked?newsfeed=true


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 29, 2012, 10:32:42 AM
Sort of Osbourne related, apparently his political hero is LBJ, which really surprised me. Was I wrong to be surprised?

Woah, no.

What's all that about!?

In case anyone is interestedx this is the article : http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/aug/27/which-cabinet-minsters-should-sacked?newsfeed=true

On that ICM poll, I must be the only person who thinks that there's far more dangerous cabinet ministers than GO. Michael Gove closely followed by Lansley.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Peter the Lefty on August 29, 2012, 07:47:45 PM
Caroline Lucas is about to make a huge mistake, by standing down as her party's leader when she's clearly their best hope (and their only MP).  Those who could succeed her:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19295069



That bloke who run in Norwich South in 2010 or Jenny Jones, I imagine. Common sense would tell you Lucas'd lose the seat on the new boundaries anyway, but actual facts (local election results) are making Brighton look as if it's becoming a Green stronghold or something.
Ironically, the two strongest potential leaders aren't running.  A guide to the candidates: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19295069 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19295069)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 30, 2012, 10:45:22 AM
Caroline Lucas is about to make a huge mistake, by standing down as her party's leader when she's clearly their best hope (and their only MP).  Those who could succeed her:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19295069



That bloke who run in Norwich South in 2010 or Jenny Jones, I imagine. Common sense would tell you Lucas'd lose the seat on the new boundaries anyway, but actual facts (local election results) are making Brighton look as if it's becoming a Green stronghold or something.
Ironically, the two strongest potential leaders aren't running.  A guide to the candidates: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19295069 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19295069)

Wow, back to irrelevance for them then.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 30, 2012, 10:49:20 AM
Tide is most definitely turning against Clegg now...
http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2012/08/30/are-we-seeing-the-tectonic-plates-moving-against-nick-clegg/

It's beyond offensive to the left and to the wider electorate for them to think a new leader will make any difference though. If they think a change of face is going to turn their fortunes around, then they don't even understand why they're so unpopular in the first place.

Every LibDem minister has had to back every piece of government legislation in this parliament, so they can moan and moan about having changed their ways all they want, but actions most definitely speak louder than words and their record in government is nothing but shameful.

Personally, I do struggle to see the SDPers at the top (those who're left anyway) winning the party back since they're now sans much of their former SDPer grassroots in the country. And anyway, who's their flagbearer? I honestly struggle to see how Vince Cable isn't beyond tainted amoungst 2010 LibDems who're now Labour/Tory/Green/SNP. And Tim Farron's one of the biggest jokes in the party.

Though what has been hilarious throughout this parliament is the way that there's been constant leadership speculation around all three. When it fades on one (like Cameron at Olympics time) it flares up on another of them (Clegg).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 30, 2012, 01:46:14 PM
Sir Rhodes Boyson, a colourful figure from what seems like another age, has died. He was best known for his mutton chops. He was also well known as an advocate (in a hammed-up Lancashire accent) of populist right-wing stances on education. He had stances on certain other issues that are now perhaps a little stomach-churning (though at least he wasn't a racist), and he was beloved by the Tory grassroots.

He held Brent North for the Tories from 1974 until 1997 when he fell victim to the biggest ever post-1945 swing from the Tories to Labour (a barely believable 18.8%). Oddly enough this wasn't a personal rejection as such, but the result of local fury at hospital reorganisation and demographic changes combined with the national landslide.

Anyway, a detail from one of his obits:

Quote
In 1994, he appeared on Have I Got News for You and seemed not to appreciate the lighthearted nature of the programme. Still undaunted by the notion of satire, three years later he took part in Chris Morris's Brass Eye, and was also an early interviewee of Ali G.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 31, 2012, 08:47:47 AM
()

lol.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Peter the Lefty on August 31, 2012, 03:45:49 PM
Ironic that Clegg's incompetence is the reason why Ashdown's 1997 breakthrough (seat-wise) is about to be totally erased, and his name will likely disappear from the Lib Dem history books. 


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 31, 2012, 03:55:18 PM
Ironic that Clegg's incompetence is the reason why Ashdown's 1997 breakthrough (seat-wise) is about to be totally erased, and his name will likely disappear from the Lib Dem history books. 

I'd be in a rage if I was a past LibDem leader. Nick Clegg's destroyed everything that the party's work for for the past 20 years.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on September 02, 2012, 07:23:26 AM
He held Brent North for the Tories from 1974 until 1997 when he fell victim to the biggest ever post-1945 swing from the Tories to Labour (a barely believable 18.8%). Oddly enough this wasn't a personal rejection as such, but the result of local fury at hospital reorganisation and demographic changes combined with the national landslide.
I think that's (at least partially) a case of a strong personal vote evaporating in the face of too strong a wave/realignment.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on September 02, 2012, 07:33:26 AM
He held Brent North for the Tories from 1974 until 1997 when he fell victim to the biggest ever post-1945 swing from the Tories to Labour (a barely believable 18.8%). Oddly enough this wasn't a personal rejection as such, but the result of local fury at hospital reorganisation and demographic changes combined with the national landslide.
I think that's (at least partially) a case of a strong personal vote evaporating in the face of too strong a wave/realignment.

Brent North also had the highest C to Lab swing in 2001.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 03, 2012, 04:39:14 PM
First whispers coming out about tomorrow and the moving around of the deckchairs on the Titanic.

Mitchell to the Whip's office from International Development. Warsi or Hunt to replace him.
Gillan moving out of the cabinet completely. Widely expected prior to the reshuffle anyway. None of the Tories in the Welsh seats seem like obvious cabinet material to me though.
Gove's staying put.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 03, 2012, 05:35:39 PM
Patrick McLoughlin to Transport, so what of Miss Greening?

Seems to just be the bottom rungs so far. Doubt they'll be much change at the top, so this is all cosmetic really. Obviously, Cam still hasn't got a clue why his government's oh so unpopular.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 03, 2012, 05:57:38 PM
Ken Clarke's gone. There's a mistake I didn't think the PM'd make. He was offered Commons Leader, but said no apparently. That'd be a complete insult to him.

Greening off to Health. She's risen through the ranks quicker than her skills would suggest. Lansley being sacked was a no brainer, even if he did have the PM's "full backing" before the recess. ;)

So far, this is all seeming a bit... omnishambles.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 03, 2012, 06:03:12 PM
Everyone's favourite benefits extremist IDS's moving.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 03, 2012, 06:17:41 PM
What, is this going to be an actual reshuffle, or are these all coming from unconfirmed rumourvilleland?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 03, 2012, 06:21:07 PM
What, is this going to be an actual reshuffle, or are these all coming from unconfirmed rumourvilleland?

Actual reshuffle. It's on all the news sources, so...

We'll have a clearer view in the morning anyway.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on September 03, 2012, 06:27:30 PM
In the meantime....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqM0Ube0oLs


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on September 03, 2012, 06:35:14 PM
Ken Clarke's gone. There's a mistake I didn't think the PM'd make. He was offered Commons Leader, but said no apparently. That'd be a complete insult to him.

Greening off to Health. She's risen through the ranks quicker than her skills would suggest. Lansley being sacked was a no brainer, even if he did have the PM's "full backing" before the recess. ;)

So far, this is all seeming a bit... omnishambles.

Where are you getting this from?

Anyhow it's good to see Clarke go, we need a strong law and order type at Justice in the wake of the London riots a year ago. Michael Howard would be a strong pick. Greening had to be moved away from Transport as she had threatened to resign over the third runway at Heathrow.

Hopefully Grant Shapps will be in cabinet or at least be appointed Tory Chairman. Warsi is a catastrophe.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 03, 2012, 06:39:27 PM
Warsi's departure would be a national tragedy. She isn't just a first rate hack ala Michael Fallon, she throws herself into matters with such palpable enthusiasm that you can almost believe that she almost believes everything she says. That's rare in politics. And hilarious.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Dr. Cynic on September 03, 2012, 09:21:53 PM

Is the split in the LibDems over Clegg really as deep between old Liberals, many of whom endorsed Clegg and old SDPers, many of whom endorsed Chris Huhne, as it seems?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 04, 2012, 05:05:48 AM
Warsi against Nick Griffin on Question Time. The only positive thing she's ever done.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 04, 2012, 05:06:45 AM
Jeremy Hunt promoted to Health. What a lovely reward for corruption.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 04, 2012, 05:17:29 AM
IDS is staying at the DWP after having turned down Justice last night. The LibDems won't be happy... and it shows Dave's still too weak with the Tory right.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 04, 2012, 05:20:44 AM
Ken Clarke's the new Minister without Portfolio.

Nice retirement role. He'll be retiring in 2015, obviously.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 04, 2012, 05:37:48 AM
A lot of people pointing out how difficult this is for Osborne. Chris Grayling, now moved to Justice, will want prison money, IDS won't budge on the welfare budget and Ken Clarke in his new "it's a bit've everything: economy, domestic stuff, etc" job might make things a tad awkward for him.

Villiers to NI. Paterson to DEFRA.

Justine Greening's been in Number 10 for 45 minutes now, harsh negotiation going on.

No LibDems in the cabinet are moving and David Laws is expected to become the junior at Education (pushing Gove further to the right, probably).

McLoughlin confirmed for Transport. 3rd runway, here we come.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 04, 2012, 06:04:17 AM
Greening to International Development. She'll be disappointed.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 04, 2012, 06:07:07 AM
Maria Miller to Media.

I think that just leaves Chairman. Shapps is the only guy left in Number 10. 2+2=4 on that one.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 04, 2012, 07:10:28 AM
Favourite odity of the reshuffle: with a name like David Jones, you're born to Welsh Secretary.

The BBC points out that he's also, surprisingly enough, the first Jones to take the job.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on September 04, 2012, 08:39:43 AM
A rather boring re-shuffle on the whole it seems.

The only decent changes from my point of view is that the liberal Clarke is out and a right-winger, in the form of Grayling, is at Justice. Andrew Mitchell will be an excellent Chief Whip, and the disaster that is Lady Warsi is replaced by Grant Schapps.

It's rather telling that Justine Greening has been thrown out of Transport after less than a year, she looked fuming after leaving Downing Street.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 04, 2012, 08:49:07 AM
It's rather telling that Justine Greening has been thrown out of Transport after less than a year, she looked fuming after leaving Downing Street.


Greening to Health and Hunt to International Development would've been more sensible! After the disaster of a term he had at Media, why the hell does Jeremy Hunt deserve such a big promotion? He was in over his head at Media, never mind Health.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on September 04, 2012, 08:54:50 AM
It's rather telling that Justine Greening has been thrown out of Transport after less than a year, she looked fuming after leaving Downing Street.


Greening to Health and Hunt to International Development would've been more sensible! After the disaster of a term he had at Media, why the hell does Jeremy Hunt deserve such a big promotion? He was in over his head at Media, never mind Health.

I agree. After the whole Murdoch scenario he's not exactly the best person to take up the Health portfolio, at least Greening was something of a blank slate.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 04, 2012, 09:16:36 AM
Look, the fact that Hunt wasn't fired earlier this year was a pretty strong indication that Number 10 likes him. A lot. Reshuffles are about politics not 'competence' and politics is about power.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 04, 2012, 11:23:50 AM
Interesting piece here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/sep/04/chris-grayling-justice-secretary-non-lawyer


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 04, 2012, 11:26:29 AM
Political Betting points out that Zac Goldsmith has threatened to resign if the government goes ahead with the third runway.

Richmond Park would make for one of the most interesting by-elections the country's had in a long time and he knows it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/d70.stm


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 04, 2012, 11:29:19 AM
I doubt it would be interesting at all, actually. All much of muchness. Anyway. I say that they build a new bloody airport there; would make a change to see the obscenely rich get a kick in the teeth from a mammoth national infrastructure project.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 04, 2012, 11:35:23 AM
I doubt it would be interesting at all, actually. All much of muchness. Anyway. I say that they build a new bloody airport there; would make a change to see the obscenely rich get a kick in the teeth from a mammoth national infrastructure project.

To be fair to Goldsmith, he's mega rich and he loves the environment.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on September 04, 2012, 12:17:49 PM
Richmond Park would make for one of the most interesting by-elections the country's had in a long time and he knows it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/d70.stm

Tory hold is the most likely outcome here.

The Liberal vote will be weakened due to defectors voting Labour. Labour themselves lack any significant base in Richmond Park making it rather unlikely they'll win it. The Conservatives should pull it off if Goldsmith does a 'Davis' and stands as the Conservative candidate again, if he runs as an independent, then it will be interesting.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on September 04, 2012, 02:00:38 PM
Chloe Smith is no longer Economic Secretary to the Treasury, but is instead Parliamentary Secretary for the Cabinet Office. Is that any kind of promotion or demotion? Obviously her career has been of interest to all and any observer since that memorable day in june.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 04, 2012, 02:58:43 PM
Chloe Smith is no longer Economic Secretary to the Treasury, but is instead Parliamentary Secretary for the Cabinet Office. Is that any kind of promotion or demotion? Obviously her career has been of interest to all and any observer since that memorable day in june.

Demotion. Economic Secretary is like being the Chancellor's number 3 (after the Chief Secretary).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Peter the Lefty on September 04, 2012, 04:09:30 PM
Wow.  I must say, this reshuffle is...interesting.  In the mean time, the new leader of the Green Party is Natalie Bennett, an Australian-born former journalist.  A total unknown, who sounded incredibly nervous in her acceptance speech.  The guy who's interviewing her is an idiot.  But she is pretty weak and has nowhere near the ability to answer a question nor the charisma of Lucas. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEc-M8n22Kk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEc-M8n22Kk)
This whole Greenie thing of "I'm stepping down to give someone else a chance" right when it has the most momentum is really *facepalm*-inducing, I've got to say. 


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on September 05, 2012, 06:41:47 AM
This whole Greenie thing of "I'm stepping down to give someone else a chance" right when it has the most momentum is really *facepalm*-inducing, I've got to say. 

Nigel Farage did this with UKIP.

He returned after two years.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 05, 2012, 03:26:45 PM
Cameron called the government "strong and united" today at PMQs. Brought on a good amount of laughing from myself.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on September 05, 2012, 05:17:06 PM
Cameron called the government "strong and united" today at PMQs. Brought on a good amount of laughing from myself.

Oh, he is inspired by Harper.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 05, 2012, 05:46:26 PM
Cameron called the government "strong and united" today at PMQs. Brought on a good amount of laughing from myself.

Oh, he is inspired by Harper.

Ah, but Harper doesn't have every section of the government except for his own clique of about 10 cabinet ministers attacking him constantly.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 05, 2012, 06:38:35 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzDjo2CbO0Y&feature=share

Theresa May booed!


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on September 05, 2012, 06:41:05 PM
What programme is that?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 05, 2012, 06:48:40 PM

No idea.


Oh, and interesting:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/09/05/david-cameron-made-minister-cry-when-he-fired-them_n_1857741.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

Justine Greening considering her face was like thunder when she walked out of number 10. Definitely Baroness Warsi.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 05, 2012, 08:38:51 PM
That's a really odd thing to leak.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 06, 2012, 05:03:12 AM

Someone wanting to drive the "Bullingdon bully boy", Flashman image I guess.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 06, 2012, 03:29:49 PM
Here's a challenge for you all. Read through this article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/sep/06/cameron-honours-ministers-attacked) and try to remember throughout that Cameron used to work in PR.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 07, 2012, 04:54:01 AM
Here's a challenge for you all. Read through this article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/sep/06/cameron-honours-ministers-attacked) and try to remember throughout that Cameron used to work in PR.

Wow.

That's an open goal really.

Quote
Later Cameron's official spokesman was forced to deny reports that the PM had told departing environment minister Caroline Spelman that she was too old, and that he had been drinking wine when he sacked Welsh secretary Gillan.

Favourite part of the article. If it's true though, I feel like he must genuinely be like Alan B'stard behind the scenes.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 07, 2012, 05:58:33 AM
Well, yeah; the issue is that there have been enough bizarre little sexist episodes in public (and other attempts to make a point of what he clearly regards as his manly manness) that private behavior like that doesn't seem implausible.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 07, 2012, 07:04:58 AM
More kick off from Justine Greening apparently.
http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2012/09/07/could-justine-be-the-next-cabinet-casualty/

To be fair to her, she was well and truly shafted by the PM.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Emperor Dubya on September 07, 2012, 01:42:31 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19517696 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19517696)

This watermelon frightens me.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on September 08, 2012, 05:01:35 AM
Well, yeah; the issue is that there have been enough bizarre little sexist episodes in public (and other attempts to make a point of what he clearly regards as his manly manness) that private behavior like that doesn't seem implausible.
It's his only male attribute (besides a penis, I suppose).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 09, 2012, 05:25:42 PM
Any other Brits find Obama's use of "We're All in this Together" at the DNC particularly ironic for us?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on September 10, 2012, 03:15:25 AM
Any other Brits find Obama's use of "We're All in this Together" at the DNC particularly ironic for us?

I certainly found it ironic.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Emperor Dubya on September 10, 2012, 12:10:03 PM
Any other Brits find Obama's use of "We're All in this Together" at the DNC particularly ironic for us?

I certainly found it ironic.

I find that it sounds like a communist slogan.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 11, 2012, 05:39:56 PM
Salma Yaqoob has resigned as leader of Respect... and has also quit the party. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19565100)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Insula Dei on September 11, 2012, 05:49:54 PM
Some late thoughts on the reshuffle: what strikes me about Clegg is that he somehow combines being fluent in Dutch, being the leader of a party that needs coalitions to ever be in government, and really, really sucking at coalition politics. No continental junior coalition party leader would allow Cameron to walk over him as he's doing.

The Lib Dems have allowed a reshuffle that significantly tilted the coalition to the right without even seeming to have been really consulted in the matter. Clegg should have told Cameron that demoting Clarke and promoting Hunt was out of the question. The Lib Dems really seem to have zero impact on coalition policy.Same thing when Cameron took the BSkyB deal away from Cable, Clegg should never ever have allowed anything of the sort.

If I were a Lib Dem I'd start to hope someone would have the guts to at least force Ineptness Incarnate away from the party leadership before the now almost inevitable 2015 massacre.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 11, 2012, 06:01:00 PM
You can take it right back to the beginning: their big prize was a referendum they were always likely to lose on a voting system that they didn't actually want. For which they were prepared to sacrifice their single most popular policy (opposition to university tuition fees). It's also hard not to notice that they do not occupy any of the four so-called 'Great Offices of State' (PM, Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary) or control one of the big spending departments like Health or Education.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 11, 2012, 09:31:01 PM
Packing for uni today and I found the Guardian from May 10th 2010, the day Gordon Brown announced his resignation and talks between the Liberals and Labour officially began. I hadn't realised how good the deal Labour were offering the Liberals actually was. It would've been so much better for them, pure and simple. I can't help but feel that because Ed Balls was the salesman, they stupidly didn't buy it.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Peter the Lefty on September 11, 2012, 10:13:39 PM
Packing for uni today and I found the Guardian from May 10th 2010, the day Gordon Brown announced his resignation and talks between the Liberals and Labour officially began. I hadn't realised how good the deal Labour were offering the Liberals actually was. It would've been so much better for them, pure and simple. I can't help but feel that because Ed Balls was the salesman, they stupidly didn't buy it.
Well, to be honest, Balls isn't exactly the most delightful and friendly personality.  They should've had someone like Sadiq Khan or Douglas Alexander in that role. 


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: doktorb on September 12, 2012, 01:26:43 AM
I'd leave the party rather than join in with Ed Balls.  As City Minister, he was the architect of the longest, deepest recession this country has suffered in peace times. He's a disaster.  A LibDem-Lab pact with him any where near it would be a catastrophe.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 12, 2012, 04:13:49 AM
To be honest that deal was never a starter for three reasons. The first was that the two parties combined didn't have a Commons majority, the second was that the LibDem leadership is rather right-wing and not especially well disposed towards the Labour Party, and the third was that large sections of Labour's grassroots regard all other parties as bourgeois (that's not the word used, of course, but it describes the mentality well enough) and so doesn't especially like dealing with them.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on September 12, 2012, 04:49:46 AM
Well coalitions are a bit of an alien concept in Britain (though not locally, actually), and the rules how they're supposed to work are unwritten in most countries.

The Lib Dems have allowed a reshuffle that significantly tilted the coalition to the right without even seeming to have been really consulted in the matter. Clegg should have told Cameron that demoting Clarke and promoting Hunt was out of the question.
Incidentally, Cameron could have done that in Germany. A party's government ministers are considered its own business here, pm excluded.
You can take it right back to the beginning: their big prize was a referendum they were always likely to lose on a voting system that they didn't actually want.
They should have at the very least bound the government - the entire government - to actively campaign for a yes vote.
Quote
It's also hard not to notice that they do not occupy any of the four so-called 'Great Offices of State' (PM, Chancellor, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary) or control one of the big spending departments like Health or Education.
Reminds me of the very early Green government participations. The FDP would never, ever have consented to that, even if it stood at 5.1% and the CDU was one seat away from a majority.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on September 12, 2012, 09:37:36 AM
Hillsborough Report out (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-19543964)

Key finding - 41 people had "the potential to survive" after 3:15pm - i.e. possibly could have been saved.

I see that Kelvin Mackenzie has finally apologised - although it's way too late.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 12, 2012, 11:57:03 AM
Something long suspected has been confirmed beyond all doubt: that one of the main sources for the lies spread about after the disaster was Sir Irvine Patnick, then the (Tory) MP for Hallam. There have already been calls for him to lose his knighthood, ala Fred the Shred.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on September 12, 2012, 12:41:46 PM
I'd leave the party rather than join in with Ed Balls.  As City Minister, he was the architect of the longest, deepest recession this country has suffered in peace times. He's a disaster.  A LibDem-Lab pact with him any where near it would be a catastrophe.

I suppose the Coalition - and Osborne - have nothing to do with that, either?

To be honest that deal was never a starter for three reasons. The first was that the two parties combined didn't have a Commons majority, the second was that the LibDem leadership is rather right-wing and not especially well disposed towards the Labour Party, and the third was that large sections of Labour's grassroots regard all other parties as bourgeois (that's not the word used, of course, but it describes the mentality well enough) and so doesn't especially like dealing with them.

Slightly more cynical, but significant factors none-the-less for the PLP were that there was little incentive to cobble together an awkward coalition for what was evidently a difficult, and electorally damaging time to govern, and knowing that the nature of FPTP meant that they'd be rewarded - as the sole recipient of opposition to the counter coalition - at the next election.

You can take it right back to the beginning: their big prize was a referendum they were always likely to lose on a voting system that they didn't actually want.
They should have at the very least bound the government - the entire government - to actively campaign for a yes vote.

But still, they'd be binding the government to actively campaign for something they didn't want - nor their supporters. It was irredeemable as soon as they gave up PR.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 12, 2012, 01:44:01 PM
I'd leave the party rather than join in with Ed Balls.  As City Minister, he was the architect of the longest, deepest recession this country has suffered in peace times. He's a disaster.  A LibDem-Lab pact with him any where near it would be a catastrophe.

It's not like your lot would've let him anywhere near anything important anyway. Gordon Brown nearly got knifed by his own party when he tried it in 2009, so I can't even begin to imagine Nick Clegg's reaction to Balls as Chancellor. Vince would've been Chancellor under any Lib-Lab coalition, without question, and that still remains doubtless should there be another change of government before the election in 2015.

And calling Ed Balls, of all people, the "architect" of the recession is just ludicrous, misleading and way off the mark. He is as responsible for the 2008-10 recession as Justine Greening and Chloe Smith (two of his successors under the Coalition) are for the double dip. Just because David Cameron likes to say it's Balls' fault every week, doesn't mean that it's true.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on September 12, 2012, 04:41:50 PM
Something long suspected has been confirmed beyond all doubt: that one of the main sources for the lies spread about after the disaster was Sir Irvine Patnick, then the (Tory) MP for Hallam. There have already been calls for him to lose his knighthood, ala Fred the Shred.

He was actually named in the media at the time, so it's really no surprise.

I did so enjoy voting against him in '97 (and the outcome), partly because of this.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 13, 2012, 12:36:58 PM
14 Tories have written to 1922 asking for a leadership contest apparently.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on September 13, 2012, 06:04:33 PM
All bark and no bite then.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 13, 2012, 07:10:24 PM
Quote
Sir Norman Bettison, the current chief constable of West Yorkshire who was a senior officer in South Yorkshire Police's Hillsborough operation, who said he had "absolutely nothing to hide"

This is, of course, true. He doesn't. It's all out in the open now. Arsehole should resign now. Better, be cuffed.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on September 14, 2012, 01:17:04 PM
14 Tories have written to 1922 asking for a leadership contest apparently.

They need 46 (15% of the parliamentary party) to trigger a confidence vote (like the one which brought down IDS) so still some way off.

No idea how the Lib Dems would react.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 14, 2012, 07:49:26 PM
Shapps has said the Tories will select candidates based on the existing boundaries. Make of that what you will.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on September 14, 2012, 08:48:53 PM
How much has been pissed up the wall on this review, then?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 14, 2012, 09:26:30 PM
How much has been pissed up the wall on this review, then?

Too much.

Ah well, one step closer to Number 10 for Ed I suppose.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on September 17, 2012, 10:30:19 AM
Simon Harwood sacked by Met Police (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19620627)

The dismissal was the maximum penalty they could have given - loss of pension requires the Home Secretary to get involved, if I recall correctly.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on September 20, 2012, 10:07:26 AM
Nick Clegg "singing" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19660345)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 20, 2012, 11:50:04 AM
The apology. How is this man in politics? He's an utter joke!


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: ViaActiva on September 20, 2012, 01:56:02 PM
Indeed, he's devoid of any political credibility. Why the Liberal Democrats haven't ditched him yet is a mystery to me.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on September 20, 2012, 02:17:43 PM
Indeed, he's devoid of any political credibility. Why the Liberal Democrats haven't ditched him yet is a mystery to me.

So the coalition contamination is restricted to him - so they can replace him just before the next election and claim a new start/different direction.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: ViaActiva on September 20, 2012, 04:13:00 PM
I'm not saying that the contamination is restricted to him, I certainly think that the Liberal Democrats as a party are going to be relegated to the margins of the British politics. But getting rid of him now and making someone like Cable or Farron leader would help slightly.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on September 20, 2012, 04:41:38 PM
If you read my comment with "They're doing it..." in front, you'll see my meaning, as you misunderstood my comment. They're hoping to restrict the toxicity to Clegg, in a hope they can replace him and not get crucified in the next election. Replacing him with Cable and Farron now would probably just make them unpopular as well, reinforcing an 'it's the party and not the leader' message, as they're unlikely to radically change the direction of the coalition or undo any of their past mistakes (partly thanks to Clegg leaving them in such a weak position, beholden to the Tories). 


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 20, 2012, 10:01:22 PM
The idea that Cable or Farron (especially Farron) would do better is completely wrong anyway.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: ViaActiva on September 21, 2012, 04:36:31 AM
Why? Clegg is completely ruined in the minds of the public, but if you look at the polls, Cable is still relatively popular. The Liberal Democrats are still going to go lose a lot of seats in the next election, but with someone other than Clegg they could do slightly better.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 21, 2012, 04:57:41 AM
Why? Clegg is completely ruined in the minds of the public, but if you look at the polls, Cable is still relatively popular. The Liberal Democrats are still going to go lose a lot of seats in the next election, but with someone other than Clegg they could do slightly better.

Cable's still a pretty unknown entity to most normal voters. Anyone new would be easily tarred with the same brush as Clegg. And on tuition fees, Cable voted for the rise and it was his department that was in charge of it.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on September 21, 2012, 12:15:05 PM
Nick Clegg "singing" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19660345)

This one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=U_3Bqh8ZBAg) is good too.

Any versions of Andrew Mitchell talking to the police yet?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on September 21, 2012, 12:31:18 PM
Why? Clegg is completely ruined in the minds of the public, but if you look at the polls, Cable is still relatively popular. The Liberal Democrats are still going to go lose a lot of seats in the next election, but with someone other than Clegg they could do slightly better.

That's why they won't replace him with Cable et al until the coalitions done with. So they can release a new social democratic manifesto in time for the electioneering period and pretend it's a clean break.

This one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=U_3Bqh8ZBAg) is good too.

Fantastic! Blows everything else out of the water, in fact.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: ViaActiva on September 21, 2012, 04:05:42 PM
Well yeah I guess that a break in 2014 would be a better strategy. It will be interesting to see if Clegg puts up a fight.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 23, 2012, 06:21:07 AM
Clegg's approval ratings are now at approximately minus sixty trillion.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 23, 2012, 06:19:25 PM
Clegg's approval ratings are now at approximately minus sixty trillion.

That high?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 23, 2012, 06:20:46 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/09/23/jon-cruddas-labour-policy-chief-lib-dems-have-done-good-in-government_n_1907159.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

Wow, no.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on September 23, 2012, 07:01:21 PM
Labour seriously need to sort out their strategy.

Anyway, there's been a fair bit of polling over the weekend:

Survation CON 29% (-1), LAB 41% (+1), LDEM 10% (n/c), UKIP 12%.
YouGov     CON 34% (-1), LAB 43% (+2), LDEM 8% (-1), UKIP 8%.
Opinium     CON 30% (-2), LAB 42% (+2), LDEM 8% (-2), UKIP 10%.
ComRes     CON 35% (+2), LAB 39% (-3), LDEM 10% (n/c), UKIP 8%.

The YouGov also had some hypotheticals:

Under Cameron, Miliband, Clegg
LAB 41%, CON 34%, LDEM 9%, OTH 16%

Under Cameron, Miliband, Cable
LAB 39%, CON 34%, LDEM 12%, OTH 16%

Under Johnson, Miliband, Clegg
CON 38%, LAB 38%, LDEM 9%, OTH 15%

Under Johnson, Miliband, Cable
CON 39%, LAB 35%, LDEM 11%, OTH 15%


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on September 24, 2012, 12:30:19 PM
...and behind the pack:

TNS BMRB: CON 28% (-3), LAB 44% (+1), LDEM 8% (-1), OTH 19% (+2)



Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: bore on September 24, 2012, 01:46:15 PM
Labour seriously need to sort out their strategy.

Anyway, there's been a fair bit of polling over the weekend:

Survation CON 29% (-1), LAB 41% (+1), LDEM 10% (n/c), UKIP 12%.
YouGov     CON 34% (-1), LAB 43% (+2), LDEM 8% (-1), UKIP 8%.
Opinium     CON 30% (-2), LAB 42% (+2), LDEM 8% (-2), UKIP 10%.
ComRes     CON 35% (+2), LAB 39% (-3), LDEM 10% (n/c), UKIP 8%.

The YouGov also had some hypotheticals:

Under Cameron, Miliband, Clegg
LAB 41%, CON 34%, LDEM 9%, OTH 16%

Under Cameron, Miliband, Cable
LAB 39%, CON 34%, LDEM 12%, OTH 16%

Under Johnson, Miliband, Clegg
CON 38%, LAB 38%, LDEM 9%, OTH 15%

Under Johnson, Miliband, Cable
CON 39%, LAB 35%, LDEM 11%, OTH 15%

It really seems that the whole lib dem party have been tarnished by the coalition, not just the lib dems under Clegg. Their grand plan of replacing Clegg before the election probably won't work out so well for them then. Shame.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on September 24, 2012, 02:28:03 PM
It's unsurprising really given how loyal they've all been to Clegg, although ICM seem to disagree - as ever - with YouGov's (and Opinium's) findings.

Topline figures are:
ICM: LAB 41% (+2), CON 31% (-3), LDEM 14% (-1), OTH 14% (+2)

With the Cable hypothetical producing:
LAB 38% (-3%) CON 30% (-1), LDEM 19% (+5), OTH 13% (-1)

Worth noting that the last time ICM shown a 10-point Labour lead was in 2003.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 24, 2012, 02:43:29 PM
It's unsurprising really given how loyal they've all been to Clegg, although ICM seem to disagree - as ever - with YouGov's (and Opinium's) findings.

Topline figures are:
ICM: LAB 41% (+2), CON 31% (-3), LDEM 14% (-1), OTH 14% (+2)

With the Cable hypothetical producing:
LAB 38% (-3%) CON 30% (-1), LDEM 19% (+5), OTH 13% (-1)

Worth noting that the last time ICM shown a 10-point Labour lead was in 2003.

ICM have consistently shown dodgy LD numbers anyway. And new leaders always seem like a good idea, but it never works out as well as the party originally thought.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 24, 2012, 03:10:04 PM
ICM play with their figures before publishing them.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on September 24, 2012, 03:59:38 PM
And new leaders always seem like a good idea, but it never works out as well as the party originally thought.

I think the Tories dumping Th*tch*r in 1990 might be an exception there.  And, oddly enough, the Lib Dems replacing Ming Campbell with you-know-who might be too; they were in a pretty bad way.

However, these hypothetical leader polls are dodgy, and have a poor reputation.  Someone asked how they'd vote if the leaders were Cameron, Miliband and Cable is effectively being prompted to think of the Lib Dems.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on September 24, 2012, 04:01:37 PM
ICM play with their figures before publishing them.

On a dartboard?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on September 24, 2012, 04:09:05 PM
It'll certainly be interesting to see the ICM figures without the turnout & don't-know-reallocation adjustments!

Although I tend to believe YouGov, Opinium etc with the Cable effect. Clegg is so toxic (in a way that few other past examples can compare to) that any change is likely to get them a couple of points, but not lead them to any meaningful recovery like shown in ICM (as he and his party are still significantly contaminated).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 24, 2012, 04:12:11 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9564006/In-full-Police-log-detailing-Andrew-Mitchells-pleb-rant.html

Hilarious


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on September 24, 2012, 04:13:44 PM
I'm not sure if it was ICM or ComRes, but there was a poll released during the 2010 campaign showing the SNP on 0%....in Scotland.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 26, 2012, 06:55:21 AM
Clegg is so toxic (in a way that few other past examples can compare to)

They're be books and all kinds done on it once he's gone. He gets actual aggressive hate from people rather than just high annoyance that the likes of Brown and Major got.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on September 26, 2012, 01:00:18 PM
Quote
"There are a group of people who simply aren't interested in parties that get into power to take difficult decisions.

They are a group of people who like to throw stones from the sidelines; who like to be associated with causes where there's never a difficult decision to be made; who don't actually like parties being in government; and who always scream betrayal when any party goes into government.

In other words, people who like protest, but not the reality of power. And I make no apology in saying to those people - we are not the party for you.

If people want just protest politics, if they want a sort of 'I don't like the world, I want to get off' party, they've got one. It's called the Labour Party."

Quote from Clegg in an interview to regional news (http://www.itv.com/news/update/2012-09-26/clegg-urges-those-interested-in-protest-politics-to-vote-labour/).

A listen to What the World Is Waiting For (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGOaro9kfS4) is in order.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 26, 2012, 01:08:51 PM
Amazing.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on September 26, 2012, 01:26:36 PM
It'll certainly be interesting to see the ICM figures without the turnout & don't-know-reallocation adjustments!

Before adjustments
LAB 44%, CON 30%, LDEM 11%, OTH 14%

After turnout:
LAB 44%, CON 31%, LDEM 11%, OTH 14%

After D/K allocation:
LAB 41%, CON 31%, LDEM 14%, OTH 13%


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on September 26, 2012, 01:50:12 PM
Jeremy Browne, perhaps the Lib Dems' most right-wing MP, also insulted lots of people who used to vote Lib Dem and told them to vote Labour.

At the same time, the Lib Dems seem to be desparate to say that people shouldn't vote Labour because the party contains Ed Balls; the other Ed hardly gets a mention.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 26, 2012, 04:21:13 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/sep/26/lib-dems-speech-digested-crace


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on September 26, 2012, 06:13:53 PM
 :D ;D


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 29, 2012, 02:53:35 PM
It's just been announced that Malcolm Wicks, Labour MP for Croydon North since 1997 (and Croydon North West 1992-1997), has died aged 65. He was a Social Policy academic before he was a politician and was a minister in the Blair and Brown governments.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Simfan34 on September 29, 2012, 02:58:43 PM
Labour safe seat I assume?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on September 29, 2012, 03:05:11 PM
It's just been announced that Malcolm Wicks, Labour MP for Croydon North since 1997, has died aged 65. He was a Social Policy academic before he was a politician and was a minister in the Blair and Brown governments.

RIP.


Taste, taste, taste.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on September 29, 2012, 05:25:15 PM
Rest in Peace.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 30, 2012, 08:45:02 AM
Wick's obit: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/sep/30/malcolm-wicks

As you can see, he's quite a loss.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 30, 2012, 08:46:56 AM
On a lighter note now...

Quote
Your Tory Party Chairman Name should be a tabula rasa for public trust. Mine, "William Coles", is perfect. Who wouldn't vote for William Coles? Good old Colesy. Firm but fair. Confident but reasonable. Strong in a crisis. Just looking at my new name on the page, I know I would implement a kindly yet sensible immigration policy.

"Grant Shapps" would be another good one. Short, brisk, efficient, not a syllable wasted. There's a guy who'll scale down the red tape.

"Michael Green" would also work well. Although "Grant Shapps" just edges it – according to the current Tory chairman, anyway, who chose to be Grant Shapps for politics and (until 2008) Michael Green for business purposes.

Last week, photographs emerged of Grant Shapps wearing a badge identifying him as Michael Green at a 2004 internet conference in Las Vegas. Some people have said the photo raises questions about his credibility, but I can't see what's sinister about a major government figure grinning from behind a false name at a Las Vegas conference while simultaneously applying to be an MP in another country under a different name entirely.

Full article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/30/victoria-coren-secret-identities-for-mps)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on September 30, 2012, 11:26:11 AM
Interesting. More than one politician has used their middle name for politics - Leonard James Callaghan for example.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 30, 2012, 01:55:53 PM
Interesting. More than one politician has used their middle name for politics - Leonard James Callaghan for example.

I think Prime Minister James Brown's got the best one.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 30, 2012, 02:37:15 PM
And so it begins again:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/09/29/david-miliband-told-aides-ed-would-crash-and-burn-as-labour-leader_n_1925819.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

The insecurity of all three leaders in this parliament is surely unprecedented. Someone has to fall first.


And gross:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/09/22/liberal-democrats-for-romney_n_1906326.html?utm_hp_ref=uk-politics


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 30, 2012, 05:22:41 PM
The insecurity of all three leaders in this parliament is surely unprecedented.

Not at all. The perception of insecurity - because in reality all are perfectly secure unless things are going on that we don't actually know about - for multiple party leaders is pretty common. For some especially extreme cases, look at the 60s.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 01, 2012, 12:05:43 PM
So, then. Jimmy Savile. The thing is... everyone knew. Which, when you think about it, is extremely disturbing.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: bore on October 01, 2012, 12:52:07 PM
If this is true (which more than likely, it is) expect to see Sir Jimmy become Jimmy, and everyone to change their mind quite quickly. It only took a few seconds to find gushing quotes from Hunt, Charles Kennedy and Mark Thompson.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on October 01, 2012, 05:56:14 PM
Oh dear....

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/01/alastair-campbell-may-stand-as-mp-in-general-election_n_1929886.html


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on October 02, 2012, 08:30:06 AM
10 minutes into the speech and Ed is, dare I say it, actually doing quite well.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Insula Dei on October 02, 2012, 09:26:57 AM
10 minutes into the speech and Ed is, dare I say it, actually doing quite well.

Yeah, pretty good speech.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on October 02, 2012, 09:42:41 AM
10 minutes into the speech and Ed is, dare I say it, actually doing quite well.

Caught a bit while I was out - his voice has improved since that sleep apnea operation, that's for sure.

Leadership rumours aren't going to start up - he has not "crashed and burned".


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on October 02, 2012, 11:47:06 AM
His media training was blatant, mind.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on October 02, 2012, 01:41:36 PM
That's been obvious since day one.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on October 03, 2012, 07:55:33 AM
Rank hypocrisy.
()


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on October 04, 2012, 10:36:55 AM
The first post-"One Nation" speech from YouGov gives Ed his highest rating as preferred Prime Minister ever. 27%.
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/6aw937uwlp/YG-Archives-Pol-Sun-results-031012.pdf

For some context, the first such poll of 2012 gave to Cameron at 41-17%.

Perceptions of Ed have also improved.
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/8h6kfbu889/YG-Archives-Pol-Sun-results-121003%20Ed%27s%20Speech%20%282%29.pdf


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on October 06, 2012, 06:48:37 AM
If you needed any confirmation that he's unqualified to be Health Secretary:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/05/jeremy-hunt-abortion-restrict-time-limit-no-concern-for-women_n_1944010.html?utm_hp_ref=uk


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on October 06, 2012, 10:32:26 AM
If you needed any confirmation that he's unqualified to be Health Secretary:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/05/jeremy-hunt-abortion-restrict-time-limit-no-concern-for-women_n_1944010.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

As long as legitimate medically-necessary abortions are still available, and there's nothing in his comments to suggest he thinks they should not be,  how does wanting to reduce the period in which elective abortions are available from 24 to 12 weeks make one unqualified to be health secretary?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on October 07, 2012, 05:35:37 AM
It certainly looks like Ed Miliband got a good bounce from his speech if you believe today's Sunday Times/YouGov poll: 40% say he's doing a good job (though still 49% say he's doing a bad one), up from 28% (57% bad) last week.  The headline figures are not bad either (Lab 45%, Con 31%, LD 8%), but YouGov has been quite volatile recently and that's at the top end of their normal range for Lab.

(Tables here (http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/tdixuso356/YG-Archives-Pol-ST-results%20-%2005-071012.pdf).)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on October 07, 2012, 06:09:09 AM
If you needed any confirmation that he's unqualified to be Health Secretary:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/05/jeremy-hunt-abortion-restrict-time-limit-no-concern-for-women_n_1944010.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

To be honest Hunt's views on homeopathy concern me more than his views on abortion.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on October 07, 2012, 06:37:29 AM
If you needed any confirmation that he's unqualified to be Health Secretary:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/05/jeremy-hunt-abortion-restrict-time-limit-no-concern-for-women_n_1944010.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

To be honest Hunt's views on homeopathy concern me more than his views on abortion.

Since any abortion change would have to go through Parliament on a conscience vote, I'm not too concerned about it. Frankly, I'm more concerned about the BSkyB stuff.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on October 07, 2012, 06:56:33 AM
It certainly looks like Ed Miliband got a good bounce from his speech if you believe today's Sunday Times/YouGov poll: 40% say he's doing a good job (though still 49% say he's doing a bad one), up from 28% (57% bad) last week.  The headline figures are not bad either (Lab 45%, Con 31%, LD 8%), but YouGov has been quite volatile recently and that's at the top end of their normal range for Lab.

(Tables here (http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/tdixuso356/YG-Archives-Pol-ST-results%20-%2005-071012.pdf).)

Ed's best since January 2011. Maybe he's finally getting somewhere...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 07, 2012, 06:59:03 AM
Lot of pink ribbons even around this way.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 07, 2012, 08:34:58 AM
Interesting:

http://dpmcbride.tumblr.com/post/32931120073/5-years-on-the-election-that-never-was


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on October 07, 2012, 01:31:01 PM
Interesting:

http://dpmcbride.tumblr.com/post/32931120073/5-years-on-the-election-that-never-was

Quote
Me: “Really? You want me to say Ed Miliband?” He looked surprised: “You need to watch Ed Miliband, he’s the one to watch.”

Gordon always was smarter than the media liked to believe.

And I agree with him in general on Ed. He has all the pieces to make a great PM, all except the piece of charisma and style. That's the one-up that his brother has.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on October 07, 2012, 07:26:09 PM
He was the future... once. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/oct/07/david-cameron-where-did-all-go-wrong)

And there's been some more bubbling of this Boris-Dave melodrama over the weekend. I really wish they'd take their schoolboy grudges elsewhere. I don't even know what Boris is playing at, I don't think he wants this poisoned chalice.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on October 08, 2012, 04:32:24 AM
Am I the only one who thinks that the government's economic policies are reminiscent of the long-since-discredited medical practice of 'bleeding'?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Insula Dei on October 08, 2012, 01:36:59 PM
Soooooo,..., Grant Shapps no future Tory Leader after all?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 08, 2012, 01:47:45 PM
Soooooo,..., Grant Shapps no future Tory Leader after all?

Seems not. But maybe Michael Green has a shot.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on October 08, 2012, 07:28:51 PM
Boris entering conference, er woah. And Dave's bitterness on his own walk-and-talk-with-reporters-chasing-him on ITN really shone through.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on October 10, 2012, 06:35:50 AM
So, er, Dave does what he always does, giving Ed the win in terms of conference speeches.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on October 13, 2012, 11:58:04 AM
Stuart Bell has died. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-19936270)

RIP.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on October 13, 2012, 12:29:56 PM
RIP.

"Sir Stuart was the son of Durham miner", though. That sentence should unite in crawling the flesh of anybody loving the British class system and its trappings and that of anybody looking at it with derision.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 13, 2012, 12:31:20 PM
A GMB-backed North Eastern right-winger of the old school and a devoted francophile. Attracted a fair bit of negative publicity in recent years, his style of MP being very much out of fashion these days. Probably, though, he's most notable for something he did early into his time as MP: he became the spokesman for the families affected by the Cleveland child abuse scandal in the late 1980s.

Also, there can't be many people who have been Second Church Commissioner and also published a pornographic novel.

RIP


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on October 13, 2012, 05:06:44 PM
Rest in Peace.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 14, 2012, 05:07:20 PM
Grauniad obit (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/oct/14/stuart-bell)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: countydurhamboy on October 15, 2012, 12:21:52 PM
RIP to Sir Stuart Bell



Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on October 15, 2012, 01:34:17 PM
Helen Pidd (yes, I know) of the Guardian has written another article about George Galloway and Bradford (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/oct/14/george-galloway-losing-respect-bradford).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on October 15, 2012, 03:54:25 PM
Cable appears to be playing apologist to Osborne's shares-for-rights horsesh**t over on LDV (http://www.libdemvoice.org/vince-cable-mp-writes-my-view-on-george-osbornes-employee-ownership-scheme-30780.html). Well that's an open goal for Labour to capitalise on if he is the Liberal's replacement.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on October 16, 2012, 06:57:49 AM
McKinnon extradition blocked on human rights grounds (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19957138)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Franzl on October 16, 2012, 07:21:09 AM
McKinnon extradition blocked on human rights grounds (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19957138)

This is a good decision, as American justice would be totally disproportionate and doesn't care much about circrumstances such as these.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on October 16, 2012, 07:28:15 PM
The BBC reaches levels of self-parody:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19967916


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on October 17, 2012, 10:58:30 AM
That's my girl! Show that Tory bastard who's boss!

()


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: freefair on October 17, 2012, 11:54:07 AM
That's Cameron's cat vs Osbourne's cat.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on October 17, 2012, 12:10:10 PM
That's Cameron's cat vs Osbourne's cat.
I know she lives in Osbourne's household, but you have to ignore some annoying facts when you want to construct a simple morality story out of a real life event. ^-^

And I'm not aware of any pictures of her like the smarmy one of him that the BBC is showing.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Peter the Lefty on October 17, 2012, 12:52:18 PM
Alan Johnson in a stupid Blairite Americanophile rage over the McKinnon thing.  Christ.  You know something's wrong when Labour wanted to kiss the US government's @$$ even more than the Torries.  Oh well.  Even more of the ugly legacy of Tony Blair.  
()


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on October 18, 2012, 11:12:04 AM
Disgusting. Truly disgusting.

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/local/gay-ulster-born-mp-conor-burns-not-for-same-sex-marriage-1-4381544


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 19, 2012, 12:04:31 PM
lolgeorgeosborne


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on October 19, 2012, 12:30:05 PM
LOL Andrew Mitchell! (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19922026)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 19, 2012, 12:35:13 PM
hahahahaha!


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on October 19, 2012, 12:39:15 PM
If only Osborne would do the same.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on October 19, 2012, 12:47:14 PM
I don't like to judge people based on their looks....but Mitchell looks like a idiot, doesn't he? Good riddance.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: bore on October 19, 2012, 03:44:18 PM
If I were a torie, I'd be thankful that the conservatives weren't pinning their hopes for re election on political genius extraordinaire George Osbourne. Oh wait.



Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on October 20, 2012, 05:51:42 AM
So, Mitchell has finally gone.  I suspect he could have kept his job if he'd apologised clearly and immediately without coming across as so evasive about what he actually said.  Cameron has a bit of a record now for letting people hang on for too long when it's become clear that their position is untenable; see also Fox and Coulson.

The Osborne thing (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/oct/19/george-osborne-standard-ticket-first-class-train) may be a non-story, if you believe the Virgin Trains version of events.  But if you believe the ITV journalist who broke the story, it has an air of "don't you know who I am" arrogance and self-importance, not unlike the Mitchell story without the swearing and insults.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 21, 2012, 12:57:04 PM
Walter Harrison, Labour's legendary deputy Chief Whip in the 1970s, is reported to have died aged 91.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on October 21, 2012, 05:29:48 PM
ComRes saying that the two Eds are now level on economic (in)competence with the PM and George. Worrying for the Tories.



Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 22, 2012, 07:57:08 PM
Walter Harrison, Labour's legendary deputy Chief Whip in the 1970s, is reported to have died aged 91.

Torygraph obit. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/9626444/Walter-Harrison.html)

Highlights include:

Quote
Harrison developed an array of wheezes. They included getting three members to vote each way in a committee to make it look as if a quorum were present (for which Mellish apologised to the House), and blocking one of the division lobbies (undertaken with Scottish Nationalists to prevent the Tories winning a vote against devolution).

Quote
One day in May 1968 he was whipping on two Committees at once when a vote was called on the Finance Bill. He arrived just as the door was closing, forced his way through and voted. When the Shadow Chancellor Iain Macleod challenged his vote, Harrison said he had been three-quarters in and had pulled his leg in after him. The chairman declared the vote carried by 22¾ to 22.

Quote
...Jasper More, came downstairs complaining he had not slept a wink because of his colleague’s snores. Harrison volunteered to swap with him. The next day he came down whistling cheerfully . “How did you manage that?” asked More. “It was simple,” replied Harrison. “Just as he put out the light I said: 'Give us a kiss, love’, and he sat bolt upright all night.”

Quote
In December 1973, at the height of the Arab oil embargo, he tried his techniques on a petrol pump attendant who refused to serve him unless he could produce a credit card. Harrison blocked the garage with his Jaguar for 45 minutes until the police arrested him; he was not charged. For a time his car was registered KHE 2L (standing for “Kick Harrison’s Enemies To Hell”).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on October 23, 2012, 04:55:12 AM
Two SNP MSPs leave party over NATO policy change (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20041667)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on October 23, 2012, 07:29:40 AM
This is....interesting.

http://danielfurr.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/who-are-the-politicians-linked-to-savile/


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Insula Dei on October 23, 2012, 07:52:23 AM
lol, British libel laws.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on October 23, 2012, 01:23:44 PM
Two SNP MSPs leave party over NATO policy change (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20041667)

Wonder how many'll leave when Scotland votes no.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on October 23, 2012, 01:35:52 PM
Two SNP MSPs leave party over NATO policy change (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20041667)
Can't say I agree with the policy change.

Interesting that all three quoted opponents are Highlanders; is that coincidence or is opposition to Trident a specifically Highland issue? That would make only limited sense given that they're stationed off Bute.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 23, 2012, 01:39:25 PM
There have been rumours of that sort about the former member for Bexley and the former member for North Devon for decades. Thing is, as the homophobic tendency to automatically associate homosexuality with predatory behavior and paedophilia was much more pronounced in the past than it is now, it could easily be a load of nonsense; even if the Savile nastiness demonstrates that ghastly rumours are sometimes based on truth. Caution is required.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Insula Dei on October 23, 2012, 01:54:48 PM
I remember the Dutroux Period over here, when there were a lot of stories about 'sex and murder' parties involving everbody from the Prime Minister to the Archbishop. If that's the way the Saville story is headed across the Channel, that'd be...an interesting study in media hysteria vs. libel laws.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on October 23, 2012, 01:57:03 PM
All the "former members for Bexley" are dead. I thought you could freely libel the dead in Britain.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on October 23, 2012, 03:49:19 PM
All the "former members for Bexley" are dead. I thought you could freely libel the dead in Britain.


You can, for the moment.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 23, 2012, 04:29:29 PM
All the "former members for Bexley" are dead. I thought you could freely libel the dead in Britain.

Indeed you can. This was just a stylistic choice.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 24, 2012, 06:10:12 PM
Walter Harrison, Labour's legendary deputy Chief Whip in the 1970s, is reported to have died aged 91.

And the Indie (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/walter-harrison-labour-whip-whose-efforts-did-much-to-keep-the-party-in-power-in-the-1970s-8225271.html), and the Grauniad. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/oct/23/walter-harrison?newsfeed=true)

Very much worth reading if you've any interest in British politics in the 1970s.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on October 24, 2012, 08:08:31 PM
Any idea what caused the bitterness between him and Kinnock?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 25, 2012, 04:40:34 AM
Any idea what caused the bitterness between him and Kinnock?

Kinnock was regarded as a troublemaker in the 1970s.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on October 25, 2012, 04:51:32 AM
UK has exited recession with a 1.0% GDP growth in Q3. A good chunk of that is due to the Olympics, but by no means all.

Question is whether this can be sustained and whether the unemployment numbers come down.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on October 25, 2012, 11:30:59 AM
UK has exited recession with a 1.0% GDP growth in Q3. A good chunk of that is due to the Olympics, but by no means all.

Question is whether this can be sustained and whether the unemployment numbers come down.

A recovery for London, sure, but what of the rest of us?


Oh, and lol at Mike Smithson talking up Theresa May mounting a leadership challenge. That'll be the day when I realise that the Tory party has, once and for all, without question, had leave of its senses.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Serenity Now on October 26, 2012, 07:15:03 AM
Do we think it would be appropriate to set up a North Croydon by-election thread yet? The reason I ask is that I've just found out that Labour have drawn up a shortlist of 5 candidates (from a Facebook post by one of them).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 26, 2012, 07:56:29 AM
Do we think it would be appropriate to set up a North Croydon by-election thread yet? The reason I ask is that I've just found out that Labour have drawn up a shortlist of 5 candidates (from a Facebook post by one of them).

Sure


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on October 27, 2012, 05:44:38 AM
Oh Mr. Griffin ::)
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/26/nick-griffin-gay-racist-bnp-leeds-student-homophobic_n_2022540.html?utm_hp_ref=uk


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on October 31, 2012, 05:01:51 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20157063

How important is this?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on November 01, 2012, 07:55:53 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/11/01/george-osborne-william-hague-was-unprincipled-as-tory-leader_n_2055284.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

Seems a bit... odd


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on November 01, 2012, 08:18:50 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20157063

How important is this?
Remains to be seen, really. Its implications, rather than the actual defeat, of course.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on November 02, 2012, 07:19:53 AM
With a punishment like that, he might as well take the Chiltern Hundreds if he gets it (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-20178332)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 02, 2012, 09:35:35 AM
Naughty boy. Nice safe seat for anyone that wants it, ala Barnsley.

Anyways, the Chairman of the Standards and Priviliges Committee is Kevin Barron who happens to represent a constituency that borders on Rotherham (Rother Valley).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 02, 2012, 10:16:43 AM
Certain internet rumours are probably left uncommented on.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on November 02, 2012, 10:30:35 AM
Certain internet rumours are probably left uncommented on.

No doubt it'll be an anti-climax anyway... should we be talking about the same thing, of course.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 02, 2012, 10:54:55 AM
I would be surprised if we aren't.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on November 02, 2012, 11:32:09 AM
???


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on November 02, 2012, 11:33:16 AM
Breaking news: MacShane has resigned as an MP.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on November 02, 2012, 11:40:43 AM
Breaking news: MacShane has resigned as an MP.

Yet another by-election in a safe Labour seat then....


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 02, 2012, 12:03:18 PM
Breaking news: MacShane has resigned as an MP.

Yet another by-election in a safe Labour seat then....

I wonder how many of the names on the Barnsley shortlist will appear on this one. Just down the road, after all.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 02, 2012, 12:18:13 PM

Type 'newsnight' into the search thingy on the twitters.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on November 02, 2012, 01:31:27 PM

Just had a read through some of them, and at least four tweets specifically name an individual....


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on November 02, 2012, 01:37:52 PM

Just had a read through some of them, and at least four tweets specifically name an individual....

Jesus, I thought it was meant to be someone prominent.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on November 02, 2012, 01:38:13 PM
Breaking news: MacShane has resigned as an MP.

Yet another by-election in a safe Labour seat then....

I wonder how many of the names on the Barnsley shortlist will appear on this one. Just down the road, after all.

One of the candidates on the Middlesbrough shortlist, Mahroof Hussain, is a councillor in this constituency (and stood in Sheffield Hallam in 2005).

I'm please MacShane's gone.  It would have been ridiculous to leave Rotherham without an MP for a year as the committee's recommended punishment suggested, the offence seems bad enough to say that he should go, and he was never one of my favourite Labour MPs anyway.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 02, 2012, 02:41:50 PM
http://www.channel4.com/news/former-senior-political-figure-accused-of-sex-assault


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 02, 2012, 02:53:56 PM
I'm please MacShane's gone.  It would have been ridiculous to leave Rotherham without an MP for a year as the committee's recommended punishment suggested, the offence seems bad enough to say that he should go, and he was never one of my favourite Labour MPs anyway.

Don't really disagree, although MacShane did have his good points. Suspect that whoever replaces him will be significantly more boring, but probably a much better MP.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 02, 2012, 05:16:10 PM
Newsnight is on in fifteen minutes. Oddly for something driven by the internet, this has the feel of an old-fashioned television event. A rather tasteless one, mind.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on November 02, 2012, 05:52:36 PM
Newsnight is on in fifteen minutes. Oddly for something driven by the internet, this has the feel of an old-fashioned television event. A rather tasteless one, mind.

No one was mentioned of course. No doubt the chairman put a stop to it. It is not constructive to name any names of course, we shouldn't make this into a public 'referendum' less it resonate all the way to Australia.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 02, 2012, 06:18:03 PM
Yes, in the end they were never likely to as libel law is what it is (amongst other reasons). Have to wonder what the day will do to Newsnight's (already rather battered) reputation, and also where the story goes from here.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 02, 2012, 06:20:16 PM
Certainly you get the impression that Newsnight will probably not be using the Bureau for Investigative Journalism again.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on November 03, 2012, 10:19:11 PM
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-the-texts-between-cameron-and-brooks-8280606.html

More Cam-Brookes texts released.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: alexmanu on November 04, 2012, 12:53:31 PM
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-the-texts-between-cameron-and-brooks-8280606.html

More Cam-Brookes texts released.

Awww they're like best buds!


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on November 04, 2012, 07:39:11 PM
Christ.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/11/04/mitt-romney-uk-press_n_2073476.html?1352064700&utm_hp_ref=uk


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 05, 2012, 08:16:20 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2012/nov/05/secret-state-chris-mullin-vicar


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on November 05, 2012, 08:50:47 PM
I had no idea that the Secret State was (loosely) based on A Very British Coup, nor that it was set in Teesside! Will definitely be watching. I enjoyed the C4's actual adaptation of the book, even if it did needlessly change some fundamental parts.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on November 07, 2012, 05:31:44 AM
Nadine Dorries gets Tory whip suspended for going on reality show in Australia (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20217901)

Kind of difficult to talk about abortion with a mouthful of insects.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on November 07, 2012, 05:35:51 AM
Anyone know when the late editions of the paper are usually available? I wanna go and get some election souvenirs and all the earlys were printed when it was still pretty close.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on November 07, 2012, 05:59:36 AM
Nadine Dorries gets Tory whip suspended for going on reality show in Australia (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20217901)

Kind of difficult to talk about abortion with a mouthful of insects.

What the f**k is she doing.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on November 07, 2012, 03:14:09 PM
Nadine Dorries gets Tory whip suspended for going on reality show in Australia (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20217901)

Kind of difficult to talk about abortion with a mouthful of insects.

What the f**k is she doing.

Publicity seeking.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Insula Dei on November 08, 2012, 11:56:13 AM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/video/2012/nov/08/david-cameron-this-morning-video

Gotta give credit where credit's due: Cameron is handling this whole mess quite well.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on November 08, 2012, 01:32:07 PM
Not understanding the "gay witch hunt" comment...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 08, 2012, 01:59:24 PM

There's a (really quite vile) homophobic tendency - one that isn't as common as it used to be, though it's still around - to assert that all gay men are child abusers.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on November 08, 2012, 04:48:26 PM

There's a (really quite vile) homophobic tendency - one that isn't as common as it used to be, though it's still around - to assert that all gay men are child abusers.

Which is why I was glad he brought it up. A lot of these gossip sites have that tendency and have 'named' swathes of closeted MP's and political bigwigs.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 08, 2012, 06:17:20 PM
Grauniad is claiming that Alistair McAlpine is a victim of mistaken identity. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/nov/08/mistaken-identity-tory-abuse-claim)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on November 09, 2012, 08:34:01 PM

There's a (really quite vile) homophobic tendency - one that isn't as common as it used to be, though it's still around - to assert that all gay men are child abusers.

Oh, no, I know that, but what I don't understand is why he said it. I would've thought that even David Cameron was above such disgusting nonsense.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 09, 2012, 08:39:14 PM
So then. Newsnight. Can it survive after this fiasco? Does it even deserve to? And what might a new flagship programme of that type look like or be called?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on November 14, 2012, 05:16:41 AM

At the moment, she's merely managed to get covered in cockroaches and have to eat insects.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on November 14, 2012, 05:41:26 AM
It's terrible publicity. Career poison. I still don't understand her motive.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on November 14, 2012, 07:02:30 AM
It's terrible publicity. Career poison. I still don't understand her motive.

She's probably going to get more votes than she'll ever get as an MP though....


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on November 14, 2012, 12:32:55 PM
It's terrible publicity. Career poison. I still don't understand her motive.

It's not like she was ever gonna go anywhere with her career.

At least this gives her the chance to pull a Galloway or a Kilroy and go all minor party crazy.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 14, 2012, 01:31:29 PM
It's terrible publicity. Career poison. I still don't understand her motive.

WANT ATTENTION

Besides, she didn't have a career anyway.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on November 17, 2012, 04:26:36 PM
Not quite sure what's gonna come of this...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9685693/Conservatives-hire-Boriss-campaign-guru-for-2015-election.html


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on November 17, 2012, 05:05:29 PM
Not quite sure what's gonna come of this...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9685693/Conservatives-hire-Boriss-campaign-guru-for-2015-election.html

A majority.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on November 17, 2012, 07:02:32 PM
Not quite sure what's gonna come of this...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9685693/Conservatives-hire-Boriss-campaign-guru-for-2015-election.html

A majority.

So, no gay marriage before 2019?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on November 17, 2012, 07:29:08 PM
Not quite sure what's gonna come of this...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9685693/Conservatives-hire-Boriss-campaign-guru-for-2015-election.html

A majority.

If he can turn Dave into a Boris-style superstar, then yes.

Although, I'd choose a Tory majority over another Con-Lib sham.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: countydurhamboy on November 17, 2012, 08:50:07 PM

The only party getting a majority in 2015 is Labour. The electoral arithmetic is against the tories, they would need to increase their vote share, which no party in power has done since 1974, to stand a chance. If the tories get rid of Osborne, they might deprive Milliband of a majority. As things stand now however, they will be swept aside.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: DC Al Fine on November 17, 2012, 09:11:01 PM

The only party getting a majority in 2015 is Labour. The electoral arithmetic is against the tories, they would need to increase their vote share, which no party in power has done since 1974, to stand a chance. If the tories get rid of Osborne, they might deprive Milliband of a majority. As things stand now however, they will be swept aside.

If UKIP suddenly disappeared they'd have a fighting chance. Of course that's not going to happen.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: MrMittens on November 18, 2012, 05:12:01 AM
The Conservatives need to get rid of David Cameron. He's poison to the party now.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on November 18, 2012, 05:15:19 AM
Except polling shows he's reliably more popular than his party?

The arithmetic is an important point. With a 7% lead the Conservatives still couldn't win a majority, and they'd need to extend that lead in 2015 if they were going to. Instead Labour's leading them in the polls by 10%.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 18, 2012, 07:47:17 AM
The main reason why the Tories failed to win a majority in 2010 despite a large popular vote lead is the fact that a lot of constituencies that once formed part of their automatic total have been voting LibDem since 1997 or so.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: DC Al Fine on November 18, 2012, 08:54:07 AM
The main reason why the Tories failed to win a majority in 2010 despite a large popular vote lead is the fact that a lot of constituencies that once formed part of their automatic total have been voting LibDem since 1997 or so.

Won't that change once the LibDems get destroyed in 2015? If they stay around 10% in the polls, there's like 25-40 guaranteed seats for the Tories.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: countydurhamboy on November 18, 2012, 10:36:19 AM
The main reason why the Tories failed to win a majority in 2010 despite a large popular vote lead is the fact that a lot of constituencies that once formed part of their automatic total have been voting LibDem since 1997 or so.

Won't that change once the LibDems get destroyed in 2015? If they stay around 10% in the polls, there's like 25-40 guaranteed seats for the Tories.

It's very unlikely the Tories will unseat so many sitting Lib Dem MPs. The last locals showed the Lib Dems holding up in most of these areas. They seem to have a knack of holding on against the odds. At most the tories take 25 seats.

The moment the Lib Dems signed the coalition agreement, they lost about 5% in the polls to the Labour party overnight, thats never coming back. What people forget is thats increased Labour support in Tory marginals too. The Tories now have to make up for this up somehow, there is no recent historical precedent for a party in power in Westminster gaining this support.

This is before we factor in loss of support from policies like tuition fees and Public sector pensions.  Since the budget the government is lurching from one disaster to another. I really do not see anyway that the Tories can win on 2015.

I actually wonder if the party has much of a future left.






Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on November 18, 2012, 12:38:47 PM
I actually wonder if the party has much of a future left.

If they lose in 2015, it'll have been 23 years since a victory for them...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on November 18, 2012, 12:53:35 PM
Of course it has a future. It's just (probably) not going to win the next election.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: countydurhamboy on November 18, 2012, 07:10:07 PM
I spent over an hour on a post expanding on why I thought the tories were in trouble and I lost it :(  These were the key points.

1. Their failure to get a majority in 2010 in ideal circumstances.

2. They seem to have a very low potential vote. A large number of voters in the North, Scotland , Wales and in urban areas will never vote for them. They have a very toxic brand.

3. Increase in the ethnic majority population, while many tory pensioners have retired abroad.

4. Policies like the increase in tuition fees and reducing public sector pensions may well suppress the tory vote amongst those people for a long time.

5 The split in the right due UKIP. The creation of the coalition will mean the left is the most united for years.

6 The collapse in Tory membership (down to close to 100,000) and the seeming death wish of their backbench MP's.

This could change, they say "a week is a long time in politics" I'm talking about an eternity.   The Tories badly need to get new voters from somewhere.


Im not being a hack or a troll, I honestly think they are in real trouble.







Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on November 18, 2012, 07:16:39 PM
I spent over an hour on a post expanding on why I thought the tories were in trouble and I lost it :(  These were the key points.

1. Their failure to get a majority in 2010 in ideal circumstances.

2. They seem to have a very low potential vote. A large number of voters in the North, Scotland , Wales and in urban areas will never vote for them. They have a very toxic brand.

3. Increase in the ethnic majority population, while many tory pensioners have retired abroad.

4. Policies like the increase in tuition fees and reducing public sector pensions may well suppress the tory vote amongst those people for a long time.

5 The split in the right due UKIP. The creation of the coalition will mean the left is the most united for years.

6 The collapse in Tory membership (down to close to 100,000) and the seeming death wish of their backbench MP's.

This could change, they say "a week is a long time in politics" I'm talking about an eternity.   The Tories badly need to get new voters from somewhere.


Im not being a hack or a troll, I honestly think they are in real trouble.







Labour's the natural party of government now and it has been since Black Wednesday.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on November 19, 2012, 03:56:44 AM
The main reason why the Tories failed to win a majority in 2010 despite a large popular vote lead is the fact that a lot of constituencies that once formed part of their automatic total have been voting LibDem since 1997 or so.

Won't that change once the LibDems get destroyed in 2015? If they stay around 10% in the polls, there's like 25-40 guaranteed seats for the Tories.

The amount of Liberal seats that'd fall to the Tories is massively outnumbered by the Tory-Labour marginals in which Labour would gain, since the Liberal defections mostly transfer to them. Even if and when the Liberals 'get out of the way' for the Tories, there are other important factors that led to a large lead in vote share but without the seats for it - with differential turnout being one (ie Tory safe seat turning out in hordes in comparison to safe Labour seat, but with the net result being a seat apiece).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: bore on November 19, 2012, 11:14:27 AM
We can't really know how big a problem UKIP are going to be until the actual election, especially after all the phantom surges recently - and it wouldn't surprise to see a swift fall in their vote if it does become clear they cost the tories a majority.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: MrMittens on November 19, 2012, 11:19:13 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9687338/Big-task-ahead-for-Lynton-Crosby.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9687338/Big-task-ahead-for-Lynton-Crosby.html)

Crosby returns!


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 19, 2012, 09:35:54 PM
Quote
S4C is investigating complaints of alleged racism and sexism following a broadcast of the Young Farmers' National Eisteddfod.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-20403439

Quote
The farming group claimed it was "innocent fun" and apologised for any offence caused.

One sketch which attracted complaints showed two members of the eisteddfod impersonating Chinese men.

Another showed a man wearing a pair of fake breasts and impersonating a woman.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: MrMittens on November 20, 2012, 12:52:57 PM
Quote
S4C is investigating complaints of alleged racism and sexism following a broadcast of the Young Farmers' National Eisteddfod.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-20403439

Quote
The farming group claimed it was "innocent fun" and apologised for any offence caused.

One sketch which attracted complaints showed two members of the eisteddfod impersonating Chinese men.

Another showed a man wearing a pair of fake breasts and impersonating a woman.

Hah.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on November 20, 2012, 01:54:56 PM
This is clearly Antiwelsh racism. They were impersonating Welshmen most of the time.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on November 23, 2012, 05:49:02 PM
Rotherham council's taken away three children from their foster parents because they were members of UKIP and that signals "racism".

hmm....


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: politicus on November 23, 2012, 06:03:20 PM
Rotherham council's taken away three children from their foster parents because they were members of UKIP and that signals "racism".

hmm....
Sad. Seems the UK is getting more and more intolerant all the time.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on November 23, 2012, 06:29:53 PM
Rotherham council's taken away three children from their foster parents because they were members of UKIP and that signals "racism".

hmm....
Sad. Seems the UK is getting more and more intolerant all the time.

To be fair, UKIP doesn't have the best record on racism, but they're not exactly the BNP.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 23, 2012, 06:32:36 PM
With stories like this it's generally better to wait a little while before passing either comment or judgment...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on November 23, 2012, 06:44:40 PM
Rotherham council's taken away three children from their foster parents because they were members of UKIP and that signals "racism".

hmm....
Hahahaha. That's a joke.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: DC Al Fine on November 23, 2012, 08:15:56 PM
Rotherham council's taken away three children from their foster parents because they were members of UKIP and that signals "racism".

hmm....

Link?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on November 23, 2012, 08:57:20 PM
Rotherham council's taken away three children from their foster parents because they were members of UKIP and that signals "racism".

hmm....

Link?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9700001/Foster-parents-stigmatised-and-slandered-for-being-members-of-Ukip.html


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on November 24, 2012, 10:37:30 AM
Labour's come out against the UKIP thing.
https://twitter.com/labourpress/status/272258241508032512


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Vote UKIP! on November 24, 2012, 01:53:01 PM
This incident has been rather disgusting.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: DC Al Fine on November 24, 2012, 05:26:46 PM
Rotherham council's taken away three children from their foster parents because they were members of UKIP and that signals "racism".

hmm....

Link?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9700001/Foster-parents-stigmatised-and-slandered-for-being-members-of-Ukip.html

Thanks. This is chilling albeit minor incident. More and more of these incidents seem to be cropping up in the UK lately.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: freefair on November 24, 2012, 06:29:13 PM
Horrific. UKIP are a very right wing party, ofc, but within the bounds of normality- not far right at all. Gove is right, this is indefensible, and Rotherham Council have had the PR armageddon they so thoroughly deserve for his act of totalitarian insanity. Hopefully the couple get their foster kids back- they sound like lovely people (ex Labour people too!). I hope  this really really badly affects the by election result for the Labour candidiate. I'd love to see UKIP get a seatm or see them top 30% and shave the Labour vote to the bone (ie sub 35%). Unlikely, but it would be wonderful. As if Rotherham CLP hadn't already shamed themselves with McShane.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on November 25, 2012, 09:52:30 AM
Oh wow. That is hilarious. Hilariously stupid on account of the officer in question, that is.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Vote UKIP! on November 25, 2012, 09:28:16 PM
Quote from: Young Independence Facebook Status
Nigel Farage has announced there will be no pact with the Tories.

This after they had posted a Tory memo calling for a Tory-UKIP pact.

http://thepactreport.wordpress.com/ (http://thepactreport.wordpress.com/)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on November 26, 2012, 05:48:52 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9703678/Exclusive-Eight-Tory-MPs-in-talks-about-defecting-to-Ukip.html


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Vote UKIP! on November 26, 2012, 06:11:20 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9703678/Exclusive-Eight-Tory-MPs-in-talks-about-defecting-to-Ukip.html

Between the disgusting Rotherham scandal, the PM's remarks, the Tory-UKIP alliance memo, and now 8 prospective parliamentary defectors, I would say Nigel has had a very good week.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on November 27, 2012, 01:42:54 PM
The long-lasting rumours about Cyril Smith have been confirmed.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 27, 2012, 01:58:33 PM
The fact that he never sued even when things were more than hinted in print - and he was not a poor man - always did speak volumes...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on November 27, 2012, 04:06:35 PM
Pretty scary to think that stuff like this probably was (is?) used by the whips as leverage (blackmail?).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 27, 2012, 04:33:08 PM
Smith was actually (if briefly) the Liberals Chief Whip.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on November 28, 2012, 08:52:32 AM
If I had £1 for every failed coalition reform...

()


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on November 28, 2012, 12:27:44 PM
The big thing about that is that they'd have been better off not in it.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on November 28, 2012, 12:58:11 PM
The long-lasting rumours about Cyril Smith have been confirmed.

Does Cyril Smith was the rather "large" Liberal MP?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on November 28, 2012, 01:15:45 PM
Yep.

In other news, Hague's made it obvious UK's gonna abstain from another Palestinian bid.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Meeker on November 28, 2012, 03:30:12 PM
Welp: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20529287


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on November 28, 2012, 04:32:02 PM
The big thing about that is that they'd have been better off not in it.

I know.

Contrasts with Blair's New Deal quite a bit...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 28, 2012, 05:33:55 PM
The long-lasting rumours about Cyril Smith have been confirmed.

Does Cyril Smith was the rather "large" Liberal MP?

This is so, yeah.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 03, 2012, 05:23:51 PM
A rather bizarre and disturbing story from Norfolk: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-20577126


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Barnes on December 03, 2012, 10:34:32 PM
Only in Britain! ;D

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20573227


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: politicus on December 03, 2012, 11:10:27 PM
Only in Britain! ;D

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20573227
Complete overreaction by the Tories.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Barnes on December 03, 2012, 11:12:27 PM
Only in Britain! ;D

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20573227
Complete overreaction by the Tories.

Oh, of course, and for such a seemingly insignificant backbencher.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on December 04, 2012, 09:03:06 AM
More likely the arrogant posh boys were taking the opportunity to knife Dorries, who had become a nuisance to them. In that regard, I'd be surprised to see them let her back in.   


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Insula Dei on December 05, 2012, 11:36:35 AM
So, Autumn Statement. Any reactions?

Will we see the Tories fall below 30 in polls over the next 2 weeks or so?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 05, 2012, 11:39:02 AM
They already have in a couple. Generally of the less than entirely reputable kind, of course.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on December 05, 2012, 03:35:39 PM
()

A picture says 1000 words...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on December 05, 2012, 06:35:31 PM
Pleased with the capping of benefits rises to 1%. Public Sector workers, particularly those in HMRC and DWP who deal with benefit claimants haven't even had a pay rise.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: k-onmmunist on December 05, 2012, 06:50:49 PM
making the poor pay for the recession the rich caused - i do love this country!


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on December 05, 2012, 07:55:09 PM
Pleased with the capping of benefits rises to 1%. Public Sector workers, particularly those in HMRC and DWP who deal with benefit claimants haven't even had a pay rise.

Right, because making the poorest people even poorer must be an enormous sense of comfort for them. In the same way it was an enormous help to private sector workers to see public sector workers get their pensions reduced. Congrats on peddling the usual Tory disingenuous bollocks.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on December 06, 2012, 07:05:47 AM
http://www.ftadviser.com/2012/12/06/investments/economic-indicators/fitch-warns-uk-on-aaa-rating-over-debt-credibility-yd47SpU71vgyyfU5xVy8OI/article.html

Fitch playing the role of Captain Obvious.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on December 06, 2012, 12:35:51 PM
Is this "Nick a Celeb" week or something?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 06, 2012, 12:41:46 PM
I think Max Clifford needs to hire someone to look after his image.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Andrea on December 07, 2012, 04:33:46 PM
Former Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth has announced today that he will retire in 2015.

I believe he's the 10th MP to announce retirement. The others are James Arbuthnot (Con, NE Hampshire), Glenda Jackson (Lab, Hampstead & Kilburn), John Denham (Lab, Southampton Itchen), Dawn Primarolo (Lab, Bristol South), Eric Joyce (Lab turned Ind after he head buttrf some Tories; Falkirk), Martin Caton (Lab, Gower), John Stanley (Con, Tonbridge and Malling)
Peter Luff (Con, Mid Worcestershire), Richard Ottaway (Con, Croydon South).

Don't feel bad if you have never heard of a couple of them or if you thought Stanley retired 15 years ago.




Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 09, 2012, 12:15:17 PM
Obviously the main news story of the day is the death of Sir Patrick Moore.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on December 09, 2012, 12:18:37 PM
Obviously the main news story of the day is the death of Sir Patrick Moore.

Indeed - a superb astronomer.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Tetro Kornbluth on December 10, 2012, 07:05:06 AM
Obviously the main news story of the day is the death of Sir Patrick Moore.

RIP.

The last two days I've been without internet so this is the first I've heard of it. Bizarrely I remember thinking about him on Saturday and wondering if he was still alive... now I know.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: k-onmmunist on December 10, 2012, 08:06:23 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/10/gay-marriage-john-major-move-on-and-accept_n_2269622.html

John Major endorses gay marriage.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on December 10, 2012, 01:20:01 PM
So, er... This just happened.

()

Labour's lead over the Tories being higher than the Tory's over UKIP. UKIP doubling the LD vote. To take comfort, remember that TNS aren't that good of a pollster.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 10, 2012, 01:22:55 PM
Er... lol. Anyways, why on earth is a Marches football club conducting political opinion polls?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: bore on December 10, 2012, 01:27:20 PM
If these polls hold up (which I doubt), its going to be impossible to ban Farage from the leaders debates, which should be fun.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on December 10, 2012, 01:28:12 PM
Er... lol. Anyways, why on earth is a Marches football club conducting political opinion polls?

In 2010, they got 33-27-29. Says it all.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on December 10, 2012, 01:30:55 PM
If these polls hold up (which I doubt), its going to be impossible to ban Farage from the leaders debates, which should be fun.

Day after the first debate....

Labour - 39%
UKIP - 37%
Conservatives - 15%
Lib Dems - -5767488599%


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on December 10, 2012, 01:31:36 PM
If these polls hold up (which I doubt), its going to be impossible to ban Farage from the leaders debates, which should be fun.

It won't be impossible, just very difficult. The vast majority of voters still wouldn't know who he was if they fell over him on the street.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on December 10, 2012, 01:42:11 PM
Canada 1993 2.0 here we come?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on December 10, 2012, 01:53:05 PM
That would actually have the combined Right more than Labour (even omitting the support for an increasingly FDP-type Liberals). Although it's difficult to look at those figures without a sense of pleasure, given it'd a) ensure a Labour landslide and b) a fracturing of the Right offers the possibility of a more ambitious Left and even a desire for PR arising in the Right.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on December 10, 2012, 02:10:31 PM
If these polls hold up (which I doubt), its going to be impossible to ban Farage from the leaders debates, which should be fun.

It seems as if Cameron doesn't want as many debates next time anyway. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/dec/10/david-cameron-tv-election-debate)

I think high UKIP shares (though 16% is surely an outlier) could last until fairly close to the election, but I still assume (as I think most do) that a lot of people currently saying they'll vote UKIP will shift back to where they came from (so in many cases the Tories) in the end.  The other question is how robust the Lib Dem to Lab shift is going to be.



Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Insula Dei on December 10, 2012, 02:14:37 PM
Obviously the main news story of the day is the death of Sir Patrick Moore.

RIP.

The last two days I've been without internet so this is the first I've heard of it. Bizarrely I remember thinking about him on Saturday and wondering if he was still alive... now I know.

It's funny you should say that (well, 'funny'), since it was only this Saturday that I last saw Moore at work in The Sky At Night and spend quite a bit of time thinking 'Wow, Patrick Moore is really in a bad way these days.'


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: k-onmmunist on December 10, 2012, 02:22:11 PM
it's easy to indicate ukip in a poll, but when push comes to shove, most of them are going to vote tory. the best ukip can do is act as a pressure group on the other parties towards europe, something i hope they're successful in.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on December 10, 2012, 03:25:38 PM
Which seats could UKIP have a realistic chance in 2015 anyway?

Maybe win with 25% in some 4-way marginal in the South-West?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on December 10, 2012, 03:30:20 PM
it's easy to indicate ukip in a poll, but when push comes to shove, most of them are going to vote tory.
On election day, they'll have the choice between their community MP and random Joe Blow (UKIP). That will affect a lot of people's choices.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: k-onmmunist on December 10, 2012, 03:40:42 PM
Which seats could UKIP have a realistic chance in 2015 anyway?

Maybe win with 25% in some 4-way marginal in the South-West?

0 seats. at most they'll do damage to the tories by drawing their votes away.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: bore on December 10, 2012, 04:07:52 PM
I'd assume their best chance would be wherever Farage is standing.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: k-onmmunist on December 10, 2012, 04:13:09 PM
I'd assume their best chance would be wherever Farage is standing.

farage has a credibility that other members of the party don't. one of my friends who claims to be a moderate tory pointed out that farage is popular for his libertarian image and his general anti-government pro-populist approach, but the party as a whole isn't like that - you have idiots like helmer and mckenzie who make extremely homophobic comments and make ukip look like tories on crack.

there's also the fact that ukip's popularity is mainly hinged on them maintaining a one issue style type of politics, which becomes increasingly difficult as you become a larger party. many ukip policies, such as the flat tax, would be deeply unpopular with the public. but the image of ukip is one of a party which is determined to fight european centralization, and it's that which wins them votes.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on December 10, 2012, 05:42:46 PM
Didn't David Cameron call Gordon Brown all kinds when he nearly didn't do the debates last time round?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on December 11, 2012, 03:32:34 AM
Just for comparison with the TNS poll, today's Yougov is Lab 42 Con 33 LD 10 UKIP 8, which seems much more plausible, and is fairly typical of recent Yougov polls.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 11, 2012, 07:12:12 AM
Lots of census statistics out today. Obviously attention is on those specific sets that are least useful (except for statistical wank purposes), but there's some genuinely fascinating stuff about about housing and the like. The Welsh language stats are out as well and are mildly depressing.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: DC Al Fine on December 11, 2012, 08:08:15 AM

IIRC the Reform party was polling around 8-10% until the election campaign began. Then a horrendous Progressive Conservative campaign* allowed them to shoot up to 19%. I could see this happening in Britain if UKIP avoids gaffes and the Cameron campaign stinks up the joint.

* Here's two examples of how bad the PC campaign was:
1) The PC leader said "An election is no time to discuss important issues"
2) The PC's ran ads with closeups of the Liberal leader's deformed face with voice overs saying "This doesn't look like a Prime Minister" and "I would be ashamed if this man was my Prime Minister"



Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: k-onmmunist on December 11, 2012, 08:18:23 AM
i can't see canada 1993 happening here. the british are far too forgiving of bad governments.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on December 11, 2012, 08:42:34 AM
i can't see canada 1993 happening here. the british are far too forgiving of bad governments.

Well, the Tories weren't polled so badly at the beginning of the 1993 election. They were on course of losing, yes, but they were still 2nd.
Their horrible campaign doomed them, through.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on December 11, 2012, 09:04:32 AM
The Welsh language stats are out as well and are mildly depressing.
In the on-the-way-to-Irish-style-uselessness sense; down in Gwynedd, up among schoolchildren everywhere?

That would be the trendline of the past 25 years...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on December 11, 2012, 10:58:30 AM
I would strongly advise anyone to avoid the comments section on the BBC's main article on the Census figures.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: k-onmmunist on December 11, 2012, 11:00:27 AM
comments sections on british political articles are almost always worth avoiding, due to the sheer misanthropy any reasonable person will develop from reading them.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: DC Al Fine on December 11, 2012, 11:14:52 AM
comments sections on british any political articles are almost always worth avoiding, due to the sheer misanthropy any reasonable person will develop from reading them.

Fixed


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on December 11, 2012, 11:20:24 AM
comments sections on british political articles are almost always worth avoiding, due to the sheer misanthropy any reasonable person will develop from reading them.
Any reasonable person is a sheer misanthrope already.

But comments sections are for people too dumb to even find a real forum, so what do you expect?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Hifly on December 11, 2012, 01:04:45 PM
Very happy to hear that the Labour Party will no longer be whipping MPs to vote in favour of Gay Marriage. Apparently 3 shadow cabinet members threatened to resign if the vote was whipped!


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on December 11, 2012, 01:06:34 PM

IIRC the Reform party was polling around 8-10% until the election campaign began. Then a horrendous Progressive Conservative campaign* allowed them to shoot up to 19%. I could see this happening in Britain if UKIP avoids gaffes and the Cameron campaign stinks up the joint.

* Here's two examples of how bad the PC campaign was:
1) The PC leader said "An election is no time to discuss important issues"
2) The PC's ran ads with closeups of the Liberal leader's deformed face with voice overs saying "This doesn't look like a Prime Minister" and "I would be ashamed if this man was my Prime Minister"

But unlike in Canada, that wouldn't give UKIP (m)any seats and so they wouldn't be anywhere near in challenging the Tories.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on December 11, 2012, 01:13:44 PM
Very happy to hear that the Labour Party will no longer be whipping MPs to vote in favour of Gay Marriage. Apparently 3 shadow cabinet members threatened to resign if the vote was whipped!
I can't believe they've banned CoE/W churches from performing them; what a sham piece of legislature. It's the AV vote all over again.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on December 11, 2012, 01:43:32 PM
Very happy to hear that the Labour Party will no longer be whipping MPs to vote in favour of Gay Marriage. Apparently 3 shadow cabinet members threatened to resign if the vote was whipped!

...oh Christ. This could turn into a disaster.

I can't believe they've banned CoE/W churches from performing them; what a sham piece of legislature. It's the AV vote all over again.

Yeah, that's entirely redundant as well as stupid.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 11, 2012, 01:58:37 PM
Trying to wonder which ShadCab members might actually have quit over this and no one comes to mind (i.e. Burnham is a Catholic, but I seem to remember him being in favour during the leadership campaign). Can think of a couple of shadow frontbenchers who might have though.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 11, 2012, 02:04:29 PM
...oh Christ. This could turn into a disaster.

Think it's more that the leadership would rather not obligate the very, very well regarded Stephen Timms to resign from the front bench than an indication of anything significantly more widespread.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Hifly on December 11, 2012, 02:12:10 PM
Can think of a couple of shadow frontbenchers who might have though.

Which ones did you have in mind?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on December 11, 2012, 02:21:25 PM
The Office for National Statistics has a set of interactive census maps (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/census/2011/census-data/2011-census-interactive-content/index.html) on its website, done by local authority (I'm waiting for the ward figures) quintile (which of course means places with extreme values don't stand out).

Are the Welsh language figures surprising?  The last census suggested the corner might have been turned.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 11, 2012, 02:26:35 PM
Not really, didn't it show continued declines in places where its spoken day-to-day? Anyway, I suspect the figures for the Llŷn might be genuinely upsetting.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on December 11, 2012, 02:35:36 PM
Here are the percentages with "one or more skills in Welsh" by local authority, for ages 3 to 15, 16 to 64, and 65 and over respectively.  (I calculated these from raw numbers on the ONS website.) Sorted by the 3 to 15 figure, mostly to annoy the English Democrats.

Gwynedd 95%, 72%, 65%
Ceredigion 87%, 53%, 55%
Ynys Môn 86%, 70%, 57%
Carmarthenshire 69%, 55%, 61%
Conwy 59%, 39%, 30%
Denbighshire 54%, 33%, 30%
Powys 51%, 25%, 22%
Pembrokeshire 50%, 24%, 21%
Monmouthshire 47%, 9%, 6%
Torfaen 45%, 9%, 4%
Newport 44%, 8%, 4%
Flintshire 42%, 17%, 15%
Caerphilly 41%, 12%, 7%
Neath-Port Talbot 39%, 20%, 29%
Blaenau Gwent 39%, 8%, 4%
Rhondda-Cynon-Taf 38%, 16%, 15%
Wrexham 37%, 18%, 20%
Vale of Glamorgan 37%, 13%, 10%
Cardiff 35%, 14%, 9%
Bridgend 33%, 14%, 16%
Swansea 32%, 15%, 23%
Merthyr Tydfil 30%, 12%, 12%


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on December 11, 2012, 04:09:29 PM
Trying to wonder which ShadCab members might actually have quit over this and no one comes to mind (i.e. Burnham is a Catholic, but I seem to remember him being in favour during the leadership campaign). Can think of a couple of shadow frontbenchers who might have though.

Khan, being a Muslim?

And i'm so glad the LibDems have been such a liberal influence on the government. ::) Truly disgusting behaviour from Tory MPs in the house. I was genuinely gobsmacked by how they were treating Nick Herbert when I saw ITN tonight.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on December 11, 2012, 09:15:57 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/dec/11/ukip-david-cameron-gay-marriage

UKIP aren't homophobic at all and a lovely touch there from the Member for Wellingborough who compared gay marriage to Stalinist Russia.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: k-onmmunist on December 12, 2012, 03:05:44 AM
didn't peter bone (aka sven goran eriksson) compare the nhs to stalinism?

this country has pretty much become america with a monarchy. so in other words, the worst thing ever.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 12, 2012, 05:05:18 AM
this country has pretty much become america with a monarchy.

No, not at all.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on December 12, 2012, 05:50:04 AM
I think this final collective hissy fit will be the death knell for 'gay panic' politics in the UK so I will enjoy it for the spectacle that it is. The draft bill is being published in Scotland today. The SNP are keen to be first through the door with this.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Franzl on December 12, 2012, 05:50:52 AM
I think this final collective hissy fit will be the death knell for 'gay panic' politics in the UK so I will enjoy it for the spectacle that it is. The draft bill is being published in Scotland today. The SNP are keen to be first through the door with this.

When will the vote take place?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: DC Al Fine on December 12, 2012, 08:03:06 AM


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 12, 2012, 03:36:47 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/shortcuts/2012/dec/11/david-davies-tory-tornado-homophobic


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on December 12, 2012, 03:41:48 PM
I think most parents would prefer their children not to be gay, knowing most parents want grandchildren if nothing else. And usually think gays have it harder growing up. And usually are not gay themselves.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on December 12, 2012, 04:14:36 PM
Lewis is right. Parents are obviously hoping than their kids will be straight.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: k-onmmunist on December 12, 2012, 04:39:01 PM
doesn't change the fact it was a silly and irrelevant comment.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on December 12, 2012, 05:09:31 PM
Wait, there's a David Davies in the Tory Parliamentary Party as well as a David Davis? Wonderful.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 12, 2012, 05:41:43 PM
Following a long Welsh tradition, some people like to call him David Davies of Monmouth.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on December 13, 2012, 05:16:40 AM
doesn't change the fact it was a silly and irrelevant comment.
The second one certainly, if also hilarious.

What was the context to the first one; did it come totally out of nowhere or what?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on December 13, 2012, 06:17:13 PM
Just realised that even Boris counts as one of the "1 in 8 born outside of the UK" in the census figures. Won't find that in the Mail or the Express though, i'm sure.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 13, 2012, 09:41:38 PM
Things relating to a certain issue have taken a turn for the surreal:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/dec/13/anglican-church-protests-gay-marriage-ban


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on December 13, 2012, 09:59:38 PM
Things relating to a certain issue have taken a turn for the surreal:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/dec/13/anglican-church-protests-gay-marriage-ban

So Dave tries to shut his backbenchers up and it back fires, as per. He really is a weak PM, isn't he?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on December 14, 2012, 02:22:28 AM
Things relating to a certain issue have taken a turn for the surreal:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/dec/13/anglican-church-protests-gay-marriage-ban

I'm not entirely surprised, since the fourth part of the so-called 'quadruple lock' is prima facie redundant and pointless as well as stupid, and it seems like the Church in Wales has enough of a vague sense of self-respect to know that.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: k-onmmunist on December 14, 2012, 07:43:14 AM
Things relating to a certain issue have taken a turn for the surreal:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/dec/13/anglican-church-protests-gay-marriage-ban

this is unbelievable. i've never seen such incompetence, even from this government.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on December 14, 2012, 08:54:27 AM
Things relating to a certain issue have taken a turn for the surreal:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/dec/13/anglican-church-protests-gay-marriage-ban

First of all it's a bluff. Indeed it's such an obvious bluff I'm suprised at the reaction to it.

There is almost no chance this particular caveat will be in the final bill and is not something the cabinet supports. Bear in mind that there is in all likelyhood a comfortable cross party majority for full equal marriage legislation. The law has already recently been amended to allow civil unions in religious buildings (which may also comprise a seperate religious blessing) and no restriction was placed on the CofE in that amendment.

This move is designed to force the CofE's hand on how it would internally administer same sex marriage requests, if at all. Why? Because that has been the underlying problem with the CofE, the CofW and indeed the Episcopalian Church in Scotland (and the Church of Scotland too) The mainstream churches have either been slow, or have refused to deal internally with 'the gays' not only as society has moved on, but the law has moved on too. I work fairly closely with the 'Faith in Marriage' equal marriage campaign in Scotland and there are sizeable minorities, possibly even majorities in favour of equal marriage in many of the presbyterys or churches. However the churches on the whole have had to oppose same sex marriage in their response to the consultation because if it becomes a reality it forces them to confront the issue head on and doing so opens them up to splits and arguments they would rather face in their own time.

The problem is, as the discussion over female bishops has shown 'in their own time' has taken fourteen years without a satisfactory conclusion. Civil law simply cannot wait while the established churches hum and haw. Everyone knows, opponents of the measure especially, that no church will ever be forced to marry people they do not want to marry and this presently doesn't happen anyway (see the Catholic Church and divorce) but it's all they have left and it's helpful to keep pushing the point because it sort of sounds like it 'might be true.' And as we all know on matters LGBT in the Commons in years past, things that sound like they might be true are often used to try and stall legislation. That's the same rhetoric we heard from the backbenchers and from CofE spokesmen early this week.

So the bluff was called; put in this 'quadruple lock' because using the above tactic it looks to the public like it's something the CofE 'might have wanted' which as Ben Bradshaw says in the article, makes the Church of England look much more reactionary and unreasonable than it actually is.

So now what? Well if the CofE and CofW think a complete bar is unreasonable, they now have to argue why, in light of things, same sex marriage should in fact not be completely barred when applied to Anglican churches. Cue uncomfortable disussions and submissions within the churches and highlighting again the fact that all marriage is 'civil' which is exactly what proponents of equal marriage have wanted.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: bore on December 14, 2012, 12:03:54 PM
Robin Lustig retired from the world tonight (which incidentally, is my favourite news program, easily) after 23 years yesterday, and I'm quite sad about it. Not only because he was a great interviewer, but he also had, in my opinion the best voice in all of British radio. We can only hope that someone equally good replaces him.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on December 18, 2012, 08:02:55 AM
Long, large-sampled poll from Ashcroft (http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/UKIP-poll-full-tables.pdf).

Topline VI (male/female in brackets)
Lab 42% (33%/31%)
Con 32% (38%/45%)
Lib  9% (8%/9%)
UKIP 9% (11%/7%)

Pref PM (UKIP voters in brackets)
48% Cameron (57%)
38% Miliband (33%)
13% Clegg (10%)

Pref duo:
52% Cam/Osb (61%)
48% Mil/Balls (39%)

Pref for 2015:
Lab gov 39% (31%)
Con gov 32% (43%)
Lab/Lib 18% (18%)
Con/Lib 12% (9%)

()
()

Tonnes more interesting questions, but I can't be arsed posting them.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on December 18, 2012, 03:46:17 PM
Andrew Mitchell stitched up?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/18/andrew-mitchell-downing-street-police-plebgate-_n_2324257.html?1355861558


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: bore on December 18, 2012, 03:59:28 PM
If the polling is accurate, it adds more weight to UKIP just being a receptacle for protest votes (otherwise why would so many left wingers support them?)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on December 18, 2012, 04:55:22 PM
Long, large-sampled poll from Ashcroft (http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/UKIP-poll-full-tables.pdf).
Pref PM (UKIP voters in brackets)
48% Cameron (57%)
38% Miliband (33%)
13% Clegg (10%)

Pref duo:
52% Cam/Osb (61%)
48% Mil/Balls (39%)

Pref for 2015:
Lab gov 39% (31%)
Con gov 32% (43%)
Lab/Lib 18% (18%)
Con/Lib 12% (9%)

What dates are the bracketed numbered because the comparison is devastating for Dave.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 18, 2012, 05:41:31 PM

Possibly (ah, how this hilarious story keeps on getting both stranger and funnier), but about 90% of the reason for the sudden demise of his career was his own gloriously incompetent reaction to the claims.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on December 18, 2012, 06:09:23 PM
Long, large-sampled poll from Ashcroft (http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/UKIP-poll-full-tables.pdf).
Pref PM (UKIP voters in brackets)
48% Cameron (57%)
38% Miliband (33%)
13% Clegg (10%)

Pref duo:
52% Cam/Osb (61%)
48% Mil/Balls (39%)

Pref for 2015:
Lab gov 39% (31%)
Con gov 32% (43%)
Lab/Lib 18% (18%)
Con/Lib 12% (9%)

What dates are the bracketed numbered because the comparison is devastating for Dave.

Those in brackets aren't changes or the prior figures, they're what the UKIP sample opted for.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on December 18, 2012, 06:44:47 PM
Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am...
()


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on December 24, 2012, 06:09:16 AM
I think next Christmas I might record a charity single for the Heysel disaster...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on December 24, 2012, 08:46:20 PM
I think next Christmas I might record a charity single for the Heysel disaster...

Stay classy. :)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on December 25, 2012, 03:52:39 AM
You're descending into self-parody, afleitch.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on December 28, 2012, 08:28:21 PM
The most humorously named MP has announced he's stepping down in 2015, Darling.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on December 30, 2012, 05:06:12 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9771841/TV-debates-could-take-place-a-year-before-election-day.html

Funny how it seems to, so far, only be the coalition parties worried about the debates.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on December 30, 2012, 05:47:50 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9771841/TV-debates-could-take-place-a-year-before-election-day.html

Funny how it seems to, so far, only be the coalition parties worried about the debates.

Miliband not worried? Thurely thome mithtake?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on December 30, 2012, 05:55:23 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9771841/TV-debates-could-take-place-a-year-before-election-day.html

Funny how it seems to, so far, only be the coalition parties worried about the debates.

Miliband not worried? Thurely thome mithtake?

Well, when he's against two leaders arguing about a record which they both nodded through together...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 30, 2012, 07:42:23 PM
Sir Irvine Patnick (Conservative MP for Sheffield Hallam 1987-1997) has died at the age of 83. This is actually headline news, despite the fact that he was just a backbencher (of a fairly undistinguished hard-right type at that). The reason being the fact that he spread lies about the victims of the Hillsborough disaster.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on December 31, 2012, 08:06:38 AM
Can't say I ever heard of him, but he had two nicknames for a surname and a surname for a first name?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on December 31, 2012, 08:32:12 AM
He was revealed as The Sun's "source", so yeah - not a name most had until recently.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 02, 2013, 03:38:51 PM
Operation Yewtree latest: Jim Davidson arrested.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on January 02, 2013, 03:58:48 PM
Operation Yewtree latest: Jim Davidson arrested.

Why is it everyone I've ever disliked get's arrested? What are the chances!


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 02, 2013, 09:54:33 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/03/winter-fuel-pensioners-care

::) Wouldn't this be yet another broken promise by both sides of the coalition? It would be for the Tories at least (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtOyJWHxpPs).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on January 03, 2013, 01:56:15 AM
The most disgusting thing about that is describing it as "brave."


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on January 03, 2013, 04:36:57 AM
The most disgusting thing about that is describing it as "brave."

As it isn't means tested everyone gets it. That includes pensioners with high disposable incomes (including those retired and living in Spain for example) It was introduced by Labour in part to combat fuel poverty a problem that the energy companies themselves have committed £4bn to providing free heat insulation, 20% savings and payment plans.

This year, people born in 1953 will turn 60s. We have a cash and asset wealthy population of baby-boomers about to retire. My dad turns 60 this year, is retired and has a monthly disposable income twice as high as I do and will be given a £200 bonus every year which he has said himself he doesn't need and certainly won't be needed to pay his gas and electricity bills. It's not an appropriate use of public funds.

Of course, given that the over 60's and the soon to be 60's are probably the largest voting block, untested freebies thrown to their parents generation who often were dirt poor as pensioners will no doubt continue


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 03, 2013, 08:20:19 AM
The most disgusting thing about that is describing it as "brave."

As it isn't means tested everyone gets it. That includes pensioners with high disposable incomes (including those retired and living in Spain for example) It was introduced by Labour in part to combat fuel poverty a problem that the energy companies themselves have committed £4bn to providing free heat insulation, 20% savings and payment plans.

This year, people born in 1953 will turn 60s. We have a cash and asset wealthy population of baby-boomers about to retire. My dad turns 60 this year, is retired and has a monthly disposable income twice as high as I do and will be given a £200 bonus every year which he has said himself he doesn't need and certainly won't be needed to pay his gas and electricity bills. It's not an appropriate use of public funds.

Of course, given that the over 60's and the soon to be 60's are probably the largest voting block, untested freebies thrown to their parents generation who often were dirt poor as pensioners will no doubt continue

The Tories should've been open about it at the last election then.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on January 03, 2013, 08:23:35 AM
The most disgusting thing about that is describing it as "brave."

As it isn't means tested everyone gets it. That includes pensioners with high disposable incomes (including those retired and living in Spain for example) It was introduced by Labour in part to combat fuel poverty a problem that the energy companies themselves have committed £4bn to providing free heat insulation, 20% savings and payment plans.

This year, people born in 1953 will turn 60s. We have a cash and asset wealthy population of baby-boomers about to retire. My dad turns 60 this year, is retired and has a monthly disposable income twice as high as I do and will be given a £200 bonus every year which he has said himself he doesn't need and certainly won't be needed to pay his gas and electricity bills. It's not an appropriate use of public funds.

Of course, given that the over 60's and the soon to be 60's are probably the largest voting block, untested freebies thrown to their parents generation who often were dirt poor as pensioners will no doubt continue

The Tories should've been open about it at the last election then.

Well it's a Lib Dem proposal. I don't see how the Tories could be open about a policy another party has put forward :P


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 03, 2013, 08:28:24 AM
First YouGov 'best Prime Minister' poll of the year (with changes from the start of last year)
Cameron 33 (-8)
Miliband 25 (+8)
Clegg 5 (nc)
Don't know 38 (+1)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 03, 2013, 12:47:11 PM
Not everyone born after 1950 (or whatever the new magical date is) is well off, and many that are not will not claim for things that they are eligible for. The fundamental advantage of universal benefits over any and all forms of targeting is that they actually reach everyone they're supposed to; as far as I'm concerned this more than outweighs any disadvantages. You also save money on admin, overhead and other such geegaws.
If people who don't need the help receive it anyway, well, they can view it as getting something back for their taxes. If not, perhaps they could consider paying the money back, or donating it to some good cause or other. All of which is rather corporatist/right-wing social democratic and therefore deeply unfashionable, but I'd argue less inherently discredited than the theoretical underpinnings of Burstow's idea. This is without touching on Burstow's additional (and unintentionally hilarious) assertion that this idea could pay for a 'reform' of the care system. Whatever can be argued about the winter fuel payment in general, that part of his big idea is pure magical thinking.

The politics of this are at least mildly interesting; do the LibDems really think that there are that many votes to be found by swinging to the right of the Tories? Most of the neoliberal (a term of abuse, generally, and always overused, but a useful shorthand in this case; Thatcherite doesn't quite capture matters) types who can be expected to be enthusiastic about this kind of thing are diehard Tories; the bedrockiest section of the bedrock, actually.

Burstow, incidentally, came into the LibDems via the SDP.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: DC Al Fine on January 03, 2013, 03:57:11 PM
The politics of this are at least mildly interesting; do the LibDems really think that there are that many votes to be found by swinging to the right of the Tories?

I find the idea of the Lib Dems trying to pick up current UKIP supporters hilarious.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on January 03, 2013, 04:28:18 PM
The politics of this are at least mildly interesting; do the LibDems really think that there are that many votes to be found by swinging to the right of the Tories?

I find the idea of the Lib Dems trying to pick up current UKIP supporters hilarious.

And yet, somehow fitting.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 03, 2013, 08:10:27 PM
The politics of this are at least mildly interesting; do the LibDems really think that there are that many votes to be found by swinging to the right of the Tories?

I find the idea of the Lib Dems trying to pick up current UKIP supporters hilarious.

Well, they're surely dead to the left.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: DC Al Fine on January 03, 2013, 11:08:15 PM
The politics of this are at least mildly interesting; do the LibDems really think that there are that many votes to be found by swinging to the right of the Tories?

I find the idea of the Lib Dems trying to pick up current UKIP supporters hilarious.

Well, they're surely dead to the left.

I know, but to switch to going after right wing Tories & UKIPers?... they aren't the brightest bunch.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 03, 2013, 11:12:01 PM
The politics of this are at least mildly interesting; do the LibDems really think that there are that many votes to be found by swinging to the right of the Tories?

I find the idea of the Lib Dems trying to pick up current UKIP supporters hilarious.

Well, they're surely dead to the left.

I know, but to switch to going after right wing Tories & UKIPers?... they aren't the brightest bunch.

As their conduct since the moment the polls closed in 2010 proves...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: DC Al Fine on January 03, 2013, 11:24:02 PM
The politics of this are at least mildly interesting; do the LibDems really think that there are that many votes to be found by swinging to the right of the Tories?

I find the idea of the Lib Dems trying to pick up current UKIP supporters hilarious.

Well, they're surely dead to the left.

I know, but to switch to going after right wing Tories & UKIPers?... they aren't the brightest bunch.

As their conduct since the moment the polls closed in 2010 proves...
:D


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on January 04, 2013, 10:52:15 AM
Sir Irvine Patnick (Conservative MP for Sheffield Hallam 1987-1997) has died at the age of 83. This is actually headline news, despite the fact that he was just a backbencher (of a fairly undistinguished hard-right type at that). The reason being the fact that he spread lies about the victims of the Hillsborough disaster.

He was a Tory whip for a time, which was what his knighthood was for.

My first general election vote contributed (in a small way of course!) to ending his parliamentary career.  The Con to LD swing in Hallam in that election was over 18%.



Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 06, 2013, 08:50:37 AM
Quote from Farage
Quote
"I don't think there is any prospect of any deal with the Conservative Party all the while that man leads it, given the way he has behaved and his attitude towards us.

"Look, I would do a deal with the devil if it got us what we need, which is a free and fair referendum so that we in this country can decide who governs us."


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 06, 2013, 01:46:18 PM
Just came across this from last month. Don't understand why Scottish Labour is so crap.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20755329


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: DC Al Fine on January 06, 2013, 03:02:46 PM
Just came across this from last month. Don't understand why Scottish Labour is so crap.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20755329

Do you think that's crap because you disagree with her view that free university leads to lower standards or do you think they are crap because they are embracing more right wing views?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 06, 2013, 03:42:37 PM
Just came across this from last month. Don't understand why Scottish Labour is so crap.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20755329

Do you think that's crap because you disagree with her view that free university leads to lower standards or do you think they are crap because they are embracing more right wing views?

Both really, but more the former.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on January 06, 2013, 05:05:02 PM
Just came across this from last month. Don't understand why Scottish Labour is so crap.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20755329

Do you think that's crap because you disagree with her view that free university leads to lower standards or do you think they are crap because they are embracing more right wing views?

They are crap because they send their 'best' down to Westminster and leave their second rate, ex councillors or union patsies to harangue the Scottish people bleating on about the 'Tories at Westminster' in a Scottish election until people's ears bleed. They are technocratic political scabs who are not fit to hold office in Scotland again.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 06, 2013, 05:19:14 PM
Just came across this from last month. Don't understand why Scottish Labour is so crap.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20755329

Do you think that's crap because you disagree with her view that free university leads to lower standards or do you think they are crap because they are embracing more right wing views?

They are crap because they send their 'best' down to Westminster and leave their second rate, ex councillors or union patsies to harangue the Scottish people bleating on about the 'Tories at Westminster' in a Scottish election until people's ears bleed.

This I agree with. I was all for Jim Murphy running in the leadership election, but those with ambition daren't look to the assemblies apparently.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 07, 2013, 07:35:27 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/01/07/boris-johnson-child-benefit-_n_2423292.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

The fact he's the most popular politician in the country makes me sick.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on January 07, 2013, 09:50:59 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/01/07/boris-johnson-child-benefit-_n_2423292.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

The fact he's the most popular politician in the country makes me sick.

Well it's certainly not going to be Ed now is it :) He's referring of course to the axing of child benefit for wealthy families; you know, those who earn two to three times the average wage who are still entitled to claim it. He admits himself he and his wife had received nearly £50,000 over the past twenty years which probably went on his ski-ing holidays.

If he called it an "absurd system whereby low-income people paid in their taxes for richer families to receive this Mussolini-like reward for procreation", then I fully agree with him, because that's exactly what it is. I know of a Tory in my local association who think's it's crazy for him to receive it but spends it on his daughter's pony lessons.



Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: freefair on January 07, 2013, 12:05:54 PM
What the UK needs is a system in which the best politicians are just as attracted to subnational politics as they are to national/federal positions


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on January 07, 2013, 12:07:52 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/01/07/boris-johnson-child-benefit-_n_2423292.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

The fact he's the most popular politician in the country makes me sick.

Well it's certainly not going to be Ed now is it :) He's referring of course to the axing of child benefit for wealthy families; you know, those who earn two to three times the average wage who are still entitled to claim it. He admits himself he and his wife had received nearly £50,000 over the past twenty years which probably went on his ski-ing holidays.

If he called it an "absurd system whereby low-income people paid in their taxes for richer families to receive this Mussolini-like reward for procreation", then I fully agree with him, because that's exactly what it is. I know of a Tory in my local association who think's it's crazy for him to receive it but spends it on his daughter's pony lessons.



Pony lessons and skiing holidays do benefit children, but should the state pay for them?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on January 07, 2013, 12:20:39 PM
What? Did you read my post, or the article for that matter.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Simfan34 on January 07, 2013, 02:07:01 PM
I don't understand opposition to what Boris is saying at all. Or is there another side to the argument? Because upwards income redistribution doesn't seem like a good thing.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on January 07, 2013, 03:02:05 PM
I don't understand opposition to what Boris is saying at all. Or is there another side to the argument? Because upwards income redistribution doesn't seem like a good thing.

There are certain advantages to universal benefits.  For one, it's harder for people who really need the benefits to slip through the net, something which can happen quite a lot with certain means tested benefits.  Another is that the means testing itself generally involves spending a fair amount on a bureaucracy to run it.

If you have a reasonably progressive tax system, then it isn't upwards income redistribution anyway.  And the stuff about Mussolini is just silly.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on January 07, 2013, 04:34:42 PM
What? Did you read my post, or the article for that matter.

I'm not saying that the state should give child benefit to rich families (although I disagree with the way this new cap is calculated). What I am saying is that those things can benefit children; taking a child to Switzerland for a ski holiday is something that they enjoy.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Simfan34 on January 07, 2013, 08:58:10 PM
What? Did you read my post, or the article for that matter.

I'm not saying that the state should give child benefit to rich families (although I disagree with the way this new cap is calculated). What I am saying is that those things can benefit children; taking a child to Switzerland for a ski holiday is something that they enjoy.

But is that something that the state should subsidise? Or, perhaps, what if he had chosen to buy a Jaguar or the cellarful of Lafittes?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 07, 2013, 10:44:29 PM
If this coalition's a "Ronseal Deal", I must assume that 'the tin' isn't the manifesto of The Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats then.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on January 08, 2013, 03:13:08 AM
Or the coalition agreement.

Simfan: it's a universal provision for children - not a targeted re-distribution to the wealthy. It's unlikely the wealthy get more out of it than put in, and if any fairness issues do arise then raise the taxes on them (and not cut them, like the coalition are doing). If it's not needed - fine, piss it away, but it's still no more a re-distribution than any other universal benefit is (like universites, for instance, where they last tried to apply this fatuous argument). 


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 09, 2013, 02:29:11 PM
Alasdair Milne, a career BBC bureaucrat who's tenure as Director General in the 1980s was cut short for political reasons, has died at the age of 82.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on January 09, 2013, 02:50:30 PM
Alasdair Milne, a career BBC bureaucrat who's tenure as Director General in the 1980s was cut short for political reasons, has died at the age of 82.

Which perhaps we can be thankful for given his views on women at the BBC.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on January 09, 2013, 03:15:41 PM
UKIP sacked their youth chair because of his support for gay marriage, which runs contrary to UKIP's blatant attempt at winning votes off of a moral panic policy.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: bore on January 09, 2013, 03:47:24 PM
You can just feel the libertarianism.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 09, 2013, 04:05:50 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qjBec3fpBI

Wonder where this fits in the whole 'strivers vs. shirkers' narrative.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on January 09, 2013, 05:07:17 PM
Andrew Marr has had a stroke :/


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 09, 2013, 06:55:42 PM
Which perhaps we can be thankful for given his views on women at the BBC.

I wouldn't describe myself as a fan of Milne (hey, he banned Brimstone & Treacle), but at least he wasn't an utter disaster like Checkland or Birt.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 10, 2013, 02:07:21 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/01/10/mps-vote-to-increase-pay-86250_n_2448503.html?1357840986&utm_hp_ref=uk

Oh Westminster.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: doktorb on January 10, 2013, 02:08:36 PM
If this coalition's a "Ronseal Deal", I must assume that 'the tin' isn't the manifesto of The Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats then.

No, it's the Coalition Agreement.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 10, 2013, 02:27:02 PM
If this coalition's a "Ronseal Deal", I must assume that 'the tin' isn't the manifesto of The Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats then.

No, it's the Coalition Agreement.

"Does what it says on the tin." What parts of the coalition agreement did they tell the electorate about again?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: doktorb on January 10, 2013, 02:49:19 PM
If this coalition's a "Ronseal Deal", I must assume that 'the tin' isn't the manifesto of The Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats then.

No, it's the Coalition Agreement.

"Does what it says on the tin." What parts of the coalition agreement did they tell the electorate about again?

All of it. It was published in hard copy and on-line forms upon its signing. It  couldn't be made available before it was written, after all.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 10, 2013, 02:53:27 PM
Trouble is, the government hasn't actually followed it in certain rather important areas. No Top Down Re-Organisation Of The NHS and so on.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 10, 2013, 02:57:07 PM
If this coalition's a "Ronseal Deal", I must assume that 'the tin' isn't the manifesto of The Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats then.

No, it's the Coalition Agreement.

"Does what it says on the tin." What parts of the coalition agreement did they tell the electorate about again?

All of it. It was published in hard copy and on-line forms upon its signing. It  couldn't be made available before it was written, after all.

Sorry, I guess I'll have to clarify what I meant to make it a bit more obvious, when were the electorate given a chance to democratically elect a government based on such a coalition agreement?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on January 10, 2013, 03:14:11 PM
If this coalition's a "Ronseal Deal", I must assume that 'the tin' isn't the manifesto of The Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats then.

No, it's the Coalition Agreement.

"Does what it says on the tin." What parts of the coalition agreement did they tell the electorate about again?

All of it. It was published in hard copy and on-line forms upon its signing. It  couldn't be made available before it was written, after all.

Sorry, I guess I'll have to clarify what I meant to make it a bit more obvious, when were the electorate given a chance to democratically elect a government based on such a coalition agreement?

No. Because obviously, no agreement on a coalition could be made because one didn't need to be formed until after the election. Labour's whoring just didn't work, and a coalition with the Conservatives was formed. That's how politics works :D Isn't it fun!


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: doktorb on January 10, 2013, 03:31:40 PM
If this coalition's a "Ronseal Deal", I must assume that 'the tin' isn't the manifesto of The Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats then.

No, it's the Coalition Agreement.

"Does what it says on the tin." What parts of the coalition agreement did they tell the electorate about again?

All of it. It was published in hard copy and on-line forms upon its signing. It  couldn't be made available before it was written, after all.

Sorry, I guess I'll have to clarify what I meant to make it a bit more obvious, when were the electorate given a chance to democratically elect a government based on such a coalition agreement?

There was no such option. But there was no such option for a "rainbow alliance" which was also on the cards (without a majority) or a minority Conservative government or anything else concrete for that matter. Nobody knew until the votes were counted what was going to happen

And I tell you what did happen. Gordon Brown demanding to stay as PM, Ed Balls turning up to the meeting without so much as a note-pad and Liam Byrne writing a note saying "There's no money left, we've spent it all"

So I know who I prefer in power, that's for sure.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 10, 2013, 03:35:47 PM
If this coalition's a "Ronseal Deal", I must assume that 'the tin' isn't the manifesto of The Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats then.

No, it's the Coalition Agreement.

"Does what it says on the tin." What parts of the coalition agreement did they tell the electorate about again?

All of it. It was published in hard copy and on-line forms upon its signing. It  couldn't be made available before it was written, after all.

Sorry, I guess I'll have to clarify what I meant to make it a bit more obvious, when were the electorate given a chance to democratically elect a government based on such a coalition agreement?

There was no such option. But there was no such option for a "rainbow alliance" which was also on the cards (without a majority) or a minority Conservative government or anything else concrete for that matter. Nobody knew until the votes were counted what was going to happen.

Minority Tory was an option. And a better one at that.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on January 10, 2013, 04:10:27 PM
If this coalition's a "Ronseal Deal", I must assume that 'the tin' isn't the manifesto of The Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats then.

No, it's the Coalition Agreement.

"Does what it says on the tin." What parts of the coalition agreement did they tell the electorate about again?

All of it. It was published in hard copy and on-line forms upon its signing. It  couldn't be made available before it was written, after all.

Sorry, I guess I'll have to clarify what I meant to make it a bit more obvious, when were the electorate given a chance to democratically elect a government based on such a coalition agreement?

There was no such option. But there was no such option for a "rainbow alliance" which was also on the cards (without a majority) or a minority Conservative government or anything else concrete for that matter. Nobody knew until the votes were counted what was going to happen.

Minority Tory was an option. And a better one at that.

As a Tory, I can ensure you that having the Lib Dems on board is far far better than having a minority Tory government enthralled to the backbenches.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: doktorb on January 10, 2013, 04:15:45 PM
If this coalition's a "Ronseal Deal", I must assume that 'the tin' isn't the manifesto of The Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats then.

No, it's the Coalition Agreement.

"Does what it says on the tin." What parts of the coalition agreement did they tell the electorate about again?

All of it. It was published in hard copy and on-line forms upon its signing. It  couldn't be made available before it was written, after all.

Sorry, I guess I'll have to clarify what I meant to make it a bit more obvious, when were the electorate given a chance to democratically elect a government based on such a coalition agreement?

There was no such option. But there was no such option for a "rainbow alliance" which was also on the cards (without a majority) or a minority Conservative government or anything else concrete for that matter. Nobody knew until the votes were counted what was going to happen.

Minority Tory was an option. And a better one at that.

You don't know it would have been. I can't say with absolute certainty, though given our successes in reigning in some of the Conservative fringe elements, I can guess.

More generally, I'm bemused that people (not just you, though you're suggesting this) are still seething over the Coalition's formation, as though it was some kind of duplicitous fraud.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 10, 2013, 04:20:53 PM
If this coalition's a "Ronseal Deal", I must assume that 'the tin' isn't the manifesto of The Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats then.

No, it's the Coalition Agreement.

"Does what it says on the tin." What parts of the coalition agreement did they tell the electorate about again?

All of it. It was published in hard copy and on-line forms upon its signing. It  couldn't be made available before it was written, after all.

Sorry, I guess I'll have to clarify what I meant to make it a bit more obvious, when were the electorate given a chance to democratically elect a government based on such a coalition agreement?

There was no such option. But there was no such option for a "rainbow alliance" which was also on the cards (without a majority) or a minority Conservative government or anything else concrete for that matter. Nobody knew until the votes were counted what was going to happen.

Minority Tory was an option. And a better one at that.

You don't know it would have been. I can't say with absolute certainty, though given our successes in reigning in some of the Conservative fringe elements, I can guess.


Aha, right yeah.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on January 10, 2013, 04:21:36 PM
More generally, I'm bemused that people (not just you, though you're suggesting this) are still seething over the Coalition's formation, as though it was some kind of duplicitous fraud.

Because Labour, in negotiations treated the Lib Dems like sh-t. And they can't admit that.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: doktorb on January 10, 2013, 04:33:14 PM
More generally, I'm bemused that people (not just you, though you're suggesting this) are still seething over the Coalition's formation, as though it was some kind of duplicitous fraud.

Because Labour, in negotiations treated the Lib Dems like sh-t. And they can't admit that.

Well we know that, as I said, Brown demanded to remain PM  and Balls refused to take the talks seriously.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: doktorb on January 10, 2013, 04:35:05 PM
If this coalition's a "Ronseal Deal", I must assume that 'the tin' isn't the manifesto of The Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats then.

No, it's the Coalition Agreement.

"Does what it says on the tin." What parts of the coalition agreement did they tell the electorate about again?

All of it. It was published in hard copy and on-line forms upon its signing. It  couldn't be made available before it was written, after all.

Sorry, I guess I'll have to clarify what I meant to make it a bit more obvious, when were the electorate given a chance to democratically elect a government based on such a coalition agreement?

There was no such option. But there was no such option for a "rainbow alliance" which was also on the cards (without a majority) or a minority Conservative government or anything else concrete for that matter. Nobody knew until the votes were counted what was going to happen.

Minority Tory was an option. And a better one at that.

You don't know it would have been. I can't say with absolute certainty, though given our successes in reigning in some of the Conservative fringe elements, I can guess.


Aha, right yeah.

Well like I said, we'll never know, there'll be one of those £9.99 "What If..." books for sale on this very question come 2015.

But we know what the Conservative backbenchers are desperate for, and it's thanks to the more liberal David Cameron and our influence that they're not getting their way.

I'm happy with the Coalition and our role in it. Leaving the Conservatives on their own has been done before and it's best that history doesn't repeat itself too often on those terms.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 10, 2013, 04:47:44 PM
Well we know that, as I said, Brown demanded to remain PM

Oh, gosh, how utterly, utterly unreasonable!


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on January 10, 2013, 05:12:09 PM
Liam Byrne writing a note saying "There's no money left, we've spent it all"

I don't know why Coalition apologists make such a big deal out of an obvious (though admittedly not very original or funny) joke.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 10, 2013, 05:14:26 PM
Anyway, there was never any chance of a minority Labour/LibDem coalition after the election because the LibDem leadership is right-wing and does not like the Labour Party, and because large sections of the Labour Party do not like doing deals with bourgeois parties.* The LibDems entered negotiations with Labour in a spirit of (practically openly admitted to) bad faith, and the Labour leadership of the day in a spirit of some kind of resigned desperation. It was never a starter, and there's no point in anyone (of any political stripe) pretending otherwise.

*Obviously it's never put like this, but that is very much the mentality.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 10, 2013, 05:34:01 PM
I'd prefer even a Tory majority over another Coalition (of any shade) after 2015 if I'm honest.

The Liberals have been nothing but a pointless distraction to the proper work of government.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: doktorb on January 10, 2013, 05:34:35 PM
Liam Byrne writing a note saying "There's no money left, we've spent it all"

I don't know why Coalition apologists make such a big deal out of an obvious (though admittedly not very original or funny) joke.

Because there's a lot of truth in that jest. Biggest, longest recession in peace time, record deficit, record borrowing. It may have been funny to him but not to the rest of us!


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 10, 2013, 05:35:50 PM
Liam Byrne writing a note saying "There's no money left, we've spent it all"

I don't know why Coalition apologists make such a big deal out of an obvious (though admittedly not very original or funny) joke.

Because there's a lot of truth in that jest. Biggest, longest recession in peace time, record deficit, record borrowing. It may have been funny to him but not to the rest of us!

All of it Labour's fault, clearly.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: doktorb on January 10, 2013, 05:36:48 PM
Liam Byrne writing a note saying "There's no money left, we've spent it all"

I don't know why Coalition apologists make such a big deal out of an obvious (though admittedly not very original or funny) joke.

Because there's a lot of truth in that jest. Biggest, longest recession in peace time, record deficit, record borrowing. It may have been funny to him but not to the rest of us!

All of it Labour's fault, clearly.
Liam Byrne writing a note saying "There's no money left, we've spent it all"

I don't know why Coalition apologists make such a big deal out of an obvious (though admittedly not very original or funny) joke.

Because there's a lot of truth in that jest. Biggest, longest recession in peace time, record deficit, record borrowing. It may have been funny to him but not to the rest of us!

All of it Labour's fault, clearly.

Absolutely. When countries such as Australia and Canada went over road-humps, thanks to Gordon Brown's love-in with light touch regulation, we went into a ditch.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 10, 2013, 05:42:27 PM
All major political parties supported lax regulation of financial services before 2007 (I understand that it is possible that one of them was very keen on even looser regulation than actually existed, but that's by-the-by), and that general approach certainly didn't start with Brown's tenure as Chancellor. Australia (especially Australia in both possible interpretations of 'especially' in this context) and Canada have come through the past half decade better than most industrialised countries because of their resource based economies, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah.

Basically, Moynihan was right. We can hold whatever views we like, but let's not go around making 'facts' up.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 10, 2013, 05:44:25 PM
Liam Byrne writing a note saying "There's no money left, we've spent it all"

I don't know why Coalition apologists make such a big deal out of an obvious (though admittedly not very original or funny) joke.

Because there's a lot of truth in that jest. Biggest, longest recession in peace time, record deficit, record borrowing. It may have been funny to him but not to the rest of us!

All of it Labour's fault, clearly.
Liam Byrne writing a note saying "There's no money left, we've spent it all"

I don't know why Coalition apologists make such a big deal out of an obvious (though admittedly not very original or funny) joke.

Because there's a lot of truth in that jest. Biggest, longest recession in peace time, record deficit, record borrowing. It may have been funny to him but not to the rest of us!

All of it Labour's fault, clearly.

Absolutely. When countries such as Australia and Canada went over road-humps, thanks to Gordon Brown's love-in with light touch regulation, we went into a ditch.

Light-touch regulation which the Conservative Party opposed, arguing it was too much, right up until everything went - for lack of a better phrase - t*ts up.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 10, 2013, 08:24:18 PM
UKIP sacked their youth chair because of his support for gay marriage, which runs contrary to UKIP's blatant attempt at winning votes off of a moral panic policy.

Also sacked their candidate for City of Chester.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: LastVoter on January 10, 2013, 10:41:05 PM
If this coalition's a "Ronseal Deal", I must assume that 'the tin' isn't the manifesto of The Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats then.

No, it's the Coalition Agreement.

"Does what it says on the tin." What parts of the coalition agreement did they tell the electorate about again?

All of it. It was published in hard copy and on-line forms upon its signing. It  couldn't be made available before it was written, after all.

Sorry, I guess I'll have to clarify what I meant to make it a bit more obvious, when were the electorate given a chance to democratically elect a government based on such a coalition agreement?

There was no such option. But there was no such option for a "rainbow alliance" which was also on the cards (without a majority) or a minority Conservative government or anything else concrete for that matter. Nobody knew until the votes were counted what was going to happen.

Minority Tory was an option. And a better one at that.

As a Tory, I can ensure you that having the Lib Dems on board is far far better than having a minority Tory government enthralled to the backbenches.
I'm sure that's what LibDem voters envisioned.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 11, 2013, 02:35:23 PM
A report into Britain's most successful sex offender includes the figure of 214 offences, including 34 rapes. And, for obvious reasons, those figures probably have to be seen as minimum estimates.

BBC self-flagellation over the issue continues: Savile's one man crime wave presented via maps and graphs. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20984284)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on January 12, 2013, 06:22:01 AM
A report into Britain's most successful sex offender includes the figure of 214 offences, including 34 rapes.
Actually, that's not what the link says.

Meanwhile, we have our own sex-offender-from-a-long-time-ago, hiding-in-plain-sight case here. And the same "is anybody surprised" kind of vibe.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on January 12, 2013, 07:13:01 AM
A report into Britain's most successful sex offender includes the figure of 214 offences, including 34 rapes. And, for obvious reasons, those figures probably have to be seen as minimum estimates.

How did this guy manage to get away with this for over 55 years? It seems the only thing that stopped him was poor health.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on January 12, 2013, 07:19:26 AM
A report into Britain's most successful sex offender includes the figure of 214 offences, including 34 rapes. And, for obvious reasons, those figures probably have to be seen as minimum estimates.

How did this guy manage to get away with this for over 55 years? It seems the only thing that stopped him was poor health.
No police force wanted to make waves, lots of victims, even when they went to police immediatly, didn't want to prosecute (though who knows what police told them to scare them off doing so), oh and clearly back in the 70s nobody collated data on people who've been named-but-not-prosecuted on such charges. Which might have been a good idea. Police knowing they were dealing with a serial offender might have been less unwilling to prosecute. There wasn't any sort of moral panic around adults getting it on with willing teenagers back then (even though at least in Germany, laws were actually stricter) and there was MUCH more acceptance of predatory, ahem, dating techniques.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 12, 2013, 01:16:47 PM
A big issue is also who the victims (mostly) were; people who found complaining difficult, and people who's complaints were very easy to ignore. So the classic pattern of institutional abuse, except that it was basically one criminal and multiple institutions.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 12, 2013, 01:38:05 PM
Meanwhile, we have our own sex-offender-from-a-long-time-ago, hiding-in-plain-sight case here. And the same "is anybody surprised" kind of vibe.

Yeah, heard about that the other day. Also stuff going on wrt the SWP and a certain 'Comrade Delta' - starting to edge its way out of the Trot sections of the interwebs as well.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on January 12, 2013, 02:03:12 PM
Meanwhile, we have our own sex-offender-from-a-long-time-ago, hiding-in-plain-sight case here. And the same "is anybody surprised" kind of vibe.

Yeah, heard about that the other day. Also stuff going on wrt the SWP and a certain 'Comrade Delta' - starting to edge its way out of the Trot sections of the interwebs as well.

Yes. That's probably one of the most disturbing political stories of the year.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on January 13, 2013, 08:44:30 AM
A big issue is also who the victims (mostly) were; people who found complaining difficult, and people who's complaints were very easy to ignore. So the classic pattern of institutional abuse, except that it was basically one criminal and multiple institutions.
Still a pretty damn large number of victims for whom that isn't true, I understand.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 13, 2013, 01:04:21 PM
A big issue is also who the victims (mostly) were; people who found complaining difficult, and people who's complaints were very easy to ignore. So the classic pattern of institutional abuse, except that it was basically one criminal and multiple institutions.
Still a pretty damn large number of victims for whom that isn't true, I understand.


Lord, yes. Which (presumably) is where some of the more obviously unique factors start coming in, I guess.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on January 14, 2013, 11:51:04 AM
The evil wicked coalition after coming under fire for removing tax benefits and child tax credits for households struggling to get by on £60,000 a year (‘We have nothing to loose but our Agas!’) has now evilly simplified and increased the basic state pension

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21017013


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 14, 2013, 02:13:58 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/01/14/boundary-review-liberal-democrats_n_2471600.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

So if Liberal ministers in the Lords have voted against the government, isn't the precedent that they resign under collective responsibility? (Wasn't that the reasoning they used for voting in favour of every other Tory policy they've said they actually disagreed with? Because they had to vote with the Tories.)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 14, 2013, 03:30:31 PM
HMV to go into administration in the morning.

"Hurting, but it isn't working", "Woolworths moment", and all that.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: All Along The Watchtower on January 14, 2013, 03:53:31 PM
Quote
In the online survey of a representative sample of 2,015 British adults, 42 per cent of decided voters and leaners (unchanged since late November) would support the Labour candidate in their constituency if a General Election took place tomorrow.

The Tories are a distant second with 27 per cent (-1), followed by the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) with 11 per cent (=) and the Liberal Democrats with 10 per cent (=).

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/48571/labour-ahead-tories-at-lowest-level-since-2010-election-in-britain/ (http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/48571/labour-ahead-tories-at-lowest-level-since-2010-election-in-britain/)




Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on January 15, 2013, 05:40:32 AM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/jan/15/ba-rights-cross-european-court

So the right decision was reached. A woman wearing a cross should not have been disciplined for it, but those who refused to provide services to people on account of their sexuality were rightly disciplined.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on January 15, 2013, 12:14:52 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/01/14/boundary-review-liberal-democrats_n_2471600.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

So if Liberal ministers in the Lords have voted against the government, isn't the precedent that they resign under collective responsibility?

With the coalition, I don't think a lot of the precedents stand any more.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 15, 2013, 08:57:06 PM
Fyck all this politics sh!t. Who else watched Utopia?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: patrick1 on January 15, 2013, 10:37:38 PM
Fyck all this politics sh!t. Who else watched Utopia?

Is it good?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 16, 2013, 10:12:26 AM
First HMV, now Blockbuster's gone to the wall. They've been in trouble for a long time.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 16, 2013, 08:18:03 PM

Excellent, at least so far.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 17, 2013, 05:36:41 AM
I know it's the Daily Mail, but I found this to be amusing.

"Let’s be very clear about this. Europe is changing, and those changes are changing. And we’re changing, too, which means that we need to change those changes if those changes are going to be changed."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2263507/Europe-In-shake-about.html#ixzz2IDiY4ihM (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2263507/Europe-In-shake-about.html#ixzz2IDiY4ihM)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on January 17, 2013, 11:33:49 PM
Is the cover price of the Daily Mail a round sum, or do they need to make change when you buy it at the newsstand for a change?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 20, 2013, 10:03:52 AM
Every day's April the 1st for these guys.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/and-this-time-we-mean-itlib-dems-risk-backlash-with-possible-election-pledge-to-cut-tuition-fees-8454698.html


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on January 20, 2013, 12:08:15 PM
UKIP have suffered a mini collapse in YouGov polling, down to just 7% and slumped to 4th in European voting intention. Voting intention to stay in the EU has increased too.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 20, 2013, 02:25:02 PM
UKIP have suffered a mini collapse in YouGov polling, down to just 7% and slumped to 4th in European voting intention. Voting intention to stay in the EU has increased too.

Is this Tory voters listening to the PM?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 20, 2013, 02:40:08 PM
Sunday Times reporting that apparently 17 Tories have apparently written to 1922. Still far from the 46 that'd be needed for a ballot though.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on January 20, 2013, 04:22:01 PM
Sunday Times reporting that apparently 17 Tories have apparently written to 1922. Still far from the 46 that'd be needed for a ballot though.

Nothing will happen.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 20, 2013, 04:45:22 PM
Sunday Times reporting that apparently 17 Tories have apparently written to 1922. Still far from the 46 that'd be needed for a ballot though.

Nothing will happen.

Agreed.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: countydurhamboy on January 20, 2013, 08:17:50 PM
Sunday Times reporting that apparently 17 Tories have apparently written to 1922. Still far from the 46 that'd be needed for a ballot though.

Nothing will happen.

Agreed.
Likewise.... although some of the backbenchers are probably stupid enough to try.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on January 20, 2013, 10:56:18 PM
Written to 1922, wut?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on January 21, 2013, 05:57:36 AM
Hilarious term, innit.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: countydurhamboy on January 21, 2013, 06:42:26 AM
It's what the Tories call their backbench committee which organises their Leadership elections. Its named after a meeting in 1922, at which the Tory backbenchers axed their leader and broke apart the Lib/Con coalition of David Lloyd George.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on January 21, 2013, 01:03:19 PM
Good news for Cameron with ICM. Labour's lead down to 5.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 21, 2013, 01:07:56 PM
Good news for Cameron with ICM. Labour's lead down to 5.

The opposition being in majority territory is good news now? ;)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on January 21, 2013, 01:11:14 PM
Good news for Cameron with ICM. Labour's lead down to 5.

The opposition being in majority territory is good news now? ;)

That's exactly the spirit we want to hear :D It's ideal for us to have people think that Miliband will propel you to victory in 2 and half years time without having to work for it. Keep it going :)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 21, 2013, 01:19:20 PM
Good news for Cameron with ICM. Labour's lead down to 5.

The opposition being in majority territory is good news now? ;)

That's exactly the spirit we want to hear :D It's ideal for us to have people think that Miliband will propel you to victory in 2 and half years time without having to work for it. Keep it going :)

Both sides have their complacent parts. Don't act like most Tories don't laugh Labour off, thinking they'll be propelled into the lead by simply laughing at Ed's nasally voice the second an election's called.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 21, 2013, 02:37:39 PM
A supposed 'national treasure' and director of a large number of truly terrible films is dead.

Hilarious detail from an obit:

Quote
His real metier turned out to be primitive violence. Winner despised analysis, but it is significant that he directed testosterone-fuelled revenge fantasies during the years when his by then widowed mother (a "nice, little, white-haired lady … She was a killer") sold paintings and antiques left to Winner to fund her casino losses, and set 11 firms of solicitors on him.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on January 22, 2013, 12:36:06 PM
Good news for Cameron with ICM. Labour's lead down to 5.

The opposition being in majority territory is good news now? ;)

That's exactly the spirit we want to hear :D It's ideal for us to have people think that Miliband will propel you to victory in 2 and half years time without having to work for it. Keep it going :)

Rate your lot are going, we won't even need to campaign. ;)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on January 22, 2013, 01:33:26 PM
Worrying

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/22/muslim-patrol-anti-gay-harassment-east-london-_n_2527111.html


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Simfan34 on January 22, 2013, 01:57:49 PM
That link disappointed me. I had hoped the Muslim Patrol had been taking anti gay-harassment measures. Though, I realized you were unlikely to consider that "worrying".

We need to stop marginalizing minorities in the West- it only inflames them and promotes such activity.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on January 22, 2013, 03:21:10 PM
Good news for Cameron with ICM. Labour's lead down to 5.

At the moment that just looks like margin of error fluctuation; compared with their previous poll the Tories were up 1 and Labour down 2 (and the LDs up 2), which hardly looks earth-shattering.

The Guardian has developed a bad habit of exaggerating the significance of smallish shifts in ICM polls, yesterday's article on this one being a case in point (NB they've done it with shifts in different directions).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 22, 2013, 06:51:07 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/01/22/david-cameron-europe-speech_n_2529055.html?1358896778&utm_hp_ref=uk

I expect the Tories to take the lead soon, in the same vain as the veto/flounce at the end of 2011.

Far too much uncertainty. A desperate move from a desperate PM who just wants to shut his party up and put UKIP back in their box. Bravo to Nigel Farage though, he seems to have a decent amount of influence over government policy considering UKIP has no MPs.

And more over, this isn't 7-8 years ago, the public doesn't really care as much as the Tory Party does.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 22, 2013, 07:48:39 PM
Politics at its most pointlessly tedious. Yawn.



Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on January 23, 2013, 04:06:57 AM
It wasn't so much pressure from UKIP (and this has basically killed their raison d'etre) but expectation that Miliband would offer the same thing.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 23, 2013, 08:36:36 AM
Good point made by Michael Weir at PMQs. Why is it okay for uncertainty over an EU referendum, but not uncertainty over a Scottish referendum?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on January 23, 2013, 12:55:13 PM
It wasn't so much pressure from UKIP (and this has basically killed their raison d'etre) but expectation that Miliband would offer the same thing.

Any attempt to renegotiate the treaties is going to have involve the entire 28 (Croatia joins this year) or fail entirely - because France and Germany won't accept a free rider.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on January 23, 2013, 01:13:36 PM
I think I'll need to make an 'Out of Britain , into Europe' banner :)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Insula Dei on January 23, 2013, 01:20:54 PM
Media round here have picked up on the referendum story, and from what I'm hearing they're mostly going on about how this makes Cameron look like a weak and ineffectual leader, afraid of his own shadow and lacking the courage to take decisive action on his own. 'If you want out, just say so.'-sort of thing. Especially that he doesn't want a referendum before 2015 doesn't go down too well. (Pretty fair assesment, I'd say)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 23, 2013, 01:29:39 PM
Again, does the electorate even care that much?

He's doing it for his backbenchers and to kill UKIP, not in the 'national interest' (as much as I hate that phrase).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 24, 2013, 05:43:48 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/01/24/poland-eu-uk-referendum_n_2541784.html?1359041144&utm_hp_ref=uk
http://www.euractiv.com/future-eu/cameron-referendum-gives-ideas-a-news-517298

Just some stories from around the continent that Labour spin doctors should be shouting about.

And a nice dig from Laurent Fabius
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/01/23/david-cameron-eu-speech-france-red-carpet_n_2531705.html

Dimbles just made an amazing point on QT, if the LibDems think the referendum's so damaging to Britain, why do they keep the bloke who promised one in power if they think his promise is so damaging?

And on that note:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/01/24/nick-clegg-claims-ministers-cut-too-deeply_n_2545098.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

I really like to think that my fellow countrymen aren't so thick as to buy this 'differentiation' strategy.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: doktorb on January 25, 2013, 04:55:32 AM
"GDP was estimated to have decreased by 0.3% in Q4 2012 compared with Q3 2012.
Output of the production industries was estimated to have decreased by 1.8% in Q4 2012 compared with Q3 2012, following an increase of 0.7% between Q2 2012 and Q3 2012.
Construction sector output was estimated to have increased by 0.3% in Q4 2012 compared with Q3 2012, following a decrease of 2.5% between Q2 2012 and Q3 2012.
Output of the service industries was estimated to have been flat in Q4 2012 compared with Q3 2012, following an increase of 1.2% between Q2 2012 and Q3 2012.
GDP was estimated to have been flat in Q4 2012, when compared with Q4 2011.
GDP is estimated to have been flat between 2011 and 2012. Users are, however, reminded that this figure is subject to revision in the second estimate of GDP when all quarters of 2012 are open for revision."


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 25, 2013, 08:24:51 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/01/24/nick-clegg-children-state-private-school_n_2541655.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

Some facepalming going on in LibDem HQ today, I'm sure.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 25, 2013, 08:55:57 AM
It's a calculated remark: he has many Muslim constituents (they mostly voted for the Tory in 2010, which is how he won in the first place) and his majority is tiny. Arsehole.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on January 25, 2013, 12:17:51 PM
It's a calculated remark: he has many Muslim constituents (they mostly voted for the Tory in 2010, which is how he won in the first place) and his majority is tiny. Arsehole.

I assume that you're talking about the MP for Bradford East here, as there can't be many constituencies that fit, but I can't see what post you're replying to...

Looking at the BBC website, I presume you're talking about this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21194991)?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 25, 2013, 12:22:00 PM
I saw 'facepalming' and 'LibDem HQ' when scanning through the thread, and, you know. But, yeah, that's the story.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Lief 🗽 on January 25, 2013, 12:45:37 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/25/britain-triple-dip-recession_n_2550520.html

Britain is now perilously close to a "triple-dip" recession, according to today's GDP estimates. Good job Tories.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on January 25, 2013, 01:08:06 PM
They condemn him for "his use of language"? What would they prefer he have used, lethal force?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on January 26, 2013, 11:31:26 AM
It's a calculated remark: he has many Muslim constituents (they mostly voted for the Tory in 2010, which is how he won in the first place) and his majority is tiny. Arsehole.

I assume that you're talking about the MP for Bradford East here, as there can't be many constituencies that fit, but I can't see what post you're replying to...

Looking at the BBC website, I presume you're talking about this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21194991)?

They condemn him for "his use of language"? What would they prefer he have used, lethal force?

Alas there are some who think pointing out that victims can become victimizers is terribly unfair.  Altho calling what Israel does to the Palestinians "atrocities" is slightly excessive.  It's merely ethnic oppression at this point.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 26, 2013, 12:01:11 PM
It's a calculated remark: he has many Muslim constituents (they mostly voted for the Tory in 2010, which is how he won in the first place) and his majority is tiny. Arsehole.

Only explanation really.

Politics at its most cynical and all that, but I guess we might be seeing similar 'reaching out' from LibDem MPs who know they'll probably lose if they don't at least try.

And this is only a very, very, very, very moderate version of what Galloway does, is it not?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 26, 2013, 05:02:53 PM
ComRes online for Indy on Snday/S Mirror: CON 33 +5 LAB 39 nc LD 11+2 Ukip 10-4

Apparently ComRes have fiddled with their methods for minor parties though (to give such a headline worthy result, I suppose).

Still, no movement from Lab to Con yet.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: bore on January 28, 2013, 08:34:33 AM
ComRes online for Indy on Snday/S Mirror: CON 33 +5 LAB 39 nc LD 11+2 Ukip 10-4

Apparently ComRes have fiddled with their methods for minor parties though (to give such a headline worthy result, I suppose).

Still, no movement from Lab to Con yet.

Makes sense I suppose. All three people who consider europe the top issue weren't voting labour anyway.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on January 28, 2013, 04:14:39 PM
Chris Huhne's trial starts on Monday. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/28/chris-huhne-speeding-points-trial)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 28, 2013, 07:43:18 PM
Again on polling, am I adding 2+2 to get 5 if I'm thinking that Labour's vote has grown firmer during 2012 since this Tory bounce seems a lot less significant than the veto bounce despite this (from what I can tell) a more significant event.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on January 29, 2013, 06:58:52 AM
Again on polling, am I adding 2+2 to get 5 if I'm thinking that Labour's vote has grown firmer during 2012 since this Tory bounce seems a lot less significant than the veto bounce despite this (from what I can tell) a more significant event.

Not easy to tell. Beware of Labour leads in the polls during Tory governments ;)

In other news, not very joined up thinking when it comes to the High Speed 2 rail line. No guarantee that the link will ever go to Edinburgh or Glasgow meaning that the air travel from these two cities to London will still end up quicker. Not very good news prior to a referendum either...

The Scottish Government is pledging a high speed link between Glasgow and Edinburgh by 2024, some 7 years before Phase 1 is completed and then an extension down the west coast mainline to Gretna, also likely to be completed before Phase 2 opens. Which could mean the slow lane for the north of England.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 31, 2013, 12:32:16 PM
Clegg's said he intends on staying on as leader post-2015 on his radio chat thing.

Say what you like about him, but at least he hasn't sold out his sense of humour.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 01, 2013, 07:21:59 PM
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/if-cameron-falls-theresa-may-is-ready-to-step-into-the-leaders-shoes-8477866.html

These articles are getting silly now.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: ObserverIE on February 04, 2013, 06:38:10 AM
Chris Huhne pleads guilty to perverting the course of justice, and announces that he will resign as MP for Eastleigh. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2013/feb/04/osborne-speech-banks-live-blog)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 04, 2013, 07:01:29 AM
hah


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on February 04, 2013, 12:10:44 PM
He'll certainly get prison time, but how much really depends on the trial of his ex-wife, who pleaded marital coercion.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 04, 2013, 12:12:59 PM
Quote
He added that he would "like to see him back in Government in a key position"

Clegg that is. Probably a tactical mistake in retrospect.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Insula Dei on February 04, 2013, 01:27:09 PM
Huhne's text messages to his son (and the replies!) make for chilling reading. Makes you feel sorry for the guy.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 04, 2013, 01:29:42 PM
His fault for being a cock, I think.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 04, 2013, 01:33:16 PM
The cherry of the top of the glorious cake that is this story: Vicky Pryce is apparently now in a relationship with Denis MacShane. Yes, that one.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 04, 2013, 01:52:28 PM
All an elaborate plot to launch his leadership election in the next month or so.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on February 04, 2013, 02:08:04 PM
That Teresa May ain't bad looking...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 04, 2013, 02:10:42 PM
That Teresa May ain't bad looking...

You joking?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on February 05, 2013, 04:17:52 AM
And so it begins, for England and Wales today at least. It’s quite an interesting day; a Conservative government introducing a bill for equal marriage. Gay rights in the UK has been a piecemeal process and one that unlike other equalities and rights in law, is far too often tabled as votes of ‘conscience.’ The focus today will be on the Conservative rebels, but all parties have been given a ‘free vote’, and Labour’s refusal to whip is disappointing despite assertions early on that this would not be the case. Gay rights for some is still a big moral panic. The assertions, innuendo and threats about its impact on society, freedoms, churches, children are always the same and always shown to be false both here and in the rest of the world. Some of them could for a moment be considered reasonable if gay marriage was a grand new experiment, but it isn’t and hasn’t been for a number of years in many nations. It is a reality and the refusal to engage with reality on matters such as these is one of the black marks against Westminster.

I had the pleasure to meet disturbingly young activists for ‘Scotland for Marriage’ an anti-equal marriage pressure group on the streets of Glasgow. The coalition is a funny one, old Catholics and young ones who follow them and haven’t yet set foot outside of their school, ‘Nothing against gays, got gay friends but but but.’ There are fretful evangelicals who want to pray that God intervenes because ‘gay people die younger’. The first one I met told me she was 16. I told her about the Catholic Church and it’s objection to everything; the repeal of Section 28, recognition of next of kin rights, adoption rights, civil partnerships, anti-bullying initiatives, changes to the equality acts to prevent gays from being fired and even their objection to proposals that would keep same sex couples together in residential care should one or both become sick. She didn’t know any of this, because those who claim to be protecting marriage don’t give a damn about it. They don’t protest and organise and fundraise to stop people divorcing, to stop forced marriage or to stop a non-entity getting her latest wedding on the front page of a magazine for the nth time. There is a strain of homophobia there. It will never go away, for the same reason there will always be racists and always be people who think women have it ‘too good.’

Campaigners and even MP’s say that civil partnerships are ‘enough’ and that we are trying to push for more and more. They try and position themselves as put upon moderates. Yet they have very short memories when it comes to their votes and their opposition to civil partnership legislation in 2004 and it’s the same argument and the same rhetoric as before.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 05, 2013, 07:20:30 AM
218 Labour MPs are pledged to vote in favour, 14 will be voting against (mostly very committed Catholics, though not entirely), 3 will be abstaining (this includes both Timms and Shuker; the widely suspected reasons for the lack of a whip) and no one knows about a further 20 (also quite an RC heavy list, actually).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on February 05, 2013, 08:12:21 AM
218 Labour MPs are pledged to vote in favour, 14 will be voting against (mostly very committed Catholics, though not entirely), 3 will be abstaining (this includes both Timms and Shuker; the widely suspected reasons for the lack of a whip) and no one knows about a further 20 (also quite an RC heavy list, actually).

'Tambourine' Shuker's abstention is interesting, though had he not been seeking a political career he'd probably have voted no. I know there's Benton who voted against the equal age of consent so that's expected and Flello who is generally a sh-t for other reasons.

Simon Hughes spoke a while ago saying it should only be about legislating for civil marriage forgetting that he should generally keep quiet about such things.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 05, 2013, 10:29:46 AM
I read somewhere that there's a surprising collection of LibDems planning to abstain or vote no. Any weight in this?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on February 05, 2013, 11:09:51 AM
Stephen Timms got a gentle pillorying after saying that marriage revolved around children.
Next door MP, Lyn Brown said Timms attended her wedding and surely Timms must have noticed that she was above child bearing age when she got married. Did that then make her marriage invalid?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 05, 2013, 11:15:03 AM
Stephen Timms got a gentle pillorying after saying that marriage revolved around children.
Next door MP, Lyn Brown said Timms attended her wedding and surely Timms must have noticed that she was above child bearing age when she got married. Did that then make her marriage invalid?

Burn.

And anyway, I always thought their was some irony in our own national church being born out of one man's desperate urge to divorce his wife.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on February 05, 2013, 11:27:03 AM
I read somewhere that there's a surprising collection of LibDems planning to abstain or vote no. Any weight in this?

It's been rumoured. When push comes to shove that's what the Lib Dems do on these matters. There are also an unexpected number of Labour MP's standing up and opposing it. There could be attempts to scuttle the whole thing.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Benj on February 05, 2013, 11:30:49 AM
For those interested, here are projected votes:

http://www.c4em.org.uk/support-for-equal-marriage/

May be slightly optimistic as it's compiled by a pro-gay marriage group.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 05, 2013, 12:21:35 PM
For those interested, here are projected votes:

http://www.c4em.org.uk/support-for-equal-marriage/

May be slightly optimistic as it's compiled by a pro-gay marriage group.

Some of the names are bizarre. Sarah Teather?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Benj on February 05, 2013, 01:04:16 PM
For those interested, here are projected votes:

http://www.c4em.org.uk/support-for-equal-marriage/

May be slightly optimistic as it's compiled by a pro-gay marriage group.

Some of the names are bizarre. Sarah Teather?

Yeah, I don't know. Seems really unlikely, but she is Catholic. They say she said something in an letter, though who knows what that means and might be misinterpreted. Others have more public statements.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 05, 2013, 01:06:53 PM
Got News at 6 on. Cameron swerving the debate completely in favour of meeting Biden looks dodgy.

()


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on February 05, 2013, 01:48:11 PM
Peter Davies, the elected mayor of Doncaster (and father of Tory MP for Shipley Philip Davies) is leaving the English Democrats because of ex-BNP infiltration, according to a report just now on Look North. 


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 05, 2013, 01:54:41 PM
Peter Davies, the elected mayor of Doncaster (and father of Tory MP for Shipley Philip Davies) is leaving the English Democrats because of ex-BNP infiltration, according to a report just now on Look North. 

Doubt he'll be reelected anyway.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 05, 2013, 02:14:28 PM
Aye - 400
Nay - 175

So the ayes have it.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on February 05, 2013, 02:16:52 PM
Aye - 400
Nay - 175

So the ayes have it.

Bigger majority than some had anticipated.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on February 05, 2013, 02:22:10 PM
Sources suggest 140 Tories against, 132 for. If confirmed I'll resign my membership.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on February 05, 2013, 02:29:32 PM
Sources suggest 140 Tories against, 132 for. If confirmed I'll resign my membership.

I thought you were a Scots Tory, so shouldn't it be how David Mundell would have voted that matters? ;)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 05, 2013, 02:39:25 PM
It generally doesn't take long for the real figures to emerge.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 05, 2013, 02:44:21 PM
All 8 DUP MPs reportedly against (how shocking). Around 20 Labour MPs and about 4 LibDems, one of which is Teather.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 05, 2013, 02:45:49 PM
The Attorney General seems to have abstained.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 05, 2013, 02:50:53 PM
Sources suggest 140 Tories against, 132 for. If confirmed I'll resign my membership.

139-132 is the current (final?) figure


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 05, 2013, 03:03:12 PM
There have been 'rebellions' (much, much smaller) on some technical, procedural follow up votes. This is... unusual.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on February 05, 2013, 03:06:16 PM
Former children's minister and Conservative MP Tim Loughton told the BBC[...]"Apparently there are 132 Conservative MPs who voted in favour, so I think what we're going to see is that more Conservative MPs voted against this legislation than for it."

Aye - 400
Nay - 175

So the ayes have it.

Bigger majority than some had anticipated.

Can't see why people would be predicting a smaller majority?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Benj on February 05, 2013, 03:16:25 PM
Former children's minister and Conservative MP Tim Loughton told the BBC[...]"Apparently there are 132 Conservative MPs who voted in favour, so I think what we're going to see is that more Conservative MPs voted against this legislation than for it."

Aye - 400
Nay - 175

So the ayes have it.

Bigger majority than some had anticipated.

Can't see why people would be predicting a smaller majority?

I think most were assuming all of the "undecideds" were No votes. In the end, most were, but about 20 reportedly undecided MPs must have voted in favor.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Peter the Lefty on February 05, 2013, 03:17:24 PM
So now the old, unelected, institutionalized and religiously-influenced club of hacks (aka the House of Lords) votes.  Is it considered a real possibility that they might reject it?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on February 05, 2013, 03:19:02 PM
So now the old, unelected, institutionalized and religiously-influenced club of hacks (aka the House of Lords) votes.  Is it considered a real possibility that they might reject it?

Even so, it'll just be bowled over like the irrelevant joke it is.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 05, 2013, 03:19:16 PM

I think that's only true of a small number; Lord Gilbert, say.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on February 05, 2013, 03:20:56 PM
Sources suggest 140 Tories against, 132 for. If confirmed I'll resign my membership.

139-132 is the current (final?) figure

Seems to be. Letter already drafted. I can't quite believe I'm doing this under these circumstances on what should be a good day.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on February 05, 2013, 03:27:43 PM
I think most were assuming all of the "undecideds" were No votes. In the end, most were, but about 20 reportedly undecided MPs must have voted in favor.

If we're talking about the list posted above, it has 20 extra votes apiece (it already predicted 156 were against). The No vote was only like to come from one place (and ofc the minuscule number of unionists) in any great number, so just how many more Tories were people predicting given already a majority voted against?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 05, 2013, 03:33:38 PM
http://brentlibdems.org.uk/en/article/2013/657279/sarah-teather-s-statement-on-tonight-s-vote


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on February 05, 2013, 03:41:58 PM
AP releases names of 126 Tory MP's who voted in favour with 134 against. David Mundell voted for.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on February 05, 2013, 03:46:31 PM
Of the 22 Labour No's, 7 were in Scotland. Of the 16 who did not vote, 3 were from Scotland. My own MP, who has been very helpful in trying to sort out the UKBA's clusterf-ck with Michael's residency visa voted in favour.

Biggest shock? George Galloway actually showed up and voted in favour.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: countydurhamboy on February 05, 2013, 03:54:48 PM
It's a good day for parliament today, I feel. Well done to all mp's who voted in favour. Nice to see a little more love in the world :)  Suppose congrats go to cameron for bringing forward the issue. Ironically the Tories  appear to have lost support in the gay community over this. Since almost every tory I know is also gay. The stupid tories have shot themselves in the foot again. That's not important really though, what's me important is we have more equality in the world.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on February 05, 2013, 03:57:11 PM
Of the 22 Labour No's, 7 were in Scotland. Of the 16 who did not vote, 3 were from Scotland. My own MP, who has been very helpful in trying to sort out the UKBA's clusterf-ck with Michael's residency visa voted in favour.

Biggest shock? George Galloway actually showed up and voted in favour.

What were Scottish MP's doing voting on a measure that affected only England and Wales (or so I thought)?  I was under the impression that non-English MP's didn't vote on such things.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 05, 2013, 04:01:35 PM
Of the 22 Labour No's, 7 were in Scotland. Of the 16 who did not vote, 3 were from Scotland. My own MP, who has been very helpful in trying to sort out the UKBA's clusterf-ck with Michael's residency visa voted in favour.

Biggest shock? George Galloway actually showed up and voted in favour.

What were Scottish MP's doing voting on a measure that affected only England and Wales (or so I thought)?  I was under the impression that non-English MP's didn't vote on such things.

Thank god you asked, nobody's ever noticed this before.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: bore on February 05, 2013, 04:37:33 PM
Of the 22 Labour No's, 7 were in Scotland. Of the 16 who did not vote, 3 were from Scotland. My own MP, who has been very helpful in trying to sort out the UKBA's clusterf-ck with Michael's residency visa voted in favour.

Biggest shock? George Galloway actually showed up and voted in favour.

What were Scottish MP's doing voting on a measure that affected only England and Wales (or so I thought)?  I was under the impression that non-English MP's didn't vote on such things.

No, it's only the SNP (and I think plaid in wales, although I'm not 100% sure) who do that, everyone else (labour, lib dem and Mundell) votes on everything.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: countydurhamboy on February 05, 2013, 05:12:42 PM
Of the 22 Labour No's, 7 were in Scotland. Of the 16 who did not vote, 3 were from Scotland. My own MP, who has been very helpful in trying to sort out the UKBA's clusterf-ck with Michael's residency visa voted in favour.

Biggest shock? George Galloway actually showed up and voted in favour.

What were Scottish MP's doing voting on a measure that affected only England and Wales (or so I thought)?  I was under the impression that non-English MP's didn't vote on such things.

No, it's only the SNP (and I think plaid in wales, although I'm not 100% sure) who do that, everyone else (labour, lib dem and Mundell) votes on everything.
Its a bit ridiculous tbh and I don't believe it's even on the governments list to sort out.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 05, 2013, 05:25:52 PM
Of the 22 Labour No's, 7 were in Scotland. Of the 16 who did not vote, 3 were from Scotland. My own MP, who has been very helpful in trying to sort out the UKBA's clusterf-ck with Michael's residency visa voted in favour.

Biggest shock? George Galloway actually showed up and voted in favour.

What were Scottish MP's doing voting on a measure that affected only England and Wales (or so I thought)?  I was under the impression that non-English MP's didn't vote on such things.

No, it's only the SNP (and I think plaid in wales, although I'm not 100% sure) who do that, everyone else (labour, lib dem and Mundell) votes on everything.
Its a bit ridiculous tbh and I don't believe it's even on the governments list to sort out.

Wasn't it in the coalition agreement, or am I dreaming?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Oakvale on February 05, 2013, 05:34:50 PM
Of the 22 Labour No's, 7 were in Scotland. Of the 16 who did not vote, 3 were from Scotland. My own MP, who has been very helpful in trying to sort out the UKBA's clusterf-ck with Michael's residency visa voted in favour.

Biggest shock? George Galloway actually showed up and voted in favour.

What were Scottish MP's doing voting on a measure that affected only England and Wales (or so I thought)?  I was under the impression that non-English MP's didn't vote on such things.

No, it's only the SNP (and I think plaid in wales, although I'm not 100% sure) who do that, everyone else (labour, lib dem and Mundell) votes on everything.
Its a bit ridiculous tbh and I don't believe it's even on the governments list to sort out.

Wasn't it in the coalition agreement, or am I dreaming?

I think it was, actually. Not that that means anything will actually happen.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 05, 2013, 06:13:26 PM
Twitter's a-buzz with Dave's endorsement from hell. Marine Le Pen just endorsed his policy on Europe on Newsnight. She's also gone and said "breaking off relations with Bashar al Assad is senseless" in the same interview.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Peter the Lefty on February 05, 2013, 06:31:27 PM
Twitter's a-buzz with Dave's endorsement from hell. Marine Le Pen just endorsed his policy on Europe on Newsnight. She's also gone and said "breaking off relations with Bashar al Assad is senseless" in the same interview.
Oh, I see.  It's because he's mercilessly slaughtering and torturing Muslim Arabs, therefore he's a FF in her mind.  (Even if he's a Muslim Arab himself). 


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on February 06, 2013, 02:18:37 AM
So where are these four Liberal Democrats from?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on February 06, 2013, 02:48:22 AM
So where are these four Liberal Democrats from?

Sarah Teather (Brent Central)
John Pugh (Southport)
Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley)
Alan Beith (Berwick upon Tweed)

Teather and Pugh are Catholics.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on February 06, 2013, 02:54:30 AM
So, UK Catholics are real Catholics, not nominal, secular ones like the ones we have in Quebec?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 06, 2013, 05:51:10 AM
Well, it's a marker of minority status here, isn't it? Not so in Quebec.

Though more than just a few Catholic MPs voted in favour, it should be noted.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on February 06, 2013, 06:28:26 AM
Some people consider that debatable, you know.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on February 06, 2013, 08:04:36 AM
Havering MPs: Rosindell against (not a surprise), Watkinson and Cruddas in favour.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 06, 2013, 09:16:38 AM
So where are these four Liberal Democrats from?

Sarah Teather (Brent Central)
John Pugh (Southport)
Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley)
Alan Beith (Berwick upon Tweed)

Teather and Pugh are Catholics.

Good luck getting them tactical voters.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: ObserverIE on February 06, 2013, 11:43:16 AM
So where are these four Liberal Democrats from?

Sarah Teather (Brent Central)
John Pugh (Southport)
Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley)
Alan Beith (Berwick upon Tweed)

Teather and Pugh are Catholics.

Good luck getting them tactical voters.

Em, how much of a sticking point will gay marriage be for potential tactical Labour voters in rural Northumberland or in Southport? I can't see the Lib Dems holding Brent or Burnley no matter what way the MPs voted on this issue - propping up the Tories will be the deciding factor there.

Gay marriage strikes me as an issue where you have small numbers either intensely in favour or intensely against, and a broad middle who may be mild approvers or disapprovers, but who won't view it as being an important factor come a general election. Much like Europe or hunting at the other end of the spectrum, frankly.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: countydurhamboy on February 06, 2013, 12:12:59 PM
So where are these four Liberal Democrats from?

Sarah Teather (Brent Central)
John Pugh (Southport)
Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley)
Alan Beith (Berwick upon Tweed)

Teather and Pugh are Catholics.

Good luck getting them tactical voters.

Em, how much of a sticking point will gay marriage be for potential tactical Labour voters in rural Northumberland or in Southport? I can't see the Lib Dems holding Brent or Burnley no matter what way the MPs voted on this issue - propping up the Tories will be the deciding factor there.

Gay marriage strikes me as an issue where you have small numbers either intensely in favour or intensely against, and a broad middle who may be mild approvers or disapprovers, but who won't view it as being an important factor come a general election. Much like Europe or hunting at the other end of the spectrum, frankly.
I think 3 of those are retiring anyway. Pugh definitely is. I wouldn't want to call Brent south, but gay marriage won't be a factor, if anything it may help her.                                                                            Edit: sorted out dodgy post. Sorry


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on February 06, 2013, 12:13:52 PM
YouGov predicts less than 4% of GB deem it important enough that they'd be put off voting someone who voted against it (and 3% would do the same for those who voted for).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 06, 2013, 12:34:59 PM
So where are these four Liberal Democrats from?

Sarah Teather (Brent Central)
John Pugh (Southport)
Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley)
Alan Beith (Berwick upon Tweed)

Teather and Pugh are Catholics.

Good luck getting them tactical voters.

Em, how much of a sticking point will gay marriage be for potential tactical Labour voters in rural Northumberland or in Southport? I can't see the Lib Dems holding Brent or Burnley no matter what way the MPs voted on this issue - propping up the Tories will be the deciding factor there.

Gay marriage strikes me as an issue where you have small numbers either intensely in favour or intensely against, and a broad middle who may be mild approvers or disapprovers, but who won't view it as being an important factor come a general election. Much like Europe or hunting at the other end of the spectrum, frankly.
So where are these four Liberal Democrats from?

Sarah Teather (Brent Central)
John Pugh (Southport)
Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley)
Alan Beith (Berwick upon Tweed)

Teather and Pugh are Catholics.

Good luck getting them tactical voters.

Em, how much of a sticking point will gay marriage be for potential tactical Labour voters in rural Northumberland or in Southport? I can't see the Lib Dems holding Brent or Burnley no matter what way the MPs voted on this issue - propping up the Tories will be the deciding factor there.

Gay marriage strikes me as an issue where you have small numbers either intensely in favour or intensely against, and a broad middle who may be mild approvers or disapprovers, but who won't view it as being an important factor come a general election. Much like Europe or hunting at the other end of the spectrum, frankly.
So where are these four Liberal Democrats from?

Sarah Teather (Brent Central)
John Pugh (Southport)
Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley)
Alan Beith (Berwick upon Tweed)

Teather and Pugh are Catholics.

Good luck getting them tactical voters.

Em, how much of a sticking point will gay marriage be for potential tactical Labour voters in rural Northumberland or in Southport? I can't see the Lib Dems holding Brent or Burnley no matter what way the MPs voted on this issue - propping up the Tories will be the deciding factor there.

Gay marriage strikes me as an issue where you have small numbers either intensely in favour or intensely against, and a broad middle who may be mild approvers or disapprovers, but who won't view it as being an important factor come a general election. Much like Europe or hunting at the other end of the spectrum, frankly.
I think 3 of those are retiring anyway. Pugh definitely is. I wouldn't want to call Brent south, but gay marriage won't be a factor, if anything it may help her.

Brent will be an easy Labour gain and if it's not, they're doing far worse across the country than in 2010.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Benj on February 06, 2013, 02:50:57 PM
So where are these four Liberal Democrats from?

Sarah Teather (Brent Central)
John Pugh (Southport)
Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley)
Alan Beith (Berwick upon Tweed)

Teather and Pugh are Catholics.

Good luck getting them tactical voters.

Em, how much of a sticking point will gay marriage be for potential tactical Labour voters in rural Northumberland or in Southport? I can't see the Lib Dems holding Brent or Burnley no matter what way the MPs voted on this issue - propping up the Tories will be the deciding factor there.

Gay marriage strikes me as an issue where you have small numbers either intensely in favour or intensely against, and a broad middle who may be mild approvers or disapprovers, but who won't view it as being an important factor come a general election. Much like Europe or hunting at the other end of the spectrum, frankly.
So where are these four Liberal Democrats from?

Sarah Teather (Brent Central)
John Pugh (Southport)
Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley)
Alan Beith (Berwick upon Tweed)

Teather and Pugh are Catholics.

Good luck getting them tactical voters.

Em, how much of a sticking point will gay marriage be for potential tactical Labour voters in rural Northumberland or in Southport? I can't see the Lib Dems holding Brent or Burnley no matter what way the MPs voted on this issue - propping up the Tories will be the deciding factor there.

Gay marriage strikes me as an issue where you have small numbers either intensely in favour or intensely against, and a broad middle who may be mild approvers or disapprovers, but who won't view it as being an important factor come a general election. Much like Europe or hunting at the other end of the spectrum, frankly.
So where are these four Liberal Democrats from?

Sarah Teather (Brent Central)
John Pugh (Southport)
Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley)
Alan Beith (Berwick upon Tweed)

Teather and Pugh are Catholics.

Good luck getting them tactical voters.

Em, how much of a sticking point will gay marriage be for potential tactical Labour voters in rural Northumberland or in Southport? I can't see the Lib Dems holding Brent or Burnley no matter what way the MPs voted on this issue - propping up the Tories will be the deciding factor there.

Gay marriage strikes me as an issue where you have small numbers either intensely in favour or intensely against, and a broad middle who may be mild approvers or disapprovers, but who won't view it as being an important factor come a general election. Much like Europe or hunting at the other end of the spectrum, frankly.
I think 3 of those are retiring anyway. Pugh definitely is. I wouldn't want to call Brent south, but gay marriage won't be a factor, if anything it may help her.

Brent will be an easy Labour gain and if it's not, they're doing far worse across the country than in 2010.

That was thought to be the case in 2010, too. Teather is a very impressive campaigner, and she could well win reelection against the overall tide. I doubt gay marriage will be a major issue in the campaign, though it probably does cost her some white social-liberals (but many of those were excised in the previous redistricting).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: countydurhamboy on February 06, 2013, 03:22:22 PM
I Agree with the comment above. Brent central is majority ethnic minority. These seats often behave contrary to national swing, according to local personalities. A Labour gain is likely, though the seat is not a slam-dunk like manc Withington or Burnley.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 06, 2013, 05:55:56 PM
Teather is a piece of sh!t. Anyone who's ever had a relative who's died of cancer ought to think so.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 06, 2013, 05:59:41 PM
Havering MPs: Rosindell against (not a surprise), Watkinson and Cruddas in favour.

With regards to issues mentioned above, Cruddas is very, very, very much RC.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on February 07, 2013, 12:40:05 AM
Teather is a piece of sh!t. Anyone who's ever had a relative who's died of cancer ought to think so.

()


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on February 07, 2013, 06:46:53 AM
Havering MPs: Rosindell against (not a surprise), Watkinson and Cruddas in favour.

With regards to issues mentioned above, Cruddas is very, very, very much RC.

Disappointed with his Daily Politics interview; seem to remember reading he was only on board if he had freedom to propose some radical thinking and yet he distanced himself from it (why was he so sure Labour would never get elected on his platform, frankly he makes it sound like he's John McDonnell, and even then I'd class it as a mark of a pessimist to rule it out like that) and even the report itself seemed to conclude the platform wasn't going to be much influenced by him.  


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 07, 2013, 06:48:35 AM
Wow, has Boris actually just pulled a stunt I liked and agreed with?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21365679

And also, thank god for the GCSE u-turn.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on February 07, 2013, 12:16:56 PM
Any exam with a name that most people have difficulty spelling is not a good exam.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on February 07, 2013, 05:46:43 PM
Eagerly awaiting c-nt features Brian Souter talking about the gays on Question Time.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 07, 2013, 08:15:35 PM
A technical term, it should be noted.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 11, 2013, 12:26:36 PM
()

So much for Cam's referendum bounce.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on February 11, 2013, 01:34:09 PM
Well considering that the message was, here's the referendum you idiots want, but it'll still be several years away and we'll try to educate you ignorant louts to vote to stay in the EU, it's no surprise.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on February 11, 2013, 01:55:33 PM
Deserved, given the last few weeks.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on February 11, 2013, 03:04:12 PM
Good news for Cameron with ICM. Labour's lead down to 5.

At the moment that just looks like margin of error fluctuation; compared with their previous poll the Tories were up 1 and Labour down 2 (and the LDs up 2), which hardly looks earth-shattering.

The Guardian has developed a bad habit of exaggerating the significance of smallish shifts in ICM polls, yesterday's article on this one being a case in point (NB they've done it with shifts in different directions).

As I was saying...

Patrick Wintour's article on the latest ICM poll does at least recognise the possibility of outlier polls, but it still fits into the above-mentioned pattern.  (And the January poll certainly looks like an outlier now.)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on February 12, 2013, 02:49:59 PM
http://www.tomforth.co.uk/guardiancomments/

This is a Guardian CIF comment generator. Not bad. Needs work though :)

"Why does sexuality still define us? I would rather vote for the BNP than let my three year old eat anything sold in Asda! But that's the fallout from having PM Bliar for a decade!"

and my favourite

"After a late night pilates session me and my chums were discussing things. In an age of rampant consumerism and on-demand television, can we really be surprised that the new generation would rather listen to hip hop than appreciate the subversive nature of the works of Arnold Schoenberg? I suppose that's why I don't let society define my gender!"


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on February 12, 2013, 05:29:22 PM
Sources suggest 140 Tories against, 132 for. If confirmed I'll resign my membership.

139-132 is the current (final?) figure

Seems to be. Letter already drafted. I can't quite believe I'm doing this under these circumstances on what should be a good day.

Did you actually resign membership?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on February 12, 2013, 09:00:47 PM
http://www.tomforth.co.uk/guardiancomments/

This is a Guardian CIF comment generator. Not bad. Needs work though :)

"Why does sexuality still define us? I would rather vote for the BNP than let my three year old eat anything sold in Asda! But that's the fallout from having PM Bliar for a decade!"

and my favourite

"After a late night pilates session me and my chums were discussing things. In an age of rampant consumerism and on-demand television, can we really be surprised that the new generation would rather listen to hip hop than appreciate the subversive nature of the works of Arnold Schoenberg? I suppose that's why I don't let society define my gender!"

They/you clearly haven't read CIF, which is weird, as it seems to be flooded with right-wingers.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 12, 2013, 09:03:53 PM
It is quite the magnet for cretins of all political hues; the dominant tone depends on the subject matter a lot of the time.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on February 12, 2013, 09:16:57 PM
I'm disappointed as I think there is some commonality for the avg CIF (once discounting the Rightist hoards on there for an argument), much like there is for Telegraph/Mail etc; they were on the right track with Bliar:

a) Tories are capitalists/feudalists and we soon-to-be serfs should be revolting.
b) Liberals are sellouts who we'll enjoy seeing destroyed come 2015.
c) Labour are useless, they'll be no different and we're all screwed.

They're nearly always rants (don't let the size fool you into believing they're introspective, considered points) and so, as I say, I can only conclude those building this are basing this off the stereotype for Guardian readers.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: LastVoter on February 12, 2013, 10:17:24 PM
It's amazing that half of the right-wing party voted for gay marriage.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: DC Al Fine on February 12, 2013, 10:28:49 PM
It's amazing that half of the right-wing party voted for gay marriage.

The UK is quite socially liberal and I imagine a lot of the religious right types have jumped to UKIP already.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on February 12, 2013, 11:23:48 PM
It's amazing that half of the right-wing party voted for gay marriage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3D_obNV9vk


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on February 12, 2013, 11:26:04 PM
It's amazing that half of the right-wing party voted for gay marriage.

Eh, a lot of the UK Convervatives are probably similar to those New England Republicans who are now Independents who vote Democratic.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on February 12, 2013, 11:37:04 PM
Nah, they'd have had an easier time rallying against it. That is, if a) Labour had been proposing it, and not their party leader b) they didn't have a right-wing Thatcherite economic platform to disguise as a centrist 'we're just doing what's needed' policy c) most importantly, the Scottish parliament (and presumably the Welsh assembly) weren't going to propose gay marriage anyway (and in tern creating an enormous headache if England didn't keep pace).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on February 13, 2013, 07:40:25 AM
Sources suggest 140 Tories against, 132 for. If confirmed I'll resign my membership.

139-132 is the current (final?) figure

Seems to be. Letter already drafted. I can't quite believe I'm doing this under these circumstances on what should be a good day.

Did you actually resign membership?

Yes. After nearly 10 years. I already expected before the Commons vote, that the majority of the Scottish Parliament Conservatives would probably vote against the bill when it's raised here because they like to be contrary on such things. Never mind that fact the LGBTory Scotland is probably the largest active grouping in the party membership. I did however have hope that the Commons vote would be a little more along the line of 60-40 in favour amongst Tory MP's. Instead they allowed themselves to get bogged down in semantics and non arguments constructing a little fairy world where Catholic priests are forced marry gays (and only gays mind, not divorces, or Jews or non-practicing Catholics) and that the sky would fall in because gays f-ck differently. We ended up with a man on his second marriage defending it's 'sanctity' and a woman who herself cheated saying gays would do the same thing because essentially penises need to go into vaginas (I wonder which ones...) in order to make people stop bed hopping.

As I said on the day, this is the last test. The last barrier. I forgive past votes on age of consent and Section 28 and so on because people can change and evolve in a very short space of time and not just the Tories. But this was the last bastion and the whole thing wasn't even about sex (yet curiously those with intrests in the scatalogical tried to frame it that way) and the party failed the test.

So they can all just f-ck off.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 13, 2013, 09:34:25 AM
It's amazing that half of the right-wing party voted for gay marriage.

The UK is quite socially liberal and I imagine a lot of the religious right types have jumped to UKIP already.

Some, not a lot.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Lurker on February 13, 2013, 10:23:37 AM
I wonder how many Tory MPs would actually have supported the gay marriage bill if Cameron had not backed it. From sites like toryhome (which I realize might not be that representative) you do get the impression that most of the Tory "base" is still very much anti-gay rights.

139 MPs voting against their own Leader in the HoC must surely be a record, right?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: countydurhamboy on February 13, 2013, 01:11:02 PM
I wonder how many Tory MPs would actually have supported the gay marriage bill if Cameron had not backed it. From sites like toryhome (which I realize might not be that representative) you do get the impression that most of the Tory "base" is still very much anti-gay rights.

139 MPs voting against their own Leader in the HoC must surely be a record, right?
There are a sizeable number of tory Mp's who despise Cameron, if anything they would have been hardened to vote against him.   80MP's voted to give Britain a referendum on the Eu in 2011 and basically ended any chance of a ministerial post. They will simply vote the way their ideology dictates. To many gay marriage was just another stick to beat cameron with. They would rather lose in 2015 than compromise. That's what will happen of course.  I wonder who they will want as leader then?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on February 13, 2013, 03:27:18 PM
You need to update your signature, Andrew.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 13, 2013, 07:30:06 PM
Good on Ed with going for the old "Are you better off than you were 5 years ago?" at PMQs. Been saying since day one that that's exactly how he should approach it.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Insula Dei on February 14, 2013, 10:54:27 AM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/feb/14/harold-wilson-roy-hattersley-wrong-about

Thoughts?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on February 14, 2013, 12:23:36 PM

139 MPs voting against their own Leader in the HoC must surely be a record, right?

For the modern era, yes (there were bigger revolts over the Corn Laws). It's actually been done twice - once for the Conservatives over gay marriage and once for Labour over the Iraq War. The latter one was a whipped vote, so it's arguably more significant.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 14, 2013, 12:39:34 PM
Mori puts the PM at the same level of (un)popularity as Brown was at this point in his premiership... but y'know incumbent swing back and all that. ::)

And, any comment from my fellow Atlasers on Ed's 10p announcement?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 14, 2013, 01:33:48 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/feb/14/harold-wilson-roy-hattersley-wrong-about

Thoughts?

There's nothing too surprising there, but it's interesting all the same. Wilson had an (unfair) reputation as a factionalist hack before he became leader, and an (unfair) reputation as an unusually dodgy career politician after 1966 or so and then as that plus 'paranoid old man' after 1974. The main reason for the first two was that he couldn't lie convincingly, which is an awful disability for a politician. Generally he tried to get around that by half-truths, which was dangerous because it's easier to prove those than actual lies. As for the third, well, we now know that he was quite right to be paranoid.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 14, 2013, 08:19:51 PM
I'd put a print screen of their front page of their cover to demonstrate, but it's beyond bad taste. Just when I thought The Sun couldn't sink any lower.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on February 15, 2013, 10:12:52 AM
It's not 'sinking' when they've long had a history of doing it (and they're not alone) - there was even evidence given at Levison about it.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on February 15, 2013, 12:33:57 PM
Printing bikini shots of murder victim was done by all the red tops today.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on February 15, 2013, 01:09:49 PM
A fitting testament to these great institutions of journalism.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on February 15, 2013, 06:20:01 PM
You know if this was a British case, contempt of court proceedings would be happening now.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 15, 2013, 10:01:41 PM
Quote
Later today Ed Miliband will be in Eastleigh – and while he’s there he’ll confirm that Labour plans to force a vote on his proposed Mansion Tax. As one senior Labour source told me last night – that will force the Lib Dems to “show whose side they are on”. And since Vince Cable gave Miliband’s Mansion Tax announcement such a warm response, it certainly would be hard for the Business Secretary to oppose it now.

Labour want to see the Mansion Tax debated “as soon as possible” I but they haven’t ruled out forcing an amendment to the Finance Bill, which with Parliament’s current arithmetic could have very interesting results.

http://labourlist.org/2013/02/miliband-will-force-commons-vote-on-mansion-tax-to-show-whose-side-lib-dems-are-on/


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Frodo on February 16, 2013, 02:43:49 PM
()

So much for Cam's referendum bounce.

It's too bad the election isn't for another two years. 


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 17, 2013, 11:03:18 AM
()

So much for Cam's referendum bounce.

It's too bad the election isn't for another two years. 

You're missing the point



Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on February 17, 2013, 11:49:55 AM
()

So much for Cam's referendum bounce.

It's too bad the election isn't for another two years. 

You're missing the point



Not really. Labour had leads of 20% at this time during the 1987-1992 parliament, leads of about 5% at this time between 1983 and 1987 and leads of about 15% at this time between 1979 and 1983. Tory governments have a tendency to be deeply unpopular in mid-term.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on February 17, 2013, 01:33:59 PM
Not really. Labour had leads of 20% at this time during the 1987-1992 parliament, leads of about 5% at this time between 1983 and 1987 and leads of about 15% at this time between 1979 and 1983. Tory governments have a tendency to be deeply unpopular in mid-term.

These are far from normal mid-term leads. The only time Labour had sustained double-digit leads were in 1981, which the SDP-split seen the end of and 1990, with the ousting of Thatcher for Major and the disowning of the Poll Tax combating that (and those were leads before shy Tory was accounted for).

Now, Labour's support could fracture back to the Liberals/elsewhere if they go into 2015 taking them for granted (ie offer another Blairite platform), and the Tories could narrow things with Boris Johnson, but the fact that the Liberals have completely alienated the leftists in their party suggests Labour's leads are more robust (in many ways as important as the 81 split) than previously.  


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on February 17, 2013, 01:56:14 PM
Not really. Labour had leads of 20% at this time during the 1987-1992 parliament, leads of about 5% at this time between 1983 and 1987 and leads of about 15% at this time between 1979 and 1983. Tory governments have a tendency to be deeply unpopular in mid-term.

These are far from normal mid-term leads. The only time Labour had sustained double-digit leads were in 1981, which the SDP-split seen the end of and 1990, with the ousting of Thatcher for Major and the disowning of the Poll Tax combating that (and those were leads before shy Tory was accounted for).

Now, Labour's support could fracture back to the Liberals/elsewhere if they go into 2015 taking them for granted (ie offer another Blairite platform), and the Tories could narrow things with Boris Johnson, but the fact that the Liberals have completely alienated the leftists in their party suggests Labour's leads are more robust (in many ways as important as the 81 split) than previously.  

1. Never underestimate the Lib Dem incumbency factor and their ability to recover. The Lib Dem shares we see in polls right now would be the lowest since 1970; that result is unlikely. Just look at what's happening in Eastleigh; rallying the anti-Tory vote yet again.

2. We have a high UKIP vote share. There's no guarantee they will be standing in every seat or that such a vote share will be sustained at a national election in what will always be a Labour v Tory contest.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on February 17, 2013, 02:04:56 PM
1. Never underestimate the Lib Dem incumbency factor and their ability to recover. The Lib Dem shares we see in polls right now would be the lowest since 1970; that result is unlikely. Just look at what's happening in Eastleigh; rallying the anti-Tory vote yet again.

2. We have a high UKIP vote share. There's no guarantee they will be standing in every seat or that such a vote share will be sustained at a national election in what will always be a Labour v Tory contest.

1. You say that, but when's the last time the Liberals have been in power, and therefore had to throw their lot in with a side? Exactly. Their party's benefited enormously on appealing to both anti-Labour and anti-Tories throughout the country for decades, and you only need to look at the locals to see Eastleigh isn't remotely representative of the country: they've been rock-solid there whilst receiving their lowest national equivalents since 1980.

2. I think you can guarantee most, as the party's bankrolled by toffs. I imagine they might stand down in constituencies where there's a right-wing enough candidate for them, but Farage has been making noises recently there will be no pact.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 17, 2013, 02:16:41 PM
Eastleigh is one of the few places left where they still totally dominate local politics; they've built up a very strong brand there, one that can survive the trainwreck that The-LibDems-In-Government have basically been and (probably) one that can survive the criminal conviction (and outing as a total louse) of their sitting Member on top of that. And even if they do lose the by-election, they'll probably take the seat back at the General Election. Of course (and like most LibDem seats) in terms of government formation Eastleigh is only relevant in terms of a Tory minority or Tory majority; it has no bearing on whether or not Labour can win. The minority LibDem seats where Labour are competitive are mostly going to fall, incumbency be damned.

I also wonder how strong some of the second generation incumbents in their safer seats (facing Tory opposition) are.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on February 17, 2013, 02:20:52 PM
Indeed, when I think of the threatened back of a taxi rump of remaining Liberals, an Eastleigh MP is in there.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on February 17, 2013, 05:05:21 PM
It's amazing that half of the right-wing party voted for gay marriage.

Eh, a lot of the UK Convervatives are probably similar to those New England Republicans who are now Independents who vote Democratic.

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that many Tories would vote Democratic.

I was at a Conservative Future (under-30's wing) election hustings in London the other day, and the topic of 'who would you support in the 2012 US election' came up. All the candidates said they would have supported Romney or Gary Johnson. One drunk girl in the audience shouted 'I LOVE OBAMA', then the vast majority of the room shouted 'SHAME' and 'UNSOUND' in response. I overheard the person in front of me say 'how can you be a Conservative and a Democ-RAT'? 

Obviously this is just one little snippet, but Conservatives are not like-for-like Democrats, although I would agree that there is significant overlap on social issues.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Smid on February 17, 2013, 07:23:46 PM
It's amazing that half of the right-wing party voted for gay marriage.

Eh, a lot of the UK Convervatives are probably similar to those New England Republicans who are now Independents who vote Democratic.

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that many Tories would vote Democratic.

I was at a Conservative Future (under-30's wing) election hustings in London the other day, and the topic of 'who would you support in the 2012 US election' came up. All the candidates said they would have supported Romney or Gary Johnson. One drunk girl in the audience shouted 'I LOVE OBAMA', then the vast majority of the room shouted 'SHAME' and 'UNSOUND' in response. I overheard the person in front of me say 'how can you be a Conservative and a Democ-RAT'? 

Obviously this is just one little snippet, but Conservatives are not like-for-like Democrats, although I would agree that there is significant overlap on social issues.

In my experience, the members of the youth wing of conservative parties try to prove that they're the most right-wing person in the room. I think in many cases it's just an act - they move into the grown-up wing of the party and stop making fools of themselves.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 17, 2013, 08:56:13 PM
See the career of John Bercow as a case in point...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Simfan34 on February 17, 2013, 10:52:38 PM
It's amazing that half of the right-wing party voted for gay marriage.

Eh, a lot of the UK Convervatives are probably similar to those New England Republicans who are now Independents who vote Democratic.

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that many Tories would vote Democratic.

I was at a Conservative Future (under-30's wing) election hustings in London the other day, and the topic of 'who would you support in the 2012 US election' came up. All the candidates said they would have supported Romney or Gary Johnson. One drunk girl in the audience shouted 'I LOVE OBAMA', then the vast majority of the room shouted 'SHAME' and 'UNSOUND' in response. I overheard the person in front of me say 'how can you be a Conservative and a Democ-RAT'? 

Obviously this is just one little snippet, but Conservatives are not like-for-like Democrats, although I would agree that there is significant overlap on social issues.

This is why I love Britain.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on February 18, 2013, 07:36:09 AM
Indeed, when I think of the threatened back of a taxi rump of remaining Liberals, an Eastleigh MP is in there.

Who else is in your taxi?

(Assume capacity 6, as in 1951/55/59.)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 18, 2013, 11:42:43 AM
Indeed, when I think of the threatened back of a taxi rump of remaining Liberals, an Eastleigh MP is in there.

Who else is in your taxi?

(Assume capacity 6, as in 1951/55/59.)

Surely Carmichael, Farron, Kennedy, Mark Williams, Cable and, from your suggestion, Huhne.

Of course, what's actually working in the LibDem's favour, with there being more Lib-Con fights than Lib-Lab, is that Tory support is falling away now too. The polls we got in 2011 of results like 42-38-10 would have been even more of a disaster for the Libs. And it goes without saying that, in 2015, freak results (like Eastleigh possible could be) should be expected.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 18, 2013, 12:52:10 PM
I suspect that we might see a surprising amount of fluidity between the two Government parties in the county council elections later this year.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on February 18, 2013, 02:03:02 PM
It's amazing that half of the right-wing party voted for gay marriage.

Eh, a lot of the UK Convervatives are probably similar to those New England Republicans who are now Independents who vote Democratic.

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that many Tories would vote Democratic.

I was at a Conservative Future (under-30's wing) election hustings in London the other day, and the topic of 'who would you support in the 2012 US election' came up. All the candidates said they would have supported Romney or Gary Johnson. One drunk girl in the audience shouted 'I LOVE OBAMA', then the vast majority of the room shouted 'SHAME' and 'UNSOUND' in response. I overheard the person in front of me say 'how can you be a Conservative and a Democ-RAT'? 

Obviously this is just one little snippet, but Conservatives are not like-for-like Democrats, although I would agree that there is significant overlap on social issues.

In my experience, the members of the youth wing of conservative parties try to prove that they're the most right-wing person in the room. I think in many cases it's just an act - they move into the grown-up wing of the party and stop making fools of themselves.

I do think this does play into it.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on February 18, 2013, 03:03:30 PM
Who else is in your taxi?

(Assume capacity 6, as in 1951/55/59.)

Surely Carmichael, Farron, Kennedy, Mark Williams, Cable and, from your suggestion, Huhne.

I presume you mean Thornton...

Apart from that, I agree with you except for Williams.  I think if the Lib Dems do that badly (which I don't really think likely, btw) Plaid should take Ceredigion back.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 18, 2013, 06:22:54 PM
Who else is in your taxi?

(Assume capacity 6, as in 1951/55/59.)

Surely Carmichael, Farron, Kennedy, Mark Williams, Cable and, from your suggestion, Huhne.

I presume you mean Thornton...

Apart from that, I agree with you except for Williams.  I think if the Lib Dems do that badly (which I don't really think likely, btw) Plaid should take Ceredigion back.

I meant Huhne, if we'd been talking back when it looked like they'd scrape 8-9 seats.

And, to me, Ceredigion seems like on of the most unpredictable seats in the country.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 18, 2013, 06:29:29 PM
LibDems took a hell of a beating in Aber last year, for whatever that's worth.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Dr. Cynic on February 19, 2013, 04:44:56 PM
I don't think the Lib Dems will do so badly as to get knocked down that far. If they do get thumped, they'll probably drop to about 25 seats. There are some Liberal Democrats who have a decent personal vote.

I'm curious about Mike Hancock's vote in Portsmouth South. He did have that whole issue with the Russian girl. Could he be gone next time regardless even though his vote has increased from 2005 to 2010?

John Denham's retirement in the very marginal Southampton Itchen should make a competitive and open contest.

I'm also looking closely at the Plymouth Sutton and Devonport constituency, given I've got family there. It looks marginal and the Tory Oliver Colvile won it by a small margin. What sort of swing would Labour need to get the seat back?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 19, 2013, 05:23:04 PM
John Denham's retirement in the very marginal Southampton Itchen should make a competitive and open contest.

Any inroads in places like this for the Liberals will be struck down by the fact that the Liberals aren't at 24% anymore...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on February 20, 2013, 02:08:23 PM
Child poverty mapped by parliamentary constituency, from the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2013/feb/20/child-poverty-uk-map-2012)

Predictably, most of the constituencies with low figures are Tory or Lib Dem, Nick Clegg's seat being lowest of all; the Labour seat with the lowest figure seems to be Hallam's neighbour Penistone & Stocksbridge, followed by East Renfrewshire and Morley & Outwood.  Also predictably, the seats with the highest figures, which are mostly city centre seats like Manchester Central, are Labour except for Belfast West; the Lib Dem seats with the highest figures are Portsmouth South and Brent Central, and I think Clacton is the Tory seat with the highest figure.



Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 22, 2013, 06:58:58 PM
The big news tonight comes from Moodys. They've downgraded the credit rating.

With less significance, a UKIP MEP has defected to the Tories.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on February 23, 2013, 05:48:04 AM
The big news tonight comes from Moodys. They've downgraded the credit rating.

All the cuts and the credit rating still gets downgraded. I though this government would deal with the deficit at huge social cost... and they can't even do the former.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on February 23, 2013, 06:22:06 AM
The big news tonight comes from Moodys. They've downgraded the credit rating.

All the cuts and the credit rating still gets downgraded. I though this government would deal with the deficit at huge social cost... and they can't even do the former.

Well, the press release doesn't complain about cuts. It's mainly than the economy is shrinking and is showing no hint than it will go back in the other direction soon.

Which, in my opinion, is due to the cuts.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on February 23, 2013, 11:43:52 AM
With less significance, a UKIP MEP has defected to the Tories.

I know that parties often get a bit rude about defectors, but Nigel Farage on this one goes a bit further than usual:
Quote
Having left the OECD, the European Commission and Ukip in unpleasant circumstances, the Conservative party deserve what is coming to them. The woman is impossible.

(Via the Grauniad (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/feb/22/ukip-mep-defects-tories).)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on February 23, 2013, 12:59:24 PM
Nothing unusual for Farage there, I think.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: DC Al Fine on February 23, 2013, 05:41:51 PM
Quote
Marta Andreasen, a South East region MEP, sent her resignation letter to UKIP leader Nigel Farage on Friday.

It comes two weeks after she accused the UKIP leader of bullying and being "anti-women" and "a Stalinist" and threatened to leave the party.

I'm not sure Stalinist is an epithet I'd use for Farage. ::)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 23, 2013, 07:04:02 PM
()


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on February 24, 2013, 07:02:45 AM
Cardinal O'Brien caught being a hypocritical gobsh!te.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 24, 2013, 07:58:19 AM
That is the technical term, I understand.

Though actually what's been alleged is worse than that; full on power abuse creeper creep.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 24, 2013, 08:01:59 AM
Related story being that of Lord Rennard, of course. A story that has the added... er... 'bonus'... of Baron Groper of Wavertree looking very much the type, so to speak.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: bore on February 24, 2013, 09:40:31 AM
I suppose this is yet another example of it being very difficult to tell when there is something dodgy about someone. Just a day ago on the vatican election thread I said how when I, and people I knew had spoken to him he seemed quite nice. Similarly on another forum I frequent there was someone who once had lunch with Pistorius who had raved about what a nice guy he was.  I guess to be able to hide these sort of thing for decades you have to be good at projecting a different public persona.

Obviously if its all true he should be imprisoned by the state and punished by the church- as well as providing yet more evidence that the most vicious homophobes can be in the closet, but we should be very careful about accepting these allegations as gospel.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on February 25, 2013, 06:16:53 AM
Cardinal O’Brien has stepped down which probably adds fuel to the fire. Given that he is in effect, the titular head of the ‘Scotland for Marriage’ campaign, this is a good day for the equal marriage campaign.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: bore on February 25, 2013, 12:03:23 PM
That was very quick.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on February 25, 2013, 12:30:49 PM
I can safely say now that it had been rumoured for a while. He is not the first or in any way will be the last senior Catholic in Scotland to whom these rumours apply (but that’s not for this forum) The Catholic Church in Scotland is particularly vicious on the matter of gays in comparison to the church elsewhere for these very reasons; essentially old closeted self loathing gays who exercise power in a rather insular part of the worldwide Church.

Of course it continues, perhaps with a lesser degree of venom, in the lower echelons of the Church too; my own former parish priest was romantically linked with a female parishioner and several priests including one a few parishes along are regulars on the Glasgow gay scene. It’s secretive, but at times an unashamed life that priests have and I don’t blame them. The idea that they are on the whole celibate is wishful thinking. Everyone has a sexual side to them. In the times when Scotland was not as tolerant as she is now then for homosexual men it was a refuge from society and fortunately society has changed for the better while these men have been shut away. It leads to frustration or in worse cases open resentment. The LGBT community is surprisingly over tolerant in shielding political and religious hypocrites who exercise power or preach animosity towards us.

Scotland does not on the surface appear to have the same problems that the Church in Ireland does in part because the Church has never exercised any real power or worked in coercion with the state; quite the opposite in fact. However it does not mean that abusive incidents have not occurred in areas where they have had authority. I am personally aware of one, though it did not happen to me which did affected people in my year at school. Whether that is ever raised (and time is running out) is a matter for them. Catholic are far too reticent when it comes to these things.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 25, 2013, 06:18:50 PM
Seems as though the Vatican essentially sacked him.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on February 25, 2013, 06:28:02 PM
Seems as though the Vatican essentially sacked him.

Which is fairly strong and may imply something to which we are not yet party to. He was due to resign in a few weeks and coincidentally cast his vote for Pope just before it. He did also make the news just the day before saying priests should be allowed to marry. The cynic in me thinks that may have created more problems than just the alleged man loving.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Insula Dei on February 26, 2013, 10:03:16 AM
The cynic in you would be wrong. Rome doesn't really care about the toying around with slightly unorthodox positions on the celibate by transalpine bishops.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on February 26, 2013, 12:12:30 PM
All this means that there will be no British say in the Conclave.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 26, 2013, 12:23:57 PM
All this means that there will be no British say in the Conclave.

Oh no.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on February 26, 2013, 01:02:25 PM
This is an outrage! Cameron should take Britain out of the Catholic Church in retaliation.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 03, 2013, 07:46:01 AM
Just seen a random tweet saying that UKIP are in the same position Labour was in 100 years ago. They're a hilarious bunch.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on March 03, 2013, 09:58:32 AM
I disagree.  Labour is not all that funny.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on March 03, 2013, 01:15:10 PM
Cardinal O'Brien, in is own way, sort of admits it.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on March 03, 2013, 02:20:50 PM
Just seen a random tweet saying that UKIP are in the same position Labour was in 100 years ago. They're a hilarious bunch.

100 years ago, Labour had over 40 MPs.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: DC Al Fine on March 03, 2013, 06:22:21 PM
Just seen a random tweet saying that UKIP are in the same position Labour was in 100 years ago. They're a hilarious bunch.

100 years ago, Labour had over 40 MPs.

To be fair, UKIP is polling better than Labour did in the PV in the Dec 1910 election.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 03, 2013, 06:25:16 PM
This apple is larger than that egg.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Smid on March 03, 2013, 07:14:27 PM
Just seen a random tweet saying that UKIP are in the same position Labour was in 100 years ago. They're a hilarious bunch.

100 years ago, Labour had over 40 MPs.

To be fair, UKIP is polling better than Labour did in the PV in the Dec 1910 election.

What electoral reform will be undertaken in the UK, which will allow the UKIP to gain voters (or the other parties to lose voters), in the way that universal suffrage allowed Labour to gain voters in the years following 1910?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 03, 2013, 07:43:37 PM
Just seen a random tweet saying that UKIP are in the same position Labour was in 100 years ago. They're a hilarious bunch.

100 years ago, Labour had over 40 MPs.

To be fair, UKIP is polling better than Labour did in the PV in the Dec 1910 election.

What electoral reform will be undertaken in the UK, which will allow the UKIP to gain voters (or the other parties to lose voters), in the way that universal suffrage allowed Labour to gain voters in the years following 1910?

None.

And UKIP's main demographic, (small-c) conservative, old, rich, white men have never really struggled with the franchise.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on March 03, 2013, 08:07:14 PM
Just seen a random tweet saying that UKIP are in the same position Labour was in 100 years ago. They're a hilarious bunch.

100 years ago, Labour had over 40 MPs.

To be fair, UKIP is polling better than Labour did in the PV in the Dec 1910 election.

What electoral reform will be undertaken in the UK, which will allow the UKIP to gain voters (or the other parties to lose voters), in the way that universal suffrage allowed Labour to gain voters in the years following 1910?

Proportional representation.  It's not simply that people are protesting the EU by voting UKIP in European Parliament elections. It's that unlike with FPTP, people don't feel that a vote for UKIP is a wasted vote there.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 03, 2013, 08:17:23 PM
The Labour Party ran 78 candidates in January 1910 and 56 in December 1910. Most (almost all in December) of these candidates won, almost all of them faced no opposition from the Liberal Party (there was, of course, an electoral pact). Had Labour adopted a more aggressive approach to relations with the Liberals, the Party would have polled many more votes but won significantly less seats.

And, of course, there were no opinion polls in the 1910s.

What electoral reform will be undertaken in the UK, which will allow the UKIP to gain voters (or the other parties to lose voters), in the way that universal suffrage allowed Labour to gain voters in the years following 1910?

Oddly enough (and somewhat counterintuitively), it was proven a while ago that universal suffrage wasn't (as in: literally can't have logically been) the reason for Labour's great breakthrough after 1918, although it certainly helped as the '20s progressed.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on March 03, 2013, 08:24:02 PM
Just seen a random tweet saying that UKIP are in the same position Labour was in 100 years ago. They're a hilarious bunch.

100 years ago, Labour had over 40 MPs.

To be fair, UKIP is polling better than Labour did in the PV in the Dec 1910 election.

What electoral reform will be undertaken in the UK, which will allow the UKIP to gain voters (or the other parties to lose voters), in the way that universal suffrage allowed Labour to gain voters in the years following 1910?

Proportional representation.  It's not simply that people are protesting the EU by voting UKIP in European Parliament elections. It's that unlike with FPTP, people don't feel that a vote for UKIP is a wasted vote there.

PR would certainly help them enormously, but other parties would start taking them seriously and shine a light on their more unpopular policies (NHS-dismantling, banker loving, austerity max to a pick a few).  


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on March 03, 2013, 08:57:55 PM
PR would certainly help them enormously, but other parties would start taking them seriously and shine a light on their more unpopular policies (NHS-dismantling, banker loving, austerity max to a pick a few).  

True, but once they actually have seats and can keep them, UKIP might well change those parts of its platform that are not inseparably linked to Eurosceptism in order to broaden their appeal.  The same is true of course for the other UK parties.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on March 04, 2013, 12:25:54 PM
At the moment, PR for this country is about as likely as me dating Jenna-Louise Coleman, so UKIP can't rely on that.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 04, 2013, 01:51:10 PM
I see Miriam caved to Nick Clegg. They're sending their son to a Catholic comprehensive (a "strict" one, for good measure).

All this comes after the kick off last month over Mrs González-Clegg wanting to send their son to a private.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Siloch on March 04, 2013, 04:02:49 PM
What Eastleigh showed us is that we will probably be seeing a lot more hung parliaments in the future. If the Tories can't win a middle England seat like that, they wont have a majority. If under a hugely unpopular government the Labour vote actually declines, they wont win a majority either.

What I really want to see is a by-election in a seat like Cambridge or Bristol West, I want to see if students stick with Lib Dems.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on March 04, 2013, 04:17:34 PM
What Eastleigh showed us is that we will probably be seeing a lot more hung parliaments in the future. If the Tories can't win a middle England seat like that, they wont have a majority. If under a hugely unpopular government the Labour vote actually declines, they wont win a majority either.

I disagree. Labour's 2010 position as also-rans in Eastleigh left it vulnerable to being squeezed and abandoned for more worthwhile vehicles. FPTP encourage tactical voting to such an extent that it'll bear next to no relation for most seats Labour will be looking to gain (most of which being Con-Lab marginals). If UKIP retains the support it's polling, Labour should walk the next general election in a manner reminiscent of Thatcher's 1980's victories, as the Liberals electoral progress looks to be rewound to the benefit - and consolidation - of the Labour vote.  

Oh and I'm certain Labour will gain Cambridge (see how Labour are comfortably beating the Liberals in the locals there).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 04, 2013, 04:33:32 PM
the Labour vote actually declines

It didn't.

What I really want to see is a by-election in a seat like Cambridge or Bristol West, I want to see if students stick with Lib Dems.

They haven't been and they won't.

With what local elections had shown us about Eastleigh, this result could've been predicted (albeit, not the UKIP surge, but the Liberal win). In a local campaign, which wouldn't decide the government at the end of the day, the Liberals had no business losing. And even then, their voters didn't stick with them - their decline in vote share (-14.48%) was the second worst we've seen for them in all of this parliament's by-elections (the first being Manchester Central) and this was completely in line with their national polling position (the UKPR average has them at 10%, down 14 on 2010).

Local results in seats like Norwich, Cambridge, Leeds NW, Fife, Cardiff, Withington have been brutal for them. Not to mention in their university targets: Oxford, Sheffield Central, Edinburgh, Durham, Newcastle...

Bristol though, to be fair, could be one of the places where they don't do as badly as expected. They're still the biggest group on the council and they still have the upper hand going into the May locals, although Labour could edge them out.

I'd think that in 2015, these are the seats in which we'll see most clearly this 'realignment of the left' that's being talked up. These as well as decent swings to Labour in already safe northern cities like Liverpool (where the shift away from the Liberals started at the 2010 election, even before the coalition), Manchester and Newcastle.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Siloch on March 04, 2013, 04:44:21 PM
The Labour vote did decline in Eastleigh, so after 3 years of "brutal cuts" as Labour say, they failed to increse their number of supporters, that is pathetic.

Eastleigh Labour vote
2010 - 5,153
2013 - 4,088

Labour is in for a 1992 style shock, not a 1983 style win.

I mean you guys are suggesting that Lib Dem voters will naturally swing to Labour, where did that happen in Eastleigh, lol it didn't.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 04, 2013, 05:12:09 PM
The Labour vote did decline in Eastleigh, so after 3 years of "brutal cuts" as Labour say, they failed to increse their number of supporters, that is pathetic.

Eastleigh Labour vote
2010 - 5,153
2013 - 4,088

Labour is in for a 1992 style shock, not a 1983 style win.

And the governing parties lost 20,000 votes between them and nearly 30% of the vote share, so I don't get your point really.

Unless you're suggesting that UKIP will be swept into number 10 in 2015? Aha.

I mean you guys are suggesting that Lib Dem voters will naturally swing to Labour, where did that happen in Eastleigh, lol it didn't.

Eastleigh's been the exception, not the rule.

Before the last election, the Tories did crap in places where they had no hope like Glasgow NE, Livingston and Sedgefield and still won.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on March 04, 2013, 05:46:24 PM
Labour is in for a 1992 style shock, not a 1983 style win.

I mean you guys are suggesting that Lib Dem voters will naturally swing to Labour, where did that happen in Eastleigh, lol it didn't.

I suggest you read my post again, I specifically pointed out that the race in Eastleigh is completely different to most seats Labour will need for a majority (ie they won't be on 10% with a Liberal incumbent; they'll be the best chance to oust the Tories.

Eastleigh is miles apart from the rest of the country in Liberal strength: see the local elections fortress they've built there at a time when they've seen repeated annihilations across the country to leave them at their lowest ever number of councillors.

You may as well face it, if you can't resolve the UKIP split your part will go into the election trailing Labour a significant amount and be crucified by the electoral system for it like Labour were in the 80's.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 04, 2013, 05:52:42 PM
Yeah, if the AV referendum was held now, the Tories wouldn't be so harsh about it...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: DC Al Fine on March 04, 2013, 10:43:02 PM
Yeah, if the AV referendum was held now, the Tories wouldn't be so harsh about it...

True. There will be a great many seats in 2015 where (Tory+UKIP)>>Labour


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on March 04, 2013, 11:16:04 PM
Dodged a bullet as far as I'm concerned. If and when the Right ever do become converts to the cause of electoral reform*, I'll be glad that AV's dead and buried as an option, so they'll have to offer something which doesn't just allow them to use other parties voters as ammunition (meanwhile rewarding those parties with no extra seats).  

*which I'm reasonably optimistic might happen if we're entering 4 party politics for a sustained period, and one which overwhelmingly hinders the Right's chance of governing.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: DC Al Fine on March 05, 2013, 07:16:17 AM
Dodged a bullet as far as I'm concerned. If and when the Right ever do become converts to the cause of electoral reform*, I'll be glad that AV's dead and buried as an option, so they'll have to offer something which doesn't just allow them to use other parties voters as ammunition (meanwhile rewarding those parties with no extra seats).  

*which I'm reasonably optimistic might happen if we're entering 4 party politics for a sustained period, and one which overwhelmingly hinders the Right's chance of governing.

MMP :D


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 05, 2013, 10:56:54 AM
Dodged a bullet as far as I'm concerned. If and when the Right ever do become converts to the cause of electoral reform*, I'll be glad that AV's dead and buried as an option, so they'll have to offer something which doesn't just allow them to use other parties voters as ammunition (meanwhile rewarding those parties with no extra seats).  

*which I'm reasonably optimistic might happen if we're entering 4 party politics for a sustained period, and one which overwhelmingly hinders the Right's chance of governing.

MMP :D

Yeah, AV deserved the kicking it got as anyone registered on a site like this should recognise.

MMP or AV+ on the other hand...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Siloch on March 05, 2013, 11:09:08 AM
I am not a tory btw (I really couldn't care less what neo-liberal party rules the UK) but the UKIP split is not just bad news for the tories, UKIP are attracting voters from all the parties for example in Rotherham the Labour vote increased by 1.62%, yet the Liberal Democrat vote declined by 13.87% so the idea that Liberal Democrats are naturally swinging to Labour across the board is not correct.

I stand by my opinion, that yes there will be Labour gains in the next election and yes they have a good chance of entering government but it will be with the Liberal Democrats, they will not get a majority no party will, the UKIP surge wont last long either, remember there was a BNP surge in Labour seats during the mid 2000s, nothing came of that. When it comes down to it, you vote for Labour or the Tories or against such.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 05, 2013, 11:49:22 AM
I am not a tory btw (I really couldn't care less what neo-liberal party rules the UK) but the UKIP split is not just bad news for the tories, UKIP are attracting voters from all the parties for example in Rotherham the Labour vote increased by 1.62%, yet the Liberal Democrat vote declined by 13.87% so the idea that Liberal Democrats are naturally swinging to Labour across the board is not correct.

I stand by my opinion, that yes there will be Labour gains in the next election and yes they have a good chance of entering government but it will be with the Liberal Democrats, they will not get a majority no party will, the UKIP surge wont last long either, remember there was a BNP surge in Labour seats during the mid 2000s, nothing came of that. When it comes down to it, you vote for Labour or the Tories or against such.

True, but with the Liberals in such decline, there'll be less space in terms of seats for there to be a hung parliament. For that to happen, you need strong non-Lab/Con force(s) actually winning seats.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on March 05, 2013, 12:18:12 PM
The Labour vote did decline in Eastleigh, so after 3 years of "brutal cuts" as Labour say, they failed to increse their number of supporters, that is pathetic.

Eastleigh Labour vote
2010 - 5,153
2013 - 4,088

Labour is in for a 1992 style shock, not a 1983 style win.

I mean you guys are suggesting that Lib Dem voters will naturally swing to Labour, where did that happen in Eastleigh, lol it didn't.

It's a by-election in a seat Labour hasn't gotten more than 30% of the vote since 1974, so I think you're in danger of drawing too big a conclusion.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Siloch on March 05, 2013, 12:26:44 PM
People need to read the whole conversation before they comment. Eastleigh is not the only seat that Liberal Democrats did not swing heavily to Labour, Rotherham is another.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 05, 2013, 12:51:20 PM
People need to read the whole conversation before they comment. Eastleigh is not the only seat that Liberal Democrats did not swing heavily to Labour, Rotherham is another.

While we're drawing such conclusions, I can only assume George Galloway'll win a landslide for Respect in 2015.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Siloch on March 05, 2013, 01:03:00 PM
I can only assume George Galloway'll win a landslide for Respect in 2015.

I respect Galloway, he is at least not one of these middle ground boring U-turners that make up 90% of Westminster.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on March 05, 2013, 01:37:55 PM
I am not a tory btw (I really couldn't care less what neo-liberal party rules the UK) but the UKIP split is not just bad news for the tories, UKIP are attracting voters from all the parties for example in Rotherham the Labour vote increased by 1.62%, yet the Liberal Democrat vote declined by 13.87% so the idea that Liberal Democrats are naturally swinging to Labour across the board is not correct.

I think that rather ignores 1) that the Conservatives also collapsed in Rotherham and 2) Respect weren't far off surging to third place there. There is little evidence that I've seen to suggest that the UKIP momentum is hitting all three parties equally - more akin to SDP attracting a minority of Tory voters (mostly tactical) but hitting Labour far far harder.  You only need to look at opinion polls and the rise of UKIP to see that whilst Labour have largely remained firm the Tories have plunged to figures that aren't competitive.

Actually, here we are, new Yougov profiling (http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/mse55iouje/UKIP-profile-Feb-2103.pdf) of those polled who said they'd vote UKIP at the next election:

60% are former Tories
15% are former Liberals
12% were already UKIP
7% are former Labour
6% from elsewhere.

Pretty conclusive in my opinion.

I stand by my opinion, that yes there will be Labour gains in the next election and yes they have a good chance of entering government but it will be with the Liberal Democrats, they will not get a majority no party will, the UKIP surge wont last long either, remember there was a BNP surge in Labour seats during the mid 2000s, nothing came of that. When it comes down to it, you vote for Labour or the Tories or against such.

Well sure, if UKIP return 'home' to Tories in time for the election, then things may be narrower, but even then Labour's leads in most polls are greater than the UKIP figures, and they won't all go Tory (3%, remember, were already UKIP voters in 2010 - can't imagine they'd get less than that), so if Labour hold on to their voters then even a re-uniting of the Right wouldn't stop what is now a re-unified Left.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on March 05, 2013, 02:02:31 PM
A few cherries being picked in this discussion, I think.

Here are the changes in the Labour share in all by-elections (except Belfast W of course) this parliament:
Oldham E & Saddleworth +10.2
Barnsley C +13.5
Leicester S +12.2
Inverclyde -2.2
Feltham & Heston +10.8
Bradford W -20.3
Manchester C +16.4
Corby +9.8
Cardiff S & Penarth +8.4
Rotherham +1.8
Middlesbrough +14.6
Croydon N +8.7
Eastleigh +0.2

Now, most of those are in seats which aren't very similar to those which are going to decide how many Labour MPs there are in the next Parliament, either because Labour has no chance even in a landslide or they're basically safe.  The only real exceptions to that are Oldham E & Saddleworth, which was an ultra-marginal in 2010, Bradford West, which is in a class of its own, and Corby.

Sort of on that topic, who do people think will win Bradford West in the next General Election?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on March 05, 2013, 03:25:53 PM
I am willing to bet that UKIP will have precisely zero MP's returned at the 2015 General Election.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on March 05, 2013, 04:05:42 PM
Well it was never a question of how many seats they'd win (if any), it's how they'll impact other parties'.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on March 05, 2013, 11:18:07 PM
()

lol at the Liberals.

link (http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/6zbykfvozj/Voting-results-130304.pdf).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 06, 2013, 07:18:09 AM
Cameron telling a stinker at PMQs. Apparently he thinks parents with disabled kids are exempt from the bedroom tax... when they're not (just those who need overnight care).

How can he put through policies like this which he doesn't even understand himself?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Insula Dei on March 06, 2013, 12:51:06 PM
Nice article about something I knew nothing about:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n05/michael-grayshott/short-cuts


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: DC Al Fine on March 06, 2013, 08:34:21 PM
Sort of on that topic, who do people think will win Bradford West in the next General Election?

Galloway marginally.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on March 07, 2013, 12:17:57 PM
Vicky Pryce convicted after retrial - facing prison time (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21496566)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 07, 2013, 02:16:28 PM
Sort of on that topic, who do people think will win Bradford West in the next General Election?

Galloway marginally.

Yeah, it's Galloway's to lose. Definitely has more chance of getting himself rooted in than he did in Bethnal Green.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 07, 2013, 02:58:12 PM
In reference to the Eastleigh conversation, Smithson's helpfully posted the 26 seats Labour need to become the largest party...

()

Keep in mind that the swing they got in target 22 was 12.7%.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 07, 2013, 04:46:06 PM
It looks as though Daw Mill - the last deep pit in the West Midlands - is done. It'd been under threat for a while anyway (for complicated reasons that had little to do with productivity) but there's now a huge fire underground and that's probably that. Most of the workforce will lose their jobs even if not though.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on March 08, 2013, 04:39:09 PM
Ashcroft has produced another big (sample size over 20,000) poll, with a focus on "What are the Liberal Democrats for?" (http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2013/03/what-are-the-liberal-democrats-for/)

Headline voting intention: Lab 40, Con 32, UKIP 12, LD 9.

People who voted Lib Dem in 2010: LD 38, Lab 35, Con 11, UKIP 9, Green 5.
(The lower figures in the graphic on the web page include don't knows etc.)

Preferred government: Lab 39, Con 30, Lab/LD coalition 18, Con/LD coalition 13
(Among current LD voters: Con/LD 43, Lab/LD 38, Lab 12, Con 8)
(Among 2010 LD voters: Lab 35, Lab/LD 28, Con/LD 23, Con 15)
(Personally, I think I'd still answer this Lab/LD.)

There's a lot more stuff in the tables.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 08, 2013, 07:39:00 PM
Backbenchers saying it's Osbourne churning out the Theresa May/Phil Hammond stuff. ::)

Budget day's gonna be fun this year.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on March 09, 2013, 06:12:38 AM

Budget day's gonna be fun this year.

Especially with the PCS strike.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on March 09, 2013, 08:05:57 AM
And another big Ashcroft poll (http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2013/03/marginal-territory-the-seats-that-will-decide-the-next-election/), this time a "marginals" poll.  I guess I prefer this use of his money to bankrolling the Conservative Party...

Anyway, I'm always a little bit dubious about this sort of poll, but the results on the Con/Lab battleground are not particularly surprising, suggesting 93 Labour gains from the Tories, although he says that the swing is a bit lower in the marginals than the national swing.  If you believe the figures, they're not good news for the Lib Dems: he shows a 5% swing from Lib Dem to Con in LD seats where the Tories are second, and a 17% swing from Lib Dem to Lab in LD seats where Lab are second.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 09, 2013, 08:10:26 AM
Those mostly sound like 'common sense' findings; pretty obvious that Labour have recovered most in Labour areas but have still picked up elsewhere, pretty obvious that the situation in Con/Lib marginals is maybe a little mixed but basically negative overall for the LibDems, pretty obvious that the situation in Lab/Lib marginals is utterly catastrophic for the LibDems.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 09, 2013, 09:31:18 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=u2bicGi6Kfo

Chuka's starstruck.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 09, 2013, 10:36:41 AM
Ashdown calls on activists to help "win" a second term.

No party that loses 10-15% on their previous election has a mandate to be part of the government. Wasn't that part of the reasoning they had for saying no to Labour in 2010?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21724754


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Benj on March 09, 2013, 10:46:52 AM
Ashdown calls on activists to help "win" a second term.

No party that loses 10-15% on their previous election has a mandate to be part of the government. Wasn't that part of the reasoning they had for saying no to Labour in 2010?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21724754

They said no to Labour because the two parties didn't have a majority together, so they couldn't form a government, and Labour didn't want to go scrounging for votes from the nationalists and NI parties. But, hey, feel free to believe your own propaganda.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 09, 2013, 10:55:17 AM
Ashdown calls on activists to help "win" a second term.

No party that loses 10-15% on their previous election has a mandate to be part of the government. Wasn't that part of the reasoning they had for saying no to Labour in 2010?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21724754

They said no to Labour because the two parties didn't have a majority together, so they couldn't form a government, and Labour didn't want to go scrounging for votes from the nationalists and NI parties. But, hey, feel free to believe your own propaganda.

That was the primary reason, yes.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on March 09, 2013, 10:57:26 AM
Ashdown calls on activists to help "win" a second term.

No party that loses 10-15% on their previous election has a mandate to be part of the government. Wasn't that part of the reasoning they had for saying no to Labour in 2010?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21724754

They said no to Labour because the two parties didn't have a majority together, so they couldn't form a government, and Labour didn't want to go scrounging for votes from the nationalists and NI parties. But, hey, feel free to believe your own propaganda.
No, that's why Labour didn't make an effort either. The LDs didn't because they (their leadership) preferred the Tories anyways and those two parties did have a majority together. They pretended to talk to Labour at all (and spouted stuff along the lines of what's sarcastically spat back in the post above afterwards) because they knew that their voters expected them to.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on March 09, 2013, 07:19:53 PM
Ashdown calls on activists to help "win" a second term.

No party that loses 10-15% on their previous election has a mandate to be part of the government. Wasn't that part of the reasoning they had for saying no to Labour in 2010?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21724754

They said no to Labour because the two parties didn't have a majority together, so they couldn't form a government, and Labour didn't want to go scrounging for votes from the nationalists and NI parties. But, hey, feel free to believe your own propaganda.

Even before the election Clegg made it clear they were going to ask the party with the most seats (code for Tories). Even if Labour had the seats he would have went with the Tories, I've seen nothing to suggest it was arithmetic working against his preference (in a way Hughes and Kennedy have made clear since) and plenty to suggest he's more at home with Tories - like the FDP to the CDU.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 09, 2013, 08:09:21 PM
Ashdown calls on activists to help "win" a second term.

No party that loses 10-15% on their previous election has a mandate to be part of the government. Wasn't that part of the reasoning they had for saying no to Labour in 2010?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21724754

They said no to Labour because the two parties didn't have a majority together, so they couldn't form a government, and Labour didn't want to go scrounging for votes from the nationalists and NI parties. But, hey, feel free to believe your own propaganda.

Even before the election Clegg made it clear they were going to ask the party with the most seats (code for Tories). Even if Labour had the seats he would have went with the Tories, I've seen nothing to suggest it was arithmetic working against his preference (in a way Hughes and Kennedy have made clear since) and plenty to suggest he's more at home with Tories - like the FDP to the CDU.

Things'll get dicey if there's another hung parliament in 2015. Labour will at least want Clegg's head (in the same way they demanded Brown's and then still said no) and even then, the rank-and-file will struggle to stomach it after 2010-15.

But this is interesting:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/20/miliband-clegg-relationship-improving

On another topic, all eyes were on Theresa May today. It's being seen as a bit've a warning shot at the PM, of sorts. Don't see how she'd play with the public as leader, she comes off as abrasive to me and she always seems to be bested by Yvette Cooper.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-mays-speech-leaves-tories-in-no-doubt--shes-after-the-top-job-8527924.html


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on March 10, 2013, 10:21:36 AM
This whole idea of pulling out of the ECHR disturbs me. How many dictatorships would cite our example in response?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 10, 2013, 11:11:40 AM
This whole idea of pulling out of the ECHR disturbs me. How many dictatorships would cite our example in response?

Just goes to show that UKIP holds more sway with this government than the Liberals ever have. ::)

Truly disturbing.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on March 11, 2013, 12:09:28 PM
Huhne and Pryce both get 8 months, which means they'll probably be out in 3 or 4.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 11, 2013, 12:41:31 PM
Erm, Dr. Fox, your crazy is showing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/mar/11/tories-reverse-socialist-coup-liam-fox


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on March 11, 2013, 11:49:44 PM
He's just promoting the same capitalist propaganda the vast majority of the media and politicians do.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 12, 2013, 05:01:58 PM
Reading this pretty interesting article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/mar/12/woman-next-british-prime-minister) about Yvette Cooper and Theresa May and the leadership talk that follows them both around these days.

Just the right kind've "that'll never happen" that gets backbenchers going.


What I don't understand though is this "if Yvette had ran in 2010, she would've won" train of thought that's developed over the past year. I think people forget how she was simply "Mrs. Balls" for the first 13 years of her parliamentary career. Since opposition on the other hand...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 12, 2013, 06:45:22 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/03/12/cameron-pleads-for-unity-_n_2863056.html?1363124134&utm_hp_ref=uk

This is probably the most open admission we'll get that Cameron's worried...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 13, 2013, 11:04:37 AM
Just updated my charts of the YouGov/Sunday Times polling. Worth a look with the budget coming up, I suppose.

()
()
()
()
()
()


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on March 13, 2013, 12:23:05 PM
What I don't understand though is this "if Yvette had ran in 2010, she would've won" train of thought that's developed over the past year. I think people forget how she was simply "Mrs. Balls" for the first 13 years of her parliamentary career. Since opposition on the other hand...


With a recession that bad, no Labour leader would have won.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 13, 2013, 01:47:29 PM
What I don't understand though is this "if Yvette had ran in 2010, she would've won" train of thought that's developed over the past year. I think people forget how she was simply "Mrs. Balls" for the first 13 years of her parliamentary career. Since opposition on the other hand...


With a recession that bad, no Labour leader would have won.

I mean the leadership election.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Smid on March 13, 2013, 06:16:38 PM
Sorry to be a pain, but when you next update them, would you mind putting some zeros or blanks for the months prior to September 2010 for Miliband? Just make it easier to compare with the charts above and below, not that it really makes much of a difference, just a friendly request.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 13, 2013, 08:07:34 PM
Sorry to be a pain, but when you next update them, would you mind putting some zeros or blanks for the months prior to September 2010 for Miliband? Just make it easier to compare with the charts above and below, not that it really makes much of a difference, just a friendly request.

Done! :)
()


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on March 13, 2013, 11:09:16 PM
How are all the leaders so unpopular?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on March 14, 2013, 05:03:56 AM
They suck.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 14, 2013, 12:44:05 PM

Very much a "plague on all your houses" feeling amongst the public as a hangover from the expenses scandal.

David Cameron's seen as an out-of-touch Etonian who can't control his party and last year's budget was a disaster and blatantly proved what people think about him, Ed Miliband's seen as an economically incompetent union-funded Brownite with the charisma of a leather boot who has problems with the party because he's not the one "they" picked and Nick Clegg's just... Nick Clegg.

The first approval poll (ever, I believe) for Farage was out today actually. He's got a +9 net. How disgusting.
()


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Sol on March 14, 2013, 01:00:48 PM
As something of a British politics novice, why is Clegg so hated?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 14, 2013, 01:12:15 PM
As something of a British politics novice, why is Clegg so hated?

It's a long story.

The short version is that he thrashed Cameron and Brown at the debates for the 2010 election, he got approval ratings unseen since Churchill (became known as "Cleggmania"). He backed Cameron for PM despite his base being more inclined to Labour. He back-tracked on countless key pledges and he hadn't campaigned on austerity. He's generally just seen as a spineless, weak sellout who'd sell his own mother to keep hold of his ministerial limo.

Google "Nick Clegg uturn" and you'll be able to start piecing it together.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 14, 2013, 01:15:13 PM
As something of a British politics novice, why is Clegg so hated?

Because he is the personification of roughly 75% of what's wrong with politics.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 14, 2013, 01:17:26 PM
As for party leaders, low approval ratings are kind of the norm in the UK anyway.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on March 14, 2013, 01:21:58 PM
In all honesty Nick Clegg did nothing wrong other than be Nick Clegg. The Lib Dems sold themselves as the party everyone wanted them to be depending on who the audience was and whether they were contesting in the cities or the shires so people, being sheep generally, bought into the 'cuddly Labour' image the Lib Dems had cultivated (under Charles Kennedy) Clegg was always economically right of centre and in favour of certain policies that if the Tories proposed would have killed them. So it was natural he would have sought a coalition with the Tories. Labour then got angry because despite not engaging with the Lib Dems prior to the election they didn't get to form a coalition (and they would have needed other parties if they did) and voters who backed them (often with some smug self satisfaction) because they are in generally stupid creatures, realised that perhaps they weren't cuddly Labour after all and now vent their anger at them rather than deal with the fact they didn't inform themselves prior to casting their vote for them.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 14, 2013, 01:27:42 PM
and voters who backed them (often with some smug self satisfaction) because they are in generally stupid creatures, realised that perhaps they weren't cuddly Labour after all and now vent their anger at them rather than deal with the fact they didn't inform themselves prior to casting their vote for them.

That's true, definitely.

Just speak to any student who voted for them...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Smid on March 14, 2013, 03:33:47 PM
Afleitch is spot on, of course. The party was going to have to put one side or the other into office, and would have alienated about half of their voters either way.

Edit: I've heard it said (and it's probably a quote from somewhere) that you campaign in poetry but govern in prose. The Lib Dems, never having to worry about the unpopular decisions made by governing, were able to attract a broad range of support. When they actually had the power to make a decision, they obviously upset some of that support.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on March 14, 2013, 04:50:03 PM
It's rather missing the point that the Lib Dems weren't immediately catapulted into dismal figures upon the agreement of a coalition with the Tories; rather, they got there by the coalition's absurdly conservative platform (disavowing promises to be the breaks on a Tory government with pathetic - and frankly astonishing - excuses like arguing that their power in negotiations was equal to their disgracefully distorted representation in parliament, ignoring the Conservatives wouldn't be able to pass anything without them) with next to nothing to show from the coalition on their side and an entire catalogue of betrayals. In fact the security of a coalition 'that come together for the nation' has allowed them to out-Thatcherite Thatcher and claim it's centrist pragmatism.

But I realise it's more convenient for right-wingers and general apologists for current governance to blame the electorate and supposed pie-in-the-sky promises (funnily enough ones you'd find any social liberal party promoting) that just couldn't be delivered.

and voters who backed them (often with some smug self satisfaction) because they are in generally stupid creatures, realised that perhaps they weren't cuddly Labour after all and now vent their anger at them rather than deal with the fact they didn't inform themselves prior to casting their vote for them.

That's true, definitely.

Just speak to any student who voted for them...

Are you being sarcastic here? Because not only is the point bollocks, that's possibly the worst example you could've chosen to bolster it.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 14, 2013, 07:14:55 PM
Eric Joyce has been arrested for fighting in a bar. Again.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on March 14, 2013, 07:26:37 PM
:D


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on March 15, 2013, 06:21:15 AM
That man is a hero.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on March 15, 2013, 06:28:18 AM

That man is an alcoholic, who really need help.
Alcoholism isn't fun or anything, it's a disease.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on March 15, 2013, 06:47:15 AM

That man is an alcoholic, who really need help.
Alcoholism isn't fun or anything, it's a disease.
Admittedly.

I admire him for the things he does when drunk, though, not for the drink problem itself - which is fairly ubiquitous in politics anyways. Much better to hit Tories over the head than to hit on female journalists like Rainer Brüderle, drive your car into a ditch like Jörg Haider or fall down the stairs like Karen McCarthy. Though Rainer Ortleb's drunken speeches in parliament (while a member of the cabinet) are classics. That have apparently been deleted from youtube.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Goodwin on March 15, 2013, 08:20:38 AM

Very much a "plague on all your houses" feeling amongst the public as a hangover from the expenses scandal.

David Cameron's seen as an out-of-touch Etonian who can't control his party and last year's budget was a disaster and blatantly proved what people think about him, Ed Miliband's seen as an economically incompetent union-funded Brownite with the charisma of a leather boot who has problems with the party because he's not the one "they" picked and Nick Clegg's just... Nick Clegg.

The first approval poll (ever, I believe) for Farage was out today actually. He's got a +9 net. How disgusting.()

Interesting - to me, Farage is very strange man, and he is only popular due to a large anti-government protest at the moment. My mate calls him the "funny fascist".



Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 15, 2013, 08:42:55 AM
Some more details...

Quote
Today, dramatic details of the bust-up emerged.

Tony Grew, from the PoliticsHome website, told ITV that Mr Joyce entered the room "obviously agitated" and pushed his way forward to the bar.

When he followed him out of the bar he saw Mr Joyce on the ground "wrestling with two police officers".

He said: "He appeared to have one of the officers in an armlock, he put his arm around the officer's neck, and the other police officer was on top of him.

"There were around at least 40 or 50 parliamentary staff, shocked, watching this melee as it occurred. Bar staff were trying to push people back, telling them to stand back and let the police do their work."

Mr Grew added: "I can vividly remember a policeman's hat rolling on the ground towards me as I was watching this scene unfold."

He said that after Mr Joyce was handcuffed he saw him "on a bench, being held down by three or four police officers - he was still struggling."

Mr Grew suggested the altercation could have occurred because Mr Joyce became upset that he was not allowed to take a glass outside into the smoking area.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/eric-joyce-shamed-politician-allegedly-1765532


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 15, 2013, 08:44:09 AM
While his local paper has published the following photo:

()


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 15, 2013, 08:53:18 AM

Very much a "plague on all your houses" feeling amongst the public as a hangover from the expenses scandal.

David Cameron's seen as an out-of-touch Etonian who can't control his party and last year's budget was a disaster and blatantly proved what people think about him, Ed Miliband's seen as an economically incompetent union-funded Brownite with the charisma of a leather boot who has problems with the party because he's not the one "they" picked and Nick Clegg's just... Nick Clegg.

The first approval poll (ever, I believe) for Farage was out today actually. He's got a +9 net. How disgusting.()

Interesting - to me, Farage is very strange man, and he is only popular due to a large anti-government protest at the moment. My mate calls him the "funny fascist".



What makes me sick though is that people don't even care about what UKIP stands for. No one sees that they're so to the right that they make the Tories look leftist.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 15, 2013, 09:58:35 AM
Joyce has been indefinitely banned from all bars in Parliament.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 16, 2013, 08:43:42 AM
Jump to the right...
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/03/16/cameron-spring-conference-battle-labour-socialists_n_2890437.html?utm_hp_ref=uk


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 16, 2013, 05:43:46 PM
ComRes peg it at 37-28-17-9 (you can guess which party's which).

If UKIP have broken into 15-20%, they're too close for comfort to the Tories, even for me. Is 2015 gonna be a reverse 1983?



Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 16, 2013, 07:36:16 PM
Much too early to even start thinking in that general direction.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on March 16, 2013, 09:22:40 PM
These numbers might lead us to believe that if it were Canada, but there's no indication that the British right-wing electorate would desert the Conservative Party en masse at a general election.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 18, 2013, 11:14:31 AM
Some tidbits from recent YouGovs.

Cameron's on his lowest Preferred Prime Minister rating since October, but EdM's also been losing out to Don't Know. EdM's also back ahead in net approval for the first time since November, but he's only circling around -25 to -30ish. It's more that Cameron's gradually sinking.

Cameron's starting to creep down quite considerably after it looked like he'd recovered to pre-omnishambles levels of around -10 to -15 a few weeks back.

He's starting to lose support amongst Tory voters after being the only leader to have unwavering support from his base for the past 2-3 years, until now. The reasoning's pretty obvious: Eastleigh'll have annoyed the diehards, UKIP's starting to look quite appealing to said diehards, but they're not willing to go over just yet. I would've thought he'd be going up with his base, rather than down with UKIP gaining ground, but apparently not.

The pretty loud leadership speculation must be quite destabilising as well. Theresa May's starting to look less bad as a prospect than she did a week or two ago, although there's still no enthusiasm for any of the realistic candidates, who all have low name rec anyway. UKIPers have also swung behind her, she was thought to make a worse leader by 4% last week with them, now she's "better" by 16%. If the media runs with this (as they have a habit of running with pointless sub-samples), it'll catch the attention of some corners of the Tory backbenches, surely. She's also gone from -29 to -14 among Tory voters. She has momentum...

Also, I don't see how Osborne survives another disaster budget - his approval's at 17%, even below Clegg.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 18, 2013, 02:43:31 PM
So long as his internal position is strong he can survive being less popular than cancer, if need be.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: politicus on March 18, 2013, 03:03:53 PM
So long as his internal position is strong he can survive being less popular than cancer, if need be.
At some point being an electoral liability will influence his internal position.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 18, 2013, 03:26:07 PM
We can but hope.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on March 18, 2013, 04:00:11 PM
You still read Tories trying to argue that Balls' unpopularity will stop a Labour victory, completely ignoring Osborne is even more unpopular!


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 18, 2013, 04:09:07 PM
The Conservative Party are the only people who care about Ed Balls' record. The electorate doesn't really care that much, many would struggle to even put a name to a face...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 19, 2013, 02:35:09 PM
Just wondering, but in what seats (or areas, considering boundary changes since) would Labour have a chance in 2015 that they didn't win in 1997 should they win government?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on March 19, 2013, 02:42:52 PM
Just wondering, but in what seats (or areas, considering boundary changes since) would Labour have a chance in 2015 that they didn't win in 1997 should they win government?
Since there's very little chance of Labour winning a huge landslide as opposed to a majority... Môn and Sheffield Hallam. ;D


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 19, 2013, 02:51:49 PM
Just wondering, but in what seats (or areas, considering boundary changes since) would Labour have a chance in 2015 that they didn't win in 1997 should they win government?
Since there's very little chance of Labour winning a huge landslide as opposed to a majority... Môn and Sheffield Hallam. ;D

Nooo, of course I'm not implying that I expect some massive landslide. I was just looking at the polling average with UNS seat predictions and it seems that nowhere's trended away from the Tories since 1997 enough for a big national margin to give Labour seats they've never won from them.

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/orderedseats.html
I notice just 1 (Chipping Barnet).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Dr. Cynic on March 19, 2013, 03:01:31 PM
Just wondering, but in what seats (or areas, considering boundary changes since) would Labour have a chance in 2015 that they didn't win in 1997 should they win government?

What about Stone?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on March 19, 2013, 03:07:45 PM
Just wondering, but in what seats (or areas, considering boundary changes since) would Labour have a chance in 2015 that they didn't win in 1997 should they win government?
Since there's very little chance of Labour winning a huge landslide as opposed to a majority... Môn and Sheffield Hallam. ;D

Nooo, of course I'm not implying that I expect some massive landslide. I was just looking at the polling average with UNS seat predictions and it seems that nowhere's trended away from the Tories since 1997 enough for a big national margin to give Labour seats they've never won from them.

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/orderedseats.html
I notice just 1 (Chipping Barnet).
Hallam is above that in your list, and the core of it was indeed never Labour-held. ;D (The highest ranked constituency Labour didn't win in 1997 is Southwark & Bermondsey. I also note Môn isn't listed there at all... apparently it's a list of constituencies for which they have a prediction.)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 19, 2013, 03:14:11 PM
Just wondering, but in what seats (or areas, considering boundary changes since) would Labour have a chance in 2015 that they didn't win in 1997 should they win government?
Since there's very little chance of Labour winning a huge landslide as opposed to a majority... Môn and Sheffield Hallam. ;D

Nooo, of course I'm not implying that I expect some massive landslide. I was just looking at the polling average with UNS seat predictions and it seems that nowhere's trended away from the Tories since 1997 enough for a big national margin to give Labour seats they've never won from them.

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/orderedseats.html
I notice just 1 (Chipping Barnet).
Hallam is above that in your list, and the core of it was indeed never Labour-held. ;D (The highest ranked constituency Labour didn't win in 1997 is Southwark & Bermondsey. I also note Môn isn't listed there at all... apparently it's a list of constituencies for which they have a prediction.)

Hallam will be a weird result (as most Liberal seats will be), but Clegg'll hold on.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on March 19, 2013, 03:16:36 PM
Also, Hexham, Kensington (though of course the old Kensington North was a Labour seat) and Uxbridge aren't far below Barnet on hte list.
(Checks Wiki) Uxbridge was actually a usually Labour held marginal during the 50s. Colour me surprised. Hexham has never been Labour, though (but got even closer than Barnet and Uxbridge did in 1997).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 19, 2013, 04:49:40 PM
Uxbridge in the 50s had much more pro-Labour boundaries, but, yeah, places like that moved way to the right in the 1970s and stayed there (with the exception of the occasional wobble in 1997).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on March 19, 2013, 07:27:28 PM
I see a few measly concessions was enough for Labour to abstain (in practice support) the government retrospectively changing the law to avoid paying jobseekers what they were owed and in general the principle of sanctions against the unemployed opting out of a program of workfare they agree to be worse than useless.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 19, 2013, 08:01:24 PM
I see a few measly concessions was enough for Labour to abstain (in practice support) the government retrospectively changing the law to avoid paying jobseekers what they were owed and in general the principle of sanctions against the unemployed opting out of a program of workfare they agree to be worse than useless.

Pretty disgusting move on their part.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 19, 2013, 08:03:49 PM
Liam Byrne is not very good at his job. Literally makes no sense from any point of view; an attempt to be clever that isn't, really, at all.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 19, 2013, 08:24:44 PM
Liam Byrne is not very good at his job. Literally makes no sense from any point of view; an attempt to be clever that isn't, really, at all.

Liam Byrne's easily the worst frontbencher.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 20, 2013, 07:45:23 AM
Happy budget day!

Growth forecast halved.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 20, 2013, 07:49:56 AM
Labour MPs (and Balls told off for) waving tonight's Evening Standard with details of the budget.

Many observers tweeting about the case of Hugh Dalton who was sacked for leaking his budget to the evening papers.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on March 21, 2013, 08:41:01 AM
John McDonnell being his usual exemplary self. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WcqkXf1AEo&)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on March 21, 2013, 10:56:19 AM
It's the Commons?
It looks empty, small and has no tables.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Benj on March 21, 2013, 11:34:14 AM
It's the Commons?
It looks empty, small and has no tables.

As I recall, the Commons is far too small to sit all of its members at once. Also, it's presumably usually almost empty, like the US Congress (and probably most legislatures?).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on March 21, 2013, 11:35:56 AM
It's the Commons?
It looks empty, small and has no tables.

As I recall, the Commons is far too small to sit all of its members at once. Also, it's presumably usually almost empty, like the US Congress (and probably most legislatures?).

Deliberately so in fact - when it was blown up in a German air raid (it was empty at the time), they decided to rebuild it as it was to make it appear less empty.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 21, 2013, 02:42:27 PM
It's why, for really important votes, you see a load of MPs standing in the gangway.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on March 21, 2013, 04:14:52 PM
Just wondering, but in what seats (or areas, considering boundary changes since) would Labour have a chance in 2015 that they didn't win in 1997 should they win government?
Since there's very little chance of Labour winning a huge landslide as opposed to a majority... Môn and Sheffield Hallam. ;D

Nooo, of course I'm not implying that I expect some massive landslide. I was just looking at the polling average with UNS seat predictions and it seems that nowhere's trended away from the Tories since 1997 enough for a big national margin to give Labour seats they've never won from them.

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/orderedseats.html
I notice just 1 (Chipping Barnet).
Hallam is above that in your list, and the core of it was indeed never Labour-held. ;D (The highest ranked constituency Labour didn't win in 1997 is Southwark & Bermondsey. I also note Môn isn't listed there at all... apparently it's a list of constituencies for which they have a prediction.)

Ynys Môn is on there, actually, but because the ordering is just the difference between Labour and Conservative it's quite high up the list (no. 215).  The reason the numbers don't go up to 632 is that seats for which the Electoral Calculus forecast is for a party other than Lab or Con to win aren't included in the numbering.   Of course if you're including seats Labour didn't win in 1997 but have won since there's also South Dorset.

As for Hallam, it would be a bit of a fluke for Labour to win it on current boundaries but it's not impossible.  It probably needs the Tory vote not to be squeezed too much so that it's approaching three-way marginal territory.  (The leaflets I've been getting recently suggest the Lib Dems know this, as they're clearly targeting the Tory vote.  However, that may be more to do with Council elections than parliamentary ones.)  Labour did win the 1997 version of Bristol West, which wouldn't have been that different demographically, twice, in results where all three parties were quite close.  (The current Bristol West is more favourable to Labour.)

There are a couple of Scottish seats where Labour, although third, doesn't need that big a swing from 2010: Argyll & Bute and Gordon.  It doesn't seem a very plausible Labour seat, but if Ming Campbell retires North East Fife could be interesting, too.

Altrincham & Sale West isn't that far down the Electoral Calculus list.  That turning red would be another example of Tory decline in northern cities and their metropolitan areas, but it's still probably not happening short of a big landslide.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on March 21, 2013, 06:25:53 PM
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/cardinal-was-in-physical-relationship-with-accuser.20550591#.UUr9rjhjYWg.gmail

'Cardinal Keith O'Brien had a long-standing physical relationship with one of the men whose complaints about his behaviour sparked his downfall as leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland.

The man left the priesthood in the middle of the last decade but rejoined and is living on the continent in a post the cardinal helped him secure.

The complainant is known to have been in regular telephone contact with Cardinal O'Brien until recently and was a frequent visitor to St Benets, his official residence in Edinburgh's Morningside.

It is understood the cardinal confessed to the relationship after it was recently revealed there had been several complaints to the Vatican about his sexual behaviour towards priests in the 1980s. It is thought to be part of his reference to his sexual conduct as "a priest, a bishop and a cardinal".

It also emerged the dramatic downfall of Britain's leading Catholic cleric was spurred by gay priests angry at his rhetoric and hypocrisy about same-sex marriages.'


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 21, 2013, 06:26:22 PM
Yes, the old Bristol West counts as one of the most unlikely seats to have ever had a Labour MP.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 23, 2013, 08:52:34 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E65bsGNylD8

Ed's been getting better and better lately.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 24, 2013, 06:29:45 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/mar/24/boris-johnson-interview-eddie-mair

I've always liked Eddie Mair.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 26, 2013, 05:18:00 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21947497

And MiliMajor's gone. His loss'll be felt in the PLP and the upcoming articles (I'm guessing) over the next fortnight about the death of Blairism (::)) will prove it.

I'm quite shocked. Really, really hoped he would've made it back to the frontbench. I guess the relationship between the brothers is as bad as everyone thinks. Although, I guess it's commendable to take the Gordon Brown route over the Tony Blair route and do charity stuff.

Add him to the list of politicians who beat themselves up because they missed their chance for the top job.



Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 26, 2013, 05:59:49 PM
I saw him speak when he visited Bangor a couple of years ago. More likeable than he sometimes appears on the telly and actually quite impressive in some respects, but not exactly a natural politician. He may find more satisfaction doing other things.

Whatever the relationship between Ralph Miliband's sons is or isn't is none of our business.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 26, 2013, 07:19:04 PM
Does this mean that all the pre-omnishambles stuff (his 'victory speech that never was' being leaked, ie.) wasn't actually him (directly)?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 26, 2013, 07:46:31 PM
http://blogs.channel4.com/michael-crick-on-politics/lib-dem-mp-mike-hancock-attacked-on-four-fronts/2358

Mike Hancock (LD, Portsmouth South) accused of sexual harassment.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on March 27, 2013, 12:09:21 PM
David Miliband is heading the International Rescue Committee. Yes, there are Twitter jokes about that.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 27, 2013, 03:48:06 PM
Daily Mail being its usual classy self.
()


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 27, 2013, 08:08:36 PM
Mme. Le Pen gives praise for PM's immigration speech.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/03/27/david-cameron-praised-france-front-national_n_2960929.html?utm_hp_ref=uk


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 28, 2013, 09:00:38 AM
Eric Joyce will not be prosecuted.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on March 28, 2013, 09:15:34 AM
¡VICTORIA!


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on March 28, 2013, 12:37:11 PM

Although that clip of him almost falling over outside the police station will probably feature on Have I Got News For You.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Dr. Cynic on March 28, 2013, 02:07:48 PM
http://blogs.channel4.com/michael-crick-on-politics/lib-dem-mp-mike-hancock-attacked-on-four-fronts/2358

Mike Hancock (LD, Portsmouth South) accused of sexual harassment.

I'm kind of not surprised that Hancock is being accused of such things given his history of rampant womanizing. Hancock's been around forever. He has been a candidate in every Portsmouth South election since 1983.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on March 29, 2013, 07:19:17 AM
It's John Major's 70th birthday today.

Share the love guys.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on March 30, 2013, 07:47:38 AM
It's John Major's 70th birthday today.

Share the love guys.
I never could dislike him in any way, and that's saying something given the stench of the decaying political party he had to govern with.

And if his father had not adopted his stage name instead of his real surname, he'd be a namesake of John Ball. Happy Birthday John!


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on March 30, 2013, 08:08:06 AM
Looks better now than he did when he was PM. Probably the most personable PM of the recent modern era.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on March 31, 2013, 08:58:27 AM
Cameron faces a new EU revolt, this time due to his referendum pledge.

I'm bloody sick of these rebellions, I'm almost of the view that Cameron should make a new rule saying any revolt with more than 20 Tory MP's should be a vote of no confidence in the government. This stuff is just embarrassing now.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2301668/Cameron-faces-Europe-revolt-100-Tory-MPs-broken-promises-referendum.html


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 31, 2013, 09:14:43 AM
Kind of funny that all serious backbench trouble has come from the Tory majority of the coalition.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 31, 2013, 08:43:39 PM
Say what you like about his skills as Prime Minister, but I don't see how anyone could really make the case that he's been a good Leader of the Conservative Party in opposition or in government.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 01, 2013, 10:17:33 AM
IDS's laughable claim that he could live on £53 in benefits is getting a very big airing across the twittosphere.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: ObserverIE on April 01, 2013, 04:09:23 PM
Say what you like about his skills as Prime Minister, but I don't see how anyone could really make the case that he's been a good Leader of the Conservative Party in opposition or in government.

Question: Has the person who could manage the present-day Conservative Party yet been born? The words "cats", "sack", and "fighting" come to mind.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 01, 2013, 06:16:26 PM
https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/iain-duncan-smith-iain-duncan-smith-to-live-on-53-a-week

:D


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: greenforest32 on April 02, 2013, 11:17:30 AM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/01/alternative-to-war-on-britains-poor

^^^ Oh man, I can't believe how stupid that comment I made about Canada's NDP and Liberal party and the UK's Labor and Liberal Democrats having to merge to run against the Conservatives in FPTP (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=140500.msg3014068#msg3014068) was.

It's so frustrating to see the people in country after country be plundered.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on April 02, 2013, 11:29:00 AM
https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/iain-duncan-smith-iain-duncan-smith-to-live-on-53-a-week

:D

My local young conservative branch are doing this for a week, living on £53 that is. Should be fun, and not too hard. :P


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on April 02, 2013, 11:35:13 AM
https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/iain-duncan-smith-iain-duncan-smith-to-live-on-53-a-week

:D

My local young conservative branch are doing this for a week, living on £53 that is. Should be fun, and not too hard. :P

It'll be like a jolly old camping trip.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on April 02, 2013, 11:58:43 AM
I spend about 50 pounds a week some weeks.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on April 02, 2013, 12:00:00 PM
https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/iain-duncan-smith-iain-duncan-smith-to-live-on-53-a-week

:D

My local young conservative branch are doing this for a week, living on £53 that is. Should be fun, and not too hard. :P

It'll be like a jolly old camping trip.

Except no champagne. :(

I spend about 50 pounds a week some weeks.

Yeah, £55 or so is my weekly budget. Though I am a student.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on April 02, 2013, 12:16:55 PM
It's not particularly difficult to live off a small amount of money on a short term basis, particularly if you have other resources to draw on. If it's longer term and if you don't have other resources, then things are rather difficult. Not just in terms of the general gloom (which is awful; throughout this I am writing here from personal - past - experience), but what happens when you're hit by some circumstance or other that requires you to spend a considerable amount of money (and this is ultimately unavoidable). Because then you're fycked. Frankly, it is not very funny, not very funny at all, and anyone who thinks otherwise deserves a good hiding and then some.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on April 02, 2013, 12:18:09 PM
What is noxious, in general, is the creeping return of Less Eligibility in public discourse and as an official defence for ethically dubious public policy.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on April 02, 2013, 12:20:51 PM
It's worth saying this now; if/when Labour get back in power, they won't go back to how things were. This is a perfect opportunity for them.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Blue3 on April 02, 2013, 12:26:32 PM
So, is Parliament going to pass that royalty bill that says the firstborn, regardless of gender, will become monarch? Kate is due in just a few months, and all the Commonwealth countries have to pass the changes too.

Also, is Parliament going to pass Gay Marriage anytime soon?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on April 02, 2013, 12:28:29 PM
It's not particularly difficult to live off a small amount of money on a short term basis, particularly if you have other resources to draw on. If it's longer term and if you don't have other resources, then things are rather difficult. Not just in terms of the general gloom (which is awful; throughout this I am writing here from personal - past - experience), but what happens when you're hit by some circumstance or other that requires you to spend a considerable amount of money (and this is ultimately unavoidable). Because then you're fycked. Frankly, it is not very funny, not very funny at all, and anyone who thinks otherwise deserves a good hiding and then some.

This.

It's worth saying this now; if/when Labour get back in power, they won't go back to how things were. This is a perfect opportunity for them.

And this.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on April 02, 2013, 03:18:00 PM
It's not particularly difficult to live off a small amount of money on a short term basis, particularly if you have other resources to draw on. If it's longer term and if you don't have other resources, then things are rather difficult. Not just in terms of the general gloom (which is awful; throughout this I am writing here from personal - past - experience), but what happens when you're hit by some circumstance or other that requires you to spend a considerable amount of money (and this is ultimately unavoidable). Because then you're fycked. Frankly, it is not very funny, not very funny at all, and anyone who thinks otherwise deserves a good hiding and then some.

This.

It's worth saying this now; if/when Labour get back in power, they won't go back to how things were. This is a perfect opportunity for them.

And this.

What is noxious, in general, is the creeping return of Less Eligibility in public discourse and as an official defence for ethically dubious public policy.

And this.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 02, 2013, 05:29:26 PM
Wow.

()


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on April 02, 2013, 06:33:59 PM
...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on April 02, 2013, 06:38:43 PM
So, is Parliament going to pass that royalty bill that says the firstborn, regardless of gender, will become monarch? Kate is due in just a few months, and all the Commonwealth countries have to pass the changes too.

Also, is Parliament going to pass Gay Marriage anytime soon?

I thought the first had already been passed. If not, it will do. The changes will take ages since, as you mentioned, all the Commonwealth countries need to enact the same law.

Yeah, the bill ended the Committee stage on the 4th of March, although I'm not sure when they're next taking it up. Soon definitely.

Edit: Oh, just seen the Mail frontpage. Twitter lefties were in uproar about that earlier. Though my answer to this, as with most things in newspapers is: 'if you don't like it, don't read it'.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on April 02, 2013, 06:47:44 PM
The issue is the poisoning of discourse, which affects even those of us who regard the Daily Mail as a fundamentally evil organ used to play a counterpoint of hate and self-loathing.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 02, 2013, 06:50:02 PM
'if you don't like it, don't read it'.

That's not the point.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on April 02, 2013, 06:53:42 PM
The issue is the poisoning of discourse, which affects even those of us who regard the Daily Mail as a fundamentally evil organ used to play a counterpoint of hate and self-loathing.

I could say the same about the Guardian and that paper badgering on about the Bedroom Tax though, and that for sure, has influenced the political discourse.


Why not?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Lurker on April 02, 2013, 07:03:24 PM
Is that an actual Daily Mail headline?? Pretty distasteful, even by Maily standards.
Reminds me of the brilliant Daily Mail song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on April 02, 2013, 07:35:26 PM

Repulsive.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on April 02, 2013, 09:01:50 PM
Who's actually surprised, lol?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 03, 2013, 08:16:49 AM
The issue is the poisoning of discourse, which affects even those of us who regard the Daily Mail as a fundamentally evil organ used to play a counterpoint of hate and self-loathing.

I could say the same about the Guardian and that paper badgering on about the Bedroom Tax though, and that for sure, has influenced the political discourse.
[/quote]

The Guardian have never presented murder as the result of the welfare state, or the result of the free market for that matter.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Goodwin on April 03, 2013, 08:20:22 AM
()


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 03, 2013, 09:31:02 AM
()


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on April 03, 2013, 09:33:45 AM
I have to say, all this bluster is quite hilarious. Free promotion for the Mail.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on April 03, 2013, 12:09:51 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-22017567


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on April 03, 2013, 12:13:54 PM

Same way that if you don't like the celebrating Thatcher's death t-shirts, you don't buy them? Except the whining about that was top of the agenda for most Tories, and they weren't the largest selling newspapers in the country (the Sun themselves described it as 'state-subsidised manslaughter') but a stall at a union conference.

It's funny how laissez-faire the Right become when it suits them.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Goodwin on April 03, 2013, 04:21:27 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-22017567

:)

MP Rob Wilson - the parliament troll.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on April 03, 2013, 04:26:17 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-22017567

:)

MP Rob Wilson - the parliament troll.

Haha, that's jokes. Michael Fabricant said on Twitter that this was apparently 'a prank'.


Same way that if you don't like the celebrating Thatcher's death t-shirts, you don't buy them? Except the whining about that was top of the agenda for most Tories, and they weren't the largest selling newspapers in the country (the Sun themselves described it as 'state-subsidised manslaughter') but a stall at a union conference.

It's funny how laissez-faire the Right become when it suits them.

I don't give a McDonalds Big Mac if you buy a shirt celebrating Thatcher's death. Yeah, I'll think it's distasteful but I won't go all 'THIS IS OUT OF ORDAAA EVUL LEFTISTS!!11' on you. I will seethe and plot your electoral doom. :P


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Goodwin on April 04, 2013, 05:36:19 AM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/04/north-korea-trident-david-cameron

"North Korea threat means we still need Trident Nuclear deterrent, says PM"


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on April 04, 2013, 07:41:05 AM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/04/north-korea-trident-david-cameron

"North Korea threat means we still need Trident Nuclear deterrent, says PM"


Ever the opportunist. Ignoring that it doesn't even make sense it's lovely to see yet more hypocrisy from the government on what we can and can't afford.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22025035

Like the Mail and the Sun, Osborne seeks to use the tragic death of children to cut the state. f'ing scum.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 04, 2013, 08:06:45 AM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/04/north-korea-trident-david-cameron

"North Korea threat means we still need Trident Nuclear deterrent, says PM"


Ever the opportunist. Ignoring that it doesn't even make sense it's lovely to see yet more hypocrisy from the government on what we can and can't afford.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22025035

Like the Mail and the Sun, Osborne seeks to use the tragic death of children to cut the state. f'ing scum.

I've just seen this on the News Channel. Couldn't believe it. It's one thing when a newspaper says it...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on April 04, 2013, 09:04:53 AM
It's exactly what you'd expect him to think, the only surprise (and it's a mild one) is that he actually said it.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on April 04, 2013, 09:06:12 AM
Anyways, John Cartwright (a frequent candidate for the Monster Raving Loonies and one of their most active members on the internets) has joined the Conservative Party. Insert obvious jokes here.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on April 05, 2013, 07:29:59 AM
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2013/04/05/blair-i-would-have-given-cameron-a-
run-for-his-money/

Blair says he would have done better in the general election than Brown.

I think the effect may have been marginal, Labour should have called a snap poll in 2007, they probably could have won with a majority of 25 or so.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on April 05, 2013, 12:48:00 PM
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2013/04/05/blair-i-would-have-given-cameron-a-
run-for-his-money/

Blair says he would have done better in the general election than Brown.

I think the effect may have been marginal, Labour should have called a snap poll in 2007, they probably could have won with a majority of 25 or so.

And they still would have ended up losing in 2012... all that decision does is buy Labour two more years.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 05, 2013, 02:19:29 PM
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2013/04/05/blair-i-would-have-given-cameron-a-
run-for-his-money/

Blair says he would have done better in the general election than Brown.

I think the effect may have been marginal, Labour should have called a snap poll in 2007, they probably could have won with a majority of 25 or so.

And they still would have ended up losing in 2012... all that decision does is buy Labour two more years.

For them, losing in 2010 was better than losing in 2012 would've been. For the country though...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on April 06, 2013, 06:01:27 PM
What are the chances that UKIP will profess themselves to be the champions of electoral reform after 2015?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 10, 2013, 09:56:00 AM
Labour's selecting MEP candidates soon. Got my first mailer from an Afzal Khan today, endorsed by Andy Burnham and Unite.

From the leaflet, it seems that Labour'll be using the BNP threat to drive up their turnout, which is fair enough I guess.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Goodwin on April 12, 2013, 02:59:54 PM
http://www.zimbio.com/Nigel+Farage/articles/X3YrSq1RAI_/UKIP+hypocrisy+Nigel+Farage+stance+extremism

It appears that UKIP are fielding a former member of the National Front in my council district election this May (South Thanet) :P


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on April 15, 2013, 09:58:44 AM
http://www.zimbio.com/Nigel+Farage/articles/X3YrSq1RAI_/UKIP+hypocrisy+Nigel+Farage+stance+extremism

It appears that UKIP are fielding a former member of the National Front in my council district election this May (South Thanet) :P

Glorious. This is my home seat.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 15, 2013, 12:47:09 PM
Even Maggie couldn't win this Tory party a majority. :D

()


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 16, 2013, 10:05:27 AM
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/04/miliband-and-myth-35-cent-strategy

Labour apparently running a "35% strategy". Depressing. Does point out the relative ease of EM's task for 2015 though.

Speaking of Ed though, is David's departure coupled with shouts from the Blairite old guard another attempt to destablise EM? Haven't heard from them in a while, so I guess we were due.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: DC Al Fine on April 16, 2013, 11:04:08 AM
Even Maggie couldn't win this Tory party a majority. :D

()

Just goes to show UKIP is going to have to die/merge for the Tories to win a majority.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on April 16, 2013, 06:10:07 PM
Even Maggie couldn't win this Tory party a majority. :D

()

Just goes to show UKIP is going to have to die/merge for the Tories to win a majority.

Waah. I put these numbers into the UK Polling Report swingometer and it gave Tories 305, Labour 303. I died inside. :(

Also, are any of the UK'ers going to London for Thatcher's funeral? I'm getting the 5am coach down from Birmingham...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 16, 2013, 07:26:22 PM
Even Maggie couldn't win this Tory party a majority. :D

()

Just goes to show UKIP is going to have to die/merge for the Tories to win a majority.

Waah. I put these numbers into the UK Polling Report swingometer and it gave Tories 305, Labour 303. I died inside. :(

Also, are any of the UK'ers going to London for Thatcher's funeral? I'm getting the 5am coach down from Birmingham...

I'd rather gouge my eyes out (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2013/apr/16/margaret-thatcher-funeral-10-million).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Siloch on April 19, 2013, 06:04:36 AM
Even Maggie couldn't win this Tory party a majority. :D

()

Shy Tory Factor. Maggie would win a landslide against that lisping marxist millionaire idiot you have as leader.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on April 19, 2013, 06:49:27 AM
Are you even aware of what that kind of language is actually code for?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on April 19, 2013, 06:57:28 AM
Probably just an honest mithtake.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Insula Dei on April 19, 2013, 07:10:16 AM
Are you even aware of what that kind of language is actually code for?

Lisping marxist millionaires hold a lot of important positions in society. It's important we stay aware of this.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on April 19, 2013, 11:43:00 AM
Are you even aware of what that kind of language is actually code for?

I suspect on this occasion it's merely code for "I can't think of anything of substance to have a go at him about at the moment, so I'll just produce some mindless abuse instead."


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on April 19, 2013, 12:36:42 PM
So, then. The Police Commissioner for Cumbria. lol.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: freefair on April 19, 2013, 12:42:35 PM
I absolutely hate it when people criticism Milliband's appearance or voice and claim they make it inappropriate for him to be head of government- that stuff isn't even politics. And yes, I can imagine him as PM. Not gladly, but I can. It all smacks of conscious and subconscious introduction of the oldest prejudice into otherwise rational political discourse.
A family member speculated- and there may or may not be something in this- that Galloway won Bradford West so convincingly because some Muslim's do not want a Jew as leader of the nation. That's just callous, and frankly, If that is at all true of anyone of any ethnicity, I'd rather those sorts of pond-scum didn't vote at all.
On other matters, isn't it a bit stupid for right wingers to claim they've "won" most debates post Thatcher?. Shouldn't they pretend they think the left have won so they won't try to win for real.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on April 19, 2013, 01:09:13 PM
My mother speculated- and there may be something in this- that Galloway won Bradford West so convincingly because many Muslim's do not want a Jew as leader of the nation. That's just evil, and frankly, If that is at all true, I'd rather those sorts of pond-scum didn't vote at all.

...and what would you call that assumption, if not also the prejudice you decry? It's true that many muslims are bigoted against jews, but no moreso (as you and your mother perfectly demonstrate) than christians and jews are bigoted against muslims.  

Not sure how you've conflated the superficial criticisms of Miliband with that.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: batmacumba on April 20, 2013, 08:09:37 PM

Well, gentlemen, we have got about three years of almost daily polls:


()


Any chance of UKIP causing a very bad result for Conservatives on multiple strong candidates constituencies, or will conservative electors opt massively for only one of them in each race?



Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 21, 2013, 04:40:46 PM
Speaking of George Galloway.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04/21/ed-miliband-is-not-bringi_n_3126775.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

A totally unnecessary storm in the teacup. Minor strategic error. At least the Tory spinners seem to be being nice enough not to run with it.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 26, 2013, 04:52:17 PM
Churchill to be put on the fiver in 2016.

Not sure I'm happy with the precedent that'll start...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: politicus on April 26, 2013, 05:07:19 PM
Churchill to be put on the fiver in 2016.

Not sure I'm happy with the precedent that'll start...

Thatcher on the fifty?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on April 26, 2013, 05:18:03 PM
Churchill to be put on the fiver in 2016.

Not sure I'm happy with the precedent that'll start...

Thatcher on the fifty?

That would actually be bleakly appropriate given the role fifty quid notes had during the miners strike...

(as in police from the South lining up in front of striking miners - most of which were desperately poor by the halfway point of the strike -, dropping their trousers and waving fifty quid notes - their extra special overtime pay - in front of their arses. Apparently this happened a lot).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Tetro Kornbluth on April 27, 2013, 08:55:48 AM
Oh my...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2013/apr/26/atos-zoe-williams (http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2013/apr/26/atos-zoe-williams)

Everything I hear about Atos makes it sounds like it is in the direct pay of Satan. One more chunk of evidence...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 27, 2013, 09:03:23 AM
Oh my...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2013/apr/26/atos-zoe-williams (http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2013/apr/26/atos-zoe-williams)

Everything I hear about Atos makes it sounds like it is in the direct pay of Satan. One more chunk of evidence...

"Same old wicked Tories", "They just don't get it", "It's hurting, but it isn't working", "Have they found Mrs. Thatcher fit for work yet?". Any generic Labour soundbite fits when ATOS is brought up.

A scummy piece of policy from a scummy DWP Sec. and a scummy PM who don't understand what they're doing to people.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 27, 2013, 09:05:56 AM
EdM announces tax breaks for companies who'll pay the living wage.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: DC Al Fine on April 27, 2013, 09:27:23 AM
EdM announces tax breaks for companies who'll pay the living wage.

What is "the living wage"?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on April 27, 2013, 09:47:03 AM
EdM announces tax breaks for companies who'll pay the living wage.

What is "the living wage"?

It's defined as the wage for a person working 40 hours/week, which allows it to meet all its basic needs.

One can suppose it's like the Canadian proposal of eqailising the minimum wage to the poverty threshold.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: DC Al Fine on April 27, 2013, 09:52:54 AM
EdM announces tax breaks for companies who'll pay the living wage.

What is "the living wage"?

It's defined as the wage for a person working 40 hours/week, which allows it to meet all its basic needs.

One can suppose it's like the Canadian proposal of eqailising the minimum wage to the poverty threshold.

I know. I was asking for the $ figure.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on April 27, 2013, 10:10:13 AM
£7.45 (up to £8.55 in London), rather than the minimum wage of £6.19.

I'm not to happy with a promise of tax breaks across the board; the notion that the living wage needs to be 'encouraged' just seems more customary spinelessness from our politicians - it should become the mandated minimum wage Labour promises in 2015, with any talk of tax breaks limited to a minority of businesses that can prove they couldn't financially withstand it.

The idea that supermarkets etc should get tax breaks for the very least what they should be paying is outrageous, and UK business is already sitting on astronomical sums (http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2130055/Boardroom-hoarders-strangling-economic-recovery-754bn-cash-stockpile.html) that they've progressively stole from workers.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 28, 2013, 08:41:03 AM
Nigel Farage added to YouGov's leadership approval ratings. He's in at an impressive/terrifying (delete as one sees appropriate) +24%.

Nigel Farage 44-20% = +24%
David Cameron 36-57% = -21%
Ed Miliband 29-56% = -27%
Nick Clegg 21-69% = -48%

Come back next week and we should have a good picture of which leaders have come out of the local elections better off/least worst.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on April 28, 2013, 08:48:49 AM
He's basically unknown as anything other than a random camp ranter.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 28, 2013, 08:51:44 AM
Owen Jones just tweeted (https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/328503986611163137) that Sheffield Labour asked him to stand against you-know-who in Sheffield Hallam. He turned them down.

Says a bit about the kind've candidate the local party's looking for.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on April 28, 2013, 09:06:34 AM
Haha.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22328898


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on April 28, 2013, 09:07:58 AM
No one really knows Nigel Farage which is a strength and a weakness. The public seem to like people for some strange reason who really don't deserve it like the tired and emotional old Lib Dem leader.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 28, 2013, 09:11:12 AM
Haha.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22328898

Quote
Asked whether he agreed with David Cameron's 2006 claim that UKIP was made up of "fruitcakes and closet racists", Mr Clarke replied: "I have met people who satisfy both those descriptions in UKIP.

And the Tories would very much like those voters back!


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on April 28, 2013, 10:10:56 AM
£7.45 (up to £8.55 in London), rather than the minimum wage of £6.19.

I'm not to happy with a promise of tax breaks across the board; the notion that the living wage needs to be 'encouraged' just seems more customary spinelessness from our politicians - it should become the mandated minimum wage Labour promises in 2015, with any talk of tax breaks limited to a minority of businesses that can prove they couldn't financially withstand it.

Carrots are better than sticks generally - best to try persuasion first.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on April 28, 2013, 11:37:52 AM
Carrots for business and sticks for workers is usually the order of the day.

Those Farage figures aren't much to worry about: they're in answer to 'is x doing well or badly as leader of x' and so even I'd answer 'well' to that - he objectively is. When actually asked if he'd make a better PM or general approval he's decisively beaten by the other leaders (well perhaps not Clegg, but even then not by much, and Clegg's critically unpopular).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on April 28, 2013, 11:48:27 AM
Ed Balls


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on April 28, 2013, 12:47:33 PM
The public seem to like people for some strange reason who really don't deserve it like the tired and emotional old Lib Dem leader.

Say what you like about Charles Kennedy, but he got Iraq right, which gives him quite a lot of credit in my book.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 28, 2013, 01:21:17 PM

Ed. Balls. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=cXap8tMIi3A)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 28, 2013, 03:56:29 PM
It's only just struck me, but why is the UKIP logo still just the £ sign?

I thought the € vs. £ debate was put to bed here like 10 years ago...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: DC Al Fine on April 28, 2013, 04:16:03 PM
It's only just struck me, but why is the UKIP logo still just the £ sign?

I thought the € vs. £ debate was put to bed here like 10 years ago...

It's a good anti-EU symbol.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 29, 2013, 03:21:36 AM
It's only just struck me, but why is the UKIP logo still just the £ sign?

I thought the € vs. £ debate was put to bed here like 10 years ago...

It's a good anti-EU symbol.

When people see the £ sign, they don't automatically think "I hate Angela Merkel".


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on April 29, 2013, 04:00:44 AM
It's only just struck me, but why is the UKIP logo still just the £ sign?

I thought the € vs. £ debate was put to bed here like 10 years ago...

It's a good anti-EU symbol.

When people see the £ sign, they don't automatically think "I hate Angela Merkel".

If it makes them think Poundland then I'm all for it.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 29, 2013, 07:51:08 AM
()


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on April 30, 2013, 03:11:34 AM
Is that real or fake?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: DC Al Fine on April 30, 2013, 06:51:30 AM
"Insist that the Nazi salute you were performing..."

Me thinks this is fake.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on April 30, 2013, 07:02:24 AM
Obviously fake!


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 30, 2013, 09:33:03 AM

Are you being serious...?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: countydurhamboy on April 30, 2013, 07:15:33 PM
Ha ha, even UKIP aren't that crazy.  Although.... http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/physical-excercise-prevents-you-becoming-gay-claims-uk-councillor-candidate270413 (http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/physical-excercise-prevents-you-becoming-gay-claims-uk-councillor-candidate270413)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Smid on April 30, 2013, 09:32:07 PM
"Insist that the Nazi salute you were performing..."

Me thinks this is fake.

The problem with some on the left is that they have no idea how Conservatives think. You're to the right of Obama? Well clearly you're a closet neo-nazi.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 01, 2013, 08:56:40 AM
"Insist that the Nazi salute you were performing..."

Me thinks this is fake.

The problem with some on the left is that they have no idea how Conservatives think. You're to the right of Obama? Well clearly you're a closet neo-nazi.

No, no. I don't think you quite understand what UKIP is. It's a populist party, not a conservative party.

And, well, in terms of Nazism, their candidates speak for themselves.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/01/nigel-farage-ukip-alex-wood-pot-plant_n_3191427.html?1367406909&utm_hp_ref=uk


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 01, 2013, 09:18:07 AM
16 years ago today since this:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4BkRMZLrn8


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 01, 2013, 05:42:45 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/may/01/clegg-ukip-tories-right

Now if there was only someone with the clout to drag him to the centre.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on May 01, 2013, 06:38:24 PM
One who'd professed to moderate them...

Quote
On the left it is attractive to say you don't need to make any difficult economic decisions

Well it would be a fairly easy decision to raise taxes on the wealthy and comfortable and redistributing it to the working class - the opposite to what this government's doing.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on May 01, 2013, 07:34:12 PM
Sun YouGov poll: Lab 39%, Tory 33%, UKIP 13%, LD 10%.

Labour lead at 6 points in the age of 'evil Tory cuts'. Brilliant.

Of course, we'll still be destroyed today, but hey-ho. Blair lost 17 councils and 550+ councillors at the 2000 locals then won big in the 2001 GE.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 01, 2013, 08:05:30 PM
Sun YouGov poll: Lab 39%, Tory 33%, UKIP 13%, LD 10%.

Labour lead at 6 points in the age of 'evil Tory cuts'. Brilliant.

And you need to be like 8 points clear to win a majority. Good luck.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on May 02, 2013, 11:27:42 AM
Sun YouGov poll: Lab 39%, Tory 33%, UKIP 13%, LD 10%.

Labour lead at 6 points in the age of 'evil Tory cuts'. Brilliant.

And you need to be like 8 points clear to win a majority. Good luck.

Electoral Calculus with those figures gives a Labour majority of 74 and UK Polling Report a majority of 78; neither of these have an explicit option for UKIP, but the Tories will lose more to UKIP than Labour.

Remember Labour got a majority of 66 on a 3 point victory in 2005.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on May 02, 2013, 11:28:54 AM
Sun YouGov poll: Lab 39%, Tory 33%, UKIP 13%, LD 10%.

Labour lead at 6 points in the age of 'evil Tory cuts'. Brilliant.

Of course, we'll still be destroyed today, but hey-ho. Blair lost 17 councils and 550+ councillors at the 2000 locals then won big in the 2001 GE.

2000 locals were different batch of seats.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on May 02, 2013, 12:00:09 PM
Sun YouGov poll: Lab 39%, Tory 33%, UKIP 13%, LD 10%.

Labour lead at 6 points in the age of 'evil Tory cuts'. Brilliant.

And you need to be like 8 points clear to win a majority. Good luck.

()

Sun YouGov poll: Lab 39%, Tory 33%, UKIP 13%, LD 10%.

Labour lead at 6 points in the age of 'evil Tory cuts'. Brilliant.

And you need to be like 8 points clear to win a majority. Good luck.

Electoral Calculus with those figures gives a Labour majority of 74 and UK Polling Report a majority of 78; neither of these have an explicit option for UKIP, but the Tories will lose more to UKIP than Labour.

Remember Labour got a majority of 66 on a 3 point victory in 2005.

Oh, of course. I'm one of them losers who puts poll numbers into Polling Report every other day. Still, for a government that is destroying the NHS, cutting the welfare state and killing the working class, Labour's 39% is rather paltry for mid-term!


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: DC Al Fine on May 02, 2013, 12:20:08 PM
Sun YouGov poll: Lab 39%, Tory 33%, UKIP 13%, LD 10%.

Labour lead at 6 points in the age of 'evil Tory cuts'. Brilliant.

And you need to be like 8 points clear to win a majority. Good luck.

()

Sun YouGov poll: Lab 39%, Tory 33%, UKIP 13%, LD 10%.

Labour lead at 6 points in the age of 'evil Tory cuts'. Brilliant.

And you need to be like 8 points clear to win a majority. Good luck.

Electoral Calculus with those figures gives a Labour majority of 74 and UK Polling Report a majority of 78; neither of these have an explicit option for UKIP, but the Tories will lose more to UKIP than Labour.

Remember Labour got a majority of 66 on a 3 point victory in 2005.

Oh, of course. I'm one of them losers who puts poll numbers into Polling Report every other day. Still, for a government that is destroying the NHS, cutting the welfare state and killing the working class, Labour's 39% is rather paltry for mid-term!

Immigration and the EU. Nuff said.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 02, 2013, 03:22:04 PM
Grow up babbies.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on May 02, 2013, 04:41:13 PM
David Starkey on Question Time tonight!

I hope everyone is watching!


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on May 02, 2013, 05:56:34 PM
Morbid fascination?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 03, 2013, 08:22:28 PM
You know those powerful people that you've never heard of?

Big piece in the Shropshire Star (a rather disreputable rag in some respects, but let's ignore that) about the recently deceased Lord Northfield (Donald Chapman) the former Labour MP for Birmingham Northfield who ran Telford New Town Development Corporation at a critical point in the New Town's... er... development:

http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2013/05/03/lord-northfield-made-vision-for-telford-a-reality/

At the very least the pictures are interesting.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 04, 2013, 06:12:28 AM
And so it begins
()


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 04, 2013, 10:57:01 AM
Showbusiness for ugly people, indeed.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on May 04, 2013, 11:34:25 AM
Showbusiness for ugly people, indeed.

The media creation marches on. Now The Daily Mail Party have to actually be councillors now and from what we know about their nuances as MEP's, they are likely to have some difficult and quite frankly hilarious times ahead.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on May 04, 2013, 12:53:05 PM
There has been a lot of pressure in the last couple of days for Cameron to legislate for the EU referendum now, rather than after a presumed Conservative victory in 2015. Surely though this undermines parliamentary sovereignty as the government would be binding another parliament to hold a referendum. Have I got this mixed up, or...?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on May 04, 2013, 01:24:23 PM
Deputy Speaker Nigel Evans has been arrested on suspicion of rape.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 04, 2013, 01:30:55 PM
I would recommend that all posters are extremely careful about what they write about that particular story.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: politicus on May 04, 2013, 01:38:17 PM
Well, at least the basic facts according to The Mirror:

"The 55-year-old politician - who came out as gay in 2010 - is accused of raping a man and sexually assaulting a second man between July 2009 and March this year.

Detectives from Lancashire Police swooped on Mr Evans’ cottage in the Lancashire village of Pendleton this morning. Police forensic teams also searched the property.

Officers specialising in sex offence crimes quizzed Mr Evans - a former Tory Party vice-chairman at Preston police station today".




Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 04, 2013, 01:50:09 PM
UKIP gain in Ribble Valley?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on May 04, 2013, 02:05:49 PM
Terrible press for the gays while gay marriage still didn't pass the Lords.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on May 04, 2013, 04:17:04 PM
Opinium/Observer poll. Labour 35, Tories 28, Ukip 17, Lib Dems 9%.

Just 31% see Ed Miliband as a future PM.

Britain's Progressive Majority in action.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on May 04, 2013, 04:22:26 PM
And a week before the 1979 election.... http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemID=37&view=wide


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on May 04, 2013, 04:24:58 PM
And a week before the 1979 election.... http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemID=37&view=wide

Thatcher on 40% is a bit different from Ed Miliband on 31%. :P


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: DC Al Fine on May 04, 2013, 04:31:15 PM
And a week before the 1979 election.... http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemID=37&view=wide

Thatcher on 40% is a bit different from Ed Miliband on 31%. :P

On another note, Michael Foote was polling in the teens in '83.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on May 04, 2013, 04:32:47 PM
And a week before the 1979 election.... http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemID=37&view=wide

Thatcher on 40% is a bit different from Ed Miliband on 31%. :P

That was on April 2nd. On April 26th, she was on 31%.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on May 04, 2013, 04:39:15 PM
And a week before the 1979 election.... http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemID=37&view=wide

Thatcher on 40% is a bit different from Ed Miliband on 31%. :P

That was on April 2nd. On April 26th, she was on 31%.


I'm sure once the Conservative campaign mauls Ed away, his numbers shall drop a bit too. Maybe a nice 24% or so?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on May 04, 2013, 04:43:25 PM
And a week before the 1979 election.... http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemID=37&view=wide

Thatcher on 40% is a bit different from Ed Miliband on 31%. :P

That was on April 2nd. On April 26th, she was on 31%.


I'm sure once the Conservative campaign mauls Ed away, his numbers shall drop a bit too. Maybe a nice 24% or so?

Well, maybe. :P


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on May 05, 2013, 08:23:10 AM

If Labour can return to their 2005 result of 30% surely they have a chance of nipping between the middle?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 05, 2013, 09:40:31 AM

If Labour can return to their 2005 result of 30% surely they have a chance of nipping between the middle?

If UKIP looks anything like a possible winner, Labour's vote'll be down.

36 Con (-14)
17 Lab (-5)
5 Liberal (-15)
35 UKIP (+29)
5 Others

Something like that?

How did things go here on Thursday?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on May 05, 2013, 10:46:52 AM

If Labour can return to their 2005 result of 30% surely they have a chance of nipping between the middle?

If UKIP looks anything like a possible winner, Labour's vote'll be down.

36 Con (-14)
17 Lab (-5)
5 Liberal (-15)
35 UKIP (+29)
5 Others

Something like that?

How did things go here on Thursday?

A more accurate name would be Ribble Valley and South Ribble North

2005: 3 Con, 2.25 Lab, 1 LD, 1 Idle Toad (there is the 1/4 of Penwortham North in it)
2009: 5.25 Con, 1 LD, 1 Idle Toad
2013: 6 Cons, 1.25 Lab.

More details:
Longridge with Bowland: Cons 70, Lab 23, LD 7
Ribble Valley North East: Cons 54, UKIP 23, Lab 16, LD 7
Ribble Valley South West: Cons 73, Lab 19, LD 8
Clitheroe: Cons 31, Ind 30, LD 28, Lab 11
Farington: Cons 39, Lab 38, UKIP 20, LD 4
Bamber Bridge and Walton-le-Dale: Lab 40, Cons 39, UKIP 21
South Ribble Rural East: Cons 43, Lab 21, UKIP 19, Idle Toad 17.
Penwortham South (1/4): Lab 41, Cons 25, UKIP 20, LD 4.

UKIP is very much around 20 (23, 20, 21, 19 and 20).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on May 05, 2013, 10:51:18 AM
If UKIP looks anything like a possible winner, Labour's vote'll be down.

36 Con (-14)
17 Lab (-5)
5 Liberal (-15)
35 UKIP (+29)
5 Others

Something like that?

Labour didn't fall in Eastleigh, and they're more competitive in Ribble Valley. If Labour fell from 2010 and didn't get any benefit from Liberal collapse, questions will start being asked of Ed.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on May 05, 2013, 11:32:26 AM
If UKIP looks anything like a possible winner, Labour's vote'll be down.

36 Con (-14)
17 Lab (-5)
5 Liberal (-15)
35 UKIP (+29)
5 Others

Something like that?

Labour didn't fall in Eastleigh, and they're more competitive in Ribble Valley. If Labour fell from 2010 and didn't get any benefit from Liberal collapse, questions will start being asked of Ed.

Well, they aren't competitive in the proper Valley, they weren't close in any of the county seats in the Valley, nor in the district elections (1 seat in a Clitheroe ward in 2003, no candidates at all in 2007, and they weren't close of winning one except in one case in 2011). If they are compettive in the seats, that's because of the South Ribble parts of the misnamed Ribble Valley seat.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 05, 2013, 12:47:18 PM
Labour won the Lancs. CC division of Bamber Bridge & Walton-le-Dale by 31 votes last Thursday and missed out on Farington by 22 votes. South Ribble Rural East was a rare Tory gain as Idle Toad collapsed and looks 'safe' on Thursday's figures.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on May 05, 2013, 12:50:07 PM

Well, they aren't competitive in the proper Valley, they weren't close in any of the county seats in the Valley, nor in the district elections (1 seat in a Clitheroe ward in 2003, no candidates at all in 2007, and they weren't close of winning one except in one case in 2011). If they are compettive in the seats, that's because of the South Ribble parts of the misnamed Ribble Valley seat.

Well tbf I was talking about that misnamed Ribble Valley seat. Labour need little more than to reverse their 2010 loss to squeak into the thirties, and as Eastleigh shown, that's enough when UKIP are fracturing the vote.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 05, 2013, 12:58:13 PM
Though the Tories easily swatted aside UKIP in the one of the three ultra-Tory rural divisions they stood in on Thursday. Of course the issue would be that the area has been the setting for a by-election upset before (in 1991). Circumstances would be pretty horrible for defence if there is actually a by-election, of course.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 05, 2013, 01:09:36 PM
Evans has issued a statement, denying the accusations:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/05/nigel-evans-complaints-completely-false?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on May 05, 2013, 06:53:28 PM
https://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/77735/

Cameron being urged by leading Conservatives to scrap the Same Sex Marriage bill. I doubt he'll do this, though, we'll see. The party has been ripped apart by it.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on May 05, 2013, 07:27:53 PM
Maybe then all the idiots who claimed the government was automatically 'centrist' because of it, will revise their opinion. But probably not.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on May 05, 2013, 07:40:02 PM
https://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/77735/

Cameron being urged by leading Conservatives to scrap the Same Sex Marriage bill. I doubt he'll do this, though, we'll see. The party has been ripped apart by it.

This would be useless.
Damage is already done.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: countydurhamboy on May 05, 2013, 07:51:22 PM
https://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/77735/

Cameron being urged by leading Conservatives to scrap the Same Sex Marriage bill. I doubt he'll do this, though, we'll see. The party has been ripped apart by it.
I fear Cameron is that weak. But I don't know what would that accomplish, the UKIP horse has long bolted. It's hurtful that so many people have changed their vote on it though.

Also is anyone else extremely uncomfortable with Nigel Evans being named like this? He hasn't even been charged.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on May 05, 2013, 08:17:52 PM
https://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/77735/

Cameron being urged by leading Conservatives to scrap the Same Sex Marriage bill. I doubt he'll do this, though, we'll see. The party has been ripped apart by it.

This would be useless.
Damage is already done.

I agree, he might as well force it through now. Better to alienate one side and not both.

https://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/77735/

Cameron being urged by leading Conservatives to scrap the Same Sex Marriage bill. I doubt he'll do this, though, we'll see. The party has been ripped apart by it.
I fear Cameron is that weak. But I don't know what would that accomplish, the UKIP horse has long bolted. It's hurtful that so many people have changed their vote on it though.

Also is anyone else extremely uncomfortable with Nigel Evans being named like this? He hasn't even been charged.

It's expected in this day and age unfortunately. I hope he isn't hounded out of office.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 05, 2013, 08:31:16 PM
He'd only drop it out of worry of a leadership challenge, and I still don't think there's one in the works.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on May 05, 2013, 08:45:15 PM
It's really embarrassing that the UKIP has become a major third force in UK politics. I feel sorry for David Cameron.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on May 05, 2013, 09:37:29 PM
What are the rules and procedures for Tory leadership elections nowadays anyway? Could someone challenge Cameron in the same way that Heseltine challenged Thatcher, and it would be a members ballot or an MPs only ballot?  Or would there have to be a VONC (as was the case with IDS)?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on May 05, 2013, 09:51:31 PM
If Cameron were to be forced out, would Clegg bolt as well? I feel like he'd be the kind of guy to try to spin it as "the ship is sinking" and take the Lib-Dems out of the coalition.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on May 05, 2013, 10:36:22 PM
If Cameron's forced out in what would inevitably be a right wing coup, I can't imagine either side would want the coalition to continue.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on May 06, 2013, 01:38:27 AM
What are the rules and procedures for Tory leadership elections nowadays anyway? Could someone challenge Cameron in the same way that Heseltine challenged Thatcher, and it would be a members ballot or an MPs only ballot?  Or would there have to be a VONC (as was the case with IDS)?

It's like what happened with IDS.  So occasional talk of a "stalking horse" is misleading.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on May 06, 2013, 01:40:57 AM

A more accurate name would be Ribble Valley and South Ribble North.

Where's doktorb when you need him?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 06, 2013, 06:39:03 AM
Clitheroe and Bamber Bridge? Or just Clitheroe. Clitheroe has history as a parliamentary name at least, and a not unnotable one at that, what with David Shackleton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Shackleton).

(yeah, the area has changed rather a lot. And the boundaries had almost no relation to this constituency. But whatever).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on May 06, 2013, 07:42:45 AM
I would say Clitheroe and Bamber Bridge, since I doubt people in Bamber Bridge feels any link with Clitheroe. We are in Preston urban area there, not rural Ribble Valley.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 06, 2013, 04:24:38 PM
Cardiff Labour remains Cardiff Labour (http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/leadership-challenge-launched-against-cardiff-3414506#)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 06, 2013, 10:25:59 PM
()

Chances we see this photo on every Tory leaflet/billboard for the next two years?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 08, 2013, 12:21:39 PM
Crazy sh!t going on in Harrow where the (Labour) council leader was recently ousted and has responded by leading his faction out of the Labour group.

There appears to be a certain subtext to events, but it could be just coincidental. Local rag articles:

http://www.harrowtimes.co.uk/news/10406013.Harrow_Borough_Council_Labour_councillors_form_breakaway_group/

http://www.harrowobserver.co.uk/west-london-news/2013/05/08/councillors-regrettably-form-breakaway-independent-labour-group-116451-33299658/


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 08, 2013, 12:40:26 PM
Crazy sh!t going on in Harrow where the (Labour) council leader was recently ousted and has responded by leading his faction out of the Labour group.

There appears to be a certain subtext to events, but it could be just coincidental. Local rag articles:

http://www.harrowtimes.co.uk/news/10406013.Harrow_Borough_Council_Labour_councillors_form_breakaway_group/

http://www.harrowobserver.co.uk/west-london-news/2013/05/08/councillors-regrettably-form-breakaway-independent-labour-group-116451-33299658/

Doesn't this breach party rules?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 08, 2013, 12:47:38 PM
I've not checked but, hell yes.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on May 08, 2013, 01:00:21 PM
A full quarter of the Harrow Labour party breaking away? That's reminiscent of Glasgow.

I notice Harrow Observer described them as "DISSATISFIED left-wing councillors", so I wonder if they're suggesting it's a leadership coup by the Right of the party.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 08, 2013, 01:07:19 PM
Throw them out and be done with it.

I don't know the ins-and-outs (obviously), but if someone's been democratically elected leader, you don't throw your dummy out the pram.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on May 08, 2013, 04:06:20 PM
A full quarter of the Harrow Labour party breaking away? That's reminiscent of Glasgow.

There is a rumour that's going to happen again.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 08, 2013, 06:13:25 PM
Suave EdM branded an action hero (http://labourlist.org/2013/05/suave-ed-miliband-branded-an-action-hero-after-rescuing-fallen-cyclist/)



Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: politicus on May 08, 2013, 06:54:01 PM
“What added to all the confusion was that he was actually attractive and not geeky at all. Even the way he appeared was suave. He was dressed casually but he had style.”

LOL


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 08, 2013, 07:12:20 PM
"People think he's a weirdo until they actually met him face-to-face" is something that gets pushed a lot.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 08, 2013, 07:43:16 PM
That whole article is full of brilliant quotes to steal.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on May 08, 2013, 08:21:01 PM
"People think he's a weirdo until they actually met him face-to-face" is something that gets pushed a lot.

Can't help chuckle at your username.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on May 09, 2013, 02:08:18 AM
The YouGov polls carried out since the local election results:

Yesterday's: Lab 39 Con 29 UKIP 16 LD 9
Today's: Lab 38 Con 27 UKIP 17 LD 11

These are the highest UKIP scores in YouGov polls.  I suspect we may see a 20% for them in Opinium or Survation's next effort.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: politicus on May 09, 2013, 02:10:19 AM
The YouGov polls carried out since the local election results:

Yesterday's: Lab 39 Con 29 UKIP 16 LD 9
Today's: Lab 38 Con 27 UKIP 17 LD 11

These are the highest UKIP scores in YouGov polls.  I suspect we may see a 20% for them in Opinium or Survation's next effort.

Is YouGov biased against them?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on May 09, 2013, 02:45:03 AM
The YouGov polls carried out since the local election results:

Yesterday's: Lab 39 Con 29 UKIP 16 LD 9
Today's: Lab 38 Con 27 UKIP 17 LD 11

These are the highest UKIP scores in YouGov polls.  I suspect we may see a 20% for them in Opinium or Survation's next effort.

Is YouGov biased against them?

Different methodologies. Interestingly enough UKIP voters appear to be (though it's difficult to check) generally older and lower middle class. They were the 'swing voters' of elections past; Major won them in 92, Labour swept them in 1997 (they were just 647 votes shy of winning Boston and Skegness for example, an area that the UKIP performed well in last week) and 2001 and the Tories clawed them back in 2005 and 2010. Now they appear to be disaffected. As a result, they are relatively evenly spread out across the country. Indeed the Tory base (which we were told was most disaffected) was relatively untouched and they held on in areas where they always do. If the UKIP aren't spent by 2015, they may have the same fate as the Alliance did.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: politicus on May 09, 2013, 02:53:17 AM
The YouGov polls carried out since the local election results:

Yesterday's: Lab 39 Con 29 UKIP 16 LD 9
Today's: Lab 38 Con 27 UKIP 17 LD 11

These are the highest UKIP scores in YouGov polls.  I suspect we may see a 20% for them in Opinium or Survation's next effort.

Is YouGov biased against them?

Different methodologies.

Yeah I know, we got YouGov as well. But which one is likely to reflect UKIP voting most accurately?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 09, 2013, 06:51:21 AM
The YouGov polls carried out since the local election results:

Yesterday's: Lab 39 Con 29 UKIP 16 LD 9
Today's: Lab 38 Con 27 UKIP 17 LD 11

These are the highest UKIP scores in YouGov polls.  I suspect we may see a 20% for them in Opinium or Survation's next effort.

Is YouGov biased against them?

Different methodologies.

Yeah I know, we got YouGov as well. But which one is likely to reflect UKIP voting most accurately?

YouGov over Opinium and Survation a million times over. YouGov's still pretty crap though. ICM and Ipsos and the ones to watch.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: DC Al Fine on May 09, 2013, 07:48:40 AM
The YouGov polls carried out since the local election results:

Yesterday's: Lab 39 Con 29 UKIP 16 LD 9
Today's: Lab 38 Con 27 UKIP 17 LD 11

These are the highest UKIP scores in YouGov polls.  I suspect we may see a 20% for them in Opinium or Survation's next effort.

Is YouGov biased against them?

If the UKIP aren't spent by 2015, they may have the same fate as the Alliance did.

If UKIP's support is evenly spread out. How much support would they need to start winning seats?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 09, 2013, 08:15:34 AM
The YouGov polls carried out since the local election results:

Yesterday's: Lab 39 Con 29 UKIP 16 LD 9
Today's: Lab 38 Con 27 UKIP 17 LD 11

These are the highest UKIP scores in YouGov polls.  I suspect we may see a 20% for them in Opinium or Survation's next effort.

Is YouGov biased against them?

If the UKIP aren't spent by 2015, they may have the same fate as the Alliance did.

If UKIP's support is evenly spread out. How much support would they need to start winning seats?


20-25% probably, but it really depends. National vote is only morally relevant in the UK anyway. They'd struggle on their current numbers, but it's a bit like the Greens or the LibDems or even the SNP and Plaid in that it's more about local organisation compared to Labour and the Tories.

Some in UKIP cried foul when the Greens won Brighton Pavilion on 1% of the vote in 2010 (and gained the council last year), but the Greens had put in the leg work for years to do that. Nowhere in the country can you say the same of UKIP and Caroline Lucas will, more likely than not, increase her currently tiny majority in 2015.

UKIP won 1 constituency last Thursday on a projected 25% of the national vote - Boston & Skegness (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/a53.stm). That'll be one of their main targets in 2015, but they need to transform last week's protest vote into real staying power to have any hope. (And it'd be bloody disgusting if we don't get PR in 2015-20, whoever is in power, if UKIP get 0 seats for 15-20% of the vote and the LibDems end up with 30-40 and another chance in government on 7-10%).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 09, 2013, 10:48:17 AM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/may/09/tory-mp-stewart-jackson-expenses

Horrifically bad publicity there. What is it with Peterborough? I suppose it being in the middle of a giant swamp might mean the water table is poisoned or something.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on May 09, 2013, 11:05:52 AM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/may/09/tory-mp-stewart-jackson-expenses

Horrifically bad publicity there. What is it with Peterborough? I suppose it being in the middle of a giant swamp might mean the water table is poisoned or something.

Can't say - the only time I've ever been there was going through it by train.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on May 09, 2013, 02:55:58 PM
UKIP won 1 constituency last Thursday on a projected 25% of the national vote - Boston & Skegness (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/a53.stm). That'll be one of their main targets in 2015, but they need to transform last week's protest vote into real staying power to have any hope.

There were a few more than that.  I haven't seen a list, and anyway you can't calculate exact figures in many places because divisions cross constituency boundaries, but it's pretty clear that UKIP carried three constituencies in Kent (South Thanet, North Thanet, Sittingbourne & Sheppey), one in Norfolk (Yarmouth) and one in Gloucestershire (Forest of Dean).  There may be some others where they only missed out because they didn't have candidates in some divisions; North East Cambridgeshire looks to me like it may be like that.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 09, 2013, 05:41:21 PM
Folkestone & Hythe as well, maybe? But perhaps a better question is how many they won comfortably; Boston & Skegness for sure, any others? One of the Thanets?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 10, 2013, 03:45:18 PM
David Cameron's voting against the Queen's speech. This is madness. "He's in office, but he's not in power" indeed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/10/david-cameron-european-union-referendum_n_3250666.html?utm_hp_ref=uk


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: politicus on May 10, 2013, 03:53:52 PM
David Cameron's voting against the Queen's speech. This is madness. "He's in office, but he's not in power" indeed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/10/david-cameron-european-union-referendum_n_3250666.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

Ludicrous.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on May 10, 2013, 04:07:53 PM
Quote
By suggesting he would vote against the Queen's Speech, David Cameron is signalling to his backbenches that the only thing preventing him legislating for a referendum before 2015 is Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats in government.

That's....an interesting way for him to put it.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on May 10, 2013, 05:20:04 PM
David Cameron's voting against the Queen's speech. This is madness. "He's in office, but he's not in power" indeed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/10/david-cameron-european-union-referendum_n_3250666.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

That is absolutely absurd.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 10, 2013, 06:11:49 PM
Quote
By suggesting he would vote against the Queen's Speech, David Cameron is signalling to his backbenches that the only thing preventing him legislating for a referendum before 2015 is Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats in government.

That's....an interesting way for him to put it.

Clegg should call his bluff and whip his party to vote against as well. ;)

(If only...)


But seriously, this is dangerous precedent.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 11, 2013, 10:52:59 AM
Miliband rules out an EU referendum under Labour. A strategic blunder or calling the EU for the non-issue that it is?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 12, 2013, 07:38:30 AM
A Grandmother's killed herself, blaming her inability to pay the bedroom tax in her suicide note.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: DC Al Fine on May 12, 2013, 07:45:42 AM
Miliband rules out an EU referendum under Labour. A strategic blunder or calling the EU for the non-issue that it is?

Strategic blunder but not a very big one. I think most people are voting UKIP over immigration anyways.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 12, 2013, 08:22:57 AM
Miliband rules out an EU referendum under Labour. A strategic blunder or calling the EU for the non-issue that it is?

Strategic blunder but not a very big one. I think most people are voting UKIP over immigration anyways.

I suppose if the Tories try to use it as a dividing line, it just makes them look like they're banging on about something nobody really cares about but them.

And it'll be easy to laugh off when Cameron votes the same way as Miliband, against the backbench amendment to have one this parliament.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 12, 2013, 02:40:23 PM
And more of Gove trying to coax backbenchers should Cameron hit the skids (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/may/12/michaelgove-conservatives).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on May 12, 2013, 08:15:36 PM
Surreal headline of the week:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/may/12/uk-coal-nationalised-ministers-fire-pensions


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 13, 2013, 10:01:42 AM
The usual suspects of the Labour extremities to vote with the Tory rebels: Hoey, Field, Mitchell, McDonnell, etc.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on May 13, 2013, 12:20:48 PM
An ICM poll in the Grauniad says Lab 34 Con 28 UKIP 18 (!) LD 11.

ICM's methodology tends to dampen big swings since the last election, so this looks like an even wilder result than on a first glance.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 13, 2013, 12:46:02 PM
An ICM poll in the Grauniad says Lab 34 Con 28 UKIP 18 (!) LD 11.

ICM's methodology tends to dampen big swings since the last election, so this looks like an even wilder result than on a first glance.

ICM are usually very conservative (small 'c') with their UKIP shares as well! How long can this go on for? Seriously?

(Liberals haven't taken third in a poll since April 19th, just sayin'.)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on May 13, 2013, 01:01:47 PM
An ICM poll in the Grauniad says Lab 34 (-4) Con 28 (-4) UKIP 18 (+9) (!) LD 11 (-4).

ICM's methodology tends to dampen big swings since the last election, so this looks like an even wilder result than on a first glance.

Added changes. So a +3 for Others as well? Be interesting to see the cross-breaks.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 13, 2013, 01:13:44 PM
An ICM poll in the Grauniad says Lab 34 (-4) Con 28 (-4) UKIP 18 (+9) (!) LD 11 (-4).

ICM's methodology tends to dampen big swings since the last election, so this looks like an even wilder result than on a first glance.

Added changes. So a +3 for Others as well? Be interesting to see the cross-breaks.

Apparently, it's all to the BNP. If that's true, this is an outlier.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 13, 2013, 04:03:36 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22515470

:)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 13, 2013, 04:43:01 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10055144/David-Cameron-to-rush-out-law-for-EU-vote.html

So, Dave's daring Labour and the Liberals to say no to this. Although it seems good tactics on the face of it, he's playing with fire if either Clegg or Miliband call his bluff.

And anyway, parliament can't bind its successor.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 15, 2013, 11:17:33 AM
Anyone seen today's PMQs with Clegg?

I'd forgotten how patronising and vacuous he is.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on May 15, 2013, 12:44:35 PM
Labour lead down to 3% with MORI. 34%-31. Seems we are in 'f-ck the lot of you' territory again.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 15, 2013, 12:46:48 PM
Labour lead down to 3% with MORI. 34%-31. Seems we are in 'f-ck the lot of you' territory again.

Things didn't even get this stupid at the peak of the expenses scandal.

And the Greens are on 6% which is... odd.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 15, 2013, 01:01:39 PM
Looks like a dodgy poll; UKIP down a tad as well, which is less than believable at present.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 15, 2013, 01:19:18 PM
2015 looks set to give us such an odd realignment when you consider what'll happen in cities like Sheffield, Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool with Labour and the LibDems and what'll happen down south in the Bostons and the Thanets of the country with the Tories and UKIP (or even Labour, if they can run through the middle and get some unexpected gains).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on May 15, 2013, 01:24:36 PM
2015 looks set to give us such an odd realignment when you consider what'll happen in cities like Sheffield, Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool with Labour and the LibDems and what'll happen down south in the Bostons and the Thanets of the country with the Tories and UKIP (or even Labour, if they can run through the middle and get some unexpected gains).

2015 will be like every other election. I still don't think UKIP will pick up a more than about 1 seat (if Farage is still knocking around). It'll be a Tory v Labour fight yet again. The fact that Labour can't muster runaway Blairesque leads three years into a Tory government is good news. Indeed they haven't been able to reach the dizzy midterm highs of Foot and Kinnock either.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 15, 2013, 01:39:40 PM
2015 looks set to give us such an odd realignment when you consider what'll happen in cities like Sheffield, Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool with Labour and the LibDems and what'll happen down south in the Bostons and the Thanets of the country with the Tories and UKIP (or even Labour, if they can run through the middle and get some unexpected gains).

2015 will be like every other election. I still don't think UKIP will pick up a more than about 1 seat (if Farage is still knocking around). It'll be a Tory v Labour fight yet again. The fact that Labour can't muster runaway Blairesque leads three years into a Tory government is good news. Indeed they haven't been able to reach the dizzy midterm highs of Foot and Kinnock either.

The Tories still need a 7-8% swing between today and the election according to Mori though, and far more compared to other pollsters.

And yeah, I'd still be stunned if UKIP hit 10% at the election.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: DC Al Fine on May 15, 2013, 01:46:35 PM
2015 looks set to give us such an odd realignment when you consider what'll happen in cities like Sheffield, Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool with Labour and the LibDems and what'll happen down south in the Bostons and the Thanets of the country with the Tories and UKIP (or even Labour, if they can run through the middle and get some unexpected gains).

2015 will be like every other election. I still don't think UKIP will pick up a more than about 1 seat (if Farage is still knocking around). It'll be a Tory v Labour fight yet again. The fact that Labour can't muster runaway Blairesque leads three years into a Tory government is good news. Indeed they haven't been able to reach the dizzy midterm highs of Foot and Kinnock either.

One thing I've noticed in Canada is that conservative parties have tended to underpoll in between campaigns since about 1990. Does the same pattern exist in the UK?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on May 15, 2013, 02:06:35 PM
2015 looks set to give us such an odd realignment when you consider what'll happen in cities like Sheffield, Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool with Labour and the LibDems and what'll happen down south in the Bostons and the Thanets of the country with the Tories and UKIP (or even Labour, if they can run through the middle and get some unexpected gains).

2015 will be like every other election. I still don't think UKIP will pick up a more than about 1 seat (if Farage is still knocking around). It'll be a Tory v Labour fight yet again. The fact that Labour can't muster runaway Blairesque leads three years into a Tory government is good news. Indeed they haven't been able to reach the dizzy midterm highs of Foot and Kinnock either.

One thing I've noticed in Canada is that conservative parties have tended to underpoll in between campaigns since about 1990. Does the same pattern exist in the UK?

Last time it happened was 1992 (other occasions were October 1974, 1970, 1966 and 1959). The Labour share is often overestimated (2005, 2001, 1997, 1992, 1987, October 1974, 1970, 1966, 1959) but sometimes underestimated too (2010, 1983, February 1974....and possibly 1950 and 1951 too, although I don't have the figures with me right now).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on May 15, 2013, 02:46:10 PM
Still not as big as the SSM rebellion though.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22547910


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on May 15, 2013, 02:48:08 PM
2015 looks set to give us such an odd realignment when you consider what'll happen in cities like Sheffield, Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool with Labour and the LibDems and what'll happen down south in the Bostons and the Thanets of the country with the Tories and UKIP (or even Labour, if they can run through the middle and get some unexpected gains).

2015 will be like every other election. I still don't think UKIP will pick up a more than about 1 seat (if Farage is still knocking around). It'll be a Tory v Labour fight yet again. The fact that Labour can't muster runaway Blairesque leads three years into a Tory government is good news. Indeed they haven't been able to reach the dizzy midterm highs of Foot and Kinnock either.

One thing I've noticed in Canada is that conservative parties have tended to underpoll in between campaigns since about 1990. Does the same pattern exist in the UK?

Yes, but polls account for that by various corrections. The Labour drop in the latest Ipsos-Mori is actually down to one of the measures: a very strict threshold for turnout certainty (only counting those that are 10/10, with Labour votes saying they're less likely to vote in the latest). Although even with those I think the Tories will continue to 'underpoll', as the trend for voters who are most likely to oppose them not registering/voting grows (you can already see the substantial differences in Ipsos' estimates on how the demographics voted in 2010 (http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/2613/How-Britain-Voted-in-2010.aspx?view=wide)).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 15, 2013, 05:10:50 PM
So the EU who-ha in parliament got 100+ rebels and now the hardliners are calling for joint UKIP/Tory tickets.

These backbenchers do need to put up or shut up though - defect or get their letters to the 1922 if they're that unhappy.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 16, 2013, 08:10:34 AM
Latest Tory leadership rumblings:
Gove calls himself the "heir to Blair". Sound familiar?
DPM jokes about Gove's leadership ambitions when asked about his situation with Vince.
Farage has given him his endorsement as someone he could work with in coalition and Mad-Nad has said he should be Chancellor.

This all sounds like they're at danger of finding themselves in a Romney-style 'Flavour of the Month' situation here. Last month, it was Theresa May and now that she's laid off since the budget, the Gove bandwagon's began rolling.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on May 16, 2013, 12:31:45 PM
2015 looks set to give us such an odd realignment when you consider what'll happen in cities like Sheffield, Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool with Labour and the LibDems and what'll happen down south in the Bostons and the Thanets of the country with the Tories and UKIP (or even Labour, if they can run through the middle and get some unexpected gains).

2015 will be like every other election. I still don't think UKIP will pick up a more than about 1 seat (if Farage is still knocking around). It'll be a Tory v Labour fight yet again. The fact that Labour can't muster runaway Blairesque leads three years into a Tory government is good news. Indeed they haven't been able to reach the dizzy midterm highs of Foot and Kinnock either.

It's not a Tory government, it's a Tory-Lib Dem government... we're in uncharted territory here.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on May 16, 2013, 01:45:33 PM
No time for gay marriage, but seemingly endless time to devote to a charade on a EU referendum.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 16, 2013, 02:13:41 PM
No time for gay marriage, but seemingly endless time to devote to a charade on a EU referendum.

No time for anything that matters. "It's the economy, stew pots."


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on May 16, 2013, 05:46:27 PM
Mwahaha!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325679/Nigel-Farage-bundled-police-van-barricaded-inside-pub-going-promote-Scottish-election-candidate.html


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 16, 2013, 05:49:54 PM
Mwahaha!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325679/Nigel-Farage-bundled-police-van-barricaded-inside-pub-going-promote-Scottish-election-candidate.html

God bless Scotland.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on May 16, 2013, 06:27:21 PM
Mwahaha!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325679/Nigel-Farage-bundled-police-van-barricaded-inside-pub-going-promote-Scottish-election-candidate.html

God bless Scotland.

I thought it was England who had the hooligans, not the Scots.  Or is that only in football since there isn't anything to get excited about in Socttish football. :P


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 16, 2013, 06:29:05 PM
Mwahaha!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325679/Nigel-Farage-bundled-police-van-barricaded-inside-pub-going-promote-Scottish-election-candidate.html

God bless Scotland.

I thought it was England who had the hooligans, not the Scots.  Or is that only in football since there isn't anything to get excited about in Socttish football. :P

Not so much that as this being what happens when you declare yourself the Heir to Thatcher, and then go north of the border.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on May 16, 2013, 06:30:53 PM
I thought it was England who had the hooligans, not the Scots.  Or is that only in football since there isn't anything to get excited about in Socttish football. :P

How did you manage to come away with the idea that Scotland was immune to hooliganism?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on May 17, 2013, 03:40:15 AM
So Nigel has now called the protestors ‘fascist scum’ and said "If this is the face of Scottish nationalism, it's a pretty ugly nation." Not exactly a way to further endear himself and UKIP to the Scottish people.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: politicus on May 17, 2013, 04:08:58 AM
"UKIP candidate Otto Inglis". :D

So their candidate is called English and has a German first name...

Apart from having a silly name he sounds like a complete idiot:

"There is a cultural struggle between on the one hand libertarians & conservatives and on the other the Frankfurt school Marxist left, which in the name of equality is intent on erasing everything that went before".

LOL




Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: bore on May 17, 2013, 06:09:32 AM
Mwahaha!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325679/Nigel-Farage-bundled-police-van-barricaded-inside-pub-going-promote-Scottish-election-candidate.html

God bless Scotland.

I thought it was England who had the hooligans, not the Scots.  Or is that only in football since there isn't anything to get excited about in Socttish football. :P

Scottish football is probably worse when it comes to fans, mainly due to the healthy combination of sectarianism and alcohol.

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11787/8682649/Police-investigate-after-three-fans-arrested-at-Rangers-v-Celtic-youth-cup-final
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/local/dundee/the-atmosphere-was-frightening-celtic-apologise-for-fans-behaviour-at-dens-1.62792


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on May 17, 2013, 06:16:35 AM
Mwahaha!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325679/Nigel-Farage-bundled-police-van-barricaded-inside-pub-going-promote-Scottish-election-candidate.html

God bless Scotland.

I thought it was England who had the hooligans, not the Scots.  Or is that only in football since there isn't anything to get excited about in Socttish football. :P

Scottish football is probably worse when it comes to fans, mainly due to the healthy combination of sectarianism and alcohol.

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11787/8682649/Police-investigate-after-three-fans-arrested-at-Rangers-v-Celtic-youth-cup-final
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/local/dundee/the-atmosphere-was-frightening-celtic-apologise-for-fans-behaviour-at-dens-1.62792

Scottish football is noticed for it's lack of violence especially at the international level. We also don't have a soccer casuals problems. I lived near Celtic Park for 3 years on the route that fans took to and from the stadium and never saw anything violent during Old Firm games. The incident at the youth cup final, the first time in a year since Celtic and Rangers faced each other in any form and at the Dens was very much the exception. The best way of stopping little sh-ts from ruining games are the fans themselves. There's also a ban on alcohol at stadiums and a street drinking ban has been in force for over a decade.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: bore on May 17, 2013, 07:08:22 AM
Mwahaha!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325679/Nigel-Farage-bundled-police-van-barricaded-inside-pub-going-promote-Scottish-election-candidate.html

God bless Scotland.

I thought it was England who had the hooligans, not the Scots.  Or is that only in football since there isn't anything to get excited about in Socttish football. :P

Scottish football is probably worse when it comes to fans, mainly due to the healthy combination of sectarianism and alcohol.

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11787/8682649/Police-investigate-after-three-fans-arrested-at-Rangers-v-Celtic-youth-cup-final
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/local/dundee/the-atmosphere-was-frightening-celtic-apologise-for-fans-behaviour-at-dens-1.62792

Scottish football is noticed for it's lack of violence especially at the international level. We also don't have a soccer casuals problems. I lived near Celtic Park for 3 years on the route that fans took to and from the stadium and never saw anything violent during Old Firm games. The incident at the youth cup final, the first time in a year since Celtic and Rangers faced each other in any form and at the Dens was very much the exception. The best way of stopping little sh-ts from ruining games are the fans themselves. There's also a ban on alcohol at stadiums and a street drinking ban has been in force for over a decade.

It's true that the Tartan Army is generally well behaved and clearly things are better than they were but, especially with the Old (although its really only a one year rivalry) firm, Scottish football has a clear problem. The youth and the Dundee games are not just isolated examples, you've got, for example the UEFA cup final in Manchester as well as charming statistics like these- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-14978841.

With regards to you living on the route to and from Celtic park, are you sure it wasn't due to segregation? Whenever Hibs play Hearts or Celtic the police put up a barricade for half an hour over a part of the exit to the stadium to stop fans meeting.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on May 17, 2013, 10:09:01 AM
There's also a ban on alcohol at stadiums and a street drinking ban has been in force for over a decade.
this should tell you everything you need to know about the severity of the problem.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on May 18, 2013, 04:22:17 PM
The YouGov polls carried out since the local election results:

Yesterday's: Lab 39 Con 29 UKIP 16 LD 9
Today's: Lab 38 Con 27 UKIP 17 LD 11

These are the highest UKIP scores in YouGov polls.  I suspect we may see a 20% for them in Opinium or Survation's next effort.

... and indeed Opinium have come out with Lab 37 Con 27 UKIP 20 LD 7.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on May 18, 2013, 10:46:21 PM
lol nearly 55% for turbo neoliberalism, and I'm not even sure if I'm right to exclude Labour from it, given they look set to adopt near enough all the coalitions reforms as their own anyway. Has anyone actually exposed some of UKIP's policies, other than the fairly popular anti-EU and immigration well-known ones? Should I expect them to be? Well at least there's a chance we can get PR from this, and it'd be particularly appropriate if delivered by their own incompetency.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on May 19, 2013, 05:17:57 AM
Sunday Times poll suggesting close to 50/50 split for independence if there's an early vote on leaving the EU


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on May 19, 2013, 06:00:44 AM
Sunday Times poll suggesting close to 50/50 split for independence if there's an early vote on leaving the EU

More like 55/45, and that's one of the better figures for EU (although a lot could change within a referendum debate: see AV :D).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: politicus on May 19, 2013, 06:10:55 AM
Sunday Times poll suggesting close to 50/50 split for independence if there's an early vote on leaving the EU

More like 55/45, and that's one of the better figures for EU (although a lot could change within a referendum debate: see AV :D).

I think he was talking about Scottish independence.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on May 19, 2013, 06:20:04 AM
Well that's what I though, too, but there's no Independence-related question, let alone figures in the Sunday Times tables (http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/lu4hu1in3u/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-170513.pdf).

Nevermind, found what he was talking about (http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-eu-split-may-boost-yes-vote-1-2936748). YouGov is usually synonymous with Sunday Times, have to say I've never heard of Panelbase?

It'd be hilarious if the Scots voted Independence on the threat that UK were leaving the EU.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: politicus on May 19, 2013, 06:25:36 AM
Recent polling shows men are now twice as likely to support Scottish independence.

Professor John Curtice from Strathclyde University:

“Women are less likely to say they feel confident about independence. Saying I want to stand on my own two feet, why do we need the English has potentially something of a macho tone to it.

Testosterone makes a difference here. Men are more willing to be a little gung ho. In so far as independence is a bit of a leap in the dark, they are more willing to take it.”

Sounds like an overly simplistic explanation to me. Is it really that simple?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on May 19, 2013, 06:32:58 AM
John Curtice is usually good for commentary, but yeah that sounds pretty suspect. On a UK level women seem to have less conviction (consistently more d/k's) and default towards conservatism (not necessarily right-wing, just status quo) moreso than men.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on May 19, 2013, 08:12:11 AM
Winning women is the key to winning the independence argument. It's the Yes campaigns 'final push' next year but I'll not talk much more about that. The UKIP thing has been a bonus; Euroskepticism reeks of 'English nationalism' more than just about any other issue and it turns off voters north of the border.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: politicus on May 19, 2013, 08:34:25 AM
Winning women is the key to winning the independence argument. It's the Yes campaigns 'final push' next year but I'll not talk much more about that.

It was just an observaton of an interesting development, not a question directed to you in particular.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 19, 2013, 09:05:17 AM
Quote
David Cameron has raised the possibility that he could quit the Coalition before 2015 for the first time in public.

Speaking to Total Politics magazine, the Prime Minister said that, should the Conservative manifesto not be carried out, he was ready to do whatever was needed to rectify that.

http://www.politicshome.com/uk/story/34889/


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on May 19, 2013, 09:42:32 AM
Winning women is the key to winning the independence argument. It's the Yes campaigns 'final push' next year but I'll not talk much more about that.

It was just an observaton of an interesting development, not a question directed to you in particular.

I know. Surely there's no harm in commenting though? :) There's always been a disconnect, even in good polls for us, between the genders. The social aspects of the debate haven't been fully discussed as it's a bit of an economics tit for tat. There's a hope we can focus on that next year.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 19, 2013, 09:56:56 PM
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2013/05/19/what-focus-groups-say-about-ed-miliband/

Interesting.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on May 20, 2013, 01:32:11 PM
Survation poll: Lab 35 Con 24 UKIP 22 LD 11.

LOL


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on May 20, 2013, 01:32:13 PM
Survation poll:

Lab - 35%
Con - 24% (-5)
UKIP - 22% (+6)
Lib Dems - 11%

According to Electoral Calculus, UKIP would actually win a seat on this (Camborne and Redruth apparently).... Survation is not the most experienced pollster though.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 20, 2013, 03:00:06 PM
Survation poll:

Lab - 35%
Con - 24% (-5)
UKIP - 22% (+6)
Lib Dems - 11%

According to Electoral Calculus, UKIP would actually win a seat on this (Camborne and Redruth apparently).... Survation is not the most experienced pollster though.

()


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 20, 2013, 03:09:53 PM
The PM's sent out this email to all members. Christ, he's worried.

Quote
Dear XXXXXXX,

After the news this weekend, I wanted to write a personal note to members of our Party.

I’ve been a member of the Conservative Party for 25 years. Some time after I joined I became Chairman of my local branch and was one of the volunteers dedicated to getting Conservatives elected to the local council. Since then I have met thousands and thousands of party members. We’ve pounded pavements together, canvassed together and sat in make-shift campaign headquarters together, from village halls to front rooms. We have been together through good times and bad. This is more than a working relationship; it is a deep and lasting friendship.

Ours is a companionship underpinned by what we believe: that everyone should be able to get on in life if they’re willing to work hard; that we look after those who cannot help themselves; that it’s family and community and country that matter; that a dose of common sense is worth more than a ton of dry political theory; that Britain is a great and proud nation that can be greater still.

Above all, we Conservatives believe you change things not by criticising from your armchair but by getting out and doing. Across the country, at charity events and voluntary organisations, you will find people from our Party quietly doing their bit. Time and again, Conservative activists like you stand for duty, decency and civic pride.

That’s why I am proud to lead this party. I am proud of what you do. And I would never have around me those who sneered or thought otherwise. We are a team, from the parish council to the local association to Parliament, and I never forget it.

Does that mean we will agree on everything? Of course not. The Conservative Party has always been a broad church – one which contains different views and opinions – and we must remain so today. But there is also much we must do together. We can shout from the roof-tops about how far we’ve already come. The deficit has been cut by a third. We’ve seen 1.25 million new jobs created in our private sector. 24 million working people have had their income tax cut.

And we can be clear about where we are going, too. We are engaged in a great fight to rebalance our economy, to bring excellence back to our schools, to fix the welfare system. And yes, we have a policy on Europe that is right for our country. Amid all the debate, remember this: it is our Party that has committed to an in-out referendum on Europe by the end of 2017. Not Labour, not the Liberal Democrats, but the Conservatives who are committed to giving the British people their say.

So to those reading this, here is my message: there will always be criticism from the sidelines. But we must remember what this Party has always been about: acting in the national interest. Our task today is to clear up Labour’s mess and make Britain stand tall again.

We have a job to do for our country – and we must do it together.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: LastVoter on May 20, 2013, 04:26:24 PM
Let's Just hope UKIP doesn't follow BC conservative footsteps, and Labour doesn't end up being BC NDP on election night.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 20, 2013, 04:29:58 PM
I don't think you understand: the BC NDP copied us. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_1992)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on May 20, 2013, 04:35:27 PM
Tim Loughton's wrecking amendment was defeated by a majority of 305.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: CatoMinor on May 20, 2013, 05:03:48 PM
Survation poll:

Lab - 35%
Con - 24% (-5)
UKIP - 22% (+6)
Lib Dems - 11%

According to Electoral Calculus, UKIP would actually win a seat on this (Camborne and Redruth apparently).... Survation is not the most experienced pollster though.

Somewhere in England, Nigel Farage is smiling.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Dr. Cynic on May 20, 2013, 05:25:31 PM
According to the last YouGov poll and the seat Calculator, Labour would have a majority of 116 and the LibDems would be down to the same levels they had after the 1987 Election when they were the SDP-Liberal Alliance.

The following LibDems would lose their seats:

Robert Smith
Alan Reid
Simon Hughes
John Hemming
Alan Beith
David Ward
Sarah Teather
Stephen Williams
Gordon Birtwistle
John Thurso
Julian Huppert
Jenny Willott
Mark Hunter
Duncan Hames
Dan Rogerson
Annette Brooke
Jo Swinson
Stephen Lloyd
Mike Thornton
Michael Crockart
Ming Campbell
Malcolm Bruce
Lynne Featherstone
Danny Alexander
Greg Mulholland
John Leech
Simon Wright
Ian Swales
Lorely Burt
David Heath
Stephen Gilbert
Andrew George
Paul Burstow
Jeremy Browne
Tessa Munt

That would be quite a brutal massacre.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 20, 2013, 06:56:23 PM
According to the last YouGov poll and the seat Calculator, Labour would have a majority of 116 and the LibDems would be down to the same levels they had after the 1987 Election when they were the SDP-Liberal Alliance.

The following LibDems would lose their seats:

Robert Smith
Alan Reid
Simon Hughes
John Hemming
Alan Beith
David Ward
Sarah Teather
Stephen Williams
Gordon Birtwistle
John Thurso
Julian Huppert
Jenny Willott
Mark Hunter
Duncan Hames
Dan Rogerson
Annette Brooke
Jo Swinson
Stephen Lloyd
Mike Thornton
Michael Crockart
Ming Campbell
Malcolm Bruce
Lynne Featherstone
Danny Alexander
Greg Mulholland
John Leech
Simon Wright
Ian Swales
Lorely Burt
David Heath
Stephen Gilbert
Andrew George
Paul Burstow
Jeremy Browne
Tessa Munt

That would be quite a brutal massacre.


Using a UNS calculator to predict a 15% fall for the Liberals is about as useful as a chocolate teapot.

If the Tories fall far enough, they'll still come out in 2015 with 40ish - wounded with any mandate to be in a coalition lost, but not dead.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 20, 2013, 07:42:00 PM
Labour MPs who voted for the Loughton amendment were apparently:

Joe Benton (Bootle), Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire), David Crausby (Bolton North East), Jim Dobbin (Heywood & Middleton), Frank Field (Birkenhead), Mary Glindon (Tyneside North), Paul Murphy (Torfaen), Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East).

At least one name on that list is... amusing. Anyways, I think all but Field (a very conservative Anglican) and Qureshi are Catholics. Murphy is actually a Papal Knight. Notable geographical concentration in the North West, but I repeat myself.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on May 21, 2013, 04:56:44 AM
Labour MPs who voted for the Loughton amendment were apparently:

Joe Benton (Bootle), Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire), David Crausby (Bolton North East), Jim Dobbin (Heywood & Middleton), Frank Field (Birkenhead), Mary Glindon (Tyneside North), Paul Murphy (Torfaen), Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East).

At least one name on that list is... amusing. Anyways, I think all but Field (a very conservative Anglican) and Qureshi are Catholics. Murphy is actually a Papal Knight. Notable geographical concentration in the North West, but I repeat myself.

And Frank doesn't half love getting on his high horse about broken families.

Being a 70-year-old bachelor really qualifies you as an expert on these matters apparently.

It works for the Catholic Church; we have 70 year old bachelors declaring themselves sex, marriage and family experts.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 21, 2013, 06:45:05 AM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/may/21/tebbit-gay-marriage-lesbian-queen

And these people wonder what makes them "Swivel-eyed".

And a new twist in loongate:
http://metro.co.uk/2013/05/21/jeremy-paxman-ive-heard-senior-tories-call-activists-swivel-eyed-loons-3803270/


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 22, 2013, 06:16:04 AM
This exchange was retweeted by Leeds Labour yesterday. Charming.

()


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on May 22, 2013, 10:12:06 AM
Sounds as if there's been a serious attack in Woolwich. :(


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on May 22, 2013, 10:35:52 AM
Some very disturbing rumours about the incident going around right now....I suppose we should wait for more official sources.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Goodwin on May 22, 2013, 10:55:30 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22630303

One man dead apparently (possibly a soldier), 2 others seriously injured. The word on twitter/facebook is that someone was beheaded? Lots of knives found at the scene.   


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Goodwin on May 22, 2013, 11:32:10 AM
Various media outlets now reporting that Police are treating this as a TERROR ATTACK.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 22, 2013, 11:44:55 AM
Thoughts have to go out to the poor bloke.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on May 22, 2013, 12:04:16 PM
Various media outlets now reporting that Police are treating this as a TERROR ATTACK.

The two suspects of course dead, but something may well turn up in their residences.

My thoughts and prayers are with the victims.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: HansOslo on May 22, 2013, 12:07:31 PM
Various media outlets now reporting that Police are treating this as a TERROR ATTACK.

The two suspects of course dead, but something may well turn up in their residences.

My thoughts and prayers are with the victims.

Is it confirmed that the attackers are dead?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on May 22, 2013, 12:25:37 PM
Sorry, my mistake - attackers are alive and in custody in hospital after being shot by police. No other injuries.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Goodwin on May 22, 2013, 12:50:15 PM
ITV News have just shown a clip of one of the attackers talking to the public after they've killed the guy in the street. Blood soaked hands and meat cleavers in hand with the dead man in the background - i presume the police shot at them afterwards. Just barbaric in broad daylight outside of a primary school. Disgusting.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 22, 2013, 12:52:34 PM
ITV News have just shown a clip of one of the attackers talking to the public after they've killed the guy in the street. Blood soaked hands and meat cleavers in hand with the dead man in the background - i presume the police shot at them afterwards. Just barbaric in broad daylight outside of a primary school. Disgusting.

ITV thought it was tasteful to air that at 6pm, huh?

I only saw BBC at 6, they didn't have it, but I imagine they wouldn't at that time considering how fast this is progressing.

EDIT: I've just seen a screenshot. Surely that's not okay to air?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 22, 2013, 01:04:15 PM
Muslims on Twitter unhappy with how media are perjuring the phrase "Allahu Akbar". And it's not even confirmed that it was said.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on May 22, 2013, 01:05:48 PM
ITV EXCLUSIVE


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 22, 2013, 01:08:51 PM
Any major Islam-bashing started yet? I'm sure the Heil will be working on their front page right now.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Goodwin on May 22, 2013, 01:19:31 PM
Any major Islam-bashing started yet? I'm sure the Heil will be working on their front page right now.

The idiotic ignorant folk who belong to the English Defense League will be having a field day. A couple of people on my Fb have already started the Islam bashing.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 22, 2013, 01:23:52 PM
Any major Islam-bashing started yet? I'm sure the Heil will be working on their front page right now.

The idiotic ignorant folk who belong to the English Defense League will be having a field day. A couple of people on my Fb have already started the Islam bashing.

I'm unfollowing anyone I see spouting bigotry. Usual procedure.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 22, 2013, 01:43:45 PM
Just watched the ITV report. They reporter said that it was "the day Baghdad style violence came to London".

I HATE THE MEDIA.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Goodwin on May 22, 2013, 02:05:10 PM
https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/481781_602553116423307_1092879202_n.jpg

This pic doing the rounds on facebook. I fear more riots. 


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: DC Al Fine on May 22, 2013, 02:10:01 PM
https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/481781_602553116423307_1092879202_n.jpg

This pic doing the rounds on facebook. I fear more riots. 


What the heck ever happened to the BNP? You'd think they'd be all over the press/surging in the polls in the wake of this.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on May 22, 2013, 02:11:47 PM
https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/481781_602553116423307_1092879202_n.jpg

This pic doing the rounds on facebook. I fear more riots. 


What the heck ever happened to the BNP? You'd think they'd be all over the press/surging in the polls in the wake of this.

They collapsed due to internal problems. It's quite common on the fringes, everyone wants to leads and that's getting bloody.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 22, 2013, 03:49:02 PM
https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/481781_602553116423307_1092879202_n.jpg

This pic doing the rounds on facebook. I fear more riots. 


What the heck ever happened to the BNP? You'd think they'd be all over the press/surging in the polls in the wake of this.

They collapsed due to internal problems. It's quite common on the fringes, everyone wants to leads and that's getting bloody.

Don't be shocked to see UKIP start playing with fire over this though. They've been known to do similar.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Goodwin on May 22, 2013, 04:14:28 PM

Some sketchy reports from twitter/facebook, and Sky News, are now suggesting a mosque in Essex has been attacked. Sky News are also reporting clashes in Woolwich with EDL and Police.

 http://news.sky.com/story/1094420/live-updates-woolwich-terrorist-attack


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Goodwin on May 24, 2013, 09:33:34 AM
Two arrested after RAF Typhoon jets divert a PIA B777 to Stansted.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22658979



Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 24, 2013, 05:42:34 PM
Harrow craziness update: the heroic, noble and utterly principled Independent Labour group have formed a coalition with the Tories.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 25, 2013, 01:08:49 PM
The colourful former Glasgow MP (Provan 1987-97, Baillieston 1997-2005) Jimmy Wray has died aged 78. Or possibly 75.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Goodwin on May 25, 2013, 04:37:06 PM
I laughed at the Daily Mail's front page headline today:

"After Woolwich horror, MPs demand action from internet giants - Now Force Google to Block Sick Websites of Hatred"

Yes, how about we start with the DM's website?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2330594/Now-force-Google-block-sick-websites-hatred-After-Woolwich-horror-MPs-demand-action-internet-giants.html


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on May 25, 2013, 05:17:23 PM
Are you proposing the EVILS of state regulation!111!


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on May 25, 2013, 06:58:46 PM
Apparently there are now enough anti-Cameron backbenchers to trigger a confidence vote but they aren't ready yet.

http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/05/26/tory-backbenchers-reportedly-tell-cameron-he-may-have-to-break-up-the-coalition-to-remain-leader/


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 26, 2013, 10:14:15 AM
Apparently there are now enough anti-Cameron backbenchers to trigger a confidence vote but they aren't ready yet.

http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/05/26/tory-backbenchers-reportedly-tell-cameron-he-may-have-to-break-up-the-coalition-to-remain-leader/

Probably too close to the summer recess for them.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on May 26, 2013, 11:33:54 AM
Apparently there are now enough anti-Cameron backbenchers to trigger a confidence vote but they aren't ready yet.

http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/05/26/tory-backbenchers-reportedly-tell-cameron-he-may-have-to-break-up-the-coalition-to-remain-leader/

Probably too close to the summer recess for them.

I hope they gain some momentum soon, the hilarity that would ensue would be priceless.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 26, 2013, 12:20:30 PM
Apparently there are now enough anti-Cameron backbenchers to trigger a confidence vote but they aren't ready yet.

http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/05/26/tory-backbenchers-reportedly-tell-cameron-he-may-have-to-break-up-the-coalition-to-remain-leader/

Probably too close to the summer recess for them.

I hope they gain some momentum soon, the hilarity that would ensue would be priceless.

He'd win a ballot, surely?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Lurker on May 26, 2013, 12:41:45 PM
Apparently there are now enough anti-Cameron backbenchers to trigger a confidence vote but they aren't ready yet.

http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/05/26/tory-backbenchers-reportedly-tell-cameron-he-may-have-to-break-up-the-coalition-to-remain-leader/

Probably too close to the summer recess for them.

I hope they gain some momentum soon, the hilarity that would ensue would be priceless.

He'd win a ballot, surely?

Could any of you Brits explain why Tory backbenchers (and much of the party's base) hate Cameron so much? I mean, other than on some "moral issues" like gay marriage he has been pretty right-wing, particularly when you consider the coalition with the Lib-Dems. Is the hate just due to anti-EU obsessiveness, or are there other reasons as well?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: politicus on May 26, 2013, 12:47:31 PM
Is the Tory party in its present incarnation fundamentally impossible to lead?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: DC Al Fine on May 26, 2013, 12:59:02 PM
Apparently there are now enough anti-Cameron backbenchers to trigger a confidence vote but they aren't ready yet.

http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/05/26/tory-backbenchers-reportedly-tell-cameron-he-may-have-to-break-up-the-coalition-to-remain-leader/

Probably too close to the summer recess for them.

I hope they gain some momentum soon, the hilarity that would ensue would be priceless.

He'd win a ballot, surely?

Could any of you Brits explain why Tory backbenchers (and much of the party's base) hate Cameron so much? I mean, other than on some "moral issues" like gay marriage he has been pretty right-wing, particularly when you consider the coalition with the Lib-Dems. Is the hate just due to anti-EU obsessiveness, or are there other reasons as well?

Immigration?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 26, 2013, 01:01:21 PM
Apparently there are now enough anti-Cameron backbenchers to trigger a confidence vote but they aren't ready yet.

http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/05/26/tory-backbenchers-reportedly-tell-cameron-he-may-have-to-break-up-the-coalition-to-remain-leader/

Probably too close to the summer recess for them.

I hope they gain some momentum soon, the hilarity that would ensue would be priceless.

He'd win a ballot, surely?

Could any of you Brits explain why Tory backbenchers (and much of the party's base) hate Cameron so much? I mean, other than on some "moral issues" like gay marriage he has been pretty right-wing, particularly when you consider the coalition with the Lib-Dems. Is the hate just due to anti-EU obsessiveness, or are there other reasons as well?

He's out-of-touch with large sections of his party.

He's never been popular with them, but they turned a blind eye when polling was good 2005-2011.

Is the Tory party in its present incarnation fundamentally impossible to lead?

It has been since round-and-about Black Wednesday.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on May 26, 2013, 01:04:26 PM
Is the Tory party in its present incarnation fundamentally impossible to lead?

Pretty much. The backbenchers are the UK's tea party, mostly demanding EU withdrawal and opposing any social liberalism or austerity impacting upon the military; regardless of whether they're in a coalition or not.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 26, 2013, 01:43:54 PM
The securocrats are back.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on May 26, 2013, 11:29:18 PM
Aye, but if steady Eddy doesn't do any daft deals we've no worries.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Blue3 on May 27, 2013, 01:19:33 PM
Has the law regarding royal succession been passed yet? Kate's baby is due soon, right?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on May 27, 2013, 01:34:08 PM
Has the law regarding royal succession been passed yet? Kate's baby is due soon, right?

The UK law has,and so has that of Canada.  A few minor realms have stated that their law already calls for the heir to be whoever British law says it should be so they don't need to pass new law.  New Zealand and Australia are the principal laggards here, tho to be fair unless Kate has fraternal twins of opposite sex, it doesn't have to be done before the birth.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on May 28, 2013, 11:13:19 AM
Kate's not having twins.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on May 28, 2013, 08:04:28 PM
Apparently there are now enough anti-Cameron backbenchers to trigger a confidence vote but they aren't ready yet.

http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/05/26/tory-backbenchers-reportedly-tell-cameron-he-may-have-to-break-up-the-coalition-to-remain-leader/

Probably too close to the summer recess for them.

I hope they gain some momentum soon, the hilarity that would ensue would be priceless.

He'd win a ballot, surely?

Could any of you Brits explain why Tory backbenchers (and much of the party's base) hate Cameron so much? I mean, other than on some "moral issues" like gay marriage he has been pretty right-wing, particularly when you consider the coalition with the Lib-Dems. Is the hate just due to anti-EU obsessiveness, or are there other reasons as well?

Yeah, there are the moral issues as you mentioned. If you ask the Tory base, they will in no way say he has been 'pretty right wing', they feel he has folded to the left over his foreign aid commitments, ring-fencing of the NHS budget and has done nothing to roll back the welfare state (they prefer a far, far more radical reduction). Libertarians think his Libyan/Syrian action is, well, stupid and despise the Data and Communications Bill (which monitors phone calls, internet use etc). Traditional Conservatives, the moral issues and the fact marriage tax cuts have no come into action. The Tory left at this stage only support him as they think he is an electoral asset, he does poll ahead of his party, but that's pretty much it, many feel he has not promoted a meritocratic government favouring 'chumocracy'. Personally, I favour the electoral argument, and feel he should remain and the other wings of the party are being a tad ridiculous though I would prefer a more right wing administration. Of course, coalition entails.

Oh and a new ComRes poll:

Lab 34% Con 30% UKIP 17% LibDem 10% Oth 9%.

Labour lead at a paltry four. Ipsos Mori had their lead at 3% last week I believe.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on May 29, 2013, 07:13:22 AM
Bigger picture Conservatives release that David Cameron is an asset. His favourable are still relatively favourable and in most polls out paces Ed Miliband and that’s the man who he will face in two years time. Furthermore, Tory strategists had expected to be some 20 points behind at this stage (as Tory governments have usually been) and been pleasantly surprised at Labour’s relatively low polling numbers. Miliband has been Labour leader now for almost 3 years and still has an image problem. He’s still ‘weird’. Furthermore Labour is barren of policy announcements. This is a genuine problem for the party; last night I was surprised to hear a BBC News report prefaced with ‘Labour, who have not announced what they would do…’ when cutting to a party figurehead talking about the economy. What is Labour going to do?

We know what they will do, but not announce. The Tories already ring fenced NHS spending and as an issue, the NHS isn’t really causing them much trouble. Labour will obviously stick to that. Furthermore the changes to the benefits system and the introduction of universal credit will not be rolled back because it’s what Labour wanted to do but didn’t have the political capital to do so. Likewise the public sector will see limited pay rises or freezes as a result. It makes me think that had Labour won the election in 2010, then they would probably be doing the exact same thing that the Tories are currently doing.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: DC Al Fine on May 29, 2013, 10:37:59 AM
Bigger picture Conservatives release that David Cameron is an asset. His favourable are still relatively favourable and in most polls out paces Ed Miliband and that’s the man who he will face in two years time. Furthermore, Tory strategists had expected to be some 20 points behind at this stage (as Tory governments have usually been) and been pleasantly surprised at Labour’s relatively low polling numbers.

Why do the Tories poll so badly between elections?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on May 29, 2013, 10:55:46 AM
Bigger picture Conservatives release that David Cameron is an asset. His favourable are still relatively favourable and in most polls out paces Ed Miliband and that’s the man who he will face in two years time. Furthermore, Tory strategists had expected to be some 20 points behind at this stage (as Tory governments have usually been) and been pleasantly surprised at Labour’s relatively low polling numbers.

Why do the Tories poll so badly between elections?

They don't - it's an exaggeration their supporters like to use to claim they're doing well now. In reality beyond brief moments in 1980 (Thatcher's recession/no split left) and 1990 (poll tax), Labour struggled to get consistently into double digits until 1993 (after a near decade and half of Tory rule).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on May 29, 2013, 11:56:45 AM
Why do the Tories poll so badly between elections?

I don't think it's anything specific to the Tories.  Governments tend to make themselves unpopular in mid-term with some of the people who voted for them, so they do badly in polls, lose by-elections and struggle in local elections [1], but then when the next General Election comes round they take a look at the alternative, hold their nose and return to their previous allegiance.

The idea that the Tories particularly suffer from this may be influenced by 1987-92 and 1992-97.  But the latter was followed by an unprecedented Labour landslide, and in the former the Tories took drastic action, which was rewarded in the polls pretty quickly [2].  It may also be influenced by the extended Blair honeymoon, but that was also unusual.  (And even then the Tories briefly took the lead in September 2000.)

As for the current parliament, I think the sort of Tory voters described above are mostly shifting to UKIP in current polls and elections, not to Labour.  The Labour gains since 2010 in the polls are from the Lib Dems, minor parties and non-voters.  This is an unusual situation, and it's hard to use previous experience to predict what's going to happen.

[1] Look up what happened to Labour in 1968, the year the Tories won control of Sheffield City Council (they won Burngreave) and IIRC Labour didn't win a single ward in Birmingham.

[2] It might also be worth pointing out that the experience of the 1992 election suggests that some of those polls in the years running up to it were quite badly off.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on May 29, 2013, 12:16:52 PM
The Tories cannot be happy about 30% - that's lower than they got in 1997!


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 29, 2013, 12:17:37 PM
I would advise against taking ComRes even slightly seriously; I mean I'd say that anyway because they're awful, but they've just published three strikingly different polls within 48 hours...

[1] Look up what happened to Labour in 1968, the year the Tories won control of Sheffield City Council (they won Burngreave) and IIRC Labour didn't win a single ward in Birmingham.

That's right, yes. Most weren't even slightly close either. Elsewhere you had things like the Tories in Newcastle winning Scotswood, the Tories winning control of Hackney...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 29, 2013, 12:33:31 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/29/leeds-council-bedroom-tax-solution


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on May 29, 2013, 01:57:21 PM
Awesome.

I would advise against taking ComRes even slightly seriously; I mean I'd say that anyway because they're awful, but they've just published three strikingly different polls within 48 hours...

Think there's only been two IIRC - the recent telephone Westminster one and then the joint Euro/Westminster online poll, that turns out used a draconian 10/10 certainty to vote for the baffling Euro figures.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on May 29, 2013, 02:25:16 PM
The Tories cannot be happy about 30% - that's lower than they got in 1997!

I'm happy. For me, it's the Labour lead that counts.

At the moment, it's historically weak especially considering the 'draconian cuts!11!' everyone goes on about.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 29, 2013, 02:29:10 PM
Moving away from political onanism for a moment: various rumours are circulating about the 'Honourable' Member for Portsmouth South.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on May 29, 2013, 03:43:54 PM
Moving away from political onanism for a moment

You learn something new everyday... although I wasn't planning on another euphemism for that.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on May 30, 2013, 05:28:43 PM
Dunno if it's just me, but Anna Soubry reminds me of Thatcher (style, not substance).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 31, 2013, 06:09:52 AM
Patrick Mercer has just resigned the Conservative whip. Apparently he's been caught up in some kind of lobbying scandal, the details of which are currently unknown.

For the record, Newark in its current incarnation is a very safe Tory seat. The pre-1983 version included the Dukeries and less agricultural territory (and was almost always Labour), the 1983-2005 version included Retford (and went Labour once).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 31, 2013, 06:20:09 AM
Seems to be some kind of joint Panorama/Telegraph sting.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 31, 2013, 11:52:44 AM
Interesting question over at Political Betting. Who'd take over from Ed should he fall short in 2015?

I think 2010 shows that it's not as simple as "Oh, it'll be Yvette, surely".


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on June 01, 2013, 05:56:28 PM
Opinium: LAB 37%(nc), CON 26%(-1), UKIP 21%(+1), LDEM 6%(-1)

6% is the lowest I've ever seen them - 7 seems to be their absolute baseline with YouGov. This also had the Greens and SNP on 4%.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on June 01, 2013, 06:51:16 PM
But, you know, Opium.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on June 01, 2013, 06:53:04 PM
There's a rather interesting story on the Daily Mail website right now.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on June 01, 2013, 07:20:01 PM
Apparently there's more implicated in corruption as well.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on June 02, 2013, 08:17:08 AM
Downing Street sex scandal!


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: politicus on June 02, 2013, 09:03:16 AM

Ever since the Profumo-affair British sex scandals have generally been boring stuff blown out of proportion by a sensationalist press. This seems to be some middle aged rumpy-pumpy among greyfaced bureaucrats. You guys are way behind the Americans in this area.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on June 03, 2013, 06:11:44 AM
So Ed Balls announces that Labour will stick to Tory spending targets if they win the next election. Always a joy to hear.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on June 03, 2013, 06:40:15 AM
So Ed Balls announces that Labour will stick to Tory spending targets if they win the next election. Always a joy to hear.

A New Labour man for sure.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on June 03, 2013, 07:43:48 AM
Wonders of UK democracy. He's also dropped the principle of universalism. Blairite triangulation begins.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on June 03, 2013, 07:55:42 AM
God help us if any 2015 Labour government starts to be viewed like a sort've Hollande Anglais.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on June 03, 2013, 08:06:16 AM
Well one thing's for certain, we can no longer be confident that UKIP will be Alliance mark II (but for the Right), because Thatcher managed to satisfy and hold on to her voters by being sufficiently right-wing. Labour triangulating and disillusioning leftists will just let the Right straight back in (if it even ousts them in the first place), and so I've a horrible feeling those switching to UKIP will be richly rewarded by either a newly aligned radically-Thatcherite Tory party, or UKIP gaining more protest and becoming a credible vehicle itself.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on June 03, 2013, 12:54:25 PM
This is one cut I support.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on June 03, 2013, 01:57:15 PM
The eternally colourful Lord Gilbert (once John Gilbert) has died aged 86. He was a minister in the last Wilson government, in the Callaghan government and in the Blair government (as a Lord) and MP for Dudley (then Dudley East) from 1970 until 1997. He had previously polled remarkably well as a Labour candidate in Ludlow in 1966 (presumably aided by the lack of a Liberal candidate and the fact that Madeley was in the seat back then) and had the misfortune of being the Labour candidate in the Dudley by-election of 1968. He caused a lot of trouble for the Thatcher government in the 1980s as a member of various select committees. He recently made the news for suggesting that the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan ought to be nuked.

Grauniad obit here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jun/03/lord-gilbert
Torygraph obit here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/10096849/Lord-Gilbert.html


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on June 03, 2013, 05:01:25 PM
Ed Balls struggling to defend his announcement today to Paxo...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on June 04, 2013, 05:23:52 PM
HOL passed the gay marriage bill.

Also, lol:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22764884


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on June 05, 2013, 03:50:37 PM
The Church of England has effectively given up opposing equal marriage, at least politically.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on June 05, 2013, 07:12:42 PM
The Church of England has effectively given up opposing equal marriage, at least politically.

If they did, they risk splitting both themselves and the Communion over the issue wouldn't they?  (Not that the latter isn't likely to happen anyway.)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Goodwin on June 06, 2013, 05:52:51 AM
The controversial Bilderberg conference is taking place in Watford today and will run through to Sunday. A lot of political activists, as well as members of the media (I believe Sky News has some coverage), will be present over the next 4 days. A lot of security is around.

According to the official guest list, Ken Clarke, George Osborne and Ed Balls will be attending at some point over the next few days.

Wikipedia page for Bilderberg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KapTRbwDGKM (Labour MP Michael Meacher being interviewed at Bilderberg)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-22793804 (Watford mayor expressing her concern)



Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Serenity Now on June 06, 2013, 08:32:04 AM
So Ed Balls announces that Labour will stick to Tory spending targets if they win the next election. Always a joy to hear.

No need for me to remember to vote at the next general election then..


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on June 06, 2013, 01:05:45 PM
Convicted criminal Brian Coleman (ex-GLA member for Barnet & Camden, current Barnet councillor and general egotistical arsehole - but then you all knew that) has been expelled from the Conservative Party. He has, however, stated his intention to run for re-election next year on a 'platform of proper Conservative values'. Presumably these values include running up vast taxi bills at public expense and beating up women who have the temerity to film him illegal parking in loading bays.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on June 06, 2013, 04:24:43 PM
Convicted criminal Brian Coleman (ex-GLA member for Barnet & Camden, current Barnet councillor and general egotistical arsehole - but then you all knew that) has been expelled from the Conservative Party. He has, however, stated his intention to run for re-election next year on a 'platform of proper Conservative values'. Presumably these values include running up vast taxi bills at public expense and beating up women who have the temerity to film him illegal parking in loading bays.

Will he be joining UKIP or be an independent asshole.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Meridian Blue on June 08, 2013, 09:43:18 AM
Opinium: LAB 37%(nc), CON 26%(-1), UKIP 21%(+1), LDEM 6%(-1)

6% is the lowest I've ever seen them - 7 seems to be their absolute baseline with YouGov. This also had the Greens and SNP on 4%.

Apologies to drag this back up.

Greens may poll 4%, realistically, they won't gain any more seats. Their sole concentration will be the retention of Brighton Pavilion. Being a Brighton resident, and knowing many Green voters, Lucas will need a miracle to hold that seat after what the GP B&H party has done to the city. Lucas has distanced herself from the Council due to its horrific management of the city, and complete U-turn on their pre-election promises.

Jason Kitcat (I sh**t you not, that's his name) is on a personal mission, and has been consistently ignoring the voices of the city in order to pursue his own agenda. And what a mess he has done.

Lucas will either stand as an independent, or defect to Labour. I would guess it'll be a defection. She stands no hope of retaining the seat as a Green candidate as a result of local issues. Which is a shame, I dislike her policies, but she's the type of politician we need. People with convictions, and the courage to well and truly stand for what they and their constituents believe.

I believe her standing down as party leader had something to do with the local council, as she has begun to speak against them. I.e. Supporting the refuse workers' striker when the Greens announced a £4,000 pay cut + increase in hours (An incredibly Tory policy)..

Essentially, people think Clegg was/is bad. You should see and listen to Kitcat.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on June 08, 2013, 11:10:12 AM
So Ed Balls announces that Labour will stick to Tory spending targets if they win the next election. Always a joy to hear.

No need for me to remember to vote at the next general election then..

That's not quite what he said (from Labourlist):

"But we cannot rely on George Osborne to see sense. So Labour must start planning now for what will be a very difficult inheritance in 2015.

The plans in this year’s spending review will be our starting point, but we will have to find efficiency savings and switch resources to Labour’s priorities. And we will also need to set out plans to invest in the homes, schools and infrastructure we need to build for the future".


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on June 08, 2013, 05:10:58 PM
So Ed Balls announces that Labour will stick to Tory spending targets if they win the next election. Always a joy to hear.

No need for me to remember to vote at the next general election then..

That's not quite what he said (from Labourlist):

"But we cannot rely on George Osborne to see sense. So Labour must start planning now for what will be a very difficult inheritance in 2015.

The plans in this year’s spending review will be our starting point, but we will have to find efficiency savings and switch resources to Labour’s priorities. And we will also need to set out plans to invest in the homes, schools and infrastructure we need to build for the future".

Basically, a lot of what the Liberals and the Tories have done is irreparable.

And it's true what Ed said about priorities. With the country in the state it's in, the poor especially, giving child benefit back to the better off isn't exactly what a Labour chancellor should waltz into the treasury and do on day one.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on June 08, 2013, 06:34:50 PM
I'd find this 'we need to make use of what money we have' easier to accept if Labour were looking seriously at recouping as much money as they can - the cut itself doesn't even save much, but Labour still seem willing to sacrifice universality for it. Yet you can't even get them to commit to re-instating the 50p tax rate (consequently making their opposition to it completely hollow) and where was their opposition to the repeated slashing of the corporation tax to a record low? That's just two examples of an innumerable amount that discredits the 'make-do' excuse for why continuing the Tories' cuts and austerity are right when Labour do it, but wrong for the Tories. Really, I think this is just more Blairite triangulation, with all the familiar hallmarks - Miliband 'proving' he can show 'iron discipline' by conceding Tory ground (this is a relatively benign one, but I fully expect much more to come) and live in the 'sensible', 'real-world' now the election's dawning.

As you probably realise, I wasn't a committed Labour voter anyway but they've done well in dissuading me so far from voting Labour.  

 


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on June 09, 2013, 03:27:21 AM
Universality is no longer possible in our society... nor in many cases desirable.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on June 09, 2013, 07:06:48 AM
The latest name to get dragged into the latest lobbying scandal is Tim Yeo, who actually holds a parliamentary position of some importance.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on June 09, 2013, 08:52:01 AM
Universality is no longer possible in our society... nor in many cases desirable.

Defending universality seems to be unfashionable these days, but means testing has its problems too.  In particular in many cases I worry that people who actually should be receiving the benefits end up not doing so because they slip through the net somehow or are embarrassed to apply.  (It depends exactly how you run the system, I suppose.)  And if you're prepared to have a reasonably progressive tax system which raises enough money then that's probably less bureaucratic, and hence actually more efficient, than means testing.

Now, if we're not prepared to have such a tax system (and here is the problem I suppose) then I'm not going to defend universal benefits against health, education, transport, science, arts, etc.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on June 09, 2013, 09:50:26 AM
The idea that universality ought to be a dominant principle in social policy has been dead for longer than anyone posting in this thread has been alive. Since the 'rediscovery of poverty' (one of many) in the 1960s, actually. And much of the initial intellectual attack came from the Left.

Personally, though, I agree with YL. The old saw about a service for the poor being inevitably a poor service (I think that was Titmuss, though maybe he just popularised it) is often distressingly accurate.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on June 09, 2013, 11:41:57 AM

Now, if we're not prepared to have such a tax system (and here is the problem I suppose) then I'm not going to defend universal benefits against health, education, transport, science, arts, etc.

It's not so much an issue with the tax system as society. People are living longer - and they're needing state provision for longer. Diseases that would have killed most people straight off back in 1948 are now merely putting them out of the workforce for an extended period of time; which while a good thing of course, means more requirement for benefits for those people. Also, we've not had full employment since the early 1970s.

So, it's right we direct benefits to those who need it as a priority - the rest is ultimately a luxury.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on June 09, 2013, 12:02:31 PM
Means testing undermines the aim of directing them to the most needy - already £16bn of benefits go unclaimed because people don't wish to/can't tackle the complex forms needed to prove you're poor enough to deserve them (let alone the stigma that comes attached with it). If we can't afford them then raise the income tax on those wealthy who don't need them instead, or reverse this endless drive to let businesses use our society and pay record lows back.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on June 09, 2013, 12:27:02 PM
The controversial Bilderberg conference is taking place in Watford today and will run through to Sunday. A lot of political activists, as well as members of the media (I believe Sky News has some coverage), will be present over the next 4 days. A lot of security is around.

According to the official guest list, Ken Clarke, George Osborne and Ed Balls will be attending at some point over the next few days.

Wikipedia page for Bilderberg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KapTRbwDGKM (Labour MP Michael Meacher being interviewed at Bilderberg)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-22793804 (Watford mayor expressing her concern)



Why the F**K did the BBC have US conspiracy nutjob on Sunday Politics over this?! To discredit legitimate inquiry? Because that's what it seems like. Hoho what an awful interview - as if they were expecting anything else.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on June 11, 2013, 07:18:40 AM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jun/10/david-blunkett-review-intelligence-oversight-law


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on June 14, 2013, 08:06:57 AM
Angus Robertson and the SNP must be pretty vile to get me agreeing pretty fervently with Nigel Farage on last night's QT.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: freefair on June 14, 2013, 09:53:30 AM
Angus Robertson and the SNP must be pretty vile to get me agreeing pretty fervently with Nigel Farage on last night's QT.

I don't mind the SNP usually but you're right, The Journalist lady was pretty awful too. I diagree with Galloway on almost everything but found myself In near total agreement with him throughout the show on the issues raised.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on June 14, 2013, 04:59:08 PM
Queen's Birthday Honours have been announced... and for the first time ever, Baldrick outranks Blackadder.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on June 20, 2013, 07:45:46 PM
What was that Nige'? "Corrupt establishment"?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-set-up-offshore-1972988


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on June 22, 2013, 02:31:08 PM
Awesome Mitchell rant re Tories, awfulness, austerity, gay-marriage etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4xBbcCpfDc


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on June 22, 2013, 02:34:01 PM
Awesome Mitchell rant re Tories, awfulness, austerity, gay-marriage etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4xBbcCpfDc

I thought this was Andrew Mitchell, Tory MP going off on one, but nah.

Either way, I can't abide David Mitchell.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on June 22, 2013, 02:38:41 PM
Fantastic, we share a 0/10 on commonality. Feels awkward when I have to agree with a Thatcherite. :P


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on June 22, 2013, 04:01:30 PM
A group of particularly right-wing Tory MPs (with a curious concentration of constituencies in Northamptonshire) proposed an "alternative Queen's Speech" (http://labourlist.org/2013/06/the-tory-talibans-alternative-queens-speech-in-full/).  It's mostly fairly predictable stuff: leave the EU (which seems to be in there twice, just in case), bring back the death penalty, reintroduce conscription, various climate change denial stuff.  They also want to rename the August Bank Holiday after a certain former Prime Minister who died recently.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on June 22, 2013, 04:54:52 PM
Plus, of course, doing away with the BBC. Makes me laugh how many proposing re-introducing national service conveniently never had to do it themselves.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on June 22, 2013, 05:18:01 PM
Fantastic, we share a 0/10 on commonality. Feels awkward when I have to agree with a Thatcherite. :P

The feeling is the same when I have to agree with a big-s Socialist. :D


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: freefair on June 22, 2013, 05:51:24 PM
Plus, of course, doing away with the BBC. Makes me laugh how many proposing re-introducing national service conveniently never had to do it themselves.

I think conscription into a sort of national guard/psuedo military institution would be a fitting punishment for petty crime, antisocial behavior, or descriptiveness in state education.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on June 22, 2013, 06:33:45 PM
How liberal of you...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on June 22, 2013, 08:20:32 PM
Anyone fancy telling me why he has never like this between the years 2007 and 2010?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqp-E3kAFqQ


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on June 22, 2013, 09:12:59 PM
I doubt any amount of charisma or good speech-making could've saved Brown - as his economic legacy came crashing down on him (there's a reason why incumbents have been dropping like flies).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on June 22, 2013, 11:49:40 PM
I doubt any amount of charisma or good speech-making could've saved Brown - as his economic legacy came crashing down on him (there's a reason why incumbents have been dropping like flies).

It probably could've at least evened out the tide. From what I remember in 2010, Brown was incredibly lacking in charisma and looked like he was being run out of office no matter what. A little bit of strength and energy in Labour at the time may have lead to us having a Lab-Lib coalition gov right now. (Now that would be a funny scenario to watch)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on June 23, 2013, 08:38:56 AM
While 2010 was a nice election to lose, there's nothing fun about opposition.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Insula Dei on June 23, 2013, 10:11:56 AM
I seem to recall people being very enthusiastic about Brown's Citizens UK speech (?) a couple of day before the 2010 election.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on June 23, 2013, 10:57:41 AM
I seem to recall people being very enthusiastic about Brown's Citizens UK speech (?) a couple of day before the 2010 election.

Yeah, he went out on a high in the last week (post-Duffy) to be fair.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on June 23, 2013, 12:11:31 PM
I seem to recall people being very enthusiastic about Brown's Citizens UK speech (?) a couple of day before the 2010 election.

Yes, that was a very good speech. Credit where it's due.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on June 23, 2013, 05:08:09 PM
I seem to recall people being very enthusiastic about Brown's Citizens UK speech (?) a couple of day before the 2010 election.

Yes, that was a very good speech. Credit where it's due.

He even handled the hecklers amazingly.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on June 23, 2013, 10:11:58 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23025311

6-month jail sentence (40% of what Stuart Hall is currently serving after raping and assaulting over a dozen children) and deportation (never mind his family) for disrupting some toff boat race. Such a shower of sh**t in charge.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: freefair on June 24, 2013, 08:38:25 AM
FGS, Oxbridge aren't toff institutions. You clearly either have next to no idea about them or you've got a massive chip on your shoulder about not having gone to them. I never even applied to them, and a clearly of a working class background, yet I have total admiration for those outstanding institutions. Two class friends have offers for Oxford and they are the most hardworking grounded lads I know.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on June 24, 2013, 11:01:37 AM
FFS, Oxbridge aren't toff institutions, you clearly either have no idea about them or you've got a massive chip on your shoulder about not having gone to them. I never even applied to them, and am objectively of the working class,  but I have little but admiration for those institutions. Two class friends have offers for Oxford and they are the most hardworking grounded lads I know.

LOL Only a Tory would contest what is demonstrably true (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/sep/28/working-class-students-posh-universities). Your two friends may go toward the 11/12% of working class students attending there - not the 88-89% middle-class to upper.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Hifly on June 24, 2013, 11:59:03 AM
FFS, Oxbridge aren't toff institutions, you clearly either have no idea about them or you've got a massive chip on your shoulder about not having gone to them. I never even applied to them, and am objectively of the working class,  but I have little but admiration for those institutions. Two class friends have offers for Oxford and they are the most hardworking grounded lads I know.

LOL Only a Tory would contest what is demonstrably true (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/sep/28/working-class-students-posh-universities). Your two friends may go toward the 11/12% of working class students attending there - not the 88-89% middle-class to upper.

You sound as if you are envious of others who don't lack the intellectual capacity to get into those universities.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on June 24, 2013, 02:12:18 PM
Better than sounding like you think middle and upper class students are inherently brighter than their working class counterpart.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on June 25, 2013, 06:29:01 AM
This surely can't do Plaid any good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-23048194


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: freefair on June 25, 2013, 08:22:05 AM
Your two friends may go toward the 11/12% of working class students attending there - not the 88-89% middle-class to upper.

Well, one of them is what could be called upper-lower-middle class, but he's still a totally ordinary, non-posh person...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Peter the Lefty on June 25, 2013, 02:26:09 PM
Awesome Mitchell rant re Tories, awfulness, austerity, gay-marriage etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4xBbcCpfDc
I literally fell on the floor laughing.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on June 25, 2013, 05:11:49 PM
Interesting survey of young people;

http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/jgdvn3vm4b/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-190613-youth-survey.pdf


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on June 30, 2013, 06:11:13 PM
Daniel Kawczynski (Con, Shrewsbury & Atcham) has come out as bisexual.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on June 30, 2013, 06:23:16 PM
All anyone needs to know about Daniel Kawczynski is he's a f**king horrible bastard.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: freefair on June 30, 2013, 07:14:05 PM
Why? because he's got opinions and views you disagree with, that are on the other side of the political spectrum? Jeez.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on June 30, 2013, 07:57:24 PM
That and exploiting the desperate conditions for workers here, by using unpaid internships or rather creating phoney positions and then plagiarising the submissions he got for his books. Just another hypocritical capitalist scumbag, all in all.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on July 04, 2013, 10:52:44 AM
Tom Watson resigns over Falkirk. Nips any suggestion that it's to undermine EdM in the bud.

http://labourlist.org/2013/07/tom-watson-resigns-from-the-shadow-cabinet/


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on July 05, 2013, 12:24:38 PM
This basically just seems to be - incompetent - branch stacking. Not that I'd defend branch stacking or anything (it's really not groovy at all), but, eh.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on July 05, 2013, 03:03:01 PM
If anything it's a reflection on Labour's leadership (now that they officially have one) in Scotland which is...more than wanting.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on July 05, 2013, 05:03:25 PM
Miliband HQ have been pushing for a 'clause 4 moment' since day one. This is it.

The unions'll grin and bare it, they elected the bloke at the end of the day, because who else are they gonna jump behind, the Tories? the Liberals? ... Respect?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on July 05, 2013, 05:42:56 PM
Well they don't have to jump behind the existing options. What's the point jumping behind a bloke itching to symbolically attack you? I mean, they jumped behind Ed because the alternative was David.

But that's largely devil's advocate - I don't think the unions will depart, either. Although I have to laugh, you'd think selection stitch-ups were a new thing the way Labour HQ have reacted - perhaps it's more because of who's doing it.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on July 05, 2013, 05:47:35 PM
I think what all sides, especially the Tories, forget is that for the vast majority of voters, it's really a case of 'Len McWho?'.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on July 05, 2013, 06:07:08 PM
Well it suits them enormously if their first introduction to him for many is rigging Labour internal elections, and it risks - with days of coverage over it and escalation in a bid to appear tough - ever more likely to be. 


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on July 06, 2013, 08:09:06 AM
A question I've been trying to mull over for the past few days that I'm sure you lot can try and answer for me:

With such a massive drop-off for the LibDems since the election, what is the "image" of a stereotypical Liberal Democrat voter in their remaining 8-12% base? What sections of society remain (relatively) strong for them?

We, of course, know (generally) what kind of people the Liberals have lost, but who's left still voting for them?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on July 06, 2013, 03:34:59 PM
Lord Prescott quits Privy Council over press regulation procedures (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23213741)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on July 06, 2013, 03:44:35 PM
A question I've been trying to mull over for the past few days that I'm sure you lot can try and answer for me:

With such a massive drop-off for the LibDems since the election, what is the "image" of a stereotypical Liberal Democrat voter in their remaining 8-12% base? What sections of society remain (relatively) strong for them?

We, of course, know (generally) what kind of people the Liberals have lost, but who's left still voting for them?

English afleitch's.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on July 07, 2013, 07:30:09 AM
Seems to be a collective "WTF!?" aimed at the Guardian after their antics on the unions story a few days ago.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on July 08, 2013, 08:46:09 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23180965

Dave's KRudd moment? :P


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on July 08, 2013, 06:40:42 PM
Seems to be a collective "WTF!?" aimed at the Guardian after their antics on the unions story a few days ago.

Which turn out to be true...

So Ed's effectively diluting union and members influence (going around the unions via opt-in and bringing in primaries).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on July 11, 2013, 02:12:05 AM
Another hugely unpopular privatisation (http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/0ugkse5uv5/YG-Archive-Bow-results-090713-Royal-Mail-privatisation.pdf) that in all likelihood won't get reversed. Hard not to despair.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on July 11, 2013, 07:05:01 PM
Another hugely unpopular privatisation (http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/0ugkse5uv5/YG-Archive-Bow-results-090713-Royal-Mail-privatisation.pdf) that in all likelihood won't get reversed. Hard not to despair.

It's not as if government mints make real money these days.  Still. privatization only makes sense if the government is to going to have competition in coin-making.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: freefair on July 12, 2013, 05:30:40 AM
Another hugely unpopular privatisation (http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/0ugkse5uv5/YG-Archive-Bow-results-090713-Royal-Mail-privatisation.pdf) that in all likelihood won't get reversed. Hard not to despair.

They all start out unpopular, but apart from Gas and Rail, where there's either no competition or consumer inertia/oligopolies and, they have been obviously good and popular choices with little to no bad side effects. Most of them are now seen to be completely normal (ie BT, BA ThomasCook, Jaguar (which will cause a boom in Wolverhampton!!),Corus, Gleneagles Hotel, Pickfords removals). I don't see Royal Mail being much different, as it has lots of competition and room for manouvre, and lots of incentives to co-operate and compete with others for best and/or cheapest service. Unless your idea of socialism is to prevent large private businesses from even existing, or to satick up for many of the incompetent postpersons they are compelled to employ, I don't see the practical objection. And I'm no Burkean Tory, so I'm not bothered if they replace the Queen's head.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on July 12, 2013, 08:04:50 AM
I... er... wouldn't include Corus on a list of supposedly successful privatisations if I were you... the privatisation of steel has been almost as disastrous as the privatisation of coal (back in the news at the moment, of course) and that was supposed to be disastrous...

In any event, any list of questionable privatisations should include water (which is a public scandal, frankly) as well as the entire energy sector.

Anyway, there are a lot of surprisingly remote rural areas in the UK. I grew up in one (not far from where you live, actually). Places like that are going to be so screwed by this.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on July 12, 2013, 06:58:25 PM
Another hugely unpopular privatisation (http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/0ugkse5uv5/YG-Archive-Bow-results-090713-Royal-Mail-privatisation.pdf) that in all likelihood won't get reversed. Hard not to despair.

They all start out unpopular, but apart from Gas and Rail, where there's either no competition or consumer inertia/oligopolies and, they have been obviously good and popular choices with little to no bad side effects. Most of them are now seen to be completely normal (ie BT, BA ThomasCook, Jaguar (which will cause a boom in Wolverhampton!!),Corus, Gleneagles Hotel, Pickfords removals). I don't see Royal Mail being much different, as it has lots of competition and room for manouvre, and lots of incentives to co-operate and compete with others for best and/or cheapest service. Unless your idea of socialism is to prevent large private businesses from even existing, or to satick up for many of the incompetent postpersons they are compelled to employ, I don't see the practical objection. And I'm no Burkean Tory, so I'm not bothered if they replace the Queen's head.

Well firstly I am one of those socialists, but the following poll results (http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/today_uk_import/yg-archives-yougov-britishbusiness-300611.pdf):

Quote
Prisons: 68% Public 11% Private
Roads: 68% Public 11% Private
Rubbish collection: 67% Public 11% Private
Job centres: 64% Public 11% Private
Libraries: 63% Public 6% Private
Water: 63% Public 16% Private
Railways: 59% Public 19% Private
Universities: 57% Public 17 Private
Postal delivery: 57% Public 20% Private
Elderly carehomes: 56% Public 14% Private
National Parks: 54% Public, 8% Private
Power Stations: Public 54% Private 22%
--^--Public sector majorities--^--
Pre-school nurseries: 47% Public 20% Private
Sports centres: 31% Public 30% Private
Airports 41% Private 34% Public
Landlines telephones: 41% Private, 32% Public
Theatres: 47% Private, 11% Public
Television channels: 50% Private, 15% Public
--v--Private sector majorities--v--
Mobile telephones: 57% Private, 12% Public
Newspapers: 59% Private, 9% Public
Supermarkets: 64% Private, 9% Public

...shows you fans of privatisation are no more representative of UK opinion. Certainly shows the public are far from settled on either BT or BA, and generally favour nationalisation of our services, competition or no - remarkable, since no major party has been making the case for it for decades. Of course, it's not to keep right-wing bollocks like compelling keeping on incompetent postpersons, but because they know fine well that their services will inevitably suffer and prices will rise when the profiteering capitalist vampires get their teeth into it.

I... er... wouldn't include Corus on a list of supposedly successful privatisations if I were you... the privatisation of steel has been almost as disastrous as the privatisation of coal (back in the news at the moment, of course) and that was supposed to be disastrous...

In any event, any list of questionable privatisations should include water (which is a public scandal, frankly) as well as the entire energy sector.

Anyway, there are a lot of surprisingly remote rural areas in the UK. I grew up in one (not far from where you live, actually). Places like that are going to be so screwed by this.

Yeah, Corus has been an unmitigated disaster. But more importantly that latter point is spot on - what's the betting the rural hard-to-reach areas either become devoid of a service, or more likely the government will inevitably keep RM subsidised for precisely that, but now with all the profitable areas removed that used to subsidise them, ending up costing the UK exchequer more than when it was nationalised? Just like we see with the subsidies for buses and trains.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on July 15, 2013, 04:10:32 PM
ICM has Labour and the Tories neck and neck at 36 each with UKIP down to 7. Could it be over for the UKIP-fest?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on July 15, 2013, 04:24:56 PM
UKIP at 7 seems... odd.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on July 15, 2013, 04:30:24 PM

Yes, hard to believe really for the current situation.  Though as a prediction of the next election result this poll may not be unreasonable.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on July 15, 2013, 04:43:39 PM

Yes, hard to believe really for the current situation.  Though as a prediction of the next election result this poll may not be unreasonable.

It's ICM. Whether it's still the gold standard is up for question, but it's still a strong company. I expect a Tory victory in 2015, but that's just me.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on July 15, 2013, 05:06:29 PM
Unfortunately I don't think there is a "gold standard" at the moment.  ICM seem prone to wild swings (recent UKIP figures being a case in point) and have had some odd results, in particular a high BNP figure in their May poll apparently caused by overweighting one respondent, which is something which is going to cause wild swings.

I'm not necessarily a YouGov fan, but they're good for trends simply because they produce so much data.  And they show a slight UKIP decline (with the Tories benefitting) but nothing like what ICM show, and Labour still well ahead if not as high as I'd like them to be.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on July 15, 2013, 06:25:46 PM
The reality is that they're all pretty terrible.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on July 15, 2013, 06:32:51 PM
Just to annoy everyone with that age-old cliche:

The only poll that's accurate is the election.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on July 16, 2013, 08:43:44 AM
The Tories appear to be gunning for a resignation from Burnham over this care report.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on July 17, 2013, 07:58:42 AM
Just to annoy everyone with that age-old cliche:

The only poll that's accurate is the election.
Even that one has a pretty splodgy track record.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on July 17, 2013, 10:32:50 AM
And our old friend Ipsos-MORI weighs in...

Labour 40, Con 29, UKIP 12, LDem 10

---

I'm not particularly optimistic wrt the election, to be honest. We'll hold basically (perhaps literally?) everything we currently have and will make gains elsewhere, but I don't know whether it'll be enough. That some gains will be by decent margins (almost certainly) is actually a worry.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on July 17, 2013, 10:42:26 AM
Because Labour need to win a majority to be sure of forming a government. There will be a certain number of minor party MPs Labour could presumably rely-ish on for one reason or another at least for confidence votes (Plaid, the SDLP - if they have any seats left, that is, Lucas/Galloway/etc), but after that you have the unreliable DUP and SNP. The DUP at least are easy to bribe, but like most congenitally corrupt parties are greedy. The current LibDem leadership will have to be ousted for any kind of deal with Labour that lasts more than five seconds.

And Labour have done well to very well in most constituencies that currently have Labour MPs. This is good news, given how badly we did in 2010. There are also quite a few constituencies that do not have Labour MPs where Labour have done rather well. This is also good news. But there are a lot of seats that we sort of have to win where recovery has clearly started, but...

Of course this might just be an expression of pessimism.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Earthling on July 17, 2013, 12:05:17 PM
What are the chances of Clegg actually surviving after the next election? The party keep this government going because they hope any recovery will bring them seats in 2015, but looking at the polls, things look very bleak for them. If the Lib Dems lose badly, Clegg, Cable, Alexander and the others are finished, right?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on July 17, 2013, 06:03:44 PM
If Ed Balls has anything to do with it, in a hung parliament situation, the heads of the key Orange Bookers will be demanded. Eye for an eye over the last lot of negotiations and their demands for Brown's resignation.

The Liberals won't be in the best position when negotiating with Labour or the Tories, considering what their election result will presumably look like. The big two will have the upper hand and bankbenchers on in both of the big two will be unsympathetic.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on July 17, 2013, 06:12:24 PM
And Labour have done well to very well in most constituencies that currently have Labour MPs. This is good news, given how badly we did in 2010. There are also quite a few constituencies that do not have Labour MPs where Labour have done rather well. This is also good news. But there are a lot of seats that we sort of have to win where recovery has clearly started, but...

Of course this might just be an expression of pessimism.

And on the other side of the coin, there are a seats that the Tories must win, but since 2010 they've done nothing but fall back.

I'm thinking of the likes of Wirral South and Edgebaston. Can you see the Tories winning Corby back or holding on in places like Warrington and Stockton?

Because of the level of collapse for the LibDems, the election will be a massive realignment in sections of the country, no matter who wins over all. Without the signs of an obvious landslide coming for either side, this renders the conventional wisdoms pretty pointless.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: ObserverIE on July 17, 2013, 09:13:13 PM
There will be a certain number of minor party MPs Labour could presumably rely-ish on for one reason or another at least for confidence votes (Plaid, the SDLP - if they have any seats left, that is

The three SDLP seats all look secure enough; Belfast South would have been a lost cause under the abortive boundaries, but on the existing boundaries, continuing demographic drift there is going to push it away from Unionism. The only probable change next time round is the DUP regaining Belfast East from Alliance. Belfast North and Fermanagh South Tyrone are more distant possibilities for change, again due to demographic drift.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on July 18, 2013, 08:32:27 AM
David Ward, Lib Dem MP for Bradford East, has the whip removed after controversial comments about Israel.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on July 18, 2013, 12:43:41 PM
David Ward, Lib Dem MP for Bradford East, has the whip removed after controversial comments about Israel.

It's just a temporary suspension, presumably effectively a "final warning".


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on July 18, 2013, 03:58:24 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/18/nhs-bain-capital_n_3616118.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

Erm...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on July 18, 2013, 04:23:41 PM
Because Labour need to win a majority to be sure of forming a government. There will be a certain number of minor party MPs Labour could presumably rely-ish on for one reason or another at least for confidence votes (Plaid, the SDLP - if they have any seats left, that is, Lucas/Galloway/etc), but after that you have the unreliable DUP and SNP. The DUP at least are easy to bribe, but like most congenitally corrupt parties are greedy. The current LibDem leadership will have to be ousted for any kind of deal with Labour that lasts more than five seconds.

And Labour have done well to very well in most constituencies that currently have Labour MPs. This is good news, given how badly we did in 2010. There are also quite a few constituencies that do not have Labour MPs where Labour have done rather well. This is also good news. But there are a lot of seats that we sort of have to win where recovery has clearly started, but...

Of course this might just be an expression of pessimism.

What would be very curious is if Labour won say a small majority or formed a coalition government in 2015 after Scotland voted in favour of independence the year before (unlikely of course) Such a result in Scotland would no doubt cause a constitutional crisis anyway (as Westminster are not taking the vote as seriously as perhaps it should) and could conceivably force a general election. If it did occur, then independence is scheduled for 2016. Would seats in Scotland even be contested? I suspect that strategically the Tories wouldn't (as they would only loose 1 seat anyway). It's all wonderful wishful thinking of course.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on July 18, 2013, 06:38:46 PM
Because Labour need to win a majority to be sure of forming a government. There will be a certain number of minor party MPs Labour could presumably rely-ish on for one reason or another at least for confidence votes (Plaid, the SDLP - if they have any seats left, that is, Lucas/Galloway/etc), but after that you have the unreliable DUP and SNP. The DUP at least are easy to bribe, but like most congenitally corrupt parties are greedy. The current LibDem leadership will have to be ousted for any kind of deal with Labour that lasts more than five seconds.

And Labour have done well to very well in most constituencies that currently have Labour MPs. This is good news, given how badly we did in 2010. There are also quite a few constituencies that do not have Labour MPs where Labour have done rather well. This is also good news. But there are a lot of seats that we sort of have to win where recovery has clearly started, but...

Of course this might just be an expression of pessimism.

What would be very curious is if Labour won say a small majority or formed a coalition government in 2015 after Scotland voted in favour of independence the year before (unlikely of course) Such a result in Scotland would no doubt cause a constitutional crisis anyway (as Westminster are not taking the vote as seriously as perhaps it should) and could conceivably force a general election. If it did occur, then independence is scheduled for 2016. Would seats in Scotland even be contested? I suspect that strategically the Tories wouldn't (as they would only loose 1 seat anyway). It's all wonderful wishful thinking of course.

If Labour are relying on their 40-odd seats in Scotland to get to Number 10 (alone or with the Libs), the Tories have probably got the upper hand in forming a government anyway, surely.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on July 18, 2013, 08:21:13 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/18/nhs-bain-capital_n_3616118.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

Erm...

Well I can't see myself ever donating blood again. Another widely unpopular, borderline-criminal sell-off that you wouldn't bet on being reversed. You've got to stop and admire the ruthless efficiency of Tory governments at delivering their ideology (neoliberalism), whereas contemporary Labour governments just feel like caretakers, fiddling around the edges but one-by-one accepting all the stuff they inherited with little question. You can see it already in the ruddlerless and passionless opposition. I still think Labour will win the next general election, but the Tories have already won in any meaningful sense.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on July 19, 2013, 11:58:52 AM
In other news, three Tory councillors in Havering (my home borough) have defected to UKIP, quadrupling their representation on the council.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on July 19, 2013, 07:10:14 PM
In other news, three Tory councillors in Havering (my home borough) have defected to UKIP, quadrupling their representation on the council.

The grammar nazi in me wants to know how those councilors quadrupled their votes, even tho I realize that you meant the UKIP quadrupled its representation on the council.  (Yes, I am aware that some English dialects use plural pronouns for groups, but even in that case, your pronoun choice is merely ambiguous instead of wrong.)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on July 20, 2013, 03:58:34 AM
In other news, three Tory councillors in Havering (my home borough) have defected to UKIP, quadrupling their representation on the council.

The grammar nazi in me wants to know how those councilors quadrupled their votes, even tho I realize that you meant the UKIP quadrupled its representation on the council.  (Yes, I am aware that some English dialects use plural pronouns for groups, but even in that case, your pronoun choice is merely ambiguous instead of wrong.)

I think what he wrote is normal in British English.

Anyway, my image of Havering is of a rather UKIP-friendly sort of place, but of course the London election cycle means they haven't had a chance to establish themselves there in a full council election since they started polling well nationally.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on July 20, 2013, 06:08:27 AM

Anyway, my image of Havering is of a rather UKIP-friendly sort of place, but of course the London election cycle means they haven't had a chance to establish themselves there in a full council election since they started polling well nationally.

That's definitely true - the only elected UKIP councillor in London is from Havering and Andrew Rosindell represents Romford.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on July 20, 2013, 06:38:42 AM
In other news, three Tory councillors in Havering (my home borough) have defected to UKIP, quadrupling their representation on the council.

The grammar nazi in me wants to know how those councilors quadrupled their votes, even tho I realize that you meant the UKIP quadrupled its representation on the council.  (Yes, I am aware that some English dialects use plural pronouns for groups, but even in that case, your pronoun choice is merely ambiguous instead of wrong.)

It's incredibly uncommon to say the UKIP. Just saying.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on July 20, 2013, 08:04:50 AM
In other news, three Tory councillors in Havering (my home borough) have defected to UKIP, quadrupling their representation on the council.

The grammar nazi in me wants to know how those councilors quadrupled their votes, even tho I realize that you meant the UKIP quadrupled its representation on the council.  (Yes, I am aware that some English dialects use plural pronouns for groups, but even in that case, your pronoun choice is merely ambiguous instead of wrong.)

It's incredibly uncommon to say the UKIP. Just saying.

Well I'd hate to say a UKIP as that would imply there were other UKIPs.  One is enough.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on July 20, 2013, 03:23:41 PM
In other news, three Tory councillors in Havering (my home borough) have defected to UKIP, quadrupling their representation on the council.

The grammar nazi in me wants to know how those councilors quadrupled their votes, even tho I realize that you meant the UKIP quadrupled its representation on the council.  (Yes, I am aware that some English dialects use plural pronouns for groups, but even in that case, your pronoun choice is merely ambiguous instead of wrong.)

It's incredibly uncommon to say the UKIP. Just saying.

Well I'd hate to say a UKIP as that would imply there were other UKIPs.  One is enough.

It's usually UKIP, without a or the.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on July 20, 2013, 06:09:35 PM
In other news, three Tory councillors in Havering (my home borough) have defected to UKIP, quadrupling their representation on the council.

The grammar nazi in me wants to know how those councilors quadrupled their votes, even tho I realize that you meant the UKIP quadrupled its representation on the council.  (Yes, I am aware that some English dialects use plural pronouns for groups, but even in that case, your pronoun choice is merely ambiguous instead of wrong.)

It's incredibly uncommon to say the UKIP. Just saying.

Well I'd hate to say a UKIP as that would imply there were other UKIPs.  One is enough.

It's usually UKIP, without a or the.

I gathered that.  British English tends to drop the's in places American English would use them, most famously before the word hospital.  Still does what sounds strange to my ears also apply to other political parties in British Engish when their name is used as a noun and not as an adjective such as in "Loony Party candidate"?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: tpfkaw on July 20, 2013, 06:50:55 PM
Using the pronoun "they" for political parties or other organizations is very common and perfectly legitimate in American English.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on July 21, 2013, 01:45:36 PM
Former Glasgow MP Mohammed Sarwar is off to Pakistan where is, apparently, likely to be appointed Governor of Punjab or some similar post.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on July 21, 2013, 02:17:53 PM
It seems odd that they would give a position like that to a foreigner.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on July 21, 2013, 03:15:23 PM
He's a dual national - he's apparently surrendering his UK nationality.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on July 21, 2013, 04:23:40 PM
Former Glasgow MP Mohammed Sarwar is off to Pakistan where is, apparently, likely to be appointed Governor of Punjab or some similar post.

Is this for real?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Knives on July 22, 2013, 08:28:56 AM
lol no more porn for you.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on July 22, 2013, 08:48:56 AM
It's fun to see the Brits squirming because it's just under 33C... awwwwwwwww


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on July 22, 2013, 09:36:45 AM
The temperature at present is fundamentally uncivilised.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: countydurhamboy on July 22, 2013, 02:04:48 PM

It's fun to see the Brits squirming because it's just under 33C... awwwwwwwww
Us Brits complaining about the weather? Never!

Another crap policy from Cameron, he does seem more Thatcherite lately.  Pandering to UKIP voters.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on July 22, 2013, 02:05:46 PM
It's fun to see the Brits squirming because it's just under 33C... awwwwwwwww

It was horrible today.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on July 22, 2013, 06:16:51 PM
It's been awful all week. It's easy for Aussies to sn when they've all installed air conditioning etc

F**king bring on the rain!


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on July 22, 2013, 07:20:16 PM
It's been awful all week. It's easy for Aussies to sn when they've all installed air conditioning etc

F**king bring on the rain!

Not everyone has air-con installed... a few of the places I lived didn't have it...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese on July 23, 2013, 07:10:12 AM
It's fun to see the Brits squirming because it's just under 33C... awwwwwwwww

Not nearly as fun as Australians exposed to British or Scandinavian winters, I assure you. :P


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on July 23, 2013, 07:52:18 PM
It's fun to see the Brits squirming because it's just under 33C... awwwwwwwww

Not nearly as fun as Australians exposed to British or Scandinavian winters, I assure you. :P

I go in search of deeper winters...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on July 24, 2013, 12:30:20 PM
They'll be preferable to an Ashes whitewash ;)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on July 25, 2013, 10:15:52 AM
The economy has recuperated half it's recession losses. Now it might take a year or two for people to begin to 'feel' it but with a single digit Labour poll lead, low favourability ratings for Ed and two years to the election I'm feeling quietly confident.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on July 25, 2013, 11:15:16 AM
People will feel it when the unemployment figures come down.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on July 25, 2013, 12:00:49 PM
The economy has recuperated half it's recession losses. Now it might take a year or two for people to begin to 'feel' it but with a single digit Labour poll lead, low favourability ratings for Ed and two years to the election I'm feeling quietly confident.

The idea of this appalling government being re-elected is really quite depressing.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on July 25, 2013, 12:38:01 PM
The economy has recuperated half it's recession losses. Now it might take a year or two for people to begin to 'feel' it but with a single digit Labour poll lead, low favourability ratings for Ed and two years to the election I'm feeling quietly confident.

The idea of this appalling government being re-elected is really quite depressing.

If they do, then it's because of this;

()


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on July 25, 2013, 12:45:50 PM
Don't scare the children with that image afleitch.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on July 25, 2013, 01:06:19 PM
It comes down to this. I'm no huge fan of the government; I've resigned my party membership but what is the Labour Party for? What is it's purpose? I do not have the slightest idea who Ed Miliband is and why he wants to be PM if indeed he even cares for it. I don't know what Labour's policy on anything is other than to oppose. Or not oppose as it happens when it comes to changes to the benefits system or to the 'Tory cuts' which are bad and mean and hurt the poor we are told, but to which Labour propose to stick to for two years. So instead we have them trying to undercut the Tories on bloody cigarettes. Whoopee sh-t.

Why on earth should anyone care about Labour? The best way to oppose this government, and my goodness has it been opposed, has not been through Labour.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on July 25, 2013, 01:23:52 PM
Oh please. You'd write that no matter what Labour had done over the past few years because you hate the Labour Party. Which you're entitled to do (of course), but don't pretend that you're an objective observer.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on July 25, 2013, 01:26:55 PM
Anyway, the reality of the Westminster system - when a government has a secure majority, at least, as this one does - is that oppositions can generally do very little other than grumble from the sidelines.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on July 25, 2013, 01:40:24 PM
Oh please. You'd write that no matter what Labour had done over the past few years because you hate the Labour Party. Which you're entitled to do (of course), but don't pretend that you're an objective observer.

Anyway, the reality of the Westminster system - when a government has a secure majority, at least, as this one does - is that oppositions can generally do very little other than grumble from the sidelines.

And I expected you would write that too. Objective observer ;) ...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on July 25, 2013, 06:58:27 PM
I am, of course, a total hack. No point denying that ;D


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on July 26, 2013, 11:14:11 AM
The purpose of Labour?

Quote
The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.

As found on the back of my membership card.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on July 26, 2013, 12:58:16 PM
The purpose of Labour?

Quote
The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.

As found on the back of my membership card.

They bothered to write something? NDP only wrote their name, my name and the month I renew.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on July 26, 2013, 01:44:53 PM
It's the 'new' Clause IV.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: freefair on July 26, 2013, 02:12:41 PM
I still think they should replace "Democratic Socialist" with "Social-Democratic". Those two words put it theoretically outside of the global mainstream, and give false hope to people who needn't bother.  They may be similar, but what they imply is very different.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on July 26, 2013, 03:09:55 PM
Labour has not paid Corporation Tax (paywall).

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3825577.ece


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on July 26, 2013, 05:50:50 PM
I still think they should replace "Democratic Socialist" with "Social-Democratic". Those two words put it theoretically outside of the global mainstream, and give false hope to people who needn't bother.  They may be similar, but what they imply is very different.

The words have traditionally meant exactly the same thing in a British context; the powerful right-wing semi-grassroots organisation of the 1960s was called the Campaign for Democratic Socialism, etc.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on July 26, 2013, 06:17:26 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23450435

Interesting that despite the post-coalition upturn in Labour membership they weren't far off matching the Liberal's 6k drop last year. Can't say it's too surprising, mind.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on July 27, 2013, 04:29:00 AM
The temperature at present is fundamentally uncivilised.
Under 33? In july? I agree. Such uncivilied coolness should be banned.

They're expecting up to 40 degrees in the Lausitz tomorrow. :D


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on July 30, 2013, 11:13:13 AM
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/jul/30/bbc-welfare-reforms-impartiality-john-humphrys


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on July 30, 2013, 11:50:24 AM
Bizarre display of comic evil from Tory peer: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23505723


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: freefair on July 30, 2013, 01:25:45 PM
Bizarre display of comic evil from Tory peer: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23505723
Hardly- I listened to what he said and he seemed to be referring to the moorlands of Northumbria and Durham, not to the settlements, though that itself would hardly be inaccurate in some cases.
A Tory asking the government to focus on building Industry away from the overcrowded south seems to me the opposite of evil- infact it seems like an attempt to reconcile those areas with the Conservatives and compensate for the effects of deindustrialization and the end of mining.
context- I' strongly agree with Shale Gas and Fracking, so think that we should be doing it everywhere, Southern or not.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Serenity Now on July 31, 2013, 08:40:10 AM
Bizarre display of comic evil from Tory peer: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23505723

This is beyond satire.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on July 31, 2013, 08:53:51 AM
()


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Hifly on July 31, 2013, 09:33:25 AM

This isn't twitter here.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on July 31, 2013, 09:44:03 AM
Doreen Lawrence is to become a Labour Peer.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on July 31, 2013, 10:17:24 AM
Doreen Lawrence is to become a Labour Peer.

Glad to hear it - she deserves it.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 01, 2013, 03:09:05 PM
For anyone who loves to giggle at Young Tories: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/secondaryeducation/10216388/Its-no-wonder-none-of-my-friends-are-teenage-Tories.html

I did the same syllabus as her and, guess what, she's telling a few porkies here/is over defensive.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on August 01, 2013, 03:21:58 PM
Just a right-winger unable to deal with the next generation being very left-wing.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on August 01, 2013, 03:24:01 PM
She bears a striking resemblance to a certain Granthamian.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 01, 2013, 06:38:27 PM
Most of the other people who were named as new Peers yesterday, however, pretty clearly bought their peerages in the traditional manner.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on August 02, 2013, 05:50:33 AM
Most of the other people who were named as new Peers yesterday, however, pretty clearly bought their peerages in the traditional manner.

Abolish the f**king thing.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 02, 2013, 11:45:55 AM
There is a case for that, but wrt this kind of petty (legal) corruption, well, such people would only find another means of compensation for their generous donations. But there's no doubt that the government is appointing too many peers and using increasingly absurd excuses for doing so.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on August 02, 2013, 12:04:24 PM
There is a case for that, but wrt this kind of petty (legal) corruption, well, such people would only find another means of compensation for their generous donations.
More dangerous ones, no doubt.

Whatever else needs to be said about the National Government, at least they understand what the House of Lords is for. I approve.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on August 02, 2013, 01:23:11 PM
Most of the other people who were named as new Peers yesterday, however, pretty clearly bought their peerages in the traditional manner.

Abolish the f**king thing.

Bring back the Hereditary Peers.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 02, 2013, 02:26:08 PM
Jim Messina (Obama campaign manager) has been hired by the Tories.

Not really impressed that Labour are sitting back watching the Tories throw money at the world's best people (Crosby may be a disgusting person, but he does the job), and Labour has nobody. Ed should take their Messina and raise them an Axelrod!


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on August 02, 2013, 05:26:50 PM
Most of the other people who were named as new Peers yesterday, however, pretty clearly bought their peerages in the traditional manner.

Abolish the f**king thing.

Bring back the Hereditary Peers.

The more the merrier - to be abolished.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on August 03, 2013, 03:53:12 AM
Not really impressed that Labour are sitting back watching the Tories throw money at the world's best people (Crosby may be a disgusting person, but he does the job), and Labour has nobody. Ed should take their Messina and raise them an Axelrod!

With what money? Labour can't outspend the Tories even with Short Money.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on August 03, 2013, 05:41:29 AM
Most of the other people who were named as new Peers yesterday, however, pretty clearly bought their peerages in the traditional manner.

Abolish the f**king thing.

Bring back the Hereditary Peers.

The more the merrier - to be abolished.

Re-seating the hereditaries for a grand finale where the chamber is consigned to the dust of the grave would be quite romantic in its way.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on August 03, 2013, 05:47:14 AM
Most of the other people who were named as new Peers yesterday, however, pretty clearly bought their peerages in the traditional manner.

Abolish the f**king thing.

Bring back the Hereditary Peers.
And then abolish the Commons maybe?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on August 03, 2013, 07:24:04 AM
Most of the other people who were named as new Peers yesterday, however, pretty clearly bought their peerages in the traditional manner.

Abolish the f**king thing.

Bring back the Hereditary Peers.

The more the merrier - to be abolished.

Re-seating the hereditaries for a grand finale where the chamber is consigned to the dust of the grave would be quite romantic in its way.

See, bi-partisan appeal for my proposal. In a way. :P

Most of the other people who were named as new Peers yesterday, however, pretty clearly bought their peerages in the traditional manner.

Abolish the f**king thing.

Bring back the Hereditary Peers.
And then abolish the Commons maybe?

One can wish.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 03, 2013, 12:03:58 PM
The last thing I want my party subs to be wasted in is on some American scam artist in a bad suit.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 04, 2013, 03:53:27 PM
()


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on August 04, 2013, 04:05:04 PM
Clegg with dat sex appeal. :P


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on August 05, 2013, 05:03:19 AM
With Labour's raft of Euro candidates, it's looking likely I'll vote Labour in 2014, depending of course on what I see from the candidates since. North East is basically FPTP anyway - pretty much a choice between 2 Lab : 1 Con/UKIP or all three with one apiece.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 05, 2013, 07:44:02 AM
Ed Miliband is (notoriously) a fan of Geoff Boycott, which means that he would likely beat the others at beach cricket without exactly cheating, but would leave them feeling somewhat cheated regardless.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on August 05, 2013, 11:39:49 AM
Am I the only one who thinks Cameron would look better in swimming trunks than Clegg?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 05, 2013, 03:58:51 PM
http://politicalscrapbook.net/2013/08/green-party-announce-jenny-jones-peerage-without-mentioning-peerage/?utm_source=politicalscrapbook.net&utm_medium=psbook_featt&utm_campaign=psbook_featt2



Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on August 06, 2013, 12:22:26 PM
Second Chamber is a much more fitting name than Lords anyways. Though I wonder why the hell they still called it "the Palace of Westminster". ???


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: countydurhamboy on August 06, 2013, 01:06:32 PM
Am I the only one who thinks Cameron would look better in swimming trunks than Clegg?
Yes!

Interesting article from before 1997 election predicting likely front benchers in 2020. Some good guesses.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/the-cabinet-of-tomorrow-1277684.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/the-cabinet-of-tomorrow-1277684.html)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on August 06, 2013, 01:14:28 PM
Second Chamber is a much more fitting name than Lords anyways. Though I wonder why the hell they still called it "the Palace of Westminster". ???

Neither are particularly appropriate. How about Home for former politicians & wealthy donators?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on August 06, 2013, 01:20:48 PM
Second Chamber is a much more fitting name than Lords anyways. Though I wonder why the hell they still called it "the Palace of Westminster". ???

Ew, no. That's boring and dull. Lords is traditional, so better in my books. :P

Am I the only one who thinks Cameron would look better in swimming trunks than Clegg?
Yes!

Interesting article from before 1997 election predicting likely front benchers in 2020. Some good guesses.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/the-cabinet-of-tomorrow-1277684.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/the-cabinet-of-tomorrow-1277684.html)

Interesting..


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on August 06, 2013, 02:26:10 PM
Godfrey Bloom MEP opens his mouth again (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/06/ukip-godfrey-bloom-bongo-bongo-land)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on August 07, 2013, 08:49:13 AM
Second Chamber is a much more fitting name than Lords anyways. Though I wonder why the hell they still called it "the Palace of Westminster". ???

Ew, no. That's boring and dull. Lords is traditional, so better in my books. :P
Ah, I said more fitting, I didn't say cuter. :)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 07, 2013, 09:58:43 AM
Sir Alan Beith, the longest serving LibDem MP, is to stand down at the next election. He was first elected for Berwick-upon-Tweed at a by-election in 1973 (triggered by the resignation of its aristocratic Tory MP following a prostitution scandal) and has spent subsequent decades failing to make any kind of meaningful impact whatsoever. His retirement means that Berwick will likely be a top Tory target in the election.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 07, 2013, 10:06:28 AM
You know, other than the circumstances of his initial election, there's nothing interesting to say about Beith. I bet his favourite colour is beige.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 07, 2013, 10:09:30 AM
This is a picture of Alan Beith:

()

This is probably the first time that most British posters here have ever seen his picture, even though he's sat in parliament for forty years.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on August 07, 2013, 10:38:49 AM
You know, other than the circumstances of his initial election, there's nothing interesting to say about Beith. I bet his favourite colour is beige.
He won three elections by narrow margins within a year in 73-4. That's got to count.

No, seriously. Beige can be pretty.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on August 07, 2013, 11:15:14 AM
I've seen him on old BBC election night coverage before (as an analyst); he used to be a regular on it.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on August 07, 2013, 11:19:04 AM
Anne Marie-Trevelyan, Tory PPC for Berwick will be on the wine tonight.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: countydurhamboy on August 07, 2013, 11:45:37 AM
Sir Alan Beith, the longest serving LibDem MP, is to stand down at the next election. He was first elected for Berwick-upon-Tweed at a by-election in 1973 (triggered by the resignation of its aristocratic Tory MP following a prostitution scandal) and has spent subsequent decades failing to make any kind of meaningful impact whatsoever. His retirement means that Berwick will likely be a top Tory target in the election.
Since when has any Liberal had any meaningful impact? They tend to have huge personal votes though. Sir Alan definitely does.

I've seen him on old BBC election night coverage before (as an analyst); he used to be a regular on it.
All he ever did was whine about PR all night.

Anne Marie-Trevelyan, Tory PPC for Berwick will be on the wine tonight.
Probably the most likely Tory gain in the country now. Probably come up just as Cameron is tendering his resignation.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 07, 2013, 11:49:31 AM
Indeed he does. I imagine that he has personally attended every single tedious local ceremony that he has been physically able to since 1973.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 07, 2013, 11:50:47 AM
Regarding the issue of 'meaningful impact', I would once have cracked a joke about Cyril Smith, but given recent revelations that seems in poor taste.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 07, 2013, 12:15:48 PM
Tory hold. (you get me? ;))


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on August 07, 2013, 12:17:56 PM
Sir Alan Beith, the longest serving LibDem MP, is to stand down at the next election. He was first elected for Berwick-upon-Tweed at a by-election in 1973 (triggered by the resignation of its aristocratic Tory MP following a prostitution scandal) and has spent subsequent decades failing to make any kind of meaningful impact whatsoever. His retirement means that Berwick will likely be a top Tory target in the election.
Since when has any Liberal had any meaningful impact? They tend to have huge personal votes though. Sir Alan definitely does.

Didn't he vote against same sex marriage?


Oh you!


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: countydurhamboy on August 07, 2013, 12:19:41 PM
Indeed he does. I imagine that he has personally attended every single tedious local ceremony that he has been physically able to since 1973.
To illustrate that point. My mother can't name the home secretory or the education secretory. But when asked who Alan Beith was " you mean sir Alan Beith, he is the Liberal MP for Berwick"

edit: Yes, he did vote against equal marriage. He chair of Lib Dem Christian Forum.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 08, 2013, 04:58:35 AM
Godfrey Bloom MEP opens his mouth again (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/06/ukip-godfrey-bloom-bongo-bongo-land)

Terrible, as expected from UKIP.

We've heard worse from Boris in the past though, haven't we?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Andrea on August 08, 2013, 05:39:55 AM
Berwick-upon-Tweed at a by-election in 1973 (triggered by the resignation of its aristocratic Tory MP following a prostitution scandal)

I believe the current Tory PPC also descends from a local artistocrat family


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on August 08, 2013, 06:01:22 AM
With the Tories also targeting the other Berwick seat in Scotland. I'll be sad to see the blob of yellow straddling the border potentially dissapear. Actually, no I won't.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 08, 2013, 08:24:19 AM
Nothing official yet, but Andrew Stunell (LD, Hazel Grove) is planning to stand down as well. Apparently.

Tories will be happy.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on August 08, 2013, 09:17:05 AM
Nothing official yet, but Andrew Stunell (LD, Hazel Grove) is planning to stand down as well. Apparently.

Tories will be happy.

Thanks, I am. *chink chink*


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 09, 2013, 03:52:53 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/aug/09/labour-risks-defeat-coalition-warns-andy-burnham

Pretty stinging coming from someone so high up. Can't say I disagree though.

As someone who clearly sees himself taking part in a 2015 leadership contest after a Labour defeat, this is pretty telling of what parts of the PLP must be thinking will happen come 2015.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on August 09, 2013, 03:57:37 PM
Comedy upper class Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg (the one who once campaigned in a General Election in Fife with his nanny) has apparently embarrassed himself a bit (http://liberalconspiracy.org/2013/08/08/exclusive-william-rees-mogg-and-the-right-wing-group-that-wants-black-britons-to-leave-the-uk/).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 09, 2013, 04:10:48 PM
Comedy upper class Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg (the one who once campaigned in a General Election in Fife with his nanny) has apparently embarrassed himself a bit (http://liberalconspiracy.org/2013/08/08/exclusive-william-rees-mogg-and-the-right-wing-group-that-wants-black-britons-to-leave-the-uk/).

He's like a character from a sketch show.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 11, 2013, 08:01:39 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/11/where-labour-going-wrong-ed-miliband

Nothing we didn't already know, but still an interesting read (for the lefties here).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on August 12, 2013, 12:11:49 PM
David McLetchie MSP, the former Tory leader in Scotland has died of cancer at 61. There will be no by-election as the seat will be filled by the next in the list for the Tories which should be Cameron Buchanan.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 12, 2013, 12:13:06 PM
Chris Bryant implodes just weeks before the reshuffle.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on August 12, 2013, 12:14:52 PM
Chris Bryant implodes just weeks before the reshuffle.

Was literally about to say this. Absolutely hilarious.

Labour trying to out-Tory the Tories on immigration is... amusing to say the least.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on August 12, 2013, 01:59:35 PM
Bryant's was a legitimate case argued badly, even so infinitely better reasoned than driving a van around the country telling illegal immigrants to go home (in a transparent PR bid to appear to be 'doing something' - even if that something is employing racial profiling and wasting everyone's time, money and resources). Bryant/Labour look to be at worst, incompetent. Tories look like equally incompetent racists.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on August 12, 2013, 04:50:28 PM
ICM shows 40% back the Tories on the economy up from 28% in June. Labour ahead by 3% in the poll for voting intention but looking good. I'll take that less than two years before the GE.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on August 13, 2013, 11:24:25 AM
ICM shows 40% back the Tories on the economy up from 28% in June. Labour ahead by 3% in the poll for voting intention but looking good. I'll take that less than two years before the GE.

The comments on the Guardian article were... blissful.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on August 13, 2013, 02:08:05 PM
Apparently two of the five Respect councillors on Bradford city council have been suspended from the party for opposing George Galloway's desire to be mayor of London.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: jaichind on August 13, 2013, 09:16:58 PM
One thing I find interesting about recent polling is the Right Left split.  If one counts Tories and UKIP as Right and Labour and LibDems as Left, recent polling shows that that Right is really at a all time high.  Just looking at averages of recent polling from http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/polls.html, we have Labour at 38.5, LibDem at 10, Tories at 31, and UKIP 13.  The Right/Left Split would be 44/48.5.  In 2010 the Right got 39.2%.  Looking at past elections one would have to go back to 1970 to find such a favorable split for the Right. Of course seat wise unless the UKIP vote swings behind Tories the next election would put Labour back into power.  

I always wondered if http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/ should add the option for tactical voting by UKIP voters in favor of Tories.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on August 13, 2013, 10:07:24 PM
One thing I find interesting about recent polling is the Right Left split.  If one counts Tories and UKIP as Right and Labour and LibDems as Left, recent polling shows that that Right is really at a all time high.  Just looking at averages of recent polling from http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/polls.html, we have Labour at 38.5, LibDem at 10, Tories at 31, and UKIP 13.  The Right/Left Split would be 44/48.5.  In 2010 the Right got 39.2%.  Looking at past elections one would have to go back to 1970 to find such a favorable split for the Right. Of course seat wise unless the UKIP vote swings behind Tories the next election would put Labour back into power.  

I always wondered if http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/ should add the option for tactical voting by UKIP voters in favor of Tories.

Some UKIP voters are protest voters, they will NEVER vote for the incumbent government.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on August 13, 2013, 11:02:54 PM
You could just as easily add the 10% coalition-friendly market-liberals to the Right figure. Hell, I think that'd perfectly sum up how poor Labour and the Left as a whole are doing at present - Labour seems to have lost upto a third of their post-coalition gains in the past year (and not undeservedly).  

But really, the issue there isn't that we've all become right-wing neoliberals, quite the opposite: tax-the-rich and nationalisations are more popular than ever* - it's just the current state of opinion being poorly reflected by the main parties, and the UKIP momentum. So sure, objectively the Right is doing absurdly well in terms of vote share, but if you were to, say - as has been posited as a possibility - introduce an alliance between Tory/UKIP, you'll see their vote deflate quicker than a soufflé.

*and I distinctly remember seeing polling showing protest-friendly-UKIP voters supporting nationalisation moreso than present Liberals, despite being a professedly 'libertarian' party, aiming to buy policies off the shelf from IEA. But then UKIP, don't even know their policies, let alone WWC voters they've attracted by their anti-EU/immigration policies.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 14, 2013, 05:52:53 AM
Dead lady gives the "party of the government at the time" £520,000 to do with as they wish.

Tories and LibDems originally take it for themselves, then give it to the Treasury when the Mail kicks up a fuss.

Silly season everybody.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 14, 2013, 06:43:31 AM
And a former David supporter throws his weight behind Ed, basically telling the other random backbenchers who've been going on the last few weeks to shut up.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10239982/Ed-Miliband-is-a-b-and-thats-a-good-thing.html


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 14, 2013, 09:32:15 AM
Ed also pelted with eggs at a market in his first public appearance in a while.

Pelter was a (D) Miliband supporter who thinks (E) Miliband doesn't stand up for the poor.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 14, 2013, 09:58:06 AM
Except in the 1931, 1935 and 1945 General Elections, people in Britain don't vote for political camps, so that kind of analysis is pretty much useless. The electoral system works very heavily against it.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on August 14, 2013, 11:46:37 AM
Dead lady gives the "party of the government at the time" £520,000 to do with as they wish.

Tories and LibDems originally take it for themselves, then give it to the Treasury when the Mail kicks up a fuss.

Silly season everybody.

Oh God, this story... *facepalm*

Ed also pelted with eggs at a market in his first public appearance in a while.

Pelter was a (D) Miliband supporter who thinks (E) Miliband doesn't stand up for the poor.

Seriously. This. Is. Hilarious.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 14, 2013, 11:48:12 AM
Grow up.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 14, 2013, 12:13:52 PM
News at 6 have just devoted a full feature to the egg incident. Slow news day indeed.

Not to mention the order of headlines meant it was a case of "The Tories have made unemployment fall by 4,000, happy days. Now here's dorky Ed Miliband getting hit by an egg."


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on August 14, 2013, 12:40:12 PM
Pelter was a (D) Miliband supporter who thinks (E) Miliband doesn't stand up for the poor.

Where is the f**king logic in that?! Seems the media love-in on D. Miliband has worked a treat.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on August 14, 2013, 01:32:05 PM
Pelter was a (D) Miliband supporter who thinks (E) Miliband doesn't stand up for the poor.

Where is the f**king logic in that?! Seems the media love-in on D. Miliband has worked a treat.

He's so dreamy.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 15, 2013, 04:40:13 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/08/15/godfrey-bloom-ukip-sexist_n_3759968.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

Godfrey Bloom. Again.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 15, 2013, 11:12:26 AM
Story in the papers of some kid getting 7 A*s today and still getting the knock back by Oxford!


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on August 15, 2013, 11:14:47 AM
Story in the papers of some kid getting 7 A*s today and still getting the knock back by Oxford!

Yes, this is quite silly. Grades are not the be all and end all of a University application.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on August 15, 2013, 11:17:28 AM
Indeed, you have to be middle class as well.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on August 15, 2013, 11:49:32 AM
Indeed, you have to be middle class as well.

*sigh*

But still, personal statement as well as the interview count for much.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 15, 2013, 12:28:08 PM
Which links into confidence in that kind of situation, which links in to class.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on August 15, 2013, 12:33:26 PM
Which links into confidence in that kind of situation, which links in to class.

Not really. You can be the muck of the Earth and still have the self-professed arrogance to write an Oxbridge personal statement.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on August 15, 2013, 12:44:46 PM
Which links into confidence in that kind of situation, which links in to class.

Not really. You can be the muck of the Earth and still have the self-professed arrogance to write an Oxbridge personal statement.

Bingo.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 15, 2013, 12:51:49 PM
Ah, but there's no point in looking at this in terms of individuals. You can only look at this sort of thing in an at all honest way at a social level. Because while some people from ordinary backgrounds will indeed be sufficiently full of themselves to be alright in that sort of situation, the vast majority won't. A situation that starts to reverse itself in rough proportion to privilege.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on August 15, 2013, 01:17:14 PM
Ah, but there's no point in looking at this in terms of individuals. You can only look at this sort of thing in an at all honest way at a social level. Because while some people from ordinary backgrounds will indeed be sufficiently full of themselves to be alright in that sort of situation, the vast majority won't. A situation that starts to reverse itself in rough proportion to privilege.

Also those unrepresentative individuals are routinely highlighted and mythologised as proof that 'everyone' can succeed, thereby allowing the status quo to continue.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 15, 2013, 01:28:31 PM
Then there's things outside of a state-school pupil's control: a good, yet poorly written reference, inexperience of the school with the Oxbridge application process and a lack of alumni and 'connections' in the school faculty.

All too common, no pun intended.

EDIT: Google tells me he went to what seems to be one of the most prestigious grammars in the country! But my point still stands in terms of the remaining state/private gap at Oxbridge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belfast_Royal_Academy


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on August 16, 2013, 01:56:16 AM
Indeed, you have to be middle class as well.

*sigh*

But still, personal statement as well as the interview count for much.

The interview is likely to be much more important than the personal statement, not that that removes concerns about people from certain types of backgrounds having an advantage.

Anyway, I wouldn't read much into this particular case.  The extra A levels may not have been thought very relevant to studying chemistry, and the Oxford colleges will be looking at lots of people who are getting straight A*s.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: bore on August 16, 2013, 08:22:02 AM
It all depends on what you're studying. A guy who does some of the admissions for maths at Imperial college told me that they spend about 3 seconds looking at personal statements, and they make no difference at all- you'd be just as likely to get in if you wrote the lyrics to baby by Justin Bieber as if you wrote the second gettysburg address. It might make more difference in other subjects though.

The 7 a levels is obviously very impressive, but some of them might be freebies- for example, one or two of my friends have Italian parents, and speak it in the home, so they can get (and have got) an advanced higher A for very little effort.



Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Јas on August 16, 2013, 08:36:16 AM
Anyway, I wouldn't read much into this particular case.  The extra A levels may not have been thought very relevant to studying chemistry, and the Oxford colleges will be looking at lots of people who are getting straight A*s.

Biology, chemistry, physics, maths, further maths, Latin, and Greek - per the Belfast Telegraph (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/education/alevels-7a-but-pupil-still-cant-get-into-oxford-29503224.html)

Are there any obviously relevant A levels he didn't do?


The 7 a levels is obviously very impressive, but some of them might be freebies- for example, one or two of my friends have Italian parents, and speak it in the home, so they can get (and have got) an advanced higher A for very little effort.

Doesn't look like there are any "freebies" there to me.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: bore on August 16, 2013, 08:41:45 AM
Anyway, I wouldn't read much into this particular case.  The extra A levels may not have been thought very relevant to studying chemistry, and the Oxford colleges will be looking at lots of people who are getting straight A*s.

Biology, chemistry, physics, maths, further maths, Latin, and Greek - per the Belfast Telegraph (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/education/alevels-7a-but-pupil-still-cant-get-into-oxford-29503224.html)

Are there any obviously relevant A levels he didn't do?


The 7 a levels is obviously very impressive, but some of them might be freebies- for example, one or two of my friends have Italian parents, and speak it in the home, so they can get (and have got) an advanced higher A for very little effort.

Doesn't look like there are any "freebies" there to me.

If you have been brought up speaking a language fluently (one of them even lived in Italy until he was 5) it makes it easy to pass an exam in the subject. That's not me making an assumption, they themselves said the exam was easy and that they didn't have to do any study for it.

If you're talking about the boy who got rejected, then yeah I agree with you, that's obviously not the case here. I can't see any reason why they rejected him, but really they're only harming themselves.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on August 16, 2013, 12:08:33 PM
Anyway, I wouldn't read much into this particular case.  The extra A levels may not have been thought very relevant to studying chemistry, and the Oxford colleges will be looking at lots of people who are getting straight A*s.

Biology, chemistry, physics, maths, further maths, Latin, and Greek - per the Belfast Telegraph (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/education/alevels-7a-but-pupil-still-cant-get-into-oxford-29503224.html)

Are there any obviously relevant A levels he didn't do?

Not other A levels, no, but he'll have been being compared with other students who may have looked more impressive when it comes to chemistry specifically (they probably expect more than just A*) and that could have been preferred to taking Latin and Greek.  But obviously I don't know what the reasons actually were, or whether they were justifiable.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on August 16, 2013, 12:12:42 PM
Apparently two of the five Respect councillors on Bradford city council have been suspended from the party for opposing George Galloway's desire to be mayor of London.

... and now all five have resigned the whip (http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/10615382.Respect_councillors_in_Bradford_resign_in_row_with_party/?ref=mr) in protest.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on August 16, 2013, 05:43:49 PM
At this point I think even Griffin's taking notes on how to sabotage your party as good as Galloway has.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on August 17, 2013, 10:17:46 AM
Urgh.

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/section-28-returns-uk-schools-ban-promotion-gay-issues170813

'Three UK academies have stepped back to the 1980s by banning teachers from saying anything positive about gay life.

Gay Star News can reveal Castle View Enterprise Academy in Sunderland, Colston Girl's School in Bristol and Swindon Academy have re-introduced anti-gay language from Section 28, which banned the ‘promotion of homosexuality’, into their Sex and Relationships Policy.

The schools’ policy states while ‘objective discussion of homosexuality may take place in the classroom,’ ‘the governing body will not permit the promotion of homosexuality’.'


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on August 17, 2013, 10:24:21 AM
The way forward - you anti-reform dinosaurs are against progress(!).

So academies offer not just pissing away money when we're withdrawing needed money elsewhere, the removal of local accountability, anti-workers rights but now discrimination too. Yet they're fait accompli to the political class.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Hifly on August 17, 2013, 11:27:14 AM
Who makes up the Governing Bodies in those schools?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 17, 2013, 04:18:58 PM
Quote
The rest of the poll has lots of my beloved agree/disagree statements, but of particular interest is one that was a repeat from way back in 2009. Back then 58% of people agreed that citizens of other EU countries should have the right to live and work in the UK, four years on, with immigration within the European Union having become more of an issue, that figure has dropped to 23%, with 57% disagreeing that EU citizens should have the right to live and work here.

From UKPR, blimey!

Would love to see the response to "British people should be allowed to work in the EU" though ;)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Peter the Lefty on August 18, 2013, 12:52:16 AM
Urgh.

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/section-28-returns-uk-schools-ban-promotion-gay-issues170813

'Three UK academies have stepped back to the 1980s by banning teachers from saying anything positive about gay life.

Gay Star News can reveal Castle View Enterprise Academy in Sunderland, Colston Girl's School in Bristol and Swindon Academy have re-introduced anti-gay language from Section 28, which banned the ‘promotion of homosexuality’, into their Sex and Relationships Policy.

The schools’ policy states while ‘objective discussion of homosexuality may take place in the classroom,’ ‘the governing body will not permit the promotion of homosexuality’.'
God.  And I thought we were the only 1st-world country where this crazy sh*t went down.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on August 18, 2013, 01:14:30 PM
Our political class know little more than to imitate yours.

Miliband's ratings are close to Clegg's in toxicity in the latest YG.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Frodo on August 18, 2013, 02:25:33 PM
It's interesting (as an American) to see that UK Conservatives are having the same problems trying to appeal to ethnic minorities (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/11/ethnic-minority-votes-decide-general-election-2015) that our own Republicans are wrestling with. 


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on August 18, 2013, 03:25:46 PM
Out of curiosity, are any UKers going to the Party Conferences this year?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 18, 2013, 05:37:51 PM
Our political class know little more than to imitate yours.

Miliband's ratings are close to Clegg's in toxicity in the latest YG.

Not to sound complacent, but imagine the Tories of August 2000 moaning about only being 6 points clear.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 18, 2013, 07:22:44 PM
"But the public just won't trust the Eds with the economy!"
http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/08/18/two-poll-findings-from-april-1997-on-the-electoral-impact-of-leading-on-the-economy/


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on August 18, 2013, 07:26:42 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23745539

CBI predicts 2.4% growth by 2014. 1.2% for this year.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 18, 2013, 07:30:06 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23745539

CBI predicts 2.4% growth by 2014. 1.2% for this year.

There's been many predictions made about the economy over last three and a half years.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 19, 2013, 12:37:49 PM
Silly season everybody.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-23755007



Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 19, 2013, 12:42:58 PM
And Caroline Lucas has been arrested.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 19, 2013, 12:46:59 PM
...at, it ought to be pointed out, a demo.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on August 19, 2013, 01:25:45 PM
So, just what was going on with Glenn Greenwald's partner at Heathrow yesterday?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on August 19, 2013, 04:59:59 PM
Yey. Scotland finally publishes the first wave of usable census data

()


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on August 20, 2013, 01:50:41 PM
The 'Ed is crap' story of the last few weeks years is gaining further traction with Alastair Darling being the newest name on the list of critics.

Fixed.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on August 20, 2013, 02:02:39 PM
The 'Ed is crap' story of the last few weeks is gaining further traction with Alastair Darling being the newest name on the list of critics.

Several of these have had comments taken out of context.  (I don't know about Darling.)  Of the others, some fall in the "who cares?" category; I mean, why should anyone take any notice of Lord Glasman?

I don't, as it happens, think Ed Miliband is the best Leader of the Opposition ever.  But I see no evidence that any other realistic candidate would be any better, and the efforts of the left (in general) ought to be directed at defeating this thoroughly nasty and rather incompetent government rather than sniping at him.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on August 24, 2013, 03:21:01 AM
It isn't easy to measure media bias objectively,  but here's a study questioning the stuff you get from the Right about how biased against them the BBC is:
https://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-how-biased-is-the-bbc-17028


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on August 24, 2013, 04:29:09 AM
The 'Ed is crap' story of the last few weeks is gaining further traction with Alastair Darling being the newest name on the list of critics.

Several of these have had comments taken out of context.  (I don't know about Darling.)  Of the others, some fall in the "who cares?" category; I mean, why should anyone take any notice of Lord Glasman?

I don't, as it happens, think Ed Miliband is the best Leader of the Opposition ever.  But I see no evidence that any other realistic candidate would be any better, and the efforts of the left (in general) ought to be directed at defeating this thoroughly nasty and rather incompetent government rather than sniping at him.

Hear hear. Half this stuff is exaggerated by the Tory press anyway in the hope that it will turn into something bigger. We don't need a leadership contest at this time.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on August 24, 2013, 08:04:24 PM
It isn't easy to measure media bias objectively,  but here's a study questioning the stuff you get from the Right about how biased against them the BBC is:
https://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-how-biased-is-the-bbc-17028

Really, that's basically all known to everyone who's ever watched the channel for a sustained period of time, and isn't a blinkered right-winger.

The 'Ed is crap' story of the last few weeks is gaining further traction with Alastair Darling being the newest name on the list of critics.

Several of these have had comments taken out of context.  (I don't know about Darling.)  Of the others, some fall in the "who cares?" category; I mean, why should anyone take any notice of Lord Glasman?

I don't, as it happens, think Ed Miliband is the best Leader of the Opposition ever.  But I see no evidence that any other realistic candidate would be any better, and the efforts of the left (in general) ought to be directed at defeating this thoroughly nasty and rather incompetent government rather than sniping at him.

Hear hear. Half this stuff is exaggerated by the Tory press anyway in the hope that it will turn into something bigger. We don't need a leadership contest at this time.

I'd have said the same two years ago, and probably did, but we're a fair bit on now and all sorts of warning signals have gone off since. Whether it's Labour's increasing acceptance of austerity and Ball's promise to match Tory spending; further climbing down from policies of universalism; Byrne's race with IDS to see who can be the biggest wankstain and Labour's collaboration with that; the bizzare Blairite coup regarding the union link and last but not least Miliband's deafening silence as opposition and refusal to be seen to commit to anything. I'm not about to rally around another bunch of triangulators who can't even bring it in themselves to distinctly differ from a radically Right government - even if there are no obvious appealing frontrunners to replace Ed Miliband, he needs to feel the heat.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on August 25, 2013, 06:16:24 AM
Why do people keep saying Ed Miliband is unelectable? Every poll by a reputable firm this month puts Labour ahead by at least 3 points and in many cases higher than in 2005 (when they won with 36% of the vote); the stuff about "Labour should be higher with this government" is rubbish as we're in uncharted political territory and he is on precisely one ballot paper come May 2015.

In fact, most people aren't really tuning into all of this; if we're having debates this time then that will be the time people really start paying attention.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on August 25, 2013, 06:28:19 AM
Why do people keep saying Ed Miliband is unelectable?

Tory propaganda being effective.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 25, 2013, 01:29:12 PM
Ordinary people don't pay attention to politics during the summer (and, frankly, hardly do until a General Election is called).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on August 25, 2013, 02:35:41 PM
I of course want him to stay as leader. You can probably guess why.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 25, 2013, 02:42:42 PM
I of course want him to stay as leader. You can probably guess why.

Because David Cameron can't win on his own merit?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on August 25, 2013, 03:01:57 PM
I of course want him to stay as leader. You can probably guess why.

Because David Cameron can't win on his own merit?

Because it means Tory policies will remain in place no matter who wins the election.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: LastVoter on August 28, 2013, 02:34:49 AM
I of course want him to stay as leader. You can probably guess why.

Because David Cameron can't win on his own merit?

Because it means Tory policies will remain in place no matter who wins the election.
Is there a workable alternative?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 28, 2013, 05:23:25 AM
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/aug/27/tory-mps-bfi-posh-bullingdon-club

Ahahaha, now I love this.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 28, 2013, 12:06:10 PM
Labour back flip on Syria overnight. No doubt someone thought on and realised what'd happen to the 2010 LDs they've gained.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on August 28, 2013, 12:14:34 PM
The big irony on this would be Nick Clegg backing a non-UN-backed attack on a Middle Eastern country.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 28, 2013, 12:18:32 PM
The big irony on this would be Nick Clegg backing a non-UN-backed attack on a Middle Eastern country.

It'd be the tip of the iceberg for anyone who's still giving the bloke the benefit of the doubt.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 28, 2013, 12:27:09 PM

Not exactly, it's more that the media did more than scan-reading this time.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on August 28, 2013, 12:36:01 PM
So what's Labour's position here? No one much bothers reporting anything beyond the rumor mill out of Washington, really.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 28, 2013, 12:44:30 PM
So what's Labour's position here? No one much bothers reporting anything beyond the rumor mill out of Washington, really.

Government line will not be backed unless the UN provides 'compelling evidence' that Assad has used chemical weapons.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on August 28, 2013, 12:46:27 PM
A distinction being drawn between "Assad" and "somebody on what's usually (and broadly accurately) seen as his side"? Or is this really about "UN" (read, Chinese and Russian) aquiescence?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 28, 2013, 12:46:40 PM
So what's Labour's position here? No one much bothers reporting anything beyond the rumor mill out of Washington, really.

From what I gather, they're voting against approving military action, but they're tabling their own motion basically asking for the weapons inspectors to report back before taking action.

The government will probably win it, just. Plenty of LibDem MPs will rebel and one has to wonder if any Liberal members of the government are willing to resign over this.

It'll be quite embarrassing for Cameron and Hague if parliament says no. We know the Tory backbenchers aren't scared to say no to Dave.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on August 29, 2013, 10:18:41 AM
Caught a ridiculous interview earlier with Mark Hendrick where Ben Brown appeared to be playing the Tory, hectoring and demanding Labour's position. I can't remember the last time I seen the BBC interview a Tory in that manner.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on August 29, 2013, 10:20:18 AM
Caught a ridiculous interview earlier with Mark Hendrick where Ben Brown appeared to be playing the Tory, hectoring and demanding Labour's position. I can't remember the last time I seen the BBC interview a Tory in that manner.

Given it's the BBC, probably five minutes earlier.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on August 29, 2013, 10:24:13 AM
I would have seen it. :P


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 29, 2013, 12:30:12 PM
Somewhat unsurprisingly things have turned all ultra-partisan and unpleasant.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on August 29, 2013, 03:18:58 PM
Jim Fitzpatrick has reportedly resigned his shadow cabinet position from Labour's lack of opposing intervention more vigorously.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 29, 2013, 03:22:50 PM
Random

(though Fitzpatrick wasn't in the shadcab: just an ordinary shadow minister)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on August 29, 2013, 04:02:58 PM
Yeah, my mistake. Chances of the government losing?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 29, 2013, 04:14:42 PM
The government will win the vote if Team Yellow is as obedient as it usually is.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on August 29, 2013, 04:20:16 PM
Labour amendment defeated 220-332, which suggests that at least 37 Labour MPs didn't vote for it.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on August 29, 2013, 04:32:10 PM
Government motion rejected!


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on August 29, 2013, 04:34:43 PM
Had a feeling they might!


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on August 29, 2013, 04:38:21 PM
285 No, 272 Yes... this is a massive blow for the Government's policy.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on August 29, 2013, 04:41:32 PM
What an absolute disaster. I'm honestly speechless.

The UK doesn't even back UN weapons inspectors now. Just.. madness.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on August 29, 2013, 04:46:47 PM
Especially with reports of a napalm attack earlier this week.

I'd have backed this in principle (something needs to be done about this), but Parliament is sovereign in this matter and we'll be staying out.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: freefair on August 29, 2013, 04:48:16 PM
MPs went for a totally pacifist stance.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on August 29, 2013, 04:54:09 PM
MPs went for a totally pacifist stance.

One wonders if the Labour stand against the main motion was intended to ensure its defeat... or that was just an accident.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on August 29, 2013, 04:56:52 PM
If I was Cameron, I would have ignored Parliament and just gone the 'prerogative' route. This is just a complete disaster.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on August 29, 2013, 04:58:36 PM
If I was Cameron, I would have ignored Parliament and just gone the 'prerogative' route. This is just a complete disaster.

The Iraq precedent is there and it isn't going (FWIW, the government held debates with motions to adjourn in 1982 and 1991, which could be taken as votes for/against those wars).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: doktorb on August 29, 2013, 05:00:11 PM
Iraq has cast a shadow, and a precedent.  All MPs are deeply wary of the Iraq vote and what happened thereafter. Most members of the public who give a damn are wary too

Not allowing the Commons to vote would have brought back all the worst memories of Blair and dodgy dossiers.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on August 29, 2013, 05:00:19 PM
The shouts of "resign!" remind me of the final episode of the original House of Cards series.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: freefair on August 29, 2013, 05:07:39 PM
If I had a magic wand, this is how my sort of constitutional government would work ALL the time.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: bullmoose88 on August 29, 2013, 05:09:09 PM
Government's defeat here isn't of the sort that would trigger a new election right? Does the 5 year term now eliminate that risk?



Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: freefair on August 29, 2013, 05:10:24 PM
Government's defeat here isn't of the sort that would trigger a new election right? Does the 5 year term now eliminate that risk?



That would have to be on a key manifesto/platform promise. In this case I don't think fixed term parliaments have had in impact.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on August 29, 2013, 05:11:58 PM
Government's defeat here isn't of the sort that would trigger a new election right? Does the 5 year term now eliminate that risk?

Not necessarily, but Cameron has been severely undermined and his authority has been crippled. I imagine the fixed term Parliament bill can be scrapped whenever.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on August 29, 2013, 05:15:09 PM
The government is fine. It held a vote on military action and failed. If however Syria takes a turn for the worst and hard evidence comes to light of chemical attacks it will probably rebound on the opposition.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Lurker on August 29, 2013, 06:10:18 PM
What a total screw-up by Cameron. Why on earth would he call this vote if he weren't sure of getting a majority?


Is there any list that shows which MPs voted yes/no? Wouldn't be surprised if some Tory ultra-right-wingers voted "no" just to embarass the PM.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on August 29, 2013, 06:14:50 PM
Not yet, but labourwhips (https://twitter.com/labourwhips) is tweeting some figures. Con 30 against, 14 abstain & Lib 11 against, 13 abstain.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 29, 2013, 06:19:10 PM
Government's defeat here isn't of the sort that would trigger a new election right?

In this post-war period this would have been seen as, at the very least, a resigning matter for the PM (one reason why Wilson got away with supporting the Americans in Vietnam without actually sending troops was his tiny majority in the 1964-1966 parliament). But convention changed after the watershed hung parliament of February 1974, so the government is as secure as it was this time last night.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 29, 2013, 06:24:28 PM
What a total screw-up by Cameron. Why on earth would he call this vote if he weren't sure of getting a majority?

Cameron is an appalling parliamentary manager, basically. Someone else must have cocked up as well though. Would suspect that there's a reasonable chance that one or both of the Chief Whip and Leader of the House will resign.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 29, 2013, 06:25:59 PM
The government got the tone very, very wrong throughout. You don't win this sort of vote via hectoring, particularly when the public is firmly against.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 29, 2013, 06:28:39 PM
There are rumours that two Tory ministers failed to vote because they were at a meeting.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 29, 2013, 06:47:30 PM
Anyways, the Constitution just changed today and in favour of Parliament and against the executive. This is really important.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on August 30, 2013, 01:57:00 AM
What a total screw-up by Cameron. Why on earth would he call this vote if he weren't sure of getting a majority?


Is there any list that shows which MPs voted yes/no? Wouldn't be surprised if some Tory ultra-right-wingers voted "no" just to embarass the PM.

Hansard (http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/hansard/commons/by-date/#session=73895&year=2013&month=7&day=29/) has a full list.  (Find the Official Report, and it starts on p1551, followed by Bercow's "Order. Mr MacNeil, you are like an erupting volcano. Calm yourself, man!".)

There's a list of Tory and Lib Dem MPs who voted against here (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/30/syria-debate-tory-rebels).  Some of the Tories are "usual suspects", people like David Davis and Richard Shepherd.  The MP the Tories selected via an open primary, Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes), who has been a bit of a maverick, is also on the list.  Two Lib Dems who currently don't have the whip, David Ward (Bradford East) and Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South) also voted against, and there were several abstentions, including Tim Farron.

I'm still puzzled about how the Government apparently failed to realise the motion was in trouble, given that I'd got the impression that it might be just from reading the Guardian's live blog and noticing how many Tories were making rebellious noises.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: RedPrometheus on August 30, 2013, 03:27:34 AM
How often do government motions actually fail in parliament? I think it's very surprising that the government allowed a vote on such a high-profile motion an didn't check their votes.

Is it possible that the Tories get rid of Cameroon before the election?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on August 30, 2013, 03:45:31 AM
How often do government motions actually fail in parliament? I think it's very surprising that the government allowed a vote on such a high-profile motion an didn't check their votes.

Not that often, but still not that rare; some administrations with clear majorities can go with no defeats at all. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Government_defeats_in_the_House_of_Commons_%281945%E2%80%93present%29#Cameron)

For a matter of foreign policy, however, it's like finding a toothy hen... the last government defeat on a matter of war appears to have been in 1782 on continuing to fight against American independence.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on August 30, 2013, 05:25:42 AM
Blair poisoned the well. It took is a generation to get over Suez and it will take the same to get over Iraq. The public don't trust politicians, don't trust intervention and worst of all don't trust intelligence services.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese on August 30, 2013, 05:32:42 AM
Not that often, but still not that rare; some administrations with clear majorities can go with no defeats at all. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Government_defeats_in_the_House_of_Commons_%281945%E2%80%93present%29#Cameron)

WTF! Callaghan and Wilson?! <.<


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: ObserverIE on August 30, 2013, 10:26:01 AM
Not that often, but still not that rare; some administrations with clear majorities can go with no defeats at all. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Government_defeats_in_the_House_of_Commons_%281945%E2%80%93present%29#Cameron)

WTF! Callaghan and Wilson?! <.<

No majority (I think they started in October 1974 with a majority of 3 and then lost seats through defections and by-elections).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on August 30, 2013, 10:31:41 AM
Not that often, but still not that rare; some administrations with clear majorities can go with no defeats at all. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Government_defeats_in_the_House_of_Commons_%281945%E2%80%93present%29#Cameron)

WTF! Callaghan and Wilson?! <.<

No majority (I think they started in October 1974 with a majority of 3 and then lost seats through defections and by-elections).

Minority government in February 1974, majority of 3 in October 1974 and a minority again the day Callaghan took office.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on August 30, 2013, 11:55:19 AM
Blair poisoned the well. It took is a generation to get over Suez and it will take the same to get over Iraq. The public don't trust politicians, don't trust intervention and worst of all don't trust intelligence services.
Wtf? The worst thing that can be truthfully said about the British people, or indeed any people, is that they broadly trust their intelligence services.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: rob in cal on August 30, 2013, 12:02:35 PM
Is there any clear pattern among the Tory no votes?  Would most of them be considered on the right wing? Eurosceptic? Are many from marginal seats?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on August 30, 2013, 12:26:30 PM
Is there any clear pattern among the Tory no votes?  Would most of them be considered on the right wing? Eurosceptic? Are many from marginal seats?

I think the libertarian tendency is over-represented.  Some are from marginals (e.g. High Peak, Warwick & Leamington) but there's no particular tendency that way.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 30, 2013, 12:33:00 PM
Here's the list:

David Amess (Southend West), Richard Bacon (Norfolk South), Steven Baker (Wycombe), John Baron (Basildon and Billericay), Andrew Bingham (High Peak), Crispin Blunt (Reigate), Fiona Bruce (Congleton), Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford), David Davies (Monmouth), Philip Davies (Shipley), David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden), Nick de Bois (Enfield North), Richard Drax (Dorset South), Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey), Philip Hollobone (Kettering), Adam Holloway (Gravesham), Phillip Lee (Bracknell), Julian Lewis (New Forest East), Jason McCartney (Colne Valley), Stephen McPartland (Stevenage), Nigel Mills (Amber Valley), Anne-Marie Morris (Newton Abbot), Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole), Sir Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills), Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle), Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight), Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes), Charles Walker (Broxbourne), Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) and Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes)

Odd mixture in general, actually.

LibDem rebels:

Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley), Michael Crockart (Edinburgh West), Andrew George (St Ives), Julian Huppert (Cambridge), Dan Rogerson (Cornwall North), Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove), Ian Swales (Redcar), Sarah Teather (Brent Central) and Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire).

Now here, we see a clearer pattern of obvious electoral self-interest.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on August 30, 2013, 12:45:24 PM
Blair poisoned the well. It took is a generation to get over Suez and it will take the same to get over Iraq.

I think there is some truth in this, in that the Iraq debacle affected yesterday's outcome to some extent.  However, the Commons were perfectly happy to support intervention in Libya; the UK hasn't become totally isolationist.  To many of us, the case being made this week seems weak, not because we think Assad didn't commit atrocities, but because it's far from clear how our intervention would actually help the situation.

(I admit that I personally tend to be sceptical about the merits of military action in general, so I was never likely to be keen on this.  But with Libya there did seem to be a much clearer aim to the proposed intervention.)

 


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Khunanup on August 30, 2013, 08:49:18 PM
Is there any clear pattern among the Tory no votes?  Would most of them be considered on the right wing? Eurosceptic? Are many from marginal seats?

Isolationists.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: NewYorkExpress on August 30, 2013, 08:59:46 PM
I'll be stunned if Cameron doesn't resign/party isn't defeated in next election...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on August 30, 2013, 10:17:27 PM

Ha, did not know this.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: doktorb on August 31, 2013, 01:33:46 AM

What didn't you know?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on August 31, 2013, 03:35:40 AM
I think we're learning what it was like to be French in 2003...

(Ironically enough, the character who first uttered the term "cheese eating surrender monkeys" was Scottish).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on August 31, 2013, 04:39:34 AM
I think we're learning what it was like to be French in 2003...

(Ironically enough, the character who first uttered the term "cheese eating surrender monkeys" was Scottish).

I would have thought it would have been a beefeating appeasement apes rather than a Scot who came up with that phrase.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on August 31, 2013, 05:52:12 AM
I think we're learning what it was like to be French in 2003...

(Ironically enough, the character who first uttered the term "cheese eating surrender monkeys" was Scottish).

I would have thought it would have been a beefeating appeasement apes rather than a Scot who came up with that phrase.

It was Groundskeeper Willie in The Simpsons... and he's pretty Scottish. The writer was American though.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on August 31, 2013, 10:57:34 AM

That he was one of the Liberal rebels!

I think we're learning what it was like to be French in 2003...

What do you mean?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on August 31, 2013, 03:03:06 PM

Being on the opposite side to the US in regards to a Middle Eastern conflict and some of the rhetoric that results.



Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 31, 2013, 04:56:22 PM
Some of the bile coming from the right-wing press, aimed at those against intervention, is pretty shocking even for them.

And as much as Labour are being barracked in the press for standing with the public, no one's mentioning the hilarity of some of the neocon statements made by the likes of Clegg and Paddy Ashdown.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on August 31, 2013, 06:11:03 PM
Some of the bile coming from the right-wing press, aimed at those against intervention, is pretty shocking even for them.

And as much as Labour are being barracked in the press for standing with the public, no one's mentioning the hilarity of some of the neocon statements made by the likes of Clegg and Paddy Ashdown.

Ashdown's statement was one of the few times I've ever nodded earnestly when listening to a Liberal Democrat.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 31, 2013, 06:15:14 PM
Some of the bile coming from the right-wing press, aimed at those against intervention, is pretty shocking even for them.

And as much as Labour are being barracked in the press for standing with the public, no one's mentioning the hilarity of some of the neocon statements made by the likes of Clegg and Paddy Ashdown.

Ashdown's statement was one of the few times I've ever nodded earnestly when listening to a Liberal Democrat.

I agree with him here more than I disagree, but I can't help but roll my eyes hearing this from a LibDem.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on September 01, 2013, 02:51:30 AM
Ashdown has always been an interventionist; he even supported the Iraq war.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on September 01, 2013, 03:24:15 AM
Ashdown has always been an interventionist; he even supported the Iraq war.

He was in the SBS and apparently SIS as well... so you can't call him a chickenhawk.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 02, 2013, 05:33:16 AM
Malcolm Bruce, Liberal MP for Gordon to stand down at the next election. Last leader of the Scottish Liberal/First leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats.

Many Nats will be smiling today. Bruce held a 13.8% majority in 2010 over the SNP, with Labour not far behind. It's equivalent Holyrood seat was gained by Alex Salmond in 2007 and he now sits on an eye watering 50.5% majority.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 02, 2013, 07:59:47 AM
Dan Hodges was on Daily Politics before. He's still panning to vote Labour. Why does this idiot still get airtime?



Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on September 02, 2013, 01:59:54 PM
Dan Hodges was on Daily Politics before. He's still panning to vote Labour. Why does this idiot still get airtime?

Well the last time I seen him on DP the Labour representative was sat there pandering to him and reassuring him that Owen Jones was unrepresentative of Labour - hardly hurting his credibility.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 02, 2013, 02:09:57 PM
Dan Hodges was on Daily Politics before. He's still panning to vote Labour. Why does this idiot still get airtime?

Well the last time I seen him on DP the Labour representative was sat there pandering to him and reassuring him that Owen Jones was unrepresentative of Labour - hardly hurting his credibility.

Neither Owen Jones or Dan Hodges represent Labour values.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 02, 2013, 03:12:53 PM
Dan Hodges is just a troll. He gets airtime because he knows media people and because he bashes Miliband (who the media hate).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on September 02, 2013, 03:32:28 PM
...and yet I've seen not one senior Labour figure point that out or go at him. Apparently he's resigned his membership over Syria, mind.

Neither Owen Jones or Dan Hodges represent Labour values.

Mores the pity, on the former.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 02, 2013, 03:49:08 PM
...and yet I've seen not one senior Labour figure point that out or go at him. Apparently he's resigned his membership over Syria, mind.

Neither Owen Jones or Dan Hodges represent Labour values.

Mores the pity, on the former.

Jones is just as much of an attention seeker as Hodges.

A reincarnated Nye Bevan could come back and stage a coup against Ed's leadership and Owen's column would still be as angst filled as ever.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on September 02, 2013, 04:23:07 PM
Couldn't disagree more, I think Jones would be delighted with a Bevanite leader and would back him to the hilt - because unlike Hodges he seems consistent in his principles and not just writing any old sh**t to be controversial. Jones is fairly loyalist in actuality, but admittedly it's become harder to tell as Labour have drifted rightwards. Seems to have been defending Miliband over the last couple of days if you look on his Twitter.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Lurker on September 03, 2013, 03:43:15 PM
Dan Hodges is just a troll. He gets airtime because he knows media people and because he bashes Miliband (who the media hate).

His completely hypocritical and self-condradictory comments after his mother attacked Thatcher were quite interesting to read.



Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on September 04, 2013, 02:38:06 PM
Labour now hinting it wants another vote on Syria. Oh dear.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 04, 2013, 03:51:37 PM
Labour now hinting it wants another vote on Syria. Oh dear.

Wasn't that the line all along? Come back when there's more evidence/escalation?

It was Cam who ruled out a second vote.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 04, 2013, 04:22:10 PM
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timwigmore/100234233/jesse-norman-went-to-the-same-school-as-his-boss-but-hes-telling-tories-that-hed-be-a-very-different-leader/

For the column inches that've been dedicated to Jesse Norman and him being 'on manoeuvers'  over the last year and knowing nothing about the bloke except that he's an Etonian who's loved by the Tory right, my first impression of him today at PMQs was just that he seems like a creepy guy. Or maybe that's just the attitude he has after just being sacked.

Don't know a think about his ideas or approach to politics, but as leader, he'd play as well as Miliband does on TV.

Of course, not that I think there'll be a leadership challenge in any party before the election.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on September 05, 2013, 02:02:14 AM
Of course, not that I think there'll be a leadership challenge in any party before the election.

I would suggest that a party whose rating has more than halved from the last election in most polls and whose leadership seems to be busy repudiating the principles that got them a lot of those votes in the first place ought to be considering a leadership challenge, but I'm not holding my breath.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on September 05, 2013, 04:05:42 AM
Yeah, Labour probably can't win a majority with Miliband's current personal numbers.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on September 05, 2013, 11:06:33 AM
Of course, not that I think there'll be a leadership challenge in any party before the election.

I would suggest that a party whose rating has more than halved from the last election in most polls and whose leadership seems to be busy repudiating the principles that got them a lot of those votes in the first place ought to be considering a leadership challenge, but I'm not holding my breath.

Yeah, the Liberal Democrats are in real trouble.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 05, 2013, 11:21:38 AM
Of course, not that I think there'll be a leadership challenge in any party before the election.

I would suggest that a party whose rating has more than halved from the last election in most polls and whose leadership seems to be busy repudiating the principles that got them a lot of those votes in the first place ought to be considering a leadership challenge, but I'm not holding my breath.

Yeah, the Liberal Democrats are in real trouble.

Even Farron's not stupid enough to take that poisoned chalice.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on September 05, 2013, 08:08:03 PM
Nearly missed this:

"Almost three-quarters believe the UK's energy costs are unreasonable, and 69% said the [energy] firms should be nationalised."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23957608



Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Khunanup on September 06, 2013, 03:14:25 PM
Of course, not that I think there'll be a leadership challenge in any party before the election.

I would suggest that a party whose rating has more than halved from the last election in most polls and whose leadership seems to be busy repudiating the principles that got them a lot of those votes in the first place ought to be considering a leadership challenge, but I'm not holding my breath.

Yeah, the Liberal Democrats are in real trouble.

Out of interest, what do you mean by that (ie, what do you consider he consequences to be in 2015)?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 06, 2013, 06:45:36 PM
Of course, not that I think there'll be a leadership challenge in any party before the election.

I would suggest that a party whose rating has more than halved from the last election in most polls and whose leadership seems to be busy repudiating the principles that got them a lot of those votes in the first place ought to be considering a leadership challenge, but I'm not holding my breath.

Yeah, the Liberal Democrats are in real trouble.

Out of interest, what do you mean by that (ie, what do you consider he consequences to be in 2015)?

To cut a long story short, polls are showing that if there was an election tomorrow, they'd receive their lowest share of the vote since 1970 and their leader is one of the most unpopular men in the country.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 06, 2013, 06:55:14 PM
Boris: "Even Hitler didn't use chemical weapons."

Someone tell me how this man's considered a serious politician.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Nhoj on September 06, 2013, 06:58:06 PM
Boris: "Even Hitler didn't use chemical weapons."

Someone tell me how this man's considered a serious politician.
Wasn't he making apologies for assad just a few weeks ago?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on September 07, 2013, 06:29:34 AM
Boris: "Even Hitler didn't use chemical weapons."

What on Earth was Zyklon B then? While the Nazis never used them on the battlefield or against us (for fear of retaliation), the Japanese certainly did.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 07, 2013, 03:28:31 PM
Sarah Teather standing down in 2015.

A likely Labour gain becomes a definite Labour gain.

Teather joins the following as Liberal retirees:
Brooke, Mid Dorest and Poole North (0.6%)
Beith, Berwick-Upon-Tweed (7%)
Bruce, Gordon (13.8%)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on September 07, 2013, 03:37:33 PM
()

Someone actually phased by Clegg/Liberal sell-outs?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on September 07, 2013, 04:33:42 PM
Teather was a major star in the party (especially after the massive swing in the Brent East by-election when she gained it), although her position was looking dodgy in  Brent Central come 2015, IIRC.

Al can help here.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 07, 2013, 06:13:48 PM
Teather was a major star in the party (especially after the massive swing in the Brent East by-election when she gained it), although her position was looking dodgy in  Brent Central come 2015, IIRC.

Al can help here.

Nobody'll miss her.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on September 08, 2013, 07:31:16 AM
Teather was a major star in the party (especially after the massive swing in the Brent East by-election when she gained it), although her position was looking dodgy in  Brent Central come 2015, IIRC.

Al can help here.

Nobody'll miss her.

It was her marriage vote that killed her off.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on September 08, 2013, 09:23:01 AM
Teather was a major star in the party (especially after the massive swing in the Brent East by-election when she gained it), although her position was looking dodgy in  Brent Central come 2015, IIRC.

Al can help here.

Nobody'll miss her.

It was her marriage vote that killed her off.

Yes, looking at the comments on Lib Dem Voice there seems to be a lot of hostility to her because of that, though she's getting some support too.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on September 08, 2013, 10:39:22 AM
Teather was a major star in the party (especially after the massive swing in the Brent East by-election when she gained it), although her position was looking dodgy in  Brent Central come 2015, IIRC.

Al can help here.

Nobody'll miss her.

It was her marriage vote that killed her off.

I was thinking this.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 08, 2013, 12:32:17 PM
Teather is an avatar of Beelzebub, therefore her departure from the Commons is most welcome.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on September 08, 2013, 12:51:06 PM

What makes you say that?

(Genuine question, not rhetorical.)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Tetro Kornbluth on September 08, 2013, 03:46:22 PM
She had practically no chance of retaining her seat anyway, so...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 08, 2013, 05:30:58 PM
Those whispering about Labour hiring Bruce Hawker as their "anti-Crosby" a few weeks back will have egg on their face, considering events Down Under.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on September 08, 2013, 07:49:43 PM
I doubt anyone gives enough of a sh**t to remember.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 10, 2013, 01:36:04 PM
A third set of accusations has led to Nigel Evans being arrested again.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 10, 2013, 03:47:05 PM
I'm sure the Tories are jumping for joy at the idea of a winter by-election as well.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on September 10, 2013, 03:49:09 PM
Evans has been charged with rape (and some other offences).  Best not to say any more at this stage.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on September 10, 2013, 03:51:01 PM
Evans has been charged with rape (and some other offences). 
Don't be so coy; list them.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 10, 2013, 03:54:23 PM
Full details here:

http://blog.cps.gov.uk/2013/09/statement-from-the-director-of-public-prosecutions-keir-starmer-qc-on-the-case-of-mr-nigel-evans-mp.html


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 10, 2013, 03:57:05 PM
I was about to post 'and I think we can expect his resignation as Deputy Speaker in short order'. It's already happened: he's formally quit his post.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 10, 2013, 04:05:24 PM
So... does he resign his seat now, or try to stick it out? Honourable Members charged with criminal offences tend to do the latter, but then they're rarely charged with offences as serious as this.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 10, 2013, 04:25:44 PM
They'll take the whip from him, surely. That's if he doesn't resign from parliament.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on September 11, 2013, 11:40:40 AM
He's not got it and he's not asking for it - he'll sit as an independent.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on September 11, 2013, 02:07:28 PM

Wheeee.


()


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 12, 2013, 10:49:33 AM
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/pdqfi3an7f/YG-Archive-Times-results-110913-party-leaders.pdf

Some interesting questions asked for The Times. Some highlights:

"A hung parliament after the next general election with the Liberal Democrats holding the balance of power could be a good thing" Agree/Disagree (change since April 2010)

16/60 (-21/+19)


"If you had to choose, which would you prefer to see after the next election, a Conservative government led by David Cameron or a Labour government led by Ed Miliband?" David/Ed (change since 2010, asked about Labour under Gordon Brown)

41/40 (-5/+3)


"I can't see Ed Miliband as a Prime Minister"

68/21


"Nick Clegg betrayed his principles to become deputy prime minister"

68/20


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on September 13, 2013, 03:05:37 AM
I don't normally like to cherry pick subsamples of polls, but as cherries on the other side of the tree get picked from time to time, here is today's YouGov 18-24 sample:
Lab 50
Con 29
Green 7
Lib Dem 6
UKIP 4
SNP/Plaid 2
Respect 1
Other other 1


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on September 13, 2013, 05:15:46 AM
Respect 1? Rarer than rocking-horse sh**t!


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on September 13, 2013, 06:05:42 AM
I don't normally like to cherry pick subsamples of polls, but as cherries on the other side of the tree get picked from time to time, here is today's YouGov 18-24 sample:
Lab 50
Con 29
Green 7
Lib Dem 6
UKIP 4
SNP/Plaid 2
Respect 1
Other other 1

As someone who, for his own amusement, does a 'tracker' absed on the Scottish samples which over the course of a week give you a decent sample size, yesterdays sample had Labour on 50% despite samples over the past few months having Labour boucning from 38-43. That screwed my tracker :( That jump in Scotland alone is enough to inflate Labour's lead by almost a full % point.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on September 13, 2013, 06:11:53 AM
I don't normally like to cherry pick subsamples of polls, but as cherries on the other side of the tree get picked from time to time, here is today's YouGov 18-24 sample:
Lab 50
Con 29
Green 7
Lib Dem 6
UKIP 4
SNP/Plaid 2
Respect 1
Other other 1

As someone who, for his own amusement, does a 'tracker' absed on the Scottish samples which over the course of a week give you a decent sample size, yesterdays sample had Labour on 50% despite samples over the past few months having Labour boucning from 38-43. That screwed my tracker :( That jump in Scotland alone is enough to inflate Labour's lead by almost a full % point.

Nothing is saying than it's not deflated by a % point in another part of the country, through.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 13, 2013, 07:03:00 PM
First policy announcement of conference season. Nick Clegg announces a 5p charge on plastic carrier bags in supermarkets.

Really knows how to set the world alight, doesn't he?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Oakvale on September 13, 2013, 07:33:22 PM
First policy announcement of conference season. Nick Clegg announces a 5p charge on plastic carrier bags in supermarkets.

Really knows how to set the world alight, doesn't he?

It's a pretty good policy, to be fair, if not exactly the most exciting thing he could have announced.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 13, 2013, 07:37:06 PM
Yes, it's worked quite well in Wales. But as a flagship policy...?!?!!


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 13, 2013, 07:40:14 PM
It is a good policy, of course. But which strategist told them to run with it?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 13, 2013, 07:43:27 PM
You saw with your own eyes and heard with your own ears how they acted after the last General Election. These people have no grasp of strategy.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 14, 2013, 08:00:54 PM
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8094

Ashcroft has a new marginals poll out.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on September 15, 2013, 03:27:39 AM
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8094

Ashcroft has a new marginals poll out.

There are three separate polls here.  There's an overall national poll with a fairly small sample, labelled the "National comparison poll" on Ashcroft's website; the headline figures are Lab 35 Con 30 UKIP 14 LD 11 Green 4.

Then there's a poll in the 32 closest Tory held Con-Lab marginals; this has a much larger sample size (nearly 10,000) and has figures for the standard voting intention question of Lab 42 Con 29 UKIP 14 LD 6 Green 5.  I haven't found the exact 2010 figures for these seats, but it looks like quite a good poll for Labour even if the size of the lead is a bit dependent on Tory voters switching to UKIP.  Ashcroft says the swing is 8.5% Con to Lab since 2010.

Finally there's a poll of the 8 closest Tory held Con-LD marginals.  These are a rather eclectic collection (something which always concerns me about this sort of poll)*.  Anyway, for the standard voting intention question he gets Con 33 Lab 24 LD 18 UKIP 14 Green 5; he then asked a further question "Thinking specifically about your own constituency and the candidates who are likely to stand there", getting Con 32 LD 29 Lab 18 UKIP 12 Green 4.  He asked this question in the Con/Lab seats too, but it didn't make much difference there (it pushed Labour from 42% to 43%).

This suggests there's still some evidence of tactical voting in favour of the Lib Dems from voters who would otherwise vote Labour.  For me, it'd depend on the Lib Dem, so probably yes in St Ives but no in Taunton Deane.

* According to UKPollingReport, they're:
Camborne & Redruth
Oxford West & Abingdon
Truro & Falmouth
Newton Abbot
Harrogate & Knaresborough
Watford
Montgomeryshire
St. Albans

edit: changed the figures for the national poll to the turnout-adjusted ones.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on September 15, 2013, 05:50:25 AM
Some impressive Green figures there given they're polling 2% in most?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 15, 2013, 07:16:42 AM
Some impressive Green figures there given they're polling 2% in most?

True, but at this point is there anywhere they'd realistically be in with a chance beyond Brighton Pav.?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 15, 2013, 09:51:52 AM
They've a good chance at knocking the accidental LibDem incumbent into third in Norwich South, but Labour will gain the seat.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on September 15, 2013, 09:54:20 AM
They've a good chance at knocking the accidental LibDem incumbent into third in Norwich South, but Labour will gain the seat.
Third would be vaguely impressive. Fifth is not exactly out of the question. :P


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on September 15, 2013, 06:07:03 PM
http://www.northampton-news-hp.co.uk/News/Northampton-News/Northampton-clown-strikes-again-with-another-spooky-visitation-14092013.htm

Amazing.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Hnv1 on September 16, 2013, 11:12:37 AM
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/celebrity/uk-police-say-they-are-examining-new-information-on-princess-dianas-death/story-fni0b8dw-1226719638012

Tabloid garbage or the first sign of a British Republic?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on September 16, 2013, 11:18:05 AM
This has already been reported in the British press; the police will have to look into it... then probably dismiss it as the garbage it is.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on September 16, 2013, 04:19:33 PM
Why is Jeremy Browne not a Tory?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 16, 2013, 06:35:14 PM
He's too right wing.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 17, 2013, 09:52:31 AM
You have to wonder why the likes of Browne (and Clegg and Alexander and Laws, etc) even came into Liberal Party politics in the first place, when they would've fit in just as well (if not better!) with the 40-something aged Tories who rose through the ranks under Major/Hague/IDS like Cameron and Osborne.

And they hardly joined the LibDems thinking they were gonna be PM one day, now did they?

Or does it come down to my own adage that the Liberals are merely for Tories who're too ashamed to call themselves Tories and lefties who're too snobbish to vote for working-class Labour Party.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 18, 2013, 12:57:20 PM
Tory membership figures story:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24143443


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 18, 2013, 12:58:51 PM
Why must there be Conference Season?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on September 18, 2013, 01:20:29 PM

So that reporters and pollsters can get extra Christmas money.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: countydurhamboy on September 18, 2013, 02:00:06 PM
To give Andrew Neil something to bang on about?

I attempted to watch Nick Cleggs speech, lasted about half an hour. I think his speech and indeed his conference, has gone about as well as he could have realistically hoped. He has strengthened his position within his party. Some of his attack lines on the Tories may even work.

However it has struck me, on several occasions, that everyone at the Liberal Democrat Conference, including the media, exist in a bizarre parallel universe. They seem to think people will believe a word Nick Clegg says about any topic, give the LD any credit and that the parties unpopularity won't matter. They are in for a shock, I think.



Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on September 18, 2013, 03:01:52 PM
I attempted to watch Nick Cleggs speech, lasted about half an hour. I think his speech and indeed his conference, has gone about as well as he could have realistically hoped. He has strengthened his position within his party. Some of his attack lines on the Tories may even work.

However it has struck me, on several occasions, that everyone at the Liberal Democrat Conference, including the media, exist in a bizarre parallel universe. They seem to think people will believe a word Nick Clegg says about any topic, give the LD any credit and that the parties unpopularity won't matter. They are in for a shock, I think.

The impression I get is that they think that even if the party's underlying support crashes their local campaigning, and in particular the old "Labour can't win here; vote Lib Dem to keep the Tories out" line, will rescue many of their seats.

... and yes, that line may seem a bit ridiculous to many now.  But they quote the Eastleigh by-election (though they very nearly lost it, of course) and also the "Thinking specifically about your own constituency" question in that Ashcroft marginals poll.



Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: countydurhamboy on September 18, 2013, 05:39:59 PM
I attempted to watch Nick Cleggs speech, lasted about half an hour. I think his speech and indeed his conference, has gone about as well as he could have realistically hoped. He has strengthened his position within his party. Some of his attack lines on the Tories may even work.

However it has struck me, on several occasions, that everyone at the Liberal Democrat Conference, including the media, exist in a bizarre parallel universe. They seem to think people will believe a word Nick Clegg says about any topic, give the LD any credit and that the parties unpopularity won't matter. They are in for a shock, I think.

The impression I get is that they think that even if the party's underlying support crashes their local campaigning, and in particular the old "Labour can't win here; vote Lib Dem to keep the Tories out" line, will rescue many of their seats.

... and yes, that line may seem a bit ridiculous to many now.  But they quote the Eastleigh by-election (though they very nearly lost it, of course) and also the "Thinking specifically about your own constituency" question in that Ashcroft marginals poll.


It would be foolish to doubt that the LD won't do relatively well in these seats with strong incumbents, I agree. However, I think this is limited.  If the tory vote holds up, a big if, but if does we could have a repeat of the 2011 locals, where the LD were slaughtered in large parts of the country by both parties.

I'm not trying to argue they will definitely be wiped out, but I think the political class should at least consider it. The LD's are polling at a level similar to their 1960's electoral results but the  LD, the media and the polling experts aren't even predicting a 20 seat loss. On the daily politics this week i've seen many LD's (as you would expect), but also pollsters and journalists all talking about LD prospects and most are only predicting a dozen losses. 
Last election there was a 1.35% swing from LD to CON. The conservative won a net 9 seats from them. Today UK polling report average shows a 4% swing....

The LD's biggest savour may be UKIP just as in Eastleigh. They should get Farage on that TV debate.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 18, 2013, 06:10:39 PM
I attempted to watch Nick Cleggs speech, lasted about half an hour. I think his speech and indeed his conference, has gone about as well as he could have realistically hoped. He has strengthened his position within his party. Some of his attack lines on the Tories may even work.

However it has struck me, on several occasions, that everyone at the Liberal Democrat Conference, including the media, exist in a bizarre parallel universe. They seem to think people will believe a word Nick Clegg says about any topic, give the LD any credit and that the parties unpopularity won't matter. They are in for a shock, I think.

The impression I get is that they think that even if the party's underlying support crashes their local campaigning, and in particular the old "Labour can't win here; vote Lib Dem to keep the Tories out" line, will rescue many of their seats.

... and yes, that line may seem a bit ridiculous to many now.  But they quote the Eastleigh by-election (though they very nearly lost it, of course) and also the "Thinking specifically about your own constituency" question in that Ashcroft marginals poll.


It would be foolish to doubt that the LD won't do relatively well in these seats with strong incumbents, I agree. However, I think this is limited.  If the tory vote holds up, a big if, but if does we could have a repeat of the 2011 locals, where the LD were slaughtered in large parts of the country by both parties.

I'm not trying to argue they will definitely be wiped out, but I think the political class should at least consider it. The LD's are polling at a level similar to their 1960's electoral results but the  LD, the media and the polling experts aren't even predicting a 20 seat loss. On the daily politics this week i've seen many LD's (as you would expect), but also pollsters and journalists all talking about LD prospects and most are only predicting a dozen losses.  
Last election there was a 1.35% swing from LD to CON. The conservative won a net 9 seats from them. Today UK polling report average shows a 4% swing....

The LD's biggest savour may be UKIP just as in Eastleigh. They should get Farage on that TV debate.

I agree. It'd take some FPTP-style mess up for a party to fall from 24% to 9-12% and only see a handful of losses.

And what nobody ever mentions about Eastleigh is that their vote still collapsed by 15% and by more than the Tory's vote fell by.

A 15% fall even in their "strongholds" in the West Country and the South East would be the story of election night. A 15% fall repeated across their incumbent seats ("just for fun", to quote Peter Snow) would give some eye-watering/mouth-watering (depending on your political persuasion) results.

They won't have UKIP to save them in all their seats. There's about 15-20 Liberal seats where they're fighting a losing battle for 2015 and plenty more which are too close to call.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on September 19, 2013, 02:40:15 AM
Oh, I agree they're probably being over-optimistic.  I doubt they'll be back to the taxi, though.

YouGov has come out with a Lab/Con tie on 36, UKIP on 12 and the Lib Dems on 10 towards the end of their conference week.  Hopefully this is an outlier.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on September 19, 2013, 07:01:09 AM
It looks it, but Labour's support has been evaporating since they started wheeling out their 'iron discipline' non-opposition. The polls leading up to it weren't significantly different.

Chukka only this Sunday claimed Labour committing to renationalise the Royal Mail would be "completely irresponsible" and this is who we're supposed to believe are our saviours from the coalition? Useless.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on September 19, 2013, 04:04:30 PM
I'm increasingly confident of a Tory seat victory in 2015, especially when the UKIP protest vote flows back.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: countydurhamboy on September 19, 2013, 05:03:08 PM
Oh, I agree they're probably being over-optimistic.  I doubt they'll be back to the taxi, though.

YouGov has come out with a Lab/Con tie on 36, UKIP on 12 and the Lib Dems on 10 towards the end of their conference week.  Hopefully this is an outlier.

Todays Yougov shows just a 1% lead for Labour. Lab 35, Con 34, UKIP 11, LD 11. Milband needs to up his game and  get some policies, quickly, how hard can it be to repeal the bedroom tax?

I'm increasingly confident of a Tory seat victory in 2015, especially when the UKIP protest vote flows back.

For the first time I think this is possible. The economy is improving and Crosby has been very effective. Blue on Blue infighting has vanished. Electoral arithmetic is still against you though.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: countydurhamboy on September 20, 2013, 10:53:27 AM
Oh Godfrey, what were you thinking?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkDfyLFFK84

UKIP are genuinely hilarious.

Edit: It seems he has had the whip withdrawn today, after calling the women at the UKIP conference sluts!


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on September 20, 2013, 01:06:01 PM
()

You get a gazillion points if you can spot someone who isn't white.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 20, 2013, 01:25:03 PM
The guy second from left on the third row from bottom might... not... be? Just about? If you squint? Perhaps?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on September 20, 2013, 01:31:49 PM
()

You get a gazillion points if you can spot someone who isn't white.
You're a racist.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 20, 2013, 01:56:01 PM
Quote
“The bedroom tax – not what the Tories call the spare room subsidy – the bedroom tax: a symbol of an out of touch, uncaring Tory government that stands up for the privileged few – but never for you.

“So we will scrap that tax. And what’s more I can tell you how.

“We’ll scrap the bedroom tax by abolishing the shady schemes of tax loopholes for the privileged few which the Tories keep inventing. Tax cuts for hedge funds, the billion pound black hole created with a scheme for workers to sell their rights for shares, and by tackling scams which cheat the taxpayer in construction.

“That’s what a One Nation Labour government will do. That’s a party that will fight for you.”


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on September 20, 2013, 03:40:23 PM
That's more like it.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Khunanup on September 20, 2013, 04:59:49 PM
To give Andrew Neil something to bang on about?

I attempted to watch Nick Cleggs speech, lasted about half an hour. I think his speech and indeed his conference, has gone about as well as he could have realistically hoped. He has strengthened his position within his party. Some of his attack lines on the Tories may even work.

However it has struck me, on several occasions, that everyone at the Liberal Democrat Conference, including the media, exist in a bizarre parallel universe. They seem to think people will believe a word Nick Clegg says about any topic, give the LD any credit and that the parties unpopularity won't matter. They are in for a shock, I think.



All party conferences exist in a weird bubble where even time doesn't work the same (you look at your watch and it's 4pm, you look at your watch again seemingly a couple of hours later and it's nearly midnight!). Part of that is you're surrounded by people who come from the same place as you on most things and people who are there to network so are eager to talk and listen. Very, very odd but enjoyable.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Khunanup on September 20, 2013, 05:06:09 PM
You saw with your own eyes and heard with your own ears how they acted after the last General Election. These people have no grasp of strategy.

Duh, you do a warm up policy at the start of your conference and a big one towards the end. We have free school meals for all infant school age children and will go into the election promising free meals for all primary school children as a big announcement. Labour have just done abolishing the bedroom tax for social housing tenants only so I presume there's a really huge one coming next Tuesday/Wednesday.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on September 21, 2013, 06:25:42 AM
()

lol


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 21, 2013, 01:10:38 PM
Quote
    I would expect my family to be better off than it is now if the Conservatives win the next election
    Agree 22%
    Disagree 47%

    I would expect my family to be better off than it is now if Labour wins the next election
    Agree 30%
    Disagree 40%

Explains a lot about what Labour's showing people about themselves and the Conservatives at this conference.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on September 21, 2013, 02:51:54 PM
Did that survey also ask if they expected to be worse off in either event?  Those particular numbers can be best explained if those who thought it wouldn't matter to them who won answered disagree to both questions, so just simply asking would you be better off doesn't give good insight into whether people think they would be worse off.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 24, 2013, 06:33:39 AM
EdM's on at 2.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 24, 2013, 10:08:21 AM

And I think he's shut the naysayers up.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on September 24, 2013, 03:10:05 PM

It seems to be going down reasonably well at the moment (well, unless you take Dan Hodges seriously).  But the media's coverage of EdM has been so one-sided I'm pretty sure the naysayers will be back.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on September 24, 2013, 04:19:40 PM
Are the 1 million homes council houses?

If not, I wouldn't be so confident - most measures announced carry their own disappointments (no re-nationalisations, much of government legacy set to remain intact, lots of piecemeal rather than fundamental reforms announced).

If I vote Labour it will still more or less be to save the NHS, as judging by Balls' speech, they're now committed to reversing the coalition's privatisation.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 24, 2013, 04:48:21 PM
The trouble with renationalisation is that it's expensive; it's one extra reason why those keen on the privatisation of everything love it so.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on September 24, 2013, 05:43:42 PM
Aye, I know, but it just feels like we're wasting our time with everything else (like freezing energy prices - easily undone, and the firms will soon make-up for lost time). As long as the profit motive is in it, I don't think our utilities will ever be anything other than a racket.

Stumbled across this Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/user/littleglitterbug?feature=watch). Comprehensively defeated so many right-wing arguments better than I've seen any ministers do, such a waste of talent.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 24, 2013, 06:31:18 PM
Love how the only Tory argument against the energy freeze is "oh, back to the 70s then!"

Good luck arguing for the status quo and even higher bills.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on September 25, 2013, 04:17:28 AM
Love how the only Tory argument against the energy freeze is "oh, back to the 70s then!"

Good luck arguing for the status quo and even higher bills.

Decent wages and pensions, low unemployment, strong unions, affordable utilities and housing...tell me more, Tories!


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on September 25, 2013, 04:44:45 AM
The problem for Ed of course is that the big news of the conference (look! A policy!) was the energy bill pledge which is something that will be scrutinised and quietly dropped before the election. If it’s not, then come next year or early 2015 if Labour look as if they are performing well enough in the polls to be odds on favourites and energy bills go up significantly, my lot can say it’s going up faster because of the fear Labour coming in to power. At present most people accept that you can freeze it for a year or two but the moment you unfreeze then the bills will probably shoot back up again. So you have a double edged sword. The Tories can push for better regulation of the industry rather than promise a rash, short term freeze.

On building new houses at a rate of some 200,000 a year then that also has significant issues and is a more dangerous proposal. Labour are of course perhaps feeling a tad guilty for allowing 500,000 council houses being sold off during their watch during which time, with Chancellor Brown actually prohibiting local authorities from using the receipts from right-to-buy purchases to build new homes.

The first problem Labour have is planning; Labour have floated the relaxation of planning laws and the abilities of some towns/cities to be given a ‘right to grow’ beyond their own boundaries overriding neighbouring towns and authorities. Planning laws are there for a reason, a ‘free for all’ for the housing sector is not conducive to maintaining respect for the green belt and the urban footprint. The second issue is more an issue of local government reform. A city will not spend it’s own money or money given to it (as they used to do when building new towns) building outside it’s boundary unless it sees an extension of it’s own boundaries. The idea that Manchester will be allowed to override Bury in turn Bury override Lancashire is a planning and administrative nightmare. Potential developments will get bogged down in the courts whether pitting one LA against another or environmentalists against the planners unless you launch a full scale reform of local government

The truth is 200,000 homes will not be built a year. Planning, buying land, clearing land, building roads, hooking areas up to the grid and actually building while trying to steer a project through potential legal challenges will mean that most developments probably won’t start until the end of the first term. If you build a new town even of say 10,000 people, you still have to build associated infrastructure, such as roads and by-passes that extend beyond the footprint of the town. You’re giving rural and suburban Tories a huge electoral gift here.

If 200,000 homes actually were built in the first year then be very, very cautious of their quality because there’s no way to build planned developments in that short space of time. There are very few ‘shovel ready’ projects. Lastly, cities, mets and corporations don’t build homes anymore like they did in Macmillans day; all developments from house building to renovation and repair tend to be carried out by contracted private companies. There are legal requirements to put contracts out to tender. In either event you are essentially giving private companies public money and lot’s of it to build public homes.

I’m saying this as someone who is very much in favour of a house building programme, though within the existing footprints of cities.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 25, 2013, 09:54:58 AM
Ed confirms he's up for the debates in 2015. Just Dave holding out now...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on September 25, 2013, 11:24:59 AM
The Tories can push for better regulation of the industry rather than promise a rash, short term freeze.

Then do it now.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 25, 2013, 01:20:08 PM
The Tories won't be pushing for any meaningful regulation of the energy sector for a whole range of reasons. Some are ideological. One is the fact that the industry's chief shill is none other than the extraordinarily awful Angela Knight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Knight), one time Tory MP and Economic Secretary to the Treasury and former chief shill for the banking industry.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on September 25, 2013, 01:29:36 PM
The Tories won't be pushing for any meaningful regulation of the energy sector for a whole range of reasons. Some are ideological. One is the fact that the industry's chief shill is none other than the extraordinarily awful Angela Knight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Knight), one time Tory MP and Economic Secretary to the Treasury and former chief shill for the banking industry.

As I said, the energy policy (with average household savings per day in the pennies for a short while) isn't the big problem. It's the housing policy; committing yourself to the biggest house building program since the 1950's by instigating a 1950's style 'f-ck you' approach to planning is dangerous particularly at the time that local authorities have ambition and have approaches (such as refurbishing old stock and replacing post-war housing) that don't require planning changes to get them off the ground, but money.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on September 25, 2013, 07:40:02 PM
Lovely timing:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24273838

Interesting to see the polling in the next couple of days.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 26, 2013, 08:11:26 AM
Lovely timing:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24273838

Interesting to see the polling in the next couple of days.

"When it was question of to cap banker's bonuses or not, he sided with the bankers." - There you go Ed.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on September 26, 2013, 03:09:22 PM
Interesting to see the polling in the next couple of days.

YouGov polls since Sunday (dates are those of the fieldwork):
19/20 Sept: Lab 39 Con 33 LD 14 UKIP 9
22/23 Sept: Lab 40 Con 32 UKIP 12 LD 10
23/24 Sept: Lab 39 Con 34 LD 10 UKIP 10
24/25 Sept: Lab 41 Con 32 UKIP 11 LD 8

In the last one (released this morning) Miliband's figure in the "best Prime Minister" question is up from 21% the last time the question was asked (two weeks ago) to 26%, coming from Don't Knows.  (Cameron is on 35% and Clegg on 5%, both pretty much unchanged.)  He does get the best score among 2010 Lib Dem voters, though only on 26% (19% for Cameron and 16% for Clegg).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on September 27, 2013, 01:06:18 AM
Interesting to see the polling in the next couple of days.

YouGov polls since Sunday (dates are those of the fieldwork):
19/20 Sept: Lab 39 Con 33 LD 14 UKIP 9
22/23 Sept: Lab 40 Con 32 UKIP 12 LD 10
23/24 Sept: Lab 39 Con 34 LD 10 UKIP 10
24/25 Sept: Lab 41 Con 32 UKIP 11 LD 8

In the last one (released this morning) Miliband's figure in the "best Prime Minister" question is up from 21% the last time the question was asked (two weeks ago) to 26%, coming from Don't Knows.  (Cameron is on 35% and Clegg on 5%, both pretty much unchanged.)  He does get the best score among 2010 Lib Dem voters, though only on 26% (19% for Cameron and 16% for Clegg).

25/26 Sept: Lab 40 Con 33 UKIP 11 LD 9

Things do seem to have picked up a bit for Labour (though there must be some suspicion that last week's two bad polls for them were just outliers) but there's nothing very dramatic.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on September 27, 2013, 12:30:24 PM
Yeah. YouGov ran a Con/UKIP hypothetical which is pretty telling.

Normal VI:
40% Lab
33% Con
11% UKIP
9% Lib
6% Oth

Hypothetical alliance:
45% Lab
35% Con/UKIP
11% Lib
9% Oth


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 27, 2013, 01:35:11 PM
particularly at the time that local authorities have ambition and have approaches (such as refurbishing old stock and replacing post-war housing) that don't require planning changes to get them off the ground, but money.

Won't work; never works. At least not on its own.

I do agree that caution is not always a bad thing and that any proposals for a major house building drive would need to be thought through as carefully as possible (as was the case in the 40s but not the 50s or 60s), but a fundamental change of direction is sorely needed. Housing policy has been shortsighted since 1970 and actively disastrous since 1979; political discourse has to change before policy does (we have a housing crisis, but that's not enough to cause change on its own), and if it takes loose language, then it takes loose language...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on September 28, 2013, 10:28:00 AM
Stumbled across this Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/user/littleglitterbug?feature=watch). Comprehensively defeated so many right-wing arguments better than I've seen any ministers do, such a waste of talent.

lol perhaps not for long, she was at the Labour conference (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24205627) arguing for socialism just before the 1 min mark. I figured out who she reminds me of: Victoria Coren.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on September 29, 2013, 07:31:06 AM
The latest Sunday Times YG (http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/zxldrzv2x9/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-270913.pdf) has a bit of a bounce for Labour/Miliband, with all but voting for 16 reasonably popular.

42% Lab
31% Con
13% UKIP
  9% Lib
  6% Oth

Both Tories and UKIP are split down the middle on whether there should be a pact, and it would be self-defeating (as evidenced above) anyway. 


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 29, 2013, 11:19:26 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2435751/GEOFFREY-LEVY-SATURDAY-ESSAY-Red-Eds-pledge-bring-socialism-homage-Marxist-father.html

Vile.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on September 29, 2013, 11:25:23 AM
Why bother posting it? Leftists do the DM a tremendous service every time they rush to post their sh**t in disgust.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Marokai Backbeat on September 29, 2013, 11:54:37 AM
Indeed. Though, it is quite worthy of disgust.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on September 29, 2013, 12:07:24 PM
They don't call it the Daily Heil for nothing.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 29, 2013, 01:12:28 PM
To be fair, I only posted it because EdM himself tweeted about it.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on September 29, 2013, 01:16:44 PM
lol in that case I don't think tremendous is quite strong enough.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: dead0man on September 29, 2013, 04:16:00 PM
Remember when it was just the olds and Fundies that were for censorship?  Now student unions are the bad guys. (http://www.gigwise.com/news/84376/5-universities-ban-robin-thickes-blurred-lines) (**warning** barely clothed woman at link **warning**)

...kids these days...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on September 29, 2013, 04:26:11 PM
Remember when it was just the olds and Fundies that were for censorship?  Now student unions are the bad guys. (http://www.gigwise.com/news/84376/5-universities-ban-robin-thickes-blurred-lines) (**warning** barely clothed woman at link **warning**)

...kids these days...

Unis and left-wingers have been campaigning against and boycotting The Sun for an age now - and rightly so.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 29, 2013, 05:51:37 PM
Osborne set to announce that the long term unemployed will have to go to the Job Centre every day and be seen to be looking for work, potentially all day. That or do community work.

Quote
"He's always strong when standing up to the weak, but weak when it comes to standing up to the strong."


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on September 29, 2013, 06:47:50 PM
Guillotine.

So we won't be seeing the back of the leadership debates, sadly, now Cameron's confirmed his presence. Not only am I pissed off at Labour for pressing the issue with these (and in doing so keeping them alive), but it doesn't even make sense - two coalition partners ganging up on an already awkward-sounding Ed, sounds like a f**king stupid move.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: dead0man on September 29, 2013, 06:55:42 PM
Remember when it was just the olds and Fundies that were for censorship?  Now student unions are the bad guys. (http://www.gigwise.com/news/84376/5-universities-ban-robin-thickes-blurred-lines) (**warning** barely clothed woman at link **warning**)

...kids these days...

Unis and left-wingers have been campaigning against and boycotting The Sun for an age now - and rightly so.
Indeed, I shouldn't be surprised when left wingers want to censorship things.  It's got to be a little disheartening to the less authoritarian liberal though.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: freefair on September 29, 2013, 08:03:43 PM
I actually really like my (80% female) student union, they're quite socially liberal and Blurred Lines has been played in their disco. Also they actually care about  and care for the students here, unlike others which are used massage future political careers. I know one of them likes Boris Johnson at least on a personal level. Though that said here even the heads of campus Labour and Tories are actually quite friendly with eachother.
Awesome place.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: traininthedistance on September 30, 2013, 12:45:02 AM
The first problem Labour have is planning; Labour have floated the relaxation of planning laws and the abilities of some towns/cities to be given a ‘right to grow’ beyond their own boundaries overriding neighbouring towns and authorities. Planning laws are there for a reason, a ‘free for all’ for the housing sector is not conducive to maintaining respect for the green belt and the urban footprint.

Wait, Labour's really proposing that?  Horrifying.

(Yes, this of all things is the sort of thing that I'd get up in arms about.)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on September 30, 2013, 08:10:52 AM
Remember when it was just the olds and Fundies that were for censorship?  Now student unions are the bad guys. (http://www.gigwise.com/news/84376/5-universities-ban-robin-thickes-blurred-lines) (**warning** barely clothed woman at link **warning**)

...kids these days...

Unis and left-wingers have been campaigning against and boycotting The Sun for an age now - and rightly so.
Indeed, I shouldn't be surprised when left wingers want to censorship things.  It's got to be a little disheartening to the less authoritarian liberal though.

Meh show me a liberal, and I'll find something they want to censor. Same with 'libertarian' right-wingers as well.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: dead0man on September 30, 2013, 08:42:23 AM
Meh show me a liberal, and I'll find something they want to censor.
maybe
Quote
Same with 'libertarian' right-wingers as well.
Really?....what do I want to censor?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on September 30, 2013, 08:55:31 AM
I have no idea, but I'd bet nudity in some form.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 30, 2013, 09:00:23 AM
Y'know what grates on me? Chancellors of either party who constantly use fuel duty freezes as a tool for a nice headline.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on September 30, 2013, 09:32:54 AM
()

Too generous, if anything.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: DC Al Fine on September 30, 2013, 09:36:18 AM
Equivalents for Labour/LibDems/UKIP?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: dead0man on September 30, 2013, 09:50:57 AM
I have no idea, but I'd bet nudity in some form.
I'd prefer a person not have sex at the local grade school playground during school hours, past that I don't really care too much about nudity and think we're too prudish a culture.  Especially when concerning our popular art, whatever that may include.

But even if I'm against nudity on film I'd still be a better human being than somebody that wants to ban a newspaper for printing politics they disagree with.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on September 30, 2013, 10:13:44 AM
But even if I'm against nudity on film I'd still be a better human being than somebody that wants to ban a newspaper for printing politics they disagree with.

Google Page 3 and get a clue, thnx.


The poll (http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/veojcgbs71/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-230913-Conservatives.pdf) commissioned only asked about Tories, sadly. I have been able to find an older poll (http://cdn.yougov.com/today_uk_import/YG-Archives-Pol-PolicyNetwork-SouthernDiscomfortAgain-270810.pdf) with corresponding Lab/Con, but not Liberal, and I suspect there are no UKIP answers out there.

                    Lab   Con
Immigrants          +34   -43
Benefit claimants   +47   -62
Working class       +27   -49
Middle class        -15   +50
Trade unions        +53   -66
Women                +8    -4
Families            +21    -2
Homeowners          -20   +29
Elderly              +2   -19
Businessmen         -20   +73
Rich                -29   +78
[...]in South       -15   +61
[..]North/Scotland  +28   -55


[...] = People living (/in)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: dead0man on September 30, 2013, 10:28:56 AM
But even if I'm against nudity on film I'd still be a better human being than somebody that wants to ban a newspaper for printing politics they disagree with.

Google Page 3 and get a clue, thnx.
No need to Google as I already know what you're on about it.  So you want to ban the newspaper because of the nudity in it and not because of what's printed in it?  I suppose that's better, but still a really REALLY stupid reason to want to ban something.  But most bans are really REALLY stupid, so you've got a lot of company.  Not good company of course, but I'm sure you're used to that.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on September 30, 2013, 11:08:01 AM
No need to Google as I already know what you're on about it.  So you want to ban the newspaper because of the nudity in it and not because of what's printed in it?  I suppose that's better, but still a really REALLY stupid reason to want to ban something.  But most bans are really REALLY stupid, so you've got a lot of company.  Not good company of course, but I'm sure you're used to that.

Well I thought that'd be obvious to everyone given I'd mentioned The Sun and not every right-wing paper going. But yeah, I oppose the casual sexual objectification that's served up everyday with one of our national newspapers, and the double standards that allow it to be.

It seems you're quite happy to ban nudity yourself, so you're part of my company (which admittedly is unsettling).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on September 30, 2013, 11:28:48 AM
The opposition to "Blurred Lines" is on account of lyrics that may or may not condone rape.

Robin Thicke has a right to sing the song... and the university SUs have an equal right to choose not to play it.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on September 30, 2013, 11:51:26 AM
The opposition to "Blurred Lines" is on account of lyrics that may or may not condone rape.

lol even more justified then.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: dead0man on September 30, 2013, 11:53:13 AM
It seems you're quite happy to ban nudity yourself
You keep saying this, I don't know why you have this impression.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on September 30, 2013, 12:02:23 PM
Well this:

I have no idea, but I'd bet nudity in some form.
I'd prefer a person not have sex at the local grade school playground during school hours, past that I don't really care too much about nudity and think we're too prudish a culture.  Especially when concerning our popular art, whatever that may include.

But even if I'm against nudity on film I'd still be a better human being than somebody that wants to ban a newspaper for printing politics they disagree with.

It seemed as if you were happy to accept you condone some forms of censorship (even whilst admitting you're more libertarian than most people), but decided that it was the (perceived) political censorship that set you apart/put you above leftists.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: dead0man on September 30, 2013, 12:29:13 PM
No sir, I should have been more clear.  Nudity laws are silly.  If ladies want to dance naked, let 'em.  If women want to play tennis topless, I'm cool with that (encourage it even!).  If dudes want to play basketball nude in a place that is obviously for adults, knock yourselves out fellas.  If newspapers want people to take them substantially less serious by printing topless ladies, I'm all for it.

I'm against censorship whether it be political or prudish in nature.


My apologies for thinking you wanted to ban the Sun for political reasons.  I still think it's wrong, but I was incorrect in thinking it was over politics.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on September 30, 2013, 04:10:45 PM
No sir, I should have been more clear.  Nudity laws are silly.  If ladies want to dance naked, let 'em.  If women want to play tennis topless, I'm cool with that (encourage it even!).  If dudes want to play basketball nude in a place that is obviously for adults, knock yourselves out fellas.  If newspapers want people to take them substantially less serious by printing topless ladies, I'm all for it.

I'm against censorship whether it be political or prudish in nature.

My apologies for thinking you wanted to ban the Sun for political reasons.  I still think it's wrong, but I was incorrect in thinking it was over politics.

That's fair enough, and I'd naturally disagree with your liberalism (at least under present conditions).

Although I don't quite understand why you've included this (bit I've bolded) qualification, after all you've said, it sounds like a condition, and thus a contradiction? Unless you're saying you'd look dimly at it (without said adult environment), but allow it nonetheless?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: dead0man on September 30, 2013, 04:35:31 PM
I'm just saying dudes shouldn't play naked basketball at the local grade school, but at the more adult orientated park down the street, or better yet, something like a bar or club....surewhynot?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on October 01, 2013, 02:19:41 AM
Here is Ed Miliband's reply to the Daily Hate Mail's attack on his father:
http://labourpress.tumblr.com/post/62751616247/ed-miliband-my-dad-was-a-man-who-loved-britain


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on October 01, 2013, 11:26:40 AM
The Daily Fail published that... and on the same page published a bigger editorial defending their position and also an abridged version of the article on Saturday.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on October 01, 2013, 05:35:01 PM
While waiting for a Celtic match you can have hours of fun going through microfiche of the Daily Mail in the 1930's. It's really quite something.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on October 02, 2013, 05:50:58 AM
Cameron should be hoping for some 'cut-through' with his speech (that goes without saying, ofc) because this Tory conference has been pretty dull.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on October 02, 2013, 09:39:18 AM
Funny how Dave's speech was basically a response to Ed "geeky, weird, unelectable" Miliband that the Tories so scoff at. No policy, no substance.

"Land of opportunity" is basically a rightist 'One Nation'.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on October 02, 2013, 11:28:56 AM
The problem with the Labour government in the 1970s was that there wasn't one... Labour never had a working majority and most of the time didn't have a majority, full stop.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on October 02, 2013, 04:51:33 PM
The problem with the Labour government in the 1970s was that there wasn't one... Labour never had a working majority and most of the time didn't have a majority, full stop.

Funny how that's the line the Tories used when a hung parliament looked likely in the last campaign.

But now the problems in the 1970s were because Labour was too powerful.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: TTS1996 on October 03, 2013, 10:08:59 AM
Funny how Dave's speech was basically a response to Ed "geeky, weird, unelectable" Miliband that the Tories so scoff at. No policy, no substance.

"Land of opportunity" is basically a rightist 'One Nation'.
Isn't 'One Nation' a right wing idea in Britain?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on October 03, 2013, 02:51:07 PM
Yeah, pretty much. Labour have co-opted it though.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on October 04, 2013, 01:23:56 PM
Nice rant:
http://www.theguardian.com/media/video/2013/oct/04/medhi-hassan-daily-mail-question-time-video


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 04, 2013, 04:20:08 PM
The Daily Mail is a disgusting rag and Dacre is pond scum.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on October 05, 2013, 10:18:36 AM
Nice rant:
http://www.theguardian.com/media/video/2013/oct/04/medhi-hassan-daily-mail-question-time-video

Mehdi made a better rant, I thought, demolishing the Tories 'earn or learn' excuse for dropping their obligation to young people, but it's typical that's completely ignored for this.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 07, 2013, 11:50:28 AM
Reshuffle day today.

Biggest news on the government side is the sacking of arch-numptie Michael Moore as Secretary of State for Scotland. He's been replaced by Alistair Carmichael, previously the LibDem Chief Whip (and MP for Orkney & Shetland). Movement elsewhere isn't particularly dramatic; seems that now-former Tory Deputy Chief Whip John Randall's decision to take the hit for the Syria vote humiliation has prevented a wider clear out of the Whips Office.

More movement on the Labour side, with Byrne and Twigg being rewarded for their incompetence and dropped from the Shadcab (though have taken shadow junior spots) and Murphy being rewarded for his factionalist sh!t stirring with a demotion (Defence to International Development). Rachel Reeves replaces Byrne at Work & Pensions, Tristram Hunt replaces Twigg at Education, and Vernon Coaker gets Defence. Various other people have been swapped around, but you can read about that elsewhere. New faces include Hunt (Education), Chris Leslie (Shad Chief Sec to the Treasury), and Gloria De Piero (Women).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 07, 2013, 12:00:39 PM
seems that now-former Tory Deputy Chief Whip John Randall's decision to take the hit for the Syria vote humiliation has prevented a wider clear out of the Whips Office.

Or perhaps not.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 07, 2013, 12:02:41 PM
Insane conspiracy theorist fruitcake Norman Baker has been moved from a junior Transport post to a junior Home Office post. This does not strike me as being a good thing.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Andrea on October 07, 2013, 12:03:38 PM
Tory reshuffle as exepected

Some bizarre moves by LD. Baker to Home Office? Resurection of Susan Kramer?

On Labour side, the highlight is the demotion of Jim Murphy.
Twigg and Byrne were always going to be at risk because of their tenure.
Good movie promoting Leslie. I would use Smith is something wider than Wales.
I would have sent Benn back to backbenches.
Has Jack Dromey been sacked?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on October 07, 2013, 01:23:44 PM
Yes, Dromey has gone from Housing.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on October 07, 2013, 03:14:29 PM
Insane conspiracy theorist fruitcake Norman Baker has been moved from a junior Transport post to a junior Home Office post. This does not strike me as being a good thing.

It wouldn't be hard for him to be an improvement on Jeremy Browne, though.

I see the Guardian's online headline on the Labour reshuffle contains the words "Miliband targets Blairites", though at least some of the reporting recognises that that's simplistic.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on October 07, 2013, 05:49:40 PM
Yeah, as much as I'm glad to see the back of Byrne, Twigg and Murphy, I'm not imagining their replacements will set much of a different course.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Andrea on October 08, 2013, 12:11:32 PM

he has been moved to Police today


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 08, 2013, 04:37:16 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/08/norman-baker-conspiracy-theorists


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 09, 2013, 11:26:37 AM
Sir Menzies Campbell, who looks considerably older than his seventy two years, is to retire at the next election. He's held N.E. Fife since 1987 and was once the leader of the LibDems for about five seconds.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 09, 2013, 12:44:49 PM
It wouldn't be hard for him to be an improvement on Jeremy Browne, though.

This is undeniably true. Browne was one of the worst members of the government.

Quote
I see the Guardian's online headline on the Labour reshuffle contains the words "Miliband targets Blairites", though at least some of the reporting recognises that that's simplistic.

Of course what actually happened was that three right-wingers were sacked or demoted and three right-wingers were promoted ;D

Talking of which, is it even possible to have a more stereotypically 'traditional Labour Right' name than 'Vernon Rodney Coaker'?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on October 09, 2013, 12:48:01 PM
Sir Menzies Campbell, who looks considerably older than his seventy two years, is to retire at the next election. He's held N.E. Fife since 1987 and was once the leader of the LibDems for about five seconds.

The only stalwarts that might help the Lib Dems retain seats seem to be retiring (Malcolm Bruce etc)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on October 09, 2013, 12:56:24 PM
It wouldn't be hard for him to be an improvement on Jeremy Browne, though.

This is undeniably true. Browne was one of the worst members of the government.

Never tire of punching that smug face of his.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on October 09, 2013, 02:00:38 PM
Sir Menzies Campbell, who looks considerably older than his seventy two years, is to retire at the next election. He's held N.E. Fife since 1987 and was once the leader of the LibDems for about five seconds.

The only stalwarts that might help the Lib Dems retain seats seem to be retiring (Malcolm Bruce etc)

A quick check suggests the only Lib Dem MPs elected before 1992 who have not announced their retirements are Charles Kennedy and Simon Hughes.  From 1992 there's also Don Foster and Nick Harvey.

It isn't clear which party might benefit from Campbell's retirement.  The SNP won the equivalent seat at Holyrood on a big swing, but it's an open question whether they'll be able to repeat performances like that in a Westminster election.  The seat was Tory until 1987, but then so was Manchester Withington :).  It wouldn't surprise me if it was a fairly close four-way result.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Hnv1 on October 09, 2013, 04:16:15 PM
Could any knowledgeable poster elaborate on the current status of the House of Lords? is it going to be reformed soon? does it serve any actual function as of now?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on October 09, 2013, 05:53:13 PM
Could any knowledgeable poster elaborate on the current status of the House of Lords? is it going to be reformed soon? does it serve any actual function as of now?

The Liberals pushed for a portion of the Lords to be elected (15 year terms, term-limited) but the Tories said no, as you'd expect, and Labour thought the proposals were unworkable, so they were dropped.

It does serve a function, just not a very significant one and the House of Commons can go over its head in most cases. It really just been used to slow things down lately. The Health and Social Care Act had a hard time and parts of Labour filibustered the AV bill for a good few days.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 09, 2013, 06:01:47 PM
Could any knowledgeable poster elaborate on the current status of the House of Lords?

An ever-increasing House of Patronage, though the (comparatively) small number of Hereditaries left after the Blair reforms are still there as well. Its growing so much at the moment because the Tories aren't used to governing without a majority in the Lords.

Quote
is it going to be reformed soon?

No.

Quote
does it serve any actual function as of now?

It continues to function as a revising chamber.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on October 10, 2013, 12:12:57 PM
Sir Menzies Campbell, who looks considerably older than his seventy two years, is to retire at the next election. He's held N.E. Fife since 1987 and was once the leader of the LibDems for about five seconds.

The only stalwarts that might help the Lib Dems retain seats seem to be retiring (Malcolm Bruce etc)

A quick check suggests the only Lib Dem MPs elected before 1992 who have not announced their retirements are Charles Kennedy and Simon Hughes. 

Both of whom seem more likely to defect than to retire... or be defeated.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on October 12, 2013, 11:08:44 AM
David Heath, LibDem MP for Somerton and Frome to stand down in 2015.

The Liberal's 8th seat on their defense list and the Tories were already in with a good shout here for 2015. +1 Tory.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on October 13, 2013, 03:56:46 PM
David Heath, LibDem MP for Somerton and Frome to stand down in 2015.

The Liberal's 8th seat on their defense list and the Tories were already in with a good shout here for 2015. +1 Tory.

Heath's electoral record is curious in that he won Somerton and Vroom in four consecutive elections but always with very thin majorities.  In fact his 1817 majority over Annunziata Rees-Mogg (sister of Jacob) in 2010 was the first time it had been in four digits.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 13, 2013, 06:24:27 PM
Shades of the Faversham constituency in the post-war era.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on October 15, 2013, 12:03:59 PM
Oxford Vice Chancellor says that they should be able to charge £16,000 tuition because "excellence isn't cheap". Not wanting to be sick on someone yet?

In response, Nick Clegg pledges not to raise fees to £16,000; the Honourable Member for Sheffield Hallam once again confirming his total lack of self awareness.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on October 15, 2013, 05:02:47 PM
Some very disturbing developments re 'Plebgate'; a Police Federation stitch up from start to finish.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 17, 2013, 11:52:45 AM
Free School debacle, cont.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-24548690


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on October 17, 2013, 11:58:50 AM
Interesting that polls are still narrowing despite a fairly strong uplift in EdM's personal ratings (he's now back to having a net (albeit narrow) lead over DC).

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8259


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Lurker on October 17, 2013, 06:56:31 PM
Is that poll somewhat of an outlier? It's the only one I've heard of in along time where Labour hasn't lead the Tories.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on October 18, 2013, 02:01:34 AM
Is that poll somewhat of an outlier? It's the only one I've heard of in along time where Labour hasn't lead the Tories.

MORI use an aggressive turnout filter which (a) makes their effective sample size quite low and (b) is likely to reduce the Labour figure more than the other parties' (though I think it doesn't always work like that).

YouGov had one poll earlier this week which put the Tories on 37, but other than that their typical figures at the moment are something like Lab 38 to 40, Con 33 to 35, UKIP 10 to 12, LD 8 to 10.  (Today's is 40/34/11/9.)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on October 18, 2013, 06:12:27 AM
There has been a narrowing of the polls (YouGov posted a trend graph a few days ago) and even post conference they have returned to where they were. It's good news for the Conservatives this far out from the GE.

We are currently undergoing a little Osbourne boomlet which while not immediately apparent in wages or prices (how 1970’s) is showing in the property market, the financial markets and other drivers of the economy. Those issues are the ‘donkey’ and cost of living issues are the ‘cart’ of economic recovery with the Tories focusing on the former and Labour on the latter. What other issues might point towards a Conservative recovery?

The truth is, the Tories haven’t had a ‘clusterf-ck’ so far. Indeed the Conservatives had a fairly lasting honeymoon with the electorate taking a huge noticeable dip after the omnishambles budget of April 2012. This also sowed the seeds of the UKIP surge which peaked (so far) a year later. However despite this, nothing the Conservatives have done either in the country or to themselves (and everyone has to take off their partisan hats here) has been noticeable catastrophic; by which I mean running into huge opposition across the opposition, the floating voters and their own base. Europe has generally been off the table and the party would do well to keep it that way. The marriage issue has subsided. The changes to the benefits system and the ‘Bedroom Tax’ are not making much noise within the Tory target groups and Labour have essentially accepted the status quo. Remember when the government was defeated over military action in Syria and the PM accepted it? It won’t be long before you forget about that. Royal Mail has just been privatised without a fuss. I want to say that again; Royal Mail has just been privatised without a fuss. This is an issue which dogged successive Tory and Labour governments however an organisation which still has a ‘beloved’ status, despite our grumblings over service, has just been sold off. It is worth noting of course that this sea change of indifference has much to do with changes in communication and the reduced role that the postal system has in our lives.

In the polls we have ICM with a gap of four, YouGov with a gap of four (which is very bouncy bouncy). It’s enough for Labour, probably, but it leaves them with little wriggle room. If the Lib Dems move back up and polls suggest a flood of current switchers to Labour then Labour will fall. If UKIP fade, then the Tories may benefit. It’s worth noting for comparison that in the first two weeks after Labour’s defeat in 2010, they were polling at around 32% with the Lib Dems at 21%. So even immediately after an election the polls weren't quite close to the election result weeks previously.

The Tories aren’t tanking, which is what they tend to do in between governments (and out of government in the Blair years) and that is important.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 18, 2013, 12:35:41 PM
RIP Norman Geras (1943-2013)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Tetro Kornbluth on October 18, 2013, 12:55:50 PM

:(


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on October 19, 2013, 11:31:45 PM
See disgraced MP Eric Joyce is issuing more anti-Unite drivel.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on October 20, 2013, 04:29:43 PM
()

A few weeks have gone by since conference, letting bounces and announcements sink in, so I thought it was worth a check-in with YouGov's leader tracker.

Ed's maintaining his bounce, unlike last year, and Labour'll be happy that his big conference announcement is still being talked about, unlike last year.

Cameron's still on the up and has been all summer and Clegg's still hated.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on October 20, 2013, 05:15:28 PM
Ed's maintaining his bounce, unlike last year, and Labour'll be happy that his big conference announcement is still being talked about, unlike last year.

However his rating's worse post-2013 conference than it was pre-2012 conference...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Serenity Now on October 21, 2013, 06:05:54 AM
Tory MP tells one-legged wheelchair beggar to 'get a job'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/tory-mp-tells-onelegged-wheelchair-beggar-to-get-a-job-8893763.html


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 21, 2013, 11:26:16 AM
My, my, Shropshire's Tory MPs are distinguishing themselves at the moment, aren't they?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on October 23, 2013, 11:16:55 AM
Ed's maintaining his bounce, unlike last year, and Labour'll be happy that his big conference announcement is still being talked about, unlike last year.

However his rating's worse post-2013 conference than it was pre-2012 conference...

Number of voters for each party leader... is going to be under 50,000 each.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on October 23, 2013, 12:11:28 PM
The bastards axed Grangemouth.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on October 23, 2013, 12:25:35 PM
Greedy scumbags.

Ed's maintaining his bounce, unlike last year, and Labour'll be happy that his big conference announcement is still being talked about, unlike last year.

However his rating's worse post-2013 conference than it was pre-2012 conference...

Number of voters for each party leader... is going to be under 50,000 each.

Indeed - I'm just putting the recent bounce into context. Not one of those who believes elections are won on the basis of the leaders popularity.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 23, 2013, 12:39:11 PM
Disgusting.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on October 23, 2013, 03:58:04 PM
For the lowdown on Grangemouth

http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/robin-mcalpine/whats-really-happening-at-grangemouth-and-what-it-tells-us#.UmgO3BOWVdR.twitter

Cracking idea Grommit...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on October 23, 2013, 05:20:45 PM
Hope Eric Joyce throws a punch next time at an oncoming vehicle.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 23, 2013, 06:22:15 PM
That's more than a little reductionist.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on October 23, 2013, 06:49:45 PM
Looks like pretty clear cut Ineos apologism to my eyes, but no doubt there's some convoluted reasoning out there that makes his blogs blaming it all on Unite and its 'militancy' just constructive criticism - I suppose the Tories' approach could even fall under that very same umbrella, so far reaching it'd have to be. :P


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Cassius on October 24, 2013, 01:01:10 PM
And the award for idiotic leftist attention seeker of the month goes to Russell Brand.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on October 24, 2013, 01:06:22 PM
Says the Abbott fan.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on October 24, 2013, 04:35:48 PM
So today I saw a shifty looking person with a pale child. Naturally I assumed they were a thieving gypo and called the authorities. Took a great comparison pic for the Daily Mail too but sadly it didn't make the cut as it's 'Tits Out Thursday.'


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on October 26, 2013, 03:16:43 AM
Jack Straw is to retire as MP for Blackburn (http://"http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/25/labour-mp-jack-straw-resign-2015-election") (which he's held since 1979) at the next election, so we won't be having two Straws in the next parliament whatever happens in Rossendale and Darwen.

On this side of the Pennines, the five Bradford councillors elected for Respect have confirmed that they've permanently left the party (http://"http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/25/bradford-respect-party-councillors-resign-george-galloway") (after initially doing so in August).  Does this mean that George Galloway himself is now Respect's only elected representative?




Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Cassius on October 26, 2013, 03:43:16 PM
I hope not, given that Respect, the general silliness of its policies aside, provides some nice, light comic relief, as the UK wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, catering for fake Muslims.... Where would British politics be without George Galloway :)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Goodwin on October 30, 2013, 03:30:50 PM
And the award for idiotic leftist attention seeker of the month goes to Russell Brand.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/10/robert-webb-re-joins-labour-protest-russell-brand

Comedian Robert Webb's response to Brand.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on October 31, 2013, 01:44:20 PM
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100243898/ed-miliband-is-a-real-baseball-fan-better-than-being-a-fake-football-fan-like-most-politicians/

An article by Dan Hodges praising Ed Miliband. ::)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 01, 2013, 01:26:29 PM
Yewtree latest: Paul Gambaccini arrested. I'm sure that everyone is completely and entirely shocked by this very surprising development.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 08, 2013, 07:32:11 PM
Former BBC political editor John Cole (him of the big coat and bigger glasses) has died aged 85.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on November 10, 2013, 06:47:54 PM
I dunno what to make of Lammy. Sometimes his stances really irritate me, but he can be rhetorically impressive. I suppose that amounts to a left-wing campaign but right-wing governance... not that it matters, with a London-wide primary Labour will probably ensure their candidate's far too nondescript to dabble with any left-wing stances (as I presume they want - why else would they pick such an infuriatingly stupid way to choose their candidate).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on November 11, 2013, 07:44:04 PM
Lovely ICM poll this month for EdM.

Lab 38 (nc)
Con 30 (-4)
LD 13 (+1)
UKIP 10 (+2)

Preferred Prime Minister:
Cameron 32
Miliband 27
Farage 13
Clegg 8

()


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Goodwin on November 13, 2013, 06:01:36 AM
Preferred Prime Minister:
Cameron 32
Miliband 27
Farage 13
Clegg 8


Jesus.

Meanwhile back on Monday night, our glorious leader, dressed in a tuxedo surrounded by shiny gold things, spoke about having permanent austerity. Remember We're all in this together.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/11/12/david-cameron-austerity_n_4258733.html


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on November 13, 2013, 12:06:23 PM
But not permanent records of speeches... (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24924185)

I can imagine the Labour members' email now.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on November 13, 2013, 04:31:14 PM
I see the BBC is treating us to more blatantly biased (and equally sh**t) documentaries from Dominic Sandbrook.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Cassius on November 13, 2013, 05:29:36 PM
I see the BBC is treating us to more blatantly biased (and equally sh**t) documentaries from Dominic Sandbrook.

What didn't you like about it. The astonishing revelation that the Soviet Union was no paradise. That spies are traitors?

Even if it is 'biased', all its doing is evening out the rather weighty bias towards the left that exists on the BBC.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on November 13, 2013, 05:33:21 PM
I see the BBC is treating us to more blatantly biased (and equally sh**t) documentaries from Dominic Sandbrook.

I thought the one on the 1970s was pretty good.

Though, the general rule is if I like something, then you shouldn't. :P


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on November 13, 2013, 06:05:31 PM
I see the BBC is treating us to more blatantly biased (and equally sh**t) documentaries from Dominic Sandbrook.

I thought the one on the 1970s was pretty good.

Though, the general rule is if I like something, then you shouldn't. :P

It was exactly what you'd expect from someone who'd (subsequently) write this (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2432626/Ed-Milibands-Marxist-father-real-reason-wants-drag-1970s-DOMINIC-SANDBROOK.html), with absolutely nothing done to disguise its tone. Having never heard of him, I went in with an open mind and found it wasn't long before I was sure he was a Telegraph columnist: turns out it's worse.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 13, 2013, 07:26:15 PM
I didn't bother to watch it as I have an exceedingly low opinion of Dominic Sandbrook (not because of his politics, but because he's a lousy historian. And acted as a consultant to the godawful White Heat last year. For that he will surely burn in Hell). What sort of stuff did he argue?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Tetro Kornbluth on November 13, 2013, 07:57:34 PM
I consider Sandbrook more an entertainer who deals in historical facts than an historian.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 13, 2013, 07:58:48 PM
I consider Sandbrook more an entertainer who deals in historical facts than an historian.

Though he's often a little fuzzy on those 'facts'.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Tetro Kornbluth on November 13, 2013, 07:59:37 PM
I consider Sandbrook more an entertainer who deals in historical facts than an historian.

Though he's often a little fuzzy on those 'facts'.

'Deals in' is a term with many wide applications.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 15, 2013, 01:51:40 PM
Bizarre interview: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/nov/15/iceland-boss-malcolm-walker-interview


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on November 15, 2013, 01:54:03 PM
I love how his paying his workers more than the rock-bottom service-sector average has convinced the media he must be a profit-shunning, philanthropist.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on November 17, 2013, 05:36:08 AM
The media (especially certain parts of it) have been fussing a bit about Roma immigration to Sheffield from Slovakia, partly prompted by some not very well-advised comments by David Blunkett (whose constituency contains the Page Hall area, where a lot of Roma people have settled) and Nick Clegg.

Anyway, there's a reasonably level-headed article in today's Observer on the subject (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/17/roma-page-hall-sheffield).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on November 17, 2013, 11:52:55 AM
Religion in Scotland 2011 by Holyrood constituency

()


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: DC Al Fine on November 17, 2013, 01:40:35 PM
Is there any reason for the large difference between Orkney and Shetland?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on November 17, 2013, 03:53:02 PM
Is there any reason for the large difference between Orkney and Shetland?

Just very different economies; Shetlands is more skilled; increasingly oil based.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on November 20, 2013, 01:51:52 PM
Gay marriage at the 1st reading in the Scottish Parliament. Labour's Elaine Smith leading the 'No' charge with one of the most nonsensical arguments I have ever heard. Ruth Davidson and Marco Biaggi making great speeches. Green MSP Patrick Harvie talking now.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on November 20, 2013, 02:06:56 PM
Gay marriage at the 1st reading in the Scottish Parliament. Labour's Elaine Smith leading the 'No' charge with one of the most nonsensical arguments I have ever heard. Ruth Davidson and Marco Biaggi making great speeches. Green MSP Patrick Harvie talking now.

He knocks it out of the park. As does Labour's Elaine Murray.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on November 20, 2013, 03:06:18 PM
Vote coming up


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on November 20, 2013, 03:11:13 PM
Aye 98
Naw 15
Abstentions 5
Not Present 10
Vacant 1


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: bore on November 20, 2013, 04:10:38 PM
Good.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Hifly on November 20, 2013, 04:27:44 PM
Kudos to Elaine Smith for voting in the appropriate manner considering the make-up of her constituency and probably also her CLP.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on November 20, 2013, 04:32:07 PM
Kudos to Elaine Smith for voting in the appropriate manner considering the make-up of her constituency and probably also her CLP.

Given that the Social Attitudes Survey suggest support at 55% amongst Scottish Catholics (and in some polls higher; i'm intentionally being modest here) I was brought up in one of the most Catholic towns in Scotland and can assure you she's not really got her finger on the pulse.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on November 20, 2013, 04:53:34 PM
Anyway; here are the No's

Allan, Dr Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Brown, Gavin (Lothian) (Con)
Cunningham, Roseanna (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Don, Nigel (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP)
Ewing, Fergus (Inverness and Nairn) (SNP)
Fergusson, Alex (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con)
Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)
Johnstone, Alex (North East Scotland) (Con)
Lyle, Richard (Central Scotland) (SNP)
Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (SNP)
McGrigor, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con)
Milne, Nanette (North East Scotland) (Con)
Mitchell, Margaret (Central Scotland) (Con)
Smith, Elaine (Coatbridge and Chryston) (Lab)
Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con)

And the abstainers

Brodie, Chic (South Scotland) (SNP)
MacDonald, Angus (Falkirk East) (SNP)
Malik, Hanzala (Glasgow) (Lab)
McMahon, Michael (Uddingston and Bellshill) (Lab)
McMahon, Siobhan (Central Scotland) (Lab)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Cassius on November 20, 2013, 05:20:48 PM
Well, congrats to those who had the balls to vote against it (especially the Labour MSP).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on November 20, 2013, 05:25:45 PM
Well, congrats to those who had the balls to vote against it (especially the Labour MSP).

I'm afraid quite literally, she is ball-less.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Leftbehind on November 25, 2013, 02:23:40 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25034598

Feel the freedom, prosperity and abundance this century has in store for you, workers.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Tetro Kornbluth on November 25, 2013, 10:11:45 AM
While I don't want to seem blasé about this, I think there is something wonderfully appropriate about a Maoist cult leader having a slavery ring. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25084830)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 25, 2013, 02:17:50 PM
Ah, Maoists. Is it wrong to write 'called it!' in response to this development?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on November 27, 2013, 02:56:18 AM
Survation (yes, I know) constituency poll in South Thanet: Lab 35, UKIP 30, Con 28, LD 5

The 2010 result was Con 48, Lab 32, LD 15, UKIP 6.  The Tory MP, Laura Sandys, has just announced she's standing down, and this was one of the constituencies UKIP carried in the county elections in May.

The poll was commissioned by a UKIP donor, and it's apparently one of eight.  I don't know whether this was the first one they did, or whether they've just chosen to release an eye-catching one first.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/26/ukip-poll-boost-thanet



Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Cassius on November 27, 2013, 05:29:40 PM
Go on UKIP... You can do it.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends on November 27, 2013, 08:51:35 PM


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on November 28, 2013, 11:54:59 AM
And Labour finally comes out with a shortlist for Falkirk

Pam Duncan - Policy officer at disabled people's charity Inclusion Scotland. Former candidate for Labour's National Policy Forum.

Monica Lennon - Councillor in South Lanarkshire and works in Tom Greatrex's office

Karen Whitefield - Former MSP for Airdrie and Shotts 1999-2011

None were on the original shortlist.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 28, 2013, 12:22:52 PM
A bad man has died.

Or to be a little more specific, Peter Griffiths - the Conservative MP for Smethwick 1964-66 and Portsmouth North 1979-97 - has died. He was 85. He is best known for running a race-baiting campaign in 1964 that saw him gain Smethwick - and unseat Patrick Gordon Walker, the Shadow Foreign Secretary - against the national swing; for this he was branded a 'parliamentary leper' by Harold Wilson. He spent that parliament acting like a racist prick (while denying that he was one) and was defeated in 1966 by the Shakespearean actor and massive ham Andrew Faulds. He was later based in Portsmouth and was a backbencher of no consequence during the Thatcher and Major governments, eventually losing his seat on a huge swing in the 1997 landslide.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 30, 2013, 10:34:09 AM
Tory selection procedures are weird, but it's probably fair to say that Tim Yeo (MP for South Suffolk since 1983) has been half-deselected.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on November 30, 2013, 12:18:28 PM
Tory selection procedures are weird, but it's probably fair to say that Tim Yeo (MP for South Suffolk since 1983) has been half-deselected.
Details?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 30, 2013, 12:37:45 PM
Tory selection procedures are weird, but it's probably fair to say that Tim Yeo (MP for South Suffolk since 1983) has been half-deselected.
Details?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25165546



Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on November 30, 2013, 12:58:08 PM
Tory selection procedures are weird, but it's probably fair to say that Tim Yeo (MP for South Suffolk since 1983) has been half-deselected.
Details?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25165546

How does this compare with the attempt to deselect Crispin Blunt in Reigate?  IIRC Blunt failed in some initial ballot but then survived (comfortably) a vote of the membership.  The BBC article sounds like Yeo may have failed the latter stage, but could still stand in the selection process.

I wonder how much this has to do with Yeo being a relatively "green" Tory?  He does have other "issues"...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on November 30, 2013, 05:15:21 PM
Tory selection procedures are weird, but it's probably fair to say that Tim Yeo (MP for South Suffolk since 1983) has been half-deselected.
Details?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25165546

How does this compare with the attempt to deselect Crispin Blunt in Reigate?  IIRC Blunt failed in some initial ballot but then survived (comfortably) a vote of the membership.  The BBC article sounds like Yeo may have failed the latter stage, but could still stand in the selection process.

An article on the Guardian website makes it clear that this is just the first step (the one which Blunt failed) with the executive of the constituency party.  Yeo can still ask for a ballot of the local membership.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on December 03, 2013, 05:49:50 PM
Two more Survation constituency polls (commissioned by a UKIP donor):

Great Grimsby
Lab 40 UKIP 22 Con 20 LD 13
(2010 Lab 33 Con 31 LD 22 UKIP 6 BNP 5)

Dudley North
Lab 45 Con 25 UKIP 23 LD 2
(2010 Lab 39 Con 37 LD 11 UKIP 9 BNP 5)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Cassius on December 03, 2013, 05:53:58 PM
UKIP seem to be holding up rather well :)

And unsurprisingly, the UK education system is rated rather poorly.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on December 07, 2013, 06:51:34 PM
The Observer going with the Labour left being annoyed with Blairites being included in the election team, just weeks after the papers going with a 'cull of the Blairites' reshuffle. ::)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on December 08, 2013, 08:47:14 AM
Ah crap.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/08/wont-go-back-to-creationist-zoo-bristol


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on December 16, 2013, 04:48:54 PM
Last batch of these UKIP polls

Folkestone & Hythe
Tory 35% (-14)
UKIP 28% (+23)
Labour 21% (+10)
LD 10% (-20)

Bognor Regis & Littlehampton
Tory 37% (-14)
UKIP 27% (+20)
Labour 20% (+6)
LD 11% (-13)

Crewe & Nantwich (LAB gain from CON)
Labour 46% (+12)
Tory 33% (-13)
UKIP 11% (+8)
LD 6% (-9)

Great Yarmouth (LAB gain from CON)
Labour 37% (+4)
UKIP 30% (+25)
Tory 28% (-15)
LD 4% (-10)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Cassius on December 16, 2013, 04:53:25 PM
Let the bastards bleed till they can take no more.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on December 17, 2013, 03:07:52 AM
They said there would be 8, so there should be one more to come.  Maybe they're saving one with a UKIP lead (Boston & Skegness, perhaps) for last.

Overall they seem so bad for the Tories as to be difficult to believe given the national polls, even most of Survation's ones.  Perhaps the Tories are holding up better elsewhere, but where?  That said, I suppose Crewe & Nantwich, probably the nearest thing to a conventional marginal in the list, must be a candidate for an above average swing to Labour because of byelection unwind.

They're terrible for the Lib Dems too (remember, they were actually reported to be targeting Folkestone & Hythe in 2005) but that's more in line with the national polls.



Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on December 17, 2013, 06:54:52 AM
To say I don't care about constituency polls carried out eighteen months before a general election is an understatement.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on December 18, 2013, 11:00:48 AM
First Gentleman of Denmark, Stephen Kinnock-Thorning-Schmidt is thinking of going for Aberavon.

Interesting timing: an election due in Denmark in 2015 as well (probably sooner). Maybe the couple have got Helle down as a one-term wonder.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/12/17/helle-thorning-schmidt-stephen-kinnock_n_4461847.html


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 18, 2013, 11:20:11 AM
Rock solid seat. It's basically Port Talbot (home to one of the largest steelworks in Europe) and nearby ex-mining valleys, so elections have a habit of being purely ritualistic. Currently held by Dr Hywel Francis, a former Communist and noted historian of the Labour movement in South Wales. Like Stephen Kinnock he has a famous father; Dai Francis the leader of the South Wales Miners (back when that was a powerful post indeed) during the 60s and 70s.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 18, 2013, 12:03:27 PM
Ronnie Biggs had died. I mention this purely to note that the BBC are probably delighted (they're broadcasting a two-part drama about the Great Train Robbery starting tonight), and also for the comments of the General Secretary of ASLEF (train drivers union) on the news:

Quote
"While, naturally, we feel sorry for Mr Biggs' family at this time we have always regarded Biggs as a non-entity, and a criminal, who took part in a violent robbery which resulted in the death of a train driver. Jack Mills, who was 57 at the time of the robbery, never properly recovered from the injuries he suffered after being savagely coshed by the gang of which Biggs was a member that night."

Burn


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Serenity Now on December 18, 2013, 01:30:51 PM
Ronnie Biggs had died. I mention this purely to note that the BBC are probably delighted (they're broadcasting a two-part drama about the Great Train Robbery starting tonight), and also for the comments of the General Secretary of ASLEF (train drivers union) on the news:

Quote
"While, naturally, we feel sorry for Mr Biggs' family at this time we have always regarded Biggs as a non-entity, and a criminal, who took part in a violent robbery which resulted in the death of a train driver. Jack Mills, who was 57 at the time of the robbery, never properly recovered from the injuries he suffered after being savagely coshed by the gang of which Biggs was a member that night."

Burn

I like this a lot.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on December 26, 2013, 03:47:42 PM
What is it with Guardian writers forever going on about how Labour will win the next election, but Labour entering government will spell the end for them? No election's ever a "good" one to lose for any political party. No wonder they endorsed the LibDems at the last election.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/26/2015-election-destroy-labour-ed-miliband


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on December 27, 2013, 03:28:25 PM
()

And the Poll of the Year award for 2013 goes to YouGov.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 28, 2013, 12:47:49 PM
Keir Starmer - who was the DPP until earlier this year - is to advise Labour on changing the law to protect victims of rape and sexual abuse. This is also generally being seen as the first step of an entry into politics.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on December 28, 2013, 12:59:47 PM
Keir Starmer - who was the DPP until earlier this year - is to advise Labour on changing the law to protect victims of rape and sexual abuse. This is also generally being seen as the first step of an entry into politics.

Better not tweet a joke about it...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: DC Al Fine on December 28, 2013, 11:39:23 PM
()

And the Poll of the Year award for 2013 goes to YouGov.

I find it really funny that 1/25 Brits thinks Santa is a white nationalist.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on December 29, 2013, 12:34:52 PM
Farage says that we should take in Syrian refugees, UKIPers explode. Such fun.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on December 29, 2013, 12:58:21 PM
Farage says that we should take in Syrian refugees, UKIPers explode. Such fun.

Maybe now the BNP will surge in the polls too. :P


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: All Along The Watchtower on December 30, 2013, 12:20:59 AM

Quote
David Cameron has been accused of "pandering to prejudice, uncertainty and anger" as he responds to the threat posed by UKIP.

The prime minister is championing "negative, uninspiring" politics in response to immigration fears, Conservative modernisers have said, as they urged the Tory leader to tone down his harsh language on immigration and welfare claimants, arguing it is alienating voters.

Ryan Shorthouse, the head of the Bright Blue thinktank, has said that the Conservatives cannot "outdo Ukip" and has called for a “more balanced” Tory message that does not stigmatise immigrants or benefit claimants.

The think tank – whose advisory board includes Theresa May, the Home Secretary, Maria Miller, the Culture Secretary and Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office Minister – has raised deep concerns regarding the Tory leader's change of stance in the wake of the rise in popularity of Ukip, arguing the harsh tone is damaging the party.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/12/28/david-cameron-ukip-immigration_n_4511052.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/12/28/david-cameron-ukip-immigration_n_4511052.html)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on December 30, 2013, 10:56:43 AM
Farage says that we should take in Syrian refugees, UKIPers explode. Such fun.

Maybe now the BNP will surge in the polls too. :P

Don't worry. Farage gave in today and said he'd only accept Christian Syrian refugees.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on December 30, 2013, 11:50:01 AM

Quote
David Cameron has been accused of "pandering to prejudice, uncertainty and anger" as he responds to the threat posed by UKIP.

The prime minister is championing "negative, uninspiring" politics in response to immigration fears, Conservative modernisers have said, as they urged the Tory leader to tone down his harsh language on immigration and welfare claimants, arguing it is alienating voters.

Ryan Shorthouse, the head of the Bright Blue thinktank, has said that the Conservatives cannot "outdo Ukip" and has called for a “more balanced” Tory message that does not stigmatise immigrants or benefit claimants.

The think tank – whose advisory board includes Theresa May, the Home Secretary, Maria Miller, the Culture Secretary and Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office Minister – has raised deep concerns regarding the Tory leader's change of stance in the wake of the rise in popularity of Ukip, arguing the harsh tone is damaging the party.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/12/28/david-cameron-ukip-immigration_n_4511052.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/12/28/david-cameron-ukip-immigration_n_4511052.html)

Bright Blue are an embarrassment.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 03, 2014, 09:01:26 AM
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2014/01/03/michael-gove-blasts-blackadder-for-spreading-left-wing-myths



Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Cassius on January 03, 2014, 09:44:33 AM
That is largely a fair comment with regards to Blackadder goes Fourth (although, not neccessarily left-wing myths in particular, after all, that phrase 'lions led by Donkeys' was coined by Alan Clark). I did indeed have to watch that in a Year 9 history lesson.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: ObserverIE on January 03, 2014, 10:49:41 AM
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2014/01/03/michael-gove-blasts-blackadder-for-spreading-left-wing-myths

I was rather under the impression that much of the Tory right viewed social Darwinism as a good thing (see Boris's recent comments about IQ).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 03, 2014, 12:07:34 PM
The basic argument in Blackadder Goes Fourth is a classic example of a fantastical exaggeration that tells an important truth very effectively precisely because it is a fantastical exaggeration.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on January 03, 2014, 12:08:37 PM
That is largely a fair comment with regards to Blackadder goes Fourth (although, not neccessarily left-wing myths in particular, after all, that phrase 'lions led by Donkeys' was coined by Alan Clark). I did indeed have to watch that in a Year 9 history lesson.

As did I - we had to get parental permission first though.

"The ruthless social Darwinism of the German elites, the pitiless approach they took to occupation, their aggressively expansionist war aims and their scorn for the international order all made resistance more than justified."

Er, I think he's talking about the other war...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 03, 2014, 12:10:32 PM
So it is true then. The Thatcher government did indeed have a secret hit list of pits to close. Amongst other things.

Also, Nick Griffin is now financially as well as morally and ideologically bankrupt.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 03, 2014, 12:17:21 PM
The thing I found about this Blackadder comment was Gove's total lack of irony and self-awareness.

Quote
to portray the British war effort as a "shambles" led by an out-of-touch elite.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: ObserverIE on January 03, 2014, 12:28:31 PM
The basic argument in Blackadder Goes Fourth is a classic example of a fantastical exaggeration that tells an important truth very effectively precisely because it is a fantastical exaggeration.

I don't think Gove gets satire. At least not consciously.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on January 03, 2014, 02:04:25 PM
That is largely a fair comment with regards to Blackadder goes Fourth (although, not neccessarily left-wing myths in particular, after all, that phrase 'lions led by Donkeys' was coined by Alan Clark). I did indeed have to watch that in a Year 9 history lesson.

As did I - we had to get parental permission first though.

"The ruthless social Darwinism of the German elites, the pitiless approach they took to occupation, their aggressively expansionist war aims and their scorn for the international order all made resistance more than justified."

Er, I think he's talking about the other war...

Not really.  Ever hear of the Rape of Belgium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Belgium)?  Granted, a large portion of it was exaggerated war time propaganda, but there was a kernel of truth to it and even the exaggerations were mostly believed at the time by the propagandists.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on January 03, 2014, 05:38:36 PM
Not really.  Ever hear of the Rape of Belgium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Belgium)?  Granted, a large portion of it was exaggerated war time propaganda, but there was a kernel of truth to it and even the exaggerations were mostly believed at the time by the propagandists.

Yes, I'm aware of the invasion of Belgium, but the rest of it?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Cassius on January 03, 2014, 05:49:45 PM
Not really.  Ever hear of the Rape of Belgium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Belgium)?  Granted, a large portion of it was exaggerated war time propaganda, but there was a kernel of truth to it and even the exaggerations were mostly believed at the time by the propagandists.

Yes, I'm aware of the invasion of Belgium, but the rest of it?

I would query the social darwinism comment (which I'm not sure ever went mainstream amongst the Prussian juncker elite, though I could be wrong), but the Germans certainly did show a flagrant disregard for the international order (invading neutral Belgium is the prime example of this) and were hopeful that they could get some land out of the war.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 04, 2014, 07:02:38 PM
Polls of particular occupations or other groups are not generally that reliable for various reasons, but the recent one by YouGov (for the NUT) of teachers is pretty amusing:

Labour 57%, Tories, 16%, LibDems 8%, UKIP 8%, Greens 8%, Others 4%

LOL


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on January 05, 2014, 05:10:23 AM
Lord Ashcroft has done another of his large sample size polls.  The headline voting intention appears to be Lab 39 Con 30 UKIP 16 LD 8; Ashcroft's main discussion is about people who either voted Tory last time and say they won't now and those who didn't vote Tory in 2010 and say they might in the future.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on January 05, 2014, 05:37:07 AM
On the First World War comments, Tristram Hunt (who is of course an actual historian as well as Labour's education spokesman) has responded to Gove:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/04/labour-gove-first-world-war-comments


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 06, 2014, 10:23:48 AM
Alex Cameron QC comes out against cuts to legal aid.

He's the PM's brother.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 06, 2014, 10:30:32 AM
Simon Hoggart has died. (http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jan/06/simon-hoggart-guardian-observer-journalist-dies-67) His better-known father is still alive, somewhat remarkably.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 08, 2014, 11:20:29 AM
Paul Goggins, the Labour MP for Wythenshawe in Manchester since 1997, has died at the age of 60. He collapsed while out running a week ago.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Hifly on January 08, 2014, 11:28:55 AM
Paul Goggins, the Labour MP for Wythenshawe in Manchester since 1997, has died at the age of 60. He collapsed while out running a week ago.

Very sad.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on January 08, 2014, 11:29:27 AM
Paul Goggins, the Labour MP for Wythenshawe in Manchester since 1997, has died at the age of 60. He collapsed while out running a week ago.

Again? It's me, or there is more MPs sadly dying than usual?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on January 08, 2014, 11:41:12 AM
Paul Goggins, the Labour MP for Wythenshawe in Manchester since 1997, has died at the age of 60. He collapsed while out running a week ago.

Again?
Why, has he been dead before?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 08, 2014, 11:46:07 AM
Don't think so; so far five MPs have died in office in this parliament (though Marsha Singh died shortly after he resigned and so isn't included), in the last parliament - which lasted the full five years - the figure was ten. The figure was also ten for the 1997-2001 parliament, though only four for the 2001-05 parliament (but then that was an unusual parliament in many respects). In general the number of deaths has decreased over the decades: in the 1979-83 parliament (which I've just picked randomly) there were seventeen. Now, two of those were Troubles related (Robert Bradford and Bobby Sands), but you get the idea.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on January 08, 2014, 11:51:19 AM
I would assume the average age of MPs, and especially the percentage of MPs to be really elderly, has decreased since the 70s, while life expectancy has continued to creep up slowly.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 08, 2014, 11:54:48 AM
I would assume the average age of MPs, and especially the percentage of MPs to be really elderly, has decreased since the 70s, while life expectancy has continued to creep up slowly.

And there have also been, how shall we say, certain... alcohol related lifestyle changes.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on January 08, 2014, 11:57:13 AM
I would assume the average age of MPs, and especially the percentage of MPs to be really elderly, has decreased since the 70s, while life expectancy has continued to creep up slowly.

And there have also been, how shall we say, certain... alcohol related lifestyle changes.
Even in parliament? You mean to say Eric Joyce is nowadays an exception when back in the day, conduct like his would never have gotten in the media as it happened every day?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 08, 2014, 12:04:27 PM
Even in parliament? You mean to say Eric Joyce is nowadays an exception when back in the day, conduct like his would never have gotten in the media as it happened every day?

That would only be a very slight exaggeration, yes. Parliament still has a drinking culture, but it's a shadow of its former inebriated self (i.e. if you ever read old hansard reports, you should assume that c. 75% of participants in a debate are drunk, and that of those about a third are close to paralytic). Remember that George Brown came very close to becoming Prime Minister.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 08, 2014, 01:01:47 PM
Some curious reasoning on display by a certain jury (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25657949), I think.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on January 08, 2014, 02:45:41 PM
Paul Goggins, the Labour MP for Wythenshawe in Manchester since 1997, has died at the age of 60. He collapsed while out running a week ago.

Very sad.

Rest in Peace.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on January 09, 2014, 04:12:41 AM
Another Lib Dem MP has announced his retirement: Don Foster, MP for Bath since 1992, when he famously defeated Chris Patten, who was then Tory party chairman.  Even with a new candidate, you'd have to think the Lib Dems would be doing impressively badly to lose Bath, so perhaps this is an opportunity for ambitious Lib Dems...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 09, 2014, 10:48:58 AM

A dead end job if there ever was one.

Still, LD hold (one of the few). It's their fourth safest seat after Orkney & Shetland and Clegg and Kennedy's seats.

We've now got 8 LDs standing down, nearly 15% of their parliamentary party. Must be pretty terrifying for those at the top though considering how much the LDs are relying on incumbency getting them over the line in many places. Can only assume there's more to come as well.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 13, 2014, 12:27:44 PM
Some seriously comical goings on in Powys: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-mid-wales-25717300


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on January 14, 2014, 07:06:04 AM
How dare the Tories reach their 2% inflation target.

Cost of living...something...bankers...something...bedroom tax..something something miners.

[/politicalrant]


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 14, 2014, 09:48:15 AM
How dare the Tories reach their 2% inflation target.

Cost of living...something...bankers...something...bedroom tax..something something miners.

[/politicalrant]

The economy's booming, as Cameron and Osborne keep saying.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on January 14, 2014, 12:45:52 PM
How dare the Tories reach their 2% inflation target.

Pity wages are only going up by 1% then.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on January 14, 2014, 01:46:45 PM
How dare the Tories reach their 2% inflation target.

Cost of living...something...bankers...something...bedroom tax..something something miners.

[/politicalrant]

Yes, because they've met one inflation target, I'm going to forget about the demonisation of benefit claimants and immigrants, the damaging and thoroughly ideological "reforms" in health and education, the total evisceration of the "vote blue go green" agenda, the attacks on third party political campaigns, the silly pandering to the swivel-eyed tendency which is threatening our EU membership, and the general tendency to support the interests of the strong against those of the weak (especially the young weak), and vote to re-elect this Government in 2015.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on January 16, 2014, 08:47:36 AM
Roger Lloyd Pack died. Which is strangely sad.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: TTS1996 on January 17, 2014, 06:56:07 AM
Some seriously comical goings on in Powys: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-mid-wales-25717300
It would be comical, if this weren't routine in about every rural Welsh council on a periodic basis. See Anglesey, Pembrokeshire...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 17, 2014, 10:02:26 AM
Oh, but that just makes it funnier.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on January 17, 2014, 10:16:44 AM
William Hague is in Scotland today to talk about why Scotland should stay in the union. I need say nothing else.

Though I will; Jim Murphy won't share a podium with the Tories when it comes to defending the Union. Better Together infighting would be very very helpful at this stage in the race.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 17, 2014, 10:17:51 AM
William Hague is in Scotland today to talk about why Scotland should stay in the union. I need say nothing else.

That's a mistake, but I suppose he is the Foreign Secretary Scotland is debating where or not to become a foreign country...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Cassius on January 17, 2014, 11:14:28 AM
I've got mixed feelings about this whole Scottish independence malarkey. On the one hand, if the Scots leave it'll probably be better for us (and maybe for them too). On the other hand, it'll be a sad day when the United Kingdom loses Scotland, which has, after all, been a integral part of it for the last 300 years.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on January 17, 2014, 12:21:38 PM
It's not likely to happen with current polling.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on January 17, 2014, 12:24:54 PM
It's not likely to happen with current polling.

Neither was an SNP victory four weeks before polling day in 2011!


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 17, 2014, 12:51:45 PM
That's a point to remember, of course. Voters are quite capable of changing their minds. An obvious counter point to it, though, would be that was a low turnout legislative election, while this will be (presumably) a high turnout referendum on a major constitutional change.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on January 17, 2014, 01:17:00 PM
That's a point to remember, of course. Voters are quite capable of changing their minds. An obvious counter point to it, though, would be that was a low turnout legislative election, while this will be (presumably) a high turnout referendum on a major constitutional change.

As a 'Yes' supporter I don't think we will win but what is important is trying to secure a robust enough Yes turnout to ensure that it's reasonably close as that gives more clout in securing further devolved powers. Though recent goings on in the No brigade give me hope, particularly as we get closer.

The problem of course is that independence in the London media is treated as all Scottish things are; with general suspicion, or scrutinised as having some ulterior motive. The truth is  for me there is a need to escape not 'England' (because it's already been decided that Wales and Northern Ireland don't matter in this phoney war of attrition), but London and the south east which sucks the economic, social and cultural life out of the rest of Britain. I think that people in Manchester and Newcastle and Liverpool have no power over themselves and very little say (even when they send hoards of Labour MP's to sit in Labour governments) in how the country is run which is disgraceful. 'Englishness' and 'Britishness', whatever it means in any given year can only keep people in line for so long. Scotland therefore can't leave because it shatters the whole notion of a UK, much more than Ireland leaving did, because as far as Britain was concerned, the 'better part' of Ireland remained. It leaves the North exposed and may leave them both hungry and wanting.

And UKIP; as flash in the pan as they will be. Is there anything that personifies the political and social gap between Scotland and the south east more than that collection of solidified piss?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Cassius on January 17, 2014, 02:29:40 PM
That's a point to remember, of course. Voters are quite capable of changing their minds. An obvious counter point to it, though, would be that was a low turnout legislative election, while this will be (presumably) a high turnout referendum on a major constitutional change.

As a 'Yes' supporter I don't think we will win but what is important is trying to secure a robust enough Yes turnout to ensure that it's reasonably close as that gives more clout in securing further devolved powers. Though recent goings on in the No brigade give me hope, particularly as we get closer.

The problem of course is that independence in the London media is treated as all Scottish things are; with general suspicion, or scrutinised as having some ulterior motive. The truth is  for me there is a need to escape not 'England' (because it's already been decided that Wales and Northern Ireland don't matter in this phoney war of attrition), but London and the south east which sucks the economic, social and cultural life out of the rest of Britain. I think that people in Manchester and Newcastle and Liverpool have no power over themselves and very little say (even when they send hoards of Labour MP's to sit in Labour governments) in how the country is run which is disgraceful. 'Englishness' and 'Britishness', whatever it means in any given year can only keep people in line for so long. Scotland therefore can't leave because it shatters the whole notion of a UK, much more than Ireland leaving did, because as far as Britain was concerned, the 'better part' of Ireland remained. It leaves the North exposed and may leave them both hungry and wanting.

And UKIP; as flash in the pan as they will be. Is there anything that personifies the political and social gap between Scotland and the south east more than that collection of solidified piss?

I think, however, that people from London and the South more generally see the rest of the country in similarly negative terms to how the rest see the south; in other words, a constant drag. Not, neccessarily my view, but I do occasionally sympathise with it.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on January 17, 2014, 02:50:10 PM
That's a point to remember, of course. Voters are quite capable of changing their minds. An obvious counter point to it, though, would be that was a low turnout legislative election, while this will be (presumably) a high turnout referendum on a major constitutional change.

As a 'Yes' supporter I don't think we will win but what is important is trying to secure a robust enough Yes turnout to ensure that it's reasonably close as that gives more clout in securing further devolved powers. Though recent goings on in the No brigade give me hope, particularly as we get closer.

The problem of course is that independence in the London media is treated as all Scottish things are; with general suspicion, or scrutinised as having some ulterior motive. The truth is  for me there is a need to escape not 'England' (because it's already been decided that Wales and Northern Ireland don't matter in this phoney war of attrition), but London and the south east which sucks the economic, social and cultural life out of the rest of Britain. I think that people in Manchester and Newcastle and Liverpool have no power over themselves and very little say (even when they send hoards of Labour MP's to sit in Labour governments) in how the country is run which is disgraceful. 'Englishness' and 'Britishness', whatever it means in any given year can only keep people in line for so long. Scotland therefore can't leave because it shatters the whole notion of a UK, much more than Ireland leaving did, because as far as Britain was concerned, the 'better part' of Ireland remained. It leaves the North exposed and may leave them both hungry and wanting.

And UKIP; as flash in the pan as they will be. Is there anything that personifies the political and social gap between Scotland and the south east more than that collection of solidified piss?

I think, however, that people from London and the South more generally see the rest of the country in similarly negative terms to how the rest see the south; in other words, a constant drag. Not, neccessarily my view, but I do occasionally sympathise with it.

Though if the country north of Watford magically disappeared the taps and the plug sockets would run dry :D


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Cassius on January 17, 2014, 03:25:12 PM
Nah, that'd be bad, since we'd lose Northumberland, Cumberland and North Yorkshire. If only some way could be found to exchange those places with areas like Hackney, Croydon and Brighton ;)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: freefair on January 17, 2014, 03:59:24 PM
Nah, that'd be bad, since we'd lose Northumberland, Cumberland and North Yorkshire. If only some way could be found to exchange those places with areas like Hackney, Croydon and Brighton ;)
Don't forget that bar 97 and 2001 the Midlands has always returned a majority of Tory MPs at in postwar elections.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 17, 2014, 07:16:26 PM
Don't forget that bar 97 and 2001 the Midlands has always returned a majority of Tory MPs at in postwar elections.

Er... how are you defining the Midlands? If we randomly pick February 1974 and go with a fairly standard definition (in terms of traditional counties: Warwickshire, Staffs, Shropshire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Leicestershire, Northants, Derbyshire, Notts) you get something like 52 Labour, 37 Tories. Throwing in the bits of Lincolnshire now officially classed as East Midlands, this changes to 52 Labour, 42 Tories and one Dickhead Dick Taverne. Hereford's Midland status is almost as dubious as Lincs, so make that 52 Labour, 35 Tories or whatever.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on January 20, 2014, 04:30:44 PM
What to make of the Lib Dem chaos surrounding Lord Rennard?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on January 20, 2014, 04:32:13 PM
His name sounds like a Sherlock Holmes villain?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Cassius on January 20, 2014, 04:39:04 PM
Just remember, the Lib-Dems are pure. Pure as the snow on a cold winter's morning. They are the David, standing up to the monstrous two-headed goliath of corrupt two-party politics.

Or maybe not. (Hey, I know the Lib-Dems are 'different' meme is old, but still, I thought I'd throw it in).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on January 21, 2014, 07:08:27 AM
Surprised there has been no talk of the minimum wage rise here.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: freefair on January 21, 2014, 08:22:34 AM
Oh alright then, the Midlands has always been about as Labour and Tory as the national average- and Indeed since Thatcher has gotten sligtly more Tory- In 2010, 41% vs 30%.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 21, 2014, 09:00:48 PM
Surprised there has been no talk of the minimum wage rise here.

You mean the rise that Labour proposed and the ToryDems voted against last week?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on January 22, 2014, 02:48:06 PM
Another disciplinary issue in the Lib Dems: Mike Hancock, MP for Portsmouth South, has been suspended from the party over allegations of sexual misconduct (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25852536).  (This one has been brewing for some time.)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 22, 2014, 07:38:54 PM
Why is "long term economic plan" now a Tory parrot line? It seems rather mealy.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 22, 2014, 10:24:45 PM
Another disciplinary issue in the Lib Dems: Mike Hancock, MP for Portsmouth South, has been suspended from the party over allegations of sexual misconduct (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25852536).  (This one has been brewing for some time.)


Clearing way for the local party to look for a new PPC. The 8th Liberal to be going in 2015, probably more to come as well.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on January 23, 2014, 02:07:07 PM
The Guardian has a bit of fun at the expense of the Purple Peril:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/23/the-ukip-politices-disowned-by-nigel-farage


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on January 23, 2014, 02:10:53 PM
Seem to recall a poll from some time ago showing that UKIP voters were more in favour of renationalising key utilities than the public as a whole.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on January 28, 2014, 03:31:35 PM
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/whose-policy-ukip-or-monster-raving-loony-party

I got 7/16


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 31, 2014, 07:23:27 PM
Deselection drama!

Anne McIntosh - Tory MP for Thirsk & Malton and the Chair of the Environment, Food & Rural Affairs Select Committee - has been deselected (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25979148). And has apparently pledged to stand as an Independent at the General Election stating that she does not "...intend to be thrown aside by a small cabal" (by which she means the Thirsk & Malton Conservative Association). Thirsk & Malton is an old name but the current incarnation of the constituency is new: McIntosh (who previously held the Vale of York) and John Greenway (Ryedale) faced off against each other in 2006, and McIntosh won. An attempt was then made to deselect her three years later. Fun stuff.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 31, 2014, 07:31:42 PM
Oh, and this is serious genepool Tory territory, by the way. Prosperous agricultural constituency in the North Riding of Yorkshire, and North Yorks. farmers are spectacularly right-wing even for farmers.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 01, 2014, 03:23:32 PM
A chance for UKIP to run through the middle?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Vosem on February 01, 2014, 04:45:30 PM
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/whose-policy-ukip-or-monster-raving-loony-party

I got 7/16

6/16


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Cassius on February 01, 2014, 04:56:39 PM
I've attempted to find out why they deselected her, and my search seems to have been pretty fruitless!?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 01, 2014, 07:51:21 PM
I've attempted to find out why they deselected her, and my search seems to have been pretty fruitless!?

Personal animosity, pretty obviously. Mutual personal animosity at that. Part of which presumably comes from resentment at the vote in 2006.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 03, 2014, 10:50:38 AM
Tory selection procedures are weird, but it's probably fair to say that Tim Yeo (MP for South Suffolk since 1983) has been half-deselected.

And now he's been fully deselected.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 05, 2014, 01:52:37 PM
Cannock Chase MP Aidan Burley - the Tory MP who's chances of political advancement were cut short by a decidedly foolish choice of fancy dress costume - has surprised absolutely no one by announcing his retirement at the next election.

Local elections have been appalling for the Tories here at both district and county level (Labour lead of c.15pts and the Tories just behind UKIP) and the seat looks a bit like a write-off, though the non-candidacy of Burley means it probably won't go utterly toxic.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on February 08, 2014, 11:45:44 AM
Mark Harper quits as immigration minister... after employing illegal immigrant (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26101442)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Frodo on February 08, 2014, 12:50:36 PM
So how likely is it that PM David Cameron can win an outright majority for the Conservative Party next year?  


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Cassius on February 08, 2014, 01:14:17 PM
Low to non-existent, unless your Dan Hodges. UKIP will probably, in their worst case scenario, still get about 5-6 percent of the vote, which will drain votes from the Tories in a number of constituencies (even with 3 percent in 2010, they still cost the Conservatives a handful of seats). Labour will likely remain steady in the upper 30's, which puts them in majority government territory. So, I can't see the Conservatives getting a majority as long as the situation stays remarkably similar going into 2015. Maybe, just maybe, if the economy really picks up steam in time for 2015, or if the Labour Party has a really massive clusterf*** or if UKIP collapses spectacularly (and it would probably require at least two of these factors), there's a chance that the Tories could remain in office, and even take a majority. But I doubt it...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 08, 2014, 01:44:55 PM
Conservative opportunities for making further gains off Labour look extremely limited even in a best-case scenario for them (one certain thing about the next election is that the Labour vote is going to rise), however...

It isn't often mentioned, but the only reason why the Tories don't have a majority at present is because a significant number of former Conservative bedrock constituencies are currently represented by LibDem MPs.* Essentially the path to a Conservative majority would be keeping losses to Labour to a minimum, while basically gutting their coalition partner. Not impossible, but not easy either.

*That and their long-term decline in the (post)industrial cities: this hasn't cost them many seats actually, but even a small number count. Conservative governments used to have a handful of Birmingham seats, a couple from Liverpool and Leeds, one or two from Manchester, Newcastle, Sheffield, Bradford, Nottingham, Leicester, etc. but not post-Thatcher. Again, that's not many seats... but it does change the numbers when things are tight. There's nothing they can do about this issue in the short-term, of course.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 08, 2014, 04:16:32 PM
Conservative opportunities for making further gains off Labour look extremely limited even in a best-case scenario for them (one certain thing about the next election is that the Labour vote is going to rise), however...

It isn't often mentioned, but the only reason why the Tories don't have a majority at present is because a significant number of former Conservative bedrock constituencies are currently represented by LibDem MPs.* Essentially the path to a Conservative majority would be keeping losses to Labour to a minimum, while basically gutting their coalition partner. Not impossible, but not easy either.

*That and their long-term decline in the (post)industrial cities: this hasn't cost them many seats actually, but even a small number count. Conservative governments used to have a handful of Birmingham seats, a couple from Liverpool and Leeds, one or two from Manchester, Newcastle, Sheffield, Bradford, Nottingham, Leicester, etc. but not post-Thatcher. Again, that's not many seats... but it does change the numbers when things are tight. There's nothing they can do about this issue in the short-term, of course.

And even this assumes that the Tories are at 36-40%, right?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: NewYorkExpress on February 10, 2014, 03:42:06 PM
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-11/uk-britain-river-thames-on-flood-alert/5250986 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-11/uk-britain-river-thames-on-flood-alert/5250986)

The River Thames has burst it's banks, flooding large areas of Southwest England... naturally the political blame game has begun. Communities Minister Eric Pickles said the government "relied to much on the Environment Agency's advice", while Environment agency chair Chris Smith said the Treasury had limited the amount of money that could be spent on flood management.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Cassius on February 10, 2014, 04:12:54 PM
Damn weather. Doesn't the good lord know that I need to attend an applicant open day on Wednesday. In Exeter. Jesus.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on February 10, 2014, 04:24:39 PM
Pickles is dreadful.

The main (and only) railway line to Cornwall and southern and western Devon suspended above the sea at Dawlish, Devon:

()

(posted by Francesca Blackham on Twitter)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on February 11, 2014, 07:10:21 AM
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/10/public-money-private-wealth-london-north-v-south

Not often I agree, but I can't really fault this.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 11, 2014, 10:31:31 AM
...and even in London, who exactly is it that actually benefits from much of the investment, etc.

Of course this problem isn't unique to Britain (Paris plays a similar role in France, etc... worse in some respects actually) and it isn't new, but it's getting worse for sure.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 11, 2014, 04:20:44 PM
So Tristram Hunt crossed a uni picket line to give a lecture on Marx and Engels.

Well, if I didn't know what irony was before...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on February 11, 2014, 04:43:40 PM
:(

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tony-benn-fears-grow-seriously-3134955


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 13, 2014, 11:55:34 PM
British government tells Scotland that if it votes to walk away from the UK, it loses the pound (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/uk-to-scotland-walk-away-lose-the-pound/2014/02/13/f9406a4e-94cf-11e3-9e13-770265cf4962_story.html)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: politicus on February 14, 2014, 07:38:03 AM
British government tells Scotland that if it votes to walk away from the UK, it loses the pound (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/uk-to-scotland-walk-away-lose-the-pound/2014/02/13/f9406a4e-94cf-11e3-9e13-770265cf4962_story.html)

Despite the current problems, I think they would be better of with the Euro. But I realize its a hard sell right now.

Anyway, arrogant, posh Tories lecturing Scots should be good for the yes-vote.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Cassius on February 14, 2014, 08:12:08 AM
British government tells Scotland that if it votes to walk away from the UK, it loses the pound (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/uk-to-scotland-walk-away-lose-the-pound/2014/02/13/f9406a4e-94cf-11e3-9e13-770265cf4962_story.html)

Despite the current problems, I think they would be better of with the Euro. But I realize its a hard sell right now.

Anyway, arrogant, posh Tories lecturing Scots should be good for the yes-vote.

This isn't just 'arrogant, posh Tories', as you so uncharitably dub them, lecturing the Scots, this issue is one of the few things the three major parties agree on. As for the issue with the pound, since one of the main planks of Salmond's independence bid seems to have been that Scotland will retain all of the current benefits of being in the Union (like the Pound) despite being independent, the latter assertion isn't particularly credible, especially in the light of this announcement on the pound.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on February 14, 2014, 08:57:03 AM
As there is plenty of countries using American Dollar or Euro without being "allowed" to do so by USA or EU, I don't see how UK can ban them for using it.

That's just plainly misleading persons. But, not surprising coming from Cameron.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Cassius on February 14, 2014, 09:12:36 AM
As there is plenty of countries using American Dollar or Euro without being "allowed" to do so by USA or EU, I don't see how UK can ban them for using it.

That's just plainly misleading persons. But, not surprising coming from Cameron.

Yes, but, on the other hand, those are generally speaking third-world countries lacking a credible currency of their own (e.g. Zimbabwe). I don't think the Scots desire to emulate that example. No, what they have been proposing is a currency union, which is quite different to unofficially using foreign currency.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: swl on February 14, 2014, 09:14:55 AM
I find the similarities between the debates on Scotland leaving the UK and the UK leaving the EU rather amusing.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 14, 2014, 10:35:07 AM
As there is plenty of countries using American Dollar or Euro without being "allowed" to do so by USA or EU, I don't see how UK can ban them for using it.

That's just plainly misleading persons. But, not surprising coming from Cameron.

Yes, but, on the other hand, those are generally speaking third-world countries lacking a credible currency of their own (e.g. Zimbabwe). I don't think the Scots desire to emulate that example. No, what they have been proposing is a currency union, which is quite different to unofficially using foreign currency.

Yeah, it's more about setting out how clearly unstable an independent Scottish economy would be.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on February 14, 2014, 11:46:56 AM
Pardon my ignorance, but how, exactly then, would the British government disallow its currency from being used in Scotland?  Would a law simply get passed that restricts the use of the Pound to the countries still in the union?  How would that be enforced?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 14, 2014, 01:49:25 PM
Media oversimplification. There would be no way of preventing a hypothetical independent Scotland from using the pound as its currency. But the SNP have argued (and planned for, etc) that there will be a proper currency union between hypothetical independent Scotland and hypothetical R-UK. That would depend on the agreement of both hypothetical governments.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on February 14, 2014, 02:11:17 PM
Media oversimplification. There would be no way of preventing a hypothetical independent Scotland from using the pound as its currency. But the SNP have argued (and planned for, etc) that there will be a proper currency union between hypothetical independent Scotland and hypothetical R-UK. That would depend on the agreement of both hypothetical governments.

Scotland could tie it's currency to whatever it wants to. Hypothetically the government is simply offering a deal to work with the rest of the UK for a transition, particularly when dealing with debt which legally we could simply walk away from. What won't be discussed in public of course is that such a mutual arrangement is good for the economic stability of the UK, particularly if a 10th of it's economy is wrenched out overnight

In other news;

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/yes-does-not-mean-yes.23438016

'The planned Independence Day of March 24, 2016, will not happen, leaving the current set-up as the "default option", unless negotiations between Edinburgh and London are completed satisfactorily, according to one of Prime Minister David Cameron's most senior colleagues.

The controversial view - dismissed by Alex Salmond as breathtaking, irresponsible and contemptuous of the democratic process in Scotland - came as the three main Westminster parties formed a united front to rule out the First Minister's centrepiece proposal for a currency union between an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK.'


Which is beautifully disturbing.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on February 14, 2014, 03:05:59 PM
I fail to see how annoying Scots is supposed to be a good strategy against them leaving.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on February 14, 2014, 03:19:58 PM
I fail to see how annoying Scots is supposed to be a good strategy against them leaving.

I demand frequent visits by top Tories to Scotland in the weeks leading up to the vote :D


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on February 14, 2014, 06:03:41 PM
Scotland could tie it's currency to whatever it wants to. Hypothetically the government is simply offering a deal to work with the rest of the UK for a transition, particularly when dealing with debt which legally we could simply walk away from.

Do you seriously think that Scotland would be granted independence without some arrangement on debt being made? Now, I suppose it would be possible that it might have to head to the Permanent Court of Arbitration or some other similar body to determine the split of debt if Scotland and the UKENI were unable to agree how to do it, but that Scotland would get a clean slate on debt in preposterous in the extreme.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on February 16, 2014, 10:13:48 AM
Some recent polls, all online except ICM:

ICM 7-9 Feb: Lab 38 Con 34 UKIP 11 Lib Dem 10
Opinium 11-14 Feb: Lab 37 Con 28 UKIP 17 Lib Dem 8
ComRes 12/13 Feb: Lab 37 Con 32 UKIP 15 Lib Dem 9
Populus 12/13 Feb: Lab 38 Con 32 UKIP 14 Lib Dem 9
YouGov 13/14 Feb: Lab 39 Con 32 UKIP 12 Lib Dem 9

Populus used to give much lower UKIP scores than most other polls, because they weight by party ID and were using weights from 2010 which had low numbers identifying with UKIP.  They've recently changed their weights, but I'm still a bit sceptical of their weighting methodology. That's not to say that I think the others are perfect, either.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 16, 2014, 11:48:53 AM
Now, which company is most likely to be making up its numbers? You know, like how the Americans do.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 18, 2014, 09:04:37 AM
Anyone else think that the only consequence of a LibLab coalition after the election will be for Labour to find themselves in the exact same situation as the Libs did after the last election? The base screaming "how could you crawl into bed with THEM!?" before any PM had even been sworn in.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 18, 2014, 09:41:21 AM
Any such deal would be conditional on approval from if not the Labour base then lots of people who claim to speak for it. Labour Party rules are firm on this matter, and in the Labour Party, the rules matter...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Lurker on February 19, 2014, 09:32:01 AM
Any such deal would be conditional on approval from if not the Labour base then lots of people who claim to speak for it. Labour Party rules are firm on this matter, and in the Labour Party, the rules matter...

Who are those people? And what exactly do the rules say about coalition governments?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 19, 2014, 11:28:22 AM
All such decisions must go to a Special Conference. Which means Trade Union block votes (i.e. TU delegates cast weighted votes on behalf of their entire membership).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on February 19, 2014, 12:23:57 PM
When was the last Special Conference?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Lurker on February 19, 2014, 01:04:19 PM
All such decisions must go to a Special Conference. Which means Trade Union block votes (i.e. TU delegates cast weighted votes on behalf of their entire membership).

Ah, I see why that could be problematic in case of a hung parliament.

Though presumably they would still bite that bullet if the alternatives were a minority government or continued Cameron-Clegg coalition?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 19, 2014, 01:33:38 PM
Though presumably they would still bite that bullet if the alternatives were a minority government or continued Cameron-Clegg coalition?

A minority government might be preferred if it was a strong minority (i.e. more Labour seats than those for the combined outgoing Government Parties). But I think it's fairly unlikely that the leadership would try taking things so far as a provisional coalition deal unless the LibDems are seen to be suitably chastened.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on February 19, 2014, 01:47:43 PM

A search is showing than one will happen on March 1st, so in two weeks.
It seems to be about the lick between unions and the party and seems to want to abolish the very system of block voting Al described.
Probably he can talk more about it than me.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 19, 2014, 02:03:37 PM
That's to do with constituency selections, leadership elections and so on (where the block vote was abolished back in the 90s: the proposal now is to remove the three-tier electoral college in leadership elections) not with Conference rules. Unless there's a separate hidden section to the Collins report thing.* The media describe the TU section of the electoral college as a 'block vote' because they don't understand what the term means.

But, anyway, I only brought up the TU delegates as an example: there would also be delegates from the CLP's and some of them (particularly the more left-wing ones and the right-wing ones from traditional strongholds) would be even more adamant on the issue.

All of this is one reason why - given the numbers - there was never any chance of a Lab/Lib coalition after the 2010 elections.

*And who would put that past him?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on February 19, 2014, 02:27:54 PM
So, Milibrand wants a "one member, one vote" system for leadership election, or another hybrid system?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 19, 2014, 07:08:23 PM
So, Milibrand wants a "one member, one vote" system for leadership election, or another hybrid system?

He wants OMOV for leadership elections... but for members of affiliates who register their support (exactly how that's supposed to work isn't entirely clear, but it's not a bad idea in principle) and random members of the public who register as 'supporters' as well as for party members. Compared to the way the system works at the moment, the people losing clout will actually be the PLP who will lose their direct vote in leadership elections for the first time ever. They'll still control the nominations process though.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 19, 2014, 07:18:56 PM
I just think I don't like the thought of the Libs strolling back into cabinet despite (probably) losing 10-15% of the vote from last time.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Blair on February 20, 2014, 02:06:13 PM
I just think I don't like the thought of the Libs strolling back into cabinet despite (probably) losing 10-15% of the vote from last time.

That's the problem with the Lib Dems-they may get hardly any votes on the national scale but they know how to play the system meaning I'm certain they'll keep 30+ seats since they can pool their resources, leaders,money into seats compared to Labour and Con who have to contest about 400 odd seats.

But yeah I think labour should only accept a coalition with the Lib Dems if Clegg resigns, even then I'd favour a minority


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: ingemann on February 20, 2014, 03:13:10 PM
As there is plenty of countries using American Dollar or Euro without being "allowed" to do so by USA or EU, I don't see how UK can ban them for using it.

That's just plainly misleading persons. But, not surprising coming from Cameron.

Yes, but, on the other hand, those are generally speaking third-world countries lacking a credible currency of their own (e.g. Zimbabwe). I don't think the Scots desire to emulate that example. No, what they have been proposing is a currency union, which is quite different to unofficially using foreign currency.

Yeah, it's more about setting out how clearly unstable an independent Scottish economy would be.

You know the oil in Scottish territorial waters will belong to Scotland, there are no question about it. Scotland may wish a continued monetary union for practical reasons, but they don't need it, the oil alone will enable them to have their own valuta. Of course for UK on the other hand a continued monetary union will be a benefit as it will mean that Scottish oil will still hold up the pound's value.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on February 20, 2014, 03:22:49 PM
Well, they took the Canadian playbook for independance referendum. The scare campaign, no matter if the elements they try to scare people with are true or false.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on February 20, 2014, 07:07:05 PM
28% of people say they they want Ed for PM according to YouGov, it's the highest rating he's ever had. He's still 9 behind Cam who's at 37%. Clegg's at 6%

Undecideds on this question are at their lowest since just after Ed became leader in 2010. People starting to firm up on their voting intentions as the election gets closer?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: politicus on February 23, 2014, 05:06:50 PM
28% of people say they they want Ed for PM according to YouGov, it's the highest rating he's ever had. He's still 9 behind Cam who's at 37%. Clegg's at 6%

Undecideds on this question are at their lowest since just after Ed became leader in 2010. People starting to firm up on their voting intentions as the election gets closer?

So 6% of the British voters are insane?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Tetro Kornbluth on February 23, 2014, 07:04:19 PM
Well, they took the Canadian playbook for independance referendum. The scare campaign, no matter if the elements they try to scare people with are true or false.

No, that's any vote on anything.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on February 26, 2014, 12:11:10 PM
Woolwich murder (Drummer Lee Rigby) sentences- whole life for Adebolajo, minimum 45 years for Adebowale. Defendants were removed from the dock beforehand after scuffles.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: CatoMinor on February 27, 2014, 08:19:37 PM
Can Nigel Farage work for BBC weather please? ;D

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10597895/Nigel-Farage-makes-spoof-Ukip-weather-forecast.html


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 02, 2014, 12:26:14 PM
Labour special conference gave overwhelming backing to the stuff mentioned upthread: only TU against was the Bakers (and they're slightly to the left of Lenin).

And now Lord Owen has given Labour £7,500.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on March 02, 2014, 12:27:59 PM
And now Lord Owen has given Labour £7,500.

The SDP defector?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 02, 2014, 12:36:09 PM
Dr Death himself, yes.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on March 02, 2014, 02:05:14 PM

That's what senility does to you I suppose.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: THE_TITAN on March 02, 2014, 03:24:23 PM
Nigel Farage and the whole anti-EU crowd are really getting on my nerves. I really truly hope that UKIP win no seats at the 2015 general election, then at least Farage's leadership will be totally undermined and I doubt they'll be able to find another leader with comparable oratory skills. Then maybe people will stop listening to their wittering idiocy.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Vega on March 02, 2014, 03:26:18 PM
Nigel Farage and the whole anti-EU crowd are really getting on my nerves. I really truly hope that UKIP win no seats at the 2015 general election, then at least Farage's leadership will be totally undermined and I doubt they'll be able to find another leader with comparable oratory skills. Then maybe people will stop listening to their wittering idiocy.

If UKIP can't win at least one seat in 2015, then I'd say there movement is poppycock.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Cassius on March 02, 2014, 03:43:59 PM
Nigel Farage and the whole anti-EU crowd are really getting on my nerves. I really truly hope that UKIP win no seats at the 2015 general election, then at least Farage's leadership will be totally undermined and I doubt they'll be able to find another leader with comparable oratory skills. Then maybe people will stop listening to their wittering idiocy.

If UKIP can't win at least one seat in 2015, then I'd say there movement is poppycock.


Nonsense. The Liberal-Democrats (and their Liberal and Social-Democratic antecedents) spent roughly 50 years winning very few seats (and often only because those places happened to be traditional bastions of Liberal support or by having very popular candidates) and yet still remained a fairly credible political force (well, most of the time). I mean, considering that UKIP has a pretty, well, ramshackle, operation, then I wouldn't say that failure to win a single seat in 2015 would be failure at all. No, I imagine that their real aim is to get a creditable share of the vote (say 7.5 to 10 percent) in the general election, to give them an air of credibility. In the meantime, they will probably concentrate on trying to really put the brick on the accelerator with regards to their vote and seat share in the upcoming European elections, and on trying to nab some more council seats from the Tories (though this supposed business of trying to... Appeal... To Labor voters, is somewhat disconcerting and probably self-defeating). Also, would you regard the Green Party, which is comparatively weak, and it's movement, 'poppycock'?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Vega on March 02, 2014, 03:54:48 PM
Nigel Farage and the whole anti-EU crowd are really getting on my nerves. I really truly hope that UKIP win no seats at the 2015 general election, then at least Farage's leadership will be totally undermined and I doubt they'll be able to find another leader with comparable oratory skills. Then maybe people will stop listening to their wittering idiocy.

If UKIP can't win at least one seat in 2015, then I'd say there movement is poppycock.


Nonsense. The Liberal-Democrats (and their Liberal and Social-Democratic antecedents) spent roughly 50 years winning very few seats (and often only because those places happened to be traditional bastions of Liberal support or by having very popular candidates) and yet still remained a fairly credible political force (well, most of the time). I mean, considering that UKIP has a pretty, well, ramshackle, operation, then I wouldn't say that failure to win a single seat in 2015 would be failure at all. No, I imagine that their real aim is to get a creditable share of the vote (say 7.5 to 10 percent) in the general election, to give them an air of credibility. In the meantime, they will probably concentrate on trying to really put the brick on the accelerator with regards to their vote and seat share in the upcoming European elections, and on trying to nab some more council seats from the Tories (though this supposed business of trying to... Appeal... To Labor voters, is somewhat disconcerting and probably self-defeating). Also, would you regard the Green Party, which is comparatively weak, and it's movement, 'poppycock'?

The Green Party is not pushing for us to pull out of NATO, a la the UKIP is with the EU and Britain.

The Green Party is also not blustery like the UKIP either.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Cassius on March 02, 2014, 05:22:46 PM
Nigel Farage and the whole anti-EU crowd are really getting on my nerves. I really truly hope that UKIP win no seats at the 2015 general election, then at least Farage's leadership will be totally undermined and I doubt they'll be able to find another leader with comparable oratory skills. Then maybe people will stop listening to their wittering idiocy.

If UKIP can't win at least one seat in 2015, then I'd say there movement is poppycock.


Nonsense. The Liberal-Democrats (and their Liberal and Social-Democratic antecedents) spent roughly 50 years winning very few seats (and often only because those places happened to be traditional bastions of Liberal support or by having very popular candidates) and yet still remained a fairly credible political force (well, most of the time). I mean, considering that UKIP has a pretty, well, ramshackle, operation, then I wouldn't say that failure to win a single seat in 2015 would be failure at all. No, I imagine that their real aim is to get a creditable share of the vote (say 7.5 to 10 percent) in the general election, to give them an air of credibility. In the meantime, they will probably concentrate on trying to really put the brick on the accelerator with regards to their vote and seat share in the upcoming European elections, and on trying to nab some more council seats from the Tories (though this supposed business of trying to... Appeal... To Labor voters, is somewhat disconcerting and probably self-defeating). Also, would you regard the Green Party, which is comparatively weak, and it's movement, 'poppycock'?

The Green Party is not pushing for us to pull out of NATO, a la the UKIP is with the EU and Britain.

The Green Party is also not blustery like the UKIP either.


I was talking about our Green Party (unless you are a Brit?). I think, though I'm hardly 100 percent sure (or even 50 percent sure) that our Greens to support taking us out of NATO. Anyway, I'd hardly call being a eurosceptic, or indeed europhobe, a position of poppycock.

Also, I'd agree that UKIP can be blustery, but then, so too can the three main parties (Labour, in particular, seem to have gone in for a lot of rather windy rhetoric over the past year of so, whatever the merits of the policies that this rhetoric is being used to promote), so I don't see, per se, how that can be held against them.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 02, 2014, 05:24:16 PM
Liberal seats, 1945-92

1945 - 12
1950 -   9
1951 -   6
1955 -   6
1959 -   6
1964 -   9
1966 - 12
1970 -   6
1974 - 14
1974 - 13
1979 - 11
1983 - 17 (23 Alliance)
1987 - 17 (22 Alliance)
1992 - 20 (as Liberal Democrats)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on March 02, 2014, 05:31:18 PM
UKIP won't win a seat in 2015 because they'll believe their own hype and think they are running a national campaign. They will also think their opponents in areas where they might have a chance are 'Tories' rather than acknowledge that they are individual MP's with different strengths and weaknesses.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Cassius on March 02, 2014, 05:44:16 PM
Liberal seats, 1945-92

1945 - 12
1950 -   9
1951 -   6
1955 -   6
1959 -   6
1964 -   9
1966 - 12
1970 -   6
1974 - 14
1974 - 13
1979 - 11
1983 - 17 (23 Alliance)
1987 - 17 (22 Alliance)
1992 - 20 (as Liberal Democrats)

It's still not really very many (granted they didn't put up that many candidates in the 1950's, but still). More importantly, whilst UKIP are a relatively new party (certainly in comparisom to the major parties, and some of the smaller ones) and thus haven't really had time to put down roots, a number of the seats the Liberals held throughout those years were ones with a fairly strong Liberal lean, where they had a reasonably strong organisation. UKIP has nothing of the sort. I was simply pointing out that the Liberals were quite irrelevant in terms of the business of seats held for much of the century, as UKIP undoubtedly will be after 2015. That doesn't take away from the fact that they were a relevant political force for much of that period with the potential to cause problems for other parties, as I believe UKIP is at the moment. Now, I'm not a card-carrying kipper, by any means. I don't believe the ridiculous hype about them that a lot of their supporters (and their leadership like to encourage). However, I don't think that they can be dismissively brushed aside as an irrelevance either.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Famous Mortimer on March 02, 2014, 05:49:55 PM
Seats aren't the only thing that matters.

If they win no seats but 8% of the vote, they will stick around in the public consciousness.

If they win no seats and 3.2% of the vote, not so much.



Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 06, 2014, 08:46:53 AM
What do we think of Clegg saying minority government's undemocratic? Complete BS surely. If anything, minority government would be better for public trust than coalition in terms of manifesto pledges etc.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on March 07, 2014, 11:38:43 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-26482599

Curious.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Blair on March 07, 2014, 12:00:59 PM
Nigel Farage and the whole anti-EU crowd are really getting on my nerves. I really truly hope that UKIP win no seats at the 2015 general election, then at least Farage's leadership will be totally undermined and I doubt they'll be able to find another leader with comparable oratory skills. Then maybe people will stop listening to their wittering idiocy.

If UKIP can't win at least one seat in 2015, then I'd say there movement is poppycock.


Nonsense. The Liberal-Democrats (and their Liberal and Social-Democratic antecedents) spent roughly 50 years winning very few seats (and often only because those places happened to be traditional bastions of Liberal support or by having very popular candidates) and yet still remained a fairly credible political force (well, most of the time). I mean, considering that UKIP has a pretty, well, ramshackle, operation, then I wouldn't say that failure to win a single seat in 2015 would be failure at all. No, I imagine that their real aim is to get a creditable share of the vote (say 7.5 to 10 percent) in the general election, to give them an air of credibility. In the meantime, they will probably concentrate on trying to really put the brick on the accelerator with regards to their vote and seat share in the upcoming European elections, and on trying to nab some more council seats from the Tories (though this supposed business of trying to... Appeal... To Labor voters, is somewhat disconcerting and probably self-defeating). Also, would you regard the Green Party, which is comparatively weak, and it's movement, 'poppycock'?

The Green Party is not pushing for us to pull out of NATO, a la the UKIP is with the EU and Britain.

The Green Party is also not blustery like the UKIP either.


I was talking about our Green Party (unless you are a Brit?). I think, though I'm hardly 100 percent sure (or even 50 percent sure) that our Greens to support taking us out of NATO. Anyway, I'd hardly call being a eurosceptic, or indeed europhobe, a position of poppycock.

Also, I'd agree that UKIP can be blustery, but then, so too can the three main parties (Labour, in particular, seem to have gone in for a lot of rather windy rhetoric over the past year of so, whatever the merits of the policies that this rhetoric is being used to promote), so I don't see, per se, how that can be held against them.

A UKIP Councillor saying that gay marriage causes storms
A UKIP MEP says that Muslims should sign an anti-benevolence pact
The UKIP leader says that we should bring back handguns, dunblane anyone?
UKIP's whole position of telling everyone in Britain that our country was going to be ravaged, raped and pillaged by the Romanians and Bulgarians.

This is in the last 3 months alone. I admit that all major parties have scandals and slip ups but UKIP are an entirely different breed of bluster.

Farage has said that if they don't win a seat in 2015 then he'll resign. It doesn't matter how bad their national campaign is-all he needs to do is find a winnable seat in Kent/Sussex and turn up in his hat with a pint of ale giving them warnings that the evil immigrants are coming.

At least the green party have a sitting MP


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Cassius on March 07, 2014, 05:30:21 PM
Nigel Farage and the whole anti-EU crowd are really getting on my nerves. I really truly hope that UKIP win no seats at the 2015 general election, then at least Farage's leadership will be totally undermined and I doubt they'll be able to find another leader with comparable oratory skills. Then maybe people will stop listening to their wittering idiocy.

If UKIP can't win at least one seat in 2015, then I'd say there movement is poppycock.


Nonsense. The Liberal-Democrats (and their Liberal and Social-Democratic antecedents) spent roughly 50 years winning very few seats (and often only because those places happened to be traditional bastions of Liberal support or by having very popular candidates) and yet still remained a fairly credible political force (well, most of the time). I mean, considering that UKIP has a pretty, well, ramshackle, operation, then I wouldn't say that failure to win a single seat in 2015 would be failure at all. No, I imagine that their real aim is to get a creditable share of the vote (say 7.5 to 10 percent) in the general election, to give them an air of credibility. In the meantime, they will probably concentrate on trying to really put the brick on the accelerator with regards to their vote and seat share in the upcoming European elections, and on trying to nab some more council seats from the Tories (though this supposed business of trying to... Appeal... To Labor voters, is somewhat disconcerting and probably self-defeating). Also, would you regard the Green Party, which is comparatively weak, and it's movement, 'poppycock'?

The Green Party is not pushing for us to pull out of NATO, a la the UKIP is with the EU and Britain.

The Green Party is also not blustery like the UKIP either.


I was talking about our Green Party (unless you are a Brit?). I think, though I'm hardly 100 percent sure (or even 50 percent sure) that our Greens to support taking us out of NATO. Anyway, I'd hardly call being a eurosceptic, or indeed europhobe, a position of poppycock.

Also, I'd agree that UKIP can be blustery, but then, so too can the three main parties (Labour, in particular, seem to have gone in for a lot of rather windy rhetoric over the past year of so, whatever the merits of the policies that this rhetoric is being used to promote), so I don't see, per se, how that can be held against them.

A UKIP Councillor saying that gay marriage causes storms
A UKIP MEP says that Muslims should sign an anti-benevolence pact
The UKIP leader says that we should bring back handguns, dunblane anyone?
UKIP's whole position of telling everyone in Britain that our country was going to be ravaged, raped and pillaged by the Romanians and Bulgarians.

This is in the last 3 months alone. I admit that all major parties have scandals and slip ups but UKIP are an entirely different breed of bluster.

Farage has said that if they don't win a seat in 2015 then he'll resign. It doesn't matter how bad their national campaign is-all he needs to do is find a winnable seat in Kent/Sussex and turn up in his hat with a pint of ale giving them warnings that the evil immigrants are coming.

At least the green party have a sitting MP

Meh, I don't see what's so awful about the comment on handguns. You can disagree with it, but I'm not sure it counts as 'out there' or blustery. As for the Bulgarians, I don't recall any kipper actually saying that they're going to come and rape and pillage. On the other hand, given that UKIP's raison d'etre, so to speak, is opposition to the EU and all the flim flam (right of travel laws etc) that comes with it, it would be rather silly for them not to hammer away on this issue, which is, after all, a reasonably important one.

As, I think, I've said before, the reason why UKIP appears to produce so many 'cranks', so to speak, is because they are a fairly new (or at least, newly prominent) party, which lacks the mechanisms posessed by the traditional parties for weeding out candidates and speakers who are, perhaps, 'undesirable'. Yet, at the same time, and unlike, for the most part, the Greens, they have had a large amount of publicity over the past couple of years. I bet you that if the Greens were polling 10-12 percent of the vote and looked set to do well in the European elections then a similar number of wacky characters and interesting comments would come out of the woodwork for them. So, I wouldn't say UKIP's bluster is particularly special, just that the circumstances have conspired to put a spotlight on it.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 11, 2014, 05:11:45 AM
RIP to Bob Crow, thoughts with his family.

Breaking news.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Hifly on March 11, 2014, 05:18:18 AM
Shocking news. RIP


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on March 11, 2014, 12:16:06 PM
Rest in Peace. Certainly a major figure in British politics.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on March 11, 2014, 02:56:04 PM
Bob Crow on Thatcher's death: "I won't shed a single tear. As far as I am concerned she can rot in hell."

Still, RIP.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on March 11, 2014, 05:27:06 PM
RIP FF


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Cassius on March 11, 2014, 05:31:46 PM
Bob Crow on Thatcher's death: "I won't shed a single tear. As far as I am concerned she can rot in hell."

Still, RIP.

RIP and all, but what did/do the transport workers have against Thatcher (I'm probably missing something, so if neccessary enlightenment will be need)?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Hifly on March 11, 2014, 05:36:24 PM

You probably didn't even know who he was. Leave.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Cassius on March 11, 2014, 05:42:29 PM

Buh he led t' train drivers in t'er fight fuh freedum agenst neolibrul govment :)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 11, 2014, 06:33:53 PM
I didn't particularly like him (old fashioned Commie that he was), but he did a decent job for his members, so RIP and all that.

Anyway, the wave of insincere tributes from public figures/the media has been amusing.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Cassius on March 13, 2014, 12:28:29 PM
Former Plaid Cymru President Dafydd Elis-Thomas has been sacked by party fuhrer leader Leanne Wood for criticising her recent speech about UKIP (sorry for the Godwinning, but I just thought I'd throw that in there).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 13, 2014, 12:34:28 PM
The word you're looking for is 'pretext'. Dafydd El has been semi-detached for years.

Still, the vitriol Plaid have directed at UKIP is probably not unrelated to the possibility of the party losing their MEP in the Euro Elections (which would be a huge blow to Plaid for various reasons).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Simfan34 on March 14, 2014, 10:54:48 AM
I didn't particularly like him (old fashioned Commie that he was), but he did a decent job for his members, so RIP and all that.

Anyway, the wave of insincere tributes from public figures/the media has been amusing.


I'm mildly baffled by this myself.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 21, 2014, 11:07:59 AM
Sir Peter Tapsell, the Father of the House, has announced that he will retire at next year's General Election. He was first elected in 1959, gaining Nottingham West in one of the biggest upsets of the election. He was (predictably) defeated in 1964, but returned to the Commons for the safe Conservative seat of Horncastle in 1966 and has represented the general area (through various boundary and name changes) ever since. He has never held ministerial office.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 21, 2014, 11:13:23 AM
The next Father of the House (assuming that he runs for re-election, doesn't die, etc) will be Sir Gerald Kaufman, who was first elected in 1970 and was the first to be sworn in of the remaining cohort of that year. The others (in order) are Ken Clarke, Michael Meacher, and Dennis Skinner. David Winnick was first elected as long ago as 1966, but he lost his seat in 1970 and didn't return until 1979.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on March 22, 2014, 04:45:50 AM
An interesting narrative has came out about the nature of the relationship between Roy Jenkins and Tony Crosland.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 22, 2014, 11:12:53 AM
Stephen Kinnock has been selected as the Labour candidate in Aberavon.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: politicus on March 22, 2014, 11:45:23 AM
Stephen Kinnock has been selected as the Labour candidate in Aberavon.

Is that a solid Labour seat? It would be great if we could export HTS to Wales (not that I have anything against the Welsh in particular, but still: Better them than us.)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 22, 2014, 11:47:10 AM
Good piece on Tony Benn, his influences and career - and how the one influenced the other - here. (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/22/tony-benn-peter-wilby-reads-diaries) I.e. there's a reason why he sometimes came across as a latter day Old Testament Prophet.

It also features the following magnificent photo:

()


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 22, 2014, 11:51:04 AM
Stephen Kinnock has been selected as the Labour candidate in Aberavon.

Is that a solid Labour seat? It would be great if we could export HTS to Wales (not that I have anything against the Welsh in particular, but still: Better them than us.)

Extremely safe: main town is Port Talbot (home to one of the biggest steelworks in Europe) and the rest of the constituency is mostly old mining towns. Labour since 1922 with a majority of 35.7% in 2010.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 22, 2014, 12:02:10 PM
It's being reported that he won selection by a single vote. Bet he's glad he had the Community (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_(trade_union)) endorsement.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 22, 2014, 05:11:05 PM
So, are we assuming he's on the frontbench not long after the election?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on March 22, 2014, 05:20:35 PM
So, are we assuming he's on the frontbench not long after the election?

If he curries favour with the new leader, who knows? :)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: 🦀🎂🦀🎂 on March 22, 2014, 06:08:49 PM
So, are we assuming he's on the frontbench not long after the election?

If he curries favour with the new leader, who knows? :)

Well, Ed Milliband was definitely helped by Neil Kinnock's support during the leadership race. I think it's quite likely that Ed would reward the Kinnocks with a cushy frontbench job.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on March 22, 2014, 06:13:27 PM
So, are we assuming he's on the frontbench not long after the election?

If he curries favour with the new leader, who knows? :)

Well, Ed Milliband was definitely helped by Neil Kinnock's support during the leadership race. I think it's quite likely that Ed would reward the Kinnocks with a cushy frontbench job.

I mean Labour's next leader. After the election ;)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on March 22, 2014, 09:02:45 PM
Dave's got his bingo bounce at the Tories are tying Labour.

Close, but still no cigar for him though.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on March 22, 2014, 10:54:06 PM
So, are we assuming he's on the frontbench not long after the election?

If he curries favour with the new leader, who knows? :)

Well, Ed Milliband was definitely helped by Neil Kinnock's support during the leadership race. I think it's quite likely that Ed would reward the Kinnocks with a cushy frontbench job.

I mean Labour's next leader. After the election ;)

Why you care about foreign politics? Don't you want an independant Scotland after the referendum?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: 🦀🎂🦀🎂 on March 23, 2014, 01:35:17 AM
So, are we assuming he's on the frontbench not long after the election?

If he curries favour with the new leader, who knows? :)

Well, Ed Milliband was definitely helped by Neil Kinnock's support during the leadership race. I think it's quite likely that Ed would reward the Kinnocks with a cushy frontbench job.

I mean Labour's next leader. After the election ;)

Oh Snap.



Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on March 23, 2014, 03:04:21 AM
Well, he is already married to a Prime Minister.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on March 29, 2014, 05:43:49 PM
Tory PPS quits over newspaper allegations (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26806715)

The alleged actions involve a Brazilian male escort.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on April 02, 2014, 06:49:31 PM
UK Coal is going to the wall, it seems. This likely means the end of the Kellingley and Thoresby collieries. All things considered this would be about two thousand jobs (probably slightly less) gone. Government has indicated that it won't help: if it were a bloody bank they'd probably be playing a different tune.

This will leave just Hatfield colliery, the many opencast pits, and the various driftmines.

Britain will, of course, continue to burn coal in its power stations. Imported coal. Which is insane from pretty much all perspectives. If you must burn coal, it makes sense (both economically and environmentally) to make it yours.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 02, 2014, 07:22:45 PM
Any thoughts on the Clegg/Farage debate?

Clegg did himself in, he came off as downright patronising.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on April 02, 2014, 07:36:41 PM
I would rather have eaten a razorblade sandwich than watch that...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on April 03, 2014, 11:31:48 AM
I would rather have eaten a razorblade sandwich than watch that...

I instead went to the cinema.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on April 03, 2014, 11:54:08 AM
I feel sorry for Clegg. People have been conditioned to hate him so much they give the benefit of the doubt to a dangerous politician like Farage.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on April 03, 2014, 12:52:56 PM
I feel sorry for Clegg. People have been conditioned to hate him so much they give the benefit of the doubt to a dangerous politician like Farage.

There was more to it than that.  According to the ICM post-debate poll, 42% of current Lib Dem supporters (excluding don't knows) thought Farage "won" as against 58% who though Clegg did.  That's a pretty lousy outcome for Clegg among people who presumably do not hate him that much as they still support his party.  YouGov figures were similar though slightly better for Clegg.  (Admittedly we are talking small subsamples.)

As for views on the debate, I posted this last night on the EU elections thread:
ICM and YouGov have polls on who "won".  ICM say Farage 69% Clegg 31% (not including don't knows) and YouGov say Farage 68% Clegg 27% (presumably including don't knows as that adds to 95%).

I wasn't very impressed by either of them.  As a left-liberal pro-European I'm never going to like Farage, but I thought Clegg was a shadow of his April 2010 self and rarely seemed convincing.  So I guess the poll figures make sense.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on April 04, 2014, 10:15:39 AM
MSP Margo Macdonald has died.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 06, 2014, 05:31:37 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDsV8YumePk

This is brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on April 08, 2014, 11:02:11 AM
The Tory Mayor of Havering and two other councillors have defected to UKIP, making the Tories a minority administration on my local council. This may have had something to do with a batch of incumbents getting deselected for the upcoming May elections.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on April 09, 2014, 01:29:56 AM
A cabinet resignation: Maria Miller (Tory MP for Basingstoke) has resigned as Secretary of State for culture, media and sport after the media had been gunning for her for a week or so.  This is essentially another flare up of the 2009 MPs' expenses scandal.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on April 09, 2014, 11:24:58 AM
Ministers in this government have had a strangely limpet like quality: it's been obvious for a while that Miller's position was untenable, yet she clung on regardless. Of course it could be argued that the 'a scandal? OUT THE DOOR AT ONCE!' frequently taken by the previous government wasn't that healthy either.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: 🦀🎂🦀🎂 on April 09, 2014, 12:08:57 PM
Replaced by Tory Right member Sajid Javid - said by some to be PM material, but then again the UK media do have a cringeworthy habit of finding minority background politicians and proclaiming them as "The British Obama". Still nice to see a bit of diversity in the cabinet, even if it came at the expense of one of the few women on the frontbench (not that I'm defending Miller in any way).

Is Miller going to resign as an MP as well? Basingstoke might be a conceivable target for UKIP :(


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on April 09, 2014, 12:37:34 PM
They didn't perform terribly in the 2013 county council elections, but they didn't perform terribly well there either. In a by-election caused by a scandal they'd throw the kitchen sink at it (of course), though Labour would also make an effort (parts of the town have a decent Labour vote and the constituency would have been Labour for part of the Blair era on present boundaries). Though presumably she's not going to quit as an MP.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Хahar 🤔 on April 09, 2014, 01:17:17 PM
I find Sajid Javid deeply abhorrent on a personal level in a way that's not true of any other politician I can think of.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on April 09, 2014, 01:22:32 PM
Yes, I can understand that.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on April 09, 2014, 02:20:50 PM
Is it just me or does he sound like a Dalek?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on April 09, 2014, 03:51:37 PM
Michael Fabricant, Vice Chair of the Conservative Party was asked to resign today, refused, then was sacked. Most likely due to his calling for Maria Miller to resign on Twitter and vocal anti-HS2 views (a-la Justine Greening moving from the transport brief).

Anyhow, everyone promoted in the mini-shuffle has made me a very happy Tory. Sajid Javid was the guest of honour at our University Conservative group summer dinner and he definitely impressed, I feel he's slightly wasted at the DCMS though. Andrea Leadsom and Nicky Morgan are also fantastic.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on April 09, 2014, 04:04:28 PM
Ministerial resignations and reshuffles are so rare this parliament that this makes a bigger impact that it would otherwise do. Still, it is nice to get one of the 2010 cohort at the table.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on April 10, 2014, 12:33:48 PM
Nigel Evans found not guilty, therefore no Ribble Valley by-election.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on April 10, 2014, 01:20:24 PM
Nigel Evans found not guilty, therefore no Ribble Valley by-election.

Not just that. The evidence against him like wet tissue. It should have never gone to court.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: 🦀🎂🦀🎂 on April 10, 2014, 01:26:43 PM
Michael Fabricant, Vice Chair of the Conservative Party was asked to resign today, refused, then was sacked. Most likely due to his calling for Maria Miller to resign on Twitter and vocal anti-HS2 views (a-la Justine Greening moving from the transport brief).

Fabricant always creeped me out. He looks like a shrivelled up Boris Johnson.

Then again it was probably a bad idea to appoint a self-described "maverick" to a leadership role. Maverick politicians are normally best suited to minor parties, the backbenches and crap reality TV. Watch as an unleashed Fabricant seeks the oxygen of media exposure to revenge himself on the party establishment.

Nigel Evans found not guilty, therefore no Ribble Valley by-election.

Will he be reinstated as Deputy Speaker?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on April 10, 2014, 02:32:09 PM
Nigel Evans found not guilty, therefore no Ribble Valley by-election.

Not just that. The evidence against him like wet tissue. It should have never gone to court.

If the Guardian article on the case is accurate I'd have to agree.  What were the police and CPS doing?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Supersonic on April 10, 2014, 04:08:16 PM
Michael Fabricant, Vice Chair of the Conservative Party was asked to resign today, refused, then was sacked. Most likely due to his calling for Maria Miller to resign on Twitter and vocal anti-HS2 views (a-la Justine Greening moving from the transport brief).

Fabricant always creeped me out. He looks like a shrivelled up Boris Johnson.

Then again it was probably a bad idea to appoint a self-described "maverick" to a leadership role. Maverick politicians are normally best suited to minor parties, the backbenches and crap reality TV. Watch as an unleashed Fabricant seeks the oxygen of media exposure to revenge himself on the party establishment.

Nigel Evans found not guilty, therefore no Ribble Valley by-election.

Will he be reinstated as Deputy Speaker?

Yeah, he's a.. character, shall we say. I do find him quite an amusing fellow, he hosted our University freshers event and went down a treat.

To the second question, unlikely.

Nigel Evans found not guilty, therefore no Ribble Valley by-election.

Not just that. The evidence against him like wet tissue. It should have never gone to court.

If the Guardian article on the case is accurate I'd have to agree.  What were the police and CPS doing?

I read the article too, seems Sarah Wollaston played a big role in getting the police involved. Never really been fond of her.

Also, Norman Tebbit calls for Martin McGuinness to be assassinated (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/norman-tebbit-i-hope-real-ira-dissidents-shoot-martin-mcguinness-for-attending-state-banquet-with-queen-at-windsor-castle-30168143.html).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: politicus on April 10, 2014, 04:16:50 PM

Also, Norman Tebbit calls for Martin McGuinness to be assassinated (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/norman-tebbit-i-hope-real-ira-dissidents-shoot-martin-mcguinness-for-attending-state-banquet-with-queen-at-windsor-castle-30168143.html).

One is allowed to day dream, even of the death of your enemies.

Not the Christian thing to do, but I cant really blame him. If he was an active politician it would be another matter, but this is only human.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Cassius on April 10, 2014, 04:23:46 PM
Michael Fabricant, Vice Chair of the Conservative Party was asked to resign today, refused, then was sacked. Most likely due to his calling for Maria Miller to resign on Twitter and vocal anti-HS2 views (a-la Justine Greening moving from the transport brief).

Fabricant always creeped me out. He looks like a shrivelled up Boris Johnson.

Then again it was probably a bad idea to appoint a self-described "maverick" to a leadership role. Maverick politicians are normally best suited to minor parties, the backbenches and crap reality TV. Watch as an unleashed Fabricant seeks the oxygen of media exposure to revenge himself on the party establishment.

Nigel Evans found not guilty, therefore no Ribble Valley by-election.

Will he be reinstated as Deputy Speaker?

Yeah, he's a.. character, shall we say. I do find him quite an amusing fellow, he hosted our University freshers event and went down a treat.

To the second question, unlikely.

Nigel Evans found not guilty, therefore no Ribble Valley by-election.

Not just that. The evidence against him like wet tissue. It should have never gone to court.

If the Guardian article on the case is accurate I'd have to agree.  What were the police and CPS doing?

I read the article too, seems Sarah Wollaston played a big role in getting the police involved. Never really been fond of her.

Also, Norman Tebbit calls for Martin McGuinness to be assassinated (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/norman-tebbit-i-hope-real-ira-dissidents-shoot-martin-mcguinness-for-attending-state-banquet-with-queen-at-windsor-castle-30168143.html).

Well, it would be a rather just dessert for him I must say.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on April 10, 2014, 06:45:34 PM
Richard Hoggart, massively influential public intellectual and author of The Uses of Literacy, has died aged 95.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on April 11, 2014, 11:42:33 AM
Nigel Evans found not guilty, therefore no Ribble Valley by-election.

Not just that. The evidence against him like wet tissue. It should have never gone to court.

If the Guardian article on the case is accurate I'd have to agree.  What were the police and CPS doing?

Post-Savile, they'll have it hard either way. It says something that of the celeb sex prosecutions recently that have returned verdicts, the only 'wins' for the CPS have been Stuart Hall (who pled guilty) and that fairly obscure singer.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on April 12, 2014, 02:30:11 AM
Jeremy Browne (the very right wing Lib Dem MP for Taunton Deane and former minister) suggests his own party is pointless (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/12/liberal-democrats-pointless-former-minister):

Quote
Every political party and every politician has to be able to answer the question: if you didn't exist why would it be necessary to invent you?

I'm not sure it would be necessary to invent an ill-defined moderating centrist party.





Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 12, 2014, 02:59:17 PM
Euan Blair looking at Bootle apparently.

He's hoping to ride in on Cherie's "local roots". ::)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on April 12, 2014, 03:18:31 PM
Euan Blair looking at Bootle apparently.

He's hoping to ride in on Cherie's "local roots". ::)

Some people are speculating it's false and than it was invented by the MP, who just lost its automatic reselection, in hope than the party members will choose to keep him, fearing Euan possibility.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on April 13, 2014, 06:20:48 AM

Also, Norman Tebbit calls for Martin McGuinness to be assassinated (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/norman-tebbit-i-hope-real-ira-dissidents-shoot-martin-mcguinness-for-attending-state-banquet-with-queen-at-windsor-castle-30168143.html).

One is allowed to day dream, even of the death of your enemies.

Not the Christian thing to do, but I cant really blame him. If he was an active politician it would be another matter, but this is only human.

Worth mentioning as it's not specified in the article; his wife was paralysed from the waist down and in the case of the Queen, the IRA killed her cousin.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Tetro Kornbluth on April 13, 2014, 10:10:02 PM
()


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 16, 2014, 07:23:11 AM
This has annoyed me a little bit more than it should've.

()

"Man of the people".


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: bore on April 16, 2014, 07:31:53 AM
His name is Nigel for heaven's sake.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 16, 2014, 02:49:07 PM
Austin Mitchell standing down.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Cassius on April 16, 2014, 04:22:30 PM

Nigel isn't a particularly posh name. Quentin, maybe. But not Nigel...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 16, 2014, 04:52:56 PM

Nigel isn't a particularly posh name. Quentin, maybe. But not Nigel...

Nigel's less posh than Edward or Nicholas.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Cassius on April 16, 2014, 05:03:14 PM

Nigel isn't a particularly posh name. Quentin, maybe. But not Nigel...

Nigel's less posh than Edward or Nicholas.

Meh, I've always thought of Edward as just being a rather ordinary name (albeit one whose popularity seems to have declined), but yeah, Nigel's certainly less posh than Nicholas. Although, to be honest, whether a name is posh or not really depends on who it applies to...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on April 16, 2014, 06:27:36 PM
Nigel always strikes me as solidly middle class in a dull suburban way.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on April 16, 2014, 10:14:31 PM
For me Nigel always conjures up a particular fictional civil servant:
()


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: bore on April 17, 2014, 04:42:56 AM
The only person I know called Nicholas would definitely not be described as posh, so maybe I'm biased. It also doesn't help that no one born since 1970 is called Nigel, but I certainly don't think man of the people whenever I hear the name.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on April 17, 2014, 05:51:06 AM
Not worth fussing over. For many the name Margaret conjures up suburban Surbiton housewives, Mustique royals or the bag lady. In Lanarkshire it's the name of your Catholic auntie in Motherwell. Class doesn't matter.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 17, 2014, 04:41:45 PM
Jim Messina (Obama campaign manager) has been hired by the Tories.

Not really impressed that Labour are sitting back watching the Tories throw money at the world's best people (Crosby may be a disgusting person, but he does the job), and Labour has nobody. Ed should take their Messina and raise them an Axelrod!

And they've hired Axelrod!


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on April 17, 2014, 04:50:54 PM
Jim Messina (Obama campaign manager) has been hired by the Tories.

Not really impressed that Labour are sitting back watching the Tories throw money at the world's best people (Crosby may be a disgusting person, but he does the job), and Labour has nobody. Ed should take their Messina and raise them an Axelrod!

And they've hired Axelrod!

They have. I was a little concerned until I read this;

'He has been recruited to work alongside shadow foreign secretary, Douglas Alexander, who is in charge of Labour's general election strategy.'

And now I feel better :)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on April 21, 2014, 01:34:36 PM
https://twitter.com/MrRBourne/status/458014839760502784/photo/1

Why UKIP are scum.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 21, 2014, 01:55:11 PM
https://twitter.com/MrRBourne/status/458014839760502784/photo/1

Why UKIP are scum.

They just get worse
()


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on April 21, 2014, 02:55:05 PM
What is that image in the lower right corner of that sign supposed to be?  If I had to guess, it's an enter key on a keyboard with some custom wordage I can't read, but I wouldn't care to bet that I got it even that correct.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Serenity Now on April 22, 2014, 03:11:14 PM
What is that image in the lower right corner of that sign supposed to be?  If I had to guess, it's an enter key on a keyboard with some custom wordage I can't read, but I wouldn't care to bet that I got it even that correct.

I think it says "common sense", which was also used as a slogan by the Conservative Party back in the Blair years.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Frodo on April 23, 2014, 07:31:38 PM
David Cameron finds vindication (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/poll-majority-of-ukip-and-conservative-voters-now-support-gay-marriage-9278449.html).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 23, 2014, 07:38:04 PM
Danny Alexander says that the LibDems won't support any minority government in 2015. They'll demand they keep their ministerial limos should there be another hung parliament.

If Canada, Australia and New Zealand have lived through it...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on April 23, 2014, 07:50:19 PM
Well, so have we. In the 1990s. And in the 1970s.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on April 24, 2014, 09:42:06 AM
Ridiculous: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-27132035


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Lief 🗽 on April 24, 2014, 12:53:12 PM
Ridiculous: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-27132035

Why?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Potatoe on April 24, 2014, 04:38:47 PM
Ridiculous: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-27132035
Bloody corners, with their bloody............................. What do Cornish people have again? Ah well, their bloody time will come, *grumble* UKIP will destroy Cornwall *grumble*.

Note:The above is a joke.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Citizen Hats on April 25, 2014, 12:46:54 PM
Danny Alexander says that the LibDems won't support any minority government in 2015. They'll demand they keep their ministerial limos should there be another hung parliament.

If Canada, Australia and New Zealand have lived through it...

You make it seem like the LibDems are the only political party trying to do that?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 25, 2014, 03:48:11 PM
Danny Alexander says that the LibDems won't support any minority government in 2015. They'll demand they keep their ministerial limos should there be another hung parliament.

If Canada, Australia and New Zealand have lived through it...

You make it seem like the LibDems are the only political party trying to do that?

I don't think the Tories or Labour would see a fall from 24% to 9% of the vote as a mandate to govern.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Joe Republic on April 27, 2014, 06:15:27 PM
The Guardian wins.  (NSFW language) (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BmNeMgTCQAE7ZDQ.jpg:large)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Citizen Hats on April 27, 2014, 09:54:08 PM
Danny Alexander says that the LibDems won't support any minority government in 2015. They'll demand they keep their ministerial limos should there be another hung parliament.

If Canada, Australia and New Zealand have lived through it...

You make it seem like the LibDems are the only political party trying to do that?

I don't think the Tories or Labour would see a fall from 24% to 9% of the vote as a mandate to govern.

The mandate to govern is a majority in parliament.  If no one has that, they'll have to come to an arrangement with people who have as much a mandate from their constituents


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: MaxQue on April 27, 2014, 10:37:07 PM
Danny Alexander says that the LibDems won't support any minority government in 2015. They'll demand they keep their ministerial limos should there be another hung parliament.

If Canada, Australia and New Zealand have lived through it...

You make it seem like the LibDems are the only political party trying to do that?

I don't think the Tories or Labour would see a fall from 24% to 9% of the vote as a mandate to govern.

The mandate to govern is a majority in parliament.  If no one has that, they'll have to come to an arrangement with people who have as much a mandate from their constituents

Indeed, like the coalition agreements after 2004, 2006 and 2008 elections in Canada.
Oops. There has been none such agreement.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on April 28, 2014, 11:06:25 AM
Max Clifford found guilty of eight indecent assault charges (not guilty on two others and no verdict on an 11th - the jury took over a week); sentencing Friday.

Al will probably have more to say, but the PR man was responsible for the David Mellor resignation. Personally I never liked him; he seemed to be a PR equivalent of an ambulance chaser.



Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on April 29, 2014, 07:19:12 AM
With Cameron saying he'll resign if 2015 means he'd have to lead a government which can't ensure an EU referendum, is he basically saying majority or bust?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on April 29, 2014, 01:08:45 PM
Reports suggest that Patrick Mercer, the MP for Newark who resigned the Tory whip last year in connection with allegations of dodgy relationships with lobbyists, is about to resign from the Commons following a recommendation that he should be suspended for six months.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/29/patrick-mercer-suspended-house-of-commons

EDIT: He has indeed announced that he is resigning his seat


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on April 30, 2014, 02:18:07 PM
I turn on Good Morning Britain and there's no sofa, no bricks and no Mike Morris. I know he's dead but still...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 01, 2014, 11:03:28 AM
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/01/patrick-mercer-tory-mp-worst-ever-breaches-rules

Some of the details are quite... oh wow...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: politicus on May 01, 2014, 04:25:22 PM
So he is married to "a woman of Jewish extraction" and makes anti-semitic comments. Lovely.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on May 08, 2014, 01:34:42 PM
Latest Labour PPB (http://youtu.be/IIH-2lZF2yw)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on May 08, 2014, 02:52:35 PM
Latest Labour PPB (http://youtu.be/IIH-2lZF2yw)

The way Labour obsess over Clegg is the way someone fusses over someone they secretly want to get into bed with ;)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: 🦀🎂🦀🎂 on May 08, 2014, 03:13:16 PM
Latest Labour PPB (http://youtu.be/IIH-2lZF2yw)

The way Labour obsess over Clegg is the way someone fusses over someone they secretly want to get into bed with ;)

It's utterly useless. Why attack the Lib Dems? The Lib Dem's simple existence conspires against them, and anybody voting for them at this stage aren't going to be swayed by a "funny" ad. And the remaining Lib Dems voters are Orange Bookers splitting the vote on the right, so the ad might actually help the Tories.

It's like punching a bleeding sheep while ignoring the enroaching python of UKIP. Thanks Axelrod. You were sure worth that 6 figure sum.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: 🦀🎂🦀🎂 on May 08, 2014, 03:26:28 PM
Although (joyously) it has shoved Dan Hodges out of the window for good. He's probably the first (and last) Labour>Liberal defector since the election.

The Lib Dems are welcome to him, I guess.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 08, 2014, 04:46:51 PM
No one votes based on PPB's so why take them seriously?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on May 08, 2014, 04:56:32 PM
It's worth noting that we have almost exactly a year to go till the expected GE (and it's Thursday today)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: 🦀🎂🦀🎂 on May 08, 2014, 05:01:16 PM
No one votes based on PPB's so why take them seriously?

Apparently Hodges does :D

Tbh I don't know why it pissed me of so much, it just seemed like an uncomfortably American style attack ad.



Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 08, 2014, 05:44:59 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-27322837


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 09, 2014, 10:42:20 AM
Labour'vve sent out a "Nick Clegg, in his own words" kind've thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prWxckyxjyY


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 09, 2014, 11:23:48 AM
()

David Cameron in Nandos.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Simfan34 on May 09, 2014, 11:28:17 AM
Looks like some serious strategising going on there. Also, Nando's is awesome.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Snowstalker Mk. II on May 10, 2014, 02:40:31 PM
Labour'vve sent out a "Nick Clegg, in his own words" kind've this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prWxckyxjyY

I laughed.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on May 12, 2014, 01:10:56 PM
A couple of nasty polls for Labour.  Neither is that good for the Tories either in terms of vote share (UKIP are the real beneficiaries) but given how bad they are for Labour that's enough to put the Tories ahead.

ICM: Con 33 Lab 31 UKIP 15 LD 13
Ashcroft: Con 34 Lab 32 UKIP 15 LD 9


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on May 12, 2014, 02:12:36 PM
A couple of nasty polls for Labour.  Neither is that good for the Tories either in terms of vote share (UKIP are the real beneficiaries) but given how bad they are for Labour that's enough to put the Tories ahead.

ICM: Con 33 Lab 31 UKIP 15 LD 13
Ashcroft: Con 34 Lab 32 UKIP 15 LD 9

Even before these polls Labour's lead has been zig-zagging downwards over the past year. The Tories are in a good position 1 year out.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Cassius on May 12, 2014, 02:43:44 PM
ICM isn't that highly regarded as a pollster is it (or am I thinking of Ipsos)? But, anyway, if that poll is somewhat accurate, then that's obviously not a particularly good sign for Labour (although, this is only one poll, and we could well get another poll that puts Labour a few points ahead), especially since over the last year or so they've become bogged down at around 35-37. Still, it's not exactly brilliant news for the Tories either.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 14, 2014, 08:11:53 AM
I think Labour's slump is partly due to the Euros and the Greens eating into Labour's VI (Ipsos has them on 8%). Hopefully it's given Brewer's Green a bit of a kick though.

34 (-4) Lab
31 (nc) Con
11 (-4) UKIP
9 (nc) LD
8 (+5) Greens


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on May 14, 2014, 10:55:43 AM
The longer Labour don't acknowledge Ed Miliband as a problem the better as far as I am concerned.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on May 14, 2014, 11:46:24 AM
they've become bogged down at around 35-37. Still, it's not exactly brilliant news for the Tories either.

Labour won on 36 in 2005.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on May 14, 2014, 12:21:28 PM
The longer Labour don't acknowledge Ed Miliband as a problem the better as far as I am concerned.

Yes, it's going to be really great for Labour to get themselves embroiled in a leadership crisis.  Anyway, who would be better?  Balls?  LOL.  Burnham?  Not convinced, and he didn't set the world on fire in the last leadership election.  Cooper?  Can be good, but would suffer from who she's married to.

And I would point out that when Ed M actually gets himself noticed (e.g. conference speeches, or when the Mail went for his father) he tends to do quite well.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: 🦀🎂🦀🎂 on May 14, 2014, 12:50:04 PM
The longer Labour don't acknowledge Ed Miliband as a problem the better as far as I am concerned.

Yes, it's going to be really great for Labour to get themselves embroiled in a leadership crisis.  Anyway, who would be better?  Balls?  LOL.  Burnham?  Not convinced, and he didn't set the world on fire in the last leadership election.  Cooper?  Can be good, but would suffer from who she's married to.

And I would point out that when Ed M actually gets himself noticed (e.g. conference speeches, or when the Mail went for his father) he tends to do quite well.

I think Ed has the most potential benefit from debates. At the moment, no one really knows who the "real Ed" is - just that he's kind of dorky. If he holds his own in the head to head with Cameron, that could solidify Labour's lead. For an American parallel, look at Romney's boost after the first debate - it was the first time since he had won the leadership to control his own image and attack people's preconceptions of him.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: 🦀🎂🦀🎂 on May 14, 2014, 08:10:00 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/14/ukip-lost-one-in-10-county-councillors-seats-2013 (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/14/ukip-lost-one-in-10-county-councillors-seats-2013)


lol


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on May 23, 2014, 07:20:34 AM
Mackintosh's Glasgow School of Art is on fire. Quite serious and very sad. I work a few blocks away and the smoke is coming through the air con :(


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Tetro Kornbluth on May 23, 2014, 08:03:38 AM
Mackintosh's Glasgow School of Art is on fire. Quite serious and very sad. I work a few blocks away and the smoke is coming through the air con :(

:(

Any update?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on May 23, 2014, 08:16:55 AM
Mackintosh's Glasgow School of Art is on fire. Quite serious and very sad. I work a few blocks away and the smoke is coming through the air con :(

:(

Any update?

Fire started in the basement. The structure of the building internally is quality, untreated wood (and the smell of the smoke was absolutely beautiful in a macabre way). The cavities of the building allowed it to spread fast into the roof and out the back. There were flames coming out of the front of the building; they shattered the windows. The Library, the most beautiful and ornate room in the building is likely destroyed. The damage is probably to a third to a half of the structure. You can't get close to it, but internally it looks gutted.

The air spaces, the light spaces, the wood and everything about the building made it a perfect storm for a fire to take hold.

People are in tears. I don't blame them.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on May 23, 2014, 10:08:00 AM
At least no one was physically injured, but this really was the worst possible time for such a fire with senior students setting up their work to be judged to see whether they were good enough to get the degree they'd been seeking.  Hopefully, they all documented their work before it went up in flames and smoke, but I have the sad feeling there will be some who will need to redo much of their hard work.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on May 23, 2014, 10:22:49 AM
At least no one was physically injured, but this really was the worst possible time for such a fire with senior students setting up their work to be judged to see whether they were good enough to get the degree they'd been seeking.  Hopefully, they all documented their work before it went up in flames and smoke, but I have the sad feeling there will be some who will need to redo much of their hard work.

It is tragic. It's ironic that it was probably art pieces themselves that caused the fire. A projector overheated and exploded setting fire to foam. All were art pieces.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on May 23, 2014, 03:42:39 PM
()


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on May 24, 2014, 09:03:07 AM
Lord Ashcroft has released a big "marginals poll".  This is slightly different to the usual style of these: he selected 26 constituencies and polled over 1000 in each, so there are results for each constituency, and if you want to look at overall figures the sample size is unusually large.  Whether the sampling is any good I don't know.

The overall result gives a 6.5% swing from Con to Lab, much better for Labour than the recent ComRes marginals poll.  Some of the details look a bit weird, and the wisdom of doing this in the middle of an EU election might be questioned; there are some very high UKIP scores, although he doesn't have them in the lead anywhere.

Amber Valley: Lab 41 (+4) Con 29 (-10) UKIP 20 (+18) LD 6 (-8)
Broxtowe: Lab 42 (+4) Con 31 (-8) UKIP 14 (+12) LD 8 (-9)
Gogledd Caerdydd: Lab 41 (+4) Con 34 (-3) LD 8 (-10) UKIP 8 (+6) Plaid 7 (+4)
Hendon: Lab 41 (-1) Con 38 (-4) UKIP 13 (+11) LD 5 (-7)
Great Yarmouth: Con 32 (-11) Lab 31 (-2) UKIP 29 (+24) LD 5 (-9)
Lancaster & Fleetwood: Lab 45 (+10) Con 28 (-8) UKIP 12 (+10) LD 7 (-12)
Morecambe & Lunesdale: Lab 39 (-1) Con 36 (-6) UKIP 16 (+12) LD 7 (-6)
North Warwickshire: Lab 39 (-1) Con 33 (-7) UKIP 19 (+16) LD 5 (-7)
Sherwood: Lab 41 (+2) Con 29 (-10) UKIP 21 (+18) LD 5 (-10)
Stockton South: Lab 44 (+6) Con 34 (-5) UKIP 14 (+11) LD 6 (-9)
South Thanet: Con 31 (-17) Lab 31 (nc) UKIP 26 (+20) LD 8 (-7)
Thurrock: Lab 36 (-1) UKIP 31 (+24) Con 24 (-13) LD 5 (-6)
Waveney: Lab 38 (-1) Con 31 (-9) UKIP 21 (+16) LD 6 (-7)
Wolverhampton SW: Lab 46 (+7) Con 31 (-10) UKIP 15 (+11) LD 4 (-12)

Bolton W: Lab 41 (+2) Con 30 (-8) UKIP 19 (+15) LD 6 (-11)
Brum Edgbaston: Lab 41 (nc) Con 33 (-5) UKIP 15 (+13) LD 6 (-9)
Derby N: Lab 41 (+8) Con 26 (-6) UKIP 20 (+18) LD 8 (-20)
Dudley N: Lab 39 (nc) UKIP 29 (+21) Con 25 (-12) LD 4 (-7)
Halifax: Lab 41 (+4) Con 27 (-7) UKIP 19 (+17) LD 8 (-11)
Hampstead & Kilburn: Lab 42 (+9) Con 33 (nc) LD 15 (-16) UKIP 4 (+3)
Great Grimsby: Lab 37 (+4) UKIP 25 (+19) Con 23 (-8) LD 9 (-13)
Morley & Outwood: Lab 39 (+1) Con 27 (-8) UKIP 22 (+19) LD 6 (-11)
Southampton Itchen: Lab 35 (-2) Con 27 (-9) UKIP 25 (+21) LD 10 (-11)
Telford: Lab 38 (-1) Con 28 (-8) UKIP 25 (+19) LD 4 (-11)
Walsall N: Lab 37 (nc) UKIP 32 (+27) Con 22 (-12) LD 5 (-8)
Wirral S: Lab 43 (+2) Con 30 (-9) UKIP 15 (+12) LD 6 (-11)

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2014/05/conservative-labour-battleground/


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on May 24, 2014, 12:14:06 PM
I remember when a marginals poll in Sep 2009 said we'd get a majority of 70 :(

The problem with marginals polls (which bites bums on election night too) is that you need a national comparison. This poll took place over 6 weeks with Tory marginals polled first which as Well's says was when the national polls showed a swing of 5.5 to Labour. In Labour's target seats (Tory held) in this poll, it's 5.5. So it's not showing anything the national polls aren't showing us.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: NewYorkExpress on May 24, 2014, 08:55:39 PM
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-27561917 (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-27561917)

Liberal Democratic Candidates Jackie Porter (Running to be an MP from Winchester, Currently a Member of Hampshire County Council from Itchen Valley) and Ros Kayes (Running in West Dorset), have called for Liberal Democratic Party leader and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg to step down as Party Leader.

Porter in a statement to the BBC stated that "we have to make decisions to save the party, not the person", while Kayes, who along with Porter is one of two hundred party figures who have put their name to an open letter asking Clegg to step down, stated that "If one was to ask the general public what they didn't like about the coalition, they would say they don't like Nick Clegg"

After Thursday's calamitous results in local elections, where the Liberal Democrats lost over 300 Councilors.  the co-chair of the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Committee for Health and Social Care, John Pugh, said he had canvassed a dozen-backbenchers (though he didn't say who) and went to state that "The High Command is in danger of seeming like generals at the Somme, repeatedly sending others over the top while being safely ensconced in Westminister and claiming the carnage is inevitable" adding that "the time had passed for a policy of misguided stoicism".


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on May 25, 2014, 02:02:51 AM
Apparently the Sunday Times has a story that two Lib Dem MPs, John Pugh (Southport) and Adrian Sanders (Torbay) have called for Clegg to resign.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Simfan34 on May 25, 2014, 02:25:35 AM

I read about that- thankfully no serious damage, yes? The building is intact, for the most part?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Nhoj on May 25, 2014, 02:26:49 AM
Likely quite of bit of smoke and water damage, though i suppose stone holds up ok.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on May 25, 2014, 03:33:52 AM
Most of the art (a good deal coursework) seems to have survived as well.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Simfan34 on May 27, 2014, 04:10:01 AM
Good to hear. Anyway, if Clegg resigns (why?), who might replace him?

Poll shows he might lose his seat. (http://www.itv.com/news/story/2014-05-24/lib-dem-candidates-call-on-clegg-to-resign/)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: 🦀🎂🦀🎂 on May 27, 2014, 08:42:06 AM
Good to hear. Anyway, if Clegg resigns (why?), who might replace him?

Poll shows he might lose his seat. (http://www.itv.com/news/story/2014-05-24/lib-dem-candidates-call-on-clegg-to-resign/)

Cable as a caretaker, or else Danny Alexander.

Clegg would probably remain as DPM, but the new leader would carry the party's re-election campaign.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on May 27, 2014, 01:23:09 PM
It appears the Lib Dem member who commissioned the ICM constituency polls was Lord Oakeshott, a long standing Clegg critic often associated with Vince Cable.  I wonder whether he had an inkling that he'd get an interesting result in Hallam, or whether he just got lucky?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on May 31, 2014, 07:31:04 PM
This morning's YouGov has Clegg as the least popular party leader since this kind've thing started getting measured.

13% approval
78% disapproval

Hilarious.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: BaconBacon96 on May 31, 2014, 11:51:29 PM
The Lib Dems are doomed. I think that's been established at this point.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on June 02, 2014, 04:54:16 PM
Scottish Tories set out their stall on devolution. They have finally settled on something close to Devo Max promising greater powers than Labour. It only took them forty years...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: politicus on June 02, 2014, 05:03:31 PM
Scottish Tories set out their stall on devolution. They have finally settled on something close to Devo Max promising greater powers than Labour. It only took them forty years...

"Come, come, my conservative friend, wipe the dew off your spectacles, and see that the world is moving."
 
Elizabeth Cady Stanton



Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Tetro Kornbluth on June 02, 2014, 06:31:51 PM
Scottish Tories set out their stall on devolution. They have finally settled on something close to Devo Max promising greater powers than Labour. It only took them forty years...

That's terrible news for Ed Milliband


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: politicus on June 02, 2014, 06:35:15 PM
Scottish Tories set out their stall on devolution. They have finally settled on something close to Devo Max promising greater powers than Labour. It only took them forty years...

That's terrible news for Ed Milliband

Isnt the Torie brand still too toxic in Scotland for that to matter much?
And a big chunk of conservative/centre-right Scots will still vote SNP.


EDIT: My sarcasm detector was off.



Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on June 02, 2014, 06:46:18 PM
Scottish Tories set out their stall on devolution. They have finally settled on something close to Devo Max promising greater powers than Labour. It only took them forty years...

That's terrible news for Ed Milliband

Alright Dan Hodges.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on June 12, 2014, 11:59:30 AM
Today's YouGov poll had Lab 36 Con 34 UKIP 14 LD 6 Green 5.  This is the lowest figure the company has ever shown for the Lib Dems, and it's in line with a trend of bad figures for them since the EU and local elections.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on June 13, 2014, 07:52:26 PM
Today's YouGov poll had Lab 36 Con 34 UKIP 14 LD 6 Green 5.  This is the lowest figure the company has ever shown for the Lib Dems, and it's in line with a trend of bad figures for them since the EU and local elections.

You'd have to go back to 1959 to see a liberal party as low as 6%, back in the day when they'd only field a handful of candidates.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on June 24, 2014, 10:39:13 AM
Andy Coulson found guilty, hurray. Tragically Brooks et al got off, but then juries always suck at this kind of thing.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on June 24, 2014, 11:58:43 AM
()


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: 🦀🎂🦀🎂 on June 30, 2014, 09:41:28 AM
Rolf Harris has been found guilty of 12 counts of sexual assault.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: patrick1 on July 03, 2014, 06:04:32 PM
Surprised this wasn't done earlier. Mildly entertaining if not very insightful read.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/28/scottish-independence-campaign-needs-orange-gatecrashers


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Tetro Kornbluth on July 03, 2014, 06:55:26 PM
Surprised this wasn't done earlier. Mildly entertaining if not very insightful read.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/28/scottish-independence-campaign-needs-orange-gatecrashers


Best argument to vote YES yet.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: morgieb on July 04, 2014, 07:06:50 PM
Rolf Harris has been found guilty of 12 counts of sexual assault.
Trust British prisons? Sure can.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: 🦀🎂🦀🎂 on July 05, 2014, 09:21:28 PM
Well the rumour mill is circling around a Westminster paedophile ring, supposedly featuring politicians of all three parties. A lot of notable Labour people are calling for a public inquiry.

What the hell was wrong with people in the 70's?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on July 05, 2014, 09:33:02 PM
What the hell was wrong with people in the 70's?
Disco.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on July 06, 2014, 12:36:01 PM
The ultimate source for many of the rumours is the late Geoffrey Dickens (Conservative MP for Huddersfield West 1979-83, for Littleborough & Saddleworth 1983-95) who was... well... a crank. Amongst other things he was a firm believer in the truth of the Satanic abuse nonsense that needlessly ruined so many lives in the late 1980s. He was also virulently homophobic, even for a right-wing Tory backbencher of the 1980s. Stopped clocks are, of course, right two times a day and obviously everything related to possible child abuse should be taken seriously, but: caution.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on July 14, 2014, 04:07:07 PM
Big reshuffle underway

Ken Clarke gone.
Hague to Leader of the House and standing down at the election.
Owen Paterson out.
David Jones gone from the Wales Office.
Lansley gone.

Also loads've sub-cabinet frontbenchers moving round.

A pretty noticeable step to the right coming up.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on July 14, 2014, 04:30:12 PM
Big reshuffle underway

Ken Clarke gone.
Hague to Leader of the House and standing down at the election.
Owen Paterson out.
David Jones gone from the Wales Office.
Lansley gone.

Also loads've sub-cabinet frontbenchers moving round.

A pretty noticeable step to the right coming up.

Hague is a surprise.  What's the speculation about who'll be replacing him at the Foreign Office?

Unlike Hague, Ken Clarke is not standing down as an MP.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on July 14, 2014, 04:32:08 PM
Big reshuffle underway

Ken Clarke gone.
Hague to Leader of the House and standing down at the election.
Owen Paterson out.
David Jones gone from the Wales Office.
Lansley gone.

Also loads've sub-cabinet frontbenchers moving round.

A pretty noticeable step to the right coming up.

Hague is a surprise.  What's the speculation about who'll be replacing him at the Foreign Office?

Unlike Hague, Ken Clarke is not standing down as an MP.

Liam Fox or Hammond for Foreign Office. I'd say Hammond would be the one, appointing Fox to such a high position just screams weakness.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on July 14, 2014, 04:32:51 PM
Given this has been one of the most unchanged cabinets in recent political history, it seemed odd to make changes this close to an election.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on July 14, 2014, 04:32:57 PM
To answer my own question, apparently Philip Hammond is moving from Defence to the Foreign Office.

Paterson should never have been in that position in the first place.  He wasn't very good, and his views on climate change made a mockery of that "greenest government ever" line.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: 🦀🎂🦀🎂 on July 14, 2014, 04:34:32 PM
Wow, they kept Hague's resignation under wraps, didn't they?

Glad Paterson's gone, but a shame about Jones. If only because it was wonderful to finally see a Welsh Secretary called "David Jones".

Esther McVey is one of those supposedly being promoted to cabinet. A bit risky, seeing as she has a marginal seat; but I guess Cameron has a plan?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on July 14, 2014, 04:35:03 PM
Unlike Hague, Ken Clarke is not standing down as an MP.

He strikes me as someone destined to become Father of the House.

Anyway, all of this is terrible news for Ed Miliband, obviously.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on July 14, 2014, 04:35:52 PM
Esther McVey is one of those supposedly being promoted to cabinet. A bit risky, seeing as she has a marginal seat; but I guess Cameron has a plan.

He's got whole binders full of women. A Tory who isn't a man or from down South, that's a vote winner right?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on July 15, 2014, 05:51:45 AM
Oh yes and the Church of England voted to allow women to wear nice hats.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on July 15, 2014, 06:06:49 AM
Michael Gove demoted, the best news to come out of this reshuffle.

Some very happy staff rooms in schools across the country this morning I'd imagine.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: 🦀🎂🦀🎂 on July 15, 2014, 10:10:39 AM
Some stuff from the reshuffle:

* Cameron tried to fop Liam Fox off with a Minister of State for India, China and Latin America. Literally an attempt to send a troublesome menace abroad, but Dr Fox won't play ball.

* The new Welsh secretary Stephen Crabb is the first bearded Tory minister in more than a century. Another unrepresented minority in the cabinet!

* Cameron attempted to make it seem way more diverse by announcing all the women in one go, then releasing a bunch of men in drips and drabs.

* A lot of people are "in cabinet, but not of it". Esther McVey has been effectively promoted, for example, with her Jobs portfolio pretty much identical. Presumably Osborne wants to milk the recent rise in employment

* European Commissioner is Lord Hill, the current Leader of the House of Lords. No by-election needed. :(

* Gove's move is a surprise - his public fray with May may have been a mistake. He also gets some strange new position involving TV appearances. Gove is a good media performer, but still a bizarre role for a job normally kept out of the public view.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on July 15, 2014, 10:15:56 AM
I think you'll find that many, many Conservative ministers over the past century have had beards...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: 🦀🎂🦀🎂 on July 15, 2014, 10:30:51 AM
I think you'll find that many, many Conservative ministers over the past century have had beards...

It was according to the Conservatve History Group

"The last Tory cabinet minister with a beard was 4th Earl of Onslow (president of board of agriculture until March 1905)"

First secretary and not minister, I guess


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on July 15, 2014, 10:31:37 AM
Beard can also refer to something else...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on July 15, 2014, 10:57:49 AM
Hague's retirement means a ridiculously safe Tory seat opens up, of course. Will it go to another high-flier (Hague's predecessor was Leon Brittan, who moved there in 1983 from abolished and marginal Cleveland & Whitby), or will the local party revert to its pre-1983 tradition of selecting well-liked local-ish dullards?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on July 15, 2014, 11:15:49 AM
Michael Gove demoted, the best news to come out of this reshuffle.

Some very happy staff rooms in schools across the country this morning I'd imagine.

Definitely; although he is now Chief Whip. Mind you, his role in that could backfire.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on July 16, 2014, 07:53:11 PM
Clegg announces that he wants the Bedroom Tax scraped.
Having heard this, Rachel Reeves announces another Bedroom Tax vote in the Commons.
Clegg panics and the LDs say they only meant they want it "reformed".


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on July 21, 2014, 11:17:37 AM
Nick Griffin ousted as leader of the BNP after nearly 15 years.

He's to be replaced by a disgraced former teacher Adam Walker.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on July 21, 2014, 11:22:32 AM
Hilarious. I await with amusement a) the response of the ousted Fuhrer (a splinter party perhaps?) and b) what happens when the new Fuhrer tries to find out where all the party's money has gone...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on July 21, 2014, 11:23:59 AM
Indeed, the collapse of the BNP has been one of the funnier side-stories of this parliament.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on July 23, 2014, 02:13:27 AM
David Ward, Lib Dem (for now) MP for Bradford East on Twitter: "The big question is - if I lived in #Gaza would I fire a rocket? Probably yes."


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: 🦀🎂🦀🎂 on July 23, 2014, 05:31:12 AM
David Ward, Lib Dem (for now) MP for Bradford East on Twitter: "The big question is - if I lived in #Gaza would I fire a rocket? Probably yes."

He's already been suspended once for this, think the whip will go for good now.

Whatever you think of his tweet, this is beyond the pale:

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-07-23/former-lib-dem-mep-apology-after-disputatious-jews-slur/ (http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-07-23/former-lib-dem-mep-apology-after-disputatious-jews-slur/)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on July 23, 2014, 07:10:25 AM
He's the member for Bradford East. Doing things like this is a kind've desperate, dirty, identity politics. Look at how George Galloway ran his campaign in the other Bradford seat.

He'll be out in May anyway.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on July 23, 2014, 04:29:36 PM
Ward has issued what the Guardian calls a "partial apology" which it looks like may be enough to save his place in the Lib Dems, though perhaps he ought to try to think before tweeting:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/23/lib-dem-david-ward-apology-gaza-tweet

McMillan-Scott definitely stepped over the line IMO.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on July 25, 2014, 08:13:43 AM
What a stramash over the Red Arrows.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on July 25, 2014, 09:07:36 AM
David Tredinnick MP (Con, Bosworth) goes off on one again:
Astrology-loving MP seeks health answers in the stars (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28464009)

Quote
He stopped short of suggesting astrological readings on the NHS, but said he wanted to raise awareness of it as an alternative among patients and clinicians.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 04, 2014, 11:35:07 AM
http://labourlist.org/2014/08/about-that-miliband-wreath/

Terrible news for Ed Miliband.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on August 04, 2014, 12:05:29 PM
Read the article and the comments; it wasn't his fault.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 04, 2014, 12:11:39 PM
Bugger all this 'they died for our freedom' cant for a game of soldiers.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Cassius on August 04, 2014, 12:23:47 PM
Yes well, what else can they say.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 04, 2014, 01:22:55 PM
Read the article and the comments; it wasn't his fault.

I know, but nice example of what the media have done/are doing to Ed.

It looks like the Dept of Culture requested the cards, passed one on to Dave, but none for the other leaders, then shipped them up to Glasgow.

Oh silly season.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on August 05, 2014, 03:26:09 AM
Baroness Warsi has resigned from the Government over Gaza:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28656874


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Cassius on August 05, 2014, 04:02:08 AM
Good riddance.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on August 05, 2014, 11:21:23 AM
Baroness Warsi has resigned from the Government over Gaza:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28656874

It took her a month to realise that?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 06, 2014, 10:39:16 AM
Chapman Pincher is dead at 100.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on August 06, 2014, 11:00:25 AM

Didn't even know he was still alive; I've got one of his books, but I've yet to read it.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 06, 2014, 11:29:48 AM

Well, now he isn't :P

(always fun when that happens, though. Nothing will top Claude Lévi-Strauss, I suspect).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on August 07, 2014, 02:38:19 PM
Galloway being a bit of a c-ntweasel again.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Simfan34 on August 07, 2014, 02:58:29 PM
Galloway being a bit of a c-ntweasel again.

I daresay.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 08, 2014, 10:42:30 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV5z9d2W6gs

This fella's just been made a peer by Nick Clegg's LibDems.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on August 08, 2014, 11:25:08 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV5z9d2W6gs

This fella's just been made a peer by Nick Clegg's LibDems.

Considering Clegg wanted to gut the Lords, this could be ironic. :P


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 08, 2014, 01:44:05 PM
The list of new peers is hilariously bottom-of-the-barrel.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Citizen (The) Doctor on August 08, 2014, 02:31:10 PM
This probably does nothing to Cameron but it's still pretty funny. (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/i-like-tits-daily-among-bizarre-twitter-accounts-followed-by-david-camerons-office-9656318.html)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 08, 2014, 04:31:25 PM
The list of new peers is hilariously bottom-of-the-barrel.

A few broadsheet-friendly celebs and donors, as per.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 11, 2014, 02:10:47 PM
Random observation, but pretty odd considering the depth of unpopularity of all 3 current leaders, but 2010-15 is set to be the first parliament since 1970-1974-1974 in which there's been no leadership changes/challenges outside of a PM's resignation (Brown).

And it's not like there hasn't been points where the media's talked the possibility up for all 3 either: constant talk of Cooper-Balls 'on manouvres' for the first two years of EdM's leadership, post-omnishambles for Cameron and near enough constantly for Clegg.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 14, 2014, 10:25:44 AM
Paedogeddon latest: Cliff Richard's Berkshire home searched by the police.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: warandwar on August 15, 2014, 01:01:18 AM
Paedogeddon latest: Cliff Richard's Berkshire home searched by the police.

Are they the lemmings / Or are you, Cliff? / Or are you Cliff?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 22, 2014, 06:15:42 PM
There's currently an unseemly row to do with the administration of the Commons: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28891458


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Frodo on August 23, 2014, 08:21:08 PM
With the referendum on the UK remaining within the EU coming up in 2017, are there any recent polls on the subject?  Would the Scotland referendum result have any impact in 2017?  Especially if the vote tracks with recent polls showing a solid 3:2 win for the unionists?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: YL on August 24, 2014, 02:20:41 AM
With the referendum on the UK remaining within the EU coming up in 2017, are there any recent polls on the subject?

YouGov ask about it from time to time.  Most recently, in their 10-11 August poll, they asked:

"If there was a referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union, how would you vote?": Remain a member 40, Leave 38.

"Imagine that the British government under David Cameron renegotiated our relationship with Europe and said that Britain's interests were now protected, and David Cameron recommended that Britain remain a member of the European Union on the new terms.  How would you then vote in a referendum on the issue?": Remain a member 54, Leave 23.

Anyway, there may not be a referendum; it's only the Tories of the three main parties who want to hold one.

Quote
Would the Scotland referendum result have any impact in 2017?  Especially if the vote tracks with recent polls showing a solid 3:2 win for the unionists?

I don't see a No win in the Scottish referendum having an effect.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on August 24, 2014, 11:23:50 AM
What precedent there is suggests that polling right now would be of no use anyway; polling prior to the 1975 referendum showed a tight race...


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on August 26, 2014, 07:15:35 AM
Is Welsh allowed to be spoken on the floor of the House? Did Lloyd George ever use it?


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Cassius on August 28, 2014, 06:15:08 AM
Douglas Carswell (MP for Clacton), defects to UKIP and resigns his seat to fight the ensuing by-election.

Sorry to be childish, but...

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QwKgIjOiKVc (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QwKgIjOiKVc)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Angel of Death on August 31, 2014, 01:33:10 PM
Why am I not in the least surprised that no one here thought the assault on Galloway was worth a mention? I'm sure that if the "sides" had been reversed, we wouldn't have heard the end of it.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on September 02, 2014, 11:23:30 AM
I suspect many people felt he had it coming.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends on September 04, 2014, 04:54:22 AM
Douglas Carswell (MP for Clacton), defects to UKIP and resigns his seat to fight the ensuing by-election.

Sorry to be childish, but...

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QwKgIjOiKVc (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QwKgIjOiKVc)


Carswell should win re-election easily, according to two polls:

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8950 (http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8950)
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8955 (http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8955)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Cassius on September 04, 2014, 05:14:39 AM
Douglas Carswell (MP for Clacton), defects to UKIP and resigns his seat to fight the ensuing by-election.

Sorry to be childish, but...

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QwKgIjOiKVc (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QwKgIjOiKVc)


Carswell should win re-election easily, according to two polls:

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8950 (http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8950)
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8955 (http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8955)

True (although bear in mind that those are constituency polls, which aren't always the best), but my point was that I never actually thought that a sitting Conservative M.P would defect to UKIP, and even if I had, I would never have thought it would be Carswell (the only one I could possibly have seen defecting was Nadine Dorries :P)


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Phony Moderate on September 04, 2014, 05:31:57 AM
By-election polling has actually improved somewhat during this parliament.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on September 04, 2014, 06:27:20 AM
Curious that Clacton has been more heavily polled than Scotland over the past week.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends on September 04, 2014, 07:58:31 AM
Douglas Carswell (MP for Clacton), defects to UKIP and resigns his seat to fight the ensuing by-election.

Sorry to be childish, but...

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QwKgIjOiKVc (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QwKgIjOiKVc)


Carswell should win re-election easily, according to two polls:

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8950 (http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8950)
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8955 (http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/8955)

True (although bear in mind that those are constituency polls, which aren't always the best), but my point was that I never actually thought that a sitting Conservative M.P would defect to UKIP, and even if I had, I would never have thought it would be Carswell (the only one I could possibly have seen defecting was Nadine Dorries :P)

Maybe Dorries will defect now, pending on Carswell's re-election effort.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Tetro Kornbluth on September 07, 2014, 06:15:21 AM
MP for Heywood and Middleton Jim Dobbin (Lab) has died (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-29100304). RIP.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on September 07, 2014, 06:32:44 AM
Rest in Peace.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 07, 2014, 01:34:37 PM
Scientists remain rare in the Commons, particularly ones who are also Papal Knights. I can't say that I agreed with all his views, but I greatly prefer his style of Labour conservatism (so to speak) to that of the MP for the other half of Rochdale MBC... RIP.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 09, 2014, 06:03:50 PM
Curious that Clacton has been more heavily polled than Scotland over the past week.

London media.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on September 12, 2014, 06:43:13 AM
Ian Paisley is dead.


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: You kip if you want to... on September 12, 2014, 06:51:31 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saC13RJ8CUs


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on September 22, 2014, 12:57:03 PM
Mick Cash has been elected as the new RMT General Secretary. Cash was Bob Crow's deputy and had been serving as his temporary replacement. He is on the ex-NUR 'right-wing' of the union and is a Labour Party member and defeated several candidates to his left (certain of which were to the left of the late Bob Crow as it happens).


Title: Re: UK General Discussion
Post by: afleitch on September 23, 2014, 10:54:37 AM
The SNP announces that it has doubled it's membership since Thursday and now claims a higher level of membership than the Lib Dems.