• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

UK PoliGAF |OT2| - We Blue Ourselves

Status
Not open for further replies.

cabot

Member
The fact that fox hunting is what SNP are willing to (at least threaten to) break their "We won't vote on things which don't impact Scotland" rule over is disappointing.

This is how I feel, the nature of SNP is that they will threaten and possibly breach their abstaining on devolved issues, but to play the card so soon and for something like fox hunting was a bizarre move, it appeared to me as a 'toys out the pram' moment due to not receiving the powers promised by the Smith commission.

I don't believe the attitude displayed won them their huge number of seats. They need to be smarter than that and need to tread carefully, doing this on relatively unimportant issues will only cause disdain among their moderate voters (like me!)
 

Protome

Member
This is how I feel, the nature of SNP is that they will threaten and possibly breach their abstaining on devolved issues, but to play the card so soon and for something like fox hunting was a bizarre move, it appeared to me as a 'toys out the pram' moment due to not receiving the powers promised by the Smith commission.

I don't believe the attitude displayed won them their huge number of seats. They need to be smarter than that. They need to tread carefully, doing this on relatively unimportant issues will only cause disdain among their moderate voters (like me!)

Definitely.
If they had done this over some fiscal thing that would somewhere down the line eventually probably impact Scotland despite devolution, fine. but fox hunting? Such an annoying decision.
 
I dunno, putting aside my opinion on whether they should have been voting on things, they were in a difficult position where their left leaning base were wanting them to vote against it from a moral standpoint, and even Labour were putting pressure on them to vote against. If they'd have abstained and it had got through, a lot more people (of their base at least) would have been unhappy I think
 

War Peaceman

You're a big guy.
I get why Fox Hunting is such a divisive issue, with its connections to class and the hurting of animals, but man it is so inconsequential. Although I understand the logic, I can't understand how people get so riled by such a small thing when there are cuts that hurt humans and impact the country more widely...
 

Protome

Member
I dunno, putting aside my opinion on whether they should have been voting on things, they were in a difficult position where their left leaning base were wanting them to vote against it from a moral standpoint, and even Labour were putting pressure on them to vote against. If they'd have abstained and it had got through, a lot more people (of their base at least) would have been unhappy I think

The people who wanted them to vote on it are idiots. Scottish laws on fox hunting are no better than what the repealed ban would have been. SNP should be fixing the laws here first. If a vote doesn't impact their constituents, they shouldn't be voting on it.
 
The people who wanted them to vote on it are idiots. Scottish laws on fox hunting are no better than what the repealed ban would have been. SNP should be fixing the laws here first. If a vote doesn't impact their constituents, they shouldn't be voting on it.

I'll refrain from using my regular GIF response, as much as I want to.

I had this argument on the last page, but we don't expect that of any other MP's. It was never an expectation of the non SNP Scottish MP's, it's never an expectation of any other constituencies.
 

Protome

Member
I'll refrain from using my regular GIF response, as much as I want to.

I had this argument on the last page, but we don't expect that of any other MP's. It was never an expectation of the non SNP Scottish MP's, it's never an expectation of any other constituencies.
Non SNP parties at least had the excuse of helping their party in some way. Literally nobody who voted for SNP is impacted by votes like these, it's understandable why the expectations are different.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Honestly, I don't actually mind the SNP voting on the fox hunting bill. I respect the argument "they shouldn't get to determine laws that effect English constituents", but the law in this case doesn't just affect English constituents, it affects foxes who are totally unaware of the largely arbitrary national lines humans have drawn and deserve protection regardless. It's not the fox's fault it isn't Scottish.
 
I'll refrain from using my regular GIF response, as much as I want to.

I had this argument on the last page, but we don't expect that of any other MP's. It was never an expectation of the non SNP Scottish MP's, it's never an expectation of any other constituencies.

I don't think any other party volunteered to restrict themselves, tbf.

Edit: not that *that's* the reason it matters, just saying.

Telegraph running a story that Corbyn might win the Labour Party leadership.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...win-Labour-leadership-shock-poll-reveals.html

Torys will be pissing themselves.

It's a poisoned chalice. If he wins, it'll be the political equivalent of gallows humour. Owen Jones will have to find something new to write about post-2020 though.
 

Kuros

Member
I don't think any other party volunteered to restrict themselves, tbf.

Edit: not that *that's* the reason it matters, just saying.



It's a poisoned chalice. If he wins, it'll be the political equivalent of gallows humour. Owen Jones will have to find something new to write about post-2020 though.

The PLP will oust him within 2 years if he wins. Will be fantastic watching the train wreck.
 

War Peaceman

You're a big guy.
If Corbyn wins it saves one of Burnham/Kendall/Cooper's careers, at least.

I don't think it would be the disaster many are predicting. Either way post next election will be a new change. It is better that they have someone principled than someone shit because the outcome will be the same: defeat.
 
If Corbyn wins it saves one of Burnham/Kendall/Cooper's careers, at least.

I don't think it would be the disaster many are predicting. Either way post next election will be a new change. It is better that they have someone principled than someone shit because the outcome will be the same: defeat.

Isabel Hardman wrote a piece for the Speccie today where she described the scenario you just mentioned thusly:

The Corbyn option, which has about as much evidence backing up its efficacy as homeopathy. Still, homeopathy can make people feel better, and if that’s what the Labour party feels it needs right now, then maybe that’s what it will vote for, even if the impact on how many seats Labour wins is at best negligible and at worst downright harmful. This does answer the ‘what do we do about Scotland?’ question, even if it isn’t the right answer.

The whole piece is really good I think (and quite funny) but the "Losing with Style" option is, imo, pertinent for a few on the left like our chum Owen Jones and, like, godelsmetric:

Some might argue that one or two of the three options set out above involve losing with style, rather like someone publishing a magazine that they want to read but that it turns out few other people are interested in. This means you don’t need to worry about what the polls say, or about what the press say, but you can just go for whatever policies you feel are Pure Labour. And if you lose, it’s because the electorate isn’t ready for your party, or they’ve been hoodwinked by an evil rightwing press. If only Labour would keep making the case for Pure Labour and debunking the lies of the evil rightwing press, then at some point, perhaps not in 2025, or even 2030, the electorate will finally have been persuaded.

The problems with this are obvious but still worth rehearsing given the way the debate is moving in the party. The first is that you need evidence that the electorate is slowly moving in your party’s direction and just needs a bit more persuading over a couple more elections. The 2015 election did see Labour gain 1.5 per cent in vote share, and the Tories just 0.8 per cent. So perhaps that is evidence that the electorate is creeping in your direction, but not in a way that benefits your party under first past the post. As for the evil lies of the right wing press, well, either Labour has to work out a way of increasing the circulation of those left-wing papers that might support its position (though it’s not as though all of them were particularly helpful to Labour in the run-up to this election, either), or accept that more people in Britain choose to read newspapers that tend to take a centre-right or right-wing view of things and work out a way of engaging with those newspaper readers, rather than suggesting that they’re all morons who are easily duped by a group of people who consistently come bottom in surveys about who the public trust.

Snapsicles!
 

twobear

sputum-flecked apoplexy
Well, that's an argument that we need to be careful about using isn't it. Banning stuff because people find it disgusting doesn't have a great track record recently (see, for example, gay marriage).

Rather disingenuous comparison--people want fox hunting banned because it's flagrant animal cruelty with arguable benefits. But people want gay marriage banned because it's icky and an old book told them so.

[edit] Don't worry, Cyclops, if the country really is drifting to the right I wont be living here much longer.
 

tomtom94

Member
The way I see it, Corbyn won't win, the rich non-union backers will prevent that (probably by uniting behind either Burnham or Kendall), but what he will do is the same thing the far-right Republicans, help pull the other candidates to the left. It could go either way, but if nothing else it will move Labour away from the idiotic "we're like the Tories but not the Tories" position that most of the other candidates seem to have responded to the election result with.
 
There still seems to be this odd idea going around that the Tories absolutely destroyed Labour in the last election, yet the actual vote shares were 36.9% & 30.4%. Hardly evidence of an irrevocably right-wing austerity-loving electorate.
 

Jezbollah

Member
There still seems to be this odd idea going around that the Tories absolutely destroyed Labour in the last election, yet the actual vote shares were 36.9% & 30.4%. Hardly evidence of an irrevocably right-wing austerity-loving electorate.

Polls had them a lot more close than 6% out - in fact such gap speculation was pretty much lol-worthy in the build up.

I think it's more accurate to say that Labour defeated itself by not being able to capitalize on developments from the last five years - part of that is electing a leader that was not electable to undecided voters - something they're very much in danger of doing again.

Anyway, Lib Dem leader announcement later tonight - it's either Tim Farron or Norman Lamb. OP will be edited soon after a decision is made.
 

tomtom94

Member
Government reject changes to fixed betting terminals

A bid to have the maximum bet on some gambling machines significantly reduced has been rejected by the government.

Some 93 councils in England and Wales called for the highest stake on fixed-odds betting terminals (FOBTs) to be cut from £100 to £2.

Newham Council, which led the campaign, said the move would help prevent clusters of betting shops, particularly in deprived areas.

But the government said it had already introduced stronger controls.

The proposal had been submitted under legislation which allows councils to urge central government to change the law to help them promote the "sustainability of local communities".

It is expected councils will appeal against the decision.
 

Good.

In other news...

Hey guys, remember the heady days of April and early May when every other post had a new poll and we all eagerly awaited 10pm for someone to post the latest YouGov or someone on Twitter said "Interesting poll from Survation at 11pm...." and we all went shit for leather? That was a fun time, wasn't it? A simple time.

Anyway, this has just been posted: http://www.britishelectionstudy.com...by-jon-mellon-and-chris-prosser/#.VafNtfkuF49

With some analysis of where the polls might have gone wrong. Anyway, it's worth reading (summary: it's NOT shy tory effect) but here's a paragraph that's pretty funny:

There is also new evidence for the differential turnout theory. 91.6% of our respondents claim to have voted compared with 66.4% in Great Britain as a whole. While this partially reflects the fact that polling respondents tend to be more politically interested than the general population, we also have considerable evidence that respondents overstate their turnout: 20% of respondents in areas without local elections claim to have voted in them in 2015; 3-6% of respondents in the campaign wave claim to have voted by post before the postal ballots were actually issued and 46% of respondents who we could not verify as registered to vote in June 2014 claim to have voted in the 2014 European Elections. In all of these cases, the fibbers lean significantly more Labour than other respondents.
 

Volotaire

Member
Tim Farron is the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, the party has announced.The former party president beat Norman Lamb in the contest to replace Nick Clegg.

He got 56.5% of the votes to Mr Lamb's 43.5%.

Mr Farron, whose victory was announced on Twitter, is to make his first public appearance as leader at a central London rally later.
Telegraph
BBC News
 
I solemnly swear I'm not trying to stir up shit, but why is that good?
honestly know fuck all about betting
I'm massively into gambling! But basically these machines have a thing called the RTP percentage - "return to player" - that's absurdly high (and regulated by the government - it affects gambling "machines" and online slots etc) is around 96-97%. In other words, for every hundred quid put into a machine, £97 or so is spat back out as winnings. The pretence of skill is an illusion - the machine knows if you're going to win before you press a button. And a lot of people do win, just even more lose. And over a long enough time line the house always wins - obviously else why would they do it?

BUT none of this is affected by the value of your stake. It's a percentage, so whether you put in £1 or £1,000, your return rate is the same. So on those grounds, there's little in the way of a logical reason for the blocking of high-value machines. If the government doesn't want to sit back whilst people lose money, they should just ban it outright imo. Furthermore, as someone who wages at least four, sometimes five figures a month in gambling (albeit sports exchange gambling, not these dickhead machines) I generally prefer the government to stay out of it and let me make my own decisions. It's too fun for those squares to get involved and ruin my enjoyment!
 

Audioboxer

Member
To be honest I've had enough of focusing on young up and coming politicians, because for the most part they become jaded lying scumbags who do fuck all in the long run.

How many of these up and coming young politicians that you speak of came from rich families or families already involved in politics?

She says in that interview alone her "CV" consists of working in a chip shop, and volunteer work for her community.

Shouldn't we give young working class people entering politics a chance before brandishing them all as jaded lying scumbags? Not sure if you watched all of that interview but she was pretty damn candid.
 
How many of these up and coming young politicians that you speak of came from rich families or families already involved in politics?

She says in that interview alone her "CV" consists of working in a chip shop, and volunteer work for her community.

Shouldn't we give young working class people entering politics a chance before brandishing them all as jaded lying scumbags? Not sure if you watched all of that interview but she was pretty damn candid.

I'm all for getting more diversity and less people whose sole experience is within politics, but at twenty years old she doesn't have any real experience of anything, politics or otherwise. I mean, she was 10 when the final episode of Friends aired!
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
I'm all for getting more diversity and less people whose sole experience is within politics, but at twenty years old she doesn't have any real experience of anything, politics or otherwise. I mean, she was 10 when the final episode of Friends aired!

I don't think that matters. At least part of electing people is to give a voice to particular groups within society, and she represents a group (twenty year olds) that are both critically under-represented in politics and the main target of most of the governments' cuts.
 

Audioboxer

Member
I'm all for getting more diversity and less people whose sole experience is within politics, but at twenty years old she doesn't have any real experience of anything, politics or otherwise. I mean, she was 10 when the final episode of Friends aired!

Well she comes across more grounded than most 20 year olds I know! It's the things she is saying though that matter, not her age. Her maiden speech was impressive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom