-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
I only just read the last page about the NHS and labours proposed Budget for it. Never have I read such right wing drivel in all my life. Efficiency savings are not cuts since all your really doing is removing expense from one area and allocating it to another. That is not a cut. Besides the last labour government threw money at the NHS. They managed to restore some of it after Thatcher went around and cut it to pieces.
You know perhaps if some of you lived outside of A)London or B) actually in this country today, you may have a different idea about the Tory party.
You know perhaps if some of you lived outside of A)London or B) actually in this country today, you may have a different idea about the Tory party.
I am far from a devout Labour supporter, though I do generally veer left (which Labour seems less and less inclined to these days). Really, based on stereo types I should be voting Conservative, as a multi business owner who's been doing pretty well. Add to that I felt the war in Iraq was heinous and borderline criminal. But you know what, I can't get over the extent to which the Tories raised tuition fees whilst at the same time cutting University funding, done away with education maintenance allowance, big cuts to public transport grants, the fact that they privatised the Royal Mail, when it basically has no proper competition that has similar established infrastructure (for letters and normal post, not just packages), nor at the price they did, that they plan to withdraw from the European Convention of Human Rights and to scrap the Human Rights Act, among many other things. And their future plans for the NHS just rub me the wrong way, as did the way they've been trying to reform the NHS at the cost of billions. I don't mind privatisation (dependant on the level of competition available), but the Conservatives have privatised shit in the past that I feel would have done better remaining public (National Rail, which has now become an over expensive farce, Royal Mail etc).
My mentality isn't just me and mine. I honestly feel the Conservatives have fucked over entire generations this term, essentially making higher education such an expensive consideration that the decision is now an even more elitist one. Youngsters should not have to be in the incredible amounts of debt many will be subject to, just because they dared to go to University.
Add to which, my wife used to work in charity organisations that helped out in poorer areas of London, and under the current government many of these institutions had massive cuts in funding that led to closures of organisations, projects, community centres etc, that have had really negative impacts on groups of youths and facets of these communities, and this shit has gone somewhat under the radar. Honestly, to me the Conservative party focuses far too heavily on the top end of the spectrum, comparative to the lower end. It's essentially mostly part of a world they'll never understand or truly relate to. I'm in the weird position where I've done comfortably (lived in a riverside apartment in Canary Wharf for many years, as well as poorer parts of the city too), but at the same time have a lot of coverage to, and offer a lot of support to those of far poorer socio economic standing, and the reality is, I don't need as much help as those that are less well off do.
Jezbollah
Member
Oh god I need to hear this
I'll give him his due, he was articulate and calm sounding, but he was utterly, utterly unrepentant. You see he's been the victim of a year long sting, and he was only trying to bring communities together. He failed to deny the substantive claims made by the Mail, and frankly didn't even try.
Meanwhile, the latest polling in Scotland is horrendous for Labour. The crosstabs indicate they're getting hit hardest in their heartlands.
March:
SNP 43
Lab 27
Con 14
UKIP 7
LD 6
Green 3
Vivalaraza
Member
Guardian/ICM poll makes bad bad reading for Labour.
Expected I guess. I wanted Labour to win this election but they won't get into power unless they partner with the SNP and I can only see that being bad news for the rest of the Union.
Edit - Oops, beaten.
Expected I guess. I wanted Labour to win this election but they won't get into power unless they partner with the SNP and I can only see that being bad news for the rest of the Union.
Edit - Oops, beaten.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I have to admit, I'm somewhat puzzled by the Conservative party's attitude to this election. Despite the fact that the economy is on the up-tick, Labour are led by their most unpopular leader since Michael Foot and are being wiped out in their heartlands, David Cameron being seen as better than his alternatives, a relatively good incumbency bonus, and being seen as better on key issues like the economy and immigration... they're still not near a majority, not even close. I feel like they should be more worried about this, but all the Conservative broadsheets do is talk about how badly Labour is doing. Supposing Ed Miliband is the key Labour problem, that's an easy fix. What can the Conservatives do?
Sir_Crocodile
Member
Get rid of what people perceive as the "nasty" part of their party
but that would be more then half the party lol
Cameron was never really successful in "detoxifying" the conservative party and seems to have been forced to drift to the right. I don't really see any way of them fixing this with Cameron. Maybe a stronger leader could force them slightly to the left on some social issues but the problem remains that it'd be against the instincts of the majority of the party. You could try to fix that gradually with the new intake of mp's by "fixing" the candidate choices, but we've all seen how well constituancy parties have reacted to that in the past.
No easy fixes anyway
Nicktendo86
Member
They have been forced right on some things to combat ukip but not very far really. Cameron pushed through gay marriage remember which pissed off a lot of people (who I hope have buggered off to ukip) which I saw as an attempt to show the party in a more liberal light.
I think the answer as to why the Tories are not doing as well as some expect is three fold, they have implemented austerity measures, there is a lot of anti Tory feeling (fueled by nonsense accusations of future cuts to the NHS etc) and ukip are splitting their vote.
Edit: what an absolute bellend
http://order-order.com/2015/03/23/green-party-candidate-in-sick-nazi-cancer-slur/
I think the answer as to why the Tories are not doing as well as some expect is three fold, they have implemented austerity measures, there is a lot of anti Tory feeling (fueled by nonsense accusations of future cuts to the NHS etc) and ukip are splitting their vote.
Edit: what an absolute bellend
http://order-order.com/2015/03/23/green-party-candidate-in-sick-nazi-cancer-slur/
Nicktendo86
Member
Wonder if he will bring up hedge funds at PMQ's again this week...
http://order-order.com/2015/03/23/e...ir-based-offshore-hedge-fund-backer-revealed/
http://order-order.com/2015/03/23/e...ir-based-offshore-hedge-fund-backer-revealed/
You also have to remember the Tories didn't do THAT well in even more fortuitous circumstances in 2010. Miliband might be derided but by 2010 Brown was actively hated.
Even the best sitting Governments don't tend to add to their overall vote share, there is some natural wastage. The Tories are merely down 3% or 4% from their 2010 peak.
Nicktendo86
Member
Yep good points.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Still, it seems like we could reach 2016 with the Conservatives not having held a majority since 12th December 1996. That's almost 20 years now, and there's no end in sight.
EDIT: Stupid to have a go at Ed for hedge funds. He doesn't have a choice. The Conservatives can afford to outspend Labour by nearly three to one at the upcoming election, and there's a reasonable probability that there would be a second election not long after. I know a few people in the Labour party are genuinely worried that in a second election they wouldn't have sufficient money to even fund a full 631 candidates. Money has a big influence on election outcomes. Even if Ed thought that hedge funds were literally the most evil things on the planet, in order to get rid of them, he'd have to accept money from them to win the election where he could pass the legislation that fixes it. That's how messed up our electoral system is. Comparatively, calling him out for that when the Conservatives do it on a far vaster scale is just silly.
I think money in politics is absolutely atrocious, and want elections to be funded publicly funded, and I'd still probably take hedge fund donations if I were a party leader if I thought it could help my party win. If they don't win, then I can't do anything at all.
Nicktendo86
Member
The point is he specifically criticises the Tories for taking money from those sources (who also need money of course, they don't have the luxery of union backing) whilst taking money from them himself. It is the hypocrisy that gets me, I don't give a shit where money comes from so long as it is declared and transparent.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
In a perfect world I'd prefer mandatory capped state funding for parties - with the cap set fairly low so we don't get absolutely bombarded by political garbage and so the cost isn't too large to the taxpayer.
The problem there is most people are against state funding, which is somewhat short sighted - you'd get rather more honest mps if they didn't have to go through hoops pleasing doners, as well as cut down on people buying their way into the house of lords
Then make donations from anyone - individuals, companies, unions, etc - illegal for any party big enough to qualify for state funding.
Absolutely right to have a go at ed, he is a ridiculously huge hypocrite.
The problem there is most people are against state funding, which is somewhat short sighted - you'd get rather more honest mps if they didn't have to go through hoops pleasing doners, as well as cut down on people buying their way into the house of lords
Then make donations from anyone - individuals, companies, unions, etc - illegal for any party big enough to qualify for state funding.
Absolutely right to have a go at ed, he is a ridiculously huge hypocrite.
QuicheFontaine
Member
??
But yes, the current system is pretty poor. When the first or second largest party is genuinely concerned about the cost of fielding candidates in every constituency at a second election, something needs fixing.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Union backing isn't a luxury and nor is it a 'given'. Have you ever joined a union? A large number of unions are simply disaffiliated. If you don't want your money to go a political organization, in many industries you have a choice between affiliated and non-affiliated unions. Once in a union, to maintain a political fund at all, a union has to hold a vote of confirmation every 10 years under secret ballot, etc., to establish member consent. Almost all unions also have disaffiliation procedures that would allow members to force a union to stop affiliating with a political party. Even unions which are affiliated and maintain political funding must, by law, allow the right to opt-out.
Now, I think there are things that can be improved. I'd prefer to move to opt-in, for example, and I think there need to be laws to improve transparency. But there are two keys points here. The first is that businesses and business owners have faaaar less oversight than unions do. The number of large corporations which are non-affiliated is essentially zero; almost all of them to contribute to at least one party. Corporations do not have to consult shareholders at all to establish a political fund. Shareholders can theoretically over-rule these in corporations without tiered shares, but with no legal framework to make this more formal, I can't actually think of any examples where this has happened. Finally, shareholders have no opt-out. The profits of the company, which are given to you as dividends because you literally *own* a part of that company, can be instead diverted towards a party you may disagree with and your consent is not even considered.
The second issue is that this is a metric *ton* more money comes from business than unions. It's not like the Conservatives are going "such a shame we can't get that union dough and have to settle for this business cash, wish we were like that richly funded Labour party :'( ".
As for the hypocrisy, yeah, it probably is. Is that important? No. Ed has literally zero choice over taking this kind of cash. Suppose he didn't take it, Labour loses a few more seats it would otherwise have won, and he doesn't become Prime Minister. Now he can't do anything about it to begin with. That's just a sad fact about how much control these kinds of institutions have over our political system; any viable party has to use them.
However, that's not really a desirable end-goal, right? I mean, it might just be me, but how much have you donated to a political party lately? I actually like Labour, I'm relatively interested in their success, and I've perhaps donated £50 over my entire life-time, because I've been a student for quite a while. I'm unlikely to do badly for myself, either, given where I'm a student at, and hopefully will be able to donate a fair amount more two decades down the line; in contrast, there will obviously be people who are totally unable to donate anything at all because that money goes on paying the rent or on their child's clothing or on the weekly food bill or on fixing their car they need to get what little pay they do or all of the necessities that some people in this country still struggle to meet.
Now think about this for a moment: Michael Farmer has *personally* donated £2.1 million. That's not even a business, that's a businessman. He has over 40,000 the cash influence I do, respectively. How on *earth* is that a good system of running a country? Politics shouldn't be responsive to you because you make cash, it should be responsive to you because you are a person with hopes and dreams and thoughts and cares and morals and you matter. That's why we have democracy. This isn't a system we should continue.
So sure, Ed has to be a hypocrite. He has to say hedge funds are bad, while taking money for them. But there are two alternatives. a) He doesn't take money from them. Now things are worse, because people who support Labour never get their views heard. b) He doesn't criticize hedge funds. This is the worst possibility of all, because now there's absolutely no chance that the system will ever get fixed and that Michael Farmer won't have over 40,000 times my influence because politicians aren't even paying *lip-service* to the idea this might be bad because apparently being a hypocrite is somehow way worse than the fact you can literally buy out marginal constituencies. No thanks. I'll take at least the lip-service to the Conservative equivalent, which is just pretending this problem doesn't even exist, or even acting to actively entrench business power. Might be useful to start examining your own side before you engage in this particular pissing contest.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
Goddamnit Quiche I'm now hungry. ta
become an mp, then you can get a doner from a donor
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
become a conservative MP and you can get 3 times as many doners
Sir_Crocodile
Member
duh, why do you thinks soames and pickles are tories
zomgbbqftw
Banned
So essentially Tory hedge funds = bad, Labour hedge funds = good?
So transparent.
So transparent.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
zomgbbqftw
Banned
No, you essentially said that Miliband's hypocrisy is justified because Labour need money. So Tories taking money from Hedge funds is bad, which you have criticised previously but Labour doing the same is acceptable.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Depends how much money you take. If you don't need to take money from hedge funds/corporations, you shouldn't do it. If the Conservatives voluntarily restricted themselves to fighting the next election with the same amount of per-vote funding as Labour, and also said they'd commit to political funding reform, then I wouldn't say them taking whatever money they still needed to take from hedge funds was bad, I'd say "well done, nice moving forward".
zomgbbqftw
Banned
So because Labour have less appeal to business the Tories should fight with one hand tied behind their back? Labour could easily get more money from business, Blair did it and basically destroyed the Conservatives.
Still, a principle is a principle. Personally I'm not fussed about union or hedge fund money and it is patently obvious that when the Tories talk about restricting union money they are doing it because they know it will hurt Labour and on the other side when Labour talk about restricting money from the City they want to hurt the Tories. Neither side really cares about campaign finance reform further than hitting the other side.
Anyway, it is clear you think Labour hypocrisy is fine because the end justifies the means. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that...
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I didn't approve when Blair did it. That's pretty consistent.
This is largely true. For the record, as I stated above, I do support reform with respect to the unions. I also think Labour should actively work towards reform on *all* aspects themselves, and in fairness Ed did reform the Labour party's relationship with the unions, despite the early Conservative attack line being "union stooge". Saying that both sides are the same is lazy politics, there's differences between the two. Given that Ed has some history of being willing to change his parties' relation with his donors, and Cameron has none, I think my odds are better with Ed.
Some ends, sure. Vague platitudes are pretty meaningless when it comes to getting big money out of politics.
Psychotext
Member
Full details of the vote: http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2015-02-23&number=158&display=allvotes
Just so you know what politicians thought that protecting party interests was more important than allowing people to testify against child abusers.
Just so you know what politicians thought that protecting party interests was more important than allowing people to testify against child abusers.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Goddamnit Quiche I'm now hungry. ta
Picking up on peoples' spelling is tedious and I try to avoid it, but I just loved the phrasing of a "pleasing doner". It's what I typed in on google images to get that pic
Labour saves a bit of money by not running in Northern Ireland. Can't really criticize hedge funds if your taking their donations.
Party funding and Politicians salaries is a weird thing, we don't mind footballers earning millions to kick a football but the men and women running the country we seem to have a problem about their wages. Parties need to be funded and either the tax payer pays or party solicit donations which may or may not have conditions attached
Party funding and Politicians salaries is a weird thing, we don't mind footballers earning millions to kick a football but the men and women running the country we seem to have a problem about their wages. Parties need to be funded and either the tax payer pays or party solicit donations which may or may not have conditions attached
CyclopsRock
Member
This might be interesting to kmag: http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/alex-m...tories-do-a-deal-with-the-snp-yes-they-could/
Going back a bit, surely the point with "efficiency savings" is that, unless you really believe that somehow the Labour Party will be able to find savings that the Tories haven't, then it's not a saving, it's merely a reallocation - which is the point because the Tories said they'd actively increase it (with dramatic effects on other departments, natch).
Going back a bit, surely the point with "efficiency savings" is that, unless you really believe that somehow the Labour Party will be able to find savings that the Tories haven't, then it's not a saving, it's merely a reallocation - which is the point because the Tories said they'd actively increase it (with dramatic effects on other departments, natch).
Psychotext
Member
I don't personally agree with that, anyone should be free to donate, and no political party should feel they need to bow to the whims of their benefactors (nor should they care where the money comes from, as long as it's legal).
What Labour did was different however. Massively hypocritical.
Cameron would serve the next five years if re-elected then step down; suggests May, Osborne and Boris as potential successors (now there's a bright future for us all)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32022484
Clearly aimed at easing fears of another Brown/Blair problem.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32022484
Clearly aimed at easing fears of another Brown/Blair problem.
The problem is it doesn't work that way. Blair did the same and all it does is confirm"I'm going at some point" - the question then shifts to "when".
Cameron wouldn't last for 5 years as PM in the next parliament, he would need to leave before the election to give his successor time to bed in and get ready for the 2020 election.
Cameron wouldn't last for 5 years as PM in the next parliament, he would need to leave before the election to give his successor time to bed in and get ready for the 2020 election.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Essentially this. There is no way that he's resigning, say, just as he dissolves parliament. This is just going to make his backbenchers rowdy as they try to force his hand.
CyclopsRock
Member
Awful, awful decision by Cameron IMO.
Exactly. Also given the fact that it is looking unlikely the tories will have enough for a coalition government, let alone a majority government, all he has done is fired the starting gun on his leadership position.
It was an utterly moronic statement from him. Just plain bizarre. Even the most pro cameron political commentators have been stunned by this on twitter.
Rubbish King
The gift that keeps on giving
That CSA law amendment not getting passed is a total and utter shambles. 254 conservative MPs out of the 295 that voted against it.
Could somebody explain to me why this was in any way a good thing?
Could somebody explain to me why this was in any way a good thing?
Nicktendo86
Member
Everyone slates politicians for not giving straight answers. Politician gives straight answer. Politician gets slated for giving straight answer. Everyone wonders why politician don't give straight answers.
Sorry but this is very basic politics. No-one would have slammed him for not giving an answer, because giving one is unbelievably stupid.
This isn't going to avoid the Bliar / Brown issue, this is what *caused* the Blair / Brown issue. You never get to leave at the point of your own choosing once the clock starts ticking.
This isn't going to avoid the Bliar / Brown issue, this is what *caused* the Blair / Brown issue. You never get to leave at the point of your own choosing once the clock starts ticking.
Exactly. When it comes to politics and leadership you should never say "Oh I'll be gone in X number of years" as it's just asking for trouble. It fires a starting gun for people to start positioning themselves and to go around and drum up support. It also has the side effect of creating a lame duck prime minister. What's the point of fully backing your leader when he's going to bugger off soon. Much better to pledge you allegiance to one of the people going to replace him.
It's the way politics works. Why back the old nag when you can put your money on the young stallion?
JonathanEx
Member
So the plan is Cameron will serve every day of the second five years, but not stand the next one, and Gove on Newsnight is failing to explain when the next Tory leader would take control.
It's Evan and Alistair Campbell vs Gove. It's hilarious.
It's Evan and Alistair Campbell vs Gove. It's hilarious.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Swing back going the wrong way, Labour back to an average lead of +1 over the last 5 days after having slipped behind, so we're back to January/late December.
Psychotext
Member
Edit - Ignore, info is back now.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Really? That's really the plan? I thought he'd be gone a few months after the election.
He's not, and would never serve up until the last minute.
Thinking about it overnight, I think the point of this was to try and forestall the inevitable back bench rebellions when they fail to get a majority in the next election, and then Labour replace their leader with someone more exciting to the public and see an immediate jump in the polls. By promising to not serve a third term, he is hoping to try and get more of a second term than his backbenchers might want.
Don't think it will work, and judging by the telegraph this morning and the defense being mounted it clearly hasn't, but I think that was the plan. Get out in front of the incoming leadership challenge early.
Thinking about it overnight, I think the point of this was to try and forestall the inevitable back bench rebellions when they fail to get a majority in the next election, and then Labour replace their leader with someone more exciting to the public and see an immediate jump in the polls. By promising to not serve a third term, he is hoping to try and get more of a second term than his backbenchers might want.
Don't think it will work, and judging by the telegraph this morning and the defense being mounted it clearly hasn't, but I think that was the plan. Get out in front of the incoming leadership challenge early.