Languish.org

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/15/leaders-debate-nick-clegg-tv

QuoteLeaders' debate: Nick Clegg seizes his moment in the TV spotlight

Lib Dem leader makes powerful pitch as he depicts his party as a significant change from Labour and the Conservatives


Gordon Brown pitted his experience as the man equipped to save the country from the risk of a double-dip recession, against David Cameron's call to lead the country towards change, in the opening exchanges of the first televised leaders' debate in British electoral history tonight.

But Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, appeared to win most public support as he made a powerful pitch that he represented change from the two old parties. In a confident performance, he told the audience in Manchester: "Do not let anyone tell you that the only choice is the old politics. We can do something new, something different this time."

Pointing to the other two leaders, he added: "Now, they are going to tell you tonight that the only choice you have is between the two old parties who've been taking it in turns to run things for years."

Cameron scored an early hit by apologising on behalf of all the political class for the expenses crisis, and repeatedly tried to use real-life stories to bring home his points to the large watching audience.

"The expenses saga brought great shame on parliament, and I'm extremely sorry for everything that happened," he said. "Your politicians – frankly, all of us – let you down."

Brown opened his address claiming these were "no ordinary times," and this "no ordinary election".

An instant Sun/YouGov poll put Clegg as the clear winner on 51%, with Cameron second on 29% and Brown trailing on 19%. Another, by ComRes for ITV News, gave the debate decisively to Clegg, on 43%, with Cameron on 26% and Brown on 20%, trailing behind. A poll of guardian.co.uk users scored Clegg as the winner with 59%, but put Brown in second place, with 32%. Cameron scored 9%.

The debate covered most of the main issues that have so far dominated the election: the economy, crime, immigration, education and cleaning up politics, issues on which Cameron is likely to score well with voters. The issue of funding for equipment for the armed forces was also covered.

On the economy, the dividing line between Cameron's plan for immediate cuts and Brown's warning that such cuts would derail the economic recovery were displayed in full. Clegg, meanwhile, challenged the other two to "be honest" with the public about the scale of the cuts needed, pledging to cut the £100bn Trident programme.

Brown, showing his expected mastery of detail, on three occasions operated a pincer movement to isolate Cameron by siding with Clegg over democratic reform, tax increases for the wealthiest, and on social care.

They closed the debate with Clegg claiming his party offered a "real alternative" to the other pair's "old politics". Brown said he feared for the economy if the Tories won.

The Labour leader – playing his strongest hand – pledged to protect the NHS, police and schools while cutting the deficit, but Cameron accused him of plucking numbers out of thin air.

Clegg, in one of the more telling hits of the night, countered: "The more they attack each other, the more they sound like one another."

Brown relied on his experience, which was reflected in his opening remarks. He said: "These are no ordinary times and this is no ordinary election. This is the defining year to get these decisions right. Get the decisions wrong now and we could have a double-dip recession. I know what this job involves, and I look forward to putting my plan to you this evening."

Cameron tried to put distance between the Tories and 13 years of Labour – and attempted to draw the sting out of the toxic issue of MPs' expenses.

"Your politicians – frankly, all of us – let you down. We can go on as we are, or we can say: 'No, Britain can do much better.' We can deal with our debts, we can get our economy growing and avoid this jobs tax, and we can build a bigger society."

The Tory leader said not everything Labour had done over the past 13 years had been wrong, and he would keep the good things. "But we need change, and it's that change that I want to help to lead," he said.

Brown pushed Cameron hard on whether the Tories were committed to matching his promise to increase police funding, saying: "You can airbrush your posters but you cannot airbrush your promises."

Trying to present Cameron as evasive, seen by Labour as one of the Tory leader's weaknesses, the prime minister tried to pin him down by saying: "This is not Question Time – this is answer time, David."

In another attempt at a joke, Brown referred to the Tory depictions of him on their campaign posters, saying: "I'm grateful, by the way, to David for putting up all these posters about crime and me. You know there's no newspaper editor who has done as much for me in the last two years – because my face is smiling on these posters. I'm very grateful to you and Lord Ashcroft for funding these."

Brown also said the risk of taking £6bn out of the economy now was too big. Cameron countered it was only £1 in every £100, pointing out that most businesses supported him. "Why should we pay our taxes for government waste?" he asked.

In lengthy exchanges on immigration, Cameron said Britain had benefited from such movement across decades. "But I do think that it has got out of control, and does need to be brought back under control."

Brown shot back: "I do not like these words, because we are bringing it under control. Net inward migration is falling, and will continue to fall because of the measures we have taken." Clegg focused on the controls placed on Britain's borders, claiming they were in "complete chaos".

Cameron said net inward migration had been around 70,000 under Tory governments, but under Labour it had never been fewer than 140,000. Clegg said: "What has gone so wrong is talking tough and delivering chaos in the way that it is run."

He also said the other two leaders were obsessed about "mythical efficiency savings on pot plants" as a way of cutting the deficit.

Both before and after the debate, the parties' big political beasts – including Lord Mandelson, George Osborne, William Hague, Paddy Ashdown, Andy Coulson and Alistair Campbell – toured the press room trying to lower expectations.

All threeparties were told that female voters are the least decided. Clegg went into the debates boosted by a surge in his party's poll standing. The YouGov/Sun poll ahead of the debate showed the Tories down four points to 37, Labour down one to 31, and the Liberal Democrats rising four to 22 points.

It was surprisingly interesting and, yeah, I think Clegg won.  Funnily enough as we've never had a debate like this the parties were learning from US consultants.  One of their pieces of advice was to use anecdotes to illustrate policy.  Apparently the focus groups show that British people are neutral or actively dislike these anecdotes.  All three, alas, used about 20 :lol:

It was a real debate though.  Could have done with a bit more of fighting spirit but still pretty good.

Britain has never had tv election debates before?  :huh:

Welcome to 1960.

Why wasn't the BNP allowed to participate? Shameful behavior on the part of the BBC. You can't silence the people!

30% of Tories and 30% of Labour supporters think Clegg won the debate. Interesting.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 15, 2010, 05:27:33 PM
Britain has never had tv election debates before?  :huh:

Welcome to 1960.

Heh


Would you buy a car from this man?

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2007%2F10_01%2FbrownMS0610_468x648.jpg&hash=87b7d84e8ecb90d3fde5ddd0bb983564f5782dd8)


:P

Quote from: Fate on April 15, 2010, 05:31:17 PM
Why wasn't the BNP allowed to participate? Shameful behavior on the part of the BBC. You can't silence the people!

ITV <_<

QuoteBritain has never had tv election debates before?  :huh:

Welcome to 1960.

We only had our first televised interview with a party leader in the 1960s :)

Normally the leader who's doing worst in the polls wants a debate, the leader doesn't and the Lib Dems are desperate to be included.  I think tonight showed why on all three points.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 15, 2010, 05:27:33 PM
Britain has never had tv election debates before?  :huh:

They're just not British, dear boy. :bowler:

I watched a truly excellent edition of "Have I got News for you" instead.

Hey Shelf, did the moderator ask "tough" questions?

Downloading it now...Hope its good.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2010, 06:03:24 PM
Hey Shelf, did the moderator ask "tough" questions?

Very different format - tough questions are only really of use in an interview.  In the UK we used to have the leaders each going to do an interview with Paxman (who's notoriously aggressive), so far only Clegg's done it and Cameron's pulled out, because of the debate. 

They got to make opening statements.  Then went through pre-screened questions from the audience.  Each got to answer and I think each then got another answer (rebut style).  After that it became a bit of a free-for-all with the moderator shouting "MR BROWN!", "MR CLEGG!" to keep the debate moving and generally giving everyone time to respond to direct attacks made on them, "MR CAMERON!"

The questions themselves were bland.  They were almost entirely apolitical.  So one woman says she owns a pub and no issues provoked more talk among her customers than expense what will they do that can restore any credibility to politics?  That sort of thing.  It was a spring board for each to do their spiel and then argue themselves out.

Over here it's pretty common for third (or even 4th or 5th) party leaders to do well in a debate - the issue of lowered expectations and all that.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2010, 06:03:24 PM
Hey Shelf, did the moderator ask "tough" questions?

Actually by the target he set himself the moderator was tough:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7591256/General-Election-2010-TV-debate-moderator-Alastair-Stewart-to-be-tough.html

QuoteAlastair Stewart 'to be tough'
Alastair Stewart, the moderator of the first televised party leaders' debate, will cut leaders short if he thinks the debate is getting boring.

The debate will be structured around questions from the studio audience, to which each party leader will get to give a set-piece answer.

After that, Stewart and his producers at ITV can allow up to four minutes of additional "free debate" on the topic. But according to the pre-agreed rules, that debate proceeds only "on merit".

"What 'on merit' means is, is it interesting? Is there sufficient tension between them?" said Stewart. "So if they surprise us and are very conciliatory and agree absolutely, then we'll move on."

Stewart said that it is part of his job to be an "emotional barometer" of the studio audience's response to the interplay between the leaders.

"You can sometimes feel and sense a hunger for more on a particular subject," said Stewart.

"Or you hear the delicate tones of buttocks shuffling, and you think, let's move on."

Stewart said that he was obliged to keep things interesting because the debate will be "a live television event, for a very, very big audience".

Both Stewart's own performance as moderator, and ITV's coverage of the debate as a whole, will be minutely scrutinised. Tonight's event is the first ever debate between party leaders to be televised during a British general election campaign.

ITV has spent £500,000 on producing the programme - an unusually large amount for this kind of broadcast - and will follow it with an almost instant opinion poll reaction on News at Ten.

However Stewart said that it is not his job to prevent two of the party leaders ganging up on the third. "In terms of ganging up, it's up to them, it really is," he said. "If two of them choose to gang up on the other, that's for the other one to fight the good fight. All I'm going to do is make sure that the 'other one' has just as much time to retaliate and respond."

ITV has put in place a complex computerised timing system, to help ensure that the leaders get equal opportunity to put their points across. But Stewart said that he would try to police the timing as much by arm movements and eye signals as by verbally interrupting. "The last thing people at home want to hear is the moderator constantly blowing the whistle like one of those American traffic cops," he said.

Of course his antipathy for traffic cops probably comes from his two drink driving convictions.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 15, 2010, 05:27:33 PM
Britain has never had tv election debates before?  :huh:

Welcome to 1960.

And look how well that worked out.  The 1960 election was decided based on who looked best on TV, and whose party machines were most able to rig the vote.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 15, 2010, 06:20:23 PM
drink driving

Another British phrase that sounds incredibly grating.

Palin :wub:

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 15, 2010, 06:38:36 PMAnother British phrase that sounds incredibly grating.

98% of what you say is incredibly grating.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 15, 2010, 05:37:33 PM

Quote from: Fate on April 15, 2010, 05:31:17 PM
Why wasn't the BNP allowed to participate? Shameful behavior on the part of the BBC. You can't silence the people!

ITV <_<

Fate rule violation  <_<

Quote from: Jacob on April 15, 2010, 07:15:10 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 15, 2010, 06:38:36 PMAnother British phrase that sounds incredibly grating.

98% of what you say is incredibly grating.

Stick to the point. :contract:  Whether Timmay is grating or not has nothing to do with the fact that the phrase "drink driving" is absurd and grates the ear.

I am not sure what it even means to drive a drink or what the drink is supposed to be driving.  Drink isn't an adjective (even in British English, according to Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries), it is a noun and a verb.  Thus, it cannot modify "driving." The phrase either lacks a subject or an object, and thus grates.

A poll for tomorrow's Sun:

Quote
Lib Dems overtake Labour
Posted on April 16th, 2010 by Anthony Wells

For once I do not need to add a caveat about changes being inside the margin of error and not necessarily being significant – today's YouGov poll for the Sun shows a huge surge for the Liberal Democrats on the back of Nick Clegg's debate performance, putting the Lib Dems ahead of Labour and into second place. The topline figures are CON 33%(-4), LAB 28%(-3), LDEM 30%(+8). The surge in Lib Dem support therefore seems to have come pretty evenly at the expence of the Conservatives and Labour. This is the highest level of support YouGov have recorded for the Liberal Democrats since the aftermath of the Brent East by-election victory, way back in 2003.

On a uniform swing these figures would leave Labour the largest party, despite being in third place. The Lib Dems would have around about 100 seats. In reality though, it's almost impossible to say how this would translate into an election result. In 1983 when the SDP Liberal Alliance almost pushed Labour into third place UNS was actually a pretty good predictor of the result, but who knows how it would work in practice now. If the Lib Dems stay at this sort of figure I'm sure we'll eventually see some more detailled polling to see how the electoral plates are shifting, but till then it is speculation.

The questions now are firstly whether other polls show the same thing? Secondly how long this boost lasts. Is it mostly a publicity boost that will rapidly disappear, or will it stick around? Boosts after things like the Brent East by-election didn't last long, but in this case the Lib Dems will probably enjoy a further publicity boost from the very fact there are polls showing them in second place, and on top of that there are two more debates to go. Thirdly, how does this change the narrative – can the Lib Dems start painting themselves as a contender to actually win?

Quote from: grumbler on April 15, 2010, 07:37:03 PM
I am not sure what it even means to drive a drink or what the drink is supposed to be driving.  Drink isn't an adjective (even in British English, according to Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries), it is a noun and a verb.  Thus, it cannot modify "driving." The phrase either lacks a subject or an object, and thus grates.

I've no idea where it comes from.  We've no legal phrase like DUI, I think we the crime is 'drunk-driving'.  My guess is that 'drink-driving' became the norm to reflect the growing unease (and illegality) to do with any drinking before driving rather than driving when leathered.  Or possibly an ad campaign 'is the drink driving?'  Sort of thing? :mellow:

I'd be amused if Labor came in third. Based on that poll, it seems as though the Conservatives have a chance to come in third. That would amuse me even more. Unless the Lib Dems win, that would just concern me.

Quote from: alfred russel on April 16, 2010, 05:46:08 PM
I'd be amused if Labor came in third. Based on that poll, it seems as though the Conservatives have a chance to come in third. That would amuse me even more. Unless the Lib Dems win, that would just concern me.

Why would that concern you?

Quote from: Sahib on April 16, 2010, 05:48:03 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on April 16, 2010, 05:46:08 PM
I'd be amused if Labor came in third. Based on that poll, it seems as though the Conservatives have a chance to come in third. That would amuse me even more. Unless the Lib Dems win, that would just concern me.

Why would that concern you?

It wouldn't keep me awake at night, but I wonder whether the third party in the UK has the depth to effectively run a government.

We elected Obama.

Quote from: alfred russel on April 16, 2010, 05:50:06 PM

Quote from: Sahib on April 16, 2010, 05:48:03 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on April 16, 2010, 05:46:08 PM
I'd be amused if Labor came in third. Based on that poll, it seems as though the Conservatives have a chance to come in third. That would amuse me even more. Unless the Lib Dems win, that would just concern me.

Why would that concern you?

It wouldn't keep me awake at night, but I wonder whether the third party in the UK has the depth to effectively run a government.

It's never happened here on a national level, but provincially it happened in 1990 in Ontario.  Out of nowhere the perennial-third place NDP came out of nowhere and won a majority.  Bob Rae's government was universally panned at the time, and afterwards the NDP has returned to 3rd place status.

So yeah, I'd be worried.

Quote from: garbon on April 16, 2010, 05:51:22 PM
We elected Obama.

Who had people like Hillary to fill out the cabinet.

You probably don't remember Perot's run. When we got the vice presidential debates, we realized the second best guy he could call on was some completely senile old guy that started wandering around the stage. If he couldn't find a decent VP, what kind of Secretary of the Interior would he have had?

Quote from: alfred russel on April 16, 2010, 05:58:32 PM
Who had people like Hillary to fill out the cabinet.

It wasn't clear that such would be the case.

Quote from: alfred russel on April 16, 2010, 05:50:06 PM
It wouldn't keep me awake at night, but I wonder whether the third party in the UK has the depth to effectively run a government.

That's what the civil service is for :)

I think there's some truth to that.  We expect someone to be able to be Secretary of State for the Environment one day and the next Foreign Secretary.  And the sad truth is in terms of genuinely talented politicians all parties are working with a pretty small pool.  I mean Labour and the Tories have no more than 10 at most who are really big enough for the departments they manage.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 16, 2010, 06:07:05 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on April 16, 2010, 05:50:06 PM
It wouldn't keep me awake at night, but I wonder whether the third party in the UK has the depth to effectively run a government.

That's what the civil service is for :)

I think there's some truth to that.  We expect someone to be able to be Secretary of State for the Environment one day and the next Foreign Secretary.  And the sad truth is in terms of genuinely talented politicians all parties are working with a pretty small pool.  I mean Labour and the Tories have no more than 10 at most who are really big enough for the departments they manage.

And how many do the Lib-Dems have?

Quote from: alfred russel on April 16, 2010, 05:58:32 PM

You probably don't remember Perot's run. When we got the vice presidential debates, we realized the second best guy he could call on was some completely senile old guy that started wandering around the stage. If he couldn't find a decent VP, what kind of Secretary of the Interior would he have had?

Well we also had a debate of the would-be chancellors which the Blessed Vince Cable won.  He's the most popular economic spokesman of any party, Chris Huhne at home is pretty decent but then the talent does thin out.

QuoteIt's never happened here on a national level, but provincially it happened in 1990 in Ontario.  Out of nowhere the perennial-third place NDP came out of nowhere and won a majority.  Bob Rae's government was universally panned at the time, and afterwards the NDP has returned to 3rd place status.

So yeah, I'd be worried.

We had it once, Ramsay MacDonald wasn't great.

Quote from: Barrister on April 16, 2010, 06:08:14 PM
And how many do the Lib-Dems have?

Dream cabinet they probably have as many as the Tories and Labour - including ex-leaders like Kennedy, Campbell and, in the Lords, Ashdown.  Practically I'd say 3-4 at most.

Labour and the Tories do, to their credit, have some impressive people on the back benches but they won't get a look-in due to internal politics.  I'm not sure that the Lib Dems are big enough for internal divisions.

Of course they won't win, and almost certainly won't push Labour into third.

I found all 3 of them deeply depressing on immigration; they were all pandering to the xenophobes.

They also studiously avoided the need for the future public sector cuts required to bring the economy back into balance.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 16, 2010, 06:32:54 PM
They also studiously avoided the need for the future public sector cuts required to bring the economy back into balance.

This is reassuring news though.   :)

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 16, 2010, 06:32:54 PM
They also studiously avoided the need for the future public sector cuts required to bring the economy back into balance.

This is only sort of true though.  They all said that there would need to be cuts and Darling's said they'll be deeper than Thatcher.  I believe the budget figures actually suggest spending cuts that'll be worse than when we called in the IMF. 

But none of them are willing to say what savage cuts they'll make.  I think they're all up for cutting public sector pensions and freezing public sector pay.  Labour's ring-fencing all 'front-line services', the Tories are ring-fencing international aid, defence and the NHS, the Lib Dems aren't ring-fencing, to the best of my knowledge.  But it is irritating and dispiriting that when we know they're all planning to make serious cuts we're arguing over a £6 billion difference in tax (that is, less than 1% of the deficit) which will apparently endanger the recovery whoever wins.

Edit:  Entirely agree on immigration though.  I find it genuinely distressing how unpleasant this entire debate has got that it's almost impossible for a politician to make a spirited defence of immigration.

Incidentally I found that the weirdest moment.  Brown was talking about immigration and said about how he talked to foreign chefs and told them there would be no more chefs from outside the EU.  Then he did the same to care assistants.  It sort of sums up his campaign.  Travel round the country spreading misery.  Thank God for Mandy:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2010%2F04%2F16%2Farticle-1266605-0925D4E1000005DC-471_233x490.jpg&hash=06ee2114f2398d2bcc6890aa120418879699016b)

Wow, oppinion polls based on that are overwhelmingly for the lib dems.
I always knew they would come out well from this though. Exposure has always been their problem. And not seeming to be a major party. Not policies.
Unfortunately the lib dems doing well spells bad for labour. It splits the left wing vote even more.

I must say I like the lib dem idea of making savings in cutting the nukes.

Before I was quite meh, not planning to vote- labour always win in my area anyway. Now though...I might actually bother to tell my mam to vote lib dem for me.

Yes, Darling is being more honest about the extent of the problem than most.

One problem, IMO, is that when they talk about "halving the deficit" over the lifetime of the next parliament many voters may interpret this as "halving the debt". So the piffling measures that have actually been mentioned may be taken as all that is required.

I believe that we are about to undergo a rather brutal few years; it seems the height of foolishness for our politicians not to admit this and get the mandate in the upcoming election to deal with the problems.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 16, 2010, 06:54:02 PM
Yes, Darling is being more honest about the extent of the problem than most.

Darling's been giving me the impression for months that he's tired of being Brown's "yes man" in the Treasury; he's not been towing the "Brown line" for months, in many ways. I smell a post election leadership challenge coming.

And yes, I have agreed with much that Darling has said over those months, something I find quite refreshing when I consider my normal reaction to what most Labour politicians say.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 16, 2010, 06:54:02 PM
One problem, IMO, is that when they talk about "halving the deficit" over the lifetime of the next parliament many voters may interpret this as "halving the debt". So the piffling measures that have actually been mentioned may be taken as all that is required.

I'd say that's exactly what they are trying to do. Brown's attitude over the last few months has appeared to be one that "legislation = problem solved", not "legislation followed by action = problem solved".

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 16, 2010, 06:54:02 PM
I believe that we are about to undergo a rather brutal few years; it seems the height of foolishness for our politicians not to admit this and get the mandate in the upcoming election to deal with the problems.

It's a sign they don't trust the electorate, in my opinion; even when all the opinion polls say that the general public believes cuts are coming, and, more importantly, sees them as both neccessary and unavoidable, they still can't break away from the tired old mantras they've been using for decades and take a risk with the truth.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 16, 2010, 06:54:02 PM
One problem, IMO, is that when they talk about "halving the deficit" over the lifetime of the next parliament many voters may interpret this as "halving the debt". So the piffling measures that have actually been mentioned may be taken as all that is required.

I believe that we are about to undergo a rather brutal few years; it seems the height of foolishness for our politicians not to admit this and get the mandate in the upcoming election to deal with the problems.

No-one's talking about the debt, which is a problem.  In the context of the debt national insurance is even more pathetic a debate to be having.  I hope that everyone saying that things will be tough will prepare people for it, so they're not surprised when it happens.  I'm not, however, convinced that that's the case and I think whoever wins just wants the cover to say 'we warned you'.

I agree that we're in for a rough ride.  I think Labour's figures, in the budget for example, suggest an £800 million cut in education, for example - while, somehow, 'protecting front-line services'. 

Quote from: Agelastus on April 16, 2010, 07:05:29 PM
It's a sign they don't trust the electorate, in my opinion; even when all the opinion polls say that the general public believes cuts are coming, and, more importantly, sees them as both neccessary and unavoidable, they still can't break away from the tired old mantras they've been using for decades and take a risk with the truth.

Well I agree with them not to trust the public.  The public believes cuts are coming, but that doesn't mean they'll like them or the inevitable tax rises for that matter.  I think most people would like to believe that you really can cut everything away by cutting down on government waste, which is nonsense.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 16, 2010, 07:05:38 PM
I agree that we're in for a rough ride.  I think Labour's figures, in the budget for example, suggest an £800 million cut in education, for example - while, somehow, 'protecting front-line services'.

So he's going to stop pumping money into the public sector pension schemes he himself wrecked then?  :)

I think I've mentioned this before, but while its' quite obvious the local hospitals in my area are battening down the hatches in terms of recruitment, local schools are still recruiting as if they think the money tap is eternal. And I don't think this is a case of the local hospitals overspending their budgets; the last couple of years have shown a distinct trend away from deficits, with many health authorities reporting year-on-year surpluses.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 16, 2010, 07:08:56 PM
Well I agree with them not to trust the public.  The public believes cuts are coming, but that doesn't mean they'll like them or the inevitable tax rises for that matter.  I think most people would like to believe that you really can cut everything away by cutting down on government waste, which is nonsense.

Six or twelve months ago you would have been wrong in my opinion. The "man in the street" spots that local and national news is so fond of showed an excellent grasp of the situation, at a time when Brown was still on his "spend, spend" mantra. Now, you are probably right, but that's only because all parties have started talking of "efficiency savings" which you and I both know are not going to be anywhere near enough.

Of course, the first question I ask when someone speaks of savings through efficiency gains is if these cuts were possible, why didn't you make them ten years ago? Or if the cuts are in areas you have provided more funding for, why did you provide the funding to let the bureaucracy bloat?

I find the national insurance row hilarious. Not because the Tories are wrong, and not because Labour has had to resort to calling on economists for support when they couldn't find any business leaders to do it, but because the public sector will be paying the most if the increase goes through (it is 52% of our economy, roughly, after all.)

Quote from: Agelastus on April 16, 2010, 07:11:16 PM
So he's going to stop pumping money into the public sector pension schemes he himself wrecked then?  :)

I think the Chancellor's debate had them all agreeing, broadly, to major public sector pension 'reforms' (cuts) and a freeze on public sector pay.  I remember Osbourne saying it could be an area of cross-party consensus. 

In all honesty I think the difference in terms of cuts will be negligible whoever wins, because they'll become essential.  Either our government or the IMF.

Yeah, which does mean that the NI increase will effectively have the benefit of reducing the public sector wage bill  :D

The NI increase, in 2011, will raise £6bn a year. But, we will have borrowed another £180bn by then. The government is currently paying 4.2% on it's bond issues IIRC. So  the recurrent interest on the money we borrow this year will exceed the money raised by this flagship taxation proposal.

Quote from: Agelastus on April 16, 2010, 07:18:26 PM
Of course, the first question I ask when someone speaks of savings through efficiency gains is if these cuts were possible, why didn't you make them ten years ago? Or if the cuts are in areas you have provided more funding for, why did you provide the funding to let the bureaucracy bloat?

But the answer's because we had ten good years - we shouldn't have had a deficit then - but we had strong growth, so the need to be strict with spending is less ever-present.  It's like so much of the work Cameron put in in 2005-08 just doesn't matter any more.  In good times he could afford to focus on more, sort-of, feel-good policies (like matching Labour on the NHS, talking about the environment etc) which helped him then but I think now make him look more like a peace-time candidate.

I recommend this OECD gizmo on deficits though.  It's pretty surprising how normal they are in so many countries, which is part of what's going to necessitate deep cuts now:
https://community.oecd.org/community/factblog/blog/2010/03/23/deepening-debt

QuoteI find the national insurance row hilarious. Not because the Tories are wrong, and not because Labour has had to resort to calling on economists for support when they couldn't find any business leaders to do it, but because the public sector will be paying the most if the increase goes through (it is 52% of our economy, roughly, after all.)

I disagree with the Tories on national insurance simply because I think it would be less economically damaging than a VAT rise which is the other probable option. 

But I find the whole argument infuriating because the Tories and the right-wing press call the raise a 'stealth tax'.  It was announced two years ago, something that's been in budgets for 24 months is not stealth, it's just not been noticed.  It's no more a stealth tax than Whitsunday is a stealth holiday.

I'd be amazed if VAT isn't at least 20% by 2012; regardless of which party wins. Apart from anything else it keeps the inflation rate up which is handy when you owe vast sums of money.

Though that can make raising further tranches of money more difficult and costly  :hmm:

And, indeed, Britain has to pay a higher rate of interest than Italy when it sells a new bond :

http://markets.ft.com/markets/bonds.asp

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 16, 2010, 07:30:16 PM
But I find the whole argument infuriating because the Tories and the right-wing press call the raise a 'stealth tax'.  It was announced two years ago, something that's been in budgets for 24 months is not stealth, it's just not been noticed.  It's no more a stealth tax than Whitsunday is a stealth holiday.

It's because of the easy ride they gave Brown as chancellor, in my opinion. Brown used the "announce a tax rise but put the implementation off a couple of years; no-one will complain when it is announced because of the delay, and no-one will complain when it is implemented because they have forgotten about it or it is old news" method a lot and was allowed to get away with it by the press and opposition.

I agree, its' not on the face of it a stealth tax; but did you not notice that all the news reports and briefings seemed to focus on the cost to the employee, not the employer? A lot of employees don't realise that the NI that comes out of their pay packet is matched by the employer.

Quote from: Agelastus on April 16, 2010, 07:55:18 PM
It's because of the easy ride they gave Brown as chancellor, in my opinion. Brown used the "announce a tax rise but put the implementation off a couple of years; no-one will complain when it is announced because of the delay, and no-one will complain when it is implemented because they have forgotten about it or it is old news" method a lot and was allowed to get away with it by the press and opposition.

Yeah.  He created the pre-budget report so he could announce spending twice and tax changes several years in advance.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 16, 2010, 07:30:16 PM
But the answer's because we had ten good years - we shouldn't have had a deficit then - but we had strong growth, so the need to be strict with spending is less ever-present. 

We had more like 15 good years, thanks to the world economy and the healthy state the previous Tory administration left the country in (counting from about 1994 onwards.) Labour seemed to believe that the "bad old days" of boom and bust were gone forever, and let spending get out of control. Now whichever of the main parties that wins the next election will have to clear up the mess, and the Tories have a better record of cleaning up such messes...except, as you say, Cameron does not convince in the way previous generations of Tory leaders did.

I agree with you, its either cuts or the IMF. And it worries me that none of the major parties can convince me they understand this. For example, "ringfencing the NHS"? How on earth can you section off such a huge chunk of the budget from cuts and expect to be taken seriously.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 16, 2010, 08:01:41 PM

Quote from: Agelastus on April 16, 2010, 07:55:18 PM
It's because of the easy ride they gave Brown as chancellor, in my opinion. Brown used the "announce a tax rise but put the implementation off a couple of years; no-one will complain when it is announced because of the delay, and no-one will complain when it is implemented because they have forgotten about it or it is old news" method a lot and was allowed to get away with it by the press and opposition.

Yeah.  He created the pre-budget report so he could announce spending twice and tax changes several years in advance.

Assuming that is not sarcasm, that's exactly what he did. Having an accountant in the family is fun in these instances, as in most respects they'll analyse a budget more deeply than anyone. There were times in the early 2000s when his budgets included measures he'd already announced three times or more. He announced "good news items" even more often. And was rarely called on it.

Quote from: alfred russel on April 16, 2010, 05:58:32 PM
You probably don't remember Perot's run. When we got the vice presidential debates, we realized the second best guy he could call on was some completely senile old guy that started wandering around the stage.

James Stockdale was one of the finest and most interesting people I have ever met.  His problem was that he didn't give a shit about politics and didn't want to run.  Perot picked him because Stockdale was a friend of his, somebody he could trust  - and Perot was a weirdo that didn't trust many people. Stockdale ran out of loyalty to Perot, because of all the things Perot did for individual military members, without fanfare or fuss.* 

Stockdale made a laughingstock of himself in the debate, but that wasn't because he was senile (I heard him speak at a Capital Military History Society meeting maybe six months before that), but because he thought the whole thing (him running for VP) was silly, and because the electronics there were scrambling his hearing aids (necessary because the North Vietnamese had repeatedly punctured his eardrums as part of their torture scheme).  Anybody watching him would assume he was senile unless they had reason to think otherwise.

Very sad, really.  Admiral Stockdale won The Medal, 3 DSMs, 4 Silver Stars (all valor), 2 Purple Hearts, and at least one of pretty much every medal a non-chairborne officer could win.  His public image, though, will always be "that senile VP candidate."  :(




*For instance, Perot personally paid to have every Gulf War vet who lost a limb to be fitted with the most state of the art prosthetics, rather than what the US government would pay for, and created a trust fund to keep those updated as prosthetics got more advanced.  His condition was secrecy on the behalf of the recipients (but he couldn't impose secrecy on the doctors, some of whom were reservists with whom I served).

Quote from: Agelastus on April 16, 2010, 08:05:19 PM
We had more like 15 good years, thanks to the world economy and the healthy state the previous Tory administration left the country in (counting from about 1994 onwards.) Labour seemed to believe that the "bad old days" of boom and bust were gone forever, and let spending get out of control. Now whichever of the main parties that wins the next election will have to clear up the mess, and the Tories have a better record of cleaning up such messes...except, as you say, Cameron does not convince in the way previous generations of Tory leaders did.

I would just like to point out that historically the government that cut spending most was Labour, not Tory.  Callaghan and Healey were, in my opinion, a pretty decent PM-Chancellor combo....largely because of the IMF :P

Incidentally on the whole Cameron thing what do you think's caused the dip?  I've read some stuff on how he didn't do enough early on to shore up the true blues so they've sort-of sagged behind and now aren't really listening.  My own sense is slightly different.  I think with many voters there's a personality problem (with him and Osborne) that something just isn't gelling and I think with the activists he could have hugged as many huskies as he wanted if he hadn't set up the A-list.  We've got an A-lister in my constituency and she's not done very well (it doesn't help that her husband is one of Cameron's best friends from Eton), while a friend of mine says that Salisbury's not happy with their candidate because he's not 'local' enough etc.

QuoteI agree with you, its either cuts or the IMF. And it worries me that none of the major parties can convince me they understand this. For example, "ringfencing the NHS"? How on earth can you section off such a huge chunk of the budget from cuts and expect to be taken seriously.

I agree.  I find ring-fencing foreign aid less offensive because it's a piffling bit of the budget.  But 'ringfencing the NHS' or 'not cutting front-line services' is nonsense and they know it.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 16, 2010, 08:26:20 PM
I would just like to point out that historically the government that cut spending most was Labour, not Tory.  Callaghan and Healey were, in my opinion, a pretty decent PM-Chancellor combo....largely because of the IMF :P

I think "largely because of the IMF" is the key point, there! :P

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 16, 2010, 08:26:20 PM
Incidentally on the whole Cameron thing what do you think's caused the dip?  I've read some stuff on how he didn't do enough early on to shore up the true blues so they've sort-of sagged behind and now aren't really listening.  My own sense is slightly different.  I think with many voters there's a personality problem (with him and Osborne) that something just isn't gelling and I think with the activists he could have hugged as many huskies as he wanted if he hadn't set up the A-list.  We've got an A-lister in my constituency and she's not done very well (it doesn't help that her husband is one of Cameron's best friends from Eton), while a friend of mine says that Salisbury's not happy with their candidate because he's not 'local' enough etc.

At its core? I think its' a backlash against the "Blair style" of populist politics. Cameron's a "friendly face" in the way Blair was; you can even here the echo of Blair in many of his pronouncements. It's trite to say that the public now prefer substance over style, whereas before they preferred the reverse, but Cameron does feel "lightweight" - he's just lucky he's fighting Brown, who comes out with things such as "I saved the world" that make Cameron look good.

It's no co-incidence that Clegg did the best in the debate; he's impressed me for a while as being by far the most capable of the three leaders. This does not mean, of course, that I do not fervently pray that the Lib-Dems lose 2/3 of their seats in this election - he may be the most capable leader, but I abhor his policies.

I haven't actually noticed much of a problem with the Cameron-Osborne combination. Labour are doing their best to make Osborne appear useless and inexperienced, but they're having trouble making it stick because of the inevitable comparison this brings up in people's minds with 1997.

[And a lot of people out there have probably noticed that the BBC's favorite economic correspondent, Robert Peston, is the most biased hack on television.]

And as you say, the "A-list" is a major problem. Not so much because candidates have not been parachuted in from central office before, since they have been for decades, but in the way it smacks of authoritarian, "Labour-style" practises that the Tories have spent years condemning.

I think this election will be most interesting for how Plaid Cymru and the SNP do. They've pretty clearly nailed their colours to the mast of "snouts in the trough", and I'm not convinced that will play very well outside of their really hard-core supporters.

Clegg essentially won because Cameron and Brown were just bickering amongst themselves (Cameron should never have got drawn into it). Judging from the performance, it seemed as if it were a two horse race between Clegg and Cameron - Brown had nothing more to say than "I agree with Nick" or "Nick agrees with me"; at which point Nick was quick to dismiss Brown's claims.

Clegg will likely do worse in the next debates which are likely to concern foreign affairs. Scrapping trident, adopting the Euro as our currency, and taking a very pro-Europe stance will not play well with the British public. In fact, Cameron and the Tories *should* come out best in this debate.

Something which I hope the Liberal Democrats get more scrutiny for is their anti-business policies as well as their taxation policies which are frankly ridiculous (taxing wealth rather than income, hitting middle and top earners the hardest, etc...). The debate touched on crime and immigration (which are actually weak spots for the Lib Dems), but Clegg got away with these weaknesses by an otherwise excellent performance.

Current polling puts it as:

Conservative: 33%
Liberal Democrats: 30%
Labour: 28%

Despite this, Labour would actually remain in power (due to the flawed FPTP voting system). That's using an average swing, however, which is not very accurate, to say the least.

An issue which is annoying with the debates we've had (including the Chancellor's one, that is) is that the Liberal Democrats are trying to be wooed into coalition, so attacking them is discouraged by the other two parties. This means they are untouchable, and thus it seems inevitable they will come out on top in the debates. What we need is Brown and Cameron attacking Clegg more - the Lib Dems have said they'd go into coalition with the party with the largest electoral mandate, so you may as well try and get the largest mandate even if you put Clegg's nose out a bit!

Quote from: grumbler on April 16, 2010, 08:12:19 PM
James Stockdale was one of the finest and most interesting people I have ever met.  His problem was that he didn't give a shit about politics and didn't want to run.  Perot picked him because Stockdale was a friend of his, somebody he could trust  - and Perot was a weirdo that didn't trust many people. Stockdale ran out of loyalty to Perot, because of all the things Perot did for individual military members, without fanfare or fuss.* 

Very interesting info grumbles.  Thanks for mentioning it.

Is it just me or does Cameron look and sound like he was cobbled together down in the basement of some ad agency. :huh:

QuoteIs it just me or does Cameron look and sound like he was cobbled together down in the basement of some ad agency. :huh:

He sort of is.
In the wake of Blair's victories and the Tories seeming doomed to oblivion they began the secret Tory Blair project to fight fire with fire.
Why the British people are falling for this again though...:x

Quote from: Palisadoes on April 16, 2010, 08:55:22 PM
Clegg essentially won because Cameron and Brown were just bickering amongst themselves (Cameron should never have got drawn into it). Judging from the performance, it seemed as if it were a two horse race between Clegg and Cameron - Brown had nothing more to say than "I agree with Nick" or "Nick agrees with me"; at which point Nick was quick to dismiss Brown's claims.

LOL, yeah, I noticed that, he just got sick of it eventually.
But then the lib dems and labour do see eye to eye on many things.

Quote
Clegg will likely do worse in the next debates which are likely to concern foreign affairs. Scrapping trident, adopting the Euro as our currency, and taking a very pro-Europe stance will not play well with the British public. In fact, Cameron and the Tories *should* come out best in this debate.

I dunno, scrapping Trident is good. Especially since he's arguing for it on economic rather than silly old environmental or 'let there be love' terms.
But yeah...Pro Europe though I support it...I hope he has some good reasons to sway the ignorant masses.

QuoteCurrent polling puts it as:

Conservative: 33%
Liberal Democrats: 30%
Labour: 28%

Despite this, Labour would actually remain in power (due to the flawed FPTP voting system). That's using an average swing, however, which is not very accurate, to say the least.

That would be nice.
With lib dem support labour throw through their voting reforms and bye bye tories. Maybe a lib dem government a decade or so down the line. At the least a significantly more left wing one as loads of minor parties pop up.
I doubt though such lib dem support will come through on the day. Lots of people voting tactically and being more against labour/tories than they are for another party and voting for whoever has the best hope of beating them. e.g. me. I'd be fine with the lib dems or labour. I'd prefer the lib dems but I'll take labour if its them or the tories.
Also as I've said its a bit worrying that the lib dems will be stealing these votes mainly from the left...labour supporters. Could end up with constituancies where labour and the lib dems have 30% each and the tories sneak into power with 40% despite the other 60 hating their guts. We need alternate vote so much.

Quote
An issue which is annoying with the debates we've had (including the Chancellor's one, that is) is that the Liberal Democrats are trying to be wooed into coalition, so attacking them is discouraged by the other two parties. This means they are untouchable, and thus it seems inevitable they will come out on top in the debates. What we need is Brown and Cameron attacking Clegg more - the Lib Dems have said they'd go into coalition with the party with the largest electoral mandate, so you may as well try and get the largest mandate even if you put Clegg's nose out a bit!

hmm, perhaps.

Did the lib dems say this? When?
I remember Clegg saying they'd only do a coalition if he were PM and the lib dems had a lot of the power. Otherwise they're just going to pick and chose whatever bills seem decent.

Quote from: Tyr on April 17, 2010, 06:41:16 AMLOL, yeah, I noticed that, he just got sick of it eventually.
But then the lib dems and labour do see eye to eye on many things.

Nick disagrees! :lol:

I heard someone suggest that the Lib Dems run posters round with Brown's face – like the Tories did – except with the words "I agree with Nick" next to it! :D Would steal Labour votes nicely, I imagine.

QuoteI dunno, scrapping Trident is good. Especially since he's arguing for it on economic rather than silly old environmental or 'let there be love' terms.
But yeah...Pro Europe though I support it...I hope he has some good reasons to sway the ignorant masses.

True about Trident, though I think a lot of people just like the status which the UK gains by having them.

Regarding EU, well I wouldn't say they are "ignorant masses" for not being pro-EU. We're all entitled to our opinion, and if you think the deficit we run by our membership of the EU is not worth the benefits (which IMO comes purely from things like standardisation – if only it was done on a global scale! :(), then that is completely subjective.

Something which always bothers me about the pro-EU crowd is that they assume the anti-EU crowd base their decision on some emotional understanding of sovereignty, when often that is not the case - there are reasons against membership too. Personally I have no problem with being part of Europe, though I do not want to be in a country called Europe.

QuoteThat would be nice.
With lib dem support labour throw through their voting reforms and bye bye tories. Maybe a lib dem government a decade or so down the line. At the least a significantly more left wing one as loads of minor parties pop up.

Like the BNP?  :P

QuoteI doubt though such lib dem support will come through on the day. Lots of people voting tactically and being more against labour/tories than they are for another party and voting for whoever has the best hope of beating them. e.g. me. I'd be fine with the lib dems or labour. I'd prefer the lib dems but I'll take labour if its them or the tories.

Labour are completely incompetent. I'd rather see the back of them for a very long time. A Blue-Yellow coalition would be excellent for the country (I support PR voting, which the Tories would never adopt, though the Lib Dems have made it an explicit requirement).

QuoteAlso as I've said its a bit worrying that the lib dems will be stealing these votes mainly from the left...labour supporters. Could end up with constituancies where labour and the lib dems have 30% each and the tories sneak into power with 40% despite the other 60 hating their guts. We need alternate vote so much.

AV is a disgraceful system of "proportionality" which will essentially make the country a left-wing state (and I hate socialists!). Labour only talk about it now because they know they are going out, and if they get back in then it will keep them in power for many years to come (Lib Dem voters will lean towards Labour more than the Tories). PR is the only voting reform I would support, since it is the fairest.

Quotehmm, perhaps.

Did the lib dems say this? When?
I remember Clegg saying they'd only do a coalition if he were PM and the lib dems had a lot of the power. Otherwise they're just going to pick and chose whatever bills seem decent.

They've been on about it throughout their campaign. I've never heard of Clegg saying he'd have to be PM. In fact, they made only 4 points as a requirement – including adopting PR voting – but not one of them was making Clegg the PM, IIRC.

QuoteAV is a disgraceful system of "proportionality" which will essentially make the country a left-wing state (and I hate socialists!). Labour only talk about it now because they know they are going out, and if they get back in then it will keep them in power for many years to come (Lib Dem voters will lean towards Labour more than the Tories). PR is the only voting reform I would support, since it is the fairest.

It'll make the country a left wing state because the people in the country are left wing.
And democracy hasn't been the exlusive domain of the left wing for well over 100 years. The shifting axis mean the right has long since regarded it as good so...there's no valid reason not to support it on that basis.
PR would only lead to even more of a tory leaning bias as the left wing vote is split and the one party that chunk of the population really don't want to win does.

QuoteTrue about Trident, though I think a lot of people just like the status which the UK gains by having them.

Regarding EU, well I wouldn't say they are "ignorant masses" for not being pro-EU. We're all entitled to our opinion, and if you think the deficit we run by our membership of the EU is not worth the benefits (which IMO comes purely from things like standardisation – if only it was done on a global scale! :(), then that is completely subjective.

Something which always bothers me about the pro-EU crowd is that they assume the anti-EU crowd base their decision on some emotional understanding of sovereignty, when often that is not the case - there are reasons against membership too. Personally I have no problem with being part of Europe, though I do not want to be in a country called Europe.

There are valid euro-skeptics out there yes. Sadly so much of the euro-skeptic crap you see is ignorant stuff. Based on just British nationalism and misleading or outright untrue stories about evil Brussels regulations.
The default position of most people is ignorant euro-skeptism. They don't know much about it all they see is the paranoid rantings about evil Brussles regulations, Britain being destroyed, immigrants, etc... I really believe that you inform people then yes, some of them will then become informed euro-skeptics, but the ratio of euro skeptics to europhiles will become a lot more even than it tends to stand otherwise.

QuoteI heard someone suggest that the Lib Dems run posters round with Brown's face – like the Tories did – except with the words "I agree with Nick" next to it! :D Would steal Labour votes nicely, I imagine.

hmm...funny idea but it could easily backfire into people just thinking the lib dems are labour with yellow badges instead of red. Would need to be made clear 'Even he recognises our ideas are better than his' or somesuch.

QuoteIt'll make the country a left wing state because the people in the country are left wing.
And democracy hasn't been the exlusive domain of the left wing for well over 100 years. The shifting axis mean the right has long since regarded it as good so...there's no valid reason not to support it on that basis.
PR would only lead to even more of a tory leaning bias as the left wing vote is split and the one party that chunk of the population really don't want to win does.

Not at all. PR is much more "propotional", and the split left-leaning parties could still form a governing coalition.

Besides, it'd only take a few successive left-wing coalitions raising taxes to unbearable levels, and utterly destroying the private sector, before people switched to the right-wing (and then back to the left, back to the right, and so on...). Such is the nature of democracy.

QuoteThere are valid euro-skeptics out there yes. Sadly so much of the euro-skeptic crap you see is ignorant stuff. Based on just British nationalism and misleading or outright untrue stories about evil Brussels regulations.
The default position of most people is ignorant euro-skeptism. They don't know much about it all they see is the paranoid rantings about evil Brussles regulations, Britain being destroyed, immigrants, etc... I really believe that you inform people then yes, some of them will then become informed euro-skeptics, but the ratio of euro skeptics to europhiles will become a lot more even than it tends to stand otherwise.

I agree; most Euro-skeptics do base it all on emotion, being against change, etc... Of course, many Europhiles have been subject to this too (particularly the socilaists, it seems - that dream of globalisation).

Personally I quite like the current Tory position of being anti-federal since it's where I am on the spectrum: pro-Europe/free market, anti-federalisation. Saying that, I do like to bitch and moan about Europe where I can! :lol:

Two polls done before the debate also show interesting results for the Lib Dems:
ICM: Tories - 34%, Labour 29%, Lib Dems 27%
Comres: Tories - 31%, Lib Dems 29%, Labour 27%

Those two were done prior to the debate and show the manifesto boost.

More polls for the Sunday papers:
'Three Sunday polls released today show a further surge in support for the Liberal Democrats, at the expense of both the Conservatives and Labour. A BPIX/Mail on Sunday poll placed the Lib Dems on 32 per cent in front of the Conservatives (31%) and Labour (28%). A ComRes poll for the Independent on Sunday/Sunday Mirror puts the Lib Dems on 29%, two points ahead of Labour and two behind the Tories on 31%. While an ICM poll for the Sunday Telegraph shows a 7 point jump for the Lib Dems to 27%, just behind Labour on 29% (-2) and the Conservatives on 31% (-4). A YouGov/Sunday Times poll shows a drop of 1 point for the Lib Dems since yesterday, on 29 per cent. '

I really don't know what to make of this election.  I think, if nothing else, it could force significant electoral reform - especially if the Lib Dems do well or Labour come second or (extraordinarily) third and still have the most seats.  But I don't know how many of these polls matter.  It seems like this could be a national election with, above all, many hundreds of very local races.  For example if any candidate has any dodgy expenses they will be getting slaughtered for it by their opponents.  So I don't know if we'll get so neat an election, we could I think just as much have a lot of anti-incumbent votes all over the place with no cohesive reason or story behind them.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 17, 2010, 03:34:00 PM
More polls for the Sunday papers:
'Three Sunday polls released today show a further surge in support for the Liberal Democrats, at the expense of both the Conservatives and Labour. A BPIX/Mail on Sunday poll placed the Lib Dems on 32 per cent in front of the Conservatives (31%) and Labour (28%). A ComRes poll for the Independent on Sunday/Sunday Mirror puts the Lib Dems on 29%, two points ahead of Labour and two behind the Tories on 31%. While an ICM poll for the Sunday Telegraph shows a 7 point jump for the Lib Dems to 27%, just behind Labour on 29% (-2) and the Conservatives on 31% (-4). A YouGov/Sunday Times poll shows a drop of 1 point for the Lib Dems since yesterday, on 29 per cent. '

I really don't know what to make of this election.  I think, if nothing else, it could force significant electoral reform - especially if the Lib Dems do well or Labour come second or (extraordinarily) third and still have the most seats.  But I don't know how many of these polls matter.  It seems like this could be a national election with, above all, many hundreds of very local races.  For example if any candidate has any dodgy expenses they will be getting slaughtered for it by their opponents.  So I don't know if we'll get so neat an election, we could I think just as much have a lot of anti-incumbent votes all over the place with no cohesive reason or story behind them.

Intrade has the percent chance of a conservative victory at 80%. Labor is at 20%. I like Brown, but I don't think Cameron would be a big change and might lighten the political atmosphere in the UK (just because how negative things have gotten for Labor).

Quote from: alfred russel on April 17, 2010, 03:47:13 PM
Intrade has the percent chance of a conservative victory at 80%. Labor is at 20%. I like Brown, but I don't think Cameron would be a big change and might lighten the political atmosphere in the UK (just because how negative things have gotten for Labor).

I can't see that they have a hung parliament option :mellow:

That's what would happen if the Lib Dems did well, and what's been getting a lot of talk for some time.  I think it's the favourite in the bookies right now and a lot people are telling the pollsters that they actually want a hung parliament.

No one expects the Lib Dems to win, even if they won 32% of the vote to the Tories' 31%.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 17, 2010, 04:02:16 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on April 17, 2010, 03:47:13 PM
Intrade has the percent chance of a conservative victory at 80%. Labor is at 20%. I like Brown, but I don't think Cameron would be a big change and might lighten the political atmosphere in the UK (just because how negative things have gotten for Labor).

I can't see that they have a hung parliament option :mellow:

That's what would happen if the Lib Dems did well, and what's been getting a lot of talk for some time.  I think it's the favourite in the bookies right now and a lot people are telling the pollsters that they actually want a hung parliament.

No one expects the Lib Dems to win, even if they won 32% of the vote to the Tories' 31%.

In the event of a coalition government, intrade declares the winner the party with the most seats.

Quote from: alfred russel on April 17, 2010, 04:19:22 PM
In the event of a coalition government, intrade declares the winner the party with the most seats.

I doubt we'd have a coalition government to be honest, though I've no idea.  My guess would be that if there was a hung parliament we'd just have minority government.

Given that I think they're probably right though, chances are the Tories'll win most seats.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 17, 2010, 04:38:58 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on April 17, 2010, 04:19:22 PM
In the event of a coalition government, intrade declares the winner the party with the most seats.

I doubt we'd have a coalition government to be honest, though I've no idea.  My guess would be that if there was a hung parliament we'd just have minority government.

Given that I think they're probably right though, chances are the Tories'll win most seats.

And in that case it is whoever forms the government.

Andrew Rawnsley's view:

Quote
The Lib Dems find you don't need to spin when you're winning

Nick Clegg's victory in the televised debate presents both his complacent rivals with some serious dilemmas

There's a useful aphorism from across the Atlantic. The winners grin; the losers spin. So it has been in the 48 hours since the first British televised leaders' debate gave an electric jolt to a hitherto low-wattage campaign. Peter Mandelson, Alastair Campbell and the rest of the Labour college of spin doctors and truth surgeons have tried to present the bout as a victory for their candidate on "substance". Translation: Gordon Brown made his characteristic, elemental error of thinking that the way to the nation's heart is the robotic recital of lists of statistics. The agreeable Alan Johnson suggested that it did not matter if the prime minister was a leaden performer because "this is not a popularity contest". Alan, allow me to let you into a little secret about a general election. Popularity contest is exactly what it is.

Over in Tory spin world, Team Cameron's propagandists have been shrugging about the viewing figures even though more than 9 million was a highly respectable audience for 90 minutes of politics without an ad break. Tory spin-meisters point out that many voters didn't tune in and the winners of US presidential debates don't always win the actual election. These are points worth bearing in mind by anyone in danger of getting too carried away with Cleggmania. But they are not points which would have interested the Conservatives if they were happy with the performance of their leader.

And the Lib Dems? They, of course, are the ones wearing the grins. And they are not just any old grins; these are ear-to-ear, cheek-aching grins with their leader's triumph. His pre-debate negotiators created a platform for victory by securing even airtime and status with his two rivals, the like of which has never been enjoyed by any previous leader of the third party.

Credit, though, where it is primarily due. Having got his chance, Nick Clegg did not blow it. He could have looked incidental and marginalised in the company of the other two. That is his weekly fate at prime minister's questions. His skill was to use the debate to make himself look the equal of Gordon Brown and David Cameron as well as a personable, reasonable and refreshing alternative to both of them. Many Tories are grinding their teeth and cursing their leader for gifting the Lib Dem this opportunity to shine.

Another reason for his success is a rather surprising one given the superior resources available to his opponents. He used his prep time much more effectively. He had the smarter grasp of how to use the artificiality of a TV format to project himself as authentic. It is Debating for Beginners to address questioners by their Christian names in order to establish a rapport. Yet only the Lib Dem did this from the beginning and his rivals looked like poor mimics when they started to copy him. Neither was his match at looking directly into the camera in order to make a connection with the audience at home. The Lib Dems spent a lot of time studying video of rehearsals to determine whether this would look creepy or attractive. I wonder also whether this was an example of the Lib Dems' lack of money actually working to their advantage. The team who prepped Mr Clegg for the debate was entirely home-grown. Danny Alexander, his chief of staff, simply could not afford to import American consultants in the way that Labour and the Tories have. Stylistically, the Lib Dem came over as more naturally British than either of his rivals.

Gordon Brown was the most egregious offender at trying to lever in jokes – "You can't airbrush your policies like you airbrush your posters" – which were much too obviously pre-cooked. David Cameron was the most painfully over-reliant on the American technique of using an anecdote to make a point. "I recently bumped into a Basildon mother of three with an ingrowing toenail and that is why I love the NHS." The worst was the Tory leader's "I once met a black man". That and a few other gaffes might suggest that the Tory leader was under-rehearsed, but I suspect his real problem was that he was over-coached. He was playing not to lose and straining too hard to seem prime ministerial, with the result that he looked anxious and sounded constipated.

Beneath these differences, there were deeper reasons for Nick Clegg's victory which tell a wider story about this election. Gordon Brown came into the studio clunking behind him the same ball and chain which he is forced to drag the entire length of the campaign trail. He is the unpopular leader of a government that has been in power for 13 years. David Cameron also sagged under the weight of his baggage – in his case, it is the number of changing and sometimes conflicting positions he has adopted over the past four years. Nick Clegg possessed the great advantage of having a simple, clear message that fitted with his wider campaign. That message is that Britain has been let down for decades by the other two, the duopoly which he derides as the "Labservatives". His most resonant line of the night was when he said: "The more they attack each other, the more they exactly sound the same." That jibe was clearly pre-prepared, but he inserted it at point where it seemed a natural and spontaneous response to his bickering rivals.

A "plague on both your houses" is hardly a novel line. This has been the traditional tune of third-party leaders since the Beatles were an unknown Liverpudlian boy band. It is working so well for Mr Clegg because the voters are now particularly receptive to that song. The parliamentary expenses scandal has intensified public alienation from establishment politics to the advantage of the leader who can present himself as an insurgent outsider. Labour and the Tories were both complicit in the inflation of the bubble that exploded in the financial crisis. As I suggested some weeks ago: if not now for the Lib Dems, when?

Very senior Tories are now ruing their failure to develop a strategy for dealing with the Lib Dems before the campaign started. The Conservatives were complacent in assuming that they could simply squeeze the third party into irrelevance and cruise to victory on the slogan of change. They now have to deal with Nick Clegg out-Daveing Cameron and presenting himself as the fresher and more sincere face of renewal.

Entering the middle stretch of the campaign, they are all presented with some unexpected dilemmas. The Lib Dems are keen to capitalise on this boost, but don't seem entirely sure how, and are wary of the hype for fear that it will set up Nick Clegg to flop at the next debate which he goes into with greatly raised expectations.

Some Labour strategists have sounded happy to join the praise for his performance in the first bout. One of Gordon Brown's senior aides cheerfully remarked to me on Friday afternoon: "It has blown the election wide open." They talked up Nick Clegg's win because it diminished David Cameron and disrupted the general media assumption that the Conservatives were heading for power. A lift for the Lib Dems helps to secure those of their seats in southern England which previously looked lost to the Tories. That makes it harder for the Conservatives to achieve a parliamentary majority. This seemed welcome to Labour because their hopes of remaining in office repose in a hung parliament. That was before the YouGov poll yesterday morning which had the Lib Dems sucking support from both the other two, leapfrogging Labour and breathing down the necks of the Tories.

It is rash to read too much into a single volatile tracker poll in the immediate wake of one debate. But more polls published today and telling the same story suggest this could be more than just a spasm. If that dynamic shift in allegiances is sustained, if the Lib Dems become the party with all the momentum, who knows what might happen? If there are confirmatory polls placing Labour in third place, then everyone in Gordon Brown's bunker will need a change of trousers.

As they also will at Tory HQ where their ambitions to win a majority now greatly depend on finding a way of putting the lid on the Lib Dems. David Cameron's strategists are already arguing among themselves about how aggressively they should "take the fight" to Nick Clegg. For most of David Cameron's leadership, his approach has been to try to hug the Lib Dems to death. The Lib Dem leader disdained the Tory's attempts to love bomb him during the first debate. Influential voices around David Cameron are telling him to forget any more loving and concentrate on bombing. Their visceral instinct is to go for the Lib Dems as wet on crime, reckless on defence, soft on immigration and in love with Europe.

The risk for the Tories is that this lures David Cameron back on to Michael Howard territory and will look like a lurch to the right which is repulsive to the liberal, centrist voters that he needs. Michael Gove has already experimented with one line of attack by patronising the Lib Dems as "outside the mainstream and a little bit eccentric". The trouble for both the Tories and Labour is that being "outside the mainstream" does not look the least bit "eccentric" to the many voters distrustful of and disillusioned with the old duopoly. It looks jolly attractive.

• More election comment from Cif at the polls

Edit:  I also can't help but think the Sunday Mail may regret this headline:

QuoteHIS WIFE IS SPANISH, HIS MOTHER DUTCH, HIS FATHER HALF-RUSSIAN AND HIS SPIN DOCTOR GERMAN. IS THERE ANYTHING BRITISH ABOUT THE LIBDEM LEADER?

It seems madness to have a personal attack like that while running a poll that shows the Lib Dems in the lead and Clegg with absurd popularity levels.  Newspapers surely shouldn't be too distant from their readership

Edit: This is the first time since 1906 the Liberals have been ahead.  Though I'd rather Henry Campbell-Bannerman than Clegg.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 18, 2010, 06:42:00 AM
Edit:  I also can't help but think the Sunday Mail may regret this headline:

QuoteHIS WIFE IS SPANISH, HIS MOTHER DUTCH, HIS FATHER HALF-RUSSIAN AND HIS SPIN DOCTOR GERMAN. IS THERE ANYTHING BRITISH ABOUT THE LIBDEM LEADER?

He's as British as Queen Victoria!  :D

On a more serious note, I watched the debate (was aired live on Spanish TV) and wasn't impressed by the performances. Cameron was IMHO the worst by far, even slightly comical, like he just escaped from a 'Yes, Minister' episode. After having heard so much about how wooden and grim Gordon Brown was, I expected some kind of darkly brooding Richard of Gloucester; well, he certainly didn't sweep the audience off their feet, but he wasn't that bad either. Clegg had the easiest task, sure, but on top of that he just was better at delivering his message. 

Oh, and those ties... please, did they really have to wear ties in their party colours?

Clegg's the best-looking too :P

I've supported the Lib Dems the past couple of elections - they seem to have non-hysterical policies completely backed up with penny-by-penny spending, taxing and saving plans. Maybe this will be the year no-one tell me I wasted my vote again :P

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 17, 2010, 04:02:16 PM

Quote from: alfred russel on April 17, 2010, 03:47:13 PM
Intrade has the percent chance of a conservative victory at 80%. Labor is at 20%. I like Brown, but I don't think Cameron would be a big change and might lighten the political atmosphere in the UK (just because how negative things have gotten for Labor).

I can't see that they have a hung parliament option :mellow:

That's what would happen if the Lib Dems did well, and what's been getting a lot of talk for some time.  I think it's the favourite in the bookies right now and a lot people are telling the pollsters that they actually want a hung parliament.

No one expects the Lib Dems to win, even if they won 32% of the vote to the Tories' 31%.

If that happens, (or if any of the polls since the debate were translated into a uniform national swing) then Labour would be the biggest party. For example, the latest yougov poll (whcih is the worst for Labour of any of them) has the Tories on 32, the Libs on 33 and Labout on 26. This translates into 247 Labour seats, 239 Tories and 132 Libs and, I would have tought, a Government lasting only so long as it takes to put a new voting system in place.

The intrade figures are very kind to the Tories, I'd say.

Gups!!!  :w00t: :hug:

Hey Brazen :hug: I've been posting every now and again

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 15, 2010, 06:20:23 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 15, 2010, 06:03:24 PM
Hey Shelf, did the moderator ask "tough" questions?

Actually by the target he set himself the moderator was tough:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7591256/General-Election-2010-TV-debate-moderator-Alastair-Stewart-to-be-tough.html

QuoteAlastair Stewart 'to be tough'
Alastair Stewart, the moderator of the first televised party leaders' debate, will cut leaders short if he thinks the debate is getting boring.

The debate will be structured around questions from the studio audience, to which each party leader will get to give a set-piece answer.

After that, Stewart and his producers at ITV can allow up to four minutes of additional "free debate" on the topic. But according to the pre-agreed rules, that debate proceeds only "on merit".

"What 'on merit' means is, is it interesting? Is there sufficient tension between them?" said Stewart. "So if they surprise us and are very conciliatory and agree absolutely, then we'll move on."

Stewart said that it is part of his job to be an "emotional barometer" of the studio audience's response to the interplay between the leaders.

"You can sometimes feel and sense a hunger for more on a particular subject," said Stewart.

"Or you hear the delicate tones of buttocks shuffling, and you think, let's move on."

Stewart said that he was obliged to keep things interesting because the debate will be "a live television event, for a very, very big audience".

Both Stewart's own performance as moderator, and ITV's coverage of the debate as a whole, will be minutely scrutinised. Tonight's event is the first ever debate between party leaders to be televised during a British general election campaign.

ITV has spent £500,000 on producing the programme - an unusually large amount for this kind of broadcast - and will follow it with an almost instant opinion poll reaction on News at Ten.

However Stewart said that it is not his job to prevent two of the party leaders ganging up on the third. "In terms of ganging up, it's up to them, it really is," he said. "If two of them choose to gang up on the other, that's for the other one to fight the good fight. All I'm going to do is make sure that the 'other one' has just as much time to retaliate and respond."

ITV has put in place a complex computerised timing system, to help ensure that the leaders get equal opportunity to put their points across. But Stewart said that he would try to police the timing as much by arm movements and eye signals as by verbally interrupting. "The last thing people at home want to hear is the moderator constantly blowing the whistle like one of those American traffic cops," he said.

Of course his antipathy for traffic cops probably comes from his two drink driving convictions.

I loved him in Police Action Camera! I watched that show whenever it came on TV in the states, which wasn't often. It was far more interesting than most US shows, I think it's the British understatement.

Lib Dems are now on 34%, Tories 31%, Labour 26%.  Now at that rate, assuming there's a standard swing, Labour are still the largest party.  But if the Lib Dems get to 36% then Labour are pushed into third at about 190 seats, the Tories win with about 220 and the Lib Dems get 200.  And at this point, why not?

I think this gets it sort of right from Iain Martin's WSJ blog:

QuoteNick Clegg: The People's Liberal Democrat

By Iain Martin

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FOB-IF038_nickcl_DV_20100419090711.jpg&hash=99b259ef2dd8b1e16be7ff48b0b8fe40a7d2d36e)

I wondered how long it would take before the incredible rise of Nick Clegg was compared to the wave of grief fascism that swept across Britain after the death of Princess Diana. And it has happened. "Get a flag up on that palace for Princess Nick," writes one blogger. I think he is joking.

It does feel almost as though we are living through the political equivalent of that extraordinary period. If one had said five days ago that Britain would be covered in volcanic ash; that air transportation would have halted; that the Royal Navy and a flotilla of little boats would be heading Dunkirk-style to pick up Britons stranded abroad; and that Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats would be in the lead in the opinion polls, you might have been sectioned.

But here we all are, attempting to adjust to an altered reality. Like John Rentoul, at this stage I don't see this stopping. Or rather, I cannot see — barring a Clegg implosion of some kind — what could possibly halt the bandwagon in the next 17 days.

The Diana comparison is not made lightly. The British have these momentary uprisings in popular feeling against the established order. For a brief period, a figure comes to personify a mood and no amount of robust cross-examination can shift it. To put it politely, those Britons involved in such a mass rebellion are often prepared to overlook certain internal-contradictions in their position.

Diana in death became a proxy for an assault on an establishment that was seen, by millions, as too stiff, formal, uncaring and lacking in emotional intelligence. In order to "show us you care," the mob forced the Queen to concede that her grieving grandsons — two very young boys (William and Harry) — should be paraded in front of thousands of people who had never met their mother and could not be said by any reasonable definition to be grieving for her.

Diana, a Spencer who lived a life of extreme privilege, was an odd standard-bearer for an assault on the establishment, too. But that didn't seem to matter.

And Clegg? The Prince of People's Hearts? He's the outsider, the face of an antipolitics movement — or anti-old politics, at least. He's the man who will "do things differently" and is mining widespread discontent with two party politics and the Westminster village elite, particularly among younger voters. It does not seem to be about specific policies (yet). Instead, the driving force is anger with the stultifying old setup and a desire to sweep it away.

But similarly to Diana, hailing from the English aristocracy, Clegg is a creation of the political class he wants to shake up. Remember, Clegg is a professional politician who, after Westminster and Cambridge, was schooled by the Brussels elite. He then became an MEP and an MP. He is a rebel only in that he wants to smash the system and rebuild it so that it operates in his favor, but he has much in common with the opponents he attacks.

Like Diana in death, Clegg is now also beyond criticism — which entrenches his new popularity. The two leaders of the main parties are petrified of being seen as being unfair to "Nick." They fear looking mean and out of step with these dramatic shifts in public opinion. If they attack him directly, they vindicate his claim that the two big parties are scared of their duopoly being challenged and are getting desperate. If they treat him with more respect, he continues to grow in stature.

In a sense, however, it's not really about Nick Clegg — charming bloke though he is. He got himself, brilliantly, in the right place at the right time. But he's just the vehicle.

Fuck it I'm voting Lib Dem :w00t:

I'm going to make a bold prediction and go on record as stating that the pro-nanny state, pro-immigration party will win :)

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 20, 2010, 04:03:34 PM
Fuck it I'm voting Lib Dem :w00t:

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2010, 04:06:36 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 20, 2010, 04:03:34 PM
Fuck it I'm voting Lib Dem :w00t:

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I've voted Lib Dem before many times.  Just never with the slightest bit of hope.  Like Nick Clegg really.

And I'm with B. 

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnault.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F11%2Fgladstone.jpg&hash=ab7589646a91a44c79b401a21d5aeeffb7b19841)
:w00t:

But, but... you always struck me as a bit of a kindred-spirit, in that you were a doctrinaire party-man (even if it was a party of evil and villainy).  :cry:

In other news: journalists holed up in their Islington and Hampstead dinner party sets make broad sweeping pronouncements about the voting intentions of a public whom they would despise immediately if they ever met.

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2010, 04:25:34 PM
But, but... you always struck me as a bit of a kindred-spirit, in that you were a doctrinaire party-man (even if it was a party of evil and villainy).  :cry:

I've never actually voted for Labour... :blush:

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 20, 2010, 04:16:06 PM

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnault.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F11%2Fgladstone.jpg&hash=ab7589646a91a44c79b401a21d5aeeffb7b19841)
:w00t:

I'll raise you:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fd%2Fdb%2FArthur_Wellesley%252C_1st_Duke_of_Wellington_by_Robert_Home.jpg%2F245px-Arthur_Wellesley%252C_1st_Duke_of_Wellington_by_Robert_Home.jpg&hash=0c7f4d2aecb369cb330ac276431d940a8fa590ae)

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Ff%2Ffc%2FDisraeli.jpg%2F225px-Disraeli.jpg&hash=b89719a10bc746c48cc2ed2b244f3b3c0a05dd6e)

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F9%2F9c%2FSir_Winston_S_Churchill.jpg%2F225px-Sir_Winston_S_Churchill.jpg&hash=69cd349046c331088a4a76d8726ea2b3b264cfd7)

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F2%2F20%2FMargaret_Thatcher.png%2F225px-Margaret_Thatcher.png&hash=c97928b9b7d6889b19ca333f34142e0f7e706f1a)




And you never voted for Labour?  I don't even know who you are any more...

Fair enough on the first 2, the 3rd.....ups and downs. The 4th though no. Wish she'd hurry up and die so we can have that long awaited party.


Oh, and yeah, I'm voting lib dem too.
I was going to do nothing and not bother. My place is a labour safe seat anyway. Following the lib dem upsurge though why not. At the least maybe it'll give our crappy MP something to worry about.

Quote from: Tyr on April 20, 2010, 06:51:17 PM
Fair enough on the first 2, the 3rd.....ups and downs. The 4th though no. Wish she'd hurry up and die so we can have that long awaited party.

You mean... her state funeral? ;)

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 20, 2010, 04:37:49 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2010, 04:25:34 PM
But, but... you always struck me as a bit of a kindred-spirit, in that you were a doctrinaire party-man (even if it was a party of evil and villainy).  :cry:

I've never actually voted for Labour... :blush:

:o

I really thought you'd voted for Blair from the tone of your political posting.

Quote from: Tyr on April 20, 2010, 06:51:17 PM
The 4th though no. Wish she'd hurry up and die so we can have that long awaited party.

If it wasn't for her, Britain could very well be on the same road that Greece is on today.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 20, 2010, 04:37:49 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2010, 04:25:34 PM
But, but... you always struck me as a bit of a kindred-spirit, in that you were a doctrinaire party-man (even if it was a party of evil and villainy).  :cry:

I've never actually voted for Labour... :blush:

Have you ever voted?

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2010, 04:25:34 PM
But, but... you always struck me as a bit of a kindred-spirit, in that you were a doctrinaire party-man (even if it was a party of evil and villainy).  :cry:

I've always been able to respect a party man.  Reagan, Beria, Eden, Himmler.  Party-men to the last.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 20, 2010, 08:26:13 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2010, 04:25:34 PM
But, but... you always struck me as a bit of a kindred-spirit, in that you were a doctrinaire party-man (even if it was a party of evil and villainy).  :cry:

I've always been able to respect a party man.  Reagan, Beria, Eden, Himmler.  Party-men to the last.

Reagan switched parties. And lets not forget Churchill who switched twice IIRC.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 20, 2010, 08:37:12 PM
Reagan switched parties. And lets not forget Churchill who switched twice IIRC.

Fate/Raz rule violation!

Churchill was a Liberal. Neener neener.  :P

Quote from: Razgovory on April 20, 2010, 08:26:13 PM

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2010, 04:25:34 PM
But, but... you always struck me as a bit of a kindred-spirit, in that you were a doctrinaire party-man (even if it was a party of evil and villainy).  :cry:

I've always been able to respect a party man.  Reagan, Beria, Eden, Himmler.  Party-men to the last.

:ike:

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 20, 2010, 09:08:29 PM
Churchill was a Liberal. Neener neener.  :P

Churchill was an opportunist.

Quote from: grumbler on April 20, 2010, 09:01:04 PM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 20, 2010, 08:37:12 PM
Reagan switched parties. And lets not forget Churchill who switched twice IIRC.

Fate/Raz rule violation!

My troll took in Tim so Nyah!

Quote from: Razgovory on April 21, 2010, 12:26:00 AM
My troll took in Tim so Nyah!

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.retardcentral.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F07%2Fyou_win_the_prize.jpg&hash=8c6eea4d495cacbea4776c40264a5681d7142d3b)

Quote from: citizen k on April 20, 2010, 07:18:50 PM
If it wasn't for her, Britain could very well be on the same road that Greece is on today.

And it also could be in far better shape than it is today, not having undergone the complete collapse of society.
Mine is more likely.

Quote from: citizen k
If it wasn't for her, Britain could very well be on the same road that Greece is on today.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/19/uk-greece-financial-crisis

The UK isn't so different from Greece

Quote from: Agelastus on April 20, 2010, 07:13:16 PM
:o

I really thought you'd voted for Blair from the tone of your political posting.

Oh I love Blair.  But I've never lived in a seat where Labour had a chance really.  I've mainly lived in Tory and Lib Dem areas.  My issue with Labour's always been the anti-immigrant rhetoric and populist authoritarianism.

Quote from: Tyr on April 21, 2010, 08:59:47 AM
....not having undergone the complete collapse of society.
Mine is more likely.

Can someone fill me in on this bit of British history I'm not familiar with? I could've sworn I was still getting BBC broadcasts in the U.S. in the early eighties, i.e. "Doctor Who".

Quote from: citizen k on April 21, 2010, 02:37:08 PM
Can someone fill me in on this bit of British history I'm not familiar with? I could've sworn I was still getting BBC broadcasts in the U.S. in the early eighties, i.e. "Doctor Who".

There was actually a really good documentary about it a while back.  I dug it up for you.  Very illustrative of what he's talking about :

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023790698427111488#

Quote from: Habbaku on April 21, 2010, 02:43:50 PM

Quote from: citizen k on April 21, 2010, 02:37:08 PM
Can someone fill me in on this bit of British history I'm not familiar with? I could've sworn I was still getting BBC broadcasts in the U.S. in the early eighties, i.e. "Doctor Who".

There was actually a really good documentary about it a while back.  I dug it up for you.  Very illustrative of what he's talking about :

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023790698427111488# (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023790698427111488#)

So that's how mutants like Jos came to be.

Quote from: Tyr on April 21, 2010, 08:59:47 AM

Quote from: citizen k on April 20, 2010, 07:18:50 PM
If it wasn't for her, Britain could very well be on the same road that Greece is on today.

And it also could be in far better shape than it is today

Highly doubtful - inflation was crippling us, and her economic policies modernised the country. Having heavily subsidised factories and mines would only make our position worse right now.

Quotenot having undergone the complete collapse of society.
Mine is more likely.

That whole "collapse of society" line is a load of nonsense. Look at other countries who didn't have Maggie-like leaders: their people often point towards a "broken society" being a route cause of many problems too.

I'm more convinced that the welfare state 'broke' society by removing local dependence (i.e. depending more on your local community/neighbours/family/friends, etc...) and replacing that with state dependence, thus meaning people lost that "community spirit".

Of course, it is ludicrous to attribute blame to just one person or just one factor on such a complex issue. There are many things which have led to creating a "broken society", and people have been warning of it long before Thatcher.

....Phillip Blond?

Quote from: Barrister on April 20, 2010, 04:40:52 PM
And you never voted for Labour?  I don't even know who you are any more...

Changed my mind.  Voting Labour.

Britain, Forwards Not Back!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FPix%2Fpictures%2F2010%2F4%2F11%2F1271021639941%2Fgordon-brown-at-no-10-dow-001.jpg&hash=fe8ae6ccfee67ba649098652c4e9ffa92181912a)

Banks and markets are proper white collar jobs who support good Tories. Why shouldn't they be subsidized?

Quote from: jamesww on April 30, 2010, 02:18:33 PM

Quote from: Palisadoes on April 21, 2010, 03:46:48 PM
Having heavily subsidised banks and markets only makes our position worse right now.

:cool:

Which was done  by a Labour government and opposed by the Conservatives (apparently?). It was a necessary evil, unfortunately.

Quote from: Fate on April 30, 2010, 02:39:02 PM
Banks and markets are proper white collar jobs who support good Tories. Why shouldn't they be subsidized?

Banks were bedchums with Labour for over the last decade or so. It's how Labour got into power (wooing big business).

Quote from: Palisadoes on April 30, 2010, 04:36:43 PM
Which was done  by a Labour government and opposed by the Conservatives (apparently?). It was a necessary evil, unfortunately.

Osborne called it completely unacceptable, opposed de facto nationalisation and the Tories voted against the Bill's second and third reading.

That's a big problem I have with the Tories.  They got the single biggest issue of the last Parliament totally, utterly, monumentally wrong.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 30, 2010, 04:47:52 PM

Quote from: Palisadoes on April 30, 2010, 04:36:43 PM
Which was done  by a Labour government and opposed by the Conservatives (apparently?). It was a necessary evil, unfortunately.

Osborne called it completely unacceptable, opposed de facto nationalisation and the Tories voted against the Bill's second and third reading.

That's a big problem I have with the Tories.  They got the single biggest issue of the last Parliament totally, utterly, monumentally wrong.

I agree they called it wrong. However, when you know it's going to go through then you may as well object it incase it does go wrong (same as the Lib Dems with Iraq! :P).

Quote from: Palisadoes on April 30, 2010, 04:36:43 PM
Banks were bedchums with Labour for over the last decade or so. It's how Labour got into power (wooing big business).

No, Labour got into power by wooing lower class bigots and British supremacists.

Quote from: Fate on April 30, 2010, 06:04:08 PM

Quote from: Palisadoes on April 30, 2010, 04:36:43 PM
Banks were bedchums with Labour for over the last decade or so. It's how Labour got into power (wooing big business).

No, Labour got into power by wooing lower class bigots and British supremacists.

Ahh yes... their core voters returned! :bowler: