Tories the future (part1)
Discussion
Daves goose is well and truly cooked - http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/12/24/the-coo...
jogon said:
Daves goose is well and truly cooked - http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/12/24/the-coo...
Brilliant and sadly spot on.Fighting a path through the tumbleweed as people seem more interested in slagging UKIP than arguing why anyone should vote for Cons.
Tories wrong to assume 2015 is repeat of 1992.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/01/torie...
Tories wrong to assume 2015 is repeat of 1992.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/01/torie...
Looks like someones a little bit 'chicken' - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30726499
jogon said:
Looks like someones a little bit 'chicken' - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30726499
The TV channels should not give in to him, do the debates without him.Edinburger said:
Doesn't seem right that the UK's third largest political party - the SNP - are excluded from the televised debates.
Thoughts?
Not a national party though they only have 5.2m population, despite large membership. Thoughts?
If Ed and any balls or sense he would be challenging them to one.
Edited by jogon on Thursday 8th January 18:09
jogon said:
Edinburger said:
Doesn't seem right that the UK's third largest political party - the SNP - are excluded from the televised debates.
Thoughts?
Not a national party though they only have 5.2m population, despite large membership. Thoughts?
If Ed and any balls or sense he would be challenging them to one.
Edited by jogon on Thursday 8th January 18:09
Edinburger said:
So should UKIP and the Greens be involved?
UKIP having one the last major election, and the previous two by-elections and having polled in the top two in the last 10 elections should be but the Greens static on 3-4% on the other hand shouldn't. I would also question Lib Dems participation having lost their deposit in a number of recent elections. I suspect few watch them, but that doesn't mean they don't have an effect. I suspect (but have no evidence) to suggest that many may be influenced by the media's assessment the next day of who "won".
As to Cameron appearing or not. It was oft suggested in the past that the current leader (whoever it was) could only lose by appearing in a debate with the rivals, as it made the rivals look "equals" in statesmanhood or something. Have no idea whether it is true, but it may not hurt him if they went ahead without him.
Personally I think it is hard to justify UKIP being present but not the Greens - unless you are a UKIP supporter.
The SNP is a tricky one. I personally think it is probably unjustified to exclude them.
As to Cameron appearing or not. It was oft suggested in the past that the current leader (whoever it was) could only lose by appearing in a debate with the rivals, as it made the rivals look "equals" in statesmanhood or something. Have no idea whether it is true, but it may not hurt him if they went ahead without him.
Personally I think it is hard to justify UKIP being present but not the Greens - unless you are a UKIP supporter.
The SNP is a tricky one. I personally think it is probably unjustified to exclude them.
Edited by JustAnotherLogin on Thursday 8th January 21:38
toppstuff said:
I am personally getting very tired of this constant trope which IMO is largely the creation of the media.
Someone like Ed Milliband, who has lived a very unusual life as a gilded academic inside educational institutions his whole life while being from a middle class marxist background, is just as out of touch as Cameron - maybe even more so.
The greatest con the Labour party has managed over the past two decades is to get people to believe that they represent the "ordinary voter", when in reality they are just as disconnected and privileged as the Tories. From the private banks and secret billionaires that form the circle of friends for people like Mandelson and Blair, to the House of Lords with Prescott, to over-priviliged academic policy wonks like the Millibands : they have not a clue about the lives of the average Brit.
Someone like Ed Milliband, who has lived a very unusual life as a gilded academic inside educational institutions his whole life while being from a middle class marxist background, is just as out of touch as Cameron - maybe even more so.
The greatest con the Labour party has managed over the past two decades is to get people to believe that they represent the "ordinary voter", when in reality they are just as disconnected and privileged as the Tories. From the private banks and secret billionaires that form the circle of friends for people like Mandelson and Blair, to the House of Lords with Prescott, to over-priviliged academic policy wonks like the Millibands : they have not a clue about the lives of the average Brit.
JustAnotherLogin said:
Personally I think it is hard to justify UKIP being present but not the Greens - unless you are a UKIP supporter.
The SNP is a tricky one. I personally think it is probably unjustified to exclude them.
OFCOM use statistics, rather than personal feeling, for better or worse:The SNP is a tricky one. I personally think it is probably unjustified to exclude them.
Edited by JustAnotherLogin on Thursday 8th January 21:38
In a statement issued on Wednesday morning Ofcom said its initial view was that the Green party (including the Scottish Green party) had not “secured sufficient support in previous elections and current opinion polls to be added to Ofcom’s major party list for the purposes of the May 2015 elections”.
It went on: “The Green party has not demonstrated significant past electoral support in general elections. The Green party has performed better in some other forms of election, such as the 2014 European parliamentary elections, obtaining 8.0% and 8.1% of the vote in England and Scotland.
“In terms of evidence of current support, the party’s opinion poll rating in Great Britain-wide polls has increased in recent months to 5.9% in December 2014 (4.0% on average during 2014).”
In its discussion of Nigel Farage’s party, Ofcom stated: “Ukip has not demonstrated significant past electoral support in previous general elections, achieving 3.5% of the vote in 2010 and has not won a parliamentary seat at a general election.
“Ukip’s performance in a number of other significant forms of election has, however, been stronger. Notably, Ukip has won two seats in parliament at recent byelections.
“Ukip demonstrated a significant level of support in England and Wales in the European parliament elections in 2014 (29.2% England, 27.6% Wales) while its share of the vote was lower in Scotland (10.5%). Ukip also demonstrated significant levels of support in the English local elections (15.7% in 2014 and 19.9% in 2013).
“Opinion poll data indicates that Ukip currently has significant levels of support in England and Wales and has the third highest rating in those polls after the Conservative and Labour parties. Opinion poll data in Scotland shows lower levels of current support.”
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/08/of...
I think Farage has outdone Labour though. He has convinced many of the electorate that they are led by and for ordinary people
Much is made of the Eton connection, few realise that Dulwich school (Farage's) has higher fees than Eton (£12,108 per term for a boarder vs £11, 478)
Many of the rest of the UKIP leadership are no different
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/05/21/ukip-ni...
At least lets be consistent
Much is made of the Eton connection, few realise that Dulwich school (Farage's) has higher fees than Eton (£12,108 per term for a boarder vs £11, 478)
Many of the rest of the UKIP leadership are no different
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/05/21/ukip-ni...
At least lets be consistent
JustAnotherLogin said:
I think Farage has outdone Labour though. He has convinced many of the electorate that they are led by and for ordinary people
Not really, his schooling and city career is well known. From a leader point of view: Milliband v Farage is not much of a contest on who most of the electorate will identify with.
From a party point of view: More UKIP candidates appear normal people than the Labour cabinet equivalents. Plus Labour has that repulsive Diane Abbott representing them in the media weekly
Personally I think that Ofcom has made an incorrect decision.
I can't find the damned graph now but if you look at the decline/growth in party membership, whilst their decision in favour of UKIP is correct, their decision against Green party is incorrect.
Greens and UKIP in membership terms are growing and not that far behind LibDems, amazingly.
Cons have halved under Cameron.
The problem with using party membership to measure or decide anything really is that party membership as a % of the electorate is in decline right across Europe. Only a few nations where it isn't, Spain, Italy and Estonia.
Apart from Austria and Cyprus, where membership is around 16%, across Europe party membership is generally 6% or less. In UK it's nearer 1% than 2.
Tribalistic political parties are irrelevant and should really consider how they engage with the electorate.
I can't find the damned graph now but if you look at the decline/growth in party membership, whilst their decision in favour of UKIP is correct, their decision against Green party is incorrect.
Greens and UKIP in membership terms are growing and not that far behind LibDems, amazingly.
Cons have halved under Cameron.
The problem with using party membership to measure or decide anything really is that party membership as a % of the electorate is in decline right across Europe. Only a few nations where it isn't, Spain, Italy and Estonia.
Apart from Austria and Cyprus, where membership is around 16%, across Europe party membership is generally 6% or less. In UK it's nearer 1% than 2.
Tribalistic political parties are irrelevant and should really consider how they engage with the electorate.
I've just posted a semi-rant against the whole concept of the TV debates in the TV debate thread. I regard them as as awful concept. It is plain that novelty provides a massive bump in popularity (Clegg) that simply isn't warranted by the substance of what the party has to offer (Clegg).
But if you really had to have them, I think Ofcom's premise ("major" parties get an invite) is plain wrong. The options to my mind are
- invite every party with an MP (there's my case for inviting every party standing for Parliament, but it's not one I think gets off the ground). Obvious issue is that you crowd the stage and the whole thing becomes a farce.
- invite every party with a "national" agenda/manifesto. Easier to describe the concept than the detail, but basically the idea is that you only qualify if you have a genuine set of policies for running the country. Nationalists and regionalists (the SNP, PC and the NI parties) don't qualify; protest parties (UKIP, the Greens, Respect, and the rest) also don't qualify, irrespective of the fact that they may have a wish list of ideas to supplement their core protest message. Which is really what we had last time.
- or you invite none. The best option in my view. Now I'm off to force some toothpaste back into the tube.
I'd be quite interested to hear from someone who thought that the debates last time were a good thing, and that history has proved their value.
But if you really had to have them, I think Ofcom's premise ("major" parties get an invite) is plain wrong. The options to my mind are
- invite every party with an MP (there's my case for inviting every party standing for Parliament, but it's not one I think gets off the ground). Obvious issue is that you crowd the stage and the whole thing becomes a farce.
- invite every party with a "national" agenda/manifesto. Easier to describe the concept than the detail, but basically the idea is that you only qualify if you have a genuine set of policies for running the country. Nationalists and regionalists (the SNP, PC and the NI parties) don't qualify; protest parties (UKIP, the Greens, Respect, and the rest) also don't qualify, irrespective of the fact that they may have a wish list of ideas to supplement their core protest message. Which is really what we had last time.
- or you invite none. The best option in my view. Now I'm off to force some toothpaste back into the tube.
I'd be quite interested to hear from someone who thought that the debates last time were a good thing, and that history has proved their value.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff