UK General Election 2015
Discussion
Axionknight said:
I posted the link to Ashcrofts website above - it made for interesting reading, this really is going to be an interesting one, and the big question (in my mind anyway) is can Labour gain a seat in England for every seat they lose in Scotland?
I'd say no.
But does it matter *if* the SNP (as seems plausible) is prepared to prop Labour up (whether with or without a formal coalition) or at least not block a Labour minority Govt? I'd say no.
PRTVR said:
Wombat3 said:
turbobloke said:
PRTVR said:
Wombat3 said:
Esseesse said:
Wombat3 said:
Esseesse said:
If Cameron manages a minority government or coalition, he's surely going to struggle to avoid a 2017 EU referendum.
You mean struggle to deliver it? Could very well be the case.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/19/uk...
But what would they know.
Carswell said:
Because Cameron’s not serious. It’s a smoke-and-mirrors referendum. His advisers told me the plan; it’s to work out from focus groups and pollsters what it would take to get the soft ‘outers’ and the undecideds to stay in, to offer them that, and once that hurdle is cleared to stick with the status quo.
Cameron wants to stay in the EU. That is his position. Therefore, if we have a referendum, why on earth would anyone be surprised that he will devise a strategy to get 50.5% to vote to stay in.
Are those who want to leave going to devise a strategy not to get 50.5% to vote to leave?
Why is this a surprise? What is "smoke and mirrors" about it?
Are those who want to leave going to devise a strategy not to get 50.5% to vote to leave?
Why is this a surprise? What is "smoke and mirrors" about it?
confused_buyer said:
Cameron wants to stay in the EU. That is his position. Therefore, if we have a referendum, why on earth would anyone be surprised that he will devise a strategy to get 50.5% to vote to stay in.
Are those who want to leave going to devise a strategy not to get 50.5% to vote to leave?
Why is this a surprise? What is "smoke and mirrors" about it?
The smoke and mirrors bit is where Cameron pretends that he's not happy with the current deal.Are those who want to leave going to devise a strategy not to get 50.5% to vote to leave?
Why is this a surprise? What is "smoke and mirrors" about it?
confused_buyer said:
Cameron wants to stay in the EU. That is his position. Therefore, if we have a referendum, why on earth would anyone be surprised that he will devise a strategy to get 50.5% to vote to stay in.
Are those who want to leave going to devise a strategy not to get 50.5% to vote to leave?
Why is this a surprise? What is "smoke and mirrors" about it?
In general, the alleged deception.Are those who want to leave going to devise a strategy not to get 50.5% to vote to leave?
Why is this a surprise? What is "smoke and mirrors" about it?
work out from focus groups and pollsters what it would take to get the soft ‘outers’ and the undecideds to stay in, to offer them that, and once that hurdle is cleared to stick with the status quo
Sure, nobody should expect anything from snake oil salesmen but snake oil. Seeing and smelling it sold under another label isn't edifying all the same.
confused_buyer said:
Cameron wants to stay in the EU. That is his position. Therefore, if we have a referendum, why on earth would anyone be surprised that he will devise a strategy to get 50.5% to vote to stay in.
Are those who want to leave going to devise a strategy not to get 50.5% to vote to leave?
Why is this a surprise? What is "smoke and mirrors" about it?
Yup. Are those who want to leave going to devise a strategy not to get 50.5% to vote to leave?
Why is this a surprise? What is "smoke and mirrors" about it?
Like the Quebec and then the Scottish independence referendums.
He'll have referendum, the pro EU campaign will be ahead all the way but near the end the splitters will close the gap. Then all the big business leaders, banks, MPs and the BBC will all come out saying that leaving would be a disaster and the pro EU will win by at least 60/40.
Cameron will probably make noises about tightening immigration and stopping Romanian gypsies and criminals arriving to keep people happy.
If he's the next PM obviously. I'm not sure what Ed and Alex will do though.
turbobloke said:
confused_buyer said:
Cameron wants to stay in the EU. That is his position. Therefore, if we have a referendum, why on earth would anyone be surprised that he will devise a strategy to get 50.5% to vote to stay in.
Are those who want to leave going to devise a strategy not to get 50.5% to vote to leave?
Why is this a surprise? What is "smoke and mirrors" about it?
In general, the alleged deception.Are those who want to leave going to devise a strategy not to get 50.5% to vote to leave?
Why is this a surprise? What is "smoke and mirrors" about it?
work out from focus groups and pollsters what it would take to get the soft ‘outers’ and the undecideds to stay in, to offer them that, and once that hurdle is cleared to stick with the status quo
Sure, nobody should expect anything from snake oil salesmen but snake oil. Seeing and smelling it sold under another label isn't edifying all the same.
Confirmation bias much?
el stovey said:
Then all the big business leaders, banks, MPs and the BBC will all come out saying that leaving would be a disaster and the pro EU will win by at least 60/40.
Wishful thinking - it's not as clear-cut by any means in terms of businesses and banks.Business leaders support an EU referendum by 66% to 28% and when listening to or reading CBI statements, remember that the EU is the CBI's largest financial contributor.
http://businessforbritain.org/press141109.pdf
UK banks step up opposition to new EU financial services tsar (FT, so not open access).
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ee66a6ba-197c-11e4-9745-...
MPs may want to remain in the EU as it keeps options open by offering another trough for their snouts as per the useless Kinnocks.
The BBC will of course support continued EU misery but they get a lot wrong due to their left-liberal bias.
Overall it will be close but if there's a fairly worded referendum question then my shilling on the side is for a narrow win for the Out vote.
Greg66 said:
It surprises me (a little) that people are prepared to take Politician A as an inveterate liar, but Politician B as a source of Gospel truth.
Confirmation bias much?
Mr Farage dislikes the EU and spends his time telling us about how bad the EU is and why he hates it. He might be wrong, but his dislike seems to be sincere.Confirmation bias much?
Mr Cameron likes the EU, but spends his time telling us what he doesn't like about it and promising reform. He skirts around admitting when power has been given away to Brussels. This is inconsistent and therefore comes across as insincere (it is).
To come across as not a liar he would need to be happy to speak about the benefits of giving power away to the EU. He would need to promote the 'ever-closer-union' as a positive thing and try to win people round to his point of view, rather than telling half the story in an attempt to appeal to EU-sceptics.
Greg66 said:
turbobloke said:
confused_buyer said:
Cameron wants to stay in the EU. That is his position. Therefore, if we have a referendum, why on earth would anyone be surprised that he will devise a strategy to get 50.5% to vote to stay in.
Are those who want to leave going to devise a strategy not to get 50.5% to vote to leave?
Why is this a surprise? What is "smoke and mirrors" about it?
In general, the alleged deception.Are those who want to leave going to devise a strategy not to get 50.5% to vote to leave?
Why is this a surprise? What is "smoke and mirrors" about it?
work out from focus groups and pollsters what it would take to get the soft ‘outers’ and the undecideds to stay in, to offer them that, and once that hurdle is cleared to stick with the status quo
Sure, nobody should expect anything from snake oil salesmen but snake oil. Seeing and smelling it sold under another label isn't edifying all the same.
Confirmation bias much?
Cameron - slippery PPE p.r. fluffer with nearly as much snake oil as Blair and a track record of terminological inexactitudes with some policy madness.
Carswell - took a difficult decision on the back of a track record of not being a whipped sap, and true to his principles as per being willing to fight a by-election.
So yes I'd take Carswell's word for it. Equally if Carswell had remained in the Conservative Party and said that Cameron was straighter than a straight thing on the matter of EU memebership and the EU referendum, I would take Carswell's word for what CMD had told him but still doubt that CMD would remain true to what he had said - for exactly the same reasons. HTH.
However as CMD probably said that, but his advisers let the cat out of the bag, it's not so different and resignation was an honourable step to take.
Greg66 said:
It surprises me (a little) that people are prepared to take Politician A as an inveterate liar, but Politician B as a source of Gospel truth.
Confirmation bias much?
They are all telling their version of what they want the truth to be.Confirmation bias much?
Both are saying the same thing as far as I can remember. Cameron want's to fiddle with things until the majority of the population would be happy with the EU. If he can is another question. And if the fiddling would get the expected results is a 3rd. (And there are probably several other issues as well). But on the question of who said what about the intended actions of Cameron. I'm not seeing any difference to the core of their positions.
Esseesse said:
Mr Farage dislikes the EU and spends his time telling us about how bad the EU is and why he hates it. He might be wrong, but his dislike seems to be sincere.
Mr Cameron likes the EU, but spends his time telling us what he doesn't like about it and promising reform. He skirts around admitting when power has been given away to Brussels. This is inconsistent and therefore comes across as insincere (it is).
To come across as not a liar he would need to be happy to speak about the benefits of giving power away to the EU. He would need to promote the 'ever-closer-union' as a positive thing and try to win people round to his point of view, rather than telling half the story in an attempt to appeal to EU-sceptics.
Mr Cameron likes the EU, but spends his time telling us what he doesn't like about it and promising reform. He skirts around admitting when power has been given away to Brussels. This is inconsistent and therefore comes across as insincere (it is).
To come across as not a liar he would need to be happy to speak about the benefits of giving power away to the EU. He would need to promote the 'ever-closer-union' as a positive thing and try to win people round to his point of view, rather than telling half the story in an attempt to appeal to EU-sceptics.
turbobloke said:
A fair question to raise....but it's not confirmation bias, it's a judgement call and a case of looking at the track record of the politicians A and B involved in each case.
Cameron - slippery PPE p.r. fluffer with nearly as much snake oil as Blair and a track record of terminological inexactitudes with some policy madness.
Carswell - took a difficult decision on the back of a track record of not being a whipped sap, and true to his principles as per being willing to fight a by-election.
So yes I'd take Carswell's word for it. Equally if Carswell had remained in the Conservative Party and said that Cameron was straighter than a straight thing on the matter of EU memebership and the EU referendum, I would take Carswell's word for what CMD had told him but still doubt that CMD would remain true to what he had said - for exactly the same reasons. HTH.
However as CMD probably said that, but his advisers let the cat out of the bag, it's not so different and resignation was an honourable step to take.
Interesting views, chaps. Thanks. Cameron - slippery PPE p.r. fluffer with nearly as much snake oil as Blair and a track record of terminological inexactitudes with some policy madness.
Carswell - took a difficult decision on the back of a track record of not being a whipped sap, and true to his principles as per being willing to fight a by-election.
So yes I'd take Carswell's word for it. Equally if Carswell had remained in the Conservative Party and said that Cameron was straighter than a straight thing on the matter of EU memebership and the EU referendum, I would take Carswell's word for what CMD had told him but still doubt that CMD would remain true to what he had said - for exactly the same reasons. HTH.
However as CMD probably said that, but his advisers let the cat out of the bag, it's not so different and resignation was an honourable step to take.
I do think that these things all depend on what one's own preconceptions are though - so yes, I still think there is confirmation bias.
For example, the views expressed by Esseesse on Farage and Cameron seem (to my mind) to flow directly from where one stands on the EU. I don't think the EU is nearly as bad as Farage makes out, ergo I find his outpourings hyperbolic; whether he is sincere doesn't come into it, because I seem him as largely playing a game of rabble rousing. I am more sympathetic to Cameron, because whilst I am against the EU's social and political harmonisation, I favour its market harmonisation: so there is some good and some bad, and I'd like more of the good and less of the bad, but I recognise that parsing the EU's offering in that way is not at all straightforward. In short, I don't see it as the binary question Farage advances and agree with Cameron's non-binary approach.
As for Carswell, well, one man's heroic freedom fighter is another man's traitor. It all depends whose side you're on (and even detached outsiders can and will have a side). OTOH there's a "bash-Cameron" sentiment that comes across repeatedly here; sometimes it seems to be simply because he isn't Thatcher II. It's perhaps easy to forget that the 2010 GE was the one no one wanted to win, and that the Cons failure to win outright means that that they have been "diluted" by coalition.
(Veering OT) FWIW, I see on here particular contempt for Cameron's "green" agenda, which I'm no fan of, but I have begun to wonder about. I don't really subscribe to the tinfoil hat brigade who propound the view that the Cons introduced green policies to reward their rich landowner friends and relatives with subsidies. Appealing to the conspiracist, but no. So why? My personal (longshot) view it is a recognition that the green movement has become an umbrella for all sorts, including a lot of fairly extreme left wingers (see, eg, the Greens manifesto. If you ignore it, you risk some of your supporters drifting green-wards, and thence into the arms of some really quite nutty ideas. So, you end up having to have a "green section" on your market stall in order to try to keep some peripheral support on board. Anyway, it's a just a theory, and at least it doesn't involve a conspiracy.
PRTVR said:
Wombat3 said:
turbobloke said:
PRTVR said:
Wombat3 said:
Esseesse said:
Wombat3 said:
Esseesse said:
If Cameron manages a minority government or coalition, he's surely going to struggle to avoid a 2017 EU referendum.
You mean struggle to deliver it? Could very well be the case.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/19/uk...
But what would they know.
Carswell said:
Because Cameron’s not serious. It’s a smoke-and-mirrors referendum. His advisers told me the plan; it’s to work out from focus groups and pollsters what it would take to get the soft ‘outers’ and the undecideds to stay in, to offer them that, and once that hurdle is cleared to stick with the status quo.
Kippers, so predictable. "We say its a FACT & so its a FACT!" (delivered in a of Clarkson-esque manner) - oh yeees it is!
Anyone who knows who Rafa Benitez is might also appreciate the hilarity of this sort of crap.....and that's a FACT !
The statement was that "He doesn't want to deliver it" ("it" being the referendum)
Not even Labour (or I think UKIP central) are making that statement.
Nothing to do with what his preferred outcome might be, its about the delivery of the referendum itself.
....but all the kippers hereabouts have been banging on and proclaiming for months with absolute certainty that a post may 2015 Tory government led by Cameron will definitely NOT deliver a referendum.
There is zero evidence to support that.
turbobloke said:
el stovey said:
Then all the big business leaders, banks, MPs and the BBC will all come out saying that leaving would be a disaster and the pro EU will win by at least 60/40.
Wishful thinking - it's not as clear-cut by any means in terms of businesses and banks.Business leaders support an EU referendum by 66% to 28% and when listening to or reading CBI statements, remember that the EU is the CBI's largest financial contributor.
http://businessforbritain.org/press141109.pdf
UK banks step up opposition to new EU financial services tsar (FT, so not open access).
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ee66a6ba-197c-11e4-9745-...
MPs may want to remain in the EU as it keeps options open by offering another trough for their snouts as per the useless Kinnocks.
The BBC will of course support continued EU misery but they get a lot wrong due to their left-liberal bias.
Overall it will be close but if there's a fairly worded referendum question then my shilling on the side is for a narrow win for the Out vote.
el stovey said:
I agree but what you will hear in the media is (some) big companies saying they might move overseas if GB leaves the EU. There will be lots of scare stories about what might happen. That's what will stop people voting for it, the fear of the unknown. Like the Scottish referendum all the older people and pensioners will be the most influential group and will likely vote no as they want things to stay the same.
But this is the UK not a splinter off it. The prospect of what's ahead if we remain in is also weighing heavily on voters.Axionknight said:
Who can blame them, with the lies the Yes campaign peddled.
Indeed, and we've heard it all before already.turbobloke said:
el stovey said:
I agree but what you will hear in the media is (some) big companies saying they might move overseas if GB leaves the EU. There will be lots of scare stories about what might happen. That's what will stop people voting for it, the fear of the unknown. Like the Scottish referendum all the older people and pensioners will be the most influential group and will likely vote no as they want things to stay the same.
But this is the UK not a splinter off it. The prospect of what's ahead if we remain in is also weighing heavily on voters.Axionknight said:
Who can blame them, with the lies the Yes campaign peddled.
Indeed, and we've heard it all before already.Bluebarge said:
turbobloke said:
el stovey said:
I agree but what you will hear in the media is (some) big companies saying they might move overseas if GB leaves the EU. There will be lots of scare stories about what might happen. That's what will stop people voting for it, the fear of the unknown. Like the Scottish referendum all the older people and pensioners will be the most influential group and will likely vote no as they want things to stay the same.
But this is the UK not a splinter off it. The prospect of what's ahead if we remain in is also weighing heavily on voters.Axionknight said:
Who can blame them, with the lies the Yes campaign peddled.
Indeed, and we've heard it all before already.Ask Mr A Salmond
If Scotland and Wales wanted out of the UK and back into the EU it couldn't possibly happen quick enough, there should be no delay in which they could change their minds.
ON the question of, if he is leader after 2015GE, will Cameron deliver a referendum or not, I think he will, if he didn't, he and the Conservative party are toast and deservedly so.
Setting aside the issue that I feel a referendum will not settle matters once and for all, regardless of the outcome in or out, link posted a couple of days ago, ( here is the pdf again) I think Cameron is relying on what happened in 1975 and the polls tell him it will happen again.
When people are asked the question whether they would vote in/out in a referendum, the result for some time has wavered around even stevens. Sometimes out is ahead, sometimes in is favoured. But generally too close to call looking at the trend.
However when the question posed is, How would you vote in a referendum if the Govt had negotiated reforms and recommended an in vote , then even though the question gives absolutely no hint as to what any such reforms may be, then an overwhelming majority say they would vote for in.
Interestingly, has anyone seen a poll which asks how people would vote if the Government recommended an out vote? Nope? Wonder why.
Setting aside the issue that I feel a referendum will not settle matters once and for all, regardless of the outcome in or out, link posted a couple of days ago, ( here is the pdf again) I think Cameron is relying on what happened in 1975 and the polls tell him it will happen again.
When people are asked the question whether they would vote in/out in a referendum, the result for some time has wavered around even stevens. Sometimes out is ahead, sometimes in is favoured. But generally too close to call looking at the trend.
However when the question posed is, How would you vote in a referendum if the Govt had negotiated reforms and recommended an in vote , then even though the question gives absolutely no hint as to what any such reforms may be, then an overwhelming majority say they would vote for in.
Interestingly, has anyone seen a poll which asks how people would vote if the Government recommended an out vote? Nope? Wonder why.
Edited by FiF on Wednesday 4th February 13:46
FiF said:
ON the question of, if he is leader after 2015GE, will Cameron deliver a referendum or not, I think he will, if he didn't, he and the Conservative party are toast and deservedly so.
disagree...I think he will play the re-negotiate card, come up with a load of irrelevances he has supposedly 'won', then say no referendum required.
he's had 5 years to re-negotiate, and done jack-sh*t, why should we all suddenly believe he's going to start next term?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff