UK Politics Discussion

[dusqi]

Latest poll - this time YouGov's daily one for the Sun - shows the Lib Dems in the lead on 33%, Conservatives 32%, Labour 26%, Others 8%. Polling was carried out on Saturday and Sunday.

[1_man_army]

Latest poll - this time YouGov's daily one for the Sun - shows the Lib Dems in the lead on 33%, Conservatives 32%, Labour 26%, Others 8%. Polling was carried out on Saturday and Sunday.

 

Interesting but can they keep it up? I can see both the Tories and Labour really stepping up their attacks against the Lib Dems in the run in. That could hurt the Lib Dems or it end up being counter-productive as people might think that it is an overly negative tactic and be turned off.

[Skully]

Actually, I don't give a [cabbage] about Pakistanis. They are not in my country. You got them all.

 

He's American.

 

Besides, there are two things I dislike about you:

 

1) You hate other cultures.

 

2) You're Dutch.

That wasn't even funny, and Dutch people are [bleep]ing cool.

[The Dark Lord]

Actually, I don't give a [cabbage] about Pakistanis. They are not in my country. You got them all.

 

He's American.

 

Besides, there are two things I dislike about you:

 

1) You hate other cultures.

 

2) You're Dutch.

That wasn't even funny, and Dutch people are [bleep]ing cool.

 

Oh lighten up. It's an Austin Powers reference.

[Jaziek]

Latest poll - this time YouGov's daily one for the Sun - shows the Lib Dems in the lead on 33%, Conservatives 32%, Labour 26%, Others 8%. Polling was carried out on Saturday and Sunday.

 

 

 

woo, the lib dems are in the lead.

 

oh no wait, lets put this new data into the seat calculator... oh look, this would still end up as..

 

CON 245 seats (+47)

LAB 275 seats (-81)

LIB 99 seats (+37)

 

Gotta love our awesome system huh?

[Sy_Accursed]

Latest poll - this time YouGov's daily one for the Sun - shows the Lib Dems in the lead on 33%, Conservatives 32%, Labour 26%, Others 8%. Polling was carried out on Saturday and Sunday.

 

 

 

woo, the lib dems are in the lead.

 

oh no wait, lets put this new data into the seat calculator... oh look, this would still end up as..

 

CON 245 seats (+47)

LAB 275 seats (-81)

LIB 99 seats (+37)

 

Gotta love our awesome system huh?

 

True but 326 seats is required to "win"

 

So that leaves us in the realms of a hung parliament still.

 

However if you plug the percentages lib dems only need around 40% to win

[The Dark Lord]

You guys aren't gonna end up with Gordon Brown again, are you?

[dusqi]

Latest poll - this time YouGov's daily one for the Sun - shows the Lib Dems in the lead on 33%, Conservatives 32%, Labour 26%, Others 8%. Polling was carried out on Saturday and Sunday.

 

 

 

woo, the lib dems are in the lead.

 

oh no wait, lets put this new data into the seat calculator... oh look, this would still end up as..

 

CON 245 seats (+47)

LAB 275 seats (-81)

LIB 99 seats (+37)

 

Gotta love our awesome system huh?

 

 

Yup, but it would put the Lib Dems in a position to push for a better voting system. Also, it would mean that the media would have to pay more attention to them until the next election, giving them more exposure and more ability to persuade voters next time.

 

 

 

If anyone is unsure whether to vote Lib Dem, here's a very good reason:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/18/clegg-media-elite-murdoch-lib-dem

Nick Clegg's rise could lock Murdoch and the media elite out of UK politics

At the Sun, we deliberately ignored the Lib Dems. The cosy pro-Cameron press may now be left floundering

 

I doubt if Rupert Murdoch watched the election debate last week. His focus is very firmly on the United States, especially his resurgent Wall Street Journal. But if he did, there would have been one man totally unknown to him. One man utterly beyond the tentacles of any of his family, his editors or his advisers. That man is Nick Clegg.

 

Make no mistake, if the Liberal Democrats actually won the election or held the balance of power it would be the first time in decades that Murdoch was locked out of British politics. In so many ways, a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote against Murdoch and the media elite.

 

I can say this with some authority because in my five years editing the Sun I did not once meet a Lib Dem leader, even though I met Tony Blair, William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith on countless occasions. (Full disclosure: I have since met Nick Clegg.)

 

I remember in my first year asking if we staffed the Liberal Democrat conference. I was interested because as a student I'd been a founder member of the SDP. I was told we did not. We did not send a single reporter for fear of encouraging them.

 

So while we sent a team of five, plus assorted senior staff, to both the Tory and Labour conferences, we sent nobody to the Lib Dems. And while successive News International chiefs have held parties at both those conferences, they have never to my knowledge even attended a Lib Dem conference.

 

It gets even worse. While it would be wrong to say the Lib Dems were banned from Murdoch's papers (indeed, the Times has a good record in this area), I would say from personal experience that they are often banned except where the news is critical. They are the invisible party, purposely edged off the paper's pages and ignored. But it is worse than that, because it is not just the Murdoch press that is guilty of this. The fact is that much of the print press in this country is entirely partisan and always has been. All proprietors and editors are part of the "great game". The trick is to ally yourself with the winner and win influence or at least the ear of the prime minister.

 

The consequence of this has been that the middle party has been ignored, simply because it was assumed it would never win power. After all, why court a powerless party?

 

So, as the pendulum swings from red to blue and back to red, the newspapers, or many of them, swing with it sometimes ahead of the game and sometimes behind.

 

Over the years the relationships between the media elite and the two main political parties have become closer and closer to the point where, now, one is indistinguishable from the other. Indeed, it is difficult not to think that the lunatics have stopped writing about the asylum and have actually taken it over.

 

We now live in an era when very serious men and women stay out of politics because our national discourse is conducted by populists with no interest in politics whatsoever. What we have in the UK is a coming together of the political elite and the media in a way that makes people outside London or outside those elites feel disenfranchised and powerless. But all that would go to pot if Clegg were able to somehow pull off his miracle. For he is untainted by it.

[Jaziek]

You guys aren't gonna end up with Gordon Brown again, are you?

 

Hopefully. It is better than the alternative.

 

And yeah dusqi. Voting reform would be the best thing to happen to UK politics since... Forever. And yet another reason to vote for the lib dems, and keep cameron as far away from number 10 as possible, is to keep Murdoch and his greedy paws away from the BBC.

[Racheya]

I think that I'm going to weigh the policies of Labour and Liberal Democrats up before voting day and decide, since I'm a bit torn atm. Since the TV debate and Lib Dem's rise in popularity, Lib Dems doesn't seem like a wasted vote.

 

Tbh I don't trust too many of our newspapers. My dad is the sort of person who reads The Sun and believes it (lulz), but I think it's a load of crap really. A bit off topic, but "After attacking Gordon Brown for mis-spelling a dead soldier's mother's name, The Sun were then forced to apologise for mis-spelling the same name on their website." I lol'd.

 

But yeah, I think that if it helps to kick the media giants like Murdoch in the nuts, I don't think it's too bad of an idea to vote Lib Dem :P

[Will H]

To be honest, I'm not in favour of PR, which is probably the biggest reason why I wouldn't have voted Lib Dem in this general election (a couple of months too young, grr). I think it's far more important to have a system that reduces the likelyhood of a hung and therefore indecisive parliament, it at least minimises one of the main flaws of democracy. Smaller parties still actively campaign and do eventually gain seats, but I feel they should properly earn the right to speak for an entire constituency, instead of being voted in because of votes in an entirely different area of the country for an entirely different reason.

 

I currently reside in Norwich North, which you might remember as being the constituency which had the really important by-election. It was called because our previous popular Labour MP was booted from the party officially due to his expenses record, and then he resigned with immediate effect. However, it was common knowledge that other MPs elsewhere that had far worse expenses records were barely punished by Labour and allowed to stand again.

Instead, many here (including I) suspected that our MP was booted unfairly because of his somewhat independant and sometimes non-labour ideas, which was a large reason why he was so popular. As a result, there was a landslide towards a Conservative MP, and they won the by-election with ease.

 

The fact is, many people don't want to vote for faceless parties. They want to vote for the person who will represent them.

[Jaziek]

To be honest, I'm not in favour of PR, which is probably the biggest reason why I wouldn't have voted Lib Dem in this general election (a couple of months too young, grr). I think it's far more important to have a system that reduces the likelyhood of a hung and therefore indecisive parliament, it at least minimises one of the main flaws of democracy. Smaller parties still actively campaign and do eventually gain seats, but I feel they should properly earn the right to speak for an entire constituency, instead of being voted in because of votes in an entirely different area of the country for an entirely different reason.

 

You say indecisive like its a bad thing.

I would far rather have laws made that were well balanced, well thought through, and well adjusted to win the support of the majority of all the parties represented in the commons, than ones that can be rushed through with a three line whip.

[Will H]

To be honest, I'm not in favour of PR, which is probably the biggest reason why I wouldn't have voted Lib Dem in this general election (a couple of months too young, grr). I think it's far more important to have a system that reduces the likelyhood of a hung and therefore indecisive parliament, it at least minimises one of the main flaws of democracy. Smaller parties still actively campaign and do eventually gain seats, but I feel they should properly earn the right to speak for an entire constituency, instead of being voted in because of votes in an entirely different area of the country for an entirely different reason.

 

You say indecisive like its a bad thing.

I would far rather have laws made that were well balanced, well thought through, and well adjusted to win the support of the majority of all the parties represented in the commons, than ones that can be rushed through with a three line whip.

 

I do indeed say indecisive like it's a bad thing. I would rather have a rapid response law that deals with a given situation effectively than no law which allows a period of anarchy until the government finishes it's deals and bartering and comes up with a compromise which doesn't fix a problem. Take the methadrone fiasco. How many more lives would have been lost if the government didn't do anything for a few more weeks?

[Jaziek]

To be honest, I'm not in favour of PR, which is probably the biggest reason why I wouldn't have voted Lib Dem in this general election (a couple of months too young, grr). I think it's far more important to have a system that reduces the likelyhood of a hung and therefore indecisive parliament, it at least minimises one of the main flaws of democracy. Smaller parties still actively campaign and do eventually gain seats, but I feel they should properly earn the right to speak for an entire constituency, instead of being voted in because of votes in an entirely different area of the country for an entirely different reason.

 

You say indecisive like its a bad thing.

I would far rather have laws made that were well balanced, well thought through, and well adjusted to win the support of the majority of all the parties represented in the commons, than ones that can be rushed through with a three line whip.

 

I do indeed say indecisive like it's a bad thing. I would rather have a rapid response law that deals with a given situation effectively than no law which allows a period of anarchy until the government finishes it's deals and bartering and comes up with a compromise which doesn't fix a problem. Take the methadrone fiasco. How many more lives would have been lost if the government didn't do anything for a few more weeks?

 

 

If the rapidly put together law is obviously the right response to the problem, then it'll get through regardless. I can't think of a situation which would necessitate the use of a party's majority in order to quickly force through a bill.

[magekillr]

Indeed, dusqi. I say this as a forewarning: do everything that you can to keep Murdoch the f*** out of your media. If he gets in somehow, he will drive the debate. That's why CNN and MSNBC suck so much. Fox lies over and over again with their pundits, their news people take lines from the pundits, and they drive the narrative with ratings. Wanting to keep up with their ratings, CNN and MSNBC are forced to cover the same damn stories with the same line of thinking. This is why back in the early 2000's, MSNBC was just as right-wing as Fox. They thought they could copy what Fox said and get the same ratings.

 

It's kind of amusing because Fox claims that its pundits are separate from its news, but if you watch it for just one day you'll realize that there's literally no difference; both lie with the same frequency and use the same talking points, especially people like Neil Cavuto.

 

You'd think that they wouldn't drive the debate so much, as only a few million people even watch cable news. However, the two main constituencies that watch it are old people, and the Beltway Elites; those are the two most important groups in policymaking. Then when they decide where the debate goes, that's where the debate goes...and that's all middle-aged and young people see, forcing those same narratives on them. Thus, I'm stuck defending a right-wing Republican health care bill that I detest, even though it's the best we could do, from attacks of "socialism."

[1_man_army]

The methedrone thing was complete media hysteria. There still isn't a consensus on whether it was a direct cause of death for those people but the media jumped on it and ran with their own slant on things. Labour had no choice but to criminalise it thouh because if they had jittered about it, certain newspapers would have exploited it for a cheap "soft on drugs" narrative.

[magekillr]

The methedrone thing was complete media hysteria. There still isn't a consensus on whether it was a direct cause of death for those people but the media jumped on it and ran with their own slant on things. Labour had no choice but to criminalise it thouh because if they had jittered about it, certain newspapers would have exploited it for a cheap "soft on drugs" narrative.

 

Wait, they made methadone clinics illegal in the UK?

[Will H]

To be honest, I'm not in favour of PR, which is probably the biggest reason why I wouldn't have voted Lib Dem in this general election (a couple of months too young, grr). I think it's far more important to have a system that reduces the likelyhood of a hung and therefore indecisive parliament, it at least minimises one of the main flaws of democracy. Smaller parties still actively campaign and do eventually gain seats, but I feel they should properly earn the right to speak for an entire constituency, instead of being voted in because of votes in an entirely different area of the country for an entirely different reason.

 

You say indecisive like its a bad thing.

I would far rather have laws made that were well balanced, well thought through, and well adjusted to win the support of the majority of all the parties represented in the commons, than ones that can be rushed through with a three line whip.

 

I do indeed say indecisive like it's a bad thing. I would rather have a rapid response law that deals with a given situation effectively than no law which allows a period of anarchy until the government finishes it's deals and bartering and comes up with a compromise which doesn't fix a problem. Take the methadrone fiasco. How many more lives would have been lost if the government didn't do anything for a few more weeks?

 

 

If the rapidly put together law is obviously the right response to the problem, then it'll get through regardless. I can't think of a situation which would necessitate the use of a party's majority in order to quickly force through a bill.

 

You can't? Natural disasters. Large scale strikes. When international relations with another country, or between two other countries, turn sour. Economic crashes. A new 'legal' drug hits the market. Plenty of these kinds of incidents happen every year, and you have to choose an action to deal with it one way or the other or face the consequences. That's what a strong government is all about.

[Lateralus]

The methedrone thing was complete media hysteria. There still isn't a consensus on whether it was a direct cause of death for those people but the media jumped on it and ran with their own slant on things. Labour had no choice but to criminalise it thouh because if they had jittered about it, certain newspapers would have exploited it for a cheap "soft on drugs" narrative.

 

Wait, they made methadone clinics illegal in the UK?

 

An amphetamine derivative called mephedrone was recently banned in the UK as it was supposedly causing deaths. I'm fairly certain that it's nowhere near as dangerous as the media made out, but the hysteria that followed lead to it becoming banned.

[Jaziek]

To be honest, I'm not in favour of PR, which is probably the biggest reason why I wouldn't have voted Lib Dem in this general election (a couple of months too young, grr). I think it's far more important to have a system that reduces the likelyhood of a hung and therefore indecisive parliament, it at least minimises one of the main flaws of democracy. Smaller parties still actively campaign and do eventually gain seats, but I feel they should properly earn the right to speak for an entire constituency, instead of being voted in because of votes in an entirely different area of the country for an entirely different reason.

 

You say indecisive like its a bad thing.

I would far rather have laws made that were well balanced, well thought through, and well adjusted to win the support of the majority of all the parties represented in the commons, than ones that can be rushed through with a three line whip.

 

I do indeed say indecisive like it's a bad thing. I would rather have a rapid response law that deals with a given situation effectively than no law which allows a period of anarchy until the government finishes it's deals and bartering and comes up with a compromise which doesn't fix a problem. Take the methadrone fiasco. How many more lives would have been lost if the government didn't do anything for a few more weeks?

 

 

If the rapidly put together law is obviously the right response to the problem, then it'll get through regardless. I can't think of a situation which would necessitate the use of a party's majority in order to quickly force through a bill.

 

You can't? Natural disasters. Large scale strikes. When international relations with another country, or between two other countries, turn sour. Economic crashes. A new 'legal' drug hits the market. Plenty of these kinds of incidents happen every year, and you have to choose an action to deal with it one way or the other or face the consequences. That's what a strong government is all about.

 

Do you think that the opposing party would vote down legislaton put forward by the party in power purely on the basis that it was put forward by the other party, not them? No. That doesn't happen, this isn't the USA. Should the situation call for it, and the proposed law be good enough, then the right decision will be made.

 

And yeah, the mephedrone thing is hardly a good example. The media whipped itself up into hysteria, and they pushed through a completly unecessary piece of legislation.

[magekillr]

Ah ok, that's not as bad as I thought lol. Here I was thinking methadone clinics were banned over one death or something, which would have been horrible policy as those clinics are the best treatment that we have for heroin addicts. Still, that doesn't sound like it was policy for the better nonetheless, especially because of the media hysteria. Lemme guess: it was the Times/Times Online and the Daily Mail mostly doing it, right?

 

I was about to be sympathetic to will_holmes' argument until Jaziek said that it's not like the US. That's good to hear. So I'll continue rooting for a hung parliament outcome this election then :)

[1_man_army]

Still, that doesn't sound like it was policy for the better nonetheless, especially because of the media hysteria. Lemme guess: it was the Times/Times Online and the Daily Mail mostly doing it, right?

 

Yeah, al the usual suspects were involved in it. The way I see it, they were trying to see if Brown would take the bait and actually listen to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs or not. The problem now is that drugs policy is no longer based on the science of the issue, it has become so hysterically politicised.

[Will H]

To be honest, I'm not in favour of PR, which is probably the biggest reason why I wouldn't have voted Lib Dem in this general election (a couple of months too young, grr). I think it's far more important to have a system that reduces the likelyhood of a hung and therefore indecisive parliament, it at least minimises one of the main flaws of democracy. Smaller parties still actively campaign and do eventually gain seats, but I feel they should properly earn the right to speak for an entire constituency, instead of being voted in because of votes in an entirely different area of the country for an entirely different reason.

 

You say indecisive like its a bad thing.

I would far rather have laws made that were well balanced, well thought through, and well adjusted to win the support of the majority of all the parties represented in the commons, than ones that can be rushed through with a three line whip.

 

I do indeed say indecisive like it's a bad thing. I would rather have a rapid response law that deals with a given situation effectively than no law which allows a period of anarchy until the government finishes it's deals and bartering and comes up with a compromise which doesn't fix a problem. Take the methadrone fiasco. How many more lives would have been lost if the government didn't do anything for a few more weeks?

 

 

If the rapidly put together law is obviously the right response to the problem, then it'll get through regardless. I can't think of a situation which would necessitate the use of a party's majority in order to quickly force through a bill.

 

You can't? Natural disasters. Large scale strikes. When international relations with another country, or between two other countries, turn sour. Economic crashes. A new 'legal' drug hits the market. Plenty of these kinds of incidents happen every year, and you have to choose an action to deal with it one way or the other or face the consequences. That's what a strong government is all about.

 

Do you think that the opposing party would vote down legislaton put forward by the party in power purely on the basis that it was put forward by the other party, not them? No. That doesn't happen, this isn't the USA. Should the situation call for it, and the proposed law be good enough, then the right decision will be made.

 

And yeah, the mephedrone thing is hardly a good example. The media whipped itself up into hysteria, and they pushed through a completly unecessary piece of legislation.

 

No, although it can and does happen as your example shows, but I am aware of situations where two or more different courses of action would both solve a problem but a compromise wouldn't. Clearly people are taking the mephedrone example in the wrong way, it was probably a bad example, so I'll use a slightly different one, recreational drugs in general. There's a big debate over whether the government should outright ban recreational drugs and heavily enforce it, or legalise drugs in your home and tax/regulate it. It's two respectable principles that don't work together. I know plenty of people who would argue either side here, but compromises would be a disaster. Banning it but barely enforcing it results in serious non-drug related crime problems, as we've seen in numerous countries all over the world.

[dusqi]

Indeed, dusqi. I say this as a forewarning: do everything that you can to keep Murdoch the f*** out of your media. If he gets in somehow, he will drive the debate. That's why CNN and MSNBC suck so much. Fox lies over and over again with their pundits, their news people take lines from the pundits, and they drive the narrative with ratings. Wanting to keep up with their ratings, CNN and MSNBC are forced to cover the same damn stories with the same line of thinking. This is why back in the early 2000's, MSNBC was just as right-wing as Fox. They thought they could copy what Fox said and get the same ratings.

 

It's kind of amusing because Fox claims that its pundits are separate from its news, but if you watch it for just one day you'll realize that there's literally no difference; both lie with the same frequency and use the same talking points, especially people like Neil Cavuto.

 

You'd think that they wouldn't drive the debate so much, as only a few million people even watch cable news. However, the two main constituencies that watch it are old people, and the Beltway Elites; those are the two most important groups in policymaking. Then when they decide where the debate goes, that's where the debate goes...and that's all middle-aged and young people see, forcing those same narratives on them. Thus, I'm stuck defending a right-wing Republican health care bill that I detest, even though it's the best we could do, from attacks of "socialism."

 

 

Murdoch has already taken over in the UK also. Back in 1992, the election was close and an unexpected (conservative) party ended up winning it. The Sun newspaper had supported the conservatives and on the day after the election it claimed responsibility for them winning it (headline: "It was the Sun wot won it")

 

I remember something from last year which I think really demonstrates how much power Murdoch's newspapers still have. In the middle of the expenses scandal (june 2009), the editor of the Sun got married. Who was at the ceremony? Both Gordon Brown and David Cameron. The event didn't lead to much publicity, it was certainly not on TV - they just went in order to suck up to The Sun. I despair of politics as usual when leaders take time out from the most significant political event of the year in order to schmooze The Sun.

[Guy]

I can't imagine Cleggy and the Lib Dems winning. I really can't.

 

Some of their policies are good, some ok, but those policies just can't be fulfilled, especially in this economic climate. Some of their policies are literally too good to be true, and simply aren't going to happen even if he gets in.

 

^My opinion^