-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
May 7th | UK General Election 2015 OT - Please go vote!
- Thread starter Volotaire
- Start date
- Status
CyclopsRock
Member
Admittedly, though, that's harder to do pre-manifesto. But he could have challenged Ed on some of his dimmer announcements before now, but he basically left them all on the table.
Hopefully we'll see some specifics in the manifesto.
No. Crosby's big plan is to say if you liked those cuts before you'll love these one's trust us.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
I doubt it will move even a single vote. Tomorrow's headlines are all going to be dominated by the plane crash and the suicidal pilot. The ratings for this aren't going to be good. People who pay attention to this will be like me or you, those who already know where their X is going. The only one of these which may move votes is the 7-way debate and the leader's question time, but even those are probably going to be snorefests.
Ed beat expectations starting from a low base and may finally have put the business with his brother to bed. Both are good wins for him, but Dave played a straight bat and didn't make any mistakes so no votes will shift.
While Cameron 'won' that poll, Miliband moved the floating voters in that poll/
Perhaps there's a body of folk looking for an excuse to vote Labour. Still think the Tory high watermark is their 2010 36.1%
But ultimately unless there's a massive gaffe in the campaign, none of these events are going to make much of a difference individually.
I think you're exaggerating the lack of importance and impact from this grilling. Whilst it will likely not make much of a difference in the grand scheme, I think the headline snippets shown across the different news channels, coupled with the general commentary and feedback, will drum up some interest and at least sway some perception, mostly with respect to Ed's personality and the way he can or cannot handle himself. But who knows. I guess we'll see.
CyclopsRock
Member
For anyone interested, the pre debate polls back in March 2010 (ie roughly where we are in the cycle now) were something like (I averaged a handful from the end of the month)...
CON 38%, LAB 30%, LDEM 18%
The eventual GE result was...
CON 36.1%, LAB 29.0%, LDEM 23.0%
If we add in the fact that, as well as the debates, there was basically the entire campaign between the first poll and the actual GE, it's hard to imagine the debates - even if they're crazy exciting - moving more than a few points in either direction. It might be relevant, though, who knows. Obviously the array of scatter brained loon parties vying for the lost MRLP vote has thrown a bit of an unknown into those - could they see similar gains as the LD's saw in 2010?
CON 38%, LAB 30%, LDEM 18%
The eventual GE result was...
CON 36.1%, LAB 29.0%, LDEM 23.0%
If we add in the fact that, as well as the debates, there was basically the entire campaign between the first poll and the actual GE, it's hard to imagine the debates - even if they're crazy exciting - moving more than a few points in either direction. It might be relevant, though, who knows. Obviously the array of scatter brained loon parties vying for the lost MRLP vote has thrown a bit of an unknown into those - could they see similar gains as the LD's saw in 2010?
Nicktendo86
Member
Problem with these programmes is everything is so vague. If they were done when both manifestos were out and they had some live fact checking I think it would be more interesting, the one tonight feels so flat and boring.
Tonight also highlighted why Cameron didn't want a head to head, the expectations of Miliband is so low as long as he doesn't make a complete fool of himself people are pleasantly surprised by him and don't notice he talks complete and utter guff.
Tonight also highlighted why Cameron didn't want a head to head, the expectations of Miliband is so low as long as he doesn't make a complete fool of himself people are pleasantly surprised by him and don't notice he talks complete and utter guff.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
For anyone interested, the pre debate polls back in March 2010 (ie roughly where we are in the cycle now) were something like (I averaged a handful from the end of the month)...
CON 38%, LAB 30%, LDEM 18%
The eventual GE result was...
CON 36.1%, LAB 29.0%, LDEM 23.0%
If we add in the fact that, as well as the debates, there was basically the entire campaign between the first poll and the actual GE, it's hard to imagine the debates - even if they're crazy exciting - moving more than a few points in either direction. It might be relevant, though, who knows. Obviously the array of scatter brained loon parties vying for the lost MRLP vote has thrown a bit of an unknown into those - could they see similar gains as the LD's saw in 2010?
Wut? Nick Clegg was widely seen as having won last round and by your own data that made part of a five percentage point difference. I mean, sure, it might only change the mind of one in every two hundred people, but right now that's literally an election winning difference.
I think this is where not taking part in all the debates might backfire on Cameron.
Cameron's "lead" in a personality battle isn't as strong as I think he and the media think it is, and more screen time gives Ed more chance to swing some of that sway. More chance to get those snippets, general commentary, feedback and perception out there.
I'm sceptical of the televised format and I'm not convinced it'll have a lasting effect on the election. But David Cameron, as leader of the Conservative party, running a personality driven campaign with a main opposition who has more screen time over the next 6 weeks and arguably a stronger showing after round one.. it's a high risk manoeuvre, surely?
Nicktendo86
Member
The Clegg thing was unique, 'Cleggmania' was a phenomenon. Can't see people with 'I agree with Ed' t-shirts after tonight.
CyclopsRock
Member
Of course, but we also both know that he only reason that happened is that Clegg was basically an unknown. This is why I said that one of the smaller parties could see similar gains - because the public have a lot of space in their mind to fill with new impressions of these mysterious strangers. That's not the case for Ed (just like it wasn't for DC last time) because he's been the leader of the opposition for the best part of 5 years.
No, and they have already said they wont say this side of the election.
So no real difference between the parties there. Any of them that say they will reduce the deficit, will be vague regarding welfare cuts.
Nicktendo86
Member
Watching it on plus 1, Ed's tough man bit is hilarious. "I was in a room right with Cameron and Clegg with Obama on the blower and I told them to fuck emselves Paxo"
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I'm not even saying it has to be the same scale. Go look at the predictions for seats - not single forecast has a gap of more than ten seats. Ed could get under a tenth of the boost Clegg did and it would make an election-winning difference. I agree it isn't going to make massive shifts, but... it doesn't need to.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Is your seat a Con/Lab or Lib/Lab marginal? If so, if you want to kick the Conservatives out, probably worth gritting your teeth and voting Labour, even if you don't like them much. If it's a safe seat, go ahead, though. The Greens actually have their manifesto released already, it's on their website.
Yeah it's a safe seat that's why, although I don't think I could bring myself to vote labour at the moment anyway
Nicktendo86
Member
If there is one thing I hate its tactical voting, if someone believes in something they should be able to vote for it and have it count.
I could never vote or trust labour again after tony blairs ten years. I feel sorry for brown, getting dumped with blairs mess but even if tony stayed, no way would labour have won in 2010.
Pass the post is a fixed system so the same two parties can exchange seats every 5 or 10 years. Would much prefer proportional representation.
Pass the post is a fixed system so the same two parties can exchange seats every 5 or 10 years. Would much prefer proportional representation.
CyclopsRock
Member
But that's of far less relevance when we can be pretty sure there'll be a hung parliament, and "beating the other side" matters less than it ever has before. "Winning the election" isn't the same thing as "becoming the party of government" as we both know. Obviously having more MPs improves your chance but in an almost linear way, as opposed to the more definitive A or B way we're used to with FPTP. Getting a small bump in the polls - if it's then reflected in the Labour voteshare - is worth the same as the small bump before or after it, if you know what I mean.
Please don't take this the wrong way, I'm actually genuinely curious. Might even be in the same position one day. How does it feel voting for a party with no chance of winning? That aspect really holds me back from considering minority parties, fearing it's wasted vote. Is it just the idea of supporting those who appeal to you most or is it in the hope that party picks up momentum one day?
Tactical voting has it's place too. With a lot of people it's more that they vehemently disagree with the policies or motivations of one particular party or another, rather than them agreeing with another, so whilst they don't agree with party A, they would still prefer them to party C, hence a tactical vote. Lesser of two evils so to speak.
On a side note, aside from the NHS stuff, that cut in tuition fees Labour are proposing is massively important to me as well. I can't stomach my friends, relatives, cousins and future children being in the kind of masses of debt the way they are, or will be right now because of the current exorbitant fees. I paid only £1300 a year in fees, and my older sister got a grant, yet my cousin is expected to pay £7k to £9k on top of eye watering rent? No. Far as I'm aware the fees need to drop to even lower than 6k, though I appreciate it's easier said than done.
Huw_Dawson
Member
PR is dead. The rich want a revolving door of Lab and Con to parade around whilst they make their money. They want stable and controllable pseudo-democracy.
The only major party that wants to change that is the LDs and nobody wants to vote for them because tuition fees.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
It wouldn't, is borderline slanderous and looks very very petty...
Labours leadership supported av, a step towards pr. Not perfect by any means but a shift.
Its because its nonsense. The official secrets act does not stop whistleblowing against criminality within the establishment. The issue is when a person of power uses certain sections of the act to scare someone into not talking (and that person being ignorant to the act itself).
Changing the act wont change that. The more constructive way forward is to better inform those who signed the Act without reading or understanding it (which alot do just to get a job)
Local newspaper asked its MP David Lidington why he voted against and put him on the spot.
His response was:
Other than the specific exemption of course. [but apparently it's already legal is what he meant]
Despite:
Seems like there is some confusion but it's good to have the assurances.
From the guardian:
If they'd be currently breaking the law and so are worried about coming forward, while they have some 'assurances' from people currently holding power that they themselves would not be prosecuted, would their evidence even be allowed if lawyers said it wasn't allowed because the law was broken to get it?
There are investigations currently going on and this clearly sets them back - if not to protect people then for what, because it looks bad on paper, saving face?
Parties voted in large as whole groups:
http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5530/how-mps-voted-on-move-to-change-official-secrets-act-over-csa
Only other guy to vote against is currently under investigation for sexual advances with someone with mental difficulties, after getting kicked out of lib dems for sexual assault.
Is it really any different to voting say, Labour in Tory safe seat? If a party won a seat by a reasonable margin in 2010, unless something significant happens to sway the entire local population then they will win it again in May and any other vote is effectively pointless.
In my constituency, a vote for Green means as much as a vote for Labour. Neither will win.
Skyzard, what I mean by scaring people is reading something without the context in why it was written in the first place.
I am under the official secrets act, I cannot just go out revealing every policy I work on or every thing a minister says in private meetings etc (even then its down to the severity of the leak). However, it does not in anyway stop me, should in the course of my job, I find evidence relating to criminality performed by government or a mp before reporting it to the authorities.
Yet there are certain parts of the act which if read out to me and I dont understand (could be tied to something like foreign affairs) I could be made to believe I could be chucked in prison for revealing the crime. The act itself isn't the issue, its people that may use parts for their own end
So putting in that amendment is pointless, it only creates an opportunity to open the law up for further amendments which themselves could be a risk.
Also, pay no attention to Mann. He really is one of those politicians who would jump on any cause if he thought it would get his name in print. He is also known as being a bit of a lying hypochondriac. I remeber him trying to allude to someone trying to target him, as the wheel nuts were loose on his car. Im sure however it had nothing to do with a flat tire that he later claimed on expenses
I am under the official secrets act, I cannot just go out revealing every policy I work on or every thing a minister says in private meetings etc (even then its down to the severity of the leak). However, it does not in anyway stop me, should in the course of my job, I find evidence relating to criminality performed by government or a mp before reporting it to the authorities.
Yet there are certain parts of the act which if read out to me and I dont understand (could be tied to something like foreign affairs) I could be made to believe I could be chucked in prison for revealing the crime. The act itself isn't the issue, its people that may use parts for their own end
So putting in that amendment is pointless, it only creates an opportunity to open the law up for further amendments which themselves could be a risk.
Also, pay no attention to Mann. He really is one of those politicians who would jump on any cause if he thought it would get his name in print. He is also known as being a bit of a lying hypochondriac. I remeber him trying to allude to someone trying to target him, as the wheel nuts were loose on his car. Im sure however it had nothing to do with a flat tire that he later claimed on expenses
I only just recently edited in my previous post as I misunderstood - you are saying that they would not be breaking the law for doing that. They were just threatened and may have been told that as an excuse.
Seems like things like law should be clearer for police or easier to check although I get why the secrets act would be vague. If they were blackmailed or were scared off then that's something else.
If the case is as you said and you can report as needed legally anyway then the amendment would have made things worse in a way and added to the confusion - it'd seem like other crimes were to be ignored and just child sex offences ought to be reported.
...in which case it's probably best he didn't bring it up
It might be worth bringing this thread from the other day up to speed, will probably mention something tomorrow.
Seems like things like law should be clearer for police or easier to check although I get why the secrets act would be vague. If they were blackmailed or were scared off then that's something else.
If the case is as you said and you can report as needed legally anyway then the amendment would have made things worse in a way and added to the confusion - it'd seem like other crimes were to be ignored and just child sex offences ought to be reported.
...in which case it's probably best he didn't bring it up
It might be worth bringing this thread from the other day up to speed, will probably mention something tomorrow.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Which kitchen would Ed use for that?
Ravensmash
Member
Paxman was brutal,and I loved it tbh.
I didn't get to hear a lot of the first half (noisy environment) but I liked Miliband deciding to simply shrug off the questions about people not liking him etc.
I didn't get to hear a lot of the first half (noisy environment) but I liked Miliband deciding to simply shrug off the questions about people not liking him etc.
FootballFan
Member
So what
So is roughly a third of the country along with plenty of people on GAF. What's your point?
It's an inside joke between us two from our days in a community thread which no longer exists.
FF will gladly clarify that he can't even vote in the UK General Election.
I apologise if I have caused any offence.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
I still am unsure who to vote for
I voted tory last time, but I don't like that the party have forced cameron to drift to the right. Won't be voting for them
I will never vote for labour until the brown inner circle - miliband, balls, cooper and alexander - are no longer part of their leadership. Will never forgive them for the 10p tax.
Can't really vote for greens after all those car crash interviews with neil and ferrari. Bennet is not cut out for this
Might vote lib dem I guess. Would rather see clegg stay as their leader then a bufoon like farron
I voted tory last time, but I don't like that the party have forced cameron to drift to the right. Won't be voting for them
I will never vote for labour until the brown inner circle - miliband, balls, cooper and alexander - are no longer part of their leadership. Will never forgive them for the 10p tax.
Can't really vote for greens after all those car crash interviews with neil and ferrari. Bennet is not cut out for this
Might vote lib dem I guess. Would rather see clegg stay as their leader then a bufoon like farron
Chemical Rampancy
Banned
But this perception is fabricated by the media and perpetuated by incompetents, so j struggle to see how it's a problem?
jimbobsmells
Member
Fat chance of that with our FPTP system.
I understand what you're saying, but never feel sorry for Brown. He made his own bed.
Have you tried that voteforpolicies website? Try taking the personalities out of the equation.
CyclopsRock
Member
Heh, apparantly this is the LD's latest 404 page on their website (according to Reddit)
Pretty funny, sly dig at Cam but maintaining the possibility of a 2nd coalition.
My prediction was always May = Tory Minority, November = 2nd election, small Tory Majority. Now I think we'll just have another 5 year T-LD coalition, and tbh I'd be pretty happy with that.
Edit: I just checked - it's accurate. http://www.libdems.org.uk/stamping-out-the-mental-health-stigma-in-sportkhg
Pretty funny, sly dig at Cam but maintaining the possibility of a 2nd coalition.
My prediction was always May = Tory Minority, November = 2nd election, small Tory Majority. Now I think we'll just have another 5 year T-LD coalition, and tbh I'd be pretty happy with that.
Edit: I just checked - it's accurate. http://www.libdems.org.uk/stamping-out-the-mental-health-stigma-in-sportkhg
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I don't even mean beating the other side in terms of having a bigger percentage of the vote, I mean having enough seats to be able to get a successful Queen's Speech carried. At a push, whichever side is larger from Con/LD/UKIP/DUP or Labour/SNP/SDLP/Plaid/Greens/Alliance/Lady Hermon/George Galloway forms government. Potentially room for a few of those votes to go missing - the SDLP and Alliance might abstain from a VoNC - but they don't matter too much. When you remove the Irish seats and the independents, that's Con/LD/UKIP vs Labour/SNP/Plaid/Greens.
The SNP, Plaid, and the Greens don't take seats off the Conservatives - the SNP might take 1 off the Conservatives in Dumfriesshire, but that's about it. The SNP stand to gain a few more seats from the Liberal Democrats - about 10. Plaid and the Greens still no help here. However, to form a Labour government, Labour needs to get seats from the 'right' bloc into the 'left' bloc, and as it happens, they're basically going to have to do all the leg-work because the other 'left' bloc parties don't compete against the Conservatives/Lib Dems. So yeah, Ed Miliband causing a 0.5% boost in the opinion polls that nets him an extra 7 seats would incredibly valuable even at this stage and might make the difference.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Can that even be measured though? I don't think the polls are that
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Actually, it can - opinion poll headlines are rounded to the nearest figure, if you look at the tables you can see the precise figures. Of course, they're totally useless because the margin of error is about six times as large as the degree of precision, but hey.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked