PDA

View Full Version : Who are you voting for?



Woebot
21-04-2010, 12:26 PM
Well?

crackerjack
21-04-2010, 12:32 PM
Close the ballot box, it's a landslide.

I think you should add a few options more than just other. I'd hate to harbour doubts that all the Dissensus Greens are really BNP.

Woebot
21-04-2010, 12:51 PM
Close the ballot box, it's a landslide.

I think you should add a few options more than just other. I'd hate to harbour doubts that all the Dissensus Greens are really BNP.

hmm. i dunno actually. let's keep it simple. if anyone is going to vote for something else (ie they put "other" then they can say who in the thread)

me i detest the conservatives. i don't hate labour so much. i dislike nick clegg but for me it's a local issue and so it's going to have to be lib dems. if i vote labour (our only alternative in islington) i'd be throwing away three years of grassroots campaigning - essentially bashing the lib dems (tho sometimes in fairness to them it's more productive than that).

scottdisco
21-04-2010, 12:54 PM
Labour.

good work Matt, i was thinking of putting a poll up myself on same. :)

grizzleb
21-04-2010, 01:30 PM
Lib Dem. Would have voted SNP if they were the second biggest party in my constituency, but the Lib Dems won out. Fuck the tories basically innit.

crackerjack
21-04-2010, 02:34 PM
Fuck the tories basically innit.

By voting for a party who'll form a coalition with them?


Mr Clegg refused to say which party he would back in the event of a hung parliament, keeping to his line that the party with the most seats would be the winner, even though the electoral system means that Labour could come third in the popular vote and still gain the largest share of seats.

He added: “It would be preposterous for Gordon Brown to end up like some squatter in No 10 because of some constitutional nicety.”

At a press conference this morning, however, Mr Clegg appeared subtly to change his position, suggesting that it was not just the number of seats that determined the outcome of the election.

“I have always said I think the party with the most votes and seats, even if it doesn’t have an outright majority, has got a clear mandate to seek to govern, either on its own or with other parties,” he said.

This has been the first in my series OMFG! Clegg's a Tory

john eden
21-04-2010, 02:39 PM
"other" or "no-one".

But as I live in a safe seat for Labour my vote basically counts for fuck all anyway.

grizzleb
21-04-2010, 02:51 PM
I dunno, I'm pretty sceptical of the idea that the Lib Dems would actually form a coalition with the tories, I think they're just being vague in a pre-election stylee. Essentially I'd like to see it happen - at that point I could really start to feel apathetic about politics, and not just extremely apathetic as I do now.

scottdisco
21-04-2010, 02:55 PM
i have been thinking how stupid some of the frothier Tory press are in attacking the Lib-Dems (obviously they must fear them), but Clegg's Orange Book economic liberalism has to be far more palatable to them than a wounded Labour w a lot of angry Old Labour backbenchers seeking more influence in the ruins of a smaller vote share, and you would think even Tory partisans as exceptionally witless as - say - Leo McKinstry in the Express would realise this and hitch their mast to the lesser of two evils (from his pov).

tbf to Clegg, there's no way a real red-tooth/claw Tory would come up with the amnesty for illegal migrants proposal, they are far too nasty and populist to show any humanity or sense on the issue other than what they think wins votes w Mail readers. (or the sub-£10k waged no tax.)

i saw an interview w Cameron this morning who said he got always got on well w Nick Clegg personally. i wonder if they would prefer their press to attack the L-Ds or the govt? (if they could only attack one at a time, i wonder which is the best from a Tory pov.)

scottdisco
21-04-2010, 03:04 PM
Cameron did have one good line tbf, something about unfortunately if you mix red and yellow as even my daughter will tell you, you get Brown. that appears to be the line of attack they have settled on, fingers crossed it lets them down...

crackerjack
21-04-2010, 03:06 PM
i have been thinking how stupid some of the frothier Tory press are in attacking the Lib-Dems (obviously they must fear them), but Clegg's Orange Book economic liberalism has to be far more palatable to them than a wounded Labour w a lot of angry Old Labour backbenchers seeking more influence in the ruins of a smaller vote share, and you would think even Tory partisans as exceptionally witless as - say - Leo McKinstry in the Express would realise this and hitch their mast to the lesser of two evils (from his pov).


But surely most of the tabloid Tory press are social conservatives first, fiscal second (I'm guessing here, I don't read it, except occasionally thru my fingers). The LIb Dems tbf are pretty sound on social liberalism. It's just their economic/employment Toryism that scares me (minus St Vince, obv.)

Mr. Tea
21-04-2010, 03:07 PM
Cameron did have one good line tbf, something about unfortunately if you mix red and yellow as even my daughter will tell you, you get Brown.

Uh, that makes orange in my book! :p

grizzleb
21-04-2010, 03:07 PM
On one level I'd kind of like to see the tories get in. I wasn't about for Thatcher/John Major so I've never really known a Tory government. I reckon they would be good fun to hate as they be stealin ur milks etc. I think Dave Cameron would be amazing to hate.

hucks
21-04-2010, 03:08 PM
I live in a 3-way marginal, apparently. Poplar and Limehouse, a new constituency, including the super rich marina bit and the shitty poor bit, where I live. Galloway, the incumbent Labour MP and the Tories all fancy it. Woop!

crackerjack
21-04-2010, 03:09 PM
On one level I'd kind of like to see the tories get in. I wasn't about for Thatcher/John Major so I've never really known a Tory government. I reckon they would be good fun to hate as they be stealin ur milks etc. I think Dave Cameron would be amazing to hate.

This is kinda like those baby boomers feeling guilty for missing the war

scottdisco
21-04-2010, 03:21 PM
But surely most of the tabloid Tory press are social conservatives first, fiscal second (I'm guessing here, I don't read it, except occasionally thru my fingers). The LIb Dems tbf are pretty sound on social liberalism. It's just their economic/employment Toryism that scares me (minus St Vince, obv.)

actually both in my experience, although the social conservatism naturally shouts louder, and whilst they sometimes also indulge in anti-banker populism at the end of the day their proposals are also always fiscally conservative (more confused than Donald Duck, they are). granted the L-Ds are sound on social liberalism, you would hope so though wouldn't you, it's the very least to expect to be frank... ...and heck, both L-Ds and Tories have sounded better than Labour on many civil libs issues of course.

P.S.
Tea: :p

scottdisco
21-04-2010, 03:27 PM
the social liberals in the L-Ds have the numbers in the party atm i believe but leadership positions appear to be more economically liberal. (which is a bit like a half decent analogy for the history of New Labour in truth.)

baboon2004
21-04-2010, 04:06 PM
In my ward, Labour had 46 per cent last time around, with the Greens in second place.

In the constituency, Lib Dems and Labour neck and neck.

Lichen
21-04-2010, 04:46 PM
Voting for our Lib Dem hobbit, David Heath.

Proper local man.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/images/davidheath.jpg

vimothy
21-04-2010, 05:00 PM
Not sure it is quite accurate to describe the Lib Dems as lining up with the Tories on economic issues. In general I think that the stuff that came out of that Spectator article on Clegg has mostly been bullshit, IMO. Most of the Orange Bookers I've come across have been advocates of fairly mainstream Keynesian policy (like Labour) and critical of Tory deficit fetishism.

That said, all three parties pay a decent amount of lip-service to reducing the deficit.

scottdisco
21-04-2010, 05:07 PM
Most of the Orange Bookers I've come across have been advocates of fairly mainstream Keynesian policy (like Labour) and critical of Tory deficit fetishism.

the party's Beveridge Group are a direct lineage from the original Liberal Keynesians too, tbf.

what Spectator article are we talking about wrt Clegg, btw?

ta.

i wouldn't say they neatly 'line up', exactly, w the Tories economically, but there's more common ground there than among many Labour, surely.

the Keynesians in the L-Ds definitely have more of the numbers than non-Beveridge sorts AFAIK as i think i speculated earlier, mind you, granted.

not sure how to treat the fourth paragraph from David Osler here (http://www.davidosler.com/2010/04/general-election-the-contradictions-of-the-liberal-democrats/). Osler always seems fairly well-connected (journo and writer himself), but of course he can only throw things out anonymously (and is clear about his party bias).

have some unsubstantiated gossip then, thread! :cool:


Clegg’s public position is that he would in the first instance work with whoever emerges the strongest after the impending election. I’m told by journalists who know him that his personal preference would be to come to terms with Cameron.

magnificent face fuzz from Mr Heath there, Lichen!

scottdisco
21-04-2010, 05:08 PM
P.S. Vim: i notice House of War was blessed w a comments-box visit from Richard Seymour recently!

my you are going up in the world ;)

(loved your reply to the guy.)

vimothy
21-04-2010, 05:12 PM
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5831523/clegg-heir-to-thatcher.thtml

Mr. Tea
21-04-2010, 05:34 PM
I keep expecting the title of this thread to start with "Pointless but..."

mms
21-04-2010, 06:59 PM
On one level I'd kind of like to see the tories get in. I wasn't about for Thatcher/John Major so I've never really known a Tory government. I reckon they would be good fun to hate as they be stealin ur milks etc. I think Dave Cameron would be amazing to hate.

pfft

grizzleb
21-04-2010, 07:11 PM
I'm being a bit toungue in cheek. Got a point blud?

mixed_biscuits
21-04-2010, 10:10 PM
As a centrist, I think the Tories may work best as a corrective to the last few years of Labour's communism-lite, hence Tory vote (for the first time, I might add).

Lib Dems are a shoo-in to win locally.

baboon2004
21-04-2010, 11:04 PM
As a centrist, I think the Tories may work best as a corrective to the last few years of Labour's communism-lite, hence Tory vote (for the first time, I might add).


Please don't. I told my own mother I wouldn't speak to her for six months if she voted Tory last time, so I may have to order a hit on you.

Communism-lite?????! I'm not sure which Labour policies you're thinking of....or, come to think of it, what situation, real or hypothetical, the Tories could possibly correct.

mixed_biscuits
21-04-2010, 11:30 PM
Communism-lite?????! I'm not sure which Labour policies you're thinking of....or, come to think of it, what situation, real or hypothetical, the Tories could possibly correct.

Their micro-management of national services in the aim of churning out self-congratulatory production figures; their social engineering obsession and reality-shaping conceit; their suppression of our right to demonstrate; their feverish law-creation; their buying of voters by creating ghettos reliant on their support; their intrusion in private social affairs in which government should really have no say; their disregard for popular feeling in formulating international policy; their love of all-encompassing databases and close surveillance; their undermining of competing power structures through enforced compromise under the guise of a respectful multiculturalism; their meddling in the universities and reduction of intellectual activity to yet more productivity figures; their bone-headed recycling of communist tropes, seemingly with no awareness of their often dubious history (the 'tsars', the rising sun of their manifesto cover etc).

Government has been getting too large and intrusive and I'm attracted by any party that promises a diminution of its influence.

baboon2004
22-04-2010, 12:01 AM
Their micro-management of national services in the aim of churning out self-congratulatory production figures; their social engineering obsession and reality-shaping conceit; their suppression of our right to demonstrate; their feverish law-creation; their buying of voters by creating ghettos reliant on their support; their intrusion in private social affairs in which government should really have no say; their disregard for popular feeling in formulating international policy; their love of all-encompassing databases and close surveillance; their undermining of competing power structures through enforced compromise under the guise of a respectful multiculturalism; their meddling in the universities and reduction of intellectual activity to yet more productivity figures; their bone-headed recycling of communist tropes, seemingly with no awareness of their often dubious history (the 'tsars', the rising sun of their manifesto cover etc).

Government has been getting too large and intrusive and I'm attracted by any party that promises a diminution of its influence.

oh, you meant 'communism' (Stalinist state socialism), not communism. not being picky, but there's a monumental difference (um, and tsars aren't really a communist trope under any definition!)

and c'mon, suppression of the right to demonstrate (!), undermining of competing power structures, intrusion in private social affairs* etc - have you checked the record of the 1979-1997 Tory governments? As to self-congratulatory production figures/reduction of intellectual activity to more production figures, that's a FAR wider problem than this last Labour government.

but a diminution of government influence is only half of that issue - what will come in its place is the other half. as i recall, tory governments are pretty intrusive upon people's lives - it's just that they reserve this intrusion for the poorer parts of society.

not sticking up for New Labour, obviously, but i don't see the point in voting for something that is likely to be even worse. What good things will the Tories do, in your opinion? Apart from try to privatise everything else that hasn't already been privatised, of course...(including education, making it easier to start up new private academies; and new schools get paid for attracting pupils!). Cameron is on record as being a big fan of Thatcher - nuff said.

*and Cameron is pledging to recognise marriage in the tax system! That strikes me as pretty fucking intrusive.

Edit: But they will "challenge racism and bigotry in all its manifestations". Best start chasing your own tail...

mixed_biscuits
22-04-2010, 12:25 AM
oh, you meant 'communism' (Stalinist state socialism), not communism.

My contention is that Labour has been gradually introducing a fundamentally ineffective and illiberal system modelled, consciously or not, on Eastern European state socialism (which often called itself 'communism').

Bear in mind that social mobility has been said to have decreased under Labour, which considering that 'fairness' might be said to be their (ostensible) raison d'etre is somewhat of an epic fail.

It may be a case of choosing between almost certain continued decline in the prospects of the comparatively poor and a speculative glimmer of hope in a reverse, pending the application of non-leftist policies (eg. the return of grammar schools?)

Brother Randy Hickey
22-04-2010, 12:41 AM
unless there are some surprises on the ballot in my ward, I'm not voting. My "compromise" approach to Labour has gone far enough, the "yeh, but they're still better than the other lot" argument no longer holds, for a dozen reasons. So, no. Sadly, in the absence of a none of the above option, I'll be staying home and feeling depressed

Brother Randy Hickey
22-04-2010, 12:42 AM
pending the application of non-leftist policies (eg. the return of grammar schools?)

I went to a grammar school and the very notion of their return is an appalling one. I'm all for (very very mobile) streaming within schools, but a two-tier system like the grammar school is divisive, harmful, elitist and unacceptable.

mixed_biscuits
22-04-2010, 12:43 AM
As to self-congratulatory production figures/reduction of intellectual activity to more production figures, that's a FAR wider problem than this last Labour government.

Yes, and it's a problem that they don't appear to be trying to solve (as it would entail decentralisation).


Apart from try to privatise everything else that hasn't already been privatised, of course...(including education, making it easier to start up new private academies; and new schools get paid for attracting pupils!).

I'm for their educational plans, broadly speaking: they're supposedly based on good practice (the much-lauded Swedish model) and the private school system as it is in the UK currently is internationally renowned. If they relinquish control of exams and hand them over to universities (academic exams) and business (vocational), then so much the better.


and Cameron is pledging to recognise marriage in the tax system! That strikes me as pretty fucking intrusive.

Well, that's no different to the benefits system encouraging the creation of babies and attendant single mothers, except the outcome is more to be desired (children are born into families with greater resources); it's an attempt to solve an obvious social problem. Accord homosexual marriages the same status and the bigotry charge disappears. Not sure where racism enters into it.

mixed_biscuits
22-04-2010, 12:47 AM
I went to a grammar school and the very notion of their return is an appalling one. I'm all for (very very mobile) streaming within schools, but a two-tier system like the grammar school is divisive, harmful, elitist and unacceptable.

Fine, but which system delivers more working class students into top universities or top jobs?

btw The Tories' beloved Swedish model does not involve selection or hard-and-fast streaming afaik, so a return to grammars is unlikely (not that they have disappeared completely, anyway).

connect_icut
22-04-2010, 01:04 AM
Tactical Lib-Dem vote to keep the Tories out. Voting by proxy in Hereford, which is a Lib-Dem/Tory marginal. Labour don't stand a chance there.

crackerjack
22-04-2010, 09:29 AM
(um, and tsars aren't really a communist trope under any definition!).

Quite. Their usage in western politics also stems, afaik, from that renowned commie-lite Ronald Reagan and his 'drug tsar'. He was also quite fond of the shiny political metaphor (http://www.originofnations.org/books,%20papers/quotes%20etc/Reagan_The%20Shining%20City%20Upon%20A%20Hill%20sp eech.htm).

scottdisco
22-04-2010, 10:06 AM
their suppression of our right to demonstrate

i mentioned this up thread but agreed here M B and w specific regard to things like Charles Clarke bringing in certain laws on demos near Parliament. whatever you thought of something like that, it must be said that Labour's PR on the matter was very bad and the Tories and L-Ds capitalised on this by loudly attacking the govt.

this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/sep/07/comment.politics) article from 2007 sketches a few points about the trajectories of civil libs under the govt.


The deployment of terrorism and public order law to control, sometimes to curb completely, political speech and public demonstrations is a serious matter. It is clear that, from this civil libertarian perspective, there are aspects of the Blair-Brown legislative record on these matters that give rise to legitimate concern.

Past generations of civil libertarians had battles on their hands that were far worse than those we confront today: the 1930s and the 1980s were particularly severe, with police powers being deployed in a draconian fashion against hunger marches and striking miners, as a coherent part of what unreconstructed Marxists would call a straightforward class war. Old Labour was very much alive to the impact of such police aggression on civil liberties: the coalition between the worker and the intellectual was a source of great civil libertarian solidarity in days gone by, but this is much less the case today - Labour has lost the cohesiveness on issues of freedom and liberty that used to be such a feature of the party.

This is not to say that the state of freedom in Britain today does not give cause for concern. A recent survey of British attitudes, conducted by the National Centre for Social Research and the LSE Centre for the Study of Human Rights, found two disturbing trends in public opinion. First there has been a marked decline in support for civil liberties since the mid-1990s - the exact moment when the then opposition Labour party decided to drop its long-standing commitment to their protection. Second, even the support that remains drops still further when the public are invited to take into account the need to act to prevent terrorist attacks.

The reduction of the civil libertarian-minded, intellectual wing of the Labour party to an eccentric rump, to be mocked rather than admired, is one of the most damaging pieces of work that the successive administrations of Tony Blair have done in this area. That effort at marginalisation would not have been as successful as it was had there not been a broader uncertainty on the left about how to react to religious extremism and political violence in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. It is as though the party lost its civil libertarian nerve some time during the early and middle Blair years and has since found it very hard to recover its sense of principle.

this link (http://lanekenworthy.net/2009/06/01/did-blair-and-brown-fail-on-inequality/) has the numbers on inequality under Blair/Brown. (the solitary comment under the article is sensible.)

baboon2004
22-04-2010, 11:21 AM
Yes, and it's a problem that they don't appear to be trying to solve (as it would entail decentralisation).

I'm for their educational plans, broadly speaking: they're supposedly based on good practice (the much-lauded Swedish model) and the private school system as it is in the UK currently is internationally renowned. If they relinquish control of exams and hand them over to universities (academic exams) and business (vocational), then so much the better.

Well, that's no different to the benefits system encouraging the creation of babies and attendant single mothers, except the outcome is more to be desired (children are born into families with greater resources); it's an attempt to solve an obvious social problem. Accord homosexual marriages the same status and the bigotry charge disappears. Not sure where racism enters into it.

Ah, the bigotry and racism quote wasn't connected to that particular point - just saying that they have a nerve, given the last Tory election campaign.

I take huge issue with your normativity in the last paragraph - 'greater resources' means what exactly, aside from the Tory god of money? A loving single parent family is surely to be preferred to a child growing up amidst a disastrous marriage - how many kids have wished their parents had split up earlier to avoid all that pain??

Re education - by private school system, you mean the academy system? I've heard plenty of bad things about it. Whether it's internationally renowned (by who?) is of little concern.

baboon2004
22-04-2010, 11:22 AM
Yes, and it's a problem that they don't appear to be trying to solve (as it would entail decentralisation).

I'm for their educational plans, broadly speaking: they're supposedly based on good practice (the much-lauded Swedish model) and the private school system as it is in the UK currently is internationally renowned. If they relinquish control of exams and hand them over to universities (academic exams) and business (vocational), then so much the better.

Well, that's no different to the benefits system encouraging the creation of babies and attendant single mothers, except the outcome is more to be desired (children are born into families with greater resources); it's an attempt to solve an obvious social problem. Accord homosexual marriages the same status and the bigotry charge disappears. Not sure where racism enters into it.

Ah, the bigotry and racism quote wasn't connected to that particular point - just saying that they have a nerve, given the last Tory election campaign.

I take huge issue with your normativity in the last paragraph - 'greater resources' means what exactly, aside from the Tory god of money? A loving single parent family is surely to be preferred to a child growing up amidst a disastrous marriage - how many kids have wished their parents had split up earlier to avoid all that pain??

Re education - by private school system, you mean the academy system? I've heard plenty of bad things about it, not least . Whether it's internationally renowned (by who?) is of little concern.

baboon2004
22-04-2010, 11:22 AM
Yes, and it's a problem that they don't appear to be trying to solve (as it would entail decentralisation).

I'm for their educational plans, broadly speaking: they're supposedly based on good practice (the much-lauded Swedish model) and the private school system as it is in the UK currently is internationally renowned. If they relinquish control of exams and hand them over to universities (academic exams) and business (vocational), then so much the better.

Well, that's no different to the benefits system encouraging the creation of babies and attendant single mothers, except the outcome is more to be desired (children are born into families with greater resources); it's an attempt to solve an obvious social problem. Accord homosexual marriages the same status and the bigotry charge disappears. Not sure where racism enters into it.

Ah, the bigotry and racism quote wasn't connected to that particular point - just saying that they have a nerve, given the last Tory election campaign.

I take huge issue with your normativity in the last paragraph - 'greater resources' means what exactly, aside from the Tory god of money? A loving single parent family is surely to be preferred to a child growing up amidst a disastrous marriage - how many kids have wished their parents had split up earlier to avoid all that pain??

Re education - by private school system, you mean the academy system? I've heard plenty of bad things about it, not least . Whether it's internationally renowned (by who?) is of little concern.

baboon2004
22-04-2010, 11:34 AM
My contention is that Labour has been gradually introducing a fundamentally ineffective and illiberal system modelled, consciously or not, on Eastern European state socialism (which often called itself 'communism').

Bear in mind that social mobility has been said to have decreased under Labour, which considering that 'fairness' might be said to be their (ostensible) raison d'etre is somewhat of an epic fail.

It may be a case of choosing between almost certain continued decline in the prospects of the comparatively poor and a speculative glimmer of hope in a reverse, pending the application of non-leftist policies (eg. the return of grammar schools?)

Hmm, maybe - I'm not defending labour in any shape or form. My point was that calling Stalinism 'communism' is like calling Nazism 'national socialism'. Or New Labour 'socialist'. It's ridiculous.

Yes, quite possibly - but are you seriously suggesting social mobility would increase under the TORY PARTY????? That kind of beggars belief. You're confusing choosing an equally disastrous electoral party with the meaningful change that might come from reform in the whole electoral/'democratic' system.

I'm opposed to any kind of privatisation in education - private companies run for profit only, nothing else, which it seems to take some people forever to realise. Education is a core state responsibility, along with health etc. Personally think private schools should be outlawed.

vimothy
22-04-2010, 11:48 AM
What, so you're saying that national socialism was given a bad rep by the Nazis?

Mr. Tea
22-04-2010, 12:31 PM
What, so you're saying that national socialism was given a bad rep by the Nazis?

Not wishing to speak for baboon, but I should think the bit he's objecting to is the word "socialist" in "national socialist", rather than implying that national socialism was all fine and dandy before Hitler and co. turned up and ruined it. [On the basis that while the fascist and Nazi regimes may well have had economic policies that were to some degree "collectivist" (state-controlled, at any rate) and therefore to the left of, say, Reagan and Thatcher, the ideology as a whole was pretty far removed from anything that could honestly be called "socialist" in the original Marxist or Marx-inspired sense. Summat like that anyway, this is your and Craner's milieu, innit.]

Edit: um, yeah, what crackerjack said! Well called.

crackerjack
22-04-2010, 12:37 PM
What, so you're saying that national socialism was given a bad rep by the Nazis?

Oh god, not this shit again.

paolo
22-04-2010, 12:38 PM
I'm voting Tory because David Cameron is the only person who can fix our broken society

:D:D

baboon2004
22-04-2010, 12:44 PM
Not wishing to speak for baboon, but I should think the bit he's objecting to is the word "socialist" in "national socialist", rather than implying that national socialism was all fine and dandy before Hitler and co. turned up and ruined it. [On the basis that while the fascist and Nazi regimes may well have had economic policies that were to some degree "collectivist" (state-controlled, at any rate) and therefore to the left of, say, Reagan and Thatcher, the ideology as a whole was pretty far removed from anything that could honestly be called "socialist" in the original Marxist or Marx-inspired sense. Summat like that anyway, this is your and Craner's milieu, innit.]


thanks Tea, spot on - spoken very well on my behalf!

vimothy
22-04-2010, 12:44 PM
Sure--It's not easy to distinguish between performative and ostensible definitions of groups, especially (ostensibly) "political" ones. But like you say, everyone knows that.

baboon2004
22-04-2010, 12:45 PM
I'm voting Tory because David Cameron is the only person who can fix our broken society

:D:D

ha - made me laugh. How many members of his potential cabinet would come from Eton? Mighht as well move Downing Street to fucking (Royal) Berkshire.

vimothy
22-04-2010, 12:47 PM
thanks Tea, spot on - spoken very well on my behalf!

Er, yes, I got that. I guess what I was objecting to isn't as obvious as I thought--On what basis do you know tr00 communism? Maybe, as you almost suggested yourself, tr00 Nazism is actually a lot fluffier than the one practiced by the Nazis. No?

baboon2004
22-04-2010, 12:48 PM
Sure--It's not easy to distinguish between performative and ostensible definitions of groups, especially (ostensibly) "political" ones. But like you say, everyone knows that.

but it's very common for people to use 'communism' in a sense totally divorced from any connection with Marx. that was my original point, and what was bothering me. which then eliminates the space to talk about, well, what Marx was actually talking about.

vimothy
22-04-2010, 12:50 PM
The same argument can be mobilised to defend anything. Try, for example: Neoliberalism was to blame for the global financial crisis. Ah, well, <i>tr00</i> neoliberalism has never been tried, just ostensible neoliberalism by people claiming to be neoliberals, but who nevertheless weren't.

baboon2004
22-04-2010, 12:52 PM
Er, yes, I got that. I guess what I was objecting to isn't as obvious as I thought--On what basis do you know tr00 communism? Maybe, as you almost suggested yourself, tr00 Nazism is actually a lot fluffier than the one practiced by the Nazis. No?

Perhaps. Both words have received an awful lot of bad press.

vimothy
22-04-2010, 12:55 PM
To say "not undeservedly" would be to massively understate the case, IMO.

Anyway...

baboon2004
22-04-2010, 12:57 PM
The same argument can be mobilised to defend anything. Try, for example: Neoliberalism was to blame for the global financial crisis. Ah, well, <i>tr00</i> neoliberalism has never been tried, just ostensible neoliberalism by people claiming to be neoliberals, but who nevertheless weren't.

obviously, in each case you'd have to set out an argument for why this was so, and what true x is. Which, with communism, would probably start out with Lenin, er, getting rid of most of the communes.

baboon2004
22-04-2010, 01:00 PM
To say "not undeservedly" would be to massively understate the case, IMO.

Anyway...

anyway indeed - my point was that New Labour isn't really that communist, and that voting for the Tories won't solve anything.

mixed_biscuits
22-04-2010, 05:19 PM
A loving single parent family is surely to be preferred to a child growing up amidst a disastrous marriage - how many kids have wished their parents had split up earlier to avoid all that pain?

I suppose it cuts both ways: people would be less inclined to divorce (tho' I can't imagine these tax breaks are so significant as to keep together warring couples) but also more inclined to think carefully about the suitability of their prospective spouse in the first place.


Re education - by private school system, you mean the academy system? I've heard plenty of bad things about it. Whether it's internationally renowned (by who?) is of little concern.

Well, private schools are run for profit, but their profits depend on parents being satisfied that their children are being educated well. The parents have money on the line and so will scrutinise the product carefully and vote with their feet if they aren't satisfied. It's no wonder that private education tends to be better, compared to the monolithic state system, in which parents have little choice of school, less input once one has been accorded to them and have to suffer a gamed feedback system (the grading issue).

If a system is established whereby chains of schools are in competition with each other, parents have the wherewithal to choose between them and feedback is kept honest (parents scrutinise the product; universities/business set exams), then I would imagine that standards would rise.

I don't know much about the academy schools but I would imagine that two of the aforementioned prerequisites are absent (perhaps, wherewithal to withdraw pupils/choose a new school; 'success' determined impartially), then there are limits to the scope of possible improvement.

Tentative Andy
22-04-2010, 06:50 PM
The same argument can be mobilised to defend anything. Try, for example: Neoliberalism was to blame for the global financial crisis. Ah, well, <i>tr00</i> neoliberalism has never been tried, just ostensible neoliberalism by people claiming to be neoliberals, but who nevertheless weren't.


I can appreciate this point, but I still feel that m_b comparing the Labour administration to state communism as it was actually practised in places like East Germany, Romania, Yugoslavia etc is a massive exaggeration, to say the least. Tbh it reminded me of nothing more than the claims of the American conservatives for whom any government involvement in health care whatsover equalled a sure-fire step towards Stalinism. All of which is of course not to say that I don't have massive problems with New Labour and how they've run the country.

Also, the issue of private vs public education already has its own lengthy dedicated topic and I feel as if further discussion of it (at least if it goes beyond the specific education pledges being made by each party) should be moved back there, as it's threatening to overwhelm and distract this one.


Anyway, back on topic, I'm considering voting Lib-Dem, but am not fully decided. In the past I've tended to vote SNP, but that doesn't feel like a particulary relevant way to vote this time around.

mixed_biscuits
22-04-2010, 07:20 PM
I can appreciate this point, but I still feel that m_b comparing the Labour administration to state communism as it was actually practised in places like East Germany, Romania, Yugoslavia etc is a massive exaggeration, to say the least.

Well, I've listed what I feel are the parallels and I have the advantage of having experienced life under state communism in Eastern Europe. Many of the points I made come from family members pointing out policies and practices that remind them of the bad ol' days. They consider the main difference being that at least where we were, people knew the rules of the game and saw it for the charade that it was, whereas here the rules, which are changing constantly, do so insidiously, seemingly without people either being aware of the changes or of the effects that they have on society in general.

scottdisco
22-04-2010, 08:20 PM
of course the range of independent trades unions, diverse religious organisations, range of faith schools from different monotheisms backed by the govt (w no one religion officially backed in this sense *), range of opinions able to be expressed in a range of free media, and the ability to wield a free vote (or not if you don't want to, unlike, for instance, Australia), are some differences between, say, the current UK, and Romania in the mid-80s.

(oh and abortion isn't illegal here, to pluck one other improvement from my admittedly arbitrary Romania choice, as then, to the UK, of now, out of the air.)

there are a massive range of beefs people have w how things are in the UK atm (specifically w regard to the New Labour administration since 1997), and in general, true, but i fear one can take a sort of ennui/anomie w regards to your take on political arrangements in this country (and other naturally imperfect democracies) too far... ...i also appreciate (though are lucky enough to have never experienced) that M B's experiences under a large, intrusive state (and that of M B's relatives) are going to shape opinions, to put it very mildly.

i'd have thought, that said, that out of the democracies that have a slightly larger state and, (admittedly, this is a clincher, lower levels of inequality) like Sweden for one, that the social health of that nation is better than a democracy w a smaller state (and, granted, higher levels of inequality) ** such as, er, a certain large country that gives us very good rap, jazz, house, clam chowder, pizza and a huge range of genuinely excellent microbrew beers. (ahem.)

* i don't have to like everything i include in this list

** that said, i know for eg the glass ceiling for women is higher in the States than Sweden - saw some paper on it once, can't find the ref but it wasn't that long ago

scottdisco
22-04-2010, 08:24 PM
though i should add the former Iron Curtain has probably the best hard liquors, that Serbian plum brandy for a start.

Tentative Andy
22-04-2010, 08:32 PM
of course the range of independent trades unions, diverse religious organisations, range of faith schools from different monotheisms backed by the govt (w no one religion officially backed in this sense *), range of opinions able to be expressed in a range of free media, and the ability to wield a free vote (or not if you don't want to, unlike, for instance, Australia), are some differences between, say, the current UK, and Romania in the mid-80s.

(oh and abortion isn't illegal here, to pluck one other improvement from my admittedly arbitrary Romania choice, as then, to the UK, of now, out of the air.)

there are a massive range of beefs people have w how things are in the UK atm (specifically w regard to the New Labour administration since 1997), and in general, true, but i fear one can take a sort of ennui/anomie w regards to your take on political arrangements in this country (and other naturally imperfect democracies) too far... ...i also appreciate (though are lucky enough to have never experienced) that M B's experiences under a large, intrusive state (and that of M B's relatives) are going to shape opinions, to put it very mildly.

i'd have thought, that said, that out of the democracies that have a slightly larger state and, (admittedly, this is a clincher, lower levels of inequality) like Sweden for one, that the social health of that nation is better than a democracy w a smaller state (and, granted, higher levels of inequality) ** such as, er, a certain large country that gives us very good rap, jazz, house, clam chowder, pizza and a huge range of genuinely excellent microbrew beers. (ahem.)

* i don't have to like everything i include in this list

** that said, i know for eg the glass ceiling for women is higher in the States than Sweden - saw some paper on it once, can't find the ref but it wasn't that long ago

Yeah, I'd been trying to write a response, but this basically says everything I wanted to say but better. :)

mixed_biscuits
22-04-2010, 08:59 PM
Tee-hee yes perhaps some over-sensitivity on my part but I think that, at the least, the trend has been clearly towards an *ahem* over-bearing government. Think of me as one of those gas-sensitive guinea pigs that people used to take down the mines.

baboon2004
23-04-2010, 01:35 AM
before they closed them...now who did that again..???!!!

baboon2004
23-04-2010, 01:41 AM
I suppose it cuts both ways: people would be less inclined to divorce (tho' I can't imagine these tax breaks are so significant as to keep together warring couples) but also more inclined to think carefully about the suitability of their prospective spouse in the first place.

Well, private schools are run for profit, but their profits depend on parents being satisfied that their children are being educated well. The parents have money on the line and so will scrutinise the product carefully and vote with their feet if they aren't satisfied. It's no wonder that private education tends to be better, compared to the monolithic state system, in which parents have little choice of school, less input once one has been accorded to them and have to suffer a gamed feedback system (the grading issue).

If a system is established whereby chains of schools are in competition with each other, parents have the wherewithal to choose between them and feedback is kept honest (parents scrutinise the product; universities/business set exams), then I would imagine that standards would rise.

I don't know much about the academy schools but I would imagine that two of the aforementioned prerequisites are absent (perhaps, wherewithal to withdraw pupils/choose a new school; 'success' determined impartially), then there are limits to the scope of possible improvement.

How about not elevating marriage to such an extent in the first place, and respecting equally people's choices about whether to partake in the normativity or not??!

Their profits depend upon RICH parents being satisfied. FFS. Where do less rich parents fit into your schema? How about banning private education, and just having universally good education?

Obv, as it stands, it's no wonder that private education tends to be better, cos they, er, pay teachers more to teach cosseted kids? And education as a product- wow, speechless.

mixed_biscuits
23-04-2010, 08:35 AM
How about not elevating marriage to such an extent in the first place

Marriage is already 'elevated' - that's the whole point, hence the ceremonies, high cost, mobilisation of friends and families etc. You would be hard pushed to find cultures that don't indulge in statusful 'pairing ceremonies.'


Their profits depend upon RICH parents being satisfied. FFS. Where do less rich parents fit into your schema? How about banning private education, and just having universally good education?

You don't have to drive a Bentley to send children to private school (you can even go for free if you win a scholarship). Anyway, my point was that the system would be effective if it replaced the state school sector yet was paid for by taxes; not that state schools be abolished and the poor are left to wander the streets, picking up bits of scrap metal to sell so that they can afford five minutes in DT. 'Universally good education' is a pipe dream at the moment, as aspects of the system as it currently is act against it. You need to pick apart what I have proposed as the three prerequisites for a competitive and high quality system.


Obv, as it stands, it's no wonder that private education tends to be better, cos they, er, pay teachers more to teach cosseted kids? And education as a product- wow, speechless.

'Money' eh, yeah, I forgot that MONEY = BAD. Well how about 'product' as in 'thing produced.'

Teachers aren't necessarily paid more in private schools (for instance, you can't get 'Advanced Skills Teacher' status, and the large salary that comes with it, as a normal classroom teacher) and tend to be under higher pressure because of greater parental say and the drive to make the students (truly) competitive (which both push up standards).

hucks
23-04-2010, 08:54 AM
So.... I went to my local hustings last night (Poplar and Limehouse). Gorgeous George Galloway was there, and he may be massive bellend, but his oratory is pretty impressive. Especially in a church hall. And he brought some jokes, mainly at the expense of the teenage Tory candidate.

The Tory was a total Michael Gove clone, but had that really Tory thing of getting visibly irritated when he was being criticised. Anyway, he looked like the favourite, cos the Labour incumbent looks knackered and a little disbelieving that he's been given a harder constituency to try and win this time out following the boundary changes.

craner
23-04-2010, 10:20 AM
Jim Fitzpatrick is pretty sound. I suspect, as an Oona is being tried on him, it'll hand the Tories a rare East End victory, scuppering another established and talented Labour MP for...what?

scottdisco
23-04-2010, 10:34 AM
i like the sound of Rushanara Ali who is running for Labour in BG & B. i wonder do you know much about her Ollie? she was a Parliamentary Asst to King, so says Wiki, but a bit ago: '97-99.

Slothrop
23-04-2010, 10:41 AM
Teachers aren't necessarily paid more in private schools (for instance, you can't get 'Advanced Skills Teacher' status, and the large salary that comes with it, as a normal classroom teacher) and tend to be under higher pressure because of greater parental say and the drive to make the students (truly) competitive (which both push up standards).
So the problem with teachers in state schools is that they basically can't be arsed, not that they're having to waste a lot of time dealing with unmotivated and disruptive kids and that they've got much bigger classes to teach? They just need to be under more pressure and these things will suddenly cease to be a problem?

craner
23-04-2010, 10:47 AM
I know her. She was an Oona protegee. Her selection was almost as controversial as Oona's originally was. She's one of these smart, tenacious, ambitious 2nd/3rd generation South Asian daughters, a lot like an ex-girlfriend of mine as a matter of fact -- I know the type, very effiecient and intense and hungry. What could be better for a 5-year neglected borough? If the rump that's left of Respect can't hold the Aldgate East Bengali lockdown, which they won't, I imagine this going back to Labour, just. The BGB CLP has always been pretty strong, if very fractious. (The local Lib Dem candidate is a lot stronger this time around, but the local party is a joke.)

I'm actually in Cardiff North this time, stumping for Julie Morgan. It's a lot quieter!

Mr. Tea
23-04-2010, 11:33 AM
Gorgeous George Galloway was there, and he may be massive bellend, but his oratory is pretty impressive.

Well we all know who ELSE was a great public speaker, don't we? ;)

crackerjack
23-04-2010, 12:22 PM
I know her. She was an Oona protegee. Her selection was almost as controversial as Oona's originally was. She's one of these smart, tenacious, ambitious 2nd/3rd generation South Asian daughters, a lot like an ex-girlfriend of mine as a matter of fact -- I know the type, very effiecient and intense and hungry. What could be better for a 5-year neglected borough? If the rump that's left of Respect can't hold the Aldgate East Bengali lockdown, which they won't, I imagine this going back to Labour, just. The BGB CLP has always been pretty strong, if very fractious. (The local Lib Dem candidate is a lot stronger this time around, but the local party is a joke.)

She knocked on my door about 2 years ago - the weekend of the Election That Never Was. Thought she seemed a bit lightweight, her canvassing companion did most of the talking.

At least, from what I gather, she predates the IFE infiltration.

Is Jim F really going to lose?

vimothy
23-04-2010, 03:00 PM
Positive messages:

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/.a/6a00d83451b31c69e2013480008990970c-500wi

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2010/04/what-other-positive-messages-would-you-like-to-see-on-tory-posters.html

nomadthethird
23-04-2010, 04:17 PM
So the problem with teachers in state schools is that they basically can't be arsed, not that they're having to waste a lot of time dealing with unmotivated and disruptive kids and that they've got much bigger classes to teach? They just need to be under more pressure and these things will suddenly cease to be a problem?

I'm at a state school right now, and I could write you a laundry list of problems with the whole system. Most of the information they're throwing at us here is the same as anywhere, but the quality of education is nowhere near what I got at the private college and university I attended.

And the problems have nothing to do with the teachers not caring. They try really very hard. The problem is, because so many of the students are ill-prepared, or they believe college should be an extention of their shitty public high school experience, where they got an A for simply showing up and writing their name on the paper, the professors are always playing catch up. They end up simply teaching students how to pass tests, and cram facts, instead of teaching them to think through the material.

I could spend all day complaining about this really, so I won't bore anyone further...

craner
23-04-2010, 06:32 PM
She knocked on my door about 2 years ago - the weekend of the Election That Never Was. Thought she seemed a bit lightweight, her canvassing companion did most of the talking.


Well, you say that, and people said the same about King too, but these women are smart, alert, diligent. Oona was super-diligent as a constituency MP, unlike twat chops who deposed her. Also, you should have seen who else was running for nomination -- Rupa fucking Huq, for one!


the IFE infiltration

You hit the nail on the head, here. I mean, I haven't been in close contact with the BGB CLP since early 2007, and things were fractious enough then -- the young upwardly mobile Blairite right, the Old Labour Unionist Left, and the far ("hippy") Left all scrapping over the fall out from Oona's loss during the bleak days and weeks and then months after the election -- but judging from Gilligan's revelations, which I see no reason to disbelieve, Tower Hamlets Labour is in dead trouble.

Also, seriously, why can't Galloway just fuck off?

scottdisco
24-04-2010, 09:57 AM
yes i was quite taken w the career section of Rushanara Ali's wiki.

crackerjack
24-04-2010, 10:20 AM
Well, you say that, and people said the same about King too, but these women are smart, alert, diligent. Oona was super-diligent as a constituency MP, unlike twat chops who deposed her. Also, you should have seen who else was running for nomination -- Rupa fucking Huq, for one!

Rupa can knock on my door any time she likes.

craner
24-04-2010, 02:22 PM
You mean Konnie, surely?

crackerjack
24-04-2010, 03:04 PM
You mean Konnie, surely?

did i say i was fussy?

scottdisco
24-04-2010, 08:55 PM
if Konnie Huq knocked on my door i would die

baboon2004
25-04-2010, 01:36 AM
she's alright, but c'mon!

crackerjack
25-04-2010, 08:21 PM
Well, you say that, and people said the same about King too, but these women are smart, alert, diligent. Oona was super-diligent as a constituency MP, unlike twat chops who deposed her. Also, you should have seen who else was running for nomination -- Rupa fucking Huq, for one!



You hit the nail on the head, here. I mean, I haven't been in close contact with the BGB CLP since early 2007, and things were fractious enough then -- the young upwardly mobile Blairite right, the Old Labour Unionist Left, and the far ("hippy") Left all scrapping over the fall out from Oona's loss during the bleak days and weeks and then months after the election -- but judging from Gilligan's revelations, which I see no reason to disbelieve, Tower Hamlets Labour is in dead trouble.

Also, seriously, why can't Galloway just fuck off?

Of course, we also have the referendum on the directly elected mayor on May 6, which I'm convinced will be a disaster.

There seems to be almost no attention paid to it - I've had just one leaflet on the subject (arrived with Respect's, natch). A yes vote will be the worst thing to happen to TH politics since Derek Beackon.

crackerjack
26-04-2010, 10:05 AM
This is worth readiing
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/25/cameron-clegg-conservatives-coalition-differences

baboon2004
26-04-2010, 10:48 AM
This is worth readiing
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/25/cameron-clegg-conservatives-coalition-differences

Urgh, awful person. Jackie Ashley, I mean. Good enough article though. Very depressing.

baboon2004
26-04-2010, 10:51 AM
This is worth readiing
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/25/cameron-clegg-conservatives-coalition-differences

Urgh, awful person. Jackie Ashley, I mean. Good enough article though. Very depressing.

baboon2004
26-04-2010, 10:56 AM
This is worth readiing
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/25/cameron-clegg-conservatives-coalition-differences

Urgh, awful person. Jackie Ashley, I mean. Good enough article though. Very depressing.

Mr. Tea
26-04-2010, 12:29 PM
Heard you the first time, Brother B. ;)

From that CiF piece:


Soon we'll need a parliamentary version of chaos theory – quantum politics, perhaps.

Eh-UR! Science analogy FAIL.

Edit: and senior Lib Dems (specifically Paddy A quoting Clegg, I think) were reported as ruling out a coalition with the Tories in this morning's papers. So ner.

crackerjack
26-04-2010, 01:57 PM
Edit: and senior Lib Dems (specifically Paddy A quoting Clegg, I think) were reported as ruling out a coalition with the Tories in this morning's papers. So ner.

Linkage please

edit: so far as I know, the only thing he's specifically ruled out is giving brown first option on forming a govt if Labour come 3rd. Anything else is just anonymous whispering in the right journalist's ears to pacify voters fearful they might prop up the opposing team.

samdiamond
26-04-2010, 04:18 PM
I hated Galloway enough before this election, but the Respect bus has somehow pushed this hatred to an inconceivable level

Tentative Andy
26-04-2010, 04:40 PM
Am I just stating the bloody obvious if I say that the whole election situation is fukin depressing whichever way you look at it?

I mean, for those here who are 100%, sure-fire decided that they're going to vote Labour again, fair play to you - but surely you can't be going into it with your heart overfilling with joy and hope? I'm firmly behind the whole 'Anyone But Cameron' strategy, but still this time more than ever the 'lesser of two evils' aspect to things seems more obvious to me than it's ever been. Vote for another term's worth of shite, to avoid a potential term's worth of even heavier shite...

(I guess what would help to some extent is if I had more certainty about exactly what voting Lib Dem and seeing a general swell in their representation would entail after the elections. And even then, by natural/deep inclinations I don't see myself as a Lib Dem man, they're still somewhere in the 'best of a bad bunch' category).

massrock
26-04-2010, 04:56 PM
just testing...

hucks
26-04-2010, 06:06 PM
OK, says here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/audio/2010/apr/26/guardian-election-daily-podcast#start-of-comments) that Fitzpatrick is still the favourite for Poplar and Limehouse. Overall, good.

Mr. Tea
26-04-2010, 06:20 PM
Linkage please

edit: so far as I know, the only thing he's specifically ruled out is giving brown first option on forming a govt if Labour come 3rd. Anything else is just anonymous whispering in the right journalist's ears to pacify voters fearful they might prop up the opposing team.

Um, well when I said "the papers", I really meant "the Metro". :o

crackerjack
26-04-2010, 08:09 PM
OK, says here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/audio/2010/apr/26/guardian-election-daily-podcast#start-of-comments) that Fitzpatrick is still the favourite for Poplar and Limehouse. Overall, good.

the bookies i saw have the tory as v slight favourite over Labour - 5/6 vs 6/5 :(

Respect still 5/2 in BGB, with Labour 2/7 - assumed it would be much safer than that for us :(

don_quixote
26-04-2010, 09:19 PM
I'm at a state school right now, and I could write you a laundry list of problems with the whole system. Most of the information they're throwing at us here is the same as anywhere, but the quality of education is nowhere near what I got at the private college and university I attended.

And the problems have nothing to do with the teachers not caring. They try really very hard. The problem is, because so many of the students are ill-prepared, or they believe college should be an extention of their shitty public high school experience, where they got an A for simply showing up and writing their name on the paper, the professors are always playing catch up. They end up simply teaching students how to pass tests, and cram facts, instead of teaching them to think through the material.

I could spend all day complaining about this really, so I won't bore anyone further...

i'm really sorry, but i'm struggling to comprehend some of the issues you're getting at here. are you talking about the uk? cos the language you're using doesn't coincide with my experience.

i can only talk about private education as a perception, but it appears to me the difference is thus; every private schooled person i have met is "i am privileged" and it is drilled into them that failure is the fault of themselves, i imagine due to the messages they received at home. as a teacher in state education i feel like i am constantly trying to make the curriculum appealing and wanted the students to want to do well. it is hard to convey the perception that they are letting themselves down when they are ambitionless. bit of a sweeping statement, but i'd say that was prevalent.

i don't think this is the fault of the government though and i'll be voting labour on may 6th because i think this country is alright really.

DannyL
26-04-2010, 09:48 PM
This is good, I think, insofar as my limited grasp of economics allows:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/25/what-about-the-financial-crisis

Basic thrust - they are avoiding talking about the difficult stuff, is spot on, I think.

vimothy
26-04-2010, 10:52 PM
That may well be true, but it does not follow that the assumptions that writer makes are therefore correct. We have reverted back to a pre-depression era macro as a guide to policy, and on this issue there is little light between any of the parties. Hell, even the SWP has its own programme of cuts to reduce net spending and save Britain's finances. Very depressing.

mistersloane
27-04-2010, 03:17 AM
Just drove back through Barking and Dagenham after doing our 'together, we can psychically kill Nick Griffin' art thing at a gallery in Southend - Martin I used your quote from here about a 'psychic mexican wave' in it. Southend was as close to the heartland as I could get, and thought it was good that I did an akshun in video the same night as the BNP released their party political broadcast.

It's the advertising hoardings that are really getting to me in this election, I don't think I've been in a position to see them by car in other elections, they're not quite the same by tube or bus. The inundation of them. The Conservatives ones are genuinely 'what the fuck' - the one about bringing back the birch is just too much.

Little tip offs on 'All Advertising Must Die' billboards-to-burn whilst going through B&G - Pimms and Schweppes had a deeply strange Union Jack one which has to be deliberate given the area it was in - won't be having Pimms this summer then...and Screwfix car mechanics are using BNP colours/typeface, or it may be the other way round.

I'm not finding this election depressing but I do find it distasteful - and I won't be voting. I've spoilt my ballot before but this time I don't want to be on the Electoral Register. As far as I know, no-one's got my address at the moment and I kind of like that occasionally.

nomad's in the U.S hence the education stuff being different.

baboon2004
27-04-2010, 10:08 AM
Just drove back through Barking and Dagenham after doing our 'together, we can psychically kill Nick Griffin' art thing at a gallery in Southend - Martin I used your quote from here about a 'psychic mexican wave' in it. Southend was as close to the heartland as I could get, and thought it was good that I did an akshun in video the same night as the BNP released their party political broadcast.


You'll have to kill this man as well!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/04/bnp-mark-collett-nick-griffin

Tentative Andy
27-04-2010, 10:11 AM
i'll be voting labour on may 6th because i think this country is alright really.

Wow. In some ways I wish I could feel the same, but really can't imagine doing so in the current situation.

Slothrop
27-04-2010, 11:50 AM
New question: if you live in a super safe seat so noone gives a shit how you vote anyway (www.voterpower.org.uk reckons I have 0.017 of a vote, although that is a pro electoral reform site so they'll be choosing their scale to exaggerate the effect as much as possible), what's the best protest?

Not voting?
Protest vote for a minor party?
Vote for the lib dems to strengthen their argument that first past the post constituency based voting is ridiculous?

DannyL
27-04-2010, 11:52 AM
a pre-depression era macro

What exactly does this phrase mean Vim? Ta.

vimothy
27-04-2010, 12:25 PM
I just mean that everyone thinks we now have to have austerity measures to return the public finances to "health", i.e. that the economy is some kind of morality tale where if you "live beyond your means" you have to suffer the consequences--this is basically a varient of liquidationism circa 1929, and it seems to be the guiding philosophy of all three parties. Of course, it's nuts. What purpose does it serve to fire people from the public sector? You don't save money by foregoing output--it's totally fallacious pre-Keynesian pre-rational supersition.

But the newspapers have everybody in such a blind funk that large sections of the population are effectively calling for their own impoverishment / deflation. Up is down. Left is right. For example, today I noticed an NPR blog post calling for donations to pay down the national debt. It's ass backwards--the national debt is an asset, not a liabiltiy, so here is a public radio station trying to decrease the macro level / sectoral financial "equity" of the American people, and thinking that they're serving some kind of public purpose by doing it!

crackerjack
27-04-2010, 01:53 PM
Heard you the first time, Brother B. ;)

From that CiF piece:



Eh-UR! Science analogy FAIL.

Edit: and senior Lib Dems (specifically Paddy A quoting Clegg, I think) were reported as ruling out a coalition with the Tories in this morning's papers. So ner.

Incidentally Tea, assuming you're still in BGB, check out the Lib Dem candidate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajmal_Masroor
http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/ajmalmasroor

Mr. Tea
27-04-2010, 01:57 PM
Incidentally Tea, assuming you're still in BGB, check out the Lib Dem candidate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajmal_Masroor
http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/ajmalmasroor

You know, I think I'm actually in Poplar and Limehouse since there was a boundary change a few years back. But cheers for the links, I'll have a look anyway. I'll probably end up voting LD by 'default' because there's no way I'm voting Tory or Labour and it goes without saying Respect can fuck right off.

I want to form the Contempt party. Who's with me? :D

samdiamond
27-04-2010, 03:38 PM
I'm in Poplar and Limehouse, Respect people are everywhere. My mate was in the lift up to his flat yesterday and 3 guys asked him who he was voting for and invited him to their flat so they could persuade him to vote Respect. Very creepy.

crackerjack
27-04-2010, 03:54 PM
I'm in Poplar and Limehouse, Respect people are everywhere. My mate was in the lift up to his flat yesterday and 3 guys asked him who he was voting for and invited him to their flat so they could persuade him to vote Respect. Very creepy.

Ugh, that's pretty nasty.

I might be down there canvassing later this week :eek:

4linehaiku
27-04-2010, 05:45 PM
According to that voterpower website I live in the 10th most powerful constituency in the UK, so I have reconsidered my initial 'vote Green because it doesn't matter anyway' stance. Probably going to vote Lib Dem now and feel like a complete and utter twat when they inevitable fuck over 99% of their new voters by forming a coalition with the Tories.

Edit: Says something about the current electoral system that living somewhere where my vote actually matters makes me less likely to vote for a candidate I support. Bring on the STV.

craner
28-04-2010, 10:45 AM
Cameron quoting Gladstone yesterday; Cable quoting Cameron with approval during his IOD speech just now.

crackerjack
28-04-2010, 11:09 AM
Cameron quoting Gladstone yesterday; Cable quoting Cameron with approval during his IOD speech just now.

It's one big Lib Con love-in :(

When we get Tory-led, Lib-backed coalition I'm gonna spend 5 years saying "I fucking told you so".

mistersloane
28-04-2010, 11:14 AM
You'll have to kill this man as well!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/04/bnp-mark-collett-nick-griffin

I've been claiming we caused that on the press release!

baboon2004
28-04-2010, 12:52 PM
I've been claiming we caused that on the press release!

it was all a bit mysterious....

Mr. Tea
28-04-2010, 01:43 PM
How amazing would it have been if he'd actually done it, though? It would have been a sort of really lame, suburban, English, 21st-century Night Of The Long Knives.

grizzleb
28-04-2010, 01:47 PM
How amazing would it have been if he'd actually done it, though? It would have been a sort of really lame, suburban, English, 21st-century Night Of The Long Knives.That's exactly what it reminded me of - It kind of made me wonder about the fantastical way in which much of that party probably views itself, totally trying to play out this romaniticised fascist narrative, it's sad and hilarious.

baboon2004
28-04-2010, 01:53 PM
Probably night of the broken bottle, it would have ended up as.

Tentative Andy
28-04-2010, 03:10 PM
It's one big Lib Con love-in :(

When we get Tory-led, Lib-backed coalition I'm gonna spend 5 years saying "I fucking told you so".

Yes, but... each vote for the Lib-Dems takes a vote away from the Tories as much as it takes one away from Labour. In fact, as I see it each vote lost in this way affects the Tories worse, because Labour - being the encumbant party in government and in the highest proportion of constituencies - only need to avoid losing more than a certain number of votes, whereas the Tories need to gain a substantial ammount.
If a rise in Liberal support splits the opposition vote within Labour constituencies, then that's something that could end up reducing the likliehood of a hung-parliament/coalition situation arising.

As I see it, all the talk about the coalition is all cloak and dagger stuff at this stage, it's very reliant on rumour. And with no personal offence meant, it's all coming from people who clearly have a huge vested interest in minimising the Lib-Dem support. (How could it not be so in the run-up to an election, I guess?) My own guess (and it is a guess!) is that all the mixed messages and secrecy coming from the Lib Dems means that in the event of a hung parliment they'll just form a coalition with whoever is the single largest party. And Labour are still most likely to be that party.

Really though, this whole debate is again indicative of the whole depressing situation for politics in the country right now - they way people are trapped in a situation of 'well, things are pretty bad right now, there's a way of vote that might make then slightly better, but perhaps I should think twice because doing so might accidently make things even worse'. People get scared away of attempting to support change or from voting in a way that actually represents their beliefs, and that can't be good for democracy overall.

crackerjack
28-04-2010, 05:21 PM
Yes, but... each vote for the Lib-Dems takes a vote away from the Tories as much as it takes one away from Labour. In fact, as I see it each vote lost in this way affects the Tories worse, because Labour - being the encumbant party in government and in the highest proportion of constituencies - only need to avoid losing more than a certain number of votes, whereas the Tories need to gain a substantial ammount.
If a rise in Liberal support splits the opposition vote within Labour constituencies, then that's something that could end up reducing the likliehood of a hung-parliament/coalition situation arising.

Only to those thinking of voting Tory as an anti-Labour vote. That doesn't apply to any of the people I'm talking about, most of whom see a Lib Dem vote as the best left-wing option.


As I see it, all the talk about the coalition is all cloak and dagger stuff at this stage, it's very reliant on rumour. And with no personal offence meant, it's all coming from people who clearly have a huge vested interest in minimising the Lib-Dem support. (How could it not be so in the run-up to an election, I guess?) My own guess (and it is a guess!) is that all the mixed messages and secrecy coming from the Lib Dems means that in the event of a hung parliment they'll just form a coalition with whoever is the single largest party. And Labour are still most likely to be that party.

Perhaps, though I doubt it. But Clegg has explicitly ruled out the possibility of forming a coalition with Labour if they come 3rd in the popular vote and if Brown remains i/c. Since the prospect of Labour dropping Brown immediately after the election, putting another 'unelected' PM in Downing St is close to zero, that means a Lib-Con coalition.


Really though, this whole debate is again indicative of the whole depressing situation for politics in the country right now - they way people are trapped in a situation of 'well, things are pretty bad right now, there's a way of vote that might make then slightly better, but perhaps I should think twice because doing so might accidently make things even worse'. People get scared away of attempting to support change or from voting in a way that actually represents their beliefs, and that can't be good for democracy overall

No argument with that.

gumdrops
28-04-2010, 07:33 PM
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/elections/talking-elections-post/post/talking_election/25/comment-the-attack-on-brown-is-hypocritical.html

i agree mostly with this.
if i was gonna vote brown, his reaction this morning wouldnt convince me otherwise.

scottdisco
28-04-2010, 07:42 PM
this must be one of the few times a politician is in trouble for speaking the truth (and in plain, concise speech too)...

Mr. Tea
28-04-2010, 10:10 PM
Yeah, it kind of made me warm to Brown, almost. Well, warm to the idea of warming to him, anyway.

Quite apart from the idiotic nature of the woman's question, hasn't there been a net outflux of East Europeans from this country over the last 18 months or so?

don_quixote
28-04-2010, 10:14 PM
definitely voting for him now. that conversation is awesome.

Webstarr
29-04-2010, 12:11 AM
Yeah, it kind of made me warm to Brown, almost. Well, warm to the idea of warming to him, anyway.

Quite apart from the idiotic nature of the woman's question, hasn't there been a net outflux of East Europeans from this country over the last 18 months or so?

I believe so, also there is the lowest number of asylum seekers this year for quite a few years. Funny how no one has mentioned this yet in the immigration debate...

john eden
29-04-2010, 09:47 AM
a rundown of the candidates in Hackney North and Stoke Newington:
http://www.uncarved.org/blog/2010/04/election-selection/

mrfaucet
29-04-2010, 05:49 PM
I just mean that everyone thinks we now have to have austerity measures to return the public finances to "health", i.e. that the economy is some kind of morality tale where if you "live beyond your means" you have to suffer the consequences--this is basically a varient of liquidationism circa 1929, and it seems to be the guiding philosophy of all three parties. Of course, it's nuts. What purpose does it serve to fire people from the public sector? You don't save money by foregoing output--it's totally fallacious pre-Keynesian pre-rational supersition.

But the newspapers have everybody in such a blind funk that large sections of the population are effectively calling for their own impoverishment / deflation. Up is down. Left is right. For example, today I noticed an NPR blog post calling for donations to pay down the national debt. It's ass backwards--the national debt is an asset, not a liabiltiy, so here is a public radio station trying to decrease the macro level / sectoral financial "equity" of the American people, and thinking that they're serving some kind of public purpose by doing it!

Vim could you recommend some articles on this?

vimothy
29-04-2010, 06:58 PM
Hard to know where to begin, really!

Try these maybe:

http://neweconomicperspectives.blogspot.com/2009/08/keyness-relevance-and-krugmans.html
http://neweconomicperspectives.blogspot.com/2009/06/will-run-up-in-government-debt-doom-us_17.html
http://neweconomicperspectives.blogspot.com/2009/07/sector-financial-balances-model-of_26.html
http://neweconomicperspectives.blogspot.com/2009/07/employing-krugmans-cross-farewell-mr.html
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=3574

crackerjack
29-04-2010, 06:58 PM
Quote Originally Posted by vimothy View Post
But the newspapers have everybody in such a blind funk that large sections of the population are effectively calling for their own impoverishment / deflation. Up is down. Left is right. For example, today I noticed an NPR blog post calling for donations to pay down the national debt. It's ass backwards--the national debt is an asset, not a liabiltiy, so here is a public radio station trying to decrease the macro level / sectoral financial "equity" of the American people, and thinking that they're serving some kind of public purpose by doing it!

I don't get that bit. I mean, obviously I agree with your Keynesian politics and am delighted to see you turning into Will Hutton, but how is a debt an asset?

btw, see this? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/29/mervyn-king-warns-election-victor) Not just the papers...although I do wonder how the finances will look if/when we privatise the banks for a big fat profit

Leo
29-04-2010, 07:43 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/29/unpublished-sun-poll-brown-bigot

seems most people haven't changed their mind...not that the sun would tell you that!

vimothy
29-04-2010, 09:09 PM
I don't get that bit. I mean, obviously I agree with your Keynesian politics and am delighted to see you turning into Will Hutton, but how is a debt an asset?

*Commits seppuku*

Er, but anyway, that's just what it is. Debt is an asset of the lender (saver) and a liability of the borrower (dissaver). Government liabilities are assets of the household, corporate and foreign sectors. Financial assets, i.e. future cash-flow promises by the government to the non-government (largest holders are pension funds--which is fitting in that govt debt is effectively an annuity), are a form of (financial) saving by the non-government sector. So my savings (£100, in a treasury note) are my asset (savings), and the governments's liability (borrowings).

When the government borrows to spend (i.e. deficit or net spend), then, it does two things: spends, and borrows. Spends, raising aggregate income (or demand or whatever you want to call it); and borrows, raising net saving. On the national income accounts, this is shown by (something like) the identity: flow of household saving + flow of corporate saving net of investment = flow of government deficit (but more complicated and inc. foreign sector). More deficit = more net saving. National debt = cumulative stock of net savings.

Net as in the sense of net of liabilities within the private (households and business) sector. Govt debt is an "outsider asset". It's like a buffer stock of balance sheet financial "equity" or "ownership interest" for the private sector (financial assets minus liabilities > 0, i.e. net worth). In a crisis, everyone is trying maximise this gap, reduce spending and increase saving, and so by doing it at the same time, causing a recession. People hoard want to liquidity (govt debt, the more liquid the better), so the government should just man up and provide as much debt (i.e. private savings, i.e. govt net spending) as required.


btw, see this? Not just the papers...although I do wonder how the finances will look if/when we privatise the banks for a big fat profit

King says a lot of stuff I don't agree with. Posen seems most sensible of MPC. King is suggesting choosing paper gains for real costs in terms of lost output is inevitable. Definitely suboptimal.

Not impressed at all with the fact that we might make a profit on the banks. That just means we've managed to reflate the system and turn the clock back to 2007 in no time! Lots of blogs think this is proof that the govt is doing something right. Maybe it is but I don't think it's this. Looks like we're in for some crazy ass times in the financial sector again, anyway. Maybe come back for another look at the value of this paper in 12 months...

vimothy
30-04-2010, 02:27 PM
Ha! Reading that back to myself, not really very clear is it?!

hucks
30-04-2010, 02:29 PM
oooof Labour (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/04/uk-seats-projection-tories-299-labour.html)

Last night's debate was utterly dismal - bashing foreigners and dole scroungers, promising infinte cuts and not saying what they were. Fuckers.

So, the best hope is for a hung parliament and a subsequent change to the voting system, for its own sake, really, not that it would by itself solve any of the above.

Tentative Andy
30-04-2010, 03:04 PM
oooof Labour (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/04/uk-seats-projection-tories-299-labour.html)


Hmmm, looks like Cracker's nightmare will come true based on that.
Actually, I wonder which would be worse - the Tories and Libs in a power-sharing coalition (but with the Tories the majority party obv), or the Tories in outright power with the Lib-Dems as a much stronger opposition party than before, to the stage of being close to complimentary with Labour?
Honest question, I'm really not sure, other than feeling it'll pretty bloody awful either way. If this figures are any way accurate it looks like it's got to be one of the two though, unless there's a sudden, massive crumbling of the Lib-Dem support, with most of the prospective voters going back to Labour.


Anyway, been looking at my local constituency more (I'm a new resident here): Glasgow Central has a fairly substantial Labour majority, with the Lib-Dems just ahead of SNP for second place based on last time. Tories are way, way behind here, hardly much more support last time than the Greens and the SSP. Mohammed Sarwar is stepping down as the MP this time though, not sure how that will effect things; think he was reasonably popular despite vague rumours of corruption at times.
All of this leaves me totally unsure about which way to vote, or even if my vote will have any effect no matter which way I cast it. Ho-hum.

crackerjack
30-04-2010, 05:56 PM
Hmmm, looks like Cracker's nightmare will come true based on that.
Actually, I wonder which would be worse - the Tories and Libs in a power-sharing coalition (but with the Tories the majority party obv), or the Tories in outright power with the Lib-Dems as a much stronger opposition party than before, to the stage of being close to complimentary with Labour?


Has to be the latter - though I fear the Tories are heading for an outright majority. The Lib Dem rank and file is pretty leftish, and would have to act as some sort of brake on Clegg's Tory instincts in coaltion. They would quite reasonably insist on electoral reform as their minimum price, too.

Labour need a spell in opposition to work out what they're about in 21st century. It's what happens in the meantime that worries me

craner
30-04-2010, 07:08 PM
I predict the Tories form a government on the smallest of majoritities. Hostage to fortune!

craner
30-04-2010, 07:09 PM
I don't see a coalition government forming, let alone lasting 6 months.

grizzleb
30-04-2010, 08:48 PM
I predict the Tories form a government on the smallest of majoritities. Hostage to fortune!Yeah, I think this is what's going to happen too.

don_quixote
30-04-2010, 08:53 PM
can't see a tory majority. not if the lib dem level of support holds.

crackerjack
30-04-2010, 09:33 PM
I don't see a coalition government forming, let alone lasting 6 months.

So what happens if the Tories fall short, even with Unionist support, of the magic number?

Minority govt, emergency budget voted down, blame the naysayers and call a 2nd election.....?

Coalition seems logical enough, but we've got so little experience of it happening here, maybe the continental model just doesn't apply. Big parties are so entrenched. There are always these backstage whispers about electoral reform, that no matter what the leaders say, the parties won't hack it.

mixed_biscuits
02-05-2010, 08:28 AM
Whilst being grilled by Paxman on the telly yesterday evening, the Green party leader Caroline Lucas mentioned their 'Citizen's Income' policy: 'an unconditional payment made to each individual as a right of citizenship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income).'

Good idea?

crackerjack
02-05-2010, 02:36 PM
The hate method (http://www6.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2010/05/01/still-cant-work-out-how-to-vote/)

(if the LibDems can't bring themselves to hate JC, they really are too wishy-washy to vote for)

grizzleb
03-05-2010, 03:19 AM
Whilst being grilled by Paxman on the telly yesterday evening, the Green party leader Caroline Lucas mentioned their 'Citizen's Income' policy: 'an unconditional payment made to each individual as a right of citizenship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income).'

Good idea?I like it. Or, you could basically tax any income 100% over a certain amount. Does anyone need to be able to earn over £300,000 a year? What other daft, half-considered ideas for taxing/welfare/whatever have people thought up?

padraig (u.s.)
03-05-2010, 05:00 PM
What other daft, half-considered ideas for taxing/welfare/whatever have people thought up?

Reaganomics

mixed_biscuits
03-05-2010, 08:25 PM
I like it. Or, you could basically tax any income 100% over a certain amount. Does anyone need to be able to earn over £300,000 a year? What other daft, half-considered ideas for taxing/welfare/whatever have people thought up?

Taxing at 100% would effectively be banning salaries above that level - bad news for Rooney, et al, however much say they may have in the cash they attract to their employers.

Maybe we could look forward to watching the premier league played out in Swiss stadia!

mixed_biscuits
03-05-2010, 08:33 PM
New question: if you live in a super safe seat so noone gives a shit how you vote anyway (www.voterpower.org.uk reckons I have 0.017 of a vote, although that is a pro electoral reform site so they'll be choosing their scale to exaggerate the effect as much as possible), what's the best protest?

Not to pick on you in particular, Slothrop, but isn't it a logical error to see voting in a safe seat as being less 'useful' than the others - similar to thinking that a win late in the season, to take the league, is worth more than one earlier on?

Another way of looking at it would be to consider that the losing votes in a marginal seat would be worth less than those in a safe seat, as you have a larger number of voters whose preferences are 'ignored.'

Or, alternatively, a 'safe seat' is nothing more than an overwhelming show of voter power. :)

massrock
04-05-2010, 11:39 AM
You do have the power, May the 4th be with you.

http://torymergency.webfreehosting.net/

Slothrop
04-05-2010, 12:21 PM
Not to pick on you in particular, Slothrop, but isn't it a logical error to see voting in a safe seat as being less 'useful' than the others - similar to thinking that a win late in the season, to take the league, is worth more than one earlier on?

Another way of looking at it would be to consider that the losing votes in a marginal seat would be worth less than those in a safe seat, as you have a larger number of voters whose preferences are 'ignored.'

Or, alternatively, a 'safe seat' is nothing more than an overwhelming show of voter power. :)

No.

If 1000 people in Tottenham are against a policy and 500 people in (say) Enfield Southgate are in favour of it, then a sensible political party is going to support that policy because the odd thousand in Tottenham makes no difference whereas the 500 in Enfield could easily swing the result.

Hence I have less influence on political decision making than I would if I was voting in Enfield.

mixed_biscuits
04-05-2010, 01:37 PM
If 1000 people in Tottenham are against a policy and 500 people in (say) Enfield Southgate are in favour of it, then a sensible political party is going to support that policy because the odd thousand in Tottenham makes no difference whereas the 500 in Enfield could easily swing the result.

Hence I have less influence on political decision making than I would if I was voting in Enfield.

Ah, okay.

crackerjack
04-05-2010, 08:34 PM
Lib Dems slipping everywhere

Down to 24 in tomorrow's YouGov, 3rd in the poll of polls

Nation out of step with Dissensus

hucks
04-05-2010, 08:47 PM
Nation out of step with Dissensus

As per fucking usual :rolleyes:

paolo
06-05-2010, 06:53 PM
Green Party bwoyyyyyeeee :flavaflav:

Felt lovely walking back from the polling station in the spring sunshine :)

Tentative Andy
06-05-2010, 07:02 PM
Just got off the subway where a friendly bloke from the Anarchist Federation was handing everyone in the carriage pamphlets explaining why the best option was not to vote at all. Sadly in my case it was already far too late...

Mr. Tea
06-05-2010, 07:21 PM
Smiley Tory woman outside the polling station said "Thank you!" as I left just now; I should have said "What for?". I'd gone there straight from work...hope she wasn't assuming I'd voted Tory just because I'm white and was wearing a suit.

Shit, I've been STEREOTYPED! :(

vimothy
06-05-2010, 07:24 PM
I imagine you in pinstripes, Mr Tea--I hope this is true.

scottdisco
06-05-2010, 07:24 PM
Smiley Tory woman outside the polling station said "Thank you!" as I left just now; I should have said "What for?". I'd gone there straight from work...hope she wasn't assuming I'd voted Tory just because I'm white and was wearing a suit.

Shit, I've been STEREOTYPED! :(

i went to the polling station in grey jogging bottoms and a grey hoodie and black trainers. the Lib Dem and Tory folk outside the station gave me a berth. i too know the pain of stereotyping ;)

scottdisco
06-05-2010, 07:32 PM
I imagine you in pinstripes, Mr Tea--I hope this is true.

IIRC Tea does have a good line in fancy brollies? (i may be making that up.)

Tentative Andy
06-05-2010, 07:36 PM
Only seemed to have SNP and Labour folks outside of my local polling booth. The SNP lot were friendly enough, approached each person, gave a few polite, brief but constructive words about why to vote for their candidate.
The couple of Labour campaigners were very moany, seemed to be only interested in picking fights with/yelling negative slogans at the SNP campaigners. You'd think they might have learned by now that they need to, y'know, engage people and make themselves appealing to them and all that stuff. (But at least they bothered to show up, I guess).

crackerjack
06-05-2010, 07:46 PM
Only seemed to have SNP and Labour folks outside of my local polling booth. The SNP lot were friendly enough, approached each person, gave a few polite, brief but constructive words about why to vote for their candidate.
The couple of Labour campaigners were very moany, seemed to be only interested in picking fights with/yelling negative slogans at the SNP campaigners. You'd think they might have learned by now that they need to, y'know, engage people and make themselves appealing to them and all that stuff. (But at least they bothered to show up, I guess).

So was that allowed? The poll booth I was manning, the police turned up and barred people from gving out leaflets and me from taking polling-card numbers.

Respect looked like they were trying to walk Asian voters into the booth half the time.

crackerjack
06-05-2010, 07:48 PM
Smiley Tory woman outside the polling station said "Thank you!" as I left just now; I should have said "What for?". I'd gone there straight from work...hope she wasn't assuming I'd voted Tory just because I'm white and was wearing a suit.

Shit, I've been STEREOTYPED! :(

All the Tories at mine were wearing suits - they were all lawyers on their day off. What kind of freaks are these people?

hucks
06-05-2010, 08:07 PM
There were fucking loads of young Bangladeshis in Tory t shirts outside my polling station on the way home. Which is not the stereotype.

grizzleb
06-05-2010, 08:11 PM
Got a heavy first time vote on earlier. Felt badass exercising my democratic rights. Felt like shouting 'democracy baby' as I hit up the ballot box. :D

Tentative Andy
06-05-2010, 08:16 PM
So was that allowed? The poll booth I was manning, the police turned up and barred people from gving out leaflets and me from taking polling-card numbers.

Respect looked like they were trying to walk Asian voters into the booth half the time.

Oops, bad phrasing on my part, I meant outside the front door of the polling station, not in the room with the booths or anything. So just your standard election-day stuff. Yeah I imagine people trying to leaflet/campaign inside the building would have been thrown out.
What do you mean by taking polling-card numbers btw?

crackerjack
06-05-2010, 08:20 PM
There were fucking loads of young Bangladeshis in Tory t shirts outside my polling station on the way home. Which is not the stereotype.

Obviously there are plenty of Asian Tories, but if these were young and not conspicuously middle class, I'd guess they're IFE. They'd love to see Jim F beaten and Galloway isn't gonna do it.

Where I was, just up the road - where Respect are in with a shout - the only Tory Asian was a middle-aged man in a suit, one of the lawyers.

samdiamond
06-05-2010, 08:23 PM
I felt a bit disappointed that noone tried to get me to vote for them when I walked past the polling station (stepney green) this morning. don't get me wrong, i'd already voted and i would have been annoyed had anyone approached, but it's nice feel wanted, y'know?

shit loads of police everywhere round here, and helicopters too. i'm a bit nervous if i'm honest

crackerjack
06-05-2010, 08:24 PM
Oops, bad phrasing on my part, I meant outside the front door of the polling station, not in the room with the booths or anything. So just your standard election-day stuff. Yeah I imagine people trying to leaflet/campaign inside the building would have been thrown out.
What do you mean by taking polling-card numbers btw?

No, not bad phrasing - you're not allowed to give out leaflets or canvas voters within x yards of the polling booth entrance.

Parties take the polling card numbers of people who've voted so they know not to bother knocking on their doors later. At least, they do if they can, which strictly you can't. So once the police turned up to enforce the law, we had to ask for voters for theiur numbers on their way out - by which time they'd chucked their cards away.:(

grizzleb
06-05-2010, 08:25 PM
I felt a bit disappointed that noone tried to get me to vote for them when I walked past the polling station (stepney green) this morning. don't get me wrong, i'd already voted and i would have been annoyed had anyone approached, but it's nice feel wanted, y'know?

The thrill of the chase.

Tentative Andy
06-05-2010, 08:36 PM
No, not bad phrasing - you're not allowed to give out leaflets or canvas voters within x yards of the polling booth entrance.

Parties take the polling card numbers of people who've voted so they know not to bother knocking on their doors later. At least, they do if they can, which strictly you can't. So once the police turned up to enforce the law, we had to ask for voters for theiur numbers on their way out - by which time they'd chucked their cards away.:(

Hmmm, interesting. They were pretty close to the door, couldn't tell you if they were breaking the rule or not though. No cops about while I was there, also nobody seemed to be taking polling card numbers. Thanks for explaining how it works though, makes sense.

Sectionfive
06-05-2010, 08:38 PM
Parties take the polling card numbers of people(


Is this not very dodgy ?
Seen it on the news last night, where the parties where making up their own polls.

scottdisco
06-05-2010, 08:40 PM
Is this not very dodgy ?
Seen it on the news last night, where the parties where making up their own polls.

some chirpy young Tory asked for mine on the way in. i ignored him and walked past. fuck personal politeness in these circumstances.

hucks
06-05-2010, 08:51 PM
Obviously there are plenty of Asian Tories, but if these were young and not conspicuously middle class, I'd guess they're IFE. They'd love to see Jim F beaten and Galloway isn't gonna do it.



Was out door to door earlier, and the Labour councillor was talking about how he was going to sue over some letter than went out purporting to be from him saying that no one should vote for the other two Labour councillors in our ward cos one was Jewish and the other was a gangster. Who would believe that? That's beyond dirty tricks and into the land of the truly demented.

He said it came from an alliance of Tories and Respect. Tower Hamlets politics is fucking crazy. And, frankly, rubbish.

mrfaucet
06-05-2010, 09:17 PM
Nation out of step with Dissensus

What would it be like if it was in step? (Compulsory lessons in schools on the hardcore continuum?)

At my polling station there was one Lib Dem woman taking polling card numbers but no one else. This pretty much sums up this election for me at a local level; I've received a leaflet from the Lib Dems and Labour, but that was to do with the general election. I didn't get anything from anyone about the council elections meaning I couldn't really make an informed vote.

crackerjack
06-05-2010, 09:18 PM
Is this not very dodgy ?

No, it's entirely legal and proper. It means if a party's canvassers have been told someone plans to vote (to pick a party entirely at random) Labour, they don't go knocking on their door at 9pm to ask them if they've already voted (as Labour are currently doing in my block).


Seen it on the news last night, where the parties where making up their own polls

Where I live, people are making up a lot more than their own poll (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-first-punch-came-landing-on-my-nose-sending-blood-down-my-face-1961464.html)s.:eek:

Woebot
07-05-2010, 05:00 AM
hmm. i dunno actually. let's keep it simple. if anyone is going to vote for something else (ie they put "other" then they can say who in the thread)

me i detest the conservatives. i don't hate labour so much. i dislike nick clegg but for me it's a local issue and so it's going to have to be lib dems. if i vote labour (our only alternative in islington) i'd be throwing away three years of grassroots campaigning - essentially bashing the lib dems (tho sometimes in fairness to them it's more productive than that).

oy vey

zhao
07-05-2010, 07:57 AM
so who is winning or who has won? when are results in?

and who are the 4 dissensians who voted Tory?

Vimothy maybe? (apologize if mistaken) who else?

sorry... just woke up a few minutes ago... checked BBC... got the latest... cheers... none the less / for what it's worth.

STN
07-05-2010, 08:06 AM
Zhao: it's still not totally clear, but looks almost certain to be a hung parliament.

paolo
07-05-2010, 08:55 AM
Green Party bwoyyyyyeeee :flavaflav:

Felt lovely walking back from the polling station in the spring sunshine :)

Fifth place in Glasgow Central, gah. Was hoping we might actually get above the Tories, finished above the BNP at least

Labour - Lib Dem coalition would have more seats than the Tories right now

Dusty
07-05-2010, 12:16 PM
I'm a dirty Tory. Always have been.