2015 Election season ..........stuff it in here.

[Guest]

Brilliant, someone has uploaded the interview from DP with the class war party.

 

I'm not winding people up here but can anyone actually explain why it is that the further left you go the most outrageous, wacky and queer you have to get? Why does having a far left viewpoint make someone want to dress up as a woman for a serious political interview?

 

 

 

Come on Michael Foot was the genuine person you could ever have hoped for. An Honest politician. Best PM we never had.

[ADK]

Does it not occur to you that the "class war party" is actually a pisstake, like Al Murray as the pub landlord. It's playing up to a stereotype in order to make a point. And the "drag act" is actually quite traditional as a form of working class humour.

[Guest MattP]

Does it not occur to you that the "class war party" is actually a pisstake, like Al Murray as the pub landlord. It's playing up to a stereotype in order to make a point. And the "drag act" is actually quite traditional as a form of working class humour.

 

Not at all, they have a website, a manifesto and are standing numerous candidates. Hence why they have been invited onto the Daily Politics, Al Murray won't be as they know he's a pisstake. Do think they'll probably nick a few votes off the more hardcore side of the Green party though.

 

I think Ken would make a good candidate, whack him on the DP with his 'I want a slut not a virgin' T-shirt and we're halfway there.

[leicsmac]

Not at all, they have a website, a manifesto and are standing numerous candidates. Hence why they have been invited onto the Daily Politics, Al Murray won't be as they know he's a pisstake. Do think they'll probably nick a few votes off the more hardcore side of the Green party though.

 

I think Ken would make a good candidate, whack him on the DP with his 'I want a slut not a virgin' T-shirt and we're halfway there.

 

Somewhat connected with this Matt, I find it interesting that you consider right-wing outlets (such as the Sun and their varying columnists, Katie Hopkins et al) purely amusing and just taking the piss and that no one pays attention to them, but left-wing commentators (such as the more radical talking heads in the Grauniad) are all straight-up serious with a captive audience hanging on their every word and should be treated as such. 

 

Is there a particular reason you think that of two equally nutcase views, one is serious and worthy of concern and the other one isn't?

[Guest MattP]

Somewhat connected with this Matt, I find it interesting that you consider right-wing outlets (such as the Sun and their varying columnists, Katie Hopkins et al) purely amusing and just taking the piss and that no one pays attention to them, but left-wing commentators (such as the more radical talking heads in the Grauniad) are all straight-up serious with a captive audience hanging on their every word and should be treated as such. 

 

Is there a particular reason you think that of two equally nutcase views, one is serious and the other one isn't?

 

Where have I said The Sun or Katie Hopkins are taking the piss? I genuinely believe Katie Hopkins believes what she is saying. Of course she does it to get a reaction, but she's certainly not lying or amusing with it.

[Alf Bentley]

I don't think it was inaccurate at all, I was cringing watching it and all Millipede seems to do is try to agree with him and then sort of explain why he can't actually do anything and then try to detract away from his policy by just criticising the Tories, it was like watching some weird alliance based on nothing but a hatred of the Tories.

 

The whole scene of watching two millionaires argue with each other about exploiting the poor is actually quite sickening to me. I really didn't like it, I'm happy for it to happen though as doing things like this with Brand can't help him.

 

I don't know why you have put Cameron up as a response to me, I've been just as critical of him for this sort of thing over the last few years and I also layed into Farage the other week for hanging out with Joey Essex, the dumbing down is a plague on the campaign, they know they have to appeal to the idiots to get elected. I hate it.

 

I'm sick of this whole 'disiilusionment' thing - if people can't be bothered to take an interest in politics then don't, politics shouldn't change and lower it's own standards so people like One Direction can lecture a million people on the subject.

 

On the plus side the token Tory is Andrew Neil, who is quite brilliant.

 

 

People can make their own minds up about the Brand/Miliband interview as it's available to view online. I stand by my view that your comments were an inaccurate caricature, though.

 

You said that Miliband was "sucking up to Russell Brand", was "being held to account by an idiot" and was "crawling up his arse" to get votes. The gist of Brand's argument is that powerful corporate vested interests control politics, government serves those interests and inevitably ruins people's lives, so parliamentary democracy is worthless and we shouldn't bother voting. In the interview, Miliband fundamentally disagreed with this. He argued that parliamentary democracy is important, that people SHOULD vote and that a Labour government could take on vested interests. Whatever you think of him or of Labour, that is not "crawling up Brand's arse" or "being held to account by him". If anything, he was holding Brand to account - challenging his views. OK, Ed tried to be friendly and polite (anything wrong with that?) and his manner can be a bit oily, but he stated his case - a case largely opposed to Brand's dismissal of democratic politics. I agree with Ed, not Brand (though he's a very funny comedian).

 

Whether or not "disillusioned" idiots should take more of an interest in politics (and I largely agree with you there), it's potentially dangerous if large numbers of people self-exclude. What if there's a major crisis - which is very likely? Ed did democracy a favour by entering a forum inhabited by such people and making the case for parliamentary democracy and for his party. So he was fishing for votes during an election campaign? Whatever next, football teams trying to score goals during a football match?!

 

It is a problem that so many people are clueless about politics, though, as it does matter who's in government. There might be limits on their power in the age of corporate globalisation, the EU etc. But we both know that there's the biggest difference between Labour and Tory since at least 1992....and other options like UKIP & Greens available, if preferred. I heard yesterday that 40% of voters are still undecided how to vote. Incredible....and probably good for the Tories on the principle that many will "stick by nurse for fear of worse". Admittedly, many will be people who just won't vote or who have decided who to vote for but don't want to discuss it, but even so.....40% ?!

 

At the risk of repeating previous discussions, there needs to be more politics education in schools. Yes, it would have to be planned carefully to avoid bias, but that should be feasible.

 

Electoral reform is also massively important in this - and I suspect we're in agreement here. Both main parties know that, so long as they can keep most of the core vote on side, they mainly have to fight for waverers in the middle ground and people who are utterly clueless and want to be told that they can have low taxes, great public services and cuts in the deficit. With electoral reform, the Tories might not have to conceal the nature or their planned cuts or the funding for their £8bn on the NHS - and Labour might not have to deceive people by concealing their investment spending or their plans to cut the deficit much more slowly. If done right, electoral reform could make every vote matter, so that the parties would have an interest in winning the support of all sorts of people right across the country, not just "swing voters" in marginals and the clueless. Likewise, they'd have an interest in seeking the support of people who currently don't believe in voting or don't vote because they find it all too baffling or boring or who lazily say that "they're all the same", when they're not.

 

Tory or not, Andrew Neil is the top politics presenter. Did you see that demolition job he did on the Tory self-produced "small business letter"? Hilarious, and he's very even-handed in challenging politicians of all parties, and doing so with sharp argument, not the self-important bluster of a Paxman.

 

I appreciate that you're no Cameronite, Matt, but where do you stand? On the Thatcherite right within the Tory party but hoping for a realignment with UKIP? An idealistic traditionalist? I thought that you might be drifting to UKIP a while back, but less so recently. 

[ADK]

Not at all, they have a website, a manifesto and are standing numerous candidates. Hence why they have been invited onto the Daily Politics, Al Murray won't be as they know he's a pisstake. Do think they'll probably nick a few votes off the more hardcore side of the Green party though.

 

I think Ken would make a good candidate, whack him on the DP with his 'I want a slut not a virgin' T-shirt and we're halfway there.

 

What about the MRLP? Maybe "pisstake" isn't the right word, more of a sub culture. I'd say more "daggers" than "rincewind".

[Guest MattP]

People can make their own minds up about the Brand/Miliband interview as it's available to view online. I stand by my view that your comments were an inaccurate caricature, though.

 

You said that Miliband was "sucking up to Russell Brand", was "being held to account by an idiot" and was "crawling up his arse" to get votes. The gist of Brand's argument is that powerful corporate vested interests control politics, government serves those interests and inevitably ruins people's lives, so parliamentary democracy is worthless and we shouldn't bother voting. In the interview, Miliband fundamentally disagreed with this. He argued that parliamentary democracy is important, that people SHOULD vote and that a Labour government could take on vested interests. Whatever you think of him or of Labour, that is not "crawling up Brand's arse" or "being held to account by him". If anything, he was holding Brand to account - challenging his views. OK, Ed tried to be friendly and polite (anything wrong with that?) and his manner can be a bit oily, but he stated his case - a case largely opposed to Brand's dismissal of democratic politics. I agree with Ed, not Brand (though he's a very funny comedian).

 

Whether or not "disillusioned" idiots should take more of an interest in politics (and I largely agree with you there), it's potentially dangerous if large numbers of people self-exclude. What if there's a major crisis - which is very likely? Ed did democracy a favour by entering a forum inhabited by such people and making the case for parliamentary democracy and for his party. So he was fishing for votes during an election campaign? Whatever next, football teams trying to score goals during a football match?!

 

It is a problem that so many people are clueless about politics, though, as it does matter who's in government. There might be limits on their power in the age of corporate globalisation, the EU etc. But we both know that there's the biggest difference between Labour and Tory since at least 1992....and other options like UKIP & Greens available, if preferred. I heard yesterday that 40% of voters are still undecided how to vote. Incredible....and probably good for the Tories on the principle that many will "stick by nurse for fear of worse". Admittedly, many will be people who just won't vote or who have decided who to vote for but don't want to discuss it, but even so.....40% ?!

 

At the risk of repeating previous discussions, there needs to be more politics education in schools. Yes, it would have to be planned carefully to avoid bias, but that should be feasible.

 

Electoral reform is also massively important in this - and I suspect we're in agreement here. Both main parties know that, so long as they can keep most of the core vote on side, they mainly have to fight for waverers in the middle ground and people who are utterly clueless and want to be told that they can have low taxes, great public services and cuts in the deficit. With electoral reform, the Tories might not have to conceal the nature or their planned cuts or the funding for their £8bn on the NHS - and Labour might not have to deceive people by concealing their investment spending or their plans to cut the deficit much more slowly. If done right, electoral reform could make every vote matter, so that the parties would have an interest in winning the support of all sorts of people right across the country, not just "swing voters" in marginals and the clueless. Likewise, they'd have an interest in seeking the support of people who currently don't believe in voting or don't vote because they find it all too baffling or boring or who lazily say that "they're all the same", when they're not.

 

Tory or not, Andrew Neil is the top politics presenter. Did you see that demolition job he did on the Tory self-produced "small business letter"? Hilarious, and he's very even-handed in challenging politicians of all parties, and doing so with sharp argument, not the self-important bluster of a Paxman.

 

I appreciate that you're no Cameronite, Matt, but where do you stand? On the Thatcherite right within the Tory party but hoping for a realignment with UKIP? An idealistic traditionalist? I thought that you might be drifting to UKIP a while back, but less so recently. 

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on Brand and Miliband, I thought the whole thing was cringeworthy, as you say, people can make up their own minds on it.

 

Neil has been on serious form this last month, he's been taking absolutely everyone to the cleaners and I did see the interview about the Tory letter, how they thought they would get away with it I have no idea, he went very easy on the Green member today for some reason though.

 

I'm consider myself a right wing Tory with views very sympathetic to UKIP regarding immigration and Europe, I was also impressed with the frank honesty of UKIP up until about 9 months ago, they were prepared to talk about further cuts to reduce the deficit, serious welfare reform and were intent on having a serious debate about how we fund the NHS as it seems pretty clear to me it's totally not fundable long term in it's present form, that's now all been tossed out the window as they've become another partry just offering promise and unrealistic promise to try and win votes. Despite the myth trying to be pushed that UKIP are 'more Tory than the Tories' anyone who has read their manifesto would simply know that they aren't (and really show their own political ignorence), I wish they were.

 

The welfare debate is on BBC2 now as well, been looking forward to this one, a few big hitters on the show. (edit no it isn't, I'm sure it was supposed to be, edit again it's on Tuesday)

[leicsmac]

Where have I said The Sun or Katie Hopkins are taking the piss? I genuinely believe Katie Hopkins believes what she is saying. Of course she does it to get a reaction, but she's certainly not lying or amusing with it.

 

Is that not an equal threat to the left-wing rabble rousers, then?

 

Regarding the Sun, you said above that 'does anyone take notice of them anymore?', which implies that you think they don't. The same could equally be said of the tofu-munching loudmouths that column for the Grauniad too.

 

All I'm saying is there is an equivalence here as both are extreme and should be challenged equally.

 

Sorry, perhaps I'm going after you a bit here but I feel that you're better than such lacks of consistency.

[Guest MattP]

Is that not an equal threat to the left-wing rabble rousers, then?

 

Regarding the Sun, you said above that 'does anyone take notice of them anymore?', which implies that you think they don't. The same could equally be said of the tofu-munching loudmouths that column for the Grauniad too.

 

All I'm saying is there is an equivalence here as both are extreme and should be challenged equally.

 

Sorry, perhaps I'm going after you a bit here but I feel that you're better than such lacks of consistency.

 

Don't agree, I would say people who are buying the Guardian would be far more likely to be into politics than someone buying the Sun.

[leicsmac]

Don't agree, I would say people who are buying the Guardian would be far more likely to be into politics than someone buying the Sun.

 

Come election time, those who read the Guardian or the Sun (and are influenced by its view) get the same opportunity to vote. And it's not like the Sun is being subtle with its endorsement right now, is it?

[Guest MattP]

Come election time, those who read the Guardian or the Sun (and are influenced by its view) get the same opportunity to vote. And it's not like the Sun is being subtle with its endorsement right now, is it?

 

They never have been, I grew up seeing them gushing over Blair and the Labour party through the 90's.

 

 

Just been scouring betting markets and noticed something quite interesting, Miliband is now odds on to be Prime Minister but Ed Balls is still odds against to be chancellor, maybe Ed is thinking about dropping him in the post coalition negotiations.

 

Hung Parliament now as short as 1/8, a Tory majority is 7/1 and a Labour majority 50/1.

 

It's very possible Ed could end up being PM despite being leader of a party who wins less than 270 seats. I'm almost certain that whatever coalition or confidence and supply government is formed after this election, it won't be lasting the full five years like this one has.

[leicsmac]

They never have been, I grew up seeing them gushing over Blair and the Labour party through the 90's.

 

 

Just been scouring betting markets and noticed something quite interesting, Miliband is now odds on to be Prime Minister but Ed Balls is still odds against to be chancellor, maybe Ed is thinking about dropping him in the post coalition negotiations.

 

Hung Parliament now as short as 1/8, a Tory majority is 7/1 and a Labour majority 50/1.

 

It's very possible Ed could end up being PM despite being leader of a party who wins less than 270 seats. I'm almost certain that whatever coalition or confidence and supply government is formed after this election, it won't be lasting the full five years like this one has.

 

This I totally agree with. We'll be back here again in six months with new faces.

[Guest Kopfkino]

Do you know which Uni you're going to yet? I'm sure you'll do well and have an exciting time, anyway. You've clearly thought through a lot of your ideas and are prepared to think for yourself. These are indeed interesting times to be studying politics and economics - a lot of difficult issues and situations pending. Considering we're supposedly in opposing camps, I agree with a lot of what you've said above.

 

A few responses:

- Labour in office did spend a lot on building/improving infrastructure like schools and hospitals (albeit often funded by PFI, for which they're rightly criticised), as opposed to transport infrastructure, where their record was less impressive (whatever happened to "integrated transport"?). Removing some of their welfare spending (e.g. tax credits, housing benefit) could cause massive damage to low-paid workers and their families.

- Increasing the minimum wage (as opposed to welfare spending), if handled carefully, comes with the benefit of not exacerbating, and potentially even improving the deficit - as employers (or potentially, customers) pay the extra cost. There are obvious dangers in that, but 2015 looks a lot more auspicious time to do that than, say, 2010-13, when the economy was struggling, and both inflation and unemployment were both high. A moderate stimulus to consumption could also encourage private-sector investment in the expectation of higher sales.

- Completely agree re. focusing on small businesses. Labour claims that it will do this and has a reasonably detailed policy programme in this area: http://press.labour.org.uk/post/111066961689/labours-plan-to-back-britains-small-businessesHow successful that programme would be is open to debate, obviously.

- Falling productivity is indeed a major problem. Supply-side policies like higher-quality apprenticeships & better vocational education might help, but only in the medium-term. In the absence of significant improvements in export markets (which look unlikely), I suppose one option is fiscal measures to promote the competitiveness of British firms (e.g. tax incentives for investment, regional development policies to support firms working together).

- I hope Labour would take up Osborne's "Northern Powerhouse" concept (one of his few good ideas). They clearly have a policy to promote regional development (http://press.labour.org.uk/post/109867958254/labour-sets-out-plans-for-biggest-devolution-of), but it might need to be more targeted/staggered. The Manchester-Leeds axis is likely to be able to forge ahead much better than any "Eastern Powerhouse". Being cynical, they'd be less likely to see Crossrail 2 as a priority, as it would mainly benefit Tory-voting constituencies in Surrey and Herts (yet another argument for electoral reform, so that every part of the country matters to every party).

- I wonder how soon the Scottish electorate would accept another referendum? Not for at least 2-3 years, I suspect, particularly if there's a Labour-led government that is not implementing austerity politics (an early referendum is much likelier under a Tory-dominated Westminster govt). Couldn't Miliband potentially defuse the problem by announcing that there would be no referendum for 5 years, but that if the Scottish parliament voted for one after that, they could do so?

- I'm sure your Oxford Prof is right that a lot of Scots view Labour as sell-outs. That's ironic as they voted for Blair/Brown in their masses, yet Miliband is to the left of them. You have to read between the lines to realise that, though, as our electoral system means that all parties have to focus their campaigns on "swing voters in marginal seats" (mainly in England), offering deficit reduction, tax cuts AND good public services, so it's not obvious that the 2 main parties are actually further apart in their policies than at any time since at least 1992.

 

Good luck with your studies, anyway. I can be a sentimental old bugger at times, but it actually excites me to think of someone like you heading off to uni. You're obviously someone who will benefit from it greatly. I dropped out of uni first time round (though benefited from that experience in unexpected ways), then went back aged 30-34 and remember it as one of the most stimulating times of my life, both the studies and the fun outside that. Work hard and play hard...and preferably don't become a Tory MP afterwards (though you've already got more about you than some of the current boneheads). 

 

Going to study Government and Economics at LSE, reluctantly giving up my season ticket as well was half hoping we'd go down so it'd be easier for me to get tickets. There seems to be quite a few people in London on here, not sure if he mentioned it but I think lavrentis is one of them  

- Not much investment in transport though that I can think of and that was a good time to do that. I had a quick glance earlier to try to find their capital spending in 05/06 but couldn't really find it.

- I wasn't actually proposing that welfare should be increased, in fact I couldn't think of anything worse than that. As you say this is the time to increase the minimum wage due to low inflation and unemployment isn't too high but I'm really not sure it'd be good for small business, if exports were doing better then I'd support it. **** knows how to get a more stable recovery without exports improving tbh.

- Vocational qualifications need a major overhaul. What currently exists is still of little use and there are too many 'apprenticeships' that aren't really useful apprenticeships. Again whilst a university education is good, too many of the wrong people go to uni and end up no further forward/behind where they would have been had they gone vocational or started work. There needs to be more high level apprenticeships like Rolls Royce and the like offer for post A-level. Too many graduates come out of uni and are of no real use to emloyers, including those coming out of Oxbridge and other top unis.

- I'm sure Labour would take up those projects even Crossrail 2 if they know they'll have a period of stable 5 year government. They on't commit now because they don't wan to see that as praise for the Conservatives and similarly they won't take it up straight after the election just in case it all comes crashing down for them. I hope they do because there should be cross party agreement that they are good projects for the country.

- I don't think Labour being in government will make the slightest difference to whether they accept another referendum but I don't think there's much of an appetite for another one at the moment. That could quite easily change in the next 12-18 months but it won't be instant anyway. As with the whole of British politics, it's up in the air and in reality nobody has a clue about anything. I'd love to know what the effect was of the economic news around the time of the referendum, did the improving picture help or hinder independence?

 

Sod becoming a Tory MP when you can be just as hated but earn more being a banker I would actually like to promote some modern conservatism, that's based on the proper free market capitalism of Hayek and Friedman rather than the crony corporate capitalism that led to the mess of the last 8 years, but I don't really fancy the idea of being in politics. Who knows what will happen

[Guest MattP]

This I totally agree with. We'll be back here again in six months with new faces.

 

Problem is I don't see what another election will solve, people aren't going to change their minds. We'll just end up with the same situation save for a few seats.

[leicsmac]

Problem is I don't see what another election will solve, people aren't going to change their minds. We'll just end up with the same situation save for a few seats.

 

Yup, I agree with this too. Actually I would welcome it, for reasons that I've described in detail before - the possibility of the change of our outdated and no longer fit for purpose voting system.

[Guest MattP]

Yup, I agree with this too. Actually I would welcome it, for reasons that I've described in detail before - the possibility of the change of our outdated and no longer fit for purpose voting system.

 

I'd like to see that as well, but I think it has zero chance of happening. I just don't ever see....

 

1. Our people voting for it, they cast aside AV in huge numbers and I don't see that changing.

2. You'd need the Labour and Tory party to back it, and neither will do that knowing the chance of either getting a majority ever again under PR is virtually zero.

[Guest]

Problem is I don't see what another election will solve, people aren't going to change their minds. We'll just end up with the same situation save for a few seats.

 

Less people will vote.

[Guest MattP]

Less people will vote.

 

It barely matters when the polls are as close as they are, one set of voters in particular isn't going to just stop voting.

[Guest MattP]

http://brightonandhoveindependent.co.uk/video-exclusive-green-activists-in-brighton-pavilion-rip-off-ukip-advertisements/

 

Another example of how 'democratic' some of the Green party activists are.

[leicsmac]

I'd like to see that as well, but I think it has zero chance of happening. I just don't ever see....

 

1. Our people voting for it, they cast aside AV in huge numbers and I don't see that changing.

2. You'd need the Labour and Tory party to back it, and neither will do that knowing the chance of either getting a majority ever again under PR is virtually zero.

 

I think enough brouhaha over the failure of FPTP in this and the subsequent election might be enough to convince people even if the major parties don't back it. Six months to a year of political deadlock would make most people want to bring in something different.

 

But you could be right - either way, I look forward to finding out.

[ADK]

I can't imagine people demanding AV or PR in great enough numbers to make a difference, not least because most people don't actually have the basic maths and reasoning skills to understand the problems and why a different system could offer a solution.

 

It could only happen if the establishment wanted it to happen, but that seems unlikely any time soon.

 

The majority of people simply aren't motivated enough to push for a change. Instead I think we will slowly fall behind more progressive nations. I think Scotland is highly likely to leave the UK at some point and almost has already in reality.

[Jon the Hat]

Tories creeping ahead in the polls in the last few days.  Hopefully Dave puts in a performance on Question time tonight.

[MiniFox]

Surely, with the current seat projections (Both Labour and Conservatives on around 270-275 seats each) there is little chance of a Conservative government?

 

Unless Labour are propped up by the SNP then there is little chance of a Labour government either.

 

But why are Conservative supporters so hopeful? Unless there is a major swing in the polls, why do so many seemingly expect to see a Conservative government?

 

Maybe I'm missing something?

Serious questions by the way, I'm not trying to have a pop at the Conservatives, I just genuinely do not know.

[Dr The Singh]

Surely, with the current seat projections (Both Labour and Conservatives on around 270-275 seats each) there is little chance of a Conservative government?

Unless Labour are propped up by the SNP then there is little chance of a Labour government either.

But why are Conservative supporters so hopeful? Unless there is a major swing in the polls, why do so many seemingly expect to see a Conservative government?

Maybe I'm missing something?

Serious questions by the way, I'm not trying to have a pop at the Conservatives, I just genuinely do not know.

What about a Cuntservative and UKCrap alliance?