  |
 OPINION POLLS II · Neck and Neck, The final 50 days |
| Track this thread - Email this thread - Print this thread - Download this thread - Subscribe to this forum |
 Mar 11 2014, 04:02 PM
Post
#1
|
|
 i thought you wore the hairpiece for style
Pronouns: ·
Joined: 7 March 2006 Posts: 22,456 User: 47 
        
|
hate to be anal but the other thread is 50 pages long and as somebody hasn't contributed to this forum in years deemed myself the best person to start that thread.
now somebody is gone, this all might change though~ |
 |
 
|
|
Mar 11 2014, 04:13 PM
Post
#2
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 7 March 2006
Posts: 22,001 User: 53
 
|
I thought he was only gone 2 days though?
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 12 2014, 10:32 PM
Post
#3
|
|
|
BuzzJack Gold Member
Joined: 11 April 2006
Posts: 4,259 User: 457
|
I swear the Labour "high command" get worse and worse at basic politics every week. This EU referendum mess ("we don't want a referendum, but at the same time we do, well maybe if the sun rises to the east on the 10th of the month") being the latest example. When are they going to learn that trying to be all things to all people just makes them look like unprincipled idiots who can't give a straightforward answer to anything?!
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 12 2014, 11:16 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
DROTTNING!
Joined: 15 April 2006
Posts: 63,953 User: 480
          
|
'We'd have a referendum on the EU if they significantly expanded their powers' is an eminently sensible policy, and one I'd say a lot of left-wing people would probably agree with. As ever, the problem's in how it's been presented. It's nothing short of a disaster that two popular newspapers are going out tomorrow with one having LABOUR RULES OUT REFERENDUM on its front page and LABOUR COMMITS TO A REFERENDUM on another's.
Wouldn't be happening under R AL I TELL THEE |
|
|
|
|
Mar 12 2014, 11:42 PM
Post
#5
|
|
 I'm a paragon so don't perceive me
Joined: 3 February 2011
Posts: 37,407 User: 12,929         
|
I have to say, I was face-palming a bit at that when I saw it. It comes across as far too vague and non-committal, who are they going to win over with such a vague policy? Not the Eurosceptics for sure. And what constitutes 'significant expansion of Brussels power'? It's given the Tories an easy target.
Yeah, the idea of the policy itself is pretty good and sensible and one I'm fine with, although I'd rather not risk having a referendum in the first place, but under this it sounds like it'd likely not happen, while keeping the Eurosceptics notionally happy. In a perfect world that is, the way it's been presented is awful. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 13 2014, 01:11 AM
Post
#6
|
|
 BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,650 User: 3,272
  
|
One of Labour's biggest problems is the fact that the press are overwhelmingly hostile and it's not just the tabloids. The way the Telegraph have been reporting the perfectly sensible proposal to limit tax relief on pension contributions has been a disgrace to journalism.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 13 2014, 12:49 PM
Post
#7
|
|
|
BuzzJack Gold Member
Joined: 11 April 2006
Posts: 4,259 User: 457
|
QUOTE(Cassandra @ Mar 12 2014, 11:16 PM)  'We'd have a referendum on the EU if they significantly expanded their powers' is an eminently sensible policy, and one I'd say a lot of left-wing people would probably agree with. As ever, the problem's in how it's been presented. It's nothing short of a disaster that two popular newspapers are going out tomorrow with one having LABOUR RULES OUT REFERENDUM on its front page and LABOUR COMMITS TO A REFERENDUM on another's. Wouldn't be happening under R AL I TELL THEE I don't think it's a sensible policy at all. Either someone's in favour of an EU referendum or they're not (I honestly don't really care either way on this issue). Saying there shouldn't be one now but there should be one at some arbitrary point in the future has no logic to it whatsoever, it comes across as sitting on the fence and trying to appeal to all people in the name of winning votes. Which it probably is. If he'd just stood up and said "sorry, there's not going to be a referendum no matter what because I think there's many more important things to focus on", then he atleast would've got a degree of kudos for being a politician who was actually willing to give a straightforward answer and brave enough to say something unpopular. This post has been edited by Danny: Mar 13 2014, 12:56 PM |
|
|
|
|
Mar 13 2014, 02:40 PM
Post
#8
|
|
|
DROTTNING!
Joined: 15 April 2006
Posts: 63,953 User: 480
|
Saying 'we'd have a referendum if there were a shift in powers towards the EU' isn't saying there should be a referendum at an arbitrary point in the future at all, unless you think the EU absolutely will shift powers towards itself in the future. Your point is like saying 'Either you think there should be a war or you shouldn't.' if Labour came out and said 'we would go to war if Russia invaded the west of the Ukraine'. It's a pretty simple and reasonable position. We don't think there should be a referendum as things stand. If the EU claims more powers, there should. Like I said - the problem is it's been put across really badly and therefore comes off as a fudge.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 13 2014, 10:04 PM
Post
#9
|
|
|
BuzzJack Gold Member
Joined: 11 April 2006
Posts: 4,259 User: 457
|
Tonight's YouGov has the Lib Dems ahead of UKIP for the first time since last August.
Won't deny I'm pretty surprised at UKIP faltering a bit like this, maybe they actually will have fizzled out by next election after all. Possibly the "gay marriage caused the floods" comments has undone all the (somewhat successful) attempts by Farage to shake off the "nutters" tag? This post has been edited by Danny: Mar 13 2014, 10:09 PM |
|
|
|
|
Mar 13 2014, 10:37 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,650 User: 3,272
|
QUOTE(Danny @ Mar 13 2014, 10:04 PM) Tonight's YouGov has the Lib Dems ahead of UKIP for the first time since last August. Won't deny I'm pretty surprised at UKIP faltering a bit like this, maybe they actually will have fizzled out by next election after all. Possibly the "gay marriage caused the floods" comments has undone all the (somewhat successful) attempts by Farage to shake off the "nutters" tag? Another interesting finding (from http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/) is that the Tories' shameless attempt to claim the credit for the increase in the tax allowance has not been as successful as they might have hoped. More people give the Lib Dems (45%) the credit for that than give it to the Tories (33%). |
|
|
|
|
Mar 13 2014, 10:37 PM
Post
#11
|
|
|
I'm so lonely, I paid a hobo to spoon with me
Joined: 6 February 2010
Posts: 12,908 User: 10,596
|
The way the media has handled the announcement on the referendum has been dreadful ("No EU referendum says Labour", as if they couldn't be arsed to read beyond the first line of Ed's statement) but the policy is completely sensible and I can't see it having a big effect on voting.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 13 2014, 10:46 PM
Post
#12
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,650 User: 3,272
|
QUOTE(Cassandra @ Mar 13 2014, 02:40 PM) Saying 'we'd have a referendum if there were a shift in powers towards the EU' isn't saying there should be a referendum at an arbitrary point in the future at all, unless you think the EU absolutely will shift powers towards itself in the future. Your point is like saying 'Either you think there should be a war or you shouldn't.' if Labour came out and said 'we would go to war if Russia invaded the west of the Ukraine'. It's a pretty simple and reasonable position. We don't think there should be a referendum as things stand. If the EU claims more powers, there should. Like I said - the problem is it's been put across really badly and therefore comes off as a fudge. The Labour position is at least more coherent than the Tories' policy. By the time of the next election there is no chance that all the economic problems of the last few years will be behind us. Yet the Tories tell us that the other 27 members will all gladly forget about that and concentrate on renegotiating the UK's terms of membership. So far, the number of countries to indicate that they would be willing to do that is zero. There is also the matter of a treaty change requiring a referendum in Ireland and, possibly, other countries. Will they vote before or after the UK? What if the UK says Yes but another country says no? Then, of course, Cameron and his cronies have so far said precisely nothing about what changes they are looking for. Perhaps if they did so, some of the other 27 countries might say they are willing to talk. Of course, others might tell Cameron where he can stick his plans. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 13 2014, 10:59 PM
Post
#13
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,650 User: 3,272
|
QUOTE(¿ CATORCE ? @ Mar 13 2014, 10:37 PM) The way the media has handled the announcement on the referendum has been dreadful ("No EU referendum says Labour", as if they couldn't be arsed to read beyond the first line of Ed's statement) but the policy is completely sensible and I can't see it having a big effect on voting. That would be the same media that reported Labour's perfectly sensible plans on pensions as "Labour plans raid on pensions". No they don't. That headline suggests that they want to take money from money already accrued in pension funds. They don't. All they have said is that people paying the top rate of tax will only get tax relief on future contributions at the basic rate. In other words, it will cost them £800 to pay £1,000 into their pension instead of the current £550. Or, to put it another way, they will have to pay the same as most other people. That sounds fair to me and it certainly isn't a "raid". |
|
|
|
|
Mar 14 2014, 01:44 PM
Post
#14
|
|
|
BuzzJack Gold Member
Joined: 11 April 2006
Posts: 4,259 User: 457
|
Various polls have shown Labour's poll lead shrinking this week, including a Populus with just a 1% lead today.
I'm starting to get a strong feeling the Tories are about to overtake (possibly with the Budget next week). Labour are further away than ever from defining themselves, or summing up why people should vote for them in a simple, coherent way, and it wouldn't be surprising if people are finally close to giving up on them. With the Tories, their clear message is "Vote for us because we're for economic competence and bashing welfare scroungers" -- an unpopular message, but atleast it's a coherent message. The closest thing Labour have to a message is "Vote for us because.....we're not the Tories. Although we'll still keep most of their policies". The only upside is Craig won't be here to gloat about it when the Tories move in front. And maybe if it happens now there'll just about enough time to clear out the current useless careerist tranche of politicians at the top of the party and replace them with someone who sees their job as fighting for poor and disadvantaged people rather than actors in some university political science experiment. This post has been edited by Danny: Mar 14 2014, 01:52 PM |
|
|
|
|
Mar 14 2014, 04:38 PM
Post
#15
|
|
|
DROTTNING!
Joined: 15 April 2006
Posts: 63,953 User: 480
|
QUOTE(Danny @ Mar 13 2014, 11:04 PM) Tonight's YouGov has the Lib Dems ahead of UKIP for the first time since last August. Won't deny I'm pretty surprised at UKIP faltering a bit like this, maybe they actually will have fizzled out by next election after all. Possibly the "gay marriage caused the floods" comments has undone all the (somewhat successful) attempts by Farage to shake off the "nutters" tag? I don't think it would be that - we'd have seen a difference by now if that was it, and in any case most UKIP supporters actively don't care about the scandals (the whole 'lamestream media' thing I think has an analog here for UKIP). Given the spring conference and the relatively positive coverage the Lib Dems have had over the last week, I imagine it's likely to be the case that it changed a couple of minds to the point where the Lib Dems are within the margin of error of/tied with UKIP but still probably behind. |
|
|
|
|
Mar 14 2014, 04:40 PM
Post
#16
|
|
|
DROTTNING!
Joined: 15 April 2006
Posts: 63,953 User: 480
|
QUOTE(Danny @ Mar 14 2014, 02:44 PM) Various polls have shown Labour's poll lead shrinking this week, including a Populus with just a 1% lead today. I'm starting to get a strong feeling the Tories are about to overtake (possibly with the Budget next week). Labour are further away than ever from defining themselves, or summing up why people should vote for them in a simple, coherent way, and it wouldn't be surprising if people are finally close to giving up on them. With the Tories, their clear message is "Vote for us because we're for economic competence and bashing welfare scroungers" -- an unpopular message, but atleast it's a coherent message. The closest thing Labour have to a message is "Vote for us because.....we're not the Tories. Although we'll still keep most of their policies". The only upside is Craig won't be here to gloat about it when the Tories move in front. And maybe if it happens now there'll just about enough time to clear out the current useless careerist tranche of politicians at the top of the party and replace them with someone who sees their job as fighting for poor and disadvantaged people rather than actors in some university political science experiment. Who would you have? And would you have cast Ed and Ed in that role three years ago? (Interesting aside which jives quite well with this post. I'd agree too. I think ultimately the reason I think One Nation was a waste was because it COULD'VE been what that overarching narrative was - we'll reunite the UK after the divisions of the last few years etc - but ended up just being a useless tagline slapped on top of every policy without any real reason for why it was a 'One Nation' policy.) |
|
|
|
|
Mar 14 2014, 05:01 PM
Post
#17
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,650 User: 3,272
|
QUOTE(Cassandra @ Mar 14 2014, 04:40 PM) Who would you have? And would you have cast Ed and Ed in that role three years ago? (Interesting aside which jives quite well with this post. I'd agree too. I think ultimately the reason I think One Nation was a waste was because it COULD'VE been what that overarching narrative was - we'll reunite the UK after the divisions of the last few years etc - but ended up just being a useless tagline slapped on top of every policy without any real reason for why it was a 'One Nation' policy.) Whereas now, all we ever hear from Labour is "the cost of living crisis". |
|
|
|
|
Mar 14 2014, 05:09 PM
Post
#18
|
|
|
BuzzJack Gold Member
Joined: 11 April 2006
Posts: 4,259 User: 457
|
QUOTE(Cassandra @ Mar 14 2014, 04:38 PM) I don't think it would be that - we'd have seen a difference by now if that was it, and in any case most UKIP supporters actively don't care about the scandals (the whole 'lamestream media' thing I think has an analog here for UKIP). I think the "gay marriage floods" thing is different because it's such a stupid comment, whereas the previous scandals were just seen as "controversial" and "un-politically-correct". I'm not saying people would've stopped supporting UKIP because they were afraid of looking bigoted (if it was just a general attack on gay marriage then it probably wouldn't've had an effect), I think it's more because people are afraid of looking stupid and crazy. QUOTE(Cassandra @ Mar 14 2014, 04:40 PM) Who would you have? And would you have cast Ed and Ed in that role three years ago? (Interesting aside which jives quite well with this post. I'd agree too. I think ultimately the reason I think One Nation was a waste was because it COULD'VE been what that overarching narrative was - we'll reunite the UK after the divisions of the last few years etc - but ended up just being a useless tagline slapped on top of every policy without any real reason for why it was a 'One Nation' policy.) I would've had them 3 years ago, in fact I voted for Ed Miliband, because I liked what they said during the leadership contest. But since then they've completely gone back on virtually everything they said back then. Balls has shown himself to be a completely contemptible idiot, while Miliband I still think is a decent guy at heart but he seems very weak-willed and, whenever he makes a step in the right direction (like towards the end of last year), he seems to let the unprincipled careerists talk him out of it. Not to mention his speaking skills have got worse and worse and worse - when he first got elected, although he still spoke like a geeky robot with flu, he atleast was able to occasionally spit out a sentence which actually SAID something, whereas now virtually every sentence he offers is a bunch of pseudo-intellectual waffle which means absolutely nothing, just like his brother, because he's been scared by his "advisers" into thinking he can't say anything remotely interesting or people will think Labour are too "radical". His very obvious flaws didn't need to be fatal, but if you say virtually nothing that's interesting or of any substance (as he has gone out of his way to do), then people are obviously going to only notice your funny voice or the funny way you look because there's nothing else noteworthy about you. If he'd got over his silly cowardice and allowed himself to be defined as "Red Ed, taking on the fat cats and super-rich" then atleast it would've given people something else to focus on other than his weirdness. I'd go for Andy Burnham as leader, since in this interview alone he says more things that make sense than the rest of the feeble Labour "front bench" over the past few years put together -- firstly calling for more leftwing things, but also the bit where he acknowledges how toxic the New Labour "professional politician" tactics ("the kind of culture developed where you're scrabbling over a bit of the centre ground with micro-policies that are designed to just create a couple of days' headlines and create a feeling, but not change much else."). Though I acknowledge he might do what Ed did and go back on everything he said if he got elected. If Labour flop in the Euro elections (third behind UKIP and the Tories?) then I do think EdM might be ousted -- grassroots members might be willing to tolorate rightwing Tory-lite policies if it looks set to get the party elected (though even that is foolish in my view), but they're not going to if it doesn't look like it will succeed even at that. This post has been edited by Danny: Mar 14 2014, 05:12 PM |
|
|
|
|
Mar 14 2014, 05:29 PM
Post
#19
|
|
|
BuzzJack Gold Member
Joined: 11 April 2006
Posts: 4,259 User: 457
|
Also, I don't think "One Nation Labour" ever had any potential at all. It's just a meaningless platitude - "we want to bring the country together", yeah well what politician would say the opposite? People would've just dismissed it as bland political cliches no matter what. It's the equivalent of someone saying they're in favour of "fairness" or "people power".
What could've had potential was if they'd developed their attack on energy companies, which I was hoping would build into a consistent attack on the elites of the country throwing a party at everyone else's expense, trying to rip us off at any opportunity to maximise their profits, and refusing to pay their taxes, which would've actually given Labour some definition. But that didn't happen, and now the energy price freeze just looks like a flimsy standalone gimmick rather than a principle that markets and big businesses were going to be brought into line. This post has been edited by Danny: Mar 14 2014, 05:34 PM |
|
|
|
|
Mar 14 2014, 07:53 PM
Post
#20
|
|
|
DROTTNING!
Joined: 15 April 2006
Posts: 63,953 User: 480
|
Well, Thatcher and Reagan for one. Clinton had a lot on the theme of a softer, kinder capitalism reuniting the country after the big split between those who got ahead and those who were left behind - it's a theme which has shown itself as a successful one before. It's only a meaningless platitude if you don't have the policies that actually do something to make it happen - which is what happened with One Nation.
And if you really think his advisers are the 'don't say anything radical!' types then I'm going to need to see some receipts on that one. If ever there was a group of pie in the sky 'it'll be alright on the night' lot who seem to think the next election's in the bag already...if anything it should say something about the problems that we face that the two Eds have been forced to go back on a lot of what they would've proposed during the leadership election. No leader with any serious hope of becoming PM will ever go onstage and say 'yeah, we're just going to fund everything by borrowing for the foreseeable future with no plan to get borrowing down'. It's down to you to interpret whether or not what the Eds are saying now is rhetoric or serious. |
|
|
|
|
| Time is now: 18th April 2024 - 02:03 AM |
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 BuzzJack.com
About | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
