The 2015 General Election

[snowychap]

it's already well documented Ed become leader of the Party, pushed over the finishing line by trade union members despite losing the vote among Labour MPs and full party members to David.

It ought to be pointed out that 84 of the 262 MPs & MEPs and about 30% of the party members who voted had Miliband E as their first choice (against 111 and 44% for Mili D), and 27.5% of the affiliate membership voters had Mili D as their first choice (as opposed to 41.5% for Mili E).

It could well be argued that Ed owes his election as party leader more down to the combination of MP/MEP votes and party members' votes than those of the affiliates (the former made up 30.72% of the 50.65% which saw him win).

[brommy]

Is DC going to change his mind again and take the formal invitation to the three debates proposed?

[tonyh29]

So TV companies are in charge now  ? ... Hope Cameron stays away  but he's been badly advised here however you look at it

[blandy]

 

 

Labour isn't run by the Unions. Sure they influence Labour, though perhaps not enough in many cases. As with the Tories and hedge funds and bankers, to a degree the man who pays the piper calls the tune. I'd argue the tories operate more at the behest of their paymasters than do Labour.

 

 

I feel a Ahhh  But  gif coming on

 

however from FactCheck (not to be confused with Facthunt

 

 

 

Beyond the unions, Labour doesn’t get much money from companies or individuals.

 

it's already well documented Ed become leader of the Party, pushed over the finishing line by trade union members despite losing the vote among Labour MPs and full party members to David.

 

now I'm sure you'll point to Falkirk where Ed stood up to the Unions  ... but look beyond the headline and the rhetoric and the party’s mouthpieces now just say that Labour has “moved on” since Falkirk, and no disciplinary action will be taken over what happened... this despite the fact there can be no doubt that members were recruited to manipulate party processes,” and there was also “evidence that signatures were forged on either application forms or direct debit mandates or other documents”.

 

you can claim it isn't run by the unions all you like  .. but clearly they hold the influence and the power

I'm not here to somehow defend a party I support, because I'm not a Labour supporter.

the Union members votes did help get Ed elected as leader, sure. Now't wrong with that. the Unions started the labour party, the two are interlinked strongly, though not as strongly as in the past. Unions overall are a good thing. I won't argue that there haven't been what look like shenanigans, or that Labour are anything like whiter than white. Why would I?

 

The ah.. but thing - I'm not trying to change the subject, I'm quite openly accepting of the influence the Unions have. My feelings are as I expressed. for all the parties, the people who pay them get to call the tune. In many ways I'm less bovvered about Unions calling the tune than Banks or Hedge funds. The Union thing is open, the banks and hedge funds invisible. There are no shareholder votes as there are with Union members, for how the Plc should use it's voice.

 

Frankly the law should be changed. It should not be legal to gift any party more than a few grand a year. Union members should be freer to decide which party if any they want their union political fees (they don't have to pay these) to go to.

Shareholders should be able to vote where political money goes, or if it goes at all.

 

If the parties can't function on the reduced income, good. They should die out, because they're basically only propped up by either Union or Plc and private company money.

[darrenm]

Going back to that political compass thing, I think the reason why most people come out liberal left is because most people want almost exactly the same thing - freedom to do what we like but with a safety net underneath. People need to stand on their own 2 feet and be responsible for their own actions but provision needs to be made for the genuinely unfortunate. That's what liberal left leanings are. It's what this country has been from the end of ww2 until Thatcher. The 60s and 70s would have been a perfect political landscape for Britain if you take away the nasty night time cultures of the politicians.

[bickster]

Lord Baker now suggesting in the event of a hung parliament that Labour and the Tories should form a coalition to prevent the break up of the union.

Coming soon, the one party state.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Two austerity parties in power with no opposition. Shudder.

[snowychap]

... I think the reason why most people come out liberal left is because most people want almost exactly the same thing - freedom to do what we like...

It's only really being liberal if it's universally and equally applied (i.e. that we want everyone else to have the freedom to do what they like* even if - or especially if - we don't agree/approve).

I think that a vast majority are quite happy to claim to be liberal (or believe themselves to be) but, when challenged, are not that bothered (or worse, keen) to see the freedoms of others curtailed.

*Obvious riders apply.

[chrisp65]

Lord Baker now suggesting in the event of a hung parliament that Labour and the Tories should form a coalition to prevent the break up of the union.

Coming soon, the one party state.

 

you look at the actual policies and what they've actually delivered us in the last generation or so and they are probably the most obvious combo

[bickster]

Lord Baker now suggesting in the event of a hung parliament that Labour and the Tories should form a coalition to prevent the break up of the union.

Coming soon, the one party state.

 

you look at the actual policies and what they've actually delivered us in the last generation or so and they are probably the most obvious combo

Oh I absolutely agree, thing is some people just can't see beyond the colour of the curtains

[MakemineVanilla]

Lord Baker now suggesting in the event of a hung parliament that Labour and the Tories should form a coalition to prevent the break up of the union.

Coming soon, the one party state.

 

The idea of a National Government is very appealing but as we found out in 1931, they are not very stable, as there was a split back then between those who wanted to cut unemployment benefit and those who wanted to increase taxes.

 

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

[brommy]

So TV companies are in charge now ? ... Hope Cameron stays away but he's been badly advised here however you look at it

Who do you think represents the interests of the British Public more? In my opinion they are both deeply flawed but at least the broadcasters are attempting to engineer what approximately 70% of the british public want to see (according to recent independent polls). Can anyone explain what DC and his advisors are running scared of?

If agreed by at least 4 of the 7 proposed party leaders, I would run the 3 debates as proposed by the 4 main broadcasters. I would also give the Prime Minister every possible opportunity to change his mind if he wished, right up to the last second. Even if that meant starting each broadcast with an empty chair. Talk of repeating the 'tub of lard' stand-in is a stunt that will only cheapen the broadcasters level to that of... politicians.

Edited March 8, 2015 by brommy

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Aye, Cameron (or, rather, the Tory party as a whole) is showing contempt for the electorate by refusing to take part in debates now that it doesn't suit them. The broadcasters want numbers but they are at least pretending to give a shit about public interest. The whole debacle has proven that, as things stand, televised debates are a shambles. I'm not against debating, in fact there should be more of it but at a local level. But as we saw with Clegg last time out, televised debates can have a huge impact on a campaign and it isn't based on policy, but performance.  With Cameron and the Tories, they want to run a campaign about one personality v the other, essentially a presidential campaign, and remain in complete control of the narrative, and they can't control the impact of debates.

 

This (if we step back a moment) isn't about who has the right to tell who what to do (but, if that were the case, the Prime Minister is always in service to the country, not the other way round), but who has the right to control narrative. That is a very important issue and for too long the two main parties have been allowed to increasingly control public discourse, whereas it should be the public via the media - however, the media and politicians are now part of the same London set, and it is private (business) rather than public interest that is the dominant narrative.

[Xela]

TV debates? Pop idol politics aimed at he X Factor generation. Is it really needed? I don't think so. It would just turn into a sound-bite contest and who can snipe at the others the most. 

[Demitri_C]

 

 

Lord Baker now suggesting in the event of a hung parliament that Labour and the Tories should form a coalition to prevent the break up of the union.

Coming soon, the one party state.

 

you look at the actual policies and what they've actually delivered us in the last generation or so and they are probably the most obvious combo

 

Oh I absolutely agree, thing is some people just can't see beyond the colour of the curtains

 

can you imagine miliband as deputy under cameron or vice versa? never happen in million years

[Condimentalist]

Aye, Cameron (or, rather, the Tory party as a whole) is showing contempt for the electorate by refusing to take part in debates now that it doesn't suit them. The broadcasters want numbers but they are at least pretending to give a shit about public interest. The whole debacle has proven that, as things stand, televised debates are a shambles. I'm not against debating, in fact there should be more of it but at a local level. But as we saw with Clegg last time out, televised debates can have a huge impact on a campaign and it isn't based on policy, but performance.  With Cameron and the Tories, they want to run a campaign about one personality v the other, essentially a presidential campaign, and remain in complete control of the narrative, and they can't control the impact of debates.

 

This (if we step back a moment) isn't about who has the right to tell who what to do (but, if that were the case, the Prime Minister is always in service to the country, not the other way round), but who has the right to control narrative. That is a very important issue and for too long the two main parties have been allowed to increasingly control public discourse, whereas it should be the public via the media - however, the media and politicians are now part of the same London set, and it is private (business) rather than public interest that is the dominant narrative.

 

You're right of course, to a point. Where I disagree is the idea that the public is capable of controlling discourse through the media - the relationship will never work that way. 

[chrisp65]

right now, I'm not bothered who wins, I'm off to buy all the Sunday papers....

[bickster]

BBC will stop short of empty chairing Cameron…

The BBC will stop short of “empty chairing” David Cameron, even if he refuses to take part in any television debates, and is considering giving him his own election programme to meet strict rules on impartiality during election campaigns, The Independent on Sunday understands.

Sources say there will be “no tub of lard moment” for Mr Cameron – in reference to the time Roy Hattersley failed to turn up for an appearance on Have I Got News for You and replaced by the embarrassing prop – meaning there will be no empty rostrum on the platform if the debates go ahead without the premier. Despite the broadcasters’ robust intention to push ahead with the programmes in Mr Cameron’s absence, the BBC appears to be fighting shy of humiliating the Prime Minister.

The row over the leaders’ debates continued to rage yesterday when Ed Miliband formally accepted invitations to appear in all three of the live screen debates – an ITV programme on 2 April featuring seven party leaders (or six without Mr Cameron), the same format on 16 April hosted by the BBC, and a head-to-head debate on 30 April, exactly one week before the election, broadcast simultaneously by Channel 4 and Sky News. This final clash is the subject of the most controversy, because it is supposed to feature Mr Miliband and Mr Cameron. Yet last week, the Prime Minister, in his “final offer” to broadcasters, refused to take part in any of the programmes during the month-long campaign, and insisted that he will join only a seven-way format in the last week of March.

Indie

What a load of absolute nonsense. Giving him his own TV programme? To comply with impartiality rules?

He was invited, he declined. That should be the end of it not. giving the government an extra, extra long party political broadcast. Thats the equivalent of a pop idol politics previous winners special. Its an utter affront to democracy

[mjmooney]

right now, I'm not bothered who wins, I'm off to buy all the Sunday papers....

I remember doing that, the morning after Rotterdam '82. Walked into the newsagents hung over to hell, and said "Give me EVERY paper". The guy looked bewildered until I said "Villa fan", then he understood.

[tonyh29]

Tory party appear to have opted for negative campaiging

 

 

this is going to be a dirty election campaign methinks