UK Politics: General Election Triviality

[Pebble thats Stubby]

It'd be interesting to see Jeremy Clarkson in politics. For one, he'd have to drop the clown act and show his actual opinions, which from reading his columns and suchlike are generally a lot more nuanced than has recently been made out. For seconds, he'd talk rings around most of them.

For thirds, and related to both of the previous two, Clarkson appeals to a lot of the same people who Nigel Farage aims at, but isn't mindlessly anti-immigrant, so if he genuinely got involved in the conversation he could be a lot more effective in defusing Farage's scaremongering tactics than any of his actual opponents.

Yes, I did just suggest that Jeremy Clarkson could have a positive effect on the political discourse of this country.

Maybe Clarkson could be the next mayor or London. By tradition we need a personality.

(although he may have to move first.)

[DJDonegal]

Maybe Clarkson could be the next mayor or London. By tradition we need a personality.

(although he may have to move first.)

Clarkson lives in Holland Park. Or at least that's where he has been holed up since the fracas...

[Ordos]

There will be one more debate in about 2 weeks. Cameron and Clegg not included. Should be interesting to see if the party leaders learned anything from the last one.

I'm obsessed with politics so I watch political events (elections, debates and state of the nation addresses) in English speaking countries around the world.

[Pebble thats Stubby]

Clarkson lives in Holland Park. Or at least that's where he has been holed up since the fracas...

I thought he lived in Hertfordshire. :dunno: I suppose he may be allowed to stand after all.

edit although a quick google searched revealed Boris is after Clarkson's Top Gear Spot. not the other way round (other than a spoof news site)

[mormont]

You know, I profoundly disagree with it, but I do understand that some people like the idea that we should 'look after our own people first'. But could Farage have chosen a more loathsome and objectionable example than HIV treatment?

I kind of understand why he picked it. It plays to elements of the electorate that he hopes to attract nicely. The modern perception is that HIV is a problem of underdeveloped countries, people who the UKIP voter would consider 'actual' foreigners (ie not Americans or Aussies). But what a horrible human being you have to be to play that particular card.

[The BlackBear]

It'd be interesting to see Jeremy Clarkson in politics. For one, he'd have to drop the clown act and show his actual opinions, which from reading his columns and suchlike are generally a lot more nuanced than has recently been made out. For seconds, he'd talk rings around most of them.

For thirds, and related to both of the previous two, Clarkson appeals to a lot of the same people who Nigel Farage aims at, but isn't mindlessly anti-immigrant, so if he genuinely got involved in the conversation he could be a lot more effective in defusing Farage's scaremongering tactics than any of his actual opponents.

Yes, I did just suggest that Jeremy Clarkson could have a positive effect on the political discourse of this country.

This article was linked a few threads back but it's quite a nice piece, thought it should be brought up again. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/stuart-brown/jeremy-clarkson-pro-eu-politicians_b_6309620.html

[Maltaran]

Presented without comment

http://www.moo.com/blog/2015/04/02/game-of-seats-the-competition-of-westminsteros/

[Alex.]

You know, I profoundly disagree with it, but I do understand that some people like the idea that we should 'look after our own people first'. But could Farage have chosen a more loathsome and objectionable example than HIV treatment?

I kind of understand why he picked it. It plays to elements of the electorate that he hopes to attract nicely. The modern perception is that HIV is a problem of underdeveloped countries, people who the UKIP voter would consider 'actual' foreigners (ie not Americans or Aussies). But what a horrible human being you have to be to play that particular card.

He is actually the worst and an enemy of our country. Scum from top to bottom.

[Talleyrand]

I feel kind of bad for how I instantly disliked the Johnny Tudor boy but come on a fucking pocket square and waistcoat? The blokes on stage are trying to be PM and they didn't even bother with that.

[HexMachina]

You know, I profoundly disagree with it, but I do understand that some people like the idea that we should 'look after our own people first'. But could Farage have chosen a more loathsome and objectionable example than HIV treatment?I kind of understand why he picked it. It plays to elements of the electorate that he hopes to attract nicely. The modern perception is that HIV is a problem of underdeveloped countries, people who the UKIP voter would consider 'actual' foreigners (ie not Americans or Aussies). But what a horrible human being you have to be to play that particular card.

Yep. He's an awful, awful man

[DJDonegal]

Who, this guy?

That guy. Future leader of our country.

[Alex.]

That guy. Future leader of our country.

Jesus christ he is actually going to be in charge of us in 30 years isn't he. The fucking state of him

[Deedles]

William Hague Mark 2?

[paddington]

Think he is dressed pretty well.

[~DarkHorse~]

The seven party leaders as 'Game of Seats' Houses- http://www.moo.com/blog/2015/04/02/game-of-seats-the-competition-of-westminsteros/

I can definitely see the Conservatives as Lannister's and the SNP as Wildlings. Also, House Clegg as 'The Kingmakers'....ouch! :lol:

[The Marquis de Leech]

Early days, but the Conservatives are now hitting their level of support in 2010, and will probably offset losses to Labour and UKIP with gains from the Lib Dems. So, I think a Conservative minority government is looking likely.

It's not raw votes that matters, it's margin. In 2010, the Tories had an over 7% lead over Labour, and still couldn't get a majority. In 2005, the Tories got 0.3% more votes in England, yet Labour got an extra 90 or so seats. Structurally, Labour has a significant inbuilt advantage. This advantage will be partially offset by losses in Scotland, but it's still there.

Now, the polls are literally neck and neck. If they remain so, even with the Lib Dem meltdown (which outside Scotland will be limited by tactical voting), I can't see either major party cracking 290 seats. And with the SNP as the largest third party, I can't see a feasible Conservative minority, unless the Tories manage at least a 4-5% lead over Labour.

[polishgenius]

I thought he lived in Hertfordshire. :dunno: I suppose he may be allowed to stand after all.

He lives in Chipping Norton, he's a well-known part of 'the set'. But he has a house in London because of course he does.

I'm not saying he's a perfect man. :P

[SeanF]

It's not raw votes that matters, it's margin. In 2010, the Tories had an over 7% lead over Labour, and still couldn't get a majority. In 2005, the Tories got 0.3% more votes in England, yet Labour got an extra 90 or so seats. Structurally, Labour has a significant inbuilt advantage. This advantage will be partially offset by losses in Scotland, but it's still there.

Now, the polls are literally neck and neck. If they remain so, even with the Lib Dem meltdown (which outside Scotland will be limited by tactical voting), I can't see either major party cracking 290 seats. And with the SNP as the largest third party, I can't see a feasible Conservative minority, unless the Tories manage at least a 4-5% lead over Labour.

The starting point is to separate out polling for England and Wales from Scotland. The Tories led by 10% in E & W in 2010; now, they lead by about 3%. But, Lib Dem support has also collapsed. On a uniform swing, Labour would gain about 45 seats from the Tories: and about 10 from the Lib Dems. The Tories would gain about 20 from the Lib Dems. Assuming 30 Labour losses in Scotland, that would place both parties on 280-285 seats.

But, we know that Lib Dem MPs can build up formidable personal votes, enabling them to hold on even as their support declines overall. And, first time incumbents usually perform better than average, as they build up a small personal vote of their own, and the personal vote of their predecessor dissipates. The first effect hurts both Labour and Conservatives. The second hurts Labour.

IMHO, the Conservatives will be in government if they can get a lead of 2-3% overall, 4-5% in E & W.

[SeanF]

He is actually the worst and an enemy of our country. Scum from top to bottom.

Judging by the polling, a lot of the electorate agree with him.

[The Marquis de Leech]

The starting point is to separate out polling for England and Wales from Scotland. The Tories led by 10% in E & W in 2010; now, they lead by about 3%. But, Lib Dem support has also collapsed. On a uniform swing, Labour would gain about 45 seats from the Tories: and about 10 from the Lib Dems. The Tories would gain about 20 from the Lib Dems. Assuming 30 Labour losses in Scotland, that would place both parties on 280-285 seats.

But, we know that Lib Dem MPs can build up formidable personal votes, enabling them to hold on even as their support declines overall. And, first time incumbents usually perform better than average, as they build up a small personal vote of their own, and the personal vote of their predecessor dissipates. The first effect hurts both Labour and Conservatives. The second hurts Labour.

IMHO, the Conservatives will be in government if they can get a lead of 2-3% overall, 4-5% in E & W.

The conventional wisdom is that Lib Dem MPs in Tory-Lib Dem seats are much more likely to survive than those in Labour-Lib Dem seats. The Left is much more angry with the Lib Dems than the Right is, but if the only other choice is a Tory, that's a different matter. Nor does a uniform swing factor in UKIP, which may only win a small handful of seats, but which could severely bugger Tory chances in dozens of others.

Really, I think the only way you can get the Conservatives in government is if they get close enough (courtesy of UKIP and the DUP) that the Lib Dems feel they should abstain on confidence and supply. Having both Labour and 40-odd SNP MPs (and Plaid, Greens, and the SDLP) voting down the Queen's Speech is a high bar for Cameron. The size of that anti-Tory bloc is really the key calculation for what is and isn't possible.