Politics Thread!

[KlaxonCow]

Yes, but the recession has already ended once before.

Then it came back again. "Double dip" and all that.

With only 1% growth, in a quarter that was boosted by the Olympics, one has to wonder just how robust / fragile this latest recovery from the recession might be.

I mean, has there ever been a "triple dip recession" in history before?

[merman]

MP's to debate a Private Member's Bill on Britain leaving the EU, unlikely to become law

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20085437

Interesting point though, the topic was chosen by readers of the Guido Fawkes blog. With this and eGov petitions, are we seeing more ways to influence what our MPs actually debate and consider important?

[pogo]

Well "double-dip", "triple-dip" are not technical terms. A recession is two quarters of negative growth but there's no rule over how far apart recessions need to be for it to be "xxx-dip".

The Olympics undoubtedly did goose the economy somewhat. But most of that came through construction which wound down long before the event (this not being Athens). And if you're going to spend billions on a construction project it's best to spend it on one which will create long term jobs or benefit the economy in other ways; a new airport, a high speed rail line, houses. Not something that's going to be used for just four weeks then be mostly dismantled/stand empty.

The other problem with the Olympics is the site. London gets far more tourists and travellers than the rest of the country. So it did not need a boost to to tourism and had little spare capacity for it, as seen by the draconian measures taken to stop Olympic traffic being gummed up by normal London traffic. Instead of boosting trade in tourism it reduced it, judging by many of the reports at the time. Any other British city the benefit would have been significant. But not in London.

[gravy]

Ooof

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012 ... rby-tories

The electorate don't like the Tories right now then

[Dio]

Nice to see the number of people spoiling their ballot papers in the commissioner elections too. Bloody waste of time and money. The cynic in me can't help but think this is just a way for the political parties to expand the job pool for political affiliated persons.

[pogo]

Labour were always going to win Corby by a wide margin. A mid-term by-election for a seat the Tories barely won last time because they had an exceptionally good candidate who's not standing again. Hardly a natural Tory seat.

The Lib Dems are the real losers here. Fourth losing 2/3 of their vote and their deposit. The reason the result was so late was the Lib Dems asked for recounts to try and avoid this, which doesn't sound as if it should be allowed: the point of the count is to determine the MP, not save the Lib Dems a few hundred pounds. It probably cost more in overtime payments to the people doing the counting.

[Orava]

Ooof

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012 ... rby-tories

The electorate don't like the Tories right now then

What will they do with all the trouser presses?

[gravy]

Labour were always going to win Corby by a wide margin. A mid-term by-election for a seat the Tories barely won last time because they had an exceptionally good candidate who's not standing again. Hardly a natural Tory seat.

On the other hand it's first time Labour has won a seat from the Tories in 15 years in a by-election.

I mean you're trying to paint it as typical mid-termism but there is a new dynamic at work here. It's not just labour gains wot won it but a con vote getting split by UKIP. They're getting the shaft from both ends innit.

[Dio]

I've been wondering today if Cameron is looking at the AV referendum and thinking "Maybe that wasn't such a bad idea after all..."

[pogo]

15 years ! Yes, and what happened 15 years ago? I just think it's a fact of life that governments lose by elections. Even if they're not especially unpopular nationally they can lose to protest votes (which accounts for UKIP's share), to well motivated opposition campaigns, or because disgruntled voters dislike why the previous MP quit/was sacked/was jailed. It tells you little about what the election result will be.

[merman]

15 years ! Yes, and what happened 15 years ago? I just think it's a fact of life that governments lose by elections. Even if they're not especially unpopular nationally they can lose to protest votes (which accounts for UKIP's share), to well motivated opposition campaigns, or because disgruntled voters dislike why the previous MP quit/was sacked/was jailed. It tells you little about what the election result will be.

Governments lose by-elections, yes. But the 12.5% swing to Labour is more than significant, and more than polling suggested would happen. Protest votes fall away at general election time.

[pogo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monmouth_by-election,_1991

Monmouth, 1991. A 12.6% swing to Labour, taking a seat off the Tories they'd held since 1970. The incumbent had died so it could hardly be protest against him. That was one of a series of wins for Labour and the Lib Dems during that parliament from the Tories who were very unpopular. Yet they won the next election, taking back the seat.

I'm not saying the Tories will win the next election: I think they're unlikely to. But I don't think you should read too much into one result, especially in a seat won so narrowly only a short time ago, with a successful and popular MP who's quitting for largely selfish reasons.

[merman]

13 out of 41 PCC's are not affiliated with a political party. But turnout was as low as 11%, and one polling station in Newport had zero voters.

Effectively 80% of those eligible to vote did not bother or spoiled their ballot paper. They gave us a vote on an issue no-one wanted, claimed it was wrong to spend money advertising the fact people could vote, and failed to put across the fact that it was under a form of PR (single transferable vote). But an issue people WANT to vote on - a referendum on the EU - is consistently put back or put off.

[pogo]

It's not about that isn't it?

It's about him claiming the Police got it wrong (lying basically) while also refusing to give an account of what happened.

On balance of probabilities I'd take the two officer's independent accounts over a non account from Mitchell.

The officer, or officers, that now seem to have pretented to be a member of the public and lied? Independent of the truth maybe.

[Dio]

Hmm. Still begs the question, why did Mitchell keep refusing to simply say what he said?