Politics Thread!

[Ratsoap]

Yep, delusional doesn't even begin to describe it. To paraphrase Pegg, he makes Kinnock look like fucking Shaft. I'd be willing to bet significant amounts of cash that he will never be PM. If I had any.

[Jimaroid]

I've said it before but the man is unelectable. Despite all reason, and knowing it's not a presidential system, there's a significant number of people who only vote in a general election based on the party and person they want to see in No 10.

Mind you, Milliband impressed in some ways. People can't argue that there's a lack of policy now. My occasional-socialist side likes the idea of the state using their leverage against runaway corporate exploitation, but the reality is it's a stupid cause. Energy companies will scrap investment to pay for it and we're already suffering from a lack of investment in new power stations and relying on ones that are past their lifespan. It's a short term populist policy that will leave a legacy of damage - Labour in a nutshell.

Given the current state of affairs in the leadership of all three major parties the next general election is going to be farcical. I can't vote for any of them at the moment. I'd probably have to go Green.

[Portland]

Not seen a possie response to it yet.

Fairly left wing chap from work was embarrassed by it all.

[Absolute_Zero]

Apart from anything else [i.e. the whole idea is naive beyond reason] it's probably illegal re EU energy liberalisation directives.

Perhaps they should make clear to the peasants that a major chunk of our ever-escalating bills relate directly to the astoundingly expensive green agenda. It would be less regressive to those most challenged by fuel poverty if those costs were shifted from big energy to general taxation. However, politicians of most stripes would rather those charges were identified with the energy companies.

One more IPCC cycle of flat to cooling global average temps, showing the General Circulation Models [the rationale] clueless and alarmist... and the gig will be up.

[defsdoor]

I'm the last person you could ever accuse of being left wing but I agree that the energy companies need some severe legislational control. They've blatantly taken the piss in hiking prices when costs go up and not reducing them again in turn and their profits are insulting.

Their policies of moving you to a more expensive tariff after 12 months is bordering fraudulent also. I've just been through this with Eon where they mention in passing that they are doing this in the hope you don't notice purely so they can rip you off until you do. I asked why they don't move you to the best tariff or leave you where you are and they say that it would commit you to a new 12 months with them, only to reveal that the fee to terminating early anyway is 10 pounds. So we've been paying 40 quid a month more (than their best tariff) for 18 months because they didn't feel a 10 quid charge if we didn't want to stay would go down well.
Then there's us moving to a smart meter but still getting estimated and averaged bills ? Why ? So they get the money and interest in their accounts....

It's all just pissing around in the hope they can rip people off for a while. It's criminal and the governing body should be ashamed for letting it happen.

[seibu]

I've said it before but the man is unelectable. Despite all reason, and knowing it's not a presidential system, there's a significant number of people who only vote in a general election based on the party and person they want to see in No 10.

How do you explain his poll lead?

[zip accident]

I've said it before but the man is unelectable. Despite all reason, and knowing it's not a presidential system, there's a significant number of people who only vote in a general election based on the party and person they want to see in No 10.

How do you explain his poll lead?

The rest being even less electable, except they were? Though that was before they did govern the country.

[Harlequin]

What does 'unelectable' mean in this context? I think it unlikely that he will lose his Doncaster North seat at the next election. If 'unelectable' means that his leadership will prevent Labour from gaining a parliamentary majority well... perhaps he will be just as unelectable as Cameron was.

[Portland]

I've said it before but the man is unelectable. Despite all reason, and knowing it's not a presidential system, there's a significant number of people who only vote in a general election based on the party and person they want to see in No 10.

How do you explain his poll lead?

Trending down again, will be interesting to see next few days' results.

I live in an ex pit village - he could promise he's going to change the national faith to Scientology, invade Greenland for its natural resources and solve the energy problems by placing pubic lice on tiny treadmills and showing them pictures of the cast of The Only Was is Essex, but Labour will always be elected here regardless.

<edit> seriously hope people don't fall for this btw.

[Jimaroid]

I'll clarify when I've got more than just an iPhone to reply with.

[pogo]

What does 'unelectable' mean in this context?

The 'in this context is' key. Because in normal times he would be unelectable. The last time Labour had someone in charge like him was Neil Kinnock who undoubtedly lost them the 1992 election they were expected to win. Miliband is less likeable and less well known than Kinnock, and has just shown himself to be far to the left of the UK electorate.

But these are not normal times. The Tories inherited the worst economic conditions since the 1930s and have been unable to escape them due to continuing problems in Europe. The question is who will be blamed for this? Right now voters seem to be blaming the Lib Dems, whose vote has collapsed, with Labour being the main beneficiaries. And no matter how disliked Milliband is he's much more popular among left-leaning voters than Clegg.

Still Milliband does have some particular problems that may cost Labour votes or even the election. He's relatively unknown by the general electorate, which is both an opportunity and a danger. He needs to moderate his tone and policies, in case he defines himself (or is defined by his opponents) as well to the left of the political mainstream. He's quite unpopular with his own party members and MPs who didn't elect him (the unions did). This may limit his ability to motivate activists and party workers, or cause some members or even MPs to go off-message and undermine his campaign.

[(o)(o)]

The last time Labour had someone in charge like him was Neil Kinnock..

Neil Kinnock practised Zen ?

Rad !

But these are not normal times. The Tories inherited the worst economic conditions since the 1930s and have been unable to escape them due to continuing problems in Europe. The question is who will be blamed for this?

THE COALITION inherited a growing recovering economy which then turned into a double dip recession. Who on EARTH could be responsible for that!

[Harlequin]

What does 'unelectable' mean in this context?

The 'in this context is' key. Because in normal times he would be unelectable.…

So can you answer my question, then? What does 'unelectable' mean in your sentence? He has been elected in his constituency and almost certainly will be again in 2015.

… Right now voters seem to be blaming the Lib Dems, whose vote has collapsed, with Labour being the main beneficiaries. And no matter how disliked Milliband is he's much more popular among left-leaning voters than Clegg.

I am a voter and I do not blame the Lib-Dems. I suppose it is quite comforting to think, however, that as I prefer Clegg to Miliband I must not be as left-leaning as some people have insisted.

[pogo]

And on the particular policy proposal discussed above it is insane. Really, I can think of nothing worse he could do to damage our long term economic prospects. Why?

Because freeze prices and you stop firms from reacting to changes in global energy prices, i.e. to the price of gas, oil and coal which are all set globally. So if as happens often nowadays energy prices go up the firms will be stuffed. They will be facing massive losses and won't be able to respond. Except in one way.

We have underinvested in generating capacity for years if not decades, needing to build new power stations not only to add capacity but to replace plants being mothballed. There was already some doubt whether we would do this: later this decade the margin between peak usage and capacity is expected to fall below 5%, so close that a bad winter or storm could mean we can't produce enough electricity and so experience power cuts.

Energy firms are supposed to be dealing with this by investing money they get from consumers in capacity. But if they can't raise prices in response to global energy price rises they'll cut investment. So we won't get the new generating capacity and will definitely see power cuts. Even if energy prices don't rise the uncertainty will kill off investment which depends on reliable predictable conditions. It's "will the last person to leave Britain please turn out the lights" again. But quite literally this time.

Even proposing this shows a breathtaking ignorance of how the energy industry works. It's not raising prices to raise profits. Prices have risen to pay for investment, but mostly because oil, gas and coal cost more, especially in £ since it fell by 40% in 2008. So why does he think different? Here's his explanation:

We will have scare stories from the energy companies like we had scare stories from the banks - threats, scare stories about regulation. I am not going to tolerate that.

WTF? This is nothing like the bank regulations. It's asking firms to fund your political giveaways. And the justification for doing it to the banks was they are too big to fail, so benefit from a government subsidy and should be regulated as such. No such logic applies to energy firms.

and

As soon as we get into government, there will be a great degree of certainty because there will be a price freeze until the beginning of 2017 and we will reform the market.

And what I said to the companies, they should become part of the solution, not part of the problem.

Except does anyone think prices will be allowed to rise again in 2017, especially if after another cold winter/crisis in the Middle East prices might have to rise very sharply. The 'reforms' probably mean locking in government price fixing permanently. No firm will be able to invest long term with that in prospect. We really are facing a dark future under Labour.

[pogo]

What does 'unelectable' mean in this context?

The 'in this context is' key. Because in normal times he would be unelectable.…

So can you answer my question, then? What does 'unelectable' mean in your sentence? He has been elected in his constituency and almost certainly will be again in 2015.

I mean electable in the national election. As that's his main job as leader: to win the next election. He's been elected to parliament and to lead the Labour party yes, but that does not automatically make him a good candidate for Prime Minister.