Politics Thread!

[Dio]

I was about to say "In Labour's case we can but hope" but I'm donald ducked if I can think of any other Labour figure who'd be an improvement.

[Harlequin]

I wonder it there are any figures that could help us estimate what proportion of people, in a General Election, vote for a) the candidate they want to represent them in parliament, b) the party they want to control the next Government or c) the party led by the person they want to be Prime Minister.

I think the initial theory was supposed to be that people would vote for their constituency representatives. I think quite a few people still do so.

[zip accident]

I wonder it there are any figures that could help us estimate what proportion of people, in a General Election, vote for a) the candidate they want to represent them in parliament, b) the party they want to control the next Government or c) the party led by the person they want to be Prime Minister.

I think the initial theory was supposed to be that people would vote for their constituency representatives. I think quite a few people still do so.

I vote for a party.

[pogo]

I wonder it there are any figures that could help us estimate what proportion of people, in a General Election, vote for a) the candidate they want to represent them in parliament, b) the party they want to control the next Government or c) the party led by the person they want to be Prime Minister.

I doubt it. Even if you tried asking people they would find it hard to express, as it's probably a mix. There's also tactical voting where you vote not for your preferred party/candidate but for another to stop a third disliked party winning.

The leader clearly makes a difference. I think with both Labour before Blair and the Tories before Cameron there was the sense they were waiting for the right person to lead them. Certainly Labour in 1992 should have done much better, against the far from impressive John Major, but they were led by Neil Kinnock.

I wonder if something similar could happen this time? Labour are well ahead in the polls now, and could be still in the lead come election day absent an economic miracle. But could they still lose because of their leader? Miliband is far less popular than Cameron and getting more so by the month:

[pogo]

Tim Harford sticks his economic boot into Miliband's energy promise:
An energy price cap that does not quite fit
Have to say I agree with it all, especially the last paragraph:

Mr Miliband’s message is: “Energy price rises are bad. I will make the bad thing stop.” This shows all the political maturity of a 10-year-old – which does, admittedly, place him firmly in the mainstream of British politics. It’s almost as though he looked enviously at chancellor George Osborne’s Help to Buy policy and wondered if he could possibly find something as crude, populist and ill-advised as that. He has succeeded.

[gravy]

Hey it's just like Obama and his health reforms getting a constant kick in the bollocks

[seibu]

I wonder it there are any figures that could help us estimate what proportion of people, in a General Election, vote for a) the candidate they want to represent them in parliament, b) the party they want to control the next Government or c) the party led by the person they want to be Prime Minister.

There is, it's normal opinion polls. They ask "If the General Election were tomorrow, who would you vote for?". And at present they firmly put Ed Miliband in No. 10.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_po ... ction#2013

Note the most recent poll. Also click through to the pdf and check Ed's personal rankings. Rev Stu, much as I like him, is not going to decide the election.

[merman]

So Gideon wheels out another new policy - long-term unemployed forced to go to the job centre every day and do community service to keep receiving their benefits.

While outside the conference, security stops the BBC filming a large demonstration of between 50 to 80 THOUSAND protesting against NHS cuts.

[pogo]

Ed Miliband accuses Daily Mail over 'lie' about father

Ed Miliband is losing it big time. I mean many mainstream politicians had radical and extremist pasts. They were activists, student leaders, wrote for underground press, took direct action. They usually have to come up with some sort of denial: "I was young/Everyone was doing it/I didn't inhale". But it's accepted as everyone does something they're ashamed of when they were young.

If it's a relative it's instantly and entirely deniable, and doesn't matter a jot. Miliband should have just ignored it. No-one who matters reads the Daily Mail anyway, it's for the blue-rinse brigade to confirm their prejudices.

By speaking out he's achieved three things. First he's made far more people aware that his father was a Marxist and wrote some pretty extreme things. So next time they think of Miliband many will think of this. It still shouldn't matter, but (second) it makes you wonder how close Miliband adheres to his father's views. If his father were a Fascist, or a Scientologist, he would not now be defending him. And third it shows he has he a very thin skin if he can't put up with the Daily Mail sniping at him. He'd get far worse from all sides as PM and so maybe isn't suited for it.

[Dio]

The fact that what the Daily Mail wrote is totally bleedin' unreasonable doesn't merit a mention?

And it's worth noting that this story was very much led by their website - which is the number 3 press website in the UK behind the BBC and Guardian and has a much wider demographic than the newspaper (or, indeed, the Guardian site).

[Ratsoap]

Ralph Miliband hates Britain! Herp derp.

[Jimaroid]

I've made it pretty clear I'm not a fan of Milliband but he's got my support in this. He might not be doing a sensible thing but he's doing the right thing. Bravo.

[gravy]

There was some chat on R4 about it last night where one of journos discussing it said his friends in the Daily Mail thought the body text of the article was borderline acceptable but the headline was way out of order.

But the Mail execs won't back down. They printed Milliband's rebuttal yesterday. But also reiterated "THE MAN WHO HATED BRITAIN" point along with reprinting the original article.

And tacked on a leader using Milliband's objection to his dead dad's name being slandered as a good reason for not bringing in statutory press regulation.

Twats.

[merman]

Ed Miliband accuses Daily Mail over 'lie' about father

Ed Miliband is losing it big time. I mean many mainstream politicians had radical and extremist pasts. They were activists, student leaders, wrote for underground press, took direct action. They usually have to come up with some sort of denial: "I was young/Everyone was doing it/I didn't inhale". But it's accepted as everyone does something they're ashamed of when they were young.

If it's a relative it's instantly and entirely deniable, and doesn't matter a jot. Miliband should have just ignored it. No-one who matters reads the Daily Mail anyway, it's for the blue-rinse brigade to confirm their prejudices.

By speaking out he's achieved three things. First he's made far more people aware that his father was a Marxist and wrote some pretty extreme things. So next time they think of Miliband many will think of this. It still shouldn't matter, but (second) it makes you wonder how close Miliband adheres to his father's views. If his father were a Fascist, or a Scientologist, he would not now be defending him. And third it shows he has he a very thin skin if he can't put up with the Daily Mail sniping at him. He'd get far worse from all sides as PM and so maybe isn't suited for it.

You have missed the point. Ralph Milliband fought for this country and there is no way Ed Milliband is simply a "Marxist" trying to bring about what his father wanted. To attack someone on the basis of their father is morally wrong.

Helen Weinstein has published an article showing how the Mail distorted statements from her biography of Ralph Milliband.

http://gu.com/p/3j7m5/tw

And if the owner of the Daily Mail lives Britain so much, why does he arrange his business so that he pays no tax here?

[pogo]

The fact that what the Daily Mail wrote is totally bleedin' unreasonable doesn't merit a mention?

Totally unreasonable? The main point of the article was to compare Ed to his father and wonder how much of his Marxism rubbed off on him. Which is no different to Newsnight three years ago. Were the BBC also totally unreasonable?:
What influence did Ralph Miliband have on his sons?

(The BBC also quotes the gravestone that the Daily Mail showed a picture of, and I really don't see the difference between these)

The Mail also managed to dig up an irrelevant quote, use it out of context, and turn it into a highly misleading headline. Which may seem unreasonable but it's the newspaper writers' stock and trade.

Thinking on this it's even worse for Miliband than I first thought. For one his initial mistake was not his recent outburst but responding in the first place, demanding a right to reply which he got but which just let the Mail double-down on the accusations. His most recent attempts to fix this have just made things worse. The Mail can claim it's right and reasonable and many people read the article to find out (and as it mostly rehashes the BBC piece three years ago it is largely reasonable).

And of course the timing couldn't be much worse, bang in the middle of conference season when he'd much rather be talking about his policies or criticising those of the government. Instead what most people will remember about Miliband is that his father was a Marxist and that he's easily upset by tabloid headlines.