Politics Thread!

[(o)(o)]

The current government has been and is being very honest about our economic situation..

Oh dear.. YET ANOTHER concrete example of CONDEM dishonesty :

[pogo]

The thing that hugely grew university attendance isn't the current system though, it's the one that Labour put in place.

And Milliband is advocating a move back towards that system the effects of which you're praising while rubbishing the path that brought it about.

The large growth in university attendance started long before Labour came to power though.

The main factors were the education reforms that brought in GCSE and easier A-levels, and promoting polytechnics to universities, both of which happened before Labour.

Labour introduced and increased tuition fees, the Tories increased them again. What’s notable is this hasn’t obviously impacted numbers which have kept growing to record levels. I suspect they could be raised even higher, even up to the level paid by overseas students, and students would still pay provided there were loans for the full amount as now. They pay far more in the US and participation I think is higher.

This means the level of fees is largely political. Labour can if they choose lower or even abolish fees. If they’re not planning to return to 1990s levels of participation this will require larger subsidies. And I just don’t see that spending £billions more on a largely middle class subsidy should be a priority, certainly not of a supposedly progressive Labour government.

[Deckard]

Vaguely remember Brown trying to duck out of tv debates a few years ago and the right-wing press going mad and now Mr Cameron is trying it on I presume his spin doctors are saying that appearing on the debates is worse than not appearing which I find hard to believe.

[pogo]

He has a point, re the DUP. Fourth largest party in Westminster yet excluded from the debate with leaders of much smaller parties getting the nod ahead of them. The DUP are the party closest ideologically and traditionally to the Tories so the suspicion is that the broadcasters preferring smaller but mostly left-wing parties (with UKIP for “balance” I suppose) is political.

The broadcasters do seem to be making it up as they go along. They’ve known the date of the election for years. The’ve also known the election is more likely even than the last one to result in a hung parliament and a coalition government. So they should have been better prepared for this, deciding in advance clear and fair criteria for participation which few can argue with. As it is they’ve made it easy for politicians to say no.

[venusian]

This means the level of fees is largely political. Labour can if they choose lower or even abolish fees. If they’re not planning to return to 1990s levels of participation this will require larger subsidies. And I just don’t see that spending £billions more on a largely middle class subsidy should be a priority, certainly not of a supposedly progressive Labour government.

Government-paid tuition fees are "middle-class subsidy"? That only shows how necessary they are, surely?

[pogo]

“middle class subsidy” is rather simplifying it, but the fact is the people who benefit from subsidised higher education are overwhelmingly middle class. Genuinely wealthy students are fewer in number and would be able to pay their own way. Working class students attend university in far fewer numbers. So the subsidies largely flow to middle classes, and not to all of them but to the better educated ones.

You would think a progressive socialist party would find other priorities, but no, this is one of their first policy announcements for this election. Something similar was memorably a Lib Dem pledge last time around, before they actually ended up in government. I guess the lobbying power of universities, where many politicians spent their youth, is very strong.

[Ollie]

He has a point, re the DUP. Fourth largest party in Westminster yet excluded from the debate with leaders of much smaller parties getting the nod ahead of them. The DUP are the party closest ideologically and traditionally to the Tories so the suspicion is that the broadcasters preferring smaller but mostly left-wing parties (with UKIP for “balance” I suppose) is political.

I'm sorry, how's that? Are you forgetting that for ages the broadcasters were quite happy to include UKIP but massively resistant to letting the Greens (or the other smaller left-wing parties) take part? Where was your "balance" then?

[pogo]

I don’t think they were massively resistant, just their initial proposal of Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem and UKIP was pretty flawed. UKIP have been polling well but that has not translated into getting new UKIP MPs (only old Tory ones), unlike the Greens, SNP, PC and NI parties that have won seats on their own merits in past elections.

It‘s easy to imagine UKIP winning nothing new – they have no natural heartland, may suffer badly as the public gets a good look at them during the campaign, and voters may vote tactically to avoid the booby prize of a UKIP MP. And if they can’t improve on their two seats, or maybe even can’t hold on to them, the broadcasters’ initial decision to put them on equal footing with the three main national parties will look very silly.

[tufty]

It‘s easy to imagine UKIP winning nothing new

It's also easy to imagine Nigel Farage being anally violated with a barbed-wire wrapped pole. It's less easy for that to become reality.

i.e. I suspect you underestimate voters' disenchantment with "traditional" parties. And in the case of UKIP, you overestimate voters' ability and / or willingness to see through smoke & mirrors.

[venusian]

I think it's clear to almost everyone that UKIP are a bunch of idiots. People may vote for them because they're a bunch of idiots; they're a vote-for-able manifestation of None Of The Above.

[(o)(o)]

I think it's clear to almost everyone that UKIP are a bunch of idiots.

Not to idiots it's not. To an idiot - another idiot appears normal.

[gravy]

I dunno, I watched that C5 Nigel Farage Fans and UKIP twats (or whatever it was called) last night.

Something that was surprising was even the nuttier fuckers seemed to acknowledge UKIP might be shit. "Worth a try and if they're rubbish we just won't vote them in again"

This one though, yeah she's just stupid:

[F-ZeroOne]

Nige is in Cornwall, and was interviewed by one of our local ITN Westcountry newsreaders. I didn't catch the whole thing, but saw the part where talk moved to migration, as all talk of UKIP usually does. The newsreader bought up the fact that UKIPs immigration policy mentions not allowing immigrants into the country who have "life threatening illnesses" [1]. Nigel was asked directly what he classed as a life threatening illness.

And he dodged the question!

So the newsreader asked him the same thing again. I think possibly he'd been possessed by Jeremy Paxman because they're not normally this aggressive, even when discussing big issues like the price of milk.

And Nigel got angry!

And then the newsreader pointed out that Nigel smoked and drank a lot, and pointed out that under UKIPs proposed rules, that would be a no-no. Nigel got angrier. And basically said that he wasn't going to stand there and be accused of that sort of thing.

The newsreader replied that yesterday, Nigel had spoke of spending five hours in the pub...

I don't know if this interview will be available online or not...

Edit: ah, found it:

http://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/sto ... -cornwall/

[1] I can immediately see a few flaws with that idea. Patients who require dialysis technically have a life-threatening illness. Measles can be a life-threatening illness. Possibly he got "life-threatening" mixed up with "contagious", but the flu is potentially a life-threatening illness, and contagious. It is also an intrinsically racist policy - in many parts of the world, HIV (among others) is a big problem, and not always - no, lets be honest, not very often - through the direct fault of its victims (particularly women)...

[gravy]

Hahah fantastic, kicked around by regional TV. The shame of it.

James O'Brien give him a bit of a slap on LBC a while back nearly as good

[merman]

Vaguely remember Brown trying to duck out of tv debates a few years ago and the right-wing press going mad and now Mr Cameron is trying it on I presume his spin doctors are saying that appearing on the debates is worse than not appearing which I find hard to believe.

Cameron in 2009 accused Brown of dithering and avoiding the issue.

Cameron in 2015 has tried to use other parties as a Trojan Horse, tried to bully the broadcasters and now has had his bluff called.

The broadcasters are going ahead with the plan of three debates - even if Cameron is represented by an empty chair because he only wants to do one.