Politics Thread!

[pogo]

Some have said that perceptions are reality, while the truth is negotiable, so if the Tories are perceived as centrist then they are. But I would argue they really are. Fiscal prudence isn’t a right wing policy. It was established in this country by Gordon Brown, with his giving the BoE control over interest rates and adopting his golden rule, at least for a couple of years. There’s nothing progressive about spending more on debt interest than on housing (at least not according to the shadow business secretary).

Raising the personal allowance to take more and more low paid out of tax is centrist. Again you could say Blair and Brown got the ball rolling with the 10p rate, but just raising the basic allowance is simpler and more effective. You can also say it’s not a Tory policy but a Lib Dem one, but that just shows where the Tories got some of the moderate leanings from. Also on social policy, such as same sex marriages, and protecting the NHS and education.

It’s not odd to me that the Tories are centrist. They are just occupying the ground vacated by Labour moving left and the Lib Dem collapse. If the Labour had moved back to the centre, under David Miliband maybe, instead of left under his brother, it would have been much harder for the Tories. Not just as David was a better candidate, but with Labour claiming the centre ground the Tories would have been squeezed much more by UKIP and found it harder to win over centrist Lib Dem voters, leading to a very different election result.

edit: as for the “cabinet meeting” footage it’s a tradition I think that they let the media in to film their first session but the actual business of the meeting won’t start while the cameras are there, that is all staged for them. Normally we don’t get to find out what really goes on for 30 years or so.

[tufty]

Why do you think it is?

The answer you'll get is "liberal social policies, progressive tax policies, and being fiscally prudent while looking after core public services." Which would be a good answer, if that's what the tories were pushing.

[edit] Dammit, beaten to the post.

Some have said that perceptions are reality, while the truth is negotiable

You *do* realise how you're perceived around here, don't you?

[KlaxonCow]

Also on social policy, such as same sex marriages

Well, that's complete bollocks.

The chief opposition to same sex marriage were the Tories, hand-in-hand and side-by-side with the Abrahamic religious lobby.

In all fairness to Cameron (and a few of his major lieutenants), he personally pursued that, putting his head on the chopping block with his own party and much its core support, to correct that social injustice, regardless of what they thought, knowing that he'd be backed up by the Lib Dems (who were the ones to announce it in the coalition - Cameron backed it, allowing it to happen, but the Lib Dems put it on the coalition agenda), most of Labour (as well as the full support of Plaid Cymru and the Greens) and, most importantly, the majority of the general public and the history books.

That was NOT Tory social policy. It was Cameron's policy, which passed in spite of the Tory opposition to it, not because of it.

Over half of his party voted against it. If it were only them voting on it, then it would have failed. Cameron had to depend on non-Tory votes to succeed.

By numerical definition, exactly what it wasn't was "Tory policy".

[Cloudane]

It seems to me that Cameron has done as good a job moving the Conservative Party from the right to the centre as Blair did moving Labour from the left to the centre. Read into that either way you like.
As long as he stays put I think certain issues like sexuality are safe and he'll manage to tame the more extreme-right people he seems to have chosen for some of the cabinet positions.

But he did say he's not planning on a third term, so he's got 5 years to hopefully make at least one of the rest of his potential successors "not too shitty".

Labour can choose someone from the left to lead them for the next five years and into the next election. If they do they will be handing it to the Tories. History shows they cannot win elections from the left.

Yet if the left is where their principles are, I can understand them wanting to stick to them rather than reinventing themselves for power. But at this point admittedly I would rather see them have a chance for power in 2020 as we'll definitely be ready for a ray of hope by then. And the Tories can go home proud that they've "fixed the economy for Labour to make a mess of again" for another decade

[Cloudane]

This unfortunate snap

[pogo]

So Liz Kendall for Labour leader? The Guardian interviewed her just as Chuka Umunna dropped out, making her instantly the seeming front runner among the centrist 2010 intake. Based on this she’s one to watch:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -interview

[Cloudane]

Some Labour figures fear that Kendall, who sits in the shadow cabinet as shadow social care minister, may not be fully prepared for what is described in the US as “primetime”

Why not? She sounds it. She sounds tough and blunt but fair, which is exactly what they need.

*reads more*
Damn she's good... why couldn't she have been leader 11 days ago I am 100x more excited about her in ONE article than I've ever been about Miliband. That says something (other than that the Guardian is biased, we know that)

I'm rooting for her.



She is THE right person for the job, imo.

[pogo]

Me too, based solely on that report and the other piece on her:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... e-business

A female leader would especially help Labour broaden its appeal. Remember this?

Spoiler: show

Yes, Farage looks isolated but Miliband also stands out in his dark sober suit, and not in a good way. They don’t need another Oxford educated white dude as leader, and the simplest way to avoid that would be to elect a woman.

[zip accident]

They don’t need another Oxford educated white dude as leader, and the simplest way to avoid that would be to elect a woman.

She's a Cambridge graduate, which is the other half of "Oxbridge", so not uneducated.

[Cloudane]

The best thing for them to do is pick a good leader. That that good leader is a woman is, however, fantastic. There's no reason nowadays to differentiate.

[pogo]

They don’t need another Oxford educated white dude as leader, and the simplest way to avoid that would be to elect a woman.

She's a Cambridge graduate, which is the other half of "Oxbridge", so not uneducated.

Yes, but it’s the three things together: Oxford (or Cambridge) educated. White. Male. It says privilege. It says out of touch. It describes both Blair and Miliband, and Brown if you consider his alma mater as the Scottish equivalent.

It also says Tory. It describes Cameron and Osbourne to a tee. But it’s not as much a problem for them as you expect Tories to be elitist. A white male Oxbridge Labour leader though, unless they are exceptionally gifted like Tony Blair, has to work harder to come across as normal and relatable.

Or put it another way, the last PM not to go to university was a Tory, John Major; the last and so far only woman PM was a Tory. Labour and UKIP are the only two current British parties who have never had a female leader (excepting acting leaders).

[gravy]

UKIP are just amazing

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -of-farage

And Carswell now calling for Nige to fuck off. What a beautiful mess

[VNVObit]

can see Carswell going independent if it keeps up

and Gideon is not wasting any time to stick the boot in

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... es-deficit

[phattslagg]

can see Carswell going independent if it keeps up

and Gideon is not wasting any time to stick the boot in

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... es-deficit

What could possibly go wrong? Why the fuck anybody voted for this is beyond me.

[starshipcommand]

And I can tell you it will be a budget for working people.

It would be nice if he actually meant it. He could soften the blow of the upcoming benefits cuts by reducing the rates at which benefits get taken away as income increases, thereby reducing the poverty trap where people have little incentive to work more because they won't be much better off.

It's absurd that low-paid workers effectively get taxed a marginal rate of 74.8% on some of their earnings (20% income tax, 13.8% NI, 41% withdrawal of tax credits - and that doesn't include employer NI or loss of any "passport" benefits)*.

The coalition made some moves in this direction by increasing the income tax threshold, but there's a lot more that could be done.

We could even relax the rules for people on JSA, so they can do a small amount of casual work without affecting their benefits.

I'm certainly not holding my breath, though.

* I'm sure someone will correct me if I've got this wrong somehow