The taboo thread

DonDaddyD

Right, ever since 'the Cycling-Viking' Clever Pub spoke (well typed) politics has been outlawed in this section.

And while I'm not one to challenge the status quo and all that :roll: but it has to be said, it is kicking off in the political arena right now. I imagine 'egg and bacon' is likely foaming at the mouth while watching all this on the now digitally received TV channels while the Tory faithful are on the ropes and wondering where the second wind will come or whether Cameron has a 'rope-a-dope' in him. I don't think he has and his tag team partner Nick Clegg is still missing since Ed 'Finished Him" during his coming of age Budget 2012 speech.

If Miliband had someone to truly challenge and school Osborne (I really do not like his face) then I could see an early bath for Cameron's Britian.

Miliband smells blood and he might just get it.

Like his image and voice (you freaks) or not, he does seem to be growing from strength to strength. Needs to keep his nose and his Shadow Cabinet/Party's nose clean or at least wiped clean...

Murdoch, Cameron and Hunt
Cameron is in a tricky position. He has people in places making unpopular decisions who haven't followed procedure or acted properly. As Cameron has acted so steadfast in his belief for change he has placed himself in a position where removing said people (Jeremy Hunt, Andrew Lansley - though for different reason) would mean defeat for him and a win for Labour. The alternative is the blunderbus ahead supporting these people which is making him even more unpopular and alienating him with those in the arenas that they operate.

Have to be honest, Murdoch is out of order and his arrogance is outstanding. Clearly the Sun is after the Tories, clearly there is no love lost between he and Gordon Brown. I'm getting a little sick of this enquiry, it's not clear and I'm not sure what they are trying to uncover. It's obvious previous Governments was too close to powerful media individuals but what is interesting and ironic is the only person likely to come out of this clean is Ed Miliband and that is down to his initial unpopularity and lack of media/public image.

London Mayor Election
Will likely need it's own thread but, (i) I don't think the outcome of this will indicate what the outcome of a general election would look like (ii) I'm leaning towards voting for Siobhan Benita: http://www.siobhanformayor.com/index.html

Not sure what the outcome, fallout or the solution is or how the highstreet will change. BUT:

Double Dip Recession, Gordon Brown was right.

Got that off my chest, I thank you. Gets coat.

rick_chasey

My biggest concern is that UKIP is polling higher than the Lib Dems in some polls.

EKE_38BPM

Millibland is doing better now, but a trained ape could do OK against the coalition right now.
I'm really not feeling either Ken or Boris so I'll need to do more research on the other candidates.

veronese68

DonDaddyD wrote:

Gordon Brown was right.

No more boom or bust

Sorry, too hung over for constructive comment. No idea about the mayor, I agree with EKE and must look into it a bot more. That woman in your link might get my vote.

rick_chasey

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Millibland is doing better now, but a trained ape could do OK against the coalition right now.
I'm really not feeling either Ken or Boris so I'll need to do more research on the other candidates.

It's STV so even if you don't like them, whichever you pick first will be the one that counts.

Unless you don't pick any of them.

bompington

My goodness, is London really that full of hysterics? Everything looks pretty much like business as usual round here.

rick_chasey

bompington wrote:

My goodness, is London really that full of hysterics? Everything looks pretty much like business as usual round here.

Hasn't it been business as usual for the last 40 years in Dundee? Even my vision goes all faded and my skinny jeans suddenly turn into flairs when I go there.

rick_chasey

The local elections and the question whether to go for a mayor in their city or not is probably a bigger deal than the MoL, even if the Mayor has the second single biggest mandate after the French president (heard that on the Guardian politics podcast).

mudcow007

UKIP dont sound very good either

Clicky

EKE_38BPM

Rick Chasey wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Millibland is doing better now, but a trained ape could do OK against the coalition right now.
I'm really not feeling either Ken or Boris so I'll need to do more research on the other candidates.

It's STV so even if you don't like them, whichever you pick first will be the one that counts.

Unless you don't pick any of them.

STV=Single Transferable Vote?
I can't imagine ever voting for Boris, but Ken is a twat too so I don't want to put my X there. I'm saying that I don't know who to vote for so will have to do more research.

I always vote. It gives me the right to moan about what happens after the election which I don't think you have if you don't vote.

rick_chasey

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Millibland is doing better now, but a trained ape could do OK against the coalition right now.
I'm really not feeling either Ken or Boris so I'll need to do more research on the other candidates.

It's STV so even if you don't like them, whichever you pick first will be the one that counts.

Unless you don't pick any of them.

STV=Single Transferable Vote?
I can't imagine ever voting for Boris, but Ken is a fool too so I don't want to put my X there. I'm saying that I don't know who to vote for so will have to do more research.

I always vote. It gives me the right to moan about what happens after the election which I don't think you have if you don't vote.

Yeah.

Ultimately, it becomes a run off between Ken and Borris, so if you don't vote for either, you don't get a say in that run off.

DrLex

That's quite a wide-ranging post, Mr D!
All I could think of last night, when watching a snippet of the Leveson enquiry, was "will that c0ck Jason Bradbury look like Richard Murdoch in 30 years' time?"


(I am slightly disappointed the OP has nothing to do with the sickly, alcoholic concoction marketed as "Taboo" in the late Eighties.)

bompington

Rick Chasey wrote:

bompington wrote:

My goodness, is London really that full of hysterics? Everything looks pretty much like business as usual round here.

Hasn't it been business as usual for the last 40 years in Dundee? Even my vision goes all faded and my skinny jeans suddenly turn into flairs when I go there.

20 years ago is probably a more relevant date, with the Timex factory closure - classic case of global competition, poor management and bloody-minded unions working in perfect synergy to drive a company that used to employ 5,000 out of the city. More sadly familiar stories of industrial decline followed - half the world's cash machines used to be made in Dundee until not very long ago.
Some promising signs, a lot to do with the universities - Abertay (the university formerly known as Bell Street Tech) was laughed at hugely when they started their games programming course a few years back, now they're a world centre of excellence. And UOD is quite a Happening place
But yes, it does sadden me a bit that the get-up-and-go that drives London, even though it helps to create all the unfortunate by-products of London life, is pretty rare round here.

estampida

its all going to blow up our faces next election

the main problem is that cameron and millaband are both products of the current system, they grew up seeing this system, did the things require to join the system, now are a top of this system and saying they can change it .... not likely

now they say its was wrong that the romance paper magnates and so forth but politics is all about allies currently, not good ideas "all for the good of the country" style govenance and voters are guilty of this as they would rather buy a second house to get their kids into a good school rather than stick then in the local school and joining pta to ensure they get a good education ( someone else's job I guess... well they will blame them regardless)

new blood is needed, all these party's that are 100's of years old are the problems, the reason that we lag behind Europe is that they tore up the old system 70 years ago and started a modern country - proof is the high speed trains - 2040 by the time they are installed, by 2025 they will be outdated and we will still wait 15 years for them and until then we have a Victorian train system that was undermined in the 1960's - and who votes for them? you do

And the corrupt politicians that left the system to join childish, selfish idea's like ukip and galloway are not the answer, as no real person would touch them with a barge pole, they could win i guess if Jeremy kyle said he would become pm

the other thing is to ban party whips, I mean there is a room with 650 Oxbridge graduates (the great and the good) and they are told how to vote and think - some democracy

EKE_38BPM

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ultimately, it becomes a run off between Ken and Borris, so if you don't vote for either, you don't get a say in that run off.

Thats the kind of defeatest talk I expect from a skinny jeans wearer (remember Gorgeous George in Bradford).
If it does happen, then I have the right to moan about it.

rick_chasey

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ultimately, it becomes a run off between Ken and Borris, so if you don't vote for either, you don't get a say in that run off.

Thats the kind of defeatest talk I expect from a skinny jeans wearer (remember Gorgeous George in Bradford).
If it does happen, then I have the right to moan about it.

I mean more vote for whoever you want 1 & 2, but have one of the two somewhere on your vote, else you don't get a say in the final run off.

S'the line I've decided to use on a few doorsteps.

EKE_38BPM

Rick Chasey wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ultimately, it becomes a run off between Ken and Borris, so if you don't vote for either, you don't get a say in that run off.

Thats the kind of defeatest talk I expect from a skinny jeans wearer (remember Gorgeous George in Bradford).
If it does happen, then I have the right to moan about it.

I mean more vote for whoever you want 1 & 2, but have one of the two somewhere on your vote, else you don't get a say in the final run off.

S'the line I've decided to use on a few doorsteps.

I probably will (reluctanly) put one of the big two on there.
Do you door knock in skinny jeans? Going for the hipster vote?

rick_chasey

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ultimately, it becomes a run off between Ken and Borris, so if you don't vote for either, you don't get a say in that run off.

Thats the kind of defeatest talk I expect from a skinny jeans wearer (remember Gorgeous George in Bradford).
If it does happen, then I have the right to moan about it.

I mean more vote for whoever you want 1 & 2, but have one of the two somewhere on your vote, else you don't get a say in the final run off.

S'the line I've decided to use on a few doorsteps.

I probably will (reluctanly) put one of the big two on there.
Do you door knock in skinny jeans? Going for the hipster vote?

I don't own any skinny jeans.

But yeah, I campaign for the Lib Dems.

EKE_38BPM

Rick Chasey wrote:

I don't own any skinny jeans.

But yeah, I campaign for the Lib Dems.

Do you rent them then? I thought your red jeans were spray on.
As you campaign for the Lib Dems, shouldn't your jeans be yellow?

rick_chasey

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I don't own any skinny jeans.

But yeah, I campaign for the Lib Dems.

Do you rent them then? I thought your red jeans were spray on.
As you campaign for the Lib Dems, shouldn't your jeans be yellow?

Gotta make the punters feel like you're one of them .

No my red jeans are just normal.

You won't see me wearing red trou when I'm doing the local estates, I can assure you of that.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ultimately, it becomes a run off between Ken and Borris, so if you don't vote for either, you don't get a say in that run off.

Thats the kind of defeatest talk I expect from a skinny jeans wearer (remember Gorgeous George in Bradford).
If it does happen, then I have the right to moan about it.

I mean more vote for whoever you want 1 & 2, but have one of the two somewhere on your vote, else you don't get a say in the final run off.

S'the line I've decided to use on a few doorsteps.

I'm not sure I follow the logic of that. If one voted, say 1. Paddick, 2. Benita, how would that help or hinder either Boris or Ken? I think it is misleading to say that a vote for a candidate less likely to win is a wasted vote: even if one doesn't get the candidate one wanted, the mandate of the winner is still reduced. If the winner wants to be successful in their position, they'll need to take some account of the views of any significant groups of voters who didn't vote for them.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ultimately, it becomes a run off between Ken and Borris, so if you don't vote for either, you don't get a say in that run off.

Thats the kind of defeatest talk I expect from a skinny jeans wearer (remember Gorgeous George in Bradford).
If it does happen, then I have the right to moan about it.

I mean more vote for whoever you want 1 & 2, but have one of the two somewhere on your vote, else you don't get a say in the final run off.

S'the line I've decided to use on a few doorsteps.

I'm not sure I follow the logic of that. If one voted, say 1. Paddick, 2. Benita, how would that help or hinder either Boris or Ken? I think it is misleading to say that a vote for a candidate less likely to win is a wasted vote: even if one doesn't get the candidate one wanted, the mandate of the winner is still reduced. If the winner wants to be successful in their position, they'll need to take some account of the views of any significant groups of voters who didn't vote for them.

People on the doorsteps are worried if they vote for, say, Paddick, that they won't get a say in the Borris v. Ken fight.

I'm saying, vote Paddick or whoever you think is best, and if they're not either Borris or Ken, make sure you put one of them down later on, so say, #2 vote after Paddick, so that when the run off is between Borris & Ken, your vote still gets counted.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Did anyone see the glitch in the football last night? Towards the end of normal time (might have been in XT, can't recall now), there was a sudden cut from the football to the ITV news studio, with the newsreader standing in front of a 6' high picture of Cameron's face looking angsty. It was, for a second or two, one of those moments where you expect the next thing you hear to be "We interrupt our coverage of the football to bring you breaking news: the Prime Minister has resigned".

In fact, it was just a glitch, and we had nothing more than about 1/2 a min of the newsreader standing there in silence, presumably unaware he was live on air.

rick_chasey

Greg66 wrote:

Did anyone see the glitch in the football last night? Towards the end of normal time (might have been in XT, can't recall now), there was a sudden cut from the football to the ITV news studio, with the newsreader standing in front of a 6' high picture of Cameron's face looking angsty. It was, for a second or two, one of those moments where you expect the next thing you hear to be "We interrupt our coverage of the football to bring you breaking news: the Prime Minister has resigned".

In fact, it was just a glitch, and we had nothing more than about 1/2 a min of the newsreader standing there in silence, presumably unaware he was live on air.

Yeah.

Did you hear the guy behind the camera go something like " Take a look at this tweet. Sent it this morning" ?

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ultimately, it becomes a run off between Ken and Borris, so if you don't vote for either, you don't get a say in that run off.

Thats the kind of defeatest talk I expect from a skinny jeans wearer (remember Gorgeous George in Bradford).
If it does happen, then I have the right to moan about it.

I mean more vote for whoever you want 1 & 2, but have one of the two somewhere on your vote, else you don't get a say in the final run off.

S'the line I've decided to use on a few doorsteps.

I'm not sure I follow the logic of that. If one voted, say 1. Paddick, 2. Benita, how would that help or hinder either Boris or Ken? I think it is misleading to say that a vote for a candidate less likely to win is a wasted vote: even if one doesn't get the candidate one wanted, the mandate of the winner is still reduced. If the winner wants to be successful in their position, they'll need to take some account of the views of any significant groups of voters who didn't vote for them.

People on the doorsteps are worried if they vote for, say, Paddick, that they won't get a say in the Borris v. Ken fight.

I'm saying, vote Paddick or whoever you think is best, and if they're not either Borris or Ken, make sure you put one of them down later on, so say, #2 vote after Paddick, so that when the run off is between Borris & Ken, your vote still gets counted.

Hmm, that's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophesy. I guess my problem is really with the STV system - apparently, it seeks to minimise 'wasted' votes, but I'd argue that just because one's preferred candidate doesn't win, it doesn't mean that one's vote is wasted.

If a candidate only has a small majority, then while the views of their voters will obviously take priority, the fact that so many people didn't vote for them should modify the way they implement their policies. I'd suggest the current government shows some evidence of this.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ultimately, it becomes a run off between Ken and Borris, so if you don't vote for either, you don't get a say in that run off.

Thats the kind of defeatest talk I expect from a skinny jeans wearer (remember Gorgeous George in Bradford).
If it does happen, then I have the right to moan about it.

I mean more vote for whoever you want 1 & 2, but have one of the two somewhere on your vote, else you don't get a say in the final run off.

S'the line I've decided to use on a few doorsteps.

I'm not sure I follow the logic of that. If one voted, say 1. Paddick, 2. Benita, how would that help or hinder either Boris or Ken? I think it is misleading to say that a vote for a candidate less likely to win is a wasted vote: even if one doesn't get the candidate one wanted, the mandate of the winner is still reduced. If the winner wants to be successful in their position, they'll need to take some account of the views of any significant groups of voters who didn't vote for them.

People on the doorsteps are worried if they vote for, say, Paddick, that they won't get a say in the Borris v. Ken fight.

I'm saying, vote Paddick or whoever you think is best, and if they're not either Borris or Ken, make sure you put one of them down later on, so say, #2 vote after Paddick, so that when the run off is between Borris & Ken, your vote still gets counted.

Hmm, that's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophesy. I guess my problem is really with the STV system - apparently, it seeks to minimise 'wasted' votes, but I'd argue that just because one's preferred candidate doesn't win, it doesn't mean that one's vote is wasted.

If a candidate only has a small majority, then while the views of their voters will obviously take priority, the fact that so many people didn't vote for them should modify the way they implement their policies. I'd suggest the current government shows some evidence of this.

Got to be pragmatic if you're involved in it. We're polling behind UKIP - we could not even be #3 at this rate.

On the doorstep, beyond the cast iron voters, the biggest barrier isn't the policies, it's getting over the binary Ken vs. Borris argument.

I also naively didn't realise how angrily tribal people involved get. Passed a guy standing to be a labour councillor in my local area leafleting. I let him know with a smile that, unfortunately, I campaign for another party. He checked - "voting, or campaiging?" "Campaigning" - and then he just started giving me a barrage of abuse.

Very strange. Was the first time I took the higher ground naturally - I just grinned before bursting out laughing. Was genuinely funny.

I kind of figured there'd be a kind of gentlemanly acknowledgement - you know - we both trudge through rain putting leaflets through doors, talking to people on their doorsteps, getting them to fill in questionnaires etc.

EKE_38BPM

In the mayoral election, if a candidate wins by a tiny amount, say, just one vote after loads of recounts, how could this affect how they do their mayoral stuff.
In parliament there are seats and votes but in the mayoral election could the mayor with tiny majority do whatever they want and trust that they do such a good job that they get elected again at the end of their term?

What I'm saying is, does the size of the majority matter?

rjsterry

Polls, schmolls. Depends entirely on how the question is asked.

But yes, I'm sure that binary perception holds, and it's in both Boris and Ken's interest to let it do so. Out of interest, which area is this? Labour wouldn't get a look in down my way.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Polls, schmolls. Depends entirely on how the question is asked.

But yes, I'm sure that binary perception holds, and it's in both Boris and Ken's interest to let it do so. Out of interest, which area is this? Labour wouldn't get a look in down my way.

Fulham, Earls Court, South Ken, Hammersmith & Chelsea

CiB

Greg66 wrote:

Did anyone see the glitch in the football last night? Towards the end of normal time (might have been in XT, can't recall now), there was a sudden cut from the football to the ITV news studio, with the newsreader standing in front of a 6' high picture of Cameron's face looking angsty. It was, for a second or two, one of those moments where you expect the next thing you hear to be "We interrupt our coverage of the football to bring you breaking news: the Prime Minister has resigned".

In fact, it was just a glitch, and we had nothing more than about 1/2 a min of the newsreader standing there in silence, presumably unaware he was live on air.

It was only on HD and was because someone had failed to switch out the automated timings that take ITV to the news bulletin at the predetermined time. SD had been switched so non-HD viewers didn't see the glitch. So I believe.
</boring fact>

rick_chasey

We actually won earls court last time in a by-election, and the Tories let us know it's a #1 target for them. .