|
What is the best flav... you all know what this question is: This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Labour |
|
907 | 49.92% |
| Theresa May Team (Conservative) |
|
48 | 2.64% |
| Liberal Democrats |
|
31 | 1.71% |
| UKIP |
|
13 | 0.72% |
| Plaid Cymru |
|
25 | 1.38% |
| Green |
|
22 | 1.21% |
| Scottish Socialist Party |
|
12 | 0.66% |
| Scottish Conservative Party |
|
1 | 0.06% |
| Scottish National Party |
|
59 | 3.25% |
| Some Kind of Irish Unionist |
|
4 | 0.22% |
| Alliance / Irish Nonsectarian |
|
3 | 0.17% |
| Some Kind of Irish Nationalist |
|
36 | 1.98% |
| Misc. Far Left Trots |
|
35 | 1.93% |
| Misc. Far Right Fash |
|
8 | 0.44% |
| Monster Raving Loony |
|
49 | 2.70% |
| Space Navies Party |
|
39 | 2.15% |
| Independent / Single Issue |
|
2 | 0.11% |
| Can't Vote |
|
188 | 10.35% |
| Won't Vote |
|
8 | 0.44% |
| Spoiled Ballot |
|
15 | 0.83% |
| Pissflaps |
|
312 | 17.17% |
| Total: | 1817 votes | ||
|
ISeeCuckedPeople posted:I do somewhat. Left is economics, "progressive" is social. Lib dems are progressive, sometimes, but definitely not left. Traditionally there is very sparse connection between economic leftism and social progressivism in terms of stuff like gay marriage and drug legalization, blair notoriously liked banning lots of stuff. More recently Labour has been integrating a lot of good social policy into its platform but it's not something you should take for granted and it's also something that parties will advocate for in the same breath as laissez faire economics. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 02:07 on Jun 1, 2017 |
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 02:23 |
|
|
ISeeCuckedPeople posted:Tony Blair and Gordon Brown who built the modern Labour party right? Dude, trigger warning please
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
ISeeCuckedPeople posted:
it wasn't, that is literally the whole discussion of british politics in 2017 not involving brexit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
I mean the bloody Tories even passed gay marriage through gritted teeth under Cameron so that should illustrate that there are social policies that have nothing to do with where you sit on a lot of domestic/economic policy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:In the actual meaning of the word, rather than the pejorative one! The luddites owned though, you guys should be more proud of them. http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/05/18/reviews/pynchon-luddite.html
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 02:12
|
|
|
To put it in US terms I guess that Labour currently would probably more like, erm, maybe DSA? Liberals would be the Democrats, Tories would be... pfff, actually Tories would probably be the Democrats under Hilary to be honest in a lot of ways, though they inherit the Reagan legacy of "gently caress the government" which puts them similar to the Republicans and they also have the nasty old + money wing who would probably be all for a lot of the other republican positions. UKIP vacillates between being libertarians or insane trumpers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
the republicans have that religious bent which gives them a socially regressive stance that's only really matched by specific individuals, like most tories, or tim farron
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:the republicans have that religious bent which gives them a socially regressive stance that's only really matched by specific individuals, like most tories, or tim farron Yeah we don't really have a party alternative to them because that part hides behind the "nice" side of the tory party and doesn't have as overt a say on policy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Left is economics, "progressive" is social. Lib dems are progressive, sometimes, but definitely not left. You say that the SNP isn't to the left on economics but I assume the SNP aren't sitting happily as the NHS is destroyed and sold off by the Tories or food benefits for school children are taken from them. But maybe this comes from my American background. Here being "Left" on economics means supporting a wide safety net, welfare, subsidies, these sort of things. With the extent you support these programs being how hard to the left you are. Regulating companies to some extent and the extent of supporting regulation defines how to the left you are when it comes to economics. And I assume that the SNP doesn't oppose funding the NHS properly, and doesn't want to strip people of their pensions, or isn't against expanding public housing policy, or properly funding education & infrastructure. Because in the United States, the conservative party is all against these. They don't want any kind of public funds in healthcare, don't want any kind of public retirement program, and kind of public housing program, wants to sell all public infrastructure including parks to large corporations and anyone who does support any other policies is simply considered a economic leftist. Right now I know that Brexit is the big dominating factor. But I assumed that SNP was very much against that, seeing how they wanted to push for another independence vote just so they could continue to remain part of the EU while England Brexited, until the EU vetoed that option as my understanding of the news is. So in my consideration I assumed that all these parties, seeing the horrible things the Tories have done to the NHS, to Education, would come together to prevent the bleeding. But maybe I underestimate the maturity of UK politicians.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
ISeeCuckedPeople posted:I do somewhat. It's worth looking at Labour's election manifesto - http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php/manifesto2017 It's a good manifesto and is by far the most "leftist" and ambitious I've seen in my life time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 02:19
|
|
|
Maybe UK politics and parties aren't really comparable to the American situation, and a key to understanding our system is to not try and compare it to yours.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 02:19
|
|
|
The fact that we have multiple mainline parties for a start
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
Namtab posted:Maybe UK politics and parties aren't really comparable to the American situation, and a key to understanding our system is to not try and compare it to yours. But that's really not possible for an American that's the only situation they know and understand. Have you ever heard of Plato's Allegory of the Cave?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
Stabbatical posted:That's really interesting. The long and short of it is that we just don't know anymore because it's all gone weird and all of this run-up with the polling and predictions is a bit of a dog and pony show, just like in the US election then? The problem is different because the top three American elections can be polled in more granularity. You have a good state-level operation, you can poll for President (who isn't elected on the popular vote but by their insane electoral college), and for senators (who are elected statewide), and for Governor of the state. Repeat fifty times. The hole they fell down was the 1992 shy Tory problem; either people wouldn't admit they were voting Trump, or the pollsters couldn't find the Trump voters to know they were there. Most of the state-level polling was pretty much bang on; they just bollocksed up in the Rust Belt states and that threw their Electoral College calculations off. The modern British problem is like this. Constituencies are small, about 80,000 electors. It is all but impossible to find enough voters in any given constituency to poll it accurately, and always has been. It'd be like trying to find a fart in a jacuzzi. When opinion polling really got going, you had Labour over here, the Tories over there, and a few irrelevant hangers-on. So pollsters got quite good at taking national polls, and attempting to predict elections by using a mythical creature called the national uniform swing; if the Tories are 3% ahead, what does the House look like if every constituency swings 3% to the Tories? It was never ideal, but with a little luck and skill you could get a reasonable picture of what was probably going to happen, plus or minus ten seats, in all probability, as a general guide only (etc, etc). The key thing is that pollsters could be pretty drat sure that if you weren't going to vote Tory, then you were going to vote Labour. A lost Labour vote was automatically a gained Tory vote. In this election, national uniform swing is completely and totally irrelevant. Latest YouGov national poll says the Tories have a national lead of 3%. Back to Hastings & Rye. Latest YouGov model says Labour will win the seat by 3%. Which is completely opposed to what using the national poll to predict swing might tell you, because that doesn't take account of local conditions, or where the UKIP vote (predicted to almost entirely collapse, based on what I don't know) might go. Thurrock has a particularly egregious example of this sort of thing (you could write an entire paper on what's happened there since 2005). Last election, it was a three-way marginal, Tories (16,692) won by 536 votes from Labour (16,156) and UKIP (15,718). Then the UKIP candidate Tim Aker falls out with his party; then the referendum comes back Leave; then there's a huge bunfight over the Lower Thames Crossing. YouGov currently calls it a tossup at 41-40 to the Tories, with UKIP plummeting from 31% of the vote to 15% (which is still ten points higher than their national performance) and their fleeing voters apparently splitting equally between red and blue. Except they don't loving know! The Tories could be anywhere from 35% to 47%; Labour could be 34% to 48%; UKIP 10% to 21%. National uniform swing can tell you that the UKIP vote is collapsing nationwide and therefore probably will in Thurrock also; what it can't tell you is how far it's collapsing in Thurrock, and who their voters will swing to (if anyone! they could just stay home!) The UKIP vote is completely and totally volatile in a way I don't think we've ever seen before, and if they do fall over and die because Brexit's robbed them of their raison d'etre, then we may well not see an election as volatile and unpredictable as this for a hundred years. Trin Tragula fucked around with this message at 02:28 on Jun 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
ISeeCuckedPeople posted:You say that the SNP isn't to the left on economics but I assume the SNP aren't sitting happily as the NHS is destroyed and sold off by the Tories or food benefits for school children are taken from them. Broadly, I don't think they really care about that because the SNP are nationalists. They are, in many ways, a single issue party, which is that they want Scotland to be independent of the rest of the UK. The UK falling to bits is good for them because it makes people want to vote for independence because Scotland skews, in many ways, very anti-tory. Tories running the country is a boon to the SNP. They have limited power in Scotland because we have limited devolved powers but what power they have has not, generally, been used consistently to enact very leftist policies. They trend towards lower tax, cutting services, and not doing much in general, making them distressingly similar to the tories or the liberals. quote:Because in the United States, the conservative party is all against these. They don't want any kind of public funds in healthcare, don't want any kind of public retirement program, and kind of public housing program, wants to sell all public infrastructure including parks to large corporations and anyone who does support any other policies is simply considered a economic leftist. The tories also want that here, they're functionally reaganites, trying to dismantle the government except where it can be used to profit the rich. The EU itself is in a lot of ways entirely compatible with this view because the EU is a massive free market capitalist institution and it doesn't, really, like state intervention in the market. The tory party, I should remind you, was officially pro-remain. Theresa may was pro remain until she took office. The big business side of the UK political scene is pro europe because it makes them a lot of money. But the tory party also contains a lot of the xenophobes and is pandering to the UKIP vote as well, so the party is split between the group that wants to make money and the group that wants to stay in power by riding the UKIP wave. Every party in the UK wants its own thing, none of them like each other and they will not co-operate any more than they absolutely have to. The exceptions being the tiny parties like greens/PC because they don't have anything to lose. The EU is not leftist, the tories are not, entirely, anti EU, nor are Labour, the SNP are entirely after their own ideological commitment to Scottish nationalism and independence, the liberals are entirely after power, Labour's democratic socialist wing is currently holding the reins and is ideologically committed to government spending and control of the economy for the benefit of the majority. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 02:29 on Jun 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
Paperhouse posted:It's worth looking at Labour's election manifesto - http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php/manifesto2017 Crazy how little foreign policy there is in that. Probably knowing how much Corbyn seems to side with the Russians - which worries me. No proper policy from either party to how to deal with Russia, who has now stolen the elections of one of the largest countries on earth, targetted Brexit election as well with it's disinformation campaign, and will target these elections as well there is no doubt. I sure hope england has safeguards in place to protect its government from politicians compromised or bought of by the Russians. But considering London is literally their playground, I don't see that happening. That is scary. OwlFancier posted:Broadly, I don't think they really care about that because the SNP are nationalists. They are, in many ways, a single issue party, which is that they want Scotland to be independent of the rest of the UK. The UK falling to bits is good for them because it makes people want to vote for independence because Scotland skews, in many ways, very anti-tory. Tories running the country is a boon to the SNP. They have limited power in Scotland because we have limited devolved powers but what power they have has not, generally, been used consistently to enact very leftist policies. They trend towards lower tax, cutting services, and not doing much in general, making them distressingly similar to the tories or the liberals. I assumed the SNP came to power because of the drop of funding to their constituencies due to the collapse of the labour party and in order to move their government more to the left which was prevented by the Tories. And I always assumed that once Labour came to power that they would be more than happy to work with them to pursue their ultimate goal of a more equal Scotland. ISeeCuckedPeople fucked around with this message at 02:30 on Jun 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
ISeeCuckedPeople posted:
Our secret services were russian spies for the entire cold war
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
ISeeCuckedPeople posted:Crazy how little foreign policy there is in that. Probably knowing how much Corbyn seems to side with the Russians - which worries me. The UK has very little to do with Russia other than financially because it's the financial capital of the continent, and anything it did have to do with Russia militarily would require the co-operation of the EU. I don't think Corbyn gets on particularly well with invasion happy plutocrat Vladimir Putin, somehow, and I don't see why you would think that. ISeeCuckedPeople posted:I assumed the SNP came to power because of the drop of funding to their constituencies due to the collapse of the labour party and in order to move their government more to the left which was prevented by the Tories. And I always assumed that once Labour came to power that they would be more than happy to work with them to pursue their ultimate goal of a more equal Scotland. That is almost entirely wrong, the SNP came to power because Labour has historically been very strong in Scotland but has failed to deliver much of substance there for some time and had become complacent. They are utterly opposed to Labour because Labour is unionist. The SNP have been around a long time and their goal has always been to get Scotland out of the political control of the rest of the UK, nothing more and nothing less. Equality has nothing to do with it. They are nationalists. They have made overtures to the left to co-opt the traditional Labour vote, but primarily they are trying to use Scottish antipathy towards the tories to split the country off, regardless of whether that would actually be helpful, and they will continue to pursue that to the expense of everything else regardless of its tenability. They would not, in all likelihood, vote with the Tories because that would seriously damage their credibility at home, but their support of Labour is far from guaranteed either. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Jun 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
ISeeCuckedPeople posted:But that's really not possible for an American that's the only situation they know and understand. I don't believe in allegories, they get in the way. I could give a modern history of the Labour party, but there's people itt better able to do so than me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
Namtab posted:I don't believe in allegories, they get in the way. Blair helped kill a lot of Iraqis and paved the way for a lot of domestic privatization. Chaos reigned. Corbyn promised to save the party, party membership rejoiced, Blair's remaining mates went absolutely apeshit and tried repeatedly to knife Corbs in the back. Reckon that hits the salient points.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
Was Theresa May actually out campaigning or anything during that debate?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:Was Theresa May actually out campaigning or anything during that debate? I'm hoping someone looks up her schedule or photographs her down the pub or something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
Broadly speaking though you've got at least three wings of the Labour party all vying for control, with corbyns wing holding the leadership and the membership but the majority of mps and the nec being the others. externally on the left you've got the liberal democrats who want to play kingmaker and thus are quite happy to erode Labour support to do so. The snp are a nationalist party and want either independence or as much power for Scotland as they can get. The greens are largely irrelevant in all this. On the right you've got the conservatives who also have several wings but mostly follow thatchers economic policies (think Reagan). There's also ukip who again are a single issue party (hard brexit, now exploring vague islamophobia). Brexit is a big complication as well, with Labour in the worst situation as they control London (strong remain) but also 40 of the 50 largest Leave seats in the country. The Tories are in a similar situation with this divide but have fallen into the party line of leaving. This makes a coalition of the left complicated as any allies will want concessions on brexit which may be seen as a betrayal by part of the Labour voting base. Additionally the lib dems are just as likely to prop up a Tory government. So yeah, there's a lot of nuance here
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That is almost entirely wrong, the SNP came to power because Labour has historically been very strong in Scotland but has failed to deliver much of substance there for some time and had become complacent. They are utterly opposed to Labour because Labour is unionist. The SNP have been around a long time and their goal has always been to get Scotland out of the political control of the rest of the UK, nothing more and nothing less. Equality has nothing to do with it. They are nationalists. I assumed the SNP was much like Sinn Fein; Left Wing Anti-UK Nationalists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
The snp would be more likely to negotiate with Labour, but the underlying goal of the snp is Scottish independence because England is holding them back from being the land of milk and honey (probably half true).
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
i did the quiz and somehow got the tory answer on housing. what's the catch on their plan to build the most homes
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:i did the quiz and somehow got the tory answer on housing. what's the catch on their plan to build a million and a half homes They'll all go to landlords who will exploit the poo poo out of poor people
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
TheRat posted:They'll all go to landlords who will exploit the poo poo out of poor people haha hell yeah thats my kind of cleverly worded nightmare policy
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 03:05
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:i did the quiz and somehow got the tory answer on housing. what's the catch on their plan to build the most homes The houses are built out of the bones of the poor, and sold only to landlords
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
Namtab posted:The houses are built out of the bones of the poor, and sold only to landlords Piss poor insulation with the bone houses
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
ISeeCuckedPeople posted:I assumed the SNP was much like Sinn Fein; Left Wing Anti-UK Nationalists. Fewer explosions in their past, more centrist politics with a greater tolerance for the status quo. The two are undoubtedly connected.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
That's what asbestos is for
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
Namtab posted:The snp would be more likely to negotiate with Labour, but the underlying goal of the snp is Scottish independence because England is holding them back from being the land of milk and honey (probably half true). I though the UK subsidized them?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
ISeeCuckedPeople posted:I though the UK subsidized them? It does.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 03:11
|
|
|
Angepain posted:I do like it when pollsters try to ram it into the reader's skull that a confidence interval is a thing that might be relevant to analysis of a survey. The graph for Glasgow North is a fun one. Yeah that's my constituency and I'm probably going to vote Labour but then I'm also thinking: 1. Patrick Harvie is standing as the Green candidate and he would easily be the best individual MP (and the Green vote is not insignificant here) 2. The Tories have become the de facto 'unionist' party in Scotland so I'm expecting them to pick up major gains from the No brigade, so part of me is thinking that splitting the SNP vote in a not wholly safe seat might be inviting an upset 3: I want Corbyn to be PM and I think he would end up in a confidence and supply arrangement with the SNP if that option presented itself but it feels somehow ridiculous to not vote for Labour. The Labour candidate is also new and fairly unremarkable. So yeah still haven't quite worked it out yet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 03:11
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:Yeah that's my constituency and I'm probably going to vote Labour but then I'm also thinking: My advice would genuinely be to vote to keep the tories out. The SNP are gobshites but Scotland as you say seems to be swinging distressingly Tory so keeping their numbers down is something I would be concerned about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/virgiltexas/status/870032264876478465
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
ThomasPaine posted:Yeah that's my constituency and I'm probably going to vote Labour but then I'm also thinking:
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
it kind of owns that the greens' housing policy is East Germany Lite 
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 02:23 |
|
|
 Mair fe me, Fuckall fer u.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2017 04:42
|
|
