politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register

Categories

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It’s bank holiday Monday and that means BBC Parliament is r

SystemSystem Posts: 12,164
edited April 2013 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It’s bank holiday Monday and that means BBC Parliament is running a past general election programme – this time from 1983

GE1983 was held on 9 June 1983 and led to the Tories under Margaret Thatcher securing the most decisive election victory since the LAB landslide of 1945.

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    I predict Maggie might just scrape a majority of perhaps 10 to 20. That rioting two years ago and the kerfuffle in the South Atlantic won't have helped.
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    (Repeated from previous thread)

    Today, Monday 1st April 2013, I can now officially announce that I have resigned from the OMRLP and joined the Conservative Party.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,930
    edited April 2013
    "The CON commitment to the first past the post system might not seem so smart after all."

    Ah, this old chestnut. That is like saying that the Tory opposition to Scottish independence isn't smart, because they are opposing something which would almost guarantee them a greater share of MPs in any rUK parliament. I think they are opposing it on a matter of principle, much like with AV.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    edited April 2013
    RobD said:

    "The CON commitment to the first past the post system might not seem so smart after all."

    I think they are opposing it on a matter of principle, much like with AV.

    That might be the case but can they stop whining incessantly about the electoral system being unfair to them?

    The main reasons why LAB seems to do so much better is that CON supporters are much more reluctant to vote tactically and are ready to vote blue even when in their seat it is pointless.

    General elections are about winning MPs not buiding up vote shares where its doesn't matter.






  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,930
    MikeSmithson said:

    RobD said:

    "The CON commitment to the first past the post system might not seem so smart after all."

    I think they are opposing it on a matter of principle, much like with AV.

    That might be the case but can they stop whining incessantly about the electoral system being unfair to them?

    The main reasons why LAB seems to do so much better is that CON supporters are much more reluctant to vote tactically and are ready to vote blue even when in their seat it is pointless.

    General elections are about winning MPs not buiding up vote shares where its doesn't matter.

    Hm, I thought you would have been above this PB Tory 'whining' meme. It seems like a really childish way of dismissing your opponents arguments.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    RobD said:

    Hm, I thought you would have been above this PB Tory 'whining' meme. It seems like a really childish way of dismissing your opponents arguments.

    Especially since it was the electorate that voted down AV - not "the Tories". Talking about sore losers......
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    @robs
    "Hm, I thought you would have been above this PB Tory 'whining' meme. It seems like a really childish way of dismissing your opponents arguments."

    I fear the very use of the phrase 'pb tory'' confirms Bob's infection with 'timitus' or as it's known in Scotland 'porkitis'
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    edited April 2013
    While not quite in the "Island of San Serif" territory....

    "Guardian launches 'augmented reality' specs to offer immersive liberal insight
    Guardian Goggles' anti-bigotry technology will automatically redact columns by Melanie Phillips or Richard Littlejohn"

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/apr/01/guardian-goggles-augmented-reality-specs

    Then again, who needs Guardian Goggles when Hacked Off are drafting press regulation....
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Not an April Fools:

    Police in £20million injury claims bonanza as backlash grows over WPC demanding £50K from burglary victim for tripping over kerb

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2302068/Police-20million-injury-claims-bonanza-backlash-grows-WPC-demanding-50K-burglary-victim-tripping-kerb.html#ixzz2PBVUjWVZ
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Opponents of the Tories love to emphasise the fact that the Conservative vote was down by 1.5% in 1983, but they don't often point out that just 18 months before the election the Tories were in third place in the opinion polls behind Michael Foot's Labour party and the SDP/Liberal Alliance.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited April 2013
    tim said:

    The only thing that stops them whining about that is when they are whining about the media being unfair to them, and that's arguably more tedious.

    Be fair. The sheer comedy value from tea party tories obliviously whining at the top of their lungs about being called whiners, or even being called *gasp* tories on PB is unsurpassed.
    We could call it something silly like 'scumpitis' because there's nothing hilariously ironic about bleating and whining about labels and 'memes' while doing that. ;^)

  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
    edited April 2013
    JohnLoony said:

    (Repeated from previous thread)
    Today, Monday 1st April 2013, I can now officially announce that I have resigned from the OMRLP and joined the Conservative Party.

    @JohnLoony
    Will you notice the difference? It would be good for the Tories if Maria and Nadine were to go in the opposite direction.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,652
    The principle the Tories seem to be defending in their support of FPTP is that it is more desirable to have a majority Labour government elected on 35% of the vote than it is to have a Tory/UKIP coalition representing 45% of the vote.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    RE: fptp v av. Surely the supporters of the latter should quit their whinges and accept the result of the referendum last year.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    RobD said:

    "Ah, this old chestnut.

    Yes, indeed. Some people seem to believe that a party should support a major change merely because it is in their own narrow self interest, irrespective of whether it is a good or bad thing.

    That's a typical LibDem approach to politics - but not one we should encourage in the adult parties. I have a old-fashioned respect for people standing on principle.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited April 2013
    "David Cameron wades into swamp to rescue sheep"

    It wasn't called "Phoenix" was it? ;)

    Poor old Cammie. He always will be nothing more than a second rate Blair impersonator.

  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    SouthamObserver said:

    The principle the Tories seem to be defending in their support of FPTP is that it is more desirable to have a majority Labour government elected on 35% of the vote than it is to have a Tory/UKIP coalition representing 45% of the vote.

    Why are you linking the holding of an AV referendum with the LibDem welching over boundary updates? I thought they were linked to messing around with the Lords now? Or something else? Probably something else today.

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    SouthamObserver said:

    The principle the Tories seem to be defending in their support of FPTP is that it is more desirable to have a majority Labour government elected on 35% of the vote than it is to have a Tory/UKIP coalition representing 45% of the vote.

    As I recall the coalition held a referendum, and the British people rejected the change. The principle that the PB Tories, and even PB non-tories like me, defend is called "Democracy"
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,652
    Why are you linking the holding of an AV referendum with the LibDem welching over boundary updates? I thought they were linked to messing around with the Lords now? Or something else? Probably something else today.



    I am not linking anything. I am merely stating that Tories seem to believe a Labour majority in the Commons secured on 35% of the popular vote is preferable to a Tory/UKIP coalition government secured on 45% of the vote.

  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    SouthamObserver said:

    I am not linking anything. I am merely stating that....

    If you aren't linking it then what is the basis for your statement?

  • davidthecondavidthecon Posts: 165
    Anyway, being April Fools day, and this blog having more than it's fair share of fools on ANY day, I was wondering whether the 'time travelling mobile phone user', 'Cameron rescues sheep' or 'Di Canio manages Sunderland' was the best windup?

    Surely the Di Canio story would work better if he got John Terry on his coaching staff and signed Suarez from Klanfield, sorry I meant Anfield. Kick racism out of football, sorry I'm with Davidthemilicoward on this one.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,652
    foxinsoxuk said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    The principle the Tories seem to be defending in their support of FPTP is that it is more desirable to have a majority Labour government elected on 35% of the vote than it is to have a Tory/UKIP coalition representing 45% of the vote.

    As I recall the coalition held a referendum, and the British people rejected the change. The principle that the PB Tories, and even PB non-tories like me, defend is called "Democracy"

    As I recall the Tories have been consistently opposed to PR "on principle", but maybe I have got it wrong.

    I don't think anyone is suggesting that the results of the AV referendum should be overriden. The discussion is more about what principles guide the Tory belief that a Labour government elected on 35% of the vote is preferable to a Tory/UKIP government elected on 45% of the vote.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,652
    GeoffM said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    I am not linking anything. I am merely stating that....

    If you aren't linking it then what is the basis for your statement?

    The basis for my statement is that the Tories prefer FPTP to any form of PR.

  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 3,238
    On this day in 1918, the RAF was formed.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited April 2013
    SouthamObserver said:

    The principle the Tories seem to be defending in their support of FPTP

    There's a great deal of amusing nonsense being talked about 'principle' with regards to the AV referendum by those who don't appear to know the facts about it.

    Actually having a referendum on AV was so against the tory backbenchers 'principles' that they almost torpedoed the entire idea of Cammie and Clegg's coalition.

    The only reason there was an AV referendum in the coalition agreement at all is that Cammie lied to his cabinet and tory MPs that labour had offered AV without a referendum, so tory MPs finally gave in on their 'principle' and agreed to it and the coalition.

    Not to mention Clegg's nutty idea of having a referendum on AV in the first place.
    A 'miserable little compromise' like AV doesn't exactly speak too highly of strongly held principles at stake either.

    So little did any of this have to do with principle Cammie then reneged on his and Clegg's 'gentlemans agreement' not to campaign on AV themselves (after it briefly looked like AV had a chance of winning resulting in tory backbenchers making threatening noises about Cammie's career prospects as leader) that then led to the inevitable breakdown in trust that resulted in the Lords reform debacle and boundary changes farce.

    So we ended up with a miserable little compromise being rejected by the voter, primarily off the back off Clegg's heroic levels of unpopularity, that then scuppered any lords reform or boundary changes. (which both sides were either for in principle or against depending on what day it was)

    Competence. That's the watchword for this principled coalition. ;)





  • davidthecondavidthecon Posts: 165
    Yet again, I ask the Professor of swine at Jock university, please could you identify the so called 'Tea Party Tories' on PB? Who are they? Please name names? Preferably getting them more accurate than your repeated screw ups of the names of the PM and COTO.

    I like to drink tea. I like a good party. I would possibly drink tea at a party. That's as close as I come to your description I'm afraid. Unfortunately, I think you'll find that most Pber's of a right persuasion think Ms Palin and her fan club to be as bonkers as you old chap, so I'm not quite sure you are on to a winner with that slur.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    SouthamObserver said:

    The basis for my statement is that the Tories prefer FPTP to any form of PR.

    Okay, so you take a massive generalisation like that and then apply it to the extreme example of a Con/UKIP margin of +10%

    Daft debating. Fine, endex.

  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    davidthecon said:

    Yet again, I ask

    Perhaps if you whine even louder I might care? Or perhaps not. ;)


  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,652
    GeoffM said:

    SouthamObserver said:

    The basis for my statement is that the Tories prefer FPTP to any form of PR.

    Okay, so you take a massive generalisation like that and then apply it to the extreme example of a Con/UKIP margin of +10%

    Daft debating. Fine, endex.

    Are you seriously suggesting that a combined Tory and UKIP vote share in a GE could not approach 45%?

    We know that we can get a Labour majority on 35%.

    I guess the alternative principle is that the Tories can live with that because if everything falls right they could get a majority on 38% of the vote.

  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited April 2013
    davidthecon said:

    Yet again, I ask the Professor of swine at Jock university, please could you identify the so called 'Tea Party Tories' on PB? Who are they? Please name names? Preferably getting them more accurate than your repeated screw ups of the names of the PM and COTO.

    I like to drink tea. I like a good party. I would possibly drink tea at a party. That's as close as I come to your description I'm afraid. Unfortunately, I think you'll find that most Pber's of a right persuasion think Ms Palin and her fan club to be as bonkers as you old chap, so I'm not quite sure you are on to a winner with that slur.

    "Tea party tories' is a curious slur. Tea party as a right wing meme in the US makes sense with its reference to the American revolution, but no sense in the UK. Tea party memories to me mean long afternoons sitting with my grandparents, a pleasant memory of more gentle times.

    Indeed, I am inspired to get out of bed and make the first pot of the day. One thing my grand parents taught me is that tea tastes better out of a pot. I shall have a hot cross bun to complete the tea party atmosphere.
  • davidthecondavidthecon Posts: 165
    What is this 'whine' you refer to? Another misspelling I presume? If you don't actually refer to the alcoholic beverage then I assume you are suggesting that we of the right are always complaining.

    Again,unfortunately you may be missing the mark, since the biggest groaners and pathetic complainers and whingers on here are without question, the dynamic tag team of yourself and Labour hq's 24 hour a day bitcher himself. Clowns.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    "the very richest...in every year of this parliament....will pay a higher share of income tax than in any year of the last Labour government."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9964373/Were-fixing-the-benefits-system-and-giving-a-better-deal-to-those-in-work.html

  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited April 2013
    Great news for the tea party tories. The toxic liability Osbrowne is safe. More master strategies like banging on about immigration and Europe to kill the kipper vote are assured.
    Daily Mail Online ‏@MailOnline

    Osborne's position is safe, insists no 10, dismissing talk of William Hague replacing him as Chancellor http://bit.ly/10fLvrn
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    davidthecon said:

    What is this 'whine' you refer to? Another misspelling I presume? If you don't actually refer to the alcoholic beverage then I assume you are suggesting that we of the right are always complaining.

    Again,unfortunately you may be missing the mark, since the biggest groaners and pathetic complainers and whingers on here are without question, the dynamic tag team of yourself and Labour hq's 24 hour a day bitcher himself. Clowns.

    LOL

    Unspoofable.
  • davidthecondavidthecon Posts: 165
    edited April 2013
    Your dagger of wit has pierced my heart, as I take my last breath I shall remember thee as the entertainer extraordinaire who brightened my every waking moment.

    'Tis the Osbrowne and Cammie Blair that I will cherish, and the hidden tea party tories that made life so tolerable.

    I'm off out to enjoy the day. Pork. MODERATED
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Whilst sipping my tea, I am inspired to post this YouTube clip of a conservative election broadcast from 1983 to get in the mood. How times change, the main actor would no longer be considered fat.

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uzPJSuAQnbE
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    Mick_Pork said:

    The only reason there was an AV referendum in the coalition agreement at all is that Cammie lied to his cabinet and tory MPs that labour had offered AV without a referendum, so tory MPs finally gave in on their 'principle' and agreed to it and the coalition.

    The way I'd understood it was Clegg bluffing Cameron, not Cameron bluffing his own party. Is there any evidence that Cameron knew Labour hadn't really offered it?
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited April 2013
    Curious we've not seen more on this yet.
    Democratic Audit ‏@democraticaudit

    Consultation begun on moving May 2014 England local elections to the same day as Euro elections in June via @markpack http://bit.ly/10edDbM
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edmundintokyo said:

    The way I'd understood it was Clegg bluffing Cameron, not Cameron bluffing his own party. Is there any evidence that Cameron knew Labour hadn't really offered it?

    Depends who you believe. If Cammie really didn't have the first idea what labour were offering then that's hardly a ringing endorsement of his and his negotiators competence is it?
    More likely all sides knew that some posturing was needed and it got out of hand with Cameron and Hague emphatic to their backbenchers that it had been offered when it hadn't.

    We'll find out the truth sooner or later as there will be no shortage of 'tell all' books and interviews about the coalitions secret inner workings once it's over. Some of those involved won't have much else to do after all. ;)
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    The Mirror carry Virgin's April 1 announcement:

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/virgin-launch-new-jet-see-through-1795500
  • TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    There is an outbreak of slurs and attacks on "pb tories" and "tea party whiners" on here today. It must all be April Fools jokes. Is it just to cheer us up from the prospect of an Ed Milliband govt?
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Good morning - my, it didn't take long to catch up with the last three threads...

    And here's one already becoming unappetising because of micro-name calling about whining, AV sore losers, the Tea Party and PB Tories.

    Perhaps a little good humour and some April Fool's posts would help to make PB more welcoming?

    My favourite so far is this from YouTube

    http://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/youtubefinal.jpg?w=650#038;h=903

    Some more here http://metro.co.uk/2013/04/01/april-fools-day-2013-a-round-up-of-the-best-jokes-and-hoaxes-3566543/
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Summary of other April 1st stories:

    http://metro.co.uk/2013/04/01/april-fools-day-2013-a-round-up-of-the-best-jokes-and-hoaxes-3566543/
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited April 2013
    TCPoliticalBetting said:

    There is an outbreak of slurs and attacks on "pb tories" and "tea party whiners" on here today.


    Is it just to cheer us up from the prospect of an Ed Milliband govt?

    Don't you mean Red Ed, Redward, REd is crap etcetera.

    April fool indeed. ;)


    Calling tories on PB, PB tories must be the most hilarious 'slur' ever made. Perhaps you need to grow a skin thicker than tissue paper and lighten up MODERATED
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Google Nose:

    http://www.google.com/landing/nose/
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    @CarlottaVance

    BMW have a great tradition for Fool's Day - this year its a royal pram

    http://www.nickburcher.com/2013/04/bmw-april-fools-day-2013-bmw-pram.html
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,744
    It's another myth to suggest that 'the Left's' vote was split in 1983 by adding the Labour and Alliance shares. I'm fairly sure that I remember seeing forced-choice type polls in which Alliance voters clearly favoured the Conservatives over Labour (and it is usual for the centre party supporters to be keener on the more popular of the two larger parties, as any given time). Had there been AV in 1983, it would have reinforced the Tory majority, not reduced it.

    As for the Conservative support for FPTP not looking too clever, one might say the same about Lib Dem support for STV, which would impose a local threshold considerably higher than most polls are finding while massively diluting their local appeal where strongholds are linked in to constituencies where they barely have a presence.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    Plato said:

    would help to make PB more welcoming

    Why should PB only be welcoming to tories? In case you still haven't noticed there are other people interested in politics out there who aren't right wingers.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    david_herdson said:

    It's another myth to suggest that 'the Left's' vote was split in 1983 by adding the Labour and Alliance shares. I'm fairly sure that I remember seeing forced-choice type polls in which Alliance voters clearly favoured the Conservatives over Labour (and it is usual for the centre party supporters to be keener on the more popular of the two larger parties, as any given time). Had there been AV in 1983, it would have reinforced the Tory majority, not reduced it.

    As for the Conservative support for FPTP not looking too clever, one might say the same about Lib Dem support for STV, which would impose a local threshold considerably higher than most polls are finding while massively diluting their local appeal where strongholds are linked in to constituencies where they barely have a presence.

    I voted SDP in that general election, my first. As I recall it the "gang of four' left the Labour party as they could not support its policies, hardly likely to have wanted it in power as second choice. I suspect that Labour would not have supported the SDP splitters either.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    LDVoice usually have a great April Fool prank article - this one is super self-mocking.
    An unprecedented alliance of groups within the Liberal Democrats have announced an agreement to turn the Spring 2016 gathering into a special Conference. Liberal Vision, the Social Liberal Forum, Liberal Left and Liberal Reform have agreed with the Federal Conference Committee that normal arrangements will be suspended in favour of a special ‘we’re sorry’ day.

    A spokesman for the four groups said:

    Rather than spending each Conference for years to come rejecting various policy items which the Party supported while in Coalition it seemed much easier to do it all at once .

    The format has been agreed as a series of policy sections which will include a specific list of things done by the Coalition which the Party was really against all along. Before each section the relevant former Lib Dem Minister will be expected to formally apologise for their actions while in Government.

    Should the Party still be in Coalition with the Tories then the Special Conference will be replaced by an all day rally and celebration of the 100th anniversary of the Liberal and Conservative Coalition that came to power in 1916, with the theme ”Liberal and Tories working for Britain in war and peace”. If we are in Coalition with Labour they will be asked, as part of the new Coalition agreement, to refrain from making any ‘we told you so’ comments for a month around the Special Conference.

    One change which is expected to find widespread approval is that of going back to the Liberal Party practice of ending Conference with a song. Conference participants will be asked to choose (by Alternative vote) between:

    “I don’t want to talk about it”

    “You can’t always get what you want”

    “Everybody wants to rule the world”

    “Sorry seems to be the hardest word”

    Given the controversial nature of the Conference it has been agreed that a figure who is universally respected across the Party should Chair it: Lembit Öpik has therefore been asked if he is available.

    All Lib Dems should put the date in their diaries now: 1 April 2016
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    I see All Fools Day is being honored in style here.
  • redcliffe62redcliffe62 Posts: 342
    I suspect any attempt to minimise the Euro elections by having them linked to the locals is to hinder the UKIP bandwagon, and strangely enough to allow large amounts of media coverage for the supposedly biggest three parties. It might hinder the SNP all that coverage as well, who knows.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited April 2013
    david_herdson said:

    I'm fairly sure that I remember seeing forced-choice type polls in which Alliance voters clearly favoured the Conservatives over Labour

    Well you can have a look at their manifesto and it's pretty unremarkable 'a plague on both your houses' stuff.

    http://www.libdemmanifesto.com/1983/1983-liberal-manifesto.shtml

    They put growth and jobs at the top of their priorities unsurprisingly.

    I'd say they were looking to cash in on a protest vote which is hardly that dissimilar to UKIP and speaks to them trying to grab unhappy voters from both sides. Then the Falklands happened which sort of blew everything else away.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Leica have their own April Fool - this is one for camera buffs...

    http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-news/2013/04/leica-camera-sold-us-company/
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,794
    Good morning, everyone.

    Not a fan of April Fools Day. Some people just get carried away. Messrs Llama and Eagles, for example, went so over the top a few years ago they still insist that Caesar was a better general than Hannibal.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,744
    Plato - the WWI coalition was formed in May 1915, not as the LDVoice article states in 1916. That was the year that Lloyd George became PM but a coalition had already been in place well before then.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited April 2013
    If some form of AV had been in operation in 1983 the Tories would only have needed the second preferences of about 1 in 4 SDP/Liberal Alliance voters to reach 50% and I think most polls showed that Alliance voters were split about 50/50 on which government they would prefer out of Conservative and Labour.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    redcliffe62 said:

    I suspect any attempt to minimise the Euro elections by having them linked to the locals is to hinder the UKIP bandwagon, and strangely enough to allow large amounts of media coverage for the supposedly biggest three parties. It might hinder the SNP all that coverage as well, who knows.

    Surely the European elections will be the higher profile ones? So UKIP will gain some extra publicity for the locals.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    redcliffe62 said:

    I suspect any attempt to minimise the Euro elections by having them linked to the locals is to hinder the UKIP bandwagon

    Might have the opposite effect though and I'd be surprised if Clegg was happy for this to go through. It could just pile on the pain for the lib dems just when they need it the least.

  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    edited April 2013
    redcliffe62 said:

    I suspect any attempt to minimise the Euro elections by having them linked to the locals is to hinder the UKIP bandwagon,.. .

    The EU elections in 1999, 2004 and 2009 were linked to the locals do why is this going to be any different. The precedent has been set

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Does anyone find April Fools jokes amusing? Could not this particular tradition be allowed to die a death? No flowers by request, since they would probably contain a hilarious fake one that squirts water.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    redcliffe62 said:

    I suspect any attempt to minimise the Euro elections by having them linked to the locals is to hinder the UKIP bandwagon, and strangely enough to allow large amounts of media coverage for the supposedly biggest three parties. It might hinder the SNP all that coverage as well, who knows.

    I'm not sure it would necessarily work that way - combining elections surely most helps the parties with least resources? If UKIP are to do well in the Euros that might spill over into locals. On the other hand, it might also drive up turnout for the Euros ( which must be a good thing, whoever benefits) - which might benefit (some of) the three legacy parties more? The other issue would be holding them all on a Sunday - which I understand is what the European Parliament is calling for - a step too far, in my view.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    The Tories support FPTP because they still think they can attain absolute power one day under the system. I think they'll probably get a rude awakening at the next election that might make them reconsider.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,744
    foxinsoxuk said:

    redcliffe62 said:

    I suspect any attempt to minimise the Euro elections by having them linked to the locals is to hinder the UKIP bandwagon, and strangely enough to allow large amounts of media coverage for the supposedly biggest three parties. It might hinder the SNP all that coverage as well, who knows.

    Surely the European elections will be the higher profile ones? So UKIP will gain some extra publicity for the locals.
    I'd agree with that. It certainly hasn't done UKIP any harm in the last two elections, when they were held simultaneously with the locals. That said, most media will ignore both sets of elections as much as they can, as they really can't be bothered with anything outside of Westminster.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,670
    edited April 2013
    The Coalition increasingly are failing us on the weather, it was definitely warmer under Labour.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    @jonathan

    Warmer, yes, but only because of the trillion pounds they were burning.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    CERN lottery for free Higgs Boson particle:

    http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2013/04/01/Win-your-own-Higgs-boson/

    “We hope the lucky few who will receive a Higgs boson will cherish them as much as we do”, said Dr Bertolucci.

    Each boson will come with a complete set of instructions on how to properly care for it. To enter this lottery, please send an e-mail to Higgs.lottery@cern.ch. A Higgs boson will be sent to the ten lucky winners chosen randomly from all requests received within 24 hours of publishing this post.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    For nostalgia buffs - the original flier for the NHS that sets out what it was to do...

    http://www.imperial.nhs.uk/prd/groups/public/@corporate/@communications/documents/doc/id_012831.pdf
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    antifrank said:

    Does anyone find April Fools jokes amusing? Could not this particular tradition be allowed to die a death? No flowers by request, since they would probably contain a hilarious fake one that squirts water.

    April fool

  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited April 2013
    david_herdson said:

    That said, most media will ignore both sets of elections as much as they can, as they really can't be bothered with anything outside of Westminster.

    True up to a point. If the prevailing atmosphere around politics is 'business as usual' then they will be given a day or two of headlines. However, if the coalition is barely holding together and the Kipper vote is looking far more solid than a mere protest vote then they could spark more than mere grumbling discontent for Clegg and Cameron.

    Clegg and the lib dems in particular would be looking down the barrel of the 2015 GE with the prospect of Clegg as leader and time fast running out.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Why the left are so angry about today’s welfare reform? Because it’s popular – and right.

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/04/why-the-left-are-so-angry-about-todays-welfare-reform-because-its-popular-and-right/
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    tim said:

    Mr Longworth also expressed concerns over Mr Osborne’s controversial plan to underwrite mortgages

    Lest anyone forget, today marks the real start of some massively complex welfare reforms and NHS reforms. Let's hope the master strategist hasn't imbued them with his usual dose of incompetence or his omnishambles budget might just have some company down the line.

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    RT @TVRatingsUK: #TheBoatRace yesterday peaked with 7.39m/44.7% at 4.45, the day's highest peak on any channel. @clarebalding @matthewcpinsent @theboatrace
  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
    April Fool from the Mighty Rooks (I'm an owner!):

    http://www.lewesfc.com/monetmonetmonet/

    Their match posters have been getting a lot of coverage lately.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,744
    Mick_Pork said:

    david_herdson said:

    That said, most media will ignore both sets of elections as much as they can, as they really can't be bothered with anything outside of Westminster.

    True up to a point. If the prevailing atmosphere around politics is 'business as usual' then they will be given a day or two of headlines. However, if the coalition is barely holding together and the Kipper vote is looking far more solid than a mere protest vote then they could spark more than mere grumbling discontent for Clegg and Cameron.

    Clegg and the lib dems in particular would be looking down the barrel of the 2015 GE with the prospect of Clegg as leader and time fast running out.
    That's after the election - I was meaning the media coverage before it. Besides, that's still viewing the elections through the Westminster prism.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Plato said:

    For nostalgia buffs - the original flier for the NHS that sets out what it was to do...

    http://www.imperial.nhs.uk/prd/groups/public/@corporate/@communications/documents/doc/id_012831.pdf

    Its clear English is admirable. The shortage of dentists remains today in some areas, although you'd not have thought it beyond the wit of successive governments to solve.


  • Life_ina_market_townLife_ina_market_town Posts: 2,319
    edited April 2013
    There is a very interesting essay by Sir Stephen Sedley in the current edition of the LRB [35(7), (11/04/2013), p. 16] on the implications of the cross-party deal on the implementation of Lord Justice Leveson's Inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the press. It is a sensible discussion, and therefore avoids portraying the royal charter as the end of press freedom on the one hand, or drawing a charlatanic connection between phone hacking and the future of press regulation on the other. Clearly, it will not be of interest to many on here.

    Sir Stephen's central argument is that the the proposed royal charter must be considered alongside the Defamation Bill, which is likely to receive Royal Assent in April. The replacement of the Reynolds defence with 'something approaching a tabloid editor’s dream: a defence that "the defendant reasonably believed that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest"' will create a subjective test and a charter for defamers. This, he argues, is one of several provisions which water down the law of defamation in the interest of the media. Coupled with Lord Justice Jackson's proposed reforms to the funding of litigation, Sir Stephen argues that:
    'these changes are going to reduce both the risk and the cost of libelling people and invading their privacy, and make it more nearly a cost-benefit exercise for the media.'
    If this is indeed the case, then the provisions of the Crime and Courts Bill designed to coerce media organisations to sign up to an approved regulatory body, even if Strasbourg compliant, may prove null in practice. As always from Sir Stephen, it is a thought provoking and well argued, if occasionally questionable piece. Nevertheless, it is mandatory reading for those who want to understand the substantive issues.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    The Guardian Goggles video is rather good - with a surprise star turn at the end :

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/video/2013/apr/01/guardian-goggles-video
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited April 2013
    david_herdson said:

    That's after the election - I was meaning the media coverage before it. Besides, that's still viewing the elections through the Westminster prism.

    Certainly. Before it there will be one or two 'specials' with the odd EU debate and some local coverage for local people, but barring any massive EU crisis they will be pretty much the same as always.

    I'm not entirely sure the westminster based political media pack know how to view anything outside their prism though it would be entertaining to see them try. For most EU coverage read 'how does this affect Clegg or Cameron or Farage etc.' Probably inevitable but as you say more than a trifle skewed.

  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    CarlottaVance said:

    Why the left are so angry about today’s welfare reform? Because it’s popular – and right.

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/04/why-the-left-are-so-angry-about-todays-welfare-reform-because-its-popular-and-right/

    A couple of weeks back there was a message on (iirc) the Betfair forum from someone who'd been sent a form to claim additional pension to which, as a 70-year-old (or it might have been 80) former soldier, he was entitled.

    A 12-page form for an extra 25p a week.

    A 12-page form to claim a payment to which the government computer already knew he was entitled, or it would not have sent him the form in the first place. Or if there were other considerations that might disqualify him, send a one-page, two-question form asking solely about those.

    Clearly there are savings that can be made in the bureaucracy of welfare.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    @CarlottaVance

    "We do the thinking so you can do the living" was rather close to the mark...
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,526
    antifrank - I like April 1 stories (thanks for the roundup, plato) though like all jokes they're best enjoyed one at a time. The ones that work are either the obviously satirical where you can enjoy them from the start (the Libdem Apology Conference sketch is good fun) or the ones where you really aren't sure till the end (San Serif being the classic). The ones that are just off the wall (the Mars lander cancelling its Twitter account) don't really work.

    Having the two 2014 elections on the same day is probably on balance good for UKIP in result terms, but it avoids having two days of "Tory election disaster" headlines in successive months - they may as well get them out of the way together.
  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
    CarlottaVance said:

    The Guardian Goggles video is rather good - with a surprise star turn at the end :

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/video/2013/apr/01/guardian-goggles-video

    My goggles blocked out the last bit - who was it?

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    RT @Iain_33: only election where 4 parties have been shown in the graphics #election83
  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
    edited April 2013
    Playmobil hair style time on BBC Parl.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    IIRC NP was contesting Chelsea in 1983, although I don't think the result was shown on TV. It was a next-day count I think.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited April 2013
    @tim

    That on top of the tax cut for the richest and Osbrowne seems to be doing his usual level best at master strategising "we're all in this together" yet again.

    There's also this.
    Doug James ‏@darlodoug 58m

    George Osborne takes first step on road to privatising Britain's highways - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/george-osborne-takes-first-step-on-road-to-privatising-britains-highways-8555239.html … = Letwinism Phase 2. Roads, Schools,


    "Letwinisim".

    Chilling in it's implications of depths of fop incompetence as yet unplumbed. ;)
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    "Traditionally, April Fools Day ends at noon and Tailpike Day begins.
    http://linda_english.tripod.com/id5.html
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    I'm looking at GE1983: another world really. The old made young; the dead walking. Oh My!
  • dugarbandierdugarbandier Posts: 2,596
    i'm still not sure whether Paulo di canio is an april fool or not
  • Hertsmere_PubgoerHertsmere_Pubgoer Posts: 3,476
    tentatively predict a Con hold in Hertsmere. #election83
  • CarolaCarola Posts: 1,805
    Election '83 team:

    http://twitpic.com/cfz08n
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    For anyone misunderstanding who is taxing the *rich*

    https://twitter.com/Jamin2g/status/318652358622072832/photo/1
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    Kinnock decrying speculation about the next labour leader. The more things change etc. ;)
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 4,515
    edited April 2013
    GeoffM said:

    RobD said:

    "Ah, this old chestnut.

    Yes, indeed. Some people seem to believe that a party should support a major change merely because it is in their own narrow self interest, irrespective of whether it is a good or bad thing.

    That's a typical LibDem approach to politics - but not one we should encourage in the adult parties. I have a old-fashioned respect for people standing on principle.
    That's not fair on the LDs, Geoff.
    They have consistently supported PR on principle.
    Despite the fact that whereever PR elections have been introduced, whether for European, Holyrood, Cardiff, London or Scottish local elections, they are crap at fighting them and get nowhere near the % vote they do under FPTP.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,670
    edited April 2013
    The 1983 election night programme is fascinating. I watched it the last time it was run.

    It's a great example in live history being made. Everyone slowly catching up to the fact that things have changed and that Thatcher is not only secure but utterly dominant.

    The chatter starts off all about the SDP, but it becomes clear that they are irrelevant.
    My favourite part is the discussion about the role that Ted Heath might play. Again, now totally irrelevant.

    1983 was a real sea-change.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited April 2013
    @tim

    "Letwin claims a Cameron Britain would be 'more beautiful'"

    Nothing funnier than inept public relations *twits* who massively miss the point, is there? ;^)
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,436
    Mick_Pork said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    The way I'd understood it was Clegg bluffing Cameron, not Cameron bluffing his own party. Is there any evidence that Cameron knew Labour hadn't really offered it?

    Depends who you believe. If Cammie really didn't have the first idea what labour were offering then that's hardly a ringing endorsement of his and his negotiators competence is it?
    More likely all sides knew that some posturing was needed and it got out of hand with Cameron and Hague emphatic to their backbenchers that it had been offered when it hadn't.

    We'll find out the truth sooner or later as there will be no shortage of 'tell all' books and interviews about the coalitions secret inner workings once it's over. Some of those involved won't have much else to do after all. ;)
    Chris Huhne's post-prison book, for exmple!
  • hucks67hucks67 Posts: 758
    My fav GE has to be 1997. I think I watched it from 10pm all the way through to about 6am. It was great seeing one defeated Tory after another, just accepting that after 18 long years, they were massively unpopular. When you look at the result of that election, it makes the result in 1992 look very strange, as Majors Tories achieved over 14 million votes. Did The Suns Kinnock lightbulb front page really make any difference ? Labour still achieved 11.5 million votes, but the Tories appeared to pick up votes, when the economy was not doing great.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    OldKingCole said:

    Chris Huhne's post-prison book, for exmple!

    Even now Huhne might think there's a way back in time, but if he realises he's finished in politics then the knives will indeed be out.

    To be fair though it's the quad that will prove the most 'illuminating' and I suspect scores will be settled once the coalition is dead and buried. Perhaps even just before the election. You just never know.
This discussion has been closed.