|
twoot posted:
What, those? They're just some unrelated boxes behind some numbers. Nobody ever said it was a graph 
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 13:48 |
|
|
the organization that would run as the Socialist Party in 1997 provided plenty of leadership and visibility due to the poll tax campaign, and the group inherited the network and contacts from Labour (since, after all, it was a Labour splinter faction). And yet this "leading, persuading, educating" failed to resonate. There's only so much you can talk Average Joe into endorsing the mythology built around Clause 4. e: Trickjaw posted:Hang on. Why is Labour on a higher % but with a lower bar on the graph? Are they trying to hoodwink people who do not know about numbers? 
ronya fucked around with this message at 15:22 on May 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 15:18
|
|
|
Trickjaw posted:Hang on. Why is Labour on a higher % but with a lower bar on the graph? Are they trying to hoodwink people who do not know about numbers? no poo poo sherlock
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
It looks like a graph but the boxes are all wrong and aren't in proportion to the percent values.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
Cerv posted:no poo poo sherlock You are always a delight. Stay a while.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
IceAgeComing posted:The General election polls have UKIP still in the low teens: but I could see that changing if they had the "we won the election; we're relevant!" card... Yeah: Ukip at 5% - small problem for the Tories. Ukip at 10% - big problem for the Tories. Ukip at 15% - catastrophe for the Tories. Basically, there's about 50 key marginals that the Tories would have to win in order to get a majority at the next election; if you're looking for a swing of a few thousand votes, then a Ukip turnout of 10% plus makes all the difference between success and failure. Trickjaw posted:Hang on. Why is Labour on a higher % but with a lower bar on the graph? Are they trying to hoodwink people who do not know about numbers? I'd say it was a typo, but local government activists really can be that shameless.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
Antti posted:Okay, I got to "pay for a shotgun" before I realized it's a joke. They are all lies, much like UKIP's genuine election propaganda.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
Also, I always love that tactic of one party saying that there's no point voting for their rivals, because they can never 'win' here. Well no, unless they happen to get a majority of the votes cast, of course.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
twoot posted:
I'm chalking that one up to bone-headed stupidity rather than malice. If they really want conservatives voters to not flock to UKIP, they'd have made that bar pathetically small instead of disproportionately big. And I'm not sure what purpose is served by pretending they're already in power 
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
They've been getting American election advisors over, so they must have got the Fox News graph designer 
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
Trickjaw posted:You are always a delight. Stay a while. cheers
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
KKKlean Energy posted:I'm chalking that one up to bone-headed stupidity rather than malice. If they really want conservatives voters to not flock to UKIP, they'd have made that bar pathetically small instead of disproportionately big.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
KKKlean Energy posted:I'm chalking that one up to bone-headed stupidity rather than malice. If they really want conservatives voters to not flock to UKIP, they'd have made that bar pathetically small instead of disproportionately big. Dubious election leaflet bar-graph aren't new, that one is just the most nakedly false I've seen. If they hadn't intentionally coloured the bar blue I might think it was simple error. Here is another dubious bar-graph, this time UKIP from a few weeks ago; 
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
twoot posted:Dubious election leaflet bar-graph aren't new, that one is just the most nakedly false I've seen. If they hadn't intentionally coloured the bar blue I might think it was simple error. Maybe I've giving them too much credit but it just seems too dumb to be intentional. I mean, they want as many people to vote Tory, so if they're just going to out and out make poo poo up, why not have the Tories slightly trailing behind Labour? Then conservative voters will be "oh my god it's so close, i better get out and vote!". I just don't see what the plan is behind "let's make it look like we've already won" But then I'm not Karl Rove so I don't know.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
twoot posted:Here is another dubious bar-graph, this time UKIP from a few weeks ago; That one's not too bad, actually. The Lib Dems aren't to scale, but everyone else is roughly in proportion.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
What makes Scottish Labour particularly bad compared to Labour? My family live in the central belt so they've never not voted for them.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
I'd genuinely be surprised if UKIP don't take the 'third party' mantle from the Lib Dems next General Election. I hate people.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
Broniki posted:What makes Scottish Labour particularly bad compared to Labour? My family live in the central belt so they've never not voted for them. being caught off-guard when devolution failed to guarantee their supremacy in Scotland - weak links to grassroots and mobilizers, non-charismatic local leaders, that sort of thing. It's very different to merely be a local representative of a national party than to lead a subnational party in your own right
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
Alecto posted:This is more than a little revisionist. Everyone forgets John Smith... People forget John Smith because he died 3 years out from the General Election. He may well have been able to win had he lived, but you can't just point to a big poll lead at that stage and go "see, it would've been a sure thing!" - poll leads that far out are only slightly more useful than artfully arranged chicken entrails when it comes to predicting election results. If that weren't the case, Michael Foot would have killed Thatcherism in '83 and we wouldn't be having this discussion. Debating might-have-beens is a little pointless at the best of times, but after four back to back losses I don't think it's at all reasonable to just blithely assume that Labour could've rocked up in 1997 with the same approach and been confident of victory. I don't have a problem with radicalism as long as it's backed with a solid electoral majority. However, I'll always take a winning centrist who will give me at least some things that I like over a serial loser with a nice platform. As for "legitimate opinions" and perceptions, I absolutely disagree that all perspectives are equally valid, reasonable, or useful. I mean, if you're determined to selectively pick up on similarities and overlook major points of difference, you can argue that Tony Benn was basically an evil hybrid of Trotsky, Stalin, and Mao (and people did more or less make that argument!). ronya posted:I struggle to believe that the PPPs were only ever intended as a temporary measure to acquire bonds, given the way they were set up (as long-term partnerships, but with aggressively narrowed options and existence outside of state discretion). I mean, acquiring funding through a credible commitment to only use it for infrastructure rather than welfare/military/generalissimo's Swiss account etc. is a legit public goal, but it's also one with a well-known solution, i.e., a national development bank. Having the supposedly insolvent/incredible state conduct detailed intervention into the behavior of PPPs via contract would undermine the supposed bond-inducing credibility. LemonDrizzle fucked around with this message at 16:56 on May 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
KKKlean Energy posted:Maybe I've giving them too much credit but it just seems too dumb to be intentional. Way too much credit, this stuff is everywhere.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
Broniki posted:What makes Scottish Labour particularly bad compared to Labour? My family live in the central belt so they've never not voted for them. They are devoid of talent, ideas, and a reason for being. They simply coast on the ~30% of voters who vote for the red rosette. It is just painfully obvious that they never expected to have to fight in Holyrood, and just viewed it as a way to always be able to throw rocks at Tories if they got voted out of Westminster. When faced with the SNP coming at them from the left, they've tried to ape the "something for nothing" rhetoric of Westminster and it has fallen flat on its face. Gerry Hassan wrote something about it: The Strange Story of Scottish Labour: Unloved and Misunderstood. When it comes to fighting Independence Scottish Labour is utterly paralysed, they cannot even attempt to propose minor new powers for Holyrood (not even close to "devomax") because it would inevitably lead to the West-lothian question being answered and compromising the ability of the PLP. Scottish Labour MPs threatened to boycott the Scottish spring conference if Scottish Labour even so much as mentioned devolving welfare. twoot fucked around with this message at 17:50 on May 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:I'm not too familiar with the typical workings of development banks - would a government be able to keep their borrowing and the costs of whatever guarantees they'd require off the public sector balance sheet in the same way they do/did with PFI projects? yes - the govt can assign different guarantees, bankruptcy processes, and creditor priorities to the development bank, so their bonds exercise a different degree of credibility. Obviously this is then subject to the broader credibility of the rule of law - bonds of sub-Saharan development banks are presumably not worth the paper they're written on - but the debts stay off the public sector balance sheet. but the promise of credibility depends on the clarity provided by putting layers of bureaucracy between the Minister of Finance and the operation of the project being loaned to - the MoF (ideally) only safeguards the government's stake in the bank, and the bank only pursues the solvency of debtors, with the cabinet's other interests (redistribution, armed forces spending, personal largesse) being firewalled by the bank's asset sheet. If you have lots of detailed intervention, then there's no goddamn point. The degree of micromanagement of PPPs in the UK indicates that the governments (Tory then New Labour both) were not really pursuing a surrender of control in order to obtain credibility to creditors, inasmuch as pushing debt off the common fisc and onto specific PFIs in order to use the debt to discipline the PFI public partner and its choice of agents. The NHS and the LEAs can't keep demanding funding for specific projects (which would make it easier for them to summon a political coalition in favour, even if that particular project is not sensible), rather they are given a lump sum and have to maximize its use over the next 30 years. was there ever a credibility problem? The yields on Treasuries across the 90s were pretty darned high, but they were lower than in the late 80s. And PFIs never had interest rates that were dramatically lower than treasury yields.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
Trickjaw posted:That struck me earlier. Its ok to voice ugly prejudices as long as you are old. Incredible. That's exactly what Marine Lepen says everytime her father opens his mouth.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:That's exactly what Marine Lepen says everytime her father opens his mouth. She's hardly going to disagree, is she?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
That's an awful bar chart, and I've seen some horrible Lib Dem ones. Anyway, I was hoping that the thread could help me out on something:  Even if you accept that Labour mean "since VAT went up", how does this add up? The two biggest expenses I can think of, food and housing, aren't VATable, to my recollection, and you'd still have to spend £125/week on VATable stuff. I'm wondering how you'd be able to do that?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
I think UKIP are the best thing ever, they will decrease the tory vote. My dad is thinking about starting a " Bring Back The Empire Party ". Become a member and you get a paperback of Kiplings poems, a globe coloured in pink and a pith helmet. That should split the vote even more. As if it matters.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
General China posted:I think UKIP are the best thing ever, they will decrease the tory vote. Isn't the Overton window kind of an issue, though?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
TinTower posted:That's an awful bar chart, and I've seen some horrible Lib Dem ones. Also peas and vegetable oil aren't even subject to VAT? (Can't remember where I heard that, may have been here.)
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:Isn't the Overton window kind of an issue, though? Overton, who ever the gently caress he was, is in need of defenestrating. And now I've looked him up- he surely does, you stupid yank. Edited more- I have no idea if you are a yank, I'm sorry More accidental death of an idiot General China fucked around with this message at 20:02 on May 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Kegluneq posted:Also peas and vegetable oil aren't even subject to VAT? (Can't remember where I heard that, may have been here.) Pretty much nothing in that image except the booze, pop and cleaning products is VATable. Party Boat fucked around with this message at 19:49 on May 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:People forget John Smith because he died 3 years out from the General Election. He may well have been able to win had he lived, but you can't just point to a big poll lead at that stage and go "see, it would've been a sure thing!" It is important to remember John Smith because it damages the Blairite line of 'my way or unelectability'. It doesn't kill it, but it definitely damages it; if it can't be said that Smith would definitely win (it can't), then it also can't be said that he definitely would have lost. Therefore, it can't be said the Blair was definitely the only leader who could win in '97. LemonDrizzle posted:As for "legitimate opinions" and perceptions, I absolutely disagree that all perspectives are equally valid, reasonable, or useful. I mean, if you're determined to selectively pick up on similarities and overlook major points of difference Do you not see how easy it is for someone to say you're doing that? 'Sure, there are small differences between them like whether or not child tax credits are a good idea, but there are huge similarities, such as accepting the fundamentals of capitalism.' -To a communist the fundamentals of capitalism is a far bigger and more contentious issue than child tax credits, it's only because the vast majority of us implicitly accept them that they seem to be an irrelevance. I just think it's a little arrogant to say yours is the only correct opinion on the matter. Well, this has truly been an exercise into how many times basic post-structuralist theory can be crammed into a comment. Having realised that, it's past time for me to stop; I'm not in the least bit qualified to be convincing anyone to change their opinions on any aspect of postmodernism.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
To calm fears about UKIP polling at 15% for the General Election, take a look at the Electoral Calculus website, especially the UKIP Analysis section. Long story short they need a minimum of 16% to get a single seat. There previous best is around 3%, at the 2010 General Election.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
frontlineKHAAAN! posted:To calm fears about UKIP polling at 15% for the General Election, take a look at the Electoral Calculus website, especially the UKIP Analysis section. You seem to misunderstand the British Parlimentary System. Long Live Bobby Sands! Or at least give him something to eat.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
what exactly do you expect an alternate-world Smith government to have done, anyway? Was his relations to the militants any less frosty, for all of Smith's desire to keep the totems of the Labour Party?   At the 1982 NEC Smith was already derided as one of the leaders of the right-wing camp. Of course, in 1982 the militants were supremely overconfident and could not foresee just how badly the following decade was going to thrash them. Now we write paeans to an alternative universe where Prime Minister John Smith preserves Britain against neoliberalization, the neoliberalization of the PS, SDP, etc. notwithstanding. Are we expected to believe that the present carping of the left about the neoliberal betrayal of the Labour party would be any less noisy than the present carping of the French, German, etc. left of the betrayals of their mainstream socialist parties? ronya fucked around with this message at 20:41 on May 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
General China posted:You seem to misunderstand the British Parlimentary System. You seem to misunderstand how a Hunger Strike works.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
ronya posted:what exactly do you expect an alternate-world Smith government to have done, anyway? Was his relations to the militants any less frosty, for all of Smith's desire to keep the totems of the Labour Party? If I'm not mistaken I did already mention that Smith was definitely on the right of old Labour, but definitely still in old Labour, as opposed to Blair, who would simply not have been found on the spectrum. I don't know about you, but I look for someone who has good policies, not who would stop people's 'carping'. Yes, the left would still complain and cry betrayal, but we'd be significantly to the left of where we are now. By the '90s there was really no way of moving back to the old reference frame (opinion); Thatcher had been too successful, but many feel Blair moved more to the right than was necessary. You mention the French and German old socialist parties, which, really, are good examples. A lot of the continent moved to the right, it does, in retrospect, seem unavoidable. But, we ended up further to the right than most, and that difference is seen by many to be the difference between John Smith and Tony Blair. When centrists deride factionalism what they really mean is 'everyone else should shut up and support my faction' Alecto fucked around with this message at 21:09 on May 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
EmptyVessel posted:You seem to misunderstand how a Hunger Strike works. No, its a last resort of an independence movement to gain political status for its prisoners. To gain the maximum effect you delay each prisoner starting to go on hunger strike so they die one at a time for maximum effect. Then the uk government gives no fucks. And ten people die. edit- I think this is is great- the Iranians rename a street called Winston Churchill Road to Bobby Sands Road. General China fucked around with this message at 21:37 on May 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
Alecto posted:If I'm not mistaken I did already mention that Smith was definitely on the right of old Labour, but definitely still in old Labour, as opposed to Blair, who would simply not have been found on the spectrum. I don't know about you, but I look for someone who has good policies, not who would stop people's 'carping'. Yes, the left would still complain and cry betrayal, but we'd be significantly to the left of where we are now. By the '90s there was really no way of moving back to the old reference frame (opinion); Thatcher had been too successful, but many feel Blair moved more to the right than was necessary. You mention the French and German old socialist parties, which, really, are good examples. A lot of the continent moved to the right, it does, in retrospect, seem unavoidable. But, we ended up further to the right than most, and that difference is seen by many to be the difference between John Smith and Tony Blair. When centrists deride factionalism what they really mean is 'everyone else should shut up and support my faction' well, hence my question as to what, exactly, the difference were supposed to be. Blair's chief sin seems to be not so much the rejection of Clause IV aspirations, but rubbing New Labour's victory in the faces of the losers. Further right than most? Compared to what? Compared to the Danish Social Democrats outsourcing the fire service to Falck? The Swedish Social Democrats outsourcing the Stockholm metro to a French contractor?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
The people's flag is deepest red, It shrouded oft our martyred dead, And ere their limbs grew stiff and cold, Their hearts' blood dyed its every fold. Chorus: Then raise the scarlet standard high. Within its shade we live and die, Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer, We'll keep the red flag flying here. Look round, the Frenchman loves its blaze, The sturdy German chants its praise, In Moscow's vaults its hymns were sung Chicago swells the surging throng. (chorus) It waved above our infant might, When all ahead seemed dark as night; It witnessed many a deed and vow, We must not change its colour now. (chorus) It well recalls the triumphs past, It gives the hope of peace at last; The banner bright, the symbol plain, Of human right and human gain. (chorus) It suits today the weak and base, Whose minds are fixed on pelf and place To cringe before the rich man's frown, And haul the sacred emblem down. (chorus) With head uncovered swear we all To bear it onward till we fall; Come dungeons dark or gallows grim, This song shall be our parting hymn.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 13:48 |
|
|
General China posted:No, its a last resort of an independence movement to gain political status for its prisoners. To gain the maximum effect you delay each prisoner starting to go on hunger strike so they die one at a time for maximum effect. not just 'a street', but the site of the british embassy in tehran. prompting them to brick up the entrance to use a side door instead and replace all the headed paper.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 22:21
|
|