Politics, politics, politics

[Gilzeantoscore]

I genuinely don't think that voting based on hatred is reciprocated.

I know a lot of Conservative voters. They all vote that way because they believe one of two things - that a Conservative government is better for the country or that a Conservative government is better for them. I genuinely couldn't tell you how many Conservative voters I know but it's certainly enough to be a good sample size and not one votes the way they do out of hatred for Labour.

That's not to say that they don't hate individual members of the Labour party, but that's usually the likes of Tony Benn or George Galloway - people who are irrelevant to almost everyone's voting habits.

I'd say a good half (at least) of those I know who vote Labour would never even consider voting Conservative no matter what. If Labour dropped union involvement, reduced taxes, reduced spending and showed any kind of economic competence whatsoever I'd happily consider voting for them and so would most people I know.

What, you mean, turned into the Tory Party? Yep, if the Tories decided to re-nationalise utilities, spent more on the NHS and adopted a more independent foreign policy, I would vote for them.

 

[scaramanga]

What, you mean, turned into the Tory Party? Yep, if the Tories decided to re-nationalise utilities, spent more on the NHS and adopted a more independent foreign policy, I would vote for them.

I think you'd be surprised how few Labour voters would.

There's an entire generation that think the Conservatives are inherently evil because Spitting Image told them so.

 

[parklane1]

I think you'd be surprised how few Labour voters would.

There's an entire generation that think the Conservatives are inherently evil because Spitting Image told them so.

Now you are being silly, did a Labour canvasser kick you cat when you were a kid.

 

[scaramanga]

Now you are being silly, did a Labour canvasser kick you cat when you were a kid.

LOL. Labour don't canvass around here.

 

[parklane1]

.

LOL. Labour don't canvass around here.

That explains why you are so brainwashed

 

[thfcsteff]

I think you'd be surprised how few Labour voters would.

There's an entire generation that think the Conservatives are inherently evil because Spitting Image told them so.

Fantastic hyperbole. Fancy phrase for 'rubbish'!

What we should say is that there's an entire generation which doesn't know how to formulate an educated opinion without being steered by the message that tells them whose fault 'it' all is and 'ow much dosh' they'll keep in their OWN pockets by voting 'the right way'...

 

[the dza]

A story that might be of interest to some here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...la-Sturgeon-secretly-backs-David-Cameron.html

If it gains traction, then it would help Labour a lot in Scotland with 'soft' SNP voters who have been led to believe that a vote for SNP won't lead to a Tory government. And this is the Torygraph, not the Graun. Makes me think there may be some truth to it...

 

[the dza]

Denials all round for that story, from Sturgeon and the French. If the Telegraph are lying, then they make themselves look a joke -- you'd think they have some half-decent proof. If not, it's quite bizarre, coz I have no idea what they would get out of this.

 

[glorygloryeze]

Denials all round for that story, from Sturgeon and the French. If the Telegraph are lying, then they make themselves look a joke -- you'd think they have some half-decent proof. If not, it's quite bizarre, coz I have no idea what they would get out of this.

Desperation to try and state loudly again that Ed Milliband is not a PM-like character, unlike Good ol' Dave? Oh and splits the SNP vote, but not enough to make Labour as significant in Scotland as it used to be?

 

[the dza]

Desperation to try and state loudly again that Ed Milliband is not a PM-like character, unlike Good ol' Dave? Oh and splits the SNP vote, but not enough to make Labour as significant in Scotland as it used to be?

Desperation is right! That's a helluva punt on the part of the Telegraph. What the hell has happened to that newspaper?

 

[Baleforce]

weird one isn't it, the telegraph must have been 100% confident in the source to print that (more likely 2 sources)

yet the instant strenuous denial from Stugeon suggests it's all gonads

somebody just had a career ending moment either way

 

[scaramanga]

Desperation is right! That's a helluva punt on the part of the Telegraph. What the hell has happened to that newspaper?

weird one isn't it, the telegraph must have been 100% confident in the source to print that (more likely 2 sources)

yet the instant strenuous denial from Stugeon suggests it's all cobblers

somebody just had a career ending moment either way

They've posted the full text of the memory on their website. Either it's a very elaborate fake or Sturgeon is right about Milibland.

I don't agree that the denial makes its veracity any less likely. She's fudged if it's true, so why not take a punt? If it's false she'll deny it, if it's true she'll deny it - so denying it doesn't make it any less likely to be true.

I suspect there's a civil servant somewhere being convinced that verifying this memo would be betraying his country.

 

[the dza]

They've posted the full text of the memory on their website. Either it's a very elaborate fake or Sturgeon is right about Milibland.

I don't agree that the denial makes its veracity any less likely. She's fudgeed if it's true, so why not take a punt? If it's false she'll deny it, if it's true she'll deny it - so denying it doesn't make it any less likely to be true.

I suspect there's a civil servant somewhere being convinced that verifying this memo would be betraying his country.

The main thing I don't get is, true or not, why would The Telegraph push it so hard? Yes, it's another "Miliband is sh1t" message, I understand that. But, if the story was solid, it might sway some of the soft SNP (and former Labour) voters to stick with that they know, and that helps the Labour party -- which is not what The Telegraph wants to do, surely?

As it is, it's been denied from everyone actually present at the meeting and the person who noted the memo didn't even believe it was said (see the end of the memo). So at the minute, the only people coming out hurt from it is The Telegraph. Which is a shame, because it used to be a very respected paper (think the expenses scandal etc.). Now it's had editors leaving and throwing sh1t at it, and churning out some poor journalism to boot. We need a good press on both ends of the political spectrum, to at least try and keep them (politicians) a little bit honest.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

Their aim was certainly not to help Labour, we all know that. I think this might add fuel to the idea that soft SNP voters may well stick with Labour. Better the devil you know and all that. Also, what about the quality of the SNP candidates? In the past they have only ever held half a dozen seats, now they face the prospect of winning forty odd. Do they have the talent? This might also scare some voters off. I'll bet a fair few numpties have slipped through in very winnable seats. A bit like the UKIP scenario.

 

[scaramanga]

The main thing I don't get is, true or not, why would The Telegraph push it so hard? Yes, it's another "Miliband is sh1t" message, I understand that. But, if the story was solid, it might sway some of the soft SNP (and former Labour) voters to stick with that they know, and that helps the Labour party -- which is not what The Telegraph wants to do, surely?

As it is, it's been denied from everyone actually present at the meeting and the person who noted the memo didn't even believe it was said (see the end of the memo). So at the minute, the only people coming out hurt from it is The Telegraph. Which is a shame, because it used to be a very respected paper (think the expenses scandal etc.). Now it's had editors leaving and throwing sh1t at it, and churning out some poor journalism to boot. We need a good press on both ends of the political spectrum, to at least try and keep them (politicians) a little bit honest.

It will help Labour in Scotland but SNP votes were essentially Labour votes anyway.

What it does is call the special one's leadership abilities to question again in England, where votes can and probably will go from Labour to Conservative. It also strengthens the "Vote UKIP, get Milibland" message and make it even scarier to those with any sense.

I'm not surprised that those present deny what was said, it's not the done thing to leak private conversations like that and whoever did will be that target of everyone involved.

 

[jts1882]

The main thing I don't get is, true or not, why would The Telegraph push it so hard? Yes, it's another "Miliband is sh1t" message, I understand that. But, if the story was solid, it might sway some of the soft SNP (and former Labour) voters to stick with that they know, and that helps the Labour party -- which is not what The Telegraph wants to do, surely?

As it is, it's been denied from everyone actually present at the meeting and the person who noted the memo didn't even believe it was said (see the end of the memo). So at the minute, the only people coming out hurt from it is The Telegraph. Which is a shame, because it used to be a very respected paper (think the expenses scandal etc.). Now it's had editors leaving and throwing sh1t at it, and churning out some poor journalism to boot. We need a good press on both ends of the political spectrum, to at least try and keep them (politicians) a little bit honest.

Doesn't that verify that the memo represented what he was told by the French consul general? He wrote it down and commented that it seemed odd. That would put the Telegraph in the clear.

So we have to ask why would the consul general say something like that? The most likely explanation is that there was some misunderstanding. Perhaps Sturgeon said something about being unsure about Ed or being unwilling to form a coalition with Labour and this was interpreted as favouring Cameron. The CG says that this isn't in his written notes, so it is odd he would say something different to the Foreign Office.

The alternative is a complete forgery. The Telegraph would mad to try that as they can't get away with it.

 

[scaramanga]

Doesn't that verify that the memo represented what he was told by the French consul general? He wrote it down and commented that it seemed odd. That would put the Telegraph in the clear.

So we have to ask why would the consul general say something like that? The most likely explanation is that there was some misunderstanding. Perhaps Sturgeon said something about being unsure about Ed or being unwilling to form a coalition with Labour and this was interpreted as favouring Cameron. The CG says that this isn't in his written notes, so it is odd he would say something different to the Foreign Office.

The alternative is a complete forgery. The Telegraph would mad to try that as they can't get away with it.

If it's a forgery there's no way the Telegraph knows about it.

Even since their fall from grace (which now puts the paper on a par with the rest of the UK press except the Spectator) there's no way they'd do that.

If someone's faked it they've taken in the Telegraph too.

 

[jts1882]

Agreed. The newspapers will spin things to misrepresent them, but not fake stuff entirely.

We have three possibilities.

1. It was faked and the Telegraph were taken in.

2. Sturgeon said it.

3. The French CG said it because of some misunderstanding. I doubt he would make it up. That means there was something in what Sturgeon said that was open to misunderstanding.

 

[scaramanga]

Agreed. The newspapers will spin things to misrepresent them, but not fake stuff entirely.

We have three possibilities.

1. It was faked and the Telegraph were taken in.

2. Sturgeon said it.

3. The French CG said it because of some misunderstanding. I doubt he would make it up. That means there was something in what Sturgeon said that was open to misunderstanding.

I suspect she'd prefer a Tory government as it makes it easier to fight for independence. It's far more difficult to rally a Labour-friendly crowd against a Labour government - especially when your MPs are propping them up in Westminster.

I suspect she said something along these lines. I have no doubt whatsoever that she think Milibland would make a weak PM - everyone thinks that.

 

[the dza]

I see Miliband has jumped on the bandwagon against Sturgeon this morning. Taking a gamble that Labour can get back some support in Scotland whilst holding on to the the gains they've polled in England. I suppose the SNP have nowhere to go now anyway, so perhaps it's worth the risk. I think he might have been better served to stay out of it, but I suppose we'll find out in a few weeks!