Still trying to figure out what to make of Russell Brand's video for today, in which he backs Labour, the Greens and the SNP. And says voting is important to shut out the Tories and Cameron.
Hasn't helped me to decide (sway me) in any way, just a little disappointed that he made such a big u-turn even though his reasons in the video are perfectly reasonable.
That's your opinion Fiish and the line that the Conservative press / party has been pushing. The thing is though that this image doesn't match the reality with what has happened. Miliband has mostly has had a pretty good campaign. The stereotype does not fit the real person. Miliband has benefitted as a result.
In pictures of the leaders, Clegg looks as if he is about to cry and will be better when its all over. Cameron doesn't look all that good either. He looks a bit tired and the manufactured passion to Conservative party workers and local supporters did not look that great. Lots of mini slips. Boris Johnson is looking pretty happy as he knows he is a good position to be the next leader (even though he got rattled and taken apart by Miliband on Andrew Marr, BBC).
It has not helped the Conservatives to focus on Miliband. They would have been better off to focus on a more positive campaign. Hopefully that will be the end of Lynton Crosby in this country if as it looks likely the Conservative campaign does not succeed.
Your view on each party's campaign doesn't match reality either. The incumbent Labour candidate has had her flying monkeys shoving negative propaganda through my letterbox on a daily basis in the last few weeks, most of it either untrue or baseless accusations, attacking the Etonian PM of being a posh boy who hates the disabled and wanting to privatise the NHS. No mention of what a great PM Miliband would be. In fact no mention of Miliband at all, just attacking Cameron on a personal level and some flimsy commitments such as 'invest in the NHS'.
Meanwhile the weekly bulletin I get from the local Tories mentions the successes that there has been at a local and national level and how they will continue these successes if elected in 2015. No attacks on Miliband, just a small warning that changing course on the economy will risk the recovery currently in progress.
This is what happens on a national level as well. I was listening to the Scots Leaders debates last night on the radio and it basically became a slanging match between Sturgeon and Jim Murphy over who hated the Tories more or who could shoehorn the words 'disabled', 'bedroom', 'tax', 'cuts', 'Etonian' and 'Tories' into their answer the most.
if there ever was a more narcissistic bellend than Russell Brand...
At least he's changed his position on not voting, but i can't help but feel it's just cos cameron called him a joke. Playground stuff, and i thought Brand was tired of the circus politics has become?
I think this is massively good news for Labour. Brand has 1.2m subscribers on his You Tube channell, some of whom are going to influenced to vote Labour. Conversely, no-one will decide *not* to vote Labour because of Brand's endorsement.
Will it make a difference to the national result? Probably not. Will it change the outcome of some seats? Possibly. Will it engage several young people to become engaged in politics - and Labour - for the first time, engendering an interest that will last well beyond this month? Almost certainly.
Still trying to figure out what to make of Russell Brand's video for today, in which he backs Labour, the Greens and the SNP. And says voting is important to shut out the Tories and Cameron.
Hasn't helped me to decide (sway me) in any way, just a little disappointed that he made such a big u-turn even though his reasons in the video are perfectly reasonable.
Its all opinion, Fiiish and we see things from our different perspectives. We are both pretty confirmed in our opinions. It is with the undecided voters where it will count.
I do think that though that the Conservative project /attacks to undermine Miliband will be seen as largely failing in its aim.
Still trying to figure out what to make of Russell Brand's video for today, in which he backs Labour, the Greens and the SNP. And says voting is important to shut out the Tories and Cameron.
Hasn't helped me to decide (sway me) in any way, just a little disappointed that he made such a big u-turn even though his reasons in the video are perfectly reasonable.
Sigh it's all a load of bollocks really lol
Anything that makes you think about politics and gives you pause for thought about the way the country's run - and whom it's run for - is a good thing. You might not have been enough information to sway your decision, but I bet you're more engaged than you were before you saw the video. And that's a good thing.
What's important for you - and, by extension, for everyone - is that you continue to seek out who is saying what, both nationally and locally. And, by Thursday, either make a decision to vote for one party; or make a decision to spoil your ballot paper. If Russell Brand has put you on a road to making that decision, it's a good thing.
Still trying to figure out what to make of Russell Brand's video for today, in which he backs Labour, the Greens and the SNP. And says voting is important to shut out the Tories and Cameron.
Hasn't helped me to decide (sway me) in any way, just a little disappointed that he made such a big u-turn even though his reasons in the video are perfectly reasonable.
Sigh it's all a load of bollocks really lol
Russell Brand in being a hypocrite shocker
I can understand why he backed him but I'm uneasy about anyone telling anyone else who to vote for. Not the Brand is the first, or will be the last, to do it.
The key thing that Miliband said is that he is more receptive to pressure of community driven politics, doing the right things for the people, etc. and Brand was lapping that up, suggesting it was a step in the right direction.
The decision I've got to make for myself is whether Miliband truly means what he says about returning to old Labour values or if he's just a Blair clone.
Brand spent the last few years railing against an out-of-touch elite and then in the week before polling day he throws his support behind a party led by an out-of-touch elite.
Whatever political persuasion you have we surely all agree she has the best legs out of all the politicians seen so far (and it is amazing how few we have see apart from the party leaders in this campagn).
Brand spent the last few years railing against an out-of-touch elite and then in the week before polling day he throws his support behind a party led by an out-of-touch elite.
OK then.
all anyone needs to know is one millionaire endorses another. Wolves in sheeps clothing and all that.
The other thing which Fiiish's post illustrates well, is that with more control of the content we wish to see, it can confirm our opinions. This is maybe why the polls have not shifted that much. Google searches will pick up on your preferences, on Twitter you follow the people you are interested to hear and can screen out those voices that you don't want to hear. Streaming content means that you can watch more what you want to watch. If you hate the Daily Mail or the Guardian, it is easy to ignore. It is easy to ignore what the other parties have to say. Murdoch's influence is probably the smallest for many years because of the diverse media.
Fiiish with perfect honesty can feel the way about Miliband and feels that it reflects the reality of what they see. Same with me, if I am honest about Clegg and Cameron. Not sure if that really is a good thing. The election process should be way more informative and explore the issues in a much better way than it has.
There will be no outright winner in this election and the parties will have to work together. The election campaign has not addressed that at all in the way that it may coherently work.
All this pledges in stone nonsense is not for me but it's a bloody good job Cameron and Osborne didn't do anything quite as stupid back in 2010 or they would have been calling in the mason to scrub their "nof ifs, no buts" promises through on a monthly basis.
All this pledges in stone nonsense is not for me but it's a bloody good job Cameron and Osborne didn't do anything quite as stupid back in 2010 or they would have been calling in the mason to scrub their "nof ifs, no buts" promises through on a monthly basis.
The Tories did attempt to erase all the friendly, caring Conservative speeches 2008 / 2009 that contradicts what they have done in government. The pledges on the economy and the debt (2.5 trillion or something and rising / deficit still in place) made at the election was well and truly busted.
No mention in that article of a possible 'national coalition' between Tories & Labour, despite this being mentioned increasingly in the last week or so.
It probably won't happen but I do wish politics was slightly less tribal - a strong Tory/Labour coalition would work much better for the national interest than any of the weak coalitions or minorities listed in that article.
Voters really are like football fans - they don't care about policies, they just want to support their team and have a rival to hate. Voters get just as angry at one party working with another as Arsenal fans did when Ashley Cole went to Chelsea.
No mention in that article of a possible 'national coalition' between Tories & Labour, despite this being mentioned increasingly in the last week or so.
It probably won't happen but I do wish politics was slightly less tribal - a strong Tory/Labour coalition would work much better for the national interest than any of the weak coalitions or minorities listed in that article.
Voters really are like football fans - they don't care about policies, they just want to support their team and have a rival to hate. Voters get just as angry at one party working with another as Arsenal fans did when Ashley Cole went to Chelsea.
On the one hand, it's seems pretty obvious that a coalition *should* involve the largest and second-largest parties. They are, after all, the two parties that most of us have voted for.
On the other hand, it could never work, in peacetime. For example, would enough Labour MPs be corralled into the "yes" division, if a Tory-led, Con-Lab coalition proposed yet another tax break for the highest earners? Very unlikely. Or, if a Labour-led coalition set about over-turning the bedroom tax, would enough Tory backbenchers vote with the government? Of course not.
There are too many, in-grained, vested interests on both sides.
One of the things I like best about our system is that we - the electorate - get our say on day one, then sit back and make our representatives do the hard work.
No mention in that article of a possible 'national coalition' between Tories & Labour, despite this being mentioned increasingly in the last week or so.
It probably won't happen but I do wish politics was slightly less tribal - a strong Tory/Labour coalition would work much better for the national interest than any of the weak coalitions or minorities listed in that article.
Voters really are like football fans - they don't care about policies, they just want to support their team and have a rival to hate. Voters get just as angry at one party working with another as Arsenal fans did when Ashley Cole went to Chelsea.
On the one hand, it's seems pretty obvious that a coalition *should* involve the largest and second-largest parties. They are, after all, the two parties that most of us have voted for.
On the other hand, it could never work, in peacetime. For example, would enough Labour MPs be corralled into the "yes" division, if a Tory-led, Con-Lab coalition proposed yet another tax break for the highest earners? Very unlikely. Or, if a Labour-led coalition set about over-turning the bedroom tax, would enough Tory backbenchers vote with the government? Of course not.
There are too many, in-grained, vested interests on both sides.
One of the things I like best about our system is that we - the electorate - get our say on day one, then sit back and make our representatives do the hard work.
Labour introduced the bedroom tax before they left power and hiked up the tax rates on top-earners in the last few weeks of power. The fact is they like saying they're against these things when in opposition but when they're in power they're very similar to the Tories.
Just like the Tories and Lib Dems, they would need to compromise or cut deals on votes. All of the weak coalitions and minority governments stand exactly the same risk of paralysis that will lead to a snap election as a strong Labour-Tory coalition. The difference between a Tory-Labour coalition and the other possible coalitions is that it doesn't stand to fail because it might not be able to pass any measures, it stands to fail due to the largely symbolic idealogical differences that the two parties like to pretend exist, when in reality both Labour and Tories have a large similarity across policies when they're actually in power.
No mention in that article of a possible 'national coalition' between Tories & Labour, despite this being mentioned increasingly in the last week or so.
It probably won't happen but I do wish politics was slightly less tribal - a strong Tory/Labour coalition would work much better for the national interest than any of the weak coalitions or minorities listed in that article.
Voters really are like football fans - they don't care about policies, they just want to support their team and have a rival to hate. Voters get just as angry at one party working with another as Arsenal fans did when Ashley Cole went to Chelsea.
On the one hand, it's seems pretty obvious that a coalition *should* involve the largest and second-largest parties. They are, after all, the two parties that most of us have voted for.
On the other hand, it could never work, in peacetime. For example, would enough Labour MPs be corralled into the "yes" division, if a Tory-led, Con-Lab coalition proposed yet another tax break for the highest earners? Very unlikely. Or, if a Labour-led coalition set about over-turning the bedroom tax, would enough Tory backbenchers vote with the government? Of course not.
There are too many, in-grained, vested interests on both sides.
One of the things I like best about our system is that we - the electorate - get our say on day one, then sit back and make our representatives do the hard work.
Labour introduced the bedroom tax before they left power and hiked up the tax rates on top-earners in the last few weeks of power. The fact is they like saying they're against these things when in opposition but when they're in power they're very similar to the Tories.
Just like the Tories and Lib Dems, they would need to compromise or cut deals on votes. All of the weak coalitions and minority governments stand exactly the same risk of paralysis that will lead to a snap election as a strong Labour-Tory coalition. The difference between a Tory-Labour coalition and the other possible coalitions is that it doesn't stand to fail because it might not be able to pass any measures, it stands to fail due to the largely symbolic idealogical differences that the two parties like to pretend exist, when in reality both Labour and Tories have a large similarity across policies when they're actually in power.
No they did not the bedroom tax is 2 years old, introduced in April 2013, no way did labour have anything to do with it and they all voted against it. Are Tory supporters resorting to passing the blame now?
I will first of all say that I am opposed to the bedroom tax being applied to disabled claimants or those who cannot downsize as there is no available stock. In general it should only be applied to those who are able to move to a smaller house but refuse.
But the bedroom tax that was 'introduced' in 2013 was actually an extension of a change Labour made in 2008 to housing benefit. Ed Miliband ought to know about it, he voted for it.
The only difference between the one in 2008 and the one in 2013 is that the 2013 was extended to include social housing tenants. The principle was the same though - Labour thought that if those in a private-rented accommodation had too many rooms and were on housing benefit, their benefit should be cut, regardless of whether they could move elsewhere or could justify having the room.
It's amazing how people will vote Labour and fall for their manufactured opposition of the bedroom tax hook line and sinker yet not realise that if they hadn't introduced the framework of the bedroom tax before 2010, it is unlikely the Tories would have extended it halfway into their first term after 2010.
Well it's certainly convinced me. I am now going to vote Tory, because they will get rid of the Bedroom Tax.
#facepalm
Not really what I was saying. Just trying to introduce some truth into this thread that Labour aren't the wonderful party of rainbows and gumdrops their apologists are trying to paint them as.
Which is a shame because up until half an hour ago we were actually having a good discussion until some people decided being polite is too much hard work and decided to be rude and petulant.
Completely different fiish. The rule in 2008 was to stop benefit claimants getting massive (much bigger than needed) houses in expensive areas just because they were getting the rent paid for them, this not only being extremely unfair to those that works but also trapping them on benefits because they would never earn enough to cover the rent. This change in law made perfect sense and was necessary. The bedroom tax means that people that are already struggling are being penalised and elderly people who have been in the same house for 50 years are being forced to move or be financially punished. One is fair the other is not, sort of like most other policies.
Completely different fiish. The rule in 2008 was to stop benefit claimants getting massive (much bigger than needed) houses in expensive areas just because they were getting the rent paid for them, this not only being extremely unfair to those that works but also trapping them on benefits because they would never earn enough to cover the rent. This change in law made perfect sense and was necessary. The bedroom tax means that people that are already struggling are being penalised and elderly people who have been in the same house for 50 years are being forced to move or be financially punished. One is fair the other is not, sort of like most other policies.
I recommend you read the Hansard record in one of the links I posted as well as the other link that shows that between 2001 and 2008 Labour were certainly proposing finding ways to get families out of under-occupied social housing, including looking at how their benefits could be adjusted to incentivise them. It can't be denied that they laid the foundations of which the bedroom tax, which I am bitterly opposed to in its current form, is built upon.
But the bedroom tax that was 'introduced' in 2013 was actually an extension of a change Labour made in 2008 to housing benefit. Ed Miliband ought to know about it, he voted for it.
The only difference between the one in 2008 and the one in 2013 is that the 2013 was extended to include social housing tenants. The principle was the same though - Labour thought that if those in a private-rented accommodation had too many rooms and were on housing benefit, their benefit should be cut, regardless of whether they could move elsewhere or could justify having the room.
Nope. The introduction of LHA in 2007 only applied to new tenancies and new claims. If you were an existing tenant on a current claim then you weren't affected unless you moved onto a new tenancy, or you stopped claiming for some reason and then reclaimed again. (See the introduction to this DWP paper here - it's a PDF though, so you may need to save it to open it). So no-one was forced to leave their home just because the rules changed, only when their circumstances did, while the bedroom tax was applied to all claims that weren't included in the limited exemption categories.
Think you probably need to hunt out slightly less biased source material next time.
The bedroom tax means that people that are already struggling are being penalised and elderly people who have been in the same house for 50 years are being forced to move or be financially punished. One is fair the other is not, sort of like most other policies.
Erm, Sadie, pensioners are one of the very few groups of people that are exempt from the bedroom tax. Agree with your other points though.
The bedroom tax means that people that are already struggling are being penalised and elderly people who have been in the same house for 50 years are being forced to move or be financially punished. One is fair the other is not, sort of like most other policies.
Erm, Sadie, pensioners are one of the very few groups of people that are exempt from the bedroom tax. Agree with your other points though.
Yes you're right and people on DLA, however when it was first introduced this was not the case as a friend of mine had to fight to stay in her 3 bed with 2 disabled sons, it wasn't until a lot of situations like this hit the press when they changed the rules to make these people exempt.
Think you probably need to hunt out slightly less biased source material next time.
Might be slightly difficult considering that any source that attributes any credit to Labour for the origins of the bedroom tax could be construed as being biased against Labour...
Comments
Hasn't helped me to decide (sway me) in any way, just a little disappointed that he made such a big u-turn even though his reasons in the video are perfectly reasonable.
Sigh it's all a load of bollocks really lol
Meanwhile the weekly bulletin I get from the local Tories mentions the successes that there has been at a local and national level and how they will continue these successes if elected in 2015. No attacks on Miliband, just a small warning that changing course on the economy will risk the recovery currently in progress.
This is what happens on a national level as well. I was listening to the Scots Leaders debates last night on the radio and it basically became a slanging match between Sturgeon and Jim Murphy over who hated the Tories more or who could shoehorn the words 'disabled', 'bedroom', 'tax', 'cuts', 'Etonian' and 'Tories' into their answer the most.
Will it make a difference to the national result? Probably not. Will it change the outcome of some seats? Possibly. Will it engage several young people to become engaged in politics - and Labour - for the first time, engendering an interest that will last well beyond this month? Almost certainly.
I do think that though that the Conservative project /attacks to undermine Miliband will be seen as largely failing in its aim.
What's important for you - and, by extension, for everyone - is that you continue to seek out who is saying what, both nationally and locally. And, by Thursday, either make a decision to vote for one party; or make a decision to spoil your ballot paper. If Russell Brand has put you on a road to making that decision, it's a good thing.
The key thing that Miliband said is that he is more receptive to pressure of community driven politics, doing the right things for the people, etc. and Brand was lapping that up, suggesting it was a step in the right direction.
The decision I've got to make for myself is whether Miliband truly means what he says about returning to old Labour values or if he's just a Blair clone.
OK then.
Whatever political persuasion you have we surely all agree she has the best legs out of all the politicians seen so far (and it is amazing how few we have see apart from the party leaders in this campagn).
Fiiish with perfect honesty can feel the way about Miliband and feels that it reflects the reality of what they see. Same with me, if I am honest about Clegg and Cameron. Not sure if that really is a good thing. The election process should be way more informative and explore the issues in a much better way than it has.
There will be no outright winner in this election and the parties will have to work together. The election campaign has not addressed that at all in the way that it may coherently work.
Runs through the different scenarios post election.
It probably won't happen but I do wish politics was slightly less tribal - a strong Tory/Labour coalition would work much better for the national interest than any of the weak coalitions or minorities listed in that article.
Voters really are like football fans - they don't care about policies, they just want to support their team and have a rival to hate. Voters get just as angry at one party working with another as Arsenal fans did when Ashley Cole went to Chelsea.
On the other hand, it could never work, in peacetime. For example, would enough Labour MPs be corralled into the "yes" division, if a Tory-led, Con-Lab coalition proposed yet another tax break for the highest earners? Very unlikely. Or, if a Labour-led coalition set about over-turning the bedroom tax, would enough Tory backbenchers vote with the government? Of course not.
There are too many, in-grained, vested interests on both sides.
One of the things I like best about our system is that we - the electorate - get our say on day one, then sit back and make our representatives do the hard work.
Just like the Tories and Lib Dems, they would need to compromise or cut deals on votes. All of the weak coalitions and minority governments stand exactly the same risk of paralysis that will lead to a snap election as a strong Labour-Tory coalition. The difference between a Tory-Labour coalition and the other possible coalitions is that it doesn't stand to fail because it might not be able to pass any measures, it stands to fail due to the largely symbolic idealogical differences that the two parties like to pretend exist, when in reality both Labour and Tories have a large similarity across policies when they're actually in power.
But the bedroom tax that was 'introduced' in 2013 was actually an extension of a change Labour made in 2008 to housing benefit. Ed Miliband ought to know about it, he voted for it.
http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-the-bedroom-tax-a-great-socialist-policy-40012.html
http://thebackbencher.co.uk/bedroom-tax-every-inch-a-labour-policy/
The only difference between the one in 2008 and the one in 2013 is that the 2013 was extended to include social housing tenants. The principle was the same though - Labour thought that if those in a private-rented accommodation had too many rooms and were on housing benefit, their benefit should be cut, regardless of whether they could move elsewhere or could justify having the room.
It's amazing how people will vote Labour and fall for their manufactured opposition of the bedroom tax hook line and sinker yet not realise that if they hadn't introduced the framework of the bedroom tax before 2010, it is unlikely the Tories would have extended it halfway into their first term after 2010.
#facepalm
Which is a shame because up until half an hour ago we were actually having a good discussion until some people decided being polite is too much hard work and decided to be rude and petulant.
Think you probably need to hunt out slightly less biased source material next time.