General Election 2015

[Stagat]

Am I the only one who thinks Cameron bringing up his dead son is inappropriate?

I think it's every parent's right to bring up their children as they see fit. Bit weird to keep trying when they're already dead though, I agree.

 

[Womble98]

Missed it. What did he say?

"I love the NHS because.."?

Someone asked him how can we trust him with the NHS, he said something about how his son had to use the NHS so it is really important to him.

 

[Alty]

Someone asked him how can we trust him with the NHS, he said something about how his son had to use the NHS so it is really important to him.

I dislike Cameron and would rather die than vote Tory, but I actually think that's probably fair. If you can't draw on your personal expeiences in politics, what are you supposed to do? Just repeat stats and parrot the party line?

 

[Cheese & Biscuits]

I dislike Cameron and would rather die than vote Tory, but I actually think that's probably fair. If you can't draw on your personal expeiences in politics, what are you supposed to do? Just repeat stats and parrot the party line?

I agree to an extent but it's not the first time he has done it. Does every NHS debate need it? I find it a little uncomfortable to be honest.

 

[Womble98]

I dislike Cameron and would rather die than vote Tory, but I actually think that's probably fair. If you can't draw on your personal expeiences in politics, what are you supposed to do? Just repeat stats and parrot the party line?

Fair enough, I guess though as Cheese says, he brings it up every NHS discussion.

 

[silkyman]

He has no other relatable personal experience.

'You know when your fag at eaton doesn't polish your shoes right'

 

[silkyman]

Just the usual anti-Labour stuff Murdoch's Sun shit spouts. Obviously he as always thinks he's the kingmaker in England by supporting the Tories again, and he knows that the Tories are toxic up here and obviously he won't support Labour so he backs the SNP in order to shift more papers.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/oliver-huitson/press-campaign-so-far-coup-gathers-pace

 

[Pyeman]

It's been really interesting reading the comments in the thread since last night's QT. I wasn't able to watch it myself, so all I've seen so far is the media reaction and the comments here. The two paint a very different picture regarding Miliband.

I did hear a snippet on radio 4 this morning where it sounded like Miliband was really on the back foot about previous Labour spending, and it sounded very much like he was struggling to connect with the audience. Radio 4 painted the picture that that was a fair representation of his overall performance; it'd be interesting to see how far people who watched the programme would agree?

 

[smat]

Miliband did alright but the audience was vicious. It was funny to see each of the three leaders basically get called a lying bastard in turn, each of them nodding their heads and saying "great question, I completely understand what you're saying. Look..."

I think Miliband was right in what he actually said about Labour's spending. The Conservatives matched Labour's spending plans until the financial crisis, after all. The Cons/press have just done such an effective job of blaming public spending for the recession that he's basically on a hiding to nothing trying to deny it. He can't very well turn Question Time into an economics lecture. He might have just been better off saying "I completely understand what you're saying. Look, we made mistakes..." because so many people believe the NARRATIVE (sorry) that it could cost him the election.

Hate that fucking wanker who said "IF I SPEND ALL MY MONEY THEN I CAN'T AFFORD A PINT AT THE END OF THE WEEK." You're not a country, you idiot. One syllable off.

 

[SALTIRE]

I agree to an extent but it's not the first time he has done it. Does every NHS debate need it? I find it a little uncomfortable to be honest.

Don't worry you won't have to hear him rattle on much longer if England sees sense.

 

[smat]

Oh btw, forgive me for my democratic illiteracy, but why did Miliband rule out a deal with the SNP? Doesn't this just make it certain we're going to get Cameron again? Is there any other way for Miliband to form a government if not with the SNP?

 

[SUTSS]

He could form a minority government with the SNP propping it up without any formal arrangement between the two parties.

 

[smat]

He could form a minority government with the SNP propping it up without any formal arrangement between the two parties.

When he said 'no deals' does that leave open informal deals, though? He seemed unequivocal to me. Think he was just being slippery?

 

[SUTSS]

I don't think it would need a deal per se. The SNP are likely to vote through a Labour Queen's Speech in the name of stopping the Tories which wouldn't need a deal. The government would of course be potentially very unstable but can the SNP do anything that would lead to a Conservative government and get away with it?

 

[Pyeman]

Miliband did alright but the audience was vicious. It was funny to see each of the three leaders basically get called a lying bastard in turn, each of them nodding their heads and saying "great question, I completely understand what you're saying. Look..."

I think Miliband was right in what he actually said about Labour's spending. The Conservatives matched Labour's spending plans until the financial crisis, after all. The Cons/press have just done such an effective job of blaming public spending for the recession that he's basically on a hiding to nothing trying to deny it. He can't very well turn Question Time into an economics lecture. He might have just been better off saying "I completely understand what you're saying. Look, we made mistakes..." because so many people believe the NARRATIVE (sorry) that it could cost him the election.

Hate that fucking wanker who said "IF I SPEND ALL MY MONEY THEN I CAN'T AFFORD A PINT AT THE END OF THE WEEK." You're not a country, you idiot. One syllable off.

I do think the Tories have got an impressive amount of mileage out of the 'blame Labour for everything' approach. The impressive thing is the longevity of the message; back in 2010 it was easy to blame Labour, but they've managed to make it to 2015 whilst still blaming Labour for everything that goes wrong. The fact that it's a message people are still willing to listen to is testament to the persistence of the Tory approach.

I thought Ed might be on to something when I first heard him suggest that Labour's mistake wasn't overspending, it was a lack of sufficient regulation on the financial sector. For whatever reason, this message doesn't seem to had much of an impact. I'm not sure that they've committed to it entirely, it seems like something Ed rolls out when required, but if they really want people to buy into the idea then they should have consistently been plugging the message, much in the same way that the Tories have relentlessly blamed Labour for the poor economic situation.

I'm not saying it would have absolved Labour of all blame, but it might have halted the Labour onslaught on all things economics.

 

[TFF_REG]

Oh btw, forgive me for my democratic illiteracy, but why did Miliband rule out a deal with the SNP? Doesn't this just make it certain we're going to get Cameron again? Is there any other way for Miliband to form a government if not with the SNP?

I don't really understand it either to be honest. The surprising thing is that he went so far as to rule out a confidence and supply (http://goo.gl/GaZ5Za) deal. Like you say, there is no way he'll be able to govern without support from the SNP. Maybe the issue is that I don't really understand the difference between confidence and supply, and forming a minority government and relying on other parties to vote through your policies - aren't they one and the same?

 

[TFF_REG]

He could form a minority government with the SNP propping it up without any formal arrangement between the two parties.

This is how I understood it. But how exactly is this different from confidence and supply?

Either way, he made it sound like the SNP and Labour wouldn't work together in any way, which is clearly not true and it'll probably come back to bite him in the arse if they "win" the election.

 

[Benji]

I thought David Cameron was strong and commanding, and Ed Miliband is awkward and no leader. I support a Long term economic plan for hard working families.

Can't anyone debate me one-on-one?

 

[Red]

He could form a minority government with the SNP propping it up without any formal arrangement between the two parties.

That would be of benefit to both parties. No concession from Miliband and Sturgeon gets to see *Camoron kicked out..

*Not Cameron.

 

[Martino Knockavelli]

I'm away for the week, so applied for a postal vote, fucking ages ago, which I still haven't received.

Evidently they've cocked it up, because our MP just tweeted that they are handing out "emergency" postal votes at the town hall until 5pm tonight. That's shit all use to me, cos I'm working until 6pm. So unless it comes in the post tomorrow, or before I trot off on Tuesday, I am officially DISENFRANCHISED.

This could be the single vote that swings all our futures. Useless twats.

 

[Gladders]

It's been really interesting reading the comments in the thread since last night's QT. I wasn't able to watch it myself, so all I've seen so far is the media reaction and the comments here. The two paint a very different picture regarding Miliband.

I did hear a snippet on radio 4 this morning where it sounded like Miliband was really on the back foot about previous Labour spending, and it sounded very much like he was struggling to connect with the audience. Radio 4 painted the picture that that was a fair representation of his overall performance; it'd be interesting to see how far people who watched the programme would agree?

probably because of bias, most on here seem to be labour supporters so paint a picture of Miliband doing well and Cameron not, the opposite can be said for the media.

 

[TimeyWimey]

Fair enough, I guess though as Cheese says, he brings it up every NHS discussion.

He's not quite as quick to bring it up when talking about cuts to vital welfare and services for disabled children though.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

There is political capital to be gained from drawing on tragic personal experience (especially that involving children), but anyone who does so opens themselves up to all kinds of unpleasant (but in some cases justified) counterattacks. Anyone with the slightest ounce of political savvy knows this.

My first daughter was born prematurely and spent the first six weeks of her life in a neonatal unit. My second daughter died three weeks before her due date. The NHS care on both occasions was exemplary, and for that I'll always be grateful. But so what? It perhaps gave me a better understanding of 1-2 services based in one area of the country. It doesn't make me an expert on the NHS. It doesn't make me more qualified to know how it ought to be financed, structured or managed. Sad memories and gratitude do not necessarily equate to understanding. And valuing something is no guarantee against you completely fucking it up.

Cameron's line was essentially "my son died and the NHS staff looked after him wonderfully, so how dare anyone accuse me of putting the NHS at risk." But that's a rubbish argument. Why? Because Cameron's gratitude wasn't in question; his government's policies were. "I'm grateful for the NHS care given to my now dead son" doesn't reassure anyone who is concerned about creeping privatisation. It's schmaltzy crap. It's cheap. Jack Monroe got pelters for pointing it out, but she was basically right.

 

[Womble98]

There is political capital to be gained from drawing on tragic personal experience (especially that involving children), but anyone who does so opens themselves up to all kinds of unpleasant (but in some cases justified) counterattacks. Anyone with the slightest ounce of political savvy knows this.

My first daughter was born prematurely and spent the first six weeks of her life in a neonatal unit. My second daughter died three weeks before her due date. The NHS care on both occasions was exemplary, and for that I'll always be grateful. But so what? It perhaps gave me a better understanding of 1-2 services based in one area of the country. It doesn't make me an expert on the NHS. It doesn't make me more qualified to know how it ought to be financed, structured or managed. Sad memories and gratitude do not necessarily equate to understanding. And valuing something is no guarantee against you completely fucking it up.

Cameron's line was essentially "my son died and the NHS staff looked after him wonderfully, so how dare anyone accuse me of putting the NHS at risk." But that's a rubbish argument. Why? Because Cameron's gratitude wasn't in question; his government's policies were. "I'm grateful for the NHS care given to my now dead son" doesn't reassure anyone who is concerned about creeping privatisation. It's schmaltzy crap. It's cheap. Jack Monroe got pelters for pointing it out, but she was basically right.

Good point, very well made.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

My second daughter died three weeks before her due date.

I know you weren't looking to garner sympathy, but I'm so very sorry to hear this, Scumbo.

Fine post, as always.

 

[Pyeman]

There is political capital to be gained from drawing on tragic personal experience (especially that involving children), but anyone who does so opens themselves up to all kinds of unpleasant (but in some cases justified) counterattacks. Anyone with the slightest ounce of political savvy knows this.

My first daughter was born prematurely and spent the first six weeks of her life in a neonatal unit. My second daughter died three weeks before her due date. The NHS care on both occasions was exemplary, and for that I'll always be grateful. But so what? It perhaps gave me a better understanding of 1-2 services based in one area of the country. It doesn't make me an expert on the NHS. It doesn't make me more qualified to know how it ought to be financed, structured or managed. Sad memories and gratitude do not necessarily equate to understanding. And valuing something is no guarantee against you completely fucking it up.

Cameron's line was essentially "my son died and the NHS staff looked after him wonderfully, so how dare anyone accuse me of putting the NHS at risk." But that's a rubbish argument. Why? Because Cameron's gratitude wasn't in question; his government's policies were. "I'm grateful for the NHS care given to my now dead son" doesn't reassure anyone who is concerned about creeping privatisation. It's schmaltzy crap. It's cheap. Jack Monroe got pelters for pointing it out, but she was basically right.

Really sorry to hear that. I'd be lying if I said I understood how difficult that must have been.

In terms of personal experience in politics, I think it's more about values than it is about understanding systems and organisational structure.

By discussing his son, I don't think Cameron was trying to convince people he knows how to run the NHS; I think he was trying to convince people that he values the NHS and that he'll protect our health service. His 'evidence' [and I use that term loosely] that they understand how to run the NHS is all the manipulated statistics that they churn out regarding number of cancer patients being treated etc.

The point that I think you got right is that there isn't really much political capital to be gained from this. Despite what happened to Cameron in his personal life, he is still the leader of the Conservative party, who rightly or wrongly have a certain reputation when it comes to the NHS. People will always see Cameron in this same way, regardless of his personal experiences.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

In terms of personal experience in politics, I think it's more about values than it is about understanding systems and organisational structure.
By discussing his son, I don't think Cameron was trying to convince people he knows how to run the NHS; I think he was trying to convince people that he values the NHS and that he'll protect our health service.

I should clarify that my earlier post was referring to what Cameron said at the Conservative Party Conference last year, not whatever he said on telly the other night (which I didn't see). I should have made that clearer last night. I jumped in rather two-footed.

If the question is "how do we know you value the NHS?", then I can see why he might want to answer that by sharing some personal experience. I understand why he'd choose that over answers that would seem more abstract and impersonal. In that sense, I think your comment is fair enough.

But if the context is a party-political spat and you try to deflect criticism by evoking the memory of a dead child, then I dunno... I think that's a poor decision for the reasons already given. And I don't think you can complain too much when people call you on it.

 

[Pyeman]

But if the context is a party-political spat and you try to deflect criticism by evoking the memory of a dead child, then I dunno... I think that's a poor decision for the reasons already given. And I don't think you can complain too much when people call you on it.

Absolutely. I didn't see the party conference, but it sounds as if Cameron tried to use the story to defend his politics and his record on the NHS, which as you rightly point out, is ridiculous.

 

[BigDaveCUFC]

 

[BigDaveCUFC]