***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 3 *****
All things related to the election and its aftermath.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 14 May 10 at 18:58
|
IMO there isn't much between the parties, politically. The Civil Servants run the show, it's them who balance the books and tell the politicians where the deficits are and where there is money to be harvested. The politicians just dress that up in a way that they think differentiates them from the other parties.
Don't you guys remember Yes Minister/Prime Minister?
|
Interesting (and true) comments on that clip ~
Now how come nobody in the national media has shown this clip... if a government loses it's majority it has no mandate to govern...
The difference being that Gordon *I've killed the economy* Brown never had any sort of mandate to govern. So it's impossible to lose something you never had.
:)
|
I think Brown was being interviewed at a point when the full reality of defeat snatched from the jaws of victory was just becoming apparent. Conservatives hold Faversham was probably not a surprise but their holding various more esturial seats (some vacated as tthe sitting Member joined the chicken run) was a big turn up for the unexpected that kept Major in power for another 5 years.
Its just standard political bull. I've not got time to look out for Conservative examples, though Hailsham's view on elective dictatorship turned pretty rapidly once his side were doing the dictating.
|
Brown's resigned as Labour leader facilitating the opening of talks with the Lib dems. Is Clegg serious or just hoping that eying up another wallflower will propel Cameroon to go a bit further?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 10 May 10 at 17:42
|
|
If it ends up with Labour and The liberals buying the votes of SNP and PC with promises of no cuts for them, and the offer of money, the people of the rest of england who will be paying for it will not stand for it.
|
It's a disgrace and show's that nothing has changed.
The country is on the edge of a precipice and they are still doing 'what's in in for me'.
I'm astounded that Labour are so desperate that they have the nerve to even consider suggesting YET ANOTHER unelected Prime Minister.
And all the supporters or PR should consider that such system would produce this mess after every election. Nice to see the BBC being true to form. Discussing the current talking, two Labour members (three if you include Nick Robinson) and one Liberal. The Tories don't even get invited.
|
Listen to the old dog, he's not a british bulldog he's an english bull terrier.
I said the wishy washy's would do a deal with the devil if need be.
I also said they couldn't trusted.
Neither of the 2.5 main parties can be trusted 100% but the tories are the lesser of the 2.5 evils.
|
>> but the tories are the lesser of the 2.5 evils.
Ooh, ah?
Box and Cox young tovarich. 'The perfect one-party system'. Don't knock it.
Young Cameron is OK, he's cool, he sounds statesmanlike with a bit of help from his friends. Can't help feeling it's going to be him. Never mind Tweedledumski and the late Tweedledeeski. That's just politics. All this other stuff is GB's swansong unless I am sadly mistaken. I don't bash him like others but he wasn't elected and has had his turn.
And we may be getting a second choice on our voting slips. Bit of an intellectual challenge actually, but nothing is won without sacrifice innit?
Of course the Libdem rump getting a fit of lefty morality could still screw it up.
|
>>Box and Cox young tovarich. 'The perfect one-party system'. Don't knock it.<<
Interesting A/C, I'll have to check that out ~ www.royalengineers.ca/BoxandCox02.html
|
"YET ANOTHER unelected Prime Minister."
You elect an MP. Then hence a party that takes government. You do not elect the Prime Minister. The leaders of any party are elected by their members, not the public.
|
>> "YET ANOTHER unelected Prime Minister."
>>
>> You elect an MP. Then hence a party that takes government. You do not elect
>> the Prime Minister. The leaders of any party are elected by their members, not the
>> public.
In theory. IN practice, people vote for a party and party leader.
|
Yes IN practice. Not theory.
Many Tories I know voted for John McDonnell, Labour, because he is a great MP for them. But they still wanted a Conservative government with a Conservative leader. Does that mean they want Brown and Co. No... I don't think so.
Again this is not a Presidential type election. If you think it is, then you need to think again.
We vote for an MP. Majority of MPs of any party, constitute a government. Party votes who is leader whenever they feel a change. We do not vote for the leader of this Island. We vote for a particular party to govern. Lead by whoever.
If the person at the helm happens to be there during an election, you might think you gave them a mandate. But it doesn't work that way. If Brown is replaced and there is a Lib/Lab government, you could say you didn't vote for whoever will take over from Brown. It's not our responsibility. The party elects the leader.
What don't you get?
|
Yes that's how it actually works but my voting, and that of many folks, looks at several issues.
Is the local MP of my chosen party any good? Is there a better MP from another party? Would I rather party over a good local man? Do I like the top men in my chosen party? Do I like the leader of my chosen party?
Had I voted labour to see the party in power with Brown as a major factor I'd be pretty sick that Mandy had given him the nod to ease out so Clegg got his way.
Last edited by: Fenlander on Tue 11 May 10 at 11:47
|
>> Is Clegg serious or just hoping that eying up another wallflower will propel Cameroon to go
>> a bit further?
Well, seems he succeed in flushing out a better offer; Cameron has now re-appeard with promises of space at the table and bit of AV if Nicky's a good boy!!!
|
IF one of them turns round again and says "we are looking at the future of the country" I shall blow the blooming lot up.
Its clear that "whats in it for me" is the only target of this lot of disgusting self serving leeches.
|
|
If enough of us hold hands round a weejee board could we summon Guy Fawkes for a spell.
|
I reckon politics isn't about winning, it's about making sure the other guy loses.
JH
|
|
I sometimes wonder if the IRA were right.
|
oh no, definitely not. It wasn't just politicians they got. There were a lot of innocent men, women & children. I heard the bomb go off in Warrington and then the police cars, As revenge, for capturing the bad guys, there was another bomb, in the town centre. I may have been there that day had I not been visiting my Dad over in the NE. As it was two innocent children died.
Don't wish for them back. AC would have to be pressed back into service in his you know what guise.
JH
Last edited by: Tooslow on Mon 10 May 10 at 21:34
|
I was at home when the Manchester bomb exploded, it sounded as though it was next door. SWMBO and two chums were in the area shopping and were knocked off their feet.
She rang me from a little side street and I rushed in to rescue them, using a little local knowledge to get past the closed roads. Their car was trapped for days in the car park at M&S, where the bomb exploded.
These beasts put 3 tons of explosive 50 feet from a a prime shopping position when an estimated 80K innocent people were around. Just imagine the death toll if their warning had failed !
Ted
Last edited by: Webmaster on Thu 13 May 10 at 11:05
|
It was a joke, I too have been up close and personal to an IRA bomb.
At least Gordie cant buy the Sinn Fein vote!
|
|
Family member was killed in Warren Point - another one has ended up wearing his jumpers back to front as a result of NI service, another got his redundancy notice whilst under mortar attack in Armagh (Options for change) and my dad spent a considerable part of his professional life patching up physical damage caused by these murderers. IRA were not right about anything.
|
|
Nor was HM gov, b***** Sunday being a case in point. Nor can it be said that the RUC was a clean as a whistle. Lets not get all righteous about a none too edifying period of our history.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 10 May 10 at 23:04
|
|
Arguably - very arguably, people I knew were simply serving their country right or wrong, (they didn't have the luxury of questioning it openly).
|
Will London look like Bangkok in a few weeks time if Labour bend over backwards, give the LibDems everything they want, Miliband as PM and Ha-ha to you Mr. Cameron?
Could the Thai red shirts be blue in London?
And then just watch the last remnants of our economy slide down the toilet...
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 11 May 10 at 00:27
|
There seems to be one certain way to keep the Lib Dems out of power.
Tighten up the laws on prostitution.
|
>>If enough of us hold hands round a weejee board could we summon Guy Fawkes for a spell<<
I never realised you were a mind reader comrade bennet.
|
>>weejee board<<
It's ouija btw (yes,yes)
|
What is happening now is nothing short of scandalous. Politics leaves me cold normally but I am incensed by what is happening.
"In the interests of the country" Clegg is hitching up his skirt and offering his favours to the people who give him the most. "In the interests of the country" we would get unstable government, an alliance of pigs round the trough, and a change to our electoral method that we have not asked for nor had a chance to vote on. An electoral method that ensures we get fighting over the pig bin every time.
If you do this deal Clegg, and the government falls within months, and we get deeper in the mire, you and your party are unelectable for a lifetime.
Its not a matter of party loyalty with me, simply common sense and numbers. They dont have enough seats to make it work. Any stupid fool can see that.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 11 May 10 at 08:55
|
...so the great British public did not manage to elect a majority. So that's the way our system works. It might not feel right, but it's happened before. The change to the electoral method is surely to provide a more representative and more robust method of electing a more representative government with real power - albeit it would probably be made up of three main parties, but in more balanced numbers - but that already happens elsewhere quite successfully.
It's all very well for people to huff and puff about how this isn't right, but what do you suggest?
|
I'm 110% with Zero (above) on this one.
Cameron should now tell Clegg to go to hell and wait for the Labour-LibDem shambles to fall apart.
How can it be that a Nobody in charge of a party of also-rans has both parties running after him offering him the earth?
|
>>
>> It's all very well for people to huff and puff about how this isn't right,
>> but what do you suggest?
>>
First, in the present situation, give the party with the highest votes and seats the right to govern. If they fail to get the majority in parliament to pass Bills, let there be another election.
Second, the new election should be preceded by a referendum where the public rank their preference between all the alternative forms of voting in future. The new election should then be run on the basis of that choice.
Third, just like the other parts of the UK, give us a separate English parliament or assembly or whatever you want to call it.
But quite frankly, I think Cameron should show leadership and tell Clegg that the Tories offer of concessions to that wishywashy lot is finished. Let the two losing parties form the new Government. As Blunkett and Reid said, that should ensure a new election pretty swiftly where these losers will be given a pasting by their own previous loyal supporters. The Tories will then get the majority they want and deserve.
If anyone is considering organising a Thai style Red Shirt demo against the Lib-Lab lot, you can count me in. I have never taken an active part in any political event but this is one thing that sure fires me up.
Last edited by: John H on Tue 11 May 10 at 09:52
|
>>>What is happening now is nothing short of scandalous. Politics leaves me cold normally but I am incensed by what is happening.
>>>I have never taken an active part in any political event but this is one thing that sure fires me up.
100% with Zero and John H on this. Nick Clegg first made statements to the effect the party with the largest number of votes should have the chance to form a government... so he should have stayed well away from labour. I'm deeply unhappy that Clegg seems to have been able to lever Brown out for us to get... whoever.
I'd rather see another election now as all of this should have concentrated voters minds as to how they should vote again.
If not that then as John H says Cameron should be given a chance to go it alone and see how it pans out.
|
David Blunkett is one Politician who has gained my respect over the last 4 days (another is David Cameron) said today "can we trust the LibDems? - they are behaving like every Harlot in history"
I say, let them get in bed with Labour for now, and look toward the next election for a more decisive result.
|
|
The trouble with waiting for the collapse of a Lab Lib governnment is that while we wait the economy will collapse around our ears. The markets are looking for a stable government. The only hope of that is some sort of Conservative Liberal alliance. Unfortunately I am beginning to fear that the Liberals are unable go forego their petty political ambitions for the benefit of the country.
|
me too. I never demonstrated as a student, I feel I've missed out :-)
So the Liberal party is the Waitrose wing of the Labour pary (with apologies to Waitrose)?
JH
|
|
No they are the Lidl wing of the Labour party. They promise a lot but most of their offers are rubbish.. :-)
|
>> I'd rather see another election now as all of this should have concentrated voters minds
>> as to how they should vote again.
>>
How about making voting at a General Election mandatory ?
There is still around a third of the voting population who did not vote.
I'm not sure how PR will work. If you take the last election, Lib-Dem's had 50MP's returned and it has been reported they had 25% of the total vote. Who would fill the other 112 seats ?
|
>> It's all very well for people to huff and puff about how this isn't right,
>> but what do you suggest?
>>
The numbers and %'s speak for themselves. An alliance of Liberal/Labour/others, is an "others" step to far. Its not stable, too many to satisfy
Tory and Libdem is seats wise, very strong. Its what we need right now.
You dont, even under any form of PR, set up alliances with anyone and everyone just in desperation to stay in power.
Sorry Cleggs blown it. He suddenly turned from someone with principals you thought you could trust, to a cheap, two bit lying prozzie.. The Libdems will make themselves unelectable for the rest of time if they crack on with this one. We didnt vote for the two runners up.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 11 May 10 at 10:49
|
>>Cleggs blown it. He suddenly turned from someone with principals you thought you could trust, to a cheap, two bit lying prozzie<<
I never, never, never trusted him, but what really put the tin hat on it was the Radio 4 interview that henry k posted on the RIP Labour ? fred www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00s2pjz/PM_28_04_2010/
15 minutes in from the start ( 25min long) (not now available on iplayer)
Satesman? pah!
|
This is the end of any chance of PR. Public support for it was only ever soft, based on the question "Would you like a fairer electoal system"? I doubt it was an issue ever raised on the doorsteps without prompting from the questioner.
Off the cuff who wouldn't answer yes, but despite what may suit other countries the British prefer a strong government of one colour or another and have no stomach for all the behind closed doors wheeling and dealing that PR would involve.
And Clegg appears to be trying to commit suicide.
Last edited by: Robin Regal on Tue 11 May 10 at 11:03
|
We are surely seeing a demonstration of what PR would give us now and it is surely killing off any support for PR. Several ordinary people appeared on the news and said they thought a hung parliament would be good. I wonder what they think now.
JH
|
>>Several ordinary people appeared on the news and said they thought a hung parliament would be good.<<<
Do 'ordinary' people really think? Maybe they were trying to think and became a little confused between 'hung' and 'hanged'. Visions of a line of 650 gallows?
;)
Last edited by: pmh on Tue 11 May 10 at 11:13
|
pmh, as yes, you've got me there. Given my posts complaining that people don't think I'm being inconsistent.
I will stand down immediately, that is to say in 4 months or so when my party, including all members, trade unions, MPs and the lad on the corner who sells papers have had a conflab and agreed upon their least worst choice. For the time being. Of course this leader is not empowered to make any decisions as to who he may agree with and such decisions will require the approval of a majority of MPs or a full meeting of the party / unions etc, depending upon the scope and scale of such decisions. He will be permitted to decide when to change his socks (or her stockings) but only from a restricted and approved selection. Homer Simpson is out. Bugs Bunny is ok.
Until then you'll just have to be patient. Happy Christmas :-)
JH
|
|
Yet when a government has to really deliver, the British opt for a coalition! In 1940 Churchill was appointed, not elected PM, of course. So in extremis, a "weak" Government is necessary:) Another paradox is the appointment of Lord Home as PM, after the illness of MacMillan caused him to resign. Home disclaimed his Earldom, and for a fortnight, before he could get a safe seat, he was PM, whilst not a member of either the HoL or the Commons.
|
As another side to this, if you want to see what a divided country we are becoming, partly thanks to the reaction to the ele****n have a quick look at some of the Scottish papers online editions.
I really fear for the union over this. I was actually in Scotland last week and the reactions to the results as they happened were very different to those in the south.
|
|
The Union may well struggle. The Tories have a majority of 60+ in England, yet one seat only in Scotland.
|
For the first time in my life I'm thinking that Scotland and Wales should go their own way! Not a single penny of English taxpayers money should go to subsidising their free prescriptions and education. Makes me laugh when I see the SNP banging on about PR. Under PR, the Tories would have got 10 seats, the SNP would get 12.
On TV at the moment is that ridiculous 'Green' (aka hard line communist) MP. The 16000 people who voted for her should be forced to live under her manifesto (I'm betting none of them actually read it). Massive tax increases, destruction of businesses, restriction on freedom of movement. As she said "flying on holiday to Spain is the same as stabbing someone!"
|
TBH - I think the business of electing a Government is far too important to be left to the people,
but then again I think the business of running a country is far too important to be left to Politicians.
|
>> For the first time in my life I'm thinking that Scotland and Wales should go
>> their own way! Not a single penny of English taxpayers money should go to subsidising
>> their free prescriptions and education.
There is no stomach in Wales for independence, despite what loonies like "The Son's of Glyndwr" might claim. Welsh people are realistic to know that a country where nearly 60% of employment is provided by the public sector is in no position to be self supporting, and relying on EU money to shore up an unrealistic standard of living would lead to us becomming another Greece, or even worse if the EU were to break up.
Bit unfair about the free perscriptions, a sum of money is provided to the Welsh assembly by the Treasury and it is up to them how it is allocated. In itself, free perscriptions do not cost the taxpayer anything extra.
Last edited by: Robin Regal on Tue 11 May 10 at 15:14
|
Having become an immigrant I've taken some interest in Wales politics - in particular the Plaid Cymru - for a small party they don't half pack a punch with some of their speakers - Elfyn Llwyd speaks in the style of Lloyd George and this guy, their money man roasted Paxman. I saw this live, but it's now all over the net.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Gy7f8vP2QY
|
|
At least it seems to be coming to an end....stock exchange doing a bit of a bounce-back.
|
Large holdalls are being loaded into two government cars at the back of Number 10, reports the BBC News channel's chief political correspondent Laura Kuenssberg.
There go the paintings and the chandeliers !
|
|
Newsflash....power cuts in London tonight as Downing Street shredders overheat.
|
>> Large holdalls are being loaded into two government cars at the back of Number
>> 10, .
>>
That's the Dark Lord Mandleson. He can't come out in day light!
|
>>BBC News channel's chief political correspondent Laura Kuenssberg.
ummm, so much nicer to look at than Nick Robinson....:-D
|
"in particular the Plaid Cymru"
"Elfyn Llwyd"
I quite agree. I've seen him on numerous occasions on Question Time. I think he would make a great Labour leader.
|
|
And me - I doubt wehther he would defect - shame in a way as he appears to have Statesman written across him and by golly we need them.
|
>>
>> he appears to have Statesman written across him >>
Plaid aren't as popular in Wales as they'd have us all believe, and they tend to breed a rather windy brand of politician both at local and national level. That is not to say that they don't have a few excellent people in thier ranks though.
It says much for them that they can't get themselves elected either in Cardiff or Aberystwyth, the two main cultural centres of Wales. They're certainly not well liked in Carmarthen, where they've gained a reputation for double standards in local politics.
Our constituency ousted a popular, respected and hard-working Labour man in favour of the former CEO of the Countryside Alliance. The first time in my adult life that I've actually felt a twinge of conscience in voting Conservative.
|
>> Having become an immigrant I've taken some interest in Wales politics - in particular the
>> Plaid Cymru -
They did quite badly. How do you or the local people account for that?
|
|
mlc, does that include all the revenue and taxes from oil?
|
>> mlc, does that include all the revenue and taxes from oil?
>>
Well, once you've worked out that it's actually not all Scotlands oil, then you're welcome to it.
|
I searched for this chap and he was a Labour MP & is now a life peer.
News Release
5th June 2015
The independent Labour Peer, Lord Stoddart of Swindon has commemorated the 40th anniversary of the original referendum on British membership of the Common Market with some strongly worded comments on the tactics used in 1975 and suggested that similar tactics are already being used to frighten voters in the forthcoming referendum.
Lord Stoddart, who has campaigned against membership of the Common Market/EU since the 1960s, said: “It is forty years since the original referendum on Common Market membership but the memories are still fresh. The British people were coerced into remaining in what was, in truth, a budding new country called ‘Europe’. Lies and fear were the weapons used 40 years ago and we should not be fooled again. We were even told in a Government leaflet that the threat of a single currency had been removed! Never in the history of British politics have so many lies been told for so little purpose.
“The very same sort of siren voices we listened to then are, even now, already at work attempting to frighten voters into thinking that Britain would be badly damaged by leaving. The truth is that we would thrive outside of the backward, corporatist and failing organisation that is now called the European Union. It is the only Continent suffering from a continuous decline in trade.
“We need to free ourselves from its suffocating red tape, regain control of our own borders and take back the right to negotiate our own trade agreements across the world and in the process save ourselves £20 billion gross (£13.5 billion net), per annum. This would leave us free to invest in the NHS, British agriculture and many other things this country badly needs.
“In the interests of reclaiming our democracy and to ensure a decent economic future for our children and grandchildren, we must throw off the yoke of Brussels and vote to leave the EU in the next referendum. To do anything else is to wave the white flag and surrender our country.â€
Last edited by: Roger. on Thu 23 Jul 15 at 11:10
|
The EU is corporatist? What does he think the UK is, and would continue to be, outside the EU? Does he think a leftist revolution is about to sweep the corporations away? We're going to revive Michael Foot and all vote for him en masse? Does he believe Corbyn is about to prevail and storm to electoral victory, and that after this he will bravely face down the corporations and install a workers' paradise?
Red tape? Like there's no red tape in the UK civil service and government agencies?
Complaining about tactics of fear and playing the immigration card simultaneously? Hypocrisy.
Deluded drivel and can be entirely dismissed based on this single piece of simple analysis. His views are, obviously, laughable.
You're a hypocrite, too, Roger, enjoying the immigrant lifestyle in Spain for so long and seeking to prevent the rest of us choosing to do so, now that you see fit to hide in Nottinghamshire.
Bah. You've gone and distracted me from autotrader now.
|
SQ 4 LB
>> You're a hypocrite, too, Roger, enjoying the immigrant lifestyle in Spain for so long and
>> seeking to prevent the rest of us choosing to do so, now that you see
>> fit to hide in Nottinghamshire.
>>
>> Bah. You've gone and distracted me from autotrader now.
Was there no visiting/living/settling in Spain before the E.U.?
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 23 Jul 15 at 21:21
|
Yes, but it was more difficult and bureaucratic. I remember myself being there (Spain) one summer and wanting a bar job for a couple of months, couldn't get one without a work permit. Couldn't be bothered with the faff so didn't bother.
We'd be back to yet more bureaucracy and red tape for the simplest of movements, despite your Labour appointee career politician (exactly the sort of thing Kippers are supposed to hate) peer mate's claim of freeing ourselves from it.
I'm staggered you can't see all this as you've experienced how easy EU membership makes life. I was working in export sales when the free movement of goods came in, it was revolutionary.
The peer's statement you posted here is utter flannel and totally deluded nonsense.
Last edited by: Alanović on Thu 23 Jul 15 at 15:17
|
>>I'm staggered you can't see all this
Its obvious; One position concerns his right to do what he wants, the other involves stopping foreign people.
Quite different.
He doesn't even know why he doesn't like the EU, beyond it being foreign.
|
>> He doesn't even know why he doesn't like the EU, beyond it being foreign.
You don't even know why you like the EU, beyond it being foreign.
Just as valid a guess as you made, I'd say :-)
|
Hardly, i have stated many times my opinion with reasons and material.
You are stuck at "foreign"
But your guesses are worth as much of the rest of your comments so no great loss.
|
Thank Glub, he's on his way to see Lizzy!
Oh what joy!
Kevin...
|
He's gone! Hurray. Just remember to take the anti sick tablets 'cos all we're going to hear now is how good he was.
JH
|
the man is so bitter, he even made his kids walk out of No10.
Either to share the blame with the whole family.
or
To try and make us upset that his family is now homeless and its our fault.
A deeply unatractive man. And I dont mean looks.
|
|
I would have felt sorry for him but the BBC cut The One Show short to show him leaving.
|
Homeless? He's got that place up in Scotland. He'll have time to paint his own summerhouse this year.
JH
|
Things should start improving for us citizens pretty soon, we'll all have more money in our pockets now,
no more young men will die or lose their limbs in futile or ill-advised wars,
and I even hear JC has been spotted on a London bus.
|
|
new crop of weed down there Canem?
|
Dog, I'm not that dim :-) But I do dislike the man and I'm glad to see the back of him.
I see that Spain has given up on the crossed fingers and hope something turns up plan. Could be hard times ahead.
JH
|
Obama was quick off the mark in phoning "Dave" and made mention of the "special relationship" something he was, apparently, he was loath to talk to GB about.
Watching his wife and kids tagging along behind him in that scene ......not something I'd put my kids through.
Another thought, some BBC correspondent made a comment about the euphoria that surrounded Labour's win in 1997 - a symbol of hope - no hope more like it.
|
>>and I even hear JC has been spotted on a London bus.
Did you notice when Mr & Mrs C arrived at No 10 in their Jag? Not only did he open his own door, but he raced around to the other side to open Sam's.
That's the way to do it...
|
Most people are glad to see the back of the Labour government, and that was clearly evidenced at the polls,
apart from in 'non-England'.
I'll even go along with a ConDem pact (for now), anything rather than Labour but,
The wealthy still laugh all the way to the bank.
|
|
Well Dog - if it means that wealth creation becomes fashionable again - that might just change things for the better. Give us a for instance why the wealthy will be laughing !
|
>>Give us a for instance why the wealthy will be laughing<<
I'm talking about *real* wealth pugley, the like of which we'll never taste.
I'm pro Tory btw, we voted for our Tory candidate, who un-seated the LibDem here.
Social-ism is all very well but it brings us all down to their level, I'd rather aspire to the other direction.
|
|
Socialism is all very well, but I can't remember a Socialist Government in the last 30 years !
|
WHAT a disaster.
I cannot believe that both main parties have been prepared to offer some form of PR to the Yellow Peril. Trading the next 6-12 months in Government with the risk of a lifetime in the wilderness (or, rather, forced to be in coalition with those idiotic upstarts).
I mean, deputy PM for that "harlot"! Though Mr Blair managed to sideline Prescott quite nicely as deputy PM.
|
Take the long view Mapmaker, ya have to lose a pawn or two here, a rook or a knight there,
it's the endgame that matters most.
|
>> Take the long view Mapmaker, ya have to lose a pawn or two here, a
>> rook or a knight there,
>> it's the endgame that matters most.
#
Yes, the endgame is:
1. Tories deeply unpopular for having presided over austerity Government with Labour constantly reminding everybody how much "better" (and unaffordable) it was in their day.
2. PR meaning the Tories (and indeed Labour) are out of power forever.
What is there to be cheerful about? Or do you mean judgement day when we face St Peter - by which point nothing will matter.
|
>>What is there to be cheerful about?<<
Well I for one am prepared to give em a go, I'll even go as far as stop calling the wishy washy's the wishy washy's.
I'm just overjoyed that Blair, Brown and Labour are out of government.
Who knows, it may even work - only time will tell.
|
|
I'm with Dog - seems the markets are as well - there was a Gilt auction today and prices were looking a tad soft yesterday, seems that they have firmed up overnight. If we're to get out of this we need the markets to be positive.
|
Mappy
your ideal scenario would be?
|
After initial concerns I'm with Dog and PU. The new guys look a happy couple and perhaps, after all, *we* have ended up with the result we voted for.
Pleased Hague has a good job... quite like the guy.
|
Mervyn's happy so that has to be a good sign. Might be worth hanging on before buying your holiday dosh - especially Euros.
JH
Last edited by: Tooslow on Wed 12 May 10 at 14:03
|
Zero.
Minority Tory Government. The other parties - which both lost support in the election - wouldn't have dared vote out the Queen's speech, or the budget. Neiterh of them could afford another election, and were they to have one then the electorate would hate them for not acting responsibly. The Lords wouldn't have been able to vote against manifesto commitments either - as it is, the Lords can vote against any bill of this cobbled-together Government.
The Liberals would have supported the Tories on many measures.
Labour would have supported the Tories on measures that the Liberals would not - Trident, nuclear power.
No need for yellow peril in the cabinet, let alone that harlot as DPM.
|
|
If the Liberals had gone with Labour, worse case scenario would have been a public outpouring of rage (Greek style) or made them unelectable in the future - given the CV of those now in charge of us if they fail to make a go of it we deserve all we get.
|
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8677088.stm
Nothing in that that frightens my middle of the road political view.
|
>> If the Liberals had gone with Labour, worse case scenario would have been a public
>> outpouring of rage (Greek style)
I would have been at the burning baricades,.
|
|
According to the BBC today it's not exactly what's been reported - the traditional no confidence voting regime remains the same, a simple one vote majority will force an election - what they're changing are the rules to the dissolve Parliament thus forcing a General Election so not compromising the new 5 year fixed Parliament plan - effectively it won't allow the Tories to call a snap election. Confusing I know.
|
THE Commons has been redundant for years; every debate guillotined, very few in the chamber other than for a vote. Only the Lords has done any proper work amending legislation, notwithstanding its 'improper' constitution. In the Commons, it might as well just have been Brown, the Milibands, Balls and the unelected Mandelson on their own for all the use the other 600 were.
Why should a minority Government automatically be untenable? With proper debate, the other parties would not need ritually to vote down every bill - after all a large part of what parliament has to do must make sense whatever party you're in.
I despise all three major parties over the deal-making. Clegg should have been given short shrift by both larger parties - if any should have negotiated, shouldn't it have been the two with the greater number of seats and votes? Why should the LibDems with 57 seats be able to negotiate large chunks of their manifesto into being while Labour with 258 is sidelined?
The whole thing was shameful proof that what they are all interested in is getting power and hanging on to it at all costs.
|
Er, could you see a Lab/Con coalition?
No chance, neither party would want it.
|
It's not a matter of what they want. If the electorate show clearly that there isn't a good enough majority, but the majority want a mix of two parties policies then there should be no other option available to them but to make it work.
Much the same situation as Scotland where Lab gained 29 seats and Con only 1, yet they now have a Con/Lib government. How can anyone want to keep a system that works like ours does?
Pat
|
Good one Pat. When you look at actual share of the vote, the LibDems deserved more seats than they got. Based on %age across the country, the outcome should have been Cons 234 seats, Lab 188 and LibDem 149, not the 306, 258, 57.
If we already had PR which brought about a result then the LibDems would have been in a genuinely strong position. As it is, they have managed to successfully wield that power to win themselves recognition beyond that afforded to them by our distorting voting system.
|
I have no problem with PR as long as tiny parties with minimal representation cannot wield unreasonable amounts of power in a coalition. This is what happens in Israel and the infighting is appalling which does not help internal policy making nor the peace process. A few years ago a new party specifically aimed at pensioners got several seats and a place in government. The next election it failed to get one seat and the peace process was no further on.
PR is not ideal, although it is perhaps less bad that our current system.
|
>>I have no problem with PR as long as tiny parties with minimal representation cannot
>>wield unreasonable amounts of power in a coalition
Or worse. Don't forget that the Nazis started in Germany with just one or two seats, thanks to straight forward proportional representation.
The corollary being that the BNP would have had 30 seats, UKIP 30 seats, the Scot nats 30 seats - if they had 5% of the vote each.
That's why the constituency system is so powerful a force for good.
|
>> Good one Pat. When you look at actual share of the vote, the LibDems deserved
>> more seats than they got. Based on %age across the country, the outcome should have
>> been Cons 234 seats, Lab 188 and LibDem 149, not the 306, 258, 57.
>>
Serious question. Can you explain how those seats would then have been allocated to the different constituencies? In other words, which Tory and Labour seats should have been given to the LibDems?
|
>> Serious question. Can you explain how those seats would then have been allocated to the
>> different constituencies? In other words, which Tory and Labour seats should have been given to
>> the LibDems?
It would not work on current basis of parliament composed entirley of one per constiuency members. PR would require either multi-member constituencies or additional members drawn from party lists.
|
Don't mention the war.. I mean the election. Vol 2 - smokie